1608 SPRING HILL ROAD, SUITE 400 • VIENNA, VIRGINIA • 22182 • 703.893.6600 • FAX 703.821.8236 

MEMO 

TO: BNL Work Group 

FROM: Ron Buchanan, SC&A 

DATE: May 22, 2012 

SUBJECT: SC&A’s Evaluation of SEC-00196 End Date of 1993, and Remaining Site Profile 

Findings for ORAUT-TKBS-0048, Revision 01 

 

SC&A’S EVALUATION OF SEC-00196 END DATE OF 1993 

SC&A evaluated the technical soundness of using December 31, 1993, as the end date for the 

Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) SEC-00196 recommended in the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Evaluation Report (ER) (NIOSH 2012); the SEC was 

based on the lack of bioassay data records available for dose reconstruction (DR) purposes. The 

following is a summary of SC&A’s findings. 

Lack of Two 1994 Records in BNL Files 

NIOSH had indicated in Attachment 6, page 116, of the SEC-00113 SEC ER (NIOSH 2009) that 

there were two whole-body count (WBC) records in NIOSH’s document capture that were not in 

the BNL Index, Medical, or PM (Personnel Medical) files (which would contain the data used 

to respond to NIOSH’s request to BNL for data for dose reconstruction). This is an indication 

that not all the bioassay data were complete for 1994 in the BNL files, as of 2009. NIOSH’s 

Attachment 6 is shown as Exhibit A below. 

Exhibit A 
Memo: BNL SEC End Date/Findings 2 SC&A – May 22, 2012 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Search of Claims 

BNL is a difficult site to assess the completeness of bioassay records because of its diverse 

facilities and changes over time. One possible method to assess if 1993 is a reasonable date for 

the SEC to terminate (on the basis of the lack of bioassay records) is to analyze the bioassay 

records for workers at a given facility that had a fairly stable staff and function in the 1990s, and 

had the potential for internal exposures. SC&A found that the High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR), 

which operated between 1965 and 1999, was one of the few candidates available. 

SC&A found that there have been 425 claims filed for the BNL site to date in the NOCTS 

database, with approximately 184 of those claims having employment periods during the 1994–

1999 time frame. The NOCTS program lists Position Titles, but unfortunately does not allow the 

user to query on work location. Therefore, position titles that would most likely not be covered 

by the “Bioassay Positions” listed in the 1993 Internal Monitoring Procedure (Reciniello 1993) 

were removed and the remaining claims (~65) analyzed on an individual basis. The NOCTS 

program was used to view the individual Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI) and 

DR reports to determine if the worker may have worked at the HFBR in a position that required 

bioassay monitoring. SC&A found [less than 9] workers who met the criteria of having filed a 

claim worked at the HFBR during 1994–1999, and had job titles that could indicate a possible 

need for routine bioassay monitoring. The “Bioassay Positions” listed in the 1993 Internal 

Monitoring Procedure (Reciniello 1993) were Reactor Operators, Reactor Supervisors, Reactor 

Maintenance Technicians, Water Chemistry Technicians, and S&EP Building Safety Services 

(BSS) Technicians assigned to the RD [Reactor Division]. 

The Internal Monitoring Procedure (Reciniello 1993) recommended weekly bioassays for 

tritium, but only monthly tritium bioassays were found in the records, except for what appears to 

be more frequent monitoring around an incident or event. Additionally, the requirement of preand post-employment WBCs at the HFBR, as recommended by the Internal Monitoring 

Procedure (Reciniello 1993), does not appear to have been implemented. Some of the CATI and 

DR reports indicate monthly tritium bioassays and occasional WBCs, which agree with the 

bioassay records reviewed. 

During the search of the [less than 9] claim files, SC&A located a document in one of the 

Energy Employee’s (EE’s) DOE files that lists the 1996 Tritium Dose Annual Summary for the 

HFBR, categorized by groups and with the EE’s Name, Life Number and 3

H Dose (mrem). The 

groups and number of respective names are as follows: 

 Operations Group – Operators = 13 names 

 Operations Group – Shift Supervisors & Plant Managers = 16 names 

 Health Physics = 10 names 

 RCS & Water Chemistry = [less than 9] names 

 RMG = [less than 9] names 

 RIG = [less than 9] names. 
Memo: BNL SEC End Date/Findings 3 SC&A – May 22, 2012 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

A search of the BNL claims on NOCTS shows that only [less than 9] of these 55 workers had 

filed a claim; and that these [less than 9] workers were among the [less than 9] cases already 

identified for analyses by SC&A. Therefore, there were [less than 9] cases identified that were 

definitively on the 1996 HFBR required bioassay and WBC list, and [less than 9] additional 

cases that indicated a potential need for monitoring at the HFBR because of the work description 

and location in the CATI/DR reports. 

Analyzing the [less than 9] claims, SC&A found the following: 

Case A: The EE worked at the HFBR from 1971 through September 1995 as a [employee] at 

the Cold Neutron Facility (CNF), but was not listed on the 1996 Tritium Dose Annual Summary

HFBR list of required bioassays. The DR report of March 2007 states that: 

Because [the EE] worked at the High Flux Beam Reactor and provided monthly 

urine samples which likely were for monitoring exposures to tritium, unmonitored 

tritium intakes may have occurred. The Department of Energy dosimetry records 

provide no indication of tritium bioassay results, which indicates that no positive 

values were recorded. [Emphasis added.] 

In this case, it appears that the EE was required to be monitored, but no tritium results were 

available in the DOE files through 1995. Additionally, the DR report states: 

Employment records for [the EE] were reviewed, and no records of bioassay 

monitoring results were found. 

This indicates that there are no records of the annual WBCs for this EE through 1995, according 

to the 2007 DR report.

The EE states in the CATI that the EE had monthly tritium bioassays and one WBC. 

SC&A’s search of the DOE records (last posted June 2, 2011) found tritium bioassay records for 

1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993, but none for 1994 and 1995, and WBC records for 1993, 1994, and 

1995, but none for 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993. The last DOE files were posted on June 2, 2011, 

4 years after the DR report of March 2007; this may account for the lack of bioassay records 

during the preparation of the DR report. 

Case B: The EE worked at the HFBR and the Brookhaven Medical Research Reactor (BMRR) 

from 1986 through 1999 as an [employee]. The EE was listed on the 1996 Tritium Dose Annual 

Summary HFBR list of required bioassays. The DR report of May 2010 stated that: 

Internal dose monitoring records were reviewed. All whole body measurement 

results for nonnaturally occurring radionuclides showed an activity less than the 

level of detection for the given radionuclides. There were many positive urine 

bioassay results recorded for tritium, with dose assigned during several years.
Memo: BNL SEC End Date/Findings 4 SC&A – May 22, 2012 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

This indicates that there were tritium bioassays and WBCs in the DOE files. 

SC&A searched the DOE files (last posted September 27, 2011) and found records of the EE’s 

tritium bioassay every year from 1990–1999, and WBCs each year from 1990–1999. 

Case C: The EE worked at the HFBR, the BMRR, and then at other facilities from 1990 through 

the present as a [employee] and [employee]. The EE was listed on the 1996 Tritium Dose 

Annual Summary HFBR list of required bioassays. The DR report of June 2007 states: 

Employment records for [the EE] were reviewed, and no records of bioassay 

monitoring results were found other than for tritium in urine (discussed below).

The bioassay records included several analyses for tritium in urine, with some values 

reported at or above the minimum detectable amount.

This indicates that there were some tritium bioassays, but no WBCs in the DOE files through 

1995 when the cancer was diagnosed, according to the DR report of 2007. 

SC&A searched the DOE files (last posted September 27, 2011) and found records of the EE’s 

tritium bioassay every year from 1990–1999, and WBCs each year from 1993–1999, but no 

records of WBCs were located for 1990, 1991, and 1992. 

