MEC&F Expert Engineers : 10/14/15

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

CORRUGATED ASBESTOS PAPER INSULATION AND OLD COAL BOILER

CORRUGATED ASBESTOS PAPER INSULATION AND OLD COAL BOILER
























Metropolitan Engineering, Consulting & Forensics (MECF)

 

Providing Competent, Expert and Objective Investigative Engineering and Consulting Services
P.O. Box 520
Tenafly, NJ 07670-0520
Tel.: (973) 897-8162
Fax: (973) 810-0440
E-mail: metroforensics@gmail.com
Web pages: https://sites.google.com/site/metropolitanforensics/
https://sites.google.com/site/metropolitanenvironmental/

http://metroforensics.blogspot.com/

 We are happy to announce the launch of our twitter account. Please make sure to follow us at @MetropForensics or @metroforensics1

Metropolitan appreciates your business.
Feel free to recommend our services to your friends and colleagues.




Evaluate the appropriateness and cost of remediation decisions, estimate future liabilities, and apportion costs among potentially responsible parties




Many of Metropolitan’s clients ask our remediation experts to evaluate the appropriateness and cost of remediation decisions, estimate future liabilities, and apportion costs among potentially responsible parties.  
 Our experts rely on forensic methods developed in-house and/or widely used in practice, hands-on practical experience and knowledge of rigorous financial and engineering models to conduct such cost evaluations and cost apportionment.   
Metropolitan scientists have been supporting clients in developing technically sound apportionment strategies and obtaining appropriate evidence for more than 30 years. This work has resulted in successful, quantitative apportionment of chemical inputs to CERCLA, RCRA and state sites as determined by the courts.

The common questions posed to us by the clients include:
·         What is the source of the contamination?
·         What are the characteristics of each source?
·         Who is responsible for each source?
·         What is my cost?

Metropolitan staff has been involved in numerous cases where liability and cost allocation are evaluated using strict review of the National Contingency Plan (NCP).  These cases arise from environmental cleanup and restoration project disputes under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and also include natural resource damage (NRD) claims for restoration n costs. 

Projects have included commingled groundwater contaminant plumes, large river and urban bay projects with multiple contributing parties, waste landfills, mines, and other contaminated sites. This work has involved investigation of potentially responsible parties, historical site reconstruction, financial analyses, database development, and environmental forensics.
In one recent case involving overlapping various petroleum product plumes (crude oil, naphtha, gasoline), we apportioned the remediation costs by identifying the constituents in the subsurface and the free product, identifying most likely sources, and apportioning responsibility based on the relative amounts of the contaminants at the site.   
To that effect, we divided the site in contamination zones, reviewed existing TPH data, performed additional TPH analyses in each zone, and averaged crude oil, gasoline and naphtha percentages for each zone.  The cost apportionment was accepted by all the parties involved and settled the dispute.



Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives, REVIEW OF PAST EXPENSES AND ESTImation of Future Liabilities AND COSTS

People in control of the remediation process are often focused on a particular presumed remedy or on an overly conservative remedy.  Often in such cases, the cleanup costs could have been significantly less, yet sufficiently protective, if scientifically sound, risk-based methods had been used. 

 Metropolitan toxicologists and ecologists perform site-specific analyses to support the establishment of realistic cleanup goals, and to provide more appropriate comparisons of short-term and long-term human health and ecological risks for different remedial scenarios.  
Metropolitan has found that our thorough and objective evaluation of project risks and potential fatal flaws in site characterization and remedy selection provides a sound technical basis for advising our clients about cost-effective remedial solutions.  We have worked with our clients and the regulatory community to develop least-cost, effective alternatives that have been used to drive business decisions pertaining to Sarbanes-Oxley and bankruptcy requirements, while consistently receiving the approval of regulators.  

  
We have assisted our clients with oversight of the development and evaluation of alternative remedial solutions, costs, and implementation scenarios that meet the capital demands of cash-limited businesses.  Metropolitan has no vested interest in the selected remedy, and thus, our scientists and engineers are technically unbiased and include thorough evaluation of site-specific constraints and potential impacts to onsite operations and nearby human and ecological receptors.  In predicting future liabilities, we use a variety of techniques, from probability-weighted decision-tree analyses to Monte Carlo stochastic models. 
In a recent case, Metropolitan was retained by an industrial client to review the environmental costs claimed by the purchaser of its former facilities as damages under an environmental indemnification agreement established at the time of the sale.   

As part of its analysis in this case Metropolitan reviewed technical documents, as well as, available financial information and costs.  Metropolitan was able to identify claimed expenses which were not reimbursable under the agreement, these costs included; routine business expenses, compliance costs and costs which pre-dated the agreement.  Metropolitan constructed a detailed spreadsheet which applied various liability allocations, recoveries from third-parties (including insurance recoveries) and calculated pre-judgment interest.

Metropolitan worked on this project for several years, first in the settlement context and ultimately testifying at a binding arbitration.  Metropolitan’s work on this project ultimately resulted in significant savings to the client.

SAMPLE PROJECTS
MTBE Cost Allocation Cases
Metropolitan was retained in a number of non-litigation and legal cases to allocate responsibility for petroleum releases at service stations leading to alleged contamination of residential wells.  Metropolitan provided alternative remedial cost estimates, performed stable isotope and other forensic analyses to determine the petroleum sources.

CERCLA Cost Recovery Case
Metropolitan was retained to provide expert opinions in a CERCLA cost recovery case involving soil and ground -water contamination at a former coal tar refining facility. Metropolitan provided opinions regarding the sources, extent and probable remedial costs for various contaminants, including both coal tar constituents and chlorinated solvents, and apportionment of responsibility for remedial costs between the current and former owners/operators of the site. 

Metropolitan was able to demonstrate that our Client’s contribution to the documented soil contamination was substantially less than claimed by the plaintiff. In addition an evaluation of probable future cleanup costs indicated our Client’s share of the total projected cost was substantially less than claimed.  The Court found favorably for our client.

Objective Review of Environmental Claims
Metropolitan was retained by an insurer client and an insured industrial client, to assist them settling a claim for environmental liabilities.  Our two clients requested that we provide a fair and balanced estimate of past and future environmental costs at several industrial plants. Metropolitan performed site visits, reviewed records at company headquarters and at state regulatory offices, and developed site-specific environmental estimates to complete site clean-up to risk based standards.

Within four months of being retained, Metropolitan was successful in assisting the two clients in reaching an amicable settlement regarding the amount of environmental costs.  By using Metropolitan as an objective technical resource, both parties saved significant in litigation costs and duplicative consulting costs, and a settlement was reached much sooner because both parties were starting from the same environmental cost estimate.

Cost Allocation for PAH Contamination
Metropolitan was retained by an insurer to review and critique the allocation method proposed by consultants for the site owner.  Metropolitan also provided our own allocation method, based on synthesizing site-specific historical information regarding equipment, housekeeping, tar production, and changes in feedstock, as well as analyzing present-day contamination patterns.  The claim was amicably settled by both parties using the allocation method proposed by Metropolitan.
Remedial Options for Sediment Contaminated with PCBs
Metropolitan was retained by an industrial client to review and evaluate potential feasibility study remedial options for sediment PCB cleanup, their cost, and risk of implementation.  The work included detailed evaluation of costs beyond the standard feasibility study analysis of –30 to +50 percent.


Metropolitan’s Pledge
Our goal is to help you resolve the claim at the lowest possible transaction cost.  Since transaction costs are, on average, fifty to seventy five percent of the claim, Metropolitan believes that the emphasis should be placed in reducing the transaction costs by collecting high quality data early on to ensure unnecessary challenges by the insured and/or other insurance carrier, should the claim is subrogated. 
We know that you want the facts; that you want them fast; that you want uncompromised quality of the deliverable; and at a rock bottom price.  Metropolitan’s forensic professionals are second to none and are dedicated to fast, efficient and effective response and creating a product of uncompromising quality and value. 
Metropolitan is ready to assist you with a number of forensic engineering or age-dating determinations or evaluations to insure that the proper coverage trigger or period has been determined.  We also have the scientific expertise to determine whether the releases were historic in nature, whether they were sudden or accidental, as well as to be able to differentiate plume contributions from various sources.
We are ready to assist you with E&O claims and/or construction defect claims.  Metropolitan will also use proven forensic techniques in the determination of the cause, origin, and extent of foundation/soil movement, grating/drainage, structural failures, water intrusions, construction defects and other failures.  Our job is to find out what happened and why, from the cause and origin through the extent of loss.  Metropolitan will be able to point the way toward a speedy disposition of the claim.

Metropolitan Engineering, Consulting & Forensics (MECF)

 

Providing Competent, Expert and Objective Investigative Engineering and Consulting Services
P.O. Box 520
Tenafly, NJ 07670-0520
Tel.: (973) 897-8162
Fax: (973) 810-0440
To unsubscribe from future technical blogs and announcements, please reply to this email with the word “unsubscribe” in the subject line.

Metropolitan appreciates your business.
Feel free to recommend our services to your friends and colleagues.
We know you need to process damage claims quickly and knowing the facts is now faster than ever – within 24 hours of site visit.  Our Pegasos Forensic Investigation Services (PFIS) feature:
·         Expert Forensic Investigators on-site.
·         Defensible, Readable, Conclusive Reports.
·         Fixed-Prices starting at $499 per chimney or roof inspection (volume discounts are also available).  Flood loss assessments start at $999.0.  HVAC equipment only inspections start at $299 for local (within one hour one-way drive) assignments.
·         10-State Coverage Area.
·         All of our employees and associates are subjected to full FBI background investigations and security clearance.

PCB-Containing Fluorescent Light Ballasts (FLBs) in School Buildings




PCB-Containing Fluorescent Light Ballasts (FLBs) in School Buildings

A Guide for School Administrators and Maintenance Personnel



NOTE: This guide may also be used by other building owners or operators to manage their PCB-containing FLBs
You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page to learn more.
TSCA Information Hotline
For additional information call:
202-554-1404
Highlights
Page Contents:
Introduction

An intact FLB from a typical pre-1979 FLB.
The purpose of this website is to provide information to school administrators and maintenance personnel on the hazards posed by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in PCB-containing FLBs, how to properly handle and dispose of these items, and how to properly retrofit the lighting fixtures in your school to remove potential PCB hazards.
It should be noted that procedures outlined on this website (with the exception of disposal requirements) are a guide to assist building owners and operators. States may have mandatory and more stringent requirements than EPA.
PCB-containing FLBs that are currently in use have exceeded their designed life span. Sudden rupture of PCB-containing FLBs may pose health hazards to the occupants and is difficult and costly to clean up. EPA recommends removing PCB-containing FLBs from buildings as soon as possible to prevent potential inhalation or dermal exposure. Even intact PCB-containing FLBs may emit small amounts of PCBs into the air during normal use. Removal of PCB-containing FLBs, as part of lighting upgrades or a stand-alone project, is an investment that may pay off with long-term benefits to students, school staff, the community, and the environment.
Congress banned the manufacture of PCBs in the United States in 1976 because of their toxic effects. In July of 1979, EPA phased out the processing or use of PCBs, except in totally enclosed equipment. However, a large number of FLBs that were installed prior to the ban, or that were stored and later used after the 1979 phase-out, may contain PCBs and may still be in use in U.S. schools. While the use of small capacitors in FLBs was authorized by EPA in 1982, if these capacitors are found to be leaking, then the spill area must be cleaned up as quickly as possible or within 24 hours (40 CFR section 761.125(c)(1)) and the leaking FLBs must be properly disposed of pursuant to 40 CFR section 761.62. EPA regulations also require that all FLBs built between July 1, 1978 and July 1, 1998 that do not contain PCBs must be labeled "No PCBs."

