UK

Department of the Environment

Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee:

Report on: Problems Encountered by Users of Radioactive Materials Outside the Nuclear Industries (Small Users)

The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC) has published a follow-up to its 1991 review on the problems encountered by users of small amounts of radioactive substances (termed by the RWMAC `Small Users'). These `Small Users' comprise, in the main, hospitals and universities where radioactive materials are used for medical and research purposes.

The report considers whether the situation, five years on, has changed `For better or for worse?'

The RWMAC remains of the view that, within the context of the accepted policy that the polluter pays, small users should carefully consider their procedures for dealing with radioactive waste to minimise their needs for disposal and to identify, if appropriate in consultation with disposal operators, the most cost-effective routes for disposal.

However, to this end, Small Users require guidance and advice. In the RWMAC's view this should, preferably, be supplied by the Regulators. Therefore, the RWMAC welcomes the establishment of a Liaison Group between Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP) and Small Users, which provides a forum for exchange of information and advice. However, the RWMAC recommends that this Group is given a formal national status.

The RWMAC, although recognising that improvements have been made in some areas since its previous report, believes a number of issues remain clearly unsatisfactory and are in need of urgent attention and remedy. The RWMAC's major concerns relate to:

• inconsistencies with respect to enforcement action taken by HMIP inspectors for supposed breaches in compliance with legislation administered, or authorisations issued by them.

It is recommended that there is a reinstatement of specialist inspectors, rather than the current prevailing use of generalist inspectors, to overview the many complex and diverse processes related to authorisations to use radioactive substances, and for their management and disposal. It is also recommended that regulation by HMIP, and other regulators should be based explicitly on a dose/risk approach.

• the decreasing number of landfill sites available for the disposal of very low level radioactive waste, and incinerators for the disposal of clinical waste and biological materials.

It is recommended that a central register for these is set up and that Government (through its Agencies) ensures an adequate and geographically appropriate distribution of these disposal facilities. It is also recommended that a review of the legislation concerning the availability of landfill sites should be carried out, and that small users' authorisations should permit disposal to any authorised site or contractor.

• the high costs being imposed on Small Users with respect to administration related to the use of radioactive substances and the disposal of the waste resulting from their use.

The RWMAC recommends that HMIP reviews urgently its regulatory charges and improves its administrative procedures. The RWMAC also recommends that commercial operators should aim to improve services at the lowest practicable costs, compatible with meeting safety and regulatory standards.

• the timescales imposed by HMIP for the accumulation and storage of radioactive waste on site. These are considered by the RWMAC to be too restrictive and could be detrimental in both environmental and practical terms.

It is recommended that there should be greater flexibility in the prescribed levels for the accumulation and storage of radioactive waste by Small Users. It is also recommended that HMIP should adopt the practice of requiring disposal to take place `as soon as reasonably practicable', as this would be a flexible but enforceable limitation for the storage of waste.

So with respect to the initial question posed `For better or for worse?', although it is acknowledged that progress has been made, there is still considerable room for improvement. The RWMAC proposes constructive and remedial measures to deal with the issues raised in this report. It is hoped that, if a future review is carried out, when HMIP has been subsumed into the Environment Agency, it will be evident that many of the problems identified in this report will have been addressed.

The independent Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee was set up in response to a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's Sixth Report on Nuclear Power and the Environment. The RWMAC Chairman is Sir Gordon Beveridge, Vice-Chancellor of the Queen's University, Belfast. The RWMAC's terms of reference were revised in July 1991 and are:

• `To advise the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Scotland and Wales on the technical and environmental implications of major issues concerning the development and implementation of an overall policy for all aspects of the management of civil radioactive waste, including research and development; and on any such matters referred to it by the Secretaries of State.'

Copies of the RWMAC Report, which is published by HMSO, Price £11.00 ISBN No. 0 11 753238 X, can be obtained from: HMSO Publication Centre, PO Box 276, London SW8 5DT.

NRPB

NRPB has recently published another in its Documents series: `Generalised Derived Limits for Radioisotopes of Strontium, Ruthenium, Iodine, Caesium, Plutonium, Americium and Curium'. This takes into account the most recent recommendations of ICRP both in Publication 60 and in recent publications on biokinetics. If environmental concentrations exceed about 10% of a GDL then a site specific dose assessment may be required. More details of the application of GDLs are in a forthcoming publication.

Extrapolation of Dose Response Data for Risk Assessment

A set of discussion papers focusing on cancer risks in human populations is available from the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE). Based on presentations from a meeting entitled `Extrapolation of Dose Response Data for Risk Assessment' held at the Royal Society in 1995, the papers have been published by IChemE as a supplement to the quarterly journal Process Safety and Environmental Protection (PSEP).

The papers review the state of the art in respect of extrapolation of dose response data to determine the way in which low exposure doses are set for the purposes of regulation and precaution against potential health hazards. The authors draw on experience gained in relation to both chemical substances and ionising radiation as the carcinogenic agents.

The topics covered in the supplement are wide ranging within the overall theme of risk assessment. Contributions cover:

• radiation and genetic stimulation

• major concerns with quantitative cancer risk assessment for environmental risk management

• an assessment of the risks to human health associated with exposure dioxins

• molecular approaches to assess cancer risks

• classical human epidemiology

Sir Frederick Warner of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment Unit of the University of Essex chaired the meeting and edited the supplement. The authors are leaders in toxicology, epidemiology, radiation science, statistics and risk assessment and are drawn from international academic, industrial and government institutions.

The supplement is aimed at those involved in all aspects of cancer research particularly in the fields of hazard identification and risk assessment, and, in the regulatory context, the setting of acceptable exposure standards.

The PSEP supplement costs £15.00 and is obtainable from David Honeybone, Journal Subscriptions, IChemE, 165--189 Railway Terrace, Rugby CV21 3HQ.