Chloramine and chloramination of drinking water

Michael Jones made this Freedom of Information request to Health and Safety Executive

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Health and Safety Executive,

This is a Freedom of Information Request.

I would like to see any and all information held by the HSE on the subject of chloramine (also known as monochloramine) and chloramination,in relation to drinking water in the UK.

I would like to see any information held by the HSE on any UK based scientific studies on the subject of chloramination of UK drinking water.

I would like to see what certification exists on chloramine(aka monochloramine),whether CE mark,European technical approval,British Standard,or any other national standard of an EEA State which provides an equivalent level of protection and performance.

Yours faithfully,

M.Jones

Infoline Admin,

Ref: HPHS-7ZUCUA

Dear Mr Jones,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding the chloramine and chloramination of
drinking water in the UK.

We are unable to process Freedom of Information requests within the
national Infoline. As such your request has been sent to a local Freedom
of Information Officer to action. Your request has therefore, been
forwarded for reply to:

Sonia Taylor

Freedom of Information Unit

Health and Safety Executive

Redgrave Court

Merton Road

Bootle

Merseyside

L20 7HS

Tel - 0151 951 4000 (Switchboard)

If you require to contact HSE again regarding this enquiry please quote
the reference number above.

I hope this helps, but if you require further assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact this address again or telephone HSE Infoline on 08453
450055.

Yours sincerely

Helena Phillips

HSE Infoline

HSE is committed to maintaining your personal information in a manner
that meets the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Sometimes, we may need to pass your details to another government
department or public body so that they can help you with your enquiry.

HSE Infoline is provided by Connaught Compliance Services Ltd on behalf of
HSE

Connaught plc is a FTSE 250 company. We are the UK's leading provider of
integrated services operating in the compliance, social housing and public
sector markets.

Please visit our website to see a full list of Connaught's Registered
Companies
[1]http://www.connaught.plc.uk/group/aboutc...

Disclaimer:

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete this message.
Connaught plc, Head Office 01392 444546

References

Visible links
1. http://www.connaught.plc.uk/group/aboutc...

Health and Safety Executive

Dear Mr Jones,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No 201002193

I am writing with reference to your freedom of information request for
information about chloramine and chloramination of UK drinking water. Your
request was received on the 18 January 2010 and I am dealing with it under
the terms of the Freedom of Information Act (the Act). I am aware that my
colleague Pat Duncan in HSE's Leeds office replied to you on the 21
January 2010, outlining the situation that HSE did not have the
information you requested, and whilst Pat was correct in that account, I
have found some references for published papers on chloramine, some of
which may be of interest to you. The references are:

CHLORAMINE : PUBLISHED
REFERENCES THAT REFER TO DRINKING WATER

A Comparative Kinetics Study of Monochloramine and Hypochlorous Acid in
Rat. M. S. Abdel.Rahman, D. M. Waldron and R. J. Bull. Journal Of Applied
Toxicology, Vol. 3, No.4, 1983, pp175-179.

Acute Cytogenetic Effect Of Alternative Disinfectants On Rat Bone Marrow
Cells In Vivo. Kimiko FUJIE and Toyoaki Aoki. Chemistry Express, Vol.3.
No. II. pp.655-658 (1988).

Acute cytogenic effect of alternative disinfectants on rat bone marrow
cells in vivo. Fujie K, Aoki T (1988). Paper presented at the 17th Annual
Meeting of the Environmental Mutagen Society of Japan, Tokyo, 4-5 November
1988.

Bladder Cancer in Massachusetts Related to Chlorinated and Chloraminated
Drinking Water: A Case-Control Study. SALLY ZIERLER, LISA FEINGOLD, ROBERT
A. DANLEY. Archives of Environmental Health March/April 1988[Vol. 43(No.
2)]

Chemicals in Drinking Water: Chloramines. Scottish Centre for Infection
and Environmental Health. NHS Scotland. Prepared by Dr Steve Hankin,
Glasgow, July 2001.

Comparative Subchronic Toxicity of Chlorine and Monochloramine in the
B6C3F1 Mouse. F. Bernard Daniel, H. Paul Ringhand, Merrell Robinson, Judy
A. Stober, Greg R. Olson, and Norbert P. Page. Journal American Water
Works Association. November 1991. PP 68-75.

Current Technology of Chlorine Analysis for Water and Wastewater.
Technical Information Series -- Booklet No.17 By Danial L. Harp. Lit. no.
7019 L21.5 Printed in U.S.A. 2002.

Drinking Water Criteria Document For Chloramines. Final Draft. Smallwood,
C.L. et al.. ECAO-CIN-D002 March, 1994. Health And Ecological Criteria
Division, Office Of Science And Technology, Office Of water.

Effect of Chlorine and Monochloramine in Drinking Water on the Developing
Rat Fetus. Mohamed S. Abdel-Rahman, Mark R. Berardi and Richard J. Bull.
Journal Of Applied Toxicology, Vol. 2, NO.3, 1982, pp 156-159.

Effects of Drinking Water Monochloramine on lipid and Thyroid Metabolism
in Healthy Men. Robert G. Wones, Colleen C. Deck, Betsy Stadler/ Suzanne
Roark/ Elizabeth Hogg,and Lawrence A. Frohmanl. Environmental Health
Perspectives vol. 99, pp. 369-374. 1993.

Effects of Subchronic Exposure of Monochloramine in Drinking Water on Male
Rats. Raymond Poon, Pierre Lecavalier, Helen Tryphonas, Genevieve Bondy,
Min Chen, Ih Chu,Algis Yagminas, Victor E. Valli, Monique D'Amour, and
Barry Thomas. Regulatory Toxicology And Pharmacology 25, 166-175 (1997)
ARTICLE NO. RT971090.

Epidermal hyperplasia in mouse skin following treatment with alternative
drinking water disinfectants. Robinson et al (1986). Environ Health
Perspect 69: 293-300.

Evaluation of Chemicals Used for Drinking Water Disinfection for
Production of Chromosomal Damage and Sperm-Head Abnormalities in Mice.
John R. Meier, Richard J. Bull, Judy A. Stober, and Michael C. Cimino.
Environmental Mutagenesis 7:201-211 (1985).

Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality - supporting documents:
Chloramines. Health Canada, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety
Branch. 2003.

Harp, D. (2002). Current technology of chlorine analysis for water and
wastewater. Hach Company, US, Technical Information Series - booklet No.
17, 2002.

Health Effects of Alternate Disinfectants and Their Reaction Products.
Bull, R.J.. J. American Water Works Association (AWWA). May 1980 pp
299-303.

Health effects of monochloramines in drinking water. Gary S. Moore Edward
J. Calabrese, Michael McGee. J. ENVIRON. SCI. HEALTH, A15(3), 239-258
(1980).

Health effects of monochloramines in drinking water. Moore GS, Calabrese
EJ, McGee M (1980). Journal of Environmental Science and Health,
A15(3):239-258.

Identification of compounds in mutagenic extracts of aqueous
monochloraminated fulvic acid. Kanniganti R et al. (1992). Environmental
Science and Technology, 26(10):1998-2004.

Identification of organic N-chloramine in vitro in stomach fluid from the
rat after chlorination. Scully et al 1990. Chem Res Toxicol 3: 301-306.

Immunotoxicologic Evaluation Of Chlorine-Based Drinking Water
Disinfectants, Sodium Hypochlorate And Monochloramine. Jerry H. Exon,
Loren D. Koller, Connie A. O'Reilly and J. Peter Bercz. Toxicology, 44
(1987) 257-269. Elsevier Scientific Publishers Ireland Ltd.

Monochloramine in Drinking-water. Background document for development of
WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/83. English
only, 2004.

Monochloramine. Colton, E., and M.M. Jones. 1955. J. Chem. Educ. 32:
485-487.

Mutagenic activity of chloramines. Edwin L. Thomas, M. Margaret Jefferson,
Jeffrey J. Bennett and Douglas B. Learn. Mutation Research, 188 (1987)
35-43.

Quantitation and identification of organic N-chloramine formed in stomach
fluid on ingestion of aqueous hypochlorite. Scully et al 1986. Environ
Health Perspect. 69: 259-265.

Reactions Of Chlorine, Monochloramine in the GI Tract. Frank E. Scully.
Jr. Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529-0126. William N. White
University of Vermont Burlington. VT 05405 pp820-828 Environ. ScI.
Technol., Vol. 25, No.5, 1991.

Reactions of hypochlorite and organic N-chloramines in stomach fluid.
Scully et al 1985. In: Water Chlorination: Chemistry, Environmental
Impact and health Effects Vol 5 , p175-184.

Relationship of drinking water disinfectants to plasma cholesterol and
thyroid hormone levels in experimental studies. N. W. Revis, P. McCauley.
R. Bull, AND G. Holdsworth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 83, pp.
1485-1489, March 1986 Medical Sciences.

Reproductive Effects of Alternative Disinfectants. Betsy D. Carlton, Paul
Barlett, Ali Basaran, Kate Colling, Irene Osis, and M. Kate Smith.
Environmental Health Perspect Vol 59, pp. 237-241, 1986.

Results of Toxicological Testing of Jefferson Parish Pilot Plant Samples.
Robert G. Miller, Frederick C. Kopfler, Lyman W. Condie, Michael A.
Pereira, John R. Meier, H. Paul Ringhand, Merrel Robinson, and Bruce C.
Castot. Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 69, pp. 129-139, 1986.

Results of toxicological testing of Jefferson Parish Pilot Plant Samples.
Miller et al 1986. Environ. Health Perspect 69: 129-139.

Subchronic Toxicity of Chlorine Dioxide and Related Compounds in Drinking
Water in the Nonhuman Primate. J. P. Bercz, L. Jones, L. Garner, D.
Murray, D. A. Ludwig and J. Boston. Environmental Health Perspectives Vol
56 pp 47-55, 1982.

The Health Effects Of Chloramines In Potable Water Supplies: A Literature
Review. Gary S. Moore and Edward J. Calabrese. Division of Public Health,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003. Journal of Environmental
Pathology and Toxicology 4:257.263, 1980.

The influence of pH upon the formation and decomposition of the chloro
derivatives of ammonia. Chapin, R.M. 1931. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 53: 912-920

Toxicity Of Monochloramine In Rat: An Alternative Drinking Water
Disinfectant. Mohamed S. Abdel-Rahman, Duck H. Suh, Richard J. Bull.
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 13:825-834, 1984.

Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of Chlorinated Water (CAS NOS.
7782-50-5 and 7681-52-9) And Chloraminated Water (CAS NO. 10599-90-3)
(Deionized And Charcoal-Filtered) In F344/N Rats And B6C3F1 Mice (Drinking
Water Studies). National Toxicology Program, Technical Report Series No.
392, U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services, Public Health Service,
National Institutes of Health, March 1992, NTP TR 392, NIH Publication No.
92-2847.

Type I reaction to chloramine. Beck, H.I. 1983. Contact Dermatitis. 9(2):
155-156.

Type of Disinfectant in Drinking Water and Patterns of Mortality in
Massachusetts. Sally Zierler, Robert A. Danley and Lisa Feingold.
Environmental Health Perspectives Vol 69, pp. 275-279, 1986.

Use of Biological Assay Systems to Assess the Relative Carcinogenic
Hazards of Disinfection By-Products. R. J. Bull, M. Robinson, J. R. Meier
and J. Stober. Environmental Health Perspectives Vol 46, pp, 215-227,
1982.

Water Treatment and Pathogen Control. Process Efficiency in Achieving Safe
Drinking Water. Mark W LeChevallier and Kwok-Keung Au. World Health
Organization IWA publishing 2004. Edited by Mark W LeChevallier and
Kwok-Keung Au. ISBN: 1 84339 069 8. Published by IWA Publishing, London,
UK.

You may be able to see copies of many of these papers on-line, or your
local library should be able to order copies of those that may be of
interest to you (please note that under section 21 of the Act we are not
required to provide information if it is already reasonably accessible,
for example as published documents).

You may also wish to contact the Drinking Water Inspectorate
([1]www.dwi.gov.uk) as it is possible that they may be aware of some
historical data on chloramination if it has been used on UK drinking water
supplies in the past.

If you have any queries about this email, please contact me. Please
remember to quote the reference number (2010020193) in any correspondance.

If you are unhappy with the decisions made by HSE you may ask for an
internal review within 2 calendar months of the date of this email by
writing to me.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

The Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Tel: 01625 545700

Fax: 01625 524510

Email: [2][email address]

Website: [3]www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Edwards

Health and Safety Executive.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.dwi.gov.uk/
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/

Dear Health and Safety Executive,

Thank you for your reply.

If you were to actually read my Freedom of Information Request you would see that you have not provided the information,or that the information has been provided incorrectly.

I asked for information related to UK based studies on chloramine,but you seem to have filled a page with irrelevant data from outside the UK.

I would also like to see what certifications exist for chloramine,as was requested in my original contact to you.

I would be grateful if you would now provide the information that was actually requested.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Jones

Health and Safety Executive

Dear Mr Jones,

We don't actually hold any data relevant to your request, as Pat had
already outlined, but I decided to provide you with the details of the
published references in case any of them might be of some interest to
you. If they are not of interest then you are of course free to ignore
them.

Regards,

Andrew Edwards,
Health and Safety Executive.

show quoted sections

Dear Andrew Edwards,

Thank you for your letter.

You stated in your letter:"I am aware that my colleague Pat Duncan in HSE's Leeds office replied to you on the 21 January 2010, outlining the situation that HSE did not have the information you requested."

Unfortunately I have no record of this letter,and of course would be most grateful if you could forward a copy for the record.

Whilst the HSE claims to hold no information on chloramine,this does not quite fit with information received from the Drinking Water Inspectorate who are on record as saying in reference to chloramination:

"since 1998, the continued approval and review of water supply disinfectants has been controlled through the EU "Biocidal Products Directive" therefore the Drinking Water Inspectorate is under a duty to act on these matters on the advice of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The Drinking Water Inspectorate has put in place a Memorandum of Understanding with the HSE regarding the discharge of its duties regarding water disinfectants."

It is clear that the Drinking Water Inspectorate is claiming that chloramination of UK drinking water is done based on the advice of the Health and Safety Executive.

I would now like to see any and all information you have on this subject.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Jones

Dear Health and Safety Executive,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Health and Safety Executive's handling of my FOI request 'Chloramine and chloramination of drinking water'.

You have not responded in substance to my FOI request,it appears that you are actually withholding the information I have requested.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ch...

Yours faithfully,

Michael Jones

Infoline Admin,

Ref: VBRY-82QFCN

Dear Mr Jones

Thank you for your enquiry regarding your FOI request.

Your chase up enquiry has been forwarded for reply to our enquiry services
team

The Enquiry Services Team

Health and Safety Executive

Redgrave Court

Merton Road

Bootle

Merseyside

L20 7HS

If you require to contact HSE again regarding this enquiry please quote
the above reference number.

I hope this helps, but if you require further assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact this address again or telephone HSE Infoline on 08453
450055.

Yours sincerely

Victoria Brady

HSE Infoline

HSE is committed to maintaining your personal information in a manner
that meets the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Sometimes, we may need to pass your details to another government
department or public body so that they can help you with your enquiry.

HSE Infoline is provided by Connaught Compliance Services Ltd on behalf of
HSE

Connaught plc is a FTSE 250 company. We are the UK's leading provider of
integrated services operating in the compliance, environmental, social
housing and public sector markets.

Please visit our website to see a full list of Connaught's Registered
Companies
[1]http://www.connaught.plc.uk/group/aboutc...

Disclaimer:

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete this message.
Connaught plc, Head Office 01392 444546

References

Visible links
1. http://www.connaught.plc.uk/group/aboutc...

Health and Safety Executive

Dear Mr Jones,

I am sorry you did not receive the email of 21st January, I have checked
with my colleague and she did send the message on the 21st and has not
since received any indication that it was not delivered. I have typed the
text of her message at Appendix 1 below.

I thought it might be useful to give you some background on the controls
on disinfectants and other biocides. Biocidal products, including drinking
water disinfectant products, fall within the remit of the EU Biocidal
Products Directive (98/8/EC), implemented in the UK by the Biocidal
Products Regulations 2001. Under this Directive the active substances in
biocidal products are assessed at the EU-level, and if it is decided that
a substance is suitable to be used as a biocide it will be included on the
Directive's Annex I, following which individual products containing the
substance have to be assessed and authorised at Member State level. The
requirements of the Biocidal Products Directive are in addition to other
legal requirements administered and enforced by the Drinking Water
Inspectorate.

Industry chose which substances they intended to support through the
assessment programme under the Biocidal Products Directive and then
submitted a dossier of information on each substance to a nominated
'rapporteur' Member State. Chloramine/Monochloramine was not supported by
industry for Product Type 5 (which covers drinking water disinfectants)
and therefore no information has been submitted on this substance for this
use, which is why HSE does not hold the information you requested.

As chloramine/monochloramine was not supported by industry for drinking
water disinfection, biocidal products using it as an active substance for
this use are no longer allowed to be placed onto the market. If you are
aware of any such biocidal products on the UK market, please send details
to me and we, in liaison with DWI, can investigate the products and take
any necessary action.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Edwards,

Chemicals Regulation Directorate,

Health and safety Executive.

Appendix 1 - Pat Duncan's email of 21st January 2010

Dear Mr Jones

Freedom of Information Request No:2010010252

Thank you for you request for information about chloramine &
chloramination of drinking water.

Your request was received on 18th January 2010 and I am dealing with it
under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act (the Act).

I am writing to advise you that I have established that the information
you requested is not held by the HSE. Investigating and regulating the
treatment of drinking water are not part of HSE's duties. Therefore HSE
does not undertake the studies you have asked about, and we have no
information on the subject of 'chloramination' of drinking water.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please
remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.
If you are unhappy with the decisions made by HSE you may ask for an
internal review within two calendar months of the date of this letter by
writing to me.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office,

Wycliffe House,

Water Lane,

Wilmslow,

Cheshire,

SK9 5AF.

Tel: 01625 545700

Fax: 01625 524510

Email: [email address]

Website: [1]http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

Yours sincerely

Pat Duncan

Freedom of Information Officer.

show quoted sections

Dear Andrew Edwards,

Thank you for your response,in which you stated:

"Chloramine/Monochloramine was not supported by industry for Product Type 5 (which covers drinking water disinfectants) and therefore no information has been submitted on this substance for this use, which is why HSE does not hold the information you requested."

Just to clarify,are you suggesting that the Health and Safety Executive is unaware that 14 water corporations are currently chloraminating the public drinking water in the UK?

The Drinking Water Inspectorate has claimed to have put in place a Memorandum of Understanding with the HSE regarding the discharge of its duties regarding water disinfectants.
If there is any mention in this "Memorandum of Understanding" of chloramine/monochloramine then I would like to see a copy of this document.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Jones

Health and Safety Executive

Dear Mr Jones,

It may also help you if I explain a little more the scope of the
Biocidal Products Directive (BPD) where the use of a chemical for
disinfection purposes is concerned. The BPD applies to products that are
intentionally placed onto the market by their manufacturer specifically
for biocidal purposes, so for example a product marketed as a
disinfectant would fall within the scope of the BPD. However, the BPD
does not apply to products placed onto the market as general chemicals
that someone else subsequently decides to use for biocidal purposes,
where it is not intended to be used for that purpose by the supplier.
Essentially the actions of the user of a chemical cannot bring a
chemical within the remit of the BPD, it is the intention of the
supplier of the chemical that makes a product a biocidal product.

So whilst no chloramine disinfectant products can legally be placed onto
the market in the UK, chloramination of drinking water supplies can take
place if the water company purchase a general chemical, such as ammonia,
that is not placed onto the market as a disinfectant, and use that
chemical to generate chloramine/monochloramine in-situ to disinfect the
drinking water. Whilst the BPD would not apply to this use of the
chemical, as I highlighted earlier, the BPD requirements are in addition
to those administered by the Drinking Water Inspectorate, so the DWI
would still exert controls over the quality of the treated drinking
water itself.

The Letter of Understanding between HSE and DWI does not mention
chloramine/monochloramine (or any specific chemical or product).

Yours sincerely

Andrew Edwards,
Chemicals Regulation Directorate,
Health and Safety Executive.

show quoted sections

Dear Health and Safety Executive,

In your reply of 16th Feb 2010(partially reproduced below),you mentioned "industry":

"Industry chose which substances they intended to support through the assessment programme under the Biocidal Products Directive and then submitted a dossier of information on each substance to a nominated 'rapporteur' Member State."

Who or what exactly is meant by your use of the word "industry" in this context?

Please be as specific as possible in you response and include any names of persons and or organisations,authorities etc.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Jones

Health and Safety Executive

Dear Mr Jones,

With reference to your email of the 2nd April regarding the meaning of
'industry'. Active substances had to be notified for review by industry,
and in this context 'industry' means the producer of an active substance
or biocidal product, or the formulator of a biocidal product, or an
association of producers and/or formulators. In this context 'producer'
means:
- in the case of an active substance produced within the Community and
placed on the market, the manufacturer of that active substance or a
person established within the Community designated by the manufacturer
as his sole representative,
- in the case of an active substance produced outside the Community, the
person established within the Community and designated by the
manufacturer of that active substance as his sole representative, or
where no such person has been so designated, the importer into the
Community of that active substance,
- in the case of a biocidal product produced outside the Community, the
person established within the Community and designated by the
manufacturer of that biocidal product as his sole representative, or
where no such person has been so designated, the importer of into the
Community of that biocidal product.
Whilst 'formulator' means:
In the case of a biocidal product manufactured within the Community, the
manufacturer of that biocidal product, or a person established within
the Community and designated by the manufacturer as his sole
representative.

Regards,

Andrew Edwards,
Chemicals Regulation Directorate,
Health and Safety Executive.

show quoted sections

Dear Andrew Edwards,Health and Safety Executive,

Thank you for your reply.

In your letter dated 13/04/2010 you refer several times to the "Community" - could you explain to me exactly what is meant by "Community" in this context,since this is unclear.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Jones

Health and Safety Executive

Dear Mr Jones,

With reference to your email of the 13th. Where I referred to
'Community' in the my earlier email I was referring about the 'European
Community' - though technically I should probably now refer to it as the
'European Union' rather than the European Community.

Regards,

Andrew Edwards,
Health and Safety Executive.

show quoted sections

Dear Health and Safety Executive,

Thank you for your response,butI wish to seek a further clarification in this request.

On the 23/02/2010 you stated:
"So whilst no chloramine disinfectant products can legally be placed onto the market in the UK, chloramination of drinking water supplies can take
place if the water company purchase a general chemical, such as ammonia,that is not placed onto the market as a disinfectant, and use that chemical to generate chloramine/monochloramine in-situ to disinfect the drinking water. Whilst the BPD would not apply to this use of the chemical, as I highlighted earlier, the BPD requirements are in addition
to those administered by the Drinking Water Inspectorate, so the DWI would still exert controls over the quality of the treated drinking water itself."

If a water corporation manufactures chloramine/monochloramine in its water treatment plants and causes this chemical to enter the drinking water supply in the UK,then this would seem then to have been placed "on the market",since this water is a marketable product,and it would appear then to fall foul of the EU Biocidal Products Directive 98/8/EC,since this chemical is not supported for "Product Type 5" of the Directive,and is not included on the Directive's "Annex 1"?

You've suggested that water corporations/authorities producing chloramine/monochloramine "in situ" and causing it to enter the drinking water somehow changes how the Biocidal Products Directive is applied,I would like to see any information you hold that shows this to be the case.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Jones

Health and Safety Executive

Dear Mr Jones,

With reference to your email of the 20th April regarding chloramine and
chloramination of drinking water.

As outlined in our previous correspondence, the definition of a biocidal
product in the Biocidal Products Directive is such that the Directive
applies to products that are intentionally placed onto the market for
biocidal purposes. The Directive does not apply to products placed onto
the market as general chemicals that someone else subsequently decides
to use for biocidal purposes where it is not intended to be used for
that biocidal purpose by the supplier. In this case the situation
appears to be that the water company is generating chloramine in-situ
from a chemical (ammonia for example) that is not being placed onto the
market as a biocidal product - therefore the company supplying the
ammonia are not supplying a biocidal product as defined in the
Directive.

The water company are both the producer and user of chloramine as a
biocide (though note that whilst chloramine may be a 'biocide' it is not
a 'biocidal product' to which the BPD would apply) and they use it to
treat the drinking water. The drinking water itself is therefore a
substance that has been treated with a biocide, and whilst the drinking
water may be being placed onto the market, it is not itself a biocidal
product - it is a treated substance - and therefore is not subject to
the requirements of the BPD.

You may wish to look at the BPD itself and the guidance on the
Directive, which is on-line on the Europa website
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biocides...).

Regards,

Andrew Edwards,
Chemicals Regulation Directorate,
Health and Safety Executive.

show quoted sections

Dear Health and Safety Executive,

Your reply is interesting,but it is clear that chloramine treated water is proven to have biocidal properties,and is therefore a 'biocide'.You claim that when chloramine is added to water,then the water becomes simply a 'treated product' - perhaps you could explain at what ratio of chloramine/water this transformation from biocide to 'treated product'takes place?

If there is,in chloramination of drinking water,'an intended biocidal action and acts by chemical or biological means' then is this treated water not by definition a biocidal product?

Has there been a notification by means of a 'dossier' for Biocidal Products Directive Annex 1 inclusion,regarding chloramination of drinking water?
I believe this is a legal requirement when a biocide/biocidal product is created 'in situ' from precursor chemicals?

I would like to see any information held by the HSE which shows how the chloramination of UK drinking water complies with Regulation 31 of the Drinking Water (Water Quality) Regulations.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Jones

Health and Safety Executive

Dear Mr Jones,

With reference to your email of the 30th April regarding chloramine and
chloramination of drinking water.

In theory, almost any chemical could have 'biocidal' properties, water
itself for example can have a toxicological effect if you drink it to
excess, however that does not mean water is a 'biocidal product' within
the scope of the Biocidal Products Directive - I refer you to our
earlier correspondence outlining the definition of a biocidal product in
relation to the BPD. In the case of water treated with chloramine it is
our understanding that the water is not being placed onto the market as
a biocidal product within the scope of the Directive, it is being
supplied as water that has been treated with a biocide and therefore is
not covered by the provisions of the BPD. If you have evidence to the
contrary, please submit that information for our consideration.

Chloramine was not notified for Product Type 5 (Drinking Water
disinfectants) under the BPD review programme, however, as previously
discussed, there do not appear to be any biocidal products being placed
onto the market in this case, only generic chemicals which the Water
Companies choose to use as biocides, and as such the provisions of the
BPD do not apply.

The HSE is not the relevant authority for ensuring compliance with the
Drinking Water (Water Quality) Regulations, and on that matter you
should address your enquiry to the Drinking Water Inspectorate
(www.dwi.gov.uk).

Regards,

Andrew Edwards,
Health and Safety Executive.

show quoted sections

Michael Jones

Dear Health and Safety Executive,

Thank you for your reply.
It seems that you've been rather selective in the points you've chosen to address.

I guess I've no choice but to ask for this information again:

Has there been a notification by means of a 'dossier' for Biocidal Products Directive Annex 1 inclusion,regarding chloramination of drinking water?
I believe this is a legal requirement when a biocide/biocidal product is created 'in situ' from precursor chemicals?

I would like to see any information held by the HSE with regards to notification by means of a 'dossier' for Biocidal Products Directive Annex 1 inclusion.

You claim that "The HSE is not the relevant authority for ensuring compliance with the Drinking Water (Water Quality) Regulations".
I've quoted below the Chief Inspector of the Drinking Water Inspectorate on the issue of compliance with the law:
"any future review and prohibition of water supply disinfectants is a matter of European, as opposed to UK law. The relevant competent authority for any review is the Health and Safety Executive, not the Drinking Water Inspectorate".
This appears to put the responsibility for water disinfection,and its compliance with the law,firmly with the HSE.

Since it is clear that chloramination is in breach of Regulation 31 of the Drinking Water (Water Quality) Regulations,since it is not certificated to British Standard (BS EN) or any other relevant standard,
does the HSE have information that shows that the Drinking Water (Water Quality) Regulations are no longer law?
Please note that there is no provision within the Drinking Water (Water Quality) Regulations for chemicals to be produced "in situ" to get around the law.
I would now like to see any information the HSE holds which shows how chloramine complies with Regulation 31 of the Drinking Water (Water Quality) Regulations.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Jones

Health and Safety Executive

I will be out of the office from Thursday 13th May until Monday 24th May. If you want to contact one of my colleagues during this period, please send your message to [email address] otherwise I will contact you on my return to the office.

show quoted sections

Health and Safety Executive

Dear Mr Jones,

With reference to your email of the 13th May. I thought I had addressed
the points raised in your previous email, however I will repeat the
information where relevant in this reply, and if there are any points
that are not covered please let me know, though please note (and as you
will see from the points below), we can only comment on areas that fall
within our remit, whilst in this case many of your questions should be
being addressed to the DWI, not HSE.

1. Has there been a notification by means of a dossier for the BPD
regarding chloramination of drinking water:
As outlined in my reply of the 13th May (and our earlier correspondance
of 16 February), chloramine was not notified for Product Type 5
(Drinking Water disinfectants) under the BPD review programme. However,
as also pointed out in our previous correspondence, as there do not
appear to be any biocidal products being placed onto the market in
relation to the chloramination of drinking water, the provisions of the
BPD do not apply - therefore no notification for chloramination of
drinking water was necessary or required under the BPD.

2. Ensuring compliance with the Drinking Water (Water Quality)
Regulations:
HSE is not the relevant authority for ensuring compliance with these
regulations as regards the chloramination of drinking water. Whilst it
is difficult for me to comment on a partial quote from the Chief
Inspector of Drinking Water Inspectorate out of context, I suspect he
was only referring to the review of disinfectant products themselves,
which will be carried out under the BPD. As we have previously
discussed, there do not seem to be any disinfectant products that fall
within the scope of the BPD in this case, so no review would be carried
out. Where disinfectant products are assessed under the BPD we would
seek the advice of the DWI on such products, especially in relation to
their specialist knowledge or areas such as the Drinking Water (Water
Quality) Regulations. The DWI remain the relevant authority for ensuring
compliance with the Drinking Water (Water Quality) Regulations in
relation to the chloramination of drinking water, and you should address
any concerns on that issue to the DWI directly.

3. Possible breaches of Regulation 31 of the Drinking Water (Water
Quality) Regulations:
As outlined above and in our previous correspondence, you should address
these questions to the DWI as HSE is not the relevant authority for
these regulations.

Regards,

Andrew Edwards,
Health and Safety Executive.

show quoted sections

Michael Jones

Dear Health and Safety Executive,

Thank you for your reply.

You have stated that the use of chloramine as a drinking water disinfectant was rejected by industry,yet strangely enough,chloramine is exactly what they are now putting into our water.

It would appear from what you've said that the water companies are exploiting an alleged loophole in the Directive to create this chemical "in situ",apparently with the blessing of the DWI and the HSE,even though this is not in accordance with the Drinking Water (Water Quality) Regulations,or your BPD.

My understanding of the BPD is that a notification by means of a 'dossier' for Biocidal Products Directive Annex 1 inclusion should have been made regarding chloramination of drinking water,whether the HSE considers chloramine to be a "product" or not.

This notification by dossier is a requirement of the BPD when a biocide is created 'in situ' from precursor chemicals.

Can you explain now why there has been no notification by dossier?

Yours faithfully,

M Jones

Health and Safety Executive

Dear Mr Jones,

With reference to your email of the 26th May.

The notification process was for active substances used in biocidal
products within the scope of the BPD. As previously explained, there do
not appear to be any biocidal products within the scope of the BPD in
this case, therefore no notification was required under the BPD.

Regards,

Andrew Edwards,
Health and Safety Executive.

show quoted sections

Michael Jones

Dear Health and Safety Executive,

Thank you for your reply.

You said: "there do not appear to be any biocidal products within the scope of the BPD in this case",this is a rather vague statement with which to answer a Freedom of Information Request.

Instead of your misleading and vague use of the word "appear" in your reply,perhaps you could now provide a proper definitive response.In plain English.

Yours faithfully,

M Jones

Health and Safety Executive

Dear Mr Jones,

As explained through our earlier correspondence on this issue, biocides
only fall within the scope of the Biocidal Products Directive if they
are being placed onto the market for that purpose, and as also
previously explained, we have no evidence that any such biocidal
products are being placed onto the UK market.

As we have already established, in this case the HSE is not the
appropriate authority for your concerns over chloraminated drinking
water, and you should therefore address your concerns to the Drinking
Water Inspectorate.

Regards,

Andrew Edwards,
Health and Safety Executive.

show quoted sections

Dear Health and Safety Executive,

Thank you for your further (largely pointless) correspondence.

My understanding of the BPD is that a notification by means of a 'dossier' for Biocidal Products Directive Annex 1 inclusion should have been made (is actually a requirement of the BPD) regarding chloramination of drinking water,whether the HSE considers chloramine to be a "product" or not.

Are you saying that I am wrong here,or just that I "appear" to be wrong,to suit the interests of the HSE (and your masters in the water industry)?

Yours faithfully,

M.Jones

Health and Safety Executive

Dear Mr Jones,

In previous correspondence to you on this question, my colleague Andrew
Edwards has confirmed to you that biocides only fall within the scope of
the Biocidal Products Directive if they are being placed onto the market
for that purpose.

The use of chloramine for drinking water disinfection, where it has not
been placed onto the market as a biocidal product, does not fall within
the scope of the Biocidal Products Directive and as such a notification
under the Biocidal Products Directive is not required.

Kind regards

Martin

show quoted sections

Chas left an annotation ()

Mr Jones, Very well done! Years ago, we believed they were supplying rubbish to us and stopped drinking tap water due to the foul taste and discovery that if you leave a glass of it standing for ten minutes it tastes foul even if it was good at the time of pouring.

The foul taste is not a 'true' chlorine taste and this must account for what you have discovered Water companies are doing with regard to chloramination.

I have also suffered from stomach problems, which have largely subsided now we are on bottled water.

They shouldn't be doing it and unless enough of us complain they'll take a chance with our health - human rats.