Rising From the Ashes
by Haley Paul
Published on July 27th, 2009
21 Comments
The “Company Profile” is an Earth911.com series highlighting consumer goods and services making a difference through product stewardship and recycling. Products and services featured do not pay for placement and are not endorsed by Earth911.com.
In the hunt for a new material that takes a waste byproduct and transforms it into a useful construction material? How about a building product that uses a fraction of the energy required by its counterparts?
If you are in the market for a green construction material that has the potential to greatly reduce the amount of carbon put into the atmosphere, then take a look at what is being developed at CalStar Products.
Building for the future
Dr. Henry Liu (who is not affiliated with CalStar) has found an innovative way to render 100 percent fly ash bricks "freeze-thaw resistant," as judged by ASTM standard C62. This finding is a major breakthrough, as it provided a practical way to make bricks long-lasting even in cold climate. Photo: Planetearth2.com
CalStar Products produces fly ash concrete decorative bricks and pavers for use in the construction of buildings, patios and driveways. The company launched in the beginning of 2007 and is set to begin sales of its products in the last quarter of 2009. The first production plant was just approved in Caledonia, Wisconsin.
According to Julie Rapoport Ph.D., P.E., LEED AP, Director of Product Development at CalStar, the company’s vision related to sustainability considers:
- Using recycled content in its products
- Trying to source material locally to cut down on carbon emissions from transportation
- Reducing their bricks’ carbon footprint (the amount of CO2 associated with the production of the material)
- Lowering the embodied energy of their bricks (the amount of energy put into the material to make it)
Fly Ash: From Trash to Treasure
Fly ash is the noncombustible mineral ash that remains after coal is burned to create electricity. As a byproduct of coal-fired energy production, fly ash has traditionally been viewed as a waste product. But incorporating fly ash into cement is a valuable additive that makes concrete more durable, stronger, and now, greener.
Cement is one of the ingredients, along with gravel, sand and water, needed to make concrete. Cement is also the largest CO2 contributor in the concrete recipe. By incorporating fly ash, less cement is needed, thus reducing the energy demand and the CO2 emissions that accompany cement in the generation of concrete.
Additionally, CalStar bricks offer an alternative to clay-fired brick, which is surprisingly energy-intensive. Traditional clay brick has a noteworthy carbon footprint because of the energy required to extract the clay from the ground as well as the energy required to fire the clay to turn it into brick—about one to four days in a kiln at 20,00o degrees Fahrenheit.
According to Rapoport, because they do not use clay and do not fire bricks in kilns, CalStar fly ash brick experiences an 85 percent reduction in embodied energy and CO2 emissions as compared to traditional brick.
Because CalStar uses fly ash in its brick making, the company locates most of its operations in the eastern part of the U.S., where two-thirds of the nation’s coal-fired power plants exist. Locating near the source of fly ash production helps CalStar reduce its CO2 emissions associated with transportation.
An Evolving Industry
On a global as well as a national level, the concrete industry is a significant contributor of greenhouse gases.
“The carbon footprint of concrete is 8 percent of global CO2 emissions,” says Tom Pounds, COO of CalStar Products. “But over the last 20 years, the concrete industry in the United States has seen a 20 percent reduction in its CO2 emissions per unit of output. This means that addressing CO2 emissions in the concrete industry is possible and can have a large impact on global carbon emissions.”
Additionally, Pounds asserts that in the concrete industry, “There has been a lot of progress in increasing the fly ash content of concrete. Yet in the U.S., fly ash content on average is still only 15 percent, meaning there is still a significant opportunity to utilize fly ash.”
A Leader in the Industry
The creation of innovative building products that are attractive as well as sustainable is a core mission of CalStar Products. Turning a waste product into valuable green masonry, the company is helping to pave the way for the greater utilization of fly ash.
Liu's study proved that the fly ash brick does not pollute water, air and soil, and releases less radon gas than concrete does. The brick also adsorbs mercury from the air, thereby rendering the ambient air cleaner for people to breathe. However, CalStar makes no claims about mercury absorption in its products and is concerned about the sciences behind this claim. Photo: Calstar.com
CalStar was an early participant in the American Concrete Institute’s Sustainability Initiative, making it a leader in the green building supply industry.
As part of the EPA’s 2009 Resource Conservation Challenge, Pounds presented a model that quantified just how much fly ash was going unused and the impact it could make if it were utilized.
He says that “really opened up peoples’ eyes” to the impacts fly ash could have in reducing the concrete industry’s carbon footprint.
Pounds also emphasizes how incorporating fly ash into concrete provides safe storage and stable encapsulation of an otherwise dangerous waste product, transforming an environmental burden into a high-quality construction material.
In addition to attending EPA conferences, Pounds says the most interesting part of his job is “finding an opportunity to create and deliver a product that makes good business sense with the prospect of making money and also have a positive impact on climate change.”
“Getting that combination is not trivial,” Pounds adds. “It has been interesting working that out.”
Once the first plant is up and running in the fall of 2009, the plans for CalStar Products in the future include both geographic expansion (with more operations near more power plants) as well as product expansion as innovation spurs new green technologies in the construction and cement industries.
That Favorite R…
As for his favorite R, Pounds says recycling is the most important for us. “Seventy-five million tons of fly ash is produced every year by coal-fired power plants. Forty million tons of that goes unused and is instead put into ponds or landfills. It’s a very useful material, and there is a big opportunity to recycle it into useful purposes.”
Brown Bess
posted on July 27th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
This sis a terrible idea because the fly ash concentrates the metals in the residues and air pollution of the cement plant. Mercury-infused ash get added to a cement plant feed and goes out the stack. Same thing with lead, cadmium, etc. Very bad idea and it looks like the new EPA MACT rules for cement plants will discourage this practice or make it impossible.
bkwaas
posted on August 7th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Nothing will be rising from these toxic ashes – Calstar is a Greenwash Scam – the company is apparently building a fly ash brick plant in Wisconsin – using ash from the Oak Creek power plant (http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2009/04/03/local_news/doc49d559258c06e775588674.txt)
Here is EPA’s data on the toxic metals emitted by the Oak Creek power plant in fly ash. The data was extracted from EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory. Oak Creek produces about 114,000 short tons of fly ash annually. The fly ash contains the following toxics (annual emissions):
Arsenic: 6,657 pounds
Barium: 214,501 pounds
Chromium: 18,000 pounds
Copper: 20,000 pounds
Lead: 4,600 pounds
Manganese: 13,000 pounds
Nickel: 9,000 pounds
Thallium: 10,000 pounds
Vanadium: 4,750 pounds
Zinc: 6,900 pounds
The total amount of toxics contained in Oak Creek’s annual production of fly ash is over 300,000 pounds.
From the above data you can calculate that JUST ONE CALSTAR FLY ASH BRICK (standard size, residential, 5 lbs) WILL CONTAIN OVER 3 GRAMS OF HIGHLY TOXIC METALS.
Oak Creek fly ash on average has the following concentrations of toxics:
Arsenic: 29 ppm
Barium: 941 ppm
Chromium: 79 ppm
Copper: 88 ppm
Lead: 20 ppm
Manganese: 57 ppm
Nickel: 39 ppm
Thallium: 44 ppm
Vanadium: 21 ppm
Zinc: 30 ppm
Compare this with EPA’s regulations on these toxics in drinking water
Arsenic: 0.01 ppm
Barium: 2 ppm
Chromium: 0.1 ppm
Copper: 1.3 ppm
Lead: 0.015 ppm
Thallium: 0.002 ppm
So, the toxics from just ONE FLY ASH BRICK CAN POTENTIALLY POISON OVER 13,000 GALLONS OF WATER and make it unfit for drinking!
Now, imagine the toxic hazard associated by a wall of fly ash bricks.
Imagine the toxics on your hands from handling these bricks.
Imagine the toxics you breathe in with the dust from these bricks.
Imagine these bricks in contact with water and the toxics leaching from the bricks.
Clay bricks do not contain the soluble toxics that are present in fly ash and are completely safe – they do not leach metals and are safe in contact with water.
THE FACTS:
1) Fly ash is hazardous and contains a range of toxics.
2) The concentrations of these toxics are far higher (sever tens to hundreds of times higher) than the levels found in the natural environment – soil, clay, etc.
3) The toxics present in fly ash are especially dangerous because they can leach out and poison the environment.
4) The toxics in fly ash make it hazardous by inhalation, contact and leaching with water.
5) The hazard posed by fly ash is clear – witness the dozens of cases through the years of severe drinking water contamination and environmental pollution by toxics leached from fly ash.
6) The coal/power industry has blocked the regulation of fly ash as a hazardous waste for decades.
7) With recent fly ash pollution incidents, the EPA is re-examining the regulation of fly ash as a hazardous waste.
thereaux
posted on August 11th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
It is a disgrace – CalStar is one of these Greenwashing companies and Ms Rapoport and Mr Pounds are of these so called eco-entrepreneurs that want to take advantage of the current interest in the clean technologies to make money without any care for the envirionment. These fly ash bricks are very dangerous as pointed out by many people and there is much evidence to show this.
Also – CalStar Products is the same company as the previous CalStar Cement. Why is it that the company has changed the name? Perhaps it is because they could not make any cement and now they are trying to reinvent and ms Rapoport and Mr Pounds want people to believe they have bricks. It is all a very disgraceful. The EPA and envirionmetal organizations should be investigating this company and these people.
bkwaas
posted on September 8th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
THE LEACHING OF TOXIC METALS FROM CALSTAR’S FLY ASH BRICKS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED.
The data is hidden away in Calstar Products (previously Calstar Cement) website – http://calstarproducts.com/resources/gradient-memorandum/
As suspected, fly ash bricks leach toxic metals – the data shows that even with EPAs very liberal leaching tests, metals including arsenic, antimony, beryllium, cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury and nickel rapidly leach from the bricks within a few hours.
Recall that, Calstar (Luke Pustejovsky, Director of Marketing) was previously claiming that no metals leached from the bricks.
Now, Calstar has changed its story and is claiming that the levels of the metals are below EPA control levels, and so their bricks are safe!
These are the very same EPA tests that have been used to declare fly ash stored in dumps as safe – that lie has been exposed many times with the discovery of severe water contamination and and poisoning of people and the environment by toxic metals leaching from fly ash – for example the recent TVA spill.
It is very telling that Calstar has chosen tests that have been shown many times to be seriously flawed and not properly assess hazard. The coal/fly ash industry has hidden behind these same tests for decades and used them to claim that fly ash is safe.
The danger of Calstar’s fly ash bricks is clear from the fact that even these very mild tests result in the leaching of a range of toxic metals. The leaching of these toxins and exposure to people will in reality be much worse.
More proof that Calstar is selling a toxic product that will poison people and the environment.
bkwaas
posted on September 8th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
More on metals leaching from Calstar’s fly ash bricks.
Gradient Corporation – which did the report for Calstar, is a contract firm that works with the Coal and Fly Ash industries to promote fly ash as safe – in fact, it has been funded by EPRI – the Electric Power Research Institute – which is directly funded by the power generators who produce all the fly ash!
This explains why Calstar approached Gradient for this “report”. Gradient is not independent – it is a lackey of the coal and fly ash industries and has a history of working with these industries and promoting fly ash with dubious “evidence” for its safety.
This also explains why the report was not prepared by the lab (ACZ laboratories) which actually carried out the leaching tests – ACZ probably refused to provide a risk assessment – unlike Gradient. This shows Calstar’s desperation in wanting to claim fly ash bricks are safe.
Yet more proof of a desperate company trying to sell a dangerous product.
bkwaas
posted on September 17th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
A quick analysis of the data on toxic metals leaching from Calstar’s fly ash bricks (you can find this at http://calstarproducts.com/resources/gradient-memorandum/)
In the case of Arsenic (a listed Carcinogen) – the results show that a staggering 800 ug of Arsenic will leach from one brick in one month – or almost 10 mg of arsenic per brick per year. THE ARSENIC FROM JUST ONE BRICK IS ENOUGH TO POISON OVER 250 GALLONS OF WATER. This is from Calstar’s own (selective) data.
How about the toxic cocktail of other metals that leach from Calstar’s bricks – beryllium, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel and thallium? OVER 2 GRAMS OF HIGHLY TOXIC METALS WILL LEACH FROM ONE BRICK – POISONING OVER 1,000 GALLONS OF WATER. JUST ONE BRICK.
How about a house faced with fly ash bricks? A standard residence in WI has about 1,500-2,000 square feet of wall face, requiring about 8,000 – 10,000 of standard facing bricks.
SO, A RESIDENCE FACED WITH CALSTAR’S FLY ASH BRICKS WILL HAVE A TOTAL TOXIC METALS CONTNT OF OVER 20 POUNDS! 20 POUNDS OF TOXIC METALS SURROUNDING THE OCCUPANTS.
THE FLY ASH BRICKS USED IN ONE HOUSE ARE ENOUGH TO POISON OVER 10 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER.
A HOUSE THAT HAS CALSTAR’S FLY ASH BRICKS IS A MINI FLY ASH LANDFILL – LEACHING TOXIC METALS – POLLUTING ALL OF THE SURROUNDINGS AND POISONING THE RESIDENTS ALL AROUND. JUST LIKE A TOXIC FLY ASH SPILL – LIKE THE TVA FLY ASH SPILL IN TENNESSEE. YOUR HOUSE IS NOW A HAZARDOUS WASTE DUMP.
For comparison – what toxic metals do clay bricks leach? NONE.
CLAY BRICKS DO NOT LEACH ANY OF THE TOXIC METALS THAT LEACH OUT FROM CALSTAR’S FLY ASH BRICKS. PERIOD.
CALSTAR PRODUCTS – THE TOXIC FLY ASH BRICK COMPANY.
CALSTAR PRODUCTS – THE COMPANY THAT WANTS TO MAKE MONEY BY TURNING HOUSES INTO TOXIC WASTE DUMPS.
bkwaas
posted on October 8th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Great 60 Minutes investigation on CBS about fly ash – highlighting the hazards of fly ash and products made from fly ash:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/01/60minutes/main5356202.shtml
Some interesting quotes from the investigation:
“Some of the ingredients, according to the EPA, were arsenic, lead, mercury, selenium, cadmium and other toxic metals”.
Sounds familiar? These are the same toxins present in Calstar Product’s fly ash bricks – and their own data show that they leach out.
“while the government has never formally labeled coal ash a hazardous waste, it’s being treated as such at the Kingston site”
“The new head of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, is reviewing whether the federal government should get involved by labeling coal ash a “hazardous waste,”
There you have it – fly ash – the toxic waste that the power industry wants to get rid of, that the EPA does not regulate, and that the disingenuous Greenwash company Calstar Products is trying to profit from.
bkwaas
posted on October 13th, 2009 at 8:30 am
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) ? an unbiased authority dedicated to protecting the environment has a very useful review of coal fly ash (http://www.nrdc.org/energy/coalwaste/default.asp) and its toxicity.
NRDC categorizes coal fly ash as a Contaminated Coal Waste
NRDC states “toxic material is laced throughout” the fly ash
NRDC states “Coal ash contains many toxic metals, including arsenic, which unchecked, can leak into ground water and be extremely hazardous to breathe”
NRDC states that coal ash “is contaminated by 10 metals classified as toxic by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): Antimony, Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Nickel and Selenium”
NRDCs states “Coal-fired power plants produced more than 126 million tons of contaminated coal waste”
It also states “the waste produced in a single year contains nearly 100,000 tons of toxic metals”
This is the waste that Calstar wants to make bricks of and sell to unsuspecting consumers.
Bricks that are laced with toxic metals.
Toxic metals that leach out from the bricks – according to Calstar’s own data.
Calstar would like people to believe that the toxicity of fly ash is not an issue.
Calstar would like people to believe that bricks made from a Contaminated Coal Waste laced with toxic metals are not an issue.
Calstar would lke people to believe that it is “beneficially recycling” toxic fly ash and producing a “Green” product.
How is a product that is laced with toxic metals “Beneficial”? Beneficial for lining Calstar?s managements pockets?
How is a product that is laced with toxic metals that leach out “Green”? Is polluting the environment and poisoning people with a contaminated waste the new “Green”? Perhaps the ?Green? is the money Calstar is hoping to make from selling the toxic bricks.
Does the management of Calstar have any decency?
Calstar – a company bereft of morals, trying to sell the new Asbestos.
bkwaas
posted on October 16th, 2009 at 8:05 am
Here is more disinformation from Calstar’s website – concerning “Product safety” – I guess that they must have been alarmed that people have picked up on the toxicity of their fly ash bricks.
They claim: “Our commitment to green extends to product safety; we test our products extensively to ensure they are safe throughout their lifecycle, from manufacture to placement to use (and reuse) to end-of-life disposal”
This is very far from the truth – Calstar has not done any manufacturing – not even pilot runs, and have not produced enough bricks to do placement, reuse, disposal or any of the elements of lifecycle testing. Oh, and of course, they have not done an environmental footprint assessment of LCA – because, they know very well that will show what a Greenwash their product is.
They claim: “Our process for making fly ash into bricks binds the materials within a strong crystalline matrix that holds even if exposed to the intense acids found in landfills.”.
This is nonsense. Calstar’s curing process does not form any significant crystalline matrix – the borate-alkanolamine system they use has been known for decades and is known to form an amorphous matrix which degrades over time and is not effective at binding toxic metals. In fact, alkanolamines increase metal leaching, and that is why they are not used in fly ash products. And what strong acids are they talking about? The short-duration leaching tests they cite use very dilute solutions which effect a very mild leach. And their own results show that toxic metals rapidly leach even under these very mild conditions.
They claim: “While hundreds of millions of tons of fly ash have been safely included in concrete buildings and infrastructures around the world for decades”.
Nice spin. Fly ash has indeed been used extensively in concrete around the world – however, in all cases, the fly ash is safely encapsulated with portland cement and/or blast furnace slag – these are known from decades of research to react with the fly ash and effectively bind toxic metals, and the products are known to be stable and safe. This has nothing to do with Calstar’s bricks.
They claim: “CalStar Products, Inc. has undertaken extensive testing of our products to ensure the same levels of safety apply. Test results on our products from respected third-party laboratories have been reviewed and analyzed by Gradient, a respected environmental consultancy in Cambridge, Massachusetts. They find that “the presence of coal fly ash metals in newly manufactured CalStar bricks is not expected to result in any exposures of health concern”.
More spin. Calstar has done no significant safety testing of their product, and has used a contract firm that is associated with the fly ash industry and which promotes fly ash, to certify its products. Important point here – Gradient did not do any of the tests – they were paid by Calstar to “interpret” the tests – hence the careful wording of the safety statement. If Calstar does any meaningful testing, the toxicity of the bricks will become very apparent – Calstar knows this all too well. The irony is that even their very mild preliminary tests show that the bricks are not safe and that metals leach out.
bkwaas
posted on October 20th, 2009 at 10:19 am
The extent of Calstar’s spin knows no bounds – look at the snake oil job they are doing on their web site.
They claim on their web site that “Our process for making fly ash into bricks binds the materials within a strong crystalline matrix that holds even if exposed to the intense acids found in landfills.”.
So fly ash bricks are resistant to “intense acids”?
Lets look at the facts: Calstar’s test data are for the EPA’s TCLP and SPLP tests – in these tests, the bricks are exposed to very dilute acids for less than 24 h. TCLP uses a dilute organic acid with pH 5 and SPLP uses a dilute mineral acid with pH 4.2.
These are much weaker than stomach acid (pH 1-3) lemon juice (pH 2-3) and vinegar (pH 3-4), and even common soda (pH 2 to 4)! In fact, the acids used in Calstar’s leaching tests are about the same acid strength as rainwater (pH 4-5).
So these are “intense acids” according to Calstar ? Is Calstar’s R&D so incompetent that they do not even know a strong acid from a weak acid? Or are they intentionally misstating facts and covering up the hazard of their fly ash bricks? Or is it both?
When the cement, concrete and clay brick industry talk about acid, they are typically referring to Muriatic (hydrochloric) acid – 31% Muriatic acid is routinely used for cleaning clay bricks and portland cement/concrete. This acid is 31% by concentration – while the acid used in Calstar’s tests is about 0.02% concentration. So, the muriatic acid used for routing cleaning of masonry is about about 1,500 times more concentrated than the very weak acids used in Calstar’s tests.
Why does’nt Calstar test their fly ash bricks against Muriatic acid? The answer is simple – because fly ash bricks will disintegrate in Muriatic acid – unlike clay bricks and portland cement/concrete, fly ash bricks are not resistant to Muriatic acid. And worse still, Calstar’s own data show that fly ash bricks leach even in very, very dilute acids that are weaker than lemon juice, vinegar and soda.
So much for Calstar’s claim about their bricks being resistant to “intense acids”. Total fabrication and spin!
bkwaas
posted on October 25th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Even more lies from Calstar.
Calstar’s CEO Michael Kane is claiming that NO toxic metals leach from the bricks – to quote – he says the bricks are “inert with no leaching of any chemicals from the coal ash that is locked into the products chemically and permanently” (see the articles on Calstar’s bricks – for example on zdnet).
This is a blatant lie. Their own data shows that the CEO’s statement is untrue – a whole range of toxic metals, including arsenic, antimony, beryllium, cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury and nickel leach from the bricks.
These toxics leach very rapidly – within a few hours. Not only that – the toxics leach in very mild solutions comparable to rainwater.
Does Calstar’s management know no bounds for spin and deceit? Or are they so clueless about their fly ash bricks, even in the face of their own test results that show unequivocally that the bricks are toxic?
Is Calstar’s financial situation so desperate that its management is willing to say anything to sell its toxic fly ash bricks?
bkwaas
posted on October 30th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Calstar’s SPLP data shows that the leachate contains 0.25 to 0.6 ppb of arsenic. And, the tests are conducted with 20-vols of leaching solution (relative to brick) over a period of 18 h.
So, a standard (5 lb) brick under the same leaching conditions will equate to (0.25 to 0.6) x (5 / 2.2) x (20) = 11.4 to 27.4 ug of arsenic per brick per leaching period (18 h).
So, over one month, the arsenic leaching is (11 to 27) x (24 x 30 / 18) = 456-1,094 ug of arsenic. Taking the mid-range – it is in the region of 800 ug of arsenic per brick per month.
The actual situation may be worse because the leaching of arsenic and other toxics from fly ash can have a significant lag phase (minutes to hours to days) characterized by a low leaching rate, after which leaching increases in a non-linear manner, and then decreases thereafter. This is because of the finite time required for infiltration, the kinetic barriers for reaction, equilibration and leaching from fly ash phases and diffusion controlled transport to the particle surface. So these results may represent the low-level kinetically-inhibited, non-equilibrium phase, and longer-term leaching may uncover the transition to a higher-level quasi-equilibrium state characterized by increased leaching of arsenic.
The main value of the SPLP and TCLP tests is to uncover the toxic hazard.
The fact that the tests show that toxics like arsenic leach, is an immediate and major red flag and indicates a significant health and environmental hazard.
The actual leaching may be much worse and long-term leaching tests (years, in-place, in-the-field) must be done, and the safety of the product proven, before any decision to introduce this product
The toxicity of fly ash bricks is a very serious issue – not one to be so lightly Greenwashed by Calstar.
If the bricks are truly “inert and do not leach” and are “eco-friendly” as Calstar’s CEO Michael Kane and their marketing state, then surely Calstar must be ready to back this up with a lifetime warranty that their fly ash bricks are non-toxic, not a health or environmental hazard and completely safe.
But they will never provide such a guarantee – Calstar knows, contrary to their claims that their bricks are toxic, and they know they cannot guarantee product safety – their own tests show that the bricks leach toxics within just one day.
bkwaas
posted on November 20th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
How does the safety of cement and concrete products containing fly ash compare with Calstar’s fly ash bricks?
Here is a quick overview:
Fly ash is used worldwide throughout the Portland cement/concrete production chain – for production of cement clinker, in blended cements and as a cement replacement in concrete – particularly in the EU, Canada, China and Asia and S. Africa.
The standards in these countries for blended cements and Portland cement-substituted concretes allow for usages from ~ 0% to 20% in the US, and from ~ 5% to 40% in the rest of the world. The actual usage rates are lower: ~ 0% to 15% in the US and ~ 0% to 25% in the rest of the world, with the overall averages being about ~ 3% to 5%.
When fly ash is used to manufacture cement clinker, it partially substitutes for clay, bauxite and iron ore, and the final product is indistinguishable from normal cement (the toxic metals present in the fly ash are vaporized – and the emissions from the kiln are scrubbed).
When fly ash is used in blended cements or in concrete, it undergoes a series of reactions with calcium-containing phases in Portland cement, resulting in the etching of fly ash particles, precipitation of calcium silicates/aluminates, exchange of calcium and magnesium in silicate/aluminate minerals with toxic metals, release of calcium and further etching and formation of silicate/aluminate phases, etc. The net effect is that the Portland cement degrades, mobilizes and mineralizes fly ash and in doing so binds the toxics into stable silicate/aluminate minerals. Portland cement is unique in this respect – its high calcium content and reactivity enable it to encapsulate and effectively immobilize fly ash and other hazardous wastes – including heavy-metal containing industrial sludges, low-level radioactive waste, etc.
A number of studies have shown that at low fly ash levels, fly ash is quite effectively encapsulated by Portland cement, and that cements, concretes and products made with Portland cement plus fly ash appear to be stable and have a low hazard. However, there is still a significant hazard of metals leaching from the fly ash under certain conditions – such as in salt water, acid rain, etc, and of metals exposure during recycling.
In the case of Calstar’s fly ash bricks, there are a number of problems that make their bricks unsafe:
1) Fly ash, even high-calcium class C fly ash, does not contain enough of the mobile calcium-containing phases to act as a reactive encapsulant in the same way as Portland cement (as seen from the leaching of toxics from the bricks).
2) The “proprietary” chemistry that Calstar – borates plus alkanolamines, is very poor in terms of hydraulic reactivity and binder capacity. Calstar’s chemistry is not proprietary – it is taken from decades-old formulations that were abandoned because of poor product performance.
3) Calstar appears to be using efflorescence control agents to reduce salt leaching – these are known to compromise hydraulic reactivity, set, strength and metal binding (as seen from the powdery white surface deposits and chalking).
4) Calstar is using sand in its bricks (probably for the purposes of improving texture and hardness) – however, the formulation they are using shows no matrix-aggregate bond, and this results in decreased strength, and increased permeability and leaching of toxics (as seen from poor edge structure, and surface porosity and efflorescence on the bricks).
All of the above problems arise because of Calstar’s “proprietary” technology – it is a badly performing decades-old abandoned technology known to have a range of serious problems.
The irony is that there are any number of ways to greatly increase the safety of the fly ash bricks – incorporate lime, Portland cement, use efficient fly ash binder and cure formulations, etc.
The fact that Calstar has such a poor product using such an outdated and substandard formulation shows that the company is dangerously inept and ignorant.
bk
posted on December 3rd, 2009 at 10:58 am
Some takes from visiting the Calstar booth at Greenbuild and examining their bricks.
The fly ash bricks look very different to clay bricks – even from a distance. Up close, they have a whitish bloom which rubs off.
Edge hardness is poor and seams are porous and friable. Dimensions and edge/face structure are variable.
Color is variable with pigment bleed around grain structure – since the coloring is from oxide pigment additions rather than firing.
The bricks show water beading and mortar pullback – typical of masonry impregnated with water repellents/efflorescence control agents.
Despite the additives, you still see salt migration – as pinhole breakthroughs, bleeding/staining and salt banding around sand grains and at the mortar joints.
bkwaas
posted on December 24th, 2009 at 11:26 am
EPA has announced a delay in pending decisions on fly ash regulation
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/85D3578E15C80DB98525768F006A097B
With recent attention on the toxic hazards of fly ash there is a good chance that the EPA will at last properly regulate fly ash as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The delay might reflect that the EPA is moving in this direction. Calstar, the American Coal Ash Association and other vested business interests have been actively lobbying the EPA to keep fly ash under Subtitle D (non-hazardous) or grant special exemption from Subtitle C – so they can keep selling their poisonous products.
bkwaas
posted on January 14th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Delusions and untruths from Calstar’s CEO Michael Kane (http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/article_c152a97a-ff0b-11de-a0d3-001cc4c002e0.html):
Quote from Kane: “We’re going to address the global warming issue,”
What fanciful Nonsense! Brick production accounts for about 0.3% of total carbon dioxide emissions in the US, and under 1% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions globally.
Also, about 50-80 tons of carbon dioxide are produced for each ton of fly ash. So, the truth is that the carbon dioxie emissions associated with Calstar’s fly ash bricks are about 125 to 200 times greater than with clay bricks.
Quote from Kane: “We’re the future.” and “The old methods of brick-making will fade away over time”
Lets compare Calstar’s fly ash bricks with clay bricks:
Calstar’s bricks.
1) Made from a hazardous waste.
2) Toxic to people and the environment.
3) Contain and leach highly toxic metals.
4) Very high CO2 footprint.
5) Completely unproven – no performance data.
6) Known to leach toxic metals.
7) Known to have freeze-thaw problems.
8) Known to have salt efflorescence problems.
9) Known to have mortar bonding problems.
10) Known batch-to-batch and within-batch variability
Traditional bricks.
1) Made from a renewable resource.
2) Completely non-toxic and totally recyclable.
3) Less than 1% of the CO2 footprint of fly ash bricks.
4) Proven for milenia across the world.
5) One of the most Green building materials available.
6) Performance proven for hundreds of years.
7) very high product consistency.
So, according to Calstar and Kane, a high-performance, safe, established and Green product will be replaced by a toxic, non-Green product known to have a range of performance and toxicity issues?
A very grim future according to Calstar and Kane.
The scam continues.
bkwaas
posted on January 24th, 2010 at 1:32 am
More eye-opening quotes from Calstar at:
http://www.agrion.org/first_mover_advantage/agrion-en-Fly_Ash_Brick_putting_smokestack_residue_to_use_.htm
This time from their Director of Product Development – Julie Rapoport has been sounding off.
Rapoport concedes that Calstar’s fly ash bricks product is “is a prototype product and has not been field-tested over an extended period”.
So, how exactly is Calstar asserting that their product is “Green” and “Eco-firendly” when it is a “Prototype” that has not even been field-tested?
How is it that Calstar asserts that its fly ash bricks exceed clay brick specifications when they have not been field-tested?
So, why is this untested “prototype” being sold to consumers? Calstar needs guinea pigs to test out its toxic bricks?
Another great quote from Rapoport – “The ASTM standards for clay and concrete masonry products are quite similar despite differences in raw materials and production processes, so it is reasonable to expect that fly ash products that meet these standards will perform perfectly well in the field”.
What utter nonsense – Portland cement is totally different to fly ash is totally different to clay, as anyone with even a modicum of experience with building products knows. Sounds like Rapoport is desperately trying to find some way to associate Calstar’s unproven and toxic fly ash bricks with safe, high-performing and established cement and clay building products.
Even more nonsense from Rapoport – who says: “CalStar tests above and beyond ASTM C216″
ASTM C216 is not applicable to Calstar’s fly ash bricks. Period. ASTM C216 was established for fired clay bricks – and while it appears that it can be extended to fired fly ash bricks, it is certainly not applicable to Calstar’s non-fired fly ash bricks. Period.
Clearly Rapoport’s concept of testing “beyond” ASTM C216 does not include the bricks being “field-tested over an extended period”.
More hype and hyperbole from Calstar.
bkwaas
posted on February 4th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Calstar’s CEO – Michael Kane has jumped ship.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Boral-appoints-US-division-president-pd20100204-2BTYV?OpenDocument&src=hp14
In a striking and ironic refutal of Calstar’s fly ash brick product, Kane has moved to Boral, the largest clay brick producer in the US.
So much for Calstar’s “Green” and “Eco-friendly” fly ash bricks. Even Calstar’s own CEO did not believe Calstar’s hype and greenwashing.
Obviously Kane sees much better better prospects at Boral. Boral is a solid company with excellent products, including clay bricks, cement block and a range of building products made with fly ash. Quite the change from Calstar’s greenwash operations.
Damage control time for Calstar.
bkwaas
posted on February 24th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Is Calstar testing the steam and condensate water discharges and all solids from its steam curing ovens for toxics?
If cold water alone makes all those toxic metals leach from Calstar’s fly ash bricks, one can only imagine what will leach out in steam and hot water. Also, the metals will be highly concentrated in any evaporated deposits. This could be a major operational hazard and OSH issue for the factory workers, and for builders and consumers down the line who are exposed to concentrated leachates from the bricks.
But then, Calstar’s toxic bricks are neither “Green” nor “Eco-friendly”.
Just ask Mike Kane, the former CEO of Calstar, who just left Calstar to go and work at a clay brick company. That says it all.
bkwaas
posted on February 26th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Looks like Calstar has raised series C funding
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/calstar-products-inc-raises-additional-capital-85379572.html
Wonder why it took them so long – almost a year since their ex-CEO (Mike Kane – who left to join Boral, a clay brick company) was brought in to pump the company and get them series C. And they needed five VCs to bring in the $15 million in funding. Not exactly over-subscribed for round C.
Must be hard – selling toxic bricks to investors – people must be getting wise to Calstar’s Greenwash
bkwaas
posted on March 6th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Where is Calstar’s Product Warranty for their fly ash bricks?
Calstar is claiming a “brick” product that is better than clay brick, so it must have a better warranty?
Clay bricks have lifetime or 100 year warranties.
So where is Calstar’s warranty? No sign of it anywhere. No mention of a warranty or any sort of product guarantee.
Maybe there is no warranty because, in the words of Calstar’s Product Manager – Julie Rapoport, their brick is a “a prototype product that has not been field tested over an extended period” (this from (http://calstarproducts.com/wp-content/themes/default/pdf/ConstructionSpecifier_0809.pdf).
Since Calstar just started production in February, I guess that Rapoport’s idea of “extended period” is anything over one month.
So no product warranty for Calstar’s “Green” and “Eco-friendly” fly ash bricks?
Can Calstar provide any sort of warranty for their product?
A warranty that it will not fade, flake, effloresce.?
A warranty that it will not leach toxic metals?
A warranty that it will not poison people or the environment?
A warranty that it will not crumble into dust after the first frost?
Any warranty? Anything? 10 years? 1 year?
No warranty from Calstar? So what does the builder do? What does the homeowner do?
Oh, of course, there is no warranty for a experimental “prototype product”! Use Calstar’s fly ash bricks at your own risk! No implied product warranty!
That is strange. Clay bricks carry a 100 year or lifetime warranty.
Here is a question for Calstar’s Product Manager – Julie Rapoport.
Where is the product warranty to back up all of your unproven performance claims for your “prototype” product?
And the response from Calstar – to quote: “100-year warranty? Haven’t you read? The world is coming to an end in 2012″.
Calstar – the Greenwash Brick company.