Evolution of Oil and Gas Waste/Soil Remediation Regulations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The meaningful United States regulation of onshore oil and gas field waste/soil commenced in the mid 1980’s in response to a series of state, federal, industry and international initiatives. Most initiatives centered on the design, construction and operation of earthen pits used in the exploration and production of oil and gas (E&P). Prior to this time, earthen pits were constructed as needed by the operator and used in all phases of E&P activity. Chief concerns of the regulators were focused on what had gone into pits historically, what was going into them currently and was the E&P exemption excluding high volume E&P wastes from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations justified. Several investigations, including the comprehensive field study by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1987, determined E&P wastes are ostensibly non-hazardous. EPA concluded regulation of E&P wastes under RCRA Subtitle C was not necessary. To this day there is no U. S. federal regulatory program with exclusive jurisdiction over exempt E&P wastes. Other studies, primarily industry and academic, focusing on land limiting constituents, management practices and pit closure strategies revealed sodium salts and petroleum hydrocarbon in the form of diesel range organics were the primary limiting constituents. One state, Louisiana, adopted the technical aspects of these studies and developed a comprehensive regulation known as Statewide Order 29-B, which was based on the concept of limiting constituents and defined post closure performance standards. These standards limited salinity, sodicity, total metals and total petroleum hydrocarbon (oil & grease) with values varying with respect to landform, land use and closure technique. Other states have adopted some of the concepts and criteria advanced under 29-B but none are as comprehensive. Obviously there is a need to control what goes into pits and how pits should be closed. The industry would best be served by adopting the concepts and standards set forth in the Louisiana 29-B regulation. A few of the provisions could be changed to make it more palatable to industry without sacrificing the protection afforded human and animal health, safety and the environment. Internationally, particularly countries in South America embraced USEPA protocol for testing characteristically hazardous wastes, but 1) without the framework to handle the relatively large volume of non-hazardous E&P waste generated and 2) no regulations or protocols for on-site waste management. Several operators, although partners with state owned oil companies, on their own volition, applied the concepts and standards under Louisiana’s 29-B to rainforests in South America and rice paddies in Indonesia. Canada and European oil and gas producing countries have developed stringent standards not based on science, which favor costly treatment technologies. Generally, these countries prohibit cost effective on-site waste management and closure techniques. This paper traces the evolution of waste/soil remediation within the United States and internationally. We trace the progress as a function of time; the impetus for regulation; and probable future controls.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».