Fredericton residents and has a quality as good as, if not better than, water transported from ..... the year and can be used at most stores on campus. This allows ... Media Campaign ... the popular social media website, Facebook (Appendix C).
Water Quality Report on Water Quality at the University of New Brunswick Fredericton Campus
ENR 2114 Water Sustainability: Practice and Technology 29 November, 2010 By
Hannah Bradford, Bailey Brogan, Amos Champion, Monique Goguen, Cynthia Hawthorne, Jennifer Nicholson, Alison Smith, and Ben Wallace
TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction....................................................................................................................2 Overview.........................................................................................................................3 Water policy ...................................................................................................................4 Methods..........................................................................................................................5 Metals Sampled ...........................................................................................................6 Lead .............................................................................................................................7 Iron...............................................................................................................................7 Manganese ..................................................................................................................8 Cadmium......................................................................................................................8 Copper .........................................................................................................................8 Zinc...............................................................................................................................9 Results........................................................................................................................10 Attitude survey.............................................................................................................13 Survey Overview ........................................................................................................13 Survey Parameters.....................................................................................................14 Results........................................................................................................................14 Discussion ..................................................................................................................15 Survey Conclusion......................................................................................................16 Media campaign............................................................................................................17 Posters .......................................................................................................................17 Brunswickan Article ...................................................................................................18 Social Media...............................................................................................................18 Discussion.....................................................................................................................18 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................20 References ...................................................................................................................21 Appendix A ..................................................................................................................23 Appendix B……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….24 Appendix C……………………………………………………………………………………………………….……….25
1
Introduction
Attitudes towards drinking water often conclude that bottled water is safer and cleaner
to drink than tap water. The purpose of this project was to educate the students, faculty, and staff at the University of New Brunswick (UNB) Fredericton campus that water straight from the fountain or hydration station is as clean and safe as bottled water. In addition to informing the campus that tap water is clean and safe, we want to emphasize that using a reusable drinking container will reduce the amount of disposable water bottles from reaching the landfill or becoming litter. The city of Fredericton draws all of its drinking water supply from a large groundwater aquifer located directly beneath the city’s downtown area. This aquifer provides naturally filtered water which requires very little treatment before being distributed around the city. The water treatment facility filters the water to remove manganese, as well as adds a small amount of chlorine to protect the water quality (1). The water is tested through a quality monitoring program before it leaves the facility. This clean groundwater is an excellent resource for Fredericton residents and has a quality as good as, if not better than, water transported from other locations in disposable plastic bottles. The benefits of using reusable drinking containers far outweigh the drawbacks. According to the Container Recycling Institute, a non-‐profit environmental group, “for every ton of plastic bottles recycled, another four tons are being wasted” (2). Studies have shown that often bottled water is the same or worse than tap water (3). Additionally, water in plastic bottles has the potential to have a higher chemical content due to leaching from the plastic container. Water in plastic bottles costs between 240 to 10,000 times more than water from the tap (4). The initial cost of a reusable drinking container might seem high compared to the price of a bottle of water, but it will quickly pay for itself by savings with repeated use, and will reduce the environmental costs. Plastic water bottles also have numerous detrimental impacts on the environment. To begin, plastic is an accumulative pollutant, meaning that it does not break down easily and accumulates over time. Plastic water bottles can take up to 1000 years to biodegrade which 2
makes the effect of their presence on the environment increasingly unfavourable (5). There are nearly 30 million water bottles per day that end up in the garbage or as litter (6). This implies that nine out of ten plastic water bottles are incorrectly disposed of (5). If we could recycle a greater number of bottles, it may help in some ways. For all those plastic water bottles that end up in the litter, many things can happen to them. Mostly, they begin to break down overtime, especially the bottles that make it into the oceans. In the oceans, these bottles break down into smaller pieces. These small pieces are often confused for food by fish and birds, which is a known cause of their deaths in various areas of the oceans (7). In addition to effects on wildlife, the amount of resources that are needed to produce plastic water bottles is more than can be taken back from recycling these bottles. In 2005, there was an estimated 38 billion plastic water bottles sold in the United States alone. To produce that amount of bottles would require over 900,000 tons of plastic. To make all this plastic would require around 1.7 million barrels of oil which would create nearly 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide. If it was possible to recycle every plastic water bottle, only 60 percent of the energy and resources used to make the bottles could be recovered (8). Overall, plastic water bottles have negative impacts on the environment not only after they are used, but also during their production. The only solution to this problem is to reduce or stop the use of non reusable plastic bottles. Overview In an effort to increase the amount of reusable drinking containers used on campus, water quality testing was done at various drinking water fountains around campus. The water was tested for certain metals (lead, iron, copper, zinc, manganese, and cadmium) based on their possible effects to human health. The expectation was that these samples would return acceptable, proving that the direct tap water on campus is just as clean and safe to drink as purchased bottled water. To understand current attitudes on campus about reusable drinking containers, a survey of 100 students was completed. Posters were also placed near fountains and hydration stations to promote reusable containers in hopes of decreasing the use of plastic water bottles. 3
Water Policy The responsibility for ensuring the safety of drinking water in Canada is shared by all levels of government; federal, provincial, and municipal. The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality is published by Health Canada on behalf of the Federal-‐Provincial-‐Territorial Committee on Drinking Water. The guidelines set out the maximum acceptable concentrations of microbiological, chemical, and radiological substances in drinking water and are designed to protect the health of Canadians. They are however just guidelines, and thus are more like voluntary targets than binding standards. It is up to each province to create its own legislation for drinking water management and standards. This legislation may simply reference the guidelines, or implement a standard that is based on the guidelines (with some variability). Thus, the guidelines are not legally binding unless their referenced in provincial legislation. In New Brunswick, the Potable Water Regulations (9) created under the Clean Water Act govern drinking water standards and practices. With regards to testing for water quality, the regulations state that: 7(1) An owner of a regulated water supply system shall (a) have a sampling plan that is approved by the Minister of Health, and (b) ensure that the water in the system is collected and tested in accordance with the sampling plan. A "regulated water supply system" refers to a system that is owned or operated by a municipality or the Crown. Fredericton’s water supply system is owned by the city. The city’s water treatment plant samples the potable water it provides to city residents in accordance with an approved sampling plan. While water leaving the treatment plant is clean, the same water flowing out of a household tap or water fountain on campus may carry contaminants picked up on the way. As described in the results section of this report, some of the test results from water fountains at the UNB campus came back showing amounts of lead at levels exceeding the NB health advisory level (HAL), the highest being 21 µg/L (HAL = 10 µg/L) (10). Lead can enter drinking water as a result of leaching from lead-‐based pipes and plumbing. The problem generally occurs because of the age of the pipes, which is a nationwide issue.
4
In Ontario, the Safe Drinking Water Act requires all municipalities to test water taken directly from residents’ taps a minimum of twice per year (11). Where elevated lead levels are found, home and non-‐residential facility owners are given advice on corrective actions to reduce the health risks. There are corrosion control techniques which can be used to limit the amount of corrosion taking place in the pipes, but the best method of prevention is to replace aging lead pipes. The legislation in Ontario could offer a model for other jurisdictions, including the province of New Brunswick. Besides Ontario, there is no comparable program of tap water testing for lead elsewhere in Canada. What responsibility does UNB have to ensure that the drinking water provided to students and faculty is safe? Since drinking water quality is the responsibility of the provincial and municipal governments, UNB is not required by law to test the quality of the drinking water provided on campus. That being said, a voluntary proactive approach to test drinking water quality could be taken by the university to ensure that its aging infrastructure is not having negative impacts on the health of students, faculty, and staff. Methods In order to investigate whether the tap water on campus is better or as good as water coming from non-‐reusable plastic bottles, several drinking fountains on campus tested. These samples were tested at the Department of Environment Water Quality Testing laboratory in Fredericton. The testing sites were chosen based on location (dispersion), popularity (number of people that might visit the fountain on a daily basis), and age of building. The sites were numbered as follows: 0-‐ 2nd floor fountain Old Forestry Building, back hall 1-‐ Near forestry lounge, fountain on 2nd floor Old Forestry Building 2-‐ 3rd Floor Old Forestry Building, fountain at top of stairs 3-‐ Fountain in the basement of New Forestry Building 4-‐ Science Library area hydration station 5-‐ Harriet Irving Library 1st floor fountain near ladies washroom 6-‐ Harrison House 1st floor fountain 5
7-‐ Student Union Building hydration station (near SUB Styles) 8-‐ Bailey Hall fountain near greenhouse entrance 9-‐ Bailey Hall fountain near staff washroom 212 10-‐ Purchased Aquafina water from machine near financial services 12-‐ Head Hall main floor fountain near elevators 13-‐ McLaggan Hall fountain on main floor All sampling recommendations given by the New Brunswick Department of Environment Laboratory were followed, except for one. The instructions for water sampling indicated that each fountain should be flushed for 5 minutes before collecting the actual water sample (21). This was not done for the first round of testing, as it is assumed the average fountain user is not flushing the fountain for 5 minutes before drinking from it or refilling their reusable container. The water fountain was run for 5 seconds before the samples were taken, to indicate a more reasonable amount of time people may run the fountain before use. Further instructions for sampling included not rinsing the bottles and not touching the inside of the bottle or the inside of the cap when it was taken off to fill the bottle. The samples were to be kept in a cooler which contained ice or ice packs. The bottles were also labelled corresponding to a submission form which included the date and time of the sampling. The results from sample locations 2, 8, and 9 returned with concentrations of lead exceeding the New Brunswick HAL regulations. A second sampling of these particular fountains was preformed taking into account time intervals. This method included sampling using time intervals of 5 seconds, 2 minutes, and 5 minutes. Metals Sampled Due to cost restraints, the water was tested for six metals that were deemed significant. These six metals were: lead, iron, copper, zinc, manganese, and cadmium. In the process of determining which metals to sample for, an environmental technician at the New Brunswick Department of Environment Laboratory in Fredericton was consulted. Literature searches were
6
then completed for each of these metals and information was found supporting why these metals would be important in regards to human health. Lead: Lead is a metal that can be found in many older products such as toys, plastics, and paint; it is also associated with industry and found in water (12). Water sitting in pipes can accumulate lead from lead based solder. Ingesting lead is very harmful; therefore, it is dangerous for a person to be exposed to lead for increased amounts of time (13). Short term exposure to high levels of lead can result in vomiting, convulsions, coma, diarrhea and even death (13). Symptoms of being exposed to low levels of lead are less severe: appetite loss, abdominal pain, constipation, fatigue, sleeplessness, irritability, headache and anaemia (13). These symptoms can be confused with other illnesses like the flu, and can go unnoticed for a long time. Long term exposure to lead can cause kidney damage. Ways to avoid consuming lead from drinking water is to replace old pipes, or using only cold water, as it contains less lead than hot water (12). Flushing pipes regularly can also decrease the amount of lead in water (12). The maximum acceptable concentration of lead in drinking water is 10 µg/L (10). With concentrations higher than this, the more severe symptoms mentioned above are more likely. Iron: Iron, an essential mineral that benefits humans, can be harmful when exposed to high concentrations. Iron is a dietary requirement for humans; men require 7 mg of iron per day, whereas women require 11 mg (13). Human bodies absorb most iron needed from food, (around 25%), but it is also obtained from water (13). Iron is found in water from the weathering of metals and rocks. The allowed amount of iron in drinking water is 200 ppb (ug/L), but when this amount is exceeded; it can be detrimental to human health (10). If a person consumes too much iron it is stored in the liver, pancreas, spleen and heart which can cause damage to these major organs (12).
7
Manganese: Manganese is naturally according and is found in groundwater at low levels. However, it can be increased by various underground pollution sources. Water containing high levels of manganese becomes a rust brown colour and can also contain small black deposits (15). This becomes noticeable at approximately 50 µg/L, which is the allowable concentration under the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (10). At this point the water develops an unpleasant odour, colour, and taste (13). In general, if there is too much manganese in drinking water, it can affect infants, people with liver diseases, and people who exceed the recommended eight cups of water daily (13). Cadmium: Cadmium is a heavy metal and is seriously toxic, posing severe threats to human health (15). Cadmium is commonly used in industrial processes such as nuclear power plants, fabrication of nickel-‐cadmium, and in the production of batteries (17). There is nearly 7000 tons of cadmium produced annually across the globe (16). Cadmium enters drinking water by leaching into ground and surface water (17). The Guidelines on Canadian Drinking Water Quality states that the maximum acceptable concentration in drinking water is 0.005 µg/L (10). Generally, cadmium will cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and muscle cramps. Concentrations at a higher level can produce problems with the digestive and pulmonary systems, liver damages, and softening of the bones (17). Also, cadmium can cause kidney damage, reproductive damage, and it is believed to be carcinogenic (16). Copper: Copper is one of the most commercially important metals, as it is easily shaped and molded and is often used in water pipes. Copper compounds are also used as an agricultural pesticide and to control algae in lakes. Copper can be dissolved in water and high levels are likely to affect human health. High levels of copper occur when corrosive water comes in contact with copper plumbing and the level of copper increases with the length of time it 8
remains in contact with the plumbing pipes (18). Effects of drinking water with high levels of copper include vomiting, diarrhea, stomach cramps and nausea (18). The seriousness of these effects can be intensified with increased copper levels and length of exposure. Copper is an important element in our everyday health and the average daily intake is 1 000 µg per day, with drinking water contributing to less than 5% of this intake (18). Excess levels of copper may be noticed by a metallic taste and also blue or blue-‐green stains around sinks and plumbing fixtures (14). To reduce the copper levels in drinking water, it is recommended to let faucets run for 2-‐3 minutes to flush out standing water from the pipes (16). The aesthetic objective level for copper is a maximum of 1000 µg/L (10). Zinc: Zinc, like most metals occurs naturally in the environment. Excess levels are usually found because of human activities such as mining, smelting and steel production. Zinc is commonly used to prevent rust and erosion. Zinc is an essential nutrient for human health; it is used during growth, development of bones, metabolism and wound-‐healing (18). Too little zinc in human diets can cause loss of appetite, decreased sense of taste and smell, slow growth and slow wound-‐healing (19). A short term illness called metal fume fever can result from high levels of airborne zinc, which usually lasts from 24 to 48 hours, causing chills, fever, excessive sweating and weakness. Consuming too much zinc in a short period of time can cause stomach cramps, nausea and vomiting. Ingesting zinc over long periods of time can cause anemia, nervous system disorders, damage to the pancreas and lowered levels of “good” cholesterol. The aesthetic objective level for zinc is a maximum of 5000 µg/L (10).
9
Results
Of the six metals tested, two were below the level of quantification (LOQ) in all samples:
cadmium and manganese. The other four metals (copper, iron, lead and zinc) were present in detectable quantities in some of the samples. Lead was the only metal found to be in levels exceeding the Health Advisory Level (HAL) (Figure 1). These samples were collected from the water fountain on the third floor of the Old Forestry building and the two water fountains located in Bailey Hall. The other metals were all below the HAL (Figures 2 and 3).
Lead Level (ug/L)
25 20 15 10 5 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 12 13
Site Locator
Figure 1. Levels of lead found in the thirteen sampled drinking water sites, the red horizontal line represents the Health Advisory Level (HAL). Metal Level (mg/L)
0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04
Iron
0.02
Zinc
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 12 13
Site Locator
Figure 2. Levels of iron and zinc found in the water sampled from water fountains at UNB.
10
Copper Level (ug/L)
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 12 13
Site Locator
Figure 3. Copper levels found in water sampled from water fountains at UNB.
After finding levels of lead in excess of the HAL in three of the water samples these
three sites were sampled again for confirmation. This second round of sampling included three time trial samples at each site. This was conducted to determine if this had any effect on the level of metals found in the samples. During this second round of sampling only one of the three sites (Bailey Hall -‐ basement) was found to have levels of lead above the HAL. Allowing the water to run longer allowed the lead levels to drop below the HAL (Figure 4). Lead Levels (ug/L)
20 15 10
Forestry 3 Bailey 0
5
Bailey 2
0 1
2
3
Time Step
Figure 4. Levels of lead found in the three sites re-‐sampled because of high lead levels.
As with the first round of sampling, cadmium and manganese were not found in levels
above the LOQ. Copper, iron and zinc were found in detectable levels as with the first round of sampling but all were found below the HALs. Iron was not found in levels above the LOQ in the Old Forestry Building but was detected in the other two sites. In the re-‐sample taken from the 11
2nd floor of Bailey hall the results followed the expected decrease in level over time; however,
Iron Level (mg/L)
in the sample taken from the basement of Bailey Hall they did not (Figure 5). 0.016 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0
Forestry 3 Bailey 0 Bailey 2 1
2
3
Time Step
Figure 5. Levels of iron found in the three re-‐sampled sites over time.
In both of the other metals detected in measurable quantities (copper and zinc) the
levels followed the expected trend of decrease as the water was allowed to run for a longer
Copper Levels (ug/L)
period of time (Figures 6 and 7). 0.5 0.4 0.3 Forestry 3
0.2
Bailey 0
0.1
Bailey 2
0 1
2
3
Time Step
Figure 6. Levels of copper found in each of the re-‐sampled sites over time.
12
Zinc Level (mg/L)
0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0
Forestry 3 Bailey 0 Bailey 2 1
2
3
Time Step
Figure 7. Levels of zinc found in each of the re-‐sampled sites over time. Attitude Survey Survey Overview
An attitude survey was performed on a sample of 100 UNB Fredericton students who
live on campus. It was performed on a door-‐to-‐door basis in two of the co-‐ed residences, to get a general sample of the student population as residences have a variety of personality types coming from various locations. The purpose of this attitude survey was to gain an understanding of what portion of UNB students use reusable water containers. Information was collected on whether or not these students purchase non reusable plastic water bottles and their reasons for doing so. The questions posed in the survey are as follows: 1. Do you use a reusable water bottle regularly? 2. Do you not use a reusable water bottle because of: •
Convenience
•
Do not care
•
Do not own one
3. Have you purchased a non-‐reusable water bottle in the past week?
13
Survey Parameters
Parameters were set before the survey was conducted to ensure consistent results. For
question 1, regular use is based on using the reusable water bottle 3 or more times weekly. For question 2, convenience also consisted of the student not liking the taste of water in Fredericton. Parameters for question 3 were based on purchasing non reusable water bottles only. Purchases of alcoholic beverages, juice, pop or milk were not included. It was also stated that there only had to be one purchase in the past week. Results
The attitude survey was conducted by surveying 100 individuals. The first question
involved asking the individuals if they used a reusable water bottle regularly (Figure 8). The surveyed individuals were then asked if they had purchased water contained in a non-‐reusable container in the past week (Figure 9). Finally, those individuals who had answered that they did not use a reusable water container were asked why they did not use one (Figure 10).
37
yes 63
no
Figure 8. Percentage of those surveyed who use a re-‐usable water bottle regularly (≥3x / wk). Convienience
5 10
Don't Own One
22
Don't Care
14
Figure 9. Percentage of individuals who did not use a re-‐usable water bottle in the past week based on reasoning.
29
yes 71
no
Figure 10. Percentage of those surveyed who had purchased a non-‐reusable water bottle in the past week. Discussion
This survey shows that approximately 40% of the UNB residence population does not
currently use reusable water bottles. This result could be assumed to be declining as our society becomes more environmentally friendly. The survey also shows that 27% of this population that does not use reusable water bottles because they simply do not own one, which allows the assumption that once they acquire a reusable water bottle they may use it. The results of the attitude survey are disappointing as the sample was from a young, educated population. Methods on how to increase use of reusable water bottles can be gathered from question 2, which is portraying it as more convenient.
Convenience appears to be the biggest factor for why students choose to not use
reusable water bottles. The image needed is that it is easier to fill a water bottle you already have on hand instead of going into a store, waiting in line, and buying a new one. Tactics to market this could include weighing the cost of a reusable water bottle against the cost of non-‐ reusable ones. A reusable water bottle costs between $10-‐15 whereas choosing to use non-‐ reusable water bottles can cost anywhere from $200-‐400 per year. Educating students with facts like this could easily make the budget-‐conscious student body aware of the benefits of using reusable water bottles, not only for the environment but for themselves too. Another option is suggesting them to write a reminder in their room “Don’t forget your reusable water bottle!”. This could be effective because university students have a lot on their mind and there 15
is a great probability that other things will be higher on their priority list then remembering to bring along a reusable water bottle. For those students who fall under the sub category within convenience, stating they do not like Fredericton water, suggesting the purchase of a water filter may change their opinion.
Another way to increase reusable water bottle use is by targeting first year students.
Before arriving to UNB residence students get a letter with suggestions on what to bring to university, including reusable water bottles or water filters on this list would not only be a good reminder for the students, but also for their parents. Creating a stigma around the use of non-‐ reusable water bottles from the start of their university career may have the biggest effect on the student body. Plastic bottles should be viewed in the same way we view smoking, a bad and unnecessary habit. The third question, which asked if a plastic water bottle was recently purchased, gives surprisingly mixed results for the survey. Although the majority said they used reusable water bottles regularly, they also stated that they have recently purchased a non-‐reusable water bottle. A factor in the amount of people purchasing plastic water bottles may be that each of the students surveyed are in possession of a meal card, which has a set amount of money for the year and can be used at most stores on campus. This allows students to not think about how much money they are spending because they never see it. Meal cards may even encourage superfluous spending because if a student does not spend all of their money by the end of the year they lose it. There is nothing that can be done about the availability of plastic water bottles on campus, as UNB recently renewed a 7-‐year contract with Pepsi, but having haunting signs across campus about the negative impacts of using plastic bottles could deter more people. Survey Conclusion
The results of the attitude survey give a good direction on how to increase reusable
water bottle use across campus. Marketing its use as a more convenient practice than purchasing reusable water bottles should result in good behavioral changes. Even with meal cards and their seemingly endless money supply, there are many ways to make buying a plastic 16
water bottle unfavorable. This will mainly be through persistent marketing, and should result in an attitude change revolution. Media Campaign Posters The human tendency to forget is often a contributing factor to why we do not practice sustainable behaviour. By simply remembering a reusable water bottle daily, the amount of disposable bottles purchased and wasted would drop significantly. In order to remind people to carry their reusable bottle a tool called a prompt can be used. According to Fostering Sustainable Behaviour by Doug McKenzie-‐Mohr, prompts are visual or auditory aids that remind people to carry out an activity in which they might otherwise forget (20). A prompt that was used for this project was a set of posters that remind students and staff to fill up their reusable bottles. The posters were placed near water fountains as well as vending machines in order to remind thirsty students to stay away from disposable water bottles. They state things such as “Is it really that different?” and show a picture of water from a fountain entering a non reusable bottle (Appendix A). Language and pictures such as these are meant to get people thinking about what they are truly consuming and to think more about changing their behaviour for the good of the environment. Prompts are used to remind people to change their behaviour; however, the prompt must also catch the attention of the audience. If the prompt is dull, unexciting, and the person walks by without noticing, the prompt is ineffective and the person may continue the unsustainable behaviour. The posters distributed for this project are highlighted with bright colours and are hand drawn. It is important to make them simple and eye catching because people are generally in a hurry and do not have time to read a large amount of text, or try to understand something complicated. The area in which the prompt is placed is also important. Putting the prompt in an area where the behaviour takes place is vital for the change of the particular behaviour (20). If the prompt was in a place that was completely unrelated to the behaviour, then the person may stop and read the sign but forget about it by the time they go to complete the behaviour. It is necessary that the prompt be placed correctly so that the 17
