Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0025-0059
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2009-10-19T04:00Z

RAA Notes for EO12866 meeting with OMB

Thank you for allowing us to come speak to you today.  We really
appreciate the opportunity to come speak with you.  We also appreciate
you giving us the opportunity to speak to you separately from our
colleagues at ATA.  While we support their comments and their
suggestions, we believe that RAA has a very unique perspective on the
proposed aircraft drinking water rule based on our operations.  

We would like to open by stating that RAA members have always held the
health and safety of our passengers first and foremost.  We understand
the efforts of the EPA in proposing this rule; however we believe that
the cost of the proposed measures exceeds the perceived health risk.  

Lack of RAA Data

RAA has 32 airline members and over 300 associate members who support
the industry.  Currently RAA members represent 40% of the domestic
airline fleet.  We are over 50% of the domestic scheduled flights, and
70% of the US airports are serviced solely by regional airlines.  

We make you aware of these statistics about RAA in order to make our
first point with regard to the proposed rule.  With 40% of the domestic
fleet, and 50% of the scheduled flights, we feel that it is important to
note that EPA created this proposed rule with no data from RAA members. 

Of the 32 RAA members less than 4 have actually completed their
Monitoring Period 1 requirements, and those 4 only finished their
reporting within the past few months.  

EPA proposed this rule over a year ago, when most RAA members were
either just starting their monitoring period 1 program or had not
started at all.  

Given our relative size and importance in the domestic market, it is
unsettling to find that a rule that uses benchmarks from only one subset
of the industry can be pushed forward and applied to all members of the
industry.  

Based on this information, we submit that EPA has crafted a rule for all
carriers based on mainline carrier’s data, which will most assuredly
end up crippling the regional industry because of the costs associated
adhering to a rule that was never written to take into consideration
different types of aircraft, varying configurations of water systems on
these aircraft, and relative risk based on number of passengers, time of
flight, etc.  

Request: Based on this and the other points we are going to make, we
would ask that OMB and EPA consider exemptions for regional aircraft
which we will propose 

Regional vs. Mainline differences

As mentioned we think it is important to make the distinction that while
ATA and RAA carriers are all part of the US Aviation industry, we are
very different in our aircraft and our operations.  The RAA fleet
differs tremendously from that of our mainline partners:

The average seating capacity for a regional aircraft is 50 passengers,
while the average mainline capacity is over 100. 

The water tank capacity for an average regional carrier is 5 gallons
with only a handful of airframes exceeding 10 gallons.  Most of our
mainline partners carry at least 30 gallons of water.  

A majority of regional airline configurations contain no galley at all
and only one lavatory (the only sampling point would be the lavatory
sink).  

The average flight time for a regional aircraft for one segment is 1.5
hrs.  Network carriers are more than double that average flight time.  

As we purchase new aircraft, the water configuration and tank volume for
the new aircraft seems to continue to remain the same.

Request 1: Based on our configurations with many not having a galley,
the current rule as proposed requires us to then take two samples from
the same lavatory.  We estimate that the cost of a single sample for one
aircraft to be approximately $766.  We believe this to be extremely
onerous given that the real risk associated with the Aircraft Drinking
Water Systems is in the water actually served to passengers. Previous
drinking water guidelines and regulations for land based potable water
testing have continually advised that taking samples from a lavatory are
never optimal.   We would respectfully ask for an exemption for all
aircraft without a galley configuration, provided the airline continues
to follow the proposed rules for scheduled disinfection and sanitization
of their lavatory systems.  

Request 2: Should you not be willing to provide the exemption for that
configuration, then we would ask that you consider a reduction in the
number of samples from two to one for the lavatory.  At a cost of almost
$800 per sample it is burdensome and cost prohibitive to require two
samples from the same source at the same time.  We believe that one
sample should suffice in serving the purpose of reporting on the health
and quality of the water system.  

Request 3: we would also request that the revised rule be changed to
allow for a positive Total Coliform to be processed without incurring
the reporting requirements as long as the airline follows the procedures
for disinfecting and sanitizing the aircraft water systems and then
taking another sample which returns clean.  We firmly believe that one
Total Coliform positive does not necessarily indicate a problem with the
water or the system.  

Risk Assessment

We believe the proposed rule fails to provide an accurate risk
assessment of the possibilities of exposure and over burdens the
airlines with reporting and sampling requirements that far exceed the
possible risk.  This is especially the case in the regional airline
industry. 

Again the average capacity of a regional aircraft is 50 passengers

The average flight is 1.5 hours or less

There is limited food prep (if any) which consists of canned soda,
bottled water, and pre-packaged food items.  

All of these items add up to limited or minimal exposure opportunities
and pathways.

If you take the average regional aircraft with 50 passengers and the
average tank configuration of 5 gallons it works out to roughly 0.16ozs
per passenger in potable water.  

Many of the regional airlines already post placards in the lavatory
indicating that the water is not intended for human consumption.  All
regional carriers that serve any kind of food service always have
bottled water on board specifically for consumption purposes.  

A close inspection of the data provided to you by ATA and that can be
provided to you by RAA would show that Galley samples routinely come
back negative, while lavatory samples come back negative.  Indicating
that there are other factors involved in the positives associated with
the lavatory.  

Request 1: By not exempting this configuration you are requiring the
airline to take samples they know have a good chance of coming back
positive, yet the system they are from is a less likely source of
consumption by the consumer. Again we would respectfully ask that you
consider an exemption from testing for those aircraft that do not have a
galley configuration.  

Request 2: Given that land based potable water systems are often allowed
to have a single source for water testing that is not associated with a
lavatory, we would ask you to consider including language that would
allow for samples to be taken from “an alternate source” on the
aircraft.  For example, the revised rule could include language
encouraging airframe manufacturers to create a single sampling point
that is neither in the lavatory nor in the galley that gives a true
representation of the water in the system.  Or perhaps it would allow
for the airlines themselves to create or identify a collecting point
within their system that does not necessarily come from the tap but
rather the tank or some other location.  

Cost Analysis vs. Health Benefits

As established in the previous discussions we don’t believe that the
EPA has established a risk factor high enough to warrant the costs
associated with complying with the rule.

The cost assumptions for this proposed rule significantly underestimate
the actual costs the regional air carriers will incur should this rule
be adopted.

Regional airlines would be forced to hire personnel just to monitor and
comply with this rule, and these are personnel that the airlines cannot
afford at this time.

Airlines would most definitely have to hire analytical and consulting
services in order to make sure they could keep up with the reporting
requirements.  Given the fact that in the past two years 5 airlines have
either gone bankrupt or out of business completely, this is not the time
to be adding costs for a low risk item. 

As mentioned earlier the average price of a single sample for a single
aircraft can cost $766.  Given the amount of sampling required by this
rule, we believe the cost associated with sampling could become one of
the largest cost centers at an airline.

In order to keep up with the record keeping and notification process,
airlines will be forced to spend millions in software changes to their
system in order to comply with the rule.  

Removing an aircraft from service for the purpose of disinfecting and
sanitizing based on a positive Total Coliform costs time and money as
that removes an aircraft from revenue generation unnecessarily.  Having
the ability to turn the water system off until it can be sanitized would
be more appropriate.  

If we had a mechanical issue with the water system and the water has to
be shut off, we are not currently required to make notifications to
crew, but if we shut it off for a potential false positive we are
required to make notifications to all crew. This does not seem to make
sense.  We recognize that crew should be notified of the hit and the
date of occurrence; however we believe that the required statement that
must be posted in the galley is well beyond what should be required.  ? 

Most of the reporting requirements and documentation requested by the
EPA are already parts of required FAA notifications in Maintenance
Repair Overhaul Systems (MROS).  This rule is asking the airlines to
keep duplicate records of items that can already be obtained via record
kept as a requirement for the FAA.  That is not only a duplication of
work, but an exponential waste of airline resources and money to
document the same information twice for two different agencies. 

Request 1: We ask that the EPA coordinate with the FAA to determine
where there are duplicative reporting requirements and determine how the
two agencies can share the same information from the same source rather
than requiring the airlines to keep the same information.  This would
result in a cost savings and make the requirements of this rule less
onerous.  

Request 2: We ask that in a circumstance where we may have a total
Coliform positive that we be allowed to restrict access to the water
system until it can be sanitized and re-tested without taking the
aircraft out of service as long as it is done within a reasonable time
frame. 

Other Considerations

Perhaps the EPA would consider changing the definition of Consumption
for the purposes of this rule?

Would the EPA consider gels, sanitizers, or hand wipes as an alternate
to access to potable water in the lavatory assuming we post a sign
indicating that anyone needing water for hygiene purposes in the
lavatory may request a bottle of water from the flight attendant?