Data Center Site Qualification Program. Detailed Site Prospectus

Transcription

1 Data Center Site Qualification Program Detailed Site Prospectus Wolpert Greenfield Site Hilliard, OH March 2013

2 Table of Contents About This Report... 4 Executive Summary... 5 Chapter 1 - Overview... 9 Data Center Options & Layouts... 9 Variables... 9 Enterprise User Model Co-Location Model Other Considerations Data Center Modeling Summary Infrastructure Services Electrical Fiber and Telecommunications Infrastructure Gas Water Sewer Business Continuity Review Natural Disaster Risk Man-Made Disaster Risk Fire and Rescue Services Police and Crime Index Public Transportation

3 Specific Mission Critical Support Demographic Benchmark Results Chapter 2 Site Details Site Location Current Utilization Surrounding Uses Field Survey Climate and Weather Chapter 3 Data Center Model Calculations Chapter 4 Fiber Carrier Details Chapter 5 Business Continuity Analysis Natural Disaster Risk Details Man-Made Disaster Risk Details Public Transportation Chapter 6 Demographic Details Background Demographic Details

4 About This Report This feasibility report was prepared in conjunction with American Electric Power s (AEP s) Data Center Site Qualification Program. The program s objective is the proactive identification and analysis of sites that offer the unique combination of factors desired by today s mission critical and data center operations. These factors include highly reliable and redundant power and fiber infrastructures, competitive cost structures, and a location insulated from man-made and natural risks. Biggins Lacy Shapiro & Co., a location economics and site selection firm, has served as lead consultant for the program, together with its affiliated energy services company, Sugarloaf Associates. Engineering and site evaluation services were provided by Intelligent Building Solutions, LLC (IBS), a facilities consulting firm focusing on mission critical projects. This report was written by IBS using a culmination of their independent analysis of the Wolpert Greenfield Site (WGS) in Hilliard, OH and its suitability for a mission critical facility. The review process included an initial site survey and an in-depth review of supporting documents to ascertain the feasibility to support a test model mission critical facility with 100,000 square feet of raised floor (computer room) designed to current industry specifications for power usage and redundancy. 4

5 Executive Summary This report examined the potential for mission critical development at the Wolpert Greenfield Site (WGS) in Hilliard, OH. The site is a greenfield site that is approximately 9 miles from downtown Columbus, OH. The analysis concludes the site is favorable for data center development and it offers strong utility infrastructure Logistically, the Hilliard area offers a temperate climate ideal for free cooling. There is a moderate susceptibility to natural disasters and there are several concerns for the potential of man-made disasters effecting the operation of a mission critical facility at the WGS. Although the site is within close proximity to downtown Columbus, public transportation options could be a concern for end users requiring disaster recovery. The site s location is appropriate for a stand-alone enterprise user or a colocation facility, and the site will physically accommodate either. For purposes of this analysis, the site was designed with 100,000 square feet of raised floor, also known as white space. Graphics 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 are maps showing the State of Ohio, Franklin County, Hilliard, OH and the Wolpert Greenfield Site. 5

6 Chicago, IL 268 miles WGS Columbus, OH 9 Miles Graphic 1.4 Map showing WGS relationship to major data center market hubs Graphic 1.5 Map showing lot layout for WGS 6

7 A. General Information Location Type of Site Size SITE ATTRIBUTES Wolpert Greenfield Site 4178 Davidson Rd. Hilliard, OH Greenfield Site acres B. Electric Infrastructure Existing Service Voltage Mission Critical Facility Service Voltage Proposed In-Service Date Design Load Capacity C. Fiber Infrastructure Providers in Vicinity High Bandwidth (Distance from Site) D. Other Utilities Natural Gas Service Natural Gas Provider Water Service Available Water Capacity Water Provider Sewer Sewer Provider Available Sewer Capacity None 120V Temp Service 69kV or 138 kv months from signed letter of intent Service in excess of 20MW AT&T, Verizon, Cox Communications At Doorstep 4 medium pressure line 55 PSI at street (not dedicated) Columbia Gas of Ohio Yes In excess of 200,000 GPD Columbus Department of Public Utilities Yes (Both Combined and Separate Storm Systems) Columbus Department of Public Utilities In excess of 200,000 GPD E. Natural Disaster Risk Seismic Rating Low (See Chapter 5) Tornado Rating High (See Chapter 5) Other (Flooding) Moderate (See Chapter 5) F. Man-Made Disaster Risk Moderate susceptibility to man-made disasters. Six areas of concern have been noted within the report. Site in Flight Path High concern Dam Failure Concern in regards to water supply and site access Oil Pipeline on Property High concern Traffic Incident Concern for site access and power pole damage Down Power Lines Aerial distribution is a concern for power continuity Rail Accident Low concern Military Bases (2) Low concern 7

8 LOCATION EVALUATION Wolpert Greenfield Site A. Location a. Proximity to Major Highways Favorable b. Proximity to Public Transportation Mixed c. Distance to Metropolitan Cities (<40 Miles) Very Favorable d. Proximity to Major Financial Market Hubs (< 75 fiber km) Unfavorable e. Proximity to NYC 564 miles B. Available Utility Resources a. High Voltage Electrical Services Very Favorable b. Water Favorable c. Natural Gas Favorable to Very Favorable d. Fiber Connectivity Very Favorable C. Site Logistics/Security a. Proximity to Adjoining Buildings/Property Favorable b. Ability to Fence/Secure Property Favorable c. Susceptibility to Natural Disasters Mixed d. Susceptibility to Man-Made Disasters Unfavorable e. Distance from Building Structure to Street Favorable f. Distance from Building Structure to Railroads Favorable g. Access to Public Transportation Mixed h. Access to Service Vendors (1 hour response time) Mixed to Favorable i. Access to Fuel Favorable j. Weather Favorable k. Air Quality Favorable D. Property a. Available Yard Space for Mission Critical Facility Equip. Very Favorable b. Paved Surfaces/Parking Very Favorable c. Provisions for Future Expansion Favorable E. Area Demographics a. Population Density Favorable b. Workforce and Talent Pool Favorable c. Housing Very Favorable d. Employment and Income Statistics Very Favorable e. Local Government and Services Favorable f. School District and Higher Education Very Favorable Very Favorable Favorable Mixed Unfavorable 8

9 Chapter 1 - Overview Data Center Options & Layouts For illustrative and analytical purposes, a feasibility test was conducted to assess and model the site s capacity to accommodate a prototypical data center with these attributes: Total building size - approximately 188,122 gross square feet (GSF) Building dimensions by Tilt-up construction with pre-cast concrete walls Slab to beam clear height - 36 Column spacing - 52 on center longitudinally by 50 laterally Two analyses were performed to maximize the building s white space yield: 1. Enterprise model - In an enterprise model, the objective is to achieve the most amount of power with the highest redundancy. 2. Co-location model - In a co-location model, the objective is to get the most amount of white space at moderate densities. Redundancy is a secondary function. The layouts illustrated are diagrammatic and are used for graphical representation to show the inherent differences between the enterprise and co-location scenarios. They are not intended to be precise representations. For example, the layouts do not take into account egress and minor inefficient space. However, they do demonstrate a fairly accurate estimate for potential yields and, experience has shown, are accurate to within five percent. Variables A number of variables have been factored into the feasibility analysis. Explanations of the key variables follow, while the assumptions used by the models are documented later in this section and Chapter 3. Density - the amount of power (expressed in watts) used per square foot. Density is calculated by configuring a cabinet layout/count and multiplying it by the cabinet load then dividing by the amount of white space. Cabinet Load - the amount of power used by the equipment (servers, storage arrays, or communication equipment) contained in a given cabinet. Cabinet load is typically calculated using a weighted average. Today s cabinet average loads run between 2.5 to 7 watts per cabinet. 9

10 Critical Load (also called IT Load) - The amount of power needed to operate the computing equipment. The total critical load is used to calculate the mechanical requirements, or essential load. Redundancy - System redundancy is expressed in Tier levels: Tier I - No redundancy on the critical (IT) load or the essential load. The uninterruptible power supply (UPS) is sized for the IT load (N load). There is no redundancy in the mechanical plant. The emergency power system (EPS) -- i.e., the generator -- is sized for the IT and mechanical loads. This system is % reliable, with hours (1, minutes) of expected downtime per year. Tier II - N+1 redundancy on the critical load, N+1 redundancy on the essential load. Single generator EPS plant for full critical and essential load % reliable, with hours ( minutes) expected downtime per year. Tier III - 2N redundancy on the critical load, N+1 redundancy on the essential load. 2N redundancy on the EPS plant. The plant is sized for full critical and essential loads % reliable, with 1.57 hours (94.68 minutes) expected downtime per year. Tier IV - 2N+1 redundancy on the critical load, 2N redundancy on the essential load. 2N+1 redundancy on the EPS plant. The plant is sized for full critical and essential loads % reliable, with minutes expected downtime per year. There are several variations that can be applied to these tiers. Financial services facilities are most often modeled with Tier III redundancies. Co-location models are usually based somewhere between Tier I plus and Tier II plus. Enterprise User Model As mentioned, the first model used by this analysis was based on a design for a typical enterprise end user. 2N resiliency was assumed throughout the design for critical and essential loads. Models were based on 100W, 120W and 150W per square foot of white space. These variables were then used to calculate the parameters for a sweet spot design. There are two options for the placement of equipment: 1. Contain the majority of the mission critical equipment within the facility. 2. Place the large mission critical equipment, such as generators and the mechanical plant, outside of the building envelope. In both versions, the best design parameters were at 125W per square foot with 2N resiliency. The indoor option yielded approximately 75,000 square feet of white space 10

11 and the outdoor option yielded approximately 100,000 square feet. The total calculated electrical load was 16,615 kw for the indoor option and 23,171 kw for the outdoor option. (Calculations did not take into account inefficient space and support space such as offices. However, calculations for equipment spacing and rack layouts are rather conservative. Estimates are believed to be within +/- 5%.) Co-Location Model The co-location model assumes multiple data halls at approximately 9,900 square feet of white space. The model is based on N+1 redundancy on critical loads and N+1 redundancy on essential loads. Major mission critical equipment is placed outside of the building envelope. Results of the analysis indicate ten data halls plus additional space for back-of-house program and administrative offices can be arranged to fit inside the current spec build program. This data hall model will result in approximately 18,000 kw of total electrical load. Mission Critical Equipment 109,340 GSF 75,000 GSF White Space Graphic 1.6 Enterprise Solution 1 75,000 GSF white space - 109,340 GSF mission critical equipment 11

12 Mission Critical Equipment Outdoor Space 64,658 GSF Mission Critical Equipment 86,240 GSF 100,000 GSF White Space Graphic 1.7 Enterprise Solution 2 100,000 GSF white space - 86,240 GSF mission critical equipment 64,658 GSF reserved for outdoor equipment space Mission Critical Equipment Yard 10ea Co-location Data Halls Approx. 9,900 GSF White Space Each. 99,000 GSF White Space Total. Graphic 1.8 Co-location model with 10ea data halls approx. 9,900 GSF white space each. 99,000 GSF white space total. Program includes provisions for mission critical equipment inside and mission critical equipment yard outside. Item Enterprise Indoor Option Enterprise Outdoor Option Co-Location Model Total White Space (SF) 75, ,000 99,000 Total IT Load (kw) 10,395 14,850 10,968 Total N Mechanical 3,740 5,005 3,920 Plant (Tons Cooling) Total Electrical Load 16,615 23,171 17,487 (kw) Redundancy Criteria 2N 2N 2N Table 1.3 Data center design options 12

13 Other Considerations Several scenarios and types of mission critical facilities were analyzed in an attempt to maximize the site s fullest potential and greatest raised floor (white space) yield. Note, however, that the three biggest upfront hurdles/costs associated with data center development are: 1. The electrical service delivery, 2. The Fat Pipe fiber delivery, and 3. Planning permission for the required specialty equipment. These items must be taken into consideration and incorporated into the site s pro forma. Free Cooling Although not considered in the modeling, the weather, climate and air quality in the Hilliard area are conducive to the possibility of using free cooling for a Mission Critical facility. Temperatures and climate are rather mild. Hilliard s Air Quality Index (as given by the U.S. EPA) is 39 (Good), slightly better than the national average of 40. (Lower numbers indicate less pollution.) Chapter 2 includes additional details. Co-Generation It is estimated that a mission critical facility designed at 100W per square foot would require an electrical service in excess of 20 MW. Co-generation is an entirely plausible alternative for power and cooling at this location. A Combined Heat and Power cogeneration system (CHP) could be an alternative technology to augment the power requirements for the development. In a CHP system, electricity is generated by a primary fuel source such as oil, natural gas, methane, refuse, pellets, etc. The byproduct of this process is heat. The exhaust heat is captured through a series of heat exchangers which can be used to produce steam, hot water, or the hot gas which can be used directly for cooling. A combination of all three can also be incorporated where portions of the waste heat are directed to manufacture multiple byproducts for different applications. The characteristics of this site would allow for co-generation. 13

14 Graphic 1.9 Aerial view of data center on site Graphic 1.10 Rendering of data center at WGS 14

15 Graphic 1.11 Secondary rendering of data center at WGS Graphic 1.12 Cut away view of data center 15

16 Graphic 1.13 Cut away rendering of data center Graphic 1.14 Birds eye view of data center 16

17 Graphic 1.15 Cut sections of data center Data Center Modeling Summary Ultimately, the initial modeling estimates for the WGS location project a potential 75,000 SF to 100,000 SF white space build-out. The major upfront cost and shell provisions that must be incorporated into either an enterprise or co-location model are: A. Electrical Service i. Initial utility cost and time of delivery ii. Cost of the 138 kv or 69kV switchgear and substations iii. Operational cost 1. Maintenance 2. Utility usage rates B. Fiber Provisions i. Cost of the future point of presence (POP) room ii. Empty raceways and points of entry (POE) iii. Service providers C. Master Plan Provisions i. Future provisions for multiple data center development ii. Empty raceways iii. Support space iv. Additional building hardening required for mission critical development v. Alternate access to site vi. Provisions for flood mitigation vii. Provisions to avoid the oil distribution pipeline See Chapter 3 for design calculations. 17

18 Infrastructure Services Electrical Currently, besides a small 120V temporary electric service, there is no electric service at this site. However, there are several ways to deliver the capacious electrical service required for a mission critical facility. Along the eastern border of the site, there is a utility right of way for AEP Ohio s 138kV Roberts Bethel transmission service route. 138kV can be provided in a single circuit, single contingency service or dual circuit, redundant service to the Wolpert site. The dual circuit 138kV service can be fed from two diverse substations, the Roberts and Bethel substations. In addition there is 69kV service in close proximity to the site. 69kV service can be derived from the Bethel Hilliard 69kV transmission service. A dual circuit, redundant 69kV service can be provided. Either service is capable of providing reliable service in excess of 20MW (Megawatts). It is quite possible that multiple circuits at 13.2kV can be delivered from the Davidson substation, which is located directly across Interstate Route 270 from the site. Typically, a 13.2 kv circuit is limited to between 5 and 6 MW in capacity. The limiting factor for capacity is distance from the substation and the size and type of the incoming feeders. Since the substation is relatively close by, approximately 650 feet, it could be possible for each circuit to deliver between 10 12MW of power. Graphic 1.16 Map of AEP s transmission network 18

19 Graphic 1.17 Close up of AEP s transmission network Graphic 1.18 Map showing substation locations 19

20 Graphic 1.19 AEP Bethel Rd. substation Graphic 1.20 AEP Davidson Rd. substation 20

21 Graphic 1.21 Diagram of proposed AEP primary utility service Photo kV feeds into Davidson substation Photo 1.2 View of 138kV latticework and circuits on property right of way 21

22 Photo 1.3 View of Davidson substation Photo 1.4 Alternate view of Davidson substation Photo 1.5 Incoming 138kV circuits to the Davidson substation Photo 1.6 View of expansion area of Davidson substation Photo 1.7 View of 69kV network along Davidson Ave., west of the WGS 22

23 Fiber and Telecommunications Infrastructure There are several metro rings and long haul fiber carriers within close proximity to the Wolpert Greenfield Site. Some of the fiber routes travel directly on Davidson Rd., in front of the site. These carriers would be able to provide adequate bandwidth to satisfy the communications requirements of a data center or other mission critical facility. The general corridor for fiber runs along Interstate Routes 270 and 670. The route connects Cleveland, OH to Cincinnati, OH with Columbus (Hilliard) OH in between. The route to Cincinnati continues on to Indianapolis, IN and then on to Chicago, IL. Cincinnati OH has direct low latency networks directly to NYC and Washington D.C.. Major points of presence (POPs) are located within Hilliard, OH (4055 Columbia St.), Upper Arlington, OH (4646 Reed Rd.), Westerville, OH and Columbus, OH. Both the Hilliard and Upper Arlington POPs are within close proximity to the site, 3 and 4 miles respectively. The downtown carrier exchanges within Columbus are less than 10 fiber miles away. The build-out for new fiber infrastructure for the Wolpert site is literally at the sites doorstep. A mission critical facility could offer carriers the ability to interconnect and have a secondary POP at this location. There should be no major obstacles in delivering high bandwidth fiber infrastructure to the Wolpert site. Fiber infrastructure is diversely run both aerially and subterranean at this location. In and out diverse pathways can easily be installed. Fiber maps and searches indicate almost every major metro and long haul provider is within close proximity to the WGS. In addition, Verizon has a central office located directly across route 270. A site survey was performed to identify fiber infrastructure in and around the WGS. Several fiber circuits and providers were identified. See Chapter 4 for additional information. 23

24 4646 Reed Rd. Upper Arlington POP 4055 Columbia St. Hilliard POP Downtown Columbus Exchanges Graphic 1.22 Map showing POP and regeneration sites Chicago Cleveland Indianapolis Graphic 1.23 Diagram of proposed AEP primary utility service 24

25 Graphic 1.24 Fiber map of area Graphic 1.25 Fiber map of area 25

26 Photo 1.8 Pull boxes along utility right of way Photo 1.9 Aerial fiber cable in front of site Photo 1.10 Fiber services coming down pole Photo 1.11 Underground fiber services Photo 1.12 View of Verizon facility Photo 1.13 Underground fiber markers 26

27 Photo 1.14 Underground fiber manholes Photo 1.15 Underground fiber manholes Gas There is a 4 medium pressure (55 PSI) natural gas line that runs along Davidson Rd. Typically a medium pressure service such as the one on Davidson Rd. is sufficiently sized for most business and light industrial requirements. This service would be sufficiently sized for a mission critical facility s back of house requirements. It was indicated this service has current demand 80,000 cubic feet per hour (MCFH). There is a 20 high pressure natural gas distribution line that runs along the western side of Route I-270. This natural gas distribution service could be utilized for cogeneration requirements. A dedicated 4 natural gas line and revenue meter would have to be installed from this station, across the highway, and to within the site. This distribution service could possibly be used for a co-generation system. Photo 1.16 Buried natural gas pipeline markers 27

28 Water Water service is provided by the Columbus Department of Public Utilities. The main source of water serving the WGS and the greater surrounding area is from the Griggs and O Shaughnessy reservoirs. The two reservoirs were created by the construction of two dams, the Griggs and O Shaughnessy dams, across the Scioto River. The dams were constructed early in the 20 th century. The combined capacity of the two reservoirs is nearly 8 billion gallons. The Division of Power and Water, a division within the Columbus Department of Public Works, has 3 water treatment facilities in the water distribution network, the Dublin Rd Water Plant, the Happ Cremean Water Plant, and the Parsons Ave. Water Plant. Together the plants deliver an average of 122 million gallons of water per day. The Dublin Rd. Water Plant supplies water to the WGS and the surrounding area. According to the City of Hilliard Engineering maps, there is a 12 water main that runs along Davidson Rd. At the time of this report s writing, there was no information gathered regarding the exact details of the water supply and water delivery capacities in and around the WGS. It was indicated the system can deliver a water service to the site in excess of 200,000 gallons per day. Graphic 1.26 Water treatment network 28

29 Sewer Wastewater and sewer service is provided by the Columbus Department of Public Utilities. The Division of Sewage and Drainage, a division of the Columbus Department of Public Utilities, has two sewage treatment facilities, the Jackson Pike Sewage Treatment Facility and the Southerly Sewage Treatment Facility. The two facilities treat an average of 208 million gallons of sewage per day. The Jackson Pike facility, built in 1935, is the older and smaller of the two facilities. The Southerly facility was built in The sewage network has both separate and combined storm and sewage networks. The older communities and areas by Ohio State University have combined systems whereas the newer developed sections in the network have separate storm / sewage networks. According to the City of Hilliard Engineering maps, there is an 18 sanitary sewer main that runs along Davidson Rd. In addition, there is a separate 15 storm water drain. At the time of this report s writing, there was no information gathered regarding the exact details of the storm water of the sewage drainage system. It was indicated the wastewater / storm system can handle discharges in excess of 200,000 gallons per day. 29

