ML25356A129
| ML25356A129 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/07/2026 |
| From: | Adelaide Giantelli NRC/NMSS/DMSST/ASPB |
| To: | Miano M State of NM, Environment Dept |
| References | |
| Download: ML25356A129 (0) | |
Text
Michelle Miano, Director New Mexico Environment Department Environmental Protection Division P.O. Box 5469 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-5469
SUBJECT:
NEW MEXICO DRAFT IMPEP REPORT
Dear Ms. Miano:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) uses the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) to review radiation control programs. The enclosed draft report documents the results of the New Mexico Agreement State Program (New Mexico) review conducted on September 812, 2025. The teams preliminary findings were discussed with New Mexico on the last day of the review. The teams proposed recommendations are that New Mexico be found adequate to protect public health and safety but needs improvement and not compatible with the NRCs program.
The NRC conducts periodic reviews of radiation control programs to ensure that public health and safety are adequately protected from the potential hazards associated with the use of radioactive materials, and that Agreement State programs are compatible with the NRCs regulatory program. The IMPEP reviews are conducted by a team of Agreement State and the NRC staff. All reviews use common criteria in the assessment and place primary emphasis on performance. The final determination of adequacy and compatibility of each program, based on the teams report, is made by the Management Review Board (MRB) Chair after receiving input from the MRB members, the IMPEP team, and the radiation control program being reviewed.
The MRB is composed of the NRC senior managers and an Organization of Agreement States program manager.
In accordance with the IMPEP implementation procedures, the NRC is providing you with a copy of the draft report for your review and comment prior to submitting the report to the MRB.
Comments are requested within 28 days. This schedule will permit the issuance of the final report in a timely manner. If there are no comments on the IMPEP report, the MRB will receive the draft IMPEP report. If there are comments to the report, the team will review your response, make the necessary changes, and issue a proposed final report to the MRB.
The MRB meeting is scheduled to be conducted as a hybrid meeting on April 7, 2026, at 1pm ET via Microsoft Teams. The NRC will provide you with the Microsoft Teams connection information prior to the MRB meeting.
January 7, 2026
M. Miano If you have any questions regarding the enclosed report, please contact Robert K. Johnson, IMPEP Project Manager, at (301) 415-7314 or Stephen Poy, IMPEP Team Leader, at 301-415-7135.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely, Adelaide S. Giantelli, Chief State Agreement and Liaison Programs Branch Division of Materials Safety, Security, State, and Tribal Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
New Mexico Draft IMPEP Report cc: Dana Bahar, Deputy Division Director New Mexico Environment Department Srikanth Paladugu, Director New Mexico Environment Department Robert Bicknell, Program Manager New Mexico Environment Department Signed by Giantelli, Adelaide on 01/07/26
Enclosure INTEGRATED MATERIALS PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROGRAM REVIEW OF THE NEW MEXICO AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAM September 8-12, 2025 DRAFT REPORT
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The results of the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review of the New Mexico Agreement State Program (New Mexico) are discussed in this report. The review was conducted by the IMPEP team on September 812, 2025. Inspector accompaniments were conducted during the week of August 25, 2025.
Based on the results of the 2025 IMPEP review, the team found New Mexicos performance satisfactory for the performance indicators: Technical Staffing and Training; Status of Materials Inspection Program; and Technical Quality of Inspections. The team also found New Mexicos performance satisfactory but needs improvement for the performance indicators: Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities; and Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements.
The team reviewed the 2021 IMPEP review recommendations and proposes closing two of the previous recommendations and keeping two open. The team also proposes four new recommendations.
Accordingly, the team recommends that the New Mexico radiation control program be found adequate to protect public health and safety but needs improvement and not compatible with the NRC's program. The team recommends that a periodic meeting take place in approximately 1 year with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately 2 years. Further, the team recommends that New Mexico be placed on a period of heightened oversight.
New Mexico Draft IMPEP Report Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The New Mexico Agreement State Program (New Mexico) Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP) review was conducted on September 812, 2025, by a team of technical staff members from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the States of Oklahoma and Wisconsin. Team members are identified in Appendix A. Inspector accompaniments were conducted during on or between August 2528, 2025, and are identified in Appendix B. The review was conducted in accordance with the Agreement State Program Policy Statement, published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48535), and NRC Management Directive (MD) 5.6, Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program (IMPEP), dated July 24, 2019. Preliminary results of the review, which covered the period of September 25, 2021, through September 12, 2025, were discussed with New Mexico managers on the last day of the review.
In preparation for the review, a questionnaire addressing the performance indicators was sent to New Mexico on July 30, 2025. New Mexico provided its response to the questionnaire on August 22, 2025. A copy of the questionnaire response is available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML25238A025.
New Mexico is administered by the Radiation Control Bureau which is located in the Environmental Protection Division. The Environmental Protection Division is located within the New Mexico Environment Department. The Organization chart provided by New Mexico as a part of its questionnaire response is available in ML25238A023.
At the time of the review, New Mexico regulated 224 specific licenses authorizing possession and use of radioactive materials. The review focused on the radiation control program as it is carried out under Section 274b. (of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) Agreement between the NRC and the State of New Mexico.
The team evaluated the information gathered against the established criteria for each performance indicator and made a preliminary assessment of the New Mexicos performance.
2.0 PREVIOUS IMPEP REVIEW AND STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS The previous IMPEP review concluded on September 24, 2021. The final report is available in ADAMS Accession Number ML22017A003.
Technical Staffing and Training: Satisfactory Recommendation: New Mexico continues to implement a well-conceived and balanced staffing strategy to ensure the programs continued adequacy and compatibility.
Status: Despite significant staff turnover late in the review period, New Mexico responded effectively by reorganizing, increasing staffing and salaries levels, and proactively hiring to address current and future staffing needs. New Mexico is in the process of implementing a thoughtful and balanced staffing strategy to maintain program adequacy and compatibility.
New Mexicos timely response to the recent staffing challenges demonstrates the Programs commitment to hiring, training, and staff qualifications. Over the past year, New Mexico hired four technical staff, all of whom are on track to be cross qualified as license reviewers and inspectors by 2027. The state also plans to cross-qualify staff hired to fill the three remaining technical vacancies. While progress is evident, an imbalance remains, and New Mexico currently has only one qualified license reviewer. For these reasons, the team recommends the recommendation remain open. The team is confident that New Mexicos continued efforts to hire
New Mexico Draft IMPEP Report Page 2 and cross-qualify up to seven new technical staff will effectively balance staffing and eliminate the single point of failure in licensing.
Status of Materials Inspection Program: Satisfactory Recommendation: The team recommends that New Mexico implement a method to track initial inspections to ensure that initial inspections are completed in accordance with the guidance outlined in the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) IMC 2800, Materials Inspection Program.
Status: The team recognized that New Mexico implemented a method to track initial inspections since the last IMPEP, however, since there continues to be challenges to the program regarding tracking inspections and incidents. The team recommends that this recommendation remain open.
Technical Quality of Inspections: Satisfactory Recommendation: None Technical Quality of Licensing Actions: Satisfactory but Needs Improvement Recommendation 1: Perform reviews of renewal applications in accordance with the criteria outlined in Section 4.4 of the NRCs NUREG-1556, Volume 20, Revision 1, or equivalent Agreement State procedure.
Status: For the current review period, the team observed that New Mexicos review of renewal applications followed the criteria outlined in in Section 4.4 of the NRCs NUREG-1556, Volume 20, Revision 1. The team recommends closing this recommendation.
Recommendation 2: Adopt and consistently implement the risk-significant radioactive materials (RSRM) checklist for licensing actions that meet the criteria in the applicable guidance.
Status: The team observed that New Mexico consistently implemented the RSRM checklist for licensing actions throughout the review period. The team recommends closing this recommendation.
Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities: Satisfactory but Needs Improvement Recommendation: None Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements: Satisfactory but Needs Improvement Recommendation: None Overall finding: based on the results of the 2021 IMPEP review, the Management Review Board (MRB) Chair found New Mexico 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 and Agreement State radiation control 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.
New Mexico Draft IMPEP Report Page 3 3.1 Technical Staffing and Training The ability to conduct effective licensing and inspection programs is largely dependent on having experienced, knowledgeable, well-trained technical personnel. Under certain conditions, staff turnover could have an adverse effect on the implementation of these programs and could affect public health and safety. Apparent trends in staffing must be assessed. Review of staffing also requires 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 team used the guidance in State Agreements procedure (SA) SA-103, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator: Technical Staffing and Training, and evaluated New Mexicos performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
A well-conceived and balanced staffing strategy has been implemented throughout the review period.
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.
Training and qualification program is equivalent to the NRC IMC 1248, Formal Qualifications Program for Federal and State Material and Environmental Management Programs.
Qualification criteria for new technical staff are established and are followed, or qualification criteria will be established if new staff members are hired.
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.
b.
Discussion As the result of significant turnover late in the review period, New Mexico reorganized, increased staffing, and proactively hired staff to alleviate future staffing challenges. When fully staffed, New Mexico is comprised of a bureau chief, a program manager, a program coordinator, licensing and inspection supervisors, and 8 technical staff, equaling 12 full-time equivalents (FTE) (with the remaining 1 FTE dedicated to emergency response).
At the time of the review, New Mexico had a new bureau chief, a newly promoted program manager, new licensing and inspection supervisors, two qualified inspectors, one qualified license reviewer, and two new technical staff undergoing qualifications.
During the review period 12 staff left the Program and 9 staff were hired. These positions were typically vacant from 2 months to over a year (although, it should be noted that recent vacancies were filled in 2 to 6 months). At the time of the review, New Mexico had vacancies to fill the program coordinator and three additional technical staff positions.
At the time of the review, New Mexico had two qualified inspectors and one qualified license reviewer. Within the last year, New Mexico hired four technical staff with a target to have them all cross qualified as license reviewers and inspectors by 2027. New Mexico indicated that they also plan to cross qualify staff hired to fill the three remaining vacant technical positions as license reviewers and inspectors.
New Mexico Draft IMPEP Report Page 4 The team found New Mexicos training and qualification program was compatible with the NRCs IMC 1248. The New Mexico qualification process uses a combination of the NRC sponsored training courses and on-the-job training and self-study activities. The team verified that the qualified licensing and inspectors staff completed at least 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of refresher training every 2 years as documented in NRC IMC 1248. This training consisted of attendance at meetings such as the National Materials Program monthly meetings, conferences, training courses, and routine staff meetings.
The 2021 IMPEP review concluded that New Mexico staffing remained imbalanced and a single point failure exists in that there was only one technical staff member performing licensing actions. Based on the results of the 2021 IMPEP review, the MRB Chair kept the 2017 IMPEP review recommendation open:
New Mexico continue to implement a well-conceived and balanced staffing strategy to ensure the programs continued adequacy and compatibility.
The 2025 IMPEP team found that the staffing imbalance persisted and the single point failure observed during the 2017 and 2021 IMPEP reviews remained.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, New Mexico met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.1.a, except for:
A well-conceived and balanced staffing strategy was not implemented throughout the review period, and There was not a balance in staffing of the licensing and inspection programs.
Status: Despite significant staff turnover late in the review period, New Mexico responded effectively by reorganizing, increasing staffing and salaries levels, and proactively hiring to address current and future staffing needs. New Mexico is actively implementing a thoughtful and balanced staffing strategy to maintain program adequacy and compatibility.
New Mexicos timely response to the recent staffing challenges demonstrates a strong commitment to hiring, training, and maintaining staff qualifications. Over the past year, New Mexico hired four technical staff, all of whom are on track to be cross qualified as license reviewers and inspectors by 2027. Additionally, New Mexico plans to cross-qualify staff hired to fill the three remaining technical vacancies. While these efforts demonstrate clear progress, staffing imbalances persist. For most of the review period, New Mexico had only one fully qualified license reviewer, who departed just before the IMPEP review. At that time, the Program also had one partially qualified license reviewer and relied on licensing support from the State of Texas. Given these circumstances, the team recommends that the existing recommendation remain open. However, the team is confident that New Mexicos continued efforts to hire and cross-qualify up to seven new technical staff will address the imbalance and eliminate the single point of failure in licensing.
Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that New Mexicos performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Staffing and Training, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.
New Mexico Draft IMPEP Report Page 5 3.2 Status of Materials Inspection Program Inspections of licensed operations are essential to ensure that activities are being conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements and consistent with good safety and security practices.
The frequency of inspections is specified in NRC IMC 2800, Materials Inspection Program, and is dependent on the amount and type of radioactive 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 team used the guidance in SA-101, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Status of the Materials Inspection Program, and evaluated New Mexicos performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
Initial inspections and inspections of Priority 1, 2, and 3 licensees are performed at the prescribed frequencies (https://www.nrc.gov/materials/miau/mat-toolkits.html).
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.
Candidate licensees working under reciprocity are inspected in accordance with the criteria prescribed in NRC IMC 2800 and other applicable guidance or compatible Agreement State Procedure.
Inspection findings are communicated to licensees in a timely manner (30 calendar days, or 45 days for a team inspection), as specified in NRC IMC 0610, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Inspection Reports.
b.
Discussion During the review period, New Mexico performed 188 Priority 1, 2, 3, and initial inspections of which 172 were routine inspections and 16 were initial inspections. Seven of those inspections were performed overdue: one routine inspection, one initial inspection of an industrial radiography licensee, and two other inspections of industrial radiography licensees. The cause of the overdue inspections was a result of inaccurate data in a transition from the old database to the new database in scheduling the inspections. This transition was in response to one of the recommendations from the 2021 IMPEP review.
The overdue inspections were performed between a few days to a few months overdue.
