EPA/600/R-19/001 | February 2019 www.epa.gov/homeland-security-research United States Environmental Protection Agency &EPA Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents Office of Research and Development Homeland Security Research Program ------- This page left intentionally blank ------- EPA/600/R-19/001 February 2019 Technology Evaluation Report Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268 ------- 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-15-002; Task Order 12. 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 ------- Page iii Contents Executive Summary vii 1.0 Introduction 1 under the selected contamination conditions 1 2.0 Experimental Details 3 2.1 Experimental Preparation 3 2.1.1 Surfaces 3 2.1.2 Surface Contamination 7 2.1.3 Measurement of Activity on Coupon Surface 8 2.2 Decontamination Methods 9 2.3 Decontamination Conditions 11 3.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 13 3.1 InSpector™ 1000 13 3.2 Audits 13 3.2.1 Technical System Audit 13 3.2.2 Data Quality Audit 13 3.3 QA/QC Reporting 14 4.0 Evaluation Results and Performance Summary 15 4.1 Decontamination Efficacy 15 4.2 Operational and Deployment Factors 23 4.3 Performance Summary 27 5.0 References 29 ------- Page iv FIGURES Figure 2-1. Roofing surfaces: asphalt roofing, asphalt shingles, clay tiles (top row) and gutter, metal roofing, and wood shingles (bottom row) 5 Figure 2-2. Siding and other surfaces: vinyl (representative of aluminum and steel as well), composite fence, stucco (top row), wood siding, window, and plastic slide 5 Figure 2-3. Hardscape surfaces: brick pavers, asphalt drive, concrete pavers (top row), stained wood deck and sidewalk concrete (bottom row) 5 Figure 2-4. Mock wall setup with asphalt shingles, vinyl siding, gutter and downspout 6 Figure 2-5. Containment tent used for all experiments 6 Figure 2-6. Contamination of asphalt shingles with a heavy SFM loading on squares (left). Light SFM loading on asphalt drive (center), and ASFM applicator (right) 8 Figure 2-7. InSpectorTM 1000, Digital Hand-Held MCA with shielding support to facilitate repeatable geometry 9 Figure 2-8. Pass 1 pattern (left) and Pass 2 pattern (right) with decontamination approaches .... 10 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 11 Table 2-4. Test Matrix of Decontamination Methods for Roofing Surfaces 12 Table 2-5. Test Matrix of Decontamination Methods for Siding and Other Surfaces 12 Table 2-6. Test Matrix of Decontamination Methods for Hardscape Surfaces 12 Table 4-la. Decontamination Efficacy for Roofing Surfaces by Method 16 Table 4-lb. Decontamination Efficacy for Roofing Materials by Surface 17 Table 4-2. Decontamination Efficacy for Siding and other Outdoor Surfaces 18 Table 4-3. Decontamination Efficacy for Hardscape Surfaces 20 Table 4-4. Decontamination Efficacy for Mock Wall Spraying 21 Table 4-5. Efficacy Observations of Each Surface Type 22 Table 4-6. Operational Summary of Each Low-tech Remediation Method 24 Table 4-7. Accessories for each Low-tech Remediation Method by Deposition Method 25 Table 4-8. Estimated Waste from Decontamination of Typical Home (Heavy SFM) 26 Table 4-9. Estimated Waste from Decontamination of Typical Home (Light SFM) 26 Table 4-10. Estimated Waste Stream from Decontamination of Typical Home 26 Table 4-11. Estimated Waste Stream as a Function of Deposition Method 26 ------- Page vi Abbreviations/Acronyms %R percent(s) removal ASFM aqueous simulated fallout material ARD Arizona Road Dust BG background CBRN chemical, biological, radioactive, and nuclear cm centimeter(s) Cs cesium DAC derived air concentration EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ft foot/feet g gram(s) HEPA high efficiency particle air HSRP Homeland Security Research Program kg kilogram(s) L liter(s) low-tech low technology MCA multichannel analyzer mCi millicurie(s) mg milligram(s) mm millimeter(s) mL milliliter(s) m meter(s) |im micron(s) |iCi microcurie(s) 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 T&E Testing and Evaluation ------- Page vii Acknowledgments 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 John Archer, National Homeland Security Research Center Timothy Boe, National Homeland Security Research Center Kathy Hall, National Homeland Security Research Center Scott Hudson, Office of Emergency Management Mario Ierardi, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery Paul Lemieux, National Homeland Security Research Center Matthew Magnuson, National Homeland Security Research Center Anne Mikelonis, National Homeland Security Research Center Jim Mitchell, EPA Region 5 Terry Stilman, EPA Region 4 State of Illinois Mark Hannant Battelle Memorial Institute Ryan James Zachary Willenberg Booze Allen Hamilton Katrina McConkey ------- Page viii 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 surface types and locations. The objective of the work described here is to collect information and experimental data about low-tech outdoor radiological decontamination methods available in the United States. This technology evaluation included use of low technology (low-tech) decontamination methods on surfaces common to outdoor residential environments. Tests were performed to evaluate decontamination with respect to technology efficacy for varying particle sizes and wet and dry applications and method constraints. In addition, the technology's deployment and operational factors were evaluated including safety concerns, feasibility, waste generation, potential exposure, and cost. Prior to pilot-scale testing, literature containing pertinent information related to common outdoor cleaning and maintenance activities within the United States was compiled into a summary compendium including relevant information about multiple low-tech cleaning methods from the results of the literature search. Through discussion and prioritization, an EPA project team, made up of several EPA scientists and emergency responders, focused the information into a list of 10 outdoor cleaning activities (e.g., vacuuming, sweeping, wet wiping) for decontamination evaluation testing which could be performed by untrained homeowners with guidance. These types of activities are collectively referred to as "low-tech" decontamination methods because of the comparatively simple tools, equipment, and operations involved. Additionally, 20 common outdoor surfaces (including roofing material, siding, hardscape surfaces, etc.) were chosen that were contaminated using three different contamination conditions. These outdoor surfaces were selected because of their prevalence around personal residences and commercial office buildings and because of the inconvenience associated with removing and replacing relatively expensive items (compared to grass, mulch, etc.). The low- tech decontamination methods were selected based on ease of use and availability in the aftermath of a radiological incident. This method evaluation included use of multiple common surfaces at a pilot scale (0.7 square meters [m2]) for decontamination testing. Testing included deposition and measurement of the radioactive contaminant on the surface; the method for application of the decontamination; 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 decontamination tool (e.g., handle, support end, and sponge end). The results presented here include cesium-137 and rubidium-86 tagged to particles and cesium-137 as an aqueous application. Efficacies of decontamination technologies may differ with different radionuclides. ------- Page ix A summary of the evaluation results for these low-tech decontamination methods is presented below, and a discussion of the observed performance can be found in Section 4 of this report. Decontamination: The results indicated that the aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) was much more difficult to remove than the simulated fallout material (SFM), and particle size was usually not a factor in SFM removal. In particular, the porous surfaces such as asphalt shingles, asphalt roofing, wood shingles, wood siding, stucco, or concrete exhibited extremely low percent removals (%Rs) for the ASFM. Also, when wiping methods such as pre-wet wipes, sponges, or mold wash were used on surfaces that were rough, the %Rs were decreased compared to smooth surfaces. 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 vacuums are effective tools and that, depending on the surface, wipes and cloths were rather effective. Lastly, the mockup of one side of a house (mock wall) and pump sprayer (power washing, water hosing) hardscape experiments demonstrated that water rinsing can be an effective decontamination approach. Decontamination Efficacy Summary Asphalt roofing Roofing SFM %R 10-78%, removal variable among broom, wipe, and sponge methods; highest ASFM %R 8%; wall spray in mock-up setup %R >97% for SFM and 15% for ASFM Asphalt shingles SFM %R 22-61% for broom, wipe, and sponge methods; vacuum %R >97% ASFM %R 1-4%; mock wall spray %R near 100% for SFM and 10-20% for ASFM Clay tiles SFM %R near 100% for wipe and sponge (only methods used), ASFM %R 27-37%; mock wall spray %R near 100% for SFM and 52% for ASFM Gutter SFM %R near 100% for all methods used; ASFM %R 18% for vacuum, but 91% for wipes and 100% for sponge Metal roofing SFM %R near 100% for all methods used; ASFM %R 42% for broom, but 99% for wipes and sponge; mock wall spray %R near 100% for SFM and 99% for ASFM Wood shingles SFM %R 67-87% for broom and sponge methods, vacuum %R >97%; ASFM %R were between 0-10%; mock wall spray %R 98% for SFM and 38% for ASFM (Highly fibrous surface) Siding and Other Surfaces Aluminum siding SFM %R >96% for all methods, ASFM 75%, 87%, and 100% for sponge, wipes, and mold wash Composite fence SFM %R 80%-96%, ASFM 69% and 82%; wipes and sponge (only methods used) Plastic slide SFM and ASFM %R all near 100%, wipes and sponge (only methods used) Steel siding SFM %R >93% for all methods, ASFM %R all near 100% Stucco SFM %R 62%-98% with mold wash being highest, ASFM %R 0-4% Vinyl siding SFM %R >94% for all methods, ASFM %R all near 100%; mock wall spray %R >91% for ASFM (fan sprayer setting most effective) SFM and ASFM %R all near 100%; Window • mock wall spray %R >96% for ASFM using cone and fan settings and 88% for stream setting ------- Page x Wood siding SFM %R >88% for all methods with heavier loading having higher %Rs, ASFM %R 12-20%; mock wall spray %R 32% for ASFM Hardscape Asphalt drive Brick pavers Concrete pavers Sidewalk concrete Stained wood deck SFM %R 29-100% with mop and vacuum being highest and squeegee the lowest; ASFM %R 0-23% with the mop being the highest SFM %R 27-100% with vacuum being highest and squeegee the lowest; ASFM %R 0-6%; lighter particle load removed less well than heavier with push broom SFM %R 22-100% with vacuum being highest and squeegee the lowest; ASFM %R 2-3%; lighter particle load removed less well than heavier with push broom SFM %R >90% for all methods with exception of squeegee which was 53-83% and light loaded mop (86%); ASFM removals 0-5% SFM %R >90% for all methods; ASFM %R 2-7% for the vacuum and push broom, %R 47% for the deck wash, and 49% for the spray removal Deployment and Operational Factors: Section 4 provides an operational summary of the various low-tech decontamination methods that were employed during testing by presenting observations made by the operators using each low-tech decontamination method. Examples include information on deployment of wipes and cloths which can conveniently be transported between sites (in new packaging), and can possibly be disposed of at each site more efficiently than attempting to transport powered equipment that would have become contaminated. In addition, Section 4 describes the fate of the SFM (containing radiological activity) following decontamination. The determination of the fate of the SFM was done by performing a qualitative radiological survey of the tools used for decontamination. 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) including powered air purifying respirators (with HEPA filters). None of those surveys resulted in activity measurements above background levels, as evidenced by little to no contamination on the gloves of the decontamination workers and the high activity found on the low-tech decontamination tools. Furthermore, almost all of the activity was isolated on the item that was in contact with the surface being decontaminated. 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 the exteriors of a typical house (using the most effective decontamination methods) was estimated. For this example, the exterior of 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 181 kilograms (kg). The level of activity in the waste will be dependent on the initial contamination levels, which will then, in turn, affect waste management activities. If water rinsing is used, the technology generates large amounts of runoff that may likely to be collected to reduce any secondary contamination. This runoff may be liquid waste that will either be disposed of as solidified liquid or directly as liquid waste. Several air samplers were positioned throughout the testing to measure the potential inhalation dose for the decontamination worker. The air sampler filters never exceeded 0.2% of the derived ------- Page xi 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. The project described in this report focused on the low-tech radiological decontamination method efficacy of outdoor surfaces; an early report provided information on the low-tech radiological method decontamination efficacy on indoor surfaces^. The combined results of which indicate that there are some decontamination methods that are readily available, inexpensive, can be conducted by untrained people, that are effective at decontamination and are able to be accomplished without personal contamination or significant dose received. Results indicate that vacuum removal is an extremely effective low-tech decontamination technology for particle contamination onto hard surfaces with minimal pores. In addition, pre-wet wipes are also a very effective low-tech removal technology for particle and aqueous contamination for hard, smooth, non-porous surfaces. Several other technologies also provide consistent decontamination, but these two technologies stand out as very consistent decontamination methods. ------- 1.0 Introduction The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal agency 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 that can be deployed during a CBRN incident. 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 outdoor areas around personal residences, office buildings, or critical infrastructure like firehouses and hospital emergency rooms that may be impacted with Rad/Nuc material and require cleanup. However, the radiological activity in these areas may not be high enough to warrant the evacuation of residents. These homeowners, contractors, office workers, firefighters, hospital workers, and/or others may want or need to take action themselves to reduce the potential radioactive dose to those living or working in these areas. Early government-funded cleanup efforts will most likely focus mainly on restoring/decontaminating critical infrastructure in areas where radioactive contamination levels are high enough to warrant evacuation. Following the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant incident, the Japanese national government developed guidance(2) 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 the work described here is to collect information and experimental data on decontamination efficacy, potential exposure from, and waste generated by low-tech outdoor radiological decontamination methods available in the United States for possible use by homeowners, contractors hired by homeowners, or first responders to reduce exposure. This technology evaluation included use of low technology (low-tech) decontamination methods on surfaces common to outdoor residential environments and included evaluating the decontamination efficacy, method constraints, safety concerns, feasibility, waste generation, potential exposure, and cost. Prior to pilot scale testing; a literature review was conducted to identify, collect, evaluate, and summarize available articles, reports, guidance documents, and other pertinent information related to common housekeeping activities within the United States. This literature review 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 10 outdoor cleaning activities (e.g., vacuuming, sweeping, wet wiping) for decontamination evaluation testing. These types of activities are collectively referred to as "low-tech" decontamination methods because of the comparatively simple tools, equipment, and operations involved. Additionally, 20 common outdoor surfaces (including roofing material, siding, hardscape surfaces, etc.) were chosen that were contaminated using three different contamination conditions. Seventy-three combinations of methods and surfaces were chosen for testing under the selected contamination conditions. ------- 2 Pilot scale decontamination testing was performed using several common outdoor surfaces (paved surfaces, roofing, walls, decking, etc.) with an area of approximately 0.7 square meters (m2). 