jefferson lab site environmental report for calendar … · s w d a solid waste disposal act t d s...

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

JEFFERSON LABSITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

For Calendar Year 2000

Prepared by:SURA/Jefferson LabOffice of Technical PerformanceEH&S ReportingSeptember 2001

2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Acronym List .......................................................................................................................................................... iii

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

SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 52.1 General ............................................................................................................................................. 52.2 Laboratory Mission ........................................................................................................................ 52.3 Environmental Review.................................................................................................................. 52.4 Site Location .................................................................................................................................... 62.5 Site History and Description ........................................................................................................ 62.6 Site Environment, Health, & Safety Resources ......................................................................... 9

SECTION 3 2000 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 93.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 93.2 List of Environmental Protection and Public Health Standards............................................ 93.3 Compliance Status - Asbestos and PCB Standards .............................................................. 123.4 Compliance Status - Water Quality Standards...................................................................... 133.5 Compliance Status - Radiological Protection Standards ..................................................... 153.6 Compliance Status - Public Health Standards....................................................................... 163.7 Compliance Status - Air Quality Standards........................................................................... 173.8 Compliance Status - Emergency Response Standards......................................................... 203.9 Compliance Status - Emergency Planning Standards.......................................................... 203.10 Compliance Status - Pollution Prevention Standards.......................................................... 223.11 Compliance Status - Waste Management Standards ........................................................... 233.12 Compliance Status - Transportation Standards .................................................................... 253.13 Compliance Status - Environmental Protection Standards................................................. 263.14 Compliance Status - AL&R List ............................................................................................... 263.15 Compliance Status - Other Obligations Identified in the Contract ................................... 27

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM INFORMATION............................ 294.1 Overview of the Environmental Monitoring Program............................................................ 294.2 Appraisals, Assessments, and Inspections ................................................................................ 304.3 Environmental Permits.................................................................................................................. 314.4 2000 NEPA Activity ....................................................................................................................... 314.5 Summary of Significant Environmental Activities at Jefferson Lab ..................................... 31

SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM INFORMATION .................. 335.1 Environmental Radiation Monitoring ........................................................................................ 345.2 Direct, Airborne, and Waterborne Radioactivity ..................................................................... 345.3 Monitoring for Exposure to Accelerator-Produced Direct Radiation................................... 405.4 Assessments of Potential Radiation Dose to the Public and to Biota ................................... 415.5 Other Support Activities ............................................................................................................... 41

SECTION 6 ENVIRONMENTAL NON-RADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM INFORMATION .......... 436.1 Water Programs .......... ................................................................................................................... 436.2 Conventional Air Emissions......................................................................................................... 466.3 Herbicides and Pesticides ............................................................................................................. 466.4 Hazardous Wastes.......................................................................................................................... 466.5 Environmental Occurrences ......................................................................................................... 466.6 SARA Title III Reporting Requirements..................................................................................... 476.7 Safety................................................................................................................................................. 47

(Continued)

ii 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

(Continued)

SECTION 7 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION ........................................................................................ 487.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 487.2 Hydrogeology Issues ..................................................................................................................... 487.3 Groundwater Protection Program Summary............................................................................ 507.4 Groundwater Monitoring Review............................................................................................... 52

SECTION 8 QUALITY ASSURANCE.......................................................................................................... 538.1 Quality Assurance in Sampling Procedures.............................................................................. 538.2 Quality Assurance in Analysis..................................................................................................... 53

SECTION 9 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 61

SECTION 10 DISTRIBUTION LIST .............................................................................................................. 62

EXHIBITSExhibit 2-1 Jefferson Lab Vicinity Plan .......................................................................................... 7Exhibit 2-2 Site Plan........................................................................................................................... 8Exhibit 3-1 Federal Laws and Regulations Included in the WSS Set........................................ 10Exhibit 3-2 Permits, State Laws and Regulations Included in the WSS Set ............................ 11Exhibit 3-3 Other Standards Identified in the WSS Set ............................................................... 12Exhibit 3-4 Source Registration Update For Calendar Year 2000.............................................. 19Exhibit 3-5 Transportation-Related Standards Discussed Elsewhere in SER ......................... 26Exhibit 3-6 Related Performance Measure Results ...................................................................... 28Exhibit 4-1 Quantities of Items Recycled or Reused in FY 2000................................................ 33Exhibit 5-1 Nuclide Effective Dose Equivalent Summary.......................................................... 35Exhibit 5-2 Monitoring Well Locations .......................................................................................... 37Exhibit 5-3 VPDES Permit Levels for Radionuclides .................................................................. 38Exhibit 5-4 Maximum Groundwater Measurements for Radionuclides ................................. 38Exhibit 5-5 Analytical Results for Discharges to HRSD in 2000................................................ 40Exhibit 5-6 Boundary Monitor Locations ...................................................................................... 42Exhibit 5-7 Radiation Boundary Monitor RBM-3 Results for 2000 ........................................... 42Exhibit 6-1 2000 Permit-Related Non-Radiological Monitoring Results ................................. 43Exhibit 6-2 2000 Cooling Water Discharge Results...................................................................... 44Exhibit 6-3 Control Chemicals and Products Approved for Use in 2000 ................................ 47Exhibit 6-4 Chemicals Reported for 2000....................................................................................... 48Exhibit 7-1 Groundwater Sampling Parameters .......................................................................... 50Exhibit 8-1 Quality Assurance Program (QAP) Selected Results for 2000 .............................. 56Exhibit 8-2 Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP)................................ 57Exhibit 8-3 Selected Results from Universal Laboratories Performance Evaluation

Reports – ERA WatRTM Supply Proficiency Testing Study WS-43 ................ 57Exhibit 8-4 Selected Results from Universal Laboratories Performance Evaluation

Reports – NSI Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program StudyWS-00-4..................................................................................................................... 58

Exhibit 8-5 Selected Results from Universal Laboratories Performance EvaluationReports – NSI Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program StudyWP-00-5 .................................................................................................................... 59

Exhibit 8-6 Selected Results from Universal Laboratories Performance EvaluationReports – NSI Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program StudyWP-00-7 .................................................................................................................... 60

2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report iii

ACRONYMS ACRONYM LISTA C M Asbestos-containing materialA L & R Administrative Laws and RegulationsA P Affirmative ProcurementA R C Applied Research CenterC A A Clean Air ActC A A A Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990C E B A F Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator FacilityC E R C L A Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980C F C ChlorofluorocarbonC F R Code of Federal RegulationsC i CurieC W A Clean Water ActC X Categorical ExclusionC Y Calendar YearD E Q (Virginia) Department of Environmental QualityD O D U.S. Department of DefenseD O E U.S. Department of EnergyD O T U.S. Department of TransportationE A Environmental AssessmentE H M Environmentally Harmful MaterialE H S Extremely Hazardous SubstanceE H & S Environment, Health, and SafetyE M L Environmental Measurements LaboratoryE O Executive Order of the President of the United StatesE P A Environmental Protection AgencyE P C R A Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986E P G s Emergency planning and response groupsE S A Endangered Species ActE S & H Environment, Safety, and HealthF D S Floor drain sumpF E L Free Electron LaserF I F R A Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide ActF O N S I Finding of No Significant ImpactF Y Fiscal YearG e V Giga-electron VoltsG S A General Services AdministrationH R S D Hampton Roads Sanitation DistrictH S Hazardous SubstanceH W C Hazardous Waste CoordinatorI A Independent AssessmentI R InfraredI S M Integrated Safety ManagementI W D R Industrial Wastewater Discharge Regulationsk g KilogramL S A Line Self-AssessmentM A P E P Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation ProgramM c D e r m o t t McDermott Technologiesm g / l Milligrams per literM G D Million gallons/daym r e m Millirem

(Continued)

iv 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

(Continued)

ACRONYMS ACRONYM LISTM S D S Material Safety Data SheetM S L Mean Sea Levelm S v MillisievertN A A Q S National Ambient Air Quality StandardsN A S A National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationN C P National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency PlanN E L A C National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation ConferenceN E P A National Environmental Policy ActN E S H A P s National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air PollutantsN H P A National Historic Preservation ActO D S Ozone-Depleting SubstanceO R O Oak Ridge Operations – (DOE)O S H A Occupational Safety and Health ActP 2 Pollution PreventionP A A A Price-Anderson Amendments ActP C B Polychlorinated biphenylp C i / l Picocuries per literP P A Pollution Prevention ActQ A Quality AssuranceQ A P Quality Assessment ProgramQ C Quality ControlR A D C O N Radiological ControlR B M Radiation boundary monitorR C G Radiation Control GroupR C R A Resource Conservation and Recovery ActR Q Reportable QuantityS A / Q A Self-Assessment/Quality AssuranceS A R A Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization ActS D W A Safe Drinking Water ActS E R Site Environmental ReportS N S Spallation Neutron SourceS P C C Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (Plan)S Q G Small Quantity GeneratorS R F Superconducting RadiofrequencyS U R A Southeastern Universities Research Association, Inc.S W D A Solid Waste Disposal ActT D S Total Dissolved SolidsT O C Total Organic CarbonT P Q Threshold Planning QuantityT R I Toxic Release InventoryT S C A Toxic Substances Control ActT S S Total Suspended SolidsU V UltravioletUniversal Labs Universal Laboratories, Inc.V A C Virginia Administrative CodeV P A Virginia Pollution Abatement (Permit)V P D E S Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Permit)W M i n / P 2 Waste Minimization/Pollution PreventionW S S Work Smart Standards

2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report 1

JEFFERSON LAB SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTFOR CALENDAR YEAR 2000

SECTION 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYPurpose

This report presents the results of environmental activities and monitoring programs at theThomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, known as Jefferson Lab, for calendar year(CY) 2000. The report provides the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public withinformation on radioactive and non-radioactive pollutants, if any, added to the environment asa result of Jefferson Lab operations. The report also summarizes environmental programs,initiatives, and assessments that were undertaken in 2000. The objective of the SiteEnvironmental Report (SER) is to document Jefferson Lab’s active environmental protectionprogram that protects the environment and public health.

Jefferson Lab’s main purpose is to make available a research facility to support the nuclearphysics community and the nation. The Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility(CEBAF) provides an electron beam to three experimental halls where a variety of physicsexperiments are conducted. Correlative programs where environmental protection isconsidered are: the Free Electron Laser (FEL); Superconducting Radio-Frequency research anddevelopment; and cryomodule development for the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) project.

Major Site Programs

CEBAF: During 2000, progress was made to upgrade CEBAF to 6 GeV (Giga-electron Volts).The accelerator continued to deliver electron beams at energies close to 6 GeV to meet thevariety of needs of the experimenters in Halls A, B, and C. The CEBAF accelerator, originallydesigned to provide 4 GeV continuous wave electron beams, reached 6.07 GeV at109 microamperes during test runs in August.

Jefferson Lab has completed 32 experiments and partially completed another 47 between facilitycommissioning and the end of CY 2000. One of the major experiments in Hall C, known as Gen(that means the charge form factor of the neutron), is using a new kind of detector called a“neutron polarimeter”. A large Hall A collaboration, involving researchers from all over theworld, investigated electro-disintegration at high momentum transfer using the electron beamto interact with the atomic nucleus of a gaseous isotope of helium known as helium-3.

Superconducting Radio-Frequency (SRF) Technology: SRF research and development wereenhanced in 2000 to better support the existing accelerators. Improvements were made to theoriginal CEBAF cryomodule design to support current 6 GeV and future 8 GeV and 12 GeVoperations. Also, SRF improvements and applications to meet SNS needs were underway.

FEL: The Lab’s FEL is in its fourth year of activity. It is a kilowatt level light source withoutput in both the infrared (IR) and ultraviolet (UV) wavelength domains. It supports basicscience research and serves universities, private industry, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force.

2 2000 Jefferson Lab Site Environmental Report

During 2000, the FEL experiments included: energy flow within proteins, production ofcoatings and thin films for electronics and microcomponents, and production of carbonnanotubes. CY 2000 also marked the beginning of a two-year FEL 10 kilowatt upgrade projectto add two new cryomodules to the FEL accelerator, a new injector to double the quantity ofbeam produced, and a new “wiggler” magnet to help improve operational capabilities.

SNS: The SNS project is a partnership involving six DOE national research centers, JeffersonLab, Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge, to design andconstruct what will be the most powerful spallation source in the world in Oak Ridge,Tennessee. The SNS will provide intense pulsed-neutron beams for scientific research andindustrial development. Jefferson Lab’s contribution is to develop and build the cryomodulesand to design the cryogenic support facilities for the project. Many SNS milestones werereached in 2000.

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

Organization and Management: Ultimate responsibility for protection of the environment andthe public health rests with the Lab Director, while line management implements the goalswithin their areas of responsibility. EH&S staff provide support to their line management andshare their expertise with the 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 andin the nuclear physics research program.

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

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

Inspections and Appraisals: The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and theHampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) performed inspections in 2000. There were noconcerns or violations identified. The remaining deficiencies from three previous DOE externalappraisals were closed in 2000. The DOE Site Office’s Overlay Report included an“outstanding” rating for SURA in the EH&S category. These are discussed further in Section 4.

Implementation of 10 CFR 835: This DOE Code of Federal Regulations 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 isrevised as identified by the responsible line management. This is addressed in Section 3.

Implementation of NEPA: Most facility additions and modifications are subject to reviewunder the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The initial Jefferson Lab constructionand an upgrade to CEBAF were addressed in the 1987 and 1997 Environmental Assessments(EAs). Routine activities are covered under site-specific Categorical Exclusions (CXs). Newactivities in 2000 received NEPA CX authorizations, including two that covered radioactive


waste management and an addition to the Test Lab to support SNS activities. NEPA isdiscussed further in Section 3.

Environmental Management System Implementation: This is the subject of the 6700 series ofchapters in the Jefferson Lab EH&S Manual. Chapter 6710, Environmental Protection Program, isbeing upgraded to clarify management roles regarding the protection of the environment andpublic health.

Summary of Environmental Results in 2000

ComplianceJefferson Lab complied with applicable Federal, State, and local environmental laws,regulations, and DOE guidance during 2000. As a consequence, Jefferson Lab operations hadno discernable impact on public health or the environment. Radiation-related issues, especiallythose dealing with water resources and public health, are highlighted in this report.

The Jefferson Lab EH&S Manual, which addresses many environmental topics, was updatedand improved to ensure that new compliance initiatives were incorporated in 2000.

Radiological MonitoringWater: Radiation measurements are made at the groundwater dewatering sump andgroundwater monitoring wells located near the accelerator and the experimental halls.Sampling intervals vary from quarterly to annually. There were no readings above backgroundin 2000. No analyte, except gross beta, was detected above the permit-required sensitivitylevels. The gross beta was detected at normal background levels. Therefore, there were noaccelerator-produced radionuclides detected in our groundwater.

Radioactive water is generated in the accelerator complex and a small quantity is dischargedunder permit to the sanitary sewer system. Sampling results are reported monthly andquarterly. Sampling is routinely performed prior to any discharge to ensure permit limits aremaintained.

Airborne: Radiological airborne emissions at the site boundary are addressed under theEnvironmental Protection Agency‘s (EPA’s) National Emission Standard for Hazardous AirPollutants (NESHAPs) requirements. Jefferson Lab is below emission levels that triggermonitoring or reporting, but continuous measurements are made to verify emissioncalculations. Though not required, CY 2000 values were reported to the EPA. One resultreported to the EPA for 2000 was that the total maximum offsite dose from radiological airbornereleases was less than 0.048 mrem/year.

The accelerator site boundary monitors are used to determine offsite direct radiation dose to thepublic due to Jefferson Lab operations. The dose values for 2000 were within Jefferson Lab’sallowable limits. The highest direct radiation level measured was only 3.8% of the DOE annualdose limit of 100 mrem.

Since these doses are well under any regulatory or site administrative limits, there are noimpacts on the public from any of these radiation sources. A complete discussion is provided inSection 5.

Non-radiological MonitoringJefferson Lab’s non-radiological environmental monitoring program also verified compliancewith applicable environmental program requirements. The program includes monthlyindustrial wastewater monitoring, quarterly groundwater sampling at the dewatering sumpand at some of the monitoring wells, and quarterly cooling water discharge sampling.


Items of Interest in 2000Highlights in Jefferson Lab’s 2000 environmental protection and pollution prevention programincluded:• Modified the cavity production process to achieve a 50% reduction in acid use;• Sent 7.4 tons of various outdated computer equipment for recycling;• Maintained a top rating in the Lab’s performance measure that addresses recycling

compared to landfilled waste;• Appointed a Green Acquisition Advocate in the Business Services Department to spearhead

a program to purchase EPA-designated recycled-content products;• Received a “Gold Pretreatment Excellence Award” from the local sanitation district; and• Instituted a new radioactive waste management program.


SECTION 2INTRODUCTION

2.1 GENERAL

This report provides the public with asummary of CY 2000 environmentalprotection and public health items thatc h a r a c t e r i z e t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a lmanagement performance at Jefferson Lab.This report addresses the Lab’s compliancestatus with applicable requirements,standards, and contractual commitments.Information on related assessments,initiatives, and site programs is alsoincluded.

The term “safety” in the ISM programincludes environmental protection andpublic health, as well as worker safety andhealth (all are generally termed EH&S).EH&S responsibilities are incorporated ineach employee’s position description asdescribed in the Jefferson Lab ISM Plan. TheDOE validated the ISM Plan in 1999. Referto Section 4.2 for more information.

2.2 LABORATORY MISSION

Jefferson Lab, formerly known as CEBAF, isa national accelerator facility managed bySURA for the DOE. The acceleratorcomplex portion of the Lab still retains thename CEBAF and includes threeunderground halls that house the physicsprogram experiments. Jefferson Lab’smission statement addresses quality andexcellence in research, communitypartnership, and environment, health, andsafety.

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 electronenergies in the multi-billion electron voltregion. The accelerator is used to studyquark structures and behaviors and theforces governing the clustering ofindividual nucleons in the nuclear medium.

There were improvements in CEBAFoperations in support of the physicsprogram experiments in 2000, includingfurther progress in upgrading CEBAF to6 GeV. Since the Lab began operations,through the end of 2000, researchers hadcompleted 32 major physics programexperiments. In 2000 alone, 12 experimentswere successfully completed, 5 in Hall A,4 in Hall B, and 3 in Hall C. Jefferson Lab’sexpertise in SRF technology is being used todesign and build the cryomodules andrefrigeration system for the DOE’s SNS thatis being built in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Useof the FEL by Jefferson Lab, industrial,Department of Defense (DOD), anduniversity partners also continued in 2000.

Atomic Structure

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

An environmental assessment, termed EA,performed under NEPA, was conductedprior to construction of CEBAF(February 1987), resulting in a Finding ofNo Significant Impact (FONSI). The EAand other NEPA-related documentationhave been reviewed periodically with nosignificant changes noted. A 1997 EA, thatyielded a FONSI, addressed CEBAFupgrades and FEL-related activities. Referto Section 3.15.1 for additional NEPAinformation.


2.4 SITE LOCATION

Jefferson Lab is located in Newport News,Virginia. Newport News is bounded on theeast by York County and the city ofHampton; on the north by James CityCounty and the city of Williamsburg; on thewest by the James River; and on the southby the Hampton Roads waterway. JeffersonLab is located just east of Jefferson Avenue,a main area thoroughfare, and is less thanone mile to the west of Interstate 64. Thesite is just south of Oyster Point Road andjust north of Middle Ground Boulevard.The Jefferson Lab Vicinity Plan is includedas Exhibit 2-1. Two schools, a cemetery,and railroad tracks serving the local railsystem are located within one mile of thesite. Newport News-WilliamsburgInternational Airport is located two miles tothe north. Exhibit 2-2 shows the JeffersonLab site proper.

Jefferson Lab is sited in the northern sectionof Newport News at an average elevation of34 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Thesite elevation ranges from 29 to 35 feetabove MSL, which is above the 100-yearfloodplain level of 13 feet above MSL. TheJefferson Lab site is located in the coastalplain of the lower York-James Peninsula.The site is a part of 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 Aeronauticsand Space Administration (NASA)-LangleyResearch Center.

2.5 SITE HISTORY ANDDESCRIPTION

Prior to Jefferson Lab, there were severalusers of this general area. In 1942 and 1943,the DOD acquired most of the Oyster Pointarea that included all of the land presentlyused by Jefferson Lab. The U.S. Air Forceacquired the land in 1950 and installed aBOMARC missile site on a portion of theland immediately to the east of the JeffersonLab site. The DOD started disposing of the

property after closure of the BOMARCmissile base in 1963. Some land wasconveyed to the Commonwealth ofVirginia, NASA (110 acres), and others. InJanuary 1987, ownership of the 110 acres ofNASA property, including 100 acres ofwooded, undeveloped land, was conveyedto the DOE. An additional 52 acres of landwere transferred to the DOE from varioussources. Therefore, the total DOE-ownedparcel, upon which Jefferson Lab is built, is162 acres.

An adjacent 44 acres, owned by the city ofNewport News, were conveyed to SURA inDecember 1986. A SURA dormitory islocated on a portion of this land, and is usedby guests and visiting experimenters, whoare referred to as users.

Also adjacent to the DOE-owned site is a10.7-acre parcel owned by theCommonwealth of Virginia and leased tothe city of Newport News. The AppliedResearch Center (ARC), located on thisproperty, was completed in 1998. The ARCis used by Jefferson Lab, industry, anduniversities and is the cornerstone of thenewly designated Jefferson Center forResearch and Technology. Other adjacentland owned by the Commonwealth ofVirginia is leased to SURA and the DOE forits use in support of Jefferson Lab.

Sign at Main Entrance to Site


EXHIBIT 2-1


EXHIBIT 2-2


2.6 SITE ENVIRONMENT,HEALTH, & SAFETYRESOURCES

The facility makes available a variety ofEH&S resources to serve the Jefferson Labcommunity. The Lab community includesstaff , Commonwealth employees,subcontractors, visiting experimenters, andstudents of all ages that participate undervarious programs.

Local EH&S resources include: EH&S staffthat support specific line organizations;EH&S program specialists that serve theentire facility in their area of expertise;groups and committees that address lab-wide concerns, develop policy, and resolveselected issues; and the Jefferson Lab EH&SManual, as the primary source ofimplementing procedures for EH&S. TheEH&S Manual is accessible via paper copyat des ignated locat ions or a twww.jlab.org/ehs/manual/EHSbook.html.

Other EH&S resources available to programmanagers at Jefferson Lab include: DOEsubject matter experts, generally throughthe DOE Site Office and the Oak RidgeOperations (ORO) Office; DOE programspecialists that deal with policy issues at alllevels; and colleagues at other DOE facilitiesthat share expertise and lessons learnedfrom their own unique experiences.

These resources were utilized in 2000 tosupport the continued development andimplementation of environmentalprotection and public health-relatedprograms at Jefferson Lab.

SECTION 3

2000 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Compliance with applicable environmentalprotection and public health-related laws

and regulations is an important part ofoperations at Jefferson Lab.

Assurance that on-site processes do notadversely affect the environment isachieved by Jefferson Lab’s self-assessments, routine inspections, andthrough oversight by the DOE Site Officeand outside regulators, including staff fromthe DEQ and HRSD. Assurance is alsoobtained through guidance from the DOEORO Office, with additional programsupport by the DOE Office of Science.

3.2 LIST OF ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AND PUBLICHEALTH STANDARDS

Environmental protection and publichealth-related standards and commitmentshave been identified in DOE/SURAcontractual documents. They are dividedinto three groupings:

• the Work Smart Standards Set;• the Administrative Laws and

Regulations (AL&R) List; and• other Contractual Commitments.

3.2.1 Standards in the WSS Set

The DOE designated the Necessaryand Sufficient Process, now calledthe WSS Process, to identifyenvironmental protection, health,and safety hazards and thestandards describing mitigationmeasures. During this process, theparticular hazards associated withthe Lab were identified, with thecorresponding laws, regulations,and other standards necessary andsufficient to protect the worker, thepublic, and the environment againstthe identified hazards. Thiss u m m a r y o f a p p l i c a b l eenvironment, health, and safetyrequirements for Jefferson Lab is theWSS Set. The WSS Set was mostrecently amended in February 2001.


The applicable environmentalprotection and public health-relatedstandards, including the four siteoperating permits, are listed inExhibits 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3. VariousOccupational Safety and Health Act(OSHA)-related standards areincluded in the WSS Set, but since

t h e s e c o n t a i n m i n i m a lenvironmental protection controls,compliance with OSHA is notsingled out in this report.Compliance with each of the listedstandards, by category, is presentedin parts of Section 3 as referenced inthe exhibits.

EXHIBIT 3-1

FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS INCLUDED IN THE WSS SET

SER References Citations Titles

LAWS (by subject)

3.3 Asbestos 15 U.S.C. § 2641 et seq. Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of1986 (training)

3.4 Water 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (CleanWater Act)

3.5 Radiation 42 U.S.C. § 2282a Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988(referenced in 10 CFR 835)

3.6 Public Health 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq. Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended3.7 Air 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. Clean Air Act and Amendments3.8 Emergency Response 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. CERCLA3.9 Emergency Planning 42 U.S.C. § 11001-11050 SARA Title III EPCRA3.10 Pollution Prevention

and 3.11 Waste42 U.S.C. § 13101 et seq. Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

REGULATIONS Title 10 - Energy

(3.5.1)(3.15.6)

Parts 71, 834, and 835Part 10

Title 40 - Protection ofEnvironment

(3.7) Subchapter C Various Air Programs(3.4) Subchapter D Various Water Programs(3.11) Subchapter I Various Waste Programs including RCRA(3.8 & 3.9) Subchapter J Various Superfund, EPCRA Programs(3.4.3) Subchapter N Part 403(3.3) Subchapter R Part 763

Title 49 - Transportation

3.12 Transportation Subchapter C Various Hazardous Materials Regulations

DOE GUIDANCE

(3.5.4) O 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Environment,Chapter II and IV

(Continued)


EXHIBIT 3-1 (Continued)

EXECUTIVE ORDERS(EOs)

(3.10 and 3.11) 13101 Greening the Government Through WastePrevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition

(3.10) 13123 Greening the Government Through Efficient EnergyManagement

(3.7.3, 3.9, 3.10, and 3.11) 13148 Greening the Government Through Leadership inEnvironmental Management

Notes:SER: Site Environmental ReportItalics indicate it is in the process of being incorporated into WSS Set.See referenced sections for full titles of noted laws or permits.

EXHIBIT 3-2

PERMITS, STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS INCLUDED IN THE WSS SET

SERReferences Citations Standard

LAWS

(3.11) Title 10.1 - Conservation Chapter 14, Virginia WasteManagement Act

(3.4) Title 62.1 - Waters of theState, Ports and Harbors

Chapter 3.1, State Water Control Law

PERMITS Issued Effective

(3.4.2) No. VA0089320 VPDES Permit - Specifies allowablegroundwater and surface water qualityon-site during accelerator operations.Assures groundwater unaffected at andbeyond site boundary.

7/16/96 Through7/16/2001

(3.4.2) DEQ No. VAG253002 General Permit for Cooling WaterDischarges - Authorizes cooling waterdischarges within identified dischargelimitations.

[applicable9/99]

Through3/1/2003

(3.4.4) HRSD No. 0117 Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit- Limits wastes to be discharged tosewerage.

10/87 3/1/99-3/1/2002

(3.4.5) 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

REGULATIONS

(3.7) 9 - VAC (Environment) Chapter 5, Air Quality

(3.11) 9 - VAC (Environment) Chapter 20, Waste Regulations(3.4) 9 - VAC (Environment) Chapter 25, Water Quality(3.4.4) none HRSD Industrial Wastewater Discharge Regulations

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


EXHIBIT 3-3

OTHER STANDARDS IDENTIFIED IN THE WSS SETCategory/SER References Citations Standard

REGULATIONS(3.12) 49 CFR 177 Hazardous Materials Regulations

DOE GUIDANCE(3.5.4 3.15.8) O 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Environment, Sections 1a and 1b

VIRGINIA PLAN(3.8) Virginia Emergency Management Operations Plan

EH&S MANUAL(3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.11,

& 3.13)Assorted Chaptersand Appendicesreferenced below.

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

3.2.2 AL&R List

The AL&R List was developed alongwith the WSS Set and identifiesEH&S implementation standardsand requirements that are of anadministrative nature and notdirectly related to hazards.Together, the WSS Set and theAL&R List contain almost all ofJefferson Lab’s EH&S requirements.The environmental protection andpublic health-related AL&Rdocuments are not specifically listedhere, but include some U.S.Department of Transportation(DOT) hazardous mater ia lregulations and a section of U.S.Code dealing with generators ofhazardous waste. Refer toSection 3.14 for the compliancestatus.

3.2.3 Other Related ContractualCommitments

C o m p l i a n c e w i t h o t h e renvironmental protection or publich e a l t h - r e l a t e d c o n t r a c t u a lrequirements, e.g., the EndangeredSpecies Act, is discussed inSection 3.15.

3.3 COMPLIANCE STATUS-ASBESTOS AND PCBSTANDARDS

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)and its implementing regulations, 40 CFRSubchapter R, require that specificchemicals such as polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs) and asbestos be controlledand their use restricted.

3.3.1 PCBs

Since 1987, SURA has beenremoving PCBs and PCB-contaminated items from the site.Technically, the site is PCB-free.There were no compliance issues in2000.

3.3.2 Asbestos

Most asbestos-containing material(ACM) was removed from the siteprior to 1992. In July 1992, anAsbestos Management Planidentified the remaining ACMs inBuildings 28 and 58 as non-friableand in fair to good condition;therefore, abatement is not requiredby current regulations.


Jefferson Lab complies with thetraining requirements identified inthe Asbestos Hazard EmergencyResponse Act of 1986 (Title II ofTSCA) and the emission controlrequirements in NESHAPs. EH&SManual Chapter 6681, AsbestosManagement, implements the ACMrequirements at Jefferson Lab. Therewere no compliance issues in 2000.

3.4 COMPLIANCE STATUS -WATER QUALITYSTANDARDS

Groundwater and surface water protectionare a high priority at Jefferson Lab.Applicable standards include: the CleanWater Act (CWA); Virginia’s State WaterControl Law; regulations that include partsof 40 CFR Subchapter D and Virginia’s9 VAC 25 Series, Water Quality; site permits;and cited EH&S Manual chapters. Each ofthese standards is referenced under therespective topic below.

Facilities in Virginia that directly dischargeto waters of the United States must obtain aVirginia Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem (VPDES) permit to do so. TheVPDES program is designed to protectsurface waters by limiting primarily non-radiological releases of effluents intostreams, lakes, and other waters, includingwetlands. Regulatory and programconcerns relating to construction areaddressed in Section 3.4.1. VPDES concernsrelating to industrial activities, includingthe quality of cooling water discharges andthe potential for radiological contaminationof groundwater, are covered underSection 3.4.2.

The concrete halls, which house theexperimental apparatus that acceptsaccelerator beam, are partially buried. Asthe floors of the halls are situated below thewater table, a built-in drainage system wasinstalled under each of the halls to preventthe structures from floating. Groundwatercollects in this drainage system and ispumped to a surface water channel. This

process is termed dewatering. Compliancewith the related permits is described inSections 3.4.2 and 3.4.5.

Jefferson Lab has a variety of on-siteactivities that result in water discharges tothe sanitary sewer system. The associatedwastewater standards included in the WSSSet are discussed in Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4.

There is a significant aggregate quantity ofoil present on the site, primarily intransformers and compressors that are incontinual use. Consequently, Jefferson Labhas a Spill Prevention, Control, andCountermeasure (SPCC) Plan that ispresented in Section 3.4.6.

3.4.1 VPDES - ConstructionActivity

Jefferson Lab strives to keeppollutants, such as sediments, out ofsurface waters. No permits havebeen required through 2000. TheLab’s Plant Engineering Departmentoversees the civil construction andensures that subcontractors adhereto the standards set forth in theVirginia Erosion and Sediment ControlH a n d b o o k . EH&S ManualChapter 6733, Storm Water PollutionPrevention, identifies some of thesite-specific procedures to addresserosion control.

3.4.2 VPDES - IndustrialActivities

Groundwater Monitoring - VPDESPermit No. VA0089320This permit covers groundwaterresources, including groundwaterflowing across the site andgroundwater discharged in thedewater ing operat ion (seeSection 3.4.5). The purpose of theoriginal Virginia Pol lut ionAbatement (VPA) Permit, whichwas superseded by a VPDES permit,was to quantify water quality“baseline” values for certainparameters and to set long-termgroundwater quality limits. A well


monitoring program under thispermit enables the comparison ofcurrent and “baseline” values.Jefferson Lab verifies that acceleratoroperations and other activities, suchas the groundwater dewatering donot degrade the quality of either on-site or offsite groundwater. Refer toSection 7 and EH&S ManualChapter 6731, G r o u n d w a t e rProtection, for background and site-specific information.

Throughout 2000, groundwatersampling to monitor all permit-defined parameters was performedunder a subcontract with anaccredited laboratory and submittedto the Commonwealth at the end ofeach quarter. There were nogroundwater compliance issues in2000.

Cooling Water Discharges -General Permit for Cooling WaterDischarges

This permit 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 early2001. The permit contains waterquality limits.

Sampling is performed under asubcontract with an accreditedlaboratory and is submitted to theCommonwealth at the end of eachquarter. The sampling during 2000revealed one unusual result each forpH and chlorine. One involvedsampling that occurred during a noflow situation and the other was dueto taking the sample too close to thesource. The two values werereported to the DEQ, and JeffersonLab satisfactorily resolved anyconcerns.

3.4.3 40 CFR 403, GeneralPretreatment Regulationsfor Existing and NewSources of Pollution

This regulation contains NationalPretreatment Standards forpollutants that pass through orinterfere with offsite treatmentprocesses. Jefferson Lab’s sanitarysewage is discharged to an offsitepublicly owned treatment worksoperated by the HRSD. The Lab iscategorized as a Non-significantIndust r ia l User wi th nopretreatment requirements. Nocompliance issues occurred in 2000.

3.4.4 Industrial WastewaterDischarge Permit No.0117 and the District’sIndustrial WastewaterDischarge Regulations(IWDR)

Discharges to the HRSD are subjectto the Industrial WastewaterDischarge Permit and the IWDR.EH&S Manual Appendix 6730-T1,Discharges to the Sanitary SewerSystem, d e s c r i b e s s p e c i f i cimplementation practices atJefferson Lab.

Monthly pH values are taken by asubcontractor at permitted samplingpoints and provided to the HRSD.HRSD independently performsregular sampling for metals andother water quality indicators atsome of the sampling points tovalidate Jefferson Lab’s compliancewith permit and regulatoryrequirements. There were noviolations or disparities in 2000.

Permitted discharges of activatedwater at one HRSD sampling pointcontinued in 2000. Discharges arecontrolled manually, after samplinghas confirmed that all values arewithin identified limits. EitherJefferson Lab staff or a subcontractor


performs monthly and quarterlyradiological analyses from thissampling point and the analyticalreports are provided to the HRSD.All radiological permit andregulatory criteria were met in 2000and are discussed further inSection 5.2.2.

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 othergamma-emitting radionuclides in one year.The total radioactivity discharged to thesanitary sewer in 2000 was 0.26 Ci oftritium (or about 5.2% of the total allowed)and 0.0000004 Ci of Beryllium-7 (or0.00004% of the total allowed).

Laboratory staff participated in theFebruary 15, 2000 annual inspectionby the HRSD. No compliance issueswere identified at that time or in thecourse of the year.

3.4.5 Permit to WithdrawGroundwater

To maintain water table levelsconsistent with the experimental hallstructural design, water table controlvia pumping will be necessary forthe life of the facility. This DEQPermit places monthly and annuallimitations on the amount that canbe pumped. Note that this type of“no usage” withdrawal is unusual.G r o u n d w a t e r i s n o r m a l l ywithdrawn for irrigation or drinkingwater.

Quarterly reporting of withdrawalquantities continued in 2000, and allmonthly values were within permitrequirements. The total quantity ofwater withdrawn in 2000 was4.5 million gallons, well below theroughly 23 million gallon annuallimit. The Lab voluntarily reports itsannual water usage to assist the

DEQ in determining total regionalwater usage.

Permit compliance was maintainedin 2000. Water quality sampling isperformed under the terms of theVPDES Permit No. VA0089320, asdescribed in Section 3.4.2.

3.4.6 SPCC Plan - AboveGround Storage TankIssues

Jefferson Lab has transformers andother operating machinery on-sitethat use various oils for lubrication,hydraulics, and cooling. The Labmaintains a used oil collection area.The Lab has an approved SPCC Planunder 40 CFR 112, which is due forreview in 2001. The SPCC Plancovers handling, storage, andtransportation activities and isimplemented by division-specificprocedures and EH&S ManualChapter 6732, Oil-Spill Prevention,Control, and Countermeasures.

There are two oil-storage tanks on-site that meet Federal and Stateabove ground storage tankdefinitions, but the total quantitystored is under the notificationthreshold. A number of gas-powered emergency generatorscontaining small amounts of oilwere added to the site inventory in2000, but are not subject to thisthreshold.

3.5 COMPLIANCE STATUS-RADIOLOGICALPROTECTION STANDARDS

This section addresses the status of JeffersonLab’s compliance with radiologicalenvironmental protection and public healthlaws and regulations.


3.5.1 Title 10 - Energy10 CFR 71, Packaging &Transportation ofRadioactive Material

There were no offsite shipments orcompliance issues in 2000. Refer tofurther transportation complianceinformation under Section 3.12.

10 CFR 834 (Draft), EnvironmentalRadiological Protection Program

Programs responsive to offsiteradiation protection and other10 CFR 834 (Draft) requirements havebeen instituted. Implementationmeasures have been incorporatedinto EH&S Manual Chapters 6310,Ionizing Radiation Protection and 6315,Environmental Monitoring of IonizingRadiat ion . Refer to Section 3.5.3below.

10 CFR 835, Occupational RadiationProtection

The Price-Anderson AmendmentsAct (PAAA) of 1988, including the1992 amendment, was enacted toprovide broad indemnificationcoverage for DOE contractors withradiological-related activities andrequires reporting of non-compliances. DOE PAAA radiationprotection regulations are codified in10 CFR 835 and address: radioactivecontamination, storage of radioactivemater ia ls , and radiologica lemergency response. Jefferson Labcomplied with 10 CFR 835requirements in 2000. Refer toSect ion 3 .8 for addit ionalinformation.

3.5.2 Title 40, Part 61,Subpart H

The Lab complied with 40 CFR 61Subpart H requirements in 2000.Refer to discussion in Section 3.7.2.

3.5.3 EH&S Manual Chapters6310 and 6315

Chapters 6310, Ionizing RadiationProtection, and 6315, EnvironmentalMonitoring of Ionizing Radiation,contain site-specific programs used tomanage identified radiological offsiteradiation protection, storage ofradioactive materials, emergencyresponse, and release of materials touncontrolled areas. Chapter 6315addresses radiological air emissions,surface water, and radioactivecontamination of other water-containing systems and groundwater.There were no compliance issues in2000.

3.5.4 DOE Order 5400.5

Portions of chapters II and IV ofOrder 5400.5, Radiation Protection ofthe Public and the Environment, applyand are addressed as described in theJefferson Lab Radiological Control(RADCON) Manual. There were nocompliance issues in 2000.

3.6 COMPLIANCE STATUS -PUBLIC HEALTHSTANDARDS

The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974(SDWA) was enacted to ensure thatdrinking water is safe for publicconsumption. Compliance is achieved viathe EPA’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 Healthregulates drinking water quality andenforces compliance with all Federal andState drinking water-related permits andstandards. Jefferson Lab provides drinkingwater to its staff and visitors through threepublic water supply lines provided by thecity of Newport News Waterworks.


The SDWA applies to two areas at JeffersonLab: the Backflow Prevention Program andthe surface discharges under the twoVPDES permits. Jefferson Lab had noSDWA compliance issues during 2000.

3.6.1 Backflow Prevention

An annual backflow preventiondevice inspection is required by thecity of Newport News and the DEQon all intra-building main supplyconnections. The purpose is toensure that untreated industrialwastewater is mechanicallyprevented from contaminating thedrinking water supply. JeffersonLab subcontracts with locallyapproved plumbing firms to certifythat all backflow prevention devicesfunction as designed. Annualinspection reports are sent to thecity’s Public Utilities Department.All inspections to date, the last onein May 2000, have had no identifiedissues.

3.6.2 Surface Water Quality

The site drainage system flows tothe Big Bethel Reservoir, a drinkingwater source for local militaryinstallations. The groundwaterdewatering discharge and thecooling water eff luent aredischarged into surface waterchannels that lead offsite. Bothstreams are monitored for qualitypursuant to the applicable VPDESpermit. There were no complianceissues in 2000. Refer to Section 4 forfurther discussion on the permitmonitoring programs.

3.7 COMPLIANCE STATUS - AIRQUALITY STANDARDS

The Clean Air Act (CAA), that includes theClean Air Act Amendments of 1990(CAAA), regulates the air emissions ofDOE’s processes and facilities. The DEQ, asdelegated by the EPA, issues permits forowners and operators of stationary sources

that could emit threshold amounts offugitive dust, odor, or other designatedpollutants. Jefferson Lab has no processesthat require air permitting at this time.

Applicable regulations are contained in40 CFR Subchapter C, and the VirginiaRegulation 9 VAC 5 series, Air Quality.Standards include EO 13148 and EH&SManual Chapter 6720, Air QualityM a n a g e m e n t . Air quality regulatoryinformation is presented below.

3.7.1 National Ambient AirQuality Standards(NAAQS)

Under the authority of the CAAA,the EPA has established NAAQS for:sulfur oxides, particulate matter,carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogendioxide, and lead. The HamptonRoads Area, which includesNewport News, remained inattainment for all NAAQS pollutantsin 2000, but continues as amaintenance area for ozone.

Jefferson Lab complies with allCommonwealth ambient air qualityrequirements. The Lab leases itsvehicles through the GeneralServices Administration (GSA). Thevehicle maintenance is performedoffsite by shops approved by theGSA. There is no gasolinedispensing facility on-site. There isone diesel fuel tank for forklifts.Subcontractors operating machinerymay have temporary diesel fuelstorage tanks with secondarycontainment basins. There were nocompliance actions under Title I ofthe CAA in 2000.

3.7.2 National EmissionStandards for HazardousAir Pollutants(NESHAPs)

The NESHAPs is a CAA-implementing regulation that setsquality standards for air emissions


that contain hazardous components(e.g., radionuclides or asbestos). TheEPA administers the radionuclideportion of this program in Virginia.Jefferson Lab began “operations” asdef ined by NESHAPs inOctober 1995.

Radionuclide Emissions

Radionuclide emissions generatedduring accelerator and FEL testingand operations, including emissionsresulting from interactions of theaccelerator beam with experimentaltargets and physics researchequipment, fall under NESHAPs.DOE-owned facilities which emitradionuclides to the air are requiredto sample, monitor, and assessdosage per the NESHAPsrequirements in 40 CFR 61Subpart H and report to the EPA asapplicable. (Refer to Section 5.3 fordiscussion of direct radiation, theprimary form of radiation generatedon-site.)

Jefferson Lab used sampling resultsto demonstrate that the Labremained under the EPA-defined10% of the 10 mrem/yr. potentialeffective dose equivalent to anymember of the public during 2000.As effluent concentrations are belowmonitoring thresholds, routinemonitoring of radioactive airborneeffluents at the site boundary is notrequired. However, the Lab doesmake periodic confirmatorymeasurements at representative siteboundary locations to verify lowemissions.

Currently, no major radiologicalNESHAP point sources, such asstacks or vents, exist at Jefferson Labthat meet the 40 CFR 61.93(b)threshold criteria of 1% of the10 mrem/yr. Consequently,continuous point source monitoringis not required.

Since no EPA-reportable radiologicalor non-radiological air emissionshave occurred in previous years,Jefferson Lab had a reportingexemption under this Subpart.Based on common DOE laboratorypractice, even among DOE facilitiesthat are under the reportingthreshold, Jefferson Lab voluntarilycommenced annual reporting for1999. This is discussed further inSection 5. No notifications forconstruction or modifications werenecessary in 2000.

NESHAP Asbestos Removal

While the NESHAP standard doesnot set a numerical threshold forasbestos fiber emissions, it requiresthose conducting asbestos-relatedactivities, such as demolition andrenovation, to follow approvedprocedures and to adopt specificwork practices to prevent release ofasbestos to the air. Regulationsrequire that licensed, trainedpersonnel perform any work withasbestos. There were no asbestos-related NESHAP issues in 2000.Compliance with other asbestosstandards is described in Section 3.3.

3.7.3 Other Air EmissionConcerns

Non-Radiological Emissions

Under the Virginia Regulations forthe Control and Abatement of AirPollution (9 VAC 5-10 et seq.),Jefferson Lab is required to notifythe DEQ of sources of potential airpollution. Jefferson Lab ensures thatby utilizing preventive maintenancemeasures and scrubbers, itminimizes releases of polluted air.The Lab’s emissions remain belowreporting thresholds.

Jefferson Lab has seven natural gas-fired boilers and a fin-tube radiatorfor building heating. Boilerinformation, including fuel


consumption data, is provided to theDEQ. The usage values for CY 2000are presented in Exhibit 3-4. In 2000,a new paint spray booth and several

natural gas-powered emergencygenerators were installed. Norequirements for permits areanticipated.

EXHIBIT 3-4

SOURCE REGISTRATION UPDATE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2000

Ref.

Annual FuelProcess Rate

(Million Cu. Ft.Process Volume% Annual Thruput

No. Equipment Burned) J-M A-J J-S O-D

HB-1 CLVR.BRKS. 2.7 40 26 10 24

HB-2 CLVR.BRKS. P-142-30 2.7 40 26 10 24

HB-3 CLVR.BRKS. CB-760-60 5.6 35 24 15 26

HB-4 CLVR.BRKS. CB-760-60 5.6 35 24 15 26

HB-5 BRYAN F-450 WG 3.5 25 25 25 25

HB-6 BRYAN F-90 WG 1.08 48 20 0 32

HB-7 BRYAN F-90 WG 1.08 48 20 0 32

HB-8 PSB Fin Tube Radiator 0.4 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.

A DEQ inspection occurred onSeptember 7, 2000, with no concernsidentified. There were no airemission violations at Jefferson Labin 2000.

Stratospheric Ozone-DepletingSubstances (ODS)

EO 13148, Greening the Governmentthrough Leadership in EnvironmentalManagement , reinforced federalagency commitments to use safe,cost-effective, environmentallypreferable alternatives to ODSs. TheODS substances that have been usedat Jefferson Lab include refrigerants,degreasers, cleaners, spray canpropellants, and fire suppressants.The phase out of these substanceswill have a moderate impact on thesite.

Section 608 of Title VI, of the CAAA,National Recycling and EmissionReduction Program, prohibitsintentional venting of Class I andClass II compounds from airconditioning and cooling units.Jefferson Lab has one recoverymachine, a National ReferenceProducts Model MINILU (for R12,22, 502, and 134a) on-site. Also, thesubcontractor, who performed allservice, repair, and maintenance onJefferson Lab refrigeration/airconditioning equipment during2000, was required to be certified incompliance and has demonstratedeffectiveness in capturing andrecycling these compounds. FourJefferson Lab Plant Engineeringe m p l o y e e s h a v e r e c e i v e dcertification training, ensuring thatlaboratory staff understand the EPAr e q u i r e m e n t s a n d t h a t


subcontractors are appropriatelycertified.

J e f f e r s o n L a b h a s t h r e echlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-based(one R-11 and two R-113) chillersonsite. They are effectivelymaintained by mechanical staff toensure optimal performance andminimize CFC losses. Opportunitiesto modify or replace them wereconsidered in 2000, but the existingunits presently meet Jefferson Labneeds.

The site is preparing to phase outthe use of CFCs to the extentpossible. R-12, however, is thehighly preferred material for use insome physics experiments but thereare no State or Federal regulationsthat address the small amounts ofR-12 involved. Halon 1211 is storedin the experimental halls for use as afire-extinguishing agent of last resortto protect certain types ofspecialized equipment. The Halon iscontained in manually operated fireextinguishers and hall staff aretrained in precautions and use.

Section 609 of the CAAA lists therequirements for the Servicing ofMotor Vehicle Air Conditioners. Allvehicle air conditioning units areserviced offsite by shops approvedby the GSA.

Jefferson Lab understands itsresponsibility to minimize oreliminate the purchase and use ofODSs. The Lab’s CFC and HalonUse Policy is included in the EH&SManual Appendix 6720-T2, AirQual i ty Program RegulatoryRequirements.

3.8 COMPLIANCE STATUS -EMERGENCY RESPONSESTANDARDS

Two environmental emergency response-related hazards exist at Jefferson Lab. Onehazard involves releases resulting from thestorage or transport of environmentallyharmful materials (EHMs). The applicablelegislation is the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), asamended by the Superfund Amendmentsand Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).Other applicable regulations are noted inthe WSS Set. The second hazard is aradiological release, as addressed in10 CFR 835.

Emergency response standards that applyto EHMs are noted in the WSS Set andreferenced in Exhibits 3-1 and 3-3. Therewere three minor oil spills in 2000 that weremitigated promptly, none of whichimpacted the environment. These smallspills are discussed in Section 4.5.1.

There were no releases subject to CERCLAor other emergency response regulations in2000.

3.9 COMPLIANCE STATUS -EMERGENCY PLANNINGSTANDARDS

The Emergency Planning and CommunityRight-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), alsoknown as SARA Title III, addressesaccidental chemical re leases incommunities. EPCRA created a system forplanning responses to emergenciesinvolving CERCLA hazardous substances(HSs) and EPCRA extremely hazardoussubstances (EHSs). EPCRA requires thatinformation regarding the use and storageof these hazardous chemicals be madeavailable to the public. This is donethrough reports to EPA and local responseagencies. The EPA posts some informationon their website.


EPCRA-related planning and preventionstandards that apply to Jefferson Labinclude: 40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and 372,under Subchapter J (see specifics below)provide regulatory compliance guidance;EO 13148, Greening the Government throughLeadership in Environmental Management; andAppendix 6710-T2, Emergency Planning andCommunity Right-to-Know of the EH&SManual provides site-specific complianceinformation.

The Commonwealth of Virginia EmergencyResponse Council administers the EPCRAprogram for the EPA. Local emergencyresponse agencies that serve Jefferson Labare the Peninsula Local EmergencyPlanning Committee and the city ofNewport News Fire Department.Transportation-related standards pertainingto emergency planning are discussed inSection 3.12.

Jefferson Lab maintained compliance withapplicable emergency planning standards in2000.

3.9.1 40 CFR 300

This regulation is titled the NationalOil and Hazardous SubstancesPollution Contingency Plan (NCP) andprimarily addresses DOE’s role inthe NCP. Jefferson Lab complieswith 40 CFR 300 by havingemergency response procedures inplace to respond to oil andhazardous substance releases, asidentified in EH&S Manual Chapters3510, Emergency Management Planand 6732, Oil-Spill Prevention,Control, and Countermeasures.

3.9.2 40 CFR 355, EmergencyPlanning and ReleaseReporting

Under EPCRA Section 302, JeffersonLab is required to notify theC o m m o n w e a l t h a n d l o c a lemergency planning and responsegroups (EPGs) within sixty days ofthe receipt of an EHS that exceedsthe Threshold Planning Quantity

(TPQ). Jefferson Lab’s EPCRASection 302 notifications to dateinclude hydrofluoric acid, nitricacid, and bromine. There were nonew EHSs identified in 2000.

Jefferson Lab is also required tonotify the Commonwealth and localEPGs of accidental offsite releases ofany HS listed under CERCLA or anyEHS listed under EPCRA. Therelease levels that trigger the EPCRAS e c t i o n 3 0 4 n o t i f i c a t i o nrequirements are the reportablequantity (RQ) values listed in theregulations for each substance.Jefferson Lab has had no releasesthat meet identified reportingcriteria to date. For discussion aboutthe permitted release of activatedwater to the sanitary sewer system,refer to Section 3.4.4.

3.9.3 40 CFR 370, HazardousChemical Inventories

Under EPCRA Sections 311 and 312Material Safety Data Sheets(MSDSs), or a list of those chemicals,must be submitted to EPGs for eachhazardous chemical present whenthe quantity exceeds the TPQidentified in the regulations.Jefferson Lab’s submittal of theannual Tier II Report, a hazardouschemical inventory form, to theEPGs satisfies this requirement. Inaddition, upon request, the Lab’sEmergency Management Managerprovides MSDSs to the local FireChief for their records. SeeSection 6.6 for more information.

3.9.4 40 CFR 372, Toxic ReleaseReporting

These regulations require thesubmission of information to theEPA relating to the release of toxicchemicals, including an annual toxicchemical release report, the ToxicRelease Inventory (TRI), by anyfacility that manufactures, imports,processes, or otherwise uses more


than a threshold amount of any ofapproximately 360 EPA-identifiedtoxic chemicals. Jefferson Lab doeshave “otherwise use” activities andreviews its chemical usage annually.No listed toxic chemicals were“otherwise used” in quantitiesexceeding 10,000 pounds in 1999;therefore, no reporting was requiredin 2000.

3.10 COMPLIANCE STATUS -POLLUTION PREVENTIONSTANDARDS

Jefferson Lab has identified four applicablepollution prevention (P2) standards: thePollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990;Executive Order (EO) EO 13101, Greeningthe Government through Waste Prevention,Recycling and Federal Acquisition; EO 13123,Greening the Government Through EfficientEnergy Management; and EO 13148, Greeningthe Government through Leadership inEnvironmental Management. Jefferson LabEH&S staff continued to stress theimportance of source reduction to preventpollution. This education process informsprocess owners of the financial advantagesof avoiding unnecessary waste disposalfees. Specific Lab P2 and energy efficiencyinitiatives are discussed in Section 4.5.There were no outstanding complianceissues regarding P2 or energy efficiencystandards in 2000.

3.10.1 Pollution Prevention Act(PPA)

The PPA established the policy thatpollution should be reduced at thesource by prevention, recycling,treatment, or disposal, in that order.Disposal should be used only as alast resort. All alternatives shouldbe performed in an environmentallysafe manner. Jefferson Lab complieswith this pollution reduction policyto the extent possible.

3.10.2 EO 13148

EO 13148 revoked and replacedvarious EOs in April 2000. Itsprimary purpose is to integrateenvironmental accountability intofederal agency policies, operations,planning, and management. TheDOE established agency-wide goalsbased on those established in theEO. The primary P2 goal was that,where possible, pollution should beprevented or reduced at the source.

Jefferson Lab uses very few listedtoxic chemicals and complies withthe P2 goals by minimizing use,reusing to the maximum extent, anddisposing of these wastes in themost effective environmentally safemanner. The Lab is in the process ofestablishing P2 goals regardingreductions in standard sanitarywaste, hazardous waste, and low-level radioactive waste generation,and for improving our recyclingperformance.

There were no P2 complianceconcerns in 2000.

3.10.3 EO 13101

EO 13101 strengthens and expandsthe previous EO 12873 byencouraging more efficient use ofnatural resources and wasteprevention measures. EO 13101includes implementing wasterecycling by encouraging federalagencies to procure products madewith recycled materials. Thepurchase of these materials helps“close-the-loop” in the recyclingprocess. To comply with this EO,the DOE has set goals andperformance standards on a varietyof product classes.

This policy of procuring productsmade with recycled materials istermed Affirmative Procurement(AP). The DOE’s complex-wideFiscal Year (FY) 2000 procurement


target for purchasing EPA-listedproducts was 100%. The FY 2000 APAnnual Reporting System reportreveals that Jefferson Lab’scompliance level was 58.2%,revealing room for improvement.The majority of applicable year 2000purchases involved uncoated copypaper, binders, and toner cartridges.The Procurement Departmentreported that centralized copy paperpurchases met the 100% goal, butindividual purchasers fell far shortof the goal. To meet DOE andJefferson Lab goals, the ProcurementDepartment has named an APchampion and is continuing toeducate individual purchasers tobuy materials that meet EPA-recommended criteria. Jefferson Labis trying other means to maximizethe use of AP.

Review of the Lab’s AP programcontinued in 2000, primarily inconjunction with DOE-sponsoredteleconferences on EO 13101.

3.10.4 EO 13123

This initiative focuses on energyefficiency as a means of pollutionprevention. It became effective onNovember 4, 1999. The PlantEngineering Department providesan annual energy report andadditional opportunities werereviewed for saving energy in 2000.Though there are only a fewbuildings that are identified for thesite goals, the FY report showed thata 7% reduction from the baselineenergy use was achieved.

3.11 COMPLIANCE STATUS -WASTE MANAGEMENTSTANDARDS

The Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct of 1976 (RCRA), also called the SolidWaste Disposal Act (SWDA), covers wastemanagement and the promotion of

“Resource Recovery and Reuse”. The Actpromotes the protection of health and theenvironment and the conservation ofvaluable material and energy resources.40 CFR Subchapter I, Waste Programs,implements the Act and has application atJefferson Lab.

RCRA provides EPA’s authority to regulatesolid waste, from minimization andrecovery to collection and disposal. TheVirginia DEQ has been delegated theauthority to regulate solid wastes by theEPA. The Virginia Waste Management Actand Commonwealth regulations under theVirginia Administrative Code sections 9VAC 20-80 (et seq., Waste Regulations) apply.The EH&S Manual implements thisprogram at Jefferson Lab.

Full compliance was maintained through2000. Each of the major wastestreams isaddressed below.

3.11.1 Hazardous Waste RCRA,related VA Regulations,and EH&S ManualChapter 6761, HazardousWaste Management

These references set requirementsfor safe storage, transport,treatment, and disposal ofhazardous waste for generators,transporters, and owners andoperators of hazardous wastetreatment, storage, and disposalfacilities. The DEQ regulateshazardous waste management inVirginia. Jefferson Lab’s HazardousWaste Coordinator (HWC) managesthe site-specific program incompliance with the referencedManual chapter.

Jefferson Lab registered as a RCRASmall Quantity Generator (SQG) in1987. To maintain SQG status, afacility cannot generate more than1 kilogram (kg) of acutely hazardouswaste and 1000 kgs (about2200 pounds or about 300 gallonsmaximum) of hazardous waste in


any given month, and the facilitymust not accumulate more than6000 kgs of hazardous waste on-siteat any given time. Jefferson Labgenerated about 4600 kgs ofhazardous waste in 2000. Somer e c e n t h a z a r d o u s w a s t eminimization initiatives aredescribed in Section 4.5. The DEQperformed an inspection in 2000 andno compliance issues wereidentified.

Jefferson Lab maintains hazardouswaste storage units. No permittingis required because hazardous wasteis not stored on-site beyond theregulatory time frame. Jefferson Labneither transports hazardous wastesnor operates any regulatedtreatment or disposal units. Thereare two elementary neutralizationunits, but they are not regulated astreatment devices. Some EHMs arerecycled and/or reused prior to finaldisposal.

The PPA and EO 13148

A common goal of the PPA andEO 13148 is preventing andreducing pollution, including thatfrom toxic materials, to themaximum extent practicable. Acontractual Performance Measureaddresses this goal. Refer toSection 3.15.7.

3.11.2 Radioactive and MixedWaste

The new DOE Order 435.1,Radioactive Waste Management, wasreviewed with the DOE Site Officefor applicable requirements in 2000.Radiation Control Group staff thenbegan implementation of theapplicable sections of the Order,which included establishing aprogram for more efficientseparation and categorization of theLab’s low-level radioactive wastes.

Approximately 5.0 cubic meters oflow-level radioactive waste weregenerated in 2000. No radioactivewaste has been disposed of to date,but plans are underway to disposeof any identified wastes by the dateset in the Order, July 9, 2001. Therehas been no mixed waste, whichexhibits both hazardous andr a d i o a c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,generated to date. Jefferson Lab wasin compliance with all applicablestandards in 2000.

3.11.3 Non-Hazardous WasteVA Standards and EH&SManual Chapter 6760,Waste Management

Non-hazardous wastestreamsgenerally contain non-regulatedchemical wastes, non-recyclableoffice and production wastematerials, and debris resulting fromconstruction activity. The DEQ isresponsible for waste programs inVirginia. Jefferson Lab assignsoversight responsibility to staffmembers for the differentwastestreams covered under thiscategory according to EH&S ManualChapter 6760.

EO 13101 and 13148

These EOs encourage wasteprevention and the procurement ofproducts made with recycledmaterials, thereby keeping materialsout of landfills. Waste disposal cost-saving opportunities were reviewedin 2000 and improvementopportunities with scrap metalrecycling were identified.

Other Non-Hazardous Waste-Related Compliance Items

There are other forms of liquid andsolid non-hazardous wastes,including domestic wastewater.Two water collection pits are in theCounting House (Building 97); onedischarges to surface water and the


other to the HRSD system. Thepermits for these water dischargesare discussed in Sections 3.4.2 and3.4.4. Other non-hazardous wastesare disposed in a landfill, reused on-site, recycled, or used for otherpurposes offsite. Approved wastemanagement plans and proceduresprevent or minimize impacts to theenvironment, both at the generatingfacility and the final disposal orusage point. Jefferson Labminimizes the generation of waste(reduction at the source) as theprimary way of reducingenvironmental impacts, therebylowering purchase and disposalcosts.

Jefferson Lab utilizes licensedsubcontractors for collection,separation, and permanent disposal.Aluminum cans and paper goodsare recycled separately. Refer toSection 4.5 for more information onlab recycling efforts. Section 3.15.7refers to Performance Measureresults for tracking recyclables.

3.11.4 Regulated Medical Waste

The Lab’s EH&S ManualChapter 6850, Regulated MedicalW a s t e M a n a g e m e n t andAppendix 6850-T1, Regulated MedicalWastes Handling Procedures apply,and include RCRA and Virginiarequirements. There were nocompliance issues with this programin 2000.

3.11.5 Federal FacilityCompliance Act

This Act, which amends the SWDA,gave the EPA authority to enforceactions against branches of theFederal government for violation ofFederal, State, interstate, or localsol id or hazardous wasteregulations. There were nocompliance issues at Jefferson Labduring 2000.

3.12 COMPLIANCE STATUS -TRANSPORTATIONSTANDARDS

Transportation-related hazards at the Labarise as a consequence of the receipt,packaging, and transportation of:hazardous and radioactive materials andwaste; compressed gases; cleanup materialsused in response to on-site spills; andregulated medical wastes.

Requirements include the DOT regulationsidentified in 49 CFR Subchapter C,Hazardous Materials Regulations , theJefferson Lab RADCON Manual, and 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.

Many of the regulations applicable totransportation also apply to otherenvironmental or public health topics.

Compliance with these regulations isaddressed under the appropriate topicalareas elsewhere in this Report, as shown onExhibit 3-5, unless noted below.

3.12.1 49 CFR Regulations

49 CFR 171 through 178 apply tohazardous and radioactive materialtransportation. These regulationscover the DOT packaging andtransport requirements thatminimize risk to the environment orpublic health in case of accidents.

The delivery of hazardous orradiological materials to the site iscontingent upon compliance withappropriate DOT and otherrequirements. Hazardous andradioactive materials must beproperly packaged for offsitetransport according to DOTregulations. The Radiation ControlGroup (RCG) manages theradiological portion of this program


EXHIBIT 3-5

TRANSPORTATION-RELATED STANDARDS DISCUSSED ELSEWHERE IN SER

SER Section Transportation-related Information Applicable Standards3.4.6 SPCC Plan: oil and oil-product issues 40 CFR 1123.5.1 Radiation Protection: packaging and transport of

radiological materials10 CFR 71

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

CERCLA/SARAVA Emergency Management OperationsPlan

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

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

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

EH&S Manual Standard: Chapter 6761

and the HWC manages non-radiological DOT requirements.There were no compliance issues in2000.

3.12.2 Radiological ControlManual, EH&S ManualChapters 6150, 6310 and6750, and Handbook ofCompressed Gases

These industry and site-specificstandards primarily provide for thesafe packaging and transport of bothhazardous and radioactive materialson Jefferson Lab property.

Properly trained staff perform theon-site transport of hazardousmaterials. This is done inaccordance with specific procedures,including those in EH&S ManualChapter 6750, E n v i r o n m e n t a l l yHarmful Materials. Radioactivematerials are managed by the RCGin accordance with the Jefferson LabRADCON Manual , internalprocedures, and work permits. Allmedical wastes are handled byspecially trained staff and managedby Medical Services.

Involved staff have received theappropriate training. There were no

compliance issues regarding thesetransportation standards in 2000.

3.13 COMPLIANCE STATUS -ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION STANDARDS

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. Accidentalrelease protection measures include theprovision of secondary containment and thelocation of EHM storage areas away fromfloor drains.

Though there were three minor oil spills,there were no uncontrolled EHM releasesaffecting the environment or public healthin 2000.

3.14 COMPLIANCE STATUS -AL&R LIST

Administrative environmental protectionand public health requirements are in theAL&R Set. Though a violation would notdirectly impact the environment, it couldresult in an administrative action. AL&Rstandards are generally incorporated intosite programs. There were no known non-compliance issues in 2000.


3.15 COMPLIANCE STATUS -OTHER OBLIGATIONSIDENTIFIED IN THECONTRACT

Jefferson Lab has other environmentalprotection and public health-relatedobligations not specifically included in thestandards lists. These obligations areincorporated into site programs, includingsubcontractual agreements, exclusive ofdirect legal requirements. Jefferson Lab’sparticipation in DOE’s NEPA process andimplementing EO 13123 are examples ofthese obligations.

3.15.1 NEPA

NEPA requires that projects withpotentially significant impacts to theenvironment be carefully evaluatedand alternative actions explored.These evaluations are to beperformed and reported as EAs orEnvironmental Impact Statements.Jefferson Lab is required to assist theDOE in implementing the NEPAprocess on the site, includingpreparing NEPA documents.

An EA for the proposed NewportNews site for CEBAF (now JeffersonLab), was completed in 1987, priorto the construction of the facility,and resulted in a FONSI. In 1997, anoperations-related EA for theCEBAF and FEL, was completed andresulted in a FONSI. Refer toSection 4.4 for discussion of 2000NEPA items.

Jefferson Lab will respond to anyrequirements identified by the DOEwith respect to NEPA complianceissues. There were no NEPAcompliance issues in 2000.

3.15.2 Federal Insecticide,Fungicide, andRodenticide Act (FIFRA)

This Act applies to the storage anduse of herbicides and pesticides at

Jefferson Lab. The application ofherbicides and pesticides ispermitted through a State-administered certification program,accompl i shed by cer t i f i edsubcontractors who comply withFIFRA through Virginia’s program.The Jefferson Lab Plant EngineeringDepartment subcontracts regularmonthly preventive pest control.There were no FIFRA complianceissues at Jefferson Lab in 2000. Seediscussion in Section 6.3.

3.15.3 Endangered Species Act(ESA)

The ESA designates and protectsendangered wildlife, fish, plants,and their ecosystems. A 1986environmental survey of JeffersonLab’s 162-acre site uncovered noendangered species in the area.Plans are underway for a newtechnical research park adjacent tothe site. No ESA compliance issueswere identified in 2000, but arebeing revisited in early 2001 with thepreparation of a new EA thatprimarily involves constructionactivities.

3.15.4 National HistoricPreservation Act (NHPA)

The NHPA of 1966, Section 106,governs the protect ion ofarchaeological and historicalresources. Area surveys in 1987uncovered no historic sites. OnO c t o b e r 1 6 , 1 9 9 2 , t h eCommonwealth of Virginia’sDepartment of Historical Resourcesdetermined that all Section 106conditions had been met and nofurther assessments were required.No new compliance issues wereidentified during 2000.

3.15.5 EO 11988, “FloodplainManagement”

This EO relates to the occupancyand modification of floodplains, and


as Jefferson Lab is not in afloodplain, the specific EO 11988requirements do not apply;however, localized flooding duringsignificant rain events, includinghurricanes, does occur. PlantEngineering coordinates anymodifications to site drainagepatterns in local flood zones toensure appropriate drainage ismaintained.

3.15.6 EO 11990, “Protection ofWetlands”

This EO was issued to ensure thatadverse impacts to wetlands areavoided or responsibly mitigatedprior to disturbance fromconstruction activities. Duringoriginal site investigations, theCorps of Engineers determined thatthe forested temporary wetlands tobe disturbed by the construction ofJefferson Lab were not sufficientlypermanent to qualify as wetlands,and, therefore, did not require theprotection specified by EO 11990.

EO 11990 and 10 CFR 1022,Compliance with Floodplain/WetlandsEnvironmental Review Requirements,contain notification requirements tobe considered when proposing newwork beyond the scope of theoriginal EA and FONSI. Evaluationof Jefferson Lab activities involvingpotential wetlands is accomplishedthrough the NEPA review process.No concerns involving wetlandswere identified in 2000.

3.15.7 Compliance Status -Performance Measures

Performance Measures areincorporated into the DOE/SURAContract. Four of them reflectenvironmental protection issues.The FY 2000 scores follow inExhibit 3-6.

3.15.8 Compliance Status - DOEGuidance

The current performance-basedDOE/SURA Contract incorporatedapplicable DOE requirements,previously addressed in DOEOrders and guidance, in either aPerformance Measure or in theEnvironment, Safety and Health(ES&H) Responsibilities portion ofthe Contract under Appendix E.

Since incorporation of the WSS Setinto the Contract, the only DOEe n v i r o n m e n t a l d o c u m e n t sspecifically identified in either theWSS Set or the Contract are DOEOrders 5400.1 and 5400.5, and DOEStandards N441.1 and 1023-95.There are other orders in theContract that do not apply to EH&S.A process for reviewing new orrevised DOE Orders for applicabilityat Jefferson Lab was implemented in1999 and 2000.

In 2000, Jefferson Lab complied withapplicable DOE documents,guidance, and related contractualcommitments.

EXHIBIT 3-6

RELATED PERFORMANCE MEASURE RESULTS

I.D. Performance Measure Description Score for FY 20005.0b Minimizing Environmental Exceedances 100%5.3 Fraction of Solid Waste Recycled 100%5.4a Fraction of Radioactive Waste Produced for Useful Purposes 95%5.4b Ratio of Hazardous Waste Generated compared with the Quantity that could

Have Been Generated if Waste Minimization was not Practiced.81%

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


SECTION 4

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION PROGRAM

INFORMATION

Jefferson Lab’s mission includes protectionof the environment and public health.There are many facets to the siteenvironmental protection program,including the primary activity ofradiological and non-radiologicalmonitoring, and other actions such asprogram and lab-wide assessments andinspections. This section providesinformation on these and otherenvironmental protection or public health-related 2000 events and activities.

4.1 OVERVIEW OF THEENVIRONMENTALMONITORING PROGRAM

Environmental monitoring is one of theprimary methods used by the Lab to assessenvironmental conditions. Monitoring isconducted to: verify compliance withapplicable regulations and otherrequirements, evaluate the Lab’s impact onthe environment or public health, identifypotential environmental problems, providedata to support management decisions, andevaluate the need for remedial actions ormitigative measures.

The Jefferson Lab EnvironmentalMonitoring Program establishes guidelinesfor examining chemical, oil, and radioactiveeffluents from the facility. An integral partof the program is routine sampling andtracking of air, process water, wastewater,and groundwater. These are monitored toensure that Jefferson Lab effluents do nothave a negative impact on the surroundingenvironment and that effluents remainwithin the allowable range. Jefferson Labalso assesses the effects of Lab activities bymeasuring, monitoring, and calculating theeffects of past, current, and future Laboperations on the environment and publichealth.

Both permit-required and routinemonitoring have emphasized potentialenvironmental exposure pathwaysappropriate to medium-energy particlephysics laboratories. These pathwaysinclude external and internal exposure toradiation, the major focus of the site’sprogram. The external exposure potential isfrom direct penetrating (10 CFR 834 (draft)and 10 CFR 835) and airborne radiation(40 CFR 61, Subpart H). The internalexposure pathway is from H-3 (tritium) andNa-22 in potential drinking water sources.These exposure potentials are discussed inSection 5 and are not a concern either on oroff the Jefferson Lab site at this time.

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.

Jefferson Lab environmental data collectedin 2000 included:• monitoring results from operational

measurements at site boundary monitorlocations;

• monitoring results for groundwaterquality for long-term facility operations;

• monitoring of effluents to the sanitarysewer;

• monitoring of groundwater dewateringdischarges; and

• monitoring of other effluent streams,such as the cooling water at the coolingtowers.

On-site environmental surveillancecontinued in 2000. The environmentalbaseline data were obtained prior to thestart of routine accelerator operations.Baseline data are compared with dataobtained during ongoing facility operationsto ensure that Jefferson Lab operations arenot adversely affecting public health or theenvironment.


Throughout 2000, the RCG reviewedradiological 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 APPRAISALS, ASSESSMENTS,AND INSPECTIONS

The DOE Site Office, the ORO Office, andvarious Commonwealth and localauthorities provide external oversight of theJefferson Lab Environmental ProtectionProgram.

External Appraisals

The last of the environmentally relateddeficiencies identified during threeprevious DOE external appraisals wereclosed in 2000. This closure followedreview and approval of the Lab’s correctiveactions by the DOE Site Office. None ofthese deficiencies represented a threat topublic health or the environment.

DOE Review of Jefferson LabSelf-Assessment

The DOE Site Office’s Overlay Report,produced in conjunction with SURA’sannual laboratory-wide self-assessment,covers EH&S topics, contains Site Officeobservations and reviews, DOE appraisalresults, and other information. The Reportprovides an overall performanceassessment for the year. For FY 2000, theOverlay Performance Evaluation Reportyielded a rating of “Outstanding” in theEH&S category.

Integrated Safety Management (ISM)

ISM is a process that ensures that safety(EH&S collectively) is incorporated into allwork processes. This was Jefferson Lab’sphilosophy even before ISM wasincorporated into the Laboratory’s contractwith DOE.

Subsequent to a November 1999 DOE SiteOffice validation of the effectiveness of ISMat the Laboratory, the few areas identifiedfor improvement have been the subject ofLaboratory corrective action plans, most ofwhich have been completed.

External Reviews

A Radiation Control Group Peer Reviewwas conducted in August 2000 at JeffersonLab, which is categorized as a low-hazard,non-nuclear accelerator facility. The reviewcovered many topics including radiationwork contro ls , workplace andenvironmental monitoring, activated watermanagement, and source accountability.Jefferson Lab earned 92.5% of the availablepoints, an “Outstanding” rating.

External Inspections

There were two external environmentalinspections during 2000:• The HRSD staff performed the annual

Jefferson Lab site inspection onFebruary 15. The HRSD chose to reviewthe Test Lab equipment and laboratoryareas in 2000. No problems wereidentified. The inspector commendedthe staff for its professionalism and thegood secondary containment practicesevident in all areas.

• An unannounced DEQ inspection of theLab’s air emission sources took place onSeptember 7. The inspectionencompassed the natural gas-firedboilers, the new natural gas emergencygenerators, and a new paint booth. Noconcerns were identified, andinformation on the new equipment wasprovided to the inspector.

Line Self-Assessments

Line managers perform line self-assessments (LSAs) of their organizationalelements annually. The LSAs are broad inscope, covering the accomplishment of theelements’ goals, including EH&S. The Self-Assessment/Quality Assurance (SA/QA)Group performs independent assessments(IAs) of four of the Lab’s organizationalunits each year, with a focus on EH&S.


Deficiencies identified through the IAs aretracked by SA/QA until the correctiveactions are completed.

4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS

Environmental permits held by the DOESite Office are listed in Exhibit 3-2, andcompliance with each is discussed inSection 3 of this report. All permits citinglimits and conditions involving water arediscussed in Sections 5.2.2 and 6.1.

4.4 2000 NEPA ACTIVITY

NEPA, as amended, outlines the Federalpolicy to restore and enhance theenvironment and to attain the widest rangeof beneficial use without degradation.NEPA-related actions are handled inconjunction with the DOE, which iscommitted to follow the related EPAregulations. Jefferson Lab assists the DOEby preparing documents and performingassessments of existing Jefferson Labdocumentation. NEPA actions performedin 2000 follow.• The existing eight site-specific CXs were

renewed during 2000. These CXspertain to regular activities that meetNEPA criteria, such as “Improvementsto Cooling Water Systems” and“Routine On-site Storage of ActivatedMaterial”.

• One new project CX covering the TestLab addition to house SNS activitieswas approved.

• New site-specific CXs approvedcovered: radioact ive wastemanagement, the siting of particleaccelerators with beam energies underapproximately 100 MeV, and accessroad improvements.

• The internal approval process for verysmall-scale construction projects that arecovered under existing CXs continuedin 2000.

4.5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANTENVIRONMENTALACTIVITIES AT JEFFERSONLAB

4.5.1 Issues and Actions

An emergency management exercisesimulated an oil spill within theaccelerator fence. Issues, such asinterfaces with various responseagencies and between labdepartments, were identified. Linemanagement is resolving theseissues.

There were three minor oil releasesin 2000. Two involved hydraulicline leaks, one from a delivery truckwhere a loose line caused a localizedspray, and another from a forkliftline break inside a building. Thethird spill was due to a small hole ina drum that had just arrived on site.All instances were minor andquickly corrected by l inemanagement and EH&S staff.

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

Gold Pretreatment ExcellenceAward for its excellent performancerecord in 2000.

• A second cooling tower dischargewas added to the DEQ GeneralPermit at the end of the year.

• The Lab continued to procure low-mercury fluorescent lamps thatshould result in the eventualelimination of the fluorescent lamphazardous waste stream.

• Due to a new DOE initiative, theRCG instituted a new program forradioactive waste management in2000.

4.5.2 WMin/P2 Awareness

Waste Minimization/PollutionPrevention (WMin/P2) reduces thequantity of environmentally harmfulmaterials and other pollutants orcontaminants entering a waste


stream or the environment prior torecycling or treatment. Thesepractices benefit the environment,protect employees and public health,and reduce site waste disposal costs.Specific objectives of the WMin/P2program include:• making employees aware of

W M i n / P 2 p r o g r a mr e q u i r e m e n t s , g o a l s ,accomplishments, and generalenvironmental activities andhazards at the site;

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

• e n c o u r a g i n g s t a f f a n drecognizing efforts to enhancethe environment throughWMin/P2; and

• publicizing WMin/P2 successstories.

J e f f e r s o n L a b ' s W M i n / P 2Awareness program addresses mostforms of site-generated waste. Staffare aware of the following methodsand techniques:• p r e v e n t i v e m a i n t e n a n c e

programs;• substitution, to encourage use of

more environmentally-friendlymaterials;

• source reduction such as processchanges to minimize use;

• materials exchange, both on-siteand through the DOE Website;

• reclamation, e.g., scrap metal forGSA contractor collection;

• maximizing the use of productsbefore declaring them waste;

• utilization, as possible, ofrecyclers for the acid mixture,waste paper, and other refuse;and

• procurement and storageprocedures that ensure materialsare used up in a timely manner.

Refuse/Recycling

Staff education on waste reductioninitiatives and waste disposaloptions continued in 2000.Communication channels, such asthe Lab newsletter and EH&S wall-mounted and electronic bulletinb o a r d s , d i s p l a y r e c y c l i n ginformation. Actual quantitiesrecycled in FY 2000, as reported tothe DOE, are shown in Exhibit 4-1.

Hazardous and SpecialWastestreams

Variations in hazardous wastegeneration rates have beenrecognized and documented withthe use of Performance Measures.Jefferson Lab has made notableprogress in meeting hazardouswaste minimization objectives.Accelerator Division EH&S staff, inparticular, continued to emphasizesubstitution, reduction, and reuse ofhazardous materials in theworkplace.

In the category of specialwastestreams, Jefferson Labgenerated about 4.6 tons ofhazardous waste, 5.0 cubic meters oflow-level radioactive waste, and noTSCA or mixed wastes (acombination of hazardous andradioactive) during FY 2000. Someradioactive materials are stored inspecial holding areas to allow fordecay and possible reuse. Noradioactive waste was contracted fordisposal in FY 2000.


EXHIBIT 4-1

QUANTITIES OF ITEMS RECYCLED OR REUSED IN FY 2000

Description Quantity (tons unless noted)Paper Products (office paper & cardboard) 38.5Aluminum Cans 0.25Scrap Metal (reclaimed through GSA) 62.4Used Oil 1.65Used Coolant 0.68Toner Cartridges 0.13Transparencies 1.5 poundsLead-acid Batteries 0.08Fluorescent Lamps 0.59Computer Disks 1 poundData Processing Equipment 7.4Circuit Boards and Electronics 0.03*Used All Occasion Cards 0.07* A DOE initiative to provide to St. Jude’s Ranch for Children for reuse.

4.5.3 Other Measures toMinimize EnvironmentalConsequences

Affirmative Procurement

• The Lab’s Business ServicesDepar tment and EH&SReporting staff continued toencourage the purchase of EPA-listed materials with recycled-material content.

• The main office product supplierused by staff highlights recycled-content-containing products inboth its paper and on-linecatalogs.

• The Lab and DOE goal of Lab-wide use of 30% recycled-content copy paper through thecentral Copy Center wasachieved throughout 2000.

Energy Efficiency

• At least fifteen lighting systemswere modified to include sensorsthat turn the ceiling lights offwhen the room is unoccupied fora designated period of time.

• Plant Engineering proposedother initiatives in response toEO 13123, G r e e n i n g t h e

Government through EfficientEnergy Management.

4.5.4 Environmental QualityEnhancements

The following projects enhancedenvironmental quality in 2000.

• The Test Lab’s use of solventshas been virtually eliminatedand the acid usage in the cavityproduction process has beenreduced by 50%. Theseimprovements are due to thecombined efforts of the lab users,the process designers, and theAccelerator Division EH&S staff.

• Oil-spill prevention controlswere added and/or improved ina number of work areas.

SECTION 5

ENVIRONMENTALRADIOLOGICAL PROGRAM

INFORMATION

Jefferson Lab protects the environment andthe public from exposure to radiation. Theradiological monitoring program is theprimary means used at Jefferson Lab to


verify accomplishment of this objective.Other support activities include: usingpermanent and temporary shielding; usingactive and passive controls at activatedwater locations; and following properprotocols when handling radioactivematerials and wastes.

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 of adifferent element or to a lower energy state of thesame element.

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 thatLab support activities and acceleratortesting and operations, as described withinthe approved operational safety envelope,will result in minimum impacts to theenvironment and have minimal to no effectson public health.

5.1 ENVIRONMENTALRADIATION MONITORING

Accelerator operations produce three typesof radioactivity that can impact the generalpublic: direct or prompt, airborne, andwaterborne. Jefferson Lab performedextensive environmental monitoring in 2000to measure these three forms of accelerator-produced radiation. Pathways to thegeneral public are modeled and monitoredwhen appropriate or as indicated by law.The decision to monitor a particularpathway is based on:• the type of operations;• the radionuclides released;• the potential hazard;• the experience from previous

monitoring results at Jefferson Lab; and• the experience at other nuclear and

high-energy physics laboratories.

5.2 DIRECT, AIRBORNE, ANDWATERBORNERADIOACTIVITY

Radiation resulting from the accelerator beam orthe interaction of the beam with matter is calleddirect (or prompt) radiation. This directradiation is produced within the beam enclosureand stops being generated as soon as theaccelerator is turned off.

5.2.1 Direct Radiation andAirborne Radioactivity

In addition to direct radiation, theinteraction of the accelerator beamwith matter can cause the formationof radioactive materials in thismatter, through activation. Thebeamlines, magnets, beamline-components, targets, detectors, otherexperimental area equipment, andthe energy dissipating devices(beam dumps) used to contain thebeam’s energy may becomeactivated. Cooling and groundwaters, lubricants, and air in thebeam enclosure may also becomeactivated. These activated air,water, and particulates are possiblesources of airborne and waterborneradioactivity. Though the directradiation stops when the acceleratoris turned off, this activatedequipment, water, and air continueto emit radiation.

Controls are in place to minimize theeffects of both direct radiation andradiation from activated materialson lab personnel, the environment,and the public.• Direct radiation is monitored

both on-site and at the siteboundary.

• Interlocked access pointsprovide a fail-safe barrier againstentry to the beam enclosureduring accelerator operations.

• The monitoring of airborneradioactivity is carried out


locally to validate calculationsand estimates of radiation dose.

• Radiation shielding surroundsthe beam enclosure area.

• All material exposed to the beamis monitored for radioactivityprior to being removed from thebeam enclosure.

Shielding Blocks Located in Hall A

While radiation dose rates offsite areexpected to be well below limits setfor the general public, monitoringensures that the established controlsare effective.• Waterborne activity issues are

discussed in Section 5.2.2.• Monitoring for exposure of the

public to direct radiation isdiscussed in Section 5.3.

• The monitoring for publicexposure to airborne emissions isaddressed below.

Airborne Radioactivity: Radioactivematerial in any chemical or physical formthat is present in ambient air, abovenatural background. This radioactivity canbe generated by interaction with directradiation.

Airborne emissions at the siteboundary are addressed under EPArequirements d iscussed inSection 3.7.2. Airborne radionuclideconcentrations at the site boundaryhave been too low to accuratelym e a s u r e . P r e o p e r a t i o n a lcalculations, using EPA-approvedcomputer modeling codes, indicatedthat Jefferson Lab operationalemissions were several orders ofmagnitude lower than the EPA10 mrem/yr reporting limit.Calculated results based on an EPA-approved computer program,CAP-88 PC, are presented inExhibit 5-1. Despite this very lowcalculated release rate, Jefferson Labcontinued being proactive in 2000 bymaking continuous measurementsto verify the calculations. A reportfor 2000 was sent to the EPA asdescribed in 40 CFR 61. This reportdocumented that the dose to amaximally exposed individual of thepublic is less than 0.048 mrem/yr.due to airborne releases.

EXHIBIT 5-1

NUCLIDE EFFECTIVE DOSE EQUIVALENT SUMMARY

Nuclide H-3 Be-7 C-11 N-13 O-15 Ar-41 Cl-38, 39 TOTALCalculation forSelected IndividualBased onConservativeCalculations andMeasurements(mrem/yr.)

1.2 E-3 3.0 E-2 1.9 E-3 6.3 E-3 6.7 E-5 3.4 E-3 5.6 E-3 4.8 E-2

Conversion note: 1 mrem = 0.01 millisievert (mSv)


In conclusion, there are entities inplace to ensure that the Labcontinues to function withinregulatory and establ ishedadministrative limits for directradiation and airborne emissions.One entity is the ExperimentalEquipment Review Committee thatreviews experiments for EH&Sparameters, as well as forexperimental and facility usagecriteria. Another is a RCG review ofprojected public exposures andairborne emissions from proposedexperiments to help the Lab remainwithin established guidelines. Referto Section 5.3 for specificinformation on the monitoring ofdirect radiation.

5.2.2 Waterborne Radioactivity

Groundwater

Radioactivity in groundwater, as aresult of direct or secondaryradiation, is possible in certainlocations around the shieldedaccelerator and experimental halls t ruc tures . The VPDESgroundwater quality permit servesas the basis for evaluatingaccelerator-produced radioactivityin groundwater. Under the permit,Jefferson Lab is not allowed toexceed one-quarter of the EPA SafeDrinking Water Act limits on-site orchange the quality of thegroundwater offsite. Refer toSection 7 for more information onhow the Lab incorporatesmonitoring to protect groundwaterresources.

This VPDES groundwater qualitypermit specifies EPA-approvedsampling and analysis protocols,which were the basis ofgroundwater monitoring in 2000.Fifteen wells were sampled atquarterly, semi-annual or annualintervals. The permitted wellsincluded the “A”, “B”, and “C” Ring

wells (labeled as to proximity to theaccelerator) and the upgradient well.Refer to Exhibit 5-2 for monitoringwell locations. Refer to Section 7.2for more information on samplingrequirements. The groundwaterdewatering effluent at theexperimental halls was alsomonitored quarterly in 2000 andreported under this permit.

Water samples have been drawnand analyzed since 1987. The datacollected, through the completion offacility construction in 1995, providea groundwater quality baseline forcomparisons during long-termfacility operation. The backgroundsamples were analyzed for naturallyoccurring radionuclides, as well asaccelerator-produced radionuclides,and selected chemical parameters.The radionuclides analyzed in 2000are those known to relate tooperations associated with electronaccelerators. They include H-3(Tritium), Be-7, Na-22, Mn-54, andgross beta. Total manmaderadioactivity is also analyzed.

Exhibit 5-3 lists the VPDESgroundwater quality permit levelsfor radiological parameters withvalues in picocuries per liter (pCi/l).The values in Exhibit 5-3 representnormal background radionuclides,which are also generated throughJefferson Lab activities.

The radiological results frommonitoring the wells in theaccelerator vicinity during 2000 arepresented in the first part ofExhibit 5-4. The results from theother locations described in thepermit are shown in the second halfof the exhibit. All measurementswere within the permit levels. Noaccelerator-produced activity hasbeen detected. All values representnatural background and variationsare normal.


EXHIBIT 5-2


EXHIBIT 5-3

VPDES 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/l

Manmade Radioactivity 1 mrem/yr. 1 mrem/yr. - -

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

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

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

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

Notes:*Those radionuclides determined to be relevant to Jefferson Lab operations.A-ring levels are action levels only.Numbers are representative of pre-operational measurements plus 2 standard deviations, which representa 99% certainty that deviations above this level are not random.

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

EXHIBIT 5-4

MAXIMUM GROUNDWATER MEASUREMENTS FOR RADIONUCLIDES*January 2000 through December 2000

Radionuclides at Associated Wells Relevant to Accelerator Operations

Analyte A-Ring B-Ring C-Ring

Gross Beta 16.1 pCi/l 6.9 pCi/l 4.43 pCi/l

Manmade Radioactivity ND at < 0.307 mrem/yr. ND at < 0.296 mrem/yr. not applicable

Tritium ND at < 595 pCi/l ND at < 595 pCi/l ND at < 595 pCi/l

Sodium-22 ND at < 27.8 pCi/l ND at < 25 pCi/l ND at < 28 pCi/l

Beryllium-7 ND at < 169 pCi/l ND at < 217 pCi/l ND at < 186 pCi/l

Manganese-54 ND at < 23 pCi/l ND at < 28 pCi/l ND at < 21 pCi/l

Radionuclides At Other Permit Locations

Analyte Upgradient Well Discharge 001

Gross Beta 1.67 pCi/l 16.3 pCi/l

Sodium-22 ND at < 18 pCi/l ND at < 20 pCi/l

(Continued)



Tritium ND at < 595 pCi/l ND at < 595 pCi/l

Beryllium-7 ND at < 125 pCi/l ND at < 126 pCi/l

Manganese-54 ND at < 16 pCi/l ND at < 17 pCi/l

Notes:*Those radionuclides determined to be relevant to Jefferson Lab operations.ND: Not detectable above permit-required sensitivity limitsNo accelerator-produced activity has been detected.

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

Other Water Monitoring

The surface water-samplingprogram commenced at the timeconstruction of the experimentalhalls was completed. Quarterlysampling of the groundwaterdewatering surface discharge underthe VPDES groundwater qualitypermit continued in 2000. Inaddition, automated samplingequipment is used to analyze thedischarged water for tritium andgross beta. There were no concernsat this discharge stream in 2000.

The Cool ing Water Tank(Building 92) and the floor drainsump (FDS) pit (Building 97) areconsidered one HRSD samplingpoint. Sampling at the FDS pit, thatcollects various discharges,including low-level activateddehumidification condensate fromair conditioning systems located inthe experimental halls, and at theCooling Water Tank, that containsactivated water from variousaccelerator apparatus, continued in2000. Sampling and analysis fortritium is performed prior to anydischarges to the sanitary system.The results are recorded andmonthly and quarterly concentrationvalues are provided to HRSD. Someregulatory values that are notrequired to be regularly reported,are tracked and documented by the

RCG staff, such as the total amountof activity discharged to the sanitarysewer system. Monthly andcomposite quarterly results for 2000are provided in Exhibit 5-5. Theconcentrations varied based on thequantity of beam dump coolingwater discharged during thereporting period.

On a periodic basis in 2000, otherwater sampling and analysis fortritium and gross beta activity wereperformed on various dischargesfrom potential radiological areas,such as from sump pumps. Anywater identified as a potentialconcern was collected and wasdischarged according to the terms ofthe HRSD permit.

Various accelerator-related watersystems have the potential ofbecoming activated. Secondarycontainment and other physicalcontrols are present around areaswith the potential for spills ofactivated water. Additionaladministrative controls are in placewhere the water activation level isabove an identified level.

There were a few minor water spillsor leak events in 2000 involvingthese activated water systems. TheRCG staff addressed and cleaned upthe areas involved. There were noworker safety, environmental, or


EXHIBIT 5-5

ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR DISCHARGES TO HRSD IN 2000

M o nt hl y V a l ue s

Reporting PeriodAverage Tritium

Concentration Reporting PeriodAverage Tritium

Concentration

January 6,900 pCi/l July 2,700 pCi/lFebruary 330 pCi/l August 8,000 pCi/l

March 26,000 pCi/l September 3,300 pCi/lApril 490 pCi/l October 38,000 pCi/lMay 290 pCi/l November 4,000 pCi/lJune 540 pCi/l December 31,000 pCi/l

Qu a r t e r l y V a l u e s

Reporting PeriodAverage Tritium

ConcentrationOther Gamma-Emitting Radionuclides

Concentration

First Quarter 11,000 pCi/l Na-22 at 0.072 pCi/lSecond Quarter 420 pCi/l None detectedThird Quarter 4,500 pCi/l None detectedFourth Quarter 21,000 pCi/l None detected

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

public health concerns. Collectedwater that did not meet immediatedisposal criteria was transferred to atemporary storage area for laterrelease to HRSD.

5.3 MONITORING FOREXPOSURE TOACCELERATOR-PRODUCEDDIRECT RADIATION

Direct radiation penetrates shielding withalmost all this radiation stopped by theshielding; any exposure to this radiation isat a maximum on-site and decreases withdistance. During 2000, Jefferson Labcontinued regular accelerator operations insupport of various physics experiments inthe three experimental halls. Acceleratoroperations and related activities producedsignificant amounts of direct radiation;however, these amounts were restricted

within constraints as managed by the RCGand were performed within an approvedsafety envelope.

The Jefferson Lab areas, where directradiation can be produced, are notaccessible during accelerator operations.There are approximately 50 electronicradiation detectors and a series ofassociated passive integrating detectorsdeployed around the accelerator site withthe primary purpose of measuring on-siteradiation. The majority of the electronicdetectors are connected to a centralcomputer system that can automaticallyrecord the radiation levels for subsequentexamination. When appropriate, JeffersonLab employees, contractors, and visitorswear detection devices to monitor for on-site radiation exposure.

Six dual-channel microprocessor-basedinstruments for monitoring gamma and


neutron radiation levels collected bothdirect and airborne radiation data at the siteboundary in 2000. Radiation data collectedprior to January 1995 serve as the statisticalbaseline for comparison to that collectedsince the accelerator became fullyoperational.

5.4 ASSESSMENTS OFPOTENTIAL RADIATIONDOSE TO THE PUBLIC ANDTO BIOTA

The six electronic radiation measurementdevices noted in 5.3, installed along theaccelerator site boundary continued to beused to determine offsite dose to the publicdue to Jefferson Lab operations. Theseelectronic detectors - radiation boundarymonitors (RBMs) - measure and logradiological information at the locationsshown on Exhibit 5-6. In addition, passiveintegrating detectors were used for anumber of measurements. All measureddose values were within statutory andadministrative limits. For 2000, the highestsite boundary direct (prompt) radiationlevel was about 3.8% of the DOE annualdose limit of 100 mrem (1 mSv), or 38% ofthe site administrative dose limit.

Radiation Boundary Monitor

Exhibit 5-7 displays the radiation doses for2000 in mrem at RBM-3 at the siteboundary. A comparison with naturalbackground radiation is made, which

indicates the relatively low levels ofJefferson Lab’s contribution to the publicdose. These background levels do notinclude contributions to dose from Radon,which typically doubles natural radiationdose to the public

Jefferson Lab does not release any residualradioactive material, such as concrete orsoil, so there are no resulting dose impactsto the public.

The absorbed dose to any local aquaticanimals, or terrestrial plants or animals,from Jefferson Lab operations will notexceed the internationally recommendeddose limits for terrestrial biota. As there areno potential releases of a magnitude thatcould result in doses exceeding 0.1 rad/dayto terrestrial animals, the lowest limit forany biota, no dose limits will be exceeded.

In conclusion, Jefferson Lab did notcontribute significantly to the radiation dosereceived by the public through eitherairborne and/or groundwater pathways.The direct radiation exposure was againmeasurable in 2000, but was found to beabout 38% of the Jefferson Lab design goalof one-tenth of the DOE limit.

5.5 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. TheRCG installs shielding blocks and devices asneeded to minimize impacts both insideand outside the facility.

All areas where activated water could bepresent have controls in place. Locationswith a high potential for activation havesecondary containment measures installedand administrative lockout/tagout controls.Other areas with less or no potential foractivation are monitored periodically toensure levels are within expected values.


EXHIBIT 5-6

BOUNDARY MONITOR LOCATIONS

Note: RB03 is the same as RBM-3.

EXHIBIT 5-7

RADIATION BOUNDARY MONITOR RBM-3 RESULTS FOR 2000

PeriodNeutron(mrem)

Gamma(mrem)

Total(mrem)

Jan-Mar 0.45 ± 0.02 0.11 ± 0.01 0.56 ± 0.03Apr-June 0.41 ± 0.02 0.10 ± 0.01 0.51. ± 0.03July-Sept 0.23 ± 0.02 0.06 ± 0.01 0.29 ± 0.03Oct-Dec 1.96± 0.03 0.49 ± 0.02 2.45 ± 0.03

TOTAL 3.05 ± 0.04 0.76 ± 0.02 3.81 ± 0.04

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 note: 1 mrem = 0.01 mSv


The RCG establishes access-controlled areasto temporarily store radioactive materialsincluding those being stored for decay, andwastes. There is no impact to theenvironment or public health from the smallquantity of materials stored on-site.

SECTION 6

ENVIRONMENTAL NON-RADIOLOGICAL

PROGRAM INFORMATION

There are a number of non-radiologicalactivities that Jefferson Lab performs insupporting protection of the environmentand public health. The major activity isnon-radiological pollutant monitoring,performed under the site permits listed inExhibit 3-2. Other activities includereviewing conventional air emissions;administering appropriate controlsinvolving work with chemicals such asherbicides and cooling water treatmentadditives; reviews for emergency planningregarding on-site chemicals; and specialwaste management.

In general, controls to protect theenvironment are established through on-siteprograms and subcontractual agreements

that address permit condition requirementsand other identified Lab commitments orinitiatives. There were no problems withrespect to any of the aforementionedJefferson Lab activities during 2000.

6.1 WATER PROGRAMS

6.1.1 VPDES Permits

Jefferson Lab monitored thedewatering discharge and themonitoring wells identified inSection 5 for general water qualityp a r a m e t e r s u n d e r P e r m i tNo. VA0089320. The cooling waterdischarge was monitored underPermit No. VAG253002.

Dewatering Discharge

A sample of the groundwatercollected from the dewateringprocess is taken quarterly at thecollection pit located in the CountingHouse basement. This collectionpoint, termed “Outfall 001”, ismonitored for pH along with theradiological parameters mentionedpreviously. Results are shown onExhibit 6-1. The maximum dailydischarge quantity for each quarteris also reported.

EXHIBIT 6-1

2000 PERMIT-RELATED NON-RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING RESULTS

Parameter/Units Outfall 001 GW-15a A Wells B Wells C WellsMaximum Flow

(MGD)0.016 to 0.019 n/a n/a n/a n/a

pH 6.7 to 7.2 4.4 5.1 to 6.6 5.5 to 7.2 6.6 to 6.9Conductivity(µmhos/cm)

n/a 100 500 to 2100 210 to 800 410 to 600

TDS (mg/l) n/a 53 395 to1834 222 to 832 335 to 548TSS (mg/l) n/a 2 18 to 165 2 to 43 2 to 31

MGD: million gallons/daymg/l: milligrams/liter


Monitoring Wells

Monitoring wells were sampled forpH, conductivity, total suspendedsolids (TSS), and total dissolvedsolids (TDS) under the terms ofPermit No. VA0089320. SeeExhibit 5-2 for the site map showingthe well locations monitored in 2000.Data collected in 2000 wasrepresentative of groundwaterqual i ty dur ing acce leratoroperations and consistent withprevious baseline measurements.

Non-radiological informationcollected at the wells in 2000 is alsonoted in the results due to seasonal,local ground conditions, and earth-disturbing factors. Even with a fullyoperating accelerator, variousconstruction projects in the area, anda variety of physics experimentsbeing performed, there were nof a c i l i t y - r e l a t e d e f f e c t s o ngroundwater quality in 2000.

Cooling Water Discharges

The materials used for cooling watertreatment in 2000 were Coastline

Formula 2029 (scale and corrosioninhibitor), Formula 1909 (liquidbiocide), and a small amount of adispersant. There were noenvironmental concerns with the useof these chemicals.

Quarterly sampling and reportingare performed under a VPDESGeneral Permit. Values for flow,pH, temperature, total phosphorus,hardness, total dissolved copper,and total dissolved zinc wereprovided to the DEQ. The valuesreported for 2000 are provided onExhibit 6-2. Monitoring for chlorinewas initiated in 2000 andphosphorus was dropped. In the 3rd

quarter, a sample was taken from astagnant source, which resulted in a5.8 pH reading, which is just slightlybelow the lower permit limit of 6.0.A second sample was taken, whenconditions were suitable, with areading of 6.8, which is within theacceptable range. The first quarterchlorine sample was taken too closeto the tower that uses chlorinatedcity water. A better sampling pointwas selected.

EXHIBIT 6-2

2000 COOLING WATER DISCHARGE RESULTS

Parameter First Quarter Second Quarter Third Quarter Fourth QuarterFlow .011 MGD .011 MGD .009 MGD .008 MGDpH 8.0 6.9 *5.8 to 6.8 7.3

Temperature 15.6 °C 25.1 °C 29.5 °C 25.2 °CHardness 388 mg/l 407 mg/l 388mg/l 338 mg/lCopper 0.057mg/l 0.010 mg/l 0.020mg/l 0.010 mg/l

Zinc .0317mg/l 0.049 mg/l 0.037 mg/l 0.050 mg/lChlorine *0.9 mg/l < 0.1 mg/l < 0.1 mg/l < 0.1 mg/l

* Out of range results are discussed in text.MGD: million gallons/daymg/l: milligrams/liter


6.1.2 Permit to WithdrawGroundwater

Jefferson Lab’s withdrawal ofgroundwater at the experimentalhalls is an unusual situation, aspresented in Exhibit 6-1, and isshown as a range. Wide variationsin pumping are required to maintainthe structural integrity of the halls.Dewatering pumpage is minimal indrought periods. There are nospecial requirements for monitoringas no industrial or other use is madeof the discharged groundwater.Radiological parameters aremonitored due to proximity to theaccelerator. Refer to Section 5.2.2that covers other samplingrequirements.

The only factor of concern under thegroundwater withdrawal permit isthe quantity of water pumped.Quantities of water pumped fromthese tile fields are reported to theCommonwealth on a quarterly basis.The groundwater withdrawalpermit allows the pumping of amaximum of 6,000,000 gallons permonth; Jefferson Lab is normallypumping about 500,000 gallons. Theother pumpage restriction is a yearlylimit of 23,036,790 gallons. Therewere no unusual issues regardingthis discharge in 2000.

6.1.3 Industrial WastewaterDischarge Permit

Industrial wastewater, that includesa small quantity of activated water,is generated by Jefferson Lab anddischarged to the HRSD. Theactivated water that was collectedand discharged in 2000 was acombination of the output fromdehumidification equipment in theexperimental halls and smallwithdrawals from the beam dumpcooling systems. Refer to

Sections 3.4.4 and 5.2.2 for moreinformation.

Jefferson Lab and the HRSD performsampling of discharges. Asubcontractor monitors two sanitarysewer outflow streams to assure thatpH levels are within permit criteria.As noted in Section 5, the RCG staffmanages the HRSD radiologicalsampling and analysis requirements.The HRSD samples all dischargestreams regularly for a fullcomplement of metals. On anannual basis, a seven-day period ofmonitoring flows and samples ateach of the discharge points isperformed to help determine ifchanges to the permit are necessary.Monitoring results assured thatJefferson Lab remained within thelimits of the HRSD-issued permit in2000. Jefferson Lab received a GoldPretreatment Excellence Award forits performance in 2000 by theHRSD.

6.1.4 Drinking Water

Jefferson Lab receives its drinkingwater from the city of NewportNews Waterworks, an approvedpotable water supplier. Nomonitoring by Jefferson Lab isrequired. Backflow preventivedevice inspections are regularlyperformed; refer to Section 3.6.1.

The site surface water flow isdirected to Big Bethel reservoir, adrinking water source. Fort Monroeenvironmental staff are providedannual information on the quantityof groundwater discharged. Therewere no drinking water issues in2000.

6.1.5 SPCC Plan

Jefferson Lab maintains an SPCCPlan, which was revised in 1998.Refer to Section 3.4.6 for complianceinformation.


6.2 CONVENTIONAL AIREMISSIONS

The Hampton Roads area of southeasternVirginia remained in attainment of ozoneambient air quality standards in 2000,though it is still considered a CAAmaintenance area. The Hampton Roadsarea also remained in attainment for theother criteria air pollutants: particulatematter, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide,nitrogen dioxide, and lead. There is norequired monitoring of criteria air pollutantemissions performed at Jefferson Lab asthere are no applicable emission sourcespresent on the site.

Jefferson Lab is required to notify the DEQregarding its air pollution sources and thetypes of potential air pollution that may bereleased into the atmosphere. Natural gas-fired boilers are the primary air pollutantsources at Jefferson Lab. Reports of annualair emissions are provided to the DEQ uponrequest; refer to Exhibit 3-4.

Since a 1995 review of non-radiologicalemission sources indicated a minimal levelof emissions, there have been no majorchanges in air emissions. Jefferson Lab,therefore, remains below any reportingthresholds. The DEQ air emissioninspection, mentioned in Section 3.7.3 notedthe new natural gas-fired generators andspray booth, but no new requirements havebecome applicable.

Accelerator operations result in thegeneration of small quantities of ozone.There are some minor on-site worker healthissues, but there are no environmental orpublic health effects from this generation.Ozone is monitored as a worker health issueand is appropriately controlled.

6.3 HERBICIDES ANDPESTICIDES

Certified subcontractors who meet therequirements of the FIFRA through Virginialicensing do all applications of herbicides

and pesticides. All pesticides used in 2000were EPA-registered and applied accordingto the product instructions and Federal,State, and local guidelines. The JeffersonLab’s Plant Engineering Departmentcoordinates these subcontracts under theLab’s pest control guidelines.

Herbicides were used on annual andperennial weeds and grasses, stumps oftrees, and brush. Pesticides were appliedon-site for control of insects. Miscellaneouspest control was handled in 2000 by alicensed subcontracted exterminator. Areasaddressed included kitchens, laboratories,and other areas throughout the site.

No industrial-strength herbicides orpesticides are prepared, mixed, stored, ordisposed of on-site. 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 in2000 are presented in Exhibit 6-3.

6.4 HAZARDOUS WASTES

As a SQG, Jefferson Lab does not need tofile a regular report with the DEQ about ourhazardous wastestreams. The hazardouswastes generated in the largest volumes in2000 are waste buffered chemical polish (anacid mixture) that is used for niobiumcavity processing and waste solvents(acetone, methanol, and isopropanol) fromcleaning operations. The Jefferson LabHWC manages the site program. All wastesare disposed of through licensed wastehandling facilities. Refer to Section 3.11 forcompliance information.

6.5 ENVIRONMENTALOCCURRENCES

No reports to the DEQ or to the NationalResponse Center were made in 2000, asthere were no releases that required anyform of notification.


EXHIBIT 6-3

CONTROL CHEMICALS AND PRODUCTSAPPROVED FOR USE IN 2000

Control Chemicalor Product

Control Chemicalor Product

Pest Control Herbicides/LandscapeMaintenance

Contrac DamoilDemand CS Diazinon 4EDicofol 4EC Dicofol 4ECDursban Pro Dimension

Flyteck DiometomInsect Guard Fore Tree & Ornamental

FungicideMaxForce Bait Fusilade II

Mosquito Dunks MeritPrecor 1% MSMA Target 6.6

PT 270 Dursban RoundupPT 515 Wasp-Freeze Super Trimec

Quintox Rat & Mouse Bait

Termite ControlCyrene TC

6.6 SARA TITLE III REPORTINGREQUIREMENTS

Jefferson Lab conducted a sitewide chemicalinventory in accordance with the reportingrequirements of SARA Title III for CY 2000.The EPCRA Tier II report for CY 2000 wasprovided to the DEQ along with someadditional maps and contact information asrequested by the Peninsula LocalEmergency Planning Committee .Exhibit 6-4 lists the chemicals reported andtheir hazard class or classes. Refer toSection 3.9 for compliance information.

Though Jefferson Lab does not exceedthreshold amounts for listed toxicchemicals, the Lab completed a review ofapplicable usage to determine if reportingin 2000, for CY 1999, was necessary. It wasdetermined no reporting was required and

such notice was provided to the DOE SiteOffice.

6.7 SAFETY

Jefferson Lab’s performance, with respect toworker safety for the 2000 CY, was asfollows:• Recordable injury case rate:

1.8 per 100 employees;• Lost Work Day case rate:

0.7 per 100 employees;• Lost Work Day rate:

4.2 per 100 employees;• Number of radioactive contaminations:

(external): 0;• Number of Safety Occurrence Reports:

(OSHA confined space, chemicalexposure, and lockout/tagoutincidents): 0.


EXHIBIT 6-4

CHEMICALS REPORTED FOR 2000

Compound Hazard Class

Fire

SuddenRelease ofPressure

AcuteHealthHazard Reactive

ChronicHealthHazard

Argon (liquid) √ √Helium (liquid √ √

Nitrogen (liquid) √ √Nitric Acid √ √

Hydrofluoric Acid √ √Hydraulic Oil

(Various including vacuum oil)√ √

Lead (Sheeting) √Bromine √ √

SECTION 7

GROUNDWATERPROTECTION

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Groundwater is a vital natural resource.The contamination of groundwater couldpresent potential problems to the generalpopulation. Because of this, both theF e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t a n d t h eCommonwealth 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 withFederal, State, and local regulations, otheridentified standards, and effective resourcemanagement practices. The Programincludes a groundwater monitoring planthat serves to assess the effect of past,current, and future Jefferson Lab activitieson groundwater quantity and quality.

7.2 HYDROGEOLOGY ISSUES

7.2.1 General Hydrogeology

Jefferson Lab is located in theAtlantic Coastal Plain PhysiographicProvince of Virginia. This provinceis underlain by unconsolidatedsediments ranging from earlyCretaceous to Holocene Age. Thesediments dipping and thickeningeastward consist primarily of sand,clay, silt, and gravel, with variableamounts of shell material. Thehydrogeologic framework for thelower Peninsula is a series ofaquifers and intervening confiningunits defined on the basis of thelithologic and the hydrologicproperties of the unconsolidatedCoastal Plain sediments.

The site is located on the eastern tipof the lower James-York Peninsula.Sediments found within 50 feet ofthe surface belong to the YorktownFormation (Chesapeake Group) andoverlying Columbia Group, which iscomprised of four formations. Theseformations are similar to manyQuaternary formations thatcomprise the riverine, estuarine, andcoastal terraces of the VirginiaCoastal Plain.


Jefferson Lab is situated in thenorthern section of Newport News,Virginia, at an average elevation of34 feet above MSL, which is abovethe 100-year floodplain level of13 feet above MSL. The site islocated in the watershed of BrickKiln Creek, which discharges to BigBethel Reservoir. The reservoirserves as a drinking water source forlocal military installations. The onlylong-lasting streams on the JeffersonLab site are those due to dischargesfrom cool ing towers andgroundwater dewatering operations.Small localized wet areas exist, a feware permanent, and the rest occurduring per iods of heavyprecipitation and eventually drainby surface runoff and groundwaterrecharge.

7.2.2 Aquifer Information

The uppermost hydrostratigraphicunit encountered at the site is thewater table aquifer, the Columbiaaquifer, which is composed ofsediments of the Columbia Group.The thickness of the aquifer rangesbetween 15 and 30 feet, with aseasonal variability of 8 feet or more.This water table aquifer, and up tonine confined aquifers, have beenidentified with the Atlantic CoastalPlain system. Groundwater flowwithin the water table aquifer isinfluenced by localized boundaryconditions present as creeks andrivers. The first confined aquiferbeneath the Columbia aquifer is theY o r k t o w n - E a s t o v e r a q u i f e r ,composed of the coarser units of theYorktown Formation. The upper 50to 100 feet of the Yorktown-Eastoveraquifer is usually fresh water and isone of the most important aquifersin the region.

Previous subsurface studies andgroundwater elevation readingsi n d i c a t e t h a t h o r i z o n t a lgroundwater flow is generally

across the site to the east-southeast.Modeling performed during 1995indicated that the groundwater flowpattern had not changed from earlierstudies with the exception ofsignificant local effects in thevicinity of the experimental halldewatering system. In this area,groundwater has the tendency towork slowly towards the halls andultimately be cycled through thedewatering system and into a sitesurface water channel.

7.2.3 Potential GroundwaterContamination Sources

P o t e n t i a l g r o u n d w a t e rcontamination sources in the vicinityof Jefferson Lab could includecontaminants from offsite propertiesthat could migrate across the site.No impacts from offsite sourceshave been noted on the DOE site.On-site sources had included threeunderground storage tanks, whichwere removed along with anyidentified contaminants.

Another potential contaminationsource is from EHMs that are usedin daily operations by Jefferson Labstaff. Proper handling and storagepractices, including the standard useof secondary containment, areimplemented throughout the site.All hazardous waste is managedappropriately by EH&S staff undert h e a p p r o p r i a t e R C R Aauthorization.

Soil radioactivation is anotherpotential source of groundwatercontamination. As the facility hasbecome fully operational, themonitoring of VPDES-permittedwells for particular groundwaterquality parameters is performed atthe frequencies shown onExhibit 7-1. Jefferson Lab willmaintain the capability to sampleand analyze groundwater morefrequently, as necessary, to ensure


EXHIBIT 7-1

GROUNDWATER SAMPLING PARAMETERS

Wells Sampling Frequency Environmental Parameters∗ GW-15a

A Ring Wells∗ GW-20∗ GW-21∗ GW-22

Annual

Quarterly

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

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

B Ring Wells∗ GW- 3∗ GW-6a∗ GW-23∗ GW-24

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

C Ring Wells∗ GW- 2∗ GW-28∗ GW-29∗ GW-30

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

Other Sampling PointOutfall 001 Quarterly flow, pH, and radionuclides listed

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

effects on groundwater are minimal.From controls designed into theaccelerator complex, including in-place shielding measures andthrough calculations, a minimalamount of soil or groundwateractivation is expected on-site and noeffect offsite.

7.2.4 Groundwater Uses

The groundwater resources of theYork-James Peninsula are abundant;however, the generally poor waterquality limits groundwater use.Some Peninsula groundwater isused, in conjunction with areareservoirs, to supply drinking water.

J e f f e r s o n L a b w i t h d r a w sgroundwater from below Halls A, B,and C, under the site Permit toWithdraw Groundwater , asdiscussed in Section 3.4.5. There are

no projected needs for the use ofgroundwater on the Jefferson Labsite. The surrounding area,however, is expanding andadditional sources of water to servethe city remain under investigation.

7.3 GROUNDWATERPROTECTION PROGRAMSUMMARY

Jefferson Lab’s environmental protectionprograms have been established to allowthe continued careful use of water resourcesand to ensure the desired maintenance of allwater quality parameters to the maximumpracticable extent. Existing water qualityparameters are mandated under Federaland Commonwealth regulations, with themain guidance for this program being theCWA. The primary CWA objective is to“restore and maintain the chemical,


physical, and biological integrity of thenation’s waters.” Jefferson Lab complieswith the applicable standards discussed inSection 3.4.

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 concluded “no significantenvironmental impacts are predicted.” TheEA concluded that proper design andcareful operation of the accelerator wouldminimize any impacts, including those tothe groundwater. The Commonwealth’slargest concern is the potential forradiological activation of the groundwaterand the soil surrounding the accelerator.The 1997 EA addressed additional potentialimpacts based on changes in CEBAFoperating parameters and the inclusion ofFEL operations, and resulted in a FONSI.See Section 3.15.1 for additionalinformation.

The prevention of hazardous material andoil spills is addressed through appropriatetraining and awareness programs atJefferson Lab. The prevention of oil spills isthe main focus of the site SPCC Plan. TheChemical Assistance Team assists byproviding immediate containment in theevent of oil or hazardous material spills,and the RCG addresses any activated waterspills, thus minimizing potentialgroundwater impacts. An emergencymanagement exercise, using a simulated oilspill, was conducted this year to test theresponse program effectiveness. JeffersonLab staff, local Fire Department, andDominion Virginia Power staff participated.

Opportunities for improvement wereidentified and are being addressed.

7.3.1 Groundwater ResourceProtection - Quantity

Groundwater withdrawn at Halls A,B, and C is pumped to a singledischarge that empties into astormwater drainage channel. Thechannel is graded to allow the waterto flow east, then south and off thesite. The water eventually flows tothe Big Bethel reservoir. Thisdewatering is allowed by the Permitto Withdraw Groundwater and isdiscussed further in Sections 3.4.5a n d 6.1.2. The Permit allows anannual withdrawal of up to twenty-three mi l l ion ga l lons o fgroundwater, with the actualamount pumped significantly less.No other withdrawals or projecteduses are expected.

7.3.2 Groundwater ResourceProtection - Quality

Accelerator-produced radionuclidespotential ly present in thegroundwater are regulated by theCommonwealth through authorizeddischarge limits in VPDES PermitNo. VA0089320. It superseded theVPA Permit in July 1996, whichprimarily established a groundwaterquality baseline for comparison withmeasurements during long-termoperations.

This VPDES Permit specifies that thegroundwater leaving the JeffersonLab site shall not exceed theestablished baseline groundwaterparameters. A groundwatermonitoring program uses wellsampling as the mechanism formaking the determination thatcommitments are met. This Permitalso requires keeping the DEQinformed about changes at JeffersonLab that could affect groundwaterquality.


7.3.3 Surface Water Protection

Surface water quality is maintainedby discharging only unpollutedwaters, such as rainwater orgroundwater, to the environment.The potent ia l sources ofcontamination of surface waters andassociated control measures are:• Using proper procedures

prevents releases of EHMs tosurface water or to the ground.

• The prevention of potential oilleaks from equipment or systemmalfunctions are addressed inthe SPCC Plan.

• The addition of sediments andother pollutants to surfacewaters from pumping atconstruction areas is addressedby including specific contractualr e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a n ysubcontractor performingearthwork to follow the practicesidentified in the Virginia Erosionand Sediment Control Handbook.

• Water within the tunnels andexperimental halls may becomeactivated from exposure toradiation. The RCG proceduresthat address activated watermanagement provide forsampling and monitoring ofwater from any potential sourcewithin the accelerator andexperimental halls.

• Groundwater surrounding thetunnel and experimental hallsmay become activated duringbeam operat ions. Thegroundwater is shielded fromexposure to radiation, sominimal amounts of radiationare expected. The pumpedgroundwater is monitored underVPDES Permit No. VA0089320.

7.4 GROUNDWATERMONITORING REVIEW

Jefferson Lab’s environmental monitoringprogram is designed to verify that anyradiation exposures, as well as non-radioactive effluent releases, are belowpermissible limits, and that acceleratoroperations and physics experiments, as wellas Laboratory support functions, have notaffected the quality of the environment.

Radioactivation of groundwater is possiblein certain locations around the acceleratorcomplex. Massive concrete and steel shieldswithin the accelerator beam enclosures andin the beam deceleration areas minimizegroundwater activation.

The locations of the “A”, “B”, and “C” Ringwells, labeled as to proximity to theaccelerator tunnel, are specified in VPDESPermit No. VA0089320. The permit-identified wells are used for sampling andanalysis during regular acceleratoroperations and experimental physicsactivities. Exhibit 5-2 shows the locations ofthe background and active monitoringwells.

The “baseline” values obtained during theterm of the VPA Permit helped define theoperational groundwater quality limits thatare listed in VPDES Permit No. VA0089320.The permit action or trigger levels, based onthe statistical analysis provided to the DEQ,are shown on Exhibit 5-3. Note that theC o m m o n w e a l t h r e s t r i c t s w a t e rcontamination to 1 mrem/yr., which is one-quarter of the regulated drinking waterquality limit. Sampling requirements underthe VPDES Permit are presented in Exhibit7-1. Under the permit, Jefferson Lab has totake specific corrective action if thefollowing values are detected at either the“A” and/or “B” Ring wells: Gross Beta50 pCi/l; Tritium 5000 pCi/l; and ManmadeRadioactivity 1 mrem/yr. The “C” Ringwells are, at no time, to statistically exceedthe background levels shown in the VPDESPermit.


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

SECTION 8

QUALITY ASSURANCE

Regular quality assurance (QA) efforts,which include quality control (QC)measures, are being made to ensure that theJefferson Lab’s Environmental MonitoringProgram is being performed in accordancewith the principles of the Jefferson LabQuality Assurance Program Manual. Aswell, EH&S Manual Chapter 6712Environmental QA provides the method anddirection for critical and objectiveexaminat ion of Je f ferson Lab’senvironmental protection programs,practices, and performance.

The Jefferson Lab QA Program includesqualification of the laboratories that provideanalytical services, verification ofcertification to perform analytical work, andreview of performance test results. Alsoincluded in this review is the adequacy oftheir internal QC practices, recordkeeping,chain of custody, and the relevant portionsof the QA program itself.

The RCG and other program managementare involved in the qualification process forenvironmentally sensitive services,including offsite analytical laboratories, andare responsible for auditing their own QAand implementing relevant QA procedures.The Jefferson Lab SA/QA functionperforms independent assessments of allfunctional areas, including those forenvironmental protection activities. TheDOE oversight organizations, in theirindependent overview capacity, alsoperform periodic audits and surveillance ofJefferson Lab. No quality assuranceconcerns were noted for CY 2000 regardingsampling protocols or results.

The line management responsible for theprocess documents all routine monitoringand surveillance sampling procedures.Some procedures have been incorporatedinto the EH&S Manual. Other specializedprocedures have been developed inaccordance with established standards,practices, and protocols. The proceduresensure that samples are representative ofthe media from which they are collectedand will yield reliable results .Subcontractors are required to useapproved documented procedures.

Universal Laboratories, Inc. (UniversalLabs) collected most VPDES and HRSDpermit-related water samples. All non-radiological analyses on these samples wereperformed by Universal Labs and theradiological analysis by their subcontractor,McDermott Technologies (McDermott).Several field audits were performed andshowed Universal Labs’ collectionprocedures were satisfactory.

Other sample collection that involvesradiochemicals, including some required bythe HRSD permit, is performed by the RCGand analyzed in the RCG radiologicalanalysis lab (Building 52). QualifiedJefferson Lab staff collect samples thatrequire general chemical analysis, which areusually not permit-related. In 2000,Jefferson Lab subcontracted with MarineChemist, Inc. and American Medical Lab toprovide general chemical analysis onsamples that were not potentiallyradioactive.

8.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE INANALYSIS

Samples are analyzed for radiological andnon-radiological attributes using standardEPA-approved analytical procedures. Acontinuing program of analytical laboratoryquality control , participation ininterlaboratory crosschecks, analysis ofvarious blanks, and replicate sampling and


analysis verifies data quality. The RCG,Accelerator Division EH&S staff, and otherresponsible staff review all analytical datafor samples analyzed under theirsubcontracts. The analytical results arereviewed relative to the accompanyingQA/QC results and compared withregulatory 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 andMcDermott on a biennial basis. These visitsconfirmed that analytical practices beingperformed were satisfactory.

Ongoing precision and accuracy aremonitored by analysis of the following witheach batch of samples: laboratorystandards, duplicate determinations, matrixspikes, and matrix spike duplicates. Thesedata are used to calculate the relativestandard deviation. The quality of the datais then evaluated and compared toregulatory limits to determine acceptability.A range of radiochemical spikes is used totest the vendor’s ability to achieve therequired sensitivity for each parameter, andtheir reliability in detecting accelerator-produced radionuclides at or below theconcentration guide standards, as specifiedin VPDES Permit No. VA0089320.

Jefferson Lab continues to maintainappropriate agency certifications and toincorporate certification requirements inany subcontractual specifications. Anyequipment used for environmentalmonitoring is specified to have calibrationcertifications traceable to nationalstandards.

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

McDermott is also certified by the NationalEnvironmental Laboratory AccreditationConference (NELAC), whose purpose is toestablish and promote mutually acceptableperformance standards for the operation ofenvironmental laboratories. They are alsoEPA sample certified by both NELAC andthe State of Utah, as well as with theCommonwealth of Virginia forenvironmental monitoring. Universal Labs,Marine Chemist, and American MedicalLab participate in state programs tomaintain their state certification.

8.2.1 Radiological

Independent QA under the DOE

EML administers the DOE qualitya s s e s s m e n t p r o g r a m f o renvironmental radiological analyses.The EML QA Program is anexternal, independent performanceevaluation program designed to testthe quality of environmentalradiological measurements andprovides DOE with complex-widecomparability of environmentalradiological analysis. Under thisprogram, four matrices of variousradionuclides are distributed semi-annually to DOE-subcontractedlaboratories for analysis, with thelabs required to analyze only theparameters for which they analyzeunder contract.

In 2000, McDermott and the RCGLab participated in the EML’s QAPfor radionuclides. Two sets ofresults for McDermott and one forthe RCG Lab under the QAP wereavailable. The results, for theparameters analyzed by JeffersonLab and those analyzed byMcDermott that are applicable atJefferson Lab, are provided asExhibit 8-1. Results indicated aswarnings mean they are near thelimits of acceptability. McDermott’soverall results for QAP 52 were 71%acceptable, 22% warning and 7% notacceptable. Results for the waterprogram, which is of greatest


importance for Jefferson Lab, were77% acceptable and 23% notedwarning. Note that only selectedresults are presented in the Exhibit.Overall results on QAP 53 were 82%acceptable and 18% warning forMcDermott, though only selectedresults are presented, with RCG Labresults at 100% acceptable.

McDermott participated in a QAprogram for analysis of samplesunder the MAPEP. Performanceresults for MAPEP-00-57 werereceived. The results of 92%, whichaddressed metals and radionuclides,were acceptable or noted aswarning. Refer to Exhibit 8-2.

Other QA Activities

McDermott Technologies alsoparticipates in an RCG-directedcrosscheck program for selectedradionuclides that includesduplicates and spiked samplesprovided at various times in theyear. In all circumstances, theresults were satisfactory in allappropriate testing categories.

In conjunction with VPDES andHRSD permit-related samplingactivities, the RCG Lab runs parallelanalyses on selected groundwatermonitoring samples and HRSDquarterly composite samples as aQA verification.

8.2.2 Other Programs

Universal Labs, as part of itscredentialing program, participatesin two QA programs to ensure ahigh level of testing accuracy.During CY 2000, they received blindsamples and conducted analysis onthe samples. Exhibits 8-3 through8-6 show the results of theparameters of interest to JeffersonLab. Exhibit 8-3 was conductedunder the protocol of an ERAWatRTM Supply Proficiency TestingStudy. Exhibits 8-4 through 8-6were done through the NSILaboratory Proficiency TestingProgram. The overall results for thefour samples ranged from a highscore of 94% acceptance andwarnings to a low score of 84% ofsame. These scores translate to a“very good” and “good” ratingrespectively. All testing protocolswere done in accordance with EPAguidelines. Test results that wereoutside of acceptable standards wereaddressed by Universal Labs todetermine what went wrong, andhow to make improvements for thefuture. RCG staff review the testresults to ensure Universal Labs ismaintaining its ability to providequality services.


EXHIBIT 8-1

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM (QAP) SELECTED RESULTS FOR 2000

Reported EML Known

Matrix Analyte Value Error Value Error

Ratio

Rep/EML Result

QAP 52 (Bq/l) (Bq/l)

Water (McD) Gross Alpha 1850.000 30.000 1700.000 170.000 1.088 AcceptGross Beta 925.000 16.000 690.000 70.000 1.341 Warning

Co-60 53.300 1.760 48.900 1.800 1.090 AcceptCs-137 105.000 2.000 103.000 4.000 1.019 Accept

(Bq/filter)

(Bq/l)

Air (McD) Gross Alpha 2.930 0.050 3.020 0.300 0.970 AcceptGross Beta 3.320 0.050 2.420 0.200 1.372 Accept

Co-57 4.610 0.190 5.310 0.220 0.868 AcceptCo-60 5.720 0.150 5.320 0.260 1.075 AcceptCs-137 6.130 0.200 6.100 0.300 1.005 Accept

QAP 53 (Bq/l) (Bq/l)

Water (McD) Gross Alpha 1190.000 50.000 1070.000 100.000 1.112 AcceptGross Beta 899.000 36.000 950.000 90.000 0.946 Accept

Tritium 129.000 25.000 91.300 0.300 1.413 WarningCo-60 75.100 3.400 73.700 2.900 1.019 AcceptCs-137 66.600 2.200 67.000 3.500 0.994 Accept

Water (JLab) Co-60 78.070 1.970 73.700 2.900 1.059 AcceptCo-60 74.740 1.900 73.700 2.900 1.014 AcceptCo-60 75.650 2.280 73.700 2.900 1.026 AcceptCs-137 66.230 2.410 67.000 3.500 0.989 AcceptCs-137 66.970 2.390 67.000 3.500 1.000 AcceptCs-137 65.820 2.710 67.000 3.500 0.982 Accept

(Bq/filter) (Bq/l)

Air (McD) Gross Alpha 1.830 0.070 2.350 0.150 0.779 WarningGross Beta 1.210 0.040 1.520 0.150 0.796 Warning

Mn-54 47.700 3.700 43.200 1.300 1.104 AcceptCo-57 15.000 0.400 14.550 0.460 1.031 AcceptCo-60 9.250 0.530 8.430 0.480 1.097 AcceptCs-137 7.960 0.370 7.410 0.360 1.074 Accept

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


EXHIBIT 8-2

MIXED ANALYTE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM (MAPEP)Sample ID: MAPEP-00-57

Parameter ResultsReference

Value Flag BiasAcceptance

Range(Bq/kg) (%) (Bq/kg)

Co-57 1021 949 A 7.6 664.30 – 1233.70

Co-60 1339 1180 A 13.5 826.00 – 1534.00

Cs-137 992 930 A 6.7 651.00 – 1209.00

Manganese-54 1166 1023 A 14.0 716.10 – 1329.90

Note:A: mean result acceptable (Bias ≤ 10%)

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

EXHIBIT 8-3

SELECTED RESULTS FROM UNIVERSAL LABORATORIES PERFORMANCEEVALUATION REPORTS

ERA WatR Supply Proficiency Testing Study WS-43

SampleCategory Parameter Units

ReportedValue

TrueValue

AcceptanceLimits Results

Metals Aluminum µg/l 556 559 473 - 665 AcceptableArsenic µg/l 65.5 73.5 64.1 – 82.1 Acceptable

Beryllium µg/l 7.16 6.63 5.64 – 7.62 AcceptableCadmium µg/l 5.16 5.63 4.50 – 6.76 AcceptableCalcium mg/l 63.1 66.7 58.0 – 77.7 Acceptable

Chromium (1) µg/l 24.8 25.5 21.7 – 29.3 AcceptableChromium (2) µg/l 25.4 25.5 21.7 – 29.3 Acceptable

Copper µg/l 163 179 161 – 197 AcceptableLead µg/l 18.8 17.7 12.4 – 23.0 Acceptable

Manganese µg/l 491 489 455 – 514 AcceptableNickel µg/l 119 130 111 – 150 AcceptableSilver µg/l 112.4 94.6 81.4 – 109 Not AcceptableZinc µg/l 955 972 893 – 1040 Acceptable

Ca Hardness asCaCO3

mg/l 158 167 156 – 178 Acceptable

pH pH S.U. 8.0 7.8 7.02 – 8.58 Acceptable

Mercury Mercury µg/l 4.46 3.65 2.56 – 4.75 Acceptable

(Continued)



TitrationHardness

Ca Hardness asCaCO3

mg/l 210 203 190 – 216 Acceptable

Inorganics Chloride mg/l 6.85 6.68 4.92 – 8.58 AcceptableConductivity µmhos 546 502 420 – 571 AcceptableTDS mg/l 417 429 275 - 583 Acceptable

ResidualChlorine

Total ResidualChlorine

mg/l 4 3.52 2.63 – 4.18 Acceptable

Total OrganicCarbon (TOC)

TOC mg/l 3.72 3.61 3.24 – 4.17 Acceptable

Note:Only selected results that had some relevance to Jefferson Lab operations are provided in this Exhibit.The full report also evaluated regulated and unregulated volatiles and other parameters.

EXHIBIT 8-4


NSI Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program Study WS-00-4


ReportedValue

TrueValue


Metals Aluminum µg/l 1490.0 1461.0 1294 – 1628 AcceptableArsenic µg/l 82.3 75.0 65.6 – 83.8 Acceptable

Beryllium µg/l 3.46 3.10 2.64 – 3.57 AcceptableCadmium µg/l 24.4 24.2 19.4 – 29.0 AcceptableChromium µg/l 103.0 100.0 85.0 – 115 Acceptable

Copper µg/l 620.0 610.0 549 – 671 AcceptableLead µg/l 27.2 27.5 19.3 – 35.8 Acceptable

Manganese µg/l 492.0 500.0 465 – 526 AcceptableNickel µg/l 379.0 419.0 356 – 482 AcceptableSilver µg/l 303.0 300.0 240 – 360 AcceptableZinc µg/l 1000.0 1000.0 919 – 1074 Acceptable

Mercury Mercury(Total)

µg/l 1.53 1.41 0.987 – 1.83 Acceptable

TitrationHardness

Ca Hardness asCaCO3

mg/l 189.0 223 209 – 237 Not Acceptable

Minerals SpecificConductance

µmhos/cm

600.0 591 511 – 670 Acceptable

TDS mg/l 341.0 457 237 – 678 Acceptable

ResidualChlorine


mg/l 1.0 1.14 0.946 – 1.32 Acceptable


Note:Only selected results that had some relevance to Jefferson Lab operations are provided in this Exhibit.The full report also evaluated nutrients, trihalomethanes, and other parameters.


EXHIBIT 8-5


NSI Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program Study WP-00-5


ReportedValue

TrueValue


Metals Aluminum µg/l 994.0 950 808 – 1088 AcceptableArsenic µg/l 125.0 125 101 – 149 Acceptable

Beryllium µg/l 555.0 600 510 – 678 AcceptableCadmium µg/l 170.0 180 153 – 205 AcceptableChromium µg/l 440.0 490 426 – 555 Check for Error

Copper µg/l 606.0 600 545 – 659 AcceptableLead µg/l 904.0 938 822 – 1050 Acceptable

Manganese µg/l 1842.0 1850 1664 – 2056 AcceptableNickel µg/l 290.0 288 255 – 325 AcceptableSilver µg/l 194.0 200 171 – 229 AcceptableZinc µg/l 963.0 950 842 – 1067 Acceptable


µg/l 6.14 7.31 5.41 – 9.18 Acceptable


µmhos/cm

620.0 608 559 – 657 Acceptable

TDS mg/l 366.0 342 355 – 425 AcceptableCa Hardness as

CaCO3

mg/l 145.0 130 118 – 143 Not Acceptable

ResidualChlorine


mg/l 2.0 2.34 1.90 – 2.78 Check for Error

Residue Non-filterable(TSS)

mg/l 68.0 74.8 57.7 – 80.7 Acceptable

Filterable (TDS) mg/l 261.0 420 316 - 524 Not Acceptable


Note:The full report also evaluated nutrients, trihalomethanes, and volatile organic compounds.Only selected results that had some relevance to Jefferson Lab operations are provided in this Exhibit.


EXHIBIT 8-6


NSI Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program Study WP-00-7


ReportedValue

TrueValue


Metals Aluminum µg/l 2560.0 2500 2152 – 2689 AcceptableArsenic µg/l 442.0 430 359 – 504 Acceptable

Beryllium µg/l 510.0 506 430 – 571 AcceptableCadmium µg/l 346.0 350 298 – 398 AcceptableChromium µg/l 209.0 210 181 – 239 Acceptable

Copper µg/l 203.0 200 179 – 222 AcceptableLead µg/l 1637.0 1650 1452 – 1840 Acceptable

Manganese µg/l 610.0 650 583 – 722 AcceptableNickel µg/l 2336.0 2250 2046 – 2507 AcceptableSilver µg/l 89.0 96.0 81.8 – 110 AcceptableZinc µg/l 715.0 700 619 – 788 Acceptable


µg/l 9.83 9.780 7.28 – 12.2 Acceptable

TritrationHardness

Ca Hardness asCaCO3

mg/l 212.0 220 201 – 240 Acceptable


µmhos/cm 800.0 717 658 – 776 Not Acceptable

TDS mg/l 378.0 441 337 – 545 Acceptable

ResidualChlorine


mg/l 0.45 0.525 0.371 – 0.679 Acceptable

Residue Non-filterable(TSS)

mg/l 66.0 83.4 64.6 – 90.0 Check for Error

Filterable (TDS) mg/l 224.0 224 187 – 261 Acceptable


Note:Only selected results that had some relevance to Jefferson Lab operations are provided in this Exhibit.The full report also evaluated nutrients and other compounds.


SECTION 9

REFERENCES

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 FacilitySeptember 1998 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.

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


SECTION 10

DISTRIBUTION LIST

JEFFERSON LAB INTERNAL

Dr. Christoph W. Leemann, Interim DirectorDr. Franz L. Gross, Theory Group LeaderDr. Lawrence Cardman, Associate Director, Physics DivisionDr. Ronald M. Sundelin, Associate 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, Physics Division

EH&S OfficerDr. Andrew M. Hutton, Director of Operations, Accelerator Division, and

Facility ManagerRhonda 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 GroupMr. Scott O. Schwahn, Deputy Head, Radiation Control GroupMs. Sandra L. Prior, Accelerator Division EH&S/QA Officer

EXTERNAL

The Honorable John W. WarnerThe Honorable Jo Ann DavisThe Honorable George AllenThe Honorable Robert C. ScottThe Honorable Phillip A. HamiltonThe Honorable Alan A. DiamonsteinThe Honorable Edward L. SchrockMayor Joe S. Frank, City of Newport NewsMayor Mamie E. Locke, Ph.D., City of HamptonMr. James S. Burgett, Chairperson, York County Board of SupervisorsMs. Rondra 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 Dept. 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. John Paul Woodley, Jr., Office of the Secretary of Natural Resources

jefferson lab site environmental report for calendar … · s w d a solid waste disposal act t d s...

Documents