"The Bulb Eater" takes a bite out of waste at BGH

[scott21498]

Due to a lack of data, Federal EPA did not include lamp crushing within their UW regulations 10 years ago. They left it to states to make their own determination. Roughly 8 or 9 states have included/allowed crushing within their UW regulations. Another 30 or so states also allow it, but manage it within hazardous waste regulations. States such as FL, VA, and NC have done testing and support its use. A few EPA offices even use the BE. 2 Regions have highlighted the BE as a Best Practice

[scott21498]

The difference is that a lamp thrown in a dumpster is completely unfiltered and not contained whereas as the lamps that are crushed in the system are filtered and the crushed lamps are contained in a drum.

[scott21498]

Where is empirical data that shows that the general population is exposed to dangerous levels of mercury vapor stemming from the machine use? If it is just a hypothetical exercise, then we should also consider the exposure from accidentally broken lamps where the vapors aren't filtered. The reality is that some vapor will be released during the process of getting lamps recycled regardless of method. This system minimizes that quantity.

[scott21498]

We are in agreement that the lamps should be recycled. Often there are savings having the lamps pre-crushed. Whether that be in recycling savings and/or transportation savings. Plus, depending on the facility there may be storage issues.

[scott21498]

Extensive research? That's a stretch don't you think? MN took less than 10 minutes of instant readings during a demonstration. CA has not performed any studies. The CA report you cited earlier simply reviewed the data that was available 6 or 7 yrs ago and commented.

[scott21498]

Oh, and regarding them being outlawed in many states thats more than a bit overstated. Bulb Eaters can be used legally in roughly 40 states and in the remaining states I dont believe they are outlawed but that a permit would be required to use them.

[scott21498]

The MN report was based on an earlier model, but still showed instant readings at or lower than the MN OSHA standard and well less than the federal OSHA standard. Keep in mind that both the MN and Federal OSHA standards are 8 hr time weighted averages (TWA) and the readings in MN were instant readings. To have readings even near the MN TWA standard would have required the operator to continuously feed lamps for 8 hours straight (which would fill roughly 10 drums, the daily max is 1 drum).

[scott21498]

In fact, the EPA study reflected that ALL of the BE readings were well below the OSHA standard, when time-weighted to compare to the OSHA time-weighted standard, and all but 3 readings were even under the ACGIH recommended level despite the fact that the equipment was tested under worst case scenario settings, i.e. twice the maximum allowed # of lamps (2 full drums) were crushed in non-ventilated containment rooms.

[scott21498]

The premise that the trace levels of mercury vapor will somehow be sucked into the ventilation system and dispersed throughout the building at dangerous levels is purely hypothetical and not realistic. Furthermore, none of the reports cited levels exceeding regulatory standards even at the machine let alone throughout the building.

[scott21498]

Actually, this system is quite safe, especially when compared to alternative packaging methods. Were talking about long tubes of glass that contain mercury. Whether the lamps are intentionally crushed or they break accidentally, mercury vapor will escape. That said, under more normal conditions this particular system has exhibited non detectable exposure whereas when just a single lamp breaks there is a detectable amount. This isnt the perfect solution, but it is quite good.