ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

July

25,

1972

ANNING-JOHNSON

COMPANY

#72—60

V.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

PRICE, CUSHMAN, KECK

& MAHIN,

by MR. GEORGE E.

BULLWINKEL,

appea~

on behalf of Petitioner.

MR. ROGER L. HORWITZ, appeared on behalf of Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(BY SAMUEL T.

LAWTON,

JR.)

Anning—Johnson Company, petitioner herein,

a company engaged

in the spraying of fire—proofing substances used in building construc-

tion, sought a variance from the asbestos spraying provisions of the

newly adopted asbestos regulations

(#R71-16, Chapter V1 Hazardous

Substances, Part III, Section 301, effective March

31, 1972),

in

order to complete the fire proofing of four structures already in

process and in varying degrees of completion, as more fully set forth

below.

The original petition for variance was received by the Board

on February 15, 1972 and sought allowance to continue the spraying of

Fire Bar, an asbestos-containing cementious mixture directly sprayed

on the steel members of structures.

The specific buildings involved were:

1.

The DuPage Administrative Center in Wheaton,

Illinois;

2.

The Doctors

Building in Arlington Heights, Illinois;

3.

The Oak Brook Office Center in Oak Brook,

Illinois;

and

4.

The CNA Financial Center in Chicago.

The petition recites that all of the above—named projects were con-

tracted before adoption of the asbestos regulations, and that severe

weather conditions experienced in December,

1971 and January, 1972

have resulted in

a general slowdown in the construction progress on

5

—

41

---

..rn

June

2

j9e

o

ç,

~eJ

etit. o

an

c’ gi

is y de-crth~a,

L

een coap~etcd

tal

va.iawt.

peti.

ion

o

~

t.ec ive cate

i.otsa

pe’diig dxspco

Protcctto’A act

a~a~i‘tdcd tc’_ ~.c

t

.

ice

s~ ~..irg

eert

t.

~

.is

080

fo

wnc

a

.ianc

tad

e~

xe Jeo etatjor

:

t.

-

tba

r

kicr

ary

z:

IX’2

eli

af t

~egu1at4orr s ~

t

Lion o.

t

e

~)etstlOL

~0(,

3)

-

cayi_

ntt’a

~

C,fs.X5

ax

.oeu.

..rc

s

two’

sited

pr

nect~o

~ectn

•

~.ovtr

ye

L

cc

tat_f

(OUt”,

t

f

auc’ht

I.

ar~t4.

of

ate

Oo~.or.

Baud

1

ra’-

e

c

ts

ftc

Ca-iter

n

Cal’

Brook

av’

‘

4plete

~

‘_

a”a

tin,

aa~.er a1

3

CVICaITL.C

ra

th

re ueate.. vo,.’an~ear~c

°.t.Ct

as ro

tic

corna:t,.on

4a

for

ti

o

-

e

Jate

ci.

th~ultra

a..

XaO’

3as5c-i

II

i

(ac

t.Lon

lat°Wi

~C

n’o

-J

tar.

tia

varia

~,..e

i

rrd.

st’p a pro,’

‘t

r~

it

ds

-

,~c,r

t

t.

affec4-

Va

da...

t,f

‘-at

.c

4...

‘.,

e

I-

m.c

flfCicalt

q

es

i,r

arias

‘en.t

1.

C

soago

Cons

ruc-.oi

or

‘ssentiafl~

is

.no

pa

s

xe

mair.

c

spra’..r.c

o

-

p;r.rin~.. y

aCO ton

pos

anc

according

t”e pe

itsi

reaarp’

tic

o’9i~

u..o

ig

~..

consis

of

a

a4-ce

~

Ct).

o

~..us

:~‘

the

s~c,wd ‘i.oor

to

t

e

f

~t

.oo

C

-‘anno

c ccirp.e~.eaur

i

c

~i-

..in..skec

ike

I.CL..ti

arc

-

r”tc.

a

ti-c.

of

constru..t

or

a

aria

oac

~o

~.

a

r

the

foregoing

jobs

The

originas

~.t

tio.

notes

tha’

,

itt

rest ec

to

ee

45~storr

C”LA

Buildiig

the

cxterior

spraya~g

hac

be’n coup ete

to

the

forty—f

ourt

floor

nd

interior

spraysnç,

erains

for

the

floors

from

the

twent1r-sixtl’

t.)

tie

‘op

Irte

i

r

.‘pra”’t

s

a

so

recuit

4

on

tne

Laseme

1

thro’ign

tne

:ourtn

f

so

The

petLt’.n

~11eges

‘i

barn.g of asoestos-

,ain

pzOjC.C’a

‘

uld

ras4.t

‘r

arbitary

atd

‘tsr

.cct.

and

gene

.1

c

at.a’to

a~we3l

is

o

ti

&

s

ayinç,

other

mat

~rsa

ar~ the

-air

ing

o~

e

prc

itive.

Dir’erettia

:1

thic’cne

-

V

sec

ce

a

Lcjedly

woutd

caass

problers

in

rea-.ign

o

aX

1-

~n

ocooer~

ad

nrtas~d

co3t

es

~ing

sr~3?.

art’°1ip on

a

L

aai.tte~

c

rcened

‘st

thc

r

z

dings

11e

peCti.

-

ccks

iar

or

thc

rojects

a3

ccr,.rac,..eo

S

I

vner~hit

1

‘cn~

:rlcti

tceab..

o

at-co

rpat

~e

‘tave

sir

cf

t.’t.

da

0

e

v’ror

a

-

0

oro

-

‘a.

c

C

-

—

g

c’

rd

ii

t

Li

0’

t..r

3aacr

7’t3’io

:c...tE.c.

ter,

~li.

.t

3

°

.Uiy

t~

tao

it

k0 o~.c’c’

Tf

lo..zr

,ha

0

topr

~.o-

Leti

‘nerc

-

o

K

to.~

bow,

n.~

i

-~

t-e

s

a

~

to

a

r~

tis

teC

cc

p

etea

oe.iriv

‘)‘)a

fo.”

~Eiit

a

-ila

arc

it’t

rc...pc

1..

leo

Inc

f

sar.o

£~‘.d13

ivo

e~

j

T

..r?.f

acoi.cp

vas

c

n

acted

c

s&i

iS

10

2

1’-

s

a

tire~rooCar

;s

e

~

or

aca~

e

ste’Ci

oar

4-.

t1i~

3?.

,

t. e

faa.

a

-

ci

IC

oaa

..I’j

a

~

~

~a

ES

‘t

-.

C.

‘

f’rapro

o

tic

c.

2

---

four stories of tIe bustle

~oula be started In September or October of 1972

aid ‘~akeaoproximately fourteen days to complete

The original aeti—

tion ~ought until December

,

1972 for completion of

this

job for

ich

ib

is anticioated that ten to twelve tons of spray material

would be

sod

the amended petthion seeds to extend the time for

frreproofing spray~iaoi this p0 tion of the job to May

1,

1973.

The peti~auralleges,

as

a basth cf nardehip

that substitution o

alternative

on—asbestos material nould

e

impossible for the follow-

ing reds ns~

I

Substitution o~a different product not mauufactured

by

Anning—Job

mon

would

create

a

division

of

resronsi

ti

it~

for

the

fire

ratings

estanlished

by

the

fire-

proofi g

operation.

2

Substitution

of

s

ne~ nateria

~ou1d

cause

thicrnesses

to

Jary

from

the

original

asbestu~-containing

material

spccifi athens and mat req ire redesign of some struc~

~~ral tethers,

Use

f

a substitube material ~ou!d require the acquisi~

h_On and use of

tew spraying ejuiprent and retraining

of ~gra

application personnel

mlis dould necessarily

mean increased ~.ostsann delays

in ~onstruthion schedules

~nc

~xsten:e

of

a

su±~~le

ron—asces

as maueira’

is

~

oubt

at

tte

present

rime,

altho

gu

petit~oier

(among

others)

is

act~ie~1 rc~kiag

~acb

a

aatcr~al.

a

Dnvironneital

Protection

Agency

f~lnJ

its

e~cmmendation

wh

h

te

gill

consider

on~J

n

respect

to

that

portioi

dealing

with

~re

UA

Building.

Tue

recommendation

describes

the

composition

of

the

spray

~nvolved

consist

ng

of

batch

mixing

asbestos,epson

salts

anl

magresi~m s~Ifate

anto

a

slurry

with

a

liquid

no isistency

which

is

sp~ayed

onro

tIe

steel

sarface

of

beams,

co_umns

decks

and

internal

skins

takinl arprox~tmatelya week to

to

days

to

harden.

~he

~recise

qud~i ~ of asbestos and partrculal-e eirissions

from spraying operation

is

ink~-own altho~ghprotect~~pro~eduresand houseiceepinq~thndicate

tha

emissions from the sprayin; operatior are nin~mal

e Pgency recommends

hI

t the variance be granted, subiec

to

ordit~onsrrinimiziig the discharge of nateria

outside of the

baildinc a~dthe subsiss3or of ~ repor_ from in~ependentsources,

certafyi

g

hat

no

subst~tate

ma~r

als

are

available

in

lieu

of

asnes—

~os—contairirg

materials,

that

the

variance

be

allowed

only

to

DecembeL

I,

197

,

ttht

all

other

orovisions

af

the

regu~atiors

be

met

and

that

a

performance

bond

no

posted

to

insure

compliance

with

the

order.

---

Hearing

was held on

the

petition

on

May

24,

1972,

at which

time

witnesses

for

petitioner

recited

the

alleged

basis

for

hardship

in

prohibiting

the

spraying of

Flr~ Bar,petitioner~s

asbestos-containing

fireproofing

material,

This

essentially

consisted

of

the

difference

in

thickness

required

and

adhesion

capabilities

inherent

in

a

non-asbestos

material

as

compared

with

Fire

Bar,

the

need

for

training of

personnel

and

the

purchase

of

new

equipment

to

utilize

a

non-asbestos

substitute,

the

possible

increase

in

costs

to

all concerned inherent in any change

in

procedure

and

materials

employed,

and

the

possible

need

for

major

structural

changes

that

might

result

in

the

event

a

different

fire-

proofing

substance

was

utilized.

The

petitioner acknowledges the

existence

of

alternative

spray

fireproof

ing

materials that would meet

the

regulations, but has not

employed

them

commercially

to

ascertain

whether

they

would

be

suitable

for

this

job.

On

the

basis

of

the

record,

we

do

not

feel that the evidence

introduced by petitioner substantiates the essential allegations of

hardship

set

forth

in

its

petition.

All

contentions

made

with

respect

to

lack

of

availability

or

suitability

of

substitutes,

increased

cost

of

personnel

and

equipment

and

possible

structural

modifications,

are

purely speculative and not supported

by

evidence

of

any sort beyond

petrtioner1s expressions of belief that

such

consequences

would

fol1ow~

Nor

has

petitioner

made

any substantial effort to

find and use substi-

tute materials

for

this

particular

job, notwithstanding

its

acknowledge-

mont that ultimately,

if it remains

in

the spray fireproofing business,

it will

be

obliged

to

find

substitutes

compatible

with

the

relevant

regulations.

Accordingly,

we

must

deny

the

petition,

insofar

as

it relates

to

the

CNA

Building.

Asbestos

spraying

of

this

building,

located

in

the

heart

of

Chicago1

s

downtown

area,

will

have

attributes

of

danger

to

a

substantial

number

of

people

notwithstanding

the

housekeeping

and

control methods being employed by petitioner.

We cannot grant the

variance

in

the

absence

of

substantial

proof

of

hardship

resulting

from

compliance

with

the

regulation.

This

denial

is

without

prejudice

to

petitioner

re—filing

with

the

Board

a

new

petition

for

variance

respecting

this

structure

and

supporting

its

allegations

of

hardship

with

tangible

evidence

that

will

satisfy

its

statutory

burden

in

pro-

ceedings

of

this

character.

Our

holding

in

this

case

does

not

substantially

impede

petitioner1s

program

with

respect

to

the

CNA

Building

inasmuch

as

petitioner

does

not

contemplate

embarking

on

the

fireproofing

program

unti~

September,

1972, prior to which time,

if it wishes,

it

can re”fiie and

present

its

case

in

accordance

with

the

foregoing

observations.

—4—

5

-—

44

---

This

opinion

constitutes

the

findings

of

fact

and conclusions

of

law

of

the

Board.

IT

IS

THE

ORDER

of

the

Pollution

Control

Board:

1.

Variance

applications

with

respect

to

the

Doctors

Building

in

Arlington

Heights,

Illinois

and

the

Oak Brook Office Center in Oak Brook, Illinois,

are dismissed as moot.

2

Variance is granted petitioner to complete the spraying

of asbestos—containing fireproofing on the DuPage

Administrative Center Building, Wheaton,

Illinois.

3.

Petition

for

variance

is

denied

without

prejudice

with respect to the CNA Financial Center Building,

Chicago, Illinois.

I,

Christan

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Boa~5~,

certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the

~‘~‘

“

day of

_____________,

1972

by

a vote of

4-0.

—5—

5

—

45