Single service sink requirement?

[ADAguy]

Each of those uses (occupancies?) is part of one ownership under one roof served by a shared corridor system, no? Unless each occupancy discharges separate types of fluids that might interact if mixed, then it would seem to be a resolve able issue with the AHJ to allow a single service sink. You do say that the S-1 is a repair garage, if so that occupancy might require a separate sink with a grease seperater.

 

[cda]

I did find this: http://www.specsandcodes.com/articles/code_corner/The Code Corner No. 33 - Calculating Plumbing Fixture Counts.pdf

The paragraph at the bottom of page 4 that runs onto page 5 states that it is open to interpretation.

I guess I'll have to give my best pitch to the AHJ.

If anyone finds something more concrete, please let me know. Thanks all.

So is this one business or multiple


Or a general question

 

[georgia plans exam]

I would hope that if this is a single tenant with multiple occupancy classifications there would be no AHJ that would be so narrow minded as to think that the code requires a separate service sink for each occupancy classification within that single tenant space. I would hope...

GPE

.

 

[ecatellier]

Georgia PE -
I would hope for that as well. The problem is... what you describe, and what the commentary describes, is not how the code is written.

To be clear, it is a freestanding 54,000 sf building for a single company. "Single tenant space" was used as a descriptor because a previous poster was getting confused.

 

[georgia plans exam]

Well, here is to hoping that common sense prevails. I agree with the commentary. The code cannot cover every circumstance.

GPE

 

[classicT]

I'd agree that the intent is to provide one per building; however, if the individual occupancies of said building are not interconnected, then one in each space would be required.

 

[ADAguy]

Might be, it depends on if the occupancies are a tenant in common or individual tenants.

 

[steveray]

Steve -
This is a single tenant space with multiple occupancy types.

Almost every tenant has multiple occupancy types..Office (B) with storage rooms (S) and break/conference rooms (A)....If the BO is going to hang his hat on that...

 

[mark handler]

Not in the code, (2012, 2015. 2018), only in commentary.
It is common sense, if he/she requires it, contact ICC for interp or ALT Means.....

 

[classicT]

Almost every tenant has multiple occupancy types..Office (B) with storage rooms (S) and break/conference rooms (A)....If the BO is going to hang his hat on that...

Hope that you are not breaking it out that far on every project. I cant imagine classifying a break room independently (unless it was massive). Most often the areas you've listed (storage rooms, break/conference rooms, etc.) should be classified as an incidental use (see IBC Section 509) - works for up to 10% of the building area of the story in which they are located. Table 509 gives the required separation method.

 

[ADAguy]

A voice of logic speaks, the term being "incidental uses" good point.

 

[ecatellier]

I agree with the commentary. The code cannot cover every circumstance.
GPE

It seems to me that this particular statement (which begins with "The code requires...") should be included in the actual code.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

IPC 202 Definition
Occupancy. The purpose for which a building or portion thereof is utilized or occupied.

IPC 403 Minimum number of fixtures.
Plumbing fixtures shall be provided for the type of occupancy and in the minimum number shown in Table 403.1.

So in a strip mall where all the tenants are B the building would only have one occupancy (B) so it would only require 1 service sink in one of the tenant spaces. It doesn't matter when this tenant space is open.
The building would also need only one men's and women's restroom and a drinking fountain in one of the tenant spaces if this tenant space is open when any of the other tenant spaces are open and has an accessible route to it from the other tenant spaces

Anything wrong with this per code?.

 

[mark handler]

Smaller occupancies are exempt from many rules see footnotes.

 

[ecatellier]

Rick... see the solution summary for Sample Problem 2 in the commentary. If one tenant cannot access the service sink of another tenant at all times, then both need a service sink.

 

[ecatellier]

Mark - my building/posed question does not meet the criteria for "smaller" occupancies.

 

[mark handler]

Mark - my building/posed question does not meet the criteria for "smaller" occupancies.

Make the janitorial accessible to all, like a common electrical room.
You guys are making things too difficult on yourselves.

 

[ecatellier]

Mark -
Making a single janitorial closet directly accessible to three different occupancy types can be rather difficult.
It would be nice if the code reflected the commentary, or vice versa, on this particular point.

 

[steveray]

Not that hard, like Mark said, all tenants need access to their electrical OCPD...Why should the janitors sink be any different?

 

[ecatellier]

steverray... yes, you can easily provide unfettered access. This is not the point. The point is how the code is actually and specifically written versus its supposed intent. (Nice rig by the way... what year is that? I have an '07 JK)

The point is this: Table 2902.1 lists "1 service sink" as a required fixture for all occupancies (except in R and some I occupancies). It does not say anything about how to calculate the number of required service sinks for a building with multiple occupancies. The footnotes for this table do not state "The code requires only one service sink per building if all occupancies have access to the service sink at all times." This sentence is not in the IBC or the IPC. It only appears under the tables for two solution summaries in the code commentary. If the "intent" or "proper interpretation" of the service sink requirement is for one sink per building, the ACTUAL code should say this. It should be easy enough to add footnote "F" to the table...

I started this thread in order to get help finding that language in the actual code. I discovered that it is not, in fact, in the actual code. Even after two subsequent published versions, it is still not in there. After speaking with a rep from the ICC, I found out that the ICC cannot just add this common sense language into the code on it's own accord... it must be submitted through a committee to be reviewed, voted on and formally adopted into the next version.

Well... here goes nothin'...

 

[mark handler]

steverray... yes, you can easily provide unfettered access. This is not the point. The point is how the code is actually and specifically written versus its supposed intent. (Nice rig by the way... what year is that? I have an '07 JK)

The point is this: Table 2902.1 lists "1 service sink" as a required fixture for all occupancies (except in R and some I occupancies). It does not say anything about how to calculate the number of required service sinks for a building with multiple occupancies. The footnotes for this table do not state "The code requires only one service sink per building if all occupancies have access to the service sink at all times." This sentence is not in the IBC or the IPC. It only appears under the tables for two solution summaries in the code commentary. If the "intent" or "proper interpretation" of the service sink requirement is for one sink per building, the ACTUAL code should say this. It should be easy enough to add footnote "F" to the table...

I started this thread in order to get help finding that language in the actual code. I discovered that it is not, in fact, in the actual code. Even after two subsequent published versions, it is still not in there. After speaking with a rep from the ICC, I found out that the ICC cannot just add this common sense language into the code on it's own accord... it must be submitted through a committee to be reviewed, voted on and formally adopted into the next version.

Well... here goes nothin'...

Then put in three, waste the clients money.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I agree with ecatellier. I can not write it down without referencing a section in the codes for a plan review or inspection.

 

[ecatellier]

Rick - Yes! Thank you! There is no section or paragraph to reference. Thank you for getting it.

 

[north star]

+ + = = + +

FWIW, ...I believe that **Francis Vineyard** provided the most
logical, cost savings interpretation in Post # 16 [ i.e. -
visit with the BO, explain your situation, and ask for an
official written interpretation ].

A logical, seasoned, Code savvy Code Official "should" be
able determine that only 1 Service Sink is required in the
single tenant Truck Dealership.

As someone has already mentioned, not every situation can
be covered in the Codes......That is what the Code Officials
are for.

= = + + = =