HF Sinclair Tulsa Refining LLC - West Refinery (Board decision, August 18, 2025)

Plain-English summary

Fred F. Storer petitioned the Environmental Appeals Board for review of a RCRA Corrective Action and Post-Closure permit issued to HF Sinclair Tulsa Refining LLC for its West Refinery in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality issued the permit under Oklahoma's authorized hazardous-waste program. The EAB determined that the permit was state-issued rather than EPA-issued, so it was appealable to Oklahoma rather than to the EAB. The Board dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: RCRA § 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. § 6929(b), and 40 C.F.R. § 272.1851
• Outcome: The petition was dismissed for lack of EAB jurisdiction.
• Key point: The EAB does not review state-issued RCRA permits that fall under an authorized state program.

Full text (EPA EAB public release)

ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.

                                             )
                                             )

In re HF Sinclair Tulsa Refining LLC - RCRA Appeal No. 25-01
)
West Refinery )
)
RCRA Permit No. 058078775-PC
)
)

                            ORDER DISMISSING PETITION



    On August 11, 2025, Fred F. Storer petitioned the Environmental Appeals Board for

review of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) Corrective Action and Post-

Closure permit issued to HF Sinclair Tulsa Refining LLC for its West Refinery located in

Tulsa, Oklahoma. According to the petition, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental

Quality (“DEQ”) issued the RCRA permit on July 16, 2025, and the permit has an effective

date of effective August 15, 2025. 1 As explained further below, the Board is dismissing the

petition for lack of jurisdiction.

    As stated in previous orders, the Board is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction. The Board’s

authority is limited by the statutes, regulations, and Administrator’s delegations that authorize

and govern the Board’s authority. See In re Tewa Women United, Dr. Maureen Merritt, and

    1
      Petitioner did not include a copy of the permit with the filing and the Board has been

unable to locate the final permit identified on the Oklahoma DEQ website. Thus, our
jurisdictional determination is based on the face of the petition as filed.
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, CAA Appeal No. 15-03, at 2 (EAB May 15, 2015)

(Order Dismissing Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction); In re Stericycle Inc., CAA Appeal No. 13-

01, at 4-5 (EAB Nov. 14, 2013) (Order Dismissing Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction); In re DPL

Energy Montpelier Elec. Generating Station, 9 E.A.D. 695, 698-99 (EAB 2001). Where the

Board lacks jurisdiction, it dismisses the appeal.

   In this case, the State of Oklahoma is authorized under RCRA § 3006(b), 42 U.S.C.

§ 6929(b), to operate its own hazardous waste management program in lieu of the federal

program, except for certain activities for which EPA retains concurrent authority, such as

undertaking inspections and enforcement actions and issuing orders. 40 C.F.R. § 272.1851

(codifying EPA’s authorization of the Oklahoma hazardous waste program); see also

Oklahoma: Incorporation by Reference of Approved State Hazardous Waste Management

Program, 85 Fed. Reg. 6810, 6812 (Feb. 6, 2020). Based on the representations of the

Petitioner, the permit decision at issue in this petition falls under State authority and the permit

being appealed is a state-issued permit, not an EPA-issued permit. Oklahoma DEQ-issued

RCRA permits are appealable only to the state and are not subject to an administrative appeal

to the Environmental Appeals Board. See, e.g., In re BP Oil Co., RCRA Appeal No. 89-13,

at 1-2 (Adm’r July 25, 1989), available at 1989 EPA App. LEXIS 21 (July 25, 1989) (Order

Denying Review); In re Texaco Ref. and Mktg. Inc. and Star Enterprise, RCRA Appeal

No. 89-10, at 1-2 (Adm’r June 27, 1989), available at 1989 EPA App. LEXIS 20 (June 27,

1989) (Order Denying Review); In re Highway 36 Land Dev. Co., 2 E.A.D. 430 (Sept. 2, 1987)

(“[o]nly conditions in the permit issued by [EPA] are appealable to EPA.”). As such, this

petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

                                              -2-

So ordered. 2

                                            ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD

   8/18/2025

Dated: ____ By: ______
Ammie Rosemann-Orr
Environmental Appeals Judge

  2
    The two-member panel deciding this matter is composed of Environmental Appeals

Judges Aaron P. Avila and Ammie Roseman-Orr.

                                      -3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

   I certify that copies of the foregoing Order Dismissing Petition, in the matter of In re

HF Sinclair Tulsa Refining LLC - West Refinery, RCRA Appeal No. 25-01,were sent to the
following persons in the manner indicated:

By Mail and Email:
Fred F. Storer
522 South Boston, Apt. 808
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74003
[email protected]

By Mail:
Brenda McLaury, Vice President & Refinery Manager
Kyle Reedy, Environmental Manager
HF Sinclair Tulsa Refining, LLC
1700 South Union Avenue
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74107

By Email:
Hillary Young, P.E., Chief Engineer
Land Protection Division,
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
[email protected]

Scott Mason, Regional Administrator
James Murdock, Acting Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA Region 6
[email protected]
[email protected]

   8/18/2025

Dated: ____ ______
Nívea R. Berríos-Colón
Senior Counsel