EPA/600/R-17/021 I March 2017 www.epa.gov/homeland-security-research United States Environmental Protection Agency oEPA Evaluation of Low-Tech Indoor Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents Office of Research and Development Homeland Security Research Program ------- This page left intentionally blank ------- EPA 600/R-17/021 March 2017 Technology Evaluation Report Evaluation of Low-Tech Indoor Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268 ------- This page left intentionally blank ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page ii Disclaimer The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and Development's National Homeland Security Research Center, funded and managed this evaluation. The document was prepared by Battelle Memorial Institute under EPA Contract Number EP-C-11-038; Task Order 28. This document was reviewed in accordance with EPA policy prior to publication. Note that approval for publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views of the Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of a specific product. Questions concerning this document or its application should be addressed to: Dr. Sang Don Lee U.S. EPA 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Mail Code: E343-06 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Lee. Sangdon@epa.gov 919-541-4531 ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page iii Contents Disclaimer ii Contents iii Acknowledgements vi Executive Summary vii 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Experimental Details 3 2.1 Experimental Preparation 3 2.1.1 Surfaces 3 2.1.2 Surface Contamination 6 2.1.3 Measurement of Activity on Coupon Surface 7 2.2 Decontamination Methods 8 2.3 Decontamination Conditions 11 3.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 12 3.1 Ortec® Micro-Detective 12 3.2 Inspector™ 1000 12 3.3 Audits 13 3.3.1 Technical System Audit 13 3.3.2 Data Quality Audit 13 3.4 QA/QC Reporting 13 4.0 Evaluation Results and Performance Summary 14 4.1 Decontamination Efficacy 14 4.2 Operational and Deployment Factors 17 4.3 Performance Summary 23 5.0 References 25 APPENDICES Appendix A: Evaluation Results by Decontamination Method A-l Appendix B: Video and Photos of Decontamination Methods B-l ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page iv FIGURES Figure 2-1. Hardwood, laminate, and carpet (from left) flooring surfaces 5 Figure 2-2. Toilet tank, laminate, granite, wood furniture, and painted wood trim non- flooring surfaces 5 Figure 2-3. Containment tent used for pilot scale experiments 5 Figure 2-4. Contamination of laminate flooring surface with a heavy SFM loading on and around squares (left). Light SFM loading laminate flooring surface on testing squares (center), and ASFM applicator (right) 7 Figure 2-5. Ortec Micro Detective Gamma Spectrometer (Left) and the InspectorTM 1000, Digital Hand-Held MCA (right) with shielding support to facilitate repeatable geometry 8 Figure 2-6. Pass 1 pattern (left) and Pass 2 pattern (right) with decontamination approaches 9 TABLES Table 2-1. Description of Surface Materials 4 Table 2-2. Summary of Contamination Experimental Conditions 7 Table 2-3. Low-Tech Remediation Methods Used for the Evaluation 10 Table 2-4. Test Matrix of Decontamination Methods for Flooring Surfaces 11 Table 2-5. Test Matrix of Decontamination Methods and for Non-flooring Surfaces 11 Table 4-1. Decontamination Efficacy for Flooring Surfaces 15 Table 4-2. Decontamination Efficacy for Non-Flooring Surfaces 16 Table 4-3. Efficacy Observations of Each Surface Type 17 Table 4-4. Operational Summary of Each Low-tech Remediation Method 19 Table 4-5. Accessories for each Low-tech Remediatoin Method by Deposition Method 20 Table 4-6. Estimated Waste from Decontamination of Typical House 21 Table 4-7. Estimated Waste from Decontamination of Typical House 21 Table 4-8. Estimated Waste Stream from Decontamination of Typical House 21 Table 4-9. Estimated Waste Stream as a Function of Deposition Method 22 ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page v Abbreviations/Acronyms %R percent(s) removal ASFM aqueous simulated fallout material ARD Arizona Road Dust CBRN chemical, biological, radioactive, and nuclear cm centimeter(s) Cs cesium DAC derived air concentration EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ft feet g gram(s) HEPA high efficiency particle air HSRP Homeland Security Research Program kg kilogram(s) mg milligram(s) mL milliliter(s) m meter(s) |im micron(s) |iCi microcurie PPE personal protective equipment QA quality assurance QC quality control Rad/Nuc radiological or nuclear Rb rubidium RPD relative percent difference SFM simulated fallout material STREAMS Scientific, Technical, Research, Engineering and Modeling Support ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page vi Acknowledgements This document was developed by the EPA's Homeland Security Research Program (HSRP) within EPA's Office of Research and Development. Dr. Sang Don Lee was the project lead for this document. Contributions of the following individuals and organizations to the development of this document are acknowledged. United States Environmental Protection Agency Kathy Hall, National Homeland Security Research Center Scott Hudson, EPA Office of Emergency Management Paul Lemieux, National Homeland Security Research Center Matthew Magnuson, National Homeland Security Research Center Jim Mitchell, EPA Region 5 Emily Snyder, National Homeland Security Research Center Terry Stilman, EPA Region 4 State of Illinois Mark Hannant Battelle Memorial Institute Ryan James Anne Marie Gregg Melissa Langton Zachary Willenberg Amy Dindal ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page vii Executive Summary The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Homeland Security Research Program (HSRP) is helping to protect human health and the environment from adverse impacts resulting from intentional or unintentional releases of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) contamination. One way the HSRP helps to protect human health and the environment is by performance testing technologies for remediating CBRN contamination from various locations. The objective of the work described here is to collect information and experimental data needed for technical experts to provide simple and useful guidance for residents of the effects of using low-tech remediation options available in the United States. Initially, literature containing pertinent information related to common housekeeping activities within the United States was compiled into a summary compendium including relevant information about multiple low-tech cleaning methods from the literature search results. Through discussion and prioritization, an EPA project team, made up of several EPA scientists and emergency responders, gathered the information into a list of 14 housekeeping activities for decontamination evaluation testing. These types of activities are collectively referred to as "low- tech" remediation methods because of the comparative simple tools, equipment, and operations involved. Similarly, eight common indoor surfaces were chosen that were contaminated using three different contamination conditions. These indoor surfaces were selected because of their prevalence in personal residences and commercial office buildings and of the inconvenience associated with removing and replacing relatively expensive items (compared to curtains, bedding, etc.). The low-tech remediation methods were selected based on availability and ease of use for the homeowners and potentially contractors hired by the homeowners. These methods would also be applicable for the remediation of commercial services that are critical to everyday life. Thirty-three combinations of methods and surfaces were chosen for testing under three contamination conditions for a total of 99 decontamination experiments. This report contains a technical video (no sound) and photographs that show the experimental approaches used in this study. The video and photographs are attached to Appendix B. This method of evaluation included use of multiple common household surfaces (countertops [0.6 m2], pieces of furniture, flooring [1.4 m2], etc.) at a pilot scale for decontamination testing. Testing included deposition (heavy particle, light particle, and aqueous loadings) and measurement of the radioactive contaminant on the surface; application of the decontamination method; and subsequent measurement of residual contamination to determine a quantitative decontamination efficacy (i.e., effectiveness of radionuclide removal) attained by each method. Semi-quantitative and quantitative information pertaining to each method was collected. This type of information included number of wipes/sponge pads used, relative level of contamination on the wipes/sponge pads, and level of contamination on the components of a remediation tool (e.g., handle, support end, and sponge end). A summary of the evaluation results for these low-tech remediation methods is presented below while a discussion of the observed performance can be found in Section 4 of this report. ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page viii Decontamination Efficacy: As summarized below, the decontamination efficacy attained by the low-tech remediation methods on various surfaces and three contamination methods was evaluated following contamination of the flooring and non-flooring surfaces: • 83% of heavy particle loading experiments (across both particle sizes) exhibited contaminant removal greater than 90% • For the heavy particle loading experiments, contaminant removal was not dependent on particle size • 88%) of the light particle loading experiments exhibited contaminant removal greater than 97% • 16% of the aqueous contaminant application experiments exhibited contaminant removal greater than 90%> • 28%) of the aqueous contaminant application experiments exhibited contaminant removal less than 10%> (all either wood furniture, wood trim, or granite countertops) • Of the three contamination methods, the aqueous contaminant application experiments had the lowest removal efficacy Deployment and Operational Factors: Section 4 provides an operational summary of the various low-tech remediation methods that were employed during testing by presenting observations made by the operators using each low-tech remediation method. In addition, it provides the fate of the simulated fallout material (containing radiological activity) following decontamination. This was done by performing a qualitative radiological survey of the tools used for decontamination. For example, this survey revealed that minimal contaminant ended up on the gloves or other personal protective equipment of the decontamination technician, but that in general, most of the contaminant (and therefore most of the radiological activity) ended up on the part of the tools that had most contact with the contaminant during removal. Based on the results of the decontamination experiments described above, the amount (and types) of radiological waste that would be generated from the decontamination of a typical house (using the most effective remediation methods) was estimated. For this example, a two-story house assumed to be 186 square meters (2,000 square feet) was used . The total solid waste generated was estimated to be 49 kilograms (kg). The level of activity in this waste will be dependent on the initial contamination levels, which will then, in turn, affect waste management activities. Several air samplers were positioned throughout the testing to measure the potential inhalation dose to the decontamination worker. The air sampler filters never exceeded 0.2% of the derived air concentration, which is the average atmospheric concentration of the radionuclide that would lead to the annual occupational limit of intake of the radionuclide if working in that environment for a 2,000 hour working year. Also, after every decontamination experiment, the operators were surveyed from head to toe to determine if they had received any contamination on their personal protective equipment (PPE). None of those surveys resulted in activity measurements above background levels. This is ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page ix consistent with the little or no contamination found on the decontamination workers' gloves and the high activity found on the low-tech remediation tools. Almost all of the activity was isolated on the item that was in contact with the surface being decontaminated. The results indicated that the aqueous contaminant that was allowed to dry was much more difficult to remove than the dried dust contaminant, and particles size was not a factor in dry contaminant removal. In particular, the granite countertop and wood trim exhibited extremely low removal percentages for the aqueous contaminant. Most of the removal for the dry contaminant were greater than 95%, although dry vacuum on carpet, wet vacuum on laminate, and electrostatic pad on wood furniture stand out as least effective for the simulated fallout material. The amount of waste is driven by the surface density of the fallout material as well as the weight of the tools used. The data from this project show that tools such as wet and dry vacuums are not the most effective and they are heavy and bulky to dispose of. Wipes and cloths were rather effective, can be conveniently transported between sites (in new packaging), and can possibly be disposed of at each site more efficiently that attempting to transport powered equipment that would have become contaminated. ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 1 of 24 1.0 Introduction The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for environmental cleanup after the release of chemical, biological, radioactive, and nuclear (CBRN) contaminants. EPA's Homeland Security Research Program (HSRP) is tasked to perform scientific studies and develop strategies and guidance for this cleanup. For wide area radiological or nuclear (Rad/Nuc) incidents (e.g., nuclear power plant accident, discharge of a radiological dispersal device or improvised nuclear device), there may be indoor areas such as personal residences, office buildings, or critical infrastructure (such as firehouses and hospital emergency rooms) that may be contaminated with Rad/Nuc material (requiring cleanup), but the radiation may not be high enough to warrant the evacuation of residents. Therefore, homeowners, office workers, or fire fighters/hospital workers may want or need to take action themselves to reduce potential radioactive dose to those living or working in these areas. This research is focused on evaluating low-tech remediation methods that can be performed by tenants or contractors hired by tenants to reduce exposure. Following the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant incident, the Japanese national government developed guidance1 for decontamination strategies specifically focused on residential structures. This guidance outlined which areas required decontamination, which technologies were applicable for the affected areas, and in what order these areas should be decontaminated. The document also provided guidance for on-site waste management. The objective of this study is to begin gathering information needed to inform residents of what is available and its effectiveness as a low-tech remediation within the United States. This study identified, collected, evaluated, and summarized available articles, reports, guidance documents, and other pertinent information related to common housekeeping activities within the United States. This resulted in a summary compendium including relevant information about multiple low-tech cleaning methods from the literature search results. Through discussion and prioritization, an EPA project team, made up of several EPA scientists and emergency responders, focused the information into a list of 14 housekeeping activities for decontamination evaluation testing. These types of activities are collectively referred to as "low-tech" remediation methods because of the comparatively simple tools, equipment, and operations involved. Similarly, eight common household surfaces were chosen that were contaminated using three different contamination conditions. Thirty-three combinations of methods and surfaces were chosen for testing under the three contamination conditions for a total of 99 tests. This method evaluation included use of multiple common household surfaces (countertops [0.6 squared meter (m2)], pieces of furniture [0.4 m2], flooring [1.4 m2], etc.) at a pilot scale for decontamination testing. Testing included deposition and measurement of the radioactive contaminant on the surface; application of the decontamination method; and subsequent measurement of residual contamination to determine a quantitative decontamination efficacy (i.e., effectiveness of radionuclide removal) attained by each method. Semi-quantitative and quantitative information pertaining to each method was collected. This type of information included number of wipes/sponge pads used, relative level of contamination on the wipes/sponge ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 2 of 24 pads, and level of contamination on the components of a low-tech remediation tool (e.g., handle, support end, and sponge end). Qualitative information on operational ease and appearance of the surfaces after decontamination was also collected. This evaluation took place from May 10, 2016 through July 20, 2016 at Battelle's West Jefferson Campus, in West Jefferson, Ohio. Quality assurance (QA) oversight of this evaluation was performed in accordance with EPA Quality Assurance Program for this evaluation. Per quality requirements, two audits were conducted: a technical systems audit and an audit of data quality on the results from the evaluation. ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 3 of 24 2.0 Experimental Details This report was a technology evaluation that included use of low-tech remediation methods on horizontal surfaces common to an indoor residential environment and included evaluating the decontamination efficacy, method constraints, safety concerns, feasibility, waste generation, potential exposure, and cost. This evaluation included the radiological contaminants cesium (Cs)-137, with a half-life of 30 years, added to Arizona Road Dust (ARD) with particle size greater than 250 micrometer (|im) and rubidium (Rb)-86 added to ARD particles between 1 and 10 |im to generate simulated fallout material (SFM) as dry deposition. Rubidium, with a half-life of 19 days, was chosen as a shorter-lived surrogate for cesium, but also possesses similar chemical properties to cesium2. The dry deposition of particles was conducted using a heavy and a light loading onto the surfaces for two distinct contamination conditions. During heavy loading, high activity material was applied to individual test squares and low activity material was applied to the remainder of the surface. During light loading, fine grained material was applied to only the test squares. An aqueous solution of Cs-137 (as cesium chloride) was applied to each surface to simulate a contamination event where initially SFM had been wet due to precipitation or some other source of water and then dried. This contamination approach will hereafter be referred to as aqueous SFM (ASFM). For each surface sample, the SFM or ASFM was deposited on the surface, a pre- decontamination measurement of activity was performed, the low-tech remediation method was applied, and lastly a post-decontamination measurement of activity was conducted. All of the radiological work was conducted in a 4 m x 2.6 m contamination control tent located in a high bay area. A technical video (no sound) and photographs in Appendix B show the experimental approaches used in this study. 2.1 Experimental Preparation 2.1.1 Surfaces This technology evaluation included use of low-tech remediation methods on surfaces found within a home or other indoor building where people live or work. Surface types chosen for this evaluation included a variety of materials used in homes for flooring, countertops, furniture, and fixtures. The materials were large enough to be considered at pilot scale, i.e., a scale large enough to simulate use in a home and relatively inconvenient and expensive to remove and replace. The surfaces were divided into two surface classes: flooring surfaces and non-flooring surfaces. The surfaces (including dimensions) used are summarized in Table 2-1. ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 4 of 24 Table 2-1. Description of Surface Materials Surface Material Type Source Information (Manufacturer; Model/Size; Location) Description/ Approximate Surface Area Flooring Sealed Hardwood Flooring Home Legend; High Gloss Santos Mahogany, 12 cm wide planks. Click Lock Exotic Hardwood Flooring: Adairsville. GA 1.5 in 0.9 m = 1.4 m2 Laminate Flooring TrafficMASTER; Eagle Peak Hickory, Laminate Flooring. Shaw Industries; Dalton, GA Carpet TrafficM ASTER; Thoroughbred Il-Color Chestnut Texture Carpet, PureColor solution-dyed BCF Polyester texture, Shaw Industries; Dalton GA Non-Flooring Painted Wood Trim Finished Elegance; MDF Molding Board; Fruitland, ID 0.2 m x 2.4 m= 0.5 m2 Sealed Granite Countertop Discount Granite; Luna Pearl Granite Island. Columbus, OH 0.1 nix 1 m= 0.6 m2 Laminate Countertop Wilsonart; Jeweled Coral Quarry Laminate Countertop: Temple, TX Kohler; Toilet Tank Cover in Toilet Tank Cover White, porcelain (vitreous china); 0.2 inS 0.5 m x 4 covers = 0.4 m2 Kohler, WI Wood Furniture Shipyard Sofa Table; American Signature Furniture, wood finish, sealed with nutmeg color; Columbus, OH 1.2 m x 0.5 m = 0.4 m2 m = meter, cm=centimeter The size of the surfaces used in the evaluation depended on the typical placement within the home and whether cleaned by hand or using a handled device, such as a broom or vacuum. For surfaces and furniture/fixture items that are typically cleaned by hand, the size was approximately 0.5 m2 or a common size of the item itself. For flooring options, the size was approximately 1.5 m2. These options are larger because they are typically cleaned using tools such as brooms and vacuums which are operated with a person standing up holding onto a handle that is approximately 1 m in length or a vacuum that is pushed with a handle. All surfaces were purchased new so the surfaces were clean and undamaged. Newly purchased surfaces were staged and put through the evaluation steps in an indoor location containing a radiological containment tent, minimizing differences in conditions during use of the various methods over the course of the evaluation testing. Older surfaces in homes may not present the same results. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 are pictures of the flooring and non-flooring surfaces, respectively. ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 5 of 24 Figure 2-1. Hardwood, laminate, and carpet (from left) flooring surfaces. Figure 2-2. Toilet tank, laminate, granite, wood furniture, and painted wood trim non- flooring surfaces. All of the radiological work was conducted in the tent shown in Figure 2-3 (Dual Chamber Tent, LANCS Industries, Kirkland, WA) which was located in an indoor high bay area (Building JS-23 in West Jefferson, OH). The evaluation tent measured approximately 4 m 2.6 m with separate rooms for donning PPE and performing the experiments. Decontamination technicians wore respiratory protection while performing the experimental procedures. The tent was connected to a high efficiency particle air (HEPA) filtration system which pulled air throughout the tent, but did not allow particles past the HE P A filter. Figure 2-3. Containment tent used for pilot scale experiments. ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 6 of 24 2.1.2 Surface Contamination Three contaminant deposition approaches (heavy SFM loading, light SFM loading, and ASFM) were used to evaluate the decontamination methods. In an actual fallout event, the level of SFM loading would vary greatly depending on the height of a possible explosion, ground characteristics below a possible explosion, distance from radiological release, meteorological conditions, ventilation of residences or offices, etc. Previous fallout remediation research3-5 (mostly outdoor) has used surface densities of approximately 20 mg/cm2 so we used this as the heavy SFM loading. This relatively high level served as a worst case scenario for decontamination, possible worker contamination, and waste handling. We then used a SFM density of 2 mg/cm2 as a light SFM loading to simulate a less heavy loading which may be more representative of more actual scenarios. Regardless of approach, each flooring and non-flooring surface was marked with numbered squares using permanent marker. The squares were 15 cm x 15 cm and used to define the areas of quantitative decontamination evaluation and to ensure the pre- and post-decontamination gamma measurements were taken from the same locations. Heavy SFM loading. The first contaminant deposition approach included a heavy SFM loading consisting of ARD at two particle size ranges. This approach has been used during previous EPA radiological decontamination technology evaluations5"6. Cs-137 was tagged to ARD particles that were greater than 250 |im in diameter (12203-250 Test Dust, Powder Technology, Inc., Arden Hills, MN) at an activity concentration level of 1 microcurie (|iCi)/gram (g) and Rb- 86 was tagged to ARD particles that ranged from 1 to 10 |im (ISO 12103-1 A1 Ultrafine Test Dust, Powder Technology, Inc., Arden Hills, MN) at an activity concentration level of 10 |iCi/g. The Cs-137 (#8137, Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, Atlanta, GA) used for tagging was obtained as 5 milliliter (mL) volumes of 20 |iCi/mL in 0.1 molar aqueous hydrochloric acid, and the Rb-86 (N9300145, Perkin Elmer, Waltham, MA) was obtained as 1 millicurie in microliter volumes. For both particle types, SFM was made by adding dilute aqueous radionuclide to a fixed amount of the substrate, mixed to be thoroughly damp, and then allowed to dry. Approximately 2 g of each particle size was measured into a salt shaker (166A Tablecraft, Shenzhen, China) and rotated to mix well. For particle application, one shaker was emptied onto each surface square corresponding to 10 milligram (mg)/cm2 of each SFM for a total particle density of 20 mg/cm2 and 2 |iCi of Cs-137 and 20 |iCi of Rb-86 on each square. The remaining surface was then covered at the same particle density and size, but with a lower activity (0.1 juCi/g Cs-137 and 1 |iCi/g Rb-86) particle mixture (for purposes of personal exposure/dose estimation). Light SFM loading. The second deposition method consisted of a lighter particle load and included only 1 to 10 |im ARD tagged with Cs-137 at an activity concentration level of 8 |iCi/g. Only 0.5 g of these particles were added to each square for an extremely light loading, but still a total of 2 |iCi of Cs-137 on each square. The SFM was prepared in a similar manner, adjusting the amount of Cs-137 and mass of particles accordingly. Aqueous Contamination. The third application included 2.5 mL of an aqueous mist of Cs-137 at a concentration of 0.8 |iCi/mL (diluted from the source standard with deionized water) for a total addition of 2 |iCi per square. A similar contamination approach has been used during several EPA radiological decontamination studies7"14. The ASFM mist was delivered to each ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 7 of 24 surface using a calibrated sprayer (11 pumps corresponds to approximately 2.5 rnL). Exact calibration of this sprayer was not required as the gamma radiation measurement for each surface before decontamination, and not the volume of radionuclide applied, is the critical measurement for determination of applied radionuclide. A small amount of pooling on the surface being contaminated occurred as expected during the application of the liquid aerosol, so the surface was air dried prior to gamma radiation measurement. Solution on the surface was covered as uniform as possible with the evaluation staff s visual inspection while application. Table 2-2 and Figure 2-4 summarize the three different experimental conditions used for contaminating the surfaces. Table 2-2. Summary of Contamination Experimental Conditions Deposition Approach Contaminant Loading on Surface Heavy SFM Loading Cs-137 tagged to >250 jim ARD Rb-86 tagged to 1-10 |im ARD 4 g 1:1 high activity particle size mixture on testing square (20 mg/cnf) 20 mg/cnf 1:1 low activity particle size mixture on remaining surface Light SFM Loading Cs-137 tagged to 1-10 ARD 0.5 grams ARD deposited on each square Aqueous SFM Cs-137 in deionized water Sprayed on testing squares and allowed to dry Figure 2-4. Contamination of laminate flooring surface with a heavy SFM loading on and around squares (left). Light SFM loading laminate flooring surface on testing squares (center), and ASFM applicator (right). 2.1.3 Measurement of Activity on Coupon Surface Following surface contamination, the Cs-137 and/or Rb-86 gamma radiation was measured by placing the spectrometer above the contaminated square on the surface. Initially, the activity measurements were made using a Micro-Detective HPGe gamma spectrometer (Ortec®, Oak Ridge, TN) shown in Figure 2-5. The cooling unit on the instrument failed during the course of ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 8 of 24 the test and was replaced with a Inspector™ 1000 Digital Hand-Held MCA (Canberra Industries, Inc., Meriden, CT). Regardless of the instrument, the pre-decontamination measurements were collected over a 100 second measurement period and the post- decontamination measurements were taken over a 300-second (five-minute) measurement period. The measurement of gamma radiation from the surfaces is a non-destructive measurement technique; surfaces that had been contaminated with SFM or ASFM and have had the gamma radiation measured were then decontaminated using the low-tech method. Following application of the decontamination method, the residual activity on the surface was measured again to calculate the percent removal (%R). Careful positioning of the gamma spectrometer above the contaminated squares was performed to allay concerns over differences in geometry of the surfaces confounding the gamma measurements. Reproducible positioning was done by attaching a support stand around the detector face. The support stand allowed the detector to be set down on top of each square in a location that was labeled ahead of time with a permanent marker. This feature facilitated repeatable geometry due to the consistent position of the detector face with respect to the surface and repeatable location because of the ease of positioning onto the pre-marked surface. Figure 2-5. Ortec® Micro-Detective Gamma Spectrometer (left) and the Inspector™ 1000, Digital Hand-Held MCA (right) with support to facilitate repeatable geometry. 2.2 Decontamination Methods Throughout the course of this evaluation, the evaluation tent was staged separately with the contaminated surfaces given in Table 2-1 (a total of 33 separate staging) with various surfaces for application of the decontamination methods evaluated. Four replicate surface measurements were included for each surface. Once contaminated with a heavy SFM loading, an initial pass in a single direction or standard "sweeping action" where particles were collected at one end of the ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 9 of 24 surface was performed. Then, the decontamination method was applied to the staged surface in a way that two complete passes over the entire surface occurred as presented in Figure 2-6. The first pass took place in one direction, implementing a "Z" pattern (or back and forth) across the surface, covering the entire surface, then a second pass (using the same pattern) occurred in the perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. The low-tech methods used in this evaluation are presented in Table 2-3. PV Figure 2-6. Pass 1 pattern (left) and Pass 2 pattern (right) with decontamination approaches. In addition to the evaluation of the decontamination method efficacy, the potential for resuspension of radiological material during application of each method, was also measured using two approaches. First, post-decontamination measurement of one area on each surface that was not contaminated provided indication of the extent of cross-contamination due to the low- tech method. Second, particle resuspension was measured using low volume particle samplers positioned 0.25 m and 0.5 m from the surfaces during application of each low-tech method. Radiological air sampling and analysis was performed daily (per a Battelle standard operating procedure) to collect suspended particles and to measure potential dose during the method evaluation. Particle air samples were collected inside and outside the radiological containment area as well as from within the breathing zone of the decontamination technicians. Air sampling pumps operating at 2-3 liters per minute were connected to holders containing round quartz fiber filters (60 millimeters in diameter) and operated for the duration of the time that the decontamination technicians were working within the radiological containment area. The activity on the filters were counted daily to document air concentrations. Potential exposure to users of low-tech remediation methods was monitored by conducting qualitative radiological surveys of the workers' PPE after decontamination activities. The focus was on the hands (covered by PPE) and other areas (e.g. elbows, knees, and feet) that were likely to have been exposed to the SFM or ASFM. All gloves used by the workers were collected and surveyed together using a qualitative survey instrument and the locations of contamination were documented on a data collection form. In addition, other items such as wipes and towels were counted and surveyed to determine the approximate amounts of activity and magnitude of waste streams generated by use of these decontamination methods. ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 10 of 24 Table 2-3. Low-Tech Remediation Methods Used for the Evaluation Surface Application Decontamination Method Source Method Comments Pre-wet Disposable Pads on Swiffer® Mop Swiffer® Sweeper®, Sweeper® Wet Mopping Cloths, Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH None. Spray Agent with Swiffer® Mop Swiffer® Wet Jet, Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH Sprayed on top of the deposited SFM or ASFM. Water with sponge mop PVA Blue Sponge Mop, Wet sponge prior to Rubbermaid, Atlanta, GA decontamination. Dry Swiffer® Swiffer® Sweeper®, Swiffer® Sweeper® Disposable Refill Cloths, Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH None. Went over surfaces Flooring (built into Broom with dust pan Standard Broom, Rubbermaid, Atlanta, GA multiples times with minimal visible frame) improvement after first 2 passes. Dry Vacuum Shark®, NV352 Navigator Lift- Away Pro Bagless Upright Vacuum, SharkNinja, China None. Hoover® Commercial SteamVac Spotter/Carpet Cleaner, Techtronic Industries, Wet Vacuum Hong Kong, China XT Hoover® SteamVac SpinScrub Carpet Cleaner with Clean Surge, Techtronic Industries, Hong Kong, China Water with Paper Towel Brawny®, Georgia-Pacific Consume Products, Atlanta, GA Wet paper towel by spraying before wiping. Formula 409® with Paper Towel Formula 409®, Clorox® Company, Oakland, CA Wet paper towel by spraying before wiping. Pre-wet Disposable Wipe Disinfecting Wipes, Clorox® Company, Oakland, CA None. Non-Flooring (placed 0.9 m above floor) Dry Paper Towel Brawny®, Georgia-Pacific Consume Products, Atlanta, GA None. Dry Cloth HDX, Model 7-660, Home Depot, Atlanta, GA None. Electrostatic Pad Swiffer® Dusters Kit, Procter None. & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH Polish Oil SAS Dutch Glow®, 12 oz. Amish Wood Milk Furniture, Sprayed lightly on top of ASFM and SFM. Tarrytown, NY ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 11 of 24 2.3 Decontamination Conditions The evaluation was performed over the course of approximately 2 months from May 10 to July 20, 2016. During the evaluation the temperature in the tent averaged 23.9 ±1.6 degrees Celsius and the average relative humidity averaged 63% ± 5%. Tables 2-4 and 2-5 present the 33 combinations of decontamination methods and surfaces tested during this study. All three contamination conditions were used with these test combinations for a total of 99 tests with four replicates for a total of 396 determinations of removal. Table 2-4. Test Matrix of Decontamination Methods for Flooring Surfaces Decontamination Methods Surfaces Pre-wet Disposable Pads on Swiffer® Mop Spray Agent with Swiffer® Mop Water with sponge Mop Dry Swiffer Broom Dry Vacuum Wet Vacuum Sealed Hardwood X X X X X Flooring Laminate Flooring X X X X X X X Carpet x x Table 2-5. Test Matrix of Decontamination Methods and for Non-flooring Surfaces Decontamination Methods Water w/ Formula Pre-wet Paper 409®with Disposable Dry Paper Dry Electrostatic Polish Surfaces Towel Paper Towel Wipe Towel Cloth Pad Oil Granite Countertop X X X Laminate Countertop Toilet Tank Top X X X X Painted Wood Trim X X X X Wood furniture X X X X X ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 12 of 24 3.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Quality Assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) procedures were performed in accordance with the EPA Quality Assurance Program for this evaluation. Before contaminating each surface, the background activities of the surfaces were determined by a 5-minute acquisition. The background measurements fluctuated daily due to the contents in the tent at the time of gamma measurement. The measurement results were normalized for the background levels measured on the respective testing days. Typical background activity levels were approximately 3% of the pre-decontamination activity levels. The regions of interest (ROI) were set up around the strongest emitting energies for the two contaminant of interest (661 keV for Cs-137 and 1,076 keV for Rb-86). ROIs were determined through data analysis of Cs-137 and Rb-86 sources, setting the ROI so the full emission peak was counted. These ROI parameters were used for all the measurements collected throughout the testing. The software automatically corrected for the background instrument noise providing net counts for each counting period. Spectra were collected from each surface before contaminant application, after contaminant deposition, and after decontamination. Section 4.1 of the report describes how the percent removal was calculated using these counts. 3.1 Ortec® Micro-Detective The Ortec® Micro-Detective was used for the first few weeks of testing and then malfunctioned due to a failed cooling unit. The quality of the data collected by this instrument was verified with seven daily comparisons of contaminant deposition measurements. The day-to-day relative percent differences (RPDs) ranged from 1% to 12%. Measurements were not able to be made after the cooler failed, so the problem was immediately apparent, and the replacement instrument was put into service. Throughout the evaluation, a duplicate measurement was taken on one of the replicate contaminated squares from each experiment to provide duplicate measurements to further evaluate the repeatability of the instrument. The average and standard deviation for the RPDs determined for this instrument were 1% ± 1% (N=16). The requirement for duplicate results was 25% or less. 3.2 InSpector™ 1000 The InSpector™ 1000 was set up to monitor for Cs-137 and Rb-86. A positive control coupon was contaminated with the ASFM Cs-137 and allowed to dry. This coupon was measured at the beginning and end of each testing day using a 100-second acquisition to ensure the instrument was performing consistently throughout the day. The RPD was calculated for 21 positive control measurements and ranged from 0% to 13%, with all but three of the measurements between 0% and 3% RPD. In addition, the raw gamma counts collected daily throughout the course of 6 weeks of operation had a relative standard deviation of 6%, indicating very consistent instrument performance. A duplicate measurement was taken on one of the replicate contaminated squares from each experiment to provide duplicate measurements to further evaluate the repeatability of the instrument. The average and standard deviation for the RPDs determined for this instrument were 2% ± 2% (N=87). The requirement for duplicate results was 25% or less. ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 13 of 24 3.3 Audits 3.3.1 Technical System Audit A technical systems audit was performed on July 15, 2016 to confirm compliance with project quality requirements. The audit report was completed and no findings or observations were reported. 3.3.2 Data Quality Audit At least 10% of the data acquired during the evaluation were audited. The QA officer traced the data from the initial acquisition, through reduction and statistical analysis, to final reporting, to ensure the integrity of the reported results. All calculations performed on the audited data were checked for accuracy. The audit revealed a %R formula error that was corrected in the report and data spreadsheets. 3.4 QA/QC Reporting Each assessment and audit were documented in accordance with project quality requirements. Once the assessment report was prepared by the QA officer, the report was routed to the task order leader and Scientific, Technical, Research, Engineering and Modeling Support (STREAMS II) contract manager for review and approval. ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 14 of 24 4.0 Evaluation Results and Performance Summary 4.1 Decontamination Efficacy The decontamination efficacy was determined for each contaminated coupon in terms of %R: %R= l-(Af-BG/A0-BG) x 100% where A0 is the radiological activity from the surface of the coupon before application of the decontamination technologies, Af is the radiological activity from the surface of the coupon after decontamination, and BG is the background before contamination. As discussed in Section 2.1.2, approximately 2 |iCi of Cs-137 and 20 |iCi of Rb-86 was added to each heavy loading SFM square, approximately 2 |iCi of Cs-137 to the light loading SFM square, and approximately 2 |iCi of Cs-137 to each ASFM square. Because of the variability in particle application geometry and because of the time it would take to perform an instrument calibration regularly, the raw counts were used to calculate %R. The background activity before subtraction was, on average, 3% of the pre- decontamination activity. Table 4-1 gives the average %R for each low-tech remediation method and each of the three contaminant deposition techniques. Each %R is given with the standard deviation over four replicates. If the %R is reported with a 'greater than' sign (>), it means that the average %R exceeded 100% and is reported as having a %R greater than the lower limit of the average minus the standard deviation. Observations about the heavy loading SFM flooring surface decontamination efficacy data include: • Efficacy of each particles size was not significantly different from one another • In only five of 27 instances (across both particles sizes) were the average %R less than 90% • In 16 of 27 instances, the average %R was 95% or above • The largest standard deviation was 12% • Use of the wet-vacuum on laminate floor provided the lowest average %R, 46% and 34% for the large and small particles sizes, respectively. Dry vacuum on carpet was the next lowest average %R with 83% and 85%, for the large and small particles sizes, respectively. Observations about the light loading SFM flooring surface decontamination efficacy data include: • 12 out of 14 average %R were 97% and above; dry and wet vacuum on carpet were the two outliers, exhibiting %R of 87% and 93%, respectively. Observations about the ASFM flooring surface decontamination efficacy data include: • Only four of 13 instances had average %R exceeding 90%; one other instance exceeded 80% • The dry vacuum on carpet and laminate floor had the lowest average %R of 22% and 14%, respectively. ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 15 of 24 • Laminate and sealed hardwood floor using wet Swiffers® had the highest average %R (92%-94%). Table 4-1. Decontamination Efficacy for Flooring Surfaces % Removal for Each Contamination Deposition Approach Method Surface Cs-137, > 250 fim Heavy Loading SFM Rb-86, <10 fim Heavy Loading SFM Cs-137, <10 jim Light Loading SFM Cs-137 ASFM Dry Broom Laminate 100% ± 2% >99% 98% ± 0% 40% ± 16% Sealed Hardwood >99% >99% >99% 27% ± 6% Swiffer® Laminate 93% ± 4% 93% ± 9% 99% ± 2% 59% ± 7% with dry pad Sealed Hardwood >99% >96% 99% ± 1% 64% ± 8% Sponge mop Laminate 99% ± 0% 99% ± 1% 97% ± 1% 73% ± 3% with water Sealed Hardwood 98% ± 3% 96% ± 3% 98% ± 0% 86% ± 1% Swiffer® Laminate 97% ± 2% 97% ± 2% 99% ± 1% 92% ± 1% spray mop Sealed Hardwood >99% 100% ± 2% 100% ± 0% 93% ± 1% Swiffer® Laminate 96% ± 6% NA NA 99% ± 1% 94% ± 1% w/ pre- wet pad Sealed Hardwood 92% ± 6% 93% ± 6% 100% ± 0% 92% ± 1% Dry Vacuum Carpet 82% ± 6% 85% ± 3% 87% ± 2% 22% ± 4% Laminate 97% ± 1% 98% ± 1% 98% ± 0% 14% ± 6% Wet Carpet 92% ± 1% 88% ± 4% 93% ± 1% 53% ± 11% Vacuum Laminate 46% ± 12% 34% ± 8% 100% ± 0% NA NA Table 4-2 gives the average %R for each low-tech remediation method and each of the three contaminant deposition techniques. Observations about the heavy loading SFM non-flooring surface decontamination efficacy data include: • Efficacy of each particles size was not significantly different from one another • In only six of 38 instances (across both particles sizes) were the average %R less than 90% • In 25 of 38 instances, the average %R plus or minus the standard deviation included 100% • The largest standard deviation was 7% • Use of the electrostatic pad on the wood furniture provided the lowest average %R, 72% and 80% for the large and small particles sizes, respectively. ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 16 of 24 Table 4-2. Decontamination Efficacy for Non-Flooring Surfaces Non- % Removal for Each Contamination Deposition Approach Method Flooring Cs-137, > 250 fim Rb-86, <10 fim Cs-137, <10 fim Surface Heavy Loading SFM Heavy Loading SFM Light Loading SFM Dry Cloth Wood furniture >98% >98% 100% ± 0% 42% ± 6% Toilet tank cover 88% ± 2% 89% ± 2% 98% ± 1% 83% ± 4% Wood trim 98% ± 4% >97% 97% ± 2% 44% ± 17% Dry paper towel Wood furniture >99% >99% 100% ± 0% 8% ± 3% Toilet tank cover 99% ± 1% 98% ± 1% 100% ± 0% 71% ± 6% Wood trim 98% ± 4% 96% ± 4% 98% ± 4% 3% ± 13% Electro- Wood furniture 72% ± 1% 80% ± 4% 100% ± 0% 61% ± 7% static pad Toilet tank cover >99% 98% ± 1% 99% ± 1% 39% ± 2% Wood trim 99% ± 2% 99% ± 2% 98% ± 3% 0% ± 18% Paper towel w/ water Granite countertop 95% ± 5% 91% ± 3% 99% ± 1% 8% ± 2% Laminate countertop >99% >99% 99% ± 0% 76% ± 7% Spray Agent Granite countertop 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 14% ± 2% with Paper Towel Laminate countertop 85% ± 1% 87% ± 3% 100% ± 0% 84% ± 6% Wood furniture 99% ± 3% 96% ± 7% 99% ± 0% 69% ± 11% Pre-wet Granite countertop 94% ± 3% 91% ± 3% 99% ± 0% 0% ± 16% Clorox® Wipes Laminate countertop 93% ± 3% 92% ± 6% 95% ± 1% 89% ± 3% Toilet tank cover 99% ± 1% 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 95% ± 3% Wood trim 98% ± 3% >98% 99% ± 0% NA ± NA Polish Oil Wood furniture 100% ± 0% >99% 99% ± 1% 59% ± 6% Observations about the light loading SFM non-flooring surface decontamination efficacy data include: • All average %R were 95% and above, 17 out of 19 instances were 98% or above (apparently, the lesser loading and small particles size facilitated removal). ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 17 of 24 Observations about the ASFM non-flooring surface decontamination efficacy data include: • Only one of 19 instances had average %R exceeding 90% (pre-wet Clorox® wipes on toilet tank covers) and only three instances exceeded 80% • In five instances, the average %R did not exceed 10%; the surfaces were the wood furniture, painted wood trim, and the granite countertop • Granite countertop had three average %R (0%, 14%, and 8%) below 20%R • Laminate countertop and the toilet tank cover had the highest average %R • Wood trim average %R were scattered, but the standard deviations were rather high for the wood trim results; this may suggest that the ASFMs transport into the pores of the surface, impacting the repeatability of the measurement. Table 4-3 provides observations of the efficacy data by surface type. Table 4-3. Efficacy Observations of Each Surface Type Efficacy Summary Low-tech Method Flooring Surfaces With exception of wet vacuum, SFM %R near 100%; ASFM %R were greater than 90% for wet Swiffer® methods, 73% for sponge mop with water, and 60% or less for dry methods Laminate floor Polished surface. SFM %R near 100%; ASFM %R were greater than 90% for wet Swiffer18 methods, 86% for sponge mop with water, and 69% or less for dry methods Wood floor Highly fibrous surface. SFM %R between 82% and 92%; ASFM %R were 53% and 22% for wet and dry vacuum, respectively Carpet Non-flooring Surfaces Finished wood furniture with wood grooves in surface. Heavy loading SFM near 100% removal except for electrostatic pad. Light loading SFM near 100% removal. ASFM %R ranged from 8% to 61%. Wood furniture Porcelain surface. Except for dry cloth, SFM %R near 100%; ASFM %R ranged from 39% to 95%. Toilet Tank Cover Painted wood surface. SFM %R near 100%; ASFM %R ranged from 0% to 44% (see comment on variability in text above). Wood trim Laminate countertop SFM %R between 85% and 100% with light loading SFM near 100%; ASFM %R ranged from 76% to 89%, the highest ASFM %R. Polished surface. SFM %R between 91% and 100% with light loading SFM near 100%; ASFM %R ranged from 0% to 14%, the lowest ASFM %R, this result indicates the liquid application may have penetrated into the pores of the granite or strongly bonded to the granite surface. Granite countertop 4.2 Operational and Deployment Factors Operator observations and remediation method waste stream. Table 4-4 provides an operational summary of the various low-tech remediation methods that were employed during testing by summarizing observations made by the operators using each low-tech remediation method. In addition, it provides the location of activity measured qualitatively as low-tech remediation tools were being placed in radiological waste. ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 18 of 24 ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 19 of 24 Table 4-4. Operational Summary of Each Low-tech Remediation Method Low-tech Method Operational Summary Waste Stream Summary Floor Surfaces ASFM: Significant activity on the broom and dust pan Dry Broom Repeated sweeping of the same surface did not improve the visible cleanliness broom; SFM: Minimal activity; activity goes with particles into waste as there was little activity on brooms or pans. Swiffer® with dry pad Sometimes the particles went over top of the Swiffer® pad because there were so many particles. Also, the pad would get loaded quickly, requiring frequent pad changes. BG activity on gloves and handle, >99% on dry pads Sponge mop with water Flat sponges worked acceptably, but did not pick up the particles very well, just pushed the particles BG activity on gloves and handle, >99% on sponges Swiffer® spray mop Sometimes left the flooring too wet for experimental setup as there was not enough room to continue to push/dry up the water. Easy to use and sprays evenly and easy. BG activity on gloves and handle, >99% on pads Swiffer® w/ pre-wet pad Pad is good quality as it is quilted and the 15 cm mop face was a good size for the surfaces that were deconned. Light and easy to use, no electrical needs; all surfaces deconned to greater than 92%. BG activity on gloves and handle, >99% on pads Nose of the vacuum was not that close to the surface and sat off the BG activity on gloves and handle, >99% in canister Dry Vacuum surface of the laminate floor, but on the carpet it seemed to work better. Had to apply the correct amount of water. If too much water was Wet Vacuum added, a muddy puddle was created on the laminate flooring and would have to apply the vacuum to the floor more often to remove the water. BG activity on gloves and handle, >99% in reservoir Non-floor Surfaces Dry Cloth Did not draw particles into towel, tended to push the particles, making containment more difficult; notably more effective than dry paper towel on ASFM removal BG activity on gloves, >99% on cloths Dry paper towel Paper towels seemed to work better than the dry cloth in collecting particles BG activity on gloves, >99% on paper towels Electrostatic pad Clung to some of the particles, easier to contain the particles, easier to direct the particles into a pile than what was possible with the dry cloth; plastic handle did not allow much leverage; poor particle removal from furniture and ASFM from wood trim, furniture, and toilet tank cover BG activity on gloves, >99% on pads Paper towel w/ water Dampened paper towel with 3-4 sprays of water before wiping surfaces. If the paper towel was too saturated, the paper towel did not move as freely across the surfaces BG activity on gloves, >99% on paper towels Formula 409® w/ paper towel Dampened paper towel with 3-4 sprays of Formula 409® before wiping surfaces. Seemed to function well and was convenient to use. Trace activity on gloves, >94% on paper towels Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wipe size made decontamination difficult, the wipes were always doubled up to decontaminate. BG activity on gloves, >99% on wipes Polish Oil Polish was sprayed gently on top of SFM and then wiped clean; seemed to do a good job of allowing particles to be collected in rag BG activity on gloves, >99% on polish rag ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 20 of 24 Waste stream from typical house. Based on the results of the decontamination experiments described above, Table 4-5 reports the number of low-tech remediation method accessories (wipes, brooms, pads, etc.) that were required to accomplish decontamination of the surfaces (using each type of deposition) within this project. Table 4-5. Accessories for each Low-tech Remediation Method by Deposition Method Low-tech Method Number of Accessories (wipes, pads, etc.) Heavy Loading Light Loading ASFM Floor Surfaces (1.4 m2) Dry Broom Laminate: 1 broom Wood:l broom Laminate :1 broom Wood:l broom Laminate: 1 broom WOOD:l broom Swiffer® with dry pad Laminate: 1 Swiffer® + 3 pads Wood: 1 Swiffer® + 3 pads NA Laminate: 1 Swiffer® + 1 pad Wood: 1 Swiffer® + 2 pads Sponge mop with water Laminate: 1 sponge mop Wood: 1 sponge mop Laminate: 1 sponge mop Wood: 1 sponge mop Laminate: 1 sponge mop Wood: 1 sponge mop Swiffer® spray mop Laminate: 1 Swiffer® + 3 pads Wood: 1 Swiffer® + 4 pads Wood: 1 Swiffer® + 2 pads Wood: 1 Swiffer® + 2 pads Swiffer® w/ pre-wet pad Laminate: 1 Swiffer® + 3 pads Wood: 1 Swiffer® + 4 pads NA Wood: 1 Swiffer® + 2 pads Dry Vacuum Laminate: 1 vacuum Carpet: 1 vacuum Laminate: 1 vacuum Carpet: 1 vacuum Laminate: 1 vacuum Carpet: 1 vacuum Wet Vacuum Laminate: 1 vacuum Carpet: 1 vacuum Laminate: 1 vacuum Carpet: 1 vacuum Laminate: 1 vacuum Carpet: 1 vacuum Non-floor Surfaces (wood trim-0.5 m2, countertops-0.6 m2,4 tank covers-0.4 m2, wood furniture-0.6 m2) Dry Cloth Wood furniture: 3 cloths Wood Trim: 2 cloths Toilet Cover: 5 cloths Wood Trim: 2 cloths Toilet Cover: 2 cloths Wood furniture: 3 cloths Wood Trim: 2 cloths Toilet Cover: 4 clothes Dry paper towel Wood furniture: 3 paper towels Wood Trim: 6 paper towels Toilet Cover: 5 paper towels Wood Trim: 2 paper towels Toilet Cover: 5 paper towels Wood furniture: 3 paper towels Wood Trim: 2 paper towels Toilet Cover: 8 paper towels Electrostatic pad Wood furniture: 3 pads Wood Trim: 4 pads Toilet Cover: 5 pads Wood furniture: pads Wood Trim: 2 pads Toilet Cover: 3 pads Wood furniture: 3 pads Wood Trim: 2 pads Toilet Cover: 4 pads Paper towel w/ water Granite: 8 