Biodefense researchFederal court hears debate over California bio weapons research facility

1500 liter biomereactor at Lawrence Livemore Laboratory // Source: otago.ac.nz

The battle over a biological weapons research facility in California rages on.

Earlier this month opponents of the bioweapons research center at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory argued before a federal appeals court that government officials failed to heed a 2006 court ruling and recklessly went ahead with the research facility without considering terrorist threats.

In 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the facility stating that the Department of Energy (DOE) had failed to properly examine the potential release of deadly organisms in the event of a terrorist attack.

The facility studies dangerous biological pathogens like anthrax, plague, brucellosis, and Q fever.

Following the 2006 ruling, DOE officials re-evaluated the facility and found that there was no significant threat from terrorists, but Scott Yundt, an attorney representing Tri-Valley CARES, an anti-nuclear group, claims that the review was not sufficient and was improperly conducted.

Before a three judge panel, Yundt said, “They didn’t do an impact analysis of (those) credible terrorist events.”

According to Yundt, DOE concluded that the bio facility was safe from terrorist attack because it was able to withstand equipment failure from an earthquake and that conducting a separate study of intentional sabotage by terrorists was unnecessary as it was far too improbable.

In response Barclay Samford, a Justice Department lawyer, said DOE found little risk of dangerous pathogens escaping from the facility, even in the event of a terrorist attack.

“A purposeful plane crash would have the same effect as an accidental plane crash,” and even if any harmful organisms were to escape, they would be destroyed by light and heat, Samford said.

According to Samford, more than 1,000 laboratories in the United States handle pathogens and there is no evidence to suggest that “a terrorist attack is any more likely in Livermore than anywhere else.”

In refutation of Samford’s arguments, Yundt countered that a separate DOE study found that an accident does not result in the same damages as an intentional attack and that the Livermore facility could be particularly attractive to terrorists as it is the only one located next to a nuclear weapons lab.

So far the panel of judges has yet to issue a ruling.