Full opinion text
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ELDON E. FALLON, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Background & Procedural History............................................659 II. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law .......................................660 A. Background: Gypsum & Drywall ........................................660 B. How & When the Chinese Drywall was Installed in the Plaintiffintervenor Homes....................................................661 C. General Scientific Findings on Chinese Drywall Which Distinguish it From Typical, Benign Drywall.........................................663 D. Plaintiff-intervenor Homes Have Been Exposed to a Corrosive Environment Produced by Chinese Drywall.............................666 1. CPSC Standards..................................................666 2. Florida Division of Health Standards ................................667 3. Battelle & International Standards Association Classifications Indicate the Corrosion Found in Plaintiff-intervenor Homes is Severe.........................................................667 a. Qualitative Criteria for Corrosivity...............................667 b. Quantitative Criteria for Corrosivity.............................668 4. Peer-reviewed Literature & Expert Opinion Consensus................669 E. Scope of Remediation...................................................671 1. All Drywall in the Plaintiff-intervenor Homes Needs to be Removed & Replaced.....................................................671 a. Drywall sales and delivery records, where available, lack the reliability and precision necessary to locate all of the Chinese drywall in a mixed drywall home...............................672 b. The Knauf proposed method, or combination of methods, for selective drywall identification do not rise above the level of experimental, and lack the scientific reliability necessary to conduct a board-by-board removal system at the present time.....672 c. Removal of all drywall in a mixed home is efficient and cost effective....................................................673 d. It is not practical or economical to detect, selectively remove, and replace individual boards of Chinese drywall.................674 2. All Electrical Wires in the Plaintiff-intervenor Homes Need to be Replaced.......................................................675 a. Scientific Reasons.............................................675 b. Economic & Practical Reasons..................................677 3. All Copper Pipes in the Plaintiff-intervenor Homes Need to be Replaced.......................................................677 a. Scientific Reasons.............................................677 b. Economic & Practical Reasons..................................678 4. HVAC Units in the Plaintiff-intervenor Homes Need to be Replaced.....678 a. Scientific Reasons.............................................678 b. Economic & Practical Reasons ..................................680 5. Selective Electrical Devices & Appliances in the Plaintiff-intervenor Homes Need to be Replaced......................................681 a. Scientific Reasons.............................................681 b. Economic & Practical Reasons ..................................683 6. Whether Flooring Needs to be Replaced .............................683 a. Carpet Must be Replaced.......................................683 b. Hardwood or Vinyl Flooring Must be Replaced....................683 c. Tile Flooring May Need to be Replaced..........................683 7. Items Which Must be Removed With the Drywall May Need to be Replaced.......................................................683 a. Cabinets Must be Replaced.....................................683 b. Countertops Must be Replaced..................................684 c. Trim, Crown Molding and Baseboards Must be Replaced...........684 d. Bathroom Fixtures Must be Replaced............................684 8. Insulation Must be Replaced........................................684 9. The Plaintiff-intervenor Homes Will Need to be Cleaned with a HEPA Vacuum, Wet-wiped or Power-washed, & Allowed to Air-out After Remediation........................................685 10. After Remediation, an Independent, Qualified Engineering Company Should Certify that the Homes are Safe for Occupation.....685 11. The Scope of Work is Consistent with Chinese Drywall Remediation by National Homebuilders........................................685 12. The Court’s Scope of Remediation as Compared to the NAHB & CPSC Remediation Protocols.....................................686 13. The Plaintiff-intervenor Families Will be out of Their Homes for 4-6 Months During Remediation......................................686 F. The Costs of Repairing Virginia CDW Homes is on Average $86/Square Foot................................................................687 G. It is Not Certain that Plaintiff-intervenors Have Suffered Property Devaluation Caused by the Chinese Drywall Contamination ...............688 H. Chinese Drywall Effects on Plaintiff-intervenors & Their Homes, & Their Resulting Damages...................................................689 1. The Plaintiff-intervenor Cases Provide a Representative Cross-section of Homes Contaminated by Chinese Drywall & Persons Harmed by Chinese Drywall..............................689 2. Law Applicable to Plaintiff-intervenors’ Recovery of Damages...........690 3. Plaintiff-intervenors & Their Damages...............................693 a. Deborah and William Morgan...................................693 i. Background..............................................693 ii. Damages.................................................695 b. Jerry and Inez Baldwin ........................................696 i. Background..............................................696 ii. Damages.................................................698 c. Joe and Cathy Leach...........................................698 i. Background ..............................................698 ii. The Leach home is a unique example of known, localized use of Chinese drywall which can be repaired as a standalone unit of the home, without removing all drywall in the home .....................................700 iii. Damages.................................................701 d. Robert and Lisa Orlando.......................................701 i. Background..............................................701 ii. Damages.................................................703 e. Fred and Vanessa Michaux.....................................704 i. Background ..............................................704 ii. Damages.................................................706 f. Preston and Rachel McKellar...................................706 i. Background..............................................706 ii. Damages.................................................708 g. Steven and Elizabeth Heisehober................................710 i. Background..............................................710 ii. Damages.................................................711 III. Conclusion 712 I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY From 2004 through 2006, the housing boom and rebuilding efforts necessitated by various hurricanes led to a shortage of construction materials, including drywall. As a result, drywall manufactured in China was brought into the United States and used in the construction and refurbishing of homes in coastal areas of the country, notably the Gulf Coast and East Coast. Sometime after the installation of the Chinese drywall, homeowners began to complain of emissions of smelly gasses, the corrosion and blackening of metal wiring, surfaces, and objects, and the breaking down of appliances and electrical devices in their homes. Many of these homeowners also began to complain of various physical afflictions believed to be caused by the Chinese drywall. Accordingly, these homeowners began to file suit in various state and federal courts against homebuilders, developers, installers, realtors, brokers, suppliers, importers, exporters, distributors, and manufacturers who were involved with the Chinese drywall. Because of the commonality of facts in the various cases, this litigation was designated as multidistrict litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. In response to a Transfer Order from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 15, 2009, 626 F.Supp.2d 1346 (Jud. Pan.Mult.Lit.2009), all federal cases involving Chinese drywall were transferred and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. The present matter commenced when Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated owners and tenants, brought a class action against Defendants Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd., f/k/a Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd. (“Taishan”); Tobin Trading, Inc.; Venture Supply, Inc.; Harbor Walk Development, LLC; and The Porter-Blaine Corp. Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia on May 1, 2009. Thereafter, on May 26, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. On August 3, 2009, Plaintiffs received notice that service of process of the First Amended Complaint was perfected on Defendant Taishan. Plaintiffs’ case was then transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana on October 13, 2009. Subsequent to transfer, Plaintiffs moved to amend the First Amended Complaint to assert a national class against Taishan. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend was granted. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserts claims against Taishan for negligence, negligence per se, breach of express and/or implied warranties, private nuisance, unjust enrichment, violation of the Consumer Protection Acts and for equitable injunctive and medical monitoring. Since Taishan did not timely respond to the Complaint or enter its appearance in this litigation, Plaintiffs moved for a default judgment. On November 20, 2009, the Court granted a preliminary default against Taishan. On November 25, 2009, the Court issued a scheduling order setting an evidentiary hearing to address the scope and extent of appropriate remediation, and the cost of remediation. Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order, interested parties were permitted to intervene in the proceeding. The Court granted a motion to intervene filed by William and Deborah Morgan, Preston and Rachel McKellar, Frederick and Vanessa Michaux, J. Jerry and Inez Baldwin, Joseph and Kathy Leach, Robert and Lea Orlando, and Steven and Elizabeth Heischober. These parties are known as the Plaintiff-intervenors. Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd. and The Mitchell Company, Inc. also moved for and were granted intervention. Vigorous discovery was conducted by the Intervenors. Depositions were taken and expert reports were exchanged. A Daubert hearing was held on January 29, 2010. Subsequently, the Intervenors filed numerous motions in limine. On the eve of the evidentiary hearing, both Knauf and The Mitchell Co. voluntarily withdrew from the proceeding, leaving only the Plaintiff-intervenors to put on evidence. This default matter came on for hearing without a jury on February 19, 2010, and culminated on February 22, 2010. The Court has carefully considered the testimony of all of the witnesses and the exhibits entered into evidence, as well as the record. Pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court issues the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. To the extent that any finding of fact may be construed as a conclusion of law, the Court hereby adopts it as such and to the extent that any conclusion of law constitutes a finding of fact, the Court adopts it as such. In this opinion, the Court will first discuss the general background of gypsum and drywall, then it will consider how and when the defective Chinese drywall was installed in the Plaintiff-intervenors’ homes, next the scientific findings regarding Chinese drywall, the nature and level of the corrosive environment in the Plaintiff-intervenors’ homes, the type and degree of resulting damages, the proper scope of remediation, and the costs of this remediation. II. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. BACKGROUND: GYPSUM & DRYWALL Drywall is a widely used construction material that is also known as gypsum board, wallboard, plasterboard, sheetrock, and gyproc. P2.0006-0003 (Cozen O’Con-nor, Chinese Drywall Litigation: Subrogation Whitepaper (2009)). A drywall panel is composed of a layer of hardened gypsum plaster sandwiched between two layers of paper liner. Id. Gypsum is a hydrated calcium sulfate, composed of two molecules of water (H20) and one of calcium sulfate (CaS04). Id. The gypsum used to make drywall can be created both naturally and synthetically. Id. Naturally occurring gypsum is a deposit largely the result of the evaporation of water in ancient inland seas which contains large amounts of dissolved gypsum. P2.0051-001 (Treatment and Disposal of Gypsum Board Waste, Construction Dimension, February 1992 at 5). Synthetic gypsum is chemically identical to mineral gypsum, but the amount and types of trace materials and unreacted sorbents found in the source material can vary among power plants and among mines from which it originates. P2.0006-0003 (Cozen O’Connor, Chinese Drywall Litigation: Subrogation Whitepaper (2009)). Synthetic gypsum is generally obtained in the final stage of industrial processes, where sulfuric acid is neutralized by a calcium salt; for example it is produced as a byproduct of coal combustion power plants. Id.; P2.0240.0014 (ASTM International report). To make drywall from gypsum, first gypsum is crushed or ground up and heated to about 350 degrees Fahrenheit to remove approximately seventy-five percent (75%) of its water content in a process called calcining, thereafter becoming a fine white powder. P2.0006-0003 (Cozen O’Connor, Chinese Drywall Litigation: Subrogation Whitepaper (2009)); P2.00510001 (Treatment and Disposal of Gypsum Board Waste, Construction Dimensions, February 1992 at 5). Second, the calcined gypsum is mixed with water, foam, and other additives to form a slurry which is fed between continuous sheets of paper on a continuous belt line. Id. Third, as the board moves down the belt line, the calcined gypsum recrystalizes or rehydrates, reverting to its original gypsum state, and the paper sheets become firmly bonded to the rehydrated core. Id. Finally, the board is cut to length and conveyed through dryers to remove free moisture. Id. Historically, gypsum was used as far back as 3700 B.C. by the Egyptians as a base to preserve the wall murals in the pyramids. P2.0051-0001(Treatment and Disposal of Gypsum Board Waste, Construction Dimension, February 1992 at 6); P2.0240-0022 to -0023 (ASTM International, Oct. 2009 at 9-10). The Roman Empire used gypsum for interior purposes, such as the interior walls of Pompeii. Id. There is little information of the use of gypsum plaster during the Middle Ages. Id. The modern science of gypsum began with the discoveries by Antoine Lavoisier outlined in his two papers on gypsum presented to the French Academy of Sciences in 1765 and 1766. P2.0240-0022 to -0023 (ASTM International, Oct. 2009 at 11). In the United States, the use of gypsum board started in the early 1950s and was driven by the following issues, (1) avoiding the drying time of plaster which allowed earlier occupancy of buildings, and (2) the lack of skilled plasterers in many locations. P2.0240-0026(ASTM International, Oct. 2009, pg. 13). Gypsum is fire resistant, thus making it a preferable material for drywall. P2.0051-0001 (Treatment and Disposal of Gypsum Board Waste, Construction Dimensions, February 1992 at 6). B. HOW & WHEN THE CHINESE DRYWALL WAS INSTALLED IN THE PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR HOMES The Chinese drywall in the present cases was manufactured by Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd. which on September 10, 2007, changed its name to Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. P3.0629-1000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman In Support of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee’s Evidentiary Presentation Regarding Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. ¶ 15); Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. I p. 9-18, P3.0629-0150; P3.06290177 (Herman Opening). Hereafter, Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd. and Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. shall be referred to as “Taishan.” On November 9, 2005, Venture Supply, Inc., a company in Norfolk, Virginia, provided an original letter of credit in the amount of $429,600.00 to the order of Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co. for 120,000 sheets of drywall to meet all USA ASTM ratings and fire rating standards. P3.0629-1000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman ¶ 5), Pl.1802-0063 to 0068. On November 14, 2005, Frank Clem, manager of Venture Supply, was advised that the manufacturer was not clear on U.S. ASTM ratings and Venture Supply was requested to remove U.S. ASTM requirements from the letter of credit and rely solely upon Chinese ratings. P3.0629-1000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman ¶ 7). Venture Supply then contracted with Taishan to purchase drywall. P3.0629-1000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman ¶¶ 7-8), PI.1802-0070. Although it originally contracted to meet United States’ ASTM standards, Taishan insisted that the drywall it sold to Venture Supply, Inc. would not be required to meet these standards. Id. Accordingly, on November 15, 2005, Venture Supply directed its bank to remove the U.S. ASTM requirement from the letter of credit to Taishan. Id. Pursuant to contract, on December 25, 2005, Taishan had 2,000 pallets of drywall shipped aboard the M/V Glykofillousa from the Chinese Port of Loading, Lianyungang. P3.0629-1000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman ¶¶ 10-11), Pl.1802-0091, PI.1802-0003. The shipment arrived in the United States in February, 2006. Id. On December 16, 2005, a second contract was signed between Venture Supply and Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co. for 100,-000 sheets on 2,000 pallets to be shipped to Norfolk, Virginia. P3.0629-1000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman ¶ 12), PI.1802-0089, Pl.1802-0003, Pl.1802-0007. However, the second shipment of drywall was reduced to 53,912 sheets on 586 pallets, which was shipped onboard the MTV Atlantic Fortune from the Chinese Port of Loading, Lianyungang. Id. . This shipment was offloaded in Camden, New Jersey. Id. All of Taishan’s drywall sold to Venture Supply bore the following legend on end binding label tape: “4'xl2'xl/2" Gypsum Board Distributed by Venture Supply, Inc.” and on the back of the board: “Venture Supply, Inc. MFG. Shandong Taihe Dongxin, Co., Ltd., China.” P3.0629-1000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman ¶ 6), Deposition of Samuel G. Porter (12/16/09, 12/17/09) at 321-322. The Porter-Blaine Corporation, a company related to Venture Supply, Inc., purchased Taishan drywall from Venture Supply, Inc. See 2/19/10 Trial Transcript at p. 17 (12-14). Venture Supply, Inc. shipped Taishan drywall to each of the seven intervening plaintiffs’ (hereinafter “Plaintiff’ or “Plaintiff-intervenor”) homes and the drywall was thereupon installed by the Porter-Blaine Corporation in the homes. See Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. I p. 17(9-14), p. 13(16-20), p. 16(22)-17(2), p. 20(17-24) (Herman Opening). The drywall product from China was never tested pursuant to the United States ASTM standard. P3.0629-1000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman ¶ 13), Pl.1802-0046 to 0061, PI.1802-0023; Deposition of Samuel G. Porter (12/16/09) at p. 84-85. Venture relied on a representation that Chinese testing was equivalent to the U.S. testing standards. Id. However, the Chinese tests were accomplished by a government agency of the Republic of China and not by an independent testing laboratory. Id. Certificates of Quality were likewise issued by a government agency. P3.0629-1000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman ¶ 14), P1.18020045, Pl.1802-0043. But the Certificate of Quality Management System Certification issued predates the production of the drywall shipped to the United States by at least two (2) years. Id. On March 19, 2005, BNBM became the largest shareholder of Taihe Dongxin by purchasing sixty-five percent (65%) of the equity of Taishan Dongxin. P3.0629-1000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman ¶ 16), P3.0629-0150, P3.0629-0177. The state-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Counsel (SA-SAC) of the People’s Republic of China controls the “plasterboard” manufacturing, exportation and certification industry. P3.0629-1000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman ¶¶ 18 -20), P3.0629-0113, P3.06290136, 0137. The SASAC supervises and manages the State-owned assets of the enterprises engaged in drywall production, including Taishan. Id. The degree of control SASAC (Government of China) exerts and influences is extensive. Id. For example, SASAC assumes the responsibility as the investor on behalf of the state; it supervises and manages the state-owned assets and enterprises; controls the value preservation and increment of the state-owned assets; guides and pushes forward the reform and restructuring of SOEs; appoints and removes top executives of SOEs; is responsible for organizing SOEs to turn gains over to the state; is responsible for urging SOEs to carry out laws and regulations for safety production; directs and supervises the management work of local state-owned assets; and undertakes other tasks assigned by the State Council. Id. Furthermore, SASAC oversees and controls 150 large central state-owned enterprises (SOEs), including China National Building Material Group Corporation (AS CNBM Group). P3.0629-1000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman ¶ 18), P3.0629-0113 to 0116. SASAC has a presence in the United States through CNBM USA Corporation, located at 17800 Castleton Street, City of Industry, California 91748. P3.0629-1000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman ¶ 21), P3.0629-0122. SASAC owns 100% of the CNBM Group. Id. CNBM Group, in turn, owns 56.4% of the China National Building Material Company, Limited (CNBM Co., Ltd); 75% of BNBM; 100% of CNBM Import and Export Co. and 100% of CNBM Academy. P3.06291000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman ¶ 19), P3.0629-0117 to 0120, P3.0629-0123 to 0125. CNBM Co., Ltd. Owns 52.40% of Beijing New Building Material Co., Ltd. (BNBM). Id. CNBM Group, in turn, owns 56.4% of the China National Building Material.- Id. CNBM USA was established in 2006 the same year that Taihe (Taishan) sold Chinese-manufactured drywall to Venture Supply Inc. Id. CNBM (USA) Corporation has the announced mission to provide all kinds of building materials and services in the national market. Id. CNBM’s Gypsum Board business production on December 31, 2008 from its wholly owned subsidiary, Taishan Gypsum Co., was $262.3 million yuan. P3.06291000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman ¶ 22), P3.0629-0125, P3.0629-0331, 0332. Taihe’s (Taishan) revenue for 2006 was 773,000,000 yuan.. P3.0629-1000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman ¶23), P3.0629-0130. A yuan is worth approximately 6.8 dollars. Id. Taishan manufactures more than 60 types of products including standard plasterboard. P3.0629-1000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman ¶ 24), P3.0629-0153. In addition to the shipments in 2006 to Venture Supply, Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd. shipped 76 shipments of plasterboard to the U.S. between March 2006 and August 2007 to four U.S. ports. P3.0629-1000 (Affidavit of Russ M. Herman ¶ 25), P3.0629-0175. C. GENERAL SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS ON CHINESE DRYWALL WHICH DISTINGUISH IT FROM TYPICAL, BENIGN DRYWALL Chinese drywall is different from typical, benign drywall for the following reasons: 1. Chinese drywall has a significantly higher average concéntration of strontium and significantly more detectable levels of elemental sulfur. P2.0135-0003. 2. Chinese drywall releases reduced sulfur gases. Pl.2025-0003, 0004, (Streit Supplemental Report), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 57(23)-p. 58(18) (Scully Testimony) (The Court has accepted Dr. Scully as an expert in the fields of corrosion, metallurgy, and materials science. Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. I, p. 46 (19-24) (Scully Testimony)). The three main gases that are released from CDW are hydrogen sulfide (H2 S), carbonyl sulfide (COS), and carbon disulfide (CS2). Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 57(23)-58(18) (Scully Testimony), Trial Deposition of Lori Streit (2/16/10) at p. 68(21)-p. 69(3). The CDW also releases elemental sulfur. Pl.2025-0003, 0004 (Streit Supplemental Report). The Plaintiffs’ experts have detected reduced sulfur gas emissions by conducting laboratory tests on samples of Chinese drywall. Trial Deposition of Lori Streit (2/16/10) at p. 24(16)-p. 25(1). These emissions are also confirmed by strong odors. Trial Deposition of Lori Streit (2/16/10) at p. 55(10-14), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. I p. 101(7-14) (Rutila Testimony). The fact that Chinese drywall emits sulfur gases has also been reported by the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission, the Florida Department of Health, and other investigatory agencies and firms. Trial Deposition of Lori Streit (2/16/10) at p. 68(21)-p. 69(3), p. 80(1-17). 3. The sulfur gases released by Chinese drywall are irritating to the human body. Trial Deposition of Lori Streit (2/16/10) at p. 55(15-21), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. I p. 101(17-19) (Rutila Testimony). Exposed individuals reported irritation of the eyes, respiratory system, and skin, among other things. Id. 4. The sulfur gases released by Chinese drywall cause offending odors in homes, making them hard if not impossible to live in. Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. I p. 53(23)-pg. 54(7)(Morgan testimony), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. I p. 8(4-17)(Michaux Testimony), Trial Deposition of Lori Streit (2/16/10) at p. 55(10-1) 5. The sulfur gases released by Chinese drywall are corrosive to metals, particularly copper and silver. Trial Deposition of Lori Streit (2/16/10) at p. 80(8-17), p. 90(23)-p. 91(7), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 56 (19)-p. 57(12), p. 59(3-12) (Scully Testimony)). “Corrosion” is defined by the ASTM as the chemical or electrochemical reaction between a material, usually a metal, and its environment that produces a deterioration of the materials and its properties. PI.1852-0002 (ASTM Terminology), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 51(20)-p. 52(5) (Scully Testimony). Copper and silver metal components in the Plaintiffs’ houses are extremely vulnerable to corrosion from exposure to the sulfur gases. P2.0076-0001, 0002 (Graedel 1983 (copper)), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 56(19-24) (Scully Testimony), P2.02020001, 0002 (Chudnovsky 2008 (silver)), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 157(13-18) (Galler Testimony). The sulfur gases, in reacting with metals, form sulfide deposits on the surfaces of the metals. Trial Deposition of Lori Streit (2/16/10) at p. 80(8-17). For example, a reaction of sulfur gases with copper pipes will form copper sulfide on the metals. Trial Deposition of Lori Streit (2/16/10) at p. 72(18-24). The reaction of sulfur gases with metals can be said to be “consuming” the useful, pure metals by replacing those metals with sulfides. Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 141 (15-16) (Galler Testimony) (The Court has accepted Mr. Galler as an expert in the fields of electrical engineering, power electronics, electrical machinery, and failure analysis. Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. I, p. 128 (3-7) (Galler Testimony)). 6. The corrosion on metals caused by the sulfur gases emitted by Chinese drywall causes premature failure of electrical & mechanical devices. Pl.2001-0019, 0020, 0021 (CTL/Krantz Original Report, HVAC Coil Failure due to Corrosion), P3.0625-0001, 0002 (FRE 1006 Summary of HVAC Coil Failure Data), Pl.2053-0001 (Virginia Corrosion Thicknesses Exceed Failure Standard), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 55(24)-p. 156(17) (Galler Testimony), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 100(17)-p. 101(16), p. 152(22)-p. 153(1) (Scully Testimony), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. I p. 90(3-23) (Barnett Testimony proffer) (The PSC tenders Dr. Barnett, and the Court accepts him as, an expert in Engineering and Fire Safety. Trial Deposition of Jonathan Barnett (2/12/10) at p. 11(14)-18(22), Pl.2015-0019 — Pl.2015-0024 (Barnett Report, C.V.). The Plaintiff-intervenors have reported many premature failures of major appliances and consumer electronics in their homes during their first three years of use of these homes. Pl.2018-0014, 0015, 0046 (SGH/Rutila Supplemental Report), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. ll(23)-p. 12(13)(Rutila Testimony). Laboratory analysis of these copper and silver components from the Virginia homes identified the corrosion as the cause of an HVAC coil failure and severe corrosion deposits at the operative connections in the appliances and in consumer electronics. Pl.2018-0015, 0046 (SGH/Rutila Supplemental Report), PI.2001-0019, 0020, 0021 (CTL/Krantz Original Report), Pl.2020-0002, 0003, 0004, (Original Galler Report), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 48(23)-p. 149(6)(Galler Testimony), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 52(18)-p. 53(4), p. 65(6-16), p. 111(18-23) (Scully Testimony). Mechanical, electrical, and electronic failures have been shown to have occurred prematurely due to the severe industrial corrosive environments in these Chinese Drywall homes. Pl.2001-0019, 0020, 0021 (CTL/Krantz Original Report, HVAC Coil Failure due to Corrosion), P3.0625-0001, 0002 (FRE 1006 Summary of HVAC Coil Failure Data), Pl.2053-0001 (Virginia Corrosion Thicknesses Exceed Failure Standard), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 55(24)-p. 156(17) (Galler Testimony), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 100(17)-p. 101(16), p. 152(22)-p. 153(1) (Scully Testimony), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. I p. 90(3-23) (Barnett Testimony proffer) (The PSC tenders Dr. Barnett, and the Court accepts him as, an expert in Engineering and Fire Safety. Trial Deposition of Jonathan Barnett (2/12/10) at p. 11(14)-18(22), Pl.2015-0019 — Pl.2015-0024 (Barnett Report, C.V.). Evaluation of comparable HVAC systems, appliances, and electronics in control homes (e.g., similar homes without Chinese Drywall) do not show premature failures of HVAC systems, appliances, and electronics, and the wires do not have corrosion product thicknesses that would predict premature failures. Pl.2022-0005, 0006, 0007, 0008 (Scully Supplemental Report), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. l(23)-p. 112(2) (Scully Testimony), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 12(18)-p. 13(22), p. 23(6-14) (Rutila Testimony), PI.1892-0001, 0002, 0003, Pl.2057-0001, 0002, Pl.2057-0001, 0002 (comparisons between corroded electronics from CDW homes and electronics from control homes), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 144(2-19), p. 149(7-16) (Galler Testimony). 7. The corrosion on metals caused by the sulfur gases emitted by Chinese drywall poses a fire risk. Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 130 (3-14) (Galler Testimony). The corrosion increases resistance in the circuitry of appliances and electronics. See Pl.2020-0004 (Galler Report); see also P2.0202-0001 (Chudnovsky, Corrosion of Electrical Conductors), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 130 (3-14) (Galler Testimony). Increased resistance increases heat in appliances and electronics. Pl.2020-0002 (Galler Report), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 130 (3-14) (Galler Testimony). This increased resistance can cause excessive heating of the connection when energized. See Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 129(25)-p. 130 (2) (Galler Testimony); see also P2.0202-0001 (Chudnovsky 2008). Complete failure of a switch can lead to fires or other life safety problems, depending on the intended function of the switch. Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 130 (3-14) (Galler Testimony). Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin (hereinafter “Knauf’ or “KPT”) and Plaintiffs Steering Committee (hereinafter “PSC”) experts agree that all of the problematic Chinese drywall products share similar chemical and physical properties. Pl.2025-0003, 0004, (Streit Supplemental Report), Deposition of Matthew Perricone Ph.D. (1/21/10) Ex. 2 (Perricone Original Report) at p.i (¶ 4.7), Deposition of Sandy Sharp (2/5/10) at p. 148(15)-p. 150(11), Trial Deposition of Lori Streit (2/16/10) at p. 24(6)-p. 25(1), p. 26(11-12), p. 27(21)-p. 28(7) (finding commonalities among Chinese drywall products). D. PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR HOMES HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO A CORROSIVE ENVIRONMENT PRODUCED BY CHINESE DRYWALL The level of corrosive sulfur gases emitted by Chinese drywall in the Plaintiffintervenors’ homes exceed the safe level established by recognized standards, peer reviewed literature, and expert opinions and this corrosive environment has had a significant impact on the expose property. 1. CPSC Standards The seven Plaintiff intervenors’ homes meet the CPSC “Interim Guidance — Identification of Homes with Corrosion from Problem Drywall (January 28, 2010).” PI.1844-0001 (CPSC Guidance Problem Drywall), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 6(25)-p. 7(5) (Rutila Testimony). P1.18440001 (CPSC Guidance Problem Drywall), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 11(1-19) (Rutila Testimony). The CPSC Guidance sets forth “Corroborating Evidence” for the presence of CDW in such homes. Id. The CPSC Guidance requires that 4 out of 6 types of corroborating evidence be met to establish a “Problem Drywall” home. Id. The six types of evidence are: (a) corrosive conditions demonstrated by copper sulfide on copper coupons or confirmation of sulfur in blackening of grounding wires and/or air conditioning coils; (b) confirmed markings of Chinese origin on the drywall; (c) strontium levels (excluding the exterior paper) exceeding 1200 ppm; (d) laboratory elevated sulfur readings above 10 ppm; (e) elevated levels of H2S, COS, CS2; and (f) corrosion of copper to form copper sulfide when copper is placed in test chambers with drywall samples from the home. Id. The seven Plaintiff intervenors’ homes meet the corroborating evidence criteria set forth in the CPSC Guidance. Pl.2025-0003, 0004. (Streit Supplemental Report, off gassing studies), Deposition of Lori Streit (2/16/10) at 2/22 Vol. I p. 39(24)-p. 40(4), p. 42 (8-14), p. 51(13-25), p. 59 (14)-p. 60 (6) (Streit Testimony), P1.1824 (FRE 1006 Summary of Screening Data for Virginia Homes, (copper strips in mason jars and laboratory verification of copper sulfide on HVAC and wire), Pl.2001-0019, 0026, 0036, P1.20020007 (CTL/Krantz Original and Supplemental Reports, laboratory confirmation copper sulfide on wires and HVAC), Pl.2021-0008, 0010, 0011, Pl.2022-0020, 0021, 0022 (Scully Original and Supplemental Reports, laboratory confirmation of copper sulfide on wires and HVAC), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 111(13-22) (Scully Testimony, copper sulfide on wires and HVAC) (The PSC tenders Brad Rrantz, and the Court accepts him, as an expert in corrosion science. Pl.2001-0001 (Original CTL/Krantz Report, C.V.)), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 5(13-17) (Rutila Testimony). 2. Florida Division of Health Standards The Florida Case Definition for “Confirmatory Evidence of Drywall Associated Corrosion” includes three items. P1.18410001-0004 (FLA Case Definition), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 5(7)-p. 8(25) (Rutila Testimony). If any one of the three is positive, that is considered confirmatory evidence. Id. The three types of confirmatory evidence are: (1) laboratory testing for elemental sulfur indicating that the gypsum source in the drywall contributes to the reduced sulfur gases emitted from the corrosive drywall; (2) laboratory analysis (i.e., headspace) for reduced sulfur gas emissions capable of causing copper corrosion in the house; and (3) qualitative analysis of suspect drywall for its ability to cause eorrosion/blackening of copper under controlled conditions indicating drywall samples from the house emit gasses capable of corroding copper. Id. The Taishan drywall in the seven Virginia Plaintiff intervenors’ homes meets at least one of the types of the confirmatory evidence criteria for the Florida Case Definition. P1.20250003, 0004 (Streit Supplemental Report laboratory results for elevated sulfur, H2S, COS, and CS2), Deposition of Lori Streit (2/16/10) at 2/22 Vol. I p. 39(24)-p. 40 (5) (Streit Testimony); see also Pl.2023-0011 (Streit Original Report), Pl.1824-0001 (FRE 1006 Summary of Screening Data for Virginia Homes, “aging” tests showing blackening of copper strips in mason jars (chamber test)). 3. Battelle & International Standards Association Classifications Indicate the Corrosion Found in Plaintiff-intervenor Homes is Severe The Plaintiff intervenors’ homes demonstrate levels of corrosion found in the most severe industrial corrosive environment. Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 112(9-15) (Scully Testimony). P2.0195-0026, 0065, 0066 (Abbott, 1993, MTI # 38), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 92 (11-18), p. 83 (8-14) (Scully Testimony); see also P2.02280012 (p. 360) (Sinclair text), P2.0245-0003 (Abbott 1988). According to the Battelle Classification scheme, the recognized standard for measuring corrosivity of environments, there are four Classifications ranging from benign to severe industrial. Id. The Classifications are characterized as I (benign), II (mild), III (moderately severe), and IV (severe industrial). Id. The International Standards Association (ISA) has developed a parallel corrosivity classification scheme. PI.0176-0003, 0014, Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 91(12-15) (Scully Testimony). Additionally, the corrosivity classification schemes established by standard-setting organizations such as International Standards Organization (ISO) mirror the Battelle and the ISA standards. Pl.1836-0001, (ISO 11844 Corrosivity Standard), P1.0091 (IEC 654^4 Corrosivity Standard), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 112 (6-15) (Scully Testimony). The Battelle Classification Scheme for Corrosive Environments establishes qualitative and quantitative criteria to be used to classify environments. P2.0195-0017, 0026, 0065, 0066 (Abbott 1993, MTI # 38), P2.0228-0012 (Sinclair text), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 91(6-15) (Scully Testimony). These criteria are discussed in turn. a. Qualitative Criteria for Corrosivity The qualitative criteria for Battelle Corrosivity Classifications schemes are as follows: a. No significant corrosion observed, well-controlled environment; b. Pore corrosion mechanism begins, operating reliability affected, unprotected copper contains oxide and chloride; c. Moderately severe environment, associated with industrial operation, pore corrosion and creep, corrosion product on unprotected copper rich in sulfide and oxide; and d. Severe industrial environment, corrosion mechanism dominated by creep, corrosion product on copper primarily a sulfide. P2.0195-0026, 0065, 0066 (Abbott 1993, MTI # 38), P2.0228-0012 (Sinclair text), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 91(5)-94(4) (Scully Testimony). The wires and HVAC coils that were removed from the Plaintiff-intervenor homes were shown in the laboratory to have a corrosion product that is primarily copper sulfide and/or rich in sulfide. P2.0195-0066 (Abbott 1993, MTI #38), P2.0228-0012 (Sinclair text), Pl.2001-0019, 0026, 0036, 0040, 0042, 0043, 0044, 0045, 0046, Pl.2002-0007 (CTL/Krantz Original and Supplemental Reports), Pl.2021-0008, 0010, 0011, 0012, 0013, 0017, 0018, 0027, 0029, 0031, 0033, 0035, Pl.2022-0020, 0021, 0022, 0023, 0024, 0025, 0030, 0031, (Scully Original and Supplemental Reports), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 1 11(18-22) (Scully Testimony). The wires and HVAC coils that were removed from the Plaintiff intervenors’ homes demonstrated both pore corrosion and creep corrosion. PI.2022-0006, 0007, 0008 (Scully Supplemental Report), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 51 (3-19) (Scully Testimony). Based solely on these qualitative Battelle corrosivity criteria, the homes of the Plaintiff intervenors are classified as severe industrial corrosive environments. Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 83(8-14), p. 112(3-8) (Scully Testimony). Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) also established that wires taken from Chinese Drywall (CDW) in Virginia, Florida, and Louisiana homes in the SNL study demonstrated a corrosion product rich in copper sulfide, pore corrosion and creep corrosion, and classified the CDW environments from which the wires were taken to be severely corrosive. PI.0060-0050, 0057, 0063 (CPSC/Sandia Report), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 80(2)-p. 81(17), p. 82(24)-p. 83(14), p. 94 (7-20) (Scully Testimony). b. Quantitative Criteria for Corrosivity The Battelle Corrosivity Classifications, as well as ISA and the other corrosivity standards, also have quantitative criteria for the levels of corrosive environments. The qualitative criteria are based on corrosion product thickness measurements, measured in angstroms, units used to measure electromagnetic radiation equal to one ten-billionth of a meter, or microns, linear measurements equivalent to one-millionth of a meter. The Battelle qualitative thickness criteria are as follows: a. < 300 angstroms for 30 days (< .03 microns) b. 300-1000 angstroms for first year (.03-1 microns) c. 1000-4000 angstroms for first year (.1-4 microns) a. > 4000 angstroms for first year (> .4 microns) P2. 0195-0026, 0065, 0066 (Abbott, 1993 MTI #38), P2.0228-0012 (Sinclair text), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 92(ll)-p. 93(14) (Scully Testimony). The wires that were removed from the Plaintiff intervenors’ homes demonstrated corrosion product thicknesses far above the severe industrial corrosivity environment 4000 angstroms threshold, adjusted to a 3 year thickness (Virginia Plaintiff intervenor homeowners resided in the homes approximately 3 years). P1.20530001 (Examples of Virginia Components Exceeding Three Year Battelle Standard), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Yol. II p. 82(24)-p. 83(14) (Scully Testimony). The measured corrosion thicknesses on the wires from the Virginia homes meet the Battelle Classification IV quantitative criteria for a severely industrial corrosive environment based on either a “linear growth law” or a “Parabolic growth law.” Pl.2053-0001 (Examples of Virginia Components Exceeding Three Year Battelle Standard), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 97(5)-p. 98(10), p. 99(11-15) (Scully Testimony). Corrosion product thickness measurements on wires from the Virginia homes that meet the quantitative criteria for Battelle Corrosive Classification IV (severe industrial) were also documented by measurements on wires from CDW homes by the Sandia National Laboratory and by three other laboratories performing expert work in this case. Pl.0060-0013, 0050, 0055, 0057, 0063 (CPSC/Sandia Report), Pl.2002-0007 (CTL/Krantz Laboratory), PI.2022-0009, 0010 (Scully, UVa.Laboratory), Pl.2018-0010, 0011, 0012 (SGH/Rutila laboratory), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 110(14)-p. 111(10) (Scully Testimony). Thus, the bottom line is that the Plaintiff intervenors’ homes demonstrate a Battelle classification for corrosivity which is a “severe industrial” environment, whether one applies the qualitative or the quantitative Battelle corrosivity criteria to corroded wires and corroded HVAC samples taken from these homes. Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 112(3-15)(Scully Testimony). 4. Peer-reviewed Literature & Expert Opinion Consensus The application of Battelle, ISA, and other corrosive environment criteria to real world components is demonstrated in the peer-reviewed literature. P1.20510001, 0002 (Literature re Corrosion Real World Components), P2.0223-0003 (Abbott 1991), P2.0222-0006 (Abbott Review Flowing Mixed Gases), P2.0229-0003, 0004, 0005, 0008 (Comizolli, 1992), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 92(18-25), p. 159(23)-p. 160(2) (Scully Testimony). The application of Battelle, ISA, and other corrosive environment criteria to real world components is demonstrated in industry standards for corrosivity such as the International Society of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) Standard Recommended Practice Preparation, Installation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Corrosion Coupons in Oilfield Operations. Pl.1853-0004 (NACE Standard). The application of Battelle, ISA, and other corrosive environment criteria to real world components is also demonstrated by the Chinese Drywall Investigation performed by Sandia National Laboratories as documented in the CPSC/Sandia “Interim Report on the Status of Electrical Components Installed in Homes with Chinese Drywall.” P1.0600050, 0057 (CPSC/Sandia Report), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 82(24)-p. 83(12), p. 99(7-15)(Scully Testimony). The application of Battelle, ISA, and other corrosive environment criteria to real world components is supported by the expert opinion of Dr. John Scully, a leader in the field of corrosion science in the academic, military, and publishing arenas, as well as by other leaders in the field. PI.2022-0009, 0009, 0010 (Original and Supplemental Reports of John Scully), Pl.2052-0001, 0002 (List of Individuals Contacted by John Scully regarding Measurements on Real Components and use of Standards), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 39(15-25), p. 40(1-8), p. 41(5)-p. 42(14), p. 112(3-8) (Scully Testimony). Based on the Battelle corrosivity criteria, corrosion scientists have established a “failure threshold” to predict electrical and electronic failures based on measuring corrosion product thicknesses on real world components or copper reactivity coupons standardized to a given period of time that the copper is exposed to the corrosive environment. The standard failure threshold is 1000 angstroms (.1 micron) for the first year of exposure, or 300 angstroms (.3 micron) for 30 days of exposure. P2.0195-0017, 0026, 0028, 0065, 0066 (Abbott 1993 MTI # 38), PI. 0176-0014 (ISA Standard 71.04), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 92 (11-23), p. 94 (24)-p. 95(5), p. 103(5-10), p. Ill (3-10) (Scully Testimony). The components at issue in this ease that were taken from Virginia homes and analyzed in the laboratory do exceed the recognized 1000 angstroms (.1 micron) failure threshold standard for the first year of exposure by many multiples and even by orders of magnitude in some cases. Pl.2053-0001 (Examples of Virginia Components with Thicknesses Over Failure Threshold), Pl.2022-0009, 0010 (Scully Supplemental Report), PI.2002-0007 (CTL/Krantz Supplemental Report), Pl.2018-0009, 0010, 0011, 0012 (SGH/Rutila Supplemental Report), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 98 (ll)-p. 99(15), p. 104(3-14), p. 110(16)-p. 112(8)(Scully Testimony). Thus, premature failures are predicted by Dr. John Scully. Id. As set forth in the peer-reviewed literature, consensus standards, the opinion of several experts in the field, and the expert opinion of Dr. John Scully, the use of real world components under real world exposure conditions and durations of exposure provide more comprehensive and accurate information than the use of copper reactivity coupons, particularly if the coupons are deployed for short periods (such as less than one year). Pl.1843-0001 (ASTM Standard for Corrosion Tests, recommend exposures over one year to account for seasonal variation and other variables), P2.0236-0001 (Perkins, Corrosion Manual), P2.0205-0009 (Tran 2003), Pl.2051-0001, 0002 (Literature Regarding Corrosion Assessment of Real Components), P1.2052 (List of Individuals Contacted regarding use of Real Components), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 108(17-25) (Scully Testimony). Nevertheless, the use of copper reactivity coupons may provide useful corrosion information, particularly when the real world components are not available for testing. P2.0228-0001 (Sinclair, Corrosion Manual), P2.0236-0001 (Perkins, Corrosion Manual). The limitations of copper reactivity coupons are that they tend to underestimate corrosion thicknesses particularly when deployed for short durations of time. P2.0247-0002 (Dean, Corrosion Text), Pl.1843-0001 (ASTM Standard for Corrosion Tests), P2.0205-0009 (Tran 2003). Nevertheless, even with the limitations described above, the use of copper reactivity coupons in CDW homes produces data which also predicts premature electrical and electronic failures. The prediction of failure of electronic and electri.cal components (standardized to one year) in Florida and Louisiana CDW homes is also confirmed by the Knauf expert, Dr. Sandy Sharp, based on Dr. Sharp’s copper reactivity coupon data from MeadWestvaco (MWV) and Dr. Sharp’s own published industrial electrical and electronic equipment corrosion failure threshold. Pl.2056-0001 (FRE 1006 Florida, Louisiana, and Virginia Coupon Data), Deposition of Sandy Sharp (2/5/10) at 2/22 Vol. II p. 39(17)-p. 40(1), p. 40(7-9), p. 42(5-14) (Sharp Testimony), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 102(15)-p. 03(10) (Scully Testimony). The CPSC also utilized copper reactivity coupons in the 51 Home Study and this process revealed that the corrosion thickness measurements on these coupons from CDW homes in Virginia, Florida, and Louisiana exceed the 300 angstrom failure threshold for 30 days and also predicted premature failures. Pl.0019-0084, 0085, 0086, 0129 (CPSC 51 Home Study), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 111(3-10) (Scully Testimony). Thus, based on measuring the thickness of the corrosion product on real world components in four different laboratories (Sandia, Scully/U Va, CTL/Krantz, and SGH/Rutila), and on copper reactivity coupons in two different laboratories (MWV and CPSC); these six different laboratories predict premature electrical and electronic failures in CDW homes due to the corrosivity of the environment produced by Chinese drywall. Pl.2022-0009, 0010 (Supplemental Scully Report), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 10(10)-p. 112(15), p. 100(28)-p. 101(16), p. 104(3-14) (Scully Testimony). In summary, by any recognized standard, high levels of corrosive gases are present in the representative homes. This condition is clearly irritating and harmful to residents and destructive to property. It has to be remediated. The challenge for the Court is to determine the scope of this remediation. E. SCOPE OF REMEDIATION The evidence supports the conclusion that the appropriate remediation for the Plaintiff-intervenor homes includes the removal of all drywall, all electrical wiring, the entire HVAC system, and many other items such as appliances, carpet, cabinetry, trim work and flooring. PI.1888-0003 (Beazer Scope of Remediation), P1.20580001 (Wright Scope of Remediation), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. I at 77(4)-84(24) (Phillips Testimony), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. I p. 98(13-21), 99(16-22) (Rutila Testimony), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 28(10-13) (Rutila Testimony). The scope of this remediation is supported by both the scientific and practical evidence presented. Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 28(10-13) (Rutila Testimony), p. 69 (2-10) (Wright Testimony). The scientific evidence demonstrated that corrosion has damaged most components that contain copper or silver. Pl.2016-0109 (SGH Original Report), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 28(4-6), (10-13) (Rutila Testimony). The practical evidence demonstrated that selective removal of only CDW is not feasible or cost-effective in this case. Trial Transcript 2/19 Vol. I p. 75 (10-25) (Phillips Testimony). The practical evidence further revealed that attempting to gently remove, store or clean or protect carpet, cabinetry or flooring is not feasible or cost-effective. P1.20500003 (Summaries of Cost Estimates), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. I p. 79 (1-13) (carpets), p. 77(18-20) (cabinets), p. 86(2-19) (wood floors) (Phillips Testimony). The practical evidence also indicates that items such as trim work and base boards will likely be ruined or extensively damaged when the drywall is removed. P1.20160087 (SGH Original Report), Trial Transcript 2/19 Vol. I p. 87(2-6) (Phillips Testimony), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 91(13-16) (Wright Testimony). The Court will now discuss the details of and justification for the scope of this remediation. 1. All Drywall in the Plaintiff-intervenor Homes Needs to be Removed & Replaced As indicated above, the Chinese drywall in the Plaintiff-intervenors’ homes emits a foul odor, irritates the human body, and emits sulfur gases which corrode copper and silver, metals of which most electronic and mechanical objects are made, thus reducing these objects life span and posing a fire risk and making the homes hard, if not impossible, to live in. Accordingly, all Chinese drywall must be removed from the Plaintiff-intervenors’ homes. There seems to be little or no dispute on this issue. There is dispute, however, over the scope of remediation where the home contains both Chinese drywall and non-Chinese drywall. The issue is whether all drywall should be removed or only the problematic drywall in this case. The overwhelming evidence reveals that in such mixed structures it is necessary to remove all the drywall, both Chinese and other, for the following reasons. a. Drywall sales and delivery records, where available, lack the reliability and precision necessary to locate all of the Chinese drywall in a mixed drywall home. During the construction phase of the Intervenors’ homes, available sales records from Venture Supply, Inc., showed that between 45 and 212 sheets of CDW were delivered to each of these homes. Pl.2016-0017, 0018 (SGH/Rutila Original Report), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. I p. 5(5-9)(Michaux Testimony), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 17(5-9)(Rutila Testimony), 2/22 Vol. II p. 53(14-17)(Orlando Testimony). Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. I p. 22(ll-13)(Opening Statement). In some, but not all cases, additional “stacking” records were provided, indicating the number of domestic boards as opposed to CDW which were placed on a given Plaintiff-intervenors’ floor. Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 19(10-18) (Rutila Testimony). In the home with the second least number of boards (45 boards in the Michaux home according to these Venture records), Chinese drywall was found to be scattered among all three floors of the home. Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. I p. 5(5-9), p. 12(24)-p. 13(6) (Rutila Testimony). Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. I p. 5(5-9)(Michaux Testimony). In another Intervenor family’s home (Baldwin), the stacking records indicated 77 sheets were placed only on the first floor of the home. The second floor air conditioning zone of the Baldwin home, which is fed by air wholly from this floor, has suffered copper sulfide corrosion from gases released by CDW. Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 20(6-15) (21-24)-p. 21(3)(Rutila Testimony). The second floor of the house also has light switches which have suffered silver sulfide corrosion from gases released by CDW. Pl.2049-0008 to -0011 (SGH analysis of Baldwin light switches showing silver sulfide corrosion) P3.0636-0001 (Schematic of second floor, with sample locations), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 20(6-15), p. 22(3-15)(Rutila Testimony). The experts retained by Knauf documented second floor switches and outlets that had suffered visible copper sulfide corrosion. PI.2003-3686 (Floor plan with corrosion locations), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 24(l-18)(Rutila Testimony). In a home with identical “stacking” records, testing by SGH has demonstrated that CDW has been scattered among domestic board on the second floor of a home that was supposed to be, according to the records, CDW free. PI.1870-0001-018 and 027, Pl.2062-001 and 002 (Nguyen Venture and Porter Blaine records, photographs of Venture label cut from second floor), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 26(21)-p. (27)(15)(Rutila Testimony). Accordingly, the Court finds that these records were not sufficiently reliable to conclude that the second floor of the home did not contain CDW. Pl.2028-0047 and 0048 (Venture and Porter records), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 17(5-13) (Rutila Testimony). b. The Knauf proposed method, or combination of methods, for selective drywall identification do not rise above the level of experimental, and lack the scientific reliability necessary to conduct a board-by-board removal system at the present time. Experts retained by Knauf suggested that using a combination of screening tools (including XRF and the subjective color coding of wires) eliminated the need to remove all drywall in a home with mixed sources of drywall. For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Order of February 18, 2010, granting the PSC’s Daubert motion in part, the Court finds that handheld XRF is unreliable for the purpose of identifying CDW on a board-by-board basis. The Court similarly finds that the observation of corrosion on electrical and mechanical systems in homes informs the determination of whether the home, as a whole, suffers from corrosive attack associated with CDW as reflected in the screening definitions for Florida and CPSC set forth, supra. Pl.1841-0001-0004 (FLA Case Definition), P1.1844-0001(CPSC Guidance Problem Drywall), Trial Transcript at 2/19 Vol. II p. 8(l-24)(Smith Testimony), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 4 (22)-p. 7 (5)(Rutila Testimony). Despite the utility of these methods for home characterization, they lack the precision and accuracy necessary to conduct individual board identification as evidenced by the decision by Florida and the CPSC to eliminate this method from any confirmatory testing. Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 7(18)-p. 8(17)(Rutila Testimony). PSC expert Dean Rutila explained six reasons why observation of corrosion on a wire is not a reliable tool to be used for the purpose of selective identification and removal of CDW. The six reasons are: (1) CPSC and FDOH have determined that it is a screening tool, not a tool for CDW board by board identification; (2) no governmental or peer-reviewed endorsement exists for board by board identification; (3) it is an incorrect assumption that effects of corrosive CDW are only very localized-these gases actually disburse throughout the house; (4) there are no available receptacles next to many boards in house, e.g., “scarce” in ceilings; (5) it is impractical to determine where one drywall board stops and next one starts; and (6) there is no guarantee that all CDW contamination can be removed or certify the same to code officials. Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 9(9)-p. 10(2) (Rutila Testimony). Defendant Knauf provided expert reports extensively reporting on the visible corrosion of wires as well as findings from their field use of XRF. The Court finds that this method, like the handheld XRF gun, also produced “false negatives,” e.g., concluding that ceilings and rooms within homes were CDW-free, when subsequent testing of the homes demonstrates CDW labels and follow-up laboratory testing confirmed that the board was Chinese and was releasing corrosive gases. Pl.1851-0003 to 0005, 0029 to 0051 (Streit Supplemental Data, ICP and sulfur offgas studies show Orlando and Baldwin boards deemed not CDW, are in fact CDW and do offgas at excessive levels), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II p. 34 (8-25) (Baldwin Testimony), Trial Transcript at 2/22 Vol. II. p. 58(17)-p. 59(10) (Orlando Testimony). The intervenor homes have suffered corrosive attack and, in order to make the plaintiff whole, any system that lacks the ability to definitely identify the offensive drywall is unacceptable and rejected by this Court. The regulatory and scientific record demonstrates that removing all drywall from a mixed drywall home is the only method that ensures this goal is obtained. c. Removal of all drywall in a mixed home is efficient and cost effective Large Florida homebuilders with extensive experience in CDW remediation have determined that removal of all drywall in affected homes is efficient and cost-effective, and that attempted selective identification and removal of CDW is neither efficient nor cosLeffective. Pl.1888-0001 to 0016 (Beazer scope of wo