December 2002, pages 380-81 Tina Garrity looks at the European Commission's second attempt to revise the bathing water directive

If ever the Commission had a struggle on its hands, it is the attempt to revise the 1976 bathing water directive. A 1994 proposal to produce a new, more scientifically sound set of rules for the EU's multitude of bathing water areas gradually ran into difficulties and was eventually abandoned in 2000. Now, after extensive consultation, the Commission is trying again with what it thinks is a workable proposal.

The main change from the existing directive would be a drastic reduction in the number of water quality parameters to be used, a move welcomed by the Chartered Institute. Recreational water activities other than swimming would have to be taken account of and there would be a new requirement to establish emergency plans for events such as floods, accidents or infrastructure breakdowns.

Scope

When the 1976 directive was adopted, bathing primarily meant swimming. Since then, water activities like wind-surfing and kayaking, which can involve falling in the water, have grown in popularity. Under the new directive, authorities would have to consider whether data gathered in relation to bathing was relevant for such activities. Any relevant information would have to be published alongside that on bathing water.

The definition of bathing water itself would be amended to cover all running or still inland surface waters, transitional waters and coastal waters, or parts thereof, where bathing is not prohibited and traditionally practised by a large number of bathers, or where it is actively promoted by public bodies or commercial interests. The management measures envisaged to improve water quality would also be defined.

Water quality

A bathing water profile would have to be established for each bathing water giving a description of its main characteristics and an identification of all potential polluting sources with an assessment of their potential to impair health. The profile could also include other relevant information, such as a description of the monitoring points and an assessment of whether monitoring provided representative information for other recreational activities.

Bathing water would be classified as either poor, good, or excellent as measured against a reduced set of parameters. The Commission is proposing two microbiological parameters for all sites, based on 95 percentile evaluation:

• Intestinal Enterococci (I.E) in cfu/100 ml (Good = 200 Excellent = 100)
• E. coli (E.C) in cfu/100 ml (Good = 500 Excellent = 250) and an additional parameter for phytoplankton blooms or macroalgae proliferation for sites sensitive to specific toxic blooms. Good quality here would mean a negative result on tests.

The standards have been set in the light of a World Health Organisation (WHO) epidemiological study into the relationship between the level of microbiological contamination and the level of illness of people bathing in contaminated water, whose findings were confirmed by a randomised epidemiological study on health risks from bathing in German fresh water sites. Details of both studies are given in the explanatory memorandum to the proposal. Here in the UK, a study commissioned by Defra and published in June 2002, estimated that around 1.3 million cases of stomach upsets every year in England and Wales could be associated with bathing in faecally contaminated bathing water.*

There would be two physico-chemical parameters for all waters:

• mineral oils (no film visible on the surface and no odour); and
• tarry residues and floating materials such as wood, plastic, glass, rubber or any other waste substance (absence).

Also, there would be an additional one for fresh waters:

• pH (6 to 9 - no unexplainable variations).

Monitoring

Methods for assessing and classifying bathing water areas are set out in the proposal, as are rules on the frequency of monitoring. Bathing waters classified as poor would have to periodically (not less than once a year) undergo a thorough study and analysis of all the sources and circumstances likely to cause or contribute to pollution or contamination. The results would assist in targeting appropriate management measures. Classifications for excellent status waters would be re-analysed on a tri-annual basis and those for good quality status waters on a bi-annual basis.

The frequency for routine monitoring would be two analysed samples per month. For water classification purposes the frequency would be as follows:

• During one period of three years
  Excellent - 0.5 samples per month
  Good - 1 sample per month
  Poor - 2 samples per month

• During two consecutive periods of three years
  Excellent - 0.25 samples per month
  Good - 0.5 sample per month
  Poor - 2 samples per month

One extra sample would have to be taken one week before the start of the bathing season. Taking into account this extra sample, in no circumstance should there be less than two samples taken and analysed per bathing season. Harmonised standards for the handling, analysis, storage and transport of samples are laid down in the proposal. Authorities would have to establish and publish a monitoring calendar for each bathing water.

Emergency plans

Emergency plans would have to be established for events such as floods, accidents or infrastructure breakdowns which may adversely impact bathing water quality. These would identify potential causes and risks of impacts, establish surveillance and/or early warning systems and provide guidance on prevention or mitigation of damage. Comprehensive national and/or local surveillance and early-warning systems would have to be established, improved or maintained. The purpose of these is set out in the proposal. Member states would have to ensure the relevant public authorities had the necessary capacity to respond to such incidents or risks in accordance with the relevant emergency plan.

Public information and participation

The proposal requires that interested parties are consulted and allowed to participate not just in the establishment, review and updating of the bathing water lists and profiles but also in the management measures.

In the immediate vicinity of each bathing water, the authorities would have to post a non-technical summary of the bathing water profile and classification over the last three years and an assessment as to whether the monitoring data were relevant for other recreational activities. Where a bathing water was removed from the list, a notice advising the public and giving the reasons would have to be posted during the bathing season of the year that the removal occurred and the following year. The notice would have to indicate the nearest available bathing water. Other information to be published, eg via the internet, would include the monitoring calendar and a history of incidents requiring management measures.

CIEH view

The Chartered Institute welcomes the reduced number of parameters in the proposal and the consequently greater focus on health risk but retains a concern about the wisdom of trying to set standards that are relevant for waters as different as those in Mediterranean and those in Northern Europe. It is also aware that there will be stresses for some local authorities in trying to reconcile the inevitably cautious approach taken by environmental health departments with the economic need to maintain tourism in popular bathing areas.

Additionally, the Chartered Institute is disappointed that the proposal offers no insights into how to deal with diffuse sources of pollution such as that emanating from agricultural sources.

COM (2002) 581 final. Brussels. 24 October 2002. Proposal for a directive ... concerning the quality of bathing water. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2002/com2002_0581en01.pdf

* Defra Issues Paper. "Main issues arising for local authorities likely to arise from the revision of the bathing water directive." July 2002. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/bathing/la-issues.htm