By: Lydia Crawley The Parsons Advocate
Casey Chapman and Fundamental Data have submitted their response to a request by the WV Department of Environmental Protection General Counsel Jason Wandling following a review triggered by hundreds of public comments on the proposed power plant and data center project between Davis and Thomas.
In his five page response dated May 7th, Chapman addresses that he realizes that public interest has been high, but maintains that his company is committed to “engaging constructively with local stakeholders.” Chapman also writes that the redaction are not intended to mislead the public, but to protect his company from competitors and theft.
“The public should not assume that redacting information from the public version of our application is an attempt to hide relevant data; rather, such redactions are necessary to protect innovation from theft,” Chapman writes.
Chapman outlined a few details in his response that have been weighing heavily on the minds of Tucker County residents since the project was first proposed such as water and environmental impacts, the changing landscape and noise pollution.
Chapman stated the following bullet points:
- Ridgeline does not plan any consumption or use of water resources from or discharge of wastewater to local rivers, streams, or municipal systems.
- If advanced, the project will result in the creation of substantial, high-paying, permanent jobs and generate unprecedented tax revenue for local jurisdictions.
- The plant is sited in a lowland area surrounded by hills that should substantially limit and may even completely obscure visibility of the plant from public roadways or populated areas.
- The facility expects to operate at noise levels below the threshold requiring hearing protection under OSHA regulations and is physically more than one mile from the nearest occupied structure and is buffered by topography and forest.
Chapman stated that he remains confident that the redacted materials meet the definition of “trade secrets” under the code. According to Chapman in the response trade secrets in the permit fall under two categories: information governed by binding confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements with third-party vendors and propriety data constituting trade secrets under applicable law.
Chapman went on the address the code concerns from the original letter individually before stating that the DEP has an unredacted version of the application on file that they are able to use for their own determination. Chapman further stated that he feels that this should not hinder the department’s determination and the process should continue without pause.
“The Department has an unredacted version of the application before it and its review should continue without pause. The number of inquiries about the project received by the Department does not affect the nature of the information redacted,” Chapman writes.
The response was to a review by the DEP that determined that the information claimed as confidential business information in the Air Quality Permit Application and redacted in the public version of the permit may not qualify for the designation, “as it falls under the definition of ‘Types and Amounts of Air Pollutants Discharged’,” according to a letter dated April 25th sent by the DEP to Fundamental Data and addressed to Chapman.
As a result of the review and its findings, the DEP requested further justification from Chapman and Fundamental Data that is beyond that which is listed on the confidential business information cover document. The company had 15 days from receipt of the letter to respond.
In the response, Chapman also requested that the DEP supply the company with copies of any and all Freedom of Information Requests that were filed on the matter.
