There were several steps to producing the overall list of issues ranked by risks including: 1) developing categorical rankings of human health, ecosystem, and quality-of-life risks; 2) drafting an overall ranking based on specific criteria; 3) seeking pub lic comment on the draft list; and 4) revising the list as necessary based on public comment.
To guide their development of three categorical rankings, the PAG developed a set of criteria applicable to the types of risk presented by each category. These criteria, some of which were given greater weight than others, were used to compare and evaluat e potential threats to establish a relative A, B, C ranking. The weight attached to each criteria was derived from responses of Ohioans obtained through the public outreach process, from the recommendations of the professional workgroups, and from the ju dgment and experience of PAG members. The criteria for each category are outlined below.
Human Health Greater Are there lethal effects when Ohioans are exposed to the potential threat? weight Does the potential threat affect future generations? Are there non-lethal effects that may be irreversible? Middle Are the effects from exposure to the potential threat non-lethal? weight Are some segments of the population, such as low-income or minorities, at greater risk from exposure than others? What is the trend; is the situation improving or getting worse? Lesser How toxic are the components of the potential threat? weight Ecosystems Greater Are there lethal effects on ecosystem components? weight Are future generations affected? Are sensitive, rare, threatened, or endangered species affected? Are there non-lethal effects that may be irreversible? Middle What is the impact on the diversity of species? weight Are there reversible non-lethal effects? What is the impact on ecosystem function? Lesser Are there disproportionate impacts? weight Is there evidence of cumulative, antagonistic, or synergistic effects? Quality-of-life Greater Does the issue affect peace of mind, future generations or some segments of the weight population disproportionately? Middle Are there economic, aesthetic or recreational impacts from the threat? weight Lesser Is exposure to the potential threat voluntary in nature or are there property weight impacts that are non-monetary? Does the potential threat impact sense of community or mobility?
To the extent that the PAG felt there was adequate information to support a ranking, each potential threat was ranked either A, B, or C. These labels are designed to convey relative rather than absolute levels of importance. For instance, the issues in G roup A are considered greater risks than those in Group B and Group C, and issues in Group C are considered lesser risks than those in Group A or Group B. However, placement in Group A does not mean the threat presents an urgent risk and placement in Grou p C does not mean the threat presents an insignificant risk.
Greater weight: High human health risk High ecosystem risk and either medium human health risk or high quality-of-life risk High quality-of-life risk and medium human health risk Medium weight: Medium human health risk High ecosystem risk High or medium quality-of-life risk Lesser weight: Low human health risk Medium or low ecosystem risk Low quality-of-life risk
As with the separate rankings for human health, ecosystems, and quality-of-life, the overall criteria were used to place potential threats in Group A, Group B, or Group C. It is important to note that the PAG chose to use A, B, and C in the ranking proces s rather than high, medium, and low because the ranking process is intended to provide insight into relative degrees of risk, not absolute degrees of risk. Those issues in Group A represent greater risk than those in Group B and Group C, but not necessari ly the greatest risks in Ohio.
Quality-of-life Ranking. For the purpose of the draft list, the PAG separately ranked individual threats within the problem categories, but ranked the quality-of-life risks by problem category only. This provisional ranking was consistent with the Quality-of-life Technical Workgroup's ranking approach and there was insufficient time to rank each potential threat for quality-of-life risk and complete the draft overall ranking. The result of this decision was that all threats in a specific problem category were given the same quality-of-life rankings (in the draft ranking, yard waste received the same quality-of-life ranking as unregulated hazardous waste facilities). However, the PAG recognized that these rankings would probably require some adjustment before the rankings were finalized. PAG members reviewed and reranked the quality-of-life categorical rankings and the list below reflects the re-ranking.
The PAG's human health, ecosystem, and quality-of-life rankings are below:
(NR=not ranked at this time; NA=not applicable to this category).
Human Health Ecosystem Quality-of-Life
Rank Rank Rank
Abandoned industrial sites A B A
Abandoned water wells B C B
Channelization of streams and rivers C A B
Combustion by-products B C A
Construction of dams C B B
Construction and demolition debris NR C B
Disposal capacity C C A
Drinking water at the tap A NA A
Exposure from consumer unawareness A A A
Filling/diking/draining of wetlands C A A
Floods C C A
Fugitive dust C C B
Harvesting natural resources C B B
Illegal dumping NR C A
Inadequate infrastructure A B B
Indoor air quality A NA B
Industrial/commercial wastewater
discharges A A B
Litter NR NR A
Loss of wildlife habitat B A A
Loss of species diversity B A A
Mining activities B A B
Mobile source emissions A B A
Municipal waste disposal facilities A B A
Municipal wastewater discharges C B A
Natural food toxins B NA C
Nonpoint source/agricultural runoff B A B
Oil and gas exploration B B B
Other natural hazards C C C
Overconsumption of natural resources NR NR B
Ozone-depleting substances A A A
Pesticide spraying B B A
Pesticide residues on foods B NA C
Population change B A A
Recreation C C B
Regulated hazardous waste facilities B B A
Sludge disposal C C B
Spills and accidental releases C B B
Stationary air emissions (utilities,
industrial & commercial) B C A
Storm water runoff from
non-agricultural areas NR A B
Tire management B C B
Transportation of waste C C B
Uncontrolled development C A A
Underground storage tanks B C B
Unregulated/abandoned hazardous
waste facilities A A A
Yard waste C C C
Overall ranking. Many of the comments received on the draft list indicated a serious concern with the relative weight given to ecosystem issues. The PAG discussed the available public outreach data upon which the relative weighting of human health, ecosystems and quality-of-life was based. The group agreed that human health risk should remain the most important criterion. However, given the public's significant concern with threats to future generations and long term impacts of ecosystem degradation, the PAG revised the overall criteria to give ecosystem effects equal weight with quality-of-life effects. The group also revised the ranking group breakdowns from three major groups to seven smaller groups. The final ranking follows and the seven groupings are identifed below. THE ISSUES IN EACH GROUP ARE ALPHABETIZED--NOT RANKED.
RELATIVE RISK GROUPING
HIGHER ISSUES PLACED IN HUMAN HEALTH GROUP A
ISSUES PLACED IN BOTH ECOSYSTEM GROUP A AND QUALITY-OF-LIFE
GROUP A
ISSUES PLACED IN BOTH HUMAN HEALTH GROUP B AND EITHER ECOSYSTEM
GROUP A OR QUALITY-OF-LIFE GROUP A
ISSUES PLACED IN HUMAN HEALTH GROUP B
ISSUES PLACED IN EITHER ECOSYSTEM GROUP A OR QUALITY-OF-LIFE
GROUP A
ISSUES PLACED IN EITHER ECOSYSTEM GROUP B OR QUALITY-OF-LIFE
GROUP B
LOWER ISSUES PLACED IN HUMAN HEALTH GROUP C