Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Mahoney, Lenna A.

Publications and source records attributed to Mahoney, Lenna A..

At least 19 records

Evaluation of entropy driven jet symmetry transitions

Here we determine whether entropy drives planar turbulent jets into round turbulent jets. Determining when a jet flow transitions from one symmetry to the next is an important but incompletely resolved problem. The constructal view argues that the transition between symmetries of jet flows is governed by the minimization or maximization of entropy. Here we explore whether entropy increases with the transition of a planar turbulent jet into a round turbulent jet and whether entropy maximization (or minimization) predicts the same location of symmetry transition as velocity matching. We find that entropy considerations presented do not predict this transition.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

Overview of 2016 through 2018 Testing of Air-Purifying Respirator (APR) Cartridge Performance on Multiple Hanford Tank Headspaces and Exhausters

Between 2016 and 2018, 28 air purifying respirator (APR) cartridge tests were performed on headspace vapors from seven Hanford waste storage tanks (SY-102, A-101, BY-108, AX-101, BY-110, SX-101, and SX-104) and seven waste tank exhausters (AP in 2016, AP in 2018, 702-AZ, AN and AW in 2016, and AX and 702-AZ in 2017). All but two tests were conducted under static conditions absent waste-disturbing activities in the subject tanks or tank farms. The two exceptions were cartridges tested with vapors from 702-AZ in 2017 when samples were taken during waste-disturbing activities. Multipurpose APR cartridges, SCOTT 7422-SD1 and 7422-SC1, were tested on samples from each of the 14 tanks or exhausters. Out of 612 Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs), only ammonia, mercury, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), 2,5-dimethylfuran, 2,5-dihydrofuran, furan, and 1,3-butadiene exhibited breakthroughs with outlet concentrations that were >10% of their Occupational Exposure Limits (OEL).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Analysis of Air-Purifying Respirator (APR) and Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) Cartridge Performance Testing on Hanford Tanks BY-108 and BY-110 Volume 1

Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) tested four types of chemical cartridges for use in air-purifying respirators (APR) and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR). These tests were undertaken to determine the period of time that the cartridges would provide adequate performance for APRs and PAPRs used to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) from vapors exiting the headspaces of Hanford BY-108 and BY-110 waste storage tanks. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) considers cartridge testing to be a valid approach for establishing cartridge change schedules. Testing commonly is applied in situations where mixtures of COPCs exist, and where other approaches, such as manufacturer recommendations and modeling, are less reliable. The tests were designed and conducted to assure measurement and/or control of the key variables OSHA identified as important to estimate the cartridge service life, including temperature, humidity, COPC concentration, breathing rate, and cartridge adsorption capacity. Cartridge tests were conducted over two days from February 23-25, 2018, using headspace vapors from Hanford tanks BY-108 and BY-110. Headspace vapors from the BY-108 tank were fed to the PAPR respirator cartridge test stand, while vapors from the BY-110 headspace were fed to the APR respirator cartridge test stand. Both the APR and PAPR test stands were developed by WRPS in collaboration with HiLine Engineering (Richland, Washington). Two different cartridges were assessed on each tank. Multipurpose APR cartridges—SCOTT 7422-SD1 and SCOTT 7422-SC1 (SCOTT Safety, Monroe, North Carolina)—were assessed for vapors from BY-110 using the APR cartridge test stand. Multipurpose PAPR cartridges—MSA OptiFilter TL (MSA Safety Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) and 3M FR-57 (3M Company, Maplewood, Minnesota)—also were assessed for vapors from BY-108 over the same two days using the PAPR cartridge test stand. Sample media (i.e., sorbent tubes) were used to collect samples of the vapor stream entering and exiting the respirator cartridges, and the samples then were analyzed for COPC concentrations. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was tasked with conducting an independent analysis of the analytical results and making recommendations based on the results for respiratory cartridge performance and service life. The key conclusions from the analysis are described below.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Analysis of Air-Purifying Respirator (APR) and Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) Cartridge Performance Testing on Hanford Tanks BY-108 and BY-110 Volume 2: Raw Analytical Data

