26126 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

or space service’’ in paragraphs (c)(1) 

introductory text and (c)(2)(ii) 

introductory text. 

§ 3.318 [Amended] 

■ 12. Amend § 3.318 by removing ‘‘or 

air service’’ and adding in its place ‘‘air, 

or space service’’ in paragraph (a). 

§ 3.807 [Amended] 

■ 13. Amend § 3.807 by removing ‘‘or 

air service’’ and adding in its place ‘‘air, 

or space service’’ in paragraphs (a)(5)(ii) 

and (b). 

§ 3.808 [Amended] 

■ 14. Amend § 3.808 by removing ‘‘or 

air service’’ and adding in its place ‘‘air, 

or space service’’ in paragraph (a)(2). 

§ 3.809 [Amended] 

■ 15. Amend § 3.809 by removing ‘‘or 

air service’’ and adding in its place ‘‘air, 

or space service’’ in paragraph (a). 

§ 3.809a [Amended] 

■ 16. Amend § 3.809a by removing ‘‘or 

air service’’ and adding in its place ‘‘air, 

or space service’’ in paragraph (b). 

§ 3.903 [Amended] 

■ 17. Amend § 3.903 by removing ‘‘or 

air service’’ and adding in its place ‘‘air, 

or space service’’ in paragraph (b)(1). 

§ 3.1701 [Amended] 

■ 18. Amend § 3.1701 by removing ‘‘or 

air service’’ and adding in its place ‘‘air, 

or space service.’’ 

[FR Doc. 2022–09481 Filed 5–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 194 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0534; FRL–9737–01– 

OAR] 

Criteria for the Certification and 

Recertification of the Waste Isolation 

Pilot Plant’s Compliance With the 

Disposal Regulations: Recertification 

Decision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notification of recertification 

decision. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) recertifies 

that the U.S. Department of Energy’s 

(DOE or the Department) Waste 

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) continues to 

comply with the final disposal 

regulations, known as the 

‘‘Environmental Standards for the 

Management and Disposal of Spent 

Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and 

Transuranic Radioactive Waste.’’ This is 

the fourth periodic evaluation of the 

WIPP’s continued compliance with the 

disposal regulations and WIPP 

Compliance Criteria. The WIPP 

Compliance Criteria implement and 

interpret the disposal regulations 

specifically for the WIPP. This 

recertification process is required every 

five years. This recertification decision 

is based on a thorough review of 

information submitted by DOE, 

independent technical analyses and 

public comments. The Agency has 

determined that DOE continues to meet 

all applicable requirements of the final 

disposal regulations and the WIPP 

Compliance Criteria and recertifies the 

WIPP facility. EPA has also identified 

areas in which the DOE’s technical 

analyses and justifications could be 

improved for the next recertification 

application. 

DATES: May 3, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray 

Lee, Radiation Protection Division, Mail 

Code 6608T, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, Washington, DC, 20460; 

telephone number: 202–343–9463; 

email address: lee.raymond@epa.gov. 

Copies of the Compliance Application 

Review Documents (CARDs) supporting 

this action and all other recertificationrelated documentation can be found in 

the Agency’s electronic docket found at 

https://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0534). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. What is the WIPP? 

III. Compliance Certification History 

A. 1998 Certification Decision 

B. Previous Recertification Decisions 

IV. WIPP Compliance With Radioactive 

Waste Disposal Regulations and the 

WIPP Compliance Criteria 

A. How does EPA ensure ongoing 

compliance with the WIPP compliance 

criteria? 

B. Compliance Certification Conditions 

1. Panel Closure System 

2. Quality Assurance 

3. Waste Characterization 

4. Passive Institutional Controls 

V. The 2019 CRA 

A. DOE’s 2019 CRA 

B. EPA Evaluation of the 2019 CRA 

C. EPA’s 2019 Recertification Decision 

VI. EPA’s Technical Review 

A. Performance Assessment and EPA 

Standards 

B. Status of EPA Identified Areas for 

Improvement From the 2017 

Recertification Decision 

1. Plutonium Oxidation States 

2. Geochemistry Database 

3. Microbial Colloids 

4. Creep Closure of Open Areas 

C. Changes to the Disposal System 

Identified by DOE for CRA–2019 

1. Abandonment of Panel Closures and 

Waste Panel 9 

2. Updated Plugging Patterns and Borehole 

Drilling Rates 

3. Radionuclide Solubilities 

4. Revised Colloid Parameters 

5. Inclusion of Brine Radiolysis in the Gas 

Generation Model 

D. Other Issues Identified by EPA During 

Review 

1. Geochemistry Database 

2. Initial Assumptions for Solubility 

Calculations 

3. Actinide Solubility Uncertainty 

E. EPA Sensitivity Studies 

1. Sensitivity to Creep Closure of Empty 

Rooms (CRA19_COMP Analysis) 

2. Sensitivity to Borehole Plugging 

Frequency (PLG_PROB Analysis) 

3. Sensitivity to Actinide Solubility 

(GCHM_S0 Analysis) 

4. Sensitivity to Actinide Solubility and 

Colloid Parameters (GCHM_S2 Analysis) 

5. Sensitivity to Actinide Solubility, 

Colloid Parameters, and Actinide 

Oxidation State (GCHM_S3 Analysis) 

6. Sensitivity to Combined Geotechnical 

and Geochemical Parameter Changes 

(CRA19_COMB Analysis) 

F. Waste Characterization 

G. Peer Review 

H. Individual and Groundwater Protection 

Requirements 

VII. What is EPA’s role in future WIPP 

activities? 

Abbreviations 

Am Americium 

APCS Abandonment of Panel Closures in 

the South 

CARD Compliance Application Review 

Document 

CCA Compliance Certification Application 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CRA Compliance Recertification 

Application 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FR Federal Register 

KPLA Known Potash Leasing Area 

LWA Land Withdrawal Act 

OAR Office of Air and Radiation 

Pa Pascal 

PA Performance Assessment 

Pu Plutonium 

TRU Transuranic 

TSD Technical Support Document 

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

I. General Information 

How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

EPA has established a docket for this 

action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2019–0534. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically at https://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA 

Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 26127 

1See 50 FR 38066 (September 19, 1985) and 58 

FR 66398 (December 20, 1993). 

2See 61 FR 5224 (February 9, 1996). 

3LWA, section 8(f). 

4Since EPA’s initial certification, the operation of 

the WIPP proceeded without substantial 

interruption until 2014. However, two events took 

place at the WIPP in February 2014 that led DOE 

to suspend the emplacement of additional waste in 

the facility for nearly three years. Refer to the prior 

recertification document (82 FR 33106, July 19, 

2017) for more information. 

5To some extent, the discussion in this Federal 

Register document describing EPA’s evaluation of 

CRA–2019 tracks the various requirements or 

sections of 40 CFR part 194. So, for example, 

Section IV.B of this document relates to certain 

conditions associated with EPA’s basic certification 

of compliance for the WIPP, as set out in part 194, 

App. A.; Section VI.C of this document 

substantially relates to requirements associated 

with §§ 194.14, 194.15, 194.23, and 194.31 through 

194.34. This organization, though, is not strict and 

there is some overlap and intersection among the 

subparagraphs of Section VI.C of this document and 

the various requirements of part 194 (and part 191). 

In addition, the provisions of some sections of part 

194 require little, if any, discussion. So, for 

example, DOE did not conduct any activities during 

the period covered by this CRA related to future 

states assumptions (§ 194.25), expert judgment 

(§ 194.26), or assurance requirements (§§ 194.41 

through 194.46). See the corresponding CARDs for 

more discussion. 

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW, Washington, DC. Due to public 

health concerns related to COVID–19, 

the EPA Docket Center and Reading 

Room are open to the public by 

appointment only, and walk-ins are not 

allowed. Visitors to the Reading Room 

must complete docket material requests 

in advance and then make an 

appointment to retrieve the material. 

Please contact the EPA Reading Room 

staff at (202) 566–1744 or via email at 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov to 

arrange material requests and 

appointments. Hand deliveries and 

couriers may be received by scheduled 

appointment only. For further 

information on EPA Docket Center 

services and status, please visit us 

online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

EPA inspection or audit reports are 

routinely published on the Agency’s 

WIPP website https://www.epa.gov/ 

radiation/epas-role-waste-isolationpilot-plant-wipp and WIPP–NEWS 

email listserv. 

II. What is the WIPP? 

The WIPP is a disposal system 

developed specifically, and exclusively, 

for defense-related transuranic (TRU) 

radioactive waste, operated by the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) and located 

near Carlsbad in southeastern New 

Mexico. TRU waste is material 

containing alpha emitting radioisotopes, 

with half-lives greater than twenty 

years, in concentrations greater than 100 

nanocuries per gram (nCi/g). WIPP Land 

Withdrawal Act (LWA), Public Law 

102–579 (October 30, 1992), section 

2(18). This waste primarily consists of 

clothing, tools, rags, residues, research 

material, sludges, debris, soil and other 

items contaminated with small amounts 

of plutonium (Pu) and other man-made 

radioactive elements. At the WIPP, DOE 

disposes of radioactive waste 

approximately 655 meters (2,150 feet) 

underground in an ancient salt layer 

which will eventually creep, 

encapsulate, and isolate the waste. 

Under LWA section 7(a)(3), the WIPP 

has a total statutory capacity of 175,570 

cubic meters (6.2 million cubic feet) of 

TRU waste. 

The LWA provides EPA the authority 

to oversee and regulate the WIPP. 

Pursuant, in part, to such authority, EPA 

promulgated or revised the 

Environmental Radiation Protection 

Standards for Management and Disposal 

of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and 

Transuranic Radioactive Wastes, 40 CFR 

part 191,1 and the ‘‘Criteria for the 

Certification and Re-Certification of the 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’s Compliance 

With the 40 CFR part 191 Disposal 

Regulations’’ and 40 CFR part 194 (the 

WIPP Compliance Criteria).2 The LWA 

directs DOE every five years to 

demonstrate continued compliance with 

the disposal regulations, and, after 

receipt of the submission from DOE, 

EPA determines whether the WIPP 

continues to be in compliance.3 The 

WIPP Compliance Criteria make further 

provisions relating to the periodic 

(every five years) recertification of the 

WIPP.4 EPA’s determination published 

in this document is for DOE’s fourth 

periodic recertification. 

III. Compliance Certification History 

A. 1998 Certification Decision 

LWA section 8(d) required EPA to 

conduct an initial compliance 

evaluation of the WIPP and to certify 

whether the WIPP facility will comply 

with the final disposal regulations. On 

May 18, 1998, EPA conditionally 

certified that the WIPP will comply with 

the disposal regulations. See 63 FR 

27354. The complete record and basis 

for the EPA’s 1998 certification decision 

can be found in Air Docket A–93–02. 

B. Previous Recertification Decisions 

Subsequent to EPA’s 1998 initial 

compliance certification of the WIPP, 

DOE periodically (every five years) has 

submitted, as required by the LWA, 

documentation of continued 

compliance, and EPA previously 

recertified the WIPP on three separate 

occasions. EPA’s first WIPP 

recertification decision was announced 

on April 10, 2006 (see 71 FR 18010); the 

second on November 18, 2010 (see 75 

FR 70584); and the third on July 19, 

2017 (see 82 FR 33106). 

IV. WIPP Compliance With Radioactive 

Waste Disposal Regulations and the 

WIPP Compliance Criteria 

The WIPP must comply with EPA’s 

radioactive waste disposal regulations, 

located at subparts B and C of 40 CFR 

part 191 (referred to as the ‘‘final 

disposal regulations’’ in LWA sections 

8(d) and (f)). These regulations limit the 

amount of radioactive material which 

may escape from a disposal facility to 

protect individuals and groundwater 

resources from dangerous levels of 

radioactive contamination. 

DOE submits a Compliance 

Recertification Application (CRA) every 

five years to demonstrate compliance 

with 40 CFR parts 191 and 194 per LWA 

section 8(f). Compliance applications 

must demonstrate compliance with the 

requirements contained within each 

section of 40 CFR part 194 5 and provide 

a comprehensive, technically justified 

assessment of repository performance 

demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR 

part 191, subparts B and C (through a 

process known as ‘‘performance 

assessment’’). Upon receiving the CRA 

from DOE, EPA first makes a 

completeness determination by 

performing an in-depth review to ensure 

DOE’s submission is sufficiently 

detailed to support EPA’s technical 

evaluation with respect to all 

compliance criteria. EPA finishes its 

technical evaluation after DOE responds 

to EPA’s completeness comments and 

EPA considers the CRA complete (40 

CFR 194.11). 

DOE’s WIPP compliance applications 

must include, at a minimum, basic 

information about the WIPP site and 

disposal system design, including 

information about the following topics: 

The geology, hydrology, hydrogeology 

and geochemistry of the WIPP disposal 

system and the WIPP vicinity; the WIPP 

materials of construction; standards 

applied to design and construction; 

background radiation in air, soil and 

water; and past and current 

climatological and meteorological 

conditions (40 CFR 194.14). Section 

194.15 states that DOE’s recertification 

applications shall update this 

information to provide sufficient 

information for EPA to determine 

whether the WIPP facility continues to 

be in compliance with the disposal 

regulations. 

In addition, the WIPP must comply 

with the WIPP Compliance Criteria at 40 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
26128 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

6 In addition to EPA’s radioactive waste disposal 

regulations and the WIPP Compliance Criteria, the 

WIPP must also comply with a number of other 

Federal laws and regulations pertaining to public 

health and safety or the environment. See, for 

example, LWA section 9. In a separate process, 

distinct from this periodic (every five years) 

compliance recertification process, DOE also must 

periodically (every two years) submit 

documentation of continued compliance with such 

other laws and EPA (or the State of New Mexico, 

as appropriate) must, in response, determine 

whether the WIPP is in compliance with such laws. 

The most recent Biennial Environmental 

Compliance Report (BECR) determination for the 

WIPP, dated 04/13/2021, may be found at Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2001–0012–0701. 

7For a discussion of the 2014 incidents at the 

WIPP, see EPA’s prior recertification determination. 

82 FR 33106, 33107 (July 19, 2017). 

CFR part 194. The WIPP Compliance 

Criteria implement and interpret the 

general disposal regulations specifically 

for the WIPP and clarify the basis and 

process by which EPA makes 

certification and recertification 

decisions.6

A. How does EPA ensure ongoing 

compliance with the WIPP compliance 

criteria? 

In addition to the periodic 

recertification process, EPA, on an ongoing basis, monitors and ensures 

continuing compliance with EPA 

regulations through a variety of 

activities, including the following: 

Review and evaluation of DOE’s annual 

change reports, monitoring the 

conditions of compliance, addressing 

planned change requests, information 

requests concerning the WIPP, 

inspections of the WIPP site, and 

inspections of waste characterization 

operations. The Agency has conducted 

periodic inspections to verify the 

adequacy of information relevant to 

certification applications. EPA conducts 

inspections at the WIPP site to review 

and ensure that the monitoring program 

meets the requirements of § 194.42. EPA 

has also inspected the emplacement and 

tracking of waste in the repository. The 

Agency’s inspection reports can be 

found in Air Docket A–98–49, 

Categories II–A1 and II–A4, as well as 

online at https://www.regulations.gov, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2001– 

0012. 

DOE must report any planned or 

unplanned changes in activities or 

conditions pertaining to the disposal 

system that differ significantly from the 

most recent compliance application 

and, at least annually, report any other 

changes in disposal system conditions 

or activities. 40 CFR 194.4(b)(3), (4). 

DOE must also report any releases of 

radioactive material from the disposal 

system. 40 CFR 194.4(b)(3)(iii). DOE’s 

annual change reports reflect the 

progress of quality assurance and waste 

characterization inspections, minor 

changes to DOE documents, information 

on monitoring activities, and any 

additional EPA approvals for changes in 

activities. In addition, EPA may request 

additional information from DOE (see, 

for example, 40 CFR 194.4(b)(2)). These 

requirements assist EPA with 

monitoring the performance of the 

disposal system and evaluating whether 

the certification should be modified, 

suspended or revoked. All 

correspondence and approvals regarding 

the annual change reports can be found 

in hard copy in the Air Docket A–98– 

49, Categories II–B2 and II–B3, and also 

in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2001– 

0012 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

B. Compliance Certification Conditions 

In connection with the compliance 

criteria, there also are four conditions of 

compliance described in 40 CFR part 

194, appendix A, that must be met. 

Below are brief descriptions of each 

condition and any changes made by 

DOE since the last CRA to meet those 

conditions. 

1. Panel Closure System 

Certification Condition 1 states that 

DOE shall close filled waste panels in a 

manner that has been specifically 

approved by EPA. The WIPP waste 

panel closure system design changed 

between the 2014 recertification 

application and this 2019 recertification 

following the February 2014 

radiological release that contaminated 

the south end of the repository.7 The 

run-of-mine salt closures planned for 

panels 3–6 could not be emplaced and 

panel 9 was abandoned due to safety 

concerns. Because access to panels 3–6 

was through panel 9, DOE installed runof-mine salt closures and steel 

bulkheads in the access drifts to panel 

9 to block personnel access to the south 

end waste panels, which the Agency 

verified in an May/August 2019 

inspection (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2001–0012–04700). The closure 

system design for panels 1, 2, 7, 8 and 

10 consisting of run-of-mine salt 

closures and steel bulkheads were not 

changed by the accidental release. 

2. Quality Assurance 

Certification Condition 2 requires 

waste generator sites to establish and 

execute a quality assurance program for 

waste characterization activities. 

Section 194.22 establishes quality 

assurance requirements for the WIPP. 

DOE must adhere to a quality assurance 

program that implements the 

requirements of ASME NQA–1–1989 

edition, ASME NQA–2a-1990 addenda, 

part 2.7, to ASME NQA–2–1989 edition, 

and ASME NQA–3–1989 edition 

(excluding Section 2.1 (b) and (c), and 

Section 17.1). EPA determined that the 

CRA–2019 provides adequate 

information to verify the establishment 

and implementation of a quality 

assurance program in accordance with 

ASME NQA–1–1989 through periodic 

audits conducted in accordance with 

§ 194.22(e). EPA’s determination of 

compliance with 40 CFR 194.22 can be 

found in Table 1 of CARD 22. Between 

March 2014 and March 2019, EPA 

conducted several quality assurance 

audits and found the site-specific 

quality assurance programs to be 

adequate. Records of EPA’s quality 

assurance correspondences and waste 

characterization approvals can be found 

in Air Docket A–98–49, Categories II–A1 

and II–A4, respectively, as well as 

online in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2001–0012 on https://

www.regulations.gov. 

3. Waste Characterization 

Certification Condition 3 requires 

waste generator sites to have waste 

characterization systems approved by 

EPA. DOE implemented site-specific 

waste characterization programs to (a) 

characterize physical and radiological 

components in individual waste 

containers; and (b) demonstrate 

compliance with the WIPP waste 

disposal requirements at 40 CFR 194.24 

and 194.8. Since the last recertification 

(CRA–2014), EPA conducted 

inspections of various site-specific 

waste characterization programs and 

requests for changes in accordance with 

40 CFR 194.24 and 194.8 and concluded 

they were technically adequate (see 

Table 1 in CARD 8 and CARD 24 for 

further details). During the period 

covered by CRA–2019, all site-specific 

waste characterization systems of 

controls at active waste generator sites 

had necessary baseline approvals. 

4. Passive Institutional Controls 

While DOE provided information on 

potential passive institutional control 

designs at the time of the certification, 

Certification Condition 4 requires DOE 

to submit a schedule and plan for 

implementing passive institutional 

controls, including markers and other 

measures indicating the presence of the 

repository, but DOE is not required to 

provide such information until the final 

CRA prior to the closure of the WIPP. 

EPA anticipates that it will evaluate 

DOE’s compliance with Condition 4 of 

the certification when DOE submits a 

revised schedule and additional 

documentation regarding the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 26129 

8 In accordance with 40 CFR 194.67, EPA 

maintains public dockets via https://

www.regulations.gov that contain all the 

information used to support the Agency’s decision 

on recertification. The Agency maintains the formal 

docket in Washington, DC, as well as informational 

legacy/paper dockets related to the original 

certification decision (R–89–01, A–92–56, and A– 

93–02) in three locations in the State of New 

Mexico (Carlsbad, Albuquerque, and Santa Fe). The 

docket as a whole consists of all relevant, 

significant information received to date from 

outside parties and all significant information 

considered by EPA in reaching a WIPP 

recertification decision. 

9A variety of general information, pertinent new 

information, and updates on EPA’s WIPP activities 

is available at the WIPP internet homepage at 

https://www.epa.gov/radiation/epas-role-wasteisolation-pilot-plant-wipp. All pertinent 

recertification-related documents (including the 

DOE-submitted recertification materials, letters, 

Federal Register notices, outreach materials, etc.) 

are available for review or download (in Adobe PDF 

format) via the electronic docket dedicated to the 

2019 recertification process (https://

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2019–0534). The Agency’s WIPP–NEWS 

email listserv, which automatically sends messages 

to subscribers with up to date WIPP announcements 

and information, is also available online. Any 

individuals wishing to subscribe to the listserv can 

join by visiting https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_

forums/subscribe?name=wipp-news and providing 

all requested information to register. 

10Although EPA has provided opportunities for 

public engagement, including a virtual meeting and 

an opportunity to comment, under section 8(f)(2) of 

the LWA, the periodic (every five years) 

recertification of the WIPP and EPA’s recertification 

determination are not subject to rulemaking. In 

accordance with the LWA, EPA is not and has not 

engaged in rulemaking in connection with its 

recertification determination and did not intend to 

do so simply by seeking and providing opportunity 

for public participation. 

11The CARDs discuss DOE’s compliance with 

each of the individual requirements of the WIPP 

Compliance Criteria and correspond in number to 

the sections of 40 CFR part 194 to which the 

documents primarily relate. Each CARD reviews the 

changes made by DOE and describes EPA’s 

evaluations and conclusions. The CARDs also list 

the EPA TSDs and any other references used by 

EPA. For more detailed information on the 

technical issues considered in EPA’s recertification 

decision, see the TSDs. All CARDs, TSDs, and 

references are available in the public recertification 

docket, via Regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2019–0534), with the exception of 

generally available references and those documents 

already maintained by DOE or its contractors in 

locations accessible to the public. 

implementation of passive institutional 

controls. EPA has not received any 

submissions from DOE during the 

period addressed by CRA–2019 and has 

not taken any actions relating to 

Condition 4 (see CARD 43). 

V. The 2019 CRA 

A. DOE’s 2019 CRA 

On March 26, 2019, DOE submitted 

the most recent CRA as required by 40 

CFR 194.15(a), updating its previous 

2014 submission. On September 25, 

2019, EPA gave public notice of DOE’s 

submittal of CRA–2019 and opened the 

official public comment period (84 FR 

50367). On December 20, 2019, DOE 

submitted a performance assessment 

(PA) and supporting documentation. 

This deferred PA was previously agreed 

upon by EPA and DOE so that the 

Department could address technical 

issues identified in the previous CRA. 

EPA submitted to DOE six (6) letters 

with questions that DOE responded to 

between June 2020 to June 2021, with 2 

additional sets of follow up questions 

communicated through email. This 

information supplements the 

documentation DOE submitted in March 

and December 2019. On November 17, 

2021, EPA sent a letter to DOE stating 

that DOE’s recertification application 

was complete. On November 26, 2021, 

EPA issued a Federal Register 

document announcing the completeness 

determination and stating that the 

public comment period would close on 

December 27, 2021. See 86 FR 67424. 

The CRA–2019 completeness-related 

correspondence can be found in the 

WIPP public docket at Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0534 at https://

www.regulations.gov.8

Since September 2019, EPA has 

published and disseminated numerous 

announcements regarding the 

recertification schedule and availability 

of WIPP-related documents on the EPA 

WIPP website and the dockets.9 EPA 

held an on-line, or virtual, informal 

stakeholder meeting on August 17, 

2021, to allow additional opportunity 

for public participation during the 

recertification process (see the EPA 

WIPP website for slides and documents 

from the informal meeting). The meeting 

consisted of one three-hour evening 

session to allow for time-zone 

differences between headquarters in 

Washington, DC and stakeholders in 

New Mexico. To make this meeting 

informative to all attending parties, EPA 

listened to stakeholder input and 

concerns and tailored the meeting 

around the public as much as 

possible.10

The main purpose of the stakeholder 

meeting was to provide information and 

further opportunity to address questions 

about EPA’s recertification process and 

timeline, as well as DOE’s application 

and important changes at the WIPP 

since the last recertification in 2017. 

The meeting featured brief EPA 

presentations followed by a questionand-answer session. In response to 

stakeholder suggestions, DOE staff 

members were also on hand to provide 

information and respond to stakeholder 

questions related to DOE’s application 

and current WIPP activities. Staff from 

the New Mexico Environment 

Department attended as observers. 

Public participants were encouraged to 

provide comments to EPA for 

consideration during the review of 

DOE’s CRA–2019. The issues raised at 

this virtual meeting have been 

considered and addressed by EPA in 

this document and within the CARDs, 

which are available in the public 

recertification docket. EPA received 11 

substantial public comments and has 

considered and appropriately responded 

to those comments. See Appendix 15– 

B of CARD 15. 

B. EPA Evaluation of the 2019 CRA 

This EPA recertification decision is 

based on the entire record compiled by 

the Agency, which is available in the 

public docket dedicated to this 

recertification (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2019–0534 at https://

www.regulations.gov). The record 

consists of the CRA–2019, 

supplementary information submitted 

by DOE in response to EPA requests, 

technical reports generated by EPA, EPA 

audit and inspection reports, 

documentation from technical 

exchanges between EPA and DOE staff 

to better understand some of DOE’s 

responses to requests for additional 

information, independent EPA 

calculations, and comments submitted 

on DOE’s application and EPA’s 

completeness review during the public 

comment period. All pertinent CRA– 

2019 correspondence was placed in the 

public recertification docket and linked 

on EPA’s WIPP recertification website 

https://www.epa.gov/radiation/ 

certification-and-recertification-wipp. 

The focus of EPA’s technical review 

relating to the CRA–2019 was on topical 

areas identified by DOE and confirmed 

by EPA as having been changed since 

the CRA–2014 (see Section VI of this 

document for further discussion of 

EPA’s technical review). EPA produced 

multiple documents during the 

technical review and evaluation of the 

CRA. These documents included CARDs 

along with technical support documents 

(TSDs).11 Together, EPA’s completeness 

comments, CARDs, and TSDs 

thoroughly document EPA’s review of 

DOE’s CRA–2019 and the technical 

basis for the Agency’s decisions. In 

addition, EPA used DOE performance 

assessment computer codes to 

independently investigate the impact 

(i.e., sensitivity) of parameter changes 

on the calculated releases from the 

repository. The results of these 

sensitivity calculations are discussed in 

Section VI.E of this document and in 

Section 4.0 of the EPA TSD Overview of 

EPA Review of U.S. Department of 

Energy 2019 WIPP Compliance 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
26130 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

12The accessible environment is defined in 40 

CFR 191.12 as (1) The atmosphere; (2) land 

surfaces; (3) surface waters; (4) oceans; and (5) all 

of the lithosphere that is beyond the controlled 

area. 

13 ‘‘Pascal’’ is a unit of pressure, defined as 1 kg/ 

m-sec2. A megapascal is one million pascals. 

14Schramke, J.A., E.F.U. Santillan, R.T. Peake, 

‘‘Plutonium Oxidation States in the Waste Isolation 

Pilot Plant Repository,’’ Applied Geochemistry, 

116:104561, 2020. 

Recertification Application Performance 

Assessment (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2019–0534). 

C. EPA’s 2019 Recertification Decision 

In response to the CRA–2019 and after 

consideration of all the materials and 

information described in this document, 

EPA determines, in accordance with 

LWA section 8(f)(2), that the WIPP 

facility is in compliance with the final 

disposal regulations, subparts B and C 

of 40 CFR part 191. The calculated 

releases contained in the PA 

demonstrate that the WIPP will not 

exceed regulatory limits on releases of 

radionuclides to the accessible 

environment 12 during the 10,000-year 

performance period. Compliance 

recertification ensures that accurate and 

up-to-date information is considered in 

the determination that WIPP remains in 

compliance with these radioactive waste 

disposal regulations. EPA makes this 

recertification and determination of 

continued compliance following the 

‘‘Criteria for the Certification and ReCertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant’s Compliance With the 40 CFR 

part 191 Disposal Regulations’’ (WIPP 

Compliance Criteria, 40 CFR part 194), 

including the WIPP certification 

conditions (40 CFR part 194, appendix 

A). The Agency’s review has also 

identified instances where aspects of the 

PA could be enhanced or improved, 

most notably in connection with the 

geochemistry database. The results of 

EPA’s review of the CRA–2019, 

including descriptions of EPA’s review 

process, expanded discussions of 

selected topics of interest, and 

supplemental confirmatory modeling 

carried out by EPA staff, are contained 

in Section VI of this document. 

VI. EPA’s Technical Review 

A. Performance Assessment and EPA 

Standards 

The disposal regulations at 40 CFR 

part 191 include requirements for the 

containment of radionuclides. The 

numerical containment requirements at 

40 CFR 191.13 specify that releases of 

radionuclides to the accessible 

environment must be unlikely to exceed 

specific limits for 10,000 years after 

disposal. As noted previously, DOE 

assesses the likelihood that the WIPP 

will meet these release limits through a 

performance assessment. 

The disposal regulations provide that 

there must be a reasonable expectation 

that cumulative releases of 

radionuclides from the WIPP and into 

the environment over 10,000 years will 

not exceed specified quantities of these 

radionuclides (40 CFR 191.13 and 

appendix A). A reasonable expectation 

standard is used because of the long 

time period involved and because the 

nature of the events and processes at 

radioactive waste disposal facilities lead 

to uncertainties about future 

performance. DOE’s probabilistic 

performance assessments calculate the 

likelihood of an environmental 

radionuclide release by accounting for 

future uncertainties through the use of 

alternative scenarios and variations in 

values of uncertain parameters via 

probability distributions. 

The containment requirements in 40 

CFR 191.13 are expressed in terms of 

‘‘normalized releases.’’ At the WIPP, the 

specific release limits are based on the 

estimated amount of waste in the 

repository at the time of closure, and the 

projected releases are ‘‘normalized’’ 

against these limits (§ 194.31). 

Normalized releases are expressed as 

‘‘EPA units.’’ 

DOE must demonstrate, in each CRA, 

that the total average of combined 

releases is below two compliance 

criteria at a higher probability of 

occurrence and a lower probability of 

occurrence. These probability 

compliance points are as follows: 

1. For a probability of 0.1 (a 1 in 10 

chance) in 10,000 years, cumulative 

releases to the accessible environment 

will not exceed 1 EPA unit, and 

2. For a probability of 0.001 (a 1 in 

1,000 chance) in 10,000 years, 

cumulative releases to the accessible 

environment will not exceed 10 EPA 

units. 

In the undisturbed case, that is if 

there is no drilling into the repository, 

no releases are expected as the salt will 

isolate the waste very effectively. For 

the disturbed case, DOE evaluates four 

release mechanisms in the WIPP 

performance assessment modeling: 

Cuttings and cavings. These consist of 

waste material that gets brought to the 

surface when a borehole intersects 

waste in a WIPP waste panel. Cuttings 

are waste materials intersected by the 

borehole itself and cavings are waste 

materials that fail around the borehole, 

collapse into it, and are brought to the 

surface. 

Spallings. These are the solid 

materials that fail and are brought to the 

surface under high-pressure conditions 

in the repository. This only occurs when 

the pressure is above 8 megapascals 13

(MPa). 

Direct Brine Releases. These are 

releases of dissolved actinides in brine 

when the pressure in the repository is 

high (i.e., above 8 MPa) and brine 

saturations are above residual saturation 

(i.e., brine is not ‘‘trapped’’ between 

pore spaces) through a borehole that 

intersects a waste panel. The 

contaminated fluid is brought to the 

surface over a period of hours to days. 

Releases to the Culebra. These occur 

when contaminated brine from the 

repository is introduced via a borehole 

to the Culebra Dolomite (a geological 

unit, stratum or layer) and then moves 

to the edge of the accessible 

environment. 

DOE estimates the potential 

cumulative releases from these release 

mechanisms and compares them with 

the specified limits provided in Table 1 

of 40 CFR part 191, appendix A. DOE 

is to provide in the application overall 

mean calculated releases and the upper 

95th confidence limit of that mean. 

B. Status of EPA Identified Areas for 

Improvement From the 2017 

Recertification Decision 

1. Plutonium Oxidation States 

Since the original Compliance 

Certification Application (CCA), WIPP 

Pu solubility calculations have assumed 

a 50/50 split between aqueous Pu(IV) in 

equilibrium with solid Pu(IV) and 

aqueous Pu(III) in equilibrium with 

solid Pu(III). There is growing evidence 

in the published scientific literature that 

suggests the chemical conditions at the 

WIPP will favor Pu(III) over other 

oxidation states. Pu(III) has a higher 

solubility than Pu(IV), and the 

preference for Pu(III) over Pu(IV) results 

in higher calculated releases under the 

direct brine release scenario. EPA 

flagged this issue in its review of CRA– 

2014 and the Agency now considers the 

case to be stronger for the dominance of 

Pu(III), as documented in EPA’s 

independent literature evaluation and 

modeling study on Pu oxidation states 

at the WIPP 14 that concluded that 

conditions at the repository will 

overwhelmingly support Pu(III) over 

Pu(IV). Pending more robust technical 

justification for its current or an 

alternative approach, DOE should 

assume Pu(III) solids control dissolved 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 26131 

15 DOE Response 6 to EPA CRA19 completeness 

comment CC3–SCR–3, October 26, 2020, Document 

ID. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0534–0017. 

16Status of Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Rock 

Mechanics Research, Sandia National Laboratories, 

May 20, 2020, SAND2020–5269 CTF. 

Pu concentrations in future PA 

calculations. 

2. Geochemistry Database 

In its 2017 recertification decision, 

EPA noted multiple technical issues in 

the geochemistry database that is used 

to calculate actinide solubility, many of 

which were to be addressed in the CRA– 

2019 (e.g., organic ligands, iron, and 

lead). DOE has provided updates to 

address these issues. See Section VI.D.1 

of this document for more details. 

3. Microbial Colloids 

During EPA’s 2017 recertification, the 

Agency noted that DOE’s microbial 

colloids parameter did not sufficiently 

address multiple uncertainties. Both 

EPA and DOE have worked to address 

these uncertainties for CRA–2019. See 

Section VI.C.4 of this document for 

more details. 

4. Creep Closure of Open Areas 

Creep closure of mined openings in 

deeply buried salt deposits is a natural 

process that is certain to occur after 

WIPP operations cease, but the rate of 

closure and the final salt properties are 

uncertain. The exclusion of explicit 

modeling of creep closure processes for 

open areas was accepted by EPA in the 

early WIPP performance models because 

it eased the computational burden and 

this exclusion appeared to result in 

estimates of higher releases by reducing 

the isolation of individual waste panels. 

This leads to conservatism in modeling 

results. However, as a result of the 

abandonment of the south end of the 

repository, more open areas will be 

present with the elimination of panel 

closures in the south end and the 

increased size of the operations and 

experimental areas than postulated in 

the current 10-panel repository design. 

Because the characterization of the salt 

creep closure is still uncertain at WIPP, 

EPA recommended, in connection with 

the prior recertification, that DOE 

improve its understanding of the creep 

processes and develop a more reliable 

model in the PA calculation. DOE is 

investigating the creep closure process 

to better understand it for more explicit 

inclusion in the CRA–2024.15 Because 

DOE is still investigating the creep 

closure process,16 DOE addressed the 

creep closure uncertainties in the CRA– 

2019 by using the interim Abandonment 

of Panel Closures in the South (APCS) 

approach (described in Section VI.C.1). 

C. Changes to the Disposal System 

Identified by DOE for CRA–2019 

In Section 15 of the CRA–2019, DOE 

identified changes to the disposal 

system between CRA–2014 and CRA– 

2019, as well as changes to technical 

information relevant to §§ 194.14 and 

194.15. Noteworthy changes identified 

by DOE since CRA–2014 include the 

following: The decision not to install 

final panel closures in multiple panels, 

the abandonment of Panel 9 in the south 

end of the repository, and the 

development of the APCS approach to 

model those abandoned areas; updated 

borehole drilling rates and plugging 

patterns; a revised probability of 

encountering pressurized brine per EPA 

direction; revised baseline radionuclide 

solubilities; revised colloid parameters; 

and inclusion of brine radiolysis in the 

gas generation model. The addition of 

six metric tons of surplus Pu to the 

inventory (Waste Stream SR-KAC-PuOx) 

led DOE to include gas generation from 

brine radiolysis, as the concentration of 

Pu was not high enough during prior 

recertification applications for gas 

generation to be a concern in terms of 

repository performance. See both 

Sections VI.C.5 and VI.F for more 

discussion. 

Before determining that the CRA– 

2019 was complete, EPA raised 

technical questions with DOE, as 

described below. For each topic, a brief 

summary is provided of how DOE 

addressed the issue in the 2019 

application, followed by EPA’s 

perspective on the change, including 

any follow-up sensitivity studies 

conducted by EPA. However, the 

calculated releases in the CRA–2019 PA 

were higher than those calculated in the 

CRA–2014 PA, in part due to the 

assumptions used in the 2019 PA 

models to account for abandonment of 

the southern end of the repository. 

DOE’s approach was intended to bound 

potential releases, and DOE provided 

separate calculations to demonstrate 

that its approach was conservative, 

tending to estimate higher releases in 

the CRA–2019 calculations. As in the 

EPA recertification decision for the 2014 

application, in this recertification EPA 

identifies future analyses DOE will need 

to conduct in order to address this topic 

in more detail. 

1. Abandonment of Panel Closures and 

Waste Panel 9 

The WIPP repository was closed 

between February 2014 to January 2017 

following an accidental release of 

radionuclides that contaminated the 

south end of the underground repository 

waste area. Access to the contaminated 

areas was limited for an extended 

period of time and routine ground 

control could not be conducted. This 

resulted in unsafe conditions that led to 

a DOE decision to seal off and abandon 

the part of the waste area designated as 

Panel 9, to cancel the planned 

installation of run-of-mine salt panel 

closures in Panels 3, 4, 5 and 6, and to 

identify the need for a replacement for 

Panel 9. DOE addressed the impacts of 

these design changes in the CRA–2019 

PA using the APCS approach. 

The APCS approach incorporated 

conservative assumptions that were 

intended to estimate somewhat higher 

releases than would be expected given 

that no waste will actually be in Panel 

9. DOE proposed this interim approach 

for this CRA because (1) DOE had not 

developed the concept to replace Panel 

9 at the time the calculations needed to 

be started and (2) a long lead time was 

required to develop replacement models 

coupled with developing the new 

design. The primary elements of this 

approach were to treat abandoned Panel 

9 as a surrogate for its replacement (i.e., 

modeling as though waste had actually 

been emplaced in the abandoned panel) 

and to treat the now-empty waste panel 

access drifts as having relatively high 

porosities and permeabilities for the 

10,000-year EPA regulatory period. In 

addition, to help ensure that repository 

releases would not be underestimated 

by this approach, the isolation functions 

of the remaining single panel closures, 

including the important closures 

between Panels 9 and 10, were not 

modeled. 

Upon review, EPA found that the 

assumptions in the APCS approach 

were not physically realistic but did 

compensate for inherent uncertainties in 

modeling the design changes. In 

accepting the APCS approach, EPA also 

evaluated DOE’s parallel model 

(CRA19_CL), which assumed all panel 

access drifts without constructed 

closures would immediately creep close 

and have the very low porosity and 

permeability properties of intact halite. 

DOE’s model CRA19_CL did calculate 

lower repository releases compared to 

DOE’s CRA–2019 PA model, but the 

Agency found that the CRA19_CL model 

did not address the consolidation and 

healing of the disturbed rock zones 

(DRZs) surrounding the empty drifts. 

EPA separately analyzed the effects of 

DRZ healing using the Agency’s CRA19_

COMP model, which modified DOE’s 

model to also treat the DRZs as 

immediately creep closing to the same 

properties of intact halite, consistent 

with the process described previously 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
26132 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

for the empty drifts (see Section VI.E.1 

of this document for more detail). The 

results confirmed that the APCS 

approach calculated higher repository 

releases as compared with empty drifts 

that were assumed to creep close over 

longer periods to the similar low 

porosity and permeability endpoints as 

intact halite. 

Additional discussion can be found in 

the EPA TSD for § 194.23, Review of the 

APCS Approach to Analyzing WIPP 

Repository Performance in the CRA– 

2019 Performance Assessment (Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0534). 

2. Updated Plugging Patterns and 

Borehole Drilling Rates 

Plugging Patterns. As a general matter, 

and unrelated to WIPP-specific 

regulations and requirements, before 

wells are abandoned or permanently 

closed, various state and Federal 

regulations require that the boreholes 

must be plugged and surface equipment 

removed. Releases could occur through 

a borehole that penetrates the waste 

repository after it has been plugged and 

abandoned. The depths and 

stratigraphic horizons of installed plugs 

(plugging pattern) in abandoned 

boreholes impact the migration of fluids 

in and out of the repository, which in 

turn have significant effects on releases 

modeled in the PA. If a borehole has one 

continuous plug, no releases are 

assumed to occur. Up to CRA–2014, 

DOE evaluated plugging patterns in 

boreholes abandoned since 1988 for 

each CRA based on an updated dataset 

of the entire New Mexico portion of the 

Delaware Basin. EPA previously 

accepted this basis for calculating 

plugging pattern probabilities. 

In CRA–2019, DOE changed the 

method for calculating plugging pattern 

probabilities to a narrower one based 

only on the part of the Delaware Basin 

within New Mexico’s Known Potash 

Leasing Area (KPLA). DOE justified this 

change because the WIPP site is within 

the KPLA boundary, and this area could 

therefore be considered to represent an 

appropriate regulatory and geologic 

analog for future plugging practices at 

the WIPP. DOE’s implementation of this 

change in the PA contributed to the 

probability of continuous plug use 

increasing from 4% in the CRA–2014 

PA to 40% in the CRA–2019 PA, based 

on the field data collected by DOE. This 

significantly reduced calculated 

releases. Because this was a major 

change, EPA paid special attention to 

the basis for the change. 

EPA found that, in the KPLA, 

boreholes are required to be abandoned 

with continuous plugs if they are 

located within known potash reserves, 

but waivers from this requirement are 

allowed for boreholes in potash 

‘‘barren’’ areas, and waivers to the 

requirement for continuous plugs are 

frequently granted in New Mexico. 

Based on DOE’s borehole database, 

approximately 60% of the boreholes 

plugged in the KPLA since 1988 did not 

have continuous plugs installed, 

presumably due to waivers. In preparing 

the 1996 CCA, DOE found that the 

repository is in a ‘‘barren’’ area without 

economical potash reserves, meaning it 

would qualify for a waiver. The DOE’s 

CRA–2019 approach does not 

specifically consider that current law 

provides for this waiver possibility. 

Based on current regulations and 

practices, EPA expects that a borehole 

through the WIPP repository would 

likely be granted a waiver from the 

continuous plug requirement because it 

is in a barren area. Therefore, future 

boreholes through the repository most 

likely would not be abandoned with a 

continuous plug and the probability of 

such a borehole being abandoned with 

a continuous plug would be much less 

than the 40% used in the CRA–2019 PA. 

In addition, the new approach ignores a 

number of abandoned boreholes directly 

southeast of WIPP but just outside the 

KPLA that may otherwise be relevant 

geological analogs. 

EPA concludes that the new approach 

used by DOE to calculate plugging 

pattern probabilities is not adequately 

supported by regulatory considerations 

or actual practice (e.g., exemptions to 

the solid plugging requirement) in the 

KPLA, and it further fails to consider 

representative, relevant boreholes in the 

vicinity of WIPP. EPA conducted a 

sensitivity PA study with the plugging 

pattern probabilities calculated with the 

original methodology and the release 

results show that WIPP still complies 

(see Section VI.E.2 of this document). 

EPA expects DOE to use the previously 

approved methodology for calculating 

plugging pattern probabilities in future 

PAs, or otherwise propose alternative 

methods that may be approved by EPA 

prior to that time. 

Drilling Rates. The average areal 

density (i.e., average over an area) of 

boreholes drilled in the Delaware Basin 

in Texas and New Mexico over the past 

100 years is called the ‘‘drilling rate’’ in 

the PA. This rate is used to estimate the 

number of deep boreholes that might 

intersect WIPP waste during the 10,000- 

year post-closure period. Deep borehole 

intrusion into the repository is the only 

mechanism for significant releases from 

the repository, so a greater number of 

boreholes would increase calculated 

releases in the PA. 

When the drilling rate is recalculated 

for each CRA, all boreholes without 

depth information listed at the time are 

categorized by DOE as shallow ‘‘drilling 

or waiting on paperwork.’’ Noting that, 

based on historical trends, the majority 

of boreholes would eventually be 

categorized as deep, EPA evaluated the 

impact of this assumption in DOE’s 

methodology. These boreholes will 

eventually get incorporated into the PA, 

but the Agency found the DOE 

methodology results in additional lag 

time between when drilling actually 

occurs and when DOE incorporates it 

into the deep drilling rate in the PA. 

The Agency requests that DOE reevaluate its methodology to better 

address the lag time between the 

drilling of boreholes and its capture in 

the PA for CRA–2024. 

A more detailed discussion of EPA’s 

review of DOE’s plugging pattern and 

drilling rate frequency calculations is 

presented in the EPA TSD Review of 

Borehole Drilling Rate and Plugging 

Pattern Frequency Calculations in the 

CRA–2019 Performance Assessment 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 

0534). 

3. Radionuclide Solubilities 

The solubilities of actinide elements 

affect actinide mobilization as dissolved 

species, microbial colloids, and humic 

colloids in WIPP brines. The parameters 

used to represent actinide solubilities 

were updated in the CRA–2019 PA. EPA 

reviewed the actinide solubility 

calculations and identified a number of 

issues related to the geochemical 

database and assumptions used to make 

the solubility calculations, resulting in 

an underprediction of calculated 

actinide solubilities (see Section VI.D.2 

of this document). While these issues 

did not result in the WIPP exceeding 

future regulatory release limits, their 

effects on actinide mobilization in WIPP 

brines are of concern to EPA and are 

addressed in detail in Section 7.8 and 

Attachment B of the EPA TSD 

Evaluation of the Compliance 

Recertification Application (CRA–2019) 

Actinide Source Term, Gas Generation, 

Backfill Efficacy, Water Balance, and 

Culebra Dolomite Distribution 

Coefficient Values (Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2019–0534). 

4. Revised Colloid Parameters 

DOE updated microbial colloid 

parameters based on new laboratory 

data and changed intrinsic colloid 

parameters based on a review of existing 

laboratory data since the previous CRA. 

Both sets of changes do not reflect the 

full range of values EPA has seen in 

DOE’s existing data or in the case of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 26133 

microbial colloids, the broader 

literature. Although there is large 

variability in proportionality constants 

reported in the scientific literature, the 

variability was not reflected in the 

CRA–2019 PA microbial colloid 

proportionality constants since DOE 

determined these parameters based on a 

single organism. EPA’s review also 

found that the microbial colloid 

enhancement parameters used in the 

CCA provided more defensible and 

bounding maximum microbial colloid 

concentrations. Further, EPA found that 

the parameters for Americium (Am) (III) 

and Thorium (Th) (IV) intrinsic colloids 

did not adequately represent the 

available laboratory data. While these 

issues will not lead to the WIPP being 

out of compliance, they are less 

technically defensible based on the 

available information. For future PAs, 

unless DOE proposes an acceptable 

alternative, DOE should use microbial 

colloid proportionality constants that 

adequately address the variability in the 

literature, CCA-based microbial colloid 

maximum values, and revised Am(III) 

and Th(IV) intrinsic colloid parameters 

that bound laboratory data. Additional 

discussion of colloid parameters in the 

CRA–2019 PA can be found in Section 

8.3 of the EPA TSD Evaluation of the 

Compliance Recertification Application 

(CRA–2019) Actinide Source Term, Gas 

Generation, Backfill Efficacy, Water 

Balance, and Culebra Dolomite 

Distribution Coefficient Values (Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0534). 

5. Inclusion of Brine Radiolysis in the 

Gas Generation Model 

Gas generation from radiolysis of 

brine in the WIPP repository results 

primarily from the decay of Am and Pu 

isotopes. Gas generation is important to 

repository performance because 

elevated gas pressure is a driver of the 

primary release pathways, except for the 

cuttings and cavings release pathways. 

An increased mass of Pu projected for 

disposal in the CRA–2019 waste 

inventory (Waste Stream SR–KAC– 

PuOx), as well as a decreased 

contribution of microbial gas generation 

to repository gas pressures, prompted 

DOE to reevaluate the significance of 

radiolysis to repository performance. 

Brine radiolysis by Pu in saturated 

waste was added to the gas generation 

process model in response to that 

evaluation and EPA found it to be 

incorporated appropriately for CRA– 

2019. However, with the increased 

importance of Pu in the waste 

inventory, EPA believes that DOE 

should continue to refine this set of 

parameters for the next PA. Additional 

discussion of the implementation of 

radiolytic gas generation and brine 

consumption in the CRA–2019 PA can 

be found in Section 3.6 of the EPA TSD 

Evaluation of the Compliance 

Recertification Application (CRA–2019) 

Actinide Source Term, Gas Generation, 

Backfill Efficacy, Water Balance, and 

Culebra Dolomite Distribution 

Coefficient Values (Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2019–0534). 

D. Other Issues Identified by EPA 

During Review 

EPA identified several topics where 

the Agency believes new information 

can be incorporated into future CRAs to 

improve defensibility of the calculated 

PA results. These topics relate to the 

chemical conditions within the 

repository and are important in 

determining the potential for releases of 

radionuclides from the disposal system. 

Although these are important concerns 

that should be addressed in the future 

by DOE, for its decision on this CRA, 

EPA was nonetheless able to adequately 

evaluate the WIPP’s continued 

compliance with the final disposal 

regulations and make a sound 

recertification determination. The 

following subsections briefly describe 

each of these topics, and more detail is 

provided in the EPA TSD Evaluation of 

the Compliance Recertification 

Application (CRA–2019) Actinide 

Source Term, Gas Generation, Backfill 

Efficacy, Water Balance, and Culebra 

Dolomite Distribution Coefficient Values 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 

0534). 

1. Geochemistry Database 

The Agency has identified errors in 

the geochemical database used to 

perform actinide solubility calculations 

for the PA, including errors in DOE’s 

selection of organic ligand stability 

constants and the inclusion of lead 

solubility and aqueous speciation data. 

These errors result in lower predicted 

releases, especially for the +III actinides. 

EPA investigated the impacts of 

database issues in a sensitivity study 

(see Section VI.E of this document for 

more detail). 

2. Initial Assumptions for Solubility 

Calculations 

DOE actinide solubility calculations 

assumed calcite in brine would 

precipitate to saturation even though 

calcite oversaturation (i.e., nonprecipitation) is common in low 

temperature aqueous systems. Although 

this assumption did not significantly 

affect releases, the assumption of calcite 

precipitation also caused significant 

cement precipitation, consuming up to 

83% of water in ERDA–6 brine. These 

results are unrepresentative of the WIPP 

system, were not reflected in the rest of 

the PA, and have important 

implications towards repository water 

balance, the availability of 

radionuclides for transport, the 

effectiveness of the magnesium oxide 

barrier used to control carbon dioxide 

and pH, and on the physical properties 

of room closure. This is further 

discussed in Section 7.8 of the EPA TSD 

Evaluation of the Compliance 

Recertification Application (CRA–2019) 

Actinide Source Term, Gas Generation, 

Backfill Efficacy, Water Balance, and 

Culebra Dolomite Distribution 

Coefficient Values (Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2019–0534). 

3. Actinide Solubility Uncertainty 

DOE represents uncertainty in 

actinide solubility by sampling from a 

distribution that compares modeled 

solubility to experimental data from 

multiple reports and peer-reviewed 

studies. For CRA–2019, DOE used a 

modified distribution from CRA–2014 

which did not include any new studies 

since the previous recertification. DOE 

provided an updated distribution 

following discussions with DOE during 

EPA’s completeness determination 

process in which the Agency asked the 

Department to include new data from 

publicly available literature (e.g., 

journal articles, government reports) 

since CRA–2014. EPA’s evaluation of 

DOE’s response concluded that the 

update skewed solubility calculations 

towards an overly conservative and 

unrepresentative increase and that 

DOE’s use of the original modified 

CRA–2014 distribution was sufficient 

for CRA–2019, even without more 

recent data. Prior to the next CRA, EPA 

recommends that DOE perform an 

evaluation of the relative advantages 

and disadvantages of other potential 

approaches for addressing +III and +IV 

actinide solubility uncertainties to 

improve confidence in the current 

approach. This issue and 

recommendation are discussed in more 

detail in Section 7.8 of the EPA TSD 

Evaluation of the Compliance 

Recertification Application (CRA–2019) 

Actinide Source Term, Gas Generation, 

Backfill Efficacy, Water Balance, and 

Culebra Dolomite Distribution 

Coefficient Values (Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2019–0534). 

E. EPA Sensitivity Studies 

In connection with the prior CRA, 

EPA identified issues with model 

parameters and approaches used by 

DOE and requested that DOE conduct 

additional calculations so the EPA 

could better understand how alternative 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
26134 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

17Zeitler, T.R., J. Bethune, S. Brunell, B. Day, D. 

Kicker, J. Long, and R. Sarathi. 2019. Summary 

Report for the 2019 Compliance Recertification 

Application Performance Assessment (CRA–2019 

PA). 2019. Carlsbad, NM: Sandia National 

Laboratories. ERMS 571376. 

18 Domski, P.S., 2021. EPA Requested Changes to 

the CRA–2019 DPA Thermodynamic Database and 

Actinide Solubility Model. December 9, 2021. 

Sandia National Laboratory. ERMS 576365. 

parameter values and approaches would 

affect repository performance. These 

calculations were treated as sensitivity 

studies. To support the EPA assessment 

of the CRA–2019, EPA conducted 

modeling calculations to determine the 

sensitivity of releases to the previously 

noted issues identified during its 

review. In combination with other 

information, the sensitivity studies 

aided EPA in determining whether the 

WIPP would continue to comply with 

the radioactive waste disposal 

regulations at 40 CFR part 191 and the 

compliance criteria at 40 CFR part 194. 

Based on these sensitivity studies, EPA 

concludes that WIPP continues to 

comply with EPA’s radioactive waste 

disposal regulatory release limits. 

The results from the EPA sensitivity 

studies are expressed as changes in 

mean total repository releases in EPA 

units for comparison with DOE’s CRA– 

2019 results. For reference, the EPA 

release limits are 1.0 EPA units at the 

upper probability compliance point of a 

0.1 probability of the release and 10.0 

EPA units at the lower probability 

compliance point of a 0.001 probability 

of the release. 

EPA’s sensitivity studies examined 

the technical issues in the CRA–2019 

PA that potentially had greater impacts 

on repository releases. The Agency’s 

modifications to the selected parameters 

increased calculated releases. However, 

the total mean releases and the upper 

95% confidence limit on those means 

remained below EPA’s WIPP regulatory 

release limits. The major issues 

identified in EPA’s review primarily 

influence the importance of the direct 

brine release pathway and how the PA 

simulates those releases. EPA found that 

direct brine releases are strongly 

influenced by the degree of waste panel 

isolation. By treating the now-empty 

waste panel access drifts in the south 

end of the repository as retaining high 

permeability and porosity for the 

10,000-year EPA regulatory period and 

discounting most of the isolation 

capabilities of the constructed panel 

seals that remained, the DOE’s APCS 

methodology, described in Section 

VI.C.1 of this document, did not 

simulate the isolation of waste panels 

that is likely to exist. As a result, DOE’s 

use of the APCS methodology in this 

CRA provided a conservative starting 

point for evaluating the sensitivity of 

releases to EPA concerns; that is, the 

APCS approach calculates higher 

releases than would be expected to 

occur. When the previously discussed 

non-conservative borehole plugging, 

chemistry, and microbial assumptions 

in the CRA were removed in EPA’s 

sensitivity studies, the conservatisms of 

the APCS approach remained. Because 

of this, EPA believes that the sensitivity 

study results were influenced by the 

conservatism of the APCS approach and 

those results also conservatively 

estimated repository releases. EPA’s 

CRA19_COMP analysis demonstrated 

that DOE’s use of the APCS 

methodology in the CRA–2019 PA 

resulted in greater repository releases 

compared to modeling approaches that 

included parameters that assumed less 

porous and permeable access drifts due 

to creep closure. EPA’s CRA19_COMB 

analysis subsequently demonstrated that 

when the cumulative effects of the 

Agency’s parameter changes were added 

to DOE’s CRA–2019 PA releases, total 

releases remained below regulatory 

limits. 

In the past, DOE has used the 

previous CRA PA as the point of 

comparison with the current PA. 

However, given the issues identified by 

EPA for this PA, DOE should not use 

DOE’s CRA–2019 assessment as a new 

baseline for WIPP performance without 

appropriate adjustments that address 

EPA’s recertification review comments. 

EPA will work with DOE, as needed, to 

develop an appropriate model to use for 

comparisons with future PA 

calculations. 

Summaries of each of the sensitivity 

studies are provided in the following 

subsections. More detailed analyses of 

these studies can be found in Section 

4.0 of the EPA TSD Overview of EPA 

Review of U.S. Department of Energy 

2019 WIPP Compliance Recertification 

Application Performance Assessment 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 

0534). 

1. Sensitivity to Creep Closure of Empty 

Rooms (CRA19_COMP Analysis) 

EPA prepared the CRA19_COMP 

model to study the sensitivity of 

repository releases to access drift 

closure and disturbed rock zone (DRZ) 

healing due to salt creep of empty areas 

in the WIPP repository. This model 

supplemented DOE’s CRA19_CL 

model 17 by treating the DRZ as 

immediately creep closing to the same 

properties of intact halite as the empty 

rooms. The results demonstrate that the 

CRA–2019 PA model using the APCS 

approach (see Section VI.C.1 of this 

document) calculated greater repository 

releases than if the empty repository 

rooms had been treated as fully creep 

closed to intact halite properties. 

2. Sensitivity to Borehole Plugging 

Frequency (PLG_PROB Analysis) 

The sensitivity of calculated 

repository releases to DOE’s new 

approach to plugging pattern frequency 

was evaluated by EPA through a 

comparison of mean total releases 

calculated by DOE in the CRA–2019 PA, 

which used DOE’s new approach, with 

mean total releases that would have 

been calculated in the CRA–2019 PA if 

the historic approach previously 

approved by EPA had been used. The 

results showed that DOE’s new 

approach underestimated repository 

releases compared to the previous 

approach. Mean total releases in the 

PLG_PROB analysis increased from 

0.06853 to 0.07924 EPA units at EPA’s 

upper probability compliance point and 

from 0.7505 to 0.8954 EPA units at 

EPA’s lower probability compliance 

point. The results of this sensitivity 

study showed that DOE’s new approach 

materially affected calculated repository 

releases, though they remained within 

the regulatory release limits. 

3. Sensitivity to Actinide Solubility 

(GCHM_S0 Analysis) 

The GCHM_S0 calculations inform 

EPA how sensitive releases are to 

changes in baseline actinide solubility 

values. Recalculated baseline solubility 

values incorporated stability constants 

from an EPA-updated geochemical 

database and used changes in initial 

modeling assumptions about calcite 

precipitation (see Sections VI.D.1 and 

VI.D.2 of this document). These EPArecalculated solubilities were verified 

by DOE in a separate calculation.18 The 

resultant solubilities increased both +III 

and +IV actinide releases. The incorrect 

values in the database for the Am-, Mg- 

, and Ca-EDTA constants caused the 

biggest impact on actinide solubility, 

underestimating dissolved 

concentrations by approximately an 

order of magnitude for the +III actinides. 

When recalculated solubilities were 

incorporated into the PA, the results 

showed increases in direct brine 

releases and total releases. Mean total 

releases in the GCHM_S0 analysis 

increased from 0.06853 to 0.07788 EPA 

units at the EPA’s upper probability 

compliance point and from 0.7505 to 

1.186 EPA units at EPA’s lower 

probability compliance point. EPA 

expects DOE to update the database and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 26135 

19 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2018. 

Annual Transuranic Waste Inventory Report—2018. 

Revision 0. U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad 

Field Office, DOE/TRU–18–3425. 

20 Van Soest, G.D. 2018. Performance Assessment 

Inventory Report—2018. Los Alamos National 

Laboratory Carlsbad Operations INV–PA–18, 

Revision 0, December 12, 2018. 

its assumptions regarding calcite 

precipitation for future PAs. 

4. Sensitivity to Actinide Solubility and 

Colloid Parameters (GCHM_S2 

Analysis) 

EPA used the GCHM_S2 analysis to 

evaluate the impact of combining the 

increase in baseline +III actinide 

solubility in the GCHM_S0 analysis 

with updated microbial colloid 

parameters that are proportional to 

actinide solubility (see Section VI.C.4 of 

this document). This study also assessed 

the impact of increased intrinsic colloid 

values. The results showed that 

updating the colloid values noticeably 

increased calculated releases. Mean 

total releases in the GCHM_S2 analysis 

increased from 0.06853 to 0.09497 EPA 

units at EPA’s upper probability 

compliance point and from 0.7505 to 

1.238 EPA units at EPA’s lower 

probability compliance point. 

5. Sensitivity to Actinide Solubility, 

Colloid Parameters, and Actinide 

Oxidation State (GCHM_S3 Analysis) 

GCHM_S3 is a CRA–2019 PA-based, 

comprehensive geochemistry sensitivity 

analysis that combines the impacts of a 

revised baseline actinide solubility, 

revised intrinsic and microbial colloid 

parameters, and revised actinide 

oxidation state parameters to include 

only Pu(III), Np(IV), and U(IV) oxidation 

states in all realizations. The combined 

chemistry parameter changes resulted in 

increased direct brine releases at all 

probabilities and increased total releases 

at low probabilities. The combined 

results of these changes showed that the 

chemical conditions assumed by DOE in 

the CRA–2019 PA led to lower projected 

repository releases than GCHM_S3. 

Mean total releases in the GCHM_S3 

analysis increased from 0.06853 to 

0.1165 EPA units at EPA’s upper 

probability compliance point and from 

0.7505 to 1.516 EPA units at EPA’s 

lower probability compliance point. 

6. Sensitivity to Combined Geotechnical 

and Geochemical Parameter Changes 

(CRA19_COMB Analysis) 

While EPA conducted individual 

sensitivity analyses that looked at 

specific changes, the Agency also 

conducted a sensitivity study that 

encompassed all changes that EPA 

determined appropriate to incorporate 

into a summary PA designated as 

CRA19_COMB. This sensitivity study 

was based on the CRA–2019 PA but 

with the following parameter changes: 

• Used the previously established 

methodology for calculating plugging 

pattern probabilities (see Section VI.C.2 

of this document); 

• Used revised actinide solubility 

parameters (see Section VI.C.3 of this 

document); 

• Used revised colloid parameters 

(see Section VI.C.4 of this document); 

• Used revised actinide oxidation 

state parameters (see Section VI.B.1 of 

this document). 

The cumulative effects of the changes 

were to increase calculated total mean 

repository releases from 0.06853 to 

0.1669 EPA units at EPA’s upper 

probability compliance point and from 

0.7505 to 1.766 EPA units at EPA’s 

lower probability compliance point. 

F. Waste Characterization 

Section 194.24 generally requires DOE 

to identify, quantify and track the 

important chemical, radiological and 

physical components of the waste 

destined for disposal at the WIPP. DOE 

collects data from generator sites and 

compiles the waste inventory on an 

annual basis. DOE developed the waste 

inventory used in the PA using data 

provided in ATWIR (DOE 2018) 19 and 

PAIR 2018 (Van Soest 2018b).20 The 

Comprehensive Inventory Database is 

used to store and manage all WIPP 

inventory data and is updated annually 

using data from the Waste Data System 

for emplaced WIPP waste, and data from 

the waste generator sites for anticipated 

waste. 

The Agency evaluated DOE’s 

inventory update process and 

documentation. EPA also conducted 

quality assurance (QA) and waste 

characterization inspections, 

observations and technical reviews 

between October 2012 and May 2017 to 

evaluate compliance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 194.8 and 40 

CFR 194.24. The Agency finds that DOE 

has a comprehensive array of QA 

procedures in place to ensure the 

accuracy of data published in the 

annual inventory reports. During EPA 

site visits, a number of records were 

reviewed and were found to be 

consistent with the relevant QA 

procedures. Based on DOE’s inventory 

updating process, inventory reporting is 

being conducted in a manner that 

produces an inventory suitable for use 

in the PA. 

The Agency examined the changes in 

the WIPP inventory since CRA–2014 

and compared the CRA–2014 PA and 

CRA–2019 PA inventories, where 

appropriate. Changes in the inventory 

between the CRA–2014 PA and CRA– 

2019 PA have been adequately 

explained based on changes in waste 

stream information. The most 

significant changes include the addition 

of Waste Stream SR–KAC–PuOx, which 

increased the quantity of radioactivity 

(Pu-239 primarily), and projected waste 

packaging changes, mainly due to 

increased remote handled (RH) waste 

shielded containers, that have increased 

the amount of packaging steel and lead 

in the inventory. 

The Agency notes that the SR–KAC– 

PuOx waste stream is composed of Pu 

oxides that have been downblended 

using a proprietary adulterant. CRA– 

2019 does not explicitly discuss the 

adulterant, but it is included in the 

calculations as part of the SR–KAC– 

PuOx waste stream. The downblended 

Pu waste form will contain, in addition 

to the Pu, iron-base metal alloys, 

inorganic materials, other non-ferrous 

metals, and plastics. EPA staff have 

been able to review a preliminary DOE 

report on the waste stream’s impacts on 

repository compliance and conclude 

that the adulterant should not affect the 

repository conditions in any unique way 

for EPA’s CRA–2019 recertification 

decision. Specifically, interactions of 

this waste stream with the repository 

will be heavily dominated by its high 

iron content, which is not expected to 

alter the expected repository chemical 

conditions represented in the PA. 

The use of all inventory-related 

parameters in the PA was reviewed by 

EPA. All inventory-related parameters 

were correctly implemented in the PA. 

On the basis of its review, EPA 

concludes that DOE has appropriate QA 

procedures in place to accurately 

document the WIPP waste inventory on 

an annual basis. EPA further concludes 

that the PAIR 2018 inventory is 

appropriate for use in the CRA–2019 PA 

calculations. 

EPA accepts this updated inventory, 

which is relatively similar to the one 

used in CRA–2014. These topics are 

discussed in more detail in TSD for 

§ 194.24: Review of The Baseline 

Inventory Used in the Compliance 

Recertification Application (CRA–2019) 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019– 

0534). 

G. Peer Review 

Section 194.27 requires DOE to 

conduct peer review evaluations, when 

warranted, of conceptual models, waste 

characterization analyses, and a 

comparative study of engineered 

barriers. The required peer reviews must 

be performed in accordance with the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
26136 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

NUREG–1297, ‘‘Peer Review for HighLevel Nuclear Waste Repositories,’’ 

which establishes guidelines for the 

conduct of a peer review exercise. DOE 

conducted no peer reviews for inclusion 

in CRA–2019. 

H. Individual and Groundwater 

Protection Requirements 

Sections 194.51 through 194.55 

implement the individual protection 

requirements of 40 CFR 191.15 and the 

groundwater protection requirements of 

subpart C of 40 CFR part 191. 

Assessment of the likelihood that the 

WIPP will meet the individual dose 

limits and radionuclide concentration 

limits for groundwater is conducted 

through a process known as compliance 

assessment. Compliance assessment 

uses methods similar to those of 

performance assessment (for the 

containment requirements in 40 CFR 

191.13 and appendix A) and can be 

considered a ‘‘subset’’ of performance 

assessment since it considers only 

natural (undisturbed) conditions and 

past or near-future human activities 

(such as existing boreholes) but does not 

include the long-term future human 

activities that are addressed in 

performance assessment. 

In this CRA, DOE updated the data for 

groundwater quantity determination to 

define an underground source of 

drinking water for purposes of 

calculating groundwater concentrations 

and doses. DOE used 2016 U.S. Bureau 

of Census data to update the average 

number of persons per household to 

2.51 and used 2013 data from the New 

Mexico Office of the State Engineer to 

update the average household water 

consumption to 272 gallons per person 

per day. DOE concluded that the subcriterion of 5 gallons per minute rate of 

production from a well continued to 

accurately define an underground 

source of drinking water. 

The updates made by DOE in CRA– 

2019 did not significantly impact the 

conclusions regarding the groundwater 

standard in the 1996 CCA. DOE did not 

change the criteria for making 

underground source of drinking water 

determinations. For the CRA–2019 

evaluation, the maximum potential dose 

remained below the CCA calculated 

value, and DOE concluded that 

continued compliance with the 

individual protection standard is 

maintained. EPA found that DOE is in 

continued compliance with 40 CFR 

194.51 through 194.55 requirements. 

VII. What is EPA’s role in future WIPP 

activities? 

EPA’s regulatory role at the WIPP 

does not end with this recertification 

decision. The Agency’s future WIPP 

activities include recertifications every 

five years (the next scheduled to be 

submitted by DOE in March 2024), 

review of DOE reports on conditions 

and activities at the WIPP, assessment of 

waste characterization, quality 

assurance programs at waste generator 

sites, announced and unannounced 

inspections of the WIPP and other 

facilities and, if necessary, modification, 

revocation or suspension of the 

certification. 

Although not required by the 

Administrative Procedure Act, the WIPP 

LWA, or the WIPP Compliance Criteria, 

the EPA intends to continue to make all 

inspection or audit reports and annual 

reports and other significant documents 

on conditions and activities at the 

WIPP, as well as formal 

communications between the two 

agencies available in the public docket. 

Jonathan Edwards, 

Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09209 Filed 5–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R09–RCRA–2021–0628; FRL–FRL– 

9760–02–R9] 

Hawaii: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action on the authorization of Hawaii’s 

changes to its hazardous waste program 

under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA). These changes 

correspond to certain Federal rules 

promulgated between July 1, 2016, and 

June 30, 2020, (also known as RCRA 

Clusters XXV to XXVIII) and for 

authorization of state-initiated changes 

that are equivalent to or more stringent 

than the Federal program. We have 

determined that these changes satisfy all 

requirements needed for final 

authorization. 

DATES: This authorization is effective on 

July 5, 2022 without further notice, 

unless the EPA receives adverse 

comment by June 2, 2022. If the EPA 

receives adverse comment, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the authorization will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy. You may also view 

Hawaii’s application by contacting the 

Hawaii Department of Health Solid and 

Hazardous Waste Branch at (808) 586– 

4226, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m. 

Instructions: Submit your comments 

to EPA, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–R09–RCRA–2021–0628, at https:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). The https:// 

www.regulations.gov website is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means 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 EPA without going through https://

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, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dani 

Allen-Williams, AllenWilliams.dani@

epa.gov, 415–972–3800. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1