Skip to main content

Controlling Hydrocarbon Emissions from Tank Vessel Loading (1987) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

6 Considerations in Developing New Policy
Pages 134-140

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 134...
... Hydrocarbon emission abatement is intended to reduce ozone levels near these ports. At the same time, the vessel operators will be faced with substantial costs, falling particularly heavily on smaller inland tank barge companies and low-volume terminals.
Read the entire page →
From page 135...
... lo lo lo Em lo 1 \V ~ ~ c' 11 11 a\\\\\\\\\ En ~c' ~ l\\\\\\ ~:\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~ ~ F\\\\\\\\\~\\E ~ By o ~ z ¢ c5 z ~ Al ~ y lo Ad I_a a: I_a On m ~n S a o a_ LL a: Ad Ad o l_a U' O CO (D ~Cal is' SNOT n w at N o at ,a ·,ao Go
Read the entire page →
From page 136...
... EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) system, under which the State Implementation Plans for ozone are to be submitted, offers no obvious mechanism for coordinating these initatives, beyond assessing their effectiveness in reducing emissions.
Read the entire page →
From page 137...
... Except to a limited degree, the Coast Guard has no specific regulations in place to address the safety of vapor control devices onboard tank vessels, although it does approve and inspect vapor recovery equipment under its general inspection authority. The Coast Guard has general authority to review and approve the safety aspects of shoreside facilities at terminals.
Read the entire page →
From page 138...
... , nationwide, and none would be conserved. Considering the current prospect for decreasing oil reserves and increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies in this country, such a policy, if implemented, would seem to be in conflict with national energy conservation policy.
Read the entire page →
From page 139...
... Appropriate regulatory coordination, with attention to safety and uniformity, can minimize them, but not avoid them altogether. REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES For federal regulators, the committee identified three possible approaches to the possible regulation of hydrocarbon vapor emissions from tank vessels: status quo, direct federal preemption, and a coordinated federal regulatory development program.
Read the entire page →
From page 140...
... Coordinated Federal Regulatory Development Program The third alternative is a cooperative program of regulatory development, in which the Coast Guard would establish vessel safety regulations (including personnel certification standards) and, in consultation with EPA, would develop compatible terminal safety provisions affecting the vapor control equipment on shore.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • coast guard
  • tank vessels
  • vapor emissions
  • hydrocarbon vapor
  • control requirements

  • ozone levels
  • reduce ozone
  • marine terminals
  • vessel safety
  • regulatory development

  • clean air
  • water pollution
  • explosive vapors
  • federal air
  • pollution control

  • international agreements
  • economic impacts
  • tank vessel
  • potentially explosive
  • federal regulatory

  • coordinated federal
  • destruction technologies
  • air act
  • status quo
  • control regulations

  • vessel operators
  • energy conservation
  • direct federal
  • require loading
  • national uniformity


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.