3 
Plaintiff's apparent assumption that unmodified E. coli would 
be used is inexcusable. 
his latest motion to delay suggests that EPA has been critical 
of the experiment. This implication is untrue. EPA's comments 
on the draft environmental impact statement are totally irrelevant 
since the draft EIS has been extensively revised and rewritten, 
partly in response to public and agency comment. Significantly, 
plaintiff did not comment on the draft EIS. See EIS, App . K. 
insufficient to establish any probability of irreparable injury. 
At best, the affidavits reveal general speculation that 
the experiment might accidently result in some materials escaping 
from the laboratory and that such materials might be harmful. 
None of these affidavits deal specifically with the provisions 
of the Guidelines or the discussion in the EIS, both of which 
have undergone extensive scientific and public environmental 
review. Plaintiff's burden is to prove that there is a reasonable 
probability of irreparable injury; mere speculation is insufficient. 
Plaintiff's submissions are woefully inadequate to justify an 
injunction. Plaintiff's request for 30 more days to gather 
new information is similarly based merely on speculation and 
should be denied. 
and into the research laboratory without further delay. Plaintiff's 
extraordinary request for additional time should be denied. 
Fifth, plaintiff's discussion on pages 3 and 4 of 
Finally, plaintiff's generalized affidavits are simply 
Conclusion 
It is now time to get this matter out of the courts 
Respectfully submitted, 
L. MARK WINE 
Land and Natural Resources Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 
(202) 739-2712 
[Appendix C — 177] 
