Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Hanford Tank Farm”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

IER-519 CED-2: Final Design for Thermal/Epithermal eXperiments (TEX) with Absorbers to Provide Validation Benchmarks for Hanford Tank Farms

The Hanford tank farms contain 56 million gallons of waste across 177 tanks. The primary criticality safety concern for the waste is the plutonium inventory in waste solids – approximately 670 kg in total. Criticality safety analysis credits the absorption and dilution properties of the large quantities of other elements (aluminum, chromium, iron, manganese, nickel, silicon, sodium, and zirconium) present in the waste. Of these, iron and manganese are by far the most significant neutron absorbers, particularly for the waste compositions of highest criticality safety concern. The criticality safety analyses at the Hanford Waste Treatment and Vitrification Plant (WTP) and the Savannah River tank farms also credit iron and manganese as the primary neutron absorbers to demonstrate subcriticality.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

The Corrective Maintenance Paradigm Shift at Hanford's Tank Farms - 20077

Hanford's Tank Farms facilities have been used to safely store waste for over 70 years, with the first single-shell tanks being constructed in 1943. Tank Farm facilities consist of 149 single-shell tanks, 28 double-shell tanks, an evaporator facility, and wastewater treatment facilities. Tank Farm facilities are aging, with a tremendous corrective maintenance burden on the Tank Farm contractor. The mission of Tank Farm facilities is soon changing from waste storage to waste staging for the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). WTP operations will demand a significant increase in Tank Farm facility operations, in which corrective maintenance outage windows will shrink drastically. This realization has forced the Tank Farm contractor to consider a paradigm shift in Tank Farm facilities Maintenance planning, and the use of reliability Engineering tools. The Tank Farm Production Operations Engineering Cognizant System Engineering (CSE) organization has led the way in motivating this paradigm shift. This shift has been realized through the use of: 1) technical exchange with other Department of Energy (DOE) contractors to develop improvements in the CSE program, 2) a shift from the use of lagging to leading system health indicators, and 3) a Plant Health Committee to unite Engineering, Operations, and Maintenance personnel toward a productive maintenance strategy. The CSE organization has held several technical exchanges with other DOE contractors to discuss CSE concepts, and how to better maintain aging infrastructure. The technical exchange with other contractors has greatly reduced the time required to make improvements in the Tank Farm CSE program. Other DOE contractors have already faced issues surrounding aging infrastructure, and have vast experience in improving the reliability and usable life of structures and components in nuclear facilities. The past CSE program used lagging health indicators to determine the health of systems. The key lagging indicator used to determine system health was availability, which is the percentage of time that a facility was ready for operation compared to the time the facility was demanded for operation. Availability was a good indicator of health in the waste storage mission of Tank Farms, where safe storage was the most important function of the facility, and where maintenance outage windows were typically long-duration. In current and future operations, outage windows are reducing, resulting in the need for much more reliable systems. Systems that have had high availability may suddenly become inoperable due to a failed component or sub-system. In several instances, the use of availability as an indicator of system health failed to predict system/equipment failure before its occurrence. In discussions with other DOE contractors, a set of reliability tools, including leading indicators of health, has been implemented in the CSE program. This primarily involves the use of failure modes and effects analysis and the study of equipment failure to develop system monitoring plans that focus on trending data to detect oncoming equipment failure ahead of time. In addition, the use of a Plant Health Committee has added significantly to the paradigm shift from a corrective maintenance philosophy to the use of predictive and preventive maintenance. The Plant Health Committee is a chartered team consisting of Engineering, Operations, and Maintenance personnel. CSEs use this forum to present the results of their performance monitoring, including the presentation of health via leading health indicators. The most positive aspect of this committee is the communication that it creates within these critical organizations. The Operations and Maintenance organization benefit from focusing maintenance on the reliability-centered focus provided by Engineering. Engineering benefits from the operational experience of the Operations organization and from the failure data that can be provided by Maintenance personnel. The continued use of the Plant Health Committee is expected to further decrease maintenance outage times, in better support of oncoming 24/7 operations. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Iodine Speciation Basis and Gap Analysis for Hanford Tank Farm Inventory and during Processing

