| | Leak Detection for Landfill Liners Overview of Tools for Vadose |
| | 0,42 | | MB | Zone Monitoring |
| | 38 | | stron |
| | 2120 | | ID | UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| | 2002 | | rok |
| | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| | 1. PURPOSE 3 |
| | 1.1 Monitoring background 3 |
| | 1.2 Overview of leak sensor options 4 |
| | 1.3 Cost 5 |
| | 1.4 Other types of leak detection 5 |
| | 2. ESTABLISHED SENSORS 6 |
| | 2.1 Electrical 6 |
| | 2.1.1 Two electrode method 6 |
| | a. Advantages 7 |
| | b. Disadvantages 7 |
| | c. Example- Sandy Lane landfill 7 |
| | 2.1.2 Electrode grid method 7 |
| | a. Advantages 7 |
| | b. Disadvantages 8 |
| | c. Example 1- Sandy Lane landfill 8 |
| | d. Example 2- WESTEC’s Electronic Leak Detection System 9 |
| | 2.2 Diffusion hoses 9 |
| | a. Advantages 9 |
| | b. Disadvantages 9 |
| | c. Example- Siemens’ LEOS 10 |
| | 2.3 Capacitance sensors 10 |
| | a. Advantages 11 |
| | b. Disadvantages 11 |
| | c. Example- Troxler’s Sentry 200 EMMS 11 |
| | 2.4 Tracers 12 |
| | a. Advantages 12 |
| | b. Disadvantages 12 |
| | c. Example 1- Tracer Research Corporation’s Automatic Leak Detector 12 |
| | 2.5 Electro-chemical sensing cables 13 |
| | a. Advantages 13 |
| | b. Disadvantages 13 |
| | c. Example 1- Noverflow’s SMART CABLE 13 |
| | d. Example 2- Raychem’s TraceTek 14 |
| | 2.6 Other 15 |
| | a. Visual inspection 15 |
| | b. Wires in geotextiles 15 |
| | 3. EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES 15 |
| | 3.1 Geosynthetic Membrane Monitoring System 15 |
| | 3.2 SEAtrace 17 |
| | 3.3 FLUTe ideal system 18 |
| | 3.4 Other 19 |
| | a. LIDAR 19 |
| | b. Acoustic monitoring 20 |
| | 4. CONCLUSION 20 |
| | Appendix A- Overview grid 21 |
| | Appendix B- Contact information- available sensors 22 |
| | Appendix C- Contact information- emerging technologies 23 |
| | Appendix D- Web sites 24 |
| | References 25 |