Skip to main content

U.S. May Be Able to Produce Its Own Medical Isotopes at the Clinton Nuclear Power Station

By

The NRC just approved a license amendment at the Clinton nuclear plant in Illinois for a pilot program “to explore the production of Cobalt-60… Cobalt-60 is a radioactive material licensed by the NRC for applications such as commercial irradiators and cancer treatment.”

As you may or may not know, there is a medical isotope shortage in the world because the reactor that produces 30-40% of the isotopes (Chalk River) is shut down. This has opened up a large opportunity to see if other suppliers can fill the gap, especially in the U.S. since we don’t have our own commercial isotope production facilities.

NRC:

The amended license allows Exelon to alter the reactor’s core by inserting up to eight modified fuel assemblies containing rods filled with Cobalt-59, which would absorb neutrons during reactor operation and become Cobalt-60. The pilot program will provide data on how the modified assemblies perform during reactor operation. Exelon has informed the NRC it plans to insert the modified assemblies during Clinton’s current refueling outage.

The NRC staff approved the amendment after evaluating the potential effects of the modified fuel assemblies on plant operation and accident scenarios.

If this program is successful, basically every reactor in the U.S. could become a medical isotope producer. Not only would nuclear plants be providing an essential commodity to our society (electricity), but they would also be saving lives. Pretty exciting stuff.

Update, 1/19, 2:00 pm: Here are a few interesting stats from GE Hitachi who's teaming up with Exelon to test the program:

The International Irradiation Association estimates that 15 million cancer treatments are carried out using cobalt-60 each year in hospitals and clinics in over 80 countries. More than 500,000 brain cancer treatments have been performed using cobalt-60.
...
In addition to cancer treatment, cobalt-60 is used to preserve food, decontaminate packaging materials, sanitize cosmetics and purify pharmaceuticals. More than 40 percent of U.S.-manufactured medical devices, including syringes and bandages, are cleaned and/or sterilized using cobalt-60.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
If this program is successful, basically every reactor in the U.S. could become a medical isotope producer.

Has there been even the slightest indication of such interest by other US power reactor operators? this is just your hyperbole, right?

Is the isotopes market large enough to sustain production from 104 US power reactors? or even half of them?
January 19, 2010 at 11:57 AM
David Bradish said…
If you read carefully what I wrote, I didn't say it would be economical for all reactors to do this, only that it is possible. One reactor supplies 30-40% of the isotopes in the world. Thus, Clinton and other nuclear plants would be competing in a small market like you point out.

Just speculating here but sometime in the future, we could discover another need for the isotopes because we've lowered its price through competition. The point of the post was to highlight another diverse feature nuclear energy has to offer.
January 19, 2010 at 12:36 PM
Anonymous said…
Most plants have gone to great lengths to remove every possible source of Co-60 from their cores, to reduce personnel dose. One notable example would be Stellite pins and rollers in BWR control blades, which tended to get very hot by the time you wanted to swap old blades for new. Of course, in this proposed scheme for Clinton, the cobalt would be well sealed in the dummy bundles, so maybe it's not such a problem.

This might be a perfect thing to do at Cooper station if they still have dummy bundles in their core. They already have experience designing and operating reactor cores including inert bundles that do nothing but parasitically absorb neutrons.
January 19, 2010 at 1:42 PM
Anonymous said…
Cobalt 60 is also used a gamma source for industrial radiography (of welding that is over 2 inches thick; not mentioned in the article).
January 19, 2010 at 5:06 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more