# Does an outdoor shower need an enclosure and bench to meet ADA?



## Yikes

When you have an outdoor shower head, such as at a swimming pool deck or at a rinse-off-shower at a beach, it is not intended for private bathing, but rather as a quick rinse-off.
Most facilities I have seen are a freestanding or wall-mounted shower head, with no enclosure.





Question: would such an outdoor shower need enclosure walls, grab bars, and a transfer seat in order to meet ADA / CBC 11B accessibility?


----------



## Rick18071

IBC 1109.2 Each toilet room and bathing room shall be accessible. At least one of each fixture in each accessible toilet room and bathing room shall be accessible.

If it is not in a room it does not need to be accessible.


----------



## ADAguy

It depends on if it is for public use or private.


----------



## classicT

Why not treat it as if it were a roll-in type shower? Put the controls in an accessible location and lose the seat and privacy walls.


----------



## steveray

Even a roll-in get bars I believe....


----------



## Yikes

It is in a public housing project.  In our state health code, if any of the apartments are more than 300' away from the pool, a rinse-off shower is required.


----------



## ADAguy

seat obviously required for transfer if WC not water resistant


----------



## Yikes

Rick18071, you bring up an interesting point. ADA and CBC 11B-213 call it toilet and bathing "facilities".
But the specific requirement qualifies it to plumbing fixtures in a toilet ROOM or bathing ROOM per 11B-213.2, 11B-213.3.
when an outdoor shower is unenclosed, it is not in a room, Therefore the requirement for walls, seat, and handrails are not triggered.


----------



## ADAguy

Need to distinguish between private and public before you make that determination.


----------



## mark handler

IMPO
The shower needs to be accessible, regardless
The bench, accessible,   only if provided


----------



## ICE

It’s a bathing facility?  Do people show up with shampoo and a loofa?


----------



## north star

*# ~ #*

Yikes,

Are there other ADA compliant elements to, from or
around these types of Showers  [  i.e. - is there an ADA
compliant sidewalk or walkway, with the correct slope,
correct width, Handrails, etc.  ].......Does HUD have
any language addressing a non-compartmentalized Shower
Head ?....... If at the beach, is there an ADA compliant
travel path to the beach ?

While it makes good practical sense to have ADA compliant
controls at these types of Showers, I cannot find the language
in the `10 ADASAD to "require" mandatory compliance.

Maybe someone will list the applicable Standard sections to
require the compliance.

*# ~ #*


----------



## Yikes

Specifically, I am retrofitting an existing apartment pool in a narrow space.  I need to add in an ADA pool access lift, and I need 4' of maneuvering P.O.T. room around the lift.  I can achieve that if I don't have to ALSO install a shower enclosure, bench, etc.
In other words, if the ADA rinse-off shower can simply be a control and shower head nearby on a post or fence, I can make everything work.


----------



## ADAguy

Yikes you would save us some time and allow us to directly address your issue if you had said that from the beginning (smile).
The shower for rinsing off before entering the pool may be a health dept. requirement. Need to verify that before we continue with if, and or maybes. If not required then you don't have an issue. If required it must be accessible.


----------



## Rick18071

Did a plan review and inspection on a bathhouse for a boy scout camp pool. Only required the inside showers to be accessible. IBC does not mention an outside shower to be accessible. As an inspector I don't look at ADA but the designer or owner probably should if don't want to be sued.


----------



## ADAguy

It continues, the ongoing resistance of AHJ's and their agencies to end the division between the law and the code. The same with ANSI vs ADASAD. Why can't we all get a long?


----------



## JBI

ADAguy said:


> It continues, the ongoing resistance of AHJ's and their agencies to end the division between the law and the code. The same with ANSI vs ADASAD. Why can't we all get a long?



AHJ's are without authority to enforce the ADA, that duty falls to the Department of Justice.
It is not a simple matter of '...ending the division between the law and the code.'
It is a matter of legal jurisdiction.
I can only advise people in my jurisdiction that the ADA may/may not 'require' something, I cannot legally require anything based on the ADA.
The ANSI standard works with the code to ensure that new construction complies with the law, just as the ADASAD works with the ADA to ensure compliance with ALL titles of the law, including requirements for existing buildings even when NO work is being done.


