r
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Office of Water
EPA/600/R-98/079
March 1999
www.epa.gov/
ORD/publications
Action Plan for Beaches and
Recreational Waters
-------
EPA/600/R-98/079
March 1999
EPA Action Plan for Beaches and
Recreational Waters
Reducing Exposures to Waterborne Pathogens
Office of Research and Development
and
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Water and Office of Re-
search and Development, generated the information described in this plan for beach and recreational
waters. This plan has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review process and has
been approved for publication as an EPA document.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
Dear Reader:
We are pleased to provide the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "Action Plan for
Beaches and Recreational Waters" (Beach Action Plan). The Beach Action Plan identifies the
Agency's multi-year strategy for monitoring recreational water quality and communicating public
health risks associated with potentially pathogen-contaminated recreational rivers, lakes, and ocean
beaches.
This plan is the first of its kind. It differs from research or media-specific program plans or
strategies in that it integrates all associated program, policy, and research needs and directions.
Greater emphasis is placed on articulating the Agency's rationale and goals addressing a specific
problem with less discussion on the details of each activity. However, the Beach Action Plan does
provide significant detail on the timing, products, and lead organization for each of the activities.
The Beach ^Action Plan is an important tool for measuring accountability and progress
because it describes the logic and timing of the products of EPA's recreational water efforts. By
specifying how EPA will manage its program and scientific activities, the Agency can communicate
results more effectively and can provide a clearer picture of what can be expected in the future.
EPA will continue to work with other agencies, interested parties, and members of the public
to implement this plan and refine it, as appropriate, in the future.
Sincerely,
V\*ft*JL
Charles Fox Norine E. Noonan
Assistant Administrator Assistant Administrator
Office of Water Office of Research and Development
-------
Executive Summary
EPA recognizes the need for stronger beach monitoring programs, improved water quality standards,
and broader public guidance relating to the use of recreational waters in the United States. In re-
sponse to national directives such as the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure and Health
(BEACH) Program and the Clean Water Action Plan, EPAhas prepared this Action Plan for Beaches
and Recreational Waters (the "Beach Action Plan'}—a multi-year strategy for reducing risks of
infection to recreational water users through improved recreational water quality programs, risk
communication, and scientific advances.
The Beach Action Plan describes EPA's actions to improve and assist in state, tribal, and local
implementation of recreational water monitoring and public notification programs. It describes re-
lated activities of the Office of Water (OW) and the Office of Research and Development (ORD).
As long as contamination of ambient waters remains a threat, more and more Americans face risk of
exposure to waterborne microbial pathogens as increasing numbers of people visit or move to coastal
areas, lakes, and rivers. Exposure to pathogens can occur during swimming or other recreational
activities via ingestion, inhalation, or direct contact with polluted water. Despite the potential risks to
the public from gastrointestinal illness and other infections, water quality monitoring programs vary
widely at the state and local levels.
The Beach Action Plan's first objective, therefore, is to enable consistent management of recre-
ational water quality programs. EPA will sponsor conferences and meetings with federal, state,
tribal, and local representatives to identify the needs and deficiencies of recreational water quality
monitoring programs. Based on this information, EPA will strengthen water quality standards and
implementation programs by developing policies and assisting local managers in their transition to
recommended criteria. EPA will also develop and issue guidance on managing risk at recreational
waters and on using monitoring methods and indicators developed during subsequent research.
To expedite the pace at which states and tribes strengthen their water quality standards, EPA will
develop policies to ensure that states and tribes adopt the currently recommended Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Bacteria-1986 and make the transition to monitoring for E. coli and enterococci
indicators rather than total coliforms or fecal coliforms.
EPA recognizes that the science and policies related to the protection of recreational waters will
constantly evolve. Thus, the Agency will develop and support training as needed. These efforts may
involve training in new methods, other technology transfer opportunities, and guidance documents.
Because recreational waters are primarily managed by local agencies, risk communication practices
vary widely throughout the United States. EPA will provide risk communication tools to regional
and local authorities to promote consistent effectiveness. EPA will maintain a website to communi-
cate timely recreational water quality information to beach managers and the public. The "BEACH
Watch" website (http://www.epa.gov/ost/beaches) will provide real-time details on advisories and
closings to authorities as well as to members of the public with access to the Internet. Input from
other EPA programs, federal agencies, and regional pilot projects will be used to develop the site.
IV
-------
Regional managers will be able to provide this information to the public in a format deemed locally
feasible.
EPA will conduct a National Beach Health Survey annually to collect detailed data on state and
local monitoring efforts, applicable standards, water quality communication methods, the nature
and extent of contamination problems, and any protection activities.
EPA will develop a national inventory of digitized beach maps. These maps will be linked with
locations of pollution sources through a Geographic Information System. They are expected to be-
come an invaluable source of information to local organizations and the general public.
EPA will develop and support strong regional and local partnerships through the Environmental
Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking Program (EMPACT). Current beach-spe-
cific EMPACT projects with EPA offices in New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the Southeast, the
Great Lakes region, the South, the West, and the Gulf Coast region are investigating the use of better
bacterial indicators, exploring improved monitoring methods, developing site-specific predictive
tools, and making timely beach information available to the public.
The second objective of the Beach Action Plan is to improve the science that supports recreational
water monitoring programs. The Beach Action Plan's scientific research addresses three broad ar-
eas:
(1) Water Quality Indicators Research. Rapid analytical methods are needed to identify risk before
exposure takes place. Real-time or near-time analytical methods would trigger warnings or closures
or set in motion a more rigorous monitoring protocol.
Although the 1986 criteria are an improvement over prior ones, better indicators of the potential
presence of enteric pathogens must be developed and assessed for their public health risk predictive
value. Discriminating between human and animal sources of contamination is important not only to
locate sources, but because not all animal pathogens cause human disease and their presence may
lead to unnecessary precautions. Furthermore, current indicator microbes are based solely on fecal
contamination and may not accurately assess the risk of disease due to a myriad of other potential
pathogens that cause skin, upper respiratory tract, eye, ear, nose, and throat diseases.
Finally, EPA will assess whether currently used indicator bacteria proliferate naturally in soil and
water under tropical conditions. If they do so, their use as indicators in tropical climates would be
ineffectual.
(2) Modeling and Monitoring Research. Although some local water quality managers estimate im-
pending beach pollution through computer models or other tools, most must wait for laboratory test
results before they can make a determination of health risk. In the meantime, this leaves the potential
for exposing the public to pathogens. EPA will assess the utility of existing models; those that
provide improved assessments of water quality will be recommended to local authorities.
EPA will assemble a workgroup with expertise in monitoring recreational waters, determining the
risks associated with currently used indicator levels, and determining the need for public health con-
trols at recreational waters. The workgroup will recommend guidelines for new testing protocol. The
protocol will address the timing and locations of samples and other factors influencing the levels and
types of fecal indicators in recreational water samples. Guidance will be developed for public health
professionals on when, where, and how to set up and conduct an appropriate monitoring program for
typical beaches.
-------
(3) Exposure and Health Effects Research. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) are mixed dis-
charges of storm water and domestic waste that occur when the flow capacity of a sewer system is
exceeded during rainstorms. They are potentially a greater risk to swimmers than dry-weather dis-
charges from other point sources. The effects of CSO discharges on recreational waters need to be
quantified. EPA will conduct research to determine pathogen occurrence and indicator relationships
associated with wet weather flows.
The zone of the shoreline that is constantly washed by waves or tides offers micro-habitats where
organic matter may collect and where warm, moist sand may be conducive to the growth of certain
bacterial pathogens protected from dilution with open waters. EPA will conduct research necessary to
determine if special consideration of this interstitial zone and its impact on children and other sensi-
tive populations is warranted.
A significant uncertainty in recreational water risk assessment is the actual exposure level associated
with ingestion, inhalation, and skin contact with contaminated water and the corresponding level of
illness. EPA will conduct epidemiological studies to establish the link between water quality indica-
tors and disease.
EPA intends to coordinate with other agencies in recreational water related activities. The next phase
of the Beach Action Plan will integrate EPA activities with those carried out by agencies such as the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
the U.S. Geological Survey, and state environmental and public health departments.
VI
-------
Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Beach Action Plan Overview 2
2.1 Enabling Consistent Management of Recreational Water Quality Programs 3
2.1.1 Program Development Activities 3
Conferences and Meetings 3
Guidance Documents 4
Strengthening Water Quality Standards and Implementation Programs 4
Training and Technology Transfer 5
2.1.2 Risk Communication Activities 5
Beach Watch Website 5
National Beach Health Survey 5
Beach Maps 5
Regional and Local Partnerships 5
Risk Communication Guidance 6
2.2 Improving the Science that Supports Recreational Water Monitoring Programs 6
2.2.1 Water Quality Indicators Research 6
Rapid Indicators of Fecal Pollution 6
Enhanced Analytical Methods for Detecting Intestinal Pathogen Presence 6
Indicators that Distinguish Between Human and Animal Fecal
Contamination 6
Indicator Microbes for Pathogens Causing Non-Enteric Diseases 7
Tropical Indicators 7
2.2.2 Modeling and Monitoring Research 7
Improvement of Predictive Models 7
Experimental Validation of Models 7
Monitoring Strategy 7
2.2.3 Exposure and Health Effects Research 8
Combined Sewer Overflows 8
Shoreline Interstitial Water 8
Human Exposure Factors 8
Epidemiological Studies 9
Beach Action Plan Implementation Table 10
Appendix A: Overview of the Science and Regulatory History 12
Appendix B: Glossary 14
Appendix C: Agency Contacts 16
Principal Authors 19
vn
-------
1.0 Introduction
As growing numbers of persons move to coastal areas
and pollution continues to threaten the waters in which
we swim and play, many Americans still risk illness
from exposure to contaminated recreational waters.
While there is no true measure of the magnitude of
disease associated with recreational water exposures,
epidemiology studies in the United States and abroad
have consistently found an associated disease burden.
In addition, thousands of beach advisories and clos-
ings are issued at recreational rivers, lakes, and oceans
every year throughout the United States. According to
the Natural Resources Defense Council's eighth an-
nual survey on beach water safety, at least 4,153 days
of beach closings and advisories were caused by pol-
lution in 1997 alone, and "adequate monitoring and
notification procedures are still lacking at many of the
nation's most popular beaches." This number of advi-
sories may be an underestimate of incidents of con-
tamination because many states and localities do not
conduct, nor are they required to have, regular recre-
ational water quality monitoring programs.
Beach advisories and closings in the United States are
generally due to elevated levels of indicator organisms
which may indicate the presence of pathogens, dis-
ease-causing microorganisms. The source of these in-
dicator organisms can be discharges of untreated or
partially treated sewage into ambient waters. Recre-
ational water users are at risk of infection from water-
borne pathogens through ingestion or inhalation of con-
taminated water or through contact with the water.
Some people may face a disproportionate risk from
exposure to the pathogens because of heightened
susceptibility. For example, children may be more
vulnerable to environmental exposure due to their ac-
tive behavior and their developing immune systems.
Adverse events at treatment plants can lead to recre-
ational water users being exposed if there is inadequate
monitoring or untimely notification. Currently, moni-
toring programs vary widely at the local level. While
they may have prevented some exposure and illness in
the past, many of these programs are not using the best
possible indicators of microbial pathogens presence.
Beginning in 1976, EPA recommended fecal coliforms
to the regulatory community as indicator organisms
for the presence of pathogens in recreational waters.
Coliforms are bacteria found in the intestinal tract of
humans and animals; therefore their presence in am-
bient water indicates fecal pollution and the potential
presence of pathogens. In 1986, based on new research
data, EPA recommended new monitoring guidelines,
including the use of Escherichia coli (E. coli) and en-
terococci as indicators to replace fecal coliforms. The
presence of these bacteria in recreational waters cor-
relates with swimming-associated gastrointestinal dis-
ease better than a total fecal coliform count. About one-
third of all states have adopted either E. coli or entero-
cocci for monitoring fresh and marine waters. How-
ever, other states have continued to use fecal coliforms,
and a small number still use total coliforms to indicate
water quality.
The inconsistent use of indicator organisms for moni-
toring recreational waters has resulted in occurrences
of one state prohibiting use of recreational waters that
were considered safe by a neighboring state. A scien-
tifically based investigative process to determine po-
tential health risks and eliminate their sources in rec-
reational waters is sorely needed in order to foster con-
sistent use of indicators. To be effective, this process
must be recognized and accepted by state and local
officials. Flexibility in the program would allow for
differences in health risk from differing sources, source
elimination as an alternative to monitoring, and re-
gional differences in climate, resources, and geogra-
phy. Research is needed to improve the scientific ba-
sis of monitoring programs. This will include identi-
fying appropriate indicators, determining relationships
between indicators and risk levels for disease, and de-
veloping more accurate models and faster analytical
methods to ensure timely notification of problems.
-------
2.0 Beach Action Plan Overview
Recognizing the need for consistent and improved
monitoring programs, EPA's Administrator, Carol
Browner, announced the Beaches Environmental
Assessment, Closure and Health (BEACH) Program
on May 23, 1997. The goal of this program is to sig-
nificantly reduce the risk of disease to users of the
nation's recreational waters through improvements in
recreational water programs, communication, and sci-
entific advances. The BEACH Program applies to fresh
water recreational areas such as lakes, ponds, and riv-
ers, as well as marine waters such as oceans and bays,
as does the Beach Action Plan. They do not apply to
public or private swimming pools or water parks.
The Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP), released on
February 14,1998, describes a series of actions needed
to strengthen clean water programs, including the re-
lease of a plan for federal, state, tribal, and local imple-
mentation of beach monitoring and notification pro-
grams. This Action Plan for Beaches and Recreational
Waters, referred to hereafter as the Beach Action Plan,
lays out EPA's strategy to implement the BEACH Pro-
gram as mandated by the CWAP.
The actions of the federal government are directly af-
fected by the requirements of the Government Perfor-
mance and Results Act (GPRA), which sets perfor-
mance goals throughout the government. The BEACH
Program and this Beach Action Plan address, in part,
three of EPA's performance goals. These GPRA goals
are:
• Clean and Safe Water
• Empowering people with information and expand-
ing their right to know
• Provide sound science to improve understanding
of environmental risk and develop and implement
innovative approaches for current and future en-
vironmental problems
The Beach Action Plan furthers the three main themes
laid out in the BEACH Program:
• Strengthen beach programs and water quality stan-
dards;
• Inform the public about recreational water quality;
and
• Conduct research to improve the scientific basis
for beach programs.
The Beach Action Plan is a dynamic, multi-year strat-
egy governing all EPA activities protecting the public's
health from pathogens in recreational waters. This fo-
cus enables rapid progress on the issue and provides a
working point from which a broader plan, including
the contributions of other organizations and other rec-
reational water health issues, can be developed.
Of course, the most desirable solution to protect public
health is to eliminate the need for beach closings through
the effective control of pollution sources. This need is
being addressed by several programs within EPA. The
Beach Action Plan focuses on identifying and reduc-
ing the risk of exposure to pathogens should they con-
taminate recreational waters. The Beach Action Plan
does not address the ecological impacts of pathogens
or the control of harmful algal blooms, because these
activities are planned or have begun in other programs
at EPA and other agencies.
Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, and
EPA's Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children
mandate that EPA standards, rules, and risk assess-
ments evaluate and characterize risks to children. There-
fore, the elements of the Beach Action Plan address
specific issues that relate to children's health.
Several organizations within EPA have principal roles
in implementing the Beach Action Plan. The Office of
Water (OW) is providing the overall leadership for
planning and developing the BEACH Program. OW's
primary responsibility lies with developing and pro-
mulgating protective standards for recreational water
quality, and providing the tools and guidance neces-
sary for implementing those standards. The Office of
Research and Development (ORD) is working closely
with scientists in OW and in other agencies to plan
and conduct the research necessary to support the sci-
-------
entific needs of the Beach Action Plan. Both OW and
ORD will participate in training programs designed to
communicate the standards and underlying science to
environmental managers and stakeholders within and
outside of the EPA.
EPA's ten Regional Offices are the Agency's primary
contacts with state and local water quality managers,
public health professionals, and the general public. The
Regions will disseminate the tools and information that
state and local managers need to implement the recre-
ational water standards and the science developed by
OW and ORD. They will also convey information to
the states and local governments that they, in turn, can
communicate to the beach-going public. The Regions
will also relay back the needs and problems identified
at the state and local levels, which will drive future
research and regulatory activities. Agency-wide con-
tacts are provided in Appendix C.
The following sections discuss specific EPA activities
that meet the BEACH Program's goal through im-
proved recreational water quality programs, risk
communication, and scientific advances. These efforts
will improve local management of recreational water
quality programs through program development, train-
ing for beach monitoring program managers, and com-
munication of risks to the public.
The schedule for completion of the activities that sup-
port this plan can be found in the table on Page 10.
EPA is committed to working with federal, state, and
local agencies on the implementation of this Plan and
has begun a dialogue with other federal agencies. EPA
will update the plan as needed to reflect the latest sci-
ence, changes in policy, and progress. For an overview
of the science and regulatory history behind the Beach
Action Plan, please see Appendix A.
2.1 Enabling Consistent Management of
Recreational Water Quality Programs
EPA will implement activities to enable consistent man-
agement of recreational water quality programs across
the United States. These activities emphasize program
development and communication of risks to the pub-
lic. The proposed program development activities re-
sult from EPA's long involvement with water quality
criteria and state-adopted standards. The risk commu-
nication activities reflect the federal government's sup-
port for the public's "right to know" about pollution
problems. To identify other priorities, EPA reviewed
available information on existing local and state beach
programs and consulted other external reviews, such
as the "Testing the Waters" reports published by the
Natural Resources Defense Council.
After developing a preliminary list of activities, EPA
gave it a detailed public review at the first national
BEACH conference in October 1997, hosted by EPA
and the Association of State and Territorial Health
Officials. The conference was attended by representa-
tives from federal, state, and local governments, as well
as from environmental, academic, and industry groups.
Participants were asked to identify needs for technical
assistance, assign priorities for short- and long-term
actions, and, where possible, recommend protocols and
procedures to encourage greater consistency among
jurisdictions.
Conference participants strongly supported EPA's ef-
forts to improve consistency and research, but asked
that more flexible implementation be allowed. They
stressed a need for guidance on water quality sampling
protocols, predictive modeling, and adequacy of moni-
toring programs. They also supported additional re-
search to improve the science behind beach health is-
sues (Section 2.2). Risk assessment and communica-
tion was another key area of consensus, and the con-
ference supported consistent but flexible guidance on
risk assessment approaches; criteria for closing and
reopening beaches; assessing risks on human versus
nonhuman sources; and simplified forms of public risk
communication.
A complete report of the conference is available in
EPA's publication National Beach Conference-Report
on Action Items, EPA/823/R-98/004. EPA incorporated
its main priorities into the following programmatic ac-
tivities and into the scientific research activities de-
scribed in Section 2.2.
2.7.7 Program Development Activities
Conferences and Meetings
EPA will arrange a series of technical conferences in-
tended for state and local recreational water quality
managers. The first national conference in October
1997 defined current issues and activities related to
beach health; provided a forum for learning about
beach health initiatives across the country; identified
unaddressed beach health needs; assigned priorities to
short-term and long-term actions; and recommended
protocols and procedures to encourage greater consis-
tency among jurisdictions in beach monitoring and
notification.
-------
EPA is arranging four regional conferences and a sec-
ond national conference with objectives similar to the
first. The regional conferences will emphasize regional
issues and implementation of national guidance.
Guidance Documents
EPA will coordinate the planning and issuance of
BEACH Program guidance documents addressing rec-
reational water quality monitoring, risk assessment, risk
management, and risk communication and incorporat-
ing results of ORD's research, input from OW, and
technical input from state and local participants. The
first integrated guidance document will be a national
overview of current beach advisory practices.
During Fiscal Years (FY) 1999 and 2000, EPA will
prepare and issue guidance that includes:
• Adjustments in the risk-based criteria to reflect rec-
reational water use and acceptable risk;
• An evaluation and recommendation of scientifi-
cally valid tools for predicting health risks to rec-
reational water users;
• Strategies for monitoring recreational waters and
conducting beach sanitary surveys (see Section 2.2,
Improving the Science that Supports Recreational
Water Monitoring Programs}',
• Guidance on assessing and managing risk at rec-
reational waters; and
• Case examples of effective recreational water man-
agement programs.
Strengthening Water Quality Standards and
Implementation Programs
Strong state and tribal water quality standards provide
the scientific and programmatic framework for enhanc-
ing protection of beaches and recreational waters. Wa-
ter quality standards provide the legal basis for regula-
tory and water quality improvement programs. Attain-
ment of beach and recreational water quality standards
provides a benchmark for measuring the success of EPA
and state programs in meeting the Government Perfor-
mance and Results Act goal of reducing exposure to
microbial and other types of contaminants in recre-
ational waters and increasing the percentage of waters
designated acceptable for recreational use. The water
quality standards program framework is flexible, al-
lowing for revisions as new bacteriological indicators,
monitoring protocols, and models are developed.
To expedite the pace at which states and tribes
strengthen their beach and recreational water quality
standards, EPA will develop policy to ensure that states
and tribes adopt the Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for Bacteria-1986 and make the transition to monitor-
ing for its recommended E. coli and enterococci indi-
cators, rather than total coliforms or fecal coliforms,
by FY2003. EPA intends to complete development and
publication of this policy as soon as possible but not
later than the end of FY1999. The policy will:
• Affirm the scientific validity of the Ambient Wa-
ter Quality Criteria for Bacteria—1986.
• Supplement the criteria with a literature review of
studies since 1986.
• Outline an approach for monitoring the safety of
recreational waters in tropical climates where E.
coli and enterococci may occur in the soil envi-
ronment.
• Identify appropriate approaches for managing risk
in non-primary contact recreational waters (e.g.,
boating waters).
By the end of FY1999 EPA also intends to propose, in
the Federal Register, microbiological methods for wa-
ter ambient monitoring using E. coli and enterococci.
These methods will be proposed for promulgation of
40 CFR Part 136. By the end of FY1999, EPA also
intends to announce the availability of a training video
and manual for laboratory personnel using these meth-
ods.
The transition to E. coli and enterococci indicators will
be a priority for the triennial reviews of water quality
standards that will occur in FY2000-2002. Beginning
with FY2000, EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices
will develop management agreements with the states
and tribes that will include commitments to have states
and tribes adopt the Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for Bacteria—1986. Where a state does not amend its
water quality standards to include the 1986 criteria,
EPA will act under Section 303(c) of the Clean Water
Act to promulgate the criteria with the goal of assur-
ing that the 1986 criteria apply in all states not later
than 2003.
As the results of research studies become available,
EPA will prepare additional policy, guidance, and train-
ing to supplement the framework for managing risk at
beaches and in other recreational waters.
-------
Training and Technology Transfer
EPA recognizes that the science and policies related to
the protection of recreational waters will constantly
evolve. Thus, the Agency will develop and support
training as needed. These efforts may involve training
on new methods, other technology transfer, and guid-
ance implementation. Training will be provided to
Regional Offices and state and local agencies.
As noted earlier, in FY1999, EPA will produce a video
that demonstrates two indicator test methods for£". coli
and enterococci, which must be filtered out of water
samples and grown in culture. The video will com-
pare methods and demonstrate the use of new growth
media—mEI for enterococci and modified mTEC for
E. coli species.
The video and accompanying manual will be distrib-
uted to local organizations through the partnership pro-
gram.
at "BEACH Watch" and will link to other websites
such as "BASINS" and "Surf Your Watershed" (http:/
/www.epa.gov/surf). EPA regularly updates the
"BEACH Watch" website to include new beach infor-
mation and links to regional projects. Other EPA pro-
grams, federal agencies, and regional pilot projects will
be consulted to develop the information and make it
available to selected areas.
National Beach Health Survey
The only practical way to assess practices and track
improvements is to conduct a national survey. EPA will
conduct an annual National Beach Health Survey to
collect detailed national data on state and local beach
monitoring efforts, applicable standards, beach water
quality communication methods, the nature and extent
of beach contamination problems, and any protection
activities. Results will be made available to local water
quality managers and the public via the Internet and
through regional and local information outlets.
2.1.2 Risk Communication Activities
Recreational water samples are generally collected by
local agencies, such as county health departments and
sanitation districts, which may perform all aspects of
sampling and analysis. These agencies are also respon-
sible for notifying the public of water quality problems
through advisories or closures. Because of varying re-
sources and diverse local circumstances, risk commu-
nication practices vary widely throughout the United
States. EPA is committed to improving the effective-
ness of risk communication methods at national, re-
gional, and local levels.
Beach Watch Website
EPA will maintain a national Internet-based "informa-
tion hub" to communicate timely recreational water-
quality information to the public and to local authori-
ties. Regional managers will be able to provide this
information to the public in a format deemed locally
feasible. The website will incorporate innovative na-
tional, regional, and local efforts. The current "BEACH
Watch" website (http://www.epa.gov/OST/beaches) will
become a real-time electronic database for all beach
health-related information and will provide recreational
water users with national and local details on adviso-
ries and closings. The website will also provide infor-
mation identifying those beaches where monitoring and
assessment activities are conducted in a manner con-
sistent with EPA's national guidance. Survey informa-
tion collection, digitized map development, and
innovative delivery of information will be expedited
Beach Maps
An important part of EPA's efforts to make beach in-
formation available to the public is to develop a na-
tional inventory of digitized beach maps. EPA will
develop protocol for mapping beaches and start map-
ping in priority areas. These easy-to-read maps will
ultimately be linked with locations of pollution sources,
such as combined sewer overflow (CSO) outfalls,
through a Geographic Information System (GIS) avail-
able to local organizations and over the Internet to the
general public. EPA recognizes the need to ensure that
the information be as up-to-date as possible. Once
interlinked, beach maps are expected to become an in-
valuable source of information to local organizations
and the general public. Research activities associated
with CSOs are described in Section 2.2.3, on Page 8.
Regional and Local Partnerships
To explore innovative Risk Communication methods,
among other things, EPA will develop and support
strong regional and local partnerships. The Environ-
mental Monitoring for Public Access and Community
Tracking Program (EMPACT) is a relatively new
Agency-wide initiative to work with communities to
collect, manage, and present real-time environmental
information. EMPACT and the BEACH Program share
the mutual goal of enhanced public access to environ-
mental monitoring information.
In addition to experimenting with novel public risk
communication methods, current beach-specific
-------
EMPACT projects in EPA Regions 1 (New England),
3 (Mid-Atlantic), 4 (Southeast), 5 (Great Lakes), 6
(South Central), 9 (Pacific Coast) and the Gulf Coast
Program Office are investigating better indicators, ge-
netic fingerprinting of bacteria, improved monitoring
methods, and site-specific predictive tools in order to
make time-relevant beach information available to the
public.
Risk Communication Guidance
Guidance on how to interpret data consistently and
communicate water quality risks effectively is essen-
tial. As noted in Section 2.1.1 {Guidance Documents},
EPA will develop guidance and provide technical train-
ing as methodology is developed. For the risk com-
munication portion of the effort, EPA will provide state-
of-the-art guidance. EPA will compile information on
current risk communication efforts, evaluate current
and emerging practices, and present recommendations
as part of the overall beach guidance series.
2.2 Improving the Science that Supports
Recreational Water Monitoring Programs
The research activities described in this section will
be conducted to improve the science supporting recre-
ational water monitoring programs and will serve as a
framework from which a logical sequence of research
can be implemented. Toward this end, a workgroup of
ORD and OW scientists outlined and conducted a peer
review of the research identified to progress from out-
dated water quality monitoring methods to truer mea-
sures of health risk. Relative priorities and estimated
timing of research activities were based on scientific
need and projected availability of resources and are
charted in the table on Page 11. Initial sampling and
monitoring improvements will be concentrated on ex-
isting indicator methods, i.e., enterococci.
Development of improved water quality indicator ana-
lytical methods was identified as a critical early step
because they are an integral part of subsequent research.
Another near-term priority is a scientifically defensible
marine and fresh water sampling protocol. An appro-
priate sampling protocol is essential if recreational
waters are to be precisely monitored using currently
recommended methods. Work has already begun in this
area, as well as in predictive modeling, and will con-
tinue as new methods are developed. Defining the na-
ture of exposures and associated health effects requires
that these studies be done subsequent to methods de-
velopment. Research results stemming from all of the
above will be field tested to validate their use by envi-
ronmental risk managers in assessing the safety of rec-
reational waters.
2.2.1 Water Quality Indicators Research
Recreational water quality indicators are biological or
chemical agents whose presence in water stems from,
or is a surrogate for, contamination by sewage. The
historical use of indicators in protecting the quality of
bathing beach waters in the United States is described
in Appendix A.
Rapid Indicators of Fecal Pollution
Rapid analytical methods are needed to identify risk
before exposure takes place. Current microbial testing
methods for indication of possible pathogen presence
require 24 to 48 hours of incubation before problems
can be detected, leaving ample time for exposure to
occur.
Real-time or near-time analytical methods, such as a
simple "dipstick" color-change test for detecting hu-
man fecal contamination, must be developed to pro-
vide an immediate identification of potential problems.
In using a real-time or near-time indicator, the mea-
surement of certain levels of fecal pollution would ei-
ther trigger warnings or closures or set in motion a more
rigorous monitoring protocol.
Enhanced Analytical Methods for Detecting
Presence of Intestinal Pathogens
Better indicators of the potential presence of enteric
pathogens must be developed and evaluated for con-
firming the risks associated with recreational waters.
They should indicate the presence of pathogens that
may have longer incubation times, lower infective doses,
and/or cause more serious disease than pathogens cur-
rently identified with swimming-associated illness.
This study may require the use of novel techniques for
sampling and characterizing pathogens of concern.
Indicators that Distinguish Between Human and
Animal Fecal Contamination
Forest, pastureland, and urban storm water runoff,
which carry fecal material of domestic and feral ani-
mals, often flow into recreational waters. Another more
direct source of fecal contamination is from aquatic
birds.
Analytical methods currently available for measuring
water quality are unable to distinguish between human
and animal fecal contamination. Therefore, risk asso-
ciated with exposure to animal contaminants is treated
the same as that from human contaminants. Methods
able to discriminate between human and animal fecal
contamination would provide a valuable tool to im-
prove risk assessments of health effects associated with
-------
polluted recreational water. Although risk of exposure
to recreational waters affected by point sources of pol-
lution is well characterized, the risk associated with
animal contaminated waters is unknown. New meth-
ods would enable more-informed health studies to be
conducted. They also would provide instructive moni-
toring data as well as a potential means of tracking
water pollutants to their sources.
Indicator Microbes for Pathogens Causing Non-
Enteric Diseases
Current indicator microbes of non-enteric illnesses are
based on fecal contamination and may not accurately
assess the potential for disease from a myriad of other
potential pathogens that may cause skin, upper respi-
ratory tract, eye, ear, nose, and throat diseases. Anum-
ber of these other pathogens may be associated with
non-fecal bodily wastes, as well as household wastes,
certain types of industrial wastes, and animal wastes.
Bacteria such as staphylococcus and Pseudomonas
aeruginosa may indicate the presence of some of these
pathogens in areas impacted by wastewater. These and
other potential indicators should be evaluated for their
effectiveness in indicating other sources of pollution
including storm sewers, storm water runoff, industrial
wastewater, animal wastes, as well as human recre-
ational contributions. The presence of specific patho-
gen groups, including those causing skin infections
such as leptospirosis, should be well-represented by
the selected indicators.
Tropical Indicators
Currently recommended fecal indicators may not be
suitable for assessing human health risks in the trop-
ics. Studies have suggested that at tropical locales such
as Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and Guam, E. coli and entero-
cocci can be detected in waters where there is no ap-
parent warm-blooded animal source of contamination.
Whether or not current indicator bacteria proliferate
naturally in soil and water under tropical conditions
must be determined. If so, the range of conditions (such
as nutrients, temperature, pH, and salinity) under which
the bacteria proliferate will be characterized and their
geographical boundaries defined. If the phenomenon
is widespread under tropical conditions, additional re-
search will be conducted to modify approaches for
monitoring, or to develop new tropics-specific indica-
tors. Further evaluation of Clostridium perfringens and
other microbial indicators (including coliphages) that
do not flourish naturally in the tropics will be con-
ducted to determine their usefulness as alternative in-
dicators.
2.2.2 Modeling and Monitoring Research
Improvement of Predictive Models
Although some local water quality managers estimate
impending beach pollution through computer models
or other tools, most must wait for laboratory test re-
sults before they can make a determination of health
risk. In the meantime, the public is left with a poten-
tial exposure to pathogens. Anumber of mathematical
models have been or are being developed to assess the
migration of pollution near recreational waters. EPA
will assess the utility of these models; those that pro-
vide acceptable assessments of water quality would
be recommended to local authorities.
EPA is working with interested parties to catalogue
the full range of predictive tools in current use and to
evaluate and improve them. These may range from
"rules of thumb" for predicting risks, such as the oc-
currence of intense rainfall, to complex hydrodynamic
models.
Experimental Validation of Models
Predictive models are available or being designed to
assess the migration of pollution near recreational wa-
ters. Many of them are based on stream hydrology or
tracing certain chemical and physical parameters down-
stream of pollution sources.
In conjunction with the implementation of a monitor-
ing strategy, EPA will assess and validate the utility of
these models for tracking pathogens or their indicators
to downstream recreational waters under various hy-
draulic, tidal, and atmospheric conditions. Models that
provide acceptable assessments of microbial travel
would be recommended to state and local authorities to
assess when upstream conditions may adversely im-
pact recreational waters. Such models could be used to
preemptively post or close a beach.
Monitoring Strategy
The monitoring approach recommended by EPA in
1987 uses the geometric mean of five samples taken
over a 30-day period as a water quality limit. The ra-
tionale for using this approach was never published in
-------
regulatory guidance manuals nor in open scientific lit-
erature, and is widely considered outdated. There is a
great interest in monitoring approaches that use the
analytical results of single samples, rather than five
samples, to make risk management decisions. The
uncertainty associated with both approaches, however,
must be thoroughly defined before EPA can recom-
mend refined monitoring guidance to the states and
regions.
To this end, EPA will assemble an expert international
workgroup whose members are involved with repre-
sentative problems associated with monitoring recre-
ational waters, determining the risks associated with
indicator levels (and the statistical basis for such), and
determining the needs for public health controls at
beaches.
After appropriate peer review, the workgroup's rec-
ommendations will be used as guidelines in develop-
ing a testing protocol. The protocol will address the
timing and locations of samples, and other factors in-
fluencing the levels and types of fecal indicators in
recreational water samples. Intensive field sampling
studies will be conducted at a selected number of fresh
and marine water sites, and the significance of indica-
tor density (which varies with water depth and dis-
tance to the shore, sunlight, tides, other currents, wind,
waves, bather load, and rainfall) on indicator levels
during typical beach days will be determined. Guid-
ance will be developed for public health professionals
on when, where, and how to establish an appropriate
monitoring program for typical beaches.
2.2.3 Exposure and Health Effects Research
Combined Sewer Overflows
CSOs discharge a mixture of storm water and domes-
tic waste when the flow capacity of a sewer system is
exceeded during rainstorms. Due to the presence of
untreated sewage in CSO discharges, they are poten-
tially a greater risk to swimmers than dry-weather dis-
charges from other point sources.
The effects of CSO discharges to recreational waters
need to be quantified. Research is proposed to deter-
mine pathogen occurrence and indicator relationships
associated with wet-weather flows.
Increased pathogen exposure at recreational areas may
also occur due to sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) or
watershed runoff during heavy rainfall. While it is
known that CSOs are capable of contributing exces-
sive enteric pathogens to surface waters, the contribu-
tions of SSOs and watershed runoff have not been well-
characterized with respect to their contribution of en-
teric or other human pathogens or indicators.
Non-point contamination components, such as septic
systems, domestic and wild animals, and livestock, may
contribute different pathogen types, numbers of patho-
gens, and human health risks. EPA will characterize
and quantify the pathogen types, concentrations, and
relationships with indicator organisms for comparison
during dry-weather and wet-weather events under vari-
ous geographical and watershed conditions.
Shoreline Interstitial Water
The zone of the shoreline that is constantly washed by
waves or tides is simultaneously an attractive recre-
ational area and a possible habitat for microbial patho-
gens. This "swash zone," as it is called by coastal sci-
entists, has not received the research attention it de-
serves. The interstices, or spaces between the sand
grains, offer micro-habitats where organic matter may
be filtered out, and where warm, moist sand may be
conducive to the growth of certain bacterial pathogens
protected from dilution with open waters. When storms
or increased wave energy resuspend sand and trapped
particles, these pathogens are released into the envi-
ronment.
These interstitial waters may pose an increased risk
for toddlers and young children who play, wade, and
swim in the swash zone. Research is needed to deter-
mine if special consideration of interstitial water and
its impact on sensitive populations is warranted.
Human Exposure Factors
A significant uncertainty in recreational water risk as-
sessments is the actual exposure level associated with
ingestion, inhalation, and skin contact with contami-
nated water and the corresponding level of illness. Al-
though the frequency of illness or infections can be de-
termined through epidemiological studies, the factors
that contribute to these adverse health effects—other
than entering the water—are largely unknown.
Behavioral patterns, such as time spent in the water
and the volume of water swallowed, have not been
well-defined. Skin abrasions or cuts also may contrib-
ute to swimming-associated infections, but are seldom
documented. The personal hygiene of swimmers while
in the water also is poorly documented for natural rec-
-------
reational waters. However, there is evidence from
swimming pool studies that accidental fecal releases
are not uncommon.
Another uncertain situation is the crowding together
of swimmers at smaller recreational areas (bather load)
during hot weather, weekends, and holidays. The in-
creased proximity of people within an area may pro-
mote swimmer-to-swimmer transmission of disease.
All of these factors can be correlated to swimming ac-
tivities, especially those of children. More definitive
assessments of health risks associated with swimming
will be possible with a better understanding of the ex-
posure-effect process. The following research projects
are proposed:
• Characterize swimmer behavioral patterns that
may affect risk characterization activities and risk
management practices with regard to recreational
water safety.
• Characterize typical exposures that may be expe-
rienced through recreational water use and deter-
mine the exposure-response and mode of infec-
tion during these events. For instance, do skin in-
fections occur predominantly if sores or abrasions
are present? It has been estimated that only 100
mL of water enters the mouth and nasopharynx
during a typical swimming episode. Although this
amount is considered sufficient to cause gastro-
intestinal disease, it is not known whether it is
adequate to cause other types of infections, given
the expected pathogen density, their mode of ac-
tion, and the disease threshold levels. The mode
of action in upper respiratory tract infections needs
to be investigated. Studies will be conducted to
determine the mechanisms of infection from these
types of exposures and determine the effective dose
of enteric and non-enteric waterborne pathogens.
• Evaluate the relationship between water quality
and diseases associated with bather load. Research
will be conducted at well-characterized marine and
freshwater beaches having low exposure risks from
contaminant sources such as CSOs, but having
high bather loads. The study approach will allow
the differentiation of health risks due to bather load
from other pollution risks. The study will also at-
tempt to detect and quantify specific bather con-
tribution of pathogens of concern at the exposure
locations.
Epidemiological Studies
There will likely be a critical need for additional epi-
demiological studies in the future. They would be tar-
geted at ensuring that improved or new indicator meth-
ods or procedures are well-grounded in their relation-
ships to health effects for the various types of diseases
related to recreational exposure. To fully address this
research need, it may be necessary for EPA to partner
with other agencies and organizations to ensure an ad-
equate level of financial and scientific support.
EPA will conduct epidemiological studies to establish
the link between water quality indicators and disease
endpoints so that the level of exposure demonstrates a
specific level of risk for disease. Epidemiological stud-
ies will be conducted at selected marine, estuarine, and
fresh- water recreational locations. Cohort studies will
be conducted on populations of recreational water us-
ers having full-body exposures to waters known to have
specified levels of fecal contamination (or contamina-
tion causing non-enteric illnesses). New and innova-
tive potential indicator methods will be used to sample
the waters at representative locations in the exposure
area during the exposure periods to assess or validate
their efficiency for determining health risks. The rela-
tive risks of exposure to animal and human fecal
contamination also will be evaluated.
-------
Beach Action Plan Implementation Table
Activity
FY1998
7234
FY1999
7234
FY 2000
FY 2001
7234
7 2
2.1 Enabling Consistent Management of Recreational Water Programs
2.1.1 Program Development Activities
Conferences and Meetings:
I National conferences
| Regional conferences
\Guidance Documents
\Strengthening Water Quality Standards and Implementation Programs:
| Develop and issue policy memorandum
| Reiterate policy at next triennial review
| Prepare and issue guidance
\Training & Technology Transfer:
j Prepare new video and manual
Distribute video
• 4
2.1.2 Risk Communication A ctivities
Beach Watch Website
National Beach Health Survey:
Initiate survey (Great Lakes and
coastal areas)
i Update and expand survey
Beach Maps:
Develop consistent protocol for mapping
beaches. Begin mapping in priority areas
Continue beach maps and identify
sources
Regional & Local Partnerships:
j Boston Harbor/Charles River: Real-Time
Monitoring and Reporting of Water
Quality (EMPACT)
Providence, Rl: Improved Management of
beaches (EMPACT)
Coastal Virginia: genetic "fingerprinting"
& testing of E. coli
Florida: Develop Predictive Wet Weather
Model for Beach Closure and Real-Time
Monitoring for Public Notification
(EMPACT)
NW Indiana: Develop Publicly Accessible
CIS database for the E. coli Monitoring
Network (EMPACT)
Lake Ponchartrain, New Orleans,
Louisiana: Predictive Modeling of
Bacterial Indicators (EMPACT)
Mississippi Gulf Coast: Beach Water
Quality Monitoring (EMPACT)
So. California/Hawaii: Public Access to
Bacteriology Data (EMPACT)
Communication Guidance
14-
4-
4-
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
(Continued)
10
-------
Beach Action Plan Implementation Table
Activity
FY1998
1234
FY1999
1234
FY 2000
1234
FY 2001
1 2
2.2. Improving the Science that Supports Beach Programs
2.2.1 Water Quality Indicators Research
Rapid indicators of fecal pollution
Enhanced analytical methods for detecting
intestinal pathogens
New or modified indicators that distinguish
between human and animal fecal contamination
Indicator microbes for pathogens causing
non-enteric diseases
Tropical indicators
• .
'
'
A
•.
'
-A.
V
• .
'
A
•.
'
j>
/
j>
/
2.2.2 Modeling and Monitoring Research
Improvement of predictive models
Experimental validation of models
Monitoring Strategy:
Primary workshop: Identify problems
and issues
Pilot beach sampling study
Workshop: Establish DQOs and design
comprehensive sampling plan
Conduct comprehensive sampling study
multi-environments with partner cities
Workshop: Statistical analysis of data
Workshop: Translate technical data and
design communication plan
2.2.3 Exposure and Health Effects Research
Combined Sewer Overflows
Shoreline Interstitial Water
4—4
• A
4 — 4
A
A
•.
A
4—4
1
A
A
j>
f
-,
Human Exposure Factors:
Characterize typical exposures and
swimmer behavioral patterns
Evaluate the types and incidence of
diseases associated with bather load
Epidemiological Studies
A
A.
j>
f
4-V
NOTE: The timelines projected in this table are subject to change based on scheduling of priorities and
availability of resources.
11
-------
Appendix A
Overview of the Science and Regulatory History
Regulations for protecting the quality of bathing beach
waters in the United States were first considered in 1924
by the American Public Health Association's Commit-
tee on Bathing Places. They decided not to propose stan-
dards because of the lack of solid epidemiological data
and their reluctance to alarm the public about dangers
of outdoor bathing places without good evidence. The
Committee maintained this position until 1936 when it
proposed that bathing water quality was unacceptable
if the total coliform density was greater than 1,000 per
100 mL. This decision was based on the belief that
total coliforms are intimately associated with fecal
material from the gut of warm-blooded animals and
that their presence in water implies the potential pres-
ence of enteric pathogens. Similar legal standards were
soon proposed in California, Connecticut, and by the
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission in
Ohio.
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the U.S. Public Health
Service conducted a series of epidemiological studies
at bathing places in Chicago, Kentucky, and Long Is-
land, New York to determine the health effects associ-
ated with swimming. These studies showed that there
was a detectable health effect (e.g., diarrhea) when to-
tal coliform densities were about 2,000 coliforms per
100 mL of water. Based on this and the finding that the
fecal subset of coliforms were better indicators for con-
tact recreation, the National Technical Advisory Com-
mittee of the Federal Water Pollution Administration
(Department of the Interior) made criteria recommen-
dations in its 1968 Report to the Committee on Water
Quality Criteria (the "Green Book"). For evaluating
the microbiological suitability of primary-contact wa-
ters, the committee proposed that fecal coliforms not
exceed an average density of 200/100 mL, nor should
more than 10% of the samples collected during any 30-
day period exceed 400/100 mL.
In 1972, EPA's Water Quality Criteria ("Blue Book")
summarized the state of the science on microbiological
considerations for recreational waters; however, no
specific recommendations concerning the microbio-
logical content of recreational waters were presented.
In the 1976 Quality Criteria for Water ("Red Book"),
EPA proposed the criteria for fecal coliforms recom-
mended previously in the Green Book.
New recommendations for maintaining the quality of
bathing beach waters were issued by the EPA in 1986;
the geometric mean density of enterococci could not
exceed 35 per 100 mL in marine recreational waters or
33 per 100 mL in fresh waters. In addition, it was rec-
ommended that the density of E. coli should not exceed
126 per 100 mL in fresh water. The densities of these
two bacteria in recreational waters, which occur in high
numbers in the feces of warm-blooded animals and hu-
mans, had been shown epidemiologically to cause
gastrointestinal symptoms in swimmers in marine or
fresh waters. About one-third of all states have adopted
either E. coli or enterococci for monitoring fresh and
marine waters. Other states continue to use fecal
coliforms, and a small number still use total coliforms.
The relationship between the quality of bathing water
and health effects was established in a series of studies
which examined differences in symptomatic illness be-
tween swimming and non-swimming beach-goers at
marine bathing beaches in 1972-1978 and freshwater
bathing beaches in 1978-1982. These studies showed
that: (1) swimmers who bathe in water contaminated
with sewage are at greater risk of contracting gastroen-
teritis; (2) as the quality of bathing water degrades, the
swimming-associated illness rate increases; and (3) at
equivalent indicator densities in marine and fresh wa-
ters, the illness rate in swimmers was greater in marine
swimmers than in freshwater swimmers. Other stud-
ies suggest that activities such as wind surfing, snor-
keling, and canoeing are also associated with an in-
creased risk of contracting gastrointestinal disease.
Many other studies of recreational water quality and
health effects have been conducted since these EPA stud-
ies were completed. Two of these studies were conducted
12
-------
in freshwater environments in Canada and in France.
Both studies used a prospective cohort design. In
Canada, significant associations were found between
all symptomatic illnesses and the water quality indica-
tors, Staphylococcus and fecal coliforms. In France,
significant relationships between gastroenteritis and the
water quality as measured with fecal coliforms and fe-
cal streptococci were also found; streptococci appeared
to show a much stronger relationship to gastrointesti-
nal illness than did fecal coliforms.
Additional studies in marine environments were con-
ducted in Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Israel,
Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and South
Africa. Water quality was usually measured using mul-
tiple microbial indicators. Fecal streptococci, fecal
coliforms, E. coli, and enterococci were the indicator
bacteria most commonly used.
All of the recreational water quality studies showed that
there was a risk of gastrointestinal illness associated
with swimming water contaminated by feces. Some of
the studies also showed a dose-response type relation-
ship—the illness rate increased as the water quality de-
creased. Several of them indicated that enterococci or
fecal streptococci have a stronger correlation with the
incidence of illness than coliforms or fecal coliforms.
In the many studies conducted since, there have been
no new principles defined beyond those developed by
the EPA studies in the 1970s and early 1980s.
While epidemiology studies in the United States and
abroad have consistently found a surfeit of disease
burden associated with natural recreational water ex-
posures, there is no adequate estimate of the true mag-
nitude of disease because of limitations in past efforts
to quantify the extent of the problem. Past studies gen-
erally considered acute gastrointestinal (AGI) illness
and did not look for serious disease sequelae or skin,
upper respiratory tract, eye, ear, or throat infections.
Based on studies conducted so far, it is evident that
the resulting human illnesses would be substantial if
even a small percentage of the millions of U.S. recre-
ational water users became ill with AGIs caused by
exposure to those waters. It is unlikely over the short
term that the Agency will have the resources to con-
duct costly large-scale epidemiology studies similar
to those being done for food and drinking water, in
order to assess the national magnitude of the problem.
Research projects have been delineated in seven gen-
eral areas: monitoring strategy, improved indicators,
modeling, combined sewer overflows, interstitial beach
zones, exposure, and epidemiology studies. Other re-
search needs will be identified as work and coordina-
tion progress.
13
-------
Appendix B
Glossary
Clostridium perfringens: A species of anaerobic (oxy-
gen intolerant), spore-forming bacteria present in the
intestinal tract of humans and animals. Since it does
not flourish naturally in the tropics, it may be an ap-
propriate indicator to detect possible fecal contamina-
tion.
Coliforms: Group of bacteria that inhabits the intesti-
nal tract of humans and animals. Their presence in water
indicates fecal contamination and the possible presence
of pathogens. Coliform bacteria may be found in wa-
ter, plants, air, or soil. (See Fecal coliform, below)
Coliphage: (or bacteriophage) A virus that infects
coliform bacteria. Studies have shown that counts of
coliphage may give a useful estimate of numbers of
pathogens in sewage-polluted water.
Combined sewer overflow (CSO): Discharge to wa-
terways of a mixture of storm water and domestic waste
that occurs when the flow capacity of combined storm
drains and sewer systems are exceeded during rain-
storms. Normally, the entire flow of a combined sewer
goes to a wastewater treatment plant, but during heavy
storms the higher volume may cause overflows of un-
treated mixtures of storm water and sewage into water-
ways. About 900 cities in the U.S. continue to use these
combined sewer systems.
Contamination: General term referring to the intro-
duction of undesirable materials (e.g., microorganisms,
chemicals, toxic substances, wastes, or wastewater) into
an environment (e.g., water, air, soil, biota, or surface
of solid objects).
Criteria: Measurable physical, chemical, or biologi-
cal characteristic used to assess water quality. Com-
monly used as a basis for setting legally enforceable
standards.
E. coli: Escherichia coli, a subset of the coliform group
that is part of the normal intestinal flora in humans and
animals and is, therefore, a direct indicator of fecal
contamination of the water.
Enteric: Of or within the intestine.
Enterococci: Enteric streptococcal (round) bacteria
used to indicate fecal contamination and the possible
presence of pathogens.
Enteric bacteria: Bacterial species that normally in-
habit the intestinal tract of humans and animals. In-
cluded in this group of organisms are some of the most
important intestinal pathogens of humans. Most enteric
bacteria do not cause disease when confined to the in-
testinal tract of a healthy host, but given a susceptible
host or an opportunity to invade other body sites, many
have the capability to produce disease in any tissue.
Epidemiology: Study of diseases or other health-re-
lated states and events as they affect populations.
Fecal coliform: Subgroup of coliform bacteria that has
a high correlation with fecal contamination associated
with warm-blooded animals.
Fecal streptococci: Enterococci
Gastrointestinal: Of or relating to the stomach and
intestines.
Guidance: Recommendations issued by EPA that do
not have the force of law.
Indicator: A biological or chemical agent whose pres-
ence indicates specific environmental conditions or con-
taminants. Indicators of bacterial contamination of rec-
reational water currently in use are the coliforms and
enterococcus.
Infection: Introduction of a foreign organism into the
body that can multiply and result in a physiological
and immunological change from normal.
14
-------
Interstitial water: The water contained in the spaces
between sand grains or other sediment particles.
Pathogen: Organism capable of eliciting disease symp-
toms. The identification of microorganisms (e.g., bac-
teria, viruses, or parasites) pathogenic to humans can
be difficult. Therefore, the presence of coliforms in
water is usually determined as an indicator of the pos-
sible presence of fecal-derived pathogens.
Pollution: The presence of a harmful contaminant in
the environment.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Bacterial species found as
normal flora in the gut of humans.
Sequelae: Long-term effects and consequences of a
disease.
Standard: Legally binding limit on the amount of pol-
lutant or emissions produced. EPA may establish mini-
mum standards, but states are allowed to be stricter.
Staphylococcus: Type of bacteria commonly found
as normal flora in the gut and other areas of humans.
Swash Zone: The area at the water's edge that is not
always fully submerged and is influenced by tides and
waves.
Tropical: In this document, refers to a hot and humid
climate characteristic of the zone between the tropic of
Cancer and the tropic of Capricorn.
Water quality criteria: Specific levels of pollutants
which, if reached or exceeded, are expected to render a
body of water unsuitable for its designated use. Com-
monly refers to criteria established by EPA.
Water quality guidelines: Specific levels of water
quality criteria which, if reached or exceeded, may ad-
versely affect human health or aquatic life. These are
unenforceable guidelines issued by a governmental
agency or other institution.
Water quality standards: State-adopted and EPA-ap-
proved standards for water quality measures.
15
-------
Appendix C
Agency Contacts
Office of Water
Lisa Almodovar
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology, Health
and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (4304)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-1310
Mimi Dannel
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology, Standards
and Applied Science Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (4305)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-1897
Rick Hoffmann
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology, Standards
and Applied Science Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (4305)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-0642
Robin Oshiro
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology, Health
and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (4304)
Washington, DC 20460
(202-260-7278)
Steve Schaub
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (4304)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7571
Office of Research and Development
Barbara Klieforth
Office of Research and Development
Office of Science Policy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (8104R)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6787
Rebecca Calderon
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
Mail Code MD-58A
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919)966-0617
Al Dufour
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Exposure Research Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7303
16
-------
Agency Contacts (continued)
Office of Research and Development (continued)
Marie O'Shea
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(732)321-4468
Bill Stelz
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Center for Environmental Research
and Quality Assurance
401 M Street, SW (8701R)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6834
Fred Kopfler
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Gulf of Mexico Program
Building 1103, Room 202
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-6000
(601)688-1172
Regional Offices
Matthew Liebman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
JFK Federal Building CWQ
Boston, MA 02203
(617)565-3590
(States: CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT)
Randall Young
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212) 637-3847
(States: NJ, NY, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands)
Randy Braun
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
2890 Woodbridge Avenue, Building 10
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
(908)321-6692
(States: NY, NJ, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands)
Brigitte Farren
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)566-2767
(States: DC, DE, MD, PA, VA, WV)
Joel Hansel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
100 Alabama Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 562-9274
(States: AL, GA, FL, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN,)
David Pfeifer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
(312)353-9024
(States: IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI)
Mike Schaub
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue (6WQ-EW)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214)665-7314
(States: AR, LA, NM, OK, TX)
Jake Joyce
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7828
(States: IA, KS, MO, NE)
David Moon
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
(303)312-6833
(States: CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY)
17
-------
Agency Contacts (continued)
Regional Offices (continued)
Janet Hashimoto
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1997
(States: AZ, CA, HI, NM, NV)
Curry Jones
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)553-6912
(States: AR, ID, OR, WA)
18
-------
Principal Authors
Thomas M. Armitage, PhD
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
Standards and Applied Science Division
Alfred P. Dufour, PhD
Office of Research and Development
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Microbiological and Chemical Exposure Assessment
Research Division
William F. Hoffmann, MPH
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
Standards and Applied Science Division
Barbara I. Klieforth, MSPH
Office of Research and Development
Office of Science Policy
Stephen A. Schaub, PhD
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Christopher S. Zarba
Office of Research and Development
Office of Science Policy
The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable input of personnel from offices and regions across the
Agency.
19
------- |