A Darkroom in the Sticks - Rural Environmental Technologies

[Ed K.]

Again, more great thoughts.

And the Kodak pages on other links below the previously sited link are great too:

Additional Kodak Details, Photo Waste Disposal

Doh! Read the Fine Manual! The Kodak site is a great resource. For amateurs with a sewer who do a couple of prints - not too many problems. At pro levels, it gets into needing EPA notification and bearing the costs of cleaning things first. And some types of chemicals, such as selinium toner are considered hazardous waste no matter who uses them. Hauling residues, such as dehydrated metal salts and such could involve the need for an EPA ID!

Brian, considering that there are material handling data sheets and waste disposal plans / guides at Kodak, it is quite likely that Kodak has done many studies that document hazards and solutions, probably some of them even in response to acute environmental problems and / or lawsuits. Sure, the concept of not putting anything down the drain that one wouldn't drink is good, however I'm interested most in exploring the ways I can still do traditional photography while meeting that requirement or the biological equivalent after natural bacterial or oxidizing processes have occured. If you have any solution oriented tips, including how best to approach local authorities without being branded as an ecoterrorist before the fact...in other words, tips to create a meaningful and fruitfull advance planning dialog, that could be very helpful indeed. While a person such as me, who researches before doing things, should be good news to officials, we're often met with unqualified or unreasonable "NO!" answers while others just quietly do the wrong thing. Please share any tips!

Sad to think that perhaps my dream of an A-1 new darkroom as part of my studio may be doomed before they start if I want to comply. For small amounts of non-professional work, it would be fine, but my volume will be more than that, and it will be part of my business. Businesses have to do the whole enchilada correctly and bear the costs, so the Kodak materials say. I'll keep diggging. This is all a really great starting point!

[John Powers]

Hmmm, I wonder what a nice wad of pt plated steel wool might be worth.....

One time when I thanked Univ Akron for taking my spent fixer I also said that I felt good contributing to their financial health. They laughed and said that the silver recovered from three years of processing from two gang darkrooms using 30 enlargers had paid for two water filters. Your mileage with platinum added may differ, but that is a place to start.

John

[Annie M.]

As part of your research take any Kodak product in your darkroom and look at the label. There is a phone number listed specifically for health information... you can even call collect. I called them a few years ago and a very well informed gentleman spoke with me for over an hour... mind you they probably don't get bombarded with calls about traditional darkroom... perhaps he was lonely. However, he also sent by mail a large package of information that I found helpful.

It was not clear in you initial message that you were starting a business... your first stumbling block may not be the EPA but the local government... around here the photolab (they have now gone out of business) was required to use a holding tank and truck the effluent out to the appropriate disposal facility.

[Donald Qualls]

Worth noting that the document linked above seems to be more aimed at high volume processing than the sort of thing one is likely to do in a home darkroom environment, but still a good confirmation that a septic system won't properly degrade photochemicals, even issues of silver killing the bacteria aside.

For fixer disposal, the method of using steel wool to extract the silver and then pouring the remainder into a garden as fertilizer is still valid; thiosulfate will degrade to sulfate in the soil and be taken up by plants that use sulfur (though one should be aware that many animals are much more sensitive to thiosulfate as a toxin than humans are -- the amount of thiosulfate in a single average onion will do serious harm to some animals as much as half the weight of a human, while humans can consume much more than twice that quantity without harm). For developers, it may be simplest just to let them stand and evaporate, then dispose of the solid remainder with other solid wastes (plastic wraps, for instance) that must be hauled to landfill or high temperature incineration.

For alt-process, it's probably most prudent to adopt evaporation and haz-waste hauling, though for platinum and gold toners or printing chemicals it might be worth investigating metal recovery -- those metals are expensive enough that recovery might actually be practical even in single-photographer, alt-process quantities.

For dichromate effluent, the first step is likely to be "neutralization" with sodium sulfite solution, which should turn the orange dichromate to greenish chromate (and in the process convert the extremely toxic and carcinogenic hexavalent chromium to the much less harmful trivalent form); after which, evaporation and haz-waste hauling is quite adequate.

Brian, your rule of thumb ("If you don't want to drink it or have your neighbor drink it, don't put it down the drain") seems to suggest I should never wash dishes or laundry, certainly not flush the toilet. Seems to me one might want to look at that rule of thumb and revise it to be less immediately incongruous -- people are much more likely to accept a rule that isn't instantly voided by recommended practice. While I'll accept that laundry effluent, especially, can be harmful to the environment, you'd have an easier time banning all septic systems as inadequate for treatment of home effluent, than trying to convince those who use such systems to give up soap, shampoo, dish detergent, home laundry, prescription and OTC drugs, and what-not else. Further, looked at that way, you make photographic effluent seem trivial by comparison, on the basis of sheer volume (or lack thereof) -- which I'm sure wasn't your intent.

I've recently heard it quite plausibly suggested that for the vast bulk of humanity the most environmentally friendly way to live might be in a major city, where efficient public transportation, food, water, and energy distribution, effective sewage treatment, and block housing actually reduce the energy, carbon, and general pollution footprint compared to living in suburbia and commuting, taking up land that could otherwise be raising food closer to the final consumption point, etc. Hong Kong might have it right... But more generally, it's most efficient to live close to your work; everything else takes a back seat to the energy and pollutant costs of commuting.

[Ed K.]

So many good thoughts everyone!

There is the matter of what defines business.

As to business, a good chunk of my income comes from photography, and that is growing steadily. I have two tracks - the fine art side, where my whole remaining lifetime is available to create, and the work side of it, where making an image on time, in spec, and in context.

I've been collecting negatives for some time now, and it's getting on time to make more than proof prints of some of them. It's easier for me to decide what I like after some years have passed in many cases. My print volume will be significant. My negative collection has some members that deserve fine prints, and several "sets" of themes, many with stories collected from the field. We could say that would be the artist side of it.

My business has a 100% compliance policy set for legal and regulatory, insurance and financial records, etc. in its bylaws. This includes sales and other taxes too. For me, if I sell rights, or a print, or whatever - the selling makes it a business, and well, the sales tax on it that goes to the state for even just one print or physical representation of an image sure speaks business.

If a person gives away their prints, or never transfers them, one can say that they are not doing business activity. But once the sale / tax part takes place, it's well into the business zone. Many artists are able to ignore such things in their locales, however I've always preferred just to deal with it first.

So, am I planning to be a photo lab? Not really. Host workshops, with other people teaching, using my state of the art facility? Quite possibly. Do a pretty high volume of art and then try to sell that over time in connection with publications? Yes. Print a limited quantity of unusual commercial images for niche sales - definitely.

Will all my income derive from photographic activity - I sure doubt it, but I'd be in a little trouble without that part. I definitely am in the business end of it - I just happen to love doing what I do.

As a result, I need to find the least onerous ways to be in compliance, and the suggestions made here are all great starting points and good food for thought. I'm truly grateful for the thoughtful posts here.

[neil poulsen]

I lived in a rural area for three years and built a darkroom. I had a chance to speak with the county expert on disposal, waste, etc., about this topic. He had the same response as one of the above. If it's black and white, make arrangements for spent fixer and selenium toner. Otherwise, don't worry. It may also depend on local regulations.

He recommended against dumping color chemistry into a septic system.

As a thought, you might also call Photographers' Formulary. They're out in the middle of the sticks in Montanna, and they have black and white darkrooms for their workshops. Given their expertise with photo-chemicals, it would be interesting to hear what they have to say on the topic.

[Annie M.]

'Otherwise, don't worry'...

EDTA used as a clearing agent in some Alt processes behaves as a persistent substance in the environment and contributes to heavy metal bioavailability in the ecosystem... (it pulls metals into the groundwater) it is of such concern that it is about to be banned from houshold products in New Zealand and several European countries.

Just because there may not be a regulation against indiscriminate chemical dumping does not mean that it is the best thing to do... please do your research and do your best... not just what you can get away with.

Cheers Annie

[Annie M.]

Just one last thought and I'll get off my 'phosphate free' soapbox...

Ed you say you will be operating as a business and offering workshops etc... perhaps running a 'green' darkroom could be an asset that outweighs the inconvenince... you could put a note in your website about how you are trying to preserve the integrity of the special place depicted in your images (people love that kind of stuff it shows you really care and are in tune with your subject... remember how upset everyone got when Fatale scorched the the tundra or whatever it was)... at your workshops you could teach about reducing the environmental impact of the processes... what the hell, I bet you could charge extra for that...

anyway I'm done....

Cheers and I wish you every success... Annie.

[bwchrome]

With all regards to the replies, my response would be, don't do it.
If you are prepared to treat all of your waste, then it is something to consider.

While there are several arguments to the latter, your waste goes into the ground water. Would you drink that water?

I am not a waste water expert, but why add to the waste that is already going into your septic?

If this is your business, it is best to be hooked to a modern city sewer system.
In Europe you can not dump ANY photo chemical down the drain.

Since we are a shipping only service, we could be anywhere. I wouldn't consider running a photo-lab on a septic system.

dw

[Ed K.]

Ahoy dw - certainly, if anyone would know the ups and downs of such things, it would be you.

To clarify, I haven't seriously thought of the septic system as being the right way. I thought that some folks might have some ideas to keep the hauling / storage / filtering part to a fairly efficient system. While 10K is really nothing in terms of chemical handling equipment, it is at least a start. I really do not wish to put anything harmful into the groundwater, especially since it can take years for its effects to show up.

Some have suggested the septic system as one route. Some have suggested evaportating the liquid, then hauling, and others have suggested chemical remediation of one sort or another. It sounds like there may be a combination that would work out.

Even cities, especially smaller ones, have issues as to how they eventually dispose of chemicals. They also have rules regarding just how much of certain chemicals a particular site may generate - the Kodak literature has references to this if one follows them.

Storage for certain types of effluent with hauling to a treatment center might be okay.

It's a tough call. And indeed, it might not be possible.