If it can operate the lamp? It may light but I doubt it would be anywhere close to anything reliable.
But the biggef problem would be to keep the temperatures right, the design really counts on the specific airflow pattern around the lamp.
For the UV: I would really count with this lamp emitting a lot of UV. Normally the projector optics blocks all that out, but the bare lamp will emit a lot of it.

The strange thing was I didn't smell any ozone when this lamp was lit. When I lit a mercury vapor arc tube however, I would smell a lot of ozone. Either way I didn't look directly at the lamp and wore sunglasses when testing this lamp.

Overall, MH burners (and even plain HPM too) do not generate much of shortwave ultraviolet because dense vapor around the arc at high pressure captures most of the UVC generated and does not allow it to pass out. Some UVC and ozone is generated while the lamp is cold and running-up. Also, as you can imagine, ozone generation is undesirable in a projector, so arc tube may be made from UV-block quartz.

Still, MH lamps can emit some physiologically active UVB energy, so avoid unnecessary exposure!

I ran it up to full brightness and measured the voltage and current: 83v, 1.73a

That is probably about a half of a power that is expected.   

When I meant full brightness, it was based on the brightness of this lamp stabilized on this 150w ballast. It was under driven during the test.

Can I run this lamp run off a 200w PSMH CWA ballast? I have one of those ballasts instead of a 250w MH ballast.

Also, I noticed this lamp was significantly dimmer when I had the cooling fan blowing directly on the arc tube. However, when I took the cooling fan off, the lamp got brighter quickly.

I am not very into American ballasts, but you probably mean M136 130V 1.6A ballast. So, you will end up with even lower current, as CWAs tend to have pretty flat load curves and current likely will not increase significantly when load is 83V vs rated 130V one.