Unlike traditional nuclear methods of generating isotopes for medical imaging, the new particle accelerator at South Campus can generate a wider range of isotopes without producing nuclear waste.
The particle accelerator, known as a cyclotron, can produce enough isotopes for 1,000 diagnostic procedures a day – enough for both Calgary and Edmonton. John Wilson, the facility’s manager said the technology may soon replace nuclear reactors in providing medical isotopes for major cities across Canada.
“We’re the first to show that it can be produced to this quantity,” Wilson said.
More than 70 percent of the world’s diagnostic imaging is done using technetium-99m, a radioactive tracer. When fused with a drug or other molecule, its passage through the body can then be monitored using gamma cameras.
Wilson said the method can be used to track tumour growth and drug metabolism in cancer patients.
Technetium-99m has been traditionally supplied through splitting atoms in a nuclear reactor to produce molybdenum-99, which then decays into technetium-99m. However, only six percent of the material produced in a nuclear reactor can be used, the rest is nuclear waste.
Using a particle accelerator, Wilson said technetium-99m can now be produced directly by firing a stream of protons at a target material. The method bypasses the safety and environmental concerns surrounding traditional nuclear reactors.
“When the electricity stops, the (isotope) production stops,” Wilson said. “It’s a much safer technology.”
But Wilson said what makes the cyclotron useful is its ability to generate difficult to produce medical isotopes.
While most hospitals and clinics continue to rely on technetium for gamma imaging, Wilson said the technology is slowly being replaced with positron emission tomography (PET) scans.
“Technetium is more or less like black and white TV,” Wilson said. “It’s low definition.”
By varying the target material used in the cyclotron, the technology can produce other medical isotopes like radioactive fluorides for PET, something traditional nuclear reactors cannot produce.
Since 2010 the Canadian government has been investing in the creation of alternative medical isotope sources.
In 2009, countries across the globe faced a medical isotope shortage when the two major nuclear reactors producing technetium-99m were briefly out of service. The National Research Universal Reactor in Chalk River, Ontario was closed due to a heavy water leak the same period the High Flux Reactor in Petten, Netherlands was shut down for a month-long maintenance.
After 61 years of operation, the Chalk River reactor has since been decommissioned in 2016, and Wilson believes the 57-year-old High Flux Reactor in Petten likely won’t last much longer.
“There’s only about six or seven reactors in the world that are producing [medical isotopes] and they’re ageing,” Wilson said. “It’s not that it wasn’t good technology, it’s just that nobody wants to build reactors anymore … Nobody wants a reactor built in their backyard.”
While the cyclotron is ready for use, Canada’s federal and provincial governments have yet to determine how the technology may be implemented across the country and how it may be integrated into existing healthcare practices.
However, Wilson is optimistic that the new cyclotron will set the province up for success down the line as the demand for technetium shifts.
“The cyclotron gives you a more or less stable continuous source (of isotopes),” Wilson said. “You don’t have to worry about what’s happening on the outside.”
Group: Nuclear waste could be trucked from Illinois to Port Huron, Bob Gross, Port Huron Times Herald, 3 Aug 18
A coalition of environmental groups claims a letter from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission indicates that nuclear waste from power plants in Illinois will be trucked to Port Huron and shipped from there to an unknown destination.
“A spill, release or fire here or near waterways that flow into the St. Clair River could potentially ruin one of the largest fresh water deltas in the world – the St. Clair Flats – and potentially poison forever drinking water and freshwater ecosystems for up to 40-plus million people of the Great Lakes, including residents of Canada, the U.S., U.S. Tribes, First Nations and other indigenous peoples,” said Kay Cumbow of the Great Lakes Environmental Alliance in Port Huron, in a news release.
According to the news release from Don’t Waste Michigan, Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes, a letter dated July 13, from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to “Secured Transportation Services,” cites an application under 45-day review by the NRC for a highway transport route for high level radioactive waste from the LaSalle nuclear reactors in Illinois to the “Port Huron, Michigan Port of Exit.”
The letter was found July 23 among 467 documents on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s online ADAMS library, according to the news release. The number of transports is not given.
Secured Transportation Services, which is based in Buford, Georgia, is identified on the company’s website as the “leading transportation coordinator for spent nuclear fuel in North America.”
The letter only refers to shipping from central Illinois to Port Huron by a land route, according to the news release. It does not show where or how the waste would move from the city.
In a follow-up interview, Cumbow said the groups have more questions than answers about possible spent fuel shipments coming to Port Huron from Illinois………..
Cumbow said the letter only references highway route approval.
“Once it gets to Port Huron, we don’t know where it goes,” she said.
She said the waste is highly radioactive.
“It’s lethal when you are exposed to it,” Cumbow said. “Shielded, you’re fine. Any accident with this stuff, if there was a serious incident with this stuff, there is a likelihood people will be killed.
“The other thing is we don’t know what’s approved in Canada,” she said. “We don’t know where it is going. It might be going to Canada or it might be going through Canada to somewhere else.”
She said safety issues posed by the state’s crumbling road and bridge infrastructure are other concerns.
“There might be a little bit of this going across the border, or there might be a whole lot of it going across the border,” Cumbow said. “We just don’t know. I think as a society we should be looking at ways to stop poisoning our land and water.”
According to the news release, NRC spokesman Alex Sapountzis is quoted in an email to an NRC librarian as stating that “details of all spent nuclear fuel routes are designated as Safeguards Information/sensitive information and therefore will not be placed in ADAMS. All a member of the public will see in ADAMS is that in a letter we state we accepted for review a route (it has all the information we need to conduct our review) and then an approval letter (based on the information the applicant submitted, we accept the route and for transport by road it’s good for 5 years or by rail for 7 years).”
University’s cyclotron facility could fully supply province’s demand for medical isotopes HINA ALAM, Edmonton Journal : May 15, 2018
For an Albertan who needs it, the journey of a radioactive isotope that has the ability to detect a potential heart or a bone cancer could begin at the University of Alberta’s Medical Isotope Cyclotron Facility…….
Although tests conducted over the past few months have shown that the U of A facility is capable of meeting the province’s need for 1,000 diagnostic procedures a day, there are still hurdles to overcome and its future use for producing technetium is still unclear…..
But research lead and university oncology department chairman Sandy McEwan sees a silver lining….
There are three isotopes that are commonly used — technetium-99m, a radioactive molecule of fluorine used in PET (positron emission tomography) scanning, and isotopes of iodine, used to detect and treat thyroid cancers.
Technetium-99m is the most common of these, and has a half-life of six hours, meaning that only half of it remains after that time. This is advantageous because the imaging scan is quick and the technetium doesn’t linger around in the body. This also means that the isotope must be produced quickly.
In the cyclotron, McEwan said it takes about six hours to make enough technetium-99m for the province each day.
……… ……The U of A technology shows that the isotope can be made locally and the science replicated across the country.
As it stands now, a dose of technetium-99m produced by the cyclotron at U of A is about 10 per cent more expensive compared to a dose of technetium-99m produced by traditional reactors.
“But that includes costing everything,” McEwan said. “It includes costing the cyclotron, the building, the research, the operations — everything.”
McEwan said the technetium-99m produced by the cyclotron is of a slightly higher purity profile than what you get from a reactor.
Also, most of the reactors are extremely old, said John Wilson, manager of the facility……
“Nuclear reactors are the highest capacity source for technetium-99m but are very, very expensive and create nuclear waste,” he said. “No one wants a reactor built close to where they live.” Jan Andersson, a researcher at the facility said as the supply stands now, reactors produce molybdenum-99, which has a half-life of 66 days and decays into technetium-99m, which is used in patients. This allows isotope to be supplied from far away but only if the reactors are running.
McEwan believes that technetium PET imaging will soon fade to give way to newer technologies, and the cyclotron is well-positioned to handle that.
“The cyclotron is Canadian,” he said. “We have a made-in-Canada solution.”
The Pickering Nuclear Station has a deadly secret: 740,000 radioactive fuel bundles sitting on site — the legacy of close to 50 years of nuclear operations.
These bundles contain radioactive materials that can penetrate the human body, leading to serious illness or death. They also contain an enormous amount of plutonium, the key ingredient in nuclear warheads or dirty bombs. There is enough plutonium on-site at Pickering today to construct more than 11,000 nuclear warheads.
We recently asked internationally recognized risk expert Dr. Gordon Thompson to review the advisability of storing this enormous pile of toxic waste in the midst of Canada’s largest urban area and next to the source of our drinking water.
His conclusion was stark: The Pickering site, he found, is “suboptimal as a spent nuclear fuel-storage site from perspectives including defensibility, proximity of populations, and potential to contaminate Lake Ontario.” He added that the current waste storage facilities have no protection from rocket, bomb or aircraft attacks from the air or water and that, overall, the site is “lightly defended” at best.
Half-a-century after the start of nuclear power operations in Canada, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization is still on the hunt for a “willing host” community to accept thousands of tonnes of spent fuel that will remain highly radioactive for thousands of years.
This means there is little chance the waste currently being stored at Pickering is going anywhere in the next 60 to 100 years. To add insult to injury, while Ontario Power Generation is planning to expand its conventional storage facilities so that Pickering can continue to produce and store more toxic nuclear wastes, it has no plans to make its new storage facilities as safe as possible. Specifically, it has no plans to build above-ground, attack-resistant, reinforced-concrete vaults to protect Pickering’s wastes from a terrorist attack.
Continuing to operate this patched-up nuclear plant surrounded by millions of people, while piling up more and more toxic nuclear wastes in conventional commercial storage buildings, is the very definition of an extremely bad idea that can only get worse.
Those who support keeping Pickering running until 2024 or beyond, such as Premier Doug Ford, need to explain how they plan to safeguard the thousands of tonnes of deadly waste already stored at the site and why it is a good idea to continue adding more.
— Angela Bischoff is the director of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance. We’re behind Ontario’s coal phase-out and are now working to move Ontario to a 100-per cent renewable electricity system.
Global News By Mark Giunta, Videographer, Backup News & Sports Anchor Global News, 12 July 18
Officials with the Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI) are calling it “a major milestone that’s decades in the making.”
The first truckloads of low-level radioactive waste are on the road taking contaminants from the centre pier to the long-term storage facility on Baulch Road, in the town’s north-west.
t has been a long wait that has included some delays along the way for the $1.28-billion project. The federal government committed the cash to cleaning up Port Hope and Port Granby in 2012.
“We have upwards of 30 regulatory agencies we work with. They all have a different set of requirements. We’ve spent years doing the planning work to meet those requirements,” Parnell said. “A lot has to happen to make that first truckload move across the scales.”…….
There are a number of safety measures in place to prevent further contamination along the routes.
“Big priority, especially with the dry summer, is the dust control. We have multiple dust control water application trucks, dust suppressant being applied,” said Chris Bobzener, project lead. “We have a robust safety program here. Very stringent requirements on the contractors and clearances.”https://globalnews.ca/news/4327489/port-hope-remediation-radioactive-waste/
Durham Region.com NEWS Jul 04, 2018 by Kristen Calis Pickering News Advertiser
PICKERING — Questions from concerned advocacy groups regarding the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station remain, while Ontario Power Generation continues to defend its position to justify the plant’s continued operation.This was the scene at the second round of Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission hearings regarding OPG’s request for a licence extension to operate the Pickering power plant to 2024, followed by safe storage activities until 2028. The plant is currently scheduled to close on Aug. 31.
Shawn-Patrick Stensil, senior energy analyst for Greenpeace, spoke Thursday at the Pickering Recreation Complex during the hearings. The CNSC will make the decision on the extension request.
In his submission on behalf of Greenpeace, Stensil said there is no justification for Pickering’s operation and the commission should reject OPG’s “request to expose millions of people within the (Greater Toronto Area) to the possibility of a nuclear accident.”
The week of hearings wrapped up on Friday. The first round took place in Ottawa in April.
……….The advocacy group was granted funding from the CNSC to poll the public on specific issues for the purpose of the hearing and presented its results.
The poll found 93 per cent of those surveyed want detailed nuclear emergency plans in place to protect residents from a possible large-scale accident at Pickering (or Darlington).
“Population density around the Pickering station is already too high yet intensification is being stepped up,” McNeill said.
Toronto’s public school board — and its elementary teachers — are urging officials to provide schools within 50 kilometres of the Pickering nuclear plant with a supply of anti-radiation pills in case of an incident.
The boundary would encompass almost all of the city’s schools and goes well beyond the current distribution radius of 10 kilometres, said Trustee Jerry Chadwick, who was part of committee that made the recommendation recently approved by the Toronto District School Board.
“All of our schools east of Morningside Ave. have had the potassium pills for years,” said Chadwick, who represents Ward 22 in the southeast end of Scarborough. “The TDSB did not have to request them, they were provided as part of the range covered by Pickering.
“Now we are asking them to cover schools in the 50-kilometre radius, which covers most of our schools.”
The issue of schools being provided with stockpiles of potassium iodide, or “KI” pills — which protect the thyroid in case of radiation exposure — dominated hearings held on the future of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, said attendee Shawn-Patrick Stensil of Greenpeace.
In Greater Toronto, there are two plants — Pickering, about 30 kilometres from Toronto’s Yonge St., and Darlington, which is about 60 kilometres away.
By Aaron StreckVideographer Global News, 28 June 18 “……A group of protesters rallied outside the Pickering Recreation Complex on Tuesday afternoon.
It’s the site of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission licensing renewal hearing this week.
The group wants the Pickering Power Plant to be decommissioned over the impact it has on both the environment and people living in the area.
“I’m more concerned about lowering the electricity rates for the entire province and providing safety and security for the residents of the area, of the GTA. So when you balance it all out, I think we need to consider all Ontarians, consider the safety and security of the local residents and we can create jobs by immediately decommissioning the station. So that’s what we’re calling for, an immediate decommissioning,” said Angela Bischoff, Ontario Clean Air Alliance outreach director…..https://globalnews.ca/news/4298298/protesters-rally-pickering-decommission-nuclear-power-plant/
Clean Air Alliance 21st June 2018, Today Ontario Premier-Designate Doug Ford failed to seize his opportunity
to lower Ontario’s electricity costs by $1.1 billion per year by
directing Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to close the Pickering Nuclear
Station in August when its licence expires.
On the contrary, Mr. Ford announced that he will allow the 4th oldest nuclear station in North
America to continue to operate in the middle of the GTA until 2024. Mr.
Ford’s decision does not make financial sense for Ontario’s electricity
consumers. The annual savings from closing the Pickering Nuclear Station
would be 183 times greater than the savings from firing Mayo Schmidt, the
CEO of Hydro One. According to the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters
association, the Pickering Nuclear Station’s performance is
“persistently abysmal…by any objective standard.” http://www.cleanairalliance.org/ford-fails-to-seize-opportunity-to-lower-ontarios-electricity-costs-by-1-1-billion-per-year/
Motley Fool 28th May 2018, It has been a tough few years for one-time high-flying uranium miner Cameco Corp.. Over the last five years, its value has plummeted by 38% after nuclear power fell into disfavour after the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, which caused the price of uranium to collapse.
Since then, uranium has remained caught in a protracted slump, despite claims by industry insiders and analysts that it is poised to rebound because of a combination of growing demand and emerging supply constraints. Nonetheless, despite these claims, there has been no sign of a sustained rally, and an upturn in the fortunes of the radioactive metal may never occur.
Ontario Greens would close nuclear plant this summer
Province could save $1.2B by closing Pickering plant, buying power from Quebec, leader says CBC News
The Pickering Nuclear Generating Station would close this summer if the Green Party of Ontario formed a government, according to leader Mike Schreiner.
Speaking on CBC Radio’s Ontario Today, Schreiner said while 1,900 jobs would be lost if the plant closed, others could be created by developing the plant’s prime waterfront property.
The party would not close the Bruce or Darlington nuclear generating stations, Schreiner said.
“There is no way we can shut down our nuclear plants tomorrow. It’s just unrealistic because (nuclear) produces 70 per cent of our power,” Schreiner said, though the party does oppose rebuilding such facilities.
The Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives have also said they would close the Pickering plant, but not until 2024. Like the Greens, the NDP has vowed to start decommissioning it this year.
Schreiner would also turn to Quebec to meet more of Ontario’s electricity needs. Cheap power from Quebec would help bring down hydro prices for consumers, he said.
The savings from both the plant closure and cheaper power from the neighbouring province would add up to $1 billion, Schreiner said, which could then be invested in making homes and businesses more energy efficient, Schreiner said.
“Nobody should have to choose between putting food on the table (and) paying their electricity bill,” Schreiner said.
Global News, By Colin Perkel The Canadian Press 24 May 18, TORONTO — Of the three main parties vying for office in Ontario’s spring election, only the NDP has spoken out against building a $2.4-billion nuclear waste bunker near Lake Huron.
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said the idea of burying radioactive waste so close to a major fresh-water source worries her and, should she be elected on June 7, would look to intervene against the project. “As a party, we’re not in favour of having that facility in that location,” Horwath said recently on the campaign trail. “It’s something that we’re quite concerned about. We know that other leaders, both in Canada and across the border in the States, have sent significant letters of concern and protest to the federal government in regard to the siting of this facility.” ………
scores of communities on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border have expressed alarm at the proposal. They maintain the consequences of contaminating the all-important fresh-water source is far too great to take. “I hear big concerns from many different jurisdictions as well as individuals as well as communities,” Horwath said.
