72612 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

state of Michigan. The Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

submitted on July 15, 2013 a negative 

declaration certifying that there are no 

HMIWI units currently operating in the 

state of Wisconsin. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 2, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2013–0678, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: nash.carlton@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2543. 

4. Mail: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Toxics 

and Global Atmosphere Section, Air 

Toxics and Assessment Branch (AT– 

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Carlton T. Nash, 

Chief, Toxics and Global Atmosphere 

Section, Air Toxics and Assessment 

Branch (AT–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margaret Sieffert, Environmental 

Engineer, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard (AT–18J), Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 353–1151, 

sieffert.margaret@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Rules section of this Federal Register, 

EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62 to 

reflect the States’ submittals of the 

negative declarations as a direct final 

rule without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

action and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

action is set forth in the direct final rule. 

If no adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, we will withdraw the direct 

final rule and will address all public 

comments in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on any part of this rule, and 

if that provision may be severed from 

the remainder of the rule, EPA may 

adopt as final those provisions of the 

rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. For additional 

information, see the direct final rule 

which is located in the Rules section of 

this Federal Register. 

Dated: November 8, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–28964 Filed 12–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 194 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0684; FRL–9903–38– 

OAR] 

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: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: With this notice, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 

or the Agency) proposes to approve 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 to 

amend 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 release limits set 

by the ‘‘Environmental Standards for the 

Management and Disposal of Spent 

Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and 

Transuranic (TRU) Radioactive Waste.’’ 

The proposed 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 

disposal regulations and WIPP 

Compliance Criteria is not addressed by 

today’s action. Today’s notice marks the 

beginning of a 60-day public comment 

period on this proposed action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 3, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0684, by one of the 

following methods— 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: to a-and-r-docket@epa.gov; 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013– 

0684. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Attn: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0684. The Agency’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 information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the Agency may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters or 

any form of encryption and be free of 

any defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public 

docket, visit the EPA Docket Center 

homepage at http://www.epa.gov/

epahome/dockets.htm. 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 72613 

1 Department of Energy National Security and 

Military Applications of Nuclear Energy 

Continued 

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–9903–38–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 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

ROM Run-of-Mine 

ROMPC, or

ROMPCS6 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. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

II. What is the WIPP? 

III. What is the purpose of today’s proposed 

action? 

IV. How is the EPA responding to the DOE’s 

planned change request? 

A. What are the EPA’s requirements for the 

panel closure design? 

B. What changes are proposed to the panel 

closure design? 

C. How has the EPA reached its decision? 

V. How is the EPA revising Appendix A, 

Condition 1? 

A. What are the current requirements of 

Appendix A, Condition 1? 

B. What changes are proposed to Appendix 

A, Condition 1? 

C. What did the EPA consider when 

making its decision? 

VI. How has the EPA involved the public? 

VII. 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. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI): 

Do not submit this information to the 

EPA through www.regulations.gov or 

email. Clearly mark all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments: 

When submitting comments, 

remember to— 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number, subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number. 

• Follow directions—the EPA may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing the 

chapter number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow it to be reproduced. 

• Illustrate your concerns with 

specific examples and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
72614 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Authorization Act of 1980, Public Law 96–164, 

section 213. 

2WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, Pub. L. 102–579, 

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

Amendments, Pub. L. 104–201. 

3WIPP LWA, section 8(b). 

4 50 FR 38066–38089 (September 19, 1985) and 

58 FR 66398–66416 (December 20, 1993). 

5 61 FR 5224–5245 (February 9, 1996). 

6WIPP LWA, section 8(d). 

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 proposed for disposal 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 

proposed for disposal 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. The WIPP LWA 

delegated to the EPA three main tasks, 

to be completed sequentially, for 

reaching an initial compliance 

certification decision. First, the Agency 

was required to finalize general 

regulations which apply to all sites— 

except Yucca Mountain—for the 

disposal of highly radioactive waste.3

These disposal regulations, located at 

Subparts B and C of 40 CFR part 191, 

were originally published in the Federal 

Register in 1985 and amended in 1993.4

Second, the EPA was to develop criteria, 

by rulemaking, to implement and 

interpret the general radioactive waste 

disposal regulations specifically for the 

WIPP. In 1996, the Agency issued the 

WIPP Compliance Criteria, which are 

found at 40 CFR part 194.5 The EPA 

made changes to the Compliance 

Criteria via rulemaking in July 2004 (69 

FR 42571–42583). These new provisions 

provide equivalent or improved 

oversight and better prioritization of 

technical issues in EPA inspections to 

evaluate waste characterization 

activities at DOE WIPP waste generator 

sites, and offer more direct public input 

into the Agency’s decisions about what 

waste can be disposed of at the WIPP. 

