Investigation
A report into the epidemic was released on September 5. It reported that traces of the virus were found in a pipe at the Pirbright institute running from Merial to the government's treatment plant. It is thought that tree roots damaged the pipe allowing the virus to the surface. The report hypothesises that site workmen conveyed the virus to the Normandy farm en route home from work.
An independent investigation carried out by Professor Brian Geoffrey Spratt, who received a CBE for his work, found that due to the recognition that infected material could survive the initial citric acid disinfection stage within the Merial plant, the effluent system up to the final caustic soda treatment plant was considered by Defra inspectors to be within the scope of Category 4 containment, yet it appeared not to have been subject to regular inspection and there was evidence of leakage both from broken pipework and via unsealed, overflowing manholes –
| “ | 23. The possibility of infectious virus being disharged to the effluent pipes was recognised by the Defra inspectors and, for this reason, the drainage system that leads to the caustic soda final treatment plant is considered part of Category 4 containment at Pirbright. It must therefore be well maintained and contained, so that infectious virus in effluent cannot escape. | ” |
| “ | 32. The effluent pipes from IAH and Merial to the caustic soda final treatment plant are old and appear not to have been subject to regular thorough inspections to ensure their integrity. An inspection of the effluent pipes and manholes carried out for the HSE team showed deficiencies and it is considered very likely that they leak effluent. The effluent pipes are therefore not contained, as they should be as part of Category 4 containment at Pirbright. | ” |
|
—Professor Brian Spratt, Independent Review of the safety of UK facilities handling foot and mouth disease virus |
||
In May 2008, the authority responsible for prosecuting - Surrey County Council - decided not to prosecute -
| “ | The county council's external legal advice is that a prosecution against either of the two laboratories at the centre of the outbreak is not possible. This was because:
Three Government-commissioned reports were unable to pinpoint the exact source of the outbreak The council may not have been able to prove beyond doubt whether the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) licence conditions had been breached. This was particularly because the two laboratories shared the drainage systems under those conditions. |
” |
|
—Surrey County Council, No prosecutions over Pirbright foot and mouth leak 29 May 2008 |
||
Read more about this topic: 2007 United Kingdom Foot-and-mouth Outbreak