Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Occupational Safety and Health Administration”

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 OSTI2022

CO 2 Pipeline risk assessment and comparison for the midcontinent United States

For this work, a comprehensive quantitative risk assessment for the construction and operation of CO 2 transportation networks considered for the Midcontinent United States was conducted. The results showed risks associated with CO 2 pipelines were significantly less than those of other pipeline types. The assessment used four conceptual pipelines of different lengths to discuss risks operators may see. The assessment evaluated the risk associated with construction and operation using data from the US Occupational Safety Health Administration to determine the risk of injury or death for pipeline workers and data from the US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration for CO 2 , natural gas distribution, natural gas transmission/gathering, and non-CO 2 hazardous liquid pipelines to develop quantitative likelihood and severity values leading to risk values. The data for the assessment covered incidents from 2010 to 2017 for CO 2 pipelines. The average risk for construction and 30 years of operation for four CO 2 pipeline configurations ranging between 79 and 1,546 miles in length was found. The construction and operational risk averaged between $\$1,400,521$ (approximately $\$0.02$/tonne of CO 2 ) for the shorter pipeline (79 miles) and $\$27,481,939$ (approximately $\$0.10$/tonne of CO 2 ) for a longer pipeline (1,546 miles). The largest risks of fatality for CO 2 pipelines comes from vehicle transport. The largest operational risk to the pipeline was due to leakage. Public pipeline opposition is also a significant risk; it was not quantified but is addressed.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
NASA NTRS1999

Engineered Solutions to Reduce Occupational Noise Exposure at the NASA Glenn Research Center: A Five-Year Progress Summary (1994-1999)

At the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field (formerly the Lewis Research Center), experimental research in aircraft and space propulsion systems is conducted in more than 100 test cells and laboratories. These facilities are supported by a central process air system that supplies high-volume, high-pressure compressed air and vacuum at various conditions that simulate altitude flight. Nearly 100,000 square feet of metalworking and specialized fabrication shops located on-site produce prototypes, models, and test hardware in support of experimental research operations. These activities, comprising numerous individual noise sources and operational scenarios, result in a varied and complex noise exposure environment, which is the responsibility of the Glenn Research Center Noise Exposure Management Program. Hearing conservation, community noise complaint response and noise control engineering services are included under the umbrella of this Program, which encompasses the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard on occupational noise exposure, Sec. 29CFR 1910.95, as well as the more stringent NASA Health Standard on Hearing Conservation. Prior to 1994, in the absence of feasible engineering controls, strong emphasis had been placed on personal hearing protection as the primary mechanism for assuring compliance with Sec. 29CFR 1910.95 as well as NASA's more conservative policy, which prohibits unprotected exposure to noise levels above 85 dB(A). Center policy and prudent engineering practice required, however, that these efforts be extended to engineered noise controls in order to bring existing work areas into compliance with Sec. 29CFR 1910.95 and NASA's own policies and to ensure compliance for new installations. Coincident with the establishment in 1995 of a NASA wide multi-year commitment of funding for environmental abatement projects, the Noise Exposure Management Program was established, with its focus on engineering approaches to reducing occupational and community noise exposure. The organization and mission of this Program were documented shortly after its inception, and individual programmatic components have been the subject of subsequent papers. This paper summarizes the status and accomplishments of the engineering aspects of the Program from a five-year retrospective viewpoint and includes a review of retrofit noise control solution strategies, which have not been previously documented.

Cooper, Beth A.↗
NASA NTRS1978

Information requirements of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's safety, environmental health, and occupational medicine programs

A survey of the internal and external reporting and recordkeeping procedures of these programs was conducted and the major problems associated with them are outlined. The impact of probable future requirements on existing information systems is evaluated. This report also presents the benefits of combining the safety and health information systems into one computerized system and recommendations for the development and scope of that system.

Whyte, A. A.↗
NASA NTRS2001

NASA Safety and Health (Short Form). Final rule

This final rule adopts with changes the interim rule published in the Federal Register on April 5, 2001 (65 FR 18051-18053), which amended the NASA FAR Supplement to implement a Safety and Health (Short Form) clause to address safety and occupational health in all NASA contracts above the micro-purchase threshold where the existing Safety and Health clause did not apply, and amended other safety and health clauses to be consistent with the new NASA Safety and Health (Short Form) clause.

Contract Services↗
NASA NTRS2015

NASA and ESA Collaboration on Hexavalent Chrome Alternatives - Pretreatments with Primers Screening Final Test Report

Hexavalent chromium (hex chrome or Cr(VI)) is a widely used element within applied coating systems because of its self-healing and corrosion-resistant properties. The replacement of hex chrome in the processing of aluminum for aviation and aerospace applications remains a goal of great significance. Aluminum is the major manufacturing material of structures and components in the space flight arena. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the European Space Agency (ESA) are engaged in a collaborative effort to test and evaluate alternatives to hexavalent chromium containing corrosion coating systems. NASA and ESA share common risks related to material obsolescence associated with hexavalent chromium used in corrosion-resistant coatings. In the United States, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) studies have concluded that hexavalent chromium is carcinogenic and poses significant risk to human health. On May 5, 2011, amendments to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) were issued in the Federal Register. Subpart 223.73 prohibits contracts from requiring hexavalent chromium in deliverables unless certain exceptions apply. Subpart 252.223-7008 provides the contract clause prohibiting contractors and subcontractors from using or delivering hexavalent chromium in a concentration greater than 0.1 percent by weight for all new contracts associated with supplies, maintenance and repair services, and construction materials. ESA faces its own increasingly stringent regulations within European directives such as Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical (REACH) substances and the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) which have set a mid-2017 sunset date for hexavalent chromium. NASA and ESA continue to search for an alternative to hexavalent chromium in coatings applications that meet their performance requirements in corrosion protection, cost, operability, and health and safety, while typically specifying that performance must be equal to or greater than existing systems. The overall objective of the collaborative effort between NASA TEERM and ESA is to test and evaluate coating systems (pretreatments, pretreatments with primer, and pretreatments with primer and topcoat) as replacements for hexavalent chrome coatings in aerospace applications. This objective will be accomplished by testing promising coatings identified from previous NASA, ESA, Department of Defense (DOD), and other project experience. Additionally, several new materials will be analyzed according to ESA-identified specifications.

