Swimming bans at our beaches- any solutions?
This page is presented by Jackson Park Advisory Council and also by the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference website hydepark.org. Written by Gary Ossewaarde
Beach alerts, open or closed: Park District website or 312 742BEACH (742-3224).
Jackson Park Council discussed the issues with Holiday Wirick of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Justin De Witt from the Illinois Department of Public Health Beach division March 12, 2007. See below. 63rd beach watershed will be one of 2 Illinois sites fully studied under a grant--all outflow sources. [A victory for all working together: BP backs down on increased Lake dump.]
Jackson
Park/JPAC home. The
Gunderboom plan. page includes diverse views from the early 21st century
on lake pollution, swimming bans.
The
Whitman Report on 63rd St. beach
(Dec. 3, 2001) page contains the executive summary from a government funded
study of this complex issue.
Visit EPA site, www.epa.gov/beaches/,Great
Lakes Beachwatch Listserve. Centers
for Disease Control site,
US Geological Survey, Illinois Department of Natural Resources (which
is not however resp. for Lake Mich. beaches), Chicago
Department of Environment, Alliance
for the Great Lakes and Great Lakes Aquatic Network and Fund. Current swimming
bans are posted in the Chicago
Park District site (in season).
A
good source on beach issues is www.cdc.gov
(Centers for Disease Control).
Here (page index):
Prelude: An increased number of swimming bans at 63rd St. beach due to high bacteria readings became noticeable about 1999. The park district and city agencies took many steps and considered numerous ideas then and in following years, and funded expert studies. They also sought to improve testing and public notification of bans. Although much was learned, progress was hit and miss. City Council held hearings also.
In July 2007, Reps. Kirk and Lipinski introduced a bill that would provide a fund to clean up spot sources of sewage (especially municipal) and quadruples th fine on cities dumping sewage into the Great Lakes.
In 2005 a new fast-test for beach water pollution and closure was tested at 63rd and North Avenue--the city liked the results, but plans are not clear as to whether the district will be using this or some other testing. The Park District may be asked by EPA to be do a test-of-model, perhaps with BEACH Act grants. Meanwhile, EPA has at least two newer fast (almost real time) tests coming up the pipeline for testing.
In 2006, the Park District adopted a new standard trigger for swim bans and new ways to notify the public when bacterial levels are between the traditional EPA standard of 235 cfu (coliforming units per milliliter) to the new 1,000 standard. JPAC has been seeking information because it believes, as expressed in resolution in summer 2006, that there is a potential of public danger. This page deals with our information and concerns and what others have to say.
Government experts are scheduled to visit the February 12, 2007 JPAC meeting to inform the council.
Suit filed against feds, EPA on swim bans and advisories summer 2006
| August 10 2006 via
AOL: Group Sues EPA Over Beach Pollution Releases List of Dirtiest and Cleanest Beaches
The lawsuit, filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council in U.S. District Court on Thursday, charged that the Environmental Protection Agency failed to protect the public against the "substantial adverse health effects" from contact with contaminated beach water. In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring the EPA to update its beach-water health standards by 2005. The agency missed the deadline and current standards are two decades old, according to court documents. The lawsuit was filed on the same day the group issued a report that found beach closings due to hazardous bacterial contamination in Los Angeles County jumped 50 percent in 2005. Across the nation, beaches were closed or posted with health advisories 20,000 times last year, the report said. EPA spokesman Dale Kemery did not address the lawsuit, but said in a statement "the state of the nation's beach health remains high, even as the number of beaches monitored increased by 11 percent in 2005." The agency "has made significant progress in carrying out its responsibilities under the" 2000 law, he said. The lawsuit asks the court to order the agency to complete the water-quality studies and publish revised safety rules. The pollution comes
from a wide mix of sources, including animal waste, factories, septic
tanks, sewage, pesticides and oil and metals deposited on city streets. |
Courtesy of JPAC Newsletter April 2007 and HPKCC Conference Reporter 2007 No. 1 April
Officials
Update Lake Issue, Swim Bans at Jackson Park Meeting
by Gary Ossewaarde, body from JPAC Newsletter April 2007
In the September Reporter, we described changes in Chicago standards for swim bans at beaches based on testing, along with concerns some have expressed that the changes may present a danger to public health. Below is an update summary of a discussion at the March 12, 2007 Jackson Park Advisory Council meeting with Holiday Wirick, a Water Quality administrator with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, and Justin DeWitt, Beach Administrator with the Illinois Department of Public Health.
The U.S. Beach
Act is the point of interface between Chicago and state and federal agencies.
Chicago is currently in compliance with the Beach Act, the presenters said.
This legislation requires that if a jurisdiction seeks eligibility for grants
fund testing, surveys, etc. at beaches, then should the beach water reach a
concentration of 235 cfu of indicator bacteria, that jurisdiction must take
an action, which could be closure or public notification and signage.
Chicago formerly closed beaches after two days of readings of 235 or
higher; it now gives notice after one day of such readings and closes the beach
whenever 1,000 is exceeded. The federal standard, developed in the 1970s, has
not changed—revised standards and protocols are being developed. Chicago
tests much more frequently than most jurisdictions (the minimum is once a week).
There is not agreement over what are the best tests or way and places to conduct
them, they said—and agreed that many sources of illness are missed or
not tested for. The guests said some trials such as in Lake County suggest that
modeling is superior to testing. Also, the real goal is to have progress on
safe beach waters and clean Great Lakes. As for a trend for more closures on
the Great Lakes in the past decade, at least some reflects more testing, they
said.
Questions were raised about adoption and public health implications of Chicago’s
new standard. Director of Lakefront Operations Alonzo Williams reported that
input was taken on the change and that Chicago will be applying for grants.
Also, under a different grant, a thorough search will be made at two Chicago
beach catchments for outfalls and point sources pf pollution. Members asked
that the park district choose oft-closed 63rd Street as one of the test beaches.
According to Williams, the district also has an educational program to discourage
actions that contribute to beach and water contamination and is rolling out
the new waste containers. And changes were made to the shape of 63rd beach.
Members noted that most of the storm and general runoff from park lawn panels
on the south lakefront ends up untreated in the lake.
Wirick, DeWitt, Ellen Sargent of the park district, Alliance for the Great Lakes
spokesperson Frances Canonizado, and members agreed on the importance of the
new Great Lakes Collaboration among the states and provinces to address the
pollution problems of the Great Lakes Basin. This would require states’
ratification and heavy federal funding.
Asked when and for whom the waters are safe, the guests said it depends on the
state of the individual and suggested people be cautious about entering the
water when the 235 standard is exceeded, or the days after a storm. Members
were concerned that Chicago may have set the level for closure too high; the
guests said it is a good starting point. A suggested source of more information
is the Centers for Disease Control website-- go to Healthy Swimming.
Members proposed better signage, that flyers explaining the protocol and the
dangers be handed out at the beach whenever 235 cfu is exceeded, and that outreach
be done in the schools and field houses before summer and at summer camps, and
to seniors and other vulnerable persons. Chicago Park District, with the 5th
Ward Office, is working to implement most of these.
Frances Canonizado of the Alliance for the Great Lakes said:
· Everyone needs to get together for better education,
· There is a funding problem, starting at the federal level (noting that
the Beach Act doesn’t fund remediation), and
· It is urgent that action be taken to fix the problems—we should
start green actions such as plantings, which have been shown to be effective.
Jackson
Park Advisory Council
2nd Monday of Each Month
Jackson Park Fieldhouse
6402 S. Stony Island
Contact Ross Petersen, 773 486-0505
At the end of July, 2007 JPAC was informed that 63rd St. beach was selected as one of two Illinois sites to receive a grant from the federal EPA (applied for on behalf of Illinois Department of Public Health, local grantee Chicago Park District. The grant will fund as a pilot site an inventory of ll the possible sources of contamination in the 63rd Street beach watershed. Each source will be documented using GIS and GPS, as well as appropriate E. coli sampling at each potential source. Also, a characterization of hydrodynamic conditions at the beach will be undertaken to assess their impact on E. coli level at the beach.
JPAC holds, according to resolutions from July 2006, that the Park District is not complying with the EPA/IDPH guidelines for notification of the public when benchmarks are exceeded short of the 1000 mandating a swim ban. These are guidelines reportedly binding on those who consent; the pd signed ark district did sign on and should be eligible for BEACH Act grants. JPAC believes the public is not being provided proper signage with explanation of what kind of warning is being issued by the flown yellow flag, including notice at beach access points, as recommended by the federal EPA. JPAC believes this creates potential danger to the public, especially children, seniors, and ill and immuno-compromised people. JPAC resolved in July 2006 that the Park District should comply. This reporter, Gary Ossewaarde, understands from EPA that 235 is still their standard, but those qualifying for grants or wishing to have the imprimatur of compliance are not required to use it--just so they give a timely advisory or close the beach. EPA in discussions with the Park District reportedly asked for better measures to inform the public what the yellow and red flags mean. Chicago adopted 1,000 from the Wisconsin Beach master's directive (which incorporated several reforms Wisconsin had not been doing.) Although the state (Illinois Dept. Public Health) and not the federal EPA were said to be responsible for beaches, neither, we were told by EPA sources, has explicit authority to direct jurisdictions to take any measures. EPA and IDPH have reportedly met with the park district and suggested specific measures that would improve meaningful public notification. From the JPAC July meeting and August NewsletterFran Vandervoort reported on information she obtained from the United States EPA about changing water quality standards at Chicago beaches. In particular, maximum allowed coliform counts have been increased from 235 to 1000 colonies per 100 ml of water. A red flag, previously the warning for dangerously high waves, is now required if the count exceeds 1000 and a yellow flag for counts between 235 and 1000. JPAC has observed the parks are not following the letter of EPA requirements for public notification about high bacterial counts, even if one did not have reservations about the “yellow flag” program in the first place. JPAC does commend the daily sampling of water and swimming ban upon one day of high readings instead of two. Following is a draft resolution moved and accepted in principle:
Addendum to minutes:
Section 5.3.3 of the BEACH act, “When to Notify,” list the following requirements: (1) If the decision is made to notify the public (based on exceedance of the water quality standard), the appropriate agency must promptly notify the beach manager/operator and appropriate staff members (e. g., lifeguards). (2) The appropriate agency must promptly notify the public of an exceedance of applicable water quality standards by either a sign or functional equivalent. [This notification] should occur at the point of beach access. (3) [Communication] at the point of access could be a visual notice or personal interaction such as a flag at a beach or interaction with beach or park personnel. Other … measures not provided at point of access include mass media (newspapers, TV, radio), Internet web sites, telephone hotlines, and technical reports. (4) Beach signs should state the type of advisory closing and the reason it was issued – an exceedance of water quality criteria… or another reason as deemed appropriate. (5) Signs should be located where they are most likely to be noticed by beach users, … should be a bright color, such are red or yellow, to attract attention. The words “WARNING,” “ADVISORY,” or “BEACH CLOSED” should be written in large letters at the top of the signs so that they can be read from a distance… The advantage of a sign is that they provide visual notice at the point of access. Additional information obtained from the U.S. EPA includes a data taken from a chart of water quality criteria. This chart indicates that the risk level for E. coli bacteria is 0.8% at 235 colonies per 100 ml of water. This means that 8 out of 1000 swimmers could potentially become sick when swimming in water with a density of 235 colonies of E. coli per 100 ml of water. Note: It is important to recognize that E. coli is an indicator species, and not usually a contaminant in itself. In other words, an elevated level of E. coli can indicate that the environment is hospitable to pathogenic bacteria, including Salmonella, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium. [From the Editor in the Newsletter: JPAC has yet to discover why 1000 cfu became an acceptable standard. (Only Chicago and Wisconsin of Great Lakes municipalities have departed from 235.) Also, JPAC has consistently supported the strongest possible efforts to stop Lake contamination in the first place, including from outfalls and wash from lawns and parking lots. Certainly, people could do a lot more to intercept food and garbage from the beach and water. Gary Ossewaarde] From the September Newsletter: Here is additional information JPAC has obtained, in part from the U.S. EPA:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DiscussionBy Gary Ossewaarde The city has changed the protocol on swimming bans at beaches. You will have to watch for flags changing from green to yellow to red. As we understand it, there will now be closures only if the indicator bacteria goes above 1,000 colony-forming units per milliliter, not the former 235, but that the closures will now occur upon one day rather than two of exceedance of standard. Cook County, IL and Wisconsin are the only Great Lakes beaches using the new 1,000 standard, most of the rest still use 235 and Ontario 100. Most or more jurisdictions around the Great Lakes do test less frequently. How many days beaches of successive exceedance these jurisdictions allow before beaches are closed is not known to us. The change occurred with no or little notice to or discussion with most environmental watchdog groups or park watchdog groups including advisory councils. Notice in media was short--and the NBC coverage of beach closings focused on the pollution reality in certain states and general infrequency of testing, lack of application of fast-testing, and slowness of notice and closures since the test water has to be incubated. Chicago is in fact way ahead of the game on most of these, but still has a high number and percentage of closure days, 63rd generally leading the pack. The 235 standard was developed and implemented as mandatory for beach advisories (notification must be prompt) by EPA at least as early as 1986 (according to EPA website--citations below). Presumably it had been shown that at 235 the statistical or epidemiological possibility of 1 in 1,000 getting sick becomes real--seldom from E. coli but from the other pathogens that accompany E. coli, which is a marker. The 2001 Whitman report on 63rd Beach E. coli (which see) cites and applies 235 as the enforceable limit. The Centers for Disease Control website indicates CDC is still more comfortable with 235 rather than 1,000. We note that what is OK for normal persons may not be safe for the very young, the elderly, or immuno-compromised. Our researchers have yet to discover why the precise number 1,000 or any higher number is now acceptable, but by closing after one day of testing the city is said by EPA to be in compliance with the performance criteria for grants and will now be eligible for BEACH grant funds. The city tests 5 to 7 days a week, and there is a precise governmental criteria as to what the municipality must do after a water quality standard is exceeded. We are also uncertain of time of day of testing at various beaches--the Whitman 2001 study at 63rd Street Beach showed that conservative practice makes it essential that testing be done by mid morning--concentrations generally go down--usually dramatically--thereafter and only occasionally up (and then from extremely low to still under 235. The city now posts yellow flags with signage and public information when cfu is above 235 and installed new covered garbage wheeled garbage cans, in addition to discouraging gull congregations downtown. (See public brochure, below). There were questions about the sufficiency, clarity and location of the signs in 2006.
At a City Council Committee on Parks and Recreation hearing June 2006, questioning on this matter is reported as having been met with complacency and remark that advocacy groups approved the change. As of the end of June 2006, 63rd Street beach had already been closed twice at the new 1,000 cfu trigger--with no available information as to how often the yellow flag was put up (showing the beach would have been closed at over 235 cfu.) One closure after the big June 21 storm may have been widespread and involved a possible lock opening. On July 9, all the city beaches were closed--and there hadn't been a heavy rain in 5 days. Documentary
sources in the EPA website. Also under Reports and References in the above site scroll 1/3 of way down and find National Beach Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants: go to Chapter 5, Section 5.3.3 "when to notify." Chapter 4 Section 4.2.1 Monitoring Design- Section A discusses when to sample, Section B what to do after a standard is exceeded. Top _______________________
|