8 
be futile to require that an impact state- 
ment be prepared for each tanker when these 
vessels admittedly conform to construction 
design regulations which are meant to 
protect the environment, and for which an 
EIS has already been prepared . 
Similarly, the experiment here will conform to the Guidelines 
and to the policies discussed in the EIS. 
Third, in East Tennessee Energy Group, Inc, v. Seamans , 
7 ERC 2144 (D. D.C. 1975), an injunction was sought halting 
proposals for funding a specific breeder reactor plant which 
was included in the programmatic statement being prepared on 
the liquid metal fast breeder reactor program (LMFBR) . In 
denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, the 
Court correctly noted that individual EISs were not needed 
(7 ERC at 2145) : 
[A]s the 'prototype' plant, the Clinch 
River project is subsumed into the 
overall LMFBR impact statement. ERDA 
need not pause at this juncture to re- 
evaluate the individual project as long 
as the LMFBR statement performs a cost 
benefit analysis on the total program 
and its component parts and weighs carefully 
all available alternatives. 
Under these cases and CEQ pronouncements, programmatic 
impact statements do provide a way for federal agencies to 
comply with NEPA without preparation of numerous duplicative 
3/ 
and unnecessary individual impact statements. 
3/ We use the term "programmatic impact statement" to 
~ refer to the EIS on the NIH Guidelines which we have 
previously filed with the Court. As the EIS recognizes, 
there is no "Recombinant DNA Program" as such since re- 
combinant DNA techniques are part of other research: "Re- 
combinant DNA technology is essentially a tool used in many 
programs, funded from many sources. In this sense, it is 
analogous to a new instrument or radioisotopes.” EIS at 
17. 
[Appendix C — 116] 
