Citizens outraged at Brightmark plastic plant tell Georgia EPD to reject air permit
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Over 100 Upson County residents attended the EPD hearing.
- The first permit application was heavily redacted; concerns persist.
- SELC and groups filed a 28-page request to deny citing specific pollutants.
Over 100 Upson County residents gathered Monday night in the Thomaston Civic Center to speak in-person to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, which has the power to approve or deny the latest air permit application for the Brightmark plastic plant, Thomaston Circularity Center. The proposed 2.5 million-square-foot, 100-acre plastic plant would take in 400,000 tons of plastic annually, break it down to its original petroleum liquid form (a process called pyrolysis), hydrocarbon fuel and ship it off and use it for future plastic. Pyrolysis requires high heat and during the breakdown process can release thousands of chemicals considered toxic. Some groups in Thomaston have been adamantly against this plant since its original proposal in 2024, despite Brightmark’s promise to bring 200 jobs and nearly $900 million in tax abatement bonds. That opposition showed up in force Monday night, with all but one of the 28 public comments opposing the project and its air permit request. They are concerned about its potential harm to the environment and human health, worsening effects of climate change from carbon pollution, and negative effects to wildlife and land. “I am adamantly against this project,” John Thompson said. “Plastic is a petroleum product, period. There’s no filter system today to eliminate that possibility. This is about our grandchildren, the future of Upson County. …. This company saw an opportunity to take advantage of a Southern community that needs the money and is not smart enough to stop it. We need to prove them wrong.” Thompson lives two miles from the proposed site, as does Allen Whitmire’s grandson, who he is worried about the pollution the plant could produce or if a fire were to happen. “I’m scared to death of what could happen (from Brightmark),” Whitmire said to a table of four EPD officials. “These guys have been wined and dined by local officials, and they drank the Kool-Aid, taking several trips to Ashely, Indiana, I don’t think any of them has a young grandson living out next to this plant. Scrutinize these folks!”
Brightmark’s first plastic pyrolysis plant in Ashley, Indiana, had a fire in 2021. CEO Bob Powell told the Ledger-Enquirer in April 2025 they take fire risk “very seriously”. Jason and Lisa Pearson, who live three miles from the proposed facility said there is simply not enough fire department resources to handle a chemical fire. “We’re a small community; we have a volunteer fire department,” Lisa Pearson said. “ We cannot bring this to our community. Don’t allow them to bring this to a poorer rural community.” Other public comments mentioned Macon-Bibb County turned down the plant proposal in 2022. “If this technology is so safe and so great, why did Macon turn them away?” Kathleen Hilley asked during her comment. “I’ve raised my children here, and now my grandchildren are growing up here. We chose this place because of the clean air and the quiet life. This plant threatens all of that. We’ve heard the promises of jobs before, but at what cost? We are saying no, and we expect the EPD to listen to the people, not just the money.”
Between every public comment, except for the one person in favor of the permit and project, applause echoed throughout the civic center.
This is the second air permit application for the Thomaston Circularity Center. The first permit application was in June 2025 to the Georgia EPD air division, according to a slide presented by EPD stationary source permit manager Steve Allison. That application was denied months later due to how heavy the permit was redacted of emission calculations, according to the Southern Environmental Law Center.
Brightmark sent a new air permit application in August, with EPD amendments made in April 2026. Now, with Brightmark in its second attempt, EPD is getting public feedback from outraged citizens, environmental experts and lawyers saying this application is still redacted from important environmental data.
Chemicals, carbon and greenwashing
Jennette Gayer, the director of Environment Georgia, a nonprofit seeking to protect the natural world, gave an in-person comment in the civic center Monday night, declaring her “stance with the people of Thomaston in opposition to the project.”
She acknowledged the single-use plastic problem does need to be tackled but called Brightmark’s proposal “greenwashing” and said the “chemical recycling process” is not the solution to the problem. “This is a really bad example of greenwashing and a complete boondoggle,” she said. “It delivers carbon pollution three times. The first time it was created, the second time when it gets melted down and turned into a fuel” for its third stage of life. She called out the permit application for heavy redactions. “That application was riddled with mistakes and redactions because of trade secret claims,” she said. “If we’re going to allow things like benzene into our neighborhoods, we should be able to check the math.” Marrisa Land, attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center, submitted a 28-page comment asking to deny the permit for similar reasons that Gayer gave. During her three-minute, in-person comment, she listed a dozen chemicals that need stricter limits and the heavy redactions as reasons to deny the permit.
Land told the Ledger-Enquirer it is illegal to not show emissions data, which they did not show in their permit.
“These solid waste combustion unit regulations require more stringent limitations than the current draft permit imposes, including more stringent limits on the following air pollutants: hydrogen chlorides, dioxins and furans, cadmium, carbon monoxide, lead, mercury, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. The draft permit, however, does not include any enforceable emissions limitations on hydrogen chloride, dioxins and furans, cadmium, lead or mercury.”
She went on to say the permit doesn’t have the types of plastic Brightmark intends to process. Brightmark also relies in its application on performance testing conducted at one of its other plastic pyrolysis facilities in Ashley, Indiana. But this performance testing is heavily redacted. In addition to Environment Georgia and SELC (who represents Upson Environmental & Government Transparency, Sierra Club, Georgia WAND and Science for Georgia), Beyond Plastics, which works to end plastic pollution, gave a written comment in opposition to the plastic plant. “Based on the information available, this facility does not appear to be in a position to operate safely and transparently as required under state and federal oversight standards,” Rita O’Connell, national organizer at Beyond Plastics, wrote in her letter. “For the protection of the people and ecosystems of Thomaston and surrounding communities, we urge Georgia EPD to deny this permit.”
One comment in favor of the proposed plant
The lone comment in favor of the plastic plant and its air permit was from the former CEO of the Upson Regional Medical Center in Thomaston, Jeff Tarrant. “The impact the Thomaston Circulartiry Center will have on our local air quality is roughly equivalent to the impact that community hospital has on air quality,” Tarrant said. “I’m quite familiar as I ran hospitals for 42 years and never heard a whisper of hospitals’ impact on air quality. Any local economy has to grow or citizens face reductions in city and county services.”
Brightmark CEO Bob Powell attended the meeting, but he did not give an in-person comment. The company released a statement regarding the hearing:
“Brightmark is committed to the city and community of Thomaston,” the statement says. “Today’s hearing is an important part of the Georgia EPD air permitting process. We appreciate everyone who took the time to participate. Our team is encouraged by the strong support expressed for the project and we remain focused on bringing the innovative project to Thomaston that delivers meaningful, long-term benefits to the community.” Land said the EPD will likely take a few months before they make a decision to approve or deny the permit.
Changes will be made to the draft permit “as appropriate,” Allison said, in the beginning of the hearing.
