This invention relates to a method and apparatus for monitoring a Stage II fuel vapor recovery system to detect a partial or complete blockage in the system.
Historically as fuel was being dispensed into a vehicle's fuel tank, typically from an underground storage tank (UST), vapor in the vehicle's fuel tank would escape into the atmosphere. In order to prevent this, Stage II vapor recovery systems were developed to collect this vapor and return it to the UST.
Stage II vapor recovery systems recover fuel vapor released from a vehicle's fuel tank as fuel is being dispensed into the vehicle's fuel tank. As is known, Stage II vapor recovery systems may be a balance type system or a vacuum-assist type system. Stage II vapor recovery systems typically are only installed in urban areas where the escaping fuel vapors can pose a greater threat to the environment.
In a further effort to prevent fuel vapors from escaping into the atmosphere in areas where Stage II vapor recovery systems are not prevalent, automobiles and subsequently light vehicle trucks, sold in the United States have been required to include an on-board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) system, which is a vehicle emission control system that captures fuel vapors from the vehicle's gas tank during refueling. No fuel vapors escape from the fuel tanks of such ORVR equipped vehicles.
It is desirable to detect whether there is a partial or complete blockage in the vapor return path of a Stage II vapor recovery system. However it can be difficult to distinguish a blocked or otherwise restricted vapor return path from that of refueling an ORVR equipped vehicle.
In an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a system for detecting a restriction in a stage II fuel vapor recovery system is provided. In another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a method for detecting a restriction in a stage II fuel vapor recovery system is provided. In an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a computer readable medium is provided including instructions which when executed by a controller are used to detect a restriction in a stage II fuel vapor recovery system.
In another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a method for monitoring for a restriction in the vapor recovery system for a fuel dispensing system which dispenses fuel from a plurality of dispensing nozzles into ORVR and non-ORVR equipped vehicles is provided. The method comprising determining over a period of time, for each dispensing nozzle, an ORVR penetration ratio of A/L ratios below a first threshold versus A/L ratios above the first threshold; flagging one of the dispensing nozzles if it is determined that there has been a series of detected A/L ratios at the one dispensing nozzle below the first threshold; upon completion of the period of time, determining an average of the ORVR penetration ratios of the non-flagged dispensing nozzles; determining an acceptable ORVR penetration ratio as a function of the determined average ORVR penetration ratio; comparing the ORVR penetration ratio of each of the flagged dispensing nozzles to the acceptable ORVR penetration ratio; and providing an indication for a given flagged dispensing nozzle if the penetration ratio for the flagged dispensing nozzle is greater than the acceptable ORVR penetration ratio. In one example, the period of time is one day. In another example, the period of time is one week. In a further example, the indication is an alarm. In still another example, the function of the average penetration ratio is equal to [(1−average penetration ratio)/x+average penetration ratio], wherein x=a number greater than 1. In one variation, x=2. In yet another example, the method is performed by a controller.
In still another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a system for monitoring for a restriction in the vapor recovery system for a fuel dispensing system which dispenses fuel from a plurality of dispensing nozzles into ORVR and non-ORVR equipped vehicles is provided. The system comprising a controller. The controller determines over a period of time, for each dispensing nozzle, an ORVR penetration ratio of A/L ratios below a first threshold versus A/L ratios above the first threshold; flags one of the dispensing nozzles if it is determined that there has been a series of detected A/L ratios at the one dispensing nozzle below the first threshold; upon completion of the period of time, determines an average of the ORVR penetration ratios of the non-flagged dispensing nozzles; determines an acceptable ORVR penetration ratio as a function of the determined average ORVR penetration ratio; compares the ORVR penetration ratio of the flagged dispensing nozzles to the acceptable ORVR penetration ratio; and provides an indication for a given flagged dispensing nozzle if the penetration ratio for the flagged dispensing nozzle is less than the acceptable penetration ratio. In one example, the period of time is one day. In another example, the period of time is one week. In a further example, the indication is an alarm. In still another example, the function of the average penetration ratio is equal to [(1−average penetration ratio)/x+average penetration ratio], wherein x=a number greater than 1. In one variation, x=2.
