A plan to build a 500,000-square-foot research lab in Manhattan, Kansas has again hit the skids, as yet another report finds the risks of testing contagious diseases in the nation’s heartland hasn't been properly assessed.

The report, released last month by the National Research Council, is the third in a series of reproving examinations of the proposed National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) for research on animal diseases. Reports by the U.S. Government Accountability office in 2008 and 2009 had similar concerns about introducing animal contagion—such as foot-and-mouth disease—into the middle of cattle country.

There is a 70 percent chance that outside infection will occur over the 50-year lifespan of the facility, according to a news release on the report. The 2008 risk assessment commissioned by the Department of Homeland Security fails to adequately account for the spread of disease among animals or the lack of medical resources to address human impacts in such a situation, the report states.

The grand scale of the new facility, which is meant to replace the Plum Island Animal Disease Center off the coast of Long Island, is also problematic, according to University of Louisville Center for Health Preparedness Co-Director Ronald Atlas, who chaired the report committee.

“Building a facility that is capable of large animal work on a scale greater than other high-containment laboratories presents new and unknown risks that could not be accounted for in the DHS risk assessment because of a lack of data and experience,” he stated.

NBAF has been plagued by public opposition and rumors of political misdealings since its inception. Building the facility in an area known for tornadoes and floods was also a concern. The 2009 GAO report stated that plans to build the $700 million facility were based on a “rushed, flawed study” and not “scientifically defensible.”

Even so, the NBAF was highly sought after by state and local government officials for its economic benefits. Manhattan, home of Kansas State University, beat four other finalists to garner the facility, which is expected to add about $3.5 billion to the local economy, according to the Washington Post.

Those riches aren't off the table yet. Despite the issues raised in the report, the committee concluded that more data and mitigation strategies are needed before Congress either releases the funds to build the NBAF or quashes the project.

“We need a facility like the proposed NBAF,” Atlas said. “The report makes no judgment on whether the Kansas location is an appropriate site for the proposed facility or on what risk is acceptable to society. Those questions are left to policymakers and future risk assessments.”