Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

U.S. Department of Energy

12000 Jefferson Avenue

Newport News, VA 23606

JEFFERSON LAB

SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

For Calendar Year 2001

Prepared by:

SURA/Jefferson Lab

Office of Technical Performance

EH&S Reporting

September 2002
i 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Acronyms....................................................................................................................................................................................... iii

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

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

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

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

2.3 Environmental Review.................................................................................................................................... 6

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

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

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

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

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

3.2 Environmental Protection and Public Health Requirements .................................................................. 9

3.3 Waste Management Standards...................................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Radiological Protection Requiremnets......................................................................................................... 12

3.5 Air Quality and Protection Standards.......................................................................................................... 13

3.6 Water Quality and Protection Standards..................................................................................................... 15

3.7 Compliance Status-Public Health Standards.............................................................................................. 18

3.8 Other Environmental Standards ................................................................................................................... 18

3.9 Executive Orders and Pollution Prevention (P2)....................................................................................... 20

3.10 Other Obligations Identified in the Contract.............................................................................................. 24

3.11 Other Major Environmental Issues and Actions........................................................................................ 26

3.12 Release Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 26

3.13 Permit Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 26

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM.................................................................................. 27

4.1 Environmental Management System........................................................................................................... 27

4.2 Environmentally Preferable Purchasing and Beyond............................................................................... 28

4.3 Appraisals, Assessments, and Inspections.................................................................................................. 30

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

4.5 Summary of Other Significant Site Environmental Activities................................................................. 31

SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM............................................................................ 34

5.1 Site Information................................................................................................................................................ 36

5.2 Environmental Radiation Monitoring.......................................................................................................... 36

5.3 Airborne and Waterborne Radioactivity..................................................................................................... 36

5.4 Accelerator-Produced Direct Radiation....................................................................................................... 42

5.5 Assessments of Potential Radiation Dose to the Public and to Biota..................................................... 42

5.6 Other Supporting Activities........................................................................................................................... 43

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

6.1 Water Programs................................................................................................................................................ 45

6.2 Conventional Air Emissions .......................................................................................................................... 48

6.3 Safety .................................................................................................................................................................. 48

SECTION 7 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION............................................................................................................. 49

7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 49

7.2 Hydrogeology Issues....................................................................................................................................... 49

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

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

SECTION 8 QUALITY ASSURANCE............................................................................................................................... 52

8.1 Quality Assurance in Sampling Procedures ............................................................................................... 52

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

SECTION 9 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 60

SECTION 10 DISTRIBUTION LIST................................................................................................................................... 61
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report ii

Exhibits

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

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

Exhibit 3-1 EPCRA Reporting Status....................................................................................................................... 21

Exhibit 3-2 Chemicals Reported for 2001................................................................................................................ 22

Exhibit 3-3 Targets and Progress Projections......................................................................................................... 25

Exhibit 3-4 Contract Performance Measure Results ............................................................................................. 26

Exhibit 3-5 Jefferson Lab Permits ............................................................................................................................. 27

Exhibit 4-1 Quantities of Items Recycled or Reused in FY 2001......................................................................... 33

Exhibit 5-1 Jefferson Lab Radiological Dose Reporting Table for CY 2001...................................................... 35

Exhibit 5-2 Jefferson Lab Radiologocal Atmospheric Releases for CY 2001 .................................................... 35

Exhibit 5-3 Jefferson Lab Liquid Effluent Release of Radioactive Material for CY 2001 ............................... 36

Exhibit 5-4 Nuclide Effective Dose Equivalent Summary................................................................................... 38

Exhibit 5-5 Monitoring Well Locations ................................................................................................................... 39

Exhibit 5-6 Groundwater Sampling Parameters ................................................................................................... 40

Exhibit 5-7 VPDES Permit Levels for Radionuclides ........................................................................................... 40

Exhibit 5-8 Maximum Groundwater Measurements for Radionuclides .......................................................... 41

Exhibit 5-9 Analytical Results for Discharges to HRSD in 2001......................................................................... 42

Exhibit 5-10 Boundary Monitor Locations ............................................................................................................... 44

Exhibit 5-11 Radiation Boundary Monitor RBM-3 Results for 2001.................................................................... 44

Exhibit 6-1 Flow Information at the Dewatering Discharge ............................................................................... 45

Exhibit 6-2 Range of 2001 Non-Radiological Monitoring Results at Wells...................................................... 46

Exhibit 6-3 2001 Permit-Related Non-Radiological Monitoring Parameters at Outfall 001.......................... 46

Exhibit 6-4 2001 Cooling Water Monitoring Parameters at Outfalls 001 and 002........................................... 47

Exhibit 6-5 pH Sampling Results for Wastewater Discharge ............................................................................. 48

Exhibit 8-1 Quality Assurance Program (QAP 54) Selected Results for 2001.................................................. 55

Exhibit 8-2 Quality Assurance Program (QAP 55) Selected Results for 2001.................................................. 56

Exhibit 8-3 Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP) for 2001 ......................................... 57

Exhibit 8-4 Selected Results from Universal Laboratories Performance Evaluation Reports NSI

Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program Study WP-065 ................................................................ 58

Exhibit 8-5 Selected Results from Universal Laboratories Performance Evaluation Report ERA

Supply Proficiency Testing Study WP-85 .......................................................................................... 59

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................................................. 62

Section A Applicable Site Standards ..................................................................................................................... 63

Exhibit A-1 Federal Laws and Regulations Included in the WSS Set ..................................................... 63

Exhibit A-2 Permits, State Laws, and Regulations Included in the WSS Set......................................... 64

Exhibit A-3 Other Standards Identified in the WSS Set............................................................................. 65

Exhibit A-4 Transportation-Related Standards ........................................................................................... 66

Section B Site Usage Information .......................................................................................................................... 66

Exhibit B-1 Control Chemicals and Products Approved for Use in 2001.............................................. 66

Exhibit B-2 Source Registration Update for Calendar Year 2001 ............................................................ 67
iii 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

A C M Asbestos-containing material E P Gs Emergency Planning and Response

Groups

A E A Atomic Energy Act E P P Environmentally Preferable

Purchasing

A L & R Administrative Laws and Regulations E S A Endangered Species Act

A P Affirmative Procurement E S & H Environment, Safety, and Health

A R C Applied Research Center F D S Floor Drain Sump

B q Becquerel F E L Free Electron Laser

B W X BWX Technologies F I F R A Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act

C A A Clean Air Act F O N S I Finding of No Significant Impact

C A A A Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 F Y Fiscal Year

C E B A F Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator

Facility

G e V Giga-electron Volts

C E R C L A Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980

G S A General Services Administration

C F C Chlorofluorocarbon H R S D Hampton Roads Sanitation District

C F R Code of Federal Regulations H S Hazardous Substance

C i Curie H W C Hazardous Waste Coordinator

C O D Chemical Oxygen Demand I A Independent Assessment

C W A Clean Water Act I R Infrared

C X Categorical Exclusion I S M Integrated Safety Management

C Y Calendar Year I W D R Industrial Wastewater Discharge

Regulations

D E Q (Virginia) Department of

Environmental Quality

k g Kilogram

D O D U.S. Department of Defense L L W Low Level Radioactive Waste

D O E U.S. Department of Energy L S A Line Self-Assessment

D O T U.S. Department of Transportation μ g/L Micrograms per Liter

E2 Energy Efficiency μ S v MicroSievert

E A Environmental Assessment μ m h o s/L Micromhos per Liter

E H M Environmentally Harmful Material M 3 (Cubic) Meters

E H S Extremely Hazardous Substance M A P E P Mixed Analyte Performance

Evaluation Program

E H & S Environment, Health, and Safety M B T A Migratory Bird Treaty Act

E M Emergency Management m g/ L Milligrams per liter

E M L Environmental Measurements

Laboratory

M G D Million gallons/day

E M S Environmental Management System m r e m Millirem

E O Executive Order of the President of the

United States

M S D S Material Safety Data Sheet

E P Environmental Protection M S L Mean Sea Level

E P A Environmental Protection Agency m S v MilliSievert

E P C R A Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act of 1986

MT Metric Ton
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report iv

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (cont.)

N A A Q S National Ambient Air Quality

Standards

S D W A Safe Drinking Water Act

N A S A National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

S E R Site Environmental Report

N C P National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan

S N S Spallation Neutron Source

N E L A C National Environmental Laboratory

Accreditation Conference

S P C C Spill Prevention, Control, and

Countermeasure (Plan)

N E P A National Environmental Policy Act S Q G Small Quantity Generator

N E S H A P s National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants

S R F Superconducting Radiofrequency

N H P A National Historic Preservation Act S U R A Southeastern Universities Research

Association, Inc.

O D S Ozone-Depleting Substance S v Sievert

O R O Oak Ridge Operations – (DOE) S W D A Solid Waste Disposal Act

O S H A Occupational Safety and Health Act T D S Total Dissolved Solids

P 2 Pollution Prevention T J N A F Thomas Jefferson National

Accelerator Facility

P A A A Price-Anderson Amendments Act T O C Total Organic Carbon

P C B Polychlorinated biphenyl T P Q Threshold Planning Quantity

p C i/ l Picocuries per liter T R I Toxic Release Inventory

P P A Pollution Prevention Act T S Total Solids

Q A Quality Assurance T S C A Toxic Substances Control Act

Q A P Quality Assessment Program T S S Total Suspended Solids

Q C Quality Control U V Ultraviolet

R A D C O N Radiological Control Universal

Labs

Universal Laboratories, Inc.

R a d C o n Radiation Control (Group) V A C Virginia Administrative Code

R B M Radiation Boundary Monitor V D H R Virginia Department of Historic

Resources

R C R A Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act

V P A Virginia Pollution Abatement

(Permit)

R Q Reportable Quantity V P D E S Virginia Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (Permit)

R & D Research and Development W M i n / P 2 Waste Minimization/Pollution

Prevention

S A / Q A Self-Assessment/Quality Assurance W S S Work Smart Standards

S A R A Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act
1 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2001

Section 1

Executive Summary

Purpose

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

Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The

report provides the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public with information on radioactive

and non-radioactive pollutants, if any, added to the environment as a result of Jefferson Lab

operations. The report also summarizes environmental programs, initiatives, and assessments that

were undertaken in 2001. The objective of the Site Environmental Report (SER) is to document

Jefferson Lab’s active environmental protection program that protects the environment and public

health.

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

community and the nation. The Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) at Jefferson

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

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

Electron Laser (FEL); Superconducting Radio-Frequency (SRF) research and development; and

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

Major Site Programs

CEBAF: The accelerator continued to deliver electron beams at energies close to 6 GeV (Gigaelectron Volts) to meet the variety of needs of the experimenters in Halls A, B, and C. Jefferson Lab

has completed 45 experiments and partially completed another 27 between facility commissioning

and the end of CY 2001. Major experiments were conducted in all three halls. One Hall A experiment

examined some of the rarest subatomic particles known to exist: K-mesons or kaons. Hall B

experiments studied certain kinds of exotic matter, such as strange quarks. The data and analysis

from this batch of experiments could shine light on the nature of the strong interactions between

quarks. Another Hall B experiment delved into the “spin” of protons and neutrons, and in Hall C, a

major experiment set the standard for the evidence of the onset of quark effects in the nucleus of the

atom.

During 2001, a critical juncture was reached in the analysis and research and development (R&D)

work on the proposed upgrade of CEBAF to 12 GeV. This upgrade in electron beam energy levels

would also include the building of a fourth experimental hall, which would be named Hall D. The

National Science Advisory Committee rated the upgrade as one of the science programs it most

highly endorsed, supported, and recommended.

SRF: Superconducting Radio-Frequency Technology R&D efforts were enhanced in 2001 to better

support the existing accelerators. Improvements were made to the original CEBAF cryomodule

design to support current 6 GeV and future, higher energy operations. Also, SRF improvements and

applications to meet SNS needs continued.

FEL: On November 18, 2001, the Lab’s Infrared (IR) Demo Free Electron Laser was decommissioned

and shutdown to begin a major, 10-month upgrade project. At that time it was a kilowatt level light

source with output in both the IR and ultraviolet (UV) wavelength. Once the upgrade is complete, the
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 2

machine will be able to produce more than 10,000 watts of IR light and kilowatt levels of UV light.

The FEL supports basic science research and serves universities, private industry, the U.S. Navy, and

the U.S. Air Force. During 2001, FEL experiments included: production of coatings and thin films for

electronics and microcomponents, and production of carbon nanotubes. CY 2001 marked the halfway

point of the two-year, 10 kilowatt upgrade project to add two new cryomodules to the FEL

accelerator, a new injector to double the quantity of beam produced, and a new “wiggler” magnet to

help improve operational capabilities.

SNS: The Spallation Neutron Source project is an ongoing partnership involving six DOE national

research centers - Jefferson Lab, Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Los Alamos, and Oak

Ridge - to design and construct what will be the most powerful spallation neutron source in the world

in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The SNS will provide intense pulsed-neutron beams for scientific research

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

superconducting radiofrequency cryomodules and to design the cryogenic support facilities for the

project. Several SNS milestones were reached in 2001.

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

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

health rests with the Lab Director, while line management implements the goals within their areas of

responsibility. EH&S staff provide support to their line management and share their expertise with

the Lab as a whole.

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

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

nuclear physics research program.

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

enable an EH&S system that is both effective and cost-efficient. The WSS Set, identified through the

process, is comprised of the laws, regulations, and standards necessary and sufficient to ensure health

and safety and to protect the environment with respect to hazard issues that are relevant to Jefferson

Lab. The WSS Set and other associated obligations are reviewed and adjusted on a regular basis to

address changes in either site activities or regulations. More information is provided in Section 3.

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

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

such as recycling and hazardous waste minimization. These are discussed in Section 3.

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

Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) performed inspections in 2001. Section 3 presents the

minor concerns identified in these inspections. Most of the deficiencies identified during a 1999 ISM

review were closed in 2001. The DOE Site Office’s Overlay Report included an “outstanding” rating

for SURA in the EH&S category. These are discussed further in Section 4.

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

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

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

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

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

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The initial Jefferson Lab construction and an upgrade to

CEBAF were addressed in the 1987 and 1997 Environmental Assessments (EAs). Routine Lab

activities are covered under site-specific Categorical Exclusions (CXs). New activities that occurred in

2001 received NEPA CX authorizations. NEPA is discussed further in Section 3.
3 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Environmental Management System (EMS) Implementation: EMS implementation is addressed

through the Lab’s ISM System Plan. This is the subject of the 6700 series of chapters in the Jefferson

Lab EH&S Manual. Chapter 6710, Environmental Protection Program, is being upgraded to clarify

management roles regarding the protection of the environment and public health. Jefferson Lab

committed to broaden the scope of the ISM System plan by incorporating additional EMS core

elements and principles during Fiscal Year (FY) 2002. The primary objective of ISM is to make safety,

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

Summary of Environmental Results in 2001

Compliance

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

DOE guidance during 2001. As a consequence, Jefferson Lab operations had no discernable impact on

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

resources and public health, are highlighted in this report.

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

improved to ensure that new compliance initiatives were incorporated in 2001.

Radiological Monitoring

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

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

from quarterly to annually. There were no readings above background in 2001. No analyte, except

gross beta, was detected above the permit-required sensitivity levels. Note that gross beta was

detected, but at normal background levels. Therefore, no accelerator-produced radionuclides were

detected in our groundwater.

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

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

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

quarterly.

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

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

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

reporting, but continuous measurements are made to verify emission calculations. Though not

required, CY 2001 values were reported to the EPA. One result reported to the EPA for 2001 was that

the total maximum offsite dose from radiological airborne releases was less than 0.011 mrem/yr

(millirem/year). This amount is insignificant when compared to the EPA regulatory public air-dose

limit of 10 mrem/yr, which is the amount of exposure that is comparable to one typical chest x-ray.

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

public due to Jefferson Lab operations. The dose values for 2001 were within Jefferson Lab’s

allowable limits - the highest direct radiation level measured was only 7% of the DOE annual dose

limit of 100 mrem.

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

the public from any of these radiation sources. A complete discussion is provided in Section 5.

Non-radiological Monitoring

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

applicable environmental program requirements. The program included monthly and quarterly

industrial wastewater monitoring, quarterly groundwater sampling at the dewatering sump and at

some of the monitoring wells, and quarterly cooling water discharge sampling.
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 4

Items of Interest in 2001

Highlights in Jefferson Lab’s 2001 environmental protection and pollution prevention program

included:

• Recycling of about 1700 pounds of fluorescent lamps, about 7300 pounds of used oil, and other

materials;

• Successfully developing and implementing two fully-functioning office product recycling

centers;

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

to disposing of waste in a landfill;

• Improving performance in the procurement of EPA-designated recycled-content products, 84%

purchased in FY 2001, almost a 20% improvement over FY 2000;

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

• Successfully and safely accomplishing the first shipment of low-level radioactive waste.
5 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

SECTION 2

INTRODUCTION

2.1 GENERAL

This report provides the public with a

summary of CY 2001 environmental protection

and public health items that characterize the

environmental management performance at

Jefferson Lab. This report addresses the Lab’s

compliance status with applicable

requirements, standards, and contractual

commitments. Information on related

assessments, initiatives, and site programs is

also included.

The term “safety” in the ISM program includes

environmental protection and public health, as

well as worker safety and health (all are

generally termed EH&S). EH&S

responsibilities are incorporated into each

employee’s position description as described

in the Jefferson Lab ISM System Plan. The

DOE validated the ISM System Plan in 1999.

Refer to Section 4.1 for more information.

2.2 LABORATORY MISSION

Jefferson Lab, formerly known as CEBAF, is a

national accelerator facility managed by SURA

for the DOE. The accelerator complex portion

of the Lab still retains the name CEBAF and

includes three underground halls that house

the physics program experiments. Jefferson

Lab’s mission statement addresses quality and

excellence in research, community partnership,

and environment, health, and safety.

The original Jefferson Lab mission evolved

from the nuclear science community’s

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

electron accelerator with a continuous high

current electron beam with electron energies in

the multi-billion electron volt region. The

accelerator is used to study quark structures

and behaviors and the forces governing the

clustering of individual nucleons in the nuclear

medium.

There were improvements in CEBAF

operations in support of the physics program

experiments in 2001, including the delivery of

electron beams at energies close to 6 GeV to

meet the variety of needs of the experimenters

in Halls A, B, and C. Since the Lab began

operations, through the end of 2001,

researchers had completed 45 experiments and

partially completed another 27 between facility

commissioning and the end of CY 2001 using

all three halls. Each of the halls examined

different research areas that included the

subatomic K-meson particles at Hall A, strange

quarks and the nature of their interactions in

Hall B, and one Hall C experiment set the

standard for evidence of the onset of quark

effects in the atomic nucleus.

Other major activities in 2001 focused on SRF

R&D and FEL operations. SRF R&D efforts

were enhanced in 2001 to better support the

existing accelerators. Improvements were

made to the original CEBAF cryomodule

design to support current 6 GeV and future

12 GeV operations. Jefferson Lab’s expertise in

SRF technology is being used to design and

build the cryomodules and refrigeration

system for the DOE’s SNS that is being built in

Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Use of the FEL by

Jefferson Lab, industrial, U.S. Department of

Defense (DOD), and university partners also

continued in 2001.

A critical juncture was reached during 2001 in

the analysis and R&D work on the proposed

upgrade of CEBAF to 12 GeV. This upgrade in

electron beam energy levels includes the

building of a fourth experimental hall, which

will be named Hall D.

Atomic Structure
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 6

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

An environmental assessment, termed EA,

performed under NEPA, was conducted prior

to construction of CEBAF (February 1987),

resulting in a Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI). The EA and other NEPA-related

documentation have been reviewed

periodically with no significant changes noted.

A 1997 EA, that also yielded a FONSI,

addressed CEBAF upgrades and FEL-related

activities. An EA to review five proposed

construction projects was being prepared in

2001. Refer to Section 3.10.1 for additional

NEPA information.

2.4 SITE LOCATION

Jefferson Lab is located in Newport News,

Virginia. Newport News is bounded on the

east by York County and the city of Hampton;

on the north by James City County and the city

of Williamsburg; on the west by the James

River; and, on the south by the Hampton

Roads waterway. Jefferson Lab is located just

east of Jefferson Avenue, a main area

thoroughfare, and is less than one mile to the

west of Interstate 64. The site is just south of

Oyster Point Road and just north of Middle

Ground Boulevard. The Jefferson Lab Vicinity

Plan is included as Exhibit 2-1. Two schools, a

cemetery, and railroad tracks serving the local

rail system are located within one mile of the

site. Newport News-Williamsburg

International Airport is located two miles to

the north. Exhibit 2-2 shows the Jefferson Lab

site proper.

Jefferson Lab is sited in the northern section of

Newport News at an average elevation of

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

elevation ranges from 29 to 35 feet above MSL,

which is above the 100-year floodplain level of

13 feet above MSL. The Jefferson Lab site is

located in the coastal plain of the lower YorkJames Peninsula, and is in the Brick Kiln Creek

watershed, which discharges into the Big

Bethel Reservoir. Big Bethel Reservoir is

operated by the U.S. Army and provides

drinking water to Fort Monroe, Langley Air

Force Base, and the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA)-Langley

Research Center.

2.5 SITE HISTORY AND

DESCRIPTION

Prior to Jefferson Lab, there were several users

of this general area. In 1942 and 1943, the

DOD acquired most of the Oyster Point area

that included all of the land presently used by

Jefferson Lab. The U.S. Air Force acquired the

land in 1950 and installed a BOMARC missile

site on a portion of the land immediately to the

east of the Jefferson Lab site. The DOD started

disposing of the property after closure of the

BOMARC missile base in 1963. Some land was

conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia,

NASA (110 acres), and others. In January 1987,

ownership of the 110 acres of NASA property,

including 100 acres of wooded, undeveloped

land, was conveyed to the DOE. An additional

52 acres of land were transferred to the DOE

from various sources. At this time, the total

DOE-owned parcel, upon which Jefferson Lab

is built, is 162 acres.

An adjacent 44 acres, owned by the city of

Newport News, were conveyed to SURA in

December 1986. A SURA dormitory is located

on a portion of this land, and is used by guests

and visiting experimenters, who are referred to

as users.

Sign at Main Entrance to Site
7 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit 2-1

Jefferson Lab Vicinity Plan
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 8

Exhibit 2-2

Site Plan
9 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Also adjacent to the DOE-owned site is a

10.7-acre parcel owned by the Commonwealth

of Virginia and leased to the city of Newport

News. The Applied Research Center (ARC),

located on this property, was completed in

1998. The ARC is used by Jefferson Lab,

industry, and universities and is the

cornerstone of the newly designated Jefferson

Center for Research and Technology. Other

adjacent land owned by the Commonwealth of

Virginia is leased to SURA and the DOE for its

use in support of Jefferson Lab.

Applied Research Center

2.6 SITE ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,

& SAFETY RESOURCES

The facility makes available a variety of EH&S

resources to serve the Jefferson Lab

community. The Lab community includes

staff, Commonwealth employees,

subcontractors, visiting experimenters, and

students of all ages that participate under

various programs.

Local EH&S resources include: EH&S staff

that support specific line organizations; EH&S

program specialists that serve the entire facility

in their area of expertise; groups and

committees that address Lab-wide concerns,

develop policy, and resolve selected issues;

and, the Jefferson Lab EH&S Manual, as the

primary source of implementing procedures

for EH&S. The EH&S Manual is accessible via

paper copy at designated locations or at

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

Other EH&S resources available to program

managers at Jefferson Lab include: DOE

subject matter experts, generally through the

DOE Site Office and the Oak Ridge Operations

(ORO) Office; DOE program specialists that

deal with policy issues at all levels; and

colleagues at other DOE facilities that share

expertise and lessons learned from their own

unique experiences. These resources were

utilized in 2001 to support the continued

development and implementation of

environmental protection and public healthrelated programs at Jefferson Lab.

SECTION 3

COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Compliance with applicable environmental

protection and public health-related laws and

regulations is an important part of operations

at Jefferson Lab.

Assurance that on-site processes do not

adversely affect the environment is achieved

through Jefferson Lab’s self-assessments,

routine inspections, and oversight by the DOE

Site Office and outside regulators, including

staff from the DEQ and HRSD. Assurance is

also obtained through guidance from the DOE

ORO Office, with additional program support

by the DOE Office of Science.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AND PUBLIC

HEALTH REQUIREMENTS

Environmental protection (EP) and public

health-related requirements are identified in

the DOE/SURA contract. They are divided

into three groups:

• the Work Smart Standards (WSS) Set;

• the Administrative Laws and Regulations

(AL&R); and,

• other contractual commitments.

These requirements that include all relevant

environmental protection and public health-
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 10

related obligations are described in the

appendix.

3.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT

STANDARDS

Waste streams at the Lab include hazardous,

low-level radioactive, and medical wastes

(discussed below). The Lab endeavored to

reduce waste generation in 2001 and did make

progress in some areas. Though waste

reduction considerations are taken into

account, new actions, including the

commencement of special processes and the

addition and use of more experimental and

support equipment often involve identifying

older materials and equipment that are no

longer needed. The Lab has issued waste

minimization mandates to reuse or recycle old

or discarded materials wherever possible.

(Refer to site-specific recycling program

information in Section 4.5.3.)

There have been neither waste management

activities associated with spills or cleanup

actions under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) nor have there

been any waste storage or management actions

that involved NEPA authorizations.

3.3.1 Hazardous Waste under RCRA,

related VA Regulations, and

EH&S Manual Chapter 6761,

Hazardous Waste Management

40 CFR Subchapter I, Waste Programs,

implements the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), also called

the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA).

RCRA covers waste management and the

promotion of “Resource Recovery and

Reuse”. The Act promotes the protection

of health and the environment and the

conservation of valuable material and

energy resources.

RCRA further provides EPA’s authority to

regulate solid waste, from minimization

and recovery to collection and disposal.

The EPA has delegated authority to the

DEQ to regulate solid wastes that include

hazardous waste. As such, the Virginia

Waste Management Act and regulations

under the Virginia Administrative Code

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

Regulations) apply. Requirements for safe

storage, transport, treatment, and disposal

of hazardous waste for generators,

transporters, and owners and operators of

hazardous waste treatment, storage, and

disposal facilities are implemented through

the Jefferson Lab EH&S Manual.

Jefferson Lab has been registered as a

RCRA Small Quantity Generator (SQG)

since 1987. Note that SQGs are not

required to file a biennial report to the

DEQ. To maintain SQG status, a facility

cannot generate more than 1 kilogram (kg)

of acutely hazardous waste and 1000 kgs

(about 2200 pounds or about 300 gallons

maximum) of hazardous waste in any

given month, and the facility must not

accumulate more than 6000 kgs of

hazardous waste on-site at any given time.

Jefferson Lab generated about 4300 kgs of

hazardous waste in 2001. The hazardous

wastes generated in the largest volumes in

2001 were waste buffered chemical polish

(an acid mixture) used for niobium cavity

processing and waste solvents (acetone,

methanol, and isopropanol) from cleaning

operations. Hazardous waste

minimization initiatives, including

improving the review of chemicals being

purchased, were implemented in 2001. The

most recent DEQ inspection of this

program was performed in August 1999.

The Jefferson Lab Hazardous Waste

Coordinator (HWC) manages the site

program and follows the guidance in

EH&S Manual Chapter 6761 to maintain

compliance. Hazardous wastes are

temporarily stored at Jefferson Lab;

however, no permitting is required because

the wastes are properly disposed of within

the regulatory time frame. Jefferson Lab

neither transports hazardous wastes nor

operates any regulated treatment or

disposal units. All wastes are disposed of

through licensed waste handling facilities.

There are two elementary neutralization

units, but they are not regulated as

treatment devices. Some environmentally

harmful materials (EHMs) are recycled

and/or reused prior to final disposal. Full
11 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

compliance with the listed requirements

was maintained through 2001.

3.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive and Mixed

Waste under DOE Order 435.1 and

the AEA

The Radiation Control (RadCon) Group

implemented the applicable sections of

DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste

Management, in 2001. A program to enable

more efficient separation and

categorization of the Lab’s low-level

radioactive wastes (LLW) was established

in 2001, which resulted in the identification

of more waste than would normally be

expected in a year. As there is no waste

generated that carries either the source

materials or special nuclear materials

subject to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954

(AEA), as amended, its conditions are not

applicable.

Roughly 42 cubic meters of LLW were

disposed of in FY 2001. This rather large

amount of waste was not generated solely

in 2001 but had been slowly generated

since the first test beams were produced in

1992. For the first time at Jefferson Lab,

accumulated radioactive waste was turned

over to a certified subcontractor for

disposal in August 2001. A permit,

No. 4727-45-01, to transport waste within

South Carolina, was obtained in 2001.

Though Jefferson Lab is required to follow

the RCRA requirements that apply to

mixed waste, which exhibits both

hazardous and radioactive characteristics,

there has been no mixed waste generated

to date. Jefferson Lab was in compliance

with all applicable standards in 2001.

3.3.3 Non-Hazardous Waste under DEQ

Standards and the EH&S Manual

Non-hazardous wastestreams generally

contain non-regulated chemical wastes,

non-recyclable office and production waste

materials, and debris resulting from

construction activity. The DEQ is

responsible for regulating such waste

programs. Jefferson Lab line management

is responsible for proper administration of

the wastestreams covered under this

category according to EH&S Manual

Chapter 6760, Waste Management.

3.3.4 Other Non-Hazardous WasteRelated Compliance Items under

RCRA

There are other forms of liquid and solid

non-hazardous wastes, including domestic

wastewater. Two water collection sump

pits are located in the Counting House

(Building 97), with one pit discharging to

surface water and the contents of the other

pit being pumped to the HRSD system.

The permits for these water discharges are

discussed in Section 3.6.2. Other nonhazardous wastes are disposed of in a

landfill, reused on-site, recycled, or used

for other purposes offsite. Approved waste

management plans and procedures prevent

or minimize impacts to the environment,

both at the generating facility and at the

final usage or disposal point. Jefferson Lab

minimizes the generation of waste (source

reduction) as the primary means of

reducing environmental impacts, thereby

lowering purchase and disposal costs.

The Lab utilizes licensed subcontractors for

collection, separation, and permanent

disposal (aluminum cans and paper goods

are recycled separately). Section 3.10.2

refers to Performance Measure results for

tracking recyclables.

3.3.5 Regulated Medical Waste under

the EH&S Manual

The Lab’s EH&S Manual Chapter 6850,

Regulated Medical Waste Management and

Appendix 6850-T1, Regulated Medical

Wastes Handling Procedures, apply and

include RCRA and Virginia requirements.

There were no compliance issues with this

program in 2001.

3.3.6 Federal Facility Compliance Act

This Act, which amends the SWDA, gave

the EPA authority to enforce actions

against branches of the Federal

government for violation of Federal, State,

interstate, or local solid or hazardous waste

regulations. There were no compliance

issues at Jefferson Lab during 2001.
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 12

3.3.7 Toxic Materials under TSCA

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

and its implementing regulations, 40 CFR

Subchapter R, require that specific

chemicals such as polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs) and asbestos be

controlled and their use restricted.

PCBs

Since 1987, SURA has been removing PCBs

and PCB-contaminated items from the site.

Technically, the site is PCB-free. There

were no compliance issues in 2001.

Asbestos

Most asbestos-containing material (ACM)

was removed from the site prior to 1992. In

July 1992, an Asbestos Management Plan

identified the remaining ACMs in

Buildings 28 and 58 as non-friable and in

fair to good condition; therefore, abatement

is not required by current regulations.

Jefferson Lab complies with the training

requirements identified in the Asbestos

Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986

(Title II of TSCA) and the emission control

requirements in NESHAPs. EH&S Manual

Chapter 6681, Asbestos Management,

implements the ACM requirements at

Jefferson Lab. There were no compliance

issues in 2001.

3.3.8 FIFRA

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) applies to the

storage and use of herbicides and

pesticides at Jefferson Lab. The application

of herbicides and pesticides is permitted

through a State-administered certification

program, accomplished by certified

subcontractors who comply with FIFRA

through Virginia’s program. All pesticides

used in 2001 were EPA-registered and

applied according to the product

instructions and Federal, State, and local

guidelines. Jefferson Lab’s Plant

Engineering Department subcontracts

monthly preventive pest control.

Herbicides were used on annual and

perennial weeds and grasses, stumps of

trees, and brush. Pesticides were applied

on-site for control of insects. Areas

addressed included kitchens, laboratories,

and other areas throughout the site. No

industrial-strength herbicides or pesticides

are prepared, mixed, stored, or disposed of

on Jefferson Lab property. The

subcontractor is responsible for handling

any waste disposal through an authorized

disposal facility. Small containers of

household pesticides are stored on-site and

applied per manufacturer’s

recommendations. Pesticides and

herbicides that were approved for use in

2001 are presented as Exhibit B1 in the

appendix. There were no FIFRA

compliance issues at Jefferson Lab in 2001.

3.4 RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION

REQUIREMENTS

This section summarizes Jefferson Lab’s

compliance with radiological EP and public

health requirements.

3.4.1 Title 10 - Energy

10 CFR 71, Packaging & Transportation of

Radioactive Material

Jefferson Lab made its first shipment of

radioactive waste in 2001. RadCon

completed the loading and surveying of

the shipping containers and turned over

disposition of the waste to the waste broker

in July. The broker took physical

possession of the waste in early August

and transported the material off the site.

There were no compliance issues in 2001.

(Additional transportation compliance

information is provided in Section 3.8.4.)

10 CFR 834 (Draft) Environmental

Radiological Protection Program

Programs responsive to offsite radiation

protection and other 10 CFR 834 (Draft)

requirements have been instituted.

Implementation measures have been

incorporated into the EH&S Manual

chapters discussed in Section 3.4.3 below.

10 CFR 835, Occupational Radiation

Protection

The Price-Anderson Amendments Act

(PAAA) of 1988, including the 1992

amendment, was enacted to provide broad

indemnification coverage for DOE
13 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

contractors with worker radiologicalrelated activities and requires reporting of

non-compliances. DOE PAAA worker

radiation protection regulations are

codified in 10 CFR 835 and address:

radioactive contamination, storage of

radioactive materials, and radiological

emergency response.

Jefferson Lab made a worker radiation

protection report in the PAAA notification

system following an August 2001 event,

which involved having an unposted high

radiation area for a short period in the Test

Lab (Building 58). No worker radiation

exposure resulted and no actual or

potential environmental impacts were

associated with this event. Test Lab staff

have resolved the interlock problem that

created the short duration radiation event.

No other 10 CFR 835 compliance issues

occurred in 2001.

3.4.2 Title 40, Part 61, Subpart H

This subpart, the National Emission

Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides

Other Than Radon from Department of

Energy Facilities, sets an annual public

dose limit for radionuclide emissions. The

Lab complied with 40 CFR 61 Subpart H

requirements. There were no compliance

issues in 2001. Refer to Section 3.5.2.1 for

more information.

3.4.3 EH&S Manual Chapters 6310 and

6315

Chapters 6310, Ionizing Radiation Protection,

and 6315, Environmental Monitoring of

Ionizing Radiation, describe site programs

for offsite radiation protection, storage of

radioactive materials, emergency response,

and release of materials to uncontrolled

areas. Chapter 6315 addresses radiological

air emissions, surface water, and

radioactive contamination of other watercontaining systems and groundwater.

There were no compliance issues in 2001.

3.4.4 DOE Order 5400.5

Applicable sections of DOE Order 5400.5,

Radiation Protection of the Public and the

Environment, are implemented by Jefferson

Lab’s Radiological Control (RADCON)

Manual. There were no compliance issues

in 2001.

3.5 AIR QUALITY AND

PROTECTION STANDARDS

The Clean Air Act (CAA) and its 1990

Amendments (CAAA) regulate the air

emissions of DOE’s processes and facilities.

The DEQ, as delegated by the EPA, issues

permits for owners and operators of stationary

sources that could emit threshold amounts of

fugitive dust, odor, or other designated

pollutants. At this time Jefferson Lab has no

processes that require air permitting.

Applicable regulations are contained in 40 CFR

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

Air Quality. Standards include EO 13148 and

EH&S Manual Chapter 6720, Air Quality

Management.

3.5.1 National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS)

Under the authority of the CAAA, the EPA

has established NAAQS for sulfur oxides,

particulate matter, carbon monoxide,

ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. The

Hampton Roads area, which includes

Newport News, remained in attainment for

all NAAQS pollutants in 2001, but

continues as a maintenance area for ozone.

Jefferson Lab complies with all

Commonwealth ambient air quality

requirements. The Lab leases its vehicles

through the General Services

Administration (GSA) and vehicle

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

dispensing facility on-site, but there is one

diesel fuel tank for forklifts.

Subcontractors operating machinery may

have temporary diesel fuel storage tanks

with secondary containment basins. There

were no compliance actions under Title I of

the CAA in 2001.

3.5.2 NESHAPs

NESHAPs governs air emissions that

contain hazardous components (such as

radionuclides or asbestos). The EPA

administers the radionuclide portion of this
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 14

program in Virginia. Jefferson Lab began

“operations” as defined by NESHAPs in

October 1995.

3.5.2.1 Radionuclide Emissions

Radionuclide emissions generated

during accelerator and FEL testing and

operations, including emissions

resulting from interactions of the

accelerator beam with experimental

targets and physics research equipment,

fall under NESHAPs. DOE-owned

facilities which emit radionuclides to the

air are required to sample, monitor, and

assess dosage per the NESHAPs

requirements in 40 CFR 61 Subpart H

and report to the EPA as applicable.

(Refer to Section 5.3.1 for discussion of

direct radiation, the primary form of

radiation generated on-site.)

Jefferson Lab used sampling results and

calculations to demonstrate that the Lab

remained under the EPA-defined

10 mrem/yr potential effective dose

equivalent to any member of the public

during 2001. As effluent concentrations

are below monitoring thresholds,

routine monitoring of radioactive

airborne effluents at the site boundary is

not required. However, the Lab does

make periodic confirmatory

measurements to verify low emissions.

Currently, no major radiological

NESHAP point sources, such as stacks

or vents, exist at Jefferson Lab that meet

the 40 CFR 61.93(b) threshold

monitoring criterion of 1% of the

10 mrem/yr. Consequently, continuous

point source monitoring is not required.

Since no EPA-reportable radiological or

non-radiological air emissions have

occurred in previous years, Jefferson

Lab had a reporting exemption under

this Subpart. Based on common DOE

laboratory practice, even among DOE

facilities that are under the reporting

threshold, Jefferson Lab voluntarily

furnishes an annual report to the EPA.

This is discussed further in Section 5.3.1.

No notifications for construction or

modifications were necessary in 2001.

3.5.2.2 NESHAP Asbestos Removal

While the NESHAP standard does not

set a numerical threshold for asbestos

fiber emissions, it requires those

conducting asbestos-related activities,

such as demolition and renovation, to

follow approved procedures and to

adopt specific work practices to prevent

release of asbestos to the air.

Regulations require that licensed,

trained personnel perform any work

with no asbestos-related NESHAP issues

in 2001. Compliance with other asbestos

standards is described in Section 3.3.7.

3.5.3 Non-radiological Emissions

Under the Virginia Regulations for the

Control and Abatement of Air Pollution

(9 VAC 5-10 et seq.), Jefferson Lab is

required to notify the DEQ of sources of

potential air pollution. Jefferson Lab

minimizes releases of polluted air by

preventive maintenance and scrubbers.

The Lab’s air emissions remain below

reporting thresholds as there were no new

emission sources installed in 2001.

Jefferson Lab has seven natural gas-fired

boilers and a fin-tube radiator for building

heating. Boiler information, including fuel

consumption data, is provided to the DEQ.

For more information, refer to Section 6.2.

No requirements for permits are

anticipated. The last DEQ inspection

occurred in September 2000, with no

concerns identified. There were no air

emission violations at Jefferson Lab in 2001.

