Commission de sécurité des consommateurs

HAVING REGARD TO the Consumer Code, and specifically Articles L. 224-1, L. 224-4, R.. 224-4 and R.. 224-7 to R.. 224-12

HAVING REGARD TO Petition No. 06-048

 

On 31 August 2006 the safety problems presented by a swimming-pool cover of the brand Desjoyaux, manufactured by the Albiges company and marketed by the Jarrige company, whose registered office is in Nîmes, were referred by the National Consumers’ Institute (Institut National de la Consommation, INC) to the Consumer Safety Commission (Commission de la Sécurité des Consommateurs, CSC). The product had been installed by Jarrige in the swimming pool of Mr Q, of Junas (30 [Department of Gard]), at the end of September 2005. After heavy rainfall in October and November 2005, the four central poles supporting the cover membrane bent under the weight of the water, causing the cover membrane to sag. According to information given by the company to the pool owner, six or seven other customers had experienced the same issue with this cover, and for the same reasons. The petitioner considers that an adult or child could sustain involuntary immersion owing to the unreliability of the product: “If the support poles sag under the weight of a few kilos of rainwater, what would happen if an adult or a child were to walk over the cover while we were away? I have informed my insurance company. As far as I am concerned this cover does not meet the relevant safety standards and it endangers people’s lives.”

Representatives of Albiges went to the home of the petitioner on 8 November 2006. They did indeed find that the support poles of the cover were damaged, so that the cover had sagged in places, but not enough for there to be a gap sufficient for a child’s body to fall through accidentally into the pool. In the case of the 2005 incident, they stated that the water level in the pool was too low. As a result, the cover was weighed down by the accumulation of rainwater and not supported by the pool water, so that it was inevitably liable to sag under a load in excess of its maximum specified flexibility, which was 20 cm according to Albiges.

When interviewed by the Commission, the product manufacturer confirmed that incidents of this kind had occurred on a number of occasions, but rejected the claim that they might be due to an inherent defect in the product, which had been tested by the National Metrology and Testing Laboratory (Laboratoire national de métrologie et d’essais, LNE) on 25 October 2004. The manufacturer stated that it had been notified of 18 such incidents out of a total number of covers sold of 4 000. In 12 cases, the covers had apparently collapsed under the weight of snow, in two cases under the weight of rainwater, and in four cases they had been blown off by the wind.

These repeated failures warranted an in-depth investigation of their causes and a consideration of whether the relevant regulations and standards, as well as the product instructions, offered appropriate responses. That is the subject of this Recommendation.

 

The following persons were interviewed:

−      Mr T. and Mr M., representing the Desjoyaux company, and Mr C., representing the Albiges company, the manufacturer of the support-pole-type cover at issue;

−      Mr R., representing Annonay Production France, a manufacturer of swimming pool covers;

−      Mr O. B. and Mr P. B., representing the Hydra System company, a manufacturer of swimming pool covers, assisted by Mrs P., General Secretary of the Swimming Pool Trade Association (Fédération des professionnels de la piscine, FPP);

−      Mrs W., representing the Waterair company;

−      Mrs C., Chair of the Standards Commission on Swimming Pool Covers within AFNOR (the French Association for Standardization), assisted by Mr H., an engineer from the National Metrology and Testing Laboratory (LNE).

Mrs S. F., representing the Swiss company Bieri-Rollschutz, a manufacturer of swimming-pool covers, and Mrs G., representing the Montagny Piscines company, a distributor of swimming-pool safety products, were also consulted.

The Commission in addition requested the Health Monitoring Institute (Institut de Veille Sanitaire, InVS) to supply it with statistics on accidents involving the use of these products.

III.             REGULATIONS

Like any other product, swimming-pool safety covers are subject to the general safety requirements laid down in Article L. 221-1 of the Consumer Code; however, specific regulations are also applicable to them.

Under Law No. 2003-9 of 3 January 2003 on Swimming Pool Safety, outdoor in-ground or semi-in-ground private swimming pools for individual or group use, whether existing or newly built, must with effect from 1 January 2006 be equipped with a safety system for protection from the risk of drowning or near-drowning; infringement is an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding €45 000. The Law thus does not apply to swimming pools situated in buildings, above-ground swimming pools and swimming establishments open to the public and subject to lifeguard supervision requirements (public swimming pools). Both the Law and Implementing Decree No. 2003-1389 of 31 December 2003 provide that only standardized safety facilities are permissible.[1] Four standards have hitherto been approved: safety barriers (Standard NF P90-306), covers (Standard NF P90-308), shelters (Standard NF P90-309) and alarms (Standard NF P90-307).

Decree No. 2004-499 of 7 June 2004 constitutes an important supplement to the Law, providing as it does that the four safety products may henceforth satisfy certain safety requirements and no longer only the standards mentioned above. It stipulates that covers “must be manufactured, constructed or installed in such a way as to prevent the involuntary immersion of children under the age of five years, to withstand the weight of an adult passing over them, and not to cause injury [...]”.

Prevention of the involuntary immersion of children means that the cover must be so designed as to withstand the weight of children falling on to it accidentally.  In addition, it must withstand adverse weather conditions (wind, rain or snow), so that the product affords protection at all times. Now a child can fall victim to a drowning/near-drowning accident:

−      in a swimming pool whose cover (a) sags down under the weight of a quantity of water or snow, or (b) cannot eliminate these substances because the pool water level rises above the cover or fails to reach the level of the cover, thus allowing the formation on its surface of pockets of water into which a child can fall and in which he or she can drown;

−      in a swimming pool that wholly or partially lacks a cover, the cover having been torn away or blown off by the wind.

Did the above risks give rise to the accidents recorded?

The “Noyades 2006” [« Incidents of Drowning/Near-Drowning 2006 »] survey conducted by the Health Monitoring Institute (InVS) and the Directorate for Civil Defence and Security (Direction de la défense et de la sécurité civiles) provides some answers. The survey identified 166 cases of accidental drowning/near-drowning in private swimming pools[2] in 2006 (119 in private family swimming pools, 70 of which were in-ground) and 47 in private swimming pools for group use,[3] including 35 in-ground pools). Some 38 children aged under six years were drowned in private in-ground family swimming pools. Twelve of these incidents were fatal. Sixteen of these 38 incidents occurred other than in connection with bathing,[4] and eight of them were fatal.

The survey describes the characteristics of the safety facilities used in the pools where the drowning/near-drowning incidents occurred:

·         Eight of the drowning/near-drowning incidents were fatal:

−      Two occurred while the safety facilities were activated, but did not conform to the regulations (a defective barrier in one case, and an unsupported cover membrane and an alarm in the other). Both incidents were due to falls.

−      The other six fatalities occurred where there was no safety facility or the facility was not operational, and were due to falls.

·         Eight of the drowning/near-drowning incidents were not fatal:

−      Three took place although there was an activated safety facility conforming to the regulations (a barrier, an alarm or a cover).

The InVS confirmed to the CSC that the accident that occurred in the pool with a safety cover “concerned an 18-month-old boy who was nearly drowned after accidentally falling shortly after 22:00 hrs into a private in-ground swimming pool that had a cover. This facility was declared compliant with the regulations in the survey of drowning/near-drowning incidents. The child was taken to hospital and discharged two days after his accident, alive and with no lasting ill-effects”.

In its Recommendation of 15 June 2006 on the safety of immersion detection alarms, the CSC drew attention to the contradiction between the statutory obligation to install a standardized facility and the permissibility of retaining or installing a safety facility in conformity with safety requirements, as introduced by the Decree of 7 June 2004.

The Commission therefore recommended restoring the consistency of the Law of 3 January 2003 with its Implementing Decree of 7 June 2004 by stipulating that, for swimming-pool owners and the professionals to whom they have recourse, conformity of the protective facilities with the existing standards should constitute the only proof of compliance with the regulatory requirements. The Commission also suggested that, to cover past situations, any system installed by swimming-pool owners in good faith which did not conform to the relevant standards but complied with the safety requirements laid down in the Decree of 7 June 2004 should be deemed compliant with the regulations.

Lastly, as provided by the Decree of 7 June 2004, the CSC called for publication of the list of standards to be applied in pursuance of the Law, provided that these guaranteed the observance of appropriate and relevant safety requirements.

As at the date of compilation of this report, this essential adaptation to ensure consistency between texts is still outstanding. In a written question to the Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Tourism and the Sea on the difficulties experienced in applying the Law on the Safety of Swimming Pools, a Senator asked the Government whether it intended to amend the above decree, “in order, first, to take account of the reality of the technical reference basis represented by the standards and, second, to take the action necessary to ensure that only protection systems compliant with the standards are permitted”.[5]

Hence the Commission can only emphatically repeat this recommendation.

Newly built swimming pools should be distinguished from existing ones.

1.                        Newly built swimming pools

It has been compulsory since 1 January 2004 for newly built private swimming pools to have a safety facility.

Decree No. 2003-1389 of 31 December 2003 provides that the manufacturer or installer must, not later than on the date of acceptance by the owner of a swimming pool under construction, supply him or her with technical documentation:

−      specifying the characteristics, operating and maintenance conditions of one of the four safety facilities adopted;

−      containing information on the risk of drowning, on the general preventive measures to be applied and on the recommendations applicable to the use of the safety facility adopted.

It is the responsibility of the purchaser to check that a product does indeed comply with the standards. Copies of standards (which are charged for) are available from AFNOR (the French Association for Standardization). It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to guarantee that its facility conforms to one of the standards if such a claim is made. The General Directorate for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes, DGCCRF) monitors compliance of products with standards, where appropriate commissioning product conformity assessment from external laboratories.

2.                        Swimming pools installed before 1 January 2004

All existing swimming pools have had to be equipped with a safety facility since 1 January 2006.[6] In the case of a safety facility installed before 8 June 2004, pool owners may seek certification of the compliance of their installation with the safety requirements laid down in the Decree of 7 June 2004 from a manufacturer, vendor or installer, or alternatively from a State-approved technical inspector. Owners may themselves certify compliance on their own responsibility by means of a document accompanied by the relevant technical evidence.

A cover membrane by itself cannot be deemed to constitute a protective facility conforming to the safety requirements. For example, the Vesoul Court of First Instance (tribunal de grande instance) ruled in its judgement of 12 December 2006 that those responsible for the death of F. C. on 13 September 2002 were the owners of an unprotected swimming pool covered by a bubble cover, “which not only offered no protection against falling into the pool, but also concealed the little girl’s body for several tens of minutes even though several people passed by close to the pool”. The Court of First Instance recognized that the swimming pool and its cover membrane were the instruments of the harm done, and stressed “that it is immaterial that, on the date of the accident, there were no requirements stipulating the installation of particular types of protection for private swimming pools”.

IV.              DESCRIPTION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF SAFETY COVERS

There are at present some 800 000 in-ground swimming pools in France. Over 620 000 safety facilities have been installed since 2004, so that the proportion of swimming pools so equipped had risen to 70% by the end of 2006. According to a market survey commissioned by the Swimming Pool Trade Association (Fédération des professionnels de la piscine, FPP) from a market research company in 2006, which covered 318 households with safety systems, immersion detection alarms are the most popular products, with 45% of households claiming to have them. Next come safety covers (35.3%), which break down into support-pole-type covers (16%), rolling-shutter-type and automatic covers (13.6%), and mesh covers (5.7%).

Together with shelters, swimming-pool covers are the only safety facilities that perform other functions in addition to preventing drowning. They help to prevent the water from being polluted by foreign bodies of plant or animal origin, while at the same time limiting night-time heat loss. However, according to the General Directorate for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes, DGCCRF),[7] they have the disadvantage of increasing chlorine concentration and of damaging swimming-pool liners.[8]

Again, F. Hanus points out in his report on the application of the Law that “some safety covers are difficult to close, so that swimming pool users do not replace them in position when they leave the pool”. To avoid this disadvantage, some owners use additional safety products such as immersion alarms or child wrist-strap or necklace-type alarms.

There are three main types of cover that comply with the requirements of the swimming-pool safety regulations: shutter-type covers, mesh covers and support‑pole-type covers.[9] It is not always easy for consumers looking at advertisements for swimming-pool products to distinguish between these and bubble covers designed for conserving heat and limiting water evaporation or solid or mesh winter covers. Bubble covers are not designed to support a bather’s weight. Their taut appearance is deceptive, belying their quicksand-like properties: they sink down under the weight of a falling body and even impede movement.

1.                        Shutter-type pool covers

Unlike support-pole-type covers, shutter-type covers are in direct contact with the water. They comprise polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or polycarbonate slats, either hollow or with a honeycomb structure, filled with air or polyurethane foam. The slats are lightly jointed and roll up on a shaft at one end of the pool either at the pool border or below the pool lip. The roll-up mechanism may be manual or motor‑assisted. These products are much more expensive than support-pole-type covers. For example, a rolling-shutter system for a 10 m x 5 m swimming pool costs about €6 000, whereas the price of a support-pole-type cover for the identical pool would be approximately €2 500. Some sophisticated products have recently appeared on the market, such as translucent-slat units or ones with hollow slats having convex, transparent top surfaces, which allow the sun to heat the water by means of the greenhouse effect. However, these products have some potential drawbacks that may offset the thermal comfort advantage:

−      in intense sunlight the slats can reach very high temperatures (over 70º C) that could burn users;

−      the combination of extreme heat and lack of aeration can facilitate the proliferation of bacteria.

Shutter-type covers are less vulnerable to bad weather than support-pole types:

−      they are unaffected by wind as the slats are in direct contact with the water;

−      they cannot allow rainwater to accumulate and thereby give rise to substantial sagging or the formation of pockets of water, as the joints between the slats are not watertight;

−      snow deposits will melt, being heated by the contact between the cover and the water.

However, no attempt should be made to roll up the shutter in frosty conditions, as ice may cause the mechanism to jam and be damaged.

2.                        Permeable woven or mesh covers

These covers are made of close- or fine-mesh polyethylene threads and benefit from lighter weight and lower cost than support-pole types. However, they cannot be rolled up, and it takes about 10 minutes to open them and 20 minutes to close them. Being permeable, they allow the passage of both light and dust, which may encourage algal blooms, but they also permit rainwater to filter through, thus eliminating the sagging risk but calling for some means of preventing the pool from overflowing. Since the mesh is then below or close to the water surface, there is a real risk that a child falling into the pool could accidentally drown.

3.                        Support-pole-type covers

These covers generally consist of an opaque PVC membrane reinforced with polyester fabric. Some manufacturers describe them as UV-resistant and, where applicable, as “solar” for intercepting the sun’s heat. Others are also claimed to have anticryptogamic or antimicrobial properties and not to contain heavy metals such as cadmium, high doses of which could either poison a bather, and in particular a child, simply by contact, or contaminate the swimming-pool water. The trade representatives interviewed assured the CSC that, like pool liners, covers did not contain heavy metals. Aluminium support poles, which may or not be visible on the surface, are distributed at regular intervals throughout the length of the cover. To ensure that the cover is stable and that one of its edges does not fall into the water, a minimum overlap of 20 cm is usually allowed over the entire edge of the pool. The assembly is tensioned by ratchet-equipped straps attached to the ground by retractable eyes.

The trade representatives interviewed consider that installation of a support‑pole-type cover by an inexperienced private owner is not over-complex. However, as a rule two persons are needed, and it is clear from some installation instructions that fitting is a delicate operation that must be performed with care. To help consumers perform this work, some instruction books specify typical installation times and evaluate the difficulty of the relevant operations in appropriate form. Fitting a cover is not difficult in the case of a rectangular pool (the length is usually twice the width),[10] 80% of the pools in France being rectangular. Much more difficulty is presented by irregularly shaped pools. In this case, the exact dimensions must be measured so that a custom cover can be made, and it must be professionally installed.

Manufacturers offer roll-up and unroll systems with a greater or lesser degree of automation, the actuation of which, with a large pool, may call for one or two persons. Depending on the system, these operations may take up to three minutes. As a rule, rolling up, which takes longer than unrolling, is performed with a geared‑down handle or a handle with motor assistance. The cover is unrolled by a draw strap. These systems are usually located close to the pool, to allow the operator to check that no one is in the pool before and during opening and closing.

Support-pole-type covers may be particularly susceptible to bad weather (heavy rain, snow or wind).

Safety covers generally have small openings on either side of the support poles for rainwater drainage. Instruction books recommend taking care to ensure that these openings are not blocked. However, the openings can soon prove ineffective, especially if they are badly positioned. Two undesirable situations are then likely to arise:

−      a pocket of water, which quickly becomes dirty, may form on the cover and weigh it down until it rests on the pool water surface, which effectively supports it. The owner must then get rid of the water pocket by siphoning or with a pump;

−      The water pocket that forms in this way may remain unsupported by the pool water if the water surface is too low. The cover’s aluminium poles bend, causing the cover to be damaged or to sag down so that it is partly submerged.

In view of the resulting potential overloads, suppliers and installers have taken the following action:

−      suggesting that customers use additional support devices, some of which are expensive, such as supplementary beams (about €1 500), wind/snow straps or stretchers (€150), or even inflatable cushions or domes to be positioned under the cover;

−      including a note in instruction books that it is essential for the pool water to be kept at the normal user level (2/3 of the skimmer level[11]) so as to relieve the load on the cover and reduce pole flexure in the event of an overload, in both summer and winter.[12] After all, the pool water surface is a kind of long stop to prevent overload-induced sag. But the cover will not necessarily be properly supported even if this recommendation is followed, if the skimmer position is lower down than the limit of the cover’s flexure. For this reason, consumers should be informed before purchase of the cover’s maximum flexure amplitude under load.

Like rainwater pocket formation, snow load too can distort the cover’s support poles. The usual advice is to use reinforcing beams or to remove snow from the cover immediately, but this will not be possible in the case of pools at second homes where the owner is not present throughout the year. Guarantee claims resulting from snow overload will generally not be entertained. It is unusual for instruction books to specify a tolerable overload limit. For instance, the instructions for the Albiges and Bieri cover brands mention “snow overload” among the situations not covered by the guarantee, but do not provide detailed information. The instructions for the Annonay cover are more precise, specifying as they do that the cover can withstand a snow depth of 20 cm (given a density of 100 kg/m³ in a 10 m x 5 m pool, this is equivalent to a mass of about 1 tonne).

In a high wind, the securing devices will fail first. The cover then blows away or is partly torn off. Like snow overload, damage due to high winds is excluded from guarantees. However, this exclusion is not always expressed in precise terms. Most instruction books simply mention “high winds”. Annonay’s instructions are more explicit, specifying that their covers will not withstand wind speeds in excess of 90 km/h. Some covers have reinforced hold-down devices. The strap then fits into a sewn flap which allows the cover to fit snugly against the shape of the pool without offering any purchase to the wind; alternatively, there may be a customer option for lateral wind protection (e.g. Bieri’s “Cordikits”).

V.                 RELEVANT STANDARDS

Standard NF P 90-308 on safety covers and securing devices was published in May 2004 and has been amended three times:

−      amendment A1 of June 2005, laying down additional requirements for tensile testing;

−      amendment A2 of October 2005: This specifies that the failure of one mesh[13] of a mesh cover must not cause the entire structure to “unravel”. For submerged automatic or manual shutter-type covers in above-ground or in-ground pools, the maximum space between the closed cover and its cladding or structure must be such as to preclude the risk of a child being trapped in the resulting gap;

−      amendment A3 of December 2005, specifying the characteristics of the plastics of which covers are made.

A consolidated version of the standard was published in December 2006. A further amendment is currently in preparation, laying down the specifications applicable to the treatments to be undergone by the translucent slats mentioned earlier to protect them from the effects of ultra-violet radiation.

Another document that is now being drawn up is a good-practice guide, along the lines of the standards interpretation booklets, whose aim is to clarify certain provisions of the four standards on safety devices with a view to preventing any divergent interpretations. The trade body, the Swimming Pool Trade Association (Fédération des professionnels de la piscine, FPP), was actively involved in the drafting of this document, which, according to the information supplied to the CSC at the interviews, is not yet finished. One section will deal with system compatibility – in particular, between immersion detection alarms and other swimming-pool equipment (e.g. bubble covers).

In addition, the “NF-Equipements de piscines” [“French Standard – Swimming Pool Equipment”] mark, under the supervision of the National Metrology and Testing Laboratory (LNE) as the certifying body, certifies that the equipment complies with the regulations and standards in force and originates from a manufacturing system subject to quality control. A specification for support‑pole‑type covers does not yet exist, although there are specifications for automatic or manual shutter-type systems. Just one manufacturer, Hydra System, is entitled to use the NF mark for products of this kind.

The standard applies to various types of cover and their securing systems: support-pole-type covers, mesh covers, automatic and manual rolling-shutter-type covers and swimming-pool rising decks, but not floating cover membranes.

A support-pole-type safety cover must always extend over the entire surface of the pool even if the pool’s shape is irregular, and must overlap the edges by not less than 20 cm. Hence stairs or spa tubs associated with a pool may under no circumstances be excluded.

Safety covers must be designed mainly so that after correct installation they will prevent the involuntary immersion of children under the age of five years, withstand the passage of an adult coming to a child’s aid, resist impacts and not cause injury.

To achieve these aims, the standard lays down test methods for confirming the following:

−      by the “small body” test, that it is impossible for a child to penetrate and be trapped underneath the cover (by attempting to insert a gauge under the cover to simulate the passage of a child);

−      by the “passage” test, that an adult can walk on the cover without causing it to tear or sag (the cover must withstand the passage of an adult weighing 100 kg five times in the lengthwise direction and five times in the transverse direction);

−      by the “large soft body test”, that the cover can withstand the impact of falling bodies or objects (by dropping a 50 kg sphero-conical bag filled with glass balls from a height of 0.50 m);

−      by the tests specified in Standard NF EN 71-1 on toy safety, that the cover does not give rise to cuts, pricks, shearing, immobilization, suffocation or strangulation. To ensure that a child cannot swallow any detachable part of the cover that could asphyxiate him or her, it must not be possible to insert such a part (e.g. a strap or stretcher), after torsion, tensile or compression testing, into a test cylinder of 31.7 mm diameter, which corresponds to the size of the back of a child’s throat.

Lastly, the section on consumer instructions specifies the information to be supplied on purchase and the contents of four sets of instructions (installation instructions, instructions for use, servicing instructions and maintenance instructions), as well as safety advice. For instance, consumers must be informed at the time of purchase “of the (minimum and maximum) water levels required for the product [...], the minimum water levels required for the wintering period, [...][14] , the nature and length of the manufacturer’s guarantee, [...] and the limits of the product’s application”.

The product design requirements laid down in the standard do not take sufficient account of the risks presented by damage to covers due to the action of atmospheric phenomena such as rain, wind and snow.

Section 5.8.1 of the standard states that a “cover must have a means of draining off rainwater (a pump, drainage grating or other means)”, but does not specify any methods of testing its effectiveness.

Again, no requirement is specified to ensure that a cover can satisfactorily withstand the effects of wind or snow, whereas such a condition is imposed for similar products like lightweight swimming-pool shelter structures: Standard NF P 90-309 on swimming-pool shelters provides that “these structures must as a minimum withstand a wind of 100 km/h and a snow load of 450 Pa (45 daN/m²)”.

Furthermore, the standard does not specify any requirement or test method for determining and where applicable reducing to an appropriate threshold level the presence of any heavy metals (cadmium, lead, antimony, etc.) included in the components of a cover and/or resulting from any treatments they have undergone.

Whereas the CSC’s investigation showed that the safety afforded by support‑pole‑type covers in preventing the drowning or near-drowning of young children could be impaired by:

−      poor rainwater drainage;

−      snow overload;

−      high winds;

−      the swimming-pool water level relative to the height of the cover;

Whereas the effectiveness of support-pole-type covers, unlike that of other safety facilities, is in the present state of the art strongly dependent on the conditions of use of the swimming pool by its owner (the pool owner should constantly monitor its water level and exercise particular vigilance in the case of snowfall, heavy rain or high winds);

Whereas Standard NF P 90-308 on safety covers and their securing devices fails to take the following points sufficiently into account:

−      measurement of the effectiveness of means of rainwater drainage;

−      measurement of the maximum supporting capacity of the cover under rainwater or snow load;

−      wind resistance;

Whereas the CSC can only repeat the recommendations set out in its Recommendation on Immersion Detection Alarms of 15 June 2006, to the effect that the standards should constitute the only applicable reference basis and that in this respect the Decree of 7 June 2004 implementing the Swimming Pool Safety Law presents a serious legal problem;

Whereas a contradiction exists between the statutory obligation to install a standardized facility and the provision of the Decree of 7 June 2004 that permits the retention or installation of a safety facility that complies with general safety requirements but not necessarily with the standards;

Having conducted a hearing at which Mr L., Mrs B. and Mr L. G., representing the Swimming Pool Trade Association (Fédération des professionnels de la piscine, FPP) were interviewed;

1.                        The authorities in charge of standardization

 .      should as soon as possible add new provisions to Standard NF P 90-308, in particular with regard to the following points:

−      specification of requirements for evaluating the effectiveness of means of rainwater drainage as described in Section 5.8.1., and specification of a test method for verifying compliance with these requirements;

−      specification of requirements to be satisfied by covers in terms of wind and snow resistance, including the specification of a wind resistance threshold and of the maximum rainwater and snow loads that a cover can withstand without deformation of its components after elimination of these loads. A document containing calculations or test results confirming compliance with these requirements must be available;

−      explicit specification in the instructions for use of the minimum and maximum water levels required for correct installation of the cover;

−      ensuring that covers and the various treatments which they undergo do not include substances (heavy metals) likely to harm human health;

·         should as soon as possible publish a good-practice guide drawing attention to cases of incompatibility between safety facilities and certain swimming pool equipment.

·         pending the results of the standardization process, should clearly inform consumers, at the time of purchase and in the various sets of instructions supplied with the product, of the minimum or maximum water levels required to avoid damage to the cover under load. Recommendations of the type “at skimmer level or at 2/3 of skimmer level” do not allow consumers to choose appropriately, given the variation in skimmer heights between different pools. It is essential to inform users of the minimum and maximum space (in cm) required between the water surface level and the cover.

3.                        Government

·       should provide for consistency between the Law of 3 January 2003 and its Implementing Decree of 7 June 2004, so that conformity of protective devices to the requirements of the existing standards is the only permissible basis, for both swimming-pool owners and the professionals to whom they have recourse, for verifying compliance with the regulations in force;

·         should publish a list of the standards that must be used in pursuance of the Law, given that these guarantee compliance with appropriate and relevant safety requirements.

4.                        Consumers

The CSC will inform consumers of the points to which they should preferably devote special care when using safety covers – in particular that they should:

−      always apply the cover when away from home even if only briefly;

−      observe the water levels specified by the professionals for the type of cover in use (support-pole or mesh-type cover);

−      be fully prepared for high winds, heavy rain or snowfall;

−      remember that, regardless of the safety system used with their pool, children must be supervised at all times when in the vicinity of the pool.

---