http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05/07/07greenwire-epa-backed-off-hazardous-label-for-coal-ash-af-10431.html?scp=3&sq=coal ash&st=cse

“EPA released the two-headed proposal Tuesday for public comments”

“But there was just one rule proposal that EPA sent to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget last October and that would have LABELED COAL ASH AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE”

“EPA SAID THEN THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE HAZARDOUS-WASTE REGULATIONS WOULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE BUT THAT COSTS WOULD BE OUTWEIGHED BY HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS”

EPA wrote then that “MAINTAINING A [NONHAZARDOUS] APPROACH WOULD NOT BE PROTECTIVE OF HUMAN AND THE ENVIRONMENT”

“Proponents of the hazardous designation say Jackson was bullied away from the agency’s original proposal by INDUSTRY LOBBYISTS and OMB economists”

Industry lobbyists like Calstar Products – lobbying to sell toxic fly ash bricks made from a hazardous waste.

Maybe it is because the results showed that their fly ash bricks leach toxic metals….

Maybe it is because people saw what was in the results…

The report was at
http://calstarproducts.com/resources/gradient-memorandum/

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.