We must get it right, argues Alec Broers

When the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee first examined the issue of radioactive waste management in 1999, it concluded that openness and transparency, as well as public engagement and consultation in decision-making, were vital components in gaining public trust. It recommended the setting up of a dedicated Nuclear Waste Management Commission, which would be independent of government and accountable to parliament.
The decisions taken now on the disposal of radioactive waste will concern not just us, but our successors, for thousands of years to come. The process of decision-making therefore needs to be beyond reproach or political influence. Everyone has a stake in getting this right.

CoRWM: admirable transparency
In July last year, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) published its recommendations on the long-term solutions for managing the UK’s solid radioactive waste. The key recommendations were that underground, geological disposal currently presents the best available approach for long-term storage and that any decision on the ultimate location of the repository should be decided by inviting potential host communities to participate in the implementation process. The report also recommended that an independent body should be appointed to ‘oversee’ the implementation process.
 
After a somewhat rocky start for CoRWM – we initially criticised it for lacking technical and scientific expertise – its final report marked a welcome step forward in a thirty-year debate over this important issue. In particular, CoRWM deserves praise for the transparent manner in which it reached its conclusions. By contrast, many of the problems and failures of the past were characterised by a culture of secrecy and a process of ‘decide, announce, defend’ – followed by, more often than not, ‘retreat’.

Achieving accountability
The government has accepted CoRWM’s recommendation on geological disposal. It has also handed responsibility for implementing it, and for community and stakeholder engagement, to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). However, CoRWM’s recommendation for an independent body to oversee the process (itself significantly weaker than the Lords Science & Technology Committee’s recommendation from 1999 for an independent commission) has been watered down to an independent advisory body (the new CoRWM) – albeit with some scrutiny function.
With this in mind, in our latest report from June 2007, we were particularly interested in CoRWM’s recommendation for an independent body and in the government’s reshaping of that recommendation. In our report we restated our long-held belief that a single, independent body with responsibility for overseeing the entire radioactive waste management programme is needed to achieve parliamentary and public accountability.

Policy confused
From the evidence that was presented to us, we concluded that the government’s proposals did not provide for sufficient transparency and accountability. The flow of independent advice from the new CoRWM to the NDA appeared compromised, and the process seemed to intermingle with the conduct of scrutiny. Departmental responsibilities were not clear. The process for expert scientific input appeared equally confused. More clarity on why the important decision to set up an advisory body was made would have been desirable.

Haste slowly
We are of course conscious of ‘realpolitik’, and policy in this area is continually being developed and, we hope, improved. In May, for instance, the government published its latest consultation on a framework for implementing geological disposal. However, after such a long delay (thirty years), we were concerned about the apparent speed of some of these developments.
For example, the consultation includes important questions on an outline implementation programme, public and stakeholder engagement and the site selection process. It might have been a good start for the new CoRWM to be involved in drafting the consultation. Now that it is published, the Committee will have an opportunity to provide its comments on it.
We fully endorse the government’s desire to maintain momentum. However, it is equally important that progress should be steady and measured, with enough time allocated to the development of proposals and to expert scientific scrutiny (including by social scientists), followed by public consultation.
 
Need for transparency
In the Energy White Paper, the government expressed the view that there are no significant technical barriers to including any new nuclear waste in a geological repository together with legacy waste. Climate change requires governments to be able to consider all non-carbon based forms of energy generation. It is therefore essential that the policy framework for radioactive waste management should be transparent and workable into the future.
As a parliamentary Select Committee with a long-standing interest in radioactive waste management, the Science and Technology Committee looks forward to continuing to make a useful contribution to this important issue.

Lord Broers is Chairman of the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee