Hot tub industry fights UL standard

Pool & Spa News, Sept 26, 2005 by Joshua Keim

Underwriters Laboratories Inc., the leading product-safety testing and certification organization in the United States, recently proposed revisions to its portable spa standard that have many in that industry up in arms.

The revisions cover seven areas of standard UL 1563, including markings for double-insulated pumps, pump grounding and overturn protection for motors. But the section that has alarmed spa manufacturers the most is Paragraph 49.1, which would tighten the normal water temperature limit.

Under the original requirements, portable spas were permitted to operate at a maximum temperature of 104 degrees Fahrenheit, with a tolerance of plus or minus 5 degrees. In other words, a spa could conceivably perform at 109 degrees to allow for inaccuracies in temperature-regulating components. Many older mechanical controllers weren't as precise as the more recently introduced electronic controls.

With the advancements in technology, Northbrook, Ill.-based UL initially felt it was necessary to eliminate the tolerance allowance because of a few manufacturers, whom they alleged were abusing the spirit of the standard.

"The intent of the requirement has always been that you were trying to get it to 104 F as best as you could," said Gary Siggins, UL's principal engineer, swimming pool, spa and whirlpool bath equipment. "What was happening with electronic components is that we found people were using controls that were more accurate than mechanical ones, but still pushing the limits of the 109 F maximum.

"They were designing products to meet the test and not the intent of the standard ... and kind of getting around the requirement."

The 104 F precedent was based on a safety recommendation made in the early 1980s by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. After the CPSC released a number of reports linking alcohol consumption in hot tubs with high water temperatures to deaths, studies were conducted to determine a maximum safety limit for spas. To this day, CPSC maintains its recommendation of 104 F.

However, most portable spa manufacturers agree that the reported deaths were rare, and no recent studies have been conducted to support the recommendation.

"The industry's position is that UL is making this change right now without any basis for it," said James Hedgecock, manager of business development at Dimension One Spas Inc. in Vista, Calif.

Hedgecock also chairs the subcommittee on advocacy, which was convened by the Association of Pool & Spa Professionals' Hot Tub Council to probe the UL standard. It is the subcommittee's contention that the 104 F recommendation is unwarranted because of scant evidence to support the connection between high temperatures, alcohol usage and death.

The cost to recertify their products under the updated standard can be high for manufacturers. In an effort to send UL the message, some spa makers, including Dimension One, are taking their product-safety testing to UL's competitors, such as Intertek (ETL).

With the compliance deadline of April 1, 2006, approaching, UL is working feverishly with industry representatives to reach an agreement in time for manufacturers to meet the cutoff date.

"We're committed to correcting the problem quickly so they don't have to make the [production] changes twice," Siggins said. "We're trying to work with the industry to come to a resolution that everyone will be happy with."