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