As the Tank Operations Contractor for U.S. Department of Energy operations at the Hanford site in Washington State, Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) is responsible for managing highly radioactive wastes stored in tanks at Hanford. WRPS tests air-purifying respirator (APR) and powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) chemical cartridges commonly used by workers at Hanford Tank Farms to determine the period of time that the cartridges would provide adequate performance for APRs and PAPRs used to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) from any vapors exiting headspaces in the storage tanks. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standard promulgated in Title 29 of the Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(b)(2) specifies that for protection against gases and vapors, employers shall implement a schedule for cartridges to ensure that change-outs occur before the end of service life. The change schedule can be based on objective information or data that ensures cartridge change-outs occur before the end of their service life. The primary function of the WRPS Cartridge Test Program is to obtain objective data to determine service lives for the APR and PAPR cartridges used at Hanford Tank Farms. WRPS contracted with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to analyze the test data and offer an independent analysis and any recommendations. This report summarizes data analysis of APR and PAPR cartridge testing on BY-110 and BY-108 headspace vapors, respectively. Two different APR cartridges from SCOTT Safety (Monroe, North Carolina) were assessed for the BY-110 headspace vapors, and two different PAPR cartridges—one from MSA Safety Inc. (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) and another from 3M (Maplewood, Minnesota)—were assessed for the BY-108 headspace vapors. Volume 1 of this report documents the testing, data analysis, results, conclusions, and recommendations resulting from the cartridge testing of vapors from the BY-110 and BY-108 headspaces. Volume 2 provides an introduction to the raw data, including analytical laboratory analysis results that supported the analysis and conclusions documented in Volume 1.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Analysis of Respirator Cartridge Performance Testing on Hanford Tank A-101

Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) conducted tests on two types of chemical cartridges for use in air purifying respirators (APR) to determine the period of time that the cartridges would provide adequate performance1 to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) from vapors emanating from the headspace of tank A-101 on the Hanford Site. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) identifies cartridge testing as a valid approach for establishing a cartridge change schedules.[3] Testing is commonly applied in situations where mixtures of COPCs exist, and where other approaches, such as manufacturer recommendations and modeling, are less reliable. The tests were designed and conducted to ensure measurement and/or control of the key variables OSHA identified as important to estimate cartridge service life, including temperature, humidity, COPC concentration, breathing rate, and cartridge adsorption capacity. Testing was conducted over a period from July 22-24, 2016, using headspace vapors from Hanford tank A-101 under static conditions2 fed to a respirator cartridge test stand developed by WRPS in collaboration with HiLine Engineering (Richland, Washington). Multipurpose respirator cartridges, SCOTT 7422-SD1 and 7422-SC1 (SCOTT Safety, Monroe, North Carolina) were assessed on separate days with A-101 headspace vapors. Sample media (sorbent tubes) were used to collect samples of the vapor stream entering and exiting the respirator cartridge, and were subsequently analyzed for COPC concentrations. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was tasked with conducting an independent analysis of the analytical results and making recommendations based on the results for respiratory cartridge performance and service life. Key conclusions from the assessment of the 59 COPCs in this study are described below: • Based on d measured cartridge inlet vapor concentrations from tank A-101 headspace, both ammonia and N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) exceeded their Occupational Exposure Limits (OEL).3 These measurements were generally consistent with maximum A-101 headspace measurements previously obtained for these two compounds. • Ammonia had respirator cartridge outlet concentrations that exceeded 10% of the OEL for both cartridges tested, indicating breakthrough for each. For the SCOTT 7422-SD1 cartridge, ammonia appeared to breakthrough above 10% of its OEL after 2 hours. For the SCOTT 7422-SC1 cartridge, ammonia breakthrough appeared to occur after 8 hours. 1 “Adequate performance” refers to the breakthrough criteria used in this analysis—that is, sustained cartridge outlet concentrations above 10% of the OEL. For some COPCs, an alternate threshold has been applied when necessary due to higher detection limit (DL)/reporting limit (RL) values for specific compounds. Ultimately, Industrial Hygiene professionals will use these results along with specific hazard assessments to determine service life and cartridge use that provides the necessary performance. 2 These tests were conducted under static conditions absent waste-disturbing activities in the subject tank or tank farm. 3 Occupational Exposure Limits accepted for Hanford Tank Farm use are based on OELs established by a U.S. governmental agency or national professional organization (e.g., OSHA, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists), or if no U.S. OEL exists, standard toxicological practices are applied to develop OELs using non-U.S. exposure limits, other established OELs for chemical surrogates when available, or other standard procedures. The OEL for NDMA was established in 2005 based on the MAK (Maximale Arbeitsplatzkonzentration) Commission standard adopted in Europe. iv • Despite respirator inlet measurements for NDMA that were in excess of its OEL, all corresponding outlet measurements, from both respirator cartridges, were below analytical DL 1 for the

