Oregon Building Code Updates

September 2011

An *interesting* summer for me; lots of time at OHSU analyzing a neurological problem. Lots of analysis, no conclusions; no improvement. Fortunately, the impact on my work is minimal at this point...

2010 Oregon Structural Specialty Code,

Adopting the 2009 IBC Standards for Accessible Design

“Oregon Building Codes Division (BCD) is working closely with stakeholders in the preparation of an amended version of the 2009 IBC Chapter 11. Oregon amendments are necessary in keeping with statutorily driven accessibility requirements which provide for greater accessibility than the Federal standards. Consistent with the U.S. Attorney General’s implementation timelines noted above, BCD anticipates adoption of the amended IBC Chapter 11 with an effective date of January 1, 2012. This should provide ample time for training and required rule making.”

More Code changes. These ones appear to be beneficial in many respects. One of the things that has always fascinated me about working with government officials is their lack of flexibility. When I worked for the City of Portland, I continually heard concerns about lawsuits in relationship to making Code compliance determinations; in spite of the fact that the Code specifically protects Code enforcement officials from lawsuits, as long as they are not being malicious in their governance... At any rate there is a lot of black & white thinking that isn’t necessarily intended by the Code writers. I consider one of the aspects of my current role is to encourage Code enforcement officials to travel along this more flexible path. Fortunately, it’s often reflected in commentaries:

“203, 206 and 215 Employee Work Areas Common Use Circulation Paths in Employee Work Areas. The 1991 Standards at section 4.1.1(3), and the 2010 Standards at section 203.9, require employee work areas in new construction and alterations only to be designed and constructed so that individuals with disabilities can approach, enter, and exit the areas...

The requirement for accessible common use circulation paths will not apply to existing facilities pursuant to the readily achievable barrier removal requirement. The Department has consistently taken the position that barrier removal requirements do not apply to areas used exclusively by employees because the purpose of title III is to ensure that access is provided to clients and customers. See Appendix B to the 1991 regulation implementing title III, 28 CFR part 36. “ [“Guidance on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design”; emphasis added]

          Unfortunately, a lot of jurisdictions don’t understand the underlined passage above. I remember, vaguely, when ADA provisions were first required to be enforced; we had a set of instructions regarding the places where ADA requirements did not have to be enforced. Unfortunately, over time, the assumption seems to be that ADA standards are required everywhere, and the omissions are the rare exception. The benefit from the misconception is that the urban US is more accessible to those with disabilities.

More random excerpts:

      “Visible Alarms. Section 215.3 of the 2010 Standards provides that where employee work areas in newly constructed facilities have audible alarm coverage they are required to have wiring systems that are capable of supporting visible alarms that comply with section 702 of the 2010 Standards.

      “Commenters asserted that the requirements of section 215.3 of the 2010 Standards would be burdensome to meet. These commenters also raised concerns that all employee work areas within existing buildings and facilities must be equipped with accessibility features.

      “The commenters’ concerns about section 215.3 of the 2010 Standards represent a misunderstanding of the requirements applicable to employee work areas. Newly constructed buildings and facilities merely are required to provide wiring so that visible alarm systems can be added as needed to accommodate employees who are deaf or hard of hearing. This is a minimal requirement without significant impact.”

      “Reach Ranges. The 1991 Standards set the maximum height for side reach at 54 inches above the floor. The 2010 Standards, at section 308.3, lower that maximum height to 48 inches above the finish floor or ground. The 2010 Standards also add exceptions, as discussed above, to the scoping requirement for operable parts for certain elements that, among other things, will exempt them from the reach range requirements in section 308...

      “Section 308.3.1 of the 2010 Standards specifies a maximum 48-inch high side reach and a minimum 15-inch low side reach where the element being reached for is unobstructed. Section 308.3.1, Exception 1, permits an obstruction that is no deeper than 10 inches between the edge of the clear floor or ground space and the element that the individual with a disability is trying to reach. Changes in the side-reach range for new construction and alterations in the 2010 Standards will affect a variety of building elements such as light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, fire alarm pull stations, card readers, and keypads...”

      “Shower Compartments. The 1991 Standards at sections 4.21 and 9.1.2 and the 2010 Standards at section 608 contain technical requirements for transfer-type and roll-in shower compartments. The 2010 Standards provide more flexibility than the 1991 Standards as follows:• Transfer-type showers are exactly 36 inches wide by 36 inches long. The 1991 Standards and the 2010 Standards permit a ½-inch maximum curb in transfer-type showers. The 2010 Standards add a new exception that permits a 2-inch maximum curb in transfer-type showers in alterations to existing facilities, where recessing the compartment to achieve a ½-inch curb will disturb the structural reinforcement of the floor slab.”

     Next time I’ll discuss the new toilet room standards; they too are more flexible.