To the editor:

A few comments to follow up on earlier letters to the editor regarding King’s Beach:

An outfall extension would send untreated waste into the harbor. This proposal would likely get tied up in litigation for years.

Ultraviolet radiation treatment would be difficult unless the capacity of the equipment matched the scale of the storm surge volumes when the waste and storm combined flow peak. Imagine designing an oven to bake a loaf of bread the size of a bus as it traveled at 30 miles per hour. It is possible, just not practical.

My earlier letters suggested evaluating the use of local species of oysters. The oysters would be for treatment, not for commercial harvesting. We could cultivate these in burlap bags small enough to lift, strung on lines between lobster buoys ready to be placed off the beach. Maybe set up a temporary seeding area behind the former Porthole restaurant site in those shallow waters. An oyster will process 30 gallons of water per day and can produce 200,000 eggs. The population would balance with the food supply.

Northeastern University subject matter experts should have a seat at the table discussing these options. Building oyster reefs would treat the bioburden and also create a barrier to reduce the energy of storm surges.

One other item previously mentioned was the construction of a square structure, pointed out to sea, to deflect large waves from impacting the free flow from the outfalls from Lynn and Swampscott.

Steven Petersen