Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:06:17 -0500
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: "Redden, Patricia" <PREDDEN**At_Symbol_Here**SPC.EDU>
Subject: Re: NY School

Thanks - I did indeed mean "before" 1979.  This just seems to be the 
same mentality that says if you have very intact paint on your walls but 
some of the underlayers are lead-based, you must remove the lead-based 


-----Original Message-----
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List on behalf of ACTSNYC**At_Symbol_Here**CS.COM
Sent: Mon 1/10/2011 3:37 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] NY School

I think you meant to say built "before" 1979.  I was at one of those 
meetings.  And actually, this is their strategy to save money.  And I 
it is probably wrong headed.

Yes, the light balasts before this date usually did contain PCBs and 
are getting airborne.  But to just deal with this and not the fact that 
30% of latex paints before this contained them, most of the old caulks 
many plastics and more, my concern is they are going to remove the 
declare the problem over, and leave some schools still with high PCB 
from other sources.


In a message dated 1/10/2011 1:02:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
PREDDEN**At_Symbol_Here**SPC.EDU writes: 
> Am I crazy thinking this is overkill, that you automatically need a 
> complete lighting retrofit if the school was built after 1979?
> Pat

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.