[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 40, Volume 22]
[Revised as of July 1, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 40CFR192.21]

[Page 25-26]
 
                   TITLE 40--PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT
 
         CHAPTER I--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED)
 
PART 192--HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR URANIUM AND THORIUM 
MILL TAILINGS--Table of Contents
 
                        Subpart C--Implementation
 
Sec. 192.21  Criteria for applying supplemental standards.

    Unless otherwise indicated in this subpart, all terms shall have the 
same meaning as defined in Title I of the Act or in subparts A and B. 
The implementing agencies may (and in the case of paragraph (h) of this 
section shall) apply standards under Sec. 192.22 in lieu of the 
standards of subparts A or B if they determine that any of the following 
circumstances exists:
    (a) Remedial actions required to satisfy subpart A or B would pose a 
clear and present risk of injury to workers or to members of the public, 
notwithstanding reasonable measures to avoid or reduce risk.
    (b) Remedial actions to satisfy the cleanup standards for land, 
Sec. 192.12(a), and groundwater, Sec. 192.12(c), or the acquisition of 
minimum materials required for control to satisfy Secs. 192.02(b) and 
(c), would, notwithstanding reasonable measures to limit damage, 
directly produce health and environmental harm that is clearly excessive 
compared to the health and environmental benefits, now or in the future. 
A clear excess of health and environmental harm is harm that is long-
term, manifest, and grossly disproportionate to health and environmental 
benefits that may reasonably be anticipated.
    (c) The estimated cost of remedial action to satisfy Sec. 192.12(a) 
at a ``vicinity'' site (described under section 101(6)(B) of the Act) is 
unreasonably high relative to the long-term benefits, and the residual 
radioactive materials do not pose a clear present or future hazard. The 
likelihood that buildings will be erected or that people will spend long 
periods of time at such a vicinity site should be considered in 
evaluating this hazard. Remedial action will generally not be necessary 
where residual radioactive materials have been placed semi-permanently 
in a location where site-specific factors limit their hazard and from 
which they are costly or difficult to remove, or

[[Page 26]]

where only minor quantities of residual radioactive materials are 
involved. Examples are residual radioactive materials under hard surface 
public roads and sidewalks, around public sewer lines, or in fence post 
foundations. Supplemental standards should not be applied at such sites, 
however, if individuals are likely to be exposed for long periods of 
time to radiation from such materials at levels above those that would 
prevail under Sec. 192.12(a).
    (d) The cost of a remedial action for cleanup of a building under 
Sec. 192.12(b) is clearly unreasonably high relative to the benefits. 
Factors that should be included in this judgment are the anticipated 
period of occupancy, the incremental radiation level that would be 
affected by the remedial action, the residual useful lifetime of the 
building, the potential for future construction at the site, and the 
applicability of less costly remedial methods than removal of residual 
radioactive materials.
    (e) There is no known remedial action.
    (f) The restoration of groundwater quality at any designated 
processing site under Sec. 192.12(c) is technically impracticable from 
an engineering perspective.
    (g) The groundwater meets the criteria of Sec. 192.11(e).
    (h) Radionuclides other than radium-226 and its decay products are 
present in sufficient quantity and concentration to constitute a 
significant radiation hazard from residual radioactive materials.

[48 FR 602, Jan. 5, 1983, as amended at 60 FR 2868, Jan. 11, 1995]