In another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a method for monitoring for a restriction in the vapor recovery system for a fuel dispensing system which dispenses fuel from a plurality of dispensing nozzles into ORVR and non-ORVR equipped vehicles is provided. The method comprising for each fueling transaction, determining over a period of time an average of the A/L ratio for each fueling transaction either below a lower threshold or above an upper threshold, the upper threshold being greater than the lower threshold, determining whether a number of sequential fueling transactions having A/L ratios falling between the lower and upper thresholds exceed a threshold number; including fueling transactions having A/L ratios falling between the lower and upper thresholds in the average of the A/L ratios if the number of sequential fueling transactions having A/L ratios falling between the upper and lower thresholds exceed the threshold number, such inclusion to continue until a fueling transaction having an A/L ratio below the lower threshold or above the upper threshold is determined; comparing the determined average of the A/L ratios to a first lower test threshold and to a first upper test threshold; and providing an indication if the determined average of the A/L ratios is below the first lower test threshold or above the first upper test threshold. In one example, the threshold number of sequential fueling transactions having A/L ratios falling between the upper and lower thresholds is eleven. In another example, the period of time is a day. In a further example, the method further comprises determining a weekly ORVR average as an average of seven consecutive daily averages; comparing the determined average of the A/L ratios to a second lower test threshold and to a second upper test threshold; and providing an indication if the determined average of the A/L ratios is below the second lower test threshold or above the second upper test threshold.
In still another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a system for monitoring for a restriction in the vapor recovery system for a fuel dispensing system which dispenses fuel from a plurality of dispensing nozzles into ORVR and non-ORVR equipped vehicles is provided. The system comprising a controller. The controller for each fueling transaction, determines over a period of time an average of the A/L ratio for each fueling transaction either below a lower threshold or above an upper threshold, the upper threshold being greater than the lower threshold; determines whether a number of sequential fueling transactions having A/L ratios falling between the lower and upper thresholds exceed a threshold number, includes fueling transactions having A/L ratios falling between the lower and upper thresholds in the average of the A/L ratios if the number of sequential fueling transactions having A/L ratios falling between the upper and lower thresholds exceed the threshold number, such inclusion to continue until a fueling transaction having an A/L ratio below the lower threshold or above the upper threshold is determined; compares the determined average of the A/L ratios to a first lower test threshold and to a first upper test threshold; and provides an indication if the determined average of the A/L ratios is below the first lower test threshold or above the first upper test threshold. In one example, the threshold number of sequential fueling transactions having A/L ratios falling between the upper and lower thresholds is eleven. In another example, the period of time is a day. In a further example, the controller determines a weekly ORVR average as an average of seven consecutive daily averages; compares the determined average of the A/L ratios to a second lower test threshold and to a second upper test threshold; and provides an indication if the determined average of the A/L ratios is below the second lower test threshold or above the second upper test threshold.
The above-mentioned and other features and advantages of this invention, and the manner of attaining them, will become more apparent and the invention itself will be better understood by reference to the following description of an embodiment of the invention taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein:
While this invention is susceptible of embodiments in many different forms, there is shown in the drawings and will herein be described in detail, preferred embodiments of the invention with the understanding that the present disclosure is to be considered as an exemplification of the principles of the invention and is not intended to limit the broad aspects of the invention to the embodiments illustrated.
A fuel dispensing system 10, such as one for use at a conventional retail gasoline station, is illustrated in
The fuel dispensing system 10 also includes a fuel delivery system 30 for transferring fuel 24 from the UST 20 to each of the dispensing points 14. The fuel delivery system 30 typically includes a fuel supply line 32 to provide a common conduit for fuel delivery from the UST 20 to a branch fuel line 34 associated with a respective one of each of the dispensers 12. A pump 35 is provided in UST 20 to pump fuel through a fuel supply line 32 to dispensers 12. Each of the branch fuel lines 34 then splits into two fuel delivery lines 36 to provide fuel to each of the dispensing points 14 of a particular one of the dispensers 12. Each of the fuel delivery lines 36 includes a fuel flow sensor 38. Each of the fuel flow sensors 38 generates an electrical signal indicative of the quantity of fuel flowing through the sensor 38, and thus dispensed into a vehicle (not shown). In one embodiment, sensors 38 are volume sensors. The signals from the fuel flow sensors are communicated to a microprocessor based controller 26, such as Franklin Electric Co., Inc.'s TS-5 automatic tank gauge, which runs software in a conventional manner. The controller 26 and associated conventional memory 27 are typically located in a station house.
