[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re[3]: Urgent Request for Medical Isotope Production Support
Response to Bob Atcher:
1. Many among the current operations staff at FFTF agree with you and
believe FFTF can be run the most economically as a privatized
facility. That is their proposal. The rapid retrieval system has
been designed and is part of that proposal.
2. Advanced Nuclear & Medical Systems, Richland, has submitted a
proposal to DOE to privatize the FFTF. There are several other larger
companies that would like the same opportunity. You are right that
the medical isotope mission will depend on the tritium mission. The
current debate is not on FFTF as a medical isotope production
facility, but rather whether FFTF can produce sufficient
tritium to meet an interim national need. That is being studied
by the JASONS. It is also under intense study and scrutiny by
the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense.
3. The primary purpose of FFTF was never isotope production. FFTF
was built to test components for the nation's breeder program, which
was canceled by President Carter. It did demonstrate isotope
production capabilities during its operations during some of the
tests.
4. The IOM report did not consider alternative missions for FFTF,
because there were not any at that time. We all agree that isotope
production was not sufficient to justify the $60-80 million/year
cost of FFTF operations. That argument is past history. The people
who will benefit are those who currently work at FFTF. These are
scientists, engineers, craftsmen, and support staff who made the FFTF
successful in the first place. Bob, it takes initiative on the part
of dedicated people like this to make good things happen.
4. The FFTF will produce those isotopes for which there is a
commercial market. If privatized, FFTF will compete in the private
sector, just like any business in a capitalistic society. The other
option is to let the taxpayer pick up the current costs of FFTF in
stand-by mode ($50 million/year) where nothing is produced. There are
more than 60 isotopes under consideration for FFTF production. Many
of these are indeed in short supply, such as precursors to
bismuth-213. Gadolinium-153 is still in demand, in fact, I have
purchased more than $25,000 worth this year alone from the Russians
for essential purposes! Our Lab also purchased something like $75,000
worth of cobalt-60 this year from the Canadians. The I-131 market
(also from Canada) will also greatly increase as radiolabeled
antibodies using I-131 receive FDA approval. The FFTF team believes
in domestic isotope supply rather than dependence on foreign sources.
Darrell R. Fisher
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, Washington 99352
509-376-3736
dr_fisher@pnl.gov
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: Urgent Request for Medical Isotope Production Support
Author: ratcher@uab.edu at -SMTPlink
Date: 11/25/96 3:19 PM
At 12:50 11/25/96, dr_fisher@ccmail.pnl.gov wrote:
> In response to Bob Atcher's comments, below, I believe the medical
> community and dose-netters need to understand a few more points:
>
> 1) The Institute of Medicine report on reactor-produced radionuclides
> has been widely criticized because it discounted or completely
> overlooked the possibilities of producing medical isotopes at DOE
> reactor facilities (HFIR, ATR, FFTF, and ACRR), it failed in a major
> way to account for the need for therapeutic radionuclides, and it
> assumed that the Univ. of Missouri Research Reactor could meet
> essentially all the needs for medical isotopes in the U.S.
It was widely criticized by DOE-types who didn't believe that the reactors
within the DOE system, regardless of their abilities to produce isotopes
economically and in a timely fashion, were given fair hearing. When the
economics of the reactors were included, as they were in the IOM report, the
DOE reactors fell far short. In fact, the FFTF has no capability for short
term irradiations and would require about $10 million (in FY92 funds) in
modifications for installation of a pneumatic system for fast insertion and
removal of targets.
>
> 2) A lot has changed since the IOM report was prepared in 1994.
> The current proposal to operate the Fast Flux Test Facility near
> Richland, Washington, identifies tritium production and excess
> weapons plutonium burn-up as its primary missions (see Science,
> October 25, 1996, Letters). The current proposal is to privatize
> the operation and not support it with federal taxpayer money. Any
> medical isotope production would come as a bonus, taking advantage
> of target positions in the reflector area and a new rapid retrieval
> target assembly. This means that the economic picture has
> substantially changed. No one expects isotope production to pay for
> reactor operations, and under the current proposal, operation of the
> reactor is covered by its new primary missions.
2. What private entity is going to support tritium production and waste
burnup? This simply puts isotope production into the same parasitic mode
that it is at nearly every other facility within the DOE system. IF
funding for the primary mission goes away, there is NO WAY that isotope
production can support this activity. Then the users are left without any
source of isotopes.
>
> 3) The local community (Tri-Cities of Eastern Washington) is outraged
> that DOE has been planning to spend $500 million to tear down the
> FFTF. The FFTF is the newest and most modern of the DOE reactors.
> It is one of the most important engineering accomplishments of the
> century. It represents a taxpayer investment of about $2 Billion.
> It has a stellar performance record for meeting mission objectives,
> radiation safety, essentially zero environmental emissions, and
> reactor safety. It has a unique design that provides a large
> target volume, high neutron flux, and broad energy spectrum for
> maximum isotope productivity. During its 12 years of operations, it
> produced a number of medical isotopes that were not otherwise
> available, and it can do a lot more for the medical community in the
> future.
There is no question that this reactor had substantial advantages for
isotope production. After all, that was its primary mission. The fact is,
however, that this mission is no longer feasible and the economics don't
justify its restart.
>
> 4) The privatization proposal includes a commitment to fund medical
> applications research for radioisotopes ($5 million/year).
>
What privatization proposal? There is nothing in the letter about this.
Why not put this up so it can be examined closely.
> Given this new perspective, I find no justification for hanging onto
> the IOM report as rationale to not restart the FFTF. I urge each of
> you who read this to carefully consider the petition you received
> earlier.
>
The fact is that the IOM report was done by experts who had no financial
interest in its conclusions other than to have the isotopes available.
This FFTF proposal is being pushed by people who will benefit materially if
it comes to pass. That alone should alert people about its veracity and
reliability.
> Darrell R. Fisher
> Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
> Richland, Washington 99352
> 509-376-3736
> dr_fisher@pnl.gov
>
None of the isotopes listed in the letter are in short supply now. At last
count, the supply of Mo-99, as a percentage of world demand, will approach
300 % in three years when the MapleX reactors come on line. Gd-153 is no
longer used for bone density studies; Co-60 is not used for external beam
therapy except in the most backwards countries nor is it used for
brachytherapy; and Ac-227 hasn't even been reviewed by any panel of experts
for its utility. In short, the list of isotopes that are in "short supply"
don't have any basis in reality. For example, clinical trials of alpha
emitters have already begun at Sloan Kettering.
There are three isotopes currently in clinical practice or undergoing
clinical trials for bone pain therapy - Sr-89 (already FDA approved),
Sm-153 and Sn-117m. The availability of Re-186 is hardly an issue. There
is not a single study of AIDS showing therapeutic potential of radiolabeled
antibodies. There is no shortage now or predicted for I-131.
In summary, the letter is filled with a laundry list of justifications that
are not backed by reality.
Robert W. Atcher, Ph.D.
ratcher@uab.edu
Cardiovascular Disease Div., Dept. of Medicine,
Univ of Alabama at Birmingham
Office 205 975 5702
Office FAX 205 975 8740