3 
gress wanted the agencies to address environmental consequences not only 
in considering future projects but also in reviewing their present poli- 
cies and programs, at least when expanding or revising them. [541 F. 2d 
at 446.] 
The CEQ Guidelines provide that an environmental impact statement be pre- 
pared in all cases of proposed major actions, "the environmental impact of 
which is likely to be highly controversial". See, 40 CFR §1500. 6(a). In 
Rucker v. Willis , 484 F.2d 158 (4th Cir. 1973), the court held that the term 
"controversial" 
should properly refer to cases where a substantial dispute exists as to 
the size, nature or effect of the major federal action rather than to the 
existence of opposition to a use. [484 F. 2d at 162.] 
As made clear by the technical testimony at this hearing, the controversy over 
the proposed revisions goes to their nature and effect. 
The CEQ Guidelines also provide for the preparation of an environmental 
impact statement when "it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively signifi- 
cant impact on the environment from Federal action". See, 40 CFR §1500. 6(a). 
It is clear that the revisions will have cumulative impacts, expanding the 
scope of recombinant DNA research and facilitating the growing ability to ma- 
nipulate the living environment. New biological products will be created and 
recombinant organisms will eventually be released into the environment. The 
research programs outlined by Robert Faust from the Department of Agriculture 
this morning indicate the kinds of developments which the revisions will allow 
and which must be studied and analyzed in an environmental impact statement. A 
thorough impact statement on the revisions is clearly required. 
2. Inadequacy of the Environmental Impact Assessment - 
The second reason for concluding that there has not been NEPA compliance 
with respect to the proposed revised guidelines is that the Environmental Im- 
pact Assessment is wholly inadequate. This pro forma document is full of con- 
; 
elusory, biased, self-serving assertions and contains essentially no analysis. 
[A-234] 
