112 
Mr. ScHatzow. The intent of that provision was not to deal with 
polluted sites or heavily degraded sites at all but to deal with sites 
and materials that were appropriate sites and where there was not 
evidence, in terms of past dumping of any significant degradation. 
Mr. D’Amours. Well, why do you say, “to have chemical or phys- 
ical characteristics similar to material previously dumped at that 
site?” 
Mr. ScHatzow. To avoid the necessity of testing when there had 
been safe materials dumped at a particular site and where there 
had been no significant environmental impact and to assure that 
when you had similar materials to those that had been dumped 
that they could be dumped there. If the materials were not similar, 
if there were for instance elevated levels of any constituents, such 
as mercury or cadmium or PCB’s compared to the levels that had 
been dumped there previously, that they would not be allowed to 
be dumped there but there would have to be further testing. 
Mr. D’Amours. Well, I wonder why we use the words, “constitu- 
ents of concern in organisms’ which means constituents about 
which we are concerned as to their polluting effects or degrading 
effects? 
Mr. ScHatzow. The perception again, I think, by my staff people 
that drafted this provision, is that when you do have some of these 
toxic constituents in trace amounts that have been dumped previ- 
ously and there have not been significant environmental impacts, 
that you may be able to allow additional amounts to be dumped as 
long as they are not significantly different than the substances 
that have been dumped there previously in terms of the levels of 
those constituents. As long as those levels are still at trace 
amounts, and unlikely to cause environmental degradation. 
Mr. D’Amours. Well, I hope that if ever what this thing seems to 
say gets to court that this colloquy will shed some light on it. 
Mr. ScHatzow. I think we will go back and look at that very 
carefully and clear that up so there is no misunderstanding. 
Mr. D’Amours. One final thing, Ms. Hurd, and this is my final 
question. 
You said that you were very concerned about the cutback in 
NOAA funding, what are you doing about it? Are you doing any- 
thing within the administration? Everybody is concerned but 
nobody seems to be doing very much. 
Ms. Hurp. I do not believe that I made that statement. I said we 
were concerned about making sure that we had adequate research 
and monitoring and that is why we recommended a financial 
system to be put into place so that we would be assured that we 
had monitoring. 
Mr. D’Amours. You said that you had enough funds to continue 
the job you have been doing, even though you have been cut in 
prior years and somebody mentioned that NOAA had been cut sig- 
nificantly and you said, “yes and I am concerned about that.’ Are 
you part of any move? Is anybody doing anything to restore NOAA 
funding so that they can continue to do the research and monitor- 
ing that is needed? 
Ms. Hurp. Dr. Byrne can address that. In the management of 
this program there will be coordinating committees between 
