Dr. Noll responds to Mr. Lofton’s email of 24 Dec 2010.
-jsq

From: “Michael G. Noll”

To: “blofton@industrialauthority.com” <blofton@industrialauthority.com>,
“Mary B. Gooding”,
“Ricketts, Allan” <aricketts@industrialauthority.com>,
“Copeland, Roy”,
“‘John S. Quarterman'”,
“Susan R. Wehling”,
Kay Harris

Subject: RE: Wiregrass Power, LLC

Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 21:19:15 +0000

Hello Mr. Lofton.

You might remember that WACE handed out a “Myth vs. Fact” info sheet at
the meeting. On it were clearly outlined major issues we have with your
biomass project. I will only entertain the first three to refresh your
memory, since they are the most important facts for our community:

1. Fact: Biomass is dirtier than coal. This is not simply our “opinion”
   but based on data we received from the Georgia EPD in regard to PM, SO2
   and NOx emissions. This simply verified what we already knew from
   similar inquiries by Dr. Sammons and others. You can verify this fact
   by contacting Mr. Eric Cornwell. I trust you know of him.

2. Fact: Wiregrass Biomass LLC avoids best available technology
   (referred to as BACT and MACT), which you would have to deal with in
   connection with a major air permit. Thus, your comment on your
   “enormous efforts” in regard to protecting our community is yet another
   myth. We also gave an example for this on our sheet.

3. Fact: Biomass incineration bears significant health risks. This is
   not only outlined by the recent letter WACE received from the ALA, but
   by studies throughout the country. If you carefully look on, I believe,
   page 8 of your application, you will see listed the hundreds of tons of
   pollutants your proposed biomass plant would spew out each year. Among
   them are such compounds as PM2.5 and NOx, all of which are
   unequivocally identified as a significant threat to the citizen’s
   health. You might not like that fact, but you can’t continue ignoring
   it. Again, this is not our “opinion” but based on scholarly research.
   Interestingly enough, your toxicologist did neither quantify the actual
   amount of pollutants coming out of the smoke stack of your plant in his
   presentation (because hundreds of tons don’t look good on a slide?),
   and likewise did nothing to provide proof that biomass is safe.
   “Assurances” or “statements” are not what we need at this time, only
   facts backed up by scholarly research will do.

As it relates to the existence of an “environmental impact analysis”
(the nature of which seems to change like the quantity of dioxin. Is it
pounds? Or ounces?): why don’t you share this environmental impact
analysis with the whole group? Such an impact analysis would not only
address the larger questions of air pollution and sustainability, but
also focus on such matters as Mud Creek, water quality, etc. … and if
it was done correctly draw from the experience/data of other regions in
the US.

Likewise, it is time to share scholarly sources with the group that
support your or Dr. Teaf’s claim that biomass is safe. You once made
the statement that you are/were 1,000% certain about this, so I have to
assume you have such sources readily available.

It should be apparent by now that the information you have provided
these past three years to concerned citizens in our community has left
many questions unanswered. You latest biomass panel did nothing to
change that. Why? Because you keep avoiding answering important
questions, or when you do answer them, can’t back up your answers with
scholarly studies.

I am afraid to say that only until you were able to address these
issues, and in particular the health risks associated with your
proposed biomass plant, may we indeed work together on creating a truly
clean and green future for our community. Based on the data we have
presented, backed up by scientific studies, biomass is not part of our
vision. Why? Because it wastes our tax dollars, it is dirtier than coal
(including CO2 emissions), and, most importantly, it bears significant
health risks.

It is your responsibility to prove us wrong (i.e. with the help of
scientific studies which are up-to-date). Thus far you have not been
able to do so.

Best regards, Michael G. Noll.

P.S.: In addition to the recent news that proposed biomass plants
throughout the country are “put on ice” because of economic risks, we
also saw the first moratorium on a biomass plant due to “environmental
concerns” just a few days ago in Thurston County, Washington.
Considering our situation here in Lowndes County, I would suggest to do
the same … until we have finally gotten answers to our questions …
or until we have simply realized that there are better alternatives for
job creation that do not risk the health of our citizens! John
Quarterman has done much to highlight this too!