# Why Separate facilities? 403.2



## 100eyeballs (Mar 12, 2013)

Does anyone know the background on why section 403.2 is in the plumbing code?

My guess is that in a building required to provide 30 toilets, it's to prevent someone from putting in a single 30-toilet gang toilet room.

Is there any good reason why a building can't have 30 uni-sex toilet rooms instead having to signs up designating only one sex is allowed? Is this supposed to be a sanitation issue? Public safety issue?


----------



## Gregg Harris (Mar 12, 2013)

100eyeballs said:
			
		

> Does anyone know the background on why section 403.2 is in the plumbing code? My guess is that in a building required to provide 30 toilets, it's to prevent someone from putting in a single 30-toilet gang toilet room.
> 
> Is there any good reason why a building can't have 30 uni-sex toilet rooms instead having to signs up designating only one sex is allowed? Is this supposed to be a sanitation issue? Public safety issue?


403.2 Where plumbing fixtures are required, facilities shall be provided for each sex.

All of the exceptions listed are for a small volume of individuals.

imagine the cost involved in individual unisex bathrooms as apposed to 6 ganged bathrooms with 5 fixtures.

Now envision the 6 units being unisex, would you just take a chance that the one you chose to use had all female or all male depending on your gender.


----------



## 100eyeballs (Mar 12, 2013)

Thanks for thoughts. I had not imagined a gang toilet room being unisex, or non-signed. That would seem appropriate to always designate gang toilet rooms.

There are a lot of rabbit trails this could go down, but my main question is wondering if anyone has any original background information on the reason for the code to be written in the first place. The ICC commentary does not give any helpful reasoning, it only restates the requirement. Has there ever been an older BOCA/UBC commentary or other explanatory information out there?


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Mar 12, 2013)

Why not separate facilities? Because people want them even at nudist resorts! 2012 has a new exception:

403.2.1 Family or assisted-use toilet facilities serving as separate facilities.

Where a building or tenant space requires a separate toilet facility for each sex and each toilet facility is required to have only one water closet, two family/assisted-use toilet facilities shall be permitted to serve as the required separate facilities. Family or assisted- use toilet facilities shall not be required to be identified for exclusive use by either sex as required by :Next('./icod_ipc_2012_4_par020.htm')'>Section 403.4.

As a reminder unisex has been renamed family/assisted.

Francis


----------



## Gregg Harris (Mar 12, 2013)

100eyeballs said:
			
		

> Thanks for thoughts. I had not imagined a gang toilet room being unisex, or non-signed. That would seem appropriate to always designate gang toilet rooms. There are a lot of rabbit trails this could go down, but my main question is wondering if anyone has any original background information on the reason for the code to be written in the first place. The ICC commentary does not give any helpful reasoning, it only restates the requirement. Has there ever been an older BOCA/UBC commentary or other explanatory information out there?


 I still do not understand your question.

Are you asking why in the code are bathroom designated male and female?


----------



## 100eyeballs (Mar 12, 2013)

Yes. Why wouldn't the code allow 30 unisex single-occupant (family) toilets in lieu of requiring 15 male and 15 female single occupant toilets? It's basically requiring signage - and by default, arrangement in pairs.

Why did the authors of the code, in their infinite wisdom, feel the need to include this requirement? Is my original guess the best anyone can think of - to prevent unisex gang toilets?

If the original intent is to prevent unisex gang toilets, why does the code need to be applied such to prevent all uni-sex single occupant toilets?

The new 403.2.1 in 2012 looks like it doesn't apply to facilities needing more than 1 toilet, is that correct?


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Mar 12, 2013)

100eyeballs said:
			
		

> Yes. Why wouldn't the code allow 30 unisex single-occupant (family) toilets in lieu of requiring 15 male and 15 female single occupant toilets? It's basically requiring signage - and by default, arrangement in pairs.Why did the authors of the code, in their infinite wisdom, feel the need to include this requirement? Is my original guess the best anyone can think of - to prevent unisex gang toilets?
> 
> If the original intent is to prevent unisex gang toilets, why does the code need to be applied such to prevent all uni-sex single occupant toilets?
> 
> The new 403.2.1 in 2012 looks like it doesn't apply to facilities needing more than 1 toilet, is that correct?


The new exception allows all the required number of individual toilet rooms to be family/assisted.  It's potty parity.


----------



## 100eyeballs (Mar 12, 2013)

I guess I'm confused about the part that says "and each toilet facility is required to have only one water closet". What would _require_ a toilet facility to have only one water closet?


----------



## mark handler (Mar 12, 2013)

100eyeballs said:
			
		

> "each toilet facility is required to have only one water closet"


Where do you get that idea from?

That is only for "Family or assisted-use toilet facilities"


----------



## Dr. J (Mar 12, 2013)

Regarding the OP question - are you trying to apply logic here?? to a CODE???!!!

There is no logical reason to prohibit the required amount of water closets to be met via a bunch of unisex one-holers.  They have invented this really cool device that keeps people from barging in on an occupied toilet room.  It's called a Lock.

In Healthcare, it is very common to have a bunch of unisex one-holers spread around patient and staff areas so patients don't have to carry a cup full of "Bud Light" from the lobby area and staff don't have to leave their unit.  Fortunately, most AHJ's I have dealt with accept those one-holers as contributing towards the required fixture count.  Good on ya, AHJs with common sense.  However, I agree that it is not in accordance with code.

Regarding 2012 403.2.1, they didn't help matters here.  The language is what you would expect from a committee.  To 100's point, there is nothing in the code that requires each "toilet facility" to have only one water closet.  The code requires x amount of WC per BUILDING or TENANT SPACE.  It would have been so easy to just say "_Where a building or tenant space requires a separate toilet facility for each sex and each __BUILDING OR TENANT SPACE__ is required to have only __TWO __water closet__S__,..."_  But they didn't.  So it is up to you guys to figure it out.  I would say the intent is what I re-wrote.  In other words,  it's only in really small spaces, that otherwise would have had one men's WC and one women's WC that you can make em unisex.  It is still prohibited (by code, not common sense) to have 30 unisex one-holers.  And I mean prohibited, not just not applying towards the required count.

And dammit, I mean unisex, not family/assisted! It has always seemed silly to be standing in a line consisting of only one gender outside of two single-holers when the "other" gender's toilet room is empty.  So maybe one person is put off by a funny looking receptacle next to the WC, or another person is put off by a urinal they are not equipped to use, but why is that CODE?


----------



## north star (Mar 13, 2013)

*+ ^ +*





> " ...but why is that CODE?"


Not exactly sure why it is code, but IMO, I believe ithas something to do with equality, ...of providing equal

accomodations to both genders, so as not to [ potentially ]

be sued for not having separate facilities.

*+ ^ +*


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Mar 13, 2013)

FWIW A business has all female employees for occasional male visitors justified a family/assisted to accommodate them; all the other facilities were designated female.

Francis


----------



## Rick18071 (Mar 16, 2013)

This is a problem for mw at boy scout camps where it is all males.


----------



## Codegeek (Mar 18, 2013)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> Why not separate facilities? Because people want them even at nudist resorts! 2012 has a new exception:403.2.1 Family or assisted-use toilet facilities serving as separate facilities.
> 
> Where a building or tenant space requires a separate toilet facility for each sex and each toilet facility is required to have only one water closet, two family/assisted-use toilet facilities shall be permitted to serve as the required separate facilities. Family or assisted- use toilet facilities shall not be required to be identified for exclusive use by either sex as required by :Next('./icod_ipc_2012_4_par020.htm')'>Section 403.4.
> 
> ...


As the author of this code language, the intent is to allow for small spaces which only need one water closet per sex to utilize two family assist restrooms rather than one restroom for each sex.  It was not intended to apply to restrooms where more than one water closet per sex is required, thus having a gang of family assist restrooms.


----------



## 100eyeballs (Mar 18, 2013)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> ... restrooms where more than one water closet per sex is required...


Is there really a code that requires more than one water closet be installed in a restroom? If a building is required to have 30 water closets, I don't think there's anything to prevent the use of 30 single-occupant restroom facilities. 15 designated for men and 15 designated for women.



			
				Dr. J said:
			
		

> It is still prohibited (by code, not common sense) to have 30 unisex one-holers.  And I mean prohibited, not just not applying towards the required count.


The code only states that "Required" facilities need to be designated for each sex, not "Provided" facilities. I believe that in a building requiring 30, and 50 are provided, that the first 30 need to be signed (still waiting for the real reason why) and the next 20 can be unisex.


----------



## Codegeek (Mar 18, 2013)

In reference to the new language for allowing family assist restrooms in the 2012 IPC and IBC, the intent was to allow for small facilities which require only one water closet per sex to have two family assist restrooms rather than to have one restroom for each sex.  The intent was to be apply to multiple user facilities, but I suppose one could argue that it could.  100eyeballs, you are correct.  If they want to install 100 single use water closets, so be it.


----------