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

Analysis of Air-Purifying Respirator (APR) and Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) Cartridge Performance Testing on a Hanford AP Tank Farm Exhauster Slipstream: Volume 2 Raw Analytical Data

As the Tank Operations Contractor for U.S. Department of Energy operations at the Hanford site in Washington State, Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) is responsible for managing highly radioactive wastes stored in tanks at Hanford. WRPS tests air-purifying respirator (APR) and powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) chemical cartridges commonly used at Hanford Tank Farms to determine the period of time that the cartridges would provide adequate performance for APRs and PAPRs used to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) from any vapors exiting headspaces in the storage tanks. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standard promulgated in Title 29 of the Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(b)(2) specifies that for protection against gases and vapors, employers shall implement a schedule for cartridges to ensure that change-outs occur before the end of service life. The change schedule can be based on objective information or data that ensures cartridge change-outs occur before the end of their service life.[2-5] The primary function of the WRPS Cartridge Test Program is to obtain objective data to determine service lives for the APR and PAPR cartridges used at Hanford Tank Farms. WRPS contracted with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to analyze the test data and offer an independent analysis and any recommendations. Volume 1 of this report summarizes data analysis of APR and PAPR cartridge testing on vapors from the AP tank farm exhauster. Previous testing of APR cartridges was conducted on the AP exhauster in June 2016. However, an AP exhauster upgrade was completed in September 2016. Two different APR cartridges from SCOTT Safety (Monroe, North Carolina) were assessed for the new AP exhauster source, along with two different PAPR cartridges—one from MSA Safety Inc. (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) and another from 3M (Maplewood, Minnesota). Volume 2 provides an introduction to the raw data, including analytical laboratory analysis results that supported the analysis and conclusions documented in Volume 1.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

Analysis of Respirator Cartridge Performance Testing on a Hanford Tank SY-102

Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) conducted tests on two types of chemical cartridges for use in air-purifying respirators (APR) to determine the period of time that the cartridges would provide adequate performance1 for APRs used to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) from vapors emanating from the headspace of tank SY-102 on the Hanford Site. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) identifies cartridge testing as a valid approach for establishing a cartridge change schedule. Testing is commonly applied in situations where mixtures of COPCs exist, and where other approaches, such as manufacturer recommendations and modeling, are less reliable. The tests were designed and conducted to assure measurement and/or control of the key variables OSHA identified as important to estimate cartridge service life, including temperature, humidity, COPC concentration, worker breathing rate, and cartridge adsorption capacity. Testing was conducted from July 8–10, 2016, on headspace vapors from Hanford tank SY-102 under static conditions2 fed to a respirator cartridge test stand developed by WRPS in collaboration with HiLine Engineering (Richland, Washington). Multipurpose respirator cartridges, SCOTT 7422-SD1 and SCOTT 7422-SC1 (SCOTT Safety, Monroe, North Carolina) were assessed on separate days. Sample media (sorbent tubes) were used to collect samples of the vapor stream entering and exiting the respirator cartridge and were subsequently analyzed for COPC concentrations. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was tasked with conducting an independent analysis of the analytical results and making recommendations based on the results for respiratory cartridge performance and service life.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Analysis of Respirator Cartridge Performance Testing on a Hanford AW Tank Farm Exhauster Slipstream

Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) conducted tests on two types of chemical cartridges for use in air-purifying respirators (APR) to determine the period of time that the cartridges would provide adequate performance for APRs used to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) from vapors exiting the exhauster for the Hanford AW tank farm. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) identifies cartridge testing as a valid approach for establishing a cartridge change schedules. Testing is commonly applied in situations where mixtures of COPCs exist, and where other approaches, such as manufacturer recommendations and modeling, are less reliable. The tests were designed and conducted to assure measurement and/or control of the key variables OSHA identified as important to estimate cartridge service-life, including temperature, humidity, COPC concentration, breathing rate, and cartridge adsorption capacity. Testing was conducted from September 23-25, 2016, on a slipstream from the AW exhauster, under static conditions fed to a respirator cartridge test stand developed by WRPS in collaboration with HiLine Engineering (Richland, Washington). Multipurpose respirator cartridges, SCOTT 7422-SD1 and SCOTT 7422-SC1 (SCOTT Safety, Monroe, North Carolina), were assessed on separate days. Sample media (sorbent tubes) were used to collect samples of the vapor stream entering and exiting the respirator cartridge, and were subsequently analyzed for COPC concentrations. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was tasked with conducting an independent analysis of the analytical results and making recommendations based on the results for respiratory cartridge performance and service life.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Overview of 2017 Through 2018 Testing of Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) Cartridge Performance on Multiple Hanford Tank Headspaces and Exhausters

Between 2017 and 2018, 10 powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) cartridge tests were performed on headspace vapors from three Hanford tanks (BY-108, SX-101, and SX-104) and two Hanford Tank Farm exhausters (AP in 2018 and AX in 2017). All tests were conducted under static conditions absent waste-disturbing activities in the subject tanks or tank farms. Multipurpose high-efficiency PAPR cartridges, MSA-TL (TL1) (MSA Safety Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) and 3M FR-57 (TL2) (3M Company, Maplewood, Minnesota), were tested on each of the five tanks or exhausters. Out of 61 1 Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs), only ammonia and 2,5-dimethylfuran exhibited breakthroughs with outlet concentrations that were greater than 10% of their Occupational Exposure Limits (OEL). For 2,5-dimethylfuran, elevated concentrations found in blank tube samples made the elevated outlet measurements for this COPC questionable.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Technical Gaps in Hanford High-Level Waste Solids Settling Behavior and Settling Time Evaluation for Direct Feed High-Level Waste (DFHLW) Operations

Settling of high-level waste (HLW) solids in process vessels is a key conceptual process step in providing HLW feed directly to the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) HLW Vitrification Facility. Direct Feed High-Level Waste (DFHLW) is a potential approach to initiating HLW vitrification prior to completing of the WTP Pretreatment Facility. Settling would be used with subsequent supernatant decant to concentrate HLW feed. To support planning for DFHLW, Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) requested support from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to evaluate the current data set available to predict the time needed for HLW solids to settle, to identify gaps in the understanding and predictive capability of HLW solids waste settling times, and to provide scoping estimates of the potential settling time. Eight technical gaps were identified for predicting settling times and characteristics of the formed sediment layers including: Gap 1: In-Tank Settling Rates Faster than Settling of Laboratory Samples, Gap 2: Effect of Sludge Leaching/Washing on Predicted Settling Times, Gap 3: Predicting Waste Settling from Waste Chemistry (Waste Type), Gap 4: Predicting Waste Settling from Particle Size and Density Distributions (PSDDs), Gap 5: Insufficient Laboratory and In-Tank Settling Data to Represent Hanford Waste, Gap 6: Methods for Real-Time, In-Tank Tracking of Settling, Gap 7: Prediction of Sediment Erosion Resistance as a Function of Settling Time, and Gap 8: Prediction of Sediment Solids Content as a Function of Settling Time. In addition to the data gaps, an overarching observation of the settling rate and settled layer data is the significant variation in behavior. At similar solids concentrations, settling rates can vary by as much as 3 orders of magnitude depending on the source waste tank, and significantly different settling rates are noted between laboratory and in situ tests for the same waste tank. The range of average solids concentration in existing HLW sediment, which may have been quiescent for decades, can vary from less than 7 wt% to greater than 74 wt% solids. The shear strengths (or yield stresses) measured on laboratory samples range from less than 27 Pa to greater than 6400 Pa. These variations can challenge process planning for the application of a settle/decant process for DFHLW. This report describes the significance of the gaps to the settle/decant process and presents uncertainties by way of examples. Potential technical approaches for resolving these gaps are described and the estimated difficulty in resolving these gaps is evaluated. Based on the significance of the gap and the difficulty of resolution, recommendations are made to address specific gaps. Scoping estimates of the potential settling times for DFHLW solids have been made based on the existing data set with its associated gaps. Depending on the process vessel depth and final sediment concentration, substantial fractions of the scoping estimate results for settling times for characterized HLW exceed the 2-week period that has been previously assumed for process planning. There is also significant disparity, potentially greater than a factor of 5000 difference, in the estimated settling times depending on process vessel depth and final sediment solid concentration. This variation in results underscores the significance of the identified gaps and uncertainties with respect to process planning for utilizing settle/decant operations for DFHLW.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Dissolution of Fluoride Salts in Hanford Tank Waste

The Direct Feed High-Level Waste (DFHLW) strategy seeks to bypass the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Pretreatment Facility while retaining some processing functions to maximize waste feed loading and minimize high-level waste (HLW) waste volume. The DFHLW flowsheet needs leaching, washing, and solids concentration operations either in new or existing tanks. The effectiveness and efficiency of sludge washing has a substantial impact on DST space, mission duration, and the evaporation and low-activity waste (LAW) treatment operations required by these large wash-water additions. One target species requiring washing is fluoride. The HLW glass composition limits for fluorine drive operations to dissolve fluoride-bearing salts into the LAW fraction and thereby maximize waste loading in HLW glass. The fluoride in many high-level wastes at Hanford is predominantly in the form of fluoride-salt precipitates: villiaumite (NaF), kogarkoite (Na 3 FSO 4 ), and natrophosphate (Na 7 F(PO 4 ) 2 ·19H 2 O). Fluoride produces melter off-gas that creates corrosion risk in the off-gas system piping, while the sulfate and phosphate in the fluoride double salts kogarkoite and natrophosphate can be detrimental to glass waste loading. Fluoride salts are sparingly soluble, with solubilities ranging from approximately 40 to 130 kg per kL of pure water, and the dissolution kinetics of the three fluoride salts are not well known. Unexpected delays in a tank dissolution process could be encountered as a result of the lack of information about dissolution rates. In addition, if the double salts show transient non-stoichiometric dissolution of fluoride versus phosphate or sulfate, unexpectedly high concentrations of one of these other constituents could be produced. Washington River Protection Solutions authorized Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to collect the available data for fluoride salt dissolution rate, provide a scoping estimate of dissolution time if possible, and identify gaps in the understanding and predictive capability for estimating dissolution time. Open literature and Hanford reports were reviewed to document, understand, and (where possible) evaluate limitations on fluoride salt equilibria and dissolution kinetics, including both mass transport and surface reaction rate. Scoping estimates of dissolution time were made for mass-transfer-controlled dissolution of spherical particles of fluoride salts suspended in liquid. This is not the only potential governing mechanism; dissolution could be substantially slower if the surface reaction rate (the rate of release of ions from the surface) is the controlling mechanism. When the minimum amount of water for complete dissolution is used and the slip velocity between the liquid and suspended particles is less than or equal to the terminal settling velocity, the estimated mass-transfer rates allow 0.1 mm particles of fluoride salt to dissolve in minutes at 25 °C in water containing no other dissolved salts. Much larger solids, such as the 6-mm chunks that have been seen in heels, could take a few hours to more than a week to dissolve. The actual dissolution times will depend strongly on the actual slip velocity, the extent of particle suspension, constraint by surface reaction rates, the ratio of solvent to solid, and the presence of common ions that shift the solubility equilibria to restrict dissolution of fluoride salts.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Analysis of Air-Purifying Respirator (APR) and Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) Cartridge Performance Testing on a Hanford AP Tank Farm Exhauster Slipstream (Volume 1)

Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) tested four types of chemical cartridges for use in air-purifying respirators (APR) and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR). These tests were undertaken to determine the period of time that the cartridges would provide adequate performance1 for APRs and PAPRs used to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) from vapors exiting the Hanford AP tank farm exhauster slipstream. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) considers cartridge testing to be a valid approach for establishing cartridge change schedules. Testing commonly is applied in situations where mixtures of COPCs exist and where other approaches, such as manufacturer recommendations and modeling, are less reliable. The tests were designed and conducted to assure measurement and/or control of the key variables OSHA identified as important to estimate the cartridge service life, including temperature, humidity, COPC concentration, breathing rate, and cartridge adsorption capacity. Cartridge testing on a slipstream from the Hanford AP tank exhauster was conducted on March 23-24, 2018. This testing focused on both APR and PAPR cartridges. Previous testing of APR cartridges was conducted on the AP exhauster in June of 2016. However, an AP exhauster upgrade was completed in September 2016. In the most recent testing, slipstream vapors from the new AP exhauster were fed to two respirator cartridge test stands, one for the PAPR respirator cartridges and the other for the APR respirator cartridges. Both the APR and PAPR test stands were developed by WRPS in collaboration with HiLine Engineering (Richland, Washington). Multipurpose APR cartridges—SCOTT 7422-SD1 and SCOTT 7422-SC1 (SCOTT Safety, Monroe, North Carolina)—were assessed on separate days using the APR cartridge test stand. Multipurpose PAPR cartridges—MSA OptiFilter TL (MSA Safety Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) and 3M FR-57 (3M Company, Maplewood, Minnesota)—were also tested consecutively over the same two days as the APR cartridge tests, using the PAPR cartridge test stand. Sample media (i.e., sorbent tubes) were used to collect samples of the vapor stream entering and exiting the respirator cartridges, and the samples then were analyzed for COPC concentrations. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was tasked with conducting an independent analysis of the analytical results and making recommendations based on the results for respiratory cartridge performance and service life. The key conclusions from the analysis are described below.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

Analysis of Air-Purifying Respirator (APR) Cartridge Performance Testing on Hanford Tanks SX-101 and SX-104 (Vol.1)

Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) conducted tests on two types of chemical cartridges for use in air-purifying respirators to determine the period of time that the cartridges would provide adequate performance1 to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) from vapors exiting the headspaces of Hanford tanks SX-101 and SX-104. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) considers cartridge testing a valid approach for establishing cartridge change schedules.2 Testing is commonly applied in situations where mixtures of COPCs exist and where other approaches such as manufacturer recommendations and modeling are less reliable. The tests were designed and conducted to ensure measurement and/or control of the key variables OSHA identified as important to estimate the cartridge service life, including temperature, humidity, COPC concentration, breathing rate, and cartridge adsorption capacity. Testing was conducted from June 16-17, 2017, and June 23-24, 2017, using headspace vapors from Hanford tank SX-104 and Hanford tank SX-101, respectively. Headspace vapors under static conditions were fed to a respirator cartridge test stand developed by WRPS in collaboration with HiLine Engineering (Richland, Washington). Multipurpose respirator cartridges, SCOTT 7422-SD1 and SCOTT 7422-SC1 (SCOTT Safety, Monroe, North Carolina), were assessed on separate days. Sample media (sorbent tubes) were used to collect samples of the vapor stream entering and exiting the respirator cartridges, and subsequently were analyzed for COPC concentrations. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was tasked with conducting an independent analysis of the analytical results and making recommendations based on the results for respiratory cartridge performance and service life.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Analysis of Air-Purifying Respirator (APR) Cartridge Performance Testing on Hanford Tanks SX-101 and SX-104: Volume 2 - Raw Analytical Data

As the Tank Operations Contractor for U.S. Department of Energy operations at the Hanford site in Washington State, Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) is responsible for managing highly radioactive wastes stored in tanks at Hanford. To protect workers at Hanford Tank Farms, WRPS tests air-purifying respirator (APR) and powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) chemical cartridges commonly used at the tank farms. The tests were conducted to determine the period of time the cartridges would provide adequate performance for APRs and PAPRs when workers are exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) from any vapors exiting headspaces in the storage tanks. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standard 29 Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(b)(2) specifies that for protection against gases and vapors, employers shall implement a schedule for cartridges to ensure that change-outs occur before the end of service life. The change schedule can be based on objective information or data that ensures cartridge change-outs occur before the end of their service life. The primary function of the WRPS Cartridge Test Program is to obtain objective data to determine service lives for the APR and PAPR cartridges used at Hanford Tank Farms. WRPS contracted with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to analyze the test data and offer an independent analysis and any recommendations. This report summarizes data analysis of APR cartridge testing on headspace vapors from Hanford SX-101 and SX-104 single-shell tanks. Volume 1 of this report documents the testing, data analysis, results, conclusions, and recommendations resulting from the APR testing on SX-101 and SX-104 headspace vapors. Volume 2 provides an introduction to the raw data, including analytical laboratory analysis results that supported the analysis and conclusions documented in Volume 1.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Analysis of Air-Purifying Respirator (APR) and Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) Cartridge Performance Testing on a Hanford AX Tank Farm Exhauster Slipstream Volume 1

Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) conducted tests of four types of chemical cartridges for air-purifying respirators (APR) and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) to determine the period of time the cartridges would provide adequate performance1 for APRs and PAPRs used to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) from vapors exiting the Hanford AX tank farm exhauster slipstream. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) considers cartridge testing to be a valid approach for establishing a cartridge service life. Testing is applied in situations where mixtures of COPCs exist, and where other approaches, such as manufacturer recommendations and modeling, are less reliable. The tests were designed and conducted to assure measurement and/or control of the key variables OSHA identified as important to estimate the cartridge service life, including temperature, humidity, COPC concentration, breathing rate, and cartridge adsorption capacity. Cartridge testing using vapors from a Hanford AX tank farm exhauster slipstream was conducted from August 25–27, 2017. Vapors from the exhauster slipstream were fed to two respirator cartridge test stands developed by WRPS in collaboration with HiLine Engineering (Richland, Washington). Four different cartridges were assessed. Multipurpose APR cartridges—SCOTT 7422-SD1 and SCOTT 7422-SC1 (SCOTT Safety, Monroe, North Carolina)—were assessed on separate days using an APR cartridge test stand. Multipurpose PAPR cartridges—MSA-TL (TL1) (MSA Safety Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) and 3M FR57 (TL2) (3M Company, Maplewood, Minnesota)—also were tested over the same two days using a separate PAPR cartridge test stand. Sample media (i.e., sorbent tubes) were used to collect samples of the vapor stream entering and exiting the respirator cartridges and were subsequently analyzed for COPC concentrations. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was tasked with conducting an independent analysis of the analytical results and making recommendations based on the results for respiratory cartridge performance and service life. The key conclusions from the analysis are described below.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Analysis of Air-Purifying Respirator (APR) and Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) Cartridge Performance Testing on a Hanford AX Tank Farm Exhauster Slipstream Volume 2: Raw Analytical Data

