Radiological Decontamination – Outdoor Residential Query Results
Please Note: The page you are viewing is intended for internal use in supporting EPA’s Radiological Decontamination Query Tool. It is not intended to provide information to users of the query.
Please note: The web page you are viewing requires JavaScript. If you are unable to use the query on this web page, the information can also be found in the published PDF version of the Evaluation Report. In addition, due to the complexity of some tables and graphics, some of our products are not amenable to a screen reader.
If you have trouble accessing information contact Amelia McCall (McCall.Amelia@epa.gov) and alternative accommodations will be made.
The information provided in the outdoor residential decontamination report includes information on simple methods citizens can use as guidance to assist in decontaminating outdoor residential surfaces after a radiological contamination incident.
Ten outdoor cleaning activities were tested, based on ease of use and availability, to evaluate decontamination of both wet and dry contamination.
Twenty common outdoor surfaces (including roofing material, siding, and hardscape surfaces) were chosen for the tests, based on prevalence and the cost and inconvenience associated with their removal and replacement.
Disclaimer: The information provided through this query represents information that is currently available in the published U.S. EPA Evaluation Report. Links and citations are provided for the full content of the report, along with the corresponding query results. Mention of trade names, products, or services does not convey EPA approval, endorsement or recommendation.
- Acronyms and Abbreviations
- Definitions
- Decontamination Technologies and Outdoor Surfaces Tested (PDF) (1 pg, 105 KB)
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Aluminum siding: Textured Gray Aluminum Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt drive: Used parking lot asphalt |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt roofing: Shasta White Rolled Roofing |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt shingles: Royal Sovereign Charcoal 3-Tab Shingles |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Brick pavers: Clay Brick Flats (Alamo Sunrise) |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Child's plastic outdoor slide: Child's plastic outdoor slide |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Clay tiles: Spanish Field Tile |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Composite fence: Enhance 8-ft Saddle Composite Deck Board |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete pavers: Square Gray Patio Stone |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete siding: Concrete siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Gutter: K-Style White Aluminum |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Metal roofing: Classic Rib Steel Roof Panel |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Sidewalk concrete: Quikrete |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stained wood deck: Prime Ground Contact Pressure-Treated Lumber, with Cedar Naturaltone Semi-Transparent Stain and Sealer |
| Description: | Biodegradable Deck Cleaner: Sprayed deck wash on particles and then used damp sponge to wipe surface. Repeated until visibly clean or until no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 47% ± 12% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 100% ± 1% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 99% ± 1% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | No information provided in report |
| Efficacy Observations: | No information provided in report |
| Operational Summary: | Only used on stained wood decking. Sprayed deck wash on contaminated surfaces, let sit for 5 minutes, then rinsed with damp sponge. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | No information provided in report |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity on gloves, rest on sponges ASFM: on sponges |
| Waste Stream: | SFM: Often 5% activity on gloves; the remaining activity was on the sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges |
| Waste Summary: | No information provided in report |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Steel siding: Beige Steel Siding, |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stucco: Rapid Set Stucco Mix |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Vinyl siding: Khaki Vinyl Dutch Lap Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Window: V1000 Single Hung Thermostar |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood shingles: Red Cedar Shake |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Deck Wash |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood siding: Smooth Log Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Aluminum siding: Textured Gray Aluminum Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt drive: Used parking lot asphalt |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt roofing: Shasta White Rolled Roofing |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt shingles: Royal Sovereign Charcoal 3-Tab Shingles |
| Description: | Precision Angle Kitchen broom: Swept particles into a pile on surface and used vacuum for disposal. 9-10 inch kitchen broom. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; surfaces were broomed in both directions until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 1% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 23% ± 6% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 22% ± 8% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 25% ± 3% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 168 |
| 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. |
| Operational Summary: | 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 afterbrooming, even if % Removal is >75. - No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | <$20 per 1 person day (if one broom can be used across locations) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Almost no activity transferred to gloves, >99% on broom head ASFM: No activity measured. |
| Waste Stream: | Background activity on gloves and handle, at times activity on broom head |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and broom (10 - 70 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Brick pavers: Clay Brick Flats (Alamo Sunrise) |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Child's plastic outdoor slide: Child's plastic outdoor slide |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Clay tiles: Spanish Field Tile |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Composite fence: Enhance 8-ft Saddle Composite Deck Board |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete pavers: Square Gray Patio Stone |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete siding: Concrete siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Gutter: K-Style White Aluminum |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Metal roofing: Classic Rib Steel Roof Panel |
| Description: | Precision Angle Kitchen broom: Swept particles into a pile on surface and used vacuum for disposal. 9-10 inch kitchen broom. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; surfaces were broomed in both directions until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 42% ± 4% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: >100% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 100% ± 0% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 98% ± 1% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 168 |
| 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. |
| Operational Summary: | 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 afterbrooming, even if % Removal is >75. - No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | <$20 per 1 person day (if one broom can be used across locations) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Almost no activity transferred to gloves, >99% on broom head ASFM: No activity measured. |
| Waste Stream: | Background activity on gloves and handle, at times activity on broom head |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and broom (10 - 70 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Sidewalk concrete: Quikrete |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stained wood deck: Prime Ground Contact Pressure-Treated Lumber, with Cedar Naturaltone Semi-Transparent Stain and Sealer |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Steel siding: Beige Steel Siding, |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stucco: Rapid Set Stucco Mix |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Vinyl siding: Khaki Vinyl Dutch Lap Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Window: V1000 Single Hung Thermostar |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood shingles: Red Cedar Shake |
| Description: | Precision Angle Kitchen broom: Swept particles into a pile on surface and used vacuum for disposal. 9-10 inch kitchen broom. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; surfaces were broomed in both directions until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 10% ± 16% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 87% ± 3% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 74% ± 4% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 71% ± 9% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 112 - 336 |
| 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. |
| Operational Summary: | 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 afterbrooming, even if % Removal is >75. - No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | <$20 per 1 person day (if one broom can be used across locations) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Almost no activity transferred to gloves, >99% on broom head ASFM: No activity measured. |
| Waste Stream: | Background activity on gloves and handle, at times activity on broom head |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and broom (10 - 70 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Kitchen Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood siding: Smooth Log Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Aluminum siding: Textured Gray Aluminum Siding |
| Description: | Multi-Purpose Sprayer (All-in-one Nozzle): Used all nozzle settings. Pumped 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; hardscape surfaces were sprayed off with a fan 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. Research 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 spray pattern 0.2 m from the surface at 1 - 5 psi pressure was followed. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
Fan Setting ASFM: 96% ± 3% 2.3 L water used |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 67 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Most particles were removed well from hardscapes and roofing material, ASFM removed well from non-porous siding surfaces, but not removed well from rough, porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Average volume used per surface was 1 L at 0.5 L/minute at ~1 psi. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $18 per sprayer |
| Fate of Activity: | 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. 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. |
| Waste Stream: | Background 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 |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and rinse water (20 kg/day solid and 90 - 450 L rinse water) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt drive: Used parking lot asphalt |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt roofing: Shasta White Rolled Roofing |
| Description: | Multi-Purpose Sprayer (All-in-one Nozzle): Used all nozzle settings. Pumped 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; hardscape surfaces were sprayed off with a fan 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. Research 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 spray pattern 0.2 m from the surface at 1 - 5 psi pressure was followed. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
Fan Setting ASFM: 15% ± 3% 1.5 L water used Fan Setting SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 99% ± 0% 1.5 L water used Fan Setting SFM Light Load Cs-137: 98% ± 0% 1.5 L water used |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 67 - 84 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Most particles were removed well from hardscapes and roofing material, ASFM removed well from non-porous siding surfaces, but not removed well from rough, porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Average volume used per surface was 1 L at 0.5 L/minute at ~1 psi. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $18 per sprayer |
| Fate of Activity: | 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. 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. |
| Waste Stream: | Background 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 |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and rinse water (20 kg/day solid and 90 - 450 L rinse water) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt shingles: Royal Sovereign Charcoal 3-Tab Shingles |
| Description: | Multi-Purpose Sprayer (All-in-one Nozzle): Used all nozzle settings. Pumped 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; hardscape surfaces were sprayed off with a fan 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. Research 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 spray pattern 0.2 m from the surface at 1 - 5 psi pressure was followed. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
