环境工程专业英语第二版华南理工大学钟理主编纯手打，自己检查哈！Unit 33Reading Material:Pollution Control Strategies[Ⅱ]Legal Aspects and the Role of GovernmentLegislation to control the quality of water and air and the disposal of solid and hazardous wastes was introduced,with particular emphasis on the United States and Canada. It is the responsibility of government,at the national,state,provincial,or local level,to enact and update environmental control legislation. This legislation is generally written to provide the broad goals and objectives for environmental quality. It does not provide the means and methods by which these goals are to be achieved. Nor need it provide the details which are necessary to monitor and control the performance of pollution control facilities. It is,therefore,necessary for governments at all levels to establish regulatory strategies,in order to implement the broadly stated objectives of general legislation.The goal of environmental management strategies is to maintain or improve the quality of the ambient or surrounding environment. Ambient standards art determined for a number of different characteristics or pollutants within a medium suchas air or water. These standards are designed tominimize risks to the health of humans,animals,or theenvironment in general. The components for which these ambient standards are set must be quantifiable and scientifically measurable. In water and air,criteria are set for allowable concentrations of a variety of pollutants. Furthermore,the pollutants for which ambient standards are must be related to their sources. A regulatory agency can set ambient standards and monitor ambient conditions,but it cannot control or manage conditions except by controlling the sources of the pollutants which affect the ambient conditions. For example,in the air,it is desirable to maintain the concentration of particulates below a certain level. To do this,we must determine the possible sources of the particulates. Some of these sources may be identifiable,such as a smokestack or a burning garbage dump. But much of the particulate matte may come from unidentifiable or nonpoint sources,such as open fields, highways,or a forest fire many miles away. After the sources have been identified,it is necessary to relate the rate at which the pollutants are being released from the sources to the ambient concentrations. when this is done,it is possible to set allowable limits on the discharge of pollutants at the sources. This forms the basis for effluent standards.Effluent standards are ambient standards because they can be monitored and controlled in many cases. Even though the ambient quality is what we are interested in preserving,we normally try to achieve this by controlling effluent quality and quantity.Three main instruments are available to government for environmental control:direct regulation ,polluter subsidies,and they all work to internalize pollution costs to the polluter. They can be applied independently,but are usally applied in combination,Each of these instruments appears in a variety of forms,We shall consider some of the more common forms in which they are applied,as well as other interesting possibilities for controlling pollution,Direct regulation. The government can use its legislative powers to regulate the actions of individuals,corporations,and lower levels of government,Therefore,through direct legislative action,thequantity,quality,and location of discharges of pollutants can be regulated. The main forms of direct regulation are zoning;prohibition,or zero discharge;and effluent standards.Zoning. Zoning regulations are one of the simplest and oldest forms of pollution control and are still a part of almost every pollution control strategy. The objective is to separate the polluter form the rest of society by either space or time. Aresult of the so-called sanitary awakening in mid-nineteenth century Britain was the realization that open garbage dumps had to be removed from areas of dense population and kept away from public water supplies. Local bylaws were enacted to ensure that this was done so that the benefits to public health were realized. The prohibition on the burning of coal in nineteenth-century London whileparliament was in session is another example of this type of zoning. More recent examples of zoning to separate pollutions from the public are the location of airports, the use of curfews on airport operations,and the construction of tall chimneys or long marine sewage outfalls.Prohibition or Zero Discharge. Another form of direct regulation of pollution is prohibition,also known as zero discharge. The advantages of such a concept are obvious. First and foremost there would be no change in environmental quality. Moreover,all resources would have to be completely converted into useful products or stored indefiniteky. And the legislation would appear to be equitable,since the same regulation would apply to everyone. Such a concept,however,is normally impossible to realize,A simple materials balance shows that any resource taken from the environment,including energy,must be returned in some form. Even if it were conceivable to recycle all wastes into new products,there would still be a large energy requirement to achieve this. For most activities,zero discharge would be expensive if not impossible to achieve,At present,producers of extremely hazardous wastes,for which no treatment is available,are the only ones subjected to zero discharge requirements. They must store their wastes until a means of safe disposal is found.Effluent Standards. Effluent discharge standards are the most common and the most useful form of direct regulation. They can be in the form of across-the-board standards which require that effluents of allpolluters meet the same criteria,or thay may be individually developed for each polluter. The advantages of an across-the-board type of approach are that it is easy to administer,it appears fair to all polluters,and it provides the most rigid control over environmental quality. The disadvantages