Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

U.S. Department of Energy

12000 Jefferson Avenue

Newport News, VA 23606

JEFFERSON LAB

SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

For Calendar Year 2000

Prepared by:

SURA/Jefferson Lab

Office of Technical Performance

EH&S Reporting

September 2001
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................. i

Acronym List .......................................................................................................................................................... iii

SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 1

SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 General ............................................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Laboratory Mission ........................................................................................................................ 5

2.3 Environmental Review.................................................................................................................. 5

2.4 Site Location .................................................................................................................................... 6

2.5 Site History and Description ........................................................................................................ 6

2.6 Site Environment, Health, & Safety Resources ......................................................................... 9

SECTION 3 2000 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 9

3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 List of Environmental Protection and Public Health Standards............................................ 9

3.3 Compliance Status - Asbestos and PCB Standards .............................................................. 12

3.4 Compliance Status - Water Quality Standards...................................................................... 13

3.5 Compliance Status - Radiological Protection Standards ..................................................... 15

3.6 Compliance Status - Public Health Standards....................................................................... 16

3.7 Compliance Status - Air Quality Standards........................................................................... 17

3.8 Compliance Status - Emergency Response Standards......................................................... 20

3.9 Compliance Status - Emergency Planning Standards.......................................................... 20

3.10 Compliance Status - Pollution Prevention Standards.......................................................... 22

3.11 Compliance Status - Waste Management Standards ........................................................... 23

3.12 Compliance Status - Transportation Standards .................................................................... 25

3.13 Compliance Status - Environmental Protection Standards................................................. 26

3.14 Compliance Status - AL&R List ............................................................................................... 26

3.15 Compliance Status - Other Obligations Identified in the Contract ................................... 27

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM INFORMATION............................ 29

4.1 Overview of the Environmental Monitoring Program............................................................ 29

4.2 Appraisals, Assessments, and Inspections ................................................................................ 30

4.3 Environmental Permits.................................................................................................................. 31

4.4 2000 NEPA Activity ....................................................................................................................... 31

4.5 Summary of Significant Environmental Activities at Jefferson Lab ..................................... 31

SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM INFORMATION .................. 33

5.1 Environmental Radiation Monitoring ........................................................................................ 34

5.2 Direct, Airborne, and Waterborne Radioactivity ..................................................................... 34

5.3 Monitoring for Exposure to Accelerator-Produced Direct Radiation................................... 40

5.4 Assessments of Potential Radiation Dose to the Public and to Biota ................................... 41

5.5 Other Support Activities ............................................................................................................... 41

SECTION 6 ENVIRONMENTAL NON-RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM INFORMATION .......... 43

6.1 Water Programs .......... ................................................................................................................... 43

6.2 Conventional Air Emissions......................................................................................................... 46

6.3 Herbicides and Pesticides ............................................................................................................. 46

6.4 Hazardous Wastes.......................................................................................................................... 46

6.5 Environmental Occurrences ......................................................................................................... 46

6.6 SARA Title III Reporting Requirements..................................................................................... 47

6.7 Safety................................................................................................................................................. 47

(Continued)
ii 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

(Continued)

SECTION 7 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION........................................................................................ 48

7.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 48

7.2 Hydrogeology Issues ..................................................................................................................... 48

7.3 Groundwater Protection Program Summary............................................................................ 50

7.4 Groundwater Monitoring Review............................................................................................... 52

SECTION 8 QUALITY ASSURANCE.......................................................................................................... 53

8.1 Quality Assurance in Sampling Procedures.............................................................................. 53

8.2 Quality Assurance in Analysis..................................................................................................... 53

SECTION 9 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 61

SECTION 10 DISTRIBUTION LIST.............................................................................................................. 62

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 2-1 Jefferson Lab Vicinity Plan .......................................................................................... 7

Exhibit 2-2 Site Plan........................................................................................................................... 8

Exhibit 3-1 Federal Laws and Regulations Included in the WSS Set........................................ 10

Exhibit 3-2 Permits, State Laws and Regulations Included in the WSS Set ............................ 11

Exhibit 3-3 Other Standards Identified in the WSS Set............................................................... 12

Exhibit 3-4 Source Registration Update For Calendar Year 2000.............................................. 19

Exhibit 3-5 Transportation-Related Standards Discussed Elsewhere in SER......................... 26

Exhibit 3-6 Related Performance Measure Results ...................................................................... 28

Exhibit 4-1 Quantities of Items Recycled or Reused in FY 2000................................................ 33

Exhibit 5-1 Nuclide Effective Dose Equivalent Summary.......................................................... 35

Exhibit 5-2 Monitoring Well Locations .......................................................................................... 37

Exhibit 5-3 VPDES Permit Levels for Radionuclides .................................................................. 38

Exhibit 5-4 Maximum Groundwater Measurements for Radionuclides ................................. 38

Exhibit 5-5 Analytical Results for Discharges to HRSD in 2000................................................ 40

Exhibit 5-6 Boundary Monitor Locations ...................................................................................... 42

Exhibit 5-7 Radiation Boundary Monitor RBM-3 Results for 2000........................................... 42

Exhibit 6-1 2000 Permit-Related Non-Radiological Monitoring Results ................................. 43

Exhibit 6-2 2000 Cooling Water Discharge Results...................................................................... 44

Exhibit 6-3 Control Chemicals and Products Approved for Use in 2000 ................................ 47

Exhibit 6-4 Chemicals Reported for 2000....................................................................................... 48

Exhibit 7-1 Groundwater Sampling Parameters .......................................................................... 50

Exhibit 8-1 Quality Assurance Program (QAP) Selected Results for 2000.............................. 56

Exhibit 8-2 Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP)................................ 57

Exhibit 8-3 Selected Results from Universal Laboratories Performance Evaluation

Reports – ERA WatRTM Supply Proficiency Testing Study WS-43................ 57

Exhibit 8-4 Selected Results from Universal Laboratories Performance Evaluation

Reports – NSI Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program Study

WS-00-4..................................................................................................................... 58

Exhibit 8-5 Selected Results from Universal Laboratories Performance Evaluation

Reports – NSI Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program Study

WP-00-5 .................................................................................................................... 59

Exhibit 8-6 Selected Results from Universal Laboratories Performance Evaluation

Reports – NSI Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program Study

WP-00-7 .................................................................................................................... 60
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report iii

ACRONYMS ACRONYM LIST

A C M Asbestos-containing material

A L & R Administrative Laws and Regulations

A P Affirmative Procurement

A R C Applied Research Center

C A A Clean Air Act

C A A A Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

C E B A F Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility

C E R C L A Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

C F C Chlorofluorocarbon

C F R Code of Federal Regulations

C i Curie

C W A Clean Water Act

C X Categorical Exclusion

C Y Calendar Year

D E Q (Virginia) Department of Environmental Quality

D O D U.S. Department of Defense

D O E U.S. Department of Energy

D O T U.S. Department of Transportation

E A Environmental Assessment

E H M Environmentally Harmful Material

E H S Extremely Hazardous Substance

E H & S Environment, Health, and Safety

E M L Environmental Measurements Laboratory

E O Executive Order of the President of the United States

E P A Environmental Protection Agency

E P C R A Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986

E P G s Emergency planning and response groups

E S A Endangered Species Act

E S & H Environment, Safety, and Health

F D S Floor drain sump

F E L Free Electron Laser

F I F R A Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

F O N S I Finding of No Significant Impact

F Y Fiscal Year

G e V Giga-electron Volts

G S A General Services Administration

H R S D Hampton Roads Sanitation District

H S Hazardous Substance

H W C Hazardous Waste Coordinator

I A Independent Assessment

I R Infrared

I S M Integrated Safety Management

I W D R Industrial Wastewater Discharge Regulations

k g Kilogram

L S A Line Self-Assessment

M A P E P Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program

M c D e r m o t t McDermott Technologies

m g / l Milligrams per liter

M G D Million gallons/day

m r e m Millirem

(Continued)
iv 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

(Continued)

ACRONYMS ACRONYM LIST

M S D S Material Safety Data Sheet

M S L Mean Sea Level

m S v Millisievert

N A A Q S National Ambient Air Quality Standards

N A S A National Aeronautics and Space Administration

N C P National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

N E L A C National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference

N E P A National Environmental Policy Act

N E S H A P s National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

N H P A National Historic Preservation Act

O D S Ozone-Depleting Substance

O R O Oak Ridge Operations – (DOE)

O S H A Occupational Safety and Health Act

P 2 Pollution Prevention

P A A A Price-Anderson Amendments Act

P C B Polychlorinated biphenyl

p C i / l Picocuries per liter

P P A Pollution Prevention Act

Q A Quality Assurance

Q A P Quality Assessment Program

Q C Quality Control

R A D C O N Radiological Control

R B M Radiation boundary monitor

R C G Radiation Control Group

R C R A Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

R Q Reportable Quantity

S A / Q A Self-Assessment/Quality Assurance

S A R A Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

S D W A Safe Drinking Water Act

S E R Site Environmental Report

S N S Spallation Neutron Source

S P C C Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (Plan)

S Q G Small Quantity Generator

S R F Superconducting Radiofrequency

S U R A Southeastern Universities Research Association, Inc.

S W D A Solid Waste Disposal Act

T D S Total Dissolved Solids

T O C Total Organic Carbon

T P Q Threshold Planning Quantity

T R I Toxic Release Inventory

T S C A Toxic Substances Control Act

T S S Total Suspended Solids

U V Ultraviolet

Universal Labs Universal Laboratories, Inc.

V A C Virginia Administrative Code

V P A Virginia Pollution Abatement (Permit)

V P D E S Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Permit)

W M i n / P 2 Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention

W S S Work Smart Standards
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 1

JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2000

SECTION 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose

This report presents the results of environmental activities and monitoring programs at the

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year

(CY) 2000. The report provides the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public with

information on radioactive and non-radioactive pollutants, if any, added to the environment as

a result of Jefferson Lab operations. The report also summarizes environmental programs,

initiatives, and assessments that were undertaken in 2000. The objective of the Site

Environmental Report (SER) is to document Jefferson Lab’s active environmental protection

program that protects the environment and public health.

Jefferson Lab’s main purpose is to make available a research facility to support the nuclear

physics community and the nation. The Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility

(CEBAF) provides an electron beam to three experimental halls where a variety of physics

experiments are conducted. Correlative programs where environmental protection is

considered are: the Free Electron Laser (FEL); Superconducting Radio-Frequency research and

development; and cryomodule development for the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) project.

Major Site Programs

CEBAF: During 2000, progress was made to upgrade CEBAF to 6 GeV (Giga-electron Volts).

The accelerator continued to deliver electron beams at energies close to 6 GeV to meet the

variety of needs of the experimenters in Halls A, B, and C. The CEBAF accelerator, originally

designed to provide 4 GeV continuous wave electron beams, reached 6.07 GeV at

109 microamperes during test runs in August.

Jefferson Lab has completed 32 experiments and partially completed another 47 between facility

commissioning and the end of CY 2000. One of the major experiments in Hall C, known as Gen

(that means the charge form factor of the neutron), is using a new kind of detector called a

“neutron polarimeter”. A large Hall A collaboration, involving researchers from all over the

world, investigated electro-disintegration at high momentum transfer using the electron beam

to interact with the atomic nucleus of a gaseous isotope of helium known as helium-3.

Superconducting Radio-Frequency (SRF) Technology: SRF research and development were

enhanced in 2000 to better support the existing accelerators. Improvements were made to the

original CEBAF cryomodule design to support current 6 GeV and future 8 GeV and 12 GeV

operations. Also, SRF improvements and applications to meet SNS needs were underway.

FEL: The Lab’s FEL is in its fourth year of activity. It is a kilowatt level light source with

output in both the infrared (IR) and ultraviolet (UV) wavelength domains. It supports basic

science research and serves universities, private industry, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force.
2 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

During 2000, the FEL experiments included: energy flow within proteins, production of

coatings and thin films for electronics and microcomponents, and production of carbon

nanotubes. CY 2000 also marked the beginning of a two-year FEL 10 kilowatt upgrade project

to add two new cryomodules to the FEL accelerator, a new injector to double the quantity of

beam produced, and a new “wiggler” magnet to help improve operational capabilities.

SNS: The SNS project is a partnership involving six DOE national research centers, Jefferson

Lab, Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge, to design and

construct what will be the most powerful spallation source in the world in Oak Ridge,

Tennessee. The SNS will provide intense pulsed-neutron beams for scientific research and

industrial development. Jefferson Lab’s contribution is to develop and build the cryomodules

and to design the cryogenic support facilities for the project. Many SNS milestones were

reached in 2000.

The E in Environment, Health, and Safety (EH&S)

Organization and Management: Ultimate responsibility for protection of the environment and

the public health rests with the Lab Director, while line management implements the goals

within their areas of responsibility. EH&S staff provide support to their line management and

share their expertise with the lab as a whole.

Integrated Safety Management (ISM) System: Through ISM, Jefferson Lab incorporates EH&S

requirements into all work procedures, striving towards continuous improvement in EH&S and

in the nuclear physics research program.

Jefferson Lab Work Smart Standards (WSS) Process: The goal of the WSS process at Jefferson

Lab is to enable an EH&S system that is both effective and cost-efficient. The WSS Set,

identified through the process, is comprised of the laws, regulations, and standards necessary

and sufficient to ensure health and safety and to protect the environment with respect to hazard

issues that are relevant to Jefferson Lab. The WSS Set and other associated obligations are

reviewed and adjusted on a regular basis to address changes in either site activities or

regulations. More information is provided in Section 3.

EH&S Performance Measures: These DOE/SURA (Southeastern Universities Research

Association, Inc.) contract-based measures, used to evaluate Jefferson Lab’s EH&S performance,

include items such as recycling and hazardous waste minimization. These are discussed in

Section 3.

Inspections and Appraisals: The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the

Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) performed inspections in 2000. There were no

concerns or violations identified. The remaining deficiencies from three previous DOE external

appraisals were closed in 2000. The DOE Site Office’s Overlay Report included an

“outstanding” rating for SURA in the EH&S category. These are discussed further in Section 4.

Implementation of 10 CFR 835: This DOE Code of Federal Regulations worker radiation

protection rule is enforced at Jefferson Lab and identified in the WSS Set mentioned above. The

Jefferson Lab Radiation Protection Program Plan is used to implement the rule on site, and is

revised as identified by the responsible line management. This is addressed in Section 3.

Implementation of NEPA: Most facility additions and modifications are subject to review

under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The initial Jefferson Lab construction

and an upgrade to CEBAF were addressed in the 1987 and 1997 Environmental Assessments

(EAs). Routine activities are covered under site-specific Categorical Exclusions (CXs). New

activities in 2000 received NEPA CX authorizations, including two that covered radioactive
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 3

waste management and an addition to the Test Lab to support SNS activities. NEPA is

discussed further in Section 3.

Environmental Management System Implementation: This is the subject of the 6700 series of

chapters in the Jefferson Lab EH&S Manual. Chapter 6710, Environmental Protection Program, is

being upgraded to clarify management roles regarding the protection of the environment and

public health.

Summary of Environmental Results in 2000

Compliance

Jefferson Lab complied with applicable Federal, State, and local environmental laws,

regulations, and DOE guidance during 2000. As a consequence, Jefferson Lab operations had

no discernable impact on public health or the environment. Radiation-related issues, especially

those dealing with water resources and public health, are highlighted in this report.

The Jefferson Lab EH&S Manual, which addresses many environmental topics, was updated

and improved to ensure that new compliance initiatives were incorporated in 2000.

Radiological Monitoring

Water: Radiation measurements are made at the groundwater dewatering sump and

groundwater monitoring wells located near the accelerator and the experimental halls.

Sampling intervals vary from quarterly to annually. There were no readings above background

in 2000. No analyte, except gross beta, was detected above the permit-required sensitivity

levels. The gross beta was detected at normal background levels. Therefore, there were no

accelerator-produced radionuclides detected in our groundwater.

Radioactive water is generated in the accelerator complex and a small quantity is discharged

under permit to the sanitary sewer system. Sampling results are reported monthly and

quarterly. Sampling is routinely performed prior to any discharge to ensure permit limits are

maintained.

Airborne: Radiological airborne emissions at the site boundary are addressed under the

Environmental Protection Agency‘s (EPA’s) National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAPs) requirements. Jefferson Lab is below emission levels that trigger

monitoring or reporting, but continuous measurements are made to verify emission

calculations. Though not required, CY 2000 values were reported to the EPA. One result

reported to the EPA for 2000 was that the total maximum offsite dose from radiological airborne

releases was less than 0.048 mrem/year.

The accelerator site boundary monitors are used to determine offsite direct radiation dose to the

public due to Jefferson Lab operations. The dose values for 2000 were within Jefferson Lab’s

allowable limits. The highest direct radiation level measured was only 3.8% of the DOE annual

dose limit of 100 mrem.

Since these doses are well under any regulatory or site administrative limits, there are no

impacts on the public from any of these radiation sources. A complete discussion is provided in

Section 5.

Non-radiological Monitoring

Jefferson Lab’s non-radiological environmental monitoring program also verified compliance

with applicable environmental program requirements. The program includes monthly

industrial wastewater monitoring, quarterly groundwater sampling at the dewatering sump

and at some of the monitoring wells, and quarterly cooling water discharge sampling.
4 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Items of Interest in 2000

Highlights in Jefferson Lab’s 2000 environmental protection and pollution prevention program

included:

• Modified the cavity production process to achieve a 50% reduction in acid use;

• Sent 7.4 tons of various outdated computer equipment for recycling;

• Maintained a top rating in the Lab’s performance measure that addresses recycling

compared to landfilled waste;

• Appointed a Green Acquisition Advocate in the Business Services Department to spearhead

a program to purchase EPA-designated recycled-content products;

• Received a “Gold Pretreatment Excellence Award” from the local sanitation district; and

• Instituted a new radioactive waste management program.
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 5

SECTION 2

INTRODUCTION

2.1 GENERAL

This report provides the public with a

summary of CY 2000 environmental

protection and public health items that

characterize the environmental

management performance at Jefferson Lab.

This report addresses the Lab’s compliance

status with applicable requirements,

standards, and contractual commitments.

Information on related assessments,

initiatives, and site programs is also

included.

The term “safety” in the ISM program

includes environmental protection and

public health, as well as worker safety and

health (all are generally termed EH&S).

EH&S responsibilities are incorporated in

each employee’s position description as

described in the Jefferson Lab ISM Plan. The

DOE validated the ISM Plan in 1999. Refer

to Section 4.2 for more information.

2.2 LABORATORY MISSION

Jefferson Lab, formerly known as CEBAF, is

a national accelerator facility managed by

SURA for the DOE. The accelerator

complex portion of the Lab still retains the

name CEBAF and includes three

underground halls that house the physics

program experiments. Jefferson Lab’s

mission statement addresses quality and

excellence in research, community

partnership, and environment, health, and

safety.

The original Jefferson Lab mission evolved

from the nuclear science community’s

recognition of the need for a state-of-the-art

electron accelerator with a continuous high

current electron beam with electron

energies in the multi-billion electron volt

region. The accelerator is used to study

quark structures and behaviors and the

forces governing the clustering of

individual nucleons in the nuclear medium.

There were improvements in CEBAF

operations in support of the physics

program experiments in 2000, including

further progress in upgrading CEBAF to

6 GeV. Since the Lab began operations,

through the end of 2000, researchers had

completed 32 major physics program

experiments. In 2000 alone, 12 experiments

were successfully completed, 5 in Hall A,

4 in Hall B, and 3 in Hall C. Jefferson Lab’s

expertise in SRF technology is being used to

design and build the cryomodules and

refrigeration system for the DOE’s SNS that

is being built in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Use

of the FEL by Jefferson Lab, industrial,

Department of Defense (DOD), and

university partners also continued in 2000.

Atomic Structure

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

An environmental assessment, termed EA,

performed under NEPA, was conducted

prior to construction of CEBAF

(February 1987), resulting in a Finding of

No Significant Impact (FONSI). The EA

and other NEPA-related documentation

have been reviewed periodically with no

significant changes noted. A 1997 EA, that

yielded a FONSI, addressed CEBAF

upgrades and FEL-related activities. Refer

to Section 3.15.1 for additional NEPA

information.
6 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

2.4 SITE LOCATION

Jefferson Lab is located in Newport News,

Virginia. Newport News is bounded on the

east by York County and the city of

Hampton; on the north by James City

County and the city of Williamsburg; on the

west by the James River; and on the south

by the Hampton Roads waterway. Jefferson

Lab is located just east of Jefferson Avenue,

a main area thoroughfare, and is less than

one mile to the west of Interstate 64. The

site is just south of Oyster Point Road and

just north of Middle Ground Boulevard.

The Jefferson Lab Vicinity Plan is included

as Exhibit 2-1. Two schools, a cemetery,

and railroad tracks serving the local rail

system are located within one mile of the

site. Newport News-Williamsburg

International Airport is located two miles to

the north. Exhibit 2-2 shows the Jefferson

Lab site proper.

Jefferson Lab is sited in the northern section

of Newport News at an average elevation of

34 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The

site elevation ranges from 29 to 35 feet

above MSL, which is above the 100-year

floodplain level of 13 feet above MSL. The

Jefferson Lab site is located in the coastal

plain of the lower York-James Peninsula.

The site is a part of the Brick Kiln Creek

watershed, which discharges into the Big

Bethel Reservoir. Big Bethel Reservoir is

operated by the U.S. Army and provides

drinking water to Fort Monroe, Langley Air

Force Base, and the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA)-Langley

Research Center.

2.5 SITE HISTORY AND

DESCRIPTION

Prior to Jefferson Lab, there were several

users of this general area. In 1942 and 1943,

the DOD acquired most of the Oyster Point

area that included all of the land presently

used by Jefferson Lab. The U.S. Air Force

acquired the land in 1950 and installed a

BOMARC missile site on a portion of the

land immediately to the east of the Jefferson

Lab site. The DOD started disposing of the

property after closure of the BOMARC

missile base in 1963. Some land was

conveyed to the Commonwealth of

Virginia, NASA (110 acres), and others. In

January 1987, ownership of the 110 acres of

NASA property, including 100 acres of

wooded, undeveloped land, was conveyed

to the DOE. An additional 52 acres of land

were transferred to the DOE from various

sources. Therefore, the total DOE-owned

parcel, upon which Jefferson Lab is built, is

162 acres.

An adjacent 44 acres, owned by the city of

Newport News, were conveyed to SURA in

December 1986. A SURA dormitory is

located on a portion of this land, and is used

by guests and visiting experimenters, who

are referred to as users.

Also adjacent to the DOE-owned site is a

10.7-acre parcel owned by the

Commonwealth of Virginia and leased to

the city of Newport News. The Applied

Research Center (ARC), located on this

property, was completed in 1998. The ARC

is used by Jefferson Lab, industry, and

universities and is the cornerstone of the

newly designated Jefferson Center for

Research and Technology. Other adjacent

land owned by the Commonwealth of

Virginia is leased to SURA and the DOE for

its use in support of Jefferson Lab.

Sign at Main Entrance to Site
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 7

EXHIBIT 2-1
8 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

EXHIBIT 2-2
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 9

2.6 SITE ENVIRONMENT,

HEALTH, & SAFETY

RESOURCES

The facility makes available a variety of

EH&S resources to serve the Jefferson Lab

community. The Lab community includes

staff, Commonwealth employees,

subcontractors, visiting experimenters, and

students of all ages that participate under

various programs.

Local EH&S resources include: EH&S staff

that support specific line organizations;

EH&S program specialists that serve the

entire facility in their area of expertise;

groups and committees that address labwide concerns, develop policy, and resolve

selected issues; and the Jefferson Lab EH&S

Manual, as the primary source of

implementing procedures for EH&S. The

EH&S Manual is accessible via paper copy

at designated locations or at

www.jlab.org/ehs/manual/EHSbook.html.

Other EH&S resources available to program

managers at Jefferson Lab include: DOE

subject matter experts, generally through

the DOE Site Office and the Oak Ridge

Operations (ORO) Office; DOE program

specialists that deal with policy issues at all

levels; and colleagues at other DOE facilities

that share expertise and lessons learned

from their own unique experiences.

These resources were utilized in 2000 to

support the continued development and

implementation of environmental

protection and public health-related

programs at Jefferson Lab.

SECTION 3

2000 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Compliance with applicable environmental

protection and public health-related laws

and regulations is an important part of

operations at Jefferson Lab.

Assurance that on-site processes do not

adversely affect the environment is

achieved by Jefferson Lab’s selfassessments, routine inspections, and

through oversight by the DOE Site Office

and outside regulators, including staff from

the DEQ and HRSD. Assurance is also

obtained through guidance from the DOE

ORO Office, with additional program

support by the DOE Office of Science.

3.2 LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AND PUBLIC

HEALTH STANDARDS

Environmental protection and public

health-related standards and commitments

have been identified in DOE/SURA

contractual documents. They are divided

into three groupings:

• the Work Smart Standards Set;

• the Administrative Laws and

Regulations (AL&R) List; and

• other Contractual Commitments.

3.2.1 Standards in the WSS Set

The DOE designated the Necessary

and Sufficient Process, now called

the WSS Process, to identify

environmental protection, health,

and safety hazards and the

standards describing mitigation

measures. During this process, the

particular hazards associated with

the Lab were identified, with the

corresponding laws, regulations,

and other standards necessary and

sufficient to protect the worker, the

public, and the environment against

the identified hazards. This

summary of applicable

environment, health, and safety

requirements for Jefferson Lab is the

WSS Set. The WSS Set was most

recently amended in February 2001.
10 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

The applicable environmental

protection and public health-related

standards, including the four site

operating permits, are listed in

Exhibits 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3. Various

Occupational Safety and Health Act

(OSHA)-related standards are

included in the WSS Set, but since

these contain minimal

environmental protection controls,

compliance with OSHA is not

singled out in this report.

Compliance with each of the listed

standards, by category, is presented

in parts of Section 3 as referenced in

the exhibits.

EXHIBIT 3-1

FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS INCLUDED IN THE WSS SET

SER References Citations Titles

LAWS (by subject)

3.3 Asbestos 15 U.S.C. § 2641 et seq. Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of

1986 (training)

3.4 Water 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean

Water Act)

3.5 Radiation 42 U.S.C. § 2282a Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988

(referenced in 10 CFR 835)

3.6 Public Health 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq. Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended

3.7 Air 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. Clean Air Act and Amendments

3.8 Emergency Response 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. CERCLA

3.9 Emergency Planning 42 U.S.C. § 11001-11050 SARA Title III EPCRA

3.10 Pollution Prevention

and 3.11 Waste

42 U.S.C. § 13101 et seq. Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

REGULATIONS Title 10 - Energy

(3.5.1)

(3.15.6)

Parts 71, 834, and 835

Part 10

Title 40 - Protection of

Environment

(3.7) Subchapter C Various Air Programs

(3.4) Subchapter D Various Water Programs

(3.11) Subchapter I Various Waste Programs including RCRA

(3.8 & 3.9) Subchapter J Various Superfund, EPCRA Programs

(3.4.3) Subchapter N Part 403

(3.3) Subchapter R Part 763

Title 49 - Transportation

3.12 Transportation Subchapter C Various Hazardous Materials Regulations

DOE GUIDANCE

(3.5.4) O 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Environment,

Chapter II and IV

(Continued)
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 11

EXHIBIT 3-1 (Continued)

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

(EOs)

(3.10 and 3.11) 13101 Greening the Government Through Waste

Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition

(3.10) 13123 Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy

Management

(3.7.3, 3.9, 3.10, and 3.11) 13148 Greening the Government Through Leadership in

Environmental Management

Notes:

SER: Site Environmental Report

Italics indicate it is in the process of being incorporated into WSS Set.

See referenced sections for full titles of noted laws or permits.

EXHIBIT 3-2

PERMITS, STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS INCLUDED IN THE WSS SET

SER

References Citations Standard

LAWS

(3.11) Title 10.1 - Conservation Chapter 14, Virginia Waste

Management Act

(3.4) Title 62.1 - Waters of the

State, Ports and Harbors

Chapter 3.1, State Water Control Law

PERMITS Issued Effective

(3.4.2) No. VA0089320 VPDES Permit - Specifies allowable

groundwater and surface water quality

on-site during accelerator operations.

Assures groundwater unaffected at and

beyond site boundary.

7/16/96 Through

7/16/2001

(3.4.2) DEQ No. VAG253002 General Permit for Cooling Water

Discharges - Authorizes cooling water

discharges within identified discharge

limitations.

[applicable

9/99]

Through

3/1/2003

(3.4.4) HRSD No. 0117 Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit

- Limits wastes to be discharged to

sewerage.

10/87 3/1/99-

3/1/2002

(3.4.5) DEQ No. GW0030800 Permit to Withdraw Groundwater -

Authorizes maximum quantities of

water to be withdrawn by dewatering

of area under experimental halls.

11/1/94 Through

10/30/2004

REGULATIONS

(3.7) 9 - VAC (Environment) Chapter 5, Air Quality

(3.11) 9 - VAC (Environment) Chapter 20, Waste Regulations

(3.4) 9 - VAC (Environment) Chapter 25, Water Quality

(3.4.4) none HRSD Industrial Wastewater Discharge Regulations

Note:

See referenced sections for full titles of noted laws or permits.
12 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

EXHIBIT 3-3

OTHER STANDARDS IDENTIFIED IN THE WSS SET

Category/SER References Citations Standard

REGULATIONS

(3.12) 49 CFR 177 Hazardous Materials Regulations

DOE GUIDANCE

(3.5.4 3.15.8) O 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Environment, Sections 1a and 1b

VIRGINIA PLAN

(3.8) Virginia Emergency Management Operations Plan

EH&S MANUAL

(3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.11,

& 3.13)

Assorted Chapters

and Appendices

referenced below.

Manual sections include topics on: ionizing radiation

protection, asbestos, emergency planning, air and water

quality, oil spill prevention, waste minimization, recycling

and waste management practices.

3.2.2 AL&R List

The AL&R List was developed along

with the WSS Set and identifies

EH&S implementation standards

and requirements that are of an

administrative nature and not

directly related to hazards.

Together, the WSS Set and the

AL&R List contain almost all of

Jefferson Lab’s EH&S requirements.

The environmental protection and

public health-related AL&R

documents are not specifically listed

here, but include some U.S.

Department of Transportation

(DOT) hazardous material

regulations and a section of U.S.

Code dealing with generators of

hazardous waste. Refer to

Section 3.14 for the compliance

status.

3.2.3 Other Related Contractual

Commitments

Compliance with other

environmental protection or public

health-related contractual

requirements, e.g., the Endangered

Species Act, is discussed in

Section 3.15.

3.3 COMPLIANCE STATUSASBESTOS AND PCB

STANDARDS

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

and its implementing regulations, 40 CFR

Subchapter R, require that specific

chemicals such as polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs) and asbestos be controlled

and their use restricted.

3.3.1 PCBs

Since 1987, SURA has been

removing PCBs and PCBcontaminated items from the site.

Technically, the site is PCB-free.

There were no compliance issues in

2000.

3.3.2 Asbestos

Most asbestos-containing material

(ACM) was removed from the site

prior to 1992. In July 1992, an

Asbestos Management Plan

identified the remaining ACMs in

Buildings 28 and 58 as non-friable

and in fair to good condition;

therefore, abatement is not required

by current regulations.
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 13

Jefferson Lab complies with the

training requirements identified in

the Asbestos Hazard Emergency

Response Act of 1986 (Title II of

TSCA) and the emission control

requirements in NESHAPs. EH&S

Manual Chapter 6681, Asbestos

Management, implements the ACM

requirements at Jefferson Lab. There

were no compliance issues in 2000.

3.4 COMPLIANCE STATUS -

WATER QUALITY

STANDARDS

Groundwater and surface water protection

are a high priority at Jefferson Lab.

Applicable standards include: the Clean

Water Act (CWA); Virginia’s State Water

Control Law; regulations that include parts

of 40 CFR Subchapter D and Virginia’s

9 VAC 25 Series, Water Quality; site permits;

and cited EH&S Manual chapters. Each of

these standards is referenced under the

respective topic below.

Facilities in Virginia that directly discharge

to waters of the United States must obtain a

Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (VPDES) permit to do so. The

VPDES program is designed to protect

surface waters by limiting primarily nonradiological releases of effluents into

streams, lakes, and other waters, including

wetlands. Regulatory and program

concerns relating to construction are

addressed in Section 3.4.1. VPDES concerns

relating to industrial activities, including

the quality of cooling water discharges and

the potential for radiological contamination

of groundwater, are covered under

Section 3.4.2.

The concrete halls, which house the

experimental apparatus that accepts

accelerator beam, are partially buried. As

the floors of the halls are situated below the

water table, a built-in drainage system was

installed under each of the halls to prevent

the structures from floating. Groundwater

collects in this drainage system and is

pumped to a surface water channel. This

process is termed dewatering. Compliance

with the related permits is described in

Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.5.

Jefferson Lab has a variety of on-site

activities that result in water discharges to

the sanitary sewer system. The associated

wastewater standards included in the WSS

Set are discussed in Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4.

There is a significant aggregate quantity of

oil present on the site, primarily in

transformers and compressors that are in

continual use. Consequently, Jefferson Lab

has a Spill Prevention, Control, and

Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan that is

presented in Section 3.4.6.

3.4.1 VPDES - Construction

Activity

Jefferson Lab strives to keep

pollutants, such as sediments, out of

surface waters. No permits have

been required through 2000. The

Lab’s Plant Engineering Department

oversees the civil construction and

ensures that subcontractors adhere

to the standards set forth in the

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control

Handbook . EH&S Manual

Chapter 6733, Storm Water Pollution

Prevention, identifies some of the

site-specific procedures to address

erosion control.

3.4.2 VPDES - Industrial

Activities

Groundwater Monitoring - VPDES

Permit No. VA0089320

This permit covers groundwater

resources, including groundwater

flowing across the site and

groundwater discharged in the

dewatering operation (see

Section 3.4.5). The purpose of the

original Virginia Pollution

Abatement (VPA) Permit, which

was superseded by a VPDES permit,

was to quantify water quality

“baseline” values for certain

parameters and to set long-term

groundwater quality limits. A well
14 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

monitoring program under this

permit enables the comparison of

current and “baseline” values.

Jefferson Lab verifies that accelerator

operations and other activities, such

as the groundwater dewatering do

not degrade the quality of either onsite or offsite groundwater. Refer to

Section 7 and EH&S Manual

Chapter 6731, Groundwater

Protection, for background and sitespecific information.

Throughout 2000, groundwater

sampling to monitor all permitdefined parameters was performed

under a subcontract with an

accredited laboratory and submitted

to the Commonwealth at the end of

each quarter. There were no

groundwater compliance issues in

2000.

Cooling Water Discharges -

General Permit for Cooling Water

Discharges

This permit covers the surface

discharges from the cooling towers

adjacent to the Central Helium

Liquifier, Building 8. A small tower

adjacent to the Test Lab, Building 58,

was added to the Permit in early

2001. The permit contains water

quality limits.

Sampling is performed under a

subcontract with an accredited

laboratory and is submitted to the

Commonwealth at the end of each

quarter. The sampling during 2000

revealed one unusual result each for

pH and chlorine. One involved

sampling that occurred during a no

flow situation and the other was due

to taking the sample too close to the

source. The two values were

reported to the DEQ, and Jefferson

Lab satisfactorily resolved any

concerns.

3.4.3 40 CFR 403, General

Pretreatment Regulations

for Existing and New

Sources of Pollution

This regulation contains National

Pretreatment Standards for

pollutants that pass through or

interfere with offsite treatment

processes. Jefferson Lab’s sanitary

sewage is discharged to an offsite

publicly owned treatment works

operated by the HRSD. The Lab is

categorized as a Non-significant

Industrial User with no

pretreatment requirements. No

compliance issues occurred in 2000.

3.4.4 Industrial Wastewater

Discharge Permit No.

0117 and the District’s

Industrial Wastewater

Discharge Regulations

(IWDR)

Discharges to the HRSD are subject

to the Industrial Wastewater

Discharge Permit and the IWDR.

EH&S Manual Appendix 6730-T1,

Discharges to the Sanitary Sewer

System, describes specific

implementation practices at

Jefferson Lab.

Monthly pH values are taken by a

subcontractor at permitted sampling

points and provided to the HRSD.

HRSD independently performs

regular sampling for metals and

other water quality indicators at

some of the sampling points to

validate Jefferson Lab’s compliance

with permit and regulatory

requirements. There were no

violations or disparities in 2000.

Permitted discharges of activated

water at one HRSD sampling point

continued in 2000. Discharges are

controlled manually, after sampling

has confirmed that all values are

within identified limits. Either

Jefferson Lab staff or a subcontractor
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 15

performs monthly and quarterly

radiological analyses from this

sampling point and the analytical

reports are provided to the HRSD.

All radiological permit and

regulatory criteria were met in 2000

and are discussed further in

Section 5.2.2.

To illustrate the relative quantity of

radioactivity being discharged, the Lab is

permitted to discharge no more than 5 Ci

(Curies) of tritium and 1 Ci of other

gamma-emitting radionuclides in one year.

The total radioactivity discharged to the

sanitary sewer in 2000 was 0.26 Ci of

tritium (or about 5.2% of the total allowed)

and 0.0000004 Ci of Beryllium-7 (or

0.00004% of the total allowed).

Laboratory staff participated in the

February 15, 2000 annual inspection

by the HRSD. No compliance issues

were identified at that time or in the

course of the year.

3.4.5 Permit to Withdraw

Groundwater

To maintain water table levels

consistent with the experimental hall

structural design, water table control

via pumping will be necessary for

the life of the facility. This DEQ

Permit places monthly and annual

limitations on the amount that can

be pumped. Note that this type of

“no usage” withdrawal is unusual.

Groundwater is normally

withdrawn for irrigation or drinking

water.

Quarterly reporting of withdrawal

quantities continued in 2000, and all

monthly values were within permit

requirements. The total quantity of

water withdrawn in 2000 was

4.5 million gallons, well below the

roughly 23 million gallon annual

limit. The Lab voluntarily reports its

annual water usage to assist the

DEQ in determining total regional

water usage.

Permit compliance was maintained

in 2000. Water quality sampling is

performed under the terms of the

VPDES Permit No. VA0089320, as

described in Section 3.4.2.

3.4.6 SPCC Plan - Above

Ground Storage Tank

Issues

Jefferson Lab has transformers and

other operating machinery on-site

that use various oils for lubrication,

hydraulics, and cooling. The Lab

maintains a used oil collection area.

The Lab has an approved SPCC Plan

under 40 CFR 112, which is due for

review in 2001. The SPCC Plan

covers handling, storage, and

transportation activities and is

implemented by division-specific

procedures and EH&S Manual

Chapter 6732, Oil-Spill Prevention,

Control, and Countermeasures.

There are two oil-storage tanks onsite that meet Federal and State

above ground storage tank

definitions, but the total quantity

stored is under the notification

threshold. A number of gaspowered emergency generators

containing small amounts of oil

were added to the site inventory in

2000, but are not subject to this

threshold.

3.5 COMPLIANCE STATUSRADIOLOGICAL

PROTECTION STANDARDS

This section addresses the status of Jefferson

Lab’s compliance with radiological

environmental protection and public health

laws and regulations.
16 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

3.5.1 Title 10 - Energy

10 CFR 71, Packaging &

Transportation of

Radioactive Material

There were no offsite shipments or

compliance issues in 2000. Refer to

further transportation compliance

information under Section 3.12.

10 CFR 834 (Draft), Environmental

Radiological Protection Program

Programs responsive to offsite

radiation protection and other

10 CFR 834 (Draft) requirements have

been instituted. Implementation

measures have been incorporated

into EH&S Manual Chapters 6310,

Ionizing Radiation Protection and 6315,

Environmental Monitoring of Ionizing

Radiation. Refer to Section 3.5.3

below.

10 CFR 835, Occupational Radiation

Protection

The Price-Anderson Amendments

Act (PAAA) of 1988, including the

1992 amendment, was enacted to

provide broad indemnification

coverage for DOE contractors with

radiological-related activities and

requires reporting of noncompliances. DOE PAAA radiation

protection regulations are codified in

10 CFR 835 and address: radioactive

contamination, storage of radioactive

materials, and radiological

emergency response. Jefferson Lab

complied with 10 CFR 835

requirements in 2000. Refer to

Section 3.8 for additional

information.

3.5.2 Title 40, Part 61,

Subpart H

The Lab complied with 40 CFR 61

Subpart H requirements in 2000.

Refer to discussion in Section 3.7.2.

3.5.3 EH&S Manual Chapters

6310 and 6315

Chapters 6310, Ionizing Radiation

Protection, and 6315, Environmental

Monitoring of Ionizing Radiation,

contain site-specific programs used to

manage identified radiological offsite

radiation protection, storage of

radioactive materials, emergency

response, and release of materials to

uncontrolled areas. Chapter 6315

addresses radiological air emissions,

surface water, and radioactive

contamination of other watercontaining systems and groundwater.

There were no compliance issues in

2000.

3.5.4 DOE Order 5400.5

Portions of chapters II and IV of

Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of

the Public and the Environment, apply

and are addressed as described in the

Jefferson Lab Radiological Control

(RADCON) Manual. There were no

compliance issues in 2000.

3.6 COMPLIANCE STATUS -

PUBLIC HEALTH

STANDARDS

The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974

(SDWA) was enacted to ensure that

drinking water is safe for public

consumption. Compliance is achieved via

the EPA’s National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations that apply to public water

supplies. These regulations set maximum

contaminant levels on bacteriological,

chemical, physical, and radiological

contaminants for public water systems.

The Virginia Department of Health

regulates drinking water quality and

enforces compliance with all Federal and

State drinking water-related permits and

standards. Jefferson Lab provides drinking

water to its staff and visitors through three

public water supply lines provided by the

city of Newport News Waterworks.
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 17

The SDWA applies to two areas at Jefferson

Lab: the Backflow Prevention Program and

the surface discharges under the two

VPDES permits. Jefferson Lab had no

SDWA compliance issues during 2000.

3.6.1 Backflow Prevention

An annual backflow prevention

device inspection is required by the

city of Newport News and the DEQ

on all intra-building main supply

connections. The purpose is to

ensure that untreated industrial

wastewater is mechanically

prevented from contaminating the

drinking water supply. Jefferson

Lab subcontracts with locally

approved plumbing firms to certify

that all backflow prevention devices

function as designed. Annual

inspection reports are sent to the

city’s Public Utilities Department.

All inspections to date, the last one

in May 2000, have had no identified

issues.

3.6.2 Surface Water Quality

The site drainage system flows to

the Big Bethel Reservoir, a drinking

water source for local military

installations. The groundwater

dewatering discharge and the

cooling water effluent are

discharged into surface water

channels that lead offsite. Both

streams are monitored for quality

pursuant to the applicable VPDES

permit. There were no compliance

issues in 2000. Refer to Section 4 for

further discussion on the permit

monitoring programs.

3.7 COMPLIANCE STATUS - AIR

QUALITY STANDARDS

The Clean Air Act (CAA), that includes the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

(CAAA), regulates the air emissions of

DOE’s processes and facilities. The DEQ, as

delegated by the EPA, issues permits for

owners and operators of stationary sources

that could emit threshold amounts of

fugitive dust, odor, or other designated

pollutants. Jefferson Lab has no processes

that require air permitting at this time.

Applicable regulations are contained in

40 CFR Subchapter C, and the Virginia

Regulation 9 VAC 5 series, Air Quality.

Standards include EO 13148 and EH&S

Manual Chapter 6720, Air Quality

Management. Air quality regulatory

information is presented below.

3.7.1 National Ambient Air

Quality Standards

(NAAQS)

Under the authority of the CAAA,

the EPA has established NAAQS for:

sulfur oxides, particulate matter,

carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen

dioxide, and lead. The Hampton

Roads Area, which includes

Newport News, remained in

attainment for all NAAQS pollutants

in 2000, but continues as a

maintenance area for ozone.

Jefferson Lab complies with all

Commonwealth ambient air quality

requirements. The Lab leases its

vehicles through the General

Services Administration (GSA). The

vehicle maintenance is performed

offsite by shops approved by the

GSA. There is no gasoline

dispensing facility on-site. There is

one diesel fuel tank for forklifts.

Subcontractors operating machinery

may have temporary diesel fuel

storage tanks with secondary

containment basins. There were no

compliance actions under Title I of

the CAA in 2000.

3.7.2 National Emission

Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants

(NESHAPs)

The NESHAPs is a CAAimplementing regulation that sets

quality standards for air emissions
18 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

that contain hazardous components

(e.g., radionuclides or asbestos). The

EPA administers the radionuclide

portion of this program in Virginia.

Jefferson Lab began “operations” as

defined by NESHAPs in

October 1995.

Radionuclide Emissions

Radionuclide emissions generated

during accelerator and FEL testing

and operations, including emissions

resulting from interactions of the

accelerator beam with experimental

targets and physics research

equipment, fall under NESHAPs.

DOE-owned facilities which emit

radionuclides to the air are required

to sample, monitor, and assess

dosage per the NESHAPs

requirements in 40 CFR 61

Subpart H and report to the EPA as

applicable. (Refer to Section 5.3 for

discussion of direct radiation, the

primary form of radiation generated

on-site.)

Jefferson Lab used sampling results

to demonstrate that the Lab

remained under the EPA-defined

10% of the 10 mrem/yr. potential

effective dose equivalent to any

member of the public during 2000.

As effluent concentrations are below

monitoring thresholds, routine

monitoring of radioactive airborne

effluents at the site boundary is not

required. However, the Lab does

make periodic confirmatory

measurements at representative site

boundary locations to verify low

emissions.

Currently, no major radiological

NESHAP point sources, such as

stacks or vents, exist at Jefferson Lab

that meet the 40 CFR 61.93(b)

threshold criteria of 1% of the

10 mrem/yr. Consequently,

continuous point source monitoring

is not required.

Since no EPA-reportable radiological

or non-radiological air emissions

have occurred in previous years,

Jefferson Lab had a reporting

exemption under this Subpart.

Based on common DOE laboratory

practice, even among DOE facilities

that are under the reporting

threshold, Jefferson Lab voluntarily

commenced annual reporting for

1999. This is discussed further in

Section 5. No notifications for

construction or modifications were

necessary in 2000.

NESHAP Asbestos Removal

While the NESHAP standard does

not set a numerical threshold for

asbestos fiber emissions, it requires

those conducting asbestos-related

activities, such as demolition and

renovation, to follow approved

procedures and to adopt specific

work practices to prevent release of

asbestos to the air. Regulations

require that licensed, trained

personnel perform any work with

asbestos. There were no asbestosrelated NESHAP issues in 2000.

Compliance with other asbestos

standards is described in Section 3.3.

3.7.3 Other Air Emission

Concerns

Non-Radiological Emissions

Under the Virginia Regulations for

the Control and Abatement of Air

Pollution (9 VAC 5-10 et seq.),

Jefferson Lab is required to notify

the DEQ of sources of potential air

pollution. Jefferson Lab ensures that

by utilizing preventive maintenance

measures and scrubbers, it

minimizes releases of polluted air.

The Lab’s emissions remain below

reporting thresholds.

Jefferson Lab has seven natural gasfired boilers and a fin-tube radiator

for building heating. Boiler

information, including fuel
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 19

consumption data, is provided to the

DEQ. The usage values for CY 2000

are presented in Exhibit 3-4. In 2000,

a new paint spray booth and several

natural gas-powered emergency

generators were installed. No

requirements for permits are

anticipated.

EXHIBIT 3-4

SOURCE REGISTRATION UPDATE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2000

Ref.

Annual Fuel

Process Rate

(Million Cu. Ft.

Process Volume

% Annual Thruput

No. Equipment Burned) J-M A-J J-S O-D

HB-1 CLVR.BRKS. 2.7 40 26 10 24

HB-2 CLVR.BRKS. P-142-30 2.7 40 26 10 24

HB-3 CLVR.BRKS. CB-760-60 5.6 35 24 15 26

HB-4 CLVR.BRKS. CB-760-60 5.6 35 24 15 26

HB-5 BRYAN F-450 WG 3.5 25 25 25 25

HB-6 BRYAN F-90 WG 1.08 48 20 0 32

HB-7 BRYAN F-90 WG 1.08 48 20 0 32

HB-8 PSB Fin Tube Radiator 0.4 85 7 0 8

Process: Natural Gas (under 10 MMBTU/Hr)

Heat Content: 1050 MMBTU/Cu.Ft.

Annual Schedule: 24 hrs/day, 7 day/wk, 52 wks/yr.

A DEQ inspection occurred on

September 7, 2000, with no concerns

identified. There were no air

emission violations at Jefferson Lab

in 2000.

Stratospheric Ozone-Depleting

Substances (ODS)

EO 13148, Greening the Government

through Leadership in Environmental

Management, reinforced federal

agency commitments to use safe,

cost-effective, environmentally

preferable alternatives to ODSs. The

ODS substances that have been used

at Jefferson Lab include refrigerants,

degreasers, cleaners, spray can

propellants, and fire suppressants.

The phase out of these substances

will have a moderate impact on the

site.

Section 608 of Title VI, of the CAAA,

National Recycling and Emission

Reduction Program, prohibits

intentional venting of Class I and

Class II compounds from air

conditioning and cooling units.

Jefferson Lab has one recovery

machine, a National Reference

Products Model MINILU (for R12,

22, 502, and 134a) on-site. Also, the

subcontractor, who performed all

service, repair, and maintenance on

Jefferson Lab refrigeration/air

conditioning equipment during

2000, was required to be certified in

compliance and has demonstrated

effectiveness in capturing and

recycling these compounds. Four

Jefferson Lab Plant Engineering

employees have received

certification training, ensuring that

laboratory staff understand the EPA

requirements and that
20 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

subcontractors are appropriately

certified.

Jefferson Lab has three

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-based

(one R-11 and two R-113) chillers

onsite. They are effectively

maintained by mechanical staff to

ensure optimal performance and

minimize CFC losses. Opportunities

to modify or replace them were

considered in 2000, but the existing

units presently meet Jefferson Lab

needs.

The site is preparing to phase out

the use of CFCs to the extent

possible. R-12, however, is the

highly preferred material for use in

some physics experiments but there

are no State or Federal regulations

that address the small amounts of

R-12 involved. Halon 1211 is stored

in the experimental halls for use as a

fire-extinguishing agent of last resort

to protect certain types of

specialized equipment. The Halon is

contained in manually operated fire

extinguishers and hall staff are

trained in precautions and use.

Section 609 of the CAAA lists the

requirements for the Servicing of

Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners. All

vehicle air conditioning units are

serviced offsite by shops approved

by the GSA.

Jefferson Lab understands its

responsibility to minimize or

eliminate the purchase and use of

ODSs. The Lab’s CFC and Halon

Use Policy is included in the EH&S

Manual Appendix 6720-T2, Air

Quality Program Regulatory

Requirements.

3.8 COMPLIANCE STATUS -

EMERGENCY RESPONSE

STANDARDS

Two environmental emergency responserelated hazards exist at Jefferson Lab. One

hazard involves releases resulting from the

storage or transport of environmentally

harmful materials (EHMs). The applicable

legislation is the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as

amended by the Superfund Amendments

and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).

Other applicable regulations are noted in

the WSS Set. The second hazard is a

radiological release, as addressed in

10 CFR 835.

Emergency response standards that apply

to EHMs are noted in the WSS Set and

referenced in Exhibits 3-1 and 3-3. There

were three minor oil spills in 2000 that were

mitigated promptly, none of which

impacted the environment. These small

spills are discussed in Section 4.5.1.

There were no releases subject to CERCLA

or other emergency response regulations in

2000.

3.9 COMPLIANCE STATUS -

EMERGENCY PLANNING

STANDARDS

The Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), also

known as SARA Title III, addresses

accidental chemical releases in

communities. EPCRA created a system for

planning responses to emergencies

involving CERCLA hazardous substances

(HSs) and EPCRA extremely hazardous

substances (EHSs). EPCRA requires that

information regarding the use and storage

of these hazardous chemicals be made

available to the public. This is done

through reports to EPA and local response

agencies. The EPA posts some information

on their website.
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 21

EPCRA-related planning and prevention

standards that apply to Jefferson Lab

include: 40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and 372,

under Subchapter J (see specifics below)

provide regulatory compliance guidance;

EO 13148, Greening the Government through

Leadership in Environmental Management; and

Appendix 6710-T2, Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know of the EH&S

Manual provides site-specific compliance

information.

The Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency

Response Council administers the EPCRA

program for the EPA. Local emergency

response agencies that serve Jefferson Lab

are the Peninsula Local Emergency

Planning Committee and the city of

Newport News Fire Department.

Transportation-related standards pertaining

to emergency planning are discussed in

Section 3.12.

Jefferson Lab maintained compliance with

applicable emergency planning standards in

2000.

3.9.1 40 CFR 300

This regulation is titled the National

Oil and Hazardous Substances

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and

primarily addresses DOE’s role in

the NCP. Jefferson Lab complies

with 40 CFR 300 by having

emergency response procedures in

place to respond to oil and

hazardous substance releases, as

identified in EH&S Manual Chapters

3510, Emergency Management Plan

and 6732, Oil-Spill Prevention,

Control, and Countermeasures.

3.9.2 40 CFR 355, Emergency

Planning and Release

Reporting

Under EPCRA Section 302, Jefferson

Lab is required to notify the

Commonwealth and local

emergency planning and response

groups (EPGs) within sixty days of

the receipt of an EHS that exceeds

the Threshold Planning Quantity

(TPQ). Jefferson Lab’s EPCRA

Section 302 notifications to date

include hydrofluoric acid, nitric

acid, and bromine. There were no

new EHSs identified in 2000.

Jefferson Lab is also required to

notify the Commonwealth and local

EPGs of accidental offsite releases of

any HS listed under CERCLA or any

EHS listed under EPCRA. The

release levels that trigger the EPCRA

Section 304 notification

requirements are the reportable

quantity (RQ) values listed in the

regulations for each substance.

Jefferson Lab has had no releases

that meet identified reporting

criteria to date. For discussion about

the permitted release of activated

water to the sanitary sewer system,

refer to Section 3.4.4.

3.9.3 40 CFR 370, Hazardous

Chemical Inventories

Under EPCRA Sections 311 and 312

Material Safety Data Sheets

(MSDSs), or a list of those chemicals,

must be submitted to EPGs for each

hazardous chemical present when

the quantity exceeds the TPQ

identified in the regulations.

Jefferson Lab’s submittal of the

annual Tier II Report, a hazardous

chemical inventory form, to the

EPGs satisfies this requirement. In

addition, upon request, the Lab’s

Emergency Management Manager

provides MSDSs to the local Fire

Chief for their records. See

Section 6.6 for more information.

3.9.4 40 CFR 372, Toxic Release

Reporting

These regulations require the

submission of information to the

EPA relating to the release of toxic

chemicals, including an annual toxic

chemical release report, the Toxic

Release Inventory (TRI), by any

facility that manufactures, imports,

processes, or otherwise uses more
22 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

than a threshold amount of any of

approximately 360 EPA-identified

toxic chemicals. Jefferson Lab does

have “otherwise use” activities and

reviews its chemical usage annually.

No listed toxic chemicals were

“otherwise used” in quantities

exceeding 10,000 pounds in 1999;

therefore, no reporting was required

in 2000.

3.10 COMPLIANCE STATUS -

POLLUTION PREVENTION

STANDARDS

Jefferson Lab has identified four applicable

pollution prevention (P2) standards: the

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990;

Executive Order (EO) EO 13101, Greening

the Government through Waste Prevention,

Recycling and Federal Acquisition; EO 13123,

Greening the Government Through Efficient

Energy Management; and EO 13148, Greening

the Government through Leadership in

Environmental Management. Jefferson Lab

EH&S staff continued to stress the

importance of source reduction to prevent

pollution. This education process informs

process owners of the financial advantages

of avoiding unnecessary waste disposal

fees. Specific Lab P2 and energy efficiency

initiatives are discussed in Section 4.5.

There were no outstanding compliance

issues regarding P2 or energy efficiency

standards in 2000.

3.10.1 Pollution Prevention Act

(PPA)

The PPA established the policy that

pollution should be reduced at the

source by prevention, recycling,

treatment, or disposal, in that order.

Disposal should be used only as a

last resort. All alternatives should

be performed in an environmentally

safe manner. Jefferson Lab complies

with this pollution reduction policy

to the extent possible.

