A comparative analysis of Texas and Louisiana Oil-field NORM Waste Policy

NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material) Waste Policies for the nation's oil and gas producing states have been in existence since the 1980's, when Louisiana was the first state to develop a NORM regulatory program in 1989. Since that time, expectations for NORM Waste Policies have evolved, as Health, Safety, Environment, and Social responsibility (HSE & SR) grows increasingly important to the public. Therefore, the oil and gas industry's safety and environmental performance record will face challenges in the future, about its best practices for managing the co-production of NORM wastes. ^ Within the United States, NORM is not federally regulated. The U.S. EPA claims it regulates NORM under CERCLA (superfund) and the Clean Water Act. Though, there are no universally applicable regulations for radium-based NORM waste. Therefore, individual states have taken responsibility for developing NORM regulatory programs, because of the potential radiological risk it can pose to man (bone and lung cancer) and his environment. This has led to inconsistencies in NORM Waste Policies as well as a NORM management gap in both state and federal regulatory structures. ^ Fourteen different NORM regulations and guidelines were compared between Louisiana and Texas, the nation's top two petroleum producing states. Louisiana is the country's top crude oil producer when production from its Federal offshore waters are included, and fourth in crude oil production, behind Texas, Alaska, and California when Federal offshore areas are excluded. Louisiana produces more petroleum products than any state but Texas. For these reasons, a comparative analysis between Louisiana and Texas was undertaken to identify differences in their NORM regulations and guidelines for managing, handling and disposing NORM wastes. Moreover, this analysis was undertaken because Texas is the most explored and drilled worldwide and yet appears to lag behind its neighboring state in terms of its NORM Waste Policy and developing an industry standard for handling, managing and disposing NORM. As a result of this analysis, fourteen recommendations were identified.^

Texas electronics waste management: A policy analysis for the 21st century

Electronic waste is a fairly new and largely unknown phenomenon. Accordingly, governments have only recently acknowledged electronic waste as a threat to the environment and public health. In attempting to mitigate the hazards associated with this rapidly growing toxic waste stream, governments at all levels have started to implement e-waste management programs. The legislation enacted to create these programs is based on extended producer responsibility or EPR policy. ^ EPR shifts the burden of final disposal of e-waste from the consumer or municipal solid waste system to the manufacturer of electronic equipment. Applying an EPR policy is intended to send signals up the production chain to the manufacturer. The desired outcome is to change the methods of production in order to reduce production outputs/inputs with the ultimate goal of changing product design. This thesis performs a policy analysis of the current e-waste policies at the federal and state level of government, focusing specifically on Texas e-waste policies. ^ The Texas e-waste law known, as HB 2714 or the Texas Computer TakeBack Law, requires manufacturers to provide individual consumers with a free and convenient method for returning their used computers to manufacturers. The law is based on individual producer responsibility and shared responsibility among consumer, retailers, recyclers, and the TCEQ. ^ Using a set of evaluation criteria created by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Texas e-waste law was examined to determine its effectiveness at reducing the threat of e-waste in Texas. Based on the outcomes of the analysis certain recommendations were made for the legislature to incorporate into HB 2714. ^ The results of the policy analysis show that HB 2714 is a poorly constructed law and does not provide the desired results seen in other states with EPR policies. The TakeBack Law does little to change the collection methods of manufacturers and even less to change their production habits. If the e-waste problem is to be taken seriously, HB 2714 must be amended to reflect the proposed changes in this thesis.^