Code Change Proposal E109 - Remoteness of Exit Discharge

This post is a continuation of the Proposed Code Change Series, where I highlight some of the interesting and controversial code changes that were presented at the 2024 ICC Committee Action Hearings (CAH). These proposed changes, which could become part of the 2027 ICC codes, are the first step of the updated ICC code development process that now includes two Committee Action Hearings (CAH1 and CAH2), as well as the Public Comment Hearing (PCH). ​

Please note that I am serving on the 2024-2026 IBC Egress Committee, so many of these articles in this series will be egress related. Each post is my attempt to summarize the code change proposal and the presentation/discussion from CAH1, but please refer to the links below that include the actual code change proposal language and the CAH1 recording. These posts are not intended to provide my personal opinion or commentary on the code changes. 

Code Change Proposal E109 - Remoteness of Exit Discharge

Link: Code Change Proposal 
Link: Hearing Recording 

Summary of Code Change 
This proposal involves taking the existing exit remoteness requirements for exit and exit access doorways (typically one-half or one-third of the diagonal of the area served) and adding those requirements to the exit discharge. The proposal would prevent exit discharge doors from being located close to each other. 

Summary of Testimony and Discussion 
The proponent of this proposal testified that exit discharge points located too close together could result in a situation where a single fire event blocked the discharge of both exits in a two-exit building, resulting in an unsafe situation. 

Several participants testified in opposition of this proposal, noting that they believed it was overly restrictive and that the exit discharge was an inherently safer location that should not require such separation. A participant also noted that this would be extremely difficult to measure and arrange in a building with many exits.

CAH1 Result 
This code change proposal was disapproved by the committee, with a vote of 14-0.