Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Radiation protection”

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 865 records · Page 48
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

An age- and sex-specific biokinetic model for radon *

Publication 137 of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) describes a biokinetic model for radon used to derive dose coefficients for occupational intake of radon isotopes. The model depicts transfer of inhaled or ingested radon to blood, exchange of radon between blood and tissues, and gradual loss of radon from the body based on physical laws governing transfer of a non-reactive and soluble gas between materials. Here, this paper describes an age- and sex-specific variation of that model developed for use in an upcoming ICRP series of reports on environmental intake of radionuclides by members of the public titled ‘Dose Coefficients for Intakes of Radionuclides by Members of the Public’. The proposed model modifies the model structure and transfer coefficients presented in Publication 137 to allow more realistic dosimetric treatment of bone marrow and breast and expands the model to address pre-adult ages, based on the physical principles used in the development of the model of Publication 137 together with anatomical and physiological changes occurring during human development.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
NASA NTRS2004

Deep space environments for human exploration

Mission scenarios outside the Earth's protective magnetic shield are being studied. Included are high usage assets in the near-Earth environment for casual trips, for research, and for commercial/operational platforms, in which career exposures will be multi-mission determined over the astronaut's lifetime. The operational platforms will serve as launching points for deep space exploration missions, characterized by a single long-duration mission during the astronaut's career. The exploration beyond these operational platforms will include missions to planets, asteroids, and planetary satellites. The interplanetary environment is evaluated using convective diffusion theory. Local environments for each celestial body are modeled by using results from the most recent targeted spacecraft, and integrated into the design environments. Design scenarios are then evaluated for these missions. The underlying assumptions in arriving at the model environments and their impact on mission exposures within various shield materials will be discussed. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of COSPAR.

NASA Center LaRC↗
DOE OSTI2023

MCNP ® Code V.6.3.0 Release Notes

The Monte Carlo N-Particle ® (MCNP ® ) code is a general-purpose, continuous-energy, generalized geometry, time-dependent, radiation transport code developed by the MCNP development team. The MCNP calculations provide predictive capabilities that can replace expensive or impossible-to perform experiments. Specific application problems include simulations of experimental diagnostics, intrinsic radiation, radiation detection and measurement, criticality safety, nuclear threat reduction and response, radiation health protection, nuclear weapons effects, and nuclear forensics. This MCNP code, version 6.3.0, follows the MCNP6.2.0 version. Since the release of MCNP6.2.0, many changes have been made to the MCNP code. These changes include new or improved features, a new build system, code enhancement and modernization, and bug fixes. The MCNP code, version 6.3.0, theory and user input information is documented in MCNP ® Code Version 6.3.0 Theory & User Manual, the build guidance for various platforms is documented in MCNP ® Code Version 6.3.0 Build Guide, and the verification and validation testing for various application benchmark test suites is documented in MCNP ® Code Version 6.3.0 Verification & Validation Testing.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Modularization of Small Modular Reactor Facilities: Physical Protection Recommendations

U.S. nuclear power facilities face increasing challenges in meeting dynamic security requirements caused by evolving and expanding threats while keeping costs reasonable to make nuclear energy competitive. In consideration of the economic viability of small modular reactor (SMR) facilities, many designers and utilities are considering a modular approach to the construction and operation of these facilities. This modular approach considers building and operating a first unit; once the first reactor is in operation, construction will begin on a second reactor. This process would allow the vendor or utility to ensure production of energy and financial income while the second reactor is under construction. This project evaluates the feasibility of modular construction in terms of physical protection and identifies several recommendations for vendors and utilities considering this approach. To conduct this evaluation, a hypothetical three-unit SMR facility was developed, a physical protection system (PPS) was considered for the design, and a hypothetical design basis threat (DBT) was used to evaluate this PPS. Multiple outsider sabotage scenarios were examined, with adversary team sizes ranging from 4-to-8 to determine security system effectiveness. The results of this work will influence PPS designs and facility designs for U.S. domestic SMRs. This work will also demonstrate how a series of experimental and modeling capabilities across the Department of Energy (DOE) complex can impact the design and completion of security-by-design (SeBD) for SMRs considering modular construction. The conclusions and recommendations in this document may be applicable to all SMR designs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Integrating Commercial Ready Autonomous Robotic Platforms to Enhance Worker Safety and Efficiency - 20053

