|
Region 3:
Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia
For EPA related news and
events in Region 3,
click here.
Delaware
AUGUST 2008
EPA Monitoring Emissions
Using Infrared Technologies
EPA has been using infrared technology in order to identify emissions sources in
the states of Colorado, Louisiana and Texas. As of August 2008, ILTA terminal
member companies have reported that the technology is also being used in the
states of Delaware, Connecticut and New Jersey. For more information, please
click here.
Maryland
APRIL 2009
Baltimore Ozone
Area Subject to CAA 185
Clean Air Act 185
requirements may apply to several counties in Maryland given the region failed
to meet the 125 part-per-billion 1-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for Ozone by its 2005 attainment deadline. These counties include:
-
Anne Arundel
-
Baltimore City
-
Baltimore
-
Carroll
-
Hartford
-
Howard
In 2004, Maryland
failed to pass legislation that would provide the authority to implement the
Section 185 program. To date, no further action has been taken. For more
information on CAA 185,
click here.
Pennsylvania
February 2010 –
Comments on PA’s Low Sulfur Heating Oil Proposal:
On February 24,
ILTA submitted
comments to the Pennsylvania legislature regarding its proposal to lower the
allowed sulfur level in numbers 1,2,3 and 4 distillate heating oil. Other
states in New England and the mid-Atlantic region are considering similar
proposals.
Virginia
MAY 2007
Chesapeake, VA Imposes
Fees to Manage Costs of Ethanol Emergency Response
On May 8, 2007, the City of Chesapeake, VA passed an
ordinance establishing an annual 0.05¢ per shell-gallon capacity
on all combustible or flammable liquid tanks larger than 100,000 gallons. The
city council imposed this fee in response to the Chesapeake municipal fire
department. In 2006, the department expressed concerns about preparedness for
responding to ethanol-related emergencies from increased ethanol volumes
entering and moving through the community. Despite terminal industry
opposition, the city council voted for the new fee structure as
it felt it would “offset the costs of training and equipment” necessary to
respond to ethanol fires.
|
