[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SOLVING THE MEDICAL ISOTOPE CRISIS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 9, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-61
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-094 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOE BARTON, Texas
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia FRED UPTON, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
BART GORDON, Tennessee NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
ANNA G. ESHOO, California JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
BART STUPAK, Michigan JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ROY BLUNT, Missouri
GENE GREEN, Texas STEVE BUYER, Indiana
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
Vice Chairman JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
LOIS CAPPS, California MARY BONO MACK, California
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JANE HARMAN, California LEE TERRY, Nebraska
TOM ALLEN, Maine MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
JAY INSLEE, Washington TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
JIM MATHESON, Utah STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
Islands
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa
PETER WELCH, Vermont
(ii)
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania RALPH M. HALL, Texas
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina Ranking Member
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana FRED UPTON, Michigan
BARON HILL, Indiana ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
DORIS O. MATSUI, California JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
PETER WELCH, Vermont JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan STEVE BUYER, Indiana
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia GREG WALDEN, Oregon
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
GENE GREEN, Texas MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
LOIS CAPPS, California
JANE HARMAN, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
JIM MATHESON, Utah
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachussetts, opening statement.............. 1
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 4
Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, prepared statement................................. 46
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, prepared statement...................................... 47
Witnesses
Parrish Staples, Director, European and African Threat Reduction,
Office of Global Threat Reduction, National Nuclear Security
Administration, United States Department of Energy............. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Answers to submitted questions............................... 57
Steven Larson, M.D., Chief, Nuclear Medicine Service, Department
of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Vice-
Chairman, Committee on Medical Isotope Production without
Highly Enriched Uranium, National Academy of Sciences.......... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Answers to submitted questions............................... 78
Michael Duffy, Vice President and General Counsel, Lantheur
Medical Imaging, Member of the Board, Council on Radionuclides
and Radiopharmaceuticals....................................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Submitted Material
Letter from Director of University of Missouri Research Reactor
to Committee................................................... 50
Letter of September 9, 2009, from Washington State University to
Mr. Inslee..................................................... 54
SOLVING THE MEDICAL ISOTOPE CRISIS
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:09 p.m., in
Room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Markey, Barrow, Upton, Shimkus,
and Scalise.
Staff Present: Jeff Baran, Counsel; Matt Weiner, Special
Assistant; and Peter Ketcham-Colwill, Special Assistant.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. Welcome ladies and gentlemen to the
Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment and our very
important hearing.
Every day in the United States, thousands of people go to
the hospital to be treated for life-threatening illnesses such
as heart disease and cancer. But right now, due to the
breakdown of a nuclear reactor in Canada, many of these
critical procedures are being delayed and compromised.
The United States is facing a crisis in nuclear medicine.
We face a severe shortage of a crucial radioactive isotope
which is required for nearly 50,000 medical procedures every
day, usually to produce a detailed image such as a cancer or a
bone scan. The shortage of this isotope, which usually costs
only $10 of a multi-thousand dollar procedure, is threatening
the health care of millions of Americans. Worst of all, the
United States does not currently produce any of the isotope
domestically. Instead, we are entirely dependent on a handful
of foreign nuclear reactors, most of which are several decades
old, some of which are literally falling apart and which rely
upon weapon usable highly enriched uranium for their operation.
In May, the 51-year-old Canadian NRU reactor broke down. It
is not yet clear whether the reactor will ever operate again.
In mid July, the 47-year-old HFR reactor in the Netherlands was
taken off-line for maintenance for 1 month. Together, these two
reactors usually produce our entire isotope supply. While the
United States was able to secure a small supply during this
time from other reactors, Americans health care suffered as a
result. A recent survey of the nuclear medicine community
provided sobering results. Eighty percent said their practice
was impacted by the shortage. Eighty percent said they have
postponed procedures. Forty-seven percent said they have
cancelled procedures, and 57 percent said they had substituted
alternative procedures. Unfortunately, in most cases the
alternative procedures are more invasive, less effective, more
costly, and pose greater radiation risk to both patients and
technicians.
We don't need alternatives. We need the state of the art to
be fully available again. Medical care in this country for
cancer, heart disease, bone scans simply cannot be held hostage
to the maintenance schedules of a 50-year-old reactor in
Europe. It is absolutely vital that we act to bring a robust
domestic supply of these critical medical isotopes online as
soon as possible.
In order to address the crisis in nuclear medicine, I have
introduced, along with my good friend, colleague and partner,
Fred Upton, H.R. 3276, the American Medical Isotopes Production
Act of 2009. The bill will provide the Department of Energy new
authorities and resources to assist the private sector in
establishing as rapidly as possible a robust medical isotope
production capacity here in the United States. In addition, the
bill will end the export of bomb-usable highly enriched uranium
for medical isotope production in 7 to 10 years, as recommended
in a recent National Academy of Sciences report that also said
there was no reason that these isotopes couldn't be made using
low enriched uranium. In fact, both Argentina and Australia
have started producing medical isotopes with low enriched
uranium. Highly enriched uranium is nuclear bomb material, and
the national security of the United States demands that we
never export it again.
The Markey-Upton bill is a bipartisan bill. It has been
endorsed by the Society for Nuclear Medicine, the American
College of Radiology, the American Society for Radiation
Oncology, the American College of Cardiology, the American
Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the American Association of
Physicists in Medicine, the Health Physics Society, the Council
on Radionuclides, a list of companies as well plus the Nuclear
Threat Initiative, the Union of Concerned Scientists and
Physicians For Social Responsibility.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent that the letters
of endorsement from these organizations be entered into the
record. I also would like to ask unanimous consent that members
will have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous material in the record.
Today's hearing will allow the subcommittee to explore this
important issue and to hear the panel's views on H.R. 3276. I
hope that we can all work together to address this crucial
problem facing American hospitals and patients.
Now I would like to turn and recognize my good friend, the
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton for his opening statement.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to ask
unanimous consent that my full statement be made part of the
record.
And trying to shorten up some of the time as we are
expecting votes soon, let me just make a couple of comments. We
are really at a crisis. As you indicated, 16 million medical
procedures in the U.S. that rely on the import of Moly-99.
That's 50,000 a day. It is clear that our Nation must produce
these lifesaving isotopes domestically to ensure that the
public health is protected. And when I learned of this
situation when you and I talked about it in July before the
August break, I was delighted to partner with you to introduce
legislation that I hope can move quickly.
There are a good number of organizations that are onboard.
I would like to think that this hearing will catapult us into
getting a bill to the House very soon. And at this point, I
yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.002
Mr. Markey. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. Shimkus. I will waive.
Mr. Markey. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana.
Mr. Scalise. I will waive.
Mr. Markey. That is great. We will recognize our very
distinguished panel. Our first witness is Dr. Parrish Staples,
director of the Office of European and African Threat Reduction
at the National Nuclear Security Administration of the
Department of Energy. Dr. Staples has played a leading role
within the Department of Energy to help solve the medical
isotopes crisis. In addition, his office is responsible for
implementing the Department of Energy's efforts to reduce the
use of highly enriched uranium around the world including in
the production of medical isotopes.
STATEMENTS OF PARRISH STAPLES, DIRECTOR, EUROPEAN AND AFRICAN
THREAT REDUCTION, OFFICE OF GLOBAL THREAT REDUCTION, NATIONAL
NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY; STEVEN LARSON, M.D., CHIEF, NUCLEAR MEDICINE SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF RADIOLOGY, MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER
CENTER, VICE-CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON MEDICAL ISOTOPE PRODUCTION
WITHOUT HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES;
AND MICHAEL DUFFY, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, LANTHEUR
MEDICAL IMAGING, MEMBER OF THE BOARD, COUNCIL ON RADIONUCLIDES
AND RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS
Mr. Markey. We welcome you, Dr. Staples. Whenever you're
ready please, again.
STATEMENT OF PARRISH STAPLES
Dr. Staples. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member
Upton, and the subcommittee members. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the National Nuclear Security
Administration's Global Threat Reduction Initiative's role in
minimizing, and to the extent possible, eliminating the use of
highly enriched uranium in civilian nuclear applications
including in the production medical radioisotopes. As part of
my testimony, I will briefly describe recent efforts to
mitigate the impact of the current and anticipated shortages of
the medical isotope moly-99 and discuss in more detail our
efforts to accelerate the establishment of a domestic
commercial supply of moly-99 that does not use highly enriched
uranium.
