D.A. Assails Reintroduction of Chloramine Into Water Supply

A clash over the safety of chloramine, a purifying chemical reintroduced this week to Southern California’s drinking water supply, erupted Tuesday between the district attorney’s office and Metropolitan Water District officials.

” . . . MWD literature claiming that chloramines are safe is not justified by current scientific literature,” Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner said in a letter to the water district’s board of directors. The letter was released by Reiner.

“In particular, important questions remain about the long-term health effects of chloramines,” Reiner added.

Reiner’s letter raised questions about both the possible long-term health effects of chloramine and its short-term effects on infants, adults with low stomach acids and on people taking prescription drugs.

The water district first introduced chloramine last November as a substitute for chlorine, which the federal Environmental Protection Agency determined could react with certain organic materials in water to produce carcinogens.

Dialysis Problems

At the time, MWD officials said chloramine--a mixture of chlorine and ammonia--could affect kidney dialysis patients if not properly filtered. The reaction would occur, officials said, because chloramine attacks the red blood cells of people using the dialysis machines.

The chemical was temporarily withdrawn last December after it was reported that some kidney dialysis centers were unable to filter the chemical out of their water. After corrections were made, state officials recently gave the go-ahead to begin use anew.

In his letter, the district attorney urged the board to consider a more expensive purifying process, charcoal filtration, to eliminate potential cancer-causing chemicals that are formed by chlorine, the chemical previously used to cleanse the district’s water.

He also suggested that the district change its literature, which carries the headline, “Are Chloramines Safe? Yes.”

The MWD’s water quality manager, Michael McGuire, reacted at an afternoon press conference to Reiner’s suggestions by terming them “simplistic” and “misdirected.”

Although there are unanswered questions about long-term use of chloramine, he said, there will always be unanswered questions about any chemical.

Chloramine, he said, is already in use in more than 70 cities with populations totaling 26 million, including St. Louis, Dallas and Denver. In Denver and in Portland, Ore., McGuire noted, the additive has been in use for more than 60 years with no apparent problems.

McGuire said carbon treatment could cost 100 times as much as chloramine treatment--about $500 million in capital costs and $90 million in annual operating costs. Besides, he said, questions also exist about the long-term effects of carbon treatment, including its ability to arrest bacteria growth in filtration systems.

Without some kind of disinfectant, McGuire said, such diseases as cholera and typhoid could spread through the water system. He added that a federal study on chloramine’s long-term effects is due for completion in 1987.

Election Pledge

Reiner’s entry into the chloramine controversy is unusual for the county’s top criminal prosecutor, but consistent with his election pledge to more fully involve his office in public health issues.

“After all,” said Jan Chatten-Brown, Reiner’s special assistant for occupational safety and health, “the district attorney’s effort in the toxic waste area is very much focused on protecting water quality.”

Reiner said he released the letter because of “the (MWD) representations to the public and whether they are accurate.” He said no specific legal action is contemplated against the MWD, whose officials indicated they have no intention of changing their literature.

The MWD supplies about 489 billion gallons of water a year to 13 million people in communities along the Southern California coast.