- 3 - 
3. At the hearing before this Court on January 13, 19 78, the 
Court inquired of counsel for plaintiff what he considered the function 
of the Environment Protection Agency to be. It seemed (perhaps erroneously) 
to counsel for plaintiff that the Court was suggesting that, EPA having 
voiced no objection to the Frederick experiments, that the matter had been 
considered and approved. This is not the case. 
The response of EPA to the draft Environmental Impact 
Statement is contained at Appendix K-158, et seq. , of the Appendix to 
the Environmental Impact Statement. It must be borne in mind that 
at no place in the draft Environmental Impact Statement or the Guidelines . 
was EPA advised of the intention of defendants to conduct the Risk 
Assessment Studies at Frederick. EPA was not advised of defendants' 
intentions to deliberately create a bio-hazard at Frederick. In addition, 
the objections of EPA as set forth in its response to the draft Environmental 
Impact Statement, hardly constitute warm endorsement by that agency. 
EPA rated the Environmental Impact Statement as "ER-2." (Appendix K-160 
to Environmental Impact Statement) This rating indicates that: 
"EPA has reservations concerning the 
environmental effects of certain aspects 
of the proposed action. EPA believes that 
further study of suggested alternatives or 
modifications is required and has asked 
the originating Federal agency to reassess 
these aspects . 
FERDINAND 3 . MACK 
ATTORNEY AT LAW 
jcite in 
OIJJ TOWN CENTER 
I* WKMT JEFFERSON ST. 
mrNVILLK MARYLAND 
IMM 
Category 2 — insufficient information 
EPA believes that the draft impact statement 
does not contain sufficient information to 
assess fully the environmental impact of 
the proposed project or action. However, 
from the information submitted, the agency 
[Appendix C — 171] 
