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 2002

Prepared by: 

SURA/Jefferson Lab 

Office of Assessment 

EH&S Reporting 

August 2003 

JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 

FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2002 

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 2002. The objective 

of this annual Site Environmental Report is to document Jefferson Lab’s active environmental

protection program. 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 operations at Jefferson Lab. The report also summarizes environmental programs, 

initiatives, and assessments that were undertaken in 2002. 

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) at Jefferson

Lab provides an electron beam to three experimental halls, where a variety of physics experiments are 

conducted. Correlative programs where environmental protection is also considered are: the Free 

Electron Laser (FEL); Superconducting Radiofrequency (SRF) research and development; and,

cryomodule development for the DOE’s Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) project. 

Major Site Programs 

CEBAF: The accelerator continued to deliver polarized electron beams at energies up to nearly 6 GeV 

(billion electron volts) to meet a variety of needs of experimenters in Halls A, B, and C. By the end of 

calendar year 2002, Jefferson Lab had completed 66 experiments and partially completed another 34. 

Major experiments were conducted in all three halls during 2002, as well as preparation and logistics

work for large-scale experiments planned for two of the halls during 2003. 

A group of Hall A physicists studied strange matter called “kaons” and how energy becomes matter,

while another Hall A collaboration used photons (light particles) to study the proton’s structure.

Preparation work was underway for two large magnet systems scheduled for experimental use in

Hall A during 2003, namely the septum magnet and a magnet dubbed “BigBite”.

Results from earlier research into the shape of the proton (conducted in Hall A) were reported in 

popular publications like USA Today and The New York Times. Experimental data indicate that the 

proton isn’t necessarily round - it can take on a variety of shapes such as a peanut, egg or even a 

football. 

An experiment in Hall C studied the spin-structure functions of nucleons - precisely how quarks

arrange themselves to form protons and neutrons - and in turn make up all matter. The research is

helping to determine why quarks are bound up in nucleons and not free-floating particles. 

Researchers using Hall C during 2001, who measured the charge distribution of the neutron, 

published their results. While the particle’s overall charge is neutral, it actually has a positively 

charged interior and a negatively charged surface. Hall C collaborators made the most precise 

measurements ever made of this charge distribution. 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report i
Hall C physicists, engineers, and technicians also readied a large, new freestanding detector system 

and electric magnet for an experiment called “G-Zero”. Accelerator scientists made significant 

adjustments to CEBAF’s electron beam for this experiment, which is designed to quantify the lightest 

of the six types of quarks - the elusive strange quark. 

Hall B delved into the resonance levels of the neutron, comparing the properties of fast and slow 

moving neutrons. 

During 2002, analysis, research, and development work continued on the proposed upgrade of 

Jefferson Lab’s accelerator to 12 GeV. This upgrade in electron beam energy levels would also include

the building of a fourth experimental hall, which would be named Hall D. In the DOE and National 

Science Foundation’s jointly published April 2002 Long-Range Plan “Opportunities in Nuclear 

Science”, the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee rated Jefferson Lab’s upgrade as one of the science

programs it most highly endorses, supports, and recommends. 

FEL: By year’s end, work neared completion on the upgrade to Jefferson Lab’s Free Electron Laser. 

The first machine, the Infrared (IR) Demo FEL, was shutdown November 18, 2001, and

decommissioned to make way for the major upgrade project. At that time it was a 1,000 watt 

(kilowatt) level light source with output in both the IR and ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths. Once the 

upgrade is complete in 2003, the machine will be able to produce more than 10,000 watts of IR light

and 1,000 watt levels of UV light. The FEL supports basic science research and serves universities,

private industry, NASA, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force. Before shutting down in 2001, FEL

experiments included: investigation into the production of coatings and thin films for electronics and

microcomponents, and production of carbon nanotubes. 

SNS: The Spallation Neutron Source project involves a team of six Federal laboratories including -

Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Los Alamos, Jefferson Lab, and Oak Ridge - assisting in 

the design, engineering, and construction of the $1 billion-plus SNS being built in Oak Ridge,

Tennessee. Once operational, it will provide the most intense pulsed-neutron beams in the world for 

scientific research and industrial development. 

Jefferson Lab built the prototype SNS cryomodule during 2002 and provided extensive expertise,

guidance, and production effort in developing the SNS refrigeration plant. After testing the 19-footlong, five ton prototype cryomodule, it was loaded onto a flatbed semi for a trial road trip to ensure

the rigors of travel wouldn’t damage the extremely sophisticated and sensitive mechanisms within

the cryomodule. After a final round of tests ensured its road-worthiness, the cryomodule was

delivered to Oak Ridge, and Jefferson Lab’s cryomodule production line moved into high gear. 

By year’s end, work on several cryomodules was well underway in Jefferson Lab’s cryomodule 

assembly area. The Lab will produce 23 cryomodules for the SNS. 

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

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

ii 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
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 

worker and public 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. Compliance 

information is provided in Section 2. 

EH&S Performance Measures: The 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 2. 

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

Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) performed inspections in 2002. Section 2 presents the

minor concerns identified in these inspections. Most of the deficiencies identified during a 2002 ISM 

review were closed in 2002. The DOE Site Office’s Overlay Report included an “outstanding” rating 

for SURA in the EH&S category. These are discussed further in Section 3. 

Implementation of 10 CFR 835: This DOE Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 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. Compliance is addressed in Section 2. 

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). Some important

new buildings were addressed in a 2002 EA. Routine Lab activities are covered under site-specific 

Categorical Exclusions (CXs). New activities that occurred in 2002 received NEPA CX authorizations. 

NEPA is discussed further in Section 2. 

Environmental Management System (EMS) Implementation: The primary objective of ISM is to make 

safety, health, and environmental protection a part of routine business at Jefferson Lab. EMS

implementation is addressed through the Lab’s ISM System Plan, and 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. Jefferson Lab incorporated some EMS elements that were to broaden the scope of the ISM 

System Plan during fiscal year 2002.

Summary of Environmental Results in 2002 

Compliance

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

DOE guidance during 2002. As a consequence, Jefferson Lab operations had no discernable impact on

public health or the environment. Radiation-related issues, especially those dealing with water 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report iii
resources and public health, are highlighted in this report. The Jefferson Lab EH&S Manual, which

addresses many environmental topics, was updated to ensure that new compliance initiatives were

incorporated in 2002. 

Radiological Monitoring

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

monitoring wells located near the CEBAF accelerator and the experimental halls. Sampling intervals 

vary from quarterly to annually. There were no readings above background in 2002. Note that gross 

beta was detected, but at normal background levels. Therefore, no accelerator-produced

radionuclides were present in our groundwater. 

Radioactive water is generated inside the underground accelerator complex and a small quantity is 

discharged under permit to the sanitary sewer system. Sampling is routinely performed prior to any

discharge to ensure permit limits are maintained. Sampling results are reported both monthly and 

quarterly. 

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

Environmental Protection Agency‘s (EPA) 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, calendar year 2002 values were reported to the EPA. One result reported to the EPA for 

2002 was that the estimated total maximum offsite dose from radiological airborne releases was 0.011

millirem/year (mrem/yr). This amount is insignificant when compared to the EPA regulatory public

air-dose limit of 10 mrem/yr, which is the amount of exposure that is comparable to one typical chest 

x-ray. 

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 2002 were within Jefferson Lab’s 

allowable limits - the highest direct radiation level measured was only 7% 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 4.

Non-radiological Monitoring 

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

applicable environmental program requirements. The program included quarterly industrial 

wastewater monitoring, groundwater sampling at the dewatering sump and at some of the 

monitoring wells, and cooling water discharge sampling. 

Items of Interest in 2002 

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

• Recycling of about 1,000 pounds of fluorescent lamps and about 14,600 pounds of used

oil/coolant; 

• Going from two to eleven fully-functioning office product recycling centers; 

• Maintaining a top rating in the Lab’s performance measure that addresses recycling compared to

disposing of waste in a landfill; 

iv 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
• Improving performance in the procurement of EPA-designated recycled-content products, 87% 

purchased in fiscal year 2002, an improvement over 2001 figures; and, 

• Successfully accomplishing the site’s second shipment of low-level radioactive waste.

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report v
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................................... i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................................................... v 

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT............................................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 JEFFERSON LABORATORY MISSION ............................................................................................................. 1 

1.3 OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 

1.4 HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................................... 2 

1.5 LOCATION............................................................................................................................................................ 3 

1.6 CLIMATE AND DEMOGRAPHICS..................................................................................................................... 3 

1.7 FACILITIES AND 2002 ACTIVITIES.................................................................................................................. 7 

1.8 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 9 

1.9 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................................... 9 

1.10 SITE EH&S RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................... 9 

SECTION 2 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 10 

2.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................ 10 

2.2 WASTE MANAGEMENT................................................................................................................................... 10 

2.3 RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................... 14 

2.4 AIR QUALITY AND PROTECTION STANDARDS......................................................................................... 15 

2.5 WATER QUALITY AND PROTECTION .......................................................................................................... 17 

2.6 PUBLIC HEALTH............................................................................................................................................... 20 

2.7 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS..................................................................................................... 21 

2.8 EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (P2) ..................................................................... 23 

2.9 OTHER OBLIGATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE CONTRACT......................................................................... 29 

2.10 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND ACTIONS OF INTEREST........................................................... 31 

2.11 RELEASE REPORTING ..................................................................................................................................... 31 

2.12 PERMIT SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................... 31 

SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM................................................................................... 31 

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.............................................................................................. 32 

3.2 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS....................................................................................................... 33 

3.3 APPRAISALS, ASSESSMENTS, AND INSPECTIONS .................................................................................... 39 

3.4 NEPA ACTIVITY................................................................................................................................................ 40 

3.5 SUMMARY OF OTHER SIGNIFICANT SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES......................................... 40 

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM.............................................................................. 44 

4.1 SITE INFORMATION......................................................................................................................................... 45 

4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION MONITORING .......................................................................................... 46 

4.3 AIRBORNE AND WATERBORNE RADIOACTIVITY.................................................................................... 46 

4.4 ACCELERATOR-PRODUCED DIRECT RADIATION .................................................................................... 54 

4.5 ASSESSMENTS OF POTENTIAL RADIATION DOSE TO THE PUBLIC AND TO BIOTA.......................... 54 

4.6 OTHER SUPPORT ACTIVITIES........................................................................................................................ 56 

SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL NON-RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM................................................................... 56 

5.1 WATER PROGRAMS......................................................................................................................................... 56 

5.2 CONVENTIONAL AIR EMISSIONS ................................................................................................................. 62 

5.3 SAFETY............................................................................................................................................................... 63 

SECTION 6 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION............................................................................................................. 63 

6.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................ 63 

6.2 HYDROGEOLOGY ISSUES .............................................................................................................................. 63 

6.3 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROGRAM SUMMARY............................................................................ 65 

6.4 GROUNDWATER MONITORING REVIEW .................................................................................................... 67 

SECTION 7 QUALITY ASSURANCE............................................................................................................................. 67 

7.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE IN SAMPLING PROCEDURES ............................................................................... 67 

7.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE IN ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 68 

SECTION 8 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 74 

SECTION 9 DISTRIBUTION LIST ................................................................................................................................. 75 

vi 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Exhibits 

Exhibit 1-1 Jefferson Lab Vicinity Plan ......................................................................................................... 5 

Exhibit 1-2 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 6 

Exhibit 2-1 EPCRA Reporting Status .......................................................................................................... 25 

Exhibit 2-2 Chemicals Reported for 2002 ................................................................................................... 26 

Exhibit 2-3 Targets and Progress Projections ............................................................................................ 30 

Exhibit 2-4 Contract Performance Measure Results ................................................................................. 31 

Exhibit 2-5 Jefferson Lab Permits ................................................................................................................ 32 

Exhibit 3-1 Recycling Center Locations and Items Collected in 2002 .................................................... 42 

Exhibit 3-2 Quantities of Items Recycled or Reused in FY 2002 ............................................................. 43 

Exhibit 4-1 Jefferson Lab Radiological Dose Reporting Table for CY 2002 ........................................... 45 

Exhibit 4-2 Jefferson Lab Radiological Atmospheric Releases for 2002 ................................................. 45 

Exhibit 4-3 Jefferson Lab Liquid Effluent Releases of Radioactive Material for 2002 .......................... 45 

Exhibit 4-4 Nuclide Effective Dose Equivalent Summary ....................................................................... 47

Exhibit 4-5 Monitoring Well Locations ...................................................................................................... 51 

Exhibit 4-6 Groundwater Sampling Parameters ....................................................................................... 52 

Exhibit 4-7 VPDES Permit Levels for Radionuclides* .............................................................................. 52 

Exhibit 4-8 Maximum Groundwater Measurements for Radionuclides* .............................................. 53 

Exhibit 4-9 Analytical Results for Discharges to HRSD in 2002 ............................................................. 53 

Exhibit 4-10 Boundary Monitor Locations ................................................................................................... 55 

Exhibit 4-11 Radiation Boundary Monitor RBM-3 Results for 2002 ......................................................... 55 

Exhibit 5-1 2002 Flow Information at the Dewatering Discharge ........................................................... 57 

Exhibit 5-2 Range of 2002 Non-Radiological Monitoring Results at Wells ........................................... 58 

Exhibit 5-3 2002 Permit-Related Non-Radiological Monitoring Parameters at Outfall 001 ................ 58 

Exhibit 5-4 2002 Cooling Water Monitoring Parameters at Outfalls 001 and 002 ................................ 59 

Exhibit 5-5 pH Sampling Results for Wastewater Discharge .................................................................. 60 

Exhibit 5-6 Control Chemicals and Products Approved for Use in 2002 .............................................. 61 

Exhibit 5-7 Jefferson Lab Air Emission Source for Calendar Year 2002 ................................................. 62 

Exhibit 7-1 Quality Assurance Program (QAP 56) Selected Results for 2002 ....................................... 70 

Exhibit 7-2 Quality Assurance Program (QAP 57) Selected Results for 2002 ....................................... 71 

Exhibit 7-3 ERA QA Program Average Parameter Results for 2002 ...................................................... 72 

Exhibit 7-4 Selected Results from Universal Laboratories Performance Evaluation Reports NSI 

Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program Study WP-075 ..................................................... 73 

Exhibit C1 Federal Laws and Regulations Included in the WSS Set ................................................... C-1 

Exhibit C2 Permits, State Laws, and Regulations Included in the WSS Set ........................................ C-3 

Exhibit C3 Other Standards Identified in the WSS Set .......................................................................... C-4

Appendices 

APPENDIX A ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................A-1 

APPENDIX B TECHNICAL TERMS ...............................................................................................................B-1 

APPENDIX C APPLICABLE SITE STANDARDS......................................................................................... C-1 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report vii

SECTION 1 

INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requires

its facilities, Thomas Jefferson National

Accelerator Facility (TJNAF or Jefferson Lab) 

being one, to establish and annually report on

environmental programs and performance. 

This document marks the tenth year that

Jefferson Lab has been preparing an annual 

Site Environmental Report (SER). This SER

addresses the status and results of the Lab's 

environmental protection (EP) program, which 

also addresses public health items, for calendar 

year (CY) 2002. The SER is prepared in 

accordance with DOE guidance. SERs inform

Jefferson Lab staff, DOE, regulators, and the 

public, and provide a historical record of the 

environmental condition of the site. 

Addressed within Section 2 is the Lab's 

compliance status with applicable

requirements, standards, and contractual 

commitments. Section 3 summarizes the site's

major EP-related programs. Sections 4 and 5

address the active site radiological and nonradiological monitoring programs. Section 6

presents information about the site's

groundwater protection program and Section 7 

describes how Jefferson Lab ensures that the

data used to monitor environmental conditions 

are of high quality and accuracy. The 

appendices include acronyms and

abbreviations, technical terms used herein, and 

applicable laws and regulations. 

EP is an integral element of the Lab's 

Integrated Safety Management (ISM) program. 

Note that the term "safety", in the ISM 

program, includes EP, public health, and 

worker safety and health, all of which are 

generally termed EH&S.

The SER is available in a downloadable pdf 

file. Look for this CY 2002 SER under 'Safe and 

Secure First' on the Jefferson Lab web page at 

http://www.jlab.org. 

1.2 JEFFERSON LABORATORY 

MISSION 

Jefferson Lab, formerly known as CEBAF 

(Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator 

Facility), is a national accelerator facility 

managed by SURA (Southeastern Universities 

Research Association, Inc.) for the DOE. The 

accelerator complex portion of the Lab still

retains the name CEBAF. This complex 

includes an underground electron accelerator,

CEBAF, which is Jefferson Lab's primary 

research tool. CEBAF operates at energies up 

to about 6 GeV (billion electron volts) and 

provides beam to three underground halls that

house the physics program experiments. 

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. Since 

then, Jefferson Lab has developed a mission 

statement that addresses quality and 

excellence in research, community partnership,

and environment, health, and safety (EH&S). 

To accomplish mission-directed activities, the 

CEBAF accelerator is used to conduct user 

driven research into how nucleons are built 

from quarks and gluons, and how this

structure leads to the standard nucleon-based 

picture of the nucleus. Information about 

other site program areas that support the Lab's 

mission is noted in Section 1.3. 

Jefferson Lab management recognizes that 

responsible stewardship of the $600 million 

investment in site program areas requires that

management continue to work with a vision

that exemplifies a world-class scientific facility. 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 1
The Lab's vision is to: a) Foster user-driven 

nuclear physics research, b) Leverage 

resources to support national goals and

objectives, c) Prepare a broadly educated next

generation of scientists and engineers, d) 

Contribute to public science literacy and

appreciation through community outreach and

involvement, e) Maintain and further develop

a world-class workforce, and f) Lead

responsibly by conducting environmentally

sound, safe, and secure operations. Lab 

management has translated this vision into 

specific goals, as discussed in the current 

version of the Jefferson Lab Institutional Plan. 

1.3 OPERATIONS 

Jefferson Lab, as built by DOE, is one of four

major basic research facilities in High Energy 

and Nuclear Physics in the United States.

Jefferson Lab is operated for the DOE by

SURA. The most recent DOE/SURA Contract, 

No. DE-AC05-84ER40150, became effective on

November 1, 1999. 

Jefferson Lab, a world-class research 

institution, attracts resident and visiting

physicists and other scientists. Approximately 

635 full-time physicists, engineers, technicians, 

and support staff work at Jefferson Lab. About

2,180 academic and industrial researchers from 

all over the world participate in scientific

collaborations. By the end of CY 2002,

Jefferson Lab/SURA held 40 patents on

specialized processes and components 

developed by Lab staff, with an additional 43 

patent applications being processed. 

Jefferson Lab's annual budget is approximately 

$100 million. Most of this budget directly

supports the local economy through wages 

and purchases of materials and services, 

including from local contractors and 

businesses. Most full-time staff reside in 

Newport News or other nearby communities, 

thereby supporting the economic health of the 

area. 

There are seven major facilities (program 

areas) on the DOE site: CEBAF, a 

superconducting radiofrequency (SRF) 

electron accelerator; End Stations A, B, and C, 

large halls that house physics experiments that

make use of beams from CEBAF; an SRF

facility that serves primarily as a research and 

development (R&D) center for SRF accelerator 

cavities; a Free Electron Laser (FEL) User 

Facility that produces laser beams to serve 

university, industry, and military users; and, a 

Lattice QCD Computer, a 1/4 Teraflop 

commodity-PC-based machine. Additional

information on the listed facilities that have EP 

or public health implications is provided in

Section 1.7. 

1.4 HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION 

Prior to Jefferson Lab, there were several users

of this general area. In 1942 and 1943, the U.S. 

Department of Defense (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

current 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, 

the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA), 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.

At this time, the total DOE-owned parcel, upon 

which Jefferson Lab is built, is 163 acres. 

An adjacent 44 acres, owned by the city of 

Newport News, were conveyed to SURA in

December 1986. A SURA residence facility is

located on a portion of this land, and is used 

2 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
by guests and visiting experimenters, who are 

referred to as users. 

Sign at Main Entrance to Site 

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), is

located on this property, and is used by

Jefferson Lab, industry, and universities. 

Other adjacent land owned by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia is leased to SURA

and the DOE for its use in support of Jefferson 

Lab. This area, the DOE-owned site, and other 

nearby properties are considered part of the 

City's Jefferson Center for Research and 

Technology. 

Front Entrance to CEBAF Center 

1.5 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 1-1. 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 1-2 shows the Jefferson Lab 

site proper. 

Jefferson Lab is sited in the central section of 

Newport News at an average elevation of 

35 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The site 

elevation ranges from 32 to 37 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. All but a small portion 

of the site is in the Brick Kiln Creek watershed, 

which discharges into the Big Bethel Reservoir.

The U.S. Army operated the Big Bethel 

Reservoir for part of 2002. The reservoir no 

longer serves as a drinking water source for 

Fort Monroe, Langley Air Force Base, or the 

NASA-Langley Research Center, but still 

remains a recreation area. The westernmost 

portion of the DOE site is in the Deep Creek 

watershed, which discharges into the James

River. 

1.6 CLIMATE AND 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 3
The meteorology of the Jefferson Lab site is 

strongly affected by the nearby marine 

environment. The Chesapeake Bay moderates 

the climate and weather of the site, with landsea breezes dominating the wind patterns 

during much of the year. The mean monthly 

temperature for the Newport News area 

4 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Exhibit 1-1 

Jefferson Lab Vicinity Plan 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 5
Exhibit 1-2 

Site Plan 

6 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
ranges from 4oC (40oF) in January to 26oC

(79oF) in July. The record low temperature is 

-19oC (-3oF) and the record high is 40oC (105oF). 

[Information is taken from the International

Station Meteorological Climate Summary, 

Version 4.] 

Normal annual precipitation is 112 cm (44 in.), 

spread evenly throughout the year. Extreme 

precipitation events, caused by hurricanes or 

tropical cyclones, have deposited as much as 

29 cm (11.5 in.) of rain in a 24-hour period. 

Average snowfall is 23.1 cm (9.1 in.), but up to 

35 cm (14 in.) has fallen in a month. Because of 

the proximity to the Chesapeake Bay, fog is a

common occurrence in the area. Severe 

weather, in the form of thunderstorms, 

averages 37 days/year. Tornadoes are rare in

coastal Virginia but may be spawned by severe 

thunderstorms or when associated with

hurricane or tropical cyclone activity. 

Hurricanes average less than one per year in

Virginia, but have caused both wind and

flooding damage to the area since colonial 

times. [Information is taken from DOE/EA1384.] 

The population of Newport News grew 

steadily between 1980 and 2000. The 2000

census showed that 180,150 people lived inside 

Newport News versus 144,903 in the 1980 

census. The growth rate for that period was

24%. 

1.7 FACILITIES AND 2002 

ACTIVITIES 

The 163-acre DOE site is primarily divided into 

two areas, one with R&D, fabrication, 

administrative offices, and such, and the

second is about a 40-acre fenced area, termed

the accelerator site, where all accelerators and

related experiments are housed. It is located in

the south portion of the site, and access is

restricted, through one entrance that is staffed 

24-hours/day, to authorized staff or

subcontractors, or as escorted by an authorized

person. 

The four major Jefferson Lab facilities that 

have EP or public health-related implications 

are CEBAF, its End Stations, the SRF Facility, 

and the FEL User Facility. A short description

and at least one note of interest for each is 

shown below. 

CEBAF: This accelerator provides continuous 

wave electron beams with energies from 0.5 to 

5.7 GeV. CEBAF is used as a tool for exploring 

the transition between the regime where

strongly interacting (nuclear) matter can be 

understood as bound states of protons and

neutrons, and the regime where the

underlying fundamental quark-and-gluon

structure of matter is evident. The nature of 

this transition is at the frontier of our 

understanding of matter. 

Improvements in CEBAF operations to 

support the physics experimental program 

continued through the calendar year. These

improvements included: 

• The delivery of electron beams at energies 

close to 6 GeV to meet the variety of needs 

of the experimenters in Halls A, B, and C. 

• CASA, the Center for Advanced Studies of 

Accelerators, contributed to the success of 

CEBAF by providing simulations and 

operations support during the setup and 

execution of ongoing experiments. 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 7
Atomic Structure 

End Stations (Halls A, B, and C): Each hall (or

end station) has its own set of complementary

experimental equipment. 

• Hall A has a pair of superconducting, highresolution magnetic spectrometers 

optimized for precision electron scattering 

coincidence experiments. 

• Hall B houses the CEBAF Large 

Acceptance Spectrometer (CLAS) that

supports studies of both electron and

photon-induced particle reactions. 

• Hall C contains a pair of moderate 

resolution spectrometers, with one capable

of high momentum particle detection and

the second optimized for the detection of 

short-lived reaction products. 

In 2002, each of the halls focused on different 

research areas. Hall A examined how energy 

becomes matter. Hall B used CLAS to gather 

new insights on several fundamental questions 

about the neutron. Hall C researchers took a

closer look at matter's blueprints with a study 

of the spin-structure functions of the proton 

and neutron, collectively known as nucleons. 

Since the Lab began operations, through the 

end of 2002, researchers had completed 66

experiments and partially completed another

34 using all three halls. 

The SRF Facility: The SRF program is centered

in the Lab's Institute for SRF Science and

Technology. This Institute's strength is in R&D

and large scale applications of SRF, including 

CEBAF and the FEL. In addition, design,

development, and fabrication of the SRF

niobium cavities for the DOE's Spallation 

Neutron Source (SNS) are a current focus. 

Some ongoing work in the ARC also supports 

development of state-of-the-art surface science 

and SRF R&D and production capability. 

Major activities in 2002 involved continued 

R&D on cavity development, to support

CEBAF and the FEL, and to finalize the design 

on the SNS cavities. Jefferson Lab is also 

providing expertise on the refrigeration system 

needed to provide supercooled liquids to the 

SNS that is being constructed in Oak Ridge,

Tennessee. 

FEL User Facility: The FEL is an accelerator 

that was initially designed to provide 

1,000 watt (1 kW) of infrared (IR) light with 

picosecond pulse length for use by Jefferson 

Lab, industrial, DOD, and university partners. 

This demo machine was shutdown in 

November 2001 for a scheduled upgrade. 

Upgrade work continued through 2002. 

Activities included: 

• An experiment which demonstrated how 

to produce a highly useful form of light, 

called terahertz radiation - 20,000 times

brighter than ever before - was published 

in the November 2002 issue of Nature. 

• Installing the upgrade will enable 

operation in a wider wavelength range to

10,000 watt (10 kW). Scientists expect to be 

lasing again in 2003. 

Future planning: Analysis and R&D work on

the proposed upgrade of CEBAF to 12 GeV 

continued in 2002. This upgrade in electron 

beam energy levels and a new experimental 

hall, Hall D, will support experiments that test 

8 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
the strong force that holds atomic particles

together. 

1.8 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

An environmental assessment, termed EA, 

performed under National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) procedures, was conducted

prior to the construction of CEBAF (February 

1987), resulting in a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI). 1997 and 2002 EAs, which

also yielded FONSIs, addressed a CEBAF

upgrade, FEL and potential HELIOS-related 

activities, and five building construction

projects. Existing NEPA-related 

documentation has been reviewed

periodically. Refer to Section 3.4 for additional 

information about site NEPA activities. 

1.9 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Jefferson Lab is located on what was a 

hardwood-pine forest. The majority of the 

remaining wooded areas on this property are

considered a mixed pine-deciduous forest. 

The Lab is still partially surrounded by small

oak-loblolly pine forests. The overall site

remains a temporarily wet, upland area in the 

city of Newport News. Vegetation at Jefferson

Lab is in various stages of succession, 

reflecting the history of disturbances to the

site. As identified in a 2001 survey, the growth

in previously cleared areas is dominated by 

younger pines showing the trend for these 

areas to be returning to a pine-dominated

canopy like the surrounding wooded areas. 

The 1987 EA reported that 257 species of 

terrestrial vertebrate fauna had geographic

ranges that encompassed the site, though only 

a fraction would be expected to actually exist 

on the property. Prior studies and

correspondence with various government 

agencies indicated that no Federal or State 

listed threatened or endangered species or 

other protected species exist on the site. A site 

survey of flora and fauna conducted in 2001

documented the site status during the 

preparation of DOE/EA-1384. 

DOE/EA-1384, approved in July 2002,

reviewed site conditions for terrestrial and 

aquatic resources as well as threatened and 

endangered, and other state and local species

of concern that had the potential to be found 

on-site. The key results follow. 

• Rare plant species and their typical habitats

were studied. None of the identified plants 

or conditions suitable for their propagation 

were found. 

• Federal and State listed fauna, such as the

bald eagle and canebrake rattlesnake, and

potential suitable habitats were also 

surveyed. No Federal or State listed

species nor any other species of concern 

were found. As well, no suitable nesting or

roosting habitats were identified. 

• The 2001 survey found no aquatic 

resources and no permanent aquatic 

habitats. There are, however, small 

drainage channels that move water across 

and off the site, with a few channels just 

beyond the DOE site limits. The few 

channels that almost always contain water

pass under Canon Boulevard to eventually 

flow into Brick Kiln Creek. Refer to Section

6.2 for more information on area drainage 

patterns. 

• More information on the flora and fauna 

considered in this EA is provided in

Section 2.7.1.

1.10 SITE EH&S RESOURCES 

The facility makes available a variety of EH&S

resources to serve the Jefferson Lab 

community. The Lab community includes

SURA and DOE staff, Commonwealth of

Virginia employees, subcontractors, visiting

experimenters, and students of all ages that

participate under various programs. To ensure

that staff, employees, subcontractors, and users 

are aware of and utilize environment, health,

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 9
and safety principles, EH&S responsibilities

are incorporated into each position description

as described in the Jefferson Lab ISM System 

Plan, which was validated by DOE in 1999.

(See Section 3.1 for more information on ISM.) 

Local EH&S resources are available to every 

employee, user, and visitor. They 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 

Lab-wide concerns, develop policy, and

resolve selected issues; and, the Jefferson Lab

EH&S Manual, as the primary source of EH&S 

implementing procedures. The EH&S Manual

is accessible via paper copy at designated

locations in major site buildings or at 

http://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, the Oak Ridge Operations

(ORO) Office, and the DOE Headquarters

Office of Science; 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 2002 to support the continued

development and implementation of EP and

public health-related programs at Jefferson

Lab. 

SECTION 2 

COMPLIANCE SUMMARY 

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

Compliance with applicable EP 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 

through self-assessments, routine inspections, 

and oversight by the DOE Site Office and

outside regulators, including staff from the 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ) and the Hampton Roads Sanitation

District (HRSD). Assurance is also obtained

through guidance from the DOE ORO Office, 

with additional program support by the DOE

Office of Science. 

Applicable EP and public health-related

requirements are identified in the DOE/SURA 

contract. They are divided into three groups: 

• the Work Smart Standards (WSS) Set; 

• the Administrative Laws and 

Regulations (AL&R); and, 

• other contractual commitments. 

These groupings actually include all Jefferson

Lab EH&S obligations and are described in

Appendix C. Compliance with EP and public 

health-related requirements is maintained as 

follows. 

2.2 WASTE MANAGEMENT 

Waste streams at the Lab include hazardous,

low-level radioactive, and medical wastes 

(discussed below). The Lab endeavored to 

reduce waste generation in 2002 and did make 

progress in some areas. Though waste 

reduction considerations are taken into 

account, new actions, including the 

commencement of special processes, such as

SNS cryomodule fabrication and the addition 

and use of more experimental and support 

equipment, often involve identifying as waste 

older materials and equipment that are no 

longer needed. The Lab has encouraged the 

reuse or recycling of old or discarded materials 

wherever possible. (Refer to site-specific 

program information in Section 3.5.2.) Waste

disposal and recycling quantities are tracked 

and reported annually to the DOE. 

10 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
There have been neither waste management

activities associated with spills or cleanup 

actions under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) nor have there 

been any waste storage or management actions 

that involved NEPA authorizations.

2.2.1 Hazardous Waste under RCRA, 

related VA Regulations, and EH&S

Manual Chapter 6761, Hazardous 

Waste Management

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

Subchapter I, Waste Programs, implements

the Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act of 1976 (RCRA), also called the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act (SWDA). RCRA 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. 

RCRA further provides the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to

regulate solid waste, from minimization

and recovery to collection and disposal.

The EPA has delegated authority to the 

DEQ to regulate solid wastes that include

hazardous waste. As such, the Virginia 

Waste Management Act and regulations

under the Virginia Administrative Code 

Sections 9 VAC 20-80, et seq. (Waste

Regulations) apply. Applicable

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

are implemented through the Jefferson Lab 

EH&S Manual. 

Jefferson Lab has been registered as a 

RCRA Small Quantity Generator (SQG) 

since 1987. (Note that SQGs are not 

required to file a biennial report to the

DEQ.) To maintain SQG status, a facility

cannot generate more than 1 kilogram (kg) 

of acutely hazardous waste and/or 

1000 kgs (about 2200 pounds or about 300 

gallons maximum) of hazardous waste in

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 5100 kgs of 

hazardous waste in Fiscal Year (FY) 2002.

The increase in generation this year (from

4300 kg in FY 2001) was due to increased 

cryomodule production to support SNS

and the FEL requirements, which were in 

addition to the normal fabrication activities 

needed to maintain CEBAF operations. 

The hazardous wastes generated in the

largest volumes in 2002 were waste 

buffered chemical polish (an acid mixture) 

used for niobium cavity processing and

waste solvents (acetone, methanol, and 

isopropanol) from cleaning operations. 

One special initiative, the elimination of 

cyanide use, occurred in 2002. Refer to 

Section 3.2.2 for other waste minimization 

efforts. 

The most recent DEQ inspection of this

program was performed in September 

2002. Refer to Section 3.3 for more 

information on that event. 

The Jefferson Lab Hazardous Waste

Coordinator (HWC) manages the site 

program and follows the guidance in

EH&S Manual Chapter 6761 to maintain

compliance. Hazardous wastes are

temporarily stored at Jefferson Lab; 

however, no permitting is required because 

the wastes are properly disposed of within 

the regulatory time frame. Jefferson Lab 

neither transports hazardous wastes nor 

operates any regulated treatment or

disposal units. All wastes are disposed of

through licensed waste handling facilities.

There are two elementary neutralization 

units, but they are not regulated as 

treatment devices. Some environmentally

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 11
harmful materials (EHMs) are recycled 

and/or reused prior to final disposal. Full 

compliance with requirements was 

maintained through 2002.

2.2.2 Low-Level Radioactive and Mixed 

Waste under DOE Order 435.1 and 

the AEA 

The Radiation Control (RadCon) Group 

implemented the applicable sections of 

DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste

Management, in 2002. The program enables

more efficient separation and

categorization of the Lab’s low-level

radioactive wastes (LLW). In 2002, the Lab 

identified more waste than would 

normally be expected in a year, but was 

less than that identified in the first year of 

the program. As there is no waste 

generated that carries either the source

materials or special nuclear materials 

subject to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 

(AEA), as amended, its conditions are not

applicable. 

Roughly 11 cubic meters (m3) of LLW were

disposed of in FY 2002. This rather large

amount of waste, compared with our 

proposed goal of 3.5 m3/year by 2005, was 

not generated solely in 2002, but included 

items that had slowly been generated and

accumulated since 1992. The second 

shipment of Jefferson Lab LLW material 

was turned over to a certified 

subcontractor for disposal in July 2002.

[Note: Permit No. 4727-45-01, to transport

waste within South Carolina, was obtained

in 2001, and will be reapplied for as 

needed.] 

Though Jefferson Lab is required to follow

the RCRA requirements that apply to 

mixed waste, which exhibits both 

hazardous and radioactive characteristics, 

there has been no mixed waste generated

to date. Jefferson Lab was in compliance 

with all applicable standards in 2002.

2.2.3 Non-Hazardous Waste under DEQ 

Standards and the EH&S Manual 

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 regulating such waste

programs. Jefferson Lab line management

is responsible for proper administration of 

the wastestreams covered under this 

category according to EH&S Manual 

Chapter 6760, Waste Management. There 

were no compliance issues in 2002.

2.2.4 Other Non-Hazardous WasteRelated Compliance Items under 

RCRA 

There are other forms of liquid and solid 

non-hazardous wastes, including domestic 

wastewater. Two water collection sump 

pits are located in the Counting House

(Building 97), with one pit discharging to 

surface water and the contents of the other 

pit being pumped to the HRSD system.

The permits for these water discharges are

discussed in Section 2.5.2. 

Other non-hazardous wastes are disposed 

of in a landfill, reused on-site, recycled, or

used for other purposes offsite. In 2002,

Jefferson Lab collected and disposed of

cadmium, nickel cadmium, and lithium ion

batteries and crushed fluorescent lamps as

universal wastes. Approved waste

management plans and procedures prevent 

or minimize impacts to the environment,

both at the site generation area and at the

final usage or disposal point. Jefferson Lab 

minimizes the generation of waste by using 

source reduction as the primary means of 

reducing environmental impacts, thereby 

lowering purchase and disposal costs. 

The Lab utilizes licensed subcontractors for

collection, separation, and permanent

disposal (aluminum cans and paper goods

are recycled separately). 

12 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
2.2.5 Regulated Medical Waste under the 

EH&S Manual 

The Lab’s EH&S Manual Chapter 6850,

Regulated Medical Waste Management and 

Appendix 6850-T1, Regulated Medical Waste 

Handling Procedures, apply and include

RCRA and Virginia requirements. There 

were no compliance issues with this 

program in 2002.

2.2.6 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 2002. 

2.2.7 Toxic Materials under TSCA 

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. 

PCBs

Since 1987, SURA has been removing PCBs 

and PCB-contaminated items from the site.

There were no PCBs in use or on-site

during 2002. As such, there were no PCB 

compliance issues in 2002. 

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. 

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 the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAPs) and in 40 CFR 763. EH&S 

Manual Chapter 6681, Asbestos

Management, implements the ACM 

requirements at Jefferson Lab. 

During 2002, the tower located atop 

Building 28 which contained non-friable 

asbestos, was removed intact by a licensed 

abatement contractor. The tower was

handled and disposed of as a Type II nonfriable material. There were no compliance 

issues in 2002. 

2.2.8 FIFRA 

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) applies to the 

storage and use of herbicides and

pesticides at Jefferson Lab. The application 

of herbicides and pesticides is permitted 

through a State-administered certification 

program, accomplished by certified

subcontractors who comply with FIFRA 

through Virginia’s program. All pesticides 

used in 2002 were EPA-registered and 

applied according to product instructions 

and Federal, State, and local guidelines. 

Jefferson Lab’s Facilities Management

(previously called Plant Engineering) 

Department subcontracts monthly 

preventive pest control. 

Herbicides were used on annual and 

perennial weeds and grasses, stumps of 

trees, and brush. Pesticides were applied

on-site for control of insects. 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 Lab property. The subcontractor is

responsible for handling any waste

disposal through an authorized disposal 

facility. Small containers of household 

pesticides are stored on-site and applied

per manufacturer’s recommendations. See

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 13
Section 5.1.6 for specific use information. 

There were no FIFRA compliance issues at 

the Lab in 2002. 

2.3 RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION 

REQUIREMENTS 

This section summarizes the Lab’s compliance 

with radiological EP and public health

requirements. 

2.3.1 Energy: Title 10 Part 71, Packaging 

& Transportation of Radioactive 

Material

Jefferson Lab made its first shipment of 

radioactive waste in July 2001 and second 

in July 2002. There have been no

compliance issues. (Additional 

transportation compliance information is

provided in Section 2.7.5.) 

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 the EH&S Manual 

chapters discussed in Section 2.3.3 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 worker radiologicalrelated activities and requires reporting of 

non-compliances. DOE PAAA worker 

radiation protection regulations are

codified in 10 CFR 835 and address: 

radioactive contamination, storage of 

radioactive materials, and radiological 

emergency response.

Jefferson Lab made a worker radiation 

protection report in the PAAA notification 

system following an August 2001 event,

which involved having an unposted high

radiation area for a short period in the Test 

Lab (Building 58). No worker radiation 

exposure resulted and no actual or 

potential environmental impacts were 

associated with this event. Test Lab staff

resolved the interlock problem that created 

the short duration radiation event. The

DOE Headquarters Office of PriceAnderson Enforcement approved closure

of the event and corrective actions in May 

2002 with no further action required. 

There were no significant 10 CFR 835

compliance issues in 2002. 

2.3.2 40 CFR 61 Subpart H 

This subpart, the National Emission 

Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides 

Other Than Radon from Department of 

Energy Facilities, sets an annual public 

dose limit for radionuclide emissions. The

Lab complied with these requirements and

there were no compliance issues in 2002. 

Refer to Section 2.4.2.1 for more 

information. 

2.3.3 EH&S Manual Chapters 6310 and 

6315 

Chapters 6310, Ionizing Radiation Protection,

and 6315, Environmental Monitoring of 

Ionizing Radiation, describe site programs 

for 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 the

potential for radioactive contamination of 

other water-containing systems and 

groundwater. There were no compliance 

issues in 2002. 

2.3.4 DOE Order 5400.5 

Applicable sections of DOE Order 5400.5,

Radiation Protection of the Public and the 

Environment, are implemented by Jefferson 

Lab’s Radiological Control (RADCON)

14 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Manual. There were no compliance issues 

in 2002. 

2.4 AIR QUALITY AND 

PROTECTION STANDARDS

The Clean Air Act (CAA) and its 1990 

Amendments (CAAA) regulate 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. At this time Jefferson Lab has no

processes that require air permitting. 

Applicable regulations are contained in 40 CFR 

Subchapter C, and in Virginia’s 9 VAC 5 series, 

Air Quality. Standards include Executive 

Order (EO) 13148 and EH&S Manual Chapter 

6720, Air Quality Management. 

2.4.1 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 2002, 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) and vehicle 

maintenance is performed offsite by GSAapproved facilities. There is no gasoline 

dispensing facility on-site, but 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 NAAQS compliance actions in 

2002. 

2.4.2 NESHAPs 

NESHAPs governs air emissions that

contain hazardous components, such as

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. 

2.4.2.1 Radionuclide Emissions 

Radionuclide emissions generated

during CEBAF and FEL testing and 

operations, including emissions 

resulting from interactions of the 

accelerator beams 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 4.3.1 for discussion of

direct radiation, the primary form of 

radiation generated on-site.) 

Jefferson Lab used sampling results and

calculations to demonstrate that the Lab 

remained under the EPA-defined

10 mrem/yr potential effective dose 

equivalent to any member of the public 

during 2002. 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 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 

monitoring criterion of 1% of the 

10 mrem/yr. Consequently, continuous

point source monitoring is not required. 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 15
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

furnishes an annual report to the EPA. 

This is discussed further in Section 4.3.1. 

No notifications for construction or 

modifications were necessary in 2002. 

2.4.2.2 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. 

There were no asbestos-related

NESHAP issues in 2002. Compliance 

with other asbestos standards is

described in Section 2.2.7. 

2.4.3 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

minimizes releases of polluted air by 

implementing preventive maintenance and

scrubbers. The Lab’s air emissions remain

below reporting thresholds as there were

no new emission sources installed in 2002.

The new electropolish cabinet, to begin 

operation in early 2003, will have a small

amount of emissions. Discussions with the

DEQ are forthcoming. 

Jefferson Lab has seven natural gas-fired 

boilers and a fin-tube radiator for building 

heating. Boiler information, including fuel

consumption data, is provided to the DEQ. 

For more information, refer to Section 5.2.

No requirements for permits are 

anticipated. The last DEQ inspection 

occurred in September 2000, with no

concerns identified. There were no air 

emission violations at Jefferson Lab in 2002. 

2.4.4 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 

R-12, -22, -502, and -134a) on-site. Also, the 

subcontractor who performed all service,

repair, and maintenance on Jefferson Lab

refrigeration/air conditioning equipment

during 2002, was EPA-certified and

effectively captured and recycled these

ODS compounds. Four Jefferson Lab 

Facilities Management employees have 

received certification training, ensuring 

that Lab staff understand the EPA

requirements. 

The Lab has three chlorofluorocarbon

(CFC)-based chillers on-site, one uses 

R-11 and two use R-113. They are 

effectively maintained by mechanical staff 

to ensure optimal performance and

minimal CFC losses. The two aging R-113 

units will be replaced with two state of the 

16 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
art non-CFC energy-efficient units in 2003.

A unit in Building 28, which contained 

R-22, was replaced in 2002. 

There was one 480 pound release of R-22 at 

a unit located in Hall C - the result of a 

thermal relief malfunction. There were a 

number of other small releases in 2002, all 

recorded by Facilities Management. 

The site is phasing 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, with 

hall staff 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 is committed to minimizing 

and/or eliminating the use of ODSs. The 

Lab’s CFC and Halon Use Policy is

included in the EH&S Manual Appendix 

6720-T3. 

2.5 WATER QUALITY AND 

PROTECTION 

Both groundwater and surface water 

protection are high priorities 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. 

Facilities in Virginia that directly discharge to 

waters of the United States must obtain a 

Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (VPDES) permit. The VPDES program

is designed to protect surface waters by

limiting primarily non-radiological releases of 

effluents into streams, lakes, and other waters,

including wetlands. Regulatory and program

concerns relating to construction and 

industrial activities, including the potential for 

radiological contamination of groundwater

and the quality of cooling water discharges, 

are discussed in Section 2.5.1 below. 

The concrete halls, which house the

experimental apparatus that accepts

accelerator beam, are partially buried. As the 

floors of the halls lie 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 (a process termed dewatering).

Compliance with the related permits is 

described in Sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2.

Jefferson Lab has a variety of on-site activities 

that result in water discharges to the sanitary 

sewer system. Other associated wastewater

standards included in the WSS Set are

discussed in Section 2.5.2. 

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 discussed further in

Section 2.5.2.3. 

2.5.1 VPDES Permits 

2.5.1.1 Construction Activity 

Jefferson Lab strives to keep pollutants,

such as sediments, out of surface waters

during earth disturbing activities. No 

VPDES permits involving construction 

have been required through 2002. The 

Lab’s Facilities Management 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 17
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 the site

program to address erosion and 

sediment control during earthdisturbing activities. 

2.5.1.2 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 (refer to 

Section 2.5.2.2). An earlier DEQ permit 

quantified water quality “baseline” 

values for certain parameters and set 

long-term groundwater quality limits. 

A well monitoring program under this 

permit enables the comparison of 

current and “baseline” values. Jefferson

Lab verifies that accelerator operations 

and other activities, such as

groundwater dewatering, do not 

degrade the quality of either on-site or 

offsite groundwater. Refer to Section 6 

and EH&S Manual Chapter 6731, 

Groundwater Protection, for additional 

information. 

Throughout 2002, groundwater 

sampling to monitor all permit-defined 

parameters was performed under a 

subcontract with an accredited 

laboratory and submitted to the 

Commonwealth at the end of each 

quarter. There were no compliance 

issues involving groundwater in 2002. 

Cooling Water Discharges - General 

Permit No. VAG253002

This Permit, which contains water

quality limits, covers the surface

discharges from the cooling towers 

adjacent to the Central Helium Liquifier

(Building 8) and a small tower adjacent 

to the Test Lab (Building 58). 

Sampling is performed under a

subcontract with an accredited 

laboratory and is submitted to the

Commonwealth at the end of each 

quarter. During the fourth quarter of 

2001, the chlorine level at one sampling 

site was above the non-detect level,

though below the water production

utility’s maximum chlorine residual 

levels. No explanation was ever found 

for the elevated level at the sampling 

point. During the second quarter of 

2002 there was no measurable flow at

either sampling point, so no samples 

could be taken. This was due to the 

drought conditions occurring

throughout Hampton Roads and the rest 

of the United States. 

A May 2, 2002 DEQ inspection found 

two administrative deficiencies. One 

was that a large city water leak on the 

site, an unusual event, had not been 

appropriately documented at the time of 

the inspection, and although it was

noted on the regular quarterly report, it 

had not been reported promptly to the 

DEQ. The second was that failure to 

follow standard information transfer

procedures resulted in the reporting of 

incorrect information. The response to 

the May 22, 2002 Notice of Deficiency 

provided the requested water leak 

documentation, assurance that the Lab 

would make prompt notification of an 

unusual condition, and that standard 

information transfer procedures would 

be followed and provided in advance of 

the DEQ action date. 

18 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
2.5.2 Other Water Program Standards in 

the WSS Set 

2.5.2.1 Industrial Wastewater 

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. In 2002, as we had two 

administrative violations, as noted

below, no HRSD award was received. 

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, presents 

implementation practices at Jefferson 

Lab. The pretreatment requirements of 

40 CFR 403 are not applicable. 

Quarterly pH values are recorded by a 

subcontractor at prescribed 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. 

Two minor administrative Notices of 

Violation were recorded in 2002 for the 

late submittal of routine pH

information, due to lack of knowledge 

that the samples had been taken during

that reporting month. This was 

acknowledged by all parties and new 

procedures are in place to ensure

information is received and provided on 

a timely basis. All pH data were within 

our permit limitations. There were no

violations that had any effect on the

environment in 2002. 

Permitted discharges of activated water

at one HRSD sampling point continued 

in 2002. Discharges are controlled 

manually, after sampling has confirmed 

that all values are within identified

limits. Either Jefferson Lab staff or a

subcontractor performs monthly and

quarterly radiological analyses from this 

sampling point and provides the 

analytical reports for transmittal to the

HRSD. All radiological permit and 

regulatory criteria were met in 2002 and

are discussed further in Section 4.3.2.

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 gammaemitting radionuclides in one year. The total 

radioactivity discharged to the sanitary sewer 

in 2002 was 1.06 Ci of tritium (or about 21% of

the total allowed) and 0.00032 Ci for other 

gamma-emitting radionuclides (or 0.032% of

the total allowed).

Laboratory staff participated in the 

March 7, 2002 annual inspection by the

HRSD - no compliance issues were 

identified at that time. 

2.5.2.2 Permit to Withdraw 

Groundwater 

No. GW0030800 

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. It is

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 19
important to 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 2002, and all 

monthly values were within permit

requirements. The total quantity of 

water withdrawn in 2002 was 4.9 million

gallons, which was 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

2002. Water quality sampling is

performed as noted in Section 2.5.1.2.

2.5.2.3 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 to assist in managing

the resulting used oil. The Lab has an 

approved SPCC Plan as required by 

40 CFR 112, which was reviewed and

updated in 2001. The SPCC Plan covers 

handling, storage, and transportation 

activities and is implemented by EH&S 

Manual Chapter 6732, Oil-Spill

Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures. 

There are two oil-storage tanks on-site 

that meet Federal and State above 

ground storage tank definitions, but the

total quantity stored is under the 

notification threshold. There were no 

compliance issues in 2002. See 

Section 3.5.1 for more information on

oil-related items. 

2.6 PUBLIC HEALTH 

The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA) 

ensures 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 receives its drinking water through three

public water supply lines provided by 

Newport News Waterworks. No monitoring 

by Jefferson Lab is required. 

The SDWA applies to two areas at Jefferson 

Lab: the Backflow Prevention Program and 

the surface discharges under the three DEQ 

permits. Jefferson Lab had no SDWA

compliance issues during 2002. 

2.6.1 Backflow Prevention 

An annual backflow prevention device 

inspection is required by the City of 

Newport News and the DEQ on all intrabuilding main supply connections. This

program ensures that untreated industrial 

wastewater or contaminants from crossconnected chemical processes and building 

equipment are mechanically prevented

from contaminating the drinking water

supply. Jefferson Lab engages locally

approved plumbing firms to ensure all 

backflow prevention devices function as

designed. Annual inspection reports (the 

last in June 2002) are sent to the city’s

Public Utilities Department. No issues

have ever been identified. 

2.6.2 Surface Water Quality 

The site drainage system primarily flows to 

the Big Bethel Reservoir which served as a 

drinking water source for local military

installations until mid-2002. A small 

20 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
portion of the site flows to the west to the 

Deep Creek watershed. The groundwater 

dewatering discharge is monitored for 

quality under VPDES Permit

No. VA0089320, and the cooling tower 

effluent is monitored under VPDES 

General Permit No. VAG253002. These

effluents are discharged into surface water

channels that lead offsite. Fort Monroe 

environmental staff are provided annual 

information on the quantity of 

groundwater discharged, with information 

collected under the Permit to Withdraw 

Groundwater. This notice may be

discontinued in 2003 as Big Bethel no 

longer serves as a drinking water reservoir.

There were no compliance issues involving 

surface water quality in 2002. Refer to 

Sections 3.2.3 and 4.3.2 for further 

discussion on the site’s monitoring

programs. 

2.6.3 Drinking Water Quality 

The water quality limits for the 

groundwater monitoring wells in VPDES 

Permit No. 0089320 include one value that 

is one-quarter of the State’s drinking water 

standard. There were no compliance issues 

regarding the wells or drinking water

standards in 2002. Groundwater is further 

discussed in Section 4.3.2. 

2.7 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL 

STANDARDS 

2.7.1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

The ESA protects endangered wildlife, fish,

plants, and their ecosystems. The 1987 EA 

reported that 257 species of terrestrial 

vertebrate fauna had geographic ranges

that encompassed the site, though only a

fraction would be expected to actually exist 

on the property. As well, correspondence 

with various government agencies 

indicated that no Federal or State listed 

threatened or endangered species or other 

protected species existed on the site at that

time. DOE/EA-1384, completed in 2002,

evaluated terrestrial and aquatic resources, 

including threatened and endangered

species identified as having the potential to 

reside on-site. The previous findings, that

there were no listed or concern species or 

potential terrestrial or aquatic habitats,

were confirmed. 

No ESA compliance issues were identified 

in 2002. 

2.7.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 

The MBTA of 1918 prohibits any

unauthorized taking, possessing,

importing, or other listed actions, of any 

migratory bird or their eggs. The 1987 EA 

found that 150 avian species have ranges 

that encompass the Jefferson Lab site, 

including both permanent and summer 

residents. Because the site lies within a

disturbed industrial and commercial area, 

only a small fraction of these species are 

expected to be found on-site. No suitable

breeding sites for any of the birds assessed

in a 2001 survey were identified. There 

were no concerns involving the MBTA in

2002. 

2.7.3 National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) 

The NHPA of 1966, Section 106, protects 

archaeological and historical resources. 

Area surveys in 1987 and major 

construction since that time have 

uncovered no trace of historic or 

archaeological resources. On 

October 16, 1992, the Commonwealth of

Virginia’s Department of Historic

Resources (VDHR) determined that all 

Section 106 conditions had been met and

no further assessments were required. A 

follow-up with the VDHR was performed 

during the preparation of an EA in 2002

with no concerns identified. The EA noted 

that the VDHR would be notified if 

anything unusual was encountered during 

any construction. 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 21
2.7.4 Coastal Zone Management Act 

(CZMA) 

Congress declared the CZMA as the policy, 

among other things, “to preserve, protect, 

develop, and where possible, to restore or 

enhance, the resources of the Nation's

coastal zone for this and succeeding 

generations.” The CZMA implemented the

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) 

under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation

Area Designation and Management

Regulations (CBPADMR). Although the 

DOE property does not fall within the

purview of this law, and is not in any 

designated resource protection area, the

DOE intends to be consistent with CZMA 

programs by obtaining all applicable

permits and approvals, and by complying 

with the Act’s terms and conditions, as 

well as with the goals and objectives of the 

CBPADMR to the maximum extent 

practicable. Here are the means by which 

DOE and Jefferson Lab are addressing

CZMA requirements. 

• Coastal Lands Management: The 

Jefferson Lab property has not been 

designated as a Chesapeake Bay 

Resource Protection Area or a Resource 

Management Area (RMA) under the

CBPA. The average site elevation, 

roughly 35 feet above MSL, places the

Jefferson Lab site outside of the nearest 

RMA. 

• Wetlands Management: The 2001

Wetland Delineation and Threatened

and Endangered Species Survey 

revealed that there are no wetlands,

except as identified earlier, on the 

Jefferson Lab site. 

• Non-point Source Pollution Control: 

All construction projects are managed

for erosion and sediment control, 

following, at a minimum, the Virginia

Erosion and Sediment Control Law.

Permits are and will be obtained as 

applicable. 

• Stormwater Management: The DOE 

implements control measures

consistent with the performance

standards identified in the CBPADMR. 

Stormwater best management practices 

(BMPs) will be implemented with new 

projects in order to minimize runoff 

concerns. 

• Point Source Pollution Control: 

Jefferson Lab’s only actual or potential 

point source discharges are from

construction dewatering, cooling 

towers for equipment, and accidents.

No more than minor impacts would be 

expected for any new source as the 

discharges would be no different from 

those already addressed under existing

programs. 

• Air Pollution Control: No local or

regional impact to NAAQS parameters 

from construction activity, building 

use, or from site accelerator operations 

is expected.

2.7.5 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. Many of 

the regulations applicable to transportation 

also apply to other environmental or public 

health topics. 

Requirements include the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) regulations 

identified in 49 CFR Subchapter C, 

Hazardous Materials Regulations; the 

Jefferson Lab RADCON Manual; EH&S 

Manual Chapters 6150, Compressed Gases,

6310, Ionizing Radiation Protection,

Appendix 6750-T4, Packaging EHMs for 

Transport; and, identified industry 

standards. Compliance with some of these

standards is addressed below. 

22 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
49 CFR Regulations

49 CFR 171 through 178 cover hazardous

and radioactive materials transportation

and contain DOT packaging and transport 

requirements to protect the environment or 

public health in case of accidents. The 

delivery of hazardous or radiological

materials to or from the site is contingent

upon compliance with appropriate DOT 

and other requirements. RadCon manages

the radiological portion of this program

and the HWC manages non-radiological 

DOT requirements. There were no 

compliance issues in 2002. 

EH&S Manual Chapters 6150, 6310, 6750, 

and 6850; RADCON Manual; and,

Handbook of Compressed Gases

These requirements provide for the safe

packaging and transport of hazardous and 

radioactive materials on Jefferson Lab

property. Properly trained staff perform

on-site transport of hazardous materials in

accordance with the EH&S Manual. The 

RadCon Group, in accordance with the

Jefferson Lab RADCON Manual and other 

internal procedures, manages radioactive 

materials. All medical wastes are handled 

by specially trained staff and managed by 

Medical Services. There were no 

compliance issues regarding these

transportation standards in 2002. 

10 CFR 71, 40 CFR 112; EH&S Manual 

Appendix 3510-T3 and Chapter 6732; and, 

the Virginia Emergency Operations Plan

These transportation-related standards are 

also directly applicable to activities at

Jefferson Lab. 40 CFR 112 covers oil and 

oil-product issues while 10 CFR 71 

encompasses packaging and transport of 

radiological materials. The Virginia 

Emergency Operations Plan and EH&S 

Manual Appendix 3510-T3 and Chapter 

6732 contain response actions in the event 

of a transportation emergency. There were 

no compliance issues regarding these

transportation standards in 2002. 

2.7.6 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. Protection 

measures include secondary containment 

and the location of EHM storage areas

away from floor drains. Though there was

a leaking fuel line at the diesel tank and

one minor coolant spill in 2002, there were 

no releases that had an impact on the

environment or public health. 

2.8 EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND 

POLLUTION PREVENTION (P2) 

The following EOs, discussed below, primarily

address P2 strategies: 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. Information on

the applicable Pollution Prevention Act (PPA)

of 1990 is included in the discussion under 

EO 13148. EO 13149, Greening the 

Government Through Federal Fleet and

Transportation Efficiency is not applicable as

all vehicles are leased through the GSA. 

Implementation of EO 13221, Energy Efficient 

Standby Power Devices, was explored in 2002. 

2.8.1 EO 11988 “Floodplain 

Management” 

This EO relates to the occupancy and

modification of floodplains. Since Jefferson 

Lab is not in a 100-year floodplain, the

specific EO 11988 requirements do not 

apply; however, localized flooding during

significant rain events, including

hurricanes, does occur. Facilities 

Management coordinates drainage

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 23
modifications to ensure appropriate 

drainage is maintained. 

2.8.2 EO 11990 “Protection of Wetlands” 

This EO ensures that adverse impacts to 

wetlands from construction activities are 

avoided or responsibly mitigated. 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 site EA and FONSI. Evaluation

of Jefferson Lab activities involving

potential wetlands is accomplished

through the NEPA review process. A 2001

survey found no wetlands at any of the 

sites proposed for construction projects in

the then draft DOE/EA-1384. There were 

no concerns involving wetlands in 2002. 

2.8.3 EO 13101 "Greening the 

Government Through Waste 

Prevention, Recycling, and Federal 

Acquisition"

EO 13101 encourages agencies to make

more efficient use of natural resources by

recycling and practicing waste prevention 

measures. This is accomplished in part by

promoting the procurement of products

made with recycled materials, termed 

Affirmative Procurement (AP), by Federal 

agencies. 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. The DOE’s 

complex-wide FY 2005 procurement target

for purchasing EPA-listed products was 

100%. Jefferson Lab’s compliance level was 

87% for FY 2002, a major improvement

from the 58.2% reported in FY 2000 but 

only a small improvement over the 84% in 

FY 2001. Refer to Section 3.2.1 for more 

information on this topic. 

2.8.4 EO 13123 "Greening the 

Government Through Efficient 

Energy Management" 

This initiative, effective November 4, 1999, 

focuses on energy efficiency (E2) as a 

means of P2. The DOE seeks a long-term 

energy use reduction of 15% for buildings

and industrial facilities - a 7% reduction

was documented for Jefferson Lab in 

FY 2000. Facilities Management analyzed 

buildings and their support systems in

2002 to look for ways to reduce energy 

consumption in the long term. Information 

on site-specific goals developed in

response to the Secretary of Energy’s P2 

and E2 initiatives in early 2001 is provided 

in the next section. 

2.8.5 EO 13148 "Greening the 

Government Through Leadership 

in Environmental Management" 

EO 13148 integrates environmental

accountability into Federal agency policies,

operations, planning, and management. 

The primary P2 goal is that pollution 

should be prevented or reduced at the 

source. Jefferson Lab complies with

Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) 

requirements, uses only a few toxic 

chemicals, and complies with the other 

requirements of this EO to the extent 

practicable. 

The Lab complies with EPCRA as follows.

Section 2.8.5.2 reports how Jefferson Lab 

uses P2 and other activities to maintain

environmental compliance. Specific Lab P2 

and E2 initiatives are discussed in 

Section 3. The results from environmental 

compliance reviews are provided in

Section 2.8.5.3. Section 2.8.5.4 reports on 

24 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
the Lab's progress in implementing

environmentally beneficial landscaping 

practices. Results from DOE’s EMS selfassessment questionnaire are provided in 

Section 2.8.5.5, and a summary of the Lab’s

progress in meeting DOE and siteidentified goals is presented in 

Section 2.8.5.6. 

As stated, Jefferson Lab is committed to 

being environmentally accountable 

through day-to-day decision-making and 

long-term planning processes, across all 

missions, activities, and functions. 

2.8.5.1 EPCRA Compliance 

EPCRA, also known as the Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

(SARA) Title III, 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 

the EPA (which posts some information

on their website) and local response 

agencies. Jefferson Lab is responsible

for planning and responding to chemical 

emergencies as well as completing

applicable reporting requirements as 

noted in Exhibit 2-1. 

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 Newport News Fire 

Department. Transportation-related 

standards pertaining to emergency 

planning are discussed in Section 2.7.5. 

Besides EO 13148, other EPCRA-related 

planning and response standards that

apply to Jefferson Lab are discussed 

Exhibit 2-1 

EPCRA Reporting Status 

EPCRA Section Description of Reporting Status of Applicability

EPCRA Sec. 302 (40 CFR 355) Planning notification Yes 

EPCRA Sec. 303 (40 CFR 300) Comprehensive Emergency Response Plans Not applicable

EPCRA Sec. 304 (40 CFR 355) EHS Release Notification No reporting required to date

EPCRA Sec. 311-312 (40 CFR 370) MSDS/Chemical Inventory Yes, 312 

EPCRA Sec. 313 (40 CFR 372) TRI Reporting No reporting required to date

below. EH&S Manual Appendix 

6710-T2, Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know, and the 

Virginia Emergency Operations Plan

also apply. 

Emergency Planning Standards

40 CFR 300, National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP) 

This regulation 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

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 25
EH&S Manual Chapters 3510, Emergency 

Management Plan, and 6732, Oil-Spill

Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures. 

EPCRA Section 302, Emergency 

Planning and Release Reporting 

Under EPCRA Section 302, (refer to 

40 CFR 355) 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 its 

Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ). 

Jefferson Lab’s EPCRA Section 302 

notifications to date include 

hydrofluoric acid, nitric acid, and

bromine. Due to increased SNS activity, 

sulfuric acid was identified as exceeding 

its TPQ and its presence was reported to 

the EPGs in early 2003. 

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 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 2.5.2.) 

EPCRA Sections 311 and 312,

Hazardous Chemical Inventories 

Under EPCRA Sections 311 and 312,

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) 

(refer to 40 CFR 370), or a list of those 

chemicals, must be submitted to EPGs 

for each hazardous chemical that 

exceeds the TPQ identified in the 

regulations. Inventory information is 

obtained through an annual sitewide 

chemical inventory coordinated by the

Jefferson Lab Industrial Hygienist.

Jefferson Lab’s submittal of the annual 

Tier II Report, a hazardous chemical 

inventory form, to the EPGs satisfies this 

reporting requirement. Refer to

Exhibit 2-2 for the list of chemicals

reported for 2002. 

Exhibit 2-2 

Chemicals Reported for 2002 

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 √ √

Sulfuric Acid √ √

Hydraulic Oil (Various 

including vacuum oil) √ √

Lead (Sheeting) √

Bromine √ √

26 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Helium Container Near Building 98 

In addition, upon request, the Lab’s 

Emergency Manager provides MSDSs or 

other materials to the local Fire Chief for 

their records. 

Chemical Inventory 

EPCRA Section 313, Toxic Release 

Reporting 

This section (refer to 40 CFR 372)

requires 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 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. For CY 2002, it was verified 

that lead, the only material that could 

have triggered reporting, was not 

“otherwise used” in a quantity 

exceeding its low 100 pound threshold. 

It was also noted that no other listed 

toxic chemicals were “otherwise used” 

in quantities exceeding the 10,000 pound 

threshold. Thus, no TRI reporting was 

required. 

Emergency Response Standards

Two environmental emergency 

response-related hazards exist at

Jefferson Lab. One hazard involves

releases resulting from the storage or

transport of EHMs. Emergency

response standards that apply to EHMs

are CERCLA, the portions of 40 CFR 

noted above, and the Virginia 

Emergency Operations Plan. The

second hazard is a radiological release,

as addressed in 10 CFR 835. 

There was one minor coolant spill in a 

parking lot and a small leak at the line at 

the diesel fuel tank in 2002. Both spills

were mitigated promptly, and did not 

impact the environment. There were no

releases subject to CERCLA or other 

emergency response regulations in 2002. 

2.8.5.2 P2 and Other Activities to 

Support Compliance 

ISM

Jefferson Lab integrates safety (EH&S 

collectively) principles and functions 

into all work processes through the

application of ISM. The ISM System 

objective is to make safety, health, and 

environmental protection a part of 

routine business at Jefferson Lab. In 2002

it was noted that the format of the ISM 

System Plan did not support broadening

it to better incorporate Environmental 

Management System (EMS) core 

elements and principles, as identified 

under EO 13148. A few related 

improvements were made. Refer to 

Section 3.1 for more information. 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 27
General P2 Activities

Jefferson Lab complies with EO 13148 

and the PPA P2 goals by minimizing use 

(source reduction), reusing to the 

maximum extent, recycling to the extent

practical, and, as a last resort, disposing 

of any wastes in the most 

environmentally safe manner. The Lab 

continues to establish P2 goals to make

reductions in standard sanitary,

hazardous waste, and LLW generation,

and to improve recycling performance. 

A contractual Performance Measure 

addresses this and is noted in Section 

2.9.2. Specific Lab P2 and E2 initiatives 

are discussed in Sections 3.2 and 3.5.

There were no P2 compliance concerns 

in 2002. 

2.8.5.3 Results of Environmental 

Compliance Reviews 

There was one internal environmental

compliance review involving ISM in

2002 (refer to Section 3.1). The results of 

inspections from regulators are 

provided in Section 3.3. The minor 

compliance-based issues identified 

during one inspection were either 

promptly addressed or resolved as 

possible. No issues resulted in any

impact on the environment. 

2.8.5.4 Progress on Implementing 

Environmentally and 

Economically Beneficial 

Landscaping Practices 

Jefferson Lab uses qualified 

subcontractors to take care of the facility

grounds. One beneficial practice is that

grass cover is maintained in open areas 

to prevent runoff. Fertilizers and 

herbicides are applied locally on an as 

needed basis and not when rain is 

imminent to prevent surface water 

contamination. 

A new subcontract in FY 2002 required 

limiting the watering of beds to weekly 

and encouraged the use of 

environmentally preferable products

such as compost, mulch, and items with

recycled content. Governor Warner’s 

ban on watering in 2002 due to the

region-wide drought impacted 

landscape watering; however, overseeding at CEBAF Center and the ARC

buildings did proceed, along with the 

subcontractor taking advantage of rain 

events and heavy morning dew. 

2.8.5.5 EMS Self-Assessment 

Questionnaire 

A self-assessment of Jefferson Lab’s EMS 

status was provided to the DOE on 

September 21, 2001. Jefferson Lab does 

not have a separate EMS but 

implements the EMS principles through

the Lab’s ISM System Plan. Some of the

items that make up an EMS, such as

significant environmental requirements,

goals, and timeframes are spelled out 

within the DOE/SURA operating

contract and the Jefferson Lab EH&S 

Manual. 

The Lab’s EH&S programs, especially 

those in the EH&S Manual, will be

enhanced to incorporate EMS principles

and core elements. Other site

documents will be reviewed and 

improved to better incorporate EMS 

principles and practices. 

2.8.5.6 Secretarial P2 and E2 Goals 

Jefferson Lab is committed to meeting 

ten targets that address seven out of the

sixteen DOE-identified P2 and E2 goals.

Additional funding will be needed to 

meet some targets. The Lab’s progress

status is depicted in Exhibit 2-3. 

Of the ten applicable targets, nine are 

being measured, and one (Item 13) will 

be evaluated in the future. Of the nine 

measured, four met objectives and five 

did not. Of those five, three (Items 6, 7,

28 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
and 10) are progressing towards 

meeting the Lab goals. 

2.9 OTHER OBLIGATIONS 

IDENTIFIED IN THE CONTRACT 

Jefferson Lab has other environmental 

protection and public health-related

obligations. These obligations are 

incorporated into site programs, including 

subcontractual agreements, exclusive of direct 

legal requirements, e.g., Jefferson Lab’s 

participation in DOE’s NEPA process and 

implementing EO 13123. 

2.9.1 NEPA 

NEPA requires that projects with 

potentially significant environmental

impacts be evaluated and alternative 

actions explored. These evaluations are to 

be performed and reported as EAs or

Environmental Impact Statements. 

Jefferson Lab assists the DOE in

implementing the NEPA process on the

site, including helping to prepare the 

appropriate NEPA documents. 

An EA for the proposed Newport News 

site for Jefferson Lab (formerly CEBAF)

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, 

also resulting in a FONSI. A new EA 

covering the construction of five new 

structures to support Lab operations 

resulted in a FONSI in CY 2002. Refer to 

Section 3.4 for more NEPA information. 

Jefferson Lab will respond to any 

requirements identified by the DOE with 

respect to NEPA compliance issues, of 

which there were none in 2002. 

2.9.2 DOE Guidance

The current performance-based 

DOE/SURA Contract identifies DOE EP 

and public health requirements in either a 

Performance Measure or in the

Environment, Safety, and Health (ES&H) 

Responsibilities portion in Appendix E of

the Contract. 

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 435.1, 5400.1, and 5400.5; DOE 

Notice 441.1; and, DOE Standard 1023-95.

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 29
Exhibit 2-3 

Targets and Progress Projections 

DOE 

Goal Action

DOE Goal 

FY 05 / FY 10 Lab 2005 Target

End FY 2002 Lab 

Status

Goal 1: based on FY 93 baseline 

1 Routine Hazardous Waste 

Generated 90% 46% to 5.0 MT Not Met (5.06 MT) 

1 LLW Generated 80% 63% to 3.5 M3 Not Met (10.9 M3) 

1 Low Level Mixed Radioactive 

Generated 80% 0 Met (None to date) 

2 TRI Chemical Releases 90% Remain under 

reporting threshold Met for CY 2002 

3 Sanitary Waste from Routine 

Operations Generated 75%/ 80% Not to exceed 1995 

baseline (274 MT) Not Met (307 MT) 

4* 

Routine and Non-routine 

Sanitary Wastes Recycled

(%recycled vs. disposed)

45%/ 50% 20% of by FY05

25% by FY10 

Met (40% includes all 

recycled solids and 

liquids) 

5 Reduce wastes from cleanup 10% annually N/A N/A

6 

Increase purchases of EPA

designated items w/recycled 

content 

100% 95%

Not Met, but Progress

(87% from 58.2% in 

FY00) 

7 Reduce energy consumption 

in buildings and laboratories 

40%/45% bldgs. 

20%/30% labs 

15% by FY05 using 

a 1992 baseline

Not Met (No values 

available for FY02) 

8 Purchase ‘clean’ electricity Increase purchases None - 

9 Retrofit chillers made before 1984 

using class I refrigerants Complete by FY 05 N/A N/A 

10 Eliminate use of Class I ODSs 

to extent practicable Complete by FY 10 

Chiller replacement 

by FY05, others

under review. 

Not Met 

(1 unit replaced in 

FY02) 

11 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 25%/30% None - 

12 Reduce vehicle fleet annual 

petroleum use 20% (vs. FY99) None - 

13 Acquire 75% of light duty vehicles 

as alternative fuel vehicles Annually Evaluate options 

with GSA (future) 

14 Increase usage rate of alternate 

fuel vehicles 80%/90% None -

NOTES: * Note that this uses a different formula than use for Performance Measure 5.3, which uses the ratio of [recycled 

/ (recycled + disposed)] 

Bold indicates items where goals have been defined. 

MT: metric ton (2204 pounds)

M3: cubic meters

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 has been 

implemented since 1999. In 2002, Jefferson 

Lab continued to comply with applicable

DOE documents, guidance, and related 

contractual commitments. 

2.9.3 Performance Measures 

Performance Measures are incorporated 

into the DOE/SURA Contract. Four of 

30 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Exhibit 2-4 

Contract Performance Measure Results

I. D. Performance Measure Description

FY 2002 Score

Received by the Lab*

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 

95% 

*The calculations used for scoring are in the contract. (100% being optimal) 

them reflect EP issues. Exhibit 2-4 

highlights relevant FY 2002 scores. 

2.9.4 AL&R LIST 

Administrative environmental protection 

and public health requirements are on the

AL&R List. A violation would not directly

impact the environment; however, it could 

result in an administrative action. AL&R 

standards are generally incorporated into 

site programs. There were no known noncompliance issues in 2002. 

2.10 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL 

ISSUES AND ACTIONS OF 

INTEREST 

Listed here are some issues or actions

identified in 2002 that are worth noting. 

• Due to the increased need for cryomodules

for CEBAF, the FEL, and SNS, more

cryomodule fabrication resulted in 

increased hazardous waste generation. 

• To help meet the Lab’s waste minimization

goal, a collaborative effort among Lab staff 

resulted in adding 11 new local recycling

centers at some key buildings for officerelated recyclables. As of the end of 2002, 

there were 16 recycling centers. For more

information refer to Section 3.5.2. 

• EH&S Reporting staff developed a new 

web page, EarthWise, as well as the Earth

Watcher Newsletter, to inform and 

encourage staff about “earth-friendly” 

activities at work and at home. Activities 

specific to the Jefferson Lab community are 

included on the web page. 

• Efforts by the Procurement Department 

improved the Lab’s performance in 

implementing AP. A new web page

specific to this program was introduced. 

Refer to Sections 2.8.3 and 3.2.1 for more 

information. 

2.11 RELEASE REPORTING 

There are no releases that require continuous

release reporting. There were two small EHM

spills that are noted in Section 3.5.1. There 

were no reportable spills or releases of any

materials in 2002. 

2.12 PERMIT SUMMARY 

Information about permits held in 2002 is 

presented in Exhibit 2-5. 

SECTION 3 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION 

PROGRAM 

Jefferson Lab’s mission includes protection of

the environment and public health. There are

many facets to the site EP program, including 

an EMS strategy, which is integrated into 

facility operations under Jefferson Lab’s ISM 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 31
System Plan. The site’s EP program provides staff the requirements and guidance for 

Exhibit 2-5 

Jefferson Lab Permits

SER 

Section Permit Number Description

Permit 

Dates

3.6.1.2 VA0089320

VPDES Permit - Specifies allowable groundwater and surface water 

quality on-site during accelerator operations. Assures groundwater 

unaffected at and beyond site boundary. 

7/16/1996 

through 

7/16/2006 

3.6.1.2 

VAG253002 

(renewal package 

was submitted)

VPDES Permit - General Permit for Cooling Water Discharges -

Authorizes cooling water discharges within identified discharge 

limitations. 

9/1/1999 

through 

3/1/2003 

3.6.2.1 HRSD No. 0117 Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit - Limits wastes to be 

discharged to sewerage.

10/1/1987 

through 

3/1/2007 

3.6.2.2 GW0030800

Permit to Withdraw Groundwater - Authorizes maximum quantities 

of water to be withdrawn by dewatering of area under experimental

halls 

11/1/1994 

through 

10/30/2004 

2.2.2 4727-45-01 South Carolina Radioactive Waste Transport Permit - authorization to

transport LLW within the State 

Effective 

through 

12/31/2003 

making environmentally preferable choices;

identifies requirements for radiological and 

non-radiological monitoring; and, reviews

performance through actions such as

assessments and inspections. This section 

provides information on these topics and other 

EP and public health-related 2002 events and

activities. 

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 

Jefferson Lab’s EMS is accomplished through 

implementation of the Lab’s ISM System Plan, 

which addresses environment, health, and 

safety principles and functions, and through

the detailed guidance in the Lab’s EH&S 

Manual. The primary objective of the ISM 

System Plan is to make safety, health, and 

environmental protection a part of routine

business at Jefferson Lab. 

The Lab’s 2001 commitment to review and

improve the ISM System Plan, as well as the

Lab’s Quality Assurance Program Manual, to 

specifically incorporate EMS principles and 

core elements in FY 2002, was accomplished. 

The specific DOE/Jefferson Lab formats for

these two documents do not provide a place to 

include specific EMS items. However, the Plan 

was modified to include references to the site

EMS, and it was determined that the actual site 

commitment to EMS will be further 

incorporated into the Jefferson Lab EH&S 

Manual as it is updated. 

Some specific items that make up an EMS, 

such as performance measures, are included in

the DOE/SURA operating contract. Other

items, such as the identification of 

environmental impacts, are documented in the

EH&S Manual. EMS is applied on-site as 

described here. 

Site EP Policy

Jefferson Lab has both a mission statement and

an EH&S policy. The mission statement calls

for excellence in all activities while the policy 

commits the Lab to preserving the natural 

environment as well as to conducting 

operations without adverse impact on the

surrounding community. 

32 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Environmental Planning and Analysis 

Procedures

Environmental planning and analysis is 

handled by documenting and reviewing 

projects and activities for NEPA 

considerations. Line management is 

responsible for providing notice of actions and 

impacts to enable proper time for review and 

authorization as applicable. As well, some 

subcontracts are updated to require and 

encourage subcontractors to take EP into

account. 

Environmental Objectives and Targets

The Lab operates within contractual operating 

limits that include staying within permit 

criteria. Exhibit 2-3 lists the targets for many

of the items identified in the Secretary of 

Energy’s P2 and E2 Goals. Exhibit 2-4 shows 

the four EP-related contract performance

measures. 

Implementation and Operations Controls

The DOE/SURA contract defines general

terms and conditions for operation and

performance. EMS/ISM roles and

responsibilities, along with some 

implementation procedures, are included in

the Lab’s EH&S Manual. The Manual is being 

augmented to include EMS items as EP 

chapters are revised. No separate EMS

training has been provided. 

Identification of Environmental Aspects and 

Impacts

No EMS-specific analysis has been performed; 

however, previous NEPA and other reviews 

have identified that the primary environmental 

aspects at Jefferson Lab are radiological

implications to air, water, the public, and to 

local biota. As well, intensive use of resources,

including electricity and water, would be

considered aspects. 

Performance Measurement

The Lab semi-annually reviews performance 

measure results for various topical areas that

include EH&S. Specific energy efficiency 

performance measures were under 

consideration during FY 2002. 

Corrective Action and Self-Assessment 

Procedures

The ISM System Plan is reviewed annually and 

updated (most recently in 2002) as necessary 

and shared with the DOE Site Office. 

Implementation of the ISM System was 

evaluated in 2002. This review identified a few

areas where ISM program improvements 

should be made. The Lab Director has

committed to making these changes. An 

implementation schedule has been generated 

and is being coordinated by the Office of

Assessment.

Management Review Process

The Lab’s Director’s Council, composed of top

management, reviews the ISM System Plan

periodically through the self-assessment noted

above. The review is documented and open

items are tracked until closure, with regular

status reports provided to the Lab Director. 

3.2 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROGRAMS 

3.2.1 Product and Service Life Cycles 

A variety of products and materials are 

obtained and used on-site. When the 

materials have served their purpose, they 

are declared ‘no longer needed’ and 

disposal is managed appropriately. As 

there are EH&S risks involved, Jefferson 

Lab has programs and procedures in place 

which include EP and sustainability

considerations to: guide product and 

service subcontractor procurement; 

minimize resource use in all stages of an

activity; ensure materials are used safely 

and appropriately; and, manage their

disposition either as ‘for reuse’, ‘for 

recycling’, or ‘for waste’. 

Purchasing and Planning

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 33
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing 

(EPP) 

The Lab has committed to integrating EP 

and sustainability considerations into

every aspect of the acquisition of products

and services. This commitment is based on

EPA requirements and DOE 

implementation goals. Jefferson Lab 

continues to make progress at meeting

these requirements. To accomplish this,

the Lab: 

• uses an EPP focal point to train staff as

well as to track and report the

quantities of EPA-identified recycled 

content products purchased in 

comparison to those not having 

recycled content; 

• has set a goal for improving the

performance of procuring EPAidentified items; 

• has identified the need to set goals to 

minimize (and eventually eliminate)

all purchases of items containing ODSs 

and to purchase energy and water 

efficient products; 

• keeps staff informed about important

factors, such as opportunities to

improve our purchase of EPAidentified materials, and in selecting 

non-toxic or bio-based materials rather

than a product that could have a

greater environmental impact; 

• purchases and continues to use energy 

efficient products, such as certain 

computers, where possible. (During

equipment repair and replacement,

authorized repair parts are used and 

when equipment is beyond repair and 

must be replaced, an effort is made to

utilize ENERGY STAR®

replacements.); 

• uses an office product supplier which 

highlights recycled content-containing

products in both its paper and on-line 

catalogs; and, 

• obtains lead shielding through the 

DOE Material Exchange network. 

Two questions that staff and users are 

encouraged to ask themselves prior to 

making a purchase are: “Is this product 

safest for the environment and will it allow 

me to continue to do my job effectively?” 

and “Is this product composed of recycled 

post-consumer material?” 

There was a small improvement over last

year’s performance at buying recycledcontent materials, as reported in Section

2.8.3 and more opportunities to improve 

this level are being investigated. In 2002,

for standard black/white printing on white 

or colored paper, where paper and services 

are provided by the central Copy Center,

30% recycled-content paper was utilized to

the maximum extent possible. The 

exception is limited to the high-speed color

copier that does not function properly 

when using recycled-content paper. The 

contract officer and the Copy Center will 

continue to search for recycled-content 

paper that will not inhibit operation of this

copier. 

Jefferson Lab’s Procurement Group won an 

award at the 2002 DOE Contractor “Best 

Practices Competition - Procurement". The 

copy services subcontract combines an

innovative incentive system with a state-ofthe-art network infrastructure to promote 

both excellence and efficiency, which 

improves productivity and reduces cost. 

EP Considerations in Building and 

System Design and Construction

Activities 

Though the CEBAF accelerator complex is

the site’s primary energy user, energy

management principles are applied 

34 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
throughout the Lab to the extent possible. 

Subcontractors and staff involved with the 

design of new buildings or with changing 

and updating existing buildings or utility

systems considered and implemented

energy and water conserving strategies in 

2002. 

Energy Management 

With an increased emphasis on energy 

management, selected mechanical and 

electrical improvements have been made to

building and process systems and

equipment in order to improve their 

performance and reliability. 

The following projects or initiatives began 

and/or were completed in 2002. 

• Energy Management Policy - a draft 

policy is being developed by Facilities 

Management. 

• VARC - a capital improvement and

energy conservation project with the

complete refurbishment of the 

building’s heating, ventilating, and airconditioning system that included new 

boilers, air handlers, and an air-cooled 

chiller (instead of a water system), and 

a new control system. 

• Test Lab - metering for process 

equipment was added and a new

chilled water system was being 

designed to provide Test Lab and

accelerator site cooling that will result 

in the replacement of two ODScontaining chillers. 

• Accelerator Site - a new cooling tower 

with variable frequency drive motors

was installed to facilitate cooling in the 

experimental halls. 

• Various locations - lighting systems 

were upgraded in numerous buildings. 

Existing ballasts and lamps (T12) were 

changed to electronic, high frequency 

ballasts using T8 lamps. Light switches 

in many offices and conference rooms 

now have automatic occupancy sensor 

switches. 

• Besides continuing to monitor energy 

activities for many site buildings,

Facilities Management added more 

meters to buildings to better monitor 

energy usage. 

• One Facilities Management manager 

received training in using Life Cycle 

analysis for all new buildings. 

• One new construction subcontract

required that the subcontractor provide 

an EP Plan in addition to the required 

Safety Plan. This first EP Plan, that

included erosion and sediment control 

commitments, was approved in 

January 2003 and demonstrated the

subcontractor’s commitment to EP.

Water Conservation 

With an increased emphasis on water

conservation, especially due to the 2002 

drought, water-using processes and site 

maintenance activities are getting extra 

attention. New projects that need water 

are being reviewed to minimize water use. 

Existing water-using activities are, or will 

be, evaluated to reduce water usage as 

much as possible. (Refer to the next

section.) 

Environmentally Preferable Use

Besides selecting the best environmentally 

preferred product or service for the desired 

activity, staff and users of Jefferson Lab are 

responsible for following safe and

environmentally sound use, storage, and

waste management practices. 

Factors, such as ensuring that secondary 

containment is present and proper 

ventilation for the process is provided, help 

to minimize exposure to potential hazards.

Proper chemical handling and storage 

procedures are presented in Chapter 6610 of 

the EH&S Manual. Lab staff and

subcontractors have taken opportunities to

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 35
minimize energy and water use, such as

shutting off lights when not in the room, 

and the Lab provides prompt response to 

address reported water leaks. 

Available techniques are used to minimize 

water use, including a regular maintenance

program. Jefferson Lab uses about

56 million gallons of water annually, with 

79% directly related to process or facility

heat rejection. Much of this water is 

evaporated in cooling towers for process 

cooling and air conditioning. The following 

actions to minimize water use were taken 

in 2002: 

• Facilities Management modified one 

furnace that cooled with only one pass 

of water and created a closed loop 

cooling tower circuit to make it more

water efficient. 

• The wastewater from a new low 

conductivity water de-oxygenation 

system is now being captured and used

as makeup cooling water. 

• Water conservation has been built into

the grounds maintenance subcontracts. 

Subcontractors are limited to irrigation 

at a rate of 1 inch per week, including 

rain. Water usage is monitored and

usage is counted in the subcontractors’ 

overall performance rating. 

Environmentally Preferable Disposal

Today’s rapidly changing technologies, 

products, and practices carry the risk of 

generating materials and wastes that, if

improperly managed, could threaten

public health and the environment. In this

regard, Jefferson Lab encourages, and in 

some cases requires, the purchase and use

of products and services whose waste

products will have minimal impact on the 

environment and public health. Once the

waste is generated, staff are responsible for 

ensuring proper segregation and disposal 

of waste items. 

Jefferson Lab staff have a range of options 

for disposition of materials to include 

recycling, neutralizing, scrapping,

providing spent chemicals or equipment to 

co-workers on-site or to other DOE 

facilities, and disposing in a local landfill. 

The Lab intends for all items to be disposed 

of in the most environmentally acceptable

manner that meets all applicable regulatory 

and contractual requirements. In 

accordance with these intentions, the Lab: 

• Provided information to staff regarding

reuse opportunities through the DOE 

Materials Exchange website; 

• Further expanded its recycling efforts 

in 2002 by establishing 11 additional

“local recycling centers”. (Refer to 

Section 3.5.2 for more information on 

the Lab’s recycling program); and, 

• Initiated a program to standardize 

waste and recycling containers to 

facilitate proper disposal. 

3.2.2 Waste Minimization and Pollution 

Prevention (WMin/P2) 

The PPA established P2 as a national

objective and the most important

component of the environmental

management hierarchy. Waste

minimization, in combination with other 

P2 strategies, is recognized as the most 

cost-effective form of EP. 

The purpose of Jefferson Lab’s WMin/P2 

Awareness Plan is to foster the philosophy 

that prevention is superior to either paying 

for special disposal or for remediation, and

thus focuses on minimizing waste

generation.

WMin/P2 reduces the quantity of EHMs

and other pollutants or contaminants

entering a waste stream or the environment

prior to recycling or treatment. Various

wastes, including air emissions and water 

discharges, can be significantly reduced or 

sometimes eliminated entirely by 

36 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
reviewing processes during the planning 

phase or prior to altering current 

operations. These practices benefit the

environment, protect employees and public 

health, and reduce site waste disposal 

costs. Specific objectives of this 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; 

and, 

• encouraging staff and recognizing 

efforts to enhance the environment

through WMin/P2. 

Facilities Management and other staff

continue to explore opportunities to find 

users or vendors that will take or buy items 

that are no longer needed for Jefferson Lab 

business. 

Site WMin/P2 highlights and significant 

accomplishments that are instrumental in 

meeting site waste reduction performance

goals include: 

• Eliminating cyanide use in 

electroplating operations. 

• Expanding recycling efforts. (See 

Section 3.5.2)

The site performance status, as highlighted 

in Exhibit 2-3, shows progress in meeting

site objectives based on the following DOE 

goals. 

• Total number of DOE Goals: 16 

• Total number of Applicable Goals: 10 

• Goals Met in FY02: 4 

• Goals currently ‘Not Applicable’ that

are to be evaluated at a later date: 1 

To reemphasize that AP minimizes 

disposed wastes, employees have recently 

been re-instructed that they may not

purchase EPA-listed items, such as binders 

and traffic cones, if they do not contain 

recycled content. Guidance regarding 

available alternatives is obtainable through

Business Services and EH&S Reporting

staff. 

Guidance stating that no items or

equipment containing an ODS can be

purchased without prior approval has also

been provided. Staff were further reinformed in 2002 that all reclaimed ODS 

materials had to be provided to the DOE or 

DOD ODS banks. 

3.2.3 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 and public health; identify 

potential environmental problems; provide

data to support management decisions; 

and, evaluate the need for remedial actions

or mitigative measures.

The Environmental Monitoring Program

establishes guidelines for examining 

chemical, oil, and radioactive effluents 

generated 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 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 37
past, current, and future Lab operations on

the environment and public health. 

Both permit-required and routine

monitoring emphasize 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 (a sodium isotope) in 

potential drinking water sources. These 

exposure potentials are discussed in 

Section 4 and do not present 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 

Assessment (formerly the Office of 

Technical Performance).

Environmental monitoring data collected 

in 2002 included information about: 

• operational measurements at site 

boundary monitor locations; 

• groundwater quality for long-term 

facility operations; 

• effluents to the sanitary sewer; 

• groundwater dewatering 

discharges; and, 

• other effluent streams, such as 

cooling water at the cooling towers. 

On-site environmental surveillance

continued in 2002. 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 Lab operations are not 

adversely affecting public health or the

environment. 

Throughout 2002, the RadCon Group 

reviewed radiological and non-radiological 

environmental monitoring information 

stemming from accelerator operations for 

conformity with applicable standards.

38 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Refer to Section 4 for the environmental

radiological program discussion and to

Section 5 for environmental nonradiological program information. 

3.2.4 Site Permits 

Environmental permits held by the DOE 

Site Office are listed in Exhibit 2-5, and

compliance with each is discussed in

Section 2.5 of this report. All permits citing

limits and conditions involving water are 

discussed further in Sections 4.3 and 5.1. 

There were two permit violations in 2002

as a result of the late submittal of pH

information to HRSD in February (refer to

Section 2.5.2.1). This was a minor 

administrative issue and had no effect on 

the environment. 

3.3 APPRAISALS, ASSESSMENTS, 

AND INSPECTIONS 

The DOE Site Office, the DOE Oak Ridge

Operations Office, and various 

Commonwealth and local authorities provide

external oversight of the Jefferson Lab EP 

Program. Actions of note are described here. 

DOE Review of Jefferson Lab SelfAssessment

The DOE Site Office’s Overlay Report, 

produced in conjunction with SURA’s annual 

Lab-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 2002, the Overlay Performance Evaluation

Report yielded a rating of “Outstanding” in

the EH&S category. 

ISM (and EMS)

The ISM System Plan was reviewed and 

updated in 2002 and the Lab’s ISM System 

program was assessed in 2002. Refer to 

Sections 2.8.5.2 and 3.1 for more information. 

External Reviews

A Radiological Control Program Peer Review

was conducted in August 2002 at Jefferson

Lab, which is categorized as a low-hazard,

non-nuclear accelerator facility. The review

covered the many programmatic areas

assigned to the RadCon Group. The current

site program was noted as being carried out 

enthusiastically and in support of the Lab’s 

mission. If radiological aspects, such as site 

boundary and waste management concerns, 

increase over time, additional support could be 

needed. The new radioactive material 

management program was noted as improved 

over the earlier system. The site’s radiological 

control program was deemed to be

“Outstanding” by the reviewers. 

External Inspections

There were three external environmental 

inspections during 2002.

• HRSD staff performed the annual Jefferson 

Lab site inspection on March 7th. The

inspection covered buildings 19 (Forestry), 

31 (Acid Storage Building), and 87

(Accelerator Maintenance Support), as well

as the new meters that were installed since 

the 2001 inspection. Jefferson Lab permit 

records and HRSD meter information were 

also reviewed. Information regarding the 

change in hazardous waste vendors was 

requested and provided. No deficiencies 

were identified. 

• In May, the DEQ performed an inspection 

which resulted in two administrative 

deficiencies. First, a large city water leak

on the site was not documented

appropriately or reported promptly to the 

DEQ. The second resulted from a failure to

follow standard information transfer

procedures, which led to reporting

incorrect information. Jefferson Lab 

assured the DEQ that prompt notifications 

and information transfer procedures would 

be followed with future events. (Refer to 

section 2.5.1.2). 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 39
• At the Lab’s request, a DEQ hazardous 

waste representative inspected the site as 

well as the Lab’s Hazardous Waste 

Management Program on September 5th. 

The inspector evaluated the Lab’s program

to determine whether any program 

changes would be necessary in the event 

that Jefferson Lab should occasionally

exceed SQG generation limits as a result of 

a planned new chemical use activity 

beginning in early 2003. The 

DEQ-identified program changes included 

ensuring that the duties and requirements 

of all hazardous waste handlers are 

included in their job descriptions and that 

prompt notification be made to DEQ in the

event of an SQG limit exceedance. If and

when an exceedance does occur, the

requirements for Large Quantity 

Generators, including shipping timeframes 

and biennial reporting, become applicable. 

The inspector visited the ARC and 

buildings 19 (Forestry), 33 (Chemical 

Storage), and 58 (Test Lab) - no concerns 

were identified. Information about the 

waste chlorine gas that had to be rerouted 

was provided to the inspector. See

Section 3.5.1.

Line Self-Assessments

Line managers perform annual line selfassessments (LSAs) of their organizational

elements. 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 or more of the Lab’s 

organizational units each year, focusing on 

EH&S. Deficiencies identified through the IAs 

are tracked by SA/QA until the corrective

actions are completed. Three 

recommendations stemming from an IA in 

2001 and resolved in 2002 addressed the Lab's

AP program. To ensure AP program

requirements are properly applied in the

acquisition and procurement processes, the

Lab's EH&S Manual is being amended to

include necessary AP program information. 

3.4 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 following the related 

EPA regulations. Jefferson Lab assists the DOE 

by preparing documents and performing 

assessments of existing documentation. NEPA 

actions performed in 2002 are as follows: 

• DOE/EA-1384 and its associated FONSI 

documented DOE’s EP commitments

involving five future construction projects. 

• Twelve Categorical Exclusion’s (CXs) that 

pertain to regular activities, including the 

“Management of Radioactive Waste at

TJNAF”, were renewed. 

• One project CX that covers the chiller

upgrade project at the Test Lab, which

involves the replacement of two old CFCcontaining chillers, and other energy 

improvement activities was approved. 

• The internal approval process for very 

small-scale construction projects and other 

minor activities that are covered under site 

EAs and CXs continued. 

• The collection of background information 

to support a new EA was started in 2002.

The new EA will address planned

upgrades to the CEBAF and FEL 

accelerators and the expansion of the site’s

Central Helium Liquefier complex. 

3.5 SUMMARY OF OTHER 

SIGNIFICANT SITE 

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES 

3.5.1 Issues and Actions 

Safeguards and Security

40 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
The Lab issued an Integrated Security 

Management program in 2002. This

program clearly identifies Jefferson Lab’s 

role in meeting DOE and other Federal and

local security-related requirements. The 

on-site presence of some EHS chemicals are 

addressed under this program. 

Drought in the Mid-Atlantic United States

Low levels of snow cover and rainfall in 

2002 led to a serious drought that affected

the entire region. Jefferson Lab’s grounds 

subcontractor complied with the mandated

watering restrictions and implemented a 

plan to ensure sprinkling was not

performed if there had been a recent 

rainfall. 

Chlorine Gas Disposal

A hazardous waste shipment of chlorine 

gas containers, shipped on August 13th, 

had to be rerouted while in transit to a 

disposal facility in Texas after the New 

York facility burned down. 

Documentation concerning this event was 

provided to the DEQ. 

Emergency Management Exercise

The year’s exercise consisted of a table-top 

exercise that involved an employee who 

was injured within the fenced accelerator

site. There were no environmental

concerns; however, improvements to the 

emergency notification procedures were

identified as a result of the exercise. 

EHM Spills

There were two minor petroleum product 

releases involving a radiator coolant spill 

and a leaky diesel tank line. The instances

were minor and quickly corrected by line 

management and EH&S staff. 

SPCC Plan

New regulatory requirements became 

effective. The Lab began considering the

implications involving the new annual

briefing requirements for all ‘oil workers’. 

Other items of note include:

• The Lab began handling crushed

fluorescent lamps and small used 

batteries as universal waste. 

• The Lab’s Business Services

Department received a DOE Closing

the Circle Award for implementing the 

idea of using a central copy center to 

manage many site photocopy needs. 

• The first edition of the Lab’s Earth 

Watcher newsletter was published in 

Winter 2002.

• The new EarthWise website was

updated monthly and includes at least

one Jefferson Lab specific article. 

www.jlab.org/intralab/earthwise/index.html

• A site storm water management study 

was completed in 2002. It is being used 

to highlight areas that need prompt 

attention and will also serve as a longrange planning tool. 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 41
3.5.2 Recycling 

The Lab continues to implement waste

reduction strategies and to educate and

encourage staff on the proper disposition 

of recyclable materials. Through a 

collaborative effort between EH&S

Reporting and Facilities Management 

during CY2001, office product recycling 

centers were established in two high-use 

buildings. During 2002, 11 additional 

recycling centers were set-up throughout

the Lab, each coordinated by local 

volunteers. See Exhibit 3-1 for a list of 

locations and items collected. Eight of the 

centers collect all products noted. 

Exhibit 3-1 

Recycling Center Locations and Items Collected in 2002 

ARC rooms 225, 440, 526, & 706 

Buildings 52, 52B, 85, 87, 89

CEBAF Center 

FEL 

Test Lab 

Trailer City (3) 

VARC 

Aluminum cans 

Small batteries 

Cardboard 

CD’s/Diskettes 

Copier/Fax/Inkjet/Laser Cartridges 

Greeting Cards 

Paper Wastes 

Styrofoam Peanuts 

Telephone books 

Transparencies 

Tyvek Envelopes 

Plastic Bottles 

The full service centers, noted in bold in

Exhibit 3-1, have containers for twelve 

recyclable product types. Small batteries 

were added to the recycling program in 

2002. The small sums received from

recycling the toner cartridges and 

aluminum cans are returned to the 

recycling budget to help pay for 

subsequent recycling activities. The

presence of local recycling centers has 

considerably increased staff recycling

awareness. Lab-wide response and

participation in recycling continued to

grow. 

Communication channels, such as the Lab’s

On-Target newsletter, the Earth Watcher

newsletter and EarthWise web page, and

personal interactions by EH&S Reporting

and local recycling center coordinators 

continued to function to inform people

about recycling activities. 

The quantities of materials recycled in 

FY2002, as reported to the DOE, are shown

in Exhibit 3-2. 

3.5.3 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. 

42 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
In the category of special wastestreams, in 

FY02 Jefferson Lab generated about 

5.1 tons (5100 kg) of hazardous waste and

about 3.4 tons (11 cubic meters) of LLW. 

Except for the small amount of asbestos 

discussed in Section 2.2.7, no TSCA or 

mixed wastes (a combination of hazardous 

and radioactive) were generated during FY

2002. 

The radioactive waste generated was less 

than CY 2001, but was still a large amount. 

This was primarily due to designating as 

waste some radioactive materials that were 

being stored in special holding areas to 

allow for decay and possible reuse. This

material was designated waste and is being 

stored until it is prepared for shipment at a

later date. 

Exhibit 3-2 

Quantities of Items Recycled or Reused in FY 2002 

Description Quantity (tons (kg))

Paper Products (office paper & cardboard)# 39.9 (36,233) 

Aluminum Cans# 0.64 (580) 

Plastic Bottles# 0.033 (30)

Scrap Metal (reclaimed through GSA) 85.2 (77,238) 

Used Oil & Coolant 7.3 (6,622) 

Large, car-type batteries 0.16 (145) 

Fluorescent Lamps 0.5 (454) 

Toner Cartridges# 0.53 (480) 

Transparencies# 0.038 (34.7)

Computer Disks# 0.0068 (6.2) 

Circuit Boards and Electronics 0.011 (10)

Small batteries# 0.2 (181) 

New/Used All Occasion Cards* 0.042 (38)

*DOE initiative - provide to St. Jude’s Ranch for Children to reuse. #Items collected in office, kitchen, and recycling centers. 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 43
Recycling Centers Located at CEBAF Center (Building 12) and VARC (Building 28) 

SECTION 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM 

Radioactive materials are used in many 

research activities at Jefferson Lab. The

radiological impact of these materials and

potential effective dose equivalents to 

members of the public from various pathways,

such as inhalation, ingestion, and skin

absorption, were evaluated to show 

compliance with EPA and DOE regulatory 

limits. During 2002, very low levels of 

radioactive gaseous and particulate emissions

were released from facility ventilation

exhausts. 

Jefferson Lab operations had minimal 

radiological dose impact to the public and the

environment. The ambient external dose 

measured was on the order of 1% of natural 

background levels or 3 mrem (30 μSv 

(microSieverts)). The effective dose equivalent

to the maximally exposed individual from

NESHAP air emissions for 2002 was calculated 

to be 0.007 mrem (0.07 μSv), as reported to the 

EPA. This dose is insignificant when 

compared to the EPA regulatory public airdose limit of 10 mrem/yr (100 μSv/yr). The 

annual effective dose equivalent to an

individual consuming contaminated water was

so small it could not be measured. The 

maximum dose impact to the individual from

both the air and direct pathways combined 

was 3 mrem (30 μSv). This is 3% of the DOE

regulatory dose limit for members of the 

public from all pathways, which is 100 mrem 

(1000 μSv). 

In 2002, the dose to terrestrial biota was also 

evaluated. No radiological doses, either to 

terrestrial animals or plants, above natural 

background were recorded from Jefferson Lab 

operations. There are no aquatic species in the 

Jefferson Lab vicinity that could be affected by

Lab operations, so no such dose estimates are 

provided. 

A summary of dose and release reporting for

2002 is provided in Exhibits 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3.

More detailed information is provided later in

the chapter. Note that information about all 

electron accelerator-related radionuclides, with 

the potential for release from the site, is 

documented in this chapter. All important 

discharges or releases of radioactive 

constituents are documented herein. There

were no non-routine releases in 2002 so all 

values shown result from routine operations. 

44 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Exhibit 4-1 

Jefferson Lab Radiological Dose Reporting Table for CY 2002 

Dose to 

Maximally 

Exposed % of DOE 

Estimated 

Population 

Dose Population

Estimated Background

Radiation Population 

Pathway

Individual 

mrem / (mSv)

100 mrem/yr 

Limit

(person-rem) / 

(person-Sv)

within 

80 km

Dose 

(person-rem)/(person-Sv)

Air 7 E-03 (7 E-05) 7 E-03 0.013 

(1.3E-04) 

- N/A

Water 0 0 N/A - N/A

Other 

Pathways

3 (3 E-02) 3 Unknown/ 

Unknowable 

- N/A

All Pathways 3 (3 E-02) 3 214,000 est. N/A 

Note: 0.007 = 7 x 10-3 = 7 E-03

 Values presented in Exhibits 4-1, 4-2, & 4-3 are presented in Scientific Notation (example, 2 E-05 is 0.00002) 

Exhibit 4-2 

Jefferson Lab Radiological Atmospheric Releases for 2002 

Radionuclide

[half-life]

Tritium

[12.26 yr]

Be-7

[53 .6 days]

C-11

[20.3 m]

N-13 

[9.96 m]

O-15 

[123 sec]

Cl-38 

[37.29 m]

Cl-39 

[ 55.5 m]

Ar-41 

[1.83 hr]

Ci (Bq) in 

CY 2002 

3.1 E-02

(1.1 E+09) 

2.1 E-03 

( 7.8 E+07) 

6.3 E-01 

(2.3 E+10) 

4.8 E+00 

(1.8 E+11) 

2.6 E+00 

(9.6 E+10) 

2.7 E-02 

(1.0 E+09) 

3.2 E-01 

(1.2 E+10) 

1.4 E-03 

(5.2 E+07) 

Notes: 1 pCi = 1 x 10E-12 Ci = 0.037 Bq 

m: minutes

Exhibit 4-3 

Jefferson Lab Liquid Effluent Releases of Radioactive Material for 2002

Radionuclide Tritium Be-7 Na-22

Ci (Bq) in CY 2002 1.06 E+00 (3.9 E+10) 2.4 E-04 (8.9 E+06) 1.5 E-05 (5.6 E+05) 

Notes: Permit level is 5 Ci for Tritium and 1 Ci for all other gamma-emitting radionuclides. 

4.1 SITE 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 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. 

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 effect on public health. 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 45
4.2 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 2002 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; 

• radionuclides released; 

• potential hazard; 

• experience from previous monitoring

results at Jefferson Lab; and, 

• experience at other nuclear and highenergy physics laboratories. 

4.3 AIRBORNE AND WATERBORNE

RADIOACTIVITY 

4.3.1 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 through activation of

the matter. The beamlines, magnets, 

beamline-components, 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. 

• The beam enclosure area is surrounded 

by radiation shielding. 

• Direct radiation is monitored both

on-site and at the site boundary. 

• Interlocked access points provide a failsafe barrier against entry to the beam 

enclosure during accelerator 

operations. 

• The monitoring of airborne 

radioactivity is carried out locally to 

validate calculations and estimates of 

radiation dose. 

• All material exposed to the beam is 

monitored for radioactivity prior to 

being removed from the beam 

enclosure. 

Shielding Blocks at the Hall C 

Truck Ramp Entrance 

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 is discussed in 

Section 4.3.2.

46 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
• Monitoring for exposure of the public 

to direct radiation is discussed in

Section 4.4. 

The monitoring for public exposure to 

airborne emissions is addressed below. 

Airborne emissions at the site boundary 

are addressed under the EPA requirements 

discussed in Section 2.4.2. Airborne 

radionuclide concentrations at the site

boundary have been too low to accurately 

measure. Annual calculations, using EPAapproved computer modeling codes, have

indicated that Jefferson Lab operational 

emissions remain several orders of 

magnitude lower than the EPA 

10 mrem/yr reporting limit. Calculated 

results based on an EPA-approved 

computer program, CAP-88 PC, are 

presented in Exhibit 4-4. Despite this very 

low calculated release rate, Jefferson Lab 

continued being proactive in 2002 by

making continuous measurements to verify 

the calculations. A report covering 

CY 2002 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 was

0.007 mrem/yr (0.07 μSv/yr) due to 

airborne releases. The dose from exposure 

through all applicable pathways is 

presented in Exhibit 4-1. 

Lab programs and outside advisory 

committees 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 RadCon review of

projected public exposures and airborne 

emissions from proposed experiments to 

help the Lab remain within established

guidelines. Refer to Section 4.4 for specific

information on the monitoring of direct 

radiation. 

4.3.2 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 Permit No. 

VA0089320 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 SDWA 

limits on-site, or change the quality of the 

groundwater offsite. Refer to Section 6 for 

more information on how the Lab 

incorporates monitoring to protect 

groundwater resources. 

Exhibit 4-4 

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)

1.4 E-05 1.8 E-05 6.3 E-04 4.2 E-03 1.2 E-03 1.9 E-06 6.9 E-04 7 E-03 * 

*value rounded up to nearest whole number 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 47
Conversion note: 1 mrem = 0.01 millisievert (mSv) 

Values are presented in Scientific Notation (i.e., 1.2 E-3 = 0.0012) 

48 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
This VPDES groundwater quality permit 

specifies EPA-approved sampling and 

analysis protocols, which were the basis of 

groundwater monitoring in 2002. Fifteen

wells were sampled at quarterly, semiannual, 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 4-5 for monitoring well locations 

and to Exhibit 4-6 for parameters sampled. 

The groundwater dewatering effluent at 

the experimental halls was also monitored 

quarterly in 2002 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 acceleratorproduced radionuclides, and selected

chemical parameters. The radionuclides

analyzed in 2002 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 was also analyzed. 

Exhibit 4-7 lists the VPDES groundwater 

quality permit levels for radiological

parameters with values in picocuries per

liter (pCi/l). These values are

representative of normal background 

radionuclides, which are also generated 

through Jefferson Lab activities. 

The radiological results from monitoring 

the wells in the accelerator vicinity during

2002 are presented in the first part of 

Exhibit 4-8. The results from the other

locations described in the permit are 

shown in the second half of the exhibit. All 

measurements were within permit levels.

No accelerator-produced activity has been 

detected. All values represent natural 

background, and variations are normal. 

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 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 2002. 

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, 

which 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 2002. Sampling and analysis

for tritium are 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 

RadCon staff, such as the total amount of 

activity discharged to the sanitary sewer

system. Monthly and composite quarterly 

results for 2002 are provided in Exhibit 4-9. 

The concentrations varied based on the

quantity of beam dump cooling water

discharged during the reporting period. 

On a periodic basis in 2002, other water 

sampling and analysis for tritium and 

gross beta activity were performed on 

various discharges from potential 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 49
radiological areas, such as from sump 

pumps. Any water identified as a potential

50 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Exhibit 4-5 

Monitoring Well Locations 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 51
Exhibit 4-6 

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 

TDS: Total Dissolved Solids 

TSS: Total Suspended Solids

Exhibit 4-7 

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

52 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Exhibit 4-8 

Maximum Groundwater Measurements for Radionuclides* 

January 2002 through December 2002 

Radionuclides at Associated Wells Relevant to Accelerator Operations 

Analyte A-Ring B-Ring C-Ring

Gross Beta 25.69 12.13 8.10 

Manmade Radioactivity < 0.255 mrem/yr. < 0.165 mrem/yr. not applicable

Tritium ND at < 649 ND at < 592 ND at < 541 

Sodium-22 ND at < 20 ND at < 12.2 ND at < 10.9 

Beryllium-7 ND at < 160 ND at < 97.4 ND at < 91.4 

Manganese-54 ND at < 19 ND at < 13.5 ND at < 9.49 

Radionuclides At Other Permit Locations

Analyte Upgradient Well Discharge 001

Gross Beta 4.39 11.12 

Tritium ND at < 541 ND at < 649 

Sodium-22 ND at < 5.74 ND at < 23 

Beryllium-7 ND at < 48.5 ND at < 136 

Manganese-54 ND at < 5.21 ND at < 21 

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

 Measurements are in pCi/l unless otherwise noted. 

 No accelerator-produced activity has been detected. 

 ND: Not detectable above permit-required sensitivity limits 

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

Exhibit 4-9 

Analytical Results for Discharges to HRSD in 2002 

Monthly Values 

Reporting Period

Tritium 

Concentration (pCi/l) Reporting Period

Tritium

Concentration (pCi/l)

January 2,600 July 87,000 

February 52,000 August 28,000 

March 140 September 31,000 

April 60,000 October 51,000 

May 22,000 November 33,000 

June 72,000 December 7,700 

Quarterly Values 

Reporting Period

Tritium Concentration

(pCi/l)

Other Gamma-Emitting Radionuclides 

Concentration (pCi/l)

First Quarter 6,800 Na-22 at 0.027 Be-7 at 0.38 

Second Quarter 53,000 Na-22 at 1.5 None detected

Third Quarter 43,000 None detected None detected

Fourth Quarter 31,000 Na-22 at 0.75 Be-7 at 24 

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

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 53
concern was collected and discharged

according to the terms of the HRSD permit. 

Various accelerator-related water systems 

have the potential for 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 2002 involving these activated 

water systems. RadCon staff addressed and

cleaned up the areas involved. There were 

no worker safety, environmental, or public 

health concerns. Collected water that did

not meet immediate disposal criteria was 

transferred to a temporary storage area for 

later release to HRSD. 

4.4 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 2002, 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 RadCon 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,

subcontractors, and visitors wear detection

devices to monitor for on-site radiation 

exposure. 

Six dual-channel microprocessor-based 

instruments for monitoring gamma and 

neutron radiation levels collected both direct

and airborne radiation data at the site

boundary in 2002. Radiation data collected 

prior to January 1995 serve as the statistical 

baseline for comparison to that collected since 

the accelerator became fully operational. 

4.5 ASSESSMENTS OF POTENTIAL

RADIATION DOSE TO THE 

PUBLIC AND TO BIOTA 

The six electronic radiation measurement

devices noted in Section 4.4, 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 in

Exhibit 4-10. In addition, passive integrating

detectors were used for a number of 

measurements. All measured dose values

were within statutory and administrative 

limits. For 2002, the highest site boundary 

direct (prompt) radiation level was about 7.1%

of the DOE annual dose limit of 100 mrem 

(1 mSv), or 71% of the site administrative dose 

limit of 10 mrem (0.1 mSv). 

Exhibit 4-11 displays the radiation doses in 

mrem for 2002 at RBM-3. 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 

54 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
typically doubles natural radiation dose to the

public. 

Exhibit 4-10 

Boundary Monitor Locations 

Note: RB03 is the same as RBM-3.

Exhibit 4-11 

Radiation Boundary Monitor RBM-3 Results for 2002 

Period

Neutron 

(mrem)

Gamma 

(mrem)

Total 

(mrem)

Jan-Mar 0.62 ± 0.01 0.16 ± 0.01 0.78 ± 0.02 

Apr-June 0.87 ± 0.01 0.22 ± 0.01 1.09 . ± 0.02 

July-Sept 0.0 0.0 0.0

Oct-Dec 0.87 ± 0.02 0.22 ± 0.01 1.09 ± 0.02 

TOTAL 2.36 ± 0.02 0.60 ± 0.02 2.96 ± 0.02 

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: 1 mrem = 0.01 mSv 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 55
Jefferson Lab does not release any residual 

radioactive material, such as concrete or soil, 

so there are no resulting dose impacts to the

public. Radioactive waste was turned over to a 

licensed subcontractor for reprocessing as 

appropriate to optimize the final disposition. 

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. 

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 2002, but was found to be

about 71% of the Jefferson Lab design goal of 

one-tenth of the DOE limit. 

4.6 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. 

RadCon 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. 

RadCon 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 5 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

NON-RADIOLOGICAL 

PROGRAM 

Jefferson Lab conducts a number of nonradiological activities to support protection of 

the environment and public health. These

activities are performed in accordance with the

WSS standards that include the site permits 

listed in Exhibit 2-5. 

This section presents permit monitoring results 

and other actions that required attention in

2002. These other actions included: reviewing 

conventional air emissions; administering 

controls involving work with cooling water

treatment additives; reviews for emergency 

planning; and, special waste management 

items. The respective programs are discussed 

in Section 3. 

In general, controls to protect the environment 

are established through on-site programs and

subcontractual agreements that address permit 

conditions and other Lab commitments or

initiatives. There were only minor problems

with respect to any of the aforementioned

Jefferson Lab activities during 2002.

5.1 WATER PROGRAMS 

Jefferson Lab reported DEQ information under 

three permits in 2002: quantities of

groundwater discharged under the Permit to 

Withdraw Groundwater; radiological and 

general water quality parameters under

VPDES Permit No. VA0089320; and, general 

water quality factors under VPDES Permit 

56 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
No. VAG253002. Results were also reported to 

HRSD under Permit No. 0117. The general 

water quality results follow, with the 

radioanalytical results provided in Section 4. 

5.1.1 Permit to Withdraw Groundwater 

As noted in Section 2.5.2.2, Jefferson Lab’s 

withdrawal of groundwater at the

experimental halls is an unusual situation. 

The only factor of concern under the 

groundwater withdrawal permit is the

quantity of water pumped. This permit 

allows the pumping of a maximum of 

6,000,000 gallons per month and a

restriction of 23,036,790 gallons annually. 

(Pumping is minimal in drought periods.) 

Quantities of water pumped from these tile 

fields are reported to the DEQ on a

quarterly basis. There were no unusual

issues regarding this discharge in 2002. 

The maintenance of the structural integrity 

of the halls by pumping results in wide 

quantity variations. Exhibit 5-1 presents 

the quantity of water pumped monthly and 

the maximum daily flow for each month in 

2002. Note that the quantity pumped each

month is well under the 6,000,000 gallon

permit limit.

This groundwater collection point, known 

as “Outfall 001”, is monitored for water

quality under VPDES Permit

No. VA0089320. See section 5.1.2 for nonradiological results covered by this permit 

and Section 4.3.2 for information on the 

radiological parameters monitored at this 

outfall. Besides the VPDES permit noted,

there are no other requirements for

monitoring as no industrial or other use is

made of the discharged groundwater. 

5.1.2 VPDES Permit No. VA0089320 

This permit covers monitoring for water 

quality at fifteen groundwater monitoring 

wells and at the Outfall 001 collection point 

noted above. 

Monitoring wells were sampled for pH,

conductivity, total suspended solids (TSS), 

and total dissolved solids (TDS) under the 

Permit terms. (See Exhibit 4-5 for the site 

map showing the wells monitored in 2002.) 

Sampling results for the wells are 

presented in Exhibit 5-2. Groundwater

collected at Outfall 001 is sampled and

reported quarterly for pH and results are

shown in Exhibit 5-3. Also shown are the 

reported maximum daily discharge

Exhibit 5-1 

2002 Flow Information at the Dewatering Discharge 

Month

Monthly

Flow (gal)

Maximum GPD 

During the 

Month* Month

Monthly

Flow (gal)

Maximum GPD 

During the 

Month*

January 427,644 16,533 July 455,666 13,981

February 402,942 16,623 August 383,790 13,763

March 346,675 16,644 September 415,205 15,083

April 406,437 13,782 October 388,656 13,460

May 419,443 13,981 November 415,081 13,927

June 384,166 13,984 December 426,857 14,884

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 57
Notes:

*Maximum GPD (gallons per day) per quarter is reported on VPDES Permit No. VA0089320. 

There is no daily permit limit. The monthly limit is 6,000,000 gallons and the yearly limit is about

23,000,000 gallons. 

Exhibit 5-2 

Range of 2002 Non-Radiological Monitoring Results at Wells

Parameter/Units GW-15a A Wells* B Wells* C Wells Permit Limit

pH 4.3 6.1 to 7.2 5.3 to 7.3 5.8 to 6.7 None 

Conductivity

(μmho/cm) 

151 705 to 2400 305 to 1215 342 to 854 None 

TDS (mg/L) 105 451 to 1520 219 to 818 247 to 754 None 

TSS (mg/L) 6 15 to 310 1 to 80 3 to 40 None 

(frequency) (annual) (quarterly) (semiannual) (annual) - 

mg/L: milligrams/liter 

mho: unit of conductance 

* Minimum and maximum parameter results throughout the year for the A & B ring wells. 

Exhibit 5-3 

2002 Permit-Related Non-Radiological Monitoring Parameters at Outfall 001 

Quarter Maximum Flow (MGD) pH

First 0.017 7.2

Second 0.014 7.0

Third 0.015 6.9

Fourth 0.015 7.2

MGD: million gallons/day

Notes: There is no limit on the reported flow. 

 The pH range is 6.0 to 9.0.

quantities for each quarter. Note that 

sampling data collected in 2002 was

representative of groundwater quality 

during accelerator operations and is 

consistent with previous baseline 

measurements. 

Variations in non-radiological information

collected at the wells in 2002 may be due to 

seasonal, local ground conditions, earthdisturbing factors, and a regional drought. 

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 2002. 

5.1.3 VPDES Permit No. VAG253002 

Cooling water discharges from two cooling

towers were covered by this permit in 2002. 

The materials used for cooling water 

treatment were Coastline Formula 2029

(scale and corrosion inhibitor), 

Formula 1909 (liquid biocide), and a small 

amount of a dispersant. There were no 

58 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
environmental concerns with the use of 

these chemicals. 

Quarterly sampling and reporting are 

performed at Discharge Numbers 001 and 

002 under this VPDES General Permit.

Flow information and sampling results for 

pH, temperature, total hardness, total

dissolved copper, total dissolved zinc, and 

total residual chlorine are provided to the 

DEQ. Exhibit 5-4 presents CY2002 results. 

Sampling for ammonia was started in 2003. 

Exhibit 5-4 

2002 Cooling Water Monitoring Parameters at Outfalls 001 and 002 

Parameter/Units First Quarter Second Quarter Permit Limit

Detection 

Limit

Outfall 001 002 001** 002**

Flow (MGD) 0.012 0.00005 no discharge no discharge 0.05 MGD 0.0001 

pH 7.3 7.7 - - 6 to 9 0.1 

Temperature (oC) 13.2 13.0 - - Max. 32 oC. or as 

noted in the permit 

0.1 

Hardness (mg/L) 240 80 - - None 2

Copper (mg/L) 0.002 0.004 - - None 0.001

Zinc (mg/L) 0.727 0.113 - - None 0.03

Chlorine (mg/L) < 0.1 < 0.1 - - Non-Detectable 0.1 

Third Quarter Fourth Quarter

Outfall 001 002 001 002

Flow (MGD) 0.015 0.0001 0.019 0.0001 0.05 MGD 0.0001

pH 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.2 6 to 9 0.1 

Temperature (oC) 23.5 22.0 10.5 10.7 Max. 32 oC. or as 

noted in the permit 

0.1 

Hardness (mg/L) 36 216 59 250 None 2

Copper (mg/L) 0.003 0.010 0.007 0.003 None 0.001

Zinc (mg/L) 0.079 0.047 0.122 0.115 None 0.03

Chlorine (mg/L) < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 Non-Detectable 0.1 

NOTES:

**There was no flow at these sample points during this period. This is believed to be due to the regional drought. 

 MGD: million gallons/day

 mg/L: milligrams/liter

Items of note for 2002 include: 

• Fourth quarter 2001 sampling had a

chlorine level at Discharge

Number 001 above the non-detect 

level, as reported in the 2001 SER. It is 

believed that two separate piping 

failures in water supply lines 

contributed to the detectable level of 

chlorine. There were no detectable

chlorine levels in 2002. 

• The Lab received a notice of deficiency 

for not promptly reporting the leaks as 

well as another administrative 

deficiency as discussed in 

Section 2.5.1.2. 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 59
• Sampling could not be performed in 

the second quarter as there was no 

flow at either sampling point, a direct 

result of the area drought. 

5.1.4 HRSD Permit No. 0117 

Industrial wastewater, which includes a

small quantity of activated water, is 

generated by Jefferson Lab and discharged 

to the HRSD through our Industrial 

Wastewater Discharge Permit. The 

activated water that was collected and 

discharged in 2002 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 2.5.2 and 

4.3.2 for more information. 

Jefferson Lab performs pH sampling at two 

sanitary sewer outflow streams to verify 

that pH levels are within permit criteria.

Results for CY2002 are shown in 

Exhibit 5-5. Two elementary neutralization

tanks continuously record pH levels and 

records are available for HRSD review. 

As noted in Section 4, RadCon staff 

manage the HRSD radiological sampling 

and analysis requirements. The HRSD 

samples all discharge streams periodically 

for a full complement of metals and other 

parameters. On an annual basis, a sevenday period of monitoring flows and

samples at each of the discharge points is 

performed to help determine if changes to 

the permit are necessary. Self-monitoring

and HRSD results demonstrated that

Jefferson Lab remained within the limits of 

the HRSD-issued permit in 2002. 

However, Jefferson Lab did receive two

administrative violations for a late

submittal of pH data for two sampling 

points. 

5.1.5 Storm Water Management Program 

Storm water runoff is a part of the natural 

hydrologic process. Across the country 

contaminated storm water discharges have

been increasingly identified as a significant 

source of water pollution. Pollutants in 

surface runoff are one of the main 

contributors to the degradation of the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Exhibit 5-5 

pH Sampling Results for Wastewater Discharge 

Monitoring Period Manhole D Manhole EF

First Quarter 6.5 7.0

Second Quarter 8.2 6.7

Third Quarter 8.0 7.5

Fourth Quarter 7.0 7.0

Permit Limits: Calendar Month Average and Calendar Day Maximum > 5.0

Detection Limit: 0.1

60 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
The Storm Water Pollution Prevention 

(SWPP) Program at Jefferson Lab addresses 

pollution prevention, control, and 

countermeasure issues. Jefferson Lab 

reduces contamination of storm water

effluents by preventing open containers or 

unvegetated ground from being exposed to 

rainfall. If ground disturbance does take 

place, such as occurs during construction

activities, Jefferson Lab manages runoff by 

implementing erosion and sediment

control best management practices. 

Jefferson Lab incorporates the relevant 

management practices described in the 

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control 

Handbook in the course of the performance 

of construction activities and identified 

industrial activities. The purpose of the 

SWPP Program is to virtually eliminate soil 

erosion from storm water runoff and

chemical pollution from runoff from 

sources that are not sufficiently weatherproofed. The EH&S Manual, Chapter 6733 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention, covers

Jefferson Lab’s storm water program. 

5.1.6 Other Water Quality Issues 

As stated in Section 2.2.8, FIFRA applies to 

the storage and use of herbicides and

pesticides at Jefferson Lab. Use of these

substances has environmental implications, 

especially in terms of water quality. As 

such, 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. Exhibit 5-6 lists those 

products used at Jefferson Lab in 2002. All 

pesticides used were EPA-registered and 

applied according to the product

instructions and Federal, State, and local 

guidelines. The Lab’s Facilities 

Management Department subcontracts 

monthly preventive pest control. 

Exhibit 5-6 

Control Chemicals and Products Approved for Use in 2002

Pest Control

Herbicides/Landscape

Maintenance

Borid Damoil

Contrac Diazinon 4E

Dursban T/C Dicofol 4EC 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 61
Insect Guard (“No Pest Strip”) Dimension 

Intruder HPX Diometom 

MaxForce Bait Fore Tree & Ornamental Fungicide 

Mosquito Dunks Fusilade II 

Precor 1%EC (fleas) Merit

PT 565 plus MSMA Target 6.6 

Quintox Rat & Mouse Bait Roundup 

Wasp Freeze Super Trimec

 

Termite Control 

Dursban T/C

Herbicides were used on annual and

perennial weeds and grasses, stumps of 

trees, and brush. Pesticides were applied

on-site for control of insects. Areas

addressed included kitchens, laboratories, 

and other areas throughout the site. 

Jefferson Lab requires that, when used

outdoors, there is to be no application of 

these compounds when rain is expected in 

order to minimize the chances of them

washing into local channels. To further 

minimize the chances of pollution, no 

industrial-strength herbicides or pesticides

are prepared, mixed, stored, or disposed of 

on Jefferson Lab property. The 

subcontractor is responsible for handling 

any waste disposal through an authorized 

disposal facility. Small containers of 

household pesticides are stored on-site and

applied per manufacturer’s

recommendations. 

5.2 CONVENTIONAL AIR 

EMISSIONS 

The Hampton Roads area of southeastern

Virginia remained in attainment of ozone 

ambient air quality standards in 2002, 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 except 

for a very small amount of ozone generation, 

as noted in the next paragraph. There are no 

applicable NAAQS emission sources present 

on the site. 

Accelerator operations can result in the 

generation of small quantities of ozone. There 

are no environmental or public health effects 

from this generation; however, ozone is

monitored as a worker health issue and is

appropriately controlled. 

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. Annual air emissions

reports are provided to the DEQ upon request. 

Refer to Exhibit 5-7 for information provided 

to the DEQ for 2002. 

Exhibit 5-7 

Jefferson Lab Air Emission Source for Calendar Year 2002 

62 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Ref. No. Equipment

Annual Fuel Process

Rate (Million Cu. Ft.

Burned)

Process Volume *

% Annual Throughput

J-M A-J J-S O-D

HB-1 CLVR.BRKS. 1.5 58 35 7 0

HB-2 CLVR.BRKS. P-142-30 1.5 58 35 7 0

HB-3 CLVR.BRKS. CB-760-60 5.0 38 20 12 30

HB-4 CLVR.BRKS. CB-760-60 5.0 38 20 12 30

HB-5 BRYAN F-450 WG 1.7 25 25 25 25

HB-6 BRYAN F-90 WG 1.4 46 24 0 30

HB-7 BRYAN F-90 WG 1.4 46 24 0 30

HB-8 PSB Fin Tube Radiator 0.15 53 8 0 39

Process: Natural Gas (under 10MMBRU / Hr) 

Heat Content: 1050 MMBTU / Cu. Ft. 

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

* Quarterly Values Shown 

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. No

new requirements became applicable in 2002. 

5.3 SAFETY 

Jefferson Lab’s performance, with respect to 

worker safety for the 2002 CY, was as follows: 

• Recordable injury case rate: 1.7 per 100 

employees;

• Lost Work Day case rate: 0.9 per 100

employees;

• Lost Work Day rate: 48.3 per 100 

employees;

• Number of radioactive contaminations

(external): 0; and, 

• Number of Safety Occurrence Reports

(OSHA confined space, chemical exposure, 

and lockout/tagout incidents): 5 – four 

electrical events and one mechanical 

malfunction. 

SECTION 6 

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION 

6.1 INTRODUCTION 

Groundwater is a vital natural resource, the 

contamination of which 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. 

6.2 HYDROGEOLOGY ISSUES 

6.2.1 General Hydrogeology 

Jefferson Lab is located in the Atlantic 

Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 63
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. 

Jefferson Lab is situated in the central 

section of Newport News, Virginia, at an

average elevation of about 35 feet above 

MSL. The site is in a Zone C area on the

local flood maps, so is not considered to be 

within the 100-year floodplain. The site is 

located in the watershed of Brick Kiln

Creek, which discharges to Big Bethel 

Reservoir. The reservoir served as a 

drinking water source for local military

installations through mid-2002. 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. 

6.2.2 Aquifer Information 

The uppermost hydrostratigraphic unit

encountered at the site is the water table

aquifer, the Columbia, 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 eastsoutheast. Modeling performed during

1995, with groundwater flow and velocity 

reevaluated in 2001 and early 2002, 

indicated that the groundwater flow

pattern, including seasonal variations, 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 toward the halls and ultimately be 

cycled through the dewatering system and

into a site surface water channel. 

6.2.3 Potential 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. 

64 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
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 applicable RCRA

requirements. 

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 in Exhibit 4-6. Jefferson Lab will 

maintain the capability to sample and 

analyze groundwater more frequently, as

necessary, to ensure that effects on

groundwater are minimal. From controls 

designed into the accelerator complex, 

including in-place shielding measures, and 

through calculations, a minimal amount of 

soil or groundwater activation is expected

on-site and no offsite effect is anticipated. 

6.2.4 Groundwater Uses 

The groundwater resources of the YorkJames 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 2.5.2.2 There are no

projected needs for the use of groundwater 

on the Jefferson Lab site. As the 

surrounding area continues to be 

developed, the use of this resource to serve 

the city remains under investigation. 

6.3 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION 

PROGRAM SUMMARY 

Jefferson Lab’s EP 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, physical,

and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.”

Jefferson Lab complies with the applicable

standards discussed in Section 2.5. 

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. 

Both the 1987 and 2002 EAs found that “no 

significant environmental impacts are 

predicted.” The 1987 EA had also concluded 

that proper design and careful operation of the

accelerator would minimize any impacts,

including those to groundwater. The

Commonwealth’s largest concern is the 

potential for radiological activation of the 

groundwater in 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. (See Section 3.4 for additional 

information about NEPA.) 

The prevention of hazardous material and oil 

spills is addressed through appropriate 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 65
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, while the RadCon Group

addresses any activated water spills, thus 

minimizing potential surface and groundwater 

impacts. An emergency management exercise 

that addressed an injury using a tabletop 

exercise in 2002 tested the Lab's response

program effectiveness. A few minor 

opportunities for improvement in the site staff 

notification procedures were identified and 

addressed. 

6.3.1 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, eventually flowing to the Big 

Bethel reservoir. This dewatering is

allowed by the Permit to Withdraw

Groundwater and is discussed further in

Sections 2.5.2.2 and 5.1.1. The Permit 

allows an annual withdrawal of up to 

twenty-three million gallons of 

groundwater, with the actual amount 

pumped significantly less. No other 

withdrawals or projected uses are

expected. 

6.3.2 Groundwater Resource Protection 

Quality 

The Commonwealth, through authorized 

discharge limits in VPDES Permit 

No. VA0089320, regulates acceleratorproduced radionuclides that are potentially

present in the groundwater. This Permit 

superseded a Virginia Pollution Abatement

(VPA) Permit in 1996, which primarily 

established a groundwater quality baseline 

for comparison with measurements during 

long-term accelerator operations. 

The current 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

surface or groundwater quality. 

6.3.3 Surface Water Protection 

Surface water quality is maintained by 

discharging only unpolluted waters, such 

as rainwater or groundwater, to the 

environment. Potential sources of 

contamination of surface waters and

associated control measures identified for 

the site include: 

• Using proper procedures, such as 

secondary containment, prevents

releases of EHMs to surface water or

the ground. 

• The prevention of potential oil leaks 

from equipment or system 

malfunctions which 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 RadCon Group procedures that 

address activated water management 

provide for sampling and monitoring 

of water (before release) from any

potential source within the accelerator 

and experimental halls. 

• Groundwater surrounding the tunnel

and experimental halls may become 

66 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
activated during beam operations. The 

groundwater is shielded from exposure

to radiation, so only minimal amounts

of radiation are expected. The 

groundwater withdrawn at the halls is 

monitored under VPDES Permit No. 

VA0089320.

6.4 GROUNDWATER MONITORING 

REVIEW 

Jefferson Lab’s environmental monitoring 

program is designed to verify that any

radiation exposures, as well as non-radioactive 

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 permit-identified wells are 

used for sampling and analysis during regular 

accelerator operations and experimental 

physics activities. Exhibit 4-5 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 in Exhibit 4-7. Note that the

Commonwealth restricts water contamination 

to 1 mrem/yr., which is one-quarter of the 

regulated drinking water quality limit. Under 

this permit, Jefferson Lab has to take specific

corrective action if any of the following values

are detected at the “A” 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 Permit. 

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 7 

QUALITY ASSURANCE 

Regular quality assurance (QA) efforts, which 

include quality control (QC) measures, are 

being made to ensure that 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 methods and 

direction for critical and objective examination

of Jefferson Lab’s EP programs, practices, and

performance. 

7.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE IN 

SAMPLING PROCEDURES

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 RadCon Group and other program

management are involved in the qualification 

process for environmentally sensitive services, 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 67
including offsite analytical laboratories, and 

are responsible for auditing their own QA 

practices and implementing relevant QA 

procedures. The Jefferson Lab SA/QA 

function performs independent assessments of 

all functional areas, including those for EP

activities. The DOE oversight organizations, in

their independent overview capacity, also 

perform periodic audits and surveillance of 

Jefferson Lab. No QA concerns were noted for

CY 2002 regarding sampling protocols or 

results. 

Line management responsible for any 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 permitrelated water samples. Universal Labs 

performed all non-radiological analyses on 

these samples. Their subcontractor, BWX 

Technologies, Inc. (BWX), performed all 

radiological analyses on identified samples.

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 RadCon 

Group and analyzed in the RadCon

radiological analysis lab (Building 52). In 2002,

Jefferson Lab subcontracted with Marine 

Chemist, Inc. and American Medical Lab to 

provide general chemical analysis on samples

that were not potentially radioactive. 

Qualified Jefferson Lab staff collect such nonpermit related samples that require general 

chemical analysis.

7.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE IN 

ANALYSIS

Samples are analyzed for radiological and nonradiological attributes using standard EPAapproved analytical procedures. A continuing 

program of analytical laboratory quality 

control, participation in interlaboratory

crosschecks, analysis of various blanks, and 

replicate sampling and analysis verifies data 

quality. The RadCon Group, 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 BWX on a 

biennial basis. These visits confirm that

analytical practices being performed are 

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 on all 

applicable parameters. The quality of the data 

is then evaluated and compared to regulatory 

limits to determine acceptability. In addition, 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 accelerator-produced

radionuclides at or below the concentration 

guide standards. This enables compliance 

with permit requirements that QA is

performed. 

68 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Jefferson Lab continues to maintain 

appropriate agency certifications and to

incorporate certification requirements in 

subcontract specifications. Any equipment

used for environmental monitoring is specified 

to have calibration certifications traceable to 

national standards. 

Universal Labs and the RadCon radiological

analysis lab participate in DOE’s Quality 

Assessment Program (QAP) run by 

Environmental Measurements Laboratory 

(EML). BWX participates in two DOE 

crosscheck evaluation programs: one from the 

EML, and one from the Mixed Analyte 

Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP).

In addition, the National Environmental 

Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) 

certifies BWX. NELAC’s purpose is to 

establish and promote mutually acceptable 

performance standards for the operation of 

environmental laboratories. BWX is also EPA 

sample certified by 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. 

7.2.1 Radiological 

Independent QA under the DOE 

The EML QAP 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 2002, BWX and Jefferson Lab’s RadCon 

lab participated in the EML’s QAP for

radionuclides. Two sets of results for BWX 

and one for Jefferson Lab under the QAP 

were available. The results, for the 

parameters analyzed by BWX and Jefferson 

Lab, that are applicable at Jefferson Lab, 

are provided as Exhibits 7-1 and 7-2. Note

that only selected results are presented in

these exhibits. Results indicated as 

warnings mean they are near the limits of

acceptability. BWX’s overall results for

QAP 56 were 91% acceptable and 9% 

acceptable with warning. It also shows

that 100% of the results for the water

program, which is of greatest importance 

for Jefferson Lab, were all acceptable or 

acceptable with warning. Selected results

for both BWX and Jefferson Lab under 

QAP 57 were 100% acceptable for the water 

programs. For the air results, Jefferson Lab 

had 100% acceptable and BWX had 80%

acceptable or acceptable with warning and

20% not acceptable. No 2002 results under 

the MAPEP were provided. [Note: 

acceptable with warning shows good 

results, just not in the smaller margin of 

error to be called ‘acceptable’.] 

BWX participated in a QA program for

analysis of samples under the 

Environmental Resource Associates. 

Performance results for RAD49 and RAD50

were received. Results for radionuclides of

interest to Jefferson Lab are shown in 

Exhibit 7-3. The selected results for both

were 100% acceptable. 

Other QA Activities 

BWX also participates in a RadCon Group 

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

RadCon lab runs parallel analyses on

selected groundwater monitoring samples

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 69
and HRSD quarterly composite samples as 

a QA verification. 

7.2.2 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 2002, they received blind 

samples and conducted analyses on them.

WP-075 results, under the protocol of a NSI

Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program,

for the parameters of interest to Jefferson

Lab are shown in Exhibit 7-4. Results were

88% acceptable or acceptable with warning 

and 12% not acceptable for the selected 

parameters. No other results from other 

QA programs were provided. 

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. 

RadCon staff review the test results to

ensure Universal Labs is maintaining its 

ability to provide quality services. 

Exhibit 7-1 

Quality Assurance Program (QAP 56) 

Selected Results for 2002 

Reported EML Known

Matrix Analyte

Value 

(Bq/l) Error

Value 

(Bq/l) Error

Ratio 

Rep/EML Result

Water Gross Alpha 468.000 27.000 375.000 37.500 1.248 W 

(BWX) Gross Beta 899.000 30.000 1030.000 103.000 0.873 A 

H-3 335.000 21.000 283.700 3.380 1.181 A

Co-60 368.000 15.000 347.330 12.400 1.060 A

Cs-134 3.160 1.210 3.357 0.200 0.941 A

Cs-137 55.900 2.300 56.067 2.929 0.997 A

Air Gross Alpha 0.539 0.034 0.534 0.053 1.009 A

(BWX) Gross Beta 1.180 0.040 1.300 0.130 0.908 A 

Co-60 30.000 1.600 30.520 0.652 0.983 A

Cs-137 27.300 1.200 28.230 0.701 0.967 A

Mn-54 38.100 3.000 38.530 0.867 0.989 A

BWX: BWX Technologies, Inc.; JLab: Jefferson Lab

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

A: Acceptable; W: Acceptable with Warning; N: Not acceptable 

70 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Exhibit 7-2 

Quality Assurance Program (QAP 57) 

Selected Results for 2002 

Reported EML Known

Matrix Analyte

Value 

(Bq/l) Error

Value 

(Bq/l) Error

Ratio 

Rep/EML Result

Water Gross Alpha 226.000 19.000 210.000 21.000 1.076 A 

(BWX) Gross Beta 826.000 31.000 900.000 90.000 0.918 A 

H-3 276.000 21.000 227.300 5.615 1.214 A

Co-60 283.000 12.000 268.670 9.710 1.053 A

Cs-134 55.100 2.600 60.200 1.860 0.915 A

Cs-137 83.200 3.100 81.430 4.280 1.022 A

Water Co-60 266.400 9.400 268.670 9.710 0.992 A

(JLab) Co-60 279.000 7.100 268.670 9.710 1.038 A

Co-60 272.200 6.200 268.670 9.710 1.013 A

Cs-134 58.000 1.700 60.200 1.860 0.963 A

Cs-134 56.900 2.400 60.200 1.860 0.945 A

Cs-134 54.300 3.700 60.200 1.860 0.902 A

Cs-137 80.700 3.300 81.430 4.280 0.991 A

Cs-137 81.500 6.000 81.430 4.280 1.001 A

Cs-137 85.500 4.400 81.430 4.280 1.050 A

Air Gross Alpha 0.283 0.031 0.287 0.029 0.986 A

(BWX) Gross Beta 0.769 0.064 0.871 0.087 0.883 A 

Co-60 19.900 1.100 23.000 0.059 0.865 W

Cs-137 27.400 1.200 32.500 0.777 0.843 W

Mn-54 40.000 6.700 52.200 1.170 0.766 N

Air Co-60 23.300 0.800 23.000 0.059 1.013 A

(JLab) Co-60 23.300 0.700 23.000 0.059 1.013 A

Co-60 24.100 1.000 23.000 0.059 1.048 A

Cs-137 33.500 1.500 32.500 0.777 1.031 A

Cs-137 35.100 1.400 32.500 0.777 1.080 A

Cs-137 37.800 1.800 32.500 0.777 1.163 A

Mn-54 54.000 2.300 52.200 1.170 1.034 A

Mn-54 54.500 2.200 52.200 1.170 1.044 A

Mn-54 56.900 2.000 52.200 1.170 1.090 A

BWX: BWX Technologies, Inc.; JLab: Jefferson Lab

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

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 71
Exhibit 7-3 

ERA QA Program 

Average Parameter Results for 2002

Matrix Analyte

Reported

Value 

(pCi/L)

Experimental 

Deviation 

(pCi/L)

Assigned

Value 

(pCi/l)

Control Limits

(pCi/L)

Performance 

Evaluation

RAD49

Water Co-60 44.2 5.84 39.1 30.4 - 47.8 A 

(BWX) Cs-134 13.3 0.404 17.1 8.44 - 25.8 A 

Cs-137 53.7 0.551 52.1 43.4 - 60.8 A 

RAD50 

Water Gross Alpha 42.5 2.21 58.8 33.5 - 84.1 A 

(BWX) Gross Beta 18.7 1.15 21.9 13.2 - 30.6 A 

RAD51 

Water H-3 10,500 265 10,200 8,440 – 12,000 A 

(BWX)

BWX: BWX Technologies, Inc. 

72 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Exhibit 7-4 

Selected Results from Universal Laboratories Performance Evaluation Reports 

NSI Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program Study WP-075 

Sample Reported True Acceptance

Category Parameter Units Value Value Limits Results

Trace Metals Aluminum μg/L 1460.0 1570 1345 - 1784 A 

Cadmium μg/L 646.0 623 532 - 707 A 

Chromium μg/L 223.0 225 194 - 256 A 

Copper μg/L 418.0 425 385 - 468 A 

Trace Metals Lead μg/L 2999.0 2880 2539 - 3206 A 

Manganese μg/L 1904.0 1870 1682 - 2078 A 

Nickel μg/L 2244.0 2490 2265 - 2774 N 

Zinc μg/L 904.0 874 774 - 982 A 

pH pH - 9.1 9.00 8.73 - 9.27 A 

Mercury Mercury μg/L 17.5 12.7 9.50 - 15.9 N 

Ammonia as N Ammonia as N mg/L 14.2 16.1 12.5 - 19.5 A 

Residual Chlorine Total Residual 

Chlorine 

mg/L 0.575 0.671 0.494 - 0.847 A 

Residue Non-filterable

Residue TSS 

mg/L 62.0 67.0 51.4 - 72.2 A 

Oil and Grease Oil and Grease mg/L 32.4 32.3 20.7 - 37.7 A 

Demand COD mg/L 63.0 78.8 57.0 - 94.0 W 

TOC mg/L 31.8 31.1 25.9 - 36.0 A 

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

Ug/L: micrograms per liter; mg/L: milligrams per liter 

COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand

TOC: Total Organic Carbon 

TSS: Total Suspended Solids 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 73
SECTION 8 

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 and 2002 update. 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan 

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 

December 2001 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. 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Environmental Assessment DOE/EA-1384 

Proposed Improvements at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility 

Newport News, VA 

June 2002. 

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook 

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation 

Division of Soil and Water Conservation 

1992. 

74 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report
SECTION 9 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 

INTERNAL 

Dr. Christoph W. Leemann, Director 

Dr. Allison F. Lung, Assistant Director 

Ms. Sally J. Fisk, Chief of Staff, Director’s Office 

Dr. Rocco Schiavilla, Acting Theory Group Leader 

Dr. Lawrence Cardman, Associate Director, Physics Division 

Dr. Dennis M. Skopik, Deputy Associate Director, Division EH&S Officer, Physics Division 

Dr. James J. Murphy, Director, Office of Assessment 

Dr. Swapan Chattopadhyay, Associate Director, Accelerator Division 

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

Ms. Kelly S. Caccetta, Associate Director, Administration Division 

Mr. Mark J. Waite, Deputy Associate Director, Administration Division 

Dr. Frederick H. Dylla, Chief Technology Officer, FEL Program Manager 

Dr. Roy R. Whitney, Chief Information Officer 

Mr. Claus H. Rode, Office of Project Management 

Ms. Mary C. Erwin, Chief Financial Officer 

Rhonda M. Scales, Esq., Legal Counsel 

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

Mr. Carter B. Ficklen, EH&S Reporting Manager, Director’s Office EH&S Officer 

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

Mr. Robert T. May, Accelerator Division EH&S Officer 

Ms. Sandra L. Prior, EH&S Tracking, Trending, and Training Group Leader, Accelerator Division

EXTERNAL

The Honorable John W. Warner 

The Honorable Jo Ann S. Davis 

The Honorable George Allen 

The Honorable Robert C. Scott 

The Honorable Phillip A. Hamilton 

The Honorable Mary T. Christian 

The Honorable Terry G. Kilgore 

The Honorable Flora Davis Crittenden 

The Honorable G. Glenn Oder 

The Honorable Thomas D. Gear, Jr. 

The Honorable Edward L. Schrock 

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes 

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. Rhondra J. Matthews, President 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 

Ms. Anhthu Nguyn, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

Ms. Carolyn Putnam, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

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

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 75
Dr. Jerry P. Draayer, President, Southeastern Universities Research Association, Inc. 

Mr. James A. Turi, DOE Site Manager, Jefferson Lab 

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

Laboratory 

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

Mr. Leonard Huesties, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

Ms. Irene Boczek, Associate Director, ES&H, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center 

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

Mr. W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr., Office of the Secretary of Natural Resources (for Virginia)

76 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
APPENDIX A 

ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS 

Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS 

These acronyms and abbreviations reflect the typical manner in which terms are used for this specific document 

and may not apply to all situations. 

A C M Asbestos-containing material E H M Environmentally Harmful Material 

A E A Atomic Energy Act E H S Extremely hazardous substance 

A L & R Administrative Laws and Regulations E H & S Environment, Health, and Safety 

A P Affirmative Procurement E M L Environmental Measurements 

Laboratory 

A R C Applied Research Center E M S Environmental Management System 

BMP Best Management Practice E O Executive Order of the President of

the United States 

B q Becquerel E P Environmental Protection

B W X BWX Technologies, Inc. E P A Environmental Protection Agency 

C A A Clean Air Act E P C R A Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act 

C A A A Clean Air Act Amendments E P Gs Emergency Planning and Response 

Groups 

C A S A Center for Advanced Studies of 

Accelerators E P P Environmentally Preferable Purchasing 

C B P A Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act E S A Endangered Species Act 

CBPADMR 

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area 

Designation and Management 

Regulations 

E S & H Environment, Safety, and Health 

C E B A F Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator 

Facility F D S Floor Drain Sump 

C E R C L A 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act 

F E L Free Electron Laser 

C F C Chlorofluorocarbon F I F R A Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act

C F R Code of Federal Regulations F O N S I Finding of No Significant Impact 

C i Curie F Y Fiscal Year 

C L A S CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer G e V Billion (Giga-) electron volts 

C O D Chemical Oxygen Demand G P D Gallons per day 

C W A Clean Water Act G S A General Services Administration 

C X Categorical Exclusion H R S D Hampton Roads Sanitation District 

C Y Calendar Year H S Hazardous Substance 

C Z M A Coastal Zone Management Act H W C Hazardous Waste Coordinator 

D E Q (Virginia) Department of Environmental 

Quality 

I A Independent Assessment 

D O D U.S. Department of Defense I R Infrared 

D O E U.S. Department of Energy I S M Integrated Safety Management 

D O T U.S. Department of Transportation I W D R Industrial Wastewater Discharge

Regulations 

E 2 Energy Efficiency k g Kilogram 

A-1 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report
Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations 

E A Environmental Assessment LLW Low Level Radioactive Waste 

ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS (continued)

L S A Line Self-Assessment RCRA Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act

μ g/L Micrograms per Liter RMA Resource Management Area 

μ S v MicroSievert R Q Reportable Quantity

M 3 Cubic Meters R & D Research and Development

M A P E P Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation 

Program 

S A / Q A Self-Assessment/Quality Assurance 

M B T A Migratory Bird Treaty Act S A R A Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act

m g/ L Milligrams per liter S D W A Safe Drinking Water Act 

M G D Million gallons per day S E R Site Environmental Report 

m r e m Millirem S N S Spallation Neutron Source

M S D S Material Safety Data Sheet S P C C Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure (Plan)

M S L Mean Sea Level S Q G Small Quantity Generator 

m S v MilliSievert S R F Superconducting Radiofrequency

MT Metric Ton S U R A Southeastern Universities Research 

Association, Inc. 

N A A Q S National Ambient Air Quality Standards S v Sievert 

N A S A National Aeronautics and Space

Administration 

S W D A Solid Waste Disposal Act 

N C P National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan

S W P P Storm Water Pollution Prevention 

N E L A C National Environmental Laboratory 

Accreditation Conference 

T D S Total Dissolved Solids 

N E P A National Environmental Policy Act T J N A F or 

Jefferson Lab

Thomas Jefferson National 

Accelerator Facility 

N E S H A P s National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

T O C Total Organic Carbon 

N H P A National Historic Preservation Act T P Q Threshold Planning Quantity 

O D S Ozone-Depleting Substance T R I Toxic Release Inventory 

O R O Oak Ridge Operations – (DOE) T S Total Solids 

O S H A Occupational Safety and Health Act T S C A Toxic Substances Control Act 

P 2 Pollution Prevention T S S Total Suspended Solids 

P A A A Price-Anderson Amendments Act Universal Labs Universal Laboratories, Inc. 

P C B Polychlorinated biphenyl U V Ultraviolet

p C i/ l Picocuries per liter V A C Virginia Administrative Code 

P P A Pollution Prevention Act V D H R Virginia’s Department of Historic 

Resources 

Q A Quality Assurance V P A Virginia Pollutant Abatement

(Permit) 

Q A P Quality Assessment Program V P D E S Virginia Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (Permit)

Q C Quality Control W M i n / P 2 Waste Minimization/Pollution 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report A-2
Prevention 

Rad Con Radiation Control Group W S S Work Smart Standards 

APPENDIX B 

TECHNICAL TERMS 

Appendix B: Technical Terms 

A 

accuracy - The degree of agreement of ameasurement with an accepted reference or true 

value. It is expressed as the difference between two 

values, as a percentage of the reference or true 

value, or as a ratio of the measured value and the

reference or true value. 

activated water - Water that becomes radioactive

due to interaction with high energy neutrons or 

other high energy particles. Groundwater that

comes into close proximity to locations at Jefferson

Lab such as the accelerator tunnel, experimental 

halls, and beam dump earth shielding may become

activated. 

activation - The process of making a material 

radioactive by bombardment with electrons, 

neutrons, or other high energy particles. 

activation products - A material that has become 

radioactive through the process of activation. 

activity - Synonym for radioactivity.

affirmative procurement (AP) - A Federal program

that obligates the Federal government to participate

in the final link in the closed loop recycling process;

procurement of products made from recycled

materials. 

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.

ALARA - As Low As Reasonably Achievable; a

phrase that describes an approach to minimize 

exposure to individuals and minimize releases of 

radioactive or other harmful materials to the 

environment to levels as low as social, technical,

economic, practical, and public policy 

considerations will permit. ALARA is not a dose

limit, but a process with a goal to keep dose levels 

as far below applicable limits as is practicable.

alpha radiation - The emission of alpha particles

during radioactive decay. Alpha particles are 

identical in makeup to the nucleus of a helium atom

and have a positive charge. Alpha radiation is

easily stopped by materials as thin as a sheet of 

paper and has a range in air of only an inch or so. 

Despite its low penetration ability, alpha radiation

is densely ionizing and therefore very damaging

when ingested or inhaled. Naturally occurring

radioactive elements such as radon emit alpha 

radiation.

ambient air - The surrounding atmosphere, usually 

the outside air, as it exists around people, animals,

plants, and structures. It does not include the air

immediately adjacent to emission sources. 

analyte - A constituent that is being analyzed. 

aquifer - A water saturated layer of rock or soil

below the ground surface that can supply usable

quantities of groundwater to wells and springs. 

Aquifers can be a source of water for domestic, 

agricultural, and industrial uses. 

asbestos - A mineral fiber that can pollute air or

water and cause cancer or asbestosis when inhaled. 

EPA has banned or restricted its use in 

manufacturing and construction. 

B 

background - A sample or location used as

reference or control to compare Jefferson Lab

analytical results to those in areas that could not

have been impacted by Lab operations. 

background radiation - Radiation present in the

environment as a result of naturally occurring

radioactive materials, cosmic radiation, or humanmade radiation sources, including fallout. 

becquerel (Bq) - A quantitative measure of 

radioactivity. This is an alternate measure of

activity used internationally and with increasing 

frequency in the United States. One Bq of activity is 

equal to one nuclear decay per second. 

beta radiation - Beta radiation is composed of 

charged particles emitted from a nucleus during 

radioactive decay, with a mass equal to 1/1837 that

of a proton. A negatively charged beta particle is

identical to an electron. A positively charged beta

particle is called a positron. Beta radiation is 

slightly more penetrating than alpha, but may be 

stopped by materials such as aluminum or Lucite

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report B-1 
Appendix B: Technical Terms 

panels. Naturally occurring radioactive elements 

such as potassium-40 emit beta radiation. 

blank - A sample (usually reagent grade water) in

the same type of container used for quality control 

of field sampling methods, to demonstrate that

cross contamination has not occurred.

C 

chain-of-custody - A method for documenting the 

history and possession of a sample from the time of 

collection, through analysis and data reporting, to

its final disposition. 

chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) – An inert, nontoxic, and

easily liquefied chemical used in air conditioning,

refrigeration, solvents, packaging, and aerosol

propellants that is being phased out because of the 

damage it causes to the air’s upper ozone level. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) - A codification 

of all regulations developed and finalized by 

Federal agencies in the Federal Register. 

composite sample - A sample of an environmental

medium that contains a certain number of sample

portions collected over a period of time. The

samples may be collected from the same location or

different locations. They may or may not be 

collected at equal time intervals over a predefined 

period of time, e.g., 24 hours. 

contamination - Unwanted radioactive and/or

hazardous material that is dispersed on or in 

equipment, structures, objects, air, soil, or water.

control - See background. 

cooling water - Water that is used to cool 

machinery and equipment. Contact cooling water 

is any wastewater that contacts machinery or

equipment to remove heat from the metal. Noncontact cooling water is water used for cooling 

purposes but has no direct contact with any process 

material or final product. Process wastewater 

cooling water is water used for cooling purposes 

that may have become contaminated through

contact with the process raw materials or final 

products. 

curie (Ci) - A quantitative measure of radioactivity. 

One Ci of activity is equal to 3.7 x 1010 decays per

second. (1 picoCi = 0.037 Bq).

B-2 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Appendix B: Technical Terms 

D 

Department of Energy (DOE) - The federal agency

that sponsors energy research and regulates nuclear

materials used for weapons production. DOE has 

responsibility for the national laboratories and 

facilities and the science and research conducted at

these institutions, including Jefferson Lab. 

direct radiation - Radiation resulting from the

interaction of the accelerator 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. 

disposal - Final placement or destruction of waste. 

dose - The amount of energy imparted to matter,

measured in units of rad or millirad (mrad); 1 rad =

1000 mrad. 

dosimeter - A portable detection device for

measuring the total accumulated exposure to 

ionizing radiation. 

downgradient - In the direction of groundwater 

flow from a designated area; analogous to

"downstream." 

E 

effective dose equivalent - A value used to express 

the health risk from radiation exposure to a tissue 

or tissues in terms of an equivalent whole body

exposure. It is a normalized value that allows the

risk from radiation exposure received by a specific

organ or part of the body to be compared with the 

risk due to whole body exposure. It is equal to the

sum of the dose to different organs of the body 

multiplied by their respective weighting factors. It 

includes the sum of the effective dose equivalent 

due to radiation from sources external to the body 

and the committed effective dose equivalent due to 

the internal deposition of radionuclides. EDE is 

expressed in units of rem or sieverts. 

effluent - Any liquid discharged to the

environment including stormwater runoff at a site 

or facility.

emission - Any gaseous or particulate matter

discharged to the atmosphere. 

Energy Star ® - a government-backed program that

requires appliance energy efficiencies to be shown 

to guide purchasing decisions towards the more

efficient product. 

environment - Surroundings in which an

organization operates (including air, water, land,

natural resources, flora, fauna, and humans) and

their interrelation. 

environmental aspect - Elements of an

organization's activities, products, or services that

can interact with the environment. 

environmental assessment (EA) - A report that 

identifies potentially significant environmental

impacts from any federally approved or funded 

project that may change the physical environment. 

If an EA identifies a "significant" impact (as defined

by NEPA) an Environmental Impact Statement is 

required. 

environmental impact - Any change to the

environment, whether adverse or beneficial, wholly

or partially resulting from an organization's 

activities, products, or services. 

environmental monitoring or surveillance -

Sampling for contaminants in air, water, sediments,

soils, food stuffs, plants, and animals, either by

directly measuring or by collecting and analyzing 

samples. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - The 

Federal agency responsible for developing and

enforcing environmental laws. Although state

regulatory agencies may be authorized to

administer environmental regulatory programs,

EPA generally retains oversight authority. 

environmentally harmful material (EHM) - Any 

material that, if released into the environment in

sufficient quantity, can have a negative impact on

the environment or public health.

environmentally preferable purchasing - The act

of purchasing products or services that have a 

lesser or reduced effect on human health and the 

environment when compared with competing 

products or services that serve the same purpose. 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report B-3 
Appendix B: Technical Terms 

The comparison may consider raw materials

acquisition, production, manufacturing, packaging,

distribution, reuse, operation, maintenance, or

disposal. (EO 13101, Section 201)

exposure - A measure of the amount of ionization 

produced by x-rays or gamma rays as they travel

through air. The unit of radiation exposure is the 

roentgen (R). 

extremely hazardous substance - Any of the 

chemicals identified by EPA based on toxicity, and 

listed under SARA Title III. The list of nearly 300

chemicals is periodically revised and published in 

the Federal Register. 

G 

grab sample - A single sample collected at one time 

and place.

groundwater - Water found beneath the surface of 

the ground (surface water). Groundwater usually 

refers to a zone of complete water saturation 

containing no air. 

H 

half-life (t1/2) - The time required for one half of the 

atoms of any given amount of radioactive substance

to disintegrate; the time required for the activity of

a radioactive sample to be reduced by one half. 

hazardous substance - A material that poses a

threat to human health and/or the environment. 

Any substance designated by EPA to be reported if 

a designated quantity of the substance is spilled in

the waters of the United States, or if it is otherwise

emitted into the environment. 

hazardous waste - Toxic, corrosive, reactive, or

ignitable materials that can negatively affect human

health or damage the environment. It can be liquid, 

solid, or sludge, and include heavy metals, organic

solvents, reactive compounds, and corrosive

materials. It is defined and regulated by the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

Subtitle C. 

hydrogeology - the branch of geology that deals

with the occurrence and distribution of 

groundwater. Effects on groundwater are also

evaluated.

I 

ionizing radiation - Any radiation capable of 

displacing electrons from atoms or molecules,

thereby producing ions. Some examples are alpha, 

beta, gamma, x-rays, and neutrons. High doses of

ionizing radiation may produce severe skin or

tissue damage. 

L 

large quantity generator (LQG) - A facility

generating more than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste 

per month. 

lithologic - The gross physical character of a rock or

rock formation; the description of a rock, especially

sedimentary rock. 

low-level radioactive waste (LLW) - Wastes 

containing radioactive material that is neither high

level or transuranic. According to 10 CFR Part 61,

this category includes, but is not limited to, slightly

radioactive solidified liquids, resins, filters, and lab 

trash. 

M 

material safety data sheet (MSDS) - Information 

required under the OSHA Hazard Communication 

Standard on the identity of hazardous chemicals, 

health and physical hazards, exposure limits, and 

precautions. 

maximally exposed individual - The hypothetical

individual whose location and habits tend to 

maximize his/her radiation dose, resulting in a

dose higher than that received by other individuals

in the general population. 

mean sea level (MSL) - The average height of the

sea for all stages of the tide. Used as a benchmark

for establishing groundwater and other elevations. 

mho – A unit of conductance equal to the reciprocal 

of the ohm. 

mixed waste - Waste that contains both a 

hazardous waste component regulated under

Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and 

B-4 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Appendix B: Technical Terms 

Recovery Act (RCRA) and a radioactive 

component. 

monitoring - The collection and analysis of samples 

or measurements of effluents and emissions for the

purpose of characterizing and qualifying

contaminants, and demonstrating compliance with

applicable standards. 

monitoring well - A well where groundwater 

collects and is used to: evaluate water quality;

establish groundwater flow and elevation;

determine the effectiveness of treatment systems; 

and, determine whether administrative or

engineering controls designed to protect 

groundwater are working as intended. 

N 

nuclide - A species of atom characterized by the 

number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. 

neutron radiation - Radiation consisting of

energetic neutrons. At Jefferson Lab, neutron 

radiation can give rise to very low levels of

radiation exposure at the site boundary. 

O 

on-site - The area within the boundaries of a site 

that is controlled with respect to access by the 

general public.

outfall - The place where any water is discharged. 

ozone (O3) - A very reactive form of oxygen formed

naturally in the upper atmosphere and providing a

shield for the earth from the sun's ultraviolet rays. 

At ground level or in the lower atmosphere, it is

pollution that forms when oxides of nitrogen and

hydrocarbons react with oxygen in the presence of

strong sunlight. Ozone at ground level can lead to

health effects and cause damage to trees and crops. 

P 

permit - An authorization issued by a Federal, State

or local regulatory agency. Permits are issued

under a number of environmental regulatory

programs, including RCRA, CAA, CWA, and

TSCA. They grant permission to operate, to 

discharge, to construct, etc. Permit provisions may 

include emission/effluent limits and other 

requirements such as the use of pollution control 

devices, monitoring, record keeping and reporting. 

Also called a "license" or "certificate" under some

regulatory programs. 

pH - A measure of hydrogen ion concentration in

an aqueous solution. Acidic solutions have a pH

less than 7, neutral solutions have a pH of 7, and

basic solutions have a pH greater than 7 and up

to 14. 

point source - Any confined and discrete

conveyance (e.g., pipe, channel, well, or stack) of a 

discharge.

pollutant - Any hazardous or radioactive material

naturally occurring or added to an environmental 

medium such as air, soil, water, or vegetation. 

pollution prevention (P2) - Preventing or reducing

the generation of pollutants, contaminants,

hazardous substances or wastes at the source, or 

reducing the amount for treatment, storage, and 

disposal through recycling. P2 can be achieved 

through reduction of waste at the source, 

segregation, recycle/reuse, and the efficient use of

resources and material substitution. The potential 

benefits of P2 include the reduction of adverse 

environmental impacts, improved efficiency, and

reduced costs. 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) - A family of 

organic compounds used from 1926 to 1979 (when

they were banned by EPA) in electrical 

transformers, lubricants, carbonless copy paper, 

adhesives, and caulking compounds. PCBs are

extremely persistent in the environment because

they do not break down into different and less 

harmful chemicals. PCBs are stored in the fatty 

tissues of humans and animals through the 

bioaccumulation process. 

precision - The dispersion around a central value, 

usually represented as a variance, standard

deviation, standard error, or confidence interval. 

Q 

quality assurance (QA) - In environmental 

monitoring, any action to ensure the reliability of

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report B-5 
Appendix B: Technical Terms 

monitoring and measurement data. Aspects of QA 

include procedures, interlaboratory comparison

studies, evaluations, and documentation.

quality control (QC) - In environmental 

monitoring, the routine application of procedures 

to obtain the required standards of performance in

monitoring and measurement processes. QC 

procedures include calibration of instruments, 

control charts, and analysis of replicate and

duplicate samples. 

R 

radiation boundary monitor - Devices placed

strategically around the perimeter of the accelerator 

site that monitor dose information.

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. 

radionuclide - A radioactive element characterized

by the number of protons and neutrons in the 

nucleus. There are several hundred known

radionuclides, both artificially produced and 

naturally occurring. 

regulated medical wastes - Includes human body 

tissues or body fluids, and nonreusable medical 

utensils that held or came in contact with body

tissues or fluids. To prevent the passing of 

contagious diseases, the handling and disposal of

these wastes are covered under the Medical Waste

Tracking Act of 1988. 

release - Spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring,

emitting, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching,

dumping, or disposing of a hazardous substance, 

pollutant, or contaminant into the environment. 

The National Contingency Plan also defines the 

term to include a threat of release. 

rem - Stands for "roentgen equivalent man," a unit 

by which human radiation dose is assessed. This is

a risk-based value used to estimate the potential 

health effects to an exposed individual or

population. 

reportable quantity (RQ) - The quantity of a

hazardous substance that triggers reports under 

CERCLA. If a substance is released in amounts

exceeding its RQ, the release must be reported to 

the National Response Center, the State response

center, and community emergency coordinators for 

areas likely to be affected. 

runoff - The movement of water over land. Runoff 

can carry pollutants from the land into surface 

waters or uncontaminated land. 

S 

sampling - The extraction of a prescribed portion of 

an effluent stream or environmental medium for

purposes of inspection or analysis. 

sediment - The layer of soil and minerals at the 

bottom of surface waters, such as streams, lakes,

and rivers. 

sensitivity - The minimum amount of an analyte 

that can be repeatedly detected by an instrument. 

sievert (Sv) - A unit for assessing the risk of human

radiation dose, used internationally and with

increasing frequency in the United States. One 

sievert is equal to 100 rem. 

skyshine - Radiation emitted over a shielded

enclosure and reflected by air so as to radiate

people on the outside. 

small quantity generator (SQG) - A facility

generating between 100 and 1,000 kg of hazardous

waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste,

per month. Requirements are less stringent than for

an LQG. 

spallation - The process by which a high energy

particle striking a nucleus causes fragments to be

ejected from the nucleus. The resulting atom is

usually radioactive. 

sump - A pit or tank that catches liquid runoff for 

drainage or disposal. 

T 

B-6 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Appendix B: Technical Terms 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report B-7 

Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(VPDES) - A program under which permits are 

issued by the state to regulate water discharges. 

The permit specifies the maximum discharge limits

for the parameters present in the particular

discharge.

threshold planning quantity (TPQ) - A quantity 

designated for each chemical on the list of EHSs

that triggers notification by facilities to the state 

emergency response commission that such facilities

are subject to EPCRA.

total dissolved solids (TDS) - A measure of the 

total amount of minerals, organic matter, and 

nutrients that are dissolved (not merely suspended)

in water. 

W

waste minimization (WMin) - An action that

avoids or reduces the generation of waste by source

reduction, reduces the toxicity of hazardous waste,

improves energy usage, or recycling. This action is

consistent with the general goal of minimizing

present and future threats to human health, safety, 

and the environment. Associated with P2, but more

likely to occur after the waste has already been

generated. 

total suspended solids (TSS) - A measure of the 

suspended solids in wastewater, effluent, or water

bodies, determined by using tests for total

suspended nonfilterable solids. 

tritium - The heaviest and only radioactive nuclide 

of hydrogen, with a half-life of 12.3 years and a

very low energy radioactive decay (beta emitter). water table - The water-level surface below the 

ground at which the unsaturated zone ends and the 

saturated zone begins. It is the level to which a well

that is screened in the unconfined aquifer would fill 

U with water. 

upgradient/upslope - A location of higher 

groundwater elevation; analogous to "upstream." watershed - The region draining into a river, a river

system, or a body of water.

V 
APPENDIX C 

APPLICABLE SITE STANDARDS 
Appendix C: Applicable Site Standards 

APPLICABLE SITE STANDARDS 

Standards in the Work Smart Standards (WSS) Set

The DOE uses the WSS Process to identify EP (environmental protection), health and safety hazards,

and the standards describing mitigation measures. Through this process, the particular hazards 

associated with the Lab were identified, along 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 amended again in August 2002. 

The applicable EP and public health-related standards, including the site operating permits, are listed 

in Exhibits C1, C2, and C3. Various Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)-related standards 

are included in the WSS Set, but since these contain minimal EP controls, compliance with OSHA was 

not singled out in this report. Compliance with each of the listed standards, by category, is presented

in the parts of Section 2 referenced in the exhibits. 

Administrative Laws and Regulations (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. 

The EP and public health-related AL&R documents include some U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) hazardous material regulations and a section of the U.S. Code dealing with generators of 

hazardous waste. AL&R items are not specifically listed below but refer to the appropriate topical 

discussions in the SER. 

Together, the WSS Set and the AL&R List contain almost all of Jefferson Lab’s EH&S requirements. 

Other Contractual Commitments

These EH&S commitments, such as radioactive waste management requirements and the obligation

to maintain the EH&S Manual, are identified specifically in the DOE/SURA contract. These items are

not listed here but are referenced in the SER if appropriate. 

Exhibit C1 

Federal Laws and Regulations Included in the WSS Set 

SER References Citations Titles

LAWS (by subject) 

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

1986 (training) 

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

Water Act) 

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

(referenced in 10 CFR 835) 

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

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

C-1 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report
Appendix C: Applicable Site Standards 

Exhibit C1 (continued) 

Federal Laws and Regulations Included in the WSS Set

SER References Citations Titles

LAWS 

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

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

2.8.5 Pollution Prevention 

and Waste Minimization 

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

REGULATIONS 

2.3.1 Title 10 - Energy Part 71, Radiation Protection 

2.3.1 Parts 834 & 835

Title 29 - OSHA 

2.2.7 Part 1910.1001, Asbestos 

Title 40 - Protection of 

Environment 

2.4 Subchapter C Various Air Programs 

2.5 Subchapter D Various Water Programs 

2.2 Subchapter I Various Waste Programs including RCRA 

2.2 Subchapter J Various Superfund, EPCRA Programs 

2.5.2 Subchapter N Part 403 

2.2.7 Subchapter R Part 763 

Title 49 - 

Transportation

2.7.5 Transportation Subchapter C Various Hazardous Materials Regulations 

DOE GUIDANCE 

2.9.3 O 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Environment, 

Chapter II and IV

EXECUTIVE ORDERS (EOs) 

2.8.3 13101 Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention,

Recycling, and Federal Acquisition 

2.8.4 13123* Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy 

Management 

2.8.5 13148 Greening the Government Through Leadership in 

Environmental Management 

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

 * In the AL&R List 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report C-2 
Appendix C: Applicable Site Standards 

Exhibit C2 

Permits, State Laws, and Regulations Included in the WSS Set 

SER 

References Citations Standard

LAWS 

2.2.1 Title 10.1 - Conservation Chapter 14, Virginia Waste Management Act 

2.5 Title 62.1 - Waters of the State, Ports & Harbors Chapter 3.1, State Water Control Law 

PERMITS Issued Effective

2.5.1.2 DEQ 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 

7/16/2006 

2.5.1.2 DEQ No. VAG253002 

(replaced by 

VAG250018 in 3/2003) 

General Permit for Cooling Water 

Discharges - Authorizes cooling water 

discharges within identified discharge 

limitations. 

[applicable

9/99] 

Through 

3/1/2003 

PERMITS 

2.5.2.1 HRSD No. 0117 Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit 

- Limits wastes to be discharged to

sewerage. 

10/87 3/1/2002 

3/1/2007 

2.5.2.2 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 

2.2.2 4727-45-01 South Carolina Radioactive Waste 

Transport Permit – Authorization to 

transport LLW within the State 

9/14/2001 Through

12/31/2003 

REGULATIONS 

2.4 9 - VAC (Environment) Chapter 5, Air Quality 

2.2 9 - VAC (Environment) Chapter 20, Waste Regulations 

2.5 9 - VAC (Environment) Chapter 25, Water Quality 

2.5.2 none HRSD Industrial Wastewater Discharge Regulations 

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

C-3 2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report
Appendix C: Applicable Site Standards 

Exhibit C3 

Other Standards Identified in the WSS Set 

Category/SER References Citations Standard

REGULATIONS 

2.7.5 49 CFR 177 Hazardous Materials Regulations 

DOE GUIDANCE 

2.9.3 O 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Environment, Sections 

1a and 1b 

Transportation-Related 

Information

2.8.5.1 Emergency Response: response 

actions in the event of a

transportation emergency that

include reporting and notification 

requirements 

CERCLA/SARA 

VA Emergency Management Operations Plan 

2.8 Emergency Response: response 

actions in the event of a

transportation emergency 

EH&S Manual Standards: Appendix 3510-T3 and 

Chapter 6732 

2.2.1 Hazardous Waste: on-site

movement and preparation for 

offsite shipment 

EH&S Manual Standard: Chapter 6761 

EH&S MANUAL

2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 3.2,

5.1, & 7.0 

Assorted Chapters and 

Appendices referenced within. 

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. 

2002 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report C-4