person sees it as they are about to complete the behaviour, and thus immediately thinks otherwise. Prompts are a subtle but effective way to help alter a specific behaviour. In this case, the project’s aim was to remind people not to buy disposable water bottles, and to fill up their reusable bottles. The prompts used for this project should aid in the reduction of disposable plastic water bottles around the UNB campus. Brunswickan Article Three group members (Hannah Bradford, Amos Champion, and Jennifer Nicholson) were interviewed by the Brunswickan. This article was published in the 5 January, 2011 issue. The purpose of this was to raise awareness of our project in the university community. Our sampling results were discussed, as well as recommendations to UNB for improving water quality on campus (Appendix B). Social Media To help raise awareness about reusable drinking container use, a page was created on the popular social media website, Facebook (Appendix C). The page, called “Ban the Bottle on UNBF Campus” aims to inform people about the waste plastic bottles generate, as well as reiterate that tap water is just as safe and healthy to drink as bottled water. Each day a fact is displayed on the page, as well as web links containing news stories and other relevant information pertaining to the topic. The hope is to get many users to frequently visit this page and change their behaviour to stop or decrease their disposable water bottle purchases. Discussion The results of our water quality testing were not all positive; however, it is still important to promote reusable drinking container use for the environmental and financial benefits as outlined earlier. Opportunities to promote fountain and hydration station use are apparent, as well as some opportunities for the University of New Brunswick Fredericton campus to ensure the quality of pipes that incoming water flows through is more than 18
adequate. As the water is guaranteed safe and drinkable by the water treatment plant when it leaves (23), the issue of lead in the water is likely caused within the piping system. Based on the water testing results from numbers 4 (hydration station near science library), 7 (hydration station near SUB Styles), and 10 (purchased bottle of Aquafina from the vending machine near financial services) some interesting conclusions can be made. All levels of metals tested for were well below the HAL for all of these samples, and all were the lowest levels found in the samples. This indicates that water from the hydration stations, which have a filter, is just as safe and healthy to drink as purchased water in a disposable bottle. We would recommend that UNB take notice and consider the installation of additional hydration stations around campus, particularly in areas where higher levels of metals tested for were found. Also, the filters within the hydration stations should be maintained to ensure optimal water quality. For the fountains tested in Bailey Hall with lead amounts over the HAL, we would recommend that the pipes be flushed on a daily basis to ensure that there is not a high lead content in the short term. In the longer term, the pipes should be looked at and consideration could be made on whether or not replacing these pipes is feasible or the installation of an in-‐pipe filter system. Shortcomings of this analysis include the amount of fountains tested. Not all fountains could be tested in all buildings on campus due to financial constraints, so there may be information missing as to what other fountains may have high levels of unsafe metals reported. Our hope is still to promote the use of reusable drinking containers, but also to raise awareness of the water quality issues on campus. In raising awareness of the water quality in cases where the results indicated that metals in the water exceeded the HAL, we still want to encourage the use of reusable water bottles; however, flushing of these fountains prior to filling your reusable bottle is recommended until the problem is properly addresses by UNB.
In respect to promoting reusable drinking containers, research was done to look into
what other University campuses have done. At the Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, they have joined a campaign called “Ban the Bottle.” This unique campaign discourages the purchase of bottled water, and is gaining recognition. Currently, bottled water is not available for purchase anywhere on the Washington University campus, and students and faculty are encouraged to bring their own reusable drinking containers. In an article they state that 19
“Because of concerns about the environmental impact of bottled water, the University has ended sales of the product, and administrative offices will no longer offer bottled water at events and meetings. Instead, faculty, staff, students, and guests are encouraged to drink tap water and use reusable water containers” (22). Ban the Bottle has become a movement and many other universities are banning bottled water on their campuses as well. Conclusion In conclusion, we feel that this project could be an ongoing process repeated from year to year by the Water Sustainability class. Follow up and expansion could continue by promoting reusable water bottles and improving water quality on campus. We recommend more promotion of the issue, getting residences involved, putting up more posters, and possible screening of the film Tapped, an exposé of the bottled water industry. These kinds of actions can go a long way in promoting water sustainability, promoting individual health in the form of less chemical consumption from plastic bottles, as well as preventing additional wastes from entering landfills. Eventually we hope that in the future UNB will phase out the sales of bottled water.
20
References 1. City of Fredericton. 2010. City of Fredericton -‐ Water Utility. Retrieved November 14, 2010 from: http://www.fredericton.ca/en/environment/waterutility.asp 2. Container Recycling Institute, “Report shows plastic bottle waste tripled since 1995,” Sept 2003. Retrieved from: http://www.container-‐ recycling.org/media/newsrelease/plastic/2003-‐9waste.htm 3. Ferrier, Catherine. (2001). Bottled Water: Understanding a Social Phenomenon. World Wildlife Fund. P. 5. Retrieved from: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bottled_water.pdf 4. Clarke, Tony. (2007). Inside the bottle: An expose of the Bottled Water Industry. Polaris Institute, Ottawa. p. 27. 5. Howard, B. C. (2010). Message in a Bottle: Despite the Hype, Bottled Water is Neither Cleaner nor Greener than Tap Water. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from http://www.emagazine.com/view/?1125 6. Reuseit. (2010). Fast Facts on Disposable Bottles. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from http://www.reuseit.com/learn-‐more/top-‐facts/plastic-‐bottle-‐facts 7. Amos, A. F. (2010). Pollution of the Ocean by Plastic and Trash. Retrieved November 14, 2010 from http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Po-‐Re/Pollution-‐of-‐the-‐Ocean-‐by-‐ Plastic-‐and-‐Trash.html 8. Worldwatch Institute. (2007). Bottled Water Issues Summary. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from http://www.a2gov.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/public_services_water_a2h2o_FAQs_2 007_12_12.pdf 9. Government of New Brunswick. 2006. Potable Water Regulation -‐ Clean Water Act. Retrieved November 1, 2010 from: http://www.gnb.ca/0062/regs/93-‐203.htm 10. Health Canada. 2008. Guidelines on Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Retrieved November 8, 2010 from: http://www.hc-‐sc.gc.ca/ewh-‐semt/pubs/water-‐ eau/sum_guide-‐res_recom/chemical-‐chimiques-‐eng.php 11. Government of Ontario. 2002. Safe Drinking Water Act, O Reg. 170/03. Retrieved November 14, 2010 from: http://www.e-‐ laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_02s32_e.htm 12. Lenntech. 2009. Water Treatment Solutions: Iron and water. Lenntech Water treatment & purification Holding B.V. Retrieved November 1, 2010, from http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/water/iron/iron-‐and-‐water.htm 13. Heath Canada. (2008). It’s your Health. Government of Canada. Retrieved November 1, 2010, from http://www.hc-‐sc.gc.ca/hl-‐vs/iyh-‐vsv/environ/lead-‐plomb-‐eng.php 14. Government of the Northwest Territories. (2010). Chemical, Physical and Biological Parameters. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from http://www.maca.gov.nt.ca/operations/water/WWMeasure.htm 15. Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services. (2007). Human Health Hazards: Manganese in Drinking Water. State of Wisconsin
21
16. Johannes Godt, Franziska Scheidig, Christian Grosse-‐Siestrup, Vera Esche, Paul Brandenburg, Andrea Reich, and David A Groneberg. (2006). The toxicity of cadmium and resulting hazards for human health. Med Toxicol, 1:22 17. Canadian Council of Ministers or the Environment. (2009). Cadmium. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from http://www.ccme.ca/sourcetotap/cadmium.html 18. Damgaard, M. (2003). Copper and your Health. Retrieved November 1, 2010 from http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/dwg/copper.htm 19. Illinois Department of Public Health. (2009). Environmental Health Fact Sheet 20. McKenzie-‐Mohr, D. and Smith, W. (1999). Prompts: Remembering to Act Sustainably. In: Fostering Sustainable Behaviour: An Introduction to Community-‐Based Social Marketing. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, B.C. p. 61-‐70. 21. New Brunswick Department of Environment Laboratory. (2008). Inorganic: Sampling Protocol for Inorganics. 22. Bosque, T. (2009). Washington University Ends Sales of Bottled Water on Campus. Retrieved from: http://www.banthebottle.net/school/washington-‐university-‐ends-‐sales-‐ of-‐bottled-‐water-‐on-‐campus/ 23. R. Larley, Pers. Communication. Fredericton Water Treatment Plant. November 2010. 22
Appendix A
Posters Prepared by Alison Smith 23
Appendix B The Brunswickan interview was origianlly published in the 5 January, 2011 issue.
24
Appendix C
25
26