The fuel dispensing system 10 also includes a Stage II vapor recovery system 40. The vapor recovery system 40 may be either a balance type system or a vacuum-assist type system.
Similar to the fuel delivery system 30, the vapor recovery system 40 includes a common vapor return line 42 to provide a common vapor return conduit to return fuel vapor from each of the dispensing points 14 to the UST 20. Each of the dispensing points 14 has an associated dispensing point vapor return line 44. The two dispensing point vapor return lines 44 for each of the dispensing points 14 associated with a respective one of the dispensers 12 connect to a dispenser vapor return line 46. Each of the dispenser vapor return lines 46 connects with the common vapor return line 42.
A return flow sensor 48 is placed in-line with each of the dispenser vapor return lines 46 (i.e., a single return flow sensor is associated with each of the dispensers). The return flow sensors 48 generate electrical signals indicative of the magnitude of vapor return flow through their associated dispenser vapor line towards the UST 20. In one embodiment, sensor 48 is a volume sensor. These electrical signals from the return flow sensors are also electrically transmitted to the controller 26. In one embodiment, each dispenser 12 includes pump electronics 11 which monitor the condition (active or idle) of each of the dispensing points 14, sensors 38 and 48, and the customer display outputs of the dispenser 12.
As discussed above, vehicles on the road today are either on-board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) equipped, or not. In a vehicle that is not ORVR equipped, as fuel is dispensed into the vehicle's fuel tank (a non-ORVR transaction), fuel vapor from the vehicle's fuel tank is displaced by the dispensed fuel and is returned to the UST via the vapor recovery system.
In an ORVR equipped vehicle, fuel vapor is prevented from escaping from the vehicle's fuel tank into the atmosphere. Thus as fuel is dispensed into the ORVR equipped vehicle's fuel tank (an ORVR transaction), there is no fuel vapor returned to the UST 20.
“A/L” (air/liquid) is a ratio of the volume of vapor returned to the UST 20 from a particular dispensing point 14 divided by the quantity of fuel dispensed from that dispensing point 14. The present system includes in-station diagnostics (ISD) to monitor the A/L values of the dispensing points 14 to monitor either for either a total or partial restriction in the vapor return path (a “restricted condition”). For this the ISD utilizes the return flow sensors 48 in each of the dispenser vapor return lines 46 and the fuel flow sensors 38 in each of the fuel delivery lines 36. As discussed above, the controller 26 receives a signal from each of the return flow sensors 48 and each of the fuel flow sensors 38. Because each return flow sensor 48 is in-line with two dispensing points, the controller 26 ignores a return flow signal if both dispensing points 14 associated with the common return flow sensor 48 are active.
One difficulty of detecting a restricted condition is that the A/L ratio in the event of a restricted condition may not be significantly different than the A/L ratio when refueling an ORVR equipped vehicle. The present invention contemplates two detection systems for distinguishing between a restricted condition and the refueling of an ORVR equipped vehicle. The first detection system is particularly adapted for use in conjunction with a balance type vapor recovery system, and the second detection system is particularly adapted for use in conjunction with an assist type vapor recovery system. However this does not mean that either detection system can only be used in conjunction with either a balance type vapor recovery system or an assist type vapor recovery system.
The First Detection System
Referring to
If the controller 26 detects a pre-set number, such as six, of consecutive ORVR transactions (as represented by block 106), a statistically an unlikely number of ORVR equipped vehicles to be consecutively refueled from the same dispensing point, the controller 26 electronically “flags” the dispensing point 14 (as represented by block 108). Once a dispensing point 14 is flagged, it remains flagged for the balance of the test period, typically a day.
At the end of each test period (as represented by block 110), the controller 26 calculates a “collective ORVR penetration percentage” of the ORVR penetration percentages of all of the non-flagged dispensing points 14 (as represented by block 112). In one embodiment, the collective ORVR penetration percentage is determined by summing the ORVR penetration percentage for each non-flagged dispensing point 14 and dividing by the total number of non-flagged dispensing points 14. The controller 26 then compares the ORVR penetration percentage of each flagged dispensing point 14 to a minimum ORVR penetration percentage required to fail (as represented by block 114). The controller 26 calculates the minimum ORVR penetration percentage required to fail as a function of the ORVR penetration percentage according to the following formula:
(1−ORVR%NON-FlaggedFP)/2+ORVR%NON-FlaggedFP
It should be noted that other formulas could be used. For example, x could be number greater than 1, but other than 2.
In order for a particular flagged dispensing point 14 to fail, the controller 26 must determine the ORVR penetration percentage of the particular flagged dispensing point 14 (ORVR%FlaggedFP) is greater than 1−the collective ORVR penetration percentage of the non-flagged dispensing points 14 divided by two (1-ORVR%NON-FlaggedFP)/2) plus the collective ORVR penetration percentage of the non-flagged dispensing points 14 (ORVR%NON-FlaggedFP)
The table below illustrates the minimum ORVR penetration percentage required for the controller 26 to fail a flagged dispensing point 14 (Col. C), based upon various collective ORVR penetration percentages of the non-flagged dispensing points 14 (Col. A).
According to the above table, if the collective ORVR penetration percentage is 90%, or greater, the controller 26 will fail any flagged dispensing point. Alternatively the controller 26 could continue to perform the above calculation for these values.
In the event that no dispensing point 14 is flagged, no comparisons are made and the controller 26 does not fail any of the dispensing points, regardless of the ORVR penetration percentage of any of the dispensing points.
In the event all of the dispensing points 14 are flagged (as represented by block 111), then the controller 26 compares the ORVR penetration percentage of each dispensing point 14 to a preset penetration percentage (as represented by block 116). The preset penetration percentage is based upon an estimate by the California Air Resources Board of the ORVR penetration percentage, and is as follows for the years 2008-2020:
In such a case, if the controller determines the ORVR penetration percentage of any of the dispensing points 14 is greater than the estimated ORVR penetration percentage for the given year, the controller fails that dispensing point 14.
In the event the controller 26 fails one or more dispensing points 14, the controller 26 notifies the proper entity, such as the manager of the gasoline station. In one embodiment, an alarm is provided in the central location which includes controller 26, such as the station house. The alarm may be one or more of audio, visual, and tactile. In one embodiment, there is an audio alarm and a visible light. In one embodiment, the failed dispensing point 14 is shut down until the alarm condition is cleared. In one embodiment, the alarm condition may be communicated to proper entity over a network. Examples include an e-mail message, a fax message, a voice message, a text message, an instant message, or any other type of messaging communication.
The Second Detection System
Referring to
To determine the daily and weekly average for each dispensing point 14, the controller 26 calculates a running average of all A/L transactions outside of the ORVR Range, as well as certain A/L transactions within the ORVR Range.
Specifically, initially in calculating the running average, the controller 26 ignores all transactions within the ORVR Range (as represented by block 204), assuming them to be ORVR transactions. However if the controller 26 detects a preset number, such as eleven, consecutive A/L transactions within the ORVR Range (as represented by block 206), the controller 26 begins including subsequent, consecutive transactions within the ORVR Range in calculating the running average (as represented by block 208), until such time as the controller 26 detects another A/L transaction outside of the ORVR Range, i.e., either greater than 0.50 or less than 0.15. Upon detection of a subsequent A/L transaction outside of the ORVR Range, the controller 26 subsequently only includes A/L transactions outside of the ORVR Range in calculating the running average (as generally represented by block 210), until such time as the controller 26 detects another series of eleven A/L transactions within the ORVR Range, at which time the above is repeated.
At the end of the day (as generally represented by block 212), the controller 26 compares the daily average of each of the dispensing points 14 with a threshold A/L value (as generally represented by block 214).
The Healy 900 Series nozzle has been certified by CARB to provide an A/L ratio between 0.95 and 1.15 when fueling non-ORVR equipped vehicles. CARB has also established minimum requirements for monitoring for a “Gross Failure” condition and for monitoring for a “Degradation” condition.
Monitoring for a gross failure condition is performed on a daily basis utilizing the daily average. CARB CP-201 establishes a lower threshold value of the daily average at 75% below the lower certified A/L ratio (i.e., 75% below 0.95 for a Healy 900 Series nozzle) and establishes an upper threshold value of the daily average at 75% above the higher certified A/L ratio (i.e., 75% above 1.15 for a Healy Series nozzle). For the present system utilizing a Healy 900 Series nozzle, this calculates to be 0.24 (25% of 0.95) and 2.0 (175% of 1.15), respectively. According to CARB, if the daily average is below the lower threshold value or above the upper threshold value for two consecutive assessment periods (typically one day each), an alarm must be sounded and dispensing from the respective dispensing pump must be ceased.
The controller 26 of the present system utilizes a more stringent standard. Specifically the controller 26 utilizes a lower threshold value of 0.33 (65% below 0.95 for the Healy 900 Series nozzle) and an upper threshold value of 1.90 (65% above 1.15 for the Healy 900 Series nozzle), and only over a single day.
If the controller 26 determines that the daily average A/L for a given nozzle 18 is below 0.33, or above 1.90, the controller triggers an alarm indicating a Gross Failure condition. In one embodiment, an alarm is provided in the central location which includes controller 26, such as the station house. The alarm may be one or more of audio, visual, and tactile. In one embodiment, there is an audio alarm and a visible light. In one embodiment, the alarm condition may be communicated to proper entity over a network. Examples include an e-mail message, a fax message, a voice message, a text message, an instant message, or any other type of messaging communication. The controller may also perform such other steps which are deemed necessary, such as shutting down the failed dispensing point 14 until the alarm condition is cleared.
When monitoring for a Degradation Condition, the controller 26 determines a running weekly average A/L. The weekly average A/L is determined as is the daily average A/L, discussed above, just over a seven day period, typically from early Sunday morning until late the following Saturday night. In one embodiment, the weekly average A/L is determined by using the techniques discussed herein for determining the daily average A/L except that the time period is for a week, not a day.
For monitoring for a Degradation Condition, CARB has established a lower threshold value of the weekly average A/L at least 25% below the lower certified A/L ratio (i.e., 25% below 0.95 for the Healy 900 Series nozzle) and an upper threshold value of the weekly average A/L at least 25% above the higher certified A/L ratio (i.e., 25% above 1.15 for the Healy 900 Series nozzle). For the present system with the Healy 900 Series nozzle, this calculates to be 0.71 (75% of 0.95) and 1.44 (125% of 1.15), respectively.
If the weekly average for any of the dispensing points 14 is below this lower weekly threshold value, or above this upper weekly threshold value, CARB requires a degradation condition be determined.
The controller 26 also uses more stringent weekly threshold values for determining a Degradation Condition. Specifically the controller 26 utilizes a lower weekly threshold value of 0.81 (15% below 0.95 for the Healy 900 Series nozzle) and an upper weekly threshold value of 1.32 (15% above 1.15 for the Healy 900 Series nozzle).
If the controller 26 determines that the weekly average A/L for a given nozzle 18 is below 0.81, or above 1.32, the controller 26 triggers an alarm indicating a Degradation Condition. In one embodiment, an alarm is provided in the central location which includes controller 26, such as the station house. The alarm may be one or more of audio, visual, and tactile. In one embodiment, there is an audio alarm and a visible light. In one embodiment, the alarm condition may be communicated to proper entity over a network. Examples include an e-mail message, a fax message, a voice message, a text message, an instant message, or any other type of messaging communication. The controller 26 may also perform such other steps which are deemed necessary, such as shutting down the failed dispensing point 14 until the alarm condition is cleared.
From the foregoing, it will be observed that numerous variations and modifications may be affected without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. It is to be understood that no limitation with respect to the specific apparatus illustrated herein is intended or should be inferred.
This application is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/413,099, filed Mar. 6, 2012, which is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/473,623, filed May 28, 2009, titled METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MONITORING FOR A RESTRICTION IN A STAGE II FUEL VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/056,522, filed May 28, 2008, the entire disclosures of which are expressly incorporated by reference herein. This application is related to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/056,528, filed May 28, 2008, the entire disclosure of which is expressly incorporated by reference herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3350704 | Kessler | Oct 1967 | A |
3735634 | Clinton et al. | May 1973 | A |
3745338 | Joyce | Jul 1973 | A |
3800586 | Delatorre et al. | Apr 1974 | A |
4131216 | Gerstenmaier et al. | Dec 1978 | A |
4147096 | Caswell | Apr 1979 | A |
4166485 | Wokas | Sep 1979 | A |
4215565 | Zanker | Aug 1980 | A |
4247899 | Schiller et al. | Jan 1981 | A |
4320653 | Bernhardt | Mar 1982 | A |
4410109 | Murrell, Jr. et al. | Oct 1983 | A |
4442702 | Sawada | Apr 1984 | A |
4462249 | Adams | Jul 1984 | A |
4508127 | Thurston | Apr 1985 | A |
4523454 | Sharp | Jun 1985 | A |
4534208 | Macin et al. | Aug 1985 | A |
4543819 | Chin et al. | Oct 1985 | A |
4566504 | Furrow et al. | Jan 1986 | A |
4568925 | Butts | Feb 1986 | A |
4570686 | Devine | Feb 1986 | A |
4611729 | Gerstenmaier et al. | Sep 1986 | A |
4653334 | Capone | Mar 1987 | A |
4670847 | Furuse | Jun 1987 | A |
4680004 | Hirt | Jul 1987 | A |
4687033 | Furrow et al. | Aug 1987 | A |
4749009 | Faeth | Jun 1988 | A |
4827987 | Faeth | May 1989 | A |
4835522 | Andrejasich et al. | May 1989 | A |
4835717 | Michel | May 1989 | A |
4842027 | Faeth | Jun 1989 | A |
4862734 | Elderton | Sep 1989 | A |
4871450 | Goodrich et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
4876530 | Hill | Oct 1989 | A |
4914943 | Lagergren | Apr 1990 | A |
4938251 | Furrow et al. | Jul 1990 | A |
4967809 | Faeth | Nov 1990 | A |
4978029 | Furrow et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
4986445 | Young et al. | Jan 1991 | A |
5013434 | Furrow | May 1991 | A |
5014543 | Franklin et al. | May 1991 | A |
5027499 | Prohaska | Jul 1991 | A |
5038838 | Bergamini et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
5040077 | Hamano | Aug 1991 | A |
5040576 | Faeth | Aug 1991 | A |
5040577 | Pope | Aug 1991 | A |
5065350 | Fedder | Nov 1991 | A |
5090234 | Maresca, Jr. et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
5116759 | Klainer et al. | May 1992 | A |
5129433 | Faeth | Jul 1992 | A |
5131262 | Wood et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
5143258 | Mittermaier | Sep 1992 | A |
5151111 | Tees et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
5156199 | Hartsell, Jr. et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
5165379 | Thompson | Nov 1992 | A |
5195564 | Spalding | Mar 1993 | A |
5203384 | Hansen | Apr 1993 | A |
5213142 | Koch et al. | May 1993 | A |
5216914 | Horner | Jun 1993 | A |
5220822 | Tuma | Jun 1993 | A |
5240045 | Faeth | Aug 1993 | A |
5244022 | Gimby | Sep 1993 | A |
5267470 | Cook | Dec 1993 | A |
5269353 | Nanaji et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
5280814 | Stroh | Jan 1994 | A |
5295391 | Mastandrea et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5316057 | Hasselmann | May 1994 | A |
5317899 | Hutchinson et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5319956 | Bogle et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5323817 | Spalding | Jun 1994 | A |
5325312 | Kidd | Jun 1994 | A |
5325896 | Koch et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5327776 | Yasui et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5327943 | Strock et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5332008 | Todd et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5332011 | Spalding | Jul 1994 | A |
5333654 | Faeth | Aug 1994 | A |
5333655 | Bergamini et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5355915 | Payne | Oct 1994 | A |
5365985 | Todd et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5369984 | Rogers et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5375455 | Maresca, Jr. et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5386812 | Curran et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5408866 | Kawamura et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5417256 | Hartsell, Jr. et al. | May 1995 | A |
5423457 | Nicholas et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5448980 | Kawamura et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5450883 | Payne et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5452621 | Aylesworth et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5460054 | Tran | Oct 1995 | A |
5461906 | Bogle et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5464466 | Nanaji et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5500369 | Kiplinger | Mar 1996 | A |
5507325 | Finlayson | Apr 1996 | A |
RE35238 | Pope | May 1996 | E |
5526679 | Filippi | Jun 1996 | A |
5542458 | Payne et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5563339 | Compton et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5563341 | Fenner et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5568828 | Harris | Oct 1996 | A |
5571310 | Nanaji | Nov 1996 | A |
5590697 | Benjay et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5592979 | Payne et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5625156 | Serrels et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5626649 | Nanaji | May 1997 | A |
5650943 | Powell et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5663492 | Alapati et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5668308 | Denby | Sep 1997 | A |
5671785 | Andersson | Sep 1997 | A |
5689061 | Seitler et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5720325 | Grantham | Feb 1998 | A |
5731514 | Miwa et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5752411 | Harpster | May 1998 | A |
5755854 | Nanaji | May 1998 | A |
5757664 | Rogers et al. | May 1998 | A |
5765121 | Schwager et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5779097 | Olson et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5780245 | Maroteaux | Jul 1998 | A |
5782275 | Hartsell, Jr. et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5794667 | Payne et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5803136 | Hartsell, Jr. | Sep 1998 | A |
5832967 | Andersson | Nov 1998 | A |
5843212 | Nanaji | Dec 1998 | A |
5850857 | Simpson | Dec 1998 | A |
5857500 | Payne et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5860457 | Andersson | Jan 1999 | A |
5868175 | Duff et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5878790 | Janssen | Mar 1999 | A |
5889202 | Alapati et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5890474 | Schnaibel | Apr 1999 | A |
5898108 | Mieczkowski et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5911248 | Keller | Jun 1999 | A |
5913343 | Andersson | Jun 1999 | A |
5915270 | Lehmann | Jun 1999 | A |
5942980 | Hoben et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5944067 | Andersson | Aug 1999 | A |
5956259 | Hartsell, Jr. et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5964812 | Schumacher et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5985002 | Grantham | Nov 1999 | A |
5988232 | Koch et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5992395 | Hartsell, Jr. et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6026866 | Nanaji | Feb 2000 | A |
6037184 | Matilainen et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6038922 | Mauze et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6047745 | Fournier | Apr 2000 | A |
6065507 | Nanaji | May 2000 | A |
6070456 | Cameron et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6082415 | Rowland et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6102085 | Nanaji | Aug 2000 | A |
6103532 | Koch et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6123118 | Nanaji | Sep 2000 | A |
6131621 | Garrard | Oct 2000 | A |
6151955 | Ostrowski et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6167747 | Koch et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6167923 | Hartsell | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6169938 | Hartsell | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6170539 | Pope et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6213172 | Dickson | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6223789 | Koch et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6244310 | Rowland et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6247508 | Negley, III et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6289721 | Blumenstock | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6302165 | Nanaji et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6305440 | McCall et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6308119 | Majkowski et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6311548 | Breidenbach et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6325112 | Nanaji | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6336479 | Nanaji | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6338369 | Shermer et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6347649 | Pope et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6357493 | Shermer et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6360785 | Healy | Mar 2002 | B1 |
D457084 | Pope | May 2002 | S |
6386246 | Pope et al. | May 2002 | B2 |
6418981 | Nitecki et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6418983 | Payne et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6460579 | Nanaji | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6499516 | Pope et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6532999 | Pope et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6578408 | Denby | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6622757 | Hart et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6644360 | Sobota et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6712101 | Nanaji | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6802344 | Hart | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6802345 | Hart et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6835223 | Walker et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6880585 | Hart et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6901786 | Hart | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6923221 | Riffle | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6941978 | Riffle | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6948536 | Castro | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6964283 | Hart | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6968868 | Hart et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
7117903 | Castro | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7275417 | Hart | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7566358 | Hart et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7849728 | Hart | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7909069 | Hughes | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7975528 | Hart | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8191585 | Mellone et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8402817 | Mellone et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8448675 | Mellone et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
20010004909 | Pope et al. | Jun 2001 | A1 |