Third, the EPA was to review the 

information submitted by the DOE and 

publish a certification decision.6 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. 

Condition 1, concerning the panel 

closure system, was appended to 40 

CFR part 194 as part of the certification 

decision. 

Section 8(f) of the WIPP LWA requires 

that within five years of initial receipt 

of waste at the WIPP, and every five 

years thereafter, the DOE is to submit to 

the EPA and the State of New Mexico 

documentation of continued compliance 

with the part 191 radioactive waste 

disposal regulations. The Agency 

recertified the WIPP facility for the first 

time on March 29, 2006 (71 FR 18010– 

18021) and again on November 18, 2010 

(75 FR 70584–70595). 

The Department submitted the design 

of the WIPP repository in Chapter 3 of 

the 1996 Compliance Certification 

Application (CCA). The EPA’s 

certification is based upon this design. 

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. The 

EPA certified the WIPP based on a panel 

closure design that sealed the drift using 

a concrete block wall and a poured 

concrete monolith. The DOE proposes to 

change this design and close the drift 

using two steel bulkheads and mined 

salt. Both panel closure designs are 

discussed in detail in Section IV of this 

document. 

III. What is the purpose of today’s 

proposed action? 

This action is being taken in response 

to the DOE’s September 2011 Planned 

Change Request (PCR) to alter the design 

of the panel closures used at the WIPP. 

The WIPP underground waste disposal 

area is divided into ten groups of rooms, 

or panels. A waste panel is a group of 

mined rooms connected by drifts that 

provide both access and ventilation to 

the rooms. Following completion of 

waste disposal activities in each panel, 

the DOE intends to seal these drifts with 

engineered structures called panel 

closures. 40 CFR part 194, Criteria for 

the Certification and Recertification of 

the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’s 

Compliance with the 40 CFR part 191 

Disposal Regulations, did not originally 

require panel closures for the purpose of 

long-term compliance with release 

limits for radionuclides. Panel closures 

have, however, always been included in 

the design of the repository, and 

therefore incorporated into modeling of 

the WIPP system as a feature of the 

repository. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 72615 

7Conditions 2 and 3 of the final certification 

decision apply to activities conducted at waste 

generator sites that produce TRU waste proposed 

for disposal at WIPP (§§ 194.22 and 194.24), and 

Condition 4 of the certification applies to passive 

institutional controls (PICs), records and physical 

markers to warn future societies about the location 

and contents of the disposal system and thus to 

deter inadvertent intrusion into the WIPP 

(§ 194.43). 

Although the Agency determined that 

the DOE met all of the applicable 

requirements of the WIPP Compliance 

Criteria in its compliance certification 

decision (63 FR 27354–27406; May 18, 

1998), the EPA amended the WIPP 

Compliance Criteria, 40 CFR part 194, 

and appended four explicit conditions 

to its certification of compliance to 

ensure that the measures actually 

implemented at the WIPP (and thus the 

circumstances expected to exist there) 

were consistent with the DOE’s 

Compliance Certification Application 

(CCA) and with the basis for the EPA’s 

compliance certification. Condition 1 of 

the certification applies to the panel 

closure system.7 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’’. 

At the time of the 1998 certification 

decision, there were indications that the 

DOE would seek to change the design of 

the panel closure system selected by the 

EPA. As stated in the original 

certification: 

Nothing in this condition precludes DOE 

from reassessing the engineering of the panel 

seals at any time. Should DOE determine at 

any time that improvements in materials or 

construction techniques warrant changes to 

the panel seal design, DOE must inform EPA. 

If EPA concurs, and determines that such 

changes constitute a significant departure 

from the design on which certification is 

based, the Agency is authorized under 

§ 194.65 to initiate a rulemaking to 

appropriately modify the certification.’’ (63 

FR 27354, 27362; May 18, 1998.) 

In 2002, the Agency approved the 

DOE’s request to install only the 

explosion wall, and to extend the panel 

closure installation schedule until a 

new design is approved. In January 

2007, the DOE requested that 

installation of the explosion walls also 

be delayed until a new design could be 

approved, and proposed to monitor gas 

generation in Panels 3 and 4 of the 

repository. The EPA approved this 

request in February 2007. Today’s 

action represents the first time that the 

Agency has considered an alteration to 

the panel closure design itself. 

The Department submitted a PCR to 

the EPA on September 28, 2011. Citing 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP03DE13.010</GPH>
72616 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

The EPA has completed its 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. The process the EPA 

applied to support this proposed action 

entailed (1) a review of all materials 

submitted by the DOE, (2) requests for 

additional information including a full 

performance assessment, and (3) the 

independent performance of additional 

confirmatory calculations by the 

Agency. This process is fully 

documented in the EPA’s 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 following 

sections. Based on this process, the 

Agency concludes that the WIPP will 

remain in compliance with its release 

limits with the ROMPCS design. The 

Agency therefore proposes 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 a 

panel closure design other than Option 

D. Section IV, below, discusses the 

Agency’s consideration of the proposed 

panel closure modification. Section V 

describes the Agency’s approach to 

modifying Condition 1. 

IV. How is the EPA responding to the 

DOE’s planned change request? 

A. What are the EPA’s requirements for 

the panel closure design? 

During the operational period of the 

repository, the panel closure system was 

intended to prevent access to closed 

waste panels, to mitigate the release of 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 

to protect site workers from a 

hypothetical methane or hydrogen 

explosion inside a filled waste panel. 

These functions are addressed by the 

New Mexico Environment Department 

(NMED), and DOE has submitted a 

separate Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) Permit 

Modification Request (PMR) stating that 

the new panel closure design will 

adequately protect workers and the 

public during the operational period of 

the WIPP. 

The EPA’s Compliance Criteria at 40 

CFR part 194 originally did not require 

a panel closure of any kind to be 

installed in the repository 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 radionuclides. The 

containment requirements at 40 CFR 

191.13 specify that 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 computer simulations 

require the development of conceptual 

models that represent physical 

attributes of the repository based on 

features, events and processes (FEPs) 

that may impact the disposal system. 

The conceptual models are then 

expressed as mathematical 

relationships, which are solved with 

iterative numerical models, which are 

then translated into computer codes 

(§ 194.23). Numerous simulations are 

performed using sampled values for 

material properties and processes whose 

values are uncertain. The results of the 

simulations are intended to calculate 

possible releases of radioactive 

materials from the disposal system to 

the accessible environment over the 

10,000-year regulatory period, and are 

used to demonstrate compliance with 

the containment requirements in 40 CFR 

191.13. Because the radionuclide release 

limits are based on the amount of waste 

in the repository at the time of closure, 

the containment requirements are 

expressed in terms of ‘‘normalized 

releases.’’ The results of the PA are 

assembled into complementary 

cumulative distribution functions 

(CCDFs), which indicate the probability 

of exceeding various levels of 

normalized releases (§ 194.34). 

At the time of the CCA, given limited 

information on how the different panel 

closure designs could influence 

performance, the Agency contended that 

the panel closures constructed in the 

repository should have physical 

properties similar to those that had been 

used to represent them in the compliant 

performance assessment. As stated in 

the WIPP certification: 

EPA based its certification decision on DOE’s 

use of the most robust design (referred to in 

the CCA as ‘‘Option D’’). The Agency found 

the Option D design to be adequate, but also 

determined that the use of Salado mass 

concrete—using brine rather than fresh 

water—would produce concrete seal 

permeabilities in the repository more 

consistent with the values used in DOE’s 

performance assessment. Therefore, 

Condition 1 of EPA’s certification requires 

DOE to implement the Option D panel 

closure system at WIPP, with Salado mass 

concrete replacing fresh water concrete. (63 

FR 27355) 

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, 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. 

B. What changes are proposed to the 

panel closure design? 

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, that additional 

occupational hazards would be incurred 

by moving and pouring large amounts of 

concrete in the underground and that 

disposal operations would be 

significantly disrupted. 

The DOE’s new panel closure design, 

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 72617 

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. 

The EPA’s technical review process is 

summarized below in Section C. Based 

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 

proposes to approve the DOE’s PCR and 

allow the implementation of the 

ROMPCS design at the WIPP. 

C. How has the EPA reached its 

decision? 

As in the past, the Agency’s 

consideration of the panel closure 

system focused on its inclusion and 

accurate 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 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. 

This review process involved 

interactions with the DOE and DOE 

contractor staff and is 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) The 

process began by identifying the 

universe of changes which might have 

taken place within the performance 

assessment. The conclusion of the 

features, events and processes (FEPs) 

review found that the required changes 

to the models were limited to the 

properties of the panel closure and of 

the disturbed rock zone immediately 

surrounding it. In performance 

assessment, these materials are 

represented in the BRAGFLO computer 

model, which simulates the flow of 

brine and gas in the repository over the 

10,000-year period of performance. 

Some modeling changes, such as 

differences between the physical 

dimensions of the panel closure designs, 

were relatively simple for the DOE to 

implement. The most significant change 

between panel closure designs, and the 

greatest modeling challenge, was the 

dynamic nature of the ROMPCS’s 

material properties. The Option D 

design called for the excavation of the 

DRZ, and the installation of a rigid 

concrete monolith which would 

effectively prevent further fracturing. 

Thus, the properties of the panel closure 

and surrounding DRZ were not expected 

to change significantly over time, and 

were represented in PA by constant 

values. The ROMPCS will be emplaced 

in a loose form, surrounded by a 

fractured DRZ. As the panel closure 

system consolidates due to repository 

creep closure, it will decrease in 

porosity, and its permeability to fluids 

will decrease. Based on measurements 

taken in the underground, laboratory 

data and geomechanical modeling, it is 

expected that this consolidation process 

will be complete approximately 200 

years after the closure of the repository. 

The DOE represents the ROMPCS 

using three time periods. Two time 

periods of one hundred years each are 

used to represent the gradual 

reconsolidation of the panel closure 

system. A third time period, extending 

from 200 years after closure to the end 

of the 10,000-year performance period, 

represents the final healed state of the 

PCS. The consolidation of the ROMPC 

is modeled by sampling its porosity 

from a range of possible values for each 

time period. The permeability of the 

panel closure to fluids during each time 

period is then calculated using a 

correlation between the porosity and 

permeability of salt, developed by the 

DOE using existing experimental data. 

The DRZ surrounding the panel closure 

is modeled so that it is more permeable 

to fluids during the first 200 years after 

closure, and less permeable when the 

system has reached a steady state. 

Parameter values representing other 

material properties of the ROM salt were 

directly adopted from parameters that 

were developed during the CCA to 

describe the crushed salt component of 

the shaft seals. The parameters used to 

represent the changes in performance 

assessment were finalized by the DOE in 

a memorandum dated May 3, 2012. 

After the EPA’s concurrence with the 

representation of the panel closure, the 

DOE executed the PCS–2012 PA 

calculation. Results of the PCS–2012 PA 

are discussed in detail in TSD Section 

4.5. Compared to the PABC–2009 

baseline, calculated mean total releases 

from the PCS–2012 PA did not 

appreciably increase at a probability of 

0.1, and increased at a probability of 

0.001, from 1.1 to 1.51 EPA units. (See 

TSD, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0684–0002, 

Table 3.7.) Thus, the mean total release, 

as well as the 90th percentile and upper 

95% confidence limit of the mean, fell 

significantly below the Agency’s 

regulatory limits of 1 EPA unit for a 

probability of 0.1, and 10 EPA units for 

a probability of 0.001. 

Modeled releases from the repository 

principally result from the penetration 

of the repository waste by a hypothetical 

oil or gas borehole. Specific release 

mechanisms include cuttings and 

cavings releases, direct brine releases 

(DBRs), spallings releases and releases 

up a borehole to the Culebra dolomite. 

