245 
Amendment Subsection 3(m), with several overly broad and vague 
factors including the economic impact of continued dumping. Without 
the element of unreasonableness, this definition will lead to a pro- 
hibition if there is any potential change in the environment, however 
miniscule or insignificant. By contrast, the "unreasonable 
degradation" concept, as presented in the existing Act and Ocean 
Dumping Regulations, provides that a rational, comprehensive 
assessment based on current scientific knowledge be made as part of 
the ocean dumping permit application process. The Act does not 
define the term degrade. The definition in the draft Amendment was 
partially taken from the Act in Subsection 2(b) which sets U.S. 
policy. 
The concept of a prudent and feasible alternative is defined in the 
draft Amendment [Subsection 102.(a)] by the following criteria: 
(A) A prudent and feasible alternative exists if the probable 
adverse impact of utilizing alternative ocean locations or 
land-based locations and methods of disposal and recycling 
is less than or equal to the impact of the dumping; (B) A 
prudent and feasible alternative exists if an alternative 
location or method of disposal or recycling is available, 
or if improvements can be made in process technology or in 
overall waste treatment, at reasonable cost and energy expen- 
ditures. The cost and energy expenditures for any such 
alternative location or disposal, recycling, or improvement 
need not be competitive with the costs of ocean dumping in 
order to be deemed reasonable; [and] (C) The fact that the 
ocean dumping of the material may cost less, or be less dif- 
ficult to implement, than an alternative means of disposal is 
not reason, in itself, for determining that the alternative 
means is neither prudent nor feasible. 
This definition of a prudent and feasible alternative seems to be 
contrary to the current requirement for a balancing of all relevant 
10 