3.10.2 EO 13148

EO 13148 revoked and replaced

various EOs in April 2000. Its

primary purpose is to integrate

environmental accountability into

federal agency policies, operations,

planning, and management. The

DOE established agency-wide goals

based on those established in the

EO. The primary P2 goal was that,

where possible, pollution should be

prevented or reduced at the source.

Jefferson Lab uses very few listed

toxic chemicals and complies with

the P2 goals by minimizing use,

reusing to the maximum extent, and

disposing of these wastes in the

most effective environmentally safe

manner. The Lab is in the process of

establishing P2 goals regarding

reductions in standard sanitary

waste, hazardous waste, and lowlevel radioactive waste generation,

and for improving our recycling

performance.

There were no P2 compliance

concerns in 2000.

3.10.3 EO 13101

EO 13101 strengthens and expands

the previous EO 12873 by

encouraging more efficient use of

natural resources and waste

prevention measures. EO 13101

includes implementing waste

recycling by encouraging federal

agencies to procure products made

with recycled materials. The

purchase of these materials helps

“close-the-loop” in the recycling

process. To comply with this EO,

the DOE has set goals and

performance standards on a variety

of product classes.

This policy of procuring products

made with recycled materials is

termed Affirmative Procurement

(AP). The DOE’s complex-wide

Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 procurement
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 23

target for purchasing EPA-listed

products was 100%. The FY 2000 AP

Annual Reporting System report

reveals that Jefferson Lab’s

compliance level was 58.2%,

revealing room for improvement.

The majority of applicable year 2000

purchases involved uncoated copy

paper, binders, and toner cartridges.

The Procurement Department

reported that centralized copy paper

purchases met the 100% goal, but

individual purchasers fell far short

of the goal. To meet DOE and

Jefferson Lab goals, the Procurement

Department has named an AP

champion and is continuing to

educate individual purchasers to

buy materials that meet EPArecommended criteria. Jefferson Lab

is trying other means to maximize

the use of AP.

Review of the Lab’s AP program

continued in 2000, primarily in

conjunction with DOE-sponsored

teleconferences on EO 13101.

3.10.4 EO 13123

This initiative focuses on energy

efficiency as a means of pollution

prevention. It became effective on

November 4, 1999. The Plant

Engineering Department provides

an annual energy report and

additional opportunities were

reviewed for saving energy in 2000.

Though there are only a few

buildings that are identified for the

site goals, the FY report showed that

a 7% reduction from the baseline

energy use was achieved.

3.11 COMPLIANCE STATUS -

WASTE MANAGEMENT

STANDARDS

The Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act of 1976 (RCRA), also called the Solid

Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), covers waste

management and the promotion of

“Resource Recovery and Reuse”. The Act

promotes the protection of health and the

environment and the conservation of

valuable material and energy resources.

40 CFR Subchapter I, Waste Programs,

implements the Act and has application at

Jefferson Lab.

RCRA provides EPA’s authority to regulate

solid waste, from minimization and

recovery to collection and disposal. The

Virginia DEQ has been delegated the

authority to regulate solid wastes by the

EPA. The Virginia Waste Management Act

and Commonwealth regulations under the

Virginia Administrative Code sections 9

VAC 20-80 (et seq., Waste Regulations) apply.

The EH&S Manual implements this

program at Jefferson Lab.

Full compliance was maintained through

2000. Each of the major wastestreams is

addressed below.

3.11.1 Hazardous Waste RCRA,

related VA Regulations,

and EH&S Manual

Chapter 6761, Hazardous

Waste Management

These references set requirements

for safe storage, transport,

treatment, and disposal of

hazardous waste for generators,

transporters, and owners and

operators of hazardous waste

treatment, storage, and disposal

facilities. The DEQ regulates

hazardous waste management in

Virginia. Jefferson Lab’s Hazardous

Waste Coordinator (HWC) manages

the site-specific program in

compliance with the referenced

Manual chapter.

Jefferson Lab registered as a RCRA

Small Quantity Generator (SQG) in

1987. To maintain SQG status, a

facility cannot generate more than

1 kilogram (kg) of acutely hazardous

waste and 1000 kgs (about

2200 pounds or about 300 gallons

maximum) of hazardous waste in
24 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

any given month, and the facility

must not accumulate more than

6000 kgs of hazardous waste on-site

at any given time. Jefferson Lab

generated about 4600 kgs of

hazardous waste in 2000. Some

recent hazardous waste

minimization initiatives are

described in Section 4.5. The DEQ

performed an inspection in 2000 and

no compliance issues were

identified.

Jefferson Lab maintains hazardous

waste storage units. No permitting

is required because hazardous waste

is not stored on-site beyond the

regulatory time frame. Jefferson Lab

neither transports hazardous wastes

nor operates any regulated

treatment or disposal units. There

are two elementary neutralization

units, but they are not regulated as

treatment devices. Some EHMs are

recycled and/or reused prior to final

disposal.

The PPA and EO 13148

A common goal of the PPA and

EO 13148 is preventing and

reducing pollution, including that

from toxic materials, to the

maximum extent practicable. A

contractual Performance Measure

addresses this goal. Refer to

Section 3.15.7.

3.11.2 Radioactive and Mixed

Waste

The new DOE Order 435.1,

Radioactive Waste Management, was

reviewed with the DOE Site Office

for applicable requirements in 2000.

Radiation Control Group staff then

began implementation of the

applicable sections of the Order,

which included establishing a

program for more efficient

separation and categorization of the

Lab’s low-level radioactive wastes.

Approximately 5.0 cubic meters of

low-level radioactive waste were

generated in 2000. No radioactive

waste has been disposed of to date,

but plans are underway to dispose

of any identified wastes by the date

set in the Order, July 9, 2001. There

has been no mixed waste, which

exhibits both hazardous and

radioactive characteristics,

generated to date. Jefferson Lab was

in compliance with all applicable

standards in 2000.

3.11.3 Non-Hazardous Waste

VA Standards and EH&S

Manual Chapter 6760,

Waste Management

Non-hazardous wastestreams

generally contain non-regulated

chemical wastes, non-recyclable

office and production waste

materials, and debris resulting from

construction activity. The DEQ is

responsible for waste programs in

Virginia. Jefferson Lab assigns

oversight responsibility to staff

members for the different

wastestreams covered under this

category according to EH&S Manual

Chapter 6760.

EO 13101 and 13148

These EOs encourage waste

prevention and the procurement of

products made with recycled

materials, thereby keeping materials

out of landfills. Waste disposal costsaving opportunities were reviewed

in 2000 and improvement

opportunities with scrap metal

recycling were identified.

Other Non-Hazardous WasteRelated Compliance Items

There are other forms of liquid and

solid non-hazardous wastes,

including domestic wastewater.

Two water collection pits are in the

Counting House (Building 97); one

discharges to surface water and the
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 25

other to the HRSD system. The

permits for these water discharges

are discussed in Sections 3.4.2 and

3.4.4. Other non-hazardous wastes

are disposed in a landfill, reused onsite, recycled, or used for other

purposes offsite. Approved waste

management plans and procedures

prevent or minimize impacts to the

environment, both at the generating

facility and the final disposal or

usage point. Jefferson Lab

minimizes the generation of waste

(reduction at the source) as the

primary way of reducing

environmental impacts, thereby

lowering purchase and disposal

costs.

Jefferson Lab utilizes licensed

subcontractors for collection,

separation, and permanent disposal.

Aluminum cans and paper goods

are recycled separately. Refer to

Section 4.5 for more information on

lab recycling efforts. Section 3.15.7

refers to Performance Measure

results for tracking recyclables.

3.11.4 Regulated Medical Waste

The Lab’s EH&S Manual

Chapter 6850, Regulated Medical

Waste Management and

Appendix 6850-T1, Regulated Medical

Wastes Handling Procedures apply,

and include RCRA and Virginia

requirements. There were no

compliance issues with this program

in 2000.

3.11.5 Federal Facility

Compliance Act

This Act, which amends the SWDA,

gave the EPA authority to enforce

actions against branches of the

Federal government for violation of

Federal, State, interstate, or local

solid or hazardous waste

regulations. There were no

compliance issues at Jefferson Lab

during 2000.

3.12 COMPLIANCE STATUS -

TRANSPORTATION

STANDARDS

Transportation-related hazards at the Lab

arise as a consequence of the receipt,

packaging, and transportation of:

hazardous and radioactive materials and

waste; compressed gases; cleanup materials

used in response to on-site spills; and

regulated medical wastes.

Requirements include the DOT regulations

identified in 49 CFR Subchapter C,

Hazardous Materials Regulations, the

Jefferson Lab RADCON Manual, and EH&S

Manual Chapters 6150, Compressed Gases,

6310, Ionizing Radiation Protection,

Appendix 6750-T4, Packaging EHMs for

Transport, and identified industry

standards.

Many of the regulations applicable to

transportation also apply to other

environmental or public health topics.

Compliance with these regulations is

addressed under the appropriate topical

areas elsewhere in this Report, as shown on

Exhibit 3-5, unless noted below.

3.12.1 49 CFR Regulations

49 CFR 171 through 178 apply to

hazardous and radioactive material

transportation. These regulations

cover the DOT packaging and

transport requirements that

minimize risk to the environment or

public health in case of accidents.

The delivery of hazardous or

radiological materials to the site is

contingent upon compliance with

appropriate DOT and other

requirements. Hazardous and

radioactive materials must be

properly packaged for offsite

transport according to DOT

regulations. The Radiation Control

Group (RCG) manages the

radiological portion of this program
26 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

EXHIBIT 3-5

TRANSPORTATION-RELATED STANDARDS DISCUSSED ELSEWHERE IN SER

SER Section Transportation-related Information Applicable Standards

3.4.6 SPCC Plan: oil and oil-product issues 40 CFR 112

3.5.1 Radiation Protection: packaging and transport of

radiological materials

10 CFR 71

3.8 Emergency Response: response actions in the event

of a transportation emergency that include

reporting and notification requirements

CERCLA/SARA

VA Emergency Management Operations

Plan

3.9.1 Emergency Response: response actions in the event

of a transportation emergency

EH&S Manual Standards: Appendix 3510-

T3 and Chapter 6732

3.11.1 Hazardous Waste: on-site movement and

preparation for offsite shipment

EH&S Manual Standard: Chapter 6761

and the HWC manages nonradiological DOT requirements.

There were no compliance issues in

2000.

3.12.2 Radiological Control

Manual, EH&S Manual

Chapters 6150, 6310 and

6750, and Handbook of

Compressed Gases

These industry and site-specific

standards primarily provide for the

safe packaging and transport of both

hazardous and radioactive materials

on Jefferson Lab property.

Properly trained staff perform the

on-site transport of hazardous

materials. This is done in

accordance with specific procedures,

including those in EH&S Manual

Chapter 6750, Environmentally

Harmful Materials. Radioactive

materials are managed by the RCG

in accordance with the Jefferson Lab

RADCON Manual, internal

procedures, and work permits. All

medical wastes are handled by

specially trained staff and managed

by Medical Services.

Involved staff have received the

appropriate training. There were no

compliance issues regarding these

transportation standards in 2000.

3.13 COMPLIANCE STATUS -

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION STANDARDS

The Lab EHM program is identified in

EH&S Manual Chapter 6750,

Environmentally Harmful Materials, and its

appendices. The objective is to prevent

spills or unintentional releases. Accidental

release protection measures include the

provision of secondary containment and the

location of EHM storage areas away from

floor drains.

Though there were three minor oil spills,

there were no uncontrolled EHM releases

affecting the environment or public health

in 2000.

3.14 COMPLIANCE STATUS -

AL&R LIST

Administrative environmental protection

and public health requirements are in the

AL&R Set. Though a violation would not

directly impact the environment, it could

result in an administrative action. AL&R

standards are generally incorporated into

site programs. There were no known noncompliance issues in 2000.
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 27

3.15 COMPLIANCE STATUS -

OTHER OBLIGATIONS

IDENTIFIED IN THE

CONTRACT

Jefferson Lab has other environmental

protection and public health-related

obligations not specifically included in the

standards lists. These obligations are

incorporated into site programs, including

subcontractual agreements, exclusive of

direct legal requirements. Jefferson Lab’s

participation in DOE’s NEPA process and

implementing EO 13123 are examples of

these obligations.

3.15.1 NEPA

NEPA requires that projects with

potentially significant impacts to the

environment be carefully evaluated

and alternative actions explored.

These evaluations are to be

performed and reported as EAs or

Environmental Impact Statements.

Jefferson Lab is required to assist the

DOE in implementing the NEPA

process on the site, including

preparing NEPA documents.

An EA for the proposed Newport

News site for CEBAF (now Jefferson

Lab), was completed in 1987, prior

to the construction of the facility,

and resulted in a FONSI. In 1997, an

operations-related EA for the

CEBAF and FEL, was completed and

resulted in a FONSI. Refer to

Section 4.4 for discussion of 2000

NEPA items.

Jefferson Lab will respond to any

requirements identified by the DOE

with respect to NEPA compliance

issues. There were no NEPA

compliance issues in 2000.

3.15.2 Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

This Act applies to the storage and

use of herbicides and pesticides at

Jefferson Lab. The application of

herbicides and pesticides is

permitted through a Stateadministered certification program,

accomplished by certified

subcontractors who comply with

FIFRA through Virginia’s program.

The Jefferson Lab Plant Engineering

Department subcontracts regular

monthly preventive pest control.

There were no FIFRA compliance

issues at Jefferson Lab in 2000. See

discussion in Section 6.3.

3.15.3 Endangered Species Act

(ESA)

The ESA designates and protects

endangered wildlife, fish, plants,

and their ecosystems. A 1986

environmental survey of Jefferson

Lab’s 162-acre site uncovered no

endangered species in the area.

Plans are underway for a new

technical research park adjacent to

the site. No ESA compliance issues

were identified in 2000, but are

being revisited in early 2001 with the

preparation of a new EA that

primarily involves construction

activities.

3.15.4 National Historic

Preservation Act (NHPA)

The NHPA of 1966, Section 106,

governs the protection of

archaeological and historical

resources. Area surveys in 1987

uncovered no historic sites. On

October 16, 1992, the

Commonwealth of Virginia’s

Department of Historical Resources

determined that all Section 106

conditions had been met and no

further assessments were required.

No new compliance issues were

identified during 2000.

3.15.5 EO 11988, “Floodplain

Management”

This EO relates to the occupancy

and modification of floodplains, and
28 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

as Jefferson Lab is not in a

floodplain, the specific EO 11988

requirements do not apply;

however, localized flooding during

significant rain events, including

hurricanes, does occur. Plant

Engineering coordinates any

modifications to site drainage

patterns in local flood zones to

ensure appropriate drainage is

maintained.

3.15.6 EO 11990, “Protection of

Wetlands”

This EO was issued to ensure that

adverse impacts to wetlands are

avoided or responsibly mitigated

prior to disturbance from

construction activities. During

original site investigations, the

Corps of Engineers determined that

the forested temporary wetlands to

be disturbed by the construction of

Jefferson Lab were not sufficiently

permanent to qualify as wetlands,

and, therefore, did not require the

protection specified by EO 11990.

EO 11990 and 10 CFR 1022,

Compliance with Floodplain/Wetlands

Environmental Review Requirements,

contain notification requirements to

be considered when proposing new

work beyond the scope of the

original EA and FONSI. Evaluation

of Jefferson Lab activities involving

potential wetlands is accomplished

through the NEPA review process.

No concerns involving wetlands

were identified in 2000.

3.15.7 Compliance Status -

Performance Measures

Performance Measures are

incorporated into the DOE/SURA

Contract. Four of them reflect

environmental protection issues.

The FY 2000 scores follow in

Exhibit 3-6.

3.15.8 Compliance Status - DOE

Guidance

The current performance-based

DOE/SURA Contract incorporated

applicable DOE requirements,

previously addressed in DOE

Orders and guidance, in either a

Performance Measure or in the

Environment, Safety and Health

(ES&H) Responsibilities portion of

the Contract under Appendix E.

Since incorporation of the WSS Set

into the Contract, the only DOE

environmental documents

specifically identified in either the

WSS Set or the Contract are DOE

Orders 5400.1 and 5400.5, and DOE

Standards N441.1 and 1023-95.

There are other orders in the

Contract that do not apply to EH&S.

A process for reviewing new or

revised DOE Orders for applicability

at Jefferson Lab was implemented in

1999 and 2000.

In 2000, Jefferson Lab complied with

applicable DOE documents,

guidance, and related contractual

commitments.

EXHIBIT 3-6

RELATED PERFORMANCE MEASURE RESULTS

I.D. Performance Measure Description Score for FY 2000

5.0b Minimizing Environmental Exceedances 100%

5.3 Fraction of Solid Waste Recycled 100%

5.4a Fraction of Radioactive Waste Produced for Useful Purposes 95%

5.4b Ratio of Hazardous Waste Generated compared with the Quantity that could

Have Been Generated if Waste Minimization was not Practiced.

81%

The calculations used for scoring are in the contract. (100% being optimal)
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 29

SECTION 4

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION PROGRAM

INFORMATION

Jefferson Lab’s mission includes protection

of the environment and public health.

There are many facets to the site

environmental protection program,

including the primary activity of

radiological and non-radiological

monitoring, and other actions such as

program and lab-wide assessments and

inspections. This section provides

information on these and other

environmental protection or public healthrelated 2000 events and activities.

4.1 OVERVIEW OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL

MONITORING PROGRAM

Environmental monitoring is one of the

primary methods used by the Lab to assess

environmental conditions. Monitoring is

conducted to: verify compliance with

applicable regulations and other

requirements, evaluate the Lab’s impact on

the environment or public health, identify

potential environmental problems, provide

data to support management decisions, and

evaluate the need for remedial actions or

mitigative measures.

The Jefferson Lab Environmental

Monitoring Program establishes guidelines

for examining chemical, oil, and radioactive

effluents from the facility. An integral part

of the program is routine sampling and

tracking of air, process water, wastewater,

and groundwater. These are monitored to

ensure that Jefferson Lab effluents do not

have a negative impact on the surrounding

environment and that effluents remain

within the allowable range. Jefferson Lab

also assesses the effects of Lab activities by

measuring, monitoring, and calculating the

effects of past, current, and future Lab

operations on the environment and public

health.

Both permit-required and routine

monitoring have emphasized potential

environmental exposure pathways

appropriate to medium-energy particle

physics laboratories. These pathways

include external and internal exposure to

radiation, the major focus of the site’s

program. The external exposure potential is

from direct penetrating (10 CFR 834 (draft)

and 10 CFR 835) and airborne radiation

(40 CFR 61, Subpart H). The internal

exposure pathway is from H-3 (tritium) and

Na-22 in potential drinking water sources.

These exposure potentials are discussed in

Section 5 and are not a concern either on or

off the Jefferson Lab site at this time.

Sampling is conducted in a manner that

adequately characterizes effluent streams.

Standard collection and analysis methods

are used where applicable and are

documented in program and departmental

procedures. Routine environmental

monitoring is performed under the

direction of responsible line management

and overseen by the Lab’s Office of

Technical Performance.

Jefferson Lab environmental data collected

in 2000 included:

• monitoring results from operational

measurements at site boundary monitor

locations;

• monitoring results for groundwater

quality for long-term facility operations;

• monitoring of effluents to the sanitary

sewer;

• monitoring of groundwater dewatering

discharges; and

• monitoring of other effluent streams,

such as the cooling water at the cooling

towers.

On-site environmental surveillance

continued in 2000. The environmental

baseline data were obtained prior to the

start of routine accelerator operations.

Baseline data are compared with data

obtained during ongoing facility operations

to ensure that Jefferson Lab operations are

not adversely affecting public health or the

environment.
30 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Throughout 2000, the RCG reviewed

radiological and non-radiological

environmental monitoring information

stemming from accelerator operations for

conformity with applicable standards.

Refer to Section 5 for the environmental

radiological program discussion and to

Section 6 for environmental nonradiological program information.

4.2 APPRAISALS, ASSESSMENTS,

AND INSPECTIONS

The DOE Site Office, the ORO Office, and

various Commonwealth and local

authorities provide external oversight of the

Jefferson Lab Environmental Protection

Program.

External Appraisals

The last of the environmentally related

deficiencies identified during three

previous DOE external appraisals were

closed in 2000. This closure followed

review and approval of the Lab’s corrective

actions by the DOE Site Office. None of

these deficiencies represented a threat to

public health or the environment.

DOE Review of Jefferson Lab

Self-Assessment

The DOE Site Office’s Overlay Report,

produced in conjunction with SURA’s

annual laboratory-wide self-assessment,

covers EH&S topics, contains Site Office

observations and reviews, DOE appraisal

results, and other information. The Report

provides an overall performance

assessment for the year. For FY 2000, the

Overlay Performance Evaluation Report

yielded a rating of “Outstanding” in the

EH&S category.

Integrated Safety Management (ISM)

ISM is a process that ensures that safety

(EH&S collectively) is incorporated into all

work processes. This was Jefferson Lab’s

philosophy even before ISM was

incorporated into the Laboratory’s contract

with DOE.

Subsequent to a November 1999 DOE Site

Office validation of the effectiveness of ISM

at the Laboratory, the few areas identified

for improvement have been the subject of

Laboratory corrective action plans, most of

which have been completed.

External Reviews

A Radiation Control Group Peer Review

was conducted in August 2000 at Jefferson

Lab, which is categorized as a low-hazard,

non-nuclear accelerator facility. The review

covered many topics including radiation

work controls, workplace and

environmental monitoring, activated water

management, and source accountability.

Jefferson Lab earned 92.5% of the available

points, an “Outstanding” rating.

External Inspections

There were two external environmental

inspections during 2000:

• The HRSD staff performed the annual

Jefferson Lab site inspection on

February 15. The HRSD chose to review

the Test Lab equipment and laboratory

areas in 2000. No problems were

identified. The inspector commended

the staff for its professionalism and the

good secondary containment practices

evident in all areas.

• An unannounced DEQ inspection of the

Lab’s air emission sources took place on

September 7. The inspection

encompassed the natural gas-fired

boilers, the new natural gas emergency

generators, and a new paint booth. No

concerns were identified, and

information on the new equipment was

provided to the inspector.

Line Self-Assessments

Line managers perform line selfassessments (LSAs) of their organizational

elements annually. The LSAs are broad in

scope, covering the accomplishment of the

elements’ goals, including EH&S. The SelfAssessment/Quality Assurance (SA/QA)

Group performs independent assessments

(IAs) of four of the Lab’s organizational

units each year, with a focus on EH&S.
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 31

Deficiencies identified through the IAs are

tracked by SA/QA until the corrective

actions are completed.

4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS

Environmental permits held by the DOE

Site Office are listed in Exhibit 3-2, and

compliance with each is discussed in

Section 3 of this report. All permits citing

limits and conditions involving water are

discussed in Sections 5.2.2 and 6.1.

4.4 2000 NEPA ACTIVITY

NEPA, as amended, outlines the Federal

policy to restore and enhance the

environment and to attain the widest range

of beneficial use without degradation.

NEPA-related actions are handled in

conjunction with the DOE, which is

committed to follow the related EPA

regulations. Jefferson Lab assists the DOE

by preparing documents and performing

assessments of existing Jefferson Lab

documentation. NEPA actions performed

in 2000 follow.

• The existing eight site-specific CXs were

renewed during 2000. These CXs

pertain to regular activities that meet

NEPA criteria, such as “Improvements

to Cooling Water Systems” and

“Routine On-site Storage of Activated

Material”.

• One new project CX covering the Test

Lab addition to house SNS activities

was approved.

• New site-specific CXs approved

covered: radioactive waste

management, the siting of particle

accelerators with beam energies under

approximately 100 MeV, and access

road improvements.

• The internal approval process for very

small-scale construction projects that are

covered under existing CXs continued

in 2000.

4.5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT

ENVIRONMENTAL

ACTIVITIES AT JEFFERSON

LAB

4.5.1 Issues and Actions

An emergency management exercise

simulated an oil spill within the

accelerator fence. Issues, such as

interfaces with various response

agencies and between lab

departments, were identified. Line

management is resolving these

issues.

There were three minor oil releases

in 2000. Two involved hydraulic

line leaks, one from a delivery truck

where a loose line caused a localized

spray, and another from a forklift

line break inside a building. The

third spill was due to a small hole in

a drum that had just arrived on site.

All instances were minor and

quickly corrected by line

management and EH&S staff.

Other items of note include:

• The HRSD awarded Jefferson Lab a

Gold Pretreatment Excellence

Award for its excellent performance

record in 2000.

• A second cooling tower discharge

was added to the DEQ General

Permit at the end of the year.

• The Lab continued to procure lowmercury fluorescent lamps that

should result in the eventual

elimination of the fluorescent lamp

hazardous waste stream.

• Due to a new DOE initiative, the

RCG instituted a new program for

radioactive waste management in

2000.

4.5.2 WMin/P2 Awareness

Waste Minimization/Pollution

Prevention (WMin/P2) reduces the

quantity of environmentally harmful

materials and other pollutants or

contaminants entering a waste
32 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

stream or the environment prior to

recycling or treatment. These

practices benefit the environment,

protect employees and public health,

and reduce site waste disposal costs.

Specific objectives of the WMin/P2

program include:

• making employees aware of

WMin/P2 program

requirements, goals,

accomplishments, and general

environmental activities and

hazards at the site;

• informing employees, users, and

visitors of specific environmental

issues such as opportunities for

recycling;

• encouraging staff and

recognizing efforts to enhance

the environment through

WMin/P2; and

• publicizing WMin/P2 success

stories.

Jefferson Lab's WMin/P2

Awareness program addresses most

forms of site-generated waste. Staff

are aware of the following methods

and techniques:

• preventive maintenance

programs;

• substitution, to encourage use of

more environmentally-friendly

materials;

• source reduction such as process

changes to minimize use;

• materials exchange, both on-site

and through the DOE Website;

• reclamation, e.g., scrap metal for

GSA contractor collection;

• maximizing the use of products

before declaring them waste;

• utilization, as possible, of

recyclers for the acid mixture,

waste paper, and other refuse;

and

• procurement and storage

procedures that ensure materials

are used up in a timely manner.

Refuse/Recycling

Staff education on waste reduction

initiatives and waste disposal

options continued in 2000.

Communication channels, such as

the Lab newsletter and EH&S wallmounted and electronic bulletin

boards, display recycling

information. Actual quantities

recycled in FY 2000, as reported to

the DOE, are shown in Exhibit 4-1.

Hazardous and Special

Wastestreams

Variations in hazardous waste

generation rates have been

recognized and documented with

the use of Performance Measures.

Jefferson Lab has made notable

progress in meeting hazardous

waste minimization objectives.

Accelerator Division EH&S staff, in

particular, continued to emphasize

substitution, reduction, and reuse of

hazardous materials in the

workplace.

In the category of special

wastestreams, Jefferson Lab

generated about 4.6 tons of

hazardous waste, 5.0 cubic meters of

low-level radioactive waste, and no

TSCA or mixed wastes (a

combination of hazardous and

radioactive) during FY 2000. Some

radioactive materials are stored in

special holding areas to allow for

decay and possible reuse. No

radioactive waste was contracted for

disposal in FY 2000.
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 33

EXHIBIT 4-1

QUANTITIES OF ITEMS RECYCLED OR REUSED IN FY 2000

Description Quantity (tons unless noted)

Paper Products (office paper & cardboard) 38.5

Aluminum Cans 0.25

Scrap Metal (reclaimed through GSA) 62.4

Used Oil 1.65

Used Coolant 0.68

Toner Cartridges 0.13

Transparencies 1.5 pounds

Lead-acid Batteries 0.08

Fluorescent Lamps 0.59

Computer Disks 1 pound

Data Processing Equipment 7.4

Circuit Boards and Electronics 0.03

*Used All Occasion Cards 0.07

* A DOE initiative to provide to St. Jude’s Ranch for Children for reuse.

4.5.3 Other Measures to

Minimize Environmental

Consequences

Affirmative Procurement

• The Lab’s Business Services

Department and EH&S

Reporting staff continued to

encourage the purchase of EPAlisted materials with recycledmaterial content.

• The main office product supplier

used by staff highlights recycledcontent-containing products in

both its paper and on-line

catalogs.

• The Lab and DOE goal of Labwide use of 30% recycledcontent copy paper through the

central Copy Center was

achieved throughout 2000.

Energy Efficiency

• At least fifteen lighting systems

were modified to include sensors

that turn the ceiling lights off

when the room is unoccupied for

a designated period of time.

• Plant Engineering proposed

other initiatives in response to

EO 13123, Greening the

Government through Efficient

Energy Management.

4.5.4 Environmental Quality

Enhancements

The following projects enhanced

environmental quality in 2000.

• The Test Lab’s use of solvents

has been virtually eliminated

and the acid usage in the cavity

production process has been

reduced by 50%. These

improvements are due to the

combined efforts of the lab users,

the process designers, and the

Accelerator Division EH&S staff.

• Oil-spill prevention controls

were added and/or improved in

a number of work areas.

SECTION 5

ENVIRONMENTAL

RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM

INFORMATION

Jefferson Lab protects the environment and

the public from exposure to radiation. The

radiological monitoring program is the

primary means used at Jefferson Lab to
34 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

verify accomplishment of this objective.

Other support activities include: using

permanent and temporary shielding; using

active and passive controls at activated

water locations; and following proper

protocols when handling radioactive

materials and wastes.

Radioactivity: A natural and spontaneous

process by which the unstable atoms of an

element emit or radiate excess energy from their

nuclei and, thus, change (or decay) to atoms of a

different element or to a lower energy state of the

same element.

The radiological monitoring program is

designed to verify that radiation exposures,

both for on-site radiation workers and for

members of the general public, are below

permissible levels and as low as reasonably

achievable. The program also assures that

Lab support activities and accelerator

testing and operations, as described within

the approved operational safety envelope,

will result in minimum impacts to the

environment and have minimal to no effects

on public health.

5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL

RADIATION MONITORING

Accelerator operations produce three types

of radioactivity that can impact the general

public: direct or prompt, airborne, and

waterborne. Jefferson Lab performed

extensive environmental monitoring in 2000

to measure these three forms of acceleratorproduced radiation. Pathways to the

general public are modeled and monitored

when appropriate or as indicated by law.

The decision to monitor a particular

pathway is based on:

• the type of operations;

• the radionuclides released;

• the potential hazard;

• the experience from previous

monitoring results at Jefferson Lab; and

• the experience at other nuclear and

high-energy physics laboratories.

5.2 DIRECT, AIRBORNE, AND

WATERBORNE

RADIOACTIVITY

Radiation resulting from the accelerator beam or

the interaction of the beam with matter is called

direct (or prompt) radiation. This direct

radiation is produced within the beam enclosure

and stops being generated as soon as the

accelerator is turned off.

5.2.1 Direct Radiation and

Airborne Radioactivity

In addition to direct radiation, the

interaction of the accelerator beam

with matter can cause the formation

of radioactive materials in this

matter, through activation. The

beamlines, magnets, beamlinecomponents, targets, detectors, other

experimental area equipment, and

the energy dissipating devices

(beam dumps) used to contain the

beam’s energy may become

activated. Cooling and ground

waters, lubricants, and air in the

beam enclosure may also become

activated. These activated air,

water, and particulates are possible

sources of airborne and waterborne

radioactivity. Though the direct

radiation stops when the accelerator

is turned off, this activated

equipment, water, and air continue

to emit radiation.

Controls are in place to minimize the

effects of both direct radiation and

radiation from activated materials

on lab personnel, the environment,

and the public.

• Direct radiation is monitored

both on-site and at the site

boundary.

• Interlocked access points

provide a fail-safe barrier against

entry to the beam enclosure

during accelerator operations.

• The monitoring of airborne

radioactivity is carried out
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 35

locally to validate calculations

and estimates of radiation dose.

• Radiation shielding surrounds

the beam enclosure area.

• All material exposed to the beam

is monitored for radioactivity

prior to being removed from the

beam enclosure.

Shielding Blocks Located in Hall A

While radiation dose rates offsite are

expected to be well below limits set

for the general public, monitoring

ensures that the established controls

are effective.

• Waterborne activity issues are

discussed in Section 5.2.2.

• Monitoring for exposure of the

public to direct radiation is

discussed in Section 5.3.

• The monitoring for public

exposure to airborne emissions is

addressed below.

Airborne Radioactivity: Radioactive

material in any chemical or physical form

that is present in ambient air, above

natural background. This radioactivity can

be generated by interaction with direct

radiation.

Airborne emissions at the site

boundary are addressed under EPA

requirements discussed in

Section 3.7.2. Airborne radionuclide

concentrations at the site boundary

have been too low to accurately

measure. Preoperational

calculations, using EPA-approved

computer modeling codes, indicated

that Jefferson Lab operational

emissions were several orders of

magnitude lower than the EPA

10 mrem/yr reporting limit.

Calculated results based on an EPAapproved computer program,

CAP-88 PC, are presented in

Exhibit 5-1. Despite this very low

calculated release rate, Jefferson Lab

continued being proactive in 2000 by

making continuous measurements

to verify the calculations. A report

for 2000 was sent to the EPA as

described in 40 CFR 61. This report

documented that the dose to a

maximally exposed individual of the

public is less than 0.048 mrem/yr.

due to airborne releases.

EXHIBIT 5-1

NUCLIDE EFFECTIVE DOSE EQUIVALENT SUMMARY

Nuclide H-3 Be-7 C-11 N-13 O-15 Ar-41 Cl-38, 39 TOTAL

Calculation for

Selected Individual

Based on

Conservative

Calculations and

Measurements

(mrem/yr.)

1.2 E-3 3.0 E-2 1.9 E-3 6.3 E-3 6.7 E-5 3.4 E-3 5.6 E-3 4.8 E-2

Conversion note: 1 mrem = 0.01 millisievert (mSv)
36 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

In conclusion, there are entities in

place to ensure that the Lab

continues to function within

regulatory and established

administrative limits for direct

radiation and airborne emissions.

One entity is the Experimental

Equipment Review Committee that

reviews experiments for EH&S

parameters, as well as for

experimental and facility usage

criteria. Another is a RCG review of

projected public exposures and

airborne emissions from proposed

experiments to help the Lab remain

within established guidelines. Refer

to Section 5.3 for specific

information on the monitoring of

direct radiation.

5.2.2 Waterborne Radioactivity

Groundwater

Radioactivity in groundwater, as a

result of direct or secondary

radiation, is possible in certain

locations around the shielded

accelerator and experimental hall

structures. The VPDES

groundwater quality permit serves

as the basis for evaluating

accelerator-produced radioactivity

in groundwater. Under the permit,

Jefferson Lab is not allowed to

exceed one-quarter of the EPA Safe

Drinking Water Act limits on-site or

change the quality of the

groundwater offsite. Refer to

Section 7 for more information on

how the Lab incorporates

monitoring to protect groundwater

resources.

This VPDES groundwater quality

permit specifies EPA-approved

sampling and analysis protocols,

which were the basis of

groundwater monitoring in 2000.

Fifteen wells were sampled at

quarterly, semi-annual or annual

intervals. The permitted wells

included the “A”, “B”, and “C” Ring

wells (labeled as to proximity to the

accelerator) and the upgradient well.

Refer to Exhibit 5-2 for monitoring

well locations. Refer to Section 7.2

for more information on sampling

requirements. The groundwater

dewatering effluent at the

experimental halls was also

monitored quarterly in 2000 and

reported under this permit.

Water samples have been drawn

and analyzed since 1987. The data

collected, through the completion of

facility construction in 1995, provide

a groundwater quality baseline for

comparisons during long-term

facility operation. The background

samples were analyzed for naturally

occurring radionuclides, as well as

accelerator-produced radionuclides,

and selected chemical parameters.

The radionuclides analyzed in 2000

are those known to relate to

operations associated with electron

accelerators. They include H-3

(Tritium), Be-7, Na-22, Mn-54, and

gross beta. Total manmade

radioactivity is also analyzed.

Exhibit 5-3 lists the VPDES

groundwater quality permit levels

for radiological parameters with

values in picocuries per liter (pCi/l).

The values in Exhibit 5-3 represent

normal background radionuclides,

which are also generated through

Jefferson Lab activities.

The radiological results from

monitoring the wells in the

accelerator vicinity during 2000 are

presented in the first part of

Exhibit 5-4. The results from the

other locations described in the

permit are shown in the second half

of the exhibit. All measurements

were within the permit levels. No

accelerator-produced activity has

been detected. All values represent

natural background and variations

are normal.
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 37

EXHIBIT 5-2
38 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

EXHIBIT 5-3

VPDES PERMIT LEVELS FOR RADIONUCLIDES*

Analyte

A-Ring

(Action Level)

B-Ring

(Permit Level)

C-Ring

(Permit Level)

Sensitivity &

Precision

(Permit Value)

Gross Beta 50 pCi/l 50 pCi/l 153 pCi/l 4 pCi/l

Manmade Radioactivity 1 mrem/yr. 1 mrem/yr. - -

Tritium 5000 pCi/l 5000 pCi/l 1000 pCi/l 1000 pCi/l

Sodium-22 - - 61 pCi/l 40 pCi/l

Beryllium-7 - - 835 pCi/l 600 pCi/l

Manganese-54 - - 51 pCi/l 30 pCi/l

Notes:

*Those radionuclides determined to be relevant to Jefferson Lab operations.

A-ring levels are action levels only.

Numbers are representative of pre-operational measurements plus 2 standard deviations, which represent

a 99% certainty that deviations above this level are not random.

Conversion note: 1 pCi = 0.037 Bq, 1 mrem = 0.01 mSv

EXHIBIT 5-4

MAXIMUM GROUNDWATER MEASUREMENTS FOR RADIONUCLIDES*

January 2000 through December 2000

Radionuclides at Associated Wells Relevant to Accelerator Operations

Analyte A-Ring B-Ring C-Ring

Gross Beta 16.1 pCi/l 6.9 pCi/l 4.43 pCi/l

Manmade Radioactivity ND at < 0.307 mrem/yr. ND at < 0.296 mrem/yr. not applicable

Tritium ND at < 595 pCi/l ND at < 595 pCi/l ND at < 595 pCi/l

Sodium-22 ND at < 27.8 pCi/l ND at < 25 pCi/l ND at < 28 pCi/l

Beryllium-7 ND at < 169 pCi/l ND at < 217 pCi/l ND at < 186 pCi/l

Manganese-54 ND at < 23 pCi/l ND at < 28 pCi/l ND at < 21 pCi/l

Radionuclides At Other Permit Locations

Analyte Upgradient Well Discharge 001

Gross Beta 1.67 pCi/l 16.3 pCi/l

Sodium-22 ND at < 18 pCi/l ND at < 20 pCi/l

(Continued)
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 39

EXHIBIT 5-4 (Continued)

Tritium ND at < 595 pCi/l ND at < 595 pCi/l

Beryllium-7 ND at < 125 pCi/l ND at < 126 pCi/l

Manganese-54 ND at < 16 pCi/l ND at < 17 pCi/l

Notes:

*Those radionuclides determined to be relevant to Jefferson Lab operations.

ND: Not detectable above permit-required sensitivity limits

No accelerator-produced activity has been detected.

Conversion note: 1 pCi = 1 x 10-12 Ci = 0.037 Bq

Other Water Monitoring

The surface water-sampling

program commenced at the time

construction of the experimental

halls was completed. Quarterly

sampling of the groundwater

dewatering surface discharge under

the VPDES groundwater quality

permit continued in 2000. In

addition, automated sampling

equipment is used to analyze the

discharged water for tritium and

gross beta. There were no concerns

at this discharge stream in 2000.

The Cooling Water Tank

(Building 92) and the floor drain

sump (FDS) pit (Building 97) are

considered one HRSD sampling

point. Sampling at the FDS pit, that

collects various discharges,

including low-level activated

dehumidification condensate from

air conditioning systems located in

the experimental halls, and at the

Cooling Water Tank, that contains

activated water from various

accelerator apparatus, continued in

2000. Sampling and analysis for

tritium is performed prior to any

discharges to the sanitary system.

The results are recorded and

monthly and quarterly concentration

values are provided to HRSD. Some

regulatory values that are not

required to be regularly reported,

are tracked and documented by the

RCG staff, such as the total amount

of activity discharged to the sanitary

sewer system. Monthly and

composite quarterly results for 2000

are provided in Exhibit 5-5. The

concentrations varied based on the

quantity of beam dump cooling

water discharged during the

reporting period.

On a periodic basis in 2000, other

water sampling and analysis for

tritium and gross beta activity were

performed on various discharges

from potential radiological areas,

such as from sump pumps. Any

water identified as a potential

concern was collected and was

discharged according to the terms of

the HRSD permit.

Various accelerator-related water

systems have the potential of

becoming activated. Secondary

containment and other physical

controls are present around areas

with the potential for spills of

activated water. Additional

administrative controls are in place

where the water activation level is

above an identified level.

There were a few minor water spills

or leak events in 2000 involving

these activated water systems. The

RCG staff addressed and cleaned up

the areas involved. There were no

worker safety, environmental, or
40 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

EXHIBIT 5-5

ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DISCHARGES TO HRSD IN 2000

Monthly Values

Reporting Period

Average Tritium

Concentration Reporting Period

Average Tritium

Concentration

January 6,900 pCi/l July 2,700 pCi/l

February 330 pCi/l August 8,000 pCi/l

March 26,000 pCi/l September 3,300 pCi/l

April 490 pCi/l October 38,000 pCi/l

May 290 pCi/l November 4,000 pCi/l

June 540 pCi/l December 31,000 pCi/l

Quarterly Values

Reporting Period

Average Tritium

Concentration

Other Gamma-Emitting Radionuclides

Concentration

First Quarter 11,000 pCi/l Na-22 at 0.072 pCi/l

Second Quarter 420 pCi/l None detected

Third Quarter 4,500 pCi/l None detected

Fourth Quarter 21,000 pCi/l None detected

Notes:

These effluent concentrations are well below the 0.1 μCi/ml (100,000,000 pCi/l) permit limit.

Radionuclides are analyzed at EPA sensitivity levels or better.

Conversion note: 1 pCi = 1 x 10-12 Ci = 0.037 Bq

public health concerns. Collected

water that did not meet immediate

disposal criteria was transferred to a

temporary storage area for later

release to HRSD.

5.3 MONITORING FOR

EXPOSURE TO

ACCELERATOR-PRODUCED

DIRECT RADIATION

Direct radiation penetrates shielding with

almost all this radiation stopped by the

shielding; any exposure to this radiation is

at a maximum on-site and decreases with

distance. During 2000, Jefferson Lab

continued regular accelerator operations in

support of various physics experiments in

the three experimental halls. Accelerator

operations and related activities produced

significant amounts of direct radiation;

however, these amounts were restricted

within constraints as managed by the RCG

and were performed within an approved

safety envelope.

The Jefferson Lab areas, where direct

radiation can be produced, are not

accessible during accelerator operations.

There are approximately 50 electronic

radiation detectors and a series of

associated passive integrating detectors

deployed around the accelerator site with

the primary purpose of measuring on-site

radiation. The majority of the electronic

detectors are connected to a central

computer system that can automatically

record the radiation levels for subsequent

examination. When appropriate, Jefferson

Lab employees, contractors, and visitors

wear detection devices to monitor for onsite radiation exposure.

Six dual-channel microprocessor-based

instruments for monitoring gamma and
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 41

neutron radiation levels collected both

direct and airborne radiation data at the site

boundary in 2000. Radiation data collected

prior to January 1995 serve as the statistical

baseline for comparison to that collected

since the accelerator became fully

operational.

5.4 ASSESSMENTS OF

POTENTIAL RADIATION

DOSE TO THE PUBLIC AND

TO BIOTA

The six electronic radiation measurement

devices noted in 5.3, installed along the

accelerator site boundary continued to be

used to determine offsite dose to the public

due to Jefferson Lab operations. These

electronic detectors - radiation boundary

monitors (RBMs) - measure and log

radiological information at the locations

shown on Exhibit 5-6. In addition, passive

integrating detectors were used for a

number of measurements. All measured

dose values were within statutory and

administrative limits. For 2000, the highest

site boundary direct (prompt) radiation

level was about 3.8% of the DOE annual

dose limit of 100 mrem (1 mSv), or 38% of

the site administrative dose limit.

Radiation Boundary Monitor

Exhibit 5-7 displays the radiation doses for

2000 in mrem at RBM-3 at the site

boundary. A comparison with natural

background radiation is made, which

indicates the relatively low levels of

Jefferson Lab’s contribution to the public

dose. These background levels do not

include contributions to dose from Radon,

which typically doubles natural radiation

dose to the public

Jefferson Lab does not release any residual

radioactive material, such as concrete or

soil, so there are no resulting dose impacts

to the public.

The absorbed dose to any local aquatic

animals, or terrestrial plants or animals,

from Jefferson Lab operations will not

exceed the internationally recommended

dose limits for terrestrial biota. As there are

no potential releases of a magnitude that

could result in doses exceeding 0.1 rad/day

to terrestrial animals, the lowest limit for

any biota, no dose limits will be exceeded.

In conclusion, Jefferson Lab did not

contribute significantly to the radiation dose

received by the public through either

airborne and/or groundwater pathways.

The direct radiation exposure was again

measurable in 2000, but was found to be

about 38% of the Jefferson Lab design goal

of one-tenth of the DOE limit.

5.5 OTHER SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Permanent shielding in the form of thick

concrete walls and earth berms protect the

environment from exposure. Additionally,

labyrinth entrances and monitoring at

ventilation ports track exposure values. The

RCG installs shielding blocks and devices as

needed to minimize impacts both inside

and outside the facility.

All areas where activated water could be

present have controls in place. Locations

with a high potential for activation have

secondary containment measures installed

and administrative lockout/tagout controls.

Other areas with less or no potential for

activation are monitored periodically to

ensure levels are within expected values.
42 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

EXHIBIT 5-6

BOUNDARY MONITOR LOCATIONS

Note: RB03 is the same as RBM-3.

EXHIBIT 5-7

RADIATION BOUNDARY MONITOR RBM-3 RESULTS FOR 2000

Period

Neutron

(mrem)

Gamma

(mrem)

Total

(mrem)

Jan-Mar 0.45 ± 0.02 0.11 ± 0.01 0.56 ± 0.03

Apr-June 0.41 ± 0.02 0.10 ± 0.01 0.51. ± 0.03

July-Sept 0.23 ± 0.02 0.06 ± 0.01 0.29 ± 0.03

Oct-Dec 1.96± 0.03 0.49 ± 0.02 2.45 ± 0.03

TOTAL 3.05 ± 0.04 0.76 ± 0.02 3.81 ± 0.04

Natural Background ~1.8 ~110 ~112

Notes:

 Statistical errors are quoted at 1 sigma.

 Systematic errors including calibration (not included) are approximately 20% for neutrons.

 Gamma dose equivalent rates are estimated based on best known statistical correlation techniques.

 RBM-3 received the highest dose.

Conversion note: 1 mrem = 0.01 mSv
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 43

The RCG establishes access-controlled areas

to temporarily store radioactive materials

including those being stored for decay, and

wastes. There is no impact to the

environment or public health from the small

quantity of materials stored on-site.

SECTION 6

ENVIRONMENTAL NONRADIOLOGICAL

PROGRAM INFORMATION

There are a number of non-radiological

activities that Jefferson Lab performs in

supporting protection of the environment

and public health. The major activity is

non-radiological pollutant monitoring,

performed under the site permits listed in

Exhibit 3-2. Other activities include

reviewing conventional air emissions;

administering appropriate controls

involving work with chemicals such as

herbicides and cooling water treatment

additives; reviews for emergency planning

regarding on-site chemicals; and special

waste management.

In general, controls to protect the

environment are established through on-site

programs and subcontractual agreements

that address permit condition requirements

and other identified Lab commitments or

initiatives. There were no problems with

respect to any of the aforementioned

Jefferson Lab activities during 2000.

6.1 WATER PROGRAMS

6.1.1 VPDES Permits

Jefferson Lab monitored the

dewatering discharge and the

monitoring wells identified in

Section 5 for general water quality

parameters under Permit

No. VA0089320. The cooling water

discharge was monitored under

Permit No. VAG253002.

Dewatering Discharge

A sample of the groundwater

collected from the dewatering

process is taken quarterly at the

collection pit located in the Counting

House basement. This collection

point, termed “Outfall 001”, is

monitored for pH along with the

radiological parameters mentioned

previously. Results are shown on

Exhibit 6-1. The maximum daily

discharge quantity for each quarter

is also reported.

EXHIBIT 6-1

2000 PERMIT-RELATED NON-RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING RESULTS

Parameter/Units Outfall 001 GW-15a A Wells B Wells C Wells

Maximum Flow

(MGD)

0.016 to 0.019 n/a n/a n/a n/a

pH 6.7 to 7.2 4.4 5.1 to 6.6 5.5 to 7.2 6.6 to 6.9

Conductivity

(μmhos/cm)

n/a 100 500 to 2100 210 to 800 410 to 600

TDS (mg/l) n/a 53 395 to1834 222 to 832 335 to 548

TSS (mg/l) n/a 2 18 to 165 2 to 43 2 to 31

MGD: million gallons/day

mg/l: milligrams/liter
44 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Monitoring Wells

Monitoring wells were sampled for

pH, conductivity, total suspended

solids (TSS), and total dissolved

solids (TDS) under the terms of

Permit No. VA0089320. See

Exhibit 5-2 for the site map showing

the well locations monitored in 2000.

Data collected in 2000 was

representative of groundwater

quality during accelerator

operations and consistent with

previous baseline measurements.

Non-radiological information

collected at the wells in 2000 is also

noted in the results due to seasonal,

local ground conditions, and earthdisturbing factors. Even with a fully

operating accelerator, various

construction projects in the area, and

a variety of physics experiments

being performed, there were no

facility-related effects on

groundwater quality in 2000.

Cooling Water Discharges

The materials used for cooling water

treatment in 2000 were Coastline

Formula 2029 (scale and corrosion

inhibitor), Formula 1909 (liquid

biocide), and a small amount of a

dispersant. There were no

environmental concerns with the use

of these chemicals.

Quarterly sampling and reporting

are performed under a VPDES

General Permit. Values for flow,

pH, temperature, total phosphorus,

hardness, total dissolved copper,

and total dissolved zinc were

provided to the DEQ. The values

reported for 2000 are provided on

Exhibit 6-2. Monitoring for chlorine

was initiated in 2000 and

phosphorus was dropped. In the 3rd

quarter, a sample was taken from a

stagnant source, which resulted in a

5.8 pH reading, which is just slightly

below the lower permit limit of 6.0.

A second sample was taken, when

conditions were suitable, with a

reading of 6.8, which is within the

acceptable range. The first quarter

chlorine sample was taken too close

to the tower that uses chlorinated

city water. A better sampling point

was selected.

EXHIBIT 6-2

2000 COOLING WATER DISCHARGE RESULTS

Parameter First Quarter Second Quarter Third Quarter Fourth Quarter

Flow .011 MGD .011 MGD .009 MGD .008 MGD

pH 8.0 6.9 *5.8 to 6.8 7.3

Temperature 15.6 °C 25.1 °C 29.5 °C 25.2 °C

Hardness 388 mg/l 407 mg/l 388mg/l 338 mg/l

Copper 0.057mg/l 0.010 mg/l 0.020mg/l 0.010 mg/l

Zinc .0317mg/l 0.049 mg/l 0.037 mg/l 0.050 mg/l

Chlorine *0.9 mg/l < 0.1 mg/l < 0.1 mg/l < 0.1 mg/l

* Out of range results are discussed in text.

MGD: million gallons/day

mg/l: milligrams/liter
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 45

6.1.2 Permit to Withdraw

Groundwater

Jefferson Lab’s withdrawal of

groundwater at the experimental

halls is an unusual situation, as

presented in Exhibit 6-1, and is

shown as a range. Wide variations

in pumping are required to maintain

the structural integrity of the halls.

Dewatering pumpage is minimal in

drought periods. There are no

special requirements for monitoring

as no industrial or other use is made

of the discharged groundwater.

Radiological parameters are

monitored due to proximity to the

accelerator. Refer to Section 5.2.2

that covers other sampling

requirements.

The only factor of concern under the

groundwater withdrawal permit is

the quantity of water pumped.

Quantities of water pumped from

these tile fields are reported to the

Commonwealth on a quarterly basis.

The groundwater withdrawal

permit allows the pumping of a

maximum of 6,000,000 gallons per

month; Jefferson Lab is normally

pumping about 500,000 gallons. The

other pumpage restriction is a yearly

limit of 23,036,790 gallons. There

were no unusual issues regarding

this discharge in 2000.

6.1.3 Industrial Wastewater

Discharge Permit

Industrial wastewater, that includes

a small quantity of activated water,

is generated by Jefferson Lab and

discharged to the HRSD. The

activated water that was collected

and discharged in 2000 was a

combination of the output from

dehumidification equipment in the

experimental halls and small

withdrawals from the beam dump

cooling systems. Refer to

Sections 3.4.4 and 5.2.2 for more

information.

Jefferson Lab and the HRSD perform

sampling of discharges. A

subcontractor monitors two sanitary

sewer outflow streams to assure that

pH levels are within permit criteria.

As noted in Section 5, the RCG staff

manages the HRSD radiological

sampling and analysis requirements.

The HRSD samples all discharge

streams regularly for a full

complement of metals. On an

annual basis, a seven-day period of

monitoring flows and samples at

each of the discharge points is

performed to help determine if

changes to the permit are necessary.

Monitoring results assured that

Jefferson Lab remained within the

limits of the HRSD-issued permit in

2000. Jefferson Lab received a Gold

Pretreatment Excellence Award for

its performance in 2000 by the

HRSD.

6.1.4 Drinking Water

Jefferson Lab receives its drinking

water from the city of Newport

News Waterworks, an approved

potable water supplier. No

monitoring by Jefferson Lab is

required. Backflow preventive

device inspections are regularly

performed; refer to Section 3.6.1.

The site surface water flow is

directed to Big Bethel reservoir, a

drinking water source. Fort Monroe

environmental staff are provided

annual information on the quantity

of groundwater discharged. There

were no drinking water issues in

2000.

6.1.5 SPCC Plan

Jefferson Lab maintains an SPCC

Plan, which was revised in 1998.

Refer to Section 3.4.6 for compliance

information.
46 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

6.2 CONVENTIONAL AIR

EMISSIONS

The Hampton Roads area of southeastern

Virginia remained in attainment of ozone

ambient air quality standards in 2000,

though it is still considered a CAA

maintenance area. The Hampton Roads

area also remained in attainment for the

other criteria air pollutants: particulate

matter, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide,

nitrogen dioxide, and lead. There is no

required monitoring of criteria air pollutant

emissions performed at Jefferson Lab as

there are no applicable emission sources

present on the site.

Jefferson Lab is required to notify the DEQ

regarding its air pollution sources and the

types of potential air pollution that may be

released into the atmosphere. Natural gasfired boilers are the primary air pollutant

sources at Jefferson Lab. Reports of annual

air emissions are provided to the DEQ upon

request; refer to Exhibit 3-4.

Since a 1995 review of non-radiological

emission sources indicated a minimal level

of emissions, there have been no major

changes in air emissions. Jefferson Lab,

therefore, remains below any reporting

thresholds. The DEQ air emission

inspection, mentioned in Section 3.7.3 noted

the new natural gas-fired generators and

spray booth, but no new requirements have

become applicable.

Accelerator operations result in the

generation of small quantities of ozone.

There are some minor on-site worker health

issues, but there are no environmental or

public health effects from this generation.

Ozone is monitored as a worker health issue

and is appropriately controlled.

6.3 HERBICIDES AND

PESTICIDES

Certified subcontractors who meet the

requirements of the FIFRA through Virginia

licensing do all applications of herbicides

and pesticides. All pesticides used in 2000

were EPA-registered and applied according

to the product instructions and Federal,

State, and local guidelines. The Jefferson

Lab’s Plant Engineering Department

coordinates these subcontracts under the

Lab’s pest control guidelines.

Herbicides were used on annual and

perennial weeds and grasses, stumps of

trees, and brush. Pesticides were applied

on-site for control of insects. Miscellaneous

pest control was handled in 2000 by a

licensed subcontracted exterminator. Areas

addressed included kitchens, laboratories,

and other areas throughout the site.

No industrial-strength herbicides or

pesticides are prepared, mixed, stored, or

disposed of on-site. Small containers of

household pesticides are stored on-site and

applied per manufacturer’s

recommendations. Pesticides and

herbicides that were approved for use in

2000 are presented in Exhibit 6-3.

6.4 HAZARDOUS WASTES

As a SQG, Jefferson Lab does not need to

file a regular report with the DEQ about our

hazardous wastestreams. The hazardous

wastes generated in the largest volumes in

2000 are waste buffered chemical polish (an

acid mixture) that is used for niobium

cavity processing and waste solvents

(acetone, methanol, and isopropanol) from

cleaning operations. The Jefferson Lab

HWC manages the site program. All wastes

are disposed of through licensed waste

handling facilities. Refer to Section 3.11 for

compliance information.

6.5 ENVIRONMENTAL

OCCURRENCES

No reports to the DEQ or to the National

Response Center were made in 2000, as

there were no releases that required any

form of notification.
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 47

EXHIBIT 6-3

CONTROL CHEMICALS AND PRODUCTS

APPROVED FOR USE IN 2000

Control Chemical

or Product

Control Chemical

or Product

Pest Control Herbicides/Landscape

Maintenance

Contrac Damoil

Demand CS Diazinon 4E

Dicofol 4EC Dicofol 4EC

Dursban Pro Dimension

Flyteck Diometom

Insect Guard Fore Tree & Ornamental

Fungicide

MaxForce Bait Fusilade II

Mosquito Dunks Merit

Precor 1% MSMA Target 6.6

PT 270 Dursban Roundup

PT 515 Wasp-Freeze Super Trimec

Quintox Rat & Mouse Bait

Termite Control

Cyrene TC

6.6 SARA TITLE III REPORTING

REQUIREMENTS

Jefferson Lab conducted a sitewide chemical

inventory in accordance with the reporting

requirements of SARA Title III for CY 2000.

The EPCRA Tier II report for CY 2000 was

provided to the DEQ along with some

additional maps and contact information as

requested by the Peninsula Local

Emergency Planning Committee.

Exhibit 6-4 lists the chemicals reported and

their hazard class or classes. Refer to

Section 3.9 for compliance information.

Though Jefferson Lab does not exceed

threshold amounts for listed toxic

chemicals, the Lab completed a review of

applicable usage to determine if reporting

in 2000, for CY 1999, was necessary. It was

determined no reporting was required and

such notice was provided to the DOE Site

Office.

6.7 SAFETY

Jefferson Lab’s performance, with respect to

worker safety for the 2000 CY, was as

follows:

• Recordable injury case rate:

1.8 per 100 employees;

• Lost Work Day case rate:

0.7 per 100 employees;

• Lost Work Day rate:

4.2 per 100 employees;

• Number of radioactive contaminations: 

(external): 0;

• Number of Safety Occurrence Reports:

(OSHA confined space, chemical

exposure, and lockout/tagout

incidents): 0.
48 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

EXHIBIT 6-4

CHEMICALS REPORTED FOR 2000

Compound Hazard Class

Fire

Sudden

Release of

Pressure

Acute

Health

Hazard Reactive

Chronic

Health

Hazard

Argon (liquid) √ √

Helium (liquid √ √

Nitrogen (liquid) √ √

Nitric Acid √ √

Hydrofluoric Acid √ √

Hydraulic Oil

(Various including vacuum oil)

√ √

Lead (Sheeting) √

Bromine √ √

SECTION 7

GROUNDWATER

PROTECTION

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Groundwater is a vital natural resource.

The contamination of groundwater could

present potential problems to the general

population. Because of this, both the

Federal government and the

Commonwealth of Virginia regulate

groundwater.

The Jefferson Lab Groundwater Protection

Management Program is used as a

management tool and provides a strategy to

minimize impact to groundwater resources.

The Program ensures compliance with

Federal, State, and local regulations, other

identified standards, and effective resource

management practices. The Program

includes a groundwater monitoring plan

that serves to assess the effect of past,

current, and future Jefferson Lab activities

on groundwater quantity and quality.

7.2 HYDROGEOLOGY ISSUES

7.2.1 General Hydrogeology

Jefferson Lab is located in the

Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic

Province of Virginia. This province

is underlain by unconsolidated

sediments ranging from early

Cretaceous to Holocene Age. The

sediments dipping and thickening

eastward consist primarily of sand,

clay, silt, and gravel, with variable

amounts of shell material. The

hydrogeologic framework for the

lower Peninsula is a series of

aquifers and intervening confining

units defined on the basis of the

lithologic and the hydrologic

properties of the unconsolidated

Coastal Plain sediments.

The site is located on the eastern tip

of the lower James-York Peninsula.

Sediments found within 50 feet of

the surface belong to the Yorktown

Formation (Chesapeake Group) and

overlying Columbia Group, which is

comprised of four formations. These

formations are similar to many

Quaternary formations that

comprise the riverine, estuarine, and

coastal terraces of the Virginia

Coastal Plain.
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 49

Jefferson Lab is situated in the

northern section of Newport News,

Virginia, at an average elevation of

34 feet above MSL, which is above

the 100-year floodplain level of

13 feet above MSL. The site is

located in the watershed of Brick

Kiln Creek, which discharges to Big

Bethel Reservoir. The reservoir

serves as a drinking water source for

local military installations. The only

long-lasting streams on the Jefferson

Lab site are those due to discharges

from cooling towers and

groundwater dewatering operations.

Small localized wet areas exist, a few

are permanent, and the rest occur

during periods of heavy

precipitation and eventually drain

by surface runoff and groundwater

recharge.

7.2.2 Aquifer Information

The uppermost hydrostratigraphic

unit encountered at the site is the

water table aquifer, the Columbia

aquifer, which is composed of

sediments of the Columbia Group.

The thickness of the aquifer ranges

between 15 and 30 feet, with a

seasonal variability of 8 feet or more.

This water table aquifer, and up to

nine confined aquifers, have been

identified with the Atlantic Coastal

Plain system. Groundwater flow

within the water table aquifer is

influenced by localized boundary

conditions present as creeks and

rivers. The first confined aquifer

beneath the Columbia aquifer is the

Yorktown-Eastover aquifer,

composed of the coarser units of the

Yorktown Formation. The upper 50

to 100 feet of the Yorktown-Eastover

aquifer is usually fresh water and is

one of the most important aquifers

in the region.

Previous subsurface studies and

groundwater elevation readings

indicate that horizontal

groundwater flow is generally

across the site to the east-southeast.

Modeling performed during 1995

indicated that the groundwater flow

pattern had not changed from earlier

studies with the exception of

significant local effects in the

vicinity of the experimental hall

dewatering system. In this area,

groundwater has the tendency to

work slowly towards the halls and

ultimately be cycled through the

dewatering system and into a site

surface water channel.

7.2.3 Potential Groundwater

Contamination Sources

Potential groundwater

contamination sources in the vicinity

of Jefferson Lab could include

contaminants from offsite properties

that could migrate across the site.

No impacts from offsite sources

have been noted on the DOE site.

On-site sources had included three

underground storage tanks, which

were removed along with any

identified contaminants.

Another potential contamination

source is from EHMs that are used

in daily operations by Jefferson Lab

staff. Proper handling and storage

practices, including the standard use

of secondary containment, are

implemented throughout the site.

All hazardous waste is managed

appropriately by EH&S staff under

the appropriate RCRA

authorization.

Soil radioactivation is another

potential source of groundwater

contamination. As the facility has

become fully operational, the

monitoring of VPDES-permitted

wells for particular groundwater

quality parameters is performed at

the frequencies shown on

Exhibit 7-1. Jefferson Lab will

maintain the capability to sample

and analyze groundwater more

frequently, as necessary, to ensure
50 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

EXHIBIT 7-1

GROUNDWATER SAMPLING PARAMETERS

Wells Sampling Frequency Environmental Parameters

∗ GW-15a

A Ring Wells

∗ GW-20

∗ GW-21

∗ GW-22

Annual

Quarterly

groundwater elevation, pH, conductivity, TSS, TDS,

and radionuclides listed

groundwater elevation, pH, conductivity, TSS, TDS,

manmade radioactivity, and radionuclides listed

B Ring Wells

∗ GW- 3

∗ GW-6a

∗ GW-23

∗ GW-24

Semi-annual groundwater elevation, pH, conductivity, TSS, TDS,

manmade radioactivity, and radionuclides listed

C Ring Wells

∗ GW- 2

∗ GW-28

∗ GW-29

∗ GW-30

Annual groundwater elevation, pH, conductivity, TSS, TDS,

and radionuclides listed

Other Sampling Point

Outfall 001 Quarterly flow, pH, and radionuclides listed

Radionuclides: Gross Beta, H-3 (Tritium), Be-7, Mn-54 and Na-22

effects on groundwater are minimal.

From controls designed into the

accelerator complex, including inplace shielding measures and

through calculations, a minimal

amount of soil or groundwater

activation is expected on-site and no

effect offsite.

7.2.4 Groundwater Uses

The groundwater resources of the

York-James Peninsula are abundant;

however, the generally poor water

quality limits groundwater use.

Some Peninsula groundwater is

used, in conjunction with area

reservoirs, to supply drinking water.

Jefferson Lab withdraws

groundwater from below Halls A, B,

and C, under the site Permit to

Withdraw Groundwater, as

discussed in Section 3.4.5. There are

no projected needs for the use of

groundwater on the Jefferson Lab

site. The surrounding area,

however, is expanding and

additional sources of water to serve

the city remain under investigation.

7.3 GROUNDWATER

PROTECTION PROGRAM

SUMMARY

Jefferson Lab’s environmental protection

programs have been established to allow

the continued careful use of water resources

and to ensure the desired maintenance of all

water quality parameters to the maximum

practicable extent. Existing water quality

parameters are mandated under Federal

and Commonwealth regulations, with the

main guidance for this program being the

CWA. The primary CWA objective is to

“restore and maintain the chemical,
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 51

physical, and biological integrity of the

nation’s waters.” Jefferson Lab complies

with the applicable standards discussed in

Section 3.4.

Two significant operations that impact

groundwater, described below, were

addressed in the 1987 EA. Environmental

impacts were minimized for both through

design strategies.

• The continued withdrawal of

groundwater for structural purposes

and short-term dewatering for

construction projects.

• The potential impact to the groundwater

on the Jefferson Lab site or beyond the

site limits because of construction

and/or accelerator and physics program

activities.

The 1987 EA concluded “no significant

environmental impacts are predicted.” The

EA concluded that proper design and

careful operation of the accelerator would

minimize any impacts, including those to

the groundwater. The Commonwealth’s

largest concern is the potential for

radiological activation of the groundwater

and the soil surrounding the accelerator.

The 1997 EA addressed additional potential

impacts based on changes in CEBAF

operating parameters and the inclusion of

FEL operations, and resulted in a FONSI.

See Section 3.15.1 for additional

information.

The prevention of hazardous material and

oil spills is addressed through appropriate

training and awareness programs at

Jefferson Lab. The prevention of oil spills is

the main focus of the site SPCC Plan. The

Chemical Assistance Team assists by

providing immediate containment in the

event of oil or hazardous material spills,

and the RCG addresses any activated water

spills, thus minimizing potential

groundwater impacts. An emergency

management exercise, using a simulated oil

spill, was conducted this year to test the

response program effectiveness. Jefferson

Lab staff, local Fire Department, and

Dominion Virginia Power staff participated.

Opportunities for improvement were

identified and are being addressed.

7.3.1 Groundwater Resource

Protection - Quantity

Groundwater withdrawn at Halls A,

B, and C is pumped to a single

discharge that empties into a

stormwater drainage channel. The

channel is graded to allow the water

to flow east, then south and off the

site. The water eventually flows to

the Big Bethel reservoir. This

dewatering is allowed by the Permit

to Withdraw Groundwater and is

discussed further in Sections 3.4.5

and 6.1.2. The Permit allows an

annual withdrawal of up to twentythree million gallons of

groundwater, with the actual

amount pumped significantly less.

No other withdrawals or projected

uses are expected.

7.3.2 Groundwater Resource

Protection - Quality

Accelerator-produced radionuclides

potentially present in the

groundwater are regulated by the

Commonwealth through authorized

discharge limits in VPDES Permit

No. VA0089320. It superseded the

VPA Permit in July 1996, which

primarily established a groundwater

quality baseline for comparison with

measurements during long-term

operations.

This VPDES Permit specifies that the

groundwater leaving the Jefferson

Lab site shall not exceed the

established baseline groundwater

parameters. A groundwater

monitoring program uses well

sampling as the mechanism for

making the determination that

commitments are met. This Permit

also requires keeping the DEQ

informed about changes at Jefferson

Lab that could affect groundwater

quality.
52 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

7.3.3 Surface Water Protection

Surface water quality is maintained

by discharging only unpolluted

waters, such as rainwater or

groundwater, to the environment.

The potential sources of

contamination of surface waters and

associated control measures are:

• Using proper procedures

prevents releases of EHMs to

surface water or to the ground.

• The prevention of potential oil

leaks from equipment or system

malfunctions are addressed in

the SPCC Plan.

• The addition of sediments and

other pollutants to surface

waters from pumping at

construction areas is addressed

by including specific contractual

requirements for any

subcontractor performing

earthwork to follow the practices

identified in the Virginia Erosion

and Sediment Control Handbook.

• Water within the tunnels and

experimental halls may become

activated from exposure to

radiation. The RCG procedures

that address activated water

management provide for

sampling and monitoring of

water from any potential source

within the accelerator and

experimental halls.

• Groundwater surrounding the

tunnel and experimental halls

may become activated during

beam operations. The

groundwater is shielded from

exposure to radiation, so

minimal amounts of radiation

are expected. The pumped

groundwater is monitored under

VPDES Permit No. VA0089320.

7.4 GROUNDWATER

MONITORING REVIEW

Jefferson Lab’s environmental monitoring

program is designed to verify that any

radiation exposures, as well as nonradioactive effluent releases, are below

permissible limits, and that accelerator

operations and physics experiments, as well

as Laboratory support functions, have not

affected the quality of the environment.

Radioactivation of groundwater is possible

in certain locations around the accelerator

complex. Massive concrete and steel shields

within the accelerator beam enclosures and

in the beam deceleration areas minimize

groundwater activation.

The locations of the “A”, “B”, and “C” Ring

wells, labeled as to proximity to the

accelerator tunnel, are specified in VPDES

Permit No. VA0089320. The permitidentified wells are used for sampling and

analysis during regular accelerator

operations and experimental physics

activities. Exhibit 5-2 shows the locations of

the background and active monitoring

wells.

The “baseline” values obtained during the

term of the VPA Permit helped define the

operational groundwater quality limits that

are listed in VPDES Permit No. VA0089320.

The permit action or trigger levels, based on

the statistical analysis provided to the DEQ,

are shown on Exhibit 5-3. Note that the

Commonwealth restricts water

contamination to 1 mrem/yr., which is onequarter of the regulated drinking water

quality limit. Sampling requirements under

the VPDES Permit are presented in Exhibit

7-1. Under the permit, Jefferson Lab has to

take specific corrective action if the

following values are detected at either the

“A” and/or “B” Ring wells: Gross Beta

50 pCi/l; Tritium 5000 pCi/l; and Manmade

Radioactivity 1 mrem/yr. The “C” Ring

wells are, at no time, to statistically exceed

the background levels shown in the VPDES

Permit.
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 53

Well locations are regularly reviewed and

local temporary test wells would be used to

sample potential problem areas. Sampling

point relocations would be considered

based on study results.

SECTION 8

QUALITY ASSURANCE

Regular quality assurance (QA) efforts,

which include quality control (QC)

measures, are being made to ensure that the

Jefferson Lab’s Environmental Monitoring

Program is being performed in accordance

with the principles of the Jefferson Lab

Quality Assurance Program Manual. As

well, EH&S Manual Chapter 6712

Environmental QA provides the method and

direction for critical and objective

examination of Jefferson Lab’s

environmental protection programs,

practices, and performance.

The Jefferson Lab QA Program includes

qualification of the laboratories that provide

analytical services, verification of

certification to perform analytical work, and

review of performance test results. Also

included in this review is the adequacy of

their internal QC practices, recordkeeping,

chain of custody, and the relevant portions

of the QA program itself.

The RCG and other program management

are involved in the qualification process for

environmentally sensitive services,

including offsite analytical laboratories, and

are responsible for auditing their own QA

and implementing relevant QA procedures.

The Jefferson Lab SA/QA function

performs independent assessments of all

functional areas, including those for

environmental protection activities. The

DOE oversight organizations, in their

independent overview capacity, also

perform periodic audits and surveillance of

Jefferson Lab. No quality assurance

concerns were noted for CY 2000 regarding

sampling protocols or results.

The line management responsible for the

process documents all routine monitoring

and surveillance sampling procedures.

Some procedures have been incorporated

into the EH&S Manual. Other specialized

procedures have been developed in

accordance with established standards,

practices, and protocols. The procedures

ensure that samples are representative of

the media from which they are collected

and will yield reliable results.

Subcontractors are required to use

approved documented procedures.

Universal Laboratories, Inc. (Universal

Labs) collected most VPDES and HRSD

permit-related water samples. All nonradiological analyses on these samples were

performed by Universal Labs and the

radiological analysis by their subcontractor,

McDermott Technologies (McDermott).

Several field audits were performed and

showed Universal Labs’ collection

procedures were satisfactory.

Other sample collection that involves

radiochemicals, including some required by

the HRSD permit, is performed by the RCG

and analyzed in the RCG radiological

analysis lab (Building 52). Qualified

Jefferson Lab staff collect samples that

require general chemical analysis, which are

usually not permit-related. In 2000,

Jefferson Lab subcontracted with Marine

Chemist, Inc. and American Medical Lab to

provide general chemical analysis on

samples that were not potentially

radioactive.

8.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE IN

ANALYSIS

Samples are analyzed for radiological and

non-radiological attributes using standard

EPA-approved analytical procedures. A

continuing program of analytical laboratory

quality control, participation in

interlaboratory crosschecks, analysis of

various blanks, and replicate sampling and
54 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

analysis verifies data quality. The RCG,

Accelerator Division EH&S staff, and other

responsible staff review all analytical data

for samples analyzed under their

subcontracts. The analytical results are

reviewed relative to the accompanying

QA/QC results and compared with

regulatory limits for acceptability. These

reviews include inspection of chain-ofcustodies, sample stewardship, sample

handling and transport, and sampling

protocols. When applicable to the analysis

requested, analytical labs must be

appropriately certified. Inspection visits are

made to both Universal Labs and

McDermott on a biennial basis. These visits

confirmed that analytical practices being

performed were satisfactory.

Ongoing precision and accuracy are

monitored by analysis of the following with

each batch of samples: laboratory

standards, duplicate determinations, matrix

spikes, and matrix spike duplicates. These

data are used to calculate the relative

standard deviation. The quality of the data

is then evaluated and compared to

regulatory limits to determine acceptability.

A range of radiochemical spikes is used to

test the vendor’s ability to achieve the

required sensitivity for each parameter, and

their reliability in detecting acceleratorproduced radionuclides at or below the

concentration guide standards, as specified

in VPDES Permit No. VA0089320.

Jefferson Lab continues to maintain

appropriate agency certifications and to

incorporate certification requirements in

any subcontractual specifications. Any

equipment used for environmental

monitoring is specified to have calibration

certifications traceable to national

standards.

Universal Labs and the RCG radiological

analysis lab participate in DOE’s Quality

Assessment Program (QAP) run by

Environmental Measurements Laboratory

(EML). McDermott participates in two DOE

crosscheck evaluation programs: one from

the EML, and one from the Mixed Analyte

Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP).

McDermott is also certified by the National

Environmental Laboratory Accreditation

Conference (NELAC), whose purpose is to

establish and promote mutually acceptable

performance standards for the operation of

environmental laboratories. They are also

EPA sample certified by both NELAC and

the State of Utah, as well as with the

Commonwealth of Virginia for

environmental monitoring. Universal Labs,

Marine Chemist, and American Medical

Lab participate in state programs to

maintain their state certification.

8.2.1 Radiological

Independent QA under the DOE

EML administers the DOE quality

assessment program for

environmental radiological analyses.

The EML QA Program is an

external, independent performance

evaluation program designed to test

the quality of environmental

radiological measurements and

provides DOE with complex-wide

comparability of environmental

radiological analysis. Under this

program, four matrices of various

radionuclides are distributed semiannually to DOE-subcontracted

laboratories for analysis, with the

labs required to analyze only the

parameters for which they analyze

under contract.

In 2000, McDermott and the RCG

Lab participated in the EML’s QAP

for radionuclides. Two sets of

results for McDermott and one for

the RCG Lab under the QAP were

available. The results, for the

parameters analyzed by Jefferson

Lab and those analyzed by

McDermott that are applicable at

Jefferson Lab, are provided as

Exhibit 8-1. Results indicated as

warnings mean they are near the

limits of acceptability. McDermott’s

overall results for QAP 52 were 71%

acceptable, 22% warning and 7% not

acceptable. Results for the water

program, which is of greatest
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 55

importance for Jefferson Lab, were

77% acceptable and 23% noted

warning. Note that only selected

results are presented in the Exhibit.

Overall results on QAP 53 were 82%

acceptable and 18% warning for

McDermott, though only selected

results are presented, with RCG Lab

results at 100% acceptable.

McDermott participated in a QA

program for analysis of samples

under the MAPEP. Performance

results for MAPEP-00-57 were

received. The results of 92%, which

addressed metals and radionuclides,

were acceptable or noted as

warning. Refer to Exhibit 8-2.

Other QA Activities

McDermott Technologies also

participates in an RCG-directed

crosscheck program for selected

radionuclides that includes

duplicates and spiked samples

provided at various times in the

year. In all circumstances, the

results were satisfactory in all

appropriate testing categories.

In conjunction with VPDES and

HRSD permit-related sampling

activities, the RCG Lab runs parallel

analyses on selected groundwater

monitoring samples and HRSD

quarterly composite samples as a

QA verification.

8.2.2 Other Programs

Universal Labs, as part of its

credentialing program, participates

in two QA programs to ensure a

high level of testing accuracy.

During CY 2000, they received blind

samples and conducted analysis on

the samples. Exhibits 8-3 through

8-6 show the results of the

parameters of interest to Jefferson

Lab. Exhibit 8-3 was conducted

under the protocol of an ERA

WatRTM Supply Proficiency Testing

Study. Exhibits 8-4 through 8-6

were done through the NSI

Laboratory Proficiency Testing

Program. The overall results for the

four samples ranged from a high

score of 94% acceptance and

warnings to a low score of 84% of

same. These scores translate to a

“very good” and “good” rating

respectively. All testing protocols

were done in accordance with EPA

guidelines. Test results that were

outside of acceptable standards were

addressed by Universal Labs to

determine what went wrong, and

how to make improvements for the

future. RCG staff review the test

results to ensure Universal Labs is

maintaining its ability to provide

quality services.
56 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

EXHIBIT 8-1

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (QAP) SELECTED RESULTS FOR 2000

Reported EML Known

Matrix Analyte Value Error Value Error

Ratio

Rep/EML Result

QAP 52 (Bq/l) (Bq/l)

Water (McD) Gross Alpha 1850.000 30.000 1700.000 170.000 1.088 Accept

Gross Beta 925.000 16.000 690.000 70.000 1.341 Warning

Co-60 53.300 1.760 48.900 1.800 1.090 Accept

Cs-137 105.000 2.000 103.000 4.000 1.019 Accept

(Bq/filter

)

(Bq/l)

Air (McD) Gross Alpha 2.930 0.050 3.020 0.300 0.970 Accept

Gross Beta 3.320 0.050 2.420 0.200 1.372 Accept

Co-57 4.610 0.190 5.310 0.220 0.868 Accept

Co-60 5.720 0.150 5.320 0.260 1.075 Accept

Cs-137 6.130 0.200 6.100 0.300 1.005 Accept

QAP 53 (Bq/l) (Bq/l)

Water (McD) Gross Alpha 1190.000 50.000 1070.000 100.000 1.112 Accept

Gross Beta 899.000 36.000 950.000 90.000 0.946 Accept

Tritium 129.000 25.000 91.300 0.300 1.413 Warning

Co-60 75.100 3.400 73.700 2.900 1.019 Accept

Cs-137 66.600 2.200 67.000 3.500 0.994 Accept

Water (JLab) Co-60 78.070 1.970 73.700 2.900 1.059 Accept

Co-60 74.740 1.900 73.700 2.900 1.014 Accept

Co-60 75.650 2.280 73.700 2.900 1.026 Accept

Cs-137 66.230 2.410 67.000 3.500 0.989 Accept

Cs-137 66.970 2.390 67.000 3.500 1.000 Accept

Cs-137 65.820 2.710 67.000 3.500 0.982 Accept

(Bq/filter) (Bq/l)

Air (McD) Gross Alpha 1.830 0.070 2.350 0.150 0.779 Warning

Gross Beta 1.210 0.040 1.520 0.150 0.796 Warning

Mn-54 47.700 3.700 43.200 1.300 1.104 Accept

Co-57 15.000 0.400 14.550 0.460 1.031 Accept

Co-60 9.250 0.530 8.430 0.480 1.097 Accept

Cs-137 7.960 0.370 7.410 0.360 1.074 Accept

McD: McDermott Technologies; JLab: Jefferson Lab

Only selected results that had some relevance to Jefferson Lab operations are provided in this Exhibit.
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 57

EXHIBIT 8-2

MIXED ANALYTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM (MAPEP)

Sample ID: MAPEP-00-57

Parameter Results

Reference

Value Flag Bias

Acceptance

Range

(Bq/kg) (%) (Bq/kg)

Co-57 1021 949 A 7.6 664.30 – 1233.70

Co-60 1339 1180 A 13.5 826.00 – 1534.00

Cs-137 992 930 A 6.7 651.00 – 1209.00

Manganese-54 1166 1023 A 14.0 716.10 – 1329.90

Note:

A: mean result acceptable (Bias ≤ 10%)

-A, +A: mean result acceptable (10% < bias ≤ 20%)

W, +W: mean result acceptable with warning (20% < bias ≤ 30%)

+N, -N: mean result not acceptable (bias >30%)

EXHIBIT 8-3

SELECTED RESULTS FROM UNIVERSAL LABORATORIES PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION REPORTS

ERA WatR Supply Proficiency Testing Study WS-43

Sample

Category Parameter Units

Reported

Value

True

Value

Acceptance

Limits Results

Metals Aluminum μg/l 556 559 473 - 665 Acceptable

Arsenic μg/l 65.5 73.5 64.1 – 82.1 Acceptable

Beryllium μg/l 7.16 6.63 5.64 – 7.62 Acceptable

Cadmium μg/l 5.16 5.63 4.50 – 6.76 Acceptable

Calcium mg/l 63.1 66.7 58.0 – 77.7 Acceptable

Chromium (1) μg/l 24.8 25.5 21.7 – 29.3 Acceptable

Chromium (2) μg/l 25.4 25.5 21.7 – 29.3 Acceptable

Copper μg/l 163 179 161 – 197 Acceptable

Lead μg/l 18.8 17.7 12.4 – 23.0 Acceptable

Manganese μg/l 491 489 455 – 514 Acceptable

Nickel μg/l 119 130 111 – 150 Acceptable

Silver μg/l 112.4 94.6 81.4 – 109 Not Acceptable

Zinc μg/l 955 972 893 – 1040 Acceptable

Ca Hardness as

CaCO3

mg/l 158 167 156 – 178 Acceptable

pH pH S.U. 8.0 7.8 7.02 – 8.58 Acceptable

Mercury Mercury μg/l 4.46 3.65 2.56 – 4.75 Acceptable

(Continued)
58 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

EXHIBIT 8-3 (Continued)

Titration

Hardness

Ca Hardness as

CaCO3

mg/l 210 203 190 – 216 Acceptable

Inorganics Chloride mg/l 6.85 6.68 4.92 – 8.58 Acceptable

Conductivity μmhos 546 502 420 – 571 Acceptable

TDS mg/l 417 429 275 - 583 Acceptable

Residual

Chlorine

Total Residual

Chlorine

mg/l 4 3.52 2.63 – 4.18 Acceptable

Total Organic

Carbon (TOC)

TOC mg/l 3.72 3.61 3.24 – 4.17 Acceptable

Note:

Only selected results that had some relevance to Jefferson Lab operations are provided in this Exhibit.

The full report also evaluated regulated and unregulated volatiles and other parameters.

EXHIBIT 8-4

SELECTED RESULTS FROM UNIVERSAL LABORATORIES PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION REPORTS

NSI Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program Study WS-00-4

Sample

Category Parameter Units

Reported

Value

True

Value

Acceptance

Limits Results

Metals Aluminum μg/l 1490.0 1461.0 1294 – 1628 Acceptable

Arsenic μg/l 82.3 75.0 65.6 – 83.8 Acceptable

Beryllium μg/l 3.46 3.10 2.64 – 3.57 Acceptable

Cadmium μg/l 24.4 24.2 19.4 – 29.0 Acceptable

Chromium μg/l 103.0 100.0 85.0 – 115 Acceptable

Copper μg/l 620.0 610.0 549 – 671 Acceptable

Lead μg/l 27.2 27.5 19.3 – 35.8 Acceptable

Manganese μg/l 492.0 500.0 465 – 526 Acceptable

Nickel μg/l 379.0 419.0 356 – 482 Acceptable

Silver μg/l 303.0 300.0 240 – 360 Acceptable

Zinc μg/l 1000.0 1000.0 919 – 1074 Acceptable

Mercury Mercury

(Total)

μg/l 1.53 1.41 0.987 – 1.83 Acceptable

Titration

Hardness

Ca Hardness as

CaCO3

mg/l 189.0 223 209 – 237 Not Acceptable

Minerals Specific

Conductance

μmhos/c

m

600.0 591 511 – 670 Acceptable

TDS mg/l 341.0 457 237 – 678 Acceptable

Residual

Chlorine

Total Residual

Chlorine

mg/l 1.0 1.14 0.946 – 1.32 Acceptable

pH pH S.U. 8.29 8.4 7.56 – 9.24 Acceptable

Note:

Only selected results that had some relevance to Jefferson Lab operations are provided in this Exhibit.

The full report also evaluated nutrients, trihalomethanes, and other parameters.
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 59

EXHIBIT 8-5

SELECTED RESULTS FROM UNIVERSAL LABORATORIES PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION REPORTS

NSI Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program Study WP-00-5

Sample

Category Parameter Units

Reported

Value

True

Value

Acceptance

Limits Results

Metals Aluminum μg/l 994.0 950 808 – 1088 Acceptable

Arsenic μg/l 125.0 125 101 – 149 Acceptable

Beryllium μg/l 555.0 600 510 – 678 Acceptable

Cadmium μg/l 170.0 180 153 – 205 Acceptable

Chromium μg/l 440.0 490 426 – 555 Check for Error

Copper μg/l 606.0 600 545 – 659 Acceptable

Lead μg/l 904.0 938 822 – 1050 Acceptable

Manganese μg/l 1842.0 1850 1664 – 2056 Acceptable

Nickel μg/l 290.0 288 255 – 325 Acceptable

Silver μg/l 194.0 200 171 – 229 Acceptable

Zinc μg/l 963.0 950 842 – 1067 Acceptable

Mercury Mercury

(Total)

μg/l 6.14 7.31 5.41 – 9.18 Acceptable

Minerals Specific

Conductance

μmhos/c

m

620.0 608 559 – 657 Acceptable

TDS mg/l 366.0 342 355 – 425 Acceptable

Ca Hardness as

CaCO3

mg/l 145.0 130 118 – 143 Not Acceptable

Residual

Chlorine

Total Residual

Chlorine

mg/l 2.0 2.34 1.90 – 2.78 Check for Error

Residue Non-filterable

(TSS)

mg/l 68.0 74.8 57.7 – 80.7 Acceptable

Filterable (TDS) mg/l 261.0 420 316 - 524 Not Acceptable

pH pH S.U. 8.58 8.70 8.44 – 8.95 Acceptable

Note:

The full report also evaluated nutrients, trihalomethanes, and volatile organic compounds.

Only selected results that had some relevance to Jefferson Lab operations are provided in this Exhibit.
60 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

EXHIBIT 8-6

SELECTED RESULTS FROM UNIVERSAL LABORATORIES PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION REPORTS

NSI Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program Study WP-00-7

Sample

Category Parameter Units

Reported

Value

True

Value

Acceptance

Limits Results

Metals Aluminum μg/l 2560.0 2500 2152 – 2689 Acceptable

Arsenic μg/l 442.0 430 359 – 504 Acceptable

Beryllium μg/l 510.0 506 430 – 571 Acceptable

Cadmium μg/l 346.0 350 298 – 398 Acceptable

Chromium μg/l 209.0 210 181 – 239 Acceptable

Copper μg/l 203.0 200 179 – 222 Acceptable

Lead μg/l 1637.0 1650 1452 – 1840 Acceptable

Manganese μg/l 610.0 650 583 – 722 Acceptable

Nickel μg/l 2336.0 2250 2046 – 2507 Acceptable

Silver μg/l 89.0 96.0 81.8 – 110 Acceptable

Zinc μg/l 715.0 700 619 – 788 Acceptable

Mercury Mercury

(Total)

μg/l 9.83 9.780 7.28 – 12.2 Acceptable

Tritration

Hardness

Ca Hardness as

CaCO3

mg/l 212.0 220 201 – 240 Acceptable

Minerals Specific

Conductance

μmhos/cm 800.0 717 658 – 776 Not Acceptable

TDS mg/l 378.0 441 337 – 545 Acceptable

Residual

Chlorine

Total Residual

Chlorine

mg/l 0.45 0.525 0.371 – 0.679 Acceptable

Residue Non-filterable

(TSS)

mg/l 66.0 83.4 64.6 – 90.0 Check for Error

Filterable (TDS) mg/l 224.0 224 187 – 261 Acceptable

pH pH S.U. 8.0 8.0 7.77 – 8.23 Acceptable

Note:

Only selected results that had some relevance to Jefferson Lab operations are provided in this Exhibit.

The full report also evaluated nutrients and other compounds.
2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 61

SECTION 9

REFERENCES

Industrial Wastewater Discharge Regulations

Hampton Roads Sanitation District

July 1, 1999 revision.

U.S. Department of Energy

Air Emissions Summary Report

Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility

July 14, 1995.

U.S. Department of Energy

Hydrogeologic Review

Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility

September 1995.

U.S. Department of Energy

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

September 1998 revision.

U.S. Department of Energy

Environmental Assessment DOE/EA-0257

Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility

Newport News, VA

January 1987.

U.S. Department of Energy

Environmental Assessment DOE/EA-1204

Change in Operating Parameters of the Continuous Electron Beam

 Accelerator Facility and the Free Electron Laser

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

Newport News, VA

October 1997.

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation

Division of Soil and Water Conservation

1992.
62 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

SECTION 10

DISTRIBUTION LIST

JEFFERSON LAB INTERNAL

Dr. Christoph W. Leemann, Interim Director

Dr. Franz L. Gross, Theory Group Leader

Dr. Lawrence Cardman, Associate Director, Physics Division

Dr. Ronald M. Sundelin, Associate Director, Office of Technical Performance

Dr. Swapan Chattopadhyay, Associate Director, Accelerator Division

Dr. Roy R. Whitney, Associate Director, Administration Division

Dr. Frederick H. Dylla, Technology Transfer Manager, FEL Program Manager

Dr. Dennis M. Skopik, Deputy Associate Director, Physics Division, Physics Division

EH&S Officer

Dr. Andrew M. Hutton, Director of Operations, Accelerator Division, and

Facility Manager

Rhonda M. Scales, Esq., Assistant General Counsel

Ms. Linda L. Even, Environmental Engineer, EH&S Reporting Officer

Mr. Carter B. Ficklen, EH&S Reporting Manager

Mr. John J. Kelly, Administration Division EH&S Officer

Mr. Robert T. May, Manager, Radiation Control Group

Mr. Scott O. Schwahn, Deputy Head, Radiation Control Group

Ms. Sandra L. Prior, Accelerator Division EH&S/QA Officer

EXTERNAL

The Honorable John W. Warner

The Honorable Jo Ann Davis

The Honorable George Allen

The Honorable Robert C. Scott

The Honorable Phillip A. Hamilton

The Honorable Alan A. Diamonstein

The Honorable Edward L. Schrock

Mayor Joe S. Frank, City of Newport News

Mayor Mamie E. Locke, Ph.D., City of Hampton

Mr. James S. Burgett, Chairperson, York County Board of Supervisors

Ms. Rondra J. Matthews, President/Publisher, and CEO, Daily Press, Inc.

Mr. Delma R. Carpenter, President/Publisher, The Virginian-Pilot

Mr. Robert T. Moore, Industrial Waste Manager, Hampton Roads Sanitation District

Mr. Ronald E. Johnson, Chief, Industrial Waste Division, Hampton Roads Sanitation District

Dr. Jerry P. Draayer, President, Southeastern Universities Research Association, Inc.

Mr. Jerry M. Conley, Site Manager, Jefferson Lab

Mr. John W. Anderson, Department Head for ES&H Infrastructure Support, Princeton

Plasma Physics Laboratory

Mr. Leslie P. Foldesi, Director, Virginia Dept. of Health, Radiological Health Program

Mr. Leonard Huesties, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Dr. Kenneth R. Kase, Associate Director, ES&H, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Dr. Timothy M. Miller, Associate Section Head, ES&H Section, Fermi National

Accelerator Laboratory

Mr. Robert Goode, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Mr. John Paul Woodley, Jr., Office of the Secretary of Natural Resources