A)[FONT=‘Times New Roman’] [/FONT]the lack of functional emergency escape and rescue openings in all sleeping rooms; (is deficient)
*Means you must verify function or operation and comply with the following regardless of age. There are other items to add that are not in the code. I know SoP say not required to inspect to code but then how else do you interpret the requirement? The SoP do not address age or grandfathering.
*
[size=3]**[FONT=Times-Bold]R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue required. Basements and every sleeping room shall have at least one operable emergency escape and rescue opening. Such opening shall open directly into a public street, public alley, yard or court. Where basements contain one or more sleeping rooms, emergency egress and rescue openings shall be required in each sleeping room, but shall not be required in adjoining areas of the basement. Where emergency escape and rescue openings are provided they shall have a sill height of not more than 44 inches (1118 mm) above the floor. Where a door opening having a threshold below the adjacent ground elevation serves as an emergency escape and rescue opening and is provided with a bulkhead enclosure, the bulkhead enclosure shall comply with Section R310.3. The net clear opening dimensions required by this section shall be obtained by the normal operation of the emergency escape and rescue opening from the inside. Emergency escape and rescue openings with a finished sill height below the adjacent ground elevation shall be provided with a window well in accordance with Section R310.2. Emergency escape and rescue openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way. [/size][/FONT]
[size=3][FONT=Arial] [/size][/FONT]
[size=3][FONT=Times-Bold]Exception: Basements used only to house mechanical equipment and not exceeding total floor area of 200 square feet (18.58 m2). [/FONT][/size]
[size=3][FONT=Arial] [/size][/FONT]
[size=3][FONT=Times-Bold]R310.1.1 Minimum opening area. All emergency escape and rescue openings shall have a minimum net clear opening of 5.7 square feet (0.530 m2). [/FONT][/size]
[size=3][FONT=Arial] [/size][/FONT]
[size=3][FONT=Times-Bold]Exception: Grade floor openings shall have a minimum net clear opening of 5 square feet (0.465 m2). [/FONT][/size]
[size=3][FONT=Arial] [/size][/FONT]
[size=3][FONT=Times-Bold]R310.1.2 Minimum opening height. The minimum net clear opening height shall be 24 inches (610 mm). [/FONT][/size]
[size=3][FONT=Arial] [/size][/FONT]
[size=3][FONT=Times-Bold]R310.1.3 Minimum opening width. The minimum net clear opening width shall be 20 inches (508 mm). [/FONT][/size]
[size=3][FONT=Arial] [/size][/FONT]
[size=3][FONT=Times-Bold]R310.1.4 Operational constraints. Emergency escape and rescue openings shall be operational from the inside of the room without the use of keys, tools or special knowledge. [/FONT][/size]
[size=3][FONT=Arial] [/size][/FONT]
[size=3][FONT=Times-Bold]R310.2 Window wells. The minimum horizontal area of the window well shall be 9 square feet (0.9 m2), with a minimum horizontal projection and width of 36 inches (914 mm). The area of the window well shall allow the emergency escape and rescue opening to be fully opened. [/FONT][/size]
[size=3][FONT=Arial] [/size][/FONT]
[size=3][FONT=Times-Bold]Exception: The ladder or steps required by SectionR310.2.1 shall be permitted to encroach a maximum of 6 inches (152 mm) into the required dimensions of the window well. [/FONT][/size]
[size=3][FONT=Arial] [/size][/FONT]
[size=3][FONT=Times-Bold]R310.2.1 Ladder and steps.Window wells with a vertical depth greater than 44 inches (1118 mm) shall be equipped with a permanently affixed ladder or steps usable with the window in the fully open position. Ladders or steps required by this section shall not be required to comply with Sections R311.5 and R311.6. Ladders or rungs shall have an inside width of at least 12 inches (305 mm), shall project at least 3 inches (76 mm) from the wall and shall be spaced not more than 18 inches (457 mm) on center vertically for the full height of the window well. [/FONT][/size]
[size=3][FONT=Arial] [/size][/FONT]
[size=3][FONT=Times-Bold]R310.2 Window wells. The minimum horizontal area of the window well shall be 9 square feet (0.9 m2), with a minimum horizontal projection and width of 36 inches (914 mm). The area of the window well shall allow the emergency escape and rescue opening to be fully opened. [/FONT][/size]
[size=3][FONT=Arial] [/size][/FONT]
[size=3][FONT=Times-Bold]Exception: The ladder or steps required by SectionR310.2.1 shall be permitted to encroach a maximum of 6 inches (152 mm) into the required dimensions of the window well. [/FONT][/size]
[size=3][FONT=Arial] [/size][/FONT]
[size=3][FONT=Times-Bold]R310.2.1 Ladder and steps.Window wells with a vertical depth greater than 44 inches (1118 mm) shall be equipped with a permanently affixed ladder or steps usable with the window in the fully open position. Ladders or steps required by this section shall not be required to comply with Sections R311.5 and R311.6. Ladders or rungs shall have an inside width of at least 12 inches (305 mm), shall project at least 3 inches (76 mm) from the wall and shall be spaced not more than 18 inches (457 mm) on center vertically for the full height of the window well. [/FONT][/size]
[size=3][FONT=Arial] [/size][/FONT]
[size=3][FONT=Times-Bold]R310.3 Bulkhead enclosures. **Bulkhead enclosures shall provide direct access to the basement. The bulkhead enclosure with the door panels in the fully open position shall provide the minimum net clear opening required by Section R310.1.1. Bulkhead enclosures shall also comply with Section R311.5.8.2. [/FONT][/size]
[size=3][FONT=Arial] [/size][/FONT]
**[FONT=Times-Bold]R310.4 Bars, grilles, covers and screens. **Bars, grilles, covers, screens or similar devices are permitted to be placed over emergency escape and rescue openings, bulkhead enclosures, or window wells that serve such openings, provided the minimum net clear opening size complies with Sections R310.1.1 to R310.1.3, and such devices shall be releasable or removable from the inside without the use of a key, tool, special knowledge (?) or force greater than that which is required for normal operation of the escape and rescue opening. [/FONT]
[size=3][FONT=Arial] [/size][/FONT]
[size=3]**R310.5 Emergency escape windows under decks and porches. **Emergency escape windows are allowed to be installed under decks and porches provided the location of the deck allows the emergency escape window to be fully opened and provides a path not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height to a yard or court.
John… Lacking a definition of “emergency escape and rescue openings” in the proposed TREC SOP (and a quick look-see shows there is none) I would think that is at the discretion of the inspector. I don’t see where the SOP is forcing us to comply with IRC 310.1 but most of us would, of course, use that for the definition anyway. The intent, I’m sure, is to conform someone can escape a fire without barriers so this seems like a reasonable SOP item. Are you concerned about the ‘verification of functionality” or the extent of the IRC parameters or what?
I too saw the problem with the lack of “emergency escape and rescue opening” definition. It is however a direct code phrase and it follows 8 years of existing precedent to inspect homes to the newest code. In that you and I are already question it perhaps TREC should define the term. If not then we can defer to experts and lawyers. I think the code argument in this case can be very convincing argument in an insurance claim or TREC investigation. I have seen TREC support code in an investigation about combustion air. They have set precedent.
The inspector is not allowed “discretion” anywhere in the SoP. Websters = discretion = individual choice or judgment; power of free decision or latitude of choice within certain legal bounds. That empowers the inspector more than “reasonable judgment” even after considering “legal bounds”. A test of reasonable is “what would others do”. In this case the “other” is TREC, the expert witness or you.
In absence of any other definition for 310.1 you are forced to use it. You already admit you will. You are an example or “reasonable and prudent”. I am open to alternative specifications however.
I agree with the intent, it is obvious. If it belongs in the SoP then there are many other safety items missing. Would it be reasonable to also include those?
I not concerned with this one item or any others. If I cannot comply with the SoP within the time constraints of a typical inspection and inspection fee I know how to adjust. I am sure however I can comply as an expert for $200 an hour and a week long budget.
This is but one example. If we parse out the entire SoP this way you will see it become an expensive document to comply with. There is no way to change TREC’s mind on this. The goal is to define the requirement with specificity so we can comply. On the other hand I would take “in the inspectors sole judgement”.
I too saw the problem with the lack of “emergency escape and rescue opening” definition. It is however a direct code phrase and it follows 8 years of existing precedent to inspect homes to the newest code. In that you and I already question it perhaps TREC should define the term. If not then we can defer to experts and lawyers. I think the code argument in this case can be very convincing argument in an insurance claim or TREC investigation. I have seen TREC support code in an investigation about combustion air. They have set precedent.
The inspector is not allowed “discretion” anywhere in the SoP. Websters = discretion = individual choice or judgment; power of free decision or latitude of choice within certain legal bounds. That empowers the inspector more than “reasonable judgment” even after considering “legal bounds”. A test of reasonable is “what would others do”. In this case the “other” is TREC, the expert witness or you.
In absence of any other definition for 310.1 you are forced to use it. You already admit you will. You are an example or “reasonable and prudent”. I am open to alternative specifications however.
I agree with the intent, it is obvious. If it belongs in the SoP then there are many other safety items missing. Would it be reasonable to also include those?
I not concerned with this one item or any others. If I cannot comply with the SoP within the time constraints of a typical inspection and inspection fee I know how to adjust. I am sure however I can comply as an expert for $200 an hour and a week long budget.
This is but one example. If we parse out the entire SoP this way you will see it become an expensive document to comply with. There is no way to change TREC’s mind on this. The goal is to define the requirement with specificity so we can comply. On the other hand I would take “in the inspectors sole judgement”.
Holy sheeet you do? Wow. Me too . . . for about 24 years now. Now others will also have too. If they don’t it will only take a few taps on the ol E&O to make em believe.
The current SoP do not require opening windows. I always have and the new ones require it now.
I wonder if this will increase fees? Maybe someone will come up with a grant program for those who cannot afford us.
Sorry but you lost me on that one. Just very late. You mean you have helpers going around and doing the manual labor? Not a bad idea and it is very easy to get them licensed as an apprentice ($25 and a form). Illegal if you don’t because they are “inspecting”. I have no idea if they have to have insurance however. That’s a good question . . . . . . . to avoid.
That does bring up a new topic for a later post. When 2 or more inspectors work on one job the E&O coverage is multiplied accordingly.
My concern for the whole time the proposed SOP was being developed was that there did not seem to be any rhyme nor reason for selecting some of the new SOP items; just the whim of the writers at any given time. I think it was you that pointed out recently that if the SOP sub-committee had a process defined before starting then they either lost sight of it or ignored it.
Yep, I can’t wait to start doing smoke tests on heat exchangers like one committee member told me to do. :roll:
