Very interesting article today in New York Times on the unregulated nature of fly ash dumps in the US and the hazards therein:
�Hundreds of Coal Ash Dumps Lack Regulation�
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/07sludge.html?hp

Some sobering quotes from the article:

�Numerous studies have shown that the ash can leach toxic substances that can cause cancer, birth defects and other health problems in humans, and can decimate fish, bird and frog populations in and around ash dumps, causing developmental problems like tadpoles born without teeth, or fish with severe spinal deformities�

�It�s such a large volume of waste, and it�s so essential to the country�s energy supply; it�s basically been a loophole in the country�s waste management strategy�

�In 2000, the agency came close to designating coal ash a hazardous waste, but backpedaled in the face of an industry campaign that argued that tighter controls would cost it $5 billion a year. (In 2007, the Department of Energy estimated that it would cost $11 billion a year.) At the time, the E.P.A. said it would issue national regulations governing the disposal of coal ash as a nonhazardous waste, but it has not done so�

So - Calstar wants to take fly ash from coal industry dumps, make bricks from it, and distribute the stuff in buildings across the US - exposing the general population to the toxic stuff? What a great idea!

Michael,

Thanks for the article.  Any idea who CalStar will be selling too?  Will consumers such as myself be able to get access to this product, or are they focusing their efforts towards builders/distributors?

CalStar will soon start shipping a green brick that requires almost
  no energy to produce.
  �Bricks have an enormous energy footprint. [Brickmakers] take
  clay and burn it,”
  Instead of burning clay, CalStar will take fly ash, the particulate matter that
  ordinarily leaves smokestacks to enter the atmosphere, add some extra
  chemicals and make bricks.

Oops, and how was that fly ash “manufactured”? Yes, by burning coal.
Of course it’s better to use that, as long as coal power plants work,
and the coal is burned anyway, but somehow I guess this doesn’t
make long term sense.
(Unless you have carbon capture as well in the smoke stack.)

No idea on sales channel, but initially you can expect it to go to builders first.

Second question, fly ash is captured with scrubbers, so this gives you something to do with it. Coal isn’t going away tomorrow, or even five decades from now, so this creates an incentive to invest in cleaning technologies. It would be a problem if they had to burn coal just to make the fly ash, but we’re not even remotely close to that and won’t be for years.

Fly ash bricks?  So, these bricks are made from coal-burning residue - a hazardous industrial waste that is loaded with highly toxic heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, nickel, selenium, arsenic, selenium and the likes???  And the bricks are not fired? 
Sounds like Henry Liu�s Greenest Brick technology - take a reactive, class C fly ash, mix with water, press and cure with steam.  Only problem is that the brick has nowhere near the performance of traditional (fired) clay bricks and carries a host of occupational safety and environmental hazard risks. 
Okay Porat - lets see the product and lets compare it side-by-side with clay bricks.  Clay bricks are load-bearing, have excellent compressive strength, are fire-resistant, are freeze-thaw resistant, do not leach toxic metals, are safe to handle and use, are not environmentally hazardous, are completely recyclable, and last for hundreds of years.  Lets see how Porat�s fly ash bricks measure up.  In particular, lets see the strength and robustness data, and especially the safety data - fly ash and fly ash products have been investigated for decades, and the problems with them are well recognized - variability of fly ash, occupational and environmental toxicity, and lack of durability to mention a few. 
To note - many companies are producing bricks using fly ash, but they either use portland cement and/or lime as binder and autoclave them, or they fire them as for clay bricks - their processes produce safe, high-performance products that can be used to replace more traditional building products. 
As for Porat�s fly ash bricks - it remains to be seen, but judging from his past, I would be very cautious.  Porat�s first claim to fame was the Apple spinoff General Magic (the blogs make for very interesting reading) - Porat was so good at selling a non-existent product and not delivering that he got booted by the board.  Of course, he only left after hyping the company, and subsequently raked it in when the company went IPO - he ran away with millions before it became apparent that the company had no product and shares nose-dived and trusting taxpayers lost their hard-earned money.  General Magic was a disaster story - I suppose that is why Porat went into hiding for several years.  And hey-presto - Porat re-invents himself as the “Moses” of Green Materials?  And onto Serious Materials - another great success story!  Funny thing is that the company has lots of hype but no product - a familiar story.  Where is EcoRock?  Anyone?  The word on the grapevine is that Serious Materials gathered 50 million dollars for a factory, but to date have nothing to manufacture in it, and the insiders at Foundation are �rather concerned�.  Time for Porat to roll out the hype wagon?  Perhaps CalStar is the hype wagon?  Oh no - another red herring.  Lets look at the history of CalStar - started in 2006 - their first claim was for a magnesium phosphate cement that would change the world and cut global greenhouse gas emissions.  They made all sorts of promises and projections for starting-up production in 2007, then suddenly went quiet.  Turned out that they had shelved their product.  I wonder why?  Perhaps it didnt exist - perhaps it didnt work.. who knows with Porat�s hype wagon where the truth lies?  Then they had a secret new cement product, which also fizzled out.  And now, bricks!  Where is the world-changing cement?
I would steer clear of Porat - if there really is a product (and past experience would indicate that it is highly hyped, and possibly non-existent), it is likely to have major performance, safety and liability concerns.
I would look instead at companies like Calera - the founder - Brent Constanz is a visionary no-nonsense academic who has several successful startup companies under his belt.  Calera has a very interesting bio-based technology for making a carbonate mineral admixture for portland cement by reacting CO2 emissions from power plants with seawater brines, and is looking at using its product in general use cement, as well as for making bricks, block, etc.  It is interesting to note Calera�s connection to CalStar - Constanz apparenty had a run-in with Porat and decided to found his own company - one wonders why - real scientist vs fraud?  Also, the grapevine indicates that several of Calera�s employees are ex-employees of CalStar, who left after becoming disaffected with Calstar and Porat.  The latest rumor is that CalStar�s R&D director left CalStar recently, and might also turn up at Calera.

not much in the way of details in the article

the analogy of “instant pudding” is funny- I assume they are using self-cementing CCB?

we have had a lot of discussions about the safety of CCBs here- the coal industry is (surprise) a big proponent - but there is a lot of scientific evidence on the disposal and use of CCBs   CCBs have been used in cements for a long time- the key is the use of cement and the formulation

a 100% CCB product sounds dramatic: i would like to see the technical data to support product claims- would be very concerned about safety and long-term performance   i will stick to clay bricks thank you very much- call me in 100 years- if anything made with fly ash bricks is still standing!
funny how they call it a Green Brick- coal-fired power generators are very dirty and polluting- you cannot call CCBs Green by any stretch!  one-tenth of the energy requirements of clay bricks- sounds far too low- unless they are just mixing with water and drying- cannot see how it would work

What a great story.  It will be interesting to hear about the performance of this green brick.  Please keep posting these great stories.

Regards,
Chris
http://www.greenbuildinglawupdate.com

Here is a great example of the environmental hazard of fly ash - the contamination of water supplies by toxic metals from fly ash - and a rare case of taxpayers winning the battle:

$54 MILLION: MARYLAND FLY ASH, CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WINS COURT APPROVAL.
A Milestone in Maryland Environmental and Legal History. Dec 31, 2008.
http://www.aggregateresearch.com/article.aspx?id=15322

Calstar wants to make bricks out of such toxic stuff?  This is appalling even in this day - profiteering with total disregard for peoples health.

Calstar Cement apparently wants to build a fly ash brick plant in Wisconsin - using ash from the Oak Creek power plant (http://journaltimesonline.com/articles/2009/04/03/local_news/doc49d559258c06e775588674.txt)

THE FACTS ON OAK CREEK FLY ASH.

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 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.

FLY ASH IS HAZARDOUS.
POOR-QUALITY PRODUCTS MADE FROM FLY ASH ARE HAZARDOUS.
CALSTAR�S FLY ASH BRICKS ARE IN NO WAY COMPARABLE WITH CLAY BRICKS.
CALSTAR�S FLY ASH BRICKS ARE DANGEROUS .
CALSTARS FLY ASH BRICKS ARE TOXIC.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.