Hey, there! Log in / Register
Man who knows something about Boston Harbor says state should let city dump snow into it
By adamg on Fri, 02/06/2015 - 11:31pm
Paul Levy, the first director of the MWRA, writes it's pretty silly to let Boston dump snow into a snow farm right on the water but not let it just push the snow into the harbor - when it's going to melt into the water anyway.
Forcing the city to create snow mountains only means wasting time that could be better spent getting rid of snow from increasingly clogged streets, he says.
Several years ago, I suggested that during major snow accumulations, the state DEP should grant the City of Boston a waiver to dump the snow into the Harbor.
Why does it matter? It matters for no other reason that it takes longer to clean the streets when you have to go through this routine of hauling and pushing, hauling and pushing. It won't solve all the problems, but it will help.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Does Paul Levy have a background in environmental science?
I only know him from running a hospital, so my assumption is that he is a CEO type rather than a science type.
The theory is good, but is the science there?
Actually, he went to MIT
Actually, he went to MIT before he ran the hospital or the treatment plant. Think he has some kind of engineering and planning degree from there. And he was at the state energy office before. He ran the harbor cleanup project, can't imagine he doesn't know anything about the underlying science. Besides, the snow melts from that farm lot and goes into the harbor anyway.
From the little bit of science I know
When the snow melts, it either enters the water table, where the toxic elements would remain in the soil while the water would pass on to the aquifer, or it would end up in the stormwater system, but would be able to be treated better than if we even got 3 inches to rain in a week, as the water would be passing through the system at a slower rate.
I have even less of a background in this sort of thing than Paul Levy, but that's relative. It's an interesting debate.
Location, location, location
Have you seen where the city puts most of its snow (ie, 6 Tide Street)? I think neither of your scenarios accurately describes what actually happens as that snow melts.
Since it's just going into the harbor anyway, Mr. Levy is making a very rational suggestion that the city save the time, money and effort of creating ponderous mountains of it right at the water's edge.
I disagree (sort of)
(Given the assumption that the field is not asphalt) Yes, some of the water runoff would be straight to harbor, but a good amount would melt into the soil, and contaminants would be leeched in the soil. It is true that farmers have been asked to cut down on fertilizer applications for fear of contaminating water sources, but some leeching takes place. Other contaminants, such as lawn furniture, would remain where the pile was. Also, 6 Tide Street is not the only snow farm. Reservation Road Park's parking lot will be off limits until March, and somewhere in Franklin Park a mountain has been created. I don't know the other locations, but they are not all harborside.
Of course, my assumption above is not too valid. In most locations, the melted snow will fall into the storm drains. Some of it will be treated, some of it won't. In the end the snow will be as treated as it would be if it weren't moved. That's the same regardless of where in the city it happens.
little to no water would go in the ground
Its overconsolidated urban fill and organics. It all goes into the storm drains, which to not go to deer island in this location.
Everyone should stop pretending they are a civil engineer.
Do you know for a fact where
Do you know for a fact where the storm drains at 6 Tide St go to? Do you have access to a street-level schematic, or were you able to visually confirm the outfall tied to the drain? I am sure you did not do a dye-test...
This comment is a mashup of
This comment is a mashup of assumptions and urban myths. Been down to Tide Street? Yep, it's paved, like a lot of Boston. Contaminants in snow? Sure, but they are there in urban stormwater too, and that goes into the nearest catchbasin and then to the Charles or the harbor. Fertilizer, farms, leeching [leaching]???? These snow piles do leave a pretty dirty residue - gray piles that include a fair bit of trash as well as soil/grime, but much of the debris can be spotted and avoided, and most of the snow that is piled up in Mount Tide Street can just as safely (and more easily) be dumped into the harbor. Paul Levy is making a reasonable, common-sense point - you're not really disagreeing (sort of), just making some fairly off-topic comments.
Eh
I did say my assumption was BS, but still, this stuff melting and going into storm drains is a bit different than dumping it straight in, which was my point. Well, that and that Tide Street is not a beach. Were the area like what the guy who thought Tide Street has something to do with the tides, leeching etc. would be an issue.
The theory is terrible!!!
The theory is terrible!!! The plowed and collected snow is full of salt, de-icers, road contaminants like oil and other motor vehicle fluids, road debris, and trash. That much salt would not be compatible with sea life, nor would the toxins.
Everyone marvels at Montreal's snow removal (as do I, I lived there for many winters)--they used to dump the snow directly into the St Lawrence Seaway which surrounds the island Montreal is on. However this is now again the law and they make use of snow farms which can't even be adjacent to the Seaway. The runoff melt water is processed through a treatment plant (some snow farms may just rely on filtering the melt water thru the ground...not sure if that is in Montreal or other Quebec towns. But those leave behind a very thick layer of black contaminants and filth).
According to Health Canada
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/contaminants/psl2-lsp2/road_salt_se...
2.3.3.2 Methods involving release into waterways after processing or treating meltwater
Roadway snow can be transported to snow disposal sites where snow melts and the meltwater is treated. This typically involves dumping snow at surface sites or in quarries where runoff is channelled to treatment facilities. Generally, snow disposal sites are located on impermeable or slightly permeable ground or must be equipped with a geotextile membrane. Some sites are also equipped with sedimentation facilities or are designed to direct the meltwater towards a wastewater treatment system (Gouvernement du Québec, 1991). These sites should not be located next to watercourses that could be affected by runoff. Snow scraped from the road surfaces is filled with many different kinds of contaminants: oily residue from cars, trash and corrosive road salt. This makes it too hazardous from an environmental perspective to introduce into the water table.
stop clutching your pearls
For the third or so time that has been pointed out: the snow is right next to the harbor, and all those chemicals are going to end up in the harbor anyway.
Meanwhile, the city spends a lot of time trucking snow to that farm (instead of just dumping it into the nearest ocean access) and pushing it around. That means a lot of unnecessary and excess pollution and CO2.
Please, stop being such a purist during a time of emergency.
Most of the snow being collected now is not contaminated as much because there is far less automobile traffic on the road.
But that's not the point. The point is that the amounts currently on streets of Boston represent a hazard to human life and societal well-being. At moments like this, it is perfectly fine to undergo some small amount of temporary environmental harm.
BTW, we are not talking about introducing water to the "water table," i.e., fresh water aquifers that serve as drinking water supplies. We are talking about introducing it to the ocean, which is not used for drinking water.
There has been a substantial
There has been a substantial amount of sightings of Hyperdermic needles on sidewalks and gutters in recent years in and around Boston's neighborhoods,
one can only phantom where these junkies are placing these hyperdermic needles during these series of blizzards, and that will be in these snow piles, a major public safety and health concern.
Animals
I can think of several species off hand that use it as "drinking" water supplies. Do they not matter?
Snow on the streets will melt eventually and all will be well. This is not Game of Thrones, winter will be over in just a month or two.
But what if it isn't over?
Always winter, never Christmas.
OMG it's awesome to have Paul
OMG it's awesome to have Paul Levy commenting here!
methinks
...thou is impressed quite easily.
If they dump tons of snow
If they dump tons of snow into Boston harbor the the state's wild life and fisheries division and the state's enviromentalists and greenpeace would be againts it. All the city of Boston's garbage that was left on sidewalks buried in the snow for the last 2 weeks along with motor oil and antifreeze spilled from cars that is in some of these snow piles and other contaminated liquids and objects which include road salt and plastics are also buried in these snow piles.
It will never happen!!
If It Was Rain Instead Of Snow...
... wouldn't many of those same contaminants be washed through the storm sewers into the harbor?
Rain water from street sewers
Rain water from street sewers could be filtered before its released into the harbor.
I'm sure Clean harbors has the answer to that one.
Most storm water ends up at Deer Island
The overflow goes into the harbor. Cities are moving drain connections to sewer lines when then can. So, a good part of your sewer bill is to pay for treatment of rain water. This is an argument for more lawn to absorb rainwater and less asphalt that can't.
Cities are moving drain
I am open to this being true but in some brief searching can find no evidence of it.
http://www.mwra.com/03sewer/html/sewcso.htm e.g. says:
While modern systems transport rainwater and sewage from homes and businesses through separate pipes, some older systems like Boston's have "combined" sewers that carry both flows together.
then goes on to document the threat storm runoff poses to the sewage processing system.
I'm pretty sure cities are
I'm pretty sure cities are moving away from combined sewers/storm drains because storm drains add a lot of extra volume to the treatment plant that doesn't need the full human waste treatment.
So then, snow melts and ends up in the ocean anyway?
So, why not dump the snow there directly for the same result, save some Dunkins cups and other random trash going to the harbor that would have been caught in catch basins?
Simply not true
Cities and towns are actively (and have been for years) removing the connection between the drain and sewer. There is no need to pay the $ to treat storm water, storm water goes into the drain system via catch basins which help settle out solids, as well as oil and gas (by a hood or trap) and then the water flows out to a water body....where it daylights depends on what watershed catchment area you live in.
I agree dumping the snow directly into the harbor would have negative environmental effects that aren't necessary right now....there is a signifiant amount of trash, debris, sand, and salt in the snow from the roads that wouldn't be good for aquatic communities.
Exactly right
Good point, Elmer!
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/stormwater/
To answer your question, storm water runoff is subject to permitting by the EPA. Municipalities must document their use of best practices to reduce runoff contaminants, some of which have already been mentioned in this topic (sediment reduction, oil/grease reduction). Best practices include specific frequencies of street cleaning.
Future best practices likely will promote permeable paved surfaces, allowing more water to naturally filter through the ground. In any case, throwing snow and associated detritus directly in the harbor is not a best practice. It is a step backwards for improved water quality. I also don't see any evidence on how it would greatly speed up our snow relocation process.
I am a friggin' lefty and I
I am a friggin' lefty and I can honestly say I don't give a rat's ass about what Greenpeace thinks, they left science behind long ago. They are just blind activism and a *big* money "charity" now.
There is a special place in hell
For people who stash their trash in the snow piles.
Levy is former Exec. Dir. of the MWRA
And went to MIT (no, he did not major in science, but you can't get out of there without a solid basis in it).
http://goalplayleadership.com/about/
Salt would get into the ocean!
Shock and horror! Dumping into ponds and rivers might be affected by snow dumped there, but the ocean would quite dilute a little snow. Diluted perhaps more than homeopathic remedies even.
You understand that
it's not sea salt that they dump on the roads, right?
You understand that chemistry
You understand that chemistry doesn't care where sodium chloride comes from, right?
You realize
You realize sea salt and rock salt are the same?
You mean they don't buy it from Whole Foods?
Much of the rock salt used was probably sea salt millions of years ago.
All (mined) salt is sea salt.
All salt has the same chemical formula but comes in different crystal formations -- think kosher salt vs table salt vs rock salt.
And it's interesting to see where it comes from. Recent ships arriving at the salt pile in Chelsea have been from Colombia and the UK. The Finger Lakes region of N.Y. sends out lots of salt by rail, but we ripped up our freight rail infrastructure a while ago.
But not all ice-melting salt is sodium chloride
It could also be magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, potassium chloride, etc.
Oh, they'd use NaCl
I love my CaCl, but scaling it for the area's road infrastructure would be cost prohibitive.
"we ripped up our freight rail infrastructure"?
Both CSX and Norfolk Southern/Pan Am Railways will deliver from the Finger Lakes region to the Boston area, via Worcester and Fitchburg respectively.
Of course, marine transport is more cost effective than rail, but the distance might counter that. Also, remember that what is put on our roads is more than sodium chloride. They mix in sand for traction and melting (when the sand is heated by the sun.) Then there's everything that was on the roads when the snow was moved, but that's another story.
Sand sounds pretty harmless, though
isn't there plenty of that in the ocean already?
Well, yes...
...but one of the largest salt suppliers in the area (the Great Salt Mountains of Chelsea) has excellent marine access, but it's almost a mile from the nearest rail sidings.
You'd probably also need unit train (80-100 cars) sized loads to keep that place stocked during prime season. Hard to get those through the Boston terminal trackage (even if Keolis is cancelling so many trains).
I'm sure there's plenty of other distributors around New England, some of which may get rail service.
But why sell only in Chelsea?
Okay, finding a spot by the CSX or Pan Am lines big enough to handle transshipment would be difficult, but it is theoretically possible to ship into the South Boston Seaport via rail, then there's Boston Sand and Gravel. There's some abandoned land by the Earhart dam that is rail adjacent that is the size of the Chelsea pile. Besides, Chelsea is not where the various DPWs store their salt, anyway. On the south side, there are spots in Medfield, Walpole, and Norwood that could probably handle offloading and storage.
Of course, the question of whether a community would want a salt pile in their neighborhood is another story.
Road salt
Road salt also includes a cyanide-based anti-caking agent. Tons of road salt going into the ocean would probably result in increased salinity for a while in the location where it's being dumped which could be a problem, but probably not much of one. It's the other crap in there that's a problem. Lots of conjecture here on this thread but not a helluva lot science or facts being cited (and graduating from MIT doesn't result in every gaseous emissions from your body having THE WEIGHT OF SCIENCE attributed to it). Relative to urban freshwaters here's cite: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2579&from=rss_home#.VNZ3XPnF9u4
I would think that dumping the snow from the streets into the harbor would not be a good thing, but haven't seen the facts that would show it is worth the risk of doing it, relative to the risk of injury and problems in the streets caused by all this snow being there. Certainly could be convinced otherwise, but people just screaming "YESS! and "NOOO!" doesn't really help.
As far as stormwater/sewer separation -- could someone PLEASE post some straight answers as to whether BWSC and MWRA actually did this?? They tore up the streets all to hell in East Boston for YEARS with the justification of no longer having poop going into the harbor when we have REALLY heavy rains. Then once the whole damn project is over I heard that in some conditions we will still have stormwater and sewer mixing with the result either going into the harbor or out to Deer Island. Deer island should not be treating stormwater and poop shouldn't be going into the harbor before some basic grit and grease trapping. Is this happening or not, goddamnit?
http://www.mwra.com/03sewer
http://www.mwra.com/03sewer/html/sewcso.htm#eastbostonbranch
They finished the upgrade of the 115-year old combined [storm]/sewer interceptor system in 2010. Most parts of East Boston except by Constitution Beach, continue to have a combined sewer system. Specifically, the MWRA says their project has reduced CSO (combined sewer overflow) discharge at two outfall points. Also, according to this map, two CSO outfalls have been closed at some time.
By upgrading the interceptor system, most small storms will no longer cause combined sewer water to be discharged directly into waterways. This type of upgrade project usually includes improvements to store a certain amount of the water until a storm is over, for treatment later. They also upgrade CSO discharge quality by building CSO treatment facilities, so that discharge in larger storms gets screened, chlorinated, and then dechlorinated, once pathogens are killed/reduced.
This is why on that map above, the CSOs w/ 25-year storm control are nicer. Those sewers have enough storage that no combined sewer water is discharged unless it's rated as a big storm that statistically occurs only 4 times a century. Sorry to say East Boston is still full of traditional CSO discharge points.
Finally, to answer the unasked question at the end of your post...why isn't there full sewer separation in your neighborhood yet? They're following a cost-benefit analysis considering what improvements can be made to control the most amount of sewage that would most adversely affect the environment, at a palatable cost for water rate-payers. Fully separating the storm and sewer systems is an extremely expensive undertaking. They're working on it slowly, but steadily. You can bet that they're plugging away at it in the most effective way they can. The most interesting part of engineering, to me!
Changing the salinity
Of the water can negatively harm all sorts of aquatic life
The takeaway from this should
The takeaway from this should be to move the snow farms away from the harbor, not just dump the contaminated snow directly into the harbor.
Super Snow Blowers
We can all agree that the loan of these gigantic snow melting machines from the MTA to the inept MBTA is a good idea. Where will the runoff end up in the Charles, the Neponset, or the Atlantic?
Stormwater runoff (melting
Stormwater runoff (melting snow for example) into storm drains goes through catch basins which contain the sediment, trash, and petrochemicals. Dumping directly into the ocean doesn't have that mechanism to protect the environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_drain
Works on paper
But the inverted 90 degree bend that helps prevent petrochemicals is often the forts thing removed by municipalities while cleaning the basins. Plus this design is relatively new. Most basins in old areas don't have the ninety degree bend.
Make it sewage
So adamg, you're ok with dumping dead animals, rats, feces, loaded trash cans, garbage, 50 gallon barrels filled with lord knows what and engine parts into the bay? Will you be back next summer to write about the algae in the bays, trash on the beaches and inland stench?
I didn't propose the idea
But if the state is OK with letting the city dump the snow RIGHT NEXT TO THE HARBOR, I'm not sure how much difference it's going to make it the city just pushes it over the edge instead of artfully crafting snow mountains so it can all drain into the harbor when it melts over the next few months.
Prove it
There's zero substance to Levy's claims. Dumping is faster than hauling and pushing? Does he think the same truck driver loads, transports, and spreads the snow? Why is taking snow from the truck to a farm faster than from te truck to the water? In the minutes of efficiency saved, he is suggesting that truck driver would have already been on his way back with another full load?
I don't see the argument. Are there streets that need help still? Yes. But dumping the snow onto land versus water doesn't change how fast it's being loaded and transported.
It could greatly increase the
It could greatly increase the number of dump sites and therefore decrease the time the snow spends in transport. I am not sure what the right answer is but I am pretty sure it's not writing off Levy out of hand.
Increase??
Snow farms can be anywhere there's a field we don't want to see until July.
Dump trucks can't just back into the harbor and unload their snow, they need a ledge/dock/pier they can line up with and dump if it's supposed to go in the water. And then how fast do you think all that snow will melt into the harbor if you're dumping truck loads into the same spot (like ice cubes into a cup)? So, you're going to need a way to agitate it out into open water or use a barge to drag it out into deeper water before somehow dumping it off the barge. If you're dumping on land, you can just open the back, tilt and drive forwards and leave it behind for the front-end loaders to push around.
I bet you it would take longer for a dump truck to empty into the water than it would onto a snow farm including getting to an "approved" dumping spot on the water.
So, if that's the case, we're not saving time. We're not saving the environment in any way by dumping into the water. What would we be saving exactly? A few man hours for the guy in the bulldozer at the snow farm?
One more thing
If you have to farm snow put in next to the largest body of water possible. Moving it away from the ocean will release the same contaminants in a smaller freshwater ecosystem causing much more harm.
Gridlock
At least when we dumped the snow into the harbor we didn't have the gridlock and impassable streets like we do now. The City would love to dump the snow in the harbor, but they are too dumb and too cheap to do so. Winter is not over, another blizzard and they may have to change their minds.
We also didn't have as much snow
We also had more reliable and extensive public transit, fewer cars and less snow.
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/climate/bossnw.shtml
There is a way
It would take just a bit of engineering. An apparatus like a giant wood chipper only less aggressive. The snow from the streets goes into it and is mashed and forced through a screen to get out all the cones and chairs. The snow then goes into a portion of the Harbor which is sequestered by a floating boom. The snow melts and any oil or plastic rises to the top to be held by the boom and recovered by a skimmer. The bottom layers of the holding area are mixed into the warmer bottom layers of the larger Harbor by underwater fans so the water in the enclosure stays warm enough to melt snow at a decent rate.
Wait ... wait I have a design
Wait ... wait I have a design too. Machine in which seawater is injected into the snow, melting it, the resultant dirty water then filtered before exhausting into the harbor.
Any of you patent attorneys?
solid debris
Wait until it melts and go see these snow farms. Lawn chairs, plastics, dog shit, etc. Im no environment fruitcake, but I think they are doing it right.
No they're not
There's two huge piles of snow at my intersection that have been there almost two weeks now. The City is doing nothing, not doing it right.
They're not doing nothing
Unless you've been missing all those dump trucks full of snow that have been roaring throughout the city.
I wish it was done quicker, and I wish it was more complete (they work on streets, emphasize business districts and clogged main roads, with the snow the plow guys put at the ordinary intersections being almost an afterthought), but I know they're doing it.
Of course, we're also spending a boatload of money to move this stuff.
It's already being done in Salem and Marblehead
Salem and Marblehead have obtained waivers to dump snow in the ocean. I don't know whether or not I agree with it. I'm just here to let you know it's happening slightly up the coast.
I wish that Somerville would do likewise.
The law against dumping the snow into the ocean is ridiculous! The ocean is a huge, constantly-moving, endless of body of water, which, due, at least in part to its salinity and the fact that it is always moving, cleanses itself of toxic elements quite nicely. While I agree that dumping trash and oils, etc., has had rather disastrous results (witness the oil spills on the Gulf of Mexico and other places, as well as sea creatures being harmed by plastics, etc.,), snow could be dumped into the ocean without undue harm to the environment.
Thinking like that is why the
Thinking like that is why the harbor was a fetid dump by the 1990s and had to be cleaned up.
The harbor is not open ocean,
The harbor is not open ocean, and is not "always moving, cleanseing itself of toxic element(s)". Otherwise the Boston Harbor and Charles River Cleanups would have been a lot cheaper and quicker.
It actually is always moving.
It actually is always moving.
Technically, yes.
That doesn't mean that the Harbor "cleans itself" through tidal action. That was the "logic" behind the MDC releasing raw sewage into the outgoing tide.
We all know about how much that didn't work.
Never said it "cleans itself"
Never said it "cleans itself", just said it is always moving. Sure, things may be diluted but, the harbor does not clean itself.
This doesn't make sense:
This doesn't make sense:
"Walsh said the city is running out of room at its Franklin Park and South Boston waterfront snow farms and is now running snow melters at the waterfront site to try to make more room for snow. He said the city's begun talking to New York about possibly borrowing additional snow melters later in the week."
Er, why are they melting snow? Where does the snowmelt go? How much pollution is caused by hauling in those snow-melters and then running them? Doesn't it all go into the harbor anyway? Why not just do that with the previously cleaner snow in the first place - especially as all the south boston waterfront snow is going to end up in the harbor anyway? Seems like a pretty reasonable proposal to me in the face of unusual circumstances. By the way, the MA DEP has already approved dumping snow into the harbor for the town of Marblehead...
Melters are great
They filter out the crap that gets picked up with the snow and everything. The debate here is whether the liquid crap gets treated via the storm drains any better than if the snow went directly into the harbor. My gut is that the EPA thinks the storm drains do a better job.
But of course the melters are hella expensive. I say there's gotta be a cheaper way.
Maybe cities and towns here in the Commonwealth might be
better off digging deeper into their budgets and investing in some equipment such as snow melters, then. If desperate times call for desperate measures, this is one good example of that.
But
Would taxpayers want to fork out the money in case we have flukes like this again? Maybe, but they don't want to invest in the T, which is used all year long.
Mayor Walsh says Boston may dump snow into harbor
Story here
Other places to dump snow?
I've walked past a number of urban sites surrounded by 3', 4' or sometimes taller chain link fence that are not being used for local snow dumping. One example: a firehouse with a large adjacent grassy lot (part of the firehouse property). Three feet of smooth, pristine snow. One bulldozer can knock down a piece of fence and pile up snow from the entire surrounding neighborhood. Cost to replace the fence and, maybe, resod the lot in April or May? Cheap and fast compared to what we're going through now.
Running heavy equipment over long distances, adding to traffic and pollution is time wasting, polluting, and costly. Fence repair is a bargain.
Consider also: local parks, idle construction sites with large areas not yet under development. Just bulldoze the fences and start dumping.
What about grassy areas or wooded areas (usually there for noise abatement) adjacent to the highways? Make snow mountains every mile or two along the highways.