# Drinking Fountain provisions 2006 IPC 410.1



## Papio Bldg Dept (Nov 30, 2011)

Occupancy: B

Occupant Load: 124

Requirement: 1 per 100

Subsitituions: not more than 50% with water coolers/bottled water dispensers

Required:  1 drinking fountain (hi-lo combination or multi-height spigot fixture), 1 drinking cooler/bottled water dispenser.

Is there a provision, or have AHJ's accepted alternative provisions, which would permit a combination of break room and water cooler facilities to substitute for 100% of the drinking fountain requirements?  Are there accessibility issues with water coolers and bottled water dispensers?


----------



## north star (Nov 30, 2011)

*% % % %*

Probably not 100% replacement, but ok with non-ADA required.

Does your drinking cooler OR bottled water dispenser meet

ADA dimensional requirements [ i.e. - reach ranges

...access to the dispenser, other ], and can you guarantee

that once the C. of O. is issued, that the drinking cooler /

water dispenser will remain [ i.e. - temp. lease to obtain

the C. of O. ]?......Permanently installed " hi -lo's " are

a little more permanent.

*% % % %*


----------



## gbhammer (Nov 30, 2011)

I often accept break room sinks as an exception to an ewc, but never will allow bottle water for more than 50%.

The break room sink and the provided cups need to be at an accessible level.

It did not occur to me that a cup dispenser would not be accessible. Hmmm.


----------



## Examiner (Nov 30, 2011)

The Code requires drinking fountains which dispense room temperature water not refrigerated water.  Drinking coolers are refrigerated water units.  Bottle water can be refrigerated or just room temperature.  Access to any will require the same floor area for approach.  Dispensing height will depend on spout not using cups or using cups.  If it is cups then the reach range is addressed in the accessible guidelines for forward or side approach to get a cup from the dispensing device and to operate the water dispensing device.

As I see the problem;

In your given occupant load the building will have to have 1 drinking fountain for people who have trouble bending and stooping (higher mounted units) and 1 drinking fountain for wheelchair access (lower mounted units); 2 total units (Pair = 1-high and 1-low).  You are required to have two units based on 124 / 100 = 1.2 has to be rounded up to 2 fountains and 50% of required drinking fountains must be accessible.  .

Substitution can be a combo drinking cooler (high & low) and a bottle water dispenser as long as the dispenser location for the water can serve both wheelchair and people who have trouble bending and stooping.

Or combo drinking fountain (high & low) and a bottle water dispenser as long as the dispenser location for the water can serve both wheelchair and people who have trouble bending and stooping.

Be aware that the higher wall mounted unit if not located in an alcove could be a protruding object.  They make cane detection aprons that attach to the higher unit.


----------



## steveray (Dec 1, 2011)

"Be aware that the higher wall mounted unit if not located in an alcove could be a protruding object. They make cane detection aprons that attach to the higher unit. "

Good call examiner!...been fighting that one here quite a bit....


----------



## skipharper (Dec 1, 2011)

See IBC 1109.5


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 2, 2011)

Thank you for your responses.

We listened to the owner/tenant's request, however, we did not accept their proposal for alternative provisions, which was mostly based upon concerns of perceived hygenics.  We noted our concerns for the continuation of the fixtures to remain in the event of a change in ownership or tenant, and offered to reconsider our decision if they could present third-party research or data that could support their position/request.  Our current policy limits 100% substitutions to those occupancies that qualify for the separate facilites exemptions (i.e., mercantiles <50, businesses <16, etc.), and are considered on a case by case basis, with acceptance being conditional to revokation at the discretion of the BO.

The issue of protruding objects is one we often face, but is often shown on plans with a note to be ADA compliant.  I am not one to want to tell a designer how to do their job, and would hate to presume they are not aware that their note does little to inform the contractor or owner of all applicable accessibility (or code) compliance issues pertaining to that item.  Therefore, at this point in my career, I have conceeded to fight this battle at the time of final inspection. My current accessibility comments now mirror the DP's efforts and offer approvals with comment pending accessibility compliance verified at the time of final inspection.  I have redirected those wasted energies towards the continual training of our inspectors on key accessiblity issues and the production of a small business guide.   The result has been unfortunate for owners and contractors, who often find themselves fit to be tied when counter tops and cabinetry have to be re-ordered, or certificates of occupancy are not issued in time for their grand opening.  Until a designer comes back to me and asks me why I did not make this comment in plan review (as of today, I have only received "no one else makes me do this" and "i am not payed enough" responses), I will continue on in this regard.


----------



## north star (Dec 2, 2011)

** * * **

Papio,

Your direction of the "best use" of your resources in commendable

and refeshing to see amongst other code officials......I am seeing

more and more of the flat out laziness of RDP's, and,

non-payment [ to RDP's ] for the plans, depth of the Scope-of-Work

necessary for each of the different trades people involved, to

be able to effectively construct a code compliant project......I see

a lot of the _"Must meet all applicable local codes and ordinances"_

_statements on project plans these days._......If the RDP's are not

going to get paid to design a fully compliant project, then the

project owners, nor the contractors, should expect the code

community to also pass-the-buck for approval of the incomplete

project design.

I have been fighting this particular battle for some time

now, and I am seeing more and more of an increase of

the generalized statements and references on various

project plans.......Even after I perform a code review of

the project plans, and I get out to the actual project

site to perform the various inspections, I still get

the statement of "Well, we didn't know about this or

that code requirement......The jurisdiction over there

didn't require us to do that", and "Well, we've been

doing it this way for XXX number of years and ain't

nobody ever said nothing......Why are you picking

on us?"

I am seeing that a lot of the various trades are

not requiring, nor obtaining, any actual training /

awareness of the various codes and standards, but

if I issue an inspection report on a discrepancy, then

somehow I am the "fly in the ointment", ...holding

up progress, ...costing the owners and contractors

money and resources, and on and on and on.

Keep on fighting the fight Papio and others!

Stepping down off of my wobbly soap box, ...again!  :beatdhrs

** * * **


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 2, 2011)

I do require that the RDP show detailed elevations of permanently installed fixtures and cabinetry, and have recently begun to ask for them to provide the location, and language of all required ADA signage. Right now a high school and intermediate school addition from the same RDP have had nothing about ADA requirements and they are scrambling for revisions that are compliant. They say the owner provides the signage, and I told them before I release the plans then the owner needs to provide what I need to review. The problem is that these types of jobs are very political and I do not want to be the bad guy at the end of the project saying to bad you can hold school outside. They want OP’s with card board signs drawn up by the art department. Believe me it has happened, and the powers that be let it.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 2, 2011)

I have posted this in other threads, but I am again reminded of an RDP who called me up at 5pm to discuss my plan review comments, and started by stating this conversation is being recorded (not a good way to start a conversation, especially when I had offered him an opportunity earlier in the project to avoid having his contractor reported to the State Board for illegal submittals).  I had spent half the morning talking to the contractor for the job about the comments, and getting tired of explaining the comments to the contractor (who had been unsuccessful in relaying them to the RDP on two previous attemps), who was not at all familiar with commercial codes, let alone accessibility, I suggested for expediency's sake, I speak directly with the RDP.  The conversation was amiable until he started to tell me how he has worked all over the nation and has never had to include door schedules or accessibility information in his construction documents before, how he is doing this project as a favor, how he is closing his small practice and going to work for a large corporate firm, and went on to suggest how I am a hindrance to development in this country.  After a few deep breaths we were able to finish reviewing the comments and agreed to disagree on a few of the comments, while on others I agreed to give him the benefit of the doubt that the contractor would know what needed to be accessible, and we would verify it at the final inspection.  One custom curved counter-top re-order and two re-inspections later, they had a C of O.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 2, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> The problem is that these types of jobs are very political and I do not want to be the bad guy at the end of the project saying to bad you can hold school outside. They want OP’s with card board signs drawn up by the art department. Believe me it has happened, and the powers that be let it.


This was one of the areas listed on my job performance review as improved but needed more work.  We have joked before on political projects about who is going to say "no."  Sometimes we laugh when it isn't funny ha ha.  "Padlocks on egress doors/gates" is my biggest brouhaha.  Prolly why I haven't been invited to a C of C grand opening in awhile.


----------



## north star (Dec 2, 2011)

*& & & &*

Sometimes it seems as though that the code community are

the only ones reviewing for code compliance, ...trying to stay

on top of all of the various codes, ...changes and updates and

inspecting for compliance.

Maybe it's just me!....It has been a very, very long and hard

week.

* * * *


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 2, 2011)

north star said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just me!....It has been a very, very long and hard
> 
> week.


That's what weekends are for right?  Regroup, and get ready for a case of the Monday's.  Have a good weekend!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 2, 2011)

Drinking fountain requirements ammended out of B and M occupancies. Makes my job easy


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 2, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Drinking fountain requirements ammended out of B and M occupancies. Makes my job easy


Nice.  Would make mine easier too.  Any reasoning behind the ammendment (i.e., Not in previously adopted codes like UPC, etc.), or just for simplicity's sake?


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 2, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> That's what weekends are for right?  Regroup, and get ready for a case of the Monday's.  Have a good weekend!


No rest for me this weekend, I have the Mid-America regional in KC. My stress levels will come down after I win it all.


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 2, 2011)

I'll only be a couple hours out Papio, maybe you can come down and get some dart lessons.


----------



## north star (Dec 2, 2011)

** * * **

I think that removal of the drinking fountains in

the B & M occupancies is also a good idea.

mtlogcabin,

You DO know that you will have customers falling

out on the floor because they do not have a public,

clean source of drinking water to satisfy the

human need for hydration. D`OH !!     

** * * **


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 2, 2011)

north star said:
			
		

> ** * * **I think that removal of the drinking fountains in
> 
> the B & M occupancies is also a good idea.
> 
> ...


Yep that sounds like a law suit waiting to happen


----------



## north star (Dec 2, 2011)

*& & & &*



gb,

In our overzealous, litigious society / culture, people sue

for less than this every day.....Besides, the business owners

could always say "I thought I saw them with a bottle of

water when they came in my store."

** * * **


----------

