<%BANNER%>

Predictive Costing Tool for Corrosive Drywall Remediation in the State of Florida

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041912/00001

Material Information

Title: Predictive Costing Tool for Corrosive Drywall Remediation in the State of Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (82 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Bebout, Patrick
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: access, chinese, corrosive, drywall, estimate, gypsum, remediation, software, sulfur
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Corrosive drywall is a gypsum-based plasterboard that was manufactured in China and contains elemental sulfur and strontium. The drywall emits reduced sulfur gases in the chemical forms of hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide. These three gasses have been linked to the corrosion of metal components in homes including electrical wiring, refrigeration coils and fire safety devices creating a number of life safety issues. The import of Chinese drywall into the U.S. has been occurring since 1999. Estimates place the number of affected homes up to 38,000 and nearly two-thirds of those may be in the state of Florida. Several remediation protocols, including an interim protocol issued by the federal government, include the removal of all corrosive drywall from the home. This difficult and costly procedure will have a wide range of emotional, economic and environmental impacts. This paper presents the issues with corrosive drywall and provides Floridians an estimating tool to help gauge the financial burden of undertaking the interim federal remediation strategy.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Patrick Bebout.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Sullivan, James.
Local: Co-adviser: Chini, Abdol R.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041912:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041912/00001

Material Information

Title: Predictive Costing Tool for Corrosive Drywall Remediation in the State of Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (82 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Bebout, Patrick
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: access, chinese, corrosive, drywall, estimate, gypsum, remediation, software, sulfur
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Corrosive drywall is a gypsum-based plasterboard that was manufactured in China and contains elemental sulfur and strontium. The drywall emits reduced sulfur gases in the chemical forms of hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide. These three gasses have been linked to the corrosion of metal components in homes including electrical wiring, refrigeration coils and fire safety devices creating a number of life safety issues. The import of Chinese drywall into the U.S. has been occurring since 1999. Estimates place the number of affected homes up to 38,000 and nearly two-thirds of those may be in the state of Florida. Several remediation protocols, including an interim protocol issued by the federal government, include the removal of all corrosive drywall from the home. This difficult and costly procedure will have a wide range of emotional, economic and environmental impacts. This paper presents the issues with corrosive drywall and provides Floridians an estimating tool to help gauge the financial burden of undertaking the interim federal remediation strategy.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Patrick Bebout.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Sullivan, James.
Local: Co-adviser: Chini, Abdol R.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041912:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





PREDICTIVE COSTING TOOL


FOR CORROSIVE DRYWALL REMEDIATION IN THE
STATE OF FLORIDA


By

PATRICK VERNON BEBOUT


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2010

































2010 Patrick Vernon Bebout



























To my mom, for always encouraging me to pursue my dreams









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my parents, Dr. John Bebout and Mrs. Ann Dwyer, the most

important people in my life. Without their help and their support throughout my university

career and now in graduate school this thesis would never have happened.

I also want to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Jim Sullivan for his help,

guidance, support and patience in the development of this document. Also special

thanks go to the rest of my committee members, Dr. Abdol Chini and Dr. Doug Lucas

for their assistance and supervision of this document.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOW LEDGMENTS ........................................ ............... 4

L IS T O F F IG U R E S .......................................................................................................... 7

LIST O F A BBR EV IAT IO N S ......... .................... ......... .................................. 10

ABSTRACT ........... ......... ..... ..... ..... ...................... ......... 12

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION .................. ...... ......... ......... 13

1.1 Background ............... ......... .................. 13
1.2 Statem ent of Purpose................................................. .................... 14
1.3 Scope of this Paper............................... ............ ............... 14

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................. 16

2.1 Gypsum and Drywall ....................... ........................ 16
2.2 Defining C orrosive D ryw all ................................................................... 17
2.3 Scope of the Problem ................................. ......... ........ ....... ............... 19
2.4 Early Problem Identification.............................. ............... 22
2.5 The Federal Response................................ .................... 23
2.6 Chem istry of Corrosive Dryw all ........................... ............................ 24
2 .7 H ea lth C concerns .................................................. 26
2.8 Identification ................ ......... ........ ............. 30
2.8.1 State of Florida .................. ... ................... 30
2.8.1.1 Case definition (03-30-09) ....... ........ ..... .................. 31
2.8.1.2 Case definition (12-18-09) ....... ........ ..... .................. 31
2.8.2 The Federal Government ........................... .......... 32
2.9 Remediation .................... .......... ..........34
2.9.1 The State of Florida .................. ............... ... ... 34
2.9.2 The Federal Government ........................... .......... 35
2.9.3 Protocols from Litigation ............................ ........ 36
2.9.4 The Homebuilders .................. ................. ...... 38
2.9.5 Private Sector Businesses............................ ......... 39
2.10 Financial Burden .. ......... ................... ............... 39
2.11 D disposal C concerns .............. ............... ............... .......... ............... 41
2.11.1 Disposal of Drywall in Florida ............... ................................... 41
2 .11.2 Landfill A alternatives ......................................... ................ ............ 43

3 M E T H O D O LO G Y ............................................................................. .. ............. 4 5

3 .1 P la tfo rm ................. ... ............. ............ ................................................. 4 6









3 .2 U se r In p uts ................ ................................. 4 6
3.3 S quare Foot C osts .................................................. 48
3 .4 P rogra m F low ................ ................................. 4 8
3.5 M ain P program Logic .................................................. 50

4 R E S U L T S ................................................... .............................................. 5 3

4 .1 T e sting M etho do lo gy ................................................... ..................... 5 3
4 .2 Expected R results .................................................. 56
4.3 A actual Results .......................................................................... ........ 61
4.4 Comparison of Test House to the Average House ...................................... 63

5 C O N C LU S IO N S ....................................... ................................................................ 64

APPENDIX

A REMEDIATION ESTIMATING TOOL FORMS ....................................................... 67

B REMEDIATION ESTIMATING TOOL DATABASE .............................................. 75

LIST O F R EFER EN C ES ....................................................... ............... 78

BIO G RA PH ICA L SKETC H .......................................................................... 82









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2-1 Examples of metal corrosion in a home containing corrosive drywall. A)
refrigerator coil, B) water shut-off valve, C) copper water line, D) sprinkler
h e a d .... ... .......................................... ........ .......... ...... 1 8

2-2 Total metric tons of imported Chinese drywall by year ............... .............. ... 19

2-3 Total metric tons of imported Chinese drywall by port of entry........................... 21

2-4 Number and percentage of reports filed to the CPSC from residents who
believe their health symptoms or the corrosion of certain metal components
in their homes are related to the presence of drywall produced in China (May
1, 2010). .................................... ................................ .......... 21

3-1 Program flow of the Estim eating Tool............................................. ... .................. 49

3-2 C ore logic of the E stim ating T ool................................................. .... ................. 50

3-3 Second and third level loops of the core programming logic for the Estimating
Tool ............................................................... ...... ..... ......... 51

4-1 3D representation of the house used to test the Estimating Tool .................. 53

4-2 Floor plan of the house used to test the Estimating Tool.................................. 54

4-3 North elevation of the house used to test the Estimating Tool........................ 54

4-4 Expected total gross square footage of the wall area for the test house
calculated by the summation of the area of each wall ................. ........... 56

4-5 Expected total square footage of the wall openings in the test house
calculated by the summation of the openings in each wall.............................. 57

4-6 Expected total square footage of the ceiling area in the test house calculated
by the summation of the ceiling area of each room ................................... 57

4-7 Electrical estimate of the test house based on the product of user selected
cost data and total square footage ................ ............................... ............... 58

4-8 Demolition estimate of the test house based on the product of user selected
cost data and total square footage ................ ............................... ............... 58

4-9 Sprinkler estimate of the test house based on the product of user selected
cost data and total square footage ................ ............................... ............... 58









4-10 Drywall cost estimate of the test house based on the product of user selected
drywall types and total square footage of drywall used ............... ................... 59

4-11 Insulation cost estimate of the test house based on the product of user
selected insulation types and the net square footage of wall area.................. 59

4-12 Paint cost estimate of the test house based on the product of user selected
paint types and the net square footage of wall area ......................................... 60

4-13 Subtotal of remediation estimate based on national average construction
co sts ................. ................................... ........................... 6 1

4-14 Remediation Estimate window of the Estimating Tool displaying the costs
associated w ith the test house............................... ................................. 62

4-15 Comparison of expected and actual cost data for the test house based on
data provided by the testing procedure ..... ................. ................. 62

A-1 Navigational relationship between forms in the Estimating Tool..................... 67

A-2 Record source of forms in the Estimating Tool........................... ... ............... 67

A-3 GUI of frmCOAlarm from the Estimating Tool........................... ............. 68

A-4 GUI of frmDemolition from the Estimating Tool .......... ................................ 68

A-5 GUI of frmDrywall from the Estimating Tool......... ..... ... ..................... 68

A-6 GUI of frmElectrical from the Estimating Tool ...... ...... ................................. 68

A-7 GUI of frmHouse from the Estimating Tool ...... .... ........ ............................. 69

A-8 GUI of frmlnsulation from the Estimating Tool...... ........ .................... 69

A-9 GUI of frmLocationFactor from the Estimating Tool................. ..... ......... 70

A-10 GUI of frmMaintenance from the Estimating Tool.......................... ............... 70

A-1 1 GUI of frmOpenings from the Estimating Tool........ ............ ........ .............. 71

A-12 GUI of frmPaint from the Estimating Tool ........ .......................... ............... 71

A-13 GUI of frmReports from the Estimating Tool................................................. 72

A-14 GUI of frmRoom from the Estimating Tool ........ ..... ................................ 73

A-15 GUI of frmSmokeAlarm from the Estimating Tool.......................... ............... 73

A-16 GUI of frmSprinkler from the Estimating Tool ......... .. ......... ............... 73









GUI of frmStart from the Estimating Tool....................... ............................... 74

Relationship of database tables from the Estimating Tool............... ................ 75


A-17

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9

B-10

B-11

B-12

B-13


Design of database

Design of database

Design of database

Design of database

Design of database

Design of database

Design of database

Design of database

Design of database

Design of database

Design of database

Design of database


table tblCOAlarm from the Estimating Tool....................... 75

table tblDemolition from the Estimating Tool.................... 75

table tblDrywall from the Estimating Tool....................... 75

table tblElectrical from the Estimating Tool......................... 76

table tblHouse from the Estimating Tool............................. 76

table tbllnsulation from the Estimating Tool..................... 76

table tblLocationFactor from the Estimating Tool................ 76

table tblOpening from the Estimating Tool.......................... 76

table tblPaint from the Estimating Tool ............................. 77

table tblRoom from the Estimating Tool.......................... 77

table tblSmokeAlarm from the Estimating Tool................... 77

table tblSprinkler from the Estimating Tool .................... 77











A/C

AMRC

ATSDR

C&D

CaSO4 2H20

CDC

CDBG

COS

CPSC

CS2

CTEH

EPA

FDEP

FDOH

FHA

GUI

H2S

HEPA

HUD

KPT

MRL

ppbV

ppm

RfC


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Air Conditioning

American Management Resource Corporation

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Construction & Demolition

Chemical Formula for Calcium Sulfate (Gypsum)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Community Development Block Grant

Chemical Formula for Carbonyl Sulfide

Consumer Protection Safety Commission

Chemical Formula for Carbon Disulfide

Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health, L.L.C

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Florida Department of Health

Federal Housing Administration

Graphical User Interface

Chemical Formula for Hydrogen Sulfide

High Efficiency Particulate Air

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd.

Chronic Minimal Risk Level

Parts per Billion Volume

Parts per Million

Chronic Reference Concentration









S Elemental Symbol for Sulfur

Sr Elemental Symbol for Strontium

SrS Chemical Formula for Strontium Sulfide

SVOC Semi Volatile Organic Compound

VBA Visual Basic for Applications

VOC Volatile Organic Compound









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction

PREDICTIVE COSTING TOOL FOR CORROSIVE DRYWALL REMEDIATION IN THE
STATE OF FLORIDA

By

Patrick Vernon Bebout

August 2010

Chair: James Sullivan
Cochair: Abdol Chini
Major: Building Construction

Corrosive drywall is a gypsum-based plasterboard that was manufactured in China

and contains elemental sulfur and strontium. The drywall emits reduced sulfur gases in

the chemical forms of hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide. These

three gasses have been linked to the corrosion of metal components in homes including

electrical wiring, refrigeration coils and fire safety devices creating a number of life

safety issues. The import of Chinese drywall into the U.S. has been occurring since

1999. Estimates place the number of affected homes up to 38,000 and nearly two-thirds

of those may be in the state of Florida. Several remediation protocols, including an

interim protocol issued by the federal government, include the removal of all corrosive

drywall from the home. This difficult and costly procedure will have a wide range of

emotional, economic and environmental impacts. This paper presents the issues with

corrosive drywall and provides Floridians an estimating tool to help gauge the financial

burden of undertaking the interim federal remediation strategy.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The full impact of the corrosive drywall problem in the U.S. is still emerging. As of

May 7, 2010, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has received 3,082

reports from 37 different states, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and

American Samoa alleging that drywall manufactured in China is threatening health,

corroding certain metal components in the home, or both (U.S. Consumer Product

Safety Commission 2010a). These figures do not include cases that are reported at the

state or local levels. Some estimates put the number of affected homes at 60,000

(Schmidt 2009). Regardless of the final count, there will be a significant emotional,

economic and environmental impact involved in identifying and ultimately remediating

the homes that contain corrosive drywall.

As of this writing, there is no single standard that has emerged for either the

identification or remediation of homes affected by corrosive drywall. Yet, at least one

company has been remediating homes since 2006 (Brinkman 2009d) and the federal

government only recently released interim reports to provide guidance to homeowners

for identifying and removing corrosive drywall (Tedder and McGuire 2009; U.S.

Consumer Product and Safety Commission 2010b). One similarity between the

remediation protocols offered by the private and public sectors is the recommendation

to remove all of the source contaminant the drywall which contains traces of

elemental sulfur (S) and elemental strontium (Sr). With a lack of inexpensive

identification systems in place, this usually results in the replacement of all drywall in a

home where at least a small amount of corrosive drywall exists.









Little is known as to whether the current remediation efforts will actually have the

desired long term effect. Not enough time has passed to determine whether simply

removing the corrosive drywall will stop certain metals from corroding in a home. Yet, if

the protocols remain unchanged, it is evident that the removal of the corrosive drywall

will be an expensive undertaking. If the remediators choose to replace all the ancillary

building components such as insulation, copper electrical components, sheathing and

other such materials, the cost will be even greater.

1.2 Statement of Purpose

This research aims to help Florida homeowners in two ways. First, it is to serve as

an educational tool to help separate fact from fiction. The Internet is flooded with

misinformation about the true nature of the corrosive drywall problem and how it should

be handled. Over the last two years, the number of websites providing "information"

about corrosive drywall has grown. Many of these sites simply use fear to coerce

homeowners into accepting costly fixes that may or may not be effective (Federal Trade

Commission 2009). It is of great importance that homeowners fully understand the

drywall issue before committing to any identification or remediation efforts. Second, an

estimating tool will be developed to help homeowners estimate the cost of a remediation

effort. This tool will be created in Microsoft Office Access and generate estimates using

cost data provided by R.S. Means.

1.3 Scope of this Paper

This paper will begin with the history of gypsum and its use in drywall. It will cover

the practice of traditional gypsum mining and the more common use of synthetic

gypsum. The paper will then explain how corrosive drywall is different than the drywall

manufactured domestically and estimate the total scope of the problem. It will provide a









history of how corrosive drywall was first identified and why the Chinese manufactured

drywall was declared corrosive. This paper will explain the chemistry behind corrosive

drywall and its effects on human health. It will provide details on the methods used to

identify homes with the problem drywall and the different remediation protocols

available. This paper will cover the financial resources available to help homeowners

and discuss the environmental concerns with disposing of the remediated material.

This paper will also discuss the development of a remediation estimating tool. It

will provide information about the development platform, the program flow and the core

program logic. It will cover the inputs required from the user and discuss the testing

procedures used to validate the tool's functionality. Lastly, the paper will draw

conclusions about the estimating tool and suggest future enhancements.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Gypsum and Drywall

Drywall is a ubiquitous building product that is often called gypsum board,

wallboard, plasterboard or rock lathe. The original gypsum board consisted of thin

layers of plaster placed between four plies of wool felt paper. This board was patented

in 1894 by Augustine Sackett who called his building product Sackett Board. In 1933,

the patent was purchased by USG and Sackett Board was renamed Sheetrock. Drywall

is most commonly used as a finishing cover over the structural members of walls and

ceilings. Its widespread use is credited to the lower cost and shorter installation time

needed to install and finish gypsum board over its predecessor, plaster (Armstrong et al.

2002). Unlike plaster, gypsum board is never wet during installation. Consequently,

"drywall" became the popular name for the product.

A modern sheet of drywall consists of a thin layer of gypsum rock placed between

two sheets of paper. Gypsum rock is between 100 and 200 million years old and has

the chemically defined name of calcium sulfate (CaSO4 2H20). Gypsum is a

sedimentary rock that collected through the evaporation of shallow water bodies

throughout the world. One hundred pounds of gypsum rock contains about 21 pounds of

chemically combined water. The rock is mined or quarried, crushed into a fine powder

and heated to 350 degrees Fahrenheit until 75% of the water is removed in a process

called calcining. To make drywall, the calcined gypsum is again remixed with water and

additives into a slurry that is poured between two sheets of paper. The slurry

recrystallizes back to its original rock state both chemically and mechanically bonding

with the paper (Gypsum Association 2009).









Today, not all gypsum used in the production of drywall is naturally occurring.

Japan and Europe have been using byproduct gypsum for nearly 30 years (Stav 2009).

Byproduct gypsum, also known as synthetic gypsum, is a byproduct of coal-fired power

plants. The coal combustion process creates a number of byproducts including fly ash,

various impurities and exhaust gases. The exhaust gases are fed through limestone

slurry (calcium carbonate) to remove sulfur dioxide. This "scrubbing", or removal of

sulfur dioxide, was a requirement of the 1970 Clean Air Act and its subsequent

amendments. A chemical reaction occurs as the sulfur dioxide passes through the

limestone slurry leaving the byproduct of calcium sulfate (gypsum). National Gypsum

Company, a large U.S. manufacturer, claims that they receive a 97% pure form of

gypsum from this process whereas mined gypsum is generally only 90% pure (Stav

2009). In 1991, synthetic gypsum accounted for only 4% of total gypsum production. By

2008, the number had escalated to 60% (Crangle 2009).

2.2 Defining Corrosive Drywall

Corrosive drywall, also known as Chinese drywall or imported drywall, is a

gypsum-based drywall that contains chemicals not normally found in domestically

produced drywall, most commonly strontium (Sr) and sulfur (S) (Singhvi 2009).

Corrosive drywall off-gasses hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbonyl sulfide (COS) and carbon

disulfide (CS2) in a process that is accelerated by high humidity and heat (Gauthier

2009). This off-gassing produces odors similar to rotten eggs, corrodes copper and

other metals and may have detrimental effects on human health (U.S. Consumer

Product Safety Commission 2009a). The metal corrosion most commonly occurs in

electrical switches and appliances with copper components such as refrigerators and

televisions. Depending on the construction materials in the home, it may also affect









piping for plumbing, gas lines and even fire suppression systems. The corrosion creates

a risk for electrical fire, gas explosions, and may create an environmental hazard if

certain refrigerants are released by damaged coils. It may also lead to the damage of

smoke and carbon monoxide sensors, a hazard to life safety. Figure 2-1 provides four

examples of metal corrosion in a home containing corrosive drywall. The black scaling

found on these metals is an indicator of corrosive drywall in a home.









A B








C D
Figure 2-1. Examples of metal corrosion in a home containing corrosive drywall. A)
refrigerator coil, B) water shut-off valve, C) copper water line, D) sprinkler
head.

It is still unclear why such large quantities of Chinese drywall contain elemental

sulfur, but several theories have been offered. One such theory has been presented by

Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd. (KPT), a major manufacturer of Chinese drywall.

KPT has stated that some sulfur odors could be associated with the mined gypsum rock

(Brinkman 2009c). KPT has also acknowledged that some of the corrosive drywall

smelled like drywall made from natural gypsum in China. This theory is supported by an









Environ engineer, Dr. Gauthier, who believes the sulfur is from a sulfur vane that was

entrained in the mined gypsum (Gauthier 2009).

2.3 Scope of the Problem

According to statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.

demand for gypsum wallboard peaked in 2006 at 3.69 billion square feet (Schmidt

2009). The U.S. demand for drywall was fueled by both a booming housing market and

a rebuilding effort following the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma in 2005

(Schmidt 2009). During this period, the United States helped satisfy domestic demand

by importing significant amounts of drywall from China to construct and repair American

homes. In 1955, only 50% of new homes in the U.S. used drywall while the other half

still used plaster. Today, up to 98% of all new homes use drywall (Dushack 2009).

Figure 2-2 illustrates that the quantity of imported Chinese drywall spiked in 2006 at

nearly 218,100 metric tons (Crangle 2009).


Chinese Drywall Imports -Annual Tonnages

250,000

200,000

150,000
Metric Tons
100,000

50,000-

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Year

Figure 2-2. Total metric tons of imported Chinese drywall by year

There are approximately 200 drywall manufacturing plants in China, but the

production from these plants is often extremely limited. In fact, some plants only









generate a few dozen boards per year (Crangle 2009). The three largest Chinese

manufactures of gypsum drywall are Lafarge, Saint-Gobain and Knauf Plasterboard

Tianjin Co. Ltd. (KPT). KPT is the Chinese affiliate of German-based Knauf Gips. Both

Lafarge and Saint-Gobain are French companies that have not exported Chinese

drywall to the U.S.

The Consumer Protection Safety Commission (CPSC) staff has confirmed that at

least 6,997,456 sheets of drywall were imported into the U.S. from China since 2006

and 28,778 sheets were imported into Guam, Saipan and American Samoa (U.S.

Consumer Product Safety Commission 2009b). During that same time frame, KPT

alone exported 67.3 million square feet of drywall to southern Florida (Brinkman 2009a).

The total count continues to grow as the CPSC analyzes information received from

consumers, builders, importers, manufacturers and suppliers of drywall to determine

how much imported drywall is affected and where that drywall has been installed (U.S.

Consumer Product Safety Commission 2009b).

The CPSC states the total number and location of effected homes is not known

(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2009). Ervin Gonzalez of the law firm

Colson Hicks Eidson estimates that, based on import records, up to 60,000 U.S. homes

may be affected, about half of which are in Florida (Schmidt 2009). Rob Crangle, a

minerals commodity expert with the U.S. Geographical Survey, estimates that up to two-

thirds of all Chinese imports went to Florida (Crangle 2009). Figure 2-3 provides a

breakdown of the Chinese drywall imports by port of entry (Crangle 2009). Sixty-seven

percent of all Chinese drywall imports have entered the United States through Florida

ports, specifically Miami and Tampa.










Port of Entr
Other US
Tanlla T'lal FL Ports
Total Imports Miaimi (Metrii (Metric: Miri:c T.Ial FL (Melric Other US
Year (Melric Tons) T..isp Miamii I TUIIns Tamipa I T..insi I Tons) Ports (,)
1999 15,481 4,326 28% 5,400 35% 9,726 63% 5,755 37%
2000 16,793 0 0% 10,012 60% 10,012 60% 5,781 40%
2001 7,756 0 0% 7,756 100% 7,756 100% 0 0%
2002 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
2003 14 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 14 100%
2004 10 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 10 100%
2005 369 369 100% 0 0% 369 100% 0 0%
2006 218,100 85,273 39% 68,927 32% 154,200 71% 63,900 29%
2007 12,373 1,963 16% 0 0% 1,963 16% 10,410 84%
2008 3,964 21 1% 0 0% 21 1 % 3,943 99%
2009 656 22 3% 0 0% 22 3% 634 97%
275,516 91,974 33% 92,095 33% 184,069 67% 91,447 33%


Figure 2-3.


Total metric tons of imported Chinese drywall by port of entry


As of May, 2010, the CPSC has received reports from 24 states and the District of

Columbia (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 2010a). Figure 2-4 provides a

geographic breakdown of incident reports sent to the CPSC by state. The largest

number of complaints filed has come from the State of Florida (59%) followed by

Louisiana (20%).


Florida 1813
59%


Louisiana 626
20%







Mississippi 189
6%


Alabama 151
Other 175 6%
Virginia 1234% 5%


Figure 2-4. Number and percentage of reports filed to the CPSC from residents who
believe their health symptoms or the corrosion of certain metal components in
their homes are related to the presence of drywall produced in China (May 1,
2010).









2.4 Early Problem Identification

In 2004, the American Management Resource Corporation (AMRC), a Florida-

based environmental health and safety consulting firm, made a connection between

odor complaints and a possible problem with drywall in the state. The company had

been hired to identify and remediate sulfur odors inside private homes and identified

drywall as the source. At the time, no connection was established between the odor

causing drywall and any particular manufacturer because of a lack of labeling on the

wallboard. Jack Snyder, Principal and Senior Consultant for AMRC, stated that the

connection to Chinese manufactures was not established for another two years

because a manufacturing stamp stating the material origin was not always available

(Schmidt 2009). Paul Brinkman, a writer for the South Florida Business Journal who has

been following the defective drywall situation, makes similar claims that homebuilders

and suppliers first became aware of the problem in 2006 (Brinkman 2009b). Knauf

Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd. (KPT) has also stated that claims started arising that same

year (Brinkman 2009e).

A large homebuilder in Florida, Lennar Corp., hired a consulting firm to conduct

tests to determine whether drywall installed in their houses was creating "rotten egg"

odors in 2006. Testing was conducted by the Arlington, VA based Environ International

on 79 Florida homes built with suspect drywall. The study found sulfur compounds in

the air, but stated that the levels were well within health and safety limits or on par with

outdoor air. Lennar claimed that the sulfur compounds were "far below even the most

stringent government health and safety standards (Brinkman 2009c)."

Similarly, the largest supplier of Chinese drywall to Lennar, KPT, hired a

consultant group to conduct indoor air quality tests. This testing was performed by the









Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health on 20 homes in Florida with discolored

electrical wiring. The Center for Toxicology found results similar to Environ's tests.

According to toxicologist Dr. Phillip Goad who oversaw his firm's testing, levels of

carbonyl sulfide (COS) were in the range of salt marsh air and exposure to carbon

disulfide (CS2) was well within safety levels set by The National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (Brinkman 2009b).

In January of 2008, the Florida Department of Health's (FDOH) Indoor Air

Programs Coordinator performed an assessment of 12 homes in the southern part of

the state. The results of his tests revealed that the drywall contained strontium sulfide

(SrS) and elemental sulfur (S). Additionally, high relative humidity and heat produced

hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbonyl sulfide (COS) and carbon disulfide (CS2). The tests

results did not say or speculate whether the levels found were dangerous to human

health or capable of causing property damage (Brinkman 2009f).

It was in December of 2008 that the U.S. Consumer Product and Safety

Commission (CPSC) began receiving complaints from homeowners about obnoxious

smells and the corrosion of metal components in their homes. A team of CPSC

investigators was sent to Florida to walk several houses under study by the FDOH.

While in Florida, they observed first hand the symptoms associated with the corrosive

drywall. On April 14, 2009, a meeting was held in Washington, D.C. to assemble the

Federal Interagency Task Force.

2.5 The Federal Response

The federal response to the corrosive drywall problem is being managed by the

Federal Interagency Task Force (Task Force) led by the Consumer Product Safety

Commission (CPSC). The CPSC is working with the Environmental Protection Agency









(EPA), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The CPSC is also working with

numerous state and local agencies such as the Florida Department of Health.

The CPSC is currently conducting research in three areas. The first area is an

evaluation of the relationship between the drywall and reported health symptoms. The

second area is an evaluation of the relationship between the drywall and electrical and

fire safety issues in the home. The third is a tracing of the origin and distribution of the

drywall. This multi-pronged, concurrent approach includes interviewing consumers

about their particular drywall problems, collecting samples of degraded household

components, and establishing links between foreign manufacturers and domestic

consumers (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 2009a).

The speed of the federal investigation is limited by the scientific research being

performed. Additionally, the CPSC has identified the following as inherent obstacles to

their research:

* How much problem drywall there is in any house, given that it is already installed,
likely painted and may not be clearly marked. The drywall could fill the home or be
just a few sheets.

* Health symptoms are similar to colds, allergies or reactions to other pollutants
sometimes found in homes. As such, it is important to carefully determine if the
reported symptoms are related to the drywall and not any other environmental
factors or pollutants in the home.

* The presence and extent of corrosion within a house, or even within a room,
appears inconsistent.

2.6 Chemistry of Corrosive Drywall

On March 5, 2009, a teleconference was held between the U.S. Environmental

Protection agency (EPA), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)

and the Florida Department of Health (FDOH). The FDOH provided background









information on the research conducted to date, including the studies performed by

Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd. and Lennar. As an outcome of the call, ATSDR

asked the EPA to conduct an elemental comparison of drywall manufactured in China

against drywall manufactured in the United States. The comparison was done in an

EPA laboratory.

The sample sizes were small for the experimental and control groups. The FDOH

selected two wallboard samples from homes where the drywall manufacturer was

known to be Chinese for the experimental group. The EPA purchased four U.S.

manufactured samples from stores in Edison, N.J for the control group. All four U.S.

samples were from different manufactures, and the two Florida samples were also from

different manufacturers.

To prepare the samples for testing, paint was scraped from the two boards taken

from Florida homes. Then, all six boards had the paper removed from the solid gypsum

material and the paper was placed in six separate glass jars. The gypsum material from

each of the six samples was also placed in a separate glass containers. The paper

material was analyzed for metals, semi volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and

formaldehyde. The solid gypsum material was analyzed for metals, SVOCs, volatile

organic compounds, formaldehyde, sulfide, water soluble chlorides, total organic

carbon, pH and loss on ignition. An additional optical microscopic examination was

conducted to determine the presence of fly ash. The EPA felt the following results were

significant (Singhvi 2009):

* Sulfur was detected at 83 parts per millions (ppm) and 119 ppm in the Chinese
drywall samples. Sulfur was not detected in the four US-manufactured drywall
samples.









* Strontium was detected at 2,570 ppm and 2,670 ppm in the Chinese drywall
samples. Strontium was detected in the US-manufactured drywall at 244 ppm to
1,130 ppm. Total acid soluble sulfides were not detected in any samples.

* No fly ash was detected in the Chinese manufactured drywall.

2.7 Health Concerns

One of the more controversial aspects of the corrosive drywall problem is the

effect of the reduced sulfur compounds on human health. Ongoing research is being

conducted as to whether the levels and types of gasses capable of corroding metal in

the homes are the cause of reported health problems. Many of the affected

homeowners have filed complaints that the drywall in their homes has had a negative

impact on the health of the occupants. These complaints include asthma, respiratory

irritation, breathing difficulties, coughing, insomnia, eye irritation, headaches, sinus

problems, sleep apnea, sneezing, rashes, allergies and sore throats (Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention 2009).

The research conducted to-date has not shown that the corrosive drywall is

specifically responsible for any of these health problems. Dr. Michael McGeehin of the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention believes that irritants are typical in any

home, regardless of whether the home contains corrosive drywall. These irritants are

even more prevalent in new buildings and come from a large variety of sources

including paints, carpeting, and cleaning agents. Upper respiratory problems are one of

the more common effects of these irritants (McGeehin 2009).

Additionally, the chemicals being off-gassed by the corrosive drywall are found in

many places, the vast majority being outside of the affected homes. Natural sources of

sulfur-containing chemicals include ocean water, salt marshes, soil, human breath,

vegetation and forests, wetlands, biomass burning and human diet (protein









metabolizing). The sulfur gasses can also be generated by cigarette smoke, wastewater

treatment plants and car exhaust.

Dr. David Kraus, the State Toxicologist for the Florida Department of Health, led a

study to evaluate occupant exposure to chemicals in affected homes. The study was

performed in homes that met the case definition outlined by the state of Florida for a

home containing corrosive drywall and in control homes in the same neighborhood that

did not meet the case definition. During Phase I of the study, grab samples where taken

from all the homes in the morning and at night. The samples would be tested for sulfur-

containing gasses as well as other volatile organic compounds. Phase II of the study

captured the same air samples but over a 24 hour period to study possible diurnal

effects.

The results of his study found that the homes that met the case definition had

reduced sulfur gasses. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) was found at 5.72 parts per billion

volume (ppbV), carbonyl sulfide (COS) at 4.14 ppbV and carbon disulfide (CS2) at 2.5

ppbV. No sulfur gasses where found in the control homes. According to Dr. Kraus,

these chemical levels do not pose a hazard to occupants. Additionally, many of the

other chemicals found in both the test and control homes are known respiratory irritants

and malodorants (Kraus 2009).

Lynn Wilder, an Environmental Scientist with the Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry Division of Health Studies, also performed air sampling in both Florida

and Louisiana. In Florida, the tests were conducted in two experimental homes and two

control homes. In Louisiana, four experimental homes and two control homes were









used. Time-weighted sample data was collected to test for a wide variety of chemicals

that included reduced sulfur compounds, VOCs, amines, aldehydes and others.

The results of this study found low levels of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) both inside

and outside of the experimental homes and control homes. These levels periodically

exceeded the odor threshold but were below health-based guidelines. Carbonyl sulfide

(COS) and carbon disulfide (CS2) were also found in low levels both inside and outside

of only one experimental home. These levels were below the health-based guidelines.

The study concluded that the irritant and malodors compounds were present. As such,

sensitive individuals exposed to these chemicals could see an exacerbation of

respiratory problems. These individuals may also experience ear, nose and throat

irritation. However, the source of these chemicals could not be directly linked to the

drywall and the overall contaminant levels are commonly found in all U.S. homes

(Wilder 2009).

A third study was performed by the Center for Toxicology and Environmental

Health, L.L.C (CTEH). Although the company was hired by Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin

Co. Ltd., CTEH was to conduct an independent, third-party indoor air quality

investigation. The study was performed on 42 homes that had a documented presence

of Chinese drywall, foul odors and copper discoloration. The study also covered 13

control homes without any corrosive drywall.

The results found that the average level of carbonyl sulfide (COS) was 3.0 ppbV in

the subject homes, 8.1 ppbV in the control homes and 1.6 ppbV in the outside air. The

maximum reading in the subject homes was 16.6 ppbV. To put these numbers in

perspective, the study provided that the average reading of COS from human breath is









92 ppbV. The level in ocean air varies between 6 and 8 ppbV and the air over salt

marshes is approximately 24 73 ppbV. Animals exposed to 200,000 to 300,000 ppbV

for six hours a day, five days a week for twelve weeks showed no side effects. The

company was unable to find a correlation between this sulfur compound and corrosive

drywall (Goad 2009).

Carbon disulfide (CS2) was only found in seven of the 42 homes with a maximum

reading of 3.2 ppbV. This compound is also found in human breath with an average of

24 ppbV. The Chronic Minimal Risk Level (MRL) is 300 ppbV. The ATSDR defines the

MRL as "an estimate of daily human exposure to a substance that is likely to be without

an appreciable risk of adverse human effects (noncarcinogenic)" following an exposure

lasting a year or longer. A second standard sets the Chronic Reference Concentration

(RfC) at 220 ppbV. According to the EPA, an RfC is "an estimate, with uncertainty

spanning at least an order of magnitude, of a daily [inhalation] exposure to the human

population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without appreciable risk of

deleterious effects during a lifetime (Goad 2009)."

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) was found in only 1 test home and 1 control home with a

reading of 4.0 ppbV for the test home and 1.7 ppbV for the control home. This

compound naturally occurs in many foods such as beef, onion, coffee, cabbage and

chicken. Readings taken above a wine bottle can read up to 14.6 ppbV. The MRL for

H2S is 20 ppbV. The EPA subchronic RfC (7 year exposure) is 7 ppbV. The EPA

chronic RfC (lifetime exposure) is 1.4 ppbV (Goad 2009).

The study drew several conclusions about the chemicals found in the air samples.

First, the levels of detected sulfur compounds were all below levels associated with









negative health effects. Second, the individual chemicals are not related to the presence

or absence of Chinese drywall. Third, the chemical levels in the homes do not present a

public health concern (Goad 2009).

2.8 Identification

Identifying homes with corrosive drywall is a process that continues to evolve and

change with new research. It requires performing a number of visual inspections, smell

tests and often complicated lab work. It is not as simple as finding a sheet of drywall

labeled "Made in China" since not all Chinese drywall is corrosive drywall. Today, there

are many different approaches to identifying homes with corrosive drywall and some are

more complicated than others. The following section describes the identification

procedures offered by the State of Florida and the Federal Government.

2.8.1 State of Florida

Since March of 2009, the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) has provided an

online tool for identifying homes in the state that meet the "case definition" of a house

with drywall associated corrosion. This definition continues to evolve as more

information is provided by federal and state researchers. The first case definition was

released on March 30, 2009 and the second on December 18, 2009. As of this writing,

FDOH is still providing the second revision of their case definition via the Internet.

It is important to note that FDOH is very clear that the "sole purpose of this case

definition is to help identify homes that are affected by corrosion associated with drywall

emissions (Florida Department of Health 2009a)." The case definition is not intended to

evaluate health risks to occupants, identify levels of exposure, is not regulatory in nature

and not required for identification purposes.









2.8.1.1 Case definition (03-30-09)

The first case definition (3/30/2009) strategy by the FDOH provided residents a

simple online tool to help determine whether a home met the state's case definition for

an effected home. Five yes/no questions were posed to the homeowner that covered

odors, reoccurring and costly A/C problems, charcoal or black corrosion of copper

Freon lines, manufacturing markings on the drywall indicating a Chinese company and

a professional inspection to confirm the presence of corrosion on electrical wiring or A/C

coils. If the home was built after January 1, 2004 and a "yes" answer was given to two

or more of these questions, the home met the case definition. If the home was built

before that same date but three or more "yes" answers were given, the home also met

the case definition (Florida Department of Health 2009c). This identification approach

was originally suggested and endorsed by the Consumer Protection and Safety

Commission (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 2010a).

2.8.1.2 Case definition (12-18-09)

The most current release of the Case Definition (12/18/2009) allows homeowners

to rank their homes as possible, probable or confirmed cases of containing corrosive

drywall. The homeowner can conduct the Criteria 1 review which has three steps. The

first step requires the homeowner to identify whether their home was constructed or

renovated with new drywall since 2001. The second step requires an inspection of the

copper tubing of the air condition evaporator coil for black corrosion. The third step is to

identify other traces of metal corrosion in the home from electrical ground wires to

copper pipes and silver and copper jewelry. If all three indicators are met, the house has

met the definition of a "possible case" and a trained professional can proceed with

Criteria 2 and 3 inspections.









For a Criteria 2 inspection, the trained professional is asked to identify supporting

indicators. If there are markings on the backside of the drywall stating China as the

country of origin, the home has met the "probable case" definition. The definition can

also be met if the professional finds Strontium levels exceed 2,000 ppm in the drywall.

At this stage, it is still considered unconfirmed whether the drywall is the cause of the

corrosion in the home. The confirmation is achieved by the trained professional

performing a Criteria 3 inspection.

A Criteria 3 inspection provides three alternatives for identifying a home as a

"confirmed" case. Only one of these tests must have positive results to meet the

"confirmed" case definition. The first tests must show that the gypsum core of the

drywall contains elemental sulfur exceeding 10 ppm. The second method is to test the

drywall headspace for reduced sulfur gas emissions (H2S, COS, CS2). The third test is

a qualitative analysis of suspect drywall for its ability to cause corrosion / blackening of

copper under controlled conditions, indicating drywall samples from the home emit

gasses capable of corroding copper.

2.8.2 The Federal Government

The Federal Interagency Task Force states that it does not believe there is a

definitive test to determine whether a home has problem drywall. However, the Task

Force does suggest contacting the builder about the materials used in construction. It

also provides some sentinel indicators that are indicative of the problem drywall. These

include the smell of rotten eggs, corrosion of metal components such as copper coils

and possible health problems. It also states that the "Made in China" labeling and a

grayish colored gypsum core may be indicative of a problem.









Two members of the Task Force, the Consumer Product and Safety Commission

and Housing and Urban Development, released the report Interim Guidance -

Identification of Homes with Corrosion from Problem Drywall on January 28, 2010

(Tedder and McGuire 2009). It is intended as a preliminary interim guidance based on

the information that is available at this time. Much like the Florida Department of Health

Case Definition (12/18/2009), the identification procedure is a multi-step approach

intended to logically identify problem homes.

The first step of the procedure is to perform a threshold, or visual, inspection of the

house. The inspection is to identify any blackening of copper electrical wire and/or air

evaporation coils. The second step is to identify the installation of new drywall in the

home between 2001 and 2008. The installation could have occurred during new

construction or during renovations. If both of these visual inspections show positive

results, the second step of the procedure can be conducted.

The second step of the procedure is to find corroborating evidence. The

importance of this second step is to eliminate other confounding factors that may have

contributed to the corrosion in the home. According to the interim report, it is possible to

misclassify homes because of other possible sources of metal corrosion such as volatile

sulfur compounds from sewer gas, well water, and outdoor contaminants that may enter

the home independent of the drywall in the home. A total of six corroborating factors are

provided. If the drywall was installed between 2005 and 2008, only two of the

corroborating factors need to be met. If the drywall was installed between 2001 and

2004, four of the factors need to be met to meet the case definition. The corroborating

factors include:









* Corrosive conditions in the home, demonstrated by the formation of copper sulfide
on copper coupons (test strips of metal) placed in the home for a period of 2
weeks to 30 days or confirmation of the presence of sulfur in the blackening of the
grounding wires and / or air conditioner coils.

* Confirmed markings of Chinese origin for drywall in the home.

* Strontium levels of drywall core found in the home (i.e. excluding the exterior
paper surfaces) exceeding 1200 ppm.

* Elemental sulfur levels in samples of drywall core found in the home exceeding 10
ppm.

* Elevated levels of hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and/or carbon disulfide
emitted from samples of drywall found in the home when placed in test chambers
using ASTM Standard Test Method D5504-08 or similar chamber or headspace
testing.

* Corrosion of copper metal to form copper sulfide when copper is placed in test
chambers with drywall samples taken from the home.

2.9 Remediation

Remediation is the process of removing corrosive or damaged components from a

home and then replacing the components that have been removed. Consequently, it is

a two-step process employing a phase of demolition as well as a phase of

reconstruction. Currently, a variety of remediation approaches exist that offer a broad

range of cost, effort and sophistication for repairing homes afflicted with corrosive

drywall. This variety exists because no single remediation protocol has been adopted by

the private and public sectors. The Florida Department of Health (FDOH) does not

endorse any specific method or technique and only recently did the Federal

Government release an interim protocol for remediation.

2.9.1 The State of Florida

In their first Hazard Assessment, FDOH considered the removal and replacement

of suspected or known source material (the drywall) to be the only proven and effective









treatment method. However, state officials had also received occupant reports and

conducted preliminary tests that indicated other porous materials such as fabric may

absorb and re-emit corrosive gases (cross-contamination), but they expressed

uncertainty whether concrete and lumber had that level of porosity. The FDOH stated

that ozone treatments, coatings and air cleaners are considered suspect and needed

additional scrutiny (Florida Department of Health 2009c).

With the release of their revised Case Definition (12/18/2009), the stance of the

FDOH had changed on their views of remediation. According to the most recent website

update, the FDOH "has not examined remediation methods and does not endorse any

specific methods or techniques to conduct an effective remediation of affected homes

(Florida Department of Health 2009a)."

2.9.2 The Federal Government

On April 2, 2010, the Federal Interagency Task Force released the report Interim

Remediation Guidance for Homes with Corrosion from Problem Drywall. This interim

report is the first protocol by the federal government which outlines the four areas of the

home to perform remediation efforts. The areas include the problem drywall as well as

the systems that drywall-induced corrosion may have caused a safety concern for the

inhabitants. The four areas with safety concerns include all fire alarm safety devices

(including smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms), all electrical components and

wiring (including outlets, switches and circuit breakers), and all gas service piping and

fire suppression sprinkler systems.

The federal approach further states that in most cases all drywall should be

removed from the home until the practical and scientific challenges of identifying the

specific corrosive sheets can be overcome. If these challenges are met, and no other









corroborating evidence of corrosion exists, it is an option to leave the drywall in place.

The government also acknowledges that further research may add or subtract from the

components that need replacement. In the future, this may eliminate copper wiring with

an insulated shield but could add copper piping for water lines. The government does

not have sufficient evidence to show that cross-contamination between components

currently exists or that high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuuming is required.

However, it encourages all property owners to consider the remediation approaches

used by other professionals before committing to a single course of action.

2.9.3 Protocols from Litigation

The private sector has been performing remediation practices for several years.

These have been performed by homeowners, builders and other parties interested in

removing the corrosive drywall. Many of these practices have been proprietary in nature

and details of the procedures have been unavailable to the general public. However,

recent litigation at the federal level has presented a clearer picture of the remediation

protocols being used in the private sector by builders. These trials have been presided

over by U.S. District Court Judge Eldon E. Fallon from New Orleans. Reporting from the

trial has shown that remediation strategies used by different builders is not consistent.

There have been two trials presided over by Judge Fallon that have helped

establish legal precedents for the remediation of homes containing corrosive drywall.

The first trial was brought by seven Virginia families whose homes contain

contaminated Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd. (KPT) drywall. During the trial, two

independent Virginia contractors calculated estimates of $82 per square foot, or

$172,000 for a typical 2,000 square foot home (Kessler 2009d). These costs did not

include the expenses already incurred by the homeowners which included coil









replacements, loss of electronics, relocation expenses, loss of income and diminished

home values. The estimates were based on an approach suggested by Dean A. Rutila,

a senior principal with the environmental consulting firm Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger.

Rutila contends that the corrosive effects are "unacceptable from the perspective of life

safety and the building code (Kessler 2009d)." Furthermore, a proper remediation

"requires the replacement of all drywall, electrical equipment and all copper and silver

components in the houses (Kessler 2009d)." KPT was ordered to pay $2.6 million to the

Virginia families but never responded to the suit.

