Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Nune, Satish K.

Publications and source records attributed to Nune, Satish K..

At least 19 records

Systems, methods, and compositions for purifying water

Systems for removing one or more contaminants from water are provided that can include a hydrate formation chamber assembly; a contaminated water diffusion assembly within the hydrate formation chamber assembly; a space between a wall of the hydrate formation chamber assembly and the diffusion assembly; and a guest compound conduit configured to provide a guest compound within the space and form a hydrate comprising water and the guest compound. Methods for removing one or more contaminants from water are provided that can include providing a contaminated water mixture and one or more guest compounds; forming a hydrate complex comprising water and the one or more guest compounds; and separating the water from the guest compounds to provide water with less contaminant. Mixtures are also provided that can include a liquid component comprising water and at least one contaminant, and a solid component comprising a hydrate complex. One embodiment of the system provides methods for production of excess electric power as a byproduct of the desalination process.

McGrail, Bernard P.↗

Extending Magnetic Core Shell Nanoparticle Extraction Technology to Cesium and Antimony Removal from Geothermal Brines in New Zealand

Our industrial client (Geo40) has developed and deployed a process to remove silica from geothermal fluids and produce a high-margin specialty colloidal silica product comparable to those of market leaders. Geo40 now wishes to explore opportunities to extend their mineral extraction operations to other elements that are present in these brines. Geo40 has identified cesium (Cs) that is present in Ohaaki brines (pH ~8–8.5) at parts per million levels and could be sold to customers if it could be produced at an attractive price. With support from the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Geothermal Technologies Office, a simple and highly cost-effective magnetic nanofluid method for extraction of rare earth elements (REEs) from geothermal brine solutions has been developed and demonstrated at the laboratory bench scale at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Core shell sorbent particles are produced using an iron oxide core particle, which is used to anchor and grow a surrounding adsorbent shell functionalized with a chelating ligand that selectively binds REEs. We extended PNNL’s work by exploring new sorbent shells that are highly selective for Cs. Uptake of Cs was measured as a function of exposure time by analyzing solution samples extracted from batch sorption tests.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Porous Colloidal Nanoparticles as Injectable Multimodal Contrast Agents for Enhanced Geophysical Sensing

Injecting fluids into underground geologic structures is crucial for the development of long-term strategies for managing captured carbon and facilitating sustainable energy extraction operations. Here, we have previously reported that the injection of metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) into the subsurface can enhance seismic monitoring tools to track fluids and map complex structures, reduce risk, and verify containment in carbon storage reservoirs because of their absorption capacity of low-frequency seismic waves. Here, we demonstrate that water-based Cr/Zn/Zr MOF colloidal suspensions (nanofluids) are multimodal geophysical contrast agents that enhance near-wellbore logging tools. Based on experimental fluid-only measurements, MIL-101(Cr), ZIF-8, and UiO-66 nanofluids have distinct complex conductivity and/or low-field nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) signatures that are relevant to field-deployed technologies, implying the potential to enhance near-wellbore monitoring of CO 2 injection and associated processes with downhole logging tools. Small- and wide-angle X-ray scattering characterization of ~0.5 wt % MIL-101(Cr) suspensions confirmed phase stability and provided insight into the fractal nature of colloidal nanoparticles. Finally, low-field (2 MHz) NMR measurements of MIL-101(Cr) nanofluid injection into a prototypical Berea sandstone demonstrate how paramagnetic high-surface area MOFs may dominate the relaxation times of hydrogen-bearing fluids in porous geologic matrices, enhancing the mapping of near-surface and near-wellbore transport pathways and advancing sustainable subsurface energy technologies.

NMR↗

Production of CO2-Negative Building Composites Development

This project will investigate and utilize the basicity and enhanced reactivity of CO2 chemically captured in PNNL’s CO2BOLs carbon capture solvents to perform the first direct carboxylation of the aromatic rings (substituted phenols) in lignin and lignite. This project aims to develop a deep decarbonization approach that can sequester millions of tonnes of CO2 annually by reacting with two large-volume products, lignin, and lignite, to enable their use as composite fillers. The goal is to demonstrate that CO2-containing composites have comparable properties to conventional synthetic materials, meeting international building codes (IBC) while being able to sequester millions of tonnes of CO2 per year.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

Thermocatalytic Heat Pipes for Geothermal Resource Recovery

Heat pipes are an important technology that allow orders of magnitude faster heat transfer than simple conduction. However, operating principles in heat pipes place fundamental bounds on their performance (critical heat flux and efficiency). Conventional heat pipe functionality is inherently tied to vaporization and condensation of the working fluid charged in the heat pipe. These fluids each have different operating temperature ranges based on the capillary, entrainment, sonic, and boiling limits of the heat pipe design. These limits, typically the capillary limit, dictate the maximum heat flux a heat pipe can carry, and most importantly for geothermal systems, the distance over which the pipes can operate (100 to 200 m maximum under optimum conditions). A thermocatalytic heat pipe breaks the inherent limitations of phase change thermo- and hydrodynamics and can transform heat pipe technology as a potentially more efficient means of extracting heat from a geothermal resource. The thermocatalytic heat pipe uses a working fluid to transport both sensible and chemical heat. An endothermic chemical reaction at depth removes heat from the reservoir and produces reactive intermediates, which are transported to the surface and used to run a reverse exothermic reaction that releases heat for use in power generation or other useful purposes. This technology offers two distinct advantages over conventional geothermal heat recovery technologies: (1) lower heat loss to the rock outside of the geothermal reservoir, and (2) higher heat transfer rates to the well field within the geothermal reservoir. Both advantages offer opportunity to reduce risks and lower costs of geothermal energy recovery. In this report, we discuss an initial effort to assess the efficacy and limitations of this technology for extracting heat from both porous/permeable and nominally impermeable geothermal reservoirs. Numerical simulation capabilities of the STOMP-GT code were enhanced to enable simulations of thermochemical heat pipes traversing geothermal reservoirs. An array of potential thermochemical reaction systems was evaluated and screened. Of these, an ethanol dehydration reaction was most promising in the vapor-liquid reaction set. A solid-phase dehydration reaction (CuSO4·5H2O) showed the highest reaction enthalpy per unit volume but would require development of a nonaqueous carrier fluid to implement it in a heat pipe. Subsurface reservoir simulations predicted long-term performance of the heat pipes for each geothermal reservoir type. The performance of U-shaped wells and coaxial wells was evaluated for a suite of reactions for both hydrothermal and hot dry rock reservoirs and was compared with a baseline case of simply pumping water through the wells. The heat pipe technology was additionally evaluated for an enhanced geothermal system (EGS) with an injection borehole, production borehole, and intervening hydraulically conductive fracture. All reservoir types showed significant improvement in heat recovered over a 20-year operating period ranging from a 1.8X increase for the hot dry rock case to more than 2.5X more energy recovered for the EGS case.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

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↗

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↗