60750 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this final rule. In addition, this final 

rule does not impose any enforceable 

duty or contain any unfunded mandate 

as described under Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

V. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: August 29, 2014. 

Marty Monell, 

Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. Add § 180.1326 to subpart D to read 

as follows: 

§ 180.1326 Pseudomonas fluorescens 

strain D7; exemption from the requirement 

of a tolerance. 

An exemption from the requirement 

of a tolerance is established for residues 

of Pseudomonas fluorescens strain D7 

in or on all food commodities when 

used in accordance with label directions 

and good agricultural practices. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24028 Filed 10–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 194 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0684; FRL–9917–57– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR60 

Criteria for the Certification and 

Recertification of the Waste Isolation 

Pilot Plant’s Compliance With the 

Disposal Regulations; Panel Closure 

Redesign 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: With this document, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 

or the Agency) approves the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s (DOE, or the 

Department) planned change request to 

implement the Run-of-Mine Panel 

Closure System (ROMPCS) at the Waste 

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and amends 

the WIPP Compliance Criteria to allow 

an EPA-approved panel closure other 

than the currently-required Option D 

design. Technical analyses demonstrate 

that, with the modified panel closure 

design, WIPP remains in compliance 

with the 10,000 year release limits set 

by the ‘‘Environmental Standards for the 

Management and Disposal of Spent 

Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and 

Transuranic (TRU) Radioactive Waste.’’ 

The changes do not lessen the 

requirements for complying with the 

Compliance Criteria, nor do these 

changes impact the technical approach 

that the EPA will employ when 

considering any future planned changes 

to the panel closure system. Compliance 

with environmental or public health 

regulations other than the EPA’s longterm radioactive waste disposal 

regulations and WIPP Compliance 

Criteria is not addressed by today’s 

action. 

DATES: Effective October 8, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Docket: All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. The EPA has established a docket 

for this action under Docket ID No. 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0684; FRL–9917– 

57–OAR]. Publicly available docket 

materials related to this action (e.g., the 

Technical Support document [TSD]) are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov, on the Agency’s 

WIPP Web site (http://www.epa.gov/

radiation/wipp) or in hard copy at the 

Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA 

Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20004. The EPA 

Docket Center Public Reading Room is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

In accordance with the EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR part 2 and in 

accordance with normal EPA docket 

procedures, if copies of any docket 

materials are requested, a reasonable fee 

may be charged for photocopying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray 

Lee or Jonathan Walsh, Radiation 

Protection Division, Mail Code 6608J, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

Washington, DC, 20460; telephone 

number: 202–343–9463 or 202–343– 

9238; fax number: 202–343–2305; email 

address: lee.raymond@epa.gov or 

walsh.jonathan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Several acronyms and terms used to 

describe components of the WIPP 

disposal system and performance 

assessment computer models are 

included in this preamble. To ease the 

reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the following terms 

are defined here: 

BRAGFLO Computer model used to 

simulate brine and gas flow 

CBFO Carlsbad Field Office 

CCA Compliance Certification Application 

CCDF Complementary Cumulative 

Distribution Function 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DBR Direct Brine Release 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DRZ Disturbed Rock Zone 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FEPs Features, Events and Processes 

LWA Land Withdrawal Act 

MSHA Mine Safety and Health 

Administration 

NMED New Mexico Environment 

Department 

OPC Ordinary Portland Cement 

PA Performance Assessment 

PABC Performance Assessment Baseline 

Calculation 

PAVT Performance Assessment Verification 

Test 

PCS Panel Closure System 

PCS–2012 Panel Closure System 2012 

Performance Assessment 

PCR Planned Change Request 

PC3R Panel Closure Redesign and 

Repository Reconfiguration Performance 

Assessment 

PMR Permit Modification Request 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60751 

1 Department of Energy National Security and 

Military Applications of Nuclear Energy 

Authorization Act of 1980, Public Law 96–164, 

section 213. 

2WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, Public Law 102– 

579, section 2(18), as amended by the 1996 WIPP 

LWA Amendments, Public Law 104–201. 3 61 FR 5224–5245 (February 9, 1996). 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

ROM Run-of-Mine 

ROMPC, or ROMPCS Run-of-Mine Salt 

Panel Closure System 

SMC Salado Mass Concrete 

SNL Sandia National Laboratories 

TRU Transuranic 

TSD Technical Support Document 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the WIPP? 

II. What did the EPA propose? 

A. Approving the ROMPCS 

B. Modifying Condition 1 

III. How did the EPA incorporate public 

comments in the final rule? 

IV. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 12898 

F. National Technology Transfer & 

Advancement Act of 1995 

G. Executive Order 13045: Children’s 

Health Protection 

H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

I. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

J. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects 

I. What is the WIPP? 

The WIPP is a disposal system for 

defense-related transuranic (TRU) 

radioactive waste. Developed by the 

DOE, the WIPP is located near Carlsbad 

in southeastern New Mexico. At the 

WIPP, radioactive waste is disposed of 

2,150 feet underground in an ancient 

formation of salt which will eventually 

‘‘creep’’ and encapsulate the waste. The 

WIPP has a total capacity of 6.2 million 

cubic feet of waste. 

Congress authorized the development 

and construction of the WIPP in 1980 

‘‘for the express purpose of providing a 

research and development facility to 

demonstrate the safe disposal of 

radioactive wastes resulting from the 

defense activities and programs of the 

United States.’’ 1 Waste which may be 

emplaced in the WIPP is limited to TRU 

radioactive waste generated by defense 

activities associated with nuclear 

weapons; no high-level waste or spent 

nuclear fuel from commercial power 

plants may be disposed of at the WIPP. 

TRU waste is defined as materials 

containing alpha-emitting radioisotopes, 

with half-lives greater than twenty years 

and atomic numbers above 92, in 

concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries per gram of waste.2 Most TRU 

waste disposed at the WIPP consists of 

items that have become contaminated as 

a result of activities associated with the 

production of nuclear weapons (or with 

the clean-up of weapons production 

facilities), e.g., rags, equipment, tools, 

protective gear, soil and organic or 

inorganic sludges. Some TRU waste is 

mixed with hazardous chemicals. The 

waste to be disposed at the WIPP is 

currently located at federal facilities 

across the United States, including 

locations in California, Idaho, Illinois, 

New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, South 

Carolina, Tennessee and Washington. 

The WIPP Land Withdrawal Act 

(LWA), initially passed by Congress in 

1992 and amended in 1996, provides 

the EPA authority to oversee and 

regulate the WIPP for compliance with 

EPA’s long-term radioactive waste 

disposal regulations. In 1996, the 

Agency issued the WIPP Compliance 

Criteria, which are found at 40 CFR part 

194.3 After reviewing DOE’s 

Compliance Certification Application 

(CCA), the Agency issued its 

certification decision on May 18, 1998, 

as required by Section 8 of the WIPP 

LWA (63 FR 27354–27406), determining 

that the WIPP met the standards for 

radioactive waste disposal. The 

complete record and basis for the EPA’s 

1998 certification decision can be found 

in Air Docket A–93–02. 

EPA’s certification of WIPP’s 

performance was based upon the 

repository design the Department 

submitted in Chapter 3 of the CCA. The 

underground waste disposal region at 

WIPP is divided into panels. A panel is 

a group of rooms mined into the salt, 

connected by tunnels called drifts. 

When all of the rooms of a panel are 

filled with waste, the DOE intends to 

seal the drifts with engineered 

structures called panel closures. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
60752 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

In the CCA, the Department presented 

four options for the design of the panel 

closure system, but did not specify 

which would be constructed at the 

WIPP facility. The Agency based its 

certification decision on the DOE’s use 

of the most robust design, referred to in 

the CCA as ‘‘Option D’’. Condition 1, 

requiring DOE to Implement the Option 

D panel closure system, was appended 

to 40 CFR part 194 as part of the 

certification decision. (63 FR 27354, 

May 18, 1998) The Option D design 

called for the drift to be sealed using a 

concrete block wall and a poured 

concrete monolith. 

The Department submitted a PCR to 

the EPA on September 28, 2011, 

proposing to alter the panel closure 

design. Citing experience and data 

gained since the CCA, the DOE’s PCR 

states that the Option D panel closure 

would be extremely difficult and costly 

to install, and that the highly engineered 

design is unnecessary for either worker 

safety or environmental protection 

during the operational period. The DOE 

instead proposed a new panel closure 

design, the Run-of-Mine Salt Panel 

Closure System (ROMPCS), which 

consists of mined salt emplaced 

between steel bulkheads. 

II. What did EPA propose? 

The EPA completed a technical 

review of the DOE’s PCR and supporting 

documentation. The goal of the 

Agency’s technical review process was 

to determine whether, with the new 

design, the WIPP adequately 

demonstrates compliance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 194 and the 

release limits of 40 CFR part 191, 

Subparts B and C. This process is fully 

documented in the TSD, ‘‘Review of the 

DOE’s Planned Change Request to 

Modify the WIPP Panel Closure 

System,’’ (EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0684– 

0002) and discussed in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (78 FR 72612, Dec. 

3, 2013). The Agency concluded that the 

WIPP will remain in compliance with 

its release limits with the ROMPCS 

design. The Agency therefore proposed 

to approve the DOE’s PCR to implement 

the redesigned panel closure at the 

WIPP, and to modify 40 CFR part 194 

Appendix A, Condition 1 to allow panel 

closure designs other than Option D, as 

long as DOE has demonstrated WIPP’s 

continued compliance with the longterm release standards. 

A. Approving the ROMPCS 

The EPA’s Compliance Criteria at 40 

CFR part 194 does not require a panel 

closure for the purpose of long-term 

compliance with release limits for 

radionuclides. The purpose of 40 CFR 

part 194 is to demonstrate compliance 

with the disposal regulations at 40 CFR 

part 191 for containment of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTERER08OC14.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60753 

radionuclides, which specify that longterm releases of radionuclides to the 

accessible environment must be 

unlikely to exceed specific release limits 

for 10,000 years after disposal, based on 

the amount of waste in the repository at 

the time of closure (§ 194.31). 

Assessment of the likelihood that the 

WIPP will not exceed release limits is 

accomplished through a process called 

performance assessment, or PA. The 

WIPP PA process culminates in a series 

of computer simulations that model the 

physical attributes of the disposal 

system (e.g., site characteristics, waste 

forms and quantities, engineered 

features) in a manner that captures the 

behaviors and interactions among its 

various components. The results of the 

PA indicate the probability of exceeding 

various levels of normalized releases 

(§ 194.34). Because the Agency based its 

certification of the WIPP’s compliance 

with the disposal regulations on the 

accurate representation of the repository 

in performance assessment, including a 

panel closure, Condition 1 was 

appended to 40 CFR part 194 during the 

certification of the WIPP. No other 

design feature of the repository is 

required by the Compliance Criteria in 

a similarly explicit way. 

The Option D panel closure design 

consists of a 12-foot thick ‘‘explosionisolation wall’’ constructed of solid 

concrete blocks filling the drift on the 

waste disposal side, a short section of 

open drift called an ‘‘isolation zone’’ 

and a monolithic concrete barrier on the 

side of the open drift. Fractured rock in 

the immediate vicinity of the drift— 

called the disturbed rock zone, or 

DRZ—would be removed, and the 

resulting void space filled by the 

concrete monolith. In its current PCR, 

the DOE states that ‘‘large scale testing 

has demonstrated that using SMC 

[Salado Mass Concrete] cannot meet the 

design and performance requirements 

for the panel closures as specified in the 

CCA.’’ Even if the Option D monolith 

could be constructed as planned, the 

Agency acknowledges that it would be 

installed at significant cost to the 

Department. Additional occupational 

hazards would be incurred by moving 

and pouring large amounts of concrete 

in the underground and disposal 

operations would be significantly 

disrupted as well. 

The DOE’s new panel closure design, 

the ROMPCS, consists primarily of runof-mine (ROM) salt—impure halite that 

has been mined in the course of normal 

repository operations and not subjected 

to additional processing or grading. The 

ROMPCS design consists of two 

standard steel ventilation bulkheads 

with a minimum of 100 feet of run-ofmine (ROM) salt between them, filling 

the drift from floor to ceiling. In Panels 

1, 2 and 5, where explosion walls have 

already been constructed, salt will be 

placed directly against the explosion 

wall and a standard steel ventilation 

bulkhead placed on the outer end of the 

panel closure. The DOE has stated that 

the ROMPCS will provide adequate 

protection during the operational 

period. Upon initial emplacement, the 

run-of-mine salt will exhibit the 

properties of a loosely consolidated or 

unconsolidated material. Over time, as 

the open areas of the repository close 

due to salt creep, the panel closures will 

consolidate and eventually heal to a 

state resembling intact salt. 

As in the past, the Agency’s 

consideration of the panel closure 

system focused on its representation in 

repository performance assessment, so 

that the EPA can ultimately certify the 

WIPP’s ability to meet long-term 

performance standards. In support of its 

panel closure PCR, the DOE initially 

submitted a performance assessment 

calculation called the Panel Closure 

Redesign and Repository 

Reconfiguration (PC3R) PA, which 

incorporated multiple planned changes. 

The Agency determined that to approve 

the PCR, it was necessary to isolate the 

impacts, if any, of the change in panel 

closure design. In response, the DOE 

prepared the PCS–2012 PA, with the 

explicit goal of changing only those 

aspects of the current baseline PA that 

are directly related to the change in the 

panel closure design. Thus, results of 

the PCS–2012 PA may be directly 

compared to results of the current 

Performance Assessment Baseline 

Calculation (PABC–09) to see the impact 

of changes in the panel closure on 

modeled releases from the facility. The 

EPA undertook a review of the PCS– 

2012 PA. The majority of the technical 

effort expended by the Agency was 

spent determining how the changes in 

the panel closures should be 

represented in the performance 

assessment models. The entire review 

process is fully documented in the 

Agency’s TSD, ‘‘Review of DOE’s 

Planned Change Request to Modify the 

WIPP Panel Closure System.’’ (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2013–0684–0002) Based on 

its review and on the results of 

performance assessment, the Agency 

concludes that the WIPP will continue 

to comply with the EPA’s disposal 

standards with the ROMPCS. Therefore, 

the Agency proposed to approve the 

DOE’s PCR and allow the 

implementation of the ROMPCS design 

at the WIPP. 

B. Modifying Condition 1 

The Option D panel closure is 

currently required by 40 CFR part 194, 

Appendix A, Condition 1. Therefore, 

accepting a redesigned panel closure 

requires modification of Condition 1. 

Condition 1 was appended to 40 CFR 

part 194 because the DOE presented 

multiple panel closure options, and the 

EPA originally certified the WIPP’s 

performance based on the expected 

properties of the Option D panel 

closure. It is the only engineered aspect 

of the repository design that is explicitly 

required by rule. At this time, DOE has 

proposed a single panel closure that it 

intends to implement in all waste 

panels at WIPP. Furthermore, at the 

time of the CCA, limited performance 

assessment results were available to 

indicate the impact of the panel closure 

design on repository performance. Due 

to the evolution of the WIPP PA since 

the CCA, the DOE and the EPA have 

gained a greater understanding of panel 

closures’ influence on PA results. 

Changes to the representation of the 

panel closure in the performance 

assessment models have resulted in 

small differences in the results, 

indicating that the panel closure design 

does not disproportionately impact the 

long-term performance of WIPP 

compared to other design features of the 

repository. For these reasons, the 

Agency does not believe that it is 

necessary or appropriate for the specific 

design of the panel closure to remain as 

a condition of certification. Rather, 

panel closures should be treated in a 

similar manner as any other engineered 

feature of the repository. 

This change does not grant the DOE 

the ability to alter the panel closure 

design at will. As with any engineered 

component of the disposal system, the 

Agency must be informed of any 

departure from the current, approved 

design as required by § 194.4(b)(3)(i). 

The EPA would expect such a request 

to be supported by complete technical 

documentation, including any updated 

information concerning ‘‘the geology, 

hydrology, hydrogeology, and 

geochemistry of the WIPP disposal 

system’’ and ‘‘WIPP materials of 

construction, standards applied to 

design and construction,’’ as required by 

§ 194.14, Content of certification 

applications. The Agency would use 

this information to determine whether 

or not the WIPP remains in compliance 

with the disposal standards. As with 

any other planned change, based on the 

potential impact to the WIPP’s 

compliance, the EPA would determine 

whether the change ‘‘departs 

significantly from the most recent 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
60754 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

compliance application,’’ and must be 

addressed by rule in accordance with 

§ 194.65. 

III. How did the EPA incorporate public 

comments in the final rule? 

The EPA held informal public 

meetings in Carlsbad, New Mexico, on 

December 5, 2012, and Santa Fe, New 

Mexico, on December 6, 2012, to 

provide the public with background on 

the DOE’s panel closure system planned 

change request, and to give the public 

the opportunity to raise any technical 

issues that the Agency should consider 

in its decision. After publishing the 

notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA 

held public meetings in Carlsbad and 

Albuquerque on January 22 and 23, 

2014. Summaries of these meetings have 

been included in the docket. 

In addition to comments delivered 

verbally, the Agency received seven sets 

of written comments. The majority of 

these comments expressed support of 

DOE’s planned change, and of EPA’s 

proposed approval. No comments of a 

technical nature were submitted, and 

therefore no further analysis needed to 

be performed in response to comments. 

One set of comments raised valid 

questions about further changes to the 

panel closure design. In response, EPA 

made a minor clarification to the rule 

language. 

Several commenters expressed 

appreciation for the ability to voice their 

comments. The EPA feels that public 

participation has strengthened the WIPP 

regulatory program, and remains 

committed to involve the public in its 

decision process. 

Many commenters stated that the 

ROMPCS design will meet regulatory 

requirements, while reducing 

operational costs and occupational 

hazards. The EPA focused on WIPP’s 

ability to meet regulatory release 

standards, but has acknowledged DOE’s 

stated operational motivations for 

revising the panel closure design. 

Several commenters expressed 

confidence in the performance 

assessment calculations that the EPA 

relied on to reach its decision. Others 

pointed out that salt is an appropriate 

material for a panel closure because salt 

is being relied upon to encapsulate 

waste in every direction except the 

panel closure. The Agency agrees with 

the use of a material that is physically 

and chemically compatible with the 

repository environment, and has relied 

on a body of data indicating that in 

time, the salt panel closure will return 

to a physical state similar to the halite 

that surrounds it. 

Many commenters expressed 

confidence that, based upon monitoring 

data taken in the underground, the 

ROMPCS will be adequate to protect 

workers and the public against 

hydrogen, methane, and VOCs during 

the operational life of the repository. As 

stated in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, it is the responsibility of 

the New Mexico Environment 

Department to evaluate the ability of the 

ROMPCS to perform these functions, 

and DOE must demonstrate the 

adequacy of the panel closure design to 

the NMED through a parallel process. 

One commenter expressed concern that 

EPA’s approval of DOE’s PCR will 

unduly influence the NMED permit 

modification process, and suggested the 

Agency defer its decision. The Agency 

disagrees with this viewpoint. 

Whenever it proposes any change to the 

repository system, it is the 

responsibility of DOE to demonstrate 

compliance to each regulator 

independently. NMED must determine 

whether the design adequately protects 

against VOCs, regardless of EPA’s 

determination of WIPP’s compliance 

with the long-term disposal standards. 

The same commenter pointed out that 

the proposed rule language stated that 

‘‘any’’ change to the design must be 

submitted to EPA as a planned change 

request, and expressed concern that if 

the change process imposed by EPA is 

overly burdensome, DOE loses 

flexibility in meeting NMED 

requirements. The EPA designed the 

rule to allow flexibility in approaching 

future changes to the design. By 

eliminating the absolute necessity of a 

rulemaking, the Agency will be able to 

employ a graded approach when 

considering any future changes to the 

panel closure design requested by DOE. 

Because it is the responsibility of the 

EPA to determine that the compliance 

model reasonably reflects the actual 

design of the repository, DOE must 

inform EPA of any change to the panel 

closure design described in DOE’s 

current PCR. Depending on the scope of 

the changes, however, DOE may not 

need to provide the level of 

documentation typically included in a 

planned change request. As an example, 

the Agency has determined that steel 

ventilation bulkheads do not impact 

long-term performance, and need not be 

represented in the compliance models. 

It is unlikely that any additional 

analysis would be required to approve 

a change to the configuration of 

ventilation bulkheads, because the 

compliance model used to approve the 

design remains valid. The language of 

the proposed rule seemed to require a 

PCR for any proposed change to the 

panel closure design. The language of 

the rule modification has been altered 

so that DOE’s obligation is to inform 

EPA of any proposed change. The 

Agency will determine the level of 

documentation necessary to evaluate the 

request. 

On February 14, 2014, an incident 

took place in the underground at WIPP, 

resulting in the release of a small 

amount of radioactive material to the 

environment and a disruption of 

operations at the facility. EPA has been 

closely involved in the investigation of 

the incident and has determined that it 

does not change the basis of this panel 

closure decision. The incident took 

place in the active waste panel. Panel 

closures are installed only after waste 

emplacement in a panel is complete, 

and therefore would not have impacted 

the event. More importantly, as 

described above, EPA’s approval of the 

proposed ROMPCS is based upon 

WIPP’s compliance with the long-term 

disposal standards from facility closure 

to 10,000 years after closure. Although 

EPA regulations limit radiation dose to 

the public from facility operations, there 

is no indication that DOE has violated 

those limits, and EPA does not prescribe 

the technical means that DOE must use 

to meet those limits. Lastly, as described 

above, the revised condition allows EPA 

to apply a graded approach when 

considering any further modifications to 

the panel closure design. It is possible 

that adjustments will be made to the 

design, as a result of either NMED’s 

evaluation of the panel closures’ ability 

to protect workers and the public from 

hazardous waste during facility 

operation, or as part of DOE’s plan to 

reopen the repository. This rule change 

both approves a design that can be 

installed quickly if it is needed, and 

gives EPA the ability to efficiently 

evaluate any future changes to that 

design based on their impacts to longterm repository performance. 

IV. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 

51735; October 4, 1993), the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to OMB review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or state, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) create 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60755 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another Agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. Pursuant to the terms of 

Executive Order 12866, it has been 

determined that this rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’) generally requires any federal 

agency to conduct a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 

notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements unless they certify that the 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises and small 

governmental jurisdictions. This rule 

sets forth requirements which apply 

only to federal agencies. Therefore, I 

certify this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paper Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Compliance 

Criteria in 40 CFR part 194 requirements 

are applicable only to the DOE and the 

EPA and do not establish any form of 

collection of information from the 

public. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on state, local 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Pursuant to Title II of the UMRA, 

we have determined that this regulatory 

action is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 and 205, because this 

action does not contain any ‘‘federal 

mandates’’ for state, local or tribal 

governments or for the private sector. 