The increase in calculated releases in 

the PCS–2012 PA is primarily due to 

increases in direct brine releases, 

resulting from changes in pressure and 

brine saturation in the waste panels (See 

TSD, EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0684–0002, 

Section 3.5). Compared to the Option D 

PCS design, the ROMPCS is expected to 

be more permeable to fluids upon 

installation, and less permeable after it 

has consolidated. The initial conditions 

of the WIPP model make a significant 

amount of brine available in the 

repository at the time of closure. The 

higher initial permeability of the 

ROMPCS allows early-time brine 

inflows into the waste panels, resulting 

in generally higher brine saturations and 

higher rates of gas generation in the 

modeled waste panel. When the 

permeability of the panel closures 

decreases after 200 years, both brine and 

gas can be retained in the panel, 

increasing the brine saturations and gas 

pressures encountered by borehole 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
72618 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

penetrations of the repository. Those 

increases in turn result in increases in 

mean DBR and spallings releases. 

Cuttings and cavings are important 

contributors to total releases, but are not 

affected by waste panel pressure and 

brine saturation. Releases through the 

Culebra are essentially unchanged from 

those calculated using the Option D 

design. 

The EPA considers this analysis 

important to its understanding of the 

disposal system. The Agency concludes 

that the changes to the panel closure 

system do not have a significant impact 

on the long-term performance of the 

disposal system. 

V. How is the EPA revising Appendix 

A, Condition 1? 

A. What are the current requirements of 

Appendix A, Condition 1? 

The Option D panel closure is 

currently required by 40 CFR part 194, 

Appendix A, Condition 1. 

As described in Section III, the EPA 

certified the WIPP’s performance based 

on the properties of the Option D panel 

closure. It is the only engineered aspect 

of the repository design that is explicitly 

required by rule. 

B. What changes are proposed for 

Appendix A, Condition 1? 

As described above in Section IV, the 

EPA is proposing to accept a redesigned 

panel closure. Acceptance of the PCR 

requires modification of Condition 1. 

The Agency does not believe that the 

design must be specified by the 

condition, because there is no evidence 

to suggest that the panel closure has a 

disproportionate ability to impact longterm performance when compared to 

other design features 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, a 

departure from the current, approved 

design must be submitted to the Agency 

as a planned change request as required 

by § 194.4(b)(3)(i). The EPA would 

expect any such request to be supported 

by complete technical documentation, 

including 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 will determine 

whether the change ‘‘departs 

significantly from the most recent 

compliance application,’’ and must be 

addressed by rule in accordance with 

§ 194.65. 

C. What did the EPA consider when 

making its decision? 

In 1998, the EPA certified the WIPP 

conditionally based on the Option D 

panel closure design. At that time, the 

DOE had not specified which design it 

planned to implement, and limited 

performance assessment results were 

available to indicate the impact of the 

panel closure design on repository 

performance. In contrast, the 

Department has now proposed a single 

panel closure design to be installed in 

all waste panels. 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. 

The Agency initially chose the Option 

D panel closure partly to match the 

physical properties of the panel closure 

to the modeled parameters of the 

generic panel closure represented in the 

CCA. This representation of the panel 

closure was refined in the 2002 

Technical Baseline Migration PA to 

reflect the dimensions of the Option D 

design and include impacts of a rigid 

structure on the surrounding DRZ. 

These changes did not result in a 

significant impact on predicted releases, 

and were included in PAs which 

supported both WIPP recertifications. 

The changes made in the PCS–2012 PA 

altered the panel closure properties 

substantially, without significantly 

affecting the WIPP’s ability to comply 

with the release limits. The DOE’s 

sensitivity analysis indicates that 

several sampled parameters related to 

the panel closures contributed to the 

overall results, but their contributions 

were dwarfed by the effect of other 

parameters, such as the waste shear 

strength and actinide solubility. 

Additionally, the Agency carried out 

confirmatory studies as part of its 

technical review which analyzed how 

different representations of the DRZ 

surrounding the panel closure could 

potentially influence modeled results. 

