top

CALIFORNIA POOL MOTOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY REGULATIONS

SPEC and APSP’s Technical Committee were successful in having implementation of the regulations delayed while needed changes were negotiated between PG&E and the Technical Committee and then taken back to the Commission for adoption.  These regulations still remain a work in progress, even though they are, for the most part, in force today.

Burns:  Prior to January 1, 2006 , there were no Federal or State regulations governing swimming pool pumping energy efficiency.  This market was working perfect well on its own responding to consumer demand.  Why was it prudent or necessary for Government to intervene in private sector commerce that had been undisturbed and working well for decades.

·    California has 1.5 million private residential in-ground swimming pools, which if  operated simultaneously would demand the output of 6 entire power plants.  The opportunity exists to reduce this need to 2 plants, saving the cost and air quality impacts of 4 entire power plants with very little negative impact on pool owners. 

·    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.

·    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.

By David Dickman

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]