On July 11th, AQCS Environmental attended a meeting sponsored by Northwest Pump in San Diego California. The primary function of the meeting was to sell EVR upgrade components to gasoline station owners and operators. As part of the meeting, VST, the producer of the only "balance" EVR Phase 2 system that has passed the CARB 180 day performance test gave the audience a preview of the system that should be approved for installation before the end of 2007. We were glad to get the opporitunity to take a look at the system and compare it to the existing Healy system that has already been approved.
The VST system consists of new hanging hardware (nozzles, hoses and breakaways) and a membrane vapor-processor that will control tank-pressure and virtually eliminate vapor losses from the vent pipes. Like other Phase 2 EVR systems, the VST system has the potential to pay for itself in 2-5 years due to the near elimination of inventory losses from the vent pipe. I applaud the effort of VST in producing the first and only balance EVR Phase 2 system that has successfully passed CARB performance tests. However, it appears that in their rush to be first to market, they did not research the market as well as they should have. What is the key element that VST missed? The VST system will only be available with "Exhibit 10" hoses that require the "Liquid Removal Test" . This small detail may entirely undermine the market position VST hoped to gain by being the first balance EVR Phase 2 system to market. Why you ask? The simple answer is "Cost of Ownership"
Balance systems have become very popular in the last four years because they are ORVR compatible, have a small number of moving parts and if configured correctly (as Exhibit 9 or Exhibit 5) can save owners substantial money in testing costs, repair costs, lost operational time and Air District fines. For a typical 36 fueling-point site, I would estimate that Cost-of-Ownership is increased by at least $1800-$2000/year, excluding potential regulatory fines and revenue lost due to down-time during testing.
It is true that the alternative to installing the VST balance system is the Healy Vac-Assist system that requires annual or semi-annual V/L testing. However, this testing can be conducted much more quickly, resulting in less lost revenue to down-time and has a lower failure rate, resulting in lower equipment replacement costs and lower potential regulatory fines.
Overall, the decision by VST to develop a system that requires liquid removal testing has made the choice of whether to go balanc or vac-assist much less obvious. I think it will now come down to cost of installation and owner preference. There is also the potential that other balance systems will be approved in the future that eliminate the need for liquid removal and by installing the VST system now moving to that system will be easier and less expensive. That, however, is speculation and must be weighed by the owners and operators that will be bearing the cost of the upgrade.
The VST system consists of new hanging hardware (nozzles, hoses and breakaways) and a membrane vapor-processor that will control tank-pressure and virtually eliminate vapor losses from the vent pipes. Like other Phase 2 EVR systems, the VST system has the potential to pay for itself in 2-5 years due to the near elimination of inventory losses from the vent pipe. I applaud the effort of VST in producing the first and only balance EVR Phase 2 system that has successfully passed CARB performance tests. However, it appears that in their rush to be first to market, they did not research the market as well as they should have. What is the key element that VST missed? The VST system will only be available with "Exhibit 10" hoses that require the "Liquid Removal Test" . This small detail may entirely undermine the market position VST hoped to gain by being the first balance EVR Phase 2 system to market. Why you ask? The simple answer is "Cost of Ownership"
Balance systems have become very popular in the last four years because they are ORVR compatible, have a small number of moving parts and if configured correctly (as Exhibit 9 or Exhibit 5) can save owners substantial money in testing costs, repair costs, lost operational time and Air District fines. For a typical 36 fueling-point site, I would estimate that Cost-of-Ownership is increased by at least $1800-$2000/year, excluding potential regulatory fines and revenue lost due to down-time during testing.
It is true that the alternative to installing the VST balance system is the Healy Vac-Assist system that requires annual or semi-annual V/L testing. However, this testing can be conducted much more quickly, resulting in less lost revenue to down-time and has a lower failure rate, resulting in lower equipment replacement costs and lower potential regulatory fines.
Overall, the decision by VST to develop a system that requires liquid removal testing has made the choice of whether to go balanc or vac-assist much less obvious. I think it will now come down to cost of installation and owner preference. There is also the potential that other balance systems will be approved in the future that eliminate the need for liquid removal and by installing the VST system now moving to that system will be easier and less expensive. That, however, is speculation and must be weighed by the owners and operators that will be bearing the cost of the upgrade.