As the Tank Operations Contractor for U.S. Department of Energy operations at the Hanford site in Washington State, Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) is responsible for managing highly radioactive wastes stored in tanks at Hanford. To protect workers at Hanford Tank Farms, WRPS tests air-purifying respirator (APR) and powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) chemical cartridges commonly used at the tank farms. The tests were conducted to determine the period of time the cartridges would provide adequate performance for APRs and PAPRs when workers are exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) from any vapors exiting headspaces in the storage tanks. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standard 29 Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(b)(2) specifies that for protection against gases and vapors, employers shall implement a schedule for cartridges to ensure that change-outs occur before the end of service life. The change schedule can be based on objective information or data that ensures cartridge change-outs occur before the end of their service life. The primary function of the WRPS Cartridge Test Program is to obtain objective data to determine service lives for the APR and PAPR cartridges used at Hanford Tank Farms. WRPS contracted with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to analyze the test data and offer an independent analysis and any recommendations. This report summarizes data analysis of APR and PAPR cartridge testing on a vapor slipstream from the Hanford AX tank farm exhauster. Volume 1 of this report documents the testing, data analysis, results, conclusions, and recommendations resulting from the cartridge testing on AX exhauster slipstream vapors. Volume 2 provides an introduction to the raw data, including analytical laboratory analysis results that supported the analysis and conclusions documented in Volume 1.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Analysis of Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) Cartridge Performance Testing on Hanford Tanks SX-101 and SX-104 Volume 1

Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) conducted tests using two types of chemical cartridges for use in powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) to determine the period of time that the cartridges would provide adequate performance for PAPRs used to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) from vapors exiting the headspaces of Hanford tanks SX-101 and SX-104. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) considers cartridge testing to be a valid approach for establishing cartridge change schedules. Testing is commonly applied in situations where mixtures of COPCs exist, and where other approaches, such as manufacturer recommendations and modeling, are less reliable. The tests were designed and conducted to assure measurement and/or control of the key variables OSHA identified as important to estimate the cartridge service life, including temperature, humidity, COPC concentration, breathing rate, and cartridge adsorption capacity. Testing was conducted from June 16-17, 2017, from headspace vapors from Hanford tank SX-101 and from June 23-24, 2017, from Hanford tank SX-104. Headspace vapors were fed to a respirator cartridge test stand developed by WRPS in collaboration with HiLine Engineering (Richland, Washington). Multipurpose high-efficiency PAPR cartridges, MSA-TL (TL1) (MSA Safety Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) and 3M FR-57 (TL2) (3M Company, Maplewood, Minnesota) were assessed on separate days. Sample media (i.e., sorbent tubes) were used to collect samples of the vapor stream entering and exiting the respirator cartridge and were subsequently analyzed for COPC concentrations. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was tasked with conducting an independent analysis of the analytical results and making recommendations based on the results for respiratory cartridge performance and service life. The key conclusions from the analysis are described below.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Analysis of Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) Cartridge Performance Testing on Hanford Tanks SX-101 and SX-104: Volume 2 Raw Analytical Data

As the Tank Operations Contractor for U.S. Department of Energy operations at the Hanford site in Washington State, Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) is responsible for managing highly radioactive wastes stored in tanks at Hanford. WRPS tests of cartridges used in air-purifying respirators (APR) and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) commonly used at Hanford Tank Farms. The tests are conducted to determine the period of time the cartridges would provide adequate performance for APRs and PAPRs used to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) from any vapors exiting headspaces in the storage tanks. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standard 29 Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(b)(2) specifies that for protection against gases and vapors, employers shall implement a schedule for cartridges to ensure that change-outs occur before the end of service life. The change schedule can be based on objective information or data that ensures cartridge change-outs occur before the end of their service life. The primary function of the WRPS Cartridge Test Program is to obtain objective data to determine service lives for the APR and PAPR cartridges used at Hanford Tank Farms. WRPS contracted with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to analyze the test data and offer an independent analysis and any recommendations. This report summarizes data analysis of PAPR cartridge testing on headspace vapors from Hanford SX-101 and SX-104 single-shell tanks. Two different PAPR cartridges—one from MSA Safety Inc. (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) and another from 3M (Maplewood, Minnesota)—were assessed on each tank headspace source on separate days. These data represent the first PAPR cartridge testing under the recent WRPS program, as testing to date had been focused on APR cartridges. Volume 1 of this report documents the testing, data analysis, results, conclusions, and recommendations resulting from the PAPR testing on SX-101 and SX-104 headspace vapors. Volume 2 provides an introduction to the raw data, including analytical laboratory analysis results that supported the analysis and conclusions documented in Volume 1.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