2000 P Street, NW · Suite 240 · Washington, D.C. 20036 · 202-265-PEER(7337) · fax: 202-265-4192 

e-mail: info@peer.org · website: www.peer.org 

July 1, 2010 

Information Quality Guidelines Staff 

Mail Code 2811R 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Information Quality Complaint; False Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction 

Claims Related to Coal Combustion Waste Recycling

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) hereby submits this 

Information Quality Complaint (“Complaint”) pursuant to the Data Quality Act of 2000 [Section 

515 of the Fiscal Year 2001 Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, Pub.L. 106-

554], the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing 

the Quality, Utility, and Integrity of Information disseminated by Federal Agencies (“OMB 

Guidelines”)1

, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines for Ensuring and 

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA Guidelines”)2

. PEER respectfully requests that the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rescind and correct online and printed 

information regarding alleged greenhouse gas emissions reductions resulting from “beneficial 

use” of coal combustion waste products. 

 

1 Office of Mgmt. & Budget Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity 

of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies, 67 Fed. Reg. 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). 

2

 U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, EPA/260R-02-008, GUIDELINES FOR ENSURING AND MAXIMIZING THE QUALITY,

OBJECTIVITY, UTILITY, AND INTEGRITY, OF INFORMATION DISSEMINATED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY (2002). 

PEER Information Quality Complaint Page 1 of 16 
A. DESCRIPTION OF CHALLENGED INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE

CORRECTED TO COMPLY WITH OMB AND EPA INFORMATION QUALITY

GUIDELINES 

• The EPA Coal Combustion Products Partnerships (“C2P2”) “Results” webpage asserts 

greenhouse gas reduction claims under the heading “Greenhouse Gas Reduction”: 

o In addition, C2P2 established a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from 

concrete production by approximately 5.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide 

equivalent by 2011, compared to a 2001 baseline. Each ton of fly ash that replaces 

cement in the production of concrete reduces greenhouse gases emissions by a 

little less than a ton of carbon dioxide equivalents. In 2008, the total use of fly ash 

in concrete reduced greenhouse gas emissions by about 11.4 million tons of 

carbon dioxide equivalents. 3

• The EPA C2P2 “Case Studies” webpage introduces a series of downloadable documents 

with this statement: 

o The following case studies ... are intended to be illustrations of coal combustion 

product applications that the Agency believes can be beneficial to the 

environment. Case Study 05: Carbon Burn-Out for Fly Ash Beneficiation, is 

linked from the website with no disclaimer. The case study displays the EPA 

logo in the top left corner, and the body of the document cites savings of “CO2 

releases from the production of Portland cement of the order of 8/10ths of one ton 

of CO2 saved for every ton of fly ash used.”4

• EPA C2P2 “CCP Benefits and Risks” Webpage states: 

o Under the heading, “Environmental Benefits”: 

 Greenhouse Gas and Energy Benefits. The reuse of CCPs reduces the 

emission of GHGs in many ways. The primary way CCP use reduces 

GHG emissions is through coal fly ash for it takes the equivalent of 55 

gallons of oil to produce a single ton of cement. In addition, chemical 

reactions that occur during the production of Portland cement also produce 

GHGs. The pozzolanic properties of coal fly ash make it a useful 

replacement for a portion of the Portland cement used in making concrete. 

Fly ash can typically replace between 15 to 30 percent of the cement in 

concrete with even higher percentages used for mass concrete placements. 

As an added benefit, it makes the concrete stronger and more durable than 

concrete made with only Portland cement as the binder. Another way that 

using CCPs in place of virgin materials reduces GHG emissions is by 

reducing the energy-intensive mining operations needed to generate virgin 

materials. Reduction in mining energy use leads to reduction in GHG 

emissions.5

 

 

3

 EPA C2P2 Results, http://www.epa.gov/wastes/partnerships/c2p2/results.htm (last accessed on June 23, 2010). 4

 CASE STUDY 05: CARBON BURN-OUT FOR FLY ASH BENEFICIATION, available at

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/c2p2/cases/05-burnout.pdf. 5

 EPA C2P2 CCP Benefits and Risks, http://www.epa.gov/wastes/partnerships/c2p2/use/benefits.htm (last accessed 

on June 23, 2010). 

PEER Information Quality Complaint Page 2 of 16 
• Using Coal Ash in Highway Construction: A Guide to Benefits and Impacts6

 contains the 

following statements: 

o The increased use of these materials, which would otherwise be discarded as 

waste, can reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, reduce energy 

consumption, and conserve natural resources.7

o Specifically, using coal combustion products in lieu of other materials, such as 

Portland cement, reduces energy use and greenhouse gas emissions and conserves 

natural resources.8

o This energy-intensive process typically emits nearly one ton of greenhouse gases 

for each ton of cement created and requires the equivalent of a barrel of oil per 

ton. Using fly ash—which would otherwise be disposed of—in concrete has the 

potential to significantly reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted and the 

amount of fuel used. Typically, between 15 to 30 percent of Portland cement in 

concrete can be replaced with fly ash.9

o In 2002, the American Coal Ash Association estimated that 12.6 million tons of 

fly ash were used as a substitute for Portland cement in the United States. The 

industry set a goal to increase its use to 20 million tons by 2010. EPA estimates 

that this would reduce the future generation of greenhouse gasses by more than 

6.5 million tons a year.* (*The footnote to this sentence states, “Estimated using 

EPA’s Waste Reduction Model, Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse 

Gases, Second Edition, EPA 530-R-02-006, Office of Solid Waste, June 2002.”)10

o One ton of fly ash used as a replacement for cement ... reduces the equivalent of 

two months of an automobile’s carbon dioxide emissions.11

• EPA Wastes Speeches contains text of speeches with the following statements: 

o “Substituting just 12.6 million tons of fly ash for Portland cement would save 350 

million cubic feet of landfill space, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 11 

million tons, and conserve crude oil valued at over 140 million dollars.”12

B. THE CHALLENGED STATEMENTS ARE COVERED BY EPA GUIDELINES 

BECAUSE THEY CONSTITUTE “INFORMATION” THAT EPA 

“DISSEMINATES” TO THE PUBLIC

EPA’s Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and 

Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA 

Guidelines”) state that EPA has as a goal that “all parts of society – including communities, 

individuals, businesses, State and local governments, Tribal governments – have access to 

 

6

 U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, EPA-530-K-05-002, USING COAL ASH IN HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION: A GUIDE TO 

BENEFITS AND IMPACTS (2005), available at www.epa.gov/osw/partnerships/c2p2/pubs/greenbk508.pdf). 7 Id. 8 Id. at 16. 9 Id. at 16-17. 10 Id. at 17. 11 Id. at 17. 12 Tom Dunne, Acting Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Response, Remarks at the 

Beneficial Reuse Summit, November 8, 2004, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/wastes/inforesources/news/speeches/bene-use.htm. 

PEER Information Quality Complaint Page 3 of 16 
accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and 

environmental risks.13

 EPA’s Guidelines apply to “information” that EPA disseminates to the public. The 

Guidelines define “information” as “any communication or representation of knowledge such as 

facts or data, in any medium or form.”14 EPA is considered to be “disseminating information to 

the public” when EPA initiates distribution of information “if EPA prepares the information and 

distributes it to support or represent EPA’s viewpoint, or to formulate or support a regulation, 

guidance, or other Agency decision or position.”15

 The EPA publications and web content listed above are communications that have been 

prepared by EPA and disseminated in print or online. The text of the speech discussed above is 

“information” covered by the guidelines because the speech was given by an EPA official in 

support of an EPA position. The text of the speeches exist on EPA’s website and represent 

EPA’s views to the public without disclaimer warning of potentially historic and outdated 

content. 

C. THE CHALLENGED STATEMENTS ARE “INFLUENTIAL INFORMATION” 

SUBJECT TO HIGHER STANDARDS OF QUALITY 

 EPA’s Guidelines define “influential” as meaning that EPA can reasonably determine 

that dissemination of the information will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private sector decisions. 16 EPA also recognizes that “influential 

scientific, financial, or statistical information should be subject to a higher degree of quality (for 

example, transparency about data and methods) than information that may not have a clear and 

 

13 U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, EPA/260R-02-008, GUIDELINES FOR ENSURING AND MAXIMIZING THE QUALITY,

OBJECTIVITY, UTILITY, AND INTEGRITY, OF INFORMATION DISSEMINATED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 3 (2002). 14 Id. at 15. 15 Id. 16 Id. at 19. 

PEER Information Quality Complaint Page 4 of 16 
substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.”17 Finally, EPA also 

notes that it is “important that analytic results for influential information have a higher degree of 

transparency regarding (1) the source of the data used, (2) the various assumptions employed, (3) 

the analytic methods applied, and (4) the statistical procedures employed ... and that all factors 

be presented and discussed.”18

 In explaining the purpose behind requiring agencies to be transparent about how analytic 

results are generated, OMB guidelines explain that the “more important benefit of transparency 

is that the public will be able to assess how much an agency’s analytic result hinges on the 

specific analytic choices made by the agency.”19 EPA’s Guidelines also state that “[i]t is 

important that analytic results for influential information have a higher degree of transparency 

regarding ... the various assumptions employed... [i]t is also important ... and that all factors be 

presented and discussed.”20

The challenged information is “influential” because the EPA can reasonably determine 

that dissemination of the information will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or important private sector decisions. Public policy-makers and agency 

staff may rely on EPA’s representation of greenhouse gas emission reduction benefits when 

making decisions about procuring concrete with fly ash content and in decisions to allocate 

carbon credits in carbon emissions trading schemes. For example, this information is used to 

support top agency actions such as the EPA Region 8 Climate Change Strategic Plan, which 

includes activities such as achieving climate change results through pursuit of voluntary 

 

17 Id. at 20. 18 Id. at 21. 

19 Office of Management and Budget: Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and 

Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies, 67 Fed. Reg. 8452, 8456 (Feb. 22, 2002). 20 U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, EPA/260R-02-008, GUIDELINES FOR ENSURING AND MAXIMIZING THE QUALITY,

OBJECTIVITY, UTILITY, AND INTEGRITY, OF INFORMATION DISSEMINATED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 21 (2002). 

PEER Information Quality Complaint Page 5 of 16 
programs such as the Coal Combustion Products Partnership.21 EPA Region 8’s decision to 

highlight participation in the Coal Combustion Products Partnership as an activity it is 

undertaking to support the Regional climate change strategy shows how the EPA C2P2 program 

greenhouse gas claims have clearly and substantially impacted high level agency activities. 

The information also clearly and substantially influences public and private sector 

decisions beyond the federal sector. One example is the July 21, 2009, decision by the 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) to approve an Application 

for Certification of Greenhouse Gas Credits to a private project processing coal ash for use in 

place of Portland cement.22 The Final Approval letter explains that the estimate of the number of 

greenhouse gas credits was calculated based on an emission reduction figure—0.71 tons CO2 

equivalent reduced per ton fly ash used as cement replacement—provided in two EPA reports.23 

In the Response to Comments on another greenhouse gas credit application, MassDEP noted that 

although various methods are available to estimate tons of greenhouse gas emissions avoided by 

fly ash cement projects, support for the selected model was obtained from EPA’s C2P2 

website.24 EPA can therefore reasonably determine that dissemination of greenhouse gas 

reduction information posted on EPA’s C2P2 website can have a clear and substantial impact on 

public and private sector decisions. These express references to C2P2 in public policy 

determinations illustrate the influential nature of the assertions that are the subject of this 

Complaint. 

D. THE CHALLENGED INFORMATION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE 

GUIDELINES BECAUSE IT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE QUALITY, 

 

21 EPA Climate Change Activities in Region 8, http://www.epa.gov/region8/climatechange/activities.html (last 

accessed June 30, 2010). 

22 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs, 

Final Approval of Applications for Certification and Verifications of GHG Credits, July 21, 2009, available at

http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/climate/ghgpmi.pdf. 23 Id. at 4. 24 MassDEP Bureau of Waste Prevention, Response to Comments On: Application for Certification of GHG Credits 

at 2, June 10, 2009, available at http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/climate/brayrtc.pdf. 

PEER Information Quality Complaint Page 6 of 16 
INCLUDING THE OBJECTIVITY AND UTILITY, REQUIRED BY OMB AND 

EPA INFORMATION QUALITY GUIDELINES 

1. The Challenged Information Fails to Meet EPA Guideline Requirements for 

Objectivity Because the Information Is Not Presented in an Accurate, 

Complete, or Unbiased Manner. 

EPA’s Guidelines state that “objectivity” requirements are intended to ensure that 

disseminated information is presented in an “accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner,” 

and that information “is accurate, reliable, and unbiased.”25 

i. The Challenged Information Is Inaccurate 

EPA’s claims about greenhouse gas benefits from coal combustion waste reuse are 

inaccurate because they rely on faulty lifecycle assessments that fail to take into account whole 

system boundaries. EPA’s Office of Research and Development National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory’s Lifecycle Assessment: Principles and Practice describes the system 

boundaries that should be included when conducting life cycle assessments: 

“In defining system boundaries, it is important to include every 

step that could affect the overall interpretation or ability of the 

analysis to address the issues for which it is being performed. 

Only in well-defined instances can life-cycle elements such as raw 

materials acquisition or waste management be excluded. In 

general, only when a step is exactly the same in process, materials, 

and quantity in all alternatives considered, can that step be 

excluded from the system. In addition, the framework for the 

comparison must be recognized as relative because the total system 

values exclude certain contributions. This rule is especially critical 

for LCAs used in public forums rather than for internal company 

decision making.”26 

 

25 U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, EPA/260R-02-008, GUIDELINES FOR ENSURING AND MAXIMIZING THE QUALITY,

OBJECTIVITY, UTILITY, AND INTEGRITY, OF INFORMATION DISSEMINATED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 15 (2002). 26 U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, NAT’L RISK MGMT. RESEARCH LAB., EPA/600/R-06/060, LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT:

PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE 16 (2006). 

PEER Information Quality Complaint Page 7 of 16 
The EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory publication notes that coproducts (outputs from the process that are “not treated as wastes”) that are marketed to other 

manufacturers should be treated as co-products and quantified.27 “In performing co-product 

allocation, some means must be found to objectively assign the resource use, energy 

consumption, and emissions among the co-products.”28 This process is contrasted to waste 

materials that are reused within the same process and therefore part of an “internal recycling 

loop” and thus not included in the inventory (since [materials in an internal recycling loop] do 

not cross boundaries of the subsystem”).29

 EPA’s Coal Combustion Product Partnership website and publication claims about 

greenhouse gas emission reductions associated with using “coal combustion products” are 

inaccurate because the analysis ignores significant upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated 

with the processes that generate coal combustion waste “co-products.” EPA’s Using Coal Ash in 

Highway Construction: A Guide to Benefits and Impacts contains multiple statements about 

greenhouse gas emission reductions associated with using coal combustion products in place of 

other materials. EPA provides a source for only one of the greenhouse gas reduction claims—

that meeting an industry goal of increasing fly ash substitution for Portland cement from 12.6 

million tons to 20 million tons “would reduce the future generation of greenhouse gasses by 

more than 6.5 million tons a year.”30 However, as EPA points out in a footnote, this emissions 

reduction figure is based on EPA’s Waste Reduction Model (“WARM”). 

This is problematic because the WARM model is designed to assist waste managers in 

quantifying the greenhouse gas benefits of various waste management practices, and it assumes 

 

27 Id. at 21. 28 Id. 29 Id. at 22. 30 U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, EPA-530-K-05-002, USING COAL ASH IN HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION: A GUIDE TO 

BENEFITS AND IMPACTS 16 (2005). 

PEER Information Quality Complaint Page 8 of 16 
coal combustion fly ash starts off as a greenhouse gas neutral material.31 With coal-fired 

electricity, in particular, this assumption can lead to grossly inaccurate lifecycle greenhouse gas 

emission estimates, and faulty cost-benefit conclusions when comparing materials. Electricity 

generation is the largest single source—contributing around 40%—of total CO2 emissions in the 

United States,32 and electricity generators use coal—a fuel source with relatively high CO2 

emissions—for over half of their total energy requirements.33 

 EPA also makes overly broad assertions that are inaccurate and lack supporting 

documentation. In one publication, EPA states, “using coal combustion products in lieu of other 

materials, such as Portland cement, reduces energy use and greenhouse gas emissions and 

conserves natural resources.”34 However, while EPA may have conducted some supporting 

analysis for fly ash in cement – flawed as it is – EPA fails to identify the source for the broad 

claim that reuse of all categories of coal combustion wastes produced nationwide leads to net 

reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. EPA’s WARM model analysis of coal combustion 

wastes is limited to fly ash.35 In another example, EPA asserts on its C2P2 “CCP Benefits and 

Risks” website that “reuse of CCPs reduces the emission of GHGs [greenhouse gases] in many 

ways ... [t]he primary way CCP use reduces GHG emissions is through coal fly ash for it takes 

the equivalent of 55 gallons of oil to produce a single ton of cement.” While there is no footnote 

on the webpage to indicate a source for this claimed greenhouse gas benefit of coal combustion 

product reuse, another C2P2 webpage entitled “C2P2 Key Resources” contains provides a link to 

 

31 U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, EPA530-R-03-016, BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR LIFE-CYCLE GREENHOUSE GAS 

EMISSION FACTORS FOR FLY ASH USED AS A CEMENT REPLACEMENT IN CONCRETE 3 (2003) (“As a coal combustion 

product (CCP), fly ash is unlike other materials for which EPA has developed emission factors ... its production 

results from the industrial combustion of coal; therefore, there are no manufacturing emissions associated with the 

first generation product ... [and] it cannot be recycled in a closed loop.”) 32 U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, INVENTORY OF U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SINKS: 1990 – 2008 at 3-10

(2010). 

33 Id. at ES-8 (2010). 34 U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, EPA-530-K-05-002, USING COAL ASH IN HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION: A GUIDE TO 

BENEFITS AND IMPACTS 16 (2005). 35 WAste Reduction Model: Material Types Recognized by WARM, 

http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html (last accessed June 30, 2010). 

PEER Information Quality Complaint Page 9 of 16 
EPA’s Waste and Materials-Flow Benchmark Sector Report: Beneficial Use of Secondary 

Materials – Coal Combustion Products under the heading, “General Use Guidelines and 

Information.”36 This publication is newer than EPA’s background document for the WARM 

model fly ash analysis and examines both using fly ash as a replacement for finished Portland 

cement and using flu gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum in wallboard manufacturing. However, 

the document also notes that “this analysis only examines the beneficial impacts of substituting 

fly ash for finished Portland cement in concrete and substituting FGD gypsum for virgin gypsum 

in wallboard manufacturing ... [t]hese two processes represent less than 50% of the total 

beneficial uses of CCPs.”37 There is no apparent documented support for the assertions that 

reusing coal combustion waste products in general leads to net reductions in greenhouse gas 

emissions. This statement is inaccurate and unsupported and when made by EPA implies to the 

public and private sector decision-makers that increased reuse of all coal combustion wastes is an 

effective strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

ii. The Challenged Information Is Incomplete 

Another example is EPA’s selective use of underlying methodologies to support its coal 

combustion waste “beneficial reuse” greenhouse gas emission reduction claims; EPA excludes 

underlying assumptions and variables in its reporting of the final numbers. For example, in the 

EPA Office of Solid Waste report, “Waste and Materials-Flow Benchmark Sector Report: 

Beneficial Use of Secondary Materials – Coal Combustion Products Final Report,” EPA states 

that the BEES model “may over- or underestimate the national impacts of using fly ash in 

concrete construction projects because site-specific environmental conditions and proximity to 

 

36 EPA C2P2 Key Resources, http://www.epa.gov/wastes/partnerships/c2p2/resources.htm (last accessed June 30, 

2010). 

37 U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE: ECONOMICS, METHODS, AND RISK ANALYSIS DIVISION,

WASTE AND MATERIALS-FLOW BENCHMARK SECTOR REPORT: BENEFICIAL USE OF SECONDARY MATERIALS – COAL 

COMBUSTION PRODUCTS FINAL REPORT 5-9 (2008), available at

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/c2p2/pubs/benuse07.pdf. 

PEER Information Quality Complaint Page 10 of 16 
sources of fly ash may affect the resulting benefits and influence the net effect of choosing fly 

ash over Portland cement.”38 

EPA’s highlighted greenhouse gas reduction claims fail to provide a transparent 

accounting for regional differences in cement plant emissions or transportation factors. For 

example, the California Department of Transportation website notes that the cement industry in 

California is among the most energy efficient, and—according to the California Cement 

Industry—the energy efficiency of California cement plants is 15 percent better than the average 

U.S. value.39 At the same time, California is a relatively small producer of coal fly ash and thus 

transportation-related impacts from moving coal ash from utilities to cement markets may be 

greater than the national averages underlying EPA claims. 

EPA’s coal combustion waste greenhouse gas claims also fail to adequately include 

impacts associated with processing ash for use in cement. Occasionally, additional processing is 

used to transform fly ash—such as high carbon fly ash that can result from activated carbon 

injection for mercury control—to meet project specifications. It is unclear from EPA’s public 

greenhouse gas claims whether, and to what extent, any additional processing impacts are taken 

into account by EPA’s models. If EPA greenhouse gas assertions do not include clear notes 

about underlying assumptions (i.e. the assumption that fly ash is always produced in a ready-touse form), then decisions about whether and how many greenhouse gas “credits” to award for fly 

ash use in cement may be based on incomplete EPA ash lifecycle estimates. 

Factors such as these can change the greenhouse gas reduction benefit ratios and should 

be noted explicitly along with any numeric greenhouse gas emission reduction claims. EPA’s 

 

38 U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE: ECONOMICS, METHODS, AND RISK ANALYSIS DIVISION,

WASTE AND MATERIALS-FLOW BENCHMARK SECTOR REPORT: BENEFICIAL USE OF SECONDARY MATERIALS – COAL 

COMBUSTION PRODUCTS FINAL REPORT 4- 10 (2008), available at

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/c2p2/pubs/benuse07.pdf. 

39 California Department of Transportation Climate Action Team Cement Production Efficiency Improvements, 

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/ClimateActionTeam/production-efficiency-measures.html (last visited June 

30, 2010). 

PEER Information Quality Complaint Page 11 of 16 
claims of coal combustion waste greenhouse gas benefits are used to support public decisions, 

but the challenged website statements and publications fail to meet EPA Guideline requirements 

for a high degree of transparency as to source of data used and assumptions employed. Without 

explicit reference to the underlying assumptions and presentation and discussion of all factors in 

the analysis, the challenged information is incomplete. 

iii. The Challenged Information Is Biased 

EPA’s statements, without caveats and clear explanations of assumptions used in the 

models, are misleading and inaccurate. For example, in contrast to multiple statements PEER 

found on EPA websites and publications promoting the benefits of recycling coal combustion 

wastes, only a single statement contained a qualifier to the utility of relying on coal combustion 

waste reuse to actually achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions. Buried in Appendix E—on 

the very last page of EPA’s Benchmark Report—is a statement that “allocated emissions from 

primary production (i.e., coal combustion) may occasionally be greater than the documented 

benefits of beneficial use for some metrics” and “the beneficial use of CCPs may not be an 

efficient method for reducing overall emissions of CO2 and SO2 to the environment.”40 This is 

an important caveat to all the statements by EPA that reuse of coal combustion wastes results in 

greenhouse gas benefits. EPA’s unequivocal greenhouse gas benefit claims can mislead public 

decision-makers as to the actual efficacy of pursuing greenhouse gas reductions through 

increasing use of coal combustion wastes. This lack of complete transparency also misleads the 

public that trusts EPA to make unbiased assessments of health and environmental risks and 

benefits. 

 

40 U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE: ECONOMICS, METHODS, AND RISK ANALYSIS DIVISION,

WASTE AND MATERIALS-FLOW BENCHMARK SECTOR REPORT: BENEFICIAL USE OF SECONDARY MATERIALS – COAL 

COMBUSTION PRODUCTS FINAL REPORT at E-3(2008), available at

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/c2p2/pubs/benuse07.pdf. 

PEER Information Quality Complaint Page 12 of 16 
 Taken together, these inaccurate and incomplete statements skew the public debate on the 

merits of recycling coal combustion wastes. EPA’s biased promotion of coal combustion waste 

recycling may contribute to EPA’s own performance goal to increase recycling of coal 

combustion wastes, but when the challenged information is disseminated without qualification, 

EPA risks misleading decision-makers interested in legitimate strategies to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions. EPA’s continued reliance on greenhouse gas reduction claims lacks reliable and 

transparent supporting documentation and thus appears to have been perpetuated by EPA to 

buttress a politically-motivated decision by the agency to continue to promote coal combustion 

waste materials in support of its internal waste management performance goals rather than a 

scientifically justifiable strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

2. The Lack of Quality of the Challenged Information Means that the 

Information Has Insufficient Utility to the Intended Audience. 

 “Utility refers to the usefulness of the information to the intended users.”41 EPA’s coal 

combustion waste recycling greenhouse gas emission reduction claims vary in quantity of 

reductions claimed, unit of measurement, and supporting documentation (when it is available). 

The EPA C2P2 “Results” webpage states, “Each ton of fly ash that replaces cement in the 

production of concrete reduces greenhouse gases emissions by a little less than a ton of 

carbon dioxide equivalents.”42 Another EPA C2P2 webpage contains links to “Case Studies” 

that are “intended to be [illustrative] of coal combustion product applications that the Agency 

believes can be beneficial to the environment”; Case Study 05 bears the EPA logo and states, 

“CO2 releases from the production of Portland cement of the order of 8/10ths of one ton of 

 

41 U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, EPA/260R-02-008, GUIDELINES FOR ENSURING AND MAXIMIZING THE QUALITY,

OBJECTIVITY, UTILITY, AND INTEGRITY, OF INFORMATION DISSEMINATED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 15 (2002). 42 EPA C2P2 Results, http://www.epa.gov/wastes/partnerships/c2p2/results.htm (last accessed on June 23, 2010). 

PEER Information Quality Complaint Page 13 of 16 
CO2 saved for every ton of fly ash used.”43 EPA’s Benchmark Report cites avoidances of 

636,170 grams CO2 and 539 grams methane that result from using one ton of fly ash as 

cement substitute in concrete.44 If the discrepancies are due to modeling uncertainties, then 

EPA should include a citation to the source of the data and exact units for each claim. If 

discrepancies are due to changing or updating emissions and lifecycle models, then EPA should 

still include citations to data and methods used to support claims. Without citations, these 

assertions vary so much as to be of limited practical utility to regulators, the public, or the private 

sector. 

In addition, EPA uses inconsistent units without citing to conversion calculators. For 

example, in once instance EPA cites benefits as equivalent to “two months of an automobile’s 

carbon dioxide emissions,”45 while in another instance, EPA cites benefits in terms of gallons of 

oil saved.46 This practice makes it difficult to use the information to directly compare benefits 

from using fly ash in place of other materials. This pattern of vague and unsupported claims can 

lead to a loss of confidence in EPA’s choice of strategies. Additionally, public policy-makers 

implementing strategies to account for greenhouse gas emissions will make policy and 

procurement decisions based on misinformation and inaccurate greenhouse gas emissions 

account. 

 

43 CASE STUDY 05: CARBON BURN-OUT FOR FLY ASH BENEFICIATION, available at

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/c2p2/cases/05-burnout.pdf. 44 U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE: ECONOMICS, METHODS, AND RISK ANALYSIS DIVISION,

WASTE AND MATERIALS-FLOW BENCHMARK SECTOR REPORT: BENEFICIAL USE OF SECONDARY MATERIALS – COAL 

COMBUSTION PRODUCTS FINAL REPORT at ES-4 (2008), available at

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/c2p2/pubs/benuse07.pdf, last accessed on June 23, 2010) (See also 

Exhibit ES-3 on page ES-6 which estimates total avoided impacts at 13.2 million tons CO2 equivalent if EPA meets 

its 18.6 million tons of fly ash recycling goal. Dividing the 13.2 million tons CO2 equivalent by EPA’s extrapolated 

fly ash goal of 18.6 million tons fly ash yields a resulting figure of 0.71 tons CO2 equivalent avoided per ton of fly 

ash in concrete.). 

45 U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, EPA-530-K-05-002, USING COAL ASH IN HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION: A GUIDE TO 

BENEFITS AND IMPACTS 17 (2005). 46 C2P2 CCP Benefits and Risks, available at http://www.epa.gov/wastes/partnerships/c2p2/use/benefits.htm.

PEER Information Quality Complaint Page 14 of 16 
E. PEER IS AFFECTED BY THE INFORMATION ERROR 

PEER is a non-profit organization chartered in the District of Columbia with the mission 

to hold government agencies accountable for enforcing environmental laws, maintaining 

scientific integrity, and upholding professional ethics in the workplace. PEER is an “affected 

person” in that PEER has thousands of employee and citizen members nationwide, including 

employees both within EPA and in other public agencies whose work is hampered by reliance 

upon inaccurate, incomplete and poor quality information that is the subject of this complaint. 

Further, PEER has been investigating EPA promotion of recycling, or “beneficial use,” of 

coal combustion wastes since 2009. PEER has issued news releases and supported media 

investigation of EPA’s apparently biased and inconsistent promotion of coal combustion waste 

reuse benefits, including varying claims of greenhouse gas avoidances through increased use of 

coal combustion waste materials. PEER is concerned that federal and state public employees, as 

well as the interested public, may be making procurement decisions and reporting environmental 

benefits based on inaccurate information. 

F. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTION OF THE INFORMATION 

CHALLENGED BY THIS COMPLAINT

Accordingly, PEER demands that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency take the 

following steps to comply with the Data Quality Act: 

1. Remove the misleading greenhouse gas reduction claims from the EPA website. Remove 

Using Coal Ash in Highway Construction: A Guide to Benefits and Impacts from official 

publication and cease further distribution. 

2. Issue a public statement, posted on official websites, that the claims for greenhouse gas 

savings from reuse of coal combustion waste products have been withdrawn from 

publication due to violations of the Data Quality Act. 

PEER Information Quality Complaint Page 15 of 16 
3. Undertake a new externally peer-reviewed assessment concerning the lifecycle 

greenhouse gas emissions resulting from production of coal combustion waste electricity 

co-products and subsequent reuse applications. 

4. Make underlying assumptions, regional variations, and unknown variables clear in any 

future claims to coal combustion waste benefits. Underlying data and methodologies 

should be transparent and reproducible, in accordance with OMB Guidelines. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing information, PEER respectfully requests that the EPA rescind and 

correct its online and printed information regarding alleged greenhouse gas emissions reductions 

resulting from “beneficial use” of coal combustion waste products. Pursuant to the EPA 

Guidelines, I look forward to your response to this Complaint within 90 days. Thank you in 

advance for your prompt attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Jeff Ruch 

Executive Director 

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) 

PEER Information Quality Complaint Page 16 of 16