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is providing baseline technical support to Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) for the One System River Protection Project (RPP) Integrated Flowsheet team. This report documents the evaluation of the technical bases available to support iodine speciation and distribution within Hanford wastes and subsequent waste streams generated during direct feed low-activity waste (DFLAW) pretreatment operations (specifically, waste retrievals and staging, and particle filtration and cesium decontamination using crystalline silicotitanate (CST) ion exchange [in the tank side cesium removal (TSCR) system]. The task performed a literature survey of information related to iodine species in environments analogous to Hanford tank waste and the subsequent waste streams to define a technical basis for the possible iodine speciation in Hanford waste. In doing so it can be determined how likely laboratory studies on iodine speciation in tank waste are to be universally relevant across the Hanford tanks. The task evaluated iodide and iodate as the primary species of interest with a focus on organo-iodine where appropriate.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2026

Cathodic Protection Modeling for Hanford Underground Double-Shell Tank Farms

Hanford stores millions of gallons of radioactive and chemically hazardous waste from the production of weapon materials in tank farms consisting of underground carbon-steel storage tanks surrounded by reinforced concrete. Six of these Hanford tank farms use double-shell storage tanks (DSTs). The DST farms were constructed from 1968 to 1986 with a planned 40–50 year design life, so some are already operating beyond their initial life expectancy. Ultrasonic testing (UT) has indicated significant thinning on the bottom of the secondary (outer) liner of these tanks, believed to arise from groundwater intrusion driving concrete side corrosion. There is no direct access to the steel/concrete interface between the tank and the concrete pad, making it difficult to apply a chemical-based mitigation strategy or to conduct repairs, but cathodic protection (CP) is a possible method to inhibit further concrete-side corrosion. Hanford already uses CP to protect below grade steel piping within the tank farms and connected to the tanks, but this system was not designed to protect the tank bottoms. CP design must account for the structures surrounding the DSTs, including the steel reinforcing bars (rebar) within the concrete pad and vault, various process lines, and the existing CP system. In this study, finite element analysis (FEA) modeling was carried out to simulate CP protection of 1) a single tank and CP anode to develop options for modeling the rebar and to compare to a simpler circuit model and 2) the entire Hanford AN tank farm as a representative example consisting of seven tanks, associated piping, and both existing and new CP anodes. Both circuit and FEA models predict that significant protective current could be delivered to the bottoms of the tanks with the addition of tank-protection anodes below the depth of the tanks. Simulations with only the existing pipe-protection anodes active confirmed that only a very small current to the tank bottoms is predicted under present conditions. Multiple simplified representations of the dome and wall rebar were tested to reduce the computational complexity of the tank-farm simulations, resulting in modeling the rebar as edge elements with a prescribed effective circumference that matches the real rebar surface area. The geometry of the rebar is also simplified into horizontal hoops around the tank walls and radial rebar over the dome with increased effective circumference to retain the target surface area. This simplification was found to greatly reduce the complexity and solution time of the models without large changes in current distributions, especially to the tank bottom. A range of values were tested for model parameters such as soil and concrete resistivities and polarization resistance to investigate their impact on the current and electric potential distributions. Depending on the parameters used, FEA simulations predict some risk of overprotection, particularly on the piping system; since overprotection can also lead to surface damage associated with hydrogen gas generation at the interface (e.g. hydrogen embrittlement or damage to coatings), this needs to be considered when refining the design of the new CP system. Comparison between the FEA models and the circuit model representation demonstrated that the circuit model could not match the predicted FEA current distribution, even when using the exact same surface areas. This discrepancy appeared to be at least partly attributable to the impact of the relative positions of the tank components and anodes to each other and to the ground surface. The FEA model accounts for the relative positions since it solves the governing equations in three dimensions, but the circuit model cannot account for the positioning. In particular, the circuit model underpredicts the current to the tank bottom and overpredicts the current to the dome compared to FEA for the baseline geometry. The FEA models omitted the electrically isolated rebar in the bottom concrete slab. However, a circuit based stray current model estimated that only 2.1% of the total current through the slab would stray into the rebar, corresponding to ~0.21 A for a target current density of 2 mA/ft2 to the tank bottom. The estimated corrosion driven by this amount of stray current is predicted to yield a lifetime of >400 years for the minimum rebar diameter, assuming an acceptable cross-section area loss of 10%.

d'Entremont, Anna [Savannah River National Laborat↗
DOE OSTI2020

Hanford Tank Vapors in Worker Breathing Zones - Source, Dispersion, and Receptor Data - 20373

A wide range of organic and inorganic chemicals from historical Hanford Site processes are now stored in 177 underground storage tanks at the Hanford tank farms. Workers at the Hanford tank farms have expressed concerns about chemical vapor exposures for many years. During the spring of 2014, worker reports of chemical odors and/or symptoms prompted the development of the Savannah River National Laboratory Hanford Tank Vapor Assessment Team (TVAT) and their resulting independent assessment and recommendations concerning tank farm worker reports of vapors. The Tank Vapor Assessment report included a hypothesis that 'vapors coming out of tanks in high concentration (bolus) plumes sporadically intersected with the breathing zones of workers, resulting in brief but intense exposures to some workers.' The focus of this effort is to present current knowledge to describe the mechanisms by which workers may experience short duration vapor concentrations above background in the tank farms environment. The TVAT hypothesis that workers have experienced concentrations approaching 80% of the tank headspace up to 3 meters (10 feet) from tank sources is not supported by sampling data or modeling results. Modeling indicates that concentrations are quickly reduced from the source, and that the upper end of predicted concentrations at worker breathing zones are a factor of 10 or more lower than source concentrations. Area measurements corroborate the fact that worker breathing zone concentrations are 10 to 100 times lower than source concentrations, and events with elevated concentrations are rare. These reduced vapor concentration levels may result in detectable odors or irritation, depending on a worker's specific odor threshold and sensitivity to the chemical species. Short-duration vapor events may be mitigated by evaluating daily atmospheric conditions in conjunction with planned tank farm activities. Monitoring changing conditions related to tank vapors concentrations at the source and within worker breathing zone is also an important step to protect workers from short duration elevated concentration events. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

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↗
DOE OSTI2020

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↗
DOE OSTI2020

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↗
DOE OSTI2020

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

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 performance to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) from vapors exiting the exhauster at the Hanford AN tank farm. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) identifies cartridge testing as a valid approach for establishing 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, breathing rate, and cartridge adsorption capacity. Testing was conducted from September 30−October 2, 2016, on a slipstream from the AN 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.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Analysis of Respirator Cartridge Performance Testing on the 702-AZ Primary Exhauster for the Hanford AY/AZ Tank Farms

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 performance to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) from vapors exiting the 702-AZ primary exhauster for the Hanford AY/AZ tank farms. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) identifies cartridge testing as 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 cartridge service life, including temperature, humidity, COPC concentration, breathing rate, and cartridge adsorption capacity. Testing was conducted from August 26–28, 2016, on a slipstream from the 702-AZ 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 change-out frequency.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Analysis of Respirator Cartridge Performance Testing on a Hanford AP Tank Farm Primary 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 performance1 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 AP 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 June 24-26, 2016, on a slipstream from the AP exhauster 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.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

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↗
DOE OSTI2020

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↗
DOE OSTI2020

Respirator Cartridge Performance on Mixed Vapors from Hanford Tank Headspaces and Exhausters - 20427

