Français

English version

Recommendation search

Menu

Home page > English version > Recommendation search > RECOMMENDATION WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE SAFETY OF IMMERSION DETECTION ALARMS 06/08
Send to a friend  Print

RECOMMENDATION WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE SAFETY OF IMMERSION DETECTION ALARMS 06/08

 
 
THE CONSUMER SAFETY COMMISSION,
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 referrals no. 06-069, 07-030, 07-036, 07-057, 07-062, 07-072 and 08-032

I. REFERRALS AND THE CSC'S PROPRIO MOTU PROCEDURE

An immersion detection alarm is an electronic, battery-powered device that it attached to the edge of a swimming pool. It is fitted with sensors that detect disturbances caused by a body entering the pool. This type of system is not the same as a perimeter alarm, which detects a person crossing a protective boundary.
In compliance with the Act of 3 January 2003 on pool safety[1], such alarms are one of four safety measures – along with barriers, covers and shelters – one of which must be installed on private, outdoor pools for individual or collective use[2]. Pool owners resort to alarms most often because of their low cost and the fact that they are discrete and easy to install. Nevertheless, the very principle of such a device should give rise to serious reservations, because an immersion alarm does not prevent accidents, but is designed to sound an alarm when an accident has already taken place. In addition, the alarm is easily deactivated when the pool is in use or in the case of a prolonged absence – a time when the owner (wrongly) thinks that a protection device is not useful. One could well imagine that this same owner would not leave a gate, shelter or safety cover open. To what extent may a pool owner be held liable in the case of voluntary deactivation of a pool alarm installed at an unoccupied residence? This is the written question submitted by MP Hervé Mariton to the Ministry of the Interior, Overseas France and Territorial Communities. The MP "wonders about the possible liability of an individual who has chosen to install an alarm that would be deactivated, for example, in the case of a prolonged absence, should a person break into the premises." In such a context, he […] asks "if the owner may be held liable should the person be the victim of a drowning accident[3]."
On 15 June 2006, in the wake of several fatal accidents involving young children that occurred in 2005 and 2006 in private pools fitted with immersion detection alarms, the Commission issued a recommendation concerning these devices.
The Commission observed that, by dint of their very operating principle, immersion alarms may be rendered inactive for variable lengths of time, depending on weather conditions (rain or wind) and disturbances caused by earlier bathing. Additionally, the sound and light signals for informing users and allowing them to ensure that the device is in good working order were not sufficiently clear and understandable by users. A child under the age of five can drown in fewer than three minutes, and may suffer serious after-effects if first aid measures are not applied within fifteen to twenty minutes.
After having a laboratory test one model, the Commission observed that it did not meet the entire set of specifications in Standard NF P 90-307-1, which, since the Decree of 7 June 2004, is a benchmark for ensuring that products available on the market comply with regulatory requirements. In addition, the CSC thought that there were gaps in the standard concerning safety and test methods with respect to the following points:
−       Length of time before automatic reactivation of the system following temporary deactivation
−       Understanding of sound and light signals
−       Presence of an emergency power source
−       Compatibility with other pool equipment
−       Definition of test pool characteristics
The Commission also urged the public authorities to make the private pool protection law[4] coherent with its implementing decree[5] so that, in the future, only standards-compliant products shall be considered to respect regulatory requirements.
During the revision work on the standard, the members of the Standardisation Commission discussed whether or not to retain the test detecting the immersion of a six-kilo dummy. Only the test detecting the immersion of an eight-kilo weight was retained. The CSC was informed of this discussion, and expressed concern about a resulting drop in alarm sensitivity.
The CSC referred the matter to the chair of the Standardisation Commission, requesting that the six-kilo test be retained, because it meets the objectives, set by the regulations, of keeping children under five from drowning, while taking into account the technical limitations of alarms that can only detect immersions over a certain weight.
These regulatory and standardisation uncertainties led the Commission to initiate a referral procedure proprio motu during the plenary session of 14 December 2006 (referral no. 06-069).
Since this procedure was launched, six referrals (nos. 07‑030, 07‑036, 07‑057, 07‑062, 07‑072 and 08‑032), all concerned with malfunctioning immersion detection alarms, were registered by the CSC.

II. THE MARKET

There are an estimated 843,000 inground pools in France. As the Fédération des professionnels de la piscine (FPP, a trade association of pool professionals) counts only pools longer than 7.5 metres, this figure is an underestimation of the total. Some 50,000 new inground pools are built each year.
Five years after the Act of 3 January 2003 concerning pool safety, the FPP estimates that 89% of inground pools have been fitted with safety devices. This figure should be viewed critically, since it is based on declarations by pool owners who – given that installation of the equipment is mandatory – have every reason to state that their pools have been fitted. Professionals queried all agree that no more than 50 to 60% of French pools have been equipped with standardised safety equipment.
According to the FPP, of pools that are fitted with one or more safety systems:
−       54.2% have immersion detection alarms (50,000 sold in 2007)
−       33% have covers (22,000 sold in 2007)
−       28% have barriers (13,000 sold in 2007)
−       8% have shelters (8,000 sold in 2007)
Some 320,000 alarms sold by MGI, the market leader, have been installed in inground pools.
The market for safety devices collapsed in 2007 (a drop of about 85%).
According to MGI, this drop was mainly due to the fact that there were no compliance checks and that – still according to MGI – the law had lost all credibility because the fine (€45,000) had been set too high, whereas a more limited fine (€3,000) would have been more understandable and thus more dissuasive.
MGI estimates that only a third of new pools are fitted with safety devices. Are new pool owners sufficiently urged to respect their obligations? If we examine the conditions under which regulations are applied, the answer appears to be no. Indeed, Article L. 128-1 of the French Building and Housing Code stipulates that builders or installers of new pools must supply the project owner with a technical notice indicating the standardised safety device that was selected. According to Article R. 182-2 of the same Code, this technical notice – which must be given to the interested parties by the date of the pool's reception at the latest – must list the characteristics, operating conditions and maintenance of the safety device. In practice, the situation is far from certain for certain buyers who, at the time of delivery of their pools, tell the professionals involved either that they have not yet chosen what type of safety device to use, or that they themselves will be responsible for installing it. In such cases, some professionals supply their undecided customers with a technical notice indicating the various types of safety devices on the market, and get pool owners to sign this notice in order to prove that they have been informed of their legal obligations. With professionals thus relieved of responsibility, some pools may be delivered to their owners filled with water, but without a legally-required safety device having been installed or even chosen.


III.  APPLICATION OF THE LAW – RESULTS

Every year since 2001 – i.e. prior to the pool safety law – the French Institute for Public Health Surveillance (InVS) and the Directorate for Civil Security and Defence have carried out the so-called "Drowning Accidents" survey. The survey consists of taking stock, between 1 June and 30 September, of the number and characteristics of drowning accidents that occur in private pools, at sea, and in lakes and rivers, and to measure any changes. These surveys have heavily mobilised the emergency services and the InVS's department of everyday accidents. A lack of resources made it impossible to conduct this survey in 2007. The most recent accidentology data available thus comes from the 2006 summer Drowning Accidents survey.
Annual statistical observation of drowning accidents is essential for responding to a requirement of the Act if 3 January 2003 on pool safety, which stipulates in Article 3 that, "Prior to 1 January 2007, the government must file a report with the Bureau of Parliamentary Assemblies on the safety of unfenced inground pools for individual or collective use. This report shall detail accidentology trends and draw up a status report on the implementation of the measures contained in Article 1."
This report was only sent to the Parliamentary Assemblies in the first half of 2008. It is based on the InVS's epidemiological data from 2006, which published a complementary study to its "Drowning Accidents" survey, entitled "Have safety devices helped to limit drowning accidents in inground private family pools?"
The Institute states that between 1 June and 30 September 2006, 119 drowning accidents occurred in private family pools.
Children under the age of six were the main victims (38 accidents, including 12 deaths). Of these 38 accidents, 16 of them, including 8 deaths, occurred outside the context of swimming activities. In private collective pools, 47 drowning accidents were recorded, 20 of which involved children under the age of six (8 deaths). Three of these deaths occurred even though a standardised safety device had been installed.
The InVS concluded that "the juxtaposition of these results argues in favour of a certain efficiency of safety devices. We may assume that the devices in place contributed to saving the life of certain children. We may also assume that, for other children, the lack of a safety device represented the lack of a "final barrier" against drowning accidents."
Nevertheless, the Commission regrets that the conclusions of the survey are based on assumptions – the InVS has taken care to point out that it could not be otherwise, and states the reasons for this: "These conclusions should be read with reservations. They are based on a small and incomplete dataset – in several cases, we did not have information on the existence or activation of a safety device, and therefore were unable to say anything about any protection that they may provide. In addition, these data are reported directly by emergency personnel who may have, based on the seriousness of the situation, been influenced in their answers (particularly on the concept of the compliance of security devices). […] Of the 117 inground pools in which a drowning accident took place, less than half (57) were equipped with a declared safety device. The law, which came into effect on 1 January 2006, is thus far from being respected in terms of this subset of pools. […] Regrettably, the survey does not allow us to rank the effectiveness of the various devices."
Under these conditions, it is difficult to give a sufficiently accurate report on compliance with the law:
−       given the inability to determine the rate of drowning accidents in private pools between 2001 and 2006 in children under the age of six. The only elements compared were absolute figures: the absolute number of drowning deaths compared with the absolute number of private pools (see Figure 15 of the "Drowning Accidents 2006" survey)
−       given the inability to determine a coefficient of the drowning risk prevention efficiency for each type of safety device.
The report on the application of the law concludes that "the brief period that the law has been in force does not allow us to reach any definitive conclusions, but it appears that, given the increase in the number of pools fitted with devices, the situation has not worsened."

IV. LEGAL CONTEXT

1. Applicable legislation with respect to safety of private pools
 
Several legal texts set out safety requirements for preventing drowning accidents in private pools.

a. Act No. 2003-9 of 3 January 2003

b. Implementing Decree no. 2003-1389 of 31 December 2003

c. Decree no. 2004-499 of 7 June 2004
The decree raises a serious legal problem: a safety device may be validated if it complies not just to standards, but also to strictly-defined safety requirements.
We are thus faced with a legal contradiction, which could pose a threat to safety, between the legal obligation to install a standardised device and the possibility left open by the decree to maintain or install a safety device in compliance with safety requirements. This is all the more dangerous since, when it comes to alarms, the requirements stipulated in the decree are not the same as those set by Standard NF P 90-307 relative to alarms. Thus, Article 1 of the decree states that alarm systems "must be able to detect any child under five going past the system and trigger a warning device comprising a siren", i.e. any risk of a child being immersed in a pool. However, the requirements and the test methods for the standard are designed to detect accidental falls into a pool but not other cases of immersion. Thus, if a child enters a pool via stairs or a ladder without disturbing the surface of the water, the immersion will not be detected. On this point, the requirements currently set by the standard do not correspond to those in the decree.
In its 2006 recommendation, the Commission stated that it was urgent to establish coherence between the two texts, i.e., on one hand to secure the legal situation of pools owners who – in good faith, and on the grounds of the Decree of 7 June 2004 – have installed a device that is not necessarily compliant with standards and on the other hand, to make sure that, in the future, the safety level is not lowered by referring to the standards as sole proof of compliance, as provided for in the Act.
The references of the standards that should be used for the implementation of the Act of 3 January 2003 have still not been published in the Official Journal.

