The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, CoRWM, has compiled the "long list of options" for managing nuclear waste in the UK using a 'traffic light system' which separates the options into colour coded categories as a means of whittling them down to a workable shortlist. CoRWM is inviting responses to the consultation by mid January.

The definitive shortlist, which should be finalised this March, is shown at the foot of this article.

There were few surprises in the shortlisting, apart perhaps from the last minute retraction of the 'Disposal into space' option from the red group by one member of the Committee who felt it needed more discussion. A large amount of work has been done on waste management options in the past, both in the UK as well as overseas, and in some countries the construction of repositories is already underway; experience that should make the shortlisting a simpler task.

The questions being asked in CoRWM's consultation document, unfortunately, do not take this shortlist into account, but regress back to the starting point with "What are the most important issues to you?", "What should be considered when making decisions about a long-term radioactive waste management strategy?" and "Have we identified all the relevant options?". On this latter question, Conservative trade and industry spokeswoman, Baroness Miller of Hendon, during a recent House of Lords debate on the subject, called CoRWM's remit of starting with a 'clean sheet' of options:

"nothing more than a typical Whitehall tactic of delay when the Government - perhaps any government, of whatever political complexion - are unwilling to make a firm decision. They kick the matter into the long grass by forming a committee."

The debate followed a House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report published in December, which states:
"We are astonished that CoRWM was asked to start from a "blank sheet of paper" when several of the options considered had already in effect been ruled out by the Government and numerous authoritative bodies."

Another issue with which members of the upper chamber are finding fault, is that DEFRA did not seek the advice of their chief scientist. Concern remains over CoRWM's membership lacking expertise in the field of waste management; the Committee's intention is to consult with relevant specialists over the course of their investigation. Yet DEFRA's own chief scientist was not consulted during the formation of the committee, to ensure that CoRWM would be proficiently equipped to vet the consultants, nor indeed were the Royal Society or the Royal Academy of Engineering. Lord Oxburgh reflected this point during the debate saying:

"Is it conceivable that the department did not understand that science and technology was of crucial importance in this matter? If that is the case, it raises serious questions of competence."

However despite Westminster doubts about delays and lack of skills, the Committee is pushing on with their agenda. Many anticipate the moment when they will make their recommendations and the government will at last give the green light for work on a solution for long term waste management to commence.