5 days ago
23
With much recent talk of developing a new reactor to produce radioisotopes for medical use at Trawsfynydd, the Welsh Nuclear Free Local Authorities wish to promote an alternate possibility: that cyclotrons could not only also do the job – but that they could do so with distinct advantages from diverse locations across the UK.
First announced as an initiative by former Welsh First Minister Vaughan Gething in January 2023, the Trawsfynydd project is called ARTHUR (the Advanced Radioisotope Technology for Health Utility Reactor) costing £400 million, which would a publicly owned national laboratory with a small nuclear reactor to produce medical radioisotopes for use in hospitals throughout the UK[i].
The Welsh Government had previously established Cwmni Egino with a mission to bring forward ‘potential new projects including the deployment of small nuclear reactors to generate electricity and also a medical radioisotope research reactor to produce radionuclides for use in cancer diagnostics and treatment’.
Whilst this project has the backing of the devolved Welsh Government and the local Plaid Cymru MP, the NFLAs would question whether it is the right solution in the right location?
Radioisotopes are unstable chemical elements that undergo decay, emitting radiation. In medicine, they are combined with a second drug which guides the radioisotope to a specific part of the body. When injected into, or ingested by, the patient, the radiation emitted is either detected by a scanner to produce an image (i.e. diagnosis) or used to ‘damage’ targeted cancerous cells in the body (i.e. therapy).
In the UK, around 700,000 nuclear medical procedures are carried out, the vast majority of which are for the purposes of diagnosis. Radiotherapeutics is a small field, accounting for fewer than 5,000 procedures in the UK in 2015, but it is slowly increasing, for example in the treatment of thyroid and prostate cancers; of course, the treatment of many cancers by a radiation source from outside the body is already routine.
Historically, radioisotopes have been sourced from a small number of aging nuclear research reactors which are nearing the end of their operational lives. The most used radioisotope is technetium-99m (99mTc), accounting for over 80% of diagnostic medicine procedures. For the UK, 99mTc is produced by the radioactive decay of molybdenum-99 (99Mo), made in nuclear research reactors in Europe, South Africa and Australia through the fission (splitting) of enriched uranium[ii].
Such a radioisotope is purposefully chosen because of its short half-life. The amount of useful radiation emitted by 99mTc halves every 6 hours making it ideal for application in time-limited medical procedures; it would be medically unethical and may be positively harmful to subject the patient to excessive radiation beyond that required to carry out the medical procedure. The yield of 99mTc obtained from 99Mo also halves every 66 hours. These factors complicate supply as it necessary to get the radioisotope once produced to the medical facility administering it to the patient as quickly as possible and by its nature it cannot be stockpiled. This has meant that radioisotopes are routinely flown between countries to speed transit. On their arrival, the combined drugs are prepared in radio pharmacies, with a network of more than 100 in the UK, many of which form part of a hospital’s nuclear medicine department.[iii]
The Right Solution?
Worries about international shortages of supply and the lack of a UK-based medical research reactor prompted the Welsh Government to suggest Trawsfynydd for Project ARTHUR, but use of a fission reactor brings complicating factors and risks. Reactors produce 99Mo from highly enriched uranium (HEU) or low-enriched uranium (LEU). Production using LEU is less efficient and more expensive, but HEU is a proliferation risk, and all major producers of medical radioisotopes have agreed to convert to using LEU. Five of the six currently operational reactors use at least some HEU. The UK has a significant stockpile of HEU. The employment of uranium means radioactive waste, which means in turn environmental contamination, and there must always be a small risk of an accident or a targeted attack by terrorists or hostile third parties.
PET (positron emission tomography) scans routinely used in oncology employ radioisotopes, typically Fluorine-18, which are produced in low power cyclotrons around the UK; consequently, their supply is relatively secure. Yet to date, there appears to have been no consideration of the possibility of providing for the remainder of the UK’s requirements in medical radioisotopes through this proven technology. Cyclotrons are particle accelerators which repeatedly propel a beam of charged particles (protons) in a circular path. Medical radioisotopes are made from non-radioactive materials (stable isotopes) which are bombarded by these protons. When the proton beam interacts with the stable isotopes, a nuclear reaction occurs, making the stable isotopes radioactive isotopes (radioisotopes).
Contrary to what you may expect from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the agency raves about the merits of producing radioisotopes using cyclotrons rather than reactors. “Cyclotrons are developing rapidly and will play an increasingly important role in the health care sector, especially in advanced medical imaging procedures, because cyclotron-produced radiopharmaceuticals are very efficient in detecting various cancers,” said Amir Jalilian, Radioisotope and Radiopharmaceutical Chemist at the IAEA. In 2019, the IAEA created the Database of Cyclotrons for Radionuclide Production to help experts in the field ‘find and exchange technical, utilization-related and administrative information on operating cyclotrons’. As of January 2021, there were 1,300 such facilities listed in 95 countries, including one in Cardiff, Wales! Many are in hospitals enabling radioisotopes to be delivered to, and administered by, radio pharmacies in the shortest possible time and without the vagaries and uncertainties of supply and transport. Thanks to recent advancements in the field, key radioisotopes, such as Technetium-99m and Gallium-68, are now also being produced in cyclotrons, with the IAEA having sponsored a coordinated research project to support future developments.[iv] Amongst the leaders in the use of cyclotrons are Canadian research teams at the national laboratory for particle physics (TRIUMF) and the University of Alberta.
