Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Rule, 25502-25508 [2025-10542]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
25502
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
Table of Contents
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R06–RCRA–2022–0653; FRL–10104–
02–R6]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Rule
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is granting a petition
submitted by WRB Refining in Borger,
Texas to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) 7,000
cubic yards of F037 (petroleum refinery
sludge) solids to be removed from their
stormwater storage tanks for a one-time
delisting. This determination is based
on information the petitioner provided
to the Agency, completion of sampling,
and risk assessment using the Delisting
Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) to
determine whether the waste poses a
substantial present or potential hazard
to human health or the environment
when improperly treated, stored,
transported or disposed of, or otherwise
managed. This final rule responds to a
petition submitted by WRB Refinery to
exclude stormwater solids from the
definition of a hazardous waste. If not
delisted, the stormwater solids are listed
as F037 (primary oil/water/solids
separation sludge). After careful
analysis of the petition and evaluation
of comments submitted by the public,
the EPA has concluded that the
petitioned waste is not hazardous waste
when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills.
This exclusion applies to the
stormwater solids generated at WRB
Refinery Borger, Texas facility.
Accordingly, this final rule excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements
of hazardous waste regulations under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of
in a Subtitle D landfill but imposes
testing conditions to ensure that the
future-generated waste remain qualified
for delisting.
DATES: This rule is effective June 17,
2025
SUMMARY:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E’shala Dixon RCRA Permits & Solid
Waste Section (LCR–RP) Land,
Chemical and Redevelopment Division,
EPA Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite
500, Dallas, TX 75270, phone number:
214–665–6592; email address:
dixon.eshala@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Jun 16, 2025
Jkt 265001
I. Overview Information
A. What action is the EPA finalizing?
B. Why is the EPA approving this
delisting?
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
D. How will WRB Refinery manage the
waste if it is delisted?
E. When is the final delisting exclusion
effective?
F. How does this final rule affect States?
II. Background
A. What is a delisting?
B. What regulations allow facilities to
delist a waste?
C. What information must the generator
supply?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data
A. What waste and how much did WRB
Refinery petition the EPA to delist?
B. How did WRB Refinery sample and
analyze the waste data in this petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the
proposed rule?
B. Comments and Responses
C. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What action is the EPA finalizing?
The EPA is finalizing:
1. The decision to grant WRB Refinery
petition to have its stormwater solids
from the stormwater tanks excluded, or
delisted, from the definition of a
hazardous waste, subject to certain
continued verification and monitoring
conditions.
After evaluating the petition, the EPA
proposed a rule on September 28, 2023
(88 FR 66742), to exclude the WRB
Refinery waste from the lists of
hazardous wastes under 40 CFR 261.31
and 261.32. The comments received on
this rulemaking will be addressed as
part of this decision.
B. Why is the EPA approving this
delisting?
WRB Refinery petition requests an
exclusion for F037 waste listing
pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22
and asserts that the petitioned waste
does not meet the criteria for which the
EPA listed F037. WRB Refinery also
believes no additional constituents or
factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous. The EPA’s review of this
petition included consideration of the
original listing criteria, and the
additional factors required by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See
section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f) and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(1) through
(4) (hereinafter, all sectional references
are to 40 CFR, unless otherwise
indicated). In making the initial
delisting determination, the EPA
evaluated the petitioned waste against
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the listing criteria and factors cited in
261.11(a)(2) and (3). Based on this
review, the EPA agrees with the
petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original
listing criteria. If the EPA had found,
based on this review, that the waste
remained hazardous based on the
factors for which the waste was
originally listed, the EPA would have
proposed to deny the petition. The EPA
evaluated the waste with respect to
other factors or criteria to assess
whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe that such additional factors
could cause the waste to be hazardous.
The EPA considered whether the waste
is acutely toxic, the concentration of the
constituents in the waste, their tendency
to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their
persistence in the environment once
released from the waste, plausible and
specific types of management of the
petitioned waste, the quantities of waste
generated and waste variability. The
EPA believes that the petitioned waste
does not meet the listing criteria and
thus should not be a listed waste. The
EPA’s proposed decision to delist waste
from WRB Refinery is based on the
information submitted in support of this
rule, including descriptions of the
wastes and analytical data from the
Borger, Texas facility.
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
This exclusion applies to the waste
described in the petition only if the
requirements described in table 1 of part
261, appendix IX, and the conditions
contained herein are satisfied. The onetime exclusion applies to 7,000 cubic
yards of stormwater solids from the
stormwater tanks.
D. How will WRB Refinery manage the
waste if it is delisted?
Stormwater solids from the
stormwater tanks will be dewatered
onsite and transported to an authorized
solid waste landfill (e.g., RCRA Subtitle
D landfill, commercial/industrial solid
waste landfill, etc.) for disposal.
E. When is the final delisting exclusion
effective?
This rule is effective June 17, 2025.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 amended section
3010 of RCRA allow rules to become
effective in less than six months when
the regulated community does not need
the six-month period to come into
compliance. This is the case here
because this rule reduces, rather than
increases, the existing requirements for
persons generating hazardous wastes.
These reasons also provide a basis for
making this rule effective immediately,
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
25503
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
upon publication, under the
Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
F. How does this final rule affect States?
Because the EPA is issuing the
exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only States subject to
Federal RCRA delisting provisions
would be affected. This would exclude
two categories of States: States having a
dual system that includes Federal RCRA
requirements and their own
requirements, and States who have
received our authorization to make their
own delisting decisions.
Here are the details: We allow States
to impose their own non-RCRA
regulatory requirements that are more
stringent than the EPA’s, under section
3009 of RCRA. These more stringent
requirements may include a provision
that prohibits a federally issued
exclusion from taking effect in the State.
Because a dual system (that is, both
Federal (RCRA) and State (non-RCRA)
programs) may regulate a petitioner’s
waste, we urge petitioners to contact the
State regulatory authority to establish
the status of their wastes under the State
law.
The EPA has also authorized some
States (for example: Louisiana,
Oklahoma and Illinois) to administer a
delisting program in place of a Federal
program to make State delisting
decisions. Therefore, this exclusion
does not apply in those authorized
States. If WRB Refinery transports the
petitioned waste to or manages the
waste in any State with delisting
authorization, WRB Refinery must
obtain delisting authorization from that
State before they can manage the waste
as nonhazardous in the State.
II. Background
that such factors do not warrant
retaining the waste as a hazardous
waste.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data
A. What is a delisting?
A delisting petition is a request from
a generator to the EPA or another agency
with jurisdiction to exclude from the list
of hazardous wastes, wastes the
generator does not consider hazardous
under RCRA.
B. What regulations allow facilities to
delist a waste?
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22,
facilities may petition the EPA to
remove their wastes from hazardous
waste control by excluding them from
the lists of hazardous wastes contained
in 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically,
260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any
provision of 40 CFR parts 260 through
266, 268 and 273. Section 260.22
provides generators the opportunity to
petition the Administrator to exclude a
waste on a ‘‘generator-specific’’ basis
from the hazardous waste lists.
C. What information must the generator
supply?
Petitioners must provide sufficient
information to the EPA to allow the EPA
to determine that the waste to be
excluded does not meet any of the
criteria under which the waste was
listed as hazardous waste. In addition,
the Administrator must determine,
where he/she has a reasonable basis to
believe that factors (including
additional constituents) other than those
for which the waste was listed could
cause the waste to be a hazardous waste,
A. What waste and how much did WRB
Refinery petition the EPA to delist?
In May 2020, WRB Refinery
petitioned the EPA to exclude from the
lists of hazardous wastes contained in
261.31 and 261.32 solids from
stormwater tanks (F037) generated from
its facility located in Borger, Texas. The
waste falls under the classification of
listed waste pursuant to 261.31 and
261.32. Specifically, in its petition,
WRB Refinery requested that the EPA
grant a one-time exclusion for 7,000
cubic yards of solids.
The 40 CFR part 261, appendix VII
hazardous constituents which are the
basis for listing can be found in table 1.
TABLE 1—EPA WASTE CODES FOR
SOLIDS FROM STORMWATER TANKS
FOR LISTING
Waste code
Basis for listing
F037 ...........
Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene,
lead chromium.
B. How did WRB Refinery sample and
analyze the waste data in this petition?
To support its petition, WRB Refinery
submitted:
1. Historical information on waste
generation and management practice;
and
2. Analytical results from nine
samples with one duplicate for TCLP
and Totals concentrations of
compounds of concerns (COC)s.
TABLE 2—ANALYTICAL RESULTS/MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATION SOLIDS FROM STORMWATER TANKS
WRB REFINERY BORGER, TEXAS
Maximum total
concentration
(mg/kg)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Chemical name
Antimony ..........................................................................................................................
Arsenic .............................................................................................................................
Barium ..............................................................................................................................
Beryllium ..........................................................................................................................
Cadmium ..........................................................................................................................
Chromium ........................................................................................................................
Cobalt ...............................................................................................................................
Lead .................................................................................................................................
Nickel ...............................................................................................................................
Selenium ..........................................................................................................................
Silver ................................................................................................................................
Vanadium .........................................................................................................................
Zinc ..................................................................................................................................
Mercury ............................................................................................................................
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ........................................................................................................
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ........................................................................................................
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ........................................................................................................
2,4-Dimethylphenol ..........................................................................................................
2,4-Dinitrophenol ..............................................................................................................
2-Methylphenol ................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Jun 16, 2025
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Maximum TCLP
concentration
(mg/l)
3.24
2.4
84.9
<0.478
<0.478
14.2
74.2
74.2
5
<0.478
<0.478
6.86
76
0.258
<0.065
<0.065
<0.065
<0.065
<0.13
<0.065
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
<0.05
<0.05
1.34
<0.02
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
1.42
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.565
<0.0002
<0.005
0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
17JNR1
Maximum TCLP
delisting level
(mg/L)
0.109
0.00849
36
0.078
0.0911
2.27
..............................
0.702
13.5
3.41
8.61
3.77
197
0.068
9.3
..............................
0.475
11.3
1.16
28.9
25504
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—ANALYTICAL RESULTS/MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATION SOLIDS FROM STORMWATER TANKS
WRB REFINERY BORGER, TEXAS—Continued
Maximum total
concentration
(mg/kg)
Chemical name
3-Methylphenol ................................................................................................................
4-Methylphenol ................................................................................................................
4-Nitrophenol ...................................................................................................................
Acenaphthene ..................................................................................................................
Anthracene .......................................................................................................................
Benz(a)anthracene ..........................................................................................................
Benzo(a)pyrene ...............................................................................................................
Benzo(b)fluoranthene ......................................................................................................
Benzo(k)fluoranthene .......................................................................................................
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ................................................................................................
Chrysene ..........................................................................................................................
Di-n-butyl-phthalate ..........................................................................................................
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ....................................................................................................
Diethyl Phthalate ..............................................................................................................
Dimethyl Phthalate ...........................................................................................................
Fluoranthene ....................................................................................................................
Fluorene ...........................................................................................................................
Indeno(1,2,3, -cd)pyrene .................................................................................................
Napthalene .......................................................................................................................
Phenanthrene ..................................................................................................................
Phenol ..............................................................................................................................
Pyrene ..............................................................................................................................
Pyridine ............................................................................................................................
Quinoline ..........................................................................................................................
1,1,1,-Trichloroethane ......................................................................................................
1,1,-Dichloroethane ..........................................................................................................
1,1-Dichloroethene ...........................................................................................................
1,2-Dibromoethane ..........................................................................................................
1,2-Dichloroethane ...........................................................................................................
1,4-Dioxane ......................................................................................................................
2-Butanone ......................................................................................................................
4-Methyl-2-pentanone ......................................................................................................
Acetone ............................................................................................................................
Benzene ...........................................................................................................................
Carbon disulfide ...............................................................................................................
Chlorobenzene .................................................................................................................
Chloroform .......................................................................................................................
Ethylbenzene ...................................................................................................................
Methyl tert-butyl ether ......................................................................................................
Styrene .............................................................................................................................
Tetrachloroethene ............................................................................................................
Toluene ............................................................................................................................
Trichloroethene ................................................................................................................
Xylenes, Total ..................................................................................................................
Maximum TCLP
concentration
(mg/l)
<0.065
<0.065
<0.032
0.17
<0.032
<0.032
<0.032
<0.032
<0.032
<0.065
0.032
<0.065
<0.032
<0.065
<0.065
<0.032
<0.032
<0.032
<0.032
<0.032
<0.065
<0.032
<0.065
<0.065
<0.0038
<0.0038
<0.0038
<0.0038
<0.0038
<0.076
0.0079
<0.076
0.039
0.0083
<0.00076
<0.0038
<0.0038
<0.0038
<0.0038
<0.0038
<0.0038
<0.0038
<0.0038
<0.0038
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.0005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<1
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
<0.1
<0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
>10E+6
Maximum TCLP
delisting level
(mg/L)
28.9
28.9
..............................
10.6
25.9
0.07
26.3
224
..............................
>10E+6
24.6
24.6
>10E+6
1,000
..............................
2.46
4.91
129
0.0327
..............................
173
4.45
0.578
..............................
11,600
..............................
0.108
0.105
0.0905
1.02
347
46.3
520
0.077
56.4
1.51
0.0801
10.8
..............................
1.51
0.0204
15.1
0.0775
9.56
Notes: These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and does not necessarily represent the specific
level found in one sample.
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the
proposed rule?
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
The EPA received three public
comments on February 16, 2023,
proposed rule via regulations.gov. The
comments and responses are addressed
below.
B. Comments and Responses
Comment 1: ‘‘I appose this rule/
exception being passed through. When
you take the table and look at some
chemical that make up this storm drain
runoff products there are some very
hazardous chemicals that make up these
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Jun 16, 2025
Jkt 265001
products. One chemical that make up
this product is Beryllium. Beryllium can
be lethal in humans and cause a variety
of health concerns. According to the
EPA website ‘‘beryllium is toxic at 0.002
milligrams per kilogram body weight
per day (mg/kg/d)’’ (Beryllium
compounds-US EPA). Using this
equation the average size man weighing
200 lbs can only be exposed to .4mg a
day. That is roughly 146mg a year. The
refinery is requesting that they be
allowed to dump .91mg per kg a year’’.
