meeting room definition

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

malachi constant

Senior Member
Location
Minneapolis
Designing a new police station. There is a room we are labeling "training room" or "classroom". Its intended use is for staff education, both in the traditional classroom sense and also for light physical training (think hand-to-hand control scenarios). The building contains many conference rooms and a muster room, where presumably all the more conferency-type activities would be held.

Does the NEC require floor boxes here? Looking at 210.71 information note #1...
* designed or intended for gathering of seated occupants - so far yes, except for the times when the occupants are not seated
* for such purposes as conferences - no?
* deliberations - no?
* or similar purposes - maybe?
* where portable electronic equipment such as computers, projectors or similar equipment will likely be used - there will be a FIXED projector, and it easy to imagine a scenario where a few people have laptops.

Then information note #2 says examples of rooms that are NOT considered meeting rooms include auditoriums, school rooms, and coffee shops. This is obviously not an auditorium or coffee shop, and though is a classroom is not technically a schoolroom since it is not in a school.

/start of rant. Guys, I hate this code. Hate it. This instance is kind of pushing me over the top. At a recent new installation (different client) a staff member tripped over a "flush" floor box cover and went to the emergency room. I'm not looking forward to an officer getting hurt in a training exercise because they tripped or landed on one of these. My hatred of this part of the code has nothing to do with money and everything to do with unnecessarily overcomplicating what used to be a simple design decision. This code doesn't make anything safer - the floor boxes are more of a safety hazard than temporary extension cords IMO. We have floor boxes in some of our conference rooms and one in our training center - all installed by design, prior to the code requiring - and in four years not one of them has been used once. I'm fine with that being a design decision, but not fine with it being a code mandate. /end rant

I will request an interpretation from the local inspector, but am not optimistic. They follow code and although this may be a gray area it doesn't really allow an exception. Before I contact him I would appreciate hearing the wisdom of the crowd as to what "meeting room" discussions you have had with AHJs. Thank you in advance!
 
Can you relable the room? Seems reasonable to me.

I thought the NEC didn't go by - "what ifs ? " - That seems like what they have done here.
 
malachi constant said:
Designing a new police station. There is a room we are labeling "training room" or "classroom". Its intended use is for staff education, both in the traditional classroom sense and also for light physical training (think hand-to-hand control scenarios). The building contains many conference rooms and a muster room, where presumably all the more conferency-type activities would be held.

Does the NEC require floor boxes here? Looking at 210.71 information note #1...
* designed or intended for gathering of seated occupants - so far yes, except for the times when the occupants are not seated
* for such purposes as conferences - no?
* deliberations - no?
* or similar purposes - maybe?
* where portable electronic equipment such as computers, projectors or similar equipment will likely be used - there will be a FIXED projector, and it easy to imagine a scenario where a few people have laptops.

Then information note #2 says examples of rooms that are NOT considered meeting rooms include auditoriums, school rooms, and coffee shops. This is obviously not an auditorium or coffee shop, and though is a classroom is not technically a schoolroom since it is not in a school.

/start of rant. Guys, I hate this code. Hate it. This instance is kind of pushing me over the top. At a recent new installation (different client) a staff member tripped over a "flush" floor box cover and went to the emergency room. I'm not looking forward to an officer getting hurt in a training exercise because they tripped or landed on one of these. My hatred of this part of the code has nothing to do with money and everything to do with unnecessarily overcomplicating what used to be a simple design decision. This code doesn't make anything safer - the floor boxes are more of a safety hazard than temporary extension cords IMO. We have floor boxes in some of our conference rooms and one in our training center - all installed by design, prior to the code requiring - and in four years not one of them has been used once. I'm fine with that being a design decision, but not fine with it being a code mandate. /end rant

I will request an interpretation from the local inspector, but am not optimistic. They follow code and although this may be a gray area it doesn't really allow an exception. Before I contact him I would appreciate hearing the wisdom of the crowd as to what "meeting room" discussions you have had with AHJs. Thank you in advance!
Click to expand...
Here is an article I wrote on the subject of the 2017 NEC Change. Personally I feel it was a good change in the NEC® as the many meeting rooms I attend as part of NEMA , UL, NFPA and so on lack the needed receptacles for our devices thus we end up with the proverbial NO-NO of daisy chaining relocatable power tabs and excessive extension cords. Does this rule fix all that maybe not but its a good start to me, at least in my opinion.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/understanding-section-21071a-b-paul-w-abernathy-cmi-cmecp/

Also I believe the logical test would to read the informational note # 1 (not enforceable but great guidance) which says:

Informational Note No. 1: For the purposes of this section, meeting rooms are typically designed or intended for the gathering of seated occupants for such purposes as conferences, deliberations, or similar purposes, where portable electronic equipment such as computers, projectors, or similar equipment is likely to be used.

If any of that is potentially possible in this space then most AHJ's I know would rule it a meeting room and require the floor receptacles, of course only if they are required based on the specifics of 210.71(B)(2) of course.
 
We need a new code for bathrooms, because when my men go hide in there with their phones they need to recharge with out the need of cords; or an aux-battery.
I don't have a code book but how many floorboxs are called for at what distance, one per seat, every other seat, third?

Change the name of the room, say room 222.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Here is an article I wrote on the subject of the 2017 NEC Change. Personally I feel it was a good change in the NEC® as the many meeting rooms I attend as part of NEMA , UL, NFPA and so on lack the needed receptacles for our devices thus we end up with the proverbial NO-NO of daisy chaining relocatable power tabs and excessive extension cords. Does this rule fix all that maybe not but its a good start to me, at least in my opinion.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/understanding-section-21071a-b-paul-w-abernathy-cmi-cmecp/

Also I believe the logical test would to read the informational note # 1 (not enforceable but great guidance) which says:

Informational Note No. 1: For the purposes of this section, meeting rooms are typically designed or intended for the gathering of seated occupants for such purposes as conferences, deliberations, or similar purposes, where portable electronic equipment such as computers, projectors, or similar equipment is likely to be used.

If any of that is potentially possible in this space then most AHJ's I know would rule it a meeting room and require the floor receptacles, of course only if they are required based on the specifics of 210.71(B)(2) of course.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that most AHJs are going to classify this space as a meeting room. (And that it doesn't matter what it's called on a plan, inspectors will be smart enough to ask about the function.)

I agree with you that it COULD be good for meeting rooms where extension cords for laptops are likely to be in frequent use. And it COULD be good for some conference rooms.

I disagree that the rule as written is a net positive:
1. There should be an exemption for existing slab-on grade renovations, at least for small conference rooms. The state inspector who taught my code changes class said he expected local inspectors would be reasonable on how they enforced this as it pertains to renovations on existing slabs, but I have thus far not been granted a single exception.
2. As noted above my clients have experienced one trip to the emergency room due to a new floor box installation. I am not aware of any of my clients ever (or to be honest anyone ever) going to the emergency room after tripping on an extension cord. Cords are bad for permanent installations, but not for temporary.
3. The code is comical in how poorly and inconsistently it requires and excludes spaces:
3a. How is a public coffee shop different than a private conference room? At coffee shops people park with their laptops for hours in a place where kids and general members of the public walk around unfamiliar spaces carrying blisteringly hot beverages. But the finance director steps out of a meeting early from a room he is in every day and can't be expected to safely step over the business manager's extension cord? Give me a break.
3b. Why are auditoriums and lecture halls excluded? Don't people bring laptops to lectures? Don't they need places to plug those into? How is that different?
3c. Should K-12 classrooms be required to install floor boxes? College classrooms? If we aren't going to require this in K-12/college classrooms, why do we require it in non-school classrooms? If we are going to require it, do not all existing classroom slabs need ripped up as part of their next renovation project? That is what code requires for meeting room renovations.
4. The code is inconsistent in trying to eliminate extension cord trip hazards while not addressing low voltage trip hazards. For example our office keeps the conference room phones on a side table, but occasionally moves them to the table, stretching the phone cord across the aisle. Never caused an issue. But if we're so concerned about trip hazards why don't we require all conference room floor boxes to be dual channel for potential phones?
5. People on this forum are comfortable opening up a floor box cover to plug something in. I've spent a lot of time designing public spaces, and observing how people use spaces, and am married to a non-electrical person. I can tell you most of the general public is not comfortable opening up such a cover, unless they've been explicitly encouraged to.
6. Battery lives are getting longer. Devices are getting more efficient. This is less of an issue. We live in a world where you can drive a freaking Tesla for 4 hours at freeway speeds without needing a charge. For the people who are laptop power users and are concerned about keeping a charge, they can get equipment that will keep a charge the whole day. Or find a wall. Or plug in an extension cord (and if the rest of us aren't willing to risk our lives stepping over it we can always walk around them).
7. If we're so concerned about extension cords, why don't we start mandating outlets on every wall of a private office? Make sure you require data drops on both sides too! Where does it end? I am sympathetic to new convention centers having some additional requirements, but the code has gone too far.

I've never gotten worked up over the code before. I mind less when portions of the code are dumb but clear. But this is vague, inconsistent, expensive to implement, and may cause just as many if not more injuries than it prevents. It's a bad code.
 
malachi constant said:
I agree with you that most AHJs are going to classify this space as a meeting room. (And that it doesn't matter what it's called on a plan, inspectors will be smart enough to ask about the function.)

I agree with you that it COULD be good for meeting rooms where extension cords for laptops are likely to be in frequent use. And it COULD be good for some conference rooms.

I disagree that the rule as written is a net positive:
1. There should be an exemption for existing slab-on grade renovations, at least for small conference rooms. The state inspector who taught my code changes class said he expected local inspectors would be reasonable on how they enforced this as it pertains to renovations on existing slabs, but I have thus far not been granted a single exception.
2. As noted above my clients have experienced one trip to the emergency room due to a new floor box installation. I am not aware of any of my clients ever (or to be honest anyone ever) going to the emergency room after tripping on an extension cord. Cords are bad for permanent installations, but not for temporary.
3. The code is comical in how poorly and inconsistently it requires and excludes spaces:
3a. How is a public coffee shop different than a private conference room? At coffee shops people park with their laptops for hours in a place where kids and general members of the public walk around unfamiliar spaces carrying blisteringly hot beverages. But the finance director steps out of a meeting early from a room he is in every day and can't be expected to safely step over the business manager's extension cord? Give me a break.
3b. Why are auditoriums and lecture halls excluded? Don't people bring laptops to lectures? Don't they need places to plug those into? How is that different?
3c. Should K-12 classrooms be required to install floor boxes? College classrooms? If we aren't going to require this in K-12/college classrooms, why do we require it in non-school classrooms? If we are going to require it, do not all existing classroom slabs need ripped up as part of their next renovation project? That is what code requires for meeting room renovations.
4. The code is inconsistent in trying to eliminate extension cord trip hazards while not addressing low voltage trip hazards. For example our office keeps the conference room phones on a side table, but occasionally moves them to the table, stretching the phone cord across the aisle. Never caused an issue. But if we're so concerned about trip hazards why don't we require all conference room floor boxes to be dual channel for potential phones?
5. People on this forum are comfortable opening up a floor box cover to plug something in. I've spent a lot of time designing public spaces, and observing how people use spaces, and am married to a non-electrical person. I can tell you most of the general public is not comfortable opening up such a cover, unless they've been explicitly encouraged to.
6. Battery lives are getting longer. Devices are getting more efficient. This is less of an issue. We live in a world where you can drive a freaking Tesla for 4 hours at freeway speeds without needing a charge. For the people who are laptop power users and are concerned about keeping a charge, they can get equipment that will keep a charge the whole day. Or find a wall. Or plug in an extension cord (and if the rest of us aren't willing to risk our lives stepping over it we can always walk around them).
7. If we're so concerned about extension cords, why don't we start mandating outlets on every wall of a private office? Make sure you require data drops on both sides too! Where does it end? I am sympathetic to new convention centers having some additional requirements, but the code has gone too far.

I've never gotten worked up over the code before. I mind less when portions of the code are dumb but clear. But this is vague, inconsistent, expensive to implement, and may cause just as many if not more injuries than it prevents. It's a bad code.
Click to expand...
I am sure that CMP 2 egarly await your Public Input for 2023.

Paul W. Abernathy
Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
CMP #5 and #17
 
isnt there a minimum size on the room before you are required floor boxes? seem to remember something about 12 feet by 12 feet... Police stations I am used to were not that large for their muster rooms...
 
Adamjamma said:
isnt there a minimum size on the room before you are required floor boxes? seem to remember something about 12 feet by 12 feet... Police stations I am used to were not that large for their muster rooms...
Click to expand...
Yep....there is indeed

Paul W. Abernathy
Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
CMP #5 and #17
 
Adamjamma said:
isnt there a minimum size on the room before you are required floor boxes? seem to remember something about 12 feet by 12 feet... Police stations I am used to were not that large for their muster rooms...
Click to expand...
(2) Floor Receptacle Outlets. A meeting room that is at least 3.7 m (12 ft) wide and that has a foor area of at least 20 m2 (215 ft2) shall have at least one receptacle outlet located in the foor at a distance not less than 1.8 m (6 ft) from any fxed wall for each 20 m2 (215 ft2) or major portion of foor space.

Paul W. Abernathy
Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
CMP #5 and #17
 
Adamjamma said:
isnt there a minimum size on the room before you are required floor boxes? seem to remember something about 12 feet by 12 feet... Police stations I am used to were not that large for their muster rooms...
Click to expand...

I am inquiring about a 30 x 30 classroom in the police station. They have a separate muster room that is large enough to trigger the requirements but I don't consider it a "meeting room" - my understanding is the officers are packed in pretty tight for a shorter period of time and presumably won't be using laptops. They also have a number of conference rooms that will require floor boxes, the code is clear enough that we are designing those into the project without question or complaint.

Good question though - reminder that I should ask about the muster room too.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
I am sure that CMP 2 egarly await your Public Input for 2023.

Paul W. Abernathy
Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
CMP #5 and #17
Click to expand...

Maybe someday I'll have time to participate in the code formation process. These days my life is basically keeping the kids alive and the drawings looking good. In ten years maybe I'll take you up on the offer. In the meantime I hope somebody else carries this forward - as near as I can tell my thoughts are near-universal among engineers in the design community (as well as Owners and Architects, FWIW).

All this diverged from the original question - anyone have insight as to how frequently a classroom (or training room, or multi-purpose room) in a non-school facility is interpreted as a meeting room?
 
malachi constant said:
Designing a new police station. There is a room we are labeling "training room" or "classroom". Its intended use is for staff education, both in the traditional classroom sense and also for light physical training (think hand-to-hand control scenarios). The building contains many conference rooms and a muster room, where presumably all the more conferency-type activities would be held.

...

Then information note #2 says examples of rooms that are NOT considered meeting rooms include auditoriums, school rooms, and coffee shops. This is obviously not an auditorium or coffee shop, and though is a classroom is not technically a schoolroom since it is not in a school.
Click to expand...

I would argue hard that this room qualifies as a schoolroom. NEC is all over the map on this...the lack of any actual Article 100 definitions, and then relying on an informational note that uses other undefined terms. Wow.