PCB-Containing FLBs in School Buildings

This FLB sparked a fire at a southern California school in 1999.
Schools in the United States built before 1979 may have PCB-containing FLBs. The PCBs are contained within the T12 FLBs' capacitors and in the FLBs' interior potting material. Only the T12 magnetic FLBs (not T8 or T5 FLBs) may contain PCBs. The "T" designates the lamp that goes with the FLB as "tubular" shape. The number after the "T" represents the lamp diameter in eighths of an inch.
As they age, the FLBs degrade and EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) has determined that even apparently intact and non-leaking FLBs can release PCBs into the air. Depending on the number of operating hours, operating temperature, and on/off cycles, the typical life expectancy of a magnetic FLB is between 10 and 15 years. The total failure rate over the useful life of small capacitors in FLBs is about 10 percent (47 FR 37342, August 25, 1982). After this typical life expectancy, FLB failure rates increase significantly. All of the pre-1979 FLBs in lighting fixtures that are still in use are now far beyond their typical life expectancy, increasing the risk of leaks, smoking conditions, or even fires, which would pose health and environmental hazards.
The oldest PCB-containing FLBs may also be lacking in thermal overload protection. Thermally protected FLBs are marked with a "P" as required by the National Electrical Code. FLBs without a "P" marking do not contain a mechanism to prevent overheating and are at a higher risk of failure and creating smoke conditions. The potential spread of PCBs can be worsened by mishandling by personnel who are unaware of the presence of PCBs in FLBs. A FLB that has been damaged or mishandled in such an incident can increase exposure of students and school personnel to PCBs.
Recent reports from schools in New York and New Jersey show that FLB failures are not uncommon. From September 2012 to August 2013, 130 schools in New York and New Jersey reported FLB failures that may have released PCBs. And, 111 of the reports involved smoking or odor conditions from FLBs. FLBs may not always be located in fluorescent lighting fixtures. New York City public schools found remote FLB cabinets in the hallways of 16 of their school buildings. These cabinets are essentially large high voltage electrical panels that house up to twenty FLBs. EPA has also received reports of leaking PCBs in FLBs in schools in Oregon, North Dakota, and Massachusetts. Incidents where FLBs leak require cleanup and disposal actions according to federal law. These actions are discussed later in this guide.
The New York City Department of Education has instructed its staff to conduct regular visual inspections in their buildings of all lighting fixtures containing T12 lighting fixtures with FLBs that may contain PCBs. Other building managers may also wish to adopt this type of approach.

Exposure to PCBs from FLBs in Schools
The most likely way that people are exposed to PCBs from FLBs is through breathing PCB-contaminated air or touching PCB-contaminated materials after a FLB leaks or catches fire. Where they remain in place, leaking FLBs could continue to release PCBs over several years and generate elevated levels of PCBs in air that students and teachers breathe. PCBs are persistent, bioaccumulative toxicants. This means that they are most harmful when exposure accumulates over a prolonged period of time.
Since the likelihood of harm increases with increased exposure, the best protection is to remove leaking FLBs. Even intact FLB capacitors can lead to the presence of PCBs in school environments. PCB residues from previously failed FLB capacitors may remain in fixtures even if the FLB is replaced. Leaking or bursting capacitors are likely to substantially elevate PCB levels in indoor environments.
Steps should be taken so children and teachers do not continually spend time in an area with elevated PCB levels in their air. While students and teachers do not need to be evacuated from the building, the affected area, classroom, hallway, cafeteria, or auditorium should be off-limits during cleanup and decontamination. EPA developed Public Health Levels to help in determining if you have an inhalation exposure concern. Exceeding these levels does not mean that adverse effects will occur. However, as exposure levels increase, EPA has less confidence that the exposures will not result in adverse effects. Until the area meets EPA’s recommended Public Health Levels, the school should consider using appropriate temporary accommodations in the building for students and staff.


Image comparison of PCB-containing and Non-PCB containing FLBs.
+ Enlarged view
Identifying FLBs that May Contain PCBs
The following criteria are provided to help identify FLBs that may contain PCBs:


  • FLBs manufactured before July 1, 1979 may contain PCBs.
  • FLBs manufactured between July 1, 1978 and July 1, 1998 that do not contain PCBs must be labeled "No PCBs".
  • If an FLB is not labeled "No PCBs", it is best to assume it contains PCBs unless it is known to be manufactured after 1979.
  • FLBs manufactured after 1998 are not required to be labeled.
If the FLB does contain PCBs, they are located inside the small capacitor located within the FLB or in the potting material (a black, tar-like substance that encapsulates the internal electrical components). There would be approximately 1 to 1.5 ounces of PCBs in the capacitor itself and lower amounts in the potting material. If a FLB fails or overheats, the capacitor may break open and both its oil and the potting material may be released from the FLB. PCBs may be present as a yellow, oily liquid or in the tar-like potting material that leaks from the FLB. The capacitor does not always leak when the FLB fails, nor does a leaking capacitor always cause the FLB to fail. Leaking or ruptured FLBs may increase the level of PCBs in the air. Measures should be taken to limit or avoid personal exposure in all cases.


Determining Whether PCB-Containing FLBs are Present in Your School Building
If any of the statements below apply to your school, its FLBs probably contain PCBs and have exceeded their useful lifetime:


  • Your school was built before 1979; and
  • Your school has not had a complete lighting retrofit since 1979; or
  • Your school still has T12 magnetic FLBs.
Any building built before 1979 is likely to have PCB-containing FLBs if it has not undergone a complete lighting retrofit (all light fixtures in the school were upgraded). In some cases, PCB-containing FLBs that were manufactured before the 1979 ban were stored and later used in some fluorescent light fixtures installed or repaired after 1979. Thus, some schools built after 1979 that have not undergone a complete lighting retrofit could have PCB-containing FLBs. To determine whether your school has PCB-containing FLBs, conducting a visual inspection of the FLBs in a representative number of light fixtures (not just the bulbs) is recommended. For an example of how to determine what the representative number is, see Chapter 7 of the HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead Based Paint Hazards in Housing (PDF) (74pp, 7.01Mb)

Figure 1. Flowchart on how to identify PCB-containing FLBs.
+ Enlarged view
Figure 1 can help you determine whether there may be PCB-containing FLBs in your school. The FLBs are contained within light fixtures. Because you may need to open the fixtures to view the FLBs, select a representative number of each type of fixture in use throughout the school to inspect first. Inspection may be accomplished by removing a portion of the fixture, such as the metal panel covering the FLB. Expand your inspection if you find PCB-containing FLBs.
To prevent exposure if leaking FLBs are discovered, EPA recommends:


  • Wearing protective clothing, including chemically resistant gloves selected for PCB resistance, disposable shoe covers, and disposable overalls as prescribed by OSHA.
  • Removing furniture and other classroom objects from underneath the fixtures.
  • Covering the floor with plastic sheeting to capture any material that might leak from the FLB or fixture.
  • Ventilating the room or use supplemental ventilation or respiratory protection to reduce the potential for breathing in fumes.
  • Keeping a record of the areas (e.g., classroom 101) and location of the fixtures inspected.
If the FLBs do not have the statement "No PCBs", you have two options:
  • Assume that the FLBs contain PCBs,

or
  • Contact the manufacturer and provide the light fixture brand, model number, and FLB serial number to determine whether the FLB contain PCBs. If the manufacturer is not sure whether the FLB contain PCBs, assume that it does.

Determining Whether You Should Replace Your PCB-Containing FLBs
A fluorescent lighting fixture retrofit might seem like a significant capital investment or low priority in schools when compared with other mandates and priorities. However, school administrators should take into account the potential effects of leaving PCB-containing FLBs in place and what they might have to address if a FLB unexpectedly fails, leaks, smokes, or catches fire.
A FLB failure, leak, smoking condition, or fire could: (1) happen at any time, without warning; (2) add to PCB levels in the air; and (3) may pose health issues for the staff or students who are exposed. When a FLB has leaked, significant costs could be incurred to cover, at a minimum:


  • Hiring experienced cleanup personnel.
  • Relocating of students and teachers from the affected area into temporary quarters during cleanup and decontamination which may disrupt school programs and functions.
  • Cleaning up and decontaminating of contaminated equipment and surfaces to required levels ( 40 CFR sections 761.61 or 761.79).
  • Complying with environmental regulations for proper storage and disposal of contaminated equipment and cleanup materials ( 40 CFR sections 761.65 and 761.60).
Postponing lighting retrofits and upgrades by leaving PCB-containing FLBs in place may result in adverse impacts for your students and staff and have additional cost impacts (e.g., lost school days, emergency spill clean-up costs, etc.).
On July 14, 2009, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a final rule entitled Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps Exit EPA. The rule raises energy efficiency standards for certain fluorescent lamps for sale in the United States. After the DOE rule was promulgated the manufacture of many, but not all, T12 lamps used in fixtures that use PCB-containing FLBs were discontinued after July 14, 2012, because they did not meet the new efficiency standards. As a result, the supply of T12 lamps is expected to decrease over time and the cost of those that remain is expected to increase, adding a greater incentive to perform a retrofit of PCB-containing T12 lighting.

Cost Savings Associated with a Retrofit of Older Lighting
Replacing old lighting fixtures can not only increase energy efficiency and decreases energy costs, but may also increase property values, provides better lighting (in appearance and quality of light), and reduces the chance of emergency service situations. The retrofits can be done on an individual FLB basis (e.g., as found through visual inspection), or as part of a lighting retrofit which replaces the entire lighting fixture with newer, more energy efficient fixtures. A complete lighting retrofit eliminates the PCB hazards and increases energy efficiency by 30-50 percent (See the Energy Star website for more detailed information). Lighting retrofits to eliminate PCB-containing FLBs should be considered as a component of any remodeling effort. The T12 lamp and corresponding FLB is less energy efficient than other FLB lighting (e.g., T8 or T5 lighting). The cost of replacing these fixtures can typically be recouped in less than seven years depending upon hours of operation and local energy costs. Detailed information on the savings that may be achieved and potential funding that may be acquired through an investment in new lighting is available at the Energy Star website. The Energy Star website also provides information about funding that may be available for the replacement of old fixtures.
In most states, there are several agencies and organizations with funding available to support energy-efficiency projects or that provide ways to obtain financial assistance for making a building more energy efficient. Some of these programs cover conversion to more energy-efficient lighting. Additionally, many states, localities, and utility companies have programs for energy efficiency rebates and other benefits that may include converting to more energy efficient lighting. DOE published a guide (PDF) (46pp, 1.92Mb) in April 2013 to assist schools in funding energy efficiency upgrades. Specific programs to consider for assistance include:


  • Energy Star Program - Energy Star is a joint EPA and DOE program that supports schools, businesses, and organizations in installing energy-efficient lighting technologies. The program offers assistance through workshops and information services that can be accessed from the Internet. These include: Lighting Upgrade Technologies; Financing Your Upgrades; New Building Design Guidance; and Service and Product Providers. These materials are available at the Energy Star website.
  • Public Utilities and Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) - Both public utilities and ESCOs offer programs that provide technical assistance and funding assistance to support lighting upgrade projects. Contact your local energy utility company, an ESCO that services your area, or state energy commission for more information.
Recommended Procedures for Cleanup and Decontamination after a PCB-Containing FLB Leak, Smoking Condition, or Fire


An old FLB that burst unexpectedly.
An experienced contractor or experienced facilities staff person should perform the removal, cleanup and decontamination of PCB-containing FLBs that have leaked, smoked, or been on fire, including management and disposal of PCB-containing wastes generated from cleaning up such incidents.


Suggested steps to undertake include:
Preparation


  1. Isolate the affected area from central ventilation and ventilate the area separately to prevent the spread of debris and dust to other areas.
  2. Workers should wear personal protective equipment (PPE), including disposable coveralls, chemically resistant gloves, and disposable shoe covers selected for appropriate PCB penetration resistance, respirators equipped with organic vapor filters, and safety glasses, as a minimum.
  3. Move furniture and other classroom objects from underneath the fixtures and the floor should be covered with plastic sheeting to capture any material that might leak from the fixture.
  4. Turn off the light fixtures. In addition to turning off the fixtures or room switches, if present, turn off and lock out the fuses or breaker boxes that control the switches to the light fixtures or the fixtures directly.
Inspection


  1. Remove the lamp cover or grille (baffle) of the light fixture to expose the fluorescent lamp (tube).
  2. If the fluorescent tube is not contaminated with PCBs, it can be reused or recycled as Universal Waste. If the fluorescent tube is contaminated with PCBs, carefully remove it and place it in an approved Department of Transportation (DOT) container.
  3. Visually inspect the exposed section of the light fixture for potential PCB leakage or residue from a fire or smoking condition. If the light fixture shows signs of PCB leakage, then clean up according to step 12 below, then return to step 7.
Removal


  1. Remove the FLB enclosure cover (tray) within the light fixture to expose the FLBs.
  2. Remove the FLB by clipping and removing the wire at the face of the FLB and the exterior of the FLB and the interior exposed section of the light fixture including the housing (with FLB removed). Visually inspect the cover and wires.
  3. If leaking or staining is identified on the FLB or light fixture, then carefully remove them and place the items directly in an approved DOT container.



Cleanup and Disposal


  1. If no leaking or staining is identified on the light fixture, but there was asbestos-containing material (ACM) such as coated wire present, the fixture shall be disposed of as ACM waste. Otherwise, the fixture is not regulated PCB waste and can be recycled or disposed of as municipal solid waste.
  2. Clean up spills from PCB-contaminated light fixtures and leaking FLBs outside the light fixture (e.g., floors, desks, walls, etc.). ( 40 CFR section 761.61 or 761.79)
  3. Identify and properly manage PCB waste streams, including, where appropriate, the use of approved DOT containers, approved storage facilities ( 40 CFR section 761.65), manifests ( 40 CFR part 207), and records ( 40 CFR part 180), as provided below:
    • Leaking FLBs - PCB Bulk Product Waste for incineration.
    • Light fixtures contaminated with PCBs and associated clean-up waste (plastic sheeting, PPE, etc.) - PCB Remediation Waste for disposal in approved landfill.
    • Light fixtures not contaminated by PCBs with ACM wires - ACM waste for disposal in approved landfill.
    • Fluorescent lamps not contaminated by PCBsUniversal waste for recycling.
See the table (PDF) (1 p, 4 K) "TSCA Disposal Requirements for Fluorescent Light Ballasts" for additional disposal options for PCB and non-PCB-containing FLBs.
The above procedures are a guide to assist building owners and operators. Unique circumstances may be encountered in individual buildings and/or rooms. Contact your Regional EPA PCB coordinator with any questions.

Recommended Procedures for Performing a Retrofit for Non-Leaking PCB-Containing FLBs in Your School
NOTE: This section addresses non-leaking or otherwise uncontaminated FLBs. If you encounter a PCB-containing FLB that has leaked, been on fire, or smoked, refer back to the previous section Recommended Procedures for Cleanup and Decontamination after a PCB-Containing FLB Leak, Smoking Condition, or Fire for cleanup and decontamination procedures.
An experienced contractor or experienced facilities staff person should perform the lighting retrofit. Suggested steps include:

Preparation


  1. Turn off the light fixtures. In addition to turning off the fixtures or room switches, if present, turn off and lock out the fuses or breaker boxes that control the switches to the light fixtures or the fixtures directly.
Inspection


  1. Remove the lamp cover or grille (baffle) of the light fixture to expose the fluorescent lamp (tube).
  2. If the fluorescent tube is not contaminated with PCBs, it can be reused or recycled as Universal Waste. If the fluorescent tube is contaminated with PCBs, carefully remove it and place it in an approved Department of Transportation (DOT) container.
  3. Visually inspect the exposed section of the light fixture for potential PCB leakage or residue. If the light fixture shows signs of PCB leakage, then immediately refer back to the previous section Recommended Procedures for Cleanup and Decontamination after a PCB-Containing FLB Leak, Smoking Condition, or Fire for cleanup and decontamination procedures.
Removal


  1. Remove the FLB enclosure cover (tray) within the light fixture to expose the FLBs.
  2. Remove the FLB by clipping and removing the wire at the face of the FLB and the exterior of the FLB and the interior exposed section of the light fixture including the housing (with FLB removed). Visually inspect the cover and wires.
  3. Place the FLB directly in an approved DOT container.
Disposal


  1. If no leaking or staining is identified on the light fixture, but there was asbestos-containing material (ACM) such as coated wire present, the fixture shall be disposed of as ACM waste. Otherwise, the fixture is not regulated PCB waste and can be recycled or disposed of as municipal solid waste.
  2. Identify and properly manage PCB waste streams, including, where appropriate, the use of approved DOT containers , approved storage facilities ( 40 CFR section 761.65), manifests ( 40 CFR part 207), and records ( 40 CFR part 180), as provided below:
See the table (PDF) (1pg, 51K) "TSCA Disposal Requirements for Fluorescent Light Ballasts" for additional disposal options for PCB- and non-PCB-containing FLBs.



Metropolitan Engineering, Consulting & Forensics (MECF)



Providing Competent, Expert and Objective Investigative Engineering and Consulting Services

P.O. Box 520
Tenafly, NJ 07670-0520
Tel.: (973) 897-8162
Fax: (973) 810-0440
E-mail: metroforensics@gmail.com
Web pages: https://sites.google.com/site/metropolitanforensics/

https://sites.google.com/site/metropolitanenvironmental/

https://sites.google.com/site/metroforensics3/
http://metroforensics.blogspot.com/
We are happy to announce the launch of our twitter account. Please make sure to follow us at @MetropForensics or @metroforensics1

Metropolitan appreciates your business.

Feel free to recommend our services to your friends and colleagues.