Environmental report on new Biolab

Published 23 June 2008

Following a GAO report which criticized how DHS decided on how research into contagious foreign animal and zoonotic diseases should be conducted, the Science and Technology Directorate of DHS issues a draft environmental impact statement and risk analysis for the six locations being considered for the new Biolab

DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) on Friday issued a draft environmental impact statement and risk analysis for the six locations being considered for the new, $450 million National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF). This research facility will be used to study the most contagious foreign animal and zoonotic diseases (diseases that can be transferred from animals to humans) known to man, including foot-and-mouth disease. This follows a report last month from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that found flaws in how DHS previously decided research on these diseases could be safely conducted on the U.S. mainland. The GAO report, among other things, said: “GAO found that…[DHS] has neither conducted nor commissioned any study to determine whether work on foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) can be done safely on the U.S. mainland. Instead, in deciding that work with FMD can be done safely on the mainland, DHS relied on a 2002 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) study that addressed a different question. The study did not assess the past history of releases of FMD virus or other dangerous pathogens in the United States or elsewhere.”

Six locations are under consideration for the NBAF. Five on the mainland United States and Plum Island in the Long Island Sound. Plum Island is currently the only location where foot-and-mouth disease research is conducted. One aspect of this National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility Draft Environmental Impact Statement (NBAF DEIS) is a comparison of how much an accidental outbreak of foot-and-mouth would cost the US if it were to happen at one of the mainland locations versus on Plum Island.