20010020493 | Nanaji | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010022202 | Negley et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010039978 | Hart et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020043292 | Pope et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020056487 | Pope et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20030079797 | Hart | May 2003 | A1 |
20030192617 | Hart et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040069372 | Hart | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040154692 | Hart et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20050034778 | Hart | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050121100 | Riffle | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050121101 | Riffle | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20070267088 | Hughes | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080216916 | Hart | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20090293847 | Mellone et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20110220240 | Hughes | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20120160367 | Mellone et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
State of California, California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Including Summary of Comments and Agency Response, Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption, Amendment and Repeal of Regulations Regarding Certification Procedures and Test Procedures for Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems, Public Hearing Dates: Mar. 23, 2000, Agenda Item No. 00-3-2 (211 pp.). |
Wolf Koch, CARB Needs to Modify Plan for Improving Vapor Recovery Program, Viewpoint: More Time, Better Data Needed, Petroleum Equipment & Technology Magazine (Aug. 1999) (8 pp.). |
Wolf Koch, Is CARB Playing Favorites? Unbalanced Treatment of Assist Vapor Recovery Systems, Petroleum Equipment & Technology Magazine (Nov. 1999) (3 pp.). |
Ted Tiberi, Recognizing the Total Vapor Picture, Petroleum Equipment & Technology Magazine (Aug. 2000)(6 pp.). |
Glen Walker, Separating the Good Air From the Bad, Petroleum Equipment & Technology Magazine (Aug. 2000) (6 pp.). |
Robert Bradt, The Latest Word on Thermal Oxidizers, Petroleum Equipment & Technology Magazine (Sep. 2000) (7 pp.). |
Koch and Simpson, An Evaluation of CARB's Performance Tests, Petroleum Equipment & Technology Magazine (Oct. 1999) (9 pp.). |
Robert Bradt, Retooling the Vapor Recovery System, Petroleum Equipment & Technology Magazine (Aug. 2000) (3 pp.). |
Draft Performance Standards for In-Station Diagnostics (to be incorporated into CP-201), California Air Resources Board (Aug. 1999) (1p.). |
Robert Bradt, Retooling the Vapor Recovery System, Petroleum Equipment & Technology Magazine (Jul. 2000) (6 pp.). |
California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Vapor Recovery Certification Procedure, CP-201, Certification Procedure for Vapor Recovery Systems at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities (Feb. 2001) (46 pp.). |
California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Vapor Recovery Test Procedure, TP-201.5, Air to Liquid Volume Ratio (Feb. 2001) (14 pp.). |
California Air Resources Board, Title 17, Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Vapor Recovery Certification and Test Procedure Regulations for Enhanced Vapor Recovery (Mar. 2000) (11 pp.). |
California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Hearing Notice and Staff Report Enhanced Vapor Recovery Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the Vapor Recovery Certification and Test Procedures for Gasoline Loading an dMotor Vehicle Gasoline Refueling at Service Stations (Feb. 2000) (140 pp.). |
California Air Resources Board, Vapor Recovery Test Methods, Existing Procedures (Apr. 2000) (3 pp.). |
California Air Resources Board, Vapor Recovery Test Methods, Existing Procedures (Mar. 2001) (5 pp.). |
Can Escaping Vapors be Recaptured With New Technology? Petroleum Equipment & Technology Magazine (Apr. 1999) (6 pp.). |
California Air Resources Board, Vapor Recovery Certification Procedure, CP-201 (Apr. 1996) (39 pp.). |
California Air Resources Board, Vapor Recovery Test Procedure, TP-201.2 (Apr. 1996) (71 pp.). |
California Air Resources Board, Vapor Recovery Test Procedure, TP-201.3 (Apr. 1996) (28 pp.). |
Veeder-Root Company, ORVR Compatiblity and Vapor Recovery Monitoring (Sep. 2004) (2 pp.). |
Dennis Weber, et al., Passive Vapor Monitoring of Underground Storage Tanks for Leak Detection (May 1989) (18 pp.). |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability dated Aug. 31, 2010 in corresponding PCT application No. PCT/US2009/045424. |
International Search Report dated Nov. 26, 2009 in corresponding PCT application No. PCT/US2009/045424. |
California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Vapor Recovery Test Procedure TP-201.3, Adoptedd: Apr. 12, 1996, Amended: Mar. 17, 1999. |
California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Vapor Recovery Definitions, D-200, Adopted: Apr. 12, 1996, last Amended: Jul. 3, 2002. |
California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Vapor Recovery Certification Procedure, CP-201, Adopted: Dec. 9, 1975, last Amended: May 25, 2006. |
Franklin Fueling Systems, Fuel Management Systems, catalog, Dec. 2007. |
Executive Order VR-202-A, Healy Systems, Inc. Phase II Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) System Including Veeder-Root In-Station Diagnostics (ISD) System, State of California Air Resources Board, Aug. 31, 2005, (114 pages). |
Installation, Operation and Maintenance Manual for the Healy Phase II EVR System Including Veeder-Root In-Station Diagnostics (ISD) System, State of California Air Resources Board, Aug. 31, 2005, (250 pages). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130233442 A1 | Sep 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61056522 | May 2008 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13413099 | Mar 2012 | US |
Child | 13863553 | US | |
Parent | 12473623 | May 2009 | US |
Child | 13413099 | US |