Confusion on 2021 IPC section 410.3 regarding Hi/Lo fountains.

[JPohling]

Working in Alabama. The previous 2015 IPC was very clear when a Hi/Lo fountain was required.



The 2021 version of the IPC now says:


What on earth does that mean? an exterior site, on a floor, or within a secured area..........................
Anyone have the commentary?

 

[RLGA]

I believe it means that if you provide a drinking fountain, regardless of location, you must provide a high/low unit or two separate drinking fountains at the two heights.

If the plumbing fixture calculations only require one drinking fountain, you must still provide two, which is required to be a combined high/low unit or two separate drinking fountains at the two heights.

 

[JPohling]

Ron, I would love for it to mean that. But the language is ridiculous. It was concise previously. This would be for any common area drinking fountain in a office building or mercantile situation. We are clearly not outside. Is it "on a floor" they are installed on the wall. "on a floor" could mean everywhere. and we are not within a secured area. Craziest language change I have ever seen.

 

[RLGA]

I think (and I am speculating here) that "floor" in this case refers to "floor level" and not the actual installation method (e.g., floor-mounted or wall-mounted).

 

[JPohling]

I am joking in a sense regarding the wall mounted as opposed to floor, But that language is open for interpretation.
What was wrong with the previous language that was clear and concise? Is there any commentary as yet?

 

[Yikes]

I had a client that had an existing 2 story elevator building with a stacked alcove in the 1st and 2nd floor for drinking fountains. The alcove was just wide enough for one single fountain.

For their renovation plans, they wanted to make the 1st floor fountain the "low fountain" and the second floor fountain the "high fountain". That way they wouldn't need to enlarge the alcoves for a combination hi-low fountain, which is much wider than a singe fountain.

I think the new IPC clarifies that they can't do this design, which forces people of different mobility limitations to go to different floors until they find the fountain height that works for them.

My client ultimately decided to expand the downstairs alcove for the hi-low fountain, and abandon the upstairs drinking fountain (as it was in excess of code minimum # of drinking fountains).

 

[RLGA]

I found the code change proposal (P38-18 Part II) for the 2018/2019 code development cycle. In the reason statement it states the following:

The IPC does not have language addressing two important points needed for accessible drinking fountains:​

1) The IPC doesn’t include the requirements found in the IBC that are based on where the fountain is being provided - per floor, per secure area, or outside.​

2) The IPC doesn’t address high/low requirements for three or more drinking fountains.​

​

I think this supports my previous statement regarding location and not the installation method. I think it could have been worded better, but we have to live with it for now until we come up with something better during the next code development cycle.

 

[steveray]

I had a client that had an existing 2 story elevator building with a stacked alcove in the 1st and 2nd floor for drinking fountains. The alcove was just wide enough for one single fountain.

For their renovation plans, they wanted to make the 1st floor fountain the "low fountain" and the second floor fountain the "high fountain". That way they wouldn't need to enlarge the alcoves for a combination hi-low fountain, which is much wider than a singe fountain.

I think the new IPC clarifies that they can't do this design, which forces people of different mobility limitations to go to different floors until they find the fountain height that works for them.

My client ultimately decided to expand the downstairs alcove for the hi-low fountain, and abandon the upstairs drinking fountain (as it was in excess of code minimum # of drinking fountains).

Except you always were/ are allowed to travel a story away for a fixture:

403.5 Drinking fountain location. Drinking fountains shall
not be required to be located in individual tenant spaces
provided that public drinking fountains are located within a
distance of travel of 500 feet (152 m) of the most remote
location in the tenant space and not more than one story
above or below the tenant space. Where the tenant space is in
a covered or open mall, such distance shall not exceed 300
feet (91 m).

 

[Yikes]

Except you always were/ are allowed to travel a story away for a fixture:

Agreed. It is perfectly OK to have a hi/low fountain on the first floor, and no drinking fountain on the second floor, which is what my clients decided to do.
My point is, per ADAS 211.1 (similar to IPC 410.3 in post #1) I don't think it's acceptable to have (for example) only the high fountain on the upper floor and only the low fountain on the lower floor.
ADAS 211.1 General: "Where drinking fountains are provided... on a floor...". A [single] floor - - not "a building".
ADAS 211.2 Minimum number: "No fewer than two drinking fountains shall be provided", the high fountain and the low fountain.

To summarize: If/when you decide a drinking fountain gets installed on a particular floor, then that floor level must have no fewer than one high spout fountain and one low spout fountain.

 

[steveray]

Yikes...but in your existing building example, I would rather get complying fountains of different types on different floors than make them tear the building apart to get 2 in the existing alcove....

 

[Yikes]

Yikes...but in your existing building example, I would rather get complying fountains of different types on different floors than make them tear the building apart to get 2 in the existing alcove....

I would rather do that too, but as shown in post #9, I don't think the code gives us that option.

 

[steveray]

I would rather do that too, but as shown in post #9, I don't think the code gives us that option.

In an existing building it might....What code section requires the remodel to be "as new"?

 

[JPohling]

20% of the contract amount under permit will be required to make accessibility improvements to the existing building. The Hi/Lo fountain deficiency would be rectified depending on possible other accessibility shortcomings

 

[steveray]

So like 705.2 or 306.7 ish maybe...got it....I would spend my 20% in other ways....

 

[Paul Sweet]

You can always request a code modification if there are practical difficulties in enlarging the recess.