Forum

Replies

• 

  Steve Barnes January 7, 2009 at 10:26am

  There is no definite answer to this question and the Spa Retailer lays it out well, but here is a little more information.
  
  There are two active avenues being pursued by the APSP. The first is discussed here, a request for the CPSC to rule on the issue specifically. The second is a meeting of the ASME standard writing committee with the goal to amend the ASME/ANSI A112.19.8 - 2007 standard. The ASME proposal seeks to take into account the fact portable spas are certified to UL-1563 by a nationally recognized testing laboratory. This testing includes an evaluation of each spas' suction system, something that is not possible for spas constructed in the field.
  
  The heart of the issue is the hair test, which ASME A112.19.8 - 2007 requires on each model suction fitting, performed on the cover when installed as a single outlet connected directly to the pump. This causes a high vacuum condition when the cover is blocked by a full head of hear, a condition that is not permitted in portable spas tested to UL-1563 (the UL standard does not allow suction covers to be installed as single, direction suction outlets). When these same covers are tested as they are installed in certified portable spas the high vacuum does not occur and the hair does not cling to the cover as tightly, making it easier to pull off at higher flow rates.
  
  This is a reasonable qualifier to the standard without reducing safety, and reasonable people should see and agree there is a difference between covers installed in a manufactured spa which is certified by a test lab, versus a boxed drain cover which may, and often is, installed on/as a single, direct suction system. The lower flow ratings are real and appropriate for this situation, but it is not the condition in certified portable spas.
  
  On point of caution regarding the likely success of getting this change through the ANSI process, their are "safety" advocates who continue to push language that requires an SVRS be used in addition to ASME certified drain covers. Remember both standards are produced by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME); the suction fitting standard, ASME A112.19.8, and the SVRS standard, ASME A112.19.17, and the Chairman of the SVRS standard has a history of holding up any changes to the suction fitting standard until the SVRS language is added. This held up Addenda A for months, from February 21, 2008 until August 29, 2008.
  
  There is a horse race between the two approaches, the CPSC ruling on the portable spa issue and the ASME standard being revised, but in this race there is no clear finish line. Perhaps this is why if feels like we are running in circles.
  
  Steve--
• 

  Justin Gregoli January 6, 2009 at 11:05am

  Mike and Cathy,
  Your last comment did not show, only my orig. comment showed.
  Justin
• 

  Mike & Cathy Snyder January 6, 2009 at 9:02am

  Justin Gregoli said:

  Mike and Cathy,
  As per the most recent article in "Spa Retailer", it lists the following;
  
  Enforcement of the act began December 19, 2008 and requires the following:
  
  - All drain covers manufactured, inported, distributed, or offered into the commerce must conform to the new ASME/ANSI A112.19.8-2007 standard. This requirement applies to suction outlet covers for all spas, including residential portable hot tubs.
  
  - All public spas (new and existing) must be retrofitted with covers and systems that meet the new ASME/ANSI A112.19.8-2007 standard. Compliant covers must be certified and stamped by the manufacturer or, in the case of field fabricated outlets, by a regional design proffesional, as stipulated in the ASME standard.
  
  - All public spas with a single main drain, other than an unblockable drain, must employ one or more addional options.
  
  Under no circumstances shall any submerged suction outlet be located on seating or lounge areas, or on the backrest(s) of such areas.
  
  The above was copied exactly as written from the article. It also goes on to say that there are currently not enough covers available for portable spas that meet the requirement set forth by the law. The current covers reduce the water flow to the point that the jets would not be properly supplied. The APSP is meeting with the CPSC to try and rectify the problem.
  
  From what I can surmise from the above, as well as from other information I have received, is that there is NO "grandfather clause" AND what we have to offer the customer DOES NOT meet the requirements. I also understand that the APSP is trying to convince the CPSC that portable spas should be treated differently than permanent structures. The big problem as I see it is the fact that this is a federal law and can only be amended by congress not by the CPSC or any local jurisdiction.
  
  To answer your question further I am trying to get more concrete answers from the manufacturers of the suction fittings such as Waterway and the like to see what they are planning to do about the issue. So far they are a bit elusive on the subject and trying to push me to the spa manufacturers claiming they are not the builder of the spa and it is up to them to solve it. As I recive more information I will pass it along.
  
  Another point to consider is the fact of used or trade in spas. These would also fall under the new law due to the fact that when you resell or move them they are now a new installation and as such would have to follow the law as well.
  
  
  
  Justin
• 

  Justin Gregoli January 6, 2009 at 8:49am

  Mike and Cathy,
  As per the most recent article in "Spa Retailer", it lists the following;
  
  Enforcement of the act began December 19, 2008 and requires the following:
  
  - All drain covers manufactured, inported, distributed, or offered into the commerce must conform to the new ASME/ANSI A112.19.8-2007 standard. This requirement applies to suction outlet covers for all spas, including residential portable hot tubs.
  
  - All public spas (new and existing) must be retrofitted with covers and systems that meet the new ASME/ANSI A112.19.8-2007 standard. Compliant covers must be certified and stamped by the manufacturer or, in the case of field fabricated outlets, by a regional design proffesional, as stipulated in the ASME standard.
  
  - All public spas with a single main drain, other than an unblockable drain, must employ one or more addional options.
  
  Under no circumstances shall any submerged suction outlet be located on seating or lounge areas, or on the backrest(s) of such areas.
  
  The above was copied exactly as written from the article. It also goes on to say that there are currently not enough covers available for portable spas that meet the requirement set forth by the law. The current covers reduce the water flow to the point that the jets would not be properly supplied. The APSP is meeting with the CPSC to try and rectify the problem.
  
  From what I can surmise from the above, as well as from other information I have received, is that there is NO "grandfather clause" AND what we have to offer the customer DOES NOT meet the requirements. I also understand that the APSP is trying to convince the CPSC that portable spas should be treated differently than permanent structures. The big problem as I see it is the fact that this is a federal law and can only be amended by congress not by the CPSC or any local jurisdiction.
  
  To answer your question further I am trying to get more concrete answers from the manufacturers of the suction fittings such as Waterway and the like to see what they are planning to do about the issue. So far they are a bit elusive on the subject and trying to push me to the spa manufacturers claiming they are not the builder of the spa and it is up to them to solve it. As I recive more information I will pass it along.
  
  Another point to consider is the fact of used or trade in spas. These would also fall under the new law due to the fact that when you resell or move them they are now a new installation and as such would have to follow the law as well.
  
  
  
  Justin