are that it may be uneconomical,and therefore impractical,to insist that all polluters meet the same effluent standards. Some polluters may easily meet standards that others will be unable to meet at all,or only at a very high cost. The different assimilative capacities of the environment in different locations can be taken into account only on a case-by-case basis. For example,a large,fast-moving river can accept a much larger amount of organic pollution than a small creek,and therefore pollutant concentrations from point-source discharges coule be much higher before river quality is seriously affected. Nevertheless,most jurisdictions prefer to set common effluent discharge guidelines,which must be met unless the contributor is specifically exempted.Subsidies. One method of encouraging polluters to comply with regulations is to provide money to help cover their costs. These subsidies may be in the form of direct payments or grants based on a percentage of the cost of pollution abatement or on a percentage reduction in effluent quantity or strength. They may also take the form of low-interest loans for the capital costs of improved treatment facilities.Alternatively,governments can reduce or defer taxes or relax other government requirements to encourage spending on pollution control.The main advantage of subsidies is that they reduce the costs of pollution abatement to the polluter and limit the associated increase in production costs. Governments grants can be used to cover capital costs,and tax incentives can be used to relieve operation and maintenance costs. Subsidies (the carrot) combined with regulations (the stick ) can be used by government to reduce stress on the environment and at the same time encourage research and development by industry in pollution abatement technology . The main disadvantage of polluter subsidies is that the government will have to increase taxes or direct money form other programs in order to pay the subsidies. This is partially offset by decreased expenditures needed to correct the effects of damage due to pollution(i.e. , expenditures on water treatment plants or public health care). However,these returns may be small compared to the costs involved. A general tax increase may seem fair when everyone benefits from an increase in environmental quality. In fact,however,people benefit to varying degrees,and some may balk at paying money for what appears to be someone else’s problem.Another serious drawback to the subsidy system is that it can be easily abused. The idea of paying someone to stop damaging the environment sounds suspiciously like a criminal protection racket . Allpotential polluters will want to be paid for not polluting. Companies may find that the subsidy available for waster reduction exceeds their actual costs of making the change. They may then increase their production above normal simply to receive a subsidy and go on to dump the extra goods at a lower price. In this situation,a polluting industry has been rewarded while its competitors who already treat their wastes adequately get no benefit.Service charges. Service or user charges are similar to subsidies in that monetary means are used to encourage a polluter to comply with effluent requirements. Charges are the most direct may of internalizing the costs of pollution to polluter. There are numerous types of service charges,but in general,money is paid to the local government or agency in proportion to the amount of pollution. The government or agency may then use the money to pay for and operate central pollution control facilities.The obvious advantage of a service charge is that it is the polluter who pays for the costs of polluting. The system rewards those industries that are clean and efficiently run and penalizes those that are dirty and wasteful. Also,it does not encourage increases in polluting activity ,as a subsidy system might. Finally,the administration of such a system is relatively easy ,requiring only the monitoring of discharges.The disadvantages are that production and operating costs for the industries connected may rise. If the service charges arenominal,industries may find it less expensive to simply continue polluting,If the charges are high enough force an industry to stop or severely restrict its effluent discharges,the industry may close down. In any event,the charges will be passed on in the form of increased prices for the industry’s products. Since each industry has different capabilities and costs related to controlling its wastes,a uniform service charge could upset the economic balance between competing industries. However,to customize effluent charges for each polluter would be an administrative burden and appear to be unfair.We are all familiar with charges for municipal services. In urban areas,we pay through property taxes or special levies to have refuse and sewage removed from our homes. In the same way ,industries may find it more convenient to pay to have their untreated wastes removed and disposed of at a central treatment facility. In some of the heavily industrialized areas of Europe, this has been found to be an attractive and efficient way to dispose of industrial wastes. In many cases,the extra cost of waste collection is offset by the economy of scale of large ,specialized treatment plants.In general,all wastes which do not harm the system or affect the operation of the treatment plant shoule be accepted without pretreatment.If the wastes are stronger than “normal” sewage,then a charge,or more correctly,a surcharge,should be assessed against the industry for the extra cost of sewage treatment . For this approach,a surcharge formula setting out the charges for accepting wastes stronger than normal would have to be included in the industrial waste bylaw. Ideally,charges for sewage treatment should be related to the cost of providing the facilities and the benefits received. The practical application of this method isdifficult,however,and various methods of charging for industrial wastes have evolved.。
