Is your facility a manufacturer or importer of chemicals in amounts of 25,000 pounds or greater?  If so, your company may need to participate in the next round of the EPA’s Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Update Rule (IUR) program and submit a Form U to the EPA.

Here’s how the EPA explains this rule:  “The IUR  requires manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory to report site and manufacturing information for chemicals manufactured (including imported) in amounts of 25,000 pounds or greater at a single site.  Additional information on domestic processing and use must be reported for chemicals manufactured in amounts of 300,000 pounds or more at a single site. EPA uses the IUR data to support many health, safety, and environmental protection activities.”  For more information go to http://www.epa.gov/oppt/iur/

When Is the Next Reporting? THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!

The next submission period is currently planned for June 1 – September 30, 2011 when manufacturers and importers will report information on their 2010 production (and the EPA has proposed adding data for years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009).

How is IUR Changing for 2011 Reporting?

1. Inorganic chemicals are no longer partially exempt from the IUR rule. This was a one-time exemption for 2006 reporting only.
2. On August 13, 2010 the EPA published its proposed IUR Modifications Rule, beginning a 60-day comment period. The proposal would require electronic reporting and expanded manufacturing, processing, and use information.  The EPA anticipates promulgating a final rule by the spring of 2011. As aspects of the proposed rule have yet to  be finalized, Emilcott will  provide a definitive, easy-to-read list here on EHSWire.

So…stay tuned to EHSwire.com or www.emilcott.com to stay informed about any IUR reporting developments and reporting obligations in 2011 for the calendar year 2010.   If you have any questions about the upcoming IUR reporting or TSCA compliance question, please comment below, contact us directly or read more at http://www.emilcott.com/services/svcenvcompliance.asp.  Emilcott provides comprehensive support for TSCA compliance, including assisting with inventory and chemical substance use information subject to the IUR program.

Some interesting Form U questions and facts –

Did you know that 1,541 companies submitted a Form U in 2006?

Some submitted multiple Forms because as each manufacturing site that originates a chemical substance is required to report. The 2006 IUR public data are available on the IUR web site (www.epa.gov/iur).

What chemical do you think was the highest volume reported in 2006?

If you guessed sulfite liquors and cooking liquors – you were right!  These chemicals are used in the pulp and paper industry.  I had no idea that they would make the top of the list!

Can the Form U be filed electronically?

Yes.  Electronic filings with the EPA can make the process of submitting a Form U almost painless (well, at least you don’t need to use a typewriter!).  However, with electronic submissions, one needs to carefully follow the instructions to ensure that the submission made its way to the EPA electronically, AND maintain a record of all reference numbers associated with the submission.

What happens if you begin discover that you somehow missed the 2006 submission?  Should you just ignore this omission and submit the 2011 Form U? Will this be acceptable?

No!  You must notify the EPA that you missed reporting for the 2006 IUR within 21 days of your discovery.  The EPA has an Audit Policy for Self-Disclosure in which drastic fine reduction is possible if the requirements outlined by the Agency are met.  This policy is presented on the EPA Compliance Incentive and Auditing web site (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/auditing/auditdisclose.html).

Need help regarding TSCA or Form U?  Emilcott can guide you through the maze of self-reporting a potential Form U violation to the EPA (See http://www.emilcott.com/services/svcenvcompliance.asp).  We often find that our clients receive large fine reductions, and if all the requirements of the Audit Policy are met, total reduction of the fine (= no fine).

Dian Cucchisi, PhD, CHMM

Environmental Health and Safety Professionals are often faced with questions that do not seem to have black and white answers, but, in reality, regulatory requirements are not that gray.  A common question: When do the requirements for 29 CFR 1910.120 and 29 CFR 1926.65 (OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response regulations) apply?  The challenge for EHS professionals is to communicate to workers the distinction between what are considered environmental health risks and the risks to human health, and to clarify the difference of the word “hazardous” as used by various environmental protection agencies and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the state environmental protection agencies have standards for soil and groundwater “cleanliness” for residential and non-residential properties.  Soil or groundwater in exceedence of those standards needs to be remediated (usually by removal), but to add to the confusion, sometimes when soil and/or groundwater is removed from the site and transported to a disposal facility it may not fall into the EPA’s definition for hazardous waste.  So here lies the misunderstanding; if it is not classified as “hazardous waste” by the EPA, people often make the determination that it is not considered hazardous to workers and, therefore, it is not necessary to take measures to protect the workers’ health and safety.

When it comes to worker safety and the risks to human health, we must look at the requirements provided by OSHA.   OSHA is focused on exposure potential and the resulting hazard assessment evaluation to workers from the chemicals that may be encountered when working in areas with potentially contaminated soil and/or groundwater.  If the chemicals present are regulated by OSHA with a Permissible Exposure Limit (exposure based on an 8-hour average), the employer is required to conduct exposure assessments and air monitoring to determine potential risks to the workers onsite.  It also requires that workers are protected from these potential exposures through either engineering controls or personal protective equipments (such as tyvek, gloves and respirators).

 There is also a need to protect the workers and meet all the other applicable OSHA standards that mitigate health and safety risks to workers on this site.   Such required protection would include: 

• developing a site-specific health and safety plan,
• training workers in chemical hazards and controls,
• conducting environmental monitoring to determine exposure,
• instituting controls (PPE and Engineering) to protect from exposure potential,
• clean up (decontamination).and a number of other procedures.  

It is surprising and frustrating that this issue is still debated, but if it is, doesn’t it make sense to use the guidelines in these standards to clarify? We are talking about human health and the regulations are clear about the requirements for worker training and personal protection when dealing with chemical contamination.  You can use the environmental classifications to determine how to treat the situation, but you must look to OSHA to protect the workers as they are doing it.

Have you ever had workplace confusion regarding environmental risk and hazardous to human health? If so, I’d like to hear about your situation and how you resolved it.

The remediation of contaminated soil at hazardous waste sites is one way that we, as a society, employ to improve our environment.  However, there is a risk of releasing these hazardous substances into the air during the actual soil-remediating operations that could present health risks to the surrounding community.  One method of controlling these risks is through community air monitoring programs or CAMP.

Once only included on projects with very high levels of risk and public scrutiny, community air monitoring has become more commonplace.  Several key factors are driving the utilization of these programs:

• Public interest is intensifying, especially for projects in proximity to residences and workplaces.
• Technical knowledge and awareness of environmental hazards are expanding.
• Regulatory interest in this topic is steadily increasing.

For the owners or responsible parties of hazardous waste sites, there is a clear expectation from the public and regulators that community health issues will be addressed as part of remediation projects. Like many technology-based products, environmental measurement technology and responsiveness is improving rapidly. It only makes sense that air monitoring programs should evolve using Best Developed Available Technology (BDAT)  and be more sophisticated and more effective (yet easier to use) to meet this growing demand.  From Wikipedia:

“Best available technology (or just BAT) is a term applied with regulations on limiting pollutant discharges with regard to the abatement strategy. … The term constitutes a moving target on practices, since developing societal values and advancing techniques may change what is currently regarded as “reasonably achievable”, “best practicable” and “best available”.

Using BAT to Improve AQ

With this changing backdrop, leaps in technology and communication, and Emilcott’s two-plus decades of health and safety field work at hazardous waste sites, it was clear that air monitoring systems used for CAMP were not keeping up with technologies or project demands.  As a result, Emilcott responded by developing the Greenlight™ Environmental Monitoring System - a technology-based and responsive approach for community air monitoring. This system and other new-generation air monitoring packages take advantage of automation and wireless technologies along with BAT detectors to allow site owners and their project contractors to deal successfully with air quality issues at their jobsite.

 Air Monitoring Program Objectives

Based on Emilcott’s EHS experience, there are three broad objectives for an air monitoring program:

• Manage risk effectively, considering legal, regulatory and public relations aspects.
• Protect the community and the workforce from any potential exposure to substances of concern.
• Keep the air quality issues related to a remediation project on-time and on-budget.

 Good Project Planning Leads to Good Project Results

How do you know when the air monitoring component of hazardous waste remediation project has been planned with care? It uses these basic CAMP Project Planning guidelines — a consideration for regulations, community concerns, contractor budgets and timelines, and desired results — as the basis to select the optimal air monitoring system:

1. Engage community stakeholders early; make them aware of the measurement processes to be undertaken, and establish a regular protocol for sharing sampling and measurement (real time and aggregate) data gathered throughout the project.   
2. Engage the regulators upfront to best ensure a complete and mutually-satisfactory air monitoring plan for the project.
3. Analyze and understand the total cost of air monitoring throughout the life of the project: equipment, startup/deployment, staffing, reporting, reliability/backup, and data integration and analysis. 
4. Specify a system that truly fits the project’s needs:  Flexible? Scalable? Portable? Customizable? Plug and Play? Responsive?

Best Available Technologies for Air Monitoring

There are thousands of clean-up operations taking place throughout the US – most still employing outdated systems that are not as effective in reducing risks as today’s technology allows, and, in many cases, are more costly due to the high need of human labor. How do you know if your air monitoring system is BAT? Does it

• Include user-configured alarms in real-time so that anomalies can be detected early?
• Include a robust database architecture to house all acquired data?
• Include easy data-export capabilities so that report-writing and site analysis are easily accomplished saving time and resolving questions?
• Transmit field measurement data in real-time to decision-makers so that engineering controls can be implemented as needed?
• Identify and distinguish off-site and/or background emission sources to determine if the measured pollutants are related to the site work?
• Include a variety detection equipment options that suit project needs?
• Eliminate or reduce the need for hand-held devices and
• Include multiple power options?

Given the availability today, right now, of newer technologies and systems that can easily help reduce the risks from air-borne hazards, shouldn’t these be used on remediation sites to protect workers and the public?  Do you work on one of these sites, or maybe live near one? If these systems and BAT products can provide higher levels of protection, shouldn’t they be specified into the project?

Have you ever wondered if the air your kids are breathing at their school is safe?  Well, so has the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).

The US EPA has completed sampling outside air at 63 elementary, middle, and high schools in 22 states.  Even better yet, they have completed the analytical work associated with these samples and have uploaded more than 22,500 results to the EPA website.

The EPA is now analyzing the sampling results to see if there may be long-term health consequences for young people attending these schools.  Reports of the analysis have been released for two schools:  Pittsboro Elementary School in Pittsboro, Ind. and Minnesota International Middle Charter School in Minneapolis.  At both schools, levels of the high-profile pollutants monitored were below levels of both short-term and long-term concern.  EPA previously released analyses for two schools in Tennessee.  These results will also be used for air contaminant modeling programs.

The samples were analyzed for 6 distinct pollutant groups:

1. Carbonyls such as acetaldehyde,
2. Diisocyanates such as methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, 2,4-toluene diisocyanate, and 1,6-hexamethylene diisocyanate,
3. Metals such as arsenic, cobalt, lead, manganese, and nickel,
4. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)s such as benzo(a)pyrene, and naphthalene,
5. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as acrolein, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene, and
6. Other specific pollutants such as 4,4’-methylenedianiline, and hexavalent chromium (Chromium VI).

While some of these materials may be found in nature, they are concentrated in processed materials and uses related to dyes, plastics, tobacco, transportation, pesticides, and steel / energy production activities.  Many of the emissions related to these products can become concentrated in some areas.  Where schools existed in such areas, outside air was tested.

Particulates were collected by using the EPA’s PM10 method (for dust less than 10 um [microns] in diameter that can enter and be impacted in the lungs), and by the TSP method for particulate matter greater than 10 um in diameter and can be a human health hazard due to dermal contact and subsequent ingestion, or by drinking water contaminated with these materials.

Since these are OUTDOOR air samples – the results tell us a lot about the air quality not just at the schools, but in the communities around these schools.  Check out these data for schools in your community at http://www.epa.gov/schoolair/schools.html.

I’ve looked at the results for schools in New Jersey, and even though they are schools close to or in urban areas, the levels measured were well below the Short Term Screening Limits established by the EPA.  While the results are reassuring, they do reinforce that we do live in a chemical world!  I wonder what the air quality is like INSIDE my house. What do you think?

The Bhopal Disaster has been in the news again with the eight former company executives getting convicted of negligence.    A court in the Indian city of Bhopal returned the verdict on June 7, 2010, more than 25 years after the incident. 

What was the Bhopal Disaster?

For those of us old enough to remember, the words “Bhopal, India” brings to mind the very tragic events of December 2, 1984.  On that day a Union Carbide facility had an accidental release of approximately 40 tons of methyl isocyanate, a chemical used in pesticides.  The chemical plume killed 3,000 people and left an estimated 500,000 people with long-term, damaging health effects.  Amnesty International reports that approximately 15,000 people died in the subsequent years as a result of this incident.  As a result the Union Carbide Bhopal accident is often considered the world’s worst industrial disaster.

And then a smaller, but similar event occurred in the USA…

In August 1985 a Union Carbide facility located in Institute, West Virginia experienced an accidental release of toxic chemicals causing more than 100 residents of the area to seek medical treatment.

US Regulators Respond to Community Concerns

In response to these incidents and the growing concern by the American public that this could happen in their backyard, regulatory agencies enacted laws for facilities that manufacture, store, or use certain chemicals above designated threshold quantities.

In 1986 the United States Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). The law requires facilities to annually report the quantities of “extremely hazardous substances” to the facility’s state and the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC).  This information is available to any member of the public upon request to the LEPC.

In late 1985, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) created the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200) also known as “Right to Know.”  The HCS requires manufacturers and distributors of hazardous materials to communicate to employees the hazards of the chemicals in their workplace by providing Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and ensure that hazardous materials are labeled according to certain requirements.

The Clean Air Act was amended by Congress in 1990, including some regulatory changes intending to create safer workplaces and mitigate the risk of a Bhopal-like disaster in the US, such as:

• Charging the EPA and OSHA with more authority over the chemical industry.
  • OSHA created the Process Safety Management Standard (29 CFR 1910.119), a program that looks in depth at process technologies, procedures and management practices.
  • The EPA codified Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions (40 CFR Part 68) which requires facilities to conduct a hazard assessment, develop a prevention program, and implement a risk management plan.
  • Other laws that regulate the use of hazardous materials were enhanced.  These include the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA); the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
• Creating the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). 

The Senate legislative history states: “The principal role of the new chemical safety board is to investigate accidents to determine the conditions and circumstances which led up to the event and to identify the cause or causes so that similar events might be prevented.” Congress gave the CSB a unique statutory mission and provided in law that no other agency or executive branch official may direct the activities of the Board. Congress directed that the CSB’s investigative function be completely independent of the rulemaking, inspection, and enforcement authorities of EPA and OSHA. The CSB became operational in January 1998.  

Accidents in the U.S. STILL OCCUR

In spite of this, accidents continue to happen.  In 2002, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) examined 167 chemical accidents that occurred between 1980 and 2001.  More than half of those accidents involved chemicals not covered by the regulations mentioned above.  The CSB recommended that the EPA and OSHA expand their regulations.  The Agencies did not agree with the recommendation stating they feel the best approach is worker education.  In 2004, OSHA formed an alliance with the EPA, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), and others to develop and provide worker education on chemical reactivity hazards. 

How do you feel about the expansion of regulations to include chemicals currently not covered by regulations designed to prevent accidents and reduce health risk?

Both OSHA and the EPA seemed to have recently awoken from their regulatory slumber. OSHA has announced its first major rulemaking during the Obama administration with a proposed change to the agency’s Hazard Communication (HazCom) Standard.  The existing OSHA HazCom Standard provides workers with the right to know the hazards and identities of the chemicals they are exposed to while working, as well as the measures they can take to protect themselves.  This standard was originally adopted in November 1983 and has been enhanced a few times with the latest revision in February 1994.

The proposed changes set the stage for the United States to catch up with the global community in the use of globally consistent methods for chemical hazard classification, hazard labeling, and the format of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS).  The proposed changes will align the HazCom Standard with the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling (GHS).  The GHS was adopted by the UN in 2003 with a goal of implementation in 2008.   Most multinational companies have been following both the global system and the current OSHA Hazard Communication Program in recent years.  The US Department of Transportation has already modified the DOT requirements to make them consistent with international UN transportation requirements and the GHS.  Now it is time for OSHA.

The proposed changes will significantly improve the quality and consistency of information provided to workers, employers and chemical user by having a standardized approach to identifying the hazard, labeling the hazard on containers and equipment, and documentation of the hazard on a MSDS.  The most pronounced change that chemical purchasers and workers will see is a consistent hazard warning statements and warnings (including pictograms) along with MSDSs will always have the same information located in the same place.  These changes are critical not only for everyday users of the chemicals but also emergency responders and medical personnel.

However, the changes won’t be required next week and probably not even next year.  The process for moving through a major revision to an established regulation can be long and loud (with input from all vantages points on the changes).  OSHA took the first step of this process in September 2006 with an “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (ANPR).  The recent step, in September 2009, is detailing the changes to HazCom with the publishing of a “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (NPRM). Next is the comment period (90 days – December 29, 2009) and then public hearings scheduled for early 2010.  OSHA will then draft a Proposed Standard which will have to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget and will consult with the Small Business Administration.  The Proposal Standard will then get published in the Federal Register, and will most likely have a comment period.  FINALLY, OSHA will incorporate changes from comments into the Final Standard, which will be published in the Federal Register with the provisions taking effect over the following months or years.

It’s a long process.  Regulators don’t have the window of time to slumber.

For the last several months, the United States Environmental Protection Association has been involved in evaluating outdoor air for potential air toxics at 63 elementary, middle and high schools in 22 states across the country. Citing that the EPA is responsible for protecting “the American public where they live, work and play – and that certainly includes protecting schoolchildren where they learn”, Administrator Lisa P. Jackson kicked-off the program which began at the end of March 2009.

The program was developed after the EPA began reviewing air modeling results of potential pollution sources near schools, a newspaper series regarding air toxics at schools, and information from state and local air pollution control agencies.

The goal of the program is to collect vapor and particulate air samples around selected schools, analyze the samples for potential air pollutants, report the chemicals and levels found, evaluate intervention possibilities, and take action to reduce the types and amounts of pollutants being released around schools.

The Clean Air Act lists 187 individual chemicals as agents that can affect the public’s health if present at sufficiently high amounts. And, although the amount of air toxics has decreased by 40% between 1990 and 2005, some schools are located in areas which may include a number of potentially toxic industries, are nearby highways, or are subject to weather-related conditions which may concentrate toxic materials.

By the end of this summer, the evaluation of the air samples at 11 schools had been completed and posted to the website http://www.epa.gov/schoolair/schools.html.

Everybody’s jumping on the Green bandwagon and there is a lot of information out there about just how to do that – maybe too much information for the average busier than busy American. It reminds me of the Nilssen song from Midnight Cowboy, “Everybody’s talkin’at me. Can’t hear a word their saying … ” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AzEY6ZqkuE

Short of living like the Amish, going Green can simply mean personally figuring out which of our energy grubbing, earth-polluting habits need to go and which need to stay in our lives. I think the best approach is to pick your cause or theme and stick to it. Mine … I try to keep as much as possible out of the local landfill, in particular, non-food related household items.
I have found lots of help in the form of charities, businesses and groups who do nothing but promote recycling, reusing and repurposing our household throw-aways.

For this posting, let’s look at bigger household items:

Petals for Progress – this is one of my all time favorites! P4P collects used bicycles and sewing machines, refurbishes them and ships them around the world for needy people and businesses. The P4P website tells us, “Every year, affluent Americans buy 22 million new bicycles and discard millions of old ones, abandoning many more unused in basements, sheds, and garages. Most of these end up in our already overburdened landfills. Meanwhile, poor people overseas need cheap, non-polluting transportation to get to jobs, markets, customers, and school.” You can easily find a local collection event on their website http://www.p4p.org

The Freecycle Network™ is a really great idea. This network, made up of 4,743 groups with 6,718,589 members across the globe, helps you give your stuff away! It’s entirely nonprofit and comprised of people who are giving (and getting) stuff for free in their own towns and thus keeping good stuff out of landfills. http://www.freecycle.org

Don’t forget the Salvation Army! You can bring all types of gently used items to their Thrift Stores. Some branches may even pick up. Just a zip code entry on their website will give you a list of stores with the approximate miles from your home. The nearest to my house was only 8 miles. http://www.salvationarmyusa.org

There are businesses that will haul your stuff away for a fee such as 1-800-GOTJUNK, which is franchised nationwide. From their website, “Every day our teams donate and recycle as much junk as possible. At a corporate level, we’ve also taken steps to decrease our carbon footprint by participating in Million Acts of Green, a Canadian grassroots initiative to help reduce our impact on the environment.” http://www.1800gotjunk.com

Or you can try a local business. A quick search on the web brought me to Recycling Angels who states, “We are committed to keeping our planet clean by recycling as much of your unwanted clutter as possible. “ http://www.RecyclingAngels.com

Look for professional recyclers through Recycler’s World & the Recycler’s Exchange which is a membership of professional recycling companies for all types of industries. Homeowners can use their website to search for local firms. http://www.recycle.net

Other Choices: Our town has a Department of Community Services that oversees the Community Service Hours some of our friends, family and neighbors may have to serve for less than stellar behavior such as DWI. They have a huge collection area and will take almost any usable household item. Check to see if your town or county has a similar program – or think about your local university fraternities! These guys are always in need of furniture, fridges, dishes, etc., and they will be glad to pick them up. Both http://www.fraternityinfo.com and http://www.nicindy.org will give you a complete listing from Acacia to Zeta Psi.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an entire section on their website dedicated to making us responsible recyclers. Check out http://www.epa.gov/epawaste on the hazards in many household products, how to dispose and recycle them with some helpful links from for federal environmental professionals. They also have shopping tips to help make smart decisions at the store with resource conservation in mind.

Stay tuned – my next posting will focus on E-waste (Electronic waste) and miscellaneous household items.

I recently read an article titled “Implementing Safety during Design: a Case Study” in the March 2009 edition of AIHA publication, The Synergist. The authors discuss how incorporating safety systems or measures in the design phase of a construction project can result in large cost savings for the overall project budget. Studies have shown that implementing safety during the planning phases of a project, compared with after construction costs, have a 1:10,000 ratio. This equates to $1 pre-construction costs versus $10,000 post-construction abatement. The authors focus on safety concerns following the guidelines established by The Institute for Safety through Design (established in 1995 by the National Safety Council’s Business and Industry Division).

As an industrial hygienist, I have often been frustrated when working on remedies for minimizing exposure to chemicals, immediate safety concerns, chemical storage and waste handling concerns after the occupancy of new laboratory facilities. Construction design planners rely heavily on architects that create beautiful layouts, but often fail to incorporate the fire safety, hazardous material handling and life safety issues that are detailed in NFPA 45: Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals and NFPA 101: Life Safety Code®. The design planners and architects frequently look to the local fire department or permit authorities to approve the plans. These groups may be well versed in commercial building codes, but often are not experts in the potential hazards present in a laboratory operation. The costs of retrofitting a new facility to meet NFPA guidelines and OSHA standards can be staggering. The “take away” is to get an EHS professional involved in the upstream design process. Often cost of another “expert” is discouraged by the planners. Then again, studies (and our experiences) have shown that not getting the right experts at the planning table can be “penny wise but pound foolish”.

It has been determined that if every home in America replaced just one regular light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb, we would save enough energy in just one year to light 3 million homes; and enough to offset the greenhouse gas emissions generated by 800,000 cars. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state environmental agencies are encouraging homeowners to replace their regular light bulbs with CFL’s to save this energy.

There are also some rules and regulations with these bulbs that you might not know. For instance, CFL’s contain a small amount of mercury (about 5 milligrams) and should not be discarded in the regular trash unless permitted in your state. Used bulbs must be taken to a local recycling facility.

If a CFL bulb breaks in your home, there are guidelines for proper clean up and disposal. One homeowner told the story of calling the phone number on the package to get instructions for proper cleanup of a bulb that had broken. He was told to call a cleanup contractor and have them come to his home to take care of the broken bulb. He made the call and was quoted a price of $15,000 to do the cleanup.

The EPA has published guidelines for the proper cleanup and disposal of CFL’s. They include the following:
• Make sure that people and pets leave the room, open a window, shut off forced-air heating and air conditioning, and ventilate room for at least 15 minutes.
• Clean up broken lamps, placing shards and spilled powder in a puncture-resistant, sealed, plastic bag, or bucket.
• Wear gloves and use a damp cloth to sweep up the powder.
• Place all clean-up materials in a separate sealed container.

Here’s another helpful tip; never vacuum lamps it will simply spread the mercury vapor. You may recycle broken lamps at the same facility as your intact lamps. Do not throw them in the regular trash.