Implementation Strategies for

Contingency Measures

Eric Skelton

Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group

FACA Subcommittee on Ozone, PM and

Regional Haze Implementation

Durham, NC

June 11, 1997

Background

Purpose of Contingency Measure in a SIP

Program

•	Assist a nonattainment area in meeting

reasonable further progress (RFP).

•	Assist a nonattainment area in attaining the

NAAQS by the applicable date.

•	Promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS in

a maintenance area.

Background

Contingency Measures for Current Nonattainment

Areas

•	For Ozone

- Fully adopted rule or measure.

- Can be a mix of VOC and/or NOx emission reductions.

- Need to provide for 3 percent emission reduction from

base year.

- Examples - Stage II recovery, Enhanced I/M, VOC

controls for minor sources.

•	For PM-10

- Must allow area to regain RFP or attain the standard.

- Examples - Liquid deicer substitution, Residential wood

combustion curtailment.

Background

Contingency Measures for Attainment Areas

Redesignated areas

•	Two types of contingency measures

- Statutorily-mandated control programs not

implemented prior to redesignation.

- Measures not fully adopted but considered an

enforceable part of maintenance plan.

Areas always in attainment

•	No contingency measures required to correct

any violation.

Issue 1. Should contingency measures

be episodic?

Status Quo:

Contingency measures are required to be real, permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable. Prohibited by Sec. 123 CAA.

Exceptions:

Residential wood combustion, silvicultural and agricultural prescribed burning, and open burning.

Pros:

Supplement permanent contingency measures.

May be more cost-effective than permanent measures.

May prove effective over time as public attitudes/awareness changes.

Cons:

Difficulty in predicting when needed.

May result in a number of false alarms.

Issue 2. To what degree should

voluntary measures be included as contingency measures?

Status Quo:

Contingency measures are required to be real, permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable.

Pros:

Supplement enforceable contingency measures.

More cost-effective than mandatory measures.

May prove effective over time as public attitudes/awareness changes.

Increase public's understanding of their role in abatement.

Cons:

Cannot tell ahead of time how effective the measure is.

Credit for voluntary measures may not be permissible under the CAA.

Window dressing serving to make people feel good.

Issue 3. Time frame for adoption.

Status Quo:

One year between ozone SIP submittal and contingency.

Option 1. Allow a longer period of time.

Pros:

Allows area to determine what is needed for contingency measures.

Allows area sufficient time to determine effectiveness of the measures.

Cons:

Measures not in place to correct violations or missed RFP milestone.

Option 2. Allow a shorter period of time.

Pros:

Measures ready for immediate correction.

Cons:

Insufficient or wrong type of emission reductions.

Issue 4. Backfilling with additional contingency measures?

Status Quo:

Maintenance and nonattainment areas do not have to backfill.

Option 1. The area is required to backfill with

additional contingency measures.

Pros:

Contingency measures would be ready if needed by the area.

Cons:

Additional resources would be expended to develop additional contingency measures that may not be needed.

Option 2. The area is not required to backfill with

additional contingency measures.

Pros:

Area could use resources for other attainment issues

Cons:

Area may not have contingency measures available as a fall back position if there is a violation of the standard or a missed RFP milestone.

Issue 5. Could a contingency measure be used to expand the area of an AOI and broaden the applicability of the control measures?

Scenarios:

•	Multi-jurisdictional expansion of the AOI.

•	Expansion of control measure within the AOI.

Pros:

•	Expeditious implementation of control measures on applicable new sources.

Cons:

•	Control measures may not be necessary for sources in expanded AOI.

•	Could delay in implementing initial reductions.

•	Multi-jurisdictional expansions between 2 states would require an agreement up front in the RIP development stage.

Issue 6. Will contingency measures be required for Class I areas for visibility purposes?

-	Areas that do not achieve the reasonable progress goal will have specific measures and a time frame to meet the goal.

-	Contingency measures may be a means to get the area back on track if it deviates from the implementation plan.

-	Issue addressed in the Regional Haze issue paper.

Issue 7. How much reduction is required?

Status Quo:

•	Ozone - 3 percent emission reduction from base year.

•	PM - Need to provide continued progress toward attainment.

Option 1. Unspecified emissions reduction credit.

Pros:

Very simple to develop a contingency measure that can claim progress.

Cons:

No accountability and minimal progress toward attainment.

Option 2. Quantifiable percentage of reduction.

Pros:

Progress is real and quantifiable

Cons:

Lack of "extra" measures that will demonstrate quantifiable progress.

Issue 8. Should there be a mechanism to allow substitution of equivalent measure(s) in lieu of SIP-planned contingency measures?

Examples of potential equivalent measures:

•	Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 240 program.

•	Title IV Acid Rain Program.

•	Department of Transportation developing new fuel efficiency standards.

Pros:

Provide additional flexibility.

Allow area to defer implementing the contingency measure until absolutely necessary.

Cons:

Has the potential of becoming an equity issue.

Substitution may cause attainment to take longer than if the contingency measure and national measure were implemented simultaneously.

Issue 9. Should measures, that were used by an area to bring it into attainment, be dropped from the maintenance plan?

Roll over as a contingency measure if technical demonstration shows the measure is no longer needed.

Issue 10. Should there be Federally prescribed contingency measures for attainment and/or maintenance plans?

Pros:

Federally prescribed contingency measures will provide national consistency.

Will level the playing field between nonattainment areas.

Cons:

Contingency measures promulgated may not be the right measures for all areas.

EPA will need to incorporate the concept of "rebuttable presumption" in each contingency measure.