[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 40, Volume 24]

[Revised as of July 1, 2006]

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 Sec. Sec.  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]