wayne123
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Are photography dark rooms considered a hazardous location? This one I am quoting is in a house.
Dark Rooms
- Thread starter wayne123
- Start date
- Status
hbiss
EC, New York NEC: 2017
- Location
- Little Falls, New York NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- EC
Re: Dark Rooms
Absolutely not.
-Hal
Absolutely not.
-Hal
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: Dark Rooms
The chemicals used in photographic development and printing are, at worst, a hazard to a sensitive nose. When I did photo work for my high school yearbook, I could not work with the color process chemicals that were available at that time. I could not handle the formalin hardeners. But the chemicals are not explosive. You do not have a classified area, per the ENC definitions of that term.
The chemicals used in photographic development and printing are, at worst, a hazard to a sensitive nose. When I did photo work for my high school yearbook, I could not work with the color process chemicals that were available at that time. I could not handle the formalin hardeners. But the chemicals are not explosive. You do not have a classified area, per the ENC definitions of that term.
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Re: Dark Rooms
The proper term now is "classified" rather than "hazardous" - and it isn't classified either.
The location is "unclassified" but not necessarily "nonhazardous." In this case the health issue would be potentially noxious or toxic fumes rather than easily ignitable ones.
One of the more subtile changes that happened during the 2002 cycle was the general removal of the term "nonhazardous" and replacing it with "unclassified," a newly defined term. Just because a location wasn't classified didn't mean it wasn't without hazard. "Classified" now refers specifically to the type of hazard - ignitable gases, dusts, fibers, etc. "Hazardous" is an even more general term.
In fact, there was even an attempt to remove "hazardous" where it was generally applied as a synonym with classified locations. There were too many coordination issues with other NFPA documents to do that, so it was dropped. Maybe someday.
The proper term now is "classified" rather than "hazardous" - and it isn't classified either.
The location is "unclassified" but not necessarily "nonhazardous." In this case the health issue would be potentially noxious or toxic fumes rather than easily ignitable ones.
One of the more subtile changes that happened during the 2002 cycle was the general removal of the term "nonhazardous" and replacing it with "unclassified," a newly defined term. Just because a location wasn't classified didn't mean it wasn't without hazard. "Classified" now refers specifically to the type of hazard - ignitable gases, dusts, fibers, etc. "Hazardous" is an even more general term.
In fact, there was even an attempt to remove "hazardous" where it was generally applied as a synonym with classified locations. There were too many coordination issues with other NFPA documents to do that, so it was dropped. Maybe someday.
- Status