-29-
O. Analysis
We believe that petitioner decided to remove the asbestos-
containing materials from the Douglas Street building beginning in
1987 primarily because their removal was essential before the
remodeling work could begin. The extent of the asbestos-containing
materials in the building or the concentration of airborne asbestos
fibers was not discovered until after petitioner decided to remodel
the building and a budget for the remodeling had been approved.
Because petitioner's extensive remodeling work would, of necessity,
disturb the asbestos fireproofing, petitioner had no practical
alternative but to remove the fireproofing. Performing the asbestos
removal in connection with the remodeling was more cost effective
than performing the same work as two separate projects at different
times. (Had petitioner remodeled without removing the asbestos
first, the remodeling would have been damaged by subsequent asbestos
removal, thereby creating additional costs to petitioner.) We
believe that petitioner's separation of the removal and remodeling
work is artificial and does not properly reflect the record before
us.
The parties have stipulated that the asbestos removal did not
increase the useful life of the Douglas Street building. We
recognize (as did petitioner) that removal of the asbestos did
increase the value of the building compared to its value when it was
known to contain a hazard. However, we do not find, as respondent
advocates, that the expenditures for asbestos removal materially
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011