Are Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings Required for Altered Basements?

[jar546]

Are Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings Required for Altered Basements?

Scenario Overview:
A basement that sustained fire damage requires significant repairs. The space includes a family room, a bedroom, and a bathroom. The basement has existing windows in the bedroom, bathroom, and family room, as well as a rear pedestrian door leading to an outdoor stairwell and an interior staircase connecting to the first floor. None of the current windows meet the emergency escape and rescue opening dimensions. The question arises: does the International Residential Code (IRC) mandate additional emergency escape and rescue openings as part of the repairs?

Code Compliance Analysis:
Under the 2018 IRC, Section R202 defines an alteration as construction or modification of an existing structure that goes beyond simple repair or maintenance. A repair, however, is considered the renewal or reconstruction of an existing part of a building to maintain or restore it, particularly after damage.

Section R310.6 clarifies that when an existing basement undergoes alterations or repairs, adding new emergency escape and rescue openings is not required unless a new sleeping room is created. In this case, reconstructing a damaged bedroom is considered a repair rather than the creation of a new sleeping room. Consequently, existing emergency escape and rescue openings can remain as originally built, provided they met the code requirements in effect at the time of their original installation, as permitted by Section R102.7.

However, Section R102.7.1 states that any new construction materials or elements used in the repair process must comply with the current IRC. For instance, Section R311 requires that any new egress components, such as staircases or doors, meet the standards outlined in the 2018 IRC.

Conclusion:
For this scenario, no additional emergency escape and rescue openings are required unless new sleeping rooms are added. The existing openings can remain compliant as per the code in effect at the time of their original installation. Any new construction must adhere to the requirements of the current IRC.

 

[Inspector 102]

I would agree with the conclusion, but go further to state that items such as glazing requirements for U value, smoke detectors, AFCI and GFCI requirements would have to meet current code. Window opening size, sill height etc. would be "grandfathered" in.

 

[tbz]

So here is a question, is not the replacement of a window designated already as a EERO part of the egress?

Thus if you are replacing or upgrading that window could not one argue the same being set for a door or stair flight?

The only question would be is if the original permitted code required EERO's?

And yes I get that EERO's are in R310 & the trigger is in R311.

And as part of the question how many AHJ delete chapter 1 and replace with their own not even close tot he wording.

 

[Sifu]

I have worked in a couple of AHJ's that adopt IRC appx J. I find it helpful, and even if not adopted I use that as pretty good advisory information when appropriate.

 

[tbz]

I will add the following notes also:

Back when I was fabricating and installing new guards and handrails in NJ, 2017 and prior, it always drove me insane that a mason could remove all the masonry brick, block and top stones, and rebuild on top of the existing foundation a new front entry with a 6x5 landing and 3 treads and because they didn't alter the foundation, and thus it was considered a repair and no permit required.

However, they required a permit to be pulled for the new handrail or guards.

It was such a problem explaining it to clients, that we always explained that they needed to contact the AHJ and ask if they were going to require a permit or not and then gave the homeowner and or contractor the option for them to get the permit or not, or for an additional cost we could pull the permit for them. We had them sign off either way so if they didn't contract us to pull the permit, that they accepted the responsibility.

My point, one person's repair is another person's replacement, IMO, if the window frame stayed in place and only the windows or glass was replaced I might call it a repair. But if a whole new window is installed, I lean more towards replacement and a trigger than a repair. Just because they didn't intend to make the improvement, how does it change, would the same go for replacement windows by choice vs fire?

But I get the fine lines building departments must interpret.

 

[Yikes]

Here in California, the state was concerned that people were not upgrading to more energy-efficient windows because it would trigger structural enlargement of existing sleeping room structural openings to meet newer EERO requirements, making replacement much more expensive. So the state put the following into the California Existing Building Code:

505.3 Replacement Window Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings
“Where windows are required to provide emergency escape and rescue openings in Group R-2 and R-3 occupancies and one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses regulated by the California Residential Code, replacement windows shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 1031.3 of the California Building Code and Section R310.2 of the California Residential Code, provided that the replacement window meets the following conditions:

1. The replacement window is the manufacturer's largest standard size window that will fit within the existing frame or existing rough opening. The replacement window shall be permitted to be of the same operating style as the existing window or a style that provides for an equal or greater window opening area than the existing window.
2. Where the replacement of the window is part of a change of occupancy, it shall comply with Section 1011.5.6.”

And here’s 1011.5.6:
“Where a change of occupancy would require an emergency escape and rescue opening in accordance with Section 1031 of the California Building Code, operable windows serving as the emergency escape and rescue opening shall comply with the following:

1. An existing operable window shall provide a minimum net clear opening of 4 square feet (0.38 m2) with a minimum net clear opening height of 22 inches (559 mm) and a minimum net clear opening width of 20 inches (508 mm).
2. A replacement window where such window complies with both of the following:
   1. The replacement window meets the size requirements in Item 1.
   2. The replacement window is the manufacturer's largest standard size window that will fit within the existing frame or existing rough opening. The replacement window shall be permitted to be of the same operating style as the existing window or a style that provides for an equal or greater window opening area than the existing window.”

Notice that you can just put the new window within the frame of the old window, and use a “standard size” according to whatever manufacturer you choose. So there’s a scenario under which the replacement EERO can legally provide an even smaller opening and higher sill that was previously permitted at time of original building construction.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The question arises: does the International Residential Code (IRC) mandate additional emergency escape and rescue openings as part of the repairs?

I would start with Chapter 5 of the IEBC.

505.3 Replacement window emergency escape and rescue openings.
Where windows are required to provide emergency escape and rescue openings in Group R-2 and R-3 occupancies and one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses regulated by the International Residential Code, replacement windows shall be exempt from the requirements of Sections 1030.2, 1030.3 and 1030.4 of the International Building Code and Sections R310.2.1, R310.2.2 and R310.2.3 of the International Residential Code, provided that the replacement window meets the following conditions:

1. The replacement window is the manufacturer’s largest standard size window that will fit within the existing frame or existing rough opening. The replacement window shall be permitted to be of the same operating style as the existing window or a style that provides for an equal or greater window opening area than the existing window.

2. The replacement of the window is not part of a change of occupancy.

Window opening control devices complying with ASTM F2090 shall be permitted for use on windows required to provide emergency escape and rescue openings.

505.4 Emergency escape and rescue openings.
Emergency escape and rescue openings shall be operational from the inside of the room without the use of keys or tools. Bars, grilles, grates or similar devices are permitted to be placed over emergency escape and rescue openings provided that the minimum net clear opening size complies with the code that was in effect at the time of construction and such devices shall be releasable or removable from the inside without the use of a key, tool or force greater than that which is required for normal operation of the escape and rescue opening. Where such bars, grilles, grates or similar devices are installed, they shall not reduce the net clear opening of the emergency escape and rescue openings. Smoke alarms shall be installed in accordance with Section 907.2.10 of the International Building Code regardless of the valuation of the alteration.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Here in PA the state code lets you replace windows without a permit as long as you are not doing something structural. (No definition of structural in the state code.)

 

[steveray]

Here in PA the state code lets you replace windows without a permit as long as you are not doing something structural. (No definition of structural in the state code.)

A lack of permit generally does not give you a pass on code requirements:

R105.2 Work Exempt From Permit​

Exemption from the permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws, statutes, regulations or ordinances of the jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following work:

 

[jar546]

A lack of permit generally does not give you a pass on code requirements:

R105.2 Work Exempt From Permit​

Exemption from the permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws, statutes, regulations or ordinances of the jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following work:

Yeah, PA does not even recognize chapter 1 of the IBC or IRC. They have their own.

 

[steveray]

Yeah, PA does not even recognize chapter 1 of the IBC or IRC. They have their own.

But do they follow that intent in code or law?

 

[jar546]

But do they follow that intent in code or law?

There is a reason why I left that state.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

But do they follow that intent in code or law?

NO!

I makes it confusing when they are rehabbing a house and replacing windows. If the plans do not indicate replacing windows, I do not even look at them but, if the plans do indicate replacing windows or if they are reframing the windows I do inspect them. For only new bedrooms we do require an EERO.