paper towels Laminate: 5 paper towels Granite: 2 paper towels Granite: 3 paper towels Laminate: 3 paper towels Formula 409® w/paper towel Granite: 8 paper towels Laminate: 7 paper towels Granite: 3 paper towels Laminate: 3 paper towels Granite: 4 paper towels Laminate: 3 paper towels Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wood furniture: 5 wipes Wood Trim: 5 wipes Toilet Cover: 4wipes Granite: 12 wipes Wood furniture: wipes Wood Trim: 2 wipes Toilet Cover: 3 wipes Granite: 2 wipes Wood furniture: 3 wipes Wood Trim: 2 wipes Toilet Cover: 4 wipes Granite: 3 wipes Polish Oil Wood furniture: 3 cloths Wood furniture: 1 cloth Wood furniture: 3 cloths Table 4-6 through Table 4-8 expands on the accessory use data and provides an estimate of how much radiological waste (and what types, including the accessories mentioned above and SFM) would be generated from the decontamination of a typical two-story house under three types of ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 21 of 24 depositions. This estimate was made by extrapolating the number of accessories and amount of SFM relative to the amount of surface area in the home. For this example, a two-story house is assumed to equal 186 square meters (2,000 square feet). As shown in Table 4-9, as estimated 49 kilograms (kg) of solid waste would be generated under heavy loading conditions and no liquid waste would be generated from the decontamination efforts. However, under ASFM conditions, 32 L of liquid and 13kg of solid waste would be generated. The number of items estimated in the tables (4-6 through 8) are extrapolated based on the area tested in this study. Table 4-6. Estimated Waste from Decontamination of Typical House (Heavy SFM Loading) Surface Amount Method Number of items Potential %R Carpet 139 m2 1 vacuum and SFM 82% Laminate floor 46 m2 Dry vacuum with 20 mg/cm2 97% Laminate counter 2 m2 Formula 409® w/ paper towel 12 paper towels with 20 mg/cm2 SFM 85% Toilet Tank Covers 4 covers Clorox® pre- wet wipes 12 wipes with 20 mg/cm2 SFM 99% Tub/shower 2 Formula 409® w/ paper towel 12 paper towels with 20 mg/cm2 SFM 99% Wood furniture 10 m2 Polish oil 50 dry cloths 100% Table 4-7. Estimated Waste from Decontamination of Typical House (Light SFM Loading) Surface Amount Method Number of items Potential %R Carpet 139 m2 1 vacuum and SFM 87% Laminate floor 46 m2 Dry vacuum with 2 mg/cm2 98% Laminate counter 2 m2 Formula 409® w/ paper towel 6 paper towels with 2 mg/cm2 SFM 87% Toilet Tank Covers 4 covers Clorox® pre- wet wipes 8 wipes with 2 mg/cm2 SFM 100% Tub/shower 2 Formula 409® w/ paper towel 6 paper towels with 2 mg/cm2 SFM 100% Wood furniture 10 m2 Polish oil 17 dry cloths 99% Table 4-8. Estimated Waste Stream from Decontamination of Typical House (ASFM Loading) Surface Amount Method Number of items Potential %R Carpet 139 m2 Wet vacuum 1 vacuum 32 L water 53% Laminate floor 47 m2 Pre-wet Swiffer 54 pre-wet pads 94% Laminate counter 2 m2 Formula 409® w/ paper towel 6 paper towels 84% Toilet Tank Covers 4 covers Clorox® pre- wet wipes 12 wipes 95% Tub/shower 2 Formula 409® w/ paper towel 6 paper towels 95% Wood furniture 10 m2 Polish oil 50 dry cloths 59% ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 22 of 24 Table 4-9. Estimated Waste Stream as a Function of Deposition Method Estimated Waste Volume Surface Heavy SFM Loading Light SFM Loading ASFM Carpet 1 vacuum (6 kg), 37 kg SFM 1 vacuum (6 kg), 3.7 kg SFM 1 vacuum (10 kg), 32 kg wastewater Laminate 162 g pre-wet pads Laminate Counter 36 g in damp paper towels; 400 g SFM 18 g in damp paper towels; 40 g SFM 18 g in damp paper towels Toilet Tank Covers 36 g in damp wipes; 180 g SFM 24 g in damp wipes; 18 g SFM 36 g in damp wipes Tub/shower 36 g in damp paper towels; 400 g SFM 18 g in damp paper towels; 40 g SFM 18 g in damp paper towels Wood Furniture 3 kg dry cloths and 2 kg SFM 2 kg dry cloths and 200 g SFM 3 kg dry cloths Estimate of total mass, volume, and activity 49 kg into 0.2 m3 bag (if initial fallout had activity of 0.5 nCi/g, then 19 mCi) 12 kg into 0.2 m3 bag (if initial fallout had activity of 0.5 |iCi/g. then 1.9 mCi) 45 kg into 0.2 m3 bag (if initial activity of 0.01 mCi/m2, then 1.9 mCi) Potential operator exposure. Throughout the evaluation, technicians were required to use full anti-contamination PPE including positive air pressure respirators (with HEPA filters) because the work was performed in a radiological enclosure using unsealed radiological material of various particles sizes. However, in order to estimate the potential airborne exposure of the decontamination workers to radiological material, four sets of particle air filter samples were collected during each decontamination experiment. One of these air samplers was placed in the breathing zone of the decontamination worker and the sample collected only during surface decontamination. The other three air samplers were placed in the common area within the radiological containment tent. One was placed adjacent to the decontamination work area and the other two were placed near the outflow to the tent HEPA filtration system to capture the airflow of particles through the tent (even if they were being vented). During the 10 weeks of testing, the activity concentrations of the air sampler filters never exceeded 0.2% of the derived air concentration (DAC), The DAC is the average atmospheric concentration of the radionuclide that would lead to the annual occupational limit of intake of the radionuclide if working in that environment for a 2,000-hour work year. The low filter concentration suggests that the potential particle inhalation exposure and resulting dose due to the experimental conditions was minimal. Performance of these same low-tech remediation methods in a home setting may produce different results. In addition to air sampling, the operators were surveyed from head to toe after every decontamination experiment to determine if they had received any contamination on their PPE. None of the surveys resulted in activity measurements above background levels. This is ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 23 of 24 consistent with the waste stream results shown in Table 3-3, where even the decontamination worker's gloves had little or no contamination and almost all of the activity was isolated on the item that was in contact with the surface being cleaned. At any time, radiological material was handled, anti-contamination PPE was required. Additionally, any waste (e.g., from use of low-tech remediation methods and post- decontamination surfaces) was considered, at a minimum, as low level radioactive waste (unless surveyed for free release). The requirement for this level of PPE was not driven by the use of the low-tech remediation technologies (which only have the hazards described on their product labels), but rather by the presence of Cs-137. 4.3 Performance Summary The primary objective was to determine the efficacy of low-tech remediation methods that would be readily available for people in personal residences and other indoor facilities such as offices and medical center to use in case of a radiological event causing radiological fallout to be present. Fourteen different low-tech remediation methods were evaluated on eight different surfaces (not all methods were used on every surface). In total, 33 different combinations of low-tech remediation methods and surfaces where evaluated using three different radiological contamination deposition methods (heavy loading, light loading, and ASFM) for a total of 99 different experiments. Overall the results indicated that the ASFM was much more difficult to remove than the SFM and particles size was not a factor in SFM removal. In particular, the granite countertop and wood trim exhibited extremely low %Rs for the ASFM. Most of the %Rs for the SFM were greater than 95% and above although dry vacuum on carpet, wet vacuum on laminate, and electrostatic pad on wood furniture stand out as least effective for SFM. Secondary objectives included the observation of the likelihood of decontamination technician contamination while performing these low-tech remediation methods as well as estimating the waste stream following implementation of low-tech remediation. In order to accomplish these objectives, whole body surveys were completed after every decontamination test and multiple air samples were collected. None of these indicated technician contamination even during the heavy loading portions of the evaluation but it is still imperative to wear proper PPE prior to taking any maintenance or response activities in potentially contaminated area. The type, weight, and volume of the waste stream from a personal residence was estimated based on typical surface areas of various types as well as the amount of low-tech remediation accessories (wipes, pads, etc.) used during this evaluation on relatively smaller total surface area. Radiological activity was estimated based on what the starting activity of the fallout may have been. Overall, the amount of waste is driven by the surface density of the fallout material as well as the weight of the tools used. The data from this project show that tools such as wet and dry vacuums are not the most effective and they are heavy and bulky to dispose of. Wipes and cloths were rather effective, can be conveniently be transported between sites (in new packaging), and can possibly be disposed of at each site more efficiently that attempting to transport powered equipment that would have become contaminated. Additional research may require to obtain the impact of low- tech methods for other potential contamination situations such as outdoor. The current study ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 24 of 24 results can help responders as well as local governments to develop remediation guidance for their stakeholders responding to a nuclear/radiological incident. ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 25 of 24 5.0 References 1. Decontamination Guidelines, 2nd Edition, Japanese Ministry of the Environment, 2013. 2. O. Paz Tal, R. Bar Ziv, R. Hakmon, E. J. C. Borojovich, A. Nikoloski, T. Ohaion, R. (Yanosh) Levi, I. Yaar, Study of Cleanup Procedures for Contaminated Areas: Examination of Rubidium as a Surrogate to Cesium, Conference of the Nuclear Societies in Israel; Dead Sea (Israel); 11-13 Feb 2014, p 27. 3. Wiltshire, L. L.; Owen, W. L. Three Tests of Fire hosing Technique and Equipment for the Removal of Fallout from Asphalt Streets and Roofing Materials, USNRDL-TR-1048; U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory: San Francisco, California, 1966. 4. Clark, D. E.; Cobbin, W. C. Removal Effectiveness of Simulated Dry Fallout from Paved Areas by Motorized and VacuumizedStreet Sweepers; USNRDL-TR-746; U.S. Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory: San Francisco, California, 1963. 5. U.S. EPA. Technology Evaluation Report, Compressed Air and Vacuuming for Radiological Decontamination of Sensitive Equipment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 2014 (draft). 6. U.S. EPA. Technology Evaluation Report, River Technologies LLC 3-Way Decontamination System for Radiological Decontamination. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-11/015, 2011. 7. U.S. EPA. CS Unitec ETR180 Circular Sander for Radiological Decontamination. Technology Evaluation Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-11/018, 2011. 8. U.S. EPA. Empire Abrasive Blast N'Vac for Radiological Decontamination. Technology Evaluation Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R- 11/014, 2011. 9. U.S. EPA. Industrial Contractors Supplies, Inc. Surface Dust Guard with DiamondWheel for Radiological Decontamination. Technology Evaluation Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-11/013, 2011. 10. U.S. EPA. Industrial Contractors Supplies, Inc. Surface Dust Guard with Wire Brush for Radiological Decontamination. Technology Evaluation Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/600/R-11/016, 2011. 11. U.S. EPA. Decontamination of Concrete and Granite Contaminated with Cobalt-60 and Strontium-85. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-13/002, 2012. 12. U.S. EPA. Decontamination of Concrete with Aged and Recent Cesium Contamination. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-13/001, 2013. ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page 26 of 24 13. U.S. EPA. Technology Evaluation Report Bartlett Services, Inc. Stripcoat TLC Free Radiological Decontamination of Americium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-13/005, 2013. 14. U.S. EPA. Evaluation of Chemical-Based Technologies for Removal of Radiological Contamination from Building Material Surfaces. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/S-15/155, 2015. ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Appendix A Evaluation Results by Decontamination Method ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page A-l Dccu n I ;i mi Million Method Sii rf;icc (s-13"7. Kh-Xft. ( s-13"7 ASI-'M. Cs-lJ"7 l.iiihl %U A\cr;iiie Siiindiird l)c\ iiilion 6/27/2016 Dry Broom Laminate Floor Cs-137 101% 100% 2% 6/27/2016 Dry Broom Laminate Floor Cs-137 100% 6/27/2016 Dry Broom Laminate Floor Cs-137 97% 6/27/2016 Dry Broom Laminate Floor Cs-137 102% 6/27/2016 Dry Broom Laminate Floor Rb-86 101% 100% 1% 6/27/2016 Dry Broom Laminate Floor Rb-86 99% 6/27/2016 Dry Broom Laminate Floor Rb-86 99% 6/27/2016 Dry Broom Laminate Floor Rb-86 101% 7/20/2016 Dry Broom Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 98% 98% 0% 7/20/2016 Dry Broom Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/20/2016 Dry Broom Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/20/2016 Dry Broom Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 98% 5/17/2016 Dry Broom Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 28% 40% 16% 5/17/2016 Dry Broom Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 25% 5/17/2016 Dry Broom Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 51% 5/17/2016 Dry Broom Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 57% 7/15/2016 Dry Broom Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 101% 100% 1% 7/15/2016 Dry Broom Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/15/2016 Dry Broom Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/15/2016 Dry Broom Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 99% 6/28/2016 Dry Cloth Wood furniture Cs-137 98% 100% 2% 6/28/2016 Dry Cloth Wood furniture Cs-137 99% 6/28/2016 Dry Cloth Wood furniture Cs-137 102% 6/28/2016 Dry Cloth Wood furniture Cs-137 102% 6/28/2016 Dry Cloth Wood furniture Rb-86 102% 102% 2% 6/28/2016 Dry Cloth Wood furniture Rb-86 99% 6/28/2016 Dry Cloth Wood furniture Rb-86 104% 6/28/2016 Dry Cloth Wood furniture Rb-86 101% 7/22/2016 Dry Cloth Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 100% 100% 0% 7/22/2016 Dry Cloth Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/22/2016 Dry Cloth Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/22/2016 Dry Cloth Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 100% 6/30/2016 Dry Cloth Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 44% 42% 6% 6/30/2016 Dry Cloth Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 38% 6/30/2016 Dry Cloth Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 36% 6/30/2016 Dry Cloth Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 49% 5/31/2016 Dry Cloth Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 87% 88% 2% 5/31/2016 Dry Cloth Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 85% 5/31/2016 Dry Cloth Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 90% 5/31/2016 Dry Cloth Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 89% ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page A-2 Dccu n I ;i mi Million Method Sii rf;icc (s-13"7. Kh-Xft. ( s-13"7 ASI-'M. %U A\cr;iiie Siiindiird l)c\ iiilion Cs-lJ"7 l.iiihl 5/31/2016 Dry Cloth Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 86% 89% 2% 5/31/2016 Dry Cloth Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 90% 5/31/2016 Dry Cloth Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 89% 5/31/2016 Dry Cloth Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 91% 7/14/2016 Dry Cloth Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 Lt 97% 98% 1% 7/14/2016 Dry Cloth Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/14/2016 Dry Cloth Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 Lt 96% 7/14/2016 Dry Cloth Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 Lt 98% 6/28/2016 Dry Cloth Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 ASFM 82% 83% 4% 6/28/2016 Dry Cloth Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 ASFM 85% 6/28/2016 Dry Cloth Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 ASFM 77% 6/28/2016 Dry Cloth Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 ASFM 86% 5/25/2016 Dry Cloth Wood Trim Cs-137 92% 98% 4% 5/25/2016 Dry Cloth Wood Trim Cs-137 98% 5/25/2016 Dry Cloth Wood Trim Cs-137 101% 5/25/2016 Dry Cloth Wood Trim Cs-137 101% 5/25/2016 Dry Cloth Wood Trim Rb-86 97% 101% 4% 5/25/2016 Dry Cloth Wood Trim Rb-86 99% 5/25/2016 Dry Cloth Wood Trim Rb-86 104% 5/25/2016 Dry Cloth Wood Trim Rb-86 105% 7/14/2016 Dry Cloth Wood Trim Cs-137 Lt 99% 97% 2% 7/14/2016 Dry Cloth Wood Trim Cs-137 Lt 98% 7/14/2016 Dry Cloth Wood Trim Cs-137 Lt 96% 7/14/2016 Dry Cloth Wood Trim Cs-137 Lt 94% 6/15/2016 Dry Cloth Wood Trim Cs-137 ASFM 46% 44% 17% 6/15/2016 Dry Cloth Wood Trim Cs-137 ASFM 39% 6/15/2016 Dry Cloth Wood Trim Cs-137 ASFM 26% 6/15/2016 Dry Cloth Wood Trim Cs-137 ASFM 66% 6/29/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood furniture Cs-137 101% 101% 1% 6/29/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood furniture Cs-137 101% 6/29/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood furniture Cs-137 101% 6/29/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood furniture Cs-137 100% 6/29/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood furniture Rb-86 102% 101% 1% 6/29/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood furniture Rb-86 101% 6/29/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood furniture Rb-86 100% 6/29/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood furniture Rb-86 102% 7/22/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 99% 100% 0% 7/22/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/22/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/22/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 100% ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page A-3 Dccu n I ;i mi Million Method Sii rf;icc (s-13"7. Kh-Xft. ( s-13"7 ASI-'M. %U A\cr;iiie Siiindiird l)c\ iiilion Cs-lJ"7 l.iiihl 6/30/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 8% 8% 3% 6/30/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 6% 6/30/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 8% 6/30/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 12% 5/23/2016 Dry Paper Towel Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 98% 99% 1% 5/23/2016 Dry Paper Towel Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 99% 5/23/2016 Dry Paper Towel Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 100% 5/23/2016 Dry Paper Towel Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 101% 5/23/2016 Dry Paper Towel Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 97% 98% 1% 5/23/2016 Dry Paper Towel Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 98% 5/23/2016 Dry Paper Towel Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 99% 5/23/2016 Dry Paper Towel Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 99% 7/25/2016 Dry Paper Towel Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 Lt 100% 100% 0% 7/25/2016 Dry Paper Towel Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 Lt 101% 7/25/2016 Dry Paper Towel Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/25/2016 Dry Paper Towel Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 Lt 100% 5/25/2016 Dry Paper Towel Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 ASFM 77% 71% 6% 5/25/2016 Dry Paper Towel Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 ASFM 74% 5/25/2016 Dry Paper Towel Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 ASFM 67% 5/25/2016 Dry Paper Towel Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 ASFM 65% 5/24/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood Trim Cs-137 93% 98% 4% 5/24/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood Trim Cs-137 97% 5/24/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood Trim Cs-137 101% 5/24/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood Trim Cs-137 101% 5/24/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood Trim Rb-86 90% 96% 4% 5/24/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood Trim Rb-86 94% 5/24/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood Trim Rb-86 99% 5/24/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood Trim Rb-86 100% 7/14/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood Trim Cs-137 Lt 93% 98% 4% 7/14/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood Trim Cs-137 Lt 97% 7/14/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood Trim Cs-137 Lt 101% 7/14/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood Trim Cs-137 Lt 101% 6/15/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood Trim Cs-137 ASFM 3% 3% 13% 6/15/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood Trim Cs-137 ASFM -14% 6/15/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood Trim Cs-137 ASFM 7% 6/15/2016 Dry Paper Towel Wood Trim Cs-137 ASFM 16% 7/12/2016 Dry Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 74% 83% 6% 7/12/2016 Dry Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 87% 7/12/2016 Dry Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 82% 7/12/2016 Dry Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 87% ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page A-4 Dccu n I ;i mi Million Method Sii rf;icc (s-13"7. Kh-Xft. ( s-13"7 ASI-'M. Cs-lJ"7 l.iiihl %U A\cr;iiie Siiindiird l)c\ iiilion 7/12/2016 Dry Vacuum Carpet Rb-86 82% 85% 3% 7/12/2016 Dry Vacuum Carpet Rb-86 83% 7/12/2016 Dry Vacuum Carpet Rb-86 85% 7/12/2016 Dry Vacuum Carpet Rb-86 89% 7/21/2016 Dry Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 Lt 87% 87% 2% 7/21/2016 Dry Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 Lt 90% 7/21/2016 Dry Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 Lt 88% 7/21/2016 Dry Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 Lt 84% 7/11/2016 Dry Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 ASFM 28% 23% 4% 7/11/2016 Dry Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 ASFM 26% 7/11/2016 Dry Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 ASFM 18% 7/11/2016 Dry Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 ASFM 21% 7/5/2016 Dry Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 95% 97% 1% 7/5/2016 Dry Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 97% 7/5/2016 Dry Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 97% 7/5/2016 Dry Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 97% 7/5/2016 Dry Vacuum Laminate Floor Rb-86 96% 98% 1% 7/5/2016 Dry Vacuum Laminate Floor Rb-86 99% 7/5/2016 Dry Vacuum Laminate Floor Rb-86 98% 7/5/2016 Dry Vacuum Laminate Floor Rb-86 97% 7/20/2016 Dry Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 98% 98% 0% 7/20/2016 Dry Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 98% 7/20/2016 Dry Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 98% 7/20/2016 Dry Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/8/2016 Dry Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 23% 15% 6% 7/8/2016 Dry Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 11% 7/8/2016 Dry Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 16% 7/8/2016 Dry Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 10% 6/29/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood furniture Cs-137 73% 72% 1% 6/29/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood furniture Cs-137 73% 6/29/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood furniture Cs-137 71% 6/29/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood furniture Cs-137 72% 6/29/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood furniture Rb-86 80% 80% 4% 6/29/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood furniture Rb-86 75% 6/29/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood furniture Rb-86 80% 6/29/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood furniture Rb-86 86% 7/22/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 100% 100% 0% 7/22/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/22/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/22/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 99% ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page A-5 Dccu n I ;i mi Million Method Sii rf;icc (s-13"7. Kh-Xft. ( s-13"7 ASI-'M. %U A\cr;iiie Siiindiird l)c\ iiilion Cs-lJ"7 l.iiihl 7/7/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 52% 61% 7% 7/7/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 58% 7/7/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 66% 7/7/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 67% 5/23/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 100% 100% 1% 5/23/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 99% 5/23/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 101% 5/23/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 101% 5/23/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 99% 99% 1% 5/23/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 98% 5/23/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 100% 5/23/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 100% 5/23/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 97% 98% 1% 5/23/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 99% 5/23/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 99% 5/23/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 99% 5/23/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 97% 98% 1% 5/23/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 99% 5/23/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 99% 5/23/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 99% 7/25/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 Lt 98% 99% 1% 7/25/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/25/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/25/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 Lt 100% 5/25/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 ASFM 37% 39% 2% 5/25/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 ASFM 41% 5/25/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 ASFM 39% 5/25/2016 Electrostatic Pad Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 ASFM 38% 5/24/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood Trim Cs-137 96% 99% 2% 5/24/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood Trim Cs-137 98% 5/24/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood Trim Cs-137 100% 5/24/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood Trim Cs-137 99% 5/24/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood Trim Rb-86 101% 99% 2% 5/24/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood Trim Rb-86 100% 5/24/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood Trim Rb-86 98% 5/24/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood Trim Rb-86 96% 7/14/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood Trim Cs-137 Lt 94% 98% 3% 7/14/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood Trim Cs-137 Lt 97% 7/14/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood Trim Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/14/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood Trim Cs-137 Lt 101% ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page A-6 Dccu n I ;i mi Million Method Sii rf;icc (s-13"7. Kh-Xft. ( s-13"7 ASI-'M. %U A\cr;iiie Siiindiird l)c\ iiilion Cs-lJ"7 l.iiihl 6/15/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood Trim Cs-137 ASFM -5% -1% 18% 6/15/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood Trim Cs-137 ASFM -18% 6/15/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood Trim Cs-137 ASFM -5% 6/15/2016 Electrostatic Pad Wood Trim Cs-137 ASFM 24% 6/1/2016 Paper Towel with Water Granite Countertop Cs-137 88% 95% 5% 6/1/2016 Paper Towel with Water Granite Countertop Cs-137 93% 6/1/2016 Paper Towel with Water Granite Countertop Cs-137 97% 6/1/2016 Paper Towel with Water Granite Countertop Cs-137 99% 6/1/2016 Paper Towel with Water Granite Countertop Rb-86 87% 91% 3% 6/1/2016 Paper Towel with Water Granite Countertop Rb-86 90% 6/1/2016 Paper Towel with Water Granite Countertop Rb-86 93% 6/1/2016 Paper Towel with Water Granite Countertop Rb-86 94% 7/14/2016 Paper Towel with Water Granite Countertop Cs-137 Lt 100% 99% 1% 7/14/2016 Paper Towel with Water Granite Countertop Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/14/2016 Paper Towel with Water Granite Countertop Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/14/2016 Paper Towel with Water Granite Countertop Cs-137 Lt 98% 6/30/2016 Paper Towel with Water Granite Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 10% 8% 2% 6/30/2016 Paper Towel with Water Granite Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 7% 6/30/2016 Paper Towel with Water Granite Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 7% 6/30/2016 Paper Towel with Water Granite Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 6% 7/7/2016 Paper Towel with Water Laminate Countertop Cs-137 100% 100% 1% 7/7/2016 Paper Towel with Water Laminate Countertop Cs-137 100% 7/7/2016 Paper Towel with Water Laminate Countertop Cs-137 100% 7/7/2016 Paper Towel with Water Laminate Countertop Cs-137 99% 7/7/2016 Paper Towel with Water Laminate Countertop Rb-86 100% 100% 1% 7/7/2016 Paper Towel with Water Laminate Countertop Rb-86 100% 7/7/2016 Paper Towel with Water Laminate Countertop Rb-86 100% 7/7/2016 Paper Towel with Water Laminate Countertop Rb-86 101% 7/13/2016 Paper Towel with Water Laminate Countertop Cs-137 Lt 98% 99% 0% 7/13/2016 Paper Towel with Water Laminate Countertop Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/13/2016 Paper Towel with Water Laminate Countertop Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/13/2016 Paper Towel with Water Laminate Countertop Cs-137 Lt 99% 6/29/2016 Paper Towel with Water Laminate Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 80% 76% 7% 6/29/2016 Paper Towel with Water Laminate Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 84% 6/29/2016 Paper Towel with Water Laminate Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 68% 6/29/2016 Paper Towel with Water Laminate Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 71% 7/6/2016 Polish Oil Wood furniture Cs-137 101% 101% 0% 7/6/2016 Polish Oil Wood furniture Cs-137 101% 7/6/2016 Polish Oil Wood furniture Cs-137 101% 7/6/2016 Polish Oil Wood furniture Cs-137 100% ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page A-7 Dccu n I ;i mi Million Method Sii rf;icc (s-13"7. Kh-Xft. ( s-13"7 ASI-'M. Cs-lJ"7 l.iiihl %U A\cr;iiie Siiindiird l)c\ iiilion 7/6/2016 Polish Oil Wood furniture Rb-86 101% 101% 1% 7/6/2016 Polish Oil Wood furniture Rb-86 101% 7/6/2016 Polish Oil Wood furniture Rb-86 100% 7/6/2016 Polish Oil Wood furniture Rb-86 100% 7/18/2016 Polish Oil Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 99% 99% 1% 7/18/2016 Polish Oil Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/18/2016 Polish Oil Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 98% 7/18/2016 Polish Oil Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/7/2016 Polish Oil Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 67% 59% 6% 7/7/2016 Polish Oil Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 59% 7/7/2016 Polish Oil Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 56% 7/7/2016 Polish Oil Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 54% 6/28/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wood furniture Cs-137 101% 99% 3% 6/28/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wood furniture Cs-137 101% 6/28/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wood furniture Cs-137 99% 6/28/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wood furniture Cs-137 95% 6/28/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wood furniture Rb-86 101% 96% 7% 6/28/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wood furniture Rb-86 97% 6/28/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wood furniture Rb-86 101% 6/28/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wood furniture Rb-86 85% 7/18/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 100% 99% 0% 7/18/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/18/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/18/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wood furniture Cs-137 Lt 99% 6/29/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 69% 69% 11% 6/29/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 61% 6/29/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 63% 6/29/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Wood furniture Cs-137 ASFM 85% 6/1/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Granite Countertop Cs-137 92% 94% 3% 6/1/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Granite Countertop Cs-137 92% 6/1/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Granite Countertop Cs-137 95% 6/1/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Granite Countertop Cs-137 98% 6/1/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Granite Countertop Rb-86 89% 91% 3% 6/1/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Granite Countertop Rb-86 89% 6/1/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Granite Countertop Rb-86 92% 6/1/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Granite Countertop Rb-86 94% 7/14/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Granite Countertop Cs-137 Lt 99% 99% 0% 7/14/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Granite Countertop Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/14/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Granite Countertop Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/14/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® Wipes Granite Countertop Cs-137 Lt 99% ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page A-8 Dccu n I ;i mi Million Method Sii rf;icc (s-13"7. Kh-Xft. ( s-13"7 ASI-'M. Cs-lJ"7 l.iiihl %U A\cr;iiie Siiindiird l)c\ iiilion 6/30/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Granite Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 7% -7% 16% 6/30/2016 Pre-wet Clorox* ' Wipes Granite Countertop Cs-137 ASFM -20% 6/30/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Granite Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 7% 6/30/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Granite Countertop Cs-137 ASFM -22% 7/13/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Laminate Countertop Cs-137 Lt 94% 95% 1% 7/13/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Laminate Countertop Cs-137 Lt 96% 7/13/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Laminate Countertop Cs-137 Lt 97% 7/13/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Laminate Countertop Cs-137 Lt 94% 5/31/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 100% 99% 1% 5/31/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 100% 5/31/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 99% 5/31/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 99% 5/31/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 100% 100% 0% 5/31/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 100% 5/31/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 100% 5/31/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Toilet Tank Cover Rb-86 99% 7/25/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 Lt 100% 100% 0% 7/25/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/25/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/25/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 Lt 100% 6/28/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 ASFM 98% 95% 3% 6/28/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 ASFM 97% 6/28/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 ASFM 94% 6/28/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Toilet Tank Cover Cs-137 ASFM 92% 5/25/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Wood Trim Cs-137 95% 98% 3% 5/25/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Wood Trim Cs-137 98% 5/25/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Wood Trim Cs-137 101% 5/25/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Wood Trim Cs-137 100% 5/25/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Wood Trim Rb-86 105% 103% 2% 5/25/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Wood Trim Rb-86 105% 5/25/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Wood Trim Rb-86 102% 5/25/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Wood Trim Rb-86 101% 7/14/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Wood Trim Cs-137 Lt 99% 99% 0% 7/14/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Wood Trim Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/14/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Wood Trim Cs-137 Lt 98% 7/14/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Wood Trim Cs-137 Lt 98% 6/15/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Wood Trim Cs-137 ASFM 116% 95% 19% 6/15/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® 5 Wipes Wood Trim Cs-137 ASFM 70% 6/15/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Wood Trim Cs-137 ASFM 91% 6/15/2016 Pre-wet Clorox® ' Wipes Wood Trim Cs-137 ASFM 101% ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page A-9 Dccu n I ;i mi Million Method Sii rf;icc (s-13"7. Kh-Xft. ( s-13"7 ASI-'M. Cs-IJ"7 l.iiihl %U A\cr;iiie Siiindiird l)c\ iiilion 7/5/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Laminate Floor Cs-137 99% 99% 0% 7/5/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Laminate Floor Cs-137 99% 7/5/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Laminate Floor Cs-137 100% 7/5/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Laminate Floor Cs-137 99% 7/5/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Laminate Floor Rb-86 100% 99% 1% 7/5/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Laminate Floor Rb-86 99% 7/5/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Laminate Floor Rb-86 100% 7/5/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Laminate Floor Rb-86 99% 7/19/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 97% 97% 1% 7/19/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 96% 7/19/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 97% 7/19/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 97% 7/8/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 76% 74% 3% 7/8/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 70% 7/8/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 73% 7/8/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 75% 6/27/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Wood Floor Cs-137 94% 98% 3% 6/27/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Wood Floor Cs-137 98% 6/27/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Wood Floor Cs-137 102% 6/27/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Wood Floor Cs-137 96% 6/27/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Wood Floor Rb-86 93% 96% 3% 6/27/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Wood Floor Rb-86 99% 6/27/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Wood Floor Rb-86 99% 6/27/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Wood Floor Rb-86 93% 7/15/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 97% 98% 0% 7/15/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 98% 7/15/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 98% 7/15/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 98% 5/20/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 84% 86% 1% 5/20/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 85% 5/20/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 86% 5/20/2016 Sponge Mop with Water Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 87% 5/31/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Granite Countertop Cs-137 101% 101% 0% 5/31/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Granite Countertop Cs-137 101% 5/31/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Granite Countertop Cs-137 101% 5/31/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Granite Countertop Cs-137 101% 5/31/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Granite Countertop Rb-86 100% 100% 0% 5/31/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Granite Countertop Rb-86 100% 5/31/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Granite Countertop Rb-86 100% 5/31/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Granite Countertop Rb-86 100% ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page A-10 l);ilc Dccu n I ;i mi Million Method Sii rf;icc (s-13"7. Kh-Xft. ( s-13"7 ASI-'M. Cs-IJ"7 l.iiihl %U Siiindiird \\criiiio „ ... Ik'\ liilion 7/13/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Granite Countertop Cs-137 Lt 101% 100% 0% 7/13/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Granite Countertop Cs-137 Lt 101% 7/13/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Granite Countertop Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/13/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Granite Countertop Cs-137 Lt 100% 6/29/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Granite Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 15% 14% 2% 6/29/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Granite Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 16% 6/29/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Granite Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 12% 6/29/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Granite Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 12% 5/31/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Laminate Countertop Cs-137 85% 85% 1% 5/31/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Laminate Countertop Cs-137 78% 5/31/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Laminate Countertop Cs-137 84% 5/31/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Laminate Countertop Cs-137 85% 5/31/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Laminate Countertop Rb-86 84% 87% 3% 5/31/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Laminate Countertop Rb-86 85% 5/31/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Laminate Countertop Rb-86 87% 5/31/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Laminate Countertop Rb-86 91% 7/13/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Laminate Countertop Cs-137 Lt 99% 100% 0% 7/13/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Laminate Countertop Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/13/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Laminate Countertop Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/13/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Laminate Countertop Cs-137 Lt 100% 6/29/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Laminate Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 88% 84% 6% 6/29/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Laminate Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 89% 6/29/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Laminate Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 76% 6/29/2016 Formula 409® w/ paper towel Laminate Countertop Cs-137 ASFM 83% 6/28/2016 Swiffer® Spray Mop Laminate Floor Cs-137 95% 97% 2% 6/28/2016 Swiffer® Spray Mop Laminate Floor Cs-137 96% 6/28/2016 Swiffer® Spray Mop Laminate Floor Cs-137 98% 6/28/2016 Swiffer® Spray Mop Laminate Floor Cs-137 98% 8/1/2016 Swiffer® Spray Mop Laminate Floor Cs-137 98% 96% 2% 8/1/2016 Swiffer® Spray Mop Laminate Floor Cs-137 98% 8/1/2016 Swiffer® Spray Mop Laminate Floor Cs-137 97% 8/1/2016 Swiffer® Spray Mop Laminate Floor Cs-137 94% 6/28/2016 Swiffer® Spray Mop Laminate Floor Rb-86 95% 97% 2% 6/28/2016 Swiffer® Spray Mop Laminate Floor Rb-86 97% 6/28/2016 Swiffer® Spray Mop Laminate Floor Rb-86 101% 6/28/2016 Swiffer® Spray Mop Laminate Floor Rb-86 96% 7/19/2016 Swiffer® Spray Mop Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 98% 99% 1% 7/19/2016 Swiffer® Spray Mop Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/19/2016 Swiffer® Spray Mop Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/19/2016 Swiffer® Spray Mop Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 99% ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page A-11 l);ilc Dccu n I ;i mi Million Method Sii rf;icc (s-13"7. Kh-Xft. ( s-13"7 ASI-'M. %U A\cr;iiie Siiindiird l)c\ iiilion Cs-lJ"7 l.iiihl 5/18/2016 Swiffer® ' Spray Mop Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 91% 92% 1% 5/18/2016 Swiffer® 5 Spray Mop Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 92% 5/18/2016 Swiffer® ' Spray Mop Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 92% 5/18/2016 Swiffer® ' Spray Mop Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 93% 6/16/2016 Swiffer® ' Spray Mop Wood Floor Cs-137 101% 100% 1% 6/16/2016 Swiffer® ' Spray Mop Wood Floor Cs-137 101% 6/16/2016 Swiffer® ' Spray Mop Wood Floor Cs-137 100% 6/16/2016 Swiffer® ' Spray Mop Wood Floor Cs-137 99% 6/16/2016 Swiffer®1 Spray Mop Wood Floor Rb-86 102% 100% 2% 6/16/2016 Swiffer®1 Spray Mop Wood Floor Rb-86 101% 6/16/2016 Swiffer® ' Spray Mop Wood Floor Rb-86 99% 6/16/2016 Swiffer® 5 Spray Mop Wood Floor Rb-86 99% 7/15/2016 Swiffer® ' Spray Mop Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% 100% 0% 7/15/2016 Swiffer® ' Spray Mop Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/15/2016 Swiffer® ' Spray Mop Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/15/2016 Swiffer® ' Spray Mop Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% 5/19/2016 Swiffer® ' Spray Mop Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 94% 93% 1% 5/19/2016 Swiffer® ' Spray Mop Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 92% 5/19/2016 Swiffer®1 Spray Mop Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 94% 5/19/2016 Swiffer® ' Spray Mop Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 93% 7/29/2016 Swiffer® 5 Spray Mop Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 90% 91% 3% 7/29/2016 Swiffer® 5 Spray Mop Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 92% 7/29/2016 Swiffer® ' Spray Mop Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 88% 7/29/2016 Swiffer® ' Spray Mop Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 95% 6/28/2016 Swiffer® ' with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 92% 83% 6% 6/28/2016 Swiffer® ' with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 84% 6/28/2016 Swiffer® ' with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 78% 6/28/2016 Swiffer® ' with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 79% 8/1/2016 Swiffer®1 with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 99% 96% 6% 8/1/2016 Swiffer® ' with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 88% 8/1/2016 Swiffer® 5 with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 99% 8/1/2016 Swiffer® ' with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 99% 6/28/2016 Swiffer® ' with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Rb-86 87% 78% 8% 6/28/2016 Swiffer® ' with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Rb-86 83% 6/28/2016 Swiffer® ' with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Rb-86 74% 6/28/2016 Swiffer® ' with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Rb-86 69% 7/19/2016 Swiffer® ' with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% 99% 1% 7/19/2016 Swiffer®1 with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/19/2016 Swiffer® ' with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/19/2016 Swiffer® ' with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 98% ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page A-12 l);ilc Dccu n I ;i mi Million Method Sii rf;icc (s-13"7. Kh-Xft. ( s-13"7 ASI-'M. %U A\cr;iiie Siiindiird l)c\ iiilion Cs-lJ"7 l.iiihl 5/18/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 96% 94% 1% 5/18/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 93% 5/18/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 94% 5/18/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 93% 6/16/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 84% 92% 6% 6/16/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 91% 6/16/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 94% 6/16/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 99% 6/16/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Rb-86 86% 93% 6% 6/16/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Rb-86 90% 6/16/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Rb-86 97% 6/16/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Rb-86 99% 7/18/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% 100% 0% 7/18/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/18/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/18/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% 5/19/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 92% 92% 1% 5/19/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 91% 5/19/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 93% 5/19/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 92% 7/29/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 96% 94% 3% 7/29/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 90% 7/29/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 98% 7/29/2016 Swiffer® with Pre-wet Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 94% 6/27/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 88% 93% 4% 6/27/2016 Swiffer® with Diy Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 97% 6/27/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 97% 6/27/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 92% 6/27/2016 Swiffer® with Diy Pad Laminate Floor Rb-86 83% 93% 9% 6/27/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Laminate Floor Rb-86 96% 6/27/2016 Swiffer® with Diy Pad Laminate Floor Rb-86 104% 6/27/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Laminate Floor Rb-86 87% 7/19/2016 Swiffer® with Diy Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% 99% 2% 7/19/2016 Swiffer® with Diy Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/19/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 99% 7/19/2016 Swiffer® with Diy Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 97% 5/17/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 51% 59% 7% 5/17/2016 Swiffer® with Diy Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 57% 5/17/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 64% 5/17/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Laminate Floor Cs-137 ASFM 65% ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page A-13 l);ilc Dccu n I ;i mi Million Method Sii rf;icc (s-13"7. Kh-Xft. ( s-13"7 ASI-'M. Cs-lJ"7 l.iiihl %U A\cr;iiie Siiindiird l)c\ iiilion 6/27/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 103% 101% 1% 6/27/2016 Swiffer® with Diy Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 101% 6/27/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 99% 6/27/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 102% 6/27/2016 Swiffer® with Diy Pad Wood Floor Rb-86 111% 104% 4% 6/27/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Wood Floor Rb-86 102% 6/27/2016 Swiffer® with Diy Pad Wood Floor Rb-86 101% 6/27/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Wood Floor Rb-86 104% 7/15/2016 Swiffer® with Diy Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 97% 99% 1% 7/15/2016 Swiffer® with Diy Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/15/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/15/2016 Swiffer® with Diy Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% 5/20/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 73% 64% 8% 5/20/2016 Swiffer® with Diy Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 62% 5/20/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 68% 5/20/2016 Swiffer® with Dry Pad Wood Floor Cs-137 ASFM 54% 7/12/2016 Wet Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 90% 91% 1% 7/12/2016 Wet Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 91% 7/12/2016 Wet Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 91% 7/12/2016 Wet Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 91% 7/12/2016 Wet Vacuum Carpet Rb-86 93% 92% 2% 7/12/2016 Wet Vacuum Carpet Rb-86 89% 7/12/2016 Wet Vacuum Carpet Rb-86 92% 7/12/2016 Wet Vacuum Carpet Rb-86 92% 7/21/2016 Wet Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 Lt 94% 93% 1% 7/21/2016 Wet Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 Lt 92% 7/21/2016 Wet Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 Lt 92% 7/21/2016 Wet Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 Lt 94% 7/11/2016 Wet Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 ASFM 66% 53% 11% 7/11/2016 Wet Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 ASFM 54% 7/11/2016 Wet Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 ASFM 54% 7/11/2016 Wet Vacuum Carpet Cs-137 ASFM 40% 7/6/2016 Wet Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 58% 46% 12% 7/6/2016 Wet Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 55% 7/6/2016 Wet Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 36% 7/6/2016 Wet Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 35% 7/6/2016 Wet Vacuum Laminate Floor Rb-86 37% 34% 8% 7/6/2016 Wet Vacuum Laminate Floor Rb-86 43% 7/6/2016 Wet Vacuum Laminate Floor Rb-86 25% 7/6/2016 Wet Vacuum Laminate Floor Rb-86 30% ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page A-14 l);ilc Dccu n I ;i mi Million Method Sii rf;icc (s-13"7. Kh-Xft. ( s-13"7 ASI-'M. %U A\cr;iiie Siiindiird l)o\ iiilion Cs-lJ"7 l.i»hi 7/20/2016 Wet Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% 100% 0% 7/20/2016 Wet Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/20/2016 Wet Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% 7/20/2016 Wet Vacuum Laminate Floor Cs-137 Lt 100% ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Appendix B Photos of Decontamination Methods ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page B-l Technical Video EPA Low-Tech RAD video_rev01_small.mp4 Decontamination Methods Used on Floor Surfaces B.l. Dry broom on sealed hardwood flooring ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page B-2 B.2. Dry electrostatic pad (dry disposable pad with Swifter* mop) on jointed laminate flooring B.3. Dry vacuum on carpet ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page B-3 B.4. Pre-wet disposable pad with Swiffer® mop on laminate flooring ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page B-4 B.5. Spray agent with Swiffer® mop on jointed flooring B.6. Wet vacuum on laminate flooring ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page B-5 B.7. Water with sponge mop on laminate flooring ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page B-6 Decontamination Methods used on Non-Floor Surfaces B.8. Dry cloth on toilet tank covers ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page B-7 B.9. Electrostatic pad on toilet tank covers B.10. Dry paper towel on toilet tank covers ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page B-8 B.ll. Polish oil and dry cloth on wood furniture B.12. Pre-wet disposable Clorox® wipe on wood furniture ------- Evaluation of Low-Tech Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Rad/Nuc Incidents Date: 9/30/16 Version: Final Page B-9 B.13. Formula 409® w/ paper towel on laminate counter (left) and contaminated granite countertop (right) B.14. Water with paper towel on a laminate countertop ------- vvEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency PRESORTED STANDARD POSTAGE & FEES PAID EPA PERMIT NO. G-35 Office of Research and Development (8101R) Washington, DC 20460 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 ------- |