Directs the Environmental Protection Agency to revise 40 C.F.R. 61.206 to allow distribution or use of phosphogypsum for purposes not expressly listed in current regulations, subject to a defined risk framework. The bill sets a maximum lifetime cancer risk threshold and requires exposure-minimization measures, a monitoring program for leachate and ecotoxicity, and public posting of testing results for any new approvals.
Its structure signals a shift from blanket prohibition toward case-by-case consideration under strict safeguards.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires EPA to promulgate a final rule within 2 years revising 40 C.F.R. 61.206 to authorize select uses of phosphogypsum not expressly listed, while enforcing risk controls and disclosure.
Who It Affects
Regulators, phosphogypsum producers, road-builders, municipalities, and downstream users of phosphogypsum-containing products; includes workers and nearby communities.
Why It Matters
Creates a risk-based pathway to reuse a hazardous byproduct in infrastructure, balancing potential resource recovery with health and environmental safeguards.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill takes the EPA's existing prohibition on phosphogypsum in road construction and reorients it toward a controlled, risk-based pathway. It directs the EPA to revise the relevant CFR provisions to allow distribution or use of phosphogypsum for purposes not currently listed, but only if the approval process includes explicit risk disclosures, exposure-minimization measures, and a monitoring plan.
The monitoring plan must cover leachate and ecotoxicity impacts on surface water, groundwater, soil, vegetation, and aquatic life, and it requires quarterly reporting and an approved testing program.
A central feature is the cap on risk: any new approval for non-listed uses cannot exceed a maximum lifetime cancer risk of 9.1 in 100,000 for exposed individuals. Approvals are to be determined on a case-by-case basis, with the results of required testing publicly posted on the EPA website.
The bill also defines what constitutes the maximum individual risk, anchoring it to a 70-year exposure window. Taken together, the provisions attempt to unlock a potential market for phosphogypsum while preserving health protections and environmental oversight.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill directs EPA to revise CFR 61.206 within 2 years to permit specific uses of phosphogypsum not currently listed, under strict safeguards.
Any new approval must not exceed 9.1 in 100,000 lifetime cancer risk for exposed individuals.
Approvals are evaluated case-by-case, with publicly available testing results on the EPA website.
The plan requires exposure minimization measures and a comprehensive monitoring program for leachate and ecotoxicity across water, soil, and ecosystems.
‘Maximum individual risk’ is defined as the highest lifetime cancer risk over a 70-year exposure period.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
Establishes the act’s name as the No Radioactive Roads Act of 2025. This section sets the citation and general scope for the bill but does not, by itself, authorize any specific use of phosphogypsum.
Findings on phosphogypsum risks
Sets out Congress’s findings that EPA has prohibited phosphogypsum in road construction since 1992 due to cancer risk from uranium and radium, and that pathways exist for surface water, groundwater, and air exposure. It notes the lifetime cancer risk associated with stacking and use patterns, framing the risk arguments for a regulated, case-by-case reconsideration.
Rulemaking framework for revisions to 61.206
Requires the Administrator to promulgate a final rule revising 40 C.F.R. 61.206 within 2 years. The rule must require: (A) a maximum individual risk threshold, (B) measures to minimize exposure for workers and nearby populations, and (C) a monitoring program for leachate and ecotoxicity across environmental media.
Case-by-case approvals
Speaks to approvals for uses not expressly listed in 61.204 or 61.205, insisting that such approvals be determined on a case-by-case basis and not to exceed the maximum lifetime risk threshold of 9.1 in 100,000.
Public disclosure of testing
Requires that the results of any required testing be made publicly available on the EPA’s website, ensuring transparency about the risks and the data supporting approvals.
Definition of maximum individual risk
Defines maximum individual risk as the highest increase in lifetime cancer risk an individual faces from exposure to phosphogypsum over a 70-year period, providing a clear, technical metric for approvals.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Phosphogypsum producers and distributors seeking a new regulatory pathway to market their material.
- Road construction firms and civil engineering contractors who could use phosphogypsum in projects if approved.
- State and local transportation agencies benefiting from additional material options within a regulated framework.
- Environmental testing labs and monitoring firms that would support compliance and data collection.
- Public health researchers and regulatory agencies that gain data and transparency from mandated monitoring.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local residents living near proposed phosphogypsum applications who may bear exposure risk and require ongoing health protections.
- Road workers and utility crews who must implement exposure-minimization measures.
- State and local transportation departments for compliance, monitoring, and reporting costs.
- EPA and related agencies tasked with rulemaking, case-by-case reviews, and enforcement.
- Phosphogypsum producers who will incur testing, monitoring, and reporting costs to meet new requirements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing a potential material reuse pathway and economic benefits against the risk of exposing communities to cancer risk, all under a strict but potentially complex case-by-case regulatory regime.
The bill shifts from a blanket prohibition to a regulated, risk-based approval process for phosphogypsum use in road-related applications. It relies on a quantified risk threshold (9.1 per 100,000) and requires explicit exposure-minimization measures and a robust monitoring program that covers leachate, ecotoxicity, and environmental pathways.
Public disclosure of testing results is mandated to ensure transparency for communities and stakeholders. This framework raises practical questions about data quality, modeling assumptions, and the capacity of agencies to conduct case-by-case reviews across uses not expressly listed in current CFR sections.
A central concern is whether the risk threshold can be consistently applied across diverse use cases and geographies, given the uncertainties in predicting long-term leachate behavior and ecological impacts. The bill also presumes the feasibility of comprehensive monitoring over the lifetime of a project, which may require sustained funding, interagency coordination, and industry cooperation.
These tensions will shape how effectively the act transitions from prohibition to a controlled reuse of a byproduct with potential public health implications.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.