Mylar Protective Coatings for Glovebox, Shielded Cells, and ...
Mylar Protective Coatings for Glovebox, Shielded Cells, and ...
Mylar Protective Coatings for Glovebox, Shielded Cells, and ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Change Service Requested:<br />
American <strong>Glovebox</strong> Society<br />
526 So. E Street Santa Rosa, CA 95404<br />
Volume 23 #1 – 2010<br />
<strong>Mylar</strong> <strong>Protective</strong> <strong>Coatings</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Glovebox</strong>,<br />
<strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong>, <strong>and</strong> Chemical Hood Windows<br />
By: David Peeler, Savannah River National Laboratory <strong>and</strong> Lyle Freeman. Premier Technology, Inc. – page 6<br />
AGS Conference & Expo 2010on pages 18 &19
In This Issue...<br />
<strong>Mylar</strong> <strong>Protective</strong><br />
<strong>Coatings</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Glovebox</strong>,<br />
<strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong>, <strong>and</strong><br />
Chemical Hood Windows<br />
By: David Peeler, Savannah River National<br />
Laboratory <strong>and</strong> Lyle Freeman. Premier<br />
Technology, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6<br />
Departments<br />
AGS Sustaining Members . . . . . . . . .23<br />
Membership Application . . . . . . . . . .20<br />
AGS Conference 2010 Info . . . . . .18/19<br />
AGS Publication Order Form . . . . . . .24<br />
Advertisers<br />
Controlled Environments Magazine . .13<br />
Delta-F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15<br />
Diversified Metal Products, Inc. . . . . . .2<br />
Guardian Manufacturing Company . .21<br />
Germfree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22<br />
IP Systems, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3<br />
Jennesco Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . .17<br />
LDS Vacuum Products, Inc . . . . . . . .13<br />
MBraun, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11<br />
Merrick & Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9<br />
North Safety Products . . . . . . . . . . . . .7<br />
Piercan USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10<br />
Premier Technology, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . .5<br />
Vacuum Atmospheres Company . . . .21<br />
3
4<br />
The Enclosure<br />
Volume 23, Number 1<br />
Editor<br />
Rodney B. Smith – bsr@y12.doe.gov<br />
Advertising Manager<br />
Crissy Willson<br />
Design <strong>and</strong> Production<br />
Tony Monaco<br />
Publisher<br />
American <strong>Glovebox</strong> Society<br />
The Enclosure is published <strong>for</strong> the benefit of<br />
the glovebox engineering profession serving<br />
nuclear, biomed, pharmaceutical, semiconductor,<br />
aerospace technology, <strong>and</strong> other<br />
industries.<br />
Circulation: Our continually increasing<br />
circulation is now at 3,100 copies. We have<br />
subscribers throughout the United States,<br />
Canada <strong>and</strong> around the world.<br />
Readership: <strong>Glovebox</strong> designers, users,<br />
engineers, fabricators, manufacturers, suppliers,<br />
contractors, libraries <strong>and</strong> universities.<br />
Advertising: Deadlines <strong>for</strong> display ads is the<br />
first of each month prior to publication month<br />
<strong>for</strong> insertion in the January, May <strong>and</strong> August<br />
issues.<br />
All rights reserved: Material may be<br />
reproduced or republished with credit to<br />
source <strong>and</strong> author (when indicated).<br />
Submittals: All letters, articles <strong>and</strong><br />
photographs are welcome <strong>and</strong> should be<br />
directed to the editor's attention. Material will<br />
not be returned unless accompanied by a selfaddressed,<br />
stamped envelope.<br />
Disclaimer: The in<strong>for</strong>mation contained<br />
herein is correct to the best of our knowledge.<br />
Recommendations <strong>and</strong> suggestions are made<br />
without guarantee or representation as to the<br />
result since conditions of use are beyond our<br />
control. The contents are intended as a source<br />
of in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
The Enclosure is published quarterly by:<br />
American <strong>Glovebox</strong> Society<br />
526 So. E Street<br />
Santa Rosa, CA 95404<br />
Tel.: (800) 530-1022 or (707) 527-0444<br />
Fax: (707) 578-4406<br />
E-mail: ags@gloveboxsociety.org<br />
Website: www.gloveboxsociety.org<br />
Postmaster: Send address changes to:<br />
American <strong>Glovebox</strong> Society<br />
526 So. E Street<br />
Santa Rosa, CA 95404<br />
2010 Board of Directors<br />
President<br />
Keith L<strong>and</strong>y<br />
Germfree Labs, Inc.<br />
11 Aviator Way<br />
Ormond Beach, FL 32174<br />
Bus: (800) 888-5357 (X-310)<br />
Kl<strong>and</strong>y@germfree.com<br />
President-Elect<br />
James Spolyar<br />
Aseptic Barrier Systems LLC<br />
9500 W. Flamingo, Ste. #202<br />
Las Vegas, NV 89147<br />
Bus: (702) 363-0086<br />
jim.spolyar@us.skan.ch<br />
Secretary<br />
Patrick Westover<br />
Savannah River National Laboratory<br />
Bldg. 773-A, Rm. C129<br />
Aiken, SC 29808-0001<br />
Bus: (803) 725-1941<br />
Patrick.westover@srs.gov<br />
Treasurer<br />
Steve Chunglo<br />
Canberra<br />
110 Juniper Ridge<br />
Prescott, AZ 86301<br />
Bus: (928)778-1255<br />
schunglo@Q.com<br />
Immediate Past President<br />
Ken Rosenberg<br />
Idaho National Laboratory<br />
1765 North Yellowstone Hwy. MS #3201<br />
Idaho Falls, ID 83415<br />
Bus: (208) 533-7510<br />
kenneth.rosenberg@inl.gov<br />
Moving ?<br />
Please let the AGS Central Office<br />
know of any changes in address.<br />
Send your name, address, city,<br />
state <strong>and</strong> zip code in<strong>for</strong>mation to:<br />
American <strong>Glovebox</strong> Society<br />
526 So. E Street<br />
Santa Rosa, CA 95404<br />
Bus: (800) 530-1022 or<br />
(707) 527-0444<br />
Fax: (707) 578-4406<br />
Board Members<br />
Mark Borl<strong>and</strong><br />
Idaho National Laboratory<br />
PO Box 1625<br />
MS-6122<br />
Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3920<br />
Bus: (208) 533-7660<br />
mark.borl<strong>and</strong>@inl.gov<br />
Paul Contreras<br />
Los Alamos National Security<br />
PO Box 1663<br />
M/S E574<br />
Los Alamos, NM 87545<br />
Bus: (505) 665-3617<br />
pcontreras@lanl.gov<br />
Carl Fink<br />
CTL Corporation<br />
10 Rocklyn Court<br />
West Simsbury, CT 06092<br />
Bus: (860) 651-9173<br />
crlfnk@aol.com<br />
Lyle Freeman<br />
Premier Technology, Inc.<br />
1858 West Bridge<br />
Blackfoot, ID 83221<br />
Bus: (208) 785-2274<br />
lfreeman@ptius.net<br />
Russ Krainiak<br />
Integrated Containment System<br />
215 Hilltop Lane<br />
Washington, NC 27889<br />
Bus: (252) 946-0166<br />
russ@integratedcontainmentsystems.com<br />
Nathan Levene<br />
Merrick & Company<br />
2450 S. Peoria Street<br />
Aurora, CO 80014-5472<br />
Bus: (303) 353-3880<br />
nate.levene@merrick.com<br />
Keith Rensberger<br />
IP Systems, Inc.<br />
2685 Industrial Lane<br />
Broomfield, CO 80020<br />
Bus: (303) 438-1570<br />
keithr@ipsysinc.com<br />
Ron Smith<br />
879 Murrah Rd.<br />
North Augusta, SC 29860<br />
Bus:(803) 613-9695<br />
rbsmith78@bellsouth.net<br />
Fidel Vigil<br />
Los Alamos National Security<br />
PO Box 1663, MS E581<br />
Los Alamos, NM 87545<br />
Bus: (505) 665-7137<br />
fvigil@lanl.gov<br />
Trish Wright<br />
Los Alamos National Security<br />
635 Armenta Street<br />
Santa Fe, NM 87505<br />
Bus: (505) 665-2499<br />
pwright@lanl.gov
<strong>Mylar</strong> <strong>Protective</strong> <strong>Coatings</strong> <strong>for</strong><br />
<strong>Glovebox</strong>, <strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong>,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Chemical Hood Windows<br />
By: David Peeler, Savannah River National Laboratory. Aiken, South Carolina <strong>and</strong><br />
Lyle Freeman. Premier Technology, Inc., Blackfoot, Idaho<br />
6<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
Acommon issue <strong>for</strong> isolator (gloveboxes, shielded cells, chemical hoods, etc.) windows is the<br />
degradation of visual clarity over time due to accidental scratching, spills, splatters,<br />
staining, <strong>and</strong>/or radiation damage. As visual clarity degrades, operational efficiency also<br />
decreases as operators have increased difficulty in per<strong>for</strong>ming routine tasks. At some point, a<br />
decision is made to either replace or refurbish the affected window, which can be time<br />
consuming <strong>and</strong> costly as well as lead to significant operational downtime. As an example, a<br />
current technique to mitigate this issue used in the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL)<br />
<strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong> is to place a rigid, monolithic sheet of Lexan (typically 40” (length) x 36” (width)<br />
x 1/2” (thick)) in front of the glass window as a protective barrier. Over time, visual clarity of the<br />
Lexan deteriorates, resulting in the need to replace the Lexan sheet every 1 to 2 years or on<br />
an as-needed basis. Replacement is accomplished by cutting a new Lexan sheet to size,<br />
retrofitting this sheet with manipulator friendly h<strong>and</strong>les, transferring the sheet into the cells, <strong>and</strong><br />
mounting the sheet into place. Subsequently, the worn Lexan sheet is cut into smaller pieces<br />
<strong>and</strong> disposed of via the appropriate waste disposal route. Similar degradation occurs on<br />
glovebox or hood sash windows, but in these cases complete replacement of the window is<br />
typically required to regain visual clarity (i.e., generally no primary barrier is used). Whether it<br />
is the replacement of a large Lexan sheet in the SRNL <strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong> or a direct replacement<br />
of a window in a shielded cell, glovebox, or hood sash, replacement <strong>and</strong> bulk waste disposal<br />
are required, which can be time consuming <strong>and</strong> costly.<br />
SRNL has introduced a unique <strong>and</strong> novel system to overcome the difficulties of this work<br />
environment. A series of tests were conducted at SRNL to assess the use of a thin, multilayered<br />
system of <strong>Mylar</strong> sheets (each sheet approximately 4 mil thick) to serve as a primary or<br />
secondary protective barrier against acid etching (“frosting”), accidental scratching (e.g., by<br />
manipulator or tool contact), accidental spills or splashes (e.g., acids <strong>and</strong>/or bases), <strong>and</strong>/or<br />
radiation damage <strong>for</strong> isolator or enclosure windows. Thin, multi-layered sheets of <strong>Mylar</strong><br />
(referred to as the ProTec tear-off system) directly applied to the Lexan sheet or window could<br />
result in significant cost reductions through rapid restoration of visual clarity leading to minimal<br />
degradation in operator efficiency <strong>and</strong> overall facility attainment. Upon degradation of visual<br />
clarity due to accidental scratching, spills/splatters, <strong>and</strong>/or radiation damage, the outer layer<br />
(or sheet) of <strong>Mylar</strong> can be removed restoring visual clarity. Due to the multiple layers, the<br />
remaining <strong>Mylar</strong> sheets would provide continued protection <strong>for</strong> the window from potential<br />
reoccurrences (which could be immediate or after some extended time period).<br />
As mentioned, a significant advantage of this system is that it reduces the waste disposal<br />
volume (i.e., disposal of a thin 4 mil thick sheet of <strong>Mylar</strong>, which is collapsible, versus the bulk<br />
disposal of a rigid Lexan sheet or a glovebox/sash window that may require size reduction to<br />
fit disposal containment). The multi-layer ProTec tear-off system would also reduce the<br />
number of cell entries needed to replace the Lexan or alpha shields <strong>and</strong> increase the time<br />
interval between glovebox/sash window replacements which are costly <strong>and</strong> time consuming.<br />
OBJECTIVE AND METRICS<br />
The objective of this study was to demonstrate the viability of the <strong>Mylar</strong> tear-off system to<br />
serve as an effective primary or secondary barrier against damage incurred as a result of<br />
radiation, acidic/basic reactions, <strong>and</strong>/or accidental scratching. In addition, in-situ testing was<br />
per<strong>for</strong>med to gain insight into the system’s per<strong>for</strong>mance under very harsh environmental <strong>and</strong><br />
test conditions.<br />
continued on page 8
continued from page 6<br />
<strong>Mylar</strong> <strong>Protective</strong> <strong>Coatings</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Glovebox</strong>, <strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong>,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Chemical Hood Windows<br />
Two primary metrics were used to judge whether the<br />
ProTec tear-off system could be successfully implemented into<br />
these hazardous environments:<br />
• Mechanical integrity<br />
• Visual clarity<br />
The metric of mechanical integrity is rather straight<strong>for</strong>ward<br />
in terms of classifying success. If the outermost tear-off can not<br />
be completely removed by the use of manipulators (or by h<strong>and</strong><br />
in other applications such as glovebox or hood sash use) after<br />
exposure to some environment, then the tear-off system or<br />
concept is of no value. Complete removal (i.e. without ripping)<br />
of the outer layer tear-off after exposure to acids, bases,<br />
physical impact, radiation or any combination of these is of<br />
utmost importance.<br />
With respect to visual clarity, the success metric becomes<br />
a little more ill-defined. That is, documentation via notebook<br />
entries <strong>and</strong> time-lapsed digital photos can provide a visual<br />
