MPH 540 Week 6 Environmental and Occupational Health Plan Example

One Plan for Soil, Air, Heat and Work: A Five-Year Environmental and Occupational Health Plan for a Southern Colorado Steel County

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

MPH/540: Environmental and Occupational Health Management

Week 6 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The county, its health department, partners, budget, targets and timeline are composites written for a model paper; research findings and federal guidance come from the sources cited.

After a year of separate reports on soil, air, heat and the steel mill, a county commissioner asked the health director for one plan: what will the department do over five years, with whom, at what cost and how will anyone know it worked? The request reflected the ecological view that the county's hazards interact and fall on the same neighborhoods. This paper presents that plan.

Purpose and Scope

The plan covers five years and four priority hazards identified through the course's earlier analyses. It covers residents and workers, with a focus on the east and north side neighborhoods where exposures overlap.

Ranking the Priorities

Four tests set the order: how serious the harm is, how many people it reaches, how unequally it falls and whether the department can act on it. Children's exposure to lead and arsenic in soil ranked first: effects are lifelong, the affected neighborhoods are known and effective interventions exist. Fine particle pollution ranked second, affecting the whole county with the heaviest burden on the east side. Heat ranked third and is rising. Worker safety at the melt shop ranked fourth; the mill had already begun its own controls program, so the department's added value there is support rather than leadership.

Environmental Justice as a Guiding Principle

Research on environmental justice documents that hazardous facilities and pollution are disproportionately located where residents are poorer or are people of color, and it examines the political and economic processes that produce this pattern and the movements that challenge it (Mohai et al., 2009). The plan applies this lens by acting first in neighborhoods where hazards overlap and by giving residents a formal role in decisions.

Priority One: Children's Lead and Arsenic Exposure

Goal: reduce children's exposure to lead and arsenic from soil, dust and water in the most affected neighborhoods.

Objectives for Priority One

By year five, increase blood lead testing of children aged 1 and 2 in the sampling area from an estimated 38% to 75%; replace soil in 400 of the 520 yards above action levels, prioritizing homes with young children; and cut the share of tested children with results of 3.5 or higher from a baseline of 9% to below 4%.

The Reference Value

CDC lowered the level it uses to flag children with more lead than most of their peers, setting the reference value at 3.5 micrograms per deciliter from national survey data on children aged 1 to 5; the agency also recommended focusing screening on high-risk populations based on age of housing and sociodemographic factors, with universal testing where local plans are absent (Ruckart et al., 2021). The county will use 3.5 as its trigger for home visits and source investigation.

Interventions for Priority One

Interventions include targeted testing through clinics, WIC and home visiting; a nurse home visit whenever a child's result reaches 3.5; yard soil replacement through the state cleanup program; interim measures such as mulch and clean sandboxes; lead service line replacement by the water utility; and paint hazard control grants for older rental housing.

The Economic Case

Lead hazard control pays for itself many times over. A cost-benefit analysis estimated that each dollar invested in lead paint hazard control returns $17 to $221 through avoided health care costs, higher lifetime earnings, tax revenue, reduced special education and lower crime costs, with the greatest returns from early intervention in communities most at risk (Gould, 2009). Few public health investments return as much per dollar as removing lead from children's homes.

Priority Two: Fine Particle Pollution

Goal: reduce residents' exposure to fine particles, especially on the east side. Objectives: expand the sensor network from 8 to 20 sites by year two; provide portable air cleaners to 600 households with children who have asthma by year three; and reduce emergency visits for childhood asthma on the east side by 15% from baseline by year five.

Interventions for Priority Two

The department will seek a fence-line monitor near the mill, work with the school district on filtration in schools near the highway, advise planners on siting schools and senior housing away from the corridor and operate smoke alerts and clean-air rooms during wildfire season.

Priority Three: Heat

Goal: prevent heat illness and death. Objectives: plant 3,000 trees in the least-shaded neighborhoods by year five; enroll 1,000 older adults living alone in heat check-in calls by year two; and eliminate heat deaths among residents reached by outreach.

Interventions for Priority Three

The heat action plan activates at a forecast threshold, extends cooling center hours, provides transportation, conducts check-in calls and door-to-door visits and supports an air conditioner program for low-income older adults.

Priority Four: Worker Safety

Goal: reduce noise-induced hearing loss and heat illness at the mill and among outdoor workers. Objectives: melt shop noise below 85 decibels for most workers by year three, threshold shifts halved by year five and heat illness plans at 50 construction and agricultural employers by year four.

Interventions for Priority Four

The department will support the mill's controls program, share heat alerts with employers, offer free heat plan templates in English and Spanish and partner with worker centers to reach contract and farm workers.

Partners and Roles

Each action has a lead. The water utility replaces service lines. The state cleanup program funds soil replacement. The housing authority and city manage paint hazard grants. The school district handles filtration. Parks plants trees. Aging services runs check-in calls. The mill and employers implement workplace controls. The health department coordinates, tests, investigates and reports.

Governance

A steering committee of partners, two residents from each priority neighborhood and a worker representative meets quarterly and reviews indicators. Residents receive stipends for their time.

Budget

The five-year budget totals about $14.8 million, most from state cleanup funds, federal lead and water infrastructure grants and utility capital budgets. The health department's share, about $2.1 million, covers staff, testing, sensors, air cleaners and outreach. Tree planting and cooling programs draw on city and foundation funds.

Timeline

Year one: testing expansion, sensor network growth, heat check-in enrollment and the first 80 yards. Years two and three: most soil replacement, service line work and school filtration. Years four and five: completion, employer heat plans and full evaluation.

Evaluation

The department will track a small set of indicators annually: blood lead testing rates and results, yards and service lines completed, sensor readings by neighborhood, asthma emergency visits, heat illness visits and deaths, trees planted and hearing and heat outcomes reported by the mill. A public dashboard will report results by neighborhood.

Community Involvement

Residents shaped the plan before it was written. Staff held six meetings in English and Spanish in the priority neighborhoods, and the top resident request, faster yard replacement for families with toddlers, changed the order of soil work. Worker centers gathered input from farm and construction workers on heat. Residents will review the dashboard each year and can propose changes through the steering committee.

Risks

Funding may fall short, contractors may be slow and residents who rent may move before their yards are cleaned. The plan manages these risks by pursuing multiple funding sources, prioritizing homes with young children and working with landlords.

Conclusion

The plan joins four hazards the county once handled separately into one five-year strategy. It acts first where exposures overlap, uses CDC's lower reference value to find children earlier, invests in lead hazard control that returns many times its cost and assigns each action to a partner. Measurable objectives and a public dashboard let the commission and residents see whether the plan works.

References

Gould, E. (2009). Childhood lead poisoning: Conservative estimates of the social and economic benefits of lead hazard control. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(7), 1162-1167. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0800408

Mohai, P., Pellow, D., & Roberts, J. T. (2009). Environmental justice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 405-430. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-082508-094348

Ruckart, P. Z., Jones, R. L., Courtney, J. G., LeBlanc, T. T., Jackson, W., Karwowski, M. P., Cheng, P.-Y., Allwood, P., Svendsen, E. R., & Breysse, P. N. (2021). Update of the blood lead reference value: United States, 2021. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 70(43), 1509-1512. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7043a4