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 §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, §192.12(a), and groundwater, §192.12(c), or the acquisition of minimum materials required for control to satisfy §§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 §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 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 §192.12(a).

(d) The cost of a remedial action for cleanup of a building under §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 §192.12(c) is technically impracticable from an engineering perspective.

(g) The groundwater meets the criteria of §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]