measure from which to gauge success, but what level of visual<br />
degradation would result in a decision to terminate the possible<br />
implementation of the concept? The answer may rely not on<br />
how much visual degradation occurs, but on how long it takes<br />
to reach some critical or detrimental level. As previously<br />
mentioned, current practice in the SRNL <strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong> requires<br />
changing the Lexan sheets or alpha shields that protect the<br />
primary window on some time interval basis (typically 1 to 2<br />
years). If the tear-offs extend this time interval, one may classify<br />
this as a success. In judging this potential, one also has to<br />
remember that the tear-offs are multi-layered, so visual degradation<br />
success should perhaps be judged on the integrated time<br />
the ProTec tear-off system provides access to visual clarity<br />
relative to the 1-2 year time period typically observed <strong>for</strong> each<br />
Lexan plate.<br />
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH AND RESULT<br />
To assess the viability of the tear-off system as a protective<br />
barrier, a series of tests was conducted to evaluate the per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
of the system under specific environmental conditions.<br />
The environmental or test conditions used to demonstrate<br />
viability included:<br />
8<br />
• acid/base resistance (e.g., simulating exposure to acid<br />
vapors or base spills/splatters),<br />
• scratch resistance (e.g., an aggressive simulation of<br />
accidental contact between the window <strong>and</strong> the<br />
manipulator <strong>and</strong>/or other tools),<br />
• radiation damage resistance (e.g., against radioactive<br />
sources in shielded cells <strong>and</strong>/or gloveboxes),<br />
• in-situ service conditions of a tear-off prototype within<br />
the analytical cells of the world’s largest high-level<br />
waste vitrification facility (the Defense Waste Processing<br />
Facility (DWPF)).<br />
Long-term exposure to four acids covered a time of 456<br />
days. Base resistance testing utilized a simulated DWPF highlevel<br />
waste sludge with a pH of approximately 13. In addition,<br />
two in-situ demonstrations were per<strong>for</strong>med to gain some insight<br />
into the behavior of the <strong>Mylar</strong> tear-off system under more realis-<br />
tic service conditions. One in-situ test occurred in the SRNL<br />
<strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong> Facility in which the <strong>Mylar</strong> tear-off system was<br />
exposed to gamma radiation <strong>for</strong> ~700 days (or a cumulative<br />
dose of ~3.4 x 10 5 rad) <strong>and</strong> other in-cell environmental<br />
conditions which varied as different projects were completed. A<br />
<strong>Mylar</strong> tear-off prototype was also inserted into actual radioactive<br />
field conditions within DWPF’s Analytical Sampling <strong>Cells</strong>. During<br />
the in-situ testing, the tear-off systems were exposed to acidic<br />
environments (vapor <strong>and</strong> contact), radioactive backgrounds (as<br />
actual high-level waste was sampled <strong>and</strong> processed), <strong>and</strong><br />
manipulator contact over a 5 to 6 month period. A high-level<br />
overview of the test conditions <strong>and</strong> results are discussed below.<br />
George et al. (2005) <strong>and</strong> Peeler (2008) provide a full description<br />
of the experimental tests, their basis, <strong>and</strong> the results.<br />
ACID RESISTANCE<br />
To support this assessment, a set of 4 mil (3 layer) <strong>Mylar</strong><br />
tear-offs was mounted on four separate Lexan plates. Each<br />
Lexan plate was placed directly on top of a Teflon vessel<br />
(referred to as a 0” height) containing one of four acids<br />
exposing the <strong>Mylar</strong> tear-off to the acid vapors. Figure 1 shows<br />
the set-up of three of the four acid resistance tests. As specified<br />
by the DWPF, the acids <strong>and</strong> concentrations used were: concentrated<br />
(28.9M) HF, concentrated (15.9M) HNO3, 6M HCl, <strong>and</strong><br />
0.6M H3BO3. The Teflon vessels had a capacity of 250 mL <strong>and</strong><br />
were filled <strong>and</strong> maintained with approximately 200 – 225 mL of<br />
acid. In addition to the tear-off system (Lexan + tear-off), a Lexan<br />
blank (Lexan-only) was also placed on top of each acid bath as<br />
a reference (simulating the SRNL <strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong> or DWPF<br />
Analytical Sampling <strong>Cells</strong> use as the primary barrier). The Lexan<br />
blanks provided a baseline measure of how aggressive the<br />
specific test conditions (acid type <strong>and</strong>/or acid molarity) were<br />
with respect to historical observations. For example, a test<br />
condition in which the Lexan blank begins to lose visual clarity<br />
within a short-time frame may be indicative of an overly aggressive<br />
condition compared to those observed in actual field<br />
situations. Additionally, the blanks provide a basis <strong>for</strong> each test<br />
condition when comparing the blank with that of the Lexan with<br />
tear-off system.<br />
Conc HF<br />
0.6 H 3BO 3<br />
6M HCI<br />
Figure 1. Experimental set-up <strong>for</strong> acid resistance testing (0” height).<br />
(Note that the concentrated HNO3 test was per<strong>for</strong>med in a<br />
separate hood <strong>for</strong> safety reasons).<br />
continued on page 10
10<br />
continued from page 8<br />
<strong>Mylar</strong> <strong>Protective</strong> <strong>Coatings</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Glovebox</strong>,<br />
<strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong>, <strong>and</strong> Chemical Hood Windows<br />
The acid resistance testing was terminated after 456 days with three significant<br />
findings. The first occurred on Day 35 with the <strong>for</strong>mation of a yellow stain on the<br />
Lexan blank exposed to the concentrated HNO3. This result suggests that the 0”<br />
height being used in this testing is relatively aggressive given that in actual service<br />
conditions in the DWPF Analytical Sampling <strong>Cells</strong>, visual distortion is not observed<br />
within this short of a timeframe. The fact that the HNO3 tests did not induce a<br />
reaction or visual distortion on the <strong>Mylar</strong> tear-off indicates that the tear-off should<br />
add service life to the Lexan plate or provide a layer of protection to the primary<br />
window under these test conditions.<br />
The second major observation was the <strong>for</strong>mation of a yellow stain on the <strong>Mylar</strong><br />
tear-off after 314 days of exposure to concentrated HNO3. No other reactions or<br />
visual distortions were observed on the other tear-offs exposed to concentrated<br />
(28.9M) HF, 6M HCl, <strong>and</strong> 0.6M H3BO3. Although there was an apparent reaction<br />
between the <strong>Mylar</strong> tear-off <strong>and</strong> the HNO3 vapors after 314 days, complete removal<br />
of the outer layer tear-off was achieved restoring visual clarity. Restoration of visual<br />
clarity indicated that the yellow stain was only associated with the outer layer tearoff<br />
<strong>and</strong> did not penetrate through to the remaining two layers.<br />
The third major finding was that regardless of the test condition (type of acid<br />
<strong>and</strong> concentration), the outer layer tear-off was easily removed suggesting no loss<br />
of mechanical integrity after extended <strong>and</strong> aggressive exposure to acidic vapors.<br />
Figures 2 <strong>and</strong> 3 provide pre-removal <strong>and</strong> post-removal photographs of the 6M HCl<br />
tear-off system after 456 days. In Figure 2, “reaction rings” are observed where the<br />
tear-off system rested on the 6M HCl Teflon vessel. The rings could be a result of a<br />
reaction of the <strong>Mylar</strong> tear-off with the HCl vapors <strong>and</strong>/or surface roughness (small<br />
scratches) from contact with the plastic acid vessel. Figure 3 shows the post-removal<br />
condition of this system where the “rings” have been removed <strong>and</strong> visual clarity has<br />
been restored – which is the primary objective of the tear-off system.<br />
These results suggest that the ProTec tear-offs are a viable system capable of<br />
withst<strong>and</strong>ing relatively aggressive vapor attack from these specific acids, while<br />
offering the opportunity to restore visual clarity through the removal of the outer<br />
layer tear-off when needed. The fact that the tear-offs were exposed <strong>for</strong> 456 days<br />
suggests that (at a minimum) the Lexan sheets currently used by the SRNL <strong>Shielded</strong><br />
<strong>Cells</strong> <strong>and</strong> DWPF Analytical Sampling <strong>Cells</strong> (which are replaced every 1-2 years)<br />
could have an increased service life (3-4 times) when enhanced by a multi-layer<br />
ProTec tear-off system.<br />
Figure 2. Pre-removal condition of the 6M HCl ProTec tear-off system (456 days at 0”).<br />
continued on page 12
continued from page 10 <strong>Mylar</strong> <strong>Protective</strong> <strong>Coatings</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Glovebox</strong>, <strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong>,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Chemical Hood Windows<br />
Figure 3. Post-removal of the outer ProTec tear-off from the 6M<br />
HCl system (456 days at 0”- reflection of laboratory light is visible<br />
near center of tear-off).<br />
BASE RESISTANCE TESTING<br />
To assess the resistance of the tear-offs to highly basic<br />
materials, a simulated DWPF high-level waste sludge with a<br />
starting pH of 12.9 was splattered onto the tear-off <strong>and</strong> allowed<br />
to dry <strong>for</strong> 24 hours. Figure 4 shows the dried simulated sludge<br />
on the Lexan blank (left) <strong>and</strong> on the tear-off (right). In an attempt<br />
to clean the dried sludge from both the Lexan plate <strong>and</strong> tear-off,<br />
deionized water <strong>and</strong> a wipe were used. The result smeared the<br />
sludge across both surfaces leaving a residue which quickly<br />
dried – distorting visual clarity. According to DWPF Analytical<br />
Sampling Cell personnel, this was a very good approximation of<br />
an attempt to clean a splatter of high-level waste sludge onto<br />
the shielded cell window.<br />
Figure 5 shows the system after removal of the outer layer<br />
tear-off. The outer tear-off is shown on the right (note that the<br />
residual sludge is only on half of the tear-off due to its original<br />
placement). The residual dried sludge that was removed with<br />
the tear-off is also clearly seen in Figure 5. Upon removal of the<br />
outer tear-off, visual clarity was restored to the tear-off system<br />
as compared to the sludge residue left on the Lexan blank.<br />
Upon visual inspection of the tear-off, no visual signs of aggressive<br />
chemical interaction (i.e., pitting or holes) were observed<br />
on the <strong>Mylar</strong> tear-off. The two tear-offs remaining serve as the<br />
next layers of defense <strong>and</strong> protection <strong>for</strong> the subsequent event.<br />
The results indicate that the ProTec tear-off system is also<br />
impervious to high pH materials under these test conditions.<br />
12<br />
Figure 4. Dried simulated sludge on the Lexan blank (left) <strong>and</strong> the<br />
<strong>Mylar</strong> tear-off (right).<br />
Figure 5. Restored visual clarity of the tear-off system (left, upper<br />
portion) via removal of the outer layer tear-off (right).<br />
SCRATCH RESISTANCE TESTING<br />
Under service conditions, a primary potential <strong>for</strong> physical<br />
damage to the tear-offs is accidental scratching. For example, in<br />
a shielded cells application, manipulators (or other materials<br />
such as a tool or vessel being held by the manipulator) could<br />
contact the tear-off system inducing scratches or marks which<br />
over time could severely impair visual clarity. It should be noted<br />
that the use of the terminology of “scratch resistance” is<br />
somewhat of a misnomer given <strong>Mylar</strong> is susceptible to scratching<br />
or residual markings. Having said that, the purpose of the<br />
multiple <strong>Mylar</strong> tear-off system is to prevent damage to the<br />
underlying <strong>Mylar</strong> layers or shielded cell, glovebox, or sash<br />
window to the extent that upon removal of the outer tear-off, the<br />
scratches or marks would be removed (conceptually erasing or<br />
clearing any visual obstructions) while providing the next layer<br />
of protection.<br />
To address this issue, a Lexan blank <strong>and</strong> a tear-off system<br />
were placed into the SRNL <strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong> mock-up facility (see<br />
Figure 6). A single sheet of Lexan (~10” length x 10” width x<br />
1/2” thick) was used with a multi-layered tear-off system<br />
continued on page 14
continued from page 12<br />
Figure 6. Lexan plate with mounted tear-off prior to scratch<br />
resistance testing.<br />
mounted on one side of the Lexan (right h<strong>and</strong> side of Figure 6).<br />
A modified tab (lower right in Figure 6) was placed on the three<br />
individual tear-off sheets to allow the manipulators to grab the<br />
outer layer tear-off to assess removal potential (i.e., mechanical<br />
integrity) after physical damage had been induced.<br />
The plate was mounted in the SRNL mock-up facility where<br />
the manipulators were then used to test the scratch resistance<br />
via simulating accidental scraping/scratching of the window.<br />
With respect to the physical nature of the tests (i.e., the<br />
magnitude <strong>and</strong> frequency of manipulator contact with the blank<br />
