January 2008 Issue

BACK

John Weber

U.S. EPA and States Not Always in Sync on Chlorine, Bromine Limits

One of the greatest challenges faced by commercial recreational water operators is maintaining a sanitizer residual during times of high demand or stress on the system (e.g., high bather load, heat, and sunlight). This is particularly true when dealing with sanitizers such as chlorine and bromine. These challenges are echoed by local and state health officials who must create codes that protect public health, but that also can meet the demands of the commercial operators. The needs of operators and state and local health officials are often in conflict with the sanitizer labels from the manufacturers and the recommended levels offered by national industry organizations. Why don’t manufacturers adjust their labels to meet these needs? It is a complicated issue.

In 1972, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given authority to control pesticide distribution, sale, and use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In our case, bacteria and algae in swimming pools are classified as “pests,” so the products used to control them are called “pesticides.” That means that sanitizers, disinfectants, and algaecides used in recreational water are all covered under this law. Before any new pesticide is manufactured and sold to the public, it must be registered with the EPA. The manufacturer must file with the EPA: “the name of the pesticide, a complete copy of the labeling of the pesticide, a statement of all claims to be made for it, any directions for its use, the complete formula of the pesticide etc.”1 In practice, the manufacturer submits a draft label to EPA for review. This includes the use directions and any marketing claims desired by the manufacturer. The EPA reviews the draft label and may make changes. It is illegal to sell or distribute any product that makes pesticidal claims without the product first being registered with the EPA.

The EPA has established the minimum anti-bacterial performance that products must demonstrate. For products used in swimming pools, these performance criteria are found in “DIS/TSS-12, Efficacy Data Requirements, Swimming Pool Water Disinfectants.”2 In regulatory circles this is referred to as DIS/TSS-12. The proposed APSP American National Standard for Water Quality in Public Pools and Spas (BSR/APSP-11) summarizes the efficacy requirements as:

In order to obtain FIFRA registration, the test product must be able to control bacteria in swimming pools during rigorous field studies. These studies last for four to twelve months and determine the test product’s ability to control bacteria while people are swimming. A minimum of 144 samples are collected over four to twelve months for bacterial enumeration and water chemistry. Registration will be granted only if the following is true for at least 85% of the samples tested:

The standard heterotrophic plate count (HPC) does not exceed 200 CFU/ml.

Total coliforms and fecal coliforms do not exceed one per 50 ml.

An additional test listed within DIS/TSS-12 is conducted under laboratory conditions to measure the rate at which sanitizers kill bacteria. Any sanitizer that kills 99.9999% (6-log reduction) of two bacterial species within 30 seconds may add a “disinfectant” claim on the sanitizer label."3

The manufacturer must submit data to prove that the product meets the anti-bacterial control specified in DIS/TSS-12. This data must be developed under Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). Because of the massive amount of data generated since the 1960s, the EPA has waived the requirement for new data when new chlorine or bromine products are proposed.

The EPA weighs the efficacy of the product against any environmental or human health concerns that may be associated with the pesticide. They consider things such as the amount of the chemical the user may be exposed to, by-products, break-down products, and toxicity. This is referred to as a “risk-assessment.” The risk-assessment is used to establish the use concentration of the product.

The EPA then mandates the appropriate precautionary language and the use concentration. Thus, the use concentrations for chlorine and bromine in swimming pools are established by EPA policy, not the manufacturer. For example, while chlorine has good efficacy at 10 ppm, the EPA has set a 4 ppm maximum reentry level for swimmers when pools are treated with unstabilized chlorine.4 This means that the EPA believes that a swimmer’s health may be adversely affected if they enter the water with a chlorine reading above 4 ppm. Consequently, the EPA requires manufacturers to state clearly on the label that swimmers should not be in the water when more than 4 ppm of chlorine is present. Above we asked why manufacturers don’t change their label to allow operators to use higher concentrations. They can’t. Manufacturers can’t even suggest that it is safe to swim at higher levels of chlorine. The EPA requires that every pesticide label state, “IT IS A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW TO USE THIS PRODUCT IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH ITS LABELING.” If a manufacturer even suggests, let alone recommends, that it might be okay to swim at any level above what is stated on the label then the manufacturer is in violation of federal law. The EPA can and does take legal action. Manufacturers abide by the language mandated by the EPA to avoid legal actions.

How is it possible that some states allow more chlorine than is stated on the label? They have superseded the EPA and drafted their own use concentration regulations. These regulations are designed to help swimming pool operators to maintain higher chlorine residuals during periods of high demand. So why do state and local officials establish regulations that deviate from what is on the manufacturer’s label? Because:

1. State and local health officials monitor and inspect public recreational water facilities. They also enforce state and local code. The EPA does not inspect these areas. Therefore, federal enforcement at the facility level is non-existent.
2. The data to support many of the sanitizers and disinfectants at higher use levels are sparse. This leaves open for debate whether or not the upper federal limits are accurate

The debate over the lower and upper limits of sanitizers should continue until the EPA, state, and local health officials begin to work together to sponsor the research needed to fully understand the impacts to human health and the environment. Organizations, like APSP, will continue to work with all groups to better educate and inform on this topic. If there is any doubt, however, as to what the federal law is concerning a specific product, there is only one place to look: the label.

John H. Weber
Technical Services Manager

John Weber has been in the pool and spa industry for over 10 years. John is currently the Technical Services Manager of Advantis Technologies. John has also served on the Recreational Water Quality Committee since 2004.

© 2008 by The Association of Pool & Spa Professionals. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted without written permission.

1. From the US Code Online via GPO Access. From EPA website: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+7USC136a
2. EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/dis_tss_docs/dis-12.htm.
3. APSP. Proposed American National Standard for Water Quality in Public Pools and Spas, BSR/APSP-11 2007.
4. APSP. Appendix A, Chemical Operating Parameters.