|
Service
Industry News -- Let’s
have a Serious Talk About Drowning |

CALIFORNIA
--- QUESTIONS ANSWERED ---
California’s
swimming pool industry has been reeling following adoption by the California
Energy Commission of a new Title 20 set of regulation which requires two-speed
or variable speed pool circulation system motors, along with appropriate control
devices, on all new pool construction. The
Commission and its contract consultant hired to draft the regulations –
Pacific Gas and Electric Company – largely failed to consult the industry when
preparing the regulations. After
their adoption and becoming public, a great number of faults were seen which
made sections of the original requirements largely unenforceable.
To
provide a forum in which industry members could be informed and question
knowledgeable sources,
Following
is a review of the discussion that took place.
Many audience questions were also asked and answered which could not be
included in this summery. However,
the text will provide answers to most, if not all, of the industry’s
questions.
Q
& A
Policy Issues:
Burns:
Prior to
Fernstrom:
·
·
There was no definition of swimming pool pumping energy efficiency, or no test to determine it. Since the pool industry had not developed a definition and performance testing, it was an appropriate role for government to establish a test for energy efficiency and a requirement that the results reported.·
While more efficient 1-speed and extremely efficient 2-speed equipment was available in the market place, it was rarely used. Similarly, since efficient equipment selection practices were not being followed, it was an appropriate opportunity to regulate given the low-costs and high
Burns:
PG&E was the proponent and advocate for pushing these regulations
through. What business does it have even doing this? One would thing
that PG&E would want to sell more electricity, not less?
Fernstrom:
·
PG&E has been ordered by the California Public Utilities Commission to make energy efficiency first in the “loading order”, which means the resource of first choice so long as it is less costly than new power plant capacity and energy.
·
To comply with
this order, which is in the interest of all utility customers, PG&E operates
a number of voluntary efficiency programs, where information, education, and
rebates may be provided for good efficiency improvement opportunities, such as
for swimming pool pumping.
·
To supplement its
voluntary programs, PG&E advocated with the California Energy Commission and
the U.S. Department of Energy for energy efficiency standards that eliminate the
least efficient products from the market.
·
This effectively offers a “carrot and stick” approach. PG&E only advocates for standards for highly cost-effective opportunities that do not take away service and convenience provided to customers.
Burns:
These regulations and the related hearing processes were
a surprise and disruptive to the industry. Why wasn't this communicated so
that industry could have meaningful interaction during the discussion and
decision making process?
Fernstrom:
·
Communication is always an issue with efficiency regulations, as it seems there is always someone who didn’t know what was happening. PG&E has tried to widely communicate what it is doing and solicit input from swimming pool professionals, but honestly, it has taken some time to become involved in the industry and learn which representatives to involve. PG&E now works closely with the APSP,·
Admittedly, even with PG&E’s sincere best effort to communicate, efforts to improve swimming pool efficiency got off to a rough start. Hopefully most would agree that its better now, but when did we ever see everyone in this industry agreeing about anything?
Burns:
There is a lot of confusion and misinformation in the industry
about the efficiency regulations. What are they and how are they being
communicated to achieve full understanding and reach a wide audience?
Fernstrom:
·
This is a wide ranging issue.·
The regulations apply differently to manufacturers and sellers of pool pumping products.·
Manufacturers must test, report to the·
Sellers of these products (manufacturer, distributor, wholesaler, retailer, and contractor) must assure that residential swimming pool filtration pumps be of 2, multi, or variable speed if 1 Total HP or over, and in all cases motors may not be of split phase or standard efficiency cap-start, induction run design (2-speed motors may be of cap-start, induction-run design on low-speed operation).·
These regulations are widely discussed and covered in the trade press, but they can be found on the California Energy Commission web site (www.energy.ca.gov) on the Appliance Standards link. Anyone in doubt may also call the
Burns:
Who has to comply?
Fernstrom:
·
Anyone offering residential pool pump equipment manufactured for sale in
Burns:
What are the consequences for not complying?
Fernstrom:
·
It is a violation of
Burns:
I've heard that some companies have been telling contractors that replacement
motors are covered by these regulations. I find nothing in the
Fernstrom:
·
Replacement pool pump motors are not currently required to comply, according to
Burns:
Do these regulations apply to above ground equipment?
Fernstrom:
·
No, the regulations apply to residential, private, in-ground pools only. Thought is being given to requiring improved efficiency for above ground filtration pumping efficiency.
Burns:
Do these regulations apply to non filtrations pumps, such as booster and
fountain pumps?
Fernstrom:
·
No, residential filtration pumps only.
Burns:
Do these regulations apply to products for commercial pools?
Fernstrom:
·
No, residential, private, in-ground pools only. Commercial pools are required by the health code to maintain a 6 hour turnover when the pools are open and available for use; therefore, reduced speed pumping is not an option. When commercial pools are closed and not available for use; however, reduced speed pumping is an option and can save very significantly on operating cost.Burns:
Are time switches and controls sold in the state required to be 2
speed? If so, why is a two speed
control needed for a single speed single pump under 1 HP?
Fernstrom:
·
This should probably be an exception to the regulation, but presently is not. The intent of the control regulation is to assure that two speed or variable speed pumps are not installed without the control capability to operate on lower speeds as the default filtration pumping speed.
Implementation Issues:
Burns:
One big problem is with the 2-speed requirement. For a very old
pool with small plumbing, the smallest 2-speed pump available may overpower
it. What can be done in this situation?
Fernstrom
·
This issue was raised early on in the rulemaking process by
Burns:
Filters don't work properly with low speed pumping. The water doesn't
fill the filter enclosure evenly?
Fernstrom:
·
Water flow in filters tends to distribute and balance itself according the resistance presented by the membrane. Filter manufacturers confirm that filtration performance of DE and Cartridge filters improves with reduced flow. Filter container vessels will completely fill with water when all air is exhausted as it should be for safety.
Burns:
Operating on low-speed, most automatic pool cleaners do not work. What
can be done about this?
Fernstrom:
·
Cleaners requiring booster pumps can operate with filtration pumps operating at reduced speed, as low speed filtration pump flows are typically 30 to 35
Burns:
Skimmers do not work properly on low speed, what can be done about this?
Fernstrom:
·
It is true that many skimmers do not work well on low speed, low flow pumping. The pump speed can be increased for short periods during the day to provide intermittent as opposed to continuous skimming. Also, during skimming cycles, maximum water flow can be diverted to the skimmers from main drains, etc. With variable speed pumps, flow can be set to best match the needs of skimmers and other functions such as cleaning, water features, spas, and solar thermal pool heater collectors.
Burns:
Operating on
low-speed, pumps will not pump water up to solar thermal pool heater collectors
on rooftops. Of what value is 2-speed in that case?
Fernstrom:
·
Most 2-speed pumps will pump water 20 feet up to a collector. The problem here isn’t so much that the pumps won’t lift the water, but that the Total Dynamic Head resistance the collectors present to the flow of water is such that 2-speed pumps running on low speed won’t produce adequate flow through the tiny openings in the collectors. The solution here is to use a solar thermal pool heating collector that presents little TDH resistance to water and allows for generous flow, or use a variable speed pump where the pump power and flow can be precisely matched to the needs of the collectors.
Burns:
To work properly, 2-speed motors must have compatible controllers.
That adds to the cost, making it too expensive for most pool owners to choose.
One contractor told me yesterday that he just bid a replacement job and
the cost for an appropriate controller and the necessary change in wiring from
110 to 220 volts. Such costs will
obviously prove a disincentive to proper pool maintenance
Fernstrom:
·
It is true that the cost of new residential filtration pump installation, replacement, or repair will go up with this regulation, but value in operating cost savings to pool owners and the overall
Burns:
These pumps won't prime on low speed. What can be done about that?
Fernstrom:
·
This is a Title 24 Building Standards related question. The issue is that if 3, 2 inch returns come back to the pump suction and all rise through valves to the pump suction manifold, it is possible that pumps might have trouble priming on low speed. The ability of these pumps to prime is a function of the lift needed, and the cross sectional area of the water to be lifted. There are 2 remedies: Many of these pumps are set up to prime on high speed, which eases this problem. The other alternative is to install the valves horizontally, manifold them, and come up through a single riser to lower the water surface cross sectional area.
Burns:
Pool safety regulations require pool suction velocity to be below 6 feet per
second. If a variable speed pump is installed, how can one be sure that it
won't inadvertently be reprogrammed to operate at a HP such as to exceed the
maximum suction velocity?
Fernstrom:
·
Maximum speed can be set on all the variable speed pump products. It is not reasonable to expect that the manufacturers of these products can protect against all inappropriate control outcomes by untrained personnel. This is similar to suggesting that cruise controls on cars be limited to 65 miles per hour, so drivers won’t set them to run the car at a speed in excess of the speed limit!
Burns:
The proposed building efficiency standards for residential pools require the
use of sweep elbows. Does this really make any sense considering that
eyeballs are required at the pool returns?
Fernstrom:
·
Well, no. If you’re going to effectively put a fire nozzle at the end of the returns to the pool, dramatically raising the TDH resistance to the flow of water at that point, then sweep ells in the piping leading up to the eyeballs make little sense. Good pool design doesn’t require so much restriction in the eyeballs that sweep ells don’t matter. In properly designed pools, the value of the energy savings associated with sweep ells has been shown to be cost-effective.
Burns:
The proposed building standard requires 6 pipe diameters of straight pipe
leading up to the pump suction inlet. I’ve been told repeatedly that
this is not necessary given that all pool pumps have strainer baskets which
serve to reduce turbulence at the pump suction?
Fernstrom:
·
6 pipe diameters leading up to the suction side of the pump, where pumps have leaf traps, is probably not required, as the leaf trap itself serves to smooth turbulence that may result from sharp
Burns:
The motor efficiency of the current 2-speed motors running on low
speed is down around 40%. How can you call that energy efficiency and
mandate it in standards?
Fernstrom:
·
Low motor efficiency is a fact for current 2 speed motors running on low speed. This was a big surprise to me at one time when I was first getting involved with pool pumping energy efficiency. Even the motor is less efficient, there is so much less work being done in the hydraulic system when pumping at half speed, that the overall system is little over twice as efficient, even with the motor performance considered. Energy savings from current 2-speed pumps running on low speed are about 55% to 66%.·
A.O. Smith has recently introduced a high efficiency 2-speed motor which features cap-start, cap-run design on both high and low speeds. This motor has significantly better low-speed efficiency performance and is well worth the extra cost. New variable speed products hold up their efficiency very well at low speeds. For example the Pentair Variable Speed pump has a 92% efficient motor on both high and low speeds. This is remarkable!
-0-

SERVICE INDUSTRY NEWS - EDITOR'S COLUMN
I’ve
just finished reading a 16-page research study on child drowning which was
released at the end of April. Commissioned
by a group called the National Safe Kids Campaign, the study was released to
coincide with “National Safe Kids Week” May 1 through May 8, a weeklong
nationwide public education campaign.
Before
I even went to the campaign’s website –
www.safekids.org
– to download the study and read the press release issued in connection with
it, I tried to imagine exactly what conclusions the group would draw, based on
their research.
You
must understand that as the editor of this publication, I am primarily concerned
with drownings as they relate to swimming pools.
I am primarily concerned with drownings of children below age 8; and I
believe that the ultimate “layer of protection” when it comes to drowning
prevention is constant and vigilant adult supervision.
My
guess was that the group would conclude that supervision is inadequate as a
drowning-prevention tool and that only by erecting isolation fencing, installing
alarms and securing covers would we have any impact at drowning prevention.
With
this thought in mind, I called up the press release online.
The headline read “New research shows nearly 9 out of 10 children who
drowned were being supervised.”
Somehow,
I was not surprised.
The
first paragraph of the release stated, “New research revealed today by the
National Safe Kids Campaign and Johnson &
Johnson shows that 88 percent of children who drowned were under the supervision
of another person, usually a family member.”
But
for me, the next sentence was far more telling. “Supervision,” it stated,
“was defined as being in the care of another individual, not necessarily in
their direct line of sight.”
So
let’s see if I’ve got it right – if you are in charge of a child, but
you’re not actually watching him, you’re still “supervising” him,
according to this study!
And
if that child happens to drown, but you’re not actually watching him, you’re
still “supervising” him, so we can only conclude that “supervision”
alone is not an adequate drowning-prevention measure.
The
second paragraph was just as telling. “While
better quality supervision is critical,” it stated, “the study also found
that many adults were not properly fencing pools, requiring use of personal
flotation devices (PFDs) or teaching their children how to swim.”
Once
again, I was not surprised.
“Even
when parents say there are supervising,” a passage further down in the release
states, “many are participating in a variety of distracting behaviors
including talking to others (38 percent), eating (17 percent), and talking on
the phone (11 percent).”
In
other words, 84 percent of the parents who said they were supervising –
weren’t.
As for the
pool environment itself, the release states, “While 98 percent of pool- or
spa- owning parents report that they have taken adequate steps to ensure
children’s safety, most have not made the necessary environmental changes.”
“Nearly
two-thirds (61 percent) of pool or spa-owning parents do not have isolation
fencing around their pools or spas, and 43 percent have no self-closing and self
latching gate.”
And
then they throw in the following statement: “Installation and proper use of
four-sided isolation fencing could prevent 50-90 percent of residential pool
drownings.”
So
rather than relying solely on the press release, I decided to go to the study
itself to see exactly what the researchers found.
By way of background, the study looked into a total of 496
“unintentional drowning-related deaths” of children ages 14 and under in 17
states from January 2000 to December 2001.
I
found it interesting that neither California, Florida, nor Texas were included
in the study, even though they have the highest pool populations in the union.
Of
all drownings reviewed, 39 percent occurred in pools, the study states.
So of 496 drownings, 193 occurred in pools over a 2-year period.
Now, understanding that this organization zealously calls for isolation
fencing around every pool, I ask you to read the following paragraph, which
appears on page 8 of the study:
“Where
barriers to pools were examined in connection with pool drownings, 38 percent
occurred at pools known to have perimeter fencing and 29 percent occurred at
pools known to have isolation fencing (a fence completely separating the pool
area from the house and the rest of the property).
Only 5 percent of cases occurred at pools known to be without any
barriers at all.”
So
let me see if I got that right – more that 5 times as many drownings occurred
in pools equipped with isolation fencing as occurred at pools without any
barriers at all! I’d sure like to
ask them about that one!
I
don’t want to come across as a smart aleck when talking about something as
seriously tragic as the drowning death of a child.
But there is something about the conclusions publicized and reached in
connection with this study that smacks of “I’ve made up my mind; don’t
confuse me with the facts!”
What
this study is talking about is fewer than 100 drowning deaths each year of
children in swimming pools. That
hardly constitutes an epidemic.
Then,
they claim that nearly all of the children were supervised at the time the
drowning occurred, but their definition of “supervision”
seems to indicated that a lot of it was not supervision at all.
Then,
they claim (citing unnamed “studies” – not their own) that the vast
majority of pool drownings can be prevented by isolation fencing, when their own
figures indicate that drownings will still occur despite the presence of such
fencing.
I
reiterate my original position. When
it comes to drowning prevention, I believe that there is nothing out there more
effective than constant and vigilant adult supervision.
Know
where children are at all times. When
they are supposed to be near the pool, make sure that there is at least one
adult – undistracted by anything around him or her – whose sole job it is to
keep an eye on the kids.
You
can teach children how to swim, and you can install as many barriers as you wish
around a pool. But the only way you
are going to prevent children from drowning is to keep an eye on them at all
times.
[back to top]

SUPPORT SPEC!