or tear-offs), there were no official guidelines or procedures to<br />
govern this ef<strong>for</strong>t – given contact is accidental. That is, to what<br />
degree should the shielded cells technician abuse the tear-offs<br />
with the manipulator to assess scratch resistance? Given no set<br />
rules, the test was per<strong>for</strong>med using what was considered to be<br />
a bounding approach from a shielded cells personnel perspective.<br />
That is, the degree or severity of interaction was rather<br />
excessive to simulate a long-term service or exposure which<br />
would yield multiple contacts. For example, the shielded cells<br />
technician intentionally induced scratches on the surfaces of<br />
both the Lexan blank <strong>and</strong> tear-off system using a <strong>for</strong>ce <strong>and</strong>/or<br />
frequency that were inconsistent with normal manipulator<br />
operations in the shielded cells. In this test, the manipulator (or<br />
manipulator tip or grips) was used as both a hammer (beating<br />
the Lexan blank <strong>and</strong> tear-off system in an attempt to puncture<br />
the <strong>Mylar</strong>) <strong>and</strong> as a scraper (intentionally running the manipulator<br />
grips up-<strong>and</strong>-down the face of the Lexan sheet transitioning<br />
back-<strong>and</strong>-<strong>for</strong>th between the blank to the tear-off systems<br />
inducing marks/scrapes along the way). Although excessive<br />
<strong>for</strong>ce <strong>and</strong> somewhat unrealistic service conditions were used,<br />
the primary interest was the mechanical integrity of the tear-off<br />
system after inducing the scratches <strong>and</strong> the ability to erase the<br />
visual degradation upon removal of the outer layer <strong>Mylar</strong> sheet.<br />
Figure 7 shows the results of the intentional abuse to the<br />
Lexan blank <strong>and</strong> tear-off system. Scratches <strong>and</strong> marks are very<br />
apparent on both the tear-off <strong>and</strong> Lexan blank <strong>and</strong> were<br />
considered consistent with (or at least similar to) those<br />
observed in actual service based on SRNL <strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong><br />
personnel observations.<br />
Figure 8 shows the same system after removal of the outer<br />
layer tear-off with the manipulators. The marks <strong>and</strong> scratches on<br />
14<br />
<strong>Mylar</strong> <strong>Protective</strong> <strong>Coatings</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Glovebox</strong>, <strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong>,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Chemical Hood Windows<br />
the <strong>Mylar</strong> tear-off system have been removed refreshing visual<br />
clarity as conceptually intended. Measures of the degree of<br />
restoration of visual clarity are the reflection of the bottle on the<br />
upper portion of the system <strong>and</strong> the absence of vertical<br />
marks/scratches. Another important observation upon completion<br />
of this test was the absence of damage (tears, holes, pits)<br />
to the underlying layers of the multi-layer tear-off system. The<br />
results of this test clearly demonstrate the robustness of the<br />
<strong>Mylar</strong> tear-off system to withst<strong>and</strong> aggressive physical abuse<br />
without compromising mechanical integrity. Removal of the<br />
outer layer tear-off in this test not only restored visual clarity but<br />
also served as the initial demonstration of the ability to remove<br />
the single outer layer sheet with the manipulator which<br />
preserves the multi-layer aspect of this concept. Successful<br />
removal of the outer <strong>Mylar</strong> tear-off under mock-up conditions<br />
provided a sound technical basis <strong>for</strong> conducting such tests<br />
remotely under actual service conditions.<br />
Figure 7. Lexan blank <strong>and</strong> tear-off system after manipulator<br />
interaction.<br />
Figure 8. Lexan blank <strong>and</strong> tear-off systems after removal<br />
of outer layer.<br />
continued on next page
continued from previous page<br />
RADIATION EXPOSURE<br />
To assess potential impacts of radiation on the <strong>Mylar</strong> tearoffs,<br />
a Lexan plate with a tear-off system mounted on one side<br />
was inserted into Cell #15 in the SRNL <strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong>. Cell #15<br />
was selected due to the high gamma background emitted from<br />
Co-60 sources (Bibler 2005). The Lexan plate was placed in<br />
Cell #15 on July 28, 2005 <strong>and</strong> was monitored <strong>for</strong> visual clarity<br />
on a routine basis. Figure 9 shows the Lexan plate <strong>and</strong> tear-off<br />
system hanging from an intermediate wall in Cell #15 just after<br />
cell entry. The <strong>Mylar</strong> tear-off system is visible on the right side<br />
of the Lexan plate, which is aligned vertically.<br />
On September 12, 2005 (after 46 days of exposure or<br />
~22,000 rad gamma cumulative dose) the outer layer tear-off<br />
was removed with the manipulators to assess both mechanical<br />
integrity <strong>and</strong> ease of removal with the manipulators. The outer<br />
layer was completely removed indicating no embrittlement of the<br />
<strong>Mylar</strong> after the 46 day exposure. After the removal of the outer<br />
layer, the Lexan sheet was placed back on the wall in Cell #15<br />
(with two tear-offs remaining) to support longer term testing.<br />
Figure 9. Lexan plate with tear-off system (right) introduced into<br />
Cell #15 on July 28, 2005 (day 1).<br />
On June 20, 2006, the second tear-off was removed after<br />
328 days of exposure (~157,000 rad). Prior to removal of the<br />
outer layer (the 2 nd of three layers), no visual degradation was<br />
noted. The outer layer was easily <strong>and</strong> completely removed (i.e.<br />
without ripping) with the manipulators – consistent with the<br />
removal of the first layer. After removal of the second layer, there<br />
was a noticeable distinction between the “fresh” tear-off <strong>and</strong> the<br />
Lexan blank in terms of visual clarity. Figure 10 shows the system<br />
just after removal of the outer layer tear-off. On the right h<strong>and</strong><br />
side, the reflection of the pipettes or small sample bottles is<br />
relatively sharp as compared to the more diffuse Lexan “ blank<br />
side. This result suggests that some type of residue was coating<br />
the entire system (not evident prior to removal) <strong>and</strong> upon<br />
removal of the tear-off, the deposited layer was removed which<br />
could have led to visual distortion over time.<br />
Figure 10. Post-removal of the outer ProTec tear-off layer after<br />
328 days of exposure (~157,000 rad – note reflections of pipettes<br />
or small sample bottles across bottom half of plate).<br />
On June 26, 2007, after approximately 700 days of service<br />
