Granting a permit is not evaluating safety --Dr. Sammons

Dr. Sammons responds to Brad Lofton's email. -jsq

From: Bill [Sammons]
Cc: [Dr. Noll, Kay Harris, jsq, lhenderson, hopeforcleanwater]
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [Roy Copeland, Mary Gooding]
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 14:44:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Background information on Dr. Christopher Teaf

Dear Mr. Lofton:

Having talked with many different people in different departments in multiple state governments I do not think that any of them would suggest that granting a permit is the same as "do nothing but evaluate the safety of these projects". When asked they all say the are following the guidelines set out by EPA/state regulations-- they are not evaluating the safety of each project. Many will admit in private that the regulations/guidelines are not up to date with science, but the people in the permitting agencies do not have the authority to grant the permit based on the best available science/data. It's not dissimilar to discussions of BACT-- depending on the size of the stationary source not all BACT is the same.

As an example if you look at the EPA regulations on PM 2.5

the process, which commenced in 1998, is still not finished because-- for reasons I have exhaustively explained to Mr. Ricketts, and less thoroughly to you since you have not attended as many meetings/presentations/discussions-- each time the EPA has set a potential threshold the evolving science has demanded that the level be set lower. AND there is no regulation at this point for PM smaller than 2.5 microns because the regulatory process is so slow that it is approximately four years behind the science.

Clearly the EPA in the last two weeks has declared that the subject of "carbon neutrality" needs "further study" and the new MACT and boiler rules are clear indications that the previous regulations were inadequate.

Given the fact that your statements indicate that there will be "no dioxin" release and you ignore the fact in your statement that "99% of the particulates will be removed" dismisses the truth that the most medically significant particles will not be removed, I can see how you can maintain that there is "no doubt about the safety" of the proposed plant. Unfortunately, like other statements, it simply is not true as multiple major medical organizations in the country have informed you, but, for reasons that escape logic or common sense, the Industrial Authority and the city officials of Jasper choose to ignore.

The readily available evidence on Dr. Teaf brings to mind the statement that "you get what you pay for"-- we saw it in Gretna, FL. Is that a singular incident?

Bill Sammons