Framework Environmental Health Risk Management Case Analysis Questions
Sample Answer for Framework Environmental Health Risk Management Case Analysis Questions Included After Question
Framework Environmental Health Risk Management Case Analysis Questions
Reflections on Course Concepts Given the readings and assignments in the course:
• • • Identify and briefly discuss two concepts in this course that you believe will be most applicable to the professional discipline you will enter upon completion of your degree program. What is the importance of these concepts to the professional discipline? How will you use these concepts in your future career? Reflection is a mental process that challenges you to use critical thinking to examine the course information, analyze it carefully, make connections with previous knowledge and experience, and draw conclusions based on the resulting ideas. A well-cultivated critical thinker raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely; gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively; comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards; thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems. (Paul & Elder, 2008) Paul, R. & Elder, L. (February 2008). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.
Module 2 – Case FRAMEWORK ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RISK MANAGEMENT
Assignment Overview
Issues to consider when a neighborhood may be exposed to Hazardous Emissions This Case Assignment focuses on sources of hazardous emissions that can impact residential areas and result in public health risks. In this Case, we are investigating a waste-to-energy incinerator located in a rural community in California. For the past 20 years the facility has been in operation burning trash to generate energy. Approximately 50 large trucks per day haul waste to the facility to unload the trash for processing. Recently, another company is proposing to build an incinerator facility next to the existing facility, and the modern incinerator will be able to also burn hazardous wastes including contaminated soils. There has been growing opposition by the local residents to this new hazardous waste incineration facility. Matters are heating up now as the State appears to be at a point of issuing a permanent permit. The major complaints from the neighbors have been odors, truck traffic, noise, contaminated air and fear of exposure to toxins. The Health Officer is concerned about a number of issues, and can take direct action if necessary. The Health Officer contacts you as an Environmental Health Risk Assessment expert for your opinion in a number of areas. (Hints: Any project must be approved by local and State agencies before it can be constructed. This can be a lengthy process. Cities and Counties have zoning regulations that determine “what goes where.” This is one of the most important functions of local government. The State and the Federal governments require numerous permits be issued BEFORE a project is approved for construction.
Usually, all adverse impacts must be mitigated before a project is approved. These include air quality, noise, water, seismic safety, land-use, etc.) Case Assignment For Case Assignment please develop a 3-5 page report to the health officer in which you:
1. Describe the potential impacts and/or exposure that the site may produce that should be of concern to the local community. Should there be a public hearing on this matter, and should an Environmental Impact Report be prepared before approval of a State Permit?
2. Describe how the local community can further control the facility through zoning and nuisance laws.
3. Briefly discuss the appropriateness of the State issuing permits for the new facility without having ▪ Zoning ▪ State Permits ▪ Nuisance ▪ NOTE: Remember that you are to address each of these issues from an Environmental Health perspective and your positions as an Environmental Health Risk Assessment Expert. Avoid lengthy discussions about the regulatory perspectives of zoning, permitting, and nuisances, which is more of a concern for a regulator or compliance officer. It may help to define each and then focus on the environmental health perspective of each.
4. State your conclusions based upon the areas of concern that you described in Question #1. 5. Discuss how the principles for risk management decision-making were applied or not applied in this case. Length: 3-5 pages (600-1200 words) in length, excluding title page and references. Be sure to justify your opinions with evidence from the literature. Your answer should be supported by references and the references should be cited in the body of your discussion as well as in a reference list. Module 4 – Case CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS OF RISKS Assignment Overview Characterization and Analysis of Risks From living Near a Refinery and a Major Seaport In Module 3 we explored the health concerns from the local community over the proposal to expand and modernize the two large side-by-side ports in Los Angeles. The primary objective of the assignment was to consider the increased risks to local persons exposed to the emissions and other potential hazards. Another objective was to understand potential health risks in context with other factors, including what occurs off site. In that line of thinking, California is developing a plan to control emissions related to major seaports, such as the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach and oil refineries in the harbor area. Next to the two harbors is the very large Long Beach oil refinery which processes the oil that is shipped in. The refinery is another significant source of emissions for the region. The refinery has also submitted plans to expand and modernize their operations to accommodate the anticipated expansion of the ports. The southern portion of Los Angeles is a heavily industrialized region, and there are many communities living in close proximity to these major facilities. Many of the local communities consist primarily of low-income public housing. Community groups from these areas have strongly objected for years about being exposed to air emissions from these facilities. Some groups offer scientific studies that cite a variety of health risks associated with living near refineries and ports. Some groups claim that people living near refineries suffer higher death rates and higher cancer rates (anecdotal reports). The State of California and the officials of the County of Los Angeles have received a number of Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) concerning the expansion of the refineries, and the expansion of the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports. None of the EIRs address the claims (in scientific and anecdotal reports) of adverse health impacts associated living near a refinery and a port. You are an expert on community health assessment, and have been asked to advise the Board on why some reports (such as anecdotal reports on the web) show increased disease and death rates while other reports do not. It is essential to consider the effects of both projects and examine them in a Multi-Source Context, and to explore the application and limitations of Risk Assessments. Case Assignment For this Case Assignment submit a 3-5+ page paper in which you: 1. Characterize the health risks potentially associated with living near a refinery and a large harbor. (Focus on the environmental health related health risks.) 2. Define and explain the difference between a scientific study and anecdotal reports (that is, those from reputable journals and organizations, and those from newspapers, personal testimonies, and web postings). 3. Explain why the communities living close to refineries and/or the harbor/ports might actually experience higher rates of morbidity and mortality due to such confounders as age, race/ethnicity, social economic level, and access to care. 4. Discuss how Multi-Criteria Integrated Resource Assessment (MIRA) could change the decision-making process concerning individual plans for the refinery and port. Length: Case Assignment Module assignments should be at least 3-5+ pages (600-1200 words) in length. Be sure to justify your opinions with evidence from the literature. Your answer should be supported by references and the references should be cited in the body of your discussion as well as in a reference list Discussion: Bioethics and Assessing the Risk from Trace Chemicals Trace levels of chemicals are often dismissed in risk assessment studies as “insignificant” to be of concern to public health. After all, it can take years to determine if a substantial health risk in fact does exist. Consider the decades of discussion and research regarding the potential health impacts of smoking cigarettes; and then the following arguments regarding the impacts of second-hand smoke. Consider the use of Agent Orange and the time taken to accept the unintended yet significant health consequences for those exposed to the defoliant. From the end of World War II until 1973 there were roughly forty five public health alarms regarding technology that were reported in the press. Most of the incidents involved a chronic trace poison, either chemical or radioactive; diethylstibestrol, fiuoridation, shoe fiuoriscopes, DDT, tainted cranberries, polio vaccine hazard, thalidomide, medical x-rays, taconite pollution, mercury in tuna, asbestos, nuclear weapons tests and nuclear power. Every year thousands of new chemicals are engineered and put into products (medicines, foods, household goods, military, agriculture, manufacturing, etc.) with little to no active oversight or testing as to the potential health and environmental impacts of the new substances and products. 1. Do you believe that trace levels of chemicals are properly characterized in most risk assessments given the time it can take before some health risks are apparent? 2. Do you believe that risk assessments should be required for all products that may impact human and or environmental health? Who should pay for and conduct the Risk Assessments, and who should do the analysis? Consider conflicts of interest, the push against regulations, and the high costs of conducting long term health studies. Your comments will be graded on how well they meet the Discussion Requirements posted under “Before You Begin.” Module 2 Required Reading Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2016). Mold: General information. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 at http://www.cdc.gov/mold/faqs.htm Getting Started – Identifying Stakeholders. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 at http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/upgrading/issuestools/tools/Ident-stakeholders.html Goldstein, B. (2002). An overview of risk assessment. University of Pittsburgh Supercourse. http://www.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec6841/001.htm National Research Council. (2000). Chapter 2: Waste incineration overview (pp. 17-33). Waste Incineration and Public Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/download/5803 National Research Council. (2000). Chapter 3: Incineration processes and environmental releases. (pp. 34-70). Waste Incineration and Public Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/download/5803 Sexton K. (2013). Risk Management Guidelines for Regulatory Decisions About Protecting Environmental Health. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy.4(3):179-197. doi:10.1002/rhc3.12035. Retrieved from Trident Library. Optional Reading Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management (1997a). Framework for environmental health risk management. Final report (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 at Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2016) Learn the basics of hazardous waste. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 at: https://www.epa.gov/hw/learn-basics-hazardous-waste Module 3 Required Reading Finkel, A. (2007). Risk Assessment and Precaution: Common Strengths and Flaws. Rachel’s Democracy & Health News, (920). Retrieved on August 29, 2016 from ProQuest Central. (Document ID: 1331975081). Bailey D., Plenys T., Solomon G., Campbell T R., Feuer G.R., Masters, J. & Tonkonogy B. (2004). Harboring pollution: Strategies to clean up U.S. ports. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 at http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/ports/ports2.pdf Rosenbaum, A., Hartley, S., & Holder, C. (2011). Analysis of diesel particulate matter health risk disparities in selected US harbor areas. American Journal of Public Health, 101 Suppl 1(Suppl 1), S217 S223. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300190 Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2002). Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet (London, England), 359(9302), 248 – 252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01406736(02)07451-2 Wharfe, J., Adams, W., Apitz, S.E., Barra, R., & et al. (2007). In Situ Methods of measurement-An important line of evidence in the environmental risk framework. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 3(2), 268274. Retrieved on August 29, 2016, from Proquest Central Database. (Document ID: 1258266991). Natural Resources Defense Council (2004). Harboring pollution: The dirty truth about U.S. ports. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 at https://www.nrdc.org/resources/harboringpollution-dirty-truth-about-us-ports Optional Reading Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management (1997a). Framework for environmental health risk management. Final report (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 at Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management Simkhovich, B., Kleinman, M. & Kloner, R. (2008) Air pollution and cardiovascular injury. Epidemiology, Toxicology, and Mechanisms J Am Coll Cardiol, 52, 719726, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.029. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 at http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/j.jacc.2008.05.029v1 Smargiassi, A., Kosatsky, T., Hicks, J., Plante, C., Armstrong, B., Villeneuve, P. J., & Goudreau, S. (2009). Risk of asthmatic episodes in children exposed to sulfur dioxide stack emissions from a refinery point source in Montreal, Canada. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(4), 653-9. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 from ProQuest Central Database. (Document ID: 222648153). Tannenbaum, L. (2007). And so we model: The ineffective use of mathematical models in ecological risk assessments. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 3(4), 473-475. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 from ProQuest Central Database. (Document ID: 1381829541). Module 4 Required Reading Brender, J., Maantay, J., Chakraborty, J. (2011). Residential proximity to environmental hazards and adverse health outcomes. American Journal of Public Health. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 from Proquest Central Database. (Document ID: 906290162). Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health (2002). Exposure Assessment Methods: Research Needs and Priorities. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication number 2002-126. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2002-126/pdfs/2002-126.pdf Environmental Protection Agency (2008). Watershed ecological risk assessment. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 at http://cfpub.epa.gov/watertrain/moduleFrame.cfm?module_id=5& parent_object_id=5&object_id=5 Karadzinska-Bislimovska, J., Minov, J., Stoleski, S., Mijakoski, D., Risteska-Kuc, S., & Milkovska, S. (2010). Environmental and occupational health risks among agricultural workers living in a rural community near petroleum refinery and motorway in Skopje region. Arhiv Za Higijenu Rada i Toksikologiju, 61(4), 415-24. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 from ProQuest Central Database. (Document ID: 853332316). Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management (1997a). Framework for environmental health risk management. Final report (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 at Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management Simonsen, N., Scribner, R., Su, L. J., Williams, D., Luckett, B., Yang, T., & Fontham, E. T. H. (2010). Environmental exposure to emissions from petrochemical sites and lung cancer: The lower Mississippi interagency cancer study. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 from ProQuest Central Database. (Document ID: 856025342). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000). Risk Characterization Handbook. Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA 100B-00-002. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201510/documents/osp_risk_characterization_handbook_2000.pdf Optional Reading Finkel, A. (2007). Risk assessment and precaution: Common strengths and flaws. Rachel’s Democracy & Health News (920). Retrieved on August 29, 2016, from ProQuest Central. (Document ID: 1331975081). Kenny S Crump (2003). Quantitative risk assessment since the Red Book: Where have we come and where should we be going? Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 9(5), 1105-1112. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 from Proquest Central Database. (Document ID: 489624801). Stenzel, M. (2010). An overview of exposure assessment techniques. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 at: http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/08geoHealthI/presentations/ Stenzel.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2017). Exposure Assessment Tools by Approaches. Retrieved on June 30, 2020 from https://www.epa.gov/expobox/exposure-assessmenttools-approaches Vlaanderen, J., Vermeulen, R., Heederik, D., & Kromhout, H. (2008). Guidelines to evaluate human observational studies for quantitative risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 116, 1700-1705. Retrieved on August 29, 2016 at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=10.1289/ehp.11530#ab stract0
A Sample Answer For the Assignment: Framework Environmental Health Risk Management Case Analysis Questions
Title: Framework Environmental Health Risk Management Case Analysis Questions
A
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Posting | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||