EPA vs. Sodium Bromide: The Real Story Part 2 of 2

A single line on a label can shake an entire trade, especially when that trade has been using the product for 30 plus years. We pick back up with Scott Hamilton, the CEO of United Chemical, to sort out what the EPA’s “not for use in outdoor pools” language is really responding to, and whether the bromate concern is being evaluated in a way that matches real pool conditions.

We get into the chemistry behind bromate exposure, including why some researchers argue it should not be assessed with a strictly linear model. Scott explains the case for looking at thresholds and real-world dose, plus the research showing how stomach acid can reduce a large portion of trace bromate back into bromide. We also talk about what makes the EPA process move slowly: protocol review, data acceptance, and the very real staffing and workload constraints that can turn a decision into a multi-year timeline.

Then we zoom out to the business and legal side of pool chemical regulation. Why do some products stop claiming they “kill algae” even when pros swear they work? Because pesticidal claims trigger registrations, state-by-state fees, and a compliance burden that can be brutal. We also address the fear factor directly, how to think about risk tolerance, and why transparency matters when the manufacturer has a stake in the outcome. If you want to judge the study for yourself, we point you to the download link.

Subscribe for more pool industry deep dives, share this with a tech who’s debating sodium bromide, and leave a review with your take: should outdoor pool labeling follow worst-case assumptions or field-relevant data?

We keep talking with Scott Hamilton about the EPA’s interim stance on sodium bromide labels and what the latest bromate data actually says about real-world risk. We weigh the science, the legal reality of pesticidal claims, and why transparency matters when pool pros have relied on a product for decades.  
• how bromate exposure is being modeled and why linear risk assumptions may not fit real pool use  
• what research says about stomach acid reducing trace bromate back to bromide  
• how the EPA makes interim decisions and what it would take to revisit or reverse them  
• why some manufacturers remove algae-kill claims and how registration fees shape labels  
• how to think about risk tolerance alongside other common pool industry hazards  
• why publishing methods and raw data helps the industry move past rumors  

If you'd like to see a copy of the study, there's going to be a link in this podcast description for you.  
You can download that study and read it for yourself.  
If you're looking for part one, again go to my website, swimmingprolearning.com, click on the podcast icon, and open a drop-down menu of other podcasts that I've done before.  
If you're interested in the coaching program, you can learn more at PoolGuyCoaching.com.  

Download the full Sodium Bromide Study:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X6-1uJJ7MZugeRDpch0tpop2vg0hjPR0/view?usp=sharing

Support the Pool Guy Podcast Show Sponsors! 

HASA 
https://bit.ly/HASA

The Bottom Feeder. Save $100 with Code: DVB100
https://store.thebottomfeeder.com/

Try Skimmer FREE for 30 days:
https://getskimmer.com/poolguy 

Get UPA Liability Insurance $64 a month! https://forms.gle/F9YoTWNQ8WnvT4QBA

Pool Guy Coaching: https://bit.ly/40wFE6y

Transcript

Welcome Back And Quick Housekeeping

SPEAKER_00 0:14

Hey, welcome to the Full Game Podcast Show. I'm going to continue my conversation with Scott Hamilton of Chemical. We're going to talk about the EPA Ethereum Broman. And of course, part one is available by going to my website, swimming for learning.com, clicking on the podcast icon to get that. If you're not subscribed to the podcast, and we're going to continue the conversation here in part two. Are you a pool service pro looking to take your business to the next level? Join the pool guy coaching program. Get expert advice, business tips, exclusive content, and get direct support from me. I'm a 35-year veteran in the industry. Whether you're starting out or scaling up, I've got the tools to help you succeed. Learn more at Swimmipoollearning.com. Now there's there's other products on the in the pool industry that we use, like borates that affect, you know, of course, it's used as a pesticide because it destroys the exoskeleton of of insects, the roaches, but it has no effect on humans. And and Bob Lowry talked about you have to drink like 30 gallons of it without going to the bathroom before it even gets to that toxic level. And then you mentioned here that there's a natural biotical defense in human stomachs that the acid rapidly reduces up to 90% of the trace bromate back into harmless bromide. So you want to go over that?

SPEAKER_02 1:31

Yeah, so that was some that wasn't a case necessarily being made by us, but we found that research about because we're looking at okay,

Bromate Exposure And Stomach Acid

SPEAKER_02 1:40

is the linear model the best model to use? Because a lot of things are not assessed that way. Like all the chlorinated byproducts, which are also considered bad or hazardous, they're often not looked at in a linear way, but in a threshold way. So we said, okay, is there any studies about that on bromade and bromine? And yes, and there was one that talked about stomach acid, which makes sense. You know, basically your stomach acid is hydrochloric acid, you know, it's like like the acid that you you put in a pool. So what happens when the pH gets that low and when you ingest it, what happens? And it reduces it to bromine, which is not not a harmful to your body, especially not in these exposure limits. I mean, when we look at just straight nomal problems, for example, it kind of goes back to that borate thing where you would have to drink tons and tons of it before it becomes a health concern. And it I don't hopefully no one's drinking our product because it probably doesn't taste very good. So with that being said, yeah, so that that is one of the cases we're gonna make and say, hey, maybe we need to reevaluate bromate exposure based on this, because again, these are coming from the people that first started raising the red flags that are starting to make this case that, yeah, probably shouldn't be assessed linearly. Maybe argue that most things shouldn't.

SPEAKER_00 3:11

Yeah, and I think I was talking at the pool show recently about the EPA maybe overturning this report. How likely with all the new data that you're producing, would would that be, you know, is would they overturn it?

SPEAKER_02 3:26

I would like to think so, because I'm I'm assuming that you know the EPA is is making this based on a scientific perspective. So, you know, there's the legal aspect. You know, as you were saying, that a lot of like for example, a lot of bore products aren't registered pesticides because they don't make the claim. Technically, if if you there's a sodium bromide product out there, it could be straight sodium bromide. If it doesn't say it kills algae, it's not going to say not for use in outdoor pools. Because by law, the EPA only steps in when you say, okay, this kills a pest. It's a pesticide, algae being a pest. So that's not a suggestion necessarily that manufacturers turn to that, they can still come back and say it doesn't matter if you don't say. But strictly speaking, from a legal standpoint, that's that's where they derive, let's say, their authority. And then they try to make it based on scientific decisions. But again, the EPA is not. No chemist is an expert at everything. No, no person is an expert at everything. So they're leaning on other people to provide the data and to make this case. So if the EPA accepts the data, that's they have pretty stringent protocols. And we tried to follow that with these with this study. We proposed it to the EPA, and we just hearing back two years later that they're starting to look at our protocol. We went ahead and did it because we didn't want to wait. If they accept the protocol and they accept the data, then there's a strong argument that they'll reverse their interim decision because it is it's not a final decision, it's interim. If they don't accept the data, then everything stands. What I anticipate will happen is they'll look at the protocol and we'll also

Linear Versus Threshold Risk Models

SPEAKER_02 5:20

say, hey, we did a preliminary study, this is what we got. And they'll probably pick it apart and say, okay, do it this way, not this way, and make us redo the study, which we will do. So that's what we expect. The toxicology arguments, not a toxicologist, so I don't know. I can't really assess that. That's for the the team that we're hiring and bringing on to basically represent us and make that argument. So yeah, so but there's definitely potential for them to reverse their decision. Otherwise, if this was hopeless, we wouldn't be investing all the money and the time and in trying to do this, at least this way, the scientific route.

SPEAKER_00 6:06

So it's interesting that you mentioned manufacturers removing the fact that their product kills algae. Uh I remember that BioGuard they sold the Borate product for many years. It was EPA approved for that. And for some reason, they removed that from their label and they no longer even consider their product any kind of algebra. I guess they they were having trouble with that particular thing. And I think the phosphorate removers also have never tried to, even though they they kind of are. I mean, I can't really say they're an algecide either, because it's not what they're EPA approved for, but they've never put that on their label either. And they're used widely in the industry without being labeled for what they actually do. That makes sense.

SPEAKER_02 6:51

Yeah, so that's and again, that's the we're again if you're using Boreade, it's well documented that it's it acts as they say now just that. But the EPA doesn't necessarily regulate it because there's no claim of it being on the label. I don't know why you said it was BioGuard that took it off. Yeah, it could have been that they just wanted to save on the fees. So for the our EPA, so you pay federal EPA fees and then you pay fees to each state, and they can vary, California being the most expensive. And you know, that might be for a product could be a hundred thousand dollars a year. And for them, they might have just said, you know what, the benefit of being able to say it on the label versus the cost was not worth it. That would be my guess without any knowledge of it, just based on what we spend. Yeah, per product, you can spend anywhere between you know, maybe 20 grand, 20 to 50 grand on a particular product going across all the states. And each state charges slightly different. And some you might find that some products aren't available for sale in certain states just because they're like there's not enough business there to warrant the thousand dollar annual fee or thousand dollar couple. There's not a lot of pools in North Dakota, so their fee isn't very expensive, thankfully. So it becomes one of those things. Um yeah, so sometimes it's just the math and the money.

SPEAKER_00 8:28

So as far as your as far as the fear of this EPA report, I know when it first came out, pool guys were texting me saying, Hey, I went to I went to superior pool products and they don't have they pulled all the all the sodium bromide off the shelves. You know, what's going on here? Is this super dangerous and I've been using it for all these years? What's the ramifications, you know? So I think to is

How The EPA Could Reverse Course

SPEAKER_00 8:55

the fear from the study overrated, or you know, I'm you I mean, people listening can see that it wasn't really a field study that the EPA did, like you mentioned. So, what can you tell the pool pros out there that have been using this as a staple, and myself included, for 30 years?

SPEAKER_02 9:12

So it's I mean. So I'm gonna talk to basically personally, and I I want to make this real clear. It's really everybody kind of has to assess the the data and the science themselves. But for me, I I mean, I grew up, my you know, my dad founded the company. There's this funny story I tell where we had test pools, not these ones, but older like above-ground test pools. And my friends and I would go swimming in it. They definitely used our they were definitely treated with no more problems. So there was definitely bromine. Uh, we had a back basil pool and a chlorine pool, and we were swimming out there, and one day my dad comes out, my friend and I, and he goes, Oh, how's the water feel? And I say, Good, feels great. And he goes, Okay, your eyes aren't burning or anything or anything like that. And we're like, No. And he's like, Okay, good, and walked off. And we're like, Are we the guinea pigs in this pool? Is that what so yeah? So I mean, you know, I kind of say that tongue in cheek, but no, I mean, I have no concerns on and maybe I still treat my personal pool, which does have a cover with our products. And I have a five-year-old and a one-year-old that both go in the water. Am I concerned about their safety? No, I'm not. I I'm not worried about bromate exposure. Having said that, I will say when all this came out and the EPA did this, I was kind of taken aback and I was like, holy crap, have we been wrong this whole time? It was part of what made us go, screw it. If the EPA is not going to approve the study, we're still gonna do it. And early on, when we were devising the study and we were spending all this money, I'm like, hey guys, if we find that there's a major problem here, we pull the product. And it would basically be at that point about 80% of our sales. So that's almost a death blow to the company. I'm like, but if that's what it is, then we got to do it because I don't want us to be like the cigarette company covering up a major health concern for the sake of money. Still got to sleep at night. So going into it, I didn't know. You know, didn't know what we were gonna find, and I was a little nervous too. Even even knowing all the chemistry and the science behind it, because you never know until you actually do it. Having done the study and looking at all the data, not concerned at all. There's lots of stuff out there that's arguably worse that we expose ourselves to constantly. So it's it's all about risk assessment, and everybody's kind of has to find their own tolerable risk for using any product. So, but that's that's just me. I'm just speaking for myself.

SPEAKER_00 12:02

Yeah, and I'll go back to other products that pool pros use regularly that they don't think about. Dietomaceous earth is an industrial carcinogen. OTO, the OTO testers that people put on their belt clip and do the flash testing with, yeah, is also a carcinogen abandoned Europe. So it's not I don't know if you know you can pick on one product in the industry saying that one product has never been investigated or you know, that there's no cancerous products used in the industry. They're all out there and I think every industry uses them. I mean, look at asbestos for an example of a product that was used for many, many years, still used today, I think, in brake pads. Um if I'm not correct, uh correct.

SPEAKER_02 12:43

They might they might be moving away from that. But last time I was aware of some I'm in the cars too, that asbestos is still used.

SPEAKER_00 12:51

I'll tell you a funny story. I have a repair guy that I used to use, and whenever there was an old heater, you'd be like, Don't throw it away. I need to I need to take out the asbestos panels in there because potters, people that make pottery, like me to like me to sell that to them. So I don't know if you've ever seen an old heater, but those old gigantic heaters, inside those heaters are four asbestos panels, basically. Right. And he would take those and sell them the potters because they would put them in their kilns and they would be like perfect for making the pots. So this is not something in industry where you know we have not been at fault for using products that are definitely hazardous. No, but I would say that in this case, after talking to you and and you know, reading the study and looking at some of the points from the study, I really feel

Label Claims And The Cost Of Compliance

SPEAKER_00 13:40

like there's a good chance that the EPA can reverse this.

SPEAKER_02 13:44

I mean, it's it's possible. I mean, again, it's all about again risk tolerance from the EPA's perspective, too. So because you know, they don't want to they don't want to be liable for something. And you know, again, they don't know. We it's it's very, and I don't, again, not a huge fan, but I don't want to vilify them. They don't know. They they're basing it upon us industry experts and everything. And everybody, you know, the joke is in the pool industry, you talk to 10 people, you get 11 different opinions. They also have to wade through that. And there's competitors that are probably like, hey, it would be really good if sodium bromide is not for outdoor pool use, creates an opportunity for our product. They're also having to navigate that. So I want to give them at least some benefit of the doubt. Then again, yeah, there's there's a lot of stuff out there that's probably probably a lot worse. That's not to say that we shouldn't try to do move towards things that are safer, but at the same time, you know, there's there's limits, you know. You know, the old old joke, none of us are getting out of this alive. So so you kind of have to weigh all those things. So it's you know, it's it's not easy. I mean, and also we're biased, you know. We we love our products and we love our customers, our customers rave about our products, so we're trying to do the right thing by them, by the industry, but also do the right thing by the EPA, because that's that's how we're gonna get through this. And like you said, there's there's a good shot that this gets reversed, and then that's great. That's great for everyone.

SPEAKER_00 15:36

So so for the pool pros out there that actually like this product, what would be a a timetable that you think that if this if the EPA does pick this up and you know, revisit this, when do you think relabeling could be possible, you know, if if things all go according to plan?

SPEAKER_02 15:55

Best laid plans. So with the so as it stands, like I said, we submitted the study protocol that led to the study that we did that we released two over two years ago, and they're just starting to go through their assessment. So it's not going to be fast. The EPA was understaffed before this administration came in, so now they're extremely understaffed. So it's hard to say. They're they're a big they're a big they were a big agency and they have a huge mandate. So it's it's hard to say. Once this study protocol gets approved or gets modified and they say go run with this, the study itself will take three to six months just to just to get everything right, to conduct it, depending on what they ask for. And and then to submit the data and then another three months. So probably a year or two at the earliest would I expect federal EPA to change that. The good news is since this is at the federal level, once they approve, it's it's done. So all the states basically follow suit, and then we just basically change the labels and we're off and running. So yeah, so it I would say at minimum a couple years, just in light

Is The EPA Report Fear Overblown

SPEAKER_02 17:25

of how understaffed and how large the workload is for each person in the APA that's dealing with this. They're different panels.

SPEAKER_00 17:35

So I didn't look this up, but I probably should have. Is it banned in Europe, in Australia, South Africa, other parts of the of the world?

SPEAKER_02 17:44

I don't so we we only currently sell in the United States, but from my understanding, Canada, sodium bromide is banned for use. I don't know if it's outright or only in outdoor pools. Also citing the uh the brom potassium bromate study. So it's along the same lines. Europe maybe, depending on the country, Europe tends to be a little bit more stringent in certain things, for better or for worse. Potassium bromate, I think, is basically banned in for use in baking in Europe, not in the US, although it's heavily discouraged based on the same study. So I don't know. I'd have to look up country by country. I don't think Australia, though, but I would have to check.

SPEAKER_00 18:33

Well, Australia was a prison camp and they were kind of like uh very easygoing over there.

SPEAKER_02 18:39

Yeah, they're they they got they got so many things they're trying to kill them already. I mean, the animals alone, that they're probably like, yeah, we don't care about this.

SPEAKER_00 18:49

Right. It's funny. I had a I have a friend, uh company in Australia that I I've had relationship with, Creepy Crawling Australia is the name of the company. There's a long story behind the whole creepy crawling US and Australia. And he said, you know, Australians, I don't know, Americans are weird because in Australia, we sell our cleaners door to door. We like we go to the house, we go into the backyard, we actually go in their house and and put and here in America. I I heard that if you're a door-to-do salesman, they they call the police on you and they slam the door on you. It's like in Australia, they just let us right into the house, we go into their pool. So it's a whole different country than here, that's for sure.

SPEAKER_02 19:26

Yeah, it's it's I don't know when the last name is a different culture.

SPEAKER_00 19:29

When's the last thing that a door-to-door salesman in your house, you know?

SPEAKER_02 19:33

Yeah, I didn't usually call the cops on them. I would usually just do the thing of like, okay, you know, I'm gonna charge you by the minute to pitch your thing, it better be good. But yeah, never call the police on them. That seems pretty wild.

SPEAKER_00 19:46

Yeah, it's so I think we covered most everything here. And I had some points in the study, but I think people can read those, read the study. It's 21 pages. Uh, in fact, what I'll do is I will put the study in a Google folder and link it to this podcast here so that people can actually download and read it. It's actually a good read. Uh, it's not anything that is gonna hurt your head too much. I mean, I've read some of these scientific papers before, and it's you know, you have to you have to be a chemist to figure it out. But just the bullet points that we covered here, I think, shows the pool pro that yes, EPA has come down on on the other side of sodium bromide, bromine use, but it's kind of contradictory in my opinion because of the the hot tub usage still and the and the way they did the report doesn't seem as thorough as as it should have been. I mean, I'm sure there's a lot of products that they probably could investigate out there, but there's some things that I see in the industry, and I'm like, is that really safe? I mean, you know, has anyone ever studied this? Especially, you know, chemical handling. I mean, no one's really done a real study on like, and this is this I'm going down a rabbit hole here, but the pool guys that just hold tricolor tablets in their hands all day and use them and and never think about it, you know. I wear nitro gloves whenever I touch them. But has there ever been a study done on something like that? Has there been a study done on reagents, you know, besides OTO, you know, things like that? I don't think so. I don't think it's been widely done. And maybe there was some lobbying behind the scenes. Who knows? No one no one can really know for sure. The industry is big and everyone wants to be friendly with everyone. Uh, but I feel a little bit like sodium bromide was picked on.

SPEAKER_02 21:36

I mean, I again being biased on the other side, yeah, we kind of feel a little picked on too. But at the same time, you know, want to be gracious to the EPA to the extent that I I don't think any of this is done out of outright malice. Again, science is basically a series of assumptions to come. To theories, and you know, you test them over and over. And at least a good part of all this is that one, this is kind of our moment of truth.

Risk Tolerance And Other Pool Hazards

SPEAKER_02 22:10

We get to, you know, put our money where our mouth is and actually do a study. And two, at least there's answers now. At least now there's something quantifiable instead of just a lot of hand wringing, you know, and and guessing behind doors. So give something actionable to everybody.

unknown 22:28

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 22:28

And if you want to look at the, I guess the silver lining in this is that the study will actually put the bromate debate to death because it's been talked about in pool forms and by other people in the industry for 20 years. And if your study proves counter the EPA's finding, it'll actually kind of put a nail in the coffin of this bromate debate. Is that correct?

SPEAKER_02 22:51

Yeah. I mean, I've I I won't mention the competitor, but like a competitor basically was using the old Arch chemical thing as a way to sell against us. And so having this and saying, okay, whatever Arch Chemical did. This is a very public study. You can see the methodology, it can be replicated, we can repeat it. You know, we're not sugarcoating things. And I mean, when you look at it, it's 21 pages because all the data tables from the things from me actually writing down the thing and recording it is in there. So if you're like, I don't, I don't know if I like this assumption, you can just pull the data and do your own formulas and and work it out yourself. So we transparency is key. The more transparent it is, the more the more it can stand up to the rigors of people questioning it. Because again, it's not it's not lost on us. You know, we are a manufacturer of sodium bromide-based algecides. We started it basically with yellow tree. You know, we have a bias, we have a stake in this. So we want to be super, super transparent. So thankfully, it's nothing, I don't know, extreme. Because then it would look, it would be if it didn't line up with anything, like if it didn't line up at all with the bromate work group, and it was like there's zero problems, there's zero bromate no matter what we do, then now it's start to be a little suspicious. But no, there's there's some bromate, but in all reality, it's not a in my assessment, a warrant of concern or not using it in outdoor pools.

SPEAKER_00 24:38

I guess last we can say that it's not a product that's actually banned by the EPA, it's just the outdoor pool use labeling.

SPEAKER_02 24:46

Yeah, so it's still depending on depending on region for basically everywhere outside of California at the Heritage Pool Supply Group stores, so all their subsidiaries, it's still available for sale. Gorman in Florida, Bay States, it's obviously still available online. You can purchase it. It's perfectly legal to purchase in all 50 states. The only change was that requiring the phrase on the back of the label saying not for use in outdoor pools. And it's it's funny. When we first got it, and somebody from our staff called the EPA and they're like, What, why are we doing this? They said, and they're like, Oh, we just want to protect your liability. It's like

Global Rules Transparency And Next Steps

SPEAKER_02 25:35

protect our liability. So I mean, so they that was how they like a random person from the EPA pitched it to us, and it's like, don't worry about our liability. We we're we're not the one, yeah, don't worry. So it's just funny, I don't know, for whatever that's worth. So, but it's funny, you know, EPA are people too. So that's all I can tell you.

SPEAKER_00 25:58

Yeah, well, thank you for taking the time to unpack this. I think uh it's it's really informative for the pool pros out there that use the product and homeowners as well. I mean, it's it's a widely used product out there, it's been used forever. I was introduced to when I first started 1988, I was using it.

SPEAKER_02 26:16

So yeah, I think I think Yellow Treat first came out in nine, like around 1980, 1981. So it's I mean, it's been around for a very long time. Yeah, and yeah, so far, knock on wood, everything's been okay. Like I've never heard any health problems from anybody who used Yellow Treat in a pool. It's actually one of the safer proby algicides you could use.

SPEAKER_00 26:40

But yeah, well, thank you so much for your time.

SPEAKER_02 26:43

Thank you. I appreciate, you know, I appreciate you having me on and I appreciate what you do and trying to keep the industry informed and educated. And yeah, you know, we'll definitely continue to do the studies and make the case the EPA. And hopefully we'll have it back on everybody's truck in no time.

SPEAKER_00 27:03

And if you'd like to see a copy of the study, there's going to be a link in this podcast description for you. You can download that study and read it for yourself. And if you're looking for part one, again go to my website, swimmingprolearning.com, click on the podcast icon, and open a drop-down menu of other podcasts that I've done before. Or if you're listening on iTunes or Apple Podcasts, you can get to that as well pretty easily there. And if you're interested in the coaching program, you can learn more at PoolGuyCoaching.com. Thanks for listening to this podcast. Have a rest of your week. God bless.