The Select Board received an update on the ultraviolet (UV) pilot program at King’s Beach, but the presentation was met with concerns and conflicting interpretations of the results during public comment.
Kleinfelder Project Manager Courtney Eaton presented to the Select Board, explaining that the project was designed to “understand in a full-scale system how UV might perform” and to give staff operational experience for future installations. She outlined some data points around varying bacterial levels at the test sites, the lower number of bacteria exceedances, as well as several challenges encountered during the study, including seaweed and high-tide conditions. Residents, among them members of various beach-focused organizations, voiced opposition to Kleinfelder’s findings, which had been released in October ahead of the presentation.
“Through the study, we felt that the data points toward UV effectively treating dry weather flow from the culverts, reducing it often below detectable levels…It does seem like there was some improvement,” Eaton said. “The degree of the improvement, we can maybe debate and discuss that, but it did seem that within the pilot period – not taking into account those portions when the pilot was not operating – there seemed to be some improvement in the number of exceedances.”
Water quality issues at King’s Beach date back nearly a century, when Stacey’s Brook, which flows into the beach, was converted into a combined sewer and stormwater system serving both Lynn and Swampscott. Issues have persisted since 1891, and until this year, King’s Beach ranked as the second-most polluted beach in Massachusetts.
In 1985, Lynn invested $65 million into a wastewater treatment facility and worked to ensure no sewer-to-storm drain connections continued to empty into King’s Beach. Similarly, Swampscott has moved with its source elimination work, with the projected investment of $10 million over several years to repair and line sewer mains and service laterals to prevent sewage from entering the storm drains and emptying into Stacey’s Brook culvert.
Installed on June 2, the UV pilot project was in operation for 59 days, approximately two months. The filtration system treated flows up to approximately 5 million gallons per day. It was designed to operate continuously during both dry and wet weather conditions throughout the summer, with the exception of large rainfall events.
“We expected some variability, but we didn’t know how much the UV would be affected under those conditions,” Eaton said. “We tried to challenge them as much as we could.”
Eaton added that while the bacteria levels were expected to raise following wet weather, “what we were encouraged by is how quickly it came back down after that wet weather passed.”
“What we saw trended toward a quicker recovery than what could have been expected otherwise,” Eaton said. “It speaks to the effectiveness of the technology.”
The project wrapped up a bit early, on Monday, August 18.
Since June 20, water treated through the UV system has consistently tested at or below 10 colony-forming units per 100 milliliters (cfu/100 ml), except on June 28, July 24, and July 26. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health specifies that safe waters have at or under 104 bacterial organisms cfu/100 ml.
Meanwhile, untreated water flowing from the Stacey’s Brook culverts in Lynn and Swampscott have often been above 104 cfu. The majority of the Massachusetts Department of Health’s weekly testing has shown the water quality as acceptable throughout the summer.
In-house testing for the pilot program was conducted daily at five locations, gathering data on untreated stormwater from Lynn and Swampscott individually, the combined flow before and after UV treatment, and ocean water approximately three feet deep near Swampscott’s access ramp.
The number of exceedances for the bacteria threshold was only eight days, compared to 33 days in 2024, 43 days in 2023, 31 days in 2022, and 23 days in 2021.
“It decreased the bacteria,” Eaton said. “Given the unit that we had, it does seem to reduce (the number of exceedance days).”
Brian Drummond, the vice chair of the Water and Sewer Infrastructure Advisory Committee, spoke during the public comment section of the Select Board meeting, after reviewing the UV project’s results “a number of times.” He spoke on behalf of himself, as the committee has not voted on anything. Drummond brought up how this is one of the few times the culvert data was separated between Swampscott and Lynn, providing an insight into the different bacteria levels and where they are coming from.
“Almost all of the time, the Swampscott bacteria level was lower than the Lynn bacteria level, and most of the time the Lynn bacteria culvert level was much higher than Swampscott,” Drummond said. “If you look at the data, 46% of the time, the Swampscott culvert, without treatment, was below 104, which is the bacteria level limit.”
Drummond said that even if Swampscott’s bacteria level dropped to zero, “the beach would still be over the limit simply from the high level in the overflow from the Lynn side.”
“I think Swampscott should spend its time fixing the pipes and getting the sewer out of its system and working on that aspect of it,” Drummond said. “There’s been a huge improvement over the years.”
Swampscott residents Andrea Amour, George Allen and Wayne Spritz, sent the Swampscott Tides their feedback through Save King’s Beach, also differing from Kleinfelder’s conclusions.
“It opened up a lot of questions for us,” Amour wrote in an email. “We know our assessments differs from press releases which hailed UV as ‘successful.’ We wanted to do an independent analysis of historical data and consult engineers and statisticians as far as how ‘successful’ the project was purported.”
Save King’s Beach argued that, while the UV system reduced bacteria in dry weather, the study did not demonstrate a direct improvement in beach water quality.
“From this limited data we can see comparisons of quality between the operating days on and days off,” the report reads. “More new questions are raised than answered when looking at the limited difference between the mean and median data points between on/off sets suggesting it was not significantly cleaner when UV was running compared to days when it was not.”
According to the group, the difference in water quality between days when UV was on and off was not statistically significant, with “a 43% chance that the difference is not caused by the UV treatment.”
The group’s report also suggests the project was inconclusive as to whether it provided “necessary data toward investing in a long term water treatment solution” as well as if the system can improve beach days open during dry weather.
“Yes, the beach was in fact open during the 52 days of machine operation during dry weather,” the report reads. “Yet, Stacey’s BRook outfall failed 75% of the time during the UV testing period when the effluent from the UV tank was almost always 10 or less.”
The Save King’s Beach group also wrote about Drummond’s point, that the Swampscott culvert count was “dramatically better” than the Lynn culvert. Amour noted at the Select Board meeting on Wednesday that Swampscott’s pump was off 19 times during the project due to “minimal flow,” while Lynn’s was only off once.
Amour noted in her email that the Save King’s Beach analysis is “not about pointing fingers or blaming any group or municipality.”
Allen spoke at the Select Board meeting as well, with Allen noting that “nothing can handle wet weather flows.”
“What we learned from the pilot is that a grossly oversized UV tank kills all the bugs during dry weather flows. We didn’t need a pilot to learn that,” Allen said. “That is a little harsh, and I apologize, but it’s not incorrect.”
The group suggested that “since the UV did not effectively treat stormwater,” the public should consider treating King’s Beach “like other urban beaches in Massachusetts, and to avoid them 24-48 hours after a heavy rain event.”
Lynn resident Steve Harrington, who said he represents 32 residents who were “subject to the UV pilot program,” also spoke during the public comment section of the Select Board meeting Wednesday.
“We all want a clean beach,” Harrington said. “We are not opposed to a UV system, however when that system was first presented to us, we had 30 people meet officials of Swampscott and Lynn…and we were told it was going to be safe, it was going to be quiet, it was going to be unobtrusive. All of those were false.”
Residents near the pilot site said they were never notified about the project’s location and later experienced noise levels far above legal limits.
A group filed a legal notice citing noise concerns from the joint UV treatment project. The group alleges the pilot program violated noise limits, citing a commissioned study that recorded noise levels between 61 and 65 dB, “far in excess of the allowance of 10 dB above” ambient noise, as permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection.
“Noise pollution is illegal pollution. It’s also trespassing,” Harrington said. “The noise from this was 30 to 40 dB above the legal limit. In my bedroom, the decibels were 30 above ambient. We could not sleep. We could not open a window. We could not open a door.”
At the October 22 meeting that reviewed the UV pilot program’s results, it was confirmed that “some spot checking” was done around the generator for the sound.
During Wednesday’s Select Board meeting, Eaton said Kleinfelder “looked into the quietest generator that we could rent within the timeframe of the pilot.” She also added parts were enclosed and “sound blanketed.”
“Admittedly, obviously, it was higher than we thought,” Eaton said.
Joe Negri, who has also spoken up throughout the summer with Harrington, read at the Select Board meeting a public records request from Lynn, which included an email from Environmental Protection Agency Enforcement Officer Todd Borci.
“The EPA recently received the UV study report and is in the process of reviewing. As far as any statements to be made at this stage, EPA would like to caution against claiming the pilot was a ‘sweeping success,’” Negri read from Borci’s email. “A number of serious technical, operational and public relations issues were encountered, and it is unclear whether the pilot made a significant difference in the number of beach closure days.”
Michael Lynch, a Swampscott resident on Kings Beach Terrace, also spoke up about how “nobody wants it to be where they live.” He asked where the UV will be permanently based “because frankly it was chaotic all through the summer.”
“A lot of this (set up of the UV project) is the way it was because it was a temporary system,” Eaton said. “In a full-scale installation, this would very, very likely look different.”
It was previously said at the October 22 meeting that there is discussion for a potential temporary program again next summer. Funding sources and power from National Grid would be needed for the latter.
Eaton suggested in her presentation that additional data is collected around flow monitoring, wet weather sampling and sediment sampling. She expects this to cost $153,940. The next phase, which would cost $96,020, would look into the UV feasibility with site screenings and permitting reviews. Lastly, a concept design would be created for $168,250.
Vice Chair Doug Thompson said that while he believes the UV project was “successful” he sees “no reason to proceed with this additional scope at this point.”
“I would like more data on what the results have been from our IDDE (illicit discharge detection and elimination). We do theoretically have the end in sight, basically fully funded,” Thompson said. “I understand the UV is complimentary, sort of built in suspenders approach, but…we’re talking about making a big, big capital expenditure for something that as far as I’m concerned we do not clearly need.”
The Select Board did agree that they do not need to see additional data from the UV project.
“I think focusing on the pipes is a very reasonable first priority,” Eaton said. “I think you’re on the right track…If you could get it out of the pipe level, that’s the ideal. The problem is, pipes are always going to leak.”
