Preface -- Background -- Approach -- Method -- Determination of data needs -- Databases to be searched and information needed from each database -- Merging and integrating process -- Results -- Noncompliance approach -- Sic code approach -- Discussion -- Conclusions -- Appendix: Sic criterion In recent years, the NEIC has developed a number of reports describing procedures to identify priority pollution sources (1) within a defined geographic area (e.g., Overview of Environmental Pollution in the Kanawha Valley, West Virginia - August 1984) and (2) within a selected source categroy (e.g., EPA-300/1-84-003, Multi-Media Priority Ranking of Selected Federal Facilities, Region VIII, September 1984), and (3) for a corporate entity (e.g., Information Integration Project - Corporate Facility Profile - Monsanto Example, August 1984). Earlier this month, NEIC produced a report entitled "Potential Enforcement and Inspection Targets - Region X". The procedures described in that report were developed for similar purposes, as described above, but with two major differences: the primary audience is the Office of Regional Counsel and the universe of sources (i.e., for an entire Region) was the most ambitious scale yet undertaken by NEIC. An attempt was made to apply the same procedures for the whole of Region V. This attempt was thwarted when it was discovered that the data to be handled was in excess of the available disk capacity of the NEIC minicomputer. Thus the procedures were employed for just the two states of Michigan and Minnesota. These procedures provide for the access of readily available data from EPAnational systems, the merging of these data from the individual databases into an integrated summary list, and a rationale to prioritize or rank individual facilities. The procedures were developed to maximize computer processing of the data and to negate any manual data entry or manipulation of the data. The tabular results of these procedures should be considered as an information base for use by the Office of Regional COunsel. The results should be considered potential enforcement and inspection targets, not a "hit" list, as the title of the report explicitly states. They should be used as an independently derived starting point for the Office of Regional Counsel to participate in any dialogue associated with establishing Regional enforcement and inspection priorities.