Subj : ominous if true To : ALL From : MICHAEL LOO Date : Wed Jun 28 2000 07:01 am http://www.seattletimes.com/news/nation-world/html98/ashr_19990627.htm Posted at 09:08 p.m. PDT; Sunday, June 27, 1999 Panel backs slower plane-ventilation rate by Byron Acohido Seattle Times staff reporter Largely because of efforts by Boeing, the standard for air ventilation aboard commercial aircraft may soon be lowered dramatically. The association that sets codes for indoor-air quality is moving toward lowering the required ventilation level for planes, after a committee's vote in Seattle last week. The voting, at the conference of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, did not unfold quietly. Two members of the committee charged with reviewing cabin-air standards stormed out in protest when their request for more scientific data was voted down. Another committee member, Boeing air-quality expert Pat Waters, then won quick approval of his proposal to reduce the minimum ventilation rate by two-thirds, from 15 cubic feet per minute per person to 5. The 15-cubic-feet-per-minute standard now in place applies to planes, trains and buses. Most buildings in the United States and Canada provide at least that much ventilation. The reduction is subject to approval by a separate oversight committee, which is expected. But the tone of themeeting illustrates how contentious this issue is becoming. On one hand, aircraft manufacturers and airlines insist it is feasible to operate cabin-ventilation systems at lower levels - thereby saving money - without sacrificing comfort or safety. But flight attendants complain that lowering the standard could pose health risks to crews and passengers. Their unions insist there are no comprehensive studies of the hazards posed by the spread of illness via air circulating through aircraft cabins. They also cite their suspicions that on some planes, toxic jet fluids leaking into ventilation systems are making people sick. Alaska Airlines flight attendants have reported hundreds of instances of people getting sick aboard the airline's planes, particularly MD-80s, and they blame leakage of toxic fluids. Twenty-six flight attendants are suing the company. Notably, key supporters of lowering the ventilation standards was a consultant who formerly worked for the flight-attendants union. Raynard Fenster was appointed to the committee two years ago, when he worked for the Association of Flight Attendants. But he left the union about 18 months ago and began consulting for Boeing. "The problem is it appears there is not a correct balance of interests on that committee," said Chris Witkowski, the union's director of safety and health. "It's stacked in favor of industry, and that's the reason they were able to railroad this through." Boeing environmental-controls engineer David Space, a nonvoting member of the committee, argued there's no reason planes should have the same ventilation rates as buildings. Even at low rates, aircraft cabins exchange their air several times an hour, compared to one or two times an hour for a typical building, he said. But committee member Douglas Walkinshaw, a Canadian air-quality consultant, argued that it's the rapid build-up of contaminants in the constricted cabin that's the real issue, rather than the number of air exchanges. Walkinshaw said pollutants, such as germs from sick people or toxic fumes from leaking jet parts, rapidly reach a hazardous concentration in the constricted cylindrical space - much quicker than in buildings. The fractious debate is unusual for ASHRAE, a 105-year-old organization of 50,000 air-system experts who pride themselves on technical expertise. But in Seattle last week, the technical arguments took a back seat to politics. After several hours of debate, Walkinshaw challenged Space to cite specific research supporting a change in the standard. The discussion then hit a lull and seemed headed for a continuation at ASHRAE's winter meeting in Dallas, which would give both sides time to collect supporting technical data. But those favoring a lower standard pushed for a vote. Walkinshaw moved to postpone the matter until more data could be brought forward in Dallas, but he was voted down. He and Jamie McNeice, a health officer with the American Airlines flight-attendants union, walked out in protest. "I didn't want to be part of a vote based on lack of information, so I withdrew," Walkinshaw said. When they left, the motion to lower the standard passed, unanimously. Among audience members who also walked out before the vote was France Pelletier, health and safety director for the airline division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, representing 9,000 flight attendants from 13 Canadian carriers. "It was outrageous," Pelletier said. "Why is 5 cfm (cubic feet per minute) OK on an aircraft, when you need 15 cfm to dilute contaminants in buildings on the ground? "They jammed this thing through without answering our concerns as flight attendants, or even the traveling public, for that matter." But Space, the Boeing environmental-controls engineer, defended the action: "It wasn't railroaded. We're all working very hard to make an airplane environment that's healthy, comfortable and safe." ___ Blue Wave/386 v2.30 --- * Channel 1(R) * 617-354-3230 * Cambridge MA * 130 lines * PostLink(tm) v1.20 CHANNEL1 (#15) : RelayNet(tm) * Origin: "THE WORLD BEYOND" - Leaving the Others Behind!! (1:250/502) .