[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14490-14491]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04816]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2022-0785, FRL-10210-02-R2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey;
Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program; Diesel
Opacity Cutpoints

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in 2009 for New
Jersey's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. This
final rule will maintain consistency between the State adopted rules
and the federally approved New Jersey SIP. The EPA proposed to approve
this rule on October 20, 2022, and received no comments.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action identified
by Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2022-0785 at https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reema Loutan, Technology,
Transportation, and Radiation Branch, Environmental Protection Agency,
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-
3760, or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What comments were received in response to the EPA's proposed
action?
III. What action is the EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    The EPA is approving revisions to the New Jersey State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by New Jersey on July 20, 2009,
pertaining to New Jersey's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/
M) program. The SIP revision consists of rules and rule amendments to
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's rules at
N.J.A.C. Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 14, titled ``Control and
Prohibition of Air Pollution from Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicles
(Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program),'' at
sections 14.2, 14.4 and 14.6, and related amendments to the ``Sampling
and Analytical Procedures'' at N.J.A.C. Title 7, Chapter 27B,
Subchapter 4, titled ``Air Test Method 4: Testing Procedures for
Diesel-Powered Motor Vehicles,'' at section 4.5. The 2009 submittal
consisted of rules and rule amendments regarding diesel opacity
cutpoints, visible smoke standards for diesel-powered trucks and buses,
and exemptions for emergency vehicles. A subsequent SIP revision for
the diesel opacity program was approved by EPA and supersedes the July
20, 2009, SIP revision submittal. See 83 FR 21174 (May 9, 2018).
    The specific details of New Jersey's SIP submittal and the
rationale for the EPA's approval action are explained in the EPA's
proposed rulemaking and are not restated in this final action. For this
detailed information, the reader is referred to the EPA's October 20,
2022, proposed rulemaking. See 87 FR 63743 (October 20, 2022).

II. What comments were received in response to the EPA's proposed
action?

    The EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for the October
20, 2022, proposed rule. The comment period ended on November 21, 2022.
EPA received no comments on the proposed action.

III. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is taking final action to approve the rules and rule
amendments to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's
rules submitted in the July 20, 2009, SIP revision for N.J.A.C. 7:27-14
and 7:27B-4, with the acknowledgement that this program is superseded
by the current New Jersey diesel program that was approved by the EPA
on May 9, 2018. See 83 FR 21174.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and it will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 8, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Lisa Garcia,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2023-04816 Filed 3-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72612-72620]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28240]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0684.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     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.

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<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone number for the Air and
Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

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 nano-curies
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Department of Energy National Security and Military
Applications of Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1980, Public Law
96-164, section 213.
    \2\ WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, Pub. L. 102-579, section 2(18), as
amended by the 1996 WIPP LWA Amendments, Pub. L. 104-201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ WIPP 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).
    \6\ WIPP LWA, section 8(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03DE13.010

    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''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Conditions 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 (Sec. Sec.  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 (Sec.
194.43).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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

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 (Sec.  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 (Sec.  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 (Sec.  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
``explosion-isolation 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 run-of-mine (ROM) salt--impure halite that

has been mined in the course of normal repository operations and not
subjected to additional processing or grading. The ROMPCS design
consists of two standard steel ventilation bulkheads with a minimum of
100 feet of run-of-mine (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

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 long-
term 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
Sec.  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 Sec.
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 Sec.  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

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-for-profit 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 Native-American 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

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

0
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.
0
2. Amend Appendix A to Part 194 by revising Condition 1: Sec.
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: Sec.  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 Sec.
194.4(b)(3)(i), and include supporting information required by Sec.
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 Sec.
194.34, Results of performance assessments.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-28240 Filed 12-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 22 (Thursday, February 1, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4585]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01981]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0033]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal
Waterway, Beach Thorofare, Margate City, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Margate Boulevard/Margate Bridge
which carries Margate Boulevard across the New Jersey Intracoastal
Waterway, Beach Thorofare, mile 74.0, at Margate City, NJ. The
deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge maintenance. This deviation
allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES: The deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on Monday, February 26,
2018, through 7 p.m. on Monday, March 12, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0033] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael Thorogood, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-
6557, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Ole Hansen and Sons, Inc., owner and
operator of the Margate Boulevard/Margate Bridge that carries Margate
Boulevard across the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, Beach Thorofare,
mile 74.0, at Margate City, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation
from the current operating schedule to facilitate maintenance of the
structural steel and replacement of the structural steel support column
of the double bascule drawbridge. The bridge has a vertical clearance
of 14 feet above mean high water in the closed position and unlimited
clearance in the open position. The current operating schedule is set
out in 33 CFR 117.5. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be
in the closed-to-navigation position between 7 a.m. on February 26,
2018, through 7 p.m. on March 12, 2018.
    The Beach Thorofare is used by a variety of vessels including
recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the
restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary
deviation.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation
position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for
emergencies and there is no immediate alternative route for vessels
unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast
Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and
Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for
the bridge, so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: January 26, 2018.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-01981 Filed 1-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 204 (Monday, October 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 64213]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23040]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14513-003]

Idaho Irrigation District, New Sweden Irrigation District; Notice
of Waiver Period for Water Quality Certification Application

    On October 11, 2022, Idaho Irrigation District and New Sweden
Irrigation District submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission a copy of their application for a Clean Water Act section
401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with the Idaho Department
of Environmental Quality (Idaho DEQ), in conjunction with the above
captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6, we hereby notify the Idaho
DEQ of the following:
    Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: October 8, 2022.
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: One
year.
    Date Waiver Occurs for Failure to Act: October 8, 2023.
    If the Idaho DEQ fails or refuses to act on the water quality
certification request by the above waiver date, then the agency's
certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: October 18, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-23040 Filed 10-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P