Report: Plans to move Plum Island lab downplay risks

Federal plans to replace the offshore Plum Island Animal Disease Center with a new lab in Kansas underestimated risks from the accidental release of disease pathogens, according to a new report released yesterday.

Those fighting to keep the Plum Island facility open said the findings - from an independent review by the National Research Council - support their contention that foot and mouth disease should not be studied on the mainland where any release could infect livestock.

Lawmakers had asked the NRC, an arm of the National Academies of Science, to review a Department of Homeland Security risk assessment for the new lab, known as the Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility. The Manhattan, Kan., site selected by DHS is a few miles from a major transportation hub for cattle and other livestock.

Based on DHS figures, the committee said there is a 70 percent chance that a leaked pathogen could lead to an infection at some point during the 50-year life of the proposed lab, where Ebola and other diseases dangerous to humans would also be studied. The economic impact of a release could range from $9 to $50 billion for costs attributed to loss of livestock - numbers that "probably represent conservative estimates of risk," according to the review.

The review found that the DHS neglected to consider risks posed by the lab site's proximity to Kansas State University and its associated veterinary school.

DHS spokesman Chris Ortman said the 70 percent calculation did not include mitigation measures that will be part of the design for a new lab. "DHS will not build or operate the NBAF unless it can be done in a safe manner," he said.

Rep. Tim Bishop (D-Southampton), who wants to keep the Plum Island lab open, said the report affirmed his position that studying foot and mouth disease on the mainland is too risky.

The NRC did not weigh in on whether the lab should be built in Kansas.