Once again I have a fire to put out over how we call out for non-skid tile in our specifications, we reference the SCoF criteria from OSHA and ADAAG, for tile installed on walkways and/or means of egress surfaces, however my client points out that this is not a code requirement nor is it clearly enforced as a law, so client has asked that we delete Performance requirements for SCoF in our Tile specification sections. How does my other specwriting colleagues specify for non-skid tile finishes.
Please don’t cite or refer to Bulletin #4 from the US Access Board, that really does not help, my clients are not interested in the actual testing lingo, at this point, nor am I, I am just looking for a valid way to require that the contractor provide a tile that won’t become a slip and fall lawsuit.
I would suggest your client speak to their insurance underwriter.
There is a new standard for COF. In the 2012 ANSI A137.1 DCOF Using the BOT 3000 it determines DCOF under wet conditions. The 2012 version states that tiles suitable for level interior spaces expected to be walked upon when wet shall have a wet DCOF of 0.42 or greater when tested with the BOT-3000 per the procedure in the standard (per the DCOF Acu Test)
Dale, so when is this new standard enforceable? Are any specwriters referencing this standartd in their specifications?
For a standard to be enforcable it must be required by some governmental body.
According to the ADA regulations “…the 2010 Standards require that floor or ground surfaces along accessible routes and in accessible rooms and spaces be stable, firm, slip-resistant,..”
The ADA regulations have not referenced the referenced standard nor have they adopted other objective criteria.
The problem is that there is no formal regulatory criteria for determing compliance but if there is a problem somebody will be responsible for non-compliance under ADA. How does your client suggest that you help them to fulfill their obligation to comply with ADA?
If the Owner gives clear instructions to ignore the problem and there is a problem will the architect have liability.
It is enforceable now. Manufactures are including it in their data sheets.The book just came out. I am meeting with spec writers and updating them on the changes.
Dale - when you say it is “enforceable”, is that because it has been adopted by any authority having jurisdiction?
Jerome - I am not clear if your client is the Owner or the Architect. If it is the Architect requesting you remove the performance data, remind them that they must provide services similar to that of a typical member of the profession. In this case, it is commonly accepted that the referenced SCOF is industry standard, despite not being codified. If a person does slip and sues, the architect will likely be found negligent for ignoring this standard. So, maybe mention that. If your client is the Owner, I would suggest the same argument, but definitely get something in writing, either way, showing that you recommended against the removal of the performance data (This is not to be construed as providing legal advice nor the establishment of a client-attorney relationship)
Robin,
It does not have to be adopted by any jurisdiction, ADA falls under the authority of federal law, not local codes or other guidance of local authorities.
William - AHJ would include Federal Law. But, my understanding is that the ADA does not reference any specific standard as the minimum requirement. Dale references a new standard and I am asking if that standard is codified anywhere (including local and/or federal law) that would make it enforceable.
When I did some research into COF a number of years ago, what found was that COF was measured in several ways. Moreover, the COF did not have a direct correlation with the safety of the surface. What did matter was the condition of the surface (presence of water, grease/oil, ice, etc.). Although one can say that “slick” surfaces (very smooth surfaces with low porousity) might more prone to being unsafe under certain conditions, certain conditions may cause carpet to be more of a slip-n-fall hazard than polished granite that has a clean dry surface.
The problem with measuring COF on surfaces is that you have to know the material and condition of both surfaces (in this case the floor and the surface treading on the floor). So leather soles, rubber soles, bare feet, rubber tires; all of these will have a slightly different COF depending on the test method used. Accessibility standards also recognize that a higher COF means that using certain assistive devices (canes and walkers) may be more difficult.
At the risk of being accused of spec heresy, I would suggest that this is much more of a matter of maintenance than material selection, and I have tended to delete this requirement unless otherwise directed. That being said, I would never recommend use of a polished traffic surface in an exterior condition that might be subject to rain or icing.
Robin,
That’s the wonder of the legal system. If its published, adopted or not by anyone, its usable for defense (or offense) in legal case. Its like changing the speed limit signs on a road, you may not notice the new sign, but ‘ignorance of the law is not a excuse’. And that’s what any claimant is going to state.
And even for existing conditions, not just new installs, they (claimants) are going to come back and say the existing tiles, flooring, whatever, does not comply and that the facility owner should have known this and should have taken appropriate precautions such as sealers or some modification of the surface and then reference the new ANSI requirements.
All it takes is for one of the major standards organization to publish a new or revised standard and ADA with its ‘non-specific’ language lets the claimant hold up the new requirements as ‘the standard of the industry’.
William - that is the point i was making. there is a difference between “standard of care” for the industry and a code requirement (in the legal arena). Also, the Owner would not necessarily be held accountable for knowing the ANSI standards and maintaining the floor as such. An Architect likely would, but if the Owner was not in the business of owning and mainting facilities open to the public, then they would not likely be held responsible for knowing the nuances of the industry standards.
In response to Jerome’s original question, I merely suggest referencing the industry standard of care and get any request to vary from that standard in writing.
Whether ADAAG is an enforceable code or not depends on the jurisdiction. As originally passed, it was a Civil Rights federal law. Many jurisdictions incorporated it into their building codes. So it might be an enforceable code requirement. It is definitely a federal law and the recourse that an individual has is a law suit.
The ADA is federal law and enforced, for the most part, by the Department of Justice through the application of the 2010 ADA Standards.
The IBC references ANSI A117.1 as the codefied version of the ADA standards, even though the ANSI and ADA Standards are not exactly aligned–however, they are very close. The requirement in each for slip-resistant floor surfaces are identical.
As mentioned earlier, there is no specific COF required by either the ADA or ANSI standards. The former ADAAG did have a explanatory note that specified recommended COFs, but it did not provide the standard upon which to measure it. That has been the controversy for the past 20 years.
The BOT 3000 is not a standard, but the instrument used to measure the COF based on ANSI B101.1 and B101.3 standards for SCOF and Dynamic COF (DCOF), respectively. These standards have been available for almost three years now.
The California Building Code, as do other codes, only requries that walking surfaces be “slip resistant”. The difficulty is to try to assign a standard of care to “slip resistant”. We must also remember that this is not entirely an accessibility issue. The first experience I had with slip resistance was when tasked to make a new pool deck less slippery, because healthy young swimmers in their prime of life were falling flat on their faces.
Searching for a standad of care and moving away from accessibility you might want to look at this from the standpoint of worker safety.
OSHA: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=24511&p_table=INTERPRETATIONS
There is some interesting general background discussion here:
http://www.safety-engineer.com/adasurfaces.htm
But as you can see, there is no simple black versus white standard.
There is confusion between standard of care and standard practice. Specifying a give test standard for COF would be an example of having adopted a standard practice.
Standard of care is about the care you use to identify and resolve issues. Following a given practice may help to establish that you were exercising sufficient care but does not constitutte standard of care.
If a given practice does not comply with the regulations or it is believed that the level of the standard practice is too low then you may be found to have breached the standard of care. Just because everybody follows poor practices is not an excuse. Thus you cannot blindly rely upon a standard practice. On the other hand researching the issues and consulting with experts would he ways to show you had exercised sufficient care in making the decision.
Jerome, it sounds like you’re trying to provide reasonable and customary level of service to your client. Your client is documenting that they don’t care to meet that level of performance. It seems that all you can do is advise your client that with their acknowledgement they may be opening themselves to future claims in the event of a slip-and-fall incident. It won’t prevent future lawsuits from mentioning you or your firm, but it should protect you legally in the event they are sued.
Anyone else trying to preemptively deal with this before it becomes a big problem?
The wording of ANSI A137.1 Section 6.2.2.1.10 in the 3rd paragraph says:
“Unless otherwise specified, tiles suitable for level interior spaces expected to be walked upon when wet shall have a wet DCOF of 0.42 or greater when tested using SLS solution as per the procedure in Section 9.6.1. However, tiles with a DCOF of 0.42 or greater are not necessarily suitable for all projects. The specifier shall determine tiles appropriate for specific project conditions, considering by way of example, but not in limitation, type of use, traffic, expected contaminants, expected maintenance, expected wear, and manufacturers guidelines and recommendations.”
Here it falls (no pun intended) terribly short of being a useful standard, by providing only one value and no details for atypical circumstances, like hotel bathroom floors, exterior surfaces, places where kids may be running or disable people are likely to be walking, etc.
This wording which points to the specifier as though we are omnipotent may also be problematic because it does not recognize who really makes product selections (i.e. designers of record) and how specifications are really done (in response to DoR selections, or else we would just add conflicts and cause change orders at best). What if we add some arbitrarily high DCOF and no product exists for it? I wondered if interior designers have been working on this so I tried to reach a number of them about it, admittedly it may be a 4-day weekend for some. One responded so far, directing me to look at a great article from TCNA but pretty much the same information I already presented to him about ANSI A137.1, so apparently he did not have any more detailed recommendations for his practice either.
In a Google search of tile manufacturers websites I could not find recommendations about using DCOFs except Americanoleum mentions that they can be available by special order, which is no help on deciding how high to specify, nor any help for interior designers how to select such a product, and Daltile’s page for Octagon & Dot came up which currently seems to indicate that hotel bathrooms are fine with 0.42 but that does not make me feel better with the wording of A137.1. If manufacturers were working on this I would expect to see several useful hits but this was all that came up.
It seems a safer position to take than just 0.42 for a hotel bathroom floor, may be to alert the Architect and ask them to coordinate with the Owner and Interior Designer to make sure their selections comply with this open-ended statement in ANSI A137.1, and until further notice, in addition to the required brand standards SCOF test, and in addition to the industry’s current DCOF test, the specifications will also require “ASTM E 303, wet PTV (Pendulum Test Value, i.e. BPN British Pendulum Number) of not less than 20 (measured using a Slider 55 TRRL soft rubber slider to simulate bare feet or soft shoe bottoms). Available testing agencies include but are not limited to www.safetydirectamerica.com/” to supplement the other tests for hotel bathroom floors until the Owner updates their standards, and until the US tile industry’s DCOF standards provide more guidance. It would be hard to say that $230 is an unreasonable testing burden for saving someone from debilitating injuries. This information is based on preliminary research and is without any warranty for accuracy, I am not offering legal advice, batteries not included, do not incinerate, void where prohibited, etc., etc., etc.
What solutions have you fine folks come up with to this dilemma of the wide-open wording putting onus on specifiers to arbitrarily choose higher DCOF numbers?