Cone Setting ASFM: 9% 0.9 L water used Fan Setting ASFM: 15% 0.63 L water used Stream Setting ASFM: 19% 0.9 L water used Cone Setting SFM Light Load Cs-137: 96% ± 1% 0.6 L water used Fan Setting SFM Light Load Cs-137: 98% ± 1% 1.1 L water used Stream Setting SFM Light Load Cs-137: 100% ± 0% 1.4 L water used |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 112 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Most particles were removed well from hardscapes and roofing material, ASFM removed well from non-porous siding surfaces, but not removed well from rough, porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Average volume used per surface was 1 L at 0.5 L/minute at ~1 psi. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $18 per sprayer |
| Fate of Activity: | 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. 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. |
| Waste Stream: | Background 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 |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and rinse water (20 kg/day solid and 90 - 450 L rinse water) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Brick pavers: Clay Brick Flats (Alamo Sunrise) |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Child's plastic outdoor slide: Child's plastic outdoor slide |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Clay tiles: Spanish Field Tile |
| Description: | Multi-Purpose Sprayer (All-in-one Nozzle): Used all nozzle settings. Pumped 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; hardscape surfaces were sprayed off with a fan 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. Research 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 spray pattern 0.2 m from the surface at 1 - 5 psi pressure was followed. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
Fan Setting ASFM: 52% ± 6% 1.1 L water used Fan Setting SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 98% ± 1% 1.1 L water used Fan Setting SFM Light Load Cs-137: >100% 1.1 L water used |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 84 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Most particles were removed well from hardscapes and roofing material, ASFM removed well from non-porous siding surfaces, but not removed well from rough, porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Average volume used per surface was 1 L at 0.5 L/minute at ~1 psi. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $18 per sprayer |
| Fate of Activity: | 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. 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. |
| Waste Stream: | Background 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 |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and rinse water (20 kg/day solid and 90 - 450 L rinse water) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Composite fence: Enhance 8-ft Saddle Composite Deck Board |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete pavers: Square Gray Patio Stone |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete siding: Concrete siding |
| Description: | Multi-Purpose Sprayer (All-in-one Nozzle): Used all nozzle settings. Pumped 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; hardscape surfaces were sprayed off with a fan 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. Research 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 spray pattern 0.2 m from the surface at 1 - 5 psi pressure was followed. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
Fan Setting ASFM: 15% ± 4% 1.5 L water used |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 112 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Most particles were removed well from hardscapes and roofing material, ASFM removed well from non-porous siding surfaces, but not removed well from rough, porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Average volume used per surface was 1 L at 0.5 L/minute at ~1 psi. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $18 per sprayer |
| Fate of Activity: | 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. 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. |
| Waste Stream: | Background 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 |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and rinse water (20 kg/day solid and 90 - 450 L rinse water) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Gutter: K-Style White Aluminum |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Metal roofing: Classic Rib Steel Roof Panel |
| Description: | Multi-Purpose Sprayer (All-in-one Nozzle): Used all nozzle settings. Pumped 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; hardscape surfaces were sprayed off with a fan 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. Research 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 spray pattern 0.2 m from the surface at 1 - 5 psi pressure was followed. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
Cone Setting ASFM: 99% 0.1 L water used Fan Setting ASFM: 99% 0.1 L water used Stream Setting ASFM: 99% 0.3L water used Cone Setting SFM Light Load Cs-137: >100% 0.6 L water used Fan Setting SFM Light Load Cs-137: 98% ± 1% 0.4 L water used Stream Setting SFM Light Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% 0.6 L water used |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 112 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Most particles were removed well from hardscapes and roofing material, ASFM removed well from non-porous siding surfaces, but not removed well from rough, porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Average volume used per surface was 1 L at 0.5 L/minute at ~1 psi. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $18 per sprayer |
| Fate of Activity: | 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. 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. |
| Waste Stream: | Background 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 |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and rinse water (20 kg/day solid and 90 - 450 L rinse water) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Sidewalk concrete: Quikrete |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stained wood deck: Prime Ground Contact Pressure-Treated Lumber, with Cedar Naturaltone Semi-Transparent Stain and Sealer |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Steel siding: Beige Steel Siding, |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stucco: Rapid Set Stucco Mix |
| Description: | Multi-Purpose Sprayer (All-in-one Nozzle): Used all nozzle settings. Pumped 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; hardscape surfaces were sprayed off with a fan 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. Research 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 spray pattern 0.2 m from the surface at 1 - 5 psi pressure was followed. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
Fan Setting ASFM: 4% ± 2% 2.3 L water used |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 67 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Most particles were removed well from hardscapes and roofing material, ASFM removed well from non-porous siding surfaces, but not removed well from rough, porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Average volume used per surface was 1 L at 0.5 L/minute at ~1 psi. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $18 per sprayer |
| Fate of Activity: | 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. 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. |
| Waste Stream: | Background 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 |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and rinse water (20 kg/day solid and 90 - 450 L rinse water) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Vinyl siding: Khaki Vinyl Dutch Lap Siding |
| Description: | Multi-Purpose Sprayer (All-in-one Nozzle): Used all nozzle settings. Pumped 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; hardscape surfaces were sprayed off with a fan 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. Research 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 spray pattern 0.2 m from the surface at 1 - 5 psi pressure was followed. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
Cone Setting ASFM: 93% ± 1% 0.3 L water used Fan Setting ASFM: 97% ± 1% 0.35 L water used Stream Setting ASFM: 92% ± 3% 1L water used |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 112 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Most particles were removed well from hardscapes and roofing material, ASFM removed well from non-porous siding surfaces, but not removed well from rough, porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Average volume used per surface was 1 L at 0.5 L/minute at ~1 psi. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $18 per sprayer |
| Fate of Activity: | 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. 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. |
| Waste Stream: | Background 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 |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and rinse water (20 kg/day solid and 90 - 450 L rinse water) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Window: V1000 Single Hung Thermostar |
| Description: | Multi-Purpose Sprayer (All-in-one Nozzle): Used all nozzle settings. Pumped 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; hardscape surfaces were sprayed off with a fan 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. Research 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 spray pattern 0.2 m from the surface at 1 - 5 psi pressure was followed. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
Cone Setting ASFM: 97% ± 1% 0.3 L water used Fan Setting ASFM: 96% ± 2% 0.35 L water used Stream Setting ASFM: 88% ± 2% 1L water used |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 67 - 112 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Most particles were removed well from hardscapes and roofing material, ASFM removed well from non-porous siding surfaces, but not removed well from rough, porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Average volume used per surface was 1 L at 0.5 L/minute at ~1 psi. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $18 per sprayer |
| Fate of Activity: | 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. 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. |
| Waste Stream: | Background 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 |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and rinse water (20 kg/day solid and 90 - 450 L rinse water) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood shingles: Red Cedar Shake |
| Description: | Multi-Purpose Sprayer (All-in-one Nozzle): Used all nozzle settings. Pumped 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; hardscape surfaces were sprayed off with a fan 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. Research 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 spray pattern 0.2 m from the surface at 1 - 5 psi pressure was followed. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
Fan Setting ASFM: 38% ± 7% 1.5 L water used Fan Setting SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 98% ± 0% 1.5 L water used Fan Setting SFM Light Load Cs-137: 98% ± 1% 1.5 L water used |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 84 - 112 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Most particles were removed well from hardscapes and roofing material, ASFM removed well from non-porous siding surfaces, but not removed well from rough, porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Average volume used per surface was 1 L at 0.5 L/minute at ~1 psi. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $18 per sprayer |
| Fate of Activity: | 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. 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. |
| Waste Stream: | Background 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 |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and rinse water (20 kg/day solid and 90 - 450 L rinse water) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mock Wall Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood siding: Smooth Log Siding |
| Description: | Multi-Purpose Sprayer (All-in-one Nozzle): Used all nozzle settings. Pumped 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; hardscape surfaces were sprayed off with a fan 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. Research 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 spray pattern 0.2 m from the surface at 1 - 5 psi pressure was followed. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
Fan Setting ASFM: 32% ± 7% 1.1 L water used |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 84 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Most particles were removed well from hardscapes and roofing material, ASFM removed well from non-porous siding surfaces, but not removed well from rough, porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Average volume used per surface was 1 L at 0.5 L/minute at ~1 psi. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $18 per sprayer |
| Fate of Activity: | 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. 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. |
| Waste Stream: | Background 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 |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and rinse water (20 kg/day solid and 90 - 450 L rinse water) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Aluminum siding: Textured Gray Aluminum Siding |
| Description: | Wash: Liquid Mold Remover, Wet and Forget/Terry Towels: HDX, Model 7-660: Sprayed mold wash on particles and then used terry towels to wipe surface. Repeated until visibly clean or until no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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 visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: >100% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 96% ± 3% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 98% ± 3% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 99% ± 1% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 56 - 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well; ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Mold wash sprayed on surfaces and terry cloths used for wiping. 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $20 per pack of 60 terry cloths, 3 - 5 cloths per m2; 500 mL mold wash per m2 (~$4/m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, on cloths |
| Waste Stream: | 1 - 3% activity on gloves, >97% on cloths |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and cloths (30 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt drive: Used parking lot asphalt |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt roofing: Shasta White Rolled Roofing |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt shingles: Royal Sovereign Charcoal 3-Tab Shingles |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Brick pavers: Clay Brick Flats (Alamo Sunrise) |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Child's plastic outdoor slide: Child's plastic outdoor slide |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Clay tiles: Spanish Field Tile |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Composite fence: Enhance 8-ft Saddle Composite Deck Board |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete pavers: Square Gray Patio Stone |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete siding: Concrete siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Gutter: K-Style White Aluminum |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Metal roofing: Classic Rib Steel Roof Panel |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Sidewalk concrete: Quikrete |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stained wood deck: Prime Ground Contact Pressure-Treated Lumber, with Cedar Naturaltone Semi-Transparent Stain and Sealer |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Steel siding: Beige Steel Siding, |
| Description: | Wash: Liquid Mold Remover, Wet and Forget/Terry Towels: HDX, Model 7-660: Sprayed mold wash on particles and then used terry towels to wipe surface. Repeated until visibly clean or until no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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 visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 100% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 98% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 99% ± 2% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 100% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 56 - 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well; ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Mold wash sprayed on surfaces and terry cloths used for wiping. 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $20 per pack of 60 terry cloths, 3 - 5 cloths per m2; 500 mL mold wash per m2 (~$4/m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, on cloths |
| Waste Stream: | 1 - 3% activity on gloves, >97% on cloths |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and cloths (30 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stucco: Rapid Set Stucco Mix |
| Description: | Wash: Liquid Mold Remover, Wet and Forget/Terry Towels: HDX, Model 7-660: Sprayed mold wash on particles and then used terry towels to wipe surface. Repeated until visibly clean or until no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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 visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 4% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 96% ± 2% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 98% ± 0% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 98% ± 1% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 42 - 67 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well; ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Mold wash sprayed on surfaces and terry cloths used for wiping. 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $20 per pack of 60 terry cloths, 3 - 5 cloths per m2; 500 mL mold wash per m2 (~$4/m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, on cloths |
| Waste Stream: | 1 - 3% activity on gloves, >97% on cloths |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and cloths (30 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Vinyl siding: Khaki Vinyl Dutch Lap Siding |
| Description: | Wash: Liquid Mold Remover, Wet and Forget/Terry Towels: HDX, Model 7-660: Sprayed mold wash on particles and then used terry towels to wipe surface. Repeated until visibly clean or until no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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 visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 96% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 98% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 98% ± 2% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 100% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 20 - 112 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well; ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Mold wash sprayed on surfaces and terry cloths used for wiping. 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $20 per pack of 60 terry cloths, 3 - 5 cloths per m2; 500 mL mold wash per m2 (~$4/m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, on cloths |
| Waste Stream: | 1 - 3% activity on gloves, >97% on cloths |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and cloths (30 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Window: V1000 Single Hung Thermostar |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood shingles: Red Cedar Shake |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mold Wash with Terry Towels |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood siding: Smooth Log Siding |
| Description: | Wash: Liquid Mold Remover, Wet and Forget/Terry Towels: HDX, Model 7-660: Sprayed mold wash on particles and then used terry towels to wipe surface. Repeated until visibly clean or until no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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 visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 12% ± 2% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 97% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 99% ± 1% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 94% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 31 - 84 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well; ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Mold wash sprayed on surfaces and terry cloths used for wiping. 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $20 per pack of 60 terry cloths, 3 - 5 cloths per m2; 500 mL mold wash per m2 (~$4/m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, on cloths |
| Waste Stream: | 1 - 3% activity on gloves, >97% on cloths |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and cloths (30 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Aluminum siding: Textured Gray Aluminum Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt drive: Used parking lot asphalt |
| Description: | Blend Mop Head: Thoroughly wetted mop and then cleaned surface until no more improvement was visible |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 23% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 88% ± 9% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 94% ± 5% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 85% ± 5% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 336 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Mopping generated particle removals greater than 80%, but no removals greater than 95%. |
| Operational Summary: | 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $8 per mop head |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, mop head |
| Waste Stream: | Background activity on gloves, >99% on mop head |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and mop (20 - 90 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt roofing: Shasta White Rolled Roofing |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt shingles: Royal Sovereign Charcoal 3-Tab Shingles |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Brick pavers: Clay Brick Flats (Alamo Sunrise) |
| Description: | Blend Mop Head: Thoroughly wetted mop and then cleaned surface until no more improvement was visible |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 12% ± 2% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 91% ± 4% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 95% ± 3% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 89% ± 2% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | No information provided in report |
| Efficacy Observations: | No information provided in report |
| Operational Summary: | No information provided in report |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | No information provided in report |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, mop head |
| Waste Stream: | Background activity on gloves, >99% on mop head |
| Waste Summary: | No information provided in report |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Child's plastic outdoor slide: Child's plastic outdoor slide |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Clay tiles: Spanish Field Tile |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Composite fence: Enhance 8-ft Saddle Composite Deck Board |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete pavers: Square Gray Patio Stone |
| Description: | Blend Mop Head: Thoroughly wetted mop and then cleaned surface until no more improvement was visible |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 2% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 81% ± 5% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 88% ± 3% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 66% ± 13% and 82% ± 6% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 168 - 336 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Mopping generated particle removals greater than 80%, but no removals greater than 95%. |
| Operational Summary: | 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $8 per mop head |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, mop head |
| Waste Stream: | Background activity on gloves, >99% on mop head |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and mop (20 - 90 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete siding: Concrete siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Gutter: K-Style White Aluminum |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Metal roofing: Classic Rib Steel Roof Panel |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Sidewalk concrete: Quikrete |
| Description: | Blend Mop Head: Thoroughly wetted mop and then cleaned surface until no more improvement was visible |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 1% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 94% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 93% ± 3% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 86% ± 2% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 37 - 336 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Mopping generated particle removals greater than 80%, but no removals greater than 95%. |
| Operational Summary: | 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $8 per mop head |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, mop head |
| Waste Stream: | Background activity on gloves, >99% on mop head |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and mop (20 - 90 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stained wood deck: Prime Ground Contact Pressure-Treated Lumber, with Cedar Naturaltone Semi-Transparent Stain and Sealer |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Steel siding: Beige Steel Siding, |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stucco: Rapid Set Stucco Mix |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Vinyl siding: Khaki Vinyl Dutch Lap Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Window: V1000 Single Hung Thermostar |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood shingles: Red Cedar Shake |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Mop |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood siding: Smooth Log Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Aluminum siding: Textured Gray Aluminum Siding |
| Description: | Disinfecting Wipes: Collected particles in wipes until surface visibly clean and no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (SRM) (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; wiped surfaces in "S" shaped pattern until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 87% ± 4% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 97% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 100% ± 0% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 93% ± 3% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 56 - 336 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well except for asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Wipes function well on the smooth siding surfaces, at times they began to fall apart on the stucco, which is quite rough. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $15 - $200 of wipes per 1 person day (depending on surface) |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, on wipes |
