With PCBs, Kids Cant Wait 10 Years
By [Linda Rosenthal ] The city adminstration is aware that nearly 800 public schools in all five boroughs contain lighting ballasts that leak polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which pose serious threats to the health and safety of our children, teachers and staff. Despite the magnitude of the threat and the simple solution available, however, the best response the city can muster is a 10-year plan focusing on meeting legally mandated energy efficiency upgrades, with the peripheral effect of gradually replacing these toxic lighting ballasts. Under the city"s plan, a child entering kindergarten today would be continually exposed to toxic PCBs throughout the school day every year for 10 years. PCBs are chemicals that were manufactured in the United States from the late 1920s through the 1970s and were commonly used as electrical insulators in buildings because of their high tolerance to heat, low burn rate and nonexplosive properties. Many New York City school buildings built during that time range still have their original lighting ballasts. Back then, the dangers of PCBs were not known. Today, however, the dangers of PCB exposure are well-documented. PCBs are known neurotoxins and have been linked to cancer, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder. Prenatal PCB exposure has been linked to lowered IQ scores, behavioral and thyroid disorders, growth deficits and reduced immune function. Even short-term exposure has been shown to be detrimental. Women of child-bearing age are at increased risk, as PCBs have been shown to be detrimental to reproductive and endocrine systems. Recognizing these risks, Congress banned their manufacture in 1977, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned their use in 1979. The city knows full well of these risks, yet still lacks the will to act to protect our kids. What gives? At a hearing of the Assembly Education Committee about PCBs in New York City school buildings, I questioned representatives from the New York City Department of Education (DOE) regarding the reasons for the delay. While most of their answers were unsatisfactory, the answer to my question about the DOE"s timeline was downright unsettling. â??Why can"t you do it faster? I inquired. â??Because we just can"t, stammered the DOE"s representative. The city"s failure to provide any grounds for this 10-year timeline should outrage each and every parent with a child in or about to enter school over the next 10 years. While this is a time of extreme financial hardship, money should not be an obstacle when it comes to the health and safety of this city"s schoolchildren and those who teach them. Energy service companies and the New York Power Authority will cover the up-front remediation costs, taking payments from the future energy savings to be realized from installing new, energy efficient lighting. In addition, replacing the old energy-guzzling fixtures with newer, efficient models, which is required by the Green Building Codes, will pay for itself in as little as three years. The city must make PCB removal the urgent priority that it is, which is why I have introduced legislation, A 5374, to require the DOE to replace 100 percent of the toxic lighting ballasts in school buildings constructed or substantially renovated between 1950 and 1978 over the course of two to three years. I will also be introducing legislation to require the city to publish a list of the order in which each school will be remediated. Using the DOE"s arbitrary standards, students, their parents and teachers have no idea whether their school has been prioritized for remediation. The DOE currently prioritizes schools for cleanup if they have confirmed ballast leaks. Since the city refuses to test any school building for the presence of PCBs, the only way to confirm the presence of PCBs is to identify a visible leak, which is next to impossible given that leaking PCBs can be colorless and odorless. If we were simply talking about creating an energy efficiency retrofit program, 10 years might seem like a short time. But we"re not. We"re talking about lighting ballasts that are leaking toxic substances into our schools and potentially making children, their teachers and other school staff sick. When you think about it that way, 10 years is a luxury these kids just don"t have. I will continue to demand immediate action until the city responds with the appropriate level of urgency. But I need all of you to join me. If we speak with one voice, the city will have no choice but to act. Linda Rosenthal is an assembly member for the Upper West Side of Manhattan.