Analysis of Respirator Cartridge Performance Testing on a Hanford AP Tank Farm Primary ...

162 Pages·2016·2.71 MB·English

by  Susan Tackett

PNNL-25860
Analysis of Respirator Cartridge
Performance Testing on a Hanford
AP Tank Farm Primary Exhauster
Slipstream
September 2016
SK Nune
J Liu
CJ Freeman
TM Brouns
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy
under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

PNNL-25860
Analysis of Respirator
Cartridge Performance
Testing on a Hanford
AP Tank Farm Primary
Exhauster
SK Nune
J Liu
CJ Freeman
TM Brouns
September 2016
Prepared for
the U.S. Department of Energy
under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, Washington 99352

Executive Summary
Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) conducted tests using two types of chemical cartridges
for use in air purifying respirators to determine the period of time that the cartridges would provide
adequate protection to workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs)
from vapors exiting the Hanford Site AP tank farm primary exhauster. The Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) identifies cartridge testing as a valid approach for establishing a cartridge
change-out 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 identifies
as important to service-life evaluation, including temperature, humidity, COPC concentration, breathing
rate, and cartridge adsorption capacity.
Testing was conducted over a period from June 24-26, 2016, using a slipstream from the AP Tank Farm
exhauster fed to a respirator cartridge test stand. Multipurpose respirator cartridges, SCOTT 7422-SC1
and 7422-SD1 (SCOTT Safety, Monroe, NC) were each assessed with exhauster slipstream vapors in
tests conducted 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 (PNNL) 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. The following are the key conclusions from
the analysis:
• Based on measurements of the cartridge inlet vapor concentrations from the AP exhauster only
ammonia and N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) exceeded the Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL).
All other COPC concentrations were below the corresponding OELs.
– Ammonia inlet vapor concentrations were consistent with historic AP exhauster measurements, at
elevated concentrations up to 68 ppm, exceeding the OEL by more than 200%. Respirator
cartridge outlet measurements were below detection limits, and well below 10% OEL for up to
4 hours and 6 hours for SCOTT 7422-SC1 and 7422-SD1 cartridges, respectively. Evidence of
ammonia breakthrough was observed for both cartridges after these times, such that cartridge
change-out timing could be prescribed.
– NDMA inlet vapor concentrations also were consistent with historic AP exhauster measurements,
at elevated concentrations exceeding the OEL by more than 3000%. Respirator cartridge outlet
measurements were consistently low, at, or slightly above the detection limit for the duration of
each cartridge test (16 hours). No evidence of breakthrough was observed for NDMA.
• The inlet vapor concentrations for four additional COPCs were below their corresponding OELs but
exceeded 10% of the OEL levels. These were mercury and the nitrosamines; N-nitrosodiethylamine
(NDEA), N-nitrosomethylethylamine (NMEA), and N-nitrosomorpholine. However, respirator
cartridge outlet measurements for these COPCs were consistently low, at, or slightly above the
detection limit for the duration of each 16-hour cartridge test, and no evidence of breakthrough was
observed.
• The inlet vapor concentrations of all other measured COPCs were below the 10% OEL threshold.
However, for the majority of COPCs, the inlet vapor concentration during cartridge testing was lower
than average measurements from historical AP exhauster monitoring results. Therefore, when influent
concentrations are higher than those tested, additional evaluations should be conducted to determine
proper respiratory protection requirements.
iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations
APR air purifying respirator
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COPC Chemicals Of Potential Concern
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OEL Occupational Exposure Limit
NDMA N-Nitrosodimethylamine
NDEA N-Nitrosodiethylamine
NMEA N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
SCBA self-contained breathing apparatus
ppm parts per million
WRPS Washington River Protection Solutions
PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
VOC volatile organic compound
TWINS Tank Waste Information Network System
v

Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... v
1.0 Introduction/Project Description ....................................................................................................... 1.1
2.0 Regulatory Requirements .................................................................................................................. 2.1
2.1 Background on Regulatory Requirements ................................................................................ 2.1
2.2 OSHA-Approved Methods for Determining Cartridge Change-Out Times ............................. 2.1
2.3 Variables that Impact Cartridge Change-Out Schedule ............................................................ 2.3
3.0 Description of Testing Program ........................................................................................................ 3.1
4.0 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 4.1
5.0 Plots of COPCs with Significant Detected Values ............................................................................ 5.1
6.0 Factoring in Historical Concentration Data ....................................................................................... 6.1
7.0 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 7.1
8.0 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 8.1
9.0 References ......................................................................................................................................... 9.1
Appendix A – Raw Analytical Data for AP Tank Farm Vapor Testing ................................................... A.1
Appendix B – Data Reduction Description ................................................................................................B.1
Appendix C – Uncertainty Analysis ..........................................................................................................C.1
Appendix D – Description of Respirator Cartridge Testing Setup ........................................................... D.1
Appendix E – Analytical Testing ............................................................................................................... E.1
Appendix F – Current Respirator Manufacturers....................................................................................... F.1
Appendix G – Historical Data Comparison .............................................................................................. G.1
Appendix H – Plots of Other COPCs with Significant (3-10% of OEL) Detected Values ...................... H.1
vii