On 4/27/06, Hugh Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I have a friend who is looking at two facilities for storing computer
> media.  One is a nice office type environment.  It used to be a Data
> Center so it is equipped with all the right power, areas with raised
> computer flooring, Liebert air conditioning.
>
> The other facility is below grade.  It was a defense facility so it is
> way underground with one elevator down into the space.  Their concern
> is that the underground facility looks like it has had mold and mildew
> problems.  When they have looked at it, it always smells stale.



Hmm... what's the old saying?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's
PROBABLY a duck.

But then again, this just may be another case of Hugh having "an agenda"  =)

NFPA 232 state that it is not recommended to place vaults below grade.
> There were some articles at one time about the Americold fire below
> grade in a cave and the difficulty of fighting a fire in a cave or
> below grade location with limited access.



Oh yeah, and he's always trying to get a Standard issued or something...
he's Soooooo misguided!!  But wait a minute, he was citing an existing
standard that recommends against these conditions for vault storage... so I
guess that's okay (?)


http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/supct/1997/19970307/75279.htm

From the KS Court Document:

The origin of the fire remained in dispute. Plaintiffs contended that the
fire started in an area controlled by Americold, possibly from exploding
dust after rock fell from the ceiling onto bags of powdered milk. Americold
claimed that the fire started on the premises of Return, Inc., one of its
tenants in Portal A. Plaintiffs claimed that, despite where or how the fire
started, Americold was negligent in at least the following respects: (a) The
facility violated applicable codes, had no sprinkler system, had an
inadequate fire alarm system, had improper firewall openings, and lacked a
ventilation system that could have prevented the smoke from spreading
throughout the facility; (b) Americold employees were not properly trained
in dealing with cave fires, and after first detecting the fire, failed to
notify the fire department for almost an hour; and (c) the contractor
retained by Americold to extinguish the fire exacerbated the smoke
contamination problem with its use of carbon dioxide in unsuccessful
attempts to extinguish the fire and seal off Portal A.


If you read the balance of the linked document, one of the things you'll
find is Portal A, where the fire started, happens to be where the records
were stored, and the supposed point of ignition is where an exploding rock
fell on bags of powdered milk... something I'm always looking to have stored
in conjunction with records I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR...

If she buys the below grade facility where every part of the operation
> is below grade, she fears that articles will surface that show she made
> a mistake.


And the risk is great enough that she probably shouldn't consider it,
especially with one elevator only down into the space, what sounds like
questionable air exchange and humidity problems.  I'd think she may want to
have a Fire Engineer inspect the facility and see if it's suited for Type II
commodities in the volumes she's planning to store and naturally, a Risk
manager or Insurance person determine the liabilities of storing anything
there.

Does anyone have a comment as to the best approach for data storage?  I
> obviously am biased.


Yeah, but you know my opinion.  Make multiple copies, store them in discreet
locations, at minimum, be in compliance with NFPA 232, NFPA 75, and consider
compliance with 36CFR requirements for storage of media.

But has anyone seen articles that criticize below grade or cave storage
> of media.


The court documents above would be enough to make me think twice... and I'd
be wary of any below grade situation without a sump pump, or in a facility
inside the 500 year flood plain.... especially one that doesn't smell right
when you go there.

Does it change anything if the area the facility is in a seismic zone
> where earthquake activity can occur?


Well, no... not if the facility is constructed in accordance with the proper
Seismic Zone considerations and it's not within any known active fault
zones.  What it might impact is the ultimate volume of storage space if
additional bracing is required to meet seismic requirements though... and it
may also have an impact on access to the area in the event of seismic
activity if there's only one way in and out.

But if you have a first-class tape tracking system, you'll at least know
what's covered in mold and inaccessible =)

Larry

--
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance