Journalism in the Public Interest

American-Made Drywall Emerges as Potential Danger

Thousands of Americans have houses contaminated by defective Chinese drywall; now a new group of homeowners say they are experiencing similar problems—but their homes are built with drywall made in the United States.

TECO Big Bend Power Station in Apollo Beach. (Sarasota Herald-Tribune photo by Dan Wagner)

Two years after thousands of Americans learned that defective Chinese drywall had contaminated their houses, a new group of homeowners say they are experiencing similar problems—but their homes are built with drywall made in the United States.

Ninety-seven homeowners in four states have joined lawsuits against U.S. drywall manufacturers in the past year, claiming that their drywall is releasing enough sulfur gas to corrode wiring and appliances and cause headaches, nosebleeds, labored breathing and irritated eyes—complaints that until now have been mostly associated with Chinese drywall. Many families have abandoned their homes, fearing long-term health problems. Some are facing foreclosure, or even bankruptcy.

Plaintiffs in the largest lawsuit, which involves 93 Florida homes, blame the problem on drywall made by National Gypsum, one of the nation’s largest drywall manufacturers. Separate cases have been filed against National Gypsum in Arizona and Alabama.

Two other lawsuits, each involving a single homeowner, have also been filed. One, in South Dakota, is against U.S. Gypsum. The other, filed by a Florida couple against Georgia Pacific, has been settled out of court.

All the manufacturers deny that anything is wrong with their products.

Lawsuits represent one side of a legal dispute, and none of the American drywall cases have come to trial. But court records show that many of the plaintiffs have test results from independent laboratories that show high levels of sulfur gas coming from the walls of their homes.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys say in court documents that the outgassing may somehow be connected to synthetic gypsum, a form of coal ash produced by the scrubbing process that removes sulfur dioxide from the emissions of coal-fired power plants. Nearly half of American drywall is now made with this synthetic product, known as flue gas desulfurized gypsum or FGD gypsum.

Despite its increasing popularity, synthetic gypsum isn’t regulated by the federal government. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency supports the reuse of FGD gypsum because it protects the air, recycles waste that would otherwise go to a landfill and creates useful products.

The industry has voluntary standards for drywall, but they apply only to fire resistance and strength. Michael Gardner, executive director of the Gypsum Association, a trade group that represents the drywall industry, said additional oversight is unnecessary.

“There has never been a problem with the use of FGD gypsum wallboard since its inception,” Gardner said.

At least one of the lawsuits also points to another possible cause: that the defective drywall was made with scrap from recycled drywall—perhaps Chinese drywall.

In September, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission commissioned a study of a small group of homes with problematic American drywall, similar to the study it completed last year of homes with Chinese board. But figuring out what is causing the problems — and who should pay to fix them — is likely to be a long and laborious process. After two years of studying Chinese drywall, the agency still hasn’t figured out what caused it to release sulfur gases, and the homeowners’ lawsuits are still mired in the courts.

The CPSC’s main theory in the Chinese drywall cases is that one or several of the mines that supplied the manufacturers with natural gypsum contained a high concentration of sulfur. But CPSC inspectors say it’s also possible that some of the defective Chinese drywall was produced with synthetic gypsum from Chinese power plants.

For homeowners who believe their houses have been contaminated by U.S.-made drywall, the scientific question of what is causing the problem is overshadowed by the more immediate question of how they will survive the financial disaster they now face. The CPSC’s preliminary guidelines for remediating homes made with defective drywall say all the drywall and electrical wiring should be replaced, an undertaking that can cost $100,000 or more.

“I felt totally and completely alone when we found out we had American drywall,” said Julie Mraz, whose small Florida home was built with U.S. Gypsum drywall. “I thought, oh my God, now what? I hadn’t heard of anyone having problems with it.”

Mraz and her husband both have severe health problems, and the house was built to accommodate Joseph Mraz’s wheelchair. Soon after they moved in, however, they noticed a strong sulfuric smell and the coils on their air conditioner corroded—a telltale sign of defective drywall. Joseph Mraz’s childhood asthma returned for the first time in the Mraz’s 29-year marriage. When his breathing became so labored that he had to be hospitalized, the couple’s doctors urged them to move out of the house. They are now renting an apartment, and Julie Mraz said her husband’s breathing problems have improved.

Freefall to foreclosure

John and Katherine Kallas, who built their dream home in Lehigh Acres, Fla., in 2005, are among more than a dozen people ProPublica and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune interviewed who say that defective American drywall has upended their lives.

In October 2005, the Kallases began paying a $180,000 mortgage on a home they had built on a lot they purchased for $40,000. About a year after they moved in, the hallmark signs of defective drywall began to appear.

They suffered constricted breathing, headaches and other health problems. Their dishwasher broke down, then their refrigerator. The air-conditioner failed soon after its coils corroded.

“A bunch of jewelry kept turning black. I kept cleaning it and it kept turning black. I lost three TVs. My computer crashed. I bought a brand new one, and then that one crashed too,” Katherine Kallas said.

When a relative called in December 2008 and asked if the Kallases had heard about the Chinese drywall problem, the family became even more confused.

John Kallas immediately climbed into the attic to see if he could find any Chinese trademarks on their drywall. Instead, he found markings for National Gypsum and U.S. Gypsum.

The Kallases hired Miami-based attorney, David Durkee, who was recruiting Chinese-drywall victims in Lee County, which has had more drywall problems than any other county in Florida. They also sought tax relief from the Lee County property appraiser’s office, which lowered the assessed value of their three-bedroom home.

In 2009 the Kallases’ builder sent an inspector to examine the house. They soon received a letter confirming their fears.

“Test results confirmed the presence of the effects from sulfide gases and the presence of drywall releasing these gases,” the company said in the letter.

Builder K. Hovnanian offered to repair the Kallases’ home by removing all the wiring and drywall and then ventilating the house for 14 days before installing new drywall and wiring.

But the Consumer Product Safety Commission hadn’t yet released its remediation protocol, and the Kallases worried that the builder’s plan might be inadequate. They rejected the offer and in February 2010 moved into a rented house.

Katherine Kallas said their attorney “just kind of blew us off from there.” When she called Durkee to ask about her case, she said she got updates on the progress of the Chinese drywall litigation.

“I’d have to remind him that I have American drywall, but he doesn’t seem interested in going after our manufacturer,” she said.

Durkee told ProPublica and the Herald-Tribune that he isn’t suing National Gypsum or U.S. Gypsum because he is confident he can persuade the Kallases’ builder and drywall distributor to compensate them for their losses.

The Kallases couldn’t afford to pay both their rent and their mortgage, so they stopped paying the mortgage. Eventually they received a foreclosure notice from their lender, Wells Fargo. Their home is scheduled to be auctioned later this month.

“This is an unfortunate situation and a reminder to all homebuyers that it is important to know everything possible about the materials used in a home before it is purchased,” said a Wells Fargo executive in an e-mail to ProPublica and the Herald-Tribune. “We sincerely hope the Kallases are successful in their efforts to resolve their differences with the home builder.”

The Kallases now worry that Wells Fargo will force them to pay the difference between what they owed on the house and what it will eventually sell for, which would force them to declare bankruptcy.

“It’s terrible. It’s very upsetting. We thought we were responsible homeowners. We had never missed a mortgage payment before,” Katherine Kallas said.

Company says it has science on its side

George Brincku and his family had to move out of the house they built in Alva, near Fort Myers, Fla., because they said the sulfur fumes from the drywall were making them sick and corroding their appliances. Most complaints have been about drywall made in China. But the Brinckus’ drywall was made in the United States. (Harold Bubil)

The drywall investigation at George and Brenda Brincku’s home has left the house in shambles. George Brincku said there is so much sulfur gas in his home that the coils on his air conditioner turned black. (Harold Bubil)

George Brincku found corroded electrical receptacles behind the U.S.-made drywall in his house. Corroded receptacles are considered a telltale sign of defective Chinese drywall. (Harold Bubil)

National Gypsum, which made most of the drywall in the Brinckus’ house, sent a team to remove and test dozens of pieces of drywall. (Harold Bubil)

In Alva, Fla., about a dozen miles from the Kallases, George and Brenda Brincku were trying to figure out what was wrong with the 3,160-square-foot home they had built for themselves and their three children.

Between 2006 and 2009, the Brinckus replaced the coils on their air-conditioning units seven times. At one point they demanded that the president of the company that made the air-conditioners visit their home and explain why his product kept breaking down.

Other appliances faltered, too. Two laundry washers, one microwave, two computer printers, smoke alarms, lamps, answering machines, flashlights, cell phones and fans.

They also had health problems. Someone always seemed to be coughing, and nearly everyone had severely irritated eyes. The Brinckus’ then-20-year old daughter, Ashley, had frequent bouts of dizziness and once fainted in her room.

After Chinese drywall began making headlines, George Brincku crawled into the attic to check for signs of corrosion. When he emerged he said he was nauseated for three days and began having frequent nosebleeds.

The Brinckus contacted the Florida Department of Health, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, their homeowner’s insurance company and their builder’s insurance company. Each time they were told that their house was exhibiting the signs of corrosion that are normally linked to Chinese drywall. But they couldn’t find any Chinese insignias on their board.

The Brinckus eventually learned that most of their drywall was manufactured by National Gypsum, which told them it came from the company’s Apollo Beach drywall plant, about 130 miles north near Tampa. Some of the drywall was also made by U.S. Gypsum, but the Brinckus said test results later showed that the U.S. Gypsum board was not outgassing.

In March 2009, National Gypsum sent 11 people to inspect the Brincku home. The team stayed for a week, removing dozens of pieces of drywall and taking samples of their water. The Brinckus prepared lunch for them almost every day.

“It seemed like they were trying to cut as many samples out of the house as they could to see if they could find some Chinese board,” George Brincku said, while taking a reporter through the now vacant home. “By the time they were done the house looked like Swiss cheese.”

The Brincku case began attracting national attention when CBS News asked the University of Florida to test samples of defective drywall, including samples from the Brinckus’ home. Timothy Townsend, the environmental engineering professor whose team conducted the tests, said some of the Brinckus’ samples released an unusually high amount of sulfur gas. Townsend also tested several pieces of newly purchased American board and found that some released more sulfur than new Chinese drywall that CBS bought in China.

When CBS showed National Gypsum the University of Florida findings, spokeswoman Nancy Spurlock said the company had commissioned its own tests, from Packer Engineering, which showed that its drywall didn’t produce enough sulfur gases to cause corrosion.

“We have science on our side now,” Spurlock said in a transcribed interview with correspondent Armen Keteyian that CBS News provided to ProPublica and the Herald-Tribune. “We believe that there’s no scientific evidence to show that our wallboard, or any domestic wallboard that we know of causes the same problems as corrosive drywall.”

But two later tests of the Brinckus’ drywall, conducted by environmental engineering firms, backed up the University of Florida results.

According to Rimkus Engineering, which was hired by the Brinckus’ insurance company, one sample released carbon disulfide at a concentration of 880 parts per billion. A commercially purchased piece of drywall that Rimkus used as a baseline released less than 50 parts per billion.

The other test was done pro-bono by Materials Analytical Services, which was developing a drywall inspection method. It found that one piece of board from the Brincku home released 120 parts per billion.

Both companies also found that some pieces of drywall in the Brincku house weren’t outgassing much at all, which wasn’t surprising given that many homes are built with several brands of drywall.

In a recent interview with ProPublica and the Herald-Tribune, Spurlock said National Gypsum still stands by its claim that its drywall isn’t outgassing sulfur at levels that can cause corrosion. She suggested instead that corrosion found in homes built with National Gypsum might be caused by sulfuric water, which is common in Florida.

But according to copies of the Packer Engineering tests obtained by ProPublica and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, none of the 21 water samples Packer took from the Brincku home had high amounts of sulfur.

The Brinckus’ case against National Gypsum has been put on hold by Miami-based federal Judge Jose Martinez, who has determined that a similar lawsuit filed against National Gypsum in Arizona should be heard first.

Meanwhile, the Brinckus are trying to avoid foreclosure. Last week they got some good news: Their lender, Fannie Mae, agreed to defer their loan payments until April 30.

Questions about coal ash

According to court documents filed by the Brinckus’ attorneys, 93 families now claim that drywall from National Gypsum’s Apollo Beach drywall plant is causing the problems in their homes.

The lawsuit alleges that the FGD gypsum in the drywall has something to do with the outgassing. It also says that some recycled scrap drywall, perhaps Chinese drywall, may have been mixed in with the FGD gypsum. But Spurlock, the company spokeswoman, said the Apollo Beach plant doesn’t use recycled drywall.

Apollo Beach uses FGD gypsum provided by Big Bend, a nearby coal-fired power plant operated by TECO Energy, a South Florida electric utility company. TECO didn’t return calls for comment on this story, but its website says its FGD gypsum is also used in concrete and fertilizer.

Although the federal government does not regulate drywall, the EPA has spent the last two years drafting rules on the ash produced by coal-fired power plants, which forms the synthetic gypsum used in drywall.

According to the EPA, several kinds of coal ash are produced when coal is burned to generate energy. Some types are potentially hazardous, including the toxic sludge that in 2008 spilled into a Tennessee community from a 1.1 billion gallon waste pond.

Other types of coal ash, including FGD gypsum, are considered relatively harmless.

A draft of the EPA’s proposed rule includes tighter regulations for the disposal of some forms of coal ash, but would exempt FGD gypsum. The draft said that the coal ash used in building products and fertilizer “can be beneficially reused” and “no documented cases of damage to human health or the environment have been identified.”

But the proposed rule notes that the EPA didn’t conduct specific risk assessments for the use of coal ash in building materials and acknowledges that the ash could become problematic if improved scrubbing technologies remove more contaminants from the air. Most of the EPA’s past research into the reuse of gypsum has been done in conjunction with the gypsum industry, through its Coal Combustion Products Partnership.

National Gypsum and the Gypsum Association have hired teams of lobbyists to try to shape the EPA’s new rules. Spurlock said the manufacturers fear that labeling any form of coal ash hazardous will create a “negative stigma” about FGD gypsum and that customers will be afraid to buy drywall made from it.

“In their mind, it’s still hazardous so there is potential liability there. Anyone can sue for anything,” Spurlock said.

Currently, the only standards that apply to drywall are voluntary guidelines for strength and fire resistance set by a committee comprised mostly of drywall manufacturers and builders. The committee is part of the American Society for Testing and Materials, an industry association that develops voluntary standards for a wide variety of products.

Thomas O’Toole, staff manager for the ASTM’s drywall committee, said no standards have been set for sulfur outgassing because “it was never a problem before. It wasn’t brought to our attention until 2008.”

That could change, however.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently began talking with the committee about developing standards that would help prevent future outgassing problems. Michael Gardner, executive director of the Gypsum Association said his organization will be closely involved in those discussions.

Corrosion in the desert

Among the many mysteries surrounding the American drywall problem is the one that is unfolding just outside Palm Springs, Calif., in the town of Indio.

In the last year, two homeowners have abandoned their modest tract homes because they say their U.S.-made drywall was releasing so much sulfur gas that it made their eyes burn, caused bloody noses and constricted their breathing.

The prevailing theory about defective drywall, Chinese or American, is that it affects only homes in hot, humid regions because the combination of heat and humidity exacerbates the release of the sulfur gases. But Indio is in the California desert, where rain is rare and humidity practically nonexistent. And while the families have complained of health problems, their homes show few signs of corrosion, aside from some discoloration on metal fixtures.

Preliminary tests that the families had done by Assured Bio, an environmental engineering firm, and provided to ProPublica and the Herald Tribune show that their drywall is releasing sulfur gas at levels similar to those being released by Chinese drywall.

The president of Assured Bio, Dr. Edward Sobek, said that while the tests raised concerns, another round of more sophisticated analysis needs to be done to determine whether the board corrodes metal.

Those tests can cost hundreds of dollars and usually aren’t done unless a homeowner is planning to sue.

But the Palm Springs families have had so much trouble finding lawyers that they’ve given up on that idea.

“Everyone was hot to trot on the Chinese drywall, but attorneys don’t seem to want to have anything to do with American drywall cases,” said Kanda Simon.

She and her husband abandoned their retirement home this year. In August they got a foreclosure notice.

“I’m mad. I’m angry. I think it’s all very unfair, but I just don’t have the fight in me,” Simon said.

Simon said she and her husband didn’t complain to their builder, Miami-based Lennar Corp., because their neighbor Robin Ely had such a difficult time dealing with the company.

Ely, who has Parkinson’s disease, said she noticed a chemical smell in her home a few months after she moved in. When she complained to Lennar, she said she was told there couldn’t possibly be anything wrong with her house, because it was built with American drywall.

Lennar is already remediating homes it built in Florida with defective Chinese drywall. A spokesman told ProPublica and the Herald-Tribune that the company tested the Indio homes and “found no evidence of similar characteristics or concerns.”

Ely said Lennar did a visual inspection of her home in 2009, looking for obvious signs of corrosion. She later received a letter saying “we are pleased to report that our thorough inspection of your Home has confirmed that there is no indication that the drywall in your Home is defective.”

Lennar later hired an environmental engineering firm to test Ely’s drywall, and Lennar told Ely the firm concluded that it wasn’t problematic. Lennar wouldn’t share its test results with Ely or ProPublica and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

Ely tried to get legal help from a San Diego-based firm, Fuller Jenkins.

At first, she said the firm was helpful and offered to inspect her home. But when they discovered that her board was made in the United States and not China, Ely said they lost interest.

Craig Fuller, a partner with Fuller Jenkins, told ProPublica and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune that he “can’t comment on the case at this time” because his firm is still actively investigating and hasn’t filed a lawsuit yet.

When asked if she was trying to find help elsewhere, Ely said, “I want to, but I’m just so overwhelmed. I just can’t even deal with it.”

In July Ely moved into a rented apartment in Tennessee. She is trying to persuade her bank to defer the payments on her Palm Springs home, which is now scheduled for foreclosure on December 23rd.

Correction, Jan. 19, 2016: This story originally stated that the home of Julie and Joseph Mraz was built with National Gypsum drywall. It was U.S. Gypsum.

impressive, as usual. let’s hope this foul smelling issue changes for the better, as a result of your spot light, dear.

Ugh, yet another ProPublica article chocked full of shoddy research. I hate to have to give the author a simple chemistry lesson, but here goes.

Synthetic gypsum is not made from coal ash. Let me repeat that so the tone deaf author of this piece can comprehend: SYNTHETIC GYPSUM IS NOT MADE FROM COAL ASH.

Flue gas desulfurization is a chemical reaction where lime slurry is injected into the waste gas stream of a coal fired boiler. A chemical reaction between the lime and the SO2 turns the lime into calcium sulfite which is further oxidized into calcium sulfate, more commonly referred to as gypsum.

The combustion of solid fuels generates two types of byproducts: gaseous byproducts that form from combustion and noncombustible components. These noncombustible byproducts are what coal ash is made out of and are primarily silicon and calcium compounds. They are removed from the gas stream before the gaseous combustion products are treated and removed. TECO’s Big Bend units have electrostatic precipitators that remove nearly all fly ash from the gas stream before treatment for sulfur pollutants.

Nearly all drywall manufactured in the past 25 years contains a significant portion of synthetic gypsum and has never shown H2S off gassing that has been seen in Chinese drywall. Occam’s razor would seem to suggest that if this problem arose after the introduction of large scale import of Chinese drywall then the recycling of Chinese drywall is the most likely cause of US manufactured drywall issues and not the use of domestically produced synthetic gypsum.

Here’s a hint for next time, try to touch base with some real experts instead of relying on a lawyer who has a financial stake in going after deep pocket utilities for your information.

Mike H -

Let’s see if I understand your point.

1. Fly ash (coal ash) is removed from the waste gas stream, leaving a sulfur-rich gas, which then must be processed to turn the sulfur dioxide into something harmless.

2. Lime slurry is injected into this gas stream (downstream of the scrubber) and the SO2 in the gas turns the lime into calcium sulphate, or gypsum. Or, perhaps, “another form of coal ash”?

John, more or less.

Coal combustion products contain many other compounds or elements some that are quite nasty—some highly toxic, some even radioactive.
Components of the fly ash are disposed of in not only drywall but many other products such as concrete and is used in other industries such as agriculture. I suppose we will see a catastrophic threshold where the system will be perturbed to a new state—perhaps we have already met that threshold—I don’t know. But when we all start dying off en masse, we’ll only have ourselves to blame.

Mike H.-

For the record the author is simply using the common terminology “coal ash”. The EPA uses on its website that coal combustion residuals (CCR) are often referred to as coal ash.  It further states that FGD is a CCR.  This not being a scientific journal, common parlance is acceptable.

Your knowledge of the exact chemical process is very much appreciated, however calling the research “shoddy” and driven by money hungry lawyers is questionable.

Bing, the EPA’s definition on “Coal Ash” is woefully inadequate. A pulverized coal boiler, like TECO’s Big Bend produces several different types combustion and non combustion byproducts. Combustion products are compounds created from combustion like CO2, NOx, Sox, CO, H2O etcetera. By its very nature, ash is non combustible, so I don’t see how it can be considered a “combustion byproduct” per say. A unit like Big Bend produces two forms of “coal ash” and each has a separate classification from the ASTM.

Bottom ash is made up of the non combustibles that form on the sides of the boiler walls and fall to the bottom of the unit. This tends to be large in size, roughly the size of coarse kosher salt. This is the form of ash that is found in ash storage ponds that have been in the news recently.  It has been used as aggregate in concrete, sandblasting medium, and asphalt, but has little use and is mainly landfilled.

Fly ash is made up of very fine particulates, think micron size, that travel out the back end of a boiler to the stack. This is picked up either in fabric filters or in electrostatic precipitators. Fly ash has many more marketable uses like soil stabilizers, animal feed, fertilizer, and portland cement and while some of it is landfilled, most gets sold to secondary users.

Both are made up primarily of silica, aluminum and calcium compounds and neither are used to make synthetic drywall.

Calling the research shoddy isn’t an understatement or a stretch. The author has proposed a possible source of H2S offgassing in drywall from “coal ash” in synthetic gypsum without providing any mechanism for this. In fact the only thing presented is the lawsuit which makes this allegation, once again without any mechanism to support this hypothesis. And it’s a very naïve to assume the law firms working on this don’t have a profit motive in mind when pursuing cases like this, considering they get 40% of the settlement plus expenses.

Mike H,

I think your technical understanding of the situation adds a much needed perspective to the article, but it still doesn’t explain what is going on here.  I thought the article did a fairly good job of laying out what in my eyes is still something of a mystery.

I think you make a good point when you say that:
“Occam’s razor would seem to suggest that if this problem arose after the introduction of large scale import of Chinese drywall then the recycling of Chinese drywall is the most likely cause of US manufactured drywall issues and not the use of domestically produced synthetic gypsum.”  While I think you’ve made a valid point, we can’t really be certain of that especially in light of what the company spokeswoman said, “the Apollo Beach plant doesn’t use recycled drywall.”

That doesn’t mean that she is right, but I’m a little frustrated by the science that hasn’t provided me with a sufficient explanation( i.e. contradictory studies). 

Those studies might be the tobacco industry arguing over the word “causes,” or there might be an explanation here that has nothing to do with drywall at all.

Heck, I don’t understand the science very well at all, but I would imagine that under certain conditions the chemical equations aren’t balanced and produce unintended compounds or don’t fully process the byproducts as intended.

Do you think it is possible that an irregularity could have occurred during a period of time that might cause a spike in the sulfur content of a specific batch of drywall? 

Assuming the drywall is the source of the problem, that, or the recycling of Chinese Drywall, would seem to be a more reasonable explanation.

@Mike H:

Of the many highly toxic trace elements* which have been found in flue gas desulfurization (FGD) products, how many might be expected to be (1) carried into commercial products produced from FGD products and (2) volatile enough to appear in the air of dwellings constructed with these commercial products?

*Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, selenium, thallium.

Anthony C, I will look into your question and post something.

Wayne M, where whould you get the idea that “toxic trace elements” are present in FGD waste?

To answer Mike H’s question to Wayne M:

In a recent study summarized in Environmental Science and Technolgoy, EPA researchers tested 20 FGD gypsum samples. They found that many of the samples exceeded toxicity characteristics for Selenium, Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Molybdenum, and Thallium.  (Susan Thorneloe et al., “Evaluating the Fate of Metals in Air Pollution Control Residues from Coal-Fired Power Plants, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 7351-7356)

Other studies (including DOE/US Gypsum joint research) have examined the fate of mercury captured in FGD and transferred into the production of wallboard.  I can provide a lot more data about this if you are interested.

Jim, thank you for the source, but I don’t believe that’s an entirely accurate summary of what was presented.

The exceedance of “toxicity characteristics” was found for selenium only, not the other elements you listed. A substance is classified as “hazardous” for waste disposal purposes if an analysis performed in accordance with the toxic characteristic leaching procedure, or TCLP, finds that leachate exceeds EPA guidelines. Leachate describes a liquid that passes through a substance and picks up soluble material and suspended particles from that substance. The other terms the paper used MCL and DWEL describe the levels of soluble material and suspended particles found in that leachate over a predefined range of different leachate pH’s. MCL refers to the limit at which no know adverse effects are known for the given concentrations and DWEL represents the limit at which no carcinogenic effects are known. Keep in mind that this refers to concentrations in the leachate only, and not whatever water supply they might come in contact with. Theoretically, you could consume leachate that was below the MCL and suffer no effect and you could consume leachate that was below the DWEL and not put yourself at risk for cancer. 

Or as Paracelsus once said “the dose makes the poison”.

So basically what the paper you referenced was characterizing the potential for groundwater contamination if fly ash, bottom ash and FGD waste was land filled and not used for other applications. But with respect to this conversation, FGD waste is not being landfilled, it is being recycled for use in drywall manufacturing which means there is no exposure to leachate and consequentially no exposure to any of the metals you cited. Unless, of course you can provide a mechanism for exposure.

But what’s the point in all of this?  There is after all, trace amounts of these same elements in naturally mined gypsum in roughly the same concentrations as synthetic gypsum so where are you steering this conversation to?

Mike H: The point of all this is that the toxicity characteristics for FGD gypsum are quite different than mined gypsum, and that it is getting worse. 

The EPA study raises these concerns quite explicitly:

“Changes in Air Pollution Control (APC) technologies will result in a greater amount of residue generated for each unit of electricity produced and an overall increase in the total content of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants in fly ash, FGD residues, and other APC residues.”

Similar concerns have been raised even by coal combustion product (CCP) reuse proponents such as the Electric Power Research Institute and the Univ. of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center. In 2006, UND EERC researchers noted that regulations on mercury emissions are a “potential threat that could impact future CCP utlilization.”

In its 2010 petition to the federal government, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibilty argues, “recent EPA research has noted that fly ash and FGD residues are coal combustion residues ‘with the potential to have increased mercury and/or other pollutant concentrations from the implementation of new air pollution control technologies ... [t]he chemical and physical properties may also change as a result of sorbents and other additives being used to improve air pollution control.’ Allowing increasing quantities of increasingly mercury-containing wastes to avoid regulation by being placed into consumer products undercuts efforts to reduce mercury.  Ignoring potential cross-media transfers of mercury also runs counter to the strategy EPA developed to reduce health risks associated with mercury exposure.”

Your statement that natural gypsum and synthetic (FGD) gypsum have “roughly the same concentrations as synthetic gypsum” does not match what even US Gypsum has reported. In a study funded by the US Dept of Energy, US Gypsum (which uses more synthetic gypsum than any other U.S. manufacturer), concludes, “the highest mercury concentration found in the natural gypsum was 0.03 μg/g compared to the lowest mercury concentration of synthetic gypsum of 0.10 μg/g.”

I have reported on this previously on the Pharos Project’s Signal blog, if you care to read more…

Jim, thank you for the response but I am struggling to see what point you are trying to make with it.

If your concern is that mercury from FGD gypsum will become rereleased during kiln drying of wallboard products, wallboard manufactures are more than capable of making process modifications to reduce mercury volatilization and  

If your concern is that mercury from wallboard manufactured with FGD gypsum will pose a risk at the consumer level, there is no evidence, experimental or theoretical, that mercury in gypsum can volatilize at less than 140 degrees Celsius. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know of anyone who keeps their thermostats set that high.

If your concern is that mercury from wallboard will contaminate groundwater supplies after it has been discarded, the TCLP’s studies performed by bothe the EPA as well as National Gypsum have demonstrated that this is not a concern as well. 

As for the similarities or dissimilarities of mined vs. synthetic mercury, you are technically correct when you state that FGD gypsum contains a higher amount of mercury than mined gypsum but this tends to ignore the difference between absolute values and relative values. While the relative differences might appear to be quite large in some cases, the absolute values in either sample are still incredibly small as a total mass fraction of both forms of gypsum. To point, the University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center, which you just cited as a source, states quite explicitly that the “major chemical composition is similar” and the “minor & trace constituents are similar” for natural and synthetic gypsum.

I don’t consider PEER to be either a particularly noteworthy or reliable source, so I will not address their opinions.

Back to the topic at hand though, what does any of this have to do with sulfur emissions from FGD gypsum?

The rest of this got cut off:

If your concern is that mercury from FGD gypsum will become rereleased during kiln drying of wallboard products, wallboard manufactures are more than capable of making process modifications to reduce mercury volatilization and install mercury capture technology at thier facilities.

not saying this is the case here but i’ve been in the drywall business for 30 yrs.-some times there is as many 5 different brands of board in any one house-so just because dude saw american bd on the ceiling in the garage,those might be the only american bd. in the house

John - My house is the one in the article & National Gypsum is the one that torn my home apart like Swiss Cheese looking for Chinese drywall. They couldn’t find any Chinese drywall. I have 92% of the boards in my house are National Gypum & 8% are U.S. Gypsum. THERE IS NO CHINESE DRYWALL IN THIS HOME!!! Also we have had the ground, water, & everything else tested. Everything is fine except for the drywall. We don’t live on marsh lands either. We had to have an environmentialist test our property before we could build on it. We have the papers to prove that too. We have had a ton of testing done on our home from some of the top scientist in the country. They all say it the drywall causing the problem. National Gypsum needs to step up to the plate & admit they made a mistake & do the right thing.

Mike H.  Thanks for the education. Work for Big Bend ? Name sounds familiar.  It would be great if people would actually use their last names in these articles. At least Mr. Brincku didn’t mind doing so, and yes I know he is mentioned in the article but it seems if you have nothing to hide why not use your full name. If you insist on educating us which we really do appreciate, we would love to know the full name of our Educators. I thoroughly enjoyed the debate and look forward to more. I am learning alot. If anyone has anymore info on the recycling process, that would be great. As far as being in the drywall business. It is common knowledge that some of the time there are several types of boards, however it is not standard practice. Yes, during the shortage I am sure there was alot of Chinese slipped in but as for the American drywall cases, it is all American. Domestic Board with Domestic Markings and proven. As far as this article, these guys did a great job and I would suggest maybe to all the naysayers out there. Watch your health, watch your appliances, but better yet, why don’t you tear every board out of your home, see who it’s made by and suffer the consequences that we are all are suffering from this Toxic Catastrophe. Oh, excuse me if I did not spell correctly, I am no genious but I am a Poisoned Victim.  Sincerely, Joseph Mraz Jr. (The Disabled American in the Article)

once again i’ve been in the drywall bus. for 30+ yrs-it is far less often that any job has all the same brands of drywall.unless you take down every bd you don’t florida where my business is they didn’t even have Chinese drywall in 5/8 or ceiling the house in the article could have american bd on the lid and chinese board on the walls

bb sorry didn’t read your other post before my 2nd of luck to you.

You can argue all you want about how drywall is manufactured, but, the point is; there is something in these people’s homes that is making them sick.  I’m a personal friend of the Brincku’s & visited their newly constructed home, that was referenced above.  I (& my family) noticed an abnormal sulfur smell in their home at the time.  There needs to be more testing on the drywall samples by other independent sources, that are not linked to the construction industry.  I encourage the effected people to not give up in their fight to find out what went wrong!  We all need to know the answers!

This article is part of an ongoing investigation:
Tainted Drywall

Tainted Drywall: How Companies Kept Silent While Homeowners Suffered

Foul air from Chinese-made drywall has created a nightmare for thousands of homeowners.

The Story So Far

ProPublica and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune began examining in May 2010 what was—or wasn’t—being done to help people whose homes had been built with contaminated drywall. The problematic drywall, much of it imported from China, emitted foul odors and frequently caused mysterious failures of new appliances and electronics. Worse yet, some residents complained of serious respiratory problems, bloody noses, and migraines.
More »

Search Our Database for Homes With Tainted Drywall

Get Updates

Our Hottest Stories