11 min read
The United Kingdom has the largest stockpile of plutonium in the world, so why are we getting rid of it? Tali Fraser explores behind the scenes of the controversial decision
A 140-tonne store of plutonium has become the centre of an obscure but important Whitehall policy row over how to pursue nuclear power and treat national assets.
The stockpile at Sellafield, Cumbria, is set to be permanently immobilised and entombed underground after ministers backed the findings of a review by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).
Converting plutonium into a waste would involve baking it into a rock-like material, such as glass or ceramic, and wrapping that in steel and concrete to create solid blocks, which would then be buried in a reinforced bunker under the sea known as a geological disposition facility (GDF).
It is an utterly appalling and needless decision
The UK’s plutonium is currently stored at Sellafield as a powder, which could serve as the potential feedstock for pressing into fuel pellets. But storing plutonium as a powder creates greater health and safety risks than storing it in a more solid form, because it makes entry into the human body easier.
Since 2011, the NDA’s preference has been for the reuse of the nation’s plutonium, but after a near 15-year-long review, the government has turned its support to waste.
Confirming the decision, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Desnz) minister Michael Shanks cited “substantial technical, deliverability and economic analysis” from the NDA which identified the preferred option.
But a number of political and industry figures have struggled to understand the reasoning behind the gear shift.
“It is an utterly appalling and needless decision,” a senior nuclear industry figure says of the decision.
“We are deeming one of our biggest national assets as a liability,” another industry expert tells The House, adding that it is “the most stupid thing imaginable”.
Why is it happening? “Because there is no accountability when it comes to the NDA,” they say, adding that there is nothing above them to establish priorities that consider long-term national interest.
“What’s changed? The answer is, well, nothing really. This is where we are really bad with national assets, and there’s no long-term sense of stewardship.”
Professor Adrian Bull, British Nuclear Fuels Limited chair in nuclear energy and society at the University of Manchester’s Dalton Nuclear Institute, makes clear: “It’s technically a government policy decision, not the NDA’s.”
Former Desnz minister Andrew Bowie, now acting shadow energy secretary, says officials in Whitehall put on the pressure for immobilisation early.
“There seemed to be, from officials in the department, a real desire to move fast on this and make a decision to put plutonium beyond use before we needed to take that final decision,” he tells The House. “It was just quite clear that that was the direction of travel that had been decided upon.”
Bowie adds: “What is the seeming urgency for this decision to be taken? We just took the view that there was no urgency and that it didn’t need to be taken, which is where we left it at the time.”
It was a decision, the former minister says, that led to “some consternation in officialdom”, including from within the NDA.
Sources point to a hatred of what is generally referred to as ‘separated material’ like the plutonium at Sellafield.
“It is
