14 Comments
User's avatar
Anon E Muss's avatar

Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission? Having been through and still in the LEAP fiasco, I'm leery. Simply put, I'm not against investments that will economically benefit the community - but please don't steal or poison my water or poison my land or build the infrastructure and then decide it's cheaper in Mexico and leave us with another Superfund site. Fair enough?

Expand full comment
Dale Berry's avatar

I have high hopes that PRF will improve the logistics of the next set of meetings. Last night, 2/3rds of the attendees were not in the meeting area, but were standing crowded into the lobby which did not have audio (as far as I could tell). The acoustics were poor with hard reflecting surfaces interfering with sound distribution. The audio system was underpowered. Audio delivery was poor - speakers were not prepped to speak directly into the microphone. No one from PRF interceded to remedy that. The Korean interpreters voice did not carry at all. Many people could not see the presentation as it was at an awkward angle from the lobby. The time for Q&A and interaction with the SK Hynix representatives was much too short and limited. PRF, please spring for Fowler Hall next time or a Union ballroom with a dedicated AV crew so that all attendees can hear and see everything spoken and presented in these important meetings.

PS: And also, please ditch the PRF rah-rah speech. We need to hear directly from SK Hynix, not you. Thank you.

Expand full comment
Jennet's avatar

Yes, it felt like a one-sided approach. They were not interested in taking too many real questions from the community.

Expand full comment
Jennet's avatar

Great coverage. Thank you, Dave! Read once again and noticed a few weird places. For example, SK Hynix claimed PFAS will not be created. In the APC meeting, the PRF people said PFAS will not be used. People have been asking if they will use PFAS. No one has been interested in if it will be created.

Expand full comment
Erin Easter's avatar

I noticed that as well, but I think it was more a translation issue than anything.

Expand full comment
Jennet's avatar

So will they use PFAS?

Expand full comment
Erin Easter's avatar

No, according to SK.

Expand full comment
Kelsie Newberry's avatar

Respectfully, can you explain why this government