| Waste Stream: | 2% of activity on gloves, >97% on wipes |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and wipes (10 - 20 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt drive: Used parking lot asphalt |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt roofing: Shasta White Rolled Roofing |
| Description: | Disinfecting Wipes: Collected particles in wipes until surface visibly clean and no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (SRM) (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; wiped surfaces in "S" shaped pattern until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 0% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 10% ± 5% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 47% ± 1% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 52% ± 8% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 31 - 84 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well except for asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $15 - $200 of wipes per 1 person day (depending on surface) |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, on wipes |
| Waste Stream: | 1 - 4% activity on gloves, >95% on wipes |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and wipes (10 - 20 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt shingles: Royal Sovereign Charcoal 3-Tab Shingles |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Brick pavers: Clay Brick Flats (Alamo Sunrise) |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Child's plastic outdoor slide: Child's plastic outdoor slide |
| Description: | Disinfecting Wipes: Collected particles in wipes until surface visibly clean and no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (SRM) (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; wiped surfaces in "S" shaped pattern until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: >100% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 100% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 99% ± 2% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 84 - 112 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well except for asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Wipes function well on the smooth siding surfaces, at times they began to fall apart on the stucco, which is quite rough. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $15 - $200 of wipes per 1 person day (depending on surface) |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, on wipes |
| Waste Stream: | 2% of activity on gloves, >97% on wipes |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and wipes (10 - 20 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Clay tiles: Spanish Field Tile |
| Description: | Disinfecting Wipes: Collected particles in wipes until surface visibly clean and no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (SRM) (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; wiped surfaces in "S" shaped pattern until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 27% ± 3% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 97% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 100% ± 1% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 99% ± 1% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 42 - 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well except for asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $15 - $200 of wipes per 1 person day (depending on surface) |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, on wipes |
| Waste Stream: | 1 - 4% activity on gloves, >95% on wipes |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and wipes (10 - 20 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Composite fence: Enhance 8-ft Saddle Composite Deck Board |
| Description: | Disinfecting Wipes: Collected particles in wipes until surface visibly clean and no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (SRM) (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; wiped surfaces in "S" shaped pattern until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 69% ± 12% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 89% ± 3% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 95% ± 2% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 82% ± 5% and 93% ± 4% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 112 - 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well except for asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Wipes function well on the smooth siding surfaces, at times they began to fall apart on the stucco, which is quite rough. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $15 - $200 of wipes per 1 person day (depending on surface) |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, on wipes |
| Waste Stream: | 2% of activity on gloves, >97% on wipes |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and wipes (10 - 20 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete pavers: Square Gray Patio Stone |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete siding: Concrete siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Gutter: K-Style White Aluminum |
| Description: | Disinfecting Wipes: Collected particles in wipes until surface visibly clean and no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (SRM) (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; wiped surfaces in "S" shaped pattern until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 91% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 100% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 100% ± 0% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 99% ± 1% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 84 - 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well except for asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Wipes function well on the smooth siding surfaces, at times they began to fall apart on the stucco, which is quite rough. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $15 - $200 of wipes per 1 person day (depending on surface) |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, on wipes |
| Waste Stream: | 2% of activity on gloves, >97% on wipes |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and wipes (10 - 20 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Metal roofing: Classic Rib Steel Roof Panel |
| Description: | Disinfecting Wipes: Collected particles in wipes until surface visibly clean and no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (SRM) (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; wiped surfaces in "S" shaped pattern until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 99% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 98% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 99% ± 1% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 20 - 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well except for asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $15 - $200 of wipes per 1 person day (depending on surface) |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, on wipes |
| Waste Stream: | 1 - 4% activity on gloves, >95% on wipes |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and wipes (10 - 20 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Sidewalk concrete: Quikrete |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stained wood deck: Prime Ground Contact Pressure-Treated Lumber, with Cedar Naturaltone Semi-Transparent Stain and Sealer |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Steel siding: Beige Steel Siding, |
| Description: | Disinfecting Wipes: Collected particles in wipes until surface visibly clean and no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (SRM) (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; wiped surfaces in "S" shaped pattern until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 87% ± 4% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 96% ± 3% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 97% ± 3% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 100% ± 1% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 112 - 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well except for asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Wipes function well on the smooth siding surfaces, at times they began to fall apart on the stucco, which is quite rough. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $15 - $200 of wipes per 1 person day (depending on surface) |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, on wipes |
| Waste Stream: | 2% of activity on gloves, >97% on wipes |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and wipes (10 - 20 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stucco: Rapid Set Stucco Mix |
| Description: | Disinfecting Wipes: Collected particles in wipes until surface visibly clean and no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (SRM) (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; wiped surfaces in "S" shaped pattern until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 0% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 62% ± 17% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 83% ± 9% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 85% ± 3% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 31 - 56 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well except for asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Wipes function well on the smooth siding surfaces, at times they began to fall apart on the stucco, which is quite rough. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $15 - $200 of wipes per 1 person day (depending on surface) |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, on wipes |
| Waste Stream: | 2% of activity on gloves, >97% on wipes |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and wipes (10 - 20 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Vinyl siding: Khaki Vinyl Dutch Lap Siding |
| Description: | Disinfecting Wipes: Collected particles in wipes until surface visibly clean and no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (SRM) (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; wiped surfaces in "S" shaped pattern until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 94% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 95% ± 3% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 95% ± 2% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 98% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 48 - 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well except for asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Wipes function well on the smooth siding surfaces, at times they began to fall apart on the stucco, which is quite rough. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $15 - $200 of wipes per 1 person day (depending on surface) |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, on wipes |
| Waste Stream: | 2% of activity on gloves, >97% on wipes |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and wipes (10 - 20 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Window: V1000 Single Hung Thermostar |
| Description: | Disinfecting Wipes: Collected particles in wipes until surface visibly clean and no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (SRM) (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; wiped surfaces in "S" shaped pattern until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 99% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 100% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 100% ± 0% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 100% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 31 - 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well except for asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Wipes function well on the smooth siding surfaces, at times they began to fall apart on the stucco, which is quite rough. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $15 - $200 of wipes per 1 person day (depending on surface) |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, on wipes |
| Waste Stream: | 2% of activity on gloves, >97% on wipes |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and wipes (10 - 20 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood shingles: Red Cedar Shake |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Pre-Wet Wipes |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood siding: Smooth Log Siding |
| Description: | Disinfecting Wipes: Collected particles in wipes until surface visibly clean and no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (SRM) (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; wiped surfaces in "S" shaped pattern until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 20% ± 3% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 97% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 98% ± 2% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 88% ± 3% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 112 - 336 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well except for asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Wipes function well on the smooth siding surfaces, at times they began to fall apart on the stucco, which is quite rough. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $15 - $200 of wipes per 1 person day (depending on surface) |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves, on wipes |
| Waste Stream: | 2% of activity on gloves, >97% on wipes |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and wipes (10 - 20 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Aluminum siding: Textured Gray Aluminum Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt drive: Used parking lot asphalt |
| Description: | 18-inch Multi-Surface Commercial Push Broom: Swept particles into a pile on surface and used vacuum for disposal. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; surfaces were broomed in both directions until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 2% ± 3% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 85% ± 7% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 84% ± 6% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 63% ± 18% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 168 - 336 |
| 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. |
| Operational Summary: | Push broom functioned well on all the hardscape surfaces, no special difficulties were noted, but removal efficacy was moderate. Push broom used on flat, even surfaces. If surface had any degree of roughness, surface still looks dirty after brooming, even if % Removal is >75. No appreciable contamination, dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | <$20 per 1 person day (if one broom can be used across locations) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Almost no activity transferred to gloves, activity on broom head; ASFM: No detectable activity on broom parts |
| Waste Stream: | Background activity on gloves and handle, sometimes activity on broom head |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and broom (10 - 70 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt roofing: Shasta White Rolled Roofing |
| Description: | 18-inch Multi-Surface Commercial Push Broom: Swept particles into a pile on surface and used vacuum for disposal. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; surfaces were broomed in both directions until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 3% ± 13% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 41% ± 10% and 61% ± 5% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 63% ± 11% and 75% ± 7% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 53% ± 17% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 168 - 336 |
| 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. |
| Operational Summary: | Operationally preferable to kitchen broom on even surfaces (asphalt roofing), however, tines do get caught on aggregate and does not push easily. Push broom used on flat, even surfaces. If surface had any degree of roughness, surface still looks dirty after brooming, even if % Removal is >75. No appreciable contamination, dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | <$20 per 1 person day (if one broom can be used across locations) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Almost no activity transferred to gloves, activity on broom head; ASFM: No detectable activity on broom parts |
| Waste Stream: | Background activity on gloves and handle, sometimes activity on broom head |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and broom (10 - 70 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt shingles: Royal Sovereign Charcoal 3-Tab Shingles |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Brick pavers: Clay Brick Flats (Alamo Sunrise) |
| Description: | 18-inch Multi-Surface Commercial Push Broom: Swept particles into a pile on surface and used vacuum for disposal. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; surfaces were broomed in both directions until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 2% ± 3% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 92% ± 4% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 94% ± 2% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 68% ± 16% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 168 - 336 |
| 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. |
| Operational Summary: | Push broom functioned well on all the hardscape surfaces, no special difficulties were noted, but removal efficacy was moderate. Push broom used on flat, even surfaces. If surface had any degree of roughness, surface still looks dirty after brooming, even if % Removal is >75. No appreciable contamination, dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | <$20 per 1 person day (if one broom can be used across locations) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Almost no activity transferred to gloves, activity on broom head; ASFM: No detectable activity on broom parts |
| Waste Stream: | Background activity on gloves and handle, sometimes activity on broom head |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and broom (10 - 70 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Child's plastic outdoor slide: Child's plastic outdoor slide |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Clay tiles: Spanish Field Tile |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Composite fence: Enhance 8-ft Saddle Composite Deck Board |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete pavers: Square Gray Patio Stone |
| Description: | 18-inch Multi-Surface Commercial Push Broom: Swept particles into a pile on surface and used vacuum for disposal. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; surfaces were broomed in both directions until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 3% ± 2% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 91% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 81% ± 3% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 61% ± 7% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 336 |
| 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 |
| Operational Summary: | Push broom functioned well on all the hardscape surfaces, no special difficulties were noted, but removal efficacy was moderate. Push broom used on flat, even surfaces. If surface had any degree of roughness, surface still looks dirty after brooming, even if % Removal is >75. No appreciable contamination, dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | <$20 per 1 person day (if one broom can be used across locations) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Almost no activity transferred to gloves, activity on broom head; ASFM: No detectable activity on broom parts |
| Waste Stream: | Background activity on gloves and handle, sometimes activity on broom head |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and broom (10 - 70 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete siding: Concrete siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Gutter: K-Style White Aluminum |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Metal roofing: Classic Rib Steel Roof Panel |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Sidewalk concrete: Quikrete |
| Description: | 18-inch Multi-Surface Commercial Push Broom: Swept particles into a pile on surface and used vacuum for disposal. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; surfaces were broomed in both directions until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: -1% ± 2% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 96% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 96% ± 1% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 90% ± 4% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 112 - 336 |
| 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. |
| Operational Summary: | Push broom functioned well on all the hardscape surfaces, no special difficulties were noted, but removal efficacy was moderate. Push broom used on flat, even surfaces. If surface had any degree of roughness, surface still looks dirty after brooming, even if % Removal is >75. No appreciable contamination, dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | <$20 per 1 person day (if one broom can be used across locations) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Almost no activity transferred to gloves, activity on broom head; ASFM: No detectable activity on broom parts |
| Waste Stream: | Background activity on gloves and handle, sometimes activity on broom head |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and broom (10 - 70 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stained wood deck: Prime Ground Contact Pressure-Treated Lumber, with Cedar Naturaltone Semi-Transparent Stain and Sealer |
| Description: | 18-inch Multi-Surface Commercial Push Broom: Swept particles into a pile on surface and used vacuum for disposal. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; surfaces were broomed in both directions until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 7% ± 4% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 98% ± 1% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 91% ± 3% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 336 |
| 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 |
| Operational Summary: | Push broom functioned well on all the hardscape surfaces, no special difficulties were noted, but removal efficacy was moderate. Push broom used on flat, even surfaces. If surface had any degree of roughness, surface still looks dirty after brooming, even if % Removal is >75. No appreciable contamination, dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | <$20 per 1 person day (if one broom can be used across locations) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Almost no activity transferred to gloves, activity on broom head; ASFM: No detectable activity on broom parts |
| Waste Stream: | Background activity on gloves and handle, sometimes activity on broom head |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and broom (10 - 70 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Steel siding: Beige Steel Siding, |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stucco: Rapid Set Stucco Mix |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Vinyl siding: Khaki Vinyl Dutch Lap Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Window: V1000 Single Hung Thermostar |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood shingles: Red Cedar Shake |
| Description: | 18-inch Multi-Surface Commercial Push Broom: Swept particles into a pile on surface and used vacuum for disposal. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; surfaces were broomed in both directions until no additional visual removal. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 1% ± 2% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: Technology not applicable to surface SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: Technology not applicable to surface SFM Light Load Cs-137: Technology not applicable to surface |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | No information provided in report |
| Efficacy Observations: | No information provided in report |
| Operational Summary: | Operationally preferable to kitchen broom on even surfaces (asphalt roofing), however, tines do get caught on aggregate and does not push easily. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | No information provided in report |
| Fate of Activity: | No information provided in report |
| Waste Stream: | Background activity on gloves and handle, sometimes activity on broom head |
| Waste Summary: | No information provided in report |
| Decontamination Technology: | Push Broom |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood siding: Smooth Log Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Aluminum siding: Textured Gray Aluminum Siding |
| Description: | Ocelo Cellulose Sponge (4 inch x 6 inch): Collected particles in water-wetted sponges until surface visibly clean. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 75% ± 5% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 96% ± 3% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 96% ± 3% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 96% ± 2% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 67 - 112 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well except asphalt/wood shingles and asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | 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. Sponges were 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 pack of 6 sponges (3 - 4 sponges per m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity on gloves, sponges ASFM: On sponges |
| Waste Stream: | SFM: Often 10 - 25% and up to 60% activity on gloves; the remaining activity was on the sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and sponges (10 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt drive: Used parking lot asphalt |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt roofing: Shasta White Rolled Roofing |
| Description: | Ocelo Cellulose Sponge (4 inch x 6 inch): Collected particles in water-wetted sponges until surface visibly clean. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 8% ± 4% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 50% ± 5% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 67% ± 2% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 78% ± 3% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 28 - 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well except asphalt/wood shingles and asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Sponges were 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 pack of 6 sponges (3 - 4 sponges per m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity on gloves, sponges ASFM: On sponges |
| Waste Stream: | SFM: 12% activity on gloves, 88% on sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and sponges (10 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt shingles: Royal Sovereign Charcoal 3-Tab Shingles |
| Description: | Ocelo Cellulose Sponge (4 inch x 6 inch): Collected particles in water-wetted sponges until surface visibly clean. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 4% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 27% ± 9% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 47% ± 8% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 61% ± 3% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 67 - 84 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well except asphalt/wood shingles and asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Sponges were 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 pack of 6 sponges (3 - 4 sponges per m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity on gloves, sponges ASFM: On sponges |
| Waste Stream: | SFM: 12% activity on gloves, 88% on sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and sponges (10 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Brick pavers: Clay Brick Flats (Alamo Sunrise) |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Child's plastic outdoor slide: Child's plastic outdoor slide |
| Description: | Ocelo Cellulose Sponge (4 inch x 6 inch): Collected particles in water-wetted sponges until surface visibly clean. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 98% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 100% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 100% ± 0% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 48 - 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well except asphalt/wood shingles and asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | 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. Sponges were 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 pack of 6 sponges (3 - 4 sponges per m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity on gloves, sponges ASFM: On sponges |
| Waste Stream: | SFM: Often 10 - 25% and up to 60% activity on gloves; the remaining activity was on the sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and sponges (10 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Clay tiles: Spanish Field Tile |
| Description: | Ocelo Cellulose Sponge (4 inch x 6 inch): Collected particles in water-wetted sponges until surface visibly clean. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 37% ± 3% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 100% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 100% ± 0% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 84 - 112 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well except asphalt/wood shingles and asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Sponges were 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 pack of 6 sponges (3 - 4 sponges per m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity on gloves, sponges ASFM: On sponges |
| Waste Stream: | SFM: 12% activity on gloves, 88% on sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and sponges (10 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Composite fence: Enhance 8-ft Saddle Composite Deck Board |
| Description: | Ocelo Cellulose Sponge (4 in x 6 in): Collected particles in water-wetted sponges until surface visibly clean. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 82% ± 3% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 96% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 96% ± 2% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 80% ± 4% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 22 - 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well except asphalt/wood shingles and asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | 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. 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 pack of 6 sponges (3 - 4 sponges per m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity on gloves, sponges ASFM: On sponges |
| Waste Stream: | SFM: Often 10 - 25% and up to 60% activity on gloves; the remaining activity was on the sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and sponges (10 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete pavers: Square Gray Patio Stone |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete siding: Concrete siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Gutter: K-Style White Aluminum |
| Description: | Ocelo Cellulose Sponge (4 inch x 6 inch): Collected particles in water-wetted sponges until surface visibly clean. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 100% ± 2% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 99% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 99% ± 1% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 100% ± 2% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 168 - 336 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well except asphalt/wood shingles and asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | 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. Sponges were 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 pack of 6 sponges (3 - 4 sponges per m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity on gloves, sponges ASFM: On sponges |
| Waste Stream: | SFM: Often 10 - 25% and up to 60% activity on gloves; the remaining activity was on the sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and sponges (10 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Metal roofing: Classic Rib Steel Roof Panel |
| Description: | Ocelo Cellulose Sponge (4 inch x 6 inch): Collected particles in water-wetted sponges until surface visibly clean. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 99% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 100% ± 0% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 28 - 84 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well except asphalt/wood shingles and asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Sponges were 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 pack of 6 sponges (3 - 4 sponges per m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity on gloves, sponges ASFM: On sponges |
| Waste Stream: | SFM: 12% activity on gloves, 88% on sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and sponges (10 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Sidewalk concrete: Quikrete |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stained wood deck: Prime Ground Contact Pressure-Treated Lumber, with Cedar Naturaltone Semi-Transparent Stain and Sealer |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Steel siding: Beige Steel Siding, |
| Description: | Ocelo Cellulose Sponge (4 inch x 6 inch): Collected particles in water-wetted sponges until surface visibly clean. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 98% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 93% ± 2% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 96% ± 2% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 37 - 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well except asphalt/wood shingles and asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | 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. Sponges were 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 pack of 6 sponges (3 - 4 sponges per m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity on gloves, sponges ASFM: On sponges |
| Waste Stream: | SFM: Often 10 - 25% and up to 60% activity on gloves; the remaining activity was on the sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and sponges (10 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stucco: Rapid Set Stucco Mix |
| Description: | Ocelo Cellulose Sponge (4 inch x 6 inch): Collected particles in water-wetted sponges until surface visibly clean. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 2% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 85% ± 4% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 95% ± 1% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 90% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 28 - 112 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well except asphalt/wood shingles and asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | 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. Sponges were 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 pack of 6 sponges (3 - 4 sponges per m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity on gloves, sponges ASFM: On sponges |
| Waste Stream: | SFM: Often 10 - 25% and up to 60% activity on gloves; the remaining activity was on the sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and sponges (10 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Vinyl siding: Khaki Vinyl Dutch Lap Siding |
| Description: | Ocelo Cellulose Sponge (4 inch x 6 inch): Collected particles in water-wetted sponges until surface visibly clean. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 95% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 94% ± 4% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 94% ± 6% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 28 - 112 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well except asphalt/wood shingles and asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | 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. Sponges were 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 pack of 6 sponges (3 - 4 sponges per m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity on gloves, sponges ASFM: On sponges |
| Waste Stream: | SFM: Often 10 - 25% and up to 60% activity on gloves; the remaining activity was on the sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and sponges (10 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Window: V1000 Single Hung Thermostar |
| Description: | Ocelo Cellulose Sponge (4 inch x 6 inch): Collected particles in water-wetted sponges until surface visibly clean. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 97% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 100% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 100% ± 0% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 100% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 34 - 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well except asphalt/wood shingles and asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | 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. Sponges were 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 pack of 6 sponges (3 - 4 sponges per m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity on gloves and on sponges ASFM: On sponges |
| Waste Stream: | SFM: Often 10 - 25% and up to 60% activity on gloves; the remaining activity was on the sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and sponges (10 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood shingles: Red Cedar Shake |
| Description: | Ocelo Cellulose Sponge (4 inch x 6 inch): Collected particles in water-wetted sponges until surface visibly clean. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 10% ± 2% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 81% ± 4% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 81% ± 5% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 67% ± 17% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 56 - 336 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well except asphalt/wood shingles and asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Sponges were 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 pack of 6 sponges (3 - 4 sponges per m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity on gloves, sponges ASFM: On sponges |
| Waste Stream: | SFM: 12% activity on gloves, 88% on sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and sponges (10 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Sponge |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood siding: Smooth Log Siding |
| Description: | Ocelo Cellulose Sponge (4 inch x 6 inch): Collected particles in water-wetted sponges until surface visibly clean. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 13% ± 3% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 98% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 100% ± 1% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 91% ± 2% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 56 - 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed well except asphalt/wood shingles and asphalt roofing and stucco. ASFM removed well from smooth non-porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | 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. Sponges were 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 decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 pack of 6 sponges (3 - 4 sponges per m2) |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity on gloves and on sponges ASFM: On sponges |
| Waste Stream: | SFM: Often 10 - 25% and up to 60% activity on gloves; the remaining activity was on the sponges ASFM: 99% on sponges |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and sponges (10 - 50 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Aluminum siding: Textured Gray Aluminum Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt drive: Used parking lot asphalt |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt roofing: Shasta White Rolled Roofing |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt shingles: Royal Sovereign Charcoal 3-Tab Shingles |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Brick pavers: Clay Brick Flats (Alamo Sunrise) |
| Description: | Multi-Purpose Sprayer (All-in-one Nozzle): Used all nozzle settings. Pumped 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; hardscape surfaces were sprayed off with a fan pattern sprayer, driving the SFM off off the surface. Pumped sprayer 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. For hardscapes, ~0.1 m from surface. Hardscape surfaces were placed in a ground containment and sprayed following a pattern, 0.1 m from the surface at 1 - 5 psi pressure. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: -5% ± 5% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 92% ± 4% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 87% ± 3% SFM Light Load Cs-137: Technology not applicable to surface |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 84 - 112 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Most particles were removed well from hardscapes. ASFM removed well from non-porous siding surfaces, but not removed well from rough, porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Average volume used per surface was 1 L at 0.5 L/minute at ~1 psi. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $18 per sprayer |
| Fate of Activity: | Background 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 |
| Waste Stream: | Particles collected in gutter water flushed to waste (water flow rate of 1.4 L per m2 surface) |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and rinse water (20 kg/day solid and 90 - 450 L rinse water) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Child's plastic outdoor slide: Child's plastic outdoor slide |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Clay tiles: Spanish Field Tile |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Composite fence: Enhance 8-ft Saddle Composite Deck Board |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete pavers: Square Gray Patio Stone |
| Description: | Multi-Purpose Sprayer (All-in-one Nozzle): Used all nozzle settings. Pumped 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; hardscape surfaces were sprayed off with a fan pattern sprayer, driving the SFM off off the surface. Pumped sprayer 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. For hardscapes, ~0.1 m from surface. Hardscape surfaces were placed in a ground containment and sprayed following a pattern, 0.1 m from the surface at 1 - 5 psi pressure. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 3% ± 4% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 88% ± 4% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 54% ± 4% SFM Light Load Cs-137: Technology not applicable to surface |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 112 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Most particles were removed well from hardscapes. ASFM removed well from non-porous siding surfaces, but not removed well from rough, porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Average volume used per surface was 1 L at 0.5 L/minute at ~1 psi. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $18 per sprayer |
| Fate of Activity: | Background 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 |
| Waste Stream: | Particles collected in gutter water flushed to waste (water flow rate of 1.4 L per m2 surface) |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and rinse water (20 kg/day solid and 90 - 450 L rinse water) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete siding: Concrete siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Gutter: K-Style White Aluminum |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Metal roofing: Classic Rib Steel Roof Panel |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Sidewalk concrete: Quikrete |
| Description: | Multi-Purpose Sprayer (All-in-one Nozzle): Used all nozzle settings. Pumped 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; hardscape surfaces were sprayed off with a fan pattern sprayer, driving the SFM off off the surface. Pumped sprayer 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. For hardscapes, ~0.1 m from surface. Hardscape surfaces were placed in a ground containment and sprayed following a pattern, 0.1 m from the surface at 1 - 5 psi pressure. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 5% ± 3% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 97% ± 2% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 94% ± 3% SFM Light Load Cs-137: Technology not applicable to surface |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 67 - 112 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Most particles were removed well from hardscapes. ASFM removed well from non-porous siding surfaces, but not removed well from rough, porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Average volume used per surface was 1 L at 0.5 L/minute at ~1 psi. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $18 per sprayer |
| Fate of Activity: | Background 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 |
| Waste Stream: | Particles collected in gutter water flushed to waste (water flow rate of 1.4 L per m2 surface) |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and rinse water (20 kg/day solid and 90 - 450 L rinse water) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stained wood deck: Prime Ground Contact Pressure-Treated Lumber, with Cedar Naturaltone Semi-Transparent Stain and Sealer |
| Description: | Multi-Purpose Sprayer (All-in-one Nozzle): Used all nozzle settings. Pumped 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | Simulated fallout material (particles and aqueous) was added to 0.7 m2 of these surfaces; hardscape surfaces were sprayed off with a fan pattern sprayer, driving the SFM off off the surface. Pumped sprayer 10 times and when pressure noticeably decreased, pumped 10 more times. For hardscapes, ~0.1 m from surface. Hardscape surfaces were placed in a ground containment and sprayed following a pattern, 0.1 m from the surface at 1 - 5 psi pressure. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 49% ± 3% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 98% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 98% ± 1% SFM Light Load Cs-137: Technology not applicable to surface |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 168 - 336 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Most particles were removed well from hardscapes. ASFM removed well from non-porous siding surfaces, but not removed well from rough, porous surfaces. |
| Operational Summary: | Average volume used per surface was 1 L at 0.5 L/minute at ~1 psi. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $18 per sprayer |
| Fate of Activity: | Background 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 |
| Waste Stream: | Particles collected in gutter water flushed to waste (water flow rate of 1.4 L per m2 surface) |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and rinse water (20 kg/day solid and 90 - 450 L rinse water) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Steel siding: Beige Steel Siding, |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stucco: Rapid Set Stucco Mix |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Vinyl siding: Khaki Vinyl Dutch Lap Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Window: V1000 Single Hung Thermostar |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood shingles: Red Cedar Shake |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Spray using Pump Sprayer |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood siding: Smooth Log Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Aluminum siding: Textured Gray Aluminum Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt drive: Used parking lot asphalt |
| Description: | Metal Handle General-Duty Squeegee: Wetted particles with a water bottle of water and squeegeed the surface until no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 9% ± 3% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 36% ± 13% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 58% ± 7% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 29% ± 8% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 37 - 84 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Aside from window surfaces, the squeegee did not facilitate effective removals of particles or ASFM. |
| Operational Summary: | Squeegee tended to drag wet particles around the surfaces, not really removing any particles; made sticky particle mud, least effective decontamination method. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 per handheld squeegee |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves and on squeegee |
| Waste Stream: | Measurable activity on gloves, >99% on squeegee |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and squeegee (10 - 20 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt roofing: Shasta White Rolled Roofing |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt shingles: Royal Sovereign Charcoal 3-Tab Shingles |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Brick pavers: Clay Brick Flats (Alamo Sunrise) |
| Description: | Metal Handle General-Duty Squeegee: Wetted particles with a water bottle of water and squeegeed the surface until no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 6% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 27% ± 7% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 37% ± 6% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 47% ± 4% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 24 - 84 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Aside from window surfaces, the squeegee did not facilitate effective removals of particles or ASFM. |
| Operational Summary: | Squeegee tended to drag wet particles around the surfaces, not really removing any particles; made sticky particle mud, least effective decontamination method. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 per handheld squeegee |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves and on squeegee |
| Waste Stream: | Measurable activity on gloves, >99% on squeegee |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and squeegee (10 - 20 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Child's plastic outdoor slide: Child's plastic outdoor slide |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Clay tiles: Spanish Field Tile |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Composite fence: Enhance 8-ft Saddle Composite Deck Board |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete pavers: Square Gray Patio Stone |
| Description: | Metal Handle General-Duty Squeegee: Wetted particles with a water bottle of water and squeegeed the surface until no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 3% ± 2% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 34% ± 5% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 38% ± 5% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 22% ± 4% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 34 - 84 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Aside from window surfaces, the squeegee did not facilitate effective removals of particles or ASFM. |
| Operational Summary: | Squeegee tended to drag wet particles around the surfaces, not really removing any particles; made sticky particle mud, least effective decontamination method. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 per handheld squeegee |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves and on squeegee |
| Waste Stream: | Measurable activity on gloves, >99% on squeegee |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and squeegee (10 - 20 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete siding: Concrete siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Gutter: K-Style White Aluminum |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Metal roofing: Classic Rib Steel Roof Panel |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Sidewalk concrete: Quikrete |
| Description: | Metal Handle General-Duty Squeegee: Wetted particles with a water bottle of water and squeegeed the surface until no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 3% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 77% ± 2% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 83% ± 3% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 53% ± 6% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 48 - 84 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Aside from window surfaces, the squeegee did not facilitate effective removals of particles or ASFM. |
| Operational Summary: | Squeegee tended to drag wet particles around the surfaces, not really removing any particles; made sticky particle mud, least effective decontamination method. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 per handheld squeegee |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves and on squeegee |
| Waste Stream: | Measurable activity on gloves, >99% on squeegee |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and squeegee (10 - 20 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stained wood deck: Prime Ground Contact Pressure-Treated Lumber, with Cedar Naturaltone Semi-Transparent Stain and Sealer |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Steel siding: Beige Steel Siding, |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stucco: Rapid Set Stucco Mix |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Vinyl siding: Khaki Vinyl Dutch Lap Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Window: V1000 Single Hung Thermostar |
| Description: | Metal Handle General-Duty Squeegee: Wetted particles with a water bottle of water and squeegeed the surface until no more improvement was visible. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 96% ± 2% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 100% ± 1% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 100% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 22 - 84 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Aside from window surfaces, the squeegee did not facilitate effective removals of particles or ASFM. |
| Operational Summary: | Squeegee used on windows which is what it is designed for (consistent with it working very well). No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $5 per handheld squeegee |
| Fate of Activity: | Activity on gloves and on squeegee |
| Waste Stream: | Measurable activity on gloves, >99% on squeegee |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and squeegee (10 - 20 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood shingles: Red Cedar Shake |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Squeege |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood siding: Smooth Log Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Aluminum siding: Textured Gray Aluminum Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt drive: Used parking lot asphalt |
| Description: | 2.25 Horsepower, Shop-Vac®: Used flat 4-inch attachment and then used hose only for final pass. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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 on non-smooth surfaces, until no increased removal observed. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 0% ± 2% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 100% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 100% ± 1% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 99% ± 1% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 48 - 84 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well; ASFM was not removed. |
| Operational Summary: | 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 Removal by 1%. Dark color roofing still looked dirty even though removal percentages were high. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $45 per vacuum |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity goes with particles into waste as there was minimal, but measurable activity on vacuum attachment. ASFM: No activity measured. |
| Waste Stream: | Particles accumulated in vacuum attachment causing concern over containment when moving vacuum. |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and vacuum (10 - 70 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt roofing: Shasta White Rolled Roofing |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Asphalt shingles: Royal Sovereign Charcoal 3-Tab Shingles |
| Description: | 2.25 Horsepower, Shop-Vac®: Used flat 4-inch attachment and then used hose only for final pass. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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 on non-smooth surfaces, until no increased removal observed. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 2% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 97% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 97% ± 0% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 98% ± 1% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well; ASFM was not removed. |
| Operational Summary: | 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 Removal by 1%. Dark color roofing still looked dirty even though removal percentages were high. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $45 per vacuum |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity goes with particles into waste as there was minimal, but measurable activity on vacuum attachment. ASFM: No activity measured. |
| Waste Stream: | Particles accumulated in vacuum attachment causing concern over containment when moving vacuum. |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and vacuum (10 - 70 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Brick pavers: Clay Brick Flats (Alamo Sunrise) |
| Description: | 2.25 Horsepower, Shop-Vac®: Used flat 4-inch attachment and then used hose only for final pass. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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 on non-smooth surfaces, until no increased removal observed. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 4% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 100% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 100% ± 0% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 112 - 336 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well; ASFM was not removed. |
| Operational Summary: | 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 Removal by 1%. Dark color roofing still looked dirty even though removal percentages were high. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $45 per vacuum |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity goes with particles into waste as there was minimal, but measurable activity on vacuum attachment. ASFM: No activity measured. |
| Waste Stream: | Particles accumulated in vacuum attachment causing concern over containment when moving vacuum. |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and vacuum (10 - 70 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Child's plastic outdoor slide: Child's plastic outdoor slide |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Clay tiles: Spanish Field Tile |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Composite fence: Enhance 8-ft Saddle Composite Deck Board |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete pavers: Square Gray Patio Stone |
| Description: | 2.25 Horsepower, Shop-Vac®: Used flat 4-inch attachment and then used hose only for final pass. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 2% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 99% ± 1% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 100% ± 1% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 112 - 336 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well; ASFM was not removed. |
| Operational Summary: | 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 Removal by 1%. Dark color roofing still looked dirty even though removal percentages were high. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $45 per vacuum |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity goes with particles into waste as there was minimal, but measurable activity on vacuum attachment. ASFM: No activity measured. |
| Waste Stream: | Particles accumulated in vacuum attachment causing concern over containment when moving vacuum. |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and vacuum (10 - 70 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Concrete siding: Concrete siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Gutter: K-Style White Aluminum |
| Description: | 2.25 Horsepower, Shop-Vac®: Used flat 4-inch attachment and then used hose only for final pass. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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 on non-smooth surfaces, until no increased removal observed. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 18% ± 5% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 100% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 100% ± 0% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 100% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well; ASFM was not removed. |
| Operational Summary: | 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 Removal by 1%. Dark color roofing still looked dirty even though removal percentages were high. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $45 per vacuum |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity goes with particles into waste as there was minimal, but measurable activity on vacuum attachment. ASFM: No activity measured. |
| Waste Stream: | Particles accumulated in vacuum attachment causing concern over containment when moving vacuum. |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and vacuum (10 - 70 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Metal roofing: Classic Rib Steel Roof Panel |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Sidewalk concrete: Quikrete |
| Description: | 2.25 Horsepower, Shop-Vac®: Used flat 4-inch attachment and then used hose only for final pass. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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 on non-smooth surfaces, until no increased removal observed. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 1% ± 2% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 100% ± 0% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 100% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 67 - 168 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well; ASFM was not removed. |
| Operational Summary: | 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 Removal by 1%. Dark color roofing still looked dirty even though removal percentages were high. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $45 per vacuum |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity goes with particles into waste as there was minimal, but measurable activity on vacuum attachment. ASFM: No activity measured. |
| Waste Stream: | Particles accumulated in vacuum attachment causing concern over containment when moving vacuum. |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and vacuum (10 - 70 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stained wood deck: Prime Ground Contact Pressure-Treated Lumber, with Cedar Naturaltone Semi-Transparent Stain and Sealer |
| Description: | 2.25 Horsepower, Shop-Vac®: Used flat 4-inch attachment and then used hose only for final pass. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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 on non-smooth surfaces, until no increased removal observed. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 2% ± 1% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 99% ± 1% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 42 - 112 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well; ASFM was not removed. |
| Operational Summary: | 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 Removal by 1%. Dark color roofing still looked dirty even though removal percentages were high. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $45 per vacuum |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity goes with particles into waste as there was minimal, but measurable activity on vacuum attachment. ASFM: No activity measured. |
| Waste Stream: | Particles accumulated in vacuum attachment causing concern over containment when moving vacuum. |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and vacuum (10 - 70 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Steel siding: Beige Steel Siding, |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Stucco: Rapid Set Stucco Mix |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Vinyl siding: Khaki Vinyl Dutch Lap Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Window: V1000 Single Hung Thermostar |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood shingles: Red Cedar Shake |
| Description: | 2.25 Horsepower, Shop-Vac®: Used flat 4-inch attachment and then used hose only for final pass. |
| EPA Technology Evaluation Report (Research details): | Lee, S., T. Boe, K. Hall, S. Hudson, M. Ierardi, P. Lemieux, M. Magnuson, A. Mikelonis, J. Mitchell, T. Stilman, J. Archer, M. Hannant, R. James, Z. Willenberg, AND K. McConkey. Evaluation of Low-Tech Outdoor Decontamination Methods Following Wide Area Radiological/Nuclear Incidents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-19/001, 2019 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=346348&Lab=NHSRC |
| Testing Method: | 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 on non-smooth surfaces, until no increased removal observed. 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. Method was applied to the surface in a way that resulted in two complete passes over the entire surface. 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 perpendicular direction, so the entire surface had been treated a second time. |
| % Removal: Aqueous simulated fallout material (ASFM) Simulated fallout material (SFM) |
ASFM: 0% ± 2% SFM Heavy Load Cs-137: 99% ± 0% SFM Heavy Load Rb-86: 99% ± 1% SFM Light Load Cs-137: 98% ± 0% |
| Area Decontaminated (m2/person day): | 168 - 336 |
| Efficacy Observations: | Particles removed very well; ASFM was not removed. |
| Operational Summary: | 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 Removal by 1%. Dark color roofing still looked dirty even though removal percentages were high. No appreciable contamination or dose to decontamination 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. |
| Method Cost (non-labor): | $45 per vacuum |
| Fate of Activity: | SFM: Activity goes with particles into waste as there was minimal, but measurable activity on vacuum attachment. ASFM: No activity measured. |
| Waste Stream: | Particles accumulated in vacuum attachment causing concern over containment when moving vacuum. |
| Waste Summary: | SFM, PPE, and vacuum (10 - 70 kg/day) |
| Decontamination Technology: | Vacuum |
|---|---|
| Outdoor Surface: | Wood siding: Smooth Log Siding |
| No information is available for the selected technology and outdoor surface combination at this time. | |