Proceedings of the 2004 National
Beaches Conference
March 2005
EPA-823-R-05-001
For copies of the proceedings, please contact:
National Service Center for Environmental Publications
Phone: 1-800-490-9198
Fax: 513-489-8695
Web site: www.epa.gov/ncepihom
-------
Proceedings of the 2004
National Beaches Conference
October 13-15, Z004
-------
Introduction
The goal of the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency's Beaches Environmental Assess-
ment, Closure and Health (BEACH) Program is to
work in partnership with states, tribes, territories,
local governments, and the public to significantly
reduce the risk of disease to users of the nation's
recreational waters. This is accomplished through
improvements in recreational water programs,
communication, and scientific advances. BEACH
Act grants are awarded to eligible coastal and
Great Lakes states, territories, and tribes to devel-
op and implement beach monitoring and notifica-
tion programs.
On April 20,2004, EPA announced the Ad-
ministration's Clean Beaches strategy. The strat-
egy includes the Clean Beaches Plan. By carrying
out the Clean Beaches Plan, EPA is helping state,
tribal, and local beach managers strengthen their
programs. A strategy for reducing the risks of in-
fection to people who use the nation's recreational
waters, the plan recognizes that beach managers
need tools that allow for local and regional differ-
ences in pollution sources and climate. The Clean
Beaches Plan describes what EPA plans to do
over the next couple of years to achieve two major
goals: promote recreational water quality programs
nationwide and create scientific improvements that
support timely recreational water monitoring and
reporting.
The national conference was organized as
part of the Clean Beaches Plan. It provided a
forum for learning about beach health initiatives
across the country; presenting new methods, indi-
cators, and modeling techniques; identifying beach
health needs; discussing priorities for short-term
and long-term actions; and recommending proto-
cols and procedures to encourage greater consis-
tency among jurisdictions. The conference was
organized into the following sessions:
Session One: Welcome and Plenary Speak-
ers
Session Two: State and Local Experiences
in Implementing Beach Monitoring and
Notification Programs
Session Three: Design of Beach Monitoring
Programs
Session Four: The Public Notice Decision
Process and Public Perception
Session Five: Source Identification
Session Six: Total Maximum Daily Loads
Session Seven: Remediation Approaches
Session Eight: Making Warning Systems
More Rapid: Modeling and Rapid Methods
Session Nine: New Health Risk Indicators
Session Ten: Quantifying Swimmer Risk
Session Eleven: Plenary Panel Discussion
Session Twelve: Data Management and
Communication
Session Thirteen: Communicating Beach
Condition to the Public
Session Fourteen: Conference Wrap-Up
Each session consisted of individual presen-
tations and a discussion period with questions and
comments from the audience and responses by
the speakers. This proceedings document contains
each speaker's presentation slides, summaries of
audience questions and responses, and a summary
of the plenary panel discussion.
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Acknowledgments
The Office of Science and Technology (OST)
in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Water funded the 2004 National
Beach Conference. The Standards and Health
Protection Division in OST organized the confer-
ence and Tetra Tech, Inc. provided support for the
conference and this proceedings document under
EPA contract C-04-030.
The planning workgroup included the fol-
lowing representatives:
• EPA Headquarters: Beth LeaMond, Bryan
"Ibrahim" Goodwin, Charles Kovatch, Rick
Hoffmann, Jim Pendergast, Wendy Miller,
and Denise Keehner
• EPA Regional and Research Offices: Matt
Liebman, Joel Hansel, Al Dufour, Holly
Wirick, Mike Schaub, Terry Fleming, and
Janet Hashimoto
• State and local Beach Program or public
health officials: Shannon Briggs, Blake
Traudt, Don Killinger, Sara Sumner, Bob
Vincent, Lynn Schneider, Toni Glymph,
Esperanza Stancioff, Eric Sacon, Jody Con-
nor, Paul Whelan, and Dave Burnett
• The California State Water Resources Con-
trol Board: Robin McCraw
• Tetra Tech: Shannon Prendergast and Me-
lissa Canfield
• The Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project: Steve Weisberg
Contributions of those who helped in the
planning and organizing of this successful con-
ference is greatly appreciated. Special thanks is
extended to EPA Region 9 for helping to plan
the conference and to the State Water Resources
Control Board of the State of California for then-
contributions to the program and for welcoming us
to their home territory. Steve Weisberg from the
Southern California Coastal Water Research Proj-
ect contributed much time and energy in develop-
ing the program, contacting people, and in helping
with logistics. The contributions of the invited
speakers and attendees are gratefully acknowl-
edged. Their efforts were critical to the success of
the conference.
The material in this document has been
subjected to Agency technical and policy review
and approved for publication as an EPA report.
The views expressed by individual authors, how-
ever, are their own and do not necessarily reflect
those of EPA. Mention of trade names, products,
or services does not convey, and should not be
interpreted as conveying, official EPA approval,
endorsement, or recommendation.
-------
Contents
National Beaches Conference
Agenda 1
DAY ONE
Session One: Welcome and Plenary Speakers 7
San Diego Welcome 8
Donna Frye
EPA Welcome 9
Wayne Nastri
Beach Act Actions: 2000-2004 and Beyond 10
Denise Keehner
Waterborne Pathogens and Indicators: A Pathway Forward 14
Joan Rose
Session Two: State and Local Experiences in Implementing Beach Monitoring &.
Notification Programs 23
Hawaii Watershed Initiative and Clean Beaches ..24
Carl Berg ;
Florida's Healthy Beaches Monitoring Program 30
BartBibler
Surf and Turf: Developing Partnerships for Maine's Beaches 36
Esperanza Standoff
Incorporating the Bacterial Indicator Enterococci in Marine
Beach Water Quality Monitoring Program 42
Clay Clifton
Washington State's Beach Environmental Assessment,
Communication and Health (BEACH) Program 49
Lynn Schneider
-------
Session Three: Design of Beach Monitoring Programs 57
EPA Overview: Current National Requirements, Guidance and Hot Issues 58
Matthew Liebman
Public Health Protection at Marine Beaches: A Model Program for
Water Quality Monitoring and Public Notification 63
Mark Gold, D.Em.
Comparison and Verification of Bacterial Water Quality Indicator
Measurement Methods and Using Ambient Coastal Water Samples 70
John Griffith
Composite Sampling as an Alternative Technique for the
Determination of Bacterial Indicators in Recreational Waters 76
Julie Kinzelman
How Often and Where to Monitor: Outcome of the EMPACT Study 84
Larry Wymer
Session Four: The Public Notice Decision Process and Public Perception 89
Source Unknown: Questionable Geometric Mean Exceedances
at two Pristine North Carolina Beaches '. 90
J.D. Potts
Misinformation in Beach Warning Systems 98
Stanley Grant
The Cost of Beach Water Monitoring Errors in Southern California 104
Lin wood Pendleton
Communication: Increasing Public Awareness about Beaches Ill
Harry Simmons
City of Encinitas Perspective on Beach Postings 115
Katherine Weldon
DAY TWO
Session Five: Source Identification 121
EPA Guidance Manual on Source Identification 122
Gerald Stelma, Jr.
-------
Tiered Approach for Identification of a Human Fecal Pollution Source at a
Recreational Beach: Case Study at Avalon Bay, Catalina Island, California 127
Alexandria Boehm
Fecal Source Identification with Bacteroidetes Molecular Markers 132
Katharine Field
Using Microbial Source Tracking in New Hampshire:
Applications, Results and Challenges 139
Stephen Jones
Replication of E. coli in Sand at a Temperate Freshwater Beach 145
Elizabeth Aim
Session Six: TMDLs '. 153
A Watershed Scale Approach for Developing a Bacterial TMDL
in an Urbanizing Puget Sound Embayment 154
Christopher May
Improving Beach Water Quality through TMDLs:
ACase Study of Santa Monica Bay Beaches 161
Renee DeShazo
Delisting of Recreational Beaches on the 303(d) List for
Exceedances of Bacterial Water Quality Standards 168
Lisa Kay
"The Hunt for Red E. coli" - Bacteria Source Tracking in Lake Darling Watershed 176
Eric O 'Brien
San Diego Creek Watershed Natural Treatment System 182
Norris Brandt
Session Seven: Remediation Approaches 191
California's Clean Beach Initiative '. 192
Mark Gold, D.Em.
EPA's Clean New England Beaches Initiative and Flagship Beaches 197
Matthew Liebman, PhD.
The Effectiveness of Spatial Distribution Studies in the Development of
Successful, Cost-Effective, Targeted Remediation Efforts 205
Julie Kinzelman
-------
Utilizing Storm Water Monitoring to Assess Beach Water Quality 215
. JilJLis,R.S.
Diversion is the Solution to Pollution, So Far 225
Cathy Chang, D.Env.
Session Eight: Making Warning Systems More Rapid:
Modeling and Rapid Methods 231
A Regional Nowcast Model forSouthern Lake Michigan
Using Data Readily Available to Beach Managers 232
Richard Whitman
Predicting the Need for Beach Closures in Real Time:
Statistical Approaches and their Applicability to the Lake Michigan Shoreline 238
Greg Olyphant
High Frequency Radar Provides Real Time Data for Enhancing
Beach Monitoring Programs 245
Eric Terrill
Rapid Measurement of Bacterial Fecal Pollution Indicators at
Recreational Beaches by Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction 247
Richard Haugland
Recreational Water Testing by Rapid, High-Throughput
Real-Time Quantitative PCR(QPCR) for Fecal Indicators : 253
Jack Poor, MarkDoolittle
Session Nine: New Health Risk Indicators 265
Comparative Testing of Rapid Microbiological Indicator
Methods for Marine Recreational Water Monitoring 266
Stephen Weisberg
Assay and Remote Sensor Development for Molecular
Biological Water Quality Monitoring 268
Kelly Goodwin, Ph.D.
Quantification of Enterovirus in Seawater in Imperial Beach, CA
using Real-Time RT-PCR 274
Rick Gersberg
Rapid Detection of Enteroviruses in Environmental Samples using
Real-Time Quantitative Reverse Transcriptase PCR 276
Rachel Noble
-------
Male-Specific Coliphages as Indicators of Fecal Pollution in
Coastal Recreational Waters 281
Greg Lovelace
Session Ten: Quantifying Swimmer Risk 287
EPANational Epidemiology Study 288
Timothy Wade, Ph.D.
Mission Bay Epidemiology Study 295
JackColford.MD,Ph.D. •
Risk Perception Bias and Self Reported Symptoms 301
Jay Fleischer, Ph.D.
Criteria Development: Beach Act Requirements and Schedule 309
Stephen Schaub
Evaluation of Recreational Health Risk in Coastal Waters •
Based on Enterococcus Densities and Bathing Patterns 314
David Turbow, Ph.D.
Lunch Speaker 319
Linking the Oceans and Human Health: Perspectives from the US Commission
on Ocean Policy and the new NOAAOHH Initiative 320
Session Eleven: Plenary Panel Discussion 327
Introduction 328
Terry Tamminen, Denise Keehner, Shannon Briggs, Rachel Noble,
Mark Gold, D.Env., Monica Mazur
Question 1: After everything that you have heard here, what aspects of beach
programs need the largest improvement given existing technologies? How can
federal, state, and local programs work together most effectively? 331
Question 2: We've heard new technological developments: what is the role of EPA in
the development of these technologies and where should their priorities be placed? 337
DAY THREE
Session Twelve: Data Management and Communication.,,. 343
eBeaches 344
Charles Kovatch
-------
Managing, Storing and Sharing Beach Monitoring Data 349
Bill Geake
Leveraging Technology for Effective Beach Management 353
Eric Sacon
Experience of Delaware 363
Dennis Murphy
Experience of Massachusetts 369
TamHinchliffe
Session Thirteen: Communicating Beach Condition to the Public 377
Heal the Bay's Beach Report Card®: Communicating Complex
Water Quality Issues and Improving Public Health 378
James Alamillo
Methods for Assessing Beach Management Policy Effectiveness 383
Sharyl Rabinavici
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 388
MarkDorfinan
So Many Report Cards, So Little Information 392
Steve Aceti
Session Fourteen: Conference Wrap-Up..... 395
Poster Presenters 399
List of Attendees 428
-------
National Beaches Conference Agenda
October 13-15,2004
San Diego, California
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
5:00-7:00 Early Bird Registration
Hotel Lobby
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
7:30-5:00 Registration
Grand Ballroom Lobby
8:00 • Registration
Grand Ballroom Lobby
8:30-9:50 Session I: Welcome & Plenary
Speakers
Moderator—Beth LeaMond,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Salon D&E
8:30-8:45 San Diego Welcome
Donna Frye, City Councilmember,
City of San Diego
8:45-9:00 EPA Welcome
Wayne Nastri,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
9:00-9:25 Plenary Speaker—Beach Act Actions:
2000-2004 and Beyond
Denise Keehner,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Science and Technology
9:25-9:50 Plenary Speaker—Waterborne
Pathogens and Indicators: A Pathway
Forward
Joan Rose, Michigan State University
9:50-10:20 Break
10:20-12:00 Session H: State and Local
Experiences In Implementing Beach
Monitoring & Notification Programs
Moderator - Janet Hashimoto,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Salon D&E
10:20-10:40 Hawaii Watershed Initiative and Clean
Beaches
Carl Berg, Hanalei Watershed Hui
10:40-11:00 Florida's Healthy Beaches Monitoring
Program
BartBibler,
Florida Department of Health
11:00-11:20 Surf and Turf: Developing
Partnerships for Maine's Beaches
Esperanza Standoff,
University of Maine Cooperative
Extension/ Sea Grant
11:20-11:40 Incorporating the Bacterial Indicator
Enterococci in Marine Beach Water
Quality Monitoring Programs
Clay Clifton, County of San Diego
11:40-12:00 Washington State's Beach
Environmental Assessment,
Communication, and Health {BEACH}
Program
Lynn Schneider,
Washington State Department of Ecology
12:00-1:20 Lunch
1:20-2:50 Session HI: Design of Beach
Monitoring Programs
Moderator—Matthew Liebman, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Salon D&E
1:20-1:30 EPA Overview: Current National
Requirements, Guidance And Hot
Issues
Matthew Liebman, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
-------
National Beaches Conference
1:30-1:50 Public Health Protection at Marine
Beaches: A Model Program for
Water Quality Monitoring and Public
Notification
Mitzy Taggart, Heal the Bay
1:5Q-2:10 Comparison And Verification Of
Bacterial Water Quality Indicator
Measurement Methods Using Ambient
Coastal Water Samples
John Griffith, Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project
2:10-2:30 Composite Sampling as an Alternative
Technique for the Determination of
Bacterial Indicators in Recreational
Waters
Julie Kinzelman, City of Racine
2:30-2:50 How Often and Where To Monitor:
Outcome Of The EMPACT Study
Larry Wymer, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
2:50-3:20 Break
3:20-5:00 Session IV: The Public Notice Decision
Process and Public Perception
Moderator—Robin McCraw,
California State Water Resources Control
Board
Salon D&E
3:20-3:40 Source Unknown: Questionable
Geometric Mean Exceedances at Two
Pristine North Carolina Beaches
J.D. Potts, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
3:40-4:00 Misinformation in Beach Warning
Systems
Stanley Grant,
University of California at Irvine
4:00-4:20 The Cost of Beach Water Monitoring
Errors in Southern California
Linwood Pendleton, University of
California at Los Angeles
4:20-4:40 Communication: Increasing Public
Awareness about Beaches
Harry Simmons, American Shore and
Beach Preservation Association
4:40 - 5:00 City of Encinitas Perspective on Beach
Postings
Katharine Weldon, City of Encinitas
6:00-8:00 Poster Session
Sponsored by American Shore & Beach
Preservation Association
Ballroom Foyer & Sierra 5/6
Conference participants are invited
to convene for light refreshments and
discussion. Over thirty displays prepared
by scientists and industry experts will be
presented. Light refreshments and a cash
bar will be available.
-------
Agenda
Thursday, October 14,2004 .
Concurrent Track I: Identifying and Solving Beach
Water Quality Problems
7:30-5:00 Registration
Grand Ballroom Lobby
8:00 Registration
Grand Ballroom Lobby
8:00-9:40 Session V: Source Identification
Moderator—Don Killenger, Cuyahoga
County Board of Health
Salon A/B/C
8:00-8:20 EPA Guidance Manual on Source
Identification
Gerard Stelma, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
8:20-8:40 Tiered Approach for Identification
of a Human Fecal Pollution Source
at a Recreational Beach: Case Study
at Avalon Bay, Catalina Island,
California
Alexandria Boehm, Stanford University
8:40-9:00 Fecal Source Identification with
Bacteroidetes Molecular Markers
Katharine Field, Oregon State University
9:00-9:20 Using Microbial Source Tracking in
New Hampshire: Applications, Results
and Challenges
Stephen Jones, University of New
Hampshire
9:20-9:40 Replication of E. coli in Sand at a
Temperate Freshwater Beach
Elizabeth Aim, Central Michigan
University
9:40-10:20 Break
10:20-12:00 Session VI: TMDLs
Moderator—Joel Hansel, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Salon A/B/C
10:20-10:40 A Watershed Scale Approach for
Developing a Bacterial TMDL in an
Urbanizing Puget Sound Embayment
Christopher May, Battelle Marine
Science Laboratory
10:40-11:00 Improving Beach Water Quality
through TMDLs: A Case Study of
Santa Monica Bay Beaches
Renee DeShazo, Los Angeles Regional
Water Quality Control Board
11:00-11:20 Delisting of Recreational Beaches on
the 303(d) List for Exceedances of
Bacterial Water Quality Standards
Lisa Kay, MEC-Weston Solutions, Inc.
11:20-11:40 "The Hunt for Red E. coJi"-Bacteria
Source Tracking in Lake Darling
Watershed >
Eric O'Brien, Iowa Department of
Natural Resources
11:40-12:00 San Diego Creek Watershed Natural
Treatment System
Norris Brandt, Irvine Ranch Water
District
12:00-1:20 Lunch
Pavillion
Linking the Oceans and Human
Health: Perspectives from the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy and the
new NOAA OHH Initiative
Paul Sandifer, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Sponsored by Idexx Laboratories
1:20-3:00 Session VH: Remediation Approaches
Moderator—Holly Wirick, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Salon A/B/C
1:20-1:40 California's Clean Beach Initiative
Mark Gold, Heal the Bay
1:40-2:00' EPA's Clean New England Beaches
Initiative and Flagship Beaches
Matthew Liebman, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
2:00-2:20 The Effectiveness of Spatial
Distribution Studies in the
Development of Successful, Cost-
Effective, Targeted Remediation
Efforts
Julie Kinzelman, City of Racine
2:20-2:40 Utilizing Storm Water Monitoring To
Assess Beach Water Quality
Jill Lis, Cuyahoga County Board of
Health
-------
National Beaches Conference
2:40-3:00 Diversion is the Solution to Pollution,
So Far
Cathy Chang, Santa Monica Bay
Restoration Commission
3:00-3:20 Break
3:20-5:00 Session XI: Plenary Panel Discussion
Moderator—Steve Weisberg, Southern
California Coastal Water Research
Project
Salon D/E
Panel
• Denise Keehner,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
• Shannon Briggs,
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
• Rachel Noble,
University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill
• Mark Gold, Heal the Bay
• Monica Mazur,
Orange County Environmental Health
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Concurrent Track II: Changes on the Horizon
7:30-5:00 Registration
Grand Ballroom Lobby
8:00 Registration
Grand Ballroom Lobby
8:00-9:40 Session VIII: Making Warning
Systems More Rapid: Modeling and
Rapid Methods
Moderator—Steve Weisberg, Southern
California Coastal Water Research
Project
Salon D/E
8:00-8:20 A Regional Nowcast Model for
Southern Lake Michigan Using Data
Readily Available to Beach Managers
Richard Whitman, U.S. Geological
Survey •
8:20-8:40 Predicting the Need for Beach
Closures in Real Time: Statistical
Approaches and their Applicability to
the Lake Michigan Shoreline
Greg Olyphant, Indiana University
8:40-9:00 High Frequency Radar Provides
Real Time Data for Enhancing Beach
Monitoring Programs
Eric Terrill, Scripps Institution of
Oceanography
9:00-9:20 Rapid Measurement of Bacterial Fecal
Pollution Indicators at Recreational
Beaches by Quantitative Polymerase
Chain Reaction
Richard Haugland, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
9:20-9:40 Recreational Water Testing by
Rapid, High-Throughput Real Time
Quantitative PCR (QPCR) for Fecal
Indicators
Jack Paar and Mark Doolittle, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
9:40-10:20 Break
10:20-12:00 Session IX: New Health Risk
Indicators
Moderator—Rebecca Calderon, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Salon D/E
10:20-10:40 Comparative Testing of Rapid
Microbiological Indicator Methods
for Marine Recreational Water
Monitoring
Stephen Weisberg, Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project
10:40-11:00 Assay and Remote Sensor
Development for Molecular Biological
Water Quality Monitoring
Kelly Goodwin, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
11:00-11:20 Quantification of Enterovirus in
Seawater at Imperial Beach, CA using
real-time RT-PCR
Rick Gersberg, San Diego State
University, School of Public Health
11:20-11:40 Rapid Detection of Enteroviruses
in Environmental Samples using
Real-time Quantitative Reverse
TranscriptasePCR
Rachel Noble, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill
4
-------
Agenda
11:40-12:00 Male-Specific Coliphages as Indicators
of Fecal Pollution in Coastal
Recreational Waters
Greg Lovelace, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill
12:00-1:20 Lunch
Pavillion
Linking the Oceans and Human
Health: Perspectives from the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy and the
new NOAA OHH Initiative
Paul Sandifer, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Sponsored by Idexx Laboratories
1:20-3:00 Session X: Quantifying Swimmer Risk
Moderator—Al Dufour, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Salon D/E
1:20-1:40 EPA national Epidemiology Study
Timothy Wade, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
1:40-2:00 Mission Bay Epidemiology Study
Jack Colford, University of California at
Berkeley
2:00-2:20 Risk Perception Bias and Self
Reported Symptoms
Jay Fleischer, NOVA Southern
University
2:20-2:40 Criteria Development: Beach Act
Requirements and Schedule
Stephen Schaub, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
2:40-3:00 Evaluation of Recreational Health
Risk in Coastal Waters Based on
Enterococcus Densities and Bathing
Patterns
David Tiirbow, Touro University •
International
3:00-3:20 Break
3:20-5:00 Session XI: Plenary Panel Discussion
Moderator—Steve Weisberg, Southern
California Coastal Water Research
Project
Salon D/E
Panel
« Denise Keehner,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
* Shannon'Briggs,
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
• Rachel Noble, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill
• Mark Gold, Heal the B ay
• Monica Mazur,
Orange County Environmental Health
-------
National Beaches Conference
Friday, October 15, 2004
7:30-12:00 Registration
Grand Ballroom Lobby
8:00 Registration
Grand Ballroom Lobby
8:10-9:50 Session XII: Data Management and
Communication
Moderator-Charles Kovatch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Salon D/E
8:10-8:30 eBeaches
Charles Kovatch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
8:30-8:50 Managing, Storing and Sharing Beach
Monitoring Data
Bill Geake, Windsor Solutions
8:50-9:10 Leveraging Technology for Effective
Beach Management
Eric Sacon, Rhode Island Department of
Health
9:10-9:30 Experience of Delaware
Dennis Murphy, Delaware Department
of Natural Resources & Environmental
Control
9:30-9:50 Experience of Massachusetts
Tom Hinchliffe, Massachusetts
Department of Public Health
9:50-10:20 Break
10:20-11:40 Session XIII: Communicating Beach
Condition to the Public
Moderator: Toni Glymph, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
Salon D/E
10:20-10:40 Heal the Bay's Beach Report Card®:
Communicating Complex Water
Quality Issues and Improving Public
Health
James Alamillo, Heal the Bay
10:40-11:00 Methods for Assessing Beach
Management Policy Effectiveness
Sharyl Rabinovici, U.S. Geological
• Survey
11:00-11:20 Beachwater Contamination and
Source Control: the Public Right-to-
Know
Mark Dorfman, Environmental Research
and Education
11:20-11:40 So Many Report Cards, So Little
Information
Steve Aceti, California Coastal Coalition
11:40-12:00 Session XIV: Conference Wrap Up
Salon D/E
Workshop Summary and Future
directions of the EPA BEACH Program
Denise Keehner, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Science and
Technology
-------
Wednesday, October 13
8:30 a.m. - 9:50 a.m.
Session One:
Welcome and Plenary Speakers
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Donna Rye
City of San Diego
San Diego Welcome
Biosketch
Donna Frye was elected Councilmember for
the City of San Diego's Sixth District in a special
election on June 5,2001. She was re-elected to a
full, four-year term in March 2002 with a resound-
ing 65 percent of the vote. Councilmember Frye
currently serves as the Vice Chair of the Public
Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee.
She also serves on the Natural Resources and
Culture Committee, Land Use and Housing Com-
mittee, Mayor Murphy's Clean Water Task Force,
San Diego River Conservancy, Abandoned Vehicle
Abatement Service Authority, Local Agency For-
mation Commission, SANDAG Walkable Com-
munities Committee, San Diego Trolley Advisory
Board and the Service Authority for Freeway
Emergencies.
Councilmember Frye is an environmental ac-
tivist who has advocated for more open decision-
making by elected officials. She is the founder of
Surfers Tired of Pollution (STOP), an advocacy
group created in 1995 to protect natural resources,
and is a past consultant for the Center for Marine
Conservation, a national nonprofit group based in
Washington D.C. Donna also co-owns a surf shop
in Bay Park with her husband, legendary surfer,
Harry "Skip" Frye.
As a Councilmember, Donna has worked
tirelessly to increase public participation in local
government, ensure that city resources are allocat-
ed to the communities of District Six, repair and
replace aging infrastructure, ensure that develop-
ment in District Six complies with Community
Plans, expand Branch Library services, expedite
uhdergrounding of utilities, protect and preserve
our canyons, open space and public parkland,
reduce sewage spills and prevent polluted runoff,
and slow down traffic in our neighborhoods.
8
Before being elected, Councilmember Frye
was active in community and environmental is-
sues in San Diego since the early 1980s. Donna
advocated for clean water issues and openness and
ethics in government. She worked to strengthen
San Diego City policies related to polluted runoff,
including the initiation of the posting of warning
signs in front of storm drains, the monitoring of
discharges at storm drain outfalls, the diversion of
dry weather low-flow runoff into the sewer system
and she played a central role in obtaining millions
of dollars for the clean up of Mission Bay.
Councilmember Frye is a member of the
Clairemont Town Council, Linda Vista Civic
Association, and Women In Business, and was a
long-time member and former Vice Chair of the
Pacific Beach Community Planning Committee.
To ensure that small business owners had the right
to vote when their taxes were increased for Busi-
ness Improvement Districts, Donna worked jointly
with the San Diego Taxpayers' Association and the
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association.
In recognition of her hard work on behalf
of our communities, Donna has received com-
mendations from the San Diego County Board
of Supervisors and Assembly Member Howard
Wayne. She also received the Bank of America
Small Business Award for Commitment to Com-
munity and was named Environmentalist of the
Year by the Surf Industry Manufacturers Associa-
tion (SIMA). Washington D.C. based, Clean Wa-
ter Network named Donna one of thirty national
Clean Water Act heroes for her contribution to the
protection and restoration the nation's rivers, lakes,
wetlands and coastal waters.
-------
Day One: Session One
EPA Welcome
Wayne Nastri
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
Biosketch
Wayne Nastri, a lifelong westerner, was ap-
pointed Regional Administrator for Region 9 in
October 2001. Mr. Nastri has led the Region to
real progress in meeting the west's environmental
challenges, especially in improving air quality in
the Central Valley and Southern California and
in protecting of scarce water resources through-
out the arid west. Clear communication, strong
enforcement and accountability to the public for a
measurable "bottom line" have been the hallmarks
of his tenure. A strong proponent of partnership
as the best route to environmental protection, Mr.
Nastri has launched many creative collaborations
to protect the health and environment of all those
who live in the Pacific Southwest.
Most recently, Mr. Nastri partnered with
EPA's Seattle region to launch the West Coast
Diesel Emission Reduction Collaborative, which
will speed voluntary reductions of diesel emissions
from ports, trucks and other federally regulated
sources in a significant assault on one of the west's
gravest air quality problems. Mr. Nastri also cre-
ated EPA's Southern California Field Office in Los
Angeles — a major improvement in EPA's local
presence for the region's largest metropolitan area.
Prior to his appointment, Mr. Nastri held
various environmental leadership positions, includ-
ing Board membership for California's South
Coast Air Quality Management District (covering
Southern California), as well as participation in
advisory boards for California's state air quality
and waste management agencies. His fifteen years
of environmental consulting experience culminat-
ed in his presidency of Environmental Mediation
Inc. before accepting his position at EPA.
9
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Beach Act Actions: 2000-2004 and
Beyond
Denise Keehner
US. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology
Biosketch
Denise Keehner is the Director of the Stan-
dards and Health Protection Division in the Office
of Science and Technology in the Office of Water.
Her Division is the Headquarters Office respon-
sible for the Water Quality Standards Program, the
Beach Program, and, the Fish Advisory Program.
Denise has been in this position since May 2003.
Prior to her joining the Office of Water, Denise
was the Director of the Biological and Economic
Analysis Division (BEAD) in the Office of Pes-
ticide Programs (OPP) and the acting Director of
the Environmental Fate and Effects Division in
OPP. She has been with USEPA at Headquarters
for 26 years and has served in management posi-
tions since 1985.
10
-------
Day One: Session One
We have 8 <3ranm,. „
Ov^viaw of Conference
Goals
Conference & 3 good afcaoce to:
Conearns
BEACH Ad passed In response
Act
Water QxiaSitv
- e^A'a ,-iiSs hH ccftsatftfes etsae* «ray
II
-------
National Beaches Conferences
BEACH Grams
and
Monitoring
Data
• StatSar Kx'f
~"*6fcfc
«#*,
12
-------
Day One: Session One
To Sum Up,
WJurt Bfe^ SbouM W« Focus
OR?
*>
- ?
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Waterborne Pathogens and
Indicators: A Pathway forward
Joan Rose
Michigan State University
Biosketch
Dr. Joan B. Rose currently holds the Homer
Nowlin Chair in Water Research at Michigan
State University after receiving her PhD from the
University of Arizona and spending 14 years at
the University of South Florida. Dr. Rose is an
international expert in water microbiology, water
quality and public health safety publishing more
than 200 manuscripts. Her work has examined
new molecular methods for waterborne pathogens
and zoonotic agents such as Cryptosporidium and
enteric viruses and source tracking techniques.
She has been involved in the study of water sup-
plies, water used for food production, and coastal
environments as well as water treatment waste-
water treatment, reclaimed water and water reuse
and quantitative microbial risk assessment. She
specifically interested in microbial pathogen trans-
port in coastal systems and has studied the impact
of wastewater discharges and climate on water
quality. She has recently been appointed to the
Science Advisory Board for the International Joint
Commission of the Great Lakes and the Drinking
Water Committee for the Environmental Protection
Agency. She was awarded the 2001 Clarke Water
Prize. She is serving as the Chair of the Interna-
tional Water Association's Health-Related Water
Microbiology Specialty Group.
-------
Day One: Session One
and Indicators:
Joan 8. Ross
Indicators Screening level A
numbers at Jurtedfotiorts 2002
Fecal conforms 3£ for Fresfc; 14 for Martne
v/aters
11 for Fresh; 0 r<»
2 for Frnsh, 7 (o>
Cgrrent and AUemattve indicators
Recreational Outbreaks in Ambler^ Waters
tp hsaJtti sf teois
to
To sources.
15
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Vet fstuttif.K eiu&vn mite 3* CMS* aitBly
Healtli Data Assoclatsd witli
-------
Day One: Session One
library-based methods
"Fingerprinting* indicator
Bacteria
Antibiotic Resistance Analysis
«* phenotype
genotype
Source Tracking Round Robin Study
22 re&esrehefs 1? methods.
5 contained cov/fcses
Source Tracking at MSU
Human marker in Entorococd.
107/1CB samples from human sewage and
O&Q aam^ frem caJile, wss'ne, &fr«l, fecal
thus this maii<«f ca« give tl>@ sourtjg of that
, raft
* Can be yscd with Enteroiert or membrane
17
-------
National Beaches Conferences
^^il-dV^tuiletiilMlii
A2ARD IDENTIFICATION
18
-------
Day One: Session One
Beaches
EvaJtraitott
-------
National Beaches Conferences
i_^
;M^tliiyiS:&::l;l;l^
............. .V. •..-.>;. .v.:.v..:.'.v.y.v.vv.-.v.x •.-.•.•.•.•.•.•.••.•.•.- .. v.y .;.:-:.•.•.•.•.•. v.-.v.y.-.v .-.•.•.•. .-.>y.
'
I^SW TECHNOLOGY
High Throughput DMA Chip Platform
«»:«»,•*> Kwj.iyj^xj wssKsKaaum
20
-------
Day One: Session One
Ind/calQf So&nce and Risk
TH/iNK YOU
21
-------
Wednesday, October 13
10:20 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Session Two:
State and Local Experiences
in Implementing Beach
Monitoring JL Notification
Programs
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Hawaii Watershed Initiative and
Clean Beaches
Carl Berg
Hanalei Watershed Hui
Biosketch
Dr. Berg is Chief Scientist of the Hanalei
Watershed Hui; a community based non-profit
organization on Kauai. Dr. Berg received his B.A
.in Zoology from the University of Connecticut,
his M.S. in Marine Science from the University
of the Pacific, and his Ph.D. in Zoology from the
University of Hawaii. He was a professor at City
College of New York, a research associate at Har-
vard and Columbia universities, a staff scientist at
the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole,
and a Biological Scientist at the Florida Marine
Research Institute. His research focused on popu-
lation ecology of marine invertebrates on islands
in the Caribbean and in the deep sea at hydrother-
mal vents. He retired to Kauai in 1990, but briefly
worked for the Hawaii Department of Health
monitoring water quality in the ocean and streams.
He later volunteered as water quality monitoring
coordinator for the Hanalei Heritage River Pro-
gram, assuming the role as Chief Scientist as it
morphed into the Hanalei Watershed Hui.
Abstract
Hanalei Watershed Hui began monitoring
waters of Hanalei Bay in 2000 because of com-
munity based concerns over pollution by people
living aboard boats anchored in the Bay during the
summer. Samples were collected by volunteers and
analyzed for bacteria by the Hawaii Department
of Health laboratory. No evidence of discharge
was obtained, but the monitoring program has
continued. We have found no correlation between
the number of boats in the Bay and die bacteria
counts.
Starting in 2001, the Hui began its own
monitoring program for Enterococcus bacteria
using IDEXX Enterolert and Quanti-Tray tech-
nologies to supplement DOH sampling, spatially
and temporally. Samples were taken at three beach
parks on Hanalei Bay during periods of peak use,
weekends and holidays, and in four recreational
streams entering the Bay. Snapshot sampling was
done in the Hanalei River and its tributaries to
identify sources of contamination. This informa-
tion was provided to the Hawaii DOH to aid its ef-
forts in monitoring water quality and in identifying
sources of contamination. It was also considered
in listing Hanalei River in the Hawaii 303d list of
impaired waters.
Results of the weekend testing for Enterococ-
cus bacteria are provided to the community via
popular surf reports on local public radio (KKCR).
Reports of the overall testing program are pro-
vided via community meetings, newsletters, our
website (www.Hanaleiriver.org), radio talk shows,
and in a regular public television forum series. Our
staff and volunteers are frequently asked "How is
the water?" as they are out on the beach or in the
community.
24
-------
Day One: Session Two
25
-------
National Beaches Conferences
' .
Netting ki a Bdafty
26
-------
Day One: Session Two
27
-------
National Beaches Conferences
28
-------
Day One: Session Two
Questions and Answers
Q: It was noticed that river bacteria readings were lower in the upper watershed and higher in
lower watershed. The lower watershed levels compared to levels in southern California. Some-
times the levels in Southern California are higher (in the thousands) and reduced closer to the
mouth, but in Southern California we see bacterial blooms, shore birds, ponding, and regrowth,
near the river mouth. Why do the levels in Hawaii drop off as the river gets closer to the ocean?
Carl Berg
The drop of bacteria levels at the mouth is due to estuary mixing, as evidenced by the salin-
ity values. A dilution occurs.
Q: Have you taken groundwater samples? The presence of a cesspool may not be the cause of
groundwater contamination. Are there studies that show that bacteria can travel a long distance
through the earth?
Carl Berg
No groundwater study was done, but there are studies that show that viruses can go 100
yards or more in a short period of time through soils. The area is sandy soils and our studies have
looked at other tracers (such as estrogen levels) that show that the groundwater can get into the
rivers. The Hanalei area gets enough rain to put the beach areas under water at certain times dur-
ing the year.. To visitors in these areas, the cesspool contamination is obvious. Cesspool con-
tamination occurs. Restroom facilities overflow and cause groundwater contamination.
Q: Leptospirosis is a problem in those streams and is spread primarily through urine, rather than
feces. Could you predict which streams were likely to cause leptospirosis disease in humans?
Carl Berg
Leptospirosis is extremely important to study in the lake areas. The only evidence that I
have for the presence of Leptospira is of people getting sick from the streams. There is no effec-
tive, fast way to measure Leptospira in the waters. Some people have been sick and/or died from
contact with streams in Kauai, and larger rivers in Hawaii. Leptospirosis is prevalent in the state
of Hawaii and the major streams are posted with warnings. They are not posted for Cryptospo-
ridium and Giardia, even though they are contaminated with them. We are trying to develop an
effective, quick means for measuring Leptospira in waters for better warnings.
Comment: There was an outbreak of aseptic meningitis in a hospital day care center. It wasfe-
cally spread by a virus, I'm concerned that there may be another outbreak of aseptic meningitis
because it may be linked to one of the enteroviruses.
Carl Berg
Thank you for your comment and I would like to talk to you more about that.
29
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Florida's Healthy Beaches Monitoring
Program
Bart Bibler
Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Water Programs
Biosketch
Mr. Bart Bibler is Chief of the Florida De-
partment of Health's Bureau of Water Programs.
Mr. Bibler is an Environmental Engineer with
primary focus on water quality and water manage-
ment. He served as Director of Environmental
Health and Engineering in Collier County, Florida.
He was the Water Management Administrator for
the Florida Department of Environmental Protec-
tion. And, he previously worked hi the private sec-
tor, including the Orlando, Florida office of Camp,
Dresser & McKee, Inc.
Abstract
Florida has a statewide coastal beach water
quality-monitoring program to help ensure healthy
beaches. Trie 2000 Florida Legislature enacted
Senate Bill 1412 and House Bill 2145 (the Appro-
priations Act) authorizing and funding the Depart-
ment of Health to conduct water quality monitor-
ing of saltwater and brackish beaches. The federal
BEACH Act, administered by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, supplemented
the state funding with roughly an equal amount of
federal funds. The Healthy Beaches Monitoring
Program includes 34 of Florida's coastal coun-
ties sampling 305 sites once every week. These
samples are analyzed for two types of enteric
bacteria, fecal coh'form and enterococci. The
primary purpose of the Healthy Beaches Monitor-
ing Program is to determine whether Florida has
significant beach water quality problems, to pro-
vide this information to the public, and to gauge
where or whether future beach monitoring efforts
are necessary.
Fecal coliform and enterococci are both
enteric bacteria, normally inhabiting the intestinal
tract of humans and animals. The presence of
enteric bacteria is an indication of fecal pollution,
which may come from stormwater runoff, pets and
wildlife, and human sewage. If they are present in
high concentrations in recreational waters and are
ingested while swimming or enter the skin through
a cut or sore, they may cause human disease, in-
fections or rashes.
The sampling results obtained through the
program are automatically uploaded by the coastal
county health departments onto the Department
of Health's Internet Beach Water Quality website
(www.doh.state.fl.us, click on the drop down arrow
next to "-Choose Subject-" and then select "Beach
Water Quality"). In addition, any advisories or
warnings are prompdy forwarded to the appropri-
ate media.