Another lawsuit was begun on March 15, 2010. This was the second trial in a

massive litigation suite against KPT. Again, the case was presided over by Judge

Fallon. The plaintiffs were Tatum and Charlene Hernandez, homeowners from

Mandeville, LA. Their home was built with Tianjin drywall, a product of KPT. One of the

more important outcomes of the trial was a determination of the remediation efforts

needed in effected homes.

On April 28, 2010, Judge Fallon decided in favor with the Hernandez family

awarding the couple $164,000 to fix their house. The protocol outlined by the judge

called for the replacement of all drywall, the entire electrical network, the HVAC system

and damaged appliances and electronics. The Hernandez family was seeking a more

thorough repair of their home that would have cost $200,000 while KPT argued that the

remediation could be done for $58,000. This was the first lawsuit in which a remediation

protocol was outlined. Judge Fallon also asked KPT to perform his remediation protocol

on the homes of the seven Virginia families from the first lawsuit.









KPT still contends that the drywall remediation can be achieved by removing only

the source contaminant the drywall. All ancillary building components, such as

plumbing, electrical and appliances, can be left intact. Where corrosion is evident on the

electrical systems, wire clipping and cleaning can be conducted. This approach is

considered "a very simple project" by Roy M. Carubba, the expert hired by KPT to

perform cost calculations of the remediation (Kessler 2009c).

2.9.4 The Homebuilders

Both Lennar Homes and Beazer Homes are national homebuilders that have

admitted to building homes with corrosive drywall. Since acknowledging the problem,

both builders have been performing proprietary remediation protocols for their

customers. During the second KPT trial, both builders were called to the stand to

discuss how their companies were performing remediation. It was clear from the

proceedings that a lot of similarities existed between the two protocols but they were not

entirely consistent with one another.

Lennar Homes has been conducting remediation since acknowledging a drywall

problem in 2006 (Brinkman 2009d). The homebuilder has not publicly disclosed the

extent of their efforts or their methodology for identifying and remediating the drywall.

However, during the second KPT trial, details of their efforts became clearer.

Approximately one year ago, Lennar made a major change to their remediation protocol

and began replacing all electrical systems. This change began once the builder realized

corrosion was occurring on insulated wires (Kessler 2009b). Lennar is also replacing

condensers outside of the home to avoid a problem known as "short cycling." Short

cycling occurs when the inside compressor fails to work properly causing additional

stress on the condenser unit which may lead to additional damage. To address lingering









dusts or odors, Lennar performs vacuuming with high-efficiency particulate absorbing

(HEPA) equipment.

During the second KPT trial, Beazer's Florida Vice President Ray Phillips testified

that corrosion was occurring behind the insulation of electrical wire. Consequently,

Beazer remediation protocols also require the complete removal of electrical systems in

homes undergoing their protocol (Kessler 2009a). Beazer protocols also call for the

replacement of cabinets and wood flooring which is likely to get damaged during

remediation. Beazer is not replacing the condenser unit (Kessler 2009c). Phillips also

noted that he had experienced lingering odors weeks after remediation occurred.

Consequently, the company now performs pressure washing within the homes prior to

replacing any materials (Kessler 2009b).

2.9.5 Private Sector Businesses

As the scope and costs of the corrosive drywall problem rise, the number of

businesses involved in the process of identifying and remediating problem homes has

also increased. The techniques employed by these companies vary greatly in their level

of effort and scientific authenticity. Several firms have invested large sums of money

into research and efforts to get protocols approved by various standards organizations

while others are simply fly-by-night operations. Given this, the FTC issued a very direct

warning to homeowners to question any business that offers a solution to the corrosive

drywall issue (Federal Trade Commission 2009).

2.10 Financial Burden

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has announced

that Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-Insured families experiencing problems with

corrosive drywall may be eligible for financial assistance. HUD has instructed FHA









mortgage lenders to extend temporary relief to families that need to make home repairs.

This relief is not typically available under an informal forbearance or repayment plan

and is called FHA Type 1 Special Forbearance. The relief would include one or more of

the following:

* Suspension or reduction of payments for a period sufficient to allow the borrower
to recover from the cause of default;

* A period during which the borrower is only required to make their regular monthly
mortgage payment before beginning to repay the arrearage; or

* A repayment period of at least six months.

HUD is instructing lenders that no late fees are to be assessed while the borrower

is making timely payments under the terms of the Special Forbearance Plan. The total

arrearage for a Type 1 Special Forbearance cannot exceed 12 months of delinquent

payments. Lenders can review borrower applications and make a determination as to

the most appropriate loss mitigation tool including loan modification, partial claim, or

FHA Home Affordable Modification Program.

HUD has also provided a second method for assisting communities where

corrosive drywall is present. This program is called the Community Development Block

Grant (CDGB). Historically, CDBG has helped to support local efforts to rehabilitate

homes through grants, loans, loan guarantees, and other means. In addition, CDBG

may also support code enforcement, acquisition, clearance and remediation activities,

and relocation. All CDBG-assisted activities must meet one of the program's three

national objectives: provide benefit to low and moderate income persons; eliminate

slums or blighting conditions; or address an immediate threat to the health or welfare of

the community. In this case, the corrosive drywall is considered an immediate threat to

the welfare of the community.









2.11 Disposal Concerns

2.11.1 Disposal of Drywall in Florida

Although the many different remediation protocols currently being practiced

throughout the U.S. vary greatly in their details, one commonality holds them altogether.

They almost all require the full removal of the corrosive drywall. Although the total

amount of corrosive drywall imported into the U.S. remains unknown, some groups

estimate that nearly 60,000 homes in the United States may have been constructed with

this tainted product. Of that, nearly 35,000 homes may have been in the state of Florida

alone (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 2010b). If the average 2,000sf home

contains 7.3 metric tons of drywall (Crangle 2009), the total weight of corrosive drywall

in Florida could reasonably approach 256,000 metric tons if total remediation of these

homes is performed. The disposal of this product requires considerable resources and

falls under the authority of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP).

The FDEP first became involved in the corrosive drywall issue after being

contacted by the Florida Department of Health in February of 2009. Dr. Tim Townsend,

a professional engineer and professor at the University of Florida, collected samples of

corrosive drywall and provided them to the FDEP for materials classification. By April of

2009, the FDEP had determined that the corrosive drywall was not characteristic of a

hazardous waste. A month later, the Interim Drywall Disposal Guide was offered to the

public by the FDEP to provide recommended procedures for disposing of all drywall

throughout the state. The guide does not differentiate between corrosive drywall and

domestically produced drywall. According to Florida Statutes (Section 403.703(6), F.S.),

gypsum wallboard is considered part of construction and demolition (C&D) debris.









Consequently, it is legal to dispose of this material at any permitted C&D Disposal site

throughout the state.

In any landfill, all gypsum has the potential to release hydrogen sulfide gas under

anaerobic conditions with water and organic material. The calcium sulfate from the

gypsum can be consumed by sulfur reducing bacteria which can produce hydrogen

sulfide gas (H2S). The presence of hydrogen sulfide gas at landfills became a concern

following the clean-up after the hurricanes of 2004 and 2005 (U.S. Consumer Product

Safety Commission 2010b). Several C&D disposal sites throughout the state

experienced high levels of hydrogen sulfide gases, which, in some cases, created

potentially dangerous situations to Floridians living in the vicinity of these sites. It is

believed the damaged drywall was dumped with large amounts of vegetative debris

which led to the high concentrations of gas. Today, the state is still wary of creating

similar conditions if the solid waste stream is again flooded with large amounts of

drywall.

Unlike typical drywall, there were other concerns about the gases surrounding the

corrosive drywall. Hydrogen sulfide is only one of three gases found in most effected

homes. The other two are carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide. Additionally, tests found

elevated traces of strontium between 2 to 8 times greater than the levels typically found

in domestically manufactured products (Tedder 2009). However, neither the gases nor

the Strontium were sufficient to create a direct exposure problem (Tedder 2009).

Given the total potential for creating hydrogen sulfide, the interim disposal guide

provides two alternatives that divert the drywall from typical disposal chains. The first

and most recommended approach is to take the corrosive drywall to a Class I landfill









where cover is applied daily and the site has a gas control system that helps mitigate

odor problems (the process of adding cover requires the placement of soil to the top of

the landfill and compacting it to a depth of 6" using heavy machinery). Additionally,

Class I landfills are typically much larger and spread the debris over greater areas. This

spreads out the drywall reducing the chances of the creation of hydrogen sulfide. If the

loads are taken to a C&D or Class III site, the guide suggests applying a daily cover

where possible but not exceeding at least one cover per week. Additionally, the loads

should be spread out over as great an area as possible.

The guide is not intended to be a standard, rule or requirement and was

developed only to provide guidance to the District staff. If C&D disposal sites choose not

to apply cover, the will not be subject to enforcement actions but may experience

increased levels of gas monitoring to ensure the safety of the site.

2.11.2 Landfill Alternatives

According to Dr. Townsend at the University of Florida, there is only one simple

alternative to avoid placing drywall into a landfill simply don't do it (Townsend 2009).

But in order for this option to make sense, there must be alternative markets available

for recycling drywall. If they don't exist, the product will inevitably return to the ground.

Four of the more typical approaches to recycling drywall include using the

removed drywall to produce new drywall, as an additive to Portland cement, for

agriculture and for use as a construction material (land applications, road base).

However, serious consideration must be given to any recycling method that would

return the drywall to a location where it could be used in the vicinity of certain metals.

Unless the elemental sulfur is removed, the drywall could potentially continue to off-gas

for many years (Pool 2009). Given this, during the 2009 Technical Symposium on









Corrosive Drywall in Tampa, Mr. Richard Tedder of the FDEP stated that he "does not

recommend recycling (Tedder 2009)."

If the drywall does return to the landfill, there are options for controlling the

production of hydrogen sulfide gas. The first option is to control the environment. By

eliminating water and organic materials, the sulfur reducing bacteria will not be able to

live. If this is not possible, killing the bacteria may be feasible with the introduction of an

inhibitor such as lime. If the bacteria can not be stopped, the next step would be to

capture or divert the hydrogen sulfide gas. This can be accomplished through the use of

a soil cover or a gas collection system. Depending on the levels of hydrogen sulfide

present, simply masking the odor until it dissipates may suffice (presuming, of course,

the levels are sufficiently low not to cause bodily harm).

Over the last ten years, the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste

Management at the University of Florida has experimented with the disposal of drywall

under varying conditions. Their tests have shown that the solutions presented by Dr.

Townsend have proven successful under the test conditions (e.g., lime-amended sand

used as a cover) (Townsend 2009). Recently the Hinkley Center received a grant from

the U.S. EPA to examine and identify and additional disposal issues with corrosive

drywall.









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

The Interim Remediation Guidance for Homes with Corrosion from Problem

Drywall ("Guide") is the first remediation protocol provided by the federal government.

The Guide specifies four areas of the home where corrosive drywall remediation should

occur. These areas include the problem drywall as well as the systems that drywall-

induced corrosion may have caused a safety concern for the building occupants. The

four areas with safety concerns include all fire alarm safety devices (including smoke

alarms and carbon monoxide alarms), all electrical components and wiring (including

outlets, switches and circuit breakers), and all gas service piping and fire suppression

sprinkler systems.

For many Florida homeowners, calculating the cost of a remediation that satisfies

the federal interim protocol is a difficult task. The protocol covers many areas in the

home and accurate construction cost information is not readily available. If the estimate

is not self-performed, one means for obtaining a cost estimate would be to ask a

professional contractor. Even then, however, it is difficult to gauge the accuracy of an

estimate without comparing it to a second or third estimate which takes additional time

and effort. As such, a remediation estimating tool ("Estimating Tool") will be developed

to provide Floridians with the means to generate a rough estimate of construction costs

if they opt to perform a remediation that does not exceed federal guidelines.

The Estimating Tool will be a software program that provides a remediation

estimate based on specific house details provided by the user and cost information

provided by the R.S. Means publication 2009 Square Foot Costs. It will use several

algorithms to multiply the values entered into the program by the user against the R.S.









Means square foot costs to generate a total cost of remediation. The program will be

robust enough to allow additional cost data to be added, edited and deleted by the user.

The user will also have the capability to enter a Florida location factor which will allow

the national average costs provided by R.S. Means to be adjusted to a specific Florida

locality.

3.1 Platform

The Estimating Tool will be developed using Microsoft Office Access ("Access").

Access is a pseudo relational database management system from Microsoft that

combines the relational Microsoft Jet Database Engine with a graphical user interface

and software development tools. The choice to use Access as the development platform

is made for three reasons. First, the final program will be a stand-alone application that

can be emailed to any interested parties. Second, the look-and-feel of the program will

be similar to other Microsoft programs which many computer users are already familiar

with. Third, the program will be robust enough to allow other programmers to add,

change or remove functionality. All source code, written in Visual Basic for Applications

(VBA), will remain accessible through the Access interface.

3.2 User Inputs

The Estimating Tool will require the user to perform a number of quantity take-offs,

measurements and observations of the house being estimated. Since the application

uses a database to store the information, the user can perform the required steps while

using the program in a limitless number of sittings. All information stored in the program

will be saved until the user chooses to delete it.

The first responsibility of the user is to provide a rough estimate of the total square

footage of finished space in the home. This number should exclude unfinished areas









often found in garages, storage spaces, attics and unfinished basements. The total

square footage of finished space will be used by the program to prepare estimates on

electrical, sprinkler and demolition services.

Next, the user must create an inventory of each room in the house and record

specific features about that room. Only rooms containing drywall should be included in

the inventory. The features of the room required by the program include the room's

overall dimensions in terms of length, width and ceiling height. Also, the number of

smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors should be recorded as well as their type

and manufacturer. Information on the thickness of the ceiling drywall, attic insulation

and the type of finish of the ceiling should also be noted.

After the room information is entered into the Estimating Tool, information about

the walls within each room is required by the program. All walls covered with drywall,

including interior partition walls, should be included in this step. The length and height of

the wall are needed, as well as whether the wall has drywall on one or two sides. Other

observations to be noted are the thickness of the drywall used on the wall, the type of

finish and the type of insulation (if applicable).

The last step required of the user is to record information about the openings

found in each wall. Openings most commonly include doors and windows. However, an

opening can also include a permanent bookshelf, woodwork or any other feature that

removes an area of drywall from the wall. Only the length and width of these openings

are required by the Estimating Tool. The total square footage of drywall calculated for

the home will exclude the total square footage of the openings.









3.3 Square Foot Costs

The database back-end of the Estimating Tool will be designed to capture two

major groups of information. The first group includes the specific dimensions and

materials of the house. These are collected by the program user and entered into the

database through the graphical user interface (GUI). The second group of information

includes the actual square foot costs related to the various stages and components of

the remediation. These include square foot costs for replacing drywall, insulation,

electrical systems and others. The first release of the Estimating Tool will include at

lease one square foot estimate for each category and stage of remediation based on

information provided by R.S. Means in their publication 2009 Square Foot Costs. The

data provided in the first release is based on information from the year 2009. As

construction costs change with time, it will be necessary to update these values.

Additionally, the specific house being entered into the program may contain elements

not pre-populated in the first program release. Under these circumstances, the user will

have the capability to update and add additional values to the square foot construction

costs through the GUI.

3.4 Program Flow

Figure 3-1 visually demonstrates the program flow of the Estimating Tool. Once a

user opens the program on his or her computer, a window will appear. This is the main

navigation window in the program that will allow the user to perform one of two

functions. The first function is to go to the estimating window where the user will be able

to create a new estimate, edit an existing estimate, delete an old estimate or run the

estimate report. The second function is to perform maintenance on the construction

costs in the database. The maintenance functionality allows the program to be updated









as building costs change over time or the user wishes to add additional costs. The user

can edit or delete the construction costs that have been pre-populated into the program

or add additional ones if needed for their specific homes. By providing this option, it is

not necessary to hard-code any variables into the source code of the program. There

will be a total of nine windows used in the maintenance of the cost data in the program.

If the user opts to work on an estimate, they will be brought to the estimate window

where they can add, edit or delete existing estimates. Each estimate is linked to one

specific house entered into the program by the user. As such, once all the required

home information is entered, the user can navigate to the window to view the

Remediation Cost Report. The Remediation Cost Report provides the user with the cost

estimates for each category of the remediation procedure, a total cost and a cost per

square foot of finished space.


Figure 3-1. Program flow of the Estimating Tool









3.5 Main Program Logic

The core programming logic for the Estimating Tool is executed every time the

user chooses to view the Remediation Cost Report. Before any information is displayed

to the user, the program will run through the linear steps and logical loops that are

shown in Figure 3-2. The first step of this logic is to query the database for specific

information about the house being estimated including the total square footage of

finished space. The total square footage of finished space will allow the program to

create remediation estimates for the costs of demolition, electrical work and sprinkler

replacement (if applicable).


ro r:'.I L.a. F.C.. .. "i Fir.r t


Figure 3-2. Core logic of the Estimating Tool









After the first three estimates are calculated, the program will enter its first logical

loop, looping through every room in the house. The room data will provide costs for

smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, ceiling insulation, ceiling paint and ceiling

drywall. In each first level loop, the program will begin the second level loop illustrated in

Figure 3-3.


Figure 3-3. Second and third level loops of the core programming logic for the
Estimating Tool


RO~LiE ~n~altE









The second level loop is responsible for gathering information on the walls entered

for each room. The first step in this loop is to collect the total area of any openings in the

walls. These openings will be subtracted out of the total drywall in the home and are

collected in a third level loop. Until the program encounters the last opening entered by

the user, the core logic will keep adding together the openings to get a total area of

these openings. Next, costs associated with insulation, paint and drywall are added to

the total costs of these three building components collected for the house. This process

is then repeated for each wall in the room. When the program fails to encounter any

more walls, the logical loop is exited and the processing returns to the first level loop.

After all the rooms, walls and openings have been processed, the information

gathered and calculated by the program will be displayed to the user through the

Remediation Cost Report. The Remediation Cost Report will be the final output of the

program. The report will be designed to be printed for future reference by the program

user. It will contain basic project information (such as project name and location),

square foot calculations and final remediation costs for each component being

evaluated by the program.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

4.1 Testing Methodology

In order to properly test the Estimating Tool, it was necessary to design a test

house that contains all the elements that are included in the functionality of the program.

As shown in Figure 4-1, the test house consists of two rooms and all interior walls and

the ceiling are assumed to be covered in drywall. A total of three doors and two

windows are included in the test house. The doors and windows serve as "openings"

that can be subtracted out of the total drywall calculations. In addition, a small partition

wall is included in the north room. The partition is needed to test the double-counting

feature of the Estimating Tool. The double-counting feature is used when a wall has

drywall on two sides. Under these circumstances, the square footage of drywall on that

wall is counted twice by the program.


















Figure 4-1. 3D representation of the house used to test the Estimating Tool

The overall dimensions of the rooms are shown in Figure 4-2, the building floor

plan. The wall with the two windows is on the north side of the building and the entrance









is found on the south side. All three doors are 3 feet wide and both windows are 4 feet

wide. The interior dimensions of both rooms are 10 feet long by 20 feet wide. The

interior partition that splits the north room is 5 feet in length. The south room is named

Room 1 and the north room is named Room 2. As shown in Figures 4-3 and 4-4, the

north and south elevations, all doors are 7 feet in height, windows are 2 feet in height

and the building walls are 8 feet in height.


4-- -


4'-0"


North


Figure 4-2. Floor plan of the house used to test the Estimating Tool


Figure 4-3. North elevation of the house used to test the Estimating Tool


o -0^
------- -CM


N











3'- 0"
L /



/
/
/
\
\
\
\


Figure 4-4. South elevation of the house used to test the Estimating Tool

In addition to assigning physical dimensions to the test house, it was also

necessary to make assumptions about the materials and systems included in its

construction. The following material selections and assumptions were made for the test

house:

* The test house has a total of 400 square feet of finished space

* Demolition costs $6.00 per square foot

* Electrical work costs $16.50 per square foot

* The test house has a wet pipe sprinkler system ($4.78 / sf)

* The drywall used on the walls is a standard drywall, 1/2" in thickness ($1.39 / sf)

* The drywall used on the ceilings is a standard drywall, 5/8" in thickness ($1.41 / sf)

* All exterior walls are insulated with a fiberglass insulation at 3 1/2" of thickness
($1.00 / sf)

* All ceiling spaces are insulated with a fiberglass insulation at 6" of thickness ($1.22
/ sf)

* None of the interior walls are insulated

* All drywall on the walls has been painted with a primer and two coats of paint
($1.03 / sf)

* All drywall on the ceiling has been painted with a primer and only one coat of paint
($0.76 / sf)









* Each room has 1 First Alert SA302CN Smoke Detector ($23.00 / unit)

* Each room has 1 Kidde / Lifesaver 9C05 CO Detector ($48.00 / unit)

* The closest location factor to the test house is Jacksonville, FL (.8)

4.2 Expected Results

There are a total of 16 fields on the Remediation Estimate window whose values

result from the information entered and selected by the user, cost data provided by the

R. S. Means publication 2009 Building Construction Cost Data, and calculation logic

provided by the program. In order to validate that the Estimating Tool performs as

designed, it was necessary to manually calculate expected values for each of the 16

fields before running the program on the test house. It will then be possible to compare

the manual calculations to the actual output of the program. The manually calculated

value for each of the 16 fields follows.

Field: Gross Wall Area (sf). Gross wall area is the total area of all the walls in the

house without subtracting out any openings such as the doors or windows. As shown in

Figure 4-4, the expected gross wall area of the test house is 1,040 square feet. This

total is the summation of the individual areas of each of the 10 walls.

Gross Wall Area
Room 9 Wall Orienlalion Length (ft) Height (ft) Area (sf)
Room1 North 20 8 160
Room 1 South 20 8 160
Room 1 East 10 8 80
Room 1 West 10 8 80
P.:..:.ii2 North 20 8 160
P,:..:., 2 South 20 8 160
Room2 East 10 8 80
P.:..:., 2 W est 10 8 80
Room 2 Partition East 5 8 40
Room 2 Partition West 5 8 40
Total 1,040
Figure 4-4. Expected total gross square footage of the wall area for the test house
calculated by the summation of the area of each wall









Field: Gross Openings (sf). The "gross openings" of a house is the total area of

all the wall openings entered by the program user. In the test house, this includes three

doors and two windows. As shown in Figure 4-5, the "gross openings" is 79 square feet.

Gross Openings
Room # Wall Orientation Type Height ft) Width (ft) Area (sf)
I: 'r I :,j h rFr,:rI [I:o :r II-.
Room 1 North Int. Door 1 7 3 21
Room 1 North Int. Door 2 7 3 21
Room 2 North Window 1 2 4 8
Room 2 North Window 2 2 4 8
Total 79
Figure 4-5. Expected total square footage of the wall openings in the test house
calculated by the summation of the openings in each wall

Field: Net Wall Area (sf). The net wall area is simply the subtraction of Gross

Openings from Gross Wall Area, or 1,040 square feet less 79 square feet which equals

961 square feet for the test house.

Field: Ceiling Area (sf). Ceiling area is the total area of all the ceilings in the

house which are entered per room. In the test house, there are a total of two rooms

which generate a total ceiling area of 400 square feet as shown in Figure 4-6.

