UPMC shelves Hazelwood vaccine factory plan
UPMC is halting its plans to build a vaccine factory in Hazelwood, a hospital spokeswoman said this morning.
The long-proposed factory, high-profile project was expected to produce vaccines to counter biological warfare agents such as smallpox.
UPMC officials said their strategy differs from that of the federal government, which would have paid for about half the project. The government wants to save money by using an existing commercial facility that also could be used for production of non-commercial products, said Robert Cindrich, a senior advisor to UPMC President Jeff Romoff.
"Our strategy was to create an innovative facility fully dedicated to the government's needs for non-commercial vaccines to protect the nation from bioterrorism and pandemic diseases," Cindrich said. "Unfortunately, the request for proposals recently released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services cannot be reconciled with the approach and would greatly increase the risks for UPMC."
Cindrich said the government's request includes no guaranteed orders.
Officials at Health and Human Services could not immediately be reached.
The health system considered several sites for the factory but this year selected the former LTV steel mill in Hazelwood. The site was chosen because of its location near academic institutions. Lawmakers estimated the factory could have created more than 1,000 permanent jobs.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.