Disposal of darkroom fixer in the Boston, MA area?

Roger Hicks · Aug 5, 2007

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

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...

None of it looked unduly rancorous to me: just a bit exasperated at times. The first para quoted above is obviously revelant to the original poster, but the slight drift to disposal elsewhere seemed both inevitable and desirable. Then again, I do have a couple of people on ignore.

On the other hand, I'd say that talk of banning photo chemicals is very useful indeed, because unless the bad science and sheer ignorance of some people is brought out into the open, those people WILL ban (or at least try to ban) most or all photo chemicals: I mean, clearly, acetic acid and ascorbic acid are Dangerous Chemicals and will cause you to Die Horribly, possibly disfiguring you in Hollybood B-movie fashion in the process -- they're ACID, after all, and everyone knows acid is dangerous, quite unlike vinegar and vitamin C.

Bob Shell tells the story of someone coming to his door and asking him to sign a petition to 'ban chemicals'. When he asked which ones, they replied 'all chemicals'.

panastasia · Aug 5, 2007

Ian Grant said:
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

Ian,

The information you bring to this discussion is helpful and appreciated.

I would like to add the following as a footnote:

According to the publication HEALTH HAZARDS for PHOTOGRAPHERS by Siegfried and Wolfgang Rempel, "toxic" is not synonymous with "hazardous". This was also confirmed by the environmental safety expert where I work.

I believe this thread has now ran the complete course as far as useful information is concerned. Roger Hicks presented the actual data that should have settled any argument on this subject. Thanks Roger!

It's time to make the donuts.
Oops!
I mean pictures.

Regards,

Paul

dslater · Aug 5, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
On the other hand, I'd say that talk of banning photo chemicals is very useful indeed, because unless the bad science and sheer ignorance of some people is brought out into the open, those people WILL ban (or at least try to ban) most or all photo chemicals: I mean, clearly, acetic acid and ascorbic acid are Dangerous Chemicals and will cause you to Die Horribly, possibly disfiguring you in Hollybood B-movie fashion in the process -- they're ACID, after all, and everyone knows acid is dangerous, quite unlike vinegar and vitamin C.

Bob Shell tells the story of someone coming to his door and asking him to sign a petition to 'ban chemicals'. When he asked which ones, they replied 'all chemicals'.

Hi Roger,
I couldn't agree with you more - in addition to the arguments you give, another argument you'll hear is "Since you can do all your photography digitally now, why should we still tolerate film and all the associated chemicals."

I believe this is the that will eventually win out most people who are not photographers simply can't understand why you would want to still use film when digital is so much "better".

Bob Carnie · Aug 5, 2007

Proper disposal of waste chemicals is a prudent issue for all darkroom users small and large.
In this last two months we have ran more film than all of last year. Very suprising to us.
Onsite we have a sister Digital Lab that works internationally doing headshot work. They are pumping volumes of RA4bleachfix into the SRU as is all digital labs. Just because the name Digital is being used in these operations do not think for a minute that they are not using traditional photochemistry to process the files. Or that inkjet is going to replace photochemistry as the choice to process files.
Inkjet is slow and not viable for most applications in a commercial setting.I imagine for home use the inks will replace the photochemistry.
Local photo schools are piped into these minilab*dlabs* and are getting 4hr turnaround at very low prices for the photo students to output their assignments.
Weekly we are being asked by photographers to link their home computers, profile them to our materials/chemical process and batch process their work.
Make no mistake, photochems are here for a long , long, time.
What will change is the laws pertaining to the dumping of these chems into the envioronment.
I think I have said enough on this subject, wrong or right.
I wonder what the OP is going to do with his fix??

Roger Hicks · Aug 5, 2007

dslater said:
Hi Roger,
I couldn't agree with you more - in addition to the arguments you give, another argument you'll hear is "Since you can do all your photography digitally now, why should we still tolerate film and all the associated chemicals."

I believe this is the that will eventually win out most people who are not photographers simply can't understand why you would want to still use film when digital is so much "better".

...and that's the point, of course, where those who understand the subject can point out the (much nastier) chemicals used in the production of silicon chips and electronic circuit boards -- and the fact that these are often just pitched into landfill after a few months, where (unlike waste water) they are not treated at all, but left to leach. The WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) directive in the EU is having some effect but I'm not sure how much. Nor am I sure how poisonous ink-jet dyes are...

removed account4 · Aug 5, 2007

SNIP

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

25$ a year is expensive??

it costs less than a box of 5x7 paper ...

Roger Hicks · Aug 5, 2007

jnanian said:
25$ a year is expensive??

Or to cheap ones either.

dslater · Aug 5, 2007

Bob Carnie said:
Proper disposal of waste chemicals is a prudent issue for all darkroom users small and large.
In this last two months we have ran more film than all of last year. Very suprising to us.
Onsite we have a sister Digital Lab that works internationally doing headshot work. They are pumping volumes of RA4bleachfix into the SRU as is all digital labs. Just because the name Digital is being used in these operations do not think for a minute that they are not using traditional photochemistry to process the files. Or that inkjet is going to replace photochemistry as the choice to process files.
Inkjet is slow and not viable for most applications in a commercial setting.I imagine for home use the inks will replace the photochemistry.
Local photo schools are piped into these minilab*dlabs* and are getting 4hr turnaround at very low prices for the photo students to output their assignments.
Weekly we are being asked by photographers to link their home computers, profile them to our materials/chemical process and batch process their work.
Make no mistake, photochems are here for a long , long, time.
What will change is the laws pertaining to the dumping of these chems into the envioronment.
I think I have said enough on this subject, wrong or right.
I wonder what the OP is going to do with his fix??

Hi Bob,
Can't disagree with you about commercial digital printing, however, I was thinking more of home users. Instead of an outright ban, what you may see is a licensing requirement that makes it too expensive for the home user to process film/prints. Also, while I agree that inkjets are currently too slow for commercial use, I wouldn't be at all surprised if ten years from now the RA4 based printers have been replaced by something based on a color laserjet.
Dan

psvensson · Aug 5, 2007

Your local regulations may be what they are; the fact is that a hobbyist or artist cannot produce enough silver to affect your local wastewater treatment plant. The reason is that when the used fixer reaches the sewers, the suspended silver ions react with sulfides, which are quite common in human waste, to form silver sulfide, a black sludge. It's very stable and isn't bioavailable. It's the form silver is usually found in the environment, and the reason we don't talk about "silver contamination" the way we talk about "lead contamination."

You can simulate this process by pouring Kodak Brown Toner into used fixer: you immediately get the black sludge.

Roger Hicks · Aug 5, 2007

psvensson said:
Your local regulations may be what they are; the fact is that a hobbyist or artist cannot produce enough silver to affect your local wastewater treatment plant. The reason is that when the used fixer reaches the sewers, the suspended silver ions react with sulfides, which are quite common in human waste, to form silver sulfide, a black sludge. It's very stable and isn't bioavailable. It's the form silver is usually found in the environment, and the reason we don't talk about "silver contamination" the way we talk about "lead contamination."

You can simulate this process by pouring Kodak Brown Toner into used fixer: you immediately get the black sludge.

Kindly do not confuse the argument by introducing verifiable facts.

Cheers,

R.

panastasia · Aug 6, 2007

If you've read each post and notice where the people live, one thing stands out: The fear of getting caught for breaking some law in Toronto and Rhode Island. Laws and the way they're enforced must be very different in those places, which would explain their degree of concern (I wont say preaching because that may offend). I can understand this.

Rhode Island which borders Massachusetts is notorious for issuing speeding tickets on the interstate highway more than any other state in New England. When you drive on the highways anywhere you'll notice that almost everyone is going over the speed limit - they're speeding! For as long as I can remember, and it's been a long time, the advice for travelers was to "watch out when driving through RI, there's allot of speed traps." Either the laws are more severe, they have more of them, are more strictly enforced, or all of the above because the fear is very apparent.

It's easy to see the analogy, or the bias to comply without question because "the law says". We must all obey. At least in the area where I live.

I think New Hampshire has it right: "LIVE FREE OR DIE"

CBG · Aug 6, 2007

jnanian said:
SNIP

25$ a year is expensive??

...

If it's really $25 a year - I wouldn't quibble with it at all. I'd be happy.

I do tend to suspect most folks will be faced with far larger fees than that. I would be thrilled to be shown wrong. Most times some substance is said to be hazardous, the lawful commercial handlers charge whopping fees. Perhaps silver is an exception?

Best,

C

Bob Carnie · Aug 6, 2007

Its free if you go to a friendly photolab, they will happily take your fix.

CBG said:
If it's really $25 a year - I wouldn't quibble with it at all. I'd be happy.

I do tend to suspect most folks will be faced with far larger fees than that. I would be thrilled to be shown wrong. Most times some substance is said to be hazardous, the lawful commercial handlers charge whopping fees. Perhaps silver is an exception?

Best,

C

CBG · Aug 6, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
On the other hand, I'd say that talk of banning photo chemicals is very useful indeed, because unless the bad science and sheer ignorance of some people is brought out into the open, those people WILL ban (or at least try to ban) most or all photo chemicals: ...
Bob Shell tells the story of someone coming to his door and asking him to sign a petition to 'ban chemicals'. When he asked which ones, they replied 'all chemicals'.

I think we agree. I guess my patience with non-science nonsense is running thin.

Check out: www.dhmo.org A great antidote to the "all chems are bad bad bad" crowd.

Best,

C

Roger Hicks · Aug 6, 2007

CBG said:
I think we agree. I guess my patience with non-science nonsense is running thin.

Check out: www.dhmo.org A great antidote to the "all chems are bad bad bad" crowd.

Best,

C

Thanks for the link!

Cheers

R.

Bob Carnie · Aug 6, 2007

I think both of you understand my position on the disposal of photochemicals.
I wonder if both of you could answer a couple of questions for me?

1. In any given year , how many litres of spent fix, bleach fix from film processing and or colour prints/black and white prints do each of you produce.
2. Do you advocate dumping these chemicals into your local sewer systems?

There are laws in place here that force darkrooms to do so, I am curious of the laws in place in your homelands. As well I would like to understand better your positions.

Roger Hicks said:
Thanks for the link!

Cheers

R.

Paul Howell · Aug 6, 2007

Bob Carnie said:
I think both of you understand my position on the disposal of photochemicals.
I wonder if both of you could answer a couple of questions for me?

1. In any given year , how many litres of spent fix, bleach fix from film processing and or colour prints/black and white prints do each of you produce.
2. Do you advocate dumping these chemicals into your local sewer systems?

I just got off the phone with our wast water folks for the City of Phoenix and Maricopa County, there are no rules, code, or local law that apply to domestic users in terms of silver recovery. No one I spoke with has any concerns about a home or school dark room color or black and white, Phoeinx alone process 70 billion gallons of wast water a year. If in doubt call or local authority, even reading parts of local codes as I did does not always give a clear answer. By the way I will take my used fixed to my local color lab, but what part of my 5 gallons years is 70 billion gallons?

Ian Grant · Aug 6, 2007

In Roger's post which he's now deleted he asked:

"Perhaps you would care to answer two similar questions: first, what do you believe to be the harm, and second, have you any evidence of harm?"

There is plenty of evidence that dissolved silver has an impact on the environment, and it certainly has a detrimental effects at water treatment plants.

Bob is quite correct to be concerned about the proper disposal of silver bearing chemicals, and should be applauded for offering to take in others spent fixer / bleach fix for disposal.

In the UK, EU, Canada and US and many other countries there is an expected "Duty if Care" in disposing of any type of waste, the way this is policed differs quite markedly. Essentially that means you should dispose of your waste appropriately. Ilford, Fuji, Kodak and other manufacturers publish information about safe disposal of their chemicals.

The advice Paul Howell is being given is quite typical at local levels in the US & here in the UK, however if you talk to the senior environmental chemists they will tell you quite different that all silver bearing photo-chemicals must be treated prior to disposal.

When I was a technical adviser overseeing sales and installation of silver recovery equipment I always liaised with the most senior chemists in each authority, this was because at a local level policy was very inconsistent. Typically answers would range from there's no need to treat the waste to it's illegal to put any photo-chemical wastes down the drain.

Before anyone attacks Bob for advocating safe disposal of photo-chemicals they should think first and realise his livelihood depends on Elevator complying to environmental regulations.

On a more personal level, for many years my own fixer went collectively for recovery along with fixer from a couple of other commercial photographers. Now I treat my waste myself, and soon will go borrow a furnace and melt my own recovered silver.

Ian

removed account4 · Aug 6, 2007

panastasia said:
If you've read each post and notice where the people live, one thing stands out: The fear of getting caught for breaking some law in Toronto and Rhode Island. Laws and the way they're enforced must be very different in those places, which would explain their degree of concern (I wont say preaching because that may offend). I can understand this.

beautiful

just do whatever you can, legal or not, as long as you can get away with it/don't get caught ... that's responsible!

:munch:

panastasia said:
Rhode Island which borders Massachusetts is notorious for issuing speeding tickets on the interstate highway more than any other state in New England. When you drive on the highways anywhere you'll notice that almost everyone is going over the speed limit - they're speeding! For as long as I can remember, and it's been a long time, the advice for travelers was to "watch out when driving through RI, there's allot of speed traps." Either the laws are more severe, they have more of them, are more strictly enforced, or all of the above because the fear is very apparent.

It's easy to see the analogy, or the bias to comply without question because "the law says". We must all obey. At least in the area where I live.

I think New Hampshire has it right: "LIVE FREE OR DIE"

as for police on the highways -- there should be more of them.
more and more people from MA drive in RI, l in the breakdown lane to pass people at 80mph.

:munch:

CBG said:
If it's really $25 a year - I wouldn't quibble with it at all. I'd be happy.

I do tend to suspect most folks will be faced with far larger fees than that. I would be thrilled to be shown wrong. Most times some substance is said to be hazardous, the lawful commercial handlers charge whopping fees. Perhaps silver is an exception?

Best,

C

it used to be that it was 25$/ year and i got a check for 30-40$ in 3 weeks.
no extra hidden costs. now it is just 25$/year ...

john

Ed Sukach · Aug 6, 2007

I advocate the proper and SAFE disposal of *ALL* effluent, chemical or not!

Here in Ipswich, Massachusetts, we once considered the construction of a Toxic Waste Disposal Plant. What was proposed was a *marvel* of engineering - rather than some sort of "dumping when no one was looking", it was far more a chemical recovery, chemical conversion operation. Terrible "waste" coming in: refined chemicals going out. Waste (raw material) would be delivered in trucks and automatically loaded into the system - one of the most sophisticated systems I've ever seen. Pure white trucks, washed every day, with all of the wash water recycled through the system. Every possible precaution was taken to control what happened and protect the environment. - Come to think of it, even all the personnel, including office workers, were required to take showers every day, and that "waste water" was introduced into the system.
We were shown photographs of existing plants: they each contained enormous aviaries, mainly birds that were extremely sensitive to pollutants; front lawns planted with carpets of flowers. Anyone who wished to visit these facilities at any time were welcomed - as a method of deciding whether or not the operation conformed to their own procedures.
"Eat off the floor"? Why not? Those floors were cleaner and monitored more closely than our own kitchen dishes.
Also a consideration: tax revenues to the Town would have been significant.

Then the panic began ... and it could only be called a panic. The Town Hall was STORMED by residents with pitchforks and torches, reacting to nothing more than the words "Toxic Waste". I tried to talk coherently with a few of the "Not In My Back Yards", a.k.a. "NIMBY"s.... Absolutely NO success. Logic, coherence, sense, ... everything out of fashion except wide-eyed PANIC.

Of course the NIMBYs won, No contest. Those who submitted the proposal calmly retrieved their blueprints, specification and photographs, politely thanked all who had taken the time to listen and left.

The water supply for the town of Ipswich is mainly supplied by wells, ~ 80% - 90%. A few months after the great panic, SOMEONE (never caught) illegally dumped a 55 gallon drum of Trichloethelene (sp?) and contaminated one of those wells for two or three YEARS.

PLEASE do not think I am advocating tossing any and all sorts of waste around the environment. That is simply NOT the case. At the same time, I am a STRONG believer in evaluating the situation without a PANIC, with the inevitable results; - irrational decisions about toxic waste and how to cope with it.

From what I've been able to piece together, and I by NO MEANS claim to be an expert, the amount of fixer containing dissolved silver from the average, or even more active than the "average", "amateur" darkroom, is far too small to justify any thing like a panic attack.

I've tried to glean information from any and all sources, including the local Fire Department ... I have only one comment: it is ALL a tangled mess.
We would do more to correct any possible problems by making the literature, rules and regulations easier to understand: I've found a great of confusuion and variation about "thresholds" - even among those who are entrusted for enforcement - and that is NOT good.

Ed Sukach · Aug 6, 2007

jnanian said:
...
as for police on the highways -- there should be more of them.
more and more people from MA drive in RI, l in the breakdown lane to pass people at 80mph.

Nah. Rhode Island is too small - not enough ROOM to get up to anywhere near 80mph.

I like the avatar ... "Near Providence". Just where in Rhode Island is NOT "near Providence"? :rolleyes:

PLEASE note "smilies"!!!

panastasia · Aug 6, 2007

I think I was ignored twice now. I can't help feeling that it's like throwing stones and then hiding. Isn't that childish?

My point was that people who live in different areas, experiencing different rules and degree of enforcement, may have different concepts of right action.

This discussion progressed to silly. I have other things to do.

Regards,

Paul

SuzanneR · Aug 6, 2007

Ed Sukach said:
I like the avatar ... "Near Providence". Just where in Rhode Island is NOT "near Providence"? :rolleyes:

Why Little Compton, of course!! After all... it requires a bridge to get there from Providence, so it must be far away!!

Just kidding, of course. I think we should all take responsibility for our spent fix. I'm not regulated by anyone, and I told my town that I have a darkroom, and they didn't bat an eyelash. I've been using the occasional hazardous waste day, but missed it this past year, so it's finally time to call safety kleen, I guess.

I have to say, whenever I've gone to a lab to ask about bringing my fix, they look at me like I'm some kind of a nut, and basically say... your problem, not ours. Too bad Toronto is such a long drive...or Bob would see my happy face with all my spent fix in 5 gallon buckets every 3 to 5 months!

They get heavy, though... so having someone come to pick it up may well be worth the money... less than a chiropractor at least !!!

DaveOttawa · Aug 6, 2007

Please don't put it down the drain...

I agree with Bob Carnie's approach of making sure his facility's effluent is treated correctly and applaud him for offering the service to other smaller volume users (I am responsible for a small DR here and a commercial lab lets me add our exhausted fix to their treatment unit).

If even small volume users do as he suggests I think you improve the standing of analogue photography in some small way with the GP.

I think the general public's perception of chemical photography is important and I am asked quite frequently "what do you do with all those chemicals".
I can explain that the only non-biodegradable components of our waste stream are removed before the material is discharged to the sewer. This has invariably produced a positive response from the questioner so far.

Of course if you have to drive the material to a facility make sure the container can't easily leak and that you're not making a 100 mile trip just to do it...

bdial · Aug 6, 2007

This thread just reminded me of a story I was told recently about Hallmark Institute of Photography in western Mass. It seems they had never used silver recovery in their darkrooms. The plumbing finally clogged with silver that had plated out on the iron sewer pipes!

Disposal of darkroom fixer in the Boston, MA area?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency