Aslam.Ibrahim/Sandbox
[1]CNSC laboratory achieves a milestone in ISO accreditation
Accreditation for gamma calibration services achieved, more to come
[2]Written by: Aslam Ibrahim
On November 16, 2016, the CNSC laboratory was granted accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025:2005, a standard used throughout the world to evaluate testing and calibration laboratories. The accreditation scope includes the calibration of working measurement standards, gamma survey meters, and personal electronic dosimeters – in short, a significant part of the CNSC laboratory’s calibration services.
Accreditation was granted by the Standards Council of Canada (SCC), under the Program for the Accreditation of Laboratories – Canada (PALCAN) and the National Research Council of Canada Calibration Laboratory Assessment Service (NRC CLAS).
It is notable that the CNSC laboratory is the first of its kind in Canada that the SCC has accredited for calibration of working measurement standards and survey instruments for gamma measurement.
For the purposes of this article, the term “working measurement standard” refers to a measuring instrument that is calibrated relative to a reference measurement standard (which is also a measuring instrument). The working and reference measurement standards each consist of an ion chamber and an electrometer that are combined as a single measurement system.
The laboratory maintains the reference measurement standard through annual calibrations that are performed by the NRC. The laboratory then calibrates the working measurement standard in-house by directly comparing it to the (calibrated) reference measurement standard. The calibration of the working measurement standards has also been accredited by SCC and NRC CLAS.
What is accreditation and why is it important?
Laboratory accreditation is a formal process of recognition by a third party organization to establish that a laboratory is technically competent and impartial. The CNSC laboratory was required to demonstrate its ability to produce precise and accurate test and calibration data, and to show the technical competence of staff. Learn more.
One reason that the CNSC pursued this recognition for the laboratory is because ISO/IEC 17025:2005 is an internationally accepted standard. Accreditation to such a standard provides formal recognition of competent laboratories throughout the world.
This recognition is important because, in all its efforts to fulfill its mandate, the CNSC strives continuously not only to achieve excellence in its operations, but also to foster public trust and confidence. The CNSC laboratory is no exception. With the calibration services becoming accredited by recognized bodies like the SCC and NRC CLAS, the CNSC laboratory has received a significant global mark of approval of high quality of its services. This in turn contributes to building public trust and confidence in the laboratory’s operations and the CNSC as a whole.
What did the accreditation process involve?
During this voluntary process, specialist technical assessors from NRC CLAS and NRC Measurement Science and Standards first conducted a thorough desktop assessment of the management system manual documentation and then a rigorous onsite evaluation of the laboratory’s processes, staff and equipment.
Upon concluding that the CNSC Laboratory met all requirements of the stringent ISO/IEC 17025:2005 standard, NRC CLAS recommended accreditation to the SCC, which reviewed the results of assessment and granted the recognition.
How do CNSC staff members (customers) and licensees benefit?
The results of the process showcase the technical and service-oriented capabilities of the CNSC laboratory, including highly professional technical staff, equipment, processes, and successful participation in proficiency testing. Together these features make the laboratory a leader in calibration services that are crucial for reliable radiation measurements – a key component of nuclear regulation.
The ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditation provides high confidence to both the regulator and licensees in the data used for key analyses and regulatory decisions.
What were the challenges the laboratory faced while preparing for accreditation?
Adapting all in-house MS Excel spreadsheets, writing procedures and work instructions to comply with all the ISO/IEC 17025:2005 standard requirements was certainly a big challenge. There are a lot of documents!
Another significant challenge was to find proficiency testing (PT) providers with appropriate measurement capabilities to meet ISO compliance requirements. The capabilities of the few established and reputable PT providers, such as the National Research Council of Canada (NRC), the National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), are limited to their well-characterized artefacts consisting of working measurement instruments for air kerma measurements. Their PT capabilities do not extend to field instruments such as personal dosimeters and gamma survey equipment.
It is important to note that the accreditation task presented to the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) and NRC CLAS, with the measurement scope that the CNSC laboratory sought, was the first of its kind for all three of these primary project stakeholders, and a first for Canada. The unique scope of accreditation turned out to be a challenge for the SCC and the NRC Calibration Laboratory Assessment Service (NRC CLAS), as the requirements for the analysis of measurement uncertainties and model equations, in addition to data analysis of the measurements and interpretation of the comparison of results from PT exercises are different from other physical and electrical metrological calibrations.
What’s next?
The current scope of accreditation includes working measurement standards for air kerma measurements, gamma survey meters, and personal electronic dosimeters. The CNSC laboratory has prepared a project management plan to extend the scope to include electronic and radiological calibrations of survey meters for gamma, neutron, alpha and beta radiation measurements, as well as energy calibrations of the spectrometers used for gamma and neutron measurements. There’s lots more to do!
How can CNSC staff members suggest improvements to the laboratory?
Through annual customer satisfaction surveys that the CNSC laboratory conducts, CNSC staff members who have used the laboratory services in the previous year can provide feedback on their quality, including suggestions for improvement. The CNSC laboratory has been conducting such surveys since 2015, and has taken action to address comments from its customers to meet its commitment to provide a high service level and meet customer expectations. One such action was to respond to the suggestion to provide links to instrument manuals from the laboratory’s Web page.
The CNSC laboratory gamma calibration service now operates within a quality management system that complies with the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:2005. As specified in the quality management system, the laboratory implements mechanisms including, but not limited to, proficiency testing, customer satisfaction surveys, internal reviews, management reviews, and corrective and preventative actions to drive continual improvement, which is the true intention of the ISO/IEC standard. Control room for remote handling of equipment and sources during calibration
Summary of steps to set up an IFA with NRC
· CNSC Technical Authority contacts NRC Technical Authority to define the scope of work and schedule of work to be completed in the fiscal year
· Contact Finance by email to request the Finance contact person info to include in the IFA
Finance / Finance (CNSC/CCSN) <cnsc.finance-finance.ccsn@canada.ca>
· Provide the Finance contact person info to NRC Technical Authority to include in the draft IFA
· Once draft is provided by NRC Finance/Accounting for counter signatures, queue the IFA for Director LSD approval
· Once approved by Director LSD, provide a copy to CNSC Finance to commit funds and to provide REF code to include in the IFA.
· After REF code information is included in the IFA, submit the signed IFA to NRC Finance/Accounting Contact
· NRC Finance/Accounting to provide the IFA to CNSC Technical Authority with NRC counter signature
· Maintain the IFA in records
Contract processing timelines can vary greatly depending on the procurement strategy chosen and based on other factors that typically results in delays. Typical delay factors are: Complexity of the requirement; completeness of the statement of work and evaluation criteria; approval process; security; translation; supplier questions; bid evaluation process; manufacturing and delivery lead times.
Contract Award Service Standards – The Contract Award Service Standards outline the time it takes CMS to award a contract from the time a completed Contract Request Form is received and assigned to an officer. There are factors outside of the Contract Management Section’s (CMS) control that impact CMS’s ability to meet the contract award service standards listed below. However, CMS will strive to meet its contract award service standards at least 90% of the time.
| No. | Procurement Type | Contract Award Service Standard |
| 1 | · Non-competitive goods under $25K (tax incl.);
· Non-competitive services under $40K (tax incl.); · Purchases from standing offer; · Software purchases from software licensing supply arrangement |
5 weeks |
| 2 | · Temporary help services competitive contracts;
· Proservices competitive contracts; · Competitive furniture or audio-visual contracts; · Non-competitive service contracts greater than $40K (tax incl.) |
4 months |
| 3 | · Competitive contracts against supply arrangements (e.g. TBIPS, TSPS, PASS);
· Competitive service contracts from $40K to less than $105,700 (tax incl.) not covered by standing offers or supply arrangements |
5 months |
| 4 | · Competitive services from $105,700 to $3.75M (tax incl.) not covered by standing offers or supply arrangements | 6 months |
Note: The above timelines do not include contract requests that need to be sent to PSPC or SSC for processing (e.g. goods over $25K, research and development services, select IT hardware and software, public opinion research, advertising etc.)
The Contract Management Section (CMS) would be happy to discuss any aspect of your procurement needs. We suggest you contact CMS early in the procurement planning process, so we can determine the most appropriate procurement strategy for you.
1 Introduction
1.1 Customer Feedback
The CNSC Laboratory solicits customer feedback on an annual basis as one of the measurements of performance of the Laboratory Management System (LMS) ([Pcdocs://E-DOCS/4412335/R e-Docs-#4412335]) in regards to instrument management and calibration services. Customers can provide feedback to the Laboratory to address any issues which require immediate attention any time as needed, however, the annual survey provides an opportunity for customers to feedback on any aspect of the laboratory’s services including data quality and turnaround times. Any immediate problems as reported by the customers are to be documented and corrected through the non-conformance and corrective action processes following the Laboratory procedure P409 Corrective Action and Preventive Action in a timely manner by the Management System Officer (MSO).
Customer feedback is solicited to conform with the requirements of standards ISO/IEC 17025:2017, “General Requirements for the Competence and Testing of Calibration Laboratories”, and “SCC Requirements and Guidance for the Accreditation of Testing Laboratories – April 2018.”
1.2 Process
The MSO of the CNSC Laboratory conducts an electronic survey annually to collect feedback from CNSC staff members who have utilized the services of the Laboratory, and to collect any suggestions for improvement of the services, as per section 9.2.1 of the LMS.
Microsoft® Outlook based customer satisfaction survey form was used in this most recent customer satisfaction survey conducted in last year. Note that this form was designed and introduced in calendar year 2018 considering feedback from the customers to introduce a simple tool to provide feedback to the Laboratory. The Outlook email Voting button with a custom design offers to the customer to describe impressions of the services as Excellent, Good, Fair or No Impression, as described in the CNSC Laboratory Customer Satisfaction Survey Form F407.001 ([Pcdocs://E-DOCS/4429053/R e-Doc# 4429053]) which was used in previous years between 2014 and 2016. In addition, once the customer selected to respond to the invitation email with the selected impression of the service, the customer was offered an option to edit the response which may include any comments a customer may wish to have for the improvement of services.
After successfully conducting customer satisfaction surveys for years 2017 and 2018, CNSC Laboratory Customer Satisfaction Survey Form F407.001 ([Pcdocs://E-DOCS/4429053/R e-Doc# 4429053]) has now been retired and is no longer valid and available to use.
The survey results are used as an input into the management review process following the Laboratory procedure P415 Management Review ([Pcdocs://E-DOCS/4424239/R e-Doc# 4424239]). Any improvements suggested in the survey are implemented considering the available resources and benefit to the larger group of customers through the Laboratory procedure P409 Corrective Action and Preventive Action ([Pcdocs://E-DOCS/4425262/R e-Doc# 4425262]), and then followed and monitored through internal assessment process.
2 Methodology
The following preparatory steps were taken prior to execution of the survey:
1) A comprehensive list of customers that requested and received instrument services from the CNSC laboratory (i.e., the service “requestor”) during the 2018 calendar year was compiled from laboratory service records.
2) An invitation email was drafted in Microsoft® Outlook with a custom design Voting button, to be sent to each customer as a formal request for their participation in the annual customer satisfaction survey.
3) A telephone call/voice message was drafted to remind the customer the next day after the initiation of the survey.
4) A follow-up invitation email was drafted, to be sent as a reminder to each customer who had not responded to the initial request within a week time-period.
5) The list of customers was provided to the Laboratory’s administration staff to send the invitation email via Microsoft® Outlook with a custom design Voting button and other instructions regarding the data integrity of the feedback provided by the customers. Administration staff was to save the completed forms in the central electronic repository as e-access documents with appropriate access rights for maintaining lists of respondents and records as customers respond to the survey.
The following steps were taken subsequent to execution of the survey:
1) The feedback provided by the customers was analyzed and a summary ([Pcdocs://E-DOCS/5763601/1 e-Doc# 5763601]) was prepared to discuss the results of the survey with the stakeholders in order to implement the suggestions and any corrective actions to be taken to address the comments.
2) The results of the survey were summarized for the preparation of this summary report of the customer survey, as presented in this document.
3) If appropriate, an opportunity for improvement (OFI) as identified in the customer survey regarding LIMS requester module in addition to others as those identified in section 5 of this report will be filed using the Laboratory procedure P409 under the LMS and will be followed up to monitor the effectiveness of the implemented actions.
3 Results and analysis
3.1 Cohort
The cohort identified for the calendar year 2018 satisfaction survey numbered 60 customers in total, all of whom requested and received instrument services via 146 service requests fulfilled by the laboratory during the calendar year.
The demographic of the survey cohort represented a multi-disciplined sampling of individuals from various divisions and directorates within the technical support and regulatory operations branches of the CNSC, and from all regions of Canada in which the CNSC executes its’ mandate.
The services requested by the survey cohort during the calendar year included, but were not limited, to the following:
- Provision of calibration and repair services for field instruments, such as personal electronic dosimeters, gamma survey meters, contamination meters, neutron survey meters, passive detectors – bubble detectors, and radon progeny concentration monitoring equipment;
- Provision of inspection outfitting services, including logistical planning for shipping and return of field instruments and tools that are delivered on site by the laboratory, in step with the inspectors’ travel and divisional licensee inspection schedules;
- Provision of subject matter technical assistance and technical reviews regarding field instruments, radiation measurement, and licensee documents
- Provision of research and purchasing services to meet specified customer requirements regarding field instrumentation
- Provision of ‘rush’ services to meet immediate and urgent customer requirements
- Provision of outreach outfitting services that included field instruments, radioactive artifacts, and technical advice on the use of those items in outreach activities
3.2 Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey
The survey was executed during the spring and summer in 2018. All customers who were identified as requestors of instrument services during the calendar year 2018 were contacted via Microsoft® Outlook email with a formal invitation for their participation in the survey. Customers were given the choice to describe the impression of services as Excellent, Good, Fair or No Impression using the Voting button as well as an option to include any comments a customer may wish to have for the improvement of services.
A telephone call/voice message was used to remind the customer within few days after the initiation of the survey. Those customers who did not respond within few weeks of the initial formal request for participation were sent the reminder email in late summer same year.
3.3 Analysis
3.3.1 Customer Response to the Survey
Table 1 illustrates the proportion of customers who responded to the survey. The total cohort response yielded 43 responses and 8 non-responses, of possible 51 responses, for a final customer response rate of 84%. Out of 60 customers who were originally identified to seek feedback, 9 of them were not available to respond either because they were no longer working for CNSC or on extended leave. This response rate was relatively higher than that of previous surveys conducted for calendar years 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, as illustrated in Table 2. It also demonstrates an increasing trend since the inception of survey in 2014 as demonstrated in Figure 1. This increased participation in the survey could be apparently attributed to number of factors including the simplified form used this year as well as follow up phone calls/voice messages given to customers after initiating the survey.
Table 1: Analysis of the responses
| Number of Responses | Percentage of Customers Responded | |
| Total | 43 out of 51 | 84% |
Table 2: Comparison of current customer’s responses to previous years
| Survey Year | Percentage of Customers Responded |
| 2014 | 54% |
| 2015 | 55% |
| 2016 | 65% |
| 2017 | 77% |
| 2018 | 84% |
1.1.1 Customer Response: Rating of Laboratory Services
The customer rating of laboratory services is accounted in Table 3. This table shows that 77% of the respondents rated the services provided as Excellent, and other 23% as Good. There were no negative ratings (i.e.: less than a Fair rating) received or noted during the survey. This trend is consistent with those in calendar years 2015 and 2016 when there were no ratings below Good.
Table 3: Rating of services
| Rating | Number of Responses | Percentage of Responses |
| Fair | 0/43 | 0% |
| Good | 10/43 | 23% |
| Excellent | 33/43 | 77% |
1.1.2 Customer Response: Usage of Laboratory Services
To gain better insight into the nature of the services customers have used during the calendar year 2018, Laboratory service records as those maintained in a dedicated Microsoft® Excel spreadsheet (F500.4.LABREQ) under the management system was used to extract this information about the category of service which includes calibration, field instrument loan, or any other service customers requested during the calendar year.
Table 4 illustrates the proportion of respondents who utilized various services under the instrument management and calibration services. Within the category of the “Field Instrument Loan” service type, customers were also provided with calibration services in order to meet the regulatory requirements. This indicates that out of the total number of customers who responded to the survey, 95% of the respondents either utilized calibration or loan services or a combination of these services.
Table 4: Usage ̶ type of laboratory services
| Type of services | Number of Responses | Percentage of Responses |
| Calibration | 12 | 28% |
| Field Instrument Loan | 25 | 58% |
| Both Calibration and Instrument Loan | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
1.1.3 Customer Response: Comments Regarding Laboratory Services
Any additional customer comments sought to qualify information in addition to the customers’ singular rating of laboratory services, are considered to belong in one of three groups: improvement or preventive / constructive comments, complimentary comments, and no comment. Thirty nine out of forty three customers did not provide any comments other than rating the services as Fair, Good or Excellent. Two customers (2 out of 4) who responded to the survey with additional comments elaborated further on the rating and provided complimentary comments in addition to some additional suggestions for improvement.
The customer comments on laboratory services are accounted in Table 5. A brief summary of the comments is provided in the appendix Table A.1 at the end of this report. Detailed comments are available in another document (E-DOCS-#5763601)
Table 5: Types of comments regarding laboratory services
| Type of comments | Number of Comments | Number of Respondents |
| Complimentary | 3 | 3 |
| Preventive or Improvement | 2 | 2 |
| No Comments | 39 | 39 |
1.1.3.1 Customer Response: Suggestions for Improvements
Each category of comments from respondents, as summarized in Table 5 and Table A.1 of the appendix, generated a number of feedback suggestions which are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6: Broad categories of comments
| Category | Number of Comments |
| Easy accessibility – upgrading Laboratory webpage | 1 |
1.2 Laboratory Response: Implementation of suggestions for improvement
Note this survey constitutes the fifth survey CNSC Laboratory has conducted starting 2014 and serves as a milestone in terms of continuing excellence in customer support with products and services that meets the universally accepted global standards.
Though it is a small pool of customers, it is not difficult to establish trends from these surveys over the period of last five years. The information available from customer feedback is very important to plan for the continual improvement of the services.
The Laboratory is committed to customer service excellence and has taken steps in response to customer suggestions for service improvements as outlined in this section.
1.2.1 Easy Accessibility
One suggestion pertains to easy accessibility to information including list of readily available artefacts and other resources which could be used in outreach activities. Though this comment is not directly related to calibration services, CNSC Laboratory will follow up further to accommodate this suggestion for improvement.
In previous customer satisfaction surveys in 2014, CNSC received similar comments regarding informing customers about any change in Laboratory processes which involves customers directly, providing links on BORIS to technical manuals and specifications for the equipment maintained in the inventory, as well as using web-based applications rather than emails for submission of service requests. This could be addressed by updating the information available on Laboratory webpage on BORIS.
In response to the customers’ satisfaction survey from 2014, CNSC Laboratory already provided online library of instruments, with specifications (CNSC Laboratory Services). The link opens an e-access directory and the customer might have difficulties scrolling through the directory to select the instrument.
1.2.2 Sharing information regarding instrument response
Although CNSC Laboratory encouraged customers to report malfunctions of the instruments, problems related to the quality of calibration of survey meters or any other observation with impact on the quality of measurements, one customer chose to comment on the under-response of an instrument due to excessive dead time through the customer survey. This customer also suggested information sharing when an instrument tended to under-respond or over-respond in particular radiation fields. Same customer also chose to comment on limitations of a particular model of survey meter in strong magnetic fields and also comments on performance of a particular model not within the tolerance of the model.
Particular model which customer commented about performed as per requirement under manufacturer’s specification. This particular model is very sensitive due to large a 2″×2″(5.1 cm×5.1 cm) NaI(Tl) crystal and is meant to be used as radioisotope identification device rather than a gamma survey meter to identify the radioisotope even in extremely small quantities. There are other gamma survey meters available upon request which can operate within the range from 0.1 µSv/h to 10 mSv/h. There are ion chamber based gamma survey meters available to operate within higher ranges of ambient dose equivalent rates as 50 mSv/h or 500 mSv/h. Laboratory can also provide gamma survey meters with accredited calibration under ISO/IEC 17025 which are equipped with a smaller NaI(Tl) crystal and a miniature PMT which still offers close to two order of magnitude higher sensitivity compared to a similar dimension GM Tube but can operate within 100 mSv/h.
The CNSC Laboratory also realizes that the customer, who noticed the survey meter under-response at the licensee site, did not know how to properly report this kind of situation (incident) to the CNSC Laboratory. An enhanced webpage will enable customers to raise such issues and get them addressed immediately, rather than wait for a customer survey. CNSC Laboratory
2 SUMMARY
The intention of the customer survey was to seek meaningful customer feedback which could be analyzed and incorporated to improve the core instrument calibration services and the future perceived rating of laboratory customer services. The objectives of the customer survey were successfully achieved.
In general, respondents have expressed a positive view of the services rendered and the staff delivering the services, as concluded from the high level of satisfaction of those customers who rated services as Excellent or Good, and recognized a positive impact of the provision of high quality Laboratory services. The Laboratory will strive to maintain this high level of satisfaction in the way it operates and delivers its services.
A comparison of the customer’s rating of the Laboratory services from calendar years 2014 through 2018 surveys is presented in Table 7. In 2015, 2016, there were no customers who rated the services as Fair, however in 2014 and in 2017 surveys a small fraction of the respondents (8% and 3% respectively) gave such rating, mainly due to a long turnaround time or not meeting customers’ expectations in regards to schedule agreed upon with the customer. More than 50% of customers consistently rated services as Excellent throughout 2014 to 2018 indicating service standards and commitments were maintained at the highest level as a result of steps taken after the 2014 survey. There is a growing trend for improvement and maintaining excellence of services to the high level of satisfaction of customers over last several years. CNSC Laboratory will continue to strive for the next level of excellence in serving the customers and meeting their needs under its mandate.
Table 7: Comparison of customers’ rating of services
| Percentage of Responses | |||||
| Rating | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 |
| Fair | 8% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 0% |
| Good | 42% | 24% | 21% | 35% | 23% |
| Excellent | 50% | 76% | 79% | 62% | 77% |
The survey also provided customers with the opportunity to raise comments. As a result, the customers provided suggestions for improvements which can be broadly categorized into two group. The Laboratory has already implemented some of the suggested improvements and is in the process of implementing other improvements as suggested by the customers in a timely manner.
3 RECOMMENDATIONs
Customer feedback is very important since it provides the Laboratory with valuable information about the services the Laboratory offers, insight into customer perceptions and expectations, and specific indicators of areas where the Laboratory needs to improve to satisfy customers’ perceived desires.
The response rate of the customer survey conducted in 2019, based on the customers who utilized the services in the calendar year of 2018, was calculated by dividing the number of respondents by the number of customers who were invited for participation in the survey. The response rate of the survey is 84%, which can be considered good for our purposes and an indication of an increasing trend of participation in the survey compared to previous years between 2014 and 2017. Increased participation of the staff this year in the customer satisfaction survey could be attributed to the approach adopted in last survey and this survey which includes
· Microsoft® Outlook email Voting button in place of a fillable Microsoft® Word form
· Telephone calls/voice message as a reminder
· Simplified email reminder
CNSC will continue to use the Microsoft® Outlook email with Voting button for annual customer satisfaction surveys. However, some customers prefer to provide feedback through emails upon completion of the services, rather than in an annual survey. Communication with customers is essential and every feedback should be maintained and taken into account with the analysis of the results from the annual survey. In order to capture such feedback, MSO will design a form based on Microsoft® Outlook email which will be sent to customer after the completion of each service request. Feedback received from customer in response to these frequent surveys will be maintained and analyzed along with the annual customer satisfaction survey.
It is important to introduce efficiencies in the implementation of the management system. CNSC Laboratory will develop a template which can be used for the analysis of the feedback received from customers in a consistent way and is to be used for compilation of the report for customer satisfaction survey which is presented at the annual management review conducted every year in the month of February.
APPENDIX
Table A.1: A summary of the detailed customer comments
| Constructive Comments | Complimentary |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| Over the past year, I’ve submitted a few instrumentation requests. The process is easy, the requested instruments were delivered on time and well packed for travel, and the return process is smooth. | Rating: Excellent |
| Rating: Good | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| I think DERPA as a whole needs to better coordinate outreach. I’ve raised this several time to several different managers, and I believe this will be focused on in the future. In the meantime, I think it would be helpful to have a list readily available of things we could request form the lab. How many Fiestaware plates do you have? How many radium dial watches? An inventory list might even be available, but if I don’t know where to find it, then others likely do not know where to find it either. | Rating: Excellent |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| With regard to radiation survey instruments I find that in general, the service is very good and the staff often go the extra mile to ensure our success I feel that it would be valuable if more information on the operating limitations for each instrument was available.
For example a recent loan instrument (Thermo Scientific RIIDEye X-G) was found to suffer from excessive dead-time above a dose rate of 50 uSv/h.Other instruments do not work well in the presence of magnetic fields (e.g. the Bicron which has an analog meter) or do not work as the manufacturer claims (e.g. threshold sensitive bubble detectors) Perhaps the instrument request form could incorporate such information? |
Rating: Good |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| Rating: Good | |
| Rating: Good | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| Rating: Good | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| - | Rating: Excellent |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| - | Rating: Excellent |
| Rating: Good | |
| Rating: Good | |
| Rating: Good | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| Rating: Good | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| Rating: Excellent | |
| - | Rating: Excellent |
| - | Rating: Good |
| - | Rating: Excellent |
| This was my first time using the Lab Services and everyone was really helpful in walking me through the steps/process. I really appreciated it. | Rating: Excellent |
| - | Rating: Excellent |
| - | Rating: Excellent |
| - | Rating: Excellent |
| - | Rating: Excellent |