JLAB-TN-06-022
Suitability of High Power Beam Dumps in Hall A and Hall C for use at 14.5 GeV
Operation
Erik Abkemeier, Radiation Control Department
The purpose of this technical note is to summarize and update information concerning
operability of the High Power Beam Dumps (HPBDs) located in Experimental Halls A
and C at an energy of 14.5 GeV, and an operating beam power envelope of 900 kW (e.g.
an operating beam current of 62 microamps at an energy of 14.5 GeV) and a safety
envelope of 1 MW. An important fundamental concept to grasp is that all aspects within
the realm or radiological protection (e.g., dose rate produced) essentially scale with
operating beam power, particularly for accelerators operating at energies above 3 Ge, as
shown in Figure 1. (Thomas, 2003; Sullivan 1992). The proposed operating and safety
envelopes for 14.5 GeV operation to either Experimental Hall A or C is identical to the
current operating envelope of 900 kW and a safety envelope of 1 MW for Experimental
Halls A and C with operation a approximately 6 GeV, which is the current physical
accelerator operating limit at the time of this technical note.
In order to explain how operating either Experimental Hall A or C at 14.5 GeV would
affect the surrounding groundwater, it is helpful to summarize how the shielding for the
HPBD shielding was developed during the initial construction. The principal factors
include: (1) the radioisotopes potentially created, leached into groundwater, and the
groundwater standards to which Jefferson Lab was to be held; (2) the assumed average
beam power operating envelope; (3) the groundwater flow rate; (4) the dose created from
impinging typical beam power on the beam coupled with a conversion to neutron flux at
energies necessary to create the radioisotopes. Each of these factors will briefly be
discussed and compared as to the impact for the proposed energy upgrade versus the
original shielding design criteria.
As to the driving concern (i.e., radionuclides produced in the groundwater outside of the
HPBD shielding enclosure), the only long-lived radionuclides of concern capable of
being produced in soil and leached into water, or produced directly in groundwater
continue to be H-2 and Na-22. (Stapleton, 1989). An increase in beam energy will not
introduce the potential for more radionuclides of concern. The groundwater standards at
the time of the original design of the HPBD shielding enclosures were such that the total
dose to a person not exceed 1 mrem per year if ingesting the water at a rate of 2.2 liters a
day. This correlated to a concentration of 2800 pCi/l for H-3, and 100 pCi/ for Na-22.
These standards have not changed since that time. The only peripheral point of note is
that Jefferson Lab currently is issued a permit from the Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality that references a number of groundwater wells in
three concentric rings varying from 3 to 5 meters from the accelerator ring and
experimental halls, and to the site boundary (VPDES, 2001). For the closest wells (in the
“A” ring), an “action limit” of 5000 pCi/l for H-3 is enacted such that if during the
mandatory quarterly sampling which is required to be submitted to the DEQ.
Additionally, the “C” ring wells located at the site boundary have a limit of 1000 pCi/l
for H-3 and 61 pCi/l for Na-22. As a note, during the conduct of mandatory sampling and
JLAB-TN-06-022
analysis by a third party radiochemical analysis lab, no detectable concentrations of H-3
or Na-22 have been detected at any groundwater well site at any time since the inception
of the sampling protocol in 1989( Virginia Commonwealth 1989-2006). As the CEBAF
accelerator has been operating since 1994, this would indicate that the HPBD shielding
enclosure (as well as other groundwater shielding) has performed more than adequately.
Concerning the assumed average beam power operating envelope, the constraints on
maximum normal beam power operations will remain in effect. That being the case, the
power assumptions from the initial design of the HPBD shielding enclosure remain valid.
The groundwater flow is a critical piece in determining concentrations of radionuclides in
the groundwater because the build-up of radionuclides in the groundwater is directly
proportional to the residence time that the water remains in the neutron flux field that
creates the radionuclides. In other words, the slower the groundwater movement rate, the
greater the radionuclide concentration in the groundwater. At design time for the the
HPBD shielding enclosures, the estimated groundwater flowrate was assumed to be zero,
i.e., the water would remain around the surfaces exposed to neutron flux so that the water
would reach a saturation concentration. (Stapleton 1989). Post accelerator construction
and start up hydrogeological survey performed by Malcolm Pirnie indicates that the
groundwater flow rate in the area of the HPBD at Hall A averages 68 meters per year for
the period from 1996 to 2001 (Malcolm Pirnie 2001). This same study shows an average
groundwater flow in the area of the HPBD for Hall C of 142 meters per year for the same
period. To date, this flow has not been considered in the groundwater activation
calculations. Because the experimental halls have been constructed below the water table,
in order to maintain structural integrity of the halls, it is necessary to continuously pump
groundwater around the experimental halls to the surface at a rate of approximately
12,000 to 24,000 gallons per day (Malcolm Pirnie, 1995). These dewatering operations
cause the elevated groundwater flow rates in the areas surrounding the experimental
halls. (As a note, the de-watering consists of water collecting in the End Station
Dewatering Sump that is monitored for radionuclide concentration prior to discharge to
the surface).
The radionuclide production mechanism in groundwater at 14.5 GeV is the same as that
at 6 GeV, i.e., it is based upon the neutron fluence rate into the soil/groundwater
surrounding the concrete shielding surrounding the HPBDs for neutrons above the energy
of approximately 20 MeV. This number is obtained conservatively by converting an
assumed neutron dose rate based upon empirical shielding calculations developed at
SLAC from an accelerator operating at 15 GeV, into a neutron flux rate using a selected
dose to neutron flux conversion factor (Jenkins, 1979). As stated previously and shown in
the SHIELD 11 coded exposure rate formula, the dose rate is proportional to power
envelope (Nelson, 2005). As this power envelope remains the same at 14.5 GeV as it is at
current operating energy of 6 GeV, the calculated dose rate will remain the same. The
dose rate to neutron flux conversion rate used for the original 6 GeV calculation was
based on a conservative approximation of 2.3 n/cm2sec per 1 mrem/hr which continues to
be valid to energies up to 28 GeV(Gilbert 1968). Additionally, the simplified
conservative model for the initial calculations was predicated on all of the neutron
JLAB-TN-06-022
production emanating at a single point within the middle of the proposed HPBD. A more
complex modeling was undertaken that showed the H-3 and Na-22 concentration levels
anticipated would be approximately a factor of 10 lower than calculated under the
original method (Thomas 1989). This is further borne out in that no groundwater well in
any of the rings around the accelerator and experimental halls has ever had any detectable
concentration of H-3 or Na-22. For H-3, this is approximately 700 pCi/l. For Na-22, this
is approximately 30 pCi/l. The past 4 years indicated that actual experimental power for
the year was on the order of 100 kW for the entire year (Degtiarenko 2002, 2003, 2004,
2005).
For an exercise in conservatively scaling radionuclide concentration to power deposited
in the beam dumps based on radioanalytical results, we can assume that the water levels
were actually at the highest Minimum Detectable Concentrations, and scaled power up to
750 kW in each hall (which is highly unlikely given that Scheduled Accelerator Downs
occur for at least 2 months out of any given year, and in order to average 750 kW, the
Halls would need to be operating at maximum capacity for the remaining 10 months of
the year.) Even given that entirely unrealistic set of conditions, this would scale to a
concentration approximately 5250 pCi/l for H-3, and 225 pCi/l for Na-22. Again this
assumes an unrealistic extended run of maximum power accelerator beam delivered to a
hall, coupled with the assumption that water surrounding the HPBDs is stationary and at
saturation activity (which is clearly not the case), and the radionuclide concentration in
the water is just beneath the MDC. Even under this extremely conservative scenario the
concentrations projected are not entirely inconsistent with limits for the EPA. The
derivation of the concentration limits is described more fully in previous tech notes, but is
based upon one quarter of the EPA limit of 4 mrem/year assuming ingestion of the
groundwater in question. This correlates to a limit of 2800 pCi/l for H-3 and 100 pCi/l for
Na-22 in order to receive a dose of 1 mrem in a year.
For the purposes of obtaining more accurate (yet conservative) numbers, now that
information of groundwater flow data is more readily available, the calculation will be
performed utilizing the SHIELD 11 code formula, with only the high energy and mid
energy neutron components, as these are the only components active in activation of soil
and water. The formula for this is:

100t
100t
c
120


c
3
 2 1
55
 MIDe
 2.3x10 n  cm s


Where
φ = activating neutron fluence rate
HEN = 22.5 rem h-1 kW-1 m2
MID = 225 rem h-1 kW-1 m2
t = thickness of concrete = 4.5 meters at 90 degrees
ρc = density of concrete = 2.35 g/cm3
   HENe

at one meter
This results in an activating neutron fluence rate for a saturation activity in the water
normalized to power of 7.7 n cm-2 s-1 per m2/kW. The assumed conservative power
envelope (as described previously) is 750 kW averaged throughout the year.
JLAB-TN-06-022
Additionally, the distance at 90 degrees from the point of beam interaction with the beam
dump which includes the thickness of the concrete and air space between the dump and
the concrete is approximately 5.5 meters. Using these numbers yields a neutron fluence
of 190 n cm-2 s-1.
However, this number assumes that the water remains static in the regions adjacent to the
HPBDs (i.e., the water does not move.) We know from hydrogeologic studies that this is
not the case (Malcolm Pirnie 2001). In fact, due to the continuous pumping action
necessary to maintain structural integrity of the Experimental halls, water moves rapidly
in that area. By inspection of Fig. 2 which is a simulated spectrum of neutrons traveling
through the concrete dimensions of the HPBD shielding enclosure using GEANT
modeling, one can see that only approximately half of the surface area is exposed to the
neutron activating flux. In other words, groundwater cannot be activated unless it comes
in contact with this region. For the sake of conservatism, we can assume a worst case
scenario in which groundwater flows along the lateral surface of one side of the HPBD
shielding enclosure and down to a point under the center of the experimental hall where
the groundwater is collected in the end station dewatering sump. We will also assume
that (contrary to modeling), the entire surface of the HPBD shielding enclosure has an
activating neutron flux of energy greater than 20 MeV, such that groundwater can be
activated during the entire time that it is in the region of the shielding wall until the water
reaches the groundwater dewatering sump. We will then assume that the water flow in
the region of the HPBD shielding is the average from the lower of the two halls (68
meters/year), and use that to determine the actual build-up of activity, and concentration
as the water passes through that area. We can use the formula for determining activity at
time t, which can be adjusted for neutron activating flux by canceling out like terms such
that the following correction factor is used.
( 1  e  t )( e  t )
to account for building up activity as well as decay in the water, and hence concentration
(Bevelacqua, 1999).
In the case of H-3:
λ = 0.693/(12.3 years)]
t = (60 m) / (68 m/year)
Which results in a correction factor of: 0.046. This, in turn, results in a scaled down
neutron flux of 8.7 n cm-2 s-1
In the case of Na-22:
λ = 0.693/[(2.6 years)
t = (60 m)/(68 m/year)
which results in a correction factor of 0.165. This, in turn results in a scaled down
neutron flux of 31.3 n cm-2 s-1
From previous calculations determining radionuclide concentration in groundwater, the
limit for neutron fluence rate to prevent groundwater activation that would cause greater
JLAB-TN-06-022
than 1 mrem/year dose is 35 n cm-2 s-1 (Stapleton, 1997). As one can see, the neutron
fluence rates are again beneath those necessary to maintain the H-3 and Na-22
concentrations beneath one quarter of the EPA limits.
In conclusion, production of radionuclides of concern in groundwater (H-3 and Na-22) is
proportional to beam power. As the beam power operating envelope will not change in
the course of running 6GeV operations to 14.5 GeV operations, radionuclide production
should not vary significantly. Additionally, design of the original High Power Beam
Dump shielding enclosure did not take credit for the rapid groundwater flow rates in the
areas adjacent to the Experimental Halls, which is a parameter that significantly affects
radionuclide production. Furthermore, quarterly sampling of installed groundwater wells
since the beginning of accelerator operations has not shown any detectable concentrations
of H-3 or Na-22.
JLAB-TN-06-022
References
Bevelacqua, J. 1999. “Basic Health Physics”, John Wiley and Sons
Degtiarenko, P. 2002. “Radiation Dose Rates Resulting from the Experimental Program at
Jefferson Lab, July-December 2002” RCG Note 02-03, Newport News, Virginia
Degtiarenko, P. 2003. “Radiation Dose Rates Resulting from the Experimental Program at
Jefferson Lab, October-December 2003” RCG Note 03-04, Newport News, Virginia
Degtiarenko, P. 2004. “Radiation Dose Rates Resulting from the Experimental Program at
Jefferson Lab, October-December 2004” RCG Note 04-04, Newport News, Virginia
Degtiarenko, P. 2005. “Radiation Dose Rates Resulting from the Experimental Program at
Jefferson Lab, July-December 2005” RCG Note 05-02, Newport News, Virginia
Gilbert, W.S. et al. 1968. CERN-LRL-RHEL Shielding Experiment at CERN, Lawrence
Radiation Laboratory Report UCRL-17941, Sept. 1968
Jenkins, T. 1979. “Neutron and Photon Measurements Through Concrete from a 15 GeV electron
Beam on a Target – Comparison with Models and Calculations”, Nuclear Instruments and
Methods 159.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 1995. CEBAF Hydrogeologic Review, Newport News, Virginia, September.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 2002. Groundwater Flow Directions and Velocities at Jefferson Lab,
Newport News, Virginia, February.
Nelson, W. et al. 2005. SLAC-Report-737 “The SHIELD11 Computer Code”, February 2005.
Stapleton, G. 1987. “The Production of Radionuclides in the Groundwater”, Jefferson Lab Tech
Note, TN-0062, Newport News, Virginia
Stapleton, G. 1989. “Design of Shielding to Ensure Maximum Concentrations of H-3 and Na-22
in the Groundwater Remain Within Standards”, Jefferson Lab Tech Note TN-0155, Newport
News, Virginia
Stapleton, G. et al. 1997. “Occupational and Environment Aspects of the Radiation Control
Provisions at Jefferson Lab,” Jefferson Lab Tech Note, JLAB TN 97-017, Newport News,
Virginia.
JLAB-TN-06-022
Sullivan, A. H. 1992. “A Guide to Radiation and Radioactivity Levels Near High Energy Particle
Accelerators,” Nuclear Technical Publishing, Ashford, Kent, TN23 1JW, England, Chap 4.
Thomas R., et al. 1989. “Review of the Radiological Aspect of the Conceptual Design Report for
the CEBAF End Station and Switchyard, August 15-17, 1989”, Jefferson Lab Tech Note
TN-0174, Appendix 4 “Consideration of the Use of the EGS/FLUKA Monte Carlo Code to
Determine the Activity of H-3 and Na-22 in the Groundwater”.
Thomas R., et al., 2003. NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement) No.
144, “Radiation Protection for Particle Accelerator Facilities”.
Virginia Commonwealth Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) VPDES Monitoring
Reports 1989-2006.
VPDES (Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Permit No. VA0089320. Thomas
Jefferson National Accelerator Facility/U.S. Department of Energy, Newport News,
Virginia. Effective July 16, 2001 to July 16, 2006
JLAB-TN-06-022
Figure 1
JLAB-TN-06-022
Figure 2