Viewpoint pubs.acs.org/est
Innovation Promoted by Regulatory Flexibility Paige J. Novak,*,† William A. Arnold,† Bruce Henningsgaard,‡ Raymond M. Hozalski,† Katrina Kessler,‡ Timothy L. LaPara,† Al Parrella,§ Larry Rogacki,∥ Colleen Thompson,⊥ Randy Thorson,‡ Robert A. Zimmerman,# Charles B. Bott,∇ Glen T. Daigger,○ and J. B. Neethling◆ †
Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, United States Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, United States § Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, Duluth, Minnesota 55806, United States ∥ Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, United States ⊥ Green Lake Sanitary Sewer and Water District, Spicer, Minnesota 56288, United States # City of Moorhead, Moorhead, Minnesota 56561, United States ∇ Hampton Rhodes Sanitation District, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455, United States ○ Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, United States ◆ HDR Engineering, Folsom, California 97630, United States Regulations have been put in place across the globe to help protect the environment and moderate humanity’s footprint. In the US, regulations tend to be prescriptive, rather than performance-based, and carry penalties when these regulations are not met. This approach enables control of point source discharges and environmental protection at some critical level, and was certainly needed in the past to address gross pollution issues. Nevertheless, the current regulatory structure is inadequate to meet many of today’s challenges. Indeed, this approach does not foster innovation, incentivize superior performance, or enable appropriate consideration of the stochastic nature of environmental systems and treatment processes. In some cases, such prescriptive regulations may even fall short of desired outcomes in terms of protecting ecological or human health (e.g., The Obama Executive Order on the Chesapeake Bay and the EPA TMDL on the same). Regulations must be protective of the environment and based on sound science, but not narrowly focused or overly prescriptive, which may discourage alternative solutions. Regulations instead should be framed dif ferently, enabling innovation and, in the end, enhancing environmental and social/societal protection along with economic development. We invite our colleagues in policy development, rule INTRODUCTION making, and regulatory compliance to become partners to Humanity’s footprint, in terms of water use, water degradation, achieve greater sustainability by considering the following 1 and resource consumption, is unsustainable. In addition to recommendations. changing behavior with respect to resource use, technical innovation is needed to reduce this footprint, enabling low RECOMMENDATIONS energy water treatment and effective resource recovery. In Regulations Should Include Both Penalties for Poor research, there has been a push to stimulate/support new Performance and Rewards for Superior Performance. technology development, effective scale-up, and translation to Utilities often fear that producing an effluent significantly better application. These efforts are important for moving our society than their discharge requirements could lead to more stringent toward “sustainability,” where economic, social/societal, and limits in subsequent permitting cycles, simply because the environmental health are considered. Nevertheless, we posit utility has demonstrated that “they can do it” or regulations are that one of the largest barriers to the adoption of innovative framed in terms of “anti-backsliding.” As a result, utilities may technologies, and therefore to humanity becoming more moderate their performance to avoid unnecessarily stringent “sustainable,” is a regulatory one. To meet global challenges with respect to water and energy conservation, and thereby protect human and ecological health long-term, regulatory Received: November 2, 2015 flexibility is critical. ‡
■
■
© XXXX American Chemical Society
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05394 Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Viewpoint
Environmental Science & Technology
achievable if regulations are implemented in a flexible manner to allow for protection via a variety of technical and management approaches. Flexibility in regulation should also lead to the adoption of new technologies that provide corollary benefits such as energy efficiency, resource recovery, and ultimately, a move toward greater sustainability and a reduced human footprint on the Earth.
discharge requirements in the future. The vastly different time scales of permit cycles and debt schedules for facility repair/ upgrades only compound this problem. Dischargers demonstrating consistent and exemplary performance should instead be rewarded via financial benefits or simplified outcome-based discharge permits, providing incentives to continued improvement. This approach has been successful in other countries and there is reason to believe that it would be equally effective in the US. For example, in Denmark, minimum requirements are set to guarantee environmental protection, while additional pollution discharges above this level are taxed. Those who perform better (discharge less) pay less pollution tax, financially incentivizing good performance.2 Regulations Should Be Outcome-Based, Not Concentration-Based. Allowable discharges are typically determined on a mass-loading basis, but are often expressed in discharge permits on both a mass loading and concentration basis. This is the case for total nitrogen and phosphorus in Virginia for utilities discharging into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In addition, some permits require that this concentration-based number be met on a daily basis,3 regardless of how that specific requirement impacts a desired outcome and without regard for the stochastic and variable nature of natural systems and treatment processes. These requirements hamper the adoption of innovative technology that might have ancillary benefits such as lower energy or material use, lower average discharge levels, or removal of additional pollutants such as pharmaceuticals. The use of outcome-focused regulations would uphold the goal of environmental protection while simultaneously facilitating the use of innovative technologies. In fact, when implemented, outcome-based approaches have met with success. For example, the total mass load of phosphorus and ammonia discharged per month to Las Vegas Wash is allocated with no concentrationbased limit. Utilities are therefore able to meet the outcome of protecting Lake Mead (to which Las Vegas Wash discharges) while also limiting their chemical and energy usage, solids production, and overall expenditure. Outcome-focused Water Quality Trading has also been applied successfully, reducing costly plant upgrades that may not have resulted in a water quality benefit.4,5 Finally, Prescriptive Codes and Standards Should Be Examined and Updated More Frequently to Adapt to and Allow Innovative Practices/Technologies. Codes and standards have their place to ensure that public health and the environment are protected and that any required infrastructure is implemented efficiently and effectively. Nevertheless, little flexibility is provided for the consideration of new, higher performing approaches, and the time lag between early experiments and revisions of codes and standards is excessive. Plumbing codes, for example, are often impediments to the adoption of new practices, such as source separation, gray-water reuse, or rainwater harvesting. Indeed, several decades were required for the adoption of codes and standards for “purple pipe” dual “fit for purpose” water systems, which significantly retarded the adoption of water- and energy-efficient practices. If codes and standards were examined and updated frequently, updates would occur as new technologies were demonstrated, and not when crises, such as the droughts in Wichita Falls and Big Spring Texas, forced code/standard reexamination.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We acknowledge the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment (Legacy Amendment) to the Minnesota Constitution for funding of the Minnesota Wastewater Think Tank. All authors are members of the Minnesota Wastewater Think Tank. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of their organizations.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Hoekstra, A. Y.; Wiedmann, T. O. Humanity’s unsustainable environmental footprint. Science 2014, 344 (6188), 1114−1117. (2) Water Management Performances and Challenges in OECD Countries; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1998. (3) Clark, D. L., Hunt, G., Kasch, M. S., Lemonds, P. J., Moen, G., Neethling, J. B. Nutrient Management: Regulatory Approaches To Protect Water Quality, Volume 1 - Review Of Existing Practices, WERF NUTR1R06i . 2010; DOI: 10.2166/9781780403465 (4) Brown, J.; Sadick, T. A.; Daigger, G. T. Operating Experience of the First and Largest Low Level Nitrogen Removal Facility in Long Island Sound. Water Practice 2007, 1 (5), 1−11. (5) EPRI. Case Studies of Water Quality Trading Being Used for Compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Limits, 3002001454, 2013
■
SUMMARY Environmental, social/societal, and economic sustainability should be the ultimate goal of regulation, and this is more B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05394 Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
