**[U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]{.smallcaps}**

**[Aircraft Public Water Systems]{.smallcaps}**

**[Public Meeting]{.smallcaps}**

***[Summary Report]{.smallcaps}***

**[Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel]{.smallcaps}**

#### 14^th^ and K Streets, NW

**[Washington, DC]{.smallcaps}**

#### June 1, 2005

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="0.8756944444444444in"
height="0.6569444444444444in"}

This U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Aircraft Public Water Systems Public Meeting

Summary Report was prepared by:

LCG, Inc.

1515 Wilson Boulevard

Suite 300

Arlington, VA 22209

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

**[Aircraft Public Water Systems]{.smallcaps}**

### Public Meeting Summary Report

**[Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel]{.smallcaps}**

**[14^th^ and K Streets, NW]{.smallcaps}**

**[Washington, DC]{.smallcaps}**

**[June 1, 2005]{.smallcaps}**

# 

#### Participants

**Fay Allen**

> *Air Safety, Health & Security Association of Flight Attendants --
> CWA*

**Katherine Andrus**

> *Air Transport Association*

**Chris Baisley**

> *WaterTrax*

**Glenn Bass**

> *U.S. Food & Drug Administration*

**Suzanne Berman**

> *Jet Blue Airways*

# Henry Castaneda

*CHEMetrics, Inc.*

# Benjamin Champa

*National Business Travel Association*

# Steve Clark

*U.S. Environmental Protection Agency*

# Travis Creighton

> *U.S. EPA Office of Groundwater & Drinking Water*

**Deb Dalton**

*U.S. Environmental Protection Agency*

**Roy Deitchman**

#####  Amtrak

**Christy Draper**

*STL, Inc.*

**Bill Edmunds**

#####  Air Line Pilots Association, Int'l

**Oksana Exell**

#####  WaterTax

**Terry Fenton**

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

**Angela Foster-Rice**

#####  United Airlines

**Ann Marie Gebhart**

#####  Underwriters Laborites

**Sanjeev Gera**

#####  JetBlue Airways

**Tiffany Goebel**

*Midwest Airlines, Inc.*

**John Grace**

Air Safety, Health & Security Association of Flight Attendants -- CWA

**Tom Grubbs**

####### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

**Randy Harrison**

#####  Delta Air Lines

**Johnathan Hill**

#####  Hawaiian Airlines

**Paul Jackson**

#####  NSF International

**Donna Jensen**

#####  The Cadmus Group

**James Johnson**

*American Airlines, Inc.*

**Amy Kimball**

#####  NSF International

**Thomas Lee**

#####  Monogram Systems

**David Lotterer**

#####  Regional Airlines Association

**Jason Maddux**

#####  Garofalo Goerlich Hainbach PC

**Carol Malready**

#####  U.S. Airways

**Richard Marchi**

Airports Council International -- North America

**Sara Massey**

#####  ACI-NA

**Richard McAdoo**

*Atlantic Southeast Airlines*

**Nancy McKinley**

International Airline Passengers Association

**Anne Merwin**

#####  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

**Sherry Milan**

#####  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

**Dinkar Mokadam**

#####  Air Safety, Health & Security

**Mike Morgan**

#####  Delta Airlines

**Kevin Morley**

#####  American Water Works Association

**Sharon Moss-Bonner**

*Atlantic Southeast Airlines -- AFA*

**Judith Murawski**

#####  AFA

**Erik Olson**

#####  NRDC

**Steve Olson**

#####  American West Airline

**Charlene Oshiro Yamagata**

#####  Air Safety, Health & Security

**Noel Pacheco**

*Comair, Inc.*

**Monica Pena**

####### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

**Dave Purkiss**

#####  NSF International

**Randall Querry**

American Association for Laboratory Accreditation

**Lisa Ragain**

Center for Risk Science and Public Health, GWU

**Leah Raney**

#####  Continental Airlines

**Alan Sandusky**

#####  Frontier Airlines

**Bruce Schillo**

####### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

**Loren Semler**

*Semler Industries, Inc.*

**Vickie Semler**

*Semler Industries, Inc.*

**Jennifer Singh**

#####  EMD Chemicals

**Melinda Smith**

*Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc.*

**Jeff Thrane**

#####  Independence Air

**Erin Waldron**

#####  Underwriters Laboratories

**Robert Walters**

#####  Spirit Airlines

**Carrie Wehling**

####### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

**Margaret Whittaker**

#####  ToxService LLC

**Marc Wilson**

#####  Independence Air

**Christopher Witkowski**

#####  Air Safety, Health & Security

**Pamela Zacha**

*CHEMetrics, Inc.*

**Victor Zane**

#####  Amtrak

**Thomas Zoeller**

American Association of Airport Executives

###### [Panel]{.smallcaps}

**Gail Bingham**

#####  RESOLVE

**Dean Davidson**

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

**Laurie Dubriel**

#####  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

**Stephen Heare**

#####  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

**Richard Naylor**

#####  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

###### [Staff]{.smallcaps}

**Kathy Grant**

#####  RESOLVE

**Clover Marsh**

*LCG, Inc.*

**Jennifer Webber**

*LCG, Inc.*

**Seaton White**

*LCG, Inc.*

# WELCOME, INTRODUCTIONS, REVIEW AGENDA

**[Opening---Gail Bingham]{.smallcaps}**

Gail Bingham, President of RESOLVE and facilitator for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Aircraft Public Water Systems
Public Meeting, opened the meeting and called on Steve Heare to give the
official welcome. She stated that she would review the objectives,
agenda and logistics for the meeting following Steve Heare's opening
remarks.

**[Welcome---Stephen Heare]{.smallcaps}**

Stephen F. Heare, Director of the EPA Drinking Water Protection Division
Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, welcomed participants to the
meeting to kick off the process to develop regulations tailored to
aircraft drinking water systems. He stated that his office, which is
charged with implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, has been
involved with the issue for the past two years. Today's meeting is
designed to get the interested public's views and participation in the
process so that the new rule proposed by EPA reflects the unique
characteristics of aircraft water systems and meets the needs of the
traveling public. EPA is committed to a collaborative process for
determining the best way to regulate aircraft drinking water systems and
understands that they differ significantly from the public water systems
that occupy most of the agency's attention. There are about 165,000
public water systems in the country and most of EPA's time is spent
regulating those systems so the current process is something different
from their normal involvement. Gail Bingham, President of RESOLVE, a
firm that specializes in consensus building, has been retained to assist
EPA with the collaborative process and Gail will facilitate today's
meeting.

Steve gave a short background on the issues leading to today's meeting,
stating that water systems on most commercial aircraft that carry over
25 passengers are covered under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Interstate
conveyance carriers are specifically mentioned under the act and are
subject to EPA rules primarily geared to public drinking water systems.
In February 2002, EPA formed a work group to begin looking at issues
around interstate carrier conveyances, including planes, trains, water
vessels and buses and all other passenger vehicles containing a water
system and involved in interstate commerce. The work group also involved
EPA's regions and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They began to
focus on aircraft because their operational considerations are somewhat
different than other types of interstate carrier conveyances (ICCs). In
November 2002, a *Wall Street Journal* article questioned the safety of
airline drinking water, which energized their work and in 2003, EPA
began a dialogue with FDA and the Air Transport Association (ATA) on the
quality of aircraft drinking water. In fall 2003, working with ATA and
its members, they collected samples from about 265 aircraft. In the
summer and fall 2004, EPA conducted additional sampling on their own and
sampled about 327 aircraft. Based on the results that came out of both
samplings, EPA announced they would start an accelerated rulemaking
process to deal with the issue of aircraft drinking water. Plans are to
work collaboratively on the issue with their federal partners, the
industry and stakeholders.

**[Review of Objectives, Agenda and Logistics---Gail
Bingham]{.smallcaps}**

Following the welcome, Gail reviewed the objectives, agenda and
logistics for the meeting. The three meeting objectives were listed as:

-   Present information relevant to the proposed rulemaking;

-   Provide an opportunity for affected stakeholders and the interested
    public to raise issues for consideration in the development of the
    proposed rule; and

-   Provide an opportunity for stakeholders and interested public to
    comment on options for a collaborative process to develop the rule.

The meeting agenda corresponded with the objectives. (1) During the
first part of the agenda, the EPA and FDA will present information they
have collected, which they think should be part of the rulemaking
process. (2) Meeting participants will be invited to share with EPA any
issues they feel should be considered in the rulemaking process during
the second part of the meeting. (3) The various ways to structure
stakeholder participation in the rulemaking process will be discussed in
the final part of the agenda. Participants will also be asked to comment
on the different approaches to the collaborative process. The meeting is
not designed to get into the actual regulatory policies and issues.
Instead, it is designed to be an information and planning meeting.
Meeting logistics were given and participants were asked to give their
name and the organization they represented.

**Q:** A participant asked if the summary from the meeting would be
posted on the Internet at the site where participants registered.

**A:** The summary will be available to everyone who registered for the
meeting. (An electronic version of the Summary Report for the Aircraft
Public Water Systems Public Meeting held on June 1, 2005 in Washington,
DC, is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
[http://www.epa.gov/edocket/]{.underline}. The docket number is
OW-2005-0025. Once in the system, select "Quick Search," then key in the
docket ID number.)

**PANEL: BACKGROUND ON PROPOSED RULEMAKEING**

# Regulations: Technical Area---Richard Naylor

Richard Naylor, EPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, stated
that he works for Steve Heare in the Drinking Water Protection Branch
and will serve as the rule manager for the development of the new
aircraft drinking water system regulations. Rick discussed: (1) EPA
needs to tailor the drinking water regulations to aircraft water
systems; (2) the existing regulations and how they correspond (or do not
correspond) to aircraft drinking water systems; and (3) the background
baseline sampling that has been done to date.

**Why New Regulations?**

Rick stated that while working on the airline drinking water issue over
the past two years, EPA has come to realize that they need to change the
regulations and tailor them to meet the unique operating characteristics
of aircraft and water systems. In answer to the question: "Why New
Regulations?" he said:

-   Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) are
    designed for traditional, stationary water systems;

-   Aircraft board water from multiple sources, some of which are
    foreign sources that are not subject to EPA drinking water
    standards;

-   Frequent transfer of water provides opportunities for
    cross-contamination. The water is transferred via carts, hoses and
    cabinets onto aircraft and this presents an opportunity for
    contamination that typically doesn't exist with traditional types of
    water systems.

**Statutory Authority**

Rick reiterated that EPA statutory authority for regulating water
systems comes from the Safe Drinking Water Act, which defines a public
water system as a system that regularly serves an average of at least 25
people daily, at least 60 days per year. Most commercial passenger
aircraft would fit into that classification, which makes them a public
water system and therefore subject to the National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations. The statute specifically addresses ICCs, which
includes airplanes, trains, water vessels and some buses that carry
drinking water.

**ICC Program Administration**

The ICC program is jointly administered by the EPA and FDA. EPA is
responsible for source water that serves the airports, traditionally
from public water systems. The public water systems would be regulated
by the state or EPA and have to comply with EPA's drinking water
regulations. FDA is responsible for the watering points to transfer
water onboard the aircraft, which includes the cabinets, carts, trucks
and hoses. Once the water is onboard the aircraft, EPA and FDA have
complimentary responsibilities, with EPA being responsible for drinking
water and FDA being responsible for culinary water, or water used in the
preparation of food and beverages and for sanitation.

**Classification of Aircraft PWSs under NPDWRs**

-   **Transient non-community water systems**: Aircraft are classified
    as a transient non-community water system under the National Primary
    Drinking Water Regulations. A non-community water system is
    basically a system that does not serve a residential population. In
    the case of aircraft, they are further classified as transient in
    that they do not regularly serve the same 25 people on a daily
    basis. (The consumers to a transient non-community water system
    typically have short-term exposure. Current requirements only call
    for complying with the acute contaminants---those that would cause
    an immediate health threat based on a short-term exposure.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Surface water systems**: Aircraft are also classified as surface
    water systems, meaning they would use surface water, in whole or in
    part, or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water.
    Aircraft fill up on water from some of their stops and are getting
    it from many different places. Some places where the aircraft get
    water use surface water and are under the requirements for the
    surface water treatment rules.

-   **Population served 1,000 persons or fewer per day**: The majority
    of passenger aircraft fit into the category of serving 1,000 persons
    or fewer per day.

**NPDWR Requirements for Transient Non-community Water Systems using
Surface Water (Serving 1000 or fewer)**

In applying the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations to a
transient non-community water system using surface water and serving
1,000 or fewer people, the current requirements call for:

-   One (1) total coliform sample per month

-   One (1) nitrate sample per year

-   One (1) nitrite sample every three years

-   One (1) sanitary survey every five years

-   Surface Water Treatment Rule/Long Term One (1) requirements

    -   1 disinfectant residual sample/month

    -   2 log (99%) removal of Cryptosporidium with filtration

    -   3 log (99.9%) removal of Giardia with filtration and
        disinfection

    -   4 log (99.99%) removal of viruses with filtration and
        disinfection

    -   Turbidity monitoring at the filters (performance standard
        depends on technology used)

**Water Supply Guidance**

EPA's water supply guidance for aircraft first came out in 1979 and was
later revised in 1986. The effort was to tailor the drinking water
program to interstate carrier conveyances. It included acute monitoring
requirements for transient water systems. It also included an option
which allowed ICCs to have an approved operation and maintenance program
in lieu of monitoring, which was a best management practice to ensure
the aircraft water systems, water cabinets and hoses were maintained
properly by flushing and disinfecting on a regular basis. EPA has
suspended any more approvals under this water supply guidance.

# Existing Regulatory Authority to Modify NPDWR Requirements

Rick stated that when the work group looked at the regulations to
determine how the requirements could be modified to apply more
appropriately for aircraft, they examined a provision concerning
consecutive systems, which reads: "when a public water system supplies
water to one or more other public water systems, the state (in this case
EPA) may modify the monitoring requirements to the extent that the
interconnection justifies treating them as a single system for
monitoring purposes." A problem with this is that the majority of the
aircraft have the potential to fly overseas and therefore would be
boarding water from non-public water systems and therefore would not be
consecutive systems.

Following his presentation, Rick invited participants' questions and
comments:

**Q:** Are we talking about potable and non-potable systems?

**A:** We are talking today about potable drinking water systems.

**Q:** A participant questioned the accuracy of the statement that a
"majority of aircraft" fly internationally, stating that of the 900
daily flights flown by his company, about 35-to-40 are international
flights. He suggested that other airlines would show a similar ratio for
international flights. He said that, if the concept that a "majority of
aircraft" fly internationally is what is driving the process, the
figures need to be checked because EPA might be using a misguided
baseline.

**A:** Rick Naylor responded that although a lot of aircraft do not fly
overseas, the information they received from ATA stated that about 90
percent of ATA member aircraft have the potential to fly overseas.
However, one of the reasons for engaging stakeholders in this process is
to make sure these types of issues are commented on.

**Discussion:** In follow-up discussion, it was stated that any aircraft
that can get airborne is capable of going across the boarders of Canada
or Mexico. Another comment was that whether a flight was national or
international, the water it uses still has to be treated as public
drinking water and meet certain criteria. Rick Naylor responded that EPA
is moving toward a more holistic approach that looks at the appropriate
monitoring that needs to be done and the best management practices.

**Q:** Is there some regulatory basis for waiving monitoring
requirements and regulations in guidance documents?

**A:** Rick Naylor stated not that he is aware of any.

**Q:** Has EPA gone back and reviewed compliance with those operation
maintenance programs and reviewed monitoring results?

**A:** Rick Naylor stated that part of the problem is they do not have a
lot of those records, which is why they are initiating this process.

# Baseline Sampling---Laurie Dubriel

Laurie Dubriel, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
described the baseline sampling that has been done to date and the
administrative orders on consent that EPA is working on with the
airlines. The administrative orders will serve as a bridge from now to
the point the new rule takes effect.

# Baseline Sampling

Laurie stated that in 2003, EPA worked with ATA to get some basic
baseline information about water quality on aircraft. Aside from the
*Wall Street Journal* article there had been an absence of information
about the issue. ATA members sampled 265 of its aircraft. Of those
aircraft, 2.7 percent were total coliform positive and 100 percent of
the aircraft were *E. coli* negative. In summer 2004 and fall 2004, EPA
conducted follow-up samplings to the ATA sampling. A total of 327
aircraft were sampled, which showed 15 percent of the aircraft tested
were total coliform positive and two of the aircraft were *E. coli*
positive. In the summer samples, EPA only took samples from one location
and most of the samples were taken from lavatories, although there were
some galley and drinking fountain samples taken. In the fall samples,
they took samples from both galley and lavatory locations whenever
possible. In both sets of samples, they tested for disinfectant
residual. The ATA sample results showed 41 percent of the tested
aircraft did not have a detectable disinfectant residual. The raw data
from the EPA sampling showed that about 21 percent of the samples did
not have a detectable disinfectant residual. None of the samples tested
either by EPA or ATA exceeded the limits for turbidity, nitrate or
nitrite.

Laurie responded to participant questions and comments following the
Baseline Sampling part of her presentation:

**Q:** Did EPA have a reason to believe that the ATA sample results were
falsely low and is this why EPA went back and did its own sampling?

**A:** Laurie Dubriel said EPA had no reason to believe that the ATA
sample results were falsely low. EPA is uncertain about the difference
between the sampling results.

**Discussion:** In answer to further questions, Laurie Dubriel said EPA
went through the sample results to see if there were trends; if the
sampling results came mainly from aircraft coming in from foreign
locations; or if the problem showed in larger body planes as opposed to
smaller aircraft. They found no trends. They used the same analytical
method---color disc sampling method and a pocket colorimeter for testing
in the field.

**Q:** Do you have the breakout between the galley and the lavatory
results?

**A:** Of the total 15 percent positive results, 4.3 percent of the
samples were from either a galley or a drinking water fountain and 14
percent were taken from a lavatory sink.

**Q:** If the aircraft galley failed, was that viewed as one failure;
and if the lavatory results failed, was that viewed as a second failure?
Were the failures numbered by aircraft or by source?

**A:** Laurie Dubriel responded that if an aircraft tested positive in
the lavatory and galley, it was counted as one aircraft and they did not
count it twice. Also, the aircraft would count as having tested positive
if you had a positive and a negative result was found in the galley but
a positive result found in the lavatory or vice versa.

**Q:** How were chlorine residue measurements performed and were you
measuring total chlorine only or were there other things being measured?

**A:** A pocket colorimeter was used to detect chlorine amounts. Total
chlorine was being measured.

**Q:** Will they do both total coliform and cryptosporidium testing.

**A:** We are only doing total coliform testing. We are not doing the
cryptosporidium testing.

**[Administrative Orders---Laurie Dubriel]{.smallcaps}**

Laurie stated that following the release of the first round of sampling
results in September 2004, EPA announced they would be negotiating
administrative orders on consent with the airlines for the procedures
they needed to follow until the new rules take effect. As part of the
administrative orders on consent, each airline has to do interim
monitoring for each aircraft in its operating fleet and institute best
management practices, which include routine disinfections of the
aircraft and watering trucks. The administrative orders on consent
outline the corrective action procedures for those with total coliform
positive results and include a study of possible sources of
contamination. The orders also require all the airlines to submit
information about their water boarding practices from domestic and
foreign locations.

**Q:** Were other organizations besides ATA requested to come in to
discuss the process (i.e., RAA represents a lot of carriers in the U.S.
that ATA does not represent)? How was this process done if only ATA was
involved in the discussion?

**A:** These are ongoing discussions with the airline carriers. The
reason that the discussions were done with ATA first is because they
came in first to discuss the issues. EPA has discussed the agreements
with the other associations as well as with other airline associations.
Typically, when EPA is taking enforcement actions, those discussions are
with those whom the order affects and are not generally a public
process.

**Discussion:** It was stated that EPA is committed to having all
airline carriers with a public water system under administrative orders.
Steve Heare added that EPA talked to virtually all of the air carrier
associations they know of, including NACA, RAA, ATA and ACAA. He stated
that it is less clear, in terms of the requirements of the order, what
EPA's authority is over international airline carriers that are not
headquartered in the U.S. They are still doing research on that
question. It was also stated that when sampling was done in 2004, they
sampled U.S. flag carriers and foreign flag carriers. To the extent they
have jurisdiction, EPA will pursue foreign flag carriers as well.

**Q:** What is the plan for publicly announcing or releasing the orders
for comments? Do you have data for all the airlines operating in the
U.S. and how will you issue an administrative order to someone if you
have no information on their compliance status?

**A:** Once the orders are signed, they will be publicly available
because they will be public documents. Concerning the second question,
we cannot speak to that specifically because we are still negotiating
the orders. However, whether you actually have data or not, not having
the monitoring and reporting information is a violation of the Safe
Drinking Water Act.

**Discussion:** The negotiations began in November 2004. At that time,
EPA announced they had the agreement in principle and ATA members signed
the agreement.

**Q:** Would it be fair to say that outside of ATA you have not yet had
any negotiations with RAA carriers?

**A:** Laurie Dubriel and Steve Heare replied that EPA has begun
discussions with all of the ATA carriers and have met with all the
airline associations. EPA briefed other airline associations, including
RAA, and some of their member carriers were present.

**Discussion:** EPA will meet with each carrier prior to issuing a
consent order. They plan to have the discussions wrapped up by August
2005. They estimate having to negotiate consent orders with about 50-70
individual carriers. The purpose of EPA's working first on an agreement
in principle and then a model order was to speed the actual negotiations
of the individual orders. They are now discovering that most carriers
have some operational perceived or actual differences, which tends to
make the discussions continue longer than previously thought. The
consent orders are seen as a bridge to protect public health until the
rulemaking is completed. It will be a multi-year process to get the
regulations written. The current goal is to have everyone as much as
possible on an equal playing field.

# FDA Authority---Dean Davidson

Dean Davidson, Interstate Travel Program, Food and Drug Administration,
stated that FDA authority in this area derives from the Public Health
Service Act 361. Through the Act, they apply measures to prevent the
transmission of communicable diseases. The FDA regulations reference the
EPA Drinking Water Regulations with regard to potable water on
conveyances. Before there was an EPA, there was an FDA and these things
got divided up back in 1970s. That is why there exists an interwoven
network of authorities and applications of law that do not seem so
clear. From FDA's stand point every seaport and airport shall provide a
supply of potable water from a watering point approved by the FDA in
accordance with the standards in title 21-CFR 1240 and 1250. As well,
all food and potable water taken onboard an aircraft intended for human
use shall be obtained from a source approved in accordance with the FDA
regulations, which reference the EPA regulations. Also, aircraft inbound
or outbound or on an international voyage shall not discharge over the
U.S. any wastewater or other polluting material. In addition, arriving
aircraft shall discharge water and these other things only at service
areas approved by the FDA. FDA also issues certificates of sanitary
construction, which includes a review of the galley design, lavatories
and onboard potable water systems. In the past, FDA was more frequently
aboard aircraft but security issues and their funding abilities have
restricted their ability to routinely check the sanitation onboard
aircraft.

Dean Davidson responded to questions:

**Q:** Do these administrative orders of consent include any funding
mechanisms for improving the ability of the FDA to go in and do the
testing and the inspections that are required?

**A:** No, these administrative orders are how the airlines can address
the monitoring requirements or compliance with the EPA drinking water
regulations.

**Discussion:** EPA and FDA may experience benefits by working better
together and having a standard for providing clean potable water, as
well as water for hand washing on board aircraft. Steve Heare added that
one of the things built into the orders and into the agreement in
principle is the submission of a significant amount of data to them by
the carriers.

**Q:** Historically, how has self-monitoring by the carriers been
carried out and where do you see this leading to?

**A:** Dean Davidson stated that he is uncertain if FDA has ever
included self-monitoring. Steve Heare stated the whole structure of EPA
regulations is built on self-monitoring and submission of results.
Virtually all of the 164,000 public water systems in this country do
what you might term as self-monitoring. EPA does not send people out to
public water systems to monitor. The regulated system does it
themselves, and they submit the results. There is a mixed picture of how
the requirements that were written for public water systems actually
apply to aircraft. However, the concept of self-monitoring has always
been a central piece of the way EPA regulates public water systems and
this may be no different.

**Q:** What proportion of public water systems opt for the operation and
maintenance program instead of doing the monitoring?

**A:** Public water systems do not have that option. Traditional public
water systems would not be able to completely drain and flush their
systems on a regular basis like aircraft.

**Q:** Did most of the aircraft under the guidance for the carriers
either publicly or to EPA assert that they were doing the operation and
maintenance program instead of the monitoring or did this all fall
between the cracks and we do not know what they are doing?

**A:** The latter is probably truer. Some carriers actually went through
the process of submitting maintenance plans but all of them did not. We
do not have a lot of records that show how many carriers were actively
involved in submitting the maintenance plans and the annual plans.

# Key Issues for the Development of a New Aircraft Drinking Water Rule ---Rick Naylor

Rick Naylor reviewed some of the key issues EPA will be working on over
the next few months. The key issues were outlined as:

-   Which contaminates are of concern for aircraft water systems that
    take on water from domestic sources only, or from both domestic and
    foreign sources?

-   What is the appropriate monitoring frequency for aircraft water
    systems that take on water from domestic sources only, or both
    domestic and foreign sources?

-   What is the appropriate frequency for disinfecting and flushing
    aircraft water systems?

-   Should aircraft that obtain all of their water from another public
    water system be classified as a "consecutive" public water system
    that can obtain reduced monitoring requirements under EPA's
    regulations (40-CFR141.29)?

-   Are there feasible treatment technologies that can be used to treat
    drinking water onboard aircraft?

-   What should be done to address the low disinfectant residual levels
    in the drinking water found on a high percentage of aircraft?

-   How should EPA address aircraft water from sources outside of the
    U.S.?

# STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES: ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

**Comment:** A participant presented several concerns: (1) She was
concerned about a lack of public health participation in the process.
She felt there should be involvement by groups such as the CDC who is
dealing with similar issues on cruise ships; the Council for State and
Territorial Epidemiologists that puts together investigations when there
are major outbreaks; and the Association of State and Territorial Health
Officials that would do investigations and follow-up if there were a
major incident. (2) Another reason to work with these groups is to
develop surveillance and recording mechanisms to see if there are links
between the outbreaks, investigations and levels of disease. It is
important that this include GI illnesses of unknown origin because if
there were a contamination event and you had not tested, you would not
be able to identify the infectious agent. (3) Also there are groups such
as people with HIV/AIDS, people with transplants and other groups who
regularly fly on airlines and who are at a high risk and should be
communicated with so their needs are represented. (4) Also, it was
stated that coffeemakers kill anything you have to be worried about, but
is that true? Some basic research should be done about what actually
happens to pathogens in airlines.

**Comment:** A participant said the issue concerning international air
carriers and airlines that operate in the U.S. and carry American
passengers should be discussed as part of the process. If the issue is
not imbedded in the seventh point of the Key Issues, it should be added
as an extra item.

**Discussion:** Steve Heare stated that EPA has initiated discussions
with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and IATA about
the possibility of collaborating on protocols, practices or regulations
to address the world's carriers. They have just begun those
negotiations.

**Comment:** A participant read the following prepared statement: ATA
works on a range of issues affecting the industry through a system of
councils and committees made up of airline member representatives and
the current chair of ATA's Environmental Council. Through the
Environmental Council, the 14 passenger airline members of ATA have been
actively engaged on the issue of aircraft drinking water for the past
two years. The airlines care a great deal about aircraft drinking water
because we are committed to ensuring the safety and health of our
passengers and crew. In fact, we have confidence in the quality of the
water we provide for drinking on the aircraft. Nonetheless, we recognize
that the guidance developed by EPA for managing drinking water on
aircraft and the measures we take to ensure that aircraft drinking water
is safe are not well reflected in the regulations because those
regulations were designed for municipal drinking water systems, which we
have touched on today. Thus, we look forward to this rulemaking process.
By the way of background, ATA has been involved in this issue for some
time now. Back in 2003, ATA convened a meeting with EPA to discuss
questions raised by the media and to discuss the status of EPA's
aircraft drinking water guidance. ATA brought together environmental and
technical experts from the airlines with an EPA internal working group
on drinking water. And following up on that meeting and in response
EPA's interest in gathering additional data, ATA conducted a study of
aircraft drinking water under a protocol approved by EPA. In that study,
ATA members sampled 265 aircraft, as acknowledged earlier, and made the
results available to the public and to the EPA. The 2003 study
demonstrated that aircraft drinking water does not pose health risks to
passengers and crew and the well-established airline practices have been
effective in ensuring a safe supply of drinking water onboard commercial
aircraft. FDA reportedly had similar results in their sampling. EPA's
follow-up sampling last year focused on aircraft lavatories in large
part, an area where sample contamination is likely. While ATA questions
the results of this sampling, we still have taken the results seriously
and have responded by working with the agency to strengthen existing
protocols and develop a program to provide additional data that will
help to inform this rulemaking process. We are here today to demonstrate
our continuing commitment to work with the EPA to ensure that aircraft
drinking water remains safe. While the airlines have long standing
procedures in place that we believe are fully protective of public
health we want to work with EPA to resolve the disconnect between the
existing regulations and the way that aircraft operate. Until recently,
airlines have been able to rely on EPA guidance, first issued in 1979
and updated in 1986, that bridged the gap between regulations developed
for traditional public water systems and the special circumstances of
our industry. Because this guidance was specific to the airlines and
other modes of transport, ATA and its member airlines have not been
involved in the intensive or extensive rulemakings under the Safe
Drinking Water Act over the past 25 years aimed at traditional public
water systems. As a result the regulations do not address the unique
circumstances of aircraft and indeed, in many cases, cannot feasibly be
applied to aircraft. In the absence of this guidance, we recognize the
need to revise the regulations to ensure the continued protection of
public health without placing unnecessary or unreasonable burdens on the
airline industry. ATA and its members are committed to participating in
this rulemaking effort so that the resulting regulations impose clear,
reasonable and scientifically based requirements.

**Comment:** A participant made available a limited number of copies of
the ATA study conducted in 2003. She also said the report might be
available on their website. The report explained how ATA went about
doing the sample collection and the protocol they followed. She stated
that the results EPA and ATA found were actually similar if you compare
apples to apples as opposed to apples to oranges.

**Q:** A participant asked Laurie to clarify what proportion of the
total EPA samples were lavatory samples and what were galley samples? In
what number of aircraft were galley samples taken, and what percentage
of those were positive? Similarly, in what number of aircraft were
lavatory samples taken, and what percentage of those were positive?

**A:** Laurie Dubriel stated that out of the total number of samples
they took, 4.3 percent of the galley and drinking fountain water were
positive for total coliform. She stated that she would look up the
statistic concerning what proportion of the total samples were galley
and drinking fountain samples, compared to what proportion were lavatory
samples.

**Q:** A participant asked what is the appropriate monitoring frequency
for aircraft water systems and what would be a consistent testing
method? Will everyone who is supplying EPA with data use a similar
testing method?

**A:** Laurie Dubriel responded that ATA and EPA used the exact same
protocol. She said they will use an EPA approved analytical method under
the regulations and that there is more than one analytical method that
can be used. The analytical method is not part of the scoping of the
rulemaking because it is addressed in a separate rule.

**Comment:** A participant said his company is a manufacturer of
portable water cabinets and they service watering points for the
airlines. They are sponsoring three studies this summer at the
University of Wisconsin on biofilm development and prevention in water
systems for their water cabinets and for aircraft water systems. He will
make the data available to all interested parties when the studies are
complete. They expect to have the data around September.

**Q:** A participant expressed a concern related to water in the
lavatories, stating that a number of carriers in the past have placed
placards, saying their lavatory water is non-potable. What are the
consent decrees doing to deal with this problem and where is the problem
addressed in the seven key issues?

**A:** Steve Heare stated that issue is something that needs to be
addressed in the rulemaking process. Currently, the rule reads that the
water in the lavatory has to be the same quality as water in the galley.
EPA defines drinking water as water for hand washing, teeth brushing and
those types of things. Dean Davidson added that FDA would prefer there
not be a distinction made on the placarding. There was something in the
WSG-29 that talked about placarding under certain circumstances but that
should not be occurring. Laurie Dubriel stated that in the context of
the order, they are not treating the water in the lavatory any
differently than the water from the galley. It is all treated as
drinking water.

**Comment:** A participant said his company is a principal supplier of
the waste and water systems on most aircraft today. They are currently
under contract to both Boeing and Airbus to develop active water
purification systems that will go onboard aircraft. Their first systems
will launch on A-380s for Airbus in 2006 and on 787s for Boeing in 2008.
They are going to be active systems at three different points and
address the bio-film issues developed in the tanks and point of use.
They are designed for total kill, up to and including a bio-terrorism
type of attack on the aircraft. He also addressed the earlier question
about coffee makers, saying they are a supplier of coffee makers in the
industry and that coffee makers on aircraft at altitude do not operate
at temperatures that would kill everything that is being discussed at
the meeting.

**Q:** A participant said there is an important distinction between
water in a typical public water supply that is stationary than water
taken from entirely different sources across the globe. Does monitoring
frequency of once a quarter or once a month really make any sense with
water taken from around the globe? There are significant questions about
that because the water source is going to vary almost on a daily basis.
Therefore testing for coliform today may have absolutely nothing to say
about the water you take on in some other part of the world tomorrow. In
terms of treatment, if it is a non-regulated U.S. supply, it is an issue
we would like to put on the table. If there is water being boarded from
a non-public water supply, is there going to be any treatment
requirement for that water. That has got to be an issue that is
addressed. In addition, there is a significant question in our minds as
to whether disinfections and treatment of the plane is enough if you
have got significant issues with the cabinets and the transfer and the
other facilities that are at an airport either overseas or here in the
U.S. Finally, we would like to ask what kind of public notice is going
to be required explicitly for interstate carrier conveyances. Why are
there not public notices on every airline or every aircraft? What about
consumer confidence reports? Also, what about public access to
monitoring and reporting results? Is that going to be posted on the
website as it is often for other public water supplies?

**Comment:** A participant said his organization represents over 4,000
of the more traditional public water systems and have about 57,000
members. Concerning total coliform and other issues raised, he said he
would offer the resources of AWWA and the work that they have done on
these issues, as well as the resources of their sister organization the
American Water Works Research Foundation.

**Q:** A participant said a lot of the supply systems are airport
systems. Is this rule going to treat that interaction between the
airlines and the airports? In addition to ATA, has EPA been talking to
Airport Councils International and other airport representative bodies
to get their views on the regulation?

**A:** Steve Heare said that is part of this process. It is to identify
other organizations, which we are not aware of. We are interested in
hearing from stakeholders and other groups we need to contact. In answer
to the other question, he said that a water system run by the airport
would have to be a public water system regulated by the state or EPA and
would have to meet EPA's regulations.

**Discussion:** In response to a question presuming the connecting
system was owned by the airport, Steve Heare responded that the way the
orders are currently set up for this interim period, the hoses and
cabinets are required to be disinfected on a monthly basis. They are
being addressed under the Water Supply Guidance 29 and it is being
carried over into the administrative orders.

**Q:** A participant asked what the role is for EPA vs. the role for a
state primacy agency and under this rule, who is going to be more
responsible for the reporting and the direct regulation?

**A:** Rick Naylor said the interstate carrier conveyance program is an
EPA responsibility because it covers multiple states. This is called a
direct implementation program for the drinking water rule for aircraft
systems. For the municipal water systems serving the airports---in all
but one state---the states have what EPA calls primacy and has delegated
primacy enforcement responsibility to the state.

**Q:** A participant asked if sampling within the public water system
for total coliform is done at a sampling point? What is the concept as
far as insuring the quality of water from a normal sampling point? Where
is that line of demarcation as far as when it is no longer public?

**A:** Rick Naylor stated that the municipal public water system usually
serves up to the property line of the airport. At that point it's an
onsite system, in most cases, becomes the airport's responsibility on
private property. The airport will have something like a water cabinet
or water truck where there is a connection and the plane can be filled
up right there at the gate. There will be a potable water hose used. The
FDA does the watering points, trucks, water cabinets/carts and hoses.

**Comment:** A participant said they have met already with EPA and would
like to continue meeting and learning even though they are not now
subject to the rulemaking. The railroad has been covered by the rule for
a long time and has had a very successful working relationship with EPA
Region 3. They do quarterly reporting and have an O&M plan. There are
some major differences between airplanes and trains but they also have
dining cars, which have different uses for water than probably most
airplanes have in terms of food service. He said there are some things
they can learn and that the R&D is important. Issues about lavatory
sinks and their improved design are important to him. There is also some
technology that might be used for onboard treatment.

**Q:** A participant asked Rick Naylor if the monthly disinfection of
the carts and hoses was specific to the conveyance system or would it
also apply to the stationary water system.

**A:** Rick Naylor stated that it does not apply to a typical water
system. They do not use temporary connections to get their water from
one source to another. They are piped conveyance systems. Monthly
disinfections were developed specifically for interstate carrier
conveyances like planes, trains and water vessels.

**Q:** A participant said a lot has been said about microbiological
testing but asked has there been any discussion relative to disinfection
by-products testing.

**A:** It was stated that for transient systems, unless they use
chlorine dioxide, they are not required to monitor for disinfection
by-products.

**Q:** A participant asked if enforcement and compliance mechanism were
imbedded in the Key Issues and said it might be useful to segregate that
as a key issue.

**A:** Laurie Dubriel stated that in developing the rule, enforcement
and compliance is always a component of every rule development.

**Q:** A participant asked if there are any planned changes for the
accreditation of the laboratories during the testing and analysis and if
so, has there been any discussion about requiring or using ISO or IEC
17025, which is standard for competence of testing and calibration labs.
He said using that standard might help facilitate the acceptance of lab
data across international boarders.

**Q:** A participant said he understood that the new rule applied to
both scheduled carriers and non-scheduled carriers, such as charter
operators. He asked if charter operators would be addressed in the rule.

**A:** It was stated that charter operators would be addressed if they
fit the definition of a public water system by serving 25 people daily
on a regular basis.

**Q:** A participant asked if charter operators would fit under this
rule if they carry 10 passengers through three flights in a day, which
would be 30 people.

**A:** Steve Heare said there would be an explanation in the rules to
explain all of the different permutations. The issue is a valid one and
it may take some figuring out. During EPA's discussions with the
association they know of---NACA, which represents a number of charter
carriers---it appeared that most of the aircraft they operate are good
size planes and have the potential to fall under the rule. Rick added
that the issue comes up with more traditional types of water systems as
well, such as seasonal systems in resort areas or a campground that is
open for a short period of time.

**Comment:** A participant said he was not quite clear about the role of
the FDA at the airport. We see there are a lot of emerging issues where
the public water system ends and water goes into a building. The private
plumbing systems are starting to emerge as maybe more of a problem. What
happens where the PWS ends through the huge airport campuses? There is
an enormous potential for recontamination there. Also, how is that
airport system managed before the water is delivered to the plane is a
question that might need to be thought about because the actual quality
of the water taken onboard may not be what the public water system
delivers. He said he did not know if the airlines have quality of
service contracts in place with the airports to supply a certain quality
of water or not, but in just looking at the aircraft there appears to be
a big gap. The size of the airport is also a factor. If I were an
airline, I would be saying to the airport: "Prove to me that the water
was good when I brought it onboard."

**Comment:** A participant said you need to keep in mind the distinct
roles and responsibilities of the airport to airlines and service
providers to the airlines themselves, looking at the way airports
themselves are managed. In some instances airports do not even own some
of the terminal buildings that are used by the airlines. They are
contracted out to other management companies. The port authority at New
York JFK does not own any of those terminal buildings.

**Q:** Gail Bingham asked if he knew at JFK and other places, who owned
the buildings? Is there some other stakeholder?

**A:** The participant said there are management companies like British
Air with BAA, which is manager-owned. They may operate Terminal 7, which
is the international terminal at JFK that was recently built. Every
airport owns and operates their properties differently.

**Q:** A participant asked about the role of service providers who
actually bring the food and water onto the planes and if they are
involved in the process? He said they were a critical link.

**A:** Dean Davidson said the Air Flight Food Service Association is the
trade organization for airline catering companies. Some of the catering
trucks provide water; however, it is not done that frequently anymore
and most of it is now done with the aircraft servicing. However the
airline catering companies will be brought into the process if
necessary. In response to Gail's question, Dean said he would find out
if the aircraft-servicing people had an association of their own.

**Comment:** A participant said in the U.S. carriers have what is called
the right of self-handling; however, they may contract with somebody to
provide those services to them. Very few of our members would actually
provide ground-handling services to a carrier but a few do. You have got
to think through that whole chain of supply and make sure we understand
who is going to be responsible for what portion of the chain.

**A:** Rick Naylor stated that is why they are tackling one type of
carrier at a time. A lot of the scientific type of information they
learn about bio-films and things like that maybe applicable to the other
carriers but because of the complexity and the different operating
characteristics of the different carriers, they decided to focus on one
type of carrier at a time. Hopefully, EPA will be able to apply a lot of
what they learn in this first effort for aircraft to trains and water
vessels as well.

**Q:** A participant asked if FAA was going to participate in the
process and if so, he asked that they touch on their role?

**A:** Rick Naylor stated that EPA has a contact they are working on
with FAA and that FAA is going to participate in the process. They could
not be present for today's meeting. The person we are working with had a
prior commitment but they will stay informed throughout the process. Any
changes that are made to operations and maintenance programs ultimately
must be approved by FAA.

**Comment:** A participant asked if EPA looked at potential differences
resulting from aircraft maintenance when they tested the water. He
suggested they do a control maintenance procedure on a small group of
aircraft to see exactly what has being done on maintenance and to
determine the test results from the aircraft. That might be helpful in
determining what would be appropriate maintenance requirements in the
future.

**Comment:** A participant said EPA should consider oversight of food
handlers. Recently four people on Northwest Airlines got sick because of
the food they ate. A follow-up inspection found flies, roaches and pink
slime on the door of the icemaker and food handlers were scooping ice
with their hands. Although it is not the water, that is a source of
contamination on the aircraft. She also would like to see teeth in the
enforcement process.

**Q:** A participant asked if the sanitary surveys would be part of the
rulemaking process and what in EPA's view are the current requirements
for the sanitary survey of an aircraft?

**A:** Rick Naylor stated that sanitary surveys will be considered in
the development of the rule. It is a requirement for the type of
category that aircraft water systems fit into. They are currently not
designed for an aircraft water system. That needs to be looked at in the
development of the rule.

**Discussion:** In answer to follow-up questions, Rick Naylor agreed
that transient non-community water systems have to have the sanitary
survey but the current regulations are not targeted at aircraft and the
sanitary surveys have not been done by EPA.

**Q:** A participant stated that to his knowledge, the FDA and ICC have
jurisdiction over the design and construction of water systems onboard
vehicle conveyances. How is this rule going to do anything about the
FDA's jurisdiction over those facilities onboard aircraft when there are
a lot of aircraft being built now that actually do not have flowing
water in their lavatories? These are generally smaller regional
aircraft. Is this something that is going to be dealt with? It is an FDA
issue but there is a lot of jurisdictional crosscutting so how is EPA
going to treat this sort of cross-jurisdictional issue?

**A:** Dean Davidson stated it is too early in the process to decide
what they are going to do. If there were a change in the EPA regulation
that references FDA's regulations, then it would cause FDA to amend
their regulation. In response to the question concerning aircraft with
no water in lavatories, Dean Davidson said those aircraft in many cases
came from foreign manufacturers and they arrive in the U.S. bought by
the airlines. FDA was never a part of the equation and they would like
to see that changed.

**Discussion:** A participant stated that to be operated, those planes
have to have an FAA certificate, which means they conform to Part 23 of
the design standards.

**Q:** A participant asked about the weight that EPA will give to the
various elements of the current rule, guidance document and
administrative orders and how much weight will the information from
stakeholders and other groups carry in their consideration.

**A:** Steve Heare responded that the agreement in principle and model
order they are working on, as well as the individual orders they are
beginning to negotiate, reflect what they have learned about current
practices in the industry. To the degree that they get information
through the process, that will inform their course of action. They are
starting over from scratch in terms of what ought to be.

**Q:** A participant asked is the water tested in a downtown Washington,
DC restaurant given the same criteria? Is it a level playing field
between an airplane and a restaurant?

**A:** Rick Naylor responded that the restaurants around here would not
be a public water system because they are a customer of the Washington,
DC water system. However, a restaurant out on the highway that has its
own well and water system could be a public water system and fit into
the category.

**Discussion:** A participant said he thinks the bacteria and other
issues that cause the problems in the airplanes breed in faucets of both
the aircraft and restaurants and asked is the plumbing system tested?
Monitoring is conducted in the distribution system and at the treatment
plant and that is how they determine compliance. There is a difference
in that when EPA tests aircraft, they test galley and lavatory faucets
and places where they can get the water.

# Presentation: Options for a Collaborative Approach to the Rulemaking---Gail Bingham

Gail Bingham outlined the three dimensions of the upcoming rulemaking
process, which would begin with: (1) Consultation and Assessment with
stakeholders about what would constitute an effective collaborative
approach; (2) a discussion of Process Options with EPA looking at what
they have done in other rulemaking situations in the past; and (3) a
conversation with stakeholders to discuss a possible approach. The
presentation outlined the various steps in the assessment approach and a
timeline for the assessment, starting with the Public Meeting being held
on June 1, 2005. Stakeholder Interviews will be held in June-July 2005,
and the process recommendations will be made in July 2005. The
characteristics of collaborative processes were discussed, looking at
what type of process to use. Participants asked questions and made
comments about the process following the presentation:

**Q:** A participant asked who could convene a collaborative approach to
the rulemaking process and would that be dependent on the stakeholders
or the agency.

**A:** Gail Bingham responded that most types of processes could be
convened either by the agency or an outside group as long as everyone
felt that was a credible approach. (A formal negotiated rulemaking would
be an exception.)

**Comment:** A participant stated that a collaborative process, in
itself, does not really get to an important dimension. What you really
need is more data in terms of what the problems are in the airline
industry, and I think your initial surveys just kind of scratched this.
I think that with the agreements that are going on, you are getting more
test data. You are getting that data from the airport water sources. You
need that kind of data to determine what measures are appropriate for
proceeding. I think in the collaborative process you will not get that
much new---if it is not based upon the data.

**A:** Gail Bingham said that adequate data can be a criterion for a
good process and that data collection can be one of the purposes of
collaboration.

**Q:** A participant questioned the accuracy of data from self reporting
and expressed a concern that airports and carriers will answer to
protect themselves. EPA is not going to end up with the information they
really need at the end of the day.

**A:** Gail Bingham said it's possible to address concerns about
liability in an information exchange process.

**Discussion:** Laurie Dubriel said part of the purpose of the
administrative orders on consent that is being done with the airlines is
to get a lot of the information. I do not have the authority to speak
for the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement but what I can say is
that we are looking for compliance with the orders in this intermediate
period while the rule development process is ongoing. If carriers have
additional information that is not contemplated by the orders that they
think would be helpful to the rulemaking process, they should give that
information to the agency. The agency is not looking to get you. This is
not a "got you" situation. We are all interested in the same thing,
which is reaching a rule at the end of the day that works for the
airline industry and protects the traveling public.

**Discussion:** A participant responded that if you want the information
flow, you have got to come up with some way to say to the carrier that
if your dirty laundry gets out there, you are still protected. That has
to be done as we go into the consent orders.

**Q:** A participant said the term "consent order" in the FAA world is
not collaborative. It is something to be avoided at all costs. What does
the term consent order mean in the EPA context?

**A:** Laurie Dubriel said in order for the agency to issue an
administrative order you have to have some type of finding of
non-compliance. Some type of violation has to be there. In this context,
this is an administrative order on consent, meaning that EPA has talked
to the party who would be getting the order and worked through the
logistical issues for the airline industry within the context of the
order. The other option the agency has is to issue an administrative
order unilaterally, without reaching an agreement. That is not the type
of order that has been issued here. EPA has consulted with the airline
industry. The other option that EPA has is a consent decree, which is
through the judicial process. That also is not the process that is
currently being used.

**Q:** A participant responded to an earlier comment about the risks and
determining whether the risk is acceptable. She said we have not heard
the numbers yet, showing that half the aircraft were sampled in the
galley and half were sampled in the lab. I am curious to know how those
numbers compare independent of the lab testing, which is considerably
higher, and how those numbers compare to coliform testing for stationary
water sources. That might be an interesting comparison in terms of
determining the risks and comparing it to other sources.

**A:** Steve Heare said EPA tracks national compliance with primary
drinking water regulations, health based violations of the national
drinking water regulations for community water systems, which are a
subset. In general for the 54,000 community water systems that we track,
I would say our compliance with health based standards for populations
served by community water systems is around 95 percent.

**Q:** A participant asked is the focus of this process going to be
solely on the airlines or might it include other ICCs?

**A:** Rick Naylor said EPA is responsible for all ICCs; they include
aircraft, water vessels, trains and buses. We are focusing in this
initial effort on aircraft water systems.

**Discussion:** During the discussion, several information points were
made. FDA covers the same modes of transportation. Similar issues are
involved, including the connection between the public water system and
the mobile water system. The big difference between vessels and aircraft
is that many vessels have their own treatment system onboard. Although
there are nuances between ICCs, hopefully a lot of the information such
as on bio-films may be relevant and make the process a little bit easier
in the future when considering regulating the other ICCs.

**Q:** A participant asked if airlines are following disinfection
schedules and how is EPA going to deal with that during this process.
Are you going to go beyond just collecting information about the
cleanliness of the water to actually looking at the steps that are being
taken at the airports and by the airlines? Are they doing their
operations and maintenance procedures to make sure things are being done
correctly?

**A:** Laurie Dubriel stated that as part of the orders, EPA is
collecting information about the maintenance and disinfection procedures
and are requiring routine disinfections. We will be tracking their
compliance with disinfection of the aircraft and the watering points as
well. We are requesting information if they have a third party handler
who does your water service. We have the corrective action for
procedures in place for when there is a positive test result and we are
following up on those results as well, requiring that that information
be submitted to us in a timely manner. We review it and follow-up with
each of those instances. We are requiring public notification under the
orders and following that information as well.

**Q:** Gail Bingham asked is there anyone or any stakeholder group that
is not here today that any of you would suggest ought to be contacted
about this rulemaking? Is there anybody missing who should be informed?

**A:** The response was the aircraft manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus,
and the Aircraft Industries Association.

**Q:** A participant expressed a concern about under reporting. The data
reported so far suggests a very high rate of non-compliance compared to
other water systems. (AWWA could share information on that.) I think
these are pretty high numbers, which is why we are somewhat concerned.
Also, the implications for other ICCs deserve serious consideration. I
think there is a risk in going down this very long road for 4 or 5 years
of rulemaking and coming up with a new rule that only applies to
airlines and then later find out that buses and perhaps trains and
others might be suffering from exactly the same problems. You will have
lost the economies of scale that you would have won by bringing them
into the process now. I am not advocating that you bring them into the
process but I think a serious look at some of the ICCs is probably going
to result in fairly similar findings. Does EPA have monitoring data on
the other ICCs?

**A:** Rick Naylor answered not that he knows other than Amtrak.

**Discussion:** A participant said they have been doing the O&M plan
since the late 1980s but tracking it since 1992. Yes, they do routine
monitoring for coliform. Their results are better than the results
presented at the meeting.

**Q:** A participant addressed the rates of compliance issue, saying the
regulation assumes a certain number of samples are being taken over
time. So the compliance rate that was referred to of 1-in-20 or 5
percent is based on a number of samples taken from the same public water
system. EPA views each aircraft as a separate public water system. So
when EPA uses a 15 percent number or the 4.3 percent number, that is not
analogous to an individual public water system's rate of positives. It
is analogous to overall---the number 95 percent was cited here today---
public water systems across the country. We attempted to try and apply
the regulations to our sampling results and as you will see from our
report one of the problems is the regulations do not quite fit what we
do. We cannot monitor upstream, for example, when we get a positive the
way that traditional water systems are directed to do. So it is not an
exactly analogous situation where you can just compare the numbers.

**Comment:** Laurie added that the numbers being talked about are just
the initial samples and do not include repeat sampling.

**Q:** A participant asked if the operators of water supplies were
present as stakeholders.

**Comment:** Gail Bingham asked if those who operate the water trucks
and water hoses were represented at the meeting. No one responded as
being a representative of either group.

**Q:** A participant asked that if a collaborative approach is decided
upon and meetings are going to be carried out, who is going to
coordinate and oversee the process and chair the meetings? Will that be
someone within EPA or is RESOLVE being considered to do it? When are you
going to make that decision? Is this going to be after the interview
process? How long will it take before you decide on the process and
those questions that you look at?

**A:** Gail Bingham said they will ask meeting participants as part of
the assessment process who they want to facilitate the process; who
should convene it; how should it be facilitated; and by whom. Their
views will be conveyed to EPA. She is assuming EPA's decision about
facilitation or chairing of the process will happen after the interviews
because they will be asking participants for your thoughts.

**A:** Rick Naylor also said they are aiming to have the report with the
stakeholder process recommendation by the end of July.

**Comment:** Gail Bingham answered that she will attempt to have the
report and recommendation ready by mid-July, assuming she can get to
talk with all those at the meeting and other stakeholders. She said it
is RESOLVE's practice that their reports are public documents because
they want the report to accurately reflect what they have heard. Then
EPA will decide in some period of time after they issue the report about
whether to go forward with their recommendations and how.

**Comment:** Steve Heare said he cannot give an exact day but EPA's goal
is to get the regulation written as quickly as possibly. They are
already looking at 4 years and 7 months if Rick Naylor's schedule holds.

**Q:** A participant asked whether or not they would go with a FACA-type
process.

**A:** Gail described the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) process
as being where EPA formally convenes a process with the objective to get
consensus advice from stakeholders. It often involves a very intense
degree of collaboration. They must do that under the auspices of the
Federal Advisory Committee. (There are some process designs where
stakeholders could seek to reach consensus recommendations developed in
a voluntarily not under the agency's auspices.) One of the concerns
about, the Federal Advisory Committee Act is the amount of time it might
take to go through the procedural steps to get a charter. In this case,
we may not have enough time in the time schedule to use the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. One of the advantages of consensus might be
increased certainty to plan investments required to comply with the
regulations.

**Q:** A participant asked Gail Bingham if she is going to contact the
stakeholders mentioned earlier, such as the Industrial Hygiene
Association and CDC, to find out if they would like to participate in
this process or is it going to be a passive situation where some of the
participants have to contact them and suggest that they might want to
contact Gail and get involved in this process? How is this going to work
to incorporate other stakeholders into the process?

A: Rick Naylor said that all of those ways should be used. They
encourage stakeholders to contact fellow stakeholders to participate in
the process. Gail Bingham and EPA will follow up on suggestions already
made. The approach is to be as inclusive as possible.

**Q:** A participant asked if the interviews will be conducted by
RESOLVE, EPA or both groups?

**A:** The interviews will be conducted by RESOLVE. If someone wants to
talk to RESOLVE, they can contact Gail Bingham, Kathy Grant or another
colleague, Marsha Greenbaum who is in Boston or they can contact EPA who
will put them in contact with RESOLVE.

**Q:** A participant said he was not aware of any requirement imposed
upon people who handle water for the airlines. I look back at this
complex problem of fluid handling and I relate it to the beginning of
the jet age. When the airlines first started to hand out jet fuel---when
the 707 first came out---they discovered it had an affinity for water
and they discovered it had an affinity for microbes. They had problems
with it for custody transfer because it went from pipelines to storage
tanks to trucks to hydrant systems or other trucks into the airplane.
And the opportunity for contamination at every handling was very
evident. One of the biggest variables they had with jet fuel handling
was the people that handled it. I do not think they have a thorough
understanding of the care that needs to be taken with the handling of
water. I read a book on longevity and how the life expectancy of
Americans is going up. One of the chief attributing factors to the
increase of life expectancy---and I would have thought it would have
been modern medicine---but they said it was the Safe Water Drinking Act.
Because there were so many waterborne pathogens that caused so many
maladies and diseases, now a generation or two generations later, we are
not even aware of them anymore. I would submit that the people who are
handling the water in this industry are not any more aware of water
quality problems than the average man on the street. They have not lived
it. The Safe Water Drinking Act has always been there for them. I do not
think they are properly educated to know how to handle the water. I
wonder if eliminating one of the variables in this water quality
issue---just the training and education in our expectations of the
people handling water---would not go a long way towards reducing the
water quality problems we have.