Lentis/Chloramination of Drinking Water

Introduction
Chloramine, also known as monochloramine, is the chemical compound NH2Cl formed when ammonia is added to chlorine. It is used as a secondary disinfectant for water treatment. Secondary disinfectants keep drinking water clean as it is transported through the pipes from the treatment plant to the user, whereas primary ones remove contaminants at the plant. Chloramine is used as secondary disinfectant because it is more stable, lasts longer than free chlorine, and does not form harmful byproducts like trihalomethanes. The goal of chloramine use is promotion of public health by preventing disease causing germs from contaminating water and being ingested (e.g. salmonella and norovirus). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows chloramine use up to concentrations of 4 mg/L and studies suggest there are no health effects from drinking chloramine with concentration less than 50 mg/L.

History
Chemical water disinfection with chlorine began near the beginning of the 20th century. In 1929 chloramine use began in American cities (e.g. Cleveland, OH; Springfield, IL; and Lansing, MI). 1998 EPA studies suggested 68 million Americans were drinking water disinfected with chloramine. Major US cities including Washington DC, Philadelphia, and San Francisco began shifting to chloramine treatment. More than 20% of Americans were being served by chloramine treated water by 2009. As of 2011, analysis of EPA data found population percentages being supplied with chloramine treated drinking water, which revealed Texas and Florida leading with over 50 percent. One-third of all US public water systems use chloraminated water. Chloramine is not expected to overtake chlorine usage, but is predicted to reach 40 percent of the population in future years.

Pushback
Though chloramines have been used since the 1930’s, the transition to chloramine has not been as smooth as planned. Activists have “called for more scientific study” on the usage of chloramines, claiming many potential dangers. These issues range from health effects to environmental damages. Activists have had success in preventing the transition notably in Charlottesville with Transition Charlottesville/Albemarle, a grassroots campaign. Despite the opposition, water utilities continue to push change in order to save money and meet EPA standards.

Health Issues
According to the EPA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there are no health effects of 50 mg/L of chloramine. Both organizations claim “the normal level for drinking water can range from 1.0 to 4.0 mg/L”. The EPA, however, has had no follow up studies. This remains a source of tension for critics who dispute these claims and argue for more research. Critics like Friends of Water claim “it is suggested that anyone with chemical sensitivities will react badly to it,” which can include severe skin rashes and breathing problems. Critics are also concerned with the production of toxic disinfection byproducts (DBP). Research shows “chloramine produces the same types of halogenated by-products as chlorine, but they were few in number and lower in concentration,” allowing the DBP’s to be dealt with easier.

Environmental Effects
When chloramines escape into water sources, they are toxic to aquatic life. Aquatic life absorbs water and associated disinfectants like chloramines directly into the bloodstream, which kills them. Chloramines are also “harmful to humans and animals that consume the contaminated fish or other aquatic animals”. Two chloramine escape incidents have been documented by Citizens Concerned About Chloramine (CCAC) to warn and “raise the public's level of awareness about chloramine”. Water suppliers are required to prevent escapes because of known dangers. Suppliers failing to comply have been “slapped with a $199,350 fine”.

Implementation
Switching to chloramine requires water utilities to refurbish existing distribution pipes because chloramines cause lead in pipes to become soluble, which releases lead into the water system. This issue occurred in Washington D.C. in 2000 and led to lead contaminants in the water system, resulting in a public health crisis. Many children received lifelong health issues from exposure. Many cities have made the transition before and others continue to follow. However, “Washington's experience had a chilling effect; many have put off switching disinfectants, fearing their own lead crisis”. Activists like the Environmental Working Group (EWG) often cite examples like D.C. and others to promote knowledge of effects of switching, stating “unfortunately, this situation is not unique: similar results have been reported in Greenville, North Carolina”. Suppliers must prepare for the transition beforehand by investing money to refurbish and test pipes to avoid public health issues.

Advocacy Groups
Stakeholders drive the implementation or de-escalation of chloramine use. The EPA regularly updates their page on chloramine research. Chloramine has been chosen as a secondary disinfectant option because the, “EPA and CDC believe the benefits of drinking water disinfection outweigh the potential risks from disinfection byproducts.” It is also used for its chemical stability compared to chlorine, wherein it produces fewer harmful regulated disinfection byproducts and it lasts longer than chlorine. Other groups question the use of chloramine as a whole, like Citizens Concerned About Chloramine (CCAC) who are a non profit group based in the San Francisco Bay Area. The CCAC researches and publicizes the effects of chloramination on people, animals, and the environment. Transition Charlottesville/Albemarle is another advocacy group, “dedicated to creating more resilient and self-reliant communities in and around the Charlottesville, Virginia area. They have held “teach-ins” to inform local citizens about the potential hazards of chloramine usage in Albemarle county.

Advocacy Group Goals
The EPA’s notes on chloramines comments, “both chlorine and monochloramine are effective secondary disinfectants.” but does not state any side effects or disadvantages of it’s usage. If anything, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) states chloramine creates fewer byproducts than chlorine due to it lasting longer so it won’t break down as quickly as chlorine does. The EPA, government, and local water agencies goal is to use more efficient means of water treatment, and chloramines fit that description. The CCAC’s goal is to “raise the public's level of awareness about chloramine and its health effects when used as a disinfectant in the water.” This includes publicizing the harmful effects of chloramine and the damage it does to the environment and the San Francisco Bay Area as a whole. Transition Charlottesville/Albemarle's goal is, “to inspire and support individuals, organizations and communities working toward sustainable local systems of food, goods, energy, communication, and culture.” They have done so by asking and educating the public on what chloramine is, how it can be helpful, and how it can be harmful.

Advocacy Group Differences
Each group differs in their research, methods, and distribution of information. The EPA publishes their work on their websites citing expert research or their own findings. They promote research by answering questions pertaining to chloramines through publishing documents of their research. The EPA does not list drawbacks of chloramines, just comparisons to chlorine usage. The CCAC polarizes the use of chloramines through publicizing research and promoting the risks of it’s usage. This is done via fliers, photographs of rashes, and eye catching article tabs to discuss chloramine’s worrying effects. Transition Charlottesville/Albemarle pursues public advocacy as a path towards impacting chloramine usage. They do it by holding forums with researchers, concerned citizens, and local boards during their discussions of the impacts of chloramine use in Albemarle county.

Conclusion
Chloramine is an example of a technical development that was put into practice before its impacts were fully understood. As a result of changing EPA standards for drinking water disinfection research was expanded beyond chlorine to find a substance that would have desired impacts and be safe. The problem is solved from the technical side by chloramination for secondary disinfection, but little attention was paid to the downstream impacts. With little conclusive research on chloramine's impacts on public health, the environment, and pipe degradation advocacy groups have raised concerns over its widespread adoption. Further exploration into issues with chloramine could focus on the alternatives water treatment plants could take (e.g. replacing pipes), the reason for lacking scientific research, and additional motivations of social groups resisting chloramine adoption.