30 Business Continuity Review Natural Disaster Risk Generally speaking, this site has moderate exposure to natural disasters that could affect the continuous operation of a mission critical facility. Its exposure to tornado activity and flooding is higher than optimal. Data center operators must also consider the potential for natural disasters to impact aerial distribution infrastructure and modes of transportation. Seismic Hilliard has a 0.04 index rating for earthquakes. This information is from algorithms calculated by the USGS. The U.S. average, in comparison, is 1.8, and the state of Ohio has a rating of This site s rating is extremely low and favorable to the placement of a mission critical facility. Recent seismic activity was recorded on February 19, 1995 which occurred 65.6 miles from the city center, with a magnitude of 3.6 on the Richter Scale. Largest Seismic Events within 50-Mile Radius of Site Over Past 50 Years Magnitude (Richter Scale) Distance from Site Date miles March 8, 1967 Table 1.4 Seismic events See Chapter 5 for additional information. Tornados Hilliard has a tornado index rating of , compared with a U.S. average of and for the state of Ohio. These ratings are from algorithms calculated by the USGS. Compared to the rest of the country, this site has a high risk of tornado activity. Within the statistical data set of a 50-year period within a 50-mile radius of the site, there have been a total of 68 tornado events, all with a magnitude rating of 2 or above on the Fujita scale. The closest tornado event occurred 1.9 miles away in Franklin County on May 5, The storm caused an estimated $2.5 million worth of damage across an area of approximately 2 miles. The most recent record of tornado activity occurred September 30

31 16, This event happened in Perry County approximately 47.6 miles away. There was $500,000 worth of damage recorded in this tornado incident. See Chapter 5 for additional information. Flooding According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), portions of the site are within Flood Zone X. As stated on the FIRM map legend Flood Zone X includes areas of 0.2% annual chance of flood; areas of 1% annual chance of flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance of flood. Flood Zone X represents moderate flood hazard, usually the area between the limits of the 100-year and 500- year floods. Flood Zone X is also used to designate base floodplains of lesser hazards, such as areas protected by levees from 100-year flood, or shallow flooding areas with average depths of less than one foot or drainage areas less than 1 square mile. Graphic 1.27a Page 1 of FEMA s FIRM map showing parts of WGS in Flood Zone X (the site being at risk somewhere between a 100-year and 500-year event). The site is divided between 2 flood maps. 31

32 Graphic 1.27b Page 2 of FEMA s FIRM map showing parts of WGS in Flood Zone X (the site being at risk somewhere between a 100-year and 500-year event). The site is divided between 2 flood maps. Excessive rainfalls may result in flooding of the areas in and around the WGS. The Scioto River has been documented to have caused flood issues downstream of the WGS. Extreme Weather Events Events such as hurricanes, wildfires, blizzards and floods pose the greatest risk to the continual operation of a data center operation and, therefore, are of the greatest concern. Based on the evaluation of the site in regards to these risks, the site is moderately susceptible to such extreme weather events. See Chapter 5 for a more detailed listing of the history of extreme weather events in Hilliard. 32

33 Man-Made Disaster Risk The Wolpert Greenfield Site s susceptibility to man-made disasters is moderate. There are several areas of concern that were discovered during this review. There are three sections highlighted below that give an overview of these potential risks. The Superfund Sites and the Neighboring Activities were deemed as low risk for this site. The Other Man-Made Risks section outlines areas found during the analysis that pose a more substantial risk. Superfund Sites Superfund Sites is the United States Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA s) environmental program for addressing abandoned hazardous waste sites. A search on the EPA s database for superfund sites within the state of Ohio resulted in 17 sites within Franklin County. The Superfund Sites closest to the Wolpert Greenfield site pose either no risk or very low risk to the site. The closest site, the California Mercury Spill Site is listed as cleaned up as of 12/18/2003. According to EPA records this was a small accidental spill and was remediated by an emergency clean up. The additional EPA sites listed are approximately 7.5 miles away and are low risk incidents or users. An example is the Columbus Auto Parts store listed in the EPA data base. A cleanup was performed for a small amount of petroleum based products. The site was remediated in All information regarding the site was archived in However, the site still remains in the EPA database. See Chapter 5 for additional information. Neighboring Activities A search on the Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA) Facility Registration System (FRS) database listed several facilities in the immediate area that currently -- or have previously -- housed, stored, or manufactured substances that may be hazardous to health or affect the environment. These facilities could pose a low to moderate risk to a data center at the site. From the information stored within the EPA s FRS database, we found no major facilities that could potentially have an immediate man-made risk to a mission critical facility at the Wolpert Greenfield Site. Some of the facilities listed in the database were actually middle and elementary schools. These facilities are listed as Hazardous Waste Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators. This more or less means the facility is registered because they can or have generated less than 1 kilogram of acutely 33