Swampscott Turns Down Lights On King's Beach UV Treatment Solution

SWAMPSCOTT, MA — The Swampscott Select Board has sent a strong message to Town Administrator Nick Connors, the city of Lynn and proponents for a UV light-treatment plant as a way to help clean up the water at King's Beach, that the town will not be spending resources on that as a complementary solution to sewer pipe refitting and a potential outfall.

Select Board members reiterated on Wednesday sentiments shared following the presentation of a report on the effectiveness of this summer's pilot program that an additional $77,000 should not go toward UV light feasibility, but instead focus on wet weather water flow and sediment questions that can be applied more broadly to efforts to ultimately clean up the beach.

• Swampscott/Lynn King's Beach UV Pilot Reveals Promising, Inconclusive Results

"Is there anybody at this table that sees us being able to invest millions and millions and millions of dollars in a (UV light treatment) facility over the next 10 years?" Select Board member MaryEllen Fletch asked during an hour-long discussion on remaining ARPA funds at Wednesday night's meeting. "If you do not see that happening, why are we spending any more dollars whatsoever? ... We spend the $300,000 (on the pilot program), we have the results, and we also have comments that we should be able to have these pipes lined and secured by 2027.

"We are on a march to tighten that up. I would just like to see every penny possible put into these pipes."

Select Board member Danielle Leonard noted that none of the Board members said they could "fathom putting a UV treatment facility to the tune of millions of dollars in this town. Did we not say that? I am not sure why we were even on this path."

Town Administrator Nick Connors said that any treatment solution would be a regional solution that would include state participation — funding — and that would necessarily include consulting regulators on the practicality of UV light as a treatment option.

One finding of the Kleinfelder engineering report on the pilot program was that this summer — which was abnormally dry — pollution coming from the Swampscott side of the beach was significantly less than from Lynn, presumably because of the pipe refitting work of recent years.

Left unclear, however, was whether the beach would ever be clean enough for swimming on a regular basis without some type of treatment or extended outfall beyond what Swampscott does with its own pipes, because of the shared border.

"I still don't understand why we wouldn't want to hear from the regulators as to what their opinion was of the UV," Select Board member David Grishman said. "If the regulators say the UV is not worth pursuing, that's off the table."

"But if we've already taken it off the table, why would we waste our time on that?" Select Board member Doug Thompson responded.

The Kleinfelder conclusions were that UV light could be an effective treatment for water flow from the culverts, including Stacey's Brook, that effectiveness is reduced during wet weather — particularly in the first 24 hours of a storm — and that UV light reduced the amount of closures on King's Beach this summer.

It also concluded that "numerous operations and maintenance challenges need to be considered in the design of a permanent facility."

"We feel like we're on the right path and we're almost at the end," Select Board member Danielle Leonard concluded.

Also on Patch:

• 'Effective And Successful': Swampscott King's Beach UV Light Treatment Results Revealed
• 'Very Encouraged': Swampscott King's Beach UV Light Pilot Shows Promise, Raises Questions
• Swampscott Commits $300K To King's Beach UV Light Pilot Program
• Swampscott Weighs UV Light King's Beach Treatment Pilot Expense

(Scott Souza is a Patch field editor covering Beverly, Danvers, Marblehead, Peabody, Salem and Swampscott. He can be reached at Scott.Souza@Patch.com. X/Twitter: @Scott_Souza.)