Disposal of darkroom fixer in the Boston, MA area?

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,286
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
aldevo said:
Ian,
That link is precisely what I have been looking for!
Click to expand...

No problem

When I was the technical advisor for silver recovery units I always checked out the local regulations, this actually made it far easier to sell the units and we always made the initial contacts and then helped the customer get the necessary permissions.

Ian
 

Bob Carnie

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
7,735
Location
toronto
Format
Med. Format RF
Ed

We do disagree in fact I think your advice borders on incompetence.

My father has his Plumbing and his Steamfitters licence and I can assure you he is not competent to advice anyone on photochemical disposal.
As well your son would not be lible regarding dumping of chemistry.
the person who owns the darkroom would be responsible
In Canada or specifically Toronto where I am located if a home darkroom was caught dumping fix down the drain I can assure you the darkroom would be ripped out of the house immediately.
This applies to commercial operations that would be given a grace period but the operation would be stopped until the city was assured a competent recovery unit was in place.
A home darkroom would just be dismanteled with no consideration.
As this is an international forum rules changes but I would not bet the farm on what your son may or may not be telling you regarding dumping of photochemistry in your area, I would do a double/triple check with the municpalities in charge of waste into the local sewer systems.

Sorry to be so direct but we are talking about severe potential fines and results for those not aware of local waste management laws.

 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,286
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
Bob Carnie said:
Ed
We do disagree in fact I think your advice borders on incompetence.
Click to expand...

Another point of view is you are being alarmist.

I can only speak from experience and many discussions with relevant authorities, always at the highest level.

One thing all authorities say is it's about the impact at your water treatment plant.

Years before I became involved with silver recovery I had a summer job prior to going to university in a carpet factory, I spent 3 days at the local sewage treatment plant, cyanide was the only significant problem. The photo-labs had no measurable impact at all.

There is a very realistic approach taken by the people enforcing the regulation, check out businesses first as they produce volumes.

So yes Elevator has to be sqeaky clean, but the same authorities are fully aware that 99.9% of photographers working from home stick all their spent chemistry down the drain. But the volumes are so low it's irrelevant.

Sometimes realism is quite different.

Ian
 
Last edited by a moderator:

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
in the us the epa considers spent fixer to be a hazardous waste. i would not rely on advice from people at the treatment plant, as i would not take advice from people who may connect my electrical system or plumbing in my darkroom.
i will however take seriously thewarnings of officials in the epa and other government agencies, they (at least here in ri ) will fine people upto $10,000 / day that they are not in compliance with the law. i know someone who was fined a HUGE amount of money because he was not in compliance. not only is it against the law to dump this stuff, it is as wrong as the machine shop-guy that pours mountain-dew-green fluid down the stormdrain because he things the law is foolish, or was told that it all gets broken down anyways, or he doesn't want to pay to have someone pick it up.

not to say that ed's son doesn't know his line of work, or that people
who work at the treatment plant don't know their line of work,
but ... they are not the people to talk to.
 

Bob Carnie

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
7,735
Location
toronto
Format
Med. Format RF
Ian
You are right I am really oversensitive on this issue, in fact in previous threads I have taken a overly strong stance to zero tolerence.
But the reality is here in Toronto there is a huge fresh water lake 1km from my facility. I know for a fact that a home darkroom would be ripped out , and it has happened here in Toronto.
Since this is the mandate for the Toronto GTA , I strongly support it and would hope that more areas would take this stance.

One other point that is not spoken about fixer in drains. Very old heritage buildings in major cities world wide have copper drain systems. If you are a young/old photographer taking on a studio lets say and decide to cut in a darkroom in a loft in one of these buildings beware. Pouring fixer onto these copper drains is a disastor waiting to happen. I know of at least two photoghers that have been evicted and sued for damaging the drains in these fragile buildings.

These are the facts as I know them, whether it applies to other municipalities is an unknown issue for me but I would rather err on saftey.
As I first posted any minilab or prolab will/should take the waste, I know it may be a hassel for some but I think it is worth it.
 

panastasia

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
624
Location
Dedham, Ma,
Format
Med. Format Pan
The Darkroom Cookbook addresses the possibility of fixer causing copper pipes to corrode and the advice given is to greatly dilute the fixer before "poring it down the drain".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ed Sukach

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
4,517
Location
Ipswich, Mas
Format
Medium Format
Bob Carnie said:
We do disagree in fact I think your advice borders on incompetence.
Click to expand...

You can - and are free - to think whatever you want to think.

I will only call your attention to the original subject: "Disposal of darkroom fixer in the BOSTON area". My son works - full time - as a licensed plumber in the BOSTON area - and as I've said, I am familiar with what he has, and IS, going through NOW, not some twenty - thirty years ago.

He *IS* very liable for what he does. I have *no* idea of the liability of any "tradesman" in Canada, nor their qualifications - nor have I ever claimed to know.

*I* am "incompetent"? About what? Am I not entitled to my opinion? - is there some mandate that I *must* agree with you -- or suffer the label of incompetence"?

Do you claim that what you have written is MORE than opinion?

Enough - I really do not care - and you are going to "Ignore" as quickly as I can choose that option.
 

Bob Carnie

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
7,735
Location
toronto
Format
Med. Format RF
Ed
Your son is liable for not putting the pipes in properly, I am curious as to how he would be liable if YOU and not he decided to lets say pour hot wax down the drain.
The enforcement of our waste dumping laws here in Toronto are not an Opinion but a reality.
There are areas in this planet that enforce *severly* the dumping of questionable waste into the environment , I am sorry to hear that Boston is not one of them :munch:
Bob

 

panastasia

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
624
Location
Dedham, Ma,
Format
Med. Format Pan
I'm looking at the Dedham-Westwood Water District Annual Water Quality Report for 2006. Metals are listed under Unregulated Contaminants - Inorganic Chemicals and in this list are metals such as: Manganese, Magnesium, zinc and Iron. Not Silver. On another list under Regulated Contaminants - Measured at the Customer's Tap, two metals are listed: Lead and Copper. Again, not Silver. It appears to me that trace amounts of Silver in the water supply in my community is a non-issue.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid

every year we get a water quality report from our local water district.
while it is not mentioned in the report as a contaminant that comes out of my tap,
it is still an issue (just like people dumping household chemicals down the drain instead of the "drop-off".)
i live near a coastline as well as small streams, it is a fragile ecosystem
and heavy metals in the water are not a good thing, for anyone/anything ...

... i spoke with someone in the epa just the other day ... she was amazed
that people actually think that it is *not* an issue ...
 

panastasia

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
624
Location
Dedham, Ma,
Format
Med. Format Pan

I'm only pointing to the only fact that I have on hand. I'm all for protecting the environment but I think that the number of people still using photo chemicals are small drops in a very big bucket and becoming less as time goes on.

Let's be realistic and acknowledge what has a real impact and what is only imagined. Compare the subject of this thread with the idea of keeping a beautiful lawn in front of your house and what that is doing to the watershed. I don't use any lawn treatment and my lawn looks like s--t. Some of the lawn fertilizers used by the MWRA are a byproduct of sewage treatment plants. I know this because they gave me some and its loaded with heavy metals, some of them such as chromium are real bad. I gave the stuff away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid

the difference is ---

"chemlawn" (or whatever else the mwra gives you to put on your lawn)
probably isn't against the law to dump down the sink or the street drain,
or in the stream behind your house, or the harbor ( or is it?).

no matter how much people rationalize it,
spent silver fixer is against the law to dump,
even if someone thinks that it is "ok to dump because i don't do it alot"

... it is still too much.

if you can get your spent chemicals to nevada these guys will turn it into lawn care products.

ps. i use a push mower
 
Last edited by a moderator:

panastasia

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
624
Location
Dedham, Ma,
Format
Med. Format Pan
Silver is a water purifier, it's found in many water filters to kill bacteria. The silver in fixer is a very pure grade AFAIK. I don't think silver is bad, but what do I know? I'm only an expert on my own opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

erikg

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
1,444
Location
pawtucket rh
Format
Multi Format
The law says otherwise. Waste fixer is considered a hazardous material. The OP is interested in doing the right thing in seeking to manage his darkroom chemical waste. I hope he finds a method that works for him and follows through. Are there worse hazards and injuries being inflicted on the planet? Certainly, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can for the next generation, especially when it is pretty simple and painless.
 

Ed Sukach

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
4,517
Location
Ipswich, Mas
Format
Medium Format
Beyond laws, rules, regulations ...

I am STILL trying to determine how much silver is in question: If I develop 100 rolls of 120 black and white film, and make 200 prints, HOW MUCH silver is washed away by the fixer/and or the final wash?

I seem to remember, here, a thread where one APUG member did install an expensive (relatively) silver recovery system - and after some years, was only able to recover a very small amount of silver - something under 20 (???) grams?

I AM concerned with the environment - (seven years as a member of the Ipswich Conservation Committee - in spite of the "local" name, a STATE organization).
Our concerns were more with bulldozers operating illegally in the wetlands, than anything else.

If I take a sterling SILVER spoon into the field on a picnic - and I lose it in the tall grass - am I causing more or less damage to the environment than I would by dumping a years' volume of my depleted fixer into my back yard?

If I were to develop one roll of 120 in a JOBO tank in a motel room, would it really be REASONABLE to be concerned with the 500 ml of, not really, depleted fixer?
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,286
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
Ed, the data sheets for Agfa colour papers used to give silver quantity per square metre.

Somewhere I have the actual silver content for a number of films & papers, but every things packed away as I'm selling my house.

However here's a rough guide of silver content:

Colour neg 5-8 gms/sq m 100% recoverable
E6 4-6 gms/sq m 100% recoverable
Colour paper 0.5-2 gms/sq m 100% recoverable

B&W film 5-7 gms/sq m 40-50% recoverable
B&W paper 1-5 gms/sq m 40-60% recoverable

An average 24ex colour film contains approx 0.25gms of silver.

Dissolved silver is toxic, it kills the bacteria in sewage treatment plant, sterling silver isn't. It might surprise you that scrap Gold is also deemed to be a hazardous waste, and here in the UK you need to be a licensed carrier and issue a consignment note to show it's gone to be recycled.

Ian
 

Bob Carnie

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
7,735
Location
toronto
Format
Med. Format RF
Ed
since I am on your ignore list you probably won't read this, I never place any one on ignore, *isn't there an old saying, about being aware / close to your enimies to know what they are doing*

The Silver Recovery Unit in my facility is placed there by a commercial company who places units in hundreds of locations within the Toronto GTA.
There is no charge to me, the unit is inspected every two months and when over 600 hrs of operations on the unit , they come in and replace the *guts* . They seem to be very willing to base their business on this placement. so yes they do make money from the silver.
The Toronto Camera Club that has a large membership , faithfully brings over their waste fix to my operation to dump down SRU. *this is the solution for the original poster, yes a bit of a drag to lug over the container but worth the effort

I do believe you are concerned about the environment and respect your opinion/background.

but

I am overly biased on this issue of chemical dumping, * I am sure most of my bias is due to the fact that I will not be allowed to persue my love of photography if I was ever caught dumping fix in the Toronto GTA.*
On common trait that I have found prevelent with the thousands of photographers that I have met over the last years is a common decencey towards the enviroment and people in general. Is it a trait that we get once we start picking up a camera to use as a inner voice/social documetation or tool to show people the beauty of our world? I believe this to be true.

therefore

I would rather error on the side of caution with the materials we use, rather than go ahead and find out twenty years down the road I was hurting the environment in my own backyard.

Bob
 

Roger Hicks

Member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
4,895
Location
Northern Aqu
Format
35mm RF
Ed Sukach said:
Beyond laws, rules, regulations ...

I am STILL trying to determine how much silver is in question: If I develop 100 rolls of 120 black and white film, and make 200 prints, HOW MUCH silver is washed away by the fixer/and or the final wash?
Click to expand...

We can make some informed guesses here. Papers are typically 1-2 gsm, films typically 2.5 to 8 gsm. Let's assume that half the silver is used to make the image, and that half is dissolved out (or course it'll be 100 per cent with colour films and chromogenics); this is a maximum of 4gsm.

Now, a roll of 120 is about 80cm long and 62mm wide; about 0.05 sq.m, so 100 rolls is 5 sq.m. so you have a likely maximum of about 20g with Delta 3200 (and an absolute maximum of about 40g) or maybe 5g with Pan F.

You didn't give a print size, but let's assume 8x10, and the same 50%. An 8x10 print is 203x254mm, or again about 0.05 sq.m. Two hundred prints is 10 sq.m. so with a typical 1.8 gsm coating weight that's 9g of silver.

These are approximations, and a lot will depend on subject matter, exposure and develpment, but they give an idea of the scale of the silver involved. Now go and read the CDC fact sheet on silver and see how big a risk they think it is -- allowing for the fact that the CDC is not noted for being overly relaxed in these matters: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts146.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ed Sukach

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
4,517
Location
Ipswich, Mas
Format
Medium Format
Roger Hicks said:
Now go and read the CDC fact sheet on silver and see how big a risk they think it is -- allowing for the fact that the CDC is not noted for being overly relaxed in these matters: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts146.html
Click to expand...

Thanks, Roger. I was in the middle of calculating. I'll continue to check my Agfa Data Sheets (sob!!) ... and film and paper areas...

The web site was interesting as well, especially: "The accidental release of more than 1000 pounds of silver must be reported to the EPA."

BTW. "Silver kills bacteria in waste treatment plants"?? Isn't that what waste treatment plants are supposed to do? (A great example of oversimplification - I understand there is much more to it than that ... but I couldn't resist :rolleyes.
 

Roger Hicks

Member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
4,895
Location
Northern Aqu
Format
35mm RF

Dear Ed,

You're welcome. I rather like the '1000 lb' rule too: as though you'd say, "Oh, bugger" and do a runner from half a ton of silver... But then, one of the first health warnings in the M8 instruction book is that it must not be disposed of in household waste. Now, I know some people really hate digital cameras, but this does strike me as going a bit far.

I think, though, that the bacteria in sewage plants are essential for breaking down the waste. I do not know enough about the levels of silver required to incapacitate bacteria but I suspect that the likelihood of all the home darkrooms in a given treatment area dumping enough silver to have any effect whatsoever is slender.

According to the only statistics I could easily find, which look believable, US water usage ran around 60-100 gallons per capita per day in the early 90s, call it 250-350 l/day. One might therefore expect 1000 people to use at least 250 tonnes of water a day or 7,500 tonnes of water a month. Assuming that one of those people is you, and that you process 100 rolls and 200 prints in one month (going some!), your 30g or so of silver eqates to well under 0.5ppm of the total throughput for 1000 people for one month.

Cheers,

Roger
 

panastasia

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
624
Location
Dedham, Ma,
Format
Med. Format Pan
Bob Carnie said:
Ed

I would rather error on the side of caution with the materials we use, rather than go ahead and find out twenty years down the road I was hurting the environment in my own backyard.

Bob
Click to expand...

You wont have to wait that long, the generation of my children will rationalize baning of all photo chemicals because they're bad for us and future generations, just as we rationalized baning second hand smoke in public places in many towns and cities in my fair (free) country. The Planet Police are already watching.
 

Monophoto

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,689
Location
Saratoga Spr
Format
Multi Format
This argument has gone on far too long, but in the midst of the rancor, there has been some useful information:

1. Ian has provided us with some data about the actual silver content of typical photographic materials, as well as the potential recoverability of that silver.

2. Roger has done the math to arrive at a conclusion that a typical home darkroom is not likely to generate enough waste silver to be a concern in the strict technical sense.

3. But Bob has correctly observed that whether or not there is a technical concern, there may well be local regulations that regulate the disposal of silver-bearing darkroom waste, and we are individually responsible for being aware of the regulations that apply where we live. And regardless of where we live, we all can agree that laws don't always make sense, but that has nothing to do with whether we need to observe them.

4. Several have observed that there is sometimes a difference between what the regulation says, and the vigor to which the regulation is enforced.

5. Finally, several have offered suggestions about how silver-bearing darkroom waste can be responsibly disposed of, regardless of what the local regulations require or the degree to which they are enforced.

Now - can we be nice to each other again?
 

srs5694

Member
Joined
May 18, 2005
Messages
2,718
Location
Woonsocket,
Format
35mm
Monophoto said:
2. Roger has done the math to arrive at a conclusion that a typical home darkroom is not likely to generate enough waste silver to be a concern in the strict technical sense.
Click to expand...

One point to keep in mind with such calculations is that, even if only 1 in 1000 people (as in Roger's calculations) has a home darkroom, there may be other sources of dissolved silver compounds in household wastewater, and there are certainly other compounds that can be challenging to water treatment plants. IMHO, it's best to consider your own discharges and take all reasonable measures to keep them safe, going on the assumption that everybody else's discharges will be at least as bad as your own.
 

panastasia

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
624
Location
Dedham, Ma,
Format
Med. Format Pan
Thanks Louie, we needed you to wrap it up.

I wouldn't call it "rancor" though, it was just a vigorous discussion.

Regards,

Paul
 

CBG

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
889
Format
Multi Format
Hmm,

"Vigorous discussion"? Sounds kinda like a yelling match to me.

Original post refers to only a few litres of spent fix monthly. That's a drop in the bucket and in most localities doesn't come close to triggering the controls that pertain to larger commercial operations.

Nonetheless, it is understood to be a very good thing to separate the silver from any waste stream and get it recycled.

That is a hobby level usage, and easily controllable by the "put spent fix in jar of steel wool " to trap the silver technique. Evidently, the silver is very effectively sequestered in the steel wool. The steel wool can have the silver recycled commercially. The remaining liquid is drain disposable.

There are any number of threads that detail safe silver disposal in better detail than my note here.

Barring unusual local regs, there is usually no need for home hobby users to bring untreated used fix to expensive hazardous waste handlers.

As noted earlier in the thread, larger operations do need more involved silver recovery equipment.

Talk of banning all photo chems is not at all useful. For BW photography at least, sensible chems are pretty tame if handled with such miminal care as the steel wool gambit. Phenidone is advantageous precisely because of it's safety. Silver can be well managed. Carbonate and thiosulfate are used in swimming pools. Vitamin C and vinegar are rather tame.

Best,

C
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…