East Whiteland Supervisors Table Data Center Project Changes Amid Resident Opposition
Developers of a proposed data center project in East Whiteland, PA, are seeking further changes, including eliminating water cooling and reducing the building size, after preliminary construction has begun. The East Whiteland Board of Supervisors tabled a vote on the cooling system changes amidst continued opposition from residents concerned about the project's environmental impact on a Superfund site. The developers argue the changes would conserve water.
Developers Green Fig LLC and Sentinel Data Centers are once again requesting significant changes to their proposed 1.5 million-square-foot data center project located at an East Whiteland Superfund site in Chester County, Pennsylvania, even as preliminary construction has commenced. The latest "field change" request involves removing cooling towers, eliminating water cooling, and installing air-chilled units on the building's roofs, a proposal similar to one previously withdrawn in May.
The East Whiteland Board of Supervisors voted 2-1 to table approval of these proposed changes, with Chairman Scott Lambert and Supervisor Clinton Smith citing unresolved questions. Supervisor Peter Fixler cast the dissenting vote, arguing the revised plan, which would also slash the building's size from 1.5 million to 536,000 square feet, represents an environmentally responsible alternative by significantly reducing the project's daily water consumption from over 3 million gallons to nearly zero. The developers' attorney, Lou Colagreco, emphasized that the decision is straightforward: use an approved water-intensive cooling system or an air-chilled alternative for water conservation.
Community members have voiced strong opposition for months, expressing fears about the data center's impact on health and the environment, particularly its proximity to the contaminated Foote Mineral Co. Superfund site. Residents, like Tony Gianino and Jeff Katz, criticized the developer for attempting to introduce substantial project alterations through a "field change" and accused them of trying to reintroduce previously rejected plans via the "back door." The board chairman noted the possibility that the developers might withdraw their offer to shrink the project if the changes are not approved.