Starting A New Debate - Safety Suctions

[Chris H]

From the Aqua Magazine website. Can some one help interpret?

Thanks,

Chris

ANSI Approves New APSP Standard 7

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has approved the new ANSI/APSP-7 standard for suction-entrapment avoidance in swimming pools, wading pools, spas, hot tubs and catch basins. The approval, on Sept. 11, signifies that the standard, prepared by the APSP, meets the requirements of the U.S. voluntary standards system. With the approval, the APSP will advocate adoption of the ANSI/APSP-7 by national, state and local regulatory agencies.

The APSP says the standard is the first comprehensive approach to engineering swimming pools and spas to avoid all the suction entrapment hazards, and is meant to address five major hazards associated with submerged suction outlets: hair entrapment; limb entrapment; body entrapment; evisceration/disembowelment; and mechanical entrapment. Some requirements contained in the new standard include the following:

• Suction outlet covers/grates will be tested and listed as conforming to ASME/ANSI A112.19.8. This requires structural integrity and a permanently marked flow rating to prevent hair entrapment;

• the number and type of suction outlets are defined in terms of the flow rates and pump arrangements;

• vents or safety vacuum release systems (SVRS) are recommended in appropriate conditions;

• surface skimming or overflow systems can be designed for effective sanitation and circulation without submerged suction outlets.

A detailed checklist is provided to assist the pool professional in identifying entrapment hazards in existing pools and spas and details remedial options; and the new standard warns that the pool or spa be immediately closed to bathers if any cover/grate is found to be damaged or missing.

"If pools and spas are installed and maintained in accordance with this standard, there should never be another suction entrapment incident," says Carvin DiGiovanni, APSP senior director. "APSP has been writing standards since the 1980s that include construction methods that decrease the chance of suction entrapment. However, the new APSP-7 standard codifies into a single standard the previous requirements

http://www.aquamagazine.com/data/archive/AQ-1106-292.pdf

I also found that article as well. Any help is appreciated.

[Brulan1]

From the Aqua Magazine website. Can some one help interpret?

Thanks,

Chris

ANSI Approves New APSP Standard 7

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has approved the new ANSI/APSP-7 standard for suction-entrapment avoidance in swimming pools, wading pools, spas, hot tubs and catch basins. The approval, on Sept. 11, signifies that the standard, prepared by the APSP, meets the requirements of the U.S. voluntary standards system. With the approval, the APSP will advocate adoption of the ANSI/APSP-7 by national, state and local regulatory agencies.

The APSP says the standard is the first comprehensive approach to engineering swimming pools and spas to avoid all the suction entrapment hazards, and is meant to address five major hazards associated with submerged suction outlets: hair entrapment; limb entrapment; body entrapment; evisceration/disembowelment; and mechanical entrapment. Some requirements contained in the new standard include the following:

• Suction outlet covers/grates will be tested and listed as conforming to ASME/ANSI A112.19.8. This requires structural integrity and a permanently marked flow rating to prevent hair entrapment;

• the number and type of suction outlets are defined in terms of the flow rates and pump arrangements;

• vents or safety vacuum release systems (SVRS) are recommended in appropriate conditions;

• surface skimming or overflow systems can be designed for effective sanitation and circulation without submerged suction outlets.

A detailed checklist is provided to assist the pool professional in identifying entrapment hazards in existing pools and spas and details remedial options; and the new standard warns that the pool or spa be immediately closed to bathers if any cover/grate is found to be damaged or missing.

"If pools and spas are installed and maintained in accordance with this standard, there should never be another suction entrapment incident," says Carvin DiGiovanni, APSP senior director. "APSP has been writing standards since the 1980s that include construction methods that decrease the chance of suction entrapment. However, the new APSP-7 standard codifies into a single standard the previous requirements

http://www.aquamagazine.com/data/archive/AQ-1106-292.pdf

I also found that article as well. Any help is appreciated.

I recieved the same but in E-mail form. It is describing an automatic shut off or pressure release when a limb or hair gets trapped. They will be required by the APSP standards.

[Guzz]

I recieved the same but in E-mail form. It is describing an automatic shut off or pressure release when a limb or hair gets trapped. They will be required by the APSP standards.

• surface skimming or overflow systems can be designed for effective sanitation and circulation without submerged suction outlets.

HotSpring Spas work in this way, using multiple filters they have eliminated the need for suction fitting in the footwell.

[Brulan1]

• surface skimming or overflow systems can be designed for effective sanitation and circulation without submerged suction outlets.

HotSpring Spas work in this way, using multiple filters they have eliminated the need for suction fitting in the footwell.

That is correct. If so, than jimjim's old posts render invalid. HS's meets standards ladies and gentleman.

[East TX Spa]

Guzz is right. It's amazing that the rest of the industry hasn't caught on yet, but may be forced to do so unwillingly.

Terminator

[Brulan1]

Guzz is right. It's amazing that the rest of the industry hasn't caught on yet, but may be forced to do so unwillingly.

Terminator

LOL nice

[Chas]

This article is mainly concerned with in-ground pools and spas.

Any portable (self-contained) tub which is ETL or UL listed will be in complicance with the new requirments. In fact, about the only thing that looks like a 'change' for the portable tub makers is that the suction fittings - if there are any, of course - must be marked with the flow rating.

There have been no incidences of suction entrapment in a portable spa. And as Guzz noted above, Some makers have NO suction fittings in the bather area at all.

[Autoplay]

Figured Rim_the_Jim would of responded by now. Very likely,he doesn't have an answer off the top of his head,and will answer after some home made-up BS,in 2+ weeks.

[Jim_The_Jim]

Figured Rim_the_Jim would of responded by now. Very likely,he doesn't have an answer off the top of his head,and will answer after some home made-up BS,in 2+ weeks.

I have done exactly what Trigger said to do. I found the right bureau to send my report on saftey suctions to.

It is funny that the spa industry barely follows the ANSI and UL 1563 and the biggest company thumbs their nose at the safety regulations because it costs money to put in dual safety suctions.

Time will either verify what I have been saying or not. But I guantee that any bureacrat that has my letters and does not do something will be the first person to be held responsible for the deaths.

[Roger]

I have done exactly what Trigger said to do. I found the right bureau to send my report on saftey suctions to.

It is funny that the spa industry barely follows the ANSI and UL 1563 and the biggest company thumbs their nose at the safety regulations because it costs money to put in dual safety suctions.

Time will either verify what I have been saying or not. But I guantee that any bureacrat that has my letters and does not do something will be the first person to be held responsible for the deaths.

Portable Hot tubs have been around for 30 years. Millions of them out there currently and not one single death related to suction fitting entrapment.

All wait on the edge of my seat for that first death...............................NOT

[Autoplay]

Jim,could you explain to me.....how a person might drown/get entraped while using a "Hot-Springs" spa?

I believe Term illustrated awhile back,the likelyhood of a person/baby,being entraped in a hot-springs spa.

How do you see it Jim?

[Trigger]

Hmmm. flow rates? Will this mean that the indsutry will start to take a look at the idoits who slap on any ol sized pump and simply add a suction return on it and claim it's safe? "Hey, it's a 24 hp pump, but I've put 2, two inch intakes per ANSI on the bottom, so it's gotta be safe, right?

Eh Jim? Nothing like having your customers tell you toys are being crushed against covered suction inlets.

Call me when there's an adequate flow rate ratio established.

[Code Compliance 1]

To my knowledge portable spas are exempted from most state and local codes. Portable spas are not a part of the APSP-7 standards' scope.

However a note of caution is prudent since the APSP-7 standard is not the answer-all to the stated entrapment hazards. It is simply a shell of a standard without necessary prescriptive definitions. The standard as written will permit dual drain configurations as the only method of entrapment avoidance for pools and spas. The problem is that the standard only prescribes minimum seperation distances.

The real purpose of the APSP standard is to nulify the safety-precedent contained in the International Code Council's International Residential Code, Section AG106 and the International Building Code, Section 3109.5. The intent of the I-Codes is basic - direct suction is not permited in any case when submerged drains (suction outlets) are used. In addition, the performance standard referenced in these codes is ASME A112.19.17(02) and ASME A112.19.8(87).

The intent of the code is to limit suction forces to less than 15 pounds at the drain cover when submerged drains are utilized and all but one of the drains are blocked. When used submerged drains systems are required to have an additional system that will eliminate direct suction forces should the drain outlets fail. The additional system is required to meet the performance requirements of the ASME A112.19.17 (SVRS) standard. The codes permit alternates, such as vent pipes under the "Alternative Material" section of the codes. Gravity drainage (collector tank) systems that do not utilize direct suction are also permitted.

A good analogy is the safety prescriptions for electrical systems. The wall plates (covers) for switches and receptacles are analgous with the drain safety covers - the electrical system still must have circuit breaker protection should the covers fail - in some cases ground-fault circuit breaker protection is required- this is anaigous with the '19.17 compliant systems. APSP-7 ignores redundency for the drain covers should they fail.

For any one to claim protection against eviseration is absurd. The exact physiological limits, are simply not known. That is, the max/min suction level that can cause such an injury or the time of exposure to such a suction level is not entirely understood - Under the APSP standard suction forces that exceed the 15 pound standard can occur. So how is eviseration protection properly addressed in this standard? It is not.

Pool Builders must make an effort to learn how to interpret and apply the I-Codes to their methods of construction - This is the only way to avoid the liability associated with entrapment hazzards can be mitigated.