The fact that the two informational notes directly contradict....a schoolroom isn't a meeting room, but is intended for "the gathering of seated occupants", "where portable electronic equipment...is likely to be used"...is a sad example of poor planning and writing.

The Code council's attempt to overprotect us has put them in the position of not being able to clearly define spaces and leaves absolutely no room for the creation of multi-use spaces due to fear of creating a loophole. The result is one more code that leaves the decision in the hands of the AHJ.

BTW, the dictionary definitions of schoolroom and classroom are nearly identical, ("a room where students are taught") except a classroom adds, "typically in a school". As "typically" does not mean or imply "always", neither a classroom nor a schoolroom have to be in a school.
 
Craigv said:
I would argue hard that this room qualifies as a schoolroom...

BTW, the dictionary definitions of schoolroom and classroom are nearly identical, ("a room where students are taught") except a classroom adds, "typically in a school". As "typically" does not mean or imply "always", neither a classroom nor a schoolroom have to be in a school.
Click to expand...

Thanks Craig - that's the approach I will use - it's a school room. Maybe we'll have the architect label the room that way too. Haven't worked with this inspector, and most inspectors I've worked with don't like to go on record about anything until they can see the installation with their own eyes. When I get around to the conversation I'll try to report back here.
 
malachi constant said:
Maybe someday I'll have time to participate in the code formation process. These days my life is basically keeping the kids alive and the drawings looking good. In ten years maybe I'll take you up on the offer. In the meantime I hope somebody else carries this forward - as near as I can tell my thoughts are near-universal among engineers in the design community (as well as Owners and Architects, FWIW).

All this diverged from the original question - anyone have insight as to how frequently a classroom (or training room, or multi-purpose room) in a non-school facility is interpreted as a meeting room?
Click to expand...
Takes all of 5 minutes to submit a Public Input for change. I am firmly in the camp that we can't complain about the NEC yet not get involved in change, even if it only takes 5 minutes to submit electronically on the NFPA website with a free account.

We all have work and family. My job is not submitting code changes or sitting on panels....just sayin fella...:)

Paul W. Abernathy
Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
CMP #5 and #17
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Takes all of 5 minutes to submit a Public Input for change. I am firmly in the camp that we can't complain about the NEC yet not get involved in change, even if it only takes 5 minutes to submit electronically on the NFPA website with a free account.

We all have work and family. My job is not submitting code changes or sitting on panels....just sayin fella...:)

Paul W. Abernathy
Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
CMP #5 and #17
Click to expand...
Submitting something isn't the time consuming problem, composing material that will advance through the process is possibly a challenge.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Takes all of 5 minutes to submit a Public Input for change. I am firmly in the camp that we can't complain about the NEC yet not get involved in change, even if it only takes 5 minutes to submit electronically on the NFPA website with a free account.

We all have work and family. My job is not submitting code changes or sitting on panels....just sayin fella...:)

Paul W. Abernathy
Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
CMP #5 and #17
Click to expand...

How effective have public comments/input been in shaping the Code? NFPA brags that 4,000+ comments were submitted last cycle...what percentage supported a change, rewording, or new rule? I read comments in this forum that public input is barely used at all, and that recent procedures have made this even worse.

Having said that, I still went out to NFPA's site, logged in, and tried to find where I can submit a comment/input online in 5 minutes. Still looking.
 
Craigv said:
How effective have public comments/input been in shaping the Code? NFPA brags that 4,000+ comments were submitted last cycle...what percentage supported a change, rewording, or new rule? I read comments in this forum that public input is barely used at all, and that recent procedures have made this even worse.

Having said that, I still went out to NFPA's site, logged in, and tried to find where I can submit a comment/input online in 5 minutes. Still looking.
Click to expand...

And what percentage of the "public inputs" are actually from the public and not the code making panels?

This meeting room receptacle requirements were proposed by a member of the public for the 2014 NEC but was rejected by the code making panel. The code making panel then submitted their own version of 210.71 for the 2017 NEC and it was (of course) accepted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top