Document aDrE7LOgV6gNVLZgvYoo7bK9y

The Vinyl Institute NEWS Wayne Interchange Plaza II, 155 Route 46 West, Wayne, New Jersey 07470 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PVC PIPE SAVINGS DOCUMENTED CONTACT: Nora Jacobs Edward Howard &. Co. (216) 781-2400 R L L :V - AUG i `j ijij-U <Ji-3 r'-r; WAYNE, N.J., August 8, 1990 -- Plumbing contractors can save up to 44 cents on every dollar by switching to PVC (polyvinyl chloride, or vinyl) pipe when they install plumbing systems, a study performed by a leading independent research firm shows. The same study found that PVC used in drain-waste-vent (DWV) applications can cost up to 37 cents less per dollar than competitive materials. The study, the first of its kind to include installation and labor costs in estimating the savings advantages of PVC pipe, was conducted by IFT Technical Services, Berkeley, California. Estimates were based on actual building costs in Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, Houston, San Francisco and Seattle. Plumbing and DWV systems for four types of structures were evaluated: a wood frame townhouse, strip shopping center, high-rise residential building and a high-rise office building. * On average, the study found that CPVC (chlorinated PVC) pipe systems cost between 23 to 44 percent less than copper in new hot and cold water installations, according to Joseph B. Zicherman, Ph.D. , president, IFT Technical Services. (more) The Vinyl Institute, A Division of The Society of the Plastics Industry CTL029902 2 When PVC DWV was compared to cast iron soil pipe in drain, waste and vent pipe installations, the savings varied from 16 to 37 percent, he said. "That can mean a savings of between 23 and 44 cents on every dollar spent to install hot and cold water systems and 16 to 37 cents for a typical DWV system," Zicherman said. "This study confirms that there are significant cost advantages to using PVC pipe," said Roy Gottesman, executive director of the Vinyl Institute, which funded the IFT study. PVC piping has proven to be safe, dependable and capable of meeting existing building codes, he said. Now there is concrete evidence of its superior economic performance. "Moreover, this study doesn't even examine the total lifetime costs of the various systems and the related replacement costs. When you consider that PVC can easily outlast competitive materials, the advantages of PVC become even more obvious," Gottesman said. PVC pipe has found broad use in plumbing applications. Because of its cost advantages and long life, pipe commands approximately three-fourths of the plastic pipe market. It is expected to maintain a strong hold on the market well into the year 2000. The Vinyl Institute is a national trade association representing the leading manufacturers of vinyl, vinyl feedstocks, additives, and film and sheet products. Headquartered in Wayne, New Jersey, it is a division of the Society of Plastics Industry, Inc. Executive summaries of the study dealing with plumbing and DWV pipe are available by contacting the Vinyl Institute, 114 Mayfield Avenue, P.0. Box 3053, Edison, New Jersey 08818-3053. ### CTL029903 P-90-01 aaawLa. PVC DRAIN, WASTE AND VENT PIPE VS. CAST IRON SOIL PIPE A Cost /Benefit Comparison k Issued July 1990 CTL029904 This summary presents key findings from a study conducted for the Vinyl Institute by IFT Techni cal Senices. Berkeley, California in September 1989. The study, entitled "A Cost/Benefit Study: In-Place Costs and Technical and Regulatory Constraints to Use of PVC-Based Pipe. Tube and Conduit in Construction," reviewed the use of PVC DWV (drain-waste-vent) pipe, plumbing pipe and electrical nonmetallic tubing (conduit). The findings relevant to the use of PVC DWV pipe are discussed here. For individuals seeking cost-effective ways to meet performance requirements in DW\ ' systems, the study provides important economic data: when the cost to install comparable cast iron and PVC DWV systems in six major U.S. cities was calculated, the PVC systems cost up to 37 percent less than the competitive metallic system. Direct comparison data of this type -- including installation and labor costs -- have not previously been available. Details of the study follow. PROJECT OVERVIEW PVC (polyvinyl chloride, or vinyl) construction products are increasingly used as replacements for "traditional'' products. Typically, they provide both direct advantages in performance and cosi/benefit advantages to the construction industry. Although specific information on installed costs has not been available, it long has been believed that the full, installed cost of PVC DWV is substantially less than that of competitive metallic products. This study was designed to compare the fully installed costs of these two competing classes of products, thereby helping system specifiers make more complete comparisons between the merits of the two systems. PROJECT DESIGN Specifically, estimates were prepared to compare the costs of installing cast iron soil pipe and PVC drainwaste-vent piping in four different types of installations: A noncombustible high-rise residential building A noncombustible business/commercial building A wood frame townhouse A strip shopping center The specific buildings upon which the estimates were based are actual buildings that were constructed using cast iron soil pipe. Estimates for comparable PVC DWV systems were developed by a nationally recognized cost-estimating firm (Lee Saylor and Associates of Concord. California) according to Construc tion Specification Institute (CSI) formats. In order to make sure that the estimates for the two systems reflected actual safe installation practices, firestopping detailing was included in the estimate prepared for each PVC DWV system, while the cast iron system was estimated with no application of firestopping since grout applied along with the installation of wallboard typically is the only type of firestopping used with cast iron. The additional costs for the firestopping were factored into the estimates for each PVC system. In order to provide costs on the various types of PyC DWV systems that are available, four different installation scenarios were estimated: Replacement of cast iron soil pipe with PVC solid core DWV piping, using a proprietary firestop. Replacement of cast iron soil pipe with PVC solid core piping, using a generic firestop. Replacement of cast iron soil pipe with PVC cellular core piping, using a proprietary firestop. Replacement of cast iron soil pipewith PVC cellular core piping, using a generic firestop. In order to provide comparisons representative of labor and material costs throughout the United Slates, supplier and installer costs in six major U.S. cities were examined: San Francisco Boston Cleveland Houston `Seattle `Atlanta KEY FINDINGS On average, the PVC DWV system cost between 16 and 37 percent less to install than the compa rable cast iron system -- even when the extra detailing required for firestopping the PVC system was included. (See cost summary table, next page.) Tables identifying the costs on a city-by-city basis, for each type of installation, follow. CTL029905 Cost/B nefit Summary Tabl CSI Section No. Description High-rise Residential Average 15 1691 15 1692 15 1693 15 1694 15 1695 Cost non pipe hubless mech, |oint 5 281,291 PVC, Sch 40, in building, w/ftgs, supports ond proprietory fne stopping 236,797 PVC, celiulor core, Sth 40 in building w/ftgs, supports, ond proprietory fne stopping 231,755 PVC, solid cote, Sth. 40, in building w/ftgs, supports ond generic fire slopping when possible 216,579 PVC, cellular cote, Sch 40 in building w/ftgs, supports, ond generic fne stopping when possible 213,382 PVC Product Cost os X of Metal Pipe 84 High-rise Commercial Average $ 62,708 47,155 PVC Product Cost os X of Metal Pipe 75 82 46,347 74 77 46,510 74 76 45,535 73 Wood-frame Townhouse Averoge $ 95,953 62,503 62,865 60,433 59,968 PVC Product Cost os X of Metal Pipe 65 Strip Shopping Averoge S 27,445 17,674 66 17,394 63 17,538 63 17,271 PVC Product Cost os X of Melol Pipe 64 63 64 63 High-rise Residential In-Place DWV Costs (in Dollars) Ugcnd: 1 - Cojf Iron 2 - PVC Sotid Corf, Proprtftory Fire 3 - PVC Celiulor Core. Proprietory Fire A - PVC Solid Core Generic Ftre 5 - PVC, Celiulor Core Generic Fire CSI Section No. 15.1691 15.1692 15.1693 151694 151695 Description Cost non pipe hubless mech, toint PVC, solid core Sch. 40. in building, w/ftgs, supports ond proprietory fne stopping PVC, cellular core, Sch. 40 in building, w/ftgs, supports ond-proprietory fne stopping PVC, solid core, Sch 40 in building, w/ftgs, supports ond generic fne stopping when possible PVC, celiulor core, Sch. 40 in building, w/ftgs, supports ond generic fne stopping when possible Son Francisco 429,116 361,764 Boston Cleveland Houston 278,442 238,745 258,474 203,975 252,415 219,261 Seattle Atlanta Project PVC Cost Cost as o X of Average Iron 254,495 214,804 281,291 220,125 176,914 236,797 84 349,421 234,709* 201,196 216,219 215,068 173,917 231,755 82 339,838 218,583 184,499 199,547 199,065 157,943 216,579 77 335,135 216,366* 181,713 196,532 195,540 155,007 213,382 76 Manufacturer /Supplier would not reveal prices without an order Numbers based on estimate. These estimates were based on a Type-1, 30 story, noncombustible high-rise unit It was not a 'spec' or 'fast-track' project High-rise Commercial In-Place DWV Costs (in Dollars) 70 0 12 3 4 legend: 1 - Cast iron 2 - PVC Solid Core. Proprietory Fire 3 - PVC. Celiulor Core. Proprietory Fire A - PVC Solid-Core Generic Fire 5 - PVC. Cellular Core. Generic Fire CSI Section No. 15.1691 15.1492 15.1693 15.1694 15.1695 Description Cast non pipe hubless mech, toint PVC, solid core Sdt. 40, m budding, w/ftgs, supports ond proprietory fne stopping PVC, celiulor core, Sch. 40 in building, w/ftgs. supports ond proprietory fne stopping PVC, solid core, Sch. 40 m budding, w/ftgs, supports ond genetic fne stopping when possible PVC, celiulor coce, Sch. 40 in building, w/ftgs. supports ond generic fne stopping when possible Son Ffomtuo % 045 72.039 Boston Cleveland Houston 62,112 48,034 57,108 38,566 56,377 44,208 Seattle Atlanta Project PVC Cost Cost os o X of Averoge Iron 56,741 44,799 47,867 35,284 62,708 47,155 75 73'34 47 148 38,009 43,373 43,962 34,657 46,347 74 70 969 47 840 37,795 43,284 44,537 34,637 46,510 74 69 847 46,984 37,239 42,439 42,727 33,952 45,535 73 Hies* estimates were based on o high-nse, noncombustible, spnnkfered building tbot included upper'Story office occupancies and lower-story commercial space Because of the typical high-rise core design usea, distribution of utilities wos generally confined to the centrol building oreo. CTL029906 Wood-frame T wnhouse In-Place DWV C sts (in-Dollars) 0I 1)4 S Uflwnd: 1 - Cost Iron 2 - PVC. Soltd Core, Proprtesory Fire 3 - PVC, Cellulor Core. Proprtetory Fire A - PVC, Solid Core, Generic Fire 5 - PVC, Cellular Core, Generic Fire CSI Section No. 1S.1691 151692 15.1693 15.(696 15.1695 Description Cost non pipe hubless meth, |omt (w coppei "M") PVC, solid (oie Sch 40, in building, w/ftgs, supports and pcopnetary fire stopping PVC, cellulor toie, Sch. 40 in building, w/ftgs, supports and proprietary fire stopping PVC, solid coie, Sch 40 in building, w/ftgs, supports ond genent lire slopping when possible PVC, cellulor core, Sch. 40 in building, w/ftgs, supports and genenc fue stopping when possible Son Francisco 147,382 Boston Cleveland Houston 93,852 90,377 85,787 Seottle Atlanta Proied PVC Cost Cost osoXof Average Iron 85,433 72,896 95,953 99,375 60,993 53,907 57,347 55,719 47,675 62,503 65 98,292 63,881 53,168 57,043 55,073 49,734 62,865 66 96,396 59,164 52,243 55,762 53,645 45,388 60,433 63 95,314 58,398 51,434 55,042 52,174 47,447 59,968 63 These estimates were based on a residential townhouse development, including common areas and limited commercial space. Estimates were for typical residential units only Strip Shopping Center In-Place DWV Costs (in Dollars) 30 Kl Section Son No. Description Francisco Boston Cleveland Houston 0 I 234 S legend: 1 - Cost Iron 2 - PVC, Solid Core, Proprietory Fire 3 - PVC, CeUutor Core, Proprietory fire A - PVC, Solid Core, Generic Fire 5 - PVC, Cellulor Core. Generic Fire 15.1691 151692 15.1693 151694 15.1695 Cost iron pipe hubless meth, |oml PVC, solid core Sch 40, in building, w/ftgs, supports ond proprietory fire stopping PVC, cellulor core, Sch. 40 in building, w/ftgs, supports ond proprietory fire stopping PVC, solid core, Sch. 