FROM: rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) SUBJECT: EPA new laws label silver a heavy metal pollutant... Re: Agfa APX DATE: 25 Sep 2000 21:03:52 -0500 ORGANIZATION: Southern Methodist University NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Bad news, see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/film.html#epa basically, the EPA rather than digital photography now looks to get the major credit for killing off film, esp. slide film and black and white at least in the major USA markets by requiring treatment of waste water to fully remove silver heavy metal contaminants, a very expensive process... -- * Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182 rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu * * Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/index.html * * Medium Format Cameras: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/index.html megasite* FROM: sog@amaterasu.scd.ucar.edu (Steve Gombosi) SUBJECT: Re: EPA new laws label silver a heavy metal pollutant... Re: Agfa APX DATE: 26 Sep 2000 16:44:29 -0600 ORGANIZATION: National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder NEWSGROUPS: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format >>>In article <8qp068$rgb$1@post.cis.smu.edu>, >>> rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote: >>>> basically, the EPA rather than digital photography now looks to get >>>the >>>> major credit for killing off film, esp. slide film and black and white >>>> at least in the major USA markets by requiring treatment of waste >>>water to I saw the Bob Shell note on your web page, and frankly I've got to wonder whether he's not a little confused. I went to the EPA web site, and searched both the EPA and the Federal register for references to "silver" and "wastewater", and this is what I've come up with: 1) EPA has regulated silver effluent since 1992 2) The current standards were set in 1995. They were reviewed in 1997 and 1999 and the agency declined to tighten the standards based on silver's relatively low toxicity. These standards were based on "total recoverable silver" in the effluent, i.e both solid particles and dissolved. 3) In the May 18, 2000 issue of the Federal Register, EPA proposed changing the measurement criteria for heavy metals as follows (quoted from the Federal Register): ---------------------------------------------------------------- It is now the Agency's policy that the use of dissolved metal to set and measure compliance with aquatic life water quality standards is the recommended approach, because dissolved metal more closely approximates the bioavailable fraction of the metal in the water column than does total recoverable metal. Since EPA's previous aquatic life criteria guidance had been expressed as total recoverable metal, to express the criteria as dissolved, conversion factors were developed to account for the possible presence of particulate metal in the laboratory toxicity tests used to develop the total recoverable criteria. EPA included a set of water conversion factors with its Metals Policy (see Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria, Martha G. Prothro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, October 1, 1993). Based on additional laboratory evaluations that simulated the original toxicity tests, EPA refined the procedures used to develop freshwater conversion factors for aquatic life criteria. These new conversion factors were made available for public review and comment in the amendments to the NTR on May 4, 1995, at 60 FR 22229. They are also contained in today's rule at 40 CFR 131.38(b)(2). -------------------------------------------------------------- In other words, EPA has attempted to arrive at a measurement standard using only dissolved silver which corresponds to the standards for total recoverable silver that have been in effect for the last 5 years. Personally, I doubt if this represents any increased cost to major labs since I suspect they're already doing silver recovery. AFAIK, it pays for itself. It's possible that I failed to mutter the appropriate incantation to the search engine, so I may have missed something. It would have been nice if Shell had actually supplied a reference for the proposed regulation. Steve