One of the preparation steps for a possible radiological attack is the capability of fast and effective decontamination of critical infrastructure. This study describes the implementation of a test plan at an intermediate scale (between bench scale and large scale or wide area) to evaluate decontamination procedures, materials, technologies, and techniques for removal of radioactive material from various surfaces. Two radioisotopes were tested: cesium-137 (137Cs) and the short-lived simulant to 137Cs, rubidium-86 (86Rb). Two types of decontamination hydrogel products were evaluated: DeconGel™ and Argonne SuperGel. Tests were conducted at the assigned Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Israel Defense Forces (IDFs) Home Front Command facility, and at the Nuclear Research Center Negev (NRCN), Israel. Results from these tests indicated similar removal and operational parameters for 86Rb and 137Cs, as expected from the chemical similarity of both elements. These results proved that the short-lived radioisotope 86Rb can be used in future experiments to simulate 137Cs. Results and conclusions from these experiments are presented and compared to results from laboratory-scale experiments performed on small coupons. In general, both hydrogel decontamination products may be used as a viable option to decontaminate large surfaces in a real-world event, removing between 30% to 90% of the contamination, depending on the surface type and porosity. However, both products may leave behind absorbed contamination that will need to be addressed at a later stage. Yet, the likelihood of resuspension through use of these products is reduced.

References

1.
Yaar
,
I.
,
Halevy
,
I.
,
Berenstein
,
Z.
, and
Sharon
,
A.
,
2016
, “
Protecting Transportation Infrastructure Against Radiological Threat
,”
Protecting Critical Infrastructure
,
S.
Hakim
, ed.,
Wiley
,
Philadelphia, PA
, pp.
129
147
.
2.
Harper
,
F. T.
,
Musolino
,
S. V.
, and
Wente
,
W. B.
,
2007
, “
Realistic Radiological Dispersal Device Hazard Boundaries and Ramifications for Early Consequence Management Decisions
,”
Health Phys.
,
93
(
1
), pp.
1
16
.
3.
Drake
,
J.
,
2011
, “
Argonne National Laboratory Argonne SuperGel for Radiological Decontamination
,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Technology Evaluation Report No.
EPA 600/R-11/081
.
4.
Drake
,
J.
,
2011
, “
CBI Polymers DeconGel® 1101 and 1108 for Radiological Decontamination
,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Technology Evaluation Report No.
EPA/600/R-11/084
.
5.
Drake, J.,
2011
, “
Evaluation of Nine Chemical-Based Technologies for Removal of Radiological Contamination From Concrete Surfaces
,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Technical Brief No.
EPA/600/R-11/086
.
6.
EPA
,
2011
, “
Evaluation of Five Technologies for the Mechanical Removal of Radiological Contamination From Concrete Surfaces
,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Technical Brief No.
EPA/600/S-11/004
.
7.
Drake
,
J.
,
2013
, “
CBI Polymers DeconGel® 1108 for Radiological Decontamination of Americium
,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Technology Evaluation Report No.
EPA/600/R-12/067
.
8.
Drake
,
J.
,
2013
, “
Bartlett Services, Inc. Stripcoat TLC Free Radiological Decontamination of Americium
,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Technology Evaluation Report No.
EPA/600/R-13/005
.
9.
Drake
,
J.
,
2013
, “
Decontamination of Concrete and Granite Contaminated With Cobalt-60 and Strontium-85
,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Technology Evaluation Report No.
EPA/600/R-13/002
.
10.
Drake
,
J.
,
2013
, “
Decontamination of Concrete and Granite Contaminated With Americium-243
,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Technology Evaluation Report No.
EPA/600/R-13/204
.
11.
IAEA
,
1988
,
The Radiological Accident in Goiânia
,
International Atomic Energy Agency
,
Vienna, Austria
.
12.
Lee
,
S. D.
,
2012
, “
Fate of Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD) Material on Urban Surfaces: Impact of Rain on Removal of Cesium
,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Report No.
EPA/600/R/12/569
.
13.
Lee
,
S. D.
,
2012
, “
Water Wash Down of Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD) Material on Urban Surfaces: Effect of Washing Conditions on Cs Removal Efficacy
,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Report No.
EPA/600/R-12/068
.
14.
Drake
,
J.
,
2013
, “
Decontamination of Cesium, Cobalt, Strontium, and Americium From Porous Surfaces
,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Technology Evaluation Report No.
EPA/600/R-13/232
.
15.
Drake
,
J.
,
2013
, “
Decontamination of Concrete With Aged and Recent Cesium Contamination
,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Technology Evaluation Report No.
EPA/600/R-13/001
.
16.
James
,
R. R.
,
Willenberg
,
Z. J.
,
Fox
,
R. V.
, and
Drake
,
J.
,
2008
, “
Isotron Corp. Orion Radiological Decontamination Strippable Coating
,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Technology Evaluation Report No.
EPA/600/R-08/100
.
17.
Gray
,
G. H.
,
Jorgensen
,
B.
,
McClaugherty
,
D. L.
, and
Kippenberger
,
A.
,
2001
, “
Smart Polymeric Coatings for Surface Decontamination
,”
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
,
40
(
16
), pp.
3540
3546
.
18.
Drake
,
J.
,
2011
, “
Environmental Alternatives, Inc. Rad-Release I and II for Radiological Decontamination
,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Technology Evaluation Report No.
EPA/600/R-11/083
.
19.
Drake
,
J.
,
2013
, “
Environment Canada’s Universal Decontamination Formulation
,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Technology Evaluation Report No.
EPA/600/R-13/048
.
20.
Paz-Tal
,
O.
,
Bar-Ziv
,
R.
,
Hakmon
,
R.
,
Borojovich
,
E. J. C.
,
Nikoloski
,
A.
,
Ohaion
,
T.
,
Yanosh-Levi
,
R.
, and
Yaar
,
I.
,
2014
, “
Study of Cleanup Procedures for Contaminated Areas: Examination of Rubidium as a Surrogate to Cesium
,”
27th Conference of the Israel Nuclear Societies
, Dead Sea, Israel, Feb. 11–13, p.
165
.
You do not currently have access to this content.