Environment group files complaint against EPA

Group disputes alleged inaccurate information regarding greenhouse reduction method

{reg}A US-based environmental group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) recently filed a complaint against the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The group, demanded for the agency to remove from theirpublications the alleged inaccurate claims that say putting coal combustion wastes into consumer and commercial products actually reduces the generation of greenhouse gases associated with climate change.

According to a report by Common Dreams, EPA has a formal promotional partnership with the coal industry to expand use of coal ash and other coal combustion wastes in products such as cement, wallboard, carpet backing and consumer products such as kitchen counters and even cosmetics and toothpaste. As part of this campaign, EPA repeatedly states that using coal ash reduces greenhouse gas emissions because it substitutes for virgin materials.

PEER said that this statement is wrong since it fails to mention the massive amounts of greenhouse gases emitted in mining and burning of coal to produce ash. The group also mentioned that many of EPA's assertions are made without reference sources, methodology or qualification.

"Coal is our biggest source of greenhouse gases,ÔÇØ said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. ÔÇ£It is the height of absurdity to contend that the toxic wastes produced by coal combustion help our atmosphere."

Ruch, however, noted that EPA recently suspended the coal ash promotion campaign (called the Coal Combustion Product Partnership or C2P2) while it considers whether to regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste.

According to the report, the PEER complaint is filed under the Data Quality Act which requires that materials distributed or relied upon by federal agencies be accurate, complete and unbiased.

The report stated that EPA has 90 days to respond to the complaint. If it rejects the complaint, PEER may file an administrative appeal forcing the formation of a three-member executive panel to review the matter. The decision by that review panel is final.
"EPA is guilty of false advertising. Using taxpayer dollars to mislead the public adds insult to the injury," Ruch said. "EPA should purge this nonsense from its website now." {reg/}