Rob’s link to the EPA makes a pretty good case for replacing the ballasts.
Full discussion here: http ://www.epa.gov/wastes/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/ballasts.htm
======================== ========================= =====
Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand names
you know and trust. Visit us at http://www.SafetyEmporium.com
esales**At_Symbol_Here**safetyemporium.com or toll-free: (866) 326-5412
Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012
Ka thy Rusniak
As sociate Engineer & Safety Coordinator
Na noInk, Inc.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This email contains information from the sender that may be CONFIDENTIAL, LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY or otherwise protected from disclosure. This email is intended for use only by the person or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying, distribution, printing, or any action taken in reliance on the contents of this email, is strictly prohibited.
And I’m wondering why they were testing for PCBs. Did a lighting ballast fail? Why replace all the lighting if it’s 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’m with Pat – I think there’s a lot of information missing to go leaping to these types of conclusions.
Co-Conspirator to Make the World A
Better Place -- Visit www.HeroicStories.com and join the conspiracy
Birkett's hypothesis: "Any chemical reaction
that proceeds smoothly under normal conditions,
can proceed violently in the presence of an idiot."
Am I crazy thinking this is overkill, that you automatically need a complete lighting retrofit if the school was built after 1979?
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post