<strong>and</strong> an estimated 336,000 rad exposure, the third <strong>and</strong> final<br />
tear-off was removed. Prior to removal, there were no visual<br />
signs of degradation (see Figure 11). However, as observed with<br />
continued on next page<br />
15
continued from previous page<br />
the 328 day test, upon removal there did appear to be a coating<br />
or deposit on the final tear-off (see Figure 12). This is evident by<br />
the clean area <strong>for</strong>med by the outline of where the tear-off<br />
system was located.<br />
Figure 11. Pre-removal of the final tear-off layer after approximately<br />
700 Days of Exposure (~336,000 rad) on June 26, 2007.<br />
Figure 12. Post-removal of the Final Tear-Off Layer after approximately<br />
700 Days of Exposure (~336,000 rad) on June 26, 2007.<br />
(A coating or deposit is present on the left side of the plate while<br />
the area outlined by the previous location of the tear-off system<br />
is clean).<br />
DWPF SAMPLING CELLS IN-SITU TESTING<br />
The in-situ DWPF Analytical Sampling Cell demonstration<br />
was initiated to provide additional insight into the potential use<br />
of the ProTec tear-off system under realistic service conditions.<br />
Under these tests, the <strong>Mylar</strong> tear-offs would be exposed to<br />
extremely high radiation fields (the source being high-level<br />
waste sludge being sampled <strong>and</strong> processed through the cell) as<br />
well as exposure to other vapors <strong>and</strong> air-borne particulates<br />
under prototypic service conditions (not a controlled environment<br />
but actual field conditions). On January 12, 2006, DWPF<br />
installed one 12” length x 12” width x 1/2” thick Lexan plate in<br />
Sampling Cell #2 <strong>and</strong> one 12” length x 12” width x 1/2” thick<br />
Lexan plate in Sampling Cell #3. A ProTec tear-off system (a 3layered<br />
system) was mounted onto each Lexan plate prior to<br />
cell entry. The Lexan plates with tear-off systems were very<br />
similar to those used in the SRNL Cell #15 testing described in<br />
the previous section.<br />
16<br />
Sampling Cell #2 exposed the tear-off system to waste<br />
cleaning activities, which involved leaching materials (bottles,<br />
wipes, slurries, etc.) in 50% nitric acid solution followed by<br />
water rinses. Waste cleaning activities are per<strong>for</strong>med in this cell<br />
to reduce the amount of transuranic (TRU) waste generated.<br />
Sampling Cell #3 was selected due to the high volume of<br />
sampling of the high-level waste <strong>and</strong> recycle condensate<br />
materials in a high radiation background coupled with high pH<br />
liquid/vapor exposure. The materials being sampled <strong>and</strong><br />
solutions used to clean in both cells are primary sources of the<br />
window etching <strong>and</strong> frosting routinely experienced in DWPF<br />
under normal operating conditions. DWPF does use a Lexan<br />
alpha shield to help minimize etching or frosting; however,<br />
recent experience has indicated that within 1 year of replacement,<br />
visual clarity is distorted to the point where routine<br />
operations become less efficient.<br />
The DWPF in-situ testing was per<strong>for</strong>med over a period of<br />
approximately 6 months. During this time period, the tear-off<br />
systems were exposed to various acidic fumes, radioactive<br />
sludge, <strong>and</strong> various cleaning solutions. The Sampling Cell #3 tearoff<br />
system was also rinsed with water <strong>and</strong> acid after each<br />
sampling activity or if sludge material came into contact with the<br />
tear-off system. As visibility became an issue, the ProTec tearoffs<br />
were visually evaluated <strong>and</strong> the outer layer was removed<br />
using manipulators.<br />
After 105 days of service, the initial outer layer tear-off on<br />
both systems was removed using manipulators. Complete<br />
removal of the outer layer tear-offs was achieved (consistent<br />
with the removal of those systems exposed to gamma radiation<br />
in the SRNL <strong>Shielded</strong> Cell testing <strong>and</strong> in mock-up). The removal<br />
of the 2 nd <strong>and</strong> 3 rd layers over a 6 month period also resulted in<br />
complete removal which provides additional data on the viability<br />
of the tear-off system under actual field conditions.<br />
Cook (2006) provided a summary of the test conditions<br />
<strong>and</strong> the results of the DWPF in-situ testing. An excerpt from that<br />
report stated that “the <strong>Mylar</strong> layer was able to be removed<br />
ef<strong>for</strong>tlessly with the manipulators.” The conclusions drawn from<br />
DWPF personnel indicated that “the ProTec sheet will prolong<br />
the lifetime of the alpha shields <strong>and</strong> provide good visibility <strong>for</strong><br />
personnel. Use of (unprotected) Lexan plates to protect the<br />
alpha shields proved to be ineffective due to the corrosive<br />
environment <strong>and</strong> the dry powder residue.”<br />
Summary<br />
A common issue <strong>for</strong> isolator (gloveboxes, shielded cells,<br />
chemical hoods, etc.) windows is the degradation of visual<br />
clarity over time due to accidental scratching, spills, splatters,<br />
staining, <strong>and</strong>/or radiation damage. As visual clarity degrades,<br />
operational efficiency also decreases as operators have<br />
increased issues with per<strong>for</strong>ming routine tasks. At some point, a<br />
decision is made to either replace or refurbish the affected<br />
window which can be time consuming <strong>and</strong> costly as well as lead<br />
to significant operational downtime. SRNL, with support from<br />
Premier Technology, has completed a series of tests to assess<br />
the potential use of a <strong>Mylar</strong> tear-off system as a primary or<br />
secondary protective barrier to minimize acid etching<br />
(“frosting”), accidental scratching, <strong>and</strong>/or radiation damage <strong>for</strong><br />
shielded cells, glovebox, <strong>and</strong> chemical hood windows. The<br />
product consists of thin, multi-layered sheets of <strong>Mylar</strong> which can<br />
be directly applied to the shielded cell, glovebox, or hood sash<br />
continued on next page
continued from previous page<br />
window to serve as a secondary (or primary) barrier. Upon<br />
degradation of visual clarity due to accidental scratching,<br />
spills/splatters, <strong>and</strong>/or radiation damage, the outer layer (or sheet)<br />
of <strong>Mylar</strong> can be removed, restoring visual clarity. Due to the multilayer<br />
aspect, the remaining <strong>Mylar</strong> layers would provide continued<br />
protection <strong>for</strong> the window from potential reoccurrences (which<br />
could be immediate or after some extended time period).<br />
The results of this study clearly indicate that the tear-off<br />
system is a viable technical solution to mitigate excessive<br />
window damage that would result from acid etching or spills,<br />
base damage (as a result of a sludge spill or splatter), gamma<br />
radiation damage, <strong>and</strong>/or accidental scratching (due to manipulator/tool<br />
contact).<br />
With respect to acid resistance testing, no visual or physical<br />
degradation was observed on the tear-off systems when<br />
exposed to concentrated HF, concentrated HNO3, 6M HCl, <strong>and</strong><br />
0.6M H3BO3 through a testing period of 456 days. The test<br />
conditions are considered “aggressive” as the tear-offs were<br />
directly exposed to the various acid vapors. The observation of<br />
a circular yellow stain on the Lexan blank under HNO3 acid<br />
exposure at 0” after 17 days, clearly indicates that the ProTec<br />
tear-offs may be more chemically resistant than the Lexan sheet<br />
under those service conditions. The complete removal of the<br />
tear-offs after long-term exposure suggests that the mechanical<br />
integrity of the ProTec system was not degraded <strong>and</strong> visual<br />
clarity could be restored as needed.<br />
To assess the resistance of the tear-offs to highly basic<br />
materials, a simulated DWPF sludge with a starting pH of 12.9<br />
was “splattered” onto a tear-off system. The sludge was partially<br />
removed through the use of deionized water <strong>and</strong> a wipe leaving<br />
a smear of sludge across both the tear-off <strong>and</strong> Lexan blank.<br />
Upon removal of the outer tear-off, visual clarity was restored to<br />
the tear-off portion leaving the sludge residue on the Lexan<br />
blank. Upon visual inspection of the tear-off, no visual sign of<br />
reaction or degradation could be detected. The results indicate<br />
that the ProTec tear-off is impervious to the high pH sample.<br />
The “scratch resistance” testing demonstrated that marks<br />
or scratches can be induced by the manipulators (in “mock-up”)<br />
on both the blank <strong>and</strong> tear-off systems. The scratch marks were<br />
consistent with those observed in actual service in the SRNL<br />
<strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong>. Upon removing the outer tear-off layer with the<br />
manipulators, visual clarity was restored. The result of this test<br />
not only confirms the conceptual “erasing” of marks or scratches,<br />
but also was the initial demonstration of the ability of the<br />
manipulators to effectively <strong>and</strong> efficiently grasp <strong>and</strong> remove the<br />
outer layer tear-off.<br />
The results of the in-situ SRNL Cell #15 <strong>and</strong> DWPF<br />
Sampling Cell tests suggest that the use of the tear-off system<br />
is viable under realistic service conditions. In the tests in SRNL<br />
Cell #15, the tear-offs showed no signs of visual degradation up<br />
to ~700 days exposure (with a cumulative gamma dose<br />
estimated to be ~336,000 rad). In addition, the outer layer<br />
tear-off was successfully <strong>and</strong> completely removed suggesting<br />
no mechanical degradation after the gamma radiation<br />
exposure. The tear-offs also withstood the extremely harsh<br />
conditions within the DWPF Analytical Sampling <strong>Cells</strong> (extremely<br />
high radiation fields, acidic vapors, airborne particulates, etc).<br />
After ~6 months of actual field service under these conditions,<br />
the outer layer tear-off was completely removed restoring<br />
visual clarity of the test coupons.<br />
License <strong>and</strong> Patent Application Premier<br />
Technology, Inc. Lyle Freeman<br />
In 2006 <strong>and</strong> 2007 presentations regarding the <strong>Mylar</strong><br />
laminated ProTec tear-off window protection sheets <strong>for</strong> Hot Cell<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>Glovebox</strong> windows at the American <strong>Glovebox</strong> Society (AGS)<br />
annual conferences, Dr. David Peeler introduced the <strong>Mylar</strong><br />
ProTec layer film glass protection product. This product is an<br />
obvious value added feature to our already existing product line<br />
of Hot <strong>Cells</strong>, <strong>Glovebox</strong>es, <strong>and</strong> Leaded glass windows. When we<br />
were approached about a product technology transfer from<br />
Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) we were very<br />
interested in further discussion. Because of our serious interest<br />
in this licensing opportunity, personnel from SRNL involved in<br />
the technology transfer <strong>and</strong> the licensing process visited our<br />
facility in Blackfoot, Idaho to negotiate the transfer of the ProTec<br />
tear-off product. We were able to agree on the terms of the<br />
licensing agreement <strong>and</strong> finalize the technology transfer.<br />
After the transfer was completed, we continued to be very<br />
involved in the R&D process. The testing of the material, was<br />
per<strong>for</strong>med by SRNL in the laboratory <strong>and</strong> in several research<br />
Hot <strong>Cells</strong>. The <strong>Mylar</strong> tear-off sheets that were used <strong>for</strong> testing<br />
were intended to protect face shield visors on safety helmets<br />
<strong>and</strong> allow the user to tear off a layer if the shield became dirty<br />
<strong>and</strong> the user’s visibility was impaired. The tear-off concept <strong>for</strong><br />
the face shield visor is the same concept used on viewing<br />
windows <strong>for</strong> containment devices; however the size <strong>and</strong> pattern<br />
used <strong>for</strong> the helmet visor would not satisfy the need <strong>and</strong><br />
requirement <strong>for</strong> Hot Cell <strong>and</strong> <strong>Glovebox</strong> windows.<br />
continued on page 23<br />
17
REGISTRATION FORM
continued from page 17<br />
In an ef<strong>for</strong>t to st<strong>and</strong>ardize the size of the multi layered <strong>Mylar</strong><br />
film we came to the conclusion that it was impossible to confirm<br />
any precut sizes due to the fact that there is no st<strong>and</strong>ard window<br />
size in a Hot Cell or <strong>Glovebox</strong>. The design of the containment<br />
device, determines the window size based on the function <strong>and</strong><br />
process requirements, what needs to be seen, view angles <strong>and</strong><br />
process that require specific access or viewing conditions.<br />
Based on that conclusion, we determined that as the <strong>Mylar</strong><br />
ProTec tear-off seller we needed our material supplier to<br />
provide the <strong>Mylar</strong> laminated layered sheets in sizes that we<br />
could custom cut to meet the size requirement of each containment<br />
viewing condition. We concluded that we could live with<br />
three sizes of sheets, small, medium <strong>and</strong> large that could be<br />
custom cut to fit all window size applications with minimal drop<br />
<strong>and</strong> waste. It was determined that four laminated layers were best<br />
to allow visual clarity without distortion. Our supplier also<br />
researched the laminate adhesive to insure no tacky residue<br />
would be left on the remaining sheets when the dirty layer was<br />
removed <strong>and</strong> also when the last layer was removed from the<br />
glass. One of the requirements of the licensing agreement is that<br />
the names or logos or a method of identification <strong>for</strong> Premier<br />
Technology, Inc. <strong>and</strong> SRNL be visible on each individual sheet<br />
that is sold <strong>and</strong> installed. After some research, we came up with<br />
a tab that would identify the two companies. A sequential<br />
number or letter is also used to identify the number of layers<br />
that are left <strong>and</strong> the next layer to be removed. The tabs are<br />
provided separately from the <strong>Mylar</strong> sheets so that they can be<br />
printed with the required in<strong>for</strong>mation. Also, because of the large<br />
number of windows sizes that could potentially be fit with the<br />
<strong>Mylar</strong> Pro Tec tear-off sheets <strong>and</strong> the need to custom cut nearly<br />
every sheet to fit any given window size, we could not work out<br />
a method of incorporating the tab into the base material. The<br />
tabs are designed to be applied when the sheets are being<br />
custom cut. This also allowed us to locate the tabs on the sheets<br />
<strong>for</strong> best access with a glove in a <strong>Glovebox</strong> or with a Manipulator<br />
or robotic arm in a Hot Cell. The adhesive on the tabs was<br />
another issue to resolve. We needed to make sure that the tab<br />
would stick to the <strong>Mylar</strong> sheet under a reasonable amount of pull.<br />
Our supplier came through with adhesive <strong>and</strong> tabs that met our<br />
requirements. On the edge of the <strong>Mylar</strong> laminated sheet where<br />
the tabs are to be applied we were able to work out with the<br />
manufacture a method of leaving about 1/2” on one edge that<br />
has no adhesive, so that we can apply the tabs without pulling<br />
the laminate apart to put the tabs in place.<br />
Windows in a containment device whether it be a Hot Cell<br />
or <strong>Glovebox</strong> are very costly to replace. There are down time<br />
issues, radiation contamination issues <strong>and</strong> the cost of the glass,<br />
especially in Hot <strong>Cells</strong> that are equipped with very costly leaded<br />
glass. The cost to refurbish or replace the glass is especially<br />
high when you are required to build a temporary enclosure or<br />
tents around the Hot Cell or <strong>Glovebox</strong> to contain the spread of<br />
contamination when you break containment while extracting the<br />
window, or refurbishing or replacing <strong>and</strong> re-installing a window.<br />
The ProTec tear-off sheets will allow users to go much longer<br />
without costly refurbishment or replacement of windows, <strong>and</strong> in<br />
most cases the <strong>Mylar</strong> laminate sheets can be replaced with a<br />
new four layer laminate sheet when the last sheet of the four<br />
sheets is removed from the window.<br />
During the time that R&D processes <strong>and</strong> negotiations with<br />
material suppliers were conducted some market research to try<br />
to determine the interest in the tear off product was also done.<br />
<strong>Mylar</strong> <strong>Protective</strong> <strong>Coatings</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Glovebox</strong>, <strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong>,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Chemical Hood Windows<br />
In the limited amount of inquiries that were made we believe<br />
that there is a potential market <strong>for</strong> this product. The ProTec<br />
tear-off product is very resistant to numerous caustic acids <strong>and</strong><br />
abrasive materials. Some processes that require working with<br />
acids <strong>and</strong> other caustic materials on stainless steel surfaces can<br />
benefit by applying the <strong>Mylar</strong> tear off sheets to the surface<br />
temporally to give protection to the base material.<br />
While we will continue our ef<strong>for</strong>t to identify additional uses<br />
<strong>for</strong> the <strong>Mylar</strong> tear off product, its use in the <strong>Glovebox</strong> <strong>and</strong> Hot<br />
Cell market alone makes it a valuable addition to our already<br />
existing product line of Hot <strong>Cells</strong>, <strong>Glovebox</strong>es, <strong>and</strong> Leaded glass<br />
windows.<br />
Premier Technology, Inc. (Blackfoot, Idaho) has obtained<br />
exclusive licensing rights <strong>for</strong> the ProTec tear-off system from<br />
the Washington Savannah River Company (WSRC). The ProTec<br />
tear-offs are patent pending under U.S Patent Application<br />
#11/546,640 <strong>and</strong> PCT/US2007/014286. �<br />
References<br />
Bibler, NE. 2005. Dose Rate Determination in Support of Saltstone<br />
Flammable Gas Generation Tests in SRNL <strong>Shielded</strong> <strong>Cells</strong>, SRNL-ITS-2005-<br />
00153.<br />
Cook, JE. 2006. ProTec Tear-off Evaluations in DWPF Sampling Cell,<br />
CBU-WLS-2006-00010, June 9, 2006.<br />
George, JC, DK Peeler, JW DuVall, <strong>and</strong> RW Blessing. 2005. ProTec‘ Tear-<br />
Offs: A Preliminary Assessment, WSRC-TR-2005-00386, Westinghouse<br />
Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina.<br />
Peeler, DK. 2008. ProTec Tear-Offs: Results of Long Term Testing, WSRC-<br />
STI-2008-00326, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South<br />
Carolina.<br />
AGS Sustaining Members<br />
ABW Technologies, Inc.<br />
6720 191st Pl NE<br />
Arlington, WA 98223-4666<br />
Bus: (360) 618-4400<br />
Fax: (360) 618-4444<br />
adura@abwtec.com<br />
Babcock & Wilcox<br />
Clinch River, LLC<br />
400 Centrifuge Way<br />
Oak Ridge, TN 37830<br />
Bus: (865) 481-7156<br />
Fax: (865) 241-7135<br />
cdirwin@babcock.com<br />
Byers Precision Fabricators, Inc.<br />
675 Dana Road<br />
Hendersonville, NC 28792<br />
Bus: (828) 693-4088<br />
Fax: (828) 692-5753<br />
rogerbyers@byersprecision.com<br />
Emcel Filters<br />
Blatch<strong>for</strong>d Road<br />
Horsham, West Sussex RH13 5RA<br />
jallen@emcelfilters.co.uk<br />
M. Braun Inc.<br />
14 Marin Way<br />
Stratham, NH 03885-2578<br />
Bus: (603) 773-9333<br />
Fax: (603) 773-0008<br />
m.boutin@mbraunusa.com<br />
Miwa Mfg. Co. LTD.<br />
9-8, 5 - Chome, Torikaihonmachi<br />
Settu-city<br />
Osaka, Japan, 566-0052<br />
wada@miwass.co.jp<br />
Miyachi Unitek Corp.<br />
1820 S. Myrtle Avenue<br />
Monrovia, CA 91730<br />
Bus: (626) 303-5676<br />
Fax: (626) 599-7906<br />
ivonet.gomez@muc.miyachi.com<br />
Robatel Technologies, LLC<br />
PO Box 12007<br />
Roanoke, VA 24022<br />
Bus: (540) 989-2878<br />
tgrochowski@robateltech.com<br />
To become a sustaining member, contact the AGS Central Office<br />
(800)530-1022 or<br />
ags@gloveboxsociety.org<br />
23