jefferson lab site environmental report for …jefferson national accelerator facility, known as...

72
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility U.S. Department of Energy 12000 Jefferson Avenue Newport News, VA 23606 JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For Calendar Year 2001 Prepared by: SURA/Jefferson Lab Office of Technical Performance EH&S Reporting September 2002

Upload: others

Post on 04-Apr-2020

5 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator FacilityU.S. Department of Energy12000 Jefferson AvenueNewport News, VA 23606

JEFFERSON LABSITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

For Calendar Year 2001

Prepared by:SURA/Jefferson LabOffice of Technical PerformanceEH&S ReportingSeptember 2002

Page 2: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

i 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................................................................... iAcronyms....................................................................................................................................................................................... iiiSECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. 1SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................... 52.2 Laboratory Mission.......................................................................................................................................... 52.3 Environmental Review.................................................................................................................................... 62.4 Site Location...................................................................................................................................................... 62.5 Site History and Description.......................................................................................................................... 62.6 Site Environment, Health, & Safety Resources........................................................................................... 9

SECTION 3 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 93.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 93.2 Environmental Protection and Public Health Requirements .................................................................. 93.3 Waste Management Standards...................................................................................................................... 103.4 Radiological Protection Requiremnets......................................................................................................... 123.5 Air Quality and Protection Standards.......................................................................................................... 133.6 Water Quality and Protection Standards..................................................................................................... 153.7 Compliance Status-Public Health Standards.............................................................................................. 183.8 Other Environmental Standards ................................................................................................................... 183.9 Executive Orders and Pollution Prevention (P2) ....................................................................................... 203.10 Other Obligations Identified in the Contract.............................................................................................. 243.11 Other Major Environmental Issues and Actions........................................................................................ 263.12 Release Reporting ............................................................................................................................................ 263.13 Permit Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 26

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM.................................................................................. 274.1 Environmental Management System ........................................................................................................... 274.2 Environmentally Preferable Purchasing and Beyond............................................................................... 284.3 Appraisals, Assessments, and Inspections.................................................................................................. 304.4 NEPA Activity .................................................................................................................................................. 314.5 Summary of Other Significant Site Environmental Activities................................................................. 31

SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM............................................................................ 345.1 Site Information................................................................................................................................................ 365.2 Environmental Radiation Monitoring.......................................................................................................... 365.3 Airborne and Waterborne Radioactivity ..................................................................................................... 365.4 Accelerator-Produced Direct Radiation....................................................................................................... 425.5 Assessments of Potential Radiation Dose to the Public and to Biota..................................................... 425.6 Other Supporting Activities........................................................................................................................... 43

SECTION 6 ENVIRONMENTAL NON-RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM................................................................ 436.1 Water Programs................................................................................................................................................ 456.2 Conventional Air Emissions .......................................................................................................................... 486.3 Safety .................................................................................................................................................................. 48

SECTION 7 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION............................................................................................................. 497.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 497.2 Hydrogeology Issues....................................................................................................................................... 497.3 Groundwater Protection Program Summary ............................................................................................. 507.4 Groundwater Monitoring Review ................................................................................................................ 52

SECTION 8 QUALITY ASSURANCE............................................................................................................................... 528.1 Quality Assurance in Sampling Procedures ............................................................................................... 528.2 Quality Assurance in Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 53

SECTION 9 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 60SECTION 10 DISTRIBUTION LIST ................................................................................................................................... 61

Page 3: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report ii

ExhibitsExhibit 2-1 Jefferson Lab Vicinity Plan.................................................................................................................... 7Exhibit 2-2 Site Plan .................................................................................................................................................... 8Exhibit 3-1 EPCRA Reporting Status....................................................................................................................... 21Exhibit 3-2 Chemicals Reported for 2001................................................................................................................ 22Exhibit 3-3 Targets and Progress Projections......................................................................................................... 25Exhibit 3-4 Contract Performance Measure Results ............................................................................................. 26Exhibit 3-5 Jefferson Lab Permits ............................................................................................................................. 27Exhibit 4-1 Quantities of Items Recycled or Reused in FY 2001......................................................................... 33Exhibit 5-1 Jefferson Lab Radiological Dose Reporting Table for CY 2001...................................................... 35Exhibit 5-2 Jefferson Lab Radiologocal Atmospheric Releases for CY 2001 .................................................... 35Exhibit 5-3 Jefferson Lab Liquid Effluent Release of Radioactive Material for CY 2001 ............................... 36Exhibit 5-4 Nuclide Effective Dose Equivalent Summary................................................................................... 38Exhibit 5-5 Monitoring Well Locations ................................................................................................................... 39Exhibit 5-6 Groundwater Sampling Parameters ................................................................................................... 40Exhibit 5-7 VPDES Permit Levels for Radionuclides ........................................................................................... 40Exhibit 5-8 Maximum Groundwater Measurements for Radionuclides .......................................................... 41Exhibit 5-9 Analytical Results for Discharges to HRSD in 2001......................................................................... 42Exhibit 5-10 Boundary Monitor Locations ............................................................................................................... 44Exhibit 5-11 Radiation Boundary Monitor RBM-3 Results for 2001 .................................................................... 44Exhibit 6-1 Flow Information at the Dewatering Discharge ............................................................................... 45Exhibit 6-2 Range of 2001 Non-Radiological Monitoring Results at Wells ...................................................... 46Exhibit 6-3 2001 Permit-Related Non-Radiological Monitoring Parameters at Outfall 001.......................... 46Exhibit 6-4 2001 Cooling Water Monitoring Parameters at Outfalls 001 and 002........................................... 47Exhibit 6-5 pH Sampling Results for Wastewater Discharge ............................................................................. 48Exhibit 8-1 Quality Assurance Program (QAP 54) Selected Results for 2001.................................................. 55Exhibit 8-2 Quality Assurance Program (QAP 55) Selected Results for 2001.................................................. 56Exhibit 8-3 Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP) for 2001 ......................................... 57Exhibit 8-4 Selected Results from Universal Laboratories Performance Evaluation Reports NSI

Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program Study WP-065 ................................................................ 58Exhibit 8-5 Selected Results from Universal Laboratories Performance Evaluation Report ERA

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

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................................................. 62Section A Applicable Site Standards ..................................................................................................................... 63

Exhibit A-1 Federal Laws and Regulations Included in the WSS Set ..................................................... 63Exhibit A-2 Permits, State Laws, and Regulations Included in the WSS Set ......................................... 64Exhibit A-3 Other Standards Identified in the WSS Set............................................................................. 65Exhibit A-4 Transportation-Related Standards........................................................................................... 66

Section B Site Usage Information .......................................................................................................................... 66Exhibit B-1 Control Chemicals and Products Approved for Use in 2001.............................................. 66Exhibit B-2 Source Registration Update for Calendar Year 2001 ............................................................ 67

Page 4: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

iii 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMSA C M Asbestos-containing material E P Gs Emergency Planning and Response

GroupsA E A Atomic Energy Act E P P Environmentally Preferable

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

A P Affirmative Procurement E S & H Environment, Safety, and HealthA R C Applied Research Center F D S Floor Drain SumpB q Becquerel F E L Free Electron LaserB W X BWX Technologies F I F R A Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

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

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

C E B A F Continuous Electron Beam AcceleratorFacility

G e V Giga-electron Volts

C E R C L A Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and LiabilityAct of 1980

G S A General Services Administration

C F C Chlorofluorocarbon H R S D Hampton Roads Sanitation DistrictC F R Code of Federal Regulations H S Hazardous SubstanceC i Curie H W C Hazardous Waste CoordinatorC O D Chemical Oxygen Demand I A Independent AssessmentC W A Clean Water Act I R InfraredC X Categorical Exclusion I S M Integrated Safety ManagementC Y Calendar Year I W D R Industrial Wastewater Discharge

RegulationsD E Q (Virginia) Department of

Environmental Qualityk g Kilogram

D O D U.S. Department of Defense L L W Low Level Radioactive WasteD O E U.S. Department of Energy L S A Line Self-AssessmentD O T U.S. Department of Transportation µ g/L Micrograms per Liter

E2 Energy Efficiency µ S v MicroSievertE A Environmental Assessment µ m h o s/L Micromhos per LiterE H M Environmentally Harmful Material M 3 (Cubic) Meters

E H S Extremely Hazardous Substance M A P E P Mixed Analyte PerformanceEvaluation Program

E H & S Environment, Health, and Safety M B T A Migratory Bird Treaty ActE M Emergency Management m g/ L Milligrams per liter

E M L Environmental MeasurementsLaboratory

M G D Million gallons/day

E M S Environmental Management System m r e m Millirem

E O Executive Order of the President of theUnited States

M S D S Material Safety Data Sheet

E P Environmental Protection M S L Mean Sea Level

E P A Environmental Protection Agency m S v MilliSievertE P C R A Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act of 1986MT Metric Ton

Page 5: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report iv

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (cont.)N A A Q S National Ambient Air Quality

StandardsS D W A Safe Drinking Water Act

N A S A National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration

S E R Site Environmental Report

N C P National Oil and HazardousSubstances Pollution ContingencyPlan

S N S Spallation Neutron Source

N E L A C National Environmental LaboratoryAccreditation Conference

S P C C Spill Prevention, Control, andCountermeasure (Plan)

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

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

S R F Superconducting Radiofrequency

N H P A National Historic Preservation Act S U R A Southeastern Universities ResearchAssociation, Inc.

O D S Ozone-Depleting Substance S v Sievert

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

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

P 2 Pollution Prevention T J N A F Thomas Jefferson NationalAccelerator Facility

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

P C B Polychlorinated biphenyl T P Q Threshold Planning Quantity

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

P P A Pollution Prevention Act T S Total Solids

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

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

Q C Quality Control U V Ultraviolet

R A D C O N Radiological Control UniversalLabs

Universal Laboratories, Inc.

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

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

R C R A Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct

V P A Virginia Pollution Abatement(Permit)

R Q Reportable Quantity V P D E S Virginia Pollutant DischargeElimination System (Permit)

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

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

S A R A Superfund Amendments andReauthorization Act

Page 6: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

1 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2001

Section 1Executive Summary

Purpose

This report presents the results of environmental activities and monitoring programs at the ThomasJefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. Thereport provides the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public with information on radioactiveand non-radioactive pollutants, if any, added to the environment as a result of Jefferson Laboperations. The report also summarizes environmental programs, initiatives, and assessments thatwere undertaken in 2001. The objective of the Site Environmental Report (SER) is to documentJefferson Lab’s active environmental protection program that protects the environment and publichealth.

Jefferson Lab’s main purpose is to make available a research facility to support the nuclear physicscommunity and the nation. The Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) at JeffersonLab provides an electron beam to three experimental halls where a variety of physics experiments areconducted. Correlative programs where environmental protection is considered are: the FreeElectron Laser (FEL); Superconducting Radio-Frequency (SRF) research and development; andcryomodule development for the DOE’s Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) project.

Major Site Programs

CEBAF: The accelerator continued to deliver electron beams at energies close to 6 GeV (Giga-electron Volts) to meet the variety of needs of the experimenters in Halls A, B, and C. Jefferson Labhas completed 45 experiments and partially completed another 27 between facility commissioningand the end of CY 2001. Major experiments were conducted in all three halls. One Hall A experimentexamined some of the rarest subatomic particles known to exist: K-mesons or kaons. Hall Bexperiments studied certain kinds of exotic matter, such as strange quarks. The data and analysisfrom this batch of experiments could shine light on the nature of the strong interactions betweenquarks. Another Hall B experiment delved into the “spin” of protons and neutrons, and in Hall C, amajor experiment set the standard for the evidence of the onset of quark effects in the nucleus of theatom.

During 2001, a critical juncture was reached in the analysis and research and development (R&D)work on the proposed upgrade of CEBAF to 12 GeV. This upgrade in electron beam energy levelswould also include the building of a fourth experimental hall, which would be named Hall D. TheNational Science Advisory Committee rated the upgrade as one of the science programs it mosthighly endorsed, supported, and recommended.

SRF: Superconducting Radio-Frequency Technology R&D efforts were enhanced in 2001 to bettersupport the existing accelerators. Improvements were made to the original CEBAF cryomoduledesign to support current 6 GeV and future, higher energy operations. Also, SRF improvements andapplications to meet SNS needs continued.

FEL: On November 18, 2001, the Lab’s Infrared (IR) Demo Free Electron Laser was decommissionedand shutdown to begin a major, 10-month upgrade project. At that time it was a kilowatt level lightsource with output in both the IR and ultraviolet (UV) wavelength. Once the upgrade is complete, the

Page 7: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 2

machine will be able to produce more than 10,000 watts of IR light and kilowatt levels of UV light.The FEL supports basic science research and serves universities, private industry, the U.S. Navy, andthe U.S. Air Force. During 2001, FEL experiments included: production of coatings and thin films forelectronics and microcomponents, and production of carbon nanotubes. CY 2001 marked the halfwaypoint of the two-year, 10 kilowatt upgrade project to add two new cryomodules to the FELaccelerator, a new injector to double the quantity of beam produced, and a new “wiggler” magnet tohelp improve operational capabilities.

SNS: The Spallation Neutron Source project is an ongoing partnership involving six DOE nationalresearch centers - Jefferson Lab, Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Los Alamos, and OakRidge - to design and construct what will be the most powerful spallation neutron source in the worldin Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The SNS will provide intense pulsed-neutron beams for scientific researchand industrial development. Jefferson Lab’s contribution is to develop and build thesuperconducting radiofrequency cryomodules and to design the cryogenic support facilities for theproject. Several SNS milestones were reached in 2001.

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

Organization and Management: Ultimate responsibility for protection of the environment and publichealth rests with the Lab Director, while line management implements the goals within their areas ofresponsibility. EH&S staff provide support to their line management and share their expertise withthe Lab as a whole.

Integrated Safety Management (ISM) System: Through ISM, Jefferson Lab incorporates EH&Srequirements into all work procedures, striving towards continuous improvement in EH&S and in thenuclear physics research program.

Jefferson Lab Work Smart Standards (WSS) Process: The goal of the WSS process at Jefferson Lab is toenable an EH&S system that is both effective and cost-efficient. The WSS Set, identified through theprocess, is comprised of the laws, regulations, and standards necessary and sufficient to ensure healthand safety and to protect the environment with respect to hazard issues that are relevant to JeffersonLab. The WSS Set and other associated obligations are reviewed and adjusted on a regular basis toaddress changes in either site activities or regulations. More information is provided in Section 3.

EH&S Performance Measures: These DOE/SURA (Southeastern Universities Research Association,Inc.) contract-based measures, used to evaluate Jefferson Lab’s EH&S performance, include itemssuch as recycling and hazardous waste minimization. These are discussed in Section 3.

Inspections and Appraisals: The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and theHampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) performed inspections in 2001. Section 3 presents theminor concerns identified in these inspections. Most of the deficiencies identified during a 1999 ISMreview were closed in 2001. The DOE Site Office’s Overlay Report included an “outstanding” ratingfor SURA in the EH&S category. These are discussed further in Section 4.

Implementation of 10 CFR 835: This DOE Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) worker radiationprotection rule is enforced at Jefferson Lab and identified in the WSS Set mentioned above. TheJefferson Lab Radiation Protection Program Plan is used to implement the rule on site, and is revisedas identified by the responsible line management. This is also addressed in Section 3.

Implementation of NEPA: Most facility additions and modifications are subject to review under theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The initial Jefferson Lab construction and an upgrade toCEBAF were addressed in the 1987 and 1997 Environmental Assessments (EAs). Routine Labactivities are covered under site-specific Categorical Exclusions (CXs). New activities that occurred in2001 received NEPA CX authorizations. NEPA is discussed further in Section 3.

Page 8: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

3 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Environmental Management System (EMS) Implementation: EMS implementation is addressedthrough the Lab’s ISM System Plan. This is the subject of the 6700 series of chapters in the JeffersonLab EH&S Manual. Chapter 6710, Environmental Protection Program, is being upgraded to clarifymanagement roles regarding the protection of the environment and public health. Jefferson Labcommitted to broaden the scope of the ISM System plan by incorporating additional EMS coreelements and principles during Fiscal Year (FY) 2002. The primary objective of ISM is to make safety,health, and environmental protection a part of routine business at Jefferson Lab.

Summary of Environmental Results in 2001

ComplianceJefferson Lab complied with applicable Federal, State, and local environmental laws, regulations, andDOE guidance during 2001. As a consequence, Jefferson Lab operations had no discernable impact onpublic health or the environment. Radiation-related issues, especially those dealing with waterresources and public health, are highlighted in this report.

The Jefferson Lab EH&S Manual, which addresses many environmental topics, was updated andimproved to ensure that new compliance initiatives were incorporated in 2001.

Radiological MonitoringWater: Radiation measurements are made at the groundwater dewatering sump and groundwatermonitoring wells located near the accelerator and the experimental halls. Sampling intervals varyfrom quarterly to annually. There were no readings above background in 2001. No analyte, exceptgross beta, was detected above the permit-required sensitivity levels. Note that gross beta wasdetected, but at normal background levels. Therefore, no accelerator-produced radionuclides weredetected in our groundwater.

Radioactive water is generated inside the underground accelerator complex and a small quantity isdischarged under permit to the sanitary sewer system. Sampling is routinely performed prior to anydischarge to ensure permit limits are maintained. Sampling results are reported both monthly andquarterly.

Airborne: Radiological airborne emissions at the site boundary are addressed under theEnvironmental Protection Agency‘s (EPA) National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants(NESHAPs) requirements. Jefferson Lab is below emission levels that trigger monitoring orreporting, but continuous measurements are made to verify emission calculations. Though notrequired, CY 2001 values were reported to the EPA. One result reported to the EPA for 2001 was thatthe total maximum offsite dose from radiological airborne releases was less than 0.011 mrem/yr(millirem/year). This amount is insignificant when compared to the EPA regulatory public air-doselimit of 10 mrem/yr, which is the amount of exposure that is comparable to one typical chest x-ray.

The accelerator site boundary monitors are used to determine offsite direct radiation dose to thepublic due to Jefferson Lab operations. The dose values for 2001 were within Jefferson Lab’sallowable limits - the highest direct radiation level measured was only 7% of the DOE annual doselimit of 100 mrem.

Since these doses are well under any regulatory or site administrative limits, there are no impacts onthe public from any of these radiation sources. A complete discussion is provided in Section 5.

Non-radiological MonitoringJefferson Lab’s non-radiological environmental monitoring program also verified compliance withapplicable environmental program requirements. The program included monthly and quarterlyindustrial wastewater monitoring, quarterly groundwater sampling at the dewatering sump and atsome of the monitoring wells, and quarterly cooling water discharge sampling.

Page 9: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 4

Items of Interest in 2001

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

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

• Successfully developing and implementing two fully-functioning office product recyclingcenters;

• Maintaining a top rating in the Lab’s performance measure that addresses recycling comparedto disposing of waste in a landfill;

• Improving performance in the procurement of EPA-designated recycled-content products, 84%purchased in FY 2001, almost a 20% improvement over FY 2000;

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

• Successfully and safely accomplishing the first shipment of low-level radioactive waste.

Page 10: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

5 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

SECTION 2INTRODUCTION

2.1 GENERAL

This report provides the public with asummary of CY 2001 environmental protectionand public health items that characterize theenvironmental management performance atJefferson Lab. This report addresses the Lab’scompliance status with applicablerequirements, standards, and contractualcommitments. Information on relatedassessments, initiatives, and site programs isalso included.

The term “safety” in the ISM program includesenvironmental protection and public health, aswell as worker safety and health (all aregeneral ly termed EH&S). EH&Sresponsibilities are incorporated into eachemployee’s position description as describedin the Jefferson Lab ISM System Plan. TheDOE validated the ISM System Plan in 1999.Refer to Section 4.1 for more information.

2.2 LABORATORY MISSION

Jefferson Lab, formerly known as CEBAF, is anational accelerator facility managed by SURAfor the DOE. The accelerator complex portionof the Lab still retains the name CEBAF andincludes three underground halls that housethe physics program experiments. JeffersonLab’s mission statement addresses quality andexcellence in research, community partnership,and environment, health, and safety.

The original Jefferson Lab mission evolvedfrom the nuclear science community’srecognition of the need for a state-of-the-artelectron accelerator with a continuous highcurrent electron beam with electron energies inthe multi-billion electron volt region. Theaccelerator is used to study quark structuresand behaviors and the forces governing theclustering of individual nucleons in the nuclearmedium.

There were improvements in CEBAFoperations in support of the physics programexperiments in 2001, including the delivery of

electron beams at energies close to 6 GeV tomeet the variety of needs of the experimentersin Halls A, B, and C. Since the Lab beganoperations, through the end of 2001,researchers had completed 45 experiments andpartially completed another 27 between facilitycommissioning and the end of CY 2001 usingall three halls. Each of the halls examineddifferent research areas that included thesubatomic K-meson particles at Hall A, strangequarks and the nature of their interactions inHall B, and one Hall C experiment set thestandard for evidence of the onset of quarkeffects in the atomic nucleus.

Other major activities in 2001 focused on SRFR&D and FEL operations. SRF R&D effortswere enhanced in 2001 to better support theexisting accelerators. Improvements weremade to the original CEBAF cryomoduledesign to support current 6 GeV and future12 GeV operations. Jefferson Lab’s expertise inSRF technology is being used to design andbuild the cryomodules and refrigerationsystem for the DOE’s SNS that is being built inOak Ridge, Tennessee. Use of the FEL byJefferson Lab, industrial, U.S. Department ofDefense (DOD), and university partners alsocontinued in 2001.

A critical juncture was reached during 2001 inthe analysis and R&D work on the proposedupgrade of CEBAF to 12 GeV. This upgrade inelectron beam energy levels includes thebuilding of a fourth experimental hall, whichwill be named Hall D.

Atomic Structure

Page 11: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 6

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

An environmental assessment, termed EA,performed under NEPA, was conducted priorto construction of CEBAF (February 1987),resulting in a Finding of No Significant Impact(FONSI). The EA and other NEPA-relateddocumentation have been reviewedperiodically with no significant changes noted.A 1997 EA, that also yielded a FONSI,addressed CEBAF upgrades and FEL-relatedactivities. An EA to review five proposedconstruction projects was being prepared in2001. Refer to Section 3.10.1 for additionalNEPA information.

2.4 SITE LOCATION

Jefferson Lab is located in Newport News,Virginia. Newport News is bounded on theeast by York County and the city of Hampton;on the north by James City County and the cityof Williamsburg; on the west by the JamesRiver; and, on the south by the HamptonRoads waterway. Jefferson Lab is located justeast of Jefferson Avenue, a main areathoroughfare, and is less than one mile to thewest of Interstate 64. The site is just south ofOyster Point Road and just north of MiddleGround Boulevard. The Jefferson Lab VicinityPlan is included as Exhibit 2-1. Two schools, acemetery, and railroad tracks serving the localrail system are located within one mile of thesite. Newport News-Will iamsburgInternational Airport is located two miles tothe north. Exhibit 2-2 shows the Jefferson Labsite proper.

Jefferson Lab is sited in the northern section ofNewport News at an average elevation of34 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The siteelevation ranges from 29 to 35 feet above MSL,which is above the 100-year floodplain level of13 feet above MSL. The Jefferson Lab site islocated in the coastal plain of the lower York-James Peninsula, and is in the Brick Kiln Creekwatershed, which discharges into the BigBethel Reservoir. Big Bethel Reservoir isoperated by the U.S. Army and providesdrinking water to Fort Monroe, Langley AirForce Base, and the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA)-LangleyResearch Center.

2.5 SITE HISTORY ANDDESCRIPTION

Prior to Jefferson Lab, there were several usersof this general area. In 1942 and 1943, theDOD acquired most of the Oyster Point areathat included all of the land presently used byJefferson Lab. The U.S. Air Force acquired theland in 1950 and installed a BOMARC missilesite on a portion of the land immediately to theeast of the Jefferson Lab site. The DOD starteddisposing of the property after closure of theBOMARC missile base in 1963. Some land wasconveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia,NASA (110 acres), and others. In January 1987,ownership of the 110 acres of NASA property,including 100 acres of wooded, undevelopedland, was conveyed to the DOE. An additional52 acres of land were transferred to the DOEfrom various sources. At this time, the totalDOE-owned parcel, upon which Jefferson Labis built, is 162 acres.

An adjacent 44 acres, owned by the city ofNewport News, were conveyed to SURA inDecember 1986. A SURA dormitory is locatedon a portion of this land, and is used by guestsand visiting experimenters, who are referred toas users.

Sign at Main Entrance to Site

Page 12: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

7 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit 2-1Jefferson Lab Vicinity Plan

Page 13: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 8

Exhibit 2-2Site Plan

Page 14: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

9 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Also adjacent to the DOE-owned site is a10.7-acre parcel owned by the Commonwealthof Virginia and leased to the city of NewportNews. The Applied Research Center (ARC),located on this property, was completed in1998. The ARC is used by Jefferson Lab,industry, and universities and is thecornerstone of the newly designated JeffersonCenter for Research and Technology. Otheradjacent land owned by the Commonwealth ofVirginia is leased to SURA and the DOE for itsuse in support of Jefferson Lab.

Applied Research Center

2.6 SITE ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,& SAFETY RESOURCES

The facility makes available a variety of EH&Sresources to serve the Jefferson Labcommunity. The Lab community includess t a f f , C o m m o n w e a l t h e m p l o y e e s ,subcontractors, visiting experimenters, andstudents of all ages that participate undervarious programs.

Local EH&S resources include: EH&S staffthat support specific line organizations; EH&Sprogram specialists that serve the entire facilityin their area of expertise; groups andcommittees that address Lab-wide concerns,develop policy, and resolve selected issues;and, the Jefferson Lab EH&S Manual, as theprimary source of implementing proceduresfor EH&S. The EH&S Manual is accessible viapaper copy at designated locations or athttp://www.jlab.org/ehs/manual/EHSbook.html.

Other EH&S resources available to programmanagers at Jefferson Lab include: DOEsubject matter experts, generally through theDOE Site Office and the Oak Ridge Operations(ORO) Office; DOE program specialists thatdeal with policy issues at all levels; andcolleagues at other DOE facilities that shareexpertise and lessons learned from their ownunique experiences. These resources wereutilized in 2001 to support the continueddevelopment and implementation ofenvironmental protection and public health-related programs at Jefferson Lab.

SECTION 3COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Compliance with applicable environmentalprotection and public health-related laws andregulations is an important part of operationsat Jefferson Lab.

Assurance that on-site processes do notadversely affect the environment is achievedthrough Jefferson Lab’s self-assessments,routine inspections, and oversight by the DOESite Office and outside regulators, includingstaff from the DEQ and HRSD. Assurance isalso obtained through guidance from the DOEORO Office, with additional program supportby the DOE Office of Science.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AND PUBLICHEALTH REQUIREMENTS

Environmental protection (EP) and publichealth-related requirements are identified inthe DOE/SURA contract. They are dividedinto three groups:• the Work Smart Standards (WSS) Set;• the Administrative Laws and Regulations

(AL&R); and,• other contractual commitments.

These requirements that include all relevantenvironmental protection and public health-

Page 15: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 10

related obligations are described in theappendix.

3.3 WASTE MANAGEMENTSTANDARDS

Waste streams at the Lab include hazardous,low-level radioactive, and medical wastes(discussed below). The Lab endeavored toreduce waste generation in 2001 and did makeprogress in some areas. Though wastereduction considerations are taken intoaccount, new actions, including thecommencement of special processes and theaddition and use of more experimental andsupport equipment often involve identifyingolder materials and equipment that are nolonger needed. The Lab has issued wasteminimization mandates to reuse or recycle oldor discarded materials wherever possible.(Refer to site-specific recycling programinformation in Section 4.5.3.)

There have been neither waste managementactivities associated with spills or cleanupact ions under the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) nor have therebeen any waste storage or management actionsthat involved NEPA authorizations.

3.3.1 Hazardous Waste under RCRA,related VA Regulations, andEH&S Manual Chapter 6761,Hazardous Waste Management

40 CFR Subchapter I, Waste Programs,implements the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), also calledthe Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA).RCRA covers waste management and thepromotion of “Resource Recovery andReuse”. The Act promotes the protectionof health and the environment and theconservation of valuable material andenergy resources.

RCRA further provides EPA’s authority toregulate solid waste, from minimizationand recovery to collection and disposal.The EPA has delegated authority to theDEQ to regulate solid wastes that includehazardous waste. As such, the VirginiaWaste Management Act and regulations

under the Virginia Administrative CodeSections 9 VAC 20-80, et seq. (WasteRegulations) apply. Requirements for safestorage, transport, treatment, and disposalof hazardous waste for generators,transporters, and owners and operators ofhazardous waste treatment, storage, anddisposal facilities are implemented throughthe Jefferson Lab EH&S Manual.

Jefferson Lab has been registered as aRCRA Small Quantity Generator (SQG)since 1987. Note that SQGs are notrequired to file a biennial report to theDEQ. To maintain SQG status, a facilitycannot generate more than 1 kilogram (kg)of acutely hazardous waste and 1000 kgs(about 2200 pounds or about 300 gallonsmaximum) of hazardous waste in anygiven month, and the facility must notaccumulate more than 6000 kgs ofhazardous waste on-site at any given time.Jefferson Lab generated about 4300 kgs ofhazardous waste in 2001. The hazardouswastes generated in the largest volumes in2001 were waste buffered chemical polish(an acid mixture) used for niobium cavityprocessing and waste solvents (acetone,methanol, and isopropanol) from cleaningoperat ions . Hazardous wasteminimization initiatives, includingimproving the review of chemicals beingpurchased, were implemented in 2001. Themost recent DEQ inspection of thisprogram was performed in August 1999.

The Jefferson Lab Hazardous WasteCoordinator (HWC) manages the siteprogram and follows the guidance inEH&S Manual Chapter 6761 to maintaincompliance. Hazardous wastes aretemporarily stored at Jefferson Lab;however, no permitting is required becausethe wastes are properly disposed of withinthe regulatory time frame. Jefferson Labneither transports hazardous wastes noroperates any regulated treatment ordisposal units. All wastes are disposed ofthrough licensed waste handling facilities.There are two elementary neutralizationunits, but they are not regulated astreatment devices. Some environmentallyharmful materials (EHMs) are recycledand/or reused prior to final disposal. Full

Page 16: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

11 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

compliance with the listed requirementswas maintained through 2001.

3.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive and MixedWaste under DOE Order 435.1 andthe AEA

The Radiation Control (RadCon) Groupimplemented the applicable sections ofDOE Order 435.1, Radioactive WasteManagement, in 2001. A program to enablemore e f f i c ient separat ion andcategorization of the Lab’s low-levelradioactive wastes (LLW) was establishedin 2001, which resulted in the identificationof more waste than would normally beexpected in a year. As there is no wastegenerated that carries either the sourcematerials or special nuclear materialssubject to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954(AEA), as amended, its conditions are notapplicable.

Roughly 42 cubic meters of LLW weredisposed of in FY 2001. This rather largeamount of waste was not generated solelyin 2001 but had been slowly generatedsince the first test beams were produced in1992. For the first time at Jefferson Lab,accumulated radioactive waste was turnedover to a certified subcontractor fordisposal in August 2001. A permit,No. 4727-45-01, to transport waste withinSouth Carolina, was obtained in 2001.

Though Jefferson Lab is required to followthe RCRA requirements that apply tomixed waste, which exhibits bothhazardous and radioactive characteristics,there has been no mixed waste generatedto date. Jefferson Lab was in compliancewith all applicable standards in 2001.

3.3.3 Non-Hazardous Waste under DEQStandards and the EH&S Manual

Non-hazardous wastestreams generallycontain non-regulated chemical wastes,non-recyclable office and production wastematerials, and debris resulting fromconstruction activity. The DEQ isresponsible for regulating such wasteprograms. Jefferson Lab line managementis responsible for proper administration ofthe wastestreams covered under this

category according to EH&S ManualChapter 6760, Waste Management.

3.3.4 Other Non-Hazardous Waste-Related Compliance Items underRCRA

There are other forms of liquid and solidnon-hazardous wastes, including domesticwastewater. Two water collection sumppits are located in the Counting House(Building 97), with one pit discharging tosurface water and the contents of the otherpit being pumped to the HRSD system.The permits for these water discharges arediscussed in Section 3.6.2. Other non-hazardous wastes are disposed of in alandfill, reused on-site, recycled, or usedfor other purposes offsite. Approved wastemanagement plans and procedures preventor minimize impacts to the environment,both at the generating facility and at thefinal usage or disposal point. Jefferson Labminimizes the generation of waste (sourcereduction) as the primary means ofreducing environmental impacts, therebylowering purchase and disposal costs.

The Lab utilizes licensed subcontractors forcollection, separation, and permanentdisposal (aluminum cans and paper goodsare recycled separately). Section 3.10.2refers to Performance Measure results fortracking recyclables.

3.3.5 Regulated Medical Waste underthe EH&S Manual

The Lab’s EH&S Manual Chapter 6850,Regulated Medical Waste Management andAppendix 6850-T1, Regulated MedicalWastes Handling Procedures, apply andinclude RCRA and Virginia requirements.There were no compliance issues with thisprogram in 2001.

3.3.6 Federal Facility Compliance ActThis Act, which amends the SWDA, gavethe EPA authority to enforce actionsagainst branches of the Federalgovernment for violation of Federal, State,interstate, or local solid or hazardous wasteregulations. There were no complianceissues at Jefferson Lab during 2001.

Page 17: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 12

3.3.7 Toxic Materials under TSCAThe Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)and its implementing regulations, 40 CFRSubchapter R, require that specificchemicals such as polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs) and asbestos becontrolled and their use restricted.

PCBsSince 1987, SURA has been removing PCBsand PCB-contaminated items from the site.Technically, the site is PCB-free. Therewere no compliance issues in 2001.

AsbestosMost asbestos-containing material (ACM)was removed from the site prior to 1992. InJuly 1992, an Asbestos Management Planidentified the remaining ACMs inBuildings 28 and 58 as non-friable and infair to good condition; therefore, abatementis not required by current regulations.

Jefferson Lab complies with the trainingrequirements identified in the AsbestosHazard Emergency Response Act of 1986(Title II of TSCA) and the emission controlrequirements in NESHAPs. EH&S ManualChapter 6681, Asbestos Management,implements the ACM requirements atJefferson Lab. There were no complianceissues in 2001.

3.3.8 FIFRAThe Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, andRodenticide Act (FIFRA) applies to thestorage and use of herbicides andpesticides at Jefferson Lab. The applicationof herbicides and pesticides is permittedthrough a State-administered certificationprogram, accomplished by certifiedsubcontractors who comply with FIFRAthrough Virginia’s program. All pesticidesused in 2001 were EPA-registered andapplied according to the productinstructions and Federal, State, and localguidelines. Jefferson Lab’s PlantEngineering Department subcontractsmonthly preventive pest control.

Herbicides were used on annual andperennial weeds and grasses, stumps oftrees, and brush. Pesticides were appliedon-site for control of insects. Areas

addressed included kitchens, laboratories,and other areas throughout the site. Noindustrial-strength herbicides or pesticidesare prepared, mixed, stored, or disposed ofon Jefferson Lab property. Thesubcontractor is responsible for handlingany waste disposal through an authorizeddisposal facility. Small containers ofhousehold pesticides are stored on-site anda p p l i e d p e r m a n u f a c t u r e r ’ srecommendations. Pesticides andherbicides that were approved for use in2001 are presented as Exhibit B1 in theappendix. There were no FIFRAcompliance issues at Jefferson Lab in 2001.

3.4 RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTIONREQUIREMENTS

This section summarizes Jefferson Lab’scompliance with radiological EP and publichealth requirements.

3.4.1 Title 10 - Energy10 CFR 71, Packaging & Transportation ofRadioactive MaterialJefferson Lab made its first shipment ofradioactive waste in 2001. RadConcompleted the loading and surveying ofthe shipping containers and turned overdisposition of the waste to the waste brokerin July. The broker took physicalpossession of the waste in early Augustand transported the material off the site.There were no compliance issues in 2001.(Additional transportation complianceinformation is provided in Section 3.8.4.)

10 CFR 834 (Draft) EnvironmentalRadiological Protection ProgramPrograms responsive to offsite radiationprotection and other 10 CFR 834 (Draft)requirements have been instituted.Implementation measures have beenincorporated into the EH&S Manualchapters discussed in Section 3.4.3 below.

10 CFR 835, Occupational RadiationProtectionThe Price-Anderson Amendments Act(PAAA) of 1988, including the 1992amendment, was enacted to provide broadindemnification coverage for DOE

Page 18: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

13 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

contractors with worker radiological-related activities and requires reporting ofnon-compliances. DOE PAAA workerradiation protection regulations arecodified in 10 CFR 835 and address:radioactive contamination, storage ofradioactive materials, and radiologicalemergency response.

Jefferson Lab made a worker radiationprotection report in the PAAA notificationsystem following an August 2001 event,which involved having an unposted highradiation area for a short period in the TestLab (Building 58). No worker radiationexposure resulted and no actual orpotential environmental impacts wereassociated with this event. Test Lab staffhave resolved the interlock problem thatcreated the short duration radiation event.No other 10 CFR 835 compliance issuesoccurred in 2001.

3.4.2 Title 40, Part 61, Subpart HThis subpart, the National EmissionStandards for Emissions of RadionuclidesOther Than Radon from Department ofEnergy Facilities, sets an annual publicdose limit for radionuclide emissions. TheLab complied with 40 CFR 61 Subpart Hrequirements. There were no complianceissues in 2001. Refer to Section 3.5.2.1 formore information.

3.4.3 EH&S Manual Chapters 6310 and6315

Chapters 6310, Ionizing Radiation Protection,and 6315, Environmental Monitoring ofIonizing Radiation, describe site programsfor offsite radiation protection, storage ofradioactive materials, emergency response,and release of materials to uncontrolledareas. Chapter 6315 addresses radiologicalair emissions, surface water, andradioactive contamination of other water-containing systems and groundwater.There were no compliance issues in 2001.

3.4.4 DOE Order 5400.5Applicable sections of DOE Order 5400.5,Radiation Protection of the Public and theEnvironment, are implemented by JeffersonLab’s Radiological Control (RADCON)

Manual. There were no compliance issuesin 2001.

3.5 AIR QUALITY ANDPROTECTION STANDARDS

The Clean Air Act (CAA) and its 1990Amendments (CAAA) regulate the airemissions of DOE’s processes and facilities.The DEQ, as delegated by the EPA, issuespermits for owners and operators of stationarysources that could emit threshold amounts offugitive dust, odor, or other designatedpollutants. At this time Jefferson Lab has noprocesses that require air permitting.

Applicable regulations are contained in 40 CFRSubchapter C, and in Virginia’s 9 VAC 5 series,Air Quality. Standards include EO 13148 andEH&S Manual Chapter 6720, Air QualityManagement.

3.5.1 National Ambient Air QualityStandards (NAAQS)

Under the authority of the CAAA, the EPAhas established NAAQS for sulfur oxides,particulate matter, carbon monoxide,ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. TheHampton Roads area, which includesNewport News, remained in attainment forall NAAQS pollutants in 2001, butcontinues as a maintenance area for ozone.

Jefferson Lab complies with allCommonwealth ambient air qualityrequirements. The Lab leases its vehiclesthrough the Genera l Serv icesAdministration (GSA) and vehiclemaintenance is performed offsite by GSA-approved facilities. There is no gasolinedispensing facility on-site, but there is onediesel fuel tank for forkl i f ts .Subcontractors operating machinery mayhave temporary diesel fuel storage tankswith secondary containment basins. Therewere no compliance actions under Title I ofthe CAA in 2001.

3.5.2 NESHAPsNESHAPs governs air emissions thatcontain hazardous components (such asradionuclides or asbestos). The EPAadministers the radionuclide portion of this

Page 19: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 14

program in Virginia. Jefferson Lab began“operations” as defined by NESHAPs inOctober 1995.

3.5.2.1 Radionuclide EmissionsRadionuclide emissions generatedduring accelerator and FEL testing andoperations, including emissionsresulting from interactions of theaccelerator beam with experimentaltargets and physics research equipment,fall under NESHAPs. DOE-ownedfacilities which emit radionuclides to theair are required to sample, monitor, andassess dosage per the NESHAPsrequirements in 40 CFR 61 Subpart Hand report to the EPA as applicable.(Refer to Section 5.3.1 for discussion ofdirect radiation, the primary form ofradiation generated on-site.)

Jefferson Lab used sampling results andcalculations to demonstrate that the Labremained under the EPA-defined10 mrem/yr potential effective doseequivalent to any member of the publicduring 2001. As effluent concentrationsare below monitoring thresholds,routine monitoring of radioactiveairborne effluents at the site boundary isnot required. However, the Lab doesm a k e p e r i o d i c c o n f i r m a t o r ymeasurements to verify low emissions.

Currently, no major radiologicalNESHAP point sources, such as stacksor vents, exist at Jefferson Lab that meetthe 40 CFR 61 .93(b) thresholdmonitoring criterion of 1% of the10 mrem/yr. Consequently, continuouspoint source monitoring is not required.

Since no EPA-reportable radiological ornon-radiological air emissions haveoccurred in previous years, JeffersonLab had a reporting exemption underthis Subpart. Based on common DOElaboratory practice, even among DOEfacilities that are under the reportingthreshold, Jefferson Lab voluntarilyfurnishes an annual report to the EPA.This is discussed further in Section 5.3.1.No notifications for construction ormodifications were necessary in 2001.

3.5.2.2 NESHAP Asbestos RemovalWhile the NESHAP standard does notset a numerical threshold for asbestosfiber emissions, it requires thoseconducting asbestos-related activities,such as demolition and renovation, tofollow approved procedures and toadopt specific work practices to preventrelease of asbestos to the air.Regulations require that licensed,trained personnel perform any workwith no asbestos-related NESHAP issuesin 2001. Compliance with other asbestosstandards is described in Section 3.3.7.

3.5.3 Non-radiological EmissionsUnder the Virginia Regulations for theControl and Abatement of Air Pollution(9 VAC 5-10 et seq.), Jefferson Lab isrequired to notify the DEQ of sources ofpotential air pollution. Jefferson Labminimizes releases of polluted air bypreventive maintenance and scrubbers.The Lab’s air emissions remain belowreporting thresholds as there were no newemission sources installed in 2001.

Jefferson Lab has seven natural gas-firedboilers and a fin-tube radiator for buildingheating. Boiler information, including fuelconsumption data, is provided to the DEQ.For more information, refer to Section 6.2.No requirements for permits areanticipated. The last DEQ inspectionoccurred in September 2000, with noconcerns identified. There were no airemission violations at Jefferson Lab in 2001.

