To the editor:
I am writing to share some thoughts about the recent Daily Item article from April 26: “The future of Swampscott beaches analyzed.” I am not a scientist nor an engineer but a citizen. I have questions and thoughts about the town that we all love.
As we are aware, the quality of the water at King’s Beach has the lowest rating of water quality in Massachusetts. King’s Beach was closed due to high bacterial counts of E. coli most of the summer in 2023.
My goal is to become clearer on the progress of handling our sewage and storm sewer systems and pollutants in Stacey’s Brook’s water and other underground rivers.
In the prior Item article, they described making bigger contracts to fix sewer pipes, storm sewer pipes, and illicit connections. For the 2024 budget, we have $ 5.6 million to spend to resleeve the old leaking sewer pipes, to organize the storm sewer pipes, and to treat the Stacey’s Brook polluted water before it goes into the ocean.
The article stated that extending an outflow pipe carrying the polluted Stacy Brook water 4,500 feet through Nahant Bay was a suggested part of the plan. First they needed to do an assessment about whether the pipes could go through eel grass in Nahant Bay. Am I correct that it will cost $500,000 to assess whether the outflow pipe can get through the eel grass? If so, I wonder if we need to assess this obstacle because perhaps it is not a good idea anyway.
Also, I had read previously that no one knew for sure whether the pollution would come back onto King’s Beach from 4,500 feet out in the ocean. Firstly, I wonder about the viability of sending polluted water into the ocean? Secondly, no one can determine if the pollution will come back onto the beaches. Due to these issues, I believe we can save the $500,000 for evaluating an idea of a longer outflow pipe and find another solution for the polluted outflow water from Stacey’s Brook.
Another solution for polluted Stacey’s Brook water that Save the Harbor is suggesting is to use ozone treatments directly in Stacey’s Brook. Using ozone bubbles to clean Stacey’s Brook’s water would take three months. Is this a viable solution?
Although I was unaware, Switzerland has the best sewage treatment plant in the world. Although we differ in climate and terrain, looking at their success is a worthy endeavor. The Swiss are receiving the Swiss Society’s Sandmeyer Prize in 2024 for development of advanced wastewater treatment for dehydration of micropollutants using ozone.
Save the Harbor has contributed to the success of Boston Harbor having good-quality water by contributing to the problem-solving of the Boston wastewater treatment plant.
In the past, we counted on the natural process of stream self-purification that occurs. The ocean was counted on to use a combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes that remove the pollutants. But this is not working now because there is too much polluted water coming from Stacey’s Brook and from the storm sewers. Besides the large amounts of pollution in one place, there is also the problem of micropollutants, which are not occurring in nature and therefore the ocean cannot dissolve them.
Not only are King’s Beach and Fisherman’s Beach polluted but also Preston Beach and Phillips’ Beach are getting high E. coli ratings, which close the beaches for swimming. Also, Riverhead Beach in Marblehead had high E. coli ratings in the summer.
The water testing has only included testing for E. coli but there are other pollutants in the water that we should be testing for like petroleum, pesticides, metals.
We can work on King’s Beach and Fisherman’s Beach and all these beaches with issues at once. While we are fixing the old leaking sewer and storm sewer pipes, we could, simultaneously, focus on solving the two main issues: one issue is the pollution from the storm sewer and the other issue is the pollution in the underground rivers. The storm sewer could be re-routed to the sewage treatment plant. And we can treat the underground rivers before they flow into the ocean.There is another river besides Stacey’s Brook, which I couldn’t find the name of. That driver is an underground river flowing from the Floating Bridge on Western Ave in Lynn through Vinnin Square to Preston and Phillips’ Beach and pond in the swamp in Swampscott.
We could have clean beaches and a clean ocean.
Some people suggest that the storm sewer issues could be dealt with by having laws governing the products we humans use that pollute. What pollutes? The black pavement is made of petroleum and plastics are made of petroleum. During rain, the petroleum washes off the road into storm sewers. Petroleum is harmful and is considered a pollutant to ocean water. Other pollutants come from using pesticides for green grass. The pesticides seep into the underground rivers and are carried into the ocean. Pesticides are poisons, which are pollutants. Public cooperation is progressing but seems overwhelming as a vehicle to control the pollution in Lynn, Swampscott, Nahant, and Marblehead in a timely fashion. At this time, it seem best to focus on how to clean the storm sewer by sending the storm sewer to the sewage treatment plant and by treating the underground rivers perhaps with ozone bubbles
The other question I have about the budget, besides the question of spending money on evaluating the outflow pipe idea, is the bundling of a contract with Trojan Technologies in Toronto. In the article, it stated that Trojan Technologies will test our ocean water if we promise to build a UV (ultraviolet) plant. Why do we need to promise to build a UV plant if Trojan Technologies tests the water?
First, I wonder if UV light for treating sewage is the best route to go. UV light is radiation. UV lights often have mercury in the lamps used. And UV light wears out the pipes themselves over time. Is UV light the best way to or is ozone treatment like the Swiss are using the best way to go?
If a UV plant is built, which sewer systems will be treated in it? There is other construction needed whether the UV plant is built or whether an updated or new sewage treatment plant like in Switzerland is built. The other construction needed are holding tanks to hold sewage when heavy rains come and the new sewage treatment plant cannot handle all the water. Also, pumping stations are needed to pump sewage or storm sewage to the treatment plant.
If we develop our wastewater treatment to be like the ones in Switzerland, we will be treating the storm sewer and sewage in one place. If we treat the underground rivers with ozone until we stop polluting them, we will have clean beaches and we will be responsible for our waste. And we can accept the current situation as it is with no judgment until things evolve with the ways we pollute.
Where do we raise the funding to accomplish this? To raise state and federal funds, Gov. Maura Healy, Lt Gov. Kim Driscoll and our Rep. Seth Moulton are applying for money for these projects. Please support their efforts. Lynn’s not a rich city and Swampscott is a small town.
Save the Harbor is a nonprofit that is set up to raise private funds to support the public funding.
An example where private funding was used for a public project is the Rail Trail.
There are 116,252 residents in Lynn and Swampscott and these residents could contribute private funds to Save the Harbor or through public taxes.
There are immediate ways to focus the budget to make the best action plan. One idea is to not spend money sending a camera up all the main and lateral sewage pipes to find the leaking pipe. It would be best to save time and money by re-sleeving all the old pipes, which are in the areas where the older leaking pipes exist. We can assume the old pipes will leak soon if they are not leaking already. Also, not evaluating whether the outflow pipe can go through the eel grass in Nahant Bay would save $450,000.
Esther D. Mulroy
Swampscott
