Enclosure 1 

 

INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM 

REVIEW OF THE NEW JERSEY AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM 

April 20–24, 2015 

FINAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report presents the results of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program 

(IMPEP) review of the New Jersey Agreement State Program. The review was conducted 

during the period of April 20 – 24, 2015, by a review team composed of technical staff members 

from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the State of Colorado.

Based on the results of this review, New Jersey’s performance was found satisfactory for all 

performance indicators reviewed. The review team did not make any recommendations for the 

State. 

Accordingly, the review team recommended, and the Management Review Board (MRB) 

agreed, that the New Jersey Agreement State Program is adequate to protect public health and 

safety and is compatible with the NRC's program. The review team recommended, and the 

MRB agreed, that the next IMPEP review take place in approximately 4 years.
New Jersey Final IMPEP Report Page 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This report presents the results of the review of the New Jersey Agreement State 

Program. The review was conducted during the period of April 20 – 24, 2015, by a 

review team composed of technical staff members from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) and the State of Colorado. Team members are identified in Appendix 

A. The review was conducted in accordance with the “Implementation of the Integrated 

Materials Performance Evaluation Program and Rescission of Final General Statement of 

Policy,” published in the Federal Register on October 16, 1997, and NRC Management 

Directive 5.6 (MD 5.6), “Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP),” 

dated February 26, 2004. Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period of 

March 5, 2011, to April 24, 2015, were discussed with State managers on the last day of 

the review. 

In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the common and applicable 

non-common performance indicators was sent to the State on October 2, 2014. New 

Jersey provided its response to the questionnaire on April 6, 2015. A copy of the 

questionnaire response may be found in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) using the Accession Number ML15097A158. 

A draft of this report was issued to New Jersey on May 11, 2015, for factual comment. 

New Jersey responded to the findings and conclusions of the review by letter dated 

June 8, 2015. A copy of New Jersey’s response can be found in ADAMS using the 

Accession Number ML15174A073. The Management Review Board (MRB) met on July 

13, 2015, to consider the proposed final report. The MRB found the New Jersey 

Agreement State Program adequate to protect public health and safety, and compatible 

with the NRC’s program. 

The New Jersey Agreement State Program is administered by the Bureau of 

Environmental Radiation (the Bureau), in the Division of Environmental Safety and Health 

(the Division). The Division is part of the New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection. Organization charts for the State may be found in ADAMS using the 

Accession Number ML15097A106. 

At the time of the review, the New Jersey Agreement State Program regulated 581 

specific licenses authorizing possession and use of radioactive materials. The review 

focused on the radioactive materials program as it is carried out under the Section 274b. 

(of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRC and the 

State of New Jersey. 

The review team evaluated the information gathered against the established criteria for 

each common and the applicable non-common performance indicator and made a 

preliminary assessment of the New Jersey Agreement State Program’s performance. 
New Jersey Final IMPEP Report Page 2 

2.0 PREVIOUS IMPEP REVIEW AND STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

The previous IMPEP review concluded on March 4, 2011. The final report is available in 

ADAMS (Accession Number ML111300477). The results of the review and the status of 

the recommendations are as follows: 

Technical Staffing and Training: Satisfactory 

Recommendations: None

Status of Materials Inspection Program: Satisfactory but Needs Improvement 

Recommendations: None 

Technical Quality of Inspections: Satisfactory 

Recommendations: None 

Technical Quality of Licensing Actions: Satisfactory but Needs Improvement 

Recommendations: 

• “The review team recommends that the Bureau consistently implement their 

licensing procedures and NRC’s pre-licensing guidance, as well as other 

administrative licensing procedures found in the NUREG-1556 series. (Section 

2.4 of the 2011 IMPEP report)” 

Status: The review team confirmed that the Bureau conducted additional training 

for technical staff and supervisors to review their commitment to follow the 

Bureau’s licensing procedures and guidance documents. Licensing checklists 

were revised and the Bureau staff reviewed 100 percent of the completed 

licensing actions to ensure all documentation was in the license files. 

Pre-licensing guidance and licensing procedures were used and well 

documented. The review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that this 

recommendation be closed. 

• “The review team recommends that the Bureau provide additional training to staff 

members and supervisors regarding technical review of licensing actions for uses 

and technologies that were transferred from the NRC to the Bureau’s jurisdiction. 

(Section 2.4 of the 2011 IMPEP report)” 

Status: The review team confirmed that the Bureau technical staff and 

supervisors were trained on the uses and technologies that were transferred from 

the NRC to the Bureau. The review team evaluated several complex licensing 

actions and noted that the Bureau conducted detailed, team-type reviews of 

emerging technologies and complex decommissioning activities. The review team 

recommended, and the MRB agreed, that this recommendation be closed. 

Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities: Satisfactory 

Recommendations: None 

Compatibility Requirements: Satisfactory 
New Jersey Final IMPEP Report Page 3 

Recommendations: None 

Overall finding: Adequate to protect public health and safety and Compatible with the 

NRC’s program. 

3.0 COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

Five common performance indicators are used to review the NRC regional and 

Agreement State radioactive materials programs. These indicators are (1) Technical 

Staffing and Training, (2) Status of Materials Inspection Program, (3) Technical Quality of 

Inspections, (4) Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, and (5) Technical Quality of 

Incident and Allegation Activities. 

3.1 Technical Staffing and Training

The ability to conduct effective licensing and inspection programs is largely dependent on 

having a sufficient number of experienced, knowledgeable, well-trained technical 

personnel. Under certain conditions, staff turnover could have an adverse effect on the 

implementation of these programs, and thus could affect public health and safety. 

Apparent trends in staffing must be explored. Review of staffing also requires a 

consideration and evaluation of the levels of training and qualification. The evaluation 

standard measures the overall quality of training available to, and taken by, materials 

program personnel. 

a. Scope

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-103, “Reviewing 

the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Staffing and Training,” and evaluated 

New Jersey’s performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives: 

• A well-conceived and balanced staffing strategy has been implemented throughout 

the review period. 

• Agreement State training and qualification program is equivalent to NRC Inspection 

Manual Chapter (IMC) 1248, “Formal Qualification Program for Federal and State 

Material and Environmental Management Program.” 

• Qualification criteria for new technical staff are established and are being followed or 

that qualification criteria will be established if new staff members are hired. 

• Any vacancies, especially senior-level positions, are filled in a timely manner. 

• There is a balance in staffing of the licensing and inspection programs. 

• Management is committed to training and staff qualification. 

• Individuals performing materials licensing and inspection activities are adequately 

qualified and trained to perform their duties. 

• License reviewers and inspectors are trained and qualified in a reasonable period of 

time. 

b. Discussion
New Jersey Final IMPEP Report Page 4 

The New Jersey Agreement State Program is composed of 12 technical staff members 

which provides 11.45 full time equivalents for the radioactive materials program. The 

only vacant position is that of the Bureau Chief. Vacant for one year, this position is now 

posted for the second time. One of the Bureau supervisors has been Acting Bureau 

Chief during this period. 

During the review period, four staff members left the program (including the Bureau 

Chief) and three staff members were hired. New Jersey has a training and qualification 

manual equivalent to IMC 1248, including extensive use of qualification journals for staff 

members. 

c. Evaluation

The review team evaluated the effects on the Program having the Bureau Chief position 

vacant for a year. Increased workloads for senior staff members did not appear to affect 

the quality of the inspection, licensing, or response programs. 

The review team determined that, during the review period, the New Jersey program met 

the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.1.a. 

d. Results

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that New Jersey’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical 

Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory. 

3.2 Status of the Materials Inspection Program

Periodic inspections of licensed operations are essential to ensure that activities are 

being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and consistent with good 

safety practices. The frequency of inspections is specified in IMC 2800, and is 

dependent on the amount and kind of material, the type of operation licensed, and the 

results of previous inspections. There must be a capability for maintaining and retrieving 

statistical data on the status of the inspection program. 

a. Scope

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-101, “Reviewing 

the Common Performance Indicator: Status of the Materials Inspection Program,” and 

evaluated New Jersey’s performance with respect to the following performance indicator 

objectives: 

• Initial inspections and inspections of Priority 1, 2, and 3, licensees are performed at 

the frequency prescribed in IMC 2800, “Materials Inspection Program.” 

• Candidate licensees working under reciprocity are inspected in accordance with the 

criteria prescribed in IMC 1220, “Processing of NRC Form 241, Report of Proposed 

Activities in Non-Agreement States, Areas of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, and 
New Jersey Final IMPEP Report Page 5 

Offshore Waters, and Inspection of Agreement State Licensees Operating under 10 

CFR 150.20.” 

• Deviations from inspection schedules are normally coordinated between technical 

staff and management. 

• There is a plan to perform any overdue inspections and reschedule any missed or 

deferred inspections; or a basis has been established for not performing any overdue 

inspections or rescheduling any missed or deferred inspections. 

• Inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner (30 calendar 

days, or 45 days for a team inspection, as specified in IMC 0610, “Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards Inspection Reports”). 

b. Discussion

New Jersey performed 342 priority 1, 2, and 3, and initial inspections during the review 

period. New Jersey conducted 1.5 percent of those inspections overdue. Five initial 

inspections were conducted overdue during the review period. No priority 1, 2, or 3 

inspections were conducted overdue. Each year of the review period, New Jersey 

performed greater than 20 percent of candidate reciprocity inspections. 

c. Evaluation

The review team determined that, during the review period, New Jersey met the 

performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.2.a. 

d. Results

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that New Jersey’s performance with respect to the indicator, Status of 

the Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory. 

3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections

Inspections, both routine and reactive, provide assurance that licensee activities are 

carried out in a safe and secure manner. Accompaniments of inspectors performing 

inspections, and the critical evaluation of inspection records are used to assess the 

technical quality of a program’s inspection capability. 

a. Scope

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-102, “Reviewing 

the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Quality of Inspections,” and evaluated 

New Jersey’s performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives: 

• Inspections of licensed activities focus on health, safety, and security. 

• Inspection findings are well-founded and properly documented in reports. 

• Management promptly reviews inspection results. 

• Procedures are in place and used to help identify root causes and poor licensee 
New Jersey Final IMPEP Report Page 6 

performance. 

• Inspections address previously identified open items and violations. 

• Inspection findings lead to appropriate and prompt regulatory action. 

• Supervisors conduct annual accompaniments of each inspector to assess 

performance and assure consistent application of inspection policies. 

• For programs with separate licensing and inspection staffs, to verify that procedures 

are established and followed to provide feedback information to license reviewers. 

• For Agreement States, to determine if inspection guides are consistent with NRC 

guidance. 

• An adequate supply of calibrated survey instruments is available to support the 

inspection program. 

b. Discussion

The review team evaluated the inspection reports, enforcement documentation, and 

interviewed inspectors for 34 materials inspections conducted during the review period. 

The casework reviewed included inspections conducted by 12 current and former Bureau 

inspectors and covered medical, industrial, commercial, academic, research, and service 

licenses. 

Review team members accompanied five Bureau inspectors in February 2015. The 

inspector accompaniments are identified in Appendix B. The inspectors were found to be 

well-prepared and thorough. The inspections were adequate to assess licensed activities 

on health, safety and security. 

The review team noted that the Bureau performed annual supervisory accompaniments 

for each of the inspectors, throughout the review period. 

c. Evaluation

The review team determined that, during the review period, New Jersey met the 

performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.3.a. 

d. Results

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that New Jersey’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical 

Quality of Inspections, be found satisfactory. 

3.4 Technical Quality of Licensing Actions

The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of licensing actions can have a direct bearing 

on public health and safety, and security. An assessment of licensing procedures, actual 

implementation of these procedures, and documentation of communications and 

associated actions between the Bureau licensing staff and regulated community will be a 

significant indicator of the overall quality of the program. 
New Jersey Final IMPEP Report Page 7 

a. Scope

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-104, “Reviewing 

the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Quality of Licensing Actions,” and 

evaluated New Jersey’s performance with respect to the following performance indicator 

objectives: 

• Licensing action reviews are thorough, complete, consistent, and of acceptable 

technical quality with health, safety, and security issues properly addressed. 

• Essential elements of license applications have been submitted and elements meet 

current regulatory guidance (e.g. financial assurance, increased controls, 

pre-licensing guidance). 

• License reviewers, if applicable, have the proper signature authority for the cases 

they review independently. 

• License conditions are stated clearly and are inspectable. 

• Deficiency letters clearly state regulatory positions and are used at the proper time. 

• Reviews of renewal applications demonstrate a thorough analysis of a licensee’s 

inspection and enforcement history. 

• Applicable guidance documents are available to reviewers and are followed (e.g., 

NUREG-1556 series, pre-licensing guidance, regulatory guides, etc.). 

• Licensing practices for risk significant radioactive materials are appropriately 

implemented including increased controls and fingerprinting orders (Part 37 

equivalent). 

• Documents containing sensitive security information are properly marked, handled, 

controlled and secured. 

b. Discussion

During the review period, the Bureau performed 1,914 radioactive materials licensing 

actions. The review team evaluated 26 radioactive materials licensing actions which 

included casework for 15 current and former license reviewers. The licensing actions 

selected for review included 7 new applications, 10 amendments, 6 renewals, and 3 

terminations. The review team evaluated casework which included a cross-section of 

license types and actions: broad scope, medical diagnostic and therapy, cyclotron, 

commercial manufacturing and distribution, industrial radiography, research and 

development, academic, nuclear pharmacy, gauges, self-shielded irradiators, service 

providers, decommissioning actions and financial assurance. All licensing actions are 

initially entered into the Bureau’s computer tracking system, the New Jersey 

Environmental Management System, a database used by all programs in the Department 

to centrally locate information regarding licenses, inspections, enforcement actions, and 

incidents. License reviewers use standardized sets of conditions specific to the type of 

licensing program to ensure consistency in licenses. Each license action is reviewed and 

signed by a Bureau supervisor. 

c. Evaluation

The review team determined that, during the review period, New Jersey met the 
New Jersey Final IMPEP Report Page 8 

performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.4.a. 

d. Results

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that New Jersey’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical 

Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory. 

3.5 Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities

The quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of response to incidents and allegations of 

safety concerns can have a direct bearing on public health and safety. An assessment of 

incident response and allegation investigation procedures, actual implementation of these 

procedures, internal and external coordination, and investigative and follow-up 

procedures and actions will be a significant indicator of the overall quality of the program. 

a. Scope

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-105, “Reviewing 

the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation 

Activities,” and evaluated New Jersey’s performance with respect to the following 

performance indicator objectives: 

• Incident response, investigation, and allegation procedures are in place and followed. 

• Response actions are appropriate, well-coordinated, and timely. 

• On-site responses are performed when incidents have potential health, safety or 

security significance. 

• Appropriate follow-up actions are taken to ensure prompt compliance by licensees. 

• Follow-up inspections are scheduled and completed, as necessary. 

• Notifications are made to the NRC Headquarters Operations Center for incidents 

requiring a 24-hour or immediate notification to the Agreement State or NRC. 

• Incidents are reported to the Nuclear Material Events Database. 

• Allegations are investigated in a prompt, appropriate manner. 

• Concerned individuals are notified of investigation conclusions. 

• Concerned individuals’ identities are protected, as allowed by law. 

b. Discussion

During the review period, a total of 296 incidents were reported to New Jersey of which 

35 were reported to NRC. The majority of the reported incidents were contaminated 

waste/trash alarms which involved patient waste. The review team evaluated 18 

radioactive materials incidents which included 6 lost/stolen radioactive material events, 2 

potential overexposure events, 4 medical events, 5 damaged equipment events, and 1 

transportation event. New Jersey dispatched inspectors for onsite follow-up for 13 of the 

cases reviewed. 
New Jersey Final IMPEP Report Page 9 

New Jersey received 13 allegations during the review period. The review team evaluated 

nine allegations, including four allegations that the NRC transferred to the State during 

the review period. 

c. Evaluation

The review team determined that, during the review period, New Jersey met the 

performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.5.a. 

d. Results

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that New Jersey’s performance with respect to the indicator, Technical 

Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, be found satisfactory. 

4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

Four non-common performance indicators are used to review Agreement State programs: 

(1) Compatibility Requirements, (2) Sealed Source and Device Evaluation Program, (3) 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program (LLRW), and (4) Uranium Recovery 

Program. The NRC’s Agreement with New Jersey does not relinquish regulatory 

authority for a sealed source and device evaluation program or a uranium recovery 

program. Although New Jersey has LLRW disposal authority, the NRC has not required 

States to have a program for licensing a LLRW disposal facility until such time as the 

State has been designated as a host State for a LLRW disposal facility. When an 

Agreement State has been notified or becomes aware of the need to regulate a LLRW 

disposal facility, it is expected to put a regulatory program in place that meets the criteria 

for an adequate and compatible LLRW disposal program. There are no plans for a LLRW 

disposal facility in New Jersey. Accordingly, the review team did not review this indicator. 

Therefore, only the first non-common performance indicator applied to this review. 

4.1 Compatibility Requirements

State statutes should authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of 

agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory responsibility 

under the agreement. The statutes must authorize the State to promulgate regulatory 

requirements necessary to provide reasonable assurance of protection of public health, 

safety, and security. The State must be authorized through its legal authority to license, 

inspect, and enforce legally binding requirements, such as regulations and licenses. 

NRC regulations that should be adopted by an Agreement State for purposes of 

compatibility or health and safety should be adopted in a time frame so that the effective 

date of the State requirement is not later than 3 years after the effective date of NRC's 

final rule. Other program elements, as defined in Appendix A of State Agreements 

procedure SA-200, “Compatibility Categories and Health and Safety Identification for 

NRC Regulations and Other Program Elements,” that have been designated as 

necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program should be adopted 

and implemented by an Agreement State within 6 months following NRC designation. 
New Jersey Final IMPEP Report Page 10 

a. Scope

The review team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure SA-107, “Reviewing 

the Non-Common Performance Indicator: Compatibility Requirements,” and evaluated 

New Jersey’s performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives. 

