Who decides if a server room needs to follow article 645

[dahualin]

We have a project with a big server room. The owner doesn't want EPO button to shut down the power for the room. Who decides if the room needs to follow article 645 or not? Thanks.

 

[raider1]

This is a design issue, nothing in the NEC requires you to follow Article 645.

Keep in mind though that there are some benifits that come from using Article 645 such as not needing plenum rated cables in the underfloor spaces, and the use of flexible cords to connect fixed in place rack systems etc...

But if you want to take advantage of these rules you must also meet all the requirement in Article 645 including a disconnecting means in accordance with 645.10.

Chris

 

[tom baker]

Art 645 is giant exception to the NEC. If you meet all the requirements then 645 applies. See 645.2

 

[tkb]

You may need an EPO either way.
I have seen the fire dept require it just because they want it.
No code reference needed from the FD.

 

[benaround]

You may need an EPO either way.
I have seen the fire dept require it just because they want it.
No code reference needed from the FD.

That's ironic NFPA writes the NEC.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

You may need an EPO either way.
I have seen the fire dept require it just because they want it.
No code reference needed from the FD.

Actually there is. The do not have the legal authority require the installation of the EPO unless it is required by the legally adopted fire codes. They can be held liable for malicious prosecution if they require something that is not required by the adopted codes.

 

[tkb]

I wouldn't want to fight that fight.

 

[ron]

tkb,
I've often "pushed back", and with a article reference here and there, they back off. Many times, they are just used to it being a certain way and will understand if they are shown the code sections.

 

[iwire]

At the point in the job tkb and I would be dealing with the FD it comes down to this.

Do we want the CO or not?

Yes we might be able to fight it but then the CO will be late and most times it is less costly to just agree then to delay the buildings opening.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

At the point in the job tkb and I would be dealing with the FD it comes down to this.

Do we want the CO or not?

Yes we might be able to fight it but then the CO will be late and most times it is less costly to just agree then to delay the buildings opening.

Sure there can be a major cost involved in fighting it, but there is also costs and delays involved in installing the EPO in a room that was not designed for it. If you fight and win, the FD is responsible for all of the costs associated with the delay. It becomes a judgment call and will often hinge on how far along the project is at the point the FD makes it illegal demand. In the case of an EPO, in may very well be that the owner is the one who has the biggest objection to installing it and he may want to fight. The cost of the fight could very well be way less that the cost of one accidental operation of the EPO after the system is up and running.

 

[steve66]

This is a design issue, nothing in the NEC requires you to follow Article 645.

Keep in mind though that there are some benifits that come from using Article 645 such as not needing plenum rated cables in the underfloor spaces, and the use of flexible cords to connect fixed in place rack systems etc...

But if you want to take advantage of these rules you must also meet all the requirement in Article 645 including a disconnecting means in accordance with 645.10.

Chris

I understand the concept, but one thing has always has me puzzled with IT rooms:

Doesn't the need for an EPO depend on the cables and equipment the IT guys install? And doesn't this normally happen after design, construction, and inspections?

It seems like the code is requireing us to predict what will be installed in the future.

Steve

 

[iwire]

Sure there can be a major cost involved in fighting it, but there is also costs and delays involved in installing the EPO in a room that was not designed for it. If you fight and win, the FD is responsible for all of the costs associated with the delay. It becomes a judgment call and will often hinge on how far along the project is at the point the FD makes it illegal demand. In the case of an EPO, in may very well be that the owner is the one who has the biggest objection to installing it and he may want to fight. The cost of the fight could very well be way less that the cost of one accidental operation of the EPO after the system is up and running.

We comply with the FD and move on.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

We comply with the FD and move on.

That really is not up to the electrical contractor to decide...it is up to the owner. If it is not in the contract how do you get paid if the CO is not approved by the owner. In some cases there could be sizable costs involved in installing the button.

 

[raider1]

Doesn't the need for an EPO depend on the cables and equipment the IT guys install?

The need for a disconnecting means in accordance with 645.10 is required anytime you want to use Article 645.

Chris