re: Browner vis-a-vis Jackson

[GEORGE CICOTTE <GEORGE_CICOTTE@health.ohio.gov>]

     I think perhaps the confusion regarding exemptions, and RCRA/CERCLA, 
     is in the fact that CERCLA is not intended to be used for cleanup of  
     byproduct material, while RCRA specifically addresses byproduct 
     material as an exemption.  In fact, there are "federally permitted 
     releases" for oil production, releases in compliance, and others.  All 
     of these, although they don't use the term "exempt," are in fact 
     exemptions.  CERCLA was written to address messes from PAST practice, 
     not permitted releases.  The reason RCRA has a specific exemption is 
     that it is for CURRENT practice.  The reason there are NRC-licensed 
     sites with portions on the NPL is for the NON-RADIOACTIVE aspects.  If 
     a site has contamination that that is not in compliance with the 
     below, they're not exempt, but they're not exempt because of the law, 
     not a discretionary enforcement decision by Ms. Browner.
     
     From Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 103, 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability, 
     Subchapter I, Hazardous Substances Releases, Liability, and 
     Compensation:
     
     "Section 9601. Definitions
     For purpose of this subchapter-- . . .
     
     . . .(10) The term ``federally permitted release'' means . . .
     . . . . . .K) any release of source, special nuclear, or byproduct 
     material, as those terms are defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
     [42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.], in compliance with a legally enforceable 
     license, permit, regulation, or order issued pursuant to the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954. . . ."
     
     V/R
     GRCicotte
     george_cicotte@health.ohio.gov