10-Part Self-Inspection Series – Part 1: High-Purity Water Systems
A practical self-inspection roadmap that translates the FDA’s High-Purity Water Systems guide into questions, red flags, and remediation tips for pharma teams.
This is the first in a 10-part series for pharma teams on inspection readiness, based directly on the FDA’s inspection manuals and our auditing observations in the field. This first issue is free for all subscribers. The remaining issues will be available only to paid subscribers. Upgrade to paid here.
If you manage pharma quality, you’ve probably thumbed through the FDA’s Inspection Guides—those blunt, sometimes decades-old playbooks investigators still cite on tours. They may carry 1993 dates, but the concepts inside drive 2025 observations because the underlying science of contamination control hasn’t changed.
What has changed is the agency’s enforcement philosophy: today’s investigators weave data-integrity principles and risk-based reasoning into every question, expecting firms to bridge the gap between vintage guidance and modern QMS doctrine (ICH Q9, Q10, and, soon, Q12). In other words, knowing the guides is table stakes; translating them into living, traceable risk controls is what separates “compliant” from “inspection-ready.”
That’s why we’re launching a ten-part self-inspection series for pharma teams, anchored to each of the classic drug-product guides. We’ll unpack the original text, cross-reference today’s expectations, and convert both into pragmatic, question-driven checklists you can walk through with your cross-functional peers. Each installment will have anecdotes from our recent audits and mock inspections—what we actually find when we trace piping, inspect freeze-dryers, or spot-check cleaning logs. Then we’ll hand you the structured questions, red-flag examples, and best-practice pointers we use on the ground.
Today, we’re kicking off by dissecting the high-purity water system guide.
Before we jump in, it’s important to note that these inspection guides are mostly legacy reference materials—helpful background, but not the primary or instructions FDA investigators follow today. FDA explicitly labels them as non-binding reference documents, and the agency’s day-to-day inspectional practices are driven instead by current regulations (21 CFR), the Investigations Operations Manual (IOM), and program-specific Compliance Program Manuals/assignments. Treat the old guides as historical insight or training aids, not as be-all-end-all compliance expectations.
Why start with water systems?
Well, because it’s first on the list. And because water touches nearly every dosage form and remains the single largest root cause we see for microbial and endotoxin 483s, and because some firms treat a 20-year-old validation as gospel while quietly installing quick-fix hoses and non-sanitary valves that unravel the entire rationale.
If you can pressure-test your water loop with confidence, the rest of the series will feel familiar.
Over the coming weeks and months we’ll cover:
High-Purity Water Systems (this issue)
Lyophilization of Parenterals—cycle development, condenser hygiene, closure integrity
Microbiological Pharmaceutical QC Labs—media control, environmental trending, data integrity
Pharmaceutical QC Labs—analytical method robustness and instrument lifecycle
Validation of Cleaning Processes—matrix rationales, swab recovery, dirty-hold times
Dosage-Form Drug Manufacturers cGMPs—process capability and stage-3 verification
Oral Solid Dosage Forms: Pre-/Post-Approval Issues—SUPAC, dissolution drift, novel excipients
Sterile Drug Substance Manufacturers—closed processing, bioburden control, filter media integrity
Topical Drug Products—preservative effectiveness, rheology specs, particulate control
Oral Solutions & Suspensions—microbial stability, viscosity management, re-dispersibility
Each post will stand alone but also build on the mindset we set today: ask better questions, harvest objective evidence, and close gaps before the FDA even parks the car. Along the way we’ll flag where we can bolster your team—whether that’s a rapid-fire mock inspection, a deep-dive remediation plan, or a turnkey quality-system overhaul.
1. System design
Investigators will almost always start by asking for your water schematic. For inspectors, that drawing is like the Rosetta Stone that tells them how seriously you take contamination control. Some firms we visit for audits either don’t have a current piping & instrumentation diagram (P&ID) or discover undocumented tee-ins during the walkthrough. Those “mystery taps” immediately lower trust.
Another recurring design issue is the temptation to economize on energy by running cold, one-way lines for low-risk products. While defensible in theory, companies often underestimate the validation, biofilm, and maintenance headaches that follow. We sometimes end up mapping the “total cost of ownership,” showing that a hot, circulating loop can be cheaper inside of three years once you factor in unplanned shutdowns and corrective actions.
Our advice: Pull your most up-to-date P&ID into a room with engineering, QC micro, and manufacturing leads. Walk the line on paper first, then on the plant floor. Every unidentified branch should probably trigger a CAPA. Use the questions below as guideposts.
Ask yourself:
Do we match water grade to product risk? WFI for parenterals and ophthalmic irrigations? Purified water only where microbial/endotoxin risk is demonstrably lower?
Have we justified temperature and flow? Hot (65 – 80 °C) circulating loops are self-sanitizing. Do energy savings from cold or one-way (“dead-leg”) lines really outweigh validation and contamination costs? (This rationalizing often gets companies into trouble.)
Is every drop accounted for on a current P&ID? “If a system has no print, it is usually considered an objectionable condition.” When was your last piping walk-down vs. drawing reconciliation?
Have we formally risk-ranked each use point? Set microbial action limits against the most sensitive product that touches the system, not the least.
2. Validation
The FDA’s own inspection guide for water purity lays out a three-phase protocol:
Phase 1: 2–4 weeks of daily sampling after each purification step and at every use point.
Phase 2: Another 2–4 weeks demonstrating conformance to SOPs.
Phase 3: Routine sampling (≥ 1 yr) to capture seasonal variation.
When we go on-site for an audit, a surprising number of sites tell us, “We validated the system when it went in ten years ago.” That statement alone invites deeper scrutiny—and it should be obvious why. In the last 18 months, we’ve written multiple remediation plans where a renovation, control-system swap, or even a gasket material change invalidated the original IQ/OQ/PQ without anyone realizing it.
One point we are always trying to get a across is tha validation isn’t just a binder on a shelf. It’s how you actually prove to an outsider—today—that your SOPs work.
FDA investigators will pull three strings that you don’t want to have unravel in front of them: raw data, change records, and the risk-based rationale behind sampling plans. “Sampling because that’s what the SOP says” is not a rationale.
Our advice: Treat each design or procedural tweak as a kind of micro-re-validation. If you can’t map every water-system change to a revision in the master validation plan, assume you have a gap to close.
Ask yourself:
Can we produce the raw Phase 1–3 data for every modification made since go-live?
Are challenge studies scientifically sound? No deliberate microbial seeding—rely on frequent, representative testing instead.
Were acceptance criteria pre-defined? If not, have we retro-justified them with risk assessments?
Do SOPs prevent non-sterile air ingress? E.g., flushing secondary valves before primary valves to purge air pockets (see Figure 1 in the FDA’s guide).
3. Microbial and endotoxin control
“Agency policy is that less than 10 CFU/100 mL is an acceptable action limit” for WFI.
“Any action limit over 100 CFU/mL for a purified water system is unacceptable.”
Micro results tell a story—if you let them. Too often we see firms collect data religiously yet never actually trend it.
Endotoxin control is another blind spot. Many sites rely on the LAL test alone, unaware that low colony counts can still coexist with high pyrogen levels if biofilm is shedding fragments. Investigators know this and will press for dual monitoring.
Our advice: Draw trend charts before the FDA does! Flag any shift (even within limits) and force an investigation. Make sure your alert/action limits drive action, not excuses.
Ask yourself:
Are our routine results well below these triggers? If we trend near the limits, do we trend at all?
Do we sample enough volume? 100 – 300 mL for WFI—anything less “is unacceptable.”
Do we test WFI for both endotoxin and bioburden? LAL can pass while colony counts fail.
Is there a documented, timely investigation pathway when limits are exceeded, including a product impact assessment?
4. Critical components
One consultant we work with always tells teams to think of the still, heat exchanger, pumps, tank, and valves as the “organs” of the water system. They may live in different cGMP clauses, but investigators view them as a single organism.
We pretty routinely find that maintenance records are scattered across departments: engineering holds pump logs, QC files vent-filter integrity checks, and nobody owns the heat-exchanger pressure-differential data. Fragmented ownership = fragmented accountability.
Typical findings include:
Dead-legs left over after equipment upgrades
Vent filters whose last integrity test date is illegible
Ball valves in WFI loops because they were “off-the-shelf” for a quick fix.
Each is an invitation for the FDA to question the entire maintenance culture.
Our advice: Assign a single system owner empowered to unify records, schedule PMs, and veto non-sanitary quick fixes. Then walk through the component-level checklist below. (Of course, there may be more questions you want to ask than these alone.)
Ask yourself:
Do feed-water spikes push endotoxin carry-over above 0.25 EU/mL? If yes, pretreatment (RO, UF, distillation) is inadequate!
Is condensate trapped in multi-effect stills between runs (weekends)? Dead volumes are essentially endotoxin nurseries.
(For heat exchangers) double-tubesheet or higher clean-side pressure?
Are exchangers drained or continuously wetted to avoid corrosion pin-holes?
Is the hydrophobic vent filter jacketed, integrity-tested, and accessible?
Are tank lids sealed, not merely “covered”?
Do standby pumps drain or maintain flow to prevent stagnation?
Is there a low-point drain on the pump housing?
Any threaded fittings or legs > 6 × pipe diameter?
Are ball valves or flexible hoses (difficult to sanitize) still in service?
If you use reverse osmosis, are at least two RO stages in series?
Is post-RO water immediately heated (75 – 80 °C) or UV-treated, and are we verifying UV lamp output?
5. Routine monitoring and maintenance
In far too many plants, critical alarms route only to a printer beside the still—no digital alert, no escalation. We’ve investigated contamination events where the alarm log showed six months of excursions, each signed off with “operator informed, no action.” Expect inspectors to ask when someone saw the data and what they did.
Another common pitfall: deferring gasket or seal replacement until failure. A cracked PTFE gasket in a 3-inch drop leg once seeded an entire loop with Pseudomonas, driving a $400k product discard.
Our advice: Build a dashboard that updates at shift change: key trends, alarm summaries, and open CAPAs. If you can’t show that information flow, the FDA will mostly likely assume it doesn’t exist.
Ask yourself:
Do logs capture still alarms, vent filter tests, sanitization cycles, and excursions in one place?
How quickly do we review and trend data? Weekly? Daily? Real-time? Can we show investigators a year’s worth of clean, comprehensible trends?
Is there a proactive spare-parts and gasket replacement program? Pumps burn out. Gaskets degrade. Waiting for failure equals downtime plus contamination risk.
6. Release decision management
When water action limits are breached, the clock starts ticking on product impact assessments. Investigators love to ask for the “logic trail” that explains why suspect batches were released. Weak trails often sound like: “Finished-product micro testing passed, so we shipped.” That ignores incubation lag, sampling variability, and product growth potential.
We’ve helped teams defend release decisions by pairing water data with preservative efficacy studies and risk assessments that map real exposure rather than theoretical. Conversely, we’ve managed recalls where that evidence didn’t exist.
Our advice: If a limit is exceeded, freeze disposition until you document the contamination source, affected lots, and a science-based rationale for release or rejection. The burden of proof is on you, not the agency.
Ask yourself:
When water exceeds limits, do we link each batch made with that water to a documented, science-based disposition?
Do we rely on finished-product testing alone? (The FDA’s inspection guide warns this is insufficient.)
7. Continuous improvement
Even the most mature sites drift. Personnel turn over, improvement projects stall, and incremental changes accumulate like technical debt. Our auditors often find loops that started as hot, 316L systems but now include PVC hoses and non-sanitary sight glasses added during hurried troubleshooting. Over years, those “temporary fixes” become permanent liabilities.
Regulatory expectations have also evolved—ICH Q10 and ISO 9001:2015 push for lifecycle management and knowledge capture. Firms that embed Plan-Do-Check-Act into their water systems sail through inspections; firms that treat the loop as “set-and-forget” face 483 citations.
Our advice: Schedule an annual, cross-functional mini “water summit.” Review changes, trend data, and emerging technologies (ozonated loops, PVDF piping, inline TOC sensors). Treat the system as a living asset.
Ask yourself:
Have we re-validated after major changes—e.g., new point-of-use, piping reroute, control-logic upgrade?
Do we benchmark against industry best practice (e.g., heated loops for purified water, biofilm-resistant PVDF where justified)?
Are cross-functional stakeholders (engineering, QC micro, manufacturing) regularly walking the system together?
What’s next?
Part 2 will tackle Lyophilization of Parenterals (7/93)—expect deep dives on cycle development, condenser hygiene, and valve-seat integrity. Subscribe to our paid tier so you don’t miss it.
Need to audit and close some gaps?
Our auditors uncover these issues daily. Whether you need a rapid-response mock inspection, a full remediation roadmap, or a quiet sanity check before new construction, our bench can scale to your timeline.
Even the most robust internal program benefits from an external lens:
QMS alignment: We map your water SOPs back to 21 CFR 210/211, USP 1231, and ICH Q9/Q10.
Mock inspections: Ex-FDA experts pose the tough questions before regulators do.
Audits and remediation: If gaps surface, we draft and help execute corrective action plans that stick.
We’ve supported hundreds of pharma sites worldwide with water-system design reviews, qualification protocols, and contamination investigations. Need a fresh set of eyes? Drop us a line to start the conversation.
Who is The FDA Group?
The FDA Group helps life science organizations rapidly access the industry's best consultants, contractors, and candidates. Our resources assist in every stage of the product lifecycle, from clinical development to commercialization, with a focus on Quality Assurance, Regulatory Affairs, and Clinical Operations.
With thousands of resources worldwide, hundreds of whom are former FDA, we meet your precise resourcing needs through a fast, convenient talent selection process supported by a Total Quality Guarantee. Learn more and schedule a call with us to see if we’re a fit to help you access specialized professionals and execute your projects on time and on budget.