Edwin Pawlowski wrote:



"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message
. com...
--={Flyer}=-- wrote:
We've also discovered that it costs more to dispose of used flourescent
tubes
than to buy new ones.


Why? Just break them. They'll take up no space at all. G


I'm not up to date on the new regulations, but there are regulations for
disposal. The lamps contain heavy metal and should not just be trashed.
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste...i/merc-emi.htm
http://www.mercvt.org/dispose/lamps.htm

If you read the EPA rule you'll find, first, that if you generate less than
100 kg of regulated waste of the category in which fluorescent lamps fall
per month you're not subject to the regulations and can just send it to the
landfill, and second, that only lamps that fail the "TCLP" test are
regulated. Fluorescents that pass that test are marked with green
endcaps--the Phillips "Alto" brand was the first but I believe there are
others.

The Vermont regulations referenced in the second item are more stringent
than the Federal, and miss the point which is that by encouraging the use
of low-mercury fluorescent lights environmental mercury can be reduced by
reducing power consumption and thus mercury release at power plants--at
least that seems to have been the EPA's reasoning. By having unreasonable
disposal requirements Vermont discourages the use of energy-efficient
lighting.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)