Opinion ID: 574870
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: 139 For the reasons stated, we affirm EPA's rulemaking in principal part, express no opinion on the Bevill mixture rule and the related requirement of a treatment permit, and return two matters to the Agency for further consideration consistent with this opinion: (1) measurement of lightweight aggregate residuals against the Agency's high volume criterion; and (2) the Bevill status of Du Pont's chloride-ilmenite process. 140 It is so ordered. ORDER. 141 Feb. 26, 1992. 142 This matter is before the Court on respondent's petition for rehearing. The EPA seeks to modify the terms of our remand of the mixture and treatment permit rules. In essence, the EPA asks us to uphold the Bevill rules for a mixture of a type that was not at issue in Shell Oil Co. v. EPA, Nos. 80-1532 et al. The EPA did not take such an alternative position in its briefs before this court, however. Cf. EPA Brief at 83. (Solite's criticism of the application of the mixture rule in the present case is more properly entertained in Shell Oil....). Therefore, we shall not now attempt to distinguish from the universe of Bevill mixtures those that are properly deemed independent of the decision in Shell Oil. Moreover, the EPA is free to make such subtle distinctions on remand. 143 The EPA's challenge to our remand of the treatment permit rule fails for the same reason. See EPA Brief at 88-89. When the RCRA mixture rule fell, the treatment permit requirement for Bevill mixtures necessarily fell with it, except perhaps for such fine-tuning as the agency may perform on remand. 144 The petition for rehearing is denied.