# Accessibility for Wastewater Treatment Plant



## Enginerd (Oct 26, 2010)

We are designing a new filter building for an existing sewer treatment plant.  There is no space in the building that is not directly related to the process for the treatment system.  We believe that the entire building and access to the building would be exempt under IBC 2006 section 1103.2.9 (sewage treatment station).  Is our interpretation correct?

The Third Party reviewer for the AHJ is stating that this exemption does not exclude parking and the accessible route to and into the building and all elements along that route.  No new parking is being provided, however parking spaces are provided at the existing control building, and it currently is not accessible.

The public is not allowed access to the site, as it is completely surrounded by fence and barbed wire.  The existing control building is not accessible, and persons with physical disabilities would not meet the qualifications for a plant operator – the only people that will ever be in the building and on the site.

Please let me know if you think we are interpreting this section correctly, or if you have any guidance.


----------



## jim baird (Oct 26, 2010)

Curious that there would be accessible parking without routes to buildings.

Our state has an accessibility code that supercedes, but is largely based in ANSI, apparently so that state officials can tweak as they see fit.

Does 1103.2.5 offer no relief?


----------



## MarkRandall (Oct 26, 2010)

Unfortunately, our opinions mean nothing. Neither do I have experience in treatment plants, but reading 1103.2.9, I would agree the building is exempt as the building is the "sewage treatment station".

I tend to error on the safe side when it comes to accessibility, which means in this case, I'd also review ADA guidelines closely and make sure that concurs.

I do wonder what elements the reviewer thinks need to be accessible. Without seeing the plans, I'd assume all elements are certainly exempted by the code section you reference. On the other hand, I would think it would be good practice to provide accessibility into the structure if it's at all practical to do so. I could see a supervisor with disabilities who normally doesn't work in this location visiting the site and at least entering the building isn't asking that much, but required, I'd say no.


----------



## Enginerd (Oct 26, 2010)

Jim,

There are existing parking spaces provided at the control building, but NONE of the existing spaces are accessible.  We also did not plan to add any additional parking, accessible or not.

We are classified as Occ Cat 'B', because nothing else really makes sense.  (Although neigher does B).


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 26, 2010)

The site or facilities should be accessible. Your new "filter building" may be exempt but  any office or restrooms on site should be accessible. Perhaps restriping the parking lot is one thing & an accessible route into an existing building if it has an office or restoom. Might not be "required" just a good idea


----------



## Enginerd (Oct 26, 2010)

MLC

No office space or restrooms in the filter building.  The existing control building has a unisex restroom that was 'accessible' when it was constructed, but does not meet current accessibility standards.  The control building is accessible to the point where someone could enter and exit the building, use the restroom and get into the office space.  However, this is with out a designated accessible parking area.


----------



## brudgers (Oct 26, 2010)

The building is a place of public accommodation and falls under ADA...it has nothing to do with the public being allowed on the site.

In addition, you are exposing your client to a discrimination claim.

The idea that a person with disabilities would never qualify as a plant operator doesn't create an exemption to Civil Rights Law (BTW "we don't hire african-americans" doesn't either.)

Finally, the fact that the existing facilities are not accessible means that they are an ADA liability as the client has had 20 years to remove architectural barriers.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 26, 2010)

The building use should be "U". No accessiblity needed.


----------



## Forest (Oct 26, 2010)

agree that the building needs to have an accessible route and be accessible, but as for parking the code reads if provided. If no new spaces are provided none needed.In this day and age I would air on the side of caution, painting line is cheap, add the parking close to the building  because you need a starting point for an accessible route.


----------



## Enginerd (Oct 26, 2010)

Brudgers,

The existing building was constructed to be accessible under the current code of that time.  However, the accessibilty requirements have become more strict since that time.  I could be wrong, but we are not renovating the existing building, so I do not think that we would have to 'remove architectural barriers'.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 26, 2010)

You are correct you are not renovating the existing building so under the building code you are not required to at this time. However brudgers is also correct under ADA there was a time limit to do a facility plan to remove barrriers and it is past.  Paint stripping is cheap and an accessible route into that existing building would be the correct thing to do.

If I remember from other post PA  has a state agency that oversees ADA compliance. What is their take on it?


----------



## Enginerd (Oct 26, 2010)

PA does not have an agency that oversees ADA compliance, but they do have an accessibility review board which is the only entity that can grant variance or deem something 'technically infeasable'.  They also oversee the local accessibility inspectors (audits atleast once every 5 years), or provide the inspections to municipalities that are not qualified to perform accessiblity inspections themselves.

I have posed this question (unofficially) and am awaiting their response.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 26, 2010)

PA does not enforce ADA (a civil right law) but has adoped IBC and ANSI 117.1


----------



## brudgers (Oct 26, 2010)

Enginerd said:
			
		

> Brudgers,The existing building was constructed to be accessible under the current code of that time.  However, the accessibilty requirements have become more strict since that time.  I could be wrong, but we are not renovating the existing building, so I do not think that we would have to 'remove architectural barriers'.


There's no safe harbor for Title III of the ADA (although the new rules will provide safe harbor for buildings which meet ADAAG 1991).

In addition, Title III of the ADA requires businesses to remove architectural barriers. There is no grandfathering of Civil Rights violations.

I recommend speaking with an attorney familiar with these matters rather than pulling stuff out of the air.


----------



## TJacobs (Oct 28, 2010)

I agree with brudgers on this one.  Tours of the facility by the public...visits by vendors who are disabled...the possibilities are endless.


----------



## brudgers (Oct 28, 2010)

Employees who are disabled.

Job applicants who are disabled.

Elected officials who are disabled.

Etc.

Unfortunately, without damages there is no incentive to provide accessiblity.


----------



## Architect1281 (Oct 30, 2010)

Acessibility to specialized work areas where the task to be accomplished require physical ability is an exception within ADA title III

find it have the client provide the job description and forget the parking.

the routes to the structure compliant with ADA if attainable reduce able bodied workers comp problems so if it works make it so.

the use of a WWTF (we have many in our juristiction) are classified as either F or H chemical dependent

306.1 Factory Industrial Group F. Factory Industrial Group F occupancy includes, among others, .... repair or processing

operations that are not classified as a Group H hazardous or Group S storage occupancy.


----------



## Enginerd (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanks for the insight on classification and ADA III, A1281.

I think we can get an accessible route with out too much heartache, so I think we will provide it anyway.  We just wanted to know if we are REQUIRED to for this and future designs.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 1, 2010)

Architect1281 said:
			
		

> Acessibility to specialized work areas where the task to be accomplished require physical ability is an exception within ADA title III find it have the client provide the job description and forget the parking.
> 
> the routes to the structure compliant with ADA if attainable reduce able bodied workers comp problems so if it works make it so.
> 
> ...


Job descriptions are not a safe harbor for ADA Title III.

It applies to places of public accommodation.


----------

