# Wall finish adjacent to toilets



## MarkRandall (Feb 16, 2010)

There used to be a code section that required a wainscot finish 48" high adjacent to toilets and urinals. I was just looking for that code section and not finding it. Is this requirement in the IBC? Id so, could somebody give me a section number?

It's been a long time since I've looked this code up. Not sure I've ever checked since I-codes were adopted. I've just assumed that requirement was still there.

Thanks,


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 16, 2010)

Re: Wall finish adjacent to toilets

IBC 2006 Section 1210.2 may have what you are looking for.


----------



## MarkRandall (Feb 16, 2010)

Re: Wall finish adjacent to toilets

That's it!

Thanks Coug Dad.


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 16, 2010)

Re: Wall finish adjacent to toilets

This issue has been the topic of a couple of recent posts about what constitutes an acceptable material.  You may want to read them.  However, I also believe the WAC through the Washington Department of Health also specifies materials.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Feb 16, 2010)

Re: Wall finish adjacent to toilets

Mark,

Kind of threw me with "wainscot"; but, I will assume you are refering to the 4' height requirement. In the 2009, IBC 1210.2 states (don't have my 2006 with me);

"Walls and partitions within 2 feet of urinals and water closets shall have a smooth, hard, nonabsorbent surface, to a height of 4 feet above the floor; and except for structural elements, the materials used in such walls shall be of a type that is not adversely effected by moisture."

Exceptions:

1.  Dwelling units and sleeping units.

2.  Toilet rooms that are not accessible to the public, and have not more than one water closet.

Accessories such as grab bars, towel bars, paper dispensers and soap dishes, provided on or within walls, shall be installed and sealed to protect structural elements from moisture.  For walls and partitions also see Section 2903 (which does not refer to wall coverings).

This is 2009 IBC,

Uncle Bob


----------



## MarkRandall (Feb 16, 2010)

Re: Wall finish adjacent to toilets

I've always called it a wainscot...Ceramic Tile wainscot or vinyl wainscot etc.

The reason it came up is...I've heard in the past that there are paints that qualified for meeting these requirements, but I've never used them or specified them. I have also heard that no paints meet this requirement.

I met with a painting rep yesterday whose paints were remarkably washable. One line of their paints can create a very good dry erase board out of your wall. Anyway, I asked them if their paints could be used adjacent to a toilet or urinal and they couldn't answer and asked me for the code section and that's when I went looking for the code section and couldn't find it. Part of the reason I didn't find it is I searched for the work "toilet" and this section uses "water closet". Terminology is kind of funny, toilet was used in many places in the code, but so is water closet.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 17, 2010)

Re: Wall finish adjacent to toilets

What criteria are you using to determine what is and isn't non-absorbent?

Do you have an ASTM number?


----------



## MarkRandall (Feb 17, 2010)

Re: Wall finish adjacent to toilets

Brudgers, the code doesn't reference any standards, just the verbage in section 1210.2 is all you have to go by. I checked the commentary and there isn't really any additional information from that source as to any standards. I guess that's why I've heard differing opinions in the past as to whether paint can be used.


----------



## pwood (Feb 17, 2010)

Re: Wall finish adjacent to toilets

mark,

   the requirement is also stated in table 4-1 footnote #10 of the u.p.c. i have heard that some oregon jurisdictions near me are approving the use of epoxy paint  to meet the requirement. i like frp,sealed concrete or tile  to meet  the requirement.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 17, 2010)

Re: Wall finish adjacent to toilets



			
				MarkRandall said:
			
		

> Brudgers, the code doesn't reference any standards, just the verbage in section 1210.2 is all you have to go by. I checked the commentary and there isn't really any additional information from that source as to any standards. I guess that's why I've heard differing opinions in the past as to whether paint can be used.


So how then does anyone justify saying that drywall and paint is absorbent?

Particularly in light of the fact that glass faced gypsum boards are designed to resist surface moisture absorption and tested for it under ASTM C 473?

This has all the makings of a "pet peeve."


----------



## peach (Feb 17, 2010)

Re: Wall finish adjacent to toilets

I asked this very same question on another topic..

tile with grout is neither smooth nor non-absorbent.. yet we see it in every commercial toilet room..

acrylic paint is both.. yet some building departments won't accept it..

go figure


----------



## Big Mac (Feb 18, 2010)

Re: Wall finish adjacent to toilets

A good quality epoxy paint certainly can be considered non-absorbant if properly applied and maintained.  I would suggest that gypsum wallboard cannot resonably be considered as a hard surface due to the fact that it is so easily compromised.  I have even seen people put their head through gypsum wallboard, let alone scratch the surface or damage it in a number of other ways.

I have accepted epoxy paint over a masonry wall surface for this application.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 18, 2010)

Re: Wall finish adjacent to toilets



			
				Big Mac said:
			
		

> I would suggest that gypsum wallboard cannot resonably be considered as a hard surface due to the fact that it is so easily compromised.  I have even seen people put their head through gypsum wallboard, let alone scratch the surface or damage it in a number of other ways.


I guess glass isn't hard either...but denim is.

Brilliant!


----------

