Sprinkler Age A Publication of the American Fire Sprinkler Association
Over the last few months, I have attended several NFPA technical committee meetings and the SFPE Storage Symposium. One thing became evident: many times, we do not know what we don’t know or what we should know. What do I mean?
Look at the hazard classification of a typical automotive parking garage. The annex to the 2025 edition of NFPA 13 lists a typical automotive parking garage as Ordinary Hazard Group 2 (OH2). Now let’s add electric charging stations and maybe vehicle stackers to the typical parking garage. Does that change the hazard classification discussion? Some local plan reviewers and AHJs are classifying any parking garage with electric charging stations as Extra Hazard Group 2 (EH2). Are they out of their minds? NFPA 13, 2025 edition defines an EH2 as “3.3.148.2 Occupancies or portions of occupancies with moderate to substantial amounts of flammable or combustible liquids or occupancies where shielding of combustibles is extensive.” I’m not sure EH2 is correct, but we need more data.
So, what do we do as an industry? We look at loss history, field experience, and fire testing to attempt to answer this question. Several organizations have been looking at this issue critically for automotive parking garages. The NFPA Research Foundation has an ongoing parking garage research project that AFSA proudly sponsors. They are working on Phase 3 of the report, and as a technical panel member, I’ve seen some of the testing. There were public inputs to NFPA 13, 2028 edition to modify the requirements. Unfortunately, only minor changes were accepted during the first draft meeting without more data being provided. The second draft meeting should offer more changes. NFPA 88A, Standard for Parking Structures, 2027 edition is currently under second draft. There are public comments moving forward to address the sprinkler criteria. We will see what shakes out, but one thing I know for sure, we do not know what we do not know. Also, remember, just because design criteria get into a standard does not make it gospel. In many cases, it is an educated guess based on the data the technical committee has to review.
Our industry has changed substantially in the last decade. New technologies, products, storage arrangements, tighter deadlines, and many other items come to mind. What is one to do? Stay informed, ask questions, and hold on because the pace is furious, and I do not think it will slow down anytime soon. For example, who would have ever thought NFPA would develop a standard on cannabis, NFPA 420, Standard on Fire Protection for Cannabis Growing and Processing Facilities, a code to address battery safety, NFPA 800, Battery Storage Code, or add fall prevention to the scope of NFPA 101, Life Safety Code,® which has rules for grab bars and other items.
Just as the industry has changed, has your company changed? Are you looking at new lines of work? Are you doing more ITM activities? NFPA 25’s scope includes water storage tanks, water spray systems, water mist systems, foam systems, underground piping and valves, and fire hydrants. Have you thought about adding these services? ITM activities also could include fire extinguishers (NFPA 10), kitchen hood systems (NFPA 96), carbon dioxide systems (NFPA 12), clean agent systems (NFPA 2001), hybrid fire suppression systems (NFPA 750), fire alarm and signaling systems (NFPA 72), dry chemical extinguishing systems (NFPA 17), fire doors and windows (NFPA 80), wet chemical fire extinguishing systems (NFPA 17A), and emergency exit lights (NFPA 101). The need for experienced inspectors to perform these inspections is huge. You might want to look at your competitors, as many of them are expanding their service to include these requirements in their offerings.
Where is this industry going? Your guess is as good as mine. But I can tell you that if you keep your head down, you might miss the opportunity to keep up.
I also want to remind all that the responsibility for performing a service comes with liability if your team does not perform the service professionally and in full compliance with the terms of the contractual agreement. This means you need trained and experienced field inspectors and administrative staff who can write a proposal to cover your company’s exposure. Let me give you a real-world example. You enter into an agreement to perform annual ITM service on one 1,000 gpm at 100 psi-rated diesel-driven fire pump system in accordance with NFPA 25, 2023 edition. Your inspection team does a complete flow test, and the documentation is perfect. All items passed, and all is great. Did your contract specifically exclude all the required inspections, testing, and maintenance on the diesel driver? If it did, did the client have the same understanding? Does the AHJ understand you did not do a complete ITM on the diesel driver? What if the driver has an issue a month after you were onsite because you did not change the fuel filters? Who is going to get the blame? Even if you had excluded the work, finger-pointing would occur if all parties involved were not on the same page.
The bottom line is that all staff involved in any part of sales, inspections, and administration of the work must be trained on what is important and what can happen if items are missed. We do not know what we do not know, but “we do not know” is NOT a legally defensible answer. Standardized procedures with proper training can assist in making sure your company succeeds.
AFSA is looking at what the future brings. We have come a long way since our start, especially in the last five years. We want to serve our members as they move forward. Do we need to offer training in some of the areas I discussed, or should we stay focused on what we’ve been doing? Our technical team is up for the challenge; are you? Let me know what you think about AFSA expanding our scope of training. I want to hear your thoughts. Feel free to reach out to me directly at jdenhardt@firesprinkler.org.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: John August Denhardt, P.E., ET, CWBSP, FSFPE, is the vice president of engineering and technical services for the American Fire Sprinkler Association (AFSA). He is responsible for strengthening AFSA’s engineering and technical approaches to meeting member, industry, and operational priorities, with an emphasis on service, quality, and integrity. Denhardt is a registered professional engineer (P.E.) in the District of Columbia and the states of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. He is NICET Level III certified in water-based systems layout, NICET Level III certified in inspection and testing of water-based systems, and a certified water-based system professional through NFPA. Denhardt is a member of the NFPA 13 technical committee on sprinkler system discharge criteria, a fellow in the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), a member of the SFPE Board of Directors, a member of the Board of Trustees for NFPA’s Fire Protection Research Foundation and sits on the University of Maryland Department of Fire Protection Engineering’s Board of Visitors. A native of Maryland, Denhardt holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland College Park in fire protection engineering. Prior to this role, Denhardt was employed by Strickland Fire Protection in Forestville, Maryland, since 1994, overseeing large-scale projects and assisting with design and installation technical issues.