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, etc., used, relative level of contamination on decontamination accessories, and level of contamination on the components of a low-tech decontamination tool (e.g., handle, support end, and sponge end). Qualitative information on operational ease and appearance of the surfaces after decontamination was also collected. The results presented here include cesium-137 and rubidium-86 tagged to particles and cesium-137 as an aqueous application. Efficacies of decontamination technologies may differ with different radionuclides. ------- 2.0 Experimental Details This technology evaluation included use of low-tech decontamination methods on surfaces common to outdoor residential environments 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 micrometers (|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 Cs, and it possesses chemical properties similar to cesium(3). The dry deposition of particles was conducted using a heavy and a light loading onto the surfaces for two distinct contamination conditions. For the heavy loading experiments, high activity material was applied to each of the 4 individual test squares (15x15 cm marked subsections) on each 0.7 m2 or the item's common size surface (test coupon), and low activity material was applied to the remainder of the surface. For the light loading experiments, 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 the SFM had initially 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 decontamination 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 x 2.1 m contamination control tent located in a high bay area. 2.1 Experimental Preparation 2.1.1 Surfaces This technology evaluation included use of low-tech decontamination methods on surfaces found around a home or commercial buildings (industrial plants, shopping areas, hospitals, schools, etc.) where people live, work, traverse, and/or visit. Surface types chosen for this evaluation included a variety of materials used for roofing, walls, decking, driveways, sidewalks, etc. The material samples were large enough to be considered pilot scale, i.e., a scale large enough to simulate use of the decontamination methods on surfaces that are relatively inconvenient and/or expensive to remove and replace. The surfaces were divided into several classes summarized in Table 2-1. ------- 4 Table 2-1. Description of Surface Materials Source Information Surface Types Roofing Asphalt roofing Shasta White Rolled Roofing, Owens Corning, Toledo, OH Asphalt shingles Royal Sovereign Charcoal 3-Tab Shingles, GAF, Parsippany, NJ Clay tiles Spanish Field Tile, Ludowici, New Lexington, OH Gutter K-Style White Aluminum Gutter, Gibraltar Brands, Skokie, IL Metal roofing Classic Rib Steel Roof Panel, Metal Sales Manufacturing Corp., Louisville, KY Wood shingles Red Cedar Shake, Roofing Wholesale, Columbus, OH Siding and Other Surfaces Aluminum siding Textured Gray Aluminum Siding, Sell Even Building Products, Appleton, WI Composite fence Enhance 8-ft Saddle Composite Deck Board, Trex, Winchester, VA Plastic slide 1st Slide, Little Tikes, Hudson, OH Steel siding Beige Steel Siding, Midwest Manufacturing, Eau Claire, WI Stucco Rapid Set Stucco Mix, CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp., Cypress, CA Vinyl siding Khaki Vinyl Dutch Lap Siding, Ply Gem, Cary, NC Window V1000 Single Hung Thermostar, Pella Windows, Pella, IA Wood siding Smooth Log Siding, Meadow Valley Log Homes and Siding, Mather, WI Hardscapes Asphalt drive Used parking lot asphalt, Columbus Ohio Asphalt, Columbus, OH Brick pavers Clay Brick Flats (Alamo Sunrise), Brickweb, Old Mill Brick, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT Concrete pavers Square Gray Patio Stone, Lowes, Mooresville, NC Sidewalk concrete Quikrete, Quikrete Companies, Atlanta, GA Prime Ground Contact Pressure-Treated Lumber, Home Depot, Atlanta, GA otdineQ WOOQ Q6CK Cedar Naturaltone Semi-Transparent Stain and Sealer, Behr, Santa Ana, CA Surface materials were positioned in the evaluation based on how they are typically installed in the outdoor environment and whether the materials are cleaned by hand or using a handled device such as a broom or vacuum. Paved surfaces were positioned and decontaminated on the floor, and the other surfaces were positioned and decontaminated on a table top. For all surfaces, the test coupon size was approximately 0.7 m2 or a common size of the item itself (e.g., gutter, window). All surfaces (except the asphalt drive surface) 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 or weathered surfaces found on homes and commercial buildings may not present the same results due to the surface aging and weathering. Figures 2-1 through 2-3 are pictures of the roofing, siding and other surfaces, and hardscapes, respectively. Figure 2-4 is a picture of the mock wall setup used for spray decontamination experiments of roofing and siding surfaces. ------- [figure 2-1. Roofing surfaces: asphalt roofing, asphalt shingles, clay tiles (top row left to right), gutter, metal roofing, and wood shingles (bottom row left to right). ' v\ \ , \ , Si \ V J M ^1 hi h1 t 1 g - j%-- ifl' -4 . -» Figure 2-2. Siding and other surfaces: vinyl (representative of aluminum and steel as well), composite fence, stucco (top row left to right), wood siding, window, and plastic slide (bottom row left to right). I |j£|0|0 r~- \ I r Figure 2-3. Hardscape surfaces: brick pavers, asphalt drive, concrete pavers (top row left to right), stained wood deck, and sidewalk concrete (bottom row left to right). ------- 6 Figure 2-4. Mock wall setup with asphalt shingles, vinyl siding, gutter, and downspout. All the radiological work was conducted in the tent shown in Figure 2-5 (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 s 2.6 m x 2.1 m with separate rooms for donning PPE (protective coveralls, hoods, booties, shoe covers, gloves) and performing the experiments. Decontamination technicians wore respiratory protection (powered air purifying respirators with HEPA filters) while performing the experimental procedures. The tent was connected to a high efficiency particle air (HEPA) filtration system, and two air samples were rnn outside the tent confirming function of the HEPA filter. Figure 2-5. Containment tent used for all experiments. ------- 7 2.1.2 Surface Contamination Three contaminant deposition approaches (heavy SFM loading, light SFM loading, and ASFM) were used to evaluate the decontamination methods and are described in Table 2-2. In an actual fallout event, the level of material 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 decontamination research(4"5) (mostly outdoor) has used surface densities of approximately 20 milligrams (mg)/square centimeter (cm2), so this density was used as the heavy SFM loading. This relatively high level served as a severe contamination case scenario for decontamination, possible worker contamination, and waste handling. An SFM density of 2 mg/cm2 was used as a light SFM loading to simulate a less heavy loading that may be more representative of more actual scenarios. Regardless of approach, each outdoor surface material was marked with four numbered squares using permanent marker. The test squares were 15 cm x 15 cm and used to define the areas of quantitative decontamination evaluation and to ensure that the pre- and post- decontamination gamma measurements were taken from the same locations. Table 2-2. Summary of Contamination Experimental Conditions Deposition Approach Contaminant Loading on Surface Heavy SFM Loading Cs-137 tagged to >250 ARD Rb-86 tagged to 1-10 |im ARD 4 g 1:1 high activity (2 |iCi Cs-137 and (20 |iCi Rb-86) particle size mixture on test square (20 mg/cm2) 20 mg/cm21:1 low activity (0.1 |iCi Cs-137 and (1 ^Ci Rb-86) particle size mixture on remaining test coupon surface Light SFM Loading Cs-137 tagged to 1-10 ARD 0.5 g ARD (2 nCi Cs-137) deposited on each test square Aqueous SFM Cs-137 in deionized water Sprayed on test squares and allowed to dry (2 ^Ci Cs-137) Heavy SFM loading. The first contaminant deposition approach included a heavy SFM loading consisting of ARD in two particle size ranges. This approach has been used during previous EPA radiological decontamination technology evaluations1. 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 (mCi) in microliter volumes of water. 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 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 ------- 8 and 1 |iCi/g Rb-86) particle mixture to mimic a more actual event and for minimization of worker dose. Light SFM loading. The second deposition method consisted of a lighter particle load and included only 1 to 10 luti ARD tagged with Cs-137 at an activity concentration level of 8 LtCi/g. Only 0.5 g of these particles was sprinkled onto each square so that the particles were just above the visible threshold (see middle photo below) for an extremely light loading, resulting in a total of 2 jiCi 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 niL of an aqueous mist of Cs-137 at a concentration of 0.8 uCi/'mL (diluted from the source standard with deionized water) for a total addition of 2 jaCi per square. A similar contamination approach has been used during several EPA radiological decontamination studies8"14. The ASFM mist was delivered manually to each surface using a calibrated sprayer (11 pumps correspond to approximately 2.5 mL). Exact calibration of this sprayer was not required as the gamma radiation measurement for each surface before decontamination (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. A uniform application of solution was applied to each surface. The uniformity of application was based only on observance by the experimental staff during spray application. Figure 2-6 shows the three different approaches used for contaminating the surfaces. Figure 2-6. Contamination of asphalt shingles with a heavy SFM loading on squares (left). Light SFM loading on asphalt drive (center), and ASFM applicator (right). 2.1.3 Measurement of Activity on Test Coupon Surface Following surface contamination, the Cs-137 and/or Rb-86 gamma radiation was measured (in the channels of interest only) by placing the spectrometer approximately 2.5 cm above the contaminated test square on the surface. The activity measurements were made using an InSpectorIM 1000 Digital Hand-Field multichannel analyzer (MCA) (Canberra Industries, Inc., Meriden, CT). The pre-decontamination counts were collected over a 100-second measurement period, and the post-decontamination counts were taken over a 300-second (five-minute) measurement period (counts were normalized by pre- and post- decontamination counting times). ------- 9 Because of the variable geometries of contaminant application, no activity calculations were performed. The measurement of gamma radiation from the surfaces is a non-destructive measurement technique; surfaces that had been contaminated with SFM or ASFM and 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 account for any differences in geometry of the surfaces that could confound 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 15 x 15 test 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 location because of the ease of positioning onto the pre- marked surface. Figure 2-7. InSpector™ 1000, Digital Hand-Held MCA 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 62 outdoor wall surfaces corresponding to over 180 separate surface decontamination experiments) with various surfaces for application of the decontamination methods evaluated. In most cases, four replicate surface measurements (the 4 test squares on each test coupon) were included for each surface. Once contaminated with a heavy SFM loading, an initial pass for a decontamination method in a single direction or standard "sweeping action" where particles were collected at one end of the surface was performed. Then, the same decontamination method was applied to the staged surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface as presented in Figure 2-8. The first pass took place in one direction, implementing an "S" pattern (or back and forth) across the surface, covering the entire surface, then a second pass (using the same pattern) occurred in the ------- 10 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. There were also 11 experiments performed on a mock-up of one side of a house (mock wall) that used only the pump sprayer on the roof and walls. A similar spray pattern (0.2 m from the surface at 1-5 pounds per square inch pressure) was followed as for the wipe pattern described above. For hardscape pump sprayer applications, the surfaces were placed in a ground containment and sprayed following a similar pattern (0.1 m from the surface at 1-5 pounds per square inch pressure). The low-tech methods used in this evaluation are presented in Table 2-3. 4 Figure 2-8. 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 was measured using low volume air particulate 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. Air particulate samples were collected inside and outside the radiological containment area (area samples) as well as from within the breathing zone (personal samples) 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 (mm) 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 was counted daily to document air concentrations. Potential dermal exposure to users of low-tech decontamination methods was monitored by conducting qualitative radiological surveys of the PPE of the workers after decontamination activities. The focus was on the hands (covered by PPE) of the workers and other areas 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 (Ludlum Model 3 with 44-9 probe, Ludlum Measurements, Inc., Sweetwater, TX), 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. ------- 11 Table 2-3. Low-Tech Decontamination Methods Used for the Evaluation1 Surface Decontamination Method Source Method Comments Vacuum 2.25 Horsepower, Shop-Vac®, Williamsport, PA Used flat 4-inch attachment and then used hose only for final pass. Kitchen broom Precision Angle Broom, Libman, Areola, IL Swept particles into a pile on surface and used vacuum for disposal. Roofing Push broom 18" Multi-Surface Commercial Push Broom, Libman, Areola, IL Swept particles into a pile on surface and used vacuum for disposal. Pre-wet wipes Disinfecting Wipes, Clorox® Company, Oakland, CA Collected particles in wipes until surface visibly clean and no more improvement was visible. Sponge Ocelo Cellulose Sponge (4 in x 6 in), 3M, St. Paul, MN Collected particles in water-wetted sponges until surface visibly clean. Siding and Mold wash with terry towels Liquid Mold Remover, Wet and Forget, Chicago, IL; HDX, Model 7-660, Home Depot, Atlanta, GA Sprayed mold wash on particles and then used terry towels to wipe surface. Repeated until visibly clean or until no more improvement was visible. Other Surfaces Pre-wet wipes Disinfecting Wipes, Clorox® Company, Oakland, CA Same as pre-wet wipe description above. Sponge Same as sponge description above. Same as sponge description above. Squeegee water rinse Metal Handle General-Duty Squeegee, Unisan, Los Angeles, CA Wetted particles with a water bottle of water and squeegeed the surface until no more improvement was visible. Deck wash Biodegradable Deck Cleaner, Olympic, Pittsburgh, PA Sprayed deck wash on particles and then used damp sponge to wipe surface. Repeated until visibly clean or until no more improvement was visible. Vacuum Same as vacuum description above. Same as vacuum description above. Squeegee water rinse Same as squeegee water rinse description above. Same as squeegee water rinse description above. Hardscapes Mop Blend Mop Head, Rubbermaid Commercial Products, Atlanta, GA Thoroughly wetted mop and then cleaned surface until no more improvement was visible. Push broom Same as push broom description above. Same as push broom description above. Pump Sprayer Multi-Purpose Sprayer (All-in-one Nozzle), Scotts, Marysville, OH Used all nozzle settings. Pumped 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. For roofing, ~0.2 m from surface; for hardscapes, ~0.1 m from surface. 1 Photographs and video of technologies can be found in Appendix A. 2.3 Decontamination Conditions The evaluation was performed over the course of approximately four months from May through September 2017 and approximately 1.5 months during January and February 2018. During the evaluation, the temperature in the tent averaged 23.9 ±1.6 degrees Celsius and the relative humidity averaged 63% ± 5%. Tables 2-4 through 2-6 present the combinations of decontamination methods and surfaces tested during this study. All three contamination ------- 12 deposition approaches were used with these test combinations. For the mock wall spray experiments, SFM and ASFM were applied to the roofing while only ASFM was applied to the siding. Table 2-4. Test Matrix of Decontamination Methods for Roofing Surfaces Decontamination Methods Surfaces Vacuum Broom Pre-wet Wipes Sponge Mock Wall Spray Asphalt roofing X X X X Asphalt shingles X X X X Clay tiles X X X Gutter X X X Metal roofing X X X X Wood shingles x x x x Table 2-5. Test Matrix of Decontamination Methods for Siding and Other Surfaces Decontamination Methods Surfaces Mold Wash Pre-wet Wipes Sponge Squeegee Mock Wall Spray Aluminum siding X X X X Composite fence X X Concrete siding X Plastic slide X X Steel siding X X X Stucco X X X X Vinyl siding X X X X Window X X X X Wood siding X X X X Table 2-6. Test Matrix of Decontamination Methods for Hardscape Surfaces Decontamination Methods Surfaces Deck Wash Vacuum Squeegee Mop Push Broom Pump Sprayer Asphalt drive X X X X Brick pavers X X X X X Concrete paver X X X X X Sidewalk concrete X X X X X Stained wood deck x x x x ------- 13 3.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control This evaluation was conducted at Battelle's West Jefferson Campus, in West Jefferson, Ohio. Quality Assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) procedures were performed in accordance with the project-specific Quality Assurance Project Plan for this evaluation. Before contaminating each surface, the background activities of the surfaces were determined by a five-minute data acquisition. Per quality requirements, two audits were conducted: a technical systems audit and an audit of data quality on the results from the evaluation. The background measurements fluctuated daily due to the contents in the tent at the time of gamma measurement. The measurement results were corrected for the background levels measured on the respective testing days. Typical background activity levels were on average 1%±2% of the pre-decontamination activity levels. 3.1 InSpector™ 1000 The InSpector™ 1000 was set up to monitor for Cs-137 and Rb-86. A positive control coupon (15 cm x 15 cm cardboard coupon sealed/contained with duct tape) 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 relative percent difference (RPD) was calculated for 62 paired positive control measurements and ranged from 0% to 5%. In addition, the raw gamma counts collected daily throughout the course of the 2017 and 2018 testing operations had relative standard deviations of 1% and 2%, respectively, 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 3% ± 5% (N=154). There were two results that exceeded the 25% RPD requirement. The results were reported as one instance had low counts post-decontamination, thus increasing the percent difference even though the absolute difference in counts was small, and the other surface had inconsistent geometry making exact placement of the sensor more difficult. 3.2 Audits 3.2.1 Technical System Audit A technical systems audit was performed on June 12, 2017, to confirm compliance with project quality requirements. The audit report was completed, and no findings or observations were reported. 3.2.2 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. ------- 14 3.3 QA/QC Reporting Each assessment and audit was 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 Testing and Evaluation II (T&E II) program manager for review and approval. ------- 15 4.0 Evaluation Results and Performance Summary 4.1 Decontamination Efficacy The decontamination efficacy was determined for each contaminated test coupon in terms of %R: %R = 1 -(Af-BG)/(A0-BG) x 100% or (.Af - BG) %R = 1 - V -—r x 100% Aq - BG where A0 is the radiological activity from the surface of the test 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 test square, approximately 2 |iCi of Cs-137 to the light loading SFM test square, and approximately 2 |iCi of Cs-137 to each ASFM test 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 for each radionuclide were used to calculate %R. The background activity was, on average, 1%±2% of the pre-decontamination counts. Therefore, a 100%R shown in the results may not be distinguishable from 97%R because the magnitude of the background. The term 'significantly different' is defined as a difference exceeding the standard deviation of the average %R (derived from the replicate results) of the conditions being compared. Roofing. Table 4-1 (a and b) gives the average %R for each low-tech decontamination method used on roofing materials categorized by the contaminant deposition techniques. Each %R is given with the standard deviation over four replicates. If the %R is reported with a 'greater than' sign (>), the average %R exceeded 100% and is reported as having %R greater than the lower limit of the average minus the standard deviation. Observations about the heavy loading SFM roofing material decontamination efficacy data include: • Particle Size: ¦ Efficacy at each particle size was significantly different (lower %R for larger particles) for only wood shingles (kitchen broom), asphalt roofing (pre-wet wipes and wet sponge), and asphalt shingles (wet sponge). ¦ In 14 of 34 instances (across both particle sizes), the average %R was less than 90% and in six of those instances, the averages were less than 50%R. ¦ In 20 of 34 instances (across both particle sizes), the average %R was 95% or above. ¦ The largest standard deviation was 9%. • Technology: ¦ Use of the pre-wet wipes on the asphalt roofing provided the lowest average %R, which was 10%) for the large particle size. ------- 16 ¦ Using a kitchen broom on the asphalt roofing resulted in the next lowest average %R with 23% and 22% for the large and small particle sizes, respectively. Observations about the light loading SFM (roofing material) decontamination efficacy data include: • 10 out of 17 average %R values were 98% and above; in the seven instances where the light load SFM %R was less than 98%, the heavy load %R was also below 98% at a similar magnitude. Observations about the ASFM (roofing material) decontamination efficacy data include: • Only four of 18 instances (wet sponges and pre-wet wipes on metal roofs and gutters) had average %R exceeding 90% (ranging 91%-100%); • No other instance exceeded 48% (kitchen broom on metal roofing). • Several material/method combinations had little or no removal ¦ vacuum/asphalt and wood shingles, (%R of 1- 2%) ¦ kitchen broom/asphalt shingles, (%R of 1%) ¦ pre-wet wipes/asphalt roofing, (%R of 0%) ¦ push broom/wood shingles, (%R of 1%) ¦ wet sponge/asphalt roofing and shingles and wood shingles. (%R of 1- 4%) Table 4-la. Decontamination Efficacy for Roofing Materials by Method % Removal for Each Contamination Deposition Approach Method Surface Cs-137, >250 fim Heavy Load SFM Rb-86, <10 fim Heavy Load SFM Cs-137, <10 jim Light Load SFM Cs-137 ASFM Asphalt Shingles 97% ± 0% 97% ± 0% 98% ± 1% 2% ± 1% Vacuum Gutter 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 18% ± 5% Wood Shingles 99% ± 0% 99% ± 1% 98% ± 0% 0% ± 2% Kitchen Broom Asphalt Shingles 23% ± 6% 22% ± 8% 25% ± 3% 1% ± 1% Metal Roofing >100% ± 1% 100% ± 0% 98% ± 1% 42% ± 4% Wood Shingles 87% ± 3% 74% ± 4% 71% ± 9% 10% ± 16% Asphalt Roofing 10% ± 5% 47% ± 1% 52% ± 8% 0% ± 1% Prewet Clay Tiles 97% ± 1% 100% ± 1% 99% ± 1% 27% ± 3% Wipes Gutter 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 99% ± 1% 91%a ± 1% Metal Roofing 98% ± 1% 99% ± 1% 99% ± 0% 99% ± 0% Push Asphalt Roofing 41% ± 10% 63% ± 11% 53% ± 17% 3% ± 13% Broom Wood Shingles'3 1% ± 2% Asphalt Roofing 50% ± 5% 67% ± 2% 78% ± 3% 8% ± 4% Asphalt Shingles 27% ± 9% 47% ± 8% 61% ± 3% 4% ± 1% Wet Clay Tiles 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 99% ± 0% 37% ± 3% Sponge Gutter 99% ± 1% 99% ± 1% 100% ± 2% 100% ± 2% Metal Roofing 99% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 99% ± 0% 99% ± 1% Wood Shingles 81% ± 4% 81% ± 5% 67% ± 17% 10% ± 2% a Initial testing %R result was 76%, repeated as seemed unexpectedly low, no explanation for initial result. b Blackened cells were not tested because the decontamination approach was not applicable to the surface. ------- 17 Table 4-lb. Decontamination Efficacy for Roofing Materials by Surface % Removal for Each Contamination Deposition Approach Surface Method Cs-137, >250 jim Heavy Load SFM Rb-86, <10 jim Heavy Load SFM Cs-137, <10 jim Light Load SFM Cs-137 ASFM Asphalt Roofing Wet Sponge 50% ± 5% 67% ± 2% 78% ± 3% 8% ± 4% Vacuum 97% ± 0% 97% ± 0% 98% ± 1% 2% ± 1% Asphalt Shingles Push Broom 41% ± 10% 63% ± 11% 53% ± 17% 3% ± 13% Wet Sponge 27% ± 9% 47% ± 8% 61% ± 3% 4% ± 1% Kitchen Broom 23% ± 6% 22% ± 8% 25% ± 3% 1% ± 1% Prewet Wipes 10% ± 5% 47% ± 1% 52% ± 8% 0% ± 1% Vacuum 99% ± 0% 99% ± 1% 98% ± 0% 0% ± 2% Wood Kitchen Broom 87% ± 3% 74% ± 4% 71% ± 9% 10% ± 16% Shingles Wet Sponge 81% ± 4% 81% ± 5% 67% ± 17% 10% ± 2% Push Broomb 1% ± 2% Clay Wet Sponge 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 99% ± 0% 37% ± 3% Tiles Prewet Wipes 97% ± 1% 100% ± 1% 99% ± 1% 27% ± 3% Metal Roofing Kitchen Broom >100% ± 1% 100% ± 0% 98% ± 1% 42% ± 4% Wet Sponge 99% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 99% ± 0% 99% ± 1% Prewet Wipes 98% ± 1% 99% ± 1% 99% ± 0% 99% ± 0% Vacuum 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 18% ± 5% Gutter Prewet Wipes 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 99% ± 1% 91%a ± 1% Wet Sponge 99% ± 1% 99% ± 1% 100% ± 2% 100% ± 2% a Initial testing %R result was 76%, repeated as seemed unexpectedly low, no explanation for initial result. b Blackened cells were not tested because the decontamination approach was not applicable to the surface. Siding and other outdoor surfaces. Table 4-2 gives the average %R for each low-tech decontamination method and each of the three contaminant deposition techniques for siding and other outdoor surfaces. Observations about the heavy loading SFM (on siding and other outdoor surfaces) decontamination efficacy data include: • Efficacy for each particle size was significantly different for only composite fence (pre-wet wipes) with a difference of only 6% and stucco (wet sponge) with a difference of 10%. • In 38 of 42 instances (across both particle sizes), the average %R was 94% or greater. • In 16 of 42 instances, the average %R plus or minus the standard deviation included 100%. • The largest standard deviation was 17% and 9% for pre-wet wipes on stucco; no other standard deviation was greater than 6%. • Pre-wet wipes on stucco provided the lowest average %R, 62% and 83% for the large and small particle sizes, respectively. As noted above, this surface also generated less precise results, likely due to the rough, inconsistent surface. ------- 18 Table 4-2. Decontamination Efficacy for Siding and other Outdoor Surfaces % Removal for Each Contamination Deposition Approach Method Surface Cs-137 >250 jim Rb-86 < 10 jim Cs-137 < 10 jim „ Heavy Load SFM Heavy Load SFM Light Load SFM S Aluminum Siding 96% ± 3% 98% ± 3% 99% ± 1% >100% Stucco 96% ± 2% 98% ± 0% 98% ± 1% 4% ± 1% Vinyl Siding 98% ± 1% 98% ± 2% 100% ± 0% 96% ± 1% Steel Siding 98% ± 1% 99% ± 2% 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% Wood Siding 97% ± 1% 99% ± 1% 94% ± 0% 12% ± 2% Aluminum Siding 97% ± 1% 100% ± 0% 93% ± 3% 87% ox Tj" -H Composite Fence 89% ± 3% 95% ± 2% 82% ± 5% 69% ± 12% Plastic slide 100% ± 0% 99% ± 2% 99% ± 0% >100% Prewet Steel Siding 96% ± 3% 97% ± 3% 100% ± 1% 87% ox Tj" -H Wipes Stucco 62% ± 17% 83% ± 9% 85% ± 3% 0% ± i% Vinyl Siding 95% ± 3% 95% ± 2% 98% ± 0% 94% ± i% Window 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 99% ox O -H Wood Siding 97% ± 0% 98% ± 2% 88% ± 3% 20% ox cn -H Aluminum Siding 96% ± 3% 96% ± 3% 96% ± 2% 75% ± 5% Composite Fence 96% ± 1% 96% ± 2% 80% ± 4% 82% ± 3% Plastic slide 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 99% ± 0% 98% ± 1% Steel Siding 93% ± 2% 96% ± 2% 99% ± 0% 98% ± 0% Stucco 85% ± 4% 95% ± 1% 90% ± 0% 2% ± 1% Vinyl Siding 94% ± 4% 94% ± 6% 99% ± 0% 95% ± 1% Window 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 97% ± 1% Wood Siding 98% ± 0% 100% ± 1% 91% ± 2% 13% ± 3% Squeegee Window 99% ± 0% 100% ± 1% 100% ± 0% 96% ± 2% Observations about the light loading SFM (on siding and other outdoor surfaces) decontamination efficacy data include: • 15 out of 21 instances were 93% or above, lowest %R was 80% for composite fence with wet sponge. Observations about the ASFM (on siding and other outdoor surfaces) decontamination efficacy data include: • 10 of 21 instances had average %R exceeding 90%; • In six instances, the average %R did not exceed 20%; the method/surface combinations were the mold wash, pre-wet wipes, and sponge, all with stucco and wood siding; • Stucco had no greater removal than 4%; • Mold wash/aluminum and steel siding, pre-wet wipes/plastic slide, and squeegee/window had %R of 100%; and ------- 19 • For the three nonporous sidings (vinyl, steel, and aluminum), the mold wash exhibited removals greater than 96% while there was more variability with other methods. Hardscape surfaces. Table 4-3 gives the average %R for each low-tech decontamination method and each of the three contaminant deposition techniques for hardscape surfaces. Observations about the heavy loading SFM (hardscape surfaces) decontamination efficacy data include: • Efficacy for each particle size differed on average by more than 6% for asphalt drive (squeegee) and concrete pavers (pump sprayer). All others were very similar; • Vacuum removed all particles with %R of 99% or 100%; • Only three of eight squeegee particle removal scenarios resulted in %R of greater than 50%; the rest ranged from 22% to 47%; • Three of six mop particle removal scenarios resulted in %R greater than 90%; the rest ranged from 81% to 86%; • Push broom removed the heavy load of mixed sized particles better than the lighter load of small particles; and • Using the pump sprayer resulted in a range of %R from 87% to 98%, except for the smaller particles on the concrete pavers for which %R was 54%. Observations about the light loading SFM (on hardscape surfaces) decontamination efficacy data include: • Except for the push broom decontamination, the light loading was removed at similar magnitudes as the heavy loaded particles. Observations about the ASFM (on hardscape surfaces) decontamination efficacy data include: • 18 of 21 instances had average %R below 10%. The three exceptions were use of the deck wash and sprayer for the stained wood deck (47% and 49%) and the mop on the asphalt drive (23%). ------- 20 Table 4-3. Decontamination Efficacy for Hardscape Surfaces % Removal for Each Contamination Deposition Approach Method Surface Cs-137 >250 jim Rb-86 < 10 jim Cs-137 < 10 jim „ 117 A SFM Heavy Load SFM Heavy Load SFM Light Load SFM S Deck Wash Stained Wood Deck 99% ± 0% 100% ± 1% 99% ± 1% 47% ± 12% Asphalt Drive 100% ± 0% 100% ± 1% 99% ± 1% 0% ± 2% Brick Pavers 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 99% ± 0% 4% ± 1% Vacuum Concrete Paver 99% ± 0% 99% ± 1% 100% ± 1% 2% ± 1% Sidewalk Concrete 99% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 100% ± 0% 1% ± 2% Stained Wood Deck 99% ± 0% 99% ± 1% 99% ± 0% 2% ± 1% Asphalt Drive 36% ± 13% 58% ± 7% 29% ± 8% 9% ± 3% Squeegee Sidewalk Concrete 77% ± 2% 83% ± 3% 53% ± 6% 3% ± 0% Brick Pavers 27% ± 7% 37% ± 6% 47% ± 4% -H ox i% Concrete Paver 34% ± 5% 38% ± 5% 22% ± 4% -H ox 2% Asphalt Drive 88% ± 9% 94% ± 5% 85% ± 5% 23% ± 1% Mop Brick Paver 91% ± 4% 95% ± 3% 89% ± 2% 12% ± 2% Concrete Paver 81% ± 5% 88% ± 3% 66% ± 13% 2% ± 1% Sidewalk Concrete 94% ± 1% 93% ± 3% 86% ± 2% 1% ± 1% Asphalt Drive 85% ± 7% 84% ± 6% 63% ± 18% 2% ± 3% Push Broom Brick Pavers 92% ± 4% 94% ± 2% 68% ± 16% 2% ± 3% Concrete Paver 91% ± 0% 81% ± 3% 61% ± 7% 3% ± 2% Sidewalk Concrete 96% ± 1% 96% ± 1% 90% ± 4% -1% ± 2% Stained Wood Deck 99% ± 0% 98% ± 1% 91% ± 3% 7% ± 4% Concrete Paver 88% ± 4% 54% ± 4% 3% ± 4% Pump Sprayer Brick Pavers 92% ± 4% 87% ± 3% -5% ± 5% Stained Wood Deck 98% ± 0% 98% ± 1% 49% ± 3% Sidewalk concrete 97% ± 2% 94% ± 3% 5% ± 3% Mock wall spray removal. Table 4-4 gives the average %R for each low-tech decontamination method and each of the three contaminant deposition techniques for the mock wall spray removal. Observations about the sprayer removal from mock wall decontamination efficacy data include: • Sprayer removed all particles with %R of greater than 96%; ------- 21 Table 4-4. Decontamination Efficacy for Mock Wall Spraying Surface Spray Pattern Cs ASFM, . 0/ u cn Cs-137 Lt Average %R±SD Volume (L) Roofing Fan Cs-137 98% ± 0% 1.5 Asphalt Fan Rb-86 99% ± 0% 1.5 Fan Cs ASFM 15% ± 3% 1.5 Cone Cs-137 Lt 96% ± 1% 0.6 Fan Cs-137 Lt 98% ± 1% 1.1 Asphalt Stream Cs-137 Lt 100% ± 0% 1.4 Shingles Cone Cs ASFM 9% NA 0.9 Fan3 Cs ASFM 15% NA 0.63 Stream Cs ASFM 19% NA 0.9 Fan Cs-137 >100% 1.1 Clay Tile Fan Rb-86 98% ± 1% 1.1 Fan Cs ASFM 52% ± 6% 1.1 Cone Cs-137 Lt >100% 0.6 Fan Cs-137 Lt 98% ± 1% 0.4 Metal Stream Cs-137 Lt 99% ± 0% 0.6 Roof Cone Cs ASFM 99% NA 0.1 Fan Cs ASFM 99% NA 0.1 Stream Cs ASFM 99% NA 0.3 Fan Cs-137 98% ± 1% 1.5 Wood Fan Rb-86 98% ± 0% 1.5 Fan Cs ASFM 38% ± 7% 1.5 Siding Concrete Siding Fan Cs ASFM 15% ± 4% 1.5 Stucco Fan Cs ASFM 4% ± 2% 2.3 Cone Cs ASFM 93% ± 1% 0.3 Vinyl Fan Cs ASFM 97% ± 1% 0.35 Stream Cs ASFM 92% ± 3% 1 A1 Siding Fan Cs ASFM 96% ± 3% 2.3 Wood Siding Fan Cs ASFM 32% ± 7% 1.1 Cone Cs ASFM 97% ± 1% 0.3 Window Fan Cs ASFM 96% ± 2% 0.35 Stream Cs ASFM 88% ± 2% 1 aSingle experiment suggested that tripling the rinse volume could up to double the removal. • ASFM removal was widely varied depending on surface; asphalt shingles ranged from 10- 20% for the various spray settings; metal roof was removed at 99% for all three spray settings; asphalt roofing exhibited removal of 15%; for wood shingles, 38% and clay tile, 52%; ------- 22 Contamination was removed from vinyl siding and window at greater than 96% for the fan setting. The other two settings are slightly more variable; Stucco, wood, and concrete siding removals ranged from 4% to 32%, all performed with the fan spray setting; Average volume used per surface was 1 liter (L), and the average spray flow was 0.5 L/minute, which was variable as it is the nature of this type of sprayer to have decreasing flow as the initial pressure bleeds down during use after the sprayer is initially pumped to pressurize; and As the footnote indicates, a single experiment on the aqueous contaminated surface indicated that increases in rinse volume would (not surprisingly) increase the removal of the aqueous contamination; additional experimentation would be required to further define this result. Fate of mock wall contamination. For the mock wall experiments, the fate of the activity-laden particles and water was monitored using frisk surveys. When particles were applied and decontaminated from the roofing material, most of the particles were rinsed into the gutter. This allocation of the particles was confirmed through visual inspection as well as the frisk surveys exhibiting minimal activity in the collection bucket. Rather than the particles flowing with the rinse water down the downspout and into the collection bucket, the particles settled at the bottom of the gutter and had to be removed manually with a wet cloth. Conversely, when ASFM was applied and then removed (for surfaces where removal occurred), the activity stayed with the water as it flowed into the collection vessel. Table 4-5 provides observations of the efficacy data by surface type. Table 4-5. Efficacy Observations for Each Surface Type Surface Asphalt roofing Asphalt shingles Efficacy Summary Roofing • SFM %R 10-78%, removal variable among broom, wipe, and sponge methods; • highest ASFM %R 8%; • spray on mock wall setup %R >97% for SFM and 15% for ASFM • SFM %R 22-61% for broom, wipe, and sponge methods; vacuum %R >97% • ASFM %R 1-4%; • spray on mock wall setup %R near 100% for SFM and 10-20% for ASFM Clay tiles • SFM %R near 100% for wipe and sponge (only methods used), • ASFM %R 27-37%; • spray on mock wall setup %R near 100% for SFM and 52% for ASFM Gutter Wood shingles • SFM %R near 100% for all methods used; • ASFM %R 18% for vacuum, but 91% for wipes and 100% for sponge • SFM %R near 100% for all methods used; Metal roofing • ASFM %R 42% for broom, but 99% for wipes and sponge; • spray on mock wall setup %R near 100% for SFM and 99% for ASFM • SFM %R 67-87% for broom and sponge methods, vacuum %R >97%; • ASFM %R were between 0-10%; • spray on mock wall setup %R 98% for SFM and 38% for ASFM (Highly fibrous surface) ------- 23 Siding and Other Surfaces Aluminum siding SFM %R >96% for all methods, ASFM 75%, 87%, and 100% for sponge, wipes, and mold wash Composite fence SFM %R 80%-96%, ASFM 69% and 82%; wipes and sponge (only methods used) Plastic slide SFM and ASFM %R all near 100%, wipes and sponge (only methods used) Steel siding SFM %R >93% for all methods, ASFM %R all near 100% Stucco SFM %R 62%-98% with mold wash being highest, ASFM %R 0-4% Vinyl siding SFM %R >94% for all methods, ASFM %R all near 100%; spray on mock wall setup %R >91% for ASFM (fan sprayer setting most effective) Window SFM and ASFM %R all near 100%; spray on mock wall setup %R >96% for ASFM using cone and fan settings and 88% for stream setting Wood siding SFM %R >88% for all methods with heavier loading having higher %Rs, ASFM %R 12-20%; spray on mock wall setup %R 32% for ASFM Hardscape Asphalt drive SFM %R 29-100% with mop and vacuum being highest and squeegee the lowest; ASFM %R 0-23% with the mop being the highest Brick pavers SFM %R 27-100% with vacuum being highest and squeegee the lowest; ASFM %R 0-6%; lighter particle load removed less well than heavier with push broom Concrete pavers SFM %R 22-100% with vacuum being highest and squeegee the lowest; ASFM %R 2-3%; lighter particle load removed less well than heavier with push broom Sidewalk concrete SFM %R >90% for all methods with exception of squeegee which was 53-83% and light loaded mop (86%); ASFM removals 0-5% Stained wood deck SFM %R >90% for all methods; ASFM %R 2-7% for the vacuum and push broom, %R 47% for the deck wash, and 49% for the spray removal 4.2 Operational and Deployment Factors Operator observations and decontamination method waste stream. Table 4-6 provides an operational summary of the various low-tech decontamination methods that were employed during testing by summarizing observations made by the operators using each low-tech decontamination method focusing on method constraints, safety concerns, and feasibility. In addition, the table gives the activity level according to each component or tool used for decontamination. For example, if a broom was used, the activity on the broom handle and broom head was measured as the low-tech decontamination tools were being placed in radiological waste. ------- 24 Table 4-6. Operational Summary of Each Low-tech Decontamination Method Low-tech Method Operational Summary Waste Stream Summary Roofing Vacuum Particles accumulated in vacuum attachment causing concern over containment when moving vacuum; removal of vacuum head and using hose only removed a few more particles, but only increased %R by 1%; dark color roofing still looked dirty even though removals were high. SFM: activity goes with particles into waste as there was minimal but measurable activity on attachment; ASFM: No activity measured. Kitchen Broom Operationally better than push broom when surface uneven (like shingles) as the tines are longer and softer; did not remove particles well from non-metal surfaces. Background (BG) activity on gloves and handle, at times activity on broom head Push Broom Operationally preferable to kitchen broom on even surfaces (asphalt roofing), however, tines do get caught on aggregate and does not push easily. BG activity on gloves and handle, sometimes measurable activity on broom head Pre-wet wipes Difficult to wipe across surfaces with roughness, at times they started to tear apart, smooth surfaces worked very well. 1-4% activity on gloves, >95% on wipes Sponge Sponge was easier to wipe across rough surfaces than wipes because there was more to hold on to. However, at times they started to come apart; smooth surfaces worked very well. SFM: 12% activity on gloves, 88%) on sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges Siding and Other Surfaces Mold wash Mold wash sprayed on surfaces and terry cloths used for wiping; they were rugged in that they held up under use on a variety of surfaces and removed particles well l-3%o activity on gloves, >97%o on cloths Pre-wet wipes Wipes function well on the smooth siding surfaces, at times they began to fall apart on the stucco, which is quite rough. 2% of activity on gloves, >91% on wipes Sponge Sponges function even better than wipes on the smooth siding surfaces as there is more material to handle, at times they began to fall apart on the stucco, which is quite rough. SFM: often 10-25%o and up to 60%o activity on gloves, rest on sponges. ASFM: 99%o on sponges Squeegee Squeegee only used on windows which is what it is designed for (consistent with it working very well). Activity on gloves, >99%o on squeegee Hardscapes Vacuum Vacuum attachment collected particles which risked contamination BG activity on gloves, minimal activity on attachment Squeegee Squeegee tended to just drag wet particles around the surfaces, not really removing any particles; it made sticky particle mud and was the least effective decon method BG activity on gloves, >99%o on squeegee head Mop Once mop was loaded with particles, it was difficult to maneuver without contaminating surrounding floor, etc. Particle removal was satisfactory, but rinsing mop for large areas would be difficult without cross contamination. BG activity on gloves, >99%o on mop head Deck wash Only used on stained wood decking. Sprayed deck wash on contaminated surfaces, let sit for 5 minutes, then rinsed with damp sponge. SFM: often 5% activity on gloves, rest on sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges Push broom Push broom functioned well on all the hardscape surfaces, no special difficulties were noted, but removal efficacy was moderate. BG activity on gloves and handle, sometimes activity on broom head Pump sprayer Sprayed surfaces with handheld garden sprayer using fan setting. There were no functional difficulties to note. Volumes noted with efficacy data. BG activity on gloves, particles collected in gutter water flushed to waste (water flow rate of 1.5 L per m2 surface), surface had minimal activity Based on the results of the decontamination experiments described above, Table 4-7 reports the number of low-tech decontamination method accessories (wipes, brooms, pads, etc.) that were ------- 25 required to accomplish decontamination of the surfaces (using each type of deposition) within this project. Table 4-7. Accessories for Each Low-tech Decontamination Method by Deposition Method Low-tech Number of Accessories (wipes, pads, etc.) Method Heavy Loading Light Loading ASFM Roofing (0.7 m2) Vacuum 1 vacuum across all surfaces3 Kitchen Broom 1 broom for each surface3 Push Broom 1 broom for each surface3 Pre-wet wipes Asphalt roofing: 28 Clay Tiles: 12 Gutter: 12 Asphalt roofing: 16 Clay Tiles: 6 Gutter: 4 Asphalt roofing: 14 Clay Tiles: 8 Gutter: 8 Metal roofing: 20 Metal roofing: 8 Metal roofing: 4 Sponge Asphalt roofing: 3 Asphalt shingles: 4 Clay Tiles: 3 Gutter: 3 Asphalt roofing: 4 Asphalt shingles: 3 Clay Tiles: 2 Gutter: 2 Asphalt roofing: 2 Asphalt shingles: 3 Clay Tiles: 2 Gutter: 2 Metal roofing: 4 Wood Shingles: 3 Metal roofing: 4 Wood Shingles: 4 Metal roofing: 2 Wood Shingles: 2 Siding and Other Surfaces (0.7 m2) Mold wash (towels) Aluminum siding: 2 Stucco:4 Aluminum siding: 2 Stucco: 3 Aluminum siding: 2 Stucco:2 Vinyl siding: 4 Steel siding: 3 Wood siding: 5 Vinyl siding: 3 Steel siding: 2 Wood siding: 3 Vinyl siding: 3 Steel siding: 2 Wood siding: 3 Aluminum siding: 20/3 Composite fence: 26/8 Plastic slide: 14/4 Aluminum siding: 10/3 Composite fence: 12/2 Plastic slide: 8/4 Aluminum siding: 6/2 Composite fence: 8/3 Plastic slide: 6/2 Pre-wet wipes/Sponge Steel siding: 24/4 Stucco: 24/6 Vinyl siding: 24/4 Window: 20/4 Steel siding: 8/3 Stucco: 8/2 Vinyl siding: 8/2 Window: 8/2 Steel siding: 4/2 Stucco: 10/2 Vinyl siding: 6/3 Window: 8/3 Wood siding: 20/6 Wood siding: 10/4 Wood siding: 8/2 Hardscapes (0.7m2) Vacuum 1 vacuum across all surfaces Squeegee 1 squeegee for each surface (for experimental contamination containment, not due to wear) Mop 1 mop for each surface (for experimental contamination containment, not due to wear) n , , Sprayed deck wash on contaminated surfaces and then rinsed with damp sponges, used 3 6C waS sponges for the heavy SFM, 2 for the SFM light, and 4 for ASFM. Push broom 1 broom for each surface (for experimental contamination containment, not due to wear) Pump sprayer 1 pump sprayer across all surfaces aOne vacuum and broom was used for each surface to contain the contamination, not because the equipment could not have been used further; it is possible that in a real event the decontamination tools may be able to be used in multiple locations, thus lowering the cost and waste stream. Waste stream from typical house. Table 4-8 through Table 4-11 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 representative two-story house under three types of 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 m2 (2,000 square feet). As shown in Table 4-9, an estimated 45.5 kilograms (kg) of solid waste would be ------- 26 generated under heavy loading conditions and no liquid waste was generated from the decontamination efforts. Table 4-8. Estimated Waste from Decontamination of Typical Home (Heavy SFM Loading) Surface Surface Area Method Number of items Potential %R Asphalt shingles and gutter 160 m2 Vacuum 1 vacuum with 20 mg/cm2 SFM 97% 857 terry towels Vinyl siding 150 m2 Mold wash with 20 mg/cm2 SFM 100% Windows 10 m2 Pre-wet wipes 286 wipes with 20 mg/cm2 SFM 100% Sidewalk Concrete 80 m2 Vacuum 1 vacuum with 20 mg/cm2 SFM 99% Stained wood deck 13 m2 Vacuum 1 vacuum with 20 mg/cm2 SFM 99% Table 4-9. Estimated Waste from Decontamination of Typical Home (Light SFM Loading) Surface Surface Area Method Number of items Potential %R Asphalt shingles and gutter 160 m2 Vacuum 1 vacuum with 2 mg/cm2 SFM 98% Vinyl siding 150 m2 Mold wash 640 terry towels with 20 mg/cm2 SFM 100% Windows 10 m2 Pre-wet wipes 114 wipes with 2 mg/cm2 SFM 100% Sidewalk Concrete 80 m2 Vacuum 1 vacuum with 2 mg/cm2 SFM 100% Stained wood deck 13 m2 Vacuum 1 vacuum with 2 mg/cm2 SFM 99% Table 4-10. Estimated Waste Stream from Decontamination of Typical Home (ASFM) Surface Surface Area Method Amount of items Potential %R Asphalt shingles and gutter 160 m2 Sponges 914 sponges 4% Wall vinyl siding 150 m2 Pump sprayer rinse 220 L water 97% Windows 10 m2 Pre-wet wipes 114 wipes 99% Sidewalk Concrete 80 m2 Pump sprayer rinse 120 L water 5% Stained wood deck 13 m2 Pump sprayer rinse 20 L water 49% Table 4-11. Estimated Waste Stream as a Function of Deposition Method Estimated Waste Volume Surface Heavy SFM Loading Light SFM Loading ASFM Asphalt shingles and gutter 1 vacuum (6 kg), 32 kg SFM 1 vacuum (6 kg), 3 kg SFM 16 kg sponges, 40 kg water in sponges Vinyl siding 51 kg terry towels and 40 kg of mold wash saturated in towels, 30 kg SFM 39 kg terry towels and 31 kg of mold wash saturated in towels, 3 kg SFM 220 L rinse water Windows 1 kg in wipes; 2 kg SFM 0.5 kg in wipes; 200 g SFM 0.5 kg in wipes ------- 27 Sidewalk Concrete 1 vacuum (6 kg), 16 kg SFM 1 vacuum (6 kg), 2 kg SFM 120 L rinse water Stained wood deck 1 vacuum (6 kg), 3 kg SFM 1 vacuum (6 kg), 300 g SFM 20 L rinse water Estimate of total mass, volume, and activity 181 kg into ten 0.2 nf' bags- (onlv 1 vacuum disposed) If initial fallout had activity of 0.5 [iCi/g. then 91 mCi. 85 kg into five 0.2 m' bags - 1 vacuum disposed If initial fallout had activity of 0.5 jiCi/g. then 43 mCi 56 kg into three 0.2 m' bags: 360 L of liquid in two waste drums If initial activity of 0.01 mCi/nr. then 4 mCi Potential operator exposure. Throughout the evaluation, project decontamination technicians were required to use full PPE including powered air purifying respirators (with HEPA filters) because the work was performed in a radiological enclosure using unsealed radiological material of various particle sizes. However, to estimate the potential airborne exposure of the project decontamination workers to radiological material, four sets of particle air sample filters were collected during each decontamination experiment. One of these air samplers was placed in the breathing zone of the decontamination worker, and the sample was 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 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 decontamination methods in other settings under variable conditions may produce different levels of personal exposure to particles containing radiological activity. 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, consistent with the waste stream results shown in Table 4-6, where even the decontamination worker's gloves had little or no contamination and almost all the activity was isolated on the item that was in contact with the surface being cleaned. Any time radiological material was handled, PPE (as described above) was required. Additionally, any waste (e.g., from use of low-tech decontamination methods and post- decontamination surfaces) was considered 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 decontamination 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 of the work described here was to collect information and experimental data about low-tech outdoor radiological decontamination methods available in the United ------- 28 States. This technology evaluation included use of low-tech decontamination methods on surfaces common to outdoor residential environments and included evaluating the decontamination efficacy, method constraints, safety concerns, feasibility, waste generation, potential exposure, and cost. Fourteen different low-tech decontamination methods were evaluated on eight different surfaces (not all methods were used on every surface). In total, 62 different combinations of non-mock wall low-tech decontamination methods and surfaces were evaluated using three different radiological contamination deposition methods (heavy loading, light loading, and ASFM) for a total of over 180 different experiments. There were also 11 mock wall surface experiments. Overall, the results indicated that ASFM was much more difficult to remove than SFM, and particle size was usually not a factor in SFM removal. Most of the %Rs for the SFM using vacuums were greater than 95%, and several of the methods were less effective for SFM. All the surfaces used during this study (with the exception of the paved surfaces) were purchased new and had not experienced any outdoor conditions such as one may expect in the case of an actual outdoor contamination event. Decontamination of weathered surfaces may result in different levels of decontamination efficacy. Secondary objectives included the observation of the likelihood of decontamination technician contamination while performing these low-tech methods as well as estimating the waste stream following implementation of low-tech decontamination. To accomplish these objectives, whole body surveys were completed after every decontamination test, and multiple air samples were collected. None of these surveys or air samples indicated technician contamination, even during the heavy loading portions of the evaluation. 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 decontamination accessories (wipes, sponges, 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 vacuums are very effective although 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 than attempting to transport powered equipment that would have become contaminated. Over the past 10 years, EPA has performed multiple radiological decontamination projects (1' 6"14) to test the decontamination efficacies of many methods (physical removal, strippable coatings, chemical decontamination, low-tech on multiple indoor (flooring, laminate, countertop, carpet, etc.) and outdoor surfaces (concrete, brick, marble, granite, limestone, etc.)), and these EPA radiological decontamination projects have furthered this area of science greatly. Other research to complement this work could include: 1) determination of the efficacy of low-tech decontamination of outdoor surfaces using weathered surfaces, 2) the determination of efficacy of salt rinse solutions on fixed radiological contamination, 3) an evaluation of general homeowner/novice decontamination technician dose (experiments performed in the containment tent) when performing decontamination of material at various activity levels, 4) track-in studies for people living and working in fallout zones, 5) ventilation and PPE effectiveness research for decontamination workers, and 6) the development of a comprehensive guidance document to make this material available to the public in the event it is needed. ------- 29 5.0 References I. U.S. EPA. Evaluation of Low-Tech Indoor Remediation Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-17/021, 2017. Decontamination Guidelines, 2nd Edition, Japanese Ministry of the Environment, 2013. 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. 4. 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. 5. D. E. Clark,; W. C. Cobbin. 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. 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. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R-11/018, 2011. 8. U.S. EPA. Empire Abrasive Blast N'Vac for Radiological Decontamination. Technology Evaluation Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 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. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 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. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R-11/016, 2011. II. 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. 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. 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. 2. 3. 12. 13. ------- 1 Appendix A Decontamination Method Operational Summary Tables ------- Page A-2 The following pages include example pictures and video clips of the decontamination methods being tested in a controlled experimental setting as well as tables containing information pertaining to the testing of each low-tech decontamination technology. The video clips can be used as training aids for people wanting to learn how to safely (and with the prospect of efficacy similar to the experimental results) decontaminate radiological fallout material. The source of the information in the table (experimentally measured, observed, or calculated based on assumptions) is explained in the template table shown below. These results and estimates may vary depending on the rate of work, equipment, surface conditions, and method application being conducted at an actual contaminated property. In addition, the cost and waste stream could be impacted by the degree of cross contamination that may be observed between job sites. For example, to control cross contamination, contractors assisting homeowners or homeowners assisting neighbors may choose to use all new equipment at each contaminated property (like a new vacuum for each), thus increasing the overall amount of waste generated. The waste generation estimates assume no surface materials would be disposed, only the decontamination equipment and simulated fallout material. The information in the appendix tables may be used to develop guidance, but EPA does not formally recommend any one method. Note that decontamination efficacies labeled as 100%R represent removals below the background activity and may not be distinguishable from 97%R due to the uncertainty of the background activity. Decontamination Method Information Appendix Template (explaining source of information) Surface Decontamination Efficacy (% Removal) Area Decontaminated (m2/person day) > 250 |jma <10 |jma Vight™ ASFIV|b Surface types Measured decontamination efficacy data. Calculated based on experimentally observed decontamination rate using project surfaces (~0.7 m2) Method Summary Description of method application as used during this project. Efficacy observations Summary observations about each low-tech radiological decontamination method Equipment Equipment used to accomplish low-tech radiological decontamination method PPE PPE used during project, not necessarily what would be required onsite as the technician contamination and dose was insignificant throughout the experimental testing. Based on the results obtained during testing, less PPE could be considered. Waste Waste types generated as result of low-tech radiological decontamination method, amounts were actual amounts based on experimental waste generation by decontamination methods Fate of activity Detailed location of activity after use of low-tech decontamination tools (broom handles and heads, wipes, sponges, gloves, etc.) Method cost (non-labor) Estimate of cost considering only the low-tech radiological decontamination tools used during the experimental decontamination testing Operational notes Functional observations by decontamination technicians and project manager pertaining to efficacy, PPE used, air particulate samples results, training requirements. aRadiologically tagged particles were applied at 20 mg/cm2 or 2 mg/cm2 (light) using a shaker bASFM - Aqueous simulated fallout material that was applied to the surfaces as a spray ------- Decontamination Method: Push Broom Page A-3 \ Surface Decontamination Efficacy (% Removal) Area Decontaminated (m2/person day) > 250 pm < 10 \xm < 10 [.im Light ASFM Asphalt Roofing 61% 75% 53% 3% 168-336 Asphalt Drive 83% 84% 62% 2% 168-336 Brick Pavers 90% 94% 68% 2% 168-336 Paver Concrete 90% 81% 60% 3% 336 Sidewalk Concrete 95% 96% 88% 0% 112-336 Stained Wood Deck 98% 98% 88% 7% 336 Method Summary Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 rrr of these surfaces; surfaces were broomed in both directions until no additional visual removal. Efficacy observations Light SFM application was removed to a lesser extent than the heavier application, likely due to higher proportion of SFM getting lodged in pores; almost no ASFM removed Equipment 18-inch push broom PPE Disposable coveralls, booties, gloves, powered air purifying respirator Waste SFM, PPE, and broom (10-70 kg/day) Fate of activity SFM: Almost no activity transferred to gloves, >99% on broom head; ASFM: No detectble activity on broom parts Method cost (non-labor) <$20 per 1 person day (if one broom can be used across locations) Operational notes - Push broom used on flat, even surfaces; kitchen broom (results not shown here) used on more uneven surfaces as more conducive to longer, softer, broom tines - If surface had any degree of roughness, surface still looks dirty after brooming, even if %R is >75% - No appreciable contamination, dose to decon technician - Airborne radiological particulate concentration below allowed levels - Appropriate for homeowner use as no training required except a tutorial on minimizing radiological dose and contamination during cleanup Example videos: 1 AsphaltDrive_PushBroom.mp4 2 AsphaltRoofing_PushBroom.mp4 ------- Decontamination Method: Kitchen Broom Page A-4 Surface Decontamination Efficacy (% Removal) Area Decontaminated (m2/person day) > 250 |jm < 10 pm < 10 |jm Light ASFM Asphalt Shingles 23% 22% 25% 1% 168 Metal Roofing 100% 100% 98% 42% 168 Wood Shingles 87% 74% 71% 10% 112-336 Method Summary Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0,7 m2 of these surfaces; surfaces were broomed in both directions until no additional wsual removal. Efficacy observations Operationally better than push broom when surface uneven as the tines are longer and softer; did not remove particles well from non-metal surfaces (especially poor for asphalt shingles);almost no ASFM removed Equipment 9-10 inch kitchen broom PPE Disposable coveralls, booties, gloves, powered air purifying respirator Waste SFM, PPE, and broom (10-70 kg/day) Fate of activity SFM: Almost no activity transferred to gloves, >99% on broom head; ASFM: No activity measured. Method cost (non-labor) <$20 per 1 person day (if one broom can be used across locations) Operational notes - Kitchen broom used on more uneven surfaces as more conducive to longer, softer, broom tines - If surface had any degree of roughness, surface still looks dirty after brooming, even if %R is >75% - No appreciable contamination or dose to decon technician - Airborne radiological particulate concentration below allowed levels - Appropriate for homeowner use as no training required except a tutorial on minimizing radiological dose and contamination during cleanup Example videos: 3WoodShingles_Broom.mp4 4 AsphallShingles Broom.mp4 ------- Page A-5 Decontamination Method: Vacuum ¦PC Surface Decontamination Efficacy (% Removal) Area Decontaminated (m /person day) > 250 [jm < 10 jjm < 10 [jm Light ASFM Asphalt Shingles 97% 97% 98% 2% 168 Gutter 100% 100% 100% 18% 168 Wood Shingles 99% 99% 98% 0% 168-336 Asphalt Drive 100% 100% 99% 0% 48-84 Brick Pa\rers 100% 100% 99% 4% 112-336 Concrete Paver 99% 99% 100% 2% 112-336 Sidewalk Concrete 99% 100% 100% 1% 67-168 Stained Wood Deck 99% 99% 99% 2% 42-112 Method Summary Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; used flat 4 inch attachment then used hose only for final pass or non-smooth surfaces, until no increased removal observed. Efficacy observations Particles removed very well; ASFM was not removed. Equipment 2.25 Horsepower, Shop-Vac® PRE disposable coveralls, booties, gloves, powered air purifying respirator Waste SFM, PPE, and vacuum (10-70 kg/day) Fate of activity SFM: activity goes with particles into waste as there was minimal, but measurable activity on attachment; ASFM: No activity measured. Method cost (non-labor) $45 per vacuum Operational notes - Particles accumulated in vacuum attachment causing concern over containment when moving vacuum end to different locations; removal of vacuum head and using hose removed a few more particles, but only increased %R by 1%; dark color roofing still looked dirty even though removal percentages were high. - No appreciable contamination or dose to decon technician -Airborne radiological particulate concentration below allowed levels - Even with inexpensive vacuum, particulate concentration and therefore, worker exposure to radiological particles, was minimal -Appropriate for homeowner use as no training required except a tutorial on minimizing radiological dose and contamination during cleanup Example videos: 5 SidewalkConcrele DryVac.mp4 6 WoodShingles DryVac.m p4 ------- Page A-6 Decontamination Method: Pre-wet Wipes Surface Decontamination Efficacy (% Removal) Area Decontaminated (m2/person day) > 250 (jm < 10 (jm < 10 |jm Light ASFM Asphalt Roofing 10% 47% 52% 0% 31-84 Clay Tiles 97% 100% 99% 27% 42-168 Gutter 100% 100% 99% 91% 84-168 Metal Roofing 98% 99% 99% 99% 20-168 Aluminum Siding 97% 100% 93% 87% 56-336 Composite Fence 89% 95% 93% 69% 112-168 Plastic slide 100% 99% 99% 100% 84-112 Steel Siding 96% 97% 100% 87% 112-168 Stucco 62% 83% 85% 0% 31-56 Vinyl Siding 95% 95% 98% 94% 48-168 Window 100% 100% 100% 99% 31-168 Wood Siding 97% 98% 88% 20% 112-336 Method Summary Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0,7 m2 of these surfaces; wiped surfaces in "S" shaped pattern until no additional visual removal. Efficacy observations Particles removed very well except for asphalt roofing and stucco; ASFM removed well from smooth surfaces. Equipment Disinfecting Wipes, Clorox® Company PPE Disposable coveralls, booties, gloves, powered air purifying respirator Waste SFM, PPE, and wipes (10-20 kg/day) Fate of activity 1-4% activity on gloves, >95% on wipes Method cost (non-labor) $15-$200 of wipes per 1 person day (depending on surface) Operational notes - Difficult to wipe across surfaces with roughness, at times they started to tear apart, smooth surfaces worked very well, - No appreciable contamination or dose to decon technician - Airborne radiological particulate concentration below allowed levels - Appropriate for homeowner use as no training required except a tutorial on minimizing radiological dose and contamination during cleanup Example videos: 7 Plastic_.PrewetWipes.mp4 8 ClayTiles_PrewetWipes.mp4 ------- Decontamination Efficacy (% Removal) Surface > 250 (jm < 10 |jm < 10 (jm Light ASFM Area Decontaminated (m2/person day) Decontamination Method: Sponge and Water Asphalt Roofing 50% 67% 78% 8% 28-168 Asphalt Shingles 27% 47% 61% 4% 67-84 Clay Tiles 100% 100% 99% 37% 84-112 Gutter 99% 99% 100% 100% 168-336 Metal Roofing 99% 100% 99% 99% 28-84 Wood Shingles 81% 81% 67% 10% 56-336 Aluminum Siding 96% 96% 96% 75% 67-112 Composite Fence 96% 96% 80% 82% 22-168 Plastic slide 100% 100% 99% 98% 48-168 Steel Siding 93% 96% 99% 98% 37-168 Stucco 85% 95% 90% 2% 28-112 Vinyl Siding 94% 94% 99% 95% 28-112 Window 100% 100% 100% 97% 34-168 Wood Siding 98% 100% 91% 13% 56-168 Method Summary Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0,7 m of these surfaces; wiped surfaces with water wetted sponge in "S" shaped pattern until no additional visual removal. Efficacy observations Particles removed well except asphalt/wood shingles and asphalt roofing and stucco; ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. Equipment Ocelo Cellulose Sponge, 3M PPE Disposable coveralls, booties, gloves, powered air purifying respirator Waste SFM, PPE, and sponges (10-50 kg/day) Fate of activity SFM: 10-25% and up to 60% activity on gloves, rest on sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges Method cost (non-labor) $5 pack of 6 sponges 3^ sponges per m Operational notes - Sponge was easier to wipe across rough surfaces than wipes because there was more to hold on to, however at times they started to come apart; smooth surfaces worked very well. - No appreciable contamination or dose to decon technician -Airborne radiological particulate concentration below allowed levels - Appropriate for homeowner use as no training required except a tutorial on minimizing radiological dose and contamination during cleanup Example videos: —Ci, D* rt** 9 AsphaltShingles_Sponge.rnp4 10 AsphaitRoofing_Sponge.m p4 ------- Page A-8 Decontamination Method: Mold Wash and Terry Towels Jtl f ^ f 7''1^ 1 f yjpiPH t % tj fpa ¦ ^ C—T 1 o 1 L \ \ ^ 1 •="- Hwff Surface Decontamination Efficacy (% Removal) Area Decontaminated (m2/person day) > 250 |jm < 10 pm < 10 pm Light ASFM Aiuminum Siding 96% 98% 99% 100% 56-168 Stucco 96% 98% 98% 4% 42-67 Vinyl Siding 98% 98% 100% 96% 20-112 Steel Siding 98% 99% 100% 100% 56-168 Wood Siding 97% 99% 94% 12% 31-84 Method Summary Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; saturated surface with mold wash with bottle sprayer and then wipe surfaces with terry cloths in "S" shaped pattern until no additional usual removal. Efficacy observations Particles removed well; ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. Equipment Liquid Mold Remover, Wet and Forget: HDX, Model 7-660, Home Depot PRE Disposable coveralls, booties, gloves, powered air purifying respirator Waste SFM, PPE, and cloths (30-50 kg/day) Fate of activity 1-3% activity on gloves, >97% on cloths Method cost (non-labor) $20 per pack of 60 terry cloths, 3-5 cloths per m2; 500 ml. mold wash per m2 (~$4/rm2) Operational notes - Terry cloths were rugged in that they held up under use on a variety of surfaces and removed particles well - No appreciable contamination or dose to decon technician - Airborne radiological particulate concentration below allowed levels - Appropriate for homeowner use as no training required except a tutorial on minimizing radiological dose and contamination during cleanup Example videos: 11 Steel Siding MoldWash.mp4 12 WoodSiding_MoldWash.mp4 ------- Page A-9 Decontamination Method: Squeegee and Water Surface Decontamination Efficacy (% Removal) Area Decontaminated (m2/person day) > 250 pm < 10 pm < 10 pm Light ASFM Window 99% 100% 98% 100% 22-84 Asphalt Drive 36% 58% 29% 9% 37-84 Brick Paysrs 27% 37% 47% 6% 24-84 Concrete Paver 34% 38% 22% 3% 34-84 Sidewalk Concrete 77% 83% 53% 3% 48-84 Method Summary Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; saturated surface with water with bottle sprayer and squeegeed surfaces in two directions until no additional visual removal. Efficacy observations Aside from window surfaces, the squeegee did not facilitate effective removals of particles or ASFM removed. Equipment Metal Handle General-Duty Squeegee, Unisan PRE Disposable coveralls, booties, gloves, powered air purifying respirator Waste SFM, PPE, and squeegee (10-20 kg/day) Fate of activity Measurable activity on gloves, >99% on squeegee Method cost (non-labor) $5 per handheld squeegee Operational notes - Squeegee tended to just drag wet particles around the surfaces, not really removing any particles, made sticky particle mud, least effective decon method - No appreciable contamination or dose to decon technician - Airborne radiological particulate concentration below allowed levels - Appropriate for homeowner use as no training required except a tutorial on minimizing radiological dose and contamination during cleanup Example videos: m> Hi' 13 AsphaltDrive_Squeegee.mp4 14 SidewalkConcrete Squeegee.m p4 ------- Page A-10 Decontamination Method: Mop and Water Surface Decontamination Efficacy (%Removal) Area Decontaminated (m2/person day) > 250 |jm < 10 pm < 10 |jm Light ASFM Asphalt Drive 88% 94% 85% 23% 336 Concrete Paver 81% 88% 82% 2% 168-336 Sidewalk Concrete 94% 93% 86% 1% 37-336 Method Summary Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; saturated mop with water and mopped surfaces in "S" pattern until no additional visual removal. Efficacy observations Mopping generated particle removals greater than 80%, but no removals greater than 95%. Equipment Blend Mop Head, Rubbermaid Commercial Products PPE Disposable coveralls, booties, gloves, powered air purifying respirator Waste SFM, PPE, and mop (20-90 kg/day) Fate of activity BG activity on gloves, >99% on mop head Method cost (non-labor) $8 per mop head Operational notes - Once mop was loaded with particles, it was difficult to maneuver without contaminating surrounding floor, etc. Particle removal seemed to be ok,but rinsing mop for large areas would be difficult without cross contamination. - No appreciable contamination or dose to decon technician - Airborne radiological particulate concentration below allowed levels - Appropriate for homeowner use as no training required except a tutorial on minimizing radiological dose and contamination during cleanup Example videos: ¥J> ¥J> 15 PaverConcrete_Mop.mp4 16 AsphaltDrive_Mop.mp4 ------- Decontamination Method: Pump Sprayer and Water ¦ i li ; h Page A-11 Decontamination Efficacy (% Removal) Area Decontaminated (m2/1 person day) Surface > 250 |jm < 10 |jm < 10 pm Light ASFM Concrete Paver 88% 54% 3% 112 Brick Pavers 92% 87% 0% 84-112 Stained Wood Deck 98% 98% 49% 168-336 Sidewalk concrete 97% 94% 5% 67-112 Asphalt Roofing 98% 99% 15% 67-84 Asphalt Shingles 98% 15% 112 Clay Tile Roof 100% 98% 52% 84 98% 99% 112 Wood Shingles 98% 98% 38% 84-112 Concrete Siding 15% 112 Stucco Siding 4% 67 Vinyl Siding 97% 112 Aluminum Siding 96% 67 Wood Siding 32% 84 Window 96% 67-112 Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; hardscape surfaces were sprayed off with a fan Method Summary pattern sprayer, driving the SFM off off the surface. Mock wall application was similar, but SFM captured in gutter. Pumped sprayer 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. For roofing, ~0.2 m from surface; for hardscapes, -0.1 m from surface. Most particles were removed well from hardscapes and roofing material, Efficacy observations ASFM removed well from non-porous siding surfaces, but not removed well from rough, porous surfaces. Equipment Multi-Purpose Sprayer (All-in-one Nozzle), Scotts PPE Disposable coveralls, booties, gloves, powered air purifying respirator Waste SFM, PPE, and rinse water (20 kg/day solid and 90-450L rinse water) Fate of activity BG activity on gloves, particles collected in gutter water flushed to waste at a rate of 1.4L/m2, surface had minimal activity Method cost (non-labor) $18 per sprayer - Average volume used per surface was 1 L at 0.5L/min at ~1 psi. - No appreciable contamination or dose to decon technician Operational notes - Airborne radiological particulate concentration below allowed levels - Appropriate for homeowner use as no training required except a tutorial on minimizing radiological dose and contamination during cleanup Example videos: — 17 MockWall_AsphaltShingles.mp4 18 Stai nedWood _P u m pSprayer. m p4 ------- Page B-l Appendix B Evaluation Results by Decontamination Method ------- Page B-2 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Deck Wash Stained Wood Deck CsASFM 463 256 9 46% 47% 12% Deck Wash Stained Wood Deck CsASFM 496 350 9 30% Deck Wash Stained Wood Deck CsASFM 561 240 9 58% Deck Wash Stained Wood Deck CsASFM 604 284 9 54% Deck Wash Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 638 14 7 99% 99% 0% Deck Wash Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 626 16 7 98% Deck Wash Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 651 12 7 99% Deck Wash Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 697 10 7 99% Deck Wash Stained Wood Deck Rb-86 42 0 0 100% 100% 1% Deck Wash Stained Wood Deck Rb-86 52 0 0 100% Deck Wash Stained Wood Deck Rb-86 40 0 0 99% Deck Wash Stained Wood Deck Rb-86 40 0 0 100% Deck Wash Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 Lt 313 11 11 100% 99% 1% Deck Wash Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 Lt 348 11 11 100% Deck Wash Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 Lt 512 19 11 99% Deck Wash Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 Lt 320 19 11 97% Hand held squeegee Asphalt Drive CsASFM 930 820 7 12% 9% 3% Hand held squeegee Asphalt Drive CsASFM 676 599 7 12% Hand held squeegee Asphalt Drive CsASFM 528 492 7 7% Hand held squeegee Asphalt Drive CsASFM 624 587 7 6% Hand held squeegee Asphalt Drive Cs-137 Lt 402 289 36 31% 29% 8% Hand held squeegee Asphalt Drive Cs-137 Lt 470 379 39 21% Hand held squeegee Asphalt Drive Cs-137 Lt 425 330 34 24% Hand held squeegee Asphalt Drive Cs-137 Lt 413 260 26 39% Hand held squeegee Asphalt Drive Cs-137 773 529 219 44% 36% 13% Hand held squeegee Asphalt Drive Cs-137 554 368 31 36% Hand held squeegee Asphalt Drive Cs-137 475 398 45 18% Hand held squeegee Asphalt Drive Cs-137 642 362 46 47% Hand held squeegee Asphalt Drive Rb-86 40 16 0 59% 58% 7% Hand held squeegee Asphalt Drive Rb-86 42 16 0 62% Hand held squeegee Asphalt Drive Rb-86 37 19 0 48% Hand held squeegee Asphalt Drive Rb-86 42 16 2 64% Hand held squeegee Brick Wall CsASFM 276 257 21 7% 6% 1% Hand held squeegee Brick Wall CsASFM 313 297 20 6% Hand held squeegee Brick Wall CsASFM 345 322 18 7% Hand held squeegee Brick Wall CsASFM 313 296 17 6% Hand held squeegee Brick Wall Cs-137 534 436 7 19% 27% 7% Hand held squeegee Brick Wall Cs-137 640 431 7 33% Hand held squeegee Brick Wall Cs-137 607 467 7 23% Hand held squeegee Brick Wall Cs-137 562 391 7 31% Hand held squeegee Brick Wall Rb-86 48 35 0 28% 37% 6% Hand held squeegee Brick Wall Rb-86 51 30 0 41% Hand held squeegee Brick Wall Rb-86 53 32 0 41% Hand held squeegee Brick Wall Rb-86 37 23 0 38% Hand held squeegee Paver Concrete CsASFM 354 337 6 5% 3% 2% Hand held squeegee Paver Concrete CsASFM 491 472 6 4% Hand held squeegee Paver Concrete CsASFM 364 360 6 1% Hand held squeegee Paver Concrete CsASFM 332 327 6 2% Hand held squeegee Paver Concrete Cs-137 650 389 7 41% 34% 5% ------- Page B-3 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Hand held squeegee Paver Concrete Cs-137 637 421 7 34% Hand held squeegee Paver Concrete Cs-137 661 471 7 29% Hand held squeegee Paver Concrete Cs-137 715 480 7 33% Hand held squeegee Paver Concrete Rb-86 79 46 0 42% 38% 5% Hand held squeegee Paver Concrete Rb-86 54 38 0 30% Hand held squeegee Paver Concrete Rb-86 83 51 0 38% Hand held squeegee Paver Concrete Rb-86 86 51 0 41% Hand held squeegee Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 304 243 8 21% 22% 4% Hand held squeegee Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 426 317 8 26% Hand held squeegee Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 300 232 8 23% Hand held squeegee Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 317 263 8 18% Hand held squeegee Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 419 404 15 4% 3% 0% Hand held squeegee Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 408 397 15 3% Hand held squeegee Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 429 418 15 3% Hand held squeegee Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 437 426 15 3% Hand held squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 635 528 5 17% 13% 4% Hand held squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 694 593 5 15% Hand held squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 661 584 5 12% Hand held squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 607 554 5 9% Hand held squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 72 39 0 45% 45% 2% Hand held squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 86 48 0 45% Hand held squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 64 33 0 48% Hand held squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 69 39 0 44% Hand held squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 Lt 274 139 9 51% 53% 6% Hand held squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 Lt 344 139 9 61% Hand held squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 Lt 362 171 9 54% Hand held squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 Lt 482 262 9 46% Hand held squeegee Window CsASFM 173 12 6 97% 96% 2% Hand held squeegee Window CsASFM 184 11 6 98% Hand held squeegee Window CsASFM 176 15 6 95% Hand held squeegee Window CsASFM 155 15 6 94% Hand held squeegee Window Cs-137 637 9 6 100% 99% 0% Hand held squeegee Window Cs-137 582 9 6 99% Hand held squeegee Window Cs-137 660 9 6 100% Hand held squeegee Window Cs-137 694 10 6 99% Hand held squeegee Window Rb-86 57 1 0 99% 100% 1% Hand held squeegee Window Rb-86 59 0 0 100% Hand held squeegee Window Rb-86 71 0 0 100% Hand held squeegee Window Rb-86 69 0 0 100% Hand held squeegee window Cs-137 Lt 356 9 9 100% 100% 0% Hand held squeegee window Cs-137 Lt 362 8 9 100% Hand held squeegee window Cs-137 Lt 429 10 9 100% Hand held squeegee window Cs-137 Lt 460 9 9 100% Kitchen Broom Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 608 460 5 25% 23% 6% Kitchen Broom Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 623 536 5 14% Kitchen Broom Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 600 450 5 25% Kitchen Broom Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 683 495 5 28% Kitchen Broom Asphalt Shingles Rb-86 94 63 0 34% 22% 8% Kitchen Broom Asphalt Shingles Rb-86 107 88 0 18% ------- Page B-4 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Kitchen Broom Asphalt Shingles Rb-86 116 98 0 15% Kitchen Broom Asphalt Shingles Rb-86 99 79 0 21% Kitchen Broom Asphalt Shingles CsASFM 463 463 3 0% 1% 1% Kitchen Broom Asphalt Shingles CsASFM 504 493 3 2% Kitchen Broom Asphalt Shingles CsASFM 365 361 3 1% Kitchen Broom Asphalt Shingles CsASFM 349 343 3 2% Kitchen Broom Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 420 320 12 25% 25% 3% Kitchen Broom Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 544 404 12 26% Kitchen Broom Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 336 270 12 20% Kitchen Broom Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 611 447 12 27% Kitchen Broom Metal Roofing Cs-137 379 4 22 105% 104% 1% Kitchen Broom Metal Roofing Cs-137 443 5 22 104% Kitchen Broom Metal Roofing Cs-137 450 5 22 104% Kitchen Broom Metal Roofing Cs-137 471 4 22 104% Kitchen Broom Metal Roofing Rb-86 70 0 0 100% 100% 0% Kitchen Broom Metal Roofing Rb-86 71 0 0 100% Kitchen Broom Metal Roofing Rb-86 74 0 0 100% Kitchen Broom Metal Roofing Rb-86 59 0 0 100% Kitchen Broom Metal Roofing CsASFM 162 93 4 44% 42% 4% Kitchen Broom Metal Roofing CsASFM 166 100 4 41% Kitchen Broom Metal Roofing CsASFM 207 129 4 38% Kitchen Broom Metal Roofing CsASFM 147 80 4 47% Kitchen Broom metal roofing Cs-137 Lt 279 16 11 98% 98% 0% Kitchen Broom metal roofing Cs-137 Lt 306 18 11 98% Kitchen Broom metal roofing Cs-137 Lt 312 15 11 99% Kitchen Broom metal roofing Cs-137 Lt 324 16 11 98% Kitchen Broom Wood Shingles Cs-137 532 68 12 89% 87% 3% Kitchen Broom Wood Shingles Cs-137 638 77 12 90% Kitchen Broom Wood Shingles Cs-137 535 92 12 85% Kitchen Broom Wood Shingles Cs-137 510 95 12 83% Kitchen Broom Wood Shingles Rb-86 49 10 0 80% 74% 4% Kitchen Broom Wood Shingles Rb-86 54 15 0 72% Kitchen Broom Wood Shingles Rb-86 49 14 0 72% Kitchen Broom Wood Shingles Rb-86 61 18 0 71% Kitchen Broom Wood Shingles Cs-137 Lt 407 161 15 63% 71% 9% Kitchen Broom Wood Shingles Cs-137 Lt 532 203 15 64% Kitchen Broom Wood Shingles Cs-137 Lt 606 139 15 79% Kitchen Broom Wood Shingles Cs-137 Lt 565 130 15 79% Kitchen Broom Wood Shingles CsASFM 781 790 40 -1% 10% 16% Kitchen Broom Wood Shingles CsASFM 967 934 40 4% Kitchen Broom Wood Shingles CsASFM 605 936 40 Kitchen Broom Wood Shingles CsASFM 834 610 40 28% Mock Wall Cone Mock Wall Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 597 28 15 98% Mock Wall Cone Mock Wall Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 664 43 17 96% 96% 1% ------- Page B-5 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Mock W all Cone Mock Wall Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 666 47 31 97% Mock W all Cone Mock Wall Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 465 34 15 96% Mock W all Cone Mock Wall Asphalt Shingles ASFM 666 603 11 10% Mock W all Cone Mock Vail siding CsASFM 617 61 26 94% 93% 1% Mock W all Cone Mock Vail siding Cs ASFM 395 50 23 93% Mock W all Cone Mock W; all steel roof Cs-137 Lt 210 20 23 101% 101% 1% Mock W all Cone Mock W; all steel roof Cs-137 Lt 213 22 22 100% Mock W all Cone Mock W; all steel roof Cs-137 Lt 181 22 24 101% Mock W all Cone Mock W; all steel roof ASFM 334 25 22 99% Mock W all Cone Mock V\ /all window CsASFM 405 41 29 97% 97% 1% Mock W all Cone Mock V\ /all window CsASFM 383 42 35 98% Mock V i/all Fan Mock Wall Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 444 16 15 100% Mock V i/all Fan Mock Wall Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 554 43 34 98% 98% 1% Mock V i/all Fan Mock Wall Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 441 47 34 97% Mock V i/all Fan Mock Wall Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 427 36 34 99% Mock V i/all Fan Mock Wall Asphalt Shingles ASFM 622 531 34 15% Mock V i/all Fan Mock W; all steel roof Cs-137 Lt 175 23 18 97% 98% 1% Mock V i/all Fan Mock W; all steel roof Cs-137 Lt 181 22 20 99% Mock V i/all Fan Mock W; all steel roof Cs-137 Lt 205 24 21 98% Mock V i/all Fan Mock W; all steel roof ASFM 330 25 22 99% Mock V i/all Fan Mock Wa II vinyl siding CsASFM 360 39 26 96% 97% 1% Mock V i/all Fan Mock Wa II vinyl siding CsASFM 452 36 23 97% Mock V i/all Fan Mock V\ /all window CsASFM 207 37 29 95% 96% 2% Mock V i/all Fan Mock V\ /all window CsASFM 225 40 35 98% Mock Wc ill Stream Mock Wall Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 601 19 17 100% Mock Wc ill Stream Mock Wall Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 587 17 19 100% 100% 0% Mock Wc ill Stream Mock Wall Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 663 31 29 100% Mock Wc ill Stream Mock Wall Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 507 15 11 99% Mock Wc ill Stream Mock Wall Asphalt Shingles ASFM 682 553 34 20% Mock Wc ill Stream Mock Vail siding CsASFM 346 71 54 94% 92% 3% Mock Wc ill Stream Mock Vail siding CsASFM 350 74 44 90% Mock Wc ill Stream Mock W; all steel roof Cs-137 Lt 123 18 18 99% 99% 0% Mock Wc ill Stream Mock W; all steel roof Cs-137 Lt 148 20 19 99% Mock Wc ill Stream Mock W; all steel roof Cs-137 Lt 129 21 19 99% Mock Wc ill Stream Mock W; all steel roof ASFM 341 24 20 99% Mock Wc ill Stream Mock V\ /all window CsASFM 253 65 37 87% 88% 2% Mock Wc ill Stream Mock V\ /all window CsASFM 260 61 40 90% Mock Wc ill Stream Mock V\ /all window CsASFM 329 91 30 80% 85% 7% Mock Wc ill Stream Mock V\ /all window CsASFM 384 72 38 90% ------- Page B-6 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Mold Wash Aluminum siding Cs-137 573 46 18 95% 96% 3% Mold Wash Aluminum siding Cs-137 592 56 18 93% Mold Wash Aluminum siding Cs-137 547 26 18 98% Mold Wash Aluminum siding Cs-137 577 27 18 98% Mold Wash Aluminum siding Rb-86 27 1 0 96% 98% 3% Mold Wash Aluminum siding Rb-86 19 1 0 95% Mold Wash Aluminum siding Rb-86 21 O 0 100% Mold Wash Aluminum siding Rb-86 18 O 0 100% Mold Wash Aluminum Siding CsASFM 351 15 17 101% 101% 0% Mold Wash Aluminum Siding CsASFM 265 14 17 101% Mold Wash Aluminum Siding CsASFM 245 14 17 101% Mold Wash Aluminum Siding CsASFM 268 13 17 101% Mold Wash Aluminum Siding Cs-137 Lt 376 18 15 99% 99% 1% Mold Wash Aluminum Siding Cs-137 Lt 382 15 15 100% Mold Wash Aluminum Siding Cs-137 Lt 149 16 15 99% Mold Wash Aluminum Siding Cs-137 Lt 210 20 15 97% Mold Wash steel siding Cs-137 499 28 15 97% 98% 1% Mold Wash steel siding Cs-137 621 26 15 98% Mold Wash steel siding Cs-137 401 20 15 99% Mold Wash steel siding Cs-137 603 18 15 100% Mold Wash steel siding Rb-86 27 1 0 97% 99% 2% Mold Wash steel siding Rb-86 23 O 0 100% Mold Wash steel siding Rb-86 21 O 0 100% Mold Wash steel siding Rb-86 28 O 0 100% Mold Wash Steel Siding CsASFM 143 14 13 99% 100% 0% Mold Wash Steel Siding CsASFM 146 13 13 100% Mold Wash Steel Siding CsASFM 179 13 13 100% Mold Wash Steel Siding CsASFM 129 13 13 100% Mold Wash Steel Siding Cs-137 Lt 369 14 15 100% 100% 0% Mold Wash Steel Siding Cs-137 Lt 373 16 15 100% Mold Wash Steel Siding Cs-137 Lt 180 15 15 100% Mold Wash Steel Siding Cs-137 Lt 277 16 15 100% Mold Wash Stucco CsASFM 640 603 12 6% 4% 1% Mold Wash Stucco CsASFM 459 439 12 5% Mold Wash Stucco CsASFM 419 407 12 3% Mold Wash Stucco CsASFM 463 445 12 4% Mold Wash stucco Cs-137 726 26 7 97% 96% 2% Mold Wash stucco Cs-137 618 23 7 97% Mold Wash stucco Cs-137 667 44 7 94% Mold Wash stucco Cs-137 631 43 7 94% Mold Wash stucco Rb-86 69 1 0 98% 98% 0% Mold Wash stucco Rb-86 71 1 0 99% Mold Wash stucco Rb-86 79 1 0 98% Mold Wash stucco Rb-86 78 2 0 98% Mold Wash stucco Cs-137 Lt 740 23 7 98% 98% 1% Mold Wash stucco Cs-137 Lt 679 28 7 97% Mold Wash stucco Cs-137 Lt 763 23 7 98% Mold Wash stucco Cs-137 Lt 865 24 7 98% Mold Wash Vinyl Siding CsASFM 406 20 5 96% 96% 1% ------- Page B-7 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Mold Wash Vinyl Siding CsASFM 256 18 5 95% Mold Wash Vinyl Siding CsASFM 370 19 5 96% Mold Wash Vinyl Siding CsASFM 366 18 5 96% Mold Wash Vinyl Siding Cs-137 531 24 5 96% 98% 1% Mold Wash Vinyl Siding Cs-137 612 23 5 97% Mold Wash Vinyl Siding Cs-137 579 17 5 98% Mold Wash Vinyl Siding Cs-137 622 13 5 99% Mold Wash Vinyl Siding Rb-86 34 1 0 97% 98% 2% Mold Wash Vinyl Siding Rb-86 33 1 0 96% Mold Wash Vinyl Siding Rb-86 44 0 0 100% Mold Wash Vinyl Siding Rb-86 38 1 0 98% Mold Wash vinyl siding Cs-137 Lt 281 10 8 99% 100% 0% Mold Wash vinyl siding Cs-137 Lt 273 10 8 99% Mold Wash vinyl siding Cs-137 Lt 326 8 8 100% Mold Wash vinyl siding Cs-137 Lt 335 8 8 100% Mold wash wood siding Cs-137 924 34 9 97% 97% 1% Mold wash wood siding Cs-137 797 25 9 98% Mold wash wood siding Cs-137 687 30 9 97% Mold wash wood siding Cs-137 449 25 9 96% Mold wash wood siding Rb-86 55 O 0 99% 99% 1% Mold wash wood siding Rb-86 37 O 0 99% Mold wash wood siding Rb-86 37 1 0 98% Mold wash wood siding Rb-86 22 O 0 100% Mold Wash Wood Siding CsASFM 309 267 17 14% 12% 2% Mold Wash Wood Siding CsASFM 453 411 17 10% Mold Wash Wood Siding CsASFM 390 344 17 12% Mold Wash Wood Siding CsASFM 437 391 17 11% Mold Wash Wood Siding Cs-137 Lt 261 30 16 94% 94% 0% Mold Wash Wood Siding Cs-137 Lt 282 33 16 94% Mold Wash Wood Siding Cs-137 Lt 339 33 16 95% Mold Wash Wood Siding Cs-137 Lt 352 35 16 94% Mop Asphalt Drive CsASFM 804 649 131 23% 23% 1% Mop Asphalt Drive CsASFM 680 554 131 23% Mop Asphalt Drive CsASFM 828 666 131 23% Mop Asphalt Drive CsASFM 784 624 131 25% Mop Asphalt Drive Cs-137 Lt 268 36 6 88% 85% 5% Mop Asphalt Drive Cs-137 Lt 233 40 6 85% Mop Asphalt Drive Cs-137 Lt 204 48 6 79% Mop Asphalt Drive Cs-137 Lt 207 26 6 90% Mop Asphalt Drive Cs-137 731 104 66 94% 88% 9% Mop Asphalt Drive Cs-137 704 106 58 92% Mop Asphalt Drive Cs-137 693 214 50 74% Mop Asphalt Drive Cs-137 477 82 42 91% Mop Asphalt Drive Rb-86 26 O 0 100% 94% 5% Mop Asphalt Drive Rb-86 27 1 0 95% Mop Asphalt Drive Rb-86 27 4 0 87% Mop Asphalt Drive Rb-86 18 1 0 94% Mop Brick Paver Cs-137 Lt 281 35 13 92% 89% 2% ------- Page B-8 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Mop Brick Paver Cs-137 Lt 231 38 13 88% Mop Brick Paver Cs-137 Lt 288 39 13 91% Mop Brick Paver Cs-137 Lt 221 40 13 87% Mop Brick Paver CsASFM 436 397 18 9% 12% 2% Mop Brick Paver CsASFM 397 349 18 13% Mop Brick Paver CsASFM 509 448 18 12% Mop Brick Paver CsASFM 415 360 18 14% Mop Brick Wall Cs-137 540 48 15 94% 91% 4% Mop Brick Wall Cs-137 617 61 15 92% Mop Brick Wall Cs-137 638 55 15 94% Mop Brick Wall Cs-137 633 106 15 85% Mop Brick Wall Rb-86 242 23 15 97% 95% 3% Mop Brick Wall Rb-86 284 26 15 96% Mop Brick Wall Rb-86 260 23 15 97% Mop Brick Wall Rb-86 281 39 15 91% Mop Paver Concrete CsASFM 337 334 6 1% 2% 1% Mop Paver Concrete CsASFM 472 466 6 1% Mop Paver Concrete CsASFM 360 353 6 2% Mop Paver Concrete CsASFM 327 316 6 3% Mop Paver Concrete Cs-137 597 139 8 78% 81% 5% Mop Paver Concrete Cs-137 566 144 8 76% Mop Paver Concrete Cs-137 618 104 8 84% Mop Paver Concrete Cs-137 608 90 8 86% Mop Paver Concrete Rb-86 104 16 0 85% 88% 3% Mop Paver Concrete Rb-86 98 14 0 86% Mop Paver Concrete Rb-86 92 8 0 91% Mop Paver Concrete Rb-86 92 10 0 89% Mop Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 449 141 10 70% 66% 13% Mop Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 371 70 10 84% Mop Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 487 227 10 54% Mop Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 365 163 10 57% Mop Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 313 92 16 74% 82% 6% Mop Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 563 89 16 87% Mop Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 693 145 16 81% Mop Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 747 112 16 87% Mop Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 417 419 15 -1% 1% 1% Mop Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 411 408 15 1% Mop Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 440 429 15 3% Mop Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 444 437 15 2% Mop Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 551 37 5 94% 94% 1% Mop Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 570 37 5 94% Mop Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 685 38 5 95% Mop Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 599 40 5 94% Mop Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 43 5 0 88% 93% 3% Mop Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 50 2 0 96% Mop Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 55 4 0 92% Mop Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 50 3 0 94% Mop Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 Lt 482 71 10 87% 86% 2% Mop Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 Lt 482 82 10 85% ------- Page B-9 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Mop Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 Lt 512 68 10 89% Mop Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 Lt 512 89 10 84% Prewet Wipes Aluminum siding Cs-137 519 31 11 96% 97% 1% Prewet Wipes Aluminum siding Cs-137 487 32 11 96% Prewet Wipes Aluminum siding Cs-137 583 30 11 97% Prewet Wipes Aluminum siding Cs-137 518 20 11 98% Prewet Wipes Aluminum siding Rb-86 18 0 0 99% 100% 0% Prewet Wipes Aluminum siding Rb-86 12 0 0 100% Prewet Wipes Aluminum siding Rb-86 22 0 0 100% Prewet Wipes Aluminum siding Rb-86 17 0 0 100% Prewet Wipes Aluminum Siding CsASFM 242 38 14 90% 87% 4% Prewet Wipes Aluminum Siding CsASFM 132 25 14 90% Prewet Wipes Aluminum Siding CsASFM 148 32 14 86% Prewet Wipes Aluminum Siding CsASFM 150 39 14 81% Prewet Wipes Aluminum Siding Cs-137 Lt 423 42 16 94% 93% 3% Prewet Wipes Aluminum Siding Cs-137 Lt 393 24 16 98% Prewet Wipes Aluminum Siding Cs-137 Lt 447 55 16 91% Prewet Wipes Aluminum Siding Cs-137 Lt 405 47 16 92% Prewet Wipes Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 781 664 14 15% 10% 5% Prewet Wipes Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 689 656 14 5% Prewet Wipes Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 775 679 14 13% Prewet Wipes Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 837 777 14 7% Prewet Wipes Asphalt Roofing Rb-86 81 41 0 49% 47% 1% Prewet Wpes Asphalt Roofing Rb-86 84 45 0 46% Prewet Wipes Asphalt Roofing Rb-86 73 39 0 47% Prewet Wipes Asphalt Roofing Rb-86 84 44 0 48% Prewet Wipes Asphalt Roofing CsASFM 725 708 13 2% 0% 1% Prewet Wipes Asphalt Roofing CsASFM 598 595 13 0% Prewet Wipes Asphalt Roofing CsASFM 573 573 13 0% Prewet Wipes Asphalt Roofing CsASFM 583 588 13 -1% Prewet Wipes Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 Lt 918 399 11 57% 52% 8% Prewet Wipes Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 Lt 857 517 11 40% Prewet Wipes Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 Lt 1353 601 11 56% Prewet Wipes Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 Lt 1764 840 11 53% Prewet Wipes Clay Tiles Cs-137 263 11 6 98% 97% 1% Prewet Wipes Clay Tiles Cs-137 268 14 6 97% Prewet Wipes Clay Tiles Cs-137 286 19 6 95% Prewet Wipes Clay Tiles Cs-137 373 16 6 97% Prewet Wipes Clay Tiles Rb-86 20 0 0 100% 100% 1% Prewet Wipes Clay Tiles Rb-86 16 0 0 98% Prewet Wipes Clay Tiles Rb-86 33 0 0 100% Prewet Wipes Clay Tiles Rb-86 29 0 0 100% Prewet Wipes Clay Tiles CsASFM 178 123 3 31% 27% 3% Prewet Wipes Clay Tiles CsASFM 177 131 3 26% Prewet Wipes Clay Tiles CsASFM 154 115 3 26% Prewet Wipes Clay Tiles CsASFM 168 125 3 26% Prewet Wipes Clay tiles Cs-137 Lt 330 14 13 100% 99% 1% Prewet Wipes Clay tiles Cs-137 Lt 554 14 13 100% ------- Page B-10 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Prewet Wipes Clay tiles Cs-137 Lt 486 22 13 98% Prewet Wipes Clay tiles Cs-137 Lt 661 23 13 99% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing Cs-137 551 79 3 86% 89% 3% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing Cs-137 529 63 3 89% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing Cs-137 614 66 3 90% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing Cs-137 626 47 3 93% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing Rb-86 68 5 0 93% 95% 2% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing Rb-86 87 5 0 95% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing Rb-86 95 5 0 95% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing Rb-86 94 3 0 96% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing CsASFM 464 228 7 52% 69% 12% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing CsASFM 450 134 7 71% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing CsASFM 466 107 7 78% Prewet Wpes Composite Fencing CsASFM 445 111 7 76% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing Cs-137 Lt 244 58 12 80% 85% 4% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing Cs-137 Lt 460 58 12 90% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing Cs-137 Lt 349 70 12 83% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing Cs-137 Lt 579 93 12 86% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing Cs-137 Lt 516 32 17 97% 93% 4% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing Cs-137 Lt 704 61 17 94% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing Cs-137 Lt 334 59 17 87% Prewet Wipes Composite Fencing Cs-137 Lt 674 62 17 93% Prewet Wipes Gutter CsASFM 540 52 10 92% 91% 1% Prewet Wipes Gutter CsASFM 324 38 10 91% Prewet Wipes Gutter CsASFM 494 54 10 91% Prewet Wipes Gutter CsASFM 504 59 10 90% Prewet Wipes Metal Roofing Cs-137 336 13 7 98% 98% 1% Prewet Wipes Metal Roofing Cs-137 504 10 7 99% Prewet Wipes Metal Roofing Cs-137 432 13 7 99% Prewet Wipes Metal Roofing Cs-137 319 13 7 98% Prewet Wipes Metal Roofing Rb-86 60 0 0 100% 99% 1% Prewet Wipes Metal Roofing Rb-86 65 1 0 99% Prewet Wipes Metal Roofing Rb-86 68 0 0 99% Prewet Wipes Metal Roofing Rb-86 55 1 0 97% Prewet Wipes Metal Roofing CsASFM 252 11 8 99% 99% 0% Prewet Wipes Metal Roofing CsASFM 287 11 8 99% Prewet Wipes Metal Roofing CsASFM 266 9 8 99% Prewet Wipes Metal Roofing CsASFM 326 11 8 99% Prewet Wipes metal roofing Cs-137 Lt 351 11 9 100% 99% 0% Prewet Wipes metal roofing Cs-137 Lt 273 12 9 99% Prewet Wipes metal roofing Cs-137 Lt 382 14 9 99% Prewet Wipes metal roofing Cs-137 Lt 376 13 9 99% Prewet Wipes Gutter CsASFM 284 67 13 80% 76% 5% Prewet Wipes Gutter CsASFM 261 62 13 80% Prewet Wipes Gutter CsASFM 271 82 13 73% Prewet Wipes Gutter Cs ASFM 213 70 13 71% Prewet Wipes Gutter Cs-137 592 10 8 100% 100% 0% Prewet Wipes Gutter Cs-137 594 9 8 100% Prewet Wipes Gutter Cs-137 615 12 8 99% ------- Page B-ll Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Prewet Wipes Gutter Cs-137 570 11 8 99% Prewet Wipes Gutter Rb-86 69 0 0 100% 100% 0% Prewet Wipes Gutter Rb-86 59 0 0 100% Prewet Wipes Gutter Rb-86 87 0 0 100% Prewet Wipes Gutter Rb-86 73 0 0 100% Prewet Wipes Gutter Cs-137 Lt 424 20 8 97% 99% 1% Prewet Wipes Gutter Cs-137 Lt 326 9 8 100% Prewet Wipes Gutter Cs-137 Lt 449 10 8 100% Prewet Wipes Gutter Cs-137 Lt 408 15 8 98% Prewet Wipes Plastic slide CsASFM 299 3 6 101% 101% 0% Prewet Wipes Plastic slide CsASFM 206 3 6 102% Prewet Wipes Plastic slide CsASFM 222 3 6 101% Prewet Wpes Plastic slide CsASFM 224 4 6 101% Prewet Wipes Plastic slide Cs-137 354 3 5 100% 100% 0% Prewet Wipes Plastic slide Cs-137 302 3 5 100% Prewet Wipes Plastic slide Cs-137 197 5 5 100% Prewet Wipes Plastic slide Cs-137 556 4 5 100% Prewet Wipes Plastic slide Rb-86 22 0 0 100% 99% 2% Prewet Wipes Plastic slide Rb-86 24 0 0 100% Prewet Wipes Plastic slide Rb-86 15 1 0 96% Prewet Wipes Plastic slide Rb-86 55 0 0 100% Prewet Wipes Plastic slide Cs-137 Lt 331 9 7 99% 99% 0% Prewet Wipes Plastic slide Cs-137 Lt 335 9 7 99% Prewet Wipes Plastic slide Cs-137 Lt 372 8 7 100% Prewet Wipes Plastic slide Cs-137 Lt 355 9 7 99% Prewet Wipes Steel siding Cs-137 566 28 10 97% 96% 3% Prewet Wipes Steel siding Cs-137 574 16 10 99% Prewet Wipes Steel siding Cs-137 607 61 10 91% Prewet Wipes Steel siding Cs-137 570 28 10 97% Prewet Wipes Steel siding Rb-86 48 0 0 99% 97% 3% Prewet Wipes Steel siding Rb-86 51 1 0 98% Prewet Wipes Steel siding Rb-86 55 4 0 93% Prewet Wipes Steel siding Rb-86 54 1 0 98% Prewet Wipes Steel siding CsASFM 449 85 15 84% 87% 4% Prewet Wipes Steel siding CsASFM 351 47 15 90% Prewet Wipes Steel siding CsASFM 376 46 15 91% Prewet Wipes Steel siding CsASFM 201 45 15 84% Prewet Wipes Steel siding Cs-137 Lt 340 24 20 99% 100% 1% Prewet Wipes Steel siding Cs-137 Lt 330 18 20 101% Prewet Wipes Steel siding Cs-137 Lt 399 24 20 99% Prewet Wipes Steel siding Cs-137 Lt 469 21 20 100% Prewet Wipes Stucco CsASFM 651 646 7 1% 0% 1% Prewet Wipes Stucco CsASFM 470 468 7 0% Prewet Wipes Stucco CsASFM 429 435 7 -2% Prewet Wipes Stucco CsASFM 476 470 7 1% Prewet Wipes Stucco Cs-137 597 166 5 73% 62% 17% Prewet Wipes Stucco Cs-137 519 107 5 80% Prewet Wipes Stucco Cs-137 627 316 5 50% Prewet Wipes Stucco Cs-137 674 371 5 45% ------- Page B-12 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Prewet Wipes Stucco Rb-86 102 13 0 87% 83% 9% Prewet Wipes Stucco Rb-86 110 6 0 94% Prewet Wpes Stucco Rb-86 90 23 0 75% Prewet Wipes Stucco Rb-86 110 25 0 78% Prewet Wipes stucco Cs-137 Lt 456 62 6 88% 85% 3% Prewet Wipes stucco Cs-137 Lt 477 87 6 83% Prewet Wipes stucco Cs-137 Lt 471 64 6 88% Prewet Wipes stucco Cs-137 Lt 433 79 6 83% Prewet Wipes Vinyl Siding Cs-137 324 37 8 91% 95% 3% Prewet Wipes Vinyl Siding Cs-137 399 28 8 95% Prewet Wipes Vinyl Siding Cs-137 541 31 8 96% Prewet Wipes Vinyl Siding Cs-137 498 23 8 97% Prewet Wipes Vinyl Siding Rb-86 73 4 0 94% 95% 2% Prewet Wipes Vinyl Siding Rb-86 82 4 0 95% Prewet Wipes Vinyl Siding Rb-86 89 5 0 95% Prewet Wipes Vinyl Siding Rb-86 92 2 0 98% Prewet Wipes Vinyl Siding CsASFM 375 25 5 94% 94% 1% Prewet Wipes Vinyl Siding CsASFM 291 26 5 92% Prewet Wipes Vinyl Siding CsASFM 323 24 5 94% Prewet Wipes Vinyl Siding CsASFM 340 20 5 95% Prewet Wipes vinyl siding Cs-137 Lt 353 14 7 98% 98% 0% Prewet Wipes vinyl siding Cs-137 Lt 455 13 7 99% Prewet Wipes vinyl siding Cs-137 Lt 476 15 7 98% Prewet Wipes vinyl siding Cs-137 Lt 448 13 7 99% Prewet Wipes Window Cs ASFM 229 9 6 99% 99% 0% Prewet Wipes Window CsASFM 175 8 6 99% Prewet Wipes Window CsASFM 187 9 6 98% Prewet Wipes Window CsASFM 166 9 6 98% Prewet Wipes Window Cs-137 656 8 9 100% 100% 0% Prewet Wipes Window Cs-137 616 8 9 100% Prewet Wipes Window Cs-137 665 6 9 100% Prewet Wipes Window Cs-137 665 6 9 100% Prewet Wipes Window Rb-86 90 0 0 100% 100% 0% Prewet Wipes Window Rb-86 98 0 0 100% Prewet Wipes Window Rb-86 79 0 0 100% Prewet Wipes Window Rb-86 91 0 0 100% Prewet Wipes window Cs-137 Lt 326 10 8 99% 100% 0% Prewet Wipes window Cs-137 Lt 345 8 8 100% Prewet Wipes window Cs-137 Lt 305 9 8 99% Prewet Wipes window Cs-137 Lt 326 9 8 100% Prewet Wipes Wood Siding Cs-137 871 41 16 97% 97% 0% Prewet Wipes Wood Siding Cs-137 794 43 16 97% Prewet Wipes Wood Siding Cs-137 924 46 16 97% Prewet Wipes Wood Siding Cs-137 792 47 16 96% Prewet Wipes Wood Siding Rb-86 42 0 0 100% 98% 2% Prewet Wipes Wood Siding Rb-86 40 0 0 99% Prewet Wipes Wood Siding Rb-86 49 2 0 96% Prewet Wipes Wood Siding Rb-86 50 1 0 97% Prewet Wpes Wood Siding Cs-137 Lt 371 87 37 85% 88% 3% ------- Page B-13 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Prewet Wipes Wood Siding Cs-137 Lt 408 69 37 91% Prewet Wipes Wood Siding Cs-137 Lt 550 108 37 86% Prewet Wipes Wood Siding Cs-137 Lt 498 85 37 90% Prewet Wipes Wood Siding CsASFM 261 208 21 22% 20% 3% Prewet Wipes Wood Siding CsASFM 293 230 21 23% Prewet Wipes Wood Siding CsASFM 295 241 21 20% Prewet Wipes Wood Siding CsASFM 262 225 21 15% Pump Sprayer Asphalt Roofing (mock wall) Cs-137 545 23 15 98% 98% 0% Pump Sprayer Asphalt Roofing (mock wall) Cs-137 490 24 15 98% Pump Sprayer Asphalt Roofing (mock wall) Cs-137 617 27 15 98% Pump Sprayer Asphalt Roofing (mock wall) Cs-137 543 26 15 98% Pump Sprayer Asphalt Roofing (mock wall) Rb-86 115 2 0 98% 99% 0% Pump Sprayer Asphalt Roofing (mock wall) Rb-86 131 2 0 98% Pump Sprayer Asphalt Roofing (mock wall) Rb-86 141 2 0 99% Pump Sprayer Asphalt Roofing (mock wall) Rb-86 128 1 0 99% Pump Sprayer Asphalt Roofing (mock wall) CsASFM 388 327 23 17% 15% 3% Pump Sprayer Asphalt Roofing (mock wall) CsASFM 398 336 23 17% Pump Sprayer Asphalt Roofing (mock wall) CsASFM 394 336 23 16% Pump Sprayer Asphalt Roofing (mock wall) CsASFM 380 341 23 11% Pump Sprayer Brick Wall CsASFM 275 289 37 -6% -5% 5% Pump Sprayer Brick Wall CsASFM 298 320 37 -9% Pump Sprayer Brick Wall CsASFM 306 324 37 -7% Pump Sprayer Brick Wall CsASFM 329 323 37 2% Pump Sprayer Brick Wall Cs-137 395 37 19 95% 92% 4% Pump Sprayer Brick Wall Cs-137 441 76 19 87% Pump Sprayer Brick Wall Cs-137 512 43 19 95% Pump Sprayer Brick Wall Cs-137 484 70 19 89% Pump Sprayer Brick Wall Rb-86 184 18 0 90% 87% 3% Pump Sprayer Brick Wall Rb-86 169 26 0 85% Pump Sprayer Brick Wall Rb-86 209 20 0 90% Pump Sprayer Brick Wall Rb-86 212 32 0 85% Pump Sprayer Clay Tile (mock wall) Cs-137 236 15 18 101% 102% 3% Pump Sprayer Clay Tile (mock wall) Cs-137 162 9 18 106% Pump Sprayer Clay Tile (mock wall) Cs-137 165 18 18 100% Pump Sprayer Clay Tile (mock wall) Cs-137 208 12 18 103% Pump Sprayer Clay Tile (mock wall) Rb-86 28 1 0 97% 98% 1% Pump Sprayer Clay Tile (mock wall) Rb-86 22 0 0 99% Pump Sprayer Clay Tile (mock wall) Rb-86 25 1 0 98% Pump Sprayer Clay Tile (mock wall) Rb-86 31 1 0 98% Pump Sprayer Clay Tile (mock wall) CsASFM 152 68 8 58% 52% 6% ------- Page B-14 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Pump Sprayer Clay Tile (mock wall) CsASFM 160 74 8 56% Pump Sprayer Clay Tile (mock wall) CsASFM 172 96 8 46% Pump Sprayer Clay Tile (mock wall) CsASFM 213 113 8 49% Pump Sprayer Concrete Paver Cs-137 631 90 17 88% 88% 4% Pump Sprayer Concrete Paver Cs-137 571 118 17 82% Pump Sprayer Concrete Paver Cs-137 607 71 17 91% Pump Sprayer Concrete Paver Cs-137 694 89 17 89% Pump Sprayer Concrete Paver Rb-86 219 110 0 50% 54% 4% Pump Sprayer Concrete Paver Rb-86 213 98 0 54% Pump Sprayer Concrete Paver Rb-86 311 125 0 60% Pump Sprayer Concrete Paver Rb-86 292 139 0 52% Pump Sprayer Concrete Siding CsASFM 947 856 17 10% 15% 4% Pump Sprayer Concrete Siding CsASFM 837 724 17 14% Pump Sprayer Concrete Siding CsASFM 664 542 17 19% Pump Sprayer Concrete Siding CsASFM 809 677 17 17% Pump Sprayer Paver Concrete CsASFM 706 667 118 7% 3% 4% Pump Sprayer Paver Concrete CsASFM 738 704 118 6% Pump Sprayer Paver Concrete CsASFM 634 645 118 -2% Pump Sprayer Paver Concrete CsASFM 1077 1070 118 1% Pump Sprayer Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 650 53 15 94% 97% 2% Pump Sprayer Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 731 43 15 96% Pump Sprayer Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 658 24 15 99% Pump Sprayer Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 600 19 15 99% Pump Sprayer Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 214 22 0 90% 94% 3% Pump Sprayer Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 189 10 0 95% Pump Sprayer Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 197 15 0 93% Pump Sprayer Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 245 5 0 98% Pump Sprayer Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 302 298 53 2% 5% 3% Pump Sprayer Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 280 260 53 9% Pump Sprayer Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 241 227 53 7% Pump Sprayer Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 319 311 53 3% Pump Sprayer Siding with Window (mock wal) CsASFM 930 24 13 99% 96% 3% Pump Sprayer Siding with Window (mock wal) CsASFM 932 38 13 97% Pump Sprayer Siding with Window (mock wal) CsASFM 915 22 13 99% Pump Sprayer Siding with Window (mock wal) CsASFM 817 34 13 97% Pump Sprayer Siding with Window (mock wal) CsASFM 619 29 13 97% Pump Sprayer Siding with Window (mock wal) CsASFM 636 30 13 97% Pump Sprayer Siding with Window (mock wal) CsASFM 783 61 13 94% Pump Sprayer Siding with Window (mock wal) CsASFM 872 90 13 91% Pump Sprayer Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 756 28 16 98% 98% 0% Pump Sprayer Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 560 22 16 99% Pump Sprayer Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 623 29 16 98% ------- Page B-15 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Pump Sprayer Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 530 26 16 98% Pump Sprayer Stained Wood Deck Rb-86 178 4 0 98% 98% 1% Pump Sprayer Stained Wood Deck Rb-86 220 1 0 99% Pump Sprayer Stained Wood Deck Rb-86 147 4 0 98% Pump Sprayer Stained Wood Deck Rb-86 172 2 0 99% Pump Sprayer Stained Wood Deck CsASFM 458 252 20 47% 49% 3% Pump Sprayer Stained Wood Deck CsASFM 532 289 20 47% Pump Sprayer Stained Wood Deck CsASFM 427 210 20 53% Pump Sprayer Stained Wood Deck CsASFM 562 291 20 50% Pump Sprayer Stucco (mock wall) CsASFM 1499 1480 13 1% 4% 2% Pump Sprayer Stucco (mock wall) CsASFM 1100 1062 13 3% Pump Sprayer Stucco (mock wall) CsASFM 1235 1198 13 3% Pump Sprayer Stucco (mock wall) CsASFM 1279 1189 13 7% Pump Sprayer Wood Shingles (mock wall) Cs-137 381 20 15 99% 98% 1% Pump Sprayer Wood Shingles (mock wall) Cs-137 399 17 15 99% Pump Sprayer Wood Shingles (mock wall) Cs-137 434 23 15 98% Pump Sprayer Wood Shingles (mock wall) Cs-137 452 24 15 98% Pump Sprayer Wood Shingles (mock wall) Rb-86 120 2 0 98% 98% 0% Pump Sprayer Wood Shingles (mock wall) Rb-86 128 2 0 98% Pump Sprayer Wood Shingles (mock wall) Rb-86 130 4 0 97% Pump Sprayer Wood Shingles (mock wall) Rb-86 186 3 0 98% Pump Sprayer Wood Shingles (mock wall) CsASFM 257 148 17 45% 38% 7% Pump Sprayer Wood Shingles (mock wall) CsASFM 287 177 17 41% Pump Sprayer Wood Shingles (mock wall) CsASFM 256 184 17 30% Pump Sprayer Wood Shingles (mock wall) CsASFM 301 203 17 35% Pump Sprayer Wood Siding (mock wall) CsASFM 733 555 14 25% 32% 7% Pump Sprayer Wood Siding (mock wall) CsASFM 632 391 14 39% Pump Sprayer Wood Siding (mock wall) CsASFM 590 427 14 28% Pump Sprayer Wood Siding (mock wall) CsASFM 554 364 14 35% Push Broom Asphalt Drive CsASFM 894 731 7 18% 12% 8% Push Broom Asphalt Drive CsASFM 1074 865 7 20% Push Broom Asphalt Drive CsASFM 644 628 7 2% Push Broom Asphalt Drive CsASFM 642 598 7 7% Push Broom Asphalt Drive CsASFM 783 747 8 5% 2% 3% Push Broom Asphalt Drive CsASFM 967 931 8 4% Push Broom Asphalt Drive CsASFM 694 701 8 -1% Push Broom Asphalt Drive CsASFM 635 626 8 1% Push Broom Asphalt Drive Cs-137 Lt 412 105 6 76% 63% 18% Push Broom Asphalt Drive Cs-137 Lt 210 122 6 43% Push Broom Asphalt Drive Cs-137 Lt 271 132 6 53% ------- Page B-16 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Push Broom Asphalt Drive Cs-137 Lt 316 63 6 82% Push Broom Asphalt Drive Cs-137 679 92 11 88% 85% 7% Push Broom Asphalt Drive Cs-137 684 72 11 91% Push Broom Asphalt Drive Cs-137 591 98 11 85% Push Broom Asphalt Drive Cs-137 565 147 11 75% Push Broom Asphalt Drive Rb-86 55 7 0 88% 84% 6% Push Broom Asphalt Drive Rb-86 63 8 0 87% Push Broom Asphalt Drive Rb-86 54 8 0 86% Push Broom Asphalt Drive Rb-86 62 15 0 75% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 799 480 10 40% 41% 10% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 766 424 10 45% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 782 396 10 50% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 698 515 10 27% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Rb-86 113 33 0 71% 63% 11% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Rb-86 85 31 0 64% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Rb-86 93 28 0 70% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Rb-86 87 45 0 48% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing CsASFM 482 511 13 -6% 3% 13% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing CsASFM 259 272 13 -5% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing CsASFM 432 344 13 21% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing CsASFM 301 291 13 3% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 Lt 221 162 16 29% 53% 17% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 Lt 345 120 16 68% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 Lt 190 102 16 51% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 Lt 181 79 16 62% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 655 304 12 55% 61% 5% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 417 178 12 59% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 568 228 12 61% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 622 212 12 67% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Rb-86 228 88 12 65% 75% 7% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Rb-86 154 50 12 73% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Rb-86 227 58 12 79% Push Broom Asphalt Roofing Rb-86 279 63 12 81% Push Broom Brick Paver Cs-137 Lt 359 196 15 47% 68% 16% Push Broom Brick Paver Cs-137 Lt 557 122 15 80% Push Broom Brick Paver Cs-137 Lt 495 187 15 64% Push Broom Brick Paver Cs-137 Lt 480 100 15 82% Push Broom Brick Wall Cs-137 649 104 16 86% 92% 4% Push Broom Brick Wall Cs-137 749 47 14 96% Push Broom Brick Wall Cs-137 796 63 14 94% Push Broom Brick Wall Cs-137 741 65 11 93% Push Broom Brick Wall Rb-86 76 7 0 91% 94% 2% Push Broom Brick Wall Rb-86 81 4 0 95% Push Broom Brick Wall Rb-86 96 6 0 94% Push Broom Brick Wall Rb-86 70 4 0 95% Push Broom Brick Wall CsASFM 454 453 0 0% 2% 3% ------- Page B-17 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Push Broom Brick Wall CsASFM 645 656 0 -2% Push Broom Brick Wall CsASFM 868 836 0 4% Push Broom Brick Wall CsASFM 515 488 0 5% Push Broom Paver Concrete CsASFM 447 443 6 1% 3% 2% Push Broom Paver Concrete CsASFM 352 339 6 4% Push Broom Paver Concrete CsASFM 322 316 6 2% Push Broom Paver Concrete CsASFM 323 309 6 4% Push Broom Paver Concrete Cs-137 571 56 2 91% 91% 0% Push Broom Paver Concrete Cs-137 718 69 2 91% Push Broom Paver Concrete Cs-137 615 57 2 91% Push Broom Paver Concrete Cs-137 617 60 2 91% Push Broom Paver Concrete Rb-86 74 15 0 79% 81% 3% Push Broom Paver Concrete Rb-86 102 23 0 78% Push Broom Paver Concrete Rb-86 97 17 0 82% Push Broom Paver Concrete Rb-86 94 15 0 84% Push Broom Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 266 130 6 52% 61% 7% Push Broom Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 287 124 6 58% Push Broom Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 391 129 6 68% Push Broom Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 337 117 6 67% Push Broom Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 413 423 15 -3% -1% 2% Push Broom Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 413 418 15 -1% Push Broom Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 438 433 15 1% Push Broom Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 438 449 15 -2% Push Broom Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 704 28 6 97% 96% 1% Push Broom Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 594 33 6 95% Push Broom Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 722 47 6 94% Push Broom Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 632 32 6 96% Push Broom Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 86 3 0 97% 96% 1% Push Broom Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 73 3 0 95% Push Broom Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 84 3 0 97% Push Broom Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 81 4 0 95% Push Broom Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 Lt 496 42 12 94% 90% 4% Push Broom Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 Lt 504 86 12 85% Push Broom Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 Lt 457 48 12 92% Push Broom Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 Lt 430 59 12 89% Push Broom Stained Wood Deck CsASFM 377 333 5 12% 7% 4% Push Broom Stained Wood Deck CsASFM 442 405 5 8% Push Broom Stained Wood Deck CsASFM 464 442 5 5% Push Broom Stained Wood Deck CsASFM 458 444 5 3% Push Broom Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 753 14 6 99% 99% 0% Push Broom Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 598 13 6 99% Push Broom Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 684 14 6 99% Push Broom Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 760 12 6 99% Push Broom Stained Wood Deck Rb-86 43 1 0 97% 98% 1% Push Broom Stained Wood Deck Rb-86 37 1 0 97% Push Broom Stained Wood Deck Rb-86 38 1 0 98% Push Broom Stained Wood Deck Rb-86 52 0 0 99% Push Broom Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 Lt 496 36 9 95% 91% 3% Push Broom Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 Lt 259 37 9 89% ------- Page B-18 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Push Broom Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 Lt 349 37 9 92% Push Broom Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 Lt 262 37 9 89% Push Broom Wood Shingles CsASFM 258 259 11 0% 1% 2% Push Broom Wood Shingles CsASFM 257 254 11 1% Push Broom Wood Shingles CsASFM 240 240 11 0% Push Broom Wood Shingles CsASFM 216 209 11 4% Sponge Aluminum Siding CsASFM 362 130 19 68% 75% 5% Sponge Aluminum Siding CsASFM 268 77 19 77% Sponge Aluminum Siding CsASFM 368 94 19 78% Sponge Aluminum Siding CsASFM 332 92 19 77% Sponge Aluminum Siding Cs-137 Lt 412 27 15 97% 96% 2% Sponge Aluminum Siding Cs-137 Lt 501 23 15 98% Sponge Aluminum Siding Cs-137 Lt 455 41 15 94% Sponge Aluminum Siding Cs-137 Lt 400 40 15 94% Sponge Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 Lt 247 75 20 76% 78% 3% Sponge Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 Lt 296 91 20 74% Sponge Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 Lt 208 58 20 80% Sponge Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 Lt 258 66 20 81% Sponge Steel Siding CsASFM 506 29 19 98% 98% 0% Sponge Steel Siding CsASFM 363 25 19 98% Sponge Steel Siding CsASFM 424 27 19 98% Sponge Steel Siding CsASFM 428 28 19 98% Sponge Steel Siding Cs-137 Lt 309 16 15 100% 99% 0% Sponge Steel Siding Cs-137 Lt 344 18 15 99% Sponge Steel Siding Cs-137 Lt 419 19 15 99% Sponge Steel Siding Cs-137 Lt 284 19 15 99% Sponge Wood Shingles Cs-137 Lt 481 120 13 77% 67% 17% Sponge Wood Shingles Cs-137 Lt 274 93 13 69% Sponge Wood Shingles Cs-137 Lt 188 113 13 43% Sponge Wood Shingles Cs-137 Lt 296 67 13 81% Sponge Wood Siding Cs-137 Lt 258 45 15 88% 91% 2% Sponge Wood Siding Cs-137 Lt 306 40 15 91% Sponge Wood Siding Cs-137 Lt 366 49 15 90% Sponge Wood Siding Cs-137 Lt 337 37 15 93% Squeegee Brick Paver Cs-137 Lt 423 226 14 48% 47% 4% Squeegee Brick Paver Cs-137 Lt 429 248 14 44% Squeegee Brick Paver Cs-137 Lt 632 363 14 43% Squeegee Brick Paver Cs-137 Lt 592 293 14 52% Squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 484 137 14 74% 77% 2% Squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 553 143 14 76% Squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 682 159 14 78% Squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 690 154 14 79% Squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 196 33 0 83% 83% 3% Squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 197 38 0 80% Squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 224 31 0 86% Squeegee Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 193 39 0 80% Vacuum Asphalt Drive CsASFM 769 762 8 1% 0% 2% Vacuum Asphalt Drive CsASFM 688 680 8 1% ------- Page B-19 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Vacuum Asphalt Drive CsASFM 799 828 8 -4% Vacuum Asphalt Drive CsASFM 788 784 8 1% Vacuum Asphalt Drive Cs-137 Lt 336 4 4 100% 99% 1% Vacuum Asphalt Drive Cs-137 Lt 299 7 4 99% Vacuum Asphalt Drive Cs-137 Lt 254 5 4 99% Vacuum Asphalt Drive Cs-137 Lt 241 7 4 99% Vacuum Asphalt Drive Cs-137 705 9 12 100% 100% 0% Vacuum Asphalt Drive Cs-137 728 10 12 100% Vacuum Asphalt Drive Cs-137 731 13 12 100% Vacuum Asphalt Drive Cs-137 731 9 12 100% Vacuum Asphalt Drive Rb-86 84 0 0 100% 100% 1% Vacuum Asphalt Drive Rb-86 121 0 0 100% Vacuum Asphalt Drive Rb-86 108 2 0 99% Vacuum Asphalt Drive Rb-86 87 0 0 100% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 460 43 5 92% 92% 1% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 536 40 5 93% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 450 39 5 92% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 495 49 5 91% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Rb-86 63 12 0 81% 85% 3% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Rb-86 88 10 0 89% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Rb-86 98 14 0 86% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Rb-86 79 13 0 84% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles CsASFM 538 538 12 0% 2% 1% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles CsASFM 550 537 12 2% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles CsASFM 526 519 12 1% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles CsASFM 619 600 12 3% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 568 24 5 97% 97% 0% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 518 23 5 97% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 547 22 5 97% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 613 23 5 97% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Rb-86 53 1 0 97% 97% 0% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Rb-86 42 1 0 97% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Rb-86 51 1 0 97% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Rb-86 52 2 0 97% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 640 21 12 99% 98% 0% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 257 16 12 98% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 282 18 12 98% Vacuum Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 254 15 12 99% Vacuum Brick Wall Cs-137 693 16 14 100% 100% 0% Vacuum Brick Wall Cs-137 589 14 14 100% Vacuum Brick Wall Cs-137 643 14 14 100% Vacuum Brick Wall Cs-137 693 11 14 100% Vacuum Brick Wall Rb-86 63 0 0 100% 100% 0% Vacuum Brick Wall Rb-86 66 0 0 100% Vacuum Brick Wall Rb-86 60 0 0 100% Vacuum Brick Wall Rb-86 58 0 0 100% ------- Page B-20 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Vacuum Brick Wall CsASFM 453 437 18 4% 4% 1% Vacuum Brick Wall CsASFM 656 627 18 4% Vacuum Brick Wall CsASFM 836 808 18 3% Vacuum Brick Wall CsASFM 488 474 18 3% Vacuum Brick Wall Cs-137 Lt 435 16 12 99% 99% 0% Vacuum Brick Wall Cs-137 Lt 634 15 12 100% Vacuum Brick Wall Cs-137 Lt 720 16 12 100% Vacuum Brick Wall Cs-137 Lt 474 15 12 99% Vacuum Open Gutter CsASFM 272 208 12 25% 18% 5% Vacuum Open Gutter CsASFM 288 241 12 17% Vacuum Open Gutter CsASFM 195 165 12 16% Vacuum Open Gutter CsASFM 279 244 12 13% Vacuum Open Gutter Cs-137 731 12 9 100% 100% 0% Vacuum Open Gutter Cs-137 710 10 9 100% Vacuum Open Gutter Cs-137 603 10 9 100% Vacuum Open Gutter Cs-137 668 15 9 99% Vacuum Open Gutter Rb-86 81 0 0 100% 100% 0% Vacuum Open Gutter Rb-86 45 0 0 100% Vacuum Open Gutter Rb-86 74 0 0 100% Vacuum Open Gutter Rb-86 98 0 0 100% Vacuum Open Gutter Cs-137 Lt 270 9 8 100% 100% 0% Vacuum Open Gutter Cs-137 Lt 421 9 8 100% Vacuum Open Gutter Cs-137 Lt 371 9 8 100% Vacuum Open Gutter Cs-137 Lt 449 10 8 99% Vacuum Paver Concrete CsASFM 463 447 8 3% 2% 1% Vacuum Paver Concrete CsASFM 356 352 8 1% Vacuum Paver Concrete CsASFM 327 322 8 2% Vacuum Paver Concrete CsASFM 334 323 8 3% Vacuum Paver Concrete Cs-137 610 14 4 98% 99% 0% Vacuum Paver Concrete Cs-137 683 12 4 99% Vacuum Paver Concrete Cs-137 627 8 4 99% Vacuum Paver Concrete Cs-137 667 9 4 99% Vacuum Paver Concrete Rb-86 68 2 0 97% 99% 1% Vacuum Paver Concrete Rb-86 63 1 0 99% Vacuum Paver Concrete Rb-86 82 0 0 100% Vacuum Paver Concrete Rb-86 77 1 0 99% Vacuum Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 308 9 11 101% 100% 1% Vacuum Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 327 14 11 99% Vacuum Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 265 14 11 99% Vacuum Paver Concrete Cs-137 Lt 434 12 11 100% Vacuum Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 423 417 15 2% 1% 2% Vacuum Sidewalk Concrete Cs ASFM 418 411 15 2% Vacuum Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 433 440 15 -2% Vacuum Sidewalk Concrete CsASFM 449 444 15 1% Vacuum Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 627 9 4 99% 99% 0% Vacuum Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 586 11 4 99% Vacuum Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 716 12 4 99% Vacuum Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 704 12 4 99% ------- Page B-21 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Vacuum Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 86 0 0 100% 100% 0% Vacuum Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 110 0 0 100% Vacuum Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 105 1 0 99% Vacuum Sidewalk Concrete Rb-86 94 0 0 100% Vacuum Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 Lt 300 10 13 101% 100% 0% Vacuum Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 Lt 397 13 13 100% Vacuum Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 Lt 333 11 13 100% Vacuum Sidewalk Concrete Cs-137 Lt 346 12 13 100% Vacuum Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 550 9 2 99% 99% 0% Vacuum Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 755 9 2 99% Vacuum Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 490 8 2 99% Vacuum Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 529 8 2 99% Vacuum Stained Wood Deck Rb-86 78 0 0 100% 99% 1% Vacuum Stained Wood Deck Rb-86 88 2 0 98% Vacuum Stained Wood Deck Rb-86 69 0 0 100% Vacuum Stained Wood Deck Rb-86 125 1 0 100% Vacuum Stained Wood Deck CsASFM 386 373 5 4% 2% 1% Vacuum Stained Wood Deck CsASFM 446 441 5 1% Vacuum Stained Wood Deck CsASFM 458 457 5 0% Vacuum Stained Wood Deck CsASFM 466 455 5 2% Vacuum Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 Lt 289 13 7 98% 99% 0% Vacuum Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 Lt 360 11 7 99% Vacuum Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 Lt 368 12 7 99% Vacuum Stained Wood Deck Cs-137 Lt 465 12 7 99% Vacuum Wood Shingles Cs-137 618 13 8 99% 99% 0% Vacuum Wood Shingles Cs-137 578 11 8 99% Vacuum Wood Shingles Cs-137 379 11 8 99% Vacuum Wood Shingles Cs-137 481 12 8 99% Vacuum Wood Shingles Rb-86 63 0 0 99% 99% 1% Vacuum Wood Shingles Rb-86 65 0 0 100% Vacuum Wood Shingles Rb-86 45 0 0 100% Vacuum Wood Shingles Rb-86 42 1 0 98% Vacuum Wood Shingles CsASFM 260 258 11 1% 0% 2% Vacuum Wood Shingles Cs ASFM 256 257 11 0% Vacuum Wood Shingles CsASFM 246 240 11 2% Vacuum Wood Shingles CsASFM 210 216 11 -3% Vacuum Wood Shingles Cs-137 Lt 510 19 10 98% 98% 0% Vacuum Wood Shingles Cs-137 Lt 175 13 10 98% Vacuum Wood Shingles Cs-137 Lt 338 16 10 98% Vacuum Wood Shingles Cs-137 Lt 277 17 10 98% Wet Sponge Aluminum Siding Cs-137 620 55 10 93% 96% 3% Wet Sponge Aluminum Siding Cs-137 607 40 10 95% Wet Sponge Aluminum Siding Cs-137 585 20 10 98% Wet Sponge Aluminum Siding Cs-137 652 17 10 99% Wet Sponge Aluminum Siding Rb-86 54 4 0 93% 96% 3% Wet Sponge Aluminum Siding Rb-86 56 3 0 94% ------- Page B-22 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Wet Sponge Aluminum Siding Rb-86 71 1 0 99% Wet Sponge Aluminum Siding Rb-86 70 1 0 98% Wet Sponge Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 590 337 14 44% 50% 5% Wet Sponge Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 839 441 14 48% Wet Sponge Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 815 368 14 56% Wet Sponge Asphalt Roofing Cs-137 787 392 14 51% Wet Sponge Asphalt Roofing Rb-86 82 27 0 67% 67% 2% Wet Sponge Asphalt Roofing Rb-86 89 32 0 64% Wet Sponge Asphalt Roofing Rb-86 80 25 0 69% Wet Sponge Asphalt Roofing Rb-86 87 29 0 67% Wet Sponge Asphalt Roofing CsASFM 511 449 13 12% 8% 4% Wet Sponge Asphalt Roofing Cs ASFM 272 248 13 9% Wet Sponge Asphalt Roofing CsASFM 344 328 13 5% Wet Sponge Asphalt Roofing CsASFM 291 276 13 5% Wet Sponge Asphalt Shingles CsASFM 261 248 7 5% 4% 1% Wet Sponge Asphalt Shingles CsASFM 229 219 7 5% Wet Sponge Asphalt Shingles CsASFM 277 265 7 5% Wet Sponge Asphalt Shingles CsASFM 284 276 7 3% Wet Sponge Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 615 380 5 39% 27% 9% Wet Sponge Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 599 419 5 30% Wet Sponge Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 580 486 5 16% Wet Sponge Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 535 404 5 25% Wet Sponge Asphalt Shingles Rb-86 57 24 0 57% 47% 8% Wet Sponge Asphalt Shingles Rb-86 51 28 0 44% Wet Sponge Asphalt Shingles Rb-86 59 37 0 38% Wet Sponge Asphalt Shingles Rb-86 55 29 0 48% Wet Sponge Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 444 168 10 64% 61% 3% Wet Sponge Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 597 245 10 60% Wet Sponge Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 483 207 10 58% Wet Sponge Asphalt Shingles Cs-137 Lt 597 222 10 64% Wet Sponge Clay Tiles CsASFM 167 99 3 41% 37% 3% Wet Sponge Clay Tiles CsASFM 201 127 3 37% Wet Sponge Clay Tiles CsASFM 200 127 3 37% Wet Sponge Clay Tiles CsASFM 191 128 3 34% Wet Sponge Clay Tiles Cs-137 432 5 3 99% 100% 0% Wet Sponge Clay Tiles Cs-137 545 6 3 99% Wet Sponge Clay Tiles Cs-137 581 5 3 100% Wet Sponge Clay Tiles Cs-137 594 6 3 99% Wet Sponge Clay Tiles Rb-86 29 O 0 100% 100% 0% Wet Sponge Clay Tiles Rb-86 23 O 0 100% Wet Sponge Clay Tiles Rb-86 30 0 0 100% Wet Sponge Clay Tiles Rb-86 37 0 0 100% Wet Sponge Clay tiles Cs-137 Lt 460 10 10 100% 99% 0% Wet Sponge Clay tiles Cs-137 Lt 652 15 10 99% Wet Sponge Clay tiles Cs-137 Lt 422 14 10 99% Wet Sponge Clay tiles Cs-137 Lt 468 14 10 99% Wet Sponge Composite Fencing Cs-137 651 25 3 97% 96% 1% ------- Page B-23 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Wet Sponge Composite Fencing Cs-137 664 23 3 97% Wet Sponge Composite Fencing Cs-137 513 28 3 95% Wet Sponge Composite Fencing Cs-137 488 32 3 94% Wet Sponge Composite Fencing Rb-86 93 3 0 96% 96% 2% Wet Sponge Composite Fencing Rb-86 115 2 0 98% Wet Sponge Composite Fencing Rb-86 64 4 0 94% Wet Sponge Composite Fencing Rb-86 112 5 0 95% Wet Sponge Composite Fencing Cs ASFM 257 47 4 83% 82% 3% Wet Sponge Composite Fencing CsASFM 248 54 4 80% Wet Sponge Composite Fencing CsASFM 260 40 4 86% Wet Sponge Composite Fencing CsASFM 189 39 4 81% Wet Sponge Composite Fencing Cs-137 Lt 394 68 11 85% 80% 4% Wet Sponge Composite Fencing Cs-137 Lt 326 84 11 77% Wet Sponge Composite Fencing Cs-137 Lt 305 81 11 76% Wet Sponge Composite Fencing Cs-137 Lt 510 106 11 81% Wet Sponge Metal Roofing Cs-137 459 9 4 99% 99% 0% Wet Sponge Metal Roofing Cs-137 521 7 4 99% Wet Sponge Metal Roofing Cs-137 439 8 4 99% Wet Sponge Metal Roofing Cs-137 402 7 4 99% Wet Sponge Metal Roofing Rb-86 76 0 0 100% 100% 0% Wet Sponge Metal Roofing Rb-86 81 1 0 99% Wet Sponge Metal Roofing Rb-86 63 0 0 100% Wet Sponge Metal Roofing Rb-86 57 1 0 99% Wet Sponge Metal Roofing CsASFM 209 10 7 99% 99% 1% Wet Sponge Metal Roofing CsASFM 222 8 7 100% Wet Sponge Metal Roofing CsASFM 222 9 7 99% Wet Sponge Metal Roofing CsASFM 240 8 7 100% Wet Sponge metal roofing Cs-137 Lt 483 14 9 99% 99% 0% Wet Sponge metal roofing Cs-137 Lt 392 12 9 99% Wet Sponge metal roofing Cs-137 Lt 437 14 9 99% Wet Sponge metal roofing Cs-137 Lt 375 14 9 99% Wet Sponge Open Gutter Cs-137 673 15 6 99% 99% 1% Wet Sponge Open Gutter Cs-137 626 7 6 100% Wet Sponge Open Gutter Cs-137 692 7 6 100% Wet Sponge Open Gutter Cs-137 599 9 6 99% Wet Sponge Open Gutter Rb-86 68 1 0 98% 99% 1% Wet Sponge Open Gutter Rb-86 60 1 0 99% Wet Sponge Open Gutter Rb-86 63 0 0 100% Wet Sponge Open Gutter Rb-86 68 0 0 100% Wet Sponge Open Gutter CsASFM 247 25 20 98% 100% 2% Wet Sponge Open Gutter CsASFM 252 24 20 98% Wet Sponge Open Gutter CsASFM 295 17 20 101% Wet Sponge Open Gutter CsASFM 250 16 20 102% Wet Sponge Open Gutter Cs-137 Lt 392 23 13 97% 100% 2% Wet Sponge Open Gutter Cs-137 Lt 303 9 13 101% Wet Sponge Open Gutter Cs-137 Lt 302 9 13 101% Wet Sponge Open Gutter Cs-137 Lt 355 9 13 101% Wet Sponge plastic CsASFM 253 6 4 99% 98% 1% Wet Sponge plastic CsASFM 255 6 4 99% ------- Page B-24 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Wet Sponge plastic CsASFM 287 14 4 97% Wet Sponge plastic CsASFM 273 12 4 97% Wet Sponge plastic Cs-137 617 6 6 100% 100% 0% Wet Sponge plastic Cs-137 550 4 6 100% Wet Sponge plastic Cs-137 646 6 6 100% Wet Sponge plastic Cs-137 633 5 6 100% Wet Sponge plastic Rb-86 49 O 0 100% 100% 0% Wet Sponge plastic Rb-86 61 O 0 100% Wet Sponge plastic Rb-86 57 0 0 100% Wet Sponge plastic Rb-86 60 0 0 100% Wet Sponge Plastic Cs-137 Lt 435 8 7 100% 99% 0% Wet Sponge Plastic Cs-137 Lt 317 8 7 100% Wet Sponge Plastic Cs-137 Lt 394 11 7 99% Wet Sponge Plastic Cs-137 Lt 436 12 7 99% Wet sponge steel siding Cs-137 558 35 11 96% 93% 2% Wet sponge steel siding Cs-137 591 59 11 92% Wet sponge steel siding Cs-137 588 43 11 94% Wet sponge steel siding Cs-137 564 58 11 92% Wet sponge steel siding Rb-86 27 1 0 97% 96% 2% Wet sponge steel siding Rb-86 31 1 0 98% Wet sponge steel siding Rb-86 23 1 0 94% Wet sponge steel siding Rb-86 24 1 0 95% Wet Sponge Stucco CsASFM 646 640 7 1% 2% 1% Wet Sponge Stucco CsASFM 468 459 7 2% Wet Sponge Stucco CsASFM 435 419 7 4% Wet Sponge Stucco CsASFM 470 463 7 2% Wet Sponge Stucco Cs-137 612 77 8 89% 85% 4% Wet Sponge Stucco Cs-137 625 93 8 86% Wet Sponge Stucco Cs-137 533 118 8 79% Wet Sponge Stucco Cs-137 556 90 8 85% Wet Sponge Stucco Rb-86 103 4 0 96% 95% 1% Wet Sponge Stucco Rb-86 108 4 0 96% Wet Sponge Stucco Rb-86 85 5 0 94% Wet Sponge Stucco Rb-86 108 6 0 95% Wet Sponge Stucco Cs-137 Lt 412 45 10 91% 90% 1% Wet Sponge Stucco Cs-137 Lt 443 56 10 89% Wet Sponge Stucco Cs-137 Lt 480 55 10 90% Wet Sponge Stucco Cs-137 Lt 484 58 10 90% Wet Sponge Vinyl Siding Cs-137 422 15 4 97% 94% 4% Wet Sponge Vinyl Siding Cs-137 523 20 4 97% Wet Sponge Vinyl Siding Cs-137 582 39 4 94% Wet Sponge Vinyl Siding Cs-137 541 59 4 90% Wet Sponge Vinyl Siding Rb-86 27 0 0 99% 94% 6% Wet Sponge Vinyl Siding Rb-86 29 0 0 99% Wet Sponge Vinyl Siding Rb-86 38 3 0 93% Wet Sponge Vinyl Siding Rb-86 34 5 0 87% Wet Sponge Vinyl Siding CsASFM 192 17 10 96% 95% 1% Wet Sponge Vinyl Siding CsASFM 186 19 10 95% ------- Page B-25 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R Avg. %R Standard Deviation Wet Sponge Vinyl Siding CsASFM 210 23 10 93% Wet Sponge Vinyl Siding CsASFM 232 22 10 95% Wet Sponge vinyl siding Cs-137 Lt 335 13 9 99% 99% 0% Wet Sponge vinyl siding Cs-137 Lt 320 11 9 99% Wet Sponge vinyl siding Cs-137 Lt 326 10 9 100% Wet Sponge vinyl siding Cs-137 Lt 314 11 9 99% Wet Sponge Window Cs-137 660 7 7 100% 100% 0% Wet Sponge Window Cs-137 619 5 7 100% Wet Sponge Window Cs-137 622 5 7 100% Wet Sponge Window Cs-137 622 6 7 100% Wet Sponge Wndow Rb-86 74 0 0 100% 100% 0% Wet Sponge Window Rb-86 88 0 0 100% Wet Sponge Window Rb-86 76 0 0 99% Wet Sponge Window Rb-86 99 0 0 100% Wet Sponge Window CsASFM 273 20 9 96% 97% 1% Wet Sponge Window CsASFM 302 18 9 97% Wet Sponge Window CsASFM 119 12 9 97% Wet Sponge Window CsASFM 211 15 9 97% Wet Sponge window Cs-137 Lt 344 12 11 100% 100% 0% Wet Sponge window Cs-137 Lt 297 13 11 99% Wet Sponge window Cs-137 Lt 374 11 11 100% Wet Sponge window Cs-137 Lt 407 14 11 99% Wet Sponge Wood Shingles Cs-137 490 117 9 78% 81% 4% Wet Sponge Wood Shingles Cs-137 473 106 9 79% Wet Sponge Wood Shingles Cs-137 596 84 9 87% Wet Sponge Wood Shingles Cs-137 567 117 9 81% Wet Sponge Wood Shingles Rb-86 46 12 0 75% 81% 5% Wet Sponge Wood Shingles Rb-86 53 7 0 86% Wet Sponge Wood Shingles Rb-86 53 8 0 84% Wet Sponge Wood Shingles Rb-86 52 10 0 81% Wet Sponge Wood Shingles CsASFM 259 238 13 8% 10% 2% Wet Sponge Wood Shingles CsASFM 254 222 13 13% Wet Sponge Wood Shingles CsASFM 240 218 13 10% Wet Sponge Wood Shingles CsASFM 209 191 13 9% Wet Sponge wood siding Cs-137 804 25 13 99% 98% 0% Wet Sponge wood siding Cs-137 942 23 13 99% Wet Sponge wood siding Cs-137 888 32 13 98% Wet Sponge wood siding Cs-137 863 29 13 98% Wet Sponge wood siding Rb-86 33 0 0 99% 100% 1% Wet Sponge wood siding Rb-86 50 0 0 100% Wet Sponge wood siding Rb-86 48 0 0 100% Wet Sponge wood siding Rb-86 44 0 0 99% Wet Sponge Wood Siding CsASFM 344 288 11 17% 13% 3% Wet Sponge Wood Siding CsASFM 343 294 11 15% ------- Page B-26 Method Surface Cs-137, Rb- 86. Cs ASFM Cs-137 Lt Pre Decon (cps) Post Decon (cps) Background (cps) %R . n Standard A"9 /"R Deviation Wet Sponge Wood Siding CsASFM 362 321 11 12% Wet Sponge Wood Siding CsASFM 393 355 11 10% ------- 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 ------- |