In one sentence, regulators, health officials, and legislators removed the only option available to pool builders and owners that completely removes the hazard. Furthermore, service technicians rarely use the "drain" to drain a pool, it is far more efficient to use a submersible pump. Often cited in this sort of move is the fact that pools, especially wading pools, must be frequently drained because of fecal contamination from young bathers. The tragic truth is these health official's request for "convenience" result in putting a child at risk. A studied reader might think the act addresses these "entrapment" issues by installation of safety covers meeting ASME A112.19.8 (2007) standard.
The answer is yes, and no. There are many ways to protect a main drain (or suction outlet as referred to in building codes), but this all requires careful installation and maintenance. Abigail's death was due to a maintenance oversight: the cover was not securely fastened in place. The new act also calls for daily inspections - a very good step for the state. What it fails to do is recognize the real underlying cause of all the deaths and injuries reported to the US Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) - human error.
Every reported case of entrapment involved some type of human error - we all make mistakes from time to time and some more than others. The Federal Virginia Swimming Pool and Spa Safety Act contemplated this issue and in both sections 1404 and 1406 allow for pools to be built with no main drain and existing drains to be disabled. If it is an option in the Federal law, why would state officials remove the only option that is mistake proof and not subject to Human error? No drain = no hazard. It really is just that simple.
In fact, the recent US CPSC staff interpretation of section 1404 concluded:
Additional consideration can be given to physically removing the submerged suction outlet (drain) by filling the sump with concrete (effectively removing the suction outlet from the bottom of the pool) as long as another source(s) of water for the suction side of the pump is(are) available, such as skimmers, re-plumbing the suction outlet into a return inlet (permanently reversing flow), or permanently disabling the suction outlet plumbing at the pump (removing the suction outlet connection to the pump) to remove the suction entrapment potential at the submerged outlet (drain).
This supports and follows ANSI standards for residential and public swimming pools, ANSI standards on Suction Entrapment Avoidance, US CPSC Guidelines for Entrapment Hazards. Each of these allow pools to be built without drains to avoid any chance of suction entrapment. In your backyard, the easiest and most cost effective way to deal with suction entrapment issues is to simply re-pipe the drain into a return. Studies have shown that your pool will circulate much better. This improved circulation can positively impact your heating efficiency as well. You will have reduced requirement for pool vacuuming, because most debris will be trapped in the skimmer before it sinks to the bottom.
Not only that, but one of the early efforts to get swimming pool drains eliminated from state code in Florida came from Mark and Maria Slaby in 2003 (they grew up in Minnesota!). What an unfortunate twist this did not happen in Minnesota and Abigail could still be with us today.
It is unclear why the state chose to refuse all of these compelling reasons and Federal law to eliminate the requirement for a drain. Perhaps they are being lobbied by the manufacturers of safety devices to help bolster sales. Require a drain and then require "my safety device" seems like an unscrupulous business plan and if one understands enough about engineering to build a safety device, surely they understand that the hazard (drain) may be completely eliminated.
On the other hand, old habits are hard to break and unfortunately many of these code officials were taught that drains had an impact on circulation. This confusion of cause and effect is widespread. In fact, drains don't impact circulation significantly as been shown in many tests. The real concern in all of this is not whether new, safer covers exist or are mandated in place, but rather, how does one securely attach these new covers to old, worn out, or stripped outlet sumps in the field. It is not the cover that is hurting anyone, it is the lack of a cover (limb, torso, disembowelment) or high flow rates (hair entanglement) that has caused the issue. Both of these are a result Human error and the bet no legislation can eliminate mistakes.
As for Minnesota, I expect that eventually this issue will be addressed by Abigail's family. Recently on the Today show, they were discussing the ideas behind drain reversal associated with Abigail's death. I hope the Governor and state officials understand the srious unintended consequences of this legislation. Let's also hope that code writers and health officials are open minded enough to realize they have made a mistake, and quickly resolve it. It should not take another injury or loss of life to get people motivated to protect our children.
