Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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. Today, the 1
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. It was while attending Chelsea 2
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. Whipple filled its pages with images and information about the many 4
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. 3 “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.
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.” That not many people were prepared to hear 6
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. Even more ironic was 7
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. Adding still to his resume, Whipple, alongside William T. 9
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. Considering these 10
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. His sudden death on November 27, 1924 did little to limit George Whipple’s legacy and 11 12
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. It was found 14
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 11 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-fame.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.
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. 18 George Chandler Whipple, “Methods of Microscopical Examination,” in The Microscopy of Drinking Water (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1908), 15-40.
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. Local water 20
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. Due to the microscopic nature of these pathogens, 22
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. The health costs of becoming infected by microscopic pathogens in water was no clearer 23
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
illnesses. Fecal contamination can also lead to viral contamination of the water as many viruses live in 2425
the intestines of infected humans and animals. The EPA has determined that no amount of pathogenic 26
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. Additionally, disinfectants—and their byproducts—can become water 28
contaminants in their own right if they are present in water above the Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) that marks the threshold after which water is no longer safe to drink. Common disinfectants 2930
include chlorine, chloramine, and ozone—all of which produce harmful byproducts when they react with
each other or with other materials found in water. While the contaminants in this category are 31
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. The EPA provides a comprehensive list of these organic and inorganic 33
contaminants, most of which are considered carcinogenic under high levels of exposure. Several of 34
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. The main sources of 35
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.
These radionuclides include uranium, alpha and beta particles, and isotopes of radium. Nuclear 37 38
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. Although the environment makes exposure 40
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. In 42
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. While not federally mandated to monitor water supplies for these 43
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. These 45
drugs reach the water supply through natural human excretion and through improper disposal of
medication. While trace amounts of these drugs have been found in water systems nationwide, they 46
remain federally unregulated until their effect on the body and environment are better understood. 4748
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. Hormones such as estrogen are thought to contaminate 49
water supplies through the increased use of birth control pills while endocrine disruptors may originate
from detergents, plastics, and food. The threat these chemicals present to humans or to the 50
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. Although these chemicals have only 51
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. These secondary regulations are 52
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. Although evaluations of odor and taste, and in some cases of color, may vary by 53
individual, these aesthetics are still useful in assessing the treatment system that the water undergoes. If 54
the disinfection technique is not efficacious, the disinfectants or their byproducts may leave the water
with a disagreeable taste, smell, or appearance. Such changes in the characteristics of water may also 55
be the result of technical effects such as the corrosion of pipes or the buildup of mineral deposits or
sedimentation in general. While not harmful to human health, such changes in aesthetics may indicate 56
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. All water treatment systems, like the one found at the Chestnut Hill 59
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. Thus, 62
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 61 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>. 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. In the first few steps, raw water in the reservoir or lake 64
source is drawn from the source into the plant through intake structures. In this, large debris, such as 65
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. 65 "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>. 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. In 71
67 IBID 68 IBID 69 IBID 70 IBID 71 IBID
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. This was a small step but not many cities built or used effective 73
cleaning techniques until 1960’s. Another major public health issue was wastewater being discharged 74
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. Thus, before 1899, all water sanitation and quality 75
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. This was the first act to protect the environment in the U.S and arose 76
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. This demonstrates the mentality of politicians around the turn of the certain when 77
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. While these two acts provided a solid base for 79
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). The EPA defines TMDL as "the 82
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". This plan is implemented by issuing permits to major pollutant 83
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. The last part of the 1972 CWA made funding available for municipal sewage treatment 84
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. The 85
second major amendment occurred in 1987 when the Nonpoint Source Management Program was
80 IBID 81 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
21 | Page
established to identify waters impaired by nonpoint sources and then helps implement best management
practices to reduce runoff. The CWA has significantly improved surface water quality since the time of 86
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. Another issue that has risen since the last amendment to the 87
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. Over the next 60 years before the passing of the SDWA these quality standards were updated 88
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. The big change for drinking water regulation began in the 1960’s when 89
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.”
This study pushed the drafting and passing of the SDWA. 90
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.” The main difference between the SDWA and CWA is that the SDWA only applies to public 91
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. The 1996 amendments made 92
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. This exemption has caused controversy 93
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. Thus, bottled water companies are mainly selfregulating 95
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. It is highly likely 96
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