The bubble concept
“If a company can, with equivalent environmental impact, get SO2 out of one process for 50 cents a pound and out of another for $1.00, we should permit the company’s engineers to control more of the first process and less of the second,” said EPA Administrator Costle in providing guidance to the states on the “Bubble” concept [44 Fed. Regisf., 3740 (Jan. 18, 1979)1. The purposes of the concept are: to “provide greater flexibility to sources to effectively manage their air emissions” to meet water effluent limitations at the “least cost.” This flexibility is created by placing an imaginary “bubble” over all or part of a plant and applying single emission or discharge limits to the “bubbled” portions, thereby replacing the traditional “stack by stack” or “pipe by pipe” controls. The concept allows sources to expand and increase air emissions or water discharges by “offsetting” the increases within the source or to control more economically existing emissions. In other words, certain “progress stifling” regulations can be avoided if “no net increase” in air emissions or water effluents occurs at the source. The bubble concept is one of many “market style” or economic alternatives being considered by EPA with the aim of providing more flexible, cost effective, pollution controls while not jeopardizing the Agency’s effort to clean up the environment.
In air, the concept is currently applied differently for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or “clean areas” than for nonattainment (NA) or “dirty” areas. The PSD regulations [43 Fed. Regist., 26380 (June 19,1978)] specifically incorporate the bubble concept. While applied somewhat differently to the technology review than to air quality impact analysis, exemptions are available from both these reviews if no net increase of an applicable pollutant occurs at the source. In N A areas, the final modification to EPA’s “offset ruling” [44 Fed. Regist., 3274 (Jan. 16,1979)] does not provide for “bubbling.” This reflects the policy belief that the need to reduce new emissions as much as possible in a “dirty” area is greater than in a “clean” area. However, also reflected is the heated debate within EPA, which predictably resulted in a compromise giving the states, rather than EPA, the option to “bubble.” The offset policy expires once the revised State Implementation Plans (SIPS) are approved by EPA. The Agency in its January 18 policy statement specifically encourages the states to make use of the “bubble” within those plans. Again, Costle cites the possible cost savings which “may help move some industries from a posture of belligerence to one of cooperation as they work with us to choose among possible solutions.” It is important to note that the bubble concept was specifically addressed in a D.C. Circuit Court opinion LASARCOu. EPA, 11 ERC 1129 D.C. Circ. 197811 in which the use of such an exemption was expressly disallowed in regard to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). EPA feels that bubbling would not frustrate the air quality protection purposes of PSD. But the use of this concept by EPA in the PSD regulations and by the states for NA areas may well give rise to similar litigation. At the moment the water bubble has
0013-936X/79/0913-0277$01.00 I O @ 1979 American Chemical Society
not been inflated. The concept is the same as in air, allowing lesser control for pipes where control costs are higher in exchange for additional treatment on other discharge pipes where control is cheaper. However, the ASARCO problem in concert with additional legal questions concerning the definition of “point source” have intensified internal EPA debate to the point where a proposal outlining the bubble approach to directors of state water programs has been withheld.
Future of the bubble The bubble concept represents a genuine effort by EPA to provide flexibility and cost savings to pollution control-yet its future is very much in doubt for it directly joins economic and environmental issues. Its many critics claim that it is designed to maintain the status quo, while the intent of the Clean Air And Water Acts clearly calls for environmental improvement. In air, the formal comment period on EPA’s policy statement closes shortly (March 18, 1979), although a final policy is not expected until May. But the real arena is at the state level and ample opportunity still exists for input. For example, it can be argued that EPA’s concern about enforceability makes its proposed policy statement so constraining as to severely limit the practical application of the “bubble.” In water, it seems clear that, barring substantial new pressure, EPA, given its internal dissention, is now reluctant to lead the way. The bubble concept does provide the incentive for industrial innovation and could become an example of a sensible balancing between environmental controls and costs. The next few months should tell whether this major new initiative in pollution control will expand to its potential and become an economic boon, or will be punctured by the barbs now being aimed at it and become an environmental bust. Volume 13, Number 3, March 1979
277
