Re[3]: Urgent Request for Medical Isotope Production Support

[garthy@owt.com (Maureen (Keren) McCarthy and Marc Garland)]

>From: dr_fisher@ccmail.pnl.gov
>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:28 -0800 (PST)
>Subject: Re[3]: Urgent Request for Medical Isotope Production Support
>To: ratcher@uab.edu, garthy@owt.com, dose-net@ORAU.GOV
>Cc: kkrohn@u.washington.edu, re_schenter@ccmail.pnl.gov
>MIME-version: 1.0
>
>     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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>______________________________ 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
>