Chemicals and septic tank

[brianmquinn]

Sewer systems do not magically remove waste and many of them just reduce the biologic oxygen demand and let the solids settle out. These solids often contain substantial amounts of chemical toxins that are then just dumped in a land fill. I (like 10s of millions of Americans) live in a large city with a combined sewer system so all of the waste I put down the sink on Thursday just flowed right into the Ohio river with NO treatment at all. A septic system would have been better on that day.

So what you can to limit the waste but do not think it is OK to put whatever you feel like down the sink and the sewage treatment plant will clean it up.

 

[removed account4]

the thing is in many areas it is not legal to pour a lot of things down the drain.
it is best to find out from the local authorities what is and is not allowed down the pipes.
i agree 100% with dr5chrome ..
whether it screwed up your septic system or not, it is not the best idea to pour photochemicals down the drain.
where i live there is a stream and the bay behind me, and it was 50years worth of septic systems
before they hooked as many people up on sewer as they could ( it will be mandated soon )
because even though the leech fields work OK, they still mess with the environment ...

if there is a school nearby that has a darkroom class, if there is a mini lab nearby, if your town or city has a haz waste recycling day
if you dehydrate everything and evap the water out of it and then haz waste it, they are all good choices,
pouring things down the drain is not a good good choice, and if toners are used, even a worse idea ..
i'm more than happy to help someone purchase silver recovery stuff from me, but im just as happy to hear that someone
has done something else to reduce their toxic footprint when they use photochemicals.

have a nice 2013

 

[Roger Cole]

Sewer systems do not magically remove waste and many of them just reduce the biologic oxygen demand and let the solids settle out. These solids often contain substantial amounts of chemical toxins that are then just dumped in a land fill. I (like 10s of millions of Americans) live in a large city with a combined sewer system so all of the waste I put down the sink on Thursday just flowed right into the Ohio river with NO treatment at all. A septic system would have been better on that day.

So what you can to limit the waste but do not think it is OK to put whatever you feel like down the sink and the sewage treatment plant will clean it up.

Whatever you feel like? No, of course not.

Stop bath? Let's not be silly.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Whatever you feel like? No, of course not.

Stop bath? Let's not be silly.

Gotta' jump in here on Roger's side. For crying out loud, standard b&w chemistry is about as benign as you can get.

The primary constituent of standard developers is—what?—sodium sulfite? That stuff used in massive quantities to preserve the food that you eat? And the developing agents themselves are so notorious for self-oxidizing and loosing strength that there are gazillions of APUG threads about how to slow that process down long enough that we can reasonably use them before they quickly go bad.

Standard stop bath? That stuff that's really just half-strength white vinegar? Vinegar itself being a well-known emergency substitute in the darkroom? And also being a well-known one-half of a tasty salad dressing? Except that at half-strength it wouldn't even make such a good dressing, would it? It wouldn't even be strong enough to want to eat it.

Fixer? Standard sodium thiosulfate? That stuff used by caretakers of municipal public swimming pools to dechlorinate the water when required? That same water the public swims in, pees in, and yes, sometimes even swallows? The same stuff used to pre-treat water for aquariums that arguably contain the most delicate life forms (tropical fish) in the universe? Some have even reported using sodium thiosulfate to fertilize their vegetable gardens.

And the silver ions in spent fixer? As has been pointed out, the reduction environment in which they find themselves in a septic system almost instantly results in formation of insoluable silver sulfide. Insoluable. As in not a danger to the environment. Or the septic tank.* Or even a well-toned sepia print.

Contrary to popular opinion driven by fear, a standard b&w photographic darkroom is not Bhopal, India...

Ken

* Now approaching a quarter-century using the same tank without any problem whatsoever.

 

[Roger Cole]

Just to be clear - I really don't think used fixer, in home darkroom quantities, would pose any risk but I probably personally wouldn't discard it into a septic tank anyway out of an abundance of caution. Many toners certainly shouldn't be poured down any drain, septic or sewer system. Developers - well, it depends, but if you aren't comfortable looking up the ingredients and deciding certainly one can err on the side of caution. I was just raising an eyebrow at the ludicrousness of including stop bath in the list.

 

[cmacd123]

There are two questions here. What is safe for the septic system and the enviroment, and what is safe and legal under your local rules and regualtions. I am sure the later is why Kodak changed their earlier advice to the current "use a licenced hazardous waste hauler."

It is proably a violation to put anything from the darkroom down the drain, and if you are a commercial enterprise you proably have to have it picked up on a 30 day Maximum Cycle to stay legal - depending on the place you live.

Technicaly - ignoring the rules - it is likly the only item from normal waste that will have any effect is the silver. Laundry detergent is Much Nastier stuff, but is not considered a "chemical" in making the rules.

 

[MattKing]

There are two questions here. What is safe for the septic system and the enviroment, and what is safe and legal under your local rules and regualtions. I am sure the later is why Kodak changed their earlier advice to the current "use a licenced hazardous waste hauler."

It is proably a violation to put anything from the darkroom down the drain, and if you are a commercial enterprise you proably have to have it picked up on a 30 day Maximum Cycle to stay legal - depending on the place you live.

Technicaly - ignoring the rules - it is likly the only item from normal waste that will have any effect is the silver. Laundry detergent is Much Nastier stuff, but is not considered a "chemical" in making the rules.

Charles:

Here in the Greater Vancouver area there are no restrictions on what home darkroom "hobbyists" put into the sewer system - the authorities indicate that all common photographic chemicals are acceptable, if they are in the low quantities created by home darkroom users.

Commercial users are required to use the services of waste disposal companies qualified in that sort of chemistry.

You have to really hunt for this information, because the extensive lists of items that have rules apply to them totally omit photographic chemicals.

 

[Roger Cole]

Yep. Safe != legal and illegal != unsafe, necessarily.

 

[mgb74]

There are two questions here. What is safe for the septic system and the enviroment, and what is safe and legal under your local rules and regualtions. I am sure the later is why Kodak changed their earlier advice to the current "use a licenced hazardous waste hauler."...

Those are really 3 questions. What is safe for the septic systems (i.e. it won't alter the biological function of the septic tank and drainfield) may not be safe for the environment. As I understand the function of septic systems, only organic compounds are treated. Anything inorganic flows out in the ground untreated or precipitates into the bottom of the tank where it is eventually pumped out.

So, as it relates to photo chemicals, in the concentrations used, a) do they harm the organisms in the tank or drainfield and b) do they contaminate groundwater. For example, chlorine bleach is very hard on the little buggers in your tank but doesn't have much effect on groundwater. At the risk of oversimplification, silver has a antibacterial effect, so I would be concerned about that - depending on the volume you're putting in and the size of your tank.

The problem is that you could impair/destroy the biological function and not know it for some time.

I suspect that Kodak's recommendations are a function of both science and legal/regulatory concerns.

 

[NedL]

There are two reasons I pour the stop bath into the jug that doesn't go into my septic. The first ( and main ) reason is that I read somewhere it helps to "neutralize" the developer that's already in the jug. The second possible reason would be if there is any dissolved film or paper emulsion carried over from the developer into the stop. I'm no chemist, but carryover would be at ratios on the order of "drops to pints" so tiny concentrations.

For film, I re-use the stop bath for about as long as my batch of fixer lasts. Since I'm saving something from going into the septic anyway, this additional amount is hardly worth mentioning. For prints however, the stop bath is approximately 1/5 of the total volume of liquid I'm saving for disposal elsewhere. I suppose if I was worried about it I could start reusing stop bath in my printing too. Hmmm. Right now my process works and is not much trouble so changes can wait until necessary.

We have a certain amount of paranoia in my neighborhood about septic systems. If you do any work on your house that touches the foundation or the septic system, it changes the kind of permit you need ( from "remodel/restore" to "improvement" ) which ups the cost and kicks in a whole series of regulations, including possibly being required to install a new above ground septic system. A neighbor down the street got into this higher level and was required to install a new septic, and the cost was $125,000. These regulations don't necessarily take into account how well your existing septic system functions... they are one-size-fits all rules that can lead to huge expenses.

 

[fotch]

..this is just plain NOT responsible! ..even to give any amateur the idea.

While photo waste is not the worst, you are putting it into the ground water by septic. If there was a reason to stop doing it, it would be now.. or sell your house and move where there is a hook-up to sewer. Sewer systems can handle the photo waste with ease.

You really jumped to your conclusion! First, during that 40 yr. period, Kodak & other companies thought septic use was acceptable. Second, I never said or implied in any way, that I continue this practice now. Third, my understanding is that sewers can also be affective and that is why it is still advisable to remove silver and other harmful chemicals from the waste water.

 

[mgb74]

We have a certain amount of paranoia in my neighborhood about septic systems. If you do any work on your house that touches the foundation or the septic system, it changes the kind of permit you need ( from "remodel/restore" to "improvement" ) which ups the cost and kicks in a whole series of regulations, including possibly being required to install a new above ground septic system. A neighbor down the street got into this higher level and was required to install a new septic, and the cost was $125,000. These regulations don't necessarily take into account how well your existing septic system functions... they are one-size-fits all rules that can lead to huge expenses.

I don't know where your neighborhood is, but many municipalities have been toughening the standards for septic tanks, both in terms of size and design. Typically, existing systems are "grandfathered" in unless there is a major upgrade to the home. I suspect that is what's behind the "remodel/restore" vs. "improvement" distinction.

Where I am, tank and drainfield size and design is somewhat dependent on the size of the home and the drainfield soil - so not so much one size fits all. As I recall, number of bedrooms determines size of septic tank (though minimum sizes have been going up) and the soil (as measured by a "perc" test) determines the size and location of drainfield.

Mound type systems are ugly, but do allow you to control the drainfield soil. I'm lucky in that we have sandy soil, which makes for an efficient drainfield.

Paranoia? Perhaps, but not if you find your well water contaminated.

As to $125k, I find that hard to believe, even if there was a drainfield soil issue that had to be addressed and even if a pump was required (as it usually is with a mound system). I suppose it's possible if there was collateral costs such as replacing landscaping.

 

[RPC]

As was indicated earlier, the soil filters out toxins from the septic tank effluent so that it never reaches the groundwater, at least not in harmful amounts. The operation of a septic system depends upon this principle. Detergents, cleaning chemicals, and the toxic waste products of the breakdown of human wastes would all contaminate the groundwater if this didn't happen. Does anyone know why photo chemicals would be any different in this regard?

Probably for political correctness and legal reasons Kodak advises in some of its literature not to pour photo chemicals into a septic system, but if it was that important, wouldn't they, for the home darkroom user, put proper disposal info right on the labels of their chemistry, not just in some obscure literature? Does anyone know if they have ever done that? My guess is they know that the small amounts of a home user aren't a problem. Has anyone ever seen any documentation or case histories of the contamination of groundwater, or the improper operation of a septic system being attributed to a home darkroom worker putting photo chemicals down the drain? Wouldn't Kodak tell us that? I think experience is a better guide here than theory. If anyone can document such cases, please do so for the benefit of us all.

 

[NedL]

As to $125k, I find that hard to believe, even if there was a drainfield soil issue that had to be addressed and even if a pump was required (as it usually is with a mound system). I suppose it's possible if there was collateral costs such as replacing landscaping.

Agree with all you wrote. I did hear the $125K figure second hand, but you can see the mound system from the road and it is impressive. Takes up perhaps 1/8 acre and is in a separate fenced in area. The mound might be 8 or 10 feet high and is 40 or 50 feet long. I've seen plenty of other mound systems that aren't anywhere near as big. I don't know what is installed inside that mound but I also have a definite impression that the entire thing is uphill from the house it serves. The story I heard was that they were well into permitted improvements when this requirement was added... and that if they'd known they wouldn't have improved their house because it ended up being most of the expense. But it's also good to take this kind of gossip w/ a grain of salt!

Edit: I should have mentioned that our area is famous for its well-draining sandy loam too. When we moved in and tested the well, I pumped over 3000 gallons of water into the front of our property and we ended up with a circle of green that was only about 15 feet in diameter... there was simply no runoff, it all went straight down. That's why the requirement of the above ground system caused so much buzz in our neighborhood.

 

[MattKing]

Agree with all you wrote. I did hear the $125K figure second hand, but you can see the mound system from the road and it is impressive. Takes up perhaps 1/8 acre and is in a separate fenced in area. The mound might be 8 or 10 feet high and is 40 or 50 feet long. I've seen plenty of other mound systems that aren't anywhere near as big. I don't know what is installed inside that mound but I also have a definite impression that the entire thing is uphill from the house it serves. The story I heard was that they were well into permitted improvements when this requirement was added... and that if they'd known they wouldn't have improved their house because it ended up being most of the expense. But it's also good to take this kind of gossip w/ a grain of salt!

How many toilets do they have?!!!!

 

[NedL]

How many toilets do they have?!!!!

No clue! Happy Holidays to all of you. I'm glad I found APUG this year.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Kodak advises in some of its literature not to pour photo chemicals into a septic system, but if it was that important, wouldn't they, for the home darkroom user, put proper disposal info right on the labels of their chemistry, not just in some obscure literature?...

In my opinion, Kodak's legal department is much more competent than its executive management. Apparently, Kodak covers its tail by marking the products so home users aren't even addressed. The packages of XTOL I have on hand, although sold through retailers to the general public, are labeled "FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USE ONLY."