- 4 - 
7. Not only have defendants attempted to violate NEPA, they 
are attempting to avoid their own HEW regulations. HEW procedures for 
NEPA compliance apply to individual research projects, as well as 
entire research programs. DHEW General Administrative Manual, 
Sections 30-11-00, 30-12-00. Section 30-12-00 states: 
"Actions which are a part of a program or 
group of activities that do not have a Statement 
of Inapplicability (Chapter 30-11-20) to the NEPA 
requirements, must be reviewed on an individual 
basis to determine the extent of the effects 
the action would have on the environment.” 
(Emphasis added) 
8. As defendants have stated, the Risk Assessment Studies are 
designed ,J to help determine if recombinant DNA research could result in 
real hazards." (Environmental Impact Statement p. 101) 
The argument by defendants that a broad environmental 
impact statement is adequate under these circumstances, is not convincing. 
Moreover, the cases relied upon by the defendants do not furnish the 
support for the circumstances confronting the Court here. 
In National Resources Defense Council v TVA 367 F. Supp 
12 2, relied on by the defendants, the Court held that there was "a rational 
basis for TVA's determination that compliance with NEPA could be 
accomplished by filing a single program statement.” 367 F. Supp 122, 128. 
No rational basis for following that precedent can be asserted in the present 
case where the experiment under attack is necessary to assure safety 
of all DNA research. 
In Minnesota Public Interest Research Group v Butz, 
FERDINAND J. MACK 
ATTORNEY AT LAW 
SUITE 106 
OLD TOWN CENTER 
17 WEST JEFFERSON ST. 
ROCKVILLE MARYLAND 
20800 
498 F 2d 1314, also relied upon by the defendants, the issue before the 
Court was whether an environmental impact statement was required, and 
in affirming an injunction on timber cutting until the statement was 
i 
301 279-2230 
[Appendix C — 128] 