----------



## ADAguy

You miss the point, it is the "intent" of the ADA for local authorities to implement codes that require compliance with the law, which is equal to but not less than ADASAD, ANSI is not a safe harbor except for certain housing; doing so will then require "code" compliance by AHJ's with the ADA.


----------



## Rick18071

I have to obey the state law which tells me exactly what I am to enforce. Just like I cannot enforce any traffic or drug laws. Also the 3rd party company I work for wants me to do only what I'm being paid to do. I do not enforce any federal law. I am not allowed to suggest to a contractor or owner how to build or correct something, only pass or fail with notice of the section of code.  I never read the ADA and could tell them something that is not correct. By state law I cannot enforce anything but the state code.


----------



## ADAguy

There again, you are "only" the inspector, not the "designer", picky, picky.


----------



## JBI

ADAguy said:


> You miss the point, it is the "intent" of the ADA for local authorities to implement codes that require compliance with the law, which is equal to but not less than ADASAD, ANSI is not a safe harbor except for certain housing; doing so will then require "code" compliance by AHJ's with the ADA.



Maybe you didn't make your point well...


----------



## ADAguy

If in the code and your code is equal to but not less than ADASAD, you will inspect for that? Doing so you are then complying with "code enforcement" of the ADA, right?


----------



## JPohling

Not an inspector, but they are only responsible to inspect against the applicable building codes for their jurisdiction.  many of these codes have used the ADASAD as a basis for the code sections, but still just enforcing the building code and not the ADASAD from where it may have originated from.


----------



## ICE

ADAguy said:


> you are "only" the inspector



I tell people that often.  Somehow many get the delusion that I can fix anything, design anything, accept anything or say no to anything.  Not all of that is correct.


----------



## Rick18071

When I do a plan review and on the page where they have the codes listed that the plans were designed to, if they have ADA listed I cross it off. I was instructed to do this by the state because I am not responsible to enforce ADA.

It's interesting that the code only requires showers to be accessible in toilet rooms and bathing rooms. So if a shower is in a different room like an office or hallway it doesn't need to be accessible but the ADA wants it to be accessible no matter where it is.


----------



## my250r11

It is hard to get thru to people, on existing you do what is feasible. On new we only enforce bldg. code, which is close to ADA but not.
Even worse when People in the AHJ have their own agenda. My boss had to argue and flat out tell engineering that he will not enforce something that is not code or adopted. They wanted the contractor on an existing bldg. with major site restrictions to make the accessible ramp @ 15:1 instead of the required 12:1. They probably are not going to have room for the 12:1 seeing they need almost 5 feet in height.


----------



## Yikes

ADAguy said:


> Yikes you would save us some time and allow us to directly address your issue if you had said that from the beginning (smile).


I believe I mentioned in my first post that it was an outdoor shower.  The fact that space is tight is irrelevant to the substance of my question, which was: are outdoor showers required to have enclosure walls, grab bars, and a seat?

FYI, I also wrote the Pacific Disability Technical Assistance Center and asked the same question, and they sent this response yesterday:

"Thank you for contacting the Pacific ADA Center. The Pacific ADA Center provides technical assistance, training, education and written materials regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA is a civil rights law that ensures that individuals with disabilities get afforded the same rights as everyone else in the areas of employment, state and local governments' facilities and programs, public accommodations and telecommunications.

Your reference to section 213 pertains to bathing toilet and facilities. *An outside rinsing shower is typically not considered a bathing facility and is treated differently. All the basic requirements apply (reach range, operable parts, clear floor space, connected to an accessible route). There would not be a requirement for incorporating the seat and grab bars as required in section 608*.

For further information on the ADA, please contact one of our Technical Assistance Specialists between 8 AM and 5 PM Pacific Time on our toll-free hotline at 1-800-949-4232. You may also find helpful information by visiting our web site at www.adapacific.org

The information presented in this email is intended solely as informal guidance, and is neither a determination of legal rights or responsibilities under the ADA, nor is it binding on any agency with enforcement responsibilities under the ADA."​


----------



## Sleepy

That interpretation from adapacific.org strikes me as entirely reasonable and correct.  You might want to be sure to label the outdoor shower as a rinsing shower or rinse-off shower on your drawings just to avoid future confusion.


----------



## Sleepy

ADAguy said:


> If not required then you don't have an issue. If required it must be accessible.



This strikes me as fundamentally incorrect.  Facilities are not required to provide a pay phone (remember those) but if one is provided it needs to be accessible.  Similarly, urinals are not actually required in toilet rooms, but if you have more than one accessibility is required.   Just because an item is not required to be provided does not relieve responsibility to provide accessibility if the item is actually provided, within the scope of applicable law or code.


----------



## Yikes

The act of rinsing off is very different than the act of private bathing, so I can understand why the code would go out of its way to describe the seat and grab bar requirements as being applicable specifically to bathing that are inside a room.


----------



## ADAguy

See, Yikes "gets" it.
Scope question for designers:
"If you "choose" to provide an "it" (whatever It is) you must comply.
If you don't "chose" to provide an "it" will my business be impacted?


----------



## JPohling

Agreed


----------



## tmurray

ADAguy said:


> There again, you are "only" the inspector, not the "designer", picky, picky.


The distinction is not as minor as you would imply. The AHJ has a duty of care to enforce all laws that they are empowered to enforce. Simply stated, there is a reasonable expectation that the AHJ will enforce the building code because they are inspecting to it. If an inspector misses an obvious code violation that a reasonably diligent inspector would catch through the regular exercise of their duties and that deficiency later causes damages, the inspector is negligent. Whether they or their employer can be held liable for this appears to vary based on state laws.  On the other hand, the inspector should never be expected to enforce or even be knowledgeable about laws that they are not empowered to enforce. This would create an unreasonable expectation that an inspector should know every applicable law to every single project they are involved in. This drastically extends the standard of care that most governmental organizations already struggle to meet. Stated another way, the regular person off the street has as much authority and responsibility to enforce a requirement here as the inspector. The other question is that since inspectors are not the enforcement agency for this law, how are they expected to be the experts that they are on the building code? Speaking as a manger, I would be more apt to send employees on training directly related to their duties than something we are not expected to enforce.

As I say to my tax payers when they tell me we should do more or have another law that regulates their issue with their neighbor: we'll do anything. You just have to pay more taxes to get it.

I should end this post by saying that I think the requirements should be in the building code as it is here in Canada. It does seem to make matters much simpler in that I as an inspector can use my discretion on what is and is not able to be achieved on a project (particularly renovations). But that is not the process you have.


----------



## Paul Sweet

It should be OK as long as a person in a wheelchair can rinse the sand off their feet as readily as an able-bodied person can.


----------



## north star

*@ + @ + @*

While enforcement of the ADASAD is only by the DOJ, there
is one word in the IBC that requires compliance by the adopting
AHJ, that comes reasonably close to the standards in the ADASAD.

From the IBC, Section 1101.2 - "Buildings and facilities shall be designed
and constructed to be accessible in accordance with this code * AND*
ICC A117.1".

*@ + @ + @*


----------



## Yikes

north star, in this particular case the pool in question is located in California.
California did not adopt IBC chapter 11.  Instead it created/adopted its own chapter 11A for private housing, and chapter 11B which is modeled on / formatted like ADAS, but with additional requirements and restrictions.


----------



## ICE

Yikes said:


> north star, in this particular case the pool in question is located in California.
> California did not adopt IBC chapter 11.  Instead it created/adopted its own chapter 11A for private housing, and chapter 11B which is modeled on / formatted like ADAS, *but with additional requirements and restrictions.*



Ya that's California politicians at work.  They couldn't leave well enough alone....or better yet, eliminate a bunch of it.


----------



## ADAguy

ICE, I don't understand your response. If you have lived in CA since the 80's you would know that we have had access codes since before most states except MA(67) & NC (73).


----------



## mark handler

ADAguy said:


> ICE, I don't understand your response. If you have lived in CA since the 80's you would know that we have had access codes since before most states except MA(67) & NC (73).


In California, publicly funded buildings have required access since 1968. 
Privately funded buildings have required access since 1970.


----------



## ADAguy

Yes MH but with no code direction established until 1981. 11 years to implement that direction ??!!!


----------



## Robert Albera

A shower outdoors is one of those things that seems odd at first, but when people see them at someone else’s place, they end up wanting them for their own backyard. Most people will want some privacy, typically a small fenced-in area. Building an outdoor shower enclosure is a fairly straightforward job, using many of the same techniques and building supplies as a deck or a fence.


----------

