Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39975 

The conclusions of Minnesota’s 

analysis are consistent with EPA’s 

expanded review of its January 23, 2017 

submittal. All areas that Minnesota 

sources potentially contribute to attain 

and maintain the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, and as demonstrated in its 

submittal, Minnesota will not contribute 

to projected nonattainment or 

maintenance issues at any sites in 2021. 

Minnesota’s analysis shows that through 

permanent and enforceable measures 

currently contained in its SIP, and other 

emissions reductions occurring in 

Minnesota and in other states, 

monitored PM2.5 air quality in all 

identified areas that Minnesota sources 

may impact will continue to improve, 

and that no further measures are 

necessary to satisfy Minnesota’s 

responsibilities under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, EPA is 

proposing that prongs one and two of 

the interstate pollution transport 

element of Minnesota’s infrastructure 

SIP are approvable. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve a portion 

of Minnesota’s January 23, 2017 

submittal certifying that the current 

Minnesota SIP is sufficient to meet the 

required infrastructure requirements 

under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 

specifically prongs one and two, as set 

forth above. EPA is requesting 

comments on the proposed approval. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 CAA. 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); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866. 

• 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 

this rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards; 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 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 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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 30, 2018. 

Cathy Stepp, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17362 Filed 8–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R04–RCRA–2018–0255; FRL– 9981– 

48—Region 4] 

Georgia: Proposed Authorization of 

State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Georgia has applied to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

for final authorization of changes to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA), as amended. EPA has 

reviewed Georgia’s application and has 

determined that these changes satisfy all 

requirements needed to qualify for final 

authorization. Therefore, we are 

proposing to authorize the state’s 

changes. EPA seeks public comment 

prior to taking final action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 12, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

RCRA–2018–0255, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from 

www.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). For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, information about CBI or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thornell Cheeks, Materials and Waste 

Management Branch, RCR Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960; 

telephone number: (404) 562–8479: fax 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
39976 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

number: (404) 562–9964; email address: 

cheeks.thornell@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why are revisions to state programs 

necessary? 

States that have received final 

authorization from EPA under RCRA 

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must 

maintain a hazardous waste program 

that is equivalent to, consistent with, 

and no less stringent than the Federal 

program. As the Federal program 

changes, states must change their 

programs and ask EPA to authorize the 

changes. Changes to state programs may 

be necessary when Federal or state 

statutory or regulatory authority is 

modified or when certain other changes 

occur. Most commonly, states must 

change their programs because of 

changes to EPA’s regulations in 40 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 

260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279. 

New Federal requirements and 

prohibitions imposed by Federal 

regulations that EPA promulgates 

pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) 

take effect in authorized states at the 

same time that they take effect in 

unauthorized states. Thus, EPA will 

implement those requirements and 

prohibitions in Georgia, including the 

issuance of new permits implementing 

those requirements, until the state is 

granted authorization to do so. 

B. What decisions has EPA made in this 

rule? 

On September 22, 2015, September 

12, 2016, and November 7, 2017, 

Georgia submitted program revision 

applications seeking authorization of 

changes to its hazardous waste program 

that correspond to certain Federal rules 

promulgated between July 1, 2005 and 

June 30, 2017 (also known as RCRA 

Clusters XVI, XIX and XXII through 

XXV). EPA concludes that Georgia’s 

applications to revise its authorized 

program meet all of the statutory and 

regulatory requirements established by 

RCRA, as set forth in RCRA section 

3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR 

part 271. Therefore, EPA proposes to 

grant Georgia final authorization to 

operate its hazardous waste program 

with the changes described in its 

authorization applications, and as 

outlined below in Section F of this 

document. 

Georgia has responsibility for 

permitting treatment, storage, and 

disposal facilities within its borders and 

for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA 

program described in its revised 

program applications, subject to the 

limitations of HSWA, as discussed 

above. 

C. What is the effect of this proposed 

authorization decision? 

If Georgia is authorized for the 

changes described in Georgia’s 

authorization applications, these 

changes will become part of the 

authorized state hazardous waste 

program, and therefore will be federally 

enforceable. Georgia will continue to 

have primary enforcement authority and 

responsibility for its state hazardous 

waste program. EPA would retain its 

authorities under RCRA sections 3007, 

3008, 3013, and 7003, including its 

authority to: 

• Conduct inspections, and require 

monitoring, tests, analyses or reports; 

• Enforce RCRA requirements, 

including authorized state program 

requirements, and suspend or revoke 

permits; and 

• Take enforcement actions regardless 

of whether the state has taken its own 

actions. 

This action will not impose additional 

requirements on the regulated 

community because the regulations for 

which EPA is proposing to authorize 

Georgia are already effective, and are 

not changed by this proposed action. 

D. What happens if EPA receives 

comments that oppose this action? 

If EPA receives comments on this 

proposed action, we will address all 

such comments in a later final rule. You 

may not have another opportunity to 

comment. If you want to comment on 

this authorization, you must do so at 

this time. 

E. What has Georgia previously been 

authorized for? 

Georgia initially received final 

authorization on August 7, 1984, 

effective August 21, 1984 (49 FR 31417), 

to implement the RCRA hazardous 

waste management program. EPA 

granted authorization for changes to 

Georgia’s program on the following 

dates: July 7, 1986, effective September 

18, 1986 (51 FR 24549); July 28, 1988, 

effective September 26, 1988 (53 FR 

28383); July 24, 1990, effective 

September 24, 1990 (55 FR 30000); 

February 12, 1991, effective April 15, 

1991 (56 FR 5656); May 11, 1992, 

effective July 10, 1992 (57 FR 20055); 

November 25, 1992, effective January 

25, 1993 (57 FR 55466); February 26, 

1993, effective April 27, 1993 (58 FR 

11539); November 16, 1993, effective 

January 18, 1994 (58 FR 60388); April 

26, 1994, effective June 27, 1994 (59 FR 

21664); May 10, 1995, effective July 10, 

1995 (60 FR 24790); August 30, 1995, 

effective October 30, 1995 (60 FR 

45069); March 7, 1996, effective May 6, 

1996 (61 FR 9108); September, 18, 1998, 

effective November 17, 1998 (63 FR 

49852); October 14, 1999, effective 

December 13, 1999 (64 FR 55629); 

November 28, 2000, effective March 30, 

2001 (66 FR 8090); July 16, 2002, 

effective September 16, 2002 (67 FR 

46600); November 19, 2002, effective 

January 21, 2003 (67 FR 69690); July 18, 

2003, effective September 16, 2003 (68 

FR 42605); January 27, 2005, effective 

April 20, 2005 (70 FR 12973); April 25, 

2006, effective June 26, 2006 (71 FR 

23864); May 2, 2013, effective July 1, 

2013 (78 FR 25579); and January 26, 

2015, effective March 27, 2015 (80 FR 

3888). 

F. What changes are we proposing with 

this action? 

On September 22, 2015, September 

12, 2016, and November 7, 2017, 

Georgia submitted program revision 

applications seeking authorization of 

changes to its hazardous waste 

management program in accordance 

with 40 CFR 271.21. EPA proposes to 

determine, subject to receipt of written 

comments that oppose this action, that 

Georgia’s hazardous waste program 

revisions are equivalent to, consistent 

with, and no less stringent than the 

Federal program, and therefore satisfy 

all of the requirements necessary to 

qualify for final authorization. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

authorize Georgia for the following 

program changes: 

Description of federal 

requirement 

Federal 

Register 

date and page 

Analogous state authority 1

Checklist 213, Burden Reduction Initiative 71 FR 16862; 

4/4/06.

391–3–11–.05(1)–(2); 391–3–11–.07(1)–(2); 

391–3–11–.10(1)–(3); 391–3–11–.11(3)(h) and (7)(d); and 391–3–11–.16. 

Checklist 228, Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications.77 FR 22229; 

4/13/12.

391–3–11–.07(1) and 391–3–11–.10(3). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39977 

Description of federal 

requirement 

Federal 

Register 

date and page 

Analogous state authority 1

Checklist 229, Conditional Exclusions for 

Solvent Contaminated Wipes.

78 FR 46448; 

7/31/13.

391–3–11–.02(1) and 391–3–11–.07(1). 

Checklist 231, Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Rule.79 FR 7518; ...

2/7/14 .............

391–3–11–.02(1); 391–3–11–.08(1); 

91–3–11–.09; and 391–3–11–.10(1)–(2). 

Checklist 232, Revisions to the Export 

Provisions of the Cathode Ray Tube 

Rule.

79 FR 36220; 

6/26/14.

391–3–11–.02(1) and 391–3–11–.07(1). 

Checklists 219 and 233, Revisions to the 

Definition of Solid Waste.

73 FR 64668; 

10/30/08;.

80 FR 1694; 1/ 

13/15.

391–3–11–.02(1); 391–3–11–.05(5); 

391–3–11–.07(1)–(2); and 391–3–11–.11(7)(d). 

Checklist 236, Imports and Exports of 

Hazardous Waste.

81 FR 85696; 

11/28/16.

391–3–11–.02(1); 391–3–11–.07(1); 

391–3–11–.08(1); 391–3–11–.09; 

391–3–11–.10(1)–(3); and 391–3–11–.18. 

Checklist 237, Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule.81 FR 85732; 

11/28/16.

391–3–11–.01(2)(e); 391–3–11–.02(1); 

391–3–11–.07(1); 391–3–11–.08(1); 

391–3–11–.09; 391–3–11–.10(1)–(3); 

391–3–11–.11(1)(a), (5), and (7)(d); 

391–3–11–.16; 391–3–11–.17; and 391–3–11–.18. 

1The Georgia provisions are from the Georgia Rules for Hazardous Waste Management Chapter 391–3–11, effective September 28, 2017. 

G. Where are the revised state rules 

different from the Federal rules? 

EPA considers the following state 

requirements to go beyond the scope of 

the Federal program: 

• Georgia is broader in scope than the 

Federal program in its adoption of 40 

CFR 260.43 (2015) and 40 CFR 

261.4(a)(24) (2015) at Ga. Comp. R. & 

Regs. r. 391–3–11–.07(1). Both of these 

regulations include provisions from the 

2015 Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) 

Rule that have been vacated and 

replaced with the less stringent 

requirements of 40 CFR 260.43 (2008) 

and 40 CFR 261.4(a)(24) and (25) (2008) 

from the 2008 DSW Rule. 

• Georgia is also broader in scope 

than the Federal program by not 

adopting the conditional exclusion for 

carbon dioxide streams in geologic 

sequestration activities (Checklist 230) 

at 40 CFR 261.4(h) (see Ga. Comp. R. & 

Regs. r. 391–3–11–.01(2)). Georgia’s 

continued regulation of these waste 

streams is broader in scope than the 

Federal program. 

Broader-in-scope requirements are not 

part of the authorized program and EPA 

cannot enforce them. Although 

regulated entities must comply with 

these requirements in accordance with 

state law, they are not RCRA 

requirements. 

EPA cannot delegate certain Federal 

requirements associated with the 

Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest 

Rule (Checklist 231), the Imports and 

Exports of Hazardous Waste Rule 

(Checklist 236), and the Revisions to the 

Export Provisions of the Cathode Ray 

Tube Rule (Checklist 232) (40 CFR 

261.39(a)(5) and 261.41). Georgia has 

adopted these requirements and 

appropriately preserved EPA’s authority 

to implement them (see Ga. Comp. R. & 

Regs. R. 391–3–11–.01(2)(c)) 

H. Who handles permits after the final 

authorization takes effect? 

Georgia will issue permits for all the 

provisions for which it is authorized 

and will administer the permits it 

issues. EPA will continue to administer 

any RCRA hazardous waste permits or 

portions of permits which EPA issued 

prior to the effective date of this 

authorization until they are terminated. 

EPA will not issue any new permits or 

new portions of permits for the 

provisions listed in the Table above 

after the effective date of the final 

authorization. EPA will continue to 

implement and issue permits for HSWA 

requirements for which Georgia is not 

yet authorized. 

I. What is codification and will EPA 

codify Georgia’s hazardous waste 

program as proposed in this rule? 

Codification is the process of placing 

the state’s statutes and regulations that 

comprise the state’s authorized 

hazardous waste program into the Code 

of Federal Regulations. EPA does this by 

referencing the authorized state rules in 

40 CFR part 272. EPA is not proposing 

to codify the authorization of Georgia’s 

changes at this time. However, EPA 

reserves the amendment of 40 CFR part 

272, subpart L, for the authorization of 

Georgia’s program changes at a later 

date. 

J. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this action from 

the requirements of Executive Order 

12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011). This action proposes to authorize 

state requirements for the purpose of 

RCRA section 3006 and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. Therefore, this 

action is not subject to review by OMB. 

This action is not an Executive Order 

13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) 

regulatory action because actions such 

as this proposed authorization of 

Georgia’s revised hazardous waste 

program under RCRA are exempted 

under Executive Order 12866. 

Accordingly, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

action proposes to authorize preexisting requirements under state law 

and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538). For the same reason, this action 

also does not significantly or uniquely 

affect the communities of tribal 

governments, as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This action 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 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it merely 

proposes to authorize state requirements 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
39978 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

as part of the state RCRA hazardous 

waste program without altering the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

RCRA. This action also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant and it does not 

make decisions based on environmental 

health or safety risks. This action 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. 

Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA 

grants a state’s application for 

authorization as long as the state meets 

the criteria required by RCRA. It would 

thus be inconsistent with applicable law 

for EPA, when it reviews a state 

authorization application, to require the 

use of any particular voluntary 

consensus standard in place of another 

standard that otherwise satisfies the 

requirements of RCRA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in 

proposing this rule, EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA 

has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by 

examining the takings implications of 

this action in accordance with the 

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings’’ issued under the executive 

order. This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

‘‘Burden’’ is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

Because this action proposes 

authorization of pre-existing state rules 

which are at least equivalent to, and no 

less stringent than existing Federal 

requirements, and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law, and there are no 

anticipated significant adverse human 

health or environmental effects, this 

proposed rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 12898. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste 

transportation, Intergovernmental 

relations, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 

6974(b). 

Dated: July 10, 2018. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17206 Filed 8–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2017–0603; FRL–9981– 

49–OLEM] 

Documentation Supporting the 

Proposal of the Orange County North 

Basin Site; Addendum Availability 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of data 

availability. 

SUMMARY: This notice provides an 

opportunity to comment on additional 

reference documentation for the Orange 

County North Basin site in Orange 

County, California. The site was 

proposed to the National Priorities List 

(NPL) on January 18, 2018. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted 

(postmarked) on or before September 12, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–HQ– 

OLEM–2017–0603, at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The 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. The 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). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

To send a comment via the United 

States Postal Service, use the following 

address: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Superfund Docket Center, 

Mailcode 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. 

Use the Docket Center address below if 

you are using express mail, commercial 

delivery, hand delivery or courier. 

Delivery verification signatures will be 

available only during regular business 

hours: EPA Superfund Docket Center, 

WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20004. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Wendel, phone: (404) 562– 

8799, email: wendel.jennifer@epa.gov, 

Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions 

Branch, Assessment and Remediation 

Division, Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technology 

Innovation (Mail Code 5204P), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The site was proposed to the National 

Priorities List (NPL) on January 18, 2018 

(83 FR 2576). 

Site Geological Information 

One commenter questioned the EPA’s 

use of a reference in the HRS 

documentation record (HRS Reference 

110—the 3DVA Technical 

Memorandum) to support aquifer 

interconnection and contaminant 

migration. EPA notes that the reference 

in question is a model, and analysis, of 

the hydrology and geology in the 

vicinity of the Orange County North 

Basin site. The commenter stated that 

the EPA cites to HRS Reference 110 and 

presents conclusions in the HRS 

documentation record based on the 

model in the reference that used well 

borehole and lithology data that was not 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS