472 



than other practical alternative methods...." Denmark and 

 Sweden have pressed for a similar mandatory comparison of land 

 and ocean alternatives in regard to incineration of matter at 

 sea. Some comparisons of the seabed option and land- 

 based alternatives based on very tentative, general assessments 

 of economics and environmental effects have been made. It 

 would appear, however, that more detailed cost estimates and 

 comparisons of ocean and land-based alternatives are called 

 for even at this preliminary stage. 



Additionally, it seems quite possible that no 

 clear "stop-program" points will emerge as the SDP unfolds. 

 Specific activities to be conducted under the four different 

 phases of the SDP overlap in time, so that the phases themselves 

 do not embody definitive program breakpoints. Absence of such 

 program segregation would hinder accountability and review 

 prior to commitment of additional money to unwarranted research 

 and development. 



Systematic information exchange within the U.S. would help to 

 coordinate the activities of the various agencies involved. Though 

 DOE is currently formulating a memo of understanding with NOAA 

 outlining their interrelationship on SDP work, there is no 

 systematic consultation with or dissemination of information 

 to other interested or affected agencies and outside groups, 

 such as: EPA and NRC, who would have regulatory responsibilities 

 in this regard; DOT, which has responsibilities concerning the 

 transportation of wastes over land prior to vessel transport; 

 DOD, as a major producer of high-level nuclear waste; CEQ, as 

 a representative of the executive branch; outside scientists; 