The conclusion that the Agency draws 

from all of these studies is that although 

the panel closures can influence 

modeled results to a degree, there is no 

evidence that modifications to the panel 

closure or its representation in PA could 

jeopardize the WIPP’s ability to comply 

with the disposal requirements. Because 

panel closures do not exercise a 

disproportionate impact on the WIPP’s 

ability to isolate radionuclides from the 

accessible environment, the EPA does 

not believe that it is necessary for the 

specific design of the panel closure to 

remain as a condition of certification. 

Rather, panel closures can be treated in 

a similar manner as any other 

engineered feature of the repository. As 

described in Section IV, the DOE must 

still submit a PCR if it wishes to alter 

the design from the approved ROMPCS. 

VI. How has the EPA involved the 

public? 

In order to guide its technical process, 

the EPA held informal public meetings 

in Carlsbad, New Mexico, on December 

5, 2012, and Santa Fe, New Mexico, on 

December 6, 2012. The purpose of these 

meetings was 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. At both 

meetings, many comments were in favor 

of approving the panel closure planned 

change request based on its scientific 

and economic merits. Specifically, 

commenters expressed confidence in 

the ability of salt creep to compress the 

ROMPCS and form an adequate panel 

closure, and emphasized the greater 

operational safety when installing the 

revised design. In Santa Fe, one 

commenter expressed the view that the 

lack of a cost analysis for building the 

Option D panel closures, and the failure 

to explicitly consider other designs are 

deficiencies in the PCR. Other 

commenters asked questions regarding 

the likelihood of gas generation and 

explosions in the closed panels. No 

technical comments were submitted. 

Additional public meetings will be 

held in Carlsbad and Albuquerque in 

December 2013. Details and summaries 

of these meetings will be published on 

the EPA’s WIPP Web site at http://

www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp. 

VII. 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 72619 

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 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because it sets forth 

requirements which apply only to 

federal agencies. Therefore, this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed 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 

proposed 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 proposed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
72620 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 3, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 (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 solicits comment on this 

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 proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. This 

proposed 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. In the spirit of 

Executive Order 13175, and consistent 

with the EPA policy to promote 

consultation and coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments, the Agency 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from Tribal officials. 

J. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects 

This proposed 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. 

Dated: November 18, 2013. 

Janet G. McCabe, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air 

and Radiation. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 194 is proposed 

to be 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. Any modification to the 

approved panel closure design must be 

submitted by the DOE as a planned change 

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

include supporting information required by 

§ 194.14, Content of compliance certification 

application. The Administrator or 

Administrator’s authorized representative 

will determine whether the planned 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. 2013–28240 Filed 12–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 44, 46, and 52 

[FAR Case 2012–032; Docket No. 2012– 

0032; Sequence No. 1] 

RIN 9000–AM65 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Higher-Level Contract Quality 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are 

proposing to amend the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to clarify 

when to use higher-level quality 

standards in solicitations and contracts, 

and to update the examples of higherlevel quality standards by revising 

obsolete standards and adding two new 

industry standards that pertain to 

quality assurance for avoidance of 

counterfeit items. These standards will 

be used to help minimize and mitigate 

counterfeit items or suspect counterfeit 

items in Government contracting. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat at one of the addressees 

shown below on or before February 3, 

2014 to be considered in the formation 

of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

response to FAR Case 2012–032 by any 

of the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

searching for ‘‘FAR Case 2012–032.’’ 

Select the link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ 

that corresponds with ‘‘FAR Case 2012– 

032.’’ Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. 

Please include your name, company 

name (if any), and ‘‘FAR Case 2012– 

032’’ on your attached document. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(MVCB), ATTN: Hada Flowers, 1800 F 

Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 

20405–0001. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite FAR Case 2012–032, in all 

correspondence related to this case. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Marissa Petrusek, Procurement Analyst, 

at 202–501–0136, for clarification of 

content. For information pertaining to 

status or publication schedules, contact 

the Regulatory Secretariat at 202–501– 

4755. Please cite FAR Case 2012–032. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background 

DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing 

to amend the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) to revise FAR subpart 

46.2, Contract Quality Requirements, to 

ensure that agencies assess the risk of 

nonconforming items when determining 

whether higher-level quality standards 

should be used by the Government and 

relied on by contractors. These quality 

standards must be designated in the 

solicitation and resultant contract. The 

contractor must also ensure its 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS