Exhibit Design for the Metropolitan Waterworks Museum
Team 3
Joyce Cheng
Brooke Markt
Elma Meskovic
Shawn Quinn
Senior Environmental Seminar
Professor Gabrielle Davis
01 May 2014
Length: 26 Pages 1 | Page
Across from Boston College, on the opposite end of the Chestnut Hill Reservoir, stands the Metropolitan Waterworks Museum. Just short of reaching the one hundred year mark, the Romanesque building has long functioned as the High­Service Pumping Station for the city of Boston as well as the surrounding communities. The three majestic steam engines enclosed by the museum’s walls allowed for the growth of Boston by supplying it, and its residents, with clean water. Despite its closure in the mid­1970s, the building’s significance persisted, encouraging a group of neighbors and community members to come together in 1991 in hopes of transforming it into a museum. In March of 2011, this goal was finally reached when the building opened for the first time as a museum.1 Today, the Metropolitan Waterworks Museum is committed to its goal of educating young elementary and middle school students, community members, and curious visitors on various topics, such as public health, architecture, engineering, and social history. Recently the museum has collaborated with local middle schools by offering tours to all of the sixth grade classes at Brighton and Brookline Public Schools, establishing itself as an important educational resource for young students. In order to contribute further to the museum’s educational goals, our team took on the challenge of creating an exhibit targeted for sixth graders that would demonstrate the progression of water sanitation since the work of George Whipple, a local whose biological laboratory was the first one in the country to focus on biological water analysis. Our team worked closely with our mentor, Lauren Kaufmann, and two other museum staffers, Joseph Duggan and Matt O’Rourke, to create an exhibit that enables students to easily comprehend Whipple contributions to water sanitation and how sanitation has evolved. The two main questions that guided our project throughout the course of the semester were: 1) which type of exhibit format would best grasp the attention of sixth graders? 2) Which topics would need to be covered to demonstrate the progression of water sanitation since the time of George Whipple? Our group began by taking a tour of the museum to better understand the information already presented and determine what type of display would work best in such an environment. Due to the limited amount of space, we collectively decided that our display would need to be small enough to fit on a tabletop. It was also important that our exhibit be movable so that it could be moved in and out of the exhibition room should the museum require the space for special events. 1
Senior Environmental Seminar. “GE 580 Team Research Projects” Handout. Spring 2014
2 | Page
After committing some time to visiting museums in and around the Boston area to draw ideas, our team contemplated creating a flipbook as our exhibit. Despite it being easy to handle and engaging for young students, we decided against this option as it would prove difficult to manufacture and would leave little space to capture the complex ideas involved in answering our main question. The next idea we contemplated consisted of a microscope station, which would actively engage students in the identification of various water contaminants. However, we ran into several issues with this option that made it unfeasible. Mainly it would require constant supervision because the microscope slides could be dropped or easily misplaced and obtaining the microscopes would cost more than the museum was looking to spend. After much discussion and research, we finally settled on an interactive, four­sided, rotating wooden block resembling one found at the Museum of Science (Appendix V). While this display may be difficult to manufacture, its manageable size, low­weight, minimal required supervision, and large surface area to demonstrate complex ideas with words and figures made this an attractive option. These characteristics combined with access to a volunteer carpenter who was interested in contributing to this project made this the most feasible exhibit choice.
During the time we were deciding on the exhibit structure, we also decided on the actual content that would be necessary to answer the question of our project: how far has water sanitation come since George Whipple? After touring the Waterworks Museum we identified potential topics to research that would demonstrate the evolution of water sanitation. Our group settled on researching four different, yet congruent, topics­­one for each side of the rotating display that would enhance the information already presented in the Museum and correspond to what sixth grade students were learning in their classrooms. Elma researched the origins of water testing techniques, highlighting George Whipple’s contributions to the field (Appendix I). Joyce collected information on the various types of contaminants found in the water supply that have the potential to affect human health (Appendix II). Brooke focused on the various types of water treatment processes utilized in the United States that provide the population with clean water (Appendix III). Shawn concentrated on the history of federal water regulations and its evolution since the time of Whipple. (Appendix IV). By choosing these four topics we were able to combine general information about water sanitation in the United States with specific­­and more relatable­­facts concerning Boston and the surrounding communities. These four topics, while individually completed, came together to provide a 3 | Page
comprehensive understanding of water sanitation from past to present. After putting all of our research together, we realized that the four parts were very interconnected and that if one part was removed, the project would be incomplete. George Whipple dedicated much of his time to water testing and water sanitation in order to combat waterborne contaminants that posed a risk to the health of the community during his time. These methods and techniques have been modified up to the present time to best deal with the ever­evolving range of contaminants. These techniques, along with the contaminants they address, are closely regulated by the federal authorities. Thus, by touching on each of the four topics, our team was able to craft an excellent guide to the progression of water sanitation since Whipple’s time. Once each of the four topics was researched by the respective team member, our group worked to condense the lengthy information down to four 250­word, age­appropriate blurbs containing the most important facts we found. We settled on this limit for two reasons: 1) the compact rotating exhibit was limited in display space and 2) because we thought it would be best for our target audience if we kept the text to a minimum. After condensing the research for the display, our blurbs underwent a series of revisions until we and the museum staff agreed on a understandable and easy to read final product appropriate for middle­schoolers. Our final exhibit display was limited by several factors. Among the many barriers we faced such as museum restrictions on display exhibits, lack of understanding of effective exhibit design, lack of funding, and limited available resources, it was the construction of the actual display that proved most problematic. No one in the group or among the museum staff had the right tools or resources to build the rotating exhibit we had imagined, thus preventing us from constructing our desired end product before the end of the semester. While the exhibit has not yet been produced, each member of the group has sent their finalized copies of the exhibit’s content to our collaborative team at the museum in digital form (Appendix VI). We hope that the team at the museum will go ahead and contact the volunteer carpenter to finalize the semester’s project by creating the physical exhibit before the school­year starts and the school tours commence. Our hope is that this end product will further promote the museum’s mission by acting as an educational resource for middle­school students as well as other curious visitors seeking to learn more about how water sanitation techniques and water sanitation have changed since George Whipple.
4 | Page
Appendix I George Whipple
On March 2, 1866 the world was bestowed with a man who would become a giant of sanitation and public health and pave the way for future research and improvements in water sanitation. George Chandler Whipple, born in New Boston, New Hampshire, spent most of his childhood in Chelsea, a suburb of Boston, where his father ran a hardware store.2 It was while attending Chelsea High School that Whipple became acquainted with his future wife, Mary Rayner, with whom he would have a daughter, Marion, and a son, Joseph. Having graduated from Chelsea High, Whipple took up the study of Civil Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Staying true to his passions, Whipple decided during his senior year of college to pursue a career in sanitation. After receiving his degree in civil engineering and briefly spending some time teaching at MIT’s Summer School of Engineering, Whipple took a position at the Chestnut Hill Biological Laboratory, the first laboratory in the United States to focus on biological water analysis. Working alongside his research team, he took samples from the nearby Chestnut Hill Reservoir and carefully studied its contents, focusing on its temperature and the various waterborne contaminants, including bacteria.3 Concluding his role as director of the Chestnut Hill Biological Laboratory, which lasted from 1889 to 1897, George Whipple accepted a post as director of the Brooklyn Laboratory located near the Mount Prospect Reservoir in New York City. Assuming this title until 1904, this young man quickly extended his reputation, becoming responsible not only for the cleanliness of all the drinking water in the city, but also of the entire state of New York. Two years later, The Microscopy of Drinking Water was published. The textbook was the first of its kind to deal exclusively with microbes that threatened and poisoned drinking water.4 Whipple filled its pages with images and information about the many microorganisms he came across while examining water samples from the Brooklyn and Chestnut Hill Reservoirs over the years. That same year, Whipple became an elected member of the American Public Health Association. In 1904, Whipple joined Allen Hazen in a consulting firm venture in which they would serve clients throughout the United States from their offices in New York City.5 2
“George Chandler Whipple.” (1925). Jour. American Water Works Association. 13:1, 93-4.
“George Chandler Whipple: A Pioneer of Public Health” Metropolitan Waterworks Museum Archives
4
IBID
5
“George Chandler Whipple.” (1925). Jour. American Water Works Association. 13:1, 93-4.
3
5 | Page
In 1906, Whipple took a tour of several European facilities where he was introduced to the possibility of using various forms of chlorine to disinfect drinking water. After his return to the United States, he quickly found himself under verbal attack for suggesting consideration of the use of chemicals in the disinfection of drinking water. He was found advocating the “need, therefore, of reconsidering some of the old views, regarding the use of disinfectants, and of investigating them carefully to find what are their practical dangers, their merits, and their cost.”6 That not many people were prepared to hear this at the time explained much of the outrage that ensued. During the period between 1907 and 1911, Whipple worked at the Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute as the consulting professor of water supply and sewage disposal. During this time, Whipple also participated in the Jersey City trials concerning the new water supply on the Rockaway River. The water supply was accused of being contaminated with bacteria and contaminants from sewage discharges in the watershed above the reservoir­­ an alarming matter considering that the only form of treatment the supply received was detention and sedimentation. During these trials Whipple ironically attacked any proposal allowing the use of chlorine of line in the treatment process, arguing instead for the construction of sewers in the watershed and the development of a treatment plant that would discharge the treated wastes below the reservoir.7 Even more ironic was the fact that while he did not allow for chemical disinfectants in this case, Whipple did influence the disinfectant method in Poughkeepsie, NY, where chlorine of line was added to raw water in the pump before passing through a sedimentation basin.8 In 1911, Whipple’s career took another turn as he became the Professor of Sanitary Engineering at Harvard University and MIT.9 Adding still to his resume, Whipple, alongside William T. Sedgwick and Milton J. Rosenau, founded the Harvard Technology School of Public Health in 1913, which was later renamed the Harvard School of Public Health. In the summer of 1917, once again making his way to Europe and extending his influence beyond the United States, Whipple accepted a post as Deputy Commissioner for the American Red Cross in Russia. He emphasized Russia’s desperate need for medicine, ambulances, surgical tools, and superior water sanitation procedures. In 6
George C. Whipple, “Disinfection as a Means of Water Purification,” The Surveyor and Municipal and Country
Engineer 30, (July-December 1906): 413.
7
McGuire, Michael J. (2013). The Chlorine Revolution: Water Disinfection and the Fight to Save Lives. Denver,
CO:American Water Works Association.
8
Harding, Robert J. 1909. “Disinfecting Water at Poughkeepsie.” Municipal Journal and Engineer. 26:12(March 24,
1909): 484v
9
“George Chandler Whipple: A Pioneer of Public Health” Metropolitan Waterworks Museum Archives
6 | Page
1920, Whipple expanded his research to the study of typhoid in Romania and served as Chief of the Department of Sanitation after joining the Red Cross in Switzerland. While in Switzerland, he succeeded in persuading Swiss officials to open the first school of public health in the country.10 Considering these accomplishments, his advances with water sanitation, research on waterborne contaminants, and influence in generating a greater emphasis on public health, it becomes all the more appropriate that Whipple’s name was added to the American Water Works Association Water Industry Hall of Fame in 1973.11 His sudden death on November 27, 192412 did little to limit George Whipple’s legacy and enduring significance, as is visible by the continued use of his version of the Secchi disk as the standard in water quality studies and limnology investigations.13 Water Testing
While the study of microscopic organisms dates back to the 17th Century as a direct result of the compound microscope, it was not until 1850 that studying these organisms in drinking water was recognized as having great sanitary implications. By 1887, however, the state of Massachusetts, through its Board of Health, began undertaking the process of systematically examining its entire water supply. Two years later, the Water Board of the City of Boston established the biological laboratory at the Chestnut Hill Reservoir, the same laboratory in which George Whipple would later lead his research team, with the aim of studying the biological composition of water from various sources.14 It was found that a complete sanitary examination of a water sample involved physical, microscopic, bacteriological, and chemical examination. Through such examinations, an examiner could determine whether a source had the potential to be considered hazardous to health upon consumption, unpalatable, or unfit for domestic and industrial purposes.15 10
“George Chandler Whipple: A Pioneer of Public Health” Metropolitan Waterworks Museum Archives
American Water Works Association. “Water Industry Hall of Fame.” Last modified 2012.
http://www.awwa.org/membership/get-involved/awards/award-details/articleid/187/water-industry-hall-of-fam
e.aspx
12
“George Chandler Whipple: A Pioneer of Public Health” Metropolitan Waterworks Museum Archives
13
“George C. Whipple,” Wikipedia, https://www.google.com/#q=george+chandler+whipple, (February 17, 2014)
14
George Chandler Whipple, “Historical,” in The Microscopy of Drinking Water (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1908), 1-7.
15
George Chandler Whipple, “The Object of the Microscopical Examination,” in The Microscopy of Drinking Water
(New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1908), 8-14.
11
7 | Page
The very first testing method practiced by the State’s Board of Health in examining the many organisms found in the water was one suggested by G. H. Parker. His suggested method consisted of collecting the various microorganisms, bacteria, and any other waterborne contaminants in a cloth attached at the end of a glass funnel, through which a sample of water would pass through. A small part of the sample would then be removed from the cloth and placed on a microscopic slide by blowing downwards upon the cloth with a petite glass tube. The limited quantity of water and contaminants that would make it onto the slide would then be studied under a microscope for further analysis. However, this method proved to be limiting as it failed to produce accurate quantitative results. By the time Whipple started research at the laboratory, the method of examination used, even by Whipple himself, was one foreshadowed in the work of a man named Mr. A. L. Kean. What became referred to as the “sand method” involved filtering 100 cubic centimeters of a water sample through some coarse sand supported by a wire plug at the bottom of a glass funnel. After the filtration process was over and the plug removed, the sand would be washed in a wash­glass filled with only one cubic centimeter of water in order to separate the organisms from the sand. A portion of this sample would then be placed under a microscope for study and would be used to approximate the number of organisms originally present in the water.16 The four most important and most widely used water testing methods during Whipple’s time were the Sedgwick­Rafter Method, the Plankton Net Method, the Plankton Pump Method, and the Planktonokrit. Among these, the Sedgwick­Rafter method, devised in 1889 by William T. Sedgwick and George W. Rafter as an improved version of the sand method, proved to be the most practical and efficient in terms of sanitary water analysis. This method was also the one George Whipple commonly used when he was testing various water samples. In many ways an improvement of the original version, the Sedgwick­Rafter Method consisted of a larger cell that was bound by a brass rim and had an area of 1000 square millimeters that was ruled by a dividing engine into 1000 squares. As a continuation of Kean’s sand method, the water sample would be filtered through sand, which was then moved to a cell to separate the organisms and then placed under a microscope for examination. While this method has likewise been the subject of even further modifications, the essential character has remained static. In 1889, Whipple suggested a unit for this method to correctly estimate the amount of amorphous matter in 16
George Chandler Whipple, “Historical,” in The Microscopy of Drinking Water (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1908), 1-7.
8 | Page
a sample. This standard unit, represented by the area of a square that has twenty microns in each of its four sides, was expanded to include organisms and was adopted by the Boston Water Works and elsewhere.17
The other three methods, although popular at the time, were not used as much by Whipple. The Plankton Net method consisted of a net that was to be lowered to a desired depth of a body of water and drawn to the surface. As the net was drawn up, the water would be filtered through it. On the surface, the organisms would be detached from the bolting­cloth in the net by a stream of water that would wash them into a bucket. The samples would then be transported to a laboratory for examination. The amount of plankton was usually determined by chemical analysis in conjunction with estimating volume, measuring weight, and enumerating organisms. The Plankton Pump consisted of a force­pump that delivered a sufficient sample of water with each stroke. The water was carried through a hose to a filtering­bucket in which it would pass through a cylinder of wire gauze that would then capture the plankton and organisms. Finally, the Planktonokrit resembled a centrifugal machine. The water sample would be placed into two funnel­shaped receptacles which were attached to an upright shaft. The shaft would then be carried through a series of geared wheels resulting in a rapid revolution that would cause throw the organisms outwards, only to be collected from the necks of the funnel later.
18
As far as water treatment was concerned, Whipple had much to say about the practices of his time. He argued that the slow sand or mechanical filtration were the best options when the number of microscopic organisms in algae­laden water was limited. Sand filtration was even more preferred over mechanical when water contained microscopic organisms since a lower rate of filtration was used. Sand filtration would usually reduce the odor of algae­laden water substantially, albeit not completely. Whipple cited house filters to be expensive and disappointing despite their popularity among citizens. He denied their recommendation for sanitary reasons, stating that even if they did remove all the microscopic organisms present in the water, some of the odors would persist and exacerbate the poor quality of it. Aeration as an effective water treatment was also heavily criticized as Whipple did not find a strong correlation between an increasing oxygen content of the water and the decrease in the growth 17
George Chandler Whipple, The Microscopy of Drinking Water (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1908), 1-40.
George Chandler Whipple, “Methods of Microscopical Examination,” in The Microscopy of Drinking Water (New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 1908), 15-40.
18
9 | Page
of microscopic organisms. Whipple mentioned a method­­ new during the time in which he was writing The Microscopy of Drinking Water­­suggested by Dr. Geo T. Moore in which sulphates of copper, possessing powerful toxic properties for the organisms, would be added to the water. Whipple questioned its success in reservoirs during the time and concluded that further study was needed.19 Appendix II
Water Contaminants
Drinking water is normally colorless, tasteless, odorless, and transparent. Any change in those factors may be a sign of water contamination. However, the quality of our drinking supply cannot be ensured by simple observations collected with our senses; there is a whole range of contaminants that can taint drinking water without altering its color, taste, odor, or appearance. The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets health­based standards for the following groups of waterborne contaminants: microorganisms, disinfectants and their byproducts, organic and inorganic chemicals, and radionuclides.20 Local water authorities also have the power to implement additional standards as deemed necessary to protect their water supply.21
The microorganisms that water authorities must concern themselves with are those of pathogenic nature, including bacteria, parasites, and viruses.22 Due to the microscopic nature of these pathogens, their presence in water cannot be determined by the naked eye. This combined with the ability of even trace amounts of a pathogen to infect an individual and cause illness makes regular water analysis essential.23 The health costs of becoming infected by microscopic pathogens in water was no clearer than in the case of the bacteria Legionella, which caused several deaths before its discovery. While that is an extreme example, it illustrates how devastating these illnesses can be and highlights the need for routine water testing. Water authorities, such as the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority 19
George Chandler Whipple, “Methods of Treating Waters Which Contain Microscopic Organisms,” in The
Microscopy of Drinking Water (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1908), 153-159.
20
Environmental Protection Agency. "Drinking Water Contaminants." Last modified June 3, 2013.
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/
21
IBID
22
Environmental Protection Agency. "Basic Information about Pathogens and Indicators in Drinking Water." Last
modified December 13, 2013. http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/pathogens.cfm
23
Environmental Protection Agency. "Basic Information about Pathogens and Indicators in Drinking Water." Last
modified December 13, 2013. http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/pathogens.cfm
10 | Page
(MWRA), also monitor water supplies for protozoan parasites, Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia, that are found in water contaminated by human or animal feces and can cause gastrointestinal 25
illnesses.24 Fecal contamination can also lead to viral contamination of the water as many viruses live in the intestines of infected humans and animals.26 The EPA has determined that no amount of pathogenic microorganisms can be found in the water supply if it is to be deemed safe for use.27
Monitoring water supplies for microscopic contaminants is important, but disinfection of the water is also an approved of method to keep public water supplies safe. Unfortunately, the use of disinfectants can exacerbate the issue of pathogenic contamination as pathogens can become resistant to a disinfectant over time.28 Additionally, disinfectants—and their byproducts—can become water contaminants in their own right if they are present in water above the Maximum Contaminant Level 30
(MCL) that marks the threshold after which water is no longer safe to drink.29 Common disinfectants include chlorine, chloramine, and ozone—all of which produce harmful byproducts when they react with each other or with other materials found in water.31 While the contaminants in this category are acceptable in water to a certain extent, long­term exposure at levels above what is sanctioned by the EPA can affect various body systems and lead to cancer.32
The materials that these disinfectants react with in water include organic and inorganic chemicals. While the product of these reactions can have devastating effects, the organic and inorganic chemicals are harmful even without being transformed. These organic and inorganic chemicals can 24
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. "Potential Contaminants Tested for in the MWRA Water System."
Last modified July 12, 2012. http://WWW.mwra.state.ma.us/watertesting/watertestlist.htm
25
Environmental Protection Agency. "Basic Information about Pathogens and Indicators in Drinking Water." Last
modified December 13, 2013. http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/pathogens.cfm
26
IBID
27
Environmental Protection Agency. "Drinking Water Contaminants." Last modified June 3, 2013.
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/
28
Environmental Protection Agency. "Basic Information about Disinfectants in Drinking Water: Chloramine,
Chlorine and Chlorine Dioxide." Last modified December 13, 2013.
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/disinfectants.cfm
29
IBID
30
Environmental Protection Agency. “Basic Information about Disinfection Byproducts in Drinking Water: Total
Trihalomethanes, Haloacetic Acids, Bromate, and Chlorite.” Last modified December 13, 2013.
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/disinfectionbyproducts.cfm
31
Environmental Protection Agency. "Basic Information about Disinfectants in Drinking Water: Chloramine,
Chlorine and Chlorine Dioxide." Last modified December 13, 2013.
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/disinfectants.cfm
32
Environmental Protection Agency. “Basic Information about Disinfection Byproducts in Drinking Water: Total
Trihalomethanes, Haloacetic Acids, Bromate, and Chlorite.” Last modified December 13, 2013.
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/disinfectionbyproducts.cfm
11 | Page
disrupt the normal functions of the body causing everything from kidney and liver damage to blood problems such as anemia.33 The EPA provides a comprehensive list of these organic and inorganic contaminants, most of which are considered carcinogenic under high levels of exposure.34 Several of these harmful chemicals leach into the water supply from natural deposits in the earth, but natural deposits are minor sources of contamination compared to industrial activities.35 The main sources of these contaminants are chemical plants; leached herbicide, insecticide, and fertilizer from agricultural operations; petroleum refineries; and factories involved with the production of everything from glass to electronics.36 Such contaminants are not the only pollutants that are a result of our industrialized society. Radionuclides, unstable atoms that emit energy as rays and particles, are also a threat to water supplies.
37
These radionuclides include uranium, alpha and beta particles, and isotopes of radium.38 Nuclear power plants as well as the shipping and meat industry, use radioactive materials daily and are strictly monitored by government agencies to ensure that any radioactive waste is disposed of properly.39 Because these industries are closely monitored, the majority of radionuclide contaminants originate from rocks and soil that contain elements of a radioactive nature.40 Although the environment makes exposure to minimal amounts of radiation unavoidable, ingesting such particles above their MCL can lead to kidney problems and increase the risk of cancer.41
The above contaminant groups are specifically outlined in the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) and are federally regulated by the EPA. While the NPDWR addresses an impressive list of contaminants, it is by no means comprehensive. The EPA, with help from the States, monitors a range of unregulated contaminants that may require federal regulations in the future.42 In 33
Environmental Protection Agency. "Drinking Water Contaminants." Last modified June 3, 2013.
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/
34
IBID
35
IBID
36
IBID
37
Environmental Protection Agency. “Basic Information about Radionuclides in Drinking Water.” Last modified
December 3, 2013. http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/radionuclides.cfm
38
IBID
39
Environmental Protection Agency. Radiation: Facts, Risks, and Realities. April 2014. Accessed April 26, 2014.
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/402-k-10-008.pdf
40
Environmental Protection Agency. "Drinking Water Contaminants." Last modified June 3, 2013.
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/
41
IBID
42
Environmental Protection Agency. "Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program." Last modified September 10,
2012. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/index.cfm
12 | Page
addition to the contaminants mentioned above and the unregulated contaminants the EPA is researching, the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA) tests for pharmaceuticals, hormones, and endocrine disruptors—chemical contaminants that are otherwise unregulated due to insufficient information about their health effects.43 While not federally mandated to monitor water supplies for these contaminants, the MWRA has identified these additional contaminant groups as harmful to the health of their citizens.
Pharmaceuticals are identified as veterinary drugs and prescription or over­the­counter drugs.44 Acetaminophen and ibuprofen are among the several pharmaceuticals that the MWRA tests for.45 These drugs reach the water supply through natural human excretion and through improper disposal of medication.46 While trace amounts of these drugs have been found in water systems nationwide, they 48
remain federally unregulated until their effect on the body and environment are better understood.47
Pharmaceutical chemicals are not the only unregulated chemicals that the MWRA is concerned with. Estrogen and testosterone as well as dieldrin, and DEET are among the many hormones and endocrine disruptors that the MWRA tests for.49 Hormones such as estrogen are thought to contaminate water supplies through the increased use of birth control pills while endocrine disruptors may originate from detergents, plastics, and food.50 The threat these chemicals present to humans or to the environment is still under investigation, but recent studies have shown that increased estrogen levels in the water can feminize the fish, affecting the reproductive balance.51 Although these chemicals have only 43
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. "Potential Contaminants Tested for in the MWRA Water System."
Last modified July 12, 2012. http://WWW.mwra.state.ma.us/watertesting/watertestlist.htm
44
Environmental Protection Agency. "Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs)." Last modified
February 29, 2012. http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/
45
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. "Potential Contaminants Tested for in the MWRA Water System."
Last modified July 12, 2012. http://WWW.mwra.state.ma.us/watertesting/watertestlist.htm
46
Environmental Protection Agency. "Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs)." Last modified
October 28, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/basic2.html
47
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. "Pharmaceuticals and Drinking Water." Last modified March 23,
2010. http://WWW.mwra.state.ma.us/04water/html/pharmaceuticals.htm
48
Environmental Protection Agency. "Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs)."Last modified
October 28, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/basic2.html
49
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. "Pharmaceuticals and Drinking Water." Last modified March 23,
2010. http://WWW.mwra.state.ma.us/04water/html/pharmaceuticals.htm
50
Environmental Protection Agency. "Ecosystems & Environment: Wastewater Treatment." Last modified April 8,
2013. http://www.epa.gov/research/endocrinedisruption/wastewater.htm
51
IBID
13 | Page
been found in some water supplies, it can be extrapolated that their presence will only increase as our society becomes more industrialized and medicalized.
The contaminants addressed above, both regulated and unregulated by the EPA, represent categories of pollutants that are or may be harmful to human health. However, the EPA also put forth National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWR) for contaminants that are not health hazards. Although the contaminants listed in the NSDWR are not harmful to human health, they may have negative aesthetic, cosmetic, or technical effects.52 These secondary regulations are guidelines—recommendations that local water authorities can use to ensure that their drinking supply not only is safe, but looks safe as well. By voluntarily adhering to the NSDWR, local water authorities can protect the peace of mind of citizens that use the public water supply.
The aesthetic effects that the NSDWR seeks to address include odor, taste, color, and foaming of the water.53 Although evaluations of odor and taste, and in some cases of color, may vary by individual, these aesthetics are still useful in assessing the treatment system that the water undergoes.54 If the disinfection technique is not efficacious, the disinfectants or their byproducts may leave the water with a disagreeable taste, smell, or appearance.55 Such changes in the characteristics of water may also be the result of technical effects such as the corrosion of pipes or the buildup of mineral deposits or sedimentation in general.56 While not harmful to human health, such changes in aesthetics may indicate the presence of dissolved solids that may include chloride, aluminum, iron, and copper.57
While changes in the taste, smell, or appearance of the drinking water may be alarming, changes to the self as a result of drinking the water may be even more upsetting. Such cosmetic changes may include discoloration of the skin or of the teeth as a result of the ingestion of silver or excessive amounts of fluoride, respectively.58
52
Environmental Protection Agency. "Drinking Water Contaminants." Last modified June 3, 2013.
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/
53
Environmental Protection Agency. “Secondary Drinking Water Regulations-Guidance for Nuisance Chemicals.”
Last modified May 31, 2013. http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/secondarystandards.cfm
54
IBID
55
IBID
56
Environmental Protection Agency. “Secondary Drinking Water Regulations-Guidance for Nuisance Chemicals.”
Last modified May 31, 2013. http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/secondarystandards.cfm
57
IBID
58
IBID
14 | Page
With such a diverse and extensive assortment of water contaminants, it is no easy task to monitor the quality of the public water supply. However, the improvements in water sanitation techniques that have progressed in tandem with societal advancements have been able to ensure public safety.
Appendix III
Water Treatment Process Since the work of George Whipple, the Federal government has introduced many regulations to the way in which the population receives water to their taps due to the ever­growing information regarding contaminants hosted in our freshwater supplies. Because of these regulations, public water treatment systems that serve to ensure clean and safe drinking water are quite extensive, each with specific characteristics based upon many factors including the size of the system, the source of water, and the quality of this source.59 All water treatment systems, like the one found at the Chestnut Hill Reservoir, can each be defined by the general water treatment process that requires many steps for the maintenance of clean water. Each water treatment system differs in specificity based on its service size, the water source, which can be either ground or surface source, and the quality of these sources. But each Public Water Systems, or PWSs, can be defined as one of two differing types of systems, all of which are required to serve at least 25 people per day for a minimum of 60 days throughout the year. The second main type of PWS is Non­Community Water Systems, which serve a varying population of people year­round, such as people who do not live in their homes year­round, people visiting an area, or school districts with their own water supplies. This Non­Community Water System can be further broken down into two types of systems, including the Non­Transient Non­Community Water System and the Transient Non­Community Water System. There are about 20,000 Non­Transient Non­Community Water Systems in the country, each of which serves the same people for more than six months per year but not for the continuous, year­round cycle. Many of these systems are used to supply water to schools within communities that require their own water supply. On the other hand, rest areas, campgrounds, or other establishments that serve the public, but not the same people for more than six months, utilize Transient 59
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking Water Treatment. N.p.: EPA, 2004. Print.
15 | Page
Non­Community Water Systems. There are about 89,000 of these systems nationally, but since these systems are consistently serving an ever­changing population, they are monitored less frequently, have looser regulations, and search mostly for contaminants such as microbiologicals and nitrate materials that can cause severe and immediate health effects. These larger scale water supply systems, such as Transient Non­Community Water Systems serve about 68% of the population and utilize rivers, lakes, and reservoirs as water sources for their treatment processes.60 Although Community Water Systems and Non­Community Water Systems serve differing populations, both types of water systems are expected to meet the same federal and state regulations to ensure safe drinking water. As discussed earlier in Appendix II, each water system monitors for about 83 contaminants including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), synthetic organic compounds (SOCs), inorganic compounds (IOCs), radionuclides, and microbial organisms (including bacteria).61 Groundwater systems, used mostly for Community Water Systems, can satisfy these regulations without applying most of the treatments, while surface water systems, such as rivers, lakes, and reservoirs are exposed to direct weather runoff, atmospheric contaminants, and other unanticipated pathogens.62 Thus, the large scale water supply systems that utilize surface water sources, such as the Chestnut Hill Reservoir, each follow a general water treatment process outline, known as a “treatment train” as a way to ensure that these exposed water systems follows federal regulations.63 60
IBID
IBID
62
"Water Treatment Process." United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Protection Agency, 6
Mar. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2014. <http://water.epa.gov/learn/kids/drinkingwater/watertreatmentprocess.cfm>.
61
63
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking Water Treatment. N.p.: EPA, 2004. Print.
16 | Page
Figure 1 Permitted for use of exhibit, courtesy of Denver Water Most treatment trains follow a series of steps that include the major processes of screening, coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, disinfection, and storage. The image above, figure 1, acquired from Denver Water through a permitted image use contract process, provides a better illustration of the general outline of the water treatment process.64 In the first few steps, raw water in the reservoir or lake source is drawn from the source into the plant through intake structures.65 In this, large debris, such as tree logs, is screened out and unable to enter the intake crib. It is in this intake crib that the invasive species, known to us as zebra mussels, often cause clogging as they are dropped into surface waters by birds and attach to the intake screens. Thus, divers are frequently sent down to remove mussels built up on the intake screens. The water then flows through a second set of protective bar screens that are in place to prevent smaller debris, like fish, vegetation, and garbage, to go forward in the treatment process. After most observable objects are cleared from the water, the raw water is lifted by low lift pump wells to continue the rest of the treatment process, in which the water flow is aided by gravity.66 64
Denver Water. "The Treatment Process." Infographic. Denver Water. N.p., 2014. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.
"Water Treatment Process." United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental
Protection Agency, 6 Mar. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.
<http://water.epa.gov/learn/kids/drinkingwater/watertreatmentprocess.cfm>.
65
66
"Water Treatment Process." United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Protection Agency, 6
Mar. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2014. <http://water.epa.gov/learn/kids/drinkingwater/watertreatmentprocess.cfm>.
17 | Page
In the second major stage of water treatment, disinfection and pre­oxidation typically occurs in which disinfectants are added to the raw water to disinfect and cancel any tastes or odors based on the biochemical characteristics of the water. Within this stage, chemical coagulants are injected into the raw water causing electrochemical charges in the water, which attracts all of the small particles that are still remaining in the water to clump together into larger particles named “floc”. This process is referred to as “initial charge neutralization” which keeps the composite floc to continue to attract small particles but remain suspended for the time being.67 The still raw water then flows into a mixing tank where the flocculated water is spun and floc particles compound into larger particles with a larger mass. As the mass of each floc compound grows, the particles begin to sink to the bottom of the mixing tank due to gravitational forces, where they stay as the clearer water flows into large sedimentation basins where the water flow speed gets calmer, allowing dense floc to settle at the bottom of the basins. The settled floc is removed from the bottom of the basin and rejected as waste product as it is discharged into sewer systems.68 As little floc or particles are left in the water, the still­raw water flows into a media gravity filtration system, where the water is pressured through vertical layers of differing filter materials with the aid of gravity. Typically, these filter mediums range vertically from sand, activated carbon, to gravel and other synthetic materials and the differing sized material layers within the filtration system work to remove any last floc within the water.69
The water that flows entirely through the filtration gravity medias is then stored in clear wells, where disinfectants remain in the water as long as possible to break down any disease­causing organisms. It is during this step when supplemental chlorine may be added as a secondary disinfectant. Also, in some public water systems, fluoridation is also added to the treatment process in communities that believe in the benefits of public dental health.70 Finally, the now­treated water is pumped through high lift pump wells to other pumping stations with local distribution systems, such as storage reservoirs and water towers in order to ensure a stable water pressure for the community served and reduce the risk of water shortage emergencies.71 In 67
IBID
IBID
69
IBID
70
IBID
71
IBID
68
18 | Page
Massachusetts, the Water Resource Association maintains a series of covered tanks filled with treated water along with a series of back­up systems for use only during these emergencies when water demand is greater than the plant output. Such back­up system is that of the Chestnut Hill Reservoir, which stores up to 500 million gallons of back­up water.72 Understanding the process of water treatment today establishes where water treatment has come since the work of George Whipple. Since Whipple was such a prominent local figure in terms of spearheading water treatment, it is important for local sixth grade students to really understand where the United States has come since Whipple’s time to ensure the safety of our drinking water. Appendix IV
The History of Federal Water Regulation Before the 1900’s little was done at the federal level to ensure public water safety because it was hard to prove a scientific link between diseases and contaminants. However as science has improved, legislation has usually followed to ensure public safety. In the mid 1850s water treatment plants begin to be built in certain cities after John Snow proved the cholera and typhoid outbreaks were caused by contaminated drinking wells.73 This was a small step but not many cities built or used effective cleaning techniques until 1960’s. 74 Another major public health issue was wastewater being discharged without any treatment. Some cities did build sewage treatment facilities but it was not the norm and there was no federal regulation of them until 1970’s.75 Thus, before 1899, all water sanitation and quality standards were under local jurisdiction with no federal intervention.
In 1899, Congress passed the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act which made it a misdemeanor to discharge refuse matter of any kind into the navigable waters, or tributaries of the United States without a permit.76 This was the first act to protect the environment in the U.S and arose 72
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. "Water Supply and Demand." MWRA Online. Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority, 15 Apr. 2014. Web. 30 Apr. 2014. <http://www.mwra.com/04water/html/wsupdate.htm>.
73
The History of Drinking Water Treatment. Rep. no. EPA-816-F-00-006. EPA, 1 Feb. 2000. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/consumer/pdf/hist.pdf
74
IBID
75
Primer for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems. Rep. no. EPA 832-R-04-001. 001st ed. Vol. 04. Washington
DC: Office of Wastewater Management, 2004. EPA. Web. 9 Apr. 2014.
http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/owm/upload/2005_08_19_primer.pdf
76
"Water Quality Legislative History." NH Department of Environmental Service. Water Quality Standards Advisory
Committee, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2014. http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/wqs/history.htm
19 | Page
primarily out of concern for keeping waters open for navigation. However, it was poorly enforced and did not foster much change from an environmental standpoint. In 1911 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who were tasked with enforcing the act, proposed that New York City build a new sewer system to keep the harbor cleaner. A federal judge ruled that pollution control was not a federal matter; it was a state matter.77 This demonstrates the mentality of politicians around the turn of the certain when Whipple was making strides in water sanitation testing. His research was an important step towards breaking the politicians and public’s belief that pollution control was not needed because the lack of scientific knowledge was the main roadblock to developing more stringent controls. However, the slow response with federal regulations to scientific “proof” suggests that this is not always enough to foster change.
The first federal act that regulated public water supplies was the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948(FWPCA), which provided comprehensive planning, technical services, research, and financial assistance by the federal government to state and local governments for reducing the pollution of interstate waters and improving the sanitary condition of surface and underground waters.78 This was a huge step in federal regulation because it set the precedent that Congress could control water quality. While this Act provided much needed regulation, it did not set any water quality standards. In 1965 the Water Quality Act was passed which gave the federal government a stronger oversight role, provided funding for water quality planning programs, and directed states to develop water quality standards for navigable interstate waters.79 While these two acts provided a solid base for water regulation, strict federal water quality standard were needed. The Cuyahoga River fire of 1969 in Cleveland, Ohio was a turning point for water regulation but in the U.S because it put the terrible quality of U.S. waterways on full display. Then in 1970, two key things happened in response that greatly enhance water sanitation; first the Water Quality Improvement Act was passed which was an amendment to FWPCA. It required the development of water quality standards for states and 77
"Clean Water Act." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Apr. 2014. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
78
"Water Supply and Sanitation in the United States." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 25 Apr. 2014. Web. 30
Apr. 2014. http://water.epa.gov/action/cleanwater40/cwa101.cfm
79
"The Clean Water Act: Protecting and Restoring Our Nation's Waters." United States Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.
20 | Page
expanded federal authority in upholding the standards. More importantly, the EPA was established in 1970, which brought about many new environmental protections to the U.S.80
In 1972 the EPA passed the Clean Water Act (CWA), which was a huge leap forward in water quality protection and the relationship between states and the federal government. The federal government passed the act but it was to be enforced mainly by state governments. The goal of the Act was “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”81 To achieve these goals the CWA made states establish water quality targets for waters within their jurisdictions. These standards are used to determine which waters must be cleaned up. Every two years states must assess the conditions of their surface water and any bodies that are deemed polluted must adopt the restoration plan of Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL).82 The EPA defines TMDL as "the sum of allocated loads of pollutants set at a level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards, including: waste load allocations from point sources and load allocations from nonpoint sources and natural background conditions. A TMDL must contain a margin of safety and a consideration of seasonal variations".83 This plan is implemented by issuing permits to major pollutant dischargers for the amount of pollutants they can release. Another way the CWA regulates pollution is through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which requires that any point source facility that discharges polluted wastewater into a body of water must first obtain a permit from the EPA.84 The last part of the 1972 CWA made funding available for municipal sewage treatment plants to hopefully reduce pollutants. The CWA was a great first step towards cleaning Americas waterways, however, like the Harbor Act 70 years earlier it was poorly enforced at first. The act was also amended as time went on based on new water protection needs. The two main amendments to the CWA were in 1977 when certain agriculture practices were allowed to continue without being governed by the CWA.85 The second major amendment occurred in 1987 when the Nonpoint Source Management Program was 80
IBID
IBID
82
"What Is a TMDL?" US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/overviewoftmdl.cfm
83
IBID
84
IBID
85
"History of the Clean Water Act." US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2014.
http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/history-clean-water-act
81
21 | Page
established to identify waters impaired by nonpoint sources and then helps implement best management practices to reduce runoff.86 The CWA has significantly improved surface water quality since the time of Whipple but much still needs to be done to improve water quality because many waterways do not meet the standards set by the CWA still.87 Another issue that has risen since the last amendment to the CWA is how to deal with sewer overflow issues. As technology improves and scientific knowledge increase hopefully these issue can be solved. The other major piece of legislation implemented for public safety by the EPA was the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The CWA focused on the quality of surface water, while the SDWA focuses directly on quality of public drinking water. The SDWA was passed in 1974 but it was not the first piece of federal legislation to regulate drinking water. In 1914 the U.S. Public Health Service set bacteriological quality standards for water that was transported between states in vehicles like boats and trains.88 Over the next 60 years before the passing of the SDWA these quality standards were updated three times to cover new substances. By 1974, the rule was regulating 28 substances. Although states were not obligated to follow these standards for instate drinking water, most states adopted these guidelines in some capacity.89 The big change for drinking water regulation began in the 1960’s when the public became concerned over the safety of water because of the chemicals being dumped into waterways by industrial and agricultural sources. Therefore the U.S. ran several studies in early 70’s to understand the problem better. The results were horrifying, “only 60 percent of the systems surveyed delivered water that met all the Public Health Service standards. Over half of the treatment facilities surveyed had major deficiencies involving disinfection, clarification, or pressure in the distribution system (the pipes that carry water from the treatment plant to buildings), or combinations of these deficiencies.”
90
This study pushed the drafting and passing of the SDWA. The SDWA gives the EPA the power to set “national health­based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally­occurring and man­made contaminants that may be found in drinking 86
Knotts, Jamie. "A Brief History of Drinking Water Regulations." On Tap Winter 8.4 (1999): 1-24. National
Drinking Water ClearingHouse. Web. 2 Apr. 2014.
87
The History of Drinking Water Treatment. Rep. no. EPA-816-F-00-006. EPA, 1 Feb. 2000. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.
88
Knotts, Jamie. "A Brief History of Drinking Water Regulations." On Tap Winter 8.4 (1999): 1-24. National
Drinking Water ClearingHouse. Web. 2 Apr. 2014.
89
"The Clean Water Act: Protecting and Restoring Our Nation's Waters." United States Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2014. http://water.epa.gov/action/cleanwater40/cwa101.cfm
90
The History of Drinking Water Treatment. Rep. no. EPA-816-F-00-006. EPA, 1 Feb. 2000. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.
22 | Page
water.”91 The main difference between the SDWA and CWA is that the SDWA only applies to public water systems, while the CWA applies to pollution sources. The SDWA has been amended three times, in 1986, 1996, and 2005. In 1986 the Act gained more enforcement power, was required to monitor more containments and made new rules about the lead levels of pipes.92 The 1996 amendments made the public water systems more transparent by requiring the municipalities to release reports about how the systems operated and the contaminants found within the water. The last major amendment to the SDWA occurred in 2005 when the underground injection of any fluids other than diesel fuels used in hydraulic fracturing operations was exempt from the SDWA.93 This exemption has caused controversy lately because Fracking is a potential danger to public safety. In response, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act was presented to congress in 2009 to make fracking covered by the SDWA and force oil and gas companies to disclose the chemicals they use when they pump water underground. However, this act failed to be passed but has been reintroduced in 2011 and is still waiting to be decided on.94
A drinking water source that may soon be more strictly regulated is the bottled water industry. The FDA is the organization that regulates the industry but only one person is tasked with examining all of the bottled water companies in the U.S.95 Thus, bottled water companies are mainly self­regulating which is never a good practice. NGO’s have begun to test bottled water bought right off the shelves of supermarkets and have found they are contaminated with many harmful pollutants.96 It is highly likely that this issue will soon come under stricter regulation because it is a potential danger to public safety. 91
"The Clean Water Act: Protecting and Restoring Our Nation's Waters." United States Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2014. http://water.epa.gov/action/cleanwater40/cwa101.cfm
92 "Water: Safe Drinking Water Act: Basic Information." US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA, n.d. Web. 30
Apr. 2014. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/sdwa/basicinformation.cfm
93
IBID
94
“Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Under the Safe Drinking Water Act.” US Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA, n.d. Web. 01 May 2014.
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm
95
Tapped. Dir. Stephanie Soechtig. Atlas Films, 2009. DVD
96
IBID
23 | Page
Appendix V Illustration what our exhibit will look like:
(Photo taken by Lauren Kaufmann at the Museum of Science) Appendix VI The information that will be presented on the exhibit: 24 | Page
25 | Page
26 | Page