Response: The Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS) is a worstcase scenario tool that was created by
the EPA. This tool is utilized for the
petitioner to input their analysis from
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
their sample into the tool to verify there
are no exceedances within the waste
that would prove the waste to be
hazardous. Upon sample results and
date inputted into the DRAS, Beryllium
is not a constituent of concern and did
not show an exceedance within the
samples.
For a chemical-specific inputs for
Beryllium, see Table A–1–30 in
Appendix A of the DRAS Technical
Support Document. As noted in the
proposal, the EPA evaluated the risk
that the waste would be disposed of as
a non-hazardous waste in a landfill. We
considered transport of waste
constituents through groundwater,
surface water and air. We evaluated
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
Petitioners analysis of the petitioned
waste using the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS) to predict
the concentration of hazardous
constituents that might be released from
the petitioned waste and to determine if
the waste would pose a threat to human
health and the environment. The DRAS
software and associated documentation
can be found at www.epa.gov/hw/
hazardous-waste-delisting-riskassessment-sodtware-dras.
To predict the potential for release to
groundwater from landfilled wastes and
subsequent routes of exposure to a
receptor, the DRAS uses dilution
attenuation factors derived from the
EPA’s Composite Model for leachate
migration with transformation products.
From a release to groundwater, the
DRAS considers routes of exposure to a
human receptor through ingestion of
contaminated groundwater, inhalation
from groundwater while showering and
dermal contact from groundwater while
bathing.
From a release to surface water by
erosion of waste from an open landfill
into storm water run-off, DRAS
evaluates the exposure to a human
receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion
of drinking water. From a release of
waste particles and volatile emissions to
air from the surface of an open landfill,
DRAS considers routes of exposure of
inhalation of volatile constituents,
inhalation of particles, and air
deposition of particles on residential
soil and subsequent ingestion of the
contaminated soil by a child. The
technical support document and the
users guide to DRAS are available at
https://www.epa.gov/hazardous-wastedelisting-risk-assessment-software-dras.
Comment 2: ‘‘Although I am not sure
where I stand overall on delisting the
waste in question, I do believe that the
process in which this decision was
made were appropriate. I trust the EPA
in its decision to approve delisting the
waste and removal of solids at WRB
Refining LP in Borger, Texas. The how
this decision was made could have been
a lot more careless. However, the EPA
took a lot into consideration and tested
multiple samples from the petitioner’s
facility and agreed with the petitioner
that the wastes are nonhazardous. It also
did an environmental justice evaluation.
Environmental justice is often
overlooked when it comes to making
decisions concerning discarding waste.
This proposed rule is a great example of
how to go about making such decisions
while taking caution.’’
Response: Thank you for your
comment. As part of the delisting
program, we require the petitioners to
submit multiple spatial samples to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Jun 16, 2025
Jkt 265001
EPA to see the characteristics of the
waste during different seasons of the
year, the results with the highest
detection limits are then inputted into
the DRAS to make sure the waste does
not have exceedances. The delisting
program requires multiple steps and an
intense overview of the petition to
ensure the protection of human health
and the environment.
Comment 3: ‘‘I believe that not to
consider stormwater as a hazardous
waste is a bold statement, but since a lot
of measure are taken to ensure this is
not a health hazard for animals and for
humans. I think if it keeps being
measured how many toxic chemicals
this stormwater has before being
disposed somewhere else. Since the
groundwater waste is going to be
disposed in a landfill that is permitted
to manage industrial waste, this can give
sense of safety, but it is not truly known
how this landfill will manage and treat
this waste, and if it will do it correctly
to ensure that no animals have contact
or do not get poisoned by the
stormwater. Stormwater usually has
many toxic chemicals that can pollute
water sources such as oil, pesticides,
antifreeze, grease and other types of
chemicals that can be dangerous and
poisonous to the environment and the
wildlife that inhabit these water
sources. Also, one of the consequences
is that they can cause toxic algae blooms
that sink and decompose in the waste
removing oxygen from it. Animals and
other organisms can’t live in water with
low dissolved oxygen levels. It can also
contaminate drinking water supplies if
not treated properly. These
consequences should be kept in mind
before agreeing, as the public, to these
types of petitions. If stormwater is
treated properly in a treatment plant
this can reduce how hazardous this
might be. Since the stormwater that the
petitioner wants to delist as a possible
hazard has such small amounts of these
toxic chemicals, it makes sense why the
EPA thinks to delist this waste. One of
the examples of this small amount is
Arsenic, which is a solid that occurs
naturally in water and soil but that is
also produced industrially in big
quantities. The amount of Arsenic that
is considered as a hazard is 6.1 while
the amount of arsenic that the
stormwater in this facility has been 0.1.
However, all these amounts need to be
tested each time the facility wants to
dispose of them, to ensure that it is still
not considered a hazard, which is one
of the rules of the EPA to consider the
petition of the facility. I think if it is
proved the stormwater waste from this
facility is treated properly in this
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
25505
landfill, it is safe to say this would not
be a hazard for humans or wildlife.’’
Response 3: Thank you for your
comment. As mentioned in your
comment, if the EPA approves the
petition, the petitioner will have to
submit semi-annual analysis of the
waste the first year to prove to the EPA
that the waste is still within the
requirements instilled into the petition,
and during the life span of the petition
the petitioner is required to submit
analysis to prove the waste is still
meeting the requirements within the
petition. The goal at the EPA is to
protect human health and the
environment. Please, also note that
nonhazardous landfills in Texas are
subject to State laws and regulations
governing operation and closure. Nonhazardous solid waste is regulated
under Subtitle D of RCRA. Regulations
established under Subtitle D ban open
dumping of waste and set minimum
Federal criteria for the operation of
municipal waste and industrial waste
landfills, including design criteria,
location restrictions, financial
assurance, corrective action (cleanup),
and closure requirement. Texas is
authorized to implement the Subtitle D
program in lieu of the EPA. Please see
the response to Comment 1, of this
preamble, for additional information
regarding the EPA’s risk assessment
using DRAS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional Information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is exempt from review by
the Office of Management and Budget
because it is a rule of particular
applicability, not general applicability.
The action approves a modification of
an existing delisting petition under
RCRA for the petitioned waste at a
particular facility.
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 14192 because it is a rule of
particular applicability and exempt
from review under Executive Order
12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
25506
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501) because it
only applies to a particular facility.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular
facility, it is not subject to the
Regulatory flexibility provision of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action does nor contain any
unfunded mandate as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (U.S.C.
1531–1538) and does not significantly
or uniquely affect small governments.
The action imposes no new enforceable
duty on any State, local, or Tribal
governments or the private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action 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.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have Tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. This action applies only to
a particular facility on non-Tribal land.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is exempt from the CRA
because it is a rule of particular
applicability.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children.
Helena Healy,
Director, Land, Chemicals and
Redevelopment Division.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This action does not involve technical
standards as described by the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272)
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
261 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
6922, 6924(y) and 6938.