This paper will explore the challenges and triumphs of implementing advanced robotic systems and the supporting technology for the waste management industry. Deployment-ready solutions for autonomous robotic platforms are new to the radioactive waste management industry and have been slow to implement across the complex. Specifically, it will explore Hanford Tank Operations Contractor's implementation of ground-based autonomous robotic platforms to enhance workforce safety and efficiency. The first objective of the project is to demonstrate safe operation of autonomous instrumented robots, followed by a scaling up of capabilities for the platform to meet any additional requests of internal stakeholders. Autonomous robotics platforms offer a fantastic range of capabilities that will aid in decreasing long-term liability of radioactive waste management industry by enhancing clean-up efforts and worker safety. Over the past five years, deployment-ready solutions for autonomous robotic platforms have come a long way. Autonomous robotic platforms are increasingly available to purchase from many vendors, often for prices under $100,000. Additionally, the vendors who produce these products are efficient in accommodating customized solutions to unique challenges, such as those often found in the radioactive waste management industry. However, the newness of this technology to the radioactive waste management industry and has resulted in a slow implementation across the complex. This paper will explore the challenges and triumphs of implementing advanced robotic systems and supporting technology for the waste management industry. Specifically, it will explore Hanford Tank Operations Contractor's implementation of ground based autonomous robotic platforms to enhance workforce safety and efficiency. While the company has utilized robots in many parts of the tank farms mission, this was first attempted in the deployment of an autonomous platform that required no operator with only minor maintenance and created challenges not yet encountered. These challenges included stakeholder buy-in, operational safety, procurement uncertainties, adaption of 'off the shelf products, overcoming the 'Fukushima complexity' perception, security concerns, and the initial criteria down select. Hanford Tank Operations Contractor's management identified the need for a workforce protecting low cost robotics solution in the fall of 2017. The project scope generated was part of the response to the Tank Vapor Assessment Team recommendation to enhance the safety of the workforce by utilizing new technology. Since the projects inception, it has been incorporated into the Tank Stewardship Plan. This project was unique to Hanford Tank Operations Contractor, as the company does not frequently incorporate advanced technology for field deployment quickly. The project was also progressive to the Hanford Tank Operations Contractor as it functions as a partnership project with a local university. The first objective of the project is to demonstrate safe operations of autonomous instrumented robotics, monitoring and collecting data, and the wireless transmission of data to a central computing system. Following the completion of this first objective, the project will scale up capabilities of the platform to meet the requests of additional internal stakeholders throughout the tank farms - including completion of specific in-field tasks. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Methods to Account for CAP-88 PC-Omitted Nuclides in Radioactive Air Emissions From DOE Facilities

Routine research and development activities at US Department of Energy facilities can result in the release of radioactive emissions, potentially exposing the public and the environment. Such emissions are subject to certain Clean Air Act regulations, specifically those outlined in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H, which are enforced by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Compliance is determined in part with a dose standard. Doses to members of the public from most US Department of Energy facility airborne emissions are modeled using CAP-88 PC software, the latest version of which contains more than 1,200 radionuclides. Radioactive effluents from US Department of Energy facilities may contain radioisotopes that are not available in CAP-88 PC, and those radioisotopes must still be evaluated to determine whether doses to members of the public are below established limits. CAP-88 PC-omitted radionuclides can be accounted for using alternate methods, including the use of surrogate radionuclides. Here, this paper elucidates the process of accounting for CAP-88 PC-omitted radionuclides by providing criteria and rationale for surrogate selection, a compilation of surrogate radionuclides used in the past by US Department of Energy facilities, a discussion of alternate methods used to account for CAP-88 PC-omitted radionuclides and a comparison of methods and impacts on receptor doses. Ultimately, this paper aims to aid in the process of surrogate selection and consequently to simplify and expedite compliance with Clean Air Act regulations.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2020

DOE Hanford Tank Side Cesium Removal System (TSCR) Update: Fabrication and Factory Acceptance Testing - 20300

The Tank Side Cesium Removal (TSCR) System is a modular, quickly-deployable, and passively safe system for efficiently removing solids and cesium from alkaline liquid waste raffinate created by fuel processing on the Hanford site. This paper provides an overview of the project with particular emphasis on completion of fabrication and factory acceptance testing (FAT). All TSCR System components are inside three enclosures known as the Process Enclosure, Ancillary Enclosure, and Control Enclosure. The Process Enclosure is seismic design category II (SDC-II) and built to withstand the rigors of transportation and lifting, high winds, volcanic ash fall, and heavy precipitation (snow) over a temperature range of -25 to 115 deg. F. The Process Enclosure and Control Enclosure were fabricated in AVANTech's Columbia, SC facility, while the Ancillary Enclosure was fabricated in AVANTech's Richland, WA facility. The design and preliminary documented safety analysis were completed in December 2019, with all work being performed in accordance with ASME NQA-1 quality assurance requirements. The Process Enclosure, Ion Exchange Columns (IXCs), and several other TSCR components have a nuclear safety function and are designated as safety significant structures, systems, and components (SS-SSCs). The NQA-1 Commercial Grade Dedication (CGD) process was used to identify critical characteristics in order to accept materials and items used for fabrication of several safety significant TSCR components. This paper also addresses unique aspects and challenges of implementing CGD in DOE facilities and systems. After fabrication and preliminary testing, the Process and Control Enclosures were shipped to AVANTech's Richland facility where the complete TSCR System was setup and connected in a represented layout and configuration that will be used on the Hanford site. Test tanks and pumps were put in place and connected to the TSCR Process Enclosure in a manner that mimicked interfacing Double Shell Tanks in the 241-AP Tank Farm. The TSCR System was then tested/operated under conditions equivalent to those planned for onsite operation. Testing was separated into five separate phases as defined below: - Phase 1: Confirmation of TSCR System readiness for the FAT; - Phase 2: Verification of TSCR System operation under standard conditions; - Phase 3: Demonstration of TSCR System operation under non-standard conditions; - Phase 4: Demonstration of ion exchange media removal from an IXC; and - Phase 5: Completion of TSCR System lift plans and site mobilization. The Hanford Tank Operations Contractor, Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS), participated in all phases of testing. Testing at AVANTech's Richland Facility allowed WRPS personnel to familiarize themselves with TSCR operations in a radiologically clean facility prior to onsite mobilization. Engineering and operations personnel gained valuable experience that allowed them to better refine onsite operational protocols and procedures - including handling and movement of IXCs with a forklift. This paper describes the technologies used by the TSCR System as well as how these technologies are deployed and operated to advance the Hanford mission of safely, efficiently, and effectively treating tank waste. It also provides detailed information on fabrication and FAT, including operational data from simulated tank waste runs. A project schedule for WRPS' planned construction acceptance testing, operational acceptance testing, and actual tank waste treatment is provided. This presentation should be of great interest to parties responsible for the design, testing, and mobilization of modular NQA-1 technologies for the treatment of raffinate and similar liquid wastes containing high concentrations of radioactive cesium. (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 OSTI2025

Basis for Dose and Reactor Safety Design Criteria for Army Regulation AR 50–7 and DA Pamphlet

This report describes the basis used to develop the radiological dose acceptance and design criteria contained in the draft updates to Army Regulation 50–7 (AR 50–7) Army Reactor Program and its accompanying draft Department of the Army (DA) Pamphlet (PAM), Army Reactor Program Procedures. These criteria will apply to Army nuclear reactors that fall under AR 50–7 and its accompanying DA PAM and ensure alignment with the overall objectives of the Army Reactor Program. The development basis for the radiological dose and design criteria supports a modern, technology-neutral, risk-informed, and performance-based approach to Army regulation of reactors and the demonstration of “adequate protection of the public.” To establish these criteria that support the Army’s unique operational requirements, multiple well-known and well-established standards and their supporting documentation were reviewed to ensure consistency with existing regulatory safety levels, including guidance from U.S. and international sources. These include the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) regulations and policy, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s (CNSC’s) regulatory documents, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) safety standards, as well as industry input that is tailored specifically to advanced microreactors. This report walks through the key definitions and associated references used for these criteria, which are outlined in Section 2.0. Based on these definitions, the dose acceptance criteria were established for various receptors for routine reactor operations (Section 3.2), design basis accidents (Section 3.3), and beyond design basis accidents (Section 3.4). Comparisons of multiple national and international dose limits are provided in these sections. Lastly, Section 4.0 outlines the reactor safety design criteria contained in the draft DA PAM and their associated bases.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Idaho National Laboratory CY 2025 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Analysis, Methodology, and Results for Radionuclides

This report details calculations of potential dose—at public receptor locations surrounding the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site boundary and INL in-town facilities—from radionuclides reported to be in use and potentially emitted from INL facilities during calendar year (CY) 2025. All calculations were performed in accordance with the requirements of Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, “Protection of the Environment,” Part 61, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs),” Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities” (40 CFR 61, Subpart H). Modeling methodology, model-input parameters, and contribution to dose by facility, source, and radionuclide at the maximally exposed individual (MEI) location are also discussed. The information in this report supports the “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants—Calendar Year 2025 INL Report for Radionuclides” (DOE-ID 2026). During CY 2025, the estimated annual potential dose at the INL Site MEI location was 2.45E-02 mrem/yr, up from the previous year, but remaining far less than the regulatory standard of 10 mrem/yr (CFR 40 Part 61, Subpart H). Approximately 92% of the total dose to the INL Site MEI originated from Materials and Fuels Complex sources. Emissions from INL in-town facilities resulted in an estimated annual potential dose of 4.50E-03 mrem/yr to the MEI, down slightly from the CY 2024 estimated dose. Year-to-year variations in estimated annual dose can be attributed to adjustments in laboratory operations, changes to facility infrastructure, and variation in meteorological conditions.

42 - ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2026

User’s Manual for RESRAD-RDD&IND Code Version 2: Vol. 2—User’s Guide for RESRAD-RDD&IND Code

Version 2.0 of the RESRAD-RDD&IND computer code is designed to support the implementation of protective action guides (PAGs) after a nuclear emergency incident including a radiological dispersal device (RDD) and/or an improvised nuclear device (IND) incident (EPA 2017). Eight different group types, addressing various decisions, are available for selection. The RESRAD-RDD&IND code calculates radiological doses, stay times, etc., for the selected group that the user wishes to focus on. (That is, the results for all the groups are not calculated simultaneously, and the input for those other groups do not matter, although some parameter values are shared between groups.) Version 2.0 has a user-friendly interface so that the RESRAD-RDD&IND code can be used with minimal training. For example, the user can select the major characteristics of the problem-event type, source term, and decision type from the left side of the interface and then calculate the results with the default assumptions for the exposure scenarios. More in-depth analysis would include specifying site-specific exposure scenario characteristics in the right side of the interface. The procedures for data entry and results viewing are self-explanatory. This is because common window maneuvering features and text instructions were incorporated in the interface design. General and context-specific help are available to aid users entering parameter values, as well. The RESRAD-RDD&IND computer code gives the user the option to select either an RDD or IND incident for analysis. For an RDD event analysis, 11 radionuclides (Am-241, Cf-252, Cm-244, Co-60, Cs-137, Ir-192, Po-210, Pu-238, Pu-239, Ra-226, and Sr-90) are included. These 11 radionuclides are the radionuclides most likely used for an RDD. More than 90 radionuclides can be selected for an IND event analysis. Initial default concentrations are provided for 44 radionuclides for a uranium-fueled IND event. These 44 radionuclides are those that would contribute significantly to the radiation dose associated with a uranium-fueled bomb detonation. The radionuclides generated from ingrowth of these 44 initial radionuclides are also automatically included in the analysis. Pu-239, Cs-134m, Ru-105, and Rb-89 and their progeny can be selected for analysis if they are detected and their concentrations are determined. This user’s guide, which is Volume 2 of the User’s Manual for RESRAD-RDD&IND Code Version 2, provides instructions to users on how to install the RESRAD-RDD&IND code, navigate the interface, and use the various features, including those discussed above, to set up an analysis and view/print the results in text outputs. Volume 1 of the User’s Manual for RESRAD-RDD&IND Code Version 2 (Yu et al. 2026), which contains descriptions of the methodology and theoretical basis for dose modeling and the mathematical equations implemented in the code, can be accessed and viewed through the Help menu in the code or can be downloaded from the RESRAD website (https://resrad.evs.anl.gov).

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

NESHAPs CY19 Report: Radionuclide Air Emission Report for 2019

Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC operates facilities at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in which radionuclides are handled and stored. These facilities are subject to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 61, Subpart H, which regulates radionuclide emissions to air from Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. Specifically, NESHAPs limits the emission of radionuclides to the ambient air to levels resulting in an annual effective dose equivalent of 10 mrem (100 μSv) to any member of the public. Using measured and calculated emissions, and building-specific and common parameters, LLNL personnel applied the EPA-approved computer code, CAP88-PC, Version 4.0.1.17, to calculate the dose to the maximally exposed individual member of the public for the Livermore Site and Site 300. In 2019, LLNL maintained its compliance with 40 CFR 61, Subpart H. All radioactive air emissions resulted in calculated doses far below the annual 10 mrem (100 μSv) sitewide standard. The annual doses to the site-wide maximally exposed individual member of the public at the Livermore Site and Site 300 from planned and unplanned operations in 2019 are: Livermore Site: 4.3 x 10⁻³ mrem (4.3 x 10⁻² μSv); Site 300: 9.5 x 10⁻⁸ mrem (9.5 x 10⁻⁷ μSv).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Idaho National Laboratory CY 2021 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Analysis, Methodology and Results for Radionuclides

This report details calculations of potential dose at public receptor locations surrounding the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site boundary, and INL in-town facilities, from radionuclides reported to be in use and potentially emitted from INL facilities during calendar year (CY) 2021. All calculations were performed in accordance with the requirements in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, “Protection of the Environment,” Part 61, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs),” Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities” (40 CFR 61, Subpart H). Modeling methodology, model input parameters, and contribution to dose by facility, source, and radionuclide at the maximally exposed individual (MEI) location are also discussed. The information in this report supports the “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Calendar Year 2021 INL Report for Radionuclides” (INL 2022). In CY 2021, the estimated annual potential dose at the INL Site MEI location was 6.67E-02 mrem/yr, up slightly from the previous year, but far less than the regulatory standard of 10 mrem/yr (CFR 40 Part 61, Subpart H). Approximately 97% of the total dose to the INL Site MEI originated from MFC sources. Emissions from INL in-town facilities resulted in an estimated annual potential dose of 6.21E-03 mrem/yr to the MEI, down 40% from the CY 2020 estimated dose. Year-to-year variations in estimated annual dose can be attributed to adjustments in laboratory operations, changes to facility infrastructure, and variation in meteorological conditions.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Idaho National Laboratory CY 2022 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Analysis, Methodology and Results for Radionuclides

This report details calculations of potential dose at public receptor locations surrounding the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site boundary, and INL in-town facilities, from radionuclides reported to be in use and potentially emitted from INL facilities during calendar year (CY) 2022. All calculations were performed in accordance with the requirements in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, “Protection of the Environment,” Part 61, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs),” Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities” (40 CFR 61, Subpart H). Modeling methodology, model input parameters, and contribution to dose by facility, source, and radionuclide at the maximally exposed individual (MEI) location are also discussed. The information in this report supports the “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants – Calendar Year 2022 INL Report for Radionuclides” (DOE-ID 2023). In CY 2022, the estimated annual potential dose at the INL Site MEI location was 1.78E-02 mrem/yr, down from the previous year, and far less than the regulatory standard of 10 mrem/yr (CFR 40 Part 61, Subpart H). Approximately 87% of the total dose to the INL Site MEI originated from Materials and Fuels Complex sources. Emissions from INL in-town facilities resulted in an estimated annual potential dose of 4.03E-03 mrem/yr to the MEI, down 35% from the CY 2021 estimated dose. Year-to-year variations in estimated annual dose can be attributed to adjustments in laboratory operations, changes to facility infrastructure, and variation in meteorological conditions.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
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 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 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 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↗