Ceiling Area
Room # Width (ft) Length (ft) Area (sl
Room 1 20 10 200
Room 1 20 10 200
Total 400
Figure 4-6. Expected total square footage of the ceiling area in the test house
calculated by the summation of the ceiling area of each room


Field: Total Drywall (sf). Total drywall is the summation of Net Wall Area and

Ceiling Area. For the test house, the sum of 400 square feet and 961 square feet is

1,361 square feet.

Field: Electrical Estimate ($). The electrical estimate is generated by multiplying

the total square footage of finished space by the cost of electrical work per square foot.









In the test house, the assumption is made the cost of installing new electrical work is

$16.50 per square foot. Figure 4-7 shows the total cost of a new electrical system in the

test house costs $6,600.

Electrical Estimate
Total Area (s'I Cost Per SF Total Cost
400 $16.50 $6,600.00
Figure 4-7. Electrical estimate of the test house based on the product of user selected
cost data and total square footage

Field: Demolition Estimate ($). The demolition estimate is generated by

multiplying the total square footage of finished space by the cost of demolition work per

square foot. In the test house, the assumption is made the cost of demolition is $6.00

per square foot. Figure 4-8 shows the total cost of the demolition in the test house costs

$2,400.

Demolition Estimale
Total Area (sft Cost Per SF Total Cost
S4111-11 $ 4II. I-...I I, I II
Figure 4-8. Demolition estimate of the test house based on the product of user selected
cost data and total square footage

Field: Sprinkler Estimate ($). The sprinkler estimate is generated by multiplying

the total square footage of finished space by the cost of installing a sprinkler system per

square foot. In the test house, the assumption is made the cost of the sprinkler system

is $4.78 per square foot. Figure 4-9 shows the total cost of the sprinkler in the test

house costs $1,912.

Sprinkler Estimate
Total Area (sI) Cost Per SF Total Cost
400 $4.78 $1,912.00
Figure 4-9. Sprinkler estimate of the test house based on the product of user selected
cost data and total square footage

Field: Drywall Estimate ($). The drywall estimate is generated by multiplying the

square footage of a particular type of drywall by the cost for that particular type as









selected by the user. Then, all the individual costs are added together to create a grand

total which is displayed in the Drywall Estimate field. In the test house, there are two

different types of drywall used. The drywall used on the walls is a half inch in size ($1.39

per square foot) and the drywall on the ceilings is made from a heavier 5/8" type ($1.41

per square foot). Figure 4-10 shows the resulting grand total for the two types costs

$1,898.

Drywall Estimale
Type Area (sl) Cost Per SF Total Cost
I ['' I-, i iil .AI I "* 11 ,-, i '--, I; ,t,1 ,i 1 ,1 i '-
5/8" Drywall (Ceiling Area) 400 $1.41 $564.00
Total $1,897.79
Figure 4-10. Drywall cost estimate of the test house based on the product of user
selected drywall types and total square footage of drywall used

Field: Insulation Estimate ($). The insulation estimate is generated by multiplying

the square footage of a particular type of insulation by the cost for that particular type.

Then, all the individual costs are added together to create a grand total that is displayed

in the Insulation Estimate field. In the test house, there are two different types of

insulation used. The exterior walls use 3 1/2" insulation ($1.00 per square foot) and the

ceiling has 6" insulation ($1.22 per square foot). There is no insulation in the interior

walls. Figure 4-11 shows the resulting grand total for insulation costs $1,091.

Insulation Eslimate
Location Gross Area (s) Less Openings (si) Net Area (sf) Cost Per SF Total Cost
E l- ,: I J* i ll IJ.:ll I I .___ 144 Jf.|1 00 J.144 00-
Exterior Wall South 160 21 139 $1.00 $139.00
Exterior Wall East 160 0 160 $1.00 $160.00
Exterior Wall West 160 0 160 $1.00 $160.00
Ceiling 400 0 400 $1.22 $488.00
Total $1,091.00
Figure 4-11. Insulation cost estimate of the test house based on the product of user
selected insulation types and the net square footage of wall area









Field: Paint Estimate ($). The paint estimate is generated by multiplying the

square footage of a particular type of paint by the cost for that particular type. Then, all

the individual costs are added together to create a grand total displayed in the Paint

Estimate field. In the test house, there are two different types of paint used. The walls

are painted with a primer and two coats of paint ($0.76 per square foot). The ceilings

are painted with a primer and only one coat of paint ($1.03 per square foot). Figure 4-12

shows the resulting grand total for the two types costs $1,292.

Paint Estimate
Type Area (sf) Cost Per SF Total Cost
Primer + 1 Coat (Ceilings) 400 $0.76 $304.00
Primer + 2 Coats (Walls) 961 $1.03 $989.83
Total $1,291.83
Figure 4-12. Paint cost estimate of the test house based on the product of user
selected paint types and the net square footage of wall area

Field: Smoke Alarms ($). The cost of the smoke alarms is calculated by

multiplying the total number of smoke alarms by the cost associated with each type. The

test house has a total of two smoke alarms, one per room. Both alarms cost $23 each.

The total cost of smoke alarms is $46.

Field: CO Alarms ($). The cost of the carbon monoxide (CO) alarms is calculated

by multiplying the total number of CO alarms by the cost associated with each type. The

test house has a total of two CO alarms, one per room. Both alarms cost $48 each. The

total cost of CO Alarms is $96.

Field: Subtotal (National Avg.) ($). The subtotal value is the summation of all the

previous 8 cost estimates. Because the cost data provided by R.S. Means has not been

adjusted to a specific Florida locality in this field, it is a national average value. Figure 4-

13 shows that all the individual costs sum to $15,339.









Subtolal (Nalional Average)
Field Name Field Value
[,i lil,:,hI ,:r ,i E .illlI -,i 1 1 $ 1-',.11111 IIIIl
Sprinkler Estimate ($) $1,912.00
Drywall Estimate ($) $1,897.79
Insulation Estimate ($) $1,091.00
Paint Estimate ($) $1,291.83
Smoke Alarms ($) $46.00
CO Alarms ($) $96.00
Total $15,338.62
Figure 4-13. Subtotal of remediation estimate based on national average construction
costs

Field: Total (Location Adjusted) ($). The location adjusted total is the product of

multiplying the national average costs found in the Subtotal field by the location factor

selected by the user. In this case, the test house was given a location factor of

Jacksonville, FL which has a value of 0.8. Multiplying $15,339 by 0.8 creates a product

of $12,271.

Field: Cost Per SF ($). The cost per square foot value results from dividing the

location adjusted total displayed in the Total (Location Adjusted) field by the finished

square footage of the house. For the test house, it is the resultant of dividing $12,271 by

400 square feet which results in a value of $30.68.

4.3 Actual Results

The test house was entered into the Estimating Tool per the specifications of the

test procedure. All rooms, walls and openings were dimensioned per the floor plans and

elevations. All systems and materials selected for the test house were inputted into the

program identically to the test procedure. The program was then prompted to generate

a Remediation Cost Report for the test house. Figure 4-14 shows the output provided

by the Estimating Tool.












Remediation Estimate


I,-,,, ,, .- N----E1- : 1040
S i I 1123 Main Street : -. 79
I- rj-i 11 -, r 961
:Gainesville :-,i, I 400
SFL f ,1 r 1361
: 32608


I 6600
( .' '. 2400
;:- 1912
( i -. j 1898
S1091
i: 1292
I- *-I; ,, i 46
: : 96
.:i ,i ri 15339

S, f 30.68




Figure 4-14. Remediation Estimate window of the Estimating Tool displaying the costs
associated with the test house


When all the manually calculated expected results for each field are compared to


the actual results for that particular field, no differences are found. This indicates that


the program performs as designed. Figure 4-15 shows a comparison of the expected


results versus the actual results for each calculated field in the Remediation Cost


Report.

Comparison of Expecled and Aclual Values
Field Name Expecled Value Aclual Value Malch

Gross Openings (sf) 79 79 Y
Net Wall Area (sf) 961 961 Y
Ceiling Area (sf) 400 400 Y
Total Drywall (sf) 1361 1361 Y
Electrical Estimate () O6600 6600 Y
Demolition Estimate ($) 2400 2400 Y
Sprinkler Estimate ($) 1912 1912 Y
Drywall Estimate ($) 1898 1898 Y
Insulation Estimate ($) 1091 1091 Y
Paint Estimate ($) 1292 1292 Y
Smoke Alarms ($) 46 46 Y
CO Alarms ($) 96 96 Y
Subtotal (National Avg.) ($) 15339 15339 Y
Total (Location Adjusted) ($) 12271 12271 Y
Cost Per SF ($) 30 68 30 68 Y
Figure 4-15. Comparison of expected and actual cost data for the test house based on
data provided by the testing procedure









4.4 Comparison of Test House to the Average House

The domestic manufacturer of drywall, USG Corporation, manufactures 1/2"

Sheetrock which weighs 1.6 pounds per square foot and 5/8" Sheetrock which weighs

2.2 pounds per square foot (USG 2009). According to the Estimating Tool, the 400

square foot test house with a simple configuration of two rooms, three doors, two

windows and a small partition wall has a total of 1,361 square feet of drywall. If the

entire test house were made from these two Sheetrock products, the 961 square feet of

walls would weigh 1,538 pounds. The ceiling would weigh 880 pounds. Summed

together, the total weight of drywall in the test house would be 2,418 pounds. If the test

house were increased in size by a factor of 5 to accommodate 2,000 square feet of

finished space, the drywall would weigh approximately 12,090 pounds or 5.5 metric

tons.

It has been estimated that a single 2,000 sf home contains 7.3 metric tons of

drywall (Crangle 2009) which is 33% more weight than the 2,000 square foot test

house. This difference may be explained by the small number of partitions found in the

test house. The test house contains only two interior partitions whereas an average

home, which would contain multiple rooms, would have more interior partitions

increasing the total square footage of drywall.









CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

The first release of the Estimating Tool has a number of limitations that can make

its use cumbersome, maintenance intensive, possibly inaccurate and not fully

accessible. However, each of these limitations can be addressed with enhancements to

future versions of the program. These enhancements vary greatly in their level of

technical sophistication, but all are feasible with the proper computer programming skill

sets. Developing the first version of the Estimating Tool in Microsoft Office Access

("Access") was done specifically to allow programmers visibility to the program source

code for additions, deletions and modifications to the program logic for future releases.

The first limitation of the Estimating Tool is the need for users to enter a large

quantity of information about a house including dimensions and material types for each

room in the house that contains corrosive drywall. Although this information is

necessary to compute an accurate estimate specific to a single house, it does take time

for the user to compile the needed data and then input it into the program. As such, any

interface changes to reduce this effort would improve the time needed to complete an

estimate. One approach would be to add functionality to the Estimating Tool that would

allow the user to duplicate information already entered into the program. For example, if

a home were to contain a living room and a dining room with similar sizes and

attributes, it would benefit the user to enter information about only one of these rooms

and then simply click a button to duplicate the information for the second room. If this is

done, the user would only need to make modifications for the second room rather than

enter all the required fields a second time.









A second limitation of the Estimating Tool is the fact that construction cost data

changes over time. The accuracy of any estimate is only as good as the square foot

construction costs in the database. Updating this information requires either the user or

a program administrator to have access to construction cost data and perform the

needed updates as these values change. Creating a direct link between the Estimating

Tool and the source of the construction cost data (such as R.S. Means) could eliminate

this administrative burden. Rather than maintaining the cost data in each copy of the

program, the information should be updated directly from the source of the cost data.

The third limitation of the program concerns the specific features of walls in a

house and the capability of the Estimating Tool to capture this information for the total

remediation cost. For example, many houses feature trim work to protect the wall and

provide architectural features. The trim work often includes base molding, chair rail and

crown molding. These are expensive features of the wall and may not be salvageable

during the demolition phase of the remediation. Even if they are salvaged, they will need

to be reconstructed and refinished during reconstruction. The Estimating Tool does not

currently allow the user to capture information about theses features which could lead to

an inaccurate cost of the total remediation. Future releases of the program should allow

the user to capture more information about each wall such as the trim work, wallpaper,

light boxes, ceramic tile and cabinetry that can not be salvaged.

A fourth limitation of the Estimating Tool is the platform on which the program was

initially developed. Although Access provides the benefits of open source code, not all

computer users have Access installed on their machines. If the Estimating Tool were

moved to a Web-based platform, it would be more accessible to the general public. The









ability to access the estimating program could also be limited to a specific set of login

credentials established by the authority maintaining the website.

In summary, the Estimating Tool has the potential to provide the users a simpler,

more accessible and more accurate means for creating a remediation estimate of a

home containing corrosive drywall. However, these future enhancements will require

additional time and skill to implement, and in all likelihood, will cost money. Until the

changes are implemented, the first release of the Estimating Tool accurately provides

users a ballpark estimate of a remediation effort based on the current inputs captured in

the program.











APPENDIX A
REMEDIATION ESTIMATING TOOL FORMS


frr LR-. unn T t IF I',,,1I fnl'ri, 'p1pr- -


Figure A-1. Navigational relationship between forms in the Estimating Tool


Form Name Table Name
il ,. 'i ,- ll,, [I.,i 'i ,- ll ,,


l l..E lT' ,: | l il.: 1 l ,l l- :I l: il.: i,
riinEI.:.ii _l I l.IHI.:. i-

frmlnsulation tbllnsulation
frmLocationFactor tblLocationFactor
frmMaintenance N/A
frmOpening tblOpening
frmPaint tblPaint
frmReports N/A
frmRoom tblRoom
frmSmokeAlarm tblSmokeAlarm
frmSprinkler tblSprinkler
frmStart N/A
frmWall tblWall
Figure A-2. Record source of forms in the Estimating Tool










Carbon Monoxide Alarm Estimates rn.1 : F

:.- .:ri.:.r,, Kidde / Lifesaver 9C05 -_ Jj I
.: e !






Figure A-3. GUI of frmCOAlarm from the Estimating Tool

Demolition Estimates Fr1 Fr
S eI..11: .. Drywall Demolition, Low-End I Z I
r,-,,i :r i ., ,-,r, : SF
"1 $6.00




Figure A-4. GUI of frmDemolition from the Estimating Tool

Drywall Estimates rF ,:i F

S;..: i .:.r, ..j .1 Drywall 318" 1
Urir .:r ie r -ii, --,r..1rt1 ) F
$.:1:r $1,39 -'





Figure A-5. GUI of frmDrywall from the Estimating Tool

Electrical Estimates rF .:
S .... lr E I -... 1 Low-End Cost I I
II .-, .- SF





Figure A-6. GUI of frmElectrical from the Estimating Tool












- ". [,9." BI i '.:. l-',r .:.r,
E tr.,,, -r rj ,,,ie Test House
.'i e: Line I 1123 Main Street


Ir : Gainesville
-r |FL
:i | 32608
*:.:,ts L.:.*: .:,.:.r, 1320,322

H-M.:'j:-s [r.r.:.,i..'i:,.:.r.----
H.:-,.:e T.:.r 1 F F 400
C.i',. T l:.e iDrywall Demolition, Low-End I
Ele-:r,.: I J.-r .:- IrJc I Electrical System, Low-End Cost I
-pi r. ler: Wet pipe sprinkler systems, steel, black, sch. 40 pipe, light h.: I


-j' I


Delete r






E r... rI


Figure A-7. GUI of frmHouse from the Estimating Tool


Insulation Estimates r[

**':r:i:ii.r lFiberglass Insulation, 3-1/2"-
I.'l" ,:r 1- :..j "., sr; 5: F
:.: $1.00



Figure A-8. GUI of frmnsulation from the Estimating Tool

Figure A-8. GUI of frmlnsulation from the Estimating Tool


Remediation Estimate


r :., r








Location Factors r1 :.i r1

-_ ':" I
p 1320,322
*:i J|acksonville

FireA-9. G I I cr fm te Eg

Figure A-9. GUI of frmLocationFactor from the Estimating Tool


Ma

I


iintain Estimate Values
;':. ::';'. ii"........ [ n. .:.ln ,:.,-, .



f a'r.'r"
nI I


.- :1.- r r I i:. l ,-i;
j i '-' n .: r .. id : ^ j i i' ..; I


Li


Figure A-10. GUI of frmMaintenance from


the Estimating Tool










Wall Openings
Es-ir..aIte r.ar,- ITest House
PF..:.ri Nar.e: IRoom
N. l i: INi:,rrh | 1 2


''lth 3 ,:Fe .t ;.3 I
He 1l"-,1- 7 (:Fe i lg r.,.i ,.




LiL iJ -J1s- J
Figure A-11. GUI of frmOpenings from the Estimating Tool

Paint Estimates rF .,
Painting, interior on plaster and drywall, bushwork, primer & 1 coat |
1 r .1 1 _1- ._SF-


Figure A-12. GUI of frmPaint from the Estimating Tool

Figure A-12. GUI of frmPaint from the Estimating Tool












Remediation Estimate

-- I .:.i .:r ,-,r.:.=,,, ,.:.. -

E :r,,- r.,r J i.,, Test House
.- : Ln..7 I 1123 Main Stree
*.I.-I -.e: L'n,.- "
:r IGainesville
-r "_," | [FL
S32608

-- -...'1 i ... b:,I L ---,l-,,;r i -
El.+. h-: l E:rl r. ,,',, ,' ,





., : .r i F : r- ,






."jt.r.:.r 1,l rI :,r,.:.,r, ,Il .*,
r.:.r ,l L.:..: ,.:., ,l .u ;r..J '

S.:..r F-. -F j



Ii


Figure A-13. GUI of frmReports from the Estimating Tool


- H .:..j e i ,r.I:.i ,, ,r ,


i.:.-: "-.er.r : r 79
J 11 re :, r ri 641
- ilIr.. :. ".r. j 200
.:. ',. .i ll r, ,: 8 4 1


6600






c41








.7.41


it















IRooml


10 F-er 6 r. I
S10 F. : r ,r I
IFiberglass Insulation, 3-1/2"
IStandard Drywall 3/8" j
IPainting, interior on plaster and drywall, bushwork, primer


-Wja I
SI


:. T p.. IFirst Alert SA302CN (Smoke Detector) '. 1r
.'.. T Kidde / Lifesaver 9CO5 Z .:.




Figure A-14. GUI of frmRoom from the Estimating Tool


Smoke Alarm Estimates -.,

[.l-..: Fprr:.-. F r I l. r :: ..- -,,.:.1 .- 7 '-- 7: :., -. .
':.- r $ 823.00








Figure A-15. GUI of frmSmokeAlarm from the Estimating Tool


Sprinkler Estimates r F"

,. : ,.. 1 1, 1 -:1.. 1 7--. 1 1...... ... 1, ,:, .h, 4,.. ,; ,. .-,1: l 7 1 .O.h' h.3.. -,....


:e A .I 78of iI




Figure A-16. GUI of frmSprinkler from the Estimating Tool


Room Properties
E:rr., 9r,- r jr,- ITest House


I m.m. 1 -


L. ".: ,l:.r.:.r,'
- l." r.I ir,r.:., r,, h.:.r,
' eIlr,.' ..jrh-,
.:e l.,-,.] L- r,.j -,:
*"5 l -.1r,. i,, St,:.,-,
.": ,hr,.- .i 5.11
."e~l.-,.p si: ,,r












Corrosive Drywall
Remediation Estimating Tool


.! 1 i r.r- 5 r, : I



D .-l.:.pe-i E

F rn.:l E -b.:.ut

ST ... P Fr .-.ri .-1 ..:. rtl-.e du e -- .:i-.::Il *:.r rl-h.
:ir.. i r *- F. r l I.:.r l.. in P I r I I Fijl illr e io r, r i:.r r h
F e,'ulJl' ei',', t i:.ii r:. j e l-'-,ji e' c *:,r r i.r i ,:.r i,:i ,,.,- 11-

S .ir ., e L -i.r .:.I Fl:.r .15.



Figure A-17. GUI of frmStart from the Estimating Tool


Wall Properties

E-.: r.:,- rj:,...e ITest House

S.::, rj..i.- Roomi of

L' -..:rpI':.r:: North -d I

L I .-.:]rI-i 10 .Feit.. .-., -,c |I

He -r ,F- r .j..:..r. -I

'i., ..all T *.e: standard Drywall 3/8" [ ',l-.

ir..-jlhcr. T pr.: IFiberglass Insulation, 3-1/2"

S-iir. T .p': |Painting, interior on plaster and drywall, bushwork, primer & 1

F E..:r :.id :..f r e ...ll im te :.:.. i -d i .i : .. ll





Figure A-18. GUI offrmWall from the Estimating Tool










APPENDIX B
REMEDIATION ESTIMATING TOOL DATABASE


Figure B-1. Relationship of database tables from the Estimating Tool

Table Name Field Name Data Type Primary Key
IL, I ,^ l.irli, II-_ _u |.:i l ,, l ,i b e l '. .I
txtDescription Text No
currCost Currency No
Figure B-2. Design of database table tblCOAlarm from the Estimating Tool

Table Name Field Name Data Type Primary Key
Tbl.ILen'i.IliTr.r, I it' l lj t-..e e-
txtDescription Text No
txtMeasurement Text No
currCost Currency No
Figure B-3. Design of database table tblDemolition from the Estimating Tool

Table Name Field Name Data Type Primary Key
IL.ILI- -,ll I i 1._u l,: ai l.Jb, :e '.e!.
txtDescription Text No
txtMeasurement Text No
currCost Currency No
Figure B-4. Design of database table tblDrywall from the Estimating Tool


IWHI~ill
















Figure B-5. Design


Table Name Field Name Data Type Primary Key
IL.IlE l rl,:ri l I -1L,-: eI.: Il il l '. !:
txtDescription Text No
txtMeasurement Text No
currCost Currency No


of database table tblElectrica


Table Name


I from the E

Data Type


stimating Tool


TLIlH.-.j e- II 'jt-I IjML,.e. '. e
txtName Text No
txtAddressl Text No
txtAddress2 Text No
txtCity Text No
txtState Text No
numZip Number No
numLocation Number No
numTotalSF Number No
numDemolition Number No
numElectrical Number No
numSprinkler Number No


Figure B-6. Design of database table tblHouse from the


Estimating Tool


Table Name Field Name Data Type Primary Key
[L.'llI[ul:l..,. II II___________ i '. e
txtDescription Text No
txtMeasurement Text No
currCost Currency No
Figure B-7. Design of database table tbllnsulation from the Estimating Tool

Table Name Field Name Data Type Primary Key
tblLocationFactor ID AutoNumber Yes
txtState Text No
txtZip Text No
txtCity Text No
numResFactor Number No
Figure B-8. Design of database table tblLocationFactor from the Estimating Tool

Table Name Field Name Data Type Primary Key
lL .I eip ,,. ID______1_ _ul.:iI Ju i.,L, e l '. e
numWalllD Number No
numRoomlD Number No
numHouselD Number No
txtDescription Text No
numWidth Number No
numHeight Number No
Figure B-9. Design of database table tblOpening from the Estimating Tool


Field Name


Primary Key










Table Name Field Name Data Type Primary Key
IL.IP mil I I- llI.j.:1 ,,L.-i '. !:
txtDescription Text No
txtMeasurement Text No
currCost Currency No
Figure B-10. Design of database table tblPaint from the Estimating Tool


Table Name


Figure B-11.