A complete list of regulation amendments may be found on the NRC Web site at the 

following address: https://scp.nrc.gov/rss_regamendents.html. 

• The Agreement State program does not create conflicts, duplications, gaps, or other 

conditions that jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of radioactive materials 

under the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. 

• Regulations adopted by the Agreement State for purposes of compatibility or health 

and safety were adopted no later than 3 years after the effective date of the NRC 

regulation. 

• Other program elements, as defined in SA-200, that have been designated as 

necessary for maintenance of an adequate and compatible program have been 

adopted and implemented within 6 months of NRC designation. 

• The State statutes authorize the State to establish a program for the regulation of 

agreement material and provide authority for the assumption of regulatory 

responsibility under the agreement. 

• The State is authorized through its legal authority to license, inspect, and enforce 

legally binding requirements such as regulations and licenses. 

• Impact of sunset requirements, if any, on the State’s regulations. 

b. Discussion

New Jersey became an Agreement State on September 30, 2009. Legislative authority 

to create the Bureau and enter into an Agreement with NRC is granted in the Radiation 

Protection Act (N.J.S.A 26:2D-1), the Administrative Procedures Act (N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 

et seq.), and the Atlantic Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact 

Implementation Act. New Jersey’s regulations for control of radiation are located in the 

New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 7, Chapter 28. 

The State’s rulemaking process automatically adopts NRC requirements by reference 

with the exception of Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 (Radiological Criteria for License 

Termination). The State has requirements compatible with Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20. 

When the NRC amends requirements, the amendments are automatically incorporated 

into New Jersey’s rules without further proposal or publication. Because New Jersey 

specifically substitutes some New Jersey titles, addresses and language, there are times 

when the State may be required to amend its rules to make administrative changes which 

are then sent to the NRC for review. These administrative changes do not alter the 

substantive portions of the regulation. The State’s regulatory process typically takes 

approximately 2 years to complete, which includes time for public comment. 

New Jersey regulations are subject to sunset review. The Radiation Protection Code will 

sunset in 2020. A simple notice is filed for publication in the New Jersey Register if it will 

be readopted without change at that time. 
New Jersey Final IMPEP Report Page 11 

During the review period, New Jersey submitted seven final regulation amendments to 

the NRC for a compatibility review. None of the amendments were overdue for State 

adoption at the time of submission. At the time of this review, no amendments were 

overdue for adoption. New Jersey is making good progress with its promulgation of 

10 CFR Part 37 security requirements and plans to implement the rule by the March 2016 

deadline. 

c. Evaluation

The review team determined that, during the review period, New Jersey met the 

performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.4.1.a. 

d. Results

Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the review team recommended, and 

the MRB agreed, that New Jersey’s performance with respect to the indicator, 

Compatibility Requirements, be found satisfactory. 

5.0 SUMMARY 

As noted in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 above, New Jersey’s performance was found 

satisfactory for all of the six performance indicators reviewed. The review team did not 

make any recommendations regarding program performance by the State and 

determined that the recommendations from the 2011 IMPEP review should be closed. 

Accordingly, the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the New Jersey 

Agreement State Program be found adequate to protect public health and safety and 

compatible with the NRC's program. Based on the results of the current IMPEP review, 

the review team recommended, and the MRB agreed, that the next full IMPEP review 

take place in approximately 4 years. 
LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members 

Appendix B Inspection Accompaniments 
APPENDIX A 

IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS 

Name Area of Responsibility

Jim Lynch, Region III Team Leader 

 Technical Staffing and Training 

 Compatibility Requirements 

 Inspector Accompaniments 

Donna Janda, Region I Status of Materials Inspection Program 

Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation 

 Activities 

Michelle Hammond, Region IV Technical Quality of Licensing Actions 

 Inspector Accompaniments 

Phillip Peterson, Colorado Technical Quality of Inspections 
 

APPENDIX B 

INSPECTION ACCOMPANIMENTS 

The following inspection accompaniments were performed prior to the on-site IMPEP review: 

Accompaniment No.: 1 License No.: 450695

License Type: Gamma Knife Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 2/4/15 Inspector: NS

Accompaniment No.: 2 License No.: 551358 

License Type: HDR Priority: 2 

Inspection Date: 2/5/15 Inspector: KF

Accompaniment No.: 3 License No.: 507935 

License Type: Portable Gauge Priority: 5

Inspection Date: 2/6/15 Inspector: JP

Accompaniment No.: 4 License No.: 507156

License Type: Pool Irradiator Priority: 2

Inspection Date: 2/24/15 Inspector: CB

Accompaniment No.: 5 License No.: 506963

License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1

Inspection Date: 2/25/15 Inspector: JT