Between 2016 and 2018, the Hanford Tank Operations Contractor - Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) - conducted a series of tests of air-purifying respirator (APR) chemical cartridges commonly used at Hanford tank farms to determine the period of time for which the cartridges would provide adequate performance when used in APRs and powered-air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of vapors exiting tank headspaces. Although cartridge manufacturers provide service life estimating tools for individual chemical compounds, the projected performance of these cartridges on complex vapor mixtures is not available, and the adequacy of APRs for tank farm applications represents an important workforce concern. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration identifies cartridge testing as a valid approach for establishing cartridge service life. The primary function of the WRPS Cartridge Test Program was 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 of and recommendations based on respirator cartridge performance. A total of 28 APR and 10 PAPR cartridge tests were conducted between 2016 and 2018 on 12 different tank headspaces and tank farm exhauster slipstreams. Two APR cartridges from SCOTT (now 3M) and two PAPR cartridges from MSA Safety, Inc. and 3M were evaluated using a cartridge testing system specifically designed to measure and monitor test conditions and sample cartridge inlet and outlet vapor streams for important chemical compounds. Testing focused on analysis of approximately 61 tank vapor chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) that have been previously detected in tank vapors at levels above 10% of their occupational exposure limits (OELs). Each test was conducted over 16 hours of run time. Evidence of chemical breakthrough was assessed by comparing inlet and outlet COPC concentrations over the duration of each test. The breakthrough threshold was normally defined as exceeding 10% of the compounds OEL at the cartridge outlet. Ammonia breakthrough was observed in a majority of the cartridge tests and occurred earlier than breakthrough of any other chemical compound. Several other COPCs did exhibit breakthrough behavior, including mercury, 1,3-butadiene, furan, 2,5 dihydrofuran, and N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), but only in a very limited number of cartridge tests and only after ammonia breakthrough had occurred. In addition, tests results suggest that breakthrough of some of these COPCs may have been affected by competition with and breakthrough of other non-COPC organics, such as ethanol and acetone, with substantially lower toxicological hazard. Comparison of cartridge manufacturers' service life estimates with the experimentally derived breakthrough times indicates that manufacturers' estimates are generally conservative, even in the presence of the complex mixed vapor streams experienced in these tests. With consideration of appropriate safety margins, these results provide valuable insights on cartridge performance to inform industrial hygiene professionals in establishing appropriate cartridge change-out schedules for APR and PAPR use in the Hanford tank farms. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Evaluation of Material Balance Approaches for Hanford Direct-Feed Low Activity Waste Processing - 20022

The Hanford Site has accumulated millions of gallons of tank waste from reprocessing spent fuel to recover plutonium, uranium, cesium, and strontium. The supernatant from the accumulated tank waste will be treated using a Direct Feed Low-Activity Waste approach. The supernatant will be treated to remove solids and cesium in the Tank-Side Cesium Removal process in the Hanford tank farm, then vitrified in a semi-batch process in the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). Currently, each batch of feed is sampled at three locations prior to being fed to the melter: the feed qualification tank in the Hanford tank farm as well as the concentrate receipt vessel (CRV) and melter feed preparation vessel (MFPV) in the WTP. The feed qualification sample is taken from a large batch of accumulated feed, only two to three samples are expected each year. Approximately 275 samples from the CRVs and 1100 samples from the MFPV are expected each year. An evaluation was performed to determine if a material balance based on the feed qualification sample could replace most of the sampling in the CRVs and MFPVs. The evaluation consisted of three elements: (1) determination of the practicality of using a material balance to estimate the stream composition of the CRV and MFPV contents, (2) evaluation of whether the material balance could be automated using the existing process control system, and (3) determination of the uncertainty in glass composition using the material balance approach. It is assumed that periodic sampling at the CRV and MFPV would be performed periodically to re-baseline the material balance, evaluations are in progress to determine the frequency of this periodic sampling. Process sample locations downstream of the melter were reviewed as well, but the partitioning of semi-volatile species in the melter was determined to preclude extending the material balance approach past the melter. It was determined that replacement of the CRV sample location was feasible and did not increase process uncertainty or significantly impact waste loading. Replacement of the MFPV sample was also determined to be feasible, but that measurement of the glass former chemical addition may be needed prior to addition of these chemicals to the MFPV. This measurement could be performed by an in situ laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) system. Limited tests were performed to evaluate LIBS for direct measurements of the low-activity waste melter feed. The use of a material balance would eliminate over 1200 samples each year if only 10% of the CRV and MFPV batches are sampled and could likely allow the WTP laboratory to operate on days only versus 24/7 operation. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Analysis of Respirator Cartridge Performance Testing on the 702-AZ Primary Exhauster for the Hanford AY/AZ Tank Farms during a Waste-Disturbing Event

Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) conducted tests using 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 exiting the 702-AZ Primary Exhauster for the Hanford AY-AZ tank farms. Unlike prior cartridge testing on the 702-AZ Primary Exhauster, the recent tests were performed during a waste-disturbing event. 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 the cartridge service life, including temperature, humidity, COPC concentration, breathing rate, and cartridge adsorption capacity. Testing was conducted from February 10–11, 2017, on a slipstream from the 702-AZ exhauster 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) and canisters (e.g., Summa) sampling 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.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

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↗
DOE OSTI2020

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↗