April 9, 2008

BACK

APSP Submits Comments to U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on Federal Pool & Spa Safety Act
APSP Asks CPSC for Extension to June ’09 for Requirement to Retrofit with Compliant Covers
APSP on March 28 submitted comments to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) on the CPSC Staff Interpretation of the Pool and Spa Safety Act, Section 1404. The CPSC is the federal agency responsible for administering and enforcing the Act, including the grant program for eligible states. Violations of the Pool and Spa Safety Act’s mandate for public pools to install ASME-compliant covers by December 19, 2008, are subject to enforcement action by the CPSC under the federal Consumer Product Safety Act. CPSC is also given oversight enforcement of the mandate for drain covers to be compliant with the ASME A112.19.8 2007 standard beginning December 19, 2008.

APSP encouraged CPSC to reference the ANSI/APSP-7 suction entrapment avoidance standard and requested a meeting with CPSC staff to discuss the APSP comments on Section 1404.

In its letter, APSP stated that it was in agreement with the following CPSC interpretations: the requirement for outlets in public pools to be protected by a cover that meets the most current version of ASME A112.19.8; the definition of “drain;” the exemption for pools with multiple outlets from the requirement of an additional backup device or system such as SVRS systems; placement of multiple outlets a minimum of 3 feet apart; and the exemption from the requirement for an additional back-up system (e.g., SVRS system), for unblockable drains.

APSP stated that the ANSI/APSP-7 entrapment-avoidance standard meets or exceeds all of the requirements of Section 1404 of the Act and the CPSC Staff Interpretation and asked the CPSC to explicitly state this. This would help builders understand and comply with the Act. APSP noted that the federal Act directs the CPSC, when developing Minimum State Law Guidelines, to consider national performance standards, such as ANSI/APSP-7. The ANSI/APSP-7 suction entrapment-avoidance standard embodies important suction entrapment avoidance provisions including the option for a pool or spa to be built without a main drain or an outlet that cannot be blocked; the requirement for multiple outlets on new pools to be spaced 3 feet apart; and a flow limit to a maximum of 6 feet per second.

Among the concerns APSP addressed in its letter was the Act’s effective date of December 19, 2008, for public pools to retrofit submerged suction outlets with an ASME-A112.19.8 2007 compliant cover. APSP asked CPSC to adopt a grace period until June 18, 2009, because of work-in-progress on amendments to this standard. Until the final amendments to the ASME standard are completed, manufacturers cannot test, develop, or manufacture covers.

Other areas of concern included the Staff Interpretation that suggests 1.5 fps flow rate through outlet covers, and that references the ANSI/APSP-1 American National Standard for Public Swimming Pools. APSP explained that the ANSI/APSP-1 standard predated ANSI/APSP-7 and the Act, and that the intent of the ANSI/APSP-1 standard was to apply the 1.5 fps maximum flow rate only where large grates (12” x 12” or larger) were used, in place of ASME-complaint covers. Where compliant covers are used, ANSI/APSP-1 provides for a 6 fps flow rate (3 fps per outlet when dual outlets are used). Because ANSI/APSP-7 and the Act now require ASME-approved covers on all outlets, regardless of size, the provision in ANSI/APSP-1 referencing 1.5 fps where grates are used is no longer applicable.

APSP asked the CPSC to address the conflict between the federal Act and the International Building Code (IBC) and the International Residential Code (IRC). APSP said that contradictory codes will introduce confusion into implementation of the federal law and reduce compliance. APSP requested CPSC to ask the International Code Council to replace the IBC and IRC language with a reference to the ANSI/APSP-7 standard. APSP submitted a document that compared the federal law, the ANSI/APSP-7 standard, and the International Code Council codes.
APSP pointed out that the IBC applies only to new construction, whereas the Pool and Spa Safety Act applies to both new and existing pools and spas. Both the IBC and IRC allow the use of non-compliant covers on larger outlets. The IRC and IBC do not contain provisions to eliminate several forms of entrapment including hair entrapment, limb entrapment, or evisceration, whereas the federal law and the ANSI/APSP-7 standard address all known forms of entrapment. The federal law and the ANSI/APSP-7 standard, unlike the IRC and IBC, require that pools and spas be closed if a drain cover is broken or missing. Finally the federal law and the ANSI/APSP-7 standard recognize that SVRS devices are effective only on single outlet pools, whereas the IBC and IRC require SVRS devices on all pools and spas, regardless of the number of outlets.

APSP has five documents posted on its website to help members understand and comply with the new federal Act. To access these documents, including the comments and the comparison of the new federal Act with APSP/ANSI-7 and the IRC and IBC, visit the APSP website at: http://www.apsp.org/32/index.aspx

BACK