Finally, I will highlight how the proposed American Medical
Isotopes Production Act of 2009 can greatly help to advance our
progress on the dual U.S. policy priorities to, one, establish
a secure supply of this critical medical isotope for U.S.
citizens, and two, to minimize the civilian use of
proliferation-sensitive highly enriched uranium around the
globe.
First, section 2 of the American Medical Isotope Production
Act of 2009 very appropriately and succinctly covers the
history, the use of moly-99, the decay product technecium-99
nine, the issues surrounding the current medical isotope
production industry, the current acute shortage of moly-99
within the medical community, and the critical importance that
this isotope provides to the health care of Americans on a
daily basis. And most importantly, it also covers the state of
the art technology regarding conversion to low enriched
uranium.
Very important to us, on January 14, 2009, the National
Academy published a report confirming that the production of
moly-99 without the use of highly enriched uranium is both
technically and economically feasible. In addition to the
National Academy's determination that there are no technical
reasons that adequate quantities of medical isotope cannot be
produced without the use of HEU, the National Academy also
stated that the single greatest threat to the supply
reliability is the approaching obsolescence of the aging
reactors that current large-scale producers utilize to
irradiate HEU targets to obtain moly-99. The findings of this
report unambiguously support the consistency of HEU
minimization policies with the full-scale production of medical
isotopes while highlighting the fragile nature of the current
supply chain due to the age of the foreign moly-99 production
facilities.
Now, with our mission to reduce and eliminate the use of
HEU in civilian applications NNSA has been working for many
years to convert research reactors from the use of HEU to LEU
fuel. We agree with the language in the proposed legislation
which makes clear that the U.S. should accelerate its effort to
convert HEU research reactors worldwide from the use of HEU. In
fact, this acceleration is already underway at NNSA.
We and the Global Threat Reduction Initiative have
significantly accelerated our efforts over the past several
years and to date have converted 57 highly enriched uranium
fuel research reactors globally from the use of HEU to LEU
fuels. Through GTRI efforts, another seven HEU research
reactors have been verified to shut down prior to their
conversion. These activities have resulted in more than 320
kilograms of HEU no longer being used annually for reactor
operations.
In addition, NNSA has also been working with both existing
and potential moly-99 producers for several years to convert or
develop their moly-99 production processes to utilize non-HEU-
based technologies. NNSA provides technical expertise on a
nonproprietary basis to all existing and potential producers to
assist in converting and developing their moly-99 production
processes in accordance with the U.S. HEU minimization policy.
Through these efforts NNSA has established longstanding
relationships with current and future moly-99 suppliers and we
are uniquely suited to accelerate efforts to establish a
reliable domestic supply without the use of HEU. Due to the
current lack of global production capacity of moly-99 by
industry, we are actively engaging in discussions with all
current and possible producers to best determine how to rapidly
transform the industry into a diverse, stable, commercial
supply network that will not use HEU for production of this
vital medical isotope.
Given the market dynamics with the current supply shortage,
we fully expect that the 7-year timeframe referenced in the
American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2009 is more than
adequate to ensure that a sufficient supply of non-HEU moly-99
can be available to the medical community. Further we believe
that the development of new producers or the conversion of
existing producers to low enriched uranium can be accomplished
with no impact upon the current supply availability. In fact,
through the current acute supply shortage of this critical
medical isotope and the associated market dynamics with the
focus of the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2009
on this issue, we believe that we can ensure the successful
development of a diverse, reliable supply of moly-99 to the
medical community that will also help to accomplish an
important and longstanding nuclear nonproliferation mission.
Now, the United States has approached the moly-99 supply
problem by----
Mr. Markey. If you could summarize please, Dr. Staples.
Dr. Staples. I would just go to my closing paragraph then.
The American Medical Isotope Production Act of 2009 is crucial
of ensuring the success of our efforts to accelerate
development of a domestic supply of moly-99 nine without the
use of HEU. This legislation will accelerate greatly and
enhance the development of reliable supply of this isotope for
the use in the U.S. medical community and further support U.S.
objectives to reduce the use of proliferation-sensitive HEU in
civilian applications.
I thank the subcommittee and Chairman Markey, in
particular, for your continued leadership on such a crucial
nuclear energy and civil nuclear application issue, and we
stand ready to answer questions.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Staples follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.008
Mr. Markey. Our second witness is Dr. Steven Larson the
Chair of the Nuclear Medicine Service, Department of Radiology
at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute. Whenever you
are ready, please begin.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN LARSON, M.D.
Dr. Larson. Good afternoon, chairman and members of the
committee. My name is Steven Larson, and I am chief of nuclear
medicine, as you have heard at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Institute in New York. I also served as vice chair of the
National Research Council's Committee on medical isotope
production without highly enriched uranium. I was asked to
testify today regarding the report from the study, but first I
want to offer some personal observations as a practicing
nuclear medicine physician.
I am the director of a large nuclear medicine clinic at
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. For most of the summer
like other nuclear medicine clinics in the northeast, we have
seen a reduction of 20 to 25 percent in the optimum amount of
technetium for clinical use. Now, technetium 99m, as you have
heard, is by far the most common clinical isotope and a
bellwether for nuclear medicine isotope supplied health care.
This reduction supply has negatively impacted our ability to
efficiently deliver nuclear medicine-based care to patients.
Furthermore, medical isotope providers are telling us to
expect continued shortages of technetium 99m during 2009 and
beyond, and they are warning about the possibility of even
deeper reductions in technetium 99m availability. Clearly we
are in the need of a more reliable supply of medical isotope
for American health care.
Let me turn to the National Research Council's study on
medical isotope production without highly enriched uranium. The
mandate for this study came from section 630 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. Our study was completed in late 2008, and
the final report was issued in January, 2009. It focused
primarily on the use of HEU for the production of medical
isotope molybdenum 99.
Briefly, some key findings. Adequate quantities of medical
isotopes to meet U.S. demands could be produced without HEU. A
report found that an anticipated average cost increase to
convert to the production of medical isotopes without the use
of HEU would likely be less than 10 percent for most current
large-scale producers. Reliability of medical isotope supply is
a significant problem now and likely to be a problem for the
foreseeable future with demand close to total capacity for
production and with little margin for additional production
capacity in the event of an interruption of supply.
On the other hand demand for nuclear medicine services are
stable with likely growth rates of utilization of 3 to 5
percent per year.
Several steps could be taken by the U.S. Government and
others to improve the feasibility of eliminating the use of HEU
for medical isotope production. I note that H.R. 3276
legislatively enshrines several of these steps. It authorizes
the Department of Energy to provide technical assistance to
producers who wish to convert to production without HEU. It
provides financial assistance to develop a domestic isotope
production capacity, and it provides for a 7-year phaseout
period for HEU exports for medical isotope production.
When I began work on this study I was skeptical about the
economic feasibility of conversion to LEU-based medical isotope
production and the potential impact that that might have on
conversion or supply reliability. But based on the information
I received during this National Research Council study, I now
believe that if medical isotope producers have the will to
convert that, they can do so without undue costs. My opinion is
based on the observations we made during the site visits to the
medical isotope production facilities in Argentina and
Australia and discussion with technical experts about
conversion. Under modest circumstances and without elaborate
additional infrastructure, Argentina was able to convert to
LEU-based production in less than 2 years and for less than a
million dollars in supplies and facilities modification.
The Argentina process is now being implemented in Australia
and the Australian company, ANSTO, hopes to begin exporting
small quantities of molybdenum 99 to the United States in the
near future.
This concludes my oral testimony to the committee and I
would be pleased to answer any questions.
Mr. Markey. Thank you so much, Dr. Larson.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Larson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.017
Mr. Markey. And our final witness is Michael Duffy, vice
president and general counsel of Lantheus Medical Imaging, one
of only two U.S. manufacturers of these type of generators.
Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DUFFY
Mr. Duffy. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Upton, members
of the committee, staff. I am here today to testify on behalf
of the bill on behalf of both Lantheus and CORAR, the Council
on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals. Lantheus endorses
H.R. 3276. We strongly support the committee's efforts to
promote the protection of moly in the United States for medical
isotope applications. We have been a worldwide leader in
diagnostic medical imaging for the past 50 years. Lantheus is
the home to leading diagnostic imaging brands, including the
Technelite generator which I have for those who want to take a
look, and this is what actually causes the--the radioactive
salient is put through here. It comes out here and is mixed
with a powder and becomes the injection which is injected into
the patient.
So what's so important about these imaging agents, these
radionuclides? They allow a clinician to have a functional view
of an organ like the heart more than just a mere anatomical
image. Instead, a picture from the outside looking in, they
allow the physician to see what is inside projecting out, for
example, blood flow, heart function, tissue health. These are
extremely helpful and important in the diagnosis and treatment
of disease. The moly supply crisis is a chronic crisis
resulting from an aging supply infrastructure and a market
failure to attract sufficient replacement capacity. As Chairman
Markey said, the crisis has become acute because of the ongoing
shutdown in Canada at the NRU reactor and the ongoing repairs
in the Netherlands at the HFR reactor. Although Lantheus has
had access to moly supply from the major moly-producing
reactors around the world, because of this crisis, we have not
been fully able to meet our customers' needs and we are having
to ration the generators on a weekly basis.
Approximately a third of the moly manufactured outside of
North America decays before it reaches our manufacturing
facility in Massachusetts. Some of the old hands at Lantheus
refer to this as buying ice on a warm day. Lantheus believes
that a robust U.S. Supply of moly is an important U.S. policy
for reasons of accessible and affordable health care, efficient
waste management, and nuclear nonproliferation.
As a result of the moly supply crisis, important diagnostic
procedures are being postponed or cancelled. Clinicians are
turning to older nuclear isotopes with potentially less
diagnostic certainty and more patient risk. Clinicians may even
be foregoing nuclear medicine entirely, opting instead for more
invasive, more expensive, higher risk surgical procedures.
Lantheus believes that the private sector should have a major
role in the resolution of this issue. However, we also believe
there is a strong role for government to play. The U.S.
Government's financial support of multiple projects with
appropriate investment risk profiles will be the best way to
develop a robust domestic supply of moly. And as a matter of
health care policy, medical imaging procedures that rely on
moly-derived imaging agents can improve patient outcomes and
reduce costs. Strategic investments to help develop a domestic
supply of moly should pay large dividends for both U.S.
patients and U.S. taxpayers.
Wearing my CORAR hat now, CORAR supports H.R. 3276 and
increasing capacity for medical isotopes in the United States.
CORAR has two concerns about the bill. First, how do we ensure
a full supply of moly if we get to the 7- to 10-year period and
we don't yet have sufficient commercial quantities of
domestically-produced LEU available? Second, CORAR would like
the bill to contain specific language that would direct the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to allow the new aqueous
homogenous reactors which have been recently proposed to be
properly licensed as research reactors. CORAR believes the bill
provides good support to bring new and alternative supplies to
moly online quickly and believes it is prudent to back several
alternative technologies and multiple reactor sites in order to
avoid a repeat of the current availability in capacity issues.
In sum, as H.R. 3276 moves forward, both Lantheus and CORAR
hope to continue to work with the committee and staff to ensure
both a swift and long-term solution to the moly crisis.
Thank you for the consideration of our perspectives. We
look forward to working with you moving forward and I would be
glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Duffy follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.033
Mr. Markey. They have called four roll calls on the House
floor. There are 10 minutes left to go before we have to go to
that roll call. Let me recognize the gentleman from Michigan,
Mr. Upton.
Mr. Upton. Thanks.
I have one very quick question, and that is the bill as you
know has a 7- to 10-year timeframe. Do you think that is long
enough? Is that the right amount of time or should we look at
extending that? Go ahead, Mr. Duffy, Dr. Larson too.
Mr. Duffy. The National Academies had a point of view on
that, and I welcome Dr. Larson's views on that. The concern
that industry has about the timeframe is one of technology and
one of regulation. On the technology side can we design targets
appropriately which generate commercially sustainable amounts
of molybdenum and can we do this in a way that is going to pass
muster with the EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the FDA
and all the other State and Federal regulatory authorities?
Industry embraces the proposal, is going to work hard to try to
implement it, but CORAR, in particular, is concerned that for
reasons beyond its control the period may not be sufficient.
Mr. Upton. Dr. Larson.
Dr. Larson. The main report felt that after careful
deliberation that it would be feasible to bring this conversion
in a 7-year timeframe; however, it does depend on the actual
type of conversion that was required. If one was talking about
a complete refilled new facility, it may, in fact, take a bit
longer. So we can--my feeling is that the 7 years is probably
enough especially with the 3-year window that is offered. The
committee does have expertise to bring to bear upon this, and
if you wish, we can certainly review this issue and give you a
more full description of it since it is such a key.
Mr. Upton. That would be great. If you would like to do
that that would be great. I will yield back.
Mr. Markey. Let me just ask one question, Dr. Larson. The
National Academy of Sciences report recommended that Congress
set a deadline to end the export of HEU for medical isotope.
The report concluded that a 7- to 10-year phaseout period would
likely allow enough time for all current HEU-based producers to
convert to low enriched uranium. How did you arrive at that
conclusion of 7 to 10 years?
Dr. Larson. I think the conclusion was based on interviews,
discussions, field trips, and reviews of time of development of
new facilities. We had the opportunity to visit, for example,
Australia and to observe their process and plan for this. But
since this is such a key point, we certainly would be glad to
provide some more detailed background on how this was arrived
at.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, sir. The gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Barrow. No questions.
Mr. Markey. Thank you.
Dr. Staples, I am going to ask you what I think is the
single most important question and that is how long will it
take for the U.S. industry with the help of the Department of
Energy to establish a robust domestic supply without the use of
HEU?
Dr. Staples. Thank you. We believe that to develop a robust
supply without the use of HEU would take on the order of 5
years with the type of attention focus that this bill could
bring to the industry and the issue given the acute shortage of
this isotope we are currently experiencing. As a clarification,
we are not just talking about conversion of existing
facilities. We are talking about looking at a diverse reliable
supply network that would be implemented using non-HEU, not
just LEU fission target-based technologies.
Mr. Markey. Dr. Staples, is DOE working with the foreign
medical isotope producers to help them convert from HEU to LEU?
Dr. Staples. In fact, yes, we are. Given the recent supply
shortage, we have engaged in at least informal discussions with
all current producers regarding options and process and
procedure for the conversion----
Mr. Markey. Have they asked for your help in conversions?
Dr. Staples. Yes. They have solicited our help and
assistance in conversions.
Mr. Markey. Have they made those requests recently?
Dr. Staples. As recently as last week, yes sir.
Mr. Markey. Great. Does there seem to be a renewed interest
in converting from HEU to LEU at this time?
Dr. Staples. Absolutely. Again, I think primarily driven by
the shortage of supply in the current industry.
Mr. Markey. Would phaseout of export of HEU for medical
isotope production in 7 to 10 years given the handful of
foreign producers present a window of opportunity for their
operations?
Dr. Staples. If I understand, we believe that the 7-year
timeframe would give more than a sufficient timeframe for these
facilities to work on conversion and for the development of a
diverse domestic supply of moly 99 not using enriched uranium.
Mr. Markey. Does 7 to 10 years give the foreign producers
adequate time to convert to LEU?
Dr. Staples. Yes.
Mr. Markey. The bill authorizes $163 million over 5 years
for DOD to help establish a domestic supply. Is that the right
of amount of money and is that the right amount of time?
Dr. Staples. Yes. We believe that is consistent with a
program plan that we have in place where we would intend this
year to place up to $10 million on programs to support the
development of commercial industry and $30 million in each of
the respective outyears to support the developments of domestic
and/or commercial supply of isotope.
Mr. Markey. I have a group of other written questions here,
and I am going to submit to you each for your response to the
committee. We apologize to you. There is a whole series of roll
calls which are House floor. We apologize to you for that, and
with the thanks of the subcommittee and apologies because of
the truncated form of the hearing, this hearing is adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 2:42 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4094A.068