Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

U.S. Department of Energy 

12000 Jefferson Avenue 

Newport News, VA 23606 

JEFFERSON LAB’S 

SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 

For Calendar Year 2003 

Prepared by: 

SURA/Jefferson Lab 

Office of Assessment 

EH&S Reporting 

Date: September 2004

JEFFERSON LAB’S SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 

FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2003 

Executive Summary

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

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab. The purpose of this

annual report is to document the 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 Lab operations. 

Major Scientific Programs 

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

physics community and the nation. 

CEBAF The Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) at Jefferson Lab provides

an electron beam to three experimental halls (A, B, & C), where a variety of physics experiments

are conducted. The electron beam begins its first orbit at the injector and proceeds through the

underground racetrack-shaped accelerator tunnel at nearly the speed of light. The accelerator 

uses superconducting radio-frequency technology to drive electrons to higher and higher 

energies. The accelerator’s electron beam can be split for simultaneous use by the three

experimental halls, which are circular, partially buried domed chambers. Special equipment in

each hall records the interactions between incoming electrons and the target materials. A 

continuous electron beam is necessary to accumulate data at an efficient rate yet ensures that

each interaction is separate enough to be fully observed. 

By the end of calendar year (CY) 2003, Jefferson Lab had completed a total of almost

100 experiments over the life of the Lab. Major experiments were conducted in all three halls, as

well as preparation and logistics work for large-scale experiments that were planned to start in

two of the halls during 2004. Research conducted in Hall B revealed the most convincing 

evidence at the time for a subatomic particle consisting of five quarks – the pentaquark. CLAS 

(CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer) collaborators presented their results during a

May 2003 Conference on the Intersections of Particle and Nuclear Physics held in New York

City. Several weeks of CEBAF operation (and concurrent experiment data collection) time were

lost in the aftermath of Hurricane Isabel, which devastated the region in September. 

Early in the year, Jefferson Lab conducted a novel experiment with CEBAF to determine the

feasibility and effectiveness of energy-recovery technology, which could lead to the 

development of a new class of particle accelerators. 

In November, the DOE unveiled its 20-year facilities plan, which listed Jefferson Lab’s CEBAF 

upgrade to 12 GeV (billion electron volts) as a near-term priority. In support of this, analysis

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report i
and research and development work continued on the proposed 12 GeV upgrade. This 

upgrade will help to keep the United States on the leading edge of world-class science. 

FEL The initial Free-Electron Laser, the Infrared (IR) Demo FEL, operated through 

November 18, 2001. That machine was a 1,000 watt (one kilowatt) level IR light source. It was 

upgraded in 2002 and produced first light on June 17, 2003. As commissioning activities were 

continuing, they were also impacted by Hurricane Isabel. By year’s end, commissioning work

had resumed on this upgrade. This upgrade will result in a machine able to produce more than 

a 10,000 watt level of IR light, and 1,000 watts of ultraviolet (UV) light. 

The FEL supports basic science research and serves universities, private industry, NASA 

(National Aeronautics and Space Administration), the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force, and the 

U.S. Army. 

SNS The Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) project involves a team of six Federal laboratories

(Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Los Alamos, Jefferson Lab, and Oak Ridge) 

cooperating 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’s contributions include building two types of superconducting radiofrequency 

(SRF) cryomodules for the SNS accelerator, and providing extensive expertise, guidance, and 

production effort in developing the SNS refrigeration plant. Work during 2003 was dominated 

by the production, testing, and shipping of medium-beta cryomodules. As road-worthiness to 

ship had been verified in 2002, seven cryomodules were built and five were shipped to Oak 

Ridge in 2003. At the end of 2003, work on several additional cryomodules was well underway 

in Jefferson Lab’s cryomodule assembly area. The Lab will produce a total of 23 cryomodules 

for the SNS. 

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

Ultimate responsibility for protection of the environment and public health rests with the Lab

Director, while line management implements identified objectives within their areas of 

responsibility. EH&S staff, situated within the line organizations, provide support to their line

management and share their expertise with the Lab as a whole. There are numerous ways in

which Jefferson Lab’s EH&S program is implemented. 

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

requirements into all work procedures. The primary objective of ISM is to make safety, health, 

and environmental protection a part of routine business at Jefferson Lab. 

Environmental Management System (EMS) Implementation Jefferson Lab has an environmental 

protection program in place, but the need to have an EMS was identified in 2003. The

requirement for an EMS was incorporated into the DOE/SURA (Southeastern Universities 

Research Association, Inc.) contract in 2003. Key Lab staff began planning for development of

ii 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
an EMS specific to the Jefferson Lab site. The EMS is expected to be fully implemented during 

2005. 

Jefferson Lab Work Smart Standards (WSS) Process The goal of the WSS process is to provide a 

means to implement EH&S in a manner that is both effective and cost-efficient. The WSS Set 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 the hazard issues

that are relevant to Jefferson Lab. 

Implementation of NEPA Most facility construction activities and all accelerator upgrades are 

subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act. The initial Jefferson Lab

construction and a later upgrade to CEBAF were addressed in the 1987 and 1997 Environmental

Assessments (EAs), and new buildings and additions to buildings were addressed in the 2002 

EA. Routine Lab activities and special projects were covered under site-specific NEPA

Categorical Exclusions (CXs). 

EH&S Performance Measures The DOE/SURA contract-based measures, used to evaluate 

Jefferson Lab’s EH&S performance, include items such as recycling and hazardous waste

minimization. 

Inspections The Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) performed an inspection in 2003.

No deficiencies were identified. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) performed invited audits to identify items that

may need attention if the Lab should become subject to external regulation at a future date.

Compliance 

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

regulations, and DOE guidance during 2003. As a consequence, Jefferson Lab operations had

no discernable impact on public health or the environment. Our compliance status on all 

programs is identified in Section 3 of this report. Radiation-related issues, especially those 

dealing with water resources and public health, are highlighted in Section 4. Non-radiological 

environmental issues, such as water sampling and monitoring, are highlighted throughout. The Jefferson Lab EH&S Manual, which addresses many environmental topics, and the Lab’s 

WSS Set are regularly updated to ensure that new environmental compliance initiatives are

incorporated. 

Environmental Protection Program Highlights 

During 2003, Jefferson Lab accomplished many goals in its environmental protection and

pollution prevention program. Following are but a few examples that include improvements 

since 2002. 

• The Accelerator Division began operating a new acid neutralization system that has reduced 

the Lab’s hazardous waste generation rate. 

• Received the HRSD “Gold Award for Pretreatment Excellence.”

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report iii
• Increased the number of local recycling centers from 11 to 19.

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

performance compared to disposing of waste in a landfill. 

• Toner cartridge recycling increased by over 35%, battery recycling more than doubled, and 

the quantity of solid waste disposed at the landfill was down 21%. 

• Improved performance in the procurement of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

designated recycled-content products from 87% in 2002 to 93%. 

• Identified and implemented a number of new best management practices and measurable 

goals under a new storm water permit (see Section 3.5). 

• Facilities Management instituted improved construction specifications that better address 

environmental protection issues. 

iv 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

EXHIBITS...................................................................................................................................................................vi

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

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

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

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

1.4 HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................3

1.5 FACILITIES AND 2003 ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................3

1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW...............................................................................................................5

1.7 SITE EH&S RESOURCES........................................................................................................................5

SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM ...........................................................................6

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM................................................................................6

2.2 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS .........................................................................................8

2.3 APPRAISALS, ASSESSMENTS, AND INSPECTIONS.....................................................................15

2.4 NEPA ACTIVITY...................................................................................................................................16

2.5 OTHER SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES IN 2003 ..............................................16

SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AT JEFFERSON LAB ......................................................18

3.1 AIR QUALITY........................................................................................................................................18

3.2 WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................................................20

3.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................23

3.4 RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION .......................................................................................................26

3.5 COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS .........................................26

3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP................................................................................................29

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM....................................................................33

4.1 RADIATION EXPOSURE PATHWAYS.............................................................................................33

4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION MONITORING.........................................................................37

4.3 OTHER SUPPORT ACTIVITIES..........................................................................................................42

4.4 ASSESSMENTS OF POTENTIAL DOSE TO THE PUBLIC AND TO BIOTA ................................43

4.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE ......................................................................................................................43

SECTION 5 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................49

SECTION 6 DISTRIBUTION LIST........................................................................................................................49

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

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report v
Exhibits 

EXHIBIT 2-1 QUANTITIES OF ITEMS RECYCLED OR REUSED IN FISCAL YEAR 2003......................18

EXHIBIT 3-1 JEFFERSON LAB PERMITS .........................................................................................................21

EXHIBIT 3-2 RCRA WASTE GENERATION QUANTITIES (BY FISCAL YEAR).......................................24

EXHIBIT 3-3 NON-RCRA WASTE GENERATION QUANTITIES (BY FISCAL YEAR).............................25

EXHIBIT 4-1 BOUNDARY MONITOR LOCATIONS........................................................................................36

EXHIBIT 4-2 JEFFERSON LAB RADIOLOGICAL DOSE REPORTING TABLE FOR 2003......................38

EXHIBIT 4-3 JEFFERSON LAB RADIOLOGICAL ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES FOR 2003 ....................38

EXHIBIT 4-4 MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS..........................................................................................40

EXHIBIT 4-5 VPDES PERMIT LEVELS FOR RADIONUCLIDES..................................................................41

EXHIBIT 4-6 MAXIMUM GROUNDWATER MEASUREMENTS FOR RADIONUCLIDES.......................41

EXHIBIT 4-7 JEFFERSON LAB LIQUID EFFLUENT RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL FOR 

2003 ................................................................................................................................................................42

EXHIBIT 4-8 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DISCHARGES TO HRSD IN 2003 .........................................42

EXHIBIT 4-9 RADIATION BOUNDARY MONITOR #3 (RBM-3) RESULTS FOR 2003 ..............................44

EXHIBIT 4-10 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (QAP 58) SELECTED RESULTS FOR 2003 ............46

EXHIBIT 4-11 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (QAP 59) SELECTED RESULTS FOR 2003 ............47

EXHIBIT 4-12 ERA QA PROGRAM, RAD53 AVERAGE PARAMETER RESULTS FOR 2003..................48

EXHIBIT 4-13 ERA QA PROGRAM, RAD55 AVERAGE PARAMETER RESULTS FOR 2003..................48

Note: 2003 refers to calendar year unless otherwise noted.

vi 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

SECTION 1 

INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requires its facilities, of which Thomas Jefferson National

Accelerator Facility (TJNAF or Jefferson Lab) is one, to establish and annually report on 

environmental programs and performance. 

This document marks the 11th year that Jefferson Lab has been preparing a Site Environmental 

Report (SER). This report addresses the status and results of the Lab's environmental protection

(EP) program, which also addresses public health items, for calendar year (CY) 2003. It serves

to inform Jefferson Lab staff, DOE, regulators, and the public about site environmental 

performance, and provides a historical record of identified items of interest or concern. 

Addressed within Section 2 is the Lab's environmental protection program. Section 3

summarizes the site's compliance status with applicable requirements, standards, and

contractual commitments. Section 4 addresses the active site environmental radiological 

program. 

The SER is available in downloadable PDF and Word files. Look for this CY 2003 SER under

“Safe and Secure First” on the Jefferson Lab web page at http://www.jlab.org. 

1.2 LABORATORY MISSION 

Jefferson Lab, formerly known as CEBAF (Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility), is a

national accelerator facility managed and operated by the Southeastern Universities Research 

Association, Inc. (SURA) for the DOE. The accelerator complex portion of the Lab 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 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. Jefferson Lab’s current mission 

statement addresses quality and excellence in research, community partnership, and 

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

Jefferson Lab’s mission is to provide forefront scientific facilities, opportunities, and

leadership essential for discovering the fundamental nature of nuclear matter, to partner

with industry to apply its advanced technology, and to serve the nation and its 

communities through education and public outreach, all with uncompromising

excellence in environment, health, and safety. 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 1
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. 

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. 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 is a unique Nuclear Physics research facility in the United States and the world. 

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 across the

United States and approximately 30 countries from around the world participate in scientific

collaborations. The Lab has thus far produced more than 160 patent disclosures. Of those, 111

were submitted for the patent-application process. Forty-four patents had been issued by the 

end of 2003, including light-guide technologies, medical imagers, flaw-detection equipment, a

fire detection/prevention system, and an electronic lockout device that can be used for both

safety and security purposes.

Jefferson Lab's annual budget is approximately $100 million, most of which 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 Institute that serves

primarily as a research and development (R&D) center for SRF accelerator cavities; the Center 

for Advanced Studies of Accelerators (CASA) that supports the site accelerators and considers

future planning opportunities; 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. 

2 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

1.4 HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION 

Prior to the construction of Jefferson Lab, there were several users of this general area of 

Newport News, Virginia. The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) acquired most of the Oyster

Point area, including the land presently used by Jefferson Lab. The U.S. Air Force later acquired 

the land and installed a BOMARC missile site on a portion of the property. After closure of the 

BOMARC missile base, the DOD started disposing of the property. Some land was conveyed to

the Commonwealth of Virginia, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 

and others. In 1987, ownership of the NASA property, including 100 acres of undeveloped 

land, was conveyed to the DOE as were an additional 52 acres of land transferred from other 

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 1986. A 

SURA residence facility is located on a portion of this land, and is used by guests and visiting

experimenters, who are referred to as “users”. Adjacent to this property is the former

BOMARC missile site.

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

are considered part of the City's Jefferson Center for Research and Technology. 

1.5 FACILITIES AND 2003 ACTIVITIES 

The 163-acre DOE site is primarily divided into two main areas. One includes R&D labs,

fabrication facilities, and administrative offices including CEBAF Center. The second is a 

40-acre fenced area, termed the accelerator site, where CEBAF and the FEL accelerators and

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 3
related experiments are housed. The accelerator site is located on the south end of the DOE 

property, and access is restricted through one entrance that is staffed 24-hours per day. 

Front Entrance to CEBAF Center 

The four major facilities that have environmental protection or public health-related

implications are CEBAF, its halls (End Stations), the SRF Facility, and the FEL User Facility. A 

short description of each follows. Note that there are other activities that have potential 

environmental implications, such as the use of chemicals and oil products, but these are

discussed elsewhere in the text. 

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 area or range 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. 

Atomic Structure 

4 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

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, high-resolution magnetic 

spectrometers optimized for precision electron scattering coincidence experiments. The CEBAF

Large Acceptance Spectrometer (CLAS) that supports studies of both electron and photoninduced reactions is housed in Hall B. The third end station, 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.

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 to

better 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 to improve accelerator capabilities. 

FEL User Facility The FEL is an accelerator that was initially designed to provide 1,000 watts 

(1 kilowatt (kW)) of infrared (IR) light with picosecond pulse length for use by Jefferson Lab, 

industrial, DOD, and university partners. The accelerator has since been upgraded and 

produced first light in 2003. This upgrade will enable operation in a wider range that extends 

from 1,000 watts of ultraviolet (UV) light to 10,000 watts (10 kW) of infrared light. 

Future planning Analysis and R&D work on the proposed upgrade of CEBAF to 12 GeV

continued in 2003. This upgrade in electron beam energy levels and a new experimental hall,

Hall D, will support experiments that test the strong force that holds atomic particles together. 

1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

An environmental assessment, termed EA, performed under National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) procedures, was conducted prior to the construction of the original CEBAF project,

resulting in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). EAs in 1997 and 2002, which also 

yielded FONSIs, addressed a CEBAF upgrade, an FEL upgrade, and five building construction 

projects. Existing NEPA-related documentation is periodically reviewed. 

1.7 SITE EH&S RESOURCES 

The facility makes available a variety of EH&S resources to serve the Jefferson Lab community. 

To ensure that staff, employees, subcontractors, and users are aware of and utilize EH&S

principles, EH&S responsibilities are incorporated into each position description as described in

the Jefferson Lab Integrated Safety Management (ISM) System Plan, which was validated by 

DOE in 1999. 

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, 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 5
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 and electronically 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; 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 2003 to support the continued 

development and implementation of EP and public health-related programs at Jefferson Lab. 

SECTION 2 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM 

Jefferson Lab’s mission includes protection of the environment and public health. Controls to 

accomplish this are established through multiple means including on-site programs, 

subcontractual agreements that address permit conditions, and as prescribed in other Lab 

commitments. There are many facets to the site EP program, including an Environmental 

Management System (EMS) strategy, which is integrated into facility operations under Jefferson 

Lab’s ISM System Plan. The site’s EP program provides guidance and requirements for making 

environmentally preferable choices; identifies requirements for radiological and nonradiological monitoring; and, reviews performance through actions such as assessments and 

inspections. This section provides information on these topics and other EP and public healthrelated events and activities for CY 2003. 

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 

In 2003, key Lab staff began preparing for implementation of a formal EMS. To date, Jefferson

Lab’s EMS program had been 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 routine part of business at Jefferson 

Lab. 

Some specific items that make up an EMS, such as the identification of performance measures, 

are included in the DOE/SURA operating contract. Other items, such as the identification of 

environmental aspects (such as air and water emissions), are documented, though not in EMS 

terms, in the EH&S Manual. EMS is currently applied on-site as described below, but this

program will be modified as Jefferson Lab’s EMS is developed and implemented during the

course of 2004 and 2005.

Site EP Policy

6 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

Jefferson Lab has both a mission statement and an EH&S policy. The mission statement (see

Section 1.2) 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. The Jefferson Laboratory Policy on Safety, Health, and 

Environmental Protection is as follows. 

Jefferson Lab is committed to being a safe and healthful research laboratory. 

Jefferson Lab is committed to preserving the natural environment and conducting our 

operations without adverse impact on the surrounding community. 

These commitments include adherence to applicable laws, regulations, and standards. 

Safety, health, and environmental protection considerations are intrinsic to all work at

Jefferson Lab and are essential to Jefferson Lab’s overall scientific progress, productivity, 

and cost effectiveness. Thus, each individual must establish knowledge and control of

the hazards and consequences of all work for which he or she is responsible. In addition,

everyone has the right and responsibility to remedy or to report – without fear of reprisal

– any practice, situation, or action which endangers people or the environment. These

tenets are key ingredients of acceptable individual behavior and responsible 

management at Jefferson Lab. 

No activity is so urgent or important that our standards for safety, health, or 

environmental protection may be compromised. 

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 sufficient time for review and authorization as applicable. As 

well, construction-related subcontracts were enhanced in 2003 to address some new permit 

conditions, and relevant ongoing subcontracts continue to require and encourage 

subcontractors to take EP into account. 

Environmental Objectives and Targets

The Lab operates within contractual limits, which include staying within permit criteria. New 

performance objectives and targets were identified under a general Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) storm water discharge permit that became effective in June 2003. 

Additional objectives and targets will be identified as the site EMS program is developed. 

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. No separate EMS training has been provided, though three key 

staff were trained in early 2004. The need for additional training was also being identified at

that time. 

Identification of Environmental Aspects and Impacts

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 7
No EMS-specific analysis had been performed before 2004; however, previous NEPA and other

reviews have identified that the primary environmental aspects at Jefferson Lab are radiological 

concerns involving air, water, the public, and local biota. As well, intensive use of resources,

including electricity and water, would be considered aspects. EMS aspect identification will

occur during 2004. 

Performance Measurement

The Lab semi-annually reviews contract performance measure results for various topical areas

that include EH&S. As well, the compliance status towards meeting the new storm water 

measurable objectives was reviewed in late 2003. Additional performance measures will likely

be developed in 2004 and 2005 as the EMS is implemented.

Corrective Action and Self-Assessment Procedures

The ISM System Plan is reviewed annually and updated (most recently in November 2003) as

necessary and shared with the DOE Site Office. This review identified a few areas where ISM 

program improvements should be made and the Lab Director committed to making these

changes. It is projected that the EMS self-assessment process may be linked with the ISM 

annual review. 

Management Review Process

The 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. The

possible integration of EMS with the ISM process will be evaluated during EMS

implementation. 

2.2 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS 

2.2.1 Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention (WMin/P2) 

Waste minimization, in combination with other pollution prevention (P2) strategies, such as 

source reduction, is recognized as the most cost-effective form of EP (environmental

protection). Jefferson Lab’s WMin/P2 Awareness Plan fosters the philosophy that waste 

prevention is superior to either paying for special disposal or for remediation. The goal of

the program is to incorporate WMin/P2 into the decision-making process at every level 

throughout the organization. This is accomplished by having line managers, assisted by 

division EH&S staff, ensure that staff are knowledgeable about the benefits of WMin/P2, 

consider the waste implications of a new or modified process during the planning stage, 

and, are recognized when ways to enhance EP are brought to their manager’s attention. 

These practices benefit the environment, protect employees and public health, and reduce

site waste disposal costs.

8 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

2.2.2 EP in Product and Service Life Cycles 

A variety of products and materials are obtained and used on-site. When the materials have 

served their purpose, and are no longer needed, they will be disposed of in accordance with 

Jefferson Lab policy. As there are EH&S risks involved, Jefferson Lab has programs and

procedures in place which include EP and sustainability considerations. 

Purchasing and Planning

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) 

Jefferson Lab is committed to integrating EPP and sustainability considerations into the 

acquisition of products, services, and construction projects when feasible. This commitment 

is founded on the Lab’s commitment to P2 and sound environmental stewardship. Our EPP 

efforts go beyond the affirmative procurement (AP) requirements spelled out in Executive 

Order (EO) 13101 and the referenced list of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-

designated products. 

Jefferson Lab continues to make satisfactory progress toward meeting the DOE AP goals 

and requirements and in implementing other EPP measures. Examples that are 

accomplishing the EPP implementation goals and practices include the following: 

Affirmative Procurement (AP) 

• Continue to increase employee awareness of EPA-designated products and provide 

ready access to these recycled content/remanufactured products. 

• Office supply purchases made using Purchase Cards (PCards) have been restricted

and a full line of AP items are available using the Lab’s e-commerce system. 

• A special AP-buyer training program was developed and presented to procurement 

staff. 

• Jefferson Lab has made steady and consistent progress for the past three years in 

meeting the DOE established AP goals. 

• The Jefferson Lab Copy Services contract includes the requirement to supply 

recycled content copy and computer printer paper site-wide. This preferred source 

for all copy and printer paper ensures maximum use of recycled content paper,

while significantly reducing paper purchase costs. 

Other Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Practices 

• The Lab continues to support the Energy Star® program by purchasing and using 

energy efficient products whenever possible. 

• Facilities Management has enhanced their construction specifications to encourage 

contractors to utilize recycled content items and report quantities used for a project. 

EP Considerations in Building and System Design and Construction Activities 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 9
Though the CEBAF accelerator complex is the site’s primary energy user, energy

management principles are applied throughout the Lab. Subcontractors and staff involved 

with the design of new buildings or with changing and updating existing buildings or 

utility systems consider and implement energy and water conserving strategies. A major 

new project that will be constructed starting in 2004, the Phase 1 Addition to CEBAF Center, 

has been designed to incorporate multiple EP elements and may even meet the strict terms 

required for a future submission for LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental 

Design) certification. Examples of items that would meet LEED criteria are the use of 

energy efficient lighting and the use of an alternative source of energy, that is, to not use 

coal or oil. 

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. Lab staff and 

subcontractors have taken opportunities to minimize energy and water use, such as shutting 

off lights when not in the room, and providing prompt response to address reported water 

leaks. 

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. Available techniques are used to minimize water use, 

including a regular maintenance program. Water reductions for landscaping were again

implemented in 2003. 

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 energy projects, including installation of motion-activated lighting, begun in 2002 were

completed in 2003. The energy reduction through fiscal year (FY) 2003 was 25.7%. The Lab 

has exceeded the prescribed energy goals due in part to the installation of these measures. 

Additionally, a new central chiller utility is being installed. When this project is completed 

in FY 2004, the air conditioning for the accelerator will be more accurate, economical, easier 

to maintain, and more robust. This project minimizes the use of mechanical cooling by 

employing an outdoor air economizer cycle. 

The following projects or initiatives began and/or were completed during 2003. 

• A central chiller project at the Test Lab – the new air conditioning system noted above

that resulted in the replacement of two chillers containing ozone-depleting substances. 

• Besides continuing to monitor energy activities for many site buildings, Facilities

Management added more meters to buildings to better monitor energy usage. 

10 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

Water Conservation With an increased emphasis on water conservation, water-using 

processes and site maintenance activities continue to receive extra attention. New projects 

that need water are reviewed to minimize water use. Existing water-using activities are, or

will be, evaluated to reduce water usage as much as possible based on a life cycle cost. One 

example is that we are using process waste water to partly supply our cooling towers. A

second example is minimizing the amount of water being used for landscaping. 

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, where appropriate, 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.

The range of options for disposition of materials includes recycling, neutralizing, scrapping,

providing spent chemicals or equipment to co-workers on-site or to other DOE facilities for

reuse, 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. 

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 operations. 

2.2.3 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 site program establishes guidelines for examining chemical, oil, and radioactive

effluents generated by 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 they remain within the allowable range. Jefferson Lab also assesses the effects of 

Lab activities by measuring, monitoring, and calculating the effects of past and current Lab

operations to help minimize the effects on the environment and public health from planned 

Lab operations. 

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, a major focus of the site’s program. The 

external exposure potential is from direct penetrating and airborne radiation. The internal

exposure pathway is from H-3 (tritium) and Na-22 (a sodium isotope) in potential drinking 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 11
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 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.

General program information is provided below, as well as some of the analytical results

obtained under our site permits. Details and analytical results about the Lab’s radiological

monitoring program are provided in Section 4. 

2.2.3.1 Water Programs

Jefferson Lab reported information to the DEQ under three permits in 2003: quantities

of groundwater discharged under the Permit to Withdraw Groundwater; radiological 

and general groundwater quality parameters under Virginia Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (VPDES) Permit No. VA0089320; and, general surface water quality 

factors under VPDES Permit No. VAG253002. Results were also reported to the 

Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) under Permit No. 0117. 

Permit to Withdraw Groundwater

Jefferson Lab withdraws groundwater from under the experimental halls to prevent hall 

flooding. The only factor of concern under the groundwater withdrawal permit is the 

quantity of water pumped, with the permit allowing a maximum of 6,000,000 gallons

per month and 23,036,790 gallons annually. (Pumping is minimal in drought periods.) 

A broad range of rainfall levels results in wide withdrawal quantity variations. 

Quantities of water pumped from these tile fields are reported quarterly to the DEQ. 

The quantity of water pumped in 2003 ranged from 117,834 gallons for the month of 

September to 616,838 gallons for August, with, over the year, a monthly average of 

461,323 gallons. The maximum gallons per day for each month ranged from a low of 

11,762 gallons in October to a high of 22,777 gallons in June and July. No unusually 

large quantity was evident after the hurricane in September as the rain fall was less than 

anticipated. There were no unusual issues regarding this discharge in 2003. 

VPDES Permit No. VA0089320

This permit covers monitoring for water quality, both non-radiological and radiological, 

at fifteen groundwater monitoring wells and at the Outfall 001 (withdrawn 

groundwater) collection point. Refer to Section 4.2.2 for discussion on the radiological 

portions of the Permit. 

Monitoring wells were sampled for the general water quality parameters of pH,

conductivity, total suspended solids (TSS), and total dissolved solids (TDS) under the

Permit terms. Groundwater collected at Outfall 001 is sampled and reported quarterly 

for these same parameters. Sampling data collected in 2003 was representative of 

groundwater quality during accelerator operations and is consistent with previous

baseline measurements.

12 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

Minor variations in non-radiological information collected at the wells in 2003 may be 

due to seasonal, local ground conditions, and general earth-disturbing activities. All 

permit conditions were met in 2003.

VPDES Permit Nos. VAG253002 and VAG250018

A new general permit (VAG250018) became effective on March 2, 2003 and replaced

VAG253002. Cooling water discharges from two cooling towers were covered by this 

permit. 

The materials used for cooling water treatment were Coastline Formulas 2029 and 1909, 

and a small amount of a dispersant. There are no environmental concerns with the use 

of these chemicals. 

Quarterly sampling and reporting are performed under the effective 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. Sampling for ammonia was started in 2003. All permit conditions were met in

2003. 

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 2003 was a 

combination of the output from dehumidification equipment in the experimental halls 

and small withdrawals from the beam dump cooling systems. 

Jefferson Lab performs quarterly pH sampling at two sanitary sewer outflow streams to 

verify that pH levels are within permit limits. Besides the activated water discharge 

noted above, there are two special discharges to the sewer. One elementary

neutralization tank handles waste acid rinsewater and continuously records pH levels. 

The second outflow is from a new elementary neutralization system that was installed 

and began operations in 2003. This system handles acid rinsewater and waste acid from

cryomodule research and development, cavity production, and some general 

maintenance activities. This system records pH information electronically and has built 

in safeguards to prevent release of any acid below a set pH. 

Radiation Control Group (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 seven-day period of 

monitoring flows and samples at each of the discharge points is performed to help 

determine if changes to the permit are necessary. Self-monitoring and HRSD results

demonstrated that Jefferson Lab remained within the limits of the HRSD-issued permit

in 2003. And, as there were no program or administrative violations in 2003, Jefferson

Lab was given a Gold Award for this notable achievement. 

2.2.4 Other Water Related Programs 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 13
Storm Water Management

Storm water runoff plays a part in 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 our local Chesapeake Bay. 

Two new permits became effective in 2003. The first is General Permit VAR040079 that

covers storm water discharges from small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4). 

The permit is referred to as the MS4 Permit. The second is VAR103277 that authorizes 

Jefferson Lab to discharge storm water from areas disturbed by construction activities. 

Permit VAR040079 requires that the Lab maintain a storm water management program, 

which is currently addressed under the Lab’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. 

This program addresses storm water pollution prevention, control, and countermeasure 

issues. The permit also requires that the Lab implement appropriate best management 

practices (BMP) and related measurable goals to address the minimum control measures 

(MCM) identified in the permit. One example of an MS4 permit goal that addressed the

Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination MCM is the Lab commitment to complete an 

accurate storm drain system map within the first year of the permit, which was 

accomplished. 

The second permit, VAR103277, had as its main requirement that the Lab have in place a

documented Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3) meeting all permit terms and

conditions. An SWP3 was developed and put in place to enable coverage for two 

construction projects that would be disturbing at least one acre of land. The SWP3 includes

commitments such as if ground disturbance does take place, Jefferson Lab will manage

storm water runoff by implementing erosion and sediment control best management

practices. Facilities Management has addressed these permit requirements by strengthening 

subcontract specifications. 

Water Related Issues not Related to a Permit

The Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) applies to the storage and

use of herbicides and pesticides. 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 State-administered certification program, accomplished by certified

subcontractors who comply with FIFRA through Virginia’s program. 

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 treated included 

kitchens, laboratories, and other areas throughout the site. 

In order to minimize the chances of herbicides and pesticides washing into local storm 

water channels, Jefferson Lab requires that there be no outdoor application of these

compounds when rain is expected. 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 

14 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

through an authorized disposal facility. Small containers of household pesticides are stored 

on-site and applied per manufacturer’s recommendations. 

2.2.5 Conventional Air Emissions

The Hampton Roads area of southeastern Virginia returned to the status of non-attainment 

for the ozone ambient air quality standards in 2003, from its previous rating as a Clean Air 

Act (CAA) maintenance area. The Hampton Roads area did, however, remain 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. 

There are no applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards emission sources present 

on the site.

Accelerator operations 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 gas-fired boilers

are the primary air pollutant sources at Jefferson Lab. Annual air emissions reports are 

provided to the DEQ upon request. 

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 2003. 

2.3 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 Self-Assessment

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 2003, the Overlay Performance Evaluation Report yielded a 

rating of “Outstanding” in the EH&S category. 

External Inspections

There was one external environmental inspection during 2003. HRSD staff performed the 

annual Jefferson Lab site inspection on February 12th. 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 2002 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. 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 15
There were two other major audits in 2003 - one conducted by the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) and another by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

The purpose of these audits was to help establish the cost of transitioning DOE Office of Science 

laboratories to external regulation by these two agencies. 

- A twelve person OSHA team performed a site inspection during the week of 

August 12, 2003. The following principal hazards covered by OSHA were reviewed:

mechanical, electrical, chemical, thermal, and radiation.

- A four person NRC team reviewed implementation of the Lab’s radiological program

from July 28 through July 31.

- The two reviews summarized that there were no factors present that would prevent the 

transition of the Lab to external regulation.

Line Self-Assessments

Line managers perform annual line self-assessments (LSAs) of their organizational elements.

The LSAs are broad in scope, covering the accomplishment of the elements’ goals, including 

EH&S. The Self-Assessment/Quality Assurance (SA/QA) Group performs independent 

assessments of four or more of the Lab’s organizational units each year, focusing on EH&S.

Deficiencies identified through these independent assessments are tracked by SA/QA until the

corrective actions are completed. 

2.4 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 2003 were as follows. 

• Thirteen Categorical Exclusions (CXs) pertaining to regular activities, including the

“Management of Radioactive Waste at TJNAF”, were reviewed and renewed. 

• The internal approval process for very small-scale construction projects and other minor 

activities that are covered under site Environmental Assessments (EAs) and CXs

continued. 

2.5 OTHER SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES IN 2003 

2.5.1 Issues and Actions 

Awards Received

Jefferson Lab received the HRSD “Gold Award for Pretreatment Excellence” for CY 2003. 

The Lab has been the recipient of six Gold Awards and two Silver Awards since the

program was initiated in 1994. 

16 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

Activities

• In January 2003, redesigned winter weather procedures were successfully used 

during the significant snowfall event. 

• In April 2003, Jefferson Lab hosted an Open House, which is one of the Lab’s 

primary public outreach activities, and attracted about 4000 visitors. Jefferson Lab 

Security partnered very successfully with the local police and Department of

Transportation experts. 

• In July, a table-top exercise and orientation was conducted involving several new 

people in key roles who needed familiarization with the Director’s Command Staff 

process. 

• In September, Hurricane Isabel caused a complete Lab shutdown. Effective planning 

and early preparation were implemented. Thanks to excellent information sharing 

throughout the site, preparations were very effective in keeping Jefferson Lab 

property damage to a minimum. 

Environmentally Harmful Material Spills

There were three minor petroleum product releases - a gasoline leak from an employee’s car 

and two oil releases in a storage yard. There were also three small propylene glycol/water 

spills from site cooling systems, one due to a line freezing. The instances were minor and

quickly cleaned up and corrected by line management and EH&S staff. 

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan

All oil workers received SPCC training in 2003 through a new online course that focused on

prevention, recent spills, and the implications of new regulatory requirements. 

2.5.2 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, office product recycling centers 

continued to be established and operated. Products collected are: aluminum cans, small 

batteries, cardboard, CDs/diskettes, copier/fax/inkjet/laser cartridges, greeting cards, 

paper wastes, packing peanuts, telephone books, transparencies, Tyvek® envelopes, and

plastic bottles. The small amount of money received from recycling the laser/inkjet 

cartridges and aluminum cans is 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. The improved awareness resulted in a 37% increase in toner cartridge 

recycling from FY02 to FY03. 

Communication channels, such as the Lab’s On-Target newsletter and EarthWise web page, 

and personal interactions by EH&S Reporting and local recycling center coordinators 

continued to inform people about recycling activities. 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 17
The quantities or ranges of materials recycled in FY 2003, and, for comparison, the two largest

recycling streams for FY 2002, as reported to the DOE, are shown in Exhibit 2-1. 

2.5.3 Hazardous and Special Wastestreams 

Improvements 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. 

EXHIBIT 2-1 

QUANTITIES OF ITEMS RECYCLED OR REUSED IN FISCAL YEAR 2003

Description Quantity: FY 2003 tons (kilograms)*

Paper Products (office paper & cardboard) 43.2 (39,200) [compared to 39.9 tons in FY02]

Scrap Metal (reclaimed through GSA#) 69.6 (63,200) [compared to 85.1 tons in FY02]

Circuit Boards and Electronics 14.9 (13,500) 

Aluminum cans, plastic bottles, used oil and coolant, 

large car-type batteries, fluorescent lamps, toner 

cartridges, transparencies, small batteries, and

new/used all occasion cards 

between 10 lb. and 1 ton 

Computer Disks 10 lb or less 

*Quantities for FY02 are shown for the two largest recycling streams. 

#GSA – General Services Administration

SECTION 3 

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AT JEFFERSON LAB 

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, DEQ, and the HRSD. Jefferson 

Lab complies with all applicable laws, regulations, and permits. 

3.1 AIR QUALITY 

18 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

The Clean Air Act and its 1990 Amendments (CAAA) regulate the air emissions of DOE’s

processes and facilities. Though Jefferson Lab has no processes, such as open burning or

furnaces, that require air permitting, air emission reports are provided to the DEQ upon 

request. 

Compliance with all applicable clean air standards was maintained in 2003. 

3.1.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

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 2003, but was recently 

reclassified as non-attainment for ozone. Examples of how Jefferson Lab complies with

NAAQS follow. 

• Vehicles are leased through the General Services Administration (GSA) so 

maintenance is performed offsite by GSA-approved facilities.

• Fuel dispensing on-site is limited to one diesel fuel tank for forklifts. 

• Subcontractors operating machinery on-site may have temporary diesel fuel storage

tanks that have appropriate fittings to minimize air emissions. 

3.1.2 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) 

NESHAPs govern air emissions that contain hazardous components, such as radionuclides

and asbestos. 

3.1.2.1 Radionuclide Emissions 

The EPA administers the radionuclide program in Virginia. 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 requirements. (Refer to Section 4 for 

discussion of direct radiation, the primary form of radiation generated on-site.) 

To address NESHAPs requirements, Jefferson Lab uses sampling results and 

calculations to demonstrate that Lab operations remain below the EPA-defined 

10 millirem (mrem)/yr potential effective dose equivalent to any member of the public.

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. 

Based on common DOE practice, Jefferson Lab, although under the reporting threshold, 

voluntarily furnishes an annual report to the EPA. 

3.1.2.2 Asbestos Removal 

The NESHAP standard requires trained and licensed individuals conducting asbestosrelated activities to follow approved procedures and to adopt specific work practices to 

prevent release of asbestos to the air. There were no asbestos-related activities in 2003. 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 19
3.1.3 Non-radiological Emissions 

Jefferson Lab complies with Virginia regulations regarding sources of potential air 

pollution. Some notes of interest regarding air pollution follow.

• The Lab’s air emissions remained below reporting thresholds. 

• The Lab typically uses seven natural gas-fired boilers and fin-tube convectors for 

building heating. Boiler information, including fuel consumption data, is provided

to the DEQ.

• The Lab minimizes releases of potentially polluted air by using scrubbers and by

implementing preventive maintenance. The Lab uses an air scrubber for the small 

emissions from a new electropolish cabinet. 

• The last DEQ inspection occurred in September 2002 with no concerns identified. 

3.1.4 Stratospheric Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODSs) 

To support the CAAA and EO 13148, Greening the Government through Leadership in 

Environmental Management objectives, Jefferson Lab strives to minimize the use of ODS by 

using safe, cost-effective, environmentally preferable alternatives. ODS-containing items

used at Jefferson Lab include refrigerants, degreasers, cleaners, and spray can propellants.

Phase out of these substances will have a moderate impact on the site. 

Some accomplishments in reducing ODS items on-site include: 

• Trained and licensed subcontractors and Facilities Management staff perform all 

work involving plant ODS-containing refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. 

• Jefferson Lab has one ODS recovery machine on-site. 

• Two of the three remaining chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-based chillers on-site were

replaced with high efficiency non-CFC units in 2003. The one remaining unit 

continues to be effectively maintained by mechanical staff to ensure optimal 

performance and minimal CFC losses. 

• Vehicle air conditioning units are serviced offsite by GSA-approved shops. 

3.2 WATER QUALITY 

Both groundwater and surface water quality protection are high priorities at Jefferson Lab. 

Groundwater quality is a focus area primarily due to operating the underground CEBAF 

accelerator. Preventing surface water pollution is another focus area during both general site 

usage and civil construction actions.

Standards used to provide protection of the water quality are applicable laws, such as the Clean 

Water Act (CWA) and Virginia regulations. Permits cover groundwater monitoring, cooling

water discharges, storm water pollution prevention (for both industrial and construction 

concerns), groundwater withdrawals, and discharges to the sanitary sewer. (Refer to

20 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

Exhibit 3-1 on the next page for a list of all site permits.) The Lab also has an SPCC Plan that

presents the site oil management program. 

Some of the radiological monitoring results under these programs are provided in Section 4.2. 

There were no water-related compliance issues in 2003. 

3.2.1 VPDES Permits 

Facilities in Virginia that directly discharge to waters of the United States must obtain a

VPDES Permit. This program addresses the requirements of the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System. The Virginia program is designed to protect surface waters

by limiting primarily non-radiological releases of effluents into streams, lakes, and other 

waters, including wetlands. 

Groundwater Monitoring - VPDES Permit No. VA0089320

The Permit covers the quality of groundwater flowing across the site, including the

groundwater that is discharged in a dewatering operation. 

Because of the potential for activation of groundwater from accelerator operations, 

“baseline” water quality values for certain parameters have been obtained. This Permit

includes the Lab’s long-term groundwater quality limits. The Permit also includes a well

monitoring program that enables the comparison of current and “baseline” values to verify 

that Jefferson Lab site activities are not degrading the quality of either on-site or offsite

groundwater. 

Throughout 2003, groundwater sampling to monitor designated wells for all permit-defined

parameters was performed under a subcontract with an accredited laboratory. One special

notice was provided to the DEQ in May 2003 regarding an unexpected construction

dewatering activity on the accelerator site. The DEQ acknowledged the notification.

EXHIBIT 3-1 

JEFFERSON LAB PERMITS 

Discussed 

in Section

Permit 

Number Description Permit Dates

3.2.1 VA0089320

VPDES Permit – Specifies allowable groundwater and surface water 

quality on-site during accelerator operations. Assures groundwater 

unaffected at and beyond site boundary. 

7/16/2001 -

7/16/2006 

3.2.1 VAG250018 VPDES - General Permit that authorizes cooling water discharges within 

identified discharge limitations. 

3/2/2003 - 

3/1/2008 

3.2.1 VAR040079 VPDES – General Permit that authorizes storm water discharges from

small municipal separate storm sewer systems 

12/9/2002 - 

12/9/2007 

3.2.1 VAR103277 VPDES – General Permit that authorizes storm water discharges from

construction activities 

6/30/1999 - 

6/30/2004 

3.2.2 GW0030800 Permit to Withdraw Groundwater - Authorizes maximum quantities of 

water to be withdrawn by dewatering of area under the experimental 

11/1/1994 - 

10/30/2004 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 21
halls 

3.2.2 HRSD No. 

0117 

Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit - Limits wastes to be discharged 

to sewerage. 

3/1/2002 - 

3/1/2007 

None 4727-45-01 South Carolina Radioactive Waste Transport Permit - authorization to

transport low level radioactive waste (LLW) within the State 

Effective to

12/31/2003 

Cooling Water Discharges - General Permit No. VAG250018

This Permit, which contains water quality limits, covers the surface discharges from the

cooling tower adjacent to the Central Helium Liquifier. The discharge from a small tower 

adjacent to the Test Lab that flowed to surface water in early 2003 was changed to flow to 

the sanitary sewer in June 2003. Modifications to remove this discharge stream from the 

permit are underway. 

Sampling is performed by an accredited laboratory. The special construction dewatering 

activity noted above was also reported to the DEQ under this Permit. 

Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) – VPDES Permit No. VAR040079

This new Permit, which became effective June 13, 2003, authorizes operators of small 

municipal separate storm sewer systems to discharge storm water to surface waters within 

Virginia. 

The Permit’s intent is to keep surface waters free of sediment and other pollution. To meet 

this intent, Jefferson Lab has identified a number of BMPs and measurable goals. One of

these BMPs is to provide storm water pollution prevention information to all Jefferson Lab 

staff, subcontractors, and vendors. 

General Permit for Storm Water Discharges of Storm Water from Construction Activities 

VPDES Permit No. VAR103277

This new Permit became effective December 22, 2003. It authorizes storm water to be 

discharged from construction sites when the terms of the permit, including the preparation

and implementation of a project SWP3, are met.

Jefferson Lab had an SWP3 in place in early 2004, before the start of the first land disturbing 

project that met the permit criteria of affecting greater than one acre of land. The Lab’s

Facilities Management Department oversees the subject civil construction projects and 

ensures that subcontractors adhere to the permit and other standards that are called out in 

the contract specifications. 

3.2.2 Other Water Program Standards 

Permit to Withdraw Groundwater No. GW0030800

To maintain water table levels to prevent the partially buried experimental halls from

flooding, water table control via pumping will be necessary for the life of the facility. To

accomplish this, the water is collected, pumped, and discharged to the surface. This Permit

authorizes the quantity of groundwater that can be withdrawn. 

22 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

All withdrawal quantities, both monthly and annually, were well within permit 

requirements. Note that the total quantity of water withdrawn in 2003 was 5.5 million

gallons, well below the 23 million gallon annual limit. The Lab voluntarily reports its

annual water usage to assist the DEQ in determining total regional water usage. The

affected groundwater is sampled for water quality parameters under Permit No. 0089320. 

Industrial Wastewater Discharge - Permit No. 0117

Discharges to the HRSD are subject to the Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit and its 

associated regulations. Very limited quantities of activated water are also authorized for 

release under this Permit. 

Sampling for pH and radionuclides is performed according to the terms of the permit.

Subcontractors and/or RadCon staff perform the sampling at prescribed sampling points. 

HRSD independently performs periodic sampling for metals and other water quality

indicators at some of the sampling points to validate Jefferson Lab compliance with permit 

and regulatory requirements. 

HRSD performed its annual inspection on February 12, 2003, with no concerns found. All 

permit and regulatory criteria were met in 2003, resulting in receipt of the HRSD Gold

Award mentioned earlier. 

SPCC Plan

The Jefferson Lab SPCC Plan is reviewed annually and was last updated in 2001. This Plan

addresses all storage tanks and oil-containing equipment, such as transformers, on-site. The 

Lab maintains a used oil collection area to assist in managing the resulting used oil. See

Section 3.5.5 for more information on this plan. 

3.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT 

Waste streams at the Lab include both Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

(RCRA) (hazardous and non-hazardous solid) and non-RCRA (low-level radioactive and 

medical) wastes. Site programs address applicable Federal and Virginia regulatory

requirements. The Lab endeavored to reduce its waste generation and made progress in some 

areas. Lab staff encourage the reuse or recycling of previously used or discarded materials 

wherever possible. Waste generation and recycling quantities are tracked and reported 

annually to the DOE. 

There have been no waste management activities associated with spills or cleanup actions under 

other Federal programs such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). There were no waste-related compliance issues in 2003. 

3.3.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 23
RCRA promotes the protection of health and the environment and the conservation of 

valuable material and energy resources. RCRA provides the EPA authority to regulate solid 

waste, from minimization and recovery to collection and disposal. 

RCRA wastes include our hazardous and non-hazardous special waste streams and waste 

that is recycled or sent to a landfill. The last RCRA-related inspection, by the DEQ, was on 

September 5, 2002. 

Refer to Exhibit 3-2 for the volumes of RCRA wastes generated by Jefferson Lab in 2003.

The wastes are managed for disposal by the appropriate staff in the Facilities Management 

Department and the Accelerator Division’s EH&S Department. The increase in hazardous 

waste was due to additional activity to support the recent FEL upgrade, the SNS project,

and the new R&D electropolish cabinet. This wastestream will be reduced significantly as 

the new neutralization system has begun processing used acid streams. There is no known 

explanation for the reduction in dumpster/landfill waste, but might be due to normal 

fluctuations and improved waste minimization and recycling practices. 

EXHIBIT 3-2 

RCRA WASTE GENERATION QUANTITIES (BY FISCAL YEAR) 

Waste Type FY 2003 (tons) FY 2002 (tons)

Hazardous waste 7.8 5.6 

Dumpster/landfill waste 264.5 337.8

Here is some general information about our site RCRA program. 

• The Lab remained a Small Quantity Generator (SQG) of hazardous waste. During 

the 2002 inspection, as hazardous waste generation was increasing, the DEQ 

approved the possibility of the Lab having two or three ‘episodic’ incidents of 

exceeding the SQG monthly limits, which never occurred. 

• A new elementary acid neutralization system, that has significantly reduced the 

Lab’s generation of hazardous waste, was put into use in August. The hazardous 

waste generation quantity for FY 2003 would have been higher if not for this new

system. 

• Jefferson Lab neither transports hazardous wastes nor operates any regulated 

treatment or disposal units. All wastes are disposed of through licensed waste

handling facilities. 

• The hazardous waste generated in the largest volumes was a waste acid mixture 

used for niobium cavity processing and waste solvents from cleaning operations. 

• Non-hazardous waste streams consisted of non-regulated chemical wastes, nonrecyclable office and production materials, and debris resulting from construction

activity. 

• Universal waste items, such as batteries and fluorescent lamps, are recycled offsite. 

24 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

3.3.2 Other Wastes 

Other wastes generated at the Lab, those not covered under RCRA, include radioactive,

medical, and toxic wastes. There were no compliance issues for any of these programs in 

2003. 

These “other wastes” are managed for disposal by the appropriate RadCon, Facilities

Management, and Medical Services staff. Refer to Exhibit 3-3 for the volumes of these

wastes generated by Jefferson Lab. 

EXHIBIT 3-3 

NON-RCRA WASTE GENERATION QUANTITIES (BY FISCAL YEAR) 

Waste Type FY 2003 FY 2002

Low Level Waste (solid) 7.2 m3 10.92 m3

Low Level Waste (liquid) 0.10 m

3 0.01 m3

Mixed Low Level Waste None None 

Medical Waste Minimal Minimal 

Insecticides, Fungicides and

Rodenticides 

None None

m3 – cubic meters 

Here are a few items about this part of our site waste management program. 

• Radioactive Waste 

o The Lab generates only low-level radioactive wastes (LLW); thus, there is no 

source of special nuclear materials. 

• Other Waste and Recycling Items 

o Only a small amount of medical waste is disposed of under the site program. 

o There has been no mixed (a mixture of hazardous and radioactive) waste 

generated to date. 

o Other non-hazardous wastes are disposed of in landfills, reused on-site, recycled,

or used for other purposes offsite. 

o Items recycled offsite include scrap metal, transparencies, and toner cartridges. 

o The practice of reusing or recycling construction debris is maximized to the 

extent possible. 

o Domestic wastewater discharges include some cooling tower and neutralization

system effluents. 

o State-certified subcontractors manage any FIFRA wastes offsite. 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 25
3.4 RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION 

This site program is managed by RadCon. Programs responsive to on-site and offsite radiation 

protection requirements have been instituted. Jefferson Lab shipped radioactive waste for 

disposal in July 2001 and July 2002.

The following are some 2003 items of interest. 

• Site programs involving offsite radiation protection requirements, including storage of

activated materials, surface and groundwater protection, and emergency response are 

addressed in the Jefferson Lab EH&S Manual or RadCon procedures. 

• Jefferson Lab staff participated in DOE-sponsored Occupational Radiation Protection

regulatory activities that included attendance at several workshops and participation in 

an Oak Ridge Operations Office Price-Anderson Amendments Act conference call.

(Occupational Radiation Protection regulations can be found in 10 CFR 835.) 

• The Lab remained well within EPA annual dose limits for radionuclide emissions. 

• An update of the Jefferson Lab’s Radiological Control Manual was initiated. 

3.5 COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS 

3.5.1 Clean Air Act 

The estimated dose equivalent from airborne releases in conjunction with the Lab’s 

accelerator operations during 2003 was 0.013 mrem. The collective effective dose equivalent

for CY 2003 was estimated to be 0.025 person-mrem. The annual emission report for 

CY 2003 is to be submitted to the EPA by the end of June 2004.

3.5.2 Clean Water Act 

The total radioactivity discharged to the sanitary sewer in 2003 was 1.0 Curie (Ci) of tritium

(or about 20% of the total allowed under the site industrial wastewater discharge permit), 

and 0.00003 Ci of other gamma-emitting radionuclides (or 0.003% of the total allowed under 

the same permit). 

3.5.3 RCRA 

The last DEQ inspection of the hazardous waste program occurred in September 2002, with 

no deficiencies identified. Refer to section 3.3.1 for more information on Jefferson Lab’s

RCRA program. 

3.5.4 Emergency Planning & Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) 

Under EPCRA, which is aligned with the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

(SARA), Jefferson Lab is responsible for planning and responding to chemical emergencies

as well as completing applicable reporting requirements. Jefferson Lab files an annual 

SARA Tier II report (an accounting of hazardous substances and extremely hazardous 

26 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

substances (EHSs) used or stored on-site in quantities greater than a given threshold) with

three emergency planning groups (EPGs). The EPGs are the EPA, the State DEQ, and a local 

planning group. The items reported for 2003 were nitric, hydrofluoric, and sulfuric acids, 

bromine, argon, helium, nitrogen, lead, and hydraulic oil. The Lab has not used any 

chemicals that are either toxic or on the persistent, bioaccumulative, or toxic (PBT) list in

quantities that exceed Toxic Release Inventory reporting thresholds. 

Other EPCRA-related standards that apply to Jefferson Lab include those requiring 

notification to the EPGs of the presence of an EHS that exceeds the regulatory threshold

amount, and that the Lab must have an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) available for 

every chemical on-site. 

Jefferson Lab has had no releases to date that meet the reporting criteria to the EPGs. 

Chemical Inventory 

3.5.5 Oil Spill Prevention 

Oil inventory at Jefferson Lab mainly consists of numerous oil-filled electrical transformers 

ranging in volume from 2 gallons to about 4,800 gallons. None of these units meet the 

definition of an aboveground storage tank. The total volume of oil on-site is estimated to be

about 34,000 gallons, with about 6,000 gallons under the control of Dominion Virginia 

Power. 

Potential oil spill sources are located such that surface water discharge spillways and the

sluice gates located at the site boundary can be effectively used to prevent any oil spills from

leaving the site. Most DOE transformers utilize secondary containment, while the

Dominion Virginia Power transformers have none. 

Both Jefferson Lab and Dominion Virginia Power maintain an SPCC Plan for all oilcontaining items. The Jefferson Lab Plan is periodically reviewed and updated as required. 

There were two minor SPCC-related spills in 2003, both of which were promptly contained 

and cleaned up. Neither of these releases had an impact on the environment or public 

health. 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 27
3.5.6 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

TSCA requirements involve the regulation of asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs). There was no TSCA activity at Jefferson Lab in 2003.

3.5.7 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

In 2003, the storage and use of pesticides and herbicides at Jefferson Lab was handled in 

accordance with FIFRA guidelines. 

3.5.8 National Environmental Policy Act 

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 met these requirements 

by continuing to implement a program of reviewing construction activities for compliance.

There was one project CX involving some work in the vicinity of CEBAF Center that was 

approved in September. The 13 ongoing DOE-approved CX actions were reviewed for 

continued applicability in 2003. 

All EA’s conducted thus far have resulted in a FONSI. There were no NEPA compliance 

issues identified by DOE in 2003 for the Lab. 

3.5.9 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA) 

The SDWA ensures that drinking water is safe for public consumption. These regulations 

set maximum contaminant levels on bacteriological, chemical, physical, and radiological 

contaminants for public water systems. Jefferson Lab receives its drinking water through

three public water supply lines provided by Newport News Waterworks. Jefferson Lab has 

no monitoring responsibilities under this Act. 

An annual backflow prevention device test was performed on June 19, 2003, as required by 

the City of Newport News and the DEQ. No compliance issues regarding backflow

prevention have ever been identified. 

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 SDWA in 2003. 

3.5.10 Endangered Species Act of 1973 

This Act protects endangered wildlife, fish, plants, and their ecosystems. Studies have 

found no listed or concern species or potential terrestrial or aquatic habitats. No compliance 

issues were identified in 2003. 

3.5.11 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 

This Act prohibits unauthorized taking, possessing, importing, or other listed actions, of any

migratory bird or their eggs. Because the site lies within a disturbed industrial and

commercial area, only a small number of these species is expected to be found. There were

no compliance issues identified in CY 2003. 

28 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

3.5.12 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

The NHPA protects archeological and historical resources. Compliance with this Act has 

been accomplished through the NEPA review process. Area surveys in 1987 and 

subsequent reviews by the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Department of Historic Resources

have uncovered no trace of historic or archaeological resources. No compliance issues were

identified in 2003. 

3.5.13 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 

The CZMA establishes the policy “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 DOE and Jefferson Lab are addressing CZMA requirements by

implementing programs and action items identified in NEPA documents. In 2003, two new

storm water permits were obtained by the Lab addressing the non-point source pollution

control elements of the CZMA. Other storm water management issues, including 

improving the Lab’s erosion and sediment control practices, were also addressed by 

Jefferson Lab. 

3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP 

There were numerous activities conducted throughout the Lab in 2003 that furthered efforts to

be an environmental steward, especially in WMin/P2. 

Some actions were related to EO requirements, others were staff-initiated, and some a 

combination of the two. First, information on how the Lab addresses the applicable EOs is

presented. Later, some general ways that the Lab is implementing WMin/P2 are presented.

3.6.1 Applicable Executive Orders 

3.6.1.1 EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands 

EO 11990 ensures that adverse impacts to wetlands from construction activities are

avoided or responsibly mitigated. Evaluation of Jefferson Lab activities involving

potential wetlands is accomplished through the NEPA review process. There were no 

concerns involving wetlands in 2003.

3.6.1.2 EO 11998 Floodplain Management

EO 11988 relates to the occupancy and modification of floodplains. There is localized 

flooding during significant rain events, but no part of the site is within the 100-year

floodplain. There were no compliance issues in 2003. 

3.6.1.3 EO 13101 Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling and 

Federal Acquisition 

EO 13101 encourages agencies to implement AP by promoting the purchase of products 

made with recycled materials. The purchase of these materials helps “close-the-loop” in

the recycling process. 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 29
To comply with this EO, the DOE has set goals and performance standards, including a

DOE complex-wide FY 2005 procurement target of 100% for purchasing recycled content 

EPA-listed products. Jefferson Lab self-defined a goal of 95% by FY 2005. The Lab is

making progress, as its compliance level rose to 93.3% for FY 2003. The Business

Services Department’s procurement staff has made great progress in meeting the intent

of the EO since tracking began in 1995. 

3.6.1.4 EO 13123 Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management

This initiative focuses on energy efficiency (E2) as a means of P2. The DOE seeks a longterm energy use reduction of 15% for buildings and industrial facilities, with Jefferson 

Lab documenting a 25.76% reduction in all standard (non-industrial) buildings from the 

1995 baseline year through FY 2003. This improvement was primarily due to the

installation of new heating, cooling, and lighting systems in the VARC and in the Lab’s

primary administration building, CEBAF Center. The site’s industrial buildings and the 

CEBAF Center’s Computer Center are considered to be exempt from reporting at this 

time. 

To better our E2 implementation, Facilities Management continues to analyze buildings 

and their support systems to look for ways to reduce energy consumption in the long 

term. Facilities Management, which is also responsible for new building construction, is 

also taking E2 into account during the design process. Refer to section 2.2.2 for other 

ways in which the Lab has worked to become more energy efficient.

3.6.1.5 EO 13148 Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental 

Management 

This EO identifies a number of actions for Federal Agencies to implement. These goals 

include the need to develop an EMS, to reduce the use of ODS and toxic chemicals, and

to report under EPCRA. Jefferson Lab’s progress in meeting these EO requirements 

follows. 

Environmental Management System

At the end of 2003, Jefferson Lab had committed to developing and implementing a site 

EMS by December 2005. The plan is to develop the EMS as an integral part of the Lab’s 

ISM System Plan. (See 3.6.2) 

To help track how the various DOE institutions were progressing toward the December 

2005 goal, a ‘DOE scorecard’ that shows key EMS milestones and proposed

accomplishment dates was issued. At the end of 2003, Jefferson Lab had successfully 

accomplished one of the three FY 2003 milestones. An additional milestone was 

accomplished in early 2004, and the Lab made a commitment to complete all FY 2003

and two of the FY 2004 milestones by December 31, 2004. 

Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Landscaping Practices

Jefferson Lab implements this requirement in conjunction with the objectives identified

in the new MS4 permit regarding preventing the pollution of storm water. 

30 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

To accomplish these beneficial landscaping practices on the facility grounds, Jefferson 

Lab uses qualified subcontractors. The Lab’s intent is to maintain grass cover in open 

areas, to the extent practicable, to prevent runoff. Fertilizers and herbicides are applied 

locally on an as needed basis and not when rain is imminent in order to prevent surface 

water contamination. 

For 2003, Jefferson Lab only used about two-thirds of the water that we would normally 

use. The Lab continued the use of mulch, a standard recycled content product, to reduce

the amount of water needed at managed beds. In 2003, the subcontractor was directed 

to use more environmentally preferable products, such as compost, where suitable. 

ODS Usage Reduction

The compliance status of this EO requirement is discussed in Section 3.1.4. 

EPCRA Reporting and Toxic Chemical Usage Reduction

This EO requirement covers emergency planning, including reporting certain chemical

inventory information, toxic chemical usage, and any releases to the environment.

Compliance status is included in Section 3.5.4.

As Jefferson Lab uses only minimal to small amounts of a few toxic chemicals, there 

were no major toxic chemical reduction initiatives pursued in 2003. The use of cyanide 

was prohibited from full use in 2002. 

3.6.2 Other Environmental Stewardship (including P2) Topics 

Integrated Safety Management 

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 routine part of business at Jefferson Lab. EMS core

elements and principles, as identified under EO 13148, will be developed and meshed with 

the ISM System Plan. To aid ISM implementation, a new on-line Accelerator Division EH&S

Tracking system was offered for use throughout the Lab. 

A few other ISM related items that are important to note for 2003 follow. 

• With pending external worker safety regulation possibilities, two site inspections, 

one by the NRC (July 28 through August 1) and the other by Federal OSHA 

(August 11 through 15) were conducted to evaluate Jefferson Lab cost impacts if

DOE external safety regulation legislation was approved.

• A biennial Emergency Management Peer Review was conducted at Jefferson Lab on

August 6 and 7. There were no compliance issues noted during this peer review. 

2003 P2 Activities

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 31
Jefferson Lab addressed EO 13148 and general P2 goals by minimizing chemical use; reusing 

and recycling various items from chemicals to cardboard boxes (to the extent practical); and,

by disposing of wastes in the most environmentally safe manner.

Listed below are some activities identified in 2003 that are worth noting. 

• Due to the increased need for cryomodules for CEBAF, the FEL, and especially SNS,

more cryomodule fabrication resulted in increased hazardous waste generation. 

However, to offset this projected increase, the Institute for SRF Science and 

Technology staff selected and installed a long-term waste minimization tool, an

elementary neutralization system that processes waste acid for normal sanitary

sewer disposal. 

• Improvement toward meeting the Lab’s waste minimization goal was a collaborative 

effort among Lab staff that has resulted in expanding our number of recycling

centers. At the end of 2003, there were a total of 19 recycling centers, 10 of which 

collect all types of office wastes and 9 that collect a smaller range of items. 

• EH&S Reporting staff continue to inform and encourage staff about “earth-friendly” 

activities at work and at home though the EarthWise web page at

www.jlab.org.intralab/earthwise/.

• The Business Services Department is maintaining a web page specific to the AP 

program to address staff concerns. Refer to www.jlab.org/div_dept/

admin/business/green/overview.html.

Secretarial P2 and E2 Goals and Other DOE Commitments

Jefferson Lab is committed to meeting site targets to address ten of the DOE-identified P2

and E2 goals, but additional funding will be needed to meet some targets. The Lab has 

made progress in meeting some of these goals, such as improving recycling performance, 

which will be refined with the institution of an EMS in the next two years. 

Other DOE commitments included those that address the management of radioactive waste

and the new Environmental Protection Program guidance that provides direction for EMS 

implementation. There are also four contractual performance measures that address 

environmental issues. 

Auditing for Environmental Compliance

Audits to review the Lab’s compliance with environmental standards are performed by 

program area by regulatory agencies or by the DOE. Except for one HRSD inspection that

was noted in 3.2.2 and four internal assessments that took into account environmental

protection factors, there were no other environmental compliance audits in 2003. 

32 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

SECTION 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM 

Equipment that generates radiation, and a variety of radioactive materials, are used in research 

activities at Jefferson Lab. The impacts of operating this equipment and of working with and 

around these materials have been taken into account in Lab procedures. Any potential impacts 

have been significantly reduced by applying standard control measures and by implementing 

ALARA, or “as low as reasonably achievable”, principles. The resultant potential effective dose 

equivalents to members of the public from various pathways, such as inhalation, ingestion, and 

skin absorption, are evaluated by RadCon to demonstrate compliance with EPA and DOE

regulatory limits. 

Jefferson Lab protects the environment and the public from exposure to radiation by 

implementing a number of both physical and administrative controls. The radiological 

monitoring program is the primary means used at Jefferson Lab to verify accomplishment of

this protection objective. Exposure reduction 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 onsite radiation workers and for members of the general public, are below permissible levels and

are ALARA. The program also assures that Lab support activities and accelerator testing and

operations, as described within the approved operational safety envelope, will result in minimal

impacts to the environment and have minimal to no effect on public health. 

4.1 RADIATION EXPOSURE PATHWAYS 

Accelerator operations produce three different pathways of radiation exposure that can impact

the general public: direct or prompt radiation; radiation from induced airborne radioactivity; 

and, radiation from induced waterborne radioactivity. Jefferson Lab performed extensive 

environmental monitoring in 2003 to measure these three forms of accelerator-produced 

radiation. Pathways to the general public are modeled and monitored when appropriate or as

required 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 

• experience at other nuclear and high-energy physics laboratories 

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. 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 33
4.1.1 DIRECT RADIATION AND ITS EFFECTS 

Direct or prompt radiation results from the interaction of the accelerator beam with matter.

This radiation is produced within the beam enclosure and stops when the accelerator is

turned off. 

Almost all direct radiation is stopped by shielding – any exposure to this radiation is at a 

maximum on-site and decreases with distance. During 2003, Jefferson Lab continued 

regular accelerator operations in support of 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 automatically records the radiation levels 

for subsequent examination. When appropriate, Jefferson Lab employees, subcontractors, 

and visitors wear detection devices to monitor their on-site radiation exposure. 

Shielding Blocks at the Hall C 

Truck Ramp Entrance 

Six dual-channel microprocessor-based instruments for monitoring gamma and neutron 

radiation levels collected direct radiation data (see Section 4.1.2 below) at the site boundary 

in 2003. (Refer to Exhibit 4-1 for their locations.) Radiation data collected prior to January 

1995 serve as the statistical baseline for comparison to that collected since the accelerator 

became fully operational. 

4.1.2 Direct Radiation and Resultant Airborne Radioactivity 

In addition to the accelerator’s production of 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,

34 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

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 (refer 

to Section 4.1.3). Though the direct radiation stops when the accelerator is turned off, the

activated equipment, water, and air continue to emit radiation. All material exposed to the 

beam is monitored for radioactivity prior to being removed from the beam enclosure. 

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 monitoring of 

airborne radioactivity is carried out locally to validate calculations and estimates of 

radiation dose. 

4.1.3 Direct Radiation and Resultant Waterborne Radioactivity 

Jefferson Lab is situated in the central section of Newport News, Virginia, at an average 

elevation of about 35 feet above mean sea level. 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. As water is a

vital natural resource, contamination could present potential problems to the general 

population. Because of this, both the Federal government and the Commonwealth of 

Virginia regulate both groundwater and surface water. 

4.1.3.1 Groundwater 

The Jefferson Lab Groundwater Protection Management Program provides a strategy to

minimize impact to groundwater resources and is used as a management tool to guide 

program implementation. 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 Jefferson Lab activities on groundwater quantity and quality. (Refer to 

Section 4.2)

Soil activation is a potential source of groundwater contamination at Jefferson Lab. 

Groundwater quality in the soil surrounding the accelerator complex is the 

Commonwealth’s largest concern about site operations. The monitoring of VPDESpermitted wells for particular groundwater quality parameters continued in 2003. From

controls designed into the CEBAF and FEL facilities, 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. There were no soil or

groundwater activation concerns in 2003.

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 35
EXHIBIT 4-1 

BOUNDARY MONITOR LOCATIONS 

Note: RB03 is the same as RBM-3 (also referred to in Section 4.4)

4.1.3.2 Surface Water 

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 activity. (Refer to Section 4.2 for information on Jefferson Lab’s radiological

monitoring program.) There were no concerns involving surface water in 2003. 

RadCon addresses any activated water spills, thus minimizing potential surface and the

less likely potential groundwater impacts. Collected water that did not meet immediate 

disposal criteria was transferred to a temporary storage area and released only after 

measurements indicated it was safe to do so - that it met regulatory permit release 

requirements. There were no worker safety, environmental, or public health concerns as 

there were no water spills or leak events in 2003 involving these activated water

systems.

Surface water quality is maintained by discharging only unpolluted waters, such as 

rainwater, to the environment. Control measures identified for the site include: 

• Using proper procedures, such as secondary containment, around containers where

activated water may be temporarily stored. 

36 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

• Water within the tunnels and experimental halls may become activated from

exposure to radiation. RadCon 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.

For information about other non-radiological surface water quality issues at Jefferson 

Lab, refer to Section 2.2.

4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION MONITORING 

Jefferson Lab uses environmental monitoring to assess local and offsite environmental 

conditions. The site environmental monitoring program verifies that any radiation exposures,

and radioactive and non-radioactive effluent releases, comply with applicable regulations and 

other requirements. 

While radiation dose rates offsite, from direct and airborne radioactivity, are expected to be well 

below limits set for the general public, monitoring ensures that the established controls are

effective. Jefferson Lab operations had minimal radiological dose impact to the public and the

environment. 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. There has been no offsite release of radioactivity in any water effluents

beyond the small quantities allowed to be discharged under our HRSD permit. 

The overall effects on the environment and the public from Jefferson Lab operations are 

summarized in Exhibit 4-2. There were no non-routine releases so all values shown result from

routine operations. The ambient external dose measured was on the order of 1% of natural 

background levels or 1.1 mrem (11 μSv (microSieverts)). In summary, the maximum dose

impact to the individual from both the air and direct pathways combined was 1.1 mrem

(11 μSv). This is 1.1% of the DOE regulatory dose limit for members of the public from all 

pathways (air, water, and others), which is 100 mrem (1 mSv) MilliSievert. Information about 

the air program is provided in Section 4.2.1 and the water program is described in Section 4.2.2.

4.2.1 Monitoring: Air 

Airborne radionuclide concentrations at the site boundary have been too low to accurately 

measure. Annual calculations, using EPA-approved computer modeling codes, have 

indicated that Jefferson Lab operational emissions remain several orders of magnitude 

lower than the EPA 10 mrem/yr reporting limit. Despite this very low calculated release

rate, Jefferson Lab continued being proactive in 2003 by making continuous measurements

to verify the calculations. (Refer to Exhibit 4-3) A report, documenting that the dose to the 

maximally exposed individual of the public (someone who would be standing year-round at 

a prescribed distance from Hall C) was 0.013 mrem/yr (0.13 μSv/yr) due to airborne 

releases, was sent to the EPA in 2003. This dose is insignificant when compared to the EPA

regulatory public air-dose limit of 10 mrem/yr (100 μSv/yr). 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 37
EXHIBIT 4-2 

JEFFERSON LAB RADIOLOGICAL DOSE REPORTING TABLE FOR 2003

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 0.013 (1.3 E-04) 0.013 0.025 (2.5 E-04) - 0.023 

Water 0 0 N/A - N/A

Other 

Pathways

1.1 (1.1 E-02) 1.1 Unknown/ 

Unknowable 

- N/A

All Pathways 1.1 (1.1 E-02) 1.1 214,000 est. 0.023

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

 Values presented in Exhibits 4-2, 4-3, & 4-7 are presented in Scientific Notation (example, 2 E-05 is 0.00002) 

mSv = MilliSievert 

EXHIBIT 4-3 

JEFFERSON LAB RADIOLOGICAL ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES FOR 2003

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 2003 

3.49 E-01

(1.3 E+10) 

3.88 E-03 

(1.4 E +08) 

1.21 

(4.5 E+10)

9.19 

(3.4 E+11)

4.9 

(1.8 E+11) 

5.14 E-02 

(1.9 E+09) 

6.2 E-01

(2.3 E+10)

2.51 E-03

(9.3 E +07)

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

m: minutes

4.2.2 Monitoring: Water 

Groundwater

Activation of groundwater, as a result of direct or secondary radiation, 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 monitoring conditions in VPDES Permit No. VA0089320 serve as the basis 

for evaluating accelerator-produced radioactivity in groundwater. The “baseline” values 

obtained during the term of the original Virginia Pollutant Abatement Permit helped define 

the operational groundwater quality limits that are included in the above Permit. Note that

the water quality beyond the Lab boundary must remain well below the regulated drinking

water limit of 1 mrem/year. The annual effective dose equivalent to an individual 

consuming water activated at this level is so negligible it can not be measured. 

This VPDES groundwater quality permit specifies EPA-approved sampling and analysis 

protocols, which were the basis of groundwater monitoring in 2003. Fifteen wells were 

sampled at quarterly, semi-annual, or annual intervals. The permitted wells included the

“A”, “B”, and “C” Ring wells (labeled as to proximity to the accelerator) and the upgradient

well. (Refer to Exhibit 4-4) Along with the A-ring wells, the groundwater dewatering

38 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

effluent at the experimental halls was also monitored quarterly in 2003 and reported under 

this permit. 

Water samples have been drawn and analyzed since 1987. The data collected, through the

completion of facility construction in 1995, provide a groundwater quality baseline for

comparisons during long-term facility operation. The background samples were analyzed 

for naturally occurring radionuclides, as well as accelerator-produced radionuclides, and 

selected chemical parameters. The radionuclides analyzed in 2003 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. The general water 

quality parameters measured were pH, conductivity, TSS and TDS. 

Exhibit 4-5 lists the VPDES groundwater quality action and 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. Note that if an action level should be reached at an A-Ring well, it would not 

result in a permit violation, but would trigger an internal investigation of potential causes. 

The maximum radiological results obtained from monitoring the wells in the accelerator 

vicinity during 2003 are presented in the first part of Exhibit 4-6. 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 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 2003. 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. 

The total quantity of radioactivity released to HRSD in 2003 is presented in Exhibit 4-7. 

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 2003 are provided in

Exhibit 4-8. The concentrations varied based on the quantity of beam dump cooling water 

discharged during the reporting period. 

On a periodic basis in 2003, other water sampling and analysis for tritium and gross beta

activity were performed on various discharges from potential radiological areas, such as 

from sump pumps. Any water identified as a potential concern was collected and

discharged according to the terms of the HRSD permit. 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 39
EXHIBIT 4-4 

MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS 

40 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

EXHIBIT 4-5 

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 

EXHIBIT 4-6 

MAXIMUM GROUNDWATER MEASUREMENTS FOR RADIONUCLIDES* 

JANUARY 2003 THROUGH DECEMBER 2003

Radionuclides at Associated Wells Relevant to Accelerator Operations (in pCi/l unless noted otherwise) 

Analyte A-Ring B-Ring C-Ring

Gross Beta 13.25 8.09 21.84 

Manmade Radioactivity < 0.150 mrem/yr. < 0.164 mrem/yr. not applicable 

Tritium ND at < 618 ND at < 592 ND at < 592 

Sodium-22 ND at < 10.8 ND at < 12.2 ND at < 9.9 

Beryllium-7 ND at < 97 ND at < 103 ND at < 91.7 

Manganese-54 ND at < 10.7 ND at < 11.2 ND at < 10.2 

Radionuclides At Other Permit Locations (in pCi/l)

Analyte Upgradient Well Discharge 001

Gross Beta 2.56 15.59 

Tritium ND at < 592 ND at < 618 

Sodium-22 ND at < 6.05 ND at < 10.2 

Beryllium-7 ND at < 54.6 ND at < 82.6 

Manganese-54 ND at < 5.71 ND at < 9.81 

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

 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 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 41
EXHIBIT 4-7 

JEFFERSON LAB LIQUID EFFLUENT RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL 

FOR 2003

Radionuclide Tritium Be-7 Na-22

Ci (Bq) in CY 2003 1.03 Ci: (5.8 E+10) 2.55 E-05 (9.4 E+05) 5.39 E-06 (2.0 E+05) 

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

EXHIBIT 4-8 

ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DISCHARGES TO HRSD IN 2003

Monthly Values 

Reporting Period

Tritium 

Concentration (pCi/l) Reporting Period

Tritium 

Concentration (pCi/l)

January 230 July 28,000

February 21,000 August 35,000

March 46,000 September 16,000

April 34,000 October 52,000

May 30,000 November 30,000

June 51,000 December 20,000

Quarterly Values 

Reporting Period

Tritium Concentration

(pCi/l)

Other Gamma-Emitting Radionuclides 

Concentration (pCi/l)

First Quarter 20,000 None detected Be-7 at 0.1.8 

Second Quarter 39,000 None detected Be-7 at 0.79 

Third Quarter 26,000 Na-22 at 0.67 None detected 

Fourth Quarter 9500 Na-22 at 0.67 Be-7 at 0.81 

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

4.3 OTHER SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 

Permanent shielding in the form of thick concrete walls and earth berms protect the 

environment from exposure. Additionally, labyrinth entrances further minimize exposure and 

monitoring equipment at ventilation ports tracks exposure values. 

RadCon installs shielding blocks and detection devices that are used to identify potential

problem areas as needed to either minimize impacts or identify opportunities to minimize 

impacts both inside and outside the facility. 

Various accelerator-related water systems have the potential for becoming activated. All areas

where activated water could be present have controls in place. Locations with a high potential

42 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

for activation have secondary containment or other physical measures installed and 

administrative lockout/tagout controls. Other areas with less or even minimal 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. 

4.4 ASSESSMENTS OF POTENTIAL DOSE TO THE PUBLIC AND TO BIOTA 

The six electronic radiation measurement devices noted in Section 4.1.1, 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. In addition, passive integrating detectors are used

for a number of measurements. All measured dose values were within statutory and

administrative limits. For 2003, the highest site boundary direct (prompt) radiation level was 

about 1.1% of the DOE annual dose limit of 100 mrem (1 mSv), or 11% of the site administrative 

dose limit of 10 mrem (0.1 mSv). 

Exhibit 4-9 displays the radiation doses in mrem for 2003 at RBM-3. RBM-3 is the detector that

sees the largest dose from a combination of accelerator and experimental hall operations. 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 naturally occurring radon, which typically doubles natural

radiation dose to the public. 

Jefferson Lab does not release any residual radioactive material, such as concrete or soil, so 

there are no resulting dose impacts to the public. The absorbed dose to any local aquatic 

animals, or terrestrial plants or animals, from Jefferson Lab operations will not exceed the 

internationally recommended dose limits for terrestrial biota. As there are no potential releases 

of a magnitude that could result in doses exceeding 0.1 rad/day to terrestrial animals, the

lowest limit for any biota, no dose limits will be exceeded. 

Jefferson Lab did not contribute significantly to the radiation dose received by the public 

through either airborne or waterborne pathways. The direct radiation exposure was again

measurable in 2003, but was found to be about 11% of the Jefferson Lab design goal of one-tenth 

of the DOE limit. 

4.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE 

Regular quality assurance (QA) efforts are being made to ensure that Jefferson Lab’s

environmental monitoring program is performed in accordance with the principles of the

Jefferson Lab QA Program Manual. 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 43
EXHIBIT 4-9 

RADIATION BOUNDARY MONITOR #3 (RBM-3) RESULTS FOR 2003

Period

Neutron 

(mrem)

Gamma 

(mrem)

Total 

(mrem)

Jan-Mar 0.05 + 0.01 0.02 + 0.01 0.07 + 0.02

Apr-June 0.32 + 0.01 0.08 + 0.01 0.40 + 0.02

July-Sept 0.46 + 0.01 0.12 + 0.01 0.58 + 0.02

Oct-Dec 0.04 + 0.01 0.01 + 0.01 0.05 + 0.02

TOTAL 0.87 + 0.02 0.23 + 0.02 1.10 + 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 

QA 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 quality control (QC)

practices, recordkeeping, chain of custody, and the relevant portions of the QA program itself. 

RadCon and other program management are involved in the qualification process for

environmentally sensitive services, including offsite analytical laboratories, and are responsible 

for auditing their own QA 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 2003 regarding sampling protocols or results. 

Universal Laboratories, Inc. (Universal Labs) collected most VPDES and HRSD permit-related

water samples. BWX Technologies, Inc. (BWX), their subcontractor, 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 RadCon and analyzed in the RadCon radiological analysis lab 

(Building 52).

QA in Analysis

44 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

Samples are analyzed for radiological (and non-radiological) 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. RadCon, 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-of-custodies, 

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. 

Independent QA under the DOE

The Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML) Quality Assessment Program (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 semi-annually to DOE-subcontracted laboratories for analysis,

with the labs required to analyze only the parameters for which they analyze under contract. 

In 2003, BWX and Jefferson Lab’s RadCon lab participated in the EML’s QAP, performed semiannually, for radionuclides. The results, for the parameters analyzed by BWX and Jefferson Lab 

that are applicable at Jefferson Lab, are provided as Exhibits 4-10 and 4-11. These selected

results, for the parameters that may be found at Jefferson Lab, are presented in these exhibits. 

Results indicated as warnings mean they are near the limits of acceptability. BWX’s overall

results for QAP 58 were 82% acceptable and 18% acceptable with warning. It also shows that

100% of the results for the water program, which is of greatest importance for Jefferson Lab, 

were acceptable or acceptable with warning. Selected results for both BWX and Jefferson Lab

under QAP 59 were 100% acceptable for the water programs. For the air results, Jefferson Lab

had 89% acceptable and 11% acceptable with warning and BWX had 100% acceptable. 

BWX participated in a QA program for analysis of samples under the Environmental Resource 

Associates (ERA). Performance results for RAD53 and RAD55 were received. Results for 

radionuclides of interest to Jefferson Lab are shown in Exhibits 4-12 and 4-13. The selected 

sample results for RAD53 were 83% acceptable and 100% acceptable for RAD55.

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 45
EXHIBIT 4-10

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (QAP 58)

SELECTED RESULTS FOR 2003

Reported EML Known

Matrix Analyte

Value

(Bq/l) Error

Value

(Bq/l) Error

Ratio 

Rep/EML Result

Water Gross Alpha 335.000 23.000 377.500 10.000 0.887 W

(BWX) Gross Beta 612.000 24.000 627.500 10.000 0.975 A

H-3 479.000 25.000 390.000 3.400 1.228 A

Co-60 232.000 14.000 234.000 8.400 0.991 A

Cs-134 28.700 3.0000 30.500 1.090 0.941 A

Cs-137 65.900 6.100 63.800 3.400 1.033 A

Water Co-60 233.200 9.170 234.000 8.400 0.997 A

(Jlab) Co-60 233.200 8.520 234.00 8.400 0.997 A

Co-60 230.600 8.420 234.00 8.400 0.985 A

Cs-134 27.780 3.130 30.500 1.090 0.911 A

Cs-134 25.080 2.570 30.500 1.090 0.822 W

Cs-134 27.800 2.520 30.500 1.090 0.911 A

Cs-137 61.600 5.710 63.800 3.400 0.966 A

Cs-137 66.980 5.360 63.800 3.400 1.050 A

Cs-137 59.900 5.280 63.800 3.400 0.939 A

(Bq/filter) (Bq/filter)

Air Gross Alpha 0.945 0.055 1.170 0.120 0.808 W

(BWX) Gross Beta 1.560 0.060 1.500 0.150 1.040 A

Co-60 34.200 1.100 33.500 0.870 1.021 A

Cs-137 104.000 3.000 99.700 2.300 1.043 A

Mn-54 44.000 7.800 43.800 1.130 1.005 A

Air Co-60 34.800 1.250 33.500 0.870 1.039 A

(Jlab) Co-60 35.600 1.130 33.500 0.870 1.063 A

Co-60 35.800 0.970 33.500 0.870 1.069 A

Cs-137 110.200 4.280 99.700 2.300 1.105 A

Cs-137 108.800 4.100 99.700 2.300 1.091 A

Cs-137 108.200 3.910 99.700 2.300 1.085 A

Mn-54 48.100 1.750 43.800 1.130 1.098 A

Mn-54 47.800 1.920 43.800 1.130 1.091 A

Mn-54 47.900 2.100 43.800 1.130 1.094 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 

46 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

EXHIBIT 4-11

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (QAP 59)

SELECTED RESULTS FOR 2003

Reported EML Known

Matrix Analyte

Value

(Bq/l) Error

Value

(Bq/l) Error

Ratio 

Rep/EML Result

Water Gross Alpha 517.000 30.000 622.000 62.000 0.831 A

(BWX) Gross Beta 1700.000 49.000 1948.000 195.000 0.873 A

H-3 489.000 26.000 446.300 2.200 1.096 A

Co-60 514.000 12.000 513.000 18.000 1.002 A

Cs-134 58.500 1.850 63.000 2.000 0.929 A

Cs-137 82.500 2.790 80.300 4.100 1.027 A

Water Co-60 495.300 6.600 513.000 18.000 0.965 A

(JLab) Co-60 493.400 6.900 513.000 18.000 0.962 A

Co-60 493.500 7.300 513.000 18.000 0.962 A

Cs-134 57.300 1.000 63.000 2.000 0.910 A

Cs-134 57.100 1.200 63.000 2.000 0.906 A

Cs-134 59.500 1.500 63.000 2.000 0.944 A

Cs-137 78.000 6.600 80.300 4.100 0.971 A

Cs-137 78.600 2.500 80.300 4.100 0.979 A

Cs-137 78.500 2.600 80.300 4.100 0.978 A

(Bq/filter) (Bq/filter)

Air Gross Alpha 2.910 0.110 3.110 0.310 0.936 A

(BWX) Gross Beta 3.840 0.110 3.890 0.390 0.987 A

Co-60 56.600 2.500 55.100 1.100 1.027 A

Cs-137 56.600 3.700 54.800 1.100 1.033 A

Mn-54 58.500 5.400 58.000 1.300 1.009 A

Air Co-60 60.100 1.000 55.100 1.100 1.091 A

(JLab) Co-60 60.450 1.100 55.100 1.100 1.097 A

Co-60 61.490 1.100 55.100 1.100 1.116 A

Cs-137 63.170 1.300 54.800 1.100 1.153 A

Cs-137 61.030 1.500 54.800 1.100 1.114 A

Cs-137 64.000 1.500 54.800 1.100 1.168 W

Mn-54 67.540 1.400 58.000 1.300 1.164 A

Mn-54 66.550 1.500 58.000 1.300 1.147 A

Mn-54 67.330 1.500 58.000 1.300 1.161 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

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 47
EXHIBIT 4-12

ERA QA PROGRAM, RAD53

AVERAGE PARAMETER RESULTS FOR 2003

Matrix Analyte

Reported

Value

(pCi/L)

Experimental 

Deviation 

(pCi/L)

Assigned 

Value 

(pCi/l)

Control Limits

(pCi/L)

Performance 

Evaluation

Water Co-60 60.2 4.45 63.8 55.1 - 72.5 A 

(BWX) Cs-134 63.5 3.49 75.7 67.0 - 84.4 NA 

Cs-137 151.0 4.00 150.0 137 - 163 A 

Gross Alpha 68.4 2.69 70.3 39.9 - 101 A 

Gross Beta 316 6.25 363 269 - 457 A 

H-3 1,520 51.3 1,250 678 - 1820 A 

BWX: BWX Technologies, Inc.

EXHIBIT 4-13

ERA QA PROGRAM, RAD55

AVERAGE PARAMETER RESULTS FOR 2003

Matrix Analyte

Reported

Value

(pCi/L)

Experimental 

Deviation 

(pCi/L)

Assigned 

Value 

(pCi/l)

Control Limits

(pCi/L)

Performance 

Evaluation

Water Co-60 28.0 0.569 27.7 19.0 - 36.4 A 

(BWX) Cs-134 19.9 0.416 23.4 14.7 - 32.1 A 

Cs-137 63.9 4.35 64.2 55.5 - 72.9 A 

Gross Alpha 59.4 5.43 54.2 30.7 - 77.7 A 

Gross Beta 150 13.7 168 124 - 212 A 

H-3 14,400 493 14,300 11,800 - 16,800 A 

BWX: BWX Technologies, Inc.

48 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

SECTION 5 

REFERENCES 

Industrial Wastewater Discharge 

 Regulations 

Hampton Roads Sanitation District 

July 1, 1999 revision. 

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator 

 Facility 

Quality Assurance Program Manual 

September 2000. 

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator 

 Facility 

Institutional Plan 2002 – 2006 

September 2001. 

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator 

 Facility 

Integrated Safety Management System Plan 

November 30, 2003. 

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. 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 49
SECTION 6 

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. Anthony W. Thomas, Chief Scientist and Theory Group Leader 

Dr. Lawrence Cardman, Associate Director, Physics Division 

Dr. Dennis M. Skopik, Deputy Associate Director, Division EH&S and QA 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. H. Frederick Dylla, Chief Technology Officer, FEL Program Manager

Dr. R. Roy Whitney, Chief Information Officer 

Mr. Claus H. Rode, Director, 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 and QA Officer 

Mr. John J. Kelly, Administration Division EH&S and QA 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 George Allen 

The Honorable Flora Davis Crittenden 

The Honorable Jo Ann S. Davis 

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes 

The Honorable Thomas D. Gear, Jr. 

The Honorable Phillip A. Hamilton 

The Honorable Terry G. Kilgore 

The Honorable Mamie E. Locke 

The Honorable G. Glenn Oder 

The Honorable Edward L. Schrock 

The Honorable Robert C. Scott 

The Honorable John W. Warner 

The Honorable Martin E. Williams 

Mayor Joe S. Frank, City of Newport News 

50 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
 

Mayor Ross A. Kearney, II, City of Hampton 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (Continued)

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

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 

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

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

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

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

Department of Health 

Mr. Leonard Huesties, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

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

Sanitation District 

Ms. Rhondra J. Matthews, President and CEO, Daily Press, Inc. 

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

Laboratory 

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

Ms. Barbara M. Morgan, DOE ES&H Program Manager 

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

Mr. Steve Neilson, DOE Industrial/Occupational Safety Specialist 

Ms. Anhthu Nguyen, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

Ms. Carolyn Putnam, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

Mr. Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr., Chairperson, York County Board of Supervisors 

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

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 51

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. 

ALA RA As Low As Reasonably Achievable EPA Environmental Protection Agency

A P Affirmative Procurement EPCR A Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act 

A R C Applied Research Center EPGs Emergency Planning Groups 

BMP Best Management Practice EPP Environmentally Preferable Purchasing

B q Becquerel ERA Environmental Resource Associates

BWX BWX Technologies, Inc. FDS Floor Drain Sump

C A A Clean Air Act FEL Free Electron Laser

C AAA Clean Air Act Amendments FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act

C A S A Center for Advanced Studies of 

Accelerators FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

CEBAF Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator 

Facility F Y Fiscal Year

CER C L A Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act G eV Billion (Giga-) electron Volts

CFC Chlorofluorocarbon GSA General Services Administration

Ci Curie HRSD Hampton Roads Sanitation District

CLAS CEBAF Large Acceptance

Spectrometer I R Infrared

C WA Clean Water Act ISM Integrated Safety Management

C X Categorical Exclusion kW Kilowatt 

CY Calendar Year LEED Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design 

C ZM A Coastal Zone Management Act LLW Low Level Radioactive Waste

DEQ (Virginia) Department of Environmental

Quality LSA Line Self-Assessment

D OD U.S. Department of Defense μS v MicroSievert

DOE U.S. Department of Energy M3 Cubic Meters

E 2 Energy Efficiency M CM Minimum Control Measures

E A Environmental Assessment mrem Millirem

EHS Extremely Hazardous Substance M S 4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer 

Systems

EH&S Environment, Health, and Safety M SD S Material Safety Data Sheet 

EML Environmental Measurements Laboratory mSv MilliSievert 

E M S Environmental Management System N A A QS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

E O Executive Order of the President of the 

United States N A S A National Aeronautics and Space Administration

EP Environmental Protection NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report A-1
ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS (continued)

NESHAPs National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act SER Site Environmental Report 

N R C Nuclear Regulatory Commission SNS Spallation Neutron Source 

ODS Ozone-Depleting Substance SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health

Administration SQG Small Quantity Generator 

P2 Pollution Prevention SRF Superconducting Radiofrequency 

PBT Persistent, Bioaccumulative, or Toxic S U RA Southeastern Universities Research 

Association, Inc. 

PCard Purchase Card Sv Sievert 

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl SWP3 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

pCi/ l Picocuries per liter TDS Total Dissolved Solids 

QA Quality Assurance 

T J NAF or

Jefferson

Lab 

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator 

Facility 

QAP Quality Assessment Program TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

QC Quality Control TSS Total Suspended Solids 

RadCon Radiation Control Group 

Universal 

Labs Universal Laboratories, Inc. 

RBM Radiation Boundary Monitor UV Ultraviolet 

R CRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act VPDES Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (Permit) 

R&D Research and Development WMin/P2 Waste Minimization/Pollution 

Prevention

SA/QA Self-Assessment / Quality Assurance WSS Work Smart Standards 

S A RA Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act 

A-2 2003 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report