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

-------