The importance of public participation in legislation of TENORM risk management in the oil and gas industry

The great debate about incorporating public participation in the legislative process of oil and gas regulation is contentious and triggered by the political game theory, whereby states focus on building a strong economy and full sovereignty at the expense of the environment, the safety of their citizens, and health. The relationship between politics and the economy in oil- and gas-producing states is represented by the oil and gas industry. During oil and gas production, harmful radioactive materials known as TENORM (technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials) are coproduced. Furthermore, the coproduced radiological materials pose a serious radiological risk to workers in the oil and gas industry as well as the public. This occurs via radiological pathways that contaminate soil, water, and food sources due to the current methods of disposing radioactive materials that are stored either near the surface or underground. Incidentally, TENORM disposal sites that are subsequently developed into residential sites, commercial premises, or industrial sites can increase the radiological risk. This paper focuses on the relationship between the legislation and politics of the oil and gas industry and the laws associated with the oil and gas industry that protect human health and environmental safety. The paper aims to highlight the importance and activate the role of public participation in the formulation of legislation, by striking a balance between the interest of the authorities and interests of the public under democracy.

[1]  Sheila M. Olmstead,et al.  Risks and risk governance in unconventional shale gas development. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  Gerald Jacob,et al.  Site unseen : the politics of siting a nuclear waste repository , 1990 .

[3]  John Turnpenny,et al.  Noisy and definitely not normal: responding to wicked issues in the environment, energy and health , 2009 .

[4]  Gene L. Theodori,et al.  Hydraulic fracturing and the management, disposal, and reuse of frac flowback waters: Views from the public in the Marcellus Shale , 2014 .

[5]  D. Mah,et al.  Participatory governance for energy policy-making: A case study of the UK nuclear consultation in 2007 , 2014 .

[6]  Dorothy Nelkin,et al.  Technological Decisions and Democracy: European Experiments in Public Participation@@@Basic Human Needs: A Framework for Action , 1977 .

[7]  Jean-Philippe Waaub,et al.  Public participation in strategic environmental assessment (SEA): Critical review and the Quebec (Canada) approach , 2011 .

[8]  Daniel J. Fiorino Technical and Democratic Values in Risk Analysis1 , 1989 .

[9]  Lorna A. Greening,et al.  Design of coordinated energy and environmental policies: use of multi-criteria decision-making , 2004 .

[10]  M. Janssen,et al.  Geographical distribution of radiation risks in The Netherlands. , 1998, Health physics.

[11]  R. Kasperson Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication. , 1986, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Risk management and political culture , 1986 .

[13]  R. Keeney,et al.  Improving risk communication. , 1986, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  W. Rosenbaum The Paradoxes of Public Participation , 1976 .

[15]  R. Kasperson,et al.  Social Distrust as a Factor in Siting Hazardous Facilities and Communicating Risks , 1992 .

[16]  Miriam. Ricci,et al.  Engaging the public on paths to sustainable energy: Who has to trust whom? , 2010 .

[17]  Administrators' Beliefs About the Role of the Public: the Case of American Federal Executives , 1978 .

[18]  M. Wójcik,et al.  Enhanced radioactivity due to natural oil and gas production and related radiological problems. , 1985, The Science of the total environment.

[19]  R. Cole,et al.  The Public Hearing as an Effective Citizen Participation Mechanism: A Case Study of the General Revenue Sharing Program , 1984, American Political Science Review.

[20]  Faisal Khan,et al.  Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials in oil and gas production: A silent killer , 2016 .

[21]  Eugene A. Rosa,et al.  Nuclear Politics: Energy and the State in the United States, Sweden, and France. , 1990 .

[22]  R S O'Brien,et al.  Technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM): pathway analysis and radiological impact. , 1998, Applied radiation and isotopes : including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine.

[23]  S. Rayner Trust and the Transformation of Energy Systems , 2010 .

[24]  D. Wheeler,et al.  A participatory approach to sustainable energy strategy development in a carbon-intensive jurisdiction: The case of Nova Scotia , 2011 .

[25]  D. S. Cupps Emerging Problems of Citizen Participation , 1977 .

[26]  R. Clarke,et al.  Control of low-level radiation exposure: time for a change? , 1999, Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection.