The board of directors for the leading pool/spa/education and research organization, non-profit National Swimming Pool Foundation®, voted last week to endorse the first module of the Model Aquatic Health Code (MAHC), entitled “Operator Training.” The Model Aquatic Health Code is being created by the world’s chief public health organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and dozens of volunteers. This standard is the first public-domain, scientifically-based standard that is free for all jurisdictions. The first of twelve modules entitled “Operator Training” was issued on April 8, 2011.
“The release of the first modules that will make up the complete national Model Aquatic Health Code from the CDC is a seminal moment,” commented Thomas M. Lachocki, Ph.D., and CEO of the National Swimming Pool Foundation. “The National Swimming Pool Foundation endorses the concept and process of the Model Aquatic Health Code and urges every health department and every association to adopt the first module, ‘Operator Training,’ without exception.”
Read the news release here or attached PDF, and learn more about why NSPF has made this endorsement.
Replies
I made extensive comments to the Preface, User Guide and Definitions modules as well as the Fecal/Vomit/ Blood Contamination Response module on 12/01/08 but the status is that "MAHC is responding to public comments" for those modules. More recently on 09/29/10, I wrote comments to the Operator Training module you can read here (just search for "Falk"), but the response was the following (with some minor differences) for all of my comments:
While it is obviously important for courses to cover certain subject areas, obviously the course content is also important, but there is no guidance, review or approval process regarding course content. Perhaps the purpose of this section of the MAHC is just to ensure that some training is done covering some subject areas, even if such training contains completely inaccurate content.
I suspect the code portion may end up being similar to the way that APSP-11 was developed: looking at some science, but ignoring some of it if it does not suit the agenda or biases of its members. I'm talking specifically about the chlorine/CYA relationship which not only has implications for oxidation and disinfection rates, but also for the rate of creation of disinfection by-products. As for course content, I've already written extensive comments on the CPO course material, including completely non-controversial factual material regarding chemical content (i.e. the table that describes how much CYA, CH and salt is added by each type of chlorine source relative to the amount of FC added) but to my knowledge no such content is getting changed/added by NSPF.