Inside The Controversial Decision To Rid The UK Of Its Plutonium Stores

11 min read11 April

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 almost a theological hatred of it in bits of the NDA,” another industry source tells The House. “And because we don’t have any guiding mind in terms of national assets or national energy policy, there’s nobody sitting there looking at the big picture.”

The decision appears to be based on the UK not currently having the facilities to reprocess the plutonium into MOX (mixed oxide fuel), which would make it useful for producing energy. But the UK does not currently have the means to get rid of plutonium in a geological disposal facility either – the only operational one in existence is in Finland. If neither facility currently exists, why hurry the process and prioritise waste over use?

In government, both Bowie and then-energy secretary Claire Coutinho instead pushed for a stay of execution, avoiding a final decision on putting plutonium into a GDF.

“It’s a decision to be taken in the future, when it has been proven one way or the other, whether or not this technology [that produces MOX] actually works,” Bowie tells The House.

“Why would we put ourselves in this commercially disadvantageous position to not even exploring that option moving forward, given the energy security situation we’re in, the high bills situation that we’re facing, and the climate crisis?”

“It would be much better if we were going to recycle this and use it as a way of generating energy,” Sam Dumitriu of Britain Remade says. “The fact there is a company that wants to do this – we should try and work with them as much as possible.”

One industry source told The House: “When somebody says, ‘Oh, we’re not going to have a fast reactor capable of burning this stuff for at least 40 years.’ Well, if you look at the way that energy and nuclear policy has changed with people’s underwear over the years, who knows?”

Advanced modular reactor developer Newcleo had intended to use the UK’s plutonium in its technology, but altered its plans after the government ruled out giving private companies access to the Sellafield stockpile in a nuclear industry “roadmap” last year. The following month then-shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves went on to tell Labour’s business conference that Newcleo dropping plans to build a plant in Cumbria, in favour of France, were “symptoms of economic decline”.

But the latest move to immobilise all of the UK’s stockpile has taken the company by further surprise, as Newcleo was not aware, until recently, of the NDA’s ongoing review into its change of preference for plutonium use.

Why would we put ourselves in this commercially disadvantageous position?

One industry source tells The House of their concerns around the decision: “Newcleo wanted to set up over here, but gave up and went to France instead because they couldn’t make any headway with the NDA.

“It’s a wacky project, don’t get me wrong – this is not something you’d knock up in your back garden. But the decision on plutonium that is leading to this is an abdication of national responsibility as to what to do with this stuff.

“It shows a lack of grip of the need and the rationality for a closed fuel cycle in the way that other countries have like – I hate to say this – the Russians and the Chinese.”

If Newcleo were successful in its technological hopes, and 140 tonnes of plutonium were put through its reactors once, it could power every UK home for six to 10 years.

But Bull defends the government’s decision. “There are some possible designs in the more distant future which could use plutonium as fuel, but no clear indication at present that these would ever be built in the UK. So, the decision to treat the plutonium as waste makes sense as a prudent plan in the absence of any reactors in the foreseeable future which would be able to use it,” he explains.

“Making the feedstock for those reactors could be a costly white elephant. I’ve previously described it as like making unicorn food in the hope that someone would show up with a hungry unicorn!”

Josh MacAlister, Labour chair of the Nuclear Energy All-Party Parliamentary Group and PPS to the Cabinet Office, whose constituency includes Sellafield, says: “The really damaging thing was the lack of a decision by previous governments. This uncertainty risked higher costs and missed opportunities for other nuclear developments.

“I understand both sides of the debate over immobilisation of plutonium versus re-use as a fuel, but the decision is highly technical and involves thinking ahead by generations rather than just years. As well as plutonium immobilisation leading to lots of highly skilled jobs in my community, it also leaves the door open for innovations like americium production for things like space batteries.”

This is another option floated by some: to use the plutonium to produce americium, which can then be used in space batteries for its half-life of over 400 years. Produced when plutonium absorbs neutrons, with such a large store of plutonium the UK could become the world’s biggest americium factory.

Sellafield has so far successfully produced americium at the gram scale and has been expanding production.

One industry expert suggests further development of americium could lead to commercial gains by selling the product for space batteries to NASA and SpaceX. “It is certainly a viable option,” another senior industry source agrees.

But there is some reassurance felt by those despairing of the decision to immobilise Sellafield’s plutonium, ironically because of the extremely long timetables involved in making it become a reality.

As Bull makes clear, “it would be many years before that work would be complete and plants built to carry out that immobilisation”, but he says “at least starting now means we can make some progress”.

One industry source sees it another way: “The material is just sitting there. They need to repack it and build another store, all of which runs on serious timeframes, and they’ll have to do that regardless of reuse or disposal. Hopefully, by the time they actually get round to physically wanting to do anything to the plutonium, there is something operational from a company like Newcleo.”

In a recent parliamentary question, Lord Kempsell, a former Downing Street aide to Boris Johnson, asked about the decision to immobilise rather than repurpose the plutonium for energy generation, sell it, or put it to an alternative use, like medical or scientific research.

Desnz minister Lord Hunt’s response acknowledged that “we will continue to take wider strategic factors and technologies into account in making the final investment decision”. Industry figures are hopeful this leaves the door open to a decision reversal in the future.

As Newcleo’s managing director in the UK, Andrew Murdoch, tells The House: “We were pleased with Lord Hunt’s recent reiteration that proper consideration will be given to wider strategic factors and advanced, sustainable technologies, such as ours, before any irreversible decision preventing the re-use of the UK’s stockpile of plutonium is made.

“We look forward to maintaining our dialogue with government and continuing to share Newcleo’s technology development progress with the relevant UK nuclear authorities.”
An industry source says they worry about the politics, however, and that government ministers “may find it difficult to change tack as there will already be a groundswell of movement with officials working towards immobilisation”.

A final investment decision on the GDF is set to be made by the end of the decade, which many see as ambitious, but leaves five years for businesses like Newcleo to prove their capabilities. Even if plutonium is put to use, a GDF is seen as ultimately necessary anyway for other products.

Most of those who spoke to The House about the decision recognised that the actual building of a GDF, if it were ever realised, could lead well into the 2040s at a minimum, or to the 2060s as a general expectation.

There are concerns about the practicalities of creating a GDF in the UK, as one industry source says, because of “all the misinformation and overblown fears around radiation”, which has meant “no one really wants it in their backyard”.

But a process is ongoing as to where a GDF may end up in Cumbria, with Mid Copeland and South Copeland in consideration. Lincolnshire has been a possibility but the county council recently announced its intention to withdraw from the process exploring the proposals, after already seeing multimillion-pound boreholes drilled in each area to test the suitability.

Bowie understands the concerns around ever getting a GDF built, saying “it is a tough sell to the public” wherever it is placed. While the most support comes from Cumbria, as they are used to Sellafield, geologically Lincolnshire is a more appealing area, but its lack of background in nuclear may make it harder to win over the community – and the process requires explicit community support to go ahead.

What might seem a ‘geeky’ issue actually sits at the heart of the UK’s ambitions to battle limp economic growth, provide energy security and tackle the climate crisis. It also speaks to how the country is able to use its assets – and one industry source suggests the need to bring back a national asset register, last updated in 2007, to help monitor and keep on top of products like plutonium to avoid mismanagement again in the future.