2. Applicable legislation with respect to safety devices
According to the DGCCRF, despite the fact that the Act of 3 January 2003 and its implementing decrees require the installation of safety devices around pools and state that they must be standardised or in compliance with safety requirements, we should not think that safety devices are specifically regulated products.

V. PARTNERSHIP WITH THE NATIONAL CONSUMER INSTITUTE (INC)

As of 2006, the CSC had tested only a single product, the alarm used in pools in which the accidents brought to its attention had taken place. This alarm represented 80% of sales of these devices.
At the end of 2007, an agreement was signed between the CSC and the INC to carry out a joint study on immersion detection alarms. Six products were selected. The INC was entrusted with acquiring the devices and with relations with the laboratory. The study examined the following points:
−       A complete description of the "alarm kit", including its characteristics and functions
−       Usage tests (practicality): ease of installation and of use
−       Expert analysis: verification of the content of the instructions and packaging (quality, thoroughness, clarity)
−       Product testing with respect to the essential requirements of the alarm standard: sensitivity, immunity, power supply, reactivation, sound volume
Under the terms of the agreement the INC will publish a comparative study of the reliability and ergonomics of immersion detection alarms in the July 2008 issue of its consumer magazine, "60 Millions de Consommateurs" (60 Million Consumers).
The tests were carried out early in 2008 by the French National Testing Laboratory (LNE) in its test pool located in Trappes, and in accordance with the currently applicable instructions of Standard NF P 90-307.
 
A. Description of models tested

1.The Sensor Espio alarm by MG International
 
The device is fitted to a bracket and attached to the rim of the pool, partially submerged in water.
It consists of a central unit, two adjustable brackets fitted to existing pools or those under construction, a rubber bracket protector, a mounting kit, a remote control and four LR20 batteries.
 
 


2. The DET 10 alarm by Aqualarm
 

This device consists of a unit with a digital keypad fitted with an angled tube, a mounting kit and four LR20 batteries.


3. A Poolguard-brand alarm imported from the US by Energie Engineering
 

 
This device has a unique design, in that it is not permanently attached to the rim of the pool. It is fitted with a handle for putting it into the water in surveillance mode and for removing it when the pool is in use.
It consists of a central unit, a handle to attach to the top of the device, a remote receiver with a power supply and a 9-volt battery.
Given its operating mode, this device does not have either a key or a remote control.

4. The ALPOOL JB 2005 imported from China by Alpotec

 
This device is identical in appearance to the Poolguard alarm.
This device consists of a central unit, a handle to attach to the top of the device, a mounting kit and a magnetic key. Its packaging features the CE logo and the letters "NF" (referring to the French standard), which should not be confused with the logo of the "NF Equipements de Piscines" certification label ("NF Swimming Pool Equipment").

5. The Aquasensor Premium alarm by MG International

 
 
 
This device consists of a central unit equipped with a probe, a mounting kit, a 4-volt battery and two magnets set in a key ring.


6. The Securipool alarm by Securipool International

 
 
Until 2007, this alarm had been awarded the "NF Swimming Pool Equipment" certification label. It consists of a central detection unit, a control unit, 2 two-button remote controls and two keys for deactivating the device.

TEST RESULTS

The study consisted of two parts – an ergonomic evaluation and a study to determine compliance with the requirements of Standard NF P 90307 A1.

1. Ergonomic evaluation

a. Evaluation methodology
The installation was carried out by a person meant to represent a "home handyman" (except in the case of the Securipool alarm, which must be installed by a professional), followed by a usage phase carried out by two persons in the presence of an observer entrusted with writing the report.
The goal of the first phase was to uncover any possible difficulties with the installation, to find errors or inaccuracies in the user's manual and to test the implementation of the various devices.
The second phase consisted in understanding the role and usage mode of the devices, their principal strengths and weaknesses, and the quality of the user's manual.

b. Overall results of the ergonomic evaluation
Users acknowledge the many advantages of these devices – they are inexpensive, do not disfigure the pools in which they are installed, can be generally set up without professional help, and can be used in most types of pools.
There are two ways of viewing the immersion detection alarm, depending on whether or not the pool to be equipped will be used by young children.
If it is, consumers note that the system does not offer protection, but rather signals that an incident has already occurred.
If not, it is seen as the most adequate solution for complying with the law.
There were no problems with the installation of five of the alarms tested. The sixth, the Securipool alarm, was installed by a professional, due to its "NF Swimming Pool Equipment" certification label.
The consumers were amazed that the alarms could not be adapted to the various sizes of pools.
Users generally did not know that, following swimming activities, there is a waiting period during which the system is not operational. In addition, certain products do not display the system's status. When such a display does exist, it can give rise to various interpretations due to the choice of colour (generally green or red).
Consumers' ideas about their approaches to the system differed depending on the situation (a real concern for protection or compliance with the law).
The risk of a single alarm being installed on a pool whose size requires at least two justifies the fact that consumers should have access, at the place of purchase, to information concerning device compatibility. The same is true when it comes to pool shapes.
It is essential that consumers are aware of the existence of a waiting period, and this information is not readily available nor clearly spelled out in the manuals.
Some products tested do not allow users to visualise the device's operating status. The meaning of the colours and signals is not clearly enough described so that consumers can avoid any risk of misinterpretation.

2. Evaluation of the manuals

The Espio alarm has a notice that the users liked. The layout (in colours with numerous diagrams) made it easy to install and reduced the amount of text to read. The information was well organised, the procedure was spelled out in detail, the explanations were clear and understandable and the table describing the system status was particularly instructive. Nevertheless, it could prove daunting to users (more than 30 pages long).
The manual for the DET 10 alarm was satisfactory, even though it had a few problems. The way the information was organised into successive stages was thought to be rational. The tables describing the system's status and possible actions to take were particularly appreciated. However, the information in the manual was rather literal and there was a lack of diagrams.
The Poolguard alarm's manual was thought to be readable, and users found the explanations clear and precise. Nevertheless, the diagrams were not always opposite the information (an explanation on page 2 made reference to a diagram on page 5). In addition, the diagrams are few and far between, and there is room for improvement in the layout.
The Alpool JB 2005 alarm's manual was poorly organised. Synonymous terms are used in the titles to describe dissimilar technical items or actions, which reduces understanding. The main information is not identified, and is sometimes contradictory. The translation and the diagrams are of poor quality. The organisation of the information in the Aquasensor Premium manual was found to be acceptable, and it is illustrated with photos and diagrams. The tables describing the system status are very clear. On the other hand, texts are printed in too-small characters, which make them look like dense, difficult-to-read slabs (especially in red).
The manual for the Securipool alarm was thought to be the weak link in the chain. Consumers did not like the way the information was organised, and thought that it more closely resembled a product description than a user's manual. The explanations were thought to be short and too elliptical. The functionalities of the central unit were described in a chapter about the remote control, and the diagrams and captions were not integrated into the manual.

3. Testing for compliance with Standard NF P 90307/A1 requirements

a. Tests
The tests carried out on each of the products concerned the following points:
Examination of the instructions for the consumer as stipulated in Article 9
Requirements concerning secure controls as stipulated in Article 4.5 (activation and deactivation) and power supply as stipulated in Article 4.6
General and technical requirements with or without specific constraints as stipulated in Articles 6.1 and 6.2, including the immersion of a 6-kilo testing device at four successive points without any constraints, and the immersion of an 8-kilo testing device at four successive points in the presence of a cleaning robot, a filtration system and wind
Test of untimely alarm triggering as stipulated in Article 8.3.4 in the presence of a filtering system, a cleaning robot and wind
Resistance to mechanical constraints (in case of shock or a load of up to 80 kilos)
Sound level of alarm as stipulated in Article 4.11.2.1 5 (signal must be louder than 100dBA at a distance of one metre and peak value must be under 115dBC)

b. Standard compliance test results


 
Espio
DET 10
Poolguard
Alpool
Aquasensor
Securipool
Secure controls
C
C
NC
NC
C
C
Immersion of 6-kilo testing device
C
NC (0/4)[1]
NC (0/4)
C
NC (0/4)
NC (0/4)
Immersion of 8-kilo testing device
C
C
NC (3/4)
NC (0/4)
C
NC (3/4)
Free from untimely triggering
 
C
 
C
 
C
 
NC
 
C
 
C
Mechanical constraints
C
C
C
C
C
C
Sound level
C
C
NC
NC
NC
NC
Documents & manuals
C
C
NC
NC
C
NC

[1] Number of immersions detected out of the four immersions carried out at four different zones of the pool, as defined in the standard.



- The views of the professionals


During hearings led by the Commission, the results of these tests were presented to the manufacturers or distributors, and led to the following conclusions:
An "earlier generation" Aquasensor Premium
Representatives from MGI pointed out that, based on the product's identifying elements, the Sensor Premium device, which was tested by the LNE and purchased in late 2007, was an "earlier generation" device which had been delivered by MGI on 19 May 2006 to a reseller in the département of La Marne.
This earlier generation model was tested in 2006 by the LNE, which found that during certain tests, a 6-kilo weight immersed perpendicular to the pool's edge was not detected in certain pool configurations.
As a result of this non-compliance and at the request of the DGCCRF, MGI stopped manufacturing this product in early September 2006. Owners of the alarm were informed in a letter from MGI that a test could be carried out in their pools using a 6-kilo testing device. Owners whose alarms did not go off during the test were offered a next-generation device in exchange.
Since this time, MGI has developed a "next generation" Aquasensor Premium alarm.
Tests carried out by both Apave and the LNE in 2007 found that the problem of the non-detection of the immersion of a 6-kilo testing device had been solved. There remains a difference of opinion over the measurement of the sound level of the alarm, which may require a better definition of the test protocols.
Aqualarm
The director of the Aqualarm firm indicated that standard compliance testing of the DET 10 alarm had been carried out on two occasions in 2005 by the LNE, and that certificates of compliance with the standard had been issued. More than half of those who purchased this alarm had sent back a coupon concerning tests to be carried out prior to use. As called for in the manual, they tested the device's operation by tossing into the pool four bottles of water tied together (weighing 6 kilos and measuring 65 cm, i.e. very close to the characteristics of the test dummy stipulated in the standard).
Alpool
In an opening statement, the director of the firm JR International, accompanied by counsel, declared that although he did indeed distribute the "Alpool JB 2005" alarm, which is manufactured in China by the firm Ningbo, the alarm was imported by the firm Alpotec. A document, issued on 6 December 2005 by the Intertek laboratory in Shanghai, attested that various tests carried out on the product were in compliance with standard NF P 90-307.
ALPOTEC, which was invited to address the Commission, did not respond to the request.
Poolguard
The director of Energie Engineering stated that the Poolguard alarm, which is manufactured in the US, and for which Energie Engineering is the exclusive importer as of October 2006, had been certified by the laboratory Intertek as being in compliance with the American standard ASTM 2208 F. Nevertheless, the representative admitted that the system supplied for testing was a specially-designed prototype and not a device available on the market. A unique feature of this device is that it must be removed from the pool before swimming activities. The disadvantage of this is that if the device is not put back in place, the pool is no longer protected and auto-reactivation is thus impossible.
Securipool
The director of Securipool indicated that the alarm that was tested is no longer on the market, even though it product was listed on the web site of a retailer in late 2007. According to him, at the request of the INC, he agreed to supply and install a model that had been "salvaged" from the inventory of a plant that had been closed, about which he expressed very strong reservations prior to the testing, as he did could not be sure that the model had undergone any of the necessary quality checks as stipulated in the requirements of the NF standard. The INC observed that a great many Internet sites offer the Securipool alarm and the NF certification label, and that it was apparently still possible to purchase one. Certain sites, however, no longer offer to install the device since it no longer has the NF label.

HEARINGS

The Commission heard in session the following persons:
1.       Ms C and Mr B, two LNE representatives who chair the AFNOR standardisation committees on safety systems for inground pools
2.       Representatives of the Fédération des Professionnels de la Piscine (FPP, a trade association of pool professionals) Mr B, President, and Ms P, Secretary General
3.       The five manufacturers or importers of the immersion detection alarms that were tested:
Messrs G and Q, representatives of MG International, the market leader, which currently sells two products:
Sensor Espio, which currently accounts for 40% of turnover from sales of immersion detection alarms
Aquasensor Premium
Mr G, president of Securipool, which manufactures the Securipool and Pollscope models
Mr G from Aqualarm firm, founded in 2004, which sells an immersion detection alarm for pools of up to 5m x 10m (Aqualarm) and a sonar system for larger pools (Sonaguard, which is the second-ranked seller on the French market, behind MGI and in front of Ocean Protect)
Messrs S and B of JR International, which sells safety systems and distributes, under the brand name Alpool JB 2005, immersion detection alarms manufactured by Ningbo and imported from China by Alpotec
M de K, director of Energie Engineering, which sells the American alarm Poolgard

BASED ON THIS DATA

Whereas the report on the application of the Act of 3 January 2003 on pool safety was based on unreliable statistics that did not allow the authors to either establish an accidentology report or to rank the efficiency of the various safety devices;
Whereas, in the view of the experts heard in session, only 50 to 60% of inground pools in France are fitted with standardised safety devices;
Whereas, again in the view of the experts heard in session, only a small percentage of newly-built pools are fitted with standardised safety devices;
Whereas the lack of a monitoring mechanism to ensure that pool manufacturers, pool installers and pool owners are meeting their obligations does not encourage them to respect those obligations;
Wherease there is a contradiction between the legal obligation to install a standardised device and the possibility left open by the Decree of 7 June 2004 to maintain or install a safety device in compliance with safety requirements but not necessarily in compliance with standards;
Whereas every new pool delivered by a builder or installer to a project owner must be fitted from the outset with a regulation-compliant safety device;
Whereas products are evaluated as whether they comply with general safety obligations with reference to standard NF P 90-307 on alarm systems;
Whereas immersion detection alarms do not constitute drowning prevention devices, as the system is triggered only when an accident has already occurred;
Whereas, in the current state of the art, immersion detection alarms cannot fully guarantee pool safety, particularly with respect to:
Detection of other types of accidental immersions besides falls
Ongoing monitoring of the pool, particularly during the period when the system is reactivating after swimming activities or due to weather conditions (wind)
Whereas the tests carried out on the six alarms representative of the current offer have revealed, in five of them, non-compliance with standard NF P 90‑307, specifically with respect to the basic alarm functions of 1) being able to detect immersions of test devices similar in weight to children under the age of five, and 2) having a sufficiently loud alarm to alert those in charge of watching over the children;
Whereas, in addition, examination of the devices' markings and users manuals has revealed, in the case of the former, insufficient identification elements and, in the latter, incomprehensible translations and transpositions that could lead to the system being improperly installed or used;
Whereas the requirements and the test methods stipulated in the standard must be completed or more fully specified with respect to the following points: the volume of the alarms, battery life and automatic reactivation;
Having heard in plenary session representatives from the Fédération des Professionnels de la Piscine, MGI international, Securipool, Nexatis (Aqualarm), the French National Testing Laboratory (LNE) and the National Consumer Institute (INC).
 
 
The Commission recommends that:
 
The Public Authorities
 
Publish a report that presents a summary of the changes in accidentology as stipulated by the Act of 3 January 2003 on pool safety.
Ensure that, given the state of the art, the law no longer considers immersion detection alarms to be mandatory protection systems, able to guarantee pool safety by themselves.
Take legislative and regulatory steps to oblige pool builders and installers to deliver pools equipped with a mandatory protection system.
Prior to new or modified legislation – that it hopes will arrive as soon as possible – take action on the following two recommendations:
To launch information and awareness actions aimed at pool owners who have not yet fitted their pools with safety devices, informing them of the performance and limitations of the various systems;
To ensure, by any appropriate means, that the legal obligations incumbent on professionals (manufacturers and installers of inground pools and safety devices) and pool owners are both distributed and respected.
Modify or repeal the Decree of 7 June 2004 in such a way as to make the regulatory texts coherent with the Act of 3 January 2003, so that in the future, compliance of safety devices with existing standards shall be, for pool owners and the professionals whose services they employ, the sole proof that regulatory requirements have been respected.
Publish the list of standards to which, according to the law, manufacturers should refer whenever these standards guarantee respect for sufficient and relevant safety requirements.
Demand of the manufacturers of the five products tested that were not in compliance with standard NP P 90 307, listed in the present report, that their products must, and in the shortest possible time period, meet every one of the standard's specifications, and that information about the shortcomings of these products be distributed to those who purchased them as well as potential customers.
Carry out a check of the immersion detection alarm market.

Authorities in charge of Standardisation

Verify that the safety requirements that apply to immersion detection alarms in standard NF P 90-307 do indeed meet the objective of preventing drowning accidents in children under the age of five as stipulated in the Decree of 7 June 2004.
In particular, take the following elements into account in the future, revised version of the standard:
Specify the method to be used for testing acoustic requirements (definition of the positioning of the measuring instrument)
Modify the method to be used for testing battery autonomy by taking into account the wear induced by the alarm being triggered
Complete the requirements and test methods with respect to automatic reactivation, such that the stated time period in which the device is dysfunctional or not operational before the alarm is returned to an active state is measured, taking into account the disturbances to a pool caused by swimming activities carried out by adults and older children. In any case, this time period should not exceed 15 minutes without constraints and 20 minutes with constraints.

Professionals

Alarm manufacturers:
l     Market products that are in compliance with standard NF P 90-307
l     Improve their user manuals so that the information provided to consumers is as clear and precise as possible
Builders and installers of pools:
Until it is mandatory to deliver a pool fitted with a safety device from the beginning, ensure compliance with the obligations stipulated in Article L. 128.1 of the Consumer Code.

Property rental professionals or individuals

In the case that a pool is included in a seasonal rental, supply the renters with all necessary explanations and the documentation required to operate the system correctly, and ensure that the instructions and documentation have been understood, particularly by renters from outside France.

Consumers

To protect their new or existing pools, opt for a preventive safety device other than an immersion detection alarm, and one which is regulation-compliant
Always keep in mind that, no matter what pool safety system they install, it is indispensible that they keep children under constant surveillance
Early in the summer of 2008, the CSC will again inform consumers concerning aspects to which they should pay particular attention when installing immersion detection alarms, including:
That they should be aware of the existence of a waiting period during which they must be particularly vigilant
That they should ensure that various factors do not alter – in an unexpected, repeated or prolonged fashion – the device's efficiency, including a lower water level during dry periods or when the probe is out of the water in wintertime, spent batteries, the presence of additional equipment that may alter the detection efficiency of the device, a device that is inappropriate, badly-placed or poorly-regulated, and a device that has been turned off by a child
 
ADOPTED AT THE SESSION OF 12 JUNE 2008
BASED ON THE REPORT by Luc Machard
ASSISTED BY Dominique Potier
 
and by Odile Finkelstein, Michèle Henry and Patrick Mesnard, Technical Advisors to the Commission, in accordance with Article R. 224-4 of the Consumer Code.