30
-------
Day One: Session Two
Romia HeaJtJiy ©eaehes Program
Fkaida Heathy Beaches Monitoring
Federal 6HACH Act
31
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Ptodda H«a£hy Beaches Horotoslng Program
r«
'ih&wf asK vnvf SXJ iasati*
iss£ *y Hat
Monifeorlrtg f¥ogram
32
«#*
HeaithY Seaches frkjrsjtonfig Program
I
'i °^..
/>•
-------
r
Day One: Session Two
.j.w*v.£$W&>filHffl?ft#W
Advfeertes and Wsro&tgs
Tter&a Hsasmy
Prsgram
Ficrida Heastlty Beachas Momtoring F^ogram
33
-------
National Beaches Conferences
w->X«W>X»^»)k\VJvVSMN*O'X*»IP*^
'
>y *?£$"""--•
;\>
; / >, >-»^'v, ^
» ^>^T\<;=;y-
•V''' •• ^"' ^ M,
Wel> Pages of Jntere*
34
-------
Day One: Session Two
Questions and Answers
Q (Toni Glymph, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources): When does a water get listed as
impaired? Once you determine it has exceeded standards in one year, what happens if it doesn 't
the next year? Are waters listed because they have problems for more than one year?
Bart Bibler
Waters with problems tend to have chronic problems. A beach with a monitoring, clean-up
project is often higher priority for TMDLs than a beach being on the list. Monitoring, advisories,
and warnings have higher priority.
Q: It is interesting that the 21 exceedances criteria are based on EPA standards and the Depart-
ment of Health is complying with that. I think we are all trying to 'understand why they chose 21
days. Is that the way we need to go?
Bart Bibler
They are relying on our issuance of advisories and warnings even ahead of having entero-
cocci as the state water quality standard. I think that has been a leap on their part and has never
been challenged. Even exceedances of enterococci, whether or not it is part of the state water
quality standards, they count in consideration of characterizing a beach as having impaired water.
We are appreciative that EPA is taking it seriously. We are also appreciative that county govern-
ments will move it even faster than waiting for TMDLs that might take 15 years to solve.
35
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Surf and Turf: Developing
for Maine's Beaches
Esperanza Standoff
University of Maine, Cooperative Extension/Sea Grant
Biosketch
Ms. Standoff received her BS in Marine
Biology from Evergreen State College in Washing-
ton and her M Ed in Environmental Science from
the University of Maine. Her work as Statewide
Marine Extension Faculty with the University of
Maine Cooperative Extension and Sea Grant fo-
cuses on Ecosystem Health including environmen-
tal monitoring, marine education, and community
development. She developed one of the first coastal
volunteer citizen water quality and phytoplankton
monitoring efforts in the country. She works with
state and federal agencies to direct and implement.
science and stewardship programs in assessment
and remediation, planning and education.
Abstract
Maine's challenge has been to develop a
community-based volunteer water quality-moni-
toring program because the monitoring of water
quality for swimming and other water contact us-
age is the responsibility of the local jurisdiction. It
is not a mandated requirement from the State, nor
does the State of Maine monitor public beaches
other than State beaches. Maine rose to the test
of unifying the protocols for monitoring, notifica-
tion and education for coastal beaches through a
stakeholder based process with representatives
from the State, University, Nonprofit, NGOs and
local municipalities which guided the development
of the Maine Healthy Beaches Program.
Maine has been faced with coordinating local
municipalities and agencies that were implement-
ing various approaches to monitor coastal water
quality from drinking water standards to shellfish
water quality standards to the US EPA's bacterial
standard. The Maine Healthy Coastal Beaches Pro-
gram required innovative and extensive coordinated
public outreach and education efforts to provide the
communities and agencies with the technical as-
sistance and incentives to implement the program.
Through the execution of a marketing campaign,
involvement of local staff and volunteers and con-
sistent one-on-one consultation from the University
of Maine Cooperative Extension/Sea Grant, the
program has gone from one (1) beach to thirty-six
(36) in a two (2) year period of time.
36
-------
lywuvJiaw*
Day One: Session Two
*v vy*" f • 1 ffff •r-lj-
V;^,^/^
*">„ * , '"
1 ''t"i ••-"•'-^ V \
_,_ _J< '^ _ ff ^ ^ ^ %\F
37
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Story «f
• ^ '
"'? *x
\ '\ 'j*«l
( W^ji
•• •• v». . vv,-.,
».' £&&( ^-*w?
•cssrv-A«*^
^^«hf.
' , y «!*•
V^'*"
\
rtw -Mjf.
A XX* ,«
<^ A
38
-------
Day One: Session Two
"""^-flH;?
-;«oHrt;;fco*««:^;R^;«*^s»<;*»:;:;;:;:::
»ai«i ««S»Si*r^ lisii S x i:
V'v * f jtt>fSf*w**Sf.tf ff * f j jf ^ x^
X, 'r-/^ *,V~^«^ <*.
"O •" -.^VXVA^A ^-L^ 1^ -"^ •j'd
-'- ^. -' '*', ^'
' JfV^v.. -•.«. i. «^ » ,^^At y.
& *• ™Jr* '* -f '
,. J- j$tr f fff^Vf.ff. r^
39
-------
National Beaches Conferences
, (,*«. '
Far
40
-------
r
Day One: Session Two
Questions and Answers
Q (Richard Haugland, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development): Who does the analyses
for your voluntary monitoring program? How are the analyses funded?
Esperanza Standoff
This whole program is funded through EPA Beach Program funds. The program is volun-
tary in the sense that it is not in some of the personnel's (i.e., lifeguards, state park personnel) job
description. We also have some volunteer staff along the coast. However, it the program is not
completely voluntary. Four regional labs are used; two are certified, two are not. Of those labs,
two use Enterolert and two use Enterolert and membrane filtration.
Q: I had an opportunity to travel in Maine recently, and I was very impressed with the wonder-
ful water resources the state has, especially the Rachel Carlson Reserve, which was wonderful.
Have you done any background bacterial monitoring in some of those pristine areas (in Maine)?
Also, have you done any water monitoring of urban runoff that might come from that big white
house in Kennebunkport?
Esperanza Standoff
We have been monitoring water quality, looking at bacteria in particular, for 16 years with
volunteer support. The reserves in Rachel Carson (pristine) areas have good water quality. We
have done a complete study of a large brook that is in one of the "pristine-looking" areas that has
very high bacteria counts. So, we are doing a lot of investigative monitoring as well as looking at
the beach area.
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Incorporating the Bacterial Indicator
Enterococci in Marine Beach Water
Quality Monitoring Program
Clay Clifton
County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health
Biosketch
Mr. Clifton is the Recreational Water Pro-
gram Coordinator for the County of San Diego
Department of Environmental Health (DEH). Mr.
Clifton received his B.A. in Political Science from
Furman University in Greenville, S.C. and M.A.
in Marine Affairs and Policy from the Rosenstiel
School of Marine & Atmospheric Science at the
University of Miami. Mr. Clifton is taking the
California Registered Environmental Health Spe-
cialist exam in November of this year. He started
with DEH as an Environmental Health Technician
in 1997 and worked as the sampler for the Rec-
reational Water Program. Mr. Clifton represents
DEH at the California Beach Water Quality Work
Group, Monitoring and Reporting Subcommittee.
Abstract
In 1986 the EPA published Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Bacteria, which recommended.
replacing coliforms with enterococci as a better
indicator of health risk from fecal contamination in
marine waters. In 1999 California implemented AB
411, which added enterococci to coliforms as bacte-
rial indicators for beach monitoring programs. The
effect was dramatic for California, which experi-
enced an exponential increase in advisories issued
for bacterial exceedances. In San Diego County for
example, there were 19 days posted under Advi-
sory in 1998; and 2137 days posted in 2000. The
addition of enterococci played a major role 60% of
exceedances contained an enterococci exceedance.
91% of advisories caused by a single indicator were
attributed to enterococci.
While the increases in advisories caught the
attention of the media, state regulators, environmen-
tal and stormwater programs, the health depart-
ments implementing AB 411 tried to interpret the
enterococci data. Officials examined the new indi-
cator data in the context of the coliform data, which
they were accustomed to analyzing, in an effort to
characterize the relationship between the two.
Four years later health departments have a
better understanding of advantages and limitations
of enterococci as an indicator of fecal contamina-
tion. The enhanced understanding of enterococci
and coliforms, much of it verified by research, and
the resultant implications for beach monitoring
programs can be presented in these categories:
• Characteristics of enterococci and interac-
tion with coliforms
• Importance of auxiliary data in data inter-
pretation
• Actual health risk vs. random noise in bac-
terial exceedances
• Implications for adaptive monitoring pro-
grams
42
-------
Day One: Session Two
Perception of ^Meliorating
water quality
43
-------
National Beaches Conferences
HUBS!
mi-
m
44
-------
Day One: Session Two
The bacteria} i
monkey wrsrceh, oonfd.
45
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Endnotes
'Ji ^-J-
Ys",
>fyj. f.K fQ^f^jv t
-------
Day One: Session Two
Questions and Answers
Q: Which pathogens did the CalTrans study find?
Clay Clifton
Adenovirus and Salmonella were found. I think the report is online.
Comment: I would be quite concerned with Shigella.
Clay Clifton
Yes, Shigella would be an indication of human presence.
Comment: You also mentioned that there was no correlation with pathogen and indictor levels.
That would not necessarily be expected, but you would get worried when you have pathogens
there but no indicators.
Clay Clifton
Yes, this case occurred in samples taken at the Tijuana River mouth. There was a presence
of an enterovirus with no associated indicators. That is a problem. But, what is equally concern-
ing to me is if there is no correlation between pathogens and indicators. We are working under
the presumption that the indicators will tell us if there is a quantifiable health risk. But, if the
pathogens do not correlate to the indicators, that is a limitation.
Q: You are using a fecal coUform/total coliform ratio. I am an epidemiologist, and to my knowl-
edge that ratio has not been linked to any health effect in any of the literature, except for one
study based on storm water. In addition, total coliform is known to multiply. Who made the deci-
sion to use that ratio or total coliforms as an indicator for health when there is little indication
that it is a good indicator of health?
Clay Clifton
My understanding is that the total/fecal ratio was based upon the findings of the Santa
Monica Bay epidemiological study. The California Department of Health Services wrote the
bacterial standards in the California Code of Regulations. In developing those standards, they
used the findings of the Santa Monica Bay study, which was the one that looked at surface runoff
impact on beaches.
Q (Shannon Briggs, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality): In Michigan we have a
30-day and a daily standard. One of the frustrations we have is that you can exceed one stan-
dard and not the other. It's easier to get a better confirmation with the 30-day standard, if you
have a lot of data over a 30-day period. However, what can be done if the 30-day average is high
because there were high levels earlier in the month, but you have low counts today, it has not
rained, and you think you. have a really good beach situation? How do you deal with that situa-
tion, especially since we are trying to go to real-time results? Do you have a policy on that?
Clay Clifton
Yes, we are trying to get the protocol for the use of the 30-day log mean worked up right
now. What I would do is track the 30-day log mean for Enterococcus, since that will most likely
be the only one that will ever exceed the standard at any beach. Then, front end-load that 30-day
log mean by taking multiple samples the week that you want to make the decision. For example
we have beaches with chronic water quality problems that have high bacteria levels coming from
multiple sources. In the course of 30 days, we could get two ehterococcus sample results that are
47
-------
National Beaches Conference
less than 10 cfu. But, I'm not going to lift the advisories in those cases because if I go out and get
a third sample, it will probably be 400 cfu or even 3000 cfu. So, I look at the 30-day log mean. I
see that my most distant time sample has 400 cfu, and I see a decreasing trend in the week I am in
now, which has one clean (single) sample. So, I would want to take at least one more sample that
week so that my 30-day log mean becomes front end-loaded and I'd be weighing it more towards
the more recent data and then only counting one sample per other sample event going back to the
30-days.
Comment: So, you weigh your 30-day mean a little bit? You do not take it as an all-inclusive 30-
day pile of data?
Clay Clifton
I have tried to come up with a procedure to address it. I would take the highest bacteria
sample result per sample event per day and take all the data from the last 30 days. Then, when
you are coming up to that decision point where it looks like you are coming out of the contamina-
tion event, collect more samples during that week so that you have more recent data points to use
to front-end load your 30-day mean.
Q: (Rachel Noble): We're seeing similar trends with enterococcus. Do you have an idea of any
kind of enterococcus speciation that was done on any of the samples? What species are found in
the soil and plant samples—and are they available to be analyzed?
Clay Clifton
I saw a New Zealand study that found that E. fadum and E. faecalis were the most common
species of enterococci. That suggests there is a human source. But if there is replication in the
environment, do we still have the associated health risk? If the indicator bacteria from a human
source replicates, do the associated pathogens also replicate? I'm not aware that a virus particle
can replicate outside of a host.
Q: Were E. facium and E. faecalis in your wrack samples, as well as the plant and soil samples?
Clay Clifton
It is uncertain. The City of San Diego told me during a conversation with their microbiolo-
gist that E. facium and E. faecalis were the most common, but it was not particular to the two
studies I just mentioned. It was a more general observation.
Comment (Stephan Weurtz, University of California Davis): I was on the advisory committee
for the CalTrans study. The study found pathogens when no indicators were found. Pathogens
included adenoviruses and enteroviruses. They were detected using molecular techniques with no
test for viability. They were totally unrelated with the presence of indicators.
48
-------
Day One: Session Two
Washington State's Beach
Environmental Assessment,
Communication and Health (BEACH)
Program
Lynn Schneider
Washington State Department of Ecology
Biosketch
Lynn Schneider is the BEACH Program
Coordinator for the State of Washington. The
BEACH Program is a managed jointly by the State
Departments of Ecology and Health. Because of
the joint management, she splits her time between
the two agencies.
Ms. Schneider received her B.S. in Envi-
ronmental Chemistry from the Evergreen State
College in Olympia, Washington in 1988. She
worked as a chemist for Morton International for
eight years prior to joining the Washington State
Department of Ecology in 2001. Lynn became the
BEACH Program Coordinator in 2001. Her main
interest is the relationship between increases in
indicator levels and increased illness rates associ-
ated with water contact and how increased risk is
communicated to the public.
Abstract
Washington State's Beach Environmental As-
sessment, Communication, and Health {BEACH}
Program began in 2002. An inter-agency BEACH
Committee was established to develop program
guidelines. The BEACH Program was implement-
ed as a pilot project during 2003 in five counties.
Full implementation to Washington's fourteen
coastal counties with marine beaches began in 2004.
Washington's BEACH Program is complete-
ly funded through federal BEACH Act funds. The
Program is a collaborative effort between state,
county and local agencies, tribal nations, and vol-
unteer organizations. Washington State has over
3000 miles of coastal waters with over 650 public
recreational beaches. Using a matrix designed to
prioritize beaches according to risk, 72 beaches
were identified as Tier 1 beaches. Due to limited
funding, Tier 2 beaches were not included in the
2004 sample plan.
The Program is able to maximize the number
of beaches being monitored by allowing counties
to design sample collection plans best suited to
their resources. Six counties use environmental
health staff to collect the samples. Two use county
staff supplemented by volunteers when available.
Four are sampled completely by volunteers. One
tribal nation is collecting samples. One county is
sampled using state employees. One county did
not have a Tier 1 beach.
Three samples are collected across the
beach and are analyzed by state accredited labs
within six hours of sample collection. Results
are e-mailed or faxed within 24 hours. The three
samples are averaged and then compared to
threshold limits. Geometric means are calculated
using all the sample results from the five previous
weeks. Advisories are posted on the BEACH Web
within 24 hours, all sample results within 48 hours
of arrival at the Department of Ecology.
49
-------
National Beaches Conferences
50
-------
Day One: Session Two
51
-------
National Beaches Conferences
52
-------
Day One: Session Two
53
-------
National Beaches Conferences
54
-------
Day One: Session Two
Questions and Answers
No questions.
55
-------
Wednesday, October 13
1:20 p.m. - 2:50 p.m.
Session Three:
Design of Beach Monitoring
Programs
-------
National Beaches Conferences
EPA Overview: Current National
Requirements, Guidance and Hot
Issues
Matthew Llebman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
Biosketch
Mr. Liebman is the Environmental Biolo-
gist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New England regional office in Boston, MA. Mr.
Liebman received his B.A in Biology in 1980
from Carleton College in Minnesota and a Ph.D.
in Ecology and Evolution from the State Univer-
sity of New York at Stony Brook hi 1991. Since
1990, he has worked at the EPA office in Boston
as a project manager and scientist in the National
Estuary Program, dredged material disposal and
monitoring program, and as a water quality spe-
cialist. He is the regional coordinator for EPA's
BEACH program, nutrient criteria initiative and
national sediment inventory. At EPA, Mr. Liebman
has conducted or been involved in research efforts
in dredged material disposal site monitoring, and
impacts of nutrients and bacteria on water quality
in streams, coastal waters and beaches.
Abstract
This presentation will provide an overview
of EPA's recommendations for monitoring beaches
contained in the Beach Grant Performance Criteria
document. EPA recommends that states develop a
tiered monitoring plan so that beaches with higher
use and more pollution sources (hence higher
risks), be monitored more frequently. To classify
beaches based on risk, state and local health offi-
cials should characterize water quality and pollu-
tion sources at each beach. EPA recommends that
both the geometric mean (for long term exposure)
and the single sample maximum (for daily obser-
vations) be used to notify the public that bacteria
levels exceed acceptable health-based risk levels.
EPA's recommendations for appropriate bacteria
indicators and health-based thresholds for public
notification stem from important epidemiological
studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s. These
thresholds have been corroborated by more recent
epidemiological studies. There is still, however, a
central challenge in bacteria monitoring at beaches
- that elevated levels of bacteria are variable
and intermittent, and that traditional analyses of
bacteria take at least 24 hours, after the public has
been exposed. As a result, questions such as how
frequent to sample, and whether the geometric
mean is a useful threshold are still being debated.
Recent research conducted by EPA and others
have demonstrated approaches to deal with these
and other related issues, some of which will be
reported on in this session.
58
-------
Day One: Session Three
«be fcrklg* to «ae 21" «*»«i»ry
iJsjav *aa«c 3 ee 4 tes fof«» BE v«>
Appropriate tbresliald vafaies us«d to post
atifeftarte* f#r itwtrftj* re«r««tl»n*f water*
cfl&ras titiJi
<(«*«&>
irt $X ew nxf 4
s* , i'i
I ' <
59
-------
National Beaches Conferences
«••> Vf VS
UK
Tter s 6eset»e*
60
-------
Day One: Session Three
Where s&oufef we sample? warn depth?
61
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
No Questions.
62
-------
Day One: Session Three
Public Health Protection at Marine
Beaches: A Model Program for
Water Quality Monitoring and Public
Notification
Mark Gold, D.Env.
Heal the Bay
Biosketch
Mark Gold, D.Env., is Heal the Bay's Execu-
tive Director. Heal the Bay is an environmental
group dedicated to making Santa Monica Bay
and Southern California coastal waters safe and
healthy for people and marine life. Dr. Gold's ex-
tensive work with water quality and coastal natural
resource topics ranges from sewage treatment,
contaminated sediments, legislative and environ-
mental education issues to urban runoff, con-
taminated fish and wetland restorations. In 1996,
working in conjunction with the Santa Monica Bay
Restoration Project and the USC Medical Center,
he was a co-author of the first epidemiological
study of swimmers in runoff-polluted water. He
also has co-authored several stormwater, con-
taminated fish and beach water quality bills and
ordinances, and he created Heal the Bay's Beach
Report Card®. He is a vice-chair of the Santa
Monica Bay Restoration Commission, sits on the
State Water Board's Clean Beach Advisory Group
and served on the EPA's Urban Wet Weather
Federal Advisory Committee. Dr. Gold also was
appointed to the California Ocean Trust. Dr. Gold
has bachelor's and master's degrees in biology
from UCLA, and he received his doctorate from
UCLA in environmental science and engineering
in 1994.
Abstract
Heal the Bay authored a guidance docu-
ment, designed as a national model for routine
water quality monitoring and public notification
programs for marine beaches. Public awareness
regarding beach water pollution and concern about
swimming-related illnesses has increased, and
attention to beach water quality has led to new leg-
islation (the federal BEACH bill for example) and
research on beach water quality issues. In turn,
new regulations and an improved understanding of
beach pollution have provided impetus for beach
managers and local health agencies around the
country to modify and expand their existing beach
water quality programs. The model program is a
tool for local and state health agencies and beach
managers to develop and improve marine beach
water quality monitoring and public notification
programs. Currently, in most of the country, pro-
grams vary from state to state and even from coun-
ty to county within states. The end result is that
public health is not always adequately protected,
and monitoring results are not comparable from
state to state. The intent of (he model program is to
improve the efficiency and protectiveness of beach
monitoring programs outlined in the U.S. EPA's
existing guidance. This model program explicitly
provides a risk-based rationale and scientific basis
for many of the recommended protocols. We hope
the model program will help promote consistency
in monitoring and public notification programs
implemented across the country.
63
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Why ^velop a Modtel Program?
Jrtj{j»xwo puasfic hcsjSWN protection:
EPA
Six componefits;
l: Goat & &5jectlvea
3:
' Mwr Goal: Pft*R<*ton oFPuhic Health
sftamt
methodoksgy,
64
-------
Day One: Session Three
RB Measurements
E<2c«mmerid use of 3 ineleators:
fecat,
65
-------
•:«5?X-.
National Beaches Conferences
Public Notificatlofi
' AeMtary
$> California's Signs
Public Notification
•• Signs at access pointed vis&te from entire
66
-------
Day One: Session Three
feesdws
Public Education
•* Separate ctwnponentd program
67
-------
National Beaches Conferences
-------
Day One: Session Three
Questions and Answers
No questions.
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Comparison and Verification of
Bacterial Water Quality Indicator
Measurement Methods and Using
Ambient Coastal Water Samples
John Griffith
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
Biosketch
Mr. Griffith is a microbiologist at the South-
ern California Coastal Research Project (SCC-
WRP), Mr. Griffith received dual B.S. degrees in
Biology and Environmental Studies in 1995, and is
currently a Ph.D., all at the University of Southern
California. He has worked on numerous projects
geared toward the development of methods and ap-
plication of methods to detect and identify sources
of fecal contamination and human pathogens in
marine waters. Mr. Griffith joined SCCWRP in
September 2001. His present research efforts focus
on bacterial source tracking, and the development
of rapid indicators for the detection of human fecal
contamination and pathogens in urban runoff and
marine receiving waters.
Abstract
More than 30 laboratories routinely moni-
tor water along southern California's beaches for
bacterial indicators of fecal contamination. Data
from these efforts are frequently combined and
compared even though three different methods
(membrane filtration (MF), multiple tube fermen-
tation (MTF) and chromogenic substrate (CS)
methods) are used. To assess data comparability
and quantify variability within method and across
laboratories, 26 laboratories participated in an
intercalibration exercise. Each laboratory pro-
cessed three replicates from eight ambient water
samples employing the method or methods they
routinely use for water quality monitoring. Verifi-
cation analyses were also conducted on a subset of
wells from the CS analysis to confirm or exclude
the presence of the target organism. Enterococci
results were generally comparable across methods.
There was a 9% false positive rate and a 4% false
negative rate in the CS verifications for entero-
cocci, though these errors were small in context
of within and among laboratory variability. Fecal
coliforms were also comparable across all meth-
ods, though CS underestimated the other methods
by about 10% because it measures only E. coli,
rather than the larger fecal coliform group mea-
sured by MF and MTF. CS overestimated total
coliforms relative to the other methods by several
fold and was found to have a 40% false positive
rate in verification. Across laboratory variability
was small relative to within and among method
variability, but only after data entry errors were
corrected. Nearly 20% of the labs had data entry
errors, which were much larger than any method
related errors.
70
-------
Day One: Session Three
«>MPAKISON A«i> WBttfKMm$ OF
METHODS imX; AMBIK>T COASTAL
Background (I!)
Have
Methods
71
-------
National Beaches Conferences
:•:•!::•:K:•:w• ««:8*:^«fe!Sii fefe:-:6ZiisJi**: t**l8s :-::•:" :':•::i«:* :•:•:i:i•::>'• '->V-:-«i'•
Results
it
Kf
?:*«
:*|-::;:|:;.:*:;i:.a;;i;;:;S^
|||H;SK-;H^||;:!;^;'iii;:;s|;';;';i|^^
Mctltod ComparabiHtv
72
-------
Day One: Session Three
Within-fab Variabilit
Conclusions 01}
•Oft
73
-------
National Beaches Conferences
74
-------
Day One: Session Three
Questions and Answers
Q (Toni Glymph, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources): We looked at ambient testing and
saw similar results, but when comparing methods with wastewater discharge, we're getting a dif-
ferent picture. Depending on the type of disinfection, test methods, etc., data can be magnitudes
different. Have you looked at the types ofwastewater? The test methods do not compare when
looking at wastewater effluent.
John Griffith
We did not look at any wastewater effluents. The hypothesis is that organisms are suscep-
tible to the different chlorination methods at different levels, so when you grow bacteria on differ-
ent media you will get differential resvdts. That could be what we saw at Doheny Beach as well.
Comment: UV disinfection gives consistent results, but the chlorination method is completely dif-
ferent. So, it really depends on what test method you use and how you treat your wastewater.
75
-------
National Beaches Conferences
te Sampling as an Alternative
for the Determination of
Bacterial Indicators in Recreational
Waters
Julie KJnzelman
City of Racine
Biosketch
Julie Kinzelman is a microbiologist for the
City of Racine Health Department where she has
14 years experience in recreational water quality
monitoring and research. Dr. Kinzelman received
a BS in Medical Technology from the University
of Wisconsin - Parkside, a MS in Clinical Labora-
tory Sciences from the University of Wisconsin
-Milwaukee, and is a Ph.D. Candidate (2005) in
Public & Environmental Health at the University
of Surrey (Guildford, UK). Dr. Kinzelman is the
principal investigator or co-investigator on re-
search initiatives funded by the National Institute
of Health, S. C. Johnson Fund, Wisconsin DNR,
and Wisconsin Department of Health & Human
Services. Her current research activities focus on
using public health based monitoring programs to
assess the interaction of coastal processes contrib-
uting to recreational water quality advisories.
Abstract
The BEACH Act requires states to develop
recreational water quality monitoring and notifica-
tion programs using approved standards. Testing
frequency is based on usage and beaches with
extensive shorelines, which may require multiple-
site sampling, could see significantly increased
costs for monitoring recreational waters. This
study explored composite sampling at two Racine,
Wisconsin beaches over four months (n=68 days)
in order to determine whether composite sampling
could provide a valid, unbiased, and cost-effective
measure of surface water quality. Multiple-point
sampling occurred throughout the swimming sea-
son with samples being collected daily from three
(Zoo Beach) or four (North Beach) fixed sampling
points. From each individual sample, well-mixed
aliquots were combined to form a single compos-
ite sample. Individual and composite samples
were analyzed identically for Escherichia coU
using Colilert-18/Quanti-Tray/2000®. Results
indicated a reasonable expectation of a simple 1:
1 ratio between the composite samples and the
arithmetic mean of the 3 or 4 individual samples.
Additionally, log variance of the composite sample
results did not differ significantly from that of the
single sample averages (p > 0.2). Empirical values
for log standard deviations varied by no more than
7% between the composite sample and individu-
ally assayed samples. In this study, compositing
appeared to introduce neither bias nor additional
variability into the monitoring results and, there-
fore, stands as a reasonable alternative to data sets
derived from single-sample methods. Regulatory
programs requiring large numbers of samples to
be analyzed could benefit from the adoption of this
type of sampling scheme as a means of reducing
the costs associated with the implementation.
76
-------
Day One: Session Three
^M^f^^^^^^fi^^^^;^^
ADVANTAGES TO !HCH€A$id
MONITORING
OIS ADVANTAGES TO
INCREASED MONrFORINO
e^iee^im
77
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Historical 0aia Assessed Prior to
GPS SAMPLING LOCATIONS
MS
*B
as
&^MfM*»e»MS&***&$
H
a
H
»
SWB«#**** «
(«
8
RESULTS Of HISTORIC
MONJTOfttMGDATA
NORTH SiACH-
ZOO BEACH - SAMPLING SfTES
78
-------
Day One: Session Three
eOUECTJON OF SURFACE
WATSR SAMPLES
» Sferite,
(North Beach)
.x|F, """ » WfitMfJ»«*»«teef
>"•.<•; 5 •* ^
79
-------
National Beaches Conferences
IDEXX
iiti*Tr
2608®
&
Quanti-Tray
CGNCEm-RTATlON OF E CO//
i (Klf>t|llH
80
-------
Day One: Session Three
4 « *
**•»
***»
rt «*»*!» tortvpflu^,
9»t*ttttl ** «M» tM* «**»
«*, lOHHWfh, «t««» W» «»*»»«
)Mt EttW(*WW ^ililfl^W tUtUffl K W'^JW^BIMRrtt'
RESULTS
W* *M^»
4
O1SCUSSJON
81
-------
National Beaches Conferences
DISCUSSION (ccm.)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
c.
i € Unl
82
-------
Day One: Session Three
Questions and Answers
Q: What method is used to monitor the Great Lakes?
Julie Kinzelman
IDEXX Colilert-18 for E. coll
Q: You don't use Enterolort?
Julie Kinzelman
No, because we are looking at fresh water so we test for E. coll. Enterococci is also
accepted by EPA, and we looked at enterococci in the past as an alternative to E. coli. But, we
thought we would have more advisories in the absence of a defined public health risk. So, at this
point-in-time we continue to use E. coli.
Q: Were samples collected away from the tide? You mentioned working in a sterile environment,
andlam wondering if the sampler could be exposing himself to the sample bag?
Julie Kinzelman
There is no true tide in the Great Lakes. Samples were collected at arm's length (about 1
foot/0.3 m) below the surface of the water and pulled back up away from the body of the sampler.
Q: Have you ever had a false positive result?
Julie Kinzelman
Not that I'm aware of.
83
-------
National Beaches Conferences
How Often and Where to Monitor:
Outcome of the EMPACT Study
Larry Wtymer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Biosketch
Larry Wymer is a statistician for the US EPA
Office of Research and Development. Mr. Wymer
received his MBA in Quantitative Analysis from
the University of Cincinnati. He has worked for
the National Exposure Research Laboratory in
Cincinnati, Ohio for the past 6 years. His main re-
search interests are characterization of recreational
water quality and indoor mold. He also serves as
an Advisor to ASTM Committee D19 on water.
Abstract
Current EPA recommendations for monitor-
ing the quality of recreational waters calls for the
collection of five samples over a 30-day period
and the calculation of a running geometric mean
to determine if the water quality meets suggested
standards. This approach does not provide timely,
accurate information for risk managers or the
public. A solution to this problem is to develop a
statistically valid monitoring protocol which takes
into account elements that contribute to the un-
certainty associated with sampling bathing beach
waters.
EMPACT partner cities, representative of
various bathing beach environments, such as
marine, freshwater, estuarine, and riverine sites,
were recruited to participate in a study monitoring
their respective beaches. The major objective of
this research was to develop a monitoring pro-
tocol for measuring the quality of bathing beach
waters describing when, where and how many
samples should be taken, and how the data should
be analyzed. The collected data were evaluated
to develop an economically feasible monitoring
84
protocol to effectively minimize uncertainty about
the quality of bathing waters.
Major findings of this study were that
distance from shoreline and time of day have
significant effects on the results of water quality
monitoring. In general, the further away from the
shoreline samples were taken, the lower the bacte-,
rial densities observed. Indicator levels also tend-
ed to be lower in mid-afternoon compared to what
they were in the morning. There is an indication
that this decline is due to solar radiation, since it
tended to be less pronounced, or even non-existent,
with increasing cloud cover. Rain, wind direction
and velocity, and tides (absolute water level) also
significantly influenced bacterial indicator densi-
ties at the beaches, while bather density and water
temperature did not appear to do so.
Spatial and temporal sources of variation
were defined by the study. Replicate variance,
sampling depth, distance from shoreline to knee or
waist depth, as well as variance between transects
from shoreline were all significant contributors
to the spatial sources of variation observed at me
beaches. Day-to-day variation would be the main
source of variability over time. About one-half
of the time the change in target indicator density
was by a factor of two or more from one day to the
next.
These data indicate that only three to six
samples taken from water of roughly in the same
depth (knee- to chest-deep) may be adequate to
characterize water quality at a given point in time.
This sample size recommendation is derived not
only from variability of target densities observed
in this study, but also from consideration of the
relative uncertainty inherent in the estimated
health effect.
-------
«Ls
c>
Day One: Session Three
Re&earthand
Development at£PA
AtfrwtP
la$w«l#y
s 2000
twice daily eampftng
* 9 °^ce
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Sampling Schedule
5 ¥ ¥'&*$
>J"V *.$,»£. >S{$ >*TA *f"$ ^•titl
\ tf'\#'M'**'*r»* r*r*
JJIl -^2S^*«^«^S
86
-------
Study Results:
Sources of Variation
Day One: Session Three
fe Has Good Enough?
* teftatmof awsewndrfeflsesn:
»•
.5
+A 9.3 Lo^s Appear* tit
•*3-5 sam^es KI watered
87
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
Q: From a bacteria study in San Juan Creek, samples collected near storm drain outlets had
high concentrations of bacteria, including enterococcus. Also, the effects of sunlight may have
reduced bacteria (Enterococcus). Can you demonstrate the die-off rate statistically? Is there a
hypothesis on why bacteria would be persistent near the surface of water (closer to sunlight) in
the ankle water? I assume when you say "ankle water" you mean that samples were taken in wa-
ter that was ankle-deep. Is there a correlation with temperature? 11 would seem that the bacteria
counts would be inversely related to the temperature.
Larry Wymer
We did not see any change with temperature, which could be because the temperature did
not vary much. However, there was definitely an effect of sunshine. The decline of bacteria was
greater on sunny days compared to cloudy days, from morning to afternoon. Although, hourly
samples did not show a consistent pattern in levels of bacteria.
Comment (Mark Gold, Heal the Bay): Heal the Bay, the City of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles
County Sanitation District did a very similar study about 15 years ago and got almost identical
results, with high densities in morning. The project also showed a difference in bacteria levels
among ankle, waist and chest depths. Although, temperature does not tend to vary enough to
drive any results.
Q (Dustin Bambic, Larry-Walker Associates): You seem to be aware of the UVdegradation that
bacteria exhibit during the day. Are there any studies where the pathogens themselves showed a
similar response to UV, since we are looking for the pathogens and not the bacteria themselves?
Larry Wymer
Yes. I hear that it's not just UV that causes degradation, but also visible light.
Mark Gold
I have not seen any pathogens studies, but I know that when Rachel Noble was at SCCWRP
they did some extensive work on the indicators, but not on the pathogens themselves.
Comment (Dustin Bambic): I have done studies with sunlight and saw that it goes into the visible
range [tape inaudible].
88
-------
Wednesday, October 13
3:20 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Session Four:
The Public Notice Decision
Process and Public Perception
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Source Unknown: Questionable
Geometric Mean Exceedances at Two
Pristine North Carolina Beaches
I.D. Potts
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Biosketch
Mr. J.D. Potts is the manager of North
Carolina's Recreational Water Quality Pro-
gram. Mr. Potts received his B.S. in Fisheries
and Wildlife Science from North Carolina State
University. He has worked for the N.C. Division of
Environmental Health in the Shellfish Sanitation
and Recreational Water Quality Section for fifteen
years. He worked as a shoreline surveyor for eight
years before starting the state's recreational water
quality program in 1997. He currently directs the
program's statewide coastal recreational water
quality activities.
Abstract
North Carolina's Recreational Water Quality
Program tests 240 sites along the ocean beaches,
sounds, and coastal rivers. During the 2004 swim-
ming season, the program posted several swim-
ming advisories at historically pristine beaches,
including a public access ocean site in Carteret
County and the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse in the
Outer Banks in Dare County. These sites experi-
enced high initial counts and the Carteret Co. site
then experienced a high count on the re-sampling.
The high sample results changed the basis of the
swimming advisories from exceeding single-
sample levels to exceeding the monthly geometric
mean. Geometric mean exceedances require that
the weekly sample results drop below the limit
before the advisory is removed.
The high samples kept the geometric mean
over the standard for over a month in the Cart-
eret County case, with the sign staying up for
four weeks while weekly tests showed minimal
counts. No source of pollution was identified at
the Carteret site. The single high sample for the
Cape Hatteras Lighthouse resulted in the advisory
remaining for a week, based on daily sampling
results that were taken after a possible source was
identified and removed. If the possible source, a
National Park Service drainage culvert, had not
been identified and closed, this advisory is likely
to have remained up for several weeks as well,
despite subsequent low bacterial counts.
These occurrences raise questions about
whether the current geometric mean practices
portray an accurate picture of coastal recreational
water quality. The adverse public perceptions
these advisories cause do not reflect actual water
quality public health risks.
90
-------
I
Day One: Session Four
Shellfish Sanitation and
Section
H a
Storm Drains
*«»•
91
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Tterl
3»«»*j» ' '-t * **
vftyudt AW J
Avra5<. „ XvUi,Av fs
:* t'~:
4 *•**
S-*~>Si
Tferll
Geometric Mean Exceedances
92
-------
Day One: Session Four
*™~
J& »Twyt>&
**«•
» ' , ., <
A s**
**$ Jj-^Xwuv. 1 jfrffnr
ME*«*,
Wetland Drainage
ItMy
93
-------
National Beaches Conferences
S ? '^-f ^J"-*£ t nW
?T^yi ^^^ i> ^ A* *:
,,.'.' <&&&&,
x:/;<^ ,<&>',&
94
-------
Day One: Session four
95
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Conclusion
5«H3F*etrie (bean advisories at sftelg v&h no
p$8u80l» *
no fistber
EPA gusdat^ce for bte&kel
storms woy&
96
-------
Day One: Session Four
Questions and Answers
No questions.
97
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Misinformation in Beach Warning
Systems
Stanley Grant
University of California at Irvine, Henry Samuel! School of Engineering
Biosketch
Dr. Stanley B. Grant is Professor of Environ-
mental Engineering, and Chair of the Department
of Chemical Engineering & Materials Science at
the University of California, Irvine (UCI). Dr.
Grant received a B.S. (with distinction) in Geol-
ogy from Stanford University (1985) and a M.S.
and Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering Sci-
ence from the California Institute of Technology
(1990 and 1992, respectively). Dr. Grant studies
the sources, fate, and transport of pathogens and
indicator organisms in drinking water, urban run-
off, and the coastal ocean. He is a member of the
US Environmental Protection Agency's Science
Advisory Board (Drinking Water Panel), and is the
lead on several multidisciplinary research projects,
including one on the influence of tidal wetlands
on coastal pollution (joint with researchers from
UCI, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and
UCLA, funded by the University of California
Marine Council); another on the association of
pathogens and particles in storm runoff (joint with
researchers from UCI and UCSB, funded by the
US Geological Survey and the National Water
Research Institute); and a third on the contribution
of marinas to fecal indicator bacteria impairment
in tidal embayments (in support of the Newport
Bay Fecal ColiformTMDL, funded by the Califor-
nia State Water Quality Control Board). Dr. Grant
is recipient of the prestigious Career Award from
the National Science Foundation (1985-2000), and
a number of local awards including Conservator
of the Year (2002) from the Bolsa Chica Wetlands
Conservancy, and the Distinguished Assistant Pro-
fessor Award for Teaching from the UCI Academic
Senate (1999).
Abstract
Whenever measurements of fecal pollution in
coastal bathing waters reach levels that might pose
a significant health risk, warning signs are posted
on public beaches in California. Analysis of his-
torical shoreline monitoring data from Huntington
Beach, southern California, reveals that protocols
used to decide whether to post a sign are prone to
error. Errors in public notification (referred to here
as posting errors) originate from the variable char-
acter of pollutant concentrations in the ocean, the
relatively infrequent sampling schedule adopted by
most monitoring programs (daily to weekly), and
the intrinsic error associated with binary adviso-
ries in which the public is either warned or not. In
this paper, we derive a probabilistic framework
for estimating beach posting error rates, which at
Huntington Beach range from 0 to 41%, and show
that relatively high sample-to-sample correlations
(>0.4) are required to significantly reduce binary
advisory posting errors. Public mis-notification
of coastal water quality can be reduced by utiliz-
ing probabilistic approaches for predicting current
coastal water quality, and adopting analog, instead
of binary, warning systems.
98
-------
Day One: Session four
lit Calilornia
* T*»lsf€«i*?u«a
-------
National Beaches Conferences
-:-::;;:;•.•::-'•::•-::.:::. T^&'&-P>tt*M+****i^-rtt^-$&*W,.: •::•::-::::-::..:. :••
^1-^l^lj^^ii^^
100
-------
Day One: Session Four
IS&^^Si™^*^***
^fi^Ht JHttfrM*»i JM
-------
National Beaches Conferences
it «*r«« He/turfi
:•!;: x::-: I:;-:::-:;::;:;-:!":::-:: x: I x" :•! I ::-:::•:;::-;::-;: i::: :•: ::::::•! i :•: *! x::-:::;-;::-;:; ;•: ::•::::•:: x x: x
:::•:: :•: :::•:;;-:;: :•:::-::: ;•; :;•;;:;•;;:•:::::::-:::::: :•: ::•::::-:;:-:;:;-;;;-:;: :•: ::•;:::•:: r-x: x: :•: ::•::::-;: >;:: ;•;: :•:
: :"l :•: i'x:;::-: 5>: :'x'-:::-:::: x": ^ :'x^;: x!;: I :'::-::":::vx:ox'1>::>:x ;•:;;•: 11^
102
-------
Day One: Session Four
Questions and Answers
Q (Bob Peeples, Earth 911): When fitting to log normal distribution, how do you allow for the
fact that you can't go below the detection limit?
Stanley Grant
Throw out the non-detects. They contain no information.
*
Q: Do you think that your approach will be useful to help us understand if the samples that we do
take will be meaningful to protect public health?
Stanley Grant
Focus on the indicators and pathogens relationship; know that one can be present without
the other (and vice versa). We're working on trying to learn what are the physical transport pro-
cesses that move the bacteria and pathogens, how is the transport process reflected in variability
patterns, and how the patterns can be transferred to a probabilistic framework that can be useful
for health risk.
We learn from cases where indicator bacteria and pathogens have a common source. We
learn that what applies to one case often applies to the other. For example, during a storm event
there is an infinite supply of indicator bacteria, but human viruses are diluted by the volume of
water. Be careful of decoupling.
103
-------
National Beaches Conferences
The Cost of Beach Water Monitoring
Errors in Southern California
Llnwood Pendleton
University of California at Los Angeles, School .of Public Health
Biosketch
Dr. Linwood Pendleton received a B.S. in
Biology (with a chemistry minor) from the Col-
lege of William and Mary, an M.A. in Biology
from Princeton University (for studies in tropical
ecology), a Masters of Public Administration from
Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and a
Doctor of Forestry and Environmental Studies in
Natural and Environmental Resource Economics
from the School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies at Yale University. Dr. Pendleton works
broadly in the area of coastal and ocean econom-
ics, with an emphasis on the economic impacts of
coastal water quality pollution. Dr. Pendleton is
the lead economist for the National Ocean Eco-
nomics Project's Non-Market Values Information
System.
Abstract
The current protocol and method of monitor-
ing recreational water quality in the United States
is known to be imperfect. On site sampling, off
site laboratory analysis, and a reliance on fecal in-
dicator bacteria instead of human pathogens result
in two principle types of errors associated with
water quality monitoring (Rabinovici et al 2004):
1) Type I errors in which beaches are closed even
though water quality parameters are widiin a com-
pliance range thought to be safe for swimming and
2) Type II errors in which water quality parameters
exceed safe compliance levels yet beaches are
not closed. The causes of these errors include a)
precautionary beach closures when a source of
contaminants are known, but the exact fate of con-
taminants in near shore waters is not known and b)
lag times of two or more days between sampling
and notification of water quality impairment. We
estimate the economic cost of these errors using a
retrospective analysis of beach closures and beach
attendance in Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
This study finds that a complete elimination of
these types of errors in Los Angeles and Orange
County could result hi an annual economic savings
of approximately $8 million annually.
104
-------
Day One: Session four
E*»inti)i#g the i^oteflljai Ketttttmiie
«pswl»g
" ' ito\
105
-------
What's the Cost of Unnecessary
National Beaches Conferences
What's tins C
Closures?
106
-------
Day One: Session Four
What is the Ex|K>surc?
JTttl
Total Sav ittgs fmm
107
-------
National Beaches Conferences
108
-------
Day One: Session four
Questions and Answers
Q: I think you are underestimating because you are not showing that although there were less
acute gastrointestinal illnesses, people were more likely to stay home from work and more likely
to go to aphysician 's office. So, I think you presented an estimate of what the true costs really
are.
Linwood Pendleton
It is a lower bound. I try to do that with every step, and for the very same reason we chose
that. But, you are right.
Comment: Yes, I think it is more than that. But I think you did a good study.
Q (Carl Berg, Hanalei Watershed Hui): A lot of the viruses and bacteria become aerosole-borne
at the beaches. So, just by going to the beach you still have an exposure, even if you do not go
into the water. I think you underestimate the effect of people going to the beach but not going
swimming. Your 28 percent might not be a good factor because you have an exposure rate of
perhaps 50 or 60 percent of the people.
Linwood Pendleton
I was looking at the beach closure. This would require that I know how the beach closures
affected those who had gone to the beach. I could do that too. But, I can't do that with the data I
have, but we could do that if we went to a beach and looked to see who was exposed. But when
I'm using the attendance figures, it's everyone who came to the pier, even those who went bike
riding and rollerblading. So, you are right. This is the lower bound if you add onto that the inci-
dences of disease. I also looked only at gastroenteritis, so it is a lower-bound there. I did not look
at eye or ear ailments or acute fever incidences. This is just a lower-bound. So, we may want to
add to that a respiratory ailments from people sitting by the edge of the beach.
Q (Shawn Ultican, Kitsap County Health District): If you are looking at the costs of a closure,
whether it is the cost of lost recreation or cost of going to a doctor, is that really a cost or is that
money just being displaced? For example, if I want to go to Beach A, and Beach A is closed,
maybe I just take my money and go to Beach B. It might be a half hour further away, but if I re-
ally want to go to the beach that day, I will still go if there is an opportunity available in another
location. And, are the costs of going to the doctor just the costs of moving from me doing my job
in producing whatever I produce in doing my job and transferring that to the healthcare system
where I'm paying somebody else to do their job? Does that make sense?
Linwood Pendleton
The lost recreational values that are a cost to the economy is how much less happy you are
or how much money you spend that you didn't need to spend to drive to the beach. So, those
recreational values look at the value that people place on a beach recreation visit beyond whatever
they paid. Expenditures, on the other hand, refer to when you take the money that you were go-
ing to spend on Doheny Beach, you go to San Clemente and spend you money there. In that case
it's a transfer, unless you are in San Clemente. If you are in San Clemente and you are trying to
figure out whether we want to go to this more expensive monitoring system, then it's a cost to San
Clemente because you lose those expenditures. It is not a cost to the overall economy. Medi-
cal expenses are real costs. When you are using a doctor's time that could be spent on another
patient, productivity is lost. For example, if you look at the gross state product of Florida, it will
go up because you have all these building projects now. Everytime they build a new house that
109
-------
National Beaches Conference
got knocked down by a hurricane that will look like an increase in the economy. Its not like that
with medical costs. What we are talking about here are real costs to society because we are using
resources to run medical tests and staffing the doctors' offices, and we are losing real productivity
when you don't go to work. So, that is what is reflected in those medical costs. The willingness
to pay is what in litigation they call psychological damages, which is when people are relatively
unhappy because they got sick, and that represents an economic cost too. So, of those three, two
are unambiguously costs to the economy, and the third one, expenditures, depends on the perspec-
tive from which you are viewing this.
tlO
-------
Day One: Session Four
Communication: Increasing Public
Awareness about Beaches
Harry Simmons
American Shore and Beach Preservation Association
Biosketch
Harry Simmons is President of American
Shore & Beach Preservation Association. Mr.
Simmons also serves in his 5th year as Mayor of
the Town of Caswell Beach, North Carolina and
is executive director of North Carolina Shore &
Beach Preservation Association. Mayor Simmons
serves on the boards of directors of the North
Carolina League of Municipalities, the North
Carolina Coastal Communities Coalition and as a
Coastal Cities member of North Carolina's Coastal
Resources Advisory Council. He has recently
formed Simmons Coastal, a broad-based coastal
issues consulting firm currently seeking additional
clients from among businesses, governments and
individuals along America's coast. Find him on
the web at SirnmonsCoastal.com. A North Caro-
lina native, Mayor Simmons earned his BS in
Business Administration from the Kenan-Flagler
Business School at the University of North Caro-
lina in Chapel Hill.
Abstract
The American Shore and Beach Preservation
Association has been successful linking healthy
beaches and the economic benefits those beaches
provide to both the local and national economies.
This presentation will provide conferees with
information on how to more successfully link
healthy beaches and productive economies.
Over 53% of the nation's population lives
in coastal counties. By 2015, the population of
coastal counties is expected to reach 165 million
residents, with an average of 3,600 people moving
to coastal regions daily. Those that do not live in
coastal regions often spend their vacations there.
Beaches are American's top tourist destination.
For instance, Miami Beach is visited by more
people than all the National Parks combined.
Better beaches lead to increased travel and
tourism. The benefits begin at the local level and
expand outward. For example, tourists visiting
healthy beaches spend money at local businesses,
which in turn expand and invest in new employees
and capital. Those employees, and the firms that
benefit from capital improvements, then spend
their money buying goods and services. Accord-
ing to a recent federal study, only 35 percent of a
shore protection project's benefits accrue locally,
while 65 percent accrue to people who reside
.elsewhere.
When a community's beaches must be closed
for even a day, everyone loses tax revenue. We
need to work together to publicize that message
to the public and to elected officials so slates and
communities do more to assure the highest stan-
dards of beach water quality.
-------
National Beaches Conferences
The Economic Facts
8ftlQ -rtt& ««***•«. Mv *>#, *& »& '*»*- «v S-*fcW %. >tfv5fc
The Coastal Economy
Domestic Tourism
<• *A«>i*«''««*™«X
112
-------
Day One: Session Four
Foraign Tourism
Benefits to Costs Ratio:
But Wfrni About
even for a da^, ^wejyone iosec recreation.
We all need to work togciterto ptftrtjctze Ihe
so commurnltes wH ^o more to a^re the
any way ws can
ASBPA
113
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
No questions.
114
-------
Day One: Session four
City of Encinitas Perspective on Beach
Postings
Katherine Weldon
City of Encinitas, Clean Water Program
Biosketch
Katherine Weldon has over 12 years of ex-
perience in Water Quality Management Programs.
Most of her experience has been in role of program
manager for the Recreational Ocean Water Quality
Coordinator for the County of San Diego and most
recently as the Stormwater Program Manager for
the City of Encinitas. Ms. Weldon has been active
in the field of Stormwater monitoring since 1993
when the County first began testing storm drains.
Kathy developed a voluntary ocean-monitoring
program with the POTWs, which became a routine
monitoring program for the County of San Diego.
She has been involved with the implementation of
AB411, which mandated a routine coastal monitor-
ing program for the State of California.
Throughout Ms. Weldon's career she has
worked for the public sector. She has developed
the City of Encinitas' Stormwater Program from the
beginning, which is considered the model by the
Baykeepers and the local Regional Water Board.
Kathy has created numerous presentations for City
Council as well as the local media. She works with
each department from public works, engineering,
construction and planning. Ms. Weldon's most
recent accomplishment is the completion of the
Moonlight Beach Urban Runoff Treatment Facility,
which cleans the creek of bacteria and viruses prior
to being discharged back into the creek.
Abstract
The City of Encinitas, a coastal town located
25 miles north of San Diego with 6.2 miles of
beaches, generates an estimated $44,000,000 of
revenue annually. Moonlight Beach, the crown
jewel, supports 4000 beach users on a summer
day, with facilities including volleyball courts, fire
rings, snack/rental shops, and lifeguards. Water
quality at Moonlight has been historically poor
due to Cottonwood Creek, conveying bacteria in
urban runoff directly to the beach. Understand-
ing the value of the resource, the City installed an
ultraviolet treatment facility on Cottonwood Creek
to compliment persistent upstream investigations,
killing 99.9% of the bacteria. Nearly $11,000
are spent annually monitoring water quality at
Moonlight, above and beyond the required AB411
program. With these Best Management Practices,
postings due to sewage and urban runoff have been
nearly eliminated.
Yet, Moonlight continues to have postings,
often a result of misguided policy not protective of
public health. Guidelines such as sampling before
11 am or the inability of weekend staff to un-post
beaches has kept Moonlight posted when bacteria
samples indicate acceptable water quality. Three
cases of postings not protective of public health
and their fiscal impacts will be discussed.
Samples of seagull feces have been analyzed
for bacteria indicators, data will be presented.
Understanding contributions from this source
of bacteria leads the City to question how often
beaches are posted due to natural sources. Is the
enterococcus standard often exceeded because of
natural sources, resulting in incorrect perceptions
of water quality? A study supporting this hypoth-
esis will be presented.
115
-------
National Beaches Conferences
116
-------
Day One: Session Four
»*** »» :#>
?«V&0: feS»»J*^>* tS(
-------
National Beaches Conferences
118
-------
Day One: Session Four
Questions and Answers
Q (Matt Liebman, US EPA, Region 1): Is there a perception about water quality that keeps people
from coming back to the beach well after the beach has been posted or closed?
KathyWeldon
In 1999 we had 93 days of beach postings. Yes, I believe there was a slow reduction in
population, but we have seen it escalating since then and we have been reducing the beach
closures every year since then. This doesn't stop families from going to the beach. Parents will
still let their kids play in the water. I think it just adds a level of concern in their minds, and it
makes them think about next time, asking them selves, "am I going to come back to this beach or
go somewhere else?" It does the same thing to the lifeguards. They will ask themselves, "is our
beach clean enough and should I let people go into the water?" It's a level of concern that is dif-
ficult to document.
Comment (Tim Wade, USEPA): I would suggest a more random sampling and/or a follow up sur-
vey prior to concluding that people are not getting sick. I think a lot of the cases we see are mild
and may not be reported to the lifeguards.
Q (Carl Berg, Hanalei Watershed Hut): What kind of tests were you using? Was it enterococcus?
Paul Hartel
We used membrane filtration for enterococcus.
Comment (Carl Berg): We are using IDEXX technologies to do that, and with a dilution, you can
only measure down to 10. However, if you take three simultaneous samples and they all show a
zero, then your detection level is statistically down to one. That would help you with your geo-
metric means quite a bit if you are able to do repeated sampling. This may statistically improve
your numbers and bring them down much quicker.
Q (Charles Kovatch): How well does the laser counting estimate the population?
KathyWeldon
It was close to the lifeguard counts from before.
Q (Charles Kovatch, USEPA): Are any other beaches in California using the lasers?
KathyWeldon
Not that I know. Our lifeguards stopped collecting data (they were told not to) so we tried to
find a way to collect the data without the lifeguards.
Q: How much did the people counters cost?
Kathy Weldon
They cost around $600 per site.
119
-------
-------
Thursday, October 14
8:00 a.m. - 9:40 a.m.
Concurrent Track I:
Identifying and Solving Beach Water Quality Problems
Session Five:
Source Identification
-------
National Beaches Conferences
EPA Guidance Manual on Source
Identification
Gerald Stelma, Jr.
US. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure
Research Laboratory
Biosketch
Dr. Gerard N. Stelma Jr. received a Bache-
lor's degree from the University of Michigan in
1965 and a PhD in microbiology from Michigan
State University in 1974, specializing in bacterial
physiology. He performed postdoctoral research
at Purdue University from 1974 until 1976, where
he studied spore coat synthesis in Bacillus cereus.
He did additional postdoctoral work at the Univer-
sity of Wisconsin from 1976 until 1978, perform-
ing research on structure/activity relationships of
Staphylococcus enterotoxins. He was a Research
Microbiologist for the US Food and Drug Admin-
istration from 1978 until 1987. During his tenure
there, he worked on the development of methods
to detect pathogens and toxins in foods and on
methods to distinguish between virulent and aviru-
lent strains of bacterial pathogens. He joined the
US Environmental Protection Agency's research
staff in 1987 as a Research Microbiologist. From
1988 until 2002, he supervised a branch of EPA
microbiologists and immunologists in the develop-
ment of methods to detect hazardous microorgan-
isms drinking water, recreational water and indoor
air. He is currently a science advisor to the Direc-
tor of the Microbiological and Chemical Exposure
Assessment Research Division of EPA's National
Exposure Research Laboratory.
Abstract
Beach closures or violations of total maxi-
mum daily loads of fecal organisms in watersheds
frequently generate a need to identify the major
sources of contamination or, at least, determine
whether the source is human or animal. A few
years ago E. coli ribotyping was the only method
available for microbial source tracking (MST).
Recently, however, a number of diverse methods
are reported to be effective for MST; and it has
become difficult for beach managers and other
local officials to choose the method that is best for
their specific needs. The USEPA is writing a guid-
ance document to assist the users of MST methods
in choosing the most appropriate method for their
individual beaches or watersheds. The MST guide
document contains descriptions of each published
method, including references; the assumptions
on which the methods are based; the limitations
of each method; data collection and analyses and
method performance. The final chapter provides
decision criteria and includes a decision tree which
guides the reader through the various scenarios in
which MST may be useful. Each decision point
in the tree contains a menu of the most appropri-
ate methods for the user's needs. The document is
comprehensive, including both library-dependent
and library-independent molecular methods, as
well as library-dependent phenotypic methods.
122
-------
Day Two: Session Five
When are MST
Methods Useful
- •«*,
123
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Trm
Content of MST Quittance
Document
Content a fMST Guidance
ttocttrnmt
Content oTMST Guidance
124
-------
Day Two: Session Five
SUMMARY
The Future of MST
125
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
Q: Is this on the Web site?
Gerard N. Stelma, Jr.
Not yet—it is still being reviewed. Everything has to be peer-reviewed before we can make
it public. But I expect it to be available by the end of the calendar year.
Q: Will any of these methods become part of the regulations?
Gerard N. Stelma, Jr.
Because there are so many different needs and so many different levels of specificity and so
on that are available, I don't see us ever becoming prescriptive. I don't think there will ever be a
regulation. I think it will always be up to the user to choose the most appropriate method.
Q: Can you describe the methods that will be available in the future?
Gerard N. Stelma, Jr.
I can give you some examples. Some specific species of bacteroides are carried only by one
particular type of animal. Betty Olsen, from the University of California, Irvine, has found some
toxin genes that are carried only by E. coli of human origin and some other ones that are only car-
ried by E. coli of porcine origin and some of bovine origin. So, you don't need a library—you just
look for that specific gene.
Q: What do you mean by a library?
All of us carry a number of E. coli in our intestines, and if you look at a community or at
sewage, there are even more out there. And so, there are so many types of E. coli that you can find
in a contaminated environment, and if the theory is correct, there are some of these strains of E.
coli that are common in the community and you've got to just go through and do ribotyping on a
number of E. coli from, say, a particular sewage plant. The patterns that you get from ribotyping
a large number of strains become your library. Then, when you go out to the contaminated water,
you look at the ribotypes of the various organisms you isolated from the water and try to match
those patterns to your human library, or whatever other species you are looking for. There are sev-
eral PCR methods that are out there, too, that are library dependent, that you get different patterns
on the gel from different strains of E. coli, and because there are so many possibilities, you have
to isolate a large number of E. coli from each possible species that contaminated the water and
you have to make a library of those various patterns.
126
-------
Day Two: Session Five
Tiered Approach for Identification
of a Human Fecal Pollution Source
at a Recreational Beach: Case Study
at Avalon Bay, Catalina Island,
California
Alexandria Boehm
Stanford University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Biosketch
Dr. Boehm is the Clare Boothe Luce assistant
professor of environmental engineering and sci-
ence at Stanford University. Dr. Boehm received a
B.S. with honors from California Institute of Tech-
nology in Pasadena, CA and her M.S. and Ph.D.
in Environmental Engineering from the University
of California Irvine. She has been at Stanford for
two years and prior to that was a faculty fellow at
University of California Irvine. Her research inter-
ests include coastal water quality, coastal transport
processes and their influence on pollution, water
borne pathogens, microbial pollution, water qual-
ity indicators, and particle fate hi water.
Abstract
Recreational marine beaches in California
are posted as unfit for swimming when the con-
centration of fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) exceeds
any of seven concentration standards. Finding and
mitigating sources of shoreline FIB is complicated
by the many potential human and non-human
sources of these organisms and the complex fate
and transport processes that control their concen-
trations. In this study, a three-tiered approach is
used to identify human and non-human sources of
FIB in Avalon Bay, a popular resort community
on Catalina Island in southern California. The
first and second tiers utilize standard FIB tests to
spatially isolate the FIB signal, to characterize the
variability of FIB over a range of temporal scales,
and to measure FIB concentrations in potential
sources of these organisms, In the third tier, water
samples from FIB hot spots and sources are tested
for human-specific bacteria Bacteroides/ Prevotella
and enterovirus to determine whether the FIB are
from human sewage or from non-human sources
such as bird feces. FIB in Avalon Bay appear to
be from multiple, primarily land-based, sources
including bird droppings, contaminated subsurface
water, leaking drains, and runoff from street wash-
down activities. Multiple shoreline samples and
two subsurface water samples tested positive for
human-specific bacteria and enterovirus, suggest-
ing that at least a portion of the FIB contamination
is from human sewage.
127
-------
I
National Beaches Conferences
:
jf:.;;^*^^^^ i
^»ff^^
•. ". J. "iJa". '."v". " ^ff 'ff &• &>'j&"Q3y'
^V^^'^^'^/^'^^,
^'-. * <* ' Jv y -. ttf.yfss~.
1Z8
-------
Day Two: Session Rve
(I)
vsy jf. ff, ,,• .
V fl '^fjf. *'t\t
129
-------
National Beaches Conferences
130
-------
Day Two: Session Five
Questions and Answers
Q (Donna Francy, USGS): I really like your tiered approach, and I think it's a really good way
to go about it, instead of just going out there and ribotyping everything. So you found that it's
partially human, at least, but then they took these remediation steps and that didn't help. So what
do you think you should do next? Are there any other potential sources? Do you think it might be
a nonhuman source also, like wildlife?
Alexandria Boehm
I haven't kept up with all the maintenance activities in the city of Avalon, but my first guess
would be that the slip lining did not work. Also, the city is so densely populated and I'm not sure
how the sewerage infrastructure is set up there and 1 think it might be possible that there are leak-
ing sewer lines in other places where they did not slip line. If they wanted to do another study,
then I would see if there is the same problem there, and if it is, then I would say the sewer lines
are leaking somewhere and they need to do something about it.
Q: Can you define "nuisance runoff"? Is that from rain or dry weather flows? Also, how did you
eliminate urban runoff? Did you do a loading estimate?
Alexandria Boehm
It may only occur in California, but "nuisance runoff' is the water that we see in the gutter
when it hasn't been raining. In Avalon, they hose down the streets at night and the streets lie right
next to the beach so that water from the hosing down we would call "nuisance runoff," or any
water just trickling along when it hasn't been raining.
Q: How did you eliminate the urban runoff, the surface water, and the nuisance flows? Did you do
a loading estimate?
Alexandria Boehm
No, we didn't say that it couldn't be nuisance runoff. We didn't eliminate that, but none of
the nuisance runoff came back positive that we tested for the HF or the HV marker. Surely they
are contributing a fraction of the pollution to the beach, so we did not eliminate it.
Q: Was it just one field event for the Bacteroides?
Alexandria Boehm
The design of our project was to first identify locations, and then sample those locations
maybe a couple times, but we found the Bacteroides multiple times at multiple stations. So it was
not just one sample.
131
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Fecal Source Identification with
Bacteroidetes Molecular Markers
Katharine Held
Oregon State University, Department of Microbiology
Biosketch
Dr. Kate Field is an Associate Professor in
the Department of Microbiology at Oregon State
University, where she also co-directs the Biore-
source Research Interdisciplinary Program. Her
research concerns new and rapid biotechnical
methods of detecting and identifying bacterial
pollution and pathogens in the environment, the
study of microbes in natural populations, and the
spread of antibiotic resistance in the environment.
She has degrees from Yale University, Boston
University, and University of Oregon. She is the
author of two lab texts on molecular biology, and
is on the editorial board of the journal Applied and
Environmental Microbiology. Her research has
been widely published and she has been an invited
speaker for the World Health Organization, Food
Safety Research Consortium, American Academy
of Microbiology, American Society for Limnology
and Oceanography, Environment Canada, Brit-
ish Department of the Environment and European
Union, among others.
Abstract
Fecal contamination of seawater is wide-
spread in the coastal ocean of the United States,
causing illness and beach closures, impacting
shellfish harvest, and degrading habitat. Human
and animal feces pose different threats to human
health, but epidemiological data that link human
health outcomes to exposure in water do not distin-
guish human from animal feces. Current methods
of measuring fecal contamination with public
health indicator bacteria do not identify its source.
Often fecal pollution cannot be corrected, be-
cause the source is not known. We have developed
a rapid and accurate method of identifying the
source of certain kinds of feces in water, utilizing a
PCR assay that targets host-specific groups of Bac-
teroidetes fecal bacteria. The method differs from
existing methods of detecting fecal pollution in
that it detects genetic marker sequences that iden-
tify bacterial groups specific to the host species
that produced the feces, allowing discrimination
among different potential sources. This method
performed well in a comparative study of fecal
source tracking methods. Field studies in Tilla-
mook Bay, Oregon, and Mission Bay, California,
demonstrate this approach. The method has been
tested throughout the U.S., in Canada, Ireland,
and New Zealand. Utilizing the same technology,
we also developed a quantitative (Q-PCR) assay
for Bacteroidetes bacteria that is being tested as
a rapid method of detecting fecal pollution. Both
of these methods use small water samples, do not
require isolating and growing the bacteria, do not
require a library, and are rapid and accurate.
132
-------
Day Two: Session Five
^%&^«^:$^«M»&«>&>»
133
-------
National Beaches Conferences
134
-------
Day Two: Session Rve
of sequence* its fee«*^
'»W'j^. *w<
^
* ''
ff,. ff.
^ .* - •
•T j r f
•>w **«'••
*«?'?
«•!
«^J-j
135
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Spccifidty:
y^^fff^t
* V $
136
-------
Day Two: Session five
LWkV.\V.\VVi*. X-A.'SKiS'^iJAtA SCtt%\& VlJi^fC&Wb
frrrfrfffffrrrriT
Results of subtrac^ve hybrkKzatioi;
+/**/*/
ftt«S6«W ******
137
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
Q: I don't think right now there are any truly quantitative methods that will allow us to say that
Tellhook Bay is contaminated with 60 percent cow fecal matter and 40 percent human or any-
thing like that, but do you think you can get at least an estimate of the prevalent sources? It looks
to me like your method could be at least semiquantitative.
Katharine Field
It's easy to count the number of genes in a sample, so we can be quantitative in that sense,
but the problem is that you don't know whether or not those markers have survived. If it's 2
weeks after the pollution event, is it the same proportion of survival as it was at the moment that it
dropped into the water? So, what we are working on right now is looking at the survival profiles
and correlating them with the survival of specific pathogens. We've got the 0157 strain of E. coli
and we have some viral pathogens.
Q (Slephan Wuertz, CCD): My question goes in the same direction. Your last comment indicated
that you may have evidence ofbacteroidetes that have been released from different species that
may have different survival properties. Do you have any indication that that is really the case?
That would have implications for quantitative microbial source tracking.
Katharine Field
We don't have too much evidence except for some anecdotal evidence that we've seen with
our field samples. I have a grad student right now that is growing the markers and labeling them
with bromidioxuridine so that she can look at survival versus growth over time, and her experi-
ments are working really well right now. We are hoping that within a year we'll have more
specific information. But I would say that Ali Boehm's data were very nice. To me, it looked like
her human fecal and human viral markers were not correlated.
Q (Kelly Goodwin, NOAA, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Lab): Do you have a
gull-specific marker? And, have you or anyone looked at fish or marine mammals?
Katharine Field
All of those are things that we are working on. The gull is particularly refractory and we
think we have figured out why that is, and that we are getting somewhere with it right now. I
hope that we'll soon have some information. I also have some marine samples sitting in our
freezer and I need more students and more money to do those.
Q: Are there ways for other labs to use your primers or do they have to start at point zero and de-
velop their own primers as well? And, can you talk a little about cost for people who don't have
their own lab?
Katharine Field
Some primers are not yet published but are hi press. Many have been published already.
The quantitative assay just came out last month. For research purposes, anyone can use them. For
commercial purposes, my university is trying to get some sort of patent, but they have been try-
ing to do this for 6 years and they are not having a lot of success. So, I'm not holding my breath
on this, but that is the way my university is trying to play it, in terms of commercial application.
We ourselves analyze samples for people all the time. People call us up and say they have certain
questions or certain studies and ask if we can do it and we do, and the cost is about $50 a sample.
We are also starting a collaboration with Mohsen Orodpour in Seattle because we see how our
two different approaches of methods really get at different aspects of the same thing and can work
very nicely together.
138
-------
Day Two: Session Five
Using Microbial Source Tracking
in New Hampshire: Applications,
Results and Challenges
Stephen Jones
University of New Hampshire
Biosketch
Dr. Stephen Jones is a research associate
professor of marine science and natural resources
at the University of New Hampshire. Dr. Jones
received his B.S. in Soil Science from the Univer-
sity of Maine in Orono, his M.S. in Soil Science
at the University of Wisconsin in Madison and
his Ph.D. in bacteriology from the University of
Wisconsin in Madison. He conducted research on
biodegradation of organic chemicals as a postdoc-
toral fellow in the Institute of Comparative and
Environmental Toxicology at Cornell University
from 1983-86, then became a research fellow and
adjunct professor studying anaerobic digestion of
municipal sludge in the Department of Civil Engi-
neering at Syracuse University until 1987. Since
1987, he has been conducting research on a variety
of environmental microbiological and toxicologi-
cal issues at the University of New Hampshire's'
Jackson Estuarine Laboratory. He currently serves
as the Director of the UNH Center for Marine
Biology.
Abstract
Traditional investigatory methods are used
by state agencies to track sources of fecal-borne
microbial contamination that are causing pollution
problems for recreational and shellfish growing
waters. While methods such as bracketing streams
using microbial indicator organisms and shoreline
surveys have been successful in identifying vari-
ous pollution sources in coastal New Hampshire,
estuarine and coastal waters still have elevated
bacteria levels in some areas. Since 1999, the New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
has worked with University of New Hampshire
researchers to identify specific source species us-
ing a microbial source tracking technique called
Ribotyping. NHDES and UNH have applied this
MST technique while investigating sources of
bacterial contamination at recreational beaches,
shellfish growing waters, freshwater streams, and
tidal rivers. The results, which show the relative
contribution of specific source species, have been
used in a Total Maximum Daily Load study and to
guide remedial actions in both estuarine and fresh
waters. In some cases the results were as ex-
pected, in others the results indicated unexpected
sources, which were eventually verified. Research
is continually refining the methodology includ-
ing a move from manual to automated ribotyping
using a RiboPrinter. The cost for ribotyping is an
issue that has lead to several studies exploring the
potential for using small source species databases
that reflect local source species during the time of
the study. Other ongoing research and experimen-
tal designs seek to expand possible applications of
ribotyping for source tracking.
(39
-------
National Beaches Conferences
it* New Hampshire:
Spurn*
140
-------
Day Two: Session Five
««NH
»
Using micf obiai source tracking:
#*««*
7
»(«(^^
141
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Using microbial source tracking:
^
Using microbiai source
142
-------
Day Two: Session Five
Using microbia! source tracking;
Recent Projects In NH
Using micfobiat source t racking:
Using microbial source traddng:
Challenges
Using mjcrobial source tracking:
Present Foc«s
143
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
No questions.
144
-------
Day Two: Session Five
Replication of £. col/in Sand at a
Temperate Freshwater Beach
Elizabeth Aim
Central Michigan University
Biosketch
Dr. Elizabeth Aim is a professor of micro-
biology in the Biology Department at Central
Michigan University. Dr. Aim received an A.B. in
Biology from Randolph-Macon Woman's Col-
lege in Virginia, a M.S. from Ball State University
in Indiana, and a Ph.D. from the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She has been on
the faculty at Central Michigan University since
1996. Dr. Aim has been studying microbial com-
munity structure in aquatic environments for over
12 years. For the past 4 years she has been focus-
ing on the sources and fates of enteric bacteria at
Great Lakes beaches. She is a participating faculty.
in the Michigan Water Research Center and in the
Institute for Molecular Epidemiology.
Abstract
Escherichia coli have been used as indicators
of recent fecal contaminftion in beach monitoring
and source-tracking programs. Recent investiga-
tions have demonstrated high abundances of E.
coli in sand at temperate freshwater beaches. This
study was initiated to test the hypothesis that high
abundances of E. coll can be explained, at least in
part, by the ability of E. coli to live and replicate
in beach sand. In laboratory microcosm studies, E.
coli densities increased from 1.9 x 10A2 to more
than 2 x 10A7 CFU/100 g sand after 2 days of
incubation at 19°C, and remained above 2 x 10A7
for at least 35 days. In field replication studies,
performed in diffusion chambers incubated in
Lake Huron foreshore sand, E. coli were able to
multiply rapidly at the beach, reach high densities
in the sand (approximately 7.5 x 10A7 CFU/lOOg),
and to persist in a cultivable state at high density
for at least 48 days. In another field study, E. coli
O157:H7 was observed in sand biofilm communi-
ties, suggesting in situ replication of this E. coli
pathotype. Beach monitoring programs operate
under the assumption that E. coli in water origi-
nates from a recent fecal contamination event This
study supports suggestions from recent monitoring
studies: Some E. coli populations may be indige-
nous to beach sand and may be a source to swim-
ming water. The potential for indigenous sand
populations of £ coli to re-enter swimming water.
at some later time would frustrate E. coft-based
monitoring and source tracking studies.
145
-------
National Beaches Conferences
;A * ,V''J ''%,*
l£^?$2f
146
-------
Day Two: Session Five
,V ''<."•«* "• •• '-•»&••
"V" ""^r >,?-.'
H^^""'-!l
jfw' O.'" .. ^
^
abundance of E coS in sand?
Scmd grain habitat
147
-------
National Beaches Conferences
* *
O
O
148
-------
Day Two: Session Five
the beach?
MSU
149
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Antibody staining far O157
'^ ' " ' ' '
150
-------
Day Two: Session Five
*»
151
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
Q: In your microcosm experiment where you spiked with the isolate that you've grown in the lab,
you showed it could reproduce in your microcosm in the absence of competition. Have you done
another experiment where there was competition to see whether that is still occurring?
Elizabeth Aim
In other experiments that we've tried to set up, for instance when we were trying to set up
the assays to look at the exchange in antibiotic resistance, rinding a pair of E. coli that we could
maintain in our columns at the ratio that we wanted was challenging. Very often one strain would
push the other one out and take over So I think that we have a lot of evidence that competition is
occurring and is probably a very important mechanism for regulating these populations.
Q: Can you justify your choice to compare directly E. coli in cfu/100 grams of sand to E. coli in
cfu/100 milliliters?
Elizabeth Aim
Not very well because they are very different matrixes, and for the volume of sand there are
a lot more attachment sites, so it is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. So, doing it on a per
volume basis was the best that we could come up with, but I wouldn't say that a direct compari-
son like that is a fair comparison.
Q: That information you provided on Shigella and 0157 growing in the sand is pretty frighten-
ing. You started your talk out with a picture of a kid wearing a swim diaper, and you are talking
about control at the source. Do you think that kids in swim diapers may be something we need to
control at beaches?
Elizabeth Aim
Yes, definitely. I think that is a real problem and that a lot of studies have shown that bath-
ers can carry—not just children but adults too—fecal organisms microorganisms on their skin that
comes right off when they get into the water. So, I think that a lot more public awareness of the
contributions they make is definitely important. I don't think the swim diapers do too much to
keep the organisms out. It may remove the visible floaters, but not the bacteria and viruses.
152
-------
Thursday, October 14
10:20 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Concurrent Track I:
Identifying and Solving Beach Water Quality Problems
Session Six:
TMDLs
-------
National Beaches Conferences
A Watershed Scale Approach for
Developing a Bacterial TMDL in an
Urbanizing Puget Sound Embayment
Christopher May
Battelle Marine Science Laboratory
Biosketch
Dr. Christopher W. May, senior research
scientist and engineer at the Battelle Marine Sci-
ences Laboratory (MSL), is a freshwater ecolo-
gist and environmental engineer with expertise in
urban watershed assessment and management. His
areas of interest include stormwater management,
watershed analysis using geographic informa-'
tion systems (GIS), salmonid habitat assessment,
urban stream rehabilitation, water quality monitor-
ing, stream biological assessment, and watershed
restoration. His current research at Battelle focuses
on the linkage between upland watersheds and
nearshore-marine ecosystems, including natural
processes and land-use impacts. Prior to joining
the MSL team Dr. May was a research engineer
at the University of Washington Applied Physics
Laboratory (UW-APL). His research there cen-
tered on the cumulative impacts of urbanization
on native salmonids in small streams in the Puget
Sound lowland eco-region. Dr. May is an adjunct
faculty member of Western Washington University,
Huxley School of Environmental Studies, Univer-
sity of Washington, Tacoma Environmental Sci-
ence Program, and the University of Washington,
Professional Engineering Program.
Abstract
Shellfish are icons of the Pacific Northwest,
associated with many recreational, cultural and
economic values. Clean water is essential for
shellfish harvesting. However, an increase in hu-
man population and development within nearshore
environments and adjacent watersheds has de-
graded water quality by increasing the incidence of
154
bacterial pollution, resulting in increased closures
for shellfish harvesting, as well as restrictions on
fishing and contact recreational activities such as
boating and swimming. While research has long
demonstrated that urbanization alters water quality
in upland streams and rivers, primarily through the
loss of native vegetative cover, increased impervi-
ous surfaces, altered hydrology and other impacts,
the relationships between patterns of landscape
alteration and the health of shellfish growing areas
are generally not well understood.
This research project explored the relation-
ships between urbanization and nearshore water
quality using a landscape scale analysis of the
Sinclair-Dyes Inlet watershed. A landscape-scale
empirical analysis of urbanizing sub-basins was
conducted. Using bacterial contamination as the
indicator of nearshore water quality conditions, we
identified the landscape factors that best explained
water quality conditions in nearshore shellfish
growing areas. Across all sub-basins, we found
that the loss of native forest cover, impervious sur-
face area, and road density are the best predictors
of nearshore water quality conditions. Within the
more urbanized areas, the amount and connectiv-
ity of impervious surface areas explained most of
the variance in bacterial pollution. In addition, the
type and extent of the stormwater conveyance and
treatment network significantly influenced bacte-
rial contamination levels in the nearshore environ-
ment. The Sinclair-Dyes Inlet study was used to
develop a TMDL implementation plan. A dynamic
model was also developed as part of this project.
The findings of this study also have broad implica-
tions for land-use and stormwater management
policies in other coastal areas of the country.
-------
Day Two: Session Six
for
Oeveloping a Bacterial TMDL in «*
Project Location
inlet
Project ENVVEST
.<• &utt*etX*cnBtitta
•-• «Mtt«jr
i(MBttfafeMtyfarfJly|nHiBffty BMC^
. *»AA-_J_- ^_,
' **^****^^*"fa'
Potfwtfo/? Sources
A ^ ; ^/ ',v,^* ? *r ^ " ^auS^i
' . •* . jL.r.. >>i ^< _. _ -*^fM^j(ffj(vjtffJ^Mirf^afJtiiMViMi^^^
155
-------
National Beaches Conferences
LULCArtatySiS
A«> ttft-t-t A.^-^^»-
MtJ J . < .
M
Marine
?€ Date
t; \:^
*L~* ^ -.
vj"*'"7
Sy. ' - ?' \
I* < * "'5
*-"i be "" > •* T!
^
156
-------
Day Two: Session Six
? '<>
ft
FCDato
•»XV»> -»W*JV •>. Av^
•KW-VX
^W^-X4««W
FCDate
III:
I
Stream
FCDdla
157
-------
National Beaches Conferences
£«<&
SOfe. -Mi
Jy^-w
«-tK-"->.X
*»^.tti«in**mte^ :•:-:::•:••-:.:
i^driC T' ' -'ri'iii-J- ' '- ^-^— £'•----«•-•- Ir-iJi '•j-i'ii- fnml" '''': '-- -••"• .ii-«-Hi VriJi««rf
•i^fjK^r^Jia^-^iV:::^:.:.^-:-:^^^^^-,,^^
:-*': i .•:-.:: :^";!:;:-: :"•;:-;: :"•'!••;••"'•: ''•'.:'"'::-::! .":'':!':O-: f:':':: •'•::.-.;','. :•-.. :••:":.''::::: /:.'. ~'
•
\^mH*^t^^ :;;
... . . ....... ..........
158
-------
Day Two: Session Six
Thank You
» » *
159
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
Q: How much money did it take to create your model?
Christopher May
I can't really tell you, as we probably have to talk man-hours and things like that.
Q: Too many zeros?
Christopher May
Not really. We have the technique down. For the upland part, we use an HSPF-based
model, which is fairly simple. Then, the CH3D model was the dynamic model used for the water
column, and that takes a little doing, but I think we've worked the bugs out so it's not that difficult
anymore. So, I can talk to you about how many man-hours it took.
Q: Did you verify the model?
Christopher May
Yes, we have done synoptic surveys, and all the sample points at the same time, plugged it
into the model and its pretty close.
160
-------
Day Two: Session Six
Improving Beach Water Quality
through TMDLs: A Case Study of
Santa Monica Bay Beaches
Renee DeShazo
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Board
Biosketch
Renee DeShazo is the Basin Planning Coor-
dinator for the Los Angeles Regional Water Qual-
ity Control Board. In this role, she oversees de-
velopment of all regional basin plan amendments
that incorporate or revise water quality objectives,
beneficial uses and implementation policies for
water quality standards. Ms. DeShazo also initi-
ates early review of basin planning issues related
to TMDL development, and works closely with
the multidisciplinary TMDL Units on the basin
planning components of TMDL development. She
was the lead staff person in the development of the
Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacterial TMDLs and
continues to work closely with stakeholders in the
development of monitoring and implementation
plans for those TMDLs. Prior to her position with
the Regional Board, Ms. DeShazo worked for die
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, and prior
to that she was employed by the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection. Her
educational background includes a Bachelor of
Science degree from the College of William and
Mary and a Master's degree from the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Abstract
Santa Monica Bay beaches are an icon and
a major source of revenue to the Los Angeles
Region, while Santa Monica Bay is the major
receiving water for urban runoff and effluent from
wastewater treatment plants for one of the largest
population centers in the United States. As such,
many of the beaches along Santa Monica Bay ex-
perience poor bacteriological water quality, partic-
ular during wet weather when storm water runoff
is conveyed through numerous storm drain outfalls
to the beaches. Yet, beach usage remains signifi-
cant during winter months given the mild climate
of Southern California and the year-round popular-
ity of surfing and other water-related recreational
activities. To address bacterial contamination at
these beaches, the State adopted Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDLs). These TMDLs are based
on the principles that bacteriological water quality
must be at least as good as at a reference site and
there shall be no degradation of existing shoreline
water quality if historical water quality is better
than the reference site. The TMDLs have a multi-
part numeric target that includes four bacterial
indicators. Using the principles above, a certain
number of exceedances of the single sample limits
for these indicators are allowed at the beaches.
This approach is supported by a diverse group of
stakeholders, including cities responsible for com-
plying with the TMDLs as well as environmental
organizations committed to ensuring the highest
achievable level of public health protection for the
local residents and visitors to the Bay's beaches.
161
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Wet W€3ther^Shoufcl we cam?
(fto*. fc&Mar.)
Health ftssks of Swimming in Water wWi
ee^fed SacteH*
Eptdsmfoto^cal stuc&es show fenfci
s^smart* jjs|n,
162
-------
Day Two: Session Six.
Wet-Weather Probtem
SOB survey i^iich show much titghar
Wd Wealt^r^Wliat csn we do?
Sitiqfe *Hi^jfe ^aat-
Procedures f«r
Does not »^f% togeemctrfe BT«HI ol»jecW«
sources
163
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Three ofi^ tor
Waste Load Allocattcms
Waste bosd Allocations
Criteria for Determining Ailowabte Wet-
Ifts ^?ate of tits ftefer&Ke System sad
Sded atiaifef of two oKseria based on
historical *£ta (199S-290S);
164
-------
«w.
Day Two: Session Six
Historical shordSne
ww-
•»fea*w
*» *
Schedule basoi on
Wfcat Is an IW Abroach?
j«*its QiftsigtsHjt a
Why different schedules?
baswJ w «ft»ed sffutos Elheractefiswrtlwi
J65
-------
National Beaches Conferences
<&*»
Summary
water
166
-------
Day Two: Session Six
vwrtv.
Questions and Answers
No questions.
167
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Delisting of Recreational Beaches on
the 303(d) List for Exceedances of
Bacterial Water Quality Standards
Lisa Kay
MEC-Weston Solutions, Inc.
Biosketch
Ms. Lisa Kay has over 19 years of experience
in water quality assessments relating to the Clean
Water Act, primarily involving project develop-
ment, study design, project management, and qual-
ity assurance oversight. She assists her municipal
clients in NPDES compliance; TMDL studies,
watershed management planning, and the develop-
ment of grant funded projects. She co-designed
the NPDES storm water-monitoring program
for the 22 municipal copermittees in San Diego
County. She has been managing the implementa-
tion of this urban runoff program since the year
2000. Ms. Kay is the Water Resources Practice
Leader for MEC-Weston Solutions, Inc.
Abstract
In southern California, there are numerous
shoreline water quality monitoring sites located
along coastal beaches, bays, and harbors that are
monitored for bacterial indicators (total coliform,
fecal coliform, and enterococcus). Due to exceed-
ances of bacterial indicator standards, many of
these sites are listed as impaired on the California
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
303(d) List. In December 2003, the SWRCB
developed draft guidance criteria for removing
sites from the 303(d) List (a process known as
delisting). The primary consideration for removal
of a water segment from the 303(d) List is an
exceedance frequency of water quality standards
of less than 10% of the analyses conducted (with
at least 90% confidence). In this assessment, five
years of bacterial data from all of the beach sites
within the City of San Diego that are listed on the
2002 303(d) List were reviewed and compared to
the draft guidance criteria. A total of 62 sites are
identified on the List, including 45 that are located
in Mission Bay, which is listed in its entirety. Of
the 17 sites listed outside of Mission Bay, 11 were
recommended for delisting. Within Mission Bay,
nearly half the sites monitored were recommended
for delisting. The SWRCB delisting guidance
provides a meaningful, statistically based process
for removal of sites from the 303(d) List The
results of the assessment using the process sug-
gest that many of the sites that are currently on the
303(d) List within the City of San Diego should be
considered for delisting.
168
-------
Day Two: Session Six
on the 2$&fd} Ust for £xceestances
Beaches
mCfOrtoredtR the Oty of St»? Diego,
0«g 4*8* ** $«**<*» U* 2992
Ust
SWKCB's Draft fua&tontt! Equivalent
crtterla: exceedaoce of
water cuaiity standards of (ass than
10% w ttt* analyses, ,
The AS4U snfffe sannpl* limits w«r
used in t^its document to determine
th« mtttifeer of
gtven sample
Standards
Information Assessed
Bve years ttf&*to were
&ata wemcftmf«to(J from raw data for all
^tordtrte sites wttftm tM City of San
W«el^« mo^tedna by CJtv cf San Dtego or
fc»te c«tt«tw £i«}»»rirnef»l of
Heals* (&!K)<
169
-------
National Beaches Conferences
uses tJtonomia! <&stnbuften with
Also sopites site specific exceedsnce
IF us*d to plac« feeaefi on
Proposes use of reference beach
Cay of San Otego
Benches
Toiat *^mo*r of analyses
tim&«ii&
nufnJ&er tig* %«,*; ™ \^vf^ S
"4~ - ^;Y^>>>;ss
-™lj-A\^
170
-------
Day Two: Session Six
A
wria tee tcia) coSfcajn , thr®B for
SOSkt)
La Jolla Shores at Paseo Grande
La Jolla Shares at Avenue D© La
Playa
v* vatnts nscsaftwwt *): j» IsBs «s»w «*•«(««»
171
-------
National Beaches Conferences
This site Is located «n the east skte of
8»yf *iifts% m frruit fel th« Hlftcfrt
172
-------
Day Two: Session Six
of Gudtfty Greek.
> wv
Conclusions of Assessment
Mission Bay
J73
-------
Mf*^*?"
•i^Sft'.-
•Wwtn
National Beaches Conferences
174
-------
Day Two: Session Six
Questions and Answers
Q: For both Leisure Lagoon and one of the other sites, it looked like you showed a number of
sampling locations within each site. For Leisure Lagoon, for instance, one of the sampling loca-
tions had a high number of exceedances of the standard. Have you gone into further analysis of
what that means and how to deal with that? How do you justify taking it off the list if you've got
ongoing exceedances for specific locations?
Lisa Kay
Basically, it depends on how far away from each other those locations are. That is a policy
decision. At this point we are just presenting the information. But, I would like to add that there
was a completely different study that looked at sources of bacteria and remediated those sources,
and in many instances, sources of bacteria have been remediated or removed in a lot of Mission
Bay, and there are ongoing projects to continue that effort.
Q: It does look to be pretty site-specific. When you still have a strong source coming in, and if
that data are still accurate, then you probably wouldn't want to delist it.
Lisa Kay
Yes, then you probably would not want to remove it.
175
-------
National Beaches Conferences
"The Hunt for Red 1. coif9 - Bacteria
Source Tracking in Lake Darling
Watershed
Eric O'Brien
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Water Monitoring Section
Biosketch
Mr. Eric O'Brien is an environmental mi-
crobiologist for the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources and University of Iowa. Mr. O'Brien
completed his master's research in Environmental
Science at the University of Northern Iowa in May
2003. His primary interest of focus is environ-
mental microbiology, specifically focusing on
bacterial source tracking. Before joining the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources Water Monitor-
ing Section, Mr. O'Brien also helped coordinate
undergraduate water research activities at the
University of Northern Iowa. These interests led
him to work for the Water Monitoring Section
of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources in
June 2003. Mr. O'Brien directs most of his efforts
toward the ongoing bacterial monitoring of Iowa's
State and County owned beaches as well as track-
ing of bacterial sources at these beaches.
Abstract
Contamination of Iowa's surface water by
fecal microorganisms threatens human health and
results in beach postings that have substantial eco-
nomic impacts to local communities. The typically
high nutrient levels and turbidity in most Iowa
surface waters compounds this problem. Lake Dar-
ling, located in southeast Iowa, has been placed
on Iowa's 2002 303(d) list, the list of impaired
water bodies, for high levels of indicator bacteria.
A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan will
need to be created for this watershed in the future.
Therefore, the state has a vested interest in deter-
mining the source of bacteria at the beach and in
the lake. The Lake Darling watershed consists of
19.8 square miles, much of which is agricultural
(55%). To understand and control fecal contami-
nation problems and to assess human health risks,
it is necessary to identify contamination sources
and transport pathways. This study used a com-
bination of several source-tracking tools to deter-
mine the origin of fecal contamination in Lake
Darling and the surrounding watershed. These
source-tracking tools included DNA ribotyping,
antibiotic resistance analysis (ARA), pathogens
analysis and sterols/caffeine/cotinine analysis. By
using the libraries created from ribotyping and
ARA together, increased discriminatory power
was observed compared to each library individu-
ally. Additionally, analysis noted pathogens to
be present in all tributaries entering Lake Darling
during various flow regimes, including low flow
conditions, throughout the study. Data from this
project have provided insight into areas to target
implementation of best management practices to
eliminate or control these sources.
176
-------
Day Two: Session Six
Mterotwaf Source
Tracking in
Lake Darling - Background
On towa's 2002 303
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Results
DMA Ribotyping
Aniibtolic Resistance Analysis
Results
th« size &f
178
-------
Day Two: Session Six
Results
Sites 7,3* and 12 (tributaries ore
•^> v ^K-^^^A^ ±
Results
in
179
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Results
Caffeine/Cottnine
from lh» ptttjact
Summary
180
-------
Day Two: Session Six
Questions and Answers
No questions.
181
-------
National Beaches Conferences
San Diego Creek Watershed Natural
Treatment System
Norris Brandt
Irvine Ranch Water District
Biosketch
(Not submitted)
Abstract
(Not submitted)
182
-------
Day Two: Session Six
»
183
-------
National Beaches Conferences
184
-------
Day Two: Session Six
**, /^
;& W<^"Xj
^ -••.* \ v < ^x> ?
185
-------
National Beaches Conferences
^.Jbtt^A^M****^**
186
-------
Day Two: Session Six
187
-------
National Beaches Conferences
188
-------
Day Two: Session Six
189
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
Q: Do the subterranean filters that you were talking about do a better job at removing bacteria?
i
Norris Brandt
No, it's actually really focused on nutrients (nitrogen, specifically) and selenium. I don't
know how well it removes bacteria. We didn't really look at pathogens, because we were so fo-
cused on the other contaminants. But it would be interesting to check to see if that does occur.
Q: During storms, do those structures get destroyed? I understand that you're in a flood-control
structure, so how do you deal with storms and the wet weather?
Norris Brandt
We expect the small rock weirs to be blown out. It's a small volume of coarse sediment
that's going to be in the channel. But those are the only ones that are going to be destroyed dur-
ing that period. Remember, we had the detention basins, and for those, the water rises but it does
not flow at a high velocity. So, it rises but does not kill anything, and then it drops back down
within about 72 hours at the most.
Q: So, there should be some build-up in the sediments. Do you remove those sediments prior?
Norris Brandt
Yes, there is a whole program that is part of our operation and maintenance (O&M) for that,
testing the sediments and making sure we know where we can get rid of them. We are already
using some'of those sediments for construction materials because it is safe to do so.
190
-------
Thursday, October 14
1:20 p.m. -3:00 p.m.
Concurrent Track I:
Identifying and Solving Beach Water Quality Problems
Session Seven:
Remediation Approaches
-------
National Beaches Conferences
California's Clean Beach Initiative
Mark Gold, D.Env.
Heal the Bay
Biosketch
Mark Gold, D.Env., is Heal the Bay's Execu-
tive Director. Heal the Bay is an environmental
group dedicated to making Santa Monica Bay
and Southern California coastal waters safe and
healthy for people and marine life. Dr. Gold's ex-
tensive work with water quality and coastal natural
resource topics ranges from sewage treatment,
contaminated sediments, legislative and environ-
mental education issues to urban runoff, con-
taminated fish and wetland restorations. In 1996,
working in conjunction with the Santa Monica Bay
Restoration Project and the USC Medical Center,
he was a co-author of the first epidemiological
study of swimmers in runoff-polluted water. He
also has co-authored several stormwater, con-
taminated fish and beach water quality bills and
ordinances, and he created Heal the Bay's Beach
Report Card®. He is a vice-chair of the Santa
Monica Bay Restoration Commission, sits on the
State Water Board's Clean Beach Advisory Group
and served on the EPA's Urban Wet Weather
Federal Advisory Committee. Dr. Gold also was
appointed to the California Ocean Trust. Dr. Gold
has bachelor's and master's degrees in biology
from UCLA, and he received his doctorate from
UCLA in environmental science and engineering
in 1994.
Abstract
The Clean Beach Initiative was authored by
Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, working together
with Heal the Bay, in response to California As-
sembly Bill 411, the state's beach bathing water
standards bill. AB 411 requires monitoring of
California's most frequently visited beaches. The
resulting monitoring demonstrated that there were
numerous beaches with frequently high fecal
indicator bacteria densities. Reducing bacteria
densities, beach closures, and health warnings at
California's most polluted beaches became a high
priority for funding. This innovative initiative allo-
cates $80 million to clean up the state's most pol-
luted beaches and to fund rapid indicator research.
The major successes have been with simpler
projects, such as the nearly 20 dry weather diver-
sions from storm drains into sewers that are now
in place. Other funds have been allocated for dry
weather runoff mini-treatment plants, such as the
one at Moonlight Beach in Encinitas. However the
challenges of source identification and abatement
have proven too difficult a task at some beaches
and water quality problems at many of these loca-
tions remain unsolved. Reducing fecal bacteria
densities at enclosed beaches with poor water
circulation has proved to be particularly difficult.
Unconventional bacteria reduction technologies
such as treatment wetlands and mechanical water
circulation enhancement devices are being consid-
ered for funding, but few have been implemented
to date. Other regions may learn from California's
experiences trying to comply with legislature-man-
dated project design and construction deadlines,
and using a Clean Beach Advisory Group made
up of health and water quality experts, to provide
project approval, enhancement and monitoring
recommendations to California's funding decision
making body, the State Water Resources Control
Board.
192
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
California's
Beach Initiative
Overview of CBl
total o?$?8M
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Key Elements of CBi
Drawbacks to CBI
194
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
:>::::•:::-::: :•:::•::::-:::-::::-:::-::::•:::•::::•:::•::::::;•;:;;;;;•;;::;::-::::::;-:;::;::•:::-:': !•: ::•::::-:: >!::!-:::-;:::-:
:•: :c ::::•::': :•:: :•::-: :•:': :•::': :-:'•::-: :•: :•:': :•: f: :•:-: :•::::::'::-::";: ••: :•: :>;:"; ;•;;';; £;-;;-;;;'; ;•::';-: •:• :•• ;•:•: ;'•:-: :'•-: :•• •': v.j:":;.;:
:-: :•: :-:::::•:::: :•::-: :•:•: :::•:: :•: ;•; ;•; ;•:•;:;:-:;:-: ;•: :•: :;•;:: :•:: :•::-::-:: x :::•:: :•: :< :•: ::•::: :•:•::-: :•: :•: :;•::; :•;-;;.; ;•:>;::-;::
195
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
Q: I'mfrom\the San Diego area, and we've had a lot of talk in the past and today about this
watershed concept and how what's going on in the watershed is driving beach water quality. So,
can you talk a little about some limitations of Clean Beach Initiative (CBl) projects to fund up-
stream inland restoration projects, as opposed to being focused on cleaning up after the fact?
Mark Goldj
Yes, clean beaches projects have been focused more on end-of-pipe solutions. The reality
is that if it's a small, concrete-lined channel, and there are a lot of those that are causing pollution
problems atlbeaches, those are the ones that are more easily solved. Upstream pollution abate-
ment projects and source identification projects cost a lot of money, and the incremental improve-
ment for any one project doesn't quite meet the threshold that the legislature passed, which is that
you have to have a measurable improvement in the reduction of beach postings and closures. So,
because of that, it has been a problem. So, these other funds from these bond measures that are
sitting up there at the State Water Resources Control Board are a much better source of potential
funds (i.e., Proposition 40, Proposition 50) to reduce upstream sources.
j
Q: Baby Beach in Dana Point Harbor doesn 't have a whole lot of people entering the water.
There are a lot of people there, but they are walking between the Ocean Institute and the marina.
What would you think about eliminating the beach and turning it into an intertidal rocky zone
with field trips and that type of stuff with the creatures that could be using the intertidal rocky
zone? I
Mark Gold
I think local beneficial use determinations need to be made by the people who live there.
For me (running a Santa Monica Bay group), giving an opinion on that would be out of place.
That is something that the community in Orange County needs to work with their local regional
board and see what happens if there is dedesignation of that direct Recreational 1 use. But, it's
not appropriate for me to weigh in on that.
196
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
EPA's Clean New England Beaches
Initiative and Flagship Beaches
Matthew Liebman, Ph.D.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1
Biosketch
Matthew L. Liebman, Ph.D is an Envi-
ronmental Biologist at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency New England regional office
in Boston, MA. Dr. Liebman received his B.A in
Biology in 1980 from Carleton College in Min-
nesota and a Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolution from
the State University of New York at Stony Brook
in 1991. Since 1990, he has worked at the EPA
office in Boston as a project manager and scientist
in the National Estuary Program, dredged material
disposal and monitoring program, and as a water
quality specialist. He is the regional coordina-
tor for EPA's BEACH program, nutrient criteria
initiative and national sediment inventory. At EPA,
Dr. Liebman has conducted or been involved in
research efforts in dredged material disposal site
monitoring, and impacts of nutrients and bacteria
on water quality in streams, coastal waters and
beaches.
Abstract
Co-authors: David Turin, Larry Macmillan,
Chris Ryan and Warren Howard, EPA Region 1
Taking advantage of the Federal Beach Act,
EPA New England launched an initiative in 2002
to enhance our ability to protect public health by
reducing beach closures or advisories, while es-
tablishing consistent statewide monitoring and as-
sessment programs. In addition to providing grants
for monitoring, assessment and public notification
at coastal beaches, the goals of die initiative are to
control sources of fecal contamination from storm
water and non-point pollution sources; establish
"Flagship Beaches" in each of the five coastal New
England states; promote high quality monitoring
and assessment methods and new technologies;
promote information sharing among beach man-
agers; and involve the public and communities in
education, monitoring and advocacy. The Initiative
raises the profile of coastal beaches as important
recreational resources by enhancing existing EPA
and state programs with increased financial and
technical assistance. Since 2001, the number of
closure days for coastal and inland beaches has
declined from 2400 to 1900 in 2003. We attribute
this decline to improvements in beach manage-
ment and monitoring and actual improvements in
water quality due to investments in remediation.
Nevertheless, one in five beaches in New England
experiences a closure at some point during the
summer.
In New England, the major cause of closures
are storm water discharges to beaches located in
urban areas, especially at beaches in or near Bos-
ton Harbor, Massachusetts, Greenwich Bay, Rhode
Island, and western Long Island Sound, Connecti-
cut. Many storm water pipes discharge directly
onto the beach, with little or no treatment; some
storm water is contaminated with human sources
of bacteria, from illicit and improper connections,
or from leaks in the systems. This presentation will
highlight examples of these problems, and discuss
strategies to remediate these difficult problems at
Flagship and other beaches in New England.
197
-------
CWtt| Class* Ifew England
Initiative and Flagship
National Beaches Conferences
»'» » S
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
ttoraiwata
Sfewrmw««ef, the msgor culprit
CT
199
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Warren Itoww Be*eft, 81
ote iRfonrattoa rtj
P-WK ;*V ^ -'If
\%X\vwOwv"X>X*JWOO>^^
rl
yi iSsa .7^ rse»
r«*te ' 'jass :«&' !u*T
200
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
&np«opte really r«atti**ian*>
JWkfwmfw SBfenwuttiw, lfe«y know
201
-------
National Beaches Conferences
HA
Aerial photo of Brodt
202
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
ftfiflBi Ifttf JtorcltM; VlCW Of t**i fend*
tftxttf
Jn
Sw* trite** duiBnmu amf
SMR« aisalww*
203
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
Q (Stephen Wanes, University of New Hampshire): One of your last statements was about open-
ing salt marshes and improving tidal flushing, and maybe improving water quality. There is some
evidence in\New Hampshire where they have been doing a lot of salt marsh restoration, right
next to the beaches. During my presentation this morning I showed how we were looking at our
beaches and they all have these outlets from the salt marshes. In a couple of instances they have
increased the size of the culverts and the flushing in and out of these salt marshes, and the water
quality has ^decreased. So, it may not be as straightforward as it seems. It seems right what you
are saying, but we are going to be taking another look at this because they are going to be doing
another salt marsh restoration at one of the beaches this spring, and in the upcoming year we are
going to be 'doing some source tracking and microbial work. But be aware that it may not be as
straightforward as it seems.
Matthew Liebman
Every [place is site-specific, but I'm wondering if in those cases in New Hampshire the levels
of bacteria are probably much lower than what we're finding in the Boston area. So, when you
say you see a decrease in water quality, it could be a matter of scale.
Q: Yes, but the mechanisms by which this happened—we are not sure what is going on. So, it
would be interesting to find out.
Matthew Liebman
We deal with people who protect wetlands all the time, and there is a major issue because
people are always complaining about the salt marsh and the wetlands contributing the sources of
bacteria to their beach. And, our coastal wetlands people kind of resent that because it implies that
we should not protect the wetlands as much. So, it's important to remember that healthy function-
ing wetlands appear to contribute only small amounts of bacteria to coastal waters.
204
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
The Effectiveness of Spatial
Distribution Studies in the
Development of Successful, Cost-
Effective, Targeted Remediation Efforts
Julie Kinzelman
City of Racine
Biosketch
Julie Kinzelman is a microbiologist for the
City of Racine Health Department where she has
14 years experience in recreational water quality
monitoring and research. Dr. Kinzelman received
a BS in Medical Technology from the University
of Wisconsin - Parkside, a MS in Clinical Labora-
tory Sciences from the University of Wisconsin
-Milwaukee, and is a Ph.D. Candidate (2005) in
Public & Environmental Health at the University
of Surrey (Guildford, UK). Dr. Kinzelman is the
principal investigator or co-investigator on re-
search initiatives funded by the National Institute
of Health, S. C. Johnson Fund, Wisconsin DNR,
and Wisconsin Department of Health & Human
Services. Her current research activities focus on
using public health based monitoring programs to
assess the interaction of coastal processes contrib-
uting to recreational water quality advisories.
Abstract
An interdependent relationship exists be-
tween localized sources of contamination and
coastal processes. Both direct and indirect sources
of contamination if provided with a suitable
mechanism of transport, such as run-off due to
rainfall or wave action, can negatively impact
surface water quality. An unacceptable amount of
swimming advisories over the course of several
years prompted Racine, Wisconsin to conduct
scientific studies to detect and remediate point and
non-point sources of contamination impacting the
adjacent Lake Michigan coastal waters. A storm
sewer outfall, previously identified as a signifi-
cant source of Escherichia coli and other bacte-
rial indicators, now is pretreated and discharges
first-flush storm water (during rainfall events) to a
series of infiltration/evaporation beds and incor-
porates a constructed wetland to provide further
filtration. Beach sands are now maintained by
mechanical grooming equipment in such a way
that the bacterial density is significantly decreased,
effectively reducing the number of dry weather
advisories previously encountered at this site by
30%. In Racine, beach management strategies are
ongoing and continually re-evaluated in light of
new research findings. Cost-effective remediation
steps have been implemented to reduce the bacte-
rial burden on adjacent surface waters and hence
the risk of contracting disease through swimming-
related activities. The development of site-specific
targeted remediation efforts benefits both public
and environmental health.
205
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Distribution Studies In the
Remediation Efforts
•"&?«"'••' -f
'S.-SSSSK. !?•::•:•:•• (SJ*^:
llsls'.Sirit*iiVSi«rm Sti
.COLLECTING ARE A-
ENGLISH STREET STQftM £IW£*
206
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
Step 2-Chamber
Step 3 • Construct
,„ {SPS*^ .V 5 „'-,'••.•.
: KifefesSsKfeWi-Sifefe^-y..': '-'•.,-.
*«S^> V aiw'' ' ^fjtiHc s "«>'•»,
I feV*; : j?*s5 1 %*
i
t^w/ , ' <»?>
2O7
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Retention Basin v*. Overflow Outlets
8*» «*»*
*
**
** 1**»
* . **»
208
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
Host Sottremg Studies Are un
-------
National Beaches Conferences
concentration off, c&ti
a»
CORE
1XJ> -V^*'*'* f dV .<••&.*"'•"•., * V ' •* '
"i < %• V* -s^iSfij/v^A <.,v^~^^^ ^ ^
A POSITIVE ;R€tATtONSM!P EXISTS
,£^U -
OROOWINO STUDIES - 2001/2002
210
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
A Best Management Practice
Jfemove ffc* Atgae
211
-------
National Beaches Conferences
GROUNDWATER
Root Rfv&r E coil Densities .
i-w^X>W^'< -P^u
i .. "•
212
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
213
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
Q: Can you talk about the cost of your Vortechs system?
Julie Kinzelman
For the Vortechs system, including the whole engineering process, the relocation of the
outlet, and the installation of the two Vortechs, it was about $750,000 dollars. We had about
$150,000 through a grant from the Department of Natural Resources, and the city put in about
$600,000 of its own money.
214
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
Utilizing Storm Water Monitoring to
Assess Beach Water Quality
fill Us, R.S.
Cuyahoga County Board of Health
Biosketch
Jill Lis is a Program Manager in the Envi-
ronmental Health Service Area of the Cuyahoga
County Board of Health. Ms. Lis received her
B.S. in Environmental Health from Bowling Green
State University in Bowling Green, Ohio in 1992.
Since then, she has been working as a Registered
Sanitarian in the Environmental Health Service
Area of the Cuyahoga County Board of Health
in Cleveland, Ohio. She has been managing the
Bathing Beach Program since 1997, in addition to
several other recreational and water quality pro-
grams. She is also an active member of the Ohio
Environmental Health Association.
Abstract
The Cuyahoga County Board of Health
(CCBH) received Beach Act funds in 2003 to re-
evaluate its existing program to meet the objec-
tives of the Beach Act. The overall goal was the
development of a comprehensive risk-based beach
monitoring and public notification program. To
aid in the beach classification process, the Lake
Erie shoreline was evaluated for the location of
storm sewer outfalls and streams in the vicinity
of the beaches. A total of 20 locations, 11 storm
sewer outfalls and 9 streams, were identified that
were accessible for sampling. These locations
were sampled once a week during the recreation
season for E. coli bacteria.
Sampling results revealed that 16 out of the
20 locations have potential to impact beach water
quality. Several significant rain events occurred
during the 2003 recreation season which may have
contributed to elevated bacterial levels; however, el-
evated concentrations of E. coli were identified even
during dry weather conditions. The data collected
has been provided to the municipalities in which the
sampling locations were located for collaboration
in investigating potential sources of pollution. This
work is being continued throughout (he 2004 recre-
ation season in order to validate the 2003 data.
The CCBH conducts an extensive water
quality program, including a Phase II Storm Water
Program, in which illicit discharges are detected for
their elimination. Fifty-five of the 56 communi-
ties within the CCBH jurisdiction are designated
Phase II communities that must comply with Phase
II Storm Water Management Plans and Programs.
A regional storm water program has been devel-
oped by the CCBH to assist these communities in
meeting their requirements. The program provides
communities with educational outreach and partici-
pation, illicit discharge detection, MS4 inventories,
dry weather flow surveys, water quality monitoring
of MS4 outfalls, and investigative activities to iden-
tify illicit pollution sources to MS4 systems.
In addition to its Phase II Storm Water Pro-
gram, die CCBH performs numerous water quality
activities. These activities include: identifying
and eliminating public health nuisances and haz-
ards in the surface waters within the health district,
surveying the watersheds within the health district,
educating the public on non-point source pollution,
participating in local watershed protection groups
and meetings, and supporting the Household Sew-
age, Semi-Public Sewage, and Parks and Recreation
Programs, including the Bathing Beach Program.
The CCBH utilizes a watershed approach in
dealing wifli water quality issues. Cuyahoga Coun-
ty consists of 3 principal watersheds, all of which
drain to Lake Erie: die Rocky River Watershed, the
Cuyahoga River Watershed, and the Chagrin River
Watershed. The overall water quality in Cuyahoga
County ultimately affects the beach water quality.
hi efforts to enhance its role with these issues, the
CCBH is actively working towards developing a
Watershed Protection Unit, which will address all
water quality issues within its health district.
215
-------
<«¥:-.-.
National Beaches Conferences
Watershed J*R?&gfKJii
dyahoga Co
tV'Ir^' «*&€-, ,"-> «, 0X '
.? ij. .5^-Swrtfcx ' _ h '.>* \ *• *___? *
216
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
•.••KVy.-.
II Sterna Wales !*wj§esm
•• i
«2
•4
«•
*
y*.
217
-------
National Beaches Conferences
ftlidi
OtT4t«
218
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
«
-------
National Beaches Conferences
*««*>'.<> •-! -•
VAfrMWr
fVfifi. <
)(?*&<&
220
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
221
-------
National Beaches Conferences
•«••{ v>«->
*j-*J*.ff*.f - -
' **™~ '^'"*K
y *""*" A '"'I ?**»<•**•
$ jlS&Al s ' Mfi*fi**J4
•> tmivtfsm '' «',sft JT
_L
C^-ivy
-MVX-N<«
! HWt
V
222
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
Contact
223
-------
y/y.twivjwS?
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
No questions.
224
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
Diversion is the Solution to Pollution,
So Far
Cathy Chang, D.Env.
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission
Biosketch
Dr. Cathy Chang is a water resource control
engineer at the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
Commission. Dr. Chang received her B.S. in
Physics, her M.S. in Civil & Environmental Engi-
neering, and her D.Env in Environmental Science
and Engineering- all three degrees from U.C.L.A,
California. She worked on storm water and urban
runoff pollution regulation and policy for several
years at the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Eor the past four years, she has
been a staff for the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
Commission, where she has completed a com-
prehensive assessment of storm water programs
in Los Angeles County and oversees projects
that provide regional solution to storm water and
TMDL issues in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed.
Abstract
In the late 1980's, alarmed by the evidence
that dry-weather urban runoff is the main cause
of bacterial contamination at beaches along Santa
Monica Bay, California, Los Angeles County
public agencies began testing and implement-
ing various pollution control measures. Many of
these measures were fully or partially funded by
the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission
(SMBRC). Measures ranged from source control
to end-of-pipe solutions, and included programs to
conduct sanitary surveys, detect illicit connections,
reduce street washing, extend storm drain outlets
beyond surf zones, and divert runoff to sanitary
sewers or on-site treatment facilities.
Meanwhile, valuable monitoring data, col-
lected concurrently with project implementation,
has allowed agencies to evaluate the feasibility and
effectiveness of many of these measures. Current-
ly, diversion of runoff to sanitary sewers appears
to be the most effective measure. Pre- and post
diversion monitoring data at several project loca-
tions indicates a rapid and significant improvement
in water quality. Data have also shown mat on-site
treatment can be equally effective if properly
sited and the treatment method is appropriate to
the on-site conditions. Failures have also yielded
valuable lessons. Even some of the diversions
which were highly effective initially, have required
modifications to correct deficiencies in their origi-
nal engineering designs.
225
-------
National Beaches Conferences
•(M HWV*5 titflplt rttW^OW ifrM^Mk^Wf ""^^WL
226
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
227
-------
National Beaches Conferences
228
-------
Day Two: Session Seven
Questions and Answers
Q: (Diana Munz). When you are able to see water quality improvements from this, do you just
see it immediately downstream of the diversion, or are you able to show reduced postings at the
receiving beach?
Cathy Chang
It is tricky in Los Angeles County to talk about postings because when the storm drains have
continuous flows they have permanent postings. I assume the postings have disappeared for the
permanent ones, where improvements have been seen.
Mark Gold
That is true for some of them. They have reduced postings for the ones that are not per-
manent and flowing. It has been a pretty positive program.
Q (Steve Hartsel, San Mateo County): Have you done a follow-up epidemiological study that
shows the actual health effects of the improvement of the water quality here?
Cathy Chang
No we have not.
Q (Steve Hartsel, San Mateo County): Are there any plans to do so? It seems like it would be the
logical thing to do,.
Mark Gold
No. With the epidemiology design, it would not be logical. That is because the way the
study was designed was comparing swimmers to swimmers. So, the controls were those swim-
ming right in front of the storm drains compared with those swimming 400 yards away in cleaner
conditions. So, one would expect that it would be a similar outcome to when you actually remove
the pollution source. There is no reason to think that they would be a different population.
Q (Steve Hartsel, San Mateo County): That wouldn 't be confirmation to go back and test in the
someplace and do the same surveys?
Mark Gold
Not for a million dollars, which was the cost of the study.
229
-------
Thursday, October 14
8:00 a.m. - 9:40 a.m.
Concurrent Track II:
Changes on the Horizon
Session Eight:
Making Warning Systems More
Modeling and Rapid
Methods
-------
National Beaches Conferences
A Regional Nowcast Model for
Southern Lake Michigan Using Data
Readily Available to Beach Managers
Richard Whitman
US. Geological Survey. Great Lakes Science Center
Biosketch
Dr. Whitman is the station chief and research
ecologist at the U.S. Geological Survey Lake
Michigan Ecological Research Station. Dr. Whit-
man received his Ph,D. from Texas A&M Univer-
sity in Wildlife and Fisheries Science. He went
on to teach at Indiana University NW for 10 years
as an associate professor of biology. He became a
research biologist with the National Park Service
and then the U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes
Science Center, where he has worked for the past
15 years. Dr. Whitman's research interests include
sources and occurrence of bacteria contamination
in sands and waters of Lake Michigan and the re-
lationship of hydro meteorological and antecedent
biological conditions to indicator bacteria contami-
nation in freshwater streams and beaches.
Abstract
hi recent years predictive modeling of beach
water quality from retrospective empirical local
hydrometerological measurements have become
common. Factors influencing recreational water
quality are both local (e.g., sewage, hydrodynam-
ics, morphology) and regional (e.g., weather pat-
terns, currents, antecedent conditions). We explore
regional factors that help explain E. coli concentra-
tions with hopes of later partitioning these from
local effects. E. coli data from 55 beaches along
217 km shoreline from Milwaukee, Wisconsin to
Michigan City, Indiana were assembled for 2000-
2003 in addition to ambient and derived date from
national, state and local weather stations, wave
dynamic installations and lake buoys. Local
E. coli spatial correlation was clearly evident.
This fine-grain spatial pattern was layered within
seven larger scaled geographic zones. Regres-
sion demonstrated that rainfall, wind speed, solar
radiation, wave height, barometric pressure, and
antecedent E. coli were important factors. While
there were strong seasonal trends and multi-day
momentum of E. coli, there was only weak daily
autocorrelation. Resultant regression models
yield coefficients that were several times higher
than those predicted by currently used protocols
(i.e., 24-hour lag between collection and closure).
Discriminant functions correctly classified a beach
closure or opening most of the time using these
hydrometeorological conditions, whether or not
the beaches were aggregated by wind direction,
zone or day. These models demonstrate local
differences among beaches and the explanatory
factors, provide reasonably good real-time predic-
tions, and help explain general hydrometeorologi-
cal interactions with recreational water quality.
All independent factors are readily available on
the Internet and through cooperation among beach
managers.
232
-------
Day Two: Session Eight
Toward at Ptagferiai Noweast Mode) for
Southern lake Michigan Using Data
Local Forces
,41
233
-------
National Beaches Conferences
CurreriJ 5DQ4 Ftotfieifoe Modeling Activates
MVMVUbUV
I
•.„*
y«*f«rti»»wflfh»«»«wyvy<™«ft*WMi>|vv«y>w*ww'*w
••Ji ,\ J*
;
* •».
4*sw***s*s»AWj v«ft
«•*«**» '' ^«r<
«KW»«Km <«»'»
KH!t*^, *
*'"''tf" ^"'
234
-------
Day Two: Session Eight
Southern ia$c& Jdfcfetgan Beaches
•*SWv •SsfVX
235
-------
National Beaches Conferences
,441
$£ WSUk
*«*
•>I34
L
j.
•- «*•'&£"''*
' "% ' "
-**?4
236
-------
Day Two: Session Eight
Questions and Answers
See Questions and Answers for Greg Olyphant on page 243.
237
-------
National Beaches Conferences
the Need for Beach
Closures in Real Time: Statistical
Approaches and their Applicability to
the Lake Michigan
Greg Olyphant
Indiana University, Department of Geological Sciences
Biosketch
Dr. Olyphant has been a professor of hydrol-
ogy at Indiana University (Bloomington) since
1980. He has been a member of the Interagency
Task Force on E. coli (focused on the southern
Lake Michigan shoreline) since its inception
in 1995. He has published several papers that
demonstrate the functional relationships between
hydrometeorological conditions and bacterial
concentrations in streams and beach waters. He
has also served as a consultant to public health
officials and park administrators on issues of water
quality and methods for posting advisories and
closures.
Abstract
A long record of water quality data, from
numerous beaches along the Lake Michigan
shoreline, has shown that knowing what-El coli
concentrations were on a given day (day of sample
collection) rarely provides an accurate prediction
of what the concentrations are on the next day (day
of decision). This is because the concentrations in
beach water strongly depend on short-term
changes in prevailing hydrometeorological condi-
tions. For example, during stormy periods, in-
creased inflows of contaminated stream water, and
stirring of bacterially laden sands in the nearshore
zone can cause E. coli concentrations to spike for
several hours. On the other hand, the concentra-
tions can decline by an order of magnitude during
calm weather when suspension is low and bacte-
ria have been exposed to long periods of intense
sunshine. A recent pilot study (63rd Street Beach,
Chicago, 2000) has demonstrated that by continu-
ously monitoring hydrometeorological conditions,
a statistical model can be developed to accurately
predict bacterial concentrations in beach water so
that real-time decisions can be made about posting
warnings and closures. Beach Act funds are being
used to test and refine the modeling approach at
two additional locations along the southern shore-
line of Lake Michigan. An overview of the model
formulation and summary of experimental results
at the two new study sites will be the main focus
of the current presentation.
238
-------
Day ft/a: Session Eight
239
-------
National Beaches Conferences
«**«* i*«r isw t» 8» wrtww t* +*& fe«rt h sf «ws«
240
-------
Day Two: Session Eight
-:!:|S^
241
-------
National Beaches Conferences
<>«SJ
twx*s-C
242
-------
Day Two: Session Eight
Questions and Answers
Q: You are located right next to United States Steel and some other steel manufacturers. Do the
outfalls from the steel manufacturers located nearby have an effect on the beaches in the national
park?
Greg Olyphant
The beach I'm talking about is not as close to the steel plants as the one Richard referred
to in a previous slide. The U.S. steel plants are doing a good job of trying to improve their water
quality and have invited the E. coli Taskforce (an interagency taskforce in Indiana) to incorpo-
rate their outfalls into the E. coli monitoring data that was collected for several years. I think the
biggest culprits are the streams that are draining relatively large watersheds with a variety of land
uses in them and have many sources of bacteria.
Q: U.S. Steel rechanneled the Grand Calumet River at one time, early in its history, so that the
entire Grand Calumet River consisted of the effluent from the steel plant.
Greg Olyphant
The Grand Calumet is another issue. I thought you were referring to the Little Calumet
River.
Q: Yes, I was talking about that too.
Greg Olyphant
The Grant Calumet is definitely another beast far to the west of us, and I haven't had, the
opportunity to look closely or model any of the beaches affected by its outfall.
Q (Steve Weisberg, SCCWRP): You (Greg) and Richard both made very compelling cases that
your modeling efforts provide superior prediction to actual conditions than yesterday's measure-
ments. I have a three-part question. First, do you think your models are sufficiently advanced
that you would recommend that people should be using them in place of yesterday's samples for
beach warnings? Second, are people using them in that case? Third, if they are not, what do you
perceive as the biggest gap that keeps them from moving in that direction?
Greg Olyphant
I'll speak for the five cases that I have been involved in. Yes, I recommend that every beach
initiate a monitoring program along with their existing monitoring program for water quality to
monitor hydrometeorological conditions with an eye towards developing a forecasting model,
but never cease actual water quality monitoring because that will be the basis for improving the
ability of the model in the long haul, validating it in cases of possible litigation, and rejecting it if
it's bad in the long haul. Basically, I think having one good correlation set in 2063rd beach, I was
not very confident. But, having three additional sites this year at similar beaches that gave almost
identical results makes me feel far more confident. However, I am not sure at all about ocean
beaches because I have not had the opportunity to work in one of those.
Q: (Steve Weisberg) Are.people adopting them at this point?
Greg Olyphant
I think Chicago beaches are moving towards predictive modeling. The interagency taskforce
in the last meeting that I attended said that this is what we should be pushing. Every municipality
243
-------
National Beaches Conference
should make the investment for the model, because the overall investment is not that great, but it
would allow themselves to have a much more effective basis for warning the public and having a
comfort factor of their own in regards to the decisions they are making. In Michigan, people are
very uncomfortable with their decisions because they have seen the history of false positives.
Comment (Richard Whitman, USGS): It is difficult to isolate your individual questions because
there are political, social, and health concerns that all interact in a manager's mind when he
or she asks, "am I going to go with an untested, invalidated by EPA tool in lieu of something
that I know is safe?" If they allow people in the water, then as long as they use the EPA recom-
mended guidelines and results from samples collected yesterday were good, then they feel they
are okay legally in terms of protecting the public. I don't know anyone that will throw away the
EPA guidelines and switch completely to the predictive mode. I think they will use the model as, a
supplement to the monitoring.
244
-------
Day Two: Session Eight
Frequency Radar Provides Real
Time Data for Enhancing Beach
Monitoring Programs
Eric Terrlll
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego
Biosketch
(Not submitted)
Abstract
(Not submitted)
245
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
No questions.
246
-------
Day Two: Session Eight
Rapid Measurement of Bacterial Fecal
Pollution Indicators at Recreational
Beaches by Quantitative Polymerase
Chain Reaction
Richard Haugland
US. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development
Biosketch
Dr. Haugland is microbiologist in the Mi-
crobiological & Chemical Exposure Assessment
Research Division, National Exposure Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development.
He received a B.S. in Biology at Muskingum
College and a Ph.D. in Developmental Biology at
the Ohio State University. His past research has
addressed diverse problems including improve-
ment of nitrogen fixation in crops, biodegradation
of hazardous chemicals in the environment, as-
sessment of the microbiological quality of indoor
environments, and most recently, water quality
monitoring and homeland defense. A common
component of all of these research activities has
been the application and development new molec-
ular technologies. Dr. Haugland joined the USEPA
in 1991. Since then he has authored or co-authored
over 20 publications and has received a number of
awards for his work including the EPA bronze and
gold medals.
Abstract
Previous studies have demonstrated that
measurements by the membrane filtration (MF)
method of Enterococcus fecal indicator bacteria
in recreational beach water samples are correlated
with swimming-associated gastroenteritis. This
relationship currently serves as a basis for recom-
mended guidance by the USEPA on unacceptable
health risks associated with swimming in both
fresh and marine waters. The MF method, howev-
er, requires at least 24 hours for results and during
this delay swimmers may be exposed to unsafe
waters. The quantitative polymerase chain reaction
(QPCR) method is presently being evaluated as a
possible alternative to MF. Water analyses using
this technology can provide results in approxi-
mately 2 hours. In the summer of 2003, studies
were conducted by several organizations including
USEPA, Office of Research and Development,
USEPA Region I, and the Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project at both freshwater
and marine beaches to determine the correlation
between results of the QPCR and MF methods.
Two of these studies also tested a newly developed
assay for fecal indicator bacteria in the class Bac-
teriodetes and collected data on swimmer illness
rates that are being compared with the QPCR and
MF results. In recognition of the performance of
this method to date, the USEPA Office of Water .
is considering its use as a reference method in
performance evaluations of alternative nucleic acid
tests for fecal contamination in ambient waters.
This presentation will provide an overview of the
QPCR method, describe its present application for
beach water quality analysis and discuss the rela-
tionship between QPCR and MF measurements
of enterococci based on comparative data from
several studies.
247
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Bacterial Fteai
Indicators at Recreational
Potymesrase Chain Reacikm
;**
!: -:': ?>"•"•!'J^Sf •P'i-S;': ?^s£i^iMi£*.: '•'<<•.. ';•;' •;:;::
::..'! :|i :''>;!'! fts*^^-!^-'-;:/". /V'^W-i ''••-$$$!?&•<•'. :'£
i;: 11^ ;|^i5 i^i^pi ••|§^^};fe^'
•*««(»»)«»«
lWf *W«TT
*****^**^*
wtiAMwtSt
? fr
\ '* « *> * k *£
: _^^^^^^^^t|A'd^^^^^^^'
Z48
-------
JS> \
Day Two: Session Eight
Step 2, Filter water sample
butter and positive eortr<8 SNA.
mfti to break celte aod r^ea$e DN A
Centrifi^e briefly
249
-------
«£"
•rtw-ww>*
•*W.-.
National Beaches Conferences
Step ?, Twister sample to ? esefien
Race reactor* tt&« si
Step 9. Run reactton In
ffrfifev #*?*' fetor
lyrn it-
.Bffiu.ft'
HCtC^lM*. <-M..\
Epiderniotogi
Environmerttal Assess»netit
Studies
250
-------
Day Two: Session Eight
*•»*
ttnifci.ytjf't'lh fe »
-------
National Beaches Conference
•*5K',
Questions and Answers
No questions.
252
-------
Day Two: Session Eight
Recreational Water Testing by
Rapid, High-Throughput Real-Time
Quantitative PCR (QPCR) for Fecal
Indicators
Jack Paar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. New England Region Lab
Biosketch
Mr. Jack Paar, III is Biologist with the US
Environmental Protection Agency, New England
Regional Laboratory, Office of Environmental
Measurement and Evaluation, Ecosystem Assess-
ment Unit, Ecology Monitoring Team, in North
Chelmsford, MA. Mr. Paar majored in Ocean-
ography at the US Naval Academy from 1975 to
1977. After honorable discharge from the Navy
he transferred to Northeastern University (NU) in
Boston, MA and participated in the Co-Op Edu-
cation Program, Mr. Paar worked as a Student
Biologist from 1979 through 1981 in the US EPA
New England Regional Laboratory, Lexington,
MA Biology Section. Assisting senior biologists
in both field assessment and laboratory analysis
he gained considerable experience in sediment
oxygen demand assessments, whole effluent toxic-
ity testing, and test organism culturing. Upon
graduation in 1981 with a B.S. in Biology Mr. Paar
worked until 1990 as the Laboratory Manager
of NU's Marine Science Center (MSC) in Nah-
ant, MA. While at the MSC he worked as marine
aquarist, rocky sub-tidal ecology research diver,'
research photographer, and diving safety officer.
In 1990 Mr. Paar once again joined the ranks of
the US EPA as a biologist. For 11 years he served
as the EPA NPDES Regional Technical Advisory
Committee Power Plant Assessment Biologist,
also concentrating in sediment and aquatic toxicity
testing. In 1995 Mr. Paar took over management
and coordination of the US EPA Water Microbiol-
ogy Laboratory and obtained qualification as the
Regional Drinking Water Microbiology Laborato-
ry Certification Officer overseeing and auditing the
six New England State principal water microbiolo-
gy laboratories for compliance with Safe Drinking
Water Act regulations. Along with his colleagues
he helped design biology laboratories in the new
US EPA state-of-the-art Regional Laboratory and
was one of the principal designers of a one-of-a-
kind automated sediment toxicity test chamber.
In 2002 Mr. Paar obtained sufficient funding and
support to open a new Genomics Laboratory at the
US EPA Lab focusing on Microbial Source Track-
ing and rapid fecal indicator assessment. In 2003
Mr. Paar obtained his certification as a Contract-
ing Officer Representative and began contractor
oversight as a Task Order Project Officer. He is
currently directing genomic research by the Lock-
heed/Martin Environmental Service Assistance
Team for superfund and non-superfund research,
developing high through-put genotypic test meth-
ods using Real-Time PCR to quantify and identify
dehalogenating bacteria at hazardous waste sites
and fecal indicators and pollution sources in fresh
and marine surface waters.
253
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Mark Doollttle
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Northeast Regional Laboratory
Biosketch
Mark Doolittle is Senior Discovery Biologist
for Lockheed Martin Environmental Assistance
Team working as a contractor to the US EPA at
the New England Regional Laboratory in North
Chelmsford, MA under the direction of Jack Paar,
US EPA Project Officer. Mr. Doolittle received his
B.S. in Biology from S.E. Massachusetts Univer-
sity (subsequently re-named U-Mass/Dartmouth),
his Masters in Microbiology from University of
Tennessee/Knoxville, and completed doctoral
graduate work in Molecular Biology at Vanderbilt
University in Nashville, TN and in Environmental
Sciences at U-Mass/Boston. He was awarded a
Fulbright Scholarship to study the interaction of
bacteriophage with bacterial biofilms at the Univer-
sity of Saskatchewan in Canada. He has worked in
the industrial sector as a staff microbiologist in the
Gillette Corporation Personal Care Product Division
and in the public sector as a contract environmental
microbiologist for the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection. As a graduate student
at U-Mass Boston, he worked for the Metropolitan
(Boston) District Commission (MDC), renamed the
Department of Urban Parks & Recreation (DUPR),
collecting beach water samples and analyzing them
at the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Laboratory (MWRA) at Deer Island. Several years
later, the MDC hired him to manage the water qual-
ity monitoring program for the MDC's 19 marine
and freshwater beaches during die summer bathing
months in which he spent a lot of time trying to
identify the sources of fecal contamination affect-
ing the beach, hi his current position for almost 2
years, Mr. Doolittle has worked on lab development
and field testing of Real-Time PCR assays to quan-
tify genomic DNA of fecal indicators and dehaloge-
nating bacteria at Superfund sites.
Abstract
Current microbiological methods for deter-
mining water quality for recreational swimming and
bathing at public and private beaches measure the
number of culturable fecal indicator bacteria, Esch-
erichia coli and Enterococci, per 100-mL volume.
These methods which utilize Membrane Filtration
(Standard Method 9222, EPA Modified E. coli
Method, EPA Method 1600 for Enterococci) and
Most Probable Number (Standard Methods 9223
Chromogenic-Fluorogenic Colilert or Enterolert)
require incubation periods of 18 to 28 hours in addi-
tion to sample transport and processing times before
verifiable counts of colony-forming-units (CPU)
or Most-Probable-Number (MPN) of E. coli and
Enterococci can be obtained. Due to the episodic
nature of fecal contamination events (e.g., sewer
and storm water drainage, etc.) and changes in the
natural forces (e.g., wind, tides, river and spring
flows, UV radiation, etc.) that transport, dilute, and
irradiate surface waters, significant temporal and
spatial variation can occur in the concentration of
fecal indicators in recreational waters. EPA New
England has developed a high-throughput DNA Iso-
lation Procedure and Real-Time Quantitative-PCR
Assays for identifying and quantifying E. coli in
recreational waters. Purified DNA extracted from
filter retentates of freshwater samples collected
along the Charles River (Boston & Cambridge,
MA) & Furnace Brook (Quincy, MA) and of marine
samples collected at Carson Beach (So. Boston,
MA) and Wollaston Beach (Quincy, MA) were
analyzed by PCR and standard culturable assays.
Numbers of Genomic Equivalents (GEQs) of E. coli
were strongly correlated with numbers of culturable
E. coli present in freshwater samples. Lower, non-
optimal correlation was observed for E. coli GEQs
versus CPUs in marine water samples, most likely
due the increased rates of E. coli die-off in saltwa-
ter and temporal and spatial distance from fecal
pollution sources. The log-transformed results of
PCR analyses performed with two different E. coli
PCR primer probe sets, one hybridization probe set
(rod-A) and one hydrolysis probe set (uid-A), upon
replicate aliquots of DNA extracts of the Charles
River water samples, were plotted against results of
culturable E. coli assays. The regression curves (i.e.
equations) for both primer-probe sets were similar
but the rod-A set had more consistent performance
characteristics with a greater positive correlation
factor and a GEQ/CFU ratio closer to 1.0. The ro-
bustness, specificity, and consistent performance of
the rod-A PCR assay makes it a excellent candidate
for implementation, real-time quantitative or MPN
(presence/absence) formats used to screen recre- "
ational water samples for same-day detection of
excessive levels of E. coli.
254
-------
Day Two: Session
Current Recreational Water
Test&tethods
deported Resalte;
* Mwnw Bathers of Yesterday's Water
Quality
EPA Reg ton I
Project Goal
-Fecal Indicator
255
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Technical Hurdles
Utift Kxtraettso i PC* ftte««wte {Automate}
Region IPCR fnetrumentatJon
CteanDNAforPCR
KW^rf. Purified Sample DNA
256
-------
LightCycter Glass
Day Two: Session Eight
Fluorescence Detection
Q,2S* Q.Sh
MJbJJJfc
2S- 49*5
£, co//" Primers & Probe*
rod-A |mrd-B)
*
257
-------
National Beaches Conferences
E.coif rod-A Assay
Primcfs&Probes Specificity
Eca//fod-A Assay
Pr»mer$*Pr0fee* Robustness
Etotf rod*ft jEkssay Attrftattea
PCR Reactions
< 20-fiL of 100-fjt Etoate (SEV *
FieWValldatton Challenges
for E,coli rod*A Q-PCR Assay
Correlate Q-l*Cft ftesults with
«ecreatlonaJ WQ Standards
Fecal ffldtcator* (CFUf 100-ml>
EKtflWI
Jtojftpowhe^ter Bay c®as*ro|>llng sites
258
-------
Day Two: Session Eight
to
-QoW Standard*"
E.CQti(EC)
CFU ft MPN
furnace firook freshwater Sttea
259
-------
National Beaches Conferences
BactetialPrcfifc of Furnace Brook 4 [***«»'
*»»* &»*****.
*s Charles River
Testing Objective
Compart Q-PCR Qu&ntificatJon of
£ coll GEQ& in DMA Extracts using
Probe Set
g^rfl Pnmers & Probes
260
-------
Day Two: Session Eight
iw>>A:rf>M^W'>>XiU|'X<»i^^
:•:;;*;;;•(».* :-;.;:-
i:-::* •;£- ;^w«i&
FaKit>«**';f
;;;:A:Bv::;.h;:;x-«:J;
I*:
ft';
;-:;*?:;; :::sv;:-:»
;.::!.(!9«i»MS!W«
:.:!::;;:!•:;!•;:••;*-:
(*«»*«»» :::;::;
Excitation ami Emission Spoctra
rod-A Q-PCR of Charles River
"Raw" Water Samples
^»wAaM^.*w»h*3t.>\5>o..flw
CR "Raw" Water
Q-PCR OEQs
GFtl
CPU
34,6
Good CorrstetUon between Ecoff
quantlfiabie by Q^PCR wsthin 1-2 hr by
261
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Value of PCI* for IteCf eafioraast
0-PCft Pre-Scfeening tor Beaches
Acknowledgments
•BBwP * WJftwF v Cmfj?*. WS. '
ft
»«*»«» >b)il«
A Swimmable Future
Charles River F-LFBs A F-LFMs
262
-------
Day Two: Session Eight
Dilution of PCR Inhibition
EC DP4A Recovery
EC DMA Recovery
263
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
No questions.
264
-------
Thursday, October 14
10:20 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Concurrent Track II:
Changes on the Horizon
Session Nine:
New Health Risk Indicators
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Comparative Testing of Rapid
Microbiological Indicator Methods for
Marine Recreational Water Monitoring
Stephen Weisberg
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
Biosketch
Dr. Stephen Weisberg is Executive Director
of the Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project (SCCWRP) where he specializes in the
design and implementation of environmental
monitoring programs. He serves as chair of the
Southern California Bight Regional Monitoring
Steering Committee, which is responsible for de-
veloping integrated regional coastal monitoring for
the Southern California Bight. He also serves on
the Steering Committee for the US Global Ocean
Observing System (GOOS), the National Oceano-
graphic Partnership Program's Ocean Research
Advisory Panel, the Alliance for Coastal Technolo-
gy Stakeholder's Council, me State of California's
Clean Beaches Task Force, the National Research
Council Committee on Waterborne Pathogens and
on Technical Advisory Committees for the Uni-
versity of Southern California Sea Grant Program
and the Southern California Wetlands Recovery
Program. Dr. Weisberg received his undergraduate
degree from the University of Michigan and his
Ph.D. from the University of Delaware.
Abstract
Current methods for enumerating indicator
bacteria require an incubation period of 18 to 96
hours, during which time contaminated beaches
remain open. Several technologies that have the
potential to produce results in less than four hours
are under development. Here we evaluated four
of those technologies, including immunomagnetic
capture with ATP quantification, flow cytometry,
dual wavelength fluorimentry, and quantitative
PCR (Q-PCR). Fifty-four blind samples encom-
passing a range of bacterial concentrations and
matrix complexity were processed and compared
to values obtained by standard culture-based
methods performed at six reference laboratories.
Each method was evaluated for speed, accuracy,
sensitivity, precision, robustness across different
matrices, as well as ease of use.
266
-------
«.&
Day Two: Session Nine
Questions and Answers
No questions.
267
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Assay and Remote Sensor
Development for Molecular Biological
Water Quality Monitoring
Kelly Goodwin, Ph.D.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Atlantic Oceanographic &. Meteorological
Laboratories, Ocean Chemistry Division
Biosketch
Dr. Kelly Goodwin is a Principal Investiga-
tor with the National Oceanographic and Atmo-
spheric Administration (NOAA) at the Atlantic
Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratories
(AOML) in Miami, Florida. Dr. Goodwin received
a B.S. degree in Neurobiological Sciences from
the University of Florida. She received M.S. ('90)
and Ph.D. ('96) degrees in Environmental Engi-
neering Science from the California Institute of
Technology in Pasadena. She received a minor
in Oceanography from Caltech during a program
in residence at the Scripps Institute of Oceanog-
raphy ('93). From 1995-1998, she served as a
National Research Council Postdoctoral Associ-
ate at the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park,
CA working on the microbial biogeochemistty of
halocarbons. In 1999, she returned to Florida as
a researcher with NOAA's joint institute with the
University of Miami, the Cooperative Institute of
Marine and Atmospheric Studies (CIMAS). She
entered federal employment with NOAA in 2003
and became adjunct faculty to the University of
Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmo-
spheric Science. Her research interests include
development and application of biotechnology to
improve coastal water quality monitoring.
Abstract
Molecular tools are a promising means to
provide rapid and accurate monitoring of coastal
water quality. We are developing three nucleic
acid hybridization assays to identify and monitor
nuisance organisms (bacterial and algal) in coastal
waters. A microplate assay returns a rapid colori-
metric result and provides moderate throughput at
relatively low cost. A Luminex Xmap™ system
rapidly provides high throughput and the potential
to screen for a large number of targets simultane-
ously. Electrochemical detection is a cutting edge
technology suitable to the size, power, and cost
requirements of remote sensing. An overview of
the development and application of these technolo-
gies will be presented.
Z68
-------
Day Two: Session Nine
y end Sensor Development for
Molecular Biological
V/oter Quality Monitoring
269
-------
National Beaches Conferences
270
-------
Day Two: Session Nine
271
-------
National Beaches Conferences
272
-------
Day Two: Session Nine
Questions and Answers
No questions.
273
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Quantification of Enterovirus in
Seawater in Imperial Beach, CA using
Real-Time RT-PCR
Rick Gersberg
San Diego State University, School of Public Health, Coastal and Marine Institute
Biosketch
Dr. Richard M. Gersberg is currently a
Professor (and Head of the Division) of Environ-
mental and Occupational Health in die Graduate
School of Public Health at San Diego State Uni-
versity (SDSU), and Director of the Coastal and
Marine Institute at SDSU. He has an M.S. degree
in biology from the University of Houston, and a
Ph.D degree in microbiology from the University
of California, Davis. Dr. Gersberg specializes in
water quality research, and has broad experience
working with both chemical and microbiological
pollutants and risk assessments.
Abstract
A real-time reverse transcriptase-poly-
merase chain reaction (RT-PCR) method utilizing
the MGB Eclipse Probe System Kit (Amersham
Biosciences) was used to detect and enumerate
enterovirases in ocean water samples were taken
at the Tijuana River mouth (near the San Diego,
California-Mexico border) and Imperial Beach
pier (0.85 mile north of the Tijuana River mouth in
San Diego, California) during rain events and dry
weather. The samples consisted of 1 -4 L of ocean
water. Viruses were then concentrated by filtra-
tion through a negatively charged filter followed
by elution with sodium hydroxide. Following
RNA extraction, RT-PCR, which included cDNA
synthesis and real-time RT-PCR, was carried out
on samples (in triplicate) using a BioRad iCycler
real-time PCR system.
During rain events, the seawater samples ap-
peared to contain inhibitors that effected real-time
RT-PCR amplification; however diluting the cDNA
samples diluted the inhibitors to such an extent
that successful amplification could be achieved.
For some of the samples, cDNA amplified by
conventional RT-PCR, was cloned and sequenced
to determine the specific type of enterovirus
present in the samples. The relationship between
indicator bacteria (fecal coliform and enterococci)
densities and enterovirus concentrations was also
determined to assess the validity of the bacteria
indicator system for predicting viral levels in
recreational beach waters of the U.S. influenced
by contaminated runoff from Mexico. By relat-
ing the PCR-quantified densities to infectivity,
our data were then evaluated in terms of a human
health risk assessment for swimming or surfing at
Imperial Beach, CA. The high sensitivity and high
throughput capability of real-time RT-PCR should
be useful in routine monitoring of viral pathogens
in recreational beach waters for the assessment and
protection of public health.
274
-------
Day Two: Session Nine
Questions and Answers
Q (Clay Clifton, County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health): When you say that
the presence of the enterovtrus was relatively low at Empirial Beach during dry weather, how did
you define dry weather and what time of year were your samples taken?
Rick Gersberg
We had a dry summer, where it had not rained for a long period of time. So, we collected
our samples during June, July, and August.
275
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Rapid Detection of Enteroviruses
in Environmental Samples using
Real-Time Quantitative Reverse
Transcriptase PCR
Rachel Noble
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Institute of Marine Sciences
Biosketch
Dr. Rachel Noble is an Assistant Professor at
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, In-
stitute of Marine Sciences in Morehead City, North
Carolina. She previously held a joint appointment
between the University of Southern California's
Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies and the
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
and focused her work there on regional assess-
ment of water quality along die Southern California
shoreline, and detection of enteroviruses in storm-
water impacted areas of the coast. In July of 2001,
she moved from the West Coast to the East Coast,
and there has focused upon the use of molecular
techniques, such as Quantitative Polymerase Chain
Reaction (Q-PCR) for identification of sources of
fecal material in estuarine, coastal, and freshwater
environments, for use in assessment of microbio-
logical water quality. Dr. Noble's research currently
focuses on the quantification of enteric human
pathogens in a variety of environments, including
recreational areas, shellfish beds, and commercial
fishing areas. She is interested in relating the pres-
ence of known human pathogens such as entero-
viruses, Vibrio vulnificus, and Salmonella sp., to
levels of fecal coliforms, E. coli, and enterococci in
recreational waters in order to better protect human
health. Other current research foci are basin-scale
determinations of pathogen persistence, fate and
transport in estuaries, and the impacts of nutrient
loading and eutrophication on pathogen survival
and ecosystem health. Dr. Noble has also recently
been involved in the development of real-time de-
tection of both pathogens and indicators as tools for
creating accurate hydrologic and probability-based
models of estuarine and coastal systems.
276
Abstract
Routinely conducted water quality analyses
neither provides indication as to the source of fecal
contamination, nor do they relate directly to poten-
tial public health risk of those in contact with rec-
reational waters. With the advent of new molecular
techniques, human viral pathogens, such as entero-
viruses, can be used as tools to identify the presence
of human fecal contamination in aquatic environ-
ments, providing useful source tracking information
and data for inclusion in microbial risk assessments.
A Quantitative Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase
Chain Reaction (QRT-PCR) approach has been
developed to detect and quantify enteroviruses from
environmental samples. The approach is more sen-
sitive and rapid than traditional cell-culture based
approaches and has been well tested in a variety of
aquatic systems, providing quantification of human
enteroviruses over a wide dynamic range (from as
few as 1 to more than 1 million PFU equivalents) in
less than 4 hours. Beyond method development, an
important facet of this work has been to determine
the relationship between the detection of genomic
enteroviral RNA versus intact infectious viral
particles, by conducting 1- and 2-step QRT-PCR
assays on enterovirus genome equivalents versus
infectious stocks of poliovirus seeded into environ-
mental samples. Our results suggest a consistent
ratio of genome equivalents to PFU, and that while
the 1-step assays are slightly less sensitive, the use
of the 1-step approaches are recommended because
of the advantages of decreased operator handling of
sensitive RNA samples, lower risk of cross contami-
nation (due to handling), and more rapid results.
-------
Day Two: Session Nine
Recreational water quality
f tutm* vsfsl
277
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Filtration cf¥iefej*ev: Eafcerovmis
- ••s^"" • ••
l-sfcp vt. 2-j^cp RTPCR?
« I
vs. 2-step QRTPCR
&«&£%* ttarig.
278
-------
Day Two: Session Nine
From sample to result
279
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
Q (Stephan Weurtz, University of California at Davis): We have also adopted a system to take
enteroviruses and we are using quantitative PCR. One of the differences is that we use a hollow-
fiber ultrafiltration method that uses 100 liters. Your starting volume tends to be 5 liters or less.
You also went to a very contaminated watershed. Do you think that you 'II be able to catch the
viruses, which are always going to be present in lower numbers than the indicators, using such a
small starting volume?
Rachel Noble
You ask a very good question. One of the biggest issues that we have dealt with is the ex-
amination of hollow-fiber applications for concentrating the water samples is the volume. What is
the final volume of actual material from the hollow fiber system?.
Q (Stephan Weurtz): In the field we filter down to about 1.5 liters. Then we take that to the lab
and through a second smaller version of the unit we end up with about 50 milliliters.
Rachel Noble
This kind of application is exactly what I conducted through a large part of my graduate
work and dissertation work at USC, in Jed Fuhrman's lab. Basically, the issues are that we have
been really moving our method toward something that is rapid. I'm sure that your recovery
levels are higher than ours. But, the idea is that we are taking a small filter and a small volume,
and from that we are able to get the final material that comes off of that filter extracted into a
final volume of 50 microliters. So, while our filtration efficiency is not 100 percent, the loss of
things beyond that, through the extraction procedure and onto the PCR allows us to have similar
overall recovery rates as what you would find with hollow fiber and all the other ultrafiltration
techniques. The trade-off is rapidity. I don't know how long it takes for you to do your 100 liter
filtration, but there are obvious trade-offs. If you really want to understand whether or not you
have a presence of enteroviruses in cleaner water samples, and you want to have a high recovery
rate, you need to apply a larger volume filtration, hi Ballona Creek (heavily contaminated), that
is not necessary, but it is certainly necessary in other more pristine estuarine and coastal environ-
ments. This is just one way of going'about .things. There are other choices to be made, depending
on what your question is.
280
-------
Day Two: Session Nine
Male-Specific Coliphages as
Indicators of Fecal Pollution in
Coastal Recreational Waters
Greg Lovelace
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering
Biosketch
Mr. Greg Lovelace is an environmental biolo-
gist and field laboratory manager in the Depart-
ment of Environmental Sciences & Engineering,
School of Public Health, for the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The field labora-
tory is located in the coastal town of Beaufort,
North Carolina. Mr. Lovelace received his B.S.
in Zoology from North Carolina State University
in Raleigh. He worked as a laboratory technician
for the City of Raleigh in the municipal sewage
treatment plant and then joined the research team
• of Dr. Mark D. Sobsey. He has remained with
Dr. Sobsey's team for the past 27 years. For the
majority of that time, he has been Dr. Sobsey's
sole researcher on the coast of North Carolina,
performing research on microbial contamination
of groundwater, shellfish, and shellfish-growing '
waters.
Abstract
Microbial standards for recreational waters
are based on levels of indicator bacteria. Because
viruses are more resistant to sewage treatment
methods and more persistent in marine waters than
indicator bacteria, there is an urgent need for an
indicator of viral contamination in recreational
waters. Male-specific coliphages have properties
that make them useful indicators to characterize
recreational waters: They are easy to detect using
simple microbiological techniques; they are usu-
ally detected relatively quickly (12-24 hours); and
they can be separated into human and non-human
groups.
In a previous study we examined levels of
somatic and male-specific coliphages in samples
of water from six estuarine areas along the central
NC coast collected from paired sites situated near
to and more distant from point- and non-point
sources of fecal pollution. Geometric mean levels
of E. coli and enterococcus were predictably
higher at sites nearer to pollution sources, and the
same was generally true for levels of both types
of coliphages. Coliphages were good indicators
of fecal contamination, and when serotyped, they
predicted human sources or both human and non-
human sources of fecal contamination.
The aim of a current study with sampling
stations in coastal marine waters of the USA is
to further improve, validate and apply coliphage
detection methods in estuarine recreational waters,
including bathing beaches. The results so far indi-
cate that the methods of coliphage detection work
well in the estuarine waters tested. The ability to
detect and quantify fecal contamination based on
coliphage detection and quantification is being
further investigated.
281
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Indicators of Fecal Pollution in
Coastal Recreational Watera
282
-------
Day Two: Session Nine
WM*
*«*».
MM* i 9Snt
«*«»
'* »T?
*
8
)•<(«*»'* ftsy 0^ Jawsptejj Kun ^Siwfc «««
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Stu*iy#1 Summary
; ealerfe bacteria warn oot
284
-------
Day Two: Session Nine
s:»«r SfH »S!fert»te tw jwrta
285
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
Q (Jack Skinner, Stop Polluting Our Newport): My background in internal medicine. When test-
ing patients for f-specific phage in the stool specimen, it is extremely rare to find it. It is almost
like the ecology is different. Whereas, the enteroviruses multiply in the gut, but they do not mul-
tiple after they leave the body. How do you explain this?
Greg Lovelace
I have no explanation for that.
Q (Jack Skinner): The only thing I can think about is that it multiplies within the sewage system,
but it is not really from human fecal material because there is nearby E. coli where it can repli-
cate. But, I do not understand how you can quantify human (entero) viruses and correlate them
with a number of f-specific phage because there is never any f-specific phage found in the human
stool samples.
Greg Lovelace
You are right, and I don't know why that is. In response to your comment on male-specific
coliphages multiplying in the sewage treatment system, I don't think they do that but 1 don't
have proof of that right in front of me. If you would like to talk about this later, I can talk to Dr.
Sobsey and we can try to answer your question.
Q (David Turbow): With the exception of the somatic coliphages, the concentrations were higher
at the contaminated sites than at the uncontaminated sites. Why are the somatic coliphages an
exception?
Greg Lovelace
I'm not sure. We are only half-way through the study, and that may change once we get
more data.
Q (Clay Clifton, County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health): In one of the last
slides you showed, was the correlation between the existing indicators andf+ male-specific coli-
phages good or bad? Since you said the research is continuing, I'm assuming the correlation was
not good.
Greg Lovelace
Yes. We are finding that the male-specific coliphages do not correlate well with the bacterial
indicators.
Q (Clay Clifton): Have you tested the coliphage alongside of any of the existing indicators in any
. of the epidemiology studies that were conducted over the past year or two ?
Greg Lovelace
Yes. The Mission Bay epidemiology study that Jack Colford will be talking about did incor-
porate both the somatic and the f+ coliphages.
286
-------
Thursday, October 14
1:20 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Concurrent Track II:
Changes on the Horizon
Session Ten:
Quantifying Swimmer
-------
National Beaches Conferences
EPA National Epidemiology Study
Timothy Wade, Ph.D.
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Biosketch
Dr. Tim Wade is an Epidemiologist with the
US EPA in the Office of Research and Develop-
ment, National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory, Human Studies Division in
Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Dr. Wade received
his Ph.D from the University of California at
Berkeley and is currently a postdoctoral researcher
in USPEAs Human Studies Division. He has been
a lead scientist on several large studies of the
health effects of contaminated drinking water and
recreational waters. Dr. Wade is also a principal
investigator and lead epidemiologist of several
studies examining the health effects of arsenic in
drinking water being conducted in the Inner Mon-
golia region of China.
Abstract
The National Epidemiological and Envi-
ronmental Assessment of Recreational Waters
(NEEAR) is a multi-year study of recreational
water conducted by the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), designed
to evaluate new rapid indicators of recreational
water quality and to determine their relationship
to health effects. These studies are the first to
evaluate the relationship between health effects
and rapid indicators of recreational water quality.
This presentation will summarize data collection
efforts and preliminary analyses for the Great
Lakes beach sites. We conducted studies at three
Lake Michigan beaches and a Lake Erie beach
during the summers of 2003 and 2004. Inter-
viewers asked beach-goers about swimming and
other activities. Ten to 12 days after the beach
interview, interviewers telephoned each household
to ascertain health symptoms experienced in the
days following the beach interview. At each beach
water samples were collected at several transects
at two depths, three times a day. Samples were
tested for enterococci using the standard method
(Method 1600) and for enterococci and Bacteroi-
des sp. using novel methods including quantitative
polymerase chain reaction (QPCR). Several other
potential rapid methods of evaluating water quality
were also evaluated. During 2003, at the Lake
Michigan Beach, interviews with 2877 individuals
were completed. At the Lake Erie beach, inter-
views with 2840 individuals were completed. The
relationships between health symptoms and the
traditional and rapid indicators will be fully evalu-
ated and presented in detail. Updates on the sum-
mer of 2004 data collection efforts and analysis
will also be presented.
This is an abstract of a proposed presentation
and does not necessarily reflect EPA policy.
288
-------
Day Two: Session Ten
The Natkmat EnviremmentaJ and
BEACHES Act of 2000 from Congress
3-. ASSASS fctmBn feaaRti risks
4.
STUDY APPROACH
289
-------
National Beaches Conferences
(mat ««*) ^ot^paMas* efcala ftaeSon
2003 Date ColectJoo
take Michigan
nninnnnnmiu
290
-------
Day Two: Session Ten
*
* JVft**:
fto-dy contact
Hettt under
Any
sr
"im
Eye
2.44*
fJt
Ad|asled Odds Ratio*
My
Kaad
OJE1
1MB
; ;;i.^l»i^:'W»^li»^:::;:p
291
-------
National Beaches Conferences
•*H?
,-**'
tfCfcv***^^**^'w^*y'i^s*vr^*^^
Data CoJtectton 2064
Summary ami Concfusloiis
nwasstwy
* $*i$*r &$ii» civil to high liafc fcio«p* *u«h
such as chemicate astocJated with
tfce NEE AR Study Tsam
292
-------
Day Two: Session Ten
ewrteateaf SttvhM, *•«*» tefisn*
293
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
Comment (Katherine Field, Oregon State University): Concerning the non-detect level of the bac-
teroidides assay, that assay was actually designed as a tacman assay using an ABI machine. It
was done that way at your original request because that is what you were originally doing. How-
ever, you then used it in the field in a completely different way in a different type of assay. That is
why it didn't work very well. Anybody who would like to get some more recent information about
the sensitivity of that, we have a more recent publication in Applied Environmental Microbiology
that just came out this month.
294
-------
Day Two: Session Ten
Mission Bay Epidemiology Study
Jack Coiford, MD, Ph.D.
University of California at Berkeley, School of Public Health
Biosketch
Dr. Colford is Associate Professor of Epide-
miology in the University of California, Berkeley
School of Public Health. Dr. Colford is a gradu-
ate of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
(MD 1985) and the UC Berkeley School of Public
Health (Epidemiology, 1996). He completed a
residency in Internal Medicine and a fellowship
in Infectious Diseases at the University of Cali-
fornia, San Francisco. He was Chief Resident
in Medicine at Stanford University Hospital. He
is board-certified in both Internal Medicine and
Infectious Diseases. He is the sole instructor in
semester-long courses in advanced epidemiologic
methods, intervention trial design, and meta-analy-
sis and has received several teaching awards. He
has taught for many years as a visiting profes-
sor each summer at the University of Michigan
(meta-analysis) and the University of Zurich,
Switzerland (epidemiologic methods). He has
published numerous peer-reviewed articles on the
health effects of waterborne diseases. While on
sabbatical at WHO-Geneva last year, he co-au-
thored a monograph published by the World Bank
evaluating all published evidence of efficacy of
water, sanitation, and health interventions. He is
the Principal Investigator of four triple-blinded,
randomized controlled trials of drinking water and
health effects funded by the National Institutes of
Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Univer-
sity of California.
Abstract
Most epidemiology studies to establish
health risk of recreational swimming have been
conducted at locations where human sewage point
sources are the primary source of fecal con-
tamination. Here we conducted a study of health
outcomes from swimming in Mission Bay (San
Diego), CA where nonpoint runoff and animal
waste are the primary fecal sources. We enrolled
beachgoers, interviewed them about health condi-
tions on the day of exposure and 14 days later, and
collected water quality samples at sites linked spa-
tially to participants_ location in the water. Both
traditional (enterococcus, E. coli, total coliform)
and novel candidate indicators (Bacteriodetes, co-
liphage, virus and traditional indicators measured
using molecular rapid detection methods) were
sampled four times each day at multiple locations
on each of six beaches within Mission Bay. A to-
tal of 12,458 participants were enrolled and 8,790
(71%) completed the entire study. The principal
health outcome was highly credible gastrointesti-
nal illness (HCGI). Logistic models were used to
analyze the data. We found an increased risk of
HCGI illness among swimmers compared to non-
swimmers (OR 1.31,95% CI 1.01-1.71, p=0.045),
but did not find associations between traditional
microbial indicators and health. Preliminary
analysis suggests that there was association with
some of the novel indicators, though. The lack of
association of traditional indicators with health
outcomes emphasizes the importance of research
into alternative indicators, particularly at sites
where non-point sources are prevalent.
295
-------
National Beaches Conferences
»«r«M6K*#K«t*»
296
-------
jtfwtfW>v*&*
&atm \
Day Two: Session Ten
t «
-------
National Beaches Conferences
*%*
SMij; «(»«(
"lifp'Tfltipi*
a*i I &&m*
•ss^vtasK:
"5??r™^i««
298
-------
Day Two: Session Ten
: jrjKjipflai
::::;:;::;:>^le^:^«*^fr^<^^
299
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
Q: You had 17percent that exceeded the 104. How high were those exceedances?
Jack Colford
Ken Schiff, who is here, directed that aspect of the study.
Ken Schiff
The values were in the hundreds to the tens of thousands.
Q: I assume you looked at different sites throughout Mission Bay. Did you see differences be-
tween the east and west sides of the bay?
Jack Colford
Yes, there were differences in some of the beaches. But, I can't remember specifically what
they were because the numbers were so small.
300
-------
Day Two: Session Ten
Risk Perception Bias and Self
Reported Symptoms
|ay Fleischer, Ph.D.
NOVA Southeastern University, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Master of Public Health Program
Biosketch
Dr. Jay Fleisher received a B.S. Degree
in Environmental Health Science from the City
University of New York, an M.S. in Environmental
Science from the City University of New York, an
M.S. in Epidemiology from Columbia University's
School of Public Health, and a Ph.D. in Environ-
mental Epidemiology/Biostatistics from the Insti-
tute of Environmental Medicine, New York Uni-
versity. Dr Fleisher holds facility positions at both
NOVA Southeastern University and the Center for
Research into Environment and Health, Leeds Uni-
versity (United Kingdom). Dr Fleisher's main re-
search interest is in the spread of infectious illness
via contaminated recreational / potable waters and
has been active in this area for the past 20 years.
The focus of Dr Fleisher's research has been in the
health effects of exposure to waters contaminated
with domestic sewage, indicator organism variabil-
ity, indicator organism -pathogen relationships,
risk assessment, statistical water quality sampling
protocols, assessing compliance, setting of rni-
crobial water quality standards, population health
burden assessment, risk perception, and risk vs
current standards. Dr Fleisher has advised numer-
ous international committees, organizations, and
government agencies on various aspects of these
recreational water quality issues. In addition Dr
Fleisher authored over 35 peer reviewed publica-
tions and 5 book chapters dealing with these water
quality issues.
Abstract
Background
Epidemiologic studies of water associated
illness sometimes have to rely on self-reported
symptoms of the outcome illness(es) under study.
Individual participant's perception of risk, in
theory, can affect the validity of self-reported
symptoms.
Methods
The magnitude and effect of possible "risk
perception bias" was evaluated as part of a series
of randomized trials designed to assess infectious
disease transmission via exposure to marine rec-
reational waters with modest sewage contamina-
tion. All study subjects were blinded to both their
individual indice of exposure and the outcome
illnesses under study.
Results
Of the five outcome illnesses studied, the
effect of "risk perception bias" only affected one:
Skin Ailments. Although analysis of crude rates of
skin ailments showed the exposed group (bathers)
to be 3.5 times more likely to report skin ailments
relative to the non-exposed (non-bathers), when
the data was stratified by any perceived health risk
of bathing in such waters, this association was
shown to be spurious in nature. Bathers having
pre-conceived notions of any health risk due to the
exposure were 10.63 times more likely to report
skin ailments relative to the unexposed (non-bath-
ers) (95% CI 2.36-47.8, P = 0.0002), while bath-
ers without any pre-conceived notion of risk were
no more likely to report skin ailments relative to
non-bathers (OR = 0.60,95% CI 0.11-3.24, P =
301
-------
National Beaches Conferences
0.71). Further stratification by exposure group-
ing showed bathers with pre-conceived notions of
excess risk to be 4.78 times more likely to report
skin ailments relative to bathers without any no-
tion of excess risk (95% CI 1.04-21.86, P = 0.03),
while among non-bathers those with pre-conceived
notions of risk were 3.70 times less likely to report
skin ailments relative to non-bathers without any
pre-conceived notion of risk (95% CI 0.70-19.60,
Conclusions
This study shows that "risk perception bias"
can be strong enough to lead to spurious associa-
tions in the presence of self-reported symptoms,
and should be controlled for in future epide-
miologic studies of recreational water associated
illnesses and other water associated environmental
exposures where the use of self-reported symp-
toms cannot be avoided.
302
-------
Day Two: Session Ten
303
-------
National Beaches Conferences
304
-------
Day Two: Session Ten
teflwttft*
«* .
^«W«iMn*^
305
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Ktft ^^^
JU844
«* tx«
«»!>« «.*
„,.•&** 4» ?f
'' ""* f *£
.&»j&$m%&*nsm*aK«H
•^|||||;i!;jgjggall:g|j:iaKJS:i;sJ
306
-------
Day Two: Session Ten
SKIN a&*wsn**t*t*&
Rtpflttfefl
*
1.W w
APOS««JKRJI»< IfOWBttW
A «3SSffltS RISK TD JWKM.rM*
*»
307
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
No questions.
308
-------
Day Two: Session Ten
Criteria Development: Beach Act
Requirements and Schedule
Stephen Schaub
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Biosketch
Dr. Stephen Schaub is a Senior Microbi-
ologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Water. He provides scientific
support to Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking
Water Act programs within the Office of Sci-
ence and Technology. Dr. Schaub received a B.S.
Degree in Bacteriology and Public Health from
Washington State University and a M.S. and Ph.D.
from the University of Texas (Austin) in Microbi-
ology (Environmental Virology). For 20 years Dr.
Schaub worked as a program manager and head
of the Microbiology Research for the Department
of the Army's Biomedical Research and Develop-
ment Laboratory at Fort Detrick. He was respon-
sible for supporting the Military's efforts to protect
soldier health against exposures to microbial
pathogens in water and wastewater. Since 1992
Dr. Schaub has been a Senior Microbiologist with
the USEPA's Office of Water and supported regula-
tion development for the new family of Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rules. He has also been
involved in determining and supporting research
and programmatic needs for establishment of
future recreational water quality criteria to protect
against gastrointestinal illnesses and determining
requirements for effective approaches to reduce -
microbiological pathogens for safe discharge of
treated wastewater. He is currently responsible
for development of new recreational water qual-
ity criteria and criteria for Crypotosporidium in
drinking source waters. Dr. Schaub is the lead for
development of microbiological pathogen risk
assessment protocols for water-based media and is
also the lead for the establishment of Agency-wide
microbiological risk assessment guidelines.
Abstract
The Year 2000 BEACH Act Amendments
to the Clean Water Act requires the USEPA to
prepare new or revised 304(a) Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Recreational Waters by Oc-
tober 2005. Over the past 4 years the Agency has
conducted a series of research efforts to provide
data for use in establishing the new Criteria.
Principal efforts have been the following: beach
sampling studies to characterize impacts of spatial
and temporal, as well as environmental, factors on
indicator microorganisms distributions in beach
waters; new epidemiology studies to characterize
the acute gastrointestinal disease incidence from
swimming exposures in fresh water; and identi-
fication and evaluation of new rapid enterococci
methods and other fecal indicators for recreational
water monitoring and characterization of their
relationship to acute disease incidence. Over the
next year the Offices' of Water and Research and
Development will work together to establish new
or revised fresh recreational water quality criteria
based upon the above studies. The Criteria will
utilize the new epidemiological information on
recreational exposures and acute disease risks.
The Criteria will also take advantage of the rapid
quantitative polymerase chain reaction (QPCR)
techniques to quantify indicator levels in less than
2 hours, which will allow beach operators to know
the water quality conditions before swimmers even
get to the beach. Additionally, the new criteria will
identify improved mathematical approaches to
characterizing the indicator to disease relationships
and will provide more realistic sampling protocols
to monitor the dynamic water conditions typical of
beach waters. During the process of development
of the Criteria the Agency will seek input from the
States and other stakeholders to help fine tune the
criteria to meet national health protection goals for
fresh water recreational activities.
309
-------
National Beaches Conferences
* Provide backgroood
-------
Day Two: Session Ten
aa Gfieat
if 2518
31!
-------
National Beaches Conferences
3/2
-------
- X
Day Two: Session Ten
Questions and Answers
No questions.
313
-------
National Beaches Conferences
*w
Evaluation of Recreational Health
Risk in Coastal Waters Based on
Enterococcus Densities and Bathing
Patterns
David Turbow, Ph.D.
Touro University International
Biosketch
(Not submitted)
Abstract
(Not submitted)
3/4
-------
Day Two: Session Ten
Risk in Coastal Waters Based on
En terococctis Densities and
Publication
Health Parsoectitfes.
£&«»u*h«>fsi fctethanfel OtgootJ, Swwy
'' '
, t* *, • ^ <-^ - •">' '
ss»* &1'?""*•'•£?• -':"',*•*
Goals of Simulation
flf (Hate e* «S.,
315
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Flow of Hoetel Information
assv I
«wPw
Rfisute: Beach Attendance M3.*w»*«T
; i&Kf iCd O«w Per Day
3/6
-------
Day Two: Session Ten
i. .^..x...-. ...jr .. q>'"<":V "'< " '"» t'&t
•TW ;. .„• , i. ii..ifra- .r\L_———lA^a
(«U *»!)!<>
Conclusions
H^ghtet? awaren
3J7
-------
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
No questions.
318
-------
Thursday, October 14
12:00 p.m. - 1:20 p.m.
Lunch Speaker
\
-------
National Beaches Conferences
the Oceans and Human
Health: Perspectives from the US
Commission on Ocean Policy and the
new NOAA OHH Initiative
Paul Sandifer
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Center for Coastal Ocean Science, Rollings
Marine Laboratory
Biosketch
Paul Sandifer's education includes a B.S. in
biology from the College of Charleston (1968) and
a Ph,D. in Marine Science from the University of
Virginia (1972). After completing a 31-year career
with the South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources, including service as agency director
under three Governors, in April of 2003 he moved
to NOAA where he is Senior Scientist for NOAA's
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. He
is located at the Rollings Marine Laboratory in
Charleston, SC.
Throughout his career, Dr. Sandifer has been
involved in marine and natural resource policy
and management, mission-oriented research and
graduate education. He is author or co-author
of numerous publications in aquaculture, coastal
ecology, and marine biology and is a member of
the graduate faculties of the College of Charleston
and the Medical University of SC and an adjunct
faculty member at the University of SC.
Dr. Sandifer is an Honorary Life Member
of the World Aquaculture Society, a Fellow of the
American Association for the Advancement of Sci-
ence, and a recipient of South Carolina's highest
civilian honor, the Order of the Palmetto. He has
served on numerous boards and committees, in-
cluding the Marine Board of the National Research
Council, the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee,
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(Chairman), and the founding Board of Directors
of the South Carolina Aquarium. Currently, Dr.
Sandifer serves on the US National Committee
for the Census of Marine Life and on the Board
of Directors for ^Southeast Atlantic Coastal
Ocean Observing System. In July of 2001, he was
appointed by President George W. Bush to the 16-
member US Commission on Ocean Policy, where
he chaired the Commission's Stewardship Working
Group, which dealt with issues involving manage-
ment of living marine resources and pollution.
320
-------
Day Two: Lunch Speaker
Specific Management
Batarwtiog
-------
/1\
National Beaches Conferences
« UfffeM* ttw fc*at
Cross-cutting Themes
/1\
322
-------
Day Two: Lunch Speaker
-Wants
Oc«|i Thrwta to Hurnac Kaafth
* i*S*'^
3Z3
-------
National Beaches Conferences
MOMCtouoa and Hum« HtaHfc {nSteflv*
324
-------
Day Two: Lunch Speaker
HML Focus Areas
325
-------
I
National Beaches Conference
Questions and Answers
Q: What are the chances that the recommendations for adding money for research will be acted
upon favorably?
Paul Sandifer
It is bard to tell, but it is clear that the Administration and Congress are interested. The Sen-
ate Committee gives approximately $454 million to NOAA; $206 million of that is new over fis-
cal year 2004's levels. This is a significant step. Money designated for oceans and human health
is increasing.
Q (Rachel Noble, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill): What is the level of interaction
between NOAA and NSF, NIHS?
Paul Sandifer
There is interaction at the investigator level. The NOAA external advisory committee
includes people from NSF and NIHS. Scientists will do a better job of collaborating than admin-
istrators will.
Comment (Kelly Goodwin): Concerning the $20 million funded by the Senate for Oceans and
Health, NOAA's budget is not doing as well in the House.
326
-------
Thursday, October 14
3:20 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Session Eleven:
Plenary Panel Discussion
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Introduction
Session Moderator: Steve Weisberg
Southern California Coastal Water Resources Project
Biosketch
Dr. Stephen Weisberg is Executive Director
of the Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project (SCCWRP) where he specializes in the
design and implementation of environmental
monitoring programs. He serves as chair of the
Southern California Bight Regional Monitoring
Steering Committee, which is responsible for de-
veloping integrated regional coastal monitoring for
the Southern California Bight. He also serves on
the Steering Committee for the US Global Ocean
Observing System (GOOS), the National Oceano-'
graphic Partnership Program's Ocean Research
Advisory Panel, the Alliance for Coastal Technolo-
gy Stakeholder's Council, the State of California's
Clean Beaches Task Force, the National Research
Council Committee on Waterbome Pathogens and
on Technical Advisory Committees for the Uni-
versity of Southern California Sea Grant Program
and the Southern California Wetlands Recovery
Program. Dr. Weisberg received his undergraduate
degree from the University of Michigan and his
Ph.D. from the University of Delaware.
Abstract
Current methods for enumerating indicator
bacteria require an incubation period of 18 to 96
hours, during which time contaminated beaches
remain open. Several technologies that have the
potential to produce results in less than four hours
are under development. Here we evaluated four
of those technologies, including immunomagnetic
capture with ATP quantification, flow cytometty,
dual wavelength fluorimentry, and quantitative
PCR (Q-PCR). Fifty-four blind samples encom-
passing a range of bacterial concentrations and
matrix complexity were processed and compared
to values obtained by standard culture-based
methods performed at six reference laboratories.
Each method was evaluated for speed, accuracy,
sensitivity, precision, robustness across different
matrices, as well as ease of use.
Panel Members
Denise Keehner
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology
Biosketch
Denise Keehner is the Director of the Stan-
dards and Health Protection Division in the Office
of Science and Technology in the Office of Water.
Her Division is the Headquarters Office respon-
sible for the Water Quality Standards Program, the
Beach Program, and, the Fish Advisory Program.
Denise has been in this position since May 2003.
Prior to her joining the Office of Water, Denise
was the Director of the Biological and Economic
Analysis Division (BEAD) in the Office of Pes-
ticide Programs (OPP) and the acting Director of
the Environmental Fate and Effects Division in
OPP. She has been with USEPA at Headquarters
for 26 years and has served in management posi-
tions since 1985.
328
-------
Day Two: Session Eleven
Shannon Briggs
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Biosketch
Shannon Briggs has a B.S. is in Animal Sci-
ence, Ph.D. in Pharmacology & Toxicology—all
at Michigan State University. She started work-
ing with beach monitoring programs in 1999.
She is currently the President of the Great Lakes
Beach Association, which is an informal group of
people from local, state, and federal agencies that
conduct research or beach monitoring programs
within the Great Lakes Region. They network
daily with each other via a beachnet listserv. The
web address for the Great Lakes Beach Associa-
tion is http://www.great-lakes.net/glba/index.html.
She currently manages over 30 individual beach
monitoring grants with health departments and
non-profit groups in Michigan. Beach monitoring
grants in Michigan receive state funding from the
Clean Michigan
Rachel Noble
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Institute of Marine Sciences
Biosketch
Dr. Rachel Noble is an Assistant Profes-
sor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, Institute of Marine Sciences in Morehead
City, North Carolina. She previously held a joint
appointment between the University of Southern
California's Wrigley Institute for Environmental
Studies and the Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project and focused her work there on
regional assessment of water quality along the
Southern California shoreline, and detection of
enteroviruses in stormwater impacted areas of the
coast. In July of 2001, she moved from the West
Coast to the East Coast, and there has focused
upon the use of molecular techniques, such as
Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (Q-PCR)
for identification of sources of fecal material in
estuarine, coastal, and freshwater environments,
for use in assessment of microbiological water
quality. Dr. Noble's research currently focuses on
the quantification of enteric human pathogens in
a variety of environments, including recreational
areas, shellfish beds, and commercial fishing
areas. She is interested in relating the presence of
known human pathogens such as enteroviruses,
Vibrio vulniflcus, and Salmonella sp., to levels of
fecal coliforms, E. coli, and enterococci in rec-
reational waters in order to better protect human
health. Other current research foci are basin-scale
determinations of pathogen persistence, fate and
transport in estuaries, and the impacts of nutrient
loading and eutrophication on pathogen survival
and ecosystem health. Dr. Noble has also recently
been involved in the development of real-time
detection of both pathogens and indicators as tools
for creating accurate hydrologic and probability-
based models of estuarine and coastal systems.
329
-------
National Beaches Conferences
Mark Gold, D.Env.
Heal the Bay
Biosketch
Mark Gold, D.Env., is Heal the Bay's Execu-
tive Director. Heal the Bay is an environmental
group dedicated to making Santa Monica Bay
and Southern California coastal waters safe and
healthy for people and marine life. Dr. Gold's ex-
tensive work with water quality and coastal natural
resource topics ranges from sewage treatment,
contaminated sediments, legislative and environ-
mental education issues to urban runoff, con-
taminated fish and wetland restorations. In 1996,
working in conjunction with the Santa Monica Bay
Restoration Project and the USC Medical Center,
he was a co-author of the first epidemiological
study of swimmers in runoff-polluted water. He
also has co-authored several stormwater, con-
taminated fish and beach water quality bills and
ordinances, and he created Heal the Bay's Beach
Report Card®. He is a vice-chair of the Santa
Monica Bay Restoration Commission, sits on the
State Water Board's Clean Beach Advisory Group
and served on the EPA's Urban Wet Weather
Federal Advisory Committee. Dr. Gold also was
appointed to the California Ocean Trust. Dr. Gold
has bachelor's and master's degrees in biology
from UCLA, and he received his doctorate from
UCLA in environmental science and engineering
in 1994.
Monica Mazur
Orange County Environmental Health
Biosketch
*
Monica Mazur is the Supervising Environ-
mental Health Specialist for the County of Orange
Health Care Agency's Ocean Water Protection Pro-
gram. She has over 30 years experience protecting
public health in this area. She oversees the day-
to-day program operations including ocean water
closure decisions. Ms. Mazur currently serves on
numerous technical and advisory committees in-
cluding the State Water Resources Control Board's
Clean Beach Task Force and Beach Water Qual-
ity Working Group. Ms. Mazur has a bachelor's
degree in Social Ecology from the University of
California at Irvine. She is also a California State
Department of Health Services Registered Envi-
ronmental Health Specialist.
330
-------
Day Two: Session Eleven
Question 1: After everything that
you have heard here, what aspects
of beach programs need the
largest improvement given existing
technologies? How can federal,
state, and local programs work
together most effectively?
Panelists' Responses
Denise Keehner
A year and a half into the beaches program as well as other programs, I can see interesting
things that people just in the beaches program may not see. Also, by listening to these speakers
here, I've helped form ideas on what EPA needs to do. When you ask what direction we need to
head in, we need to ask ourselves what is the destination here. We need to collectively have the
same sense of what the destination is. If we don't have a sense of that it is difficult to prioritize
things. Its not about having affective advisories and closings, its to reach a point where we don't
need advisories and closures because things are improved enough that its rare we need those
things. Source tracking, making available better science, tracking where contamination is corning
from and what can be done. I think about how things need to be integrated between programs.
Are local departments engaged as much as they should be.
We need to invest in source tracking—improve science so that we can identify sources of fe-
cal contamination and figure out what can be done to eliminate the source. We need to better inte-
grate the beach program with water quality standards and Clean Water Act programs. We need
to ask if state and local government as engaged as they should be. EPA needs to do more to
identify the governments that are working well in an integrated way, to share experience of what
works for success, such as how they handle closures and postings. The people closest to those is-
sues need to share their experiences of how to integrate programs, what made it happen and what
were the critical factors. EPA needs to do more to help those agencies be effective. EPA work-
shops are important because they help us see what really makes a difference in the environment.
EPA should take the role of sponsoring workshops and other opportunities to get people talking.
But there is still value in getting better indicators and more rapid methods, and better link-
ages with indicator and human health risk. But, over the next several years, EPA needs to shift
some resources to other areas that result in improved water quality over the near term.
Shannon Briggs
I sent an email regarding this question to the Great Lakes Association members. From their
responses, I realized that we already have an email listserv locally. Richard Whitman suggested
that we start utilizing this listserv, so we found someone to host it. It is called the great lakes
331
-------
National Beaches Conference
information network, and it has been a wonderful tool. It's a great way to share information. For
example, someone had seagulls on the beach. They noticed one day that the seagulls all were
drunk. Then, the next day, all the seagulls were all dead. He asked what happened, so everyone
saw the email and could learn about this together. It was a good way for people to learn. With
an email listserv, everybody has a chance to input ideas. The Great Lakes listserv is open to ev-
eryone. Everyone can learn at the same pace.
I know that Charles Kovatch has a listserv for EPA beaches. How open is that to everyone?
We have local health departments, USGS, and people from Canada using ours. I received com-
ments from federal, nonprofit, state and local agencies, as well as from agencies in Canada. It's a
great way to get info out.
I'm looking for existing technology to help standardize sampling. We should agree on the
right way to sample. For example, some health departments use sampling rods when they sam-
ple, but do you stir the water up, or keep it still, sample upstream or downstream, sample in the
morning or afternoon? How do you standardize these things? The sampling methods can affect
whether beach will be open or not. I also think we should look at ankle deep water more—the
swash zone. More people go into ankle-deep water than in chest-deep waters, so should we be
collecting our sample at ankle-depth?
Also, we need to get better grip on the data. We need to figure out what to do with it and
how to analyze it. How do we organize our schema so they make sense to the government and to
the modelers, Its nice to have the data on a website, but then what do we do with it? We need to
get a better strategy for organization and use of the data.
Mark Gold
I helped to write California's Beach Initiative and Beach Water Quality Act (AB 411). In
California, we like waves and surf, and we like our wildlife alive. We have to have greater nation-
al consistency in our programs. For example, we will see a talk tomorrow asking why Califor-
nia and Hawaii do not count as far as having good beaches because we monitor and post more
frequently. People in California monitor and post and close beaches more often than beaches in
other states. A posting in California should mean die same as a posting in Florida. People that go
to different states need to know what the postings mean.
You've seen the epidemiological studies. We need to put everydiing together to target the
most at risk, the most exposed individuals. The children who swim or play in ankle-deep water
are the most exposed. Those are the same populations that swim at creek mouths. The use of other
multiple indicator criteria is important. We need clear definitions of high, medium and low risk.
There needs to be at least weekly monitoring for low risk beaches, or why bother monitoring at
all? And, there should be daily monitoring for high-risk beaches. Closing beaches after sewage
spills needs to be mandated, not just recommended.
Posting exceedances of standards is a right to know issue, even if you don't know the source
of bacterial contamination. When the source is unknown, posting an advisory is still die best thing
you can do. If the source is unknown, closing may be a waste of time and effort.
Money is needed for all the research that needs to be done. There is a need for more research
for epidemiological studies in Southern California. Would it ever hurt for EPA to do an epidemio-
logical study on the west coast? The second major round of EPA epidemiological work does not
include California. It needs to happen.
In addition, chronic exposure issues needs to be addressed, such as the surfer populations
that are out there surfing every day all year long. The surfing population should be targeted for
health risks and chronic exposures.
Rachel Noble
Data management issues are the high priority that agencies such as EPA and NOAA face.
It needs to be addressed top down, and it needs to be handled quickly. The funding is important.
332
-------
Day Two: Session Eleven
Researchers are constantly trying to come up with ways to come up with new ways to conduct
research, and are constantly leveraging money from other projects for basic research that should
be supported because we need to answer research questions. Funding is a big issue, especially to
study real world problems. From the scientific perspective, the European Union (EU) and World
Health Organization (WHO) have recently moved forward with the idea of testing for the specific
species, E. coli and E. faecalis as indicators of fecal contamination, rather than relying on detec-
tion of the entire Enterococcus group. This move needs to be addressed in the Unite States. Com-
munication between the United States, and EU and WHO needs to improve, there are redundant
research studies being conducted that would benefit from the knowledge gained by others on the
other continent. We can improve the way that we manage water quality, especially to help much
of the undeveloped world in the area of public health. Urban runoff in relation to health risk is an
important area. I live in an area where dual beneficial uses reign (areas where shellfish harvesting
and recreational waters are side by side), and the idea that NOAA, EPA and the National Shellfish
Sanitation Council don't communicate as far as their standards go (fecal coliforms for shellfish
and E. coli for recreational waters), is a problem. There is little movement of them coming to a
compromise. Communication between these organizations would help us improve things.
I also examine the process of managing recreational water quality monitoring programs
and programs for TMDL development, and have found that the two groups don't communicate.
TMDLs implemented upstream of the coastline are being run by agency representatives that don't
communicate with the people managing the coastline. It's a matter of the number of hours in the
day. These agencies are severely hampered by resources. I am also interested in seeing in situ
monitoring stations, the use of remote sensing, and the use of predictive models for improving our
management of coastal water quality. We (people in the water quality field) can link up to people
who understand hydrology, land use, physical oceanography, and we can make use of predictive
models for assessing water quality. The wind model, for example, could be utilized.
Monica Mazur
We find that we need more risk assessment and epidemiological studies on the west coast
because it is uncertain if one study (the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project's "A Health Effects
Study of Swimmers in Santa Monica Bay") is transferable to other locations. However, there is
a large need for more funding because our local programs (state, counties and cities) don't have
enough money to do these studies. There is a net cost to the counties to administer the ocean and
bay water quality programs and they don't have the money in some cases to do the routine year
round monitoring, even with the state AB 411 monies and the EPA Beach Grant monies. NRDC
reported in 2004 that California spent 3 million dollars last year on monitoring. In Orange Coun-
ty, we spent $3 million alone on monitoring. We need more funding for our NPDES and storm
water programs, as well as for data management. The $3 million did not even include the cost for
special watershed characterization studies. There are huge costs to monitor and sample water-
sheds. It can cost millions of dollars to do watershed studies and remediation for small areas. $10
to 15 million was spent to conduct the special studies and some remediation just in the Hunting-
ton Beach area.
There are equity issues when comparing state-to-state programs. We have so many post-
ings in California, but is it because we are doing a better job of monitoring and posting and have
stricter standards? We don't compare well to other states, many which aren't monitoring and
posting for as long a coastline or for year round programs (back East, state monitoring programs
may be for three months). We almost need a batting average approach that we can use to compare
accurately and an even playing field for standardizing sampling and posting programs. But, we
shouldn't apply same bacterial standards for different types of beaches. We have found that one
size does not fit all. You have different risk levels and different contamination and use factors
involved at different beaches. In California if you have good samples for a certain period of time
(e.g., 2 years) you can stop sampling at that location. But, that isn't right either. Underground
infrastructure ages and leaks may occur at any time, so sampling vigilance is necessary.
333
-------
National Beaches Conference
Data management and evaluation are other issues that we need to improve. We can't just
collect the data; we need to do something with it. We have to ask, what does a sample represent,
what time of day do we sample, how many samples do we collect per location, how far apart to
we take the samples, where do we post the notices to die public, etc. There are a lot of issues
based on those concerns that need to be standardized. As a priority, we should standardize bacte-
riological criteria and what the samples represent.
Audience Discussion
John Norton (California Water Resources Control Board)
Concerning monitoring programs, right now the way EPA is handling them is a disincen-
tive for states to invest more in monitoring programs. States like California have very thorough
monitoring programs. As an incentive I'd like EPA to lay out grading criteria for monitoring
programs because many other states don't post advisories because they don't monitor very often.
I'd like beach-mile-day to be the measuring unit used'when EPA and others look at the number of
closures and postings each state has, so that things are more comparable nationally. All areas need
to be treated equally because the current method is not sufficient.
Mark Gold
EPA could consider funding only the programs that meet model criteria that everyone agrees
upon.
Denise Keehner
We had intentions to make the data available this year but ran into some Internet technology
(IT) issues with getting state data easily migrated into EPA's system.
Muriel Cole (Ocean.US)
We are a national office sponsored by nine agencies. Our purpose is to promote an integrat-
ed ocean and coastal observation system. I'd like to reiterate something Rachel mentioned, which
is the need for cooperation and coordination among governments, agencies, nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), and academia. That is a priority.
David Rockwell (Great Lakes National Program Office)
We've been looking at data from the Department of Natural Resources (NRDC) web site.
EPA should make data available. In one incident, Milwaukee, Wisconsin discharged water to Illi-
nois beaches due to a heavy rainfall, then Illinois accused Milwaukee for closing Illinois' beaches.
We should quantify a city's contribution to E. coli concentrations.
Steve Weisberg (Southern California Coastal Water Resources Project (SCCWRP))
This conference has brought together a wide array of people from different sectors. An
impression is also made about who is missing: There is nobody here from the European Union
(EU), Center for Disease Control (CDC), or shellfish organizations. We should look for other
groups such as these to reach out to for guidance and for money.
Charles McGee (Orange County Sanitation District)
The Mission Bay study shows that one size does not fit all. Maybe standards don't mean
the same thing in every location. We should use the Annapolis Protocol where people look at the
situation, the beach, the inputs, and the fate and transport, and then design the monitoring pro-
gram around that information instead of just trying to make the shoe fit. We need to look at each
situation as situation-specific.
334
-------
Day Two: Session Eleven
Mark Gold
The policy may apply and change depending on the risk level. If you have a highly popu-
lated beach, you might not close it after one high sample. There are flexibilities depending on the
level of risk. The policy should be developed in a way that eliminates these conflicts.
Steve Weisberg
From what I have heard everyone say so far today, we want consistency, but we also want
flexibility.
Toni Glymph (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)
Wisconsin didn't know that it was optional that we didn't have to monitor if there was a
sewage outfall. For us, one of our frustrations is that since we are working with the local health
departments and there are many different fiscal years, the money is needed and given at different
times. We get the money from EPA in June, but we start monitoring in May and we can't charge
back. So it would be nice if that could be corrected because the money is needed ahead of time
when monitoring and work actually begin. Because of our small budgets and the limited avail-
ability of our Internet technology (IT) staff, money is tight. We give our staff a budget to work
with, but we often have to change what we need them to do, requiring additional work, which is
frustrating, because it wastes time and resources,
Roger Fugioka (University of Hawaii)
For over 20 years it has been reported that all streams in Hawaii have exceeded standards.
It's difficult to understand why a state would accept a standard that it can't meet. Epidemiologi-
cal studies do not apply everywhere, but the criteria are derived from diose studies, therefore that
is what states are supposed to use for their standards, regardless of whether the pollution is from
point source or non-point sources. EPA has stated that 40 percent of coastal pollution is from
non-point sources. Hawaii will use the EPA criteria, but why can't EPA consider the source of
bacteria. This is similar to what was found during the Mission Bay study, where the pollution was
from non-point sources. Hawaii says it will accept the EPA standards and wait to hear about new
indicator standards, but I heard that the new indicator standards will not be out for a while.
Denise Keehner
Existing epidemiological studies are looking at the indicator organisms that seem most ap-
propriate, and it can preclude us, but if a study is not done in the correct way, the studies are not
consistent and it is difficult to use them to develop criteria. I'd like to look into the extent those
epidemiological studies could be used. We can ask Steve Schaub about this.
Gregg Pettit (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality)
I understand that there is a desire for consistency among programs, such as for 303(d) list-
ings. But one size does not fit all. In one year we looked at our data and dropped monitoring at
some beaches in Oregon because those beaches met standards. Also, there were not many people
in the water because the temperature is only approximately 55 degrees all year long. There are
kayakers, but it's not the same magnitude as the number'of beach users in California. Therefore,
the appropriate program for one place may not be the same as for somewhere else. We need a
program to continue monitoring so we can try to identify beaches with chronic problems.
Paul Sandifer (National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA))
Communication should be broadened. One way to increase communication is to invite more
people who are dealing with harmful algal blooms to the conference. They are a big problem in
certain areas, like in reservoirs and in Florida. Some of the researchers are working along paral-
335
-------
National Beaches Conference
lei tracks as the researchers working with human pathogens. Inviting more people to this type of
conference may help to eliminate the redundant work that is done. That would provide benefits,
and may help solve some problems and bring in a new perspective.
Rachel Noble
In labs in North Carolina, they are finding that the pathogens are attached to the algal
blooms. This is a good reason to add those people.
Clay Clifton (County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health)
I agree with the Hawaii comment, that we should "strike while the iron is hot." This week
we've exponentially increased our collective knowledge on monitoring and indicators, but EPA is
telling us that they are still several years away from modifying standards and changing criteria. It
is frustrating and not inspiring. Maybe it is not the time to use a new indicator, but it is the time
for EPA to make more specific recommendations on use of beach types and sample design and
needs to make decisions on what should be mandatory and what should be discretionary.
Denise Keehner
The work that ORD is doing, with frequency and location of monitoring, will be put in a
final report and a guidance document we are producing on monitoring. That is different from the
new indicator ideas. New criteria involve a more standardized process. You may need to talk to
someone else to find out if there are studies that have been done mat will develop into marine
criteria. Ask Steve or Rebecca if there are coastal studies on new indicators.
Shannon Briggs
In the Great Lakes, we often don't have the money to do what we want to do. Even though
EPA may not be doing something, you should still bring the ideas to EPA and try to collaborate
with them so they can work widi you and you can share some of the money. They don't have
the money to do everything, but we can get research together by patching together grants from
different places to get the work done. For example, I take tests from the area and send them to Al
Dufour so he knows what is going on. Working alone will not get as much done.
Clay Clifton
We have done that. We sent comments on the implementation guidance, but we don't know'
what our impact was.
Rebecca Calderon (USEPA, National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory)
To respond to Steve's comments on the National Institute of Health (NIH) and CDC—CDC
was invited to this conference, but they opted not to come. However, they are engaged with EPA.
We have worked with both organizations, and NIH feels that unless you are doing something that
deals with homeland security or bioterrorism, they are too busy to work with us. This isn't their
priority. This program is an unfunded mandate. There is no great flowing of money to handle the
Beaches program. The program is the result of money being brought together. The studies that
are being done in our research and development office are scraped together with the funds we
have. Even though the state people look at us as having lots of resources, it's difficult for us to get
things done with the limited funding. If the Beaches Act does not get renewed, the program will
go away because there are other pressing issues too. It is congress that makes appropriation deci-
sions so we need to be sure that they have accurate information on the benefits to human health of
the Beach program. In addition, EPA plans to do epidemiological studies in California in the next
couple of years.
336
-------
Day Two: Session Eleven
Sonia Nasser (County of Orange)
The Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) should be here too. We are doing massive water-
shed studies, but Orange County often has a problem because but the Corps is not authorized to
study water quality and so they are not engaged with EPA. They have money to spend on the stud-
ies, but can't do water quality. A joint USAGE and EPA water quality study would be helpful.
Steve Weisberg
I know that some of the other agencies aren't here because they have other priorities, but I'm
glad you did try to contact CDC (to Rebecca Calderon).
Denise Keehner
Responding to the comment on the USAGE—USAGE is working in other states with other
groups. There are areas where there is collaborative work going on with EPA and the Corps in the
area of water quality. Whether you can get the Corps involved depends on the project. It is good if
you can form that collaborative effort around it because the Corps has a lot of funding to bring to
the table.
337
-------
National Beaches Conference
Question 2: We've heard new
technological developments:
what is the role of EPA in the
development of these technologies
and where should their priorities
be placed?
Panelists Responses
i /
Rachel Noble
There are so many promising things out there, we should look at them all and not close our
eyes yet to new ideas. We can identify new successes for the future. At this point, from a research
perspective, there are a lot of people working in different environments, such as the food indus-
try and bioterrorism, that have a lot to offer, and we should cross those boundaries and really
examine the available technologies. We haven't gone far enough from an academic perspective.
For EPA, we need to make some basic decisions on 3 different levels: near term (now-2 years),
medium (2-5 yrs), and long term (10-15 yrs) so that we can look at specific technologies as be-
ing promising within the right time frame. There are things out there applicable for use the near
term, I won't just advocate quantitative PCR for enterococci determination, which I think is use-
ful, because its not as low cost as some of the other technologies. There are molecular methods
that are useful. The fluorescence-based measurements like the Idexx adapted technology, dual
wavelength fluorimetry. We need to look at new applications of some of the available methods.
For medium and long term, we should look at electrochemical applications for sensitive detec-
tion of microbes—there are several means of using electrochemical attributes of bacterial cells to
concentrate and detect cells and this should be further examined. It is used in other fields such as
space science and may have applications in water quality.
Monica Mazur
We look to EPA and the federal government for the big picture items we can't do locally.
Concerning the money issue, to pay for all of the new technological developments, I think you
need to bring all the researchers you can together and find a big sponsor, which in this case would
be the EPA, to develop rapid indicator and source tracking techniques which are key. But, once
you have the rapid indicators or other technologies, what do you do then? Will we just be more
confused faster? The expectation of faster methods may lead the public to want everything done
faster—collection, analyses, notifications and postings. The public may want more samples col-
lected—temporal and spatial. What does this mean to us? Logistically, it still takes a while to
make a sampling run. We collect 20-35 samples along one stretch of beach before going to the
lab for analysis.
Are we analyzing for the right things and what do we do to solve the source identifica-
tion problem? Or if it's a natural source, what do we do to "fix" the input, for example the bird
338
-------
Day Two: Session Eleven
sources? But first, we need the methods to determine for certain if it is a bird source at a particular
beach.
You need the new methods to work with, but have to get to a point where they are used
routinely. Methods acceptance by state and federal agencies are going so slowly now, and new
indicators will add even more years to the process.
Shannon Briggs
Rapid methods are key. We get faster results and a new toy, but we can't look at it as the
solution. Communities get exited about a new toy. Once they are more acceptable, usable, and
cost effective, communities will be more interested in using them. Lots of private lake associa-
tions in our area want us to monitor local lakes. Funding is an issue, and we look at other sources
of funding from anyone who is interested, including the army corps. The Department of Defense
had a contract to look at nanotechnology, and they got people together and tried to get some
money for that.
Health departments know they need change to keep up. An issue we face is if we are able
to get rid of human sources of pollution, how do we get rid of other sources (i.e., sea gulls)? We
could find other places for gulls to go, but we still have to deal with what they left behind—what
is the risk assessment for that? What about other animal sources? What are the risks of those?
And, how do we use the data?
Also, how do we use the data that we collect? And, we can't ignore the swash zone and the
wet sand. That is where things wash up and the bacteria live. And everyone walks through it, and
kids play in it. We need to focus on that.
Steve Weisberg
Can you clarify the issue of who is going to be the first kid on the block, who will be the
kid with the new toy? Are you willing to do that and not wait for it to be verified and accepted?
If the technology exits before EPA endorses it, will you use it?
Shannon Briggs
We are already doing that, such as with rapid tests.
Denise Keehner
In terms of the emerging technology, the rapid tests have real significance of implementation
in our program. It will be interesting in how they play out. The more you look the more you find.
If the rapid tests are affordable, there will be increased pressure to use them, and there will be
more pressure for more testing, with more finding of impaired areas, and more issues with man-
agement. We will have more pressure to do source tracking, control releases, prevent overflows,
and manage runoff. If we haven't done the research to understand what will mitigate those risks,
we will be in trouble. It will trickle into lots of areas.
Concerning issue of differentiating between animal and human sources and which results
hi human health impacts, EPA should look at this. People will be asking questions on how fecal
from animals compares to human impacts. It's a big question that needs more money to research.
But, once we have some answers, EPA can then take on bigger issues with that.
Audience Discussion
Blake Traudt (Texas General Land Office)
Texas is in a unique position. My agency has no authority to implement the Beach Act. Our
problem is we have a city that doesn't want to know what is in their water (our city doesn't want
339
-------
National Beaches Conference
to know after 24 hours have passed). The rapid indicators would really be beneficial for that rea-
son. A lot of local governments will want to know once those indicators are being used.
Shannon Briggs
In Michigan, I'm in a similar situation. I can't really test the beaches, or open or close them,
I have to go to the health departments because they are the only ones with the authority to close
or monitor the beaches. I try to highlight the health departments with the best programs so that
the other health departments are envious and want to show that they have good programs as well.
That way they all participate. Our senator got it passed that if you have a public beach you have to
post a sign saying whether your beach is monitored or not. I pitted the mayors against one an-
other. Now, all the health departments respond.
Toni Glymph
Denise made a comment that we'd be in a worse situation if our technology supersedes our
guidance. Not only do we have to regulate beaches, but we also have to regulate the wastewater
coming into it. This causes a problem for regulations because wastewater and beach water do not
use the same indicator. We are shifting from fecal coliform to E. coli at our beaches. They are
using new technologies that we can't regulate. It is not consistent with wastewater. Things are all
over the board. We are forced to move forward, but we can't control things. How do we defend
ourselves? What.do we tell the public? We need guidance for wastewater effluents. How do they
defend themselves and say they have to do something with no reason? We need more guidance
and clearer rules.
Denise Keehner
That method has been validated by interlaboratory methods. The effluent wastewater has
been validated scientifically, even though it has not been officially released yet or published.
Toni Glymph
They are going to use the Idexx ones because they are simple.
Charlie McGee (Orange County Sanitation District)
We should focus attention on rapid detection technologies. Jay Fleisher pointed out mat no
one at the beach was ever exposed to the limits that were set. We were looking at getting the in-
formation on water quality at the beach in the morning, and comparing it to the illness rate. Con-
cerning methods, Rachel talked about three terms of approach. If we want to analyze a sample in
a controlled stream we are required to use EPA methods. I hope we can improve on the already
approved methods and start using those right away. Using the Connecticut Procedure approved,
right away, for enterococci. Mark Gold had to leave, but he wanted to share that same idea..
Matt Liebman (USEPA Region 1)
Until yesterday, I was on the rapid indicator bandwagon. But then we will have a rapid
method to get us confused more quickly. Stanly Grant talked about a plume of bacteria in Hun-
tington that lasts for about 2 minutes and then goes away. We need to think about exposure. If we
have a rapid method ocean observance system and can get 20 to 30 measurements per day, we
would have a good sense of what the exposure is—what the water quality is and the potential ill-
nesses. Would that result in an increase in postings and advisories?
Monica Mazur
This brings up the question of how often to sample and what standard do you use? It's im-
portant to understand what currents do with bacteria levels. With the ocean observing system used
with the bacteria levels, you have a better idea of what is going on out there. But this can add to
340
-------
Day Two: Session Eleven
the confusion. If we simplify the method, who else will use it? Will locals and lifeguards monitor
as well? This will bring about questions of who has the jurisdiction to put signs up. But, we still
need the methods.
Steve Weisberg
One size doesn't fit all. Rapid indicators will push us to believe that even further. Once we
have the rapid indicators, you still have different types of beaches. Some beaches have chronic
sources, which the rapid methods won't help. With a chronic source, water quality may still
change because of which way the wind is blowing. In cases like that, models will help determine
where the pollution will be. Rapid indicators will help more with an unexpected problem and lead
to quicker reaction, for example, by identifying a spill you didn't know about
Rachel Noble
One thing to consider with rapid indicators is to demonstrate the relationship to pathogens
quantitatively. Another thing to consider doing is to conduct an epidemiological study that in-
volves humans, where people provide stool and blood samples, to see the actual pathogen, indica-
tor, and disease relationship. Many epidemiologists can't believe this hasn't been done yet. It's a
huge undertaking, though, but needs to be done.
Carl Berg (Hanalei Watershed Hui)
One problem is that the rapid test for enteric viruses may be worthless in tropical environ-
ments. One thing I see is a lack of consideration of pathogens associated with urine, not feces.
There are many very serious diseases that come from wildlife, like Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and
Leptospira, which have made people sick and/or have been fatal. We're not just dealing with skin
rashes. In Samoa, we had an outbreak of leptosporosis, and we did blood testing of animals and
people to find a better idea of the source. So, there are models here that can be used. We should
ask EPA to pay more attention to other pathogens that aren't feces-related, but are potentially
more deadly.
Rachel Noble
In North Carolina we are working on detection of other pathogens that are not routinely
monitored but are becoming a problem due to changing climate and global warming issues. They
deserve more attention.
Shannon Briggs
The issues that Carl Berg pointed out are an example of why we need to be connected by
email, so we find out about these things right now and not every few years at a conference. You
are limited with staff, resources, and time, and if we have an email system, that would help us
communicate.
John Norton (California Water Resources Control Board)
I ask for old technology such as keeping sewage off the beach and in the pipe. EPA needs to
make sure we have good reporting on sewage closures at beaches. Good sewage reporting pro-
vides the backbone of fixing the problem.
Shawn Ultican (Washington State County Health District, Kitsap County)
From all of the uncertainty that exists with die tools we are using, it seems misleading that
we tell the public that we are keeping them from getting sick. We can't get there from here. We
need to do what we can to correct long-term chronic sources, and then go in and do the surveys
and determine the sources. We can't do that with die tools we have available now. In working at
the county health district, the greatest asset is public trust. If I lose my credibility, then the money
341
-------
National Beaches Conference
and science doesn't matter because the public will ignore the health advisories that I give them. I
worry about making false claims. I am concerned that my credibility is being lessened by posting
advisories and telling the public they will get sick if they swim, but if they continue to swim and
they don't get sick, then they will stop listening to the advisories. Until we can accurately assess
health risk, we should be concerned about taking those claims and putting advisories out there
that we can't necessarily support. Is there credibility in what we do?
Steve Weisberg
Is there credibility? There are two parts to that. Our measurement systems are imperfect, so
what is our responsibility to warn the public when there is a possible risk versus when we know
that our science is right. We have had many comments made here today, but the most common
ones I am hearing are (1) develop a better epidemiological relationship, whether it's looking at
the number of beaches or the kind of beaches we are sampling—otherwise it's hard to make the
statements that people will get sick if they get into the water; (2) standardization is important; (3)
coordination is important; (4) rapid indicators are important; and (5) we need to make sure as we
are developing this technology that we have some certainty and we develop guidance. In addition,
we need more money, which might take coordination between other agencies.
Denise Keehner
One final thing I'd like to convey is to use common sense around communities where there
is a chronic source of pollution and balance whether it makes sense spending time to precisely
quantify the human health risk from that before taking some action. I wonder if that is the best
use of that money, compared to going back and figuring out what we can do for something like
fecal contamination. There are ways we can move in die direction of fixing the problem rather
than spending millions precisely quantifying the risk. We can instead say we have an issue (hu-
man fecal contamination) and take some action to understand the source and mitigate it. Concern-
ing public health, think of the old days when waste was dumped out of the window and into the
streets. We didn't have a quantitative risk assessment back then, we had major health problems
associated with dumping human waste and we did something about it. It's not a big leap to thin
that what we are doing in our coastal areas is essentially the same, but into our waters instead of
into the streets. We have many people moving to coastal areas, and we are developing those areas.
Be careful about spending too much money trying to precisely quantify risk. Instead, let's use
some of that money to take action to actually solve problems.
342
-------
-------
INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
6935 Laurel Avenue, Suite 201
Takoma Park, MD 20912
Phone: (301) 270-5500
FAX: (301) 270-3029
e-mail: ieer@leer.org
http://www.ieer.org
Bad to the Bone:
Analysis of the Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels for
Plutonium-239 and Other Alpha-Emitting Transuranic
Radionuclides in Drinking Water
Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D.
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
June 2005
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 5
Main findings 6
Recommendations 8
I. Introduction "10
II. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations - Radionuclides 11
A. Bone dose estimation in ICRP 2 14
B. Bone dose estimation, present-day dose conversion factors 17
1. Bone doses according to FGR11 17
2. Bone doses according to FGR 13 19
III. Conclusions 21
IV. Costs ! 24
V. Estimating the impact of residual radioactivity 25
VI. Other risks and radionuclides 27
References 30
-------
-------
Acknowledgements .
I would like to thank the reviewers, Mike Thome, Geoff Fettus, and Beatrice Brailsford, for their help
in commenting on various stages of this report. Mike Thome commented on every draft and
reviewed all the calculations. His extensive knowledge of the history of how radiation protection
science has evolved since the issuance of the International Commission on Radiological Protection's
Publication Number 2 was indispensable to ensuring that the complexity of the issues involved are
fully reflected in the analysis; I am grateful to my colleague, Annie Makhijani, who did some of the
preliminary research and calculations. Sriram Gopal did some early calculations as well, when he
was a staff scientist at IEER He is now a law student. Brice Smith and Lisa Ledwidge served as
internal reviewers and Lois Chalmers helped with the bibliographic research and the references,
including getting the various editions of the safe drinking water regulations that were essential for
doing the research.
This study is part of lEER's technical support project for grassroots groups on nuclear weapons
related issues in the United States. We gratefully acknowledge the generous support of John Merck
Fund, Ploughshares Fund, Public Welfare Foundation, Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust, Town Creek
Foundation, Colombe Foundation, Education Foundation of America, Ford Foundation, New Cycle
Foundation, and the New-Land Foundation, as well as the individual donors who give generous
support to our work.
Arjun Makhijani
Takoma Park, Maryland ,
June 2005
-------
Main findings
The limit for gross-alpha contamination of drinking water is based on science that is over four
decades old. It is an unsatisfactory basis for public health protection that is at variance with the
content and intent of the safe drinking water regulations for radionuclides that were first promulgated
in 1976. Specifically, the scientific understanding of how plutonium and other alpha-emitting, long-
lived transuranic radionuclides behave in the human body, and of the magnitude of radiation dose
they deliver to various organs, has changed a great deal, beginning with revisions first published by
the International Commission on Radiological Protection in the late 1970s. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first officially adopted these changes for assessment of
radiation doses in its Federal Guidance Report 11, published in 1988. More changes have occurred
since that time, which allow estimation of doses to people of various ages including infants.
EPA last reviewed its radionuclide standards in the year 2000 as part of a legally-mandated process.
But despite the fact that it had been more than a decade since the publication of Federal Guidance
Report 11, the EPA chose not to revise the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for alpha-emitting,
long-lived transuranic radionuclides in that review. The next scheduled review of radionuclide MCLs
in drinking water will occur in 2006.
This report provides an analysis of the changes in the dose estimates to the maximally exposed organ
that have occurred since the MCL limits for radionuclides were first set in 1976. It presents the
scientific underpinning for tightening the MCL for alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic
radionuclides by a factor of one hundred compared to the present gross alpha MCL of 15 picocuries
per liter (pCi/L).
1. Drinking water maximum contaminant limits for pIutonium-239 and other alpha-emitting,
long-lived transuranic radionuclides are about a hundred times too lax.
The most recent science, as published by the EPA, indicates that the radiation dose to the most
exposed organ, the surface of the bone, from drinking water contaminated to the maximum allowable
limit is about a hundred times greater than ihe dose to what in 1976 was regarded as the maximally
exposed organ (the marrow-free skeleton). This indicates that the drinking water standards are about
a hundred times too lax, as measured by the intent of the regulations when they were first
promulgated. The current MCL for each alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclide
separately is 15 picocuries per liter.
2. Drinking water regulations - when they were first set - explicitly included military sources of
radionuclides - specifically, fallout from testing.
3. A much tighter MCL for alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides is needed to
prevent lax approaches to cleanup of weapons sites.
Once drinking water is polluted to a few picocuries per liter, which is many times the indicated MCL
by current science, it will be essentially impossible to remediate it. A stringent MCL is therefore
-------
needed as a guide to the United States Department of Energy (DOE) in its cleanup and as a
preventive measure for protecting public water supplies.
4. The vast majority of public water systems will incur no costs from the proposed change and a
few would incur a one-time monitoring cost. •
Since the vast majority of public water systems have alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic
radionuclide levels orders of magnitude below the proposed MCLs (from weapons testing). They are
not at risk for further contamination. No sampling, monitoring, or remediation is needed for these
systems.
For public water systems that are hydrologically or hydrogeologically connected to DOE sites, where
large amounts of plutonium waste were dumped or were disposed of, a one-time initial sampling and
analysis should be done. If found clean, further sampling need not be conducted provided the DOE
maintains a thorough water sampling program for surface and ground waters on site and reports the
results publicly. It is presently mandated to do that, so no additional expenses would be incurred in
this regard.
5. The relaxation of DOE goals in regard to cleanup and the lack of national cleanup standards
necessitates an urgent revision of MCLs for alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic
radionuclides, if critical drinking water systems are to be protected for the long-term.
The timing and urgency of the main recommendation of this report, that MCLs for alpha-emitting,
long-lived transuranic radionuclides be tightened by one hundred times (see below), derives largely
from the very large inventories of alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides at several
(DOE) nuclear weapons sites. Some wastes containing these radionuclides (both low-level and
transuranic wastes) were dumped in unlined trenches in cardboard boxes and similar non-durable
packaging in the early decades of the Cold War. The primary sites are in Idaho, Nevada, New
Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington state. Further, the combined plutonium-238, -
239, and -240 inventory contained in DOE high-level waste tanks at Savannah River Site is over a
million curies. In 2004, Congress gave DOE the latitude to reclassify some of this waste. DOE can
now grout high-level waste in place by reclassifying it as waste incidental to reprocessing. Congress
set no limit on the total residual radioactivity content of the grouted waste. Since grouting is
essentially irreversible, it is imperative the DOE implement the law in a manner that is compatible
with the protection of the Savannah River, which is increasingly used by more people as a source of
drinking water in South Carolina and Georgia.
-------
Recommendations
The EPA is going to review the radionuclide standards for drinking water as part of a scheduled
process in 2006. We urge the EPA to revise the drinking water regulations in regard to alpha-
emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides. The Department of Energy should evaluate its
cleanup and decommissioning efforts with a view to meeting the tighter standard.
1. The EPA should reduce its maximum contaminant levels for all alpha-emitting, long-lived
transuranic radionuclides, combined, by one hundred times to an MCL of 0.15 picocuries per
liter during its 2006 review of radionuclide standards for drinking water.
EPA should set a combined maximum contaminant level for alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic
radionuclides of 0,15 picocuries per liter. If only one of the radionuclides in question were present,
then the limit for that radionuclide would be 0.15 picocuries per liter. The radionuclides included
are: neptunium-237, plutonium-238, plutonium-239, plutonium-240, plutonium-242, americium-241,
and americium-243. These changes should be made as part of the EPA's review of radionuclide
standards in drinking water that is scheduled for 2006.
2. The DOE should fund a one-time baseline sampling and analysis for public water systems
that are hydrologically or hydrogeologically connected to DOE sites with major plutonium
wastes or dumps.
DOE sites with wastes buried underground or in tanks containing more than 100 curies of alpha-
emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides should be considered to have potential risks to drinking
water. These sites include the Savannah River Site, Hanford, Idaho National Laboratory, Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, and the Nevada Test Site. Testing of downstream water for
the purpose of providing a baseline level of contamination is desirable and should be funded by the
DOE since the tiny amounts of alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides in current water
supplies are due to military-related atomic energy activities (fallout from testing).
3. The DOE should evaluate its on-site water monitoring from the point of view of the proposed
standard and intensify it, if necessary. Resources for independent verification should be
provided by the federal government.
The DOE currently carries out extensive surface and ground water monitoring. This may be
sufficient for the purposes of providing assurance that downstream water resources continue to be
protected from contamination with alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides. If not, the
existing programs should be intensified.
The federal government should also provide states and public water system authorities that are
hydrologically or hydrogeologically contiguous to DOE sites with the funds to conduct independent
checks on DOE's on-site and off-site water monitoring. Such funds would better be provided
through the EPA, rather than through Ihe DOE, in order to assure the independence of the monitoring
and the continuity of the funding.
8
-------
4. A separate limit of detection of each alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclide of
0.01 picocuries per liter should be set.
5. The DOE should make public the source code for the model that is used to assess the impact
of residual radioactivity on food, water, and the environment.
Argonne National Laboratory developed a "family" of programs to assess the radiological impact of
environmental contamination by radionuclides. The main one, called simply RESRAD, is used to
assess the impact of residual radioactivity in the soil on human beings, by estimating radiation doses
by a variety of pathways, such as food and water and re-suspended soil. Its source code is not public.
It does not incorporate dose conversion factors for children, infants, or fetuses at various times in
their development. Its internal structure and its effects on the resulting estimates of doses and risks
are not available for independent scrutiny. We strongly recommend that the RESRAD source code
be made public, so that it can be examined and improved in the manner of the operating system
Linux. The government, of course, need not adopt any changes that are made by the public unless it
finds them useful for implementing environmental regulations. But there is no reason for holding a
source code paid for by taxpayer dollars secret, particularly as billions of dollars are being spent on
cleanup decisions based on the results generated by the RESRAD program.
-------
/. Introduction
The National Primaiy Drinking Water Regulations specify rules that will protect drinking water and
will maintain it in a state that is safe to drink. In these regulations, 40 CFR141.66 sets safe drinking
water standards for radionuclides in public water supplies under the Safe Drinking Water Act.1
These standards are set in two ways: by specifying maximum contaminant levels of drinking water or
by specifying maximum allowable dose to the whole body or any organ as a result of ingestion of
drinking water. However, as demonstrated below, the concentration limits currently in effect for
alpha-emitting transuranic radionuclides in drinking water are grossly inadequate to protect public
health. Achievement of reductions in concentration is necessary to protect public health.
\ f
The current maximum contaminant level (MCL) as set forth in 40 CFR 141.66(c) for gross alpha
particle activity, including radium-226, but excluding uranium and radon, is 15 picocuries per liter.
There is a sub-limit for radium-226 and radium-228, combined, of 5 picocuries per liter (including
any naturally present radium-226 and radium-228). For instance, if water is contaminated with
plutonium-239 alone, the level of contamination could reach as high as 15 picocuries per liter if no
other qualifying alpha-emitting radionuclides were present. If radium-226 is present to the maximum
allowable limit of 5 picocuries per liter,2 then the rule allows a maximum contaminant level for gross
alpha of 10 picocuries per liter. For instance, if plutonium-239 were the only alpha-emitting, long-
lived transuranic radionuclide present, the MCL for plutonium-239 in this case would be 10 to 15
picocuries per liter, depending on the concentration of radium-226.
This standard was set in 1976, based on scientific assessments done in the late 1950s by the
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the National Committee on
Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), a United States agency, and published as ICRP
Publication 2 and in abbreviated form in the U.S. by the National Bureau of Standards as NBS
Handbook 69.3
But the science has changed since then. As a result of these changes, as well as changes in the dose
conversion factors adopted by the EPA since that time, dose estimates to the most exposed organ,
while complex to assess, are far greater than those implied by the limit of 10 to 15 picocuries per liter
when evaluated according to the methods specified in NBS 69.
' The text now published under 40 CFR 141.66 were formerly published under 40 CFR 141.15 and 141.16. (CFR = Code
of Federal Regulations). See also SDWA.
2 This assumes that no radium-228 is present. The radium MCL in the rule is set for the combined concentration of Ra-
226 and Ra-228. The former is an alpha-emitter and the latter is a beta-emitter. Hence the latter is omitted from the gross
alpha part of the rule.
3ICRP-2,1959 & NBS 69. NBS 69, which also bears the series title NCRP Report No. 22, is a recommendation of the
National Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which is now known as the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Tables and scientific discussion are drawn from ICRP-2,1959. NBS
Handbook 69 was published in 1959 and then again, with an added table and errata, in 1963. We cite NBS 69 throughout
this report. The dose conversion factors, the scientific content, and other details in NBS 69 are the same as those in ICRP
2. ICRP 2 was published by the International Commission on Radiological Protection in 1959. The NCRP was (and is) a
participating organization in ICRP.
10
-------
It is therefore necessary that the MCLs of transuranics in drinking water be changed in order that the
MCL remain within the spirit and framework of the standards as promulgated in 1976. This can be
done based on the dose conversion factors that the EPA has since adopted and published in Federal
Guidance Report 11,4 which are the basis for present EPA regulation and risk estimation. They were
published in 1988. The EPA has since published Federal Guidance Report 13. This is the most
recent EPA scientific publication relevant to safe drinking water standards. • The scientific basis of
this guidance (ICRP 72)5 has been adopted for some federal dose calculation purposes, but not yet
sanctioned for use in regard to assessing doses from drinking water. In this report, we will consider
the changes in the drinking water standards for alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides.
The basis for the needed MCL change is the potential danger that residual radioactive pollutants
remaining after cleanup of the Cold War nuclear weapons production sites will pose to individuals in
this generation and future generations. Of particular concern are the long-lived transuranic
radionuclides neptunium-237, plutonium-238, plutonium-239, plutonium-240, plutonium-242,
americium-241, and americium-243. All of these are man-made radionuclides.
//. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations - Radionuclides
In 1959, the National Bureau of Standards published its Handbook 69 (NBS 69), which established
the maximum permissible average concentrations of radionuclides in air and water calculated on the
basis of a 5 rem dose to the whole body, and a 15 rem dose to the most exposed organ, also called
critical organ, for each pathway and solubility class.6 As discussed below, a somewhat different
method was used for bone-seeking radionuclides like radium-226 and plutonium-239. All these
limits were established for radiation workers.7
ICRP 2 and NBS 69 also set forth the scientific approach for calculating these maximum permissible
concentrations, with ICRP 2 providing significantly greater detail. A table adding data and correcting
some errors in the 1959 version of NBS 69 was published in 1963, along with the original 1959 NBS
69 publication, hi the text that follows, the term NBS 69 refers to this 1963 publication, since the
EPA based its drinking water standards on it.
In March 1975, the EPA proposed, for the first time, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
for public water systems.8 The proposed rules for radionuclides were published in August of that
year.9 The regulations for contaminants other than radionuclides were promulgated in December
1975;10 Ihe rules for radionuclides were promulgated in July 1976.11 The MCLs and dose limits were
4FGR11,1988.
5ICRP-72,1996.
* NBS 69.
7 Until 1958 there were no separate radiation exposure limits for the public. They were the same as for workers. In 1958,
the dose limits for the public were set at one-tenth the maximum allowable doses for workers (NBS 59 Addendum, page
* Fed. Reg. 1975/03/14.
9 Fed. Reg. 1975/08/14.
10 Fed. Reg. 1975/12/24.
11 Fed. Reg. 1976.
11
-------
originally codified in 40 CFR141.15 and 40 CFR141.16, both of which have since been renumbered
and consolidated, without change, into 40 CFR 141.66.12
In the final rule of July 1976, the EPA promulgated Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for
radionuclides in public water systems either by directly specifying the MCL values (in picocuries per
liter) or by specifying dose limits, which implied MCLs for drinking water, based on an adult water
intake of two liters per day. The science underlying the standards was published in NBS 69. The
drinking water limit for alpha-emitting radionuclides excluding uranium and radon, but including
radium-226, was set at 15 picocuries per liter. There was a separate sub-limit for radium-226 and
radium-228 of 5 picocuries per liter. For beta and photon-emitters the dose limit was 4 millirem per
year (mrem/year) to the most exposed organ. (For radionuclides that are approximately uniformly
distributed in the body, such as cesium-137 and tritium, the most exposed organ is considered to be
the whole body.) The MCLs for beta- and photon-emitters were set according to the 4 mrem/year
criterion, with a slight variation from this being adopted for tritium and for strontium-90. The limits
for these categories have remained the same since that time.13 Detection limits and analytical
methods for radionuclides were set forth in 40 CFR 141.25.
The rule as originally promulgated discusses natural and man-made radionuclides separately.
However, it does not explicitly discuss the alpha-emitting transuranic radionuclides mat are the
subject of this report, but specifies only a gross alpha MCL. The gross alpha limit excludes only
uranium and radon and it automatically includes the alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic
radionuclides of concern here, as these radionuclides are explicitly listed in the tables in NBS 69.
The following statement indicates the intent of the regulation that first established maximum
contaminant limits for man-made radionuclides in drinking water:
Man-made radioactivity may enter the public water systems from a variety of sources. Such
contamination is usually confined to systems utilizing surface waters. Past deposition of
fallout materials from nuclear weapons tests, particularly strontium-90 and tritium, is probably
the most important source of contamination. The dose equivalent to individual users of public
water systems in some areas of the United States from this pathway is in the range of 1 to 2
millirem (mrem) per year. At present, the dose equivalent from public water systems
contaminated by effluents produced in the nuclear fuel cycle is probably only a fraction of that
due to fallout materials, though perhaps ranging up to 0.5 mrem per year. The dose equivalent
from effluents released by medical, scientific, and industrial users of radioactive materials that
enter the public water systems has not been fully quantified. Taken as a whole these users
handle much smaller amounts of radioactivity than nuclear power facilities but (with the
exception of tritium) their liquid releases and the resultant doses to man may be somewhat
comparable.
EPA recognizes that the national use of radionuclides in medicine and industry and the
utilization of nuclear power to supply energy needs will unavoidably lead to some
radioactivity entering the aquatic environment so that the quality of some surface waters is
likely to decrease slightly in the future. Even though the increase of radioactivity in drinking-
12 The changed numbering can be found in the 2004 edition of 40 CFR 141.
13 The limits were first specified in 40 CFR 141.15 and 40 CFR 141.16. An MCL for uranium of 30 micrograms per liter
was established on December 7,2000, in 40 CFR 141.66 (e), based mainly on the heavy metal toxicity of uranium to the
kidney. The revision to 40 CFR 141 was announced in Fed. Reg. 2000.
12
-------
water will normally be small, the Agency believes that the risk of future contamination
warrants vigilance. It is the intent of the proposed monitoring and compliance requirements
to provide a mechanism whereby the supplier of water can be cognizant of changes in the
level of radioactivity in its water sources, so that the appropriate remedial measures may be
taken14
While this passage does not explicitly mention nuclear-weapons-related activities and facilities, their
inclusion is clearly indicated, notably from the fact that fallout from nuclear weapons testing is
discussed as the most important source of surface water contamination. It is also clear from the
discussion of fallout that the intent was to consider the most important sources of contamination. The
mention of industrial users also does not exclude weapons facilities (which handle radioactivity in
considerably smaller amounts when compared to reactor core and spent fuel inventories in the
commercial nuclear power sector). It is
implicit, therefore, that there was no intent to The U nderStaildillg Of What IS
exclude alpha-emitting man-made radionuclides .. ^ ^.^^j. ^.^^.^^^.j ^aff^^ *^«
from the vigilance and concern of the the m°S* CXpOSCd Organ f Of
regulations alpha-emitting, long-lived
transuranic radionuclides has
level of doses at which concern and
vigilance were warranted in regard to man-made
radionuclides was a few millirem per year. The
maximum contaminant level for photon- and beta-emitters was set to 4 millirem per year because
they were considered to be 1he most important sources of man-made radioactivity:
Considering the sum of the deposited fallout radioactivity and additional amounts due to
effluents from other sources currently in existence, the total dose equivalent from made-made
radioactivity is not likely to result in a total body or organ dose to any individual that exceeds
4 millirem per year. . . 15
This quote shows that the sum of the doses from military and civilian activities was considered in
evaluating the limit of 4 millirem per year that was set for beta- and photon-emitters in 1976. In fact,
fallout was the single most important component of the dose from man-made radionuclides evaluated
by the EPA.
The cancer fatalities from whole body exposure to 4 millirem per year from man-made beta and
photon sources of radioactivity were estimated at between 0.4 and 2.0 deaths per year per million
-people exposed. This was comparable to the exposure to natural radium-226 and radium-228
estimated at 0.7 to 3 fatal cancers per year per million persons at the level of 5 picocuries per liter
selected as the maximum contaminant level. The slightly higher fatality rate for radium (a factor of
1 .2 to 1.8) at the allowable limit of 5 picocuries per liter must be seen in the context that it is a
ubiquitous, naturally occurring radionuclide, with considerable variation in drinking water
concentrations (which the EPA estimated at the time to be between 0.1 and 60 picocuries per liter).16
The EPA imposed considerable costs on public water systems by requiring remediation of those
systems that had levels of radium greater than 5 picocuries per liter in order to bring them to the
14 Fed. Reg. 1975/08/14, page 34324, emphasis added.
15 Fed. Reg. 1975/08/14, page 34325, emphasis added.
16 Fed. Reg. 1975/08/14, page 34325.
13
-------
regulatory level. Further, the EPA mandated testing of water supplies and established detection
limits (at the 95 percent confidence limit) lhat were considerably below the MCLs set forth in the
regulation.17 The detection limits were set in order to ensure that the mandated MCLs would not be
exceeded. In considering the mandated MCLs and detection limits, the EPA took technical, health,
and economic considerations into account.
In looking to the future, the EPA did not anticipate that man-made radionuclides would result in a
dose of more than 4 millirem per year from drinking water, because it believed that fallout would
remain the main source and that this source would decrease with time due to the ban on atmospheric
tests18:
The 4 millirem per year standard for man-made radioactivity was chosen on the basis of
avoiding undesirable future contamination of public water supplies as a result of controllable
human activities. Given current levels of fallout radioactivity in public water supply systems
and their expected future decline, and the degree of control on effluents from the nuclear
industry that will be exercised by regulatory authorities, it is not anticipated that the maximum
contaminant levels for man-made radioactivity will be exceeded except in extraordinary
circumstances.19 s
There is no explicit exclusion of alpha-emitting transuranic radionuclides from this statement. Also,
the National Primary Drinking Water regulations explicitly mention strontium-90 in fallout. Hence,
1he regulations explicitly took into account a man-made radionuclide from a military activity -
nuclear weapons testing - in protecting public water supplies from radioactive contaminants.
Further, the critical organ listed in NBS 69 for strontium-90 and for the transuranic radionuclides that
are Ihe subject of this report was the same - the bone.
The language of the regulation indicates that the MCL in the range of 10 to 15 picocuries per liter for
the alpha-emitting., long-lived transuranic radionuclides set at the time would have corresponded
approximately to a bone dose of a few millirem per year according to then-prevailing estimation
methods. We show in the next section, A. Bone dose estimation in ICRP 2, that was indeed the case.
However, present-day methods result in far higher dose estimates, as discussed below in the section
after next, B. Bone dose estimation, present-day dose conversion factors.
A. Bone dose estimation in ICRP 2
Bone dose was estimated in ICRP 2 (and NBS 69) as dose to the skeletal bone without the marrow.
The reference bone-seeking radionuclide used by ICRP 2/NBS 69 was radium-226 and the reference
amount was 0.1 microcurie of radium-226 in the skeletal bone. The amount of energy deposited in
the bone each year corresponded to an absorbed radiation dose rate of about 3 rad per year, not
accounting for relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of alpha particles. ICRP 2 used an RBE =10,
thus yielding an annual dose for a 0.1 microcurie body burden of radium-226 of 30 rem per year,
17 Fed. Reg. 1976, page 28404.
Of the nuclear weapons states, only China was testing in the atmosphere at the time. China conducted its last
atmospheric nuclear test in 1980.
19 Fed. Reg. 1975/08/14, pages 34325-34326, emphasis added.
14
-------
according to the then-prevailing method of estimation.20 Doses were calculated by estimating a
whole-body or organ burden of the radionuclide assuming lifetime ingestion or inhalation at the
MCL, for which values were given either in the workplace (40-hour workweek) or continuously (168
hours per week).
Some radionuclides, such the beta-particle-emitting strontium isotopes, were recognized even then to
behave somewhat differently man radium-226 in the body in that they tended to concentrate in certain
parts of the bone, while radium-226 is distributed less unevenly. Research since that time has
validated that observation. For instance, the alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides tend
to concentrate adjacent to the endosteal cells on the bone surface. Hence, these radionuclides deliver
a considerably higher dose to the endosteal cells than would be indicated by an assumption of
uniform distribution over a marrow-free skeleton.
In order to account for non-uniform distribution of several bone-seeking radionuclides, ICRP 2
suggested (and used) a factor of safety of 5 for such radionuclides when estimating maximum
permissible levels of radionuclides in air and water for workers.21 The effect of this safety factor was
to reduce the maximum allowable dose for workers from alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic
radionuclides to 6 rem per year, compared to 30 rem per year for radium-226. Correspondingly, the
maximum permissible concentrations were also reduced by a factor of five.
This intent to reduce the maximum permissible dose to the bone by a factor of about 5 can be
confirmed by estimating the dose corresponding to the maximum permissible burden of plutonium-
239 in the bone of 0.04 microcuries specified in NBS 69. Using avalue of 5.15 MeV per alpha
particle and an RBE = 10, the annual dose corresponding to a bone burden of 0.04 microcuries of
plutonium-239 is about 5.5 rem per year. Since the whole body and organ burdens in NBS 69 are
rounded, this is in close agreement with the figure of 6 rem inferred by applying the safety factor of 5
to the radium-226 dose of 30 rem.
The MCL for soluble plutonium-239 set in NBS 69 corresponding to the 6 rem per year bone dose
would be 5xlO"5 uCi/cc, or 5x10"2 uCi/liter, or 50,000 pCi/liter. The current drinking water limit of
15 picocuries per liter in the absence of radium-226 corresponds to a bone dose of about 1.8 millirem
per year (or 1.2 millirem per year corresponding to 10 picocuries per liter, which is the MCL for
plutonium-239 in the presence of radium-226 at its MCL of 5 picocuries per liter).22
The bone doses corresponding to 15 picocuries per liter for various alpha-emitting, long-lived
transuranic radionuclides are shown in Table 1, estimated according to the method in NBS 69 which
was the prevailing scientific understanding in 1976, when the EPA first promulgated the MCLs for
radionuclides. All of these calculations follow NBS 69 in assuming soluble radionuclides when
estimating doses to the bone from drinking water. An assumption of soluble forms of the
radionuclides is reasonable (and in keeping with the regulation as originally promulgated) since it is
likely that the radionuclides will be in that form if they are present in drinking water. The presence
of insoluble colloidal forms is not excluded, but the likely presence ofsoluble forms makes it
necessary to use the uptake coefficient for that form, which has been done throughout this report.
20ICRP-2,1959, page 13 and FOR 11,1988, page 18. The current value of the RBE, often called the quality factor in the
regulatoiy context, for alpha particles is 20.
21 FOR 11, 1988, pages 16-19.
22 This assumes that no Ra-228 is present.
15
-------
Table 1: Bone dose from alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides according to NBS
69 (ICRP 2)
Radionuclide
plutonium-238
plutonium-239
plutonium-240
americium-241
nepturiium-237
Bone dose at 15
pCi/L in mrem/y
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
3.0
Note: These doses are estimated by proportionally reducing the doses for these radionuclides corresponding to the MCLs
listed in NBS 69, which correspond to a bone dose of 6 rem per year. The figure of 6 rem for bone dose for alpha-
emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides is derived by applying the safety factor of 5 to the bone dose of 30 rem for
radium-226 (see text). NBS 69 lists the kidney as well as bone as the target organs for americium-241. We consider only
bone-dose-related MCLs in this report. Plutonium-242 dose is the same as plutonium-239.
The NBS 69 (ICRP 2) calculations for bone dose are not directly comparable to present-day methods
of dose estimation. NBS 69 specifies annual doses to the "bone," defined as the marrow-free
skeleton. But Federal Guidance Report 11, which lays out methods of dose estimation that are the
basis of EPA regulations at the present time, defines committed doses to two different parts of the
bone - the "red marrow" and the "bone surface."23 The latter is defined as the most exposed organ in
Federal Guidance Report 11 for alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides because they
concentrate adjacent to the endosteal cells, which are located on the bone surface. In other words, the
understanding of what is the most exposed organ for alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic
radionuclides has evolved along with the methods of dose estimation since the MCLs were
promulgated in 1976.
As shown in Table 1, the range of doses to the bone using a limit of 15 picocuries per liter for alpha-
emitting, long-lived Iransuranic radionuclides estimated according to NBS 69 is approximately from
1.8 to 3 millirem per year. This is about the same as the doses estimated from man-made
radionuclides, notably in fallout, in the safe drinking water regulation as promulgated in 1976. Hence
we can infer that the intent of the rule was to limit the dose from drinking water to the maximum
exposed organ, defined then as the bone, to approximately 2 millirem per year.
While the bone surface was not specified as a target organ for dose calculations in 1976, when the
safe drinking water regulations were promulgated, it is possible to estimate the dose to the endosteal
cells at a level of drinking water contamination of 15 picocuries per liter based on the NBS 69 dose
conversion factors. For plutonium-239, the annual dose to the endosteal cells would be about 26
millirem per year.24 The bone surface dose for the other radionuclides shown in Table 1 are about the
23 There is more recent federal guidance on Ihe subject in Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to
Radionuclides, Federal Guidance Report No. 13. Washington, D.C., Environmental Protection Agency, 1999 (hereafter
cited as FOR 13). This report also uses the same two parts of the bone as the target organs for which doses are calculated.
M This estimate is derived by using a mass of 120 grams for the endosteal cells corresponding to an overall skeletal mass
of 7,000 grams. Further, it is assumed that one-fourth of the energy is deposited in the 120-gram mass of the endosteal
cells, with the rest being deposited in other parts of the bone. This mass of the endosteal cells is specified in Federal
Guidance Report 11. This gives a ratio of dose to endosteal cells of (7000/120)*0.25 = 14.6. All calculations assume
that the dose to the bone permitted under NBS 69 at the specified MCL was 6 rem per year. There is some imprecision
16
-------
same, except for Np-237, for which the figure is about 44 mrem per year. These estimated doses,
which take into account the evolution of scientific understanding in the years after 1976, are far
higher than what the safe drinking water regulations allow. The implied dose to the endosteal cells is
about a factor of 14.6 higher for plutonium-239. All of these calculations were done within the
framework of NBS 69, which was (and continues to be) the scientific guidance for the safe drinking
water regulation.
B. Bone dose estimation, present-day dose conversion factors
Scientific understanding of radiation doses and harm from intake of radionuclides has advanced
considerably over the years. Regulations have also evolved to some extent, though at a slower pace.
Specifically, in the 1970s, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) published
ICRP 26 and ICRP 30 followed by ICRP 48 in 1986. The scientific work in these publications was
incorporated by the EPA into Federal Guidance Report 11 in 1988. The doses from alpha-emitting,
long-lived transuranic radionuclides in the new guidance issued by the EPA are much higher than
those estimated by NBS 69 methods. Federal Guidance Report 11 is the report that is the basis of
current EPA regulatory dose estimation methods. We will estimate bone doses according to Federal
Guidance Report 11 (FOR 11) in this section. Then we discuss the same problem using Federal
Guidance Report 13 (FGR 13), which is the most recent EPA Guidance, but not yet in force for
regulatory calculations for doses from air and water.
1. Bone doses according to FGR 11
As touched upon above, several major changes have transpired from NBS 69 to FGR 11 so far as this
analysis is concerned:
• The quality factor, or RBE, was increased from 10 to 20.
• The bone was divided into two different target organs, the "bone marrow" and the "bone
surface," as compared to a single organ, the marrow-free skeleton, in NBS 69.
• The division of the bone into two organs in FGR 11 allowed the omission of the safety factor
of 5 that was used in NBS 69 to account for selective, non-uniform deposition in the bone of
certain radionuclides.
• NBS 69 used annual doses, while FGR 11 provides the conversion factors for committed
doses.25
associated with the fact that the MCLs were rounded to one significant figure in NBS 69, but this is not significant in the
present context
25 "Annual dose" corresponds to the amount of energy from ionizing radiation deposited in the target organ per unit mass
of the organ in a single year. The dose in rem is then calculated by applying the RBE to the deposited energy. "Annual
. committed dose" corresponds to the amount of energy that would be deposited in the organ over the entire time that the
radionuclide is present in the organ due to the intake of the radionuclide in a single year. If a radionuclide is eliminated
rapidly from the body (say in a few days or weeks), as for instance is the case with tritium, then annual dose and
committed dose are usually the same. But if the radionuclide is slowly eliminated from the target organ, over years or
even decades (the latter is the case for alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides, their target organ being the
bone), the dose to the bone from an intake in any given year is delivered over a period of decades after that. With the
annual committed dose, the intake is over a year but the dose is delivered over a different period of time - and, in the case
of alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides to the bone, a much longer period of time. Hence, the actual dose
delivered to the person in the case of an intake of an alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclide late in life (say a
/
17
-------
While these technical changes are complex, it is possible to estimate the effect of the changes from
NBS 69 to Federal Guidance Report 11 on doses in several different ways, each of which raises some
technical issues. The approaches and issues are set forth in Table 2 using plutonium-239 as the
reference alpha-TRU radionuclide.
Table 2: Approaches for deriving an updated drinking water limit for plutonium-239 that
account for changes from NBS 69 to FGR 11
Approach
1. Compare the NBS
69 annual bone dose
to the FGR 11 bone
surface annual
committed dose
2. Compare NBS 69
cumulative bone
dose over a lifetime
at 15 pCi/L to actual
cumulative bone
surface dose
estimated from FGR
11
3. Compare
cumulative bone
surface dose
imputed from NBS
69 to bone surface
dose as per FGR 11
Issues
Advantage: Uses the prevailing dose framework at
the time. Disadvantages: (i) For alpha-emitting,
long-lived transuranic radionuclides, which have a
long biological half-life, committed dose is not
equivalent to annual dose. The actual cumulative
dose over a lifetime is considerably less than the
product of the years and the annual committed dose.
(ii) Target organ is different - bone for NBS 69 and
bone surface for FGR 11.
Advantage: Closest to the intent of the regulation to
limit doses to the most exposed organ.
Disadvantage: Changes the target organ from
marrow-free skeleton to bone surface.
Advantage: Compares the same target organ.
Disadvantage: Changes the framework from
maximally exposed organ, as defined at the time by
prevailing science, to comparing bone surface dose,
which was not explicitly defined in NBS 69.
Derived, updated
Pu-239 MCL,
pCi/liter
0.04
0.08
12
Notes: For Pu-239, it is assumed that 63 percent of the committed dose is delivered in 50 years. The values in the last two
rows correspond to a 70-year intake. The estimate in Federal Guidance Report 11 for bone "surface seeking alpha-
emitters" is a factor of 12, but a value for Pu-239 is not specified. We estimate the ratio of cumulative bone surface dose
from FGR 11 to NBS 69 for Pu-239 is afactor of 12.3, whichis about the same as the value inFGR 11. This validates
the approach used for the calculations in the last row of the above table.
Of these approaches, the first one is the least persuasive scientifically because it compares cumulative
annual doses to cumulative committed doses. Since plutonium is eliminated from the bone very
few years before death) is less than the full committed dose and less than the dose that would be delivered from the same
intake early in life.
18
-------
slowly (with a biological lifetime of several decades), most of the dose from intakes in the last years
of a 70-year reference lifetime would he delivered after the full lifetime of even a long-lived person
(even if one considers a -100 year life, for instance). Hence, only the latter two approaches are
scientifically reasonable. Both yield values for MCLs for alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic
radionuclides that are far below 15 picocuries per liter. However, they yield values also an order of
magnitude different from each other - 0.08 picocuries per liter and 1.2 picocuries per liter. The
approach shown in the second row is the most close to the intent of the drinking water regulation
because it compares cumulative dose over a lifetime to the most exposed organ as defined in 1976
(marrow-free skeleton) and the most exposed organ as currently defined (bone surface). The last
approach compares dose to the same organ (bone surface), which has scientific merit However, it is
not in accord with the intent of the regulation to limit dose in that the prevailing views of the most
exposed organ (marrow-free skeleton in 1976 and bone surface in 1988) are no longer being
compared. Hence, the most appropriate value to use for a new standard based on Federal Guidance
Report 11 would be 0.08 picocuries per liter. However, since this is no longer the most recent
scientific guidance published by the EPA, this factor would also need to be considered in the review
of MCLs for alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides when they are reviewed in 2006.
2. Bone doses according to FGR 13
The most recent regulatory guidance for estimating doses is based on dose conversion factors
published in ICRP 72. These have been incorporated into Federal Guidance Report 13, including the
compact disk supplement, which has dose conversion factors for various ages published in a
database.26 The dose conversion factors are age-dependent and can be used to estimate committed
doses for the remainder of life from the age of intake to age 70 years. This allows the estimation of
total dose over a lifetime corresponding to a water contamination at 15 picocuries per liter.
The dose conversion factors in Federal Guidance Report 13 are generally somewhat lower than those
in Federal Guidance Report 11. Therefore the total dose to the bone surface using the newer dose
conversion factors in Federal Guidance Report 13 is roughly a factor of two lower man that estimated
using FGR 11. In addition to the change in the dose conversion factors, water intake variation with
age also needs to be considered. The current drinking water MCLs are based on an adult intake of 2
liters of water per day, excluding the water content of food. However, the water intake of children is
smaller and there is also some gender variation. Further, children have a greater intake of fluids,
notably in the form of milk. Therefore, we have done the Federal Guidance Report 13-based dose
calculation using two sets of intake rates for various ages that are published in the literature. The first
set corresponds to fluid intakes, including milk. The second set includes only water intake. These
assumptions about intake rates are show in Table 3 below:
FGR 13,1999 and 2002 (the latter for the CD supplement, rev.l).
19
-------
Table 3: Drinking water assumptions for FGR13 dose calculations
Age range,
years
Oto4
5 to 14
15 to 70
Fluid intake, including
milk, liters/day (Case 1)
1.3
1.3
1.95
Water only intake,
liters/day (Case 2)
0.7
0.95
1.65
Note: For Case 1, the main reference is ICRP 23,1975. The fluid intake rate of 1.4 liters per day for 10 year-olds has
been changed here to 1.3 liters per day for ages 0 to 14 years. For Case 2 the main reference is Smith and Jones 2003,
which provides the most recent recommendations of the British National Radiological Protection Board.
When total fluid intake is considered (i.e., Case 1 above) the cumulative lifetime dose to the bone
surface from plutonium-239 over a 70-year period is about 15,500 mrem. For Case 2, water intake
only, the lifetime bone surface dose is about 12,000 mrem. The corresponding dose to the maximally
exposed organ under NBS 69 (the marrow-free skeleton) is 126 mrem. These doses are calculated by
applying dose conversion factors specified in the relevant publications to the intake of plutonium in
drinking water over a 70-year period. This last figure of 126 mrem can be viewed as the intent of the
original regulation in terms of the dose to the maximally exposed organ from drinking water
contaminated with plutonium to the maximum allowable limit of 15 picocuries per liter. If we
compare the value of 126 mrem to the dose to the maximally exposed organ as estimated by the
methods specified in Federal Guidance Report 13, we find that for drinking water intakes
corresponding to Case 1, the MCL of 15 picocuries per liter is about 123 times too high and for Case
2, it is about 95 times too high. Therefore the most recent science would indicate a tightening of the
current MCL for plutonium-239 (15 pCi/L) by about 123 times to about 0.122 picocuries per liter in
the case of fluid intake case (Case 1) and by over 95 times to about 0.157 picocuries per liter for
water intake only (Case 2). The results for the other alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic
radionuclides are similar, since the dose conversion factors are quite close to those of plutonium-239,
with the exception of neptunium-237, for which the dose conversion factors are about a factor of two
lower.
20
-------
///. Conclusions
The analysis in this report shows that the MCL for alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic
radionuclides should be tightened by about a factor
of 100 - that is, it should be reduced from 15
picocuries per liter to 0.15 picocuries per liter. A
combined standard for all alpha-emitting, long-lived
transuranic radionuclides will simplify the rule and
reduce the cost of its enforcement. Moreover, since
the plutonium isotopes among these dominate the
total curie content of DOE waste and since the dose
conversion factors for Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240, Pu-
242, and Am-241 are nearly the same, using Pu-239
as a reference for deriving the combined standard MCL is reasonable from a health standpoint as well
as cost-effective.27
The MCL for alpha-
emitting, long-lived
transuranic radionuclides
should be reduced from 15
picocuries per liter to 0.15
picocuries per liter.
In considering what should be the optimal value for a drinking water standard for alpha-emitting,
long-lived transuranic radionuclides radionuclides, we have also examined the values for a
plutonium-239 limit that exists in other standards. Specifically, the surface water standard of the
State of Colorado is the most relevant, since that state has been host to one of the most important
plutonium handling and processing facilities in the United States, namely, the Rocky Flats Plant, near
Denver. The statewide standard for plutonium-239 for surface water is 0.15 picocuries per liter.28 It
is calculated on the basis of a 30-day rolling average - that is, 30 consecutive measurements are
averaged; they may or may not be taken on consecutive days. Colorado's standard is based on the
risk of one person in one million developing a cancer from consuming 2 liters of water per day for 30
years.
29
The Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Commission describes the background
and the rationale for changing from 15 picocuries per liter to 0.15 picocuries per liter as follows:
Background The Commission previously adopted a basic standard for plutonium of 15 pCi/L
and had no basic standard for americium. A basic standard was considered in this hearing for
americium because it is closely associated with plutonium and these two radionuclides
generally occur together. The current basic standard of 15 pCi/L plutonium was calculated
using methodologies in the 1976 National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations and
was consistent with a goal of keeping exposures below 4 millirem per year. The Basis and
Purpose indicated that it was necessary and important to restrict levels because of the
difficulty of removing this radionuclide by conventional treatment procedures and because the
potential adverse effect on human health suggests that extreme caution be exercised in its
27 The dose conversion factor for Np-237 is lower than those of the other alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic
radionuclides by about a factor of two.
28 Colorado Reg. 31,2005. The Slate also sets standards for other radionuclides and considers different limits for
different watersheds. We have not considered these issues, some of which result in more stringent and others of which
result in more lax rules. We have simply used the State of Colorado's statewide surface water limit for Pu-239 as a guide
for reference.
29CDPHE2002.
21
-------
release to State waters. Since plutonium is predominantly an alpha emitter, the basic standard
was made consistent with the 15 pCi/L alpha standard....
Basis for Commission Decision Since the previous basic standard was set, several changes
have occurred: 1) a new methodology for assessing carcinogens has become the standard
practice, 2) new data have resulted in periodic updates to the slope factors used in this
methodology, and 3) a more refined Commission policy on appropriate levels of protection for
carcinogens has been developed. This latter risk-based policy also parallels a national trend
towards risk-based approach to environmental cleanup standards.
The 15 pCi/L dose-based approach was calculated using a "reference-man" and considered
exposure during his working life. It was an approach designed to address questions related to
occupational exposure. It did not consider sex, age and organ-specific factors over a lifetime.
In contrast, the new slope factor methodology, used in EPA's 1989 Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund Sites, is more complete, more applicable to a general population and has
become the standard practice for calculating risk.
The Commission adopted a basic standard of 0.15 pCi/L for plutonium and americium,
calculated using a 1 * 10"6 risk level, based on residential use. This risk level is consistent with
the Commission's policy for human health protection.
30
This reasoning is based on CERCLA, the Superfund law, but is qualitatively in accord with the
reasoning in this analysis. Specifically, the central scientific point of the Colorado rule is that the
science has changed, indicating greater risk than previously assumed from exposure to plutonium and
americium; therefore the maximum contaminant limits should be adjusted accordingly. Further, the
specific value for plutonium and americium recommended in the Colorado rule is just a factor of two
lower than the geometric mean of the two values in the last two rows of Table 2 above.
In view of the complexities created by the change fromNBS 69 to Federal Guidance Report 13, an
MCL for alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides of 0.15 picocuries per liter is
reasonable and justifiable. The action we are recommending is consistent with the intent of the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations as originally promulgated and is directly within the
framework of the regulation as promulgated then and as it stands at present
The primacy of the health goal (rather than numerical limits) is clear from the EPA's own description
of the Safe Drinking Water Act, pursuant to which the radionuclide maximum contaminant limits are
set. Its fact sheet on the Act states:
US EPA sets national standards for tap water which help ensure consistent quality in our
nation's water supply. US EPA prioritizes contaminants for potential regulation based on risk
and how often they occur in water supplies. (To aid in this effort, certain water systems
monitor for the presence of contaminants for which no national standards currently exist and
collect information on their occurrence). US EPA sets a health goal based on risk (including
risks to the most sensitive people, e.g., infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the
immuno-compromised). US EPA then sets a legal limit for the contaminant in drinking water
or a required treatment technique.31
Colorado Reg. 31,2005, pages 138-139.
31
EPA 2004.
22
-------
By this standard, the 15 picocuries per liter limit for transuranic radionuclides is obsolete, riot
protective of public health, against the spirit of the Safe Drinking Water Act, and, as shown above,
not in accord with the intent of the initial regulation. Because of this, the EPA should take up
consideration of a tightened standard in its upcoming 2006 drinking water radionuclide review.
Tho "I K «Pi /I limit f nr Corresponding to the change in the MCL for
I ne J.O pui/ L limit TOr alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic
tranSUraniC radiOnUClideS iS radionuclides, there is also a need fora
MU«*^I<%+M ~*x+ »*i»t*As«i-;m,A *** change in the detection limit. Table B in 40
obsolete, not protective of CFR*4125 should be modified to include a
public health, against the Spirit separate detection limit of 0.01 picocuries per
of the Safe Drinking Water Act liter for each ^P11*-61™101^ long-lived
OT me 33Te UrmKing Water MCI, ^^3^ radionuclide. This detection limit
and, aS ShOWn abOVe, not in is well within the capabilities of present-day
accord With the intent Of the techniques The current detection limit for
accora wun ine mieru OT me these radionuclides is 0 001 picocuries per
initial regulation. ' liter, according to Argonne National
Laboratory. The errors at such low levels
can be large however. The error at 0.01 picocuries per liter, the recommended detection limit; is
estimated by Argonne National Laboratory to be 10 percent.32
We recognize that alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides are not ubiquitous in
significant concentrations, unlike naturally occurring radionuclides like radiutn-226, thorium-232,
and thorium-230. The vast majority of public water systems can therefore be exempted from routine
monitoring requirements relating to alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides. The
monitoring requirements for these radionuclides should be applied to public water systems that draw
.water from aquifers or surface water that have potential hydrologic or hydrogeologic connections to
areas or facilities with waste tanks, waste burial pits, and other potential sources of alpha-emitting,
long-lived transuranic radionuclides in combined totals in excess of 100 curies (see below).33 Wastes
disposed of at shallow and intermediate depths are included in this definition. Alpha-emitting, long-
lived transuranic radionuclides that are contained in secure buildings with institutional controls would
be exempt from this limit and the associated monitoring requirements.
We recognize that the main recommendation of this report, to set a separate standard for alpha-
emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides, requires that the present gross alpha limit be split up
into two parts - one for alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides and the other for
naturally occurring alpha-emitting radionuclides. However, this is not a departure from the content
or intent of the present rule, for several reasons.
First, the present rule itself does not have a single standard for alpha-emitting radionuclides. There is
a sub-limit for radium-226 and radium-228 of 5 picocuries per liter. Since radium-226 is an alpha
emitter, there is in effect a separate sub-limit for an alpha emitter up to maximum of 5 picocuries per
liter (depending on how much radium-228, a beta-emitter, is also present). Second, the gross alpha
32 ANL 1995, Chapter 1, Table 7.1.
33 For instance, the 100 curie limit is equivalent to 1,000 metric tons of transuranic waste containing alpha-emitting, long-
lived transuranic radionuclides at the lower limit of 100 nanocuries per gram. It would be equivalent to a larger mass of
low-level waste, since the concentration in such waste (by definition) is less than 100 nanocuries per gram.
23
-------
limit excludes uranium and radon. The limit of 30 micrograms per liter of uranium is set on the basis
of heavy metal toxicity. However, this amount of uranium causes some amount of harm as a result of
its radioactivity. Recent science indicates that the harm from the heavy metal aspects of uranium
may be reinforced by its radioactivity. (See Section VI. Other risks and radionuclides, below).
Hence, reconsideration of a variety of issues is warranted. In such reconsideration, it would be
practical and less costly to separate out alpha-emitting., long-lived transuranic radionuclides. This is
because the vast majority of water systems will not require any testing for alpha-emitting, long-lived
transuranic radionuclides since they are not at risk.
IV. Costs
Public water systems are not at present contaminated at or near the requested MCL for alpha-
emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides.
A strengthened alpha-TRU drinking water PublJC Water SySteiDS are not
standard is preventive rather than remedial. ai. nrCkCem* /v-intantinataH a*
Only a small, one-time cost for an initial set of 3l PreSent Contaminated at
baseline samples is anticipated for those water OT near the requested MCL
systems that draw water from sources that f Qr alpha-emitting, long-lived
include DOE sites with significant plutomum r m . .
waste or soil contamination in drainage areas. tranSLiranlC radlOnUCiideS.
We recommend that this one-time cost be borne
by the DOE.
Since no known contamination of public water systems above 0.15 picocuries per liter of alpha-
emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides exists, no further action would be required of public
water systems and no further costs would be incurred provided there is sufficiently thorough
monitoring by the DOE, coupled with remediation programs that are suited to free release of the sites
in the long term. This will be sufficient to protect downstream surface waters and underground water
systems. The DOE is supposed to cany out such monitoring in any case and therefore no additional,
ongoing monitoring costs are anticipated.
The Department of Energy, which is responsible for management of almost all the wastes and
materials that pose risks of water contamination with alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic
radionuclides, is supposed to take adequate remedial action at sites like the Idaho National
Laboratory, Hanford, the Savannah River Site, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. If it does so, no
remediation costs for public water systems would be required under our recommended changes to the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
The costs of not tightening the standards would be to signal that remediation of nuclear weapons sites
with large inventories of plutonium in the waste could proceed without adequate attention to safe
drinking water health protection goals. DOE could then remediate these sites and declare them
cleaned up without reference to a science-based drinking water standard that corresponds to current
understanding of plutonium movement and irradiation of the human body. Finally, some remediation
actions could, in the long run, pollute the water above drinking water standards, and worse, be
irremediable. No known technology could remediate vast bodies of water such as the Savannah
24
-------
River or the Snake River Plan Aquifer if, once polluted, the aim is to reduce pollution from a few '
picocuries per liter to sub-picocurie per liter levels.
V, Estimating the impact of residual radioactivity
Vast areas of land and huge amounts of water remain contaminated with dangerous long-lived
radionuclides from operations of nuclear weapons facilities.34 The DOE has been given the task to
clean up these sites. It is therefore of great importance that the levels of residual radioactivity meet
strict standards that will protect the health of individuals of this and future generations that will be
exposed to the residual contamination.
In the early. 1990s, the DOE embarked on a cooperative process with the EPA to develop national
cleanup standards, but the DOE pulled out of the process abruptly in 1996 without any plans for its
resumption.35 Since then, the DOE has proceeded on a site-by-site basis that has led to a welter of
proposals for cleanup using various scenarios.
At the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, the DOE is grouting high-level waste in tanks as if it
were low-level waste. This waste contains significant amounts of transuranic radionuclides. For
instance, the residual waste in Tank 19, which has been grouted, had a concentration of plutonium 14
times above the EPA 100 nanocurie-per-gram limit for transuranic waste. DOE is grouting large
amounts of plutonium in the tanks even though it has not yet obtained convincing evidence of the
durability of grout. The tanks are buried underground in the watershed of the Savannah River, one of
the most important rivers in the South Carolina-Georgia region. Experimental and field data leave
room for considerable skepticism as to its performance. lEER's evaluation of the state of the
research on grout indicates that the performance of grout remains highly uncertain. There is at
present no sound basis, whether in experiment or in field data, to assume that leaving large amounts
of grouted alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides in the tanks would be protective of the
Savannah River.36
A large part of the urgency that our recommendations be incorporated into EPA's forthcoming
review of MCLs for radionuclides in drinking water derives from the fact that, in 2004, Congress
passed a law allowing DOE to reclassify residual high-level waste as incidental waste at its South
Carolina and Idaho sites. The law did not set any limits as to the residual radioactivity in waste so
reclassified.37 Several long-lived radionuclides, including plutonium isotopes, strontium-90, and
cesium-137, may be grouted in the tanks or disposed of in shallow saltstone vaults. A realistic
framework to guide DOE's decision-making, so that it does not endanger crucial water resources, is
therefore of urgent and immense importance.
The consequences of the DOE cleanup policy on the concentrations of residual transuranic
contamination in the soil and their potential effect on the health of individuals are discussed in a
study by IEER entitled Setting Cleanup Standards to Protect Future Generations: The Scientific
34 OTA 1991.
35 Nichols 1996.
3lS Smith 2004 and Makhijani and Boyd, 2004.
37 PL 108-375,2004, Sec. 3116.
25
-------
Basis of the Subsistence Farmer Scenario and Its Application to the Estimation ofPadionuclide Soil
Action Levels (RSALs)for Rocky Flats, December 2001,38 In this study, IEER showed that the
specific assumptions about future use have a major impact on what are considered acceptable residual
radioactivity levels. A large part of this result is because different future site use scenarios have
different.assumptions about the use of water and food from the contaminated area in question. Since
some radionuclides, including the alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides discussed in
this report, are very long-lived, a basic assumption that there will be loss of institutional control over
the long-term is essential to sound planning and cleanup.
However, even the adoption of a subsistence fanner scenario as the basis for cleanup cannot assure
that levels for residual radioactivity on contaminated sites will be set in a manner that is protective of
health and the environment. This is because Hie translation of residual levels into radiation dose and
risk estimates requires the use of complex models and assumptions about the behavior of
radionuclides in the environment. For instance, the amount of rainfall, the mobility of radionuclides
in specific soil conditions, the porosity of the soil, the solubility of the radionuclides under various
circumstances, and the rate of soil erosion are among the critical parameters that need to be known
and characterized.
At present, remediation levels are typically assessed by the use of a model developed by Argonne
National Laboratory called RESRAD (for residual radioactivity).39 This computer code is complex
and has, over the years, been developed to consider pathways for movement of radioactivity in a
sophisticated way. Yet, it does not contain libraries of dose conversion factors for, and thus does not
account for, infants or for young people at sensitive times in their hormonal development or for the
fetus at various stages of fetal development. The estimation of doses to various segments of the
population at sensitive periods in their lives may also require consideration of how the environmental
pathways and the systems in the human body are represented in the model's source code.
The RESRAD source code is closely held by the U.S. government; it is not public. Ostensibly, the
official rationale is that since RESRAD is used for regulatory decisions, such as those mat are made
in the context of cleanup at nuclear weapons sites, it should not be made public. However, we do not
accept this rationale. The code can be made public and can be an open source code, available for
modification in the same manner as the Linux operating system source code. That has resulted in its
improvement and efficiency, without problems actually creeping into mass use of the code as an
operating system. The U.S. government can surely retain its version of the code for regulatory
purposes while making the source code publicly available for examination and improvement. If at a
certain stage, the code is improved in a manner that regulatory bodies such as the EPA consider it
useful for regulatory purposes, they will freely be able to adopt the changes but will be under no
obligation to so.
! Makhijani and Gopal 2001.
'RESRAD.
26
-------
VI. Other risks and radionuclides
New scientific work on radiation protection is currently emerging, for instance in relation to (i)
protection of the embryo/fetus and infant, (ii) non-cancer effects of exposure to certain radionuclides,
(iii) potential synergistic effects of exposure to certain chemicals, such as hormonally active
chemicals, and exposure to radiation, (iv) the need for protection of key non-human species and
ecosystems, and (v) the synergisms indicated for certain effects between the heavy metal toxicity
component of uranium and its radiotoxicity. However, these are still emerging areas of concern,
where the risks are not quantitatively well established. How such risks are to be considered in the
context of a review of drinking water MCLs will be considered in a future IEER report.
Recent developments in radiobiology and health effects research have increased understanding of
radiation doses during fetal development. They indicate that non-cancer health effects resulting from
fetal exposure to radiation could be very important. For instance, ICRP 90 emphasizes that the
central nervous system is especially vulnerable during a certain period of fetal development:
... [Bjiological systems with a high fraction of proliferating cells show high radiation responsiveness.
High rates of cell proliferation are found throughout prenatal development... .Development of the
central nervous system starts during the first weeks of embryonic development and continues through
the early postnatal period. Thus development of the central nervous system occurs over a very long
period, during which it is especially vulnerable. It has been found that the development of this system
is very frequently disturbed by ionising radiation, so special emphasis has to be given to these
biological processes.40
A variety of end points (disease outcomes) are at issue, from central nervous system development to
cancer to birth defects to increased risk of miscarriages. Further, these end points raise the issue of
the combined effects of other pollutants with radiation more insistently that ever before. For
instance, one might ask about the potential for non-linear effects caused by exposure to both lead and
radiation or mercury and radiation. One might also ask about the combined effects of exposure to
endocrine disrupting chemicals and radiation in relation to a number of end points. These are areas
still in a relatively early stage in the science compared to the understanding of radiogenic cancer
induction. For these areas, which concern non-cancer end points as a result of fetal exposure, for
instance, the conversion of the scientific data in publications such as ICRP 88 and ICRP 90 into
regulations for health and environmental protection will take considerable time.41 The EPA has not
even published the necessary guidance documents as yet.
Recent research, much of it done at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, pursuant to
concerns about the health effects of depleted uranium, points to a surprising variety of harmful health
effects of uranium. A recent literature survey by IEER summarized the situation as follows:
The understanding of the risks of cancer due to radiation exposure from depleted uranium
and kidney damage due to its heavy metal properties has expanded greatly in recent years.
In addition, evidence is amassing that raises serious concerns regarding the impact of
40ICRP-90,2003,page9.
41ICRP-88,2002; ICRP-90, 2003.
27
-------
chronic exposure to DU in relation to a number of other health issues. Studies in humans
and animals have shown that uranium can concentrate in the skeleton, liver, kidneys, testes,
and brain. In addition, rats implanted with DU pellets have also shown uranium
concentrating in the heart, lung tissue, ovaries, and lymph nodes among other tissues.
Research, primarily but not exclusively conducted since the 1991 Gulf War, indicates that
exposure to uranium may be
Mutagenic
Cytotoxic
Tumorigehic
Teratogenic
and Neurotoxic, including in a manner analogous to exposure to lead.
Additionally... some research has also provided indications that there may be a synergistic
effect between the heavy metal aspect of exposure to uranium and its radioactive
effects... .Current research conducted at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute
(AFRR1) indicates that "[i]n the case of DU, cells not traversed by an alpha particle may be
vulnerable to radiation-induced effects as well as chemically-induced effects." Additional
work at the AFRRI has also shown that depleted uranium can cause oxidative DNA damage
and thus provides the first indication that uranium's radiological and chemical affects might
potentially play both a tumor initiating and a tumor promoting role.42
In other words, uranium may be a kind of radioactive lead, with serious health effects arising both
from its heavy metal toxicity and its radioactivity. Should these risks be proven to be substantial,
there may be a need to include new limits in the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
relating to the combined radioactive and heavy metal toxic effects of uranium.
There are also a variety of other issues associated with the potential interaction of hormonally active
chemicals with radiation, and particular certain radionuclides, like iodme-129, which concentrates in
the thyroid and crosses the placenta. The development of certain cancers, like breast cancer, is linked
to hormonal systems, possibly to hormonally active chemical pollutants, and to radiation. Hence the
issues associated with health protection in regard to certain cancers are likely to be much more
complex.
Finally, there are issues that were once recognized but that appear to have been forgotten or ignored
in the context of protection of public health from radiation. Consider the following passage from
ICRP 2 that occurs in the context of a discussion of bone doses and the calculations that are the
subject of this report:
Certainly, if a major portion of the hematopoietic system were irradiated, e.g., concurrently
from the spleen-seeking Po210 and from the bone-seeking Ra226, the biological damage would
be greater than if only a part of it were irradiated. // has been shown that in some cases a
synergistic effect results when several organs of the body are irradiated simultaneously.43
Some of these synergistic effects are already implicit in the estimates of risk made from
Hiroshima/Nagasaki survivors (since they received whole body radiation - i.e., all organs were
42 Makhijani and Smith 2005, pages 9-10. Typos corrected.
43ICRP-2,1959, page 14, emphasis added.
28
-------
irradiated). However, others involving internal deposition and that selectively target certain organs
may have more complex effects. This indicates that it is important to maintain regulations in the
form of dose limits to maximally exposed organs in regulations relating to protection of public health,
such as the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 141), Environmental Radiation
Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations (40 CFR 190), and Environmental Radiation
Protection Standards For Management And Disposal Of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-level And
Transuranic Radioactive Wastes (40 CFR 191). At the present time, there is still a significant
amount of scientific work that remains to be done in a variety of areas before this framework can be
changed into a better one from the point of view of health, environment, future generations, and the
economy.
Consideration of changes in radiation protection in the medium- and long-term, that would take into
account emerging scientific and risk issues such as those discussed in this section, is needed for a
variety of reasons, some of which are mentioned above. However, this will be a complex and
difficult task which must be done with due deliberation. It will also likely go far beyond safe
drinking water standards. At the present time, the safety and protection of water resources from
irreversible contamination with alpha-emitting, long-lived transuranic radionuclides as a result of
ongoing activities by the Department of Energy cannot be allowed to be deferred to the longer, more
comprehensive social, economic, and health discussion related to the protection of health from
radioactive and toxic pollution. It must be considered as part of the EPA's 2006 review of standards
for radionuclides in drinking water. A maximum contaminant level for plutonium that is 100 times
too lax based on the intent and letter of the Safe Drinking Water Act must not be allowed to persist.
29
-------
References
40 CFR 141
Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40— Protection of Environment. Chapter I— Environmental
Protection Agency. Part 141— National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. 7-1-04 Edition.
Washington, DC: Office of die Federal Register, National Archives and Records
Administration; United States Government Printing Office, 2004. On the Web at
.£^
40 CFR 190
40 CFR 191
Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40-Protection of Environment: Chapter I-Environmental
Protection Agency. Part 190— Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear
Power Operations. 7-1-04 Edition. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register,
National Archives and Records Administration; United States Government Printing Office,
2004. On the Web at http://www-access.gpo.gov/iiara/cfr/waisidx 04/40crrl90 04.html
Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40— Protection of Environment. Chapter I—Environmental
Protection Agency. Part 191 — Environmental Radiation Protection Standards For
Management And Disposal Of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-level And Transuranic Radioactive
Wastes 7-1-04 Edition. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register, National Archives
and Records Administration; United States Government Printing Office, 2004. On the Web at
Q4/4Qcfrl9ijJ)4,hlml.
ANL 1995 N. W. Golchert and R.G. Kolzow. Argonne National Laboratory-East site environmental
report for calendar year 1995. Also called 1995 ANL-E site environmental report. ANL-
96/3. Argonne, IL: ANL-E, 1996. Chapter 7 of the report is on the Web at
http:/Ayftiw.anl.aQv/Comniuniiy ..and Enxironment/Enykonmental Reporis/1995/chapter7/ind
ex.html.
Colorado Reg. 3 1, 2005 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Water Quality
Control Commission. The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water (5 CCR
1 002-31). Regulation No 3 1 . Originally adopted in 1979 and last amended on November 8,
2004, with the amendments to be effective March 22, 2005. Link on the Web at
http://www.c4phe.stat^ Viewed June 2, 2005.
CDPHE 2002 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Hazardous Materials and Waste
Management Division. Interoffice Communication, from Steve Gunderson to the Water
Quality Control Commission. October 2, 2002. On the Web at
http://vvww.cdphe.sta^e.co.us/op/w{[ccyWQClassandStatidards/Reg38/reg38ish.pdf.
EPA 2004 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Safe Drinking Water Act 30th Anniversary:
Understanding the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA Fact Sheet. EPA 816-F-04-030.
Washington, DC, Last updated on Monday, February 14th, 2005. On the Web at
http://w\w>;r.epa.gov/sat'ewater/sdwa/30th/factsheets/uiiderstand.html.
Fed. Reg. 1975/03/14 "Environmental Protection Agency [40 CFR Part 141] [FRL 343-8] Primary Drinking
Water Proposed Interim Standards." Federal Register, v. 40, no. 51, March 14, 1975, p.
11990-11998.
30
-------
Fed. Reg. 1975/08/14 "Environmental Protection Agency [40 'CFR Part 141] [FRL 410-3] Interim Primaiy
Drinking Water Regulations, Notice of Proposed Maximum Contaminant Levels for
Radioactivity." Federal Register, v. 40, no. 158, August. 14,1975, p. 34324-34328.
Fed. Reg. 1975/12/24 "Title 40—Protection of Environment. Chapter 1--Environmental Protection Agency.
Subchapter D—Water Programs [FRL 464-7] Part 141—National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations." Federal Register, v. 40, no. 248, December 24,1975, starting at page
59566.
Fed. Reg. 1976 "Title 40—Protection of Environment Chapter 1--Environmental Protection Agency, [FRL
552-2] Part 141—Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Promulgation of Regulations
on Radionuclides." Federal Register, v. 40, no. 133, July 9,1976, starting at page 28402.
Fed. Reg. 2000 "Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Parts 9,141, and 142 [FRL 6909-3] RIN 2040-
AC98. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides; Final Rule." Federal
Register, v. 65, no. 236, December 7, 2000, pages 76708-76753. Available on the Web at
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/search.html.
FOR 11,1988 Keith F. Eckerman, Anthony B. Wolbarst, and Allan C.B. Richardson. Limiting values of
radionuclide intake and air concentration and dose conversion factors for inhalation,
submersion, andingestion. FederalGuidanceReportNo.il. EPA-520/1-88-020. Oak
Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Washington, DC: Office of Radiation Programs,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1988. On the Web at
• • hflp:,J/www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/federal/520-l-88-020.pdf.
FOR 13 Keith F. Eckerman, Richard W. Leggett, Christopher B. Nelson, Jerome S. Puskin, and Allan
C.B. Richardson. Cancer riskcoefficients for environmental exposure to radionuclides. EPA
402-R-99-001. Federal Guidance Report No. 13, CD Supplement. Rev. 1. Oak Ridge, TN:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Washington, DC: Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, April 2002. Includes original 1999 FOR no. 13, which is
also on the Web at http://www.epa. pov/radiation/docs/federal/402-r-99-001.pdf.
ICRP-2,1959 International Commission on Radiological Protection. Report of Committee II on Permissible
Dose for Internal Radiation (1959). ICRP Publication 2. New York: Pergamon, Adopted
July 1959.
ICRP-23, 1975 International Commission on Radiological Protection. Report of the Task Group on Reference
Man. [ICRP Publication] No. 23. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1975. Adopted October 1974.
ICRP-26,1977 International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 26. Annals of the ICRP, 1(3).
Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1977.
ICRP-30, 1979 International Commission on Radiological Protection. Limits for intakes of radionuclides s by
workers. ICRP Publication 30, Part 1. Annals of the ICRP, 2(3/4). Oxford, UK: Pergamon,
1979. Adopted July 1978.
ICRP-48,1986 International Commission on Radiological Protection. The Metabolism of plutonium and
related elements. ICRP Publication 48. Annals of the ICRP, 16(2/3). Oxford, UK:
Pergamon, 1986.
31
-------
ICRP-68,1995 International Commission on Radiological Protection. Dose coefficients for intakes of
radionuclides by -workers: Replacement oflCRP Publication 61. ICRP Publication 68.
Annals of the ICRP, 24(4). Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1995 and CD-ROM Version 2.01: The
ICRP database of dose coefficients: workers and members of the public: An extension ofJCRP
publications 68 and 72. (2001).
ICRP-72,1996 International Commission on Radiological Protection. Age-dependent doses to the members
of the public from intake of radionuclides: Part 5, Compilation ofingestion and inhalation
dose coefficients. ICRP Publication 72. Annals of the ICRP, 26(1) 1996. Adopted September
1995. Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1996.
ICRP-88, 2002 International Commission on Radiological Protection. Doses to the embryo and fetus from
intakes of radionuclides by the mother. ICRP Publication 88. Annals of the ICRP, 31(1/3)
2001. Corrected version. Oxford, UK: Pergamon, May 2002.
ICRP-90, 2003 International Commission on Radiological Protection. Biological effects after prenatal
irradiation (embryo and fetus). ICRP Publication 90. Annals of the ICRP, 33(1/2). Oxford,
UK: Pergamon, 2003.
Makhijani and Boyd 2004 Arjun Makhijani and Michele Boyd. Nuclear dumps by the riverside: threats
to the Savannah River from radioactive contamination at the Savannah River Site (SRS).
Takoma Park, MD: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, March 11,2004. On the
Web at http://www.ieer.org/reports/srs/index.htnil.
Makhijani and Gopal 2001 Arjun Makhijani and Sriram Gopal. Setting cleanup standards to protect
future generations: the scientific basis of the subsistence farmer scenario and its application
to the estimation ofRadionuclide Soil Action Levels (RSALs) for Rocky Flats. A report
prepared for the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, Boulder, Colorado. Takoma Park,
MD: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, December 2001. On the Web at
http://wwvv.ieer.org/Vepoits/rocky/ftiUTpt.pdf.
Makhijani and Smith 2005 Arjun Makhijani and Brice Smith. Costs and risks of management and
disposal of depleted uranium from the National Enrichment Facility proposed to be built in
Lea County New Mexico by LES. Takoma Park, MD: Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research, November 24,2004. Version for Public Release Redacted February 1, 2005. On
the Web at http://www.ieeT.or g/reports/daT.XSrptfcbQ5.pdf.
NBS 59 Addendum U.S. National Bureau of Standards. Maximum permissible radiation exposures to
man. Addendum to National Bureau of Standards handbook 59, Permissible dose from
external sources of ionizing radiation. Washington, DC: NBS, April 15,1958. This is a
slight revision of die preliminary statement issued on January 8,1957, by the National
Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurements. The original Handbook 59 was issued
September 24,1954.
NBS 69 U.S. National Bureau of Standards. Maximum permissible body burdens and maximum
permissible concentrations of radionuclides in air and in water for occupational exposure.
National Bureau of Standards handbook 69, as amended. AFP-160-6-7. Washington, DC:
Govt. Print. Office; U.S. Department of Commerce, August 1963. First published in 1959,
with an addendum in 1963. Also bears the series title NCRP report no. 22, of the National
Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurements.
32
-------
Nichols 1996 Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, United States Environmental
Protection Agency. Letter to Sally Katzen, Administrator, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, December 19, 1996.
OTA 1991 U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Complex cleanup: the environmental
legacy of nuclear weapons production. OTA-O-484. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, February 1991. On the Web at
http://\vww.wws.prince ton.edu/~ota/diskl/1991/91 13_n.html.
PL 1 08-375, 2004 Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for FY2005. Pub. L 108-375.
1 18 STAT. 1811-2199 (October 28, 2004). On the Web at
http://\vvt'w.dod.mil/comptrQller/bminp/produc^/Goveniance/Public%20Law%2Q108%20375.
pdf-
RESRAD
SDWA
Smith 2004
Argonne National Laboratory. Environmental Assessment Division. RESRAD family of
codes. ^ Argonne, IL, 2005. On the Web at http://web.ead.anl.goy/resfad/home2/Vesrad.cfm.
Viewed June 1,2005.
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). On the
Web at http://wrvv%v.epa.gov/'safewatcr/sdwa/index.litml. Last updated February 14th, 2005.
Viewed June 1,2005.
Brice Smith. What the DOE knows it doesn 't know about grout: serious doubts remain about
the durability of concrete proposed to immobilize high-level nuclear waste in the tank farms at
the Savannah RiverSite and other DOE sites. Takoma Park, MD: Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research, updated October 18, 2004. On the Web at
Jeer^
Smith and Jones 2003 K.R. Smith and A.L. Jones. Generalised habit data for radiological
assessments. NRPB-W41. Chilton, Didcot, Oxon.: National Radiological Protection Board,
May 2003. On the Web at
.o^
Uranium factsheet Uranium: its uses and hazards. Takoma Park, MD: Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research, last updated August 24, 2000. On the Web at
http://www.ieer.ore/fctslieet/uraiiiuin.htnil.
33
-------
------- |