Case D: The EE worked in the target processing areas of the accelerators and the HFBR from 

1989 through 2004 as a [employee]. The EE was not listed on the 1996 Tritium Dose Annual 

Summary HFBR list of required bioassays. The DR report of April 2010 states: 

Internal dose monitoring records were reviewed. Most measurement results for 

non-naturally occurring radionuclides showed an activity less than the level of 

detection for the given radionuclides and bioassay method. The bioassay records 

include monitoring for radionuclides in urine and whole body counts. All urine 

results reported less than detectable levels. All whole body counts also reported 

less than detectable levels except for two counts that indicated positive results for 

cobalt-57.

This indicates that there were tritium bioassays and WBCs in the DOE files. 

SC&A searched the DOE files (last posted September 27, 2011) and found tritium bioassay 

records for 1990, but none for 1991–1999. SC&A located WBCs for 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 

and 1999, but none for 1990, 1991, 1994, 1997, and 1998. This bioassay pattern may have been 

the result of the EE’s work with irradiated targets, instead of being directly involved with HFBR 

operations. 

Case E: The EE worked at the HFBR from 1994 to March 1999 as a [employee]. The EE was 

listed on the 1996 Tritium Dose Annual Summary HFBR list of required bioassays. The DR 

report of November 2010 states: 
Internal dose monitoring records were reviewed. There was indication that [the 

EE] was monitored for tritium exposure during part of [the EE’s] work at the 

HFBR (starting in 1994), although the records were incomplete.

Except for tritium monitoring as discussed above, no records of bioassay 

monitoring were found.

This indicates that there were some, but incomplete, tritium bioassays, and no WBCs in the DOE 

files through 1999 when the cancer was diagnosed. 

SC&A searched the DOE files (last posted June 2, 2011) and found records of the EE’s tritium 

bioassay for 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, but none for 1994 or 1995, and WBC records for 1997 

and 1998, but no WBC records for 1994, 1995, 1996, or 1999. The last DOE files were posted 

on June 2, 2011, 7 months after the DR report of November 2010; this may account for the lack 

of some of the bioassay records during the preparation of the DR report. 

Summary of 1993 End Date Evaluation 

Records of Tritium Bioassays 

A plot of the number of monthly tritium bioassay records located in the DOE files for the [less 

than 9] workers that may have required bioassays are shown in Figure 1. 

Percent of Monthly HFBR Tritium Bioassay 

Records found in DOE files for [less than 9] Workers 

0

20

40

60

80

100

199019911992

1993

1994199519961997

19981999

Year

% of records in DOE

files

Figure 1. Percent of Recorded Monthly Tritium Bioassay for [Less than 9] Workers 

A plot of the number of monthly tritium bioassay records located in the DOE files for the [less 

than 9] workers that were required to have bioassays, as per the 1993 Internal Monitoring 

Procedure document (Reciniello 1993), are shown in Figure 2. 

Memo: BNL SEC End Date/Findings 5 SC&A – May 22, 2012 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
Memo: BNL SEC End Date/Findings 6 SC&A – May 22, 2012 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Percent of Yearly HFBR WBC Records found in 

DOE files for [less than 9] Workers 

0

20

40

60

80

100

199019911992199319941995

1996199719981999

Year

% of records in DOE 

files

Figure 2. Percent of Recorded Monthly Required Tritium Bioassay for 

[Less than 9] Workers 

Percent of Required Monthly HFBR Tritium 

Bioassay Records found in DOE files for [Less than 9] 

HFBR Workers 

0

20

40

60

80

100

199019911992

19931994199519961997

19981999

Year

% of records in

DOE files

Records of WBCs 

A plot of the number of yearly WBC records located in the DOE files for the [less than 9] 

workers that may have required yearly WBCs are shown in Figure 3. 

Figure 3. Percent of Recorded WBC for [Less than 9] Workers 

A plot of the number of records of yearly WBCs located in the DOE files for the [less than 9] 

workers that were required to have yearly WBCs, as per the 1993 Internal Monitoring Procedure

document (Reciniello 1993), are shown in Figure 4. For the year 1999, one worker only worked 

a short time at the beginning of that year, which may not have resulted in a WBC being 

performed. If that was the case, there would have been 100% WBC records available for 1999. 
Percent of Required Yearly HFBR WBC Records 

found in DOE files for [Less than 9] HFBR Workers 

0

20

40

60

80

100

1990199119921993199419951996199719981999

Year

% of records in DOE

files

Figure 4. Percent of Recorded WBCs Required for [Less than 9] Workers 

Conclusions 

Unfortunately, analyzing this limited data does not provide an obvious date when the bioassay 

records became reasonably complete at BNL. However, it does indicate that 1993 may not be a 

technically sound year for the SEC to terminate, because the number of bioassay records for 

1994, 1995, and 1996 fluctuate before leveling out around 1997, especially for the tritium 

bioassay data. The NIOSH ER (NIOSH 2012) used a BNL response to a 1993 assessment 

performed by the DOE Chicago office (HP Assessment 1993, p. 3) as the basis for showing that 

BNL’s bioassay program and recordkeeping procedures were in compliance by 1994. The 

NIOSH ER (NIOSH 2012, p. 36) statement is as follows: 

An assessment performed by the DOE Chicago Operations Office in December 

1993 found the BNL HP program “in compliance with applicable DOE standards 

and acceptable professional practices.” 

However, this assessment was general in nature, and only indicated that the procedures may have 

been in place, but as indicated in the present findings, not necessarily fully implemented and 

centralized, such that all the records are available today for DR purposes. 

REMAINING PRIMARY FINDINGS 

SC&A evaluated the remaining primary site profile issues in view of the SEC-00113 ER 

(NIOSH 2009), SEC-00196 ER (NIOSH 2012), and the revised BNL site profile Technical Basis 

Document (TBD) of 2010 (ORAUT 2010). The following is the current status of the site profile 

issues that were originally identified by SC&A in 2009 (SC&A 2009). 

Finding 1: Bioassay Monitoring Not Adequately Established 

ORAUT-TKBS-0048 (ORAUT 2006) does not provide sufficient information to determine 

which workers were monitored for what radionuclides and what criteria were used to select 

workers for special, routine, and spot bioassay monitoring. To perform an adequate dose 

Memo: BNL SEC End Date/Findings 7 SC&A – May 22, 2012 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
Memo: BNL SEC End Date/Findings 8 SC&A – May 22, 2012 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

reconstruction, the dose reconstructor needs to know who, when, and why workers were 

bioassayed at a given DOE site. This information allows the dose reconstructor to determine if 

the worker should have been monitored, and prompts the dose reconstructor to search for such 

records, if applicable (especially important because of the lack of a centralized record system at 

BNL). Although bioassays for some radionuclides were conducted for some workers at BNL 

throughout the laboratory’s operating history, sufficient documentation of written procedures and 

requirements for bioassays is not apparent before the 1990s; this leaves 40 years of uncertainty 

concerning bioassay requirements. 

SC&A’s Evaluation of Finding #1 

This finding is negated through 1993 by the SEC. After 1993, SC&A found that, although 

NIOSH used the 1993 Internal Monitoring Procedure document (Reciniello 1993) as a pivot 

point for when the bioassay program had a organized bioassay program, this document only 

applied to certain HFBR personnel, and did not appear to have been totally implemented. 

Therefore, the starting date of a functional site-wide bioassay program for the reactor, 

accelerators, isotope facilities, etc., has not necessarily been firmly established. As discussed in 

the previous section concerning the SEC end date of 1993, it appears that a reasonably constant 

bioassay monitoring program was not functional until around 1997. 

Finding 2: Records of Bioassay Monitoring Not Centralized or Knowingly Complete 

The site profile does not address the issue of the completeness and accessibility of the bioassay 

records. There were numerous bioassay data recording systems and filing methods at BNL. 

Many of these earlier records are still located in various departments, making it difficult (as 

confirmed by current BNL health physics personnel) for BNL to properly and completely 

respond to NIOSH requests for bioassay records to be used for dose reconstruction. It is not 

currently known by BNL health physics personnel if all the hardcopy records have been located, 

are legible, and are accessible for dose reconstruction. As various departments were formed and 

supplanted, and as department heads came and left BNL, the hardcopy records may have 

survived, or they may have been destroyed or removed from the site. There is presently no 

method available to determine if all the records for a given employee are available for dose 

reconstruction purposes, particularly before the records were centrally stored in electronic 

databases. 

SC&A’s Evaluation of Finding #2 

This finding is negated through 1993 by the SEC. After 1993, SC&A found (using very limited 

case file data and the NIOSH ER for 1994) that there were still uncertainties in the availability of 

tritium and WBC bioassay records through about 1996. Because of changes in functions and 

facilities at the BNL during the 1990s, a date when bioassay records became reasonably 

complete is not obvious; however, the late 1990s (around 1997) appear to show an improvement 

in bioassay records, with a decrease in fluctuation. 
Memo: BNL SEC End Date/Findings 9 SC&A – May 22, 2012 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

Finding 13: The Site Profile has Inadequately Characterized the Number and Types of 

X-rays Received by BNL Employees in Early Years 

The site profile (ORAUT 2006, page 50) states that BNL had machines capable of 

photofluoroscopic/fluoroscopic exams in 1951 and 1960, but on page 50, it is concluded that 

only the diagnostic unit was used for routine exams, and on page 52, it is stated that it seems 

unlikely that the greater dose units were used for routine exams. These potential exposures were 

not further addressed in the site profile. It references Brodsky 1964 as one of its reasons to 

conclude that only the diagnostic unit was used routinely for examinations. However, 

Sunderman (1947) summarized the health program used for BNL employees in September 1947. 

Sunderman recommended that employees of BNL be observed medically (1) upon hire at BNL, 

(2) routinely for employees requiring health maintenance, (3) when employees become sick or 

injured, and (4) when employees terminated. Candidates for employment were to receive 

“fluororoentgenograms of the chest, AP and LAT roentgenograms of the spine, and 

roentgenogram of one forearm.” During Health Maintenance exams of employees, an annual 

fluororoentgenogram of the chest was completed. 

SC&A’s Evaluation of Finding #13 

SC&A evaluated the revisions in Section 3, Occupational Medical Dose, of the April 26, 2010, 

edition of ORAUT-TKBS-0048 (ORAUT 2010) in view of the original Site Profile Issue #13 

and found some relevant information had been added. The use of pre-employment PFG exams 

was addressed on page 48 of the revised TBD (ORAUT 2010), and summarized in Table 3-1 on 

page 49. Additionally, the issue of lumbar-spine and forearm x-ray exams was addressed on 

page 48. A summary of the default frequency and types of chest x-rays, as a function of time 

period, was summarized in Table 3-1, page 49. 

SC&A found the revised information contained in Section 3 of the TBD (ORAUT 2010) useful, 

but did have the following comments: 

1. Table 3-1: SC&A concurs with the recommendation in the last paragraph of page 48 of 

the revised TBD, which read as follows: 

Dose reconstructors should assign dose according to the number of PFG and 

14-in. x 17-in. PA chest X-rays in the claim file records if they are provided. 

If these records are not provided, the dose reconstructor should assign dose 

from a preemployment PFG for start dates between 1947 and 1955, and 

annual 14-in. x 17-in. PA chests during this period. The default X-ray 

examination frequencies are found in Table 3-1. 

However, the wording in Table 3-1 on page 49 (reproduced below) needs to be revised to 

more clearly reflect these recommendations. 
A suggested wording change to correct this would be for the first “Preemployment” term 

be replaced with “Pre-employment, if PFG in the records, or no records exist” and the 

next “Pre-employment if no PFG in the records” term be replaced with “Pre-employment, 

if 14”x 17” in records for pre-employment.” 

This change would prevent assigning a 14′′ x 17′′ PA dose value when a PFG dose value 

should be assigned in cases where there are no records, or a 14′′ x 17′′ PA or PFG are not 

indicated in the records for a pre-employment exam. 

2. On page 48 of the TBD (NIOSH 2010), NIOSH states that the “claim files” provide the 

following information: 

 The recommendations by Sunderman in 1947 (Sunderman 1947) were apparently 

not carried out. 

 Very few lumbar-spine exams and no forearm exams were found. 

 PFG exams were not used exclusively in the early years, and none after 1955. 

SC&A would like to obtain a list of some of these claim files from NIOSH to verify these 

statements. 

3. Points in the revised TBD (ORAUT 2010) that need clarification: 

 Section 3.6, page 52, contains the statement “Organ doses are found in Tables 3-2 

and 3-3 for various periods at BNL. In these tables...” SC&A finds that this 

should only refer to Table 3-2, not Table 3-3, because Table 3-3 contains skin 

exposure guidelines, not doses. 

 Section 3.6.3, on page 54, contains the statement “Skin doses from PFG, PA, and 

LAT chests are found in Table 3-3.” However, Table 3-3 contains skin exposure 

guidelines, not doses. Apparently, this should be changed to Table 3-4. 

Memo: BNL SEC End Date/Findings 10 SC&A – May 22, 2012 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 
Memo: BNL SEC End Date/Findings 11 SC&A – May 22, 2012 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

 If these clarification points are correct, then Table 3-3 on pages 55–56 is not 

described in the TBD, or how it was derived, or the reference(s) from which it 

was taken. 

These points need to be corrected or clarified to allow for the correct understanding of the 

recommendations for dose reconstruction. 

Summary of Finding #13 Evaluation 

Changes in the revised TBD addressed a number of the original concerns in this finding. 

However, the rewording and clarification items need to be addressed in the revised TBD, and 

SC&A would like NIOSH to provide some claim numbers which illustrate that very few lumbarspine exams and no forearm exams were found, and PFG exams were not used exclusively in the 

early years, and none after 1955. 

REFERENCES 

Brodsky, A., 1964. “Minutes of a meeting June 29, 1964.” SRDB Ref ID: 17344 (see pg. 9) 

HP Assessment, 1993. Radiological Control Manual 1993 Implementation Status Report, 

Brookhaven National Laboratory Associated Universities, Inc.; December 17, 1993; SRDB Ref 

ID: 48473, PDF p. 3 

NIOSH 2009. SEC Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC-00113, Rev. 0. National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. September 29, 2009. 

NIOSH 2012. SEC Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC-00196, Rev. 0. National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. January 5, 2012. 

ORAUT 2006. Technical Basis Document for the Brookhaven National Laboratory, ORAUTTKBS-0048, Rev. 00, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. August 30, 

2006. 

ORAUT 2010. Technical Basis Document for the Brookhaven National Laboratory, ORAUTTKBS-0048, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio. April 26, 

2010. 

Reciniello, 1993, Internal Monitoring, Procedure RD APM 8.7; R. Reciniello; Brookhaven 

National Laboratory; August 13, 1993; SRDB Ref ID: 55393 

SC&A 2009. Review of the NIOSH Site Profile for the Brookhaven National Laboratory,

ORAUT-TKBS-0048, Rev. 00, 2006. SCA-TR-TASK1-0001. SC&A, Inc., Vienna, Virginia, 

and Saliant, Inc., Jefferson, Maryland. September 2009. 
Memo: BNL SEC End Date/Findings 12 SC&A – May 22, 2012 

 This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. 

NOTICE:

Sunderman, F.W., M.D., 1947. Health Program for Employees of the Brookhaven National 

Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York. August 27, 1947.