NEC 645.2, 645.10

[TMTERRY]

Within our casino we have 2 server rooms. One for IT the other for surveillance. We have had a consultant com out to make recomendations on life safety issues.
One of the items on the punch list was EPO switches for both locations. These fall under article 645.2 and 645.10.
Can anyone tell me what the reasoning for tese code is. We have an FM 200 fire supression system in bothe rooms. My superiors are adament that they do not want the EPO switches installed, as the cost of a shut don of this equipment far our weighs the cost of the equipment not shutting down.
In surveillance, a loss of this equipment would result in our inability to see what is going on within the Casino. In IT a shut down of this equipment would result in havoc, as all gaming, accounting etc. functions are monitored and controled within this equipment.
With a good understanding of what the spirit behind this code is, I would be able to go to the building official asking that this not be required in our facility.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Article 645 is an optional article, there is no requirement that you use it. If you comply with all of the requirements in 645.4, then you are permitted to use installation methods that are prohibited in Chapters 1 though 4. If the electrical installations in these two rooms were installed per the rules in the first four chapters of the NEC, then there is no code requirement to have an EPO. Even if this is an Article 645 installation there is some relief from the EPO requirement in the 2011 code. See 645.10(B).

 

[ron]

Article 645 is an optional article, there is no requirement that you use it. If you comply with all of the requirements in 645.4, then you are permitted to use installation methods that are prohibited in Chapters 1 though 4. If the electrical installations in these two rooms were installed per the rules in the first four chapters of the NEC, then there is no code requirement to have an EPO. Even if this is an Article 645 installation there is some relief from the EPO requirement in the 2011 code. See 645.10(B).

Don is right on target.

 

[iwire]

I also agree with Don and Ron, I would not consider adding an EPO unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the existing conditions are such that an EPO would be required.

 

[bhsrnd]

Does an EPO system presently exist or are they recommending you add an EPO system? If it does exist, there may be local fire codes requiring that it remain or additional clean agent may have to be added if the EPO system is decommissioned. This is something that I just learned the other day for a future project we're scoping for our data center that has an existing FM200 and EPO system. The local city fire code inspector provided the information to our fire alarm system service provider based on NFPA 2001. Needless to say, we're planning to leave the EPO as-is and not decommission it.

 

[ron]

Does an EPO system presently exist or are they recommending you add an EPO system? If it does exist, there may be local fire codes requiring that it remain or additional clean agent may have to be added if the EPO system is decommissioned. This is something that I just learned the other day for a future project we're scoping for our data center that has an existing FM200 and EPO system. The local city fire code inspector provided the information to our fire alarm system service provider based on NFPA 2001. Needless to say, we're planning to leave the EPO as-is and not decommission it.

In almost all jurisdictions NFPA 2001 is not adopted as part of the code. EPO and clean agent are generally independent issues unless you need to shut airflow down with the EPO to maintain clean agent concentration or the clean agent you have is not listed for use with a Class C (Electrical) fire (FM200 is listed for Class C fires). Generally I design the clean agent shutdowns as separate interfaces than a manual EPO because the manual EPO's are option as was mentioned.

 

[TMTERRY]

As I read article 645 I do not see where an EPO is an oprion

As I read article 645 I do not see where an EPO is an oprion

Our facility does not currently have EPO's in either server room. We would definately prefer not to add them. this is not due to the cost of adding them, but the possible havoc that would be caused by them.
The recomendation that we add them was made by a consulting organization, and we are required to respond to it by management.
If EPO is an option, I certain do not see that in article 645, 685 does allow exceptions , if personel safety is at risk, but this is not the case.
Any help would be appreciated

 

[iwire]

Our facility does not currently have EPO's in either server room. We would definately prefer not to add them. this is not due to the cost of adding them, but the possible havoc that would be caused by them.
The recomendation that we add them was made by a consulting organization, and we are required to respond to it by management.
If EPO is an option, I certain do not see that in article 645, 685 does allow exceptions , if personel safety is at risk, but this is not the case.
Any help would be appreciated

You can ignore 645 in its entirety if you follow the rules in Chapters 1 through 4.

The only thing Article 645 gains you is the use of flexible cords over permanent methods.

90.3 Code Arrangement. This Code is divided into the
introduction and nine chapters, as shown in Figure 90.3.
Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 apply generally; Chapters 5, 6, and
7 apply to special occupancies, special equipment, or other
special conditions. These latter chapters supplement or modify
the general rules. Chapters 1 through 4 apply except as
amended by Chapters 5, 6, and 7 for the particular conditions.

 

[ron]

Our facility does not currently have EPO's in either server room. We would definately prefer not to add them. this is not due to the cost of adding them, but the possible havoc that would be caused by them.
The recomendation that we add them was made by a consulting organization, and we are required to respond to it by management.
If EPO is an option, I certain do not see that in article 645, 685 does allow exceptions , if personel safety is at risk, but this is not the case.
Any help would be appreciated

Read the language in 645.4 - It was even further clarified in the 2011 edition (if you are on 2008). It says that this article applies if you do the following .... So the corrolary is that if you don't do the following ......., the article doesn't apply.

This is a link to a pretty good article (although old),
http://www.csemag.com/index.php?id=1398&cHash=081010&tx_ttnewshttp://www.csemag.com/index.php?id=1398&cHash=081010&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=25023