Forum

Replies

• 

  ALLEN HUNZEKER January 9, 2010 at 7:09pm

  IT WAS A DEDICATED VAC LINE. WHICH PROABLY HAD BEEN TAMPERED WITH. MIGHT CALL DAN ESSIG AND ASK. I USED TO WORK FOR HIM.
  THIS MAKES A GOOD CASE FOR PREUSE INSPECTION BEFORE POOL IS OPEN FOR USE.
  AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT VGB DOE REUIRE VACLOK AS WELL AS WELL APPROVED COVER FOR LOW WATER PORTS ATTCHED TO SKIMMER OR DISABLE SAME.
• 

  John Dauzat September 17, 2009 at 9:29pm

  I certainly appreciate input from everyone; I really enjoy hearing feedback in all forms whenever I am involved in a discussion. Does anyone think there will be anything to evolve from this incident (new law, modifications)?
• 

  Scott Heusser September 16, 2009 at 7:37am

  David,
  
  Good points, let's explore them.
  
  Twist timer is certainly a good idea to help reduce the "ooof dahh's" of a maintenance tech. However, it could still leave the vacuum line operating for the remaining time, exacerbating any entrapment issues. We really need to take the human element out of the equation as much as possible, we all make mistakes. I wouldn't want to be the one who forgot to put the vacuum cap back in place and injured a patron.
  
  You are also correct that a pump cart may not be easily brought to the pool. Obstacles such as long an narrow stairs are an issue. In those cases there are other means of cleaning a pool such as, in-floor systems, electric robotic cleaners and even battery operated pole attached cleaners.
  
  You hit on a key point, "design issues". When issues such as these are looked at objectively during the design process one can design out many if not all of the entrapment issues, including vacuum lines.
  
  In essence this is the same argument that we've been having over drain elimination. Pools have always had drains so let's keep the drains. In this case, there is an inconvenience to the operator by eliminating the vacuum lines. I suggest that there is always at least one viable alternative especially when addressed at the design level.
  
  David Penton said:

  " Let's look at the root problem here. The vacuum line. How about we eliminate the vacuum lines?"
  
  In an interesting conversation about this same article I was involved in on another website; a great suggestion was made to help add another way to "idiot-proof" the situation, which I thought was very clever!
  
  The sugestion was made to install a twist dial timer to the vacuum pump system. In the event that the serviceman walks out and forgets to turn off the pump, and re-install the safety plug, the pump will automatically shut down after a period of time. We all install them on the commercial spa booster pumps already, it is a great additional layer to consider.
  
  There are certain situations where it may not be plausable to bring a pump cart on site to service the pool. The elimination of Side Suction lines altogether is not the answer, and may bring with it a whole new set of design issues. In a residential Slot overflow pool, there is no place for a skimmer... and if the pool happens to be unaccessable for a pump cart, then there is no way to clean the pool.
  
  The answer is to educate the pool owner on the VERY real danger that exists, and to install every layer of protection available to keep everyone safe.
  
  The VacLock fitting is spring loaded, and locks closed when not in use. It is one simple $40 fix.
  
  Side suction ports are a necessity in certain situations, but it is important that the dangers are CLEARLY explained, and as much as possible to install redundant systems in order to minimize the risks associated with them.
  
  I personally am not a fan of SVRS systems, because they are mechanical, and thus subject to mechanical failure. If a failure occurs and goes unnoticed, then there is a false sense of security that the system is safe, when it actually may not be. I would rather educate the client on the inherent danger that does exist. I have walked away from commercial retrofit jobs that only wanted to install "an approved cover" with an SVRS system. I personally do not want the risk. If they are unwilling to do it the right way, with split drains, appropriate separation, and proper sump dimensions, then I let someone else do the job... (Just my opinion)
• 

  David Penton September 15, 2009 at 3:51pm

  " Let's look at the root problem here. The vacuum line. How about we eliminate the vacuum lines?"
  
