Disposal of photographic chemicals: Kodak recommendations

[Marco B]

Hi all,

Just stumbled upon these two Kodak documents I hadn't seen before. It is a list of recommendations and guidelines for disposal of chemistry.

- Environmental Guidelines for Amateur Photographers
- Disposal Guidelines for Discontinued KODAK Photographic Processing Products

May be useful to some, as I have seen many questions and threads about this particular topic. Whether everyone will agree with each and every specific guideline Kodak gives in these documents, is another matter...

Some inconsistencies I have seen:

- Why Chromium bleach is listed as "dis-chargeable to sewer", I personally have no clue... I guess it may actually be based on the non-chromium containing ferricyanide bleach, but that isn't consistent with the "Non-ferricyanide or chromium bleach" header in the table showing disposal options in the "Disposal guidelines" document.

- The "Environmental guidelines" lists Kodak acetic acid based indicator stop bath as non-dischargeable to sewer, unless neutralized using sodium bicarbonate because of a supposed very low 1.0 pH. Now that might be true for acetic acid stop bath concentrate, but I have never measured anything more than pH 4-5 in fresh working solutions, and in fact, the indicator function for spend stop bath is actually based on a slow neutralization process with carried over hydroxide anions from the alkaline developer bath. This means, by the time the indicator stop bath turns blue to indicate a spend stop bath, the pH is near neutral, and you can safely dispose of it down the drain... (assuming the small amount of carried over developer can also go down the drain)

Marco

 

[monodave]

The UK photo industry produced a similar document a few years ago. Here is the link.
http://pic.uk.net/coppice

 

[removed account4]

what year where these guidelines published / revised ?
there are some old ones that surface from time to time
and they are not relevant to now, but were relevant to the 1970s ...

 

[Ian Grant]

The Kodak data is 1999 and still current. The company I used to work for was a members of PIC the Industry committee responsible for liaising with the relevant authorities in the UK and producing the Coppice guidelines.

In practice even industrial disposal of spent Photo-chemicals has little impact on water treatment plants and except for Silver recovery of Fixers and Bleach fixers chemistry only needs pH adjustment & dilution. However all countries require you to be licensed for commercial disposal.

Ian

 

[Diapositivo]

Well spotted Marco, and very useful.

The guide of amateur photographers by Kodak was revised on May 1999 (right - below of last page). Considering that Kodak is a firm in activity, I suppose no further revision was made because the document is still actual.

Fabrizio

 

[monodave]

The Coppice web document was published in 1999 and was a collaborative project between the UK photo industry, including Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, Konica, Agfa, Polaroid, etc, and the water treatment industry. I doubt the situation has changed greatly since it was published.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Coppice web document was published in 1999 and was a collaborative project between the UK photo industry, including Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, Konica, Agfa, Polaroid, etc, and the water treatment industry. I doubt the situation has changed greatly since it was published.

The major change is that the volumes are now very significantly smaller than back in 1998.

Ian

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

The revision date for the above linked Kodak document KES-110(ENG) is even newer: May 2009.

I had a long exchange of emails with environmental offices of the local authorities here in Ireland, some of which I mentioned in older threads on APUG. The bottom line is that they are fairly uninterested and unknowledgeable with regards to the content or impact of specific photo chemicals. They do not know of those publications. All types of photo chemistry is lumped together into a single category and is treated with the highest possible impact rating. They are also underfunded, while the contractors who operate recycling centres and hazmat collections are unwilling to accept photo waste, at least in my part of Wicklow and south Dublin. There is only a 6-8 times a year special collection via a mobile point open for just one day, where I can bring saved waste.

Commercial removers are happy to offer a service, costing about €80 for a 25 l container. They ship it to UK for processing later.

Sorry for venting my frustration on this thread - I have spent days trying to raise awareness of this issue in this part of Ireland.

 

[Ian Grant]

Rafal, your experiences are common. We sold silver recovery machines and they required permission for discharge to sewers.

To help labs we bypassed the local offices by initially going straight to the chief chemists at the Water Boards in the UK and then getting a contact/reference/ Often the problems were that at a local level people would be told that no photographic waste could be discharged to sewer because they were ignorant of the policies.

In the UK the water boards are obliged to treat industrial effluents provided the discharges are within certain prescribed level so it would be very unusual for permission to discharge to be denied. There's also a right to appeal against a decision.

I actually struck lucky as my main contact had been responsible for overseeing Kodak's discharges and was fully aware of the impacts of Photo chemistry. If I can find the relevant documents next time I'm in the UK I'll email them to you. It's likely that the Irish policy matches the US/UK/EU guidelines.

Ian

 

[removed account4]

ian

even one of the strictest commissions set up here where i live
agrees with you 100% ian ... it is ph they worry about ... and
the silver in the fix ...
they used to tell us to mix everything together ( 'cept the fix ) and neutralize
everything ... and then "deal with the fix" .

john

 

[hrst]

Well, the authorities are naturally of no help, so we have to use our own common sense and get the relevant information from the manufacturers such as Kodak, and from people who have expertise in chemistry, and then make our own decisions.

For example, here the official instruction from the authorities is that every single "photographic chemical", meaning chemicals that have been used in darkroom, is hazardous waste.

If you wash your prints with water with a little bit of wetting agent or dishwasher liquid added, then it will be hazardous waste you are not allowed to pour to the drain or you are a "criminal", because it was a photographic chemical.

This is of course how it always works with authorities. They just don't have time and resources to offer proper service and in the process, they usually forget that we are their "customers", not "criminals". You cannot ask for exceptions, because they have no resources to clarify and if they did, they might need to take a responsibility for their statements, and they don't want to take that risk. But they can give insane instructions without any risks. "Better safe than sorry" is their motto.

But luckily, you can make your own decision and once you do the right decision, you don't need to worry and you can sleep well. You can even joke around to your friends that you are a criminal when you pour a little bit of "salad dressing" or "ketchup" (as acetic acid) down the drain in darkroom, but you are allowed to do it in the kitchen.

And, after all, I believe what Kodak says. Pouring most of the processing solutions down the drain wasn't problem in 1999, and it's much less of a problem as of now because the volumes have plunged.

But this is Finland, I think you may have it better elsewhere .