Analysis: No risk-free option for deadly material

THE principal threat of this material comes from the plutonium. With a half life of 24,500 years, it effectively is a health, security and environmental hazard forever.

The fuel elements were exposed to radiation from the reactor when it was operating up to 1977; thus, some plutonium will be present. "Breeder fuel" like this is designed to contain the most pure form of plutonium - so-called supergrade. Like all plutonium, it is a direct-use nuclear weapons material. But supergrade is particularly sensitive from a security perspective, as it contains about 97 per cent plutonium 239, which requires the highest level of security. But no security is foolproof, and, anyway, why raise security fears over hundreds of miles when transport is not necessary?

There are no risk-free options. With this particular material, the reprocessing option as recommended by the NDA is the worst one. The casks to be used in the transport are Magnox containers, weighing 50 tonnes. The NDA will make the case that there have been very few incidents after many thousands of transports. But why transport when it is not necessary? There are security implications of moving any nuclear material - and this material could be some of the most sensitive on the planet.

The major issue is that reprocessing does not solve the problem - it complicates it. The UK nuclear safety agency the HSE actually ruled out the reprocessing option for this very same material in 1998 - following a safety assessment of the Dounreay site.

• Shaun Burnie is former head of nuclear campaigns at Greenpeace International and an independent nuclear consultant.