1

 World Health Organization

 Sustainable Development and Healthy Environments

WHO/SDE/WSH/99.1

Original: English

Dist.: Limited

HEALTH-BASED MONITORING OF RECREATIONAL WATERS:

THE FEASIBILITY OF A NEW APPROACH

(THE ‘ANNAPOLIS PROTOCOL’)

OUTCOME OF AN EXPERT CONSULTATION,

ANNAPOLIS, USA CO-SPONSORED BY USEPA

Geneva

1999
2

CONTENTS

Foreword ............................................................................................. 3

1.Background....................................................................................... 3

1.1 Current regulatory schemes ............................................ 3

1.2 Pathogens........................................................................... 6

1.3 Indicators........................................................................... 8

1.4 Pollution abatement and water quality ........................15

1.5 Hydrological considerations...........................................17

2. Alternative approaches to monitoring and ................................19

assessment programmes

3. Primary classification....................................................................23

3.1 Sanitary inspection: evaluation of principal ...............23

sources of faecal pollution

3.2 Microbiological quality assessment...............................26

3.3 Determination of primary classification.......................32

4. Reclassification ..............................................................................32

4.1 Simple predictive approaches........................................32

4.2 Advanced predictive approaches...................................34

5. Management actions and routing monitoring............................36

5.1 Direct action on pollution sources.................................38

5.2 Managing intermittent pollution events.......................38

5.3 Management interventions on spatial pollution ..........38

5.4 Management of polluted zones......................................38

5.5 Routine monitoring.........................................................38

6. Evaluation/validation of the proposed approach.......................39

6.1 Validation protocol .........................................................39

7. References ......................................................................................43

8. List of Participants........................................................................46
3

FOREWORD

WHO has been concerned with health aspects of the management of water resources for

many years and publishes various documents concerning the safety and importance for health of

the water environment.

In 1994, following discussions between the WHO Regional Office for Europe and WHO

Headquarters it was agreed to initiate the development of Guidelines concerning recreational use

of the water environment. Guidelines of this type represent primarily a consensus view amongst

experts on the risks to health represented by various media and activities; and are based upon

critical review of the available evidence. The Guidelines for Safe Recreational-water

Environments, which result from this process, are being released in two volumes: Volume 1

(WHO, 1998) addresses coastal and freshwaters and Volume 2 (WHO, 1999) swimming pools

spas and similar recreational-water environments. Both Volumes are being released as drafts for

consultation for a period prior to finalisation.

During the development of Volume 1 of the Guidelines for Safe Recreational-water

Environments concerns were repeatedly expressed regarding the adequacy and effectiveness of

present approaches to monitoring and assessment. In response to these concerns the text

Monitoring Bathing Waters was developed (Bartram and Rees Eds, 1999 published by E&FN

Spon on behalf of WHO, the Commission of the European Communities and USEPA).

Despite evident successes in the protection of public health, present approaches to the

regulation of microbiological hazards in recreational waters suffer a series of limitations. During

the preparation of Monitoring Bathing Waters the United States Environment Protection Agency

(USEPA) therefore supported WHO in organising an expert consultation to look into the adequacy

and effectiveness of present approaches to monitoring and assessment linked to effective

management of microbiological hazards in coastal and freshwater recreational waters. The

meeting was implemented in November 1998 in Annapolis, USA. The experts that met there

agreed that an improved approach to the regulation of recreational water that better reflected health

risk and provided enhanced scope for effective management intervention was necessary and

feasible. The output of the meeting was the development of such an approach, which has become

known as the 'Annapolis Protocol'. The 'protocol' is reported here and is also published in

Monitoring Bathing Waters. Because this is so different to established practice it includes

elements that require substantial testing.

WHO wishes to express its appreciation to the experts that contributed to the meeting and

to the development of this report who are listed in Annex 1 to this report. Special thanks are also

due to the USEPA for providing financial support for the implementation of the meeting. The

USEPA has not undertaken a legal or regulatory review of the outcome of the meeting.

1. Background

1.1 Current regulatory schemes

Recreational water standards have had some successes in driving clean-ups, increasing

public awareness, contributing to informed personal choice and contributing to a public health

benefit. These successes are difficult to quantify, but the need to control and minimise adverse

health effects has been the principal concern of regulation.
4

Present regulatory schemes for the microbiological quality of recreational water are

primarily or exclusively based on percentage compliance with faecal indicator counts (Table 1). A

number of constraints are evident in the current standards and guidelines:

• management actions are retrospective and can only be deployed after human exposure to

the hazard;

• the risk to health is primarily from human excreta, the traditional indicators of which

may also derive from other sources;

• there is poor inter-laboratory and international comparability of microbiological

analytical data; and

• while beaches are classified as safe or unsafe, there is a gradient of increasing severity,

variety and frequency of health effects with increasing sewage pollution and it is

desirable to promote incremental improvements prioritising ‘worst failures’.
5

Table 1 Microbiological Quality of Water Guidelines/Standards 100ml

Shellfish Harvesting Primary Contact Recreation Protection of Indigenous

Country Organisms

TC* FC** TC* FC** Other TC* FC**

References

Brazil 100% < 100 80% < 5000m80% < 1000m Brazil Ministerio

del Interior

(1976)

Colombia 1000 200 Colombia,

Ministerio de

Salud (1979)

Cuba 1000a200a

90% < 400

Cuba, Ministerio

de Salud (1986)

EEC,b

Europe

80% < 500c

95% < 10000d

80% < 100c

95% < 2000d

Faecal streptococci 100 c

Salmonella 0/literd

Enteroviruses 0 PFU/literd

Enterococci 90% < 100

EEC (1976)

CEPPOL (1991)

Ecuador 1000 200 Ecuador,

Ministerio de

Salud Publica

(1987)

France < 2000 < 500 Faecal streptococci < 100 WHO (1977)

Israel 80% < 1000g Argentina,

INCYTH (1984)

Japan 70 1000 1000 Japan,

Environmental

Agency (1981)

Mexico 70e

90% < 230

80% < 1000f

100% < 10000k

10,000e

80% < 10000

100% < 20000

Mexico, SEDUE

(1983)

Peru 80% < 1000 80% < 200

100% < 1000

80% < 5000f80% < 1000f80% < 20000 80% <

 4000

Peru, Ministerio

de Salud (1983)

Poland E. coli < 1000 WHO (1975)

Puerto Rico 70h

80% < 230

200h

80% < 400

Puerto Rico, JCA

(1983)

United

States,

California

70e80% < 1000 i,j

100% < 10000k

200 a,j

90% < 400l

California State

Water Resources

Board (no date)

United

States,

USEPA

14a

90% < 43

Enterococci 35a (marine),

33a (fresh)

E. coli 126a (fresh)

USEPA (1986)

Dufour and

Ballentine (1986)

Former

USSR

E. coli < 100 WHO (1977)

UNEP/

WHO

80% < 10

100% < 100

50% < 100n

90% < 1000n

WHO/UNEP

(1978)

Uruguay < 500n

< 1000o

Uruguay,

DINAMA (1998)

Venezuela 70a

90% < 230

14a

90% < 43

90% < 1000

100% < 5000

90% < 200

100% < 400

Venezuela

(1978)

Yugoslavia 2000 Argentina,

INCYTH (1984)

* Total Coliforms

** Faecal or Thermotolerant Coliforms

a. Logarithmic average for a period of 30 days of at

least 5 samples

b. Minimum sampling frequency – fortnightly

c. Guide

d. Mandatory

e. Monthly average

f. At least 5 samples per month

g. Minimum 10 sample per month

h. At least 5 samples taken sequentially from the

waters in a given instance

i. Period of 30 days

j. Within a zone bounded by the shoreline and a

distance of 1000 feet from the shoreline or the 30

foot depth contour, whichever is further from the

shoreline

k. Not a sample taken during the verification period

of 48 hours should exceed 10,000/100ml

l. Period of 60 days

m. “Satisfactory” waters, samples obtained in each

of the preceding 5 weeks

n. Geometric mean of at least 5 samples

o. Not to be exceeded in at least 5 samples

Source: Adapted from Salas (1998)
6

The present form of regulation tends to focus upon sewage treatment and outfall

management as the principal or only effective interventions. Because of the high costs of these

measures, local authorities may be effectively disenfranchised and few options for effective local

intervention in securing bather safety from sewage pollution may be available. The limited

evidence available from cost-benefit studies of pollution control alone rarely justifies the

proposed investments. The costs may be prohibitive or may detract resourcing from greater

public health priorities (such as securing access to a safe drinking-water supply), especially in

developing countries. If pollution abatement on a large scale is the only option available to local

management, then many will be unable to undertake the required action.

Considerable concern has been expressed regarding the burden

(cost) of monitoring, primarily but not exclusively to developing countries, especially in light of

the precision with which the monitoring effort assesses the risk to the health of water users and

effectively supports decision-making to protect public health.

1.2 Pathogens

There is a broad spectrum of illnesses that have been associated with swimming in marine

and fresh recreational waters. Table 2 is a list of microbes that have been linked to swimmingassociated disease outbreaks in the USA between 1985 and 1994.

 Table 2 Outbreaks associated with recreational waters in the USA, 1985–1994

Etiological Agent Number of Cases Number of Outbreaks

Shigella 935 13

E. coli 166 1

Leptospira 14 2

Giardia 65 4

Cryptosporidium 418 1

Norwalk virus 41 1

Adenovirus 3 595 1

Acute Gastrointestinal Infections 965 11

Sources: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1993; JAWWA, 1996.

Two bacterial pathogens, E. coli and Shigella, and two pathogenic protozoans, Giardia

and Cryptosporidium, are of special interest because of the circumstances under which the

associated outbreaks occurred. These outbreaks usually occurred in very small, shallow bodies of

water that were frequented by children. Epidemiological investigations of the outbreaks found

that the source of the etiological agent was usually the bathers themselves, most likely children.

Each outbreak affected a large number of bathers, which might be expected in unmixed small

bodies of water containing large numbers of pathogens.

Outbreaks caused by Leptospira, Norwalk virus and Adenovirus 3 were more typical in

that the sources of pathogens were external to the beaches and, except for Leptospira, associated

with faecal contamination. Leptospira are usually associated with animals that urinate into

surface waters. Swimming-associated outbreaks attributed to Leptospira are very rare.

Conversely, outbreaks of acute gastrointestinal infections with an unknown aetiology are more

common. Although the cause is unknown, the symptomatology of the illness is frequently similar

to that observed in viral infections.
7

Very few studies, other than those associated with outbreaks, have been conducted to

determine the etiological agents related to swimming-associated illness. Some previously

unpublished data confirm that viruses are candidate organisms for the gastroenteritis observed in

epidemiological studies conducted at bathing beaches (Table 3). The data in Table 3 are from

acute and convalescent sera obtained from swimmers who suffered from acute gastroenteritis

after swimming at a very contaminated beach in Alexandria, Egypt. The sera were obtained from

twelve subjects, all of whom were less than 12 years old, on the day after the swimming event

and about 15 days later. The sera were tested with Norwalk virus and rotavirus. None of the

subjects showed a four-fold increase in titre to rotavirus antigen. However, 33 per cent did show

a four-fold increase in titre to the Norwalk virus antigen. This reactivity indicated that Norwalk

virus is a pathogen that has the potential to cause swimming-associated gastroenteritis. These

data also show a possible approach for linking specific pathogens to swimming-associated

illness.

Table 3 Serological response to Norwalk Virus and Rotavirus in individuals with recent

swimming associated gastroenteritis

Antigen No. of Subjects Age Range No. with 4-fold titer increase

Norwalk virus 12 3 months – 12 years 4

Rotavirus 12 3 months – 12 years 0

The types and numbers of various pathogens in sewage will vary depending on the

incidence of disease in the contributing population, and known seasonality in human infections.

Hence, numbers will vary greatly across different parts of the world and times of year, but a

general indication is given in Table 4.
8

 Table 4 Examples of pathogens and indicator organisms in raw sewage

Pathogen/Indicator1 Disease/role Numbers per Litre

Bacteria

Campylobacter spp. Gastroenteritis 37,000

Clostridium perfringens2Indicator 6x105-8x105

E. coli Indicator 107-108

Salmonella spp. Gastroenteritis 20-80,000

Shigella Bacillary dysentery 10-10,000

Viruses

Polioviruses Indicator 1800-5,000,000

Rotaviruses Diarrhoea, vomiting 4000-850,000

Parasitic protozoa

Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts Diarrhoea 1-390

Entamoeba histolytica Amoebic dysentery 4

Giardia lamblia cysts Diarrhoea 125-200,000

Helminths

Ascaris spp. Ascariasis 5-110

Ancylostoma spp. Anemia 6-190

Trichuris spp. Diarrhoea 10-40

1. Many important pathogens in sewage have yet to be adequately enumerated, such as adenoviruses,

Norwalk/SRS viruses, Hepatitis A, etc.

2. From Long & Ashbolt (1994)

Source: Adapted from Yates and Gerba (1998)

1.3 Indicators

The risk of exposure to pathogens in recreational waters has been well described in the

literature (WHO, 1998) and this information has been taken up and used by risk managers.

However, it is very difficult to detect pathogens, especially viral and protozoan pathogens, in

water samples obtained from bathing beaches. Methods for detecting and identifying infectious

viruses or parasites are either very difficult to perform or do not exist at all. Bacterial pathogens

can be detected, but their fastidious nutritional requirements and susceptibility to environmental

stresses also can make the task very difficult.

The use of indicator organisms to signal the potential presence of organisms that cause

gastrointestinal disease concept has been used successfully for a long time. The faecal indicator

bacteria most commonly used today are thermotolerant coliforms, E. coli and enterococci or

faecal streptococci. However, there are still many questions concerning the effectiveness of the

way in which water quality is measured and monitored, and a number of environmental and

physical factors may influence the usefulness of faecal bacteria as indicators. No single indicator

or approach is likely to represent all the facets and issues associated with contamination of

waterways with faecal matter. Table 5 provides an overview of possible indicators, describing

the strengths and weaknesses of each.
9

Table 5 Possible sewage contamination indicators and their functions

Function

Indicator/use

Pros Cons

Faecal Streptococci

/Enterococci

• Marine and potentially freshwater

human health indicator.

• More persistent in water and

sediments than coliforms.

• FS may be cheaper than

enterococci to assay.

• May not be valid for tropical waters,

due to potential growth in soils.

Thermotolerant coliforms • Indicator of recent faecal

contamination.

• Possibly not suitable for tropical

waters due to growth in soils and

waters.

• Confounded by non-sewage sources

(e.g. Klebsiella spp. in pulp and paper

wastewaters)

E. coli • Potentially a freshwater human

health indicator.

• Indicator of recent faecal

contamination.

• Potential for typing E. coli to aid in

sourcing faecal contamination.

• Rapid identification possible if

define as β-glucuronidase

producing bacteria.

• Possibly not suitable for tropical

waters due to growth in soils and

waters.

Sanitary plastics • Immediate assessment can be made

for each bathing day.

• Can be categorized.

• Little training of staff required.

• May reflect old sewage

contamination and be of little health

significance.

• Subjective and prone to variable

description.

Preceding rainfall

(12, 24, 48 or 72h)

• Simple regressions may account for

30-60% of the variation in

microbial indicators for a particular

beach.

• Each beach catchment may need to

 have its rainfall response assessed.

• Response may depend on the period

 before the event.

Sulphite-reducing

clostridia / Clostridium

perfringens

• Always in sewage impacted waters.

• Possibly correlated with enteric

viruses and parasitic protozoa.

• Inexpensive assay with H2S

production.

• May also come from dog faeces.

• May be too conservative an indicator.

• Enumeration requires anaerobic

culture.

Somatic coliphages • Standard method well established.

• Similar physical behavior to human

enteric viruses.

• Not specific to sewage.

• May not be as persistent as human

enteric viruses.

• May grow in the environment.

F-specific RNA phages • Standard ISO method available.

• More persistent than some

coliphages.

• Host does not grow in

environmental waters below 30°C

• Not specific to sewage.

• WG49 host may lose plasmid

(although F-amp more stable)

• Not as persistent in marine waters.

Bacteroides fragilis

phages

• Appears to be specific to sewage.

• ISO method recently published.

• More resistant than other phages in

the environment and similar to

hardy human enteric viruses.

• Requires anaerobic culture.

• Numbers in sewage are lower than

other phages, and most humans do

not excrete this phage (hence no

value for small populations).
10

Faecal sterols • Coprostanol largely specific to

sewage.

• Coprostanol degradation in water

similar to die-off of thermotolerant

coliforms.

• Ratio of 5β/5α stanols > 0.5 is

indicative of faecal contamination.

i.e. coprostanol/5α-cholestanol >

0.5 indicates human faecal

contamination; while C29 5β (24-

ethylcoprostanol)/ 5α stanol ratio

>0.5 indicates herbivore faeces.

• Ratio of coprostanol:24-

ethylcoprostanol can be used to

indicate the proportion of human

faecal contamination, which can be

further supported by ratios with

faecal indicator bacteria (Leeming

et al., 1996).

• Requires gas chromatographic

analysis and is expensive (about

$100/sample).

• Requires up to 10 L of sample to be

filtered through a glass fibre filter

(Whatman) to concentrate particulate

stanols.

Caffeine • May be specific to sewage, but

unproven to date.

• Could be developed into a dip-stick

assay.

• Yet to be proven as a reliable method.

Detergents • Relatively routine methods

available.

• May not be related to sewage (e.g.

industrial pollution).

Turbidity • Simple, direct and inexpensive

assay available in the field.

• May not be related to sewage,

correlation must be shown for each

site type.

Cryptosporidium

(Animal sourced

pathogens)

• Required for potential zoonoses,

such as Cryptosporidium spp,

where faecal indicator bacteria may

have died out, or not present.

• Expensive and specialized assay (e.g.

Method 1622, USEPA).

• Human/animal speciation of

serotypes not currently defined.

Die-off in marine and freshwater environments

The differential die-off of indicators in marine and fresh water environments is illustrated

for coliforms in Figure 1. The figure, adapted from Chamberlain and Mitchell (1978), shows that

in marine waters the mean T90 for total coliforms is about 2.2 hours, whereas in fresh waters the

mean T90 is about 58 hours.
11

Source: Adapted from Chamberlain and Mitchell (1978)

Figure 1 Survival of coliforms in marine and freshwater environments

These results were obtained from in situ studies at wastewater outfalls where die-off was

determined after accounting for dispersion and dilution. Similar behaviour is exhibited by

thermotolerant coliforms and E. coli. Although similar studies have not been conducted with

enterococci, laboratory studies suggest that enterococci also die-off more rapidly in seawater

than in fresh water environments (Table 6).
12

Table 6 Decay rate estimates for E. coli and Enterococci in seawater and freshwater

Die-off Rates (in Days) 1

Freshwater Sea Water

E. coli Enterococci E. coli Enterococci

References

6.3 34.7 Blitton et al., 1983

2.7 4.2 McFeters and Stuart, 1974

3.1 4.5 Keswick et al., 1982

4.6 3.0 0.8 2.4 Hanes and Fragala, 1967

0.7 2.6 Omura et al., 1982

3.924.4 0.8 2.5

1. Time required for 90% of the population to die off in days

2. Median values

The differential die-off for enterococci is not as great as that for E. coli, which may

account for their superior effectiveness as indicators of health risk. Very few similar studies have

been conducted for viral indicators. Cioglia and Loddo, (1962) showed that Polio, ECHO and

Coxsackie viruses decayed at approximately the same rate in marine and freshwaters (Table 7).

 Table 7 Survival of Enteroviruses in seawater and riverwater

Die-off Rates (in Days) 1

Virus Strain Sea Water River Water

Polio I 8 15

Polio II 8 8

Polio III 8 8

ECHO 6 15 8

Coxsackie 2 2

1. Maximum number of days required to reduce the virus population by 3 logs

Source: Adapted from Cioglia and Loddo (1962)

If, as appears likely, indicators have different die-off characteristics in marine and

freshwater, while viral indicators die-off at similar rates in these environments, then viral

pathogens may be present at higher levels in these waters relative to the bacterial indicator

numbers. The conclusion may be that higher levels of exposure to viral pathogens may occur in

marine waters at similar bacterial indicator levels and this may require reconsideration of

guideline levels in the two environments.

Solar radiation

The effect of sunlight on E. coli and enterococci is shown in Figure 2.
13

Source: Adapted from Sieracki (1980)

Figure 2 The effect of solar radiation on the die-off of E. coli and Enterococci

The rate of E. coli die-off increases rapidly as solar radiation increases. Conversely, the

rate of die-off of enterococci did not increase as the intensity of sunlight increased. Other

investigators have observed similar effects of sunlight on indicators. Although human viruses

have not been examined under similar experimental conditions, viruses of E. coli (coliphages)

have been tested and they react in the same manner as enterococci. If human viruses react to

sunlight in a manner similar to bacterial viruses (phages) this would provide yet another

explanation why enterococci are superior to E. coli as a predictor of human health risk at bathing

beaches.

Effects of chlorine

Enterococci and E. coli are both sensitive to chlorine, although enterococci are somewhat

more resistant to the disinfectant than E. coli. For example, to achieve a two-log removal,

reported calculated CT values for E. coli are in the range of 5 mg min L-1, compared to 120 mg

min L-1 for S. faecalis. Enterococci survival may therefore be more similar to that exhibited by

faeces-carried pathogens than that of E. coli. This differential resistance to disinfection is another

factor that influences the effectiveness of indicator bacteria in surface waters where disinfection

of wastewaters by chlorine is practised.

Rainfall

Rainfall can have a significant effect on indicator densities in recreational waters.

Indicator densities in recreational waters can be increased to high levels because animal wastes
14

are washed from forest land, pasture land and urban settings or because treatment plants are

overwhelmed, causing sewage to by-pass treatment. In either case, the effect of rainfall on beach

water quality can be quite dramatic (Figure 3; R. Calderon, pers. comm.).

Source: Calderon, personal communication

Figure 3 The effect of rainfall on Enterococci densities in bathing beach waters

The effect in this particular setting, a beach on a pond surrounded by forests, was very

rapid and usually persisted for one to two days. The highly variable effect rainfall has on water

quality can result in frequent beach closings. The important question here is, do high indicator

levels that result from animal wastes carried to surface waters by rain water run-off index the

same level of risk to swimmers as would exist where the source of the indicators is a sewage

treatment plant? There are conflicting reports in the literature with regard to risk associated with

exposure to recreational water contaminated by animals.

Sources of indicators

Coliforms and thermotolerant coliforms are known to have extra-enteral sources. These

two indicator groups can grow to very high densities in industrial wastewaters, such as those

discharged by pulp and paper mills. E. coli and enterococci are not usually associated with

industrial wastewaters, but some investigators believe that these indicators can grow in soil in

tropical climates. Under any of these conditions, where the source of the indicator is other than

the faeces of warm-blooded animals, it is questionable that the indicator would have any value as

a measure of faecal contamination of recreational waters.

The most commonly used indicators for surface water quality, E. coli/faecal coliforms

and enterococci/faecal streptococci, can readily be detected in the faeces of humans, other warmblooded animals, and birds (Table 8).
15

Table 8 Occurrence of Enterococci in faecal samples from humans and other

warm-blooded animals

Animal Species Total No. of

Subjects E. faecalis 1 E. faecium 1

Humans 32 41 88

Dogs 21 29 76

Puppies 2 100 100

Cats 1 - -

Kittens 2 100 100

Pigs 22 77 100

Piglets 3 33 100

Horses 6 50 33

Sheep 4 100 100

Cows 15 - 73

Chickens 13 92 100

Goats 2 100 100

Beavers 3 - -

 1. percent of total subjects

This list is not exhaustive but it does help to illustrate that there are many non-human

sources of enterococci. This issue is closely related to rainfall because, if it can be shown that the

risk of exposure to water contaminated by animals is significantly less than that contaminated by

humans, then the way in which we currently measure water quality may have to be changed

considerably.

1.4 Pollution abatement and water quality

Beaches, especially near urban areas, are often subject to pollution due to sewage and

industrial discharges, combined sewer overflows (CSO) and urban runoff. Pollution abatement is

therefore a key part of coastal zone management aimed at minimising both health risks to bathers

and ecological impacts. Pollution abatement measures for sewage may be grouped into three

wastewater disposal alternatives: treatment, dispersion through sea outfalls, and discharge to

non-surface waters (i.e., reuse, in which wastewater is stored and then used for agricultural or

other purposes, or groundwater injection).

In practice, there are numerous anomalies to these general categories. Also, combined

sewer overflows (CSO) and sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) usually occur as a result of

excessive rainfall events and can result in high human health risks for certain beach zones.

Pollution abatement alternatives for these overflows such as holding tanks, separate storm

overflow submarine outfalls, over-design of sewer systems for extreme storm events, etc. are

often prohibitively expensive and difficult to justify. In view of the costs of control, it may be

preferable for integrated beach zone management to focus on restricting beach use or, at the very

minimum, warning the public of the potential health risks during and after high risk events.

Treatment

For large urban communities, at least secondary or tertiary sewage treatment plants with

disinfection are necessary for on or near shore discharges to protect nearby recreational areas.

Public health risks can vary depending on the operation of the plant and effectiveness of

disinfection. Smaller communities with lesser population densities usually apply treatment via
16

septic tank systems, latrines, etc. The sub-surface acts as a filter for pathogenic organisms and

therefore, such disposal systems result in a very low health risk for recreational areas except in

areas with Karst topography where such systems could lead to direct contamination.

The general removal levels of the major pathogen groups by conventional primary,

secondary and tertiary sewage treatment are summarised in Table 9.

Table 9 Pathogen removal during sewage treatment

Treatment Enteric viruses Salmonella C. perfringens4 Giardia

Raw sewage L-1 100,000-1,000,000 5,000-80,000 100,000 9,000-200,000

1

Primary treatment

 % removal

 Nos. remaining L-1

50 - 98.3

1,700-500,000

95.5 - 99.8

160-3,360

30

70,000

27 - 64

72,000-146,000

2

Secondary treatment

 % removal

 Nos. remaining L-1

53 - 99.92

80-470,000

98.65 - 99.996

3-1,075

98

2,000

3Tertiary treatment

 % removal

 Nos. remaining L-1

99.983 - 99.9999998

0.007-170

99.99 - 99.9999995

0.000004-7

 99.9

100

98.5 to 99.99995

0.099-2,951

1. Primary = physical sedimentation.

2. Secondary = primary sedimentation, trickling filter/activated sludge and disinfection.

3. Tertiary = primary sedimentation, trickling filter/activated sludge, disinfection, coagulation-sand filtration

and disinfection; note that tertiary does not involve coagulation-sand filtration and second

disinfection steps for C. perfringens.

4. Source: Long and Ashbolt (1994)

Source: Adapted from Yates and Gerba (1998)

The advent of new detection methods for a range of hardier enteric viruses may change

views on the persistence of viruses that cannot be enumerated by culture-based methods. For

example, identification of hepatitis A virus by antigen capture PCR (AC-PCR) followed by

hybridisation on membranes indicated their presence in raw sewage and secondary treatment

effluent in 80 per cent and 20-30 per cent of samples respectively (Divizia et al., 1998).

Advanced sewage treatment based on ultra- and nano-filtration methods can also be effective

barriers to viruses (over 106 removal, Otaki et al., 1998) and other pathogens (Jacangelo et al.,

1995; Madireddi et al., 1997). Additionally, revaluation of UV (Oppenheimer et al., 1997),

ozone (Perezrey et al., 1995) and disinfection kinetics (Haas et al., 1996; Gyurek and Finch,

1998) are also changing the way engineers are evaluating disinfection and treatment processes.

Oxidation pond treatment may remove significant numbers of pathogens, particularly the

larger protozoan cysts and helminth ova. However, short circuiting due to poor design, thermal

gradients or hydraulic overloading may all considerably reduce the residence time from the

typical 30-90 days. In addition to removal by sedimentation during long resident times,

inactivation by sunlight and temperature, and predation by other microorganisms may reduce

faecal bacterial numbers by 90–99 per cent (Yates and Gerba, 1998). Inactivation of viral and

parasitic protozoa is also heavily influenced by temperature. For example, poliovirus type 1 may

be inactivated by 99 per cent in five days in summer but may take 25 days in winter (Funderburg

et al., 1978). The cysts and oocysts of Giardia and Cryptosporidium may take at least 37 days to

achieve a 99.9 per cent reduction (Grimason et al., 1992; 1996b), whereas the larger ova of

helminths may be totally removed in 12–26 days (Grimason et al., 1996a).
17

Long sea submarine outfalls

Long sea outfalls are assumed to be properly designed outfalls of sufficient length,

diffuser discharge depth and design to ensure a low probability of the sewage plume reaching the

designated beach zones. As such, the long outfall is a very low human health risk alternative in

that the bather is unlikely to come into physical contact with the sewage, whether treated or

untreated.

Modern diffusers are usually designed to achieve minimum near-field immediate

dilutions of 100 to 1 that would reduce concentrations of organics and nutrients characteristic of

sewage to levels that would have no adverse ecological effects in an open ocean situation. Higher

dilutions are achieved most of the time depending on the current structure. Under stratified

conditions, complete sewage plume submergence can occur and further reduce the possibility of

sewage reaching designated beach zones. The diffuser length, depth, and orientation, as well as

the area and spacing of the discharge ports, are the key design considerations (Roberts, 1996).

For pathogenic and indicator organisms, additional orders-of-magnitude reductions may be

required to meet established bathing beach water quality criteria depending on the degree of

treatment and disinfection. This far-field “dilution” is achieved through additional physical

dilution and mortality in the ocean environment subsequent to discharge. The design distance

required, i.e. length of the outfall, to achieve the additional far-field reduction is determined by

the dominant current structure and mortality rates (T90).

Pre-treatment with milli-screens with apertures of 1 to 1.5 mm is considered to be the

minimum treatment required to remove floatables and thus avoid aesthetic impacts on the

designated beach zones. For the same aesthetic considerations, removal of grease and oil should

be implemented at the source, especially if effluent concentrations are high and not reduced

sufficiently after initial dilution. To avoid possible ecological impacts in the vicinity of the

discharge, more advanced treatment may be justified.

Discharge to non-surface waters

Reuse of wastewater and groundwater recharge are two methods of sewage disposal that

have minimal impact on recreational waters. In arid regions, sewage, after appropriate treatment,

can be an important resource used for agricultural purposes such as crop irrigation. Reuse has the

dual benefit of the productive use of sewage while avoiding wasteful discharges to the marine

environment with its inherent pollution potential. Direct injection of sewage to the sub-surface

for groundwater recharge is practised in some regions of the world, usually with advanced

treatment. Groundwater injection is a no or very low human health risk option for designated

beach zones except in Karst topography areas.

1.5 Hydrological considerations

Rivers contribute a significant proportion of the bacterial load to coastal beach areas. In

some regions, significant numbers of freshwater beaches are directly impacted by the river water

quality. The bacterial concentration in river water is determined by faecal pollution from both

point and non-point or diffuse sources. Major point sources include sewage effluents, combined

sewer overflows (CSOs), industrial effluents and confined animal sources such as feedlots. Nonpoint sources relate directly to agricultural activity within the watershed, influenced primarily by

stock type and density, but a significant contribution is derived from urban surfaces.

Since the transport of microbial contaminants through the watershed to the river and

subsequently through the river system to the marine environment is controlled by flow of water,
18

rainfall is a key determinand on concentrations (see Section 1.3). As well as transporting faecal

material from the watershed surface to the river, changes in flow are determined by rainfall and

the hydrological characteristics of the basin (soils, bedrock, etc) and have a significant impact on

the total flux of microbes transported. In river water, the decrease in bacterial concentrations

downstream of a source, conventionally termed “die-off”, largely reflects the settlement or

sedimentation of organisms to the riverbed. In riverbed sediments, survival times are

significantly increased and the bacteria are readily re-suspended when the river flow increases.

Combined with increased supply of bacteria from watershed surfaces and some point sources

(e.g. CSOs) during rainfall events, all rivers demonstrate a close correlation between flow and

bacterial concentration (Figure 4).

Figure 4 River flow and bacterial concentration

The two curves represent hypothetical examples. In reality, all rivers will exhibit

individual relationships depending on their hydrological characteristics and bacterial sources.

The shape of the flow relationship will be variable between different catchments and may also

break down during prolonged high flows if the bed-sediment (or the catchment surface) store of

organisms is exhausted. This phenomenon, however, has only been documented on small

streams dominated by diffuse inputs and is less likely on major rivers with multiple point and

non-point sources. The processes controlling transport and fate of bacteria in watersheds are now

well understood and river water bacteria concentrations can be modelled and predicted (Section

4.1).
19

2. Alternative approaches to monitoring and assessment programmes

The experts who met in Annapolis in November 1998 agreed that an improved approach

to the regulation of recreational water that better reflected health risk and provided enhanced

scope for effective management intervention was necessary and feasible. The major output of the

meeting was the development of such an approach, which is described in this section. Because

this was so different to established practice, it includes elements that require substantial testing.

The description provides sufficient detail to enable field testing but should be amended to take

account of specific local circumstances. It will be further refined as experience with

implementation accumulates. The principles for the design of an intensive assessment for

evaluating the modified approach and studying relationships between factors that affect beach

water quality and the ability of monitoring schemes to detect these changes are also described.

Pilot testing of this approach is encouraged.

The proposed approach leads to a classification scheme through which a beach would be

assigned to a class (very poor, poor, fair, good, or excellent), based upon health risk. By enabling

local management to respond to sporadic or limited areas of pollution and thereby upgrade a

beach’s classification, it provides a significant incentive to local management actions as well as

to pollution abatement. The classification scheme provides a generic statement of the level of

risk and indicates the principal management and monitoring actions likely to be appropriate.

The advantage of a classification scheme, as opposed to a pass/fail approach, lies in its

flexibility. A large number of factors can influence the condition of a given beach. A

classification system reflects this, and allows regulators to invoke mitigating approaches for

beach management.

The most robust, accurate and feasible index of health risk is provided by a combination

of a measure of a microbiological indicator of faecal contamination with an inspection-based

assessment of the susceptibility of an area to direct influence from human faecal contamination.

This reflects two principal factors. Firstly, high counts of faecal indicator bacteria may be caused

by either human faecal contamination or contamination from other sources. In general, sources

other than human faecal contamination present a significantly lesser risk to human health and by

adopting a combined classification it is possible to reflect this modified risk. Secondly, any

microbiological analytical result provides information on only a moment in time, whilst

microbiological quality may vary widely and rapidly even within a small area (section 1). It is of

course possible to perform a large number of analyses to obtain an improved 'picture' of the

situation with concomitant cost. However, information concerning the existence of sources of

contamination and their likely influence upon the recreational water use area provides a robust

and rapid means to increase the reliability of the overall assessment. This would lead to a series

of classes of relative risk as presented schematically in Figure 5.
20

The strengths of such an approach are demonstrated by the case study presented in Box 1.

Degree of

influence of

human faecal

contamination

Degree of faecal contamination

(indicator counts)

Figure 5 Schematic Representation of Classes of Health Risk

Low High

Low

High

Very

low risk

Low

risk

Medium

risk

High risk

Very

high

risk

Low counts + high faecal

influence – requires

verification
21

Box 1: Southern California Case Study

During February 1992, a severe winter storm battered the southern California coastline. Winds,

high surf and the deluge of rain took its toll. One casualty of the storm was a pipe that carried

treated wastewater from 200,000 homes and businesses to the ocean for disposal. Following the

storm, divers confirmed that the 48-inch diameter pipe was broken and about 250,000 gallons per

day of non-disinfected secondary treated wastewater was leaking into 10 feet of water

approximately 90 feet from shore. Water samples were collected directly above the broken pipe

and at the adjacent year-round swimming and surfing beach. Coliform concentrations in the

samples directly above the pipe break exceeded state standards for recreational contact, but the

samples at the beach did not.

In spite of the relatively low coliform densities at the beach, the local health officer closed the

beach due to the discharge of non-disinfected wastewater. The health officer stated that even

though state coliform standards were not exceeded at the beach, “that does not mean viruses that

cause gastrointestinal illness, hepatitis or polio aren't present.” The health officer's concern

stemmed from the fact that activated-sludge treatment alone is only between 90 to 95 per cent

efficient in removal of human enteric viruses. Sampling at two local treatment facilities had

demonstrated human enteric virus levels in secondary treated wastewater to be between 5 and 50

infectious units per gallon. Even with dilution and dispersion of the indicator bacteria to below

state standards, a discharge known to contain human enteric viruses constituted an unacceptable

risk to this health officer. In closing the beach, the health officer took a risk management

approach to swimmer health protection, which is to prevent contact with waters known to

contain faecal contamination regardless of the density of wastewater “indicator bacteria”

measured by the testing.

Variation in water quality may occur in response to events (such as rainfall) with

predictable outcomes, or the deterioration may be constrained to certain areas or sub-areas of a

single beach. It is possible to effectively discourage use of areas that are of poor quality, or

discourage use at times of increased risk. In addition, if success in discouraging bathing at times

of risk can be demonstrated, the classification of a beach might be reasonably upgraded. Since

measures to predict and discourage use at times or in areas of elevated risk may be inexpensive,

greater cost-benefit and greater possibilities for effective local management intervention are

possible.

Figure 6 illustrates the process for assigning a classification to a given beach.
22

New Beach

Evidence of

predictable

pollution

events?

Initial

Microbiological

Quality

Assessment

Sanitary

Inspection

Primary

Classification

No

Investigate possibility of

real-time prediction and

deployment of management

intervention

(Process may involve

delimiting unsafe areas and

sub-dividing some beaches)

Yes

Not Feasible

Routine

Monitoring

Change

No Change

Apply prediction and

management; test

effectiveness

Reclassification

Effective

Not Effective

Feasible

Figure 6: Process followed for a new Beach or Location on entering the Classification Scheme
23

The two principal components of the scheme are:

• a primary classification based upon the combination of evidence for the

degree of influence of human faecal material (a sanitary inspection) alongside

counts of suitable faecal indicator bacteria (a microbiological quality

assessment); and

• the possibility of “reclassifying” a beach to a higher (better) class if effective

management interventions are deployed to reduce human exposure at times or

in places of increased risk.

3. Primary classification

The primary classification is based upon the combination of an inspection-based

assessment of the area’s susceptibility to influence from human faecal contamination and

a microbiological indicator measure of faecal contamination.

3.1 Sanitary inspection: evaluation of principal sources of faecal pollution

The three most important sources of human faecal contamination of bathing

beaches for public health purposes are:

• sewage, including CSO and stormwater discharges;

• riverine discharges, where the river is a receiving water for sewage discharges

and is either used directly for recreation or discharges near a coastal or lake

area used for recreation; and

• bather contamination, including excreta.

All of these sources will lead to the presence of faecal indicators that may be

recovered and which may provide a semi-quantitative estimate of health risk as evidenced

by many epidemiological studies (WHO, 1998).

Sources of faecal indicators other than human sewage also exist, such as drainage

from areas of animal pasture and intensive livestock rearing. However, in general, due to

the “species barrier”, the density of pathogens of public health importance is generally

assumed to be less in aggregate in animal excreta than in human excreta and may

therefore represent a significantly lower risk to human health. As a result, the use of

faecal indicator bacteria alone as an index of risk to human health may significantly overestimate risks where the indicators derive from sources other than human excreta.

Nevertheless, the human health risk associated with pollution of recreational waters from

animal excreta is not zero and some pathogens such as Cryptosporidium can be

transmitted through this route.

The relative risk to human health through direct sewage discharge, riverine

discharge contaminated with sewage, and bather contamination has been ranked in the

protocol. In doing account is taken of the likelihood of human exposure and the degree of

treatment of sewage. In taking account of sewage discharges to recreational areas and of

rivers, account is also taken of the pollutant load, using population as an index.

While in many circumstances several contamination sources would be significant

at a single location, the approach adopted was to categorise a beach according to the

single most significant source of pollution. Even two sources of similar magnitude would,

on aggregate, increase exposure by a factor of two which, in microbiological terms, is of

very limited significance.
24

Sewage discharges

Sewage discharges or outfalls may be readily classified into three principal types:

• those where the discharge is directly onto the beach (above low water level in

tidal areas);

• those where discharge is through ‘short outfalls’, where discharge is into the

water but sewage-polluted water is likely to contaminate the beach area; and

• those where discharge is through long sea outfalls, where the sewage is

diluted and dispersed and is unlikely to pollute bathing areas.

Whilst the terms ‘short’ and ‘long’ are often used, length is generally less

important than proper location and effective diffusion which will ensure that pollution is

unlikely to reach bathing areas. A short outfall is assumed to be a discharge to the intertidal zone, with a significant probability of the sewage plume reaching the designated

beach zone. For short outfalls, the relative risk is increased based upon the size of the

contributing population. An effective outfall is assumed to be properly designed, with

sufficient length and diffuser discharge depth to ensure low probability of the sewage

plume reaching the designated beach zone.

Urban stormwater run-off and outputs from CSO’s are included within the scheme

under the category of direct beach outfalls.

The classification is based upon a qualitative assessment of risk of

contact/exposure under ‘normal’ conditions with respect to operation of sewage treatment

works, hydro-meteorological and oceanographic conditions.

The potential risk to human health through exposure to sewage can be categorised

as shown in Table 10.

Table 10 Risk potential to human health through exposure to sewage

Discharge Type Treatment Directly on beach Short outfall1 Effective outfall2

None3 Very high High NA

Preliminary Very high High Low

Primary

(including Septic Tanks) Very high High Low

Secondary High High Low

Secondary plus

disinfection Medium Medium Very Low

Tertiary Medium Medium Very Low

Tertiary plus disinfection Very Low Very Low Very Low

Lagoons High High Low

1. The relative risk is modified by population size. Relative risk is increased for discharges from large

populations and decreased for discharges from small populations.

2. This assumes that the design capacity has not been exceeded and that climatic and oceanic extreme

conditions are considered in the design objective (i.e., no sewage on the beach zone).

3. Includes combined sewer overflows

The sewage effluent treatments listed in Table 10 are classified as no treatment

(raw sewage); preliminary (filtration with milli- or micro-screens); primary (physical

sedimentation); secondary (primary sedimentation and high rate biological processes such

as trickling filter/activated sludge); secondary with disinfection; tertiary (advanced
25

wastewater treatment, including primary sedimentation, trickling filter/activated sludge,

and coagulation-sand filtration); tertiary with disinfection; and lagoons (low rate

biological treatment). Septic systems are assumed to be equivalent to primary treatment.

Riverine discharges

Riverine discharges are categorised with respect to the sewage effluent load and

the degree of dilution (Table 11).

Table 11 Risk potential to human health through exposure to sewage through

riverine flow and discharge

Treatment level

Dilution Effect 1,2

None Primary Secondary Secondary plus

disinfection Lagoon

High population with

low river flow Very high Very high High Low Medium

Low population with

low river flow Very high High Medium Very Low Medium

Medium population

with medium river

flow

High Medium Low Very low Low

High population with

high river flow High Medium Low Very low Low

Low population with

high river flow High Medium Very low Very low Very low

1. The population factor includes all the population upstream from the beach to be classified and assumes

no instream reduction in hazard factor used to classify the beach.

2. Stream flow is the 10 per cent flow during the period of active beach use. Stream flow assumes no

dispersion plug flow conditions to the beach.

Effluent load is characterised by the total human population in the

watershed/catchment above the beach or estuary. The population of relevance is the peak

population that in many recreational water use areas will be significantly greater than the

resident population and is likely to occur during weekends and local holidays during the

summer season. Dilution is defined by the ‘dry weather’ river flow/discharge during the

bathing season. Use of dry weather flow is both a ‘worst case’ approach and coincides

with reality where the bathing season is also the season of reduced flow. In many

circumstances the most significant sewage discharges are near to the coast and die-off

during riverine travel is likely to be of limited significance in travel times encountered in

many rivers. Removal of pathogens through sedimentation may be of some significance

but could not be accounted for reliably in a simple way. Resuspension of sediments and

CSO discharges can be important during pollution episodes and in this context may be

predictable (section 4.1). Episodic input can dominate in areas subject to frequent

summer rainstorms such as Northwest Europe.

In practice several discharges into a single river course are likely to occur and

where larger discharges are treated to a higher level, then smaller sources (including

septic tank discharges) and CSO's may represent the principal source of concern. Pure
26

plug flow is assumed with no dispersion. The overall riverine discharge risk category is

that accorded by the most significant single pollution source.

The classification can be used directly for freshwater beaches on the river and for

beaches in estuarine areas or which are dominated by riverine pollution. For marine

beaches the same classification may be used but varied depending on proximity of the

river to the beach.

Bather shedding

While bather shedding is generally of lesser importance than sewage or riverine

discharge, pollution is direct and fresh, and therefore potentially of great public health

significance. Several studies (section 1.2) have demonstrated accumulation of faecal

loads (as indexed by recovery of faecal indicator bacteria) during the course of a day,

despite potentially enhanced die-off due to sunlight. Small volume areas of limited

turnover are especially affected, such as bays and coastal and estuarine areas constrained

by sandbars for example. The two principal factors of importance are therefore

categorised by bather density and degree of dilution (Table 12). Low dilution is assumed

to represent no water movement (e.g., lakes, lagoons, coastal embayments). The

likelihood of bathers defecating into the water is substantially increased if toilet facilities

are not readily available. Under high bather density, the classification should therefore be

increased to the next higher class if no sanitary facilities are available at the beach.

Table 12 Risk potential to human health through exposure to sewage from

bathers

Bather Shedding Category

High bather density, high dilution 2Low

Low bather density, high dilution Very low

High bather density, low dilution 1,2 Medium

Low bather density, low dilution 1Low

1. If no water movement

2. Move to next higher category if no sanitary facilities available at beach site

3.2 Microbiological quality assessment

Sewage contamination may be identified by a range of microbial, chemical or

visual parameters, as described in Table 5. Each gives a different view of the possible

source(s) and thus is appropriately used in a staged approach in assessing sewage

contamination of bathing beaches. Hence in addition to identifying which indicators to

use, it is also important to identify action levels for the primary indicators selected to

assess beaches. A further issue is the number of samples required to make an assessment,

taking into account the variability of the beach site under study.

A basic selection of sewage indicators called “primary indicators” is proposed as

an essential first step in the evaluation of bathing water. These are tabulated for marine

and freshwater in Table 13. “Secondary indicators” are described for follow-up analysis

to assist in the assessment and management of faecal contamination at beaches.
27

 Table 13 Examples of categories of microbial indicator levels by water source

Water Source Indicator(s) Category 95th Percentile

A <10

B 11-50

C 51-200

D 201-1000

Temperate marine water Faecal streps

Enterococci3

E >1000

A <1

B 1-10

C 11-50

D 51-80

Alternative for tropical marine

water 1

Sulphite reducing

Clostridia/

Clostridium

perfringens

E >80

A <10

B 11-50

C 51-200

D 201-1000

Faecal streps

Enterococci3

E >1000

A <35

B 36-130

C 131-500

D 501-1000

Temperate freshwater 2

E. coli

E >1000

A <1

B 1-10

C 11-50

D 51-80

Optional for tropical

freshwater 1

Sulphite reducing

Clostridia

Clostridium

perfringens

E >80

1. Based on preliminary data

2. While studies suggest that there is a differential die-off rate for microbial indicators in marine and

freshwaters (see Section 9.1.3), current data are not sufficient to derive separate 95th percentiles for

freshwater environments. The above faecal streps/enterococci percentiles are therefore based on data

obtained from marine studies, but may be reconsidered when further freshwater studies have been

conducted.

3. Source for faecal streps/enterococci 95th Percentile ranges: WHO (1998)

Primary indicators

Minimal non-microbial primary indicators of faecal contamination in marine

environments are sanitary plastics/grease. Although a somewhat crude index, they have

been used as aesthetic health indicators. Such materials are associated with faecal

contamination. In freshwaters, sanitary plastics may also act as non-microbial primary

indicators, but grease will not fulfil such a role.

The primary microbial indicators identified are faecal streptococci/enterococci

(temperate marine and freshwaters), E. coli (temperate freshwaters) and sulphite reducing
28

clostridia/Clostridium perfringens (temperate and tropical marine and freshwaters). Table

13 provides an example of beach categorisation, with A representing excellent water

quality and E designating a beach with unacceptable water quality. A single sample result

greater than the unacceptable 95th percentile requires follow-up action, such as a sanitary

inspection, to verify that it is a statistical occurrence and not due to a real change in

exposure.

Secondary indicators

Secondary indicators aimed at sourcing faecal contamination should include

sulphite-reducing clostridia/ Clostridium perfringens in temperate waters. Consideration

must be given to the fact that dog excreta from surface runoff may be a source of these

organisms - the only significant source other than humans. Other secondary indicators in

temperate marine waters include faecal sterols and bacteriophages such as the F-RNA

serogroups I and IV for humans or phages to Bacteroides fragilis HSP40.

In freshwaters, secondary indicators include faecal sterols and phages as above,

but further potential secondary indicators include turbidity and phosphate and ammonium

levels.

Measurement of indicators

Although the detail in the available literature varies considerably, generally as the

level of sewage contamination as referenced by traditional bacterial indicators increases,

so does the incidence of swimming related illness. There are few consistent relationships

between individual indicator organisms and sewage load, and even fewer consistent

relationships between individual indicators and particular pathogens. However, poorer

quality water as indexed by total and thermotolerant coliforms, E. coli, faecal streptococci

and enterococci is consistently associated with increased risk to the health of recreators

(WHO, 1998).

As noted in section 1, most regulatory approaches have adopted a percentage

compliance approach, in which a given percentage (e.g., 95 per cent) of the sample

measurements taken must lie below a specific value in order to meet the standard. This

simple percentage does not incorporate within its derivation the probability density

function that describes the distribution of indicator organisms at a particular sampling

location. However, this approach fails to take account of the overall body of data. Some

other approaches, such as use of the geometric mean or percentile values, are less

affected by individual data.

The statistic most commonly used as a measure of compliance in the USA has

been the geometric mean. By definition a mean is a measure of central tendency. As such,

the mean is a statistic around which individual measurements tend to cluster. In the

context of water quality monitoring, use of the mean will result in a situation in which the

higher end of indicator organism measurements becomes obscured by the properties

inherent in the calculation of the mean. Use of the geometric mean will further obscure

extreme values. The median, another measure of central tendency, has an even greater

effect on obscuring the higher levels of individual measurement contained within its

derivation.

In contrast, a percentile value may be calculated by using the probability density

function that describes the series of measurements taken. In this manner, the percentile
29

value describes the distribution of indicator organism measurements at a particular

location. Therefore, inherent in the calculation of the percentile value is the distribution

of the entire series of measurements taken, and as such more accurately describes

indicator organism densities at a particular location.

The categorisations in Table 13 are based on a minimum of 20 samples of the

suggested microbial indicator(s). As the 95th percentile values were derived from limited

studies, they are provisional and are meant to serve as a general guideline rather than a

standard. The categorisations should be treated as examples, and individual beaches

should be evaluated based on site-specific conditions.

Microbiological categorisation sampling protocol

Figure 7 and Box 2 illustrate the steps necessary to assign a primary

microbiological categorisation to a given beach.
30

Stage 1. Sampling and Analysis:

e.g., 50 meter 1,2 intervals across

beach, at selected depth

 (2 occasions 1 week apart)

Stage 2.

Evidence

for spatial

variation?3

Stage 4.

Delimit impacted

and non-impacted

areas

Stage 3.

4 locations1,2, each

10 to 20 occasions

through season

Non-impacted area

Delimit/exclude

or treat as a

separate beach

Management to exclude use

(e.g., fencing, lifeguard

monitor, etc.) and verify

effectiveness

Exclude Use

Impacted

area

Treat as separate beach

Use information

in Primary

Classification4

Yes

No

Stage 5.

Routine monitoring

-------------------

1. Less if large historic database.

2. Modified by sanitary inspection.

3. For example, across full band width of microbiological categories.

4. If variation in quality is recognized then reclassification as described in Section 9.4 may be applicable.

Figure 7: Example sampling protocol for primary

microbiological categorization
31

Box 2 Example of the practical application of the primary microbiological categorization protocol

STAGE 1

1. Full width of beach intended for recreational use delimited.

2. Along this full width, collect samples at a selected depth at 50 m intervals on two occasions one week apart at

the start of the bathing season. The timing of the sampling should take into account the likely period of

maximum contamination from local sewage discharges and bather shedding (i.e., the day after peak numbers of

visitors).

3. Concurrently collect sanitary inspection data as described in Chapter 8.

STAGE 2

1. Use Stage 1 data to assess spatial variation.

2. If no significant spatial variation, move to Stage 3.

3. If spatial variation indicated, move to Stage 4.

STAGE 3 (if no spatial variation in Stage 2)

1. Select four evenly distributed sampling locations at no greater than 500 m intervals - if beach is in excess of 2

km, include further sampling locations.

2. Conduct microbiological sampling at each of the four locations on 10-20 occasions at equal time intervals

throughout one bathing season.

3. At the end of the year, assess Stage 3 data in conjunction with Stage 2 data plus outcomes of sanitary

assessments to determine of there is any significant variation (e.g., in response to rainfall).

4. If significant variation, then assess possibility of reclassification (see Section 9.4). Otherwise, confirm primary

classification and proceed to routine monitoring (Stage 5).

STAGE 4 (if spatial variation is found in Stage 2)

1. If spatial variability is exhibited, impacted and non-impacted zones should generally be treated as separate

bathing areas and each separately classified.

2. Determine the potential source and extent of the impacted zone.

3. Delimit the non-impacted zone; treat non-impacted zone as in Stage 3 with one of the four identified sample

locations at the poorer limit of the impacted zone.

4. For the impacted zone:

• A monitoring regime for a zone exhibiting spatial variability and likely to be impacted by sewage

contamination depends on the extent of the zone.

• It may be that the impacted zone has to be managed by exclusion and that no monitoring is required,

particularly if the zone is small in extent. Exclusion management action would apply where increased risk

is restricted to a specific area. It implies for example fencing combined with general and site warning

notices or general and site warning notices plus pro-active individual advice (for instance from life guards)

not to use areas. The effectiveness of such management would need to be verified.

• If the impacted zone warrants monitoring, then the Stage 3 process must be replicated. In such a case, if the

zone is relatively small in area, fewer sample locations may be selected but sampled more frequently to

provide a minimum of 20 data points.

5. At the end of the year, all data from a given zone are used to determine the primary classification to be applied.

STAGE 5

In the following year, microbiological monitoring is confined to five samples at each of the four identified locations

within an individual zone (zones in excess of 2 km will require further sample locations). The five sampling

occasions will be distributed evenly throughout the bathing season. A sanitary inspection should also be

conducted. Routine monitoring requirements in subsequent years may vary, depending on a beach’s classification

(section 9.5.5).

1. The individual data sets for the sampling locations will be further analysed to ensure that there is no significant

difference between them. Assuming that no such variation is recognised, treat the data from all years as a single

statistical body.
32

3.3 Determination of primary classification

Obtaining a primary classification for a given beach incorporates the results of both the sanitary

inspection and the initial microbiological quality assessment described above. Once the appropriate

categories for each of these criteria have been determined, a look-up table such as that in Table 14 can be

used to determine the primary classification for the beach.

Table 14 Primary classification matrix

Microbiological Assessment Category

(Indicator Counts)

A B C D E

Very Low excellent excellent good good+

fair+

Low excellent good good fair fair+

Moderate good* good fair fair poor

High good* fair* fair poor very poor

Sanitary Inspection

Category

(Susceptibility to

Faecal Influence)

Very High fair* fair* poor* very poor very poor

* indicates unexpected result requiring verification

+ implies non-sewage sources of faecal indicators (e.g., livestock) and this should be verified

4 Reclassification

Microbiological contamination varies widely and rapidly and the risks to human health are

principally associated with periods of high contamination. Thus, where

• a bathing area is subject to elevated faecal contamination for a limited proportion of the time

or over a limited area of the potential bathing areas; and

• the times of contamination can be predicted in some way; and

• management interventions can be applied which effectively reduce or prevent exposure at

these times, then the beach risk evaluation may reasonably be modified to take account of the

reduction in risk.

This approach requires a database that allows an estimation of whether the significant faecal

influence is constrained in time and whether ‘predictors’ can be used to determine when such conditions

are likely to occur. In addition, a locally applicable early warning system and subsequent management

action that can be deployed in real time must be determined. Finally, in order for a reclassification to be

applied, evidence of the effectiveness of management action is required. A reclassification should

therefore be provisional; it may be confirmed if the efficacy of management interventions is verified

during the initial season of provisional reclassification. As the outcome of this process is of significant

economic importance, it should be a requirement to ensure independent audit and verification wherever

feasible, due to the conflicts of interest that may arise.

Note that due to the resulting risk assessment it may be appropriate to add an additional dimension

to take account of special groups with increased risk either because of the activity in which they engage

or because they seek out areas not used by traditional bathers. Surfers are an obvious example.

Alternatively this may require an additional ‘commentary’ element to the classification.

4.1 Simple predictive approaches

It is impossible to predict every type of event that may impact on every beach, as the variation is

enormous. However, using one key issue that consistently affects bathing water quality, it is possible to

delineate the principles that apply when dealing with such events. The objective is to define the
33

conditions under which increased detection of sewage contamination (and, by inference, risk to human

health) can be predicted. Exposure to risk at these times may be reduced by direct interventions. If such

interventions can be demonstrated to be effective, then upgrading the beach’s classification to reflect the

reduced health risk can be justified.

The issue selected to illustrate this predictive approach is rainfall. To inform the process, rainfall

data (real time and historic) must be available. The location of existing rain gauges can be surveyed to

determine the optimal position from which to predict effects on the beach. In addition, to determine the

effect that a rainfall event may have on a bathing water, beach inputs must be categorised; primary inputs

of concern are combined sewer overflows, riverine and storm drains. Examples of the type of information

required for each input are given in Table 15.

Table 15 Discharge sources associated with rainfall

Discharge

Source Background Information Utility in Prediction

Generic Factors

Associated with

CSOs, Riverine

and Storm

Drain Inputs

Predictive outputs should be evaluated by examining a set of historical data to determine whether the predictor

would previously have accurately predicted exposure events. Basic data requirements include: rainfall history,

rainfall intensity (a function of amount and duration), sewage flow, location of discharges, definition of zone

of influence. Catchment and population equivalent loadings need to be defined. Here location and zones of

influence (resulting in both inputs and outputs) need to be defined. The zones of influence should lead to

delineation of impacted bathing areas. It is essential to undertake at least one intensive run of monitoring

associated with an event or series of events. This monitoring will include a determination of the estimated

extent of the impacted area linked to the various baseline data collected. Thus the rainfall intensity leading to a

defined impacted area may be determined. If resources do not enable extended feedback monitoring to

differentiate between different event intensities, then the predicted worst case zone of impacted area should be

defaulted to. These data and their interpretation will provide the predictive base for estimating thresholds for

subsequent events.

In some circumstances, a combination of other factors associated with the rainfall event may be used to

determine the predictive capacity. These will include climatic and hydrographic conditions – specifically tide

current, and wind. Such factors could affect the occurrence/non-occurrence of an event, the likely zone of

impact, and the duration of the event outcome.

Combined

Sewer

Overflows

(CSOs)

CSO discharge is derived from localised urban

catchments. There are none of the ‘softening’ effects

characteristic of riverine systems, typified by peaks

and troughs of contamination. Effects are manifested

rapidly. There is a simple, direct relationship

between rainfall and discharge. Storage capacity

exists on many current systems, and small events

may therefore be contained. A typically applied ‘rule

of thumb’ is that effects may become obvious when

dry weather flow is exceeded three-fold. This is

already incorporated into many systems. When an

event triggers the threshold, the effect is rapid, with a

potential for high microbial load and high public

health risk.

Low rainfall may be accommodated; typically there

is a threshold that will trigger an increased risk

outcome. The best predictor may not be rainfall

itself - it is the actual flow within the system. A

relationship between rainfall and flow through the

system that will trigger an alert must be determined.

While good practice dictates that they should

discharge below low water, CSOs may discharge

directly onto the beach. Direct measure of the CSO

operation forms the process; when they are

operating, the risk is real.
34

Riverine Rainfall in a catchment affects all its contributing

inflows in a complex way over a wide area. Delays,

complex flow characteristics including non-plug

flow, and a series of small plugs may result. Riverine

inputs are potentially the sum of multiple discharges

from sewage systems, CSOs, storm drains and other

industrial and rural sources. Where riverine pollution

is dominated by a single pollution source which may

manifest as a plug, then rainfall is a likely predictor

in a simpler relationship. A significant increase in

flow after a relatively long low-flow period could

lead to sediment remobilisation and associated

contamination. All likely influencing factors in a

catchment must be categorised and identified (e.g.,

CSO, storm drains, likelihood of sediment

resuspension, surface run-off from grazing land).

Effects of multiple CSOs and storm drain events

contributing to a major riverine outcome are very

complex to predict. They may lead to delays and

staggered loadings, varying in intensity.

Resuspension of sediments is a function of extended

dry periods and river flow. It is a complex situation

with multiple likely sources of contamination, and

the health risk is difficult to predict.

Outcomes are difficult to predict; generally there is

a variable delay in events manifesting themselves.

There may be multiple, overlapping sources

resulting in an unpredictable duration. Predisposing

weather conditions, particularly the first major event

after a period of low rainfall/low river flow, should

signal a potential risk outcome. In terms of run-off,

predictors will include rainfall intensity likely to

lead to a threshold effect. Agricultural practises will

modify the nature and extent of run-off and may

vary the threshold.

Storm Drains Storm drain discharges are associated with localised,

generally urban sources. In principle storm drains

should not be connected to the sewage system, so

therefore should not have a high sewage loading.

The likely discharge is generally of low significance

to public health, provided that there is no sewage

connection. However, the discharge may be

associated with high total coliform (and sometimes

high thermotolerant coliform) counts, which are a

poor predictor of health risk. Generally storm drains

discharge directly onto the beach, so if they are

connected to the sewage system, there will be an

increased health risk.

Storm drains respond directly to rainfall. There is

no storage capacity and therefore no delay in the

outcome of the event. In effect, there is no threshold

before a discharge occurs. Thus the system response

is almost instant. A flushing effect means that the

most significant (albeit generally low) health risk is

at the start of the event. There is no simple

relationship between amount of discharge and risk

burden; as time progresses the contamination load

may be exhausted. The first rainfall releases a

discharge contaminant plug, while subsequent

rainfall leads to a discharge with little contaminant

loading.

A scheme can be adopted to investigate whether deterioration in water quality at recreational

beaches is predictable and hence subject to appropriate management action. The assumption is that a

local administration wishes to contend that a beach has experienced water quality deterioration and that

this deterioration is predictable. A number of study designs have been adopted and could be of use. All

assume a sanitary inspection of the types of sources listed in Table 15. While the use of simple predictive

approaches requires additional work to plan and implement, they are not highly expensive.

4.2 Advanced predictive approaches

More advanced studies have been developed to provide data on: the reasons for short-term

elevated microbiological indicator counts; the timing of such elevated analytical results; the time taken

for water quality to return to “baseline” conditions; the potential for prediction of water quality change;

and the potential for remediation of poor water quality. While these studies were initially designed for use
35

under percentage compliance based regulatory structures, they are also very valuable tools for the

classification approach suggested in this chapter.

Studies of this type from the UK suggest that well founded scientific studies of this nature (i.e.,

“compliance” modelling, budget studies, diffuse source modelling and nearshore modelling) would

require tens to hundreds of thousands of US dollars, depending on the complexity of the study. Where a

full site study is required, the beach authority wishing to claim that prediction of elevated microbiological

indicator counts is a feasible management tool for public health maintenance should plan for and

appropriately resource a potentially costly twelve month study.

Compliance modelling

This type of investigation was initially designed to understand the causes of occasional “high

values” leading to a failure to comply with percentage compliance based standards. These investigations

require a set of reliable microbiological data covering several years and possibly several locations, as well

as a set of variables that have been proven to predict microbiological concentrations at the study sites.

Multivariate statistical methods such as multiple regression can be applied to the data set to

predict faecal indicator concentrations. The modelling ‘success’ should be judged on the basis of the

explained variance (R2) of the predictive multivariate model assuming statistical significance. R2

values

of over 60 per cent for a particular beach year have been achieved in previous work. Clearly, this

approach should not be adopted if there are insufficient sampling periods for each year (e.g., less than 20).

In addition, careful control on variable inclusion (and hence multicollinearity) is required in model

construction and constant input from a professional statistician in model construction is essential.

The initial modelling study is an exploratory tool. It suggests predictability, which should be

confirmed by further sampling of inputs through a budget investigation.

Budget studies

Budget studies can be undertaken if the initial modelling proves the possibility of a relationship

with predictable inputs. This type of investigation requires that the inputs to a bathing water be

characterised. It is vital that both low flow and high flow inputs be measured, and quantity and quality

measurements are also required.

Potential sources of pollution include sewage effluent, CSOs and SSOs, rivers, avian inputs,

bather loading, septic tanks, industrial discharges, private discharges and lagoon outlets. For these

sources, data are required on type of source and pollution input, frequency of episodic inputs, magnitude

of all inputs, e.g., base flow and episodes, duration of inputs, the flow volume of all inputs, and the

microbiological quality of all inputs.

The budget studies will provide information that is known to be episodic. Clear evidence that,

during specific events, beach microbiological concentrations are commonly dominated by predictable, but

‘non-sewage’, sources of faecal indicators would provide local managers with evidence that elevated

counts associated with such an event will not pose a large risk to public health if effective management

action is taken to limit bather exposure during this time period.

Diffuse source modelling

If riverine inputs to a bathing water are derived from ‘diffuse’ or ‘non-point’ source areas,

remediation of a beach with poor quality bathing water would require ‘catchment area’ or ‘watershed’

management. Lumped and distributed models have been applied to predict episodic catchment-derived

sources of pollution, and the construction of a diffuse source model of the upstream catchment can offer

evidence of the contamination being derived from non-sewage sources. Decisions on remediation

strategies can therefore be informed by these studies.
36

Such modelling requires the definition of sub-catchment units and the implementation of an

intensive and targeted data collection exercise to characterise water quality from each characteristic subcatchment unit. The intensity of agricultural land use and stocking density are of particular importance.

Both stochastic multivariate and deterministic modelling have been applied, with good prediction of

faecal indicator delivery based on agricultural land use types.

Nearshore hydrodynamic modelling

When the inputs to the beach have been identified and characterised as above, the next question

becomes the impact of these constant and episodic inputs at different locations on a specific beach site.

One tool applied to this problem is the use of nearshore hydrodynamic modelling.

This type of modelling requires: tidal information; water quality dynamics, e.g., T90 values for

microbiological indicators; wind speed and direction; and sampling regimes. Significant data inadequacy

exists in the currently available T90 values, which describe decay rates, and this requires new scientific

information. In addition to these data, elements such as wave height and sedimentary resuspension may

be important predictors of microbiological contamination, but are not specifically addressed in current

modelling systems.

This approach requires complex finite element modelling, and high level expertise is necessary to

successfully use this approach to predict compliance in shallow nearshore waters. However, such

approaches can accommodate both constant and episodic inputs to bathing waters, dynamic change in the

nearshore waters, and impact under different tidal states and hydro-meteorological conditions.

5. Management actions and routine monitoring

Key elements in protecting human health from potential risks associated with recreational or

bathing waters are the identification of pollution sources, both continuous and intermittent, assessing their

impact on the target area and undertaking remedial or management action to reduce their public health

significance. Depending on the circumstances, there may be a number of actions that can be taken to

reduce public health risk. Such actions would therefore have an impact on the overall classification of the

bathing water.

Routing monitoring should be undertaken to determine if a beach’s classification status changes

over time. If management actions are shown to be effective and a beach can therefore be reclassified,

monitoring requirements may be substantially reduced. Examples of classifications and their associated

management and monitoring actions are given in Table 16.
37

Table 16 Examples of classification outcomes and associated

management and monitoring actions

Primary

classification Reclassification

Generic statement for public

–

non verifiable, passive action

Generic management advice - verifiable, active

action. Level of action dependent on likely health

impact of the event

Monitoring requirements:

Sanitary Inspection,

 Microbiological Quality Assessment

Excellent - Excellent beach N/A Annual sanitary inspection to ensure no change.

Microbiological quality assessment every five years to verify

status.

Good Excellent

(defined conditions

of contamination)

This beach is of good quality. No action needed on health grounds. Action may be

warranted for local tourist promotion.

Annual sanitary inspection to ensure no change.

Microbiological quality assessment every five years to verify

status.

Fair Good

(defined area of

contamination)

Inform public through advice at

beach, tourist locations that

bathing at location X is

discouraged.

Posting beach - bathing discouraged between specified

posts.

Restricting access, e.g., not allowing car parking.

Discouraging service industries.

Fencing area off.

Encouraging alternatives via car parks, bus stops and

service industries.

Annual sanitary inspection to verify no change. Low-level

microbiological quality assessment – four samples on five

occasions (equally spaced throughout the bathing season).

Abnormal high samples need further verification and additional

monitoring and possible review of impacted zone. Annual

verification of management intervention effectiveness.

Fair Good

(increased

contamination

occurs under

certain conditions)

Inform public through advice at

beach, tourist locations that

bathing is discouraged after

periods of heavy rainfall.

Posting notice at bathing water.

Lifeguards to warn bathers.

Closure of car parks and service facilities.

Stop tourist buses.

Encourage use of alternative beaches, provision of free

transport.

Annual sanitary inspection to verify no change. Low-level

microbiological quality assessment – four samples on five

occasions (equally spaced throughout the bathing season).

Abnormal high samples need further verification and additional

monitoring and possible review of impacted zone. Annual

verification of management intervention effectiveness.

Poor Good/Fair This area is of periodic poor

quality and bathing is

discouraged at certain

locations/times.

Active advice similar to that for “Fair” classification. Annual sanitary inspection to verify no change. Low-level

microbiological quality assessment – four samples on five

occasions (equally spaced throughout the bathing season).

Abnormal high samples need further verification and additional

monitoring and possible review of impacted zone. Annual

verification of management intervention effectiveness

Very poor Not affected by

local management

This area may be polluted with

(nature of pollution) from

(define type of source). This

may be unpleasant for bathers

and presents some risk to

human health.

Post generic warning notices similar to the risk

statement at access points to beach. Use poster to

inform of alternative locations.

Do not allow development of service industries.

Make access difficult - no provision of car parks.

Encourage use of alternative bathing areas.

Encourage pressure for remedial action.

Annual sanitary inspection to confirm no changes to primary

pollution source.

Microbiological quality assessment every five years to verify

status.
38

5.1 Direct action on pollution sources

This should be the principal management action as, if successfully undertaken, it will provide a

permanent and verifiable reduction of potential health risks. Remedial actions can include: diversion of

sewage discharges away from the target area by the construction of long sea outfalls, provision of higher

levels of sewage treatment, and increasing storm water retention to reduce frequency of discharge and/or

relocation of intermittent discharges. These actions may however be outside the control of local

communities or regional authorities and an alternative approach of local intervention may be more

applicable.

5.2 Managing intermittent pollution events

Where there is clear evidence that water quality varies at certain predictable periods, such as

following significant rainfall events, it may be possible for local management to undertake verifiable

interventions that would reduce public health risks. Interventions would include passive non-verifiable

actions, such as advising local residents and tourists not to bathe in the impacted zone of the intermittent

discharge for a given period following heavy rainfall. Active and verifiable interventions could include

posting warnings around the impacted zone following a rainfall event advising bathers not to swim for a

period of time. Alongside this, advice could be given as to the location of alternative bathing waters and

transportation could be provided to and from those locations. Lifeguards, if present, could reinforce the

message. More restrictive measures could be the closure of relevant car parks and service industries (but

not sanitary facilities).

5.3 Management interventions on spatial pollution

It is possible for a bathing water to be only partially impacted by a source of human sewage. For

example a riverine input containing sewage from upstream communities may flow across a bathing water

causing significant elevation in microbial indicator concentration. Unless direct action as outlined in

section 5.1 can be undertaken, various options exist for reducing public health exposure. These can range

from the passive provision of information to the general public that bathing at the location was not

advised, to actively dissuading bathing for instance by not providing public transportation or car parking

near the affected area or fencing off the area. As suggested in section 5.2, the policy of dissuasion should

be reinforced by information as to alternative bathing areas along with some encouragement, in the form

of transport, easier parking or service industries, etc. to entice bathers away from the polluted area.

5.4 Management of polluted zones

Where the whole extent of the bathing area is considered to pose a potential health risk and

interventions along the lines of those described in section 5.1 are not feasible, management actions are

needed to reduce the usage of the bathing area. As before, information can be given to the public

informing them of the water quality problems associated with the bathing water and this can be reenforced by actions such as making access difficult by controlling car parking facilities and service

industries. Additionally, information regarding alternative bathing waters of a similar nature but with

acceptable water quality needs to be provided.

5.5 Routine monitoring

Under the classification scheme, routine monitoring would always require that an annual sanitary

inspection be conducted, to confirm that no changes in the primary pollution source(s) have occurred over

the course of the year. In addition, microbiological quality assessments should be undertaken, although

the level of monitoring required for a given beach may largely depend upon its classification, as shown in

Table 16. Beaches classified as very high or very low quality (i.e., “excellent” or “very poor”), for

example, may only need a microbiological quality assessment every few years, to verify that their status
39

has not changed. Mid-level (“good”, “fair” and “poor”) beaches may require an annual, low-level

microbiological quality assessment, with 20 samples being taken at a minimum of four sites on five

occasions evenly spaced throughout the bathing season. Beaches zones greater than two kilometres in

length may require additional sampling sites. Further sampling may be necessary if abnormally high

samples are found. If a beach has been reclassified, annual verification of the effectiveness of

management interventions would also be required. When results of this routine monitoring suggest that

the status of a beach has altered, the beach’s classification should be revised following a process similar

to that described in Figure 6.

6. Evaluation/validation of the proposed approach

A classification scheme of the type proposed would be of value if it accomplishes one or more of

the following:

• Contributes to informed personal choice (e.g., individuals, by using the information provided,

can and do modify their exposure); this implies inter-location comparability and an informed

public.

• Contributes to local risk management (e.g., by excluding or discouraging access to areas or at

times of increased risk and thereby reduce overall exposure).

• Assists in making maximum use of the minimum necessary monitoring effort.

• Assists local decision-making regarding safety management.

• Encourages incremental improvement and prioritises areas of greatest risk.

In order to evaluate the above, both field testing and evaluation of the scientific validity of the

approach proposed is required. A limited number of intensive studies would be necessary to test the

scientific validity of the approach and in recognition of the importance of this, a protocol has been

developed for such a study. This protocol requires extensive sampling of study sites, as described in the

following sections, and should not be confused with the less rigorous microbial assessments necessary for

classifying a beach under the scheme set forth in this chapter.

6.1 Validation protocol

Many countries around the world are interested in establishing uniform recreational water

monitoring protocols that would provide accurate assessments of water quality in a timely manner.

Scientists and public health officials recognise the need for monitoring approaches such as that proposed

in this report, which would characterise a bathing water at reasonable cost and within the constraints of

limited resources (personnel and equipment/supplies). To establish such protocols it is important to

determine the essential parameters that must be considered in the monitoring programme, e.g., temporal,

spatial, and environmental considerations. The sampling of a recreational water must be adequate to

capture all of these factors to insure the likelihood that samples portray the water quality at the time they

are taken.

The establishment of a robust set of data from multiple, contrasting locations and conditions is

essential to determine general sampling requirements that are transferable to most locations worldwide. It

is desirable that all parties interested in improved monitoring approaches collectively participate in

conducting studies to develop the data for determining the minimum sampling requirements, at least for

typical beach environments, in freshwater, estuarine and marine settings. In order to develop such a

database, a standard sampling protocol which all could use (and adhere to) is required, whereby the data

derived from each study would be compatible with data from the other sampling studies. The following is

a recommended approach to identify the major elements, parameters, and conditions to be developed by

the sampling protocol that would be applied to beach studies intended to describe the important
40

monitoring features for recreational waters. This protocol should be implemented in conjunction with a

sanitary inspection.

Microbiological parameters

Two microbial indicators of faecal contamination were selected for this sampling study protocol:

faecal streptococci/enterococci and sulphite-reducing Clostridium/Clostridium perfringens. The protocol

can equally apply to other indicator organisms described in Table 5, such as E. coli in freshwaters. The

indicators proposed in this protocol development were chosen because the methods for their detection and

enumeration have been well described and field tested by a number of investigators in numerous

recreational water studies as well as for other environmental testing. There is a large database that

describes the precision, accuracy and coefficients of variation for these methods. They were also chosen

because they are considered applicable for both marine and fresh water testing.

Temporal study conditions

The studies should be performed at least over the period of a typical bathing season, which can

range from several weeks to year round, depending on latitude and local customs. A three-month

sampling period or longer is considered best to obtain a robust set of data to analyse for temporal effects

under most circumstances. Under most conditions a minimum of 50 days of sampling is considered a

robust study and should provide satisfactory data to establish important factors or conditions at a study

site which will allow the assessment of important locations for sampling, when to sample, and to establish

factors that contribute to microbiological water quality variability. This amount of study data should

allow assessment of critical factors that may trigger sampling (e.g., regression, multivariate regression,

trends, etc.) when applied to a beach and which will allow the combination of data from various studies to

make the assessments more robust so that guidance may be derived for dissemination to all persons

concerned with public safety at beaches.

Sampling should encompass daily periods and should be conducted at least several times a week.

Pollution will vary in response to the density of users and the local population who may be discharging to

the sewage system (e.g., peak uses may often occur on weekends and holidays). In addition, local events

may recur on a routine basis that will affect waters serving a recreational area. The sampling protocol

should take account of these factors, so as not to introduce a bias to the data set. Sampling events on

sampling days should be on an hourly basis over a 12-hour period, e.g., 7am to 7pm, and these should be

at all sampling locations comprising the beach study site.

Event sampling

Many studies to date have demonstrated that one of the most significant factors leading to

increased faecal pollution levels in recreational waters is rainfall. While the general sampling protocol

described above should pick up the effects of rainfall events over a long recreational season, this may not

be true for short-term evaluations. For such locations this could lead to a gap in the data regarding event

contributions to microbial pollutant loading at a beach. If feasible, it is recommended that at least 20 per

cent of the study sampling days be during/after rainfall events where there is, or will likely be, local

runoff.

Spatial sampling conditions

It is very important in sampling studies (for establishing uniform monitoring guidelines) to

characterise the water at a beach from the swash zone (i.e., the sand area that is covered with waves on an

intermittent or occasional basis during the sampling period) out to the most distant locations confining the

beach (but at least to chest height), at the depths where exposure may likely occur, and also along the

designated width of the beach (parallel to the shore line). This then becomes the “box” of water that a
41

single sampling event during a days multiple sampling periods should characterise. This then would

comprise a “grid” of sampling locations that would be sampled for each period.

Sampling grid

Spacing of the length of grid samples along the beach should be uniform at 20 meter distances

parallel from each other with a minimum of three locations (e.g., minimum of 60 meters total distance).

Beaches shorter than this would not be considered valid for incorporation into the sampling validation

study.

Sample site distances perpendicular to the shore would be located from the 20 meter grid transects

and the locations would be:

1) ankle deep (0.15 meters from grid transect on shore);

2) knee deep (0.5 meters from grid transect); and

3) chest deep (1.3 meters from grid transect).

Samples should be taken at the following depths: ankle depth sample ~ 0.075 meters below the

water surface; knee and chest depth samples ~ 0.3 meters below the water surface.

Sand samples, while not an absolute requirement for this sample validation study, are considered

desirable data. Sand samples should be taken from the swash zone. Samples should be taken from the top

two centimetres of the sand. Enough sand should be taken so that one portion can be used to establish the

dry weight and another portion can be used to elute microbial components for quantification.

Sampling/analysis approach

A single, discrete sample would be taken from each location at each period. Each sample will be

labelled as to location, day/time taken, and any other distinguishing characteristic needed to identify the

sample. Samples would be iced, packaged, and shipped via surface or air transport to the laboratory for

processing and analysis. Sample analysis must be initiated within 8-12 hours and all discrete samples

would be assayed in triplicate for each dilution (three dilutions - this may be reduced to two if or when

the water becomes well characterised for indicator content under various sampling conditions.)

Other test or observational parameters for each sampling period:

Physical/chemical:

• pH (daily).

• salinity: estuarine (hourly); marine, if no significant riverine influence (daily).

• turbidity (hourly).

• water and air temperature (hourly).

Other observations and measurements:

• rainfall - magnitude, duration, time relative to sampling (every 6 hours).

• wave height (hourly).

• current direction and speed - fresh and estuarine (hourly).

• total light or radiation (hourly).

• tidal state and magnitude (hourly).

• wind direction and speed relative to beach (hourly).

• percent cloud cover (hourly).

• bather population at each transect point (e.g., photographs) (hourly).

• animal population - presence and number of horses, donkeys, dogs, shore birds (hourly).

• boats anchored or moored within one km of the beach (hourly).

• beach debris and sanitation: sanitary plastics, visible grease balls, algae (daily).

• location of fresh water, storm water, sewage outfall or other intrusion to beach.
42

• location of bather facilities (showers, lavatories) and relevance of input from these sources

(shower runoff, sewage overflow) to beach.

 Database requirements

• all raw data should be provided.

• all data would be entered on an EXCEL or LOTUS compatible spreadsheet framework.

• all data entered would be validated for accuracy.

• all data would be duplicated on a separate file for future access.

Analysis (descriptive statistics)

• number of samples taken.

• geometric means - per sample, per replicate, etc.

• standard deviation.

• QA/QC results.

• coefficients of variation, precision, accuracy of methods used by the laboratory.
43

7. References

Argentina Instituto Nacional de Ciencia y TJcnica HRdricas (INCYTH) 1984 Estudio de la factibilidad de la

disposici\n en el mar de los efluentes cloacales de la cuidad de Mar del Plata. Informe Final. Buenos

Aires, Secretar Ra de Recursos HRdrills de Argentina.

Bitton, G., Farrah, S.R., Ruskin, R.H., Butner, J. and Chou, Y.J. 1983 Survival of pathogenic and indicator

organisms in groundwater. Groundwater, 21, 405–410.

Brazil Ministerio del Interior 1976 Aguas de balneabilidade, Portoria No. 536.

Calderon, R. 1990 Personal communication.

California State Water Resources Control Board. Undated. Water quality control plan for ocean waters of

California.

Caribbean Environmental Programme (CEPPOL) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

1991 Report on the CEPPOL seminar on monitoring and control of sanitary quality of bathing and

shellfish-growing marine waters in the wider Caribbean. Kingston, Jamaica, 8-12 April 1991.

Technical Report No. 9.

Chamberlain, C.E. and Mitchell, R. 1978 A decay model for enteric bacteria in natural waters. In: Ralph

Mitchell [Ed.] Water Pollution Microbiology, New York, Wiley, Vol. 2, 325.

Cioglia, L. and Loddo, B 1962 The process of self-purification in the marine environment III. Resistance of

some enteroviruses, Nouvi Annli Di Igiene E. Microbiologia, 13, 11.

Colombia Ministerio de Salud 1979 Disposiciones Sanitarias sobre Aguas – ArtRculo 69 Ley 05.

Cuba Ministerio de Salud 1986 Higiene comunal, lugares de baZo en costas y en masas de aguas interiores,

requisitos higiJnicos sanitarios. 93–97. La Habana, Cuba.

Divizia, M., Ruscio, V., Degener, A.M. and Pana A. 1998 Hepatitis A virus detection in wastewater by PCR

and hybridization. Microbiologica, 21(2),161-167.

Dufour, A.P. and Ballentine, P. 1986 Ambient water quality criteria for bacteria – 1986 (Bacteriological

ambient water quality criteria for marine and fresh recreational waters). EPA A440/5-84-002,

USEPA, Washington, DC. 18.

Ecuador Ministerio de Salud Publica 1987 Instituto Ecuatoriano de Obras Sanitarias, Proyecto de normas

reglamentarias para la aplicaci\n de la Ley.

European Economic Community (EEC) 1976 Council directive of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality

of bathing water. Official Journal of the European Communities, 19:L 31.

Funderburg, S.W., Moore, B.E., Sorber, C.A. and Sagik, B.P. 1978 Survival of poliovirus in model

wastewater holding pond. Prog. Wat. Technol., 10, 619–629.

Grimason, A.M., Smith, H.V., Thitai, W.N., Muiruri, P., Irungu, J., Smith, P.G., Jackson, M.H. and

Girdwood, R.W.A. 1992 Occurrence and removal of Giardia spp. cysts in Kenyan waste

stabilisation pond systems. In: Thompson, R.C., Reynoldson, J.A. and Lymbery A.J. [Eds] Proc.

Giardia - from Molecules to Disease and Beyond. December 6–9, 1992, Fremantle. Murdoch

University, Perth, 28.

Grimason, A.M., Smith, H.V., Young, G. and Thitai, W.N. 1996a Occurrence and removal of Ascaris sp.

ova by waste stabilisation ponds in Kenya. Wat. Sci. Tech., 33(7), 75–82.

Grimason, A.M.; Wiandt, S., Baleux, B., Thitai, W.N., Bontoux, J. and Smith, H.V. 1996b Occurrence and

removal of Giardia sp. cysts by Kenyan and French waste stabilisation pond systems. Wat. Sci.

Tech., 33(7), 83–89.

Gyurek, L.L. and Finch, G.R. 1998 Modeling water treatment chemical disinfection kinetics. J. Environ.

Eng., 124(9), 783–793.

Haas, C.N., Joffe, J., Anmangandla, U., Jacangelo, J.G. and Heath, M. 1996 Water quality and disinfection

kinetics. J. AWWA, 88(3), 95–103.
44

Hanes, N.B. and Fragala, R. 1967 Effect of seawater concentration on the survival of indicator bacteria. J.

Wat. Poll. Control Fed., 39, 97.

Jacangelo, J.G.; Adham, S.S. and Lâiné, J.-M. 1995 Mechanism of Cryptosporidium, Giaridia and MS2

virus removal by MF and UF. J. AWWA, 87(9), 107–212.

Japan Environmental Agency 1981 Environmental laws and regulations in Japan (III) water. JAWWA 1996

88, 66–79.

Keswick, B.H., Gerba, C.P., Secor, S.L. and Cech, I. 1982 Survival of enteric viruses and indicator bacteria

in groundwater. J. Environmental Sci. Health, A 17(6), 903–912.

Leeming, R., Ball, A., Ashbolt, N. and Nichols, P. 1996 Using faecal sterols from humans and animals to

distinguish faecal pollution in receiving waters. Wat. Res., 30(12), 2893–2900.

Long, J. and Ashbolt, N.J. 1994 Microbiological quality of sewage treatment plant effluents. AWT Science

and Environment report number 94/123. Sydney Water Corporation, Sydney. 26.

Madireddi, K., Babcock, R.W., Levine, B., Huo, T.L., Khan, E., Ye, Q.F., Neethling, J.B., Suffet, I.H. and

Stenstrom, M.K. 1997 Wastewater reclamation of Lake Arrowhead, California - an overview. Water

Environ. Res., 69(3), 350–362.

McFeters, G.A. and Stuart, D.J. 1974 Comparative survival of indicator bacteria and enteric pathogens in

well water, Appl. Microbial, 27, 823–829.

Mexico SecretarRa de Desarrollo Urbano y EcologRa (SEDUE) 1983 Breviario JurRdico Ecologico.

Subsecretaria de EcologRa.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1993 Vol. 42.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1991 Vol. 40.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1990 Vol. 39.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1988 Vol. 37.

Omura, T., Onuma, M. and Hashimoto, Y. 1982 Viability and adaptability of E. Coli and enterococcus

group to salt water with high concentration of sodium chloride. Water Sci. Tech., 14, 115–126.

Oppenheimer, J.A., Jacangelo, J.G., Laîné, J.-M. and Hoagland, J.E. 1997 Testing the equivalency of

ultraviolet light and chlorine for disinfection of wastewater to reclamation standards. Water Environ.

Res., 69(1), 14–24.

Otaki, M., Yano, K. and Ohgaki, S. 1998 Virus removal in membrane separation process. Wat. Sci. Tech.,

37(10), 107–116.

Perezrey, R., Chavez, H. and Baluja, C. 1995 Ozone inactivation of biologically-risky wastewaters. OzoneSci. Eng., 17(5), 499–509.

Peru Ministerio de Salud 1983 Modificaciones a los ArtRculos 81 y 82 Reglamento de los TRtulos I, II y III

de la Ley General de Aguas. Decreto Supremo No 007-83-SA, Perd.

Puerto Rico Junta de Calidad Ambiental (JCA) 1983 Reglamento de Estndares de Calidad de Agua, 28 de

febrero de 1983.

Roberts, P.J.W 1996 Sea outfalls. In: Singh,V.P and Hager, W.H. [Eds] Environmental Hydraulics,

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. Chapter 3, 63–110.

Salas, H.J. 1998 History and application of microbiological water quality standards in the marine

environment. CEPIS/PAHO, Lima, Peru.

Sieracki, N. 1980 The Effects of Short Exposures of Natural Sunlight on the Decay Rates of Enteric

Bacteria and A coliphage in a Simulated Sewage Outfall Microcosm. Master of Science

Dissertation, University of Rhode Island.

Uruguay, Ministerio de Vivienda, Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio Ambiente, Direcci In Nacional de

Medio Ambiente (DINAMA) 1998 Reglamienta del Decreto 253/79, Agua Clase 2b: "aguas

desinadas a recreaci n por contacto directo con el cuerpo.
45

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1986 Bacteriological ambient water quality criteria availability.

Federal Register, 51(45), p. 8012.

Venezuela 1978 Reglamento parcial No. 4 de la ley org nica del ambiente sobre clasificaci n de las aguas.

acioun.

WHO 1998 Guidelines for Safe Recreational-water Environments: Coastal and Freshwaters. Consultation

Draft. World Health Organisation, Geneva.

WHO 1977 Health criteria and epidemiological studies related to coastal water pollution, Athens, 1-4

March 1977.

WHO 1975 Guide and criteria for recreational quality of beaches and coastal waters, Bilthoven, 28

October – 1 November 1974.

WHO and UNEP 1978 First report on coastal water quality monitoring of recreational and shellfish areas

(MED VII). WHO/EURO document ICE/RCE 205(8). WHO/EURO, Copenhagen.

Yates, M.V. and Gerba, C.P. 1998 Microbial consideration sin wastewater reclamation and reuse. In:

Asano, T. [Ed.] Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. Vol. 10, Water Quality Management Library.

Technomic Publishing Co. Inc., Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 437-488.
46

8. List of Participants

Dr N.J. Ashbolt Tel : +61-2-9385-5946

Department of Water Engineering Fax : +61-2-9385-6139

School of Civil and Envi. Engineering E-mail : ashboltn@civeng.unsw.edu.au

The University of New South Wales n.ashbolt@unsw.edu.au

Sydney NSW 2052

Australia

Dr Jamie Bartram Tel: +41 22 791-3537

Scientist Fax: +41 22 791-4159

Division of Operational Support in E-mail: bartramj@who.ch

 Environmental Heath

Water, Sanitation and Health Unit

World Health Organization

20, Avenue Appia

CH-1211 Geneva 27

Dr Rebecca Calderon Tel: 919 966 0617

National Health & Environmental Fax: 919 966 0655

 Effects Laboratory E-mail:calderon.rebecca@epamail.epa.gov

Mail Code MD-58C 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Dr Joseph A. Cotruvo Tel: 202-289-2140

Director, NSF/WHO Fax: 202-289-2149

Center for Water, Safety and Technology E-mail: cotruvo@nsf.org

NSF International

1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 225

Washington, DC 20005

Dr Alfred P. Dufour Tel: 513-569-7303/7325

Director Fax: 513-569-7464

Microbiology Research Division E-mail: dufour.alfred@epamail.epa.gov

Environmental Monitoring System Laboratory

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cincinnati, OH 45268

Dr Jay Fleisher Tel: 718 270 1075

Department of Preventive Medicine Fax: 718 270 2533

Suny State Science Center at Brooklyn E-mail: fleishel@ix.netcom.com

Box 43, 450 Clarkson Avenue

Brooklyn, NY 11203

Dr Walter E. Frick Tel: 706-355-8319

Oceanographer Fax: 706-355-8302

Regulatory Support Branch E-mail: frick.walter@epamail.epa.gov

Ecosystems Research Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

960 College Station Road

Athens, GA 30605-7200
47

Dr Robert A. Gearheart Tel: 707-826-3135

Department of Environmental Resources Fax: 707-826-3616

House 18 E-mail: rag2@axe.humboldt.edu

Humboldt State University

Arcata, CA 95521-8299

Ms Nancy Hearne Tel: 202-289-2140

Project Manager Fax: 202-289-2149

NSF International E-mail: hearne@nsf.org

1301 K St., N.W., Suite 225

Washington, DC 20005

Dr Alan Jenkins Tel: 44 1491 838800

Head, Water Quality Division Fax: 44 1491 692430

Institute of Hydrology

Maclean Buidling

Crowmarsh Giffor

Wallingford

Oxfordshire OX10 8BB

United Kingdom

Dr. Hew Jones Tel: +44-171-890-5346

Department of Environment Transport Fax: +44-171-890-5209

and Regions E-mail: wq.detr@dial.pipex.com

Water Quality Division

Zone 3/E15

Ashdown House

123 Victoria Street

London SWIE 6DE

United Kingdom

Professor David Kay Tel: +44 113 233 6461

Professor of Environmental Science Fax: +44 113 233 6716

University of Leeds E-mail: dave@lec.leeds.ac.uk

Leeds LS2 9JT

United Kingdom

Charles D. McGee Tel: 714-593-7504

Orange County Sanitation Dist. Fax: 714-962-2591

10844 Ellis Ave. E-mail: cmcgee@ocsd.com

Fountain Valley, CA 92623

Dr Latisha Parker Tel: 202-260-1125

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fax: 202 260 1036

Office of Water E-mail: PARKER.LATISHA@epamail.epa.gov

Office of Science and Technology

Health and Ecological Criteria Division

Mail Code 4304

401 M. St. S.W.

Washington DC 20460
48

Dr Kathy Pond Tel: +39 6 48 77 544

Water and Wastes Unit Fax: +39 6 48 77 599

WHO European Centre for Environment E-mail: kpo@who.it

and Health

Via Francesco Crispi 10

I – 00187 Rome

Dr. Gareth Rees Tel: +44 1 483-259-209

Head of Environmental Management Fax: +44 1 252-407-380

Farnborough College of Technology E-mail: g.rees@farn-ct.ac.uk

Boundary Road

Farnborough Hants

GU14 6SB

United Kingdom

Mr David Rosenblatt Tel: 609-984-3588

Supervisor Fax: 609-292-1803

N.J. Department of Environmental Protection E-mail: drosenbl@dep.state.nj.us

401 East State Street, 4th Floor 

Trenton, NJ 08625

Dr Henry Salas Tel: +51 1 437 1077

Advisor in Water Pollution Control Fax: +51 1 437 8289

Pan American Health Organization E-mail: hsalas@cepis.org.pe

Center for Sanitary Engineering

Environmental Sciences (CEPIS)

Casilla Postal 4337

Lima 100

Peru

Dr Stephen Schaub Tel: 202-260-7591

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fax 202-260-1036

WSM, E1001B E-mail: schaub.stephen@epamail.epa.gov

Mail Code 4304

Washington, DC 20460

Dr Bert van Maele

Tel: +32 2 296 8684

European Commission, DGXI.DI Fax: +32 2 296 8825

Boulevard du Triumph 174 E-mail: bert.van-maele@dg11.cec.be

Room 3/77

B-1160 Brussels

Belgium

Observers

Ms Lisa Almodovar Tel: 202 260 1310

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fax: 202 260 1036

Office of Water E-mail: almodovar.lisa@epamail.epa.gov

Office of Science and Technology

Health and Ecological Criteria Division

Mail Code 4304

401 M. St., S.W., Washington, DC 20460
49

Rick Hoffmann Tel: 202 260 0642

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fax: 202 260 9830

Office of Science and Technology E-mail: hoffmann.rick@epamail.epa.gov

Mail Code 4305

401 M. Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

Melissa Melvin Tel: 202 260 0265

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fax: 202 260 9830

Office of Science and Technology E-mail: melvin.melissa@epamail.epa.gov

Mail Code 4305

401 M. Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

Invited but unable to attend

Dr B. Fattal

Head of Environmental Microbiology

Division of Environmental Sciences

Graduate School of Applied Sciences

Jerusalem 91904

Israel

Mr John Fox Tel: 202 260 9889

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fax: 202 260 7185

Office of Water E-mail: fox.john@epamail.epa.gov

Office of Science and Technology,

Engineering and Analysis Division

Mail Code 4303

401 M. St. S.W.

Washington DC 20460

Professor Charles Haas Tel: 215-895-2283

Drexel University Fax 215-895-2267

SESEP E-mail haascn@post.drexel.edu

Abbotts Building

Room 312

32nd & Chestnut

Philadelphia, PA 19104

Dr Nigel Lightfoot Tel: +44 191 261 2577

Group Director Fax: +44 191 261 2578

PHLS North

17-21 Dean Street

Newcastle

Tyne NE1 2PQ

United Kingdom
50

Dr Robin Oshiro Tel: 202 260 7278

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fax: 202 260 1036

Office of Water E-mail:oshiro.robin@epamail.epa.gov

Office of Science and Technology

Health and Ecological Criteria Division

Mail Code 4304

401 M. St. S.W.

Washington DC 20460

Joth Singh Tel: 758-452-2501

Caribbean Environmental Health Institute Fax: 758-453-2721

Castries, St. Lucia

Professor Mark Sobsey Tel: 919-966-1024

Campus Box 7400 Fax: 919-966-4711

Department of Environmental Science E-mail: mark_sobsey@unc.edu

 & Engineering

School of Public Health

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7400

Dr Joan Ramon Vidal

Area Medi Mari

ECOPROGRES S.L.

C/Lull 109, 2

E - 08034 Barcelona