The team noted that the overdue initial inspection was a result of database errors and the tracking of new licenses following initial issuance. Overall, the team determined that during the review period, New Mexico conducted approximately 4 percent of its inspections overdue.
Inspection frequencies are either the same as or more frequent than the NRCs for similar license types. A sampling of 30 inspection reports found that 6 inspection findings were not communicated to the licensees within 30 days after the inspection exit.
The team determined that, for the first part of the review period, New Mexico implemented a reciprocity inspection procedure equivalent to the NRC IMC 1220, Report of Proposed Activities in non-Agreement States, Areas of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, and Offshore Waters, and Inspection of Agreement State Licensees Operating Under 10 CFR 150.20.
Then in September 2021, New Mexico implemented a revised reciprocity inspection
New Mexico Draft IMPEP Report Page 6 procedure similar to the NRCs as noted in the April 2020 revision to NRC IMC 2800. Per State and Tribal Communications Letter 20-082, The IMPEP review team should evaluate the Agreement States reciprocity inspection program for the entire review period based on the procedure (NRC IMC 1220 or revised NRC IMC 2800) implemented with the least restrictive criteria. The team reviewed both reciprocity procedures and determined that the procedure implemented by New Mexico in September 2021 was the less restrictive of the two. Therefore, the team reviewed the reciprocity inspections completed throughout the review period against the procedure issued in September 2021, and determined that inspections were performed following that procedure and using a risk-informed approach.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, except as noted below during the review period, New Mexico met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.2.a.
Initial inspections and inspections of Priority 1, 2, and 3 licensees are performed at the prescribed frequencies.
The team found that New Mexico conducted approximately 4 percent of inspections overdue, but within prescribed frequencies.
The team recommends that the following 2021 IMPEP review recommendation remain open, since New Mexico continued to experience challenges regarding tracking initial inspections:
The team recommends that New Mexico implement a method to track initial inspections to ensure that initial inspections are completed in accordance with the guidance outlined in the NRCs IMC 2800.
The team recommends keeping this recommendation open to ensure continued focus on fostering improved performance in this area due to the fact that some of the 4 percent of overdue inspections were related to inspection tracking. In addition, the team recommends keeping this recommendation open due to challenges to the program regarding tracking inspections and incidents.
Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommended that New Mexicos performance with respect to the indicator, Status of Materials Inspection Program, be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.
3.3 Technical Quality of Inspections Inspections, both routine and reactive, provide reasonable 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 an inspection program.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-102, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Technical Quality of Inspections, and evaluated New Mexicos performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
New Mexico Draft IMPEP Report Page 7 Inspections o 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 performance.
Inspections address previously identified open items and violations.
Inspection findings lead to appropriate and prompt regulatory action.
Supervisors, or senior staff as appropriate, conduct annual accompaniments of each inspector to assess performance and assure consistent application of inspection policies.
For Programs with separate licensing and inspection staffs, procedures are established and followed to provide feedback information to license reviewers.
Inspection guides are compatible with NRC guidance.
An adequate supply of calibrated survey instruments is available to support the inspection program.
b.
Discussion The team evaluated 25 inspection reports and enforcement documentation, and interviewed inspectors involved in materials inspections conducted during the review period. The team reviewed casework for inspections conducted by three of New Mexicos inspectors and covered medical, industrial, commercial, academic, and research licenses. The inspection casework reviewed is identified in Appendix C.
A team member accompanied three inspectors on August 2628, 2025. The inspector accompaniments are identified in Appendix B. Inspections were performed at a pool irradiator, an industrial radiography facility, and a gamma knife facility. The team determined that the inspectors performances observed during the inspector accompaniments indicated that the inspectors were knowledgeable of the requirements for each license type and were able to identify potential health, safety, and security concerns.
The team found that supervisory accompaniments were performed annually for all qualified inspectors and were routinely performed as a part of the training program. The team also found that throughout the review period, New Mexico had sufficient radiation detection equipment to adequately assess dose rate or contamination issues during inspections.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, New Mexico met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.3.a. Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that New Mexicos performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Inspections be found satisfactory.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.
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, as well as security. An assessment of licensing procedures, implementation of those procedures, and documentation of communications and associated actions between the New Mexico licensing staff and regulated community is a significant indicator of the overall quality of the licensing program.
New Mexico Draft IMPEP Report Page 8 a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-104, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, and evaluated New Mexicos 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 are consistent with current regulatory guidance (e.g., pre-licensing guidance, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 37, financial assurance, etc.).
License reviewers, if applicable, have the proper signature authority for the cases they review independently.
License tie-downs and other conditions are stated clearly, can be inspected, and are appropriate for the type of license.
Deficiency letters clearly state regulatory positions and are used at the proper time.
Reviews of renewal applications demonstrate a thorough analysis of a licensees 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 RSRM are appropriately implemented including the physical protection of Category 1 and Category 2 quantities of radioactive material (10 CFR Part 37 equivalent).
Documents containing sensitive security information are properly marked, handled, controlled, and secured.
b.
Discussion The team evaluated approximately 10 licensing actions performed by New Mexico during the review period. The licensing actions reviewed included new applications, amendments, renewals, and terminations. The casework sample represented work from four license reviewers, including two concurrence reviewers from Texas. The team evaluated casework which included the following license types and actions: medical diagnostic and therapeutic, accelerator, industrial radiography, research and development, nuclear pharmacy, gauges, panoramic irradiator, decommissioning, and financial assurance. In addition, the team reviewed active licenses for approximately six other licensees of higher risk-significance including broad scope and industrial radiography.
Historically, New Mexico maintained their licensing files in hard copy, and electronic files were not available to Agreement State staff on shared drives. In 2024, New Mexico implemented a new licensing database, which allows digital files to be uploaded. With the recent hiring of staff not located in the same physical office, New Mexico is committed to advancing electronic access to files. In 2025, New Mexico staff began creating a file structure on a shared drive for maintaining digital copies of licensing documents. At the time of the review, New Mexico did not have a policy for electronic file-keeping, and digital copies of licensing documents were inconsistently available.
Due to an ongoing file digitization project, New Mexicos hard copy files were not available to the team during the review. Electronic scans of files were not organized or catalogued. As a result, licensing case work was difficult to retrieve, and information which was provided to the team often did not include complete correspondence. When licensing case work during the review period was not provided, the team selectively reviewed active licenses for highrisk and complex licensees.
New Mexico Draft IMPEP Report Page 9 At the time of the previous IMPEP review in 2021, New Mexico licensing was performed by a single reviewer. To increase training depth, New Mexico, in January 2025, implemented a procedure for reciprocally recognizing licensing qualification from external license reviewers.
New Mexico proactively sought assistance from Texas and New Mexico, and continues to rely on concurrence support from external license reviewers as local staff gain experience.
All New Mexico licenses are signed by supervisors with signatory authority. Renewed licenses are issued with five-year terms.
The 2021 IMPEP report included two recommendations for this indicator:
Recommendation (1): The team recommends that New Mexico perform reviews of renewal applications in accordance with the criteria outlined in Section 4.4 of the NRCs NUREG-1556, Volume 20, Revision 1, or equivalent Agreement State procedure.
Recommendation (2): The team recommends that New Mexico adopt and consistently implement the RSRM checklist for licensing actions that meet the criteria in the applicable guidance.
For the current review period, the team observed that New Mexicos review of renewal applications follows the criteria outlined in in Section 4.4 of the NRCs NUREG-1556, Volume 20, Revision 1. New Mexico documents the review of performance indicators, uses NUREG-1556 series as technical standard, and uses the RSRM checklist.
The team observed that New Mexico consistently implemented the RSRM checklist for licensing actions throughout the review period.
The team recommends closing both recommendations from the 2021 IMPEP.
New Mexico is consistently implementing pre-licensing guidance, including performance of pre-license site visits for unknown entities. The team observed that licenses authorizing RSRM were appropriately marked for security-related information.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, New Mexico did not meet the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.4.a, except for:
Financial assurance practices were not consistent with current regulatory guidance.
License tie-downs and other conditions are stated clearly, can be inspected, and are appropriate for the type of license.
The team noted that New Mexico has financial assurance regulations that are equivalent to 10 CFR 30.35. The team identified two licenses whose authorized activities required financial assurance, yet New Mexico had not pursued financial assurance. In addition, New Mexico did not have protocols for handling or securing financial instruments, and New Mexico was not able to locate signed originals of financial instruments which had been provided to the State by licensees during the review. Inconsistencies in assessing financial assurance and use of financial assurance license conditions presented a potential decommissioning vulnerability for New Mexico.
New Mexico Draft IMPEP Report Page 10 Based on the inconsistent implementation of financial assurance requirements, the team recommends that:
New Mexico perform an extent of condition evaluation of their financial assurance tracking for all active licenses to ensure the following: all licenses authorizing possession of radioactive material in excess of quantities requiring financial assurance provide financial assurance in approved amounts; financial assurance license conditions be consistent with possession limits authorized on the license; responsibilities for documenting the financial assurance reviews are clearly assigned to staff; and staff are trained on updated financial assurance processes. In addition, New Mexico should locate financial instruments previously in the Bureaus possession.
Due to the difficulties New Mexico had in providing licensing case files to the team, the team focused its review on active licenses, as these were readily available. The team found widespread problems with license conditions including improper license conditions, duplicative license conditions, conflicting license conditions, and missing standard license conditions. Examples include conditions that require New Mexico licensees to directly report events to the NRC, references to regulations that NRC has withdrawn, and requirements (on the same license) to follow multiple versions of the NRC licensing guidance.
The team also determined that all amendments and renewals from the initial application forward are tied down under the last condition on the license. This practice was observed during the 2021 IMPEP and continued through the current review period. Although New Mexico receives complete renewal applications, tied down documents are not reviewed during renewal to identify information that has been superseded. To address this oversight the team recommends:
New Mexico review all of their license conditions to ensure that license conditions do not conflict with regulations, are not duplicative, and are appropriately used. Management should develop policy for determining standard license conditions.
Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that New Mexicos performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, be found satisfactory, but needs improvement.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.
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, safety and security. An assessment of incident response and allegation investigation procedures, actual implementation of these procedures internal and external coordination, timely incident reporting, and investigative and follow-up actions, are a significant indicator of the overall quality of the incident response and allegation programs.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-105, Reviewing the Common Performance Indicator:
Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, and evaluated New Mexicos performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives:
New Mexico Draft IMPEP Report Page 11 Incident response 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 the NRC.
Incidents are reported to the Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED) and closed when all required information has been obtained.
Allegations are investigated in a prompt, appropriate manner.
Concerned individuals are notified within 30 days of investigation conclusions.
Concerned individuals identities are protected, as allowed by law.
b.
Discussion During the review period, 24 incidents were reported to New Mexico. The team evaluated 12 radioactive materials incidents which included lost/stolen radioactive materials, medical events and damaged equipment. Files were unavailable and incomplete. With the information provided, it could not be determined if follow-up inspections were appropriately conducted. It could not be determined if New Mexico dispatched inspectors for on-site follow-up for the cases reviewed. All events could not be reviewed due to missing files.
In interviews with the New Mexico staff, the team found that incident response and allegation procedures were in place and followed in nearly all cases. Level of effort was commensurate with potential health, safety, and security significance. Actions taken were focused, coordinated, and timely. Response to incidents and allegations was conducted by inspectors knowledgeable of the license type and/or radioactive material involved. Follow-up inspections were scheduled and completed. New Mexico notified the NRC of follow-up actions to NMED is performed in accordance with established time frames. Results of allegation investigations were provided to allegers, and alleger identities are protected in accordance with the applicable State laws or policies. Responses to incidents or allegations were completed, coordinated, and timely for cases that could have resulted in an overexposure, or loss of RSRM.
The team looked at the Program's actions responding to incidents and allegations, reviewed the incidents reported in NMED against those identified by the Program, and reviewed the casework and license files, as appropriate, for these files.
During the review period, 11 allegations were received by New Mexico. The team evaluated all 11 allegations, including 6 allegations that the NRC referred to the State.
The team also evaluated New Mexicos reporting of incidents to the NRCs Headquarters Operations Officer (HOO). The team noted that in all but one case requiring HOO notification, New Mexico reported the incidents within the required time frame. The team also evaluated whether New Mexico had not reported any required incidents to the HOO. The team did not identify any missed reporting requirements.
In reviewing the incident report to New Mexico and in interviews with the New Mexico staff, the team could not determine if corrective actions were issued and could not determine if corrective actions were followed up on during the next inspection. The team could not determine if concerned individuals were notified at the conclusion of the investigation whenever possible.
These determinations could not be made because of insufficient documentation.
New Mexico Draft IMPEP Report Page 12 New Mexicos procedures for follow up to incidents and allegations were not available to determine compatibility with NRC procedures.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that, during the review period, New Mexico met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 3.5.a, except for:
Incident response and allegation procedures were not always in place and followed; Response actions were not always appropriate, well-coordinated, and timely; Corrective actions were not always taken to ensure prompt compliance and prevent recurrence; and Appropriate follow-up actions were not always taken to ensure prompt compliance by licensees.
Based on the inability to determine if corrective actions were issued and if corrective actions were followed up on, the team recommends that:
New Mexico management take measures to ensure incident and allegation documentation is complete and stored in a centralized filing system.
New Mexico management establish a strategy to track incidents and allegations, such that they are well documented, investigated and resolved.
Based on the IMPEP evaluation criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommends that New Mexicos performance with respect to the indicator, Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities, be found satisfactory, but needs improvement.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.
4.0 NON-COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Four non-common performance indicators are used to review Agreement State programs:
(1) Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements; (2) Sealed Source and Device (SS&D) Evaluation Program; (3) Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal Program; and (4) Uranium Recovery (UR) Program. The NRC retains regulatory authority for SS&D Evaluation, LLRW Disposal, and UR Programs; therefore, only the first non-common performance indicator applied to this review.
4.1 Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements 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 States agreement with the NRC. The statutes must authorize the State to promulgate regulatory requirements necessary to provide reasonable assurance of adequate 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. The 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 the NRC's final rule. 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
New Mexico Draft IMPEP Report Page 13 6 months following NRC designation. A Program Element Table indicating the Compatibility Categories for those program elements other than regulations can be found on the NRC website at the following address: https://scp.nrc.gov/regtoolbox.html.
a.
Scope The team used the guidance in SA-107, Reviewing the Non-Common Performance Indicator: Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements, and evaluated New Mexicos performance with respect to the following performance indicator objectives. A complete list of regulation amendments can be found on the NRC website at the following address: https://scp.nrc.gov/regtoolbox.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.
Sunset requirements, if any, do not negatively impact the effectiveness of the States regulations.
b.
Discussion New Mexico became an Agreement State on May 1, 1974. New Mexicos current effective statutory authority is contained in the Radiation Protection Act, Title 20 Environmental Protection, Chapter 3, Radiation Protection. The New Mexico Environment Department is designated as the States radiation control agency. The team noted that no new legislation affecting the radiation control program was passed during the review period.
For Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, it was determined that 1) financial assurance practices were not consistent with current regulatory guidance and 2) license tie-downs and other conditions are not stated clearly, cannot be inspected adequately against, and are not appropriate for the type of license. For Technical Quality of Incidents and Allegations, it was determined response and allegation procedures were not always in place and followed. As a result, the team requested and New Mexico agreed to revise their procedures to address these issues.
The States administrative rulemaking process normally takes approximately 6 months from drafting to finalizing a rule. New Mexico has the authority to issue alternate legally binding requirements, such as license conditions, in lieu of regulations when necessary. The public, the NRC, other agencies, and potentially impacted licensees and registrants are offered an opportunity to comment during the process. Comments are considered and incorporated, as appropriate, before the regulations are finalized, approved, and filed. The team noted that the States rules and regulations are not subject to sunset laws.
During the review period, New Mexico submitted one final regulation amendment to the NRC for a compatibility review.
New Mexico Draft IMPEP Report Page 14 During the review period, the following Regulation Amendment Tracking System Identification Number (RATS ID) were adopted late:
RATS ID 2020-1, Individual Monitoring Devices 10 CFR Parts 34, 36, and 39.
RATS ID 2020-2, Social Security Number Fraud Prevention 10 CFR Parts 9 and 35.
RATS ID 2020-3, Miscellaneous Corrections 10 CFR Parts 1, 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 34, 35, 40, 50, 51, 52, 60, 61, 62, 63, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 110, and 140.
At the time of this review, there were no amendments packages overdue for adoption.
The team reviewed guidance documents that New Mexico uses to meet the requirements of other program elements that the NRC has designated as necessary for the maintenance of an adequate and compatible program.
c.
Evaluation The team determined that New Mexico met the performance indicator objectives listed in Section 4.1.a, except for:
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 of 1954, 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.
The team found that the New Mexico program did have instances that created the potential for conflicts, duplications, gaps, or other conditions that jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of radioactive materials under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, by not having compatible procedures in the areas of Technical Quality of Inspections, Technical Quality of Licensing Actions, and Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities.
The team also found that the New Mexico program did have more than a few, but less than most, where significant NRC regulations that should be adopted by an Agreement State for purposes of compatibility or health and safety, were not in effect and/or not implemented within 3 years after the effective date of the NRC's final rule or as approved by the Commission.
Based on the criteria in MD 5.6, the team recommended that New Mexicos performance with respect to the indicator, Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements, be found satisfactory but needs improvement.
d.
MRB Discussion and Chairs Determination The final report will present the MRB Chairs determination regarding this indicator.
5.0
SUMMARY
Based on the results of the 2025 IMPEP review, the team found New Mexicos performance satisfactory for the performance indicators: Technical Staffing and Training; Status of Materials Inspection Program; and Technical Quality of Inspections. The team also found New Mexicos performance satisfactory but needs improvement for the performance indicators: Technical Quality of Licensing Actions; Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities; and Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements.
New Mexico Draft IMPEP Report Page 15 The team reviewed the 2021 IMPEP review recommendations and proposes closing two of the previous recommendations and keeping two open. The team also proposes four new recommendations.
Accordingly, the team recommends that the New Mexico radiation control program be found adequate to protect public health and safety but needs improvement and not compatible with the NRC's program. The team recommends that a periodic meeting take place in approximately 1 year with the next IMPEP review taking place in approximately 2 years. Further, the team recommended that the period of heightened oversight be imposed.
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A IMPEP Review Team Members Appendix B Inspector Accompaniments Appendix C Inspector Casework
APPENDIX A IMPEP REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS Name Areas of Responsibility Stephen Poy, NMSS Team Leader Status of Materials Inspection Program Legislation, Regulations, and Other Program Elements Robert Johnson, NMSS Technical Staffing and Training Randy Erickson, Region RIV Technical Quality of Inspections Inspector Accompaniments Megan Shober, State of Wisconsin Technical Quality of Licensing Actions Keisha Cornelius, State of Technical Quality of Incident and Allegation Activities Oklahoma
APPENDIX B INSPECTOR ACCOMPANIMENTS The following inspector accompaniments were performed prior to the IMPEP review:
Accompaniment No.: 1 License No.: 316 License Type: Panoramic Irradiator Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 08/26/2025 Inspectors initials: PB Accompaniment No.: 2 License No.: 602 License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 08.27.2025 Inspectors initials: CS Accompaniment No.: 3 License No.: 210 License Type: Gamma Knife Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 08/28/2025 Inspectors initials: TC
APPENDIX C INSPECTION CASEWORK The following inspections were reviewed during the IMPEP review:
No.: 1 License No.: 463 License Type: Cyclotron Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 5/6/22 Inspectors initials: RB No.: 2 License No.: 022 License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 8/21/24 Inspectors initials: RB No.: 3 License No.: 566 License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 3/11/25 Inspectors initials: CS No.: 4 License No.: 022 License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 9/28/23 Inspectors initials: RB No.: 5 License No.: 283 License Type: Well Logging Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 9/12/23 Inspectors initials: CS No.: 6 License No.: 528 License Type: Industrial Radiography - Security Only Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 3/4/22 Inspectors initials: CS/RB No.: 7 License No.: 268 License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 5/26/22 Inspectors initials: CS No.: 8 License No.: 554 License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 5/17/23 Inspectors initials: CS No.: 9 License No.: 210 License Type: Nuclear Medicine PET-CT Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 6/30/22 Inspectors initials: RB No.: 10 License No.: 210 License Type: Gamma Knife Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 4/21/22 Inspectors initials: JH/MO/VD
No.: 11 License No.: 316 License Type: Pool Irradiator Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 6/17/24 Inspectors initials: RB/PB No.: 12 License No.: 418 License Type: Nuclear Medicine PET-CT Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 6/5/23 Inspectors initials: JH/TC No.: 13 License No.: 316 License Type: Pool Irradiator Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 8/26/25 Inspectors initials: PB No.: 14 License No.: 602 License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 8/27/25 Inspectors initials: CS No.: 15 License No.: 210 License Type: Gamma Knife Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 8/28/25 Inspectors initials: TC No.: 16 License No.: 206 License Type: Analytical Lab Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 7/18/23 Inspectors initials: TC/MC No.: 17 License No.: 233 License Type: Broad Medical Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 10/25/23 Inspectors initials: RB/VM/PB No.: 18 License No.: 197 License Type: Well Logging - Records Only Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 12/6/21 Inspectors initials: TC No.: 19 License No.: 448 License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 5/28/25 Inspectors initials: TC No.: 20 License No.: 233 License Type: Broad Medical Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 7/6/22 through 7/26/21 Inspectors initials:
SR/MO/CS/VD/JH/TC/RB/DO No.: 21 License No.: 479 License Type: Radiopharmacy Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 7/6/22 through 7/26/21 Inspectors initials:
SR/MO/CS/VD/JH/TC/RB/DO
No.: 22 License No.: 541 License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 3/25/25 Inspectors initials: PB/CS No.: 23 License No.: 547 License Type: Industrial Radiography Priority: 1 Inspection Date: 4/10/22 Inspectors initials: JH No.: 24 License No.: 485 License Type: Brachytherapy - HDR Priority: 2 Inspection Date: 10/1/24 Inspectors initials: JH/IG No.: 25 License No.: 579 License Type: Veterinary Nuclear Medicine (SN-117)
Priority: 3 Inspection Date: 1/9/25 Inspectors initials: PB
ML25356A129 OFFICE NMSS/MSST/SLPB NMSS/DFM/FFLB NMSS/MSST/SMPB NMSS NAME RJohnson SPoy AGiantelli DSilberfeld DATE Dec 22, 2025 Dec 23, 2025 Dec 30, 2025 Jan 6, 2026 OFFICE NMSS/MSST/SMPB NAME AGiantelli DATE Jan 7, 2026