HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT
IN
Investigating Public
Policy
Barbara LaBarre
The Task / The
Process / The
Resources / The
Evaluation / NYS
Learning Standards / Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
You
may have heard of the term “"superfund
site", but what does this mean to you, or to any of the other citizens
of
The community that we live in is constantly changing and
evolving; houses bought and sold, families moving in and out, companies and
industries doing business or going out of business. When a business fails, it has a rippling
impact in the community. Jobs are lost;
buildings are abandoned or torn down.
The aftermath of some of these changes leaves us with vacant lots in the
centers of urban areas. Chemical testing
reveals that these parcels are sometimes unusable for further development, as a
result of the practices of the former industrial tenant. Whose responsibility is it to reclaim these brownfields? What is the local policy concerning clean-up
responsibility, or the federal government’s policy?
In
order to explore the issue of local chemical contamination and Superfund sites
we will follow a specific process developed to identify both problems and
viable solutions to those problems. We
will create the following scenario in the classroom:
·
You are a member
of a community group that is very concerned about the existence of several
brownfields in your neighborhood. Your community group is made up of families
with young children, and you have several concerns. You want to be sure that your family’s health
is not being threatened by the presence of chemical waste from these superfund
sites; that your air, soil and water supply are clean and safe. You want to be assured by the local city
government that cleanup for these locations are imminent and financially
planned for. You are concerned about the
value of your property as well, and you want to protect your investment.
·
You are a member
of
The
class will divide into these two groups.
Each group will go through the Science Public
Policy Analysis process to identify the local areas that are at issue,
identify the chemically hazardous materials that are present at the locations,
and create solutions that are acceptable to both interest groups. Your group is preparing to present
information at a public forum with the neighborhood organization next month. An objective party is scheduled to arbitrate
a debate that will take place after both groups have made a public presentation
on the issue.
Each
of the two teams is responsible for
a cohesive presentation of their research during the debate. Copies of the specific tasks of the SPPA as
preparation for the debate will be submitted in advance of the debate. Each student
is responsible for a written report of their work as well. This report will discuss the assignments of
that student within his/her team, including research, evidence, prior policy,
causes, solutions and other material that was preparation for the debate. Rubrics for evaluation of these assignments
are found under the section titled The Evaluation.
Even
split into two groups, such a large task cannot be managed by individuals. Students will team together to study the
individual processes of this topic. As
in government and other bureaucratic organizations, people must distribute the
work to accomplish the goal.
Your
research into this topic will follow the Science Public
Policy Analyst (SPPA) sequence outlined below.
1.
First and
foremost, you will need to define the
problem. The general problem has been
presented to you in the scenario already; what your group needs to do is to
narrow this problem, and decide the most salient issues arising from the
problem you have defined. You may also
define your specific problem by using one of methods provided for you in the Information Gathering
Tools section of the SPPA. The
nature of the problem, the location of the problem and three undesirable issues
or problems that arise from the defined problem will be recorded on worksheet
#1.
2. The defined problem will give you clues to the next
step in the process, the gathering
evidence step. The evidence that you
want to gather is found on the Internet, and is directly related to the problem
you have defined. Remember to keep the
problem as you have defined it in the front of your mind as you are looking for
evidence, as you may be tempted to look at unrelated information. Evidence may be statistical, or it may be
documented by photography, opinion, reported information or case studies.
3. Research must be done to be able to identify the
causes of the problem. Good
investigative skills will help you in this step of the process, and the ability
to see past what is obvious will be invaluable.
Use this worksheet to summarize your work identifying
causes.
4. Evaluating existing policy to see what needs to be
modified, removed or added will bring your team closer to a solution. Using a two sided tool is especially helpful;
a list of pros vs. cons, or advantages vs. disadvantages. Evaluate the
policy or policies that deal with the local issues and summarize your work
with this tool.
5. The goal of any solution to a problem is to alleviate
the issues precipitating the problem, or dealing with the causes as identified
in step 3. Looking at alternatives as solutions is proactive and creative. Use this worksheet
to record your group’s brainstorming on collaboration.
6. Selecting the best
solution that your group developed in step 5 of the SPPA will involve using
a ranking system that merits each solution according to its feasibility and
effectiveness. The objective ranking
system will narrow what might be done
to what can be done to address the
problem and the issues that arise from it.
Here
are the links to the first 6 consecutive steps in the Science Public Policy
Analyst:
Define the Problem Gather Evidence Identify Causes
Evaluate a Policy Develop Solutions Select the Best
Solution
The
Science Public Policy Analyst (SPPA) model presents 3 additional steps to lead
you to the implementation of the public policy you have developed; Benefits and
Costs, The
Prince System, and Political Strategies. Use the worksheets provided at the links
below to carry your solution further to the implementation phase and extend
your knowledge of the SPPA model.
Worksheet 7:
Identifying Benefits Worksheet 8: Identifying
Costs
Worksheet 9:
Collecting Information on Benefits and Costs Worksheet 10:
Describing the Policy to be Implemented
There
are many resources available to understand the state of affairs here in
Binghamton; which sites are identified as Superfund sites and which sites may
need to be but as of now are not.
Primary
source research involves more than entering a Google key phrase, so you need to
be sure to have a narrow topic or intention to be able to find the specific
information you need.
Evaluation
of information found on websites takes critical thinking skills, experience and
good reading skills. You may check out
this process guide if you want to read a brief guide on how to evaluate
webpage content.
Another
issue in document research is how
to read a primary source document and get the information out of it that
you want. Another brief tutorial on this
subject is here for you to read before you get started on your research
TOPIC
SPECIFIC SOURCES
·
This is the area
of the Environmental Protection Agency
website that deals specifically with superfund sites.
·
The Hazardous Waste Information Clean Up
site provides information about hazardous waste remediation.
·
Use this Enviro Mapper to locate Superfund
sites according to 3 criteria; watershed, EPA region or latitude/longitude.
·
Click on the
national map to see the National
Priority List for any state.
·
Environmental
Defense posts its own National Priorities List on its Scorecard
website. This site will also allow you
to gather data as evidence for your local problem.
·
ED also lists
the most common
contaminants detected at Superfund sites, and sorts them by ground or
surface water, air or soil.
·
EPA will give
you an overview of the CERCLA
legislation
SEARCH
ENGINES
·
Google
DATABASES
·
ATSDR is a hazardous materials
database that will allow you to understand effects that toxins exert on the
environment.
·
The Cleanup Level Database focuses on soil
cleanup.
·
The IRE database gives
information on potential and confirmed hazardous waste sites that the EPA
Superfund Program has either put on the National Priorities List (NPL) or
proposed for possible inclusion on the NPL.
You
will be evaluated both for your group work and for your own writing. Below you will find the rubric that will be
used for evaluating your team’s work in preparation and presentation of the
debate. One rubric will be written per
team.
|
|
|
CATEGORY |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
All information
presented in the debate was clear, accurate and thorough. |
Most information
presented in the debate was clear, accurate and thorough. |
Most information
presented in the debate was clear and accurate, but was not usually thorough. |
Information had several
inaccuracies OR was usually not clear. |
|
|
Every major point was
well supported with several relevant facts, statistics and/or examples. |
Every major point was
adequately supported with relevant facts, statistics and/or examples. |
Every major point was
supported with facts, statistics and/or examples, but the relevance of some
was questionable. |
Every point was not
supported. |
|
|
The team clearly
understood the topic in-depth and presented their information forcefully and
convincingly. |
The team clearly
understood the topic in-depth and presented their information with ease. |
The team seemed to
understand the main points of the topic and presented those with ease. |
The team did not show
an adequate understanding of the topic. |
|
|
All arguments were
clearly tied to an idea (premise) and organized in a tight, logical fashion. |
Most arguments were
clearly tied to an idea (premise) and organized in a tight, logical fashion. |
All arguments were
clearly tied to an idea (premise) but the organization was sometimes not
clear or logical. |
Arguments were not
clearly tied to an idea (premise). |
|
|
All counter-arguments
were accurate, relevant and strong. |
Most counter-arguments
were accurate, relevant, and strong. |
Most counter-arguments
were accurate and relevant, but several were weak. |
Counter-arguments were
not accurate and/or relevant |
|
|
All statements, body
language, and responses were respectful and were in appropriate language. |
Statements and
responses were respectful and used appropriate language, but once or twice
body language was not. |
Most statements and
responses were respectful and in appropriate language, but there was one
sarcastic remark. |
Statements, responses
and/or body language were consistently not respectful. |
Here is the rubric you will be scored against for your written
research paper, which is an individual effort using data and information your
group worked on.
|
RESEARCH PAPER RUBRIC |
|
CATEGORY |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
All topics are
addressed and all questions answered with at least 2 sentences about each. |
All topics are
addressed and most questions answered with at least 2 sentences about each. |
All topics are
addressed, and most questions answered with 1 sentence about each. |
One or more topics were
not addressed. |
|
|
Information clearly
relates to the main topic. It includes several supporting details and/or
examples. |
Information clearly relates
to the main topic. It provides 1-2 supporting details and/or examples. |
Information clearly
relates to the main topic. No details and/or examples are given. |
Information has little
or nothing to do with the main topic. |
|
|
Information is very
organized with well-constructed paragraphs and subheadings. |
Information is
organized with well-constructed paragraphs. |
Information is
organized, but paragraphs are not well-constructed. |
The information appears
to be disorganized. 8) |
|
|
No grammatical,
spelling or punctuation errors. |
Almost no grammatical,
spelling or punctuation errors |
A few grammatical
spelling or punctuation errors. |
Many grammatical,
spelling, or punctuation errors. |
|
|
All sources (information
and graphics) are accurately documented in the desired format. |
All sources
(information and graphics) are accurately documented, but a few are not in
the desired format. |
All sources
(information and graphics) are accurately documented, but many are not in the
desired format. |
Some sources are not
accurately documented. |
|
|
Successfully uses
suggested internet links to find information and navigates within these sites
easily without assistance. |
Usually able to use
suggested internet links to find information and navigates within these sites
easily without assistance. |
Occasionally able to
use suggested internet links to find information and navigates within these
sites easily without assistance. |
Needs assistance or supervision
to use suggested internet links and/or to navigate within these sites. |
The
New York State Standards referred to below are the Mathematics, Science and
Technology standards written for commencement level. The complete MST standards can be found on
the State Department of Education’s EMSC
website. This SPPA task also supports
state learning standards for English Language Arts, but these standards are not
identified in this section. ELA standards may be
read at the EMSC site.
Standard 1:
Analysis, Inquiry and Design
Students will use mathematical analysis, scientific inquiry, and
engineering designs, as appropriate, to pose questions, seek answers, and
develop solutions.
Key Idea 2: The
central purpose of scientific inquiry is to develop explanations of natural
phenomena in a continuing, creative process.
Performance Indicator: Students
refine their research ideas through library investigations, including
electronic information retrieval and reviews of the literature, and through
peer feedback obtained from review and discussion.
Key Idea 3: The
observations made while testing proposed explanations, when analyzed using
conventional and invented methods, provide new insights into phenomenon.
Performance Indicator: Students,
based on the results of tests and through public discussion, revise the explanation and contemplate
additional research.
Standard 2:
Information Systems
Students will access, generate, process and transfer
information using appropriate technology.
Key
Idea 1: Information technology is used to retrieve process
and communicate information and as a tool to enhance learning
Performance Indicator: Students
access, select, collate and analyze information obtained from a wide range of
sources such as research databases, foundations, organizations, national
libraries, and electronic communication networks, including the Internet
Standard 4: Science
Students
will understand and apply scientific concepts, principles and theories
pertaining to the physical setting and living environment and recognize the
historical development of ideas in science.
Physical Setting:
Key Idea 3: Matter
is made up of particles whose properties determine the observable
characteristics of matter and its reactivity.
Performance Indicator: Students
explain the properties of materials in terms of the arrangement and properties
of the atoms that compose them.
Living Environment:
Key Idea 6: Plants
and animals depend on each other and their physical environment.
Performance Indicator: Students
explain how the living and nonliving environments change over time and respond
to disturbances.
Key Idea 7: Human
decisions and activities have had a profound impact on the physical and living
environment.
Performance Indicator: Students
describe the range of interrelationships of humans with the living and nonliving
environment.
Performance Indicator: Students
explain the impact of technological development and growth in the human
population on the living and nonliving environment.
Performance Indicator: Students
explain how individual choices and societal actions can contribute to improving
the environment.
Standard 6:
Interconnectedness: Common Themes
Students
will understand the relationships and common themes that connect science,
mathematics and technology and apply the themes to these and other areas of
learning.
Key Idea 5: Identifying
patterns of change is necessary for making predictions for future behavior and
conditions.
Performance Indicator: Students
search for multiple trends when
analyzing data for patterns, and identify data that do not fit the trends.
Key
Idea 6: In order to arrive at the best solution that meets criteria within restraints, it is
often necessary to make trade-offs.
Performance Indicator: Students
analyze subjective decision making problems to explain the trade-offs that can
be made to arrive at the best solution.
Standard 7:
Interdisciplinary Problem Solving
Students
will apply the knowledge and thinking skills of mathematics, science and
technology to address real-life problems and make informed decisions.
Key Idea 1: The knowledge and skills of mathematics, science and
technology are used to gather to make informed decisions and solve problems,
especially those related to issues of science/technology/science, consumer
decision making, design, and inquiry into phenomenon.
Performance
Indicator: Students will analyze and
quantify consumer product data and understand environmental and economic
impacts.
Performance
indicator: Design solutions to real world problems on a
community, national and global scale.
If
this exercise stimulates and encourages students to see past academic science
to the broader interplay of academic science, ethics, decision making, politics
and policy writing, then it will have served its purpose. The real world is far more complicated than
simply understanding science; it relies on the application of that science to
our lives in ways that are enriching, healthy and equitable. Hazardous waste management is an issue that
requires immediate attention, from resident citizens, corporate management,
public policy makers, and a government that enforces established public
policy. It is an issue that will not go
away without active input and constant vigilance. The chemist, biologist, environmentalist,
parent, homeowner, school board member, local law enforcement officer and
politician can gather at the policy making table, with the common goal of
improving the quality of life for all people affected by the inappropriate disposal
of hazardous waste.