T bl. I 'it-IIjtIl LI'J 'be7i -
numHouselD Number No
txtDescription Text No
numCeilingWidth Number No
numCeilingLength Number No
numCeilinglnsulation Number No
numCeilingDrywall Number No
numCeilingPaint Number No
numSmokeAlarms Number No
numQtySmokeAlarms Number No
numCOAlarms Number No
numQtyCOAlarms Number No
Design of database table tblRoom from the Estimating Tool

Table Name Field Name Data Type Primary Key
IL.I-_i .:h, e l .ll, ID _jl.,: JiJui,,L, el '. e
txtDescription Text No
currCost Currency No


Figure B-12. Design of database table tblSmokeAlarm from the Estimating Tool

Table Name Field Name Data Type Primary Key
IL.1 I- ll|,l1-- i I1- .:ill .i -ij '.E!
txtDescription Text No
txtMeasurement Text No
currCost Currency No
Figure B-13. Design of database table tblSprinkler from the Estimating Tool

Table Name Field Name Data Type Primary Key
TLI'", 11 II. 'it I Iijm L.e. '. e
numRoomlD Number No
numHouselD Number No
txtDescription Text No
numLength Number No
numHeight Number No
numDrywalllD Number No
numlnsulationlD Number No
numPaintlD Number No
blnTwoSided Yes/No No
Figure B-14. Design of database table tblWall from the Estimating Tool


Field Name


Data Type


Primary Key









LIST OF REFERENCES


Armstrong, D., et al. (2002). "85 innovations 1917-1938." Forbes.com,
(Oct. 6, 2009).

Brinkman, P. (2009a). "Chinese drywall class action lawsuit targets Lennar Corp." South
Florida Business Journal,

(Oct. 20, 2009).

Brinkman, P. (2009b). "Chinese drywall issue pops up locally." South Florida Business
Journal,

(Oct. 20, 2009).

Brinkman, P. (2009c). "Hearing set to certify Chinese drywall class." South Florida
Business Journal,

(Oct. 20, 2009).

Brinkman, P. (2009d). "Lennar files suit over Chinese drywall." South Florida
Business Journal,

(Oct. 20, 2009).

Brinkman, P. (2009e). "More problems with Chinese drywall surface." South Florida
Business Journal,

(Oct. 20, 2009).

Brinkman, P. (2009f). "Some drywall issues were quietly settled." South Florida
Business Journal,

(Oct. 20, 2009).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). "Imported drywall and health a
guide for healthcare providers (current as of September, 2009)."
(Oct. 20, 2009).

Crangle, R. (2009). "Chinese drywall imports: how much came, when did it get here,
where did it go?" Proceedings, Technical Symposium on Corrosive Imported
Drywall, Florida Department of Health, Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management, USF Health, Tampa, Fl.









Dushack, J. (2009). "The drywall manufacturing process." Proceedings, Technical
Symposium on Corrosive Imported Drywall, Florida Department of Health,
Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, USF Health,
Tampa, Fl.

Federal Trade Commission. (2009). "Defective imported drywall: don't get nailed by
bogus tests and treatments."
(May 18, 2010).

Florida Department of Health. (2009a). "Case definition (12-18-09) for drywall
associated corrosion in residences."
air/casedefinition.html> (May 1,2010).

Florida Department of Health. (2009b). "Hazard assessment of copper corrosion and
air-conditioner evaporator coil failures possibly associated with imported drywall."
(Oct.
20, 2009).

Florida Department of Health. (2009c). "Step-by-step self-assessment guide for signs
that a home may be affected by drywall imported from China."

(Oct. 20, 2009).

Gauthier, T. D. (2009). "Proposed mechanism for the release of reduced sulfur
compounds from corrosive imported drywall." Proceedings, Technical
Symposium on Corrosive Imported Drywall, Florida Department of Health,
Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, USF Health,
Tampa, Fl.

Goad, P. T. (2009). "Residential air studies and evaluation of the potential for health
effects in homes with Chinese drywall." Proceedings, Technical Symposium on
Corrosive Imported Drywall, Florida Department of Health, Hinkley Center for
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, USF Health, Tampa, Fl.

Gypsum Association. (2009). "What is gypsum board?"
(Oct. 6, 2009).

Kessler, A. (2010a). "Chinese drywall maker is on the attack." Herald Tribune,

(May 1, 2010).

Kessler, A. (2010b). "Drywall evidence presents dilemma for Lennar Corp." Herald
Tribune,
pg> (May 1,2010).









Kessler, A. (2010c). "Drywall repair estimates for one house vary by $142,000." Herald
Tribune,
(May 1,
2010).

Kessler, A. (2010d). "Trial testimony lays out tolls of toxic drywall". Herald Tribune,
1/NEWSSITEMAP?p=1&tc=pg> (May 1, 2010).

Kraus, D. (2009). "The complexities of evaluating occupant exposures in homes with
drywall associated corrosion." Proceedings, Technical Symposium on Corrosive
Imported Drywall, Florida Department of Health, Hinkley Center for Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management, USF Health, Tampa, Fl.

McGeehin, M. A. (2009). "Indoor air pollutants." Proceedings, Technical Symposium on
Corrosive Imported Drywall, Florida Department of Health, Hinkley Center for
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, USF Health, Tampa, Fl.

Pool, J. L. (2009). "Key considerations for the repair of structures with defective
wallboard." Proceedings, Technical Symposium on Corrosive Imported Drywall,
Florida Department of Health, Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management, USF Health, Tampa, Fl.

R.S. Means Company, Inc. (2009). 2009 Square Foot Costs, 30th Annual Ed., R.S.
Means Co., Kingston, Mass.

Schmidt, J. (2009). "Drywall from china blamed for problems in homes." USA Today,
drywall-sulfur_N.htm> (Oct. 6, 2009).

Singhvi, R. (2009). "Drywall sampling analysis." U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, (Oct. 6,
2009).

Stav, E. (2009). "Clearing the air about byproduct gypsum." National Gypsum Company,
(Oct. 6,
2009).

Tedder, R. B. (2009). "Disposal options for imported drywall." Proceedings, Technical
Symposium on Corrosive Imported Drywall, Florida Department of Health,
Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, USF Health,
Tampa, Fl.









Tedder, R. B., and McGuire, C. (2009). "Interim drywall disposal guidance SWM-19.17."
Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
ymemos/SWM-19-17.pdf> (May 1, 2010).

Townsend, T. G. (2009). "Mitigation and remedial options associated with drywall
disposal." Proceedings, Technical Symposium on Corrosive Imported Drywall,
Florida Department of Health, Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management, USF Health, Tampa, Fl.

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (2009a). "CPSC investigation of imported
drywall status report, July 2009."
(Oct. 20, 2009).

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (2009b). "Investigation of imported drywall
status update August 2009."
(Oct. 20, 2009).

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (2010a). "Drywall information center."
(May 10, 2010).

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (2010b). "Interim remediation guidance for
homes with corrosion from problem drywall."
(May 18, 2010).

USG. (2007). "Submittal sheet 09250 sheetrock gypsum panels."
literatureAndVideos> (May 1, 2010).

Wilder, L. (2009). "Imported drywall: joint state and federal evaluation of 10-home indoor
air investigation." Proceedings, Technical Symposium on Corrosive Imported
Drywall, Florida Department of Health, Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management, USF Health, Tampa, Fl.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Patrick Vernon Bebout was born in State College, Pennsylvania to John and Ann

Bebout. He has a younger brother, Andrew, and a younger sister, Nicole. He graduated

from high school in June of 1994 and started his college career one year later at the

University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia. He graduated with a bachelor of

science in commerce in May of 1999. After graduation, he began work as an analyst for

an information technology consulting firm. After several years, he switched careers to

begin work as a project manager for a large homebuilder in Virginia. In 2008, he was

accepted by the University of Florida to pursue a Master of Science in Building

Construction. After graduation, Patrick plans to resume his career in construction.





PAGE 1

1 PREDICTIVE COSTING TOOL FOR CORRO SIVE DRYWALL REMEDIATION IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA By PATRICK VERNON BEBOUT A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Patrick Vernon Bebout

PAGE 3

3 To my mom, for always encour aging me to pursue my dreams

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my parents, Dr. John Bebout and Mrs. Ann Dwyer, the most important people in my life. Without their help and their support throughout my university career and now in graduate school th is thesis would never have happened. I also want to express my sincere gratit ude to Professor Jim Su llivan for his help, guidance, support and patience in the develop ment of this document. Also special thanks go to the rest of my committee memb ers, Dr. Abdol Chini and Dr. Doug Lucas for their assistance and supervision of this document.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDG MENTS..................................................................................................4LIST OF FI GURES..........................................................................................................7LIST OF ABBR EVIATIONS...........................................................................................10ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................12CHAPTER 1 INTRODUC TION....................................................................................................131.1 Backg round....................................................................................................131.2 Statement of Pur pose.....................................................................................141.3 Scope of this P aper........................................................................................142 LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................162.1 Gypsum and Drywal l......................................................................................162.2 Defining Corro sive Dryw all.............................................................................172.3 Scope of the Probl em.....................................................................................192.4 Early Problem Identificat ion............................................................................222.5 The Federal Response...................................................................................232.6 Chemistry of Co rrosive Dr ywall ......................................................................242.7 Health Concerns............................................................................................262.8 I dentific ation....................................................................................................302.8.1 State of Florid a....................................................................................302.8.1.1 Case defin ition (0330-09) ......................................................312.8.1.2 Case defin ition (1218-09) ......................................................312.8.2 The Federal Govern ment....................................................................322.9 Remedi ation...................................................................................................342.9.1 The State of Flor ida.............................................................................342.9.2 The Federal Govern ment....................................................................352.9.3 Protocols fr om Litigat ion......................................................................362.9.4 The Ho mebuilder s...............................................................................382.9.5 Private Sect or Busine sses...................................................................392.10 Financia l Bur den............................................................................................392.11 Disposal Concer ns.........................................................................................412.11.1 Disposal of Dryw all in Fl orida..............................................................412.11.2 Landfill Alte rnativ es.............................................................................433 METHOD OLOGY...................................................................................................453.1 Pla tform..........................................................................................................46

PAGE 6

6 3.2 User Inputs .....................................................................................................463.3 Square Fo ot Costs.........................................................................................483.4 Program Flow.................................................................................................483.5 Main Pr ogram Logi c.......................................................................................504 RESULT S...............................................................................................................534.1 Testing Methodol ogy......................................................................................534.2 Expected Results...........................................................................................564.3 Actual Results................................................................................................614.4 Comparison of Test H ouse to the Av erage Hous e.........................................635 CONCLUS IONS.....................................................................................................64APPENDIX A REMEDIATION ESTIMAT ING TOOL FORMS.......................................................67B REMEDIATION ESTIMATIN G TOOL DA TABASE.................................................75LIST OF RE FERENCES...............................................................................................78BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................82

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Examples of metal corrosion in a home containing corrosive drywall. A) refrigerator coil, B) wate r shut-off valve, C) copper water line, D) sprinkler head................................................................................................................... 18 2-2 Total metric tons of impor ted Chinese dryw all by year.......................................19 2-3 Total metric tons of imported Chinese drywall by port of entry...........................21 2-4 Number and percentage of reports f iled to the CPSC from residents who believe their health symptoms or the corrosion of certain metal components in their homes are related to the pr esence of drywall produced in China (May 1, 2010) ..............................................................................................................21 3-1 Program flow of the Estimati ng Tool ...................................................................49 3-2 Core logic of t he Estimati ng Tool ........................................................................50 3-3 Second and third level loops of the co re programming logic for the Estimating Tool ....................................................................................................................51 4-1 3D representation of the house us ed to test the Es timating Tool.......................53 4-2 Floor plan of the house used to test the Esti mating T ool....................................54 4-3 North elevation of the house used to test the Es timating Tool............................54 4-4 Expected total gross square footage of the wall area for the test house calculated by the summation of the area of each wa ll........................................56 4-5 Expected total square footage of the wall openings in the test house calculated by the summation of the openings in each wa ll.................................57 4-6 Expected total square f ootage of the ceiling area in the test house calculated by the summation of the ce iling area of each r oom............................................57 4-7 Electrical estimate of the test house based on the product of user selected cost data and tota l square f ootage .....................................................................58 4-8 Demolition estimate of the test house based on the product of user selected cost data and tota l square f ootage .....................................................................58 4-9 Sprinkler estimate of the test hous e based on the product of user selected cost data and tota l square f ootage .....................................................................58

PAGE 8

8 4-10 Drywall cost estimate of the test house based on the product of user selected drywall types and total square footage of dryw all us ed......................................59 4-11 Insulation cost estimate of the test house based on the product of user selected insulation types and the net square footage of wall area......................59 4-12 Paint cost estimate of the test hous e based on the product of user selected paint types and the net squar e footage of wa ll area...........................................60 4-13 Subtotal of remediation estimate based on national average construction costs...................................................................................................................61 4-14 Remediation Estimate window of the Estimating Tool displaying the costs associated with t he test house ............................................................................62 4-15 Comparison of expected and actual cost data for the test house based on data provided by the testing pr ocedure..............................................................62 A-1 Navigational relationship between forms in the Es timating Tool.........................67 A-2 Record source of form s in the Esti mating To ol...................................................67 A-3 GUI of frmCOAlarm from the Esti mating T ool.....................................................68 A-4 GUI of frmDemolition fr om the Estima ting T ool..................................................68 A-5 GUI of frmDrywall from the Esti mating T ool........................................................68 A-6 GUI of frmElectrical fr om the Estima ting T ool.....................................................68 A-7 GUI of frmHouse from the Esti mating T ool.........................................................69 A-8 GUI of frmInsulation from the Esti mating T ool....................................................69 A-9 GUI of frmLocationFactor from the Esti mating To ol............................................70 A-10 GUI of frmMaintenance fr om the Estima ting T ool...............................................70 A-11 GUI of frmOpenings from the Estima ting To ol....................................................71 A-12 GUI of frmPaint from the Esti mating T ool...........................................................71 A-13 GUI of frmReports from the Estima ting T ool.......................................................72 A-14 GUI of frmRoom from the Esti mating T ool..........................................................73 A-15 GUI of frmSmokeAlarm from the Esti mating T ool...............................................73 A-16 GUI of frmSprinkler from the Esti mating T ool.....................................................73

PAGE 9

9 A-17 GUI of frmStart from the Estima ting T ool............................................................74 B-1 Relationship of database tables from the Esti mating T ool..................................75 B-2 Design of database table tblCOAlarm from the Estima ting T ool.........................75 B-3 Design of database table tblDemolition from the Esti mating To ol.......................75 B-4 Design of database table tblDrywall from the Esti mating T ool............................75 B-5 Design of database table tblElectrical from the Esti mating T ool.........................76 B-6 Design of database table tblHouse from the Esti mating T ool.............................76 B-7 Design of database table tblInsulation from the Esti mating T ool........................76 B-8 Design of database table tblLocationFactor from the Estima ting Tool................76 B-9 Design of database table tblOpening from the Esti mating T ool..........................76 B-10 Design of database table tblPaint from the Esti mating T ool...............................77 B-11 Design of database table tblRoom from the Esti mating T ool..............................77 B-12 Design of database table tblSmokeAlarm from the Esti mating To ol...................77 B-13 Design of database table tblSprinkler from the Esti mating T ool.........................77

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS A/C Air Conditioning AMRC American Management Resource Corporation ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry C&D Construction & Demolition CaSO4 2H2O Chemical Formula for Calcium Sulfate (Gypsum) CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDBG Community Development Block Grant COS Chemical Formula for Carbonyl Sulfide CPSC Consumer Protection Safety Commission CS2 Chemical Formula for Carbon Disulfide CTEH Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health, L.L.C EPA U.S. Environment al Protection Agency FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FDOH Florida Department of Health FHA Federal Housing Administration GUI Graphical User Interface H2S Chemical Formula for Hydrogen Sulfide HEPA High Efficiency Particulate Air HUD U.S. Department of H ousing and Urban Development KPT Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd. MRL Chronic Minimal Risk Level ppbV Parts per Billion Volume ppm Parts per Million RfC Chronic Reference Concentration

PAGE 11

11 S Elemental Symbol for Sulfur Sr Elemental Symbol for Strontium SrS Chemical Formula for Strontium Sulfide SVOC Semi Volatile Organic Compound VBA Visual Basic for Applications VOC Volatile Organic Compound

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Thesis Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulf illment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction PREDICTIVE COSTING TOOL FOR CORRO SIVE DRYWALL REMEDIATION IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA By Patrick Vernon Bebout August 2010 Chair: James Sullivan Cochair: Abdol Chini Major: Building Construction Corrosive drywall is a gypsum-based plas terboard that was m anufactured in China and contains elemental sulfur and strontium. The drywall emit s reduced sulfur gases in the chemical forms of hydrogen sulfide, ca rbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide. These three gasses have been linked to the corrosion of metal components in homes including electrical wiring, refrigeration coils and fi re safety devices cr eating a number of life safety issues. The import of Chinese dryw all into the U.S. has been occurring since 1999. Estimates place the number of affected homes up to 38,000 and nearly two-thirds of those may be in the state of Florida. Several remediation protocols, including an interim protocol issued by the federal gover nment, include the removal of all corrosive drywall from the home. This difficult and costly procedure will have a wide range of emotional, economic and envir onmental impacts. This paper presents the issues with corrosive drywall and provides Floridians an estimating tool to help gauge the financial burden of undertaking the interim f ederal remediation strategy.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The full impact of the corrosive drywall probl em in the U.S. is still emerging. As of May 7, 2010, the U.S. C onsumer Product Safety Commission has received 3,082 reports from 37 different stat es, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and American Samoa alleging that drywall manufactured in Ch ina is threatening health, corroding certain metal components in t he home, or both (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 2010a). These figures do not in clude cases that ar e reported at the state or local levels. Some estimates put the number of affected homes at 60,000 (Schmidt 2009). Regardless of the final c ount, there will be a signi ficant emotional, economic and environmental impact involved in identifying and ultimately remediating the homes that contai n corrosive drywall. As of this writing, there is no singl e standard that has em erged for either the identification or remediation of homes affect ed by corrosive drywall. Yet, at least one company has been remediating homes sinc e 2006 (Brinkman 2009d) and the federal government only recently released interim reports to provide guidance to homeowners for identifying and removing corrosive drywall (Tedder and McGuire 2009; U.S. Consumer Product and Safety Commissi on 2010b). One similarity between the remediation protocols offer ed by the private and public sectors is the recommendation to remove all of the source contaminant the drywall which contains traces of elemental sulfur (S) and elemental str ontium (Sr). With a lack of inexpensive identification systems in place, this usually re sults in the replacement of all drywall in a home where at least a small amount of corrosive drywall exists.

PAGE 14

14 Little is known as to whether the current remediation efforts will actually have the desired long term effect. Not enough time has passed to determine whether simply removing the corrosive drywall will stop certain metals from corroding in a home. Yet, if the protocols remain unchanged, it is evident that the removal of the corrosive drywall will be an expensive undertaking. If the remediators choose to replace all the ancillary building components such as insulation, cop per electrical components, sheathing and other such materials, t he cost will be even greater. 1.2 Statement of Purpose This research aims to help Florida homeowners in two ways. First, it is to serve as an educational tool to help separate fact fr om fiction. The Internet is flooded with misinformation about the true nature of the co rrosive drywall problem and how it should be handled. Over the last two years, the number of websit es providing “information” about corrosive drywall has grown. Many of these sites simply use fear to coerce homeowners into accepting costly fixes that may or may not be ef fective (Federal Trade Commission 2009). It is of great import ance that homeowners fully understand the drywall issue before committing to any identific ation or remediation efforts. Second, an estimating tool will be develo ped to help homeowners estimate the cost of a remediation effort. This tool will be created in Microsoft Office Access and gene rate estimates using cost data provided by R.S. Means. 1.3 Scope of this Paper This paper will begin with the history of gy psum and its use in drywall. It will cover the practice of traditional gypsum mini ng and the more common use of synthetic gypsum. The paper will then explain how corros ive drywall is differ ent than the drywall manufactured domestically and estimate the to tal scope of the problem. It will provide a

PAGE 15

15 history of how corrosive drywall was firs t identified and why the Chinese manufactured drywall was declared corrosive. This paper will explain the chemistry behind corrosive drywall and its effects on human health. It will provide details on the methods used to identify homes with the problem drywall a nd the different rem ediation protocols available. This paper will cover the financia l resources available to help homeowners and discuss the environmental concerns with disposing of the remediated material. This paper will also discuss the development of a remediation estimating tool. It will provide information about the development pl atform, the program flow and the core program logic. It will cover the inputs requi red from the user and discuss the testing procedures used to validate the tool’s f unctionality. Lastly, the paper will draw conclusions about the estimating tool and suggest future enhancements.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Gypsum and Drywall Drywall is a ubiquitous building product that is often called gypsum board, wallboard, plasterboard or rock lathe. The original gypsum board consisted of thin layers of plaster placed between four plie s of wool felt paper. This board was patented in 1894 by Augustine Sackett who called hi s building product Sackett Board. In 1933, the patent was purchased by USG and Sacke tt Board was renamed Sheetrock. Drywall is most commonly used as a finishing cover over the structural members of walls and ceilings. Its widespread use is credited to the lower cost and shorter installation time needed to install and finish gypsum board over it s predecessor, plaster (Armstrong et al. 2002). Unlike plaster, gypsum board is nev er wet during installation. Consequently, “drywall” became the popul ar name for the product. A modern sheet of drywall consists of a thin layer of gypsum rock placed between two sheets of paper. Gypsum rock is bet ween 100 and 200 million years old and has the chemically defined nam e of calcium sulfate (CaSO4 2H2O). Gypsum is a sedimentary rock that colle cted through the evaporation of shallow water bodies throughout the world. One hundr ed pounds of gypsum rock contains about 21 pounds of chemically combined water. The rock is mined or quarried, crushed into a fine powder and heated to 350 degrees Fahrenheit until 75% of the water is removed in a process called calcining. To make drywall, the ca lcined gypsum is again remixed with water and additives into a slurry that is poured bet ween two sheets of paper. The slurry recrystallizes back to its original rock stat e both chemically and mechanically bonding with the paper (Gypsum Association 2009).

PAGE 17

17 Today, not all gypsum used in the producti on of drywall is naturally occurring. Japan and Europe have been using byproduct gypsum for nearly 30 years (Stav 2009). Byproduct gypsum, also known as synthetic gypsum, is a byproduct of coal-fired power plants. The coal combustion process creates a number of byproducts including fly ash, various impurities and exhaust gases. T he exhaust gases are fed through limestone slurry (calcium carbonate) to remove sulfur dioxide. This “scr ubbing”, or removal of sulfur dioxide, was a requirement of the 1970 Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments. A chemical reaction occurs as the sulfur dioxide passes through the limestone slurry leaving the byproduct of ca lcium sulfate (gypsum). National Gypsum Company, a large U.S. manufacturer, claims that they receive a 97% pure form of gypsum from this process whereas mined gypsum is generally only 90% pure (Stav 2009). In 1991, synthetic gypsum accounted fo r only 4% of total gypsum production. By 2008, the number had escalated to 60% (Crangle 2009). 2.2 Defining Corrosive Drywall Corrosive drywall, also known as Chin ese drywall or impor ted drywall, is a gypsum-based drywall that contains chem icals not normally found in domestically produced drywall, most commonly strontiu m (Sr) and sulfur (S ) (Singhvi 2009). Corrosive drywall off-gasses hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbonyl sulfide (COS) and carbon disulfide (CS2) in a process that is acce lerated by high humidity and heat (Gauthier 2009). This off-gassing produces odors sim ilar to rotten eggs, corrodes copper and other metals and may have detrimental e ffects on human health (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 2009a). The metal corrosion most commonly occurs in electrical switches and appliances with copper components such as refrigerators and televisions. Depending on the construction mate rials in the home, it may also affect

PAGE 18

18 piping for plumbing, gas lines and even fire suppression systems. The corrosion creates a risk for electrical fire, gas explosions and may create an envir onmental hazard if certain refrigerants are released by damaged coils. It may also lead to the damage of smoke and carbon monoxide sensors, a hazard to life safety. Figure 2-1 provides four examples of metal corrosion in a home cont aining corrosive drywall. The black scaling found on these metals is an indicator of corrosive drywall in a home. A B C D Figure 2-1. Examples of metal corrosion in a home containing corrosive drywall. A) refrigerator coil, B) wate r shut-off valve, C) copper water line, D) sprinkler head. It is still unclear why such large quantitie s of Chinese drywall contain elemental sulfur, but several theories have been offer ed. One such theory has been presented by Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd. (KPT), a major manufacturer of Chinese drywall. KPT has stated that some su lfur odors could be associat ed with the mined gypsum rock (Brinkman 2009c). KPT has also acknowled ged that some of the corrosive drywall smelled like drywall made from natural gypsum in China. This theory is supported by an

PAGE 19

19 Environ engineer, Dr. Gauthier, who believes the sulfur is fr om a sulfur vane that was entrained in the mined gypsum (Gauthier 2009). 2.3 Scope of the Problem According to statistics compiled by t he U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. demand for gypsum wallboard pe aked in 2006 at 3.69 billi on square feet (Schmidt 2009). The U.S. demand for drywall was fuel ed by both a booming housing market and a rebuilding effort following the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma in 2005 (Schmidt 2009). During this period, the Un ited States helped satisfy domestic demand by importing significant amounts of drywall from China to construct and repair American homes. In 1955, only 50% of new homes in t he U.S. used drywall while the other half still used plaster. Today, up to 98% of a ll new homes use drywall (Dushack 2009). Figure 2-2 illustrates that t he quantity of imported Chinese drywall spiked in 2006 at nearly 218,100 metric tons (Crangle 2009). Figure 2-2. Total metric tons of imported Chinese drywall by year There are approximately 200 drywall manufacturing plants in China, but the production from these plants is often extremely limited. In fact, some plants only

PAGE 20

20 generate a few dozen boards per year (Cr angle 2009). The three largest Chinese manufactures of gypsum drywall are Lafar ge, Saint-Gobain and Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd. (KPT). KPT is the Chinese affiliate of German-based Knauf Gips. Both Lafarge and Saint-Gobain are French compani es that have not exported Chinese drywall to the U.S. The Consumer Protection Safety Commission (CPSC) staff has confirmed that at least 6,997,456 sheets of drywall were import ed into the U.S. from China since 2006 and 28,778 sheets were imported into G uam, Saipan and American Samoa (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 2009b). During that same time frame, KPT alone exported 67.3 million square feet of dryw all to southern Florida (Brinkman 2009a). The total count continues to grow as t he CPSC analyzes information received from consumers, builders, importe rs, manufacturers and suppliers of drywall to determine how much imported drywall is affected and w here that drywall has been installed (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 2009b). The CPSC states the total number and lo cation of effected homes is not known (Centers for Disease Control and Preventio n 2009). Ervin Gonzalez of the law firm Colson Hicks Eidson estimates that, based on import records, up to 60,000 U.S. homes may be affected, about half of which are in Florida (Schmidt 2009). Rob Crangle, a minerals commodity expert with the U.S. Geog raphical Survey, estimates that up to twothirds of all Chinese imports went to Florida (Crangle 2009). Figure 2-3 provides a breakdown of the Chinese dryw all imports by port of entry (Crangle 2009). Sixty-seven percent of all Chinese dryw all imports have entered the Un ited States through Florida ports, specifically Miami and Tampa.

PAGE 21

21 Figure 2-3. Total metric tons of im ported Chinese drywall by port of entry As of May, 2010, the CPSC has received r eports from 24 states and the District of Columbia (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 2010a). Figure 2-4 provides a geographic breakdown of incident reports sent to the CPSC by state. The largest number of complaints filed has come from the State of Florida (59%) followed by Louisiana (20%). Figure 2-4. Number and perc entage of reports filed to t he CPSC from residents who believe their health symptoms or the co rrosion of certain metal components in their homes are related to the presence of drywall produced in China (May 1, 2010).

PAGE 22

22 2.4 Early Problem Identification In 2004, the American Management Resour ce Corporation (AMRC), a Floridabased environmental health and safety c onsulting firm, made a connection between odor complaints and a possible problem with drywall in the state. The company had been hired to identify and rem ediate sulfur odors inside private homes and identified drywall as the source. At the time, no connection was established between the odor causing drywall and any particular manufacture r because of a lack of labeling on the wallboard. Jack Snyder, Principal and Senior Consultant for AMRC, stated that the connection to Chinese manufactures was not established for another two years because a manufacturing stamp st ating the material origin was not always available (Schmidt 2009). Paul Brinkman, a writer for the South Florida Business Journal who has been following the defective drywall situation, makes similar claims that homebuilders and suppliers first became aw are of the problem in 200 6 (Brinkman 2009b). Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd. (KPT) has also st ated that claims start ed arising that same year (Brinkman 2009e). A large homebuilder in Flor ida, Lennar Corp., hired a c onsulting firm to conduct tests to determine whether dr ywall installed in their houses was creating “rotten egg” odors in 2006. Testing was conducted by th e Arlington, VA based Environ International on 79 Florida homes built with suspect dryw all. The study found sulfur compounds in the air, but stated that the levels were well within heal th and safety limits or on par with outdoor air. Lennar claimed that the sulfur compounds were “far below even the most stringent government health and safety standards (Brinkman 2009c).” Similarly, the largest supplier of Chinese drywall to Lennar, KPT, hired a consultant group to conduct indoor air quality tests. This testing was performed by the

PAGE 23

23 Center for Toxicology and Envi ronmental Health on 20 homes in Florida with discolored electrical wiring. The Center for Toxicology found results similar to Environ's tests. According to toxicologist Dr. Phillip Goad who oversaw his firm's testing, levels of carbonyl sulfide (COS) were in the range of salt marsh air and exposure to carbon disulfide (CS2) was well within safety le vels set by The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Brinkman 2009b). In January of 2008, the Florida Departm ent of Health's (FDOH) Indoor Air Programs Coordinator performed an assessment of 12 homes in the southern part of the state. The results of his tests revealed that the drywa ll contained strontium sulfide (SrS) and elemental sulfur (S). Additionally high relative humidity and heat produced hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbony l sulfide (COS) and carbon di sulfide (CS2). The tests results did not say or spec ulate whether the levels fo und were dangerous to human health or capable of causing pr operty damage (Brinkman 2009f). It was in December of 2008 that the U.S. Consumer Product and Safety Commission (CPSC) began receiving complain ts from homeowners about obnoxious smells and the corrosion of metal components in their homes. A team of CPSC investigators was sent to Florida to wa lk several houses under study by the FDOH. While in Florida, they observed first hand the symptoms associated with the corrosive drywall. On April 14, 2009, a meeting was he ld in Washington, D.C. to assemble the Federal Interagency Task Force. 2.5 The Federal Response The federal response to the corrosive drywall problem is being managed by the Federal Interagency Task Force (Task Force) led by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The CPSC is working with the Environmental Protection Agency

PAGE 24

24 (EPA), Agency for Toxic Substances and Di sease Registry (ATSDR) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The CPSC is also working with numerous state and local agencies such as the Florida Department of Health. The CPSC is currently conducting research in three areas. The first area is an evaluation of the relationship between the drywall and reported health symptoms. The second area is an evaluation of the relations hip between the drywall and electrical and fire safety issues in the home. The third is a tracing of the origin and distribution of the drywall. This multi-pronged, concurrent approach includes interviewing consumers about their particular drywall problems, collecting samples of degraded household components, and establishing links between foreign manufacturers and domestic consumers (U.S. Consumer Pr oduct Safety Commission 2009a). The speed of the federal investigation is limited by the scientific research being performed. Additionally, the C PSC has identified the following as inherent obstacles to their research: How much problem drywall ther e is in any house, given that it is already installed, likely painted and may not be clearly marked. The drywall could fill the home or be just a few sheets. Health symptoms are similar to colds, a llergies or reactions to other pollutants sometimes found in homes. As such, it is important to carefully determine if the reported symptoms are related to the drywall and not any other environmental factors or pollut ants in the home. The presence and extent of corrosi on within a house, or even within a room, appears inconsistent. 2.6 Chemistry of Corrosive Drywall On March 5, 2009, a teleconference wa s held between the U. S. Environmental Protection agency (EPA), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Florida Department of Health (FDOH). The FDOH provided background

PAGE 25

25 information on the research conducted to date, including the studies performed by Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd. and Lennar. As an outcome of the call, ATSDR asked the EPA to conduct an elemental com parison of drywall manufactured in China against drywall manufactured in the United States. The comparison was done in an EPA laboratory. The sample sizes were small for the ex perimental and control groups. The FDOH selected two wallboard samples from homes where the drywall manufacturer was known to be Chinese for the experiment al group. The EPA purchased four U.S. manufactured samples from stores in Edison, N.J for the control gr oup. All four U.S. samples were from different manufactures, and the two Florida samples were also from different manufacturers. To prepare the samples for testing, pai nt was scraped from the two boards taken from Florida homes. Then, all six boards had the paper removed from the solid gypsum material and the paper was placed in six separa te glass jars. The gypsum material from each of the six samples was also placed in a separate glass containers. The paper material was analyzed for metals, semi volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and formaldehyde. The solid gypsum material was analyzed for metals, SVOCs, volatile organic compounds, formaldehyde, sulfide, wa ter soluble chlorides, total organic carbon, pH and loss on ignition. An addition al optical microsc opic examination was conducted to determine the presence of fly as h. The EPA felt the following results were significant (Singhvi 2009): Sulfur was detected at 83 parts per millions (ppm) and 119 ppm in the Chinese drywall samples. Sulfur was not detected in the f our US-manufactured drywall samples.

PAGE 26

26 Strontium was detected at 2,570 ppm and 2,670 ppm in the Chinese drywall samples. Strontium was detected in t he US-manufactured dryw all at 244 ppm to 1,130 ppm. Total acid soluble sulfides were not detected in any samples. No fly ash was detected in t he Chinese manufactured drywall. 2.7 Health Concerns One of the more controversial aspects of the corrosive drywall problem is the effect of the reduced sulfur compounds on human health. Ongoing research is being conducted as to whether the levels and types of gasses capable of corroding metal in the homes are the cause of reported health problems. Many of the affected homeowners have filed complain ts that the drywall in their homes has had a negative impact on the health of the occupants. Thes e complaints include asthma, respiratory irritation, breathing difficulties, coughing, insomnia, eye irritation, headaches, sinus problems, sleep apnea, sneezing, rashes, a llergies and sore throats (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2009). The research conducted to-date has not shown that the corrosive drywall is specifically responsible for any of these health problems. Dr. Michael McGeehin of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention believes that irri tants are typical in any home, regardless of whether t he home contains corrosive dr ywall. These irritants are even more prevalent in new buildings and come from a large variety of sources including paints, carpeting, and cleaning agent s. Upper respiratory problems are one of the more common effects of these irritants (McGeehin 2009). Additionally, the chemicals being off-gass ed by the corrosive dr ywall are found in many places, the vast majority being outside of the affected homes. Natural sources of sulfur-containing chemicals include ocean wate r, salt marshes, soil, human breath, vegetation and forests, wetlands, bioma ss burning and human diet (protein

PAGE 27

27 metabolizing). The sulfur gasses can also be generated by cigarette smoke, wastewater treatment plants and car exhaust. Dr. David Kraus, the State Toxicologist fo r the Florida Department of Health, led a study to evaluate occupant exposure to ch emicals in affected homes. The study was performed in homes that met the case definit ion outlined by the st ate of Florida for a home containing corrosive drywall and in c ontrol homes in the same neighborhood that did not meet the case definition. During Phas e I of the study, grab samples where taken from all the homes in the morning and at ni ght. The samples would be tested for sulfurcontaining gasses as well as other volat ile organic compounds. Phase II of the study captured the same air samples but over a 24 hour period to study possible diurnal effects. The results of his study found that the homes that met the case definition had reduced sulfur gasses. Hydrogen sulfide (H 2S) was found at 5.72 parts per billion volume (ppbV), carbonyl sulfide (COS) at 4.14 ppbV and carbon disulfide (CS2) at 2.5 ppbV. No sulfur gasses where found in the control homes. According to Dr. Kraus, these chemical levels do not pose a hazard to occupants. Additionally, many of the other chemicals found in both t he test and control homes are known respiratory irritants and malodorants (Kraus 2009). Lynn Wilder, an Environmental Scientist wit h the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Health Studies, also performed air sampling in both Florida and Louisiana. In Florida, the tests were conducted in two experimental homes and two control homes. In Louisiana, four experim ental homes and two control homes were

PAGE 28

28 used. Time-weighted sample data was collected to test for a wide va riety of chemicals that included reduced sulfur compounds VOCs, amines, aldehydes and others. The results of this study found low leve ls of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) both inside and outside of the experimental homes and control homes. These levels periodically exceeded the odor threshold but were below health-based guidelines. Carbonyl sulfide (COS) and carbon disulfide (CS2) were also f ound in low levels both inside and outside of only one experimental home. These levels were below the health-based guidelines. The study concluded that the irritant and malodors compounds were present. As such, sensitive individuals exposed to these chemicals could see an exacerbation of respiratory problems. Thes e individuals may also ex perience ear, nose and throat irritation. However, the source of these c hemicals could not be directly linked to the drywall and the overall contaminant leve ls are commonly found in all U.S. homes (Wilder 2009). A third study was performed by the Cent er for Toxicology and Environmental Health, L.L.C (CTEH). Although the company was hired by Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd., CTEH was to conduct an indep endent, third-party indoor air quality investigation. The study was performed on 42 homes that had a documented presence of Chinese drywall, foul odors and copper discoloration. The study also covered 13 control homes without any corrosive drywall. The results found that the av erage level of carbonyl sulfide (COS) was 3.0 ppbV in the subject homes, 8.1 ppbV in the control homes and 1.6 pp bV in the outside air. The maximum reading in the subject homes was 16.6 ppbV. To put these numbers in perspective, the study provi ded that the average reading of COS from human breath is

PAGE 29

29 92 ppbV. The level in ocean air varies bet ween 6 and 8 ppbV and the air over salt marshes is approximately 24 73 ppbV. Anim als exposed to 200,000 to 300,000 ppbV for six hours a day, five days a week for twelve weeks showed no side effects. The company was unable to find a correlation between this sulfur compound and corrosive drywall (Goad 2009). Carbon disulfide (CS2) was only found in seven of the 42 homes with a maximum reading of 3.2 ppbV. This compound is also found in human breath with an average of 24 ppbV. The Chronic Minimal Risk Level (M RL) is 300 ppbV. The ATSDR defines the MRL as “an estimate of daily human exposure to a substance t hat is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse human effect s (noncarcinogenic)” following an exposure lasting a year or longer. A second standard se ts the Chronic Reference Concentration (RfC) at 220 ppbV. According to the EPA, an RfC is “an estimate, with uncertainty spanning at least an order of m agnitude, of a daily [inhalati on] exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects duri ng a lifetime (Goad 2009).” Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) was found in only 1 test home and 1 control home with a reading of 4.0 ppbV for the test home and 1.7 ppbV for the c ontrol home. This compound naturally occurs in many foods such as beef, onion, coffee, cabbage and chicken. Readings taken above a wine bottl e can read up to 14.6 ppbV. The MRL for H2S is 20 ppbV. The EPA subchronic RfC (7 year exposure) is 7 ppbV. The EPA chronic RfC (lifetime expo sure) is 1.4 ppbV (Goad 2009). The study drew several conclusions about the chemicals found in the air samples. First, the levels of detected sulfur compounds were all bel ow levels associated with

PAGE 30

30 negative health effects. Second, the individual chemicals ar e not related to the presence or absence of Chinese drywall. Third, the ch emical levels in the homes do not present a public health concern (Goad 2009). 2.8 Identification Identifying homes with corrosive drywall is a process that continues to evolve and change with new research. It requires perform ing a number of visual inspections, smell tests and often complicated lab work. It is no t as simple as finding a sheet of drywall labeled “Made in China” since not all Chinese drywall is corro sive drywall. Today, there are many different approaches to identifying homes with corro sive drywall and some are more complicated than others. The followi ng section describes the identification procedures offered by the State of Florida and the Federal Government. 2.8.1 State of Florida Since March of 2009, the Florida Departm ent of Health (FDOH) has provided an online tool for identifying homes in the state that meet the “case def inition” of a house with drywall associated corrosion. This def inition continues to evolve as more information is provided by f ederal and state researchers. T he first case definition was released on March 30, 2009 and the second on De cember 18, 2009. As of this writing, FDOH is still providing the second revision of their case definition via the Internet. It is important to note that FDOH is very clear that t he “sole purpose of this case definition is to help identify homes that are affected by co rrosion associated with drywall emissions (Florida Department of Health 2009a) .” The case definition is not intended to evaluate health risks to occupants, identify levels of exposure, is not regulatory in nature and not required for i dentification purposes.

PAGE 31

31 2.8.1.1 Case defi nition (03-30-09) The first case definition (3/30/2009) stra tegy by the FDOH provided residents a simple online tool to help determine whether a home met the state’s case definition for an effected home. Five yes/no questions we re posed to the homeowner that covered odors, reoccurring and costly A/C problems, charcoal or black corrosion of copper Freon lines, manufacturing markings on the dr ywall indicating a Chinese company and a professional inspection to confirm the presenc e of corrosion on electrical wiring or A/C coils. If the home was built after January 1, 2004 and a “yes” answer was given to two or more of these questions, the home met the case definition. If the home was built before that same date but thr ee or more “yes” answers were given, the home also met the case definition (Florida Department of Health 2009c). This i dentification approach was originally suggested and endorsed by the Consumer Protection and Safety Commission (U.S. Consumer Pr oduct Safety Commission 2010a). 2.8.1.2 Case defini tion (12-18-09) The most current release of the Case Definition (12/18/2009) allows homeowners to rank their homes as possible, probable or confirmed cases of containing corrosive drywall. The homeowner can c onduct the Criteria 1 review which has three steps. The first step requires the homeowner to identif y whether their home was constructed or renovated with new drywall si nce 2001. The second step requires an inspection of the copper tubing of the air condition evaporator co il for black corrosion. The third step is to identify other traces of metal corrosion in the home from electrical ground wires to copper pipes and silver and copper jewelry. If all three indicators are met, the house has met the definition of a “possible case ” and a trained professi onal can proceed with Criteria 2 and 3 inspections.

PAGE 32

32 For a Criteria 2 inspection, the trained prof essional is asked to identify supporting indicators. If there are markings on the ba ckside of the drywall stating China as the country of origin, the home has met the “p robable case” definition. The definition can also be met if the professiona l finds Strontium levels exc eed 2,000 ppm in the drywall. At this stage, it is still c onsidered unconfirmed whether the drywall is the cause of the corrosion in the home. The confirmation is achieved by the trained professional performing a Criteria 3 inspection. A Criteria 3 inspection provides three alternatives for identifying a home as a “confirmed” case. Only one of these tests must have positive results to meet the “confirmed” case definition. The first tests must show that the gypsum core of the drywall contains elemental sulfur exceedi ng 10 ppm. The second method is to test the drywall headspace for reduced sulfur gas emi ssions (H2S, COS, CS2). The third test is a qualitative analysis of suspect drywall for it s ability to cause corrosion / blackening of copper under controlled conditions, indicati ng drywall samples from the home emit gasses capable of corroding copper. 2.8.2 The Federal Government The Federal Interagency Task Force states that it does not believe there is a definitive test to determine whether a home has problem drywall. However, the Task Force does suggest contacting the builder about the materials used in construction. It also provides some sentinel indicators that are indicative of the problem drywall. These include the smell of rotten eggs, corrosion of metal components such as copper coils and possible health problems. It also states that the “Made in Ch ina” labeling and a grayish colored gypsum core ma y be indicative of a problem.

PAGE 33

33 Two members of the Task Force, the Consumer Product and Safety Commission and Housing and Urban Development, releas ed the report Inte rim Guidance Identification of Homes with Corrosion fr om Problem Drywall on January 28, 2010 (Tedder and McGuire 2009). It is intended as a preliminary interim guidance based on the information that is availabl e at this time. Much like the Florida Department of Health Case Definition (12/18/2009), the identification procedure is a multi-step approach intended to logically id entify problem homes. The first step of the procedure is to perform a threshold, or visual, inspection of the house. The inspection is to identify any bla ckening of copper electrical wire and/or air evaporation coils. The second step is to identif y the installation of new drywall in the home between 2001 and 2008. The installati on could have occurred during new construction or during renovations. If both of these visual inspections show positive results, the second step of the procedure can be conducted. The second step of the procedure is to find corroborating evidence. The importance of this second step is to elim inate other confounding fa ctors that may have contributed to the corrosion in the home. According to the in terim report, it is possible to misclassify homes because of other possible s ources of metal corrosion such as volatile sulfur compounds from sewer gas, well wate r, and outdoor contaminants that may enter the home independent of the drywal l in the home. A total of six corroborating factors are provided. If the drywall was install ed between 2005 and 2008, only two of the corroborating factors need to be met. If t he drywall was inst alled between 2001 and 2004, four of the fact ors need to be met to meet the ca se definition. The corroborating factors include:

PAGE 34

34 Corrosive conditions in the home, demonstr ated by the formation of copper sulfide on copper coupons (test strips of metal) placed in the home for a period of 2 weeks to 30 days or confirmation of the pres ence of sulfur in the blackening of the grounding wires and / or air conditioner coils. Confirmed markings of Chinese origin for drywall in the home. Strontium levels of drywall core found in the home (i.e. excl uding the exterior paper surfaces) exceeding 1200 ppm. Elemental sulfur levels in samples of drywall core found in the home exceeding 10 ppm. Elevated levels of hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and/or carbon disulfide emitted from samples of dr ywall found in the home when placed in test chambers using ASTM Standard Test Method D550408 or similar chamber or headspace testing. Corrosion of copper metal to form copper sulfide when copper is placed in test chambers with drywall sample s taken from the home. 2.9 Remediation Remediation is the process of removi ng corrosive or damaged components from a home and then replacing the co mponents that have been removed. Consequently, it is a two-step process employing a phase of demolition as well as a phase of reconstruction. Currently, a variety of rem ediation approaches exist that offer a broad range of cost, effort and sophistication fo r repairing homes afflicted with corrosive drywall. This variety exists because no singl e remediation protocol has been adopted by the private and public sectors. The Florida Department of Health (FDOH) does not endorse any specific method or techniq ue and only recently did the Federal Government release an interim protocol for remediation. 2.9.1 The State of Florida In their first Hazard A ssessment, FDOH considered th e removal and replacement of suspected or known source material (the drywall) to be the only proven and effective

PAGE 35

35 treatment method. However, state officials had also received occupant reports and conducted preliminary tests that indicated other porous materials such as fabric may absorb and re-emit corrosive gases (cro ss-contamination), but they expressed uncertainty whether concrete and lumber had that level of porosity. The FDOH stated that ozone treatments, coatings and ai r cleaners are considered suspect and needed additional scrutiny (Florida Department of Health 2009c). With the release of their revised Case Definition (12/18/2009), the stance of the FDOH had changed on their views of remediation. According to the most recent website update, the FDOH “has not examined remedi ation methods and does not endorse any specific methods or techniques to conduct an effective remediatio n of affected homes (Florida Department of Health 2009a).” 2.9.2 The Federal Government On April 2, 2010, the Federal Interagen cy Task Force released the report Interim Remediation Guidance for Homes with Corrosi on from Problem Drywall. This interim report is the first protocol by the federal gov ernment which outlines th e four areas of the home to perform remediation e fforts. The areas include the problem drywall as well as the systems that drywall-in duced corrosion may have caused a safety concern for the inhabitants. The four areas wit h safety concerns include all fire alarm safety devices (including smoke alarms and carbon monoxide al arms), all electrical components and wiring (including outlets, switches and circ uit breakers), and all gas service piping and fire suppression sprinkler systems. The federal approach further states that in most ca ses all drywall should be removed from the home until the practical and scientific challenges of identifying the specific corrosive sheets can be overcome If these challenges are met, and no other

PAGE 36

36 corroborating evidence of corrosion exists, it is an option to leave the drywall in place. The government also acknowledges that furt her research may add or subtract from the components that need replacement. In the future this may eliminate copper wiring with an insulated shield but could add copper piping for water lines. The government does not have sufficient evidence to show that cross-contamination between components currently exists or that high efficiency par ticulate air (HEPA) vacuuming is required. However, it encourages all property owners to consider the remediation approaches used by other professionals before commi tting to a single course of action. 2.9.3 Protocols fr om Litigation The private sector has been performing reme diation practices for several years. These have been performed by homeowners, bu ilders and other parties interested in removing the corrosive drywall. Many of th ese practices have been proprietary in nature and details of the procedures have been unavailable to the general public. However, recent litigation at the federal level has pr esented a clearer pictur e of the remediation protocols being used in the private sector by builders. These trials have been presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Eldon E. Fallon from New Orleans Reporting from the trial has shown that remediation strategies used by different builders is not consistent. There have been two trials presided over by Judge Fallon that have helped establish legal precedents for the remediation of homes c ontaining corrosive drywall. The first trial was brought by seven Virginia families whose homes contain contaminated Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Lt d. (KPT) drywall. Du ring the trial, two independent Virginia contra ctors calculated estimates of $82 per square foot, or $172,000 for a typical 2,000 square foot hom e (Kessler 2009d). These costs did not include the expenses already incurr ed by the homeowners which included coil

PAGE 37

37 replacements, loss of electronics, relocati on expenses, loss of income and diminished home values. The estimates were based on an approach suggested by Dean A. Rutila, a senior principal with the environmental consulting firm Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger. Rutila contends that the corrosive effects ar e “unacceptable from t he perspective of life safety and the building code (Kessler 2009d) .” Furthermore, a proper remediation “requires the replacement of all drywall, el ectrical equipment and all copper and silver components in the houses (Kessler 2009d)." KPT was ordered to pay $2.6 million to the Virginia families but never responded to the suit. Another lawsuit was begun on March 15, 2010. This was the second trial in a massive litigation suite against KPT. Agai n, the case was presided over by Judge Fallon. The plaintiffs were Tatum and Charlene Hernandez homeowners from Mandeville, LA. Their home was built with Tianj in drywall, a product of KPT. One of the more important outcomes of the trial was a determination of the remediation efforts needed in effected homes. On April 28, 2010, Judge Fallon decided in favor with the Hernandez family awarding the couple $164,000 to fix their hous e. The protocol outlined by the judge called for the replacement of all drywall, the entire electr ical network, the HVAC system and damaged appliances and electronics. The He rnandez family was seeking a more thorough repair of their home that would have cost $200,000 while KPT argued that the remediation could be done for $58,000. This was the first lawsuit in which a remediation protocol was outlined. Judge Fallon also ask ed KPT to perform his remediation protocol on the homes of the seven Virginia families from the first lawsuit.

PAGE 38

38 KPT still contends that the drywall rem ediation can be achieved by removing only the source contaminant t he drywall. All ancillary bu ilding components, such as plumbing, electrical and appliances, can be left intact. Where corrosion is evident on the electrical systems, wire clipping and cl eaning can be conducted. This approach is considered “a very simple project” by Ro y M. Carubba, the expe rt hired by KPT to perform cost calculations of t he remediation (Kessler 2009c). 2.9.4 The Homebuilders Both Lennar Homes and Beazer Homes ar e national homebuilders that have admitted to building homes with corrosive dr ywall. Since acknowledging the problem, both builders have been performing proprietary remediation protocols for their customers. During the second KPT trial, bot h builders were called to the stand to discuss how their companies were performing remediation. It was clear from the proceedings that a lot of similarities exist ed between the two protocol s but they were not entirely consistent with one another. Lennar Homes has been conducting remediat ion since acknowledging a drywall problem in 2006 (Brinkman 2009d). The homebui lder has not publicly disclosed the extent of their efforts or their methodology for identifying and remediating the drywall. However, during the second KPT trial, det ails of their effo rts became clearer. Approximately one year ago, Lennar made a majo r change to their remediation protocol and began replacing all electric al systems. This change began onc e the builder realized corrosion was occurring on insulated wires (K essler 2009b). Lennar is also replacing condensers outside of the home to avoid a problem known as “short cycling.” Short cycling occurs when the inside compressor fa ils to work properly causing additional stress on the condenser unit which may lead to additional damage. To address lingering

PAGE 39

39 dusts or odors, Lennar performs vacuuming with high-efficiency particulate absorbing (HEPA) equipment. During the second KPT trial, Beazer’s Florid a Vice President Ray Phillips testified that corrosion was occurring behind the insula tion of electrical wire. Consequently, Beazer remediation protocols al so require the complete removal of electrical systems in homes undergoing their protocol (Kessler 20 09a). Beazer protocols also call for the replacement of cabinets and wood flooring which is likely to get damaged during remediation. Beazer is not replacing the condenser unit (K essler 2009c). Phillips also noted that he had experienced lingering odors weeks after remediation occurred. Consequently, the company now performs pr essure washing within the homes prior to replacing any materials (Kessler 2009b). 2.9.5 Private S ector Businesses As the scope and costs of the corrosive drywall problem ri se, the number of businesses involved in the process of i dentifying and remediati ng problem homes has also increased. The techniques employed by these companies vary greatly in their level of effort and scientific authenticity. Severa l firms have invested large sums of money into research and efforts to get protocols approved by various standards organizations while others are simply fly-by-night operations Given this, the FTC issued a very direct warning to homeowners to question any business that offers a solution to the corrosive drywall issue (Federal Trade Commission 2009). 2.10 Financial Burden The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Devel opment (HUD) has announced that Federal Housing Administration (FHA )-Insured families exper iencing problems with corrosive drywall may be eligible for fi nancial assistance. HUD has instructed FHA

PAGE 40

40 mortgage lenders to extend temporary relief to families that need to make home repairs. This relief is not typically available under an informal forbearance or repayment plan and is called FHA Type 1 Special Forbearanc e. The relief would include one or more of the following: Suspension or reduction of payments for a period sufficient to allow the borrower to recover from the cause of default; A period during which the borrower is only required to make t heir regular monthly mortgage payment before beginning to repay the arrearage; or A repayment period of at least six months. HUD is instructing lenders that no late fees are to be assessed while the borrower is making timely payments under the terms of the Special Forbearance Plan. The total arrearage for a Type 1 Special Forbearanc e cannot exceed 12 months of delinquent payments. Lenders can review borrower applications and make a determination as to the most appropriate loss mitigation tool in cluding loan modification partial claim, or FHA Home Affordable Modification Program. HUD has also provided a second method for assisting communities where corrosive drywall is present. This program is called the Community Development Block Grant (CDGB). Historically, CDBG has helped to support local efforts to rehabilitate homes through grants, loans, loan guarant ees, and other means. In addition, CDBG may also support code enforcement, acquisiti on, clearance and remediation activities, and relocation. All CDBG-assisted activities must meet one of the program’s three national objectives: provide benefit to lo w and moderate income persons; eliminate slums or blighting conditions; or address an i mmediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. In this case, the corrosive dr ywall is considered an immediate threat to the welfare of the community.

PAGE 41

41 2.11 Disposal Concerns 2.11.1 Disposal of Drywall in Florida Although the many different remediati on protocols currently being practiced throughout the U.S. vary greatly in their det ails, one commonality holds them altogether. They almost all require the full removal of the corrosive drywall. Although the total amount of corrosive drywall imported into the U.S. remains unknown, some groups estimate that nearly 60,000 homes in the Un ited States may have been constructed with this tainted product. Of that, nearly 35,000 hom es may have been in the state of Florida alone (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Comm ission 2010b). If the average 2,000sf home contains 7.3 metric tons of drywall (Crangle 2009), the total weight of corrosive drywall in Florida could reasonably appr oach 256,000 metric tons if total remediation of these homes is performed. The disposal of this product requires considerable resources and falls under the authority of the Florida Departm ent of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The FDEP first became involved in t he corrosive drywall issue after being contacted by the Florida Depar tment of Health in Februar y of 2009. Dr. Tim Townsend, a professional engineer and professor at the Un iversity of Florida, collected samples of corrosive drywall and provided th em to the FDEP for materials classification. By April of 2009, the FDEP had determined that the corrosiv e drywall was not characteristic of a hazardous waste. A month later, the Interim Drywall Disposal Guide was offered to the public by the FDEP to provide recommended procedures for disposing of all drywall throughout the state. The guide does not di fferentiate between corrosive drywall and domestically produced drywall. According to Florida Statutes (Sec tion 403.703(6), F.S.), gypsum wallboard is considered part of construction and demolition (C&D) debris.

PAGE 42

42 Consequently, it is legal to dispose of this material at any permitted C&D Disposal site throughout the state. In any landfill, all gypsum has the potent ial to release hydrogen sulfide gas under anaerobic conditions with water and organic mate rial. The calcium sulfate from the gypsum can be consumed by sulfur reduc ing bacteria which can produce hydrogen sulfide gas (H2S). The presence of hydrogen su lfide gas at landfills became a concern following the clean-up after the hurricanes of 2004 and 2005 (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 2010b). Several C&D disposal sites throughout the state experienced high levels of hydrogen sulfide gases, which, in some cases, created potentially dangerous situations to Floridians livi ng in the vicinity of these sites. It is believed the damaged drywall was dumped wit h large amounts of vegetative debris which led to the high concentrations of gas. Today, the state is still wary of creating similar conditions if the solid waste st ream is again flooded with large amounts of drywall. Unlike typical drywall, there were other concerns about the gases surrounding the corrosive drywall. Hydrogen sulfide is only o ne of three gases found in most effected homes. The other two are carbony l sulfide and carbon disulfide. Additionally, tests found elevated traces of strontium between 2 to 8 ti mes greater than the levels typically found in domestically manufactured products (Tedder 2009). However, neither the gases nor the Strontium were sufficient to create a direct exposure problem (Tedder 2009). Given the total potential for creating hydroge n sulfide, the interim disposal guide provides two alternatives that divert the drywall from typi cal disposal chains. The first and most recommended approach is to take the corrosive drywall to a Class I landfill

PAGE 43

43 where cover is applied daily and the site has a gas control system that helps mitigate odor problems (the process of adding cover requi res the placement of soil to the top of the landfill and compacting it to a depth of 6” using heavy machinery). Additionally, Class I landfills are typically much larger and spread the debris over greater areas. This spreads out the drywall reducing the chances of the creation of hydr ogen sulfide. If the loads are taken to a C&D or Class III si te, the guide suggests applying a daily cover where possible but not exceeding at least one cover per week. Additionally, the loads should be spread out over as great an area as possible. The guide is not intended to be a st andard, rule or requirement and was developed only to provide guidance to the District staff. If C&D disposal sites choose not to apply cover, the will not be subject to enforcement actions but may experience increased levels of gas monitoring to ensure the safety of the site. 2.11.2 Landfill Alternatives According to Dr. Townsend at the University of Florida, there is only one simple alternative to avoid placing drywall into a landfill simply don’t do it (Townsend 2009). But in order for this option to make sense, there must be alternative markets available for recycling drywall. If they don’t exist, t he product will inevitably re turn to the ground. Four of the more typical approaches to recycling drywall include using the removed drywall to produce new drywall, as an additive to Portland cement, for agriculture and for use as a construction material (land applications, road base). However, serious consideration must be given to any recycling method that would return the drywall to a location where it coul d be used in the vicinity of certain metals. Unless the elemental sulfur is removed, the dr ywall could potentially continue to off-gas for many years (Pool 2009). Given this, during the 2009 Technical Symposium on

PAGE 44

44 Corrosive Drywall in Tampa, Mr. Richard T edder of the FDEP stat ed that he “does not recommend recycling (Tedder 2009).” If the drywall does return to the landfill, there are options for controlling the production of hydrogen sulfide ga s. The first option is to control the environment. By eliminating water and organic mate rials, the sulfur reducing bac teria will not be able to live. If this is not possible, killing the bacte ria may be feasible with the introduction of an inhibitor such as lime. If the bacteria c an not be stopped, the next step would be to capture or divert the hydr ogen sulfide gas. This can be accomplished through the use of a soil cover or a gas collection system. Depending on the levels of hydrogen sulfide present, simply masking the odor until it dissi pates may suffice (pre suming, of course, the levels are sufficiently low not to cause bodily harm). Over the last ten years, the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management at the University of Florida has experimented wit h the disposal of drywall under varying conditions. Their tests have s hown that the solutions presented by Dr. Townsend have proven successful under the te st conditions (e.g., lime-amended sand used as a cover) (Townsend 2009). Recently t he Hinkley Center received a grant from the U.S. EPA to examine and identify and addi tional disposal issues with corrosive drywall.

PAGE 45

45 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The Interim Remediation Guidance fo r Homes with Corrosion from Problem Drywall (“Guide”) is the first remediation protocol provid ed by the federal government. The Guide specifies four areas of the home where corrosive drywall remediation should occur. These areas include the problem drywal l as well as the systems that drywallinduced corrosion may have caused a safety concern for the building occupants. The four areas with safety concer ns include all fire alarm safety devices (including smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms), all el ectrical components and wiring (including outlets, switches and circuit breakers), and all gas service piping and fire suppression sprinkler systems. For many Florida homeowners, calculating t he cost of a remediation that satisfies the federal interim protocol is a difficult ta sk. The protocol covers many areas in the home and accurate construction cost information is not readily available. If the estimate is not self-performed, one means for obtaini ng a cost estimate would be to ask a professional contractor. Even then, however, it is difficult to gauge the accuracy of an estimate without comparing it to a second or third estimate which takes additional time and effort. As such, a remediation estimati ng tool (“Estimating Tool”) will be developed to provide Floridians with t he means to generate a rough estimate of construction costs if they opt to perform a remediation that does not exceed federal guidelines. The Estimating Tool will be a software pr ogram that provides a remediation estimate based on specific house details pr ovided by the user and cost information provided by the R.S. Means publication 2009 Square Foot Costs. It will use several algorithms to multiply the values entered into the program by the us er against the R.S.

PAGE 46

46 Means square foot costs to generate a total cost of remediation. The program will be robust enough to allow additional cost data to be added, edited and deleted by the user. The user will also have the capability to enter a Florida location factor which will allow the national average costs provi ded by R.S. Means to be adjus ted to a specific Florida locality. 3.1 Platform The Estimating Tool will be developed usi ng Microsoft Office Access (“Access”). Access is a pseudo relational database man agement system from Microsoft that combines the relational Microsoft Jet Dat abase Engine with a graphical user interface and software development tools. The choice to use Access as the development platform is made for three reasons. First, the final program will be a stand-alone application that can be emailed to any interested parties. Se cond, the look-and-feel of the program will be similar to other Microsoft programs which many computer users are already familiar with. Third, the program will be robust enough to allow other programmers to add, change or remove functionality. All source code, written in Visual Basic for Applications (VBA), will remain accessible th rough the Access interface. 3.2 User Inputs The Estimating Tool will require the user to perform a number of quantity take-offs, measurements and observations of the house being estimat ed. Since the application uses a database to store the information, th e user can perform the required steps while using the program in a limitle ss number of sittings. All informa tion stored in the program will be saved until the user chooses to delete it. The first responsibility of the user is to provide a rough estimate of the total square footage of finished space in the home. Th is number should excl ude unfinished areas

PAGE 47

47 often found in garages, storage spaces, a ttics and unfinished basements. The total square footage of finished space will be used by the program to prepare estimates on electrical, sprinkler and demolition services. Next, the user must create an inventory of each room in the house and record specific features about that r oom. Only rooms cont aining drywall should be included in the inventory. The features of the room required by t he program include the room’s overall dimensions in terms of length, wid th and ceiling height. Also, the number of smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors should be recorded as well as their type and manufacturer. Information on the thickness of the ceiling drywall, attic insulation and the type of finish of the ceiling should also be noted. After the room information is entered into the Estimating Tool, information about the walls within each room is required by t he program. All walls co vered with drywall, including interior partition walls, should be in cluded in this step. The length and height of the wall are needed, as well as whether the wall has drywal l on one or two sides. Other observations to be noted are the thickness of the drywall used on the wall, the type of finish and the type of insulation (if applicable). The last step required of the user is to record information about the openings found in each wall. Openings most commonl y include doors and windows. However, an opening can also include a permanent bookshelf, woodwork or any other feature that removes an area of drywall from the wall. Only the length and wid th of these openings are required by the Estimating Tool. The to tal square footage of drywall calculated for the home will exclude the total square footage of the openings.

PAGE 48

48 3.3 Square Foot Costs The database back-end of the Estimating Tool will be designe d to capture two major groups of information. The first gr oup includes the specific dimensions and materials of the house. These are collected by the program user and entered into the database through the graphical user interface (GUI). The second group of information includes the actual square foot costs re lated to the various stages and components of the remediation. These includ e square foot costs for repl acing drywall, insulation, electrical systems and others. The first rel ease of the Estimating Tool will include at lease one square foot estimate for each ca tegory and stage of remediation based on information provided by R.S. Means in t heir publication 2009 Square Foot Costs. The data provided in the first release is bas ed on information from the year 2009. As construction costs change with time, it will be necessary to update these values. Additionally, the specific house being enter ed into the program may contain elements not pre-populated in the first program releas e. Under these circumstances, the user will have the capability to update and add additional va lues to the square foot construction costs through the GUI. 3.4 Program Flow Figure 3-1 visually demonstr ates the program flow of the Estimating Tool. Once a user opens the program on his or her comput er, a window will appear. This is the main navigation window in the pr ogram that will allow the us er to perform one of two functions. The first function is to go to the estimating window where t he user will be able to create a new estimate, edit an existing es timate, delete an old estimate or run the estimate report. The second function is to perform maintenance on the construction costs in the database. The maintenance functi onality allows the program to be updated

PAGE 49

49 as building costs change over time or the us er wishes to add additional costs. The user can edit or delete the construction costs t hat have been pre-populated into the program or add additional ones if needed for their specific homes. By providing this option, it is not necessary to hard-code any variables into the source code of the program. There will be a total of nine windows used in the ma intenance of the cost data in the program. If the user opts to work on an estimate, t hey will be brought to the estimate window where they can add, edit or delete existing es timates. Each estimate is linked to one specific house entered into t he program by the user. As such, once all the required home information is entered, the user c an navigate to the window to view the Remediation Cost Report. The Re mediation Cost Report provi des the user with the cost estimates for each category of the remediati on procedure, a total cost and a cost per square foot of finished space. Figure 3-1. Program flow of the Estimating Tool

PAGE 50

50 3.5 Main Program Logic The core programming logic for the Estima ting Tool is executed every time the user chooses to view the Remediation Cost Report. Before any information is displayed to the user, the program will run through the linear steps and logical loops that are shown in Figure 3-2. The first step of this logic is to query the database for specific information about the house being estimated including the tota l square footage of finished space. The total square footage of finished space will allow the program to create remediation estimates for the costs of demolition, electrical work and sprinkler replacement (if applicable). Figure 3-2. Core logic of the Estimating Tool

PAGE 51

51 After the first three estimate s are calculated, t he program will enter its first logical loop, looping through every room in the hous e. The room data will provide costs for smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, ce iling insulation, ceiling paint and ceiling drywall. In each first level loop, the program will begin the second level loop illustrated in Figure 3-3. Figure 3-3. Second and third level loops of the core programming logic for the Estimating Tool

PAGE 52

52 The second level loop is responsible for gathering information on the walls entered for each room. The first step in this loop is to collect the total area of any openings in the walls. These openings will be subtracted out of the total drywall in the home and are collected in a third level loop. Until the pr ogram encounters the last opening entered by the user, the core logic will keep adding t ogether the openings to get a total area of these openings. Next, costs a ssociated with insulation, paint and drywall are added to the total costs of these three building comp onents collected for the house. This process is then repeated for each wall in the room When the program fa ils to encounter any more walls, the logical loop is exited and the processing returns to the first level loop. After all the rooms, walls and openings have been processed, the information gathered and calculated by t he program will be displayed to the user through the Remediation Cost Report. The Remediation Cost Report will be the final output of the program. The report will be designed to be print ed for future refer ence by the program user. It will contain basic project informa tion (such as project name and location), square foot calculations and final remedi ation costs for each component being evaluated by the program.

PAGE 53

53 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 4.1 Testing Methodology In order to properly test the Estimating Tool, it was necessary to design a test house that contains all the elements that are included in the functio nality of the program. As shown in Figure 4-1, the test house consists of two r ooms and all interior walls and the ceiling are assumed to be covered in drywall. A total of three doors and two windows are included in the test house. The doors and windows serve as “openings” that can be subtracted out of the total drywal l calculations. In addition, a small partition wall is included in the north room. The partition is needed to test the double-counting feature of the Estimating Tool. The doublecounting feature is used when a wall has drywall on two sides. Under these circumstance s, the square footage of drywall on that wall is counted twice by the program. Figure 4-1. 3D representation of the house used to test the Estimating Tool The overall dimensions of the rooms are shown in Figur e 4-2, the building floor plan. The wall with the two windows is on the north side of the building and the entrance

PAGE 54

54 is found on the south side. A ll three doors are 3 feet wide and both windows are 4 feet wide. The interior dimensions of both r ooms are 10 feet long by 20 feet wide. The interior partition that splits t he north room is 5 feet in l ength. The south room is named Room 1 and the north room is named Room 2. As shown in Figures 4-3 and 4-4, the north and south elevations, all doors are 7 feet in height, win dows are 2 feet in height and the building walls are 8 feet in height. Figure 4-2. Floor plan of the house used to test the Estimating Tool Figure 4-3. North elevation of the house used to test the Estimating Tool

PAGE 55

55 Figure 4-4. South elevation of the house used to test the Estimating Tool In addition to assigning physical dimensio ns to the test house, it was also necessary to make assumptions about t he materials and systems included in its construction. The following material selecti ons and assumptions were made for the test house: The test house has a total of 400 square feet of finished space Demolition costs $6.00 per square foot Electrical work costs $16.50 per square foot The test house has a wet pipe sprinkler system ($4.78 / sf) The drywall used on the walls is a standard dr ywall, 1/2” in thickness ($1.39 / sf) The drywall used on the ceilings is a standard drywall, 5/8” in thickness ($1.41 / sf) All exterior walls are insulated with a fiber glass insulation at 3 1/2” of thickness ($1.00 / sf) All ceiling spaces are insulated with a fibergl ass insulation at 6” of thickness ($1.22 / sf) None of the interior walls are insulated All drywall on the walls has been painted with a primer and two coats of paint ($1.03 / sf) All drywall on the ceiling has been painted with a primer and only one coat of paint ($0.76 / sf)

PAGE 56

56 Each room has 1 First Alert SA3 02CN Smoke Detector ($23.00 / unit) Each room has 1 Kidde / Lifesave r 9C05 CO Detector ($48.00 / unit) The closest location factor to the test house is Jacksonville, FL (.8) 4.2 Expected Results There are a total of 16 fields on the Re mediation Estimate window whose values result from the information entered and selected by the user, cost dat a provided by the R. S. Means publication 2009 Building Constr uction Cost Data, and calculation logic provided by the program. In order to vali date that the Estimating Tool performs as designed, it was necessary to manually calc ulate expected values for each of the 16 fields before running the program on the test house. It will then be possible to compare the manual calculations to the actual output of the program. The manually calculated value for each of the 16 fields follows. Field: Gross Wall Area (sf). Gross wall area is the total area of all the walls in the house without subtracting out any openings such as the doors or windows. As shown in Figure 4-4, the expected gross wall area of the test house is 1,040 square feet. This total is the summation of the indivi dual areas of each of the 10 walls. Figure 4-4. Expected total gross square f ootage of the wall area for the test house calculated by the summation of the area of each wall

PAGE 57

57 Field: Gross Openings (sf). The “gross openings” of a house is the total area of all the wall openings entered by the program us er. In the test house, this includes three doors and two windows. As shown in Figure 45, the “gross openings” is 79 square feet. Figure 4-5. Expected total square footage of the wall openings in the test house calculated by the summation of the openings in each wall Field: Net Wall Area (sf). The net wall area is simply the subtraction of Gross Openings from Gross Wall Area, or 1,040 square feet less 79 square feet which equals 961 square feet for the test house. Field: Ceiling Area (sf). Ceiling area is the total area of all the ceilings in the house which are entered per room In the test house, there are a total of two rooms which generate a total ceiling area of 400 square feet as s hown in Figure 4-6. Figure 4-6. Expected total square foot age of the ceiling area in the test house calculated by the summation of the ceiling area of each room Field: Total Drywall (sf). Total drywall is the summation of Net Wall Area and Ceiling Area. For the test house, the sum of 400 square f eet and 961 square feet is 1,361 square feet. Field: Electrical Estimate ($). The electrical estimate is generated by multiplying the total square footage of finished space by the cost of electrical work per square foot.

PAGE 58

58 In the test house, the assumpti on is made the cost of installing new electrical work is $16.50 per square foot. Figure 4-7 shows the tota l cost of a new electrical system in the test house costs $6,600. Figure 4-7. Electrical estimate of the test house based on the pr oduct of user selected cost data and total square footage Field: Demolition Estimate ($). The demolition estimate is generated by multiplying the total square f ootage of finished space by the cost of demolition work per square foot. In the test house, the assumpti on is made the cost of demolition is $6.00 per square foot. Figure 4-8 shows the total cost of the demolition in the test house costs $2,400. Figure 4-8. Demolition estimate of the test house based on the product of user selected cost data and total square footage Field: Sprinkler Estimate ($). The sprinkler estimate is generated by multiplying the total square footage of finished space by t he cost of installing a sprinkler system per square foot. In the test house, the assumpti on is made the cost of the sprinkler system is $4.78 per square foot. Figure 4-9 shows the total cost of the sprinkler in the test house costs $1,912. Figure 4-9. Sprinkler estimate of the te st house based on the product of user selected cost data and total square footage Field: Drywall Estimate ($). The drywall estimate is generated by multiplying the square footage of a particular type of drywall by the cost for that particular type as

PAGE 59

59 selected by the user. Then, all the individual costs are added together to create a grand total which is displayed in the Drywall Estima te field. In the test house, there are two different types of drywall used. The drywall used on the walls is a half inch in size ($1.39 per square foot) and the drywall on the ceilings is made from a heavier 5/8” type ($1.41 per square foot). Figure 4-10 shows the resu lting grand total for the two types costs $1,898. Figure 4-10. Drywall cost estimate of the test house based on the product of user selected drywall types and total square footage of drywall used Field: Insulation Estimate ($). The insulation estimate is generated by multiplying the square footage of a par ticular type of insulation by the cost for that particular type. Then, all the individual costs are added together to create a grand total that is displayed in the Insulation Estimate field. In the te st house, there are tw o different types of insulation used. The exterior walls use 3 1/ 2” insulation ($1.00 per square foot) and the ceiling has 6” insulation ($1.22 per square fo ot). There is no insulation in the interior walls. Figure 4-11 shows the resulting grand total for insulation costs $1,091. Figure 4-11. Insulation cost estimate of the test house based on the product of user selected insulation types and the net square footage of wall area

PAGE 60

60 Field: Paint Estimate ($). The paint estimate is generated by multiplying the square footage of a particular type of paint by the cost for that particular type. Then, all the individual costs are added together to create a grand tota l displayed in the Paint Estimate field. In the test house, there are two different ty pes of paint used. The walls are painted with a primer and tw o coats of paint ($0.76 per square foot). The ceilings are painted with a primer and onl y one coat of paint ($1.03 per square foot). Figure 4-12 shows the resulting grand total fo r the two types costs $1,292. Figure 4-12. Paint cost estimate of the test house based on the product of user selected paint types and the net square footage of wall area Field: Smoke Alarms ($). The cost of the smoke alarms is calculated by multiplying the total number of smoke alarms by the cost associated with each type. The test house has a total of two smoke alarms, one per room. Both alarms cost $23 each. The total cost of smoke alarms is $46. Field: CO Alarms ($). The cost of the carbon monoxide (CO) alarms is calculated by multiplying the total number of CO alarms by the cost associated with each type. The test house has a total of two CO alarms, one per room. Both alarms cost $48 each. The total cost of CO Alarms is $96. Field: Subtotal (N ational Avg.) ($). The subtotal value is the summation of all the previous 8 cost estimates. Because the cost data provided by R.S. Means has not been adjusted to a specific Florida locality in this field, it is a nationa l average value. Figure 413 shows that all the indi vidual costs sum to $15,339.

PAGE 61

61 Figure 4-13. Subtotal of re mediation estimate based on national average construction costs Field: Total (Location Adjusted) ($). The location adjusted total is the product of multiplying the national average costs found in the Subtotal fi eld by the location factor selected by the user. In this case, the test house was given a location factor of Jacksonville, FL which has a value of 0.8. Multiplying $15,339 by 0.8 creates a product of $12,271. Field: Cost Per SF ($). The cost per square foot valu e results from dividing the location adjusted total displayed in the Tota l (Location Adjusted) field by the finished square footage of the house. For t he test house, it is the result ant of dividing $12,271 by 400 square feet which results in a value of $30.68. 4.3 Actual Results The test house was entered into the Estimating Tool per the specifications of the test procedure. All rooms, walls and openings were dimensio ned per the floor plans and elevations. All systems and materials selected for the test house were inputted into the program identically to the test procedure. The program was then prompted to generate a Remediation Cost Report for the test hous e. Figure 4-14 shows the output provided by the Estimating Tool.

PAGE 62

62 Figure 4-14. Remediation Estimate window of the Estimating Tool displaying the costs associated with the test house When all the manually calcul ated expected results for each field are compared to the actual results for that particular field, no differences are found. This indicates that the program performs as des igned. Figure 4-15 shows a comparison of the expected results versus the actual results for each calculated field in t he Remediation Cost Report. Figure 4-15. Comparison of expected and actual cost data for the test house based on data provided by t he testing procedure

PAGE 63

63 4.4 Comparison of Test House to the Average House The domestic manufacturer of drywall, USG Corporation, manufactures 1/2” Sheetrock which weighs 1.6 pounds per square f oot and 5/8” Sheetrock which weighs 2.2 pounds per square foot (U SG 2009). According to the Estimating Tool, the 400 square foot test house with a simple config uration of two room s, three doors, two windows and a small partition wall has a total of 1,361 square feet of drywall. If the entire test house were made fr om these two Sheetrock products, the 961 square feet of walls would weigh 1,538 pounds. The ce iling would weig h 880 pounds. Summed together, the total weight of drywall in the test house would be 2,418 pounds. If the test house were increased in size by a factor of 5 to accommodate 2,000 square feet of finished space, the drywall would weigh approximately 12,090 pou nds or 5.5 metric tons. It has been estimated that a single 2,000 sf home contains 7.3 metric tons of drywall (Crangle 2009) which is 33% more weight than the 2,000 square foot test house. This difference may be explained by t he small number of partitions found in the test house. The test house contains only two interior partitions whereas an average home, which would contain mu ltiple rooms, would have more interior partitions increasing the total squar e footage of drywall.

PAGE 64

64 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS The first release of the Estimating Tool has a number of limitatio ns that can make its use cumbersome, maintenance intensiv e, possibly inaccurate and not fully accessible. However, each of these limitat ions can be addressed with enhancements to future versions of the program. These enha ncements vary greatly in their level of technical sophistication, but all are feasible with the proper com puter programming skill sets. Developing the first version of the Es timating Tool in Micr osoft Office Access (“Access”) was done specifically to allow progr ammers visibility to the program source code for additions, deletions and modifications to the program logic fo r future releases. The first limitation of the Estimating Tool is the need for users to enter a large quantity of information about a house including dimensions and material types for each room in the house that contains corrosi ve drywall. Although this information is necessary to compute an accurate estimate spec ific to a single house, it does take time for the user to compile the needed data and then input it into the program. As such, any interface changes to reduce this effort would improve the time needed to complete an estimate. One approach would be to add functional ity to the Estimating Tool that would allow the user to duplicate information alread y entered into the progr am. For example, if a home were to contain a living room and a dining room with similar sizes and attributes, it would benefit the user to enter information about only one of these rooms and then simply click a button to duplicate the information for t he second room. If this is done, the user would only need to make modifi cations for the second room rather than enter all the required fields a second time.

PAGE 65

65 A second limitation of the Estimating Tool is the fact that c onstruction cost data changes over time. The accuracy of any estimate is only as good as the square foot construction costs in the database. Updating this information requires either the user or a program administrator to have access to constructi on cost data and perform the needed updates as these values change. Creating a direct link between the Estimating Tool and the source of the construction cost data (such as R.S. Means) could eliminate this administrative burden. Rather than mainta ining the cost data in each copy of the program, the information should be updated directly from the source of the cost data. The third limitation of the pr ogram concerns the specific features of walls in a house and the capability of the Estimating Tool to capture this information for the total remediation cost. For example, many houses feature trim work to protect the wall and provide architectural features. The trim wo rk often includes base molding, chair rail and crown molding. These are ex pensive features of the wall and may not be salvageable during the demolition phase of the remediation. Even if t hey are salvaged, they will need to be reconstructed and refinished during re construction. The Estimating Tool does not currently allow the user to capture informati on about theses features which could lead to an inaccurate cost of the tota l remediation. Future releases of the program should allow the user to capture more information about eac h wall such as the trim work, wallpaper, light boxes, ceramic tile and cabi netry that can not be salvaged. A fourth limitation of the Estimating Tool is the platform on which the program was initially developed. Although Ac cess provides the benefits of open source code, not all computer users have Access in stalled on their machines. If the Estimating Tool were moved to a Web-based platform, it would be more accessible to the general public. The

PAGE 66

66 ability to access the estimating program could also be limited to a specific set of login credentials established by the aut hority maintaining the website. In summary, the Estimating Tool has the potential to provide the users a simpler, more accessible and more accurate means for creating a remediation estimate of a home containing corrosive drywall. Howe ver, these future enhancements will require additional time and skill to implement, and in all likelihood, will cost money. Until the changes are implemented, the first release of the Estimating Tool accurately provides users a ballpark estimate of a remediation effort based on the current inputs captured in the program.

PAGE 67

67 APPENDIX A REMEDIATION ESTIMATING TOOL FORMS Figure A-1. Navigational relationship between forms in the Estimating Tool Figure A-2. Record source of forms in the Estimating Tool

PAGE 68

68 Figure A-3. GUI of frmCOAlarm from the Estimating Tool Figure A-4. GUI of frmDemolit ion from the Estimating Tool Figure A-5. GUI of frmDrywall from the Estimating Tool Figure A-6. GUI of frmElectri cal from the Estimating Tool

PAGE 69

69 Figure A-7. GUI of frmHouse from the Estimating Tool Figure A-8. GUI of frmInsulation from the Estimating Tool

PAGE 70

70 Figure A-9. GUI of frmLocationF actor from the Estimating Tool Figure A-10. GUI of frmMaint enance from the Estimating Tool

PAGE 71

71 Figure A-11. GUI of frmOpeni ngs from the Estimating Tool Figure A-12. GUI of frmPaint from the Estimating Tool

PAGE 72

72 Figure A-13. GUI of frmReports from the Estimating Tool

PAGE 73

73 Figure A-14. GUI of frmRoom from the Estimating Tool Figure A-15. GUI of frmSmokeAlarm from the Estimating Tool Figure A-16. GUI of frmSprinkler from the Estimating Tool

PAGE 74

74 Figure A-17. GUI of frmStart from the Estimating Tool Figure A-18. GUI of frmWall from the Estimating Tool

PAGE 75

75 APPENDIX B REMEDIATION ESTIMATING TOOL DATABASE Figure B-1. Relationship of database tables from the Estimating Tool Figure B-2. Design of database table tblCOAlarm from the Estimating Tool Figure B-3. Design of dat abase table tblDemolition from the Estimating Tool Figure B-4. Design of database table tblDrywall from the Estimating Tool

PAGE 76

76 Figure B-5. Design of dat abase table tblElectrical from the Estimating Tool Figure B-6. Design of database table tblHouse from the Estimating Tool Figure B-7. Design of dat abase table tblInsulation from the Estimating Tool Figure B-8. Design of database table tblLocationFactor from the Estimating Tool Figure B-9. Design of database table tblOpening from the Estimating Tool

PAGE 77

77 Figure B-10. Design of database table tblPaint from the Estimating Tool Figure B-11. Design of database table tblRoom from the Estimating Tool Figure B-12. Design of database table tblSmokeAlarm from the Estimating Tool Figure B-13. Design of database table tblSprinkler from the Estimating Tool Figure B-14. Design of database table tblWall from the Estimating Tool

PAGE 78

78 LIST OF REFERENCES Armstrong, D., et al. (2002) “85 innovations 1917-1938.” Forbes.com < http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/1223/124_print.html > (Oct. 6, 2009). Brinkman, P. (2009a). “Chinese drywall clas s action lawsuit targets Lennar Corp.” South Florida Business Journal < http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/sout hflorida/stories/2009/ 03/30/story7.html > (Oct. 20, 2009). Brinkman, P. (2009b). “Chinese dr ywall issue pops up locally.” South Florida Business Journal < http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/sout hflorida/stories/2009/ 01/26/story2.html > (Oct. 20, 2009). Brinkman, P. (2009c). “Hearing set to certify Chinese drywall class.” South Florida Business Journal < http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/sout hflorida/stories/2009/ 06/22/daily56.html > (Oct. 20, 2009). Brinkman, P. (2009d). “ Lennar files suit over Chinese drywall.” South Florida Business Journal < http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/sout hflorida/stories/2009/ 02/02/daily32.html > (Oct. 20, 2009). Brinkman, P. (2009e). “More problems with Chinese drywall surface.” South Florida Business Journal < http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/sout hflorida/stories/2009/ 01/19/daily55.html > (Oct. 20, 2009). Brinkman, P. (2009f). “Some drywall issues were quietly settled.” South Florida Business Journal < http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/sout hflorida/stories/2009/ 02/09/story2.html > (Oct. 20, 2009). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). “Imported dryw all and health a guide for healthcare providers (c urrent as of September, 2009).” < http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/drywall/ > (Oct. 20, 2009). Crangle, R. (2009). “Chinese dr ywall imports: how much came, when did it get here, where did it go?” Proceedings, Technical Symposium on Corrosive Imported Drywall Florida Department of Health, Hinkl ey Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, USF Health, Tampa, Fl.

PAGE 79

79 Dushack, J. (2009). “The dryw all manufacturing process.” Proceedings, Technical Symposium on Corrosive Imported Drywall Florida Department of Health, Hinkley Center for Solid and Haza rdous Waste Management, USF Health, Tampa, Fl. Federal Trade Commission. (2009). “Defective imported drywall: don’t get nailed by bogus tests and treatments.” < www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt164.pdf > (May 18, 2010). Florida Department of Health. (2009a). “C ase definition (12-18 -09) for drywall associated corrosion in residences.” < http://www.doh.state.fl.us/env ironment/community/indoorair/casedefinition.html > (May 1, 2010). Florida Department of Health. (2009b). “H azard assessment of copper corrosion and air-conditioner evaporator coil failures po ssibly associated with imported drywall.” < http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environmen t/community/indoor-air/drywall.html > (Oct. 20, 2009). Florida Department of Health. (2009c). “Ste p-by-step self-assessment guide for signs that a home may be affected by drywall imported from China.” < http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/c ommunity/indoor-air/inspections.html > (Oct. 20, 2009). Gauthier, T. D. (2009). “P roposed mechanism for the re lease of reduced sulfur compounds from corrosive imported drywall.” Proceedings, Technical Symposium on Corrosive Imported Drywall Florida Department of Health, Hinkley Center for Solid and Haza rdous Waste Management, USF Health, Tampa, Fl. Goad, P. T. (2009). “Residential air studies and evaluation of the potential for health effects in homes with Chinese drywall.” Proceedings, Technical Symposium on Corrosive Imported Drywall Florida Department of He alth, Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Man agement, USF Health, Tampa, Fl. Gypsum Association. (2009). “What is gypsum board?” < http://www.gypsum.org/what.html > (Oct. 6, 2009). Kessler, A. (2010a). “Chinese dryw all maker is on the attack.” Herald Tribune < http://www.heraldtribune.com/articl e/20100318/ARTICLE/3181050?p=2&tc=pg > (May 1, 2010). Kessler, A. (2010b). “Drywall evidence presents dilemma for Lennar Corp.” Herald Tribune < http://www.heraldtribune.com/articl e/20100308/COLUMNIST/3081012?p=2&tc= pg > (May 1, 2010).

PAGE 80

80 Kessler, A. (2010c). “Drywall repair estimates for one house vary by $142,000.” Herald Tribune < http://www.heraldtribune.com/ar ticle/20100319/ARTICLE/3191008 > (May 1, 2010). Kessler, A. (2010d). “Trial testimony lays out tolls of toxic drywall”. Herald Tribune < http://www.heraldtribune.com/ar ticle/20100223/ARTICLE/2231070/1/NEWSSITEMAP?p=1&tc=pg > (May 1, 2010). Kraus, D. (2009). “The complexities of eval uating occupant exposures in homes with drywall associated corrosion.” Proceedings, Technical Symposium on Corrosive Imported Drywall Florida Department of Health, Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Managemen t, USF Health, Tampa, Fl. McGeehin, M. A. (2009). “Indoor air pollutants.” Proceedings, Technical Symposium on Corrosive Imported Drywall Florida Department of He alth, Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Man agement, USF Health, Tampa, Fl. Pool, J. L. (2009). “Key considerations fo r the repair of struct ures with defective wallboard.” Proceedings, Technical Symposium on Corrosive Imported Drywall Florida Department of Health, Hinkle y Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, USF Health, Tampa, Fl. R.S. Means Company, Inc. (2009). 2009 Square Foot Costs, 30th Annual Ed. R.S. Means Co., Kingston, Mass. Schmidt, J. (2009). “Drywall from ch ina blamed for problems in homes.” USA Today < http://www.usatoday.com/money/ec onomy/housing/2009-03-16-chinesedrywall-sulfur_N.htm > (Oct. 6, 2009). Singhvi, R. (2009). “Dry wall sampling analysis.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency < http://www.epa.gov/oswer/ docs/chinesedrywall.pdf > (Oct. 6, 2009). Stav, E. (2009). “Clearing t he air about byproduct gypsum.” National Gypsum Company < http://www.nationalgypsum.com/ resources/IndUpdate_2009-1.pdf > (Oct. 6, 2009). Tedder, R. B. (2009). “Disposal options for imported drywall.” Proceedings, Technical Symposium on Corrosive Imported Drywall Florida Department of Health, Hinkley Center for Solid and Haza rdous Waste Management, USF Health, Tampa, Fl.

PAGE 81

81 Tedder, R. B., and McGuire, C. (2009). “Interim drywall dis posal guidance SWM-19.17.” Florida Department of Environmental Protection < http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_t opics/publications/shw/solid_waste/polic ymemos/SWM-19-17.pdf > (May 1, 2010). Townsend, T. G. (2009). “Mitigation and re medial options associated with drywall disposal.” Proceedings, Technical Symposium on Corrosive Imported Drywall Florida Department of Health, Hinkle y Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, USF Health, Tampa, Fl. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (2009a). “CPSC investi gation of imported drywall status report, July 2009.” < http://www.cpsc.gov/info/dr ywall/investigation.html > (Oct. 20, 2009). U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (2009b). “Investigation of imported drywall status update August 2009.” < http://www.cpsc.gov/info/dr ywall/investigation.html > (Oct. 20, 2009). U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (2010a). “Drywall information center.” < http://www.cpsc.gov/inf o/drywall/index.html > (May 10, 2010). U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (2010b). “Interim rem ediation guidance for homes with corrosion from problem drywall.” < http://www.cpsc.gov/info/ drywall/guidance0410.pdf > (May 18, 2010). USG. (2007). “Submittal sheet 09250 sheetrock gypsum panels.” < http://www.usg.com/sheetrock-fire code-core-gypsum-panels.html#tabliteratureAndVideos > (May 1, 2010). Wilder, L. (2009). “Imported drywall: joint st ate and federal evaluati on of 10-home indoor air investigation.” Proceedings, Technical Symposium on Corrosive Imported Drywall Florida Department of Health, Hinkl ey Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, USF Health, Tampa, Fl.

PAGE 82

82 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Patrick Vernon Bebout was born in State College, Pennsylvania to John and Ann Bebout. He has a younger brother, Andrew, and a younger sister, Nic ole. He graduated from high school in June of 1994 and started his college career one year later at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia. He graduated with a bachelor of science in commerce in May of 1999. Afte r graduation, he began work as an analyst for an information technology consulting firm. Afte r several years, he switched careers to begin work as a project manager for a large homebuilder in Virginia. In 2008, he was accepted by the University of Florida to pursue a Master of Science in Building Construction. After graduation, Patrick plans to resume his career in construction.