COUNTY BOARD DILEMMA:

A Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility in Your Community?

Introduction:

You are a member of a county board located in east central Illinois. Your county is facing significant financial pressure, and a suggestion has been made to the board to consider the placement of a low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal facility on 1 square mile of land situated 5 miles east of a local community. The inquiry was initiated by the county-wide economic development group in order to bring needed jobs to the economically depressed area and solve the county's future financial dilemma. The citizens who oppose the radioactive waste disposal facility argue that there is a host of evidence from biology, chemistry, geology, and physics that shows that situating even a LLRW disposal facility nearby would be not only unwise, but downright dangerous "especially for the grandchildren". Besides, the Barnwell waste disposal facility in South Carolina is willing to take all of east central Illinois' LLRW generated by radioactive reactors, hospitals, and research labs.

Under the Illinois LLRW Management Act of March 1997, communities have a legal right to stop the placement of radioactive waste disposal facilities if they fall within their jurisdiction, or if the land owners protest the use of their land for such a purpose. Placing the radioactive waste disposal facility more than 1.5 miles outside of an incorporated town makes the site part of your jurisdiction as a county board member.

By the year 2012 Illinois will begin to decommission several radioactive reactors currently used to generate electricity. This will result in a dramatically increased demand for a LLRW site for the disposal of contaminate equipment.

Team and Individual Tasks:

As a county board member you must weigh scientific evidence and social concerns, and decide whether or not the proposed LLRW disposal facility should be given approval -- even should that decision oppose the wishes of a significant number of people living in your community. As a board, and as an individual board member, you need to do the following:

• state and examine the claims of the radioactive waste disposal facility opponents that there are significant health and safety threats to humans working at and living within a short distance of the proposed waste disposal facility;
• state and examine the evidence presented by contemporary scientists supporting the safety of LLRW disposal facilities;
• examine the issue from all sides, including biology (biohazards), chemistry (nature of radioactive materials), geology (site requirements), and physics (nature of radioactivity);
• reach an individual decision about whether or not the LLRW disposal facility should be approved for your county;
• create and "publish" a Web page that details arguments surrounding the issue, presenting your own position publicly as a board member, and indicating the way you will vote;
• based on the work of your Web page, publicly state and defend your position at a meeting of the county board; and
• reach a county board decision (simple majority prevails) about whether or not to permit development of the LLRW disposal facility.

Initial Information Sources:

Below you will find a number of Internet resources where you can begin your quest for a solution to your problem. Use the traditional Internet search engines to find additional resources as necessary. Be certain to conduct an analysis of all information sources for potential bias. Inclusion of any Web site in the list below is not to be taken as an indication of credibility. Sources beyond the Internet are also recommended such as books, scholarly articles, videos, and discussions with experts.

Process:

1. Review the LLRW disposal facility problem statement.
2. Identify what you know and what you don't know on the basis of the problem statement.
3. Identify a variety of resources, including this outside the Internet, that can be used to shed light on the problem.
4. Analyze the credibility of each site you have identified for use.
5. Research arguments for and against the proposal.
6. Discuss various arguments with others, classifying and analyzing arguments.
7. Conduct research as necessary to analyze claims; find supporting and/or refuting evident.
8. Draw a conclusion about where you stand on this issue.
9. Carefully articulate your argument in writing, and post to a public Web page.
10. Prepare to deliver an oral argument in favor or against the waste disposal facility, stating your personal opinion.

Guidance:

First and foremost, your work should reflect elements of critical thinking and avoid personal bias (but not necessarily personal values). Your written and oral reports might include many of the following critical thinking skills outlined by Marzano (1992):

1. Comparing: Identifying and articulating similarities and differences between things.
2. Classifying: Grouping things into definable categories on the basis of their attributes.
3. Inducing: Inferring unknown generalizations or principles from observations or analysis.
4. Deducing: Inferring unstated consequences and conditions from given principles and generalizations.
5. Analyzing errors: Identifying and articulating errors in one's own or others' thinking.
6. Constructing support: Constructing a system of support or proof for an assertion.
7. Abstraction: Identifying and articulating the underlying theme or general pattern of information.
8. Analyzing perspectives: Identifying and articulating personal perspectives about issues.

Teamwork Principle and Corollaries:

EVERYONE IS EXPECTED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM; EVERYONE IS EXPECTED TO WORK DURING THE TIME GIVEN IN CLASS.

• Every student will contribute to the discussion.
• Every student will be non-judgmental of other student's opinions. Listen to others' opinions. Let others finish talking before sharing your opinion or raising a question.
• Every student will have the opportunity to express his or her ideas without their ideas being attacked. Do not laugh at or attack other people's comments.
• Every student will ask questions when an idea or fact is presented that they do not understand.
• Remember that the teacher is primarily a facilitator and not an information giver.

As you work on this project, keep in mind the following points: One of the worst possible outcomes in any community is the collapse of communication. While concerns for safety surround the construction of even a LLRW disposal facility are understandable, emotional sentiments should not be the basis of decisions. As scientifically literate citizens we are under an obligation to understand, discuss, and analyze the issues in a deliberative and objective manner. Honest disagreements between members of the community should not lead inevitably to the conclusion that the motives of some are suspect. As a board member who may already have strong opinions on this matter, you have the obligation to understand the issue, do everything possible to help both sides understand and appreciate the concerns of the other, and then resolve the issue to the best of your ability working within the confines of the law.

Scoring Rubrics:

Your written paper should reflect the processes and procedures of critical thinking; your oral presentation should reflect critical thinking dispositions.

Expert Essay Scoring Rubric

Oral Presentation Scoring Rubric

Conclusion:

This problem-based learning activity has been designed to help students understand the following things:

1. Content -- Teachers of science understand and can articulate the knowledge and practices of contemporary science. they can interrelate and interpret important concepts, ideas, and applications in their fields of licensure, and can conduct scientific investigations. (NSTA Teacher Preparation Standard 1)
2. Nature of Science -- Teachers of science engage students effectively in studies of the history, philosophy, and practice of science. They enable students to distinguish science from non-science, understand the evolution and practice of science as a human endeavor, and critically analyze assertions made in the name of science. (NSTA Teacher Preparation Standard 2)
3. Inquiry -- Teachers of science engage students in studies of various methods of scientific inquiry and in active learning through scientific inquiry. They encourage students, individually and collaboratively, to observe, ask questions, design inquiries, and collect and interpret data in order to develop concepts and relationships from empirical experiences. (NSTA Teacher Preparation Standard 3)
4. Issues -- Teachers of science recognize that informed citizens must be prepared to make informed decisions and take action on contemporary science- and technology-related issues of interest to the general society. Students, therefore, should conduct inquiries into the factual basis of such issues and assess possible actions and outcomes based upon their goals and values. (NSTA Teacher Preparation Standard 4)
5. Science in the Community -- Teachers of science relate their discipline to their local and regional communities, involving stakeholders and using the individual, institutional, and natural resources of the community in their teaching. They actively engage students in science-related studies or activities related to locally important issues. (NSTA Teacher Preparation Standard 7)

Written by Carl J. Wenning, Coordinator
Physics Teacher Education Program
Illinois State University
Last updated August 12, 2009