■ 327 



that PVSC made to the DEP assumed that a pre-treatment program would be in 

 effect and that the latest in air pollution abatement equipment would be installed 

 on the incinerator. However, our emissions from the incinerator must be looked at 

 in the context of all possible sources of heavy metals emitted in the PVSC air basin. 

 It is for this reason that the results of the DEP studies have not been made as of 

 this date. In summary, we have not yet been informed of what "acceptable" levels 

 of heavy metals are in our sludge. 



Question 3. In testimony presented before these committees last year, Mr. Rocco 

 Ricci (Chief Engineer, Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission) indicated that the Pas- 

 saic Valley Sewerage Commission was monitoring industrial discharges. What is the 

 current status of this effort? Has it helped you to identify and reduce undesirable 

 contaminant levels in your sludge? 



Answer. The monitoring system for user charge is in place and operating as it 

 was designed. The pretreatment program was submitted to NJDEP for approval in 

 November, 1982 and we anticipate approval shortly. We have adopted a pretreat- 

 ment regulation for mercury and required the major discharger of mercury to in- 

 stall a pretreatment facility. This action has resulted in a 90% reduction in the 

 quantity of mercury entering the treatment plant. This reduction has been con- 

 firmed by recent sludge analyses. We are also working with NJDEP, the electro- 

 platers and a professor associated with Princeton University to implement an alter- 

 nate system for pretreating electroplating wastes. This system will enable the plant- 

 ers to pretreat their waste to meet the regulations. However, the system that is pro- 

 posed would generate a material that could be recovered. This process will eliminate 

 the generation of toxic metal sludges. We have identified most of the dischargers of 

 the other toxic heavy metals and are implementing the pretreatment requirements 

 as the federal regulations are promulgated. We anticipate conducting a toxic organ- 

 ic survey in 1984 to identify and quantify these pollutants which enter the treat- 

 ment plant. Action to control the toxic organics will be based on the results of this 

 survey. 



Question 4- Could you provide an estimate of the percentage increase (in dry 

 weight) of sludge expected to be disposed of by the six New Jersey sewerage authori- 

 ties over the next 5 to 10 years? 



Answer. 



Year 



Quantity 1,000 dry 

 tons/per year 



Percent change from 

 1982 



1982 167 



1983 186 



1984 159 



-hlO.2 

 -5.0 



Quality is expected to remain the same from 1984 onward. 



From non-site specific permit applications submitted to EPA Region II. 



Mr. FoRSYTHE. I think we will ask you to answer some questions 

 that I will submit. I recognize the situation you are in, that you are 

 neither the author of this testimony, nor really intimately connect- 

 ed with the operations covered in it. 



Mr. Carella. That is correct, sir. 



Mr. FoRSYTHE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. D' Amours. Thank you, gentlemen. We thank you for your 

 testimony. 



Before we adjourn, I would like to ask that the record — by unani- 

 mous consent^be kept open for a reasonable time for submission 

 of written questions and replies to those questions from members 

 of these subcommittees, and without objection, that is so ordered. 



[The information follows:] 



Questions of Mr. D' Amours and Answers by EPA 



Question. If all municipal sewage sludge currently being dumped at the 12-mile 

 site was dumped at the 106-mile site, would states of New Jersey, Delaware, Mary- 



