Provision of Universal Washrooms

[kiwijbob]

Well I think I've gone over 3.7.2.2 (NBCC 2015) more times than I care to admit so finally I think I need someone to spell it out for me. In applying 3.7.2.2. for example to a Group D office (Business & Personal Services) with an occupant load of 35 people it appears simple to me that 2 washrooms are required per table 3.7.2.2. B; that is until I read (and re-read & reach for a glass of whiskey) 3.7.2.2 (3), the wording appears to say that if I provide only one UWR then I cannot use that in my calculations, so must I plan for 1 UWR plus 2 other WRs? But if I provide 2 UWRs the that will suffice? To be blunt if the both WRs are UWRs then that meets the code but if only 1 is then 2 WRs need to be provided in addition to the one which is a UWR?

I have been pulled up on this previously where I had provided 1 UWR and 1 WR, the AHJ demanded we install 2 UWRs as the building was a Business & Personal Service with an occupant load of 15 and their stance was that 3.7.2.2. (4) did not apply to 3.7.2.2. (12). It was a small unit and not in a strip mall.

Some clarity would be appreciated.

 

[tmurray]

On smaller occupant load buildings, I have always allowed 1 UWR and 1 WR. There is no real risk to health or safety.

A strict reading of the code, you can provide 2 UWRs since you are not providing "only" one. If you provide only one UWR, the only effect it can have on fixture count is in sentence (2) that allows you to reduce the occupant load by 10.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

It's a bit of a PITA, because 3.7.2.2(2) only allows you to treat a UWC as reducing occupant load by ten, or in this case, to 25 persons.
And then the D occupancy table says you still have to have two washrooms, right?

So I understand your desire to seek refuge in distilled adult beverages. But I'm with tmurray here - somewhere for this low occupancy, a little common sense is in order. 35 occupants in an area not barrier-free would require two toilets: you have two toilets. I, too, would (and have) allowed this combination in low occupancy situations.

Making toilets barrier-free for both genders is a solution.... and my guess is that Code is trying to push you in that direction.

 

[kiwijbob]

It's a bit of a PITA, because 3.7.2.2(2) only allows you to treat a UWC as reducing occupant load by ten, or in this case, to 25 persons.
And then the D occupancy table says you still have to have two washrooms, right?

So I understand your desire to seek refuge in distilled adult beverages. But I'm with tmurray here - somewhere for this low occupancy, a little common sense is in order. 35 occupants in an area not barrier-free would require two toilets: you have two toilets. I, too, would (and have) allowed this combination in low occupancy situations.

Making toilets barrier-free for both genders is a solution.... and my guess is that Code is trying to push you in that direction.

Well we now tend to err on the side on two UWRs, I had hoped that NBCC 2020 would have some changes to add clarity but that's not the case. Regardless the whiskey helps!