Ashville committee seeks third‑party air and noise review for proposed data center, favors GI and asks Ohio State for health analysis

The Ashville Planning, Vision, and Economic Development Committee on June 8 discussed hiring independent consultants to review air‑quality and noise studies for a proposed data center near village homes, with members emphasizing the need for data‑driven, scientifically rigorous analysis before taking a position.

John Weber of GI told the panel the firm could “put together a scope … to basically be a third party review of this air permit application and this noise” study and expected to provide a letter report and on‑call consultation. Weber explained the typical regulatory path: developers submit permit applications to the Ohio Power Siting Board and Ohio EPA; large natural‑gas‑fired power assets often trigger Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) reviews and must demonstrate Best Available Control Technology.

Committee members pressed for specifics about proximity and public health. “The two biggest open questions, at least in this committee’s mind, are the air quality and then the noise,” one member said, noting the project under discussion is roughly an 800‑megawatt facility sited a few hundred to under 1,000 yards from nearby homes. Members asked whether the developer had already filed documents with Ohio EPA and OPSB; presenters said an OPSB application had been submitted and that the air permit may follow.

Weber outlined a stepped approach: begin with a compact third‑party review of the developer’s modeling and permit materials, flag any glaring issues, and expand the scope only if the initial scan finds items warranting deeper study. He provided a ballpark diagram for fees: an initial review “in the 10 to 15 [thousand] range,” additional consultation time “5 to 10,000,” and an illustrative combined starting estimate of roughly $25,000 for a report and some on‑call support.

Members also reviewed proposals from other groups. Ohio State offered a literature review (about $8,700) and a more expensive air‑sampling option (roughly $65,000). Empower Analytics proposed a directional health‑impact analysis for about $10,000 and a fuller dispersion study near $50,000. Some members welcomed Ohio State’s local public‑health capacity but said the full sampling price would exceed the committee’s budget unless grant support were secured. Others raised questions about Empower’s modeling approach and whether widely used low‑cost sensors would detect the small, modelled PM2.5 changes the developer projects.

The committee set informal constraints and next steps rather than taking formal action. Members said they want to keep total consultant spending in the neighborhood of $50,000 across all studies. The group signaled it would recommend GI to full council if GI confirms legal and management clearance and the price remains near the estimate; members also asked staff to pursue an Ohio State literature review and to investigate whether limited local sampling could be funded by grants.

Assignments and a tentative timeline: Jesse will forward existing project documents to GI; Jeremy will send Ohio State information about a comparable facility for potential on‑the‑ground measurement; GI will confirm internally whether it can accept the engagement and will submit a written proposal, with a draft report expected about a month after receipt of all materials. Committee members noted OPSB is expected to determine application completeness by the end of June, public hearings would occur about 45–60 days later, and the board’s final decision could follow in October–November.

The committee did not approve a consultant contract at the meeting; instead members agreed to wait for GI’s written proposal and Ohio State’s clarified costs before recommending consultants to the full council. The body adjourned after assigning follow‑up tasks.