It seems turf wars regarding standards have begun between the Association of Pool and Spa Professionals and the National Swimming Pool Foundation.

Since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the Model Aquatic Health Code (MAHC) in 2014, observers have wondered how it would affect a standards landscape long dominated by APSP.

Last Spring, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality announced plans to update its public pool rules for the first time since 1998. It referred to the MAHC — which NSPF supports — as a possible resource, but mentioned no other model codes. APSP objected.

The situation escalated at an August meeting for which executives of both groups traveled to advocate their respective codes.

APSP agreed that portions of the MAHC applying to water quality, facility operation and maintenance would be appropriate. However, it disputed the use of MAHC design and construction language, saying its own International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC) was written by industry professionals and has already been adopted by eight Arizona jurisdictions.

“The APSP acknowledges that the MAHC offers many benefits in the area of pool operation and maintenance, such as water quality and use of chemicals, areas which are well within the expertise of the CDC,” the APSP said in a written statement to the ADEQ. “That expertise, however, does not extend to design and construction of pools.”

APSP said the MAHC includes language that is overly restrictive and less friendly to contractors. APSP also said its own standards-writing process is superior to that of the MAHC, since it is monitored by third-party individuals, whereas the MAHC is approved by vote of the same individuals who write it. (Both include multiple public comment periods.)

NSPF accused the other group of disseminating “false and misleading” claims to Arizona pool professionals. “I am embarrassed by the information the association broadcast to Arizona,” said NSPF CEO Thomas Lachocki in a written statement to the Arizona regulator. “... Leaders at the CDC and the Council for the Model Aquatic Health Code have submitted comments that refute every criticism pointed at the MAHC by the east-coast association.”

Lachocki and Michael Beach of the CDC said APSP’s individual claims about MAHC requirements are not true and that, in some ways, the MAHC would be more flexible than the ISPSC. Lachocki pointed to endorsements from The Council for State & Territory Epidemiologists, the National Association of City and County Health Officials, and the National Environmental Health Association, some of which submitted statements in support of the MAHC.

Beach disputed APSP’s characterization of the MAHC writing process. “The MAHC was created using the best available science and best practices and a national, multi-partner, inclusive, consensus process involving over 140 public health and aquatic experts,” he said. “As part of creating the MAHC, CDC held two 60-day public comment periods, received 4,407 comments, and accepted 73% of comments that pertained to changes.”

Confronted with the clash, the AZEQ decided to start from scratch so it could consider other model codes. “We received enough comments suggesting alternative codes and alternative ways of implementing the code that we have decided to go back to the drawing board with a larger group of indivduals,” said Sherry Zendri, administrative counsel for the ADEQ.

No timeline for the new process has been set.