- 3 - 
FERDINAND J. MACK 
ATTORNEY AT LAW 
SUITE lOfl 
OLD TOWN CENTER 
17 WEST JEFFERSON ST. 
ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 
KOBSO 
301 270-2230 
bootstraps. They are at the same time arguing that the defendants' 
guidelines eliminate adverse environmental impacts, (Defendants' 
Memo p. 10) and at the same time arguing that the environmental impact 
statement covers an experiment necessary to determine whether "real 
hazards" exist from DNA research. (Environmental Impact Statement 
p. 101) 
6. Significantly omitted from the environmental impact statement 
are alternatives to the proposed Risk Assessment Studies, although 
required by § 102 (2) (C) (iii)l 
At page 65 of the statement, it is stated: 
Description of Alternatives 
The following general classes of action 
have been considered as alternatives to, 
or additions to, the issuance of NIH 
Guidelines for Recombinant DNA Research . . . 
It must be pointed out that the alternatives are to DNA 
research, and not t o the conduction of the Risk Assessment Studies the 
subject of this action. No alternatives to the conduction of these 
experiments are considered, in any way in the impact statement, 
although the guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality state that 
a "Rigorous exploration and objective evaluation of alternative actions 
that might avoid some or all of the adverse environmental effects 
is essential . " (SS 6 (IV) (Emphasis added) Not only is there no 
statement on the alternatives to the proposed Risk Assessment Studies, 
but the statement is further deficient because it fails to comply with 
§ 102 (2) (D) of NEPA which requires the agency to "study, develop, and 
describe appropriate alternatives." 
I 
There is authority to the effect that these alternatives be contained in 
a detailed statement on "alternatives to the proposed action" 
Environmental Defense Fund v Corps of Engineers (Gillham Dam), 
Appendix B, 470, F 2d '289 
[Appendix C — J.z/j 
