# Single service sink requirement?



## ecatellier (Mar 16, 2018)

A footnote within the IBC Commentary for Chapter 29 states that "the code only requires one service sink per building if all occupancies have access to the service sink at all times."  That's great... but I cannot find this language in the _actual _code.  I don't see anything about this in the IPC either.  Can anyone point me to the section/paragraph where the code states this?  TIA.


----------



## cda (Mar 16, 2018)

Welcome


----------



## cda (Mar 16, 2018)

What specific section of 29, does the commentary come from


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 16, 2018)

Table 2902.1.1(1) 
Solution Summary for Sample Problem 1


----------



## cda (Mar 16, 2018)

Also what type of occupancy are you looking at


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 16, 2018)

My project has Business, Mercantile and Storage (all over 15 occupants)... but the commentary footnote in question is not specific to a particular occupancy.  The Sample Problem where this footnote appears is referenced has Business, Library and Storage, all over 15 occupants.

I've seen/heard folks reference this footnote before, but I cannot locate it in the actual code.  I'd like to notate a code section for this on my project cover sheet, but I can't find one.


----------



## cda (Mar 16, 2018)

Hum not near the commentary till Monday


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 16, 2018)

commentaries are just that, commentaries/clarifications but not typically enforceable. (read the disclaimer at the beginning of the book)
Check with you local AHJ?


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 16, 2018)

See... that's the thing... this is the official commentary that is published by the ICC.
This footnote says: "The code requires..."  
The footnote is referring to the IBC, but it doesn't state where this info comes from within the IBC.

AHJ doesn't know either...


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 16, 2018)

AHJ will obviously only enforce what's written in the code.
Owner would prefer to limit the need for additional plumbing.
Hoping one of y'all can help me find this in the code.


----------



## Inspector 102 (Mar 16, 2018)

If I read correctly, P2902.2 indicates under the exception that separate facilities are not required in a merchantile when the occupant load is less than 100. I guess I would read this as only 1 service sink is required.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Mar 16, 2018)

*(IBC and IPC) Minimum number of fixtures. *Plumbing fixtures shall be provided for the type of _occupancy _and in the minimum number shown in Table (2902.1 or 403.1)

*[A] OCCUPANCY. *The purpose for which a building or portion thereof is utilized or occupied.


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 16, 2018)

Inspector - 
I'm pretty sure that the "separate facilities" section refers to separate facilities for men and separate facilities for women.
Only one service sink would be required for the mercantile space... but I'm trying to avoid having one service sink required for each of three different occupancies.  This note says one one is required for the building... I need a code section reference to make it official.

Francis - 
Not sure what you're getting at...


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Mar 16, 2018)

Is this in a mall type setting?


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 16, 2018)

No.  It's a truck dealership.
Business (offices)
Mercantile (parts sales)
Storage (S-1 repair garage)

Guys... the type of building I'm designing really has nothing to do with my question.  
Here is my question:
*Where is the code section that says you only need one service sink if all occupancies can access it?*


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Mar 16, 2018)

"Plumbing fixtures (at least one service sink) shall be provided for the type of occupancy (or for the purpose of the building in accordance to the occupancy definition) and in the minimum number shown in Table"

The language implies intent of the commentary interpretation in my opinion.

*[A] 104.1 General.* The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.


----------



## cda (Mar 16, 2018)

ecatellier said:


> No.  It's a truck dealership.
> Business (offices)
> Mercantile (parts sales)
> Storage (S-1 repair garage)
> ...





If you can make a link out of the commentary example, and post the link

Might help.


Which year commentary are you looking at???


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 16, 2018)

Francis - 
If you read the table in the code, it will require me to have 3 service sinks... one per the business occupancy, one per the mercantile occupancy and one per the storage occupancy.  That is how all of the other plumbing fixture requirements are calculated... you calculate them separately based on the table, then add them up for your building.

The commentary, though, is telling me that I only need one sink.
I would like to justify that based on the actual code.


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 16, 2018)

cda - 
I have the 2012 IBC commentary in hand, but I've heard the same reference to the 2015.


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 16, 2018)

Here is a pic from the commentary:  https://flic.kr/p/22tzW7C


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 16, 2018)

I did find this:  http://www.specsandcodes.com/articl... 33 - Calculating Plumbing Fixture Counts.pdf

The paragraph at the bottom of page 4 that runs onto page 5 states that it is open to interpretation.

I guess I'll have to give my best pitch to the AHJ.

If anyone finds something more concrete, please let me know.  Thanks all.


----------



## steveray (Mar 16, 2018)

Because there is no occ load number for service sinks, they only need to be available to each tenant, not in each tenant....There is no code section that is going to say that specifically, but that is the intent...


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Mar 16, 2018)

My 2000 and 2003 IBC Commentary does not have that note. I do not have a 2006, 2012 or 2015 Commentary to view.

But I see your issue.


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 16, 2018)

Steve -
This is a single tenant space with multiple occupancy types.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 16, 2018)

Each of those uses (occupancies?) is part of one ownership under one roof served by a shared corridor system, no? Unless each occupancy discharges separate types of fluids that might interact if mixed, then it would seem to be a resolve able issue with the AHJ to allow a single service sink.  You do say that the S-1 is a repair garage, if so that occupancy might require a separate sink with a grease seperater.


----------



## cda (Mar 16, 2018)

ecatellier said:


> I did find this:  http://www.specsandcodes.com/articles/code_corner/The Code Corner No. 33 - Calculating Plumbing Fixture Counts.pdf
> 
> The paragraph at the bottom of page 4 that runs onto page 5 states that it is open to interpretation.
> 
> ...




So is this one business or multiple


Or a general question


----------



## georgia plans exam (Mar 19, 2018)

I would hope that if this is a single tenant with multiple occupancy classifications there would be no AHJ that would be so narrow minded as to think that the code requires a separate service sink for each occupancy classification within that single tenant space. I would hope...

GPE

.


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 19, 2018)

Georgia PE - 
I would hope for that as well.  The problem is... what you describe, and what the commentary describes, is not how the code is written.

To be clear, it is a freestanding 54,000 sf building for a single company.  "Single tenant space" was used as a descriptor because a previous poster was getting confused.


----------



## georgia plans exam (Mar 19, 2018)

Well, here is to hoping that common sense prevails. I agree with the commentary. The code cannot cover every circumstance.

GPE


----------



## classicT (Mar 19, 2018)

I'd agree that the intent is to provide one per building; however, if the individual occupancies of said building are not interconnected, then one in each space would be required.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 19, 2018)

Might be, it depends on if the occupancies are a tenant in common or individual tenants.


----------



## steveray (Mar 20, 2018)

ecatellier said:


> Steve -
> This is a single tenant space with multiple occupancy types.



Almost every tenant has multiple occupancy types..Office (B) with storage rooms (S) and break/conference rooms (A)....If the BO is going to hang his hat on that...


----------



## mark handler (Mar 20, 2018)

Not in the code, (2012, 2015. 2018), only in commentary.
It is common sense, if he/she requires it, contact ICC for interp or ALT Means.....


----------



## classicT (Mar 20, 2018)

steveray said:


> Almost every tenant has multiple occupancy types..Office (B) with storage rooms (S) and break/conference rooms (A)....If the BO is going to hang his hat on that...


Hope that you are not breaking it out that far on every project. I cant imagine classifying a break room independently (unless it was massive). Most often the areas you've listed (storage rooms, break/conference rooms, etc.) should be classified as an incidental use (see IBC Section 509) - works for up to 10% of the building area of the story in which they are located. Table 509 gives the required separation method.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 20, 2018)

A voice of logic speaks, the term being "incidental uses" good point.


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 20, 2018)

georgia plans exam said:


> I agree with the commentary. The code cannot cover every circumstance.
> GPE



It seems to me that this particular statement (which begins with "The code requires...") should be included in the actual code.


----------



## Rick18071 (Mar 20, 2018)

IPC 202 Definition
Occupancy. The purpose for which a building or portion thereof is utilized or occupied.

IPC 403 Minimum number of fixtures.
Plumbing fixtures shall be provided for the type of occupancy and in the minimum number shown in Table 403.1.

So in a strip mall where all the tenants are B the building would only have one occupancy (B) so it would only require 1 service sink in one of the tenant spaces. It doesn't matter when this tenant space is open.
The building would also need only one men's and women's restroom and a drinking fountain in one of the tenant spaces if this tenant space is open when any of the other tenant spaces are open and has an accessible route to it from the other tenant spaces

Anything wrong with this per code?.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 20, 2018)

Smaller occupancies are exempt from many rules see footnotes.


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 20, 2018)

Rick... see the solution summary for Sample Problem 2 in the commentary.  If one tenant cannot access the service sink of another tenant at all times, then both need a service sink.


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 20, 2018)

Mark - my building/posed question does not meet the criteria for "smaller" occupancies.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 20, 2018)

ecatellier said:


> Mark - my building/posed question does not meet the criteria for "smaller" occupancies.


Make the janitorial accessible to all, like a common electrical room. 
You guys are making things too difficult on yourselves.


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 20, 2018)

Mark - 
Making a single janitorial closet directly accessible to three different occupancy types can be rather difficult.
It would be nice if the code reflected the commentary, or vice versa, on this particular point.


----------



## steveray (Mar 20, 2018)

Not that hard, like Mark said, all tenants need access to their electrical OCPD...Why should the janitors sink be any different?


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 20, 2018)

steverray... yes, you can easily provide unfettered access.  This is not the point.  The point is how the code is actually and specifically written versus its supposed intent.  (Nice rig by the way... what year is that?  I have an '07 JK)

The point is this:  Table 2902.1 lists "1 service sink" as a required fixture for all occupancies (except in R and some I occupancies).  It does not say anything about how to calculate the number of required service sinks for a building with multiple occupancies.  The footnotes for this table do not state "The code requires only one service sink per building if all occupancies have access to the service sink at all times."  This sentence is not in the IBC or the IPC.  It only appears under the tables for two solution summaries in the code commentary.  If the "intent" or "proper interpretation" of the service sink requirement is for one sink per building, the ACTUAL code should say this.  It should be easy enough to add footnote "F" to the table...

I started this thread in order to get help finding that language in the actual code.  I discovered that it is not, in fact, in the actual code.  Even after two subsequent published versions, it is still not in there.  After speaking with a rep from the ICC, I found out that the ICC cannot just add this common sense language into the code on it's own accord... it must be submitted through a committee to be reviewed, voted on and formally adopted into the next version.  

Well... here goes nothin'...


----------



## mark handler (Mar 20, 2018)

ecatellier said:


> steverray... yes, you can easily provide unfettered access.  This is not the point.  The point is how the code is actually and specifically written versus its supposed intent.  (Nice rig by the way... what year is that?  I have an '07 JK)
> 
> The point is this:  Table 2902.1 lists "1 service sink" as a required fixture for all occupancies (except in R and some I occupancies).  It does not say anything about how to calculate the number of required service sinks for a building with multiple occupancies.  The footnotes for this table do not state "The code requires only one service sink per building if all occupancies have access to the service sink at all times."  This sentence is not in the IBC or the IPC.  It only appears under the tables for two solution summaries in the code commentary.  If the "intent" or "proper interpretation" of the service sink requirement is for one sink per building, the ACTUAL code should say this.  It should be easy enough to add footnote "F" to the table...
> 
> ...


Then put in three, *waste the clients money.*


----------



## Rick18071 (Mar 20, 2018)

I agree with ecatellier. I can not write it down without referencing a section in the codes for a plan review or inspection.


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 20, 2018)

Rick - Yes!  Thank you!  There is no section or paragraph to reference.  Thank you for getting it.


----------



## north star (Mar 20, 2018)

*+ + = = + +*

FWIW, ...I believe that ***Francis Vineyard*** provided the most
logical, cost savings interpretation in Post # 16  [ i.e. -
visit with the BO, explain your situation, and ask for an
official written interpretation  ].

A logical, seasoned, Code savvy Code Official "should" be
able determine that only 1 Service Sink is required in the
single tenant Truck Dealership.

As someone has already mentioned, not every situation can
be covered in the Codes......That is what the Code Officials
are for.

*= = + + = =*


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 20, 2018)

north star - yes, I agree... any project has to deal with a code interpretation of some sort.  However, this particular item should not need not an interpretation.  Simply move the footnote from the commentary into the code.  Done.


----------



## north star (Mar 20, 2018)

** = * = **

*ecatellier,*

*I do not disagree with "the Fix" to this conundrum,*
*however, in the meantime to be able to save your*
*client some money, be logical & prudent with the*
*interpretation of the IPC, then the BO has the [ legal ]*
*authority to render an official ruling on this issue.*
*The Code Official can provide a ruling whereby the*
*project can move forward, or those who would want*
*to challenge the Code Officials' ruling can seek relief*
*from the Appeals Process, if there is one in place.*
*The Appeals Process could take  xxxx amount of time.*

*You or others may want to become an active*
*participant in the Code Development process and*
*change this "little Code nugget" from the Footnotes*
*and in to the actual Code......It has to be done in a*
*legal manner.*

*And by the way, ...Welcome to The Building Codes*
*Forum !  *

*Are you up to talking about stairways... ?*

** = * = **


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 20, 2018)

One step at a time (smiling).


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 21, 2018)

I'm looking at the process for pushing that footnote into the 2021 IBC.

northstar... I'm game.  What's your stairway issue?


----------



## Builder Bob (Mar 26, 2018)

Goodluck on that Interpretation - generally we have required a minimum of 1 per floor if mixed occupancies (generally based on size of project_ over 5k per floor with floors requiring mopping - i.e. if two story building with carpet all over top floor but restrooms on first floor with VCT entry and epoxy restrooms and travel distance within 500 feet - we might only require one service sink)


----------



## ecatellier (Mar 26, 2018)

Thanks Bob... it's a one story building, so I think we'll be good to go with one sink.


----------