The publication Modern Physics has produced a helpful table of the ‘Advantages of Cyclotrons in Radioisotope Production’ :
‘High Purity: Cyclotrons can produce radioisotopes with high purity, which is crucial for medical applications to minimize unwanted side effects.
On-site Production: Hospitals and research facilities equipped with a cyclotron can produce their own radioisotopes, reducing the need for transportation and allowing for fresher, more effective isotopes.
Controlled Production: The output of isotopes can be closely controlled in terms of quantity and activity, ensuring a steady supply in accordance with demand.
Environmental Safety: Compared to nuclear reactors, cyclotrons produce less radioactive waste, contributing to environmental safety’.[v]
They also remove the risk of nuclear proliferation.
The NFLAs would argue that it would be safer, more efficient, and more equitable to produce medical radioisotopes using cyclotrons rather than a research reactor and from hospital locations distributed throughout the UK, enabling patients to access nuclear medicine services more equally wherever they live and allowing medics to use radioisotopes after creation with greater levels of radioactivity making them more effective in treatments. Several centres would also diversify access to employment, creating more jobs in more locations. It would also be ‘greener’ as it would eliminate the need for transport radioisotopes by air or road long-distances.
The Right Location?
In any case is Trawsfynydd really the right location for such a national facility being at the heart of Eryri, Wales’ largest National Park. Would anyone contemplate locating a nuclear reactor in the Lake District National Park?
It is also quite an isolated location, which is in part its appeal to tourists. Although astride an A-road, the site lies some distance from the Welsh coast and any city.
Eryri is described on the park website thus: ‘Home to over 26,000 people, Eryri’s landscape is steeped with culture, history, and heritage, where the Welsh language is part of the day-to-day fabric of the area. Nearly 4 million people visit Eryri every year to explore its towering peaks and breath-taking valleys, find tranquillity in its lesser-trodden paths and discover its extensive recreation opportunities.’
In 1968, an ugly Magnox nuclear plant in a brutalist style was built near Trawsfynydd Village, a complete eyesore against the marked beauty of the natural environment. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority which is now responsible for dismantling the redundant plant has conceded in documents that it has a ‘visual impact within the National Park’ as it has made a commitment to local partners to reduce the height of the plant as part of its ‘Lead and Learn’ decommissioning plan.
The plant drew its cooling water from an adjoining manmade lake, which became radioactively contaminated. The NDA has no plan to address this. There has been previously published research into heightened instances of certain cancers amongst members of the local community using the lake. The NFLAs highlighted this in our response to a recent consultation on the NDA’s plan to bury low-level radioactive building materials on site.[vi]
In March, in response to a UK Government consultation on the proposed siting policy for new nuclear plants, the NFLAs called for a complete ban on future nuclear developments in Eryri and any other UK national parks.
Subsequently, the government’s Great British Nuclear agency which is responsible for finding future sites for the deployment of Small Modular Reactors rejected Trawsfynydd for early consideration, citing the constrained site. Our concern would be the construction of a medical reactor facility alongside the old plant may well hamper the ongoing efforts of the NDA to decommission the site.
As we said in March, if a medical radioisotope research reactor is deemed necessary (despite the case for cyclotrons we have set out), the NFLAs contend that it would be more appropriate to co-locate this within an existing nuclear research facility, such as that at Bangor University. This location is also far better served by the road and rail network for transporting these products, given their finite useful life.
Any new reactor at Trawsfynydd will stand stark against the beauty of the locality. Operations would be accompanied by the small potential risk of an accident and certainly lead to further radioactive contamination of the lake and the local environment. Construction and operation would be detrimental to the peace and quiet enjoyed by residents and tourists. Consequently, there may be an impact on visitor numbers and the tourist economy. Nuclear redevelopment could also dilute the historic dominance of the Welsh language in the area by attracting an incoming non-Welsh speaking construction and scientific workforce.
The Welsh NFLAs contend that any nuclear redevelopment at Trawsfynydd is both unnecessary and inappropriate. In March, we plainly described such a plan as ‘madness’.[vii] Instead of investing in nuclear, we would advocate instead for investment in tourism industries and green energy technologies to help sustain productive employment in the national park.
It is time for ARTHUR to take time out, cyclotrons can do the work.
Ends//For more information, please contact NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk
[i] The Welsh Government
[ii] The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, POSTNOTE Number 558, July 2017, ‘Supply of Medical Radioisotopes’
https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0558/
This table lists reactors that produce more than 90% of the world’s 99Mo supply and cites their maximum production capacity.
| Reactor | Location | Capacity as a proportion of global demand | Estimated end of operation |
| HFR | Netherlands | 38% | 2024 |
| BR-2 | Belgium | 26% | 2026 |
| Safari-1 | South Africa | 21% | 2030 |
| MARIA | Poland | 15% | 2030 |
| OPAL | Australia | 15% | 2057 |
| LVR-15 | Czech Republic | 14% | 2028 |
The maximum theoretical capacity adds up to more than 100% as reactors routinely operate at less than maximum capacity.
[iii] Ibid as ii.https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0558/
[iv] IAEA
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/cyclotrons-what-are-they-and-where-can-you-find-them
[v] Modern Physics, Online article on Radioisotope Production and Cyclotrons
https://modern-physics.org/radioisotope-production-and-cyclotrons/
[vi] Welsh NFLAs critical of Trawsfynydd consultation
[vii] NFLAs call for no new nuclear plants in National Parks
