Code Change Proposal E24 - Single Exit R-2 Buildings up to Six Stories

Welcome to a new blog series, where over the next couple of months, I will 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 the 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 E24 - Single Exit R-2 Buildings up to Six Stories

Link: Code Change Proposal
Link: Hearing Recording

Summary of Code Change
This proposal involves a modification to IBC Section 1006 to allow a single exit in Group R-2 buildings up to six stories when several conditions are met, including:

• A limit to the number of dwelling units per story, complying with one of the following:
  • Basement through sixth story limited to 4 dwelling units served per exit on each story OR
  • Basement through third story limited to 6 dwelling units served per exit on each story
• Limited to buildings of Type IA, IB, IIA or IV construction
• Travel distance limit of 125 feet
• Travel distance limit from the unit door to the stairway of 25 feet
• 2 Hour exit enclosure
• Interior exit stairway designed as a smokeproof enclosure
• Emergency escape and rescue openings provided

Summary of Testimony and Discussion
The testimony for this code change proposal was intense! Dozens of people appeared to testify and the overall time spent, including testimony and committee action was over an hour. The proponent of this proposal seemed to be motivated primarily by a need for affordable housing, claiming that the requirement for a second exit stairway in certain residential buildings drives costs and makes development of some residential buildings infeasible.
 
The opposition testimony to the proposal included a wide variety of perspectives. Many participants cited the life safety risk for both building occupants and first responders. Others stated that such a code change was inappropriate at the national level and should be left to state and local jurisdictions to amend the code as needed. Several participants brought up the cost to install and maintain a smokeproof enclosure for the stairway, as well as the added cost of providing standby power for such systems.

CAH1 Result
After extensive testimony and discussion, this code change proposal was disapproved by the committee, with a vote of 14-0.
 
Note that a similar code change proposal, E25, was also submitted, to allow the same single exit arrangement in Group R-1 occupancies. This code change proposal was also disapproved by the committee, with a vote of 14-0.