EcoSmart Drywall

USG EcoSmart drywall was one of the specified alternate on our project in California. However the cost and availability posed a challenge and we used Georgia Pacific product. Definitely the EcoSmart board has a significantly reduced GHG potential. I am afraid, I won't be able to give you specific details on cost.

We used USG EcoSmart on a project with Substantial Completion about a year ago. Just a quick look shows that the Framing, Insulation, Drywall (including finishing) sub had a contract of about $400k and the add for EcoSmart was about $15k. Unfortunately I don’t have a break-down of the sub’s costs so don’t know how the add compared to base cost. James Roseberry. AIA, CDT, LEED AP BD+C Project Manager | Associate [cid:image004.png@01D4C2CF.934CCDD0] 314.446.5055 d 314.724.3968 m www.trivers.com From:

I met with a USG rep recently about the EcoSmart Drywall, and she was touting that their could be some cost savings in the installation because the board is lighter weight and takes less people to install which could offset the higher material cost. I would curious to hear if that is true for your project or have any insights.

We have this product specified (and now submitted by our GC) on a small TI project (7,500sf) in the Portland, OR area. I've asked for some pricing breakdown, but it looks like my local Home Depot has over 200 sheets in stock for $13.98/ea. No substantial material premium there.

Hi, Something to be aware of with this class of products is that they may offer much less acoustic isolation than traditional drywall. As we often count on drywall for acoustic properties, I’d advise asking for stc ratings on these products before using. Paul Hutton F

We had a contractor submit this product in lieu of standard gypsum board, presumably because they thought labor savings due to lighter weight would be a benefit. This led to a conversation that is still ongoing between USG's technical people and our acoustical consultants. STC ratings look similar to normal-weight gypsum board, but because STC excludes higher and lower frequency sound, our acoustical consultants are not yet satisfied. They are also not satisfied with lab test data only and would like to see field testing in actual installations. The environmental benefits definitely seem worthwhile, but we aren't yet convinced if this makes sense in some of our more acoustically sensitive areas. If we need more layers than standard drywall to achieve the same high/low frequency isolation, does that wipe out much of the benefit? We're still trying to figure it out. Mike Manzi RA, CSI, CDT, LEED BD+C Bora Architects 503 226 1575

Kudos Paul & Mike for raising the STC issue, definitely worth looking into! Our drywall subcontractor has confirmed a tiny material up-charge for this product, less than $1/board, which is easily offset with the labor savings. I'm intrigued about looking further at GWP impacts at an assembly level - theoretically one could look at the impact of more gyp layers, but thicker gauge studs spaced further apart to achieve the same STC value?  Different stud types and gauges?  Which material in the wall assembly (gyp, metal studs, insulation) has the most impact per functional unit?  Any SDL'ers looking at this kind of issue? With what tools?