By: Lydia Crawley
The Parsons Advocate
CHARLESTON – Tucker United, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and the Sierra Club were in Charleston Wednesday, November 5th to state their case to the West Virginia Air Quality Board during an Evidentiary Hearing closed to the public. Also present were representatives from Fundamental Data, the company applying for the Air Quality Permit for the Ridgeline Power Plant Project between Davis and Thomas.
During the hearing, two of the 17 objections put forth by the groups were dismissed by the Board. A third motion to dismiss another section, however, was denied, according to reports. It was reported that the two dismissed involved fugitive emissions from mobile sources, such as delivery trucks, and the other involved the consideration of end user of the data center.
Reports claim that Michael Becker, attorney for the citizens groups present at the hearing, informed the board that it was the aim of the groups to make the information in the redactions public. The groups aimed to make the information available to their scientific experts for examination and consideration so that experts can evaluate the information and present evidence.
However, this was reported to be countered by David Yaussy, attorney for Fundamental Data present at the hearing. He argued that the redacted data amounted to simple estimates from manufacturers, according to reports. The reports went on to say that Yaussy further said that the regulatory procedures would require the site to be monitored for exact emissions data and therefore limits the necessity of the redacted data. The reports further said that the citizens groups should therefore accept the manufacturer’s data at face value.
Becker, however, it is reported, did not agree with this assertion, instead arguing that his experts need the information. Upon consideration of his argument, the Air Quality Board could not be reached to agree upon a final motion. The groups have been given until Friday, November 14th to come to an agreement about the information in the redacted section. If the groups can agree upon a final motion, the motion is to be sent to the Air Quality Board that both parties can agree upon.
Should an agreement not be reached, the respective motions and objections for an in camera or sealed order could be agreed upon, reports said. Whatever the board decides, the information that will be made available to the experts will not be publicly accessible, the Air Quality Board will decide on whether to unseal the order or not.
The further evidentiary hearing is scheduled for December 3rd in Charleston.