40 in building, w/ftgs, supports ond generic fire stopping when possible PVC, cellulor cote, Sch 40 in building, w/ftgs, supports ond genetic lire stopping when possible 41,916 27,300 27,123 17,681 25,274 14,743 23,855 16,746 26,878 17,366 14,489 16,427 27,137 17,457 14,642 16,606 26,715 17,218 14,389 16,287 These estimates were based on a single-story proied with individual units separated by fire walls as required by local codes Addendum Seattle Atlonto Proied PVC Cost Cost os o \ of Averoge Iron 24.750 16,118 21,751 13,455 27,445 17,674 64 15,798 13,408 17,394 63 16,019 13,367 17,538 64 15,699 13,320 17,271 63 DATA PREPARATION In order to prepare the needed data, plans for each building were analyzed to determine the number of feet of pipe used, the number of fittings need and detailing such as firestop needed to use PVC. Those materials were then totaled for the given size pipe. Next, the unit cost was determined by dividing the total cost of all materials by the total number of feet used. The Fesult was the ''material cost." which was the average per-foot cost. Finally, labor costs associated with installing the number of feet of pipe, the fittings, firestopping and other detailing were totaled by pipe size. An average, again based on total feet ol pipe of a particular size, was then computed to obtain an average labor cost. The sum of those two averages was used to determine the installed cost. MATERIAL SPECIFICS Pricing data included costs for pipe, fittings and firestopping, plus man-hours for installation of each component at local union rates, subcontractor overhead and profit, and tax. Schedule 40 PVC pipe tn sizes ranging from Vi" to 8" was used for all four comparisons. Two firestopping systems were used to prepare the estimates: 3M Fire Barrier (the proprietary system): Pipe wrapping, aluminum foil tape and caulking. USG Thermafiber (the generic system): Ban insulation in walls, but applied around pipe then sealed with smoke sealant. CODE APPROVALS All three model building codes permit the use of PVC pipe, provided the appropriate plumbing code allows its use. Both the Standard (SBCCI) and National Building Code (BOCA) incorporate plumbing codes that do not restrict the use of PVC pipe. In areas where the IAPMO code is the adopted plumbing code. PVC pipe currently is restricted to use in combustible construction less than seven stones in height Some large cities have their own plumbing codes, and permitted uses for PVC pipe may vary in these cases This information published by the Pipe Resource Organization of the Vinyl Institute. 155 Route 4ft nr Waxne Interchange Plaza II. Waxne. NJ 07470 CTL0_29_ 9_ 0-7_ PVC vs. COPPER DOMESTIC HOT & COLD WATER SYSTEMS P A Cost/Benefit Comparison Issued July 1990 CTL029908 This summary presents key findings from a study conducted for the Vinyl Institute by I FT Techni cal Services, Berkeley. California in September. 1989. The study, entitled. "A Cost/Benefit Study: In-Place Costs and Technical and Regulatory Constraints to Use of PVC-Based Pipe. Tube and Conduit in Construction." reviewed the use of PVC DWV (drain-waste-vent) pipe, plumbing pipe and electrical nonmetallic tubing (conduit). The findings relevant to the use of PVC pipe in domestic hot and cold water plumbing systems (DHCW) are discussed here. For individuals seeking cost-effective ways to meet performance requirements in DHCW systems, the study provides important economic data: when the cost to install comparable copper and PVC-based DHCW systems -- specifically, CPVC -- in six major U.S. cities was calculated, the CPVC systems cost up to 44 percent less than the competitive metallic system. Direct comparison data of this type -- including installation and labor costs -- have not previously been available. Details of the study follow. PROJECT OVERVIEW PVC (polyvinyl chloride, or vinyl) construction products are increasingly used as replacements for "traditional" products. Typically, they provide both direct advantages in performance and cost/benefit advantages to the construction industry. CPVC (chlorinated polyvinyl chloride) has found broad use in plumbing applications. Although specific information on installed costs has not been available, it long has been believed that the full, installed cost of CPVC-based DHCW is substantially less than that of competitive metallic products. This study was designed to compare the fully installed costs of these two competing classes of products, thereby helping system specifiers make more complete comparisons between the merits of the two systems. PROJECT DESIGN Specifically, estimates were prepared to compare the costs of installing copper and CPVC-based domestic hot and cold water supply piping in four different types of installations: A noncombustible high-rise residential building A noncombustible business/commercial building *A wood frame townhouse A strip shopping center The specific buildings upon which the estimates were based are actual buildings that were constructed using copper DHCW. Estimates for comparable CPVC DHCW systems were developed by a nationally recognized cost-estimating firm (Lee Saylor and Associates of Concord, California) according to Construc tion Specification Institute (CSI) formats. In order to make sure that the estimates for the two systems reflected actual safe installation practices, firestopping detailing was included in the estimate prepared for each CPVC DHCW system, while the copper system was estimated with no application of firestopping since grout applied along with the installation of wallboafd typically is the only type of firestopping used with copper. The additional costs for the firestopping were factored into the estimates for each CPVC system. In order to provide costs on the various types of CPVC DHCW systems that are available, two different installation scenarios were estimated: Replacement of copper DHCW piping with CPVC DHCW piping, using a proprietary firestop. Replacement of copper DHCW piping with CPVC DHCW piping, using a generic firestop. In order to pros ide comparisons representative of labor and material costs throughout the United Stales, supplier and installer costs in six major U.S. cities were examined: San Francisco Boston "Cleveland "Houston *5631(16 `Atlanta KEY FINDINGS On average, the CPVC DHCW system cost between 23 and 44 percent less to install than the compa rable copper system -- even w hen the extra detailing required for firestopping the CPVC system was included. (See cost summary table, next page.) Tables identifying the costs on a city-bv-city basis, for each type of installation, follow. CTL029909 (SI Section No IS 1696 15 1697 15 1698 Cost/B n fif Summary Table Description (oppei pipe '1' in building, w/ftgs ond supports CPVC, supply pipe w/ftgs, supports and proprietory Ine stopping CPVC, supply pipe w/ftgs, supports ond generic fire stopping when possible High-rise Residential Average S 205,937 134,681 128,938 PVC Product Cost as % of Metal Pipe High-rise Commercial Average S 57,564 65 37,551 PVC Product Cost os % of Metol Pipe 65 63 37,570 65 Wood-frame Townhouse Average 5 75,605 58,168 55,859 PVC Product Cost as % of Metol Pipe Strip Shopping Average 516,477 77 9,380 74 9,255 PVC Product Cost os % of Metol Pipe 57 56 d: 1 - Copper 2 - CPVC, Proprietory Fire Stop 3 - CPVC, Generic Fire Stop High-rise Residential In-Place DHCW Costs (in Dollars) csi Section No. 151696 15.1697 151698 Description Son Francisco Boston Cleveland Houston Seattle Atlanta Copper pipe *1* in building, w/ftgs ond supports CPVC, supply pipe w/ftgs, supports ond ptopnetoty fne stopping CPVC, supply pipe w/ftgs, supports ond generic fire stopping when possible 303,133 205,335 193,773 183,393 188,788 161,201 202,697 132,496 123,196 122,910 122,911 103.874 200,227 127,101 1 16,457 1 16,337 115,966 97,539 These estimates were based on o Type*/, 30 story, noncombustible high'rtse unit It was not a "spec" or "fast-track" project Project Cost Average 205,937 134,681 128,938 PVC Cost OS 0 % of Copper 65 63 Avp ProjtiledCosIs- Avg ProjectedCosts-lhousiinds 0 12) Legend: 1 - Capper 2 * CPVC. Proprietory Fire Slop 3 - CPVC. Generic Fire Stop High-rise Commercial In-Place DHCW Costs (in Dollars) CSI Section No. Description San Francisco Boston Cleveland Houston Seattle Atlonto Project Cost Average 151696 15.1697 151698 Copper pipe T in building, w/ftgs wd supports CPVC, supply pipe w/ftgs, suppcnts ond propnetory fne stopping CPVC, supply pipe w/ftgs, supports ond genetic fne slopping when possible 87.940 55 81 1 57.4=7 53.467 37 489 35.208 48,546 31.99? 52.850 34,914 ?C QQ? 57.564 37.551 55.085 37.775 35 466 31.915 35,073 30,108 37 570 These estimates were bated on o high-rise, noncombustible spnnklered building that included upper-story office occupancies and lower-story commercial space Because of the typicol high-rise core design used distribution of utilities was generally confined to the central building orea PVC Cost as o \ of Copper 65 65 CTL029910 10 0 12 3 Legend: 1 - Copper 2 - CPVC, Proprietary Fire Stap 3 - CPVC, Generic Fire Stap Wood-frame Townhouse In-Plac DHCW Costs (in-Dollars) CSI Section No. Description Son FroncKco Boston Cleveland Houston Seattle Atlanta Proiecl Cost Averoge IS 1696 15.1697 15.1698 Copper pipe "M" in building, w/ftgs ond supports CPVC, supply pipe w/ltgs, supports ond piopnetory file stopping CPVC, supply pipe w/ltgs, supports and generic fire stopping when possible 114,409 75,671 67,894 64,470 95,648 57,540 51,711 47,309 67,626 63,559 75,605 52,782 44,016 58,168 88,620 56,112 50,339 46,071 51,263 42,750 55,859 These estimates were based ion a residential townhouse development, including common areas ond limited commercial space Estimates were for typical residential units only PVC Cost os o X of Copper 77 74 II 0 12 3 Ugertd: 1 - Copper 2 - CPVC, Proprietory Fire Slop 3 - CPVC. Generic Fire Stap Strip Shopping Center In-Place DHCW Costs (in Dollars) CSI Section No. 151696 151697 151698 Description Son Francisco Boston Cleveland Houston Seattle Allonto Project Cost Average Copper pipe 'M* in building, w/ftgs and supports CPVC, supply pipe w/ltgs, supports ond proprietory fire stopping CPVC, supply pipe w/ftgs, supports and genenc fire stopping when possible 24,552 16,421 15,252 14,687 14,716 9,203 8,472 8,407 15,084 12,865 8,397 7,084 16,477 9,380 14,588 9,095 8,292 8,273 8,295 6,985 9,255 These estimates were based on a single -story project with individual units separated by fire walls OS required by local codes. PVC Cost OS 0 % of Copper 57 56 Addendum DATA PREPARATION MATERIAL SPECIFICS CODE APPROVALS In order to prepare the needed data, plans for each building were analyzed to determine the number of feet of pipe used, the number of fittings needed and detailing such as firestops needed to use CPVC. Those materials were then totaled for the given size pipe. Next, the unit cost was determined by dividing the total cost of all materials by the total number of feet used. The result was the "material cost." which was the average per-foot cost. Finally, labor costs associated with installing the number of feet of pipe, the fittings, firestopping and other detailing were totaled by pipe size. An average labor cost was then obtained, again based on total feet of pipe of a particular size. The sum of those two averages was used to determine the installed cost. Pricing data included costs for pipe, fittings and firestopping, plus man-hours for installation of each component at local union rates, subcontractor overhead and profit, and tax. CPVC pipe ranging from through 6" was used for the comparisons. Two firestopping systems were used to prepare the estimates: 3M Fire Barrier (the proprietary system): Pipe wrapping, aluminum foil tape and caulking. USG Thermafiber (the generic system): Ban insulation in walls, but applied around pipe then sealed with smoke sealant. All three model building codes permit the use of CPVC pipe, provided the appropriate plumbing code allows its use. Both the Standard (SBCCI) and National Building Code (BOCA) incorporate plumbing codes that do not restrict the use of CPVC pipe. In areas where the 1APMO code is the adopted plumbing code, CPVC pipe currently is permitted on an exception basis only. Some large cities have their own plumbing codes, and permitted uses for CPVC pipe may vary in these cases. This information published by the Pipe Resource Organization of the Vinyl Institute, 155 Route 46 West. Wayne Interchange Plaza II. Wayne. NJ 07470 CTL029911