……… more than 100 mayors and other elected officials on both sides of the border — they claim to speak for 16 million people — urged federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna in November to reject the proposed bunker. They noted that local, county and state governments representing 23 million people had passed 230 resolutions opposing the burial of nuclear waste anywhere in the Great Lakes basin.Horwath agreed.
No nuclear waste near Great Lakes, Detroit News Debbie Dingell and Fred Upton May 9, 2018
In Michigan, we know the value of our precious and finite natural resources. The Great Lakes account for more than 20 percent of the word’s freshwater supply — providing drinking water for millions of people and supporting our economy, jobs and our way of life. It is our responsibility to be good stewards of this vital resource for our children and grandchildren, which is why the Great Lakes delegation has been consistent in our strong opposition to efforts to store nuclear waste in or near the Great Lakes.
This should never be a consideration. Yet, a Canadian utility company, Ontario Power Generation, continues to seek approval to construct a deep geologic repository for nuclear waste less than one mile from Lake Huron in Kincardine, Ontario. This misguided proposal would mean radioactive waste would be buried less than a mile from the water source that 40 million people — Americans and Canadians — depend upon.
This is unacceptable. That’s why we worked closely with our colleagues on the House Energy and Commerce Committee to include an amendment to protect the Great Lakes in legislation being considered by the House of Representatives this week on nuclear waste policy.
Our amendment sends a strong, powerful, bipartisan message to our friends and neighbors in Canada that the U.S. Congress is united against storing nuclear waste in or near the Great Lakes.
By expressing the sense of the Congress that the governments of the United States and Canada should not allow storage of nuclear waste in or around the Great Lakes, we are sending a strong signal that we will not sit idly by and allow spent nuclear fuel or other radioactive waste near this precious water source.
While this amendment is critical to Michigan and the Great Lakes, the broader bill we will consider, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018, is also important because we in the United States need to find a place to dispose of our commercial spent nuclear fuel.
……….This bipartisan legislation would help solve this long-standing issue once and for all by providing for the construction of a permanent nuclear waste storage facility far from the Great Lakes. It also maintains interim storage facilities to hold nuclear waste in the meantime.
This legislation is good for Michigan because we are keeping nuclear waste out of the Great Lakes, and it is good for the United States because it finally provides a pathway to dispose of this nuclear waste.
We remain committed to working with our colleagues in the Michigan delegation to ensure we never see nuclear waste in the Great Lakes. Storing spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive material in the Great Lakes basin bears a great risk. All of our lakes are connected, and the potential of an accident contaminating this precious resource is too great.
Protecting the Great Lakes and the drinking water of 40 million people should be the No. 1 priority. We’re glad that today, we can take a bipartisan step forward to preserve these waters for future generations.
U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell represents Michigan’s 12th Congressional district. U.S. Rep. Fred Upton represents its 6th Congressional district.
This bipartisan legislation would help solve this long-standing issue once and for all by providing for the construction of a permanent nuclear waste storage facility far from the Great Lakes. It also maintains interim storage facilities to hold nuclear waste in the meantime.
This legislation is good for Michigan because we are keeping nuclear waste out of the Great Lakes, and it is good for the United States because it finally provides a pathway to dispose of this nuclear waste.
We remain committed to working with our colleagues in the Michigan delegation to ensure we never see nuclear waste in the Great Lakes. Storing spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive material in the Great Lakes basin bears a great risk. All of our lakes are connected, and the potential of an accident contaminating this precious resource is too great.
Protecting the Great Lakes and the drinking water of 40 million people should be the No. 1 priority. We’re glad that today, we can take a bipartisan step forward to preserve these waters for future generations.
Toronto Star 23rd April 2018 ,Canada mishandling nuclear waste plans, Indigenous, environmental groups
warn. First Nations leaders say they have not been properly consulted about
the prospect of a nuclear waste disposal site being established northwest
of Ottawa near a prominent nuclear research centre.
Environmental groupsalso say the controversy over the site near Chalk River, Ont., illustrates
the fact that the federal government lacks suitable policies to regulate
the handling of nuclear waste. Glen Hare, deputy grand chief of the
Anishinabek Nation, says his people were not consulted about the proposed
dump site, which is located less than a kilometre away from the Ottawa
River. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/04/23/canada-mishandling-nuclear-waste-plans-indigenous-environmental-groups-warn.html
nuclear-news 