Trident University International Health & Medical Discussion

/in /by

Module 3 – Case CERCLA, COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW, AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN STANDARD SETTING Case Assignment Utilize the module readings and conduct your own literature research to address the assignment questions below. Justify your responses by presenting a rationale and illustrating it with examples and facts as needed. Support your writing with scholarly sources. 1. What criteria define “releases” covered under CERCLA? 2. What are the responses that may be triggered by CERCLA? Which two do you find least effective? Describe why. 3. What impacts do brownfields have on a community, and should government help disadvantaged communities in dealing with these sites? Why? Support your answer with an example from the literature. Length: Submit a 3- to 4-page paper, excluding the cover page and reference list. Resources: Required Reading Carruth, R. S., & Goldstein, B. D. (2014). Chapter 6: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or “Superfund Act”). In Environmental health law: An introduction (pp. 131–156). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Wiley. Beames, A., Broekx, S., Heijungs, R., Lookman, R., Boonen, K., Van Geert, Y., . . . Seuntjens, P. (2015). Accounting for land-use efficiency and temporal variations between brownfield remediation alternatives in life-cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 101 77(6), 109117. Gardner, R. W., & Pusha, R., III. (2014). The West Virginia chemical spill and environmental liabilities in a post-apex world. American Bankruptcy Institute Journal, 33(4), 38–83. Rasher, B. (2015). Commentary: Report card on the marketbased approach to Brownfield redevelopment. Public Administration Review, 75(2), 262-263. doi:10.1111/puar.12345 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2018). Superfund: National priorities list (NPL). Accessed from https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-national-prioritieslist-npl U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2019). Toxics release inventory (TRI) program: Learn about TRI in your community. Accessed from https://www.epa.gov/toxics-releaseinventory-tri-program Washington, tribes urge 9th circuit to uphold CERCLA air emissions ruling. (2015). Inside EPA’s Clean Air Report, 26(22). Yohannan, S. (2016). Judges press governments on CERCLA air emissions ‘disposal’ claim. Inside EPA Weekly Report, 37(15). Module 3 – SLP CERCLA, COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW, AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN STANDARD SETTING This SLP examines the use of scientific evidence in standard setting. Answer the following questions in 3–4 pages and support your answers with the literature: 1. Describe the scientific evidence that was used in the standard-setting process for the substance you chose for your SLP. 2. Describe the health-risk assessment that was considered for the health effects of concern. 3. Compare and contrast two of the health-risk assessments. Were they thorough? Was the weight of the scientific evidence adequate? How did they impact the final standard? Length: Submit a 3- to 4-page paper. Resources Relevant to the SLP Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2017). All workplace safety & health topics. Accessed at https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.). Safety and health topics: Alphabetical listings of topics. United States Department of Labor. Accessed at https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/text_index.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2019). Chemicals and toxic topics. Accessed at https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/chemicals-and-toxicstopics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2019). Substance registry services. Accessed at https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/substreg/LandingPa ge.do Module 3 – Case IMPACT EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY Case Assignment After reading the required background materials for this module (including the PowerPoint presentations on Impact Evaluation and Randomized and Quasi-Experimental Designs) and consulting the relevant peer-reviewed literature, please address the following questions in a 4 page essay. Discuss accountability in the context of health-related government programs and evaluating such programs. How can evaluation assist in determining accountability by those in charge of a health or social program? Assignment Expectations Length: Assignment should be between 4 pages (750-1000 words) in length. Resources: Required Reading Peersman, G. (2015) Impact evaluation. BetterEvaluation. Retrieved from http://www.betterevaluation.org/themes/impact_evaluation Rogers, P., Hawkins. A., MacDonald, B., Macfarlan, A., Milne, C. (2015). Choosing Appropriate Designs and Methods for Impact Evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3906/f/May%2020 18/document/pdf/choosing_appropriate_designs_and_methods_for_ impact_evaluation_2015.pdf UCLA Centre for Mental Health in Schools (2015). Evaluation and Accountability: Getting Credit for All You DO. Retrieved from http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/evaluation/evaluation.pdf First Nation Development Institute (n.d). Successful Evaluation: Creating SMART Goals and Objectives. Retrieved from https://firstnations.org/sites/default/files/GrantseekerResource s/EvaluationTips_SMARTGoalsObjectives.pdf Module 3 – SLP IMPACT EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY Consult the background materials for this module and the relevant peer-reviewed literature and, after doing so address the following questions in a table: Identify the measurable outcomes that would be representative of the SMART program objectives you identified in Module 1. If applicable, use my feedback to improve the objectives before identifying an outcome. Do this by creating a table that shows the objectives in one column, and the corresponding outcome in the second column. SLP Assignment Expectations Length: Assignment should be between 3 to 4 pages (7501000 words) in length. Resources: Required Reading Peersman, G. (2015) Impact evaluation. BetterEvaluation. Retrieved from http://www.betterevaluation.org/themes/impact_evaluation Rogers, P., Hawkins. A., MacDonald, B., Macfarlan, A., Milne, C. (2015). Choosing Appropriate Designs and Methods for Impact Evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3906/f/May%2020 18/document/pdf/choosing_appropriate_designs_and_methods_for_ impact_evaluation_2015.pdf UCLA Centre for Mental Health in Schools (2015). Evaluation and Accountability: Getting Credit for All You DO. Retrieved from http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/evaluation/evaluation.pdf First Nation Development Institute (n.d). Successful Evaluation: Creating SMART Goals and Objectives. Retrieved from https://firstnations.org/sites/default/files/GrantseekerResource s/EvaluationTips_SMARTGoalsObjectives.pdf

  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