thanks to cmahc sponsors ... 2017/10/18 آ  the lifeguarding and bather supervision tsc found this...

Download Thanks to CMAHC Sponsors ... 2017/10/18 آ  The Lifeguarding and Bather Supervision TSC found this CR

Post on 07-Jul-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • Thanks to CMAHC Sponsors

    Founding Sponsors

    Gold

    Bronze

    Silver

    Conference Sponsors

    http://www.neptunebenson.com/

  • CMAHC CR-TRC Presentations Wednesday Morning 10-18-2017

    Sections 8-11

  • Remember for CR Presentations and Comments

     Times to be strictly adhered to!

     Speakers come to stage table as presentations approach

     Sign on and use the chat room to make yourself heard  https://thewahc.org/cmahc-live-stream

     Stick to the CRs being presented in that hour Section

     Summary of chatroom comments each hour to be presented

     Slide presentations will be on 2017 conference page  Submitter slide submission and changes going on too late to be

    able to post so they will be posted in next several weeks

     You can still (and should if you feel strongly) submit member comments for 1 month after the conference (until November 19)  Submit and influence final CRs in the vote

  • WEDNESDAY AM

    CR PRESENTATIONS

    SECTION 8

    Lifeguard Chairs, LG Positions and Visibility, Sun Protection, Resuscitation Mask Access, Training and

    Certification

  • CR#: 4.8.5.3.2-0002 Lifeguard Chair Height

    Presenter Name: John Kelly

    Submitter Name: John Kelly

    Iowa Department of Public Health Swimming Pool and Spa Program

  • 4.8.5.3.2-0002: Proposed Change

     Summary: Clarifies that lifeguard chairs/stands must be designed for lifeguards and have a minimum seat height of 30”

     Suggested changes:

  • 4.8.5.3.2-0002: Rationale Behind/Benefit of CR  Rationale for CR

    The Redwoods Group notes guards should never sit on standard height chairs or benches

    http://www.redwoodsgroup.com/static/media/resources/documents/pdf/lifeguarding-an-inviolate-primer-ymcas-1.pdf

  • 4.8.5.3.2-0002: Rationale Behind/Benefit of CR  Rationale for CR

  • 4.8.5.3.2-0002: Rationale Behind/Benefit of CR  Rationale for CR

    http://www.pentaircommercial.com/products/deck-equipment-lifeguard-stations-and-chairs-lookout-lifeguard-chairs-331.htm

  • 4.8.5.3.2-0002: Rationale Behind/Benefit of CR  Rationale for CR

  • Technical Review Committee Report CR# 4.8.5.3.2-0002

     Summary of internal TRC & TSC discussion

    The Lifeguarding and Bather Supervision TSC found this CR to not be technically defensible and picking a seat height arbitrary. The MAHC covers visibility issues already.

    TRC: There is an existing concern of facilities utilizing inappropriate chairs as lifeguard stations. It cannot be determined how widespread this issue may be. Regardless, the emphasis should be focused on the actual performance of the lifeguard and not a specific seat height. It should also be noted that the manufacturers of lifeguard stands generally design their stands so that the eyes of the lifeguard when sitting are generally at standing eye height.

  • Technical Review Committee Report CR# 4.8.5.3.2-0002

     Summary of internal TRC & TSC discussion

    TRC: There are multiple variables that exist for determining the appropriate positioning of lifeguards. With the MAHC having the performance based requirement that lifeguards be positioned such as to the eyes of the lifeguard are at a standing height over the water line, the prescriptive requirement of a fixed seat height is made irrelevant. The varying stations and supervision strategies of the lifeguard, when properly utilized by the facility, will negate a need for a fixed seat height. In addition, based on the pool design, requiring a fixed seat height may create a situation that is dangerous for the lifeguard to enact a rescue out of, or at the very least delay the response time of the lifeguard in making a water rescue.

  • Technical Review Committee Report CR# 4.8.5.3.2-0002

     Summary of CMAHC member comments

    One member comment stated that a deck chair is not a lifeguard chair (referring to example in the CR of a guard pulling up a deck chair), and that the use of deck chairs by lifeguards should be addressed elsewhere, and that this section is only applicable to lifeguard chairs, not deck chairs.

  • Technical Review Committee Report CR# 4.8.5.3.2-0002

     Summary of pros and cons and/or benefits or deficits

    Pros: Looks to ensure guard visibility and stature.

    Cons: Adds a subjective and prescriptive seat height.

  • CR# 5.6.1.2.1.1 Reducing Glare and Increasing Visibility for

    Lifeguards

    Presenter Name: CMAHC Technical Review Committee

    Submitter Name: Steve Miller

  • 5.6.1.2.1.1 Proposed Change

     Summary

    Ensure all lifeguard positions including roving positions or those without a fixed station provide for clear visibility of zone.

     Suggested changes

    5.6.1.2.1.1 Lifeguard Stations If the AQUATIC VENUE requires lifeguards, the AQUATIC FACILITY owner shall ensure that glare conditions are assessed from each lifeguard station to determine if the AQUATIC VENUE bottom and objects in the POOL are clearly visible throughout operating hours position as identified in the Zone of Patron Surveillance to determine if the AQUATIC VENUE bottom and objects in the Pool are clearly visible to lifeguard staff throughout operating hours per 6.3.3.1.1.

  • 5.6.1.2.1.1 Rationale Behind/Benefit of CR

     Rationale for CR

    Changing lifeguard station to “each lifeguard position as identified in the Zone of Patron Surveillance is clearly visible to lifeguard staff throughout operating hours per 6.3.3.1.1” ensures that each lifeguard position is evaluated appropriately and is not only limited to those positions which have a fixed stand or 'station'.

  • Technical Review Committee Report CR# 5.6.1.2.1.1

     Summary of internal TRC & TSC discussion The Injury Prevention, Risk Management, & Safety TSC discussion included practical, operational and scientific based information regarding the CR. We found no objections to the CR. We feel that the CR is both practical and scientifically sound.

    TRC agreed with the change request and there were a few minor changes added the submitter agreed to these changes. The changes were to add wording to clarify if the Aquatic Venue bottom and objects in the pool were clearly visible.

  • Technical Review Committee Report CR# 5.6.1.2.1.1

     Summary of CMAHC member comments One member comment as received; the commenter agreed with the CR and stated “The proposed Change Request addresses the need to ensure lifeguards can see clearly, without glare, from all positions that they work instead of just fixed lifeguard stations as listed in the existing code and should be approved.”

  • Technical Review Committee Report CR# 5.6.1.2.1.1

     Summary of pros and cons and/or benefits or deficits

    Pros:

    Clarifies how lifeguard’s positions, rather than just fixed stations are to be evaluated

    Cons: none

  • CR# 5.8.5.3.1 Sun Protection for Lifeguards

    Presenter Name: CMAHC Technical Review Committee

    Submitter Name: Steve Miller

  • 5.8.5.3.1 Proposed Change

     Summary

    Provide an objective driven solution to UV protection that applies to all lifeguard positions, not just installed chairs or stations.

     Suggested changes

    5.8.5.3.1 UV Protection for Chairs and Stands

    When a chair or stand is provided and QUALIFIED LIFEGUARDS can be exposed to UV radiation, the chair or stand shall be equipped with or in a location with protection from such UV radiation exposure. Lifeguards and lifeguard positions must be provided protection from UV radiation exposure.

  • 5.8.5.3.1 Rationale Behind/Benefit of CR

     Rationale for CR

    This entry is misdirected. It reads that the chair needs to be protected as opposed to the lifeguard. This can be accomplished by providing the lifeguard with hat/visor, t- shirt, umbrella at position or any combination that meets the objective.

  • Technical Review Committee Report CR# 5.8.5.3.1

     Summary of internal TRC & TSC discussion Lifeguard & Bather Supervision TSC: One member comment that this change gets to the intention of the code with would be protection of the lifeguard from UV. Hats, glasses, and upper body wear will accomplish this when a permanent shading device is not practical for that lifeguard’s position.

    TRC: Recommendation to remove of “face, eyes and upper torso” from the proposed language (accepted by submitter)

    The Injury Prevention, Risk Management, & Safety TSC agreed with the CR and felt that it provided clarification on how a lifeguard should be protected in non-seated positions or in positions where an umbrella or chair are not feasible

  • Technical Review Committee Report CR# 5.8.5.3.1

     Summary of CMAHC member comments

    no comments

  • Technical Review Committee Report CR# 5.8.5.3.1

     Summary of pros and cons and/or benefits or deficits

    Pros:

    Provides clarification and addresses protection of roving lifeguards.

    Cons:

    None.

  • CR# 5.8.5.3.9-0002 PPE on Lifeguard

    Presenter Name: CMAHC Technic