3.5.4 Stratospheric Ozone-DepletingSubstances (ODS)

Executive Order (EO) 13148, Greening theGovernment through Leadership inEnvironmental Management, reinforcedfederal agency commitments to use safe,cost-effective, environmentally preferablealternatives to ODSs. The ODS substancesthat have been used at Jefferson Labinclude refrigerants, degreasers, cleaners,spray can propellants, and firesuppressants. The phase out of thesesubstances will have a moderate impact onthe site.

Page 20: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

15 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Section 608 of Title VI of the CAAA,National Recycling and Emission ReductionProgram, prohibits intentional venting ofClass I and Class II compounds from airconditioning and cooling units. JeffersonLab has one recovery machine, a NationalReference Products Model MINILU (forR-12, 22, 502, and 134a) on-site. Also, thesubcontractor who performed all service,repair, and maintenance on Jefferson Labrefrigeration/air conditioning equipmentduring 2001, was EPA-certified andeffectively captured and recycled theseODS compounds. Four Jefferson Lab PlantEngineering employees have receivedcertification training, ensuring that Labstaff understand the EPA requirements.

Jefferson Lab has three chlorofluorocarbon(CFC)-based chillers on-site, one uses R-11and two use R-113. They are effectivelymaintained by mechanical staff to ensureoptimal performance and minimal CFClosses. There were various releases fromJune to August at another unit that usesR-22. These releases totaled approximately360 pounds before repairs were completedin August. Opportunities to modify orreplace these units were explored in 2001,but the existing units presently meetJefferson Lab needs.

The site will phase out use of CFCs to theextent possible. R-12, however, is thehighly preferred material for use in somephysics experiments but there are no Stateor Federal regulations that address thesmall amounts of R-12 involved. Halon1211 is stored in the experimental halls foruse as a fire-extinguishing agent of lastresort to protect certain types of specializedequipment. The Halon is contained inmanually operated fire extinguishers, withhall staff trained in precautions and use.

Section 609 of the CAAA lists therequirements for the Servicing of MotorVehicle Air Conditioners. All vehicle airconditioning units are serviced offsite byshops approved by the GSA.

Jefferson Lab is committed to minimizingand/or eliminating the use of ODSs. TheLab’s CFC and Halon Use Policy is

included in the EH&S Manual Appendix6720-T2, Air Quality Program RegulatoryRequirements.

3.6 WATER QUALITY ANDPROTECTION STANDARDS

Both groundwater and surface waterprotection are high priorities at Jefferson Lab.Applicable standards include: the Clean WaterAct (CWA); Virginia’s State Water Control Law;regulations that include parts of 40 CFRSubchapter D and Virginia’s 9 VAC 25 Series,Water Quality; site permits; and, cited EH&SManual chapters. Each of these standards isreferenced under the respective topic below.

Facilities in Virginia that directly discharge towaters of the United States must obtain aVirginia Pollution Discharge EliminationSystem (VPDES) permit to do so. The VPDESprogram is designed to protect surface watersby limiting primarily non-radiological releasesof effluents into streams, lakes, and otherwaters, including wetlands. Regulatory andprogram concerns relating to construction andindustrial activities, including the potential forradiological contamination of groundwaterand the quality of cooling water discharges,are discussed in Section 3.6.1 below.

The concrete halls, which house theexperimental apparatus that acceptsaccelerator beam, are partially buried. As thefloors of the halls lie below the water table, abuilt-in drainage system was installed undereach of the halls to prevent the structures fromfloating. Groundwater collects in this drainagesystem and is pumped to a surface waterchannel (a process termed dewatering).Compliance with the related permits isdescribed in Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2.

Jefferson Lab has a variety of on-site activitiesthat result in water discharges to the sanitarysewer system. Other associated wastewaterstandards included in the WSS Set arediscussed in Section 3.6.2.1.

There is a significant aggregate quantity of oilpresent on the site, primarily in transformersand compressors that are in continual use.Consequently, Jefferson Lab has a Spill

Page 21: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 16

Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure(SPCC) Plan that is discussed further inSection 3.6.2.3.

3.6.1 VPDES Permits3.6.1.1 Construction ActivityJefferson Lab strives to keep pollutants,such as sediments, out of surfacewaters during earth disturbingactivities. No VPDES permitsinvolving construction have beenrequired through 2001. The Lab’s PlantEngineering Department oversees thecivil construction and ensures thatsubcontractors adhere to the standardsset forth in the Virginia Erosion andSediment Control Handbook. EH&SManual Chapter 6733, Storm WaterPollution Prevention, identifies the siteprogram to address erosion controlduring earth-disturbing activities.

3.6.1.2 Industrial ActivitiesGroundwater Monitoring - VPDESPermit No. VA0089320This permit covers groundwaterresources, including groundwaterflowing across the site andgroundwater discharged in thedewatering operation (refer to Section3.6.2.2). An earlier DEQ permitquantified water quality “baseline”values for certain parameters and setlong-term groundwater quality limits.A well monitoring program under thecurrent permit enables the comparisonof current and “baseline” values.Jefferson Lab verifies that acceleratoroperations and other activities, such asgroundwater dewatering, do notdegrade the quality of either on-site oroffsite groundwater. Refer to Section 7and EH&S Manual Chapter 6731,Groundwater Protection, for additionalinformation.

Throughout 2001, groundwatersampling to monitor all permit-definedparameters was performed under asubcontract with an accreditedlaboratory and submitted to theCommonwealth at the end of eachquarter. There were no complianceissues involving groundwater in 2001.

Cooling Water Discharges - GeneralPermit No. VAG253002This Permit, which contains waterquality limits, covers the surfacedischarges from the cooling towersadjacent to the Central HeliumLiquifier, Building 8. A small toweradjacent to the Test Lab, Building 58,was added to the Permit in early 2001.

Sampling is performed under asubcontract with an accreditedlaboratory and is submitted to theCommonwealth at the end of eachquarter. Sampling during 2001revealed one unusual result forchlorine. During the fourth quarter thechlorine level at one sampling site wasabove the non-detect level, thoughbelow the water production utility’smaximum chlorine residual levels.There was no known explanation (e.g.there were no water treatmentchemicals in use that could havecontributed to the chlorine level);however, the elevated value may stemfrom large city water leaks thatoccurred around that time.

3.6.2 Other Water Program Standards inthe WSS Set

3.6.2.1 Industrial Wastewater40 CFR 403, General PretreatmentRegulations for Existing and NewSources of PollutionThis regulation contains NationalPretreatment Standards for pollutantsthat pass through or interfere withoffsite treatment processes. JeffersonLab’s sanitary sewage is discharged toan offsite publicly owned treatmentworks operated by the HRSD. The Labis categorized as a Non-significantIndustrial User with no pretreatmentrequirements. In 2001 the Lab receivedan HRSD Gold Award for having noviolations.

Industrial Wastewater DischargePermit No. 0117 and the District’sIndustrial Wastewater DischargeRegulations (IWDR)Discharges to the HRSD are subject tothe Industrial Wastewater Discharge

Page 22: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

17 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Permit and the IWDR. EH&S ManualAppendix 6730-T1, Discharges to theSanitary Sewer System, presentsimplementation practices at JeffersonLab.

Quarterly pH values are recorded by asubcontractor at prescribed samplingpoints and provided to the HRSD.HRSD independently performs regularsampling for metals and other waterquality indicators at some of thesampling points to validate JeffersonLab’s compliance with permit andregulatory requirements. There wereno violations or disparities in 2001.

Permitted discharges of activated waterat one HRSD sampling point continuedin 2001. Discharges are controlledmanually, after sampling hasconfirmed that all values are withinidentified limits. Either Jefferson Labstaff or a subcontractor performsmonthly and quarterly radiologicalanalyses from this sampling point andthe analytical reports are provided tothe HRSD. All radiological permit andregulatory criteria were met in 2001and are discussed further inSection 5.3.2.

To illustrate the relative quantity ofradioactivity being discharged, the Lab ispermitted to discharge no more than 5 Ci(Curies) of tritium and 1 Ci of other gamma-emitting radionuclides in one year. The totalradioactivity discharged to the sanitarysewer in 2001 was 0.88 Ci of tritium (or about17.6% of the total allowed) and 0.000034 Ci forother gamma-emitting radionuclides (or0.0034% of the total allowed).

Laboratory staff participated in theFebruary 28, 2001 annual inspection bythe HRSD - no compliance issues wereidentified at that time or throughoutthe course of the year.

3.6.2.2 Permit to WithdrawGroundwaterNo. GW0030800

To maintain water table levelsconsistent with the experimental hallstructural design, water table controlvia pumping will be necessary for thelife of the facility. This DEQ Permitplaces monthly and annual limitationson the amount that can be pumped. Itis important to note that this type of“no usage” withdrawal is unusual.Groundwater is normally withdrawnfor irrigation or drinking water.

Quarterly reporting of withdrawalquantities continued in 2001, and allmonthly values were within permitrequirements. The total quantity ofwater withdrawn in 2001 was4.6 million gallons, which was wellbelow the roughly 23 million gallonannual limit. The Lab voluntarilyreports its annual water usage to assistthe DEQ in determining total regionalwater usage.

Permit compliance was maintained in2001. Water quality sampling, asdescribed above, is performed underthe terms of the VPDES PermitNo. VA0089320.

3.6.2.3 SPCC Plan – Above GroundStorage Tank Issues

Jefferson Lab has transformers andother operating machinery on-site thatuse various oils for lubrication,hydraulics, and cooling. The Labmaintains a used oil collection area toassist in managing the resulting usedoil. The Lab has an approved SPCCPlan as required by 40 CFR 112, whichwas reviewed and updated in 2001.The SPCC Plan covers handling,storage, and transportation activitiesand is implemented by EH&S ManualChapter 6732, Oi l -Sp i l l Prevention,Control, and Countermeasures.

There are two oil-storage tanks on-sitethat meet Federal and State aboveground storage tank definitions, but thetotal quantity stored is under the

Page 23: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 18

notification threshold. There were nocompliance issues in 2001. See Section4.5 for more information on oil-relateditems.

3.7 COMPLIANCE STATUS - PUBLICHEALTH STANDARDS

The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA)ensures that drinking water is safe for publicconsumption. Compliance is achieved via theEPA’s National Primary Drinking WaterRegulations that apply to public watersupplies. These regulations set maximumcontaminant levels on bacteriological,chemical, physical, and radiologicalcontaminants for public water systems.

The Virginia Department of Health regulatesdrinking water quality and enforcescompliance with all Federal and State drinkingwater-related permits and standards. JeffersonLab receives its drinking water through threepublic water supply lines provided by the Cityof Newport News Waterworks. Nomonitoring by Jefferson Lab is required.

The SDWA applies to two areas at JeffersonLab: the Backflow Prevention Program andthe surface discharges under the three DEQpermits. Jefferson Lab had no SDWAcompliance issues during 2001.

3.7.1 Backflow PreventionAn annual backflow prevention deviceinspection is required by the city ofNewport News and the DEQ on all intra-building main supply connections. Thisprogram ensures that untreated industrialwastewater or contaminants from cross-connected chemical processes and buildingequipment are mechanically preventedfrom contaminating the drinking watersupply. Jefferson Lab engages locallyapproved plumbing firms to ensure allbackflow prevention devices function asdesigned. Annual inspection reports (thelast in June 2001) are sent to the city’sPublic Utilities Department. No issueshave ever been identified.

3.7.2 Surface Water QualityThe site drainage system flows to the BigBethel Reservoir, a drinking water sourcefor local military installations. Thegroundwater dewatering discharge,monitored under the VPDES PermitNo. VA0089320, and the cooling watereffluent, monitored under the VPDESGeneral Permit No. VAG253002, aredischarged into surface water channels thatlead offsite. Fort Monroe environmentalstaff are provided annual information onthe quantity of groundwater discharged,with information collected under thePermit to Withdraw Groundwater. Therewere no compliance issues involvingsurface water quality in 2001. Refer toSections 4.2.3 and 5.3.2 for furtherdiscussion on permit monitoring programs.

3.7.3 Drinking Water QualityThe water quality limits for thegroundwater monitoring wells in VPDESPermit No. 0089320 include one value thatis one-quarter of the state’s drinking waterstandard. There were no compliance issuesregarding wells in 2001.

3.8 OTHER ENVIRONMENTALSTANDARDS

3.8.1 Endangered Species Act (ESA)The ESA protects endangered wildlife, fish,plants, and their ecosystems. A 1986environmental survey of Jefferson Lab’s162-acre site uncovered no endangeredspecies in the area. A 2001 threatened andendangered species survey identified nospecies on the Jefferson Lab property thatwere either threatened or endangered, or ofspecial concern in Virginia. As such, noESA compliance issues were identified in2001.

3.8.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)The MBTA of 1918 prohibits anyunauthorized taking, possessing,importing, or other listed actions, of anymigratory bird or their eggs. The 1987 EAfound that 150 avian have ranges thatencompass the Jefferson Lab site, includingboth permanent and summer residents.Because the site lies within a disturbed

Page 24: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

19 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

industrial and commercial area, only asmall fraction of these species are expectedto be found on site. A 2001 surveyidentified no suitable breeding sites for anyof the birds noted in 3.8.1 above. Therewere no concerns involving the MBTA in2001.

3.8.3 National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA)

The NHPA of 1966, Section 106, protectsarchaeological and historical resources.Area surveys in 1987 and majorconstruction since that time haveuncovered no trace of historic orarchaeologica l resources . OnOctober 16, 1992, the Commonwealth ofVirginia’s Department of HistoricResources (VDHR) determined that allSection 106 conditions had been met andno further assessments were required. Afollow-up with the VDHR was performedduring the preparation of an EA in 2001,and identified no concern at that time. Thedraft EA did note that the VDHR would benotified if anything unusual wasencountered during any construction.

3.8.4 Transportation StandardsTransportation-related hazards at the Labarise as a consequence of the receipt,packaging, and transportation ofhazardous and radioactive materials andwaste; compressed gases; cleanupmaterials used in response to on-site spills;and, regulated medical wastes. Many ofthe regulations applicable to transportationalso apply to other environmental or publichealth topics.

Requirements include the Department ofTransportation (DOT) regulationsidentified in 49 CFR Subchapter C,Hazardous Materials Regulations; theJefferson Lab RADCON Manual; EH&SManual Chapters 6150, Compressed Gases,6310, Ionizing Radiation Protection,Appendix 6750-T4, Packaging EHMs forT r a n s p o r t ; and, identified industrystandards. Compliance with some of thesestandards is addressed below or under theSER section listed in Exhibit A4 of theappendix.

49 CFR Regulations49 CFR 171 through 178 cover hazardousand radioactive materials transportationand contain DOT packaging and transportrequirements to protect the environment orpublic health in case of accidents. Thedelivery of hazardous or radiologicalmaterials to the site is contingent uponcompliance with appropriate DOT andother requirements. Hazardous andradioactive materials must be properlypackaged for offsite transport according toDOT regulations. RadCon manages theradiological portion of this program andthe HWC manages non-radiological DOTrequirements. There were no complianceissues in 2001.

EH&S Manual Chapters 6150, 6310, 6750,and 6850; RADCON Manual; and,Handbook of Compressed GasesThese requirements provide for the safepackaging and transport of hazardous andradioactive materials on Jefferson Labproperty. Properly trained staff performon-site transport of hazardous materials inaccordance with the EH&S Manual asnoted in Section 3.8.5. The RadCon Group,in accordance with the Jefferson LabRADCON Manual and other internalprocedures, manages radioactive materials.All medical wastes are handled byspecially trained staff and managed byMedical Services. There were nocompliance issues regarding thesetransportation standards in 2001.

3.8.5 Environmental ProtectionStandards

The Lab EHM program is identified inE H & S M a n u a l C h a p t e r 6 7 5 0 ,Environmentally Harmful Materials, and itsappendices. The objective is to preventspills or unintentional releases. Protectionmeasures include secondary containmentand the location of EHM storage areasaway from floor drains. Though therewere four minor oil spills, there were nouncontrolled EHM releases affecting theenvironment or public health in 2001.

Page 25: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 20

3.9 EXECUTIVE ORDERS ANDPOLLUTION PREVENTION (P2)

The following EOs, discussed below, primarilyaddress P2 strategies: EO 13101, Greening theGovernment through Waste Prevention, Recyclingand Federal Acquisition; EO 13123, Greening theGovernment Through Efficient EnergyManagement; and EO 13148, Greening theGovernment through Leadership in EnvironmentalManagement. Information on the applicablePollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 isincluded in the discussion under EO 13148.

3.9.1 EO 11988 “FloodplainManagement”

This EO relates to the occupancy andmodification of floodplains. Since JeffersonLab is not in a 100-year floodplain, thespecific EO 11988 requirements do notapply; however, localized flooding duringsignificant rain events, includinghurricanes, does occur. Plant Engineeringcoordinates drainage modifications toensure appropriate drainage is maintained.

3.9.2 EO 11990 “Protection of Wetlands”This EO ensures that adverse impacts towetlands from construction activities areavoided or responsibly mitigated. Duringoriginal site investigations, the Corps ofEngineers determined that the forestedtemporary wetlands to be disturbed by theconstruction of Jefferson Lab were notsufficiently permanent to qualify aswetlands, and, therefore, did not requirethe protection specified by EO 11990.

EO 11990 and 10 CFR 1022, Compliance withFloodplain/Wetlands Environmental ReviewR e q u i r e m e n t s , contain notificationrequirements to be considered whenproposing new work beyond the scope ofthe original site EA and FONSI. Evaluationof Jefferson Lab activities involvingpotential wetlands is accomplishedthrough the NEPA review process. A 2001survey found no wetlands at any of thesites proposed for construction projects in adraft 2001 EA. There were no concernsinvolving wetlands in 2001.

3.9.3 EO 13101 "Greening theGovernment Through WastePrevention, Recycling, and FederalAcquisition"

EO 13101 encourages agencies to makemore efficient use of natural resources byrecycling and practicing waste preventionmeasures. This is accomplished in part bypromoting the procurement of productsmade with recycled materials, termedAffirmative Procurement (AP), by federalagencies. The purchase of these materialshelps “close-the-loop” in the recyclingprocess. To comply with this EO, the DOEhas set goals and performance standardson a variety of product classes. The DOE’scomplex-wide FY 2001 procurement targetfor purchasing EPA-listed products was100%. Jefferson Lab’s compliance level was84.0% for FY 2001, a major improvementfrom the 58.2% reported in FY 2000. Referto Section 4.2 for more information on thistopic.

3.9.4 EO 13123 "Greening theGovernment Through EfficientEnergy Management"

This initiative, effective November 4, 1999,focuses on energy efficiency (E2) as ameans of pollution prevention. The DOEseeks a long-term energy use reduction of15% for buildings and industrial facilities -a 7% reduction was documented inFY 2000. Plant Engineering analyzedbuildings and their support systems in2001 to look for ways to reduce energyconsumption in the long term. Informationon site-specific goals developed inresponse to the Secretary of Energy’s P2and E2 initiatives in early 2001 is providedin Section 3.9.5.6.

3.9.5 EO 13148 "Greening theGovernment Through Leadership inEnvironmental Management"

EO 13148 integrates environmentalaccountability into federal agency policies,operations, planning, and management.The primary P2 goal is that pollutionshould be prevented or reduced at thesource. Jefferson Lab complies withEmergency Planning and CommunityRight-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA)requirements, uses only a few toxic

Page 26: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

21 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

chemicals, and complies with the otherrequirements of this EO to the extentpracticable.

The Lab’s compliance with EPCRA ispresented in Section 3.9.5.1. Section 3.9.5.2reports how Jefferson Lab uses P2 andother activities to maintain environmentalcompliance. Specific Lab P2 and E2initiatives are discussed in Section 4.5.5.The results from environmentalcompliance reviews are provided inSection 3.9.5.3. Section 3.9.5.4 reports onprogress in implementing environmentallybeneficial landscaping practices. Resultsfrom DOE’s EMS self-assessmentquest ionnaire are provided inSection 3.9.5.5, and a summary of the Lab’sprogress in meeting DOE and site-identified goals is presented inSection 3.9.5.6.

As stated, Jefferson Lab is committed tobeing environmentally accountablethrough day-to-day decision-making andlong-term planning processes, across allmissions, activities, and functions.

3.9.5.1 EPCRA ComplianceEPCRA, also known as the SuperfundAmendments and Reauthorization Act(SARA) Title III, created a system forplanning responses to emergenciesinvolving CERCLA hazardoussubstances (HSs) and EPCRA extremely

hazardous substances (EHSs). EPCRArequires that information regarding theuse and storage of these hazardouschemicals be made available to thepublic. This is done through reports tothe EPA (which posts some informationon their website) and local responseagencies. Jefferson Lab is responsiblefor planning and responding tochemical emergencies as well ascompleting applicable reportingrequirements as noted in Exhibit 3-1.

The Commonwealth of VirginiaEmergency Response Counci ladministers the EPCRA program forthe EPA. Local emergency responseagencies that serve Jefferson Lab are thePeninsula Local Emergency PlanningCommittee and the City of NewportN e w s F i r e D e p a r t m e n t .Transportation-related standardspertaining to emergency planning arediscussed in Section 3.8.4.

Besides EO 13148, other EPCRA-relatedplanning and prevention standards thatapply to Jefferson Lab include:40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and 372 (provideregulatory compliance guidance - seespecifics below); and Appendix6710-T2, Emergency Planning andCommunity Right-to-Know.

Exhibit 3-1EPCRA Reporting Status

EPCRA Section Description of Reporting Status

EPCRA Sec. 302 Planning notification Yes

EPCRA Sec. 303 Comprehensive Emergency Response Plans Not applicable

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

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

EPCRA Sec. 313 TRI Reporting No reporting required to date

Page 27: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 22

Emergency Planning Standards40 CFR 300, National Oil andHazardous Substances PollutionContingency Plan (NCP)This regulation primarily addressesDOE’s role in the NCP. Jefferson Labcomplies with 40 CFR 300 by havingemergency response procedures inplace to respond to oil and hazardoussubstance releases, as identified inEH&S Manual Chapters 3510,Emergency Management Plan, and 6732,Oil-Spill Prevention, Control, andCountermeasures.

EPCRA Section 302, EmergencyPlanning and Release ReportingUnder EPCRA Section 302, (refer to40 CFR 355) Jefferson Lab is required tonotify the Commonwealth and localemergency planning and responsegroups (EPGs) within sixty days of thereceipt of an EHS that exceeds theThreshold Planning Quantity (TPQ).Jefferson Lab’s EPCRA Section 302notif ications to date includehydrofluoric acid, nitric acid, andbromine. There were no new EHSsidentified in 2001.

Jefferson Lab is also required to notifythe Commonwealth and local EPGs of

accidental offsite releases of any HSlisted under CERCLA or any EHS listedunder EPCRA. The release levels thattrigger the EPCRA Section 304notification requirements are thereportable quantity (RQ) values listedin the regulations for each substance.Jefferson Lab has had no releases thatmeet identified reporting criteria todate. (For discussion about thepermitted release of activated water tothe sanitary sewer system, refer toSection 3.6.2.)

EPCRA Sections 311 and 312,Hazardous Chemical InventoriesUnder EPCRA Sections 311 and 312,Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs)(refer to 40 CFR 370), or a list of thosechemicals, must be submitted to EPGsfor each hazardous chemical thatexceeds the TPQ identified in theregulations. Inventory information isobtained through an annual sitewidechemical inventory coordinated by theJefferson Lab Industrial Hygienist.Jefferson Lab’s submittal of the annualTier II Report, a hazardous chemicalinventory form, to the EPGs satisfiesthis reporting requirement. Refer toExhibit 3-2 for the list of chemicalsreported for 2001.

Exhibit 3-2Chemicals Reported for 2001

Compound Hazard Class

FireSudden Release

of PressureAcute Health

Hazard ReactiveChronic Health

HazardArgon (liquid) √ √

Helium (liquid √ √

Nitrogen (liquid) √ √

Nitric Acid √ √

Hydrofluoric Acid √ √

Hydraulic Oil (Variousincluding vacuum oil)

√ √

Lead (Sheeting) √

Bromine √ √

Page 28: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

23 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Helium Container Near Building 98

Additional information is providedupon request. The 2001 EPCRA 312report submittal included updating sitecontact information and verifyingPeninsula Local Emergency PlanningCommittee records. In addition, uponrequest, the Lab’s EmergencyManagement Manager provides MSDSsto the local Fire Chief for their records.

Chemical Inventory

EPCRA Section 313, Toxic ReleaseReportingThis section (refer to 40 CFR 372)requires the submission of informationto the EPA relating to the release oftoxic chemicals, including an annualtoxic chemical release report, the ToxicRelease Inventory (TRI), by any facilitythat manufactures, imports, processes,or otherwise uses more than athreshold amount of any of

approximately 360 EPA-identified toxicchemicals. Jefferson Lab does have“otherwise use” activities and reviewsits chemical usage annually. ForCY 2001, it was verified that no leadwas “otherwise used” in a quantityexceeding 100 pounds and no otherlisted toxic chemicals were “otherwiseused” in quantities exceeding10,000 pounds in 2001; therefore, noTRI reporting was required.

Emergency Response StandardsTwo environmental emergencyresponse-related hazards exist atJefferson Lab. One hazard involvesreleases resulting from the storage ortransport of EHMs. Emergencyresponse standards that apply to EHMsare CERCLA, the portions of 40 CFRnoted above, and the VirginiaEmergency Operations Plan. Thesecond hazard is a radiological release,as addressed in 10 CFR 835.

There were four minor oil spills in 2001that were mitigated promptly, none ofwhich impacted the environment.There were no releases subject toCERCLA or other emergency responseregulations in 2001.

3.9.5.2 P2 and Other Activities toSupport Compliance

ISMJefferson Lab integrates safety (EH&Scollectively) principles and functionsinto all work processes through theapplication of ISM. The ISM Systemobjective is to make safety, health, andenvironmental protection a part ofroutine business at Jefferson Lab.Jefferson Lab intends to broadenintegrated safety management during2002 by incorporating EMS coreelements and principles, as identifiedunder EO 13148. Refer to Section 4.1for more information.

General P2 ActivitiesJefferson Lab complies with EO 13148and the PPA P2 goals by minimizinguse (source reduction), reusing to themaximum extent, recycling to the

Page 29: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 24

extent possible, and, as a last resort,disposing of any wastes in the mostenvironmentally safe manner. The Labcontinues to establish P2 goalsregarding reductions in standardsanitary waste, hazardous waste, andLLW generation, and for improvingour recycling performance. Acontractual Performance Measureaddresses this and is noted inSection 3.10.2. Specific Lab P2 and E2initiatives are discussed in Sections 4.2and 4.5.5. There were no P2compliance concerns in 2001.

3.9.5.3 Results of EnvironmentalCompliance Reviews

There were no internal environmentalcompliance reviews, including that ofISM, in 2001. The results of inspectionsfrom regulators are provided inSection 4.3. Minor compliance-basedissues were promptly addressed at thetime of inspections and resulted in nofindings of concern by regulators.

3.9.5.4 Progress on ImplementingEnvironmentally andEconomically BeneficialLandscaping Practices

Jefferson Lab uses qualif iedsubcontractors to take care of thefacility grounds. One beneficialpractice is that grass cover ismaintained in open areas to preventrunoff. Fertilizers and herbicides areapplied locally only as needed and notwhen rain is imminent to preventsurface water contamination.

A new subcontract in FY 2002 will limitthe watering of beds to weekly andencourage the use of environmentallypreferable products such as compost,mulch, and items with recycled content.

3.9.5.5 EMS Self-AssessmentQuestionnaire

A self-assessment of Jefferson Lab’sEMS status was provided to the DOE

on September 21, 2001. Jefferson Labdoes not have a separate EMS butimplements the EMS principlesthrough the Lab’s ISM System Plan.Some of the items that make up anEMS, such as significant environmentalrequirements, goals, and timeframesare spelled out within the DOE/SURAoperating contract and the JeffersonLab EH&S Manual.

The Lab’s ISM System Plan will beenhanced to incorporate EMSprinciples and core elements. Othersite documents will be reviewed andimproved to better incorporate EMSprinciples and practices.

3.9.5.6 Secretarial P2 and E2 GoalsJefferson Lab is committed to meet tentargets that address seven out of thesixteen DOE-identified P2 and E2 goals.Additional funding will be needed tomeet some targets. The Lab’s status isdepicted in Exhibit 3-3.

3.10 OTHER OBLIGATIONSIDENTIFIED IN THE CONTRACT

Jefferson Lab has other environmentalprotection and public health-relatedobligations. These obligations areincorporated into site programs, includingsubcontractual agreements, exclusive of directlegal requirements, e.g., Jefferson Lab’sparticipation in DOE’s NEPA process andimplementing EO 13123.

3.10.1 NEPANEPA requires that projects withpotentially significant environmentalimpacts be evaluated and alternativeactions explored. These evaluations are tobe performed and reported as EAs orEnvironmental Impact Statements.Jefferson Lab assists the DOE inimplementing the NEPA process on thesite, including preparing NEPAdocuments.

Page 30: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

25 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit 3-3Targets and Progress Projections

DOEGoal Action

DOE GoalFY 05 / FY 10 Lab 2005 Target

End FY 2001 LabStatus

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

Generated90% 46% to 5.0 MT Met (4.0 MT)

1 LLW Generated 80% 63% to 3.5 M3Not Met (42 M3)

1 Low Level Mixed RadioactiveGenerated

80% 0 Met (None to date)

2 TRI Chemical Releases 90% Remain underreporting threshold

Met for CY 2001

3 Sanitary Waste from RoutineOperations Generated

75%/ 80% Not to exceed 1995baseline (274 MT)

Not Met (283 MT)

4 Routine and Non-routine SanitaryWastes Recycled (%recycled vs.disposed)

45%/ 50% 20% of by FY0525% by FY10

Met (28% includes allrecycled solids and

liquids)5 Reduce wastes from cleanup 10% annually N/A N/A6 Increase purchases of EPA

designated items w/recycledcontent

100% 95% Not Met, but Progress(87% from 59% in FY00)

7 Reduce energy consumption inbuildings and laboratories

40%/45% bldgs.20%/30% labs

15% by FY05 usinga 1992 baseline

Not Met (No valuesavailable for FY01)

8 Purchase ‘clean’ electricity Increase purchases None -9 Retrofit chillers made before 1984

using class I refrigerantsComplete by FY 05 N/A N/A

10 Eliminate use of Class I ODSs toextent practicable

Complete by FY 10 Chiller replacementby FY05, othersunder review.

Not Met

11 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 25%/30% None -12 Reduce vehicle fleet annual

petroleum use20% (vs. FY99) None -

13 Acquire 75% of light duty vehiclesas alternative fuel vehicles

Annually Evaluate optionswith GSA

-

14 Increase usage rate of alternatefuel vehicles

80%/90% None -

NOTES: * if separate goals existMT: metric tons

M3: cubic meters

An EA for the proposed Newport Newssite for CEBAF (now Jefferson Lab) wascompleted in 1987, prior to the constructionof the facility, and resulted in a FONSI. In1997, an operations-related EA for theCEBAF and FEL was completed, alsoresulting in a FONSI. A new EA coveringthe construction of five new structures tosupport lab operations was started inFY 2001. Refer to Section 4.4 for moreinformation.

Jefferson Lab will respond to anyrequirements identified by the DOE withrespect to NEPA compliance issues, ofwhich there were none in 2001.

3.10.2 Performance MeasuresPerformance Measures are incorporatedinto the DOE/SURA Contract. Four ofthem reflect environmental protectionissues. Exhibit 3-4 highlights relevantFY 2001 scores.

Page 31: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 26

Exhibit 3-4Contract Performance Measure Results

I. D. Performance Measure Description FY 2001 ScoreReceived by the Lab

5.0b Minimizing Environmental Exceedances 100%5.3 Fraction of Solid Waste Recycled 100%5.4a Fraction of Radioactive Waste Produced for Useful Purposes 100%5.4b Ratio of Hazardous Waste Generated compared with the quantity that

could have been generated if Waste Minimization was not practiced100%

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

3.10.3 DOE GuidanceThe current per formance-basedDOE/SURA Contract identifies DOEenvironmental protection and public healthrequirements in either a PerformanceMeasure or in the Environment, Safety, andHealth (ES&H) Responsibilities portion inAppendix E of the Contract.

Since incorporation of the WSS Set into theContract, the only DOE environmentaldocuments specifically identified in eitherthe WSS Set or the Contract are DOEOrders 435.1, 5400.1, and 5400.5; DOENotice 441.1; and, DOE Standard 1023-95.There are other orders in the Contract thatdo not apply to EH&S. A process forreviewing new or revised DOE Orders forapplicability at Jefferson Lab wasimplemented in 1999 and 2000. In 2001,Jefferson Lab complied with applicableDOE documents, guidance, and relatedcontractual commitments.

3.10.4 AL&R LISTAdministrative environmental protectionand public health requirements are on theAL&R List. A violation would not directlyimpact the environment; however, it couldresult in an administrative action. AL&Rstandards are generally incorporated intosite programs. There were no known non-compliance issues in 2001.

3.11 OTHER MAJORENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ANDACTIONS

There were no major issues or actionsidentified in 2001 that could negatively affect

the environment or public health. Here are afew noteworthy actions.

• The first shipment of LLW took place.RadCon implemented a new programto meet the DOE’s new regulatoryrequirements.

• To help meet the Lab’s wasteminimization goal, a collaborativeeffort among Lab staff resulted inestablishing local recycling centers atsome key buildings for office relatedrecyclables. For more information referto Section 4.5.3.

• A new web page on the Lab’s APProgram and an E a r t h W a t c h e rNewsletter were introduced to the Labcommunity in early 2002.

• An effort by the ProcurementDepartment to improve the Lab’sperformance in implementing AP.Refer to Sections 3.9.3 and 4.2.1 formore information.

3.12 RELEASE REPORTING

There are no releases that require continuousrelease reporting. There were a few small oilspills that are noted in Section 4.5.1. Therewere no reportable spills or releases of anymaterials in 2001.

3.13 PERMIT SUMMARY

Information about permits held in 2001 ispresented in Exhibit 3-5.

Page 32: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

27 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit 3-5Jefferson Lab Permits

SER Section Permit Number DescriptionPermitDates

3.6.1.2 VA0089320 VPDES Permit - Specifies allowable groundwater and surface waterquality on-site during accelerator operations. Assures groundwaterunaffected at and beyond site boundary.

7/16/1996through

7/16/20063.6.1.2 VAG253002 VPDES Permit - General Permit for Cooling Water Discharges -

Authorizes cooling water discharges within identified dischargelimitations.

9/1/1999through

3/1/20033.6.2.1 HRSD No. 0117 Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit - Limits wastes to be

discharged to sewerage.10/1/1987

through3/1/2007

3.6.2.2 GW0030800 Permit to Withdraw Groundwater - Authorizes maximum quantitiesof water to be withdrawn by dewatering of area under experimentalhalls

11/1/1994through

10/30/20043.3.2 4727-45-01 South Carolina Radioactive Waste Transport Permit - authorization to

transport LLW within the state9/14/2001

through12/31/2001

SECTION 4ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTIONPROGRAM

Jefferson Lab’s mission includes protection ofthe environment and public health. There aremany facets to the site EP program, which isintegrated into facility operations underJefferson Lab’s ISM System Plan that alsodocuments the site’s EMS strategy. The site’sEP program provides staff the requirementsand guidance for making environmentallypreferable choices, identifies requirements forradiological and non-radiological monitoring,and reviews performance through actions suchas assessments and inspections. This sectionprovides information on these and other EPand public health-related 2001 events andactivities.

4.1 ENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Jefferson Lab does not have a specific EMS, butacknowledges that the program’s elements areaccomplished through implementation of theLab’s ISM System Plan, which addressesenvironment, health, and safety principles andfunctions. The primary objective of the ISMSystem Plan is to make safety, health, and

environmental protection a part of routinebusiness at Jefferson Lab. Some items thatmake up an EMS, such as significantenvironmental goals and timeframes, areincluded in the DOE/SURA operating contractor in the Jefferson Lab EH&S Manual. In 2001,as per EO 13148, the Lab made a commitmentto review and improve the ISM System Plan aswell as the Lab’s Quality Assurance ProgramManual to specifically incorporate EMSprinciples and core elements in FY 2002. EMSis applied on site as described here.

Site EP Policy: Jefferson Lab has both amission statement and an EH&S policy. Themission statement calls for excellence in allactivities while the policy commits the Lab topreserving the natural environment as well asto conducting operations without adverseimpact on the surrounding community.

Environmental Planning and AnalysisProcedures: Environmental planning andanalysis is handled by documenting andreviewing projects and activities for NEPAconsiderations. Line management isresponsible for providing notice of actions andimpacts to enable proper time for review andauthorization as applicable. As well, somesubcontracts are updated to require andencourage subcontractors to take EP intoaccount.

Page 33: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 28

Environmental Objectives and Targets: TheLab operates within contractual operatinglimits that include staying within permitcriteria. Exhibit 3-3 lists the targets for manyof the items identified in the Secretary’s P2 andE2 Goals and Exhibit 3-4 shows four EP-relatedperformance measures.

Implementation and Operations Controls: TheDOE/SURA contract defines general termsand conditions for operation and performance.EMS/ISM roles and responsibilities, alongwith some implementation procedures, areincluded in the Lab’s EH&S Manual. Noseparate EMS training has been provided.

Identification of Environmental Aspects andImpacts: No specific analysis has beenperformed; however , the primaryenvironmental aspects at Jefferson Lab areradiological implications to air, water, thepublic, and to local biota.

Performance Measurement: The Lab semi-annually reviews performance measure resultsfor various topical areas that include EH&S.

Corrective Action and Self-AssessmentProcedures: The ISM System Plan is reviewedperiodically and updated as necessary to keepit current, with information shared with theDOE Site Office. It was most recently updatedin 2001. Implementation of the ISM Systemwill be evaluated in 2002..

Management Review Process: The Lab’sDirector’s Council, composed of topmanagement, reviews the ISM System Planperiodically through the self-assessment notedabove. The review is documented and openitems are tracked until closure.

4.2 ENVIRONMENTALLYPREFERABLE PURCHASINGAND BEYOND

Today’s rapidly changing technologies,products, and practices carry the risk ofgenerating materials and wastes that, ifimproperly managed, can threaten publichealth and the environment. In this regard,Jefferson Lab encourages, and in some casesrequires, the purchase and use of products and

services that have minimal impact on theenvironment, a noteworthy P2 practice.Providing proper disposition of wastes ismandatory. A few highlights about these siteprograms are noted below.

4.2.1 Environmentally PreferablePurchasing (EPP)

The Lab has committed to integratingenvironmental considerations into everyaspect of the acquisition of products andservices. This commitment is based onEPA requirements and the implementinggoals that DOE has established to meet theapplicable requirements. In managing thisprogram, Jefferson Lab has accomplishedthe following:

• Assigned an EPP focal point to trainstaff as well as to track and report theamounts of EPA-identified recycledcontent products purchased incomparison to those not havingrecycled content;

• Set goals for: improving theperformance of procuring EPA-identified items and minimizing (andeventually eliminating) all purchases ofozone-depleting substances; and,

• Kept staff informed about other factors,as possible, such as selecting non-toxicor bio-based as well as the most energyefficient items and materials rather thana product that could have a greaterenvironmental impact.

During 2001, the Business ServicesDepartment and EH&S Reporting staffcontinued to encourage the purchase ofEPA-listed materials having recycled-material content. Jefferson Lab’s mainoffice product supplier continued tohighlight recycled-content-containingproducts in both its paper and on-linecatalogs. There was significantimprovement over last year’s performanceat buying recycled-content materials asreported in Section 3.9.3 and moreopportunities to improve this level arebeing investigated. Also, EH&S Manualchapters dealing with the procurement ofgoods and services were expanded toincorporate EPP principles in 2001, anoteworthy action. For standard white

Page 34: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

29 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

copy paper uses, where paper and servicesare provided by the central Copy Center,30% recycled-content paper was utilized100% of the time.

4.2.2 Environmentally Preferable Useand Disposal

Staff and users of Jefferson Lab areresponsible for following environmentallysound use and disposal practices andprocedures which are presented inChapters 6610 and 6760 of the EH&SManual. Two questions that staff andusers are encouraged to ask themselvesprior to making any and all purchases are:“Is this product safest for the environmentand will it allow me to continue to do myjob effectively?” and “Is this productcomposed of recycled post-consumermaterial?”

UseOnce the environmentally preferableproduct or service has been obtained or isbeing accomplished, Jefferson Lab staffcontinue to take EP, as well as health andsafety, considerations into account. Factorssuch as ensuring secondary containment ispresent and that proper ventilation for theprocess is provided help to minimizeexposure to potential hazards.

DisposalJefferson Lab staff have a range of optionsfor disposition of materials to includerecycling, neutralizing, scrapping,providing spent chemicals or equipment toco-workers on-site or to other DOEfacilities, and disposing in a local landfill.The Lab intends for all items to be disposedof in the most environmentally acceptablemanner that meets all applicable regulatoryand contractual requirements. Inaccordance with these intentions, the Labexpanded its recycling efforts in 2001 byestablishing “local recycling centers”.Refer to Section 4.5.3 for more information.

4.2.3 Overview of the EnvironmentalMonitoring Program

Environmental monitoring is one of theprimary methods used by the Lab to assessenvironmental conditions. Monitoring isconducted to: verify compliance with

applicable regulations and otherrequirements; evaluate the Lab’s impact onthe environment or public health; identifypotential environmental problems; providedata to support management decisions;and, evaluate the need for remedial actionsor mitigative measures.

The Environmental Monitoring Programestablishes guidelines for examiningchemical, oil, and radioactive effluentsgenerated from the facility. An integralpart of the program is routine samplingand tracking of air, process water,wastewater, and groundwater. These aremonitored to ensure that Jefferson Labeffluents do not have a negative impact onthe surrounding environment and thateffluents remain within the allowablerange. Jefferson Lab also assesses theeffects of Lab activities by measuring,monitoring, and calculating the effects ofpast, current, and future Lab operations onthe environment and public health.

Both permit-required and routinemonitor ing emphasize potent ia lenvironmental exposure pathwaysappropriate to medium-energy particlephysics laboratories. These pathwaysinclude external and internal exposure toradiation, the major focus of the site’sprogram. The external exposure potentialis from direct penetrating (10 CFR 834(draft) and 10 CFR 835) and airborneradiation (40 CFR 61, Subpart H). Theinternal exposure pathway is from H-3(tritium) and Na-22 (a sodium isotope) inpotential drinking water sources. Theseexposure potentials are discussed inSection 5 and do not present a concerneither on or off the Jefferson Lab site at thistime.

Sampling is conducted in a manner thatadequately characterizes effluent streams.Standard collection and analysis methodsare used where applicable and aredocumented in program and departmentalprocedures. Routine environmentalmonitoring is performed under thedirection of responsible line managementand overseen by the Lab’s Office ofTechnical Performance.

Page 35: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 30

Environmental monitoring data collectedin 2001 included:

• operational measurements at siteboundary monitor locations;

• groundwater quality for long-termfacility operations;

• effluents to the sanitary sewer;• groundwater dewatering discharges;

and,• other effluent streams, such as the

cooling water at the cooling towers.

On-site environmental surveillancecontinued in 2001. The environmentalbaseline data were obtained prior to thestart of routine accelerator operations.Baseline data are compared with dataobtained during ongoing facility operationsto ensure that Lab operations are notadversely affecting public health or theenvironment.

Throughout 2001, the RadCon Groupreviewed radiological and non-radiologicalenvironmental monitoring informationstemming from accelerator operations forconformity with applicable standards.Refer to Section 5 for the environmentalradiological program discussion and toSection 6 for environmental non-radiological program information.

4.2.4 Site PermitsEnvironmental permits held by the DOESite Office are listed in Exhibit 3-5, andcompliance with each is discussed inSection 3.6 of this report. All permits citinglimits and conditions involving water arediscussed in Sections 5.3 and 6.1.

4.3 APPRAISALS, ASSESSMENTS,AND INSPECTIONS

The DOE Site Office, the ORO Office, andvarious Commonwealth and local authoritiesprovide external oversight of the Jefferson LabEP Program. Actions of note in 2001 aredescribed here.

External AppraisalsThere were no environmentally relatedexternal appraisals performed in 2001. Allpreviously identified deficiencies from prior

external appraisals had been addressed andclosed by the end of CY 2000.

DOE Review of Jefferson Lab Self-AssessmentThe DOE Site Office’s Overlay Report,produced in conjunction with SURA’s annualLaboratory-wide self-assessment, covers EH&Stopics, contains Site Office observations andreviews, DOE appraisal results, and otherinformation. The Report provides an overallperformance assessment for the year. ForFY 2001, the Overlay Performance EvaluationReport yielded a rating of “Outstanding” inthe EH&S category.

ISM (and EMS)The ISM System Plan was reviewed andupdated in 2001 and the ISM System programis to be assessed in 2002. Refer to Section3.9.5.2 and 4.1 for more information.

External ReviewsAn Emergency Management (EM) Peer Reviewwas conducted in July 2001 at Jefferson Lab,which is categorized as a low-hazard, non-nuclear accelerator facility. The reviewcovered many topics including how JeffersonLab responds to various emergencies andsituations such as hurricanes, oil spills, andpower failures. The Peer Review Committeerecognized the application of continuousimprovement in this program as evidenced bythe new staff-initiated changes to ensure thatthe identified goals were being accomplished.The Committee offered several suggestions forfurther refinement including that additionaltabletop exercises should be scheduled. TheEM program earned an “Outstanding” rating.

External InspectionsThere were two external environmentalinspections during 2001.• The HRSD staff performed the annual

Jefferson Lab site inspection onFebruary 28. For this inspection, theHRSD chose not to visit any particularbuildings, but reviewed Jefferson Labpermit records and HRSD meterinformation. Minor deficiencies werenoted during the inspection, including afew missing meter inspection sheets,which were promptly mitigated. Theinspector returned at a later date to

Page 36: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

31 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

inspect all new meters and their serviceareas and found all to be in order.

• A DEQ inspection of the Lab’s VPDESGroundwater Monitoring Permit(No. 0089320) occurred on March 27. Theinspection encompassed a site visit to thepermitted wells within the acceleratorsite as well as a records review. Theinspector indicated a slight concern aboutthe solids in the storm channel thatincludes Discharge #001 effluent, but hadno recommendations to offer. Nocorrective actions were identified.

Line Self-AssessmentsLine managers perform annual line self-assessments (LSAs) of their organizationalelements. The LSAs are broad in scope,covering the accomplishment of the elements’goals, including EH&S. The Self-Assessment/Quality Assurance (SA/QA)Group performs independent assessments(IAs) of four of the Lab’s organizational unitseach year, focusing on EH&S. Deficienciesidentified through the IAs are tracked bySA/QA until the corrective actions arecompleted. One noted deficiency identified in2001 involved the Lab's AP program. Toensure AP program requirements are properlyapplied in the acquisition and procurementprocesses the Lab's EH&S Manual is beingamended to include necessary AP programinformation.

4.4 NEPA ACTIVITY

NEPA, as amended, outlines the Federal policyto restore and enhance the environment and toattain the widest range of beneficial usewithout degradation. NEPA-related actionsare handled in conjunction with the DOE,which is committed to following the relatedEPA regulations. Jefferson Lab assists the DOEby preparing documents and performingassessments of existing documentation. NEPAactions performed in 2001 are as follows.

• Twelve CX’s that pertain to regularactivities, including the “Management ofRadioactive Waste at TJNAF”, wererenewed.

• One new project CX that covers thedemolition and construction of an area

inside the FEL for future use as aninjector test cave was approved.

• The internal approval process for verysmall-scale construction projects that arecovered under existing CXs continued.

• The preparation of an EA to addressproposed construction projects began.The EA identifies an addition for theFEL Building, additions for CEBAFCenter, and new Technical Support, EndStation Refrigeration, and Storagebuildings.

4.5 SUMMARY OF OTHERSIGNIFICANT SITEENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES

4.5.1 Issues and ActionsEmergency Management Exercise: A‘suspect mail’ incident at the adjacent ARCserved as the 2001 emergency managementexercise. The Lab, who serves as thebuilding manager for the City, and areaemergency response organizationsresponded to the 911 call. The ‘suspectmail’, which met the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation's alert criteria, turned out tosimply contain paper scraps along with theintended paper document. Issues, such asinterfaces with various response agenciesand between Lab departments, wereidentified and line management has beenworking to resolve these issues.

EHM Spills: There were four minor oilreleases involving a valve leak, themishandling of an oil-based product by astaff member, a diesel fuel overflow from amanlift, and pump oil spillage at a spilltray. All instances were minor and quicklycorrected by line management and EH&Sstaff.

SPCC Plan: This plan, which was reviewedand updated in 2001, encompasseshandling, storage, and transportation ofvarious oil and petroleum productlubricants, hydraulics, and coolingmaterials. For more information refer toSection 3.6.2.3 of this report.

Page 37: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 32

Other items of note include:• The HRSD awarded Jefferson Lab a

Gold Pretreatment ExcellenceAward for its excellent performancerecord.

• The Lab continued to procure low-mercury fluorescent lamps andstarted handling the crushed lampsas universal waste, eliminating thathazardous waste stream.

• Jefferson Lab made its first shipmentof radioactive waste as noted inSection 3.3.2.

• Environmental reviews:o A study was performed to

identify the extent of potentialjurisdictional wetlands atJefferson Lab as well as todetermine whether threatenedand endangered species could bepresent on the site. Only onesmall (previously known) isolatedwetland was identified throughthe study. Also, no residentfederal or state threatened orendangered species, or flora andfauna species considered ofspecial concern in Virginia wereidentified on or immediatelyadjacent to the Jefferson Lab site.

o An analysis of groundwater flowdirection and velocity wasconducted late in 2001. Flowdirections and seasonal variationsin groundwater flow wereconsistent with those noted in aprevious analysis . Thegroundwater flow velocities had awide range across the site. Referto Section 7 for more information.

• In accordance with EO 13148requirements to achieve ODSreductions, information regardingODS purchase restrictions wasprovided to Division EH&S Officersfor implementation in theirrespective areas.

4.5.2 Waste Minimization and PollutionPrevention (WMin/P2)

The PPA established P2 as a nationalobjective and the most importantcomponent of the environmentalmanagement hierarchy. Waste

Minimization, in combination with otherP2 strategies, is recognized as the mostcost-effective form of environmentalprotection.

The purpose of Jefferson Lab’s WMin/P2Awareness Plan is to foster the philosophythat prevention is superior to either payingfor special disposal or for remediation, andthus focuses on minimizing wastegeneration.

WMin/P2 reduces the quantity of EHMsand other pollutants or contaminantsentering a waste stream or the environmentprior to recycling or treatment. Variouswastes, including air emissions and waterdischarges, can be significantly reduced orsometimes eliminated entirely byreviewing processes during the planningphase or prior to altering currentoperations. These practices benefit theenvironment, protect employees and publichealth, and reduce site waste disposalcosts. Specific objectives of this programinclude:

• making employees aware ofWMin/P2 program requirements,goals, accomplishments, and generalenvironmental activities and hazardsat the site;

• informing employees, users, andvisitors of specific environmentalissues such as opportunities forrecycling; and,

• encouraging staff and recognizingefforts to enhance the environmentthrough WMin/P2.

Plant Engineering and other staff continueto explore opportunities to find users orvendors that will take or buy items that areno longer needed for Jefferson Labbusiness. One disposition method,recycling, was expanded in 2001.

4.5.3 RecyclingThe Lab continues to implement wastereduction strategies and to educate andencourage staff on the proper dispositionof recyclable materials. Additional itemswere added to the recycling program in2001.

Page 38: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

33 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Communication channels, such as the Labnewsletter and EH&S wall-mounted andelectronic bulletins, continued to informpeople about recycling activities. Througha collaborative effort between EH&SReporting and Plant Engineering, officeproduct recycling centers were establishedin two high-use buildings. These centershave containers for twelve recyclablep r o d u c t t y p e s t h a t i n c l u d efax/printer/inkjet cartridges, usedbatteries, transparencies, fiber meshenvelopes, and among other items, paper,aluminum, and plastic bottles. One item of

note in November was that the firstshipment of used toner cartridges was sentfor remanufacturing. The small amount ofmonies received from the cartridges andfrom aluminum can proceeds are returnedto the recycling budget to help pay forsubsequent recycling activities. Lab-wideresponse and participation in recyclingcontinues to grow.

The quantities of materials recycled inFY 2001 were reported to the DOE - theinformation is shown in Exhibit 4-1.

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

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

Description Quantity (tons (kg), unless noted)

Paper Products (office paper & cardboard)# 35.0 (31,750)Aluminum Cans# 0.56 (508)Scrap Metal (reclaimed through GSA) 45.6 (41,400)Used Oil 3.6 (3,300)Used Coolant 1.8 (1,630)Lead-acid Batteries 0.25 (230)Fluorescent Lamps 0.86 (780)Toner Cartridges# 320 pounds (145)Transparencies# 22 pounds (10)Computer Disks# 0.5 pounds (0.23)Circuit Boards and Electronics 135 pounds (61)New/Used All Occasion Cards* 143 pounds (65)

*DOE initiative - provide to St. Jude’s Ranch for Children to reuse.#Items collected in office, kitchen, and recycling centers. (No small batteries were provided for recycling in 2001.)

Page 39: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 34

4.5.4 Hazardous and SpecialWastestreams

Variations in hazardous waste generationrates have been recognized anddocumented with the use of PerformanceMeasures. Jefferson Lab has made notableprogress in meeting hazardous wasteminimization objectives. AcceleratorDivision EH&S staff, in particular,continued to emphasize substitution,reduction, and reuse of hazardousmaterials in the workplace.

In the category of special wastestreams,Jefferson Lab generated about 4.7 tons(4,300 kg) of hazardous waste, about13 tons (42 cubic meters) of LLW in theLab’s first LLW shipment, and no TSCA ormixed wastes (a combination of hazardousand radioactive) during FY 2001.

This large amount of LLW was primarilydue to designating as waste someradioactive materials that were beingstored in special holding areas to allow fordecay and possible reuse. This materialwas designated waste and prepared forshipment. RadCon completed the loadingand surveying of the special shippingcontainers and turned them over to thewaste broker for disposition in July. Thebroker took physical possession of thewaste in early August and transported thematerial from the site.

4.5.5 Other Measures to MinimizeEnvironmental Consequences

Energy Efficiency• In 2001, Jefferson Lab received a

DOE grant to develop an energyefficient klystron to replace presentunits (at 340 locations) as they areretired. The estimated annual powersavings is 10 Gigawatt Hrs. (Notethat klystrons require large amountsof power.)

• One of the initiatives proposed byPlant Engineering also involves theaccelerator’s klystrons. PlantEngineering requested DOE fundingto install a combination of multitapautotransformers and modulatinganode control software to decreasepower consumption. The proposal

is estimated to annually save8.1 Gigawatt Hrs.

• All buildings were reclassified basedon usage according to a DOEguidance memorandum. PlantEngineering continues to monitorenergy activities for many sitebuildings. This work includes thepreparation of studies, analyses, andthe review of building and systemdesigns, and the monitoring ofresource consumption.

Environmental Quality Enhancements• The Test Lab’s use of solvents was

virtually eliminated, and the acidusage in the cavity productionprocess is being maintained at 50%below previous use. Theseimprovements are due to thecombined efforts of the lab users, thep r o c e s s d e s i g n e r s , and theAccelerator Division EH&S staff.

• Oil-spill prevention controls wereadded and/or improved in anumber of work areas, including inthe SNS work area in the Test Lab.

• Recycling centers were added at theVARC and at CEBAF Center, aneffort that has considerablyincreased staff awareness. Morecenters will be added during 2002.

SECTION 5ENVIRONMENTAL

RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM

Radioactive materials are used in manyresearch activities at Jefferson Lab. Theradiological impact of these materials andpotential effective dose equivalents tomembers of the public from various pathwayssuch as inhalation, ingestion, and skinabsorption were evaluated to show compliancewith EPA and DOE regulatory limits. During2001, very low levels of radioactive gaseousand particulate emissions were released fromfacility ventilation exhausts.

Page 40: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

35 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Radioactivity: A natural and spontaneousprocess by which the unstable atoms of anelement emit or radiate excess energy from theirnuclei and, thus, change (or decay) to atoms ofa different element or to a lower energy state ofthe same element.

Jefferson Lab operations had minimalradiological dose impact to the public and theenvironment. The ambient external dosemeasured was on the order of 2% of naturalbackground levels or 7 mrem (70 µSv(microSieverts)). The effective dose equivalentto the maximally exposed individual from airemissions for 2001 was calculated to be 0.011mrem (0.11 µSv), as reported to the EPA. Thisdose is insignificant when compared to theEPA regulatory public air-dose limit of10 mrem/yr (100 µSv/yr). The annualeffective dose equivalent to an individualconsuming contaminated water was so small itcould not be measured. The maximum doseimpact to the individual from both the air anddirect pathways combined was 7 mrem(70 µSv). This is 7% of the DOE regulatory

dose limit for members of the public from allpathways, which is 100 mrem (1000 µSv).

In 2001, the dose to terrestrial biota was alsoevaluated. No radiological doses either toterrestrial animals or plants above naturalbackground were recorded from Jefferson Laboperations. There are no aquatic species in theJefferson Lab vicinity that could be affected byJefferson Lab operations, so no such doseestimates are provided.

A summary of dose and release reporting for2001 is provided in Exhibits 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3.More detailed information is provided later inthe chapter. Note that information about allelectron accelerator-related radionuclides, withthe potential for release from the site, isdocumented in this chapter. All importantdischarges or releases of radioactiveconstituents are documented herein. Therewere no non-routine releases in 2001 so allvalues shown result from routine operations.

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

Dose toMaximally

Exposed % of DOE

EstimatedPopulation

Dose PopulationEstimated BackgroundRadiation Population

PathwayIndividual

mrem / (mSv)100 mrem/yr

Limit(person-rem) /

(person-Sv)within80 km

Dose(person-rem)/(person-Sv)

Air 1.1 E-2 (1.1 E-4) 0.011 (2.5 E-4) 0.025 - N/AWater 0 0 N/A - N/AOtherPathways

7 (7 E-2) 7 Unknown/Unknowable

- N/A

All Pathways 7 (7 E-2) 7 214,000 est. N/ANote: 0.011 = 1.1 x 10-2 = 1.1E-2 Values presented in Exhibits 5-1, 5-2, & 5-3 are presented in Scientific Notation (example, 2 E-05 is 0.00002)

Exhibit 5-2Jefferson Lab Radiological Atmospheric Releases for 2001 [in Ci (Bq)]

Radionuclide[half-life]

Tritium[12.26 yr]

Be-7[53 .6 days]

C-11[20.3 m]

N-13[9.96 m]

O-15[123 sec]

Cl-38[37.29 m]

Cl-39[ 55.5 m]

Ar-41[1.83 hr]

Ci (Bq) in CY2001

2.15 E-02(7.96 E8)

3.71 E-03 (1.37E8)

1.05 E+00(3.89 E10)

7.90 E+00(2.92 E11)

4.19 E+00(1.55 E11)

4.49 E-02(1.66 E9)

5.48 E-01(2.03 E10)

2.11 E-03(7.81 E7)

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

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

Page 41: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 36

Exhibit 5-3Jefferson Lab Liquid Effluent Releases of Radioactive Material for 2001 [in Ci (Bq)]

Radionuclide Tritium Be-7 Na-22

Ci (Bq) in CY 2001 8.8 E-1 (3.3 E10) 2.8 E-05 (1.04 E6) 6.6 E-06 (2.44 E5)Notes: Permit level is 5 Ci for Tritium and 1 Ci for all other gamma-emitting radionuclides.

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

5.1 SITE INFORMATION

Jefferson Lab protects the environment and thepublic from exposure to radiation. Theradiological monitoring program is theprimary means used at Jefferson Lab to verifyaccomplishment of this objective. Othersupport activities include: using permanentand temporary shielding; using active andpassive controls at activated water locations;and, following proper protocols whenhandling radioactive materials and wastes.

The radiological monitoring program isdesigned to verify that radiation exposures,both for on-site radiation workers and formembers of the general public, are belowpermissible levels and as low as reasonablyachievable. The program also assures that Labsupport activities and accelerator testing andoperations, as described within the approvedoperational safety envelope, will result inminimum impacts to the environment andhave minimal to no effects on public health.

5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATIONMONITORING

Accelerator operations produce three types ofradioactivity that can impact the generalpublic: direct or prompt, airborne, andwaterborne. Jefferson Lab performedextensive environmental monitoring in 2001 tomeasure these three forms of accelerator-produced radiation. Pathways to the generalpublic are modeled and monitored whenappropriate or as indicated by law. Thedecision to monitor a particular pathway isbased on the:

• type of operations;• radionuclides released;• potential hazard;

• experience from previous monitoringresults at Jefferson Lab; and,

• experience at other nuclear and high-energy physics laboratories.

5.3 AIRBORNE AND WATERBORNERADIOACTIVITY

Radiation resulting from the acceleratorbeam or the interaction of the beam withmatter is called direct (or prompt)radiation. This direct radiation isproduced within the beam enclosure andstops being generated as soon as theaccelerator is turned off.

5.3.1 Direct Radiation and AirborneRadioactivity

In addition to direct radiation, theinteraction of the accelerator beam withmatter can cause the formation ofradioactive materials through activation ofthe matter. The beamlines, magnets,beamline-components, targets, detectors,other experimental area equipment, andthe energy dissipating devices (beamdumps) used to contain the beam’s energymay become activated. Cooling andground waters, lubricants, and air in thebeam enclosure may also become activated.These activated air, water, and particulatesare possible sources of airborne andwaterborne radioactivity. Though thedirect radiation stops when the acceleratoris turned off, this activated equipment,water, and air continue to emit radiation.

Controls are in place to minimize theeffects of both direct radiation andradiation from activated materials on Labpersonnel, the environment, and thepublic.

Page 42: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

37 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

� The beam enclosure area is surroundedby radiation shielding.

� Direct radiation is monitored both on-site and at the site boundary.

� Interlocked access points provide a fail-safe barrier against entry to the beamenclosure dur ing acce leratoroperations.

� The monitor ing of a irborneradioactivity is carried out locally tovalidate calculations and estimates ofradiation dose.

� All material exposed to the beam ismonitored for radioactivity prior tobeing removed from the beamenclosure.

Shielding Blocks at the Hall C Truck RampEntrance

While radiation dose rates offsite areexpected to be well below limits set for thegeneral public, monitoring ensures that theestablished controls are effective.

• Waterborne activity is discussed inSection 5.3.2.

• Monitoring for exposure of the publicto direct radiation is discussed inSection 5.4.

• The monitoring for public exposure toairborne emissions is addressed below.

Airborne Radioactivity: Radioactive material inany chemical or physical form that is present inambient air, above natural background. Thisradioactivity can be generated by interaction withdirect radiation.

Airborne emissions at the site boundaryare addressed under EPA requirementsdiscussed in Section 3.5.2. Airborneradionuclide concentrations at the siteboundary have been too low to accuratelymeasure. Annual calculations, using EPA-approved computer modeling codes, haveindicated that Jefferson Lab operationalemissions remain several orders ofmagnitude lower than the EPA10 mrem/yr reporting limit. Calculatedresults based on an EPA-approvedcomputer program, CAP-88 PC, arepresented in Exhibit 5-4. Despite this verylow calculated release rate, Jefferson Labcontinued being proactive in 2001 bymaking continuous measurements to verifythe calculations. A report coveringCY 2001 was sent to the EPA as describedin 40 CFR 61. This report documented thatthe dose to a maximally exposedindividual of the publ ic was0.011 mrem/yr (0.11 µSv/yr) due toairborne releases. The dose from exposurethrough all applicable pathways ispresented in Exhibit 5-1.

Lab programs and outside advisorycommittees ensure that the Lab continuesto function within regulatory andestablished administrative limits for directradiation and airborne emissions. Oneentity is the Experimental EquipmentReview Committee that reviewsexperiments for EH&S parameters, as wellas for experimental and facility usagecriteria. Another is a RadCon review ofprojected public exposures and airborneemissions from proposed experiments tohelp the Lab remain within establishedguidelines. Refer to Section 5.4 for specificinformation on the monitoring of directradiation.

Page 43: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 38

Exhibit 5-4Nuclide Effective Dose Equivalent Summary

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

Calculation forSelected IndividualBased onConservativeCalculations andMeasurements(mrem/yr.)

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

Conversion note: 1 mrem = 0.01 millisievert (mSv)Values are presented in Scientific Notation (i.e., 1.2 E-3 = 0.0012)

5.3.2 Waterborne RadioactivityGroundwaterRadioactivity in groundwater, as a result ofdirect or secondary radiation, is possible incertain locations around the shieldedaccelerator and experimental hallstructures. The VPDES groundwaterquality permit serves as the basis fore v a l u a t i n g a c c e l e r a t o r - p r o d u c e dradioactivity in groundwater. Under thepermit, Jefferson Lab is not allowed toexceed one-quarter of the EPA SDWAlimits on-site, or change the quality of thegroundwater offsite. Refer to Section 7 formore information on how the Labincorporates monitoring to protectgroundwater resources.

This VPDES groundwater quality permitspecifies EPA-approved sampling andanalysis protocols, which were the basis ofgroundwater monitoring in 2001. Fifteenwells were sampled at quarterly, semi-annual or annual intervals. The permittedwells included the “A”, “B”, and “C” Ringwells (labeled as to proximity to theaccelerator) and the upgradient well. Referto Exhibit 5-5 for monitoring well locationsand to Exhibit 5-6 for parameters sampled.The groundwater dewatering effluent atthe experimental halls was also monitoredquarterly in 2001 and reported under thispermit.

Water samples have been drawn andanalyzed since 1987. The data collected,through the completion of facilityconstruction in 1995, provide agroundwater quality baseline forcomparisons during long-term facilityoperation. The background samples were

analyzed for naturally occurringradionuclides, as well as accelerator-produced radionuclides, and selectedchemical parameters. The radionuclidesanalyzed in 2001 are those known to relateto operations associated with electronaccelerators. They include H-3 (Tritium),Be-7, Na-22, Mn-54, and gross beta. Totalmanmade radioactivity was also analyzed.

Exhibit 5-7 lists the VPDES groundwaterquality permit levels for radiologicalparameters with values in picocuries perliter (pCi/l). The values in Exhibit 5-6r e p r e s e n t n o r m a l b a c k g r o u n dradionuclides, which are also generatedthrough Jefferson Lab activities.

The radiological results from monitoringthe wells in the accelerator vicinity during2001 are presented in the first part ofExhibit 5-8. The results from the otherlocations described in the permit areshown in the second half of the exhibit. Allmeasurements were within permit levels.No accelerator-produced activity has beendetected. All values represent naturalbackground, and variations are normal.

Other Water MonitoringThe surface water sampling programcommenced at the time construction of theexperimental halls was completed.Quarterly sampling of the groundwaterdewatering surface discharge under theVPDES groundwater quality permitcontinued. In addition, automatedsampling equipment is used to analyze thedischarged water for tritium and grossbeta. There were no concerns at thisdischarge stream in 2001.

Page 44: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

39 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit 5-5Monitoring Well Locations

Page 45: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 40

Exhibit 5-6Groundwater Sampling Parameters

Wells Sampling Frequency Environmental ParametersGW-15a

A Ring WellsGW-20GW-21GW-22

Annual

Quarterly

groundwater elevation, pH, conductivity, TSS, TDS, andradionuclides listed

groundwater elevation, pH, conductivity, TSS, TDS,manmade radioactivity, and radionuclides listed

B Ring WellsGW- 3GW-6aGW-23GW-24

Semi-annual groundwater elevation, pH, conductivity, TSS, TDS,manmade radioactivity, and radionuclides listed

C Ring WellsGW- 2GW-28GW-29GW-30

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

Other SamplingPoint

Outfall 001 Quarterly flow, pH, and radionuclides listed

Radionuclides: Gross Beta, H-3 (Tritium), Be-7, Mn-54 and Na-22TDS: Total Dissolved SolidsTSS: Total Suspended Solids

Exhibit 5-7VPDES Permit Levels for Radionuclides*

AnalyteA-Ring

(Action Level)B-Ring

(Permit Level)C-Ring

(Permit Level)

Sensitivity &Precision

(Permit Value)Gross Beta 50 pCi/l 50 pCi/l 153 pCi/l 4 pCi/lManmadeRadioactivity

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

Tritium 5000 pCi/l 5000 pCi/l 1000 pCi/l 1000 pCi/lSodium-22 - - 61 pCi/l 40 pCi/lBeryllium-7 - - 835 pCi/l 600 pCi/lManganese-54 - - 51 pCi/l 30 pCi/l

Notes: *Those radionuclides determined to be relevant to Jefferson Lab operations. A-ring levels are action levels only. Numbers are representative of pre-operational measurements plus 2 standard deviations, which represent

a 99% certainty that deviations above this level are not random. Conversion: 1 pCi = 0.037 Bq, 1 mrem = 0.01 mSv

Page 46: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

41 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit 5-8Maximum Groundwater Measurements for Radionuclides*

January 2001 through December 2001

Radionuclides at Associated Wells Relevant to Accelerator Operations

Analyte A-Ring B-Ring C-Ring

Gross Beta 30.33 pCi/l 35.67 pCi/l 4.06 pCi/lManmade Radioactivity < 0.273 mrem/yr. < 0.199 mrem/yr. not applicableTritium ND at < 704 pCi/l ND at < 705 pCi/l ND at < 704 pCi/lSodium-22 ND at < 21.9 pCi/l ND at < 14.5 pCi/l ND at < 7.89 pCi/lBeryllium-7 ND at < 168 pCi/l ND at < 107 pCi/l ND at < 61.8 pCi/lManganese-54 ND at < 21.1 pCi/l ND at < 15.8 pCi/l ND at < 7.27 pCi/l

Radionuclides At Other Permit LocationsAnalyte Upgradient Well Discharge 001

Gross Beta 2.35 pCi/l 18.81 pCi/lTritium ND at < 704 pCi/l ND at < 704 pCi/lSodium-22 ND at < 13.7 pCi/l ND at < 25.7 pCi/lBeryllium-7 ND at < 110 pCi/l ND at < 168 pCi/lManganese-54 ND at < 16 pCi/l ND at < 17.0 pCi/l

Notes: *Those radionuclides determined to be relevant to Jefferson Lab operations. No accelerator-produced activity has been detected. ND: Not detectable above permit-required sensitivity limits

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

The Cooling Water Tank (Building 92) andthe floor drain sump (FDS) pit(Building 97) are considered one HRSDsampling point. Sampling at the FDS pit,which collects various discharges,i n c l u d i n g l o w - l e v e l a c t i v a t e ddehumidification condensate from airconditioning systems located in theexperimental halls, and at the CoolingWater Tank, that contains activated waterfrom various accelerator apparatus,continued in 2001. Sampling and analysisfor tritium are performed prior to anydischarges to the sanitary system. Theresults are recorded and monthly andquarterly concentration values areprovided to HRSD. Some regulatoryvalues (that are not required to be regularlyreported) are tracked and documented bythe RadCon staff, such as the total amountof activity discharged to the sanitary sewersystem. Monthly and composite quarterlyresults for 2001 are provided in Exhibit 5-9.The concentrations varied based on thequantity of beam dump cooling waterdischarged during the reporting period.

On a periodic basis in 2001, other watersampling and analysis for tritium andgross beta activity were performed onvarious discharges from potentialradiological areas, such as from sumppumps. Any water identified as a potentialconcern was collected and dischargedaccording to the terms of the HRSD permit.

Various accelerator-related water systemshave the potential for becoming activated.Secondary containment and other physicalcontrols are present around areas with thepotential for spills of activated water.Additional administrative controls are inplace where the water activation level isabove an identified level.

There were a few minor water spills or leakevents in 2001 involving these activatedwater systems. The RadCon staffaddressed and cleaned up the areasinvolved. There were no worker safety,environmental, or public health concerns.Collected water that did not meetimmediate disposal criteria was transferred

Page 47: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 42

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

Monthly Values

Reporting PeriodTritium

Concentration Reporting PeriodTritium

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

February 0 pCi/l August 28,000 pCi/lMarch 20,000 pCi/l September 40,000 pCi/lApril 43,000 pCi/l October 79,000 pCi/lMay 41,000 pCi/l November 25,000 pCi/lJune 37,000 pCi/l December 52,000 pCi/l

Quarterly Values

Reporting Period Tritium ConcentrationOther Gamma-Emitting Radionuclides

Concentration

First Quarter 20,000 pCi/l None detectedSecond Quarter 42,000 pCi/l None detectedThird Quarter 24,000 pCi/l Na-22 at 0.24 pCi/lFourth Quarter 55,000 pCi/l Na-22 at 0.82 pCi/l and Be-7 at 4.7 pCi/l

Notes: These effluent concentrations are well below the 0.1 µCi/ml (100,000,000 pCi/l) permit limit. Radionuclides are analyzed at EPA sensitivity levels or better. Conversion: 1 pCi = 1 x 10-12 Ci = 0.037 Bq

to a temporary storage area for later releaseto HRSD.

5.4 ACCELERATOR-PRODUCEDDIRECT RADIATION

Direct radiation penetrates shielding withalmost all this radiation stopped by theshielding; any exposure to this radiation is at amaximum on-site and decreases with distance.During 2001, Jefferson Lab continued regularaccelerator operations in support of variousphysics experiments in the three experimentalhalls. Accelerator operations and relatedactivities produced significant amounts ofdirect radiation; however, these amounts wererestricted within constraints as managed byRadCon and were performed within anapproved safety envelope.

The Jefferson Lab areas, where direct radiationcan be produced, are not accessible duringaccelerator operations. There areapproximately 50 electronic radiation detectorsand a series of associated passive integratingdetectors deployed around the accelerator site

with the primary purpose of measuring on-siteradiation. The majority of the electronicdetectors are connected to a central computersystem that can automatically record theradiation levels for subsequent examination.When appropriate, Jefferson Lab employees,contractors, and visitors wear detectiondevices to monitor for on-site radiationexposure.

Six dual-channel microprocessor-basedinstruments for monitoring gamma andneutron radiation levels collected both directand airborne radiation data at the siteboundary in 2001. Radiation data collectedprior to January 1995 serve as the statisticalbaseline for comparison to that collected sincethe accelerator became fully operational.

5.5 ASSESSMENTS OF POTENTIALRADIATION DOSE TO THEPUBLIC AND TO BIOTA

The six electronic radiation measurementdevices noted in Section 5.4, installed along the

Page 48: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

43 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

accelerator site boundary continued to be usedto determine offsite dose to the public due toJefferson Lab operations. These electronicdetectors - radiation boundary monitors(RBMs) - measure and log radiologicalinformation at the locations shown inExhibit 5-10. In addition, passive integratingdetectors were used for a number ofmeasurements. All measured dose valueswere within statutory and administrativelimits. For 2001, the highest site boundarydirect (prompt) radiation level was about 7.1%of the DOE annual dose limit of 100 mrem(1 mSv), or 71% of the site administrative doselimit.

Exhibit 5-11 displays the radiation doses inmrem for 2001 at RBM-3. A comparison withnatural background radiation is made, whichindicates the relatively low levels of JeffersonLab’s contribution to the public dose. Thesebackground levels do not includecontributions to dose from Radon, whichtypically doubles natural radiation dose to thepublic.

Jefferson Lab does not release any residualradioactive material, such as concrete or soil,so there are no resulting dose impacts to thepublic. Radioactive waste was turned over to alicensed subcontractor for reprocessing asappropriate to optimize the final disposition.

The absorbed dose to any local aquaticanimals, or terrestrial plants or animals, fromJefferson Lab operations will not exceed theinternationally recommended dose limits forterrestrial biota. As there are no potentialreleases of a magnitude that could result indoses exceeding 0.1 rad/day to terrestrialanimals, the lowest limit for any biota, no doselimits will be exceeded.

Jefferson Lab did not contribute significantly tothe radiation dose received by the publicthrough either airborne and/or groundwaterpathways. The direct radiation exposure wasagain measurable in 2001, but was found to beabout 71% of the Jefferson Lab design goal ofone-tenth of the DOE limit.

5.6 OTHER SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Permanent shielding in the form of thickconcrete walls and earth berms protect theenvironment from exposure. Additionally,labyrinth entrances and monitoring atventilation ports track exposure values.

RadCon installs shielding blocks and devicesas needed to minimize impacts both inside andoutside the facility.

All areas where activated water could bepresent have controls in place. Locations witha high potential for activation have secondarycontainment measures installed andadministrative lockout/tagout controls. Otherareas with less or no potential for activationare monitored periodically to ensure levels arewithin expected values.

RadCon establishes access-controlled areas totemporarily store radioactive materials,including those being stored for decay, andwastes. There is no impact to the environmentor public health from the small quantity ofmaterials stored on-site.

SECTION 6ENVIRONMENTAL NON-

RADIOLOGICALPROGRAM

There are a number of non-radiologicalactivities that Jefferson Lab performs insupporting protection of the environment andpublic health performed under the site permitslisted in Exhibit 3-5. This section presents themonitoring results for 2001.

Other activit ies include reviewingconventional air emissions; administeringappropriate controls involving work withchemicals such as herbicides and cooling watertreatment additives; reviews for emergencyplanning regarding on-site chemicals; and,special waste management. These programsare discussed in Section 4.

Page 49: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 44

Exhibit 5-10Boundary Monitor Locations

Note: RB03 is the same as RBM-3.

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

PeriodNeutron(mrem)

Gamma(mrem)

Total(mrem)

Jan-Mar 2.90 ± 0.35 0.73 3.63 ± 0.44Apr-June 0.97 ± 0.30 0.24 1.21. ± 0.38July-Sept 0.43 ± 0.30 0.11 0.54 ± 0.38Oct-Dec 1.39 ± 0.26 0.35 1.74 ± 0.33

TOTAL 5.69 ± 0.60 1.43 7.12 ± 0.76

Natural Background ~1.8 ~110 ~112

Notes: Statistical errors are quoted at 1 sigma. Systematic errors including calibration (not included) are approximately 20% for neutrons. Gamma dose equivalent rates are estimated based on best known statistical correlation techniques. RBM-3 received the highest dose. Conversion: 1 mrem = 0.01 mSv

Page 50: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

45 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

In general, controls to protect the environmentare established through on-site programs andsubcontractual agreements that address permitcondition requirements and other identifiedLab commitments or initiatives. There were noproblems with respect to any of theaforementioned Jefferson Lab activities during2001.

6.1 WATER PROGRAMS

Jefferson Lab reported DEQ information underthree permits in 2001: flow quantities underthe Permit to Withdraw Groundwater;radiological and general water qualityparameters under VPDES PermitNo. VA0089320; and, general water qualityfactors under VPDES Permit No. VAG253002.Results were also reported under the HRSDPermit No. 0117. Radioanalytical results areprovided in Section 5, and the rest of theresults are included in this section.

6.1.1 Permit to Withdraw GroundwaterAs noted in Section 3.6.2.2, Jefferson Lab’swithdrawal of groundwater at theexperimental halls is an unusual situation.The only factor of concern under thegroundwater withdrawal permit is thequantity of water pumped. Quantities ofwater pumped from these tile fields arereported to the DEQ on a quarterly basis.This Permit allows the pumping of a

maximum of 6,000,000 gallons per month.The other pumpage restriction is a yearlylimit of 23,036,790 gallons. There were nounusual issues regarding this discharge in2001.

The maintenance of the structural integrityof the halls by pumping results in widequantity variations. Pumping is minimalin drought periods. Exhibit 6-1 presentsthe quantity of water pumped monthly andthe maximum daily flows for each monthin 2001. Note that the quantity pumpedeach month is well under the six milliongallon permit limit.

This discharge point, known as“Outfall 001” in the VPDES Permit No.VA0089320, is monitored for water quality.Non-radiological results covered by thisVPDES permit are presented in Section6.1.2. Refer to Section 5.3.2 for informationon the radiological parameters that aremonitored due to proximity to theaccelerator. Besides the VPDES permitnoted, there are no other requirements formonitoring as no industrial or other use ismade of the discharged groundwater.

6.1.2 VPDES Permit No. VA0089320This permit covers monitoring for waterquality at both groundwater monitoringwells and at the dewatering effluentcollection point “Outfall 001”.

Exhibit 6-1Flow Information at the Dewatering Discharge

Month, 2001Monthly

Flow

Maximum GPDDuring the

Month* Month, 2001Monthly

Flow

Maximum GPDDuring the

Month*

January 405,751 15,140 July 436,920 16,092February 337,584 15,024 August 352,128 16,535

March 419,860 15,715 September 415,122 15,919April 369,565 18,993 October 384,800 23,900May 394,907 15,706 November 388,094 16,375June 415,343 16,903 December 297,806 16,417

Notes:*Maximum GPD per quarter is reported on VPDES Permit No. VA0089320.There is no daily permit limit. The monthly limit is 6,000,000 gallons and the yearly limit is

approximately 23,000,000 gallons.

Page 51: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 46

Monitoring wells were sampled for pH,conductivity, total suspended solids (TSS),and total dissolved solids (TDS) under thePermit terms. (See Exhibit 5-5 for the sitemap showing the well locations monitoredin 2001.) The sampling results for the wellsare presented in Exhibit 6-2. Groundwatercollected from the dewatering process atOutfall 001 is sampled and reportedquarterly for pH and results are shownin Exhibit 6-3. The maximum dailydischarge quantity for each quarter is alsoreported. Note that sampling datacollected in 2001 was representative ofgroundwater quality during acceleratoroperations and is consistent with previousbaseline measurements.

Variations in non-radiological informationcollected at the wells in 2001 may be due toseasonal, local ground conditions, andearth-disturbing factors. Even with a fullyoperating accelerator, various constructionprojects in the area, and a variety ofphysics experiments being performed,there were no facility-related effects ongroundwater quality in 2001.

6.1.3 VPDES Permit No. VAG253002Cooling water discharges from two coolingtowers were covered by this permit in 2001.The materials used for cooling watertreatment were Coastline Formula 2029(scale and corrosion inhibitor), Formula1909 (liquid biocide), and a small amountof a dispersant. There were noenvironmental concerns with the use ofthese chemicals.

Quarterly sampling and reporting areperformed under this VPDES GeneralPermit. Note that the discharge from asmall tower at the Test Lab, DischargeNumber 002, was added to the permit atthe end of 2000. The revised permitrequires that results for flow, pH,temperature, total hardness, total dissolvedcopper, total dissolved zinc, and totalresidual chlorine be provided to the DEQ.The 2001 results are provided inExhibit 6-4.

Two notable situations occurred in 2001.The first, during the third quarter, involvedDischarge 002. There was no available

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

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

pH 4.5 5.8 to 6.4 5.4 to 7.1 5.3 to 7.1 NoneConductivity

(µmhos/cm)182 719 to 2038 384 to 1149 467 to 963 None

TDS (mg/l) 82 474 to1450 223 to 750 331 to 627 NoneTSS (mg/l) 4 23 to 34 4 to 26 3 to 45 None(frequency) (annual) (quarterly) (semiannual) (annual) -

mg/l: milligrams/liter

Exhibit 6-32001 Permit-Related Non-Radiological Monitoring Parameters at Outfall 001Quarter Maximum Flow (MGD) pH

First 0.016 6.7Second 0.019 7.1Third 0.017 7.1Fourth 0.024 7.4

MGD: million gallons/dayNote: There is no limit on the reported flow. The pH range is 6.0 to 9.0.

Page 52: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

47 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

flow to sample at the sampling point asthere is only a very small flow from thistower, which was immediately absorbedinto the soil, and the fact that there wasvery little rainfall. The second incident wasthat the chlorine level at DischargeNumber 001, which has a more steadydischarge from its tower, was above thenon-detect level during the 4th quarter.Because there was no known explanationfor the reading, the matter wasinvestigated. A complicating factor wasthat there were large city water leaks in thearea around that time. No plausibleexplanation for the elevated chlorine hasbeen determined.

6.1.4 HRSD Permit No. 0117Industrial wastewater, which includes asmall quantity of activated water, is

generated by Jefferson Lab and dischargedto the HRSD through our IndustrialWastewater Discharge Permit. Theactivated water that was collected anddischarged in 2001 was a combination ofthe output from dehumidificationequipment in the experimental halls andsmall withdrawals from the beam dumpcooling systems. Refer to Sections 3.6.2 and5.3.2 for more information.

Jefferson Lab and the HRSD perform pHsampling of discharges as shown inExhibit 6-5. A subcontractor monitors twosanitary sewer outflow streams as noted inthe permit to assure that pH levels arewithin permit criteria. In March 2001, apermit revision changed the monitoringfrequency from monthly to quarterly.

Exhibit 6-42001 Cooling Water Monitoring Parameters at Outfalls 001 and 002

Parameter/Units First Quarter Second Quarter Permit LimitDetection

LimitOutfall 001 002 001 002

Flow (MGD) 0.009 1.01x10-5 0.015 0.000021 0.05 MGD 0.0001pH 8.5 6.9 6.8 6.8 6 to 9 0.1

Temperature oC 8.6 11.8 26.4 23.1 Max. 32 oC. or asnoted in the permit

0.1

Hardness mg/l 240 43 272 92 None 2Copper mg/l 0.010 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 None 0.001

Zinc mg/l 0.016 0.136 0.179 0.532 None 0.03Chlorine mg/l 0.01 0.02 < 0.1 < 0.1 Non-Detectable 0.1

Third Quarter Fourth QuarterOutfall 001 002** 001 002

Flow (MGD) .018 0.0001 .015 0.00005 See above See abovePH 7.4 - 7.7 7.6 See above See above

Temperature oC 21.7 - 12.7 11.7 See above See above

Hardness mg/l 363 - 360 100 See above See aboveCopper mg/l 0.008 - 0.003 0.009 See above See above

Zinc mg/l 0.202 - 0.065 0.075 See above See aboveChlorine mg/l < 0.1 - 1.4 < 0.1 See above See above

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

quarter MGD: million gallons/day mg/l: milligrams/liter

Page 53: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 48

As noted in Section 5, RadCon Group staffmanage the HRSD radiological samplingand analysis requirements. The HRSDsamples all discharge streams periodicallyfor a full complement of metals. On anannual basis, a seven-day period ofmonitoring flows and samples at each ofthe discharge points is performed to help

determine if changes to the permit arenecessary. Monitor ing resultsdemonstrated that Jefferson Lab remainedwithin the limits of the HRSD-issuedpermit in 2001. Jefferson Lab received aGold Pretreatment Excellence Award forhaving no violations in 2001.

Exhibit 6-5pH Sampling Results for Wastewater Discharge

Monitoring Period Manhole D Manhole EF

January 7.0 6.9February 7.8 7.0March* 8.2 7.5Second Quarter 7.9 6.9Third Quarter 6.4 7.1Fourth Quarter 7.4 6.8* Last month for monthly sampling.Permit Limits: Calendar Month Average and Calendar Day Maximum ≥ 5.0Detection Limit: 0.1

6.2 CONVENTIONAL AIREMISSIONS

The Hampton Roads area of southeasternVirginia remained in attainment of ozoneambient air quality standards in 2001, thoughit is still considered a CAA maintenance area.The Hampton Roads area also remained inattainment for the other criteria air pollutants:particulate matter; sulfur oxides; carbonmonoxide; nitrogen dioxide; and, lead. Thereis no required monitoring of criteria airpollutant emissions performed at Jefferson Labexcept for a very small amount of ozonegeneration and small amounts of others due tovehicular traffic. There are no applicableNAAQS emission sources present on the site.

Note that accelerator operations result in thegeneration of small quantities of ozone. Thereare no environmental or public health effectsfrom this generation. Ozone is monitored as aworker health issue and is appropriatelycontrolled.

Jefferson Lab is required to notify the DEQregarding its air pollution sources andthe types of potential air pollution that may be

released into the atmosphere. Natural gas-fired boilers are the primary air pollutantsources at Jefferson Lab. Reports of annual airemissions are provided to the DEQ uponrequest. Refer to Exhibit B2 in the appendixfor information from the 2001 SourceRegistration Update.

Since a 1995 review of non-radiologicalemission sources indicated a minimal level ofemissions, there have been no major changesin air emissions. Jefferson Lab, therefore,remains below any reporting thresholds. Nonew requirements became applicable in 2001.

6.3 SAFETY

Jefferson Lab’s performance, with respect toworker safety for the 2001 CY, was as follows.• Recordable injury case rate: 2.7 per 100

employees• Lost Work Day case rate: 1.5 per 100

employees• Lost Work Day rate: 12.7 per 100

employees• Number of radioactive contaminations

(external): 0

Page 54: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

49 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

• Number of Safety Occurrence Reports(OSHA confined space, chemicalexposure, and lockout/tagout incidents):2, both minor electrical shocks.

SECTION 7GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Groundwater is a vital natural resource, thecontamination of which could presentpotential problems to the general population.Because of this, both the Federal governmentand the Commonwealth of Virginia regulategroundwater.

The Jefferson Lab Groundwater ProtectionManagement Program is used as amanagement tool and provides a strategy tominimize impact to groundwater resources.The Program ensures compliance with Federal,State, and local regulations, other identifiedstandards, and effective resource managementpractices. The Program includes agroundwater monitoring plan that serves toassess the effect of past, current, and futureJefferson Lab activities on groundwaterquantity and quality.

7.2 HYDROGEOLOGY ISSUES

7.2.1 General HydrogeologyJefferson Lab is located in the AtlanticCoastal Plain Physiographic Province ofVirginia. This province is underlain byunconsolidated sediments ranging fromearly Cretaceous to Holocene Age. Thesediments dipping and thickeningeastward consist primarily of sand, clay,silt, and gravel, with variable amounts ofshell material. The hydrogeologicframework for the lower Peninsula is aseries of aquifers and intervening confiningunits defined on the basis of the lithologicand the hydrologic properties of theunconsolidated Coastal Plain sediments.

The site is located on the eastern tip of thelower James-York Peninsula. Sediments

found within 50 feet of the surface belongto the Yorktown Formation (ChesapeakeGroup) and overlying Columbia Group,which is comprised of four formations.These formations are similar to manyQuaternary formations that comprise theriverine, estuarine, and coastal terraces ofthe Virginia Coastal Plain.

Jefferson Lab is situated in the northernsection of Newport News, Virginia, at anaverage elevation of about 32 feet aboveMSL. The site is in a Zone C area on thelocal flood maps, so is not considered to bewithin the 100-year floodplain. The site islocated in the watershed of Brick KilnCreek, which discharges to Big BethelReservoir. The reservoir serves as adrinking water source for local militaryinstallations. The only long-lasting streamson the Jefferson Lab site are those due todischarges from cooling towers andgroundwater dewatering operations.Small localized wet areas exist, a few arepermanent, and the rest occur duringperiods of heavy precipitation andeventually drain by surface runoff andgroundwater recharge.

7.2.2 Aquifer InformationThe uppermost hydrostratigraphic unitencountered at the site is the water tableaquifer, the Columbia, which is composedof sediments of the Columbia Group. Thethickness of the aquifer ranges between 15and 30 feet, with a seasonal variability of8 feet or more. This water table aquifer,and up to nine confined aquifers, havebeen identified with the Atlantic CoastalPlain system. Groundwater flow withinthe water table aquifer is influenced bylocalized boundary conditions present ascreeks and rivers. The first confinedaquifer beneath the Columbia aquifer is theYorktown-Eastover aquifer, composed ofthe coarser units of the YorktownFormation. The upper 50 to 100 feet of theYorktown-Eastover aquifer is usually freshwater and is one of the most importantaquifers in the region.

Previous subsurface studies andgroundwater elevation readings indicatethat horizontal groundwater flow is

Page 55: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 50

generally across the site to the east-southeast. Modeling performed during1995, with groundwater flow and velocityreevaluated in 2001 and early 2002,indicated that the groundwater flowpattern, including seasonal variations, hadnot changed from earlier studies with theexception of significant local effects in thevicinity of the experimental halldewatering system. In this area,groundwater has the tendency to workslowly towards the halls and ultimately becycled through the dewatering system andinto a site surface water channel.

7.2.3 Potential Contamination SourcesPotential groundwater contaminationsources in the vicinity of Jefferson Labcould include contaminants from offsiteproperties that could migrate across thesite. No impacts from offsite sources havebeen noted on the DOE site. On-sitesources had included three undergroundstorage tanks, which were removed alongwith any identified contaminants.

Another potential contamination source isfrom EHMs that are used in dailyoperations by Jefferson Lab staff. Properhandling and storage practices, includingthe standard use of secondary containment,are implemented throughout the site. Allhazardous waste is managed appropriatelyby EH&S staff under the appropriateRCRA requirements.

Soil radioactivation is another potentialsource of groundwater contamination. Asthe facility has become fully operational,the monitoring of VPDES-permitted wellsfor particular groundwater qualityparameters is performed at the frequenciesshown in Exhibit 5-6. Jefferson Lab willmaintain the capability to sample andanalyze groundwater more frequently, asnecessary, to ensure that effects ongroundwater are minimal. From controlsdesigned into the accelerator complex,including in-place shielding measures andthrough calculations, a minimal amount ofsoil or groundwater activation is expectedon-site and no offsite effect is anticipated.

7.2.4 Groundwater UsesThe groundwater resources of the York-James Peninsula are abundant; however,the generally poor water quality limitsgroundwater use. Some Peninsulagroundwater is used, in conjunction witharea reservoirs, to supply drinking water.

Jefferson Lab withdraws groundwaterfrom below Halls A, B, and C under thesite Permit to Withdraw Groundwater, asdiscussed in Section 3.6. There are noprojected needs for the use of groundwateron the Jefferson Lab site. The surroundingarea, however, is expanding and additionalsources of water to serve the city remainunder investigation.

7.3 GROUNDWATER PROTECTIONPROGRAM SUMMARY

Jefferson Lab’s environmental protectionprograms have been established to allow thecontinued careful use of water resources and toensure the desired maintenance of all waterquality parameters to the maximumpracticable extent. Existing water qualityparameters are mandated under Federal andCommonwealth regulations, with the mainguidance for this program being the CWA.The primary CWA objective is to “restore andmaintain the chemical, physical, and biologicalintegrity of the nation’s waters.” Jefferson Labcomplies with the applicable standardsdiscussed in Section 3.6.

Two significant operations that impactgroundwater, described below, wereaddressed in the 1987 EA. Environmentalimpacts were minimized for both throughdesign strategies.

• The continued withdrawal ofgroundwater for structural purposesand short-term dewatering forconstruction projects.

• The potential impact to the groundwateron the Jefferson Lab site or beyond thesite limits because of constructionand/or accelerator and physics programactivities.

The 1987 EA found that “no significantenvironmental impacts are predicted.” The EA

Page 56: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

51 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

further concluded that proper design andcareful operation of the accelerator wouldminimize any impacts, including those togroundwater. The Commonwealth’s largestconcern is the potential for radiologicalactivation of the groundwater and the soilsurrounding the accelerator. The 1997 EAaddressed additional potential impacts basedon changes in CEBAF operating parametersand the inclusion of FEL operations, andresulted in a FONSI. See Section 4.4 foradditional information about NEPA.

The prevention of hazardous material and oilspills is addressed through appropriatetraining and awareness programs at JeffersonLab. The prevention of oil spills is the mainfocus of the site SPCC Plan. The ChemicalAssistance Team assists by providingimmediate containment in the event of oil orhazardous material spills, and the RadConGroup addresses any activated water spills,thus minimizing potential groundwaterimpacts. An emergency management exercisethat used an actual ‘suspect mail’ event in 2001tested the Lab and area response programeffectiveness. Jefferson Lab staff, local FireDepartment, and the Virginia Beach HazMatteam participated. A few minor opportunitiesfor improvement were identified andaddressed in 2001.

7.3.1 Groundwater Resource Protection- Quantity

Groundwater withdrawn at Halls A, B, andC is pumped to a single discharge thatempties into a stormwater drainagechannel. The channel is graded to allowthe water to flow east, then south and offthe site, eventually flowing to the BigBethel reservoir. This dewatering isallowed by the Permit to WithdrawGroundwater and is discussed further inSections 3.6.2.2 and 6.1.2. The Permitallows an annual withdrawal of up totwenty-three mil l ion gallons ofgroundwater, with the actual amountpumped significantly less. No otherwithdrawals or projected uses areexpected.

7.3.2 Groundwater Resource Protection- Quality

The Commonwealth, through authorizeddischarge limits in VPDES PermitNo. VA0089320, regulates accelerator-produced radionuclides that are potentiallypresent in the groundwater. This Permitsuperseded a Virginia Pollution Abatement(VPA) Permit in 1996, which primarilyestablished a groundwater quality baselinefor comparison with measurements duringlong-term accelerator operations.

The current VPDES Permit specifies thatthe groundwater leaving the Jefferson Labsite shall not exceed the establishedbaseline groundwater parameters. Agroundwater monitoring program useswell sampling as the mechanism formaking the determination thatcommitments are met. This Permit alsorequires keeping the DEQ informed aboutchanges at Jefferson Lab that could affectgroundwater quality.

7.3.3 Surface Water ProtectionSurface water quality is maintained bydischarging only unpolluted waters, suchas rainwater or groundwater, to theenvironment. Potential sources ofcontamination of surface waters andassociated control measures identified forthe site include:• Using proper procedures prevents

releases of EHMs to surface water orthe ground.

• The prevention of potential oil leaksfrom equipment or sys temmalfunctions which are addressed inthe SPCC Plan.

• The addition of sediments and otherpollutants to surface waters frompumping at construction areas isaddressed by including specificcontractual requirements for anysubcontractor performing earthwork tofollow the practices identified in theVirginia Erosion and Sediment ControlHandbook.

• Water within the tunnels andexperimental halls may becomeactivated from exposure to radiation.The RadCon Group procedures thataddress activated water management

Page 57: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 52

provide for sampling and monitoringof water from any potential sourcewithin the accelerator and experimentalhalls.

• Groundwater surrounding the tunneland experimental halls may becomeactivated during beam operations. Thegroundwater is shielded from exposureto radiation, so minimal amounts ofradiation are expected. Thegroundwater withdrawn at the halls ismonitored under VPDES Permit No.VA0089320.

7.4 GROUNDWATER MONITORINGREVIEW

Jefferson Lab’s environmental monitoringprogram is designed to verify that anyradiation exposures, as well as non-radioactiveeffluent releases, are below permissible limits,and that accelerator operations and physicsexperiments, as well as Laboratory supportfunctions, have not affected the quality of theenvironment.

Radioactivation of groundwater is possible incertain locations around the acceleratorcomplex. Massive concrete and steel shieldswithin the accelerator beam enclosures and inthe beam deceleration areas minimizegroundwater activation.

The locations of the “A”, “B”, and “C” Ringwells, labeled as to proximity to the acceleratortunnel, are specified in VPDES Permit No.VA0089320. The permit-identified wells areused for sampling and analysis during regularaccelerator operations and experimentalphysics activities. Exhibit 5-5 shows thelocations of the background and activemonitoring wells.

The “baseline” values obtained during theterm of the VPA Permit helped define theoperational groundwater quality limits that arelisted in VPDES Permit No. VA0089320. Thepermit action or trigger levels, based on thestatistical analysis provided to the DEQ, areshown in Exhibit 5-7. Note that theCommonwealth restricts water contaminationto 1 mrem/yr., which is one-quarter of theregulated drinking water quality limit.

Sampling requirements under this VPDESPermit are also presented in Exhibit 5-7.Under this permit, Jefferson Lab has to takespecific corrective action if the followingvalues are detected at either the “A” and/or“B” Ring wells: Gross Beta 50 pCi/l; Tritium5000 pCi/l; and/or Manmade Radioactivity1 mrem/yr. The “C” Ring wells are, at notime, to statistically exceed the backgroundlevels shown in the Permit.

Well locations are regularly reviewed, andlocal temporary test wells would be used tosample potential problem areas. Samplingpoint relocations would be considered basedon study results.

SECTION 8QUALITY ASSURANCE

Regular quality assurance (QA) efforts, whichinclude quality control (QC) measures, arebeing made to ensure that Jefferson Lab’sEnvironmental Monitoring Program is beingperformed in accordance with the principles ofthe Jefferson Lab Quality Assurance ProgramManual. As well, EH&S Manual Chapter 6712,Environmental QA, provides methods anddirection for critical and objective examinationof Jefferson Lab’s EP programs, practices, andperformance.

8.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE INSAMPLING PROCEDURES

The Jefferson Lab QA Program includesqualification of the laboratories that provideanalytical services, verification of certificationto perform analytical work, and review ofperformance test results. Also included in thisreview is the adequacy of their internal QCpractices, recordkeeping, chain of custody, andthe relevant portions of the QA program itself.

The RadCon Group and other programmanagement are involved in the qualificationprocess for environmentally sensitive services,including offsite analytical laboratories, andare responsible for auditing their own QApractices and implementing relevant QAprocedures. The Jefferson Lab SA/QA

Page 58: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

53 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

function performs independent assessments ofall functional areas, including those for EPactivities. The DOE oversight organizations, intheir independent overview capacity, alsoperform periodic audits and surveillance ofJefferson Lab. No QA concerns were noted forCY 2001 regarding sampling protocols orresults.

Line management responsible for the processdocuments all routine monitoring andsurveillance sampling procedures. Someprocedures have been incorporated into theEH&S Manual. Other specialized procedureshave been developed in accordance withestablished standards, practices, and protocols.The procedures ensure that samples arerepresentative of the media from which theyare collected and will yield reliable results.Subcontractors are required to use approveddocumented procedures.

Universal Laboratories, Inc. (Universal Labs)collected most VPDES and HRSD permit-related water samples. Universal Labsperformed all non-radiological analyses onthese samples. Their subcontractor, BWXTechnologies (BWX), performed allradiological analyses on identified samples.Several field audits were performed andshowed Universal Labs’ collection procedureswere satisfactory.

Other sample collection that involvesradiochemicals, including some required bythe HRSD permit, is performed by the RadConGroup and analyzed in the RadConradiological analysis lab (Building 52).Qualified Jefferson Lab staff collect samplesthat require general chemical analysis, whichare usually not permit-related. In 2001,Jefferson Lab subcontracted with MarineChemist, Inc. and American Medical Lab toprovide general chemical analysis on samplesthat were not potentially radioactive.

8.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE INANALYSIS

Samples are analyzed for radiological and non-radiological attributes using standard EPA-approved analytical procedures. A continuingprogram of analytical laboratory quality

control, participation in interlaboratorycrosschecks, analysis of various blanks, andreplicate sampling and analysis verifies dataquality. The RadCon Group, AcceleratorDivision EH&S staff, and other responsiblestaff review all analytical data for samplesanalyzed under their subcontracts. Theanalytical results are reviewed relative to theaccompanying QA/QC results and comparedwith regulatory limits for acceptability. Thesereviews include inspection of chain-of-custodies, sample stewardship, samplehandling and transport, and samplingprotocols. When applicable to the analysisrequested, analytical labs must beappropriately certified. Inspection visits aremade to both Universal Labs and BWX on abiennial basis. These visits confirm thatanalytical practices being performed aresatisfactory.

Ongoing precision and accuracy are monitoredby analysis of the following with each batch ofsamples: laboratory standards, duplicatedeterminations, matrix spikes, and matrixspike duplicates. These data are used tocalculate the relative standard deviation. Thequality of the data is then evaluated andcompared to regulatory limits to determineacceptability. A range of radiochemical spikesis used to test the vendor’s ability to achievethe required sensitivity for each parameter,and their reliability in detecting accelerator-produced radionuclides at or below theconcentration guide standards. This enablescompliance with permit requirements that QAis performed.

Jefferson Lab continues to maintainappropriate agency certifications and toincorporate certification requirements insubcontract specifications. Any equipmentused for environmental monitoring is specifiedto have calibration certifications traceable tonational standards.

Universal Labs and the RadCon radiologicalanalysis lab participate in DOE’s QualityAssessment Program (QAP) run byEnvironmental Measurements Laboratory(EML). BWX participates in two DOEcrosscheck evaluation programs: one from theEML, and one from the Mixed AnalytePerformance Evaluation Program (MAPEP).

Page 59: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 54

In addition, the National EnvironmentalLaboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC)certifies BWX. NELAC’s purpose is toestablish and promote mutually acceptableperformance standards for the operation ofenvironmental laboratories. They are also EPAsample certified by both NELAC and the Stateof Utah, as well as with the Commonwealth ofVirginia for environmental monitoring.Universal Labs, Marine Chemist, andAmerican Medical Lab participate in stateprograms to maintain their state certification.

8.2.1 RadiologicalIndependent QA under the DOEEML administers the DOE qualityassessment program for environmentalradiological analyses. The EML QA Program(QAP) is an external, independentperformance evaluation program designed totest the quality of environmental radiologicalmeasurements and provides DOE withc o m p l e x - w i d e c o m p a r a b i l i t y o fenvironmental radiological analysis. Underthis program, four matrices of variousradionuclides are distributed semi-annuallyto DOE-subcontracted laboratories foranalysis, with the labs required to analyzeonly the parameters for which they analyzeunder contract.

In 2001, BWX and the RadCon labparticipated in the EML’s QAP forradionuclides. Two sets of results for BWXand two for the RadCon lab under the QAPwere available. The results, for theparameters analyzed by Jefferson Lab andthose analyzed by BWX that are applicable atJefferson Lab, are provided as Exhibits 8-1and 8-2. Note that only selected results arepresented in these exhibits. Results indicatedas warnings mean they are near the limits ofacceptability. BWX’s overall results for QAP54 were 96% acceptable and 4% warning.Results for the water program, which is ofgreatest importance for Jefferson Lab, were100% acceptable. Overall results on QAP 55were 100% acceptable for BWX, with RadConlab results at 91% acceptable and 9%warning.

BWX participated in a QA program foranalysis of samples under the MAPEP.Performance results for MAPEP-01-S8 andMAPEP-01-W9 were received. Results forradionuclides of interest to Jefferson Lab areshown in Exhibit 8-3. The selected results forboth were 100% acceptable.

Other QA ActivitiesBWX also participates in a RadCon Groupdirected crosscheck program for selectedradionuclides that includes duplicates andspiked samples provided at various times inthe year. In all circumstances, the resultswere satisfactory in all appropriate testingcategories.

In conjunction with VPDES and HRSDpermit-related sampling activities, theRadCon lab runs parallel analyses onselected groundwater monitoring samplesand HRSD quarterly composite samples as aQA verification.

8.2.2 Other ProgramsUniversal Labs, as part of its credentialingprogram, participates in two QA programs toensure a high level of testing accuracy.During CY 2001, they received blind samplesand conducted analyses on the samples.Exhibits 8-4 and 8-5 show the results for theparameters of interest to Jefferson Lab.Exhibit 8-4 reports information from WP-065as conducted under the protocol of an NSILaboratory Proficiency Testing Program.Exhibit 8-5 presents the information obtainedunder ERA Supply Proficiency TestingStudy WP-85.

All testing protocols were done inaccordance with EPA guidelines. Test resultsthat were outside of acceptable standardswere addressed by Universal Labs todetermine what went wrong, and how tomake improvements for the future. RadConGroup staff review the test results to ensureUniversal Labs is maintaining its ability toprovide quality services.

Page 60: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

55 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit 8-1Quality Assurance Program (QAP 54)

Selected Results for 2001Reported EML Known

Matrix AnalyteValue(Bq/l) Error

Value(Bq/l) Error

RatioRep/EML Result

Water Gross Alpha 1970.000 50.000 1900.000 190.000 1.037 Accept(BWX) Gross Beta 1310.000 20.000 1297.000 100.000 1.010 Accept

H-3 98.500 19.400 79.300 2.000 1.242 AcceptCo-60 94.700 6.300 98.200 3.600 0.964 AcceptCs-137 68.100 2.200 73.000 3.700 0.933 Accept

Water Co-60 102.500 3.000 98.200 3.600 1.044 Accept(JLab) Co-60 102.530 3.500 98.200 3.600 1.044 Accept

Co-60 104.970 3.000 98.200 3.600 1.069 AcceptCs-137 76.170 3.800 73.000 3.700 1.043 AcceptCs-137 77.660 3.200 73.000 3.700 1.064 AcceptCs-137 75.880 3.100 73.000 3.700 1.039 Accept

Matrix AnalyteValue

(Bq/filter) ErrorValue

(Bq/filter) ErrorRatio

Rep/EML ResultAir Co-60 20.440 0.680 19.440 0.500 1.051 Accept(JLab) Co-60 20.500 0.670 19.440 0.500 1.055 Accept

Co-60 20.000 0.660 19.440 0.500 1.029 AcceptCs-134 2.190 0.210 2.830 0.160 0.774 WarningCs-134 2.850 0.240 2.830 0.160 1.007 AcceptCs-134 2.720 0.170 2.830 0.160 0.961 AcceptCs-137 9.470 0.480 8.760 0.340 1.081 AcceptCs-137 9.160 0.500 8.760 0.340 1.046 AcceptCs-137 9.260 0.520 8.760 0.340 1.057 AcceptMn-54 7.250 0.570 6.520 0.280 1.112 Accept

Mn-54 7.100 0.540 6.520 0.280 1.089 Accept

Mn-54 6.720 0.520 6.520 0.280 1.031 Accept

BWX: BWX Technologies, Inc.; JLab: Jefferson LabOnly selected results that had some relevance to Jefferson Lab operations are provided in this Exhibit.

Page 61: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 56

Exhibit 8-2Quality Assurance Program (QAP 55)

Selected Results for 2001Reported EML Known

Matrix AnalyteValue(Bq/l) Error

Value(Bq/l) Error

RatioRep/EML Result

Water Gross Alpha 1210.000 40.000 1150.000 115.000 1.052 Accept

(BWX) Gross Beta 6790.000 70.000 7970.000 800.000 0.852 AcceptH-3 233.000 20.000 207.000 2.690 1.126 Accept

Co-60 212.000 10.000 209.000 7.590 1.014 AcceptCs-137 44.800 1.700 45.133 2.467 0.993 Accept

Water Co-60 205.000 6.000 209.000 7.590 0.981 Accept(JLab) Co-60 207.000 6.000 209.000 7.590 0.990 Accept

Co-60 210.000 5.000 209.000 7.590 1.005 AcceptCs-137 47.500 3.000 45.133 2.467 1.052 AcceptCs-137 47.400 2.000 45.133 2.467 1.050 AcceptCs-137 47.700 3.000 45.133 2.467 1.057 Accept

Matrix AnalyteValue(Bq/l) Error

Value(Bq/l) Error

RatioRep/EML Result

Air Co-60 18.500 0.800 17.500 0.470 1.057 Accept(JLab) Co-60 20.300 0.800 17.500 0.470 1.160 Warning

Co-60 19.000 0.600 17.500 0.470 1.086 AcceptCs-134 11.700 0.600 12.950 0.362 0.903 AcceptCs-134 12.500 0.600 12.950 0.362 0.965 AcceptCs-134 13.000 0.500 12.950 0.362 1.004 AcceptCs-137 20.000 0.900 17.100 0.580 1.170 WarningCs-137 19.300 1.000 17.100 0.580 1.129 AcceptCs-137 18.700 1.000 17.100 0.580 1.094 AcceptMn-54 94.000 3.300 81.150 4.760 1.158 Accept

Mn-54 92.100 3.500 81.150 4.760 1.135 Accept

Mn-54 90.900 3.500 81.150 4.760 1.120 Accept

BWX: BWX Technologies, Inc.; JLab: Jefferson LabOnly selected results that had some relevance to Jefferson Lab operations are provided in this Exhibit.

Page 62: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

57 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

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

Sample ID: MAPEP-01-S8(BWX)

Parameter* Reported ValueReference

Value (Bq/kg) Result Bias (%)Acceptance

Range (Bq/kg)Co-57 101 103 A -1.9 72.10 - 133.90Co-60 1390 1270 A 9.4 889.00 - 1651.00Cs-134 84.4 91.7 A -7.4 63.77 – 118.43Cs-137 1230 1240 A -0.8 868.00 - 1612.00

Manganese-54 215 203 A 5.9 142.10 - 263.90

Sample ID: MAPEP-01-W9

(BWX)

Parameter* Reported ValueReference

Value (Bq/l) Result Bias (%)Acceptance

Range (Bq/l)Co-57 142 143 A -0.7 100.10 - 185.90Co-60 150 141 A 6.4 98.70 – 183.30Cs-134 23.9 28.5 A -16.1 19.95 – 37.05Cs-137 271 286 A -5.2 200.20 - 371.80

Manganese-54 258 246 A 4.9 172.20 – 319.80

Notes: A: result acceptable (Bias ≤ 20%) -A, +A: mean result acceptable (10% < bias ≤ 20%) W, +W: result acceptable with warning (20% < bias ≤ 30%) +N, -N: result not acceptable (bias >30%)

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

Page 63: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 58

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

NSI Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program Study WP-065Sample

Category Parameter UnitsReported

ValueTrue

ValueAcceptance

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

Cadmium µg/L 450.0 455 388 - 517 AcceptableCadmium µg/L 480.0 455 388 - 517 AcceptableChromium µg/L 565.0 589 513 - 666 Acceptable

Copper µg/L 508.0 509 462 - 559 AcceptableLead µg/L 1420.0 1439 1265 - 1606 Acceptable

Manganese µg/L 992.0 1014 911 - 1127 AcceptableNickel µg/L 1724.0 1744 1584 - 1945 AcceptableZinc µg/L 5607.0 537 474 - 606 Not Acceptable

pH pH (1) - 9.23 9.30 9.01 - 9.58 AcceptablepH pH (2) - 9.23 9.30 9.01 - 9.58 Acceptable

Mercury Mercury µg/L 12.7 14.1 10.6 - 17.6 Acceptable

Minerals SpecificConductance (at

25°C)

µmhos/cm 680.0 656 592 - 721 Acceptable

Total Hardnessas CaCO3

mg/L 166.0 174 158 - 190 Acceptable

Calcium mg/L 39.7 37.8 33.6 - 43.0 Acceptable

ResidualChlorine

Total ResidualChlorine

mg/L 0.58 0.581 0.363 - 0.799 Acceptable

Residue Non-filterableResidual TSS

mg/L 92.0 94.0 73.1 - 102 Acceptable

FilterableResidual TDS

mg/L 406.0 405 347 - 463 Acceptable

TS mg/L 493.0 495 440 - 551 Acceptable

Demand COD mg/L 103.0 101 75.0 - 118 AcceptableTOC mg/L 37.9 40.0 33.4 - 46.2 Acceptable

Note: Only selected results that had some relevance to Jefferson Lab operations are provided in this Exhibit.µg/L: micrograms per literµmhos/cm: micromhos per centimeterCOD: Chemical Oxygen DemandTOC: Total Organic CarbonTSS: Total Suspended SolidsTDS Total Dissolved SolidsTS: Total Solids

Page 64: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

59 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit 8-5Selected Results from Universal Laboratories Performance Evaluation Reports

ERA Supply Proficiency Testing Study WP-85Sample

Category Parameter UnitsReported

ValueTrue

ValueAcceptance

Limits Results

Trace Metals Aluminum µg/L 404 383 316 - 451 AcceptableBeryllium µg/L 16.2 16.3 12.5 - 18.6 AcceptableCadmium µg/L 54.4 50.2 42.0 - 58.3 AcceptableChromium µg/L 93.8 87.2 73.7 - 100 Acceptable

Copper µg/L 118 118 104 - 132 AcceptableLead µg/L 152 153 128 - 178 Acceptable

Manganese µg/L 219 213 190 - 237 AcceptableNickel µg/L 238 237 208 - 268 AcceptableSilver µg/L 45.6 44.7 37.7 - 51.5 AcceptableZinc µg/L 155.9 144 124 - 166 Acceptable

pH pH S.U. 6.99 6.90 6.72 - 7.08 AcceptableMercury Mercury µg/L 8.5 7.73 5.73 - 9.70 Acceptable

Minerals Conductivity at25°C

µmhos/cm 429.1 420 387 - 453 Acceptable

TDS mg/L 360 355 269 - 441 Acceptable

Ca Hardness asCaCO3

mg/L 122.22 94.3 77.5 - 115 Not Acceptable

TS mg/L 372 376 332 - 414 AcceptableHardness TSS mg/L 49 49.1 37.0 - 52.6 Acceptable

Calcium mg/L 38.72 37.7 33.5 - 42.9 Acceptable

ResidualChlorine

Total ResidualChlorine

mg/L 1.6 1.94 1.57 - 2.31 Check for Error

Demand COD mg/L 57 60.3 42.0 - 73.7 AcceptableTOC mg/L 24.28 23.8 19.8 - 27.7 Acceptable

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

Page 65: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 60

SECTION 9REFERENCES

Industrial Wastewater Discharge RegulationsHampton Roads Sanitation DistrictJuly 1, 1999 revision.

U.S. Department of EnergyAir Emissions Summary ReportContinuous Electron Beam Accelerator FacilityJuly 14, 1995.

U.S. Department of EnergyHydrogeologic ReviewContinuous Electron Beam Accelerator FacilitySeptember 1995.

U.S. Department of EnergySpill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure PlanThomas Jefferson National Accelerator FacilityDecember 2001 revision.

U.S. Department of EnergyEnvironmental Assessment DOE/EA-0257Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator FacilityNewport News, VAJanuary 1987.

U.S. Department of EnergyEnvironmental Assessment DOE/EA-1204Change in Operating Parameters of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility and the Free

Electron LaserThomas Jefferson National Accelerator FacilityNewport News, VAOctober 1997.

U.S. Department of EnergyEnvironmental Assessment DOE/EA-1384 (under preparation)Proposed Improvements at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator FacilityNewport News, VA

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control HandbookVirginia Department of Conservation and RecreationDivision of Soil and Water Conservation1992.

Page 66: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

61 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

SECTION 10DISTRIBUTION LIST

INTERNALDr. Christoph W. Leemann, DirectorMr. Rocco Schiavilla, Acting Theory Group LeaderDr. Lawrence Cardman, Associate Director, Physics DivisionDr. James J. Murphy, Director, Office of Technical PerformanceDr. Swapan Chattopadhyay, Associate Director, Accelerator DivisionDr. Roy R. Whitney, Associate Director, Administration DivisionDr. Frederick H. Dylla, Technology Transfer Manager, FEL Program ManagerDr. Dennis M. Skopik, Deputy Associate Director, Physics Division EH&S Officer, Physics DivisionDr. Andrew M. Hutton, Director of Operations, Accelerator Division, and Facility ManagerDr. Charles E. Reece, EH&S Officer, Accelerator DivisionRhonda M. Scales, Esq., Assistant General CounselMs. Linda L. Even, Environmental Engineer, EH&S Reporting OfficerMr. Carter B. Ficklen, EH&S Reporting ManagerMr. John J. Kelly, Administration Division EH&S OfficerMr. Robert T. May, Manager, Radiation Control Group, and EH&S DeputyMr. Scott O. Schwahn, Deputy Head, Radiation Control GroupMs. Sandra L. Prior, EH&S Tracking, Trending, and Training Group Leader, Accelerator Division

EXTERNALThe Honorable John W. WarnerThe Honorable Jo Ann S. DavisThe Honorable George AllenThe Honorable Robert C. ScottThe Honorable Phillip A. HamiltonThe Honorable Mary T. ChristianThe Honorable Terry G. KilgoreThe Honorable Flora Davis CrittendenThe Honorable G. Glenn OderThe Honorable Thomas D. Gear, Jr.The Honorable Edward L. SchrockMayor Joe S. Frank, City of Newport NewsMayor Mamie E. Locke, Ph.D., City of HamptonMr. Donald E. Wiggins, Chairperson, York County Board of SupervisorsMs. Rhondra J. Matthews, President/Publisher, and CEO, Daily Press, Inc.Mr. Delma R. Carpenter, President/Publisher, The Virginian-PilotMr. Robert T. Moore, Industrial Waste Manager, Hampton Roads Sanitation DistrictMr. Ronald E. Johnson, Chief, Industrial Waste Division, Hampton Roads Sanitation DistrictDr. Jerry P. Draayer, President, Southeastern Universities Research Association, Inc.Mr. Jerry M. Conley, Site Manager, Jefferson LabMr. John W. Anderson, Department Head for ES&H Infrastructure Support, Princeton

Plasma Physics LaboratoryMr. Leslie P. Foldesi, Director, Virginia Department of Health, Radiological Health ProgramMr. Leonard Huesties, Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryDr. Kenneth R. Kase, Associate Director, ES&H, Stanford Linear Accelerator CenterDr. Timothy M. Miller, Associate Section Head, ES&H Section, Fermi National Accelerator LaboratoryMr. Robert Goode, Virginia Department of Environmental QualityMr. W. Taylor Murphy, Jr., Office of the Secretary of Natural Resources

Page 67: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 62

APPENDIX

Page 68: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

63 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Section AApplicable Site Standards

Standards in the Work Smart Standards (WSS) SetThe DOE uses the WSS Process to identify EP (environmental protection), health and safety hazards,and the standards describing mitigation measures. Through this process, the particular hazardsassociated with the Lab were identified, along with the corresponding laws, regulations, and otherstandards necessary and sufficient to protect the worker, the public, and the environment against theidentified hazards. This summary of applicable environment, health, and safety requirements forJefferson Lab is the WSS Set. The WSS Set was recently amended in March 2002.

The applicable EP and public health-related standards, including the four site operating permits, arelisted in Exhibits A1, A2, A3, and A4. Various Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)-relatedstandards are included in the WSS Set, but since these contain minimal EP controls, compliance withOSHA was not singled out in this report. Compliance with each of the listed standards, by category, ispresented in the parts of Section 3 referenced in the exhibits.

Administrative Laws and Regulations (AL&R) ListThe AL&R List was developed along with the WSS Set and identifies EH&S implementation standardsand requirements that are of an administrative nature and not directly related to hazards. Together,the WSS Set and the AL&R List contain almost all of Jefferson Lab’s EH&S requirements. The EP andpublic health-related AL&R documents are not specifically listed here, but include someU.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) hazardous material regulations and a section of the U.S.Code dealing with generators of hazardous waste. AL&R items are not specifically listed below but areincluded in the appropriate topical discussions in the SER.

Exhibit A1Federal Laws and Regulations Included in the WSS Set

SER References Citations Titles

LAWS (by subject)3.5 Asbestos 15 U.S.C. § 2641 et seq. Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of

1986 (training)3.6 Water 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean

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

(referenced in 10 CFR 835)

3.7 Public Health 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq. Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended3.5 Air 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. Clean Air Act and Amendments3.9.5 Emergency Response 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. CERCLA3.9.5 Emergency Planning 42 U.S.C. § 11001-11050 SARA Title III EPCRA3.3&3.9.5

Pollution Preventionand Waste

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

Page 69: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 64

Exhibit A1 (Continued)Federal Laws and Regulations Included in the WSS Set

SER References Citations Titles

REGULATIONSTitle 40 - Protection ofEnvironment

3.4.13.4.1

Parts 71, 834, and 835Part 10

3.5 Subchapter C Various Air Programs3.6 Subchapter D Various Water Programs3.3 Subchapter I Various Waste Programs including RCRA3.9 Subchapter J Various Superfund, EPCRA Programs3.6.2 Subchapter N Part 4033.5 Subchapter R Part 763

Title 49 - Transportation3.8.4 Transportation Subchapter C Various Hazardous Materials Regulations

DOE GUIDANCE3.10.3 O 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Environment,

Chapter II and IV

EXECUTIVE ORDERS (EOs)3.9.3 13101 Greening the Government Through Waste

Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition3.9.4 13123 Greening the Government Through Efficient Energy

Management3.9.5 13148 Greening the Government Through Leadership in

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

Exhibit A2Permits, State Laws and Regulations Included in the WSS Set

SERReferences Citations Standard

LAWS3.3.1 Title 10.1 - Conservation Chapter 14, Virginia Waste

Management Act3.6 Title 62.1 - Waters of the

State, Ports and HarborsChapter 3.1, State Water Control Law

PERMITS Issued Effective3.6.1.2 DEQ No. VA0089320 VPDES Permit - Specifies allowable

groundwater and surface water qualityon-site during accelerator operations.Assures groundwater unaffected at andbeyond site boundary.

7/16/96 Through7/16/2006

Page 70: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

65 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit A2 (Continued)Permits, State Laws and Regulations Included in the WSS Set

SERReferences Citations Standard

PERMITS Issued Effective3.6.1.2 DEQ No. VAG253002 General Permit for Cooling Water

Discharges - Authorizes cooling waterdischarges within identified dischargelimitations.

[applicable9/99]

Through3/1/2003

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

10/87 3/1/20023/1/2007

3.6.2.2 DEQ No. GW0030800 Permit to Withdraw Groundwater -Authorizes maximum quantities ofwater to be withdrawn by dewateringof area under experimental halls.

11/1/94 Through10/30/2004

3.3.2 4727-45-01 South Carolina Radioactive WasteTransport Permit – Authorization totransport LLW within the state

9/14/2001 Through12/31/2001

REGULATIONS3.5 9 - VAC (Environment) Chapter 5, Air Quality

3.3 9 - VAC (Environment) Chapter 20, Waste Regulations3.6 9 - VAC (Environment) Chapter 25, Water Quality3.6.2 none HRSD Industrial Wastewater Discharge RegulationsNote: See referenced SER sections for full titles of noted laws or permits.

Exhibit A3Other Standards Identified in the WSS Set

Category/SER References Citations Standard

REGULATIONS3.8.4 49 CFR 177 Hazardous Materials Regulations

DOE GUIDANCE3.10.3 O 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Environment, Sections 1a and 1b

VIRGINIA PLAN3.9 Virginia Emergency Management Operations Plan

EH&S MANUAL1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8,3.9, 4.2, & 8

Assorted Chaptersand Appendicesreferenced within.

Manual sections include topics on: ionizing radiationprotection, asbestos, emergency planning, air and waterquality, oil spill prevention, waste minimization, recyclingand waste management practices.

Page 71: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 66

Exhibit A4Transportation-Related Standards

SER Section Transportation-related Information Applicable Standards3.6.2.3 SPCC Plan: oil and oil-product issues 40 CFR 1123.4.1 Radiation Protection: packaging and transport of

radiological materials10 CFR 71

3.9.5.1 Emergency Response: response actions in the eventof a transportation emergency that includereporting and notification requirements

CERCLA/SARAVA Emergency Management OperationsPlan

3.9 Emergency Response: response actions in the eventof a transportation emergency

EH&S Manual Standards: Appendix 3510-T3 and Chapter 6732

3.3.1 Hazardous Waste: on-site movement andpreparation for offsite shipment

EH&S Manual Standard: Chapter 6761

Section BSite Usage Information

Exhibit B1Control Chemicals and Products Approved for Use in 2001

Pest ControlHerbicides/Landscape

MaintenanceContrac Damoil

Demand CS Diazinon 4EDicofol 4EC Dicofol 4ECDursban Pro Dimension

Flyteck DiometomInsect Guard Fore Tree & Ornamental Fungicide

MaxForce Bait Fusilade IIMosquito Dunks Merit

Precor 1% MSMA Target 6.6PT 270 Dursban Roundup

PT 515 Wasp-Freeze Super TrimecQuintox Rat & Mouse Bait

Termite ControlCyrene TC

Page 72: JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT For …Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year (CY) 2001. The report provides the U.S. Department

67 2001 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

Exhibit B2Source Registration Update for Calendar Year 2001

Ref. No. Equipment

Annual Fuel ProcessRate (Million Cu. Ft.

Burned)Process Volume

% Annual ThroughputJ-M A-J J-S O-D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Process: Natural Gas (under 10 MMBTU / Hr)Heat Content: 1050 MMBTU / Cu. Ft.Annual Schedule: 24 hrs / day, 7 day / wk, 52 wks / yr