U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
INITIAL SCOPING WORKSHOP ON HI I DEVELOPMENT OF
REGULATIONS FOR AIRCRAFT PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
Hotel Washington, Washington, DC
January 18-19, 2006

Meeting Summary

BACKGROUND

EPA is holding a series of meetings as part of a collaborative process to develop aircraft
drinking water regulations. EPA held the first public meeting on June 1, 2005.

Attendees at the June 2005 public meeting represented a large spectrum of stakeholders
and interested parties. Based on public comments from the June 2005 workshop and
follow up interviews with representatives from about 15 interested stakeholder
organizations, recommendations for a collaborative approach were prepared by the
contracted facilitator, RESOLVE. The initial scoping workshop held on January 18 and
19, 2006 was intended to serve as the next step in implementing the collaborative
rulemaking process.

The initial scooping workshop was held to provide an opportunity for the following:

•	Shared learning about aircraft water systems and watering points, current
regulations, and other information relevant to the proposed rulemaking;

•	To raise issues for consideration in developing the proposed rule; and,

•	To understand some of the conceptual options for the proposed rule.

In general, presenters at the initial scoping workshop utilized presentation materials
which were made available in hard-copy to attendees. Hard copies of a two-page
handout summarizing stakeholder questions and issues compiled to date by RESOLVE
were also available.

This summary of the workshop provides key points from the presentations and discussion
and is not intended to serve as a meeting transcript.

DAY 1: JANUARY 18. 2006
Welcome, Introductions, Review Agenda

Ms. Gail Bingham, RESOLVE, welcomed participants and conveyed the objectives of
the meeting. Each meeting attendee was asked to briefly introduce themselves and their
affiliation. Ms. Bingham then introduced the morning's first panel and speakers.


-------
Mr. Stephen Heare, Director of the Drinking Water Protection Division in EPA's Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW), began the 2-day workshop by
providing a few introductory comments and providing a historical perspective. Mr. Heare
emphasized EPA is committed to a collaborative rulemaking process that relies on
associations, agencies, and organizations to contribute their knowledge about certain
aspects of the airline industry and drinking water. EPA will use this information to
develop a proposed rule. EPA will then request comments from the public and develop a
final rule. Possible rule options that EPA presented later in this two-day session will be
discussed in more depth at the next workshop.

For the historical perspective, Mr. Heare explained that EPA established a workgroup in
early 2002 to evaluate the drinking water program for Interstate Carrier Conveyances
(ICCs). Water quality onboard aircraft drew national attention after the Wall Street
Journal published an article questioning the safety of aircraft drinking water in November
2002. EPA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) met with the airlines to discuss
the issue in May 2003. In the fall of 2003, some Air Transport Association (ATA)
members conducted sampling, and in the summer and fall of 2004 EPA conducted its
own sampling. Results from these sampling efforts indicated that there was an issue with
contamination in aircraft drinking water and that tailoring of the drinking water
regulations to address the unique characteristics of aircraft water systems was necessary.

Mr. Heare explained that many rulemaking processes rely on a Federal Advisory
Committee, that must be chartered, which takes considerable time. EPA wants to move
quickly on this rulemaking to ensure public health is protected. Instead of using the
FACA approach, EPA is using a collaborative process that falls under alternative dispute
resolution. Mr. Heare also noted that because a rulemaking effort in any form is time-
consuming, EPA signed administrative orders on consent (AOCs) with individual airlines
that will govern airline drinking water safety for the interim

(http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/sdwa/airlines/indexlll705.html).
Overview of Aircraft Water Systems & Watering Points

Mr. Rick Naylor, OGWDW, began the discussion of aircraft water systems by presenting
a diagram of the aircraft potable water transfer and supply chain and explaining how
water is transferred through each step as it is moved from the source of water to the
aircraft. Mr. Naylor noted that although some airports have their own water supply, such
as wells, and would be regulated as public water systems, most airports receive or
purchase water from a public water system (PWS). Mr. Naylor explained that public
water systems in the United States are regulated by the states and EPA. He noted that
regardless of how the drinking water at the airport is obtained, water reaches the airport
terminal and is accessible to aircraft or water service providers at watering points. Mr.
Naylor explained the FDA regulates watering points from which water is distributed to
the aircraft via any combination of water cabinets, trucks, carts, and hoses. He noted
storage tanks, water distribution systems, and plumbing systems usually exist onboard the

-2 -


-------
aircraft. Finally, human consumption of the water occurs at lavatory and galley sinks and
water fountains where water is available to passengers and crew.

Mr. Naylor stated that many aircraft fly internationally and board water that is not
regulated by EPA or FDA. He noted that water boarded from foreign water sources that
is subsequently served in the U.S. must meet EPA regulations and that this creates a
challenge due to the unknown quality of that water. In addition, he noted a single aircraft
might board water from multiple domestic and/or foreign airports in the same day.

Panel 1: Potable Water Transfer and Supply to Aircraft

Mr. Richard Marchi, Airports Council International (ACI); Tiffany Goebel, Midwest
Airlines; and Stan Mackiewicz, National Air Transportation Association (NATA),
discussed how water is transferred from the airports onto aircraft.

Mr. Marchi explained that ACI is a trade association that represents 150 U.S. and 20
Canadian airports. He explained that most airports are municipally owned and operated,
although some are managed under private contracts. He noted most airports lease space
to airlines and that in the U.S. air carriers have the right to self-handle fuel, catering, and
other services. He also noted most large U.S. carriers choose to handle their own
services, but some smaller airports handle this for all aircraft. In contrast, at the majority
of airports in other countries the airport operators provide these types of services. He
indicated that although most airports receive water from a PWS, some draw their water
from a private water supply. He noted that ACI is planning to conduct a survey of its
members to gather information on a variety of topics relevant to the rulemaking.

As a point of clarification, it was noted that in the U.S. a public water system is defined
as one that serves water to the public and meets certain criteria for the number of people
served per day. This definition of a public water system is not dependent on whether the
ownership of the water system is by a public or private entity.

Ms. Tiffany Goebel presented several photographs and described the various equipment
used to transfer water from a watering point to aircraft. Ms. Goebel noted that at most
airports water is obtained from the airport through water cabinets, which are essentially
extensions of the tap and are physically attached to the outside wall of the airport. She
explained the cabinet contains a hose that transfers water to aircraft, although some
airports do not supply cabinets or other water filling equipment.

Ms. Goebel described the variety of equipment and methods of boarding water and noted
the specific requirements and capabilities of the individual airport and aircraft determine
methods used at any particular location. She noted the distance that aircraft are parked
from a gate may prohibit directly using a cabinet due to the length of the hoses in the
cabinet. Therefore, in many airports water trucks are used to carry water from the cabinet
to aircraft parked out of reach of the water cabinets. Water carts may also be used to
carry water. These carts may not have a truck component and tend to vary in design, as

-3 -


-------
compared to trucks and cabinets, which have fairly standard designs. Water carts are not
self-propelled and therefore must be pulled by humans or baggage tugs. These carts have
the advantage of small size, providing better access to planes.

Ms. Goebel also explained that small aircraft, particularly regional jets, might have tanks
that can be removed and refilled, but lack a service port. Such a tank would hold 5
gallons of water and may only serve one sink in the lavatory or galley. These tanks are
advantageous for aircraft operating in cold climates where water would freeze overnight
if not removed from the aircraft. The tanks can also be replaced quickly between flights.

Ms. Goebel indicated water services can be provided by a number of different entities.
The entities include the airline, a different airline, a ground service provider, a fixed
based operator, the airport, or an airport contractor. Airlines base their decisions on the
source of labor and equipment to use on several factors:

•	Aircraft type - Smaller aircraft may operate different water systems than larger
aircraft and require less complex handling facilities.

•	Size and type of operation - The number of flights and gates that need servicing
may dictate whether it is worthwhile to invest in trucks. In addition, some
airlines have dedicated gates while others share gates with several airlines.

•	Manpower and vendor availability - In some cases, there may be a dedicated
crew to manage the water trucks and carts. In other cases, the same crew may
handle baggage and water. When an airline needs these types of services, they
may look for interested parties and subcontract the work instead of using their
own staff. In certain locations it may be difficult to retain a subcontractor and the
company responsible for refilling water tanks on aircraft may change frequently.

•	Airport infrastructure and restrictions - Airports and airlines also consider issues
such as the risk of ground collisions from moving equipment near aircraft and the
consistency of equipment used throughout an airport. Although aircraft water
systems are relatively simple, there is a lot of variability in the equipment and
methods used to operate them.

•	Equipment Availability - At times the availability of equipment at a given
location may determine what must be used. Replacement of equipment may not
be warranted if the number of flights and types of aircraft serviced do not warrant
a change.

Mr. Stan Mackiewicz, NATA, noted his organization represents aviation businesses that
own, operate, and service aircraft. Mr. Mackiewicz elaborated on the handling of water
between the PWS and aircraft by providing procedures used by the Saint Louis-based
Airport Terminal Services (ATS). Mr. Mackiewicz noted he selected ATS for this
example because he believes them to be among the top 20 percent of service providers in
the U.S. ATS has a published procedure - "Sanitation of Service Vehicle Potable Water

-4 -


-------
Systems," which was made available to attendees, along with his presentation materials,
on the second day of the workshop. Like most businesses that service aircraft, ATS uses
equipment described by Ms. Goebel. However, Mr. Mackiewicz explained that there is
variability in how the equipment is used and cleaned by different companies.

Mr. Mackiewicz presented sections of "Sanitation of Service Vehicle Potable Water
Systems" that outline sanitation requirements for water carts, trucks, and hoses and
personnel, and that must be completed every 30 days. Mr. Mackiewicz noted a daily
checklist for portable water trucks and carts is used to ensure quality is controlled. The
checklist requires daily checks for leaks, seals on fill ports, storage of fill hoses, and
draining of tank dumps, in addition to monthly checks of the hose diameter (in relation to
lavatory fill hose), tank vents, flushing and sanitizing of tanks, and "drinking water only"
markings on vehicles. The checklists are submitted to ATS personnel on a monthly basis.

Mr. Mackiewicz noted that his association was pleased to be involved in the development
of these regulations from the onset and compared the benefits of this early involvement to
the less desirable situation now being addressed through spill prevention and
contamination control regulations.

Dr. Neeraj Khanna, Bio-Cide International, presented information on the use of chorine
dioxide to disinfect aircraft drinking water systems and described the procedure for
completing the disinfection.

Discussion and Responses to Questions

Removable tanks

Removable tanks on aircraft are taken inside the airport to a catering facility where they
are refilled. These tanks are cleaned and disinfected using standing solutions and a
procedure similar to those used for water tanks and carts.

Sampling at an airport

Currently airlines are being held responsible for water boarded on aircraft, but it is not
clear who is responsible for the contaminated water delivered from the terminal. More
sampling needs to be done at municipal airports to ensure water delivered to aircraft is
safe. Municipal water suppliers often sample at airports within their distribution system,
but only to comply with the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) and Lead and Copper Rule
(LCR). Information on the frequency of sampling at airports may become available as a
result of the upcoming survey by Airports Council International. Under the TCR, each
system must develop a sampling plan to ensure it takes representative samples throughout
distribution system. EPA is considering ways to encourage systems to take more samples
at municipal airports. EPA is also pursuing strategies to ensure that when a system
reports a violation to the state that requires public notification, airports and airlines are
also notified of the situation.

- 5 -


-------
Disadvantages of chlorine dioxide

Chlorine dioxide is generally more expensive than chlorine. The user also has to mix the
contents of two bottles.

A TS' Procedures

ATS' procedures are not standard and are only used by ATS. ATS is willing to share
their procedures with other vendors. FDA does require procedures for attaching caps to
hoses, using clean hands at the watering point, and regularly inspecting watering points.
EPA also required watering points to be disinfected every 30 days through Water Supply
Guidance (WSG) 29. In spite of these various requirements, attendees expressed concern
that watering points are not checked regularly and maintained properly, especially since
no monitoring is required. EPA hopes to collect more information on disinfection
schedules for truck, hoses, and other water system components through the AOCs.

Panel 2: Aircraft Watering Systems

Ms. Leah Raney, Continental Airlines, and Dave Supplee, International Association of
Mechanics, described the components of drinking water systems onboard aircraft. The
components include galley and lavatory faucets, galley coffee makers, and vacuum toilets
(that use 7 oz of water per flush). A generic pipe diagram was presented which
illustrated piping that runs from the front to the back of the aircraft. Ms. Raney explained
that the water is supplied to the aircraft through a fill port and is drained through a drain
port on the underbelly of aircraft. The diagram also illustrated how pressurized air from
the operation of the engines is used to pressurize the water system.

The presenters explained that most aircraft water systems are not complex, but they do
vary between aircraft. The presenters then described some of the variations. For
example, water tanks on aircraft vary greatly in size - a regional jet has a 5-gallon tank, a
Boeing 737 has a 35-gallon tank, and the large Boeing 777 has a 360-gallon tank. They
noted the configuration of the galley can also vary - the sink may be plumbed separately
and there may only be a hot water spout on the coffeemaker. The presenters added that
some aircraft have installed carbon filters on their coffeemakers, which are changed
regularly (e.g., quarterly basis), and some regional jets lack running water onboard. In
addition, they mentioned that many with running water have placards near the faucet
indicating that the lavatory water is not for drinking, but that not all jets consistently use
these signs.

Ms. Raney reported that Continental Airlines disinfects its aircraft on a quarterly basis
and testing is completed annually. She mentioned that if the airline receives any
complaints about its drinking water, they sanitize the aircraft drinking water system, test
the water, and assign an engineer to investigate the problem. She noted Continental also
has a general maintenance manual that explains all operation and maintenance (O&M)
procedures in detail, and that based on the manual engineers prepare detailed work cards
for the maintenance crew to follow. She also noted that the maintenance crew initials
each step on the work card when it is completed.

-6-


-------
Ms. Raney conveyed that Continental also has established the following procedure to
disinfect their aircraft drinking water systems:

•	Pressurize the system and add the disinfectant to push the solution through the
entire system - all sinks must have solution drain through them.

•	Drain the solution with the sanitizer out of the system and into a tank.

•	Run fresh potable water through whole system until clear water comes out of
every faucet.

•	Neutralize the remaining acid in the system.

Dave Lotterer, Regional Airline Association (RAA), described the unique aspects of
regional carriers. He noted that most regional carriers rely on disinfection
recommendations by manufacturers (based on FDA input); therefore, the disinfection
frequency varies between regional carriers. Mr. Lotterer also noted that most regional
jets lack fill ports, and turbo props generally do not have running water. He indicated the
passengers and crew on these aircraft rely on the use of antimicrobial hand gels and
wipes for hand sanitization.

Christopher Witkowski, Association of Flight Attendants, provided an introduction to his
association, which represents 46,000 flight attendants (including international, national,
and regional carriers), and discussed the role of flight attendants in ensuring safe drinking
water on aircraft. Mr. Witkowski noted that since September 11, 2001, flight attendants
have become responsible for the health and safety of passengers, including ensuring that
there are sanitary conditions on the aircraft.

Mr. Witkowski explained that flight attendants have three basic priorities: safety
announcements, safety demonstrations, and evacuation/emergency situations. He noted
that they are required to wash their hands before preparing food, after picking up trash,
after medical emergencies, and after using the lavatory. He also noted many rely on
lavatory water to brush their teeth and wash their hands.

Mr. Witkowski reported that in recent years flight attendants have experienced stress
related to financial problems of airlines, communicable diseases (e.g., SARS, avian flu),
and long workdays (often 12-16 hours). He noted that most flight attendants are forced to
use lavatories on the aircraft during their workday due to their short layovers. He also
noted that while EPA regulates onboard drinking water, FDA regulates food service on
land, ice and food handling onboard, lavatory requirements on aircraft that prepare/serve
food, and cleaning the aircraft. He acknowledged the goal of both agencies is to prevent
the spread of disease and mentioned some of their related responsibilities. Examples of
FAA-related requirements provided by Mr. Witkowski included inspections during the
design of the aircraft to ensure sanitation is adequate; the issuance of airworthiness
certificates by FAA; and FAA's minimum equipment lists (MEL) which specify

-7-


-------
equipment that can be inoperative in an aircraft and for how long. He mentioned it is
allowable for planes to fly for up to 10 consecutive days if the potable water and lavatory
waste systems are not functioning on an aircraft.

Regarding regional carriers, Mr. Witkowski mentioned most carry 20 to 100 passengers;
have 30-minute to 4-hour flights; a beverage service but minimal or no food service;
lavatories and galleys that often lack running water and soap so flight attendants use wet
wipes or gel to clean their hands; and flight attendants drink bottled water. He explained
that discount carriers operate primarily 1- to 6-hour domestic flights; fly a large number
of flights each day; typically carry 100 to 200 passengers; and usually have running water
and soap. He noted that most discount carriers offer a snack and beverage service. He
also noted the major carriers operate both domestic and international flights that typically
have 100 to 500 seats; flight lengths of 1 to 18 hours; long flights that may offer full food
and beverage services; lavatories with running water and soap; and fully equipped
galleys.

Mr. Witkowski raised some concerns over placarding water sinks. He mentioned that
although FDA regulations state all employees that prepare food must wash their hands
with potable water, some airlines identify non-potable water with placards. He
mentioned these placards might not be effective for children and non-English speakers
and pose a problem for teeth brushing for flight attendants and passengers. Mr.
Witkowski expressed concern that international travel poses serious disease risks and
hand washing with soap and water is a critical step in preventing the spread of disease.

Mr. Witkowski conveyed that the Association of Flight Attendants has received
numerous reports on sanitation problems in aircraft. He stated the association strongly
believes that EPA, FDA, and FAA should ensure that galley and lavatory water is
potable, in spite of the pressure to minimize costs, and should require running water on
all aircraft with flight attendants. He reported the association would also support an
independent testing program conducted by EPA during the AOC process, mandatory
break time for flight attendants, and reducing the time aircraft can operate without
functioning water and lavatory systems from 10 days to 72 hours.

John Grace, AFA Health and Security Committee Chair, shared excerpts from several
reports from flight attendants regarding the unhygienic conditions onboard aircraft.

These examples included reports of diarrhea and abdominal cramps associated with
consumption of hot water and coffee onboard a regional jet, a lack of water pressure and
ground power when aircraft are parked at the gate (when flight attendants need to use and
clean lavatories), and broken lavatory systems that led to severe overflows.

Discussion and Responses to Questions

Coffeemakers

A participant asked what temperature was reached by water in coffee makers while in-
flight. Another participant reported coffeemakers generally heat the water to about 185
degrees Fahrenheit, which was noted as being above the pasteurization temperature.

- 8 -


-------
Location for disinfection procedures

A participant asked where sanitation procedures are completed. A presenter responded
that sanitation procedures are completed in the hangers where potable water cabinets are
available and that the disinfectant solution and water are added through a fill port in the
aircraft.

Monitoring after disinfection

In response to a question on whether a bacteriologic test is performed after disinfection, a
participant answered that they are not done on a routine basis after disinfection unless a
problem is suspected.

Filters

A participant asked where carbon filers were installed on aircraft water systems. A
presenter responded that airlines do not currently install carbon filters on water tanks, but
only on coffee makers.

Potable water in lavatories

A participant noted that although regional jets have placards where water is not deemed
safe to drink, they reported seeing cups in some of the placarded lavatories. A participant
mentioned they would not want to drink water from lavatory sinks. Another participant
noted lavatory sinks are often the only cold water taps available on the aircraft for
collecting water samples.

Lack of hygienic conditions

There was some discussion regarding whether the reports from flight attendants were
anecdotal anomalies or common problems. A presenter stated that there were a
significant number of reports collected over the last 2 to 2.5 years. Flight attendants
confirmed that some situations occur every day, which are especially problematical on
aircraft that lack potable water.

Lack of running water

A participant expressed concern that since clean hands are necessary to serve drinks and
food, especially after using the lavatory or after addressing a medical problem, running
water was essential. The participant noted that although some airlines provide flight
attendants with kits, which include gloves, to deal with bodily fluids, the aircraft might
not provide running water to wash hands after utilizing the kits. Another participant
noted that some flight attendants have repeatedly asked the airlines to provide gloves for
food service, but the airlines have chosen not to provide them. It was noted that whether
flight attendants wear gloves while serving food must be determined by the airlines and
unions, since it is not required by regulation.

Definition of food handling

Discussion addressed the need for a more clear definition of food handling as it relates to
prepackaged food distributed on aircraft and a related requirement for running water and
soap for hand washing. It was noted FDA has not established a definition for food

-9-


-------
handling and there is a need for consistency in the terminology. The participant said food
service has been defined, but is different from food handling. It was also noted that a
definition would affect other FDA applications and would need to be addressed with
those in mind.

Boarding foreign water

Regarding how an airline determines whether it will board foreign water, a participant
noted that each airline collects data on foreign water using its own procedures and that
some take quarterly samples at international airports and will not board water if the
samples fail to meet U.S. drinking water standards. Another participant stated airlines
also make extensive efforts to find safe water and food in developing countries.

Reporting procedures

In response to a question regarding the reporting of sanitation problems, a presenter
explained that the Association of Flight Attendants collects reports from flight attendants
on sanitation problems. They indicated the reports are submitted to the appropriate air
carriers and some carriers, such as Continental, use a hotline to collect complaints to
identify trends. It was noted OSHA also collects data from carriers on work-related
injuries.

Placards

A participant asked whether signage and placards are an acceptable alternative to
providing safe water and cautioned that such placards might discourage people from
washing their hands. Discussion included comments that based on sampling results,
some airlines that use placards for non-potable water have found their water quality to be
lower than in municipal water systems. It was noted that other airlines that use placards
have a 5-gallon tank, which is disinfected annually, but water is not sampled using EPA-
approved tests. Since these airlines cannot ensure the water is potable so they post
notices on placards. It was also noted that WSG 29 specifically allowed airlines to use
placards if water is not deemed potable.

Regulations covering cabin quality

A participant noted that FAA procedures were changed after September 11, 2001, to
require an operating front lavatory for use by the pilots. The participant suggested FAA
should further revise their required procedures to cover other cabin quality issues, which
are not covered by other agencies. For example, the participant suggested guidance
should be developed for lavatory cleaning procedures, and a tracking and reporting
process should be implemented to address problems.

Sampling in stationary Transient Noncommunity Water Systems (TNCWSs)

A participant asked whether there is a sampling requirement for lavatories in restaurants.
An EPA representative responded that the state regulatory agency or health department is
responsible for ensuring water served at stationary water systems is potable water. They
noted that if a restaurant has its own source of water they would collect a bacteriological
sample and the lavatory may be one location where samples are collected, although more
often a tap in the kitchen may be used. EPA also noted it is important in all cases to

- 10 -


-------
ensure the tap is cleaned and flushed before taking samples. In addition, it was
mentioned that sampling points must be available 24 hours a day. EPA indicated they
would encourage public water systems that serve airports to collect samples in the
airports as part of their distribution system sample-siting plan required for compliance
with the Total Coliform Rule.

Consumption of galley water

A participant noted that when the supply of bottled water is used up during flight, some
airlines allow water bottles to be refilled with galley water.

Effectiveness of disinfectants

A participant noted that although chlorine dioxide has been proven to be an effective
disinfectant, the procedures for disinfection are in question and the effectiveness of
disinfectants on biofilms is still being studied. A participant noted it appears that
chlorine dioxide is effective at penetrating and inactivating biofilms; however, the
effectiveness of disinfectants varies by contaminant. EPA is currently developing
information on disinfectants and biofilms.

Whether selling water as a beverage would count as selling water

EPA responded that they did not believe selling beverages for direct consumption would

be considered 'selling' water but they will refer to the question to the Office of General

Council.

Disinfectant Residual Monitoring in lieu of bacteriological sampling
A participant asked whether additional disinfectant residual monitoring could be
performed instead of bacteriological monitoring. The participant stated they believed the
logistics of getting bacteriological samples to an approved laboratory were prohibitive.
EPA responded that this may be looked at as an option in the future and acknowledged
the time delay in receiving sample results means several additional flights may have
occurred before test results are reported to the airline.

