BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1020
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 5, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Dave Jones, Chair
AB 1020 (Emmerson) - As Amended: April 29, 2009
SUBJECT : Public swimming pools: anti-entrapment devices and
systems.
SUMMARY : Requires a public swimming pool, as defined, to be
equipped with anti-entrapment devices or systems that meet
federal requirements. Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines the following terms:
a) American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)/American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) performance standard;
b) ASTM International performance standard (ASTM was
originally the American Society for Testing and Materials);
c) Main drain;
d) Public swimming pool;
e) Safety vacuum release system; and,
f) Unblockable drain.
2)Requires every public swimming pool that is constructed or
permitted to be altered on or after December 19, 2009 to be
equipped with anti-entrapment devices or systems that meet
ASME /ANSI performance standard A112.19.8, or an ASME /ANSI or
ASTM amendment or successor to that standard adopted by the
Department of Public Health (DPH). Requires DPH to adopt the
amendment or successor to the ASME /ANSI or ASTM performance
standard 90 days after the publication, provided DPH approves
the amendment or successor. Exempts the adoption of the
standards from the Administrative Procedures Act.
3)Requires every public swimming pool constructed or permitted
to be altered on or after December 19, 2009 with a single main
drain that is not an unblockable drain to be equipped with at
least one of the following devices or systems to prevent
entrapment and that meet applicable federal requirements:
AB 1020
Page 2
a) A safety vacuum release system that has been found by a
DPH-approved independent third party to conform to
specified standards;
b) A suction-limiting vent system with a tamper-resistant
atmospheric opening that conforms to standards approved by
DPH;
c) A gravity drainage system that utilizes a collector tank
that conforms to standards approved by DPH;
d) An automatic pump shut-off system tested by a
DPH-approved independent third party and found to conform
to specified standards adopted by DPH;
e) Any other system that is deemed, in accordance with
federal law, to be at least as effective as the systems
described in 3) a) through 3) d) above at preventing or
eliminating the risk of injury or death associated with
pool drainage systems.
4)Requires public swimming pools constructed before December 19,
2009 to be retrofitted to comply with the above requirements
no later than December 19, 2011.
5)Requires DPH to consult with county health officers and
directors of departments of environmental health to develop a
form for use by public swimming pool owners and operators to
indicate compliance with this bill (compliance form).
Requires DPH, within 90 days of the effective date of this
bill, to post the compliance form on its Internet Web site.
Requires DPH to include on the compliance form the following
elements:
a) Statement of whether the pool operates with a single or
split main drain;
b) Identification of the anti-entrapment device or system
and the date of installation;
c) Identification of the type of device or system designed
to prevent physical entrapment and the date of
installation; and,
AB 1020
Page 3
d) Signature and license number of either a state-licensed
contractor or professional engineer experienced with public
swimming pools who certifies, under penalty of perjury,
that the information on the form is true.
6)Requires each swimming pool owner or operator to file, within
30 days of completion of the swimming pool construction or
installation of safety equipment as required by this bill, a
completed copy of the compliance form with the local
department of environmental health.
7)Requires health officers and directors or local environmental
health departments to consider documentation on, or filed
with, the compliance form to be evidence of compliance, and
authorizes local environmental health departments to verify
the accuracy of information filed on the form.
8)States this bill is an urgency statute necessary to conform
with federal requirements for the prevention of drowning and
would take effect immediately upon enactment.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Under the federal Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety
Act (VGB Act), requires, beginning December 19, 2008, every
public pool and spa to have an approved anti-entrapment drain
cover. Requires a public pool or spa with a single main drain
(other than an unblockable drain) to have a device or system
designed to prevent entrapment, such as a safety vacuum
release system.
2)Requires operators of public swimming pools to operate public
swimming pools in a sanitary, healthful, and safe manner.
3)Authorizes DPH to supervise sanitation, healthfulness, and
safety of public swimming pools. Requires DPH to enforce
building standards related to public swimming pools and to
make and enforce regulations as it deems proper.
4)Requires health officers to enforce DPH regulations and
building standards related to public swimming pools and to
review plans for proposed public swimming pools. Authorizes
health officers and DPH inspectors to enter all parts or
premises of public swimming pools to enforce compliance with
State Building Standards and Health and Safety Codes and DPH
AB 1020
Page 4
regulations.
5)Specifies criteria for the safe operation of public swimming
pools, such as for underwater lighting systems.
6)Requires new and altered public wading pools to have at least
two circulation drains per pump located at least three feet
apart and to comply with other safety requirements to prevent
physical entrapment or suction injury.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal
committee.
COMMENTS :
1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL . According to the author, drowning is
the second leading cause of accidental death among children
ages one to fourteen in the United States (U.S.). The author
reports that from 1997-2007, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) received reports of 74 entrapment incidents
that resulted in nine fatalities and 63 injuries (two
incidents caused no injuries); 54 of these incidents involved
children age fourteen and under. Entrapment can occur when a
person's body attaches to a drain or vacuum line due to the
suction of the water circulation system of a pool or spa, or a
limb is inserted or caught in a drain with a broken or missing
cover. Death or injury can result when the force of the
suction overcomes a person's ability to break free of the
drain. The author states this bill is needed because
California law is not consistent with new federal safety
standards which were adopted to prevent injuries and drowning
associated with entrapment in public swimming pools and spas.
The author states that although recent changes in federal law
require public pools and spas to have federally-approved
anti-entrapment drain covers, current state law requires only
that wading pools, new pools, or pools being renovated have
these covers. Existing state law is also inconsistent with
the federal requirements in terms of the device or system
designed to prevent entrapment, such as a safety vacuum
release system. In addition, the author states the new
federal standards will be enforced by local health
jurisdictions; however, enforcement is not consistent
throughout California, with some local health jurisdictions
stating that the federal standards cannot be enforced at the
local level until state law is amended. This bill adopts the
AB 1020
Page 5
new federal safety standards and allows local health officers
to enforce the requirements.
2)BACKGROUND . The CPSC studied circulation entrapment incidents
associated with pools, spas, hot tubs, and whirlpools that
were reported from 1999 through 2007. Of the 74 incidents, 37
occurred among children five to fourteen years old, inclusive,
and eight of the nine fatalities occurred in the same age
range. CPSC reports there are five types of circulation
entrapment: body, limb, evisceration/disembowelment, hair, and
mechanical (clothing, jewelry, or appendages are caught in an
outlet cover). It is worth noting that CPSC counts incidents
that were reported to CPSC, and probably do not capture all
entrapment incidents occurring in a given time period. CPSC
estimated that nationally from 2005 to 2007, an average of
2,700 children per year were treated in emergency departments
for pool submersions. About 39% of these injuries were
serious enough to require hospitalization. Data on
circulation entrapment incidents in California are not readily
available; the closest available data count drownings (fatal)
and hospitalized near-drownings (non-fatal). In California in
2006, according to the DPH EPICenter, 89 children age fourteen
and under drowned unintentionally; 78 of these were under ten
years old. More California children between one and four
years old die by drowning than by any other unintentional
injury. An additional 279 children age fourteen and under
were hospitalized for submersions or near-drownings; 257 of
those children were under ten. Although most submersion
incidents are not fatal, many result in lifelong disability.
The proportion of these submersions attributable to
circulation entrapments is unknown.
3)LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION . According to the California Apartment
Association (CAA), there is a "complete lack of consistency
across the state in determining what steps are necessary to
comply." CAA further writes there is no clear approval
process concerning the installation of new anti-entrapment
devices, and in many cases, pools are being closed. CAA
provides numerous examples of confusion and inconsistent
implementation at the local level, as well as long delays in
issuance of permits and some cities charging nearly $1,000 for
permit and inspection fees. A February 2009 article in the
Orange County Register (Register) also reports that pools and
spas across Orange County and the nation are being closed,
drained, and retrofitted in order to comply with the VGB Act,
AB 1020
Page 6
even though the required fixes may be simpler and cheaper.
According to the article, the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Health (LADPH) generated controversy because its
interpretation of the VGB Act was that all public pools must
have two drains. Several organizations expressed concern over
LADPH's interpretation of the Act, stating that pool operators
were being required to drain pools to implement a fix
(installing a new drain) that could cost up to $15,000 per
pool, when a $150 solution is available. According to the
Pool Safety Council, LADPH subsequently changed its
requirements and now permits divers to install drain covers
and anti-entrapment devices.
The Register article notes that Orange County does not interpret
the Act as requiring two drains, although that is an option.
The Register article also reports that apartment complexes and
homeowners associations have been closing pools on the advice
of lawyers, although Orange County is not ordering the
closures, as it has no enforcement power over the federal
rules. An April 2009 article in the San Jose Mercury News
(Mercury) reports local authorities have little enforcement
power. The Mercury article also raises the question of the
availability of drain covers to meet the demand caused by the
VGB Act, and reports that retrofits can cost from $500 to
$6,500, and most require draining pools or hiring scuba-diving
repair services to make the repairs without draining the
pools. The Pool Safety Council reports that it has
investigated the availability of anti-entrapment drain covers
and has found no shortage.
4)SUPPORT . DPH, the sponsor of this bill, writes that
California law must be amended because it is currently
inconsistent with the new federal requirements, and public
swimming pools in California are required to conform to the
federal standards. DPH writes this bill will provide for
statewide enforcement of the new standards by local health
jurisdictions. The California Association of Realtors writes
it supports this effort to make state law consistent with
federal law. The California Professional Firefighters, State
Council of the International Association of Fire fighters
writes in support of a prior version that this bill will
enhance the safety of the public. The Pool Safety Council
writes it supports this bill but also argues this bill should
just codify the VGB Act and not go beyond. The Spa and Pool
Education Council (SPEC) writes it urges support of this bill
AB 1020
Page 7
as amended, but also recommends this bill be further amended
so that a contractor certifies to the best of his or her
knowledge that the information on the compliance form is true.
SPEC also recommends a clarifying change on the compliance
form.
5)CONCERNS . CAA requests that this bill do the following: a)
Simply adopt language that is consistent with the VGB Act; b)
Prevent local governments from using the VGB Act to force
further technical specifications; c) Prohibit the addition of
new building code requirements and property tax reassessments
when enforcing this bill; and, d) Prohibit local governments
from using the VGB Act as a way of steeply increasing pool
inspection fees.
6)PREVIOUS LEGISLATION .
a) AB 2977 (Mullin), Chapter 478, Statutes of 2006,
requires new and remodeled pools and spas to provide at
least one safety feature from a list of eligible features,
adds mesh fences and swimming pool alarms to the list of
enumerated drowning prevention safety features, and
requires remodeled pools and spas to cover drains with an
anti-entrapment grate.
b) AB 2455 (Negrete McLeod) of 2002 would have required
remodeled pools to include the safety features required of
new pools, increasing the options for safety features and
requiring two rather than one feature. AB 2455 also would
have required at the sale of a home, the swimming pool be
brought into compliance with the pool safety requirements.
AB 2455 died on suspense in the Senate Committee on
Appropriations.
c) SB 873 (Vasconcellos), Chapter 913, Statutes of 1997,
requires public wading pools to have specified
characteristics to prevent entrapment and suction injuries,
and expands existing law to require all pre-1975 public
swimming pools, to be retrofitted with ground fault circuit
interrupters.
7)POLICY QUESTION . The VGB Act includes a State Swimming Pool
Safety Grant Program for states meeting specified eligibility
criteria to hire and train enforcement personnel to assist
with implementing the VGB Act, and to educate pool owners and
AB 1020
Page 8
operators and pool construction and installation companies
about standards and safety laws. According to a
representative of CPSC, the U.S. Congress appropriated $2
million for this grant program, to be available in fiscal year
2009-10. Should this bill also require DPH to apply for a
State Swimming Pool Safety Grant?
8)CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS .
a) Should this bill specify that public spas and wading
pools are included in the definition of a public swimming
pool?
b) The compliance form is required to include
identification of the type of "anti-entrapment device or
system" and the type of "device or system designed to
prevent physical entrapment" that were installed in a
public swimming pool. What is the distinction between
these terms? The author may wish to clarify. In addition,
the author may wish to specify that the compliance form
should indicate the conditions under which each type of
device or system is required.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Department of Public Health (sponsor)
California Association of Realtors
California Professional Firefighters, state council of the
International Association of Fire
Fighters
Pool Safety Council
Spa and Pool Education Council
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Allegra Kim / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097