Armed guards on some of Britain’s nuclear waste shipments could be removed under new proposals designed to save millions of pounds.
Nuclear waste – from high-grade material such as enriched uranium to lower-grade items such as clothes and gloves – is regularly transported around the UK.
It is carried on special trains ,which use the normal rail network, by road, and on ships which return waste processed at Sellafield in Cumbria to its country of origin.
For example, in June this year seven flasks – highly resilient large containers – of nuclear waste were transported by rail from Sellafield to Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria, and there loaded onto a specialist ship that sailed to Germany.
The most dangerous material is escorted by armed guards. But now the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) is proposing to reduce that number – sparking fears over security as warnings intensify over Russia’s grey-war activities.
‘Consequences of failing are too great’
The Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC), which is responsible for the security, said any changes must “in no way compromise safety”.
A spokesman said: “The consequences of failing in this area are too great.”
The CNC is the armed force that guards Britain’s nuclear sites and the material moving between them.
The NDA says the proposed shake-up carries no risk and could save millions of pounds for the Treasury, which is struggling to find spare cash to help with the cost of living and defence in next month’s Budget.
Nuclear chiefs are calling for security to be more bespoke and based on risk. This could involve removing mandatory CNC armed escorts “where they do not provide a proportionate security benefit”.
The NDA group says existing security requirements for some nuclear transports can be excessive.
Warnings over Russia ‘grey war’
The material at the centre of the proposal includes plutonium and enriched uranium – highly sensitive nuclear matter that would pose a danger to public health, or in a worst-case scenario, be used in a “dirty bomb”- in which the material would be dispersed with conventional explosives.
The proposals are likely to reignite debate over nuclear security at a time when intelligence chiefs have warned repeatedly of growing Russian activity targeting critical infrastructure.
Experts have told The i Paper the plan could place Britain at further risk of nuclear material falling into the wrong hands.
“I think it’s a bad idea, it really is,” said Matt Okuhara, who served with the CNC from 2006 to 2012. “The reason you’ve got to guard this stuff in the first place is because of how dangerous it is.
“Anyone who gets hold of this material can use it for anything they want, they can use it for a dirty bomb, they can use it for a poisoning device.
“That’s why you need to have a strong deterrence force around the material in transit.”
In May, GCHQ director Anne Keast-Butler told an audience at Bletchley Park that Russia was “scaling up its daily hybrid activity against the UK and Europe, stretching from the seabed to cyberspace”.
Russia is, she said, “relentlessly targeting critical infrastructure, democratic processes, supply chains and public trust.”
She described the present moment as “a space between peace and war” and said the risk of miscalculation was “as high as I’ve ever seen it”.
Nuclear plans will be ‘safe’ and save cash
The proposals are contained in a 57-page document endorsed by six chief executives in the nuclear industry, including the heads of Sellafield and Nuclear Transport Solutions, the state-owned company responsible for moving the materials.
It was produced followed a request from former chancellor Rachel Reeves for savings and efficiency improvements in the industry, following a review of regulation last year.
The report states that the changes could cut the cost of some nuclear shipments by 10 to 20 per cent and save weeks of security planning and regulatory work.
Nuclear Transport Solutions says the proposals would allow it to “reduce cost and complexity of transport whilst maintaining robust safety and security outcomes and avoiding being priced out of the market.”
The nuclear chiefs also want to change the way the Government assesses threats to material being moved.
They argue that the current system was largely designed around fixed nuclear sites and does not work as well when it is applied to ships and other transport operations.
The existing approach is “unrealistic against a maritime setting”, the report says, and can lead to security measures that are “impractical or disproportionate”
Nuclear chiefs insist they are not calling for security standards to be weakened. Instead, they want security measures to be matched more closely to the actual risks involved in each shipment.
Rob Jordan, director of proliferation and nuclear policy at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), said the risk of “hybrid” or “grey-zone” warfare from Russia and other hostile states is “particularly high”.
This could mean the kind of Kremlin-sponsored, “violence for hire” as was witnessed with the firebomb attack on Sir Keir Starmer’s home.
“Damaging a truck on a nuclear convoy, or even blocking the route of a convoy causing serious delay, could cause embarrassment to the Government rather than it causing any kind of significant risk,” said Jordan.
“But we shouldn’t underestimate Russia’s desire to destabilise through embarrassment, through a sense of the British government’s inability to do things properly.”
Jordan – a former civil servant who previously worked on a range of national security issues, including understanding terror threats – believes cutting back on armed escorts will not necessarily increase risk.
He added: “It’s legitimate to have concerns over security, if details of what waste will be excluded from mandatory guarding aren’t clear.
“It’s going to be incumbent on government to make sure that whatever detail it releases on these proposals instils appropriate confidence to the public, and demonstrates to our adversaries out there that our nuclear material is safe and secure.”
‘This must in no way compromise safety’
A spokesperson for the CNC said: “The Civil Nuclear Constabulary exists to provide the highest levels of protection to civil nuclear sites and to nuclear material in transit.
“We welcome the recent Taskforce Review, which challenges all involved in both the civil and defence nuclear sectors to do more to realise the opportunity that investment, growth and innovation in nuclear can bring, together with more proportionate regulation.
“But the review is also clear that this must in no way compromise safety. The consequences of failing in this area are too great.
“The risk to our civil nuclear sector and to our wider critical national infrastructure is at the highest it has been for many years. We will match our protection to that threat.”
An NDA spokesperson said it supported the review “and the opportunity it presents for more proportionate and efficient regulation, while maintaining the highest standards of safety, security and environmental protection.
“Nuclear Transport Solutions uses a range of robust security measures when transporting materials by sea. This proposal would enable NTS to employ measures tailored to the specific circumstances of each shipment on a proportionate basis and in line with regulatory requirements.
“Any changes to transport arrangements would be carried out in collaboration with Government and regulators without compromising on safety or security.”
A Government spokesperson said: “We are reversing a legacy of no new nuclear power being delivered, to unlock a golden age of nuclear, securing thousands of skilled jobs and billions in investment, while maintaining a high standard of safety.”