Overview of Current Multi-Agency Regulations Affecting Aircraft Water Systems
and Watering Points

Rick Naylor, EPA OGWDW, presented an overview of how aircraft drinking water is
regulated by EPA. Mr. Naylor explained that all public water systems (PWSs), including
ICCs, are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and, therefore, ICCs are subject to
national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs). He noted that a PWS is a
system that serves water for human consumption through at least 15 service connections
or serves an average of at least 25 people daily for 60 days or more per year. He also
noted that water consumption includes water used for cooking, drinking, dishwashing,
and maintaining oral hygiene. He explained that a PWS could be excluded from
regulation if it meets all of the following conditions:

• Consists of only distribution and storage facilities

- 11 -


-------
•	Obtains all of its water from, but is not owned or operated by, a PWS to which the
regulations apply

•	Does not sell water

•	Is not a carrier that conveys passengers in interstate commerce

Mr. Naylor indicated EPA and FDA jointly regulate ICCs through a memorandum of
understanding (MOU). He also indicated the regulations apply to aircraft as follows:

•	Under the NPDWRs, aircraft would be considered TNCWSs and surface water
systems (since they may use surface water or ground water under the direct
influence of surface water (GWUDI) in whole or in part).

•	Based on the NPDWRs, TNCWSs using surface water that serve 25 to 1,000
persons per day are required to take one total coliform sample every month, one
nitrate sample every year, one nitrite sample every 3 years, and conduct one
sanitary survey every 5 years.

•	The Surface Water Treatment Rule and Long Term 1 Surface Water Treatment
Rule require at the treatment plant: turbidity monitoring at the filters, and specific
log removals of Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and viruses through filtration and
disinfection. In the distribution system, one disinfectant residual sample must be
taken every month (at the same time and location as samples collected for
compliance with the Total Coliform rule).

Mr. Naylor pointed out that taking one total coliform sample per month or one
disinfectant residual sample per month is not very meaningful for an aircraft that obtains
water from multiple sources. He mentioned that although some monitoring would be
useful, because aircraft board their water from so many different sources, it would be
difficult to sample frequently enough to always know whether an aircraft's drinking
water was contaminated.

Mr. Naylor explained that the NPDWRs give EPA and states flexibility in determining
monitoring schedules for consecutive systems, which obtain all their water from another
PWS. He noted that there might be problems with categorizing aircraft as consecutive
systems since aircraft do not have fixed connections to PWSs which presents a variety of
opportunities for cross contamination. Also, many aircraft obtain water from foreign
sources that are not subject EPA regulations.

Dean Davidson, FDA, summarized the FDA's role in the development of drinking water
regulations on aircraft.

FDA's role in water on conveyances is guided by the Public Health Service Act, section
361, Quarantine and Inspection, that provides the legal basis for FDA's regulations that
pertain to passenger conveyances in interstate commerce and their the food, water, and
waste systems. Section 361 of the PHS Act focuses on the transmission of
communicable disease from state to state and from foreign countries into the U.S.
Passengers and crew on conveyances in interstate commerce, the food, water, and the
waste systems aboard these conveyances historically have been a source of disease
outbreaks. These outbreaks and their underlying causes were the driving force in the

- 12 -


-------
development of the Interstate Quarantine Regulations to protect the crews and traveling
public and resident populations from communicable disease and contamination of the
environment where these conveyances stop and travel through.

•	1894 - Interstate Quarantine Regulations (IQR) were developed in response to the
railroad's role in an outbreak of yellow fever in the late 1800s; waste was dumped
directly on the tracks. The regulation allowed FDA to detain and quarantine sick
individuals.

•	1911 - Great Lakes steamers experienced waterborne disease outbreaks.

•	1912 - IQR was amended to prohibit sharing of cups and towels.

•	1913 - In response to an outbreak of typhoid, a section for handling of ice and
water was added to IQR.

•	1919 - The first scheduled airline and international flight.

•	1921 - IQRs were revised again in response to more illnesses. In the
amendments, water was required to be obtained from a source approved by the
Surgeon General; milk was required to be pasteurized; states were forced to
cooperate with agencies; certificates were issued for water supplies; requirements
were made for general sanitation and cleanliness; cross connections were
prohibited on vessels; and disinfection methods were described.

•	1922 - Treasury Department Circular #282 was published that required the
installation of potable water systems on vessels.

•	1925 - With passage of the Kelly Air mail act, the US Postal Service contracted
many aircraft to carry mail. This provided the necessary stimulus that resulted in
rapid expansion and growth of the passenger airline industry that we see today.
With more passengers came more amenities, e.g., food and toilets.

•	1935 - Aircraft in flight were forbidden to let matter fall during flight.

•	1939 - IQR was transferred to the Federal Security Agency, which played a
critical role in handling pandemics.

•	1943 - 1,179 men became ill as a result of a cross connection problem in a
vessel's water system.

•	1944 - Comprehensive vessel evaluations were required.

•	1947 - Regulations were re-codified to 42 CFR Part 72.

•	1953 - Department of Health was created from the Federal Security Agency.

•	1962 - Drinking water standards were amended.

•	1969 - Drinking water activities were shifted to FDA (Parts 1240 and 1250).
FDA began issuing certificates of sanitary construction.

Mr. Davidson noted that FDA has not determined whether washing hands is considered
to be a culinary use in the context of regulations that apply to conveyances in interstate
traffic. FDA regulations require that toilet and lavatory facilities, that is, hand wash sinks
with running water of appropriate temperature be provided on conveyances for food
handling employees. Food handling is not defined in the regulations. It is sound public
health policy and a protective measure against communicable disease transmission that
persons wash their hands frequently and particularly after using the toilet, handling
garbage, or touching unsanitary surfaces.

- 13 -


-------
Barry Basse described FAA's role in drinking water regulations. He noted that FAA
doesn't have any regulations that directly affect potable water but they do have
maintenance requirements for aircraft (14 CFR 43). He explained airlines must have a
continuous airworthiness maintenance and inspection program (14 CFR 25), which
includes tracking servicing information, capacity of tanks, and other relevant information.
He indicated manufacturers produce a maintenance planning document, maintenance
manual, and maintenance review board report, which should be followed by airlines.

Mr. Basse stated that under FAA's surveillance programs, principal inspectors examine
carriers' maintenance programs, cabin safety issues, etc. He said carriers are recertified
based on whether they meet current regulations, and sanctions can be applied if they are
out of compliance. He also noted that the National Work Program oversees the tracking
and reporting system for compliance, and administers sanctions for noncompliance and
this information can prove vital during pandemics and outbreaks.

Discussion and Responses to Questions

Logistical constraints for sampling

A participant stated quarterly testing is difficult for airlines to complete for logistical
reasons. The participant believed sampling methods that have a quicker turn-around
should be considered to enable airlines to address contamination problems more
efficiently. They expressed that if faster sampling methods are not available, EPA should
have airlines test for other indicators that have easier and more rapid tests. Onboard
treatment

A concern was expressed that if airlines install filters or UV treatment devices onboard an
aircraft to treat all boarded water, the aircraft would be considered a water treatment
facility and would be subject to all the NPDWRs.

Water Supply Guidance

A participant noted that WSG 29 allowed airlines to develop O&M plans in lieu of
monitoring for NPDWRs. EPA responded that they determined monitoring does not
provide enough useful information and regular disinfection is more important in this type
of system. They also indicated that although EPA has discontinued WSG 29, they still
recommend using the procedure for disinfecting tanks.

Boarding water from foreign sources

A participant noted that although drinking water in many countries may not meet U.S.
standards, aircraft usually obtain water from private companies that treat their water to
U.S. standards. EPA clarified that public and private systems are both subject to the
NPDWRs based on the number people they serve. EPA stated they do not currently have
information on foreign water sources used by different airlines and do not have control
over where aircraft take on water. They also noted it is unlikely that EPA will list

- 14 -


-------
countries where airlines can and cannot board water, but EPA does hope to gather crucial
information on this topic based on data provided under the consent orders.

EPA is currently meeting with the Canadian government to develop parallel programs.
EPA, in working with international organizations such as the International Air Transport
Association, World Health Organization and the International Civil Aviation
Organization, hopes to establish international protocols for airline drinking water. At an
International Air Transport Association meeting on cabin health, EPA shared its ideas
and direction on regulation of airline drinking water.

Requirements for hand-washing facilities

It was noted regional airlines and FDA have had long discussions about requirements for
running water onboard aircraft on which food is prepared/served. Packaged food is
served on regional airlines and is not covered under the regulations. Although regional
airlines look forward to a breakthrough in gels and hand wipes (in lieu of washing hands
with soap and water), FDA indicated that they would not support an alternative procedure
to hand washing.

Alternative hand cleaning methods

FDA reported that although the effectiveness of hand gels and wipes has improved, they
do not offer the save level of public health protection as washing hands with soap and
water. FDA is currently developing criteria to approve hand antimicrobials for food
service use and consumer use. FDA representatives noted that it is unlikely that any will
be approved for consumer use (with the possible exception of alcohol hand gels) as there
is no proven benefit of using antimicrobial over soap and water and there are serious
concerns about developing anti-microbial resistance.

FDA representatives further explained that hand wipes are less effective than gels in
cleaning hands and both are most effective when used on clean (not contaminated) hands.
FDA mentioned reports of studies that showed on contaminated hands, hand washing
achieves 2-log removal, gels achieve 1-log removal, and hand wipes achieve less than 1-
log removal. Therefore, gels and wipes are not replacements for washing hands with
soap and water. FDA indicated regional airlines may need to consider switching from
gels and hand wipes to bottled water, but need to decide on a standard procedure.

Priority of various regulations

A participant noted that regional carriers are required to shut off water to avoid freezing
the water system, and FAA regulations do not allow aircraft to operate for more than 10
days with a nonfunctioning lavatory or water system. The participant stated regional
carriers are uncertain which regulation applies, especially if hand washing facilities are
required. It was recommended that the airlines pose this question to their principal
inspector to resolve their question.

Minimum Equipment Lists

A participant asked whether a MEL could be changed. FAA responded that the master
MEL from FAA is the benchmark for all airlines and each airline can create its own
MEL, but it cannot be less restrictive than the master MEL. They indicated that to

- 15 -


-------
change the master MEL, airlines would need substantial amounts of data on
contamination and sanitation problems (reported on a per flight basis).

Jurisdiction over watering points

A participant asked whether FDA or EPA regulates watering points. Presenters clarified
that FDA approves each watering point, but watering points are also part of a distribution
system, which allows EPA to regulate them. It was also noted that FDA refers to EPA's
regulations for water quality when approving watering points, so the agencies
complement each other.

- 16 -


-------
DAY 2: JANUARY 19. 2006

Facilitated Panel Discussion: Perspectives on Scope of Issues for Regulations
Tailored to Aircraft Water Systems

A diverse panel was asked to comment on a preliminary list of issues for EPA to consider
while developing regulations for aircraft drinking water systems. The panel posed
questions and topics not considered by EPA, proposed new approaches for the
rulemaking, and discussed key topics in more depth.

Katherine Andrus, Air Transport Association, stated her organization believes the
problem with aircraft drinking water systems is a regulatory problem, not a public health
problem. She indicated that if the systems posed a serious public health risk, agencies
would handle the situation differently and take action. She noted the journal Lancet
recently published a study on outbreaks related to air travel, but none were traced to
aircraft. She acknowledged that since the study relied on reported cases of illness, the
study is not perfect, but that available records do not suggest a water quality problem on
aircraft.

Ms. Andrus emphasized the need for drinking water regulations to be carefully tailored to
aircraft to meet their unique design and operation. She said frequent monitoring would
not provide enough information to make the cost and burden worthwhile, since aircraft
board water from multiple sources. Ms. Andrus suggested that EPA adopt a systems
management approach that prevents problems at each section of the water system. She
believed this approach should consider system design, operation, and monitoring data and
that the systems management approach has been proven to be very effective.

Ms. Andrus also proposed the establishment of different MCLs for aircraft drinking water
systems, since consumption and exposure patterns differ from stationary systems.

EPA clarified that the SDWA clearly adopts one set of MCLs, which must remain
uniform across all PWSs, and EPA can only change monitoring and operational
requirements for systems.

Christopher Witkowski, Association of Flight Attendants, emphasized that aircraft
without hot and cold running water pose health risks. He believes that the installation of
technology to treat water onboard U.S. aircraft should be considered. He also stated it is
clear that there needs to be cooperation between EPA, FDA, and FAA to resolve the
numerous issues associated with aircraft drinking water systems. Mr. Witkowski would
support testing conducted by EPA or FDA and, at a minimum, would like to see them
involved in the sampling. He believes that would give airlines an incentive to comply.

Stan Mackiewicz from, National Air Transportation Association explained that
rulemaking takes years to complete, and sometimes rulemakings are never finalized. He
expressed concern that enforcement of regulations is often difficult, demonstrated by the
lack of enforcement of current regulations. Mr. Mackiewicz stated that although

- 17 -


-------
technology is available to improve drinking water quality on aircraft, application of the
technology through regulation is more challenging. He believes airlines with financial
constraints are unlikely to follow advisory circulars or guidance and will only comply
with minimum requirements in regulations. Other panel members agreed that guidelines
are not going to be effective in reaching EPA's goal and that regulations are necessary.

Mr. Mackiewicz emphasized the effectiveness of safety management systems
implemented by air carriers and felt this philosophy could also be applied to drinking
water systems on aircraft.

Tyler Setchell, American Association of Airport Executives, stated that he is not aware of
any major drinking water problems on aircraft. He expressed concern over the burden
and costs imposed by sampling and speculated that costs incurred by airports would be
passed onto airlines. Mr. Setchell emphasized the need to provide clear direction for
airport operators regarding their responsibilities and any changes in operation and
maintenance procedures. He also noted that although aircraft drinking water is primarily
an airline issue, many airports own and operate the water cabinets. Mr. Setchell is also
concerned that the source of contamination in drinking water will be difficult to trace,
leading airports and aircraft to push fault onto each other.

Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), reminded attendees that
monitoring data collected by the airline industry and EPA showed widespread bacterial
problems on aircraft. He noted that documenting waterborne illnesses associated with
exposure to aircraft drinking water systems is not critical in justifying the need for
additional regulation, especially since pathogens generally have incubation periods that
exceed the length of most flights.

Mr. Olson pointed out that water used to make coffee and tea onboard is not boiled,
which CDC recommends to inactivate key pathogens of concern. Mr. Olson also stated
that water should be equally safe in TNCWSs in the air and on the ground, particularly to
protect the immune-compromised population, which is more susceptible to waterborne
illnesses.

Mr. Olson suggested potential elements that EPA could include in the rulemaking,
including disinfection requirements for boarded water, requirements for distribution
systems, O&M, monitoring, and reporting. He also believes jurisdictional issues of water
cabinets should be clarified, and that sanitary surveys would be an important component
if the rule uses a systems management approach.

Nancy McKinley, International Airline Passengers Association, stated she would like to
see documentation of a water quality problem so EPA can develop a rule that is directly
proportional to the actual health risk. She noted that although flight attendants and
passengers have complained about a variety of sanitation problems on aircraft (e.g., non-
functioning restrooms, food poisoning issues), none involve drinking water. She
acknowledged people might not isolate drinking water as the source of their illness or
problem.

- 18 -


-------
Ms. McKinley and Mr. Mackiewicz both emphasized the importance of collecting data
(through sampling and logging of complaints, for example) to determine the risk of
exposure to aircraft drinking water. They believe that EPA should wait until they have
collected and reviewed additional data before moving forward. Ms. McKinley stated that
the risk model EPA develops should consider consumption patterns on aircraft. She felt
this type of information could be collected in a survey of her members. Charles Otto,
CDC, suggested she include water consumption patterns in their survey so that teeth
brushing, use of bottled water, and other water use practices are included.

Ms. McKinley pointed out that disclosure is essential to minimize risk for passengers,
which makes reporting critical. Therefore, she believes disclosure should be incorporated
into the rulemaking. She also emphasized manufacturers are an important part of the
regulatory process since designing new aircraft that meet new requirements is preferable
to retrofitting existing aircraft.

Charles Otto, Centers for Disease Control Environmental Health Services, mentioned the
substantial number of hazardous analysis critical control aspects that apply to aircraft
drinking water systems, and that close collaboration is needed with the airline industry to
make the approach effective. He noted that currently the burden of boarding foreign
water falls on the airlines. He also noted CDC has information on their Web site
regarding procedures for boarding water from foreign sources, which focus on an
inspection process to validate a system. He suggested this procedure could potentially be
tailored and incorporated into aircraft drinking water regulations.

Discussion and Responses to Questions

Interagency coordination

Participants agreed interagency coordination should include FAA, FDA, and EPA and
that FAA's maintenance requirements may indirectly affect drinking water requirements.

Guidance versus regulation

A participant asked whether WSG 29 could be used again. EPA responded that the intent
of WSG 29 was to tailor the NPDWRs to ICCs and that legally guidance cannot overturn
a regulation. Therefore, EPA needs to correct this problem by changing the regulation.

Potential marketing tools

A participant suggested that there is potential for airlines to use improved drinking water
quality as a marketing tool, similar to promotions for Boeing 777's air program that
allows fresh air into cabin (instead of recycling the same air). The participant noted a
variety of water treatment products are available from manufacturers, but regulations will
still need to effectively reduce health risks.

- 19 -


-------
Consumption of water on aircraft

It was noted that many people do consume galley and lavatory water on planes,
especially children. On some airlines, water served to economy class is galley water (as
opposed to bottled water) as a cost-saving measure. The need for safe water onboard
aircraft was emphasized.

EPA should wait for data

It was noted that data currently being collected under the AOCs would take about a year
to acquire. Attendees stressed that EPA should wait for data before developing the rule,
as the data may show that poor water quality on the aircraft may not be directly related to
the components of the system under the airlines' control. For example, it is possible the
cabinets are the source of the contamination, the water delivered from the airport may be
contaminated, or operators need additional training on how to board water onto planes.
Participants noted that although sanitizing water before it enters aircraft is an option,
treatment systems on aircraft would be very expensive to install and maintain.

Sanitation program for buses

A participant noted that FDA regulates the bus sanitation program, which does not use
running water. It was also noted that although hand sanitizers are available in lavatories,
they are only effective on clean hands. A participant stated there was a documented
outbreak involving a rotavirus on a bus traveling cross-country.

Alternatives for airlines

There is concern that regulations may force airlines to remove their water system to
remain cost effective. Participants believed this action would increase the public health
risk and water should be available for hand washing. Participants stated EPA needs a
regulatory approach that is reasonable in cost and still protects health. It was noted
treating water at the watering point and/or onboard the plane with a point of use (POU)
treatment device along with the training for ground handling crews are some options that
should be considered in the regulation.

Approach to Rulemaking Process

Mr. Stephen Heare, Director of the Drinking Water Protection Division in EPA's Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW), presented EPA's approach to this
rulemaking process. Mr. Heare provided a historical perspective on rulemaking efforts
for public water systems and the basis for tailoring the implementation of existing health-
based drinking water standards to aircraft public water systems.

Mr. Heare explained that most rulemakings involve the development of a health-based
standard to regulate a specific contaminant (e.g., Cryptosporidium, Giardia,
nitrite/nitrate) and require a significant amount of time. To collect occurrence data on a
contaminant, EPA often requires selected PWSs to sample for the contaminant of
concern. EPA uses this data to determine the occurrence of the contaminant and to
conduct a risk analysis. These analyses help EPA decide whether to regulate the
contaminant. If regulation is deemed necessary, EPA develops standards for the

-20 -


-------
contaminant of concern. The standards may consist of an MCL, a treatment technique,
such as filtration, or even an action level.

Mr. Heare noted that compliance with an MCL is usually determined through monitoring,
but that in some cases monitoring can be based on a surrogate (e.g., monitor turbidity
instead of pathogens). He noted that rules could be risk-based targeted, meaning that
systems must meet requirements based on the measured level of contaminants in their
system.

Mr. Heare explained that some contaminants, such as lead, enter the water system
through plumbing instead of the water treatment plant. However chemicals added at the
treatment plant can promote corrosion in pipes and intensify the contamination problem.
He noted that EPA created an action level since there is no safe level for lead in water
and compliance with the action level is based on a statistical analysis of measurements
taken at taps throughout the distribution system.

Mr. Heare acknowledged EPA lacks evidence that illnesses are directly related to
exposure to aircraft drinking water systems. He stated that although outbreak data is
considered during a rulemaking, it is not essential for EPA to collect this information to
support a rule. He emphasized EPA is interested in preventing problems and reducing
public health risks rather than reacting to a problem after it occurs. He said that while
EPA would like to obtain additional outbreak data related to waterborne illnesses, as it
would also help them measure the effectiveness of current NPDWRs, detailed data on
outbreaks is generally very limited for a variety of reasons.

Mr. Heare noted that EPA retained the company RESOLVE to help EPA develop and
facilitate a collaborative stakeholder process to tailor the implementation of existing
health-based drinking water standards to aircraft PWSs. As part of this process, EPA
expects to sponsor two or three learning workshops before proposing regulations for
aircraft drinking water systems. In an effort to promulgate the regulations as quickly as
possible to protect the health of crew members and passengers, EPA hopes to propose the
regulation in 2006 and finalize it in 2007. Since EPA originally planned to propose the
rule in 2007 and finalize it between 2008 and 2010, EPA will do its best to meet the
accelerated schedule. AOCs are currently in place with about 40 different carriers, which
will provide data for the rulemaking.

Mr. Heare stated that since the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must review
all of EPA regulations, EPA would work together with OMB to develop the background
documents to support the rule. In particular, OMB reviews data used to support the
economic analysis, risk analysis, and other documents. Mr. Heare explained that typical
rulemaking documents include a preliminary screening analysis, technology and cost
document, health criteria document, occurrence document, risk analysis, and economic
analysis, although EPA may be able to combine some documents. He described the
background documents as follows:

-21 -


-------
First, EPA must develop a screening analysis to determine if the rule will have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The technology and cost
document considers Best Management Practices (BMPs), technologies, and their costs to
reduce health risks on aircraft. By the next workshop, EPA hopes to have options for the
technology and cost document so they can be reviewed and discussed. The health criteria
document looks at the likelihood that contaminants will be present in the drinking water
system, including cabinets, carts, trucks, and hoses.

The occurrence document summarizes the nature and occurrence of contaminants and
situations that lead to contamination (e.g., improper handling of filler hoses). The
economic analysis will be a key piece of the rule, similar to past rules, and will compare
the costs and benefits of alternative rule options. EPA expects the risk analysis to be
difficult to complete due to a lack of data on outbreaks and exposure. The risk analysis
will consider the likelihood that someone will get sick from drinking water on an
airplane. Information used to generate the risk assessment and all studies will be made
available to the public.

EPA used the AOCs as a bridge to ensure consistency in how airlines handle drinking
water. The AOCs include monitoring requirements, BMPs, corrective action, public
notification requirements, and a study of possible sources of contamination. The AOCs
are expected to contribute a significant amount of information that will be useful for most
of the background documents. EPA found that the AOCs had to be tailored due to
differences between carriers. These differences included practices for boarding foreign
water (e.g., avoiding water in certain countries), operations, disinfection practices,
sampling, and the general philosophy. Therefore, each AOC will likely provide different
types of information.

If new issues arise as a result of the AOCs or if EPA needs to solicit more information or
comment on the rule, EPA will publish a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) in the
Federal Register. This would likely occur after EPA proposes the rule.

In response to comments that EPA should wait and investigate whether disease outbreaks
from aircraft water systems have occurred, Mr. Heare noted that EPA recognizes they are
lacking good data on disease outbreaks in public water systems as a whole due to
underreporting. He also noted EPA does not need to find out how many people have
become sick in order to develop a regulation, and does not need to revisit the health
effects of the contaminants in question because they are well established. Mr. Heare
indicated EPA feels it would not be productive to look for outbreaks of illness because
reports of such incidents will be anecdotal due to the transient nature of aircraft
passengers. EPA believes the best approach is to focus on how to apply existing
requirements to aircraft water systems.

-22 -


-------
Discussion and Responses to Questions

AOCs

A participant asked whether AOC information would be available. EPA responded that
Laurie Dubriel at EPA has developed the AOCs with the various airlines. She said EPA
intends to aggregate the data and will present it to stakeholders if there are any trends or
conclusions. EPA also stated they will also make the information available on their Web
site.

EPA should wait for data

Attendees supported waiting to propose a rulemaking until the data from the AOCs
becomes available. EPA responded they are also concerned about the timing of the
information and the rulemaking, but hope to use and benefit from information collected
under the AOCs in subsequent workshops.

Monitoring approaches

It was suggested that EPA monitor disease-causing organisms, such as Legionella and E.
coli 0157:H7. EPA explained the analytical and cost problems associated with
monitoring for pathogens and that using an indicator of fecal contamination, such as total
coliform, is the simplest and most cost effective sampling method. EPA noted that
pathogens often occur in low numbers and it would be difficult to detect the organisms in
the volume of water sampled. EPA also noted they are mostly concerned with acute
health effects such as are caused by nitrates/nitrites and bacterial contaminants. EPA
indicated it is likely they will consider monitoring requirements for total coliform (and E.
coli when a total coliform sample is confirmed), Heterotrophic Plate Count (HPC), and
disinfectant residual in the rulemaking.

Additional testing

A participant asked if there would be another round of EPA monitoring. EPA responded
that although EPA has not talked about conducting another round of sampling or spot
checks, EPA could decide to conduct one in the future, depending on the information
provided by the carriers under the AOCs.

Risk assessment

A participant asked whether criteria used for the risk assessment model will be available
to the public and whether the risk will be associated with hand washing since bottled
water is provided to most airline passengers. EPA responded that risks associated with
total coliform positive samples would not be revisited under the aircraft drinking water
regulation as these have already been discussed in detail under TCR. EPA also explained
that in the risk assessment, risk is associated more with occurrence than with the risk of
illness from drinking water compared to washing hands with contaminated water. Since
water could potentially be consumed all aircraft with running water and all TNCWSs
should provide the same level of public health protection, all aircraft drinking water
systems will be treated equally.

-23 -


-------
TCR monitoring

Participants asked several questions regarding follow-up sampling for positive samples
and public notification. EPA responded that PWSs routinely collect total coliform
samples each month based on the population they serve, not on how the water is used.
For example, large systems may take 300 or more samples each month. When a system
has a total coliform positive sample, it must be tested for the presence of fecal coliforms
or E. coli. If any routine samples are positive repeat samples are required. If the positive
sample is followed by another positive sample, then the system must conduct public
notification, and investigate the source of the problem (e.g., water main break). All total
coliform positive samples are tested to determine if they are also positive for fecal
coliform oris. coli. If a stationary system tests positive for E. coli, it must issue a boil
water notice until the problem can be corrected. Boiling the water onboard aircraft,
however, is not feasible. Airlines would need to notify passengers to prevent them from
drinking the water. Also, it was noted that airlines have an advantage over stationary
systems, in that they can flush and disinfect their whole system.

Presentation: Options for Proposed Rulemaking

Rick Naylor, EPA OGWDW, presented a preliminary approach and options for
regulating the aircraft potable water transfer and supply chain. The approach for the
rulemaking draws on the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) and
multiple-barrier approaches. Mr. Naylor explained HACCP assesses risk associated with
each step in the water transfer and supply chain and focuses on managing these risks.
The multiple-barrier approach puts in place barriers to prevent the contamination of
drinking water from source to consumer. Mr. Naylor noted EPA gives states about $100
million each year to help run their drinking water programs but foreign sources of water
are outside EPA and FDA's jurisdiction and the agencies lack information on their water
quality.

Mr. Naylor explained that under the HACCP approach, the water transfer and supply
train can be divided into a few major sections, which he described as follows:

•	PWS or Foreign Source

•	Airport authority and terminal

•	Watering points and service providers

•	Aircraft water systems

Airport authorities generally purchase water from regulated PWSs that must comply with,
drinking water regulations. There is some risk that this water could be contaminated due
to treatment failure, plumbing problems, cross connection/backflow problems, water
main breaks, and contaminated storage tanks. There are a variety of preventative
measures to reduce risk of contamination. For example, water suppliers notify airports
and airlines of any water quality issues to prevent aircraft from boarding contaminated
water. Microbial and disinfectant residual monitoring, cross connection control/backflow
prevention programs, and on-site water treatment can also reduce risks. Airlines can also
obtain information on water quality from foreign sources.

-24 -


-------
Service providers can adopt a variety of practices to avoid contaminating water while
transferring it from watering points to aircraft. Workers should only use watering points
approved by FDA, employ minimum maintenance requirements, follow proper
procedures and protocols, and only use trained and qualified personnel. Even though the
responsible party for boarding water may vary (e.g., contractor, airport, airline), it is
important that disinfection occurs regularly. Watering points could use a point-of-entry
(POE) treatment such as filtration and disinfection to ensure water boarded onto aircraft
is safe.

Aircraft water systems have risks associated with cross connections from sinks and
sewage systems, aging water (which leads to biofilm growth and depletes the disinfectant
residual), and boarding water that has not been disinfected (e.g., provided by some
foreign countries or a ground water source). Based on sampling results, disinfectant
residual is undetectable in large percentage of aircraft. A number of preventative
measures can be used to minimize the various risks associated with aircraft water
systems. For example, implement cross connection control/backflow prevention
programs, review by FDA of the plans and specifications for aircraft water systems,
follow minimum maintenance requirements, conduct microbial and disinfectant residual
monitoring, and install POU treatment.

Lavatory and galley sinks have additional risks that should be considered. Contamination
can be transferred to the water users or the distribution system as a result of hand to
surface contact, splash back and aerosols from sinks and toilets, and contaminated
cleaning rags. Airlines can minimize these risks by using bottled water, placing placards
above lavatory sinks in emergencies to use them for hand washing only, developing
minimum cleaning and maintenance procedures, and installing POU treatment.

Ensuring that airports and airlines comply with regulations could be accomplished
through a compliance assurance and surveillance program. Reporting and record keeping
are important aspects of this program, but it needs to be clear what information needs to
be maintained/reported and to whom. Sanitary surveys would be a very useful tool to
ensure the aircraft water system is properly operated and maintained. These surveys
should be based on flight hours rather than number of years and could be conducted by
EPA, an approved third party surveyor, or possibly the airlines self survey using a
certified checklist. Airlines currently self-survey the safety features of each aircraft and
submit their surveys to FDA, a process that appears to be effective.

For compliance assurance, airlines should continue to only use FDA-approved watering
points, and training and implementation guidance should be developed for owners and
operators of watering points. FDA and EPA will need to play a role in providing
compliance assistance, inspections and enforcement, when appropriate.

EPA generally agrees that a systems approach would be most effective for regulating the
aircraft potable water transfer and supply chain. Most NPDWRs depend on monitoring
to identify a problem after it has occurred, but EPA wants to focus on placing controls to

-25 -


-------
prevent problems in aircraft drinking water systems, especially since monitoring may not
be as effective for mobile water systems like aircraft. Flushing and disinfection are
crucial aspects of this approach and are not included in the current regulations. Public
notification will also play an important role by notifying the public when a violation
occurs. Notification can occur by posting information near lavatories, galleys, and
drinking fountains or by distributing handouts to passengers. It will be more difficult to
notify passengers after they de-plane, if a problem is detected through sampling. This
poses a substantial challenge since results of monitoring may not be available for 24
hours or more after sampling.

Discussion and Responses to Questions

Certification for foreign watering points
Adequate measures to ensure that water from foreign sources is safe to board are critical
to controlling risk Pieces of the program could potentially be modeled from CDC's
procedure for cruise ships that load water from foreign ports. Charles Otto, CDC,
reported that under the vessel program, at every approved port, the ship takes a free
chlorine and pH sample, and reviews recent microbial reports from each port before
boarding to verify that the water meets potable standards. In addition, he noted that most
cruise ships have labs onboard that use EPA-approved methods. The ships monitor their
chlorine residual on an hourly basis to ensure it remains at 2 ppm. If bacteriological
monitoring results indicate a problem, the ship re-samples the tank to determine if there is
a problem then discharges the water to sea if a problem is found. It was noted that cruise
ship physical and operational characteristics are not parallel with aircraft and, therefore,
some of these procedures would not apply to aircraft drinking water systems.

FDA 's regulation of fish andfisheryproducts industry using HAACP
FDA described an approach that was adopted to address various contamination problems
encountered in the fish and fishery products industry. This approach could potentially be
adopted to regulate aircraft drinking water systems. Under FDA's approach, each facility
is required to perform a hazard assessment, develop a plan to address each hazard (which
vary between facilities), identify critical control points in the facility, and monitor these
points on a regular basis. When the facility exceeds critical limits, as defined in the plan,
it must investigate the problem. Verification procedures are necessary to ensure the
hazards are minimized, and the plan is revisited if anything changes in the facility.
Recordkeeping is minimized under this approach. A control site is also necessary under
this approach where certain hazards can be controlled to determine the effectiveness of
various measures. Finally, FDA developed a training program and a training manual to
explain what the regulation requires and how a facility should assess its hazards.

FDA believes the HACCP regulatory approach minimizes the burden on FDA, but allows
FDA flexibility, as they can revise the hazard guide as new threats emerge. They feel the
regulation is effective for overseeing a large number of operators facing different
situations while minimizing cost. The regulation also helped to improve consumer
confidence in the fisheries industry.

-26 -


-------
Overall, FDA has found the HACCP approach to be straightforward, easy to apply, and
flexible. The food processing and water business share some similarities, so the same
regulatory approach may be applicable to both industries.

POU treatment

The use of POU treatment devices was discussed. Additional information on their
effectiveness and feasibility for aircraft is needed. Also, the regulatory burden would be
heavier on airlines if EPA requires POU devices. It was questioned whether this would
be a viable option since systems are not allowed to meet SDWA regulations for acute
contaminants using POU devices. It was also questioned whether a POE device used in
an aircraft would technically be a POU device.

Avoiding rule requirements

A participant noted that if the rule is too burdensome or costly, airlines are likely to
investigate ways to avoid being subject to it. For example, regional airlines may switch
to 5-gallon tanks of bottled water. It was clarified that EPA does not require aircraft to
have running water in the lavatories. That is an FDA requirement. Also, FDA not EPA
regulates bottled water. EPA stated that the quantity of water served is not considered by
drinking water rules and that the definition of a PWS will not be changed for this rule.

Flexibility

Although sampling efforts uncovered a problem with drinking water quality on planes,
smaller airlines, particularly regional airlines, are concerned about the cost of fixing the
problem. A participant noted that performance-based rulemaking allows more flexibility
and regional airlines on tight budgets need flexibility, making this an ideal approach.
There is concern that EPA will develop a rule that will lock airlines into a costly program
to address a problem that may not pose a serious health risk.

Approach based on categories

FDA discussed another approach that involves categories based on the level of controls a
facility has in place. After each facility determines its hazards and assesses the risks they
pose, the facility places itself in the appropriate category. Facilities with stricter controls
fall into a category with less supervision, while facilities with minimal controls are
subject to regular audits. This type of program allows flexibility since facilities can
influence their respective categories.

Update

A date for the next workshop has not been set.

-27 -


-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES

Katherine Andrus

Air Transport
Association

Janet Baad

Alaska Airlines

Jenna Barbour

The Cadmus Group, Inc.

Glenn Bass

U.S. Food & Drug
Administration

Barry Basse

Federal Aviation
Administration

Ron Bergman

U.S. EPA

Scott Biernat

The Cadmus Group, Inc.

Manja Blazer

IDEXX Laboratories,
Inc.

Marianne Csaky

Continental Airlines,

Inc.

Ramon Cirio

JetBlue Airways

Gabrielle Coovrey

ENSR

Joe Cotruvo

Joseph Cotruvo &
Associates /NSF
International

Travis Creighton

U.S. EPA, Office of
Ground Water &
Drinking Water

Mark Dachille

Goodrich Corporation,
De-icing and Specialty
Systems

Deb Dalton

U.S. EPA, Conflict
Prevention and
Resolution Center

Dean Davidson

U. S. Food and Drug
Administration Center
for Food Safety &
Applied Nutrition

Wade Davis

AirTran Airways

Spencer Davis

Ryan International
Airlines

Christy Draper

STL, Inc.

Laurie Dubriel

U.S. EPA

Bill Edmunds (only
1/19)

Air Line Pilots
Association, Int'l

Wendy Fanaselle

FDA/CFSAN

Kristin Fiore

United Airlines

Stephanie Flaharty

U.S. EPA

Holly Fleming

U.S. EPA

Angela Foster-Rice

United Airlines

David Fox

International Water-
Guard Industries, Inc
Unit One

AnnMarie Gebhart

Underwriters
Laboratories Inc.

Sanjeev Gera

JetBlue Airways

Tiffany Goebel

Midwest Airlines, Inc.

John Grace

Association of Flight
Attendants - CWA

Debra Gray

US Airways
W. Chris Harrison

Pinnacle Airlines,
Inc./Northwest Airlink

Stephen Heare

U.S. EPA

William Hoffman

USA 3000 Airlines

Freeman Holifield

AF/ILEV

-28 -


-------
Angela Hsueh

Monogram Systems

Linda Hutchison

U.S. EPA

Maggie Javdan

U.S. EPA/ORD

Donna Jensen

The Cadmus Group, Inc.

Elaine Karnes

Southwest Airlines Co.

Ghassan Khaled

U.S. EPA

Neeraj Khanna

Bio-Cide International

Bruce Kummer

U.S. Food & Drug
Administration

Gene Langereis

Air Wisconsin Airlines

Patricia Lemay

Health Canada

David Lotterer

Regional Airlines
Association

Stan Mackiewicz

National Air
Transportation
Association (NATA)

Richard Marchi

Airports Council
International - North
America

Carol Maready

U.S. Airways

Clover Marsh

LCG, Inc.

Nancy McKinley

International Airline
Passengers Association

Jason McLinton

Health Canada

Kevin Morley

American Water Works
Association

Sharon Moss-Bonner

Atlantic Southeast
Airlines - AFA

Rick Naylor

U.S. EPA

Jay Osterholt

PSA Airlines, Inc.

Charles Otto, III

U.S. PHS/CDC/NCEH

Scott Owens

Bio-Cide International
Noel Pacheco

Comair, Inc.

Craig Patterson

U.S. EPA

George Paul

National Air Carrier
Association

Tim Pohle

Air Transport
Association

Everett Pringle

U.S. EPA, Region 9

Leah Raney

Continental Airlines

Ganesh Rao

Underwriters
Laboratories Inc.

Kenneth Rotert

U.S. EPA

Bernie Sanders

Air Line Pilots
Association, Int'l

Mohammad Sarai

Maryland Department of
the Environment

Bob Scharback

AeroSafe Products, Inc.

Loren Semler

Semler Industries, Inc.

Tyler Setchell

American Association of
Airport Executives

Jennifer Singh

EMD Chemicals

Rob Skresvig

Gulfstream

Deborah Small

Northwest Airlines, Inc.

Melinda Smith

Atlantic Southeast
Airlines, Inc.

Jessica Steinhilber

ACI-NA

29


-------
David Supplee

International
Association of
Machinists

Michelle Sweeney

LCG, Inc.

Claude Thibeault

International Air
Transport Association

Frank R. Valenzano

Spirit Airlines

Kevin Vandeberg

Huntsville-Madison
County Airport
Authority

Everett Volk

U.S. EPA

Jean Watson

Federal Aviation
Administration

Bryan Weber

Underwriters
Laboratories Inc.
Christopher
Witkowski

Association of Flight
Attendants - CWA

Stephanie Woods

American Airlines, Inc.

Doug Wyatt

Sky West Airlines

David Yuhasz

AeroSafe Products, Inc.

Victor Zare

Amtrak

30


-------