Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

U.S. Department of Energy 

12000 Jefferson Avenue 

Newport News, VA 23606 

JEFFERSON LAB’S 

SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 

for Calendar Year 2004 

Prepared by: 

SURA/Jefferson Lab 

EH&S Reporting 

EH&S Division 

Date: September 2005 

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report i 

JEFFERSON LAB’S SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT 

FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2004 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This annual report documents Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility’s active environmental 

protection program by presenting results of environmental activities and monitoring programs. The report 

provides the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public with information on radioactive and nonradioactive pollutants, if any, added to the environment as a result of Lab operations. 

Major Scientific Programs 

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

community and the nation. 

CEBAF The Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility at Jefferson Lab provides an electron beam to 

three experimental halls where a variety of basic physics experiments are conducted. The electron beam 

begins its first orbit at the injector and proceeds through the underground racetrack-shaped accelerator tunnel 

at nearly the speed of light. The accelerator uses superconducting radio frequency (SRF) technology to drive 

electrons to higher and higher energies. The accelerator’s electron beam can be split for simultaneous use by 

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

hall records the interactions between incoming electrons and the target materials. A continuous electron beam 

is necessary to accumulate data at an efficient rate yet ensures that each interaction is separate enough to be 

fully observed.

FEL The Free-Electron Laser supports basic science research and serves universities, private industry, 

NASA, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Army. Designed and built with Jefferson Lab’s 

expertise in SRF accelerator technology, the FEL provides intense, powerful beams of laser light that can be 

tuned to a precise wavelength or color. The FEL is the most powerful tunable laser in the world, producing 

up to 2.1 kilowatts (kW) of infrared (IR) laser light in its initial design and setting the world’s record as a 

terahertz light source (20 watts). During 2002-2003, the machine underwent a major upgrade and attained 

10 kWs IR in 2004. The FEL’s capabilities are currently being expanded to produce more terahertz and 

ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths. 

SNS The Spallation Neutron Source project involves a team of six Federal laboratories - (Argonne, 

Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Los Alamos, Jefferson Lab, and Oak Ridge) cooperating in the design, 

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

Lab’s contributions include building two types of SRF cryomodules for the SNS accelerator, and providing 

extensive expertise, guidance, and production efforts in developing the SNS helium refrigeration plant. Once 

operational, the SNS will provide the most intense pulsed-neutron beams in the world for scientific research 

and industrial development. 
ii 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 

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

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

line management implements identified objectives within their areas of responsibility. Environment, Health, 

& Safety (EH&S) staff, situated within the line organizations, provide support to their management and share 

their expertise with the Lab as a whole. There are numerous ways in which Jefferson Lab’s EH&S program is 

implemented. 

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

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

protection a part of routine business at Jefferson Lab. 

Environmental Management System (EMS) Implementation Although Jefferson Lab has had an 

environmental protection program in place, in 2003 the Lab committed to begin implementing an EMS. In 

early 2004, key Lab staff began planning and developing an EMS for Jefferson Lab. Development and 

implementation continued through 2004. The EMS is expected to be fully implemented during 2005. 

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

implement EH&S in a manner that is both effective and cost-efficient. The WSS Set is comprised of the 

laws, regulations, and standards necessary and sufficient to ensure worker and public health and safety, and to 

protect the environment. 

Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Most facility construction activities and all 

accelerator upgrades are subject to review under the NEPA. The initial Jefferson Lab construction, a later 

upgrade to CEBAF, and some major new buildings have been addressed in Environmental Assessments 

(EAs). Routine Lab activities and special projects are covered under site-specific NEPA Categorical 

Exclusions. 

EH&S Performance Measures The DOE/SURA (Southeastern Universities Research Association, Inc.) 

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

such as recycling and hazardous waste minimization. Other metrics involving worker safety are also 

addressed in the contract. 

Inspections Jefferson Lab’s commitment to protection of the environment and public health and safety are 

demonstrated through its inspection programs. Both external agencies and key Lab staff conduct inspections 

to ensure operations and activities at Jefferson Lab are being done in the most sound manner. Compliance 

with all applicable laws and regulations is demonstrated throughout this report.

Compliance 

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

regulations, and DOE guidance during 2004. As a result, Jefferson Lab operations had no discernable impact 

on public health or the environment. Our compliance status on all programs is identified in Section 2 of this 

report. Radiation-related issues, especially those dealing with water resources and public health, are 

highlighted in Section 3. Non-radiological environmental issues, such as water sampling and monitoring, are 

highlighted throughout. The Jefferson Lab EH&S Manual, which addresses many environmental topics, and 

the Lab’s WSS Set are regularly updated to ensure that new environmental compliance initiatives are 

integrated into site operations. 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

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

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

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

1.3 SITE OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................ 1 

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

1.5 FACILITIES AND 2004 ACTIVITIES................................................................................ 2 

1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ........................................................................................... 4 

1.7 SITE EH&S RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 4 

SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM.................................................. 5

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ............................................................. 5 

2.2 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS ...................................................................... 7 

2.3 APPRAISALS, ASSESSMENTS, AND INSPECTIONS ................................................. 19 

SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM........................................... 20

3.1 RADIATION EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ......................................................................... 21 

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION MONITORING........................................................ 24 

3.3 OTHER SUPPORT ACTIVITIES...................................................................................... 29 

3.4 ASSESSMENTS OF POTENTIAL DOSE TO THE PUBLIC AND TO BIOTA............. 29 

3.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE.................................................................................................. 30 

SECTION 4 DISTRIBUTION LIST................................................................................................. 1

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

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report iii 

SECTION 1 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT 

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

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

performance. This document marks the 12th year that Jefferson Lab has been preparing a Site Environmental 

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

program, which also addresses public health items, for calendar year (CY) 2004. It serves to inform Jefferson 

Lab staff, DOE, regulators, and the public about site environmental performance, and provides a historical 

record of identified items of interest or concern. 

The SER is available in a viewable downloadable pdf file. Look for this CY 2004 SER by going to Jefferson 

Lab’s web page at http://www.jlab.org, select ‘search’ and enter “Site Environmental Report”.

1.2 LABORATORY MISSION 

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

accelerator facility managed and operated by the Southeastern Universities Research Association, Inc. 

(SURA) for the DOE. The accelerator complex portion of the Lab includes an underground electron 

accelerator, CEBAF, which is Jefferson Lab's primary research tool. CEBAF operates at energies up to about 

6 GeV (billion electron volts) and provides beam to three underground halls that house physics program 

experiments. The CEBAF accelerator is used to conduct user driven research into how nucleons are built 

from quarks and gluons, and how this structure leads to the standard nucleon-based picture of the nucleus. 

Mission: to provide forefront scientific facilities, opportunities, and leadership essential for 

discovering the fundamental nature of nuclear matter, to partner with industry to apply its 

advanced technology, and to serve the nation and its communities through education and public 

outreach, all with uncompromising excellence in environment, health, and safety. 

1.3 SITE OPERATIONS 

Jefferson Lab, a world-class research institution, attracts resident and visiting physicists and other scientists. 

Approximately 635 full-time physicists, engineers, technicians, and support staff work at Jefferson Lab. 

About 2,180 academic and industrial researchers from across the United States and from approximately 

30 countries from around the world participate in scientific collaborations. The Lab has thus far produced 

more than 160 patent disclosures. Of those, 111 were submitted for the patent-application process. Fortyfour patents had been issued by the end of 2004, including light-guide technologies, medical imagers, flawdetection equipment, a fire detection/prevention system, and an electronic lockout device that can be used for 

both safety and security purposes.

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 1 
There are six major facilities (program areas) on the DOE site: CEBAF, a superconducting radio frequency 

(SRF) electron accelerator; End Stations A, B, and C (large halls that house physics experiments) that make 

use of beams from CEBAF; an SRF Institute that serves primarily as a research and development (R&D) 

center for SRF accelerator cavities; the Center for Advanced Studies of Accelerators (CASA) that supports 

the site accelerators and considers future planning opportunities; a Free-Electron Laser (FEL) User Facility 

that produces laser beams to serve university, industry, and military users; and, a Lattice Quantum 

Chromodynamics (QCD) Computer, a 1/4 Teraflop commodity-PC-based machine. 

1.4 SITE HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION 

Prior to the construction of Jefferson Lab, there were several users of this general area of Newport News. The 

U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) acquired most of the Oyster Point area, including the land presently used 

by Jefferson Lab. The U.S. Air Force later acquired the land and installed a BOMARC missile site on a 

portion of the property. After closure of the BOMARC missile base, the DOD started disposing of the 

property and conveyed some land to the Commonwealth of Virginia, the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA), and others. Ownership of the NASA property, including 100 acres of undeveloped 

land, was conveyed to the DOE in 1987. An additional 52 acres of land was also transferred to the DOE from 

other sources. The total DOE-owned parcel, upon which Jefferson Lab is built, is 163 acres. 

In 1986, an adjacent 44 acres were conveyed to SURA by the City of Newport News. A SURA residence 

facility is located on a portion of this land. Adjacent to this property is the former BOMARC missile site. 

Sign at Main Entrance to Site 

Also adjacent to the DOE-owned site is a 10.7-acre parcel owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia and 

leased to the City of Newport News. The Applied Research Center (ARC) is located on this property, and is 

used by Jefferson Lab, industry, and universities. Other adjacent land owned by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia is leased to SURA and the DOE for its use in support of Lab operations. This area, the DOE-owned 

site, and other nearby properties are considered part of the City's Jefferson Center for Research and 

Technology. 

1.5 FACILITIES AND 2004 ACTIVITIES 

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

facilities, and administrative offices and is referred to as the campus. The second is a 40-acre fenced area, 

termed the accelerator site, where the CEBAF and FEL accelerators and related structures that accommodate 

2 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
experiment support functions are located. The accelerator site is located on the south end of the DOE 

property, and access is restricted through one entrance that is staffed 24-hours per day. The front view of the 

main administration building, CEBAF Center, located on the campus, is shown below. 

Front Entrance to CEBAF Center 

The four major facilities that have environmental protection or public health-related implications are CEBAF, 

its experimental halls (End Stations), the SRF Facility, and the FEL User Facility. A short description of each 

follows. Note that these and other activities that have potential environmental implications, such as the use of 

chemicals and oil products, are discussed elsewhere in the text. 

CEBAF This accelerator provides continuous wave electron beams with energies from 0.5 to 5.7 GeV. 

CEBAF is used as a tool for exploring the transition area or range where strongly interacting (nuclear) matter 

can be understood as bound states of protons and neutrons, and the regime where the underlying fundamental 

quark-and-gluon structure of matter is evident. The nature of this transition is at the frontier of our 

understanding of matter. 

Atomic Structure 

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 3 
End Stations (Halls A, B, and C) Each hall (or end station) has its own set of complementary experimental 

equipment. Hall A has a pair of superconducting, high-resolution magnetic spectrometers optimized for 

precision electron scattering coincidence experiments. The CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer (CLAS) 

that supports studies of both electron and photon-induced reactions is housed in Hall B. The third end station, 

Hall C, contains a pair of moderate resolution spectrometers, with one capable of high momentum particle 

detection, and the second optimized for the detection of short-lived reaction products.

The SRF Facility The SRF program is centered in the Lab's Institute for SRF Science and Technology. This 

Institute's strength is in R&D and large-scale applications of SRF, including to better upgrade or advance 

CEBAF and the FEL. In addition, design, development, and fabrication of the SRF niobium cavities for the 

DOE's Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) are a current focus. Some ongoing work in the off campus ARC also 

supports development of state-of-the-art surface science and SRF R&D to improve accelerator capabilities. 

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

(kW)) of infrared (IR) light with picosecond pulse length for use by Jefferson Lab, industrial, DOD, and 

university partners. The accelerator has since been upgraded, enabling operation in a range that extends from 

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

Future Planning Analysis and R&D work on the proposed upgrade of CEBAF to 12 GeV continued in 2004. 

This upgrade in electron beam energy levels and a new experimental hall, Hall D, will support experiments 

that test the strong force that holds atomic particles together. 

1.6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

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

procedures, was conducted prior to the construction of the original CEBAF project, resulting in a Finding of 

No Significant Impact (FONSI). In 1997 and 2002, EAs that also yielded FONSIs, addressed a CEBAF 

upgrade, an FEL upgrade, and five building construction projects. Existing NEPA-related documentation is 

periodically reviewed. 

1.7 SITE EH&S RESOURCES 

To ensure that staff, employees, subcontractors, and users are aware of and utilize environment, health & 

safety (EH&S) principles, EH&S responsibilities are incorporated into each position description. The facility 

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

Local EH&S resources are available to every employee, user, and visitor. They include: EH&S staff that 

support specific line organizations; EH&S program specialists that serve the entire facility in their area of 

expertise; groups and committees that address Lab-wide concerns, develop policy, and resolve selected issues; 

and, the Jefferson Lab EH&S Manual, as the primary source of EH&S implementing procedures. 

Other EH&S resources available to and utilized by program managers include: DOE subject matter experts; 

DOE program specialists that deal with policy issues at all levels; and, colleagues at other DOE facilities that 

share expertise and lessons learned from their own unique experiences. 

4 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
SECTION 2 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM 

There are many facets to Jefferson Lab’s EP program. As stated in Section 1, the Lab’s mission includes 

protection of the environment and public health. To accomplish this, various controls, including the use of an 

Integrated Safety Management (ISM) System strategy, were established. 

The site’s EP program provides guidance and requirements for implementing site environmental programs, 

such as in radiological and non-radiological monitoring, for making environmentally preferable choices, and 

for the review of performance through assessments and inspections. Compliance with applicable EP and 

public health-related laws and regulations is interwoven into Lab operations. 

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 

During 2004, the requirement to develop an Environmental Management System (EMS) was incorporated in 

the DOE/SURA operating contract. Jefferson Lab began addressing the new requirement by forming an EMS 

Implementation Team to start the process of preparing, documenting, and putting into practice a formal EMS. 

An EMS focuses on establishing management level programs that serve as the basis to direct the performance 

of Lab activities that could affect the environment. The overall management system format includes setting 

up the organizational structure, planning activities, responsibilities, procedures, processes, and resources for 

developing, integrating, achieving, reviewing, and maintaining the commitments made in the Lab’s EH&S 

Policy. Elements of the EMS are being incorporated into existing site documents, such as the Lab’s EH&S 

Manual and work place Standard Operating Procedures. 

Jefferson Lab’s EMS is under development and will serve in conjunction with the Lab’s already established 

ISM System. The objective of the EMS and ISM is to make safety, health, and environmental protection a 

routine part of doing business at Jefferson Lab. 

Site EH&S Policy

Jefferson Lab’s EH&S Policy was updated in early 2005 to incorporate EMS. The updated policy reflects 

Jefferson Lab’s current EH&S commitments to both the Lab population of staff, users, visitors, and to our 

local community neighbors. 

The Jefferson Lab Policy on EH&S is as follows. 

Sound environmental protection, health and safety (EH&S) practices are essential elements to 

the successful execution of Jefferson Lab’s scientific mission and all related activities. It is 

Jefferson Lab policy to identify and adhere to all applicable EH&S laws, regulations, and 

standards, and Department of Energy contractual commitments. Jefferson Lab considers no 

activity to be so urgent or important that our standards for environmental protection, health, or 

safety may be compromised. Demonstrated performance in protecting the environment, 

including a commitment to the prevention of pollution, and ensuring the health and safety of 

our colleagues, visitors and surrounding community is paramount among our responsibilities 

as a national lab. 

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 5 
In order to effectively discharge these responsibilities, integrated safety management (ISM) 

principles and functions fully integrate EH&S requirements into the planning and execution of all 

work at Jefferson Lab. 

ISM principles require that line managers be held accountable for effective EH&S performance 

within their programs, with each individual at Jefferson Lab responsible for establishing 

knowledge and control of the EH&S hazards of all work in which he or she participates. 

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

practice, situation, or action that endangers people or the environment. 

To ensure and improve EH&S performance, EH&S objectives and targets are set and progress is 

measured against stated goals. It is integral to our success that we regularly assess the 

performance of our EH&S programs and systems in order to ensure that they are working as 

intended and to identify opportunities for improvement. Weaknesses are identified and abated. 

Involvement in this process at all levels of the Jefferson Lab organization is expected, and 

commitment is required. Continuous improvement is our goal. 

Jefferson Lab makes this EH&S Policy available to all stakeholders including employees, 

visitors, regulatory entities, and members of the surrounding community for their information and 

use. 

Christoph W. Leemann, Jefferson Lab Director 

May 2005 

Environmental Planning and Analysis Procedures

Environmental planning and analysis is accomplished by documenting and reviewing projects and activities 

for NEPA considerations. Line management is responsible for providing notification of actions and impacts 

of new activities to the Office of Assessment to enable sufficient time for review and authorization as 

applicable. Jefferson Lab flows down appropriate EH&S requirements, through subcontract documents, to its 

subcontractors. These documents address environmental consequences and identify mitigation measures to 

minimize these consequences. 

Environmental Objectives and Targets

The Lab operates within the DOE/SURA contractual requirements and performance measures, which include 

staying within permit criteria. One of the site storm water pollution prevention permits required that the Lab 

identify and follow best management practices (BMPs) and targets that would better ensure protection of 

surface waters. In addition, environmental objectives and targets were identified as the Lab began 

formalizing its EMS. 

Implementation and Operations Controls

The DOE/SURA contract and environmental permits define the terms and conditions for the operation and 

performance of Jefferson Lab. ISM (including environmental protection) roles and responsibilities and 

implementation procedures are included in the Lab’s EH&S Manual. Key staff, including the Lab’s EMS 

Implementation Team, received EMS training in early 2004. EMS awareness training for staff, users, and 

subcontractors was defined and will be conducted in 2005. 

6 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Identification of Environmental Aspects and Impacts

EMS-specific aspect and impact identification was performed in 2004. Reviews identified the primary 

environmental aspects at Jefferson Lab as water discharges and waste issues. In addition, intensive use of 

resources such as electricity and water that are needed to operate a particle accelerator are considered aspects. 

Performance Measurement

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

EH&S. As well, the compliance status towards meeting the new storm water measurable objectives was 

reviewed in 2004. EMS implementation will be monitored in 2005 as the Lab addresses the objectives and 

targets identified in 2004. 

Corrective Action and Self-Assessment Procedures 

The ISM System Plan is reviewed annually and is updated as necessary (most recently on 

November 30, 2004), and shared with the DOE Site Office. This 2004 review identified a few areas where 

ISM program improvements should be made - the Lab Director committed to making these changes. It is 

projected that the EMS self-assessment process may be linked with the ISM System Plan annual review. 

In early 2004, Jefferson Lab had an ISO 14001 (EMS) initial compliance review conducted by an outside 

consultant. This report identified the actions that needed to be accomplished for Jefferson Lab to craft an 

EMS under ISO 14001. 

Management Review Process

The Director’s Council, comprised of senior management, reviews the ISM System Plan periodically through 

the self-assessment noted above. The review is documented and open items are tracked until closure, with 

regular status reports provided to the Lab Director. Integrating EMS review with the ISM process will be 

evaluated during EMS implementation. 

2.2 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS 

2.2.1 Environmental Monitoring Program 

Environmental monitoring is one of the primary methods used by the Lab to assess environmental conditions. 

Monitoring is conducted to: verify compliance with applicable regulations and other requirements; evaluate 

the Lab’s impact on the environment and public health; identify potential environmental problems; provide 

data to support management decisions; and, evaluate the need for remedial actions or mitigative measures. 

The site program establishes guidelines for examining (through monitoring and measurement) chemical, oil, 

and radioactive effluents generated by the facility. An integral part of the program is routine sampling and 

tracking of air, process water, wastewater, and groundwater. These are monitored to ensure that Jefferson 

Lab effluents do not have a negative impact on the surrounding environment and that they remain within any 

applicable requirement or permit’s allowable range. 

Both permit-required and routine monitoring emphasize the potential environmental exposure pathways 

appropriate to medium-energy particle physics laboratories. These pathways include external and internal 

exposure to radiation, a major focus of the site’s monitoring program. Programs responsive to on-site and 

offsite radiation protection requirements have been instituted. Exposure potentials are discussed in Section 3. 

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 7 
Standard sample collection and analysis methods are documented in program and departmental procedures. 

Routine environmental monitoring is performed under the direction of responsible line management and 

overseen by the Lab’s Office of Assessment. General program information is provided below. 

2.2.1.1 Monitoring Water Conditions 

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

quality is a focus area primarily due to operating the underground CEBAF accelerator and the potential 

for groundwater activation. Preventing surface water pollution is another focus area during both general 

site usage and civil construction actions. 

Rain Garden at Jefferson Lab 

Standards used to protect water quality include Virginia regulations, the Clean Water Act (CWA), and 

others identified in the Lab’s Work Smart Standards (WSS) Set. Jefferson Lab complies with all 

requirements and performs monitoring under the three site water permits described below. Other site 

water quality programs, some involving permits, also apply and are described in Section 2.2.2.1. 

Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permits

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

which satisfies Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements. The Virginia 

program is designed to protect surface waters by limiting primarily non-radiological releases of effluents 

into streams, lakes, and other waters, including wetlands. All necessary reports are provided to the 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as required in each permit. 

Groundwater Monitoring - VPDES Permit No. VA0089320

This permit covers the quality of groundwater flowing across the site, including groundwater that is 

discharged in dewatering operations. Monitoring for groundwater quality, performed quarterly or as 

listed in the permit for both non-radiological and radiological parameters, is conducted at fifteen 

monitoring wells and at the groundwater dewatering collection point. 

Because of the potential for activation of groundwater from accelerator operations, “baseline” water 

quality values for certain parameters were obtained prior to 1995, and stopped being collected when the 

accelerator became operational. The present well monitoring program enables the comparison of current 

and “baseline” values to verify that Jefferson Lab site activities are not degrading the quality of either onsite or offsite groundwater. Information on general water quality parameters follows, and radiological 

parameter information is presented in Section 3.2. 

8 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
The wells and the collected withdrawn groundwater were sampled for the general water quality 

parameters of pH, conductivity, total suspended solids (TSS), and total dissolved solids (TDS). Sampling 

data collected in 2004 were representative of groundwater quality during accelerator operations and is 

consistent with previous baseline measurements. All permit conditions were met in 2004. 

Cooling Water Discharges – VPDES General Permit No. VAG250018

This permit, which also contains water quality limits, covers cooling water discharges from one cooling 

tower system adjacent to the Central Helium Liquifier, Building 8. The materials used for cooling water 

treatment were approved by the DEQ and there are no environmental concerns with the use of these 

chemicals. 

Quarterly sampling is performed under the VPDES General Permit. Flow information and sampling 

results for pH, temperature, ammonia, total hardness, total dissolved copper, total dissolved zinc, and total 

residual chlorine are reported. All permit conditions and requirements were met in 2004.

Hampton Roads Sanitation District Permit No. 0117

Facilities in Virginia that discharge to the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) must obtain this 

permit. The HRSD program is designed to meet all Virginia effluent level requirements. All necessary 

reports are provided to the HRSD on monthly and quarterly bases, as provided in the permit terms. 

Industrial wastewater is generated by Jefferson Lab and discharged to the HRSD under this permit. A 

small quantity of activated water is also authorized for release per permit conditions. 

To meet monitoring requirements, Jefferson Lab performs sampling at two sanitary sewer outflow 

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

above - which is also monitored for internal purposes - there are two special discharges to the sewer 

system. One elementary neutralization tank handles waste acid rinsewater and continuously records pH 

levels. The second outflow is from another elementary neutralization system, which handles acid 

rinsewater and waste acid from cryomodule research and development, cavity production, and some 

general maintenance activities. Both systems record pH information electronically and have built in 

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

The activated water that was collected and discharged in 2004 was a combination of the output from 

dehumidification equipment in the experimental halls and small withdrawals from the beam dump cooling 

water systems. The activated water program is managed by the Radiation Control Group (RadCon) to 

stay within all permit requirements. 

For all monitoring, subcontractors and/or RadCon staff perform all sampling at the prescribed sampling 

points. HRSD independently performs periodic sampling at all discharge streams for a full complement 

of metals and other parameters to validate Jefferson Lab’s compliance with permit and regulatory 

requirements. This includes an annual seven-day period of monitoring flows and taking samples at each 

of the discharge points to help determine if our discharges remain consistent and if any changes to the 

permit are necessary. Self-monitoring and HRSD results demonstrated that Jefferson Lab remained 

within the limits of the HRSD-issued permit in 2004. Due to no program or administrative violations in 

2004, Jefferson Lab was presented with a Gold Award in early 2005 for this notable achievement. 

Recognition of our new acid neutralization system for the prevention of pollution was also noted by 

HRSD at the awards ceremony. 

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 9 
The total radioactivity discharged to the sanitary sewer in 2004 was 0.90 Curie (Ci) of tritium (or about 

18% of the total allowed under the site industrial wastewater discharge permit), and 0.0012 Ci of other 

gamma-emitting radionuclides (or 0.12% of the total allowed under the same permit). 

2.2.1.2 Monitoring Air Emissions 

Jefferson Lab complies with Commonwealth and Federal regulations regarding sources of potential air 

pollution. The Federal Clean Air Act and its 1990 Amendments (CAAA) regulate the air emissions of 

DOE’s processes and facilities. Though Jefferson Lab has no processes that require air permitting, air 

emission reports are provided to the DEQ upon request. 

Since a 1995 review of non-radiological emission sources indicated a minimal level of emissions, there 

have been no major changes in air emissions. Jefferson Lab, therefore, remains below any reporting 

thresholds. Emissions data on the site’s natural gas-fired boilers are provided to the DEQ upon request. 

Compliance with all applicable clean air standards was maintained in 2004. 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)

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

Radionuclide Emissions 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the radionuclide program in Virginia. 

Radionuclide emissions generated during CEBAF and FEL testing and operations, including emissions 

resulting from interactions of the accelerator beams with experimental targets and physics research 

equipments, fall under NESHAPs requirements. (Refer to Section 3 for discussion of direct radiation, the 

primary form of radiation generated on-site.) 

To address NESHAPs requirements, Jefferson Lab uses sampling results and calculations to demonstrate 

that Lab operations remain below the EPA-defined 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) potential effective 

dose equivalent to any member of the public. As effluent concentrations are below monitoring 

thresholds, routine monitoring of radioactive airborne effluents at the site boundary is not required; 

however, the Lab does make periodic confirmatory measurements to verify low emissions. 

Under requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Jefferson Lab submits the annual NESHAPs emission 

report to the EPA. The estimated dose equivalent from airborne releases in conjunction with the Lab’s 

accelerator operations during 2004 was 0.019 mrem. The collective effective dose equivalent for 

CY 2004 was estimated to be 0.015 person-mrem.

Asbestos Removal

The NESHAP standard requires that individuals conducting asbestos-related training and individuals 

conducting asbestos-related activities follow approved procedures, and employ specific work practices to 

prevent release of asbestos to the air. There were no asbestos-related activities in 2004. 

2.2.2 Other Programs with Compliance Commitments 

2.2.2.1 General Water Programs 

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

This permit, that has no monitoring requirements associated with it, authorizes operators of small 

municipal separate storm sewer systems to discharge storm water to surface waters within Virginia. The 

permit’s intent is to keep surface waters free of sediment and other pollution. Under this permit, the Lab 

10 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
maintains a storm water management program, as noted in Chapter 6733 of the Jefferson Lab EH&S 

Manual. The permit also requires that the Lab implement appropriate BMPs and related measurable goals 

to address the control measures identified in the permit. One of the BMPs is to track by fiscal year (FY) 

the number of incidences, such as spills, that could or did impact storm water. There were no incidences 

that affected storm water quality in 2004. 

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

VPDES Permit No. VAR103277

The main requirement under this permit is that the Lab must have a documented Storm Water Pollution 

Prevention Plan (SWP3) that must be followed for all projects disturbing one or more acres of land. The 

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

Though no monitoring is required under this permit, strict erosion and control measure inspection and 

maintenance requirements are incorporated into subcontractor specifications. Jefferson Lab’s Facilities 

Management Department oversees civil construction projects, ensuring that subcontractors adhere to this 

permit and other contract-specified standards. 

Permit to Withdraw Groundwater No. GW0030800

Maintaining water table levels is necessary to prevent the partially buried experimental halls from 

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

accomplish this, the local groundwater is collected by a network of drains into a sump pit, where it is then 

pumped and discharged to the surface. The only factor of concern under the groundwater withdrawal 

permit is the quantity of water pumped. Under this permit, which was awaiting reissue at the end of 2004, 

Jefferson Lab is authorized to pump a maximum of 6,000,000 gallons monthly and 23,036,790 gallons 

annually. Upon issuance, the new permit will authorize a number closer to that actually being pumped. 

Quantities of water pumped from these tile fields are reported to the DEQ. All withdrawal quantities, 

both monthly and annually, were well within permit requirements. Note that the total quantity of water 

withdrawn in 2004 was about 16% of the annual limit. The affected groundwater is sampled for water 

quality parameters under VPDES Permit No. 0089320. There were no unusual issues regarding this 

discharge in 2004. 

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan

The Jefferson Lab SPCC Plan is reviewed annually and was last updated in 2004. This plan addresses all 

storage tanks and oil-containing equipment on-site. Oil inventory at Jefferson Lab mainly consists of 

numerous oil-filled electrical transformers ranging in volume from 2 gallons to about 4,800 gallons. A 

new emergency generator with a 5,000 gallon diesel reservoir was installed in 2004. (None of these units 

require action under aboveground storage tank regulations.) The total volume of oil on-site is estimated 

to be about 40,000 gallons, with about 6,000 gallons of this total under the control of Dominion Virginia 

Power, the regional electric service provider. The Lab maintains a used oil collection area to assist in 

managing the resulting used oil. To ensure proper handling and response (in the event of a spill or 

release), all oil workers receive SPCC Training. 

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

located at the site boundary can be effectively used to prevent any oil spills from leaving the site. Most 

DOE transformers utilize secondary containment, while the Dominion Virginia Power transformers have 

none. Like Jefferson Lab, Dominion Virginia Power also maintains a SPCC Plan for its oil-containing 

items at the Lab. There were four small and one moderate SPCC-related spills in 2004. These and two 

other non-SPCC spills received prompt response and attention by site response staff. The moderate size 

spill (about 20 gallons of oil) was controlled, promptly cleaned up, and all contaminated soils were 

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 11 
removed and disposed of properly. There was no impact on the environment or on public health from any 

of the incidents. 

2.2.2.2 General Air Programs 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

The EPA has established NAAQS for sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen 

dioxide, and lead. The Hampton Roads area, which includes Newport News, Virginia, remained in 

attainment status for all NAAQS pollutants except ozone in 2004. 

There is no required monitoring of air pollutant emissions performed at Jefferson Lab. There are no 

applicable NAAQS emissions sources present on the site although accelerator operations do result in the 

generation of small quantities of ozone. There are no environmental or public health effects from this 

generation; however, ozone is monitored as a worker health issue and is appropriately controlled. 

Stratospheric Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODSs)

To support the CAAA and the objectives of Executive Order (EO) 13148, Greening the Government 

through Leadership in Environmental Management, Jefferson Lab strives to minimize the use of ODSs by 

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

Jefferson Lab include refrigerants, degreasers, cleaners, and aerosol can propellants. The phase out of 

these substances will have a moderate impact on the site. To reduce ODSs and ODS-containing items onsite, Jefferson Lab utilizes trained and licensed subcontractors and staff to perform all work involving 

ODS-containing refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. As well, Jefferson Lab has one ODS 

recovery machine on-site. The one remaining chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-based chiller on-site receives 

preventive and corrective maintenance by a qualified mechanical subcontractor to ensure optimal 

performance and minimal CFC losses. 

2.2.2.3 Waste Programs 

Waste Management

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

(hazardous and non-hazardous solid) and non-RCRA (low-level radioactive and medical) wastes. Site 

programs address applicable Federal requirements, which Virginia has adopted. The Lab endeavors to 

reduce its waste generation and has made progress in some areas. Lab staff encourage the reuse or 

recycling of previously used or discarded materials wherever possible. Waste generation and recycling 

quantities are tracked and reported annually to the DOE. 

Secondary Containment in Use 

12 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
There have been no waste management activities associated with spills or cleanup actions under other 

Federal programs such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

of 1980 (CERCLA). There were no waste-related compliance issues in 2004. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

RCRA promotes the protection of health and the environment and the conservation of valuable material 

and energy resources. RCRA provides the EPA authority to regulate solid waste from minimization and 

recovery to collection and disposal. 

RCRA wastes include our hazardous and non-hazardous special waste streams and waste that is recycled 

or sent to a landfill. The last DEQ inspection of the hazardous waste program occurred in September 

2002, with no deficiencies identified. 

In FY 2004, Jefferson Lab generated 3.4 tons of hazardous waste and 287 tons of general refuse landfill 

waste. These wastes are managed for disposal by the appropriate staff in the Accelerator Division’s 

EH&S Department and the Facilities Management Department, respectively. The amount of hazardous 

waste generated was significantly reduced from previous years due to the new neutralization system that 

began processing used acid streams in August 2003. 

The hazardous waste generated in the largest volumes was a waste acid mixture used for niobium cavity 

processing and waste solvents from cleaning operations. Jefferson Lab neither transports hazardous 

wastes nor operates any regulated treatment or disposal units. All wastes are disposed of through licensed 

waste handling transporters and facilities. 

Hazardous and Special Waste Streams

Improvements in hazardous waste generation rates have been recognized and documented with the use of 

performance measures. Jefferson Lab has made notable progress in meeting hazardous waste 

minimization objectives. Accelerator Division EH&S staff, in particular, continued to emphasize 

substitution, reduction, and reuse of hazardous materials in the workplace. 

Other Wastes

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

toxic wastes. Only a minimal amount of medical waste is generated at Jefferson Lab and its disposal is in 

accordance with the site program. Other non-hazardous wastes are disposed of in landfills, reused on-site, 

recycled, or used for other purposes offsite. There were no compliance issues for any of these programs 

in 2004. These “other wastes” are managed for disposal by the appropriate RadCon, Facilities 

Management, and Medical Services staff. 

Low-Level Radioactive Wastes (LLW) 

The Lab generates only low-level radioactive wastes (LLW); thus, there is no source of special nuclear 

materials. In 2004, 5.45 m3

 (cubic meters) of LLW was generated at Jefferson Lab. There has been no 

mixed (a mixture of hazardous and radioactive) waste generated to date. 

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

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

Jefferson Lab is responsible for planning and being prepared to respond to chemical emergencies. As 

well, Jefferson Lab is responsible for completing applicable reporting requirements, such as toxic 

chemical usage and environmental releases, if there are any. Jefferson Lab files an annual SARA Tier II 

report (an accounting of hazardous substances and extremely hazardous substances (EHSs) used or stored 

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 13 
on-site in quantities greater than a given threshold) with three emergency planning groups (EPGs). The 

EPGs are the EPA, the Commonwealth DEQ, and a local planning group. The items reported for 2004 

were nitric, hydrofluoric, and sulfuric acids; bromine; argon; helium; nitrogen; lead; propylene glycol; 

and hydraulic oil. The Lab has not used any chemicals that are either toxic or on the persistent, 

bioaccumulative, or toxic (PBT) list in quantities that exceed Toxic Release Inventory reporting 

thresholds. 

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

EPGs of the presence of an EHS that exceeds the regulatory threshold amount, and that the Lab must have 

an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) available for every chemical on-site. Jefferson Lab has had no 

releases to date that meet the EPG reporting criteria. 

Chemical Inventory 

2.2.2.5 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

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 both the DOE and EPA-related regulations. Jefferson 

Lab assists the DOE by preparing documents and performing assessments of existing documentation. 

NEPA requires that projects with potentially significant environmental impacts be evaluated and 

alternative actions explored. These evaluations are to be performed and reported as either an EA or an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Jefferson Lab met these requirements by continuing to 

implement a program of reviewing construction activities for compliance. All activities in 2004 were 

addressed under the site’s 13 active DOE-approved Categorical Exclusion (CX) actions and EAs. 

There were no NEPA compliance issues identified by DOE in 2004. 

2.2.2.6 Compliance with Other Regulations and Federal Standards 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

FIFRA applies to the storage and use of herbicides and pesticides. Use of these substances has 

environmental implications, especially in terms of water quality. As such, the application of herbicides 

and pesticides is handled and permitted by subcontractors through a Commonwealth-administered 

certification program. 

14 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Herbicides were used on annual and perennial weeds and grasses, stumps of trees, and brush. Pesticides 

were applied on-site for control of insects. Areas treated included kitchens, laboratories, and other areas 

throughout Jefferson Lab. 

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

Jefferson Lab requires that there be no outdoor application of these compounds when rain is expected. To 

further minimize the chances of pollution, no industrial-strength herbicides or pesticides are prepared, 

mixed, stored, or disposed of on Jefferson Lab property. The subcontractor is further 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. 

Applicable Executive Orders

There were numerous activities conducted throughout the Lab in 2004 that furthered efforts to be an 

environmental steward, especially in waste minimization and pollution prevention. Some actions were 

related to EO requirements, others were staff-initiated, and some a combination of the two. Information 

on how the Lab addresses applicable EOs is presented below. There were no concerns or compliance 

issues with these EOs. 

EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands

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

responsibly mitigated. Evaluation of Jefferson Lab activities involving potential wetlands is 

accomplished through the NEPA review process. There were no concerns involving wetlands in 2004. 

EO 11998 Floodplain Management

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

significant rain events, but no part of the site is within the 100-year floodplain. There were no compliance 

issues in 2004. 

EO 13101 Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling and Federal Acquisition

EO 13101 encourages agencies to implement Affirmative Procurement (AP) by promoting the purchase 

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

recycling process. 

To comply with this EO, the DOE has set goals and performance standards, including a DOE complexwide FY 2005 procurement target of 100% for purchasing recycled content EPA-listed products. The Lab 

has almost reached an internal goal of 95%, as its compliance level rose to 94.6% for FY 2004. The 

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

EO since tracking began in 1995. 

EO 13123 Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management

This initiative focuses on energy efficiency (E2) as a means of P2. The DOE seeks a 2005 energy use 

reduction of 20%, and a 2010 energy use reduction of 25% for industrial/lab category facilities from our 

1999 baseline. For FY 2004, Jefferson Lab documented a 47.1% energy use reduction in all reportable 

industrial/lab category buildings compared to the 1999 baseline year. This improvement was primarily 

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

primary administration building, CEBAF Center. The site’s highly energy intensive production related 

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

time. 

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 15 
Energy Management – With an increased emphasis on energy management, selected mechanical and 

electrical improvements have been made to building and process systems and equipment in order to 

improve their performance and reliability. The Lab has exceeded the prescribed energy goals. Facilities 

Management, which is also responsible for new building construction, is also taking E2 into account 

during the design process. Refer to section 2.2.3 for other ways in which the Lab has worked to become 

more energy efficient. 

EO 13148 Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management

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

to develop an EMS, to reduce the use of ODS and toxic chemicals, and to report under EPCRA. 

In 2004, Jefferson Lab addressed EO 13148 and general pollution prevention (P2) goals by continuing 

work on an EMS (see Section 2.1); minimizing chemical use; reusing and recycling various items from 

chemicals to cardboard boxes (to the extent practical); and, by disposing of wastes in the most 

environmentally safe manner. Jefferson Lab’s progress in meeting the requirements of this EO follows. 

Environmental Management System

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

December 2005. Throughout 2004, key Lab staff continued to develop and implement an EMS. 

To help track how the various DOE institutions were progressing toward the December 2005 goal, a 

“DOE scorecard” that shows key EMS milestones and proposed accomplishment dates was issued. By 

the end of 2004, Jefferson Lab had successfully accomplished four of the six FY 2003 and 2004 

milestones. The Lab committed to accomplishing the remaining milestones as it continued EMS 

development in FY 2005. 

ODS Usage Reduction

The compliance status of this EO requirement is discussed in Section 2.2.2.2. 

Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Landscaping Practices

Jefferson Lab implements this requirement in conjunction with the objectives identified in the new 

MS4 permit; refer to Section 2.2.2.1 regarding preventing the pollution of storm water. To accomplish 

these beneficial landscaping practices on the facility grounds, Jefferson Lab uses qualified subcontractors. 

The Lab’s intent is to maintain grass cover in open areas, to the extent practicable, to prevent runoff. 

Fertilizers and herbicides are applied locally on an as-needed basis and when rain is not imminent to 

prevent surface water contamination. 

During the last contract bid for landscaping services, the bidders were required to monitor landscape 

irrigation to provide all areas of irrigation with one inch of water per week of natural rainfall and 

irrigation combined. The reduction in landscape water consumption that was noted in 2004 is a result of 

both above average rainfall throughout the year and the diligent monitoring on the part of the Lab 

subcontracting officer representative to ensure the goals are achieved. For 2004, Jefferson Lab only used 

about two-thirds of the water that we would normally use for landscaping. The Lab continued the use of 

mulch, a standard recycled content product, to reduce the amount of water needed at managed beds. 

Subcontractors are directed to use more environmentally preferable products, such as compost, where 

suitable. 

16 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Dogwood Blossoms

DOE P2 and E2 Goals and Other DOE Commitments

Jefferson Lab is committed to meeting site targets to address ten of the DOE-identified P2 and E2 goals, but 

additional funding continues to be needed to meet some targets. The Lab has made progress in meeting some 

of these goals, such as improving recycling performance, which will be refined with the institution of an EMS 

in 2005. 

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

Environmental Protection Program guidance that provides direction for EMS implementation. There were 

also four contractual performance measures in FY 2004 that addressed environmental issues. 

2.2.3 Environmental Stewardship at Jefferson Lab: Other Site Programs 

Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention (WMin/P2)

Waste minimization, in combination with other P2 strategies, such as source reduction, is recognized as the 

most cost-effective form of EP. Jefferson Lab’s WMin/P2 Awareness Plan fosters the philosophy that waste 

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

incorporate WMin/P2 into the decision-making process at every level throughout the organization. This is 

accomplished by having line managers, assisted by division EH&S staff, ensure that staff are knowledgeable 

about the benefits of WMin/P2; consider the waste implications of a new or modified process during the 

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

practices benefit the environment, protect employees and public health, and reduce site waste disposal costs 

and foster good community relations. 

EP in Product and Service Life Cycles

A variety of products and materials are purchased or otherwise obtained for on-site use. When the materials 

have served their purpose, and are no longer needed, they are disposed of in accordance with Jefferson Lab 

policy. As there are EH&S risks involved, Jefferson Lab has programs and procedures in place that include 

EP and sustainability considerations. 

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 17 
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing and Planning

Jefferson Lab is committed to integrating environmentally preferable purchasing and sustainability 

considerations into the acquisition of products, services, and construction projects when feasible. This 

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

go beyond the AP requirements spelled out in EO 13101 and the list of EPA-designated products. 

Jefferson Lab continues to make progress toward meeting the DOE AP goals and requirements and in 

implementing other environmentally preferable purchasing measures. Procurement staff continue to increase 

employee awareness of EPA-designated products and provide ready access to these recycled 

content/remanufactured products. Office supply purchases made using Purchase Cards (PCards) have been 

restricted and a full line of AP items is available using the Lab’s e-commerce system. The Lab is making 

progress at meeting an internal goal of 95% for purchasing recycled content EPA-listed products. The Lab’s 

compliance level rose to 94.6% for FY 2004. Jefferson Lab has made steady and consistent progress for the 

past five years supporting the DOE established AP goals. 

EP Considerations in Building and System Design and Construction Activities

Though the CEBAF accelerator complex is the site’s primary energy user, energy management principles are 

applied throughout the Lab. Subcontractors and staff involved with the design of new buildings or with 

changing and modifying existing buildings or utility systems evaluate and implement energy and water 

conserving strategies where feasible. A major new construction project that was started in 2004, the Phase 1 

Addition to CEBAF Center, was designed to incorporate multiple EP elements and may even meet the strict 

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

certification. Examples of items that would meet LEED criteria are the use of energy efficient lighting and 

the use of an alternative source of energy, that is, to not use coal or oil. 

Environmentally Preferable Use

Besides selecting the best environmentally preferred product or service for the desired activity, staff and users 

of Jefferson Lab are responsible for following safe and environmentally sound use, storage, and waste 

management practices. 

Factors, such as ensuring that secondary containment is present and proper ventilation for the process is 

provided, help to minimize exposure to potential hazards. Lab staff and subcontractors have taken 

opportunities to minimize energy and water use, such as the use of motion detectors to shut off lights when no 

one is in the room, and providing prompt response to address reported water leaks. 

Jefferson Lab uses about 56 million gallons of water annually, with 79% directly related to process or facility 

heat rejection. Much of this water is evaporated in cooling towers for process cooling and air conditioning. 

Available techniques are used to minimize water use, including a regular maintenance program. Water 

reductions for landscaping were again implemented in 2004. 

Energy Management - With an increased emphasis on energy management, selected mechanical and electrical 

improvements have been made to building and process systems and equipment in order to improve their 

performance and reliability. The energy reduction through FY 2004 was 47.1%. The Lab has exceeded the 

prescribed energy goals. 

A prime example of how the Lab strives to meet energy management goals is a new central chiller utility that 

was installed in FY 2004. Upon completion of this project, the air conditioning for the accelerator became 

more thermally accurate, economical, easier to maintain, and more robust. In addition to the efficiencies of a 

18 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
central chiller plant over multiple air-cooled package air conditioning units, this project minimizes the use of 

mechanical cooling by employing an outdoor air economizer cycle. 

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

maintenance activities continue to receive extra attention. New projects that need water are reviewed to 

minimize water use. Existing water-using activities are, or will be, evaluated to reduce water usage as much 

as possible based on a life cycle cost. One example is that we are using process waste water to partly supply 

our cooling towers. A second example is minimizing the amount of water being used for landscaping 

practices. 

Environmentally Preferable Disposal

Today’s rapidly changing technologies, products, and practices carry the risk of generating materials and 

wastes that, if improperly managed, could impair or threaten public health and the environment. In this 

regard, Jefferson Lab encourages, and, where appropriate, requires the purchase and use of products and 

services whose waste products will have minimal impact on the environment and public health. Once the 

waste is generated, Lab staff are responsible for ensuring proper segregation and disposal of waste items. 

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

chemicals or equipment to co-workers on-site or to other DOE facilities for reuse, and disposing in a local 

landfill. The Lab intends for all items to be disposed of in the most environmentally acceptable manner that 

meets all applicable regulatory and contractual requirements. 

Facilities Management and other staff continue to explore opportunities to find users or vendors that will take 

or buy items that are no longer needed for Jefferson Lab operations. 

Recycling – The Lab continues to implement waste reduction strategies and to educate and encourage staff on 

the proper disposition of recyclable materials. Through a collaborative effort between EH&S Reporting and 

Facilities Management, office product recycling centers continued to be established and operated. Products 

collected at these local centers are: aluminum cans, small batteries, cardboard, CDs/diskettes, 

copier/fax/inkjet/laser cartridges, greeting cards, paper wastes, packing peanuts, telephone books, 

transparencies, Tyvek®

 envelopes, and plastic bottles. The small amount of money received from recycling 

the laser/inkjet cartridges and aluminum cans is returned to the recycling budget to help pay for subsequent 

recycling activities. The presence of local recycling centers has considerably increased staff recycling 

awareness. Lab-wide response and participation in recycling continued to grow. In FY 2004, with scrap 

metal included in the total, Jefferson Lab recycled about 166 tons of materials. 

2.3 APPRAISALS, ASSESSMENTS, AND INSPECTIONS 

The DOE Site Office, the DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office, and various Commonwealth and local 

authorities provide external oversight of the Jefferson Lab EP Program. Assurance that on-site processes do 

not adversely affect the environment is achieved through self-assessments, routine inspections, and oversight 

by the DOE, DEQ, and the HRSD. Jefferson Lab complies with all applicable laws, regulations, and permits. 

Actions of note are described here. 

DOE Review of Jefferson Lab Self-Assessment

The DOE Site Office’s Overlay Report, produced in conjunction with SURA’s annual Lab-wide selfassessment, 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 2004, the 

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 19 
Overlay Performance Evaluation Report yielded a rating of “Good” in the EH&S category. The reduction 

from the previous “Outstanding” ratings was due to poor safety performance (injury avoidance). The 

environmental performance remained “Outstanding”. 

External Inspections

There were two external environmental inspections during 2004. The first inspection of the year was 

conducted by HRSD staff on February 25th. The inspection focused on reviewing areas where chemicals were 

in use to review containment practices, especially in the vicinity of floor drains. Buildings involved in the 

inspection included Building 8 (the CHL complex) and Building 58 (the Test Lab). Jefferson Lab permit 

records and HRSD meter information were also reviewed. Information regarding the change in hazardous 

waste vendors was requested and provided. No deficiencies were identified. The second inspection was 

conducted by the DEQ on July 28, 2004, regarding our permit that covers discharges from one large site 

cooling tower. No concerns were identified. 

Line Self-Assessments

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

broad in scope, covering the accomplishment of the elements’ goals, including EH&S. The SelfAssessment/Quality Assurance (SA/QA) Group performs independent assessments of four or more of the 

Lab’s organizational units each year, focusing on EH&S. Deficiencies identified through these independent 

assessments are tracked by SA/QA until the corrective actions are completed. 

SECTION 3 

ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM 

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

Jefferson Lab. The impacts of operating this equipment and of working with and around these materials have 

been taken into account in Lab procedures. Any potential impacts have been significantly reduced by 

applying standard control measures and by implementing ALARA, or “as low as reasonably achievable”, 

principles. The resultant potential effective dose equivalents to members of the public from various 

pathways, such as inhalation, ingestion, and skin absorption, are evaluated by the Radiation Control Group 

(RadCon) to demonstrate compliance with EPA and DOE regulatory limits. 

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

of both physical and administrative controls. The radiological monitoring program is the primary means used 

at Jefferson Lab to verify accomplishment of this protection objective. Exposure reduction support activities 

include: using permanent and temporary shielding; using active and passive controls at activated water 

locations; and, following proper protocols when handling radioactive materials and wastes. 

The radiological monitoring program is designed to verify that radiation exposures, both for on-site radiation 

workers and for members of the general public, are below permissible levels and are ALARA. The program 

also assures that Lab support activities and accelerator testing and operations, as described within the 

approved operational safety envelope, will result in minimal impacts to the environment and have minimal to 

no effect on public health. 

20 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
3.1 RADIATION EXPOSURE PATHWAYS 

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

public: direct or prompt radiation, radiation from induced airborne radioactivity, and radiation from induced 

waterborne radioactivity. Jefferson Lab performed extensive environmental monitoring in 2004 to measure 

these three forms of accelerator-produced radiation. Pathways to the general public are modeled and 

monitored when appropriate or as required by law. The decision to monitor a particular pathway is based on 

the: 

• type of operations 

• radionuclides released 

• potential hazard 

• experience from previous monitoring results at Jefferson Lab 

• experience at other nuclear and high-energy physics laboratories 

radioactivity – a natural and spontaneous process by which the unstable atoms of an element 

emit or radiate excess energy from their nuclei and, thus, change (or decay) to atoms of a 

different element or to a lower energy state of the same element. 

3.1.1 DIRECT RADIATION AND ITS EFFECTS 

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

produced within the beam enclosure and stops when the accelerator is turned off. 

Direct radiation penetrates shielding with nearly all of this direct radiation stopped by the shielding - any 

possible exposure to this radiation is at a maximum on-site and decreases with distance. During 2004, 

Jefferson Lab continued regular accelerator operations in support of physics experiments in the three 

experimental halls. Accelerator operations and related activities produced significant amounts of direct 

radiation; however, these amounts were restricted within constraints as managed by RadCon and were 

performed within an approved safety envelope. 

Shielding Blocks at the Hall C 

Truck Ramp Entrance 

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 

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 21 
automatically records the radiation levels for subsequent examination. When appropriate, Jefferson Lab 

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

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

collected direct radiation data (see Section 3.1.2 below) at the site boundary in 2004. (Refer to 

Exhibit 3-1 for their locations.) Radiation data collected prior to January 1995 serve as the statistical baseline 

for comparison to that collected since the accelerator became fully operational. 

EXHIBIT 3-1 

BOUNDARY MONITOR LOCATIONS 

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

3.1.1.1 Direct Radiation and Resultant Airborne and Waterborne Radioactivity 

In addition to the accelerator’s production of direct radiation, the interaction of the accelerator beam with 

matter can cause the formation of radioactive materials through activation of the matter. The beamlines, 

magnets, beamline-components, targets, detectors, other experimental area equipment, and the energy 

dissipating devices (beam dumps) used to contain the beam’s energy may become activated. Cooling and 

ground waters, 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, the activated equipment, water, and air continue to emit 

radiation. All material exposed to the beam is monitored for radioactivity prior to being removed from 

the beam enclosure. 

22 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Controls are in place to minimize the effects of both direct radiation and radiation from activated 

materials on Lab personnel, the environment, and the public. The monitoring of airborne radioactivity is 

carried out locally to validate calculations and estimates of radiation dose. 

3.1.1.2 Waterborne Radiation 

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

about 35 feet above mean sea level. The site is in a Zone C area on the local flood maps, so is not 

considered to be within the 100-year floodplain. The site is located in the watershed of Brick Kiln Creek, 

which discharges to the Big Bethel Recreation Area. As water is a vital natural resource, contamination 

could present potential problems to the general population. Because of this, both the Federal government 

and the Commonwealth of Virginia regulate both groundwater and surface water. 

Groundwater

The Jefferson Lab Groundwater Protection Management Program provides a strategy to minimize impact 

to groundwater resources and is used as a management tool to guide program implementation. The 

Program ensures compliance with Federal, Commonwealth, and local regulations, other identified 

standards, and effective resource management practices. The included groundwater monitoring plan 

serves to assess the effect of Jefferson Lab activities on groundwater quantity and quality. (Refer to 

Section 3.2). 

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

in the soil surrounding the accelerator complex is the Commonwealth’s largest concern about site 

operations. The monitoring of VPDES-permitted wells for particular groundwater quality parameters 

continued in 2004. From controls designed into the CEBAF and FEL facilities, including in-place 

shielding measures, and through calculations, a minimal amount of soil or groundwater activation is 

expected on-site and no offsite effect is anticipated. There were no soil or groundwater activation 

concerns in 2004. 

Surface Water

The surface water sampling program commenced at the time construction of the experimental halls was 

completed. Quarterly sampling of the groundwater dewatering surface discharge under the VPDES 

groundwater quality permit continued. In addition, automated sampling equipment is used to analyze the 

discharged water for tritium and gross beta activity. (Refer to Section 3.2 for information on Jefferson 

Lab’s radiological monitoring program.) There were no concerns involving surface water in 2004. 

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

potential groundwater impacts. Collected water that did not meet immediate disposal criteria was 

transferred to a temporary storage area and released only after measurements indicated it was safe to do 

so: when it met regulatory permit release requirements. There were no worker safety, environmental, or 

public health concerns as there were no water spills or leak events in 2004 involving these activated water 

systems. 

Surface water quality is maintained by discharging only permitted effluent from a cooling tower and 

unpolluted waters, such as rainwater, to the environment. Control measures identified for the site include: 

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

may be temporarily stored. 

• Water within the tunnels and experimental halls may become activated from exposure to radiation. 

RadCon procedures that address activated water management provide for sampling and monitoring of 

water (before release) from any potential sources within these areas.

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 23 
For information about other non-radiological surface water quality issues at Jefferson Lab, refer to 

Section 2.2. 

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION MONITORING 

Jefferson Lab uses environmental monitoring to assess local and offsite environmental conditions. The site 

environmental monitoring program verifies that any radiation exposures, and radioactive and non-radioactive 

effluent releases, comply with applicable regulations and other requirements. 

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

set for the general public, monitoring ensures that the established controls are effective. Jefferson Lab 

operations have minimal radiological dose impact to the public and the environment. Lab programs and 

outside advisory committees ensure that the Lab continues to function within regulatory and established 

administrative limits for direct radiation and airborne emissions. There has been no offsite release of 

radioactivity in any water effluents beyond the small quantities allowed to be discharged under the Lab’s 

HRSD permit. 

The overall effects on the environment and the public from Jefferson Lab’s operations are summarized in 

Exhibit 3-2. There were no non-routine releases so all values shown result from routine operations. The 

ambient external dose measured was on the order of 3.7% of natural background levels or 3.7 mrem (37 μSv 

(microSieverts)). In summary, the maximum dose impact to the individual from both the air and direct 

pathways combined was 3.7 mrem (37 μSv). This is 3.7% of the DOE regulatory dose limit for members of 

the public from all pathways (air, water, and others), which is 100 mrem (1 mSv). Information about the air 

program is provided in Section 3.2.1 and the water program is described in Section 3.2.2.

3.2.1 Monitoring: Air 

Airborne radionuclide concentrations at the site boundary have been too low to accurately measure. Annual 

calculations, using EPA-approved computer modeling codes, have indicated that Jefferson Lab operational 

emissions remain several orders of magnitude lower than the EPA 10 mrem/yr reporting limit. Jefferson Lab 

continued making continuous measurements to verify that the calculations confirmed a very low release rate. 

(Refer to Exhibit 3-3) A report, documenting that the 2004 dose to the maximally exposed individual of the 

public was 0.019 mrem/yr (0.19 μSv/yr) due to airborne releases, was sent to the EPA in 2005. This dose is 

insignificant when compared to the EPA regulatory public air-dose limit of 10 mrem/yr (100 μSv/yr). 

3.2.2 Monitoring: Water 

Groundwater

Activation of groundwater, as a result of direct or secondary radiation, is possible in certain locations around 

the accelerator complex. Massive concrete and steel shields within the accelerator beam enclosures and in the 

beam deceleration areas minimize groundwater activation. The monitoring conditions in VPDES Permit 

No. VA0089320 serve as the basis for evaluating accelerator-produced radioactivity in groundwater. The 

data collected, through the completion of facility construction in 1995, provide a groundwater quality baseline 

for comparisons during long-term facility operation. The background samples were analyzed for naturally 

occurring radionuclides, as well as accelerator-produced radionuclides, and selected chemical parameters. 

The radionuclides analyzed in 2004 are those known to relate to operations associated with electron 

accelerators. They include H-3 (Tritium), Be-7, Na-22, Mn-54, and gross beta. Total manmade radioactivity 

was also analyzed. The general water quality parameters measured were pH, conductivity, TSS and TDS. 

24 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
EXHIBIT 3-2 

JEFFERSON LAB RADIOLOGICAL DOSE REPORTING TABLE FOR 2004

Pathway

Dose to Maximally

Exposed 

Individual 

mrem/ (mSv)

% of DOE Limit 

100 mrem/yr

Estimated Population Dose 

(person-rem) / (person-Sv)

Population within 

80 km

Air 0.019 (1.9E-04) 0.019 0.015 (1.5 E-04) -

Water 0 0 N/A -

Other Pathways 3.7 (3.7 E-02) 3.7 Unknown/ Unknowable -

All Pathways 3.7 (3.7 E-02) 3.7 214,000 est.

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

 Values presented in Exhibits 3-2, 3-3, & 3-6 are presented in Scientific Notation (example, 2 E-05 is 0.00002) 

 mSv = MilliSievert 

EXHIBIT 3-3 

JEFFERSON LAB RADIOLOGICAL ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES FOR 2004 

Radionuclide 

[half-life

(timeframes)]

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 2004 

6.03 E-03 

(2.2 E+08) 

2.12 E-03 

(7.8 E +07) 

6.54E-01

(2.4 E+10)

4.95 

(1.8E+11)

2.63 

(9.7 E+10) 

2.78 E-02 

(1.0 E+09) 

3.37 E-01 

(1.23 E+10)

1.33 E-03

(4.9 E +07)

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

 1 Ci = 3.7 x 10 Bq 

 m: minutes 

This VPDES groundwater quality permit specifies EPA-approved sampling and analysis protocols, which 

were the basis of groundwater monitoring in 2004. Fifteen wells were sampled at quarterly, semi-annual, or 

annual intervals. The permitted wells included the “A”, “B”, and “C” Ring wells (labeled as to proximity to 

the accelerator) and the upgradient well. (Refer to Exhibit 3-4) Along with the A ring wells, the groundwater 

dewatering effluent at the experimental halls was also monitored quarterly in 2004 and reported under this 

permit. Note that the water quality beyond the Lab boundary must remain well below the regulated drinking 

water limit of 1 mrem/year. The annual effective dose equivalent to an individual consuming water activated 

at this level is so negligible it cannot be measured. 

The VPDES groundwater quality action and permit levels for radiological parameters are representative of 

normal background radionuclides, which are also generated through Jefferson Lab activities. Note that if an 

action level should be reached at an A-Ring well, it would not result in a permit violation, but would trigger 

an internal investigation of potential causes. The permit is available for review at

http://www.jlab.org/ehs/links.html

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 25 
The maximum radiological results obtained from monitoring the wells in the accelerator vicinity during 2004 

are presented in the first part of Exhibit 3-5. 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 acceleratorproduced activity has been detected. All values represent natural background, and variations are normal. 

Other Water Monitoring

The Cooling Water Tank (Building 92) and the floor drain sump (FDS) pit (Building 97) are considered one 

HRSD sampling point. Sampling at the FDS pit, which collects various discharges, including low-level 

activated dehumidification condensate from air conditioning systems located in the experimental halls, and at 

the Cooling Water Tank, that contains activated water from various accelerator apparatus, continued in 2004. 

Sampling and analysis for tritium are performed prior to any discharges to the sanitary system. The results 

are recorded and monthly and quarterly concentration values are provided to HRSD. The total quantity of 

radioactivity released to HRSD in 2004 is presented in Exhibit 3-6. Some regulatory values (that are not 

required to be regularly reported) are tracked and documented by RadCon staff, such as the total amount of 

activity discharged to the sanitary sewer system. Monthly and composite quarterly results for 2004 are 

provided in Exhibit 3-7. The concentrations varied based on the quantity of beam dump cooling water 

discharged during the reporting period. 

On a periodic basis in 2004, 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. 

3.3 OTHER SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 

Permanent shielding in the form of thick concrete walls and earth berms protects the environment from 

exposure. Additionally, labyrinth entrances further minimize exposure and monitoring equipment at 

ventilation ports tracks exposure values. 

RadCon installs shielding blocks and detection devices that are used to identify potential problem areas as 

needed to either minimize impacts or identify opportunities to minimize impacts both inside and outside the 

facility. 

Various accelerator-related water systems have the potential for becoming activated. All areas where 

activated water could be present have controls in place. Locations with a high potential for activation have 

secondary containment or other physical measures installed and administrative lockout/tagout controls. Other 

areas with less or even minimal potential for activation are monitored periodically to ensure levels are within 

expected values. 

RadCon establishes access-controlled areas to temporarily store radioactive materials, including those being 

stored for decay, and wastes. There is no impact to the environment or public health from the small quantity 

of materials stored on-site. 

26 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
EXHIBIT 3-4 

MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS 

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 27 
EXHIBIT 3-5 

MAXIMUM GROUNDWATER MEASUREMENTS FOR RADIONUCLIDES* 

JANUARY 2004 THROUGH DECEMBER 2004 

Radionuclides at Associated Wells Relevant to Accelerator Operations (in pCi/l unless noted otherwise) 

Analyte A-Ring B-Ring

A, B – 

(Permit Level) C-Ring

C-Ring 

(Permit Level) 

Gross Beta 28.84 9.89 50 7.28 153 

Manmade Radioactivity < 0.177 < 0.169 1 mrem/yr not applicable −

Tritium ND at< 609 ND at < 609 5000 ND at < 570 1000 

Sodium-22 ND at < 13.6 ND at < 12.8 − ND at < 11.9 61 

Beryllium-7 ND at < 89.2 ND at < 91.5 − ND at < 93.4 835 

Manganese-54 ND at < 11.7 ND at < 10.9 − ND at < 11.4 51 

Radionuclides At Other Permit Locations (in pCi/l) 

Analyte Upgradient Well Discharge 001

Gross Beta < 2.46 13.8 

Tritium ND at < 570 ND at < 609 

Sodium-22 ND at < 6.18 ND at < 9.4 

Beryllium-7 ND at < 51.7 ND at < 81.6 

Manganese-54 ND at < 5.63 ND at < 9.3 

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 

EXHIBIT 3-6 

JEFFERSON LAB LIQUID EFFLUENT RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL 

FOR 2004 

Other Gamma-Emitting Radionuclides 

(Permit Level 1 Ci) (Bq) 

Radionuclide

Tritium 

(Permit Level 5 Ci) (Bq) 

H-3 Be-7 Na-22 Mn-54

Ci (Bq) in CY 2004 0.97 (3.6 E+10) 1.10 x 10-3 

(4.1 E+07) 

6.34 x 10-

5 

(2.3 E+06) 

1.1 x 10-5 

(4.1 E+05) 

28 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
EXHIBIT 3-7 

ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DISCHARGES TO HRSD IN 2004 

Monthly Values

Reporting Period

Tritium 

Concentration (pCi/l) Reporting Period

Tritium 

Concentration (pCi/l)

Monthly Values 

January 32,000 July 40,000 

February 45,000 August 41,000 

March 34,000 September 19,000 

April 21,000 October 25,000 

May 27,000 November 22,000 

June 33,000 December 27,000 

Quarterly Values 

Reporting Period

Tritium Concentration

(pCi/l)

Other Gamma-Emitting Radionuclides 

Concentration (pCi/l)

Be-7 Na-22 Mn-54

First Quarter 39,000 0.87 None detected None detected 

Second Quarter 30,000 13 0.65 None detected 

Third Quarter 34,000 150 7.7 1.6 

Fourth Quarter 27,000 0.1 0.67 0.03 

Notes: These effluent concentrations are well below the 0.1 μCi/ml (1,000,000 pCi/l) permit limit.

 Radionuclides are analyzed at EPA sensitivity levels or better. 

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

 

3.4 ASSESSMENTS OF POTENTIAL DOSE TO THE PUBLIC AND TO BIOTA 

The six electronic radiation measurement devices noted in Section 3.1.1, installed along the accelerator site 

boundary, continued to be used to determine offsite dose to the public due to Jefferson Lab operations. These 

electronic detectors - radiation boundary monitors (RBMs) - measure and log radiological information. In 

addition, passive integrating detectors are used for a number of measurements. All measured dose values 

were within statutory and administrative limits. For 2004, the highest site boundary direct (prompt) radiation 

level was about 3.7% of the DOE annual dose limit of 100 mrem (3.7 mSv), or 37% of the site administrative 

dose limit of 10 mrem (0.1 mSv).

Exhibit 3.8 displays the radiation doses in mrem for 2004 at RBM-3. RBM-3 is the detector that sees the 

largest dose from a combination of accelerator and experimental hall operations. A comparison with natural 

background radiation is made, which indicates the relatively low levels of Jefferson Lab’s contribution to the 

public dose. These background levels do not include contributions to dose from naturally occurring radon, 

which typically doubles natural radiation dose to the public. 

Jefferson Lab does not release any residual radioactive material, such as concrete or soil, so there are no 

resulting dose impacts to the public. The absorbed dose to any local aquatic animals, or terrestrial plants or 

animals, from Jefferson Lab operations will not exceed the internationally recommended dose limits for 

terrestrial biota. As there are no potential releases of a magnitude that could result in doses exceeding 

0.1 rad/day to terrestrial animals, the lowest limit for any biota, no dose limits will be exceeded. 

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 29 
Jefferson Lab did not contribute significantly to the radiation dose received by the public through either 

airborne or waterborne pathways. The direct radiation exposure was again measurable in 2004, but was found 

to be about 37% of the Jefferson Lab design goal of one-tenth of the DOE limit. 

EXHIBIT 3-8 

RADIATION BOUNDARY MONITOR RBM-3 RESULTS FOR 2004 

Period

Neutron 

(mrem)

Gamma 

(mrem)

Total 

(mrem)

Jan-Mar 0.40 ±0.25 010 ± 0.25 0.50 ± 030

Apr-June 0.35 ±0.25 0.09 ± 0.25 0.44 ± 0.30

July-Sept 0.17 ± 0.25 0.04 + 0.25 0.21 + 0.30

Oct-Dec 2.08 ± 0.40 0.52 ± 0.25 2.60 ± 0.50

TOTAL 3.00 ± 0.60 0.75 ± 0.60 3.75 ± 0.75 

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 

3.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE 

Regular quality assurance (QA) efforts are being made to ensure that Jefferson Lab’s environmental 

monitoring program is performed in accordance with the principles of the Jefferson Lab QA Program Manual. 

QA in Sampling Procedures

The Jefferson Lab QA Program includes qualification of the laboratories that provide analytical services, 

verification of certification to perform analytical work, and review of performance test results. Also included 

in this review is the adequacy of their internal quality control (QC) practices, recordkeeping, chain of custody, 

and the relevant portions of the QA program itself. 

RadCon and other program management are involved in the qualification process for environmentally 

sensitive services, including offsite analytical laboratories, and are responsible for auditing their own QA 

practices and implementing relevant QA procedures. The Jefferson Lab SA/QA function performs 

independent assessments of all functional areas, including those for EP activities. The DOE oversight 

organizations, in their independent overview capacity, also perform periodic audits and surveillance of 

Jefferson Lab. No QA concerns were noted for CY 2004 regarding sampling protocols or results. 

Universal Laboratories, Inc. (Universal Labs) collected most VPDES and HRSD permit-related water 

samples. BWX Technologies, Inc. (BWX), their subcontractor, performed all radiological analyses on 

identified samples. Several field audits were performed and showed Universal Labs’ collection procedures 

were satisfactory. 

30 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
Other sample collection that involves radiochemicals, including some required by the HRSD permit, is 

performed by RadCon and analyzed in the RadCon radiological analysis lab (Building 52).

QA in Analysis

Samples are analyzed for radiological (and non-radiological) attributes using standard EPA-approved 

analytical procedures. A continuing program of analytical laboratory QC, participation in interlaboratory 

crosschecks, analysis of various blanks, and replicate sampling and analysis verifies data quality. RadCon, 

Accelerator Division EH&S staff, and other responsible staff review all analytical data for samples analyzed 

under their subcontracts. The analytical results are reviewed relative to the accompanying QA/QC results and 

compared with regulatory limits for acceptability. These reviews include inspection of chain-of-custodies, 

sample stewardship, sample handling and transport, and sampling protocols. When applicable to the analysis 

requested, analytical labs must be appropriately certified. Inspection visits are made to both Universal Labs 

and BWX on a biennial basis. These visits confirm that analytical practices being performed are satisfactory.

Ongoing precision and accuracy are monitored by analysis of the following with each batch of samples: 

laboratory standards, duplicate determinations, matrix spikes, and matrix spike duplicates. These data are 

used to calculate the relative standard deviation on all applicable parameters. The quality of the data is then 

evaluated and compared to regulatory limits to determine acceptability. In addition, a range of radiochemical 

spikes is used to test the vendor’s ability to achieve the required sensitivity for each parameter, and their 

reliability in detecting accelerator-produced radionuclides at or below the concentration guide standards. This 

enables compliance with permit requirements that QA is performed. 

Independent QA under the DOE

The Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML) Quality Assessment Program (QAP) is an external, 

independent performance evaluation program designed to test the quality of environmental radiological 

measurements and provides DOE with complex-wide comparability of environmental radiological analysis. 

Under this program, four matrices of various radionuclides are distributed semi-annually to DOEsubcontracted laboratories for analysis, with the labs required to analyze only the parameters for which they 

analyze under contract. 

In 2004, BWX and Jefferson Lab’s RadCon lab participated in the EML’s QAP, performed semi-annually, for 

radionuclides. BWX participated in a QA program for analysis of samples under the Environmental Resource 

Associates (ERA). 

Performance results for all Universal Labs, BWX and Jefferson Lab programs were satisfactory in 2004. 

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 31 

SECTION 4 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 

INTERNAL 

Dr. Christoph W. Leemann, Director 

Dr. Allison F. Lung, Assistant Director 

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

Dr. Lawrence Cardman, Associate Director, Physics Division 

Dr. Swapan Chattopadhyay, Associate Director, Accelerator Division 

Mr. Craig R. Ferguson, Associate Director, Environment, Health and Safety Division 

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

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

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

Dr. Anthony W. Thomas, Chief Scientist and Theory Group Leader 

Ms. Mary C. Erwin, Chief Financial Officer 

Dr. R. Roy Whitney, Chief Information Officer 

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

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

Dr. James J. Murphy, Director, Performance Assurance 

Mr. Claus H. Rode, Director, Office of Project Management 

Rhonda M. Scales, Esq., Legal Counsel 

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

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

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

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

EXTERNAL 

The Honorable Mark R. Warner, Governor 

The Honorable George F. Allen 

The Honorable James S. Burgett, Chairperson, York County Board of Supervisors 

The Honorable Jo Ann S. Davis 

The Honorable Thelma D. Drake 

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes 

The Honorable Phillip A. Hamilton 

The Honorable Terry G. Kilgore 

The Honorable Mamie E. Locke 

The Honorable G. Glenn Oder 

The Honorable Robert C. Scott 

The Honorable John W. Warner 

The Honorable Martin E. Williams 

The Honorable Joe S. Frank, Mayor, City of Newport News 

The Honorable Ross A. Kearney, II, Mayor, City of Hampton 

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

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 1 
SECTION 4 

DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

Dr. Sayed Rokni, Acting Associate Director, ES&H, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center 

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

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

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

Mr. Leonard Huesties, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

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

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

Mr. William Griffing, Section Head, ES&H Section, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 

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

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

Ms. Patricia Sumner, DOE ES&H Manager, Jefferson Lab 

Mr. Scott J. Mallette, DOE Deputy Manager, Jefferson Lab 

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

Mr. Steven J. Neilson, DOE Industrial/Occupational Safety Specialist 

Ms. Deanna D. Austin, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

Mr. Mark H. Sauer, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

2 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 
ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS 

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

document and may not apply to all situations. 

ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable 

AP Affirmative Procurement 

ARC Applied Research Center 

BMP Best Management Practice 

Bq Becquerel 

BWX BWX Technologies 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments 

CASA Center for Advanced Studies of 

Accelerators 

CEBAF Continuous Electron Beam 

Accelerator Facility 

CERCLA 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act 

CFC Chlorofluorocarbon 

Ci Curie 

CLAS CEBAF Large Acceptance 

Spectrometer 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CX Categorical Exclusion 

CY Calendar Year 

DEQ (Virginia) Department of 

Environmental Quality 

DOD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

E2 Energy Efficiency 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EHS Extremely Hazardous Substance 

EH&S Environment, Health, and Safety 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EML Environmental Measurements 

Laboratory 

E M S Environmental Management System 

EO Executive Order of the President of 

the United States 

EP Environmental Protection 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act 

EPGs Emergency Planning and Response 

Groups 

ERA Environmental Resource Associates 

FDS Floor Drain Sump 

FEL Free-Electron Laser 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FY Fiscal Year 

GeV Billion (Giga-) electron Volts 

HRSD Hampton Roads Sanitation District 

IR Infrared 

ISM Integrated Safety Management 

kW Kilowatt 

LEED Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design 

LLW Low Level Radioactive Waste 

LSA Line Self-Assessment 

μSv MicroSievert 

M3 Cubic Meters 

mrem Millirem 

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer 

Systems 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet 

mSv MilliSievert 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

N D Not detectable 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAPs National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

ODS Ozone-Depleting Substance 

P2 Pollution Prevention 

PBT Persistent, Bioaccumulative, or Toxic 

2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report A-1
ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS (continued)

PCards Purchase Cards 

pCi/ l Picocuries per liter 

QA Quality Assurance 

QAP Quality Assessment Program 

QC Quality Control 

QCD Quantum Chromodynamics 

RadCon Radiation Control Group 

RBM Radiation Boundary Monitor 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

R&D Research and Development 

SA/QA Self-Assessment / Quality Assurance 

SARA Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act 

SER Site Environmental Report 

SNS Spallation Neutron Source 

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure 

SRF Superconducting Radiofrequency 

Southeastern Universities Research 

Association, Inc. SURA 

Sv Sievert 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention 

Plan SWP3 

TDS Total Dissolved Solids 

TJNAF or 

Jefferson Lab

Thomas Jefferson National 

Accelerator Facility 

TSS Total Suspended Solids 

Universal 

Labs Universal Laboratories, Inc. 

UV Ultraviolet 

Virginia Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System VPDES 

Waste Minimization/Pollution 

Prevention WMin/P2 

WSS Work Smart Standards 

A-2 2004 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report