IPEN CASE: NUCLEAR SAFETY AND MODERNIZATION IN BRAZIL ARE NECESSARY

The incident involving radioactive material at the Institute for Energy and Nuclear Research, IPEN, located on the USP campus, in the West Zone of São Paulo, reignited a discussion that goes beyond the limits of an operational episode: the need to guarantee safety, transparency, investments and continuous modernization of Brazilian nuclear infrastructure.

The most recent case occurred at the institute's Radiopharmacy Center, a strategic unit for the production of radiopharmaceuticals used in examinations, diagnoses and treatments in nuclear medicine. According to information released by the press and official bodies, two workers were exposed to traces of technetium-99, a radioisotope used in processes linked to the production of medical supplies. The incident was registered at the end of May and was monitored by the National Nuclear Safety Authority, ANSN.

What happened at the Radiopharmacy CenterThe episode was identified during the removal of biological sensors from an autoclave, equipment used in sterilization routines and production of radiopharmaceuticals. According to the institutional version released to the press, the incident involved two workers, who underwent preventive examinations with a full-body counter. The detected counts were considered low and, according to CNEN, there was no internal contamination. The contamination would have been restricted to the controlled area of the Radiopharmacy Center.

ANSN reported that IPEN's Radiopharmacy has current operating authorization and that it issued a technical notification with a deadline of June 18, 2026 for the institute to present documents and clarifications. The request involves information on licensing, safety culture, radioactive waste management, operational procedures and radiological protection conditions. The agency also requested clarification on the complaint regarding a possible radiological occurrence during routine operations.

The official version: security, control and institutional defenseThe official discourse of CNEN, IPEN and ANSN has focused on three axes: technical control of the occurrence, absence of risk to the population and maintenance of the regulated operation of the installation. ANSN states that technical notifications are part of routine regulatory supervision and that any additional measures will depend on the analysis of documents presented by IPEN.

This point is relevant because, to date, the regulatory investigation does not represent a prior conviction nor does it imply automatic suspension of the unit. ANSN itself reported that the operating authorization remains in force, with no immediate impact on the operation of Radiopharmacy. In February, the authority had granted authorization to operate the Radiopharmacy Center after verifying compliance with regulatory requirements applicable to the facility, including radiological protection, operational safety, team qualifications and procedures associated with the handling of radioactive material for medical purposes.

Institutional defense is also supported by the strategic importance of IPEN. The Radiopharmacy Center develops and supplies essential radiopharmaceuticals for diagnostic imaging and oncological therapies, serving hospitals, clinics and research centers in the country. ANSN also highlights that the unit is responsible for producing the Tc-99m generator, an input widely used in nuclear medicine diagnostic tests.

In summary, the official position seeks to avoid alarmism: there was an episode of low magnitude, the protocols were activated, the workers underwent tests, there was no confirmation of internal contamination and the incident remained under technical monitoring. This is the line of defense presented by the administration.

The workers' counterpointOn the other hand, workers' representative organizations state that the case should not be treated as an isolated occurrence. Sindsef-SP and Assipen requested official information from the management of IPEN and CNEN about the material involved, the number of workers potentially affected, the levels of contamination, the health risks and the measures adopted after the occurrence.

The entities also report concern about the infrastructure available for decontamination procedures and state that part of the actions would have taken place in places not specifically intended for this type of service. Furthermore, they relate the episode to a broader picture of budgetary constraints, lack of replacement of specialized technical personnel and delays in preventive maintenance of old installations.

This criticism is echoed in recent documents and demonstrations about the structural situation of the Brazilian nuclear sector. In a hearing in the Chamber of Deputies, CNEN's own leaders asked for budget stability and the recomposition of the staff. According to the Chamber, the institution had only 46% of positions occupied, a figure that could drop to 23% if all employees entitled to retirement left the commission.

The Federal Court of Auditors had also already highlighted risks in the structuring of the ANSN and cited institutional weaknesses of the CNEN, with a reduction in budgetary allocation and a shortage of personnel for the adequate performance of its legal powers.

The recent history of the IEA-R1 reactorThe incident at the Radiopharmacy Center occurs a few months after another relevant occurrence at IPEN. On March 23, smoke was detected in the control room of the IEA-R1 nuclear research reactor, also located at the institute. According to an official statement from CNEN, the fire brigade, radiological protection teams, logistics, physical protection and the Fire Department were called in. The building's electrical power supply was turned off and the reactor was out of operation at the time of the incident.

CNEN reported that no fire was found, but dense smoke was present. Initial evidence pointed to the possibility of overheating in distribution panels with electrical components. Even when turned off, the reactor maintained energized systems to ensure adequate safety conditions, such as circuit cooling and operational data acquisition.

In a subsequent update, IPEN reported that the IEA-R1 reactor would remain out of operation while investigations were carried out into the causes of the occurrence and measures were taken to replace the damaged electrical components. The institute also reported the hiring of independent expertise and stated that the corrective actions would be part of a process of permanent modernization of the reactor.

CNEN itself declared that no radioactive contamination was detected at the incident site, after analysis by the radioprotection team. Still, the episode reinforced the sensitivity of nuclear research facilities and the need for maintenance, technological updating and rapid response to any sign of operational failure.

Why IPEN is strategicIPEN is not just a scientific facility. It is an essential structure for the country's public health, research, innovation and technological sovereignty. Its activities in radiopharmaceuticals, nuclear medicine, scientific development and training of specialists reach hospitals, universities, clinics and research centers throughout Brazil.

For this reason, the discussion cannot be reduced to a dispute between the official version and the workers' complaints. The national importance of the institute requires balance: it is necessary to avoid alarmism, but it is also necessary to recognize that nuclear safety depends on continuous investment, qualified teams, rigorous maintenance, transparency and independent supervision.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, treats the aging of research reactors as an issue that requires systematic management, modernization and monitoring programs for structures, systems and components important for safety. The international guidance is clear: old installations can remain relevant, but they need permanent monitoring, review of procedures and technological renewal.

Editorial - Antena 1's opinionThe incident at IPEN should not be treated as a nuclear crisis. Nor should it be used to fuel fear or disproportionate comparisons with major historical accidents. So far, official bodies state that there was no risk to the population, there was no environmental contamination and there is no confirmation of internal contamination of the workers involved in the episode at the Radiopharmacy Center.

But the absence of an emergency does not eliminate the obligation to prevent the next one.

Antena 1 understands that strategic institutions such as IPEN need to be defended, strengthened and modernized. Brazil needs nuclear research. It needs the radiopharmaceuticals used in medicine. It needs qualified servers, researchers, technicians, physicists, engineers, pharmacists and specialized operators. It needs strong public science and structures capable of supporting a sensitive, complex and indispensable area.

Defending IPEN, however, does not mean shielding the institution from legitimate criticism. Transparency does not weaken science. Inspection does not threaten research. On the contrary: in sensitive areas, public trust arises precisely from clarity, accountability and the ability to correct failures before they become greater.

When workers demand investigations, exams, adequate infrastructure and staff replacement, these voices should not be treated as institutional obstacles. They must be incorporated into the safety culture. In nuclear installations, prevention depends on both technology and active listening, constant maintenance and appreciation of the teams that deal with controlled risks on a daily basis.

The official speech of CNEN, IPEN and ANSN plays an important role in stating that there is control, protocol and regulatory monitoring. But he cannot end the debate. Institutional defense needs to go hand in hand with investment, modernization and public commitment to the safety of workers and society.

Brazil must not abandon its research reactors, nor weaken the national production of radiopharmaceuticals. It must do the opposite: invest more, plan better and treat nuclear infrastructure as a strategic asset for public health, science and sovereignty.

The warning left by recent episodes at IPEN is simple: prevention costs less than improvisation. Nuclear security does not combine with precariousness. And institutions essential to the country cannot depend on successive patches to continue fulfilling their mission.

Modernizing IPEN is not an administrative luxury. It is a national need.

Source: Antena 1