|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
“Fundamental” Security Concerns Remain at Plum Island Facility, GAO Says By Mike Nartker WASHINGTON — Congressional auditors have found that, while security has improved at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, “fundamental concerns” still remain, according to a U.S. General Accounting Office report released yesterday (see GSN, June 13). The Plum Island facility, located off the coast of Long Island, N.Y, researches contagious animal diseases. According to the report, the facility maintains stockpiles of pathogens such as foot-and-mouth disease that could cause agricultural damage or illness to humans if released. In June, the U.S. Homeland Security Department announced that it would take control of the facility from the Agriculture Department through a four-month transition period. Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, Agriculture began security improvement measures at Plum Island, some of which Homeland Security has continued, the report says. It also says, however, that even with the improvements, congressional auditors still found a number of areas of concern at the facility. One area of concern is the “incomplete and limited” physical security at Plum Island, according to the report. For example, alarms and door sensors recommended for the biocontainment area where research is conducted with dangerous pathogens are not yet fully operational. In addition, the report says, the Agriculture Department did not provide sufficient physical security to sections of the facility considered to be “critical” to its continued operation. The GAO also found that Plum Island officials have not adequately controlled access to the pathogens used and stored at the facility, according to the report. It cites a lack of background checks conducted on students who attend classes within the biocontainment area and a lack of required escorts for individuals who enter the biocontainment area for nonlaboratory purposes, such as cleaning. “Controlling access to the pathogens is particularly important because no security device is currently capable of detecting a microgram of pathogenic material,” the report says. “Therefore, a scientist at Plum Island … could remove a tiny quantity of pathogen without being detected and potentially develop it into a weapon,” it says. In addition, the report cites concerns with Plum Island’s incident-response plan and response capabilities. For example, the facility’s guard force has been operating without authority from Agriculture to carry firearms or to make arrests, which has led to local law enforcement officials expressing reluctance to address criminal situations on the island, the report says. It also says that the Plum Island incident response plan does not address incidents that exceed the facility’s security system, such as an intentional terrorist attack. The GAO also said in its report that Agriculture did not adequately assess the risk of pathogen theft from Plum Island when the department conducted its post-Sept. 11 review of its research facilities. According to the report, the risk level at Plum Island has increased because of an August 2002 labor strike and “the hostility surrounding it” (see GSN, Oct. 10, 2002). For example, the report says, one striking worker was convicted of tampering with the island’s water distribution and treatment system on the day the strike began. “Although USDA did consider the possibility of a disgruntled worker when planning security for all of its laboratories, it did not re-evaluate the level of risk, the assets requiring protection or its incident-response plans for Plum Island in light of … the strike,” the report says. U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who requested the GAO report, said yesterday that he was concerned that Agriculture was not working more quickly to resolve security concerns at Plum Island. “It is alarming to me that USDA was not moving effectively to address many of the security shortfalls at Plum Island,” Harkin said in a press statement. Harkin, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, also criticized Agriculture for failing to resolve the labor-management dispute at Plum Island that resulted in the 2002 strike and the resultant security concerns identified by the GAO. “USDA should have stepped in to facilitate a resolution of this labor dispute that was causing clear security concerns. Instead, they took a hands-off approach and let the situation fester,” Harkin said. “This in no way excuses the criminal acts committed at Plum Island by employees, but USDA’s handling of labor-management disputes must help support the safe operation of secure research installations. I am concerned USDA still does not realize that,” he added.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
