AnsweredAssumed Answered

Healtcare Occupancy NFPA 101A Query

Question asked by Adam Kohl on Aug 25, 2017
Latest reply on Sep 5, 2017 by Lawrence Gallagher

For the NFPA 101A section 4.3.2(4)(c), is anyone aware of whether the exception allowing for the omission of evaluation of an unoccupied top floor (given sprinkler systems) is sufficient to comply with the code even if that top floor constitutes an impermissible story considering the "construction type" of the building?

 

For example, a building designated for "existing health care occupancies" under Chapter 19 of the 2015 NFPA 101 code, is a Type III (200) construction.  The building has two stories currently, which exceeds the one story permitted for that construction type under NFPA 101 19.1.6.1.  In order to bring the building into compliance with the code, is it sufficient to leave the second floor unoccupied and equipped with a sprinkler system, given the exception in NFPA 101A section 4.3.2(4)(c), or would it be necessary to demolish the second floor entirely?

 

Any information or advice you could provide would be much appreciated.  Thanks!

Outcomes