EPA 600/R-11/086| August 2011 | www.epa.gov/ord
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Technology Evaluation Report
Radiation Decontamination
Solutions, LLC
"Quick Decon" Solutions for
Radiological Decontamination
Office of Research and Development
National Homeland Security Research Center

-------
EPA 600-R-11-086
August 2011
Technology Evaluation Report
Radiation Decontamination
Solutions, LLC
"Quick Decon" Solutions for Radiological
Decontamination

-------
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
technology evaluation through a Blanket Purchase Agreement under General Services
Administration contract number GS23F0011L-3 with Battelle. This report has been peer
and administratively reviewed and has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. 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:
John Drake
National Homeland Security Research Center
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7164
drake.john@epa.gov

-------
Foreword
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) holds responsibilities associated with
homeland security events: EPA is the primary federal agency responsible for
decontamination following a chemical, biological, and/or radiological (CBR) attack. The
National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC) was established to conduct
research and deliver scientific products that improve the capability of the Agency to carry
out these responsibilities.
An important goal of NHSRC's research is to develop and deliver information on
decontamination methods and technologies to clean up CBR contamination. When
directing such a recovery operation, EPA and other stakeholders must identify and
implement decontamination technologies that are appropriate for the given situation. The
NHSRC has created the Technology Testing and Evaluation Program (TTEP) in an effort
to provide reliable information regarding the performance of homeland security related
technologies. Through TTEP, NHSRC provides independent, quality assured
performance information that is useful to decision makers in purchasing or applying the
tested technologies. TTEP provides potential users with unbiased, third-party information
that can supplement vendor-provided information. Stakeholder involvement ensures that
user needs and perspectives are incorporated into the test design so that useful
performance information is produced for each of the tested technologies. The technology
categories of interest include detection and monitoring, water treatment, air purification,
decontamination, and computer modeling tools for use by those responsible for protecting
buildings, drinking water supplies and infrastructure, and for decontaminating structures
and the outdoor environment. Additionally, environmental persistence information is also
important for containment and decontamination decisions.
NHSRC is pleased to make this publication available to assist the response community to
prepare for and recover from disasters involving CBR contamination. This research is
intended to move EPA one step closer to achieving its homeland security goals and its
overall mission of protecting human health and the environment while providing
sustainable solutions to our environmental problems.
Jonathan G. Herrmann, Director
National Homeland Security Research Center
111

-------
Acknowledgments
Contributions of the following individuals and organizations to the development of this document
are gratefully acknowledged.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
John Drake
Emily Snyder
Kathy Hall
Eletha Brady-Roberts
Scott Hudson
Rich Rupert
University of Tennessee
Dr. Howard Hall
United States Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratories
Battelle Memorial Institute
iv

-------
Contents
Disclaimer	ii
Foreword	iii
Acknowledgments	iv
Abbreviations/Acronyms	vii
Executive Summary	ix
1.0 Introduction	1
2.0 Technology Description	3
3.0 Experimental Details	4
3.1	Experiment Preparation	4
3.1.1	Concrete Coupons	4
3.1.2	Coupon Contamination	4
3.1.3	Measurement of Activity on Coupon Surface	5
3.1.4	Surface Construction Using Test Stand	6
3.2	Evaluation Procedures	6
4.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control	8
4.1	Intrinsic Germanium Detector	8
4.2	Audits	9
4.2.1	Performance Evaluation Audit	9
4.2.2	Technical Systems Audit	10
4.2.3	Data Quality Audit	10
4.3	QA/QC Reporting	10
5.0 Evaluation Results	11
5.1	Decontamination Efficacy	11
5.2	Deployment and Operational Factors	12
6.0 Performance Summary	16
6.1	Decontamination Efficacy	16
6.2	Deployment and Operational Factors	16
7.0 References	17
v

-------
Figures
Figure 2-1. RDS Emergency RadDecon Kit containing all three QDS	3
Figure 3-1. Demonstration of contaminant application technique	5
Figure 3-2. Containment tent: outer view (left) and inner view with test stand
containing contaminated coupons (right)	6
Figure 5-1. QDS application and concrete coupons containing QDS-H (top) and QDS-
TM (bottom)	14
Tables
Table 3-1. Characteristics of Portland Cement Clinker Used to Make Concrete
Coupons	4
Table 4-1. Calibration Results - Difference from Th-228 Calibration Energies	8
Table 4-2. NIST-Traceable Eu-152 Activity Standard Check	10
Table 5-1. Decontamination Efficacy Results for the Liquid QDS	12
Table 5-2. Decontamination Efficacy Results for the Foam QDS	12
Table 5-3. Operational Factors Gathered from the Evaluation	15

-------
Abbreviations/Acronyms
ANSI	American National Standards Institute
ASTM	ASTM International
BQ	Becquerel
CBRNIAC	Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense Information
Analysis Center
°C	degrees Celsius
CC	cross-contamination
Cs	Cesium
cm	centimeter
cm2	square centimeter
DARPA	Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DF	decontamination factor
DHS	U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DOD	Department of Defense
EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Eu	Europium
°F	degrees Fahrenheit
IEEE	Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
INL	Idaho National Laboratory
keV	kilo electron volts
mL	milliliter(s)
L	liter
m	meter
m2	square meter
|iCi	microCurie
NHSRC	National Homeland Security Research Center
NIST	National Institute of Standards and Technology
ORD	Office of Research and Development
PE	performance evaluation
PPE	personal protective equipment
%R	percent removal
QA	quality assurance
QC	quality control
QDS	Quick Decon Solutions
QDS-A	Actinide Mass Effect solution
QDS-H	Halogen Mass Effect solution
QDS-TM	Transition Metal Mass Effect solution
QMP	quality management plan
RDS	Radiation Decontamination Solutions, LLC
RH	relative humidity
RDD	radiological dispersion device
RML	Radi ol ogi cal Measurem ent Lab oratory
RSD	relative standard deviation
vii

-------
Th	Thorium
TSA	technical systems audit
TTEP	Technology Testing and Evaluation Program

-------
Executive Summary
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Homeland Security
Research Center (NHSRC) is helping to protect human health and the environment from
adverse impacts resulting from acts of terror by carrying out performance tests on
homeland security technologies. Through it's Technology Testing and Evaluation
Program (TTEP), NHSRC evaluated the Radiation Decontamination Solutions (RDS)
Quick Decon Solutions (QDS) technology applied as a liquid and as a foam for the ability
to remove radioactive cesium (Cs)-137 from the surface of unpainted concrete.
Experimental Procedures. The liquid and foam applications of the QDS technology is
performed using a two-step chemical decontamination process. This process involves the
sequential application and removal of two decontamination solutions, Halogen Mass
Effects (QDS-H) and Transition Metal Mass Effects (QDS-TM), to surfaces being
decontaminated. RDS recommended this two-step chemical decontamination process be
repeated six times. Eight 15 centimeter (cm) x 15 cm unpainted concrete coupons were
contaminated with approximately 1 microCurie (|iCi) of Cs-137 per coupon. The amount
of contamination deposited on each coupon was measured using gamma spectroscopy.
The eight contaminated coupons were placed in a test stand (along with one
uncontaminated blank coupon) that was designed to hold nine concrete coupons in a
vertical orientation to simulate the wall of a building. Four coupons were
decontaminated with a liquid application of QDSs and four with the foam application.
The decontamination efficacy was determined by calculating both a decontamination
factor (DF) and percent removal (%R). Important deployment and operational factors
were also documented and reported.
Results. The decontamination efficacy (in terms of %R) attained for liquid and foam
applications of the QDS was evaluated for each concrete coupon used during the
evaluation. When the decontamination efficacy metrics (%R and DF) of the four
contaminated coupons for each were averaged together, the average %R for liquid QDS
was 53% ± 7% and the average DF was 2.1 ±0.31. The average %R for foam QDS was
51% ± 8%> and the average DF was 2.1 ±0.43.
Both the liquid and foam applications of the QDS were performed using commercially
available plastic spray and foaming bottles scaled for use for the coupons used during this
evaluation. For the liquid application, the concrete coupons were thoroughly wetted with
the first solution (QDS-H) with 3-4 sprays. After a 5-10 second wait, the solution was
wiped off the surface of the concrete with a Rad-wipe. This process was repeated with
the second solution (QDS-TM). This two-step cycle was repeated six times before a final
water rinse and wipe dry. During testing, semi-quantitative measurement of activity was
performed using a radiation dose rate survey meter (RO-20, Eberline-Thermo Scientific,
San Diego, CA) following each application cycle of QDS liquid and foam (on only one
coupon only). The results indicated that no additional decrease in activity occurred
following the second application of the liquid and the third application of the foam.
IX

-------
The Rad-wipe waste generated through use of the QDS was estimated to be
approximately 5 liters (L)/ square meter (m2). As used for this evaluation, no utilities
were required. Scaled up applications in remote locations may require additional
equipment such as firetruck mounted or other large scale sprayer equipment to provide
means for sprayer or foamer application and larger scale removal techniques. Minimal
training would be required for technicians using the QDS, and the surface of the concrete
was not visibly damaged during use of the liquid or foam application of the QDS.
x

