The URL can be used to link to this page

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL - CORRESPONDENCE: COASTAL & ESTUARINE WATERS HOUSE �"° o. 2081 ehe Commontuealm of epawarbuoetts n SPECIAL REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH RELATIVE TO THE CAUSES CREATING A NUISANCE ON THE SHORE AND BEACHES OF MARBLEHEAD, SALEM, DANVERS, BEVERLY AND MANCHESTER AND OF MEANS OF RECTIFYING SUCH CONDITIONS UNDER CHAPTER 20 OF THE RESOLVES OF 1949 AND CHAPTER 23 OF THE RESOLVES OF 1950 ti a � .,. � vV BOSTON WRIGHT & POTTER PRINTING CO., LEGISLATIVE PRINTERS 32 DERNE STREET 1951 i 1 Cbe commonlnealtb of Q5,00aftoetto REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH RELATIVE TO AN INVESTIGA— TION OF THE CAUSES CREATING A NUI— SANCE ON THE SHORE AND BEACHES OF MARBLEHEAD,SALEM,DANVERS,BEVERLY AND MANCHESTER, AND MEANS OF REC— TIFYING SUCH CONDITIONS. To the General Court. In accordance with the provisions of chapter 23 of the Resolves of 1950, the Department of Public Health has investigated and studied the causes creating a nuisance ' on the shore and beaches of Marblehead, Salem, Danvers, Beverly and Manchester, and the means of rectifying such conditions, and submits the following report. The resolve is as follows: Resolved, That the department of public health, authorized under chapter twenty-six of the resolves of nineteen hundred and forty- nine to investigate and study the causes creating a nuisance on the shore and beaches of Marblehead, Salem, Danvers, Beverly and Manchester, and of means of rectifying such conditions, shall continue its investigation and study until the second Wednesday in December of the current year, at or before which time said department shall report to the general court by filing a report with the clerk of the house of representatives. For the proposes of carrying out the pro- visions of this resolve said department may expend the unexpended balance in-item 2001-24 of chapter eight hundred and ten of the acts of nineteen hundred and forty-nine. This investigation was originally authorized under chapter 26 of the Resolves of 1949; however, as funds under the resolve were not made available until late in 4 HOUSE—No. 2081. [Jan. September, 1949, it was impossible for the Department of Public Health to make a satisfactory examination of the conditions, as the bathing season was over. As a result, the Legislature authorized a continuation of this inves- tigation under chapter 23 of the Resolves of 1950,and the Department did as directed. The investigation was made of the shore line and tidal estuaries from Flying Point in Marblehead to Norman's Woe in Gloucester, a distance of approximately 44 miles. In connection with the investigation, a sanitary survey was made of all sewer outlets, both municipal and pri- vate, and a survey was made of all industrial wastes being discharged into the tidal waters. Numerous samples were collected for bacterial examination of the sea water at some 32 bathing beaches during the bathing season. These samples were collected under various tidal and wind conditions. In addition, examinations were made of the sewer outlets of the South Essex Sewerage District and the towns of Manchester and Marblehead. In con- nection with these sewer outlets, floats were released from the various outlets to determine whether the sewage dis- charged from them reached the near-by bathing beaches in such a manner as to affect the health of the bathers or people using the tidal areas for recreational purposes. Details as to the sanitary surveys and the results of the float tests and the analyses of samples of industrial wastes and sea water collected in the vicinity of the sewer out- lets for chemical analysis and bacterial examination are set forth in the Engineer's Report appended hereto and made a part of this report. Complaints of nuisances on the beaches of the munici- palities of Marblehead, Salem, Beverly, Manchester and the Magnolia section of Gloucester have been received by the Department of Public Health for a number of years. Examinations have been made from time to time of the quality of the bathing water at the beaches in these mu- nicipalities at the request of local officials. The results of the examinations made in previous years have indi- cated that the bathing waters at these beaches were 1951.1 HOUSE—No. 2081. 5 reasonably free from coliform bacteria, a type of bacteria characteristic of pollution, and safe for public bathing. LOCATION OF POTENTIAL SOURCES OF POLLUTION. The danger of the contamination of the waters of the bathing beaches by domestic sewage would be the great- est health hazard and potential cause of illness to the bathers using these waters. The investigation showed that sewage from the municipal sewerage systems of Manchester and Marblehead, as well as the South Essex Sewerage District, was being discharged in deep water off shore with little or no treatment other than coarse screen- ing. The South Essex Sewerage District serves the cities of Peabody, Salem and Beverly and the town of Danvers. The locations of these municipal sewer outlets have all been previously approved by the Department of Public Health. It is estimated that approximately 17.41 million gallons per day of sewage are being discharged into the sea by these municipalities. In addition to the approved public outlets there were found some 285 private sewer outlets discharging into the coastal and tidal waters. While no measurements were made of the amount of sewage being discharged through these private outlets, the quantity is relatively small. However, many of these outlets terminate near the shore in close proximity to bathing beaches, thus making them a potential hazard to the health of the bathers using these beaches. Almost daily examinations of these beaches showed comparatively little evidence of garbage and refuse or of sewage solids upon these shores. Some complaints were made of the amount of oil on the waters, particularly in Salem and Beverly harbors. There were complaints at two of the beaches relative to coal dust being blown or washed upon the shore. There were also some complaints relative to the odors caused by decomposing marine growths that had been washed upon the beaches. 6 HOUSE '—No. 2081. [Jan. SUMMARY. In summarizing the results of this investigation it can be stated that the bacterial quality of the bathing waters at all of the beaches investigated was better than the recognized standard for suitable bathing water, and there { is no,evidence to indicate that water of this quality would cause illness to the bathers. The general sanitary conditions have improved since previous investigations. Much of this can be attributed to the improvement of the municipal sewerage systems discharging into the tidal waters, and particularly to the activities of the Department in enforcing the rules and regulations adopted for pollution abatement under the ,provisions of chapter 615 of the Acts of 1945. Certain objectionable conditions caused by the discharge of sew- age through private outlets should be corrected as soon as possible. This should be done by the local authorities, and there is ample legislation permitting them to cause such corrections to be made. In the event that local J authorities fail to take action, it will be necessary for the a Department of Public Health to proceed under the pro- visions of chapter 615 of the Acts of 1945, but, as it is ; the policy of the Department to use this act primarily in connection with municipal sewage and industrial wastes, it is desirable that the local municipal authorities take the necessary action regarding private sewer outlets. Improved sanitary conditions should be provided at the public bathing beaches to encourage persons to use these beaches instead of bathing in uncontrolled areas which may be hazardous as to, health and safety conditions. Such improvements shoud consist of providing suitable bathhouse and sanitary facilities, also policing of the beaches to prevent garbage, refuse and decaying marine growth to accumulate on the beaches. The problem'of sewage products occasionally being washed upon the beaches could be eliminated by the installation of suitable screening devices on the outfalls of the Manchester and Marblehead sewerage systems and in the Beverly pump- 1951.1 HOUSE—No. 2081: Z ing station of the South Essex Sewerage District. Fur- thermore, the amount of sleek area in the vicinity of the South Essex Sewerage District outlet could undoubtedly be reduced by the use of multiple outlets or the installa- tion of a diffusing cover over the present outlet: The Department of Public Health at the present time is taking action either to have the industries now dis- charging objectionable wastes into the tidal estuaries discharge these wastes into municipal sewerage systems or to provide proper industrial waste treatment works. It is hoped that by the next bathing season the quantity of such waste being discharged into the tidal waters will be practically negligible. Certain suggestions are made in the Engineer's Report appended hereto relative to possible solution for reducing the pollution of two of the beaches by coal dust. The problem of oil upon the water, particularly in Salem and Beverly harbors, can be adequately taken care of by enforcement of the existing legislation by the Department of Public Safety. The Department of Public Health concurs with the recommendations made in the Engineer's Report attached hereto, and in its opinion their adoptionshould result in improved sanitary conditions at the bathing beaches as well as in improved quality of bathing and other waters used for recreational purposes. No additional legislation is needed to carry out these recommendations. Respectfully submitted, VLADO A. GETTING, M.D., .DR.P.H., - Commissioner of Public Health. PAUL F. FLAHERTY, FRANCIS H. LALLY, M.D., RAYMOND L. MUTTER, WILLIAM H: GRIFFIN, D.M.D., PAUL J. .JAKMAUH, M.D.,, CHARLES F. WILINSKY, M.D., Public Health Council. 8 HOUSE—No. 2081. [Jan. REPORT OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER. OFFICE OF DIVISION OF SANITARY ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Room 511A, STATE House, BOSTON, December 13, 1950. To Dr. VLADO A. GETrJNG, Commissioner of Public Health. SIR:—Herewith is submitted a report relative to an investigation and study of the causes creating a nuisance on the shore and beaches of Marblehead, Salem, Danvers, Beverly and Manchester and of the means of rectifying such conditions, as required by chapter 26 of the Re- solves of 1949, and chapter 23 of the Resolves of 1950, to be carried out by the Department of Public Health. REPORT. This investigation was authorized originally under chapter 26 of the Resolves of 1949, and the sum of $4,000 was made available to carry on the investigation. As funds were not made available until late in September, 1949, it was impossible for the Department of Public Health to determine the conditions prevailing in the area, especially on the beaches during the summer season. Therefore a preliminary report was submitted to the Legislature on December 7, 1949, and published as House Document No. 2236 of 1950, which later resulted in the passage by the Legislature of chapter 23 of the Resolves of 1950. This latter resolve authorized a continuation of the investigation during the summer of 1950, with the final report to be submitted to the Legislature. on De- cember 13, 1950. This investigation was instigated as a result of numerous complaints by the public of objectionable conditions existing on the shores and beaches of Marblehead, Salem, 1951.1 HOUSE—No. 2081. 9 Danvers, Beverly and Manchester, caused by deposits of materials of sewage origin, garbage, rubbish, dirt, oil and other materials. The presence of such materials creates a nuisance and presents a possible danger to the health of persons frequenting the shores. The Department studied the coastal strip from the Marblehead-Swamp- scott boundary to the Manchester-Gloucester line and adjacent tidal waters. The conditions at Devereux Beach in Marblehead were described previously in House, No. 2095 of 1949. It was considered necessary to include the Magnolia section of Gloucester in the current investiga- tion because of objectionable conditions resulting from the discharge of sewage in that locality and its possible effect on the shores specified in the resolve. The work involved in carrying out this investigation included shore inspections, inspection of sewerage sys- tems and outfall sewers, a survey of the amount of pollu- tion caused by industry and observations of tides, cur- rents and wind conditions as they affect the disposal of sewage in these waters, and laboratory analyses and ex- aminations of sea water, industrial wastes and sewage. COASTAL AREA. The area studied in this investigation includes the shores, beaches and tidal waters of Marblehead, Salem, Danvers, Beverly, Manchester and the Magnolia section of Gloucester, comprising a coastal strip extending from Flying Point in Marblehead to Norman's Woe in Glouces- ter, a shore line distance of approximately 44.5 miles. This area includes many sandy beaches alternating with rocky sections. The beaches here offer recreational facili- ties to residents of the adjacent municipalities, and also serve to attract considerable numbers of persons during the vacation season from Metropolitan Boston, as well 10 HOUSE—No. 2081. [Jan. as more distant places.' The following table lists the various beaches in this area: Bathing Beaches. .MuntmewnTTr. Name, Length Control. (Feet). Marblehead Devereux Beach 4,900 Marblehead Salem Mackey Beach . 400 Private Naples Street Beach 300 Salem Forest River Park Beach . 400 Salem Palmer Cove Baseh 1,100 Salem Juniper Cove Beach. 1,000 Salem Salem Willows Beach 1,000'- Salem Dead Horse Beaeli 1,100 Salem Collins Cove Beach' .. 2,600 Salem North Shore Babies'Hospital Beach 800 Private Kernwoo l Park Beach 200 Salem Danvers Sandy Beach 300 Danvers Beverly Ober Park Beach 1,000 Beverly Smelt Rock Beach 100 Beverly Goat Hill Beach 1,400 Beverly Rater Street Beach 700 Beverly Independence Park Beach 600 Beverly Abbott Street Beach 100 Beverly Dane Street Beach 1,600 Beverly Woodbury StreetBeach 1,200 Beverly Lynch Park Beach .11000 Beverly Brackenberry Beach 4,200 Beverly Mingo Beach 1,000 Beverly Endicott Junior College Beach 1,000 Private Plum Cove Beach 1,400 Beverly West Beach 6,500 Private Manchester Tucks Point Beach 200 Manchester Singing Beach 2,300 Manchester Graves Beach 2,100 Manchester White Beach 1,100 Manchester Bleek Beach 2,200. Manchester Gray Beach 3,100 Private According to the recent preliminary census figures the total resident population in the various municipalities is 1951.1 HOUSE —No. 2081. 11 approximately 103,000, and it is estimated that this is augmented during the summer season by some 12,000 summer residents, exclusive of transient visitors. The resident population of the communities considered in this investigation is shown in the following table: Population. J[vsmreeccxz. Population (t 950 Cuneus).' Marblehead 13,711 Salem 41,842 Danvers 15,702 BovmlY 28,855 Mancheater 2,849 Magnolia District of Gloucester 525 Total 103,484 DISCHARGE OF SEWAGE INTO COASTAL WATERS. The coastal waters studied in this investigation receive the sewage from the municipal sewerage systems of Man- chester and Marblehead, together with that from the South Essex Sewerage District, which includes the mu- nicipalities of Danvers, Beverly, Salem and Peabody, and certain institutions in Danvers and Middleton. The esti- mated total quantity of sewage discharged into the ocean from these sources during the summer months amounts to an average of about 17.41 million gallons per day, as shown in the following table: Quantity of Municipal Sewage Discharged into Ocean. Averag0 ` Sewenace Szsrem. Dry Weather Flow DhG.D.) Marblehead 1.50 Manchester .25 South Eesex Sewerage District: Beverly Pumping Station 3.88 Salem Pumping Station . 11.78 Total . . 17.41 1 Preliminary figures. 12 HOUSE—No. 2081. [Jan. The analyses of samples of the dry weather sewage flow show that the sewage of Manchester and Marble- head can be classified as ordinary domestic sewage as in- dicated by the content of suspended, organic and fatty matters. The South Essex Sewerage System receives considerable quantities of industrial wastes, particularly from tanneries in Peabody and Salem, and the analyses accordingly show large amounts of suspended matter and fats, though considerable quantities of these substances are removed by the grit and grease chambers at the Peabody-Salem boundary line and at the Salem sewage pumping station. The following table shows the results of the analyses of sewage discharged during dry weather flow conditions from the above systems: Analysis of Sewage Discharged into the Oman. ]Parte per Million.] Total Bioehemioal SER'HAAOE syse.m. Sll9pC,al'd flXYfxen Frrta. Sohds. Dcmaad. Marblehead 230 28589 Manchester 170 810 149 South'Essex sewera8o system: Beverly Station _ _ _ 176 285 94 Salem Station 720 455 102 . l Brief descriptions of the sewerage systems herein re- ferred to are as follows: Marblehead Sewerage System. The sewerage system of the town of Marblehead is con- structed on the separate plan, that is, for collecting only the domestic sewage and certain industrial wastes, but surface drainage and roof drainage are excluded. This system of sewers serves most of the thickly built-up por- tions of the town, but to date it has not been extended to serve the Marblehead Nock area. The sewage collected in the system passes through a screen chamber located at the southerly extremity of Marblehead Neck, and is then discharged by gravity through a 20-inch cast-iron outfall 1951.1 HOUSE—No. 2081. 13 sewer to a submerged outlet about 550 feet southwest of Tinkers Island. The plans for the construction of this submerged outfall sewer were approved by the Depart- ment under date of August 10, 1926. The depth of water at the outlet is about 37 feet at mean low water. The screen chamber at Marblehead Neck is entirely under- ground and is equipped with screens consisting of 1-inch square bars with 2-inch clear openings. The screens are cleaned manually and the screenings are taken away for final disposal in the ground. The screen chamber has occasionally created a problem in the vicinity, and con- sideration should be given to disintegrating the solids in the sewage and returning them directly to the outfall sewer in order to eliminate a local nuisance problem. There are no measuring devices for recording the daily sewage flows, but estimates indicate that the average daily sewage flow does not exceed 1.5 million gallons dur- ing the summer period. Limited amounts of floating materials were seen over the outfall during the period of the investigation, but the tidal currents in this vicinity are strong and the tidal prism over the outfall is so great that no evidence of sewage is found at any great distance from the outlet. The results of the bacterial examinations of samples of sea water in the general vicinity of the outlet showed no material evidence of bacterial pollution. Manchester Sewerage System. The sewerage system of the town of Manchester is con- structed on the separate system plan, and the sewage flows by gravity to a holding tank equipped with screens located on the northeasterly side of the Boston and Maine Railroad between Church and Beach streets. From this holding tank the sewage is pumped through an 18-inch cast-iron outfall sewer terminating about 1,600 feet west of House Island, where the depth of water at mean low water is about 40 feet. The plans for this out- fall sewer were approved by the Department under date of January 15, 1914. The screen at the holding tank is a manually cleaned bar rack with 1%-inch openings. The 14 HOUSE—No. 2081. [Jan. pumping station is so designed that a method of grinding the solid matters could be installed. South Essex Sewerage System. The South Essex Sewerage District was organized under the provisions of chapter 339 of the Acts of 1925. It conn prises the cities of Salem, Beverly and Peabody and the town of Danvers. Provision also is made for the removal of sewage from certain state and county institutions in Danvers and Middleton. The district is operated by a Board consisting of the city engineer of Salem, the com- missioners of public works of Peabody and Beverly, and a person representing the town of Danvers subject to appointment by the local sewerage authorities. The chairman of the Board is appointed by the Governor and under the statute shall not be a resident of Essex County. The cities of Salem, Peabody and Beverly are rather com- pletely sewered, and numerous extensions are now being made to the sewerage system of the town of Danvers. The Peabody sewerage system is designed on the separate plan. Much of the Salem sewerage system is designed on the combined plan, though recent extensions are on the separate plan. Surface water connections are being re- moved from the sanitary sewerage system from year to year. The Beverly and Danvers systems are designed on the separate plan, but at times of storm there is evidence of a considerable infiltration of surface water, especially in the Beverly system. The sewerage systems within the above cities and towns are operated by municipal authorities; however, the sewage is then discharged into the trunk sewers of the South Essex Sewerage System. The sewage from the cities of Peabody and Salem is collected in the same trunk sewer and flows by gravity to the so-called Salem Pumping Station where the sewage is then pumped into a cast-iron outfall sewer which terminates at a point about 1,800 feet easterly of Great Haste Island. The outlet has a submergence of 30 feet at mean low water. Sewage 1951.] HOUSE—No. 2081. 15 from Danvers and Beverly is pumped at the Beverly pumping station into the same cast-iron outfall sewer. At the Beverly pumping station screens are provided. i Because of the large amount of industrial wastes dis- charged into the Peabody sewer, a large grit and grease chamber was constructed by the South Essex Sewerage District at the Peabody-Salem line in 1947. The sewage then receives additional treatment as it passes through another grit and grease chamber constructed in 1936 on the trunk sewer just above the Salem Pumping Station. A very considerable amount of grease and grit is removed from the Peabody-Salem sewer by these two treatment basins, and the following table shows the quantity re- moved as reported in the annual reports of the South Essex Sewerage District beginning in 1937. 1 South Essex Sewerage District-Removal of Grease and Grit. $ec£x u`'lAL£M-YcAROvT LIRH, Toms.. Ai 'RA"" GREAS£I'D GRIT C%AMSER. (A'EN)GREASE A\'R Ger CR.4MRHR. YkAR. I'1P.a\'Y Hear, FCubS Orem. Solids Grease Bolide Gresse Cubic (Tone). (Cubic (To-). (Cubic (1'oue). Ym.�) Yards). Yards). 1937 . 380 1,750 - - 380 1.750 10.02 4 1938 050. 1,000 - - 350 1,000 10.32 GI 1939 400 1,125 - - 400 1,125 9.76 1940 350 1,500 - - 350 1,500 10.04 but 450 2,000 - - 450 2,000 9.43 1942 900 2,875 - - 900 2,875 9.77 p 1943 . 1,000 2,700 - - 1,000 2,700 19,21 N 1944 . 3,438 3,475 - - 3,438 3,475 9.18 09 1945 1,910 2,457 - - 1,910 2,457 10.60 I--v lout 3,871 2,420 - - 8,871 2,420 20.49 1947 . 1,321 4,150 - - 1,321 4,150 10.83 1948 986 2,368 890 2,825 11876 5,193 12.73 1949 748 1.704 963 2,745 1,711 4,539 11.51 1950, . 635 1,033 Lon 3,250 1,565 4,163 - ,To October 15,1950. l7 1951.] HOUSE—No. 2081. 17 It will be noted that the maximum removal of grease from this sewage occurred in the year 1946, when 3,871 tons were removed, while the amount of grit reached the peak of 5,193 cubic yards during the year 1948. This material is dumped in Peabody at a point where drainage therefrom cannot enter tide water. Some thought has been given to incinerating the grease. With this very considerable amount of grease removal the accumulation of grease balls on the Beverly shores appears to have been controlled to a far better extent than at the time of some of the earlier legislative investigations of this Department, particularly that reported in House Document No. 1250 of 1935, from which the following is quoted: You could have put one foot on a grease ball on every step . . . along the tide line. These grease balls have varied from the size of a large marble to a cantaloupe. Practically no grease balls were found along the Salem and Beverly shores during this current investigation. The engineers of the South Essex Sewerage District in- spect these shores from time to time and report that grease balls are now rarely found. The original sewer and pumping station at Salem were completed soon after the turn of the century, and there has been much agitation for a more adequate and eco- nomical pumping station for a number of years. Several plans have been prepared in recent years providing for the construction of a new pumping station, but the esti- mates of cost have been greater than the South Essex Sewerage Board felt were reasonable. The local district engineer has recently prepared new plans for a sewage pumping station housing three centrifugal pumps, any two of which will have a combined capacity of 50,000,000 gallons per day. The plans for this new pumping station were approved by the Department of Public Health on October 25, 1950. 18 HOUSE—No. 2081. [Jan. The average daily sewage flow of the South Essex Sewerage District is shown in the following table: Discharge of Sewage from South Essex Main Outfall Sewer. YEAR. M.G.D. 1933 15.4 1934 14.0. 1935 13.3 1936 13.5 1937 13.5 1935 14.2 1939 12.9 1940 13.5 1941 12.3 1942 13.3 1943 13.7 1944 12.5 1945 15.0 1946 14.5 1947 14.6 1945 17.4 1949 15.7 At times of storm the quantity of sewage discharged both from the Beverly and Salem pumping stations greatly exceeds the above figures. From such informa- tion as is available the peak rate at Beverly may be 8,000,000 gallons per day, and at Salem, 36,000,000 gallons per day. These conditions occur probably less than 2 per cent of the time in a normal year. The over- flow from the Peabody-Salem main sewer during such peaks would be at the Derby Wharf in Salem, while at Beverly the overflow would pass through the old sewer outfall a short distance from the Dane Street Beach. Such overflows do not ordinarily occur during the summer recreational season. Due to the discharge of caustic lime into the sewers tributary to the South Essex Sewerage District, particu- larly in Peabody, it has been necessary from time to time to clean the 48-inch and 54-inch outfall sewers of the 1951.1 HOUSE—No. 2081. 19 incrustation of caustic lime in order to reduce friction losses. This has been done at three to five year intervals. In view of the numerous complaints relative to the overflow of sewage from the Peabody-Salem sewer, the need of improvements at the Salem Pumping Station and agitation relative to the deposit of grease balls and other sewage products, particularly along the Beverly shores, chapter 431 was adopted by the Legislature of 1945. This act authorized the South Essex Sewerage Board to construct a grit and grease chamber near the Salem- Peabody line, the necessary pumping stations, and such additional sewerage works and treatment plants as might be necessary to prevent the pollution of the North River and its tributaries and the pollution of Salem and Beverly harbors. It gave the Department of Public Health considerable authority over the activities of the South Essex Sewerage Board, especially so far as the portion of the sewerage system in Peabody and Salem is concerned. This act provided for an expenditure of not exceeding $500,000 for improvements, and this amount was increased to $700,000 by chapter 183 of the Acts of 1950. The 1945 act also provided that no work should be done and no expense incurred by the South Essex Sewerage District except under the direction of the De- partment of Public Health and upon the granting by said Department of its approval after a notice to the said cities and a hearing. It also authorized the Department of Public Health to order the said South Essex Sewerage District to perform the duties required by the act. It is expected that after the completion of the new pumping station at Salem the frequent complaints rela- tive to the overflow of sewage and the deposit of sewage substances on the surrounding shores from the public sewer outlets will stop. However, further treatment may be required if the sewage flows increase materially. Such treatment might consist of comminution or grinding of the solids in the sewage discharged by the South Essex Sewerage District, or possibly some further preliminary 20 HOUSE—No. 2081. [Jan. treatment of the sewage, and either to provide multiple outlets in place of the single outlet 1,800 feet east of Great Haste Island or to construct a "diffusing cover" over the present outlet. Float Tests. Studies of tidal currents were made by releasing special floats from the three sewer outfalls of Marblehead, Man- chester and the South Essex Sewerage District to de- termine the effect of the discharge of sewage upon beaches and shores included within the scope of this investigation. Two types of floats were used in these studies,—a float of deep submergence and a surface float of shallow sub- mergence. The depth float was constructed of 2-inch by 4-inch spruce lumber 4 feet in length, weighted at the bottom to hold the float in a vertical position, with sub- merged vanes fixed to the side near the bottom in order to reduce the effect of wind action. This float weighed approximately 19 pounds. The surface float was con- structed of s of an inch spruce disc 18 inches in diameter, with a piece of 12-inch round spruce 3 feet in length, inserted through the disc. The surface float was weighted to a total of 5 pounds. Both types of floats were sur- mounted with a 8-inch brass rod carrying a small signal flag. The object of these float tests was to ascertain, first, the direction which the sewage takes when discharged from the various outlets; second, the length of time the sewage takes to arrive at certain critical points; third, to determine the area covered by the sewage (this is commonly called the sleek area); and fourth, to de- termine the dilution of the sewage at various distances from the outfalls by the collection of samples of sea water for bacterial examination. The courses taken by the floats released at the sewer outfalls were determined by sextant readings at regular intervals following their release. Furthermore, samples of sea water were col- lected for chemical and bacterial examination along the path of the floats. The results of the float tests made 1951.] HOUSE—No. 2081. 21 in the vicinity of the outfall of the South Essex Sewerage District agree with the results of numerous tests made during previous investigations. All of the floats released on the incoming tides reached the shores of Salem or Beverly after a considerable length of time, the length of time in transit depending upon the wind direction and velocity. floats released on the outgoing tides, irre- spective of wind, traveled toward the outer limits of the harbor. In quiet weather the sleek areas were found to be large and approached portions of the shore lines of Salem and Beverly. The general appearance of the harbor showed an improvement over the conditions ob- served during the previous investigation of 1934 (House Bill No. 1250 of 1935). The number of grease balls and the amount of other floating material have been reduced greatly by the im- provements made by the South Essex Sewerage District in the treatment of sewage and industrial wastes and the enforcement of its rules and regulations. Floats released at the Manchester outfall confirmed the results of similar work over this outfall in 1934. The sewage is discharged at a depth of 40 feet of water, and the dilution factor is very great, there being little evi- deuce of floating material or sleek area over the outfall. Floats released at the Marblehead outfall, which is located south of Tinkers Island, show that the present location of this outlet is a satisfactory one for the disposal of sewage in that town. A small amount of floating material was observed over this outfall, but the strong tidal currents in the vicinity, as well as the strong winds and the large volume of sea water available, afford such great dilution that there were no evidences of sewage other than within a short distance of the outlet. Several of the floats released at this outlet, however, went ashore near Devereux Beach in Marblehead, but the results of the examinations of samples of sea water collected along this beach showed no evidence of sewage pollution. A comparison of the amounts of free and total albuminoid ammonia in the raw sewage and in the sea water into 22 HOUSE—No. 2081. [Jan. which the sewage is discharged is shown in the following table: - Free Ammonia (P. P. M.) SooxH Essnx - SEWERAGE MARHLEHEAD. MM'CHEBTEA. D]B Eem 1949. 1950. 1949. 1950. 1949. 1950. Raw sewage 40.0 35.2 24.8 22.8 25.6 51.2 Sea water over outfall .158 1.44 .120 .040 .005 .015 Sea water at floats two and .000 .080 .000 - - .015 one half hours from out- fall. Total Albuminoid Ammonia (P. P. M.) Raw sewage 14.3 - 4.8 10.9 12.0 8.8 Sea water over outfall 1.64 2.26 .190 .805 .085 .105 Sea water at floats two and .148 1.42 .160 - - .170 one half hours from out- fall. Coliform Bacteria per 100 Ml. (Phelps Index). Sea water over outfall 500,000 10,000 100,000 10,000 - - Sea water at floats hvo and 1,000 1,000 - 0 - 0 one half hours from out- fall. Out and one half home from outfall. It can be seen from a study of the above table that, with the volume of diluting water at the outfall of the South Essex Sewerage District, there is a reduction of approximately 96 per cent based upon the free ammonia determination. In the cases of the samples collected of the sea water over the outfalls in Marblehead and Man- chester this reduction is even greater. It can also be seen from the above table that the number of coliform organisms in the sea water directly over the outfalls was greatly reduced from the number ordinarily found in domestic sewage. All this indicates that the present method of disposal of sewage in deep tidal waters con- tinues to be a reasonably satisfactory method of disposal. 1951.1 HOUSE—No. 2081. 23 Private Sewer Outlets. An examination of the shore line disclosed some 285 private outlets discharging into the sea and tidal estuaries. In some instances these outlets discharge sewage directly from the premises, and in other cases the outlets are over- flow pipes from cesspools or septic tanks. The number of private sewer outlets noted along the shore line is sum- marized in the following table: Summary of Private Sewer Outlets. \luxmtanctmx. I Number of Outlets. Marblehead 83 Danvers 55 Salem . 18 Beverly. 83 Manchester 29 Gloucester(Magnolia) 19 The locations of the various individual private outlets found are shown in the tables and maps under Appendix I. While the quantity of domestic sewage discharged from these individual private outlets into the sea or tidal estuaries is small in comparison to the volume of mu- nicipal sewage discharged into the sea, nevertheless the raw or partially treated sewage from the private outlets is a public health hazard. This is due primarily to the fact that these outlets discharge either directly upon the shore or only a few feet from the shore, thus permittipg a quick passage of the sewage either to near-by bathing beaches or shellfish areas. Many of these outlets termi- nate above the low-water mark. In some cases these private outlets can be eliminated by connections with municipal sewers, although extension of the municipal sewerage system will be required in some areas. In other cases the sewage can be disposed of by subsurface means upon the premises; however, there are a number of cases where the soil is either rocky or not suitable for sub- 24 HOUSE—No. 2081. [Jan. surface filtration, so that the installation of works may result in considerable hardship to the persons concerned. The Department is prepared to assist with technical advice in such instances upon request of the local health department. Industrial Wastes. j A survey of industries bordering the tidal estuaries shows that there were nine industrial plants discharging industrial wastes into tidal waters. Samples of these various wastes were collected for chemical analysis. The results of the Analyses of samples collected of the above industrial wastes show that some of these wastes overtax the purification capacity of the streams into which they are discharged. There are certain other wastes, however, that are of a rather weak nature and do not cause an undue burden upon these tidal estuaries. Where objec- tionable wastes are being discharged, the Department of Public Health has taken action to bring the matter to 'the attention of the industries involved, requiring that the wastes receive proper treatment or be discharged into the municipal sewerage system. At the present time, studies are being'made by the various industries to take care of the problem, and it is hoped that all objectionable, untreated industrial wastes will be excluded from these tidal estuaries before the next bathing season. 1 The following table shows the industrial plants visited.. Summary of Indaustrial Wastes Secrvey. ➢foxmrrer.TTY. Industry. Typeof Diseharged B.O.D. Inen,r-. into— (P.P.ht.) Salem Salem Dleotrie Co. Power generation. South River 155 Salem Salem Gas Works Gas manufacturing Salem Harbor 44 Peabody American Resinous Chomi- Synthetic latex Nortb River 390 out Corp. Poabody Ver..Tanning Co. Tannery North River 875 Danvers Danvers 1.aedry Co. Domeatre hmnd`y Waters River 520 'Danvers Creese&Cook Tannery Cane River 550 Dawes Judge Tanning Co. Pon nory Porter River 350 Carve. Roma Tanning Co. Tpmery Porter River 124 Danvers ., Industrial Tanning Co. Tannery Porter River - 1951.] HOUSE—No. 2081. 25 ESTUARIES TRIBUTARY TO SHORE LINE, Other than the Danvers River, there are no important rivers entering.the portion of the coast line covered by this resolve. Forest River, which in part forms the boundary line between Marblehead and Salem, contains a bathing beach, and the results of the analyses of samples of water at this bathing beach, which represent the char- acter of the water discharged into this harbor from Forest River, are indicated in the portion of this report having to do with bathing places. The analyses show the water at this beach to be satisfactory for public bathing. The Danvers River, which is the only other important estu- ary entering this portion of the coast line, receives the drainage from parts of Salem, Peabody, Danvers and Beverly. At the Salem-Beverly bridge it has a water- shed of about thirty square miles. Samples have been collected from the Danvers River and its tributaries and also from the South River in Salem on fourteen different periods during the investigation between June 20, 1950, and August 10, 1950. The average results of the analyses of the fourteen tests of the Danvers River and various estuaries tributary thereto and of the South River in Salem, all made on the ebb tide, are shown in the follow- ing table: Fduarees Tributary to Coast bine, Ebb Tide. [Average Results,Jane-August,1930.1 (Parts per Million. ISACfERIA PER COY.IFOAM AFtMQNSd. MIEL;LITER. B'SOLRE. IN— Chloride.. N— Chloride.. B.O.D. Iootal 4 DayO 24 Hours Free. Albumi- 20°j. 37°C. 100 ml.r o d. Poser Riser at Moutd,D.,,wr . .087 t .608 II 17,312 2A I) 1,600 I 184 tI 266 1 Croae11 River at Moulh,D.n e,s. !! 1 .93'2 I 1.263 II 16,764 I 7.5 II 3,725 I 884 II 166 I Geometric mean—Phelps index. 26 HOUSE—No. 2081. [Jan. Estuaries Tributary to Coast Une, Ebb Tide_..Concluded. [Average Resilts,June-August,1950.] [Part per Million.] BACCBAIA PER COLIFORM A,naoxia, J"r"ILSTEtt. BACPEAIA Chlerlde9. B.G.D. —_ Tom 4 17ays 24 Honre Free, All V i' 20. C 3 G 100 ml..I noid. Wears River at Mauo,Danvers. .700 .623 11 17,550 2.3 If 1,754 I 204 it 72 Danvera River,%arnwood Bridge,Bererlg-Satern. .041 1 .322 1� 17,832 1.5 1.000 166 (� 117 Bass River near Mouth,B.arlg. .051 .402 17,500 2.3 2,818 818 436 North Riva at Mouth,Salem. 1.974 2.271 11,800 1 121.0 �) 1183,000 7,33 26,800 Danner,,River,Salem-Boverip Bridges .022 .323 I 17,862 1.6 I� 650 109 118 South Ricer at Mouth,Congress Street Bridgo.Salaro. .033 ! .330 11 17,014 1.7 51,057 ( 3 004 �) 1,380 r Geometric mean—Phelpsiiadex. The Porter River at Danvers at times receives the effluent from two tanneries,and the results of the analyses show some limited evidence of pollution. The waste from one of the tanneries is ordinarily pumped into the Danvers sewerage system, and the other smaller tannery, if it is to continue in operation, is shortly to make arrangements for discharging its waste into the Danvers sewerage system. The Crane River at its mouth has received the dis- charge of tannery waste from two important tanneries both under the same management, and the analyses show 1951.1 HOUSE —No. 2081. 27 evidence of pollution. Under date of October 23, 1950, the Department approved with modifications a plan for removing the sewage from one of these tanneries into the South Essex Sewerage System, and it is understood that the connecting sewer is now being constructed and should be in operation before the next bathing period. A sewer connection also is being made for the removal of the waste from the other tannery bordering this stream. The Waters River receives a limited amount of foul drainage from some of the deposits on its watershed, but the analyses do not show any material evidence of pol- lution. The results of the analyses of samples from the Danvers River at the Kernwood bridge just above the entrance of the North River show that the Danvers River at this point is in normal condition for a stream draining a thickly settled community which receives limited quantities of sewage from private sewer outlets. The results of the analyses of samples from the Bass River, draining the westerly part of the central portion of Beverly, show that it receives a limited amount of foul drainage from the thickly settled portion of its watershed. One of the most objectionable tributaries to Salem and Beverly harbors is the North River, which rises in Pea- body and extends in a general easterly and northerly direction to the Danvers River and thence to Beverly Harbor. This estuary in earlier years has unquestionably been the most notoriously polluted stream in the Com- monwealth, but, through the efforts of the Department under the provisions of chapter 615 of the Acts of 1945, improvements made by the South Essex Sewerage Dis- trict, particularly in the construction and use of the grit ' and grease chamber at the Peabody-Salem line, and the more adequate maintenance of the Peabody-Salem sewer in a suitable operating condition, the overflow of sewage and industrial wastes to the stream has been all but eliminated. The pollution appears to have reached its peak in 1944, and the condition was such in that year and in 1945 as to have been an important reason for the 28 HOUSE—No. 2081. [Jan. adoption of chapter 615 of the Acts of 1945, which is an act authorizing this Department to prevent the pollution of inland streams and tidal waters. The average results of the analyses of the samples collected during the ten- year period, 1940 to 1949, from the North River at its mouth in Salem, are shown in the following table: Analysis of North River at Mouth. [Parra per Milton.] Total Dinanlved Binoheminel Y... � 6nwpended Oxygen. Oxygen Sptds. Demand. 1940 289, 0.0 190. 1941 479. 0.2 338. 1942 : 480. OA 229. 1943 222. 0.0 290, 1944 3.565. 0.0 785. 1945 . 518. Co 287. 1946 514. 0.0 222. 1947 108. 0.3 109. 1948 124, 0.3 162. 1949 24. 6.1 81. 1950 . - - 121. The analyses for 1949 show conditions far superior to those found in recent years. However, the samples col- lected this year, 1950, during the dry period, had an av- erage biochemical oxygen demand of 121, an increase over 1949. This was due in part to industrial wastes which, it is expected, will shortly be discharged into the public sewerage systems, and in part to the temporary overflow of sewage during the reconstruction of a portion of the main Peabody-Salem sewer in connection with the aboli- tion of the railroad grade crossing. The Danvers River at its mouth, viz., at the Salem- Beverly bridge, showed less evidence of pollution in the investigation than might be expected from the thickly settled watershed drainage to it, when consideration, is given to the fact that the North River enters the Dan- vers River just above the point where the samples were 1951.1 HOUSE—No. 2081. 29 collected, and to the fact that the Danvers River and its tributaries receive limited amounts of pollution from private sewer outlets, particularly along the Beverly shore. The South River at its mouth at the Congress Street bridge in Salem receives a considerable quantity of oily wastes and coal dust, and at times of rain sewage may overflow from the combined portion of the Salem sewerage system into the South River. The water contained a rather larger concentration of coliform organisms at the time of the collection of samples on June 22, 1950, and August 1, 1950, than at other periods of the investigation, and this may have been due to rainfall which occurred during or just before the samples were collected. SHORE AND BEACH EXAMINATIONS. In connection with the investigation, the shores and public beaches were examined almost daily during July and August. The general conditions of the beaches were noted, and the presence of any objectionable foreign mat- ter was recorded in detail, together with observations of tide and wind conditions. These records have been com- piled and summarized for this period and are on file in the office of the Division of Sanitary Engineering of the De- partment of Public Health. Garbage and Refuse. Investigation showed practically no evidence of gar- bage floating on to the beaches; however, on some of the beaches which are not properly controlled, picnic parties leave rubbish and garbage. This was noted particularly in the vicinity of restaurants and roadside or beach stands.. It is a matter which can be controlled by the local board of health. The situation also would be further relieved by making available more rubbish containers on the beaches for the easy disposal of the rubbish by bathers, picnickers. and others. In certain of the harbors where there are large num- bers of boats moored during the summer season,such as 30 HOUSE —No. 2081. [Jan. in Marblehead, rules and regulations have been estab- lished to prevent the discharge overboard of garbage from moored boats. The town also maintains a boat for col- lecting the garbage from the individual boats twice daily during the yachting season. The board of health of Salem also has adopted rules and regulations to prevent the throwing of garbage into the harbor. No action has been taken by Beverly or Manchester to establish similar regulations. Materials of Sewage Origin. Ju previous years there have been many reports of grease balls being found upon the beaches and shore line. These are formed by the accumulation of grease on matches, bits of cork, or on similar objects in the sewage. However, very few grease balls were found on the beaches during the present investigation, indicating that the two grease-removing plants of the South Essex Sewerage District were doing an effective job. Another form of pollution characteristic of sewage which has caused a number of complaints has been the finding of condoms on the beaches. With the improve- ment in screening and other devices on some of the munic- ipal systems there has been a reduction in the number found during this investigation over that found during previous investigations. This condition can be corrected by the prevention of the discharge of unscreened sewage into the tidal waters. Oil. Complaints of the presence of oil on the waters of Salem and Beverly harbors have been made rather fre- quently. While it is noted that there were some spent oils being discharged into the tidal waters from industry, the principal cause of the presence of oil in these two harbors was from the presence of oil tankers. Apparently the oil tankers frequently pumped their bilges before reaching the open sea; thus even a small amount of oil discharged with bilge water would cause unsightly con- 1951.1 HOUSE—No. 2081. 31 ditions in the harbor as well as damage to the appearance of pleasure boats using these waters. Recognition should be taken of the fact that during the latter part of the summer of 1950, dredging operations were conducted at the South River. The dredged material was dumped off of Bakers Island, which may have been a contributing factor in the oil deposits along the shore. Coal Dust. At various times during the investigation, when the wind was in the westerly direction it was noted that the coal.dust was blown into the water and on to the sand of two beaches. This condition was noticed at the Collins Cove Beach and Dead Horse Beach in Salem. Investigation showed that the apparent source of coal dust is the Salem Electric Company, located on the South River in Salem, and the Salem Terminal Coal Company, located on Derby Street in Salem. At the time of the investigation the Salem Electric Company had approximately 15,000 tons of bituminous coal in their stock pile. The deposit of coal dust upon the beaches is of con- siderable annoyance to the bathers at these beaches, although it often is very difficult to wholly prevent the coal dust being carried by wind on to the beaches or bathing waters. Undoubtedly improvements could be made by adopting one or more of the following recom- mendations: 1. Trees and tight fences should be used as wind breaks. 2. Coal hoppers should be enclosed and covered. 3. Enclosed chutes should be used to deposit coal on storage piles instead of allowing it to drop through the air from coal-handling apparatus. 4. Water should be sprayed on the coal at points where dust is most likely to escape, and the area around the coal piles should be diked to prevent the escape of drain- age containing coal dust. 32 HOUSE—No. 2081. [Jan. Marine Growth. Large deposits of marine growths were noted during the course of this investigation. These growths occur in tidal waters, especially along the rocky shores of this area. This growth has been identified as Ectocarpus, which is not known to be injurious to the public health. It does, however, cause nuisances upon the beaches when it de- composes, as it emits a very putrid odor. As far as it is known, there are no practical chemical means for control- ling these growths. The only thing that can be done to prevent these odors is continuous policing of the beaches and raking the growths, either burying them or carting them away before they decay. QUALITY OF WATER AT BATHING BEACHES. In connection with this investigation many samples of sea water were collected at the various beaches during the bathing season to determine the suitability of the water for bathing purposes. These samples were collected under various tidal and wind conditions. The Depart- ment of Public Health has during the past years frequently collected samples of the sea water at the various bathing beaches upon request of the local officials, and has always found that the waters were bacterially safe for bathing purposes. In this regard the Department has been guided by the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Bathing Places of the American Public Health Asso- ciation and the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers relative to the bacterial quality of water suitable for bathing purposes. The Joint Committee, in its most recent report, has suggested an index of 1,000 coliform organisms per 100 milliliters as being fairly acceptable for bathing purposes. They further state that bathing beaches where the content of coliform organisms has an index of 2,400 per 100 milliliters on the basis of most probable numbers have been used without reported evi- dence of illness. The index of 2,400 per 100 milliliters" based upon most probable numbers is equivalent to a 1951.1 HOUSE—No. 2081. 33 coliform index of 1,000 coliform organisms per 100 milli- liters on the basis of the so-called Phelps index. The Phelps index has been used by this Department for many years in determining the suitability of bathing water. These bacteriological standards,however, are utilized only for guidance, as a sanitary survey of the area in the vicinity of the bathing beaches is usually the determining factor in judging the suitability of an area for bathing purposes. At Crocker Park in Marblehead it was neces- sary for the Department to recommend against public bathing during the summer of 1950, because this investi- gation established the fact that domestic sewage was being discharged into the harbor in the near vicinity of the bathing float. The results of the many bacterial examinations of samples collected at these beaches during this investiga- tion showed that the water was of suitable bacterial duality for bathing purposes. Out of the total of 539 samples collected at the beaches only 24 samples showed a coliform index in excess of the 1,000 coliform index. Several water pollution control agencies using the same coliform index for bathing waters permit 25 per cent of the samples examined during any month to exceed the coliform index of 1,000 per 100 milliliters. The average number of coliforms in the bathing water and the per cent of samples collected exceeding the coli- form index of 1,000 per 100 milliliters at the various beaches are shown in the following table: 34 HOUSE —No. 2081. [Jan. Geometric Per Cent of Mean - Samplee Sxwrto. Name of Beach. City or Town. Coliform haying Gounts No. Organisms higher than per 100 ml. I,00o0ClifMrs per 100 ml. 1 Devereux Marblehead 43 0.0 2 Mackey Salem 28 0.0 3 Naples Street Salem 40 6.7 4 Forest River Park Salem 35 0.0 5 Palmer Cove Salem 220 0.0 6 Juniper Cove Salem 71 7.1 7 Salem Willows. Salem 91 4.0 8 Dead Borse Salem 42 5.5 ' 9 Collins Cove Salem 72 9.1 10 Hospital Salem 138 9.5 11 Kernwood Park Salem 46 5.3 12 Ober Park Beverly 112 9.5 13 Smelt Rock Beverly 363 6.3 14 Goat Hill. Beverly 80 5.0 14A Pumping Station Beverly 224 5.0 15 Independence Park. Beverly 155 9.5 16 Dane Street Beverly 91 12.0 17 Woodbury Street Beverly 79 0.0 18 Lynch Park Beverly 54 4.5 19 Brackenbarry Beverly 46 4.8 20 Mingo Beverly 1341 18.7' 21 Endicott Junior College Beverly 46 0.0 21A Plum Cove Beverly 17 0.0 22 {Vest Beverly 39 0.0 23 Town Bathing Manchester . 1411 15.41 24 Kettle Cove Manchester . 21 0.0 25 Singing . Manchester. 17 0.0 26 Magnolia Harbor GlMoester 41 0_0 27 Sandy Danvers 115 0.0 1 The high mean coliform index at these beaches is attributable to the following reasons: (.) At\Sing.Beach there was a private sewer outlet from Endicott Junior College,which was removed in the spring of 1950,sewage now being discharged through a force main to the Beverly sewerage system;and (b) The water at Town Bathing Beach was affected by a break in the Manchester sewer outfall,which occurred during the early part of the summer of 1950 and was repaired as quickly as possible. 1951.1 HOUSE—No. 2081. 35 Shellfish. The area of the shore line included m this investigation contains a number of tidal flats where shellfish grow, principally the, soft-shell clam. According to the Division of Marine Fisheries of the State Department of Conser- vation, the approximate areas of clam flats by munici- palities are as follows: Acrc s. Salem 100 Beverly 40 Danvers 15 Manchester 5 Total 160 Because of the fact that untreated sewage is discharged into the tidal waters, it has been necessary for the De- partment to close certain areas to the harvesting of -,bell- fish. In other cases, where the pollutional load is not as great, the Department has authorized the barvesting of shellfish, with the provision that they be treated at a shellfish treatment plant approved by this Department. The closed areas involved are located in Manchester Harbor, _Marblehead Harbor and Salem and Beverly harbors. The closed areas and the restricted areas are shown on the map in Appendix III. The original closures of these areas were made in December, 1925. Minor changes were made under the following dates: Manchester Harbor, February 23, 1945. Marblehead Harbor, July 13, 1938. Salem and Beverly harbors, including tributary estuaries, August 7, 1950. Areas which were approved for the harvesting of shell- fish for purification purposes are as follows: Marblehead—Area west of Orne Island, July 13, 1938. Salem—Area east of a line from Pickering Point to Fort Pickering, October 31, 1939. , Mr. Francis W. Sargent, Director of the Division of Marine Fisheries of the Department of Conservation, in a 36 HOUSE —No. 2081. [Jan. letter to Mr. Clarence I. Sterling, dated November 15, 1950, wrote: Relative to our recent discussion, the economic loss, shellfish wise, due to pollution by domestic sewage and industrial waste in the area between Flying Point, Marblehead, and Norman's Woe, Gloucester; would amount to approximately 3,%poo, using an average yearly of $500 per acre. EXISTING LAWS AND REGULATIONS. There are several laws in the Commonwealth which adequately provide for the control of pollution of streams and tidal waters. The Department of Public Health, under chapter 615 of the Acts of 1945, was given the right to establish rules and regulations for the control of pol- lution ollution or contamination of lakes, ponds, streams, tidal waters and flats, or the tributaries of such tidal waters, and flats. The Department promulgated rules and regu- lations on August 14, 1945, which were approved by the Governor and Council on September 19, 1945. These rules and regulations become effective upon local publi- cation or posting in a particular city or town. The rules and regulations were advertised in Salem, November 5, 1945, and in Peabody, November 9, 1945. During the course of this investigation, as a result of the finding of domestic sewage and industrial wastes being improperly- discharged mproperlydischarged into the coastal waters and tidal estuaries, the rules and regulations were advertised in Gloucester, September 30, 1949, in Marblehead, November 2, 1950, in Danvers, November 22, ,1950, and in Manchester and Beverly, November 24, 1950. The Department, in en- forcing these rules and regulations, has confined its. activities of necessity to the prevention of the pollution and contamination of the streams and tidal waters by municipalities and industries. The municipal authorities. can take action to enforce these rules and regulations with. the permission of this Department. The problem of cor- rection of improper private sewage disposal facilities which might create a nuisance or contaminate a stream. or tidal water is left to the jurisdiction of the munici- palities. The local board of health of each municipality 1951.] HOUSE —No. 2081. 37 also has sufficient authority to correct such conditions under General Laws, chapter 111, section 122. In addi- tion, the board of health of a city or town may require an owner or occupant of any building upon land abutting on a public or private way in which there is a common sewer to connect with the sewer as provided in General f Laws, chapter 83, section 11. 6 The Department of Public Safety, under General Laws, chapter 91, section 59, as amended, has the authority to f prevent the discharge of oil into the waters of any lake, river or tidal waters and flats. It is the feeling of the Department that, with the proper enforcement of the existing laws and regulations, there is no need for additional legislation to regulate the pollution of the coastal waters and tidal estuaries examined during the present investigation. The rules and regula- tions established by the Department of Public Health under chapter 615 of the Acts of 1945 are shown in Appendix II, together with the act. SUMMARY. This present investigation has shown that there has been an improvement in the sanitary condition of the tidal waters of the coastal area surveyed, especially since the enactment of chapter 615 of the Acts of 1945. The bacterial examination of the bathing waters at all the publicly maintained beaches shows that the water was well within the standards for the bacterial quality of bathing water. There has been a great reduction in the amount of materials found upon the beaches indicative of the sewage discharged into the tidal waters. This has been due primarily to the fact that improved screening and grit and grease removal methods have been adopted by sev- eral of the municipalities discharging sewage into the sea. The discharge of sewage from a number of private sewer outlets into the tidal waters, especially in proximity to public bathing places, is a potential public health hazard, and this condition should be corrected. In the I 38 HOUSE —No. 2081. [Jan. more densely populated areas this could be accomplished by connecting the offending premises to the existing pub- lic sewers or extending the public sewerage system to serve these areas. There is ample legislation in existence at the present time to control the pollution attributable not only to the sanitary sewage being discharged into the tidal waters, but also the pollution of these waters by in- dustrial wastes. The Department of Public Health has initiated action to eliminate the pollution of these tidal waters by industrial wastes. Certain improvements should be made by several of the municipalities in screen- ing out the objectionable solids which may be carried on to the beaches. However, the chlorination of the sewage before discharge into the sea by the various cities and towns is not warranted yet in view of the satisfactory bacterial quality of the bathing water at the beaches. RECOMMENDATIONS. As a result of this investigation the following recom- mendations are made which should result in better sani- tary conditions at the beaches in this area: 1. Installation of new screening devices on the Marble- head outfall sewer for comminution or disintegration of the solids in the sewage. The estimated cost of such an installation is approximately $7,500. 2. Installation of new screening devices on the Man- chester outfall sewer for comminution or disintegration of the solids in the sewage. The estimated cost would be approximately $3,600. 3. Installation of new screening devices in the Beverly Pumping Station of the South Essex Sewerage District at an estimated cost of $10,000. 4. A study should be made by the South Essex Sewerage District to improve the outfall sewer by installing either multiple outlets or a "diffusing cover" over the present outlet. 5. Extension of sewerage systems to serve the more densely populated areas where sewage is being discharged a into tidal waters through private outlets. Where exten- 1951.1 HOUSE—No. 2081. 39 sion of the sewerage systems is not economically warranted or feasible, the sewage should be disposed of by subsur- face methods on the premises. This should be under the direction of the local health authorities. 6. The municipal authorities should encourage bathing at the publicly operated bathing beaches by providing suitable bathhouse and sanitary facilities at these beaches. 7. Better policing and maintenance of sanitary condi- tions on the beaches. 8. Enforcement of the regulations to prevent the dis- charge of oil in Salem and Beverly harbors by tankers and others. 9. Coal concerns in Salem should take remedial meas- ures to reduce the amount of coal dust escaping from their plants as a result of their present handling and storage practices. No legislation is required to carry out the above recommendations. ACKNOWLEDGMENT. The sanitary surveys and investigations along the shore line from Marblehead to Magnolia in Gloucester were carried out under the immediate supervision of Mr. Willard S. Little, Assistant Sanitary Engineer, and Mr. Ernest J. Sullivan, Senior Sanitary Engineering Aid. Appreciation also is expressed to Mr. Edward Wright, Sanitary Engineer, and Mr. Walter E. Merrill, Associate Sanitary Engineer, for their suggestions and criticisms in the preparation of this report. The Department also wishes to acknowlegele the assistance rendered through- out the investigation by the various public officials con- cerned. Respectfully submitted, CLARENCE I. STERLING, JR., Chief Sanitary Engineer. 40 HOUSE—No. 2081. [Jan. FINANCIAL STATEMENT. RESOLVE AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUANCE OF THE INVESTIGATION AND STUDY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH OF THE CAUSES CREATING A NUISANCE ON THE SHORE AND BEACHES OF MARBLE- HEAD, SALEM, DANVERs, BEVERLY AND MANCHESTER, AND OF MEANS OF RECTIFYING SUCH CONDITIONS. (Chapter 23,Resolves of 1950. Account No.2001-24.) Appropriation . . $2,766 86 Expenditures: Item 02 Salaries: Junior sanitary engineering aid(1) 8482 53 Senior sanitary engineering aids(2) . 1,714 59 03 Services non-employees: Non-professional services . 115 00 05 Clothing: Rubber boots 23 32 10 Travel 64 39 11 Advertising and printing: Advertising . 65 12 Blueprints . 9 25 16 Garage rental . 12 00 Total expenditures . - 2,486 20 Balance 8280 66 Financial statement verified (under requirements of chapter 7, section 19, General Laws) February 20, 1951. JOSEPH A. PRENNEY, For the Comptroller. Approved for publishing. FRED A. MONCEWICZ, Comptroller. 1951.] HOUSE,—No. 2081. 41 APPENDIX I . PRIVATE SEWER OUTLETS. MARBLEHEAD. Owner and Description. No. 1. Lighthouse, Kimball St.—.broken above high water; not in use; 4"pipe. 2. Deland, Kimball St.—broken above high water; sewer pipe; 3 people; 6" pipe. 3. D. C. Percival, Kimball St.—pipe in water; small break above water; sewer pipe; 8 people; 4" pipe. 4. Corinthian Yacht Club—6" pipe in water, drain from swim- ming pool. 5. Corinthian Yacht Club—3 pipes, two above water discharging sink waste; one sewer pipe in the water; 45 people. 6. Corinthian Yacht Club-In water; 4" pipe. 7. Owner unknown—5"pipe from side of Yacht Club in the water. 8. E. Cullen, Corinthian Lane—5" pipe broken off at wall;. sew- age on rocks below pipe. 9. R. W. Green, Nashua Ave.—5" pipe in water. 10. Owner unknown—5" pipe in water. 11. Owner unknown 6" pipe in water. 12. Owner unknown—5"pipe in water. 13. No information— 12" pipe flush with wall, flowing at time of examination. 14. Ruthwell, Harbor Ave.—6" pipe out of water. 15. No information—5" pipe in water. 16. Eastern Yacht Club—2 pipes broken off at wall; evidence of sewage. 17. View Point—2 pipes, one in cement box 6"; one at wall 16"; flowing. 18. Quarter Deck-8" pipe in water; 4 people. 19. Dr. Smithwick—6"pipe in water. 20. J. M. Hunnewell—4" pipe in water. 21. W. C. Bowditch—4"pipe in water. 22. W. MacPherson—6" pipe in water. 23. N. C. Nash—6" pipe in water. 42HOUSE -No. 2081. [Jan. No. 24. H. H. White-6" pipe in water. 25. H. H. White-5" pipe in water. 26. Mower-four 5" pipes in water, one of which is broken off above high-water mark. 27. No information-5" pipe in water. 28. No information 5" pipe in water. 29. No information-5" pipe in water. 30. No information-5"pipe in water. 31. No information-6" pipe in water, broken above high water. 32. No information-4" pipe out of water. 33. Gove 4" pipe out of water. 34. A. Goodhue 6" pipe in water, broken at wall. 35. Marblehead Electric Co.-Three 5" pipes, one 12" pipe. 36. Marblehead Electric Co.-Four large pipes; sea water from condensers; one small pipe from cesspool. 37. Connolly-5" pipe in water. 38. Appleton-4" pipe in water. 39. Parker-5" pipe in water. 40. 5" pipe in water.. 41. 3"pipe in water. 42. 4" pipe out of water. 43. 4" pipe in water. 44. 10" pipe broken off above high water. 45. End of Front St. 2" culvert in wall; evidence of sewage. 46. Ships Cabin-8" pipe in water. 47. Pope-5"pipe in water. 48. Harbor Inn 8" pipe in water; sewage present. 49. Boston Yacht Club'-two 4" pipes, one dripping from under pier, one from sea wall. 50. 5" pipe in water. 51. 5" pipe in water. 52. Graves-5" pipe out of water. 53. Goodwin-5" pipe out of water. 54. J. High-4" pipe in water. 55. 4" pipe out of water at all times. 56. E. Kfnsley-5" pipe in water. 57. 4" pipe in water. 58. 5" pipe broken out of water. 59. 4" pipe leaking out of water. 60. Dane& Lawler-two 4" pipes from Kimball St. 61. 5" pipe; 2 inlets from house on Lighthouse Lane, 62. O'Neil, Burke and 2 more-5" pipe; 4 houses. 63. Grey Gulls, Cubby-5" pipe in water. 64. Toga Towers-5" pipe in water. 65. C. Barker, E. Barker-5" pipe; 2 houses. 66. 5" pipe into rocks. 1951.1 HOUSE-No: "2081. 43 No. 67. L. Pinkham-5" pipe into rocks. 68. "Sky High", W. Hill-5';pipe into water. 69. Windward, G. W. Russell-5"pipe into water. 70. W'Friend-5" pipe into water. 71. Crown in Shield-4 pipe laundry waste; 6"pipe pool. 72.' Crown in Shield-6"sewer pipe. - 73. Shepard-6"sewer pipe. . 74. Barell-6"sewer pipe. 75. Baldwin-6"sewer pipe. 76. Hammond-6" sewer pipe. 77. Davis-one 6"pipe cesspool overflow. 78. Dickenson-6"sewer pipe broken above high water.. 79. Barrows-6"sewer pipe. S0. Friese, Naugus Ave.-Laundry waste. 81. 6"pipe out of sewer. 82. Chalifour-6"pipe. 83. Alicia-2" pipe out of water. SALEM. Owner and Description. No. 1. Mrs. J. L. Roope, Harborview Terrace-6"pipe. 2. Mrs. Edwin H. Rand, Hemenway Rd.-6" pipe. 3. 12" culvert at mouth of South River. Several drains entering into culvert. 4. Nine pipes. -4a. 10" pipe, condensed steam. 4b. 8"pipe, chemicals. 4e. 6" pipe, steam. 4d. 6" pipe, steam. 4e. 3"pipe, surface water. _ 4f. 5" pipe, steam; -4g. 5"pipe, steam. 4h. 5"pipe, steam. , 4i. 2"pipe, water. 5. 6"drain.A 6. 7"storm drain. 7. 14"storm drain. 8. Drain. '9. Drain,foot of Derby Wharf. 10. 12"sewer pipe. 11. Storm drain carrying sewage from Thorndike St. 12. 4"sewer pipe. 13. 4"pipe, Franklin St., Stall Leather Co. 14. Drain. 15. 16. Water from Salem Gas Works. 44 HOUSE—No. 2081. [Jan. BEVERLY. Local Sewer Outlets. The following areas are not sewered and in most cases have cess- pools with overflows into the Danvers or Bass River: Area 1. Salters Point: Houses on Crescent Ave., Upland Rd. Jacobs Ave., Kernwood Ave. Hobart Ave., Hooper Ave. Cove Ave., Riverview St. Salters Ave., Upland Rd. Area 2. South of Bates Park: Houses on Park View Ave. Marsh Ave. South Terrace. Area 3. South of Bridge St.: Bass St. Riverview St. Area 4. Opposite Salters Point: Houses on Cliff St. Metal Hydrides, Inc., Congress St. Individual Outlets. No. 1. Box drain (see map)—Dane St. Beach. 2. Pipe—Lynch Memorial Park. 3. C. I. Pipe. Owner unknown. 4. Cesspool with overflow—U. S. Coast Guard. 5. Mrs. Franklin Dexter, Sr.—6"pipe. 6. Alexander—6" pipe. 7. R. D. Sears—6" pipe. S. Endicott Junior College-3 houses connected to storm drain. 9. Mrs. Keith Merrill—6"pipe. 10. R. W. Guardabassi—pipe. 11. M. W. Greenough—6"pipe. 12. Cornelius Wood-6"pipe. 13. Bartlett Harwood—6" pipe. MANCHESTER. Owner and Description. No. 1. John C. Lawrence—8"sewer pipe. 2. Wallace Goodrich—6"sewer pipe. 3. E. C. Rust—6" sewer pipe. 4. Charles Cotting—6"sewer pipe. 1951.1 HOUSE-No. 2081. 45 No. 5. Everett Morse-6"sewer pipe. 6. Gordon Abbott-6"sewer pipe. 7. N. L. Palmer-6"sewer pipe. 8. Alice Dodge-6" sewer pipe. 9. Manchester Yacht Club-6"pipe. 10. Manchester Marine Railway-septic tank overflow into ocean. 11. Vera Tenny-3"pipe. 12. D. D. Corburn-6" pipe. 13. H. Loomis-6"pipe. 14. E. D. Sohier-8"pipe, sink and storm drain. 15. M. W. Ingraham-6" pipe. 16. M. W. Ingraham-6"pipe. 17. Richard C. Curtis-6" pipe. 18. T. S. Ross-6"pipe. 19. Edward C. Cabot-6" pipe. 20. E. S. Hinds-6" pipe. 21. 6"pipe, Eagles Head, owner unknown. 22. E. C. Caner-6"pipe. 23. E. H. Cox-6 pipe. 24. Edward H. Cox-6"pipe. 25. T. J. Coolidge-4 drains; 2 direct into ocean, 2 overflow lines from cesspools. 26. R. P. Cunningham-6" pipe. 27. H. S. Foster-6"pipe. 28. E. L. Bigelow-6"pipe. 29. Mrs. Middleton Train-6" pipe. ' GLOUCESTER (MAGNOLIA). Owner and Description. No. 1. Ryan, Shore Rd., Magnolia-6"pipe. 2. Russell Smith and Dr. Abrahamson, Shore Rd.-6" pipe. 3. Magnolia Lodge, Shore Rd.-6"pipe. 4. Senator Hiram Bingham, Shore Rd.-6"pipe. 5. Robert L. McGowen, Shore Rd.-6"pipe. 6. Oceanside Hotel, Hesperus Ave.-12" pipe. 7. Blake, Shore Rd.-6" pipe. 8. Gabriel Hakim, Shore Rd.-6"pipe C. I. 9. Okes Ave.-Drain, 8" pipe. Ia. Ed. R. Gai-8" pipe. 2a. Nathan Dewing-8" pipe. 3a. Frank Rehn-8"pipe. 4a. Nathan Cohen-8" pipe. 5a. H. Cohen.-8" pipe. 6a. Catherine M. Walsh-8"pipe. 7a. North Shore Inn, Hesperus Ave.-8" pipe. 46 HOUSE—No. 2081. [Jan. Following houses on Lexington Ave.: No. 8a. Brown—8"pipe. 9a. Koella—8"pipe. , 10a. Karen—8"pipe. - Ila. Ina—8" pipe. 12a. Hoyle—S" pipe. - - - 13a. Shadro—8"pipe. 10. Stephen Laddas, Fuller St.—6" pipe C.'I. 11. Daniel Sullivan, Fuller St.-6"pipe C. I. 12. Owner unknown—6"pipe. 13. Disconnected—6" pipe. 14. Disconnected—6" pipe. 15. 12" culvert on the beach; 6"pipe. 16. Daniel M. Maloney—septic tank overflow, Shore Rd.; 6"pipe. 17. Magnolia Manor, Hesperus Ave.—6"pipe. . - 18. Fanny Snyder, Hesperus Ave.—6"pipe. 19. Frank Fishburn Casino,Hesperus Ave.—6"pipe. 20. Gordon Morrow, Hespgrus Ave.—6" pipe. 21. Dr. Williams, Shore Rd.—6"pipe. F DANVERB. Area 1. Harry Lawrence, 107 Elliot St., Danvers—septic tank overflow to river. Mrs. Antonio Cedzek, 121 Elliot St., Danvers—cesspool overflow into river. Mrs. Carry Dixon, 119 Elliot St., Danvers—septic tank overflow to river. Anthony Koban, 7 Loring Ave., Danvers—septic tank overflow to river. Joseph Sabowich, 5 Loring Ave., Danvers—cesspool overflow into river. Arthur Salmon, 11 Congress St., Danvers—cesspool overflow into river. Peter Sabowich, 9 Congress St., Danvers—cesspool overflow into river. Paul King, 20 Congress St.,Danvers—cesspool overflow into river. Area 2. There are approximately 10 houses in this area on Liberty St., Danvers, which have overflow lines from cesspools or,septic tanks emptying onto the flats of the Danvers River. According to the local people there is a proposed sewer,line which will take care of this area. 41 Al . Tff lu_ co n 60 IF Pf cf I 10 1 r v; (1 f o , -/ ` .c�tr or cA�c» ►Loeo g „ ¢ r \ — .,:.tv o x 19 srl �9s IL m 16,275 Tr 10 ,31 Eto + 1 �� S 28 t<LoO.! ! J ,�O`O O I It -.. n ! 7D w� *` , 7838 'i - v i - / , y _ \ ,.�.. Q O Q T .! 8 L 9 0 L .' NEW ENGLAND , . \ v a 13 18 H �o` � a I ►•� $ / ..� /f POWER COMPANY 7992 , t_ _J 86,5 / \ v 15 !3,504 14 Q 14,700 O 2070-5 e � ss J ( - , ,. sa _ »��f . /rJ� �� , J32 3a� ..?'.B�` - .' ` •'� � ' 9 ,e nn� 'SPg f > f/ NORTi�N ` n 7ST •wv • " a • �� 4Jp r �`9• E X001{S 4✓ ,,/ �] •a d'�J J/�/ 646` S „ 'k°c," o r 43 "��J/` El r• 49 48 �� q9 )o rpa e� 1 b bars NEW ENGLAND/ 6?00 71on47 �.o POWER CO.: " er is c �i P. C 0Y1ER O. L14vpEN7 '. , . . _ I ` �` 2 16 56024:/ 21 /h 10, it T. ° Q ti J .r47 / �' .uo\ 0 6�T 'E9 sr TO K000 • X1,.,1 oil Z_ v 27 / a 8945 4 i oRA1NAQa / 30 6sss� .. - MM GS Cl �} , ILI PA �//. EASM•T / O ,28 X m "�� _ FJo 15940 �g'�•. � �po0..a�J �� ac0 • nes C;i , 0 6^n 29 �agoo • rk . s5 r . , •'' _ '�fl x Y/ \ ,• // aLor[ r ? . 7575 26 e 8 ;0 1100 6090? •n' eo: �cp9 .-• ' - • p6834 _ 17 . l x %` ° u F T 4 !' S r •\ • /B,6C8 23 6?Q \• 13.8 K N 5?2D • 1 CS '� QRAtAAat • \ 25 � u 6- 11,685 f. � �T « • s ? st ` " L� -• .. 11a-< RR S �, H r 1 — 1 < p00 r0°0 a ! ,f �G'c� \•, fT.{C' a L.F9 5 It Na "} ' �. F ``{}) ) . .a �/ � _r10 ♦ /� 'J (� - _ r - •a a ! O �aT \ ,r.. � bry sC,D �lU�'l Q E2 i o Q U ,v 71 to, IR9 4 G1 00 No - J�• -1.1;�:j 1z' '�a )f,/DO _ ` t.. `7 tj ,h:� '3Onr, � . N' I, -'. - .1 1 •/7410 :' / �.�' �� f, � . U• „$ ,Z6 •[ -_'� [ r. < � R •' t• PC ,o .1 w,� •s r .f♦ a tn!Sf € L.T 02 i �O 6�J� ,r, wv r11t 1r •''1� f .,.. w N ' ;iL ✓ « •Ip o1r' Ir•�.R- ' ' Qom/ \ 1 ,J', D, "6f1f0 BS*d 6�M o o• �p _ �� •(� r 1 54 1 • LAv <•' �� \zUt9/ T < 9279 -113 Poo / R/ER oy • �� - "a ,w � en , � � �'J�1 • Qe £3 ' k � _• • 1200 � , O �: .,.o �0 ,, /� 89G1� �E �� ;, �'� Ae E� , _ PL Lo a � Tia �a C1 � OF+7 .SrOCf1 ¢ FC0� L L0c �i E A"i 7 India 24 aad s 'Raeo II p° •' • O' - y _ - goo --. '.. - , J E Rf i $741 rr `` - •b � � R c D , ea.Y • ` .h.6a ., 23 Vo - to r Goo 4 � Q 1-411 .r' T5 MUi'/ICIPAL ALL 5T0 wo rt GOLF COURSE qv ro ��ncr V S,_ n Y Q' AQ . ? N l7 0.83 A G \\\ t3 A K 1 p.5C0 .500 10- jiiL ID ILL vILII : _ �- " �\� •6p AC • l 1 L 0 U C E —S—'�T—E- °R' M A N C H E S T E p I B E V E R L Y / uAa me MAGNOLIA / \ \ MANCHESTER [[ [[•[x NOIITOnS WO[ C3 \ VA _ fxvl r•[n \ _�� \ \ > i KAcx •B \ WEST ♦ e .� cNEeT[ tr�`�w 5� N,�9 �Nttn[I. pEVERLY FARM- � 9 Yc �� II /1 V„• i DAA ERS°0 F / i 'MgNCNE E R L Y I cf�S•LN sy 00 BEACH M \ OUTFALLALL a � s p � _ ♦c �rtn[ Hurt I �' Y �� b •DgcT Q ♦° 4-- !c^ � � �[ aur 71 xu*[ OUTFALL \ \ h-� d.x ♦ �� .L S W A QI. co ,? \\V 4� \ •x[[f 1� \(� >\ . 0.i a •Y yP �caar i Q ![° J�� V ,(`�� •t � A� EYLl� /ff ter”: sAly.gMl i o COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH / ,,,x�•w, ,[�F /g MAP ACCOMPANYING REPORT RELATIVE TO THE CAUSES CREATING AI NUISANCE \ P C. \ ON THE SHORE AND BEACHES OF MARBLEHEAD SALEM P Q DANVERS BEVERLY AND MANCHESTER S A L ��a�'*"r, _ t•� CHAPTER 23 - RESOLVES OF 1950 RBLEIHE4D �-�1 moa [eo a i [ [ x uoe SCALE r IEET 9 r�. ( DECEMBER 1930 +♦`♦ ! �... \. A. v NOTES ✓ ' Q' 1 -` n C •L .d�j' P W\�,, r EXTENT OF E[IOM[5 R LOW WATER SIN)WN THUS Q EFS P '�� CLOSED SHELLFISH AREAE f 'EACH F�� SHELLFISH [RCS OPENED FOR PURIFICATION [aux cx.ou � Ot Flog P'o,W rixeal i \ S W A M: P S C 0 T T oUBLEHEAO ' 11 LA 0 vi !p �a fo �/ I l�<'✓ RIIJEROALE 40 VP wF� rRi ♦ (y1` / II�� 1 •� 1 y�f v �y� r __aa / ' tt�� L IL / r ✓ 1 SEX_ T. `�. v/ L� It I / WEST ,_.:.. .� '•� j� (��Q�Q�_ GLOUCESTE R C �' f/off O°O I V/ VV`"' PONE aV� oop �o \\ roNE J4 0 E � �t So tgDo �0000 till JO�p� ul u 1�7 RER MOOD" WE .\�- O\EAST��> LV i.;'= -A G 1` A„�L/l ESTEIi/o \ Q 7 \ pINE4uu 1 wlluAtE VMOOM ME/DO. POND RESERVOIR � P'� r � RESEMOIR n d r MAGNOLIA is 2-13-14 beA.�;ffi l6 \0 I'D ROADS AND WATERWAYS CITY OF GLOUCESTER VALE IN MILES v2 1/4 0 1/2 1 SI - 134E g 5 E -{X-� —� E Y� c C 1LTONI --� � � HpM u� j OK [ _ - IA � S MA 2,3 24 ?627 4 5�6 123 � t 17" ROADS AND WATERWAYS TOWN OF MANCHESTER SCALE IN MILES 1/2 1/4 0 1/2 1 p 51- 194E E F L Y 6 0 t 14 NORTH P. ` (� SALEM �f �1r.J SALEM `' / � �OooO QoC (1do�i (( ' i�"' ! NECK s d� 000D� M, all' , � On p .uQ mac. ®\O°aJ nc pyo ��a ��a�o� ai 6•� C �^�-- �; / ol EL SALEM -- 'U5 It ,r / . — C3 SOUTH \,SALEM I 0 7poo SPFING C 4oa E P U Y N /VAf q C p T T ROADS AND WATERWAYS CITY OF SALEM SCALE IN MILES 1/2 VI 0 1/2 1 2 51- 287E J� A- Ale- 7a Q ( srq OP Fr f it e v �oOO Oho �' ♦ " 70 5tP O SWAPO SCC TT i ROADS AND WATERWAYS TOWN OF MARBLEHEAD SCALL IN MILF S v2 1/4 O 1/2 1 51 - 196E W E N H A nonr°Op's �q CENTE RVILLE _ 5t, -L �BNORTH BEVERLY EVERLY \�QJ �/\ RES ts\ ,r,-7;°POND wOVp �c." / (' S a� 0-1 BEVERLY e FARMS s°�M O < b P AVE p )F areill ^te xp � I •° _ cue Nm WE5{ jg \1)`� l �1-.,_/ Q .ses '/pQ OUB�C�� Y / 0 uppd o�� <� VE 'lli _, _ 910712 ,\111° D �oogOg o�` � std 6 H 7 a03�p�hv® p 0 !�/94 RJ �A„ G� i�QEO� l -Z 3^ � � ABNa✓s�� M ROADS AND WATERWAYS CITY OF BEVERLY SCALE IN MILES 1/2 1/4 0 1/2 1 2 L51 -55L I o f Q �. CPREST tr a O p Pvy Jt,t o 5` �FFti i ��s I sr.• aq L1fJ ow 1 �T rq A 42 T ' use .3 a f DANVERS d� B•eyQo60 j Q RRE.a 1 a w GENT ERJ� \ 8 Rouses) •paNVE„RSP4Rc -C 5 8Coll AREA ¢ t Y 1 � � ' S P WATERWAYS ROADS AND TVERS TOWN �F Q SCALE M1LES 2 1/2 1/4 U V2 _ g1 -107£ 1951.] HOUSE—No. 2081: 47 Area 3. Creese& Cook Tannery and the Creese&Cook Beam House. The Beam House has a 10-inch pipe and the tannery has a pipe flowing into the river. - Area 4. There is no sewer line on Water St. or Riverside St., Danvers. Nu- merous houses were examined in this area, and it is apparent that the majority of the buildings located near the river have either overflow lines or direct lines into the river. About 20 houses. Area 5. There is no sewer line on Riverside St. or Bates St., Danvers. The houses in this area.have lines flowing into the river. The Danvers Laundry has a 12 inch pipe which dumps a great deal of waste into the river. About 15 houses. l r� Vl ,s i 1 48 HOUSE—No. 2081. [Jan. 1 APPENDIX II . CHAPTER 610, ACTS OF 1945. AN ACT EXTENDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPART- a MENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH TO REGULATE POLLUTION OF INLAND AND TIDAL WATERS. - Whereas, The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose to alleviate promptly existing conditions of pollution, therefore this act is hereby de- clared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immedi- ate preservation of the public health and convenience. Be it enacted, etc., as follows: Section five of chapter one hundred and eleven of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking out the paragraph inserted by chapter three hundred and eighty- eight of the acts of nineteen hundred and forty-one and inserting in place thereof the following paragraph:— It aragraph:—It shall from time to time, after notice to all persons interested and a public hearing, and subject to the ap- proval of the governor and council, prescribe and estab- lish rules and regulations to prevent pollution or con- tamination of any or all of the lakes, ponds, streams, tidal waters and flats within the commonwealth or of the tributaries of such tidal waters and flats; provided, that nothing contained herein shall affect other powers and duties of the department as defined by any general or special law. Said rules and regulations, after being so prescribed and established, shall have the force of law. Whoever after due notice continues to violate any such rule or regulation shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars to the use of the commonwealth. The publication of any such rule or regulation made by the department under this section in a newspaper of the town where such rule 1951.1 HOUSE—No. 2081. 49 or regulation is to take effect or, if no newspaper is pub- lished in such town, the posting of a copy of such rule or regulation in a public place therein, shall be legal notice to all persons; and an affidavit of such publication or posting by the person causing such notice to be published or posted, filed and recorded, with a copy of the notice, in the office of the town clerk of such town, shall be ad- mitted as evidence of the time when, the place where and the manner in which the notice was given. The supreme judicial or superior court, upon the application of the department, or upon the application of any party inter- ested, with the approval of the department, may enforce such rules and regulations, and restrain the use or occu- pation of the premises or such portion thereof as the department may specify until such rules and regulations have been complied with. Approved July 17, 1945. E 50 HOUSE.=No. 2081. [Jan. RULES AND REGULATIONS TO PREVENT POLLUTION OW CONTAMINATION OF ANY OR ALL OF THE LAKES, PONDS, .STREAMS, TIDAL WATERS AND FLATS .WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH OR OF THE TRIBUTA— RIES OF SUCH TIDAL WATERS AND FLATS. The Department of Public Health, acting under the authority of section 5, chapter 111 of the General Laws, appearing in the Tercentenary Edition thereof, as amended by chapter 615 of the Acts of 1945, and every other act thereto enabling, hereby prescribes and estab- lishes the following rules and regulations to prevent the pollution or contamination of any or all of the lakes, ponds, streams, tidal waters and flats within the Com- monwealth or of the tributaries of such tidal waters and flats. 1. No sewage and no human excrement or compost containing human excrement, and no house slops, sink wastes, or waste water which has been used for washing + or cooking, or other polluted water, shall be discharged 1 or put into any lake, pond, stream, tidal water and flat within the Commonwealth, or into a tributary of such tidal water and flat, except as may be approved by the Department of Public Health when in the opinion of the said Department the best practicable and reasonably available means to render harmless such sewage, human excrement, house slops, sink wastes, waste water or other polluted water have been provided. in accordance with plans approved by the Department. 2. No garbage, manure or other putrescible matter whatsoever shall be discharged or put into any lake, A 1951.1 HOUSE—No. 2081. 51 pond, stream, tidal water and flat within the Common- wealth, or into a tributary of such tidal water and flat, except as may be approved by the Department of Pub- lic Health when in the opinion of the said Department the best practicable and reasonably available means to ren- der harmless such garbage, manure or putrescible matter have been provided in accordance with plans approved by the Department. 3. No manufacturing refuse, or waste product, or pol- luting liquid, or other substance which by itself or in combination with other substances is of a nature poison- ous or injurious either to human beings or animals, or any putrescible organic matter whatsoever, shall be dis- charged or put into any lake, pond, stream, tidal water and flat within the Commonwealth, or a tributary of such tidal water and flat, except as may be approved by the Department of Public Health when in the opinion of the said Department the best practicable and reasonably available means to render harmless such manufacturing refuse, waste product, polluting liquid, substance, or putrescible organic matter, have been provided in ac- cordance with plans approved by the Department. 4. No refuse, or waste product, or polluting liquid, or other substance of a nature poisonous or injurious either to human beings or animals, or putrescible organic mat- ter whatsoever from a tannery,. currying shop, or other establishment or place where the skin, wool, hair or fur of any animal is treated, or from a slaughterhouse or other building for carrying on the business of slaughter- ing cattle, sheep or other animals, and no wastes from a melting or rendering establishment shall be discharged or put into any lake, pond, stream, tidal water and flat within the Commonwealth, or a tributary of such tidal water and flat, in a manner which may be injurious to ' the public health, or may tend to create a public nuisance, except as may be approved by the Department of Pub- lic Health when in the opinion of the said Department the best practicable and reasonably available means to ren- 52 HOUSE—No. 2081. [Jan. 195L der harmless such refuse, waste product, polluting liquid, substance,putrescible organic matter, or wastes have been provided in accordance with plans approved by the De- partment. VLADO A. GETTING, M.D., Dr.P.H., Commissioner. Prescribed and established by the Department of Public Health at the Meeting of its Public Health Coun- cil held on Tuesday, August 14, 1945. VLADO A. GETTING, M.D., Dr.P.H., Commissioner. Approved by Governor and Council on September 19, 1945. C17- y v+ �'� IVT3 .tits _ ins 1�ter-c�Ln li OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR /��v �/fn �///j{{,,,{,,v CE �/y DIVISION^OF WATER me //]� V VVOYCOYI/ agw-9 REVLr� Y ED POLLUTION CONTROL V Ot t 210 1909 CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPARTMENT, October 20, 1969 Dr. John J. Toomey Board of Health 5 Broad Street Re: Beverly-North Coastal-SUR- Salem, Mass, oil spill at Ventron Corp. Dear Dr. Toomey: An engineer from this Division has recently in- vestigated a complaint of oil pollution on the North River. It was determined that the Ventron Corporation had an accidental spill of twenty-five to fifty gallons of light oil in one of its manufacturing processes on Sept- ember 25, 1969. For several days light oil was quite evident on the'surface of the water in the North River near Ventron. Inspection of the river on September 29, 1969 revealed only a slight trace of oil remaining. After the oil spill Ventron changed its internal pip- ing making a reoccurrence of the oil spill virtually im- possible. It is the opinion of this Division that no further action. is necessary at this time. Very truly yooJ%urs# j zk Thomas C. McMahon Director TCM/DSP/s CfMLNWFALTH OF ftASSAC`rfUSFT"fS •RECEIVEDs�. DEPARTMENT OF PJBLIC HEALTH AND OCT 27 1969 DIVISION OFWATER POLLUTION CONTROL CITY OF SALEM HEALTH OF NOTICE Notice is hereby given that application has been made by he South Essex Sewerage District for approval of the acquisition of land in the City of Salem for sewage disposal purposes. In response to said application, the Department of Public Health and the Divisions 0 Water Pollution Control, acting under the provisions of Section 6 of Chapter 03 of the General Laws, will hold a public hearing in the office of the Directs of the Division of Ecvironmental Health, Room 3320, 600 Washington Street, Boston, M4ssachu„etts on November 14, 1969 at 10:00 A.M. The plan showing the land to be acquired is titled: SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DISTRICT PROPOSED SITE FOR SEWAOR TREATMENT PL9NT SALEM, OASS. ?colG In < 100' . Sept. 1969 Cupid K 0a plans the on file and may be seen at the South L-s's"ex Sewerage Uisopict u, . .ct, ;r;) Fort Avenues ;)d :eily the Division of ,..:,m +{",t.1lti4ill•.1 Health. . 640 Whinc;=. Street, Boston, Massachusetts. and the i.'.,i.` isicn of Water rails r ion Control , 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, MassachoWetts. By order of the: Dep rthent of Public Health and the 010sion of Water Pollstion Control . ilfra;c'. L. Frach :tta, M.D. , Commissioner Department ,of Public is {alth T};rriSas C. i+r.M'fi^Yf, tss°+aCit7r Division of tater Pollution Contra! �11 a report on environmental issues from TT THE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION • August 29, 1969 8-69 In this issue: Showdown nears on strengthening water pollution con- trol act . . . An analysis of major provisions of House, Senate versions . . . More competition over environmental quality . . . And citizen action brings victory on San Francisco Bay. HOUSE, SENATE PREPARE FOR CONFRONTATION ON IMPORTANT NEW WATER POLLUTION CONTROLS Congress is moving toward a showdown on legislation which would greatly strengthen and broaden the nation's war on water pollution. Bills to amend and improve the Federal Water Pollution Control Act have already been passed by the House (H.R. 4148) and reported out by the Senate Public Works Committee (S. 7) . As described briefly in the previous issue of CF Letter (August 7) , the two bills differ on a number of points. Thus the stage is set for a possible replay of 1968, which saw the House and Senate pass separate versions of water pollution control act amendments, fail to • resolve the differences , and then adjourn without enacting any new law. As in 1968, the Senate committee version this year is on balance a stronger anti-pollution bill. It will be taken up by the Senate after Congress re- convenes in September. After Senate passage, key members of the House and Senate Public Works Committees will attempt to resolve any differences between the two versions in conference. This issue of CF Letter analyzes the major provisions of the House and Senate water pollution act changes. It shows the alternatives which are likely to face the conferees, barring any major changes in S. 7 on the Senate floor. Pollution from Federally-Licensed Activities An important new dimension in water pollution control would be added by both the Senate and House bills -- an attempt to deal with pollution from the many activities over which the federal government already exercises some control. It gets at such heretofore neglected problems as thermal pollution, and pollu- tion from dredged spoil. It constitutes a potentially effective way torep vent pollution, rather than waiting until operations which cause pollution are undertaken and then trying to undo the damage. S. 7 and H.R. 4148 require that anyone applying for a federal license or per- mit to build or operate any facility which might discharge pollutants into navigable waters, must furnish certification that there is "reasonable assurance" that the facility will comply with established water quality • standarJs. Failure to furnish such certification is grounds for denial of the license or permit. The Conservation Foundation 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.20036 I Phone(202) 659-2180 Sydney Howe, President Marvin Zeldin, Director of Information Services Rice Odell, Assistant Director -2- Under S. 7, certification is to be made by the state in which the discharge originates (or appropriate interstate agency) unless standards for inter- state waters have not been approved, or have been promulgated by the Secretary • of Interior rather than the state, in which cases the certification shall be made by the Secretary. Within one year of the receipt of an application for certification, the applicant must be notified of certification or the intent not to certify. If any neighboring state or states determine that the discharge will "adversely affect" its water standards, and if the Secretary of Interior agrees, he shall attac�i necessary conditions to a license or permit, to insure compliance with standards. If the conditions are more stringent than those required by the certifying state, the applicant can request the licensing or permitting agency to hold a hearing to determine what conditions shall apply. No conditions shall be adopted that are less stringent than those required by the certifying state. The language of H.R. 4148 is less comprehensive and contains several weaknesses. It calls for an applicant to obtain certification from "each adversely affected" state or interstate agency as determined by the license or permit-issuing federal agency, not the Secretary of Interior, who has responsibility over the water pollution control program. Certification shall be by the Secretary only if he promulgated the standards , or if a state has no authority to give such certification. But, if a state (or interstate agency, or the Secretary) fails to act on an application for certification within a "reasonable period of time," the certi- fication requirement is waived. The federal licensing or permitting agency will determine what is a "reasonable" period of time. (This is spelled out as one • year in S. 7.) Both bills provide that if a court finds a facility is operating in violation of water quality standards, its license or permit may be suspended or terminated. The Senate committee said its intent is to require suspension or revocation -- unless a "court order provides for remedial action that will bring about com- pliance with water quality standards." In contrast, the House committee report noted that the Joint Atomic Energy Committee chairman, Congressman Chet Holifield of California, "recommended that judicial authority to suspend a permit or license should be discretionary rather than mandatory, and that recommendation has been followed." The Senate bill also says : in the case of an activity which will affect water quality, but for which there are no applicable standards (dredging is the princi- pal example) , no certification shall be required. However, if new water quality standards are adopted, an affected licensee or permittee is given "at least six months" to comply with them. If he does not comply, the license or permit shall be suspended until there is notification of "reasonable assurance that such activity will comply with applicable water quality standards." H.R. 4148 contains no comparable safeguard. The provisions are highly significant. As new water quality standards are developed, federal agencies will have to consider them before issuing licenses or permits. This is particularly germane for those types of pollution for • which appropriate standards are still being sought -- such as the effects of dredging and filling operations (which are usually subject to Corps of Engineers permits) . -3- The Senate committee noted, for example, that only one state has standards covering temporary turbidity such as that caused by dredging and disposal operations. It said it expects the Secretary of Interior to develop and • issue to the states criteria for such standards. The committee noted that there is concern that the bill would adversely affect dredging operations essential to navigation. It said all dredging would be subject to water quality standards. (On the floor of the House, Congressman Roman C. Pucinski of Illinois noted that the Corps has for more than half a century had authority to use certain areas of the Great Lakes for dumping. He said Lake Michigan's depth is now shallower, adding that its use as a "massive dumping area" is "unconscionable." He offered an amendment to H.R. 4148 to prohibit the Corps from dumping dredged spoil anywhere in the Great Lakes, but it was defeated.) The Senate committee noted that the Corps is making a study of the problem, and said it didn't intend to require the disposal of all spoil on land, which is extremely expensive. "Where such spoil is determined to be non- polluting and where such turbidity does not cause long-term environmental damage and does not interfere with other uses protected by public policy, and where a short time after disposition in water such spoil ceases to cause turbidity, such spoil may be properly discharged into lakes or rivers where permitted under appropriate state or federal license." Both the Senate and House bills also require that a federal agency, in administering its own property or facility, make sure it complies with applicable water quality standards. But whereas S. 7 authorizes the ap- propriation of "such sums as may be necessary" to carry out these provisions, • H.R. 4148 allows the agencies to be guided by "available appropriations" and the"interests of the United States." In addition, unlike H.R. 4148, the Senate bill covers situations in which a federal agency leases its own property or facility, or contracts for its CLEAN WATER FIGHT PICKS UP SUPPORT Pressure has been steadily mounting in Congress to dramatically in- crease federal appropriations for financing waste treatment plants -- a key element in the war on water pollution. A House campaign to secure full funding of the $1 billion authorized for fiscal year 1970 is being Zed by Congressman John D. Dingell of Michigan, and as of this writing more than 160 of his colleagues have pledged their support. (See August 7 CF Letter. ) The Nixon Administration has requested only $214 million in appropriations and has sharply criticized the House for exceeding budgetary requests in appro- priating funds for education. But the ccmrpai,gn -- also being waged by the Citizens Crusade for Clean Water and the 40 some organizations it represents -- is still generating support. The issue will be joined when the public works appropriations bill reaches the floor of the House, probably soon • after Congress reconvenes in September. A majority of the House is 218 members. In addition to the more than 160 members already pledged, others reportedly favor the $1 billion appropriation, and still others favor appropriating well over $214 million. -4- operation, or contracts for the entire operation of any other facility. The Senate committee noted that "existing law declares it to be the intent of Congress that all federal departments, agencies , and instrumentalities • shall comply with water quality standards. This declaration of intent has proved unsatisfactory." At another point, it said: ". . . while the federal government has been charged with the responsibility to take a leadership role in controlling pollution, both by acts of Congress and executive orders (such as Executive Order 11288 of July 2, 1966) , there have been only token efforts on the part of many agencies to exercise this responsibility. Most agencies . . . have placed the environmental quality control function in a distinctly secondary role . . . "The argument that budget requirements restrict the ability of federal agencies to control the waste produced by their own operations is unacceptable. Commu- nities which are required to make massive investments in sewage treatment plants have equal, if not greater, budgetary problems. Industries likewise have dif- ficult problems in providing the capital investment which water pollution con- trol requires. Individuals who are required to expend funds to control wastes such as sewage discharges from vessels will have no option." Oil Pollution Both Senate and House bills offer stronger, more comprehensive provisions to deal with oil spills -- a reflection of the huge oil blowout off Santa Barbara early this year. "The Oil Pollution Act of 1924 is simply not suffi- cient to cope with such problems ," said the House Public Works Committee's • report. "It applies only to discharges and spills that are grossly negligent or willful; limited to vessels, it does not apply at all to spills from fixed installations." Accordingly, the old act is repealed by both S. 7 and H.R. 4148, which provide new controls in its place. The Senate bill contains a general prohibition against any discharge of oil into the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines or the waters of the contiguous zone. It applies both to vessels and to onshore and offshore facilities. When oil is "knowingly" discharged in violation, a civil penalty of up to $2,500 applies . The comparable section of the House bill is considerably more permissive. Although it provides a maximum penalty of $10,000, it covers only vessels. It requires the discharge of oil to be in "substantial" quantity -- though it does not define the word "substantial." And it covers a discharge only if it is "willful or negligent." Finally, the House bill exempts from this provision oil spills caused by "an emergency imperiling life, or an act of war or sabotage, or an unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding, or an act of God." Both S. 7 and H.R. 4148 authorize the federal government to set regulations further defining the amounts, locations and circumstances under which oil discharges are permissible -- consistent with applicable water quality standards. For example, these regulations could stipulate such exceptions as discharges involving emergencies imperiling life, and could define a "substantial" oil discharge. • Under both Senate and House bills, anyone in charge of a vessel, or onshore or offshore facility, must immediately notify the federal government of any discharge of oil which, in the case of the Senate bill, is prohibited, or in -5- • TWO QUESTIONS "Our contemporary culture, primed by population growth and driven by technology, has created problems of environmental degradation that directly affect all of our senses: noise, odors and toxins which bring physical pain and suffering, and ugliness, barrenness, and homogeneity of experience which bring emotional and psycholog- icaZ suffering and emptiness. In short, we are jeopardizing our human qualities by pursuing technology as an end rather than a means. Too often we have failed to ask two necessary questions: First, what human purpose will a given technology or development serve? Second, what human and environmental effects will it have?" -- Senate Public Works Committee report on water pollution bill, August 7, 1969. the case of the House bill, is in "substantial" quantities. Failure to so notify carries a criminal penalty of up to $5,000 and a year in jail. The Senate committee said in its report that it expects those who fail to notify the government of discharges to be "prosecuted vigorously in order to indicate the undesirability of indiscriminate dumping of oil." S. 7 directs the federal government to issue regulations on proper procedures and equipment for preventing oil discharges, and for cleaning up oil spills. • A civil penalty of up to $1,000 is provided for violation of these regulations. H.R. 4148 is essentially the same, but limits the regulations to vessels. And it specifically calls for the establishment of "environmental quality criteria" to be applied to removal procedures. H.R. 4148 provides a maximum penalty of $5,000 for violation of regulations. S. 7 defines removal to include actions "as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare, including, but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private shorelines." H.R. 4148 speaks of "reasonable and appropriate measures to mitigate the potential damage ." In general, both bills call for the removal -- either by the polluter or by the U.S. government -- of oil discharges defined as illegal. Under various circumstances and to various degrees, the polluter may be liable for the cleanup costs. Under S. 7, the owner or operator of a vessel is liable for cleanup costs un- less he can prove that the discharge was caused solely by (a) an act of God ("an act occasioned exclusively by violence of nature without the interference of any human agency") , (b) an act of war, (c) negligence by the U.S. government, or (d) an act of a third party. If the owner or operator removes the oil, and can establish in a suit against the government that the discharge was caused solely by one of the above four, he can recover his costs from the • federal government. Liability is limited to $125 per gross ton of the vessel or $14 million, whichever is less. But if the discharge was the result of "negligence or a willful act," the owner or operator is liable for the full amount of removal costs. H.R. 4148 is narrower in scope. It provides for no liability unless oil is -6- "willfully or negligently" discharged. However, it places the burden of proof on the owner or operator. Evidence of a discharge constitutes a prima facie case of liability, and the burden of rebutting it rests on the owner • or operator, under H.R. 4148. The House bill limits liability to $100 per ton or $10 million, whichever is less. The Senate committee said its liability figure of $125 per ton "would be adequate to pay the cleanup cost for the largest and most disastrous of oil spills on record." The committee also defended its imposition of absolute liability under certain circumstances. "This approach avoids the difficult, if not impossible, task of proving negligence or rebutting the case for non-negligence made by the vessel owner. It also places the risk on the responsible party, not on the general public." S. 7 treats onshore and offshore facilities like vessels, except for the degree of liability. S. 7 distinguishes between facilities used for explora- tion, drilling or production of oil and facilities used for processing, trans- porting, transferring or storing oil . The former type of facility carries a maximum liability of $8 million; the latter type is liable up to $125 per ton of oil which the facility can process, transport or transfer in a 24-hour period, or can store in its largest unit, whichever is greater. Again, the House bill provides liability only for willful and negligent discharges. The maximum for offshore facilities is $8 million. The liability for onshore facilities cannot exceed that figure, but no liability would apply until the Secretary of Interior establishes classifications for such facilities , with differing amounts of liability, and notifies Congress at least 60 days before they are established. • In the case of offshore facilities, neither bill affects operations in the "contiguous zone" beyond the three-mile limit, which includes the Outer Con- tinental Shelf where the Santa Barbara incident occurred. In effect, Congress THE KEY PEOPLE Members of Congress who will presumably meet in conference to resolve differences between the House and Senate mater pollution control bills will be drawn from the two public works committees. Committee members are: House Public Works Committee -- Congressmen Fallon (Md.), chairman, BZatnik (Minn.), Jones (Ala. ), KZuczynski (IZZ. ), Wright (Tex.), Gray (IZZ. ), Clark (Pa.), Edmondson (Okla. ), Johnson (Calif. ), Dorn (S.C.), Henderson (N.C.), Olsen (Mont.), Roberts (Tex.), McCarthy (N.Y. ), Kee (W. Va. ), Howard (N.J.), Anderson (Calif.), Caffery (La.) and Obey (Wis. ) -- all Democrats -- and Cramer (Fla.), Harsha (Ohio), Grover (N.Y.), Cleveland (N.H.), Clausen (Calif.), McEwen (N.Y.), Duncan (Tenn.), SchwengeZ (Iowa), Schadeberg (Wis. ), Snyder (Ky.), Denney (Neb.), Zion (Ind.), McDonald (Mich.), Harrmerschmidt (Ark. ) and Miller (Ohio) -- all Republicans. Senate Public Works Committee -- Senators Randolph (W. Va. ), chair- • man, Young (Ohio), Muskie (Me.), Jordan (N.C.), Bayh (Ind.), Montoya (N.Mex. ), Spong (Va.), Eagleton (Mo.) and Gravel (Alaska) -- Demo- crats -- and Cooper (Ky.), Boggs (Del. ), Baker (Tenn.), Dole (Kan.), Gurney (Fla.) and Packwood (Ore.) -- Republicans. -7- is recognizing the right of the Interior Department to establish regulations there -- such as those issued August 22 by Secretary Walter Hickel, placing • unconditional and total liability for oil removal costs on the owner or operator of an offshore facility. The Senate bill authorizes creation of a $50 million revolving fund, to be used by the U.S. government for removal of oil for which others are not liable. All funds -- fines and liability payments -- received by the government under the oil pollution control provisions are to be deposited in the fund. H.R. 4148 would establish a similar oil cleanup fund, but with a maximum authorization of $20 million. Both bills provide that if an oil discharge from a vessel in navigable waters presents a "substantial threat" to the public health or welfare (including fish, shellfish, wildlife, beaches and shorelines) , the government may seize, remove or destroy the ship or take other necessary action. H.R. 4148 specifies that "large quantities" of oil must be involved. These provisions are aimed at Torrey Canyon-type situations, but in S. 7 they also apply to onshore and offshore facilities, in the case of which the govern- ment may go to court to obtain the relief necessary to abate the threat. Both bills also authorize the Secretary of Interior to conduct research and demonstrations on methods of removing oil from water, and the prevention and control of oil pollution. Other Hazardous Substances • Both Senate and House bills include provisions dealing with "hazardous" sub- stances other than oil -- while recognizing that more needs to be known about them and how to cope with them. ("The term could be extended to. more than 200 substances," said the House committee report. An initial Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Administration study describes the properties , hazards and types of control for 51 chemicals such as pesticides , fuel oils, acids, cleaning compounds and the like.) H.R. 4148 deals with the problem just as it deals with oil spills. It defines these hazardous substances as any matter -- other than oil, dredged spoil, human wastes and nuclear material -- which is discharged in "substantial quanti- ties" and in the judgment of the Secretary of Interior presents an "imminent and substantial hazard to public health or welfare." Recognizing that these provisions can become "meaningful" only after the Secretary issues regulations defining these hazardous substances, the committee said it expects him to "proceed as rapidly as possible in this regard." S. 7 covers hazardous substances in a separate section and at least sets the stage for coping with them in essentially the same way oil spills are handled. It defines such substances similarly to H.R. 4148, though it speaks of "any" quantities, and spells out in detail procedures to be used for designating such substances and promulgating discharge regulations, with public hearings and appeals in case of objections. The Senate committee noted in its report that normally the discharge of • hazardous substances could fall within the scope of the water quality stand- ards program, but said it is concerned with "massive spills." It noted that many such substances will be soluble in water and cannot be effectively cleaned up. The provisions, it said, will "primarily serve to notify downstream water users of a dangerous discharge." Still, S. 7 directs the President to report _g_ to Congress by November 1970 on the need for legislation to impose liability for the costs of removing hazardous substances. The House bill, of course, provides the same liability as for oil spills. • Vessel Pollution Under both Senate and House bills, the Secretary of Interior is directed to set performance standards for marine sanitation devices to prevent the dis- charge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage into navigable waters. Thereupon the Coast Guard is to promulgate -- and enforce -- regulations based on these standards, as well as regulations governing the design, con- struction, installation and operation of these devices on vessels. The vessel pollution controls do not apply to ships which do not have installed toilets. In setting performance standards, the Secretary of Interior is to consult with the Coast Guard, and consider both the "economic costs involved" and the "limits of available technology." Initial standards are to become effective for new vessels two years after promulgation, and for existing vessels five years after promulgation. The Coast Guard can waive applicability of the standards "as necessary or appropriate," for various classes, types and sizes of vessels. (The Senate committee said it "recognizes the problems imposed by the short- comings of present technology, economic impact on commercial and recreational vessel owners, and the complexity of marine watercraft." This, it said, is not to suggest "dilatory implementation" but a "practical and workable program.") As of the effective date of standards of regulations, the bills preempt for • the federal government all marine toilet regulation -- so that state or local governments cannot adopt or enforce regulations concerning the design, manufacture, installation, or use of such toilets. (S. 7 states, however, that any existing vessel shall be considered in compliance if it is already ON PASSING -- AND FLUSHING -- QUIETLY IN THE NIGHT There were comments on both sides of Congress about those ships that pass quietly and unobtrusively in the night -- flushing and spilling behind them. On the House floor on April 15, Congressman James J. Howard of New Jersey expressed his pleasure at the prospect of a revolving fund to be used for cleaning up oil spillages. "The vessels are to be responsible (for cleanup costs), " he said, "but what about the ship that passes in the night. All too often in recent years we have found instances where early one morning the Coast Guard or a commercial fisherman will report a huge oil slick off the coast coming toward the shore of some seaside resort. And no one knows where it came from for sure. They are not sure which vessels had passed by recently. " The Senate Public Works Committee 's report said that "one source of spills which is most difficult to police and of great concern. • to beach owners and users is the indiscriminate bilge pumping and tank flushing at night by vessels along the coast. Enforcement techniques to police this illegal activity must be developed and surveillance increased. The committee expects that necessal, funds will be requested to carry out this expanded function. ' -9- equipped with a device approved under state regulations or under Public Health Service recommendations -- until such time as the device is replaced or found to violate such regulations or recommendations.) • Also, under S. 7 the states are to retain their authority to "prohibit the discharge of sewage in any waters within a state where implementation of appli- cable water quality standards requires such prohibition." Thus, sewage dis- charge could be forbidden outright in specific waters regardless of Coast Guard regulations. Similarly, H.R. 4148 maintains state authority to prohibit sewage discharges in the "intrastate waters of such state if discharges from all other sources are likewise prohibited. " The manufacturer of a vessel which does not conform to the standards, or anyone who wrongfully removes such a toilet or makes it inoperative prior to its sale or delivery, is subject to a civil penalty of up to $5,000. A vessel operating in navigable waters without the required toilet is subject to a civil penalty of up to $2,000. The Coast Guard is authorized to board and inspect any vessel, except government vessels, to enforce the provisions. Last year, one of the hang-ups between the Senate and House was over the House's refusal to include recreational vessels under the law. Now, of course, they are covered. This year the House committee said it "wishes to make it clear that it expects the Secretary of Interior to hold full administrative hearings" before issuing performance standards for marine sanitation devices. "The committee also wishes to make it clear that in the application of the standards and regulations for existing vessels, the most careful consideration should be given to the problem • of economic costs. The American-flag merchant marine is already in a critical position." It also called for a "reasonable approach" to enforcement. If a toilet stops operating while a vessel is on the water, for example, it said enforcement action would be "inappropriate." Acid Mine Pollution Both bills authorize $15 million for Interior Department demonstration projects aimed at eliminating or controlling acid and other mine water pollution resulting from active or abandoned mines. Preference is to be given to areas with the highest potential for public recreation, fish and wildlife, water supply and to other public areas. "Acid mine drainage can be the most serious problem by far," said the Senate committee report. "It has been estimated that 3.5 million tons of acid are discharged (annually) into well over 6,000 miles of the nation's major streams, resulting in damage to aquatic life and potential severe loss of the recrea- tional capacity of those affected waterways." It noted that the seepage areas are so barren of plant life that up to 111,000 times as much sediment is washed from them into streams by erosion than from forest and grass-covered lands." Pollution of Lakes Both House and Senate bills authorize $20 million for projects demonstrating new techniques for removing pollutants, or for preventing pollutants from • entering, the Great Lakes. Both bills also authorize Interior to make grants for research on better methods of prevention and control of "natural or manmade pollution in lakes, including the undesirable effects of nutrients and vegetation." Said the -10- "INALIENABLE RIGHT" "The Congress recognizes that each person has a fundamental and • inalienable right to a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. " -- Proposed National Environmental Policy Act. Senate committee report: "The biological problems and solutions of lake pollu- tion are complex in the extreme, and will yield only to concentrated, coordinated basic, and applied research." MORE ON THE SEARCH FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY A second important piece of legislation has been attached to the Senate's omni- bus water pollution control bill. Called the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1969, it is one culmination of several years of concern, shared by many, that the federal government has no top panel of experts to provide recommenda- tions and warnings about potentially dangerous manipulations of the environ- ment. (See February 23, 1968 and August 12, 1968 CF Letter.) Briefly, the act would establish in the Executive Office of the President an Office of Environmental Quality, with staff and a full range of powers to study, • review, appraise, develop policies and .priorities, and advise the President and others concerning environmental programs and effects. The Senate Public Works Committee does not consider that such an office would be in conflict with the interagency Council on Environmental Quality es=ablished on May 29 by President Nixon. In fact, in its report, the committee characterizes the Council as an "action organization to implement Presidential decisions and policies ," but not the kind of body which could be expected to formulate broad environmental policies and provide a "critical and independent review" of federal government activity as it relates to the environment. "Environmental quality issues and answers require legal, economic, social, management and systems analysis as well as scientific study," the report said, and it noted that the Office of Science and Technology, which staffs the new Council, is not likely to be adequate to such a job. The report also notes that the Council, made up of Cabinet members, establishes a "system in which the advice and assistance the President receives, and on which he instructs or directs the agencies and coordinates their activities, ultimately come from the agencies themselves." The act also contains a broad statement of national environmental policy and purpose. It was sired by Senator Edmund S. Muskie of Maine and is embodied in the Senate water pollution bill, S. 7, as Title II. It is somewhat sinilar to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (S. 1075) , the bill sponsored by Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington, chairman of the Senate Interior Com- • mittee, which was passed by the Senate on July 10. The Jackson bill, in addition to a declaration of environmental policy, would _11- create in the Executive Office of the President a three-member Board of En- vironmental Quality Advisers, especially qualified to assess environmental problems and trends. The Board would be patterned after the Council of Economic Advisers. The bill directs all federal agencies to include -- in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" -- a finding that the environmental impact has been considered; that any adverse environ- mental effects which cannot reasonably be avoided are justified by other national policies; that local short-term uses of man's environment are con- sistent with long-term productivity; and that any irreversible and irre- trievable commitments of resources are warranted. Similar competition exists in the House. There, Congressman John D. Dingell of Michigan has successfully steered through the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee a bill (H.R. 12549) to establish a five-member independent Council on Environmental Quality (not to be confused with the President's interagency Council) , similar to the Board envisioned in S. 1075. The House Rules Committee held a hearing on the Dingell bill August 7. Congress- man Wayne N. Aspinall of Colorado, chairman of the House Interior Committee, noted that his committee had jurisdiction over some subjects covered by H.R. 12549. At this writing, it is not known if the Rules Committee will send the Dingell bill to the floor of the House for action, or if it will be referred first to the Interior Committee. Aside from the substantive differences in the bills, questions of committee jurisdiction and leadership on the environmental front are involved. (This also reflects the political attractiveness of the subject.) There is optimism that the various problems can be resolved, that Congress may finally pass legislation to give the nation its first strong, independent overview of the environment. "MAGIC OF CONCERNED CITIZEN ACTION" BRINGS VICTORY ON SAN FRANCISCO BAY _ Legislation designed to "save" San Francisco Bay from indiscriminate, destruc- tive filling and development has passed the California legislature and has been signed by Governor Ronald Reagan. Despite some shortcomings, the new act has been widely hailed as a strong and effective measure, and as a major victory for conservationists who waged a long and often discouraging battle over the Bay. The bill gives permanent status to the Bay. Conservation and Development Com- mission, which was due to expire after the 1969 legislative session. It strengthens BCDC's permit control over filling operations, and in fact extends commission jurisdiction from the Bay itself to a 100-foot wide strip of land around the 276-mile Bay shoreline. The 27-member BCDC is authorized to carry out its interim plan for the Bay area. • The legislation includes a declaration by the California legislature that "uncordinated, haphazard filling in San Francisco Bay threatens the bay itself and is therefore inimical to the welfare of both present and future residents . . ." It directs that development of the bay and adjoining land -12- HOWE BECOMES OF PRESIDENT Sydney Home was elected president of CF at a recent meeting of the Foundation 's Board of Trustees. Home was also elected to the Board and to its executive committee. Director of the Foundation's con- servation services program since 1965, Howe became acting director and vice president earlier this year when Russell E. Train resigned as president to become Under Secretary of the Interior. areas include "maximum feasible public access" to the shoreline and waters of the bay. It also declares that "further filling of San Francisco Bay should be authorized only when public benefits from fill clearly exceed public detriment from the loss of the water areas and should be limited to water-oriented uses . . or, minor fill for improving shoreline appearance or public access to the bay." (The water-oriented uses specifically sanctioned in the act include ports, water-related industry -- including desalinization and power generating plants requiring large amounts of water for cooling -- airports, bridges, wildlife refuges, and water-oriented recreation and public assembly.) Said the San Francisco Chronicle of the legislation on August 7: "All hail to it and to the thousands whose work and pressure, pleas and perseverance carried this legislation through the legislature." The Chronicle said that despite several "ill-advised injuries" to the bill on its way to passage, "it has been called 'tough and excellent' . Continued public interest and demand -- what has been called the 'magic of concerned citizen action' -- can keep it strong and effective." (Because of the landmark nature of the BCDC approach to natural resource decision-making, The Conservation Foundation devoted all of its June 9, 1969 CF Letter to the San Francisco Bay story as a case history in environmental management. Copies available on request.) C w Nom Organization CD P A I D T„ q � _ U.S. POSTAGE Washington, D.C. The Conservation FoundationPermit No.42693 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C.20036 C 01970SALE005 L • SALEM BO OF HEALTH 5 BROAD ST SALEM MA 01970 1,-29-69 RETURN REQUESTED j � AT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION p NORTHEAST REGION !'7 \��'-�•.,,,_,� ; JOHN-F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING X `96 IM BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02203' 1� 6 September 20, 1968 f INVITATION TO PUBLIC MEETING ON f S IMPACT OF POLLUTION ON OUR COASTAL WATERS You are invited to -participate in the public meeting on the impact of,,,pollution on coastal and estuarine waters, to be held 9: 30 a.m. , October 8, 1968 at the Charter Room, New England Life Building, 225 Clarendon Street, Boston, Massachusetts. The estuary system under consideration includes the tidal waters of Massachusetts, the shore and adjacent land and the biology and ecology of the coastal areas. It is this total resource on which we wish to J receive information at the October 8 meeting. J1 The meeting offers the opportunity for you and the organization you j represent to make your views clearly known regarding present and poten- tial problems faced in maintaining the quality of our coastal waters as related to land and water uses. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is charged by the Congress of the United States to prepare a comprehensive report on the status of water pollution in the Nation's coastal waters. The report will identify the actions needed to assure wise use' of the total re- sources of our coastal zones so that not only'.will degradation of our valuable coastal waters be avoided, but also the quality of our waters may be enhanced. This effort is known as the National Estuarine Pollution Study. The report is. scheduled for completion and submittal to the Congress on November 1, 1969. It will provide the Congress with the information it needs to draft legislation bearing on preven- tion and abatement of pollution in the Nation's coastal waters. d We are working closely with all Federal and State agencies in an 7 aggressive program of cooperative studies. But, in addition, we must i understand fully the needs, desires , and views of the residents. It is for this reason that we have arranged the October 8 public meeting i and are extending an invitation to you. The meeting will be co- sponsored by the i Federal Water Pollution Control Administration Commonwealth of Massachusetts New England River Basins Commission New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. f f 1.{ t r F r We will be particularly interested in your answers and position on the following types of questions: What are the values (aesthetic, personal, recreational,, dollar, , etc. ) of an estuary? How have they been damaged by pollution, and how much? What do you think the future of our coastal zones should be? What are the best uses of our estuaries? What system of management--local , state and federal--will best provide for development and protection of our estuarine resources? You may have other pertinent points to raise. We are interested in hearing what you have to say on the subject of pollution and its control in our estuaries. To provide for an orderly meeting with time available for all, the following guides are established: ' 1. The meeting is open to presentationsfrom all groups, organ- izations and individuals having an interest in the coastal waters . 2. Statements should be concise and based upon the subjects of estuarine pollution and its effects on beneficial uses. It is suggested that lengthy statements be filed in writing for inclusion in the meeting record and, if you wish, a brief summary of the statement presented orally. 3. Those wishing to make statements should advise the Coordina- tor (see below) by October 7 , 1968. A registration desk will be maintained at the meeting, however, to accommodate .those with statements not previously filed. 4. A screen and a 2 x 2 projector will be provided for those wishing to use 35mm slides. Please contact the Coordinator if the use of other types of visual aids is desired. 5. Registration of statements and questions concerning this meeting should be directed to: Mr. John S . Farlow Regional Coordinator, National Estuarine Pollution Study North Atlantic Water Quality Management Center Edison, New Jersey 08817 . Phone: Area Code 201, 548-3347 ,, Ext. 46. 6. Written statements for the record will be accepted until October 28, 1968. Our coastal waters are among our most precious resources . Your thought- ful participation in the October 8 meeting will be helpful in providing for their protection and development. Sincerely yours , cyh Lester M. Klashman Regional Director I cr yr. , Pt�ENT O�\ o/ •%,� UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. r IIin, FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION NORTHEAST REGION 0 JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING .o Rcq-s J° BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02203 U September 20, 1968 INVITATION TO PUBLIC MEETING ON IMPACT OF POLLUTION ON OUR COASTAL WATERS You are invited to participate in the public meeting on the impact of pollution on coastal and estuarine waters, to be held 9: 30 a.m. , October 8, 1968 at the Charter Room, New England Life Building, 225 Clarendon Street, Boston, Massachusetts. The estuary system under consideration includes the tidal waters of Massachusetts, the shore and adjacent land and the biology and ecology of the coastal areas . It is this total resource on which we wish to receive information at the October 8 meeting. The meeting offers the opportunity for you and the organization you represent to make your views clearly known regarding present and poten- tial problems faced in maintaining the quality of our coastal waters as related to land and water uses. x The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is charged by the Congress of the United States to prepare a comprehensive report on the status of water pollution in the Nation's coastal waters. The report will identify the actions needed to assure wise use of the total re- sources of our coastal zones so that not only will degradation of our valuable coastal waters be avoided, but also the quality of our waters may be enhanced. This effort is known as the National Estuarine Pollution Study. The report is scheduled for completion and submittal to the Congress on November 1 , 1969. It will provide the Congress with the information it needs to draft legislation bearing on preven- tion and abatement of pollution in the Nation's coastal waters. We are working closely with all Federal and State agencies in an aggressive program of cooperative studies'. But, in addition, we must understand fully the needs, desires , and views of the residents. It is for this reason that we have arranged the October 8 public meeting and are extending an invitation to you.. The meeting will be co- sponsored by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration Commonwealth of Massachusetts New England River Basins Commission New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. We will be particularly interested in your answers and position on the following types of questions: What are the values (aesthetic, personal, recreational, dollar, etc. ) of an estuary? How have they been damaged by pollution, and how much? What do you think the future of our coastal zones should be? What are the best uses of our estuaries? What system of management--local , state and federal--will best provide for development and protection of our estuarine resources? You may have other pertinent points to raise. We are interested in hearing what you have to say on the subject of pollution and its control in our estuaries. To provide for an orderly meeting with time available for all , the following guides are established: 1. The meeting is open to presentations from all groups, organ- izations and individuals having'an interest in the coastal waters. 2. Statements should be concise and based upon the subjects of estuarine pollution and its effects on beneficial uses. It is suggested that lengthy statements be filed in writing for inclusion in the meeting record and, if you wish, a brief summary of the statement presented orally. 3. Those wishing to make statements should advise the Coordina- tor (see below) by October 7 , 1968. A registration desk will be maintained at the meeting, .however, to accommodate those withstatements not previously filed. 4. A screen and a 2 x 2 projector will be provided for those wishing to use 35mm slides. Please contact the Coordinator if the use of other types of visual aids is desired. 5. Registration of statements and questions concerning this - meeting should be directed to: Mr. John S . Farlow Regional Coordinator, National Estuarine Pollution Study s North Atlantic Water Quality Management Center Edison, New Jersey 08817 Phone: Area Code 201 , 548-3347, Ext. 46. 6. Written statements for the record will be accepted until October 28, 1968. Our coastal waters are among our most precious resources . Your thought- ful participation in the October 8 meeting will be helpful in providing for their protection and development. Sincerely yours, LestePM. Klashman Regional Director � 22� 1188 Caesrable Treads X. Collies Now of Salem city Ball 861600lfaeseebueatte 01970 Dear Mayor Collins When the Incinerator was being repaired and mo,tified, a part of the andifiaation procedure was to construct a wattr purification or rectifying plant plus a settling basin for fly=ash in the rest of the building. This piece of construction was to prevent pollution of the brook vbieh flora behind the Inelaerstor and eventually becomes Forest River. This part of the modifications was not cone at the, Mie of the genoraL codifications because a study haw to be mode of this effluout of the pleat after it was in operation. In corrosposdence sent to you under separate cover May 2Li 19680 you will fieri letters of agreaaanf whereby the State Departuent of Health to given assurance by the City of Sales that this plant will be buitt when feasible. Our engineer has code a general ustinate of 8100,000. as the cost of construction. " the lost maetime of the Board of Health held on April 16, 1068 it vas uoamixously voted that the Board request an appropriation of $100,000. to Special Its. Iaeinarator Modifications for the purpose of buil,ling a plmt for the correction of water and fly-ash effluent to prevent pollution of Forest River. very truly yours, Tal TUE BOARD Of U "TE J0r98 J. 10056 0.8.c. lealth Agent Tat May 21, 1968 Honorable Francis X. Collins Mayor of Salem City Hall Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mayor Collins: Enclosed please find some reports and pertinent correspondence relative to effluent water and fly-ash particulate matter from the Municipal Incinerator on Swampscott Road in Salem. The object of the report is to determine ways and means of safely disposing of this water and fly-ash residue without polluting the brook which eventually becomes Forest River in Salem. Very truly yours, FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH JOHN J. TOOMEY, D.S.C. Health Agent T: f Encls. 8 May 21, 1968 Mr. Thomas McMahon, Director Division of Water Pollution Control Department of Natural Resources Room 1901, State Office Building Boston, Massachusetts Dear Sir: Enclosed please find some reports and pertinent correspondence relative to effluent water and fly-ash particulate matter from the Municipal Incinerator on Swampscott Road in Salem. The object of the report is to determine ways and means of safely disposing of this water and fly-ash residue without polluting the brook which eventually becomes Forest River in Salem. It is my understanding that your department now must approve installations such as this. We are about to request a recommended amount of $100,000.00 from the Mayor and City Council for construction of this plant. The department would very much appreciate hearing from you after you have had time to study this report. Very truly yours, FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH JOHN J. TOOMEY, D.S.C. Health Agent T:f Encl. 8 4 w �Raarb of XmU4 S ,Wr°ab *rest �iddiaue 7tt- {aFE°neg, �r. �4tgmt �°gePdt c�• �l2izYdarb May 21, 1968 Dear Sir: Enclosed please find some reports and, pertinent correspondence relative to effluent water and fly-ash particulate matter from the Municipal Incinerator on Swampscott Road in Salem. The object of the report is to determine ways and means of safely disposing of this water and fly-ash residue without polluting the brook which eventually becomes Forest River in Salem. Very truly yours, FOR THE/ BOARD OF HEALTH JOHN J. TOOMEY, D.S.C. Health Agent T:f Encls. 8 D.P.H. Natural Resources Folder Water Resources Commission C 0 P Y May 15, 1968 Mr. E. J. Perron,Jr. Ward Seven Councillor 20 Grant Road Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Sir: In reply to your request for a report on a meeting between myself and Mr. Glick of the Dubois Chemical Co. , please be advised that we met in the Mayor's Office, had a nice visit, and arrangements have been made for one of the company biologists to make a study of the North River. A formal recommendation of what the company might recommend as treatment will be forwarded to us. We will keep you informed of any further developments. Very truly yours, FOR THE BOARD OF HEALTH JOHN J. TOOMEY, D.S.C. Health Agent T: f CC: Mayor Collins