Big Chemical Encyclopedia

Chemical substances, components, reactions, process design ...

Articles Figures Tables About

Leak detection removal systems

National capacity variance When developing a treatment standard, U.S. EPA examines the available treatment capacity to determine whether it is sufficient to handle current and future waste management needs. If U.S. EPA determines that nationally there is not enough capacity to treat a waste, it can automatically extend the effective date of the waste s treatment standard. Such an extension to the effective date is intended to give the waste treatment industry more time to develop the capacity to handle the waste. Wastes under a national capacity variance can be disposed of, without meeting the treatment standards, in landfills and surface impoundments that meet minimum technical requirements (e.g., liners, leachate collection and removal systems, and leak detection systems). [Pg.454]

The site conditions for an on-site landfill, such as location, geology, hydrogeology, physiography, climate, and so on, should also be suitable. Landfill should meet the minimum technology requirements and regulations for hazardous waste landfills such as double liners and leachate collection and removal systems, leak detection systems, closure procedures and final cover, and construction quality assurance.59... [Pg.640]

U.S. EPA bases its 1 gallon/acre/day leak detection sensitivity on the results of calculations that show that, theoretically, an LDS overlying a composite bottom liner with an intact FML component can detect, collect, and remove liquids from a top liner leak rate <1 gallon/acre/day. This performance standard, therefore, can be met with designs that include a composite bottom liner. Based on numerical studies, one cannot meet the leak detection sensitivity with a compacted soil bottom liner, even one with a hydraulic conductivity of 10-7 cm/s. Therefore, the emphasis of this standard is on selecting an appropriate bottom liner system. [Pg.1099]

This section presents an overview of collector design and materials, followed by a discussion of the three parts of a liquid management system the LCRS above the primary liner, the secondary leak detection, collection, and removal (LDCR) system between the primary and secondary liners, and the surface water collection system above the closure of the completed facility. The section concludes with a discussion of gas-collector and removal systems. [Pg.1126]

Finally, if high-level waste is considered to be hazardous waste under RCRA, requirements on construction, operation, and closure of a disposal facility, including the provision of a liner system, leachate collection and removal system, and leak detection system (see Section 4.2.2), would need to be addressed. Such requirements are impractical at a geologic repository for disposal of high-level waste... [Pg.230]

Emplacement in a near-surface disposal facility is the common disposition of solidified hazardous chemical waste, regardless of the hazard posed by the waste. Disposal sites must meet location requirements, and they must be provided with appropriate liner, leachate collection and removal, and leak detection systems. [Pg.241]

Although each of these factors can be considered individually, their effects on the speed of effective leak detection are cumulative. Materials that are less viscous will enter a given leak faster than those with greater viscosity. Materials that can be removed from the system faster will allow for faster verification. Materials that are easy for the detector to notice require less hesitation during detection. Finally, the smaller a system is, the less time that is needed for the probe gas to fill all areas. [Pg.445]

Modern landfill facilities, waste lagoons, and leachate ponds use geotextiles in their key designed systems to contain wastes within the facility. The main designed systems are groundwater and gas collection systems underneath the base liner system, typically consisting of a leak detection system and a leachate collection and removal system, and within the final cover system to collect gas and water below and above the barrier system, respectively. [Pg.429]

Approaches to blast protection can be categorised as active (deployed upon detection of an explosion) or passive (always present). An example of an active mitigation system is the water deluge system used on offshore oil and gas platforms [9]. Upon detection of a gas leak, the entire area is showered with carefiilly sized water droplets in order to prevent ignition and remove the energy from a vapour cloud explosion. An active system can only work if the imminent explosion can be detected and a suitable system deployed in time. These systems work offshore because the gas leak, which accumulates relatively slowly, can be detected easily and the water system deployed. A number of researchers have worked on the detection and deployment of mitigation devices for explosive detonations with military applications [10,11]. Such systems have yet to be deployed in the military, and (at the time of writing) no such detection systems are available for the case of explosive detonation on board an aircraft. For such a system to be viable, it would need to be robust and inexpensive to install and operate. [Pg.374]

In sodium systems the joints are made, as a rule, by means of welding. Some exceptions include flange joints of the sodium preparation system. Tanks for sodium transport (for example tank cars) are connected to sodium circuits with the use of removable sections. Often after carrying out of the connection operation some leaks through flange joints appeared. These leaks were immediately detected by personnel carrying out the operations and (or) by monitoring systems. [Pg.119]

In the sodium systems, weld joints are used as a rule. Flange joints are used as an exception in the sodium preparation system. Vessels for sodium transportation (such as railroad tank-cars) are connected to the sodium systems using removable pipeline sections. Leaks in the flange joints occurred very often after connection had been made. These leaks were detected on the early stage by the operator or detection systems. [Pg.126]

Any fuel assembly with a leaking rod is promptly detected by the system for fuel cladding integrity monitoring and is immediately removed from... [Pg.42]


See other pages where Leak detection removal systems is mentioned: [Pg.1137]    [Pg.1137]    [Pg.131]    [Pg.322]    [Pg.421]    [Pg.1094]    [Pg.1096]    [Pg.1127]    [Pg.322]    [Pg.130]    [Pg.217]    [Pg.421]    [Pg.461]    [Pg.136]    [Pg.318]    [Pg.336]    [Pg.297]    [Pg.484]    [Pg.137]    [Pg.131]    [Pg.90]    [Pg.119]    [Pg.237]    [Pg.264]    [Pg.345]    [Pg.347]    [Pg.274]    [Pg.135]    [Pg.90]    [Pg.57]    [Pg.70]    [Pg.110]    [Pg.137]    [Pg.177]    [Pg.260]   
See also in sourсe #XX -- [ Pg.1137 ]




SEARCH



Detection systems

Leak detection systems

Leak systems

Leaks

Leaks detection

Removal systems

© 2024 chempedia.info