-------
1.0 Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) National Homeland
Security Research Center (NHSRC) is
helping to protect human health and the
environment from adverse effects
resulting from acts of terror. NHSRC is
emphasizing decontamination and
consequence management, water
infrastructure protection, and threat and
consequence assessment. In doing so,
NHRSC is working to develop tools and
information that will improve the ability
of operational personnel to detect the
intentional introduction of chemical,
biological, or radiological contaminants
on or into buildings or water systems, to
contain or mitigate these contaminants,
to decontaminate affected buildings
and/or water systems, and to dispose of
contaminated materials resulting from
cleanups.
NHSRC's Technology Testing and
Evaluation Program (TTEP) works in
partnership with recognized testing
organizations; stakeholder groups
consisting of buyers, vendor
organizations, and permitters; and
through the participation of individual
technology developers in carrying out
performance tests on homeland security
technologies. The program evaluates the
performance of homeland security
technologies by developing evaluation
plans that are responsive to the needs of
stakeholders, conducting tests, collecting
and analyzing data, and preparing peer-
reviewed reports. All evaluations are
conducted in accordance with rigorous
quality assurance (QA) protocols to
ensure that data of known and high
quality are generated and that the results
are defensible. Through TTEP, NHSRC
provides high-quality information that is
useful to decision makers in purchasing
or applying the evaluated technologies,
and in planning cleanup operations. The
evaluations generated through TTEP
provide potential users with unbiased,
third-party information that can
supplement vendor-provided
information. Stakeholder involvement
ensures that user needs and perspectives
are incorporated into the evaluation
design so that useful performance
information is produced for each of the
evaluated technologies.
Through TTEP, NHSRC evaluated the
performance of liquid and foam
application of the Quick Decon
Solutions (QDS) from Radiation
Decontamination Solutions (RDS)
(Oldsmar, FL), in removing radioactive
isotope cesium (Cs)-137 from concrete.
A peer-reviewed test/QA plan was
followed, entitled "The Performance of
Selected Radiological Decontamination
Processes on Urban Substrates", Version
1.0, Amendment 1 dated July 14, 2010.
This document will be referred to as the
test/QA plan and was developed
according to the requirements of the
Quality Management Plan (QMP) for the
Technology Testing and Evaluation
Program, Version 3.0 dated January
2008. The evaluation generated the
following performance information:
• Decontamination efficacy,
defined as the extent of
radionuclide removal following
use of the QDS, and the
possibility of cross-
contamination (CC)
1

-------
• Deployment and operational
factors, including the
approximate rate of surface area
decontamination, applicability to
irregular surfaces, skilled labor
requirement, utility requirements,
portability, secondary waste
management, and technology
cost.
The evaluation of the QDS took place
October 28, 2010, with the pre-
evaluation activity measurements
occurring in September 2010 and the
post-evaluation activity measurements
occurring in early November 2010. All
of the experimental work took place in a
radiological contamination area at the
U.S. Department of Energy's Idaho
National Laboratory (INL). This report
describes the quantitative results and
qualitative observations gathered during
the evaluation of the QDS. The
contractor and EPA were responsible for
QA oversight. A technical systems audit
(TSA) was conducted during the
evaluation as well as a data quality audit
of the evaluation data.
2

-------
2.0 Technc
This technology evaluation report
provides results on the performance of
QDS liquid and foam under controlled
conditions. The following description of
the QDS is based on information
provided by the vendor and was not
verified during this evaluation.
The QDSs, applied either as a liquid or a
foam, functions by way of a "mass
effect" influence. The solutions are
designed to draw the radioactive
material from the contaminated surfaces
(porous, nonporous, sensitive surfaces
such as human skin), suspend the
radionuclide in solution where it can
easily be wiped up (rinse followed by
vacuuming or effluent collection are
alternate approaches) and removed as
low level radioactive waste. Each QDS
is specially prepared to address a
specific chemical group (i.e., they are
ion-specific): The Halogen Mass Effect
solution (QDS-H) is for decontamination
of halogen-containing (iodine, fluorine,
and chlorine) contaminants; the
Transition Metal Mass Effect solution
(QDS-TM) is for decontamination of
contaminants containing transition
metals such as cesium, cobalt, strontium,
and thallium; and the Actinide Mass
Effect solution (QDS-A) is for
decontamination of actinides. In
situations with unknown contaminants,
all three solutions would be
recommended in the above sequence.
The application method is the spray on
and wipe off of each solution (repeated
until adequate removal is attained). The
solutions are water-based and
environmentally friendly. The product
can be foamed and concentrated for
adaptability to existing shower systems
and municipal fire foaming equipment.
Figure 2-1 shows the contents of the
RDS Emergency RadDecon Kit which
includes the QDSs in spray bottles,
wipes (the same wipes used during this
evaluation) plastic gloves, instructions
for use, and disposal bags. RDS has the
QDS available in bulk solutions or
concentrates. More information is
available at www.raddecon.com.
Figure 2-1. RDS Emergency RadDecon Kit containing all three QDS.
3

