316 



Mr. D' Amours. The Chair would be willing to take that time if 

 any member of the committee thinks that that would be productive 

 and useful. 



Mr. FoRSYTHE. I hope the committee will have the opportunity to 

 read the entire record. 



I think one of the most important things I heard you say on this 

 proposal was that the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners con- 

 sidered incineration. However, when the final numbers on heavy 

 metal content came out, the incineration option was totally unac- 

 ceptable to the New Jersey DEP. Although there is considerable re- 

 search going on — it seems we don't have an alternative to land- 

 based facilities. This is true in areas like New Jersey where we 

 have a very sensitive water aquifer, particularly in the southern 

 part of the State, and true in other areas surrounding the New 

 York Bight, such as eastern Long Island. 



With regards to incineration, anything that is going into the air, 

 such as heavy metals, will come back down, of course. Incineration 

 poses a problem in that regard. 



What is happening in New Jersey in terms of really implement- 

 ing pretreatment? Alternatively, must action be taken at the Fed- 

 eral level? 



Mr. Arbesman. It is a combination, Congressman. There has to 

 be national standards which are required under the law, those are 

 Federal requirements. All of those have not been established yet. 

 Then those standards have to be enforced and they are enforced by 

 the State on the industries and the authorities that would be af- 

 fected by those standards. 



The pretreatment program will certainly help the problem by 

 holding back some of the materials that come into the sewer au- 

 thorities. I would also note that when we do pretreatment, we have 

 to figure out what to do with the toxic material we take out before 

 it goes into the sludge. That is no easy situation to deal with 

 either. 



But your point is well taken. There isn't an easy answer to the 

 onland alternative. The pretreatment program will give us more 

 options that may be more acceptable for onland alternatives, but 

 my opinion is they will still be difficult options to select from. 



Mr. FoRSYTHE. And, therefore, you do believe that the phasing 

 strategy that is in the New Jersey proposal is essential before any 

 flat get-out-of-the-ocean prescription is laid down as the way to 

 solve our problems? 



Mr. Arbesman. We spent a lot of time looking at impacts on the 

 ocean. We should spend similar time in looking at onland effects 

 and choose the best option for all concerned. 



Mr. FoRSYTHE. This is the problem I have had, the more we get 

 into ocean dumping, the more we find there are problems no 

 matter what you do. We don't know enough yet to resolve this. 



Mr. Arbesman. The location of that incinerator of the Passaic 

 Valley is in downtown Newark. We have a problem meeting the 

 ambient lead standard in downtown Newark. It is not an area 

 where we can allow additional emissions of any substantial quanti- 

 Mr. FoRSYTHE. Thank you very much. 



Mr. D' Amours. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Hughes. 



