Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:57:56 EST
Reply-To: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: ACTSNYC**At_Symbol_Here**CS.COM
Subject: Re: NY School


That was the interesting part of the study of the three schools.  The ballasts are intact and functioning just fine.  But the PCBs are slowly leaking out. That's been establilshed.  I guess when EPA continued to allow PCBs in "completely enclosed systems" after 1977, they did not realize that "enclosure" is not an eternal condition.  Monona

In a message dated 1/10/2011 3:45:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, dmdecker**At_Symbol_Here**UCDAVIS.EDU writes:

And I=E2=80=99m wondering why they were testing for PCBs.  Did a lighting ballast fail?  Why replace all the lighting if it=E2=80=99s all intact and working fine?  Are the elevated PCBs directly attributable to lighting?  There are other sources, principally in caulk.


They probably should retrofit the lighting to energy efficient fixtures and the like, as a matter of good stewardship of their utility dollars.  But I=E2=80=99m with Pat =E2=80=93 I think there=E2=80=99s a lot of information missing to go leaping to these types of conclusions.





Debbie Decker

EH&S UCDavis

(530)754-7964/(530)681-1799 (Cell)

FAX (530)752-4527


Co-Conspirator to Make the World A

Better Place -- Visit and join the conspiracy


Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.