coating↗
NASA NTRS2008

Final Report on NASA Portable Laser Coating Removal Systems Field Demonstrations and Testing

Processes currently used throughout the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to remove corrosion and coatings from structures, ground service equipment, small parts and flight components result in waste streams consisting of toxic chemicals, spent media blast materials, and waste water. When chemicals are used in these processes they are typically high in volatile organic compounds (VOC) and are considered hazardous air pollutants (HAP). When blast media is used, the volume of hazardous waste generated is increased significantly. Many of the coatings historically used within NASA contain toxic metals such as hexavalent chromium, and lead. These materials are highly regulated and restrictions on worker exposure continue to increase. Most recently the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reduced the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for hexavalent chromium (CrVI) from 52 to 5 micrograms per cubic meter of air as an 8-hour time-weighted average. Hexavalent chromium is found in numerous pretreatment and primer coatings used within the Space Shuttle Program. In response to the need to continue to protect assets within the agency and the growing concern over these new regulations, NASA is researching different ways to continue the required maintenance of both facility and flight equipment in a safe, efficient, and environmentally preferable manner. The use of laser energy to prepare surfaces for a variety of processes, such as corrosion and coating removal, weld preparation, and non destructive evaluation (NDE) is a relatively new application of the technology that has been proven to be environmentally preferable and in many cases less labor intensive than currently used removal methods. The novel process eliminates VOCs and blast media and captures the removed coatings with an integrated vacuum system. This means that the only waste generated are the coatings that are removed, resulting in an overall cleaner process. The development of a Portable Laser Coating Removal System (PLCRS) started as the goal of a Joint Group on Pollution Prevention (JG-PP) project, led by the Air Force, where several types of lasers in several configurations were thoroughly evaluated. Following this project, NASA decided to evaluate the best performers on processes and coatings specific to the agency. Laser systems used during this project were all of a similar design, between 40 and 500 Watts, most of which had integrated vacuum systems in order to collect materials removed from substrate surfaces during operation.

Rothgeb, Matthew J↗
DOE OSTI2020

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↗
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↗
NASA NTRS2010

Asbestos Exposure Assessment Database

Exposure to particular hazardous materials in a work environment is dangerous to the employees who work directly with or around the materials as well as those who come in contact with them indirectly. In order to maintain a national standard for safe working environments and protect worker health, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set forth numerous precautionary regulations. NASA has been proactive in adhering to these regulations by implementing standards which are often stricter than regulation limits and administering frequent health risk assessments. The primary objective of this project is to create the infrastructure for an Asbestos Exposure Assessment Database specific to NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) which will compile all of the exposure assessment data into a well-organized, navigable format. The data includes Sample Types, Samples Durations, Crafts of those from whom samples were collected, Job Performance Requirements (JPR) numbers, Phased Contrast Microscopy (PCM) and Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) results and qualifiers, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), and names of industrial hygienists who performed the monitoring. This database will allow NASA to provide OSHA with specific information demonstrating that JSC s work procedures are protective enough to minimize the risk of future disease from the exposures. The data has been collected by the NASA contractors Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) and Wyle Laboratories. The personal exposure samples were collected from devices worn by laborers working at JSC and by building occupants located in asbestos-containing buildings.

Arcot, Divya K.↗
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

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) 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↗
DOE OSTI2020

LLNS Request for Variance From 10 CFR 851 for Construction of LLNL Emergency Operations Center

Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) is submitting the following variance application requesting the use of the State of California’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) Regulations in lieu of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 851 (10 CFR 851, the Rule), Worker Safety and Health Program, Subpart B (Program Requirements), Subpart C (Specific Program Requirements), and Appendix A (Worker Safety and Health Functional Areas), solely with respect to the construction of the new Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Emergency Operations Center (EOC) facility. The request is in support of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) “pilot” to streamline the delivery of commercial-like line item construction projects under $50 million. This pilot is aligned with the approved NA-50 safety approach for the projects in the pilot. This pilot is to test and demonstrate innovation leading to a reduced cost of construction for building commercial type structures at Department of Energy (DOE)/NNSA facilities. The variance proposes to permit local/regional construction businesses contracted to Management & Operation contractor operated facilities to bid, operate, execute, and comply with safety and health standards they utilize in their business outside of the DOE Complex. This will permit compliance to standards that are as safe and healthful as those in 10 CFR 851 without confusion, additional cost, and inefficiencies associated with the burden of compliance to an unfamiliar regulatory spectrum.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
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 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↗
DOE OSTI2020

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↗
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 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↗