This rule applies only to federal 

agencies. 

E. Executive Order 12898 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994), 

entitled ‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations,’’ the Agency has 

considered environmental justice 

related issues with regard to the 

potential impacts of this action on the 

environmental and health conditions in 

low-income, minority and NativeAmerican communities. We have 

complied with this mandate. However, 

the requirements specifically set forth 

by the Congress in the Waste Isolation 

Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act (Pub. 

L. 102–579), which prescribes the EPA’s 

role at the WIPP, did not provide 

authority for the Agency to examine 

impacts in the communities in which 

wastes are produced, stored and 

transported, and Congress did not 

delegate to the EPA the authority to 

consider the issue of alternative 

locations for the WIPP. During the 

development of the existing provisions 

in 40 CFR part 194, the EPA involved 

minority and low income populations 

early in the rulemaking process. In 

1993, the EPA representatives met with 

New Mexico residents and government 

officials to identify the key issues that 

concern them, the types of information 

they wanted from the Agency and the 

best ways to communicate with 

different sectors of the New Mexico 

public. The feedback provided by this 

group of citizens formed the basis for 

the EPA’s WIPP communications and 

consultation plan. To help citizens 

(including a significant Hispanic 

population in Carlsbad and the nearby 

Mescalero Indian Reservation) stay 

abreast of the EPA’s WIPP-related 

activities, the Agency developed many 

informational products and services. 

The EPA translated several documents 

regarding WIPP into Spanish, including 

educational materials and fact sheets 

describing the EPA’s WIPP oversight 

role and the radioactive waste disposal 

standards. The Agency established a 

toll-free WIPP Information Line, 

recorded in both English and Spanish, 

providing the latest information on 

upcoming public meetings, publications 

and other WIPP-related activities. The 

EPA also developed a mailing list, 

which includes many low-income, 

minority and Native-American groups, 

to systematically provide interested 

parties with copies of EPA’s public 

information documents and other 

materials. Even after the final rule, in 

1998, the EPA has continued to 

implement outreach services to all WIPP 

communities based on the needs 

determined during the certification. The 

Agency has established a WIPP–NEWS 

email listserv to facilitate 

communications with interested 

stakeholders not only in New Mexico 

and surrounding areas, but nationally 

and internationally as well. The EPA’s 

WIPP Web site is also continuously 

updated with relevant news and 

updates on current and future WIPP 

activities. 

F. National Technology Transfer & 

Advancement Act of 1995 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer & Advancement Act of 1995 is 

intended to avoid ‘‘re-inventing the 

wheel.’’ It aims to reduce costs to the 

private and public sectors by requiring 

federal agencies to draw upon any 

existing, suitable technical standards 

used in commerce or industry. To 

comply with the Act, the EPA must 

consider and use ‘‘voluntary consensus 

standards,’’ if available and applicable, 

when implementing policies and 

programs, unless doing so would be 

‘‘inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical.’’ We have 

determined that this regulatory action is 

not subject to the requirements of 

National Technology Transfer & 

Advancement Act of 1995 as this 

rulemaking is not setting any technical 

standards. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Children’s 

Health Protection 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885; 

April 23, 1997) because it does not 

involve decisions on environmental 

health risks or safety risks that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255; August 10, 

1999), requires the EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by state 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ This rule 

does not have federalism implications. 

It will not have substantial direct effects 

on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. 

This action revises a specific condition 

of the Compliance Criteria in 40 CFR 

part 194. These criteria are applicable 

only to the DOE (operator) and the EPA 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
60756 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(regulator) of the WIPP disposal facility. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this rule. In the spirit of 

Executive Order 13132, and consistent 

with the Agency’s policy to promote 

communications between the EPA and 

state and local governments, the EPA 

specifically solicited comment on the 

proposed rule from state and local 

officials. 

I. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249; November 9, 2000), requires the 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. This action 

revises a condition of the Compliance 

Criteria in 40 CFR part 194. The 

Compliance Criteria are applicable only 

to Federal agencies. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 

J. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 194 

Environmental protection, Nuclear 

materials, Nuclear power plants and 

reactors, Radiation protection, Waste 

treatment and disposal. 

Dated: September 30, 2014. 

Janet G. McCabe, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air 

and Radiation. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 194 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 194—CRITERIA FOR THE 

CERTIFICATION AND 

RECERTIFICATION OF THE WASTE 

ISOLATION PILOT PLANT’S 

COMPLIANCE WITH THE 40 CFR PART 

191 DISPOSAL REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 194 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 102–579, 106 Stat. 4777, 

as amended by Public Law 104–201, 110 Stat. 

2422; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 35 

FR 15623, Oct. 6, 1970, 5 U.S.C. app. 1; 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 2011–2296 and 10101–10270. 

■ 2. Amend Appendix A to Part 194 by 

revising Condition 1: § 194.14(b) to read 

as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 194—Certification 

of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’s 

Compliance With the 40 CFR Part 191 

Disposal Regulations and the 40 CFR 

Part 194 Compliance Criteria 

* * * * * 

Condition 1: § 194.14(b), Disposal system 

design, panel closure system. The 

Department shall close filled waste panels in 

a manner that has been specifically approved 

by the Agency. DOE must inform EPA of any 

modification to the approved panel closure 

design pursuant to § 194.4(b)(3)(i), and 

provide any supporting information required 

by § 194.14, Content of compliance 

certification application. The Administrator 

or Administrator’s authorized representative 

will determine whether the change differs 

significantly from the design included in the 

most recent compliance certification, and 

whether the planned change would require 

modification of the compliance criteria. The 

EPA’s approval of a panel closure change 

request requires that performance assessment 

calculations adequately represent the waste 

panel closure design, and that those 

calculations demonstrate the WIPP’s 

compliance with the release standards set by 

40 CFR part 191, Subpart B in accordance 

with § 194.34, Results of performance 

assessments. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–24025 Filed 10–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R04–RCRA–2012–0179; FRL–9917– 

53–Region–4] 

Florida: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Immediate final rule. 

SUMMARY: Florida has applied to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

for final authorization of changes to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that 

these changes satisfy all requirements 

needed to qualify for final authorization, 

and is authorizing the State’s changes 

through this immediate final rule. In the 

‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of today’s 

Federal Register, EPA is also publishing 

a separate document that serves as the 

proposal to authorize these changes. 

EPA believes this action is not 

controversial and does not expect 

comments that oppose it. Unless EPA 

receives written comments that oppose 

this authorization during the comment 

period, the decision to authorize 

Florida’s changes to its hazardous waste 

program will take effect. If EPA receives 

comments that oppose this action, EPA 

will publish a document in the Federal 

Register withdrawing today’s immediate 

final rule before it takes effect, and the 

separate document published in today’s 

‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of this 

Federal Register will serve as the 

proposal to authorize the changes. 

DATES: This final authorization will 

become effective on December 8, 2014 

unless EPA receives adverse written 

comment by November 7, 2014. If EPA 

receives such comment, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of this 

immediate final rule in the Federal 

Register and inform the public that this 

authorization will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

RCRA–2012–0179, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: shipley.anita@epa.gov 

• Fax: (404) 562–9964 (prior to 

faxing, please notify the EPA contact 

listed below). 

• Mail: Send written comments to 

Anita K. Shipley, Permits and State 

Programs Section, RCRA Programs and 

Materials Management Branch, RCRA 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 

Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 

30303–8960. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to Anita K. Shipley, 

Permits and State Programs Section, 

RCRA Programs and Materials 

Management Branch, RCRA Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303– 

8960. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: EPA must receive your 

comments by November 7, 2014. Direct 

your comments to Docket ID No. EPA– 

R04–RCRA–2012–0179. EPA’s policy is 

that all comments received will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI), or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER