• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Travel distance to toilet facilities

H

Henchalwoog

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
33
Per Ch 29 of the IBC the prescribed distance to travel in a factory setting is 500 feet or approved distance by the AHJ. Is it the intent of the code to have the path completely indoors or can an exterior path comply as in a campus type setting?
Thanks!
 
Pretty sure it can go exterior. Not ideal (speaking from experience, you'll probably get a lot of complaints), but it's allowed as far as I've seen.
 
...and this would have to be an accessible route correct? Or there would require signage to the closest(!) accessible toilet?
 
Henchalwoog said:
...and this would have to be an accessible route correct? Or there would require signage to the closest(!) accessible toilet?
Click to expand...
Depends on a few things, but generally yes, you usually need an accessible route connecting accessible spaces to accessible toilet rooms. What type of project is this (remodel? new construction?)? Any other information you can provide about the project?
 
Project is for a new boiler facility for an existing large landlocked production plant...demo existing building to build the new boiler facility...low occupancy and designers wish to utilize toilets in an existing building on the campus...railroad tracks run through the campus for product and a bridge will be provided for travel over the tracks from the boiler plant to the existing building
 
ICE said:
A bridge over railroad tracks has got to be more expensive than a bathroom.
Click to expand...
One would imagine...but the designer knows they need the bridge for the personnel regardless of the toilet issue - they need to be able to get back and forth.
 
And IMHO if you are tearing down the old facility and building completely new … how can you justify not building one restroom?
 
I might consider the building a U occupancy which does not require plumbing fixtures if it meets the criteria outlined below.



Discussion and Commentary:​

Group U occupancies can range in size from a small shed or livestock shelter to a large barn or greenhouse, and also include other miscellaneous structures such as tanks or towers. These utility and miscellaneous uses are characterized by a relatively low risk to life or property, which is primarily due to either small size, none or very few occupants, occupancy only during limited time periods, locations that are usually removed from other buildings or uses, or a combination of some or all of these factors.
 
mtlogcabin said:
I might consider the building a U occupancy which does not require plumbing fixtures if it meets the criteria outlined below.



Discussion and Commentary:​

Group U occupancies can range in size from a small shed or livestock shelter to a large barn or greenhouse, and also include other miscellaneous structures such as tanks or towers. These utility and miscellaneous uses are characterized by a relatively low risk to life or property, which is primarily due to either small size, none or very few occupants, occupancy only during limited time periods, locations that are usually removed from other buildings or uses, or a combination of some or all of these factors.
Click to expand...
I dunno...a large boiler building? Boilers are required to be baby sat by our code so there would be a boiler operator there at least 8 hours a day...
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Previous related discussion: https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.co...ed-for-commercial-building.37384/#post-296243

Yes, the toilet rooms can be in a different building on the same property.



The toilet rooms have to be accessible and the route to them has to be accessible.
Click to expand...
So the argument is that the boiler operator cannot be disabled in any way since they have to use stairs and ladders in their daily tasks and that an accessible route to the remote toilet room would not make sense and the ADAAG allows for mechanical spaces, etc to be innaccessible...thoughts?
 
Henchalwoog said:
So the argument is that the boiler operator cannot be disabled in any way since they have to use stairs and ladders in their daily tasks and that an accessible route to the remote toilet room would not make sense and the ADAAG allows for mechanical spaces, etc to be innaccessible...thoughts?
Click to expand...

The boiler operator's supervisor could be temporarily (or permanently) in a wheelchair. You're getting a freebie by not having to provide toilet facilities within the boiler house itself. The least you can do is just follow the law.

You need to understand that the ADA is anti-discrimination law -- it's not a building code. It basically calls for universal design, and even three-plus decades after the ADA was enacted, far too many architects continue to look for excuses to not provide universal design rather than just embrace it. I blame the architecture schools.
 
Henchalwoog said:
So the argument is that the boiler operator cannot be disabled in any way since they have to use stairs and ladders in their daily tasks and that an accessible route to the remote toilet room would not make sense and the ADAAG allows for mechanical spaces, etc to be innaccessible...thoughts?
Click to expand...
Like Yankee Chronicler said, the operator may become disabled at some point.

Going strictly off the 2010 ADAS (not sure what's applicable to your jurisdiction, but this is the minimum), "employee work area" is defined as "All or any portion of a space used only by employees and used only for work. Corridors, toilet rooms, kitchenettes and break rooms are not employee work areas." A boiler operator certainly has a workstation.

ADAS 203.9 Employee Work Areas. Spaces and elements within employee work areas shall only be required to comply with 206.2.8, 207.1, and 215.3 and shall be designed and constructed so that individuals with disabilities can approach, enter, and exit the employee work area. Employee work areas, or portions of employee work areas, other than raised courtroom stations, that are less than 300 square feet (28 m2) and elevated 7 inches (180 mm) or more above the finish floor or ground where the elevation is essential to the function of the space shall not be required to comply with these requirements or to be on an accessible route.

Does the place the boiler operator works meet what's specified in the underlined portion above? If not, provide an accessible route from the area of work to the toilets.

It's also worth nothing that some states, like CA, amend this section and may not have this exception.

Even if there's an exception that might not require an accessible route to the toilet, it's generally just better practice to have an accessible route when feasible. Makes things a lot easier for non-disabled persons too. Here's DOJ's advisory on the matter:

Advisory 203.9 Employee Work Area
Although areas used exclusively by employees for work are not required to be fully accessible, consider designing such areas to include non-required turning spaces, and provide accessible elements whenever possible. Under the ADA, employees with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations in the workplace; accommodations can include alterations to spaces within the facility. Designing employee work areas to be more accessible at the outset will avoid more costly retrofits when current employees become temporarily or permanently disabled, or when new employees with disabilities are hired. Contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) at www.eeoc.gov for information about title I of the ADA prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities in the workplace.
 
True - but if you play the devil's advocate then he would not be able to perform his / her job function and would not be in the building...and they added that while the bridge would not be an accessible route they can always drive over and park - the bridge is just due to the constant presence of railroad traffic. I am leaning towards requireing the accessible toilet in the building as it would seem to be the least controversial...all this to try and avoid providing one accessible toilet room!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top