2. Amend table 1 of appendix IX, by
adding an entry for ‘‘WRB Refinery LP’’
in alphabetical order to read as follows:
■
Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
Address
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
*
WRB Refining LP ........
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Waste description
*
*
*
*
*
*
Borger, TX ................... Stormwater Solids (F037) generated at a maximum generation of 7,000 cubic yards.
(1) Delisting Levels: All leachable constituent concentrations must not exceed the following
levels. The petitioner must use the method specified in 40 CFR 261.24 to measure constituents in the waste leachate (mg/L). Stormwater Solids Leachate: Acenaphthene-219;
Anthracene-534; Antimony-2.52; Arsenic-0.266; Barium-7.13; Benz(a) anthracene-10.5;
Benzo(a)pyrene-3,960; Benzene-1.59; 2-Cadmium-2.23; Carbon disulfide-1,150; Chromium-1; Chrysene-1,050; Cobalt-5.56; Di-n-butyl-phthalate-507; Ethylbenzene-16.2;
Fluoranthrene-50.7; Fluorene-101; Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene-371000000000; Lead-14.7; Mercury-1.34; Naphthalene-1.95; Nickel-279; Pyrene-91.7; Selenium-18.10; Silver-179; Toluene-311; Vanadium-85.6; Xylenes, Total-177; Zinc-4,060.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) All stormwater solids from tank clean outs must be tested to assure they have met
the concentrations described in paragraph (1). Solids that do not meet the concentrations must be disposed of as hazardous waste.
(B) Levels of constituents measured in the samples of the solids that do not exceed the
levels set forth in paragraph (1) are non-hazardous. WRB Refining can manage and
dispose the non-hazardous stormwater solids according to all applicable solid waste
regulations.
(C) WRB Refining must maintain a record of the actual volume of the stormwater solids
to be disposed in the Subtitle D or on-site landfill according to the requirements in
paragraph (4).
(3) Changes in Operating Conditions: If WRB Refining significantly changes the process described in its petition or starts any processes that may or could affect the composition or
type of waste generated as established under paragraph (1) (by illustration, but not limitation, changes in equipment or operating conditions of the treatment process), they must
notify the EPA in writing; they may no longer handle the wastes generated from the new
process as nonhazardous until the test results of the wastes meet the delisting levels set in
paragraph (1) and they have received written approval to do so from the EPA.
16:37 Jun 16, 2025
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
25507
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Facility
Address
Waste description
(4) Data Submittals: WRB Refining must submit the information described below. If WRB Refining fails to submit the required data within the specified time or maintain the required
records on-site for the specified time, the EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient
basis to reopen the exclusion as described in paragraph (5) WRB Refining must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph (3) to the Chief, RCRA Permits & Solid
Waste Section, Mail Code, (6LCR–RP) US EPA Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500,
Dallas, TX 75270 within the time specified. Data may be submitted via email to the
technical contact for the delisting program.
(B) Compile records of operating conditions and analytical data from paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained on-site for a minimum of five years.
(C) Furnish these records and data when the EPA or the State of Texas request them
for inspection.
(D) Send, along with all data, a signed copy of the following certification statement, to attest to the truth and accuracy of the data submitted: ‘‘Under civil and criminal penalty
of law for the making or submission of false or fraudulent statements or representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Code, which include, but
may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that the information contained in or accompanying this document is true, accurate and complete. As to
the (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I cannot personally verify its
(their) truth and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions, made the verification
that this information is true, accurate and complete. If any of this information is determined by the EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon
conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of
waste will be void as if it never had effect or to the extent directed by the EPA and
that the company will be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the company’s
RCRA and CERCLA obligations premised upon the company’s reliance on the void
exclusion.’’
(5) Reopener:
(A) If, any time after disposal of the delisted waste, WRB Refining possesses or is otherwise made aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to leachate data
or ground water monitoring data) or any other data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent identified for the delisting verification testing is at level higher than the delisting level allowed by the Division Director in granting the petition, then
the facility must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of
first possessing or being made aware of that data.
(B) If the verification testing of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in
paragraph 1, WRB Refining must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director
within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data.
(C) If WRB Refining fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (4), (5)(A) or
(5)(B) or if any other information is received from any source, the Division Director will
make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires
Agency action to protect human health or the environment. Further action may include
suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to
protect human health and the environment.
(D) If the Division Director determines that the reported information does require Agency
action, the Division Director will notify the facility, in writing, of the actions the Division
Director believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing the facility with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency action
is not necessary. The facility shall have 10 days from the date of the Division Director’s notice to present such information.
(E) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in paragraph (5)(D) or
(if no information is presented under paragraph (5)(D)) the initial receipt of information
described in paragraphs (4), (5)(A) or (5)(B), the Division Director will issue a final written determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary to protect human
health or the environment. Any required action described in the Division Director’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Division Director provides
otherwise.
(6) Notification Requirements: WRB Refining must do the following before transporting the
delisted waste: Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision.
(A) Provide a written notification to any State Regulatory Agency to which, or through
which they will transport the delisted waste described above for disposal, 60 days before beginning such activities. If WRB Refining transports the excluded waste to or
manages the waste in any State with delisting authorization, WRB Refining must obtain delisting authorization from that State before it can manage the waste as nonhazardous in the State.
(B) Update the one-time written notification if they ship the delisted waste to a different
disposal facility.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Jun 16, 2025
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
25508
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 17, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
(C) Failure to provide the notification will result in a violation of the delisting variance and
a possible revocation of the exclusion.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2025–10542 Filed 6–16–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 250612–0099; RTID 0648–
XE507]
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone off Alaska; Cook Inlet; Final 2025
Harvest Specifications for Salmon
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule; harvest
specifications.
AGENCY:
NMFS announces the final
2025 harvest specifications for salmon
fishing in the Cook Inlet exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) Area. This action
is necessary to establish harvest limits
for salmon during the 2025 fishing year
and to accomplish the goals and
objectives of the Fishery Management
Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ
off Alaska (Salmon FMP). The intended
effect of this action is to conserve and
manage the salmon resources in the
Cook Inlet EEZ Area in accordance with
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act).
DATES: Harvest specifications and
closures are effective at 0700 hours,
Alaska local time (A.l.t.), June 16, 2025,
until the effective date of the final 2026
harvest specifications for the Cook Inlet
EEZ Area.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the
Environmental Assessment for the
Harvest Specifications of the Cook Inlet
Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ Off Alaska
(EA); and the Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) prepared for this action
are available from https://
www.regulations.gov. The
Environmental Assessment/Regulatory
Impact Review for amendment 16 (A16
EA/RIR) to the Salmon FMP are
available from the NMFS Alaska Region
website at https://
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:37 Jun 16, 2025
Jkt 265001
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
amendment-16-fmp-salmon-fisheriesalaska. The final 2025 Stock
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation
(SAFE) report is available from the
Alaska Region website at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/
commercial-fishing/cook-inletexclusive-economic-zone-salmon-stockassessment-and-fishery.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Adam Zaleski, 907–586–7228,
adam.zaleski@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS
prepared the Salmon FMP under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
(16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). Regulations
governing U.S. fisheries and
implementing the Salmon FMP appear
at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
Section 679.118(b)(2) requires that
NMFS consider public comment on the
proposed harvest specifications and
publish the final harvest specifications
in the Federal Register. The proposed
2025 harvest specifications for the Cook
Inlet EEZ Area were published in the
Federal Register on April 4, 2025 (90 FR
14771). Comments were invited and
accepted through May 5, 2025. The
comments received and NMFS
responses are addressed in the Response
to Comments section below. After
considering public comments submitted
for the proposed rule (90 FR 14771,
April 4, 2025), NMFS is implementing
the final 2025 harvest specifications for
the salmon fishery of the Cook Inlet
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Area
consistent with the Scientific and
Statistical Committee’s (SSC) fishing
level recommendations which account
for the uncertainty associated with this
fishery.
Final 2025 Overfishing Limit (OFL),
Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC), and
Total Allowable Catch (TAC)
Specifications
The final 2025 SAFE report contains
a review of the latest scientific analyses
and estimates of biological parameters
for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon
stocks and stock complexes (a stock
complex is an aggregate of multiple
stocks of a species). NMFS presented
the preliminary 2025 SAFE report,
dated January 2025, at the February
North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council) meeting. The
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
preliminary SAFE report provided
recommendations to the SSC regarding
the appropriate tiers for each stock; the
status determination criteria (SDC) that
will be used to evaluate overfishing
(including OFLs); and the preliminary
ABCs, which act as a ceiling for the
TACs.
The Salmon FMP specifies methods to
calculate OFLs and ABCs by assigning
stocks to one of three tiers, with annual
tier recommendations for each stock or
stock complex provided in the SAFE
report. The tier applicable to a
particular stock or stock complex is
determined by the level of reliable
information available. Tier 1 stocks have
the highest level of information quality
available, while Tier 3 stocks have the
lowest level of information quality
available. NMFS used this tier structure
to calculate OFLs and ABCs for each
salmon stock or stock complex
according to the methods specified in
the Salmon FMP. Under the Salmon
FMP, the annual catch limit (ACL) is set
equal to ABC for each stock or stock
complex, and TACs may be set less than
ABC to account for additional sources of
management uncertainty.
For Tier 1 stocks, the final 2025 SAFE
report relies on forecasts of the coming
year’s salmon runs as the basis for the
recommended OFLs and ABCs. SDC and
harvest specifications are calculated in
terms of potential yield. The potential
yield is the total forecasted run size
minus the number of salmon required to
achieve spawning escapement targets
and the estimated mortality from other
sources, including other fisheries.
For 2025, no stocks were
recommended to be Tier 2.
For Tier 3 stocks, the final SAFE
report uses fishery catch estimates from
prior years to inform the 2025 harvest
specifications.
The SSC and Council reviewed
NMFS’s preliminary 2025 SAFE report
for the Cook Inlet EEZ Area salmon
fishery in February 2025. From these
data and analyses, the SSC
recommended an OFL and ABC for each
salmon stock and stock complex. After
considering the SSC’s recommendations
and public testimony, the Council
unanimously took action to recommend
TACs equal to the ABCs. Through this
action, NMFS is implementing the OFLs
and ABCs recommended by the SSC and
TACs consistent with the Council’s
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 17, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25502-25508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-10542]
[[Page 25502]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R06-RCRA-2022-0653; FRL-10104-02-R6]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a
petition submitted by WRB Refining in Borger, Texas to exclude (or
``delist'') 7,000 cubic yards of F037 (petroleum refinery sludge)
solids to be removed from their stormwater storage tanks for a one-time
delisting. This determination is based on information the petitioner
provided to the Agency, completion of sampling, and risk assessment
using the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) to determine
whether the waste poses a substantial present or potential hazard to
human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored,
transported or disposed of, or otherwise managed. This final rule
responds to a petition submitted by WRB Refinery to exclude stormwater
solids from the definition of a hazardous waste. If not delisted, the
stormwater solids are listed as F037 (primary oil/water/solids
separation sludge). After careful analysis of the petition and
evaluation of comments submitted by the public, the EPA has concluded
that the petitioned waste is not hazardous waste when disposed of in
Subtitle D landfills. This exclusion applies to the stormwater solids
generated at WRB Refinery Borger, Texas facility. Accordingly, this
final rule excludes the petitioned waste from the requirements of
hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill but
imposes testing conditions to ensure that the future-generated waste
remain qualified for delisting.
DATES: This rule is effective June 17, 2025
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E'shala Dixon RCRA Permits & Solid
Waste Section (LCR-RP) Land, Chemical and Redevelopment Division, EPA
Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, TX 75270, phone number:
214-665-6592; email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Overview Information
A. What action is the EPA finalizing?
B. Why is the EPA approving this delisting?
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
D. How will WRB Refinery manage the waste if it is delisted?
E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?
F. How does this final rule affect States?
II. Background
A. What is a delisting?
B. What regulations allow facilities to delist a waste?
C. What information must the generator supply?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Data
A. What waste and how much did WRB Refinery petition the EPA to
delist?
B. How did WRB Refinery sample and analyze the waste data in
this petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
B. Comments and Responses
C. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What action is the EPA finalizing?
The EPA is finalizing:
1. The decision to grant WRB Refinery petition to have its
stormwater solids from the stormwater tanks excluded, or delisted, from
the definition of a hazardous waste, subject to certain continued
verification and monitoring conditions.
After evaluating the petition, the EPA proposed a rule on September
28, 2023 (88 FR 66742), to exclude the WRB Refinery waste from the
lists of hazardous wastes under 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32. The comments
received on this rulemaking will be addressed as part of this decision.
B. Why is the EPA approving this delisting?
WRB Refinery petition requests an exclusion for F037 waste listing
pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 and asserts that the petitioned
waste does not meet the criteria for which the EPA listed F037. WRB
Refinery also believes no additional constituents or factors could
cause the waste to be hazardous. The EPA's review of this petition
included consideration of the original listing criteria, and the
additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA). See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f) and 40
CFR 260.22(d)(1) through (4) (hereinafter, all sectional references are
to 40 CFR, unless otherwise indicated). In making the initial delisting
determination, the EPA evaluated the petitioned waste against the
listing criteria and factors cited in 261.11(a)(2) and (3). Based on
this review, the EPA agrees with the petitioner that the waste is non-
hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. If the EPA had
found, based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on
the factors for which the waste was originally listed, the EPA would
have proposed to deny the petition. The EPA evaluated the waste with
respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause
the waste to be hazardous. The EPA considered whether the waste is
acutely toxic, the concentration of the constituents in the waste,
their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in
the environment once released from the waste, plausible and specific
types of management of the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste
generated and waste variability. The EPA believes that the petitioned
waste does not meet the listing criteria and thus should not be a
listed waste. The EPA's proposed decision to delist waste from WRB
Refinery is based on the information submitted in support of this rule,
including descriptions of the wastes and analytical data from the
Borger, Texas facility.
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
This exclusion applies to the waste described in the petition only
if the requirements described in table 1 of part 261, appendix IX, and
the conditions contained herein are satisfied. The one-time exclusion
applies to 7,000 cubic yards of stormwater solids from the stormwater
tanks.
D. How will WRB Refinery manage the waste if it is delisted?
Stormwater solids from the stormwater tanks will be dewatered
onsite and transported to an authorized solid waste landfill (e.g.,
RCRA Subtitle D landfill, commercial/industrial solid waste landfill,
etc.) for disposal.
E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?
This rule is effective June 17, 2025. The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA allow rules to become
effective in less than six months when the regulated community does not
need the six-month period to come into compliance. This is the case
here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the existing
requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. These reasons
also provide a basis for making this rule effective immediately,
[[Page 25503]]
upon publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d).
F. How does this final rule affect States?
Because the EPA is issuing the exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This would exclude two categories of
States: States having a dual system that includes Federal RCRA
requirements and their own requirements, and States who have received
our authorization to make their own delisting decisions.
Here are the details: We allow States to impose their own non-RCRA
regulatory requirements that are more stringent than the EPA's, under
section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a
provision that prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking
effect in the State. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal
(RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's
waste, we urge petitioners to contact the State regulatory authority to
establish the status of their wastes under the State law.
The EPA has also authorized some States (for example: Louisiana,
Oklahoma and Illinois) to administer a delisting program in place of a
Federal program to make State delisting decisions. Therefore, this
exclusion does not apply in those authorized States. If WRB Refinery
transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any State
with delisting authorization, WRB Refinery must obtain delisting
authorization from that State before they can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in the State.
II. Background
A. What is a delisting?
A delisting petition is a request from a generator to the EPA or
another agency with jurisdiction to exclude from the list of hazardous
wastes, wastes the generator does not consider hazardous under RCRA.
B. What regulations allow facilities to delist a waste?
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition the EPA to
remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them from
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 261.31 and 261.32.
Specifically, 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to
modify or revoke any provision of 40 CFR parts 260 through 266, 268 and
273. Section 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator-specific'' basis from
the hazardous waste lists.
C. What information must the generator supply?
Petitioners must provide sufficient information to the EPA to allow
the EPA to determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of
the criteria under which the waste was listed as hazardous waste. In
addition, the Administrator must determine, where he/she has a
reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could
cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that such factors do not
warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Data
A. What waste and how much did WRB Refinery petition the EPA to delist?
In May 2020, WRB Refinery petitioned the EPA to exclude from the
lists of hazardous wastes contained in 261.31 and 261.32 solids from
stormwater tanks (F037) generated from its facility located in Borger,
Texas. The waste falls under the classification of listed waste
pursuant to 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, in its petition, WRB
Refinery requested that the EPA grant a one-time exclusion for 7,000
cubic yards of solids.
The 40 CFR part 261, appendix VII hazardous constituents which are
the basis for listing can be found in table 1.
Table 1--EPA Waste Codes for Solids From Stormwater Tanks for Listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste code Basis for listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F037.............................. Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene,
lead chromium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. How did WRB Refinery sample and analyze the waste data in this
petition?
To support its petition, WRB Refinery submitted:
1. Historical information on waste generation and management
practice; and
2. Analytical results from nine samples with one duplicate for TCLP
and Totals concentrations of compounds of concerns (COC)s.
Table 2--Analytical Results/Maximum Allowable Delisting Concentration Solids From Stormwater Tanks WRB Refinery
Borger, Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum total Maximum TCLP Maximum TCLP
Chemical name concentration concentration delisting level
(mg/kg) (mg/l) (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................................. 3.24 <0.05 0.109
Arsenic................................................... 2.4 <0.05 0.00849
Barium.................................................... 84.9 1.34 36
Beryllium................................................. <0.478 <0.02 0.078
Cadmium................................................... <0.478 <0.05 0.0911
Chromium.................................................. 14.2 <0.05 2.27
Cobalt.................................................... 74.2 <0.05 .................
Lead...................................................... 74.2 1.42 0.702
Nickel.................................................... 5 <0.05 13.5
Selenium.................................................. <0.478 <0.05 3.41
Silver.................................................... <0.478 <0.05 8.61
Vanadium.................................................. 6.86 <0.05 3.77
Zinc...................................................... 76 0.565 197
Mercury................................................... 0.258 <0.0002 0.068
1,2-Dichlorobenzene....................................... <0.065 <0.005 9.3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene....................................... <0.065 0.005 .................
1,4-Dichlorobenzene....................................... <0.065 <0.005 0.475
2,4-Dimethylphenol........................................ <0.065 <0.005 11.3
2,4-Dinitrophenol......................................... <0.13 <0.005 1.16
2-Methylphenol............................................ <0.065 <0.005 28.9
[[Page 25504]]
3-Methylphenol............................................ <0.065 <0.005 28.9
4-Methylphenol............................................ <0.065 <0.005 28.9
4-Nitrophenol............................................. <0.032 <0.005 .................
Acenaphthene.............................................. 0.17 <0.0005 10.6
Anthracene................................................ <0.032 <0.005 25.9
Benz(a)anthracene......................................... <0.032 <0.005 0.07
Benzo(a)pyrene............................................ <0.032 <0.005 26.3
Benzo(b)fluoranthene...................................... <0.032 <0.005 224
Benzo(k)fluoranthene...................................... <0.032 <0.005 .................
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate................................ <0.065 <0.005 >10E+6
Chrysene.................................................. 0.032 <0.005 24.6
Di-n-butyl-phthalate...................................... <0.065 <0.005 24.6
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene..................................... <0.032 <0.005 >10E+6
Diethyl Phthalate......................................... <0.065 <0.005 1,000
Dimethyl Phthalate........................................ <0.065 <0.005 .................
Fluoranthene.............................................. <0.032 <0.005 2.46
Fluorene.................................................. <0.032 <0.005 4.91
Indeno(1,2,3, -cd)pyrene.................................. <0.032 <0.005 129
Napthalene................................................ <0.032 <0.005 0.0327
Phenanthrene.............................................. <0.032 <0.005 .................
Phenol.................................................... <0.065 <0.005 173
Pyrene.................................................... <0.032 <0.005 4.45
Pyridine.................................................. <0.065 <0.005 0.578
Quinoline................................................. <0.065 <0.005 .................
1,1,1,-Trichloroethane.................................... <0.0038 <0.1 11,600
1,1,-Dichloroethane....................................... <0.0038 <0.1 .................
1,1-Dichloroethene........................................ <0.0038 <0.1 0.108
1,2-Dibromoethane......................................... <0.0038 <0.1 0.105
1,2-Dichloroethane........................................ <0.0038 <0.1 0.0905
1,4-Dioxane............................................... <0.076 <1 1.02
2-Butanone................................................ 0.0079 <0.2 347
4-Methyl-2-pentanone...................................... <0.076 <0.2 46.3
Acetone................................................... 0.039 <0.2 520
Benzene................................................... 0.0083 <0.1 0.077
Carbon disulfide.......................................... <0.00076 <0.2 56.4
Chlorobenzene............................................. <0.0038 <0.1 1.51
Chloroform................................................ <0.0038 <0.1 0.0801
Ethylbenzene.............................................. <0.0038 <0.1 10.8
Methyl tert-butyl ether................................... <0.0038 <0.1 .................
Styrene................................................... <0.0038 <0.1 1.51
Tetrachloroethene......................................... <0.0038 <0.1 0.0204
Toluene................................................... <0.0038 <0.1 15.1
Trichloroethene........................................... <0.0038 <0.1 0.0775
Xylenes, Total............................................ <0.0038 >10E+6 9.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and does not
necessarily represent the specific level found in one sample.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
The EPA received three public comments on February 16, 2023,
proposed rule via regulations.gov. The comments and responses are
addressed below.
B. Comments and Responses
Comment 1: ``I appose this rule/exception being passed through.
When you take the table and look at some chemical that make up this
storm drain runoff products there are some very hazardous chemicals
that make up these products. One chemical that make up this product is
Beryllium. Beryllium can be lethal in humans and cause a variety of
health concerns. According to the EPA website ``beryllium is toxic at
0.002 milligrams per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/d)''
(Beryllium compounds-US EPA). Using this equation the average size man
weighing 200 lbs can only be exposed to .4mg a day. That is roughly
146mg a year. The refinery is requesting that they be allowed to dump
.91mg per kg a year''.
Response: The Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) is a worst-
case scenario tool that was created by the EPA. This tool is utilized
for the petitioner to input their analysis from their sample into the
tool to verify there are no exceedances within the waste that would
prove the waste to be hazardous. Upon sample results and date inputted
into the DRAS, Beryllium is not a constituent of concern and did not
show an exceedance within the samples.
For a chemical-specific inputs for Beryllium, see Table A-1-30 in
Appendix A of the DRAS Technical Support Document. As noted in the
proposal, the EPA evaluated the risk that the waste would be disposed
of as a non-hazardous waste in a landfill. We considered transport of
waste constituents through groundwater, surface water and air. We
evaluated
[[Page 25505]]
Petitioners analysis of the petitioned waste using the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS) to predict the concentration of hazardous
constituents that might be released from the petitioned waste and to
determine if the waste would pose a threat to human health and the
environment. The DRAS software and associated documentation can be
found at www.epa.gov/hw/hazardous-waste-delisting-risk-assessment-sodtware-dras.
To predict the potential for release to groundwater from landfilled
wastes and subsequent routes of exposure to a receptor, the DRAS uses
dilution attenuation factors derived from the EPA's Composite Model for
leachate migration with transformation products. From a release to
groundwater, the DRAS considers routes of exposure to a human receptor
through ingestion of contaminated groundwater, inhalation from
groundwater while showering and dermal contact from groundwater while
bathing.
From a release to surface water by erosion of waste from an open
landfill into storm water run-off, DRAS evaluates the exposure to a
human receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion of drinking water. From
a release of waste particles and volatile emissions to air from the
surface of an open landfill, DRAS considers routes of exposure of
inhalation of volatile constituents, inhalation of particles, and air
deposition of particles on residential soil and subsequent ingestion of
the contaminated soil by a child. The technical support document and
the users guide to DRAS are available at https://www.epa.gov/hazardous-waste-delisting-risk-assessment-software-dras.
Comment 2: ``Although I am not sure where I stand overall on
delisting the waste in question, I do believe that the process in which
this decision was made were appropriate. I trust the EPA in its
decision to approve delisting the waste and removal of solids at WRB
Refining LP in Borger, Texas. The how this decision was made could have
been a lot more careless. However, the EPA took a lot into
consideration and tested multiple samples from the petitioner's
facility and agreed with the petitioner that the wastes are
nonhazardous. It also did an environmental justice evaluation.
Environmental justice is often overlooked when it comes to making
decisions concerning discarding waste. This proposed rule is a great
example of how to go about making such decisions while taking
caution.''
Response: Thank you for your comment. As part of the delisting
program, we require the petitioners to submit multiple spatial samples
to the EPA to see the characteristics of the waste during different
seasons of the year, the results with the highest detection limits are
then inputted into the DRAS to make sure the waste does not have
exceedances. The delisting program requires multiple steps and an
intense overview of the petition to ensure the protection of human
health and the environment.
Comment 3: ``I believe that not to consider stormwater as a
hazardous waste is a bold statement, but since a lot of measure are
taken to ensure this is not a health hazard for animals and for humans.
I think if it keeps being measured how many toxic chemicals this
stormwater has before being disposed somewhere else. Since the
groundwater waste is going to be disposed in a landfill that is
permitted to manage industrial waste, this can give sense of safety,
but it is not truly known how this landfill will manage and treat this
waste, and if it will do it correctly to ensure that no animals have
contact or do not get poisoned by the stormwater. Stormwater usually
has many toxic chemicals that can pollute water sources such as oil,
pesticides, antifreeze, grease and other types of chemicals that can be
dangerous and poisonous to the environment and the wildlife that
inhabit these water sources. Also, one of the consequences is that they
can cause toxic algae blooms that sink and decompose in the waste
removing oxygen from it. Animals and other organisms can't live in
water with low dissolved oxygen levels. It can also contaminate
drinking water supplies if not treated properly. These consequences
should be kept in mind before agreeing, as the public, to these types
of petitions. If stormwater is treated properly in a treatment plant
this can reduce how hazardous this might be. Since the stormwater that
the petitioner wants to delist as a possible hazard has such small
amounts of these toxic chemicals, it makes sense why the EPA thinks to
delist this waste. One of the examples of this small amount is Arsenic,
which is a solid that occurs naturally in water and soil but that is
also produced industrially in big quantities. The amount of Arsenic
that is considered as a hazard is 6.1 while the amount of arsenic that
the stormwater in this facility has been 0.1. However, all these
amounts need to be tested each time the facility wants to dispose of
them, to ensure that it is still not considered a hazard, which is one
of the rules of the EPA to consider the petition of the facility. I
think if it is proved the stormwater waste from this facility is
treated properly in this landfill, it is safe to say this would not be
a hazard for humans or wildlife.''
Response 3: Thank you for your comment. As mentioned in your
comment, if the EPA approves the petition, the petitioner will have to
submit semi-annual analysis of the waste the first year to prove to the
EPA that the waste is still within the requirements instilled into the
petition, and during the life span of the petition the petitioner is
required to submit analysis to prove the waste is still meeting the
requirements within the petition. The goal at the EPA is to protect
human health and the environment. Please, also note that nonhazardous
landfills in Texas are subject to State laws and regulations governing
operation and closure. Non-hazardous solid waste is regulated under
Subtitle D of RCRA. Regulations established under Subtitle D ban open
dumping of waste and set minimum Federal criteria for the operation of
municipal waste and industrial waste landfills, including design
criteria, location restrictions, financial assurance, corrective action
(cleanup), and closure requirement. Texas is authorized to implement
the Subtitle D program in lieu of the EPA. Please see the response to
Comment 1, of this preamble, for additional information regarding the
EPA's risk assessment using DRAS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional Information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget because it is a rule of particular applicability, not general
applicability. The action approves a modification of an existing
delisting petition under RCRA for the petitioned waste at a particular
facility.
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This action is not subject to Executive Order 14192 because it is a
rule of particular applicability and exempt from review under Executive
Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
[[Page 25506]]
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501) because it only applies to a particular
facility.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a
particular facility, it is not subject to the Regulatory flexibility
provision of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action does nor contain any unfunded mandate as described in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no new enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or
the private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action 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.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action applies only to a particular
facility on non-Tribal land. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This action does not involve technical standards as described by
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272)
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of
particular applicability.
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Helena Healy,
Director, Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
261 as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and
6938.
0
2. Amend table 1 of appendix IX, by adding an entry for ``WRB Refinery
LP'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
WRB Refining LP...................... Borger, TX............. Stormwater Solids (F037) generated at a maximum
generation of 7,000 cubic yards.
(1) Delisting Levels: All leachable constituent
concentrations must not exceed the following
levels. The petitioner must use the method
specified in 40 CFR 261.24 to measure
constituents in the waste leachate (mg/L).
Stormwater Solids Leachate: Acenaphthene-219;
Anthracene-534; Antimony-2.52; Arsenic-0.266;
Barium-7.13; Benz(a) anthracene-10.5;
Benzo(a)pyrene-3,960; Benzene-1.59; 2-Cadmium-
2.23; Carbon disulfide-1,150; Chromium-1;
Chrysene-1,050; Cobalt-5.56; Di-n-butyl-
phthalate-507; Ethylbenzene-16.2; Fluoranthrene-
50.7; Fluorene-101; Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene-
371000000000; Lead-14.7; Mercury-1.34;
Naphthalene-1.95; Nickel-279; Pyrene-91.7;
Selenium-18.10; Silver-179; Toluene-311;
Vanadium-85.6; Xylenes, Total-177; Zinc-4,060.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) All stormwater solids from tank clean
outs must be tested to assure they have met
the concentrations described in paragraph
(1). Solids that do not meet the
concentrations must be disposed of as
hazardous waste.
(B) Levels of constituents measured in the
samples of the solids that do not exceed the
levels set forth in paragraph (1) are non-
hazardous. WRB Refining can manage and
dispose the non-hazardous stormwater solids
according to all applicable solid waste
regulations.
(C) WRB Refining must maintain a record of
the actual volume of the stormwater solids
to be disposed in the Subtitle D or on-site
landfill according to the requirements in
paragraph (4).
(3) Changes in Operating Conditions: If WRB
Refining significantly changes the process
described in its petition or starts any
processes that may or could affect the
composition or type of waste generated as
established under paragraph (1) (by
illustration, but not limitation, changes in
equipment or operating conditions of the
treatment process), they must notify the EPA in
writing; they may no longer handle the wastes
generated from the new process as nonhazardous
until the test results of the wastes meet the
delisting levels set in paragraph (1) and they
have received written approval to do so from
the EPA.
[[Page 25507]]
(4) Data Submittals: WRB Refining must submit
the information described below. If WRB
Refining fails to submit the required data
within the specified time or maintain the
required records on-site for the specified
time, the EPA, at its discretion, will consider
this sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion
as described in paragraph (5) WRB Refining
must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through
paragraph (3) to the Chief, RCRA Permits &
Solid Waste Section, Mail Code, (6LCR-RP) US
EPA Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500,
Dallas, TX 75270 within the time specified.
Data may be submitted via email to the
technical contact for the delisting program.
(B) Compile records of operating conditions
and analytical data from paragraph (3),
summarized, and maintained on-site for a
minimum of five years.
(C) Furnish these records and data when the
EPA or the State of Texas request them for
inspection.
(D) Send, along with all data, a signed copy
of the following certification statement, to
attest to the truth and accuracy of the data
submitted: ``Under civil and criminal
penalty of law for the making or submission
of false or fraudulent statements or
representations (pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Federal Code, which
include, but may not be limited to, 18
U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify
that the information contained in or
accompanying this document is true, accurate
and complete. As to the (those) identified
section(s) of this document for which I
cannot personally verify its (their) truth
and accuracy, I certify as the company
official having supervisory responsibility
for the persons who, acting under my direct
instructions, made the verification that
this information is true, accurate and
complete. If any of this information is
determined by the EPA in its sole discretion
to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and
upon conveyance of this fact to the company,
I recognize and agree that this exclusion of
waste will be void as if it never had effect
or to the extent directed by the EPA and
that the company will be liable for any
actions taken in contravention of the
company's RCRA and CERCLA obligations
premised upon the company's reliance on the
void exclusion.''
(5) Reopener:
(A) If, any time after disposal of the
delisted waste, WRB Refining possesses or is
otherwise made aware of any environmental
data (including but not limited to leachate
data or ground water monitoring data) or any
other data relevant to the delisted waste
indicating that any constituent identified
for the delisting verification testing is at
level higher than the delisting level
allowed by the Division Director in granting
the petition, then the facility must report
the data, in writing, to the Division
Director within 10 days of first possessing
or being made aware of that data.
(B) If the verification testing of the waste
does not meet the delisting requirements in
paragraph 1, WRB Refining must report the
data, in writing, to the Division Director
within 10 days of first possessing or being
made aware of that data.
(C) If WRB Refining fails to submit the
information described in paragraphs (4),
(5)(A) or (5)(B) or if any other information
is received from any source, the Division
Director will make a preliminary
determination as to whether the reported
information requires Agency action to
protect human health or the environment.
Further action may include suspending, or
revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate
response necessary to protect human health
and the environment.
(D) If the Division Director determines that
the reported information does require Agency
action, the Division Director will notify
the facility, in writing, of the actions the
Division Director believes are necessary to
protect human health and the environment.
The notice shall include a statement of the
proposed action and a statement providing
the facility with an opportunity to present
information as to why the proposed Agency
action is not necessary. The facility shall
have 10 days from the date of the Division
Director's notice to present such
information.
(E) Following the receipt of information from
the facility described in paragraph (5)(D)
or (if no information is presented under
paragraph (5)(D)) the initial receipt of
information described in paragraphs (4),
(5)(A) or (5)(B), the Division Director will
issue a final written determination
describing the Agency actions that are
necessary to protect human health or the
environment. Any required action described
in the Division Director's determination
shall become effective immediately, unless
the Division Director provides otherwise.
(6) Notification Requirements: WRB Refining must
do the following before transporting the
delisted waste: Failure to provide this
notification will result in a violation of the
delisting petition and a possible revocation of
the decision.
(A) Provide a written notification to any
State Regulatory Agency to which, or through
which they will transport the delisted waste
described above for disposal, 60 days before
beginning such activities. If WRB Refining
transports the excluded waste to or manages
the waste in any State with delisting
authorization, WRB Refining must obtain
delisting authorization from that State
before it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in the State.
(B) Update the one-time written notification
if they ship the delisted waste to a
different disposal facility.
[[Page 25508]]
(C) Failure to provide the notification will
result in a violation of the delisting
variance and a possible revocation of the
exclusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-10542 Filed 6-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