3.5.4 Stratospheric Ozone-Depleting

Substances (ODS)

Executive Order (EO) 13148, Greening the

Government through Leadership in

Environmental Management, reinforced

federal agency commitments to use safe,

cost-effective, environmentally preferable

alternatives to ODSs. The ODS substances

that have been used at Jefferson Lab

include refrigerants, degreasers, cleaners,

spray can propellants, and fire

suppressants. The phase out of these

substances will have a moderate impact on

the site.
15 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Section 608 of Title VI of the CAAA,

National Recycling and Emission Reduction

Program, prohibits intentional venting of

Class I and Class II compounds from air

conditioning and cooling units. Jefferson

Lab has one recovery machine, a National

Reference Products Model MINILU (for

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

subcontractor who performed all service,

repair, and maintenance on Jefferson Lab

refrigeration/air conditioning equipment

during 2001, was EPA-certified and

effectively captured and recycled these

ODS compounds. Four Jefferson Lab Plant

Engineering employees have received

certification training, ensuring that Lab

staff understand the EPA requirements.

Jefferson Lab has three chlorofluorocarbon

(CFC)-based chillers on-site, one uses R-11

and two use R-113. They are effectively

maintained by mechanical staff to ensure

optimal performance and minimal CFC

losses. There were various releases from

June to August at another unit that uses

R-22. These releases totaled approximately

360 pounds before repairs were completed

in August. Opportunities to modify or

replace these units were explored in 2001,

but the existing units presently meet

Jefferson Lab needs.

The site will phase out use of CFCs to the

extent possible. R-12, however, is the

highly preferred material for use in some

physics experiments but there are no State

or Federal regulations that address the

small amounts of R-12 involved. Halon

1211 is stored in the experimental halls for

use as a fire-extinguishing agent of last

resort to protect certain types of specialized

equipment. The Halon is contained in

manually operated fire extinguishers, with

hall staff trained in precautions and use.

Section 609 of the CAAA lists the

requirements for the Servicing of Motor

Vehicle Air Conditioners. All vehicle air

conditioning units are serviced offsite by

shops approved by the GSA.

Jefferson Lab is committed to minimizing

and/or eliminating the use of ODSs. The

Lab’s CFC and Halon Use Policy is

included in the EH&S Manual Appendix

6720-T2, Air Quality Program Regulatory

Requirements.

3.6 WATER QUALITY AND

PROTECTION STANDARDS

Both groundwater and surface water

protection are high priorities at Jefferson Lab.

Applicable standards include: the Clean Water

Act (CWA); Virginia’s State Water Control Law;

regulations that include parts of 40 CFR

Subchapter D and Virginia’s 9 VAC 25 Series,

Water Quality; site permits; and, cited EH&S

Manual chapters. Each of these standards is

referenced under the respective topic below.

Facilities in Virginia that directly discharge to

waters of the United States must obtain a

Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination

System (VPDES) permit to do so. The VPDES

program is designed to protect surface waters

by limiting primarily non-radiological releases

of effluents into streams, lakes, and other

waters, including wetlands. Regulatory and

program concerns relating to construction and

industrial activities, including the potential for

radiological contamination of groundwater

and the quality of cooling water discharges,

are discussed in Section 3.6.1 below.

The concrete halls, which house the

experimental apparatus that accepts

accelerator beam, are partially buried. As the

floors of the halls lie below the water table, a

built-in drainage system was installed under

each of the halls to prevent the structures from

floating. Groundwater collects in this drainage

system and is pumped to a surface water

channel (a process termed dewatering).

Compliance with the related permits is

described in Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2.

Jefferson Lab has a variety of on-site activities

that result in water discharges to the sanitary

sewer system. Other associated wastewater

standards included in the WSS Set are

discussed in Section 3.6.2.1.

There is a significant aggregate quantity of oil

present on the site, primarily in transformers

and compressors that are in continual use.

Consequently, Jefferson Lab has a Spill
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 16

Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure

(SPCC) Plan that is discussed further in

Section 3.6.2.3.

3.6.1 VPDES Permits

3.6.1.1 Construction Activity

Jefferson Lab strives to keep pollutants,

such as sediments, out of surface

waters during earth disturbing

activities. No VPDES permits

involving construction have been

required through 2001. The Lab’s Plant

Engineering Department oversees the

civil construction and ensures that

subcontractors adhere to the standards

set forth in the Virginia Erosion and

Sediment Control Handbook. EH&S

Manual Chapter 6733, Storm Water

Pollution Prevention, identifies the site

program to address erosion control

during earth-disturbing activities.

3.6.1.2 Industrial Activities

Groundwater Monitoring - VPDES

Permit No. VA0089320

This permit covers groundwater

resources, including groundwater

flowing across the site and

groundwater discharged in the

dewatering operation (refer to Section

3.6.2.2). An earlier DEQ permit

quantified water quality “baseline”

values for certain parameters and set

long-term groundwater quality limits.

A well monitoring program under the

current permit enables the comparison

of current and “baseline” values.

Jefferson Lab verifies that accelerator

operations and other activities, such as

groundwater dewatering, do not

degrade the quality of either on-site or

offsite groundwater. Refer to Section 7

and EH&S Manual Chapter 6731,

Groundwater Protection, for additional

information.

Throughout 2001, groundwater

sampling to monitor all permit-defined

parameters was performed under a

subcontract with an accredited

laboratory and submitted to the

Commonwealth at the end of each

quarter. There were no compliance

issues involving groundwater in 2001.

Cooling Water Discharges - General

Permit No. VAG253002

This Permit, which contains water

quality limits, covers the surface

discharges from the cooling towers

adjacent to the Central Helium

Liquifier, Building 8. A small tower

adjacent to the Test Lab, Building 58,

was added to the Permit in early 2001.

Sampling is performed under a

subcontract with an accredited

laboratory and is submitted to the

Commonwealth at the end of each

quarter. Sampling during 2001

revealed one unusual result for

chlorine. During the fourth quarter the

chlorine level at one sampling site was

above the non-detect level, though

below the water production utility’s

maximum chlorine residual levels.

There was no known explanation (e.g.

there were no water treatment

chemicals in use that could have

contributed to the chlorine level);

however, the elevated value may stem

from large city water leaks that

occurred around that time.

3.6.2 Other Water Program Standards in

the WSS Set

3.6.2.1 Industrial Wastewater

40 CFR 403, General Pretreatment

Regulations for Existing and New

Sources of Pollution

This regulation contains National

Pretreatment Standards for pollutants

that pass through or interfere with

offsite treatment processes. Jefferson

Lab’s sanitary sewage is discharged to

an offsite publicly owned treatment

works operated by the HRSD. The Lab

is categorized as a Non-significant

Industrial User with no pretreatment

requirements. In 2001 the Lab received

an HRSD Gold Award for having no

violations.

Industrial Wastewater Discharge

Permit No. 0117 and the District’s

Industrial Wastewater Discharge

Regulations (IWDR)

Discharges to the HRSD are subject to

the Industrial Wastewater Discharge
17 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Permit and the IWDR. EH&S Manual

Appendix 6730-T1, Discharges to the

Sanitary Sewer System, presents

implementation practices at Jefferson

Lab.

Quarterly pH values are recorded by a

subcontractor at prescribed sampling

points and provided to the HRSD.

HRSD independently performs regular

sampling for metals and other water

quality indicators at some of the

sampling points to validate Jefferson

Lab’s compliance with permit and

regulatory requirements. There were

no violations or disparities in 2001.

Permitted discharges of activated water

at one HRSD sampling point continued

in 2001. Discharges are controlled

manually, after sampling has

confirmed that all values are within

identified limits. Either Jefferson Lab

staff or a subcontractor performs

monthly and quarterly radiological

analyses from this sampling point and

the analytical reports are provided to

the HRSD. All radiological permit and

regulatory criteria were met in 2001

and are discussed further in

Section 5.3.2.

To illustrate the relative quantity of

radioactivity being discharged, the Lab is

permitted to discharge no more than 5 Ci

(Curies) of tritium and 1 Ci of other gammaemitting radionuclides in one year. The total

radioactivity discharged to the sanitary

sewer in 2001 was 0.88 Ci of tritium (or about

17.6% of the total allowed) and 0.000034 Ci for

other gamma-emitting radionuclides (or

0.0034% of the total allowed).

Laboratory staff participated in the

February 28, 2001 annual inspection by

the HRSD - no compliance issues were

identified at that time or throughout

the course of the year.

3.6.2.2 Permit to Withdraw

Groundwater

No. GW0030800

To maintain water table levels

consistent with the experimental hall

structural design, water table control

via pumping will be necessary for the

life of the facility. This DEQ Permit

places monthly and annual limitations

on the amount that can be pumped. It

is important to note that this type of

“no usage” withdrawal is unusual.

Groundwater is normally withdrawn

for irrigation or drinking water.

Quarterly reporting of withdrawal

quantities continued in 2001, and all

monthly values were within permit

requirements. The total quantity of

water withdrawn in 2001 was

4.6 million gallons, which was well

below the roughly 23 million gallon

annual limit. The Lab voluntarily

reports its annual water usage to assist

the DEQ in determining total regional

water usage.

Permit compliance was maintained in

2001. Water quality sampling, as

described above, is performed under

the terms of the VPDES Permit

No. VA0089320.

3.6.2.3 SPCC Plan – Above Ground

Storage Tank Issues

Jefferson Lab has transformers and

other operating machinery on-site that

use various oils for lubrication,

hydraulics, and cooling. The Lab

maintains a used oil collection area to

assist in managing the resulting used

oil. The Lab has an approved SPCC

Plan as required by 40 CFR 112, which

was reviewed and updated in 2001.

The SPCC Plan covers handling,

storage, and transportation activities

and is implemented by EH&S Manual

Chapter 6732, Oil-Spill Prevention,

Control, and Countermeasures.

There are two oil-storage tanks on-site

that meet Federal and State above

ground storage tank definitions, but the

total quantity stored is under the
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 18

notification threshold. There were no

compliance issues in 2001. See Section

4.5 for more information on oil-related

items.

3.7 COMPLIANCE STATUS - PUBLIC

HEALTH STANDARDS

The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA)

ensures that drinking water is safe for public

consumption. Compliance is achieved via the

EPA’s National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations that apply to public water

supplies. These regulations set maximum

contaminant levels on bacteriological,

chemical, physical, and radiological

contaminants for public water systems.

The Virginia Department of Health regulates

drinking water quality and enforces

compliance with all Federal and State drinking

water-related permits and standards. Jefferson

Lab receives its drinking water through three

public water supply lines provided by the City

of Newport News Waterworks. No

monitoring by Jefferson Lab is required.

The SDWA applies to two areas at Jefferson

Lab: the Backflow Prevention Program and

the surface discharges under the three DEQ

permits. Jefferson Lab had no SDWA

compliance issues during 2001.

3.7.1 Backflow Prevention

An annual backflow prevention device

inspection is required by the city of

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

program ensures that untreated industrial

wastewater or contaminants from crossconnected chemical processes and building

equipment are mechanically prevented

from contaminating the drinking water

supply. Jefferson Lab engages locally

approved plumbing firms to ensure all

backflow prevention devices function as

designed. Annual inspection reports (the

last in June 2001) are sent to the city’s

Public Utilities Department. No issues

have ever been identified.

3.7.2 Surface Water Quality

The site drainage system flows to the Big

Bethel Reservoir, a drinking water source

for local military installations. The

groundwater dewatering discharge,

monitored under the VPDES Permit

No. VA0089320, and the cooling water

effluent, monitored under the VPDES

General Permit No. VAG253002, are

discharged into surface water channels that

lead offsite. Fort Monroe environmental

staff are provided annual information on

the quantity of groundwater discharged,

with information collected under the

Permit to Withdraw Groundwater. There

were no compliance issues involving

surface water quality in 2001. Refer to

Sections 4.2.3 and 5.3.2 for further

discussion on permit monitoring programs.

3.7.3 Drinking Water Quality

The water quality limits for the

groundwater monitoring wells in VPDES

Permit No. 0089320 include one value that

is one-quarter of the state’s drinking water

standard. There were no compliance issues

regarding wells in 2001.

3.8 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL

STANDARDS

3.8.1 Endangered Species Act (ESA)

The ESA protects endangered wildlife, fish,

plants, and their ecosystems. A 1986

environmental survey of Jefferson Lab’s

162-acre site uncovered no endangered

species in the area. A 2001 threatened and

endangered species survey identified no

species on the Jefferson Lab property that

were either threatened or endangered, or of

special concern in Virginia. As such, no

ESA compliance issues were identified in

2001.

3.8.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)

The MBTA of 1918 prohibits any

unauthorized taking, possessing,

importing, or other listed actions, of any

migratory bird or their eggs. The 1987 EA

found that 150 avian have ranges that

encompass the Jefferson Lab site, including

both permanent and summer residents.

Because the site lies within a disturbed
19 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

industrial and commercial area, only a

small fraction of these species are expected

to be found on site. A 2001 survey

identified no suitable breeding sites for any

of the birds noted in 3.8.1 above. There

were no concerns involving the MBTA in

2001.

3.8.3 National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA)

The NHPA of 1966, Section 106, protects

archaeological and historical resources.

Area surveys in 1987 and major

construction since that time have

uncovered no trace of historic or

archaeological resources. On

October 16, 1992, the Commonwealth of

Virginia’s Department of Historic

Resources (VDHR) determined that all

Section 106 conditions had been met and

no further assessments were required. A

follow-up with the VDHR was performed

during the preparation of an EA in 2001,

and identified no concern at that time. The

draft EA did note that the VDHR would be

notified if anything unusual was

encountered during any construction.

3.8.4 Transportation Standards

Transportation-related hazards at the Lab

arise as a consequence of the receipt,

packaging, and transportation of

hazardous and radioactive materials and

waste; compressed gases; cleanup

materials used in response to on-site spills;

and, regulated medical wastes. Many of

the regulations applicable to transportation

also apply to other environmental or public

health topics.

Requirements include the Department of

Transportation (DOT) regulations

identified in 49 CFR Subchapter C,

Hazardous Materials Regulations; the

Jefferson Lab RADCON Manual; EH&S

Manual Chapters 6150, Compressed Gases,

6310, Ionizing Radiation Protection,

Appendix 6750-T4, Packaging EHMs for

Transport; and, identified industry

standards. Compliance with some of these

standards is addressed below or under the

SER section listed in Exhibit A4 of the

appendix.

49 CFR Regulations

49 CFR 171 through 178 cover hazardous

and radioactive materials transportation

and contain DOT packaging and transport

requirements to protect the environment or

public health in case of accidents. The

delivery of hazardous or radiological

materials to the site is contingent upon

compliance with appropriate DOT and

other requirements. Hazardous and

radioactive materials must be properly

packaged for offsite transport according to

DOT regulations. RadCon manages the

radiological portion of this program and

the HWC manages non-radiological DOT

requirements. There were no compliance

issues in 2001.

EH&S Manual Chapters 6150, 6310, 6750,

and 6850; RADCON Manual; and,

Handbook of Compressed Gases

These requirements provide for the safe

packaging and transport of hazardous and

radioactive materials on Jefferson Lab

property. Properly trained staff perform

on-site transport of hazardous materials in

accordance with the EH&S Manual as

noted in Section 3.8.5. The RadCon Group,

in accordance with the Jefferson Lab

RADCON Manual and other internal

procedures, manages radioactive materials.

All medical wastes are handled by

specially trained staff and managed by

Medical Services. There were no

compliance issues regarding these

transportation standards in 2001.

3.8.5 Environmental Protection

Standards

The Lab EHM program is identified in

EH&S Manual Chapter 6750,

Environmentally Harmful Materials, and its

appendices. The objective is to prevent

spills or unintentional releases. Protection

measures include secondary containment

and the location of EHM storage areas

away from floor drains. Though there

were four minor oil spills, there were no

uncontrolled EHM releases affecting the

environment or public health in 2001.
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 20

3.9 EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND

POLLUTION PREVENTION (P2)

The following EOs, discussed below, primarily

address P2 strategies: EO 13101, Greening the

Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling

and Federal Acquisition; EO 13123, Greening the

Government Through Efficient Energy

Management; and EO 13148, Greening the

Government through Leadership in Environmental

Management. Information on the applicable

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 is

included in the discussion under EO 13148.

3.9.1 EO 11988 “Floodplain

Management”

This EO relates to the occupancy and

modification of floodplains. Since Jefferson

Lab is not in a 100-year floodplain, the

specific EO 11988 requirements do not

apply; however, localized flooding during

significant rain events, including

hurricanes, does occur. Plant Engineering

coordinates drainage modifications to

ensure appropriate drainage is maintained.

3.9.2 EO 11990 “Protection of Wetlands”

This EO ensures that adverse impacts to

wetlands from construction activities are

avoided or responsibly mitigated. During

original site investigations, the Corps of

Engineers determined that the forested

temporary wetlands to be disturbed by the

construction of Jefferson Lab were not

sufficiently permanent to qualify as

wetlands, and, therefore, did not require

the protection specified by EO 11990.

EO 11990 and 10 CFR 1022, Compliance with

Floodplain/Wetlands Environmental Review

Requirements, contain notification

requirements to be considered when

proposing new work beyond the scope of

the original site EA and FONSI. Evaluation

of Jefferson Lab activities involving

potential wetlands is accomplished

through the NEPA review process. A 2001

survey found no wetlands at any of the

sites proposed for construction projects in a

draft 2001 EA. There were no concerns

involving wetlands in 2001.

3.9.3 EO 13101 "Greening the

Government Through Waste

Prevention, Recycling, and Federal

Acquisition"

EO 13101 encourages agencies to make

more efficient use of natural resources by

recycling and practicing waste prevention

measures. This is accomplished in part by

promoting the procurement of products

made with recycled materials, termed

Affirmative Procurement (AP), by federal

agencies. The purchase of these materials

helps “close-the-loop” in the recycling

process. To comply with this EO, the DOE

has set goals and performance standards

on a variety of product classes. The DOE’s

complex-wide FY 2001 procurement target

for purchasing EPA-listed products was

100%. Jefferson Lab’s compliance level was

84.0% for FY 2001, a major improvement

from the 58.2% reported in FY 2000. Refer

to Section 4.2 for more information on this

topic.

3.9.4 EO 13123 "Greening the

Government Through Efficient

Energy Management"

This initiative, effective November 4, 1999,

focuses on energy efficiency (E2) as a

means of pollution prevention. The DOE

seeks a long-term energy use reduction of

15% for buildings and industrial facilities -

a 7% reduction was documented in

FY 2000. Plant Engineering analyzed

buildings and their support systems in

2001 to look for ways to reduce energy

consumption in the long term. Information

on site-specific goals developed in

response to the Secretary of Energy’s P2

and E2 initiatives in early 2001 is provided

in Section 3.9.5.6.

3.9.5 EO 13148 "Greening the

Government Through Leadership in

Environmental Management"

EO 13148 integrates environmental

accountability into federal agency policies,

operations, planning, and management.

The primary P2 goal is that pollution

should be prevented or reduced at the

source. Jefferson Lab complies with

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA)

requirements, uses only a few toxic
21 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

chemicals, and complies with the other

requirements of this EO to the extent

practicable.

The Lab’s compliance with EPCRA is

presented in Section 3.9.5.1. Section 3.9.5.2

reports how Jefferson Lab uses P2 and

other activities to maintain environmental

compliance. Specific Lab P2 and E2

initiatives are discussed in Section 4.5.5.

The results from environmental

compliance reviews are provided in

Section 3.9.5.3. Section 3.9.5.4 reports on

progress in implementing environmentally

beneficial landscaping practices. Results

from DOE’s EMS self-assessment

questionnaire are provided in

Section 3.9.5.5, and a summary of the Lab’s

progress in meeting DOE and siteidentified goals is presented in

Section 3.9.5.6.

As stated, Jefferson Lab is committed to

being environmentally accountable

through day-to-day decision-making and

long-term planning processes, across all

missions, activities, and functions.

3.9.5.1 EPCRA Compliance

EPCRA, also known as the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act

(SARA) Title III, created a system for

planning responses to emergencies

involving CERCLA hazardous

substances (HSs) and EPCRA extremely

hazardous substances (EHSs). EPCRA

requires that information regarding the

use and storage of these hazardous

chemicals be made available to the

public. This is done through reports to

the EPA (which posts some information

on their website) and local response

agencies. Jefferson Lab is responsible

for planning and responding to

chemical emergencies as well as

completing applicable reporting

requirements as noted in Exhibit 3-1.

The Commonwealth of Virginia

Emergency Response Council

administers the EPCRA program for

the EPA. Local emergency response

agencies that serve Jefferson Lab are the

Peninsula Local Emergency Planning

Committee and the City of Newport

News Fire Department.

Transportation-related standards

pertaining to emergency planning are

discussed in Section 3.8.4.

Besides EO 13148, other EPCRA-related

planning and prevention standards that

apply to Jefferson Lab include:

40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and 372 (provide

regulatory compliance guidance - see

specifics below); and Appendix

6710-T2, Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know.

Exhibit 3-1

EPCRA Reporting Status

EPCRA Section Description of Reporting Status

EPCRA Sec. 302 Planning notification Yes

EPCRA Sec. 303 Comprehensive Emergency Response Plans Not applicable

EPCRA Sec. 304 EHS Release Notification No reporting required to date

EPCRA Sec. 311-312 MSDS/Chemical Inventory Yes, provide 312 annually

EPCRA Sec. 313 TRI Reporting No reporting required to date
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 22

Emergency Planning Standards

40 CFR 300, National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP)

This regulation primarily addresses

DOE’s role in the NCP. Jefferson Lab

complies with 40 CFR 300 by having

emergency response procedures in

place to respond to oil and hazardous

substance releases, as identified in

EH&S Manual Chapters 3510,

Emergency Management Plan, and 6732,

Oil-Spill Prevention, Control, and

Countermeasures.

EPCRA Section 302, Emergency

Planning and Release Reporting

Under EPCRA Section 302, (refer to

40 CFR 355) Jefferson Lab is required to

notify the Commonwealth and local

emergency planning and response

groups (EPGs) within sixty days of the

receipt of an EHS that exceeds the

Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ).

Jefferson Lab’s EPCRA Section 302

notifications to date include

hydrofluoric acid, nitric acid, and

bromine. There were no new EHSs

identified in 2001.

Jefferson Lab is also required to notify

the Commonwealth and local EPGs of

accidental offsite releases of any HS

listed under CERCLA or any EHS listed

under EPCRA. The release levels that

trigger the EPCRA Section 304

notification requirements are the

reportable quantity (RQ) values listed

in the regulations for each substance.

Jefferson Lab has had no releases that

meet identified reporting criteria to

date. (For discussion about the

permitted release of activated water to

the sanitary sewer system, refer to

Section 3.6.2.)

EPCRA Sections 311 and 312,

Hazardous Chemical Inventories

Under EPCRA Sections 311 and 312,

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs)

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

chemicals, must be submitted to EPGs

for each hazardous chemical that

exceeds the TPQ identified in the

regulations. Inventory information is

obtained through an annual sitewide

chemical inventory coordinated by the

Jefferson Lab Industrial Hygienist.

Jefferson Lab’s submittal of the annual

Tier II Report, a hazardous chemical

inventory form, to the EPGs satisfies

this reporting requirement. Refer to

Exhibit 3-2 for the list of chemicals

reported for 2001.

Exhibit 3-2

Chemicals Reported for 2001

Compound Hazard Class

Fire

Sudden Release

of Pressure

Acute Health

Hazard Reactive

Chronic Health

Hazard

Argon (liquid) √ √

Helium (liquid √ √

Nitrogen (liquid) √ √

Nitric Acid √ √

Hydrofluoric Acid √ √

Hydraulic Oil (Various

including vacuum oil)

√ √

Lead (Sheeting) √

Bromine √ √
23 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Helium Container Near Building 98

Additional information is provided

upon request. The 2001 EPCRA 312

report submittal included updating site

contact information and verifying

Peninsula Local Emergency Planning

Committee records. In addition, upon

request, the Lab’s Emergency

Management Manager provides MSDSs

to the local Fire Chief for their records.

Chemical Inventory

EPCRA Section 313, Toxic Release

Reporting

This section (refer to 40 CFR 372)

requires the submission of information

to the EPA relating to the release of

toxic chemicals, including an annual

toxic chemical release report, the Toxic

Release Inventory (TRI), by any facility

that manufactures, imports, processes,

or otherwise uses more than a

threshold amount of any of

approximately 360 EPA-identified toxic

chemicals. Jefferson Lab does have

“otherwise use” activities and reviews

its chemical usage annually. For

CY 2001, it was verified that no lead

was “otherwise used” in a quantity

exceeding 100 pounds and no other

listed toxic chemicals were “otherwise

used” in quantities exceeding

10,000 pounds in 2001; therefore, no

TRI reporting was required.

Emergency Response Standards

Two environmental emergency

response-related hazards exist at

Jefferson Lab. One hazard involves

releases resulting from the storage or

transport of EHMs. Emergency

response standards that apply to EHMs

are CERCLA, the portions of 40 CFR

noted above, and the Virginia

Emergency Operations Plan. The

second hazard is a radiological release,

as addressed in 10 CFR 835.

There were four minor oil spills in 2001

that were mitigated promptly, none of

which impacted the environment.

There were no releases subject to

CERCLA or other emergency response

regulations in 2001.

3.9.5.2 P2 and Other Activities to

Support Compliance

ISM

Jefferson Lab integrates safety (EH&S

collectively) principles and functions

into all work processes through the

application of ISM. The ISM System

objective is to make safety, health, and

environmental protection a part of

routine business at Jefferson Lab.

Jefferson Lab intends to broaden

integrated safety management during

2002 by incorporating EMS core

elements and principles, as identified

under EO 13148. Refer to Section 4.1

for more information.

General P2 Activities

Jefferson Lab complies with EO 13148

and the PPA P2 goals by minimizing

use (source reduction), reusing to the

maximum extent, recycling to the
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 24

extent possible, and, as a last resort,

disposing of any wastes in the most

environmentally safe manner. The Lab

continues to establish P2 goals

regarding reductions in standard

sanitary waste, hazardous waste, and

LLW generation, and for improving

our recycling performance. A

contractual Performance Measure

addresses this and is noted in

Section 3.10.2. Specific Lab P2 and E2

initiatives are discussed in Sections 4.2

and 4.5.5. There were no P2

compliance concerns in 2001.

3.9.5.3 Results of Environmental

Compliance Reviews

There were no internal environmental

compliance reviews, including that of

ISM, in 2001. The results of inspections

from regulators are provided in

Section 4.3. Minor compliance-based

issues were promptly addressed at the

time of inspections and resulted in no

findings of concern by regulators.

3.9.5.4 Progress on Implementing

Environmentally and

Economically Beneficial

Landscaping Practices

Jefferson Lab uses qualified

subcontractors to take care of the

facility grounds. One beneficial

practice is that grass cover is

maintained in open areas to prevent

runoff. Fertilizers and herbicides are

applied locally only as needed and not

when rain is imminent to prevent

surface water contamination.

A new subcontract in FY 2002 will limit

the watering of beds to weekly and

encourage the use of environmentally

preferable products such as compost,

mulch, and items with recycled content.

3.9.5.5 EMS Self-Assessment

Questionnaire

A self-assessment of Jefferson Lab’s

EMS status was provided to the DOE

on September 21, 2001. Jefferson Lab

does not have a separate EMS but

implements the EMS principles

through the Lab’s ISM System Plan.

Some of the items that make up an

EMS, such as significant environmental

requirements, goals, and timeframes

are spelled out within the DOE/SURA

operating contract and the Jefferson

Lab EH&S Manual.

The Lab’s ISM System Plan will be

enhanced to incorporate EMS

principles and core elements. Other

site documents will be reviewed and

improved to better incorporate EMS

principles and practices.

3.9.5.6 Secretarial P2 and E2 Goals

Jefferson Lab is committed to meet ten

targets that address seven out of the

sixteen DOE-identified P2 and E2 goals.

Additional funding will be needed to

meet some targets. The Lab’s status is

depicted in Exhibit 3-3.

3.10 OTHER OBLIGATIONS

IDENTIFIED IN THE CONTRACT

Jefferson Lab has other environmental

protection and public health-related

obligations. These obligations are

incorporated into site programs, including

subcontractual agreements, exclusive of direct

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

participation in DOE’s NEPA process and

implementing EO 13123.

3.10.1 NEPA

NEPA requires that projects with

potentially significant environmental

impacts be evaluated and alternative

actions explored. These evaluations are to

be performed and reported as EAs or

Environmental Impact Statements.

Jefferson Lab assists the DOE in

implementing the NEPA process on the

site, including preparing NEPA

documents.
25 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit 3-3

Targets and Progress Projections

DOE

Goal Action

DOE Goal

FY 05 / FY 10 Lab 2005 Target

End FY 2001 Lab

Status

1,2,3 Waste Reduction (% of 1993 baseline)

1 Routine Hazardous Waste

Generated

90% 46% to 5.0 MT Met (4.0 MT)

1 LLW Generated 80% 63% to 3.5 M3

Not Met (42 M3)

1 Low Level Mixed Radioactive

Generated

80% 0 Met (None to date)

2 TRI Chemical Releases 90% Remain under

reporting threshold

Met for CY 2001

3 Sanitary Waste from Routine

Operations Generated

75%/ 80% Not to exceed 1995

baseline (274 MT)

Not Met (283 MT)

4 Routine and Non-routine Sanitary

Wastes Recycled (%recycled vs.

disposed)

45%/ 50% 20% of by FY05

25% by FY10

Met (28% includes all

recycled solids and

liquids)

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

6 Increase purchases of EPA

designated items w/recycled

content

100% 95% Not Met, but Progress

(87% from 59% in FY00)

7 Reduce energy consumption in

buildings and laboratories

40%/45% bldgs.

20%/30% labs

15% by FY05 using

a 1992 baseline

Not Met (No values

available for FY01)

8 Purchase ‘clean’ electricity Increase purchases None -

9 Retrofit chillers made before 1984

using class I refrigerants

Complete by FY 05 N/A N/A

10 Eliminate use of Class I ODSs to

extent practicable

Complete by FY 10 Chiller replacement

by FY05, others

under review.

Not Met

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

12 Reduce vehicle fleet annual

petroleum use

20% (vs. FY99) None -

13 Acquire 75% of light duty vehicles

as alternative fuel vehicles

Annually Evaluate options

with GSA

-

14 Increase usage rate of alternate

fuel vehicles

80%/90% None -

NOTES: * if separate goals exist

MT: metric tons

M3

: cubic meters

An EA for the proposed Newport News

site for CEBAF (now Jefferson Lab) was

completed in 1987, prior to the construction

of the facility, and resulted in a FONSI. In

1997, an operations-related EA for the

CEBAF and FEL was completed, also

resulting in a FONSI. A new EA covering

the construction of five new structures to

support lab operations was started in

FY 2001. Refer to Section 4.4 for more

information.

Jefferson Lab will respond to any

requirements identified by the DOE with

respect to NEPA compliance issues, of

which there were none in 2001.

3.10.2 Performance Measures

Performance Measures are incorporated

into the DOE/SURA Contract. Four of

them reflect environmental protection

issues. Exhibit 3-4 highlights relevant

FY 2001 scores.
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 26

Exhibit 3-4

Contract Performance Measure Results

I. D. Performance Measure Description FY 2001 Score

Received by the Lab

5.0b Minimizing Environmental Exceedances 100%

5.3 Fraction of Solid Waste Recycled 100%

5.4a Fraction of Radioactive Waste Produced for Useful Purposes 100%

5.4b Ratio of Hazardous Waste Generated compared with the quantity that

could have been generated if Waste Minimization was not practiced

100%

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

3.10.3 DOE Guidance

The current performance-based

DOE/SURA Contract identifies DOE

environmental protection and public health

requirements in either a Performance

Measure or in the Environment, Safety, and

Health (ES&H) Responsibilities portion in

Appendix E of the Contract.

Since incorporation of the WSS Set into the

Contract, the only DOE environmental

documents specifically identified in either

the WSS Set or the Contract are DOE

Orders 435.1, 5400.1, and 5400.5; DOE

Notice 441.1; and, DOE Standard 1023-95.

There are other orders in the Contract that

do not apply to EH&S. A process for

reviewing new or revised DOE Orders for

applicability at Jefferson Lab was

implemented in 1999 and 2000. In 2001,

Jefferson Lab complied with applicable

DOE documents, guidance, and related

contractual commitments.

3.10.4 AL&R LIST

Administrative environmental protection

and public health requirements are on the

AL&R List. A violation would not directly

impact the environment; however, it could

result in an administrative action. AL&R

standards are generally incorporated into

site programs. There were no known noncompliance issues in 2001.

3.11 OTHER MAJOR

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND

ACTIONS

There were no major issues or actions

identified in 2001 that could negatively affect

the environment or public health. Here are a

few noteworthy actions.

• The first shipment of LLW took place.

RadCon implemented a new program

to meet the DOE’s new regulatory

requirements.

• To help meet the Lab’s waste

minimization goal, a collaborative

effort among Lab staff resulted in

establishing local recycling centers at

some key buildings for office related

recyclables. For more information refer

to Section 4.5.3.

• A new web page on the Lab’s AP

Program and an EarthWatcher

Newsletter were introduced to the Lab

community in early 2002.

• An effort by the Procurement

Department to improve the Lab’s

performance in implementing AP.

Refer to Sections 3.9.3 and 4.2.1 for

more information.

3.12 RELEASE REPORTING

There are no releases that require continuous

release reporting. There were a few small oil

spills that are noted in Section 4.5.1. There

were no reportable spills or releases of any

materials in 2001.

3.13 PERMIT SUMMARY

Information about permits held in 2001 is

presented in Exhibit 3-5.
27 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit 3-5

Jefferson Lab Permits

SER Section Permit Number Description

Permit

Dates

3.6.1.2 VA0089320 VPDES Permit - Specifies allowable groundwater and surface water

quality on-site during accelerator operations. Assures groundwater

unaffected at and beyond site boundary.

7/16/1996

through

7/16/2006

3.6.1.2 VAG253002 VPDES Permit - General Permit for Cooling Water Discharges -

Authorizes cooling water discharges within identified discharge

limitations.

9/1/1999

through

3/1/2003

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

discharged to sewerage.

10/1/1987

through

3/1/2007

3.6.2.2 GW0030800 Permit to Withdraw Groundwater - Authorizes maximum quantities

of water to be withdrawn by dewatering of area under experimental

halls

11/1/1994

through

10/30/2004

3.3.2 4727-45-01 South Carolina Radioactive Waste Transport Permit - authorization to

transport LLW within the state

9/14/2001

through

12/31/2001

SECTION 4

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

PROGRAM

Jefferson Lab’s mission includes protection of

the environment and public health. There are

many facets to the site EP program, which is

integrated into facility operations under

Jefferson Lab’s ISM System Plan that also

documents the site’s EMS strategy. The site’s

EP program provides staff the requirements

and guidance for making environmentally

preferable choices, identifies requirements for

radiological and non-radiological monitoring,

and reviews performance through actions such

as assessments and inspections. This section

provides information on these and other EP

and public health-related 2001 events and

activities.

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Jefferson Lab does not have a specific EMS, but

acknowledges that the program’s elements are

accomplished through implementation of the

Lab’s ISM System Plan, which addresses

environment, health, and safety principles and

functions. The primary objective of the ISM

System Plan is to make safety, health, and

environmental protection a part of routine

business at Jefferson Lab. Some items that

make up an EMS, such as significant

environmental goals and timeframes, are

included in the DOE/SURA operating contract

or in the Jefferson Lab EH&S Manual. In 2001,

as per EO 13148, the Lab made a commitment

to review and improve the ISM System Plan as

well as the Lab’s Quality Assurance Program

Manual to specifically incorporate EMS

principles and core elements in FY 2002. EMS

is applied on site as described here.

Site EP Policy: Jefferson Lab has both a

mission statement and an EH&S policy. The

mission statement calls for excellence in all

activities while the policy commits the Lab to

preserving the natural environment as well as

to conducting operations without adverse

impact on the surrounding community.

Environmental Planning and Analysis

Procedures: Environmental planning and

analysis is handled by documenting and

reviewing projects and activities for NEPA

considerations. Line management is

responsible for providing notice of actions and

impacts to enable proper time for review and

authorization as applicable. As well, some

subcontracts are updated to require and

encourage subcontractors to take EP into

account.
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 28

Environmental Objectives and Targets: The

Lab operates within contractual operating

limits that include staying within permit

criteria. Exhibit 3-3 lists the targets for many

of the items identified in the Secretary’s P2 and

E2 Goals and Exhibit 3-4 shows four EP-related

performance measures.

Implementation and Operations Controls: The

DOE/SURA contract defines general terms

and conditions for operation and performance.

EMS/ISM roles and responsibilities, along

with some implementation procedures, are

included in the Lab’s EH&S Manual. No

separate EMS training has been provided.

Identification of Environmental Aspects and

Impacts: No specific analysis has been

performed; however, the primary

environmental aspects at Jefferson Lab are

radiological implications to air, water, the

public, and to local biota.

Performance Measurement: The Lab semiannually reviews performance measure results

for various topical areas that include EH&S.

Corrective Action and Self-Assessment

Procedures: The ISM System Plan is reviewed

periodically and updated as necessary to keep

it current, with information shared with the

DOE Site Office. It was most recently updated

in 2001. Implementation of the ISM System

will be evaluated in 2002..

Management Review Process: The Lab’s

Director’s Council, composed of top

management, reviews the ISM System Plan

periodically through the self-assessment noted

above. The review is documented and open

items are tracked until closure.

4.2 ENVIRONMENTALLY

PREFERABLE PURCHASING

AND BEYOND

Today’s rapidly changing technologies,

products, and practices carry the risk of

generating materials and wastes that, if

improperly managed, can threaten public

health and the environment. In this regard,

Jefferson Lab encourages, and in some cases

requires, the purchase and use of products and

services that have minimal impact on the

environment, a noteworthy P2 practice.

Providing proper disposition of wastes is

mandatory. A few highlights about these site

programs are noted below.

4.2.1 Environmentally Preferable

Purchasing (EPP)

The Lab has committed to integrating

environmental considerations into every

aspect of the acquisition of products and

services. This commitment is based on

EPA requirements and the implementing

goals that DOE has established to meet the

applicable requirements. In managing this

program, Jefferson Lab has accomplished

the following:

• Assigned an EPP focal point to train

staff as well as to track and report the

amounts of EPA-identified recycled

content products purchased in

comparison to those not having

recycled content;

• Set goals for: improving the

performance of procuring EPAidentified items and minimizing (and

eventually eliminating) all purchases of

ozone-depleting substances; and,

• Kept staff informed about other factors,

as possible, such as selecting non-toxic

or bio-based as well as the most energy

efficient items and materials rather than

a product that could have a greater

environmental impact.

During 2001, the Business Services

Department and EH&S Reporting staff

continued to encourage the purchase of

EPA-listed materials having recycledmaterial content. Jefferson Lab’s main

office product supplier continued to

highlight recycled-content-containing

products in both its paper and on-line

catalogs. There was significant

improvement over last year’s performance

at buying recycled-content materials as

reported in Section 3.9.3 and more

opportunities to improve this level are

being investigated. Also, EH&S Manual

chapters dealing with the procurement of

goods and services were expanded to

incorporate EPP principles in 2001, a

noteworthy action. For standard white
29 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

copy paper uses, where paper and services

are provided by the central Copy Center,

30% recycled-content paper was utilized

100% of the time.

4.2.2 Environmentally Preferable Use

and Disposal

Staff and users of Jefferson Lab are

responsible for following environmentally

sound use and disposal practices and

procedures which are presented in

Chapters 6610 and 6760 of the EH&S

Manual. Two questions that staff and

users are encouraged to ask themselves

prior to making any and all purchases are:

“Is this product safest for the environment

and will it allow me to continue to do my

job effectively?” and “Is this product

composed of recycled post-consumer

material?”

Use

Once the environmentally preferable

product or service has been obtained or is

being accomplished, Jefferson Lab staff

continue to take EP, as well as health and

safety, considerations into account. Factors

such as ensuring secondary containment is

present and that proper ventilation for the

process is provided help to minimize

exposure to potential hazards.

Disposal

Jefferson Lab staff have a range of options

for disposition of materials to include

recycling, neutralizing, scrapping,

providing spent chemicals or equipment to

co-workers on-site or to other DOE

facilities, and disposing in a local landfill.

The Lab intends for all items to be disposed

of in the most environmentally acceptable

manner that meets all applicable regulatory

and contractual requirements. In

accordance with these intentions, the Lab

expanded its recycling efforts in 2001 by

establishing “local recycling centers”.

Refer to Section 4.5.3 for more information.

4.2.3 Overview of the Environmental

Monitoring Program

Environmental monitoring is one of the

primary methods used by the Lab to assess

environmental conditions. Monitoring is

conducted to: verify compliance with

applicable regulations and other

requirements; evaluate the Lab’s impact on

the environment or public health; identify

potential environmental problems; provide

data to support management decisions;

and, evaluate the need for remedial actions

or mitigative measures.

The Environmental Monitoring Program

establishes guidelines for examining

chemical, oil, and radioactive effluents

generated from the facility. An integral

part of the program is routine sampling

and tracking of air, process water,

wastewater, and groundwater. These are

monitored to ensure that Jefferson Lab

effluents do not have a negative impact on

the surrounding environment and that

effluents remain within the allowable

range. Jefferson Lab also assesses the

effects of Lab activities by measuring,

monitoring, and calculating the effects of

past, current, and future Lab operations on

the environment and public health.

Both permit-required and routine

monitoring emphasize potential

environmental exposure pathways

appropriate to medium-energy particle

physics laboratories. These pathways

include external and internal exposure to

radiation, the major focus of the site’s

program. The external exposure potential

is from direct penetrating (10 CFR 834

(draft) and 10 CFR 835) and airborne

radiation (40 CFR 61, Subpart H). The

internal exposure pathway is from H-3

(tritium) and Na-22 (a sodium isotope) in

potential drinking water sources. These

exposure potentials are discussed in

Section 5 and do not present a concern

either on or off the Jefferson Lab site at this

time.

Sampling is conducted in a manner that

adequately characterizes effluent streams.

Standard collection and analysis methods

are used where applicable and are

documented in program and departmental

procedures. Routine environmental

monitoring is performed under the

direction of responsible line management

and overseen by the Lab’s Office of

Technical Performance.
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 30

Environmental monitoring data collected

in 2001 included:

• operational measurements at site

boundary monitor locations;

• groundwater quality for long-term

facility operations;

• effluents to the sanitary sewer;

• groundwater dewatering discharges;

and,

• other effluent streams, such as the

cooling water at the cooling towers.

On-site environmental surveillance

continued in 2001. The environmental

baseline data were obtained prior to the

start of routine accelerator operations.

Baseline data are compared with data

obtained during ongoing facility operations

to ensure that Lab operations are not

adversely affecting public health or the

environment.

Throughout 2001, the RadCon Group

reviewed radiological and non-radiological

environmental monitoring information

stemming from accelerator operations for

conformity with applicable standards.

Refer to Section 5 for the environmental

radiological program discussion and to

Section 6 for environmental nonradiological program information.

4.2.4 Site Permits

Environmental permits held by the DOE

Site Office are listed in Exhibit 3-5, and

compliance with each is discussed in

Section 3.6 of this report. All permits citing

limits and conditions involving water are

discussed in Sections 5.3 and 6.1.

4.3 APPRAISALS, ASSESSMENTS,

AND INSPECTIONS

The DOE Site Office, the ORO Office, and

various Commonwealth and local authorities

provide external oversight of the Jefferson Lab

EP Program. Actions of note in 2001 are

described here.

External Appraisals

There were no environmentally related

external appraisals performed in 2001. All

previously identified deficiencies from prior

external appraisals had been addressed and

closed by the end of CY 2000.

DOE Review of Jefferson Lab SelfAssessment

The DOE Site Office’s Overlay Report,

produced in conjunction with SURA’s annual

Laboratory-wide self-assessment, covers EH&S

topics, contains Site Office observations and

reviews, DOE appraisal results, and other

information. The Report provides an overall

performance assessment for the year. For

FY 2001, the Overlay Performance Evaluation

Report yielded a rating of “Outstanding” in

the EH&S category.

ISM (and EMS)

The ISM System Plan was reviewed and

updated in 2001 and the ISM System program

is to be assessed in 2002. Refer to Section

3.9.5.2 and 4.1 for more information.

External Reviews

An Emergency Management (EM) Peer Review

was conducted in July 2001 at Jefferson Lab,

which is categorized as a low-hazard, nonnuclear accelerator facility. The review

covered many topics including how Jefferson

Lab responds to various emergencies and

situations such as hurricanes, oil spills, and

power failures. The Peer Review Committee

recognized the application of continuous

improvement in this program as evidenced by

the new staff-initiated changes to ensure that

the identified goals were being accomplished.

The Committee offered several suggestions for

further refinement including that additional

tabletop exercises should be scheduled. The

EM program earned an “Outstanding” rating.

External Inspections

There were two external environmental

inspections during 2001.

• The HRSD staff performed the annual

Jefferson Lab site inspection on

February 28. For this inspection, the

HRSD chose not to visit any particular

buildings, but reviewed Jefferson Lab

permit records and HRSD meter

information. Minor deficiencies were

noted during the inspection, including a

few missing meter inspection sheets,

which were promptly mitigated. The

inspector returned at a later date to
31 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

inspect all new meters and their service

areas and found all to be in order.

• A DEQ inspection of the Lab’s VPDES

Groundwater Monitoring Permit

(No. 0089320) occurred on March 27. The

inspection encompassed a site visit to the

permitted wells within the accelerator

site as well as a records review. The

inspector indicated a slight concern about

the solids in the storm channel that

includes Discharge #001 effluent, but had

no recommendations to offer. No

corrective actions were identified.

Line Self-Assessments

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

elements. The LSAs are broad in scope,

covering the accomplishment of the elements’

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

Group performs independent assessments

(IAs) of four of the Lab’s organizational units

each year, focusing on EH&S. Deficiencies

identified through the IAs are tracked by

SA/QA until the corrective actions are

completed. One noted deficiency identified in

2001 involved the Lab's AP program. To

ensure AP program requirements are properly

applied in the acquisition and procurement

processes the Lab's EH&S Manual is being

amended to include necessary AP program

information.

4.4 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 2001 are as follows.

• Twelve CX’s that pertain to regular

activities, including the “Management of

Radioactive Waste at TJNAF”, were

renewed.

• One new project CX that covers the

demolition and construction of an area

inside the FEL for future use as an

injector test cave was approved.

• The internal approval process for very

small-scale construction projects that are

covered under existing CXs continued.

• The preparation of an EA to address

proposed construction projects began.

The EA identifies an addition for the

FEL Building, additions for CEBAF

Center, and new Technical Support, End

Station Refrigeration, and Storage

buildings.

4.5 SUMMARY OF OTHER

SIGNIFICANT SITE

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES

4.5.1 Issues and Actions

Emergency Management Exercise: A

‘suspect mail’ incident at the adjacent ARC

served as the 2001 emergency management

exercise. The Lab, who serves as the

building manager for the City, and area

emergency response organizations

responded to the 911 call. The ‘suspect

mail’, which met the Federal Bureau of

Investigation's alert criteria, turned out to

simply contain paper scraps along with the

intended paper document. Issues, such as

interfaces with various response agencies

and between Lab departments, were

identified and line management has been

working to resolve these issues.

EHM Spills: There were four minor oil

releases involving a valve leak, the

mishandling of an oil-based product by a

staff member, a diesel fuel overflow from a

manlift, and pump oil spillage at a spill

tray. All instances were minor and quickly

corrected by line management and EH&S

staff.

SPCC Plan: This plan, which was reviewed

and updated in 2001, encompasses

handling, storage, and transportation of

various oil and petroleum product

lubricants, hydraulics, and cooling

materials. For more information refer to

Section 3.6.2.3 of this report.
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 32

Other items of note include:

• The HRSD awarded Jefferson Lab a

Gold Pretreatment Excellence

Award for its excellent performance

record.

• The Lab continued to procure lowmercury fluorescent lamps and

started handling the crushed lamps

as universal waste, eliminating that

hazardous waste stream.

• Jefferson Lab made its first shipment

of radioactive waste as noted in

Section 3.3.2.

• Environmental reviews:

o A study was performed to

identify the extent of potential

jurisdictional wetlands at

Jefferson Lab as well as to

determine whether threatened

and endangered species could be

present on the site. Only one

small (previously known) isolated

wetland was identified through

the study. Also, no resident

federal or state threatened or

endangered species, or flora and

fauna species considered of

special concern in Virginia were

identified on or immediately

adjacent to the Jefferson Lab site.

o An analysis of groundwater flow

direction and velocity was

conducted late in 2001. Flow

directions and seasonal variations

in groundwater flow were

consistent with those noted in a

previous analysis. The

groundwater flow velocities had a

wide range across the site. Refer

to Section 7 for more information.

• In accordance with EO 13148

requirements to achieve ODS

reductions, information regarding

ODS purchase restrictions was

provided to Division EH&S Officers

for implementation in their

respective areas.

4.5.2 Waste Minimization and Pollution

Prevention (WMin/P2)

The PPA established P2 as a national

objective and the most important

component of the environmental

management hierarchy. Waste

Minimization, in combination with other

P2 strategies, is recognized as the most

cost-effective form of environmental

protection.

The purpose of Jefferson Lab’s WMin/P2

Awareness Plan is to foster the philosophy

that prevention is superior to either paying

for special disposal or for remediation, and

thus focuses on minimizing waste

generation.

WMin/P2 reduces the quantity of EHMs

and other pollutants or contaminants

entering a waste stream or the environment

prior to recycling or treatment. Various

wastes, including air emissions and water

discharges, can be significantly reduced or

sometimes eliminated entirely by

reviewing processes during the planning

phase or prior to altering current

operations. These practices benefit the

environment, protect employees and public

health, and reduce site waste disposal

costs. Specific objectives of this program

include:

• making employees aware of

WMin/P2 program requirements,

goals, accomplishments, and general

environmental activities and hazards

at the site;

• informing employees, users, and

visitors of specific environmental

issues such as opportunities for

recycling; and,

• encouraging staff and recognizing

efforts to enhance the environment

through WMin/P2.

Plant Engineering and other staff continue

to explore opportunities to find users or

vendors that will take or buy items that are

no longer needed for Jefferson Lab

business. One disposition method,

recycling, was expanded in 2001.

4.5.3 Recycling

The Lab continues to implement waste

reduction strategies and to educate and

encourage staff on the proper disposition

of recyclable materials. Additional items

were added to the recycling program in

2001.
33 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Communication channels, such as the Lab

newsletter and EH&S wall-mounted and

electronic bulletins, continued to inform

people about recycling activities. Through

a collaborative effort between EH&S

Reporting and Plant Engineering, office

product recycling centers were established

in two high-use buildings. These centers

have containers for twelve recyclable

product types that include

fax/printer/inkjet cartridges, used

batteries, transparencies, fiber mesh

envelopes, and among other items, paper,

aluminum, and plastic bottles. One item of

note in November was that the first

shipment of used toner cartridges was sent

for remanufacturing. The small amount of

monies received from the cartridges and

from aluminum can proceeds are returned

to the recycling budget to help pay for

subsequent recycling activities. Lab-wide

response and participation in recycling

continues to grow.

The quantities of materials recycled in

FY 2001 were reported to the DOE - the

information is shown in Exhibit 4-1.

Recycling Centers Located at CEBAF Center (Building 12) and VARC (Building 28)

Exhibit 4-1

Quantities of Items Recycled or Reused in FY 2001

Description Quantity (tons (kg), unless noted)

Paper Products (office paper & cardboard)# 35.0 (31,750)

Aluminum Cans# 0.56 (508)

Scrap Metal (reclaimed through GSA) 45.6 (41,400)

Used Oil 3.6 (3,300)

Used Coolant 1.8 (1,630)

Lead-acid Batteries 0.25 (230)

Fluorescent Lamps 0.86 (780)

Toner Cartridges# 320 pounds (145)

Transparencies# 22 pounds (10)

Computer Disks# 0.5 pounds (0.23)

Circuit Boards and Electronics 135 pounds (61)

New/Used All Occasion Cards* 143 pounds (65)

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

#

Items collected in office, kitchen, and recycling centers. (No small batteries were provided for recycling in 2001.)
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 34

4.5.4 Hazardous and Special

Wastestreams

Variations in hazardous waste generation

rates have been recognized and

documented with the use of Performance

Measures. Jefferson Lab has made notable

progress in meeting hazardous waste

minimization objectives. Accelerator

Division EH&S staff, in particular,

continued to emphasize substitution,

reduction, and reuse of hazardous

materials in the workplace.

In the category of special wastestreams,

Jefferson Lab generated about 4.7 tons

(4,300 kg) of hazardous waste, about

13 tons (42 cubic meters) of LLW in the

Lab’s first LLW shipment, and no TSCA or

mixed wastes (a combination of hazardous

and radioactive) during FY 2001.

This large amount of LLW was primarily

due to designating as waste some

radioactive materials that were being

stored in special holding areas to allow for

decay and possible reuse. This material

was designated waste and prepared for

shipment. RadCon completed the loading

and surveying of the special shipping

containers and turned them over to the

waste broker for disposition in July. The

broker took physical possession of the

waste in early August and transported the

material from the site.

4.5.5 Other Measures to Minimize

Environmental Consequences

Energy Efficiency

• In 2001, Jefferson Lab received a

DOE grant to develop an energy

efficient klystron to replace present

units (at 340 locations) as they are

retired. The estimated annual power

savings is 10 Gigawatt Hrs. (Note

that klystrons require large amounts

of power.)

• One of the initiatives proposed by

Plant Engineering also involves the

accelerator’s klystrons. Plant

Engineering requested DOE funding

to install a combination of multitap

autotransformers and modulating

anode control software to decrease

power consumption. The proposal

is estimated to annually save

8.1 Gigawatt Hrs.

• All buildings were reclassified based

on usage according to a DOE

guidance memorandum. Plant

Engineering continues to monitor

energy activities for many site

buildings. This work includes the

preparation of studies, analyses, and

the review of building and system

designs, and the monitoring of

resource consumption.

Environmental Quality Enhancements

• The Test Lab’s use of solvents was

virtually eliminated, and the acid

usage in the cavity production

process is being maintained at 50%

below previous use. These

improvements are due to the

combined efforts of the lab users, the

process designers , and the

Accelerator Division EH&S staff.

• Oil-spill prevention controls were

added and/or improved in a

number of work areas, including in

the SNS work area in the Test Lab.

• Recycling centers were added at the

VARC and at CEBAF Center, an

effort that has considerably

increased staff awareness. More

centers will be added during 2002.

SECTION 5

ENVIRONMENTAL

RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM

Radioactive materials are used in many

research activities at Jefferson Lab. The

radiological impact of these materials and

potential effective dose equivalents to

members of the public from various pathways

such as inhalation, ingestion, and skin

absorption were evaluated to show compliance

with EPA and DOE regulatory limits. During

2001, very low levels of radioactive gaseous

and particulate emissions were released from

facility ventilation exhausts.
35 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

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.

Jefferson Lab operations had minimal

radiological dose impact to the public and the

environment. The ambient external dose

measured was on the order of 2% of natural

background levels or 7 mrem (70 μSv

(microSieverts)). The effective dose equivalent

to the maximally exposed individual from air

emissions for 2001 was calculated to be 0.011

mrem (0.11 μSv), as reported to the EPA. This

dose is insignificant when compared to the

EPA regulatory public air-dose limit of

10 mrem/yr (100 μSv/yr). The annual

effective dose equivalent to an individual

consuming contaminated water was so small it

could not be measured. The maximum dose

impact to the individual from both the air and

direct pathways combined was 7 mrem

(70 μSv). This is 7% of the DOE regulatory

dose limit for members of the public from all

pathways, which is 100 mrem (1000 μSv).

In 2001, the dose to terrestrial biota was also

evaluated. No radiological doses either to

terrestrial animals or plants above natural

background were recorded from Jefferson Lab

operations. There are no aquatic species in the

Jefferson Lab vicinity that could be affected by

Jefferson Lab operations, so no such dose

estimates are provided.

A summary of dose and release reporting for

2001 is provided in Exhibits 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3.

More detailed information is provided later in

the chapter. Note that information about all

electron accelerator-related radionuclides, with

the potential for release from the site, is

documented in this chapter. All important

discharges or releases of radioactive

constituents are documented herein. There

were no non-routine releases in 2001 so all

values shown result from routine operations.

Exhibit 5-1

Jefferson Lab Radiological Dose Reporting Table for CY 2001

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 1.1 E-2 (1.1 E-4) 0.011 (2.5 E-4) 0.025 - N/A

Water 0 0 N/A - N/A

Other

Pathways

7 (7 E-2) 7 Unknown/

Unknowable

- N/A

All Pathways 7 (7 E-2) 7 214,000 est. N/A

Note: 0.011 = 1.1 x 10-2 = 1.1E-2

 Values presented in Exhibits 5-1, 5-2, & 5-3 are presented in Scientific Notation (example, 2 E-05 is 0.00002)

Exhibit 5-2

Jefferson Lab Radiological Atmospheric Releases for 2001 [in Ci (Bq)]

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

2001

2.15 E-02

(7.96 E8)

3.71 E-03 (1.37

E8)

1.05 E+00

(3.89 E10)

7.90 E+00

(2.92 E11)

4.19 E+00

(1.55 E11)

4.49 E-02

(1.66 E9)

5.48 E-01

(2.03 E10)

2.11 E-03

(7.81 E7)

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

m: minutes

All data involving activity from reactor facilities (85Kr, Uranium, etc) is not applicable for Jefferson Lab.
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 36

Exhibit 5-3

Jefferson Lab Liquid Effluent Releases of Radioactive Material for 2001 [in Ci (Bq)]

Radionuclide Tritium Be-7 Na-22

Ci (Bq) in CY 2001 8.8 E-1 (3.3 E10) 2.8 E-05 (1.04 E6) 6.6 E-06 (2.44 E5)

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

All data involving activity from reactor facilities (fission and activation products) is not applicable for Jefferson Lab.

5.1 SITE INFORMATION

Jefferson Lab protects the environment and the

public from exposure to radiation. The

radiological monitoring program is the

primary means used at Jefferson Lab to verify

accomplishment of this objective. Other

support activities include: using permanent

and temporary shielding; using active and

passive controls at activated water locations;

and, following proper protocols when

handling radioactive materials and wastes.

The radiological monitoring program is

designed to verify that radiation exposures,

both for on-site radiation workers and for

members of the general public, are below

permissible levels and as low as reasonably

achievable. The program also assures that Lab

support activities and accelerator testing and

operations, as described within the approved

operational safety envelope, will result in

minimum impacts to the environment and

have minimal to no effects on public health.

5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION

MONITORING

Accelerator operations produce three types of

radioactivity that can impact the general

public: direct or prompt, airborne, and

waterborne. Jefferson Lab performed

extensive environmental monitoring in 2001 to

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

public are modeled and monitored when

appropriate or as indicated by law. The

decision to monitor a particular pathway is

based on the:

• type of operations;

• radionuclides released;

• potential hazard;

• experience from previous monitoring

results at Jefferson Lab; and,

• experience at other nuclear and highenergy physics laboratories.

5.3 AIRBORNE AND WATERBORNE

RADIOACTIVITY

Radiation resulting from the accelerator

beam or the interaction of the beam with

matter is called direct (or prompt)

radiation. This direct radiation is

produced within the beam enclosure and

stops being generated as soon as the

accelerator is turned off.

5.3.1 Direct Radiation and Airborne

Radioactivity

In addition to direct radiation, the

interaction of the accelerator beam with

matter can cause the formation of

radioactive materials through activation of

the matter. The beamlines, magnets,

beamline-components, targets, detectors,

other experimental area equipment, and

the energy dissipating devices (beam

dumps) used to contain the beam’s energy

may become activated. Cooling and

ground waters, lubricants, and air in the

beam enclosure may also become activated.

These activated air, water, and particulates

are possible sources of airborne and

waterborne radioactivity. Though the

direct radiation stops when the accelerator

is turned off, this activated equipment,

water, and air continue to emit radiation.

Controls are in place to minimize the

effects of both direct radiation and

radiation from activated materials on Lab

personnel, the environment, and the

public.
37 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

 The beam enclosure area is surrounded

by radiation shielding.

 Direct radiation is monitored both onsite and at the site boundary.

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

enclosure during accelerator

operations.

 The monitoring of airborne

radioactivity is carried out locally to

validate calculations and estimates of

radiation dose.

 All material exposed to the beam is

monitored for radioactivity prior to

being removed from the beam

enclosure.

Shielding Blocks at the Hall C Truck Ramp

Entrance

While radiation dose rates offsite are

expected to be well below limits set for the

general public, monitoring ensures that the

established controls are effective.

• Waterborne activity is discussed in

Section 5.3.2.

• Monitoring for exposure of the public

to direct radiation is discussed in

Section 5.4.

• The monitoring for public exposure to

airborne emissions is addressed below.

Airborne Radioactivity: Radioactive material in

any chemical or physical form that is present in

ambient air, above natural background. This

radioactivity can be generated by interaction with

direct radiation.

Airborne emissions at the site boundary

are addressed under EPA requirements

discussed in Section 3.5.2. Airborne

radionuclide concentrations at the site

boundary have been too low to accurately

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

indicated that Jefferson Lab operational

emissions remain several orders of

magnitude lower than the EPA

10 mrem/yr reporting limit. Calculated

results based on an EPA-approved

computer program, CAP-88 PC, are

presented in Exhibit 5-4. Despite this very

low calculated release rate, Jefferson Lab

continued being proactive in 2001 by

making continuous measurements to verify

the calculations. A report covering

CY 2001 was sent to the EPA as described

in 40 CFR 61. This report documented that

the dose to a maximally exposed

individual of the public was

0.011 mrem/yr (0.11 μSv/yr) due to

airborne releases. The dose from exposure

through all applicable pathways is

presented in Exhibit 5-1.

Lab programs and outside advisory

committees ensure that the Lab continues

to function within regulatory and

established administrative limits for direct

radiation and airborne emissions. One

entity is the Experimental Equipment

Review Committee that reviews

experiments for EH&S parameters, as well

as for experimental and facility usage

criteria. Another is a RadCon review of

projected public exposures and airborne

emissions from proposed experiments to

help the Lab remain within established

guidelines. Refer to Section 5.4 for specific

information on the monitoring of direct

radiation.
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 38

Exhibit 5-4

Nuclide Effective Dose Equivalent Summary

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

Calculation for

Selected Individual

Based on

Conservative

Calculations and

Measurements

(mrem/yr.)

9.9 E-6 3.2 E-5 1.1 E-3 6.9 E-3 2.0 E-3 2.8 E-6 1.2 E-3 1.1 E-2

Conversion note: 1 mrem = 0.01 millisievert (mSv)

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

5.3.2 Waterborne Radioactivity

Groundwater

Radioactivity in groundwater, as a result of

direct or secondary radiation, is possible in

certain locations around the shielded

accelerator and experimental hall

structures. The VPDES groundwater

quality permit serves as the basis for

evaluating accelerator-produced

radioactivity in groundwater. Under the

permit, Jefferson Lab is not allowed to

exceed one-quarter of the EPA SDWA

limits on-site, or change the quality of the

groundwater offsite. Refer to Section 7 for

more information on how the Lab

incorporates monitoring to protect

groundwater resources.

This VPDES groundwater quality permit

specifies EPA-approved sampling and

analysis protocols, which were the basis of

groundwater monitoring in 2001. Fifteen

wells were sampled at quarterly, semiannual or annual intervals. The permitted

wells included the “A”, “B”, and “C” Ring

wells (labeled as to proximity to the

accelerator) and the upgradient well. Refer

to Exhibit 5-5 for monitoring well locations

and to Exhibit 5-6 for parameters sampled.

The groundwater dewatering effluent at

the experimental halls was also monitored

quarterly in 2001 and reported under this

permit.

Water samples have been drawn and

analyzed since 1987. The data collected,

through the completion of facility

construction in 1995, provide a

groundwater quality baseline for

comparisons during long-term facility

operation. The background samples were

analyzed for naturally occurring

radionuclides, as well as acceleratorproduced radionuclides, and selected

chemical parameters. The radionuclides

analyzed in 2001 are those known to relate

to operations associated with electron

accelerators. They include H-3 (Tritium),

Be-7, Na-22, Mn-54, and gross beta. Total

manmade radioactivity was also analyzed.

Exhibit 5-7 lists the VPDES groundwater

quality permit levels for radiological

parameters with values in picocuries per

liter (pCi/l). The values in Exhibit 5-6

represent normal background

radionuclides, which are also generated

through Jefferson Lab activities.

The radiological results from monitoring

the wells in the accelerator vicinity during

2001 are presented in the first part of

Exhibit 5-8. The results from the other

locations described in the permit are

shown in the second half of the exhibit. All

measurements were within permit levels.

No accelerator-produced activity has been

detected. All values represent natural

background, and variations are normal.

Other Water Monitoring

The surface water sampling program

commenced at the time construction of the

experimental halls was completed.

Quarterly sampling of the groundwater

dewatering surface discharge under the

VPDES groundwater quality permit

continued. In addition, automated

sampling equipment is used to analyze the

discharged water for tritium and gross

beta. There were no concerns at this

discharge stream in 2001.
39 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit 5-5

Monitoring Well Locations
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 40

Exhibit 5-6

Groundwater Sampling Parameters

Wells Sampling Frequency Environmental Parameters

GW-15a

A Ring Wells

GW-20

GW-21

GW-22

Annual

Quarterly

groundwater elevation, pH, conductivity, TSS, TDS, and

radionuclides listed

groundwater elevation, pH, conductivity, TSS, TDS,

manmade radioactivity, and radionuclides listed

B Ring Wells

GW- 3

GW-6a

GW-23

GW-24

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

manmade radioactivity, and radionuclides listed

C Ring Wells

GW- 2

GW-28

GW-29

GW-30

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

radionuclides listed

Other Sampling

Point

Outfall 001 Quarterly flow, pH, and radionuclides listed

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

TDS: Total Dissolved Solids

TSS: Total Suspended Solids

Exhibit 5-7

VPDES Permit Levels for Radionuclides*

Analyte

A-Ring

(Action Level)

B-Ring

(Permit Level)

C-Ring

(Permit Level)

Sensitivity &

Precision

(Permit Value)

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

Manmade

Radioactivity

1 mrem/yr. 1 mrem/yr. - -

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

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

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

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

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

 A-ring levels are action levels only.

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

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

 Conversion: 1 pCi = 0.037 Bq, 1 mrem = 0.01 mSv
41 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit 5-8

Maximum Groundwater Measurements for Radionuclides*

January 2001 through December 2001

Radionuclides at Associated Wells Relevant to Accelerator Operations

Analyte A-Ring B-Ring C-Ring

Gross Beta 30.33 pCi/l 35.67 pCi/l 4.06 pCi/l

Manmade Radioactivity < 0.273 mrem/yr. < 0.199 mrem/yr. not applicable

Tritium ND at < 704 pCi/l ND at < 705 pCi/l ND at < 704 pCi/l

Sodium-22 ND at < 21.9 pCi/l ND at < 14.5 pCi/l ND at < 7.89 pCi/l

Beryllium-7 ND at < 168 pCi/l ND at < 107 pCi/l ND at < 61.8 pCi/l

Manganese-54 ND at < 21.1 pCi/l ND at < 15.8 pCi/l ND at < 7.27 pCi/l

Radionuclides At Other Permit Locations

Analyte Upgradient Well Discharge 001

Gross Beta 2.35 pCi/l 18.81 pCi/l

Tritium ND at < 704 pCi/l ND at < 704 pCi/l

Sodium-22 ND at < 13.7 pCi/l ND at < 25.7 pCi/l

Beryllium-7 ND at < 110 pCi/l ND at < 168 pCi/l

Manganese-54 ND at < 16 pCi/l ND at < 17.0 pCi/l

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

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 2001. Sampling and analysis

for tritium are performed prior to any

discharges to the sanitary system. The

results are recorded and monthly and

quarterly concentration values are

provided to HRSD. Some regulatory

values (that are not required to be regularly

reported) are tracked and documented by

the RadCon staff, such as the total amount

of activity discharged to the sanitary sewer

system. Monthly and composite quarterly

results for 2001 are provided in Exhibit 5-9.

The concentrations varied based on the

quantity of beam dump cooling water

discharged during the reporting period.

On a periodic basis in 2001, 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.

Various accelerator-related water systems

have the potential for becoming activated.

Secondary containment and other physical

controls are present around areas with the

potential for spills of activated water.

Additional administrative controls are in

place where the water activation level is

above an identified level.

There were a few minor water spills or leak

events in 2001 involving these activated

water systems. The RadCon staff

addressed and cleaned up the areas

involved. There were no worker safety,

environmental, or public health concerns.

Collected water that did not meet

immediate disposal criteria was transferred
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 42

Exhibit 5-9

Analytical Results for Discharges to HRSD in 2001

Monthly Values

Reporting Period

Tritium

Concentration Reporting Period

Tritium

Concentration

January 29,000 pCi/l July 3,800 pCi/l

February 0 pCi/l August 28,000 pCi/l

March 20,000 pCi/l September 40,000 pCi/l

April 43,000 pCi/l October 79,000 pCi/l

May 41,000 pCi/l November 25,000 pCi/l

June 37,000 pCi/l December 52,000 pCi/l

Quarterly Values

Reporting Period Tritium Concentration

Other Gamma-Emitting Radionuclides

Concentration

First Quarter 20,000 pCi/l None detected

Second Quarter 42,000 pCi/l None detected

Third Quarter 24,000 pCi/l Na-22 at 0.24 pCi/l

Fourth Quarter 55,000 pCi/l Na-22 at 0.82 pCi/l and Be-7 at 4.7 pCi/l

Notes:

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

 Radionuclides are analyzed at EPA sensitivity levels or better.

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

to a temporary storage area for later release

to HRSD.

5.4 ACCELERATOR-PRODUCED

DIRECT RADIATION

Direct radiation penetrates shielding with

almost all this radiation stopped by the

shielding; any exposure to this radiation is at a

maximum on-site and decreases with distance.

During 2001, Jefferson Lab continued regular

accelerator operations in support of various

physics experiments in the three experimental

halls. Accelerator operations and related

activities produced significant amounts of

direct radiation; however, these amounts were

restricted within constraints as managed by

RadCon and were performed within an

approved safety envelope.

The Jefferson Lab areas, where direct radiation

can be produced, are not accessible during

accelerator operations. There are

approximately 50 electronic radiation detectors

and a series of associated passive integrating

detectors deployed around the accelerator site

with the primary purpose of measuring on-site

radiation. The majority of the electronic

detectors are connected to a central computer

system that can automatically record the

radiation levels for subsequent examination.

When appropriate, Jefferson Lab employees,

contractors, and visitors wear detection

devices to monitor for on-site radiation

exposure.

Six dual-channel microprocessor-based

instruments for monitoring gamma and

neutron radiation levels collected both direct

and airborne radiation data at the site

boundary in 2001. Radiation data collected

prior to January 1995 serve as the statistical

baseline for comparison to that collected since

the accelerator became fully operational.

5.5 ASSESSMENTS OF POTENTIAL

RADIATION DOSE TO THE

PUBLIC AND TO BIOTA

The six electronic radiation measurement

devices noted in Section 5.4, installed along the
43 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

accelerator site boundary continued to be used

to determine offsite dose to the public due to

Jefferson Lab operations. These electronic

detectors - radiation boundary monitors

(RBMs) - measure and log radiological

information at the locations shown in

Exhibit 5-10. In addition, passive integrating

detectors were used for a number of

measurements. All measured dose values

were within statutory and administrative

limits. For 2001, the highest site boundary

direct (prompt) radiation level was about 7.1%

of the DOE annual dose limit of 100 mrem

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

limit.

Exhibit 5-11 displays the radiation doses in

mrem for 2001 at RBM-3. A comparison with

natural background radiation is made, which

indicates the relatively low levels of Jefferson

Lab’s contribution to the public dose. These

background levels do not include

contributions to dose from Radon, which

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. Radioactive waste was turned over to a

licensed subcontractor for reprocessing as

appropriate to optimize the final disposition.

The absorbed dose to any local aquatic

animals, or terrestrial plants or animals, from

Jefferson Lab operations will not exceed the

internationally recommended dose limits for

terrestrial biota. As there are no potential

releases of a magnitude that could result in

doses exceeding 0.1 rad/day to terrestrial

animals, the lowest limit for any biota, no dose

limits will be exceeded.

Jefferson Lab did not contribute significantly to

the radiation dose received by the public

through either airborne and/or groundwater

pathways. The direct radiation exposure was

again measurable in 2001, but was found to be

about 71% of the Jefferson Lab design goal of

one-tenth of the DOE limit.

5.6 OTHER SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Permanent shielding in the form of thick

concrete walls and earth berms protect the

environment from exposure. Additionally,

labyrinth entrances and monitoring at

ventilation ports track exposure values.

RadCon installs shielding blocks and devices

as needed to minimize impacts both inside and

outside the facility.

All areas where activated water could be

present have controls in place. Locations with

a high potential for activation have secondary

containment measures installed and

administrative lockout/tagout controls. Other

areas with less or no potential for activation

are monitored periodically to ensure levels are

within expected values.

RadCon establishes access-controlled areas to

temporarily store radioactive materials,

including those being stored for decay, and

wastes. There is no impact to the environment

or public health from the small quantity of

materials stored on-site.

SECTION 6

ENVIRONMENTAL NONRADIOLOGICAL

PROGRAM

There are a number of non-radiological

activities that Jefferson Lab performs in

supporting protection of the environment and

public health performed under the site permits

listed in Exhibit 3-5. This section presents the

monitoring results for 2001.

Other activities include reviewing

conventional air emissions; administering

appropriate controls involving work with

chemicals such as herbicides and cooling water

treatment additives; reviews for emergency

planning regarding on-site chemicals; and,

special waste management. These programs

are discussed in Section 4.
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 44

Exhibit 5-10

Boundary Monitor Locations

Note: RB03 is the same as RBM-3.

Exhibit 5-11

Radiation Boundary Monitor RBM-3 Results for 2001

Period

Neutron

(mrem)

Gamma

(mrem)

Total

(mrem)

Jan-Mar 2.90 ± 0.35 0.73 3.63 ± 0.44

Apr-June 0.97 ± 0.30 0.24 1.21. ± 0.38

July-Sept 0.43 ± 0.30 0.11 0.54 ± 0.38

Oct-Dec 1.39 ± 0.26 0.35 1.74 ± 0.33

TOTAL 5.69 ± 0.60 1.43 7.12 ± 0.76

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
45 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

In general, controls to protect the environment

are established through on-site programs and

subcontractual agreements that address permit

condition requirements and other identified

Lab commitments or initiatives. There were no

problems with respect to any of the

aforementioned Jefferson Lab activities during

2001.

6.1 WATER PROGRAMS

Jefferson Lab reported DEQ information under

three permits in 2001: flow quantities under

the Permit to Withdraw Groundwater;

radiological and general water quality

parameters under VPDES Permit

No. VA0089320; and, general water quality

factors under VPDES Permit No. VAG253002.

Results were also reported under the HRSD

Permit No. 0117. Radioanalytical results are

provided in Section 5, and the rest of the

results are included in this section.

6.1.1 Permit to Withdraw Groundwater

As noted in Section 3.6.2.2, Jefferson Lab’s

withdrawal of groundwater at the

experimental halls is an unusual situation.

The only factor of concern under the

groundwater withdrawal permit is the

quantity of water pumped. Quantities of

water pumped from these tile fields are

reported to the DEQ on a quarterly basis.

This Permit allows the pumping of a

maximum of 6,000,000 gallons per month.

The other pumpage restriction is a yearly

limit of 23,036,790 gallons. There were no

unusual issues regarding this discharge in

2001.

The maintenance of the structural integrity

of the halls by pumping results in wide

quantity variations. Pumping is minimal

in drought periods. Exhibit 6-1 presents

the quantity of water pumped monthly and

the maximum daily flows for each month

in 2001. Note that the quantity pumped

each month is well under the six million

gallon permit limit.

This discharge point, known as

“Outfall 001” in the VPDES Permit No.

VA0089320, is monitored for water quality.

Non-radiological results covered by this

VPDES permit are presented in Section

6.1.2. Refer to Section 5.3.2 for information

on the radiological parameters that are

monitored due to proximity to the

accelerator. Besides the VPDES permit

noted, there are no other requirements for

monitoring as no industrial or other use is

made of the discharged groundwater.

6.1.2 VPDES Permit No. VA0089320

This permit covers monitoring for water

quality at both groundwater monitoring

wells and at the dewatering effluent

collection point “Outfall 001”.

Exhibit 6-1

Flow Information at the Dewatering Discharge

Month, 2001

Monthly

Flow

Maximum GPD

During the

Month* Month, 2001

Monthly

Flow

Maximum GPD

During the

Month*

January 405,751 15,140 July 436,920 16,092

February 337,584 15,024 August 352,128 16,535

March 419,860 15,715 September 415,122 15,919

April 369,565 18,993 October 384,800 23,900

May 394,907 15,706 November 388,094 16,375

June 415,343 16,903 December 297,806 16,417

Notes:

*Maximum GPD per quarter is reported on VPDES Permit No. VA0089320.

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

 approximately 23,000,000 gallons.
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 46

Monitoring wells were sampled for pH,

conductivity, total suspended solids (TSS),

and total dissolved solids (TDS) under the

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

map showing the well locations monitored

in 2001.) The sampling results for the wells

are presented in Exhibit 6-2. Groundwater

collected from the dewatering process at

Outfall 001 is sampled and reported

quarterly for pH and results are shown

in Exhibit 6-3. The maximum daily

discharge quantity for each quarter is also

reported. Note that sampling data

collected in 2001 was representative of

groundwater quality during accelerator

operations and is consistent with previous

baseline measurements.

Variations in non-radiological information

collected at the wells in 2001 may be due to

seasonal, local ground conditions, and

earth-disturbing factors. Even with a fully

operating accelerator, various construction

projects in the area, and a variety of

physics experiments being performed,

there were no facility-related effects on

groundwater quality in 2001.

6.1.3 VPDES Permit No. VAG253002

Cooling water discharges from two cooling

towers were covered by this permit in 2001.

The materials used for cooling water

treatment were Coastline Formula 2029

(scale and corrosion inhibitor), Formula

1909 (liquid biocide), and a small amount

of a dispersant. There were no

environmental concerns with the use of

these chemicals.

Quarterly sampling and reporting are

performed under this VPDES General

Permit. Note that the discharge from a

small tower at the Test Lab, Discharge

Number 002, was added to the permit at

the end of 2000. The revised permit

requires that results for flow, pH,

temperature, total hardness, total dissolved

copper, total dissolved zinc, and total

residual chlorine be provided to the DEQ.

The 2001 results are provided in

Exhibit 6-4.

Two notable situations occurred in 2001.

The first, during the third quarter, involved

Discharge 002. There was no available

Exhibit 6-2

Range of 2001 Non-Radiological Monitoring Results at Wells

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

pH 4.5 5.8 to 6.4 5.4 to 7.1 5.3 to 7.1 None

Conductivity

(μmhos/cm)

182 719 to 2038 384 to 1149 467 to 963 None

TDS (mg/l) 82 474 to1450 223 to 750 331 to 627 None

TSS (mg/l) 4 23 to 34 4 to 26 3 to 45 None

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

mg/l: milligrams/liter

Exhibit 6-3

2001 Permit-Related Non-Radiological Monitoring Parameters at Outfall 001

Quarter Maximum Flow (MGD) pH

First 0.016 6.7

Second 0.019 7.1

Third 0.017 7.1

Fourth 0.024 7.4

MGD: million gallons/day

Note: There is no limit on the reported flow.

 The pH range is 6.0 to 9.0.
47 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

flow to sample at the sampling point as

there is only a very small flow from this

tower, which was immediately absorbed

into the soil, and the fact that there was

very little rainfall. The second incident was

that the chlorine level at Discharge

Number 001, which has a more steady

discharge from its tower, was above the

non-detect level during the 4th quarter.

Because there was no known explanation

for the reading, the matter was

investigated. A complicating factor was

that there were large city water leaks in the

area around that time. No plausible

explanation for the elevated chlorine has

been determined.

6.1.4 HRSD Permit No. 0117

Industrial wastewater, which includes a

small quantity of activated water, is

generated by Jefferson Lab and discharged

to the HRSD through our Industrial

Wastewater Discharge Permit. The

activated water that was collected and

discharged in 2001 was a combination of

the output from dehumidification

equipment in the experimental halls and

small withdrawals from the beam dump

cooling systems. Refer to Sections 3.6.2 and

5.3.2 for more information.

Jefferson Lab and the HRSD perform pH

sampling of discharges as shown in

Exhibit 6-5. A subcontractor monitors two

sanitary sewer outflow streams as noted in

the permit to assure that pH levels are

within permit criteria. In March 2001, a

permit revision changed the monitoring

frequency from monthly to quarterly.

Exhibit 6-4

2001 Cooling Water Monitoring Parameters at Outfalls 001 and 002

Parameter/Units First Quarter Second Quarter Permit Limit

Detection

Limit

Outfall 001 002 001 002

Flow (MGD) 0.009 1.01x10-5 0.015 0.000021 0.05 MGD 0.0001

pH 8.5 6.9 6.8 6.8 6 to 9 0.1

Temperature oC 8.6 11.8 26.4 23.1 Max. 32 oC. or as

noted in the permit

0.1

Hardness mg/l 240 43 272 92 None 2

Copper mg/l 0.010 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 None 0.001

Zinc mg/l 0.016 0.136 0.179 0.532 None 0.03

Chlorine mg/l 0.01 0.02 < 0.1 < 0.1 Non-Detectable 0.1

Third Quarter Fourth Quarter

Outfall 001 002** 001 002

Flow (MGD) .018 0.0001 .015 0.00005 See above See above

PH 7.4 - 7.7 7.6 See above See above

Temperature oC 21.7 - 12.7 11.7 See above See above

Hardness mg/l 363 - 360 100 See above See above

Copper mg/l 0.008 - 0.003 0.009 See above See above

Zinc mg/l 0.202 - 0.065 0.075 See above See above

Chlorine mg/l < 0.1 - 1.4 < 0.1 See above See above

NOTES:

**There was no water flow at sample point #2 during the last half of this monitoring period. Grab date: 8 Jan 2001, 1st

 quarter

 MGD: million gallons/day

 mg/l: milligrams/liter
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 48

As noted in Section 5, RadCon Group staff

manage the HRSD radiological sampling

and analysis requirements. The HRSD

samples all discharge streams periodically

for a full complement of metals. On an

annual basis, a seven-day period of

monitoring flows and samples at each of

the discharge points is performed to help

determine if changes to the permit are

necessary. Monitoring results

demonstrated that Jefferson Lab remained

within the limits of the HRSD-issued

permit in 2001. Jefferson Lab received a

Gold Pretreatment Excellence Award for

having no violations in 2001.

Exhibit 6-5

pH Sampling Results for Wastewater Discharge

Monitoring Period Manhole D Manhole EF

January 7.0 6.9

February 7.8 7.0

March* 8.2 7.5

Second Quarter 7.9 6.9

Third Quarter 6.4 7.1

Fourth Quarter 7.4 6.8

* Last month for monthly sampling.

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

Detection Limit: 0.1

6.2 CONVENTIONAL AIR

EMISSIONS

The Hampton Roads area of southeastern

Virginia remained in attainment of ozone

ambient air quality standards in 2001, though

it is still considered a CAA maintenance area.

The Hampton Roads area also remained in

attainment for the other criteria air pollutants:

particulate matter; sulfur oxides; carbon

monoxide; nitrogen dioxide; and, lead. There

is no required monitoring of criteria air

pollutant emissions performed at Jefferson Lab

except for a very small amount of ozone

generation and small amounts of others due to

vehicular traffic. There are no applicable

NAAQS emission sources present on the site.

Note that accelerator operations result in the

generation of small quantities of ozone. There

are no environmental or public health effects

from this generation. Ozone is monitored as a

worker health issue and is appropriately

controlled.

Jefferson Lab is required to notify the DEQ

regarding its air pollution sources and

the types of potential air pollution that may be

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

sources at Jefferson Lab. Reports of annual air

emissions are provided to the DEQ upon

request. Refer to Exhibit B2 in the appendix

for information from the 2001 Source

Registration Update.

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 2001.

6.3 SAFETY

Jefferson Lab’s performance, with respect to

worker safety for the 2001 CY, was as follows.

• Recordable injury case rate: 2.7 per 100

employees

• Lost Work Day case rate: 1.5 per 100

employees

• Lost Work Day rate: 12.7 per 100

employees

• Number of radioactive contaminations

(external): 0
49 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

• Number of Safety Occurrence Reports

(OSHA confined space, chemical

exposure, and lockout/tagout incidents):

2, both minor electrical shocks.

SECTION 7

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Groundwater is a vital natural resource, the

contamination of which could present

potential problems to the general population.

Because of this, both the Federal government

and the Commonwealth of Virginia regulate

groundwater.

The Jefferson Lab Groundwater Protection

Management Program is used as a

management tool and provides a strategy to

minimize impact to groundwater resources.

The Program ensures compliance with Federal,

State, and local regulations, other identified

standards, and effective resource management

practices. The Program includes a

groundwater monitoring plan that serves to

assess the effect of past, current, and future

Jefferson Lab activities on groundwater

quantity and quality.

7.2 HYDROGEOLOGY ISSUES

7.2.1 General Hydrogeology

Jefferson Lab is located in the Atlantic

Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of

Virginia. This province is underlain by

unconsolidated sediments ranging from

early Cretaceous to Holocene Age. The

sediments dipping and thickening

eastward consist primarily of sand, clay,

silt, and gravel, with variable amounts of

shell material. The hydrogeologic

framework for the lower Peninsula is a

series of aquifers and intervening confining

units defined on the basis of the lithologic

and the hydrologic properties of the

unconsolidated Coastal Plain sediments.

The site is located on the eastern tip of the

lower James-York Peninsula. Sediments

found within 50 feet of the surface belong

to the Yorktown Formation (Chesapeake

Group) and overlying Columbia Group,

which is comprised of four formations.

These formations are similar to many

Quaternary formations that comprise the

riverine, estuarine, and coastal terraces of

the Virginia Coastal Plain.

Jefferson Lab is situated in the northern

section of Newport News, Virginia, at an

average elevation of about 32 feet above

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

local flood maps, so is not considered to be

within the 100-year floodplain. The site is

located in the watershed of Brick Kiln

Creek, which discharges to Big Bethel

Reservoir. The reservoir serves as a

drinking water source for local military

installations. The only long-lasting streams

on the Jefferson Lab site are those due to

discharges from cooling towers and

groundwater dewatering operations.

Small localized wet areas exist, a few are

permanent, and the rest occur during

periods of heavy precipitation and

eventually drain by surface runoff and

groundwater recharge.

7.2.2 Aquifer Information

The uppermost hydrostratigraphic unit

encountered at the site is the water table

aquifer, the Columbia, which is composed

of sediments of the Columbia Group. The

thickness of the aquifer ranges between 15

and 30 feet, with a seasonal variability of

8 feet or more. This water table aquifer,

and up to nine confined aquifers, have

been identified with the Atlantic Coastal

Plain system. Groundwater flow within

the water table aquifer is influenced by

localized boundary conditions present as

creeks and rivers. The first confined

aquifer beneath the Columbia aquifer is the

Yorktown-Eastover aquifer, composed of

the coarser units of the Yorktown

Formation. The upper 50 to 100 feet of the

Yorktown-Eastover aquifer is usually fresh

water and is one of the most important

aquifers in the region.

Previous subsurface studies and

groundwater elevation readings indicate

that horizontal groundwater flow is
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 50

generally across the site to the eastsoutheast. Modeling performed during

1995, with groundwater flow and velocity

reevaluated in 2001 and early 2002,

indicated that the groundwater flow

pattern, including seasonal variations, had

not changed from earlier studies with the

exception of significant local effects in the

vicinity of the experimental hall

dewatering system. In this area,

groundwater has the tendency to work

slowly towards the halls and ultimately be

cycled through the dewatering system and

into a site surface water channel.

7.2.3 Potential Contamination Sources

Potential groundwater contamination

sources in the vicinity of Jefferson Lab

could include contaminants from offsite

properties that could migrate across the

site. No impacts from offsite sources have

been noted on the DOE site. On-site

sources had included three underground

storage tanks, which were removed along

with any identified contaminants.

Another potential contamination source is

from EHMs that are used in daily

operations by Jefferson Lab staff. Proper

handling and storage practices, including

the standard use of secondary containment,

are implemented throughout the site. All

hazardous waste is managed appropriately

by EH&S staff under the appropriate

RCRA requirements.

Soil radioactivation is another potential

source of groundwater contamination. As

the facility has become fully operational,

the monitoring of VPDES-permitted wells

for particular groundwater quality

parameters is performed at the frequencies

shown in Exhibit 5-6. Jefferson Lab will

maintain the capability to sample and

analyze groundwater more frequently, as

necessary, to ensure that effects on

groundwater are minimal. From controls

designed into the accelerator complex,

including in-place shielding measures and

through calculations, a minimal amount of

soil or groundwater activation is expected

on-site and no offsite effect is anticipated.

7.2.4 Groundwater Uses

The groundwater resources of the YorkJames Peninsula are abundant; however,

the generally poor water quality limits

groundwater use. Some Peninsula

groundwater is used, in conjunction with

area reservoirs, to supply drinking water.

Jefferson Lab withdraws groundwater

from below Halls A, B, and C under the

site Permit to Withdraw Groundwater, as

discussed in Section 3.6. There are no

projected needs for the use of groundwater

on the Jefferson Lab site. The surrounding

area, however, is expanding and additional

sources of water to serve the city remain

under investigation.

7.3 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

PROGRAM SUMMARY

Jefferson Lab’s environmental protection

programs have been established to allow the

continued careful use of water resources and to

ensure the desired maintenance of all water

quality parameters to the maximum

practicable extent. Existing water quality

parameters are mandated under Federal and

Commonwealth regulations, with the main

guidance for this program being the CWA.

The primary CWA objective is to “restore and

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological

integrity of the nation’s waters.” Jefferson Lab

complies with the applicable standards

discussed in Section 3.6.

Two significant operations that impact

groundwater, described below, were

addressed in the 1987 EA. Environmental

impacts were minimized for both through

design strategies.

• The continued withdrawal of

groundwater for structural purposes

and short-term dewatering for

construction projects.

• The potential impact to the groundwater

on the Jefferson Lab site or beyond the

site limits because of construction

and/or accelerator and physics program

activities.

The 1987 EA found that “no significant

environmental impacts are predicted.” The EA
51 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

further concluded that proper design and

careful operation of the accelerator would

minimize any impacts, including those to

groundwater. The Commonwealth’s largest

concern is the potential for radiological

activation of the groundwater and the soil

surrounding the accelerator. The 1997 EA

addressed additional potential impacts based

on changes in CEBAF operating parameters

and the inclusion of FEL operations, and

resulted in a FONSI. See Section 4.4 for

additional information about NEPA.

The prevention of hazardous material and oil

spills is addressed through appropriate

training and awareness programs at Jefferson

Lab. The prevention of oil spills is the main

focus of the site SPCC Plan. The Chemical

Assistance Team assists by providing

immediate containment in the event of oil or

hazardous material spills, and the RadCon

Group addresses any activated water spills,

thus minimizing potential groundwater

impacts. An emergency management exercise

that used an actual ‘suspect mail’ event in 2001

tested the Lab and area response program

effectiveness. Jefferson Lab staff, local Fire

Department, and the Virginia Beach HazMat

team participated. A few minor opportunities

for improvement were identified and

addressed in 2001.

7.3.1 Groundwater Resource Protection

- Quantity

Groundwater withdrawn at Halls A, B, and

C is pumped to a single discharge that

empties into a stormwater drainage

channel. The channel is graded to allow

the water to flow east, then south and off

the site, eventually flowing to the Big

Bethel reservoir. This dewatering is

allowed by the Permit to Withdraw

Groundwater and is discussed further in

Sections 3.6.2.2 and 6.1.2. The Permit

allows an annual withdrawal of up to

twenty-three million gallons of

groundwater, with the actual amount

pumped significantly less. No other

withdrawals or projected uses are

expected.

7.3.2 Groundwater Resource Protection

- Quality

The Commonwealth, through authorized

discharge limits in VPDES Permit

No. VA0089320, regulates acceleratorproduced radionuclides that are potentially

present in the groundwater. This Permit

superseded a Virginia Pollution Abatement

(VPA) Permit in 1996, which primarily

established a groundwater quality baseline

for comparison with measurements during

long-term accelerator operations.

The current VPDES Permit specifies that

the groundwater leaving the Jefferson Lab

site shall not exceed the established

baseline groundwater parameters. A

groundwater monitoring program uses

well sampling as the mechanism for

making the determination that

commitments are met. This Permit also

requires keeping the DEQ informed about

changes at Jefferson Lab that could affect

groundwater quality.

7.3.3 Surface Water Protection

Surface water quality is maintained by

discharging only unpolluted waters, such

as rainwater or groundwater, to the

environment. Potential sources of

contamination of surface waters and

associated control measures identified for

the site include:

• Using proper procedures prevents

releases of EHMs to surface water or

the ground.

• The prevention of potential oil leaks

from equipment or system

malfunctions which are addressed in

the SPCC Plan.

• The addition of sediments and other

pollutants to surface waters from

pumping at construction areas is

addressed by including specific

contractual requirements for any

subcontractor performing earthwork to

follow the practices identified in the

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control

Handbook.

• Water within the tunnels and

experimental halls may become

activated from exposure to radiation.

The RadCon Group procedures that

address activated water management
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 52

provide for sampling and monitoring

of water from any potential source

within the accelerator and experimental

halls.

• Groundwater surrounding the tunnel

and experimental halls may become

activated during beam operations. The

groundwater is shielded from exposure

to radiation, so minimal amounts of

radiation are expected. The

groundwater withdrawn at the halls is

monitored under VPDES Permit No.

VA0089320.

7.4 GROUNDWATER MONITORING

REVIEW

Jefferson Lab’s environmental monitoring

program is designed to verify that any

radiation exposures, as well as non-radioactive

effluent releases, are below permissible limits,

and that accelerator operations and physics

experiments, as well as Laboratory support

functions, have not affected the quality of the

environment.

Radioactivation of groundwater is possible in

certain locations around the accelerator

complex. Massive concrete and steel shields

within the accelerator beam enclosures and in

the beam deceleration areas minimize

groundwater activation.

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

wells, labeled as to proximity to the accelerator

tunnel, are specified in VPDES Permit No.

VA0089320. The permit-identified wells are

used for sampling and analysis during regular

accelerator operations and experimental

physics activities. Exhibit 5-5 shows the

locations of the background and active

monitoring wells.

The “baseline” values obtained during the

term of the VPA Permit helped define the

operational groundwater quality limits that are

listed in VPDES Permit No. VA0089320. The

permit action or trigger levels, based on the

statistical analysis provided to the DEQ, are

shown in Exhibit 5-7. Note that the

Commonwealth restricts water contamination

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

regulated drinking water quality limit.

Sampling requirements under this VPDES

Permit are also presented in Exhibit 5-7.

Under this permit, Jefferson Lab has to take

specific corrective action if the following

values are detected at either the “A” and/or

“B” Ring wells: Gross Beta 50 pCi/l; Tritium

5000 pCi/l; and/or Manmade Radioactivity

1 mrem/yr. The “C” Ring wells are, at no

time, to statistically exceed the background

levels shown in the Permit.

Well locations are regularly reviewed, and

local temporary test wells would be used to

sample potential problem areas. Sampling

point relocations would be considered based

on study results.

SECTION 8

QUALITY ASSURANCE

Regular quality assurance (QA) efforts, which

include quality control (QC) measures, are

being made to ensure that Jefferson Lab’s

Environmental Monitoring Program is being

performed in accordance with the principles of

the Jefferson Lab Quality Assurance Program

Manual. As well, EH&S Manual Chapter 6712,

Environmental QA, provides methods and

direction for critical and objective examination

of Jefferson Lab’s EP programs, practices, and

performance.

8.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE IN

SAMPLING PROCEDURES

The Jefferson Lab QA Program includes

qualification of the laboratories that provide

analytical services, verification of certification

to perform analytical work, and review of

performance test results. Also included in this

review is the adequacy of their internal QC

practices, recordkeeping, chain of custody, and

the relevant portions of the QA program itself.

The RadCon Group and other program

management are involved in the qualification

process for environmentally sensitive services,

including offsite analytical laboratories, and

are responsible for auditing their own QA

practices and implementing relevant QA

procedures. The Jefferson Lab SA/QA
53 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

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 2001 regarding sampling protocols or

results.

Line management responsible for the process

documents all routine monitoring and

surveillance sampling procedures. Some

procedures have been incorporated into the

EH&S Manual. Other specialized procedures

have been developed in accordance with

established standards, practices, and protocols.

The procedures ensure that samples are

representative of the media from which they

are collected and will yield reliable results.

Subcontractors are required to use approved

documented procedures.

Universal Laboratories, Inc. (Universal Labs)

collected most VPDES and HRSD permitrelated water samples. Universal Labs

performed all non-radiological analyses on

these samples. Their subcontractor, BWX

Technologies (BWX), performed all

radiological analyses on identified samples.

Several field audits were performed and

showed Universal Labs’ collection procedures

were satisfactory.

Other sample collection that involves

radiochemicals, including some required by

the HRSD permit, is performed by the RadCon

Group and analyzed in the RadCon

radiological analysis lab (Building 52).

Qualified Jefferson Lab staff collect samples

that require general chemical analysis, which

are usually not permit-related. In 2001,

Jefferson Lab subcontracted with Marine

Chemist, Inc. and American Medical Lab to

provide general chemical analysis on samples

that were not potentially radioactive.

8.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE IN

ANALYSIS

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

program of analytical laboratory quality

control, participation in interlaboratory

crosschecks, analysis of various blanks, and

replicate sampling and analysis verifies data

quality. The RadCon Group, Accelerator

Division EH&S staff, and other responsible

staff review all analytical data for samples

analyzed under their subcontracts. The

analytical results are reviewed relative to the

accompanying QA/QC results and compared

with regulatory limits for acceptability. These

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

handling and transport, and sampling

protocols. When applicable to the analysis

requested, analytical labs must be

appropriately certified. Inspection visits are

made to both Universal Labs and BWX on a

biennial basis. These visits confirm that

analytical practices being performed are

satisfactory.

Ongoing precision and accuracy are monitored

by analysis of the following with each batch of

samples: laboratory standards, duplicate

determinations, matrix spikes, and matrix

spike duplicates. These data are used to

calculate the relative standard deviation. The

quality of the data is then evaluated and

compared to regulatory limits to determine

acceptability. A range of radiochemical spikes

is used to test the vendor’s ability to achieve

the required sensitivity for each parameter,

and their reliability in detecting acceleratorproduced radionuclides at or below the

concentration guide standards. This enables

compliance with permit requirements that QA

is performed.

Jefferson Lab continues to maintain

appropriate agency certifications and to

incorporate certification requirements in

subcontract specifications. Any equipment

used for environmental monitoring is specified

to have calibration certifications traceable to

national standards.

Universal Labs and the RadCon radiological

analysis lab participate in DOE’s Quality

Assessment Program (QAP) run by

Environmental Measurements Laboratory

(EML). BWX participates in two DOE

crosscheck evaluation programs: one from the

EML, and one from the Mixed Analyte

Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP).
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 54

In addition, the National Environmental

Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC)

certifies BWX. NELAC’s purpose is to

establish and promote mutually acceptable

performance standards for the operation of

environmental laboratories. They are also EPA

sample certified by both NELAC and the State

of Utah, as well as with the Commonwealth of

Virginia for environmental monitoring.

Universal Labs, Marine Chemist, and

American Medical Lab participate in state

programs to maintain their state certification.

8.2.1 Radiological

Independent QA under the DOE

EML administers the DOE quality

assessment program for environmental

radiological analyses. The EML QA Program

(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 2001, BWX and the RadCon lab

participated in the EML’s QAP for

radionuclides. Two sets of results for BWX

and two for the RadCon lab under the QAP

were available. The results, for the

parameters analyzed by Jefferson Lab and

those analyzed by BWX that are applicable at

Jefferson Lab, are provided as Exhibits 8-1

and 8-2. Note that only selected results are

presented in these exhibits. Results indicated

as warnings mean they are near the limits of

acceptability. BWX’s overall results for QAP

54 were 96% acceptable and 4% warning.

Results for the water program, which is of

greatest importance for Jefferson Lab, were

100% acceptable. Overall results on QAP 55

were 100% acceptable for BWX, with RadCon

lab results at 91% acceptable and 9%

warning.

BWX participated in a QA program for

analysis of samples under the MAPEP.

Performance results for MAPEP-01-S8 and

MAPEP-01-W9 were received. Results for

radionuclides of interest to Jefferson Lab are

shown in Exhibit 8-3. The selected results for

both were 100% acceptable.

Other QA Activities

BWX also participates in a RadCon Group

directed crosscheck program for selected

radionuclides that includes duplicates and

spiked samples provided at various times in

the year. In all circumstances, the results

were satisfactory in all appropriate testing

categories.

In conjunction with VPDES and HRSD

permit-related sampling activities, the

RadCon lab runs parallel analyses on

selected groundwater monitoring samples

and HRSD quarterly composite samples as a

QA verification.

8.2.2 Other Programs

Universal Labs, as part of its credentialing

program, participates in two QA programs to

ensure a high level of testing accuracy.

During CY 2001, they received blind samples

and conducted analyses on the samples.

Exhibits 8-4 and 8-5 show the results for the

parameters of interest to Jefferson Lab.

Exhibit 8-4 reports information from WP-065

as conducted under the protocol of an NSI

Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program.

Exhibit 8-5 presents the information obtained

under ERA Supply Proficiency Testing

Study WP-85.

All testing protocols were done in

accordance with EPA guidelines. Test results

that were outside of acceptable standards

were addressed by Universal Labs to

determine what went wrong, and how to

make improvements for the future. RadCon

Group staff review the test results to ensure

Universal Labs is maintaining its ability to

provide quality services.
55 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit 8-1

Quality Assurance Program (QAP 54)

Selected Results for 2001

Reported EML Known

Matrix Analyte

Value

(Bq/l) Error

Value

(Bq/l) Error

Ratio

Rep/EML Result

Water Gross Alpha 1970.000 50.000 1900.000 190.000 1.037 Accept

(BWX) Gross Beta 1310.000 20.000 1297.000 100.000 1.010 Accept

H-3 98.500 19.400 79.300 2.000 1.242 Accept

Co-60 94.700 6.300 98.200 3.600 0.964 Accept

Cs-137 68.100 2.200 73.000 3.700 0.933 Accept

Water Co-60 102.500 3.000 98.200 3.600 1.044 Accept

(JLab) Co-60 102.530 3.500 98.200 3.600 1.044 Accept

Co-60 104.970 3.000 98.200 3.600 1.069 Accept

Cs-137 76.170 3.800 73.000 3.700 1.043 Accept

Cs-137 77.660 3.200 73.000 3.700 1.064 Accept

Cs-137 75.880 3.100 73.000 3.700 1.039 Accept

Matrix Analyte

Value

(Bq/filter) Error

Value

(Bq/filter) Error

Ratio

Rep/EML Result

Air Co-60 20.440 0.680 19.440 0.500 1.051 Accept

(JLab) Co-60 20.500 0.670 19.440 0.500 1.055 Accept

Co-60 20.000 0.660 19.440 0.500 1.029 Accept

Cs-134 2.190 0.210 2.830 0.160 0.774 Warning

Cs-134 2.850 0.240 2.830 0.160 1.007 Accept

Cs-134 2.720 0.170 2.830 0.160 0.961 Accept

Cs-137 9.470 0.480 8.760 0.340 1.081 Accept

Cs-137 9.160 0.500 8.760 0.340 1.046 Accept

Cs-137 9.260 0.520 8.760 0.340 1.057 Accept

Mn-54 7.250 0.570 6.520 0.280 1.112 Accept

Mn-54 7.100 0.540 6.520 0.280 1.089 Accept

Mn-54 6.720 0.520 6.520 0.280 1.031 Accept

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

Only selected results that had some relevance to Jefferson Lab operations are provided in this Exhibit.
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 56

Exhibit 8-2

Quality Assurance Program (QAP 55)

Selected Results for 2001

Reported EML Known

Matrix Analyte

Value

(Bq/l) Error

Value

(Bq/l) Error

Ratio

Rep/EML Result

Water Gross Alpha 1210.000 40.000 1150.000 115.000 1.052 Accept

(BWX) Gross Beta 6790.000 70.000 7970.000 800.000 0.852 Accept

H-3 233.000 20.000 207.000 2.690 1.126 Accept

Co-60 212.000 10.000 209.000 7.590 1.014 Accept

Cs-137 44.800 1.700 45.133 2.467 0.993 Accept

Water Co-60 205.000 6.000 209.000 7.590 0.981 Accept

(JLab) Co-60 207.000 6.000 209.000 7.590 0.990 Accept

Co-60 210.000 5.000 209.000 7.590 1.005 Accept

Cs-137 47.500 3.000 45.133 2.467 1.052 Accept

Cs-137 47.400 2.000 45.133 2.467 1.050 Accept

Cs-137 47.700 3.000 45.133 2.467 1.057 Accept

Matrix Analyte

Value

(Bq/l) Error

Value

(Bq/l) Error

Ratio

Rep/EML Result

Air Co-60 18.500 0.800 17.500 0.470 1.057 Accept

(JLab) Co-60 20.300 0.800 17.500 0.470 1.160 Warning

Co-60 19.000 0.600 17.500 0.470 1.086 Accept

Cs-134 11.700 0.600 12.950 0.362 0.903 Accept

Cs-134 12.500 0.600 12.950 0.362 0.965 Accept

Cs-134 13.000 0.500 12.950 0.362 1.004 Accept

Cs-137 20.000 0.900 17.100 0.580 1.170 Warning

Cs-137 19.300 1.000 17.100 0.580 1.129 Accept

Cs-137 18.700 1.000 17.100 0.580 1.094 Accept

Mn-54 94.000 3.300 81.150 4.760 1.158 Accept

Mn-54 92.100 3.500 81.150 4.760 1.135 Accept

Mn-54 90.900 3.500 81.150 4.760 1.120 Accept

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

Only selected results that had some relevance to Jefferson Lab operations are provided in this Exhibit.
57 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit 8-3

Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP) for 2001

Sample ID: MAPEP-01-S8

(BWX)

Parameter* Reported Value

Reference

Value (Bq/kg) Result Bias (%)

Acceptance

Range (Bq/kg)

Co-57 101 103 A -1.9 72.10 - 133.90

Co-60 1390 1270 A 9.4 889.00 - 1651.00

Cs-134 84.4 91.7 A -7.4 63.77 – 118.43

Cs-137 1230 1240 A -0.8 868.00 - 1612.00

Manganese-54 215 203 A 5.9 142.10 - 263.90

Sample ID: MAPEP-01-W9

(BWX)

Parameter* Reported Value

Reference

Value (Bq/l) Result Bias (%)

Acceptance

Range (Bq/l)

Co-57 142 143 A -0.7 100.10 - 185.90

Co-60 150 141 A 6.4 98.70 – 183.30

Cs-134 23.9 28.5 A -16.1 19.95 – 37.05

Cs-137 271 286 A -5.2 200.20 - 371.80

Manganese-54 258 246 A 4.9 172.20 – 319.80

Notes:

 A: result acceptable (Bias ≤ 20%)

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

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

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

 *Only selected results that had some relevance to Jefferson Lab operations are provided in this exhibit.
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 58

Exhibit 8-4

Selected Results from Universal Laboratories Performance Evaluation Reports

NSI Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program Study WP-065

Sample

Category Parameter Units

Reported

Value

True

Value

Acceptance

Limits Results

Trace Metals Aluminum μg/L 460.0 328 269 - 389 Not Acceptable

Cadmium μg/L 450.0 455 388 - 517 Acceptable

Cadmium μg/L 480.0 455 388 - 517 Acceptable

Chromium μg/L 565.0 589 513 - 666 Acceptable

Copper μg/L 508.0 509 462 - 559 Acceptable

Lead μg/L 1420.0 1439 1265 - 1606 Acceptable

Manganese μg/L 992.0 1014 911 - 1127 Acceptable

Nickel μg/L 1724.0 1744 1584 - 1945 Acceptable

Zinc μg/L 5607.0 537 474 - 606 Not Acceptable

pH pH (1) - 9.23 9.30 9.01 - 9.58 Acceptable

pH pH (2) - 9.23 9.30 9.01 - 9.58 Acceptable

Mercury Mercury μg/L 12.7 14.1 10.6 - 17.6 Acceptable

Minerals Specific

Conductance (at

25°C)

μmhos/cm 680.0 656 592 - 721 Acceptable

Total Hardness

as CaCO3

mg/L 166.0 174 158 - 190 Acceptable

Calcium mg/L 39.7 37.8 33.6 - 43.0 Acceptable

Residual

Chlorine

Total Residual

Chlorine

mg/L 0.58 0.581 0.363 - 0.799 Acceptable

Residue Non-filterable

Residual TSS

mg/L 92.0 94.0 73.1 - 102 Acceptable

Filterable

Residual TDS

mg/L 406.0 405 347 - 463 Acceptable

TS mg/L 493.0 495 440 - 551 Acceptable

Demand COD mg/L 103.0 101 75.0 - 118 Acceptable

TOC mg/L 37.9 40.0 33.4 - 46.2 Acceptable

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

μg/L: micrograms per liter

μmhos/cm: micromhos per centimeter

COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand

TOC: Total Organic Carbon

TSS: Total Suspended Solids

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

TS: Total Solids
59 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit 8-5

Selected Results from Universal Laboratories Performance Evaluation Reports

ERA Supply Proficiency Testing Study WP-85

Sample

Category Parameter Units

Reported

Value

True

Value

Acceptance

Limits Results

Trace Metals Aluminum μg/L 404 383 316 - 451 Acceptable

Beryllium μg/L 16.2 16.3 12.5 - 18.6 Acceptable

Cadmium μg/L 54.4 50.2 42.0 - 58.3 Acceptable

Chromium μg/L 93.8 87.2 73.7 - 100 Acceptable

Copper μg/L 118 118 104 - 132 Acceptable

Lead μg/L 152 153 128 - 178 Acceptable

Manganese μg/L 219 213 190 - 237 Acceptable

Nickel μg/L 238 237 208 - 268 Acceptable

Silver μg/L 45.6 44.7 37.7 - 51.5 Acceptable

Zinc μg/L 155.9 144 124 - 166 Acceptable

pH pH S.U. 6.99 6.90 6.72 - 7.08 Acceptable

Mercury Mercury μg/L 8.5 7.73 5.73 - 9.70 Acceptable

Minerals Conductivity at

25°C

μmhos/cm 429.1 420 387 - 453 Acceptable

TDS mg/L 360 355 269 - 441 Acceptable

Ca Hardness as

CaCO3

mg/L 122.22 94.3 77.5 - 115 Not Acceptable

TS mg/L 372 376 332 - 414 Acceptable

Hardness TSS mg/L 49 49.1 37.0 - 52.6 Acceptable

Calcium mg/L 38.72 37.7 33.5 - 42.9 Acceptable

Residual

Chlorine

Total Residual

Chlorine

mg/L 1.6 1.94 1.57 - 2.31 Check for Error

Demand COD mg/L 57 60.3 42.0 - 73.7 Acceptable

TOC mg/L 24.28 23.8 19.8 - 27.7 Acceptable

Note: Only selected results that had some relevance to Jefferson Lab operations are provided in this Exhibit.
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 60

SECTION 9

REFERENCES

Industrial Wastewater Discharge Regulations

Hampton Roads Sanitation District

July 1, 1999 revision.

U.S. Department of Energy

Air Emissions Summary Report

Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility

July 14, 1995.

U.S. Department of Energy

Hydrogeologic Review

Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility

September 1995.

U.S. Department of Energy

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

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 (under preparation)

Proposed Improvements at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

Newport News, VA

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation

Division of Soil and Water Conservation

1992.
61 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

SECTION 10

DISTRIBUTION LIST

INTERNAL

Dr. Christoph W. Leemann, Director

Mr. Rocco Schiavilla, Acting Theory Group Leader

Dr. Lawrence Cardman, Associate Director, Physics Division

Dr. James J. Murphy, Director, Office of Technical Performance

Dr. Swapan Chattopadhyay, Associate Director, Accelerator Division

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

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

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

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

Dr. Charles E. Reece, EH&S Officer, Accelerator Division

Rhonda M. Scales, Esq., Assistant General Counsel

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

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

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

Mr. Robert T. May, Manager, Radiation Control Group, and EH&S Deputy

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

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

EXTERNAL

The Honorable John W. Warner

The Honorable Jo Ann S. Davis

The Honorable George Allen

The Honorable Robert C. Scott

The Honorable Phillip A. Hamilton

The Honorable Mary T. Christian

The Honorable Terry G. Kilgore

The Honorable Flora Davis Crittenden

The Honorable G. Glenn Oder

The Honorable Thomas D. Gear, Jr.

The Honorable Edward L. Schrock

Mayor Joe S. Frank, City of Newport News

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

Mr. Donald E. Wiggins, Chairperson, York County Board of Supervisors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plasma Physics Laboratory

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

Mr. Leonard Huesties, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

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

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

Mr. Robert Goode, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Mr. W. Taylor Murphy, Jr., Office of the Secretary of Natural Resources
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 62

APPENDIX
63 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Section A

Applicable Site Standards

Standards in the Work Smart Standards (WSS) Set

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

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

associated with the Lab were identified, along with the corresponding laws, regulations, and other

standards necessary and sufficient to protect the worker, the public, and the environment against the

identified hazards. This summary of applicable environment, health, and safety requirements for

Jefferson Lab is the WSS Set. The WSS Set was recently amended in March 2002.

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

listed in Exhibits A1, A2, A3, and A4. Various Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)-related

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

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

presented in the parts of Section 3 referenced in the exhibits.

Administrative Laws and Regulations (AL&R) List

The AL&R List was developed along with the WSS Set and identifies EH&S implementation standards

and requirements that are of an administrative nature and not directly related to hazards. Together,

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

public health-related AL&R documents are not specifically listed here, but include some

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) hazardous material regulations and a section of the U.S.

Code dealing with generators of hazardous waste. AL&R items are not specifically listed below but are

included in the appropriate topical discussions in the SER.

Exhibit A1

Federal Laws and Regulations Included in the WSS Set

SER References Citations Titles

LAWS (by subject)

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

1986 (training)

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

Water Act)

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

(referenced in 10 CFR 835)

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

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

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

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

3.3&

3.9.5

Pollution Prevention

and Waste

42 U.S.C. § 13101 et seq. Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 64

Exhibit A1 (Continued)

Federal Laws and Regulations Included in the WSS Set

SER References Citations Titles

REGULATIONS

Title 40 - Protection of

Environment

3.4.1

3.4.1

Parts 71, 834, and 835

Part 10

3.5 Subchapter C Various Air Programs

3.6 Subchapter D Various Water Programs

3.3 Subchapter I Various Waste Programs including RCRA

3.9 Subchapter J Various Superfund, EPCRA Programs

3.6.2 Subchapter N Part 403

3.5 Subchapter R Part 763

Title 49 - Transportation

3.8.4 Transportation Subchapter C Various Hazardous Materials Regulations

DOE GUIDANCE

3.10.3 O 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Environment,

Chapter II and IV

EXECUTIVE ORDERS (EOs)

3.9.3 13101 Greening the Government Through Waste

Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition

3.9.4 13123 Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy

Management

3.9.5 13148 Greening the Government Through Leadership in

Environmental Management

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

Exhibit A2

Permits, State Laws and Regulations Included in the WSS Set

SER

References Citations Standard

LAWS

3.3.1 Title 10.1 - Conservation Chapter 14, Virginia Waste

Management Act

3.6 Title 62.1 - Waters of the

State, Ports and Harbors

Chapter 3.1, State Water Control Law

PERMITS Issued Effective

3.6.1.2 DEQ No. VA0089320 VPDES Permit - Specifies allowable

groundwater and surface water quality

on-site during accelerator operations.

Assures groundwater unaffected at and

beyond site boundary.

7/16/96 Through

7/16/2006
65 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit A2 (Continued)

Permits, State Laws and Regulations Included in the WSS Set

SER

References Citations Standard

PERMITS Issued Effective

3.6.1.2 DEQ No. VAG253002 General Permit for Cooling Water

Discharges - Authorizes cooling water

discharges within identified discharge

limitations.

[applicable

9/99]

Through

3/1/2003

3.6.2.1 HRSD No. 0117 Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit

- Limits wastes to be discharged to

sewerage.

10/87 3/1/2002

3/1/2007

3.6.2.2 DEQ No. GW0030800 Permit to Withdraw Groundwater -

Authorizes maximum quantities of

water to be withdrawn by dewatering

of area under experimental halls.

11/1/94 Through

10/30/2004

3.3.2 4727-45-01 South Carolina Radioactive Waste

Transport Permit – Authorization to

transport LLW within the state

9/14/2001 Through

12/31/2001

REGULATIONS

3.5 9 - VAC (Environment) Chapter 5, Air Quality

3.3 9 - VAC (Environment) Chapter 20, Waste Regulations

3.6 9 - VAC (Environment) Chapter 25, Water Quality

3.6.2 none HRSD Industrial Wastewater Discharge Regulations

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

Exhibit A3

Other Standards Identified in the WSS Set

Category/SER References Citations Standard

REGULATIONS

3.8.4 49 CFR 177 Hazardous Materials Regulations

DOE GUIDANCE

3.10.3 O 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Environment, Sections 1a and 1b

VIRGINIA PLAN

3.9 Virginia Emergency Management Operations Plan

EH&S MANUAL

1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8,

3.9, 4.2, & 8

Assorted Chapters

and Appendices

referenced within.

Manual sections include topics on: ionizing radiation

protection, asbestos, emergency planning, air and water

quality, oil spill prevention, waste minimization, recycling

and waste management practices.
2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 66

Exhibit A4

Transportation-Related Standards

SER Section Transportation-related Information Applicable Standards

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

3.4.1 Radiation Protection: packaging and transport of

radiological materials

10 CFR 71

3.9.5.1 Emergency Response: response actions in the event

of a transportation emergency that include

reporting and notification requirements

CERCLA/SARA

VA Emergency Management Operations

Plan

3.9 Emergency Response: response actions in the event

of a transportation emergency

EH&S Manual Standards: Appendix 3510-

T3 and Chapter 6732

3.3.1 Hazardous Waste: on-site movement and

preparation for offsite shipment

EH&S Manual Standard: Chapter 6761

Section B

Site Usage Information

Exhibit B1

Control Chemicals and Products Approved for Use in 2001

Pest Control

Herbicides/Landscape

Maintenance

Contrac Damoil

Demand CS Diazinon 4E

Dicofol 4EC Dicofol 4EC

Dursban Pro Dimension

Flyteck Diometom

Insect Guard Fore Tree & Ornamental Fungicide

MaxForce Bait Fusilade II

Mosquito Dunks Merit

Precor 1% MSMA Target 6.6

PT 270 Dursban Roundup

PT 515 Wasp-Freeze Super Trimec

Quintox Rat & Mouse Bait

Termite Control

Cyrene TC
67 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit B2

Source Registration Update for Calendar Year 2001

Ref. No. Equipment

Annual Fuel Process

Rate (Million Cu. Ft.

Burned)

Process Volume

% Annual Throughput

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

HB-1 CLVR.BRKS. 2.4 40 26 10 24

HB-2 CLVR.BRKS. P-142-30 2.4 40 26 10 24

HB-3 CLVR.BRKS. CB-760-60 5.4 35 24 15 26

HB-4 CLVR.BRKS. CB-760-60 5.4 35 24 15 26

HB-5 BRYAN F-450 WG 1.5 25 25 25 25

HB-6 BRYAN F-90 WG 1.2 48 20 0 32

HB-7 BRYAN F-90 WG 1.2 48 20 0 32

HB-8 PSB Fin Tube Radiator 1.5 85 7 0 8

Process: Natural Gas (under 10 MMBTU / Hr)

Heat Content: 1050 MMBTU / Cu. Ft.

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