-------
3.0 Experimental Details
3.1 Experiment Preparation
3.1.1 Concrete Coupons
The concrete coupons were prepared
from a single batch of concrete made
from Type II Portland cement. The
ready-mix company (Burns Brothers
Redi-Mix, Idaho Falls, ID) that supplied
the concrete for this evaluation provided
the data which describe the cement
clinker used in the concrete mix. For
Type II Portland cement, the ASTM
International (ASTM) Standard C 150-71
specifies that tricalcium aluminate
accounts for less than 8% of the overall
cement clinker (by weight). The cement
clinker used for the concrete coupons
was 4.5% tricalcium aluminate (Table 3-
1). For Type I Portland cement the
tricalcium aluminate content should be
less than 15%. Because Type I and II
Portland cements differ only in
tricalcium aluminate content, the cement
used during this evaluation meets the
specifications for both Type I and II
Portland cements. The apparent porosity
of the concrete from the prepared
coupons ranged from 15-30%).
Table 3-1. Characteristics of Portland Cement Clinker
	Used to Make Concrete Coupons	
	Cement Constituent	Percent of Mixture
Tricalcium Silicate	57.6
Dicalcium Silicate	21.1
Tricalcium Aluminate	4.5
Tetracalcium Aluminoferrite	8.7
Minor Constituents	8.1
The concrete was representative of
exterior concrete commonly found in
urban environments in the United States
as shown by INL under a previous
project entitled, "Radionuclide Detection
and Decontamination Program. Broad
Agency Announcement 03-013"
sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Defense (DOD), Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). The wet concrete was poured
into 0.9 meter (m) square plywood forms
with the exposed surface "floated" to
allow the smaller aggregate and cement
paste to float to the top, and the concrete
was then cured for 21 days. Following
curing, the squares were cut to the
desired size with a laser-guided rock
saw. For this evaluation, the "floated"
surface of the concrete coupons was
used. The coupons were approximately
4 centimeters (cm) thick, 15 cm x 15 cm
square, and had a surface finish that was
consistent across all the coupons.
3.1.2 Coupon Contamination
Eight coupons were contaminated by
spiking individually with 2.5 milliliters
(mL) of aqueous solution that contained
0.4 microCurie (|iCi)/mL Cs-137 as a
solution of cesium
4

-------
chloride, which corresponded to an
activity level of approximately 1 jaCi
over the 225 square centimeters (cm2)
surface. Application of the Cs-137 in an
aqueous solution was justified because
even if Cs-137 were dispersed in a
particle form following a radiological
dispersion device (RDD) or "dirty
bomb" event, morning dew or rainfall
would likely occur before the surfaces
could be decontaminated. In addition,
from an experimental standpoint, it is
much easier to apply liquids, rather than
particles, homogeneously across the
surface of the concrete coupons. The
liquid spike was delivered to each
coupon using an aerosolization
technique developed by INL (under a
DARPA/DHS project).
The aerosol delivery device was
constructed of two syringes. The
plunger and needle were removed from
the first syringe and discarded. Then a
compressed air line was attached to the
rear of the syringe. The second syringe
contained the contaminant solution and
was equipped with a 27 gauge needle,
which penetrated through the plastic
housing near the tip of the first syringe.
Compressed air flowing at a rate of
approximately 1 - 2 liter (L) per minute
created a turbulent flow through the first
syringe. When the contaminant solution
in the second syringe was introduced,
the contaminant solution became
nebulized by the turbulent air flow. A
fine aerosol was ejected from the tip of
the first syringe, creating a controlled
and uniform spray of fine li qui d droplets
onto the coupon surface. The
contaminant spray was applied all the
way to the edges of the coupon, which
were taped (after having previously been
sealed with polyester resin) to ensure
that the contaminant was applied only to
the surfaces of the coupons. The
photographs in Figure 3-1 show this
procedure being performed using a
nonradioactive, nonhazardous aqueous
dye to demonstrate that the 2.5 mL of
contaminant solution is effectively
distributed across the surface of the
coupon.
Figure 3-1. Demonstration of contaminant application technique.
3.1.3 Measurement of Activity on
Coupon Surface
Gamma radiation from the surface of
each concrete coupon was measured to
quantify contamination levels both
before and after evaluation of the QDS.
These measurements were made using
an intrinsic high purity germanium
detector (Canberra LEGe Model GL
2825R/S, Meriden, CT). After being
placed in the detector, each coupon was
measured until the average activity level
of Cs-137 from the surface stabilized to
a relative standard
5

-------
Figure 3-2. Containment tent: outer view (left) and inner view with test stand
containing contaminated coupons with numbered coupon positions (right).
deviation (RSD) of less than 2%.
Gamma-ray spectra acquired from Cs-
137 contaminated coupons were
analyzed using JNL Radiological
Measurement Laboratory (RML) data
acquisition and spectral analysis
programs. Radionuclide activities on
coupons were calculated based on
efficiency, emission probability, and
half-life values. Decay corrections were
made based on the date and the duration
of the counting period. Full RML
gamma counting QA/quality control
(QC), as described in the test/QA plan,
was employed and certified results were
provided.
3.1.4 Surface Construction Using Test
Stand
To evaluate the decontamination
technologies on vertical surfaces
(simulating walls), a stainless steel test
stand that held three rows of three
concrete coupons was used. The test
stand, approximately 2.7 m x 2.7 m, was
erected within a containment tent. The
concrete coupons were placed into
holders so their surfaces extended just
beyond the surface of the stainless steel
face of the test stand. Eight of the nine
coupons placed in the test stand were
contaminated with Cs-137, which has a
half-life of 30 years. One
uncontaminated coupon was placed in
the bottom row of the test stand (position
8) and decontaminated in the same way
as the other coupons. This coupon,
referred to as the CC blank, was placed
there to observe possible CC caused by
the decontamination higher on the wall.
Figure 3-2 shows the containment tent
and the test stand loaded with the
concrete coupons.
3.2 Evaluation Procedures
The eight concrete coupons in the test
stand which had been contaminated
approximately one month before were
decontaminated using liquid and foam
applications of the QDS. The liquid
QDS was applied to the coupons in
positions 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 (blank coupon)
and simultaneously foam QDS was used
on the coupons in positions 3, 5, 6, and
9. Both the liquid and foam applications
of the QDSs were applied starting with
the higher wall surfaces because of the
possibility of secondary contamination
lower on the wall. Both solutions were
6

-------
applied to the coupons because RDS
testing had indicated increased efficacy
for decontaminating Cs-137 using this
combination. In the case of an unknown
contaminant, all three QDS solutions
would be used.
The liquid and foam applications of the
QDS were made using plastic spray and
foaming bottles (32 oz. Heavy Duty
Spray Bottle, Rubbermaid Professional,
Atlanta, GA and Equate Foaming Hand
Soap bottle [cleaned], Wal-Mart,
Bentonville, AR). Regardless of
whether liquid or foam applicators were
used, the application included two
solutions, QDS-H and QDS-TM, and the
same procedure was used. First, QDS-H
was applied to the surface with the spray
or foaming bottles. The spray was
applied to the whole surface while the
foam was applied and then spread over
the entire surface of each coupon with a
plastic trowel. After a 5-10 second wait,
the liquid or foam was removed by
wiping with a RDS provided Rad-wipe
(BH 92910, 8 inch x 9 inch BIO-
SCREEN® BIO-HAZARD WIPES,
Current Technologies, Crawfordsville,
IN). Then, the same procedure was
performed again using the QDS-TM.
This two-step application was repeated
five additional times. Altogether, the
liquid application and removal took
between one and three minutes per
concrete coupon and the foam
application took between three and five
minutes.
The overall decontamination method for
QDS spray and foam included:
1.	Apply spray or foam QDS-H
solution
2.	Wait 5 - 10 seconds
3.	Remove spray or foam QDS-H
solution with Rad-wipe
4.	Apply spray or foam QDS-TM
solution
5.	Wait 5 - 10 seconds
6.	Remove QDS-TM with Rad-
wipe
7.	Repeat steps 1-6 five additional
times
8.	Rinse with water (with spray
bottle) and remove with Rad-
wipe.
The temperature and relative humidity
(RH) were recorded at the start and
finish. The temperature and relative
humidity was 21 °C (70 °F) and 20% at
the start and 19 °C (66 °F) and 16% at
the finish. According to the vendor,
these conditions were acceptable for use
of the QDSs.
7

-------
4.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
QA/QC procedures were performed in
accordance with the program QMP and
the test/QA plan for this evaluation.
4.1 Intrinsic Germanium Detector
The germanium detector was calibrated
weekly during the overall project. The
calibration was performed in accordance
with standardized procedures from the
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) and the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). In
brief, detector energy was calibrated
using thorium (Th)-228 daughter gamma
rays at 238.6, 583.2, 860.6, 1620.7, and
2614.5 kilo electron volts (keV). Table
4-1 gives the calibration results across
the duration of the project. Each row
gives the difference between the known
energy levels and those measured
following calibration (rolling average
across the six most recent calibrations).
Pre-contamination measurements were
performed in late September and the
post-contamination results were
measured in late November. Each row
represents a six week rolling average of
calibration results. In addition, the
energies were compared to the previous
30 calibrations to confirm that the results
were within three standard deviations of
the previous calibration results. All the
calibrations fell within this requirement.
Table 4-1. Calibration Results - Difference from Th-228 Calibration Energies
	Calibration Energy Levels (keV)	
Date Range Energy 1 Energy 2 Energy 3 Energy 4 Energy 5
(2010) 238.632 583.191 860.564 1620.735 2614.533
9-27	to 11-2 -0.003 0.010	-0.039 -0.121 0.017
10-5	to 11-8 -0.003 0.011	-0.029 -0.206 0.023
10-12 to 11-16 -0.004 0.015	-0.040 -0.245 0.031
10-19 to 11-24 -0.005 0.014	-0.001 -0.320 0.043
Gamma ray counting was continued on
each coupon until the activity level of
Cs-137 on the surface had a relative
standard deviation (RSD) of less than
2%. This RSD was achieved during the
first hour of counting for all the coupons
measured during this evaluation. The
final activity assigned to each coupon
was a compilation of information
obtained from all components of the
electronic assemblage that comprises the
"gamma counter," including the raw data
and the spectral analysis described in
Section 3.1.3. Final spectra and all data
that comprise the spectra were sent to a
data analyst who independently
confirmed the "activity" number arrived
at by the spectroscopist. When both the
spectroscopist and an expert data analyst
independently arrived at the same value
the data were considered certified. This
process defines the full gamma counting
QA process for certified results.
The background activity of the concrete
coupons was determined by analyzing
four arbitrarily selected coupons from
the stock of concrete coupons used for
8

-------
this evaluation. The ambient activity
level of these coupons was measured for
at least two hours. No activity was
detected above the minimum detectable
level of 2x10~4 |iCi on these coupons.
Because the background activity was not
detectable (and the detectable level was
more than 2,500 times lower than the
post-decontamination activity levels), no
background subtraction was required.
Throughout the evaluation, a second
measurement was taken on five coupons
in order to provide duplicate
measurements to evaluate the
repeatability of the instrument. Three of
the duplicate measurements were
performed after contamination prior to
application of the decontamination
technology and two were performed
after decontamination. All five of the
duplicate pairs showed difference in
activity levels of 2% or less, within the
acceptable difference of 5%.
4.2 Audits
4.2.1 Performance Evaluation Audit
RML performed regular checks of the
accuracy of the Th-228 daughter
calibration standards (during the time
when the detector was in use) by
measuring the activity of a National
Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST)-traceable europium (Eu)-152
standard (in units of Becquerel, BQ) and
comparing it to the accepted NIST value.
Results within 7% of the NIST value are
considered (according to RML internal
quality control procedures) to be within
acceptable limits. The Eu-152 activity
comparison is a routine QC activity
performed by INL, but for the purposes
of this evaluation serves as the
performance evaluation (PE) audit. This
audit confirms the accuracy of the
calibration of the germanium detector
instrumentation critical to the results of
the evaluation. Table 4-2 gives the
results of each of the audits applicable to
the duration of the evaluation including
the pre-decontamination measurements
performed in late September. All results
are below the acceptable difference of
7%.
9

-------
Table 4-2. NIST-Traceable Eu-152 Activity Standard Check	
NIST Activity INL RML Relative Percent
Date	(BQ)	Result (BQ)	Difference
9-15-201	0	124,600	122,000	2%
10-13-201	0	124,600	123,100	1%
11-10-201	0	124,600	121,600	2%
4.2.2	Technical Systems Audit
A TSA was conducted during testing at
INL to ensure that the evaluation was
performed in accordance with the
test/QA plan. As part of the audit, the
actual evaluation procedures were
compared with those specified in the
test/QA plan and the data acquisition and
handling procedures were reviewed. No
significant adverse findings were noted
in this audit. The records concerning the
TSA are stored indefinitely with the
Contractor QA Manager.
4.2.3	Data Quality Audit
At least 10% of the raw data acquired
during the evaluation and transcribed
into spreadsheets for use in the final
report was verified by the QA manager.
The data were traced from the initial raw
data collection, through reduction and
statistical analysis, to final reporting, to
ensure the integrity of the reported
results.
4.3 QA/QC Reporting
Each assessment and audit was
documented in accordance with the
test/QA plan. Draft assessment reports
were prepared and sent to the Test
Coordinator and Program Manager for
review and approval. Final assessment
reports were then sent to the EPA QA
Manager and contractor staff.
10

-------
5.0 Evaluation Results
5.1 Decontamination Efficacy
The decontamination efficacy of the
QDSs was measured for each
contaminated coupon in terms of percent
removal (%R) and decontamination
factor (DF). Both of these provide a
means of representing the extent of
decontamination accomplished by a
technology. The %R gives the extent as
a percent relative to the activity and the
DF is the ratio of the initial activity to
the final activity or the factor by which
the activity was decreased. These terms
are defined by the following equations:
%R = (1-Af/Ao) x 100%
DF = Ao/Af
where, A0 is the radiological activity
from the surface of the coupon before
application of QDS and Af is
radiological activity from the surface of
the coupon after treatment. While the
DFs are reported, the narrative
describing the results focuses on the %R.
Tables 5-1 and 5-2 give the %R and DF
for the liquid and foam applications of
the QDS, respectively. All coupons
were oriented vertically. The target
activity for each of the contaminated
coupons (pre-decontamination) was
within the acceptable range of 1 |iCi ±
0.5 |iCi. The overall average (plus or
minus one standard deviation) of the
contaminated coupons was 1.10 |iCi ±
0.028 |iCi and 1.0 |iCi ±0.11 |iCi for the
coupons used for liquid and foam QDS,
respectively. The post-decontamination
coupon activities were less than the pre-
decontamination activities showing an
overall reduction in activity for both
QDS applications. For the liquid QDS
application, the %R averaged 53% ± 7%
and the DF averaged 2.1 ±0.31.
Overall, the %R ranged from 43% to
59% and the DF ranged from 1.8 to 2.5.
For the foam QDS application, the %R
averaged 51 ± 8% and the DF averaged
2.1 ± 0.43. Overall, the %R ranged from
46% to 63% and the DF ranged from 1.9
to 2.7. Each set of four coupons had one
coupon (liquid-bottom left, foam-top
right) that appeared to be a slight outlier
compared to the other three coupons.
There was no explanation for these
results. A t-test was performed on the
two data sets in order to determine the
likelihood of generating the observed
%R data if the data sets were not
different. Based on this test, the liquid
QDS and the foam QDS were not
considered to be significantly different
from one another, with a 95%
confidence interval.
11

-------
Table 5-1. Decontamination Efficacy Results for the Liquid QDS
Coupon




Location in
Pre-Decon Activity
Post-Decon Activity


Test Stand
(jiCi / Coupon)
(jiCi / Coupon)
%R
DF
Top left
1.09
0.44
59%
2.5
Top middle
1.12
0.55
51%
2.0
Center left
1.07
0.46
57%
2.3
Bottom left
1.13
0.64
43%
1.8
Average
1.10
0.52
53%
2.1
Std. Dev
0.028
0.09
7%
0.31
Table 5-2. Decontamination Efficacy Results for the Foam QDS
Coupon




Location in
Pre-Decon Activity
Post-Decon Activity


Test Stand
(jiCi / Coupon)
(jiCi / Coupon)
%R
DF
Top right
1.10
0.40
63%
2.7
Center middle
1.11
0.57
49%
2.0
Center right
0.98
0.53
46%
1.9
Bottom right
0.88
0.47
46%
1.9
Average
1.0
0.49
51%
2.1
Std. Dev
0.11
0.07
8%
0.43
As described above in Section 3.1, the
CC blank was included in the test stand
to evaluate the potential for CC due to
application of the liquid and foam QDS
on wall locations above the placement of
the uncontaminated coupon. In the case
of this evaluation, foam QDS was
applied to the contaminated coupon in
the center middle position. Liquid QDS
was then applied to the CC blank using
the same method as for the other
coupons. After decontamination, the
activity of the CC blank was found to be
0.00082 |iCi. This value was two times
greater than the minimum detectable
level, but more than 500 times less than
the post-decontamination activities of
the contaminated coupons. Therefore,
this detectable result suggested that
cross-contamination resulting from the
application/ removal of the QDS on
coupons located above the CC blank is
possible, but that the extent of CC
observed here was minimal.
5.2 Deployment and Operational
Factors
A number of operational factors were
documented by the technician who
performed the testing with the QDS.
One of the factors was the degree of
difficulty in application. The application
of the liquid and foam QDS was
described in Section 3.2 and included
use of plastic spray and foaming bottles.
Application of the liquid QDS to each
coupon took approximately 5-10
seconds while application of the foam
QDS took slightly longer (approximately
20-30 seconds) because of the need to
spread the foam across the coupon.
After a 5 - 10 second wait, the liquid or
foam (depending on the coupon) was
removed from the coupons with a Rad-
wipe in less than 10 seconds. This very
12

-------
simple procedure was repeated five
additional times with water rinse and
wipe removal as the final step. While
the procedure was very straightforward,
the technician who performed the testing
noted that the repetition of spraying and
wiping on the same coupon became
somewhat cumbersome. During testing,
semi-quantitative measurement of
activity was performed using a radiation
dose rate survey meter (RO-20,
Eberline-Thermo Scientific, San Diego,
CA) following each application cycle of
QDS liquid and foam (on only one
coupon only). The results indicated that
no additional decrease in activity
occurred following the second
application of the liquid and the third
application of the foam.
The elapsed time for the coupons
decontaminated with both liquid QDS
ranged from one to three minutes and
from three to six minutes for both foam
QDS applications. These application
and removal times are applicable only to
the experimental scenario including
these rather small concrete coupons.
According to RDS, if the QDS were
applied to larger surfaces, larger
application and removal tools such as
larger sprayers or foamers (e.g., firetruck
mounted, robotic, or aircraft deicing
spraying equipment) and large scale
rinsing or vacuum removal system (in
lieu of Rad-wipes) could be used.
Neither the liquid nor foam QDS caused
any visible damage to the surface of the
coupons. Figure 5-1 shows a
photograph of the plastic bottles used for
application and the QDS-TM (yellow)
foams on a concrete coupon. The QDS-
H was similar, but white in color. The
personal protective equipment (PPE)
used by the technician in the picture was
required because the work was
performed in a radiological
contamination area using Cs-137 on the
concrete coupon surfaces. Whenever
radioactive contaminated material is
handled, anti-contamination PPE will be
required and any waste will be
considered low level radioactive waste
(and will need to be disposed of
accordingly). The required PPE was not
driven by the use of the QD solutions
(which are not hazardous), rather the
interaction with surfaces contaminated
with Cs-137.
13

-------
Figure 5-1. QDS foam application (left) and concrete coupons containing QDS-TM
(right).
Table 5-3 summarizes qualitative and quantitative practical information gained by the
operator during the evaluation of the QDS, All of the operational information was
gathered during use of the QDS on the concrete coupons inserted into the test stand.
Some of the information given in Table 5-3 could differ if the liquid and foam QDS were
applied to a larger surface or to a surface that was smoother or more rough and jagged
than the concrete coupons used during this evaluation.
14

-------
Table 5-3. Operational Factors Gathered from the Evaluation
Parameter
Description/Information
Decontamination
rate
Technology Preparation: No preparation was required as the QDS-H and QDS-
TM solutions are provided ready to use.
Application: Liquid was applied in 5-10 seconds with 2-4 squeezes of the spray
bottle. Foam took 20-30 seconds because it was smoothed across the surface of
the coupon with a plastic trowel. Liquid and foam then removed by wiping.
Requires six iterations of above described application with QDS-H and QDS-TM.
Required 3-6 minutes for each 225 cm2 concrete coupon corresponding to a
decontamination rate of 0.225 to 0.45 m2/hr.
Estimated volumes used for all the concrete coupons included 470 mL of QDS-H,
300 mL of QDS-TM as liquids and 150 mL of each solution as a foam. Overall
that corresponding to 3 L/m2 for QDS-H and 2 L/m2 for QDS-TM.
Applicability to
irregular surfaces
Application to irregular surfaces would not seem to be problematic as the QDS are
sprayed or spread into hard to reach locations.
Skilled labor
requirement
Adequate training would likely include a few minutes of orientation so the
technician is familiar with the application technique. Larger surfaces may required
more complex equipment such as spray or foam application.
Utilities
requirement
As evaluated here, no utilities were required.
Extent of portability
At a scale similar to that used for this evaluation, there would not be any
limitation to portability. However, for larger scale applications, limiting factors
would include the ability to apply the QDS at an adequate scale and remove with
an approach more efficient than hand wiping. RDS indicated that use with higher
volume application tools such as fire truck mounted, robotic, or aircraft deicing
equipment would be feasible.
Secondary waste
management
1 L of liquid was applied to the concrete coupons used during this evaluation.
That volume corresponds to a waste generation rate of approximately 5 L/m2 and
2000-3000 cm3 of Rad-wipe waste. Because Cs-137 was used fortius testing, all
waste (liquid and Rad-wipes) was disposed of as low level radioactive waste.
Surface damage
Concrete surfaces appeared undamaged.
Cost (material only)
The material cost was approximately $50 per liter for each QDS which
corresponds to $250/m2 if used in a similar way as used during this evaluation.
Labor costs were not calculated.
15

-------
6.0 Perfori
This section presents the findings from
the evaluation of the liquid and foam
applications of the QDS for each
performance parameter evaluated.
6.1	Decontamination Efficacy
The decontamination efficacy (in terms
of %R) attained for liquid and foam
applications of the QDS was evaluated
for each concrete coupon used during the
evaluation. When the decontamination
efficacy metrics (%R and DF) of the
eight contaminated coupons were
averaged together, the average %R for
liquid QDS was 53% ± 7% and the
average DF was 2.1 ±0.31. The average
%R for foam QDS was 51% + 8% and
the average DF was 2.1 ± 0.43.
6.2	Deployment and Operational
Factors
Both the liquid and foam applications of
the QDS were performed using a plastic
spray and foaming bottles. For the
liquid application, the concrete coupons
were thoroughly wetted with the first
QDS (QDS-H) with 3-4 sprays. After a
5-10 second wait, the solution was
wiped off the surface of the concrete
with a Rad-wipe. This process was
repeated with the second solution (QDS-
TM). This two-step process was
repeated six times before a final water
rinse and wipe dry. For each 225 cm
i Summary
concrete coupon, the liquid application
took 1-3 minutes and for the foam
application, 3-6 minutes.
The waste generated through use of the
QDS was estimated to be approximately
5 L/m2 As used for this evaluation, no
utilities were required. Scaled up
applications in remote locations may
require additional equipment such as a
fire truck mounted or other large scale
sprayer equipment to provide means for
spray or foam application and larger
scale removal techniques. Minimal
training would be required for
technicians using the QDS, and the
surface of the concrete was not visibly
damaged during use of the liquid or
foam application of the QDS. The
material cost was approximately $50 per
liter for each QDS which corresponds to
$250/m if used in a similar way as used
during this evaluation. Labor and waste
management costs would be dependent
on the particular physical characteristics
of the area being decontaminated and so
were not calculated.
It should be noted that the test results
indicated that no additional decrease in
activity occurred following the second
application of the liquid and the third
application of the foam.
16

-------
7.0 References
1. ASTM Standard C 150-07,
"Standard Specification for Portland
Cement." ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
2007.
2. Calibration and Use of Germanium
Spectrometers for the Measurement
of Gamma Emission Rates of
Radionuclides. American National
Standards Institute. ANSIN42.14-
1999. IEEE New York, NY (Rev.
2004).
17

-------
SEPA
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

-------