The Upson Beacon interview with local officials to discuss what was learned regarding emergency preparedness is not reassuring. One obvious, but unaddressed question is, who paid for the trip and what was in the gift bags the officials were all holding? The same could be asked about the unelected IDA board that entered this extremely unpopular scheme.
Their guided tour of Brightmark’s underperforming and bankrupt facility in Ashley, Ind. was portrayed as reassuring - clean floors, no odor, apparent safety. Yet these observations raise more questions than they answer. When public health, water quality, and taxpayer risk are at stake, Upson County deserves more than a tidy walk-through, some gift bags, and some full-page ads in the local paper.
A controlled visit is not an inspection. Both emergency leaders openly acknowledged they knew Brightmark would have the plant “nice and clean” for their arrival. That admission undermines the trip’s credibility. Any facility can look pristine when visitors are expected. True oversight demands unannounced inspections, not choreographed tours guided by company representatives eager to impress potential host communities.
Odorless does not mean harmless. The article equates the absence of smell with the absence of emissions, a dangerous assumption. Pyrolysis and plastic-recycling operations are known sources of volatile organic compounds and fine particulates, many of which are odorless and invisible. A momentary “laundry detergent” scent tells us nothing about long-term air quality or chemical exposure risk to workers or nearby residents.
Downplaying proven fire hazards. Brightmark’s Indiana plant suffered a major fire in 2021 that required multiple agencies to contain. Officials now describe that event as “human error,” as if system design and oversight played no part. Calling it fixed because “they put a process in place” trivializes the very real possibility of another accident. The facility’s continued reliance on chemical foams - AFFF or its substitutes - introduces its own contamination risks. Declaring “every hydrant had foam ready” is not a comfort; it’s a reminder of how volatile these materials remain.
A false sense of equivalence. The claim that “we’ve got the same kinds of hazards here already” attempts to normalize new risk by comparing it to existing industrial dangers. That argument fails both logically and ethically. The question is not whether other hazards exist, the question is whether adding another high-risk, chemical-intensive operation compounds the danger to people and the environment.
Unanswered questions on accountability. Not once does the article address financial liability if an explosion, spill, or contamination event occurs. Who bears the cost - Brightmark, its investors, or Upson taxpayers? Nor does it mention the company’s prior economic troubles or regulatory citations in Indiana. Those realities matter far more than how polished the floors looked during a scheduled visit.
Permits are not protective. Officials state they will “lean on the Georgia Environmental Protection Division.” That is not oversight; it is abdication. A state permit only confirms that forms were filed correctly. It does not guarantee compliance or swift enforcement. Indiana regulators have already cited Brightmark for violations - proof that a permit is not a shield against failure.
Upson deserves honesty, not spin. Clean tours and polite quotes do not equal safety. Thomaston and Upson should listen to voters before accepting an industrial experiment that has failed to be profitable in Indiana. Macon-Bibb County Industrial Authority was already smart enough to say no to Brightmark. Why are we letting the unelected Upson County IDA and Georgia EPD decide our fate?
Robert G. Young, COL, US Army (Retired)