  In an interesting conversation about this same article I was involved in on another website; a great suggestion was made to help add another way to "idiot-proof" the situation, which I thought was very clever!
  
  The sugestion was made to install a twist dial timer to the vacuum pump system. In the event that the serviceman walks out and forgets to turn off the pump, and re-install the safety plug, the pump will automatically shut down after a period of time. We all install them on the commercial spa booster pumps already, it is a great additional layer to consider.
  
  There are certain situations where it may not be plausable to bring a pump cart on site to service the pool. The elimination of Side Suction lines altogether is not the answer, and may bring with it a whole new set of design issues. In a residential Slot overflow pool, there is no place for a skimmer... and if the pool happens to be unaccessable for a pump cart, then there is no way to clean the pool.
  
  The answer is to educate the pool owner on the VERY real danger that exists, and to install every layer of protection available to keep everyone safe.
  
  The VacLock fitting is spring loaded, and locks closed when not in use. It is one simple $40 fix.
  
  Side suction ports are a necessity in certain situations, but it is important that the dangers are CLEARLY explained, and as much as possible to install redundant systems in order to minimize the risks associated with them.
  
  I personally am not a fan of SVRS systems, because they are mechanical, and thus subject to mechanical failure. If a failure occurs and goes unnoticed, then there is a false sense of security that the system is safe, when it actually may not be. I would rather educate the client on the inherent danger that does exist. I have walked away from commercial retrofit jobs that only wanted to install "an approved cover" with an SVRS system. I personally do not want the risk. If they are unwilling to do it the right way, with split drains, appropriate separation, and proper sump dimensions, then I let someone else do the job... (Just my opinion)
• 

  Scott Heusser September 15, 2009 at 9:18am

  James,
  
  I appreciate your input & experience, but, an SVRS is not the answer to all entrapment issues. The words "I believe..." in your response puts conjecture back in the equation instead of science. Until a testing method is developed to represent a child's arm caught in a vacuum line I feel it is inadvisable for a manufacturer to suggest his or her product would prevent a limb entrapment such as this.
  
  While I am on my soap box....
  
  Let's look at the root problem here. The vacuum line. How about we eliminate the vacuum lines? I've been in this business a long time and have always used skimmer ports for vacuuming pools. In the case of rim-spill pools I use a portable vacuum. This eliminates the entrapment issue altogether. No port to forget to plug or valve off, no mechanical safety mechanism to rely on, the hazard is abated completely.
  
  Back when I was a young, impressionable youth I began receiving training in safety related issues. In that training I was repeatedly taught, and still believe, that engineering a safety hazard out of existence is far preferable to reliance on personal protective equipment, training or other ''topical'' treatments. Let us as an industry strive to eliminate the hazard.
  
  I agree 100%, pools are a dangerous environment. There is no substitute for parental supervision, trained swimmers of all ages and accountability for operators and owners. Most importantly is that we continue to band together and explore all avenues of creating a safer bathing environment.
  
  
  
  
  
  James F. Ellul Jr. said:

  Hello Everyone, In this case the property and or the operator (CPO required in Florida) is at fault. Vacuum Locking Covers have been code for nearly 20 years I believe. This is a multiple incident failure. A) Locking cover or plug not in place. B) Valve left open to vac line. C) Pump running D) Curious child.
  
  I believe on this issue that if an SVRS were installed as a second layer of protection on the vac line; it would have fired off in less than a second, preventing swelling in the arm, releasing the child. The blood in the childs body was continuously pumped into the arm by the suction force, swelling and locking it into the pipe. Very similar to the Marin/Rozo case I worked on last month, where the childs arm was sucked into the drain sump. **Now come the ney sayers about having an SVRS on a vac line and false tripping. Dear Ney Sayer, With a stiff adjustment setting and keeping newer wheels on the vacuum (keeps vacuum off of floor), including being aware of the pools' high spots or "trap spots" one can live with minimal to no false tripping.
  
  In this case I would have liked to see an SVRS as a secondary layer of protection to the already required vac lock or plug; as opposed to having to reset an SVRS a couple times per year, when someone makes a mistake like this. Why? The trauma and long term fear of pools for the child and family; the pain and suffering; the fear rippled throughout the Country and the world is negative publicity and in this case bad publicity is not good..
  
  As an Industry, we need to be Proactive and not Re Active. Bottom line; Pools and Spas are not safe. We need to band together and make them safe. Think Seat Belts and Air Bags. No one wanted them, they add slight inconvenience; in some cases they kill; but overall they save many more lives than if we did not have them at all. For 21 years I was taught and told the equipment I was working with was safe and engineered properly and able to be installed in direct suction designs. No one ever educated me about all of this; and now with the Internet, it is no longer a secret. The sad part is what I have learned about the number of non-reported entrapments; which I believe are in the area of 2 in every 20,000 swimmers and pool workers, but I have a lot of work before I can prove it.
• 

  Scott Heusser September 14, 2009 at 7:32am

  John Dauzat said:

  If VGB only took main drains into account, why wouldn't all suction devices be taken into consideration? Hmmm, I guess some things aren't always fully thought through.

  
  Because John, the Act, no matter how well intentioned, was an emotional response to a horrible situation. As such it was rushed into existance because, "we have to do something!" was the cry the Congress heard.
  
  We as an industry have failed to self regulate and by doing so we allowed a completely ignorant governmental agency to regulate our actions.
• 

  John Dauzat September 11, 2009 at 9:27pm

  If VGB only took main drains into account, why wouldn't all suction devices be taken into consideration? Hmmm, I guess some things aren't always fully thought through.
• 

  michael gardner September 9, 2009 at 9:48pm

  We are both in California, I would hope that Title 20 has some impact on pump choices. I do remember the builders down there thinking bigger is better. I used to work in your area of OC as well as the beaches.
  Your point is well taken.
• 

  David Penton September 9, 2009 at 9:13pm

  Take a homeowner who doesn't know what he's doing, to move the pool sweep suction valve the wrong way (and divert all the flow to the sweep line)... and a builder who installs a high head 2 hp pump because he needs to run the spa jets, and now you have the full flow of a 2 hp pump through the 1 1/2" side suction line!
  
  I see it ALL THE TIME!!! when we do new pool startups!
  
  How is this any different? It's actually probably worse, because the line velocity is higher through the 1 1/2" line than the 2" line in the story.
  
  michael gardner said:

  The building codes do not allow any open or closeable vacuum lines any more. They have not for years. nowadays the pool is usually sold with a portable deck pump or submersible auto cleaner. I agree that this action by a CPOI graduate is criminal. The pool is not a killer pool the operator was negligent. Who knows why he left the pool vacuum line open, the vacuum pump running and the pool open to swimmers?
  I am glad I do not have to answer these questions.
  Dave Penton, it really is not like a side suction port in a residential pool. The 1.5 " residential opening is split with the skimmer and very rarely does the suction cleaner get all the flow. The pump on the commercial was likely a 1.5 or 2HP pum with a direct path to the pool
• 

  michael gardner September 9, 2009 at 8:14pm

  The building codes do not allow any open or closeable vacuum lines any more. They have not for years. nowadays the pool is usually sold with a portable deck pump or submersible auto cleaner. I agree that this action by a CPOI graduate is criminal. The pool is not a killer pool the operator was negligent. Who knows why he left the pool vacuum line open, the vacuum pump running and the pool open to swimmers?
  I am glad I do not have to answer these questions.
  Dave Penton, it really is not like a side suction port in a residential pool. The 1.5 " residential opening is split with the skimmer and very rarely does the suction cleaner get all the flow. The pump on the commercial was likely a 1.5 or 2HP pum with a direct path to the pool