June 2007 Building Safety Journal
http://www.mrsc.org/artdocmisc/sinks.pdf
.... within a doctor’s examining room or a dental treatment area.
Full access must be provided to work areas that also function as public use spaces—such as examining rooms—but, in general, the sink or sinks in an examining or treatment room may be considered to be “elements” within an employee work area and therefore exempt from accessibility requirements per IBC Section 1103.2.3. However, if intended to be used by both employees and patients, sinks would need to be accessible per IBC Section 1109.3 and comply with ICC A117.1 Section 606.
This leads to questions like: “Is it more likely that a sink in a medical doctor’s examining room will be used by patients than one in a dentist’s treatment room?” Although the intuitive answer may be “yes,” that is no guarantee that the designer and users will all agree, while taking an “all or nothing” approach—either at least 5 percent but not less than one sink in every examining or treatment room must be accessible, or none are required to be accessible—is no less likely to result in conflicts. In such situations, a compromise solution should be considered. Allowing the designer some flexibility while assuring that a certain level of accessibility
is provided serves everyone’s best interests and will help the space function better over the long term.
One option would be to apply the scoping limits of IBC Section 1109.3 to either the total number of rooms or to each type of room rather than to each individual room. This will help assure that in every doctor’s or dentist’s office, at least one examining or treatment room containing a sink will serve the needs of any employee or patient who might need to use it.
Another option would be to permit the use of a parallel approach to the sinks instead of the forward approach required by ICC A117.1 Section 606.2. A parallel approach makes sink height and controls accessible while allowing the installation of cabinets underneath. If this option is allowed, it seems reasonable to require that all—or at least a higher percentage—of the sinks in examining or treatment rooms be accessible in this manner.
There are other possibilities for providing accessibility while facilitating flexibility. The code official may decide to allow a combination of the two previous options such that the sinks in some examining or treatment rooms provide a fully compliant forward approach and the remainder provide a parallel approach, or allow the use of removable base cabinets per ICC A117.1 Section 1003.11.5.
Disability advocates may not be completely pleased with some of these options, but at the very least they help illustrate how limiting code officials to an “all or nothing” prescriptive approach can sometimes have the unintended consequence of actually limiting flexibility to adapt to users’ needs, whereas compromise solutions may be available which ensure a level of accessibility that might otherwise not exist at all.
Conclusion
The appropriate application of IBC Sections 1109.3 and 1103.2.3 is not always cut-and-dried. However, by giving careful consideration to the individual situation and the potential long-term effects on both the project and the people who will be using it, it is possible to reach a solution that serves the best interests of everyone.
Whether required by the applicable code provisions and standards or not, making elements in accessible spaces accessible or adaptable facilitates the future accommodation of users. In the event that an employee needs accessible elements—even on a temporary basis—there will ideally be at least one work area available that can be adapted without requiring extensive, and often expensive, alterations. As such, where multiple work stations of the same type are provided, it may be a good idea to offer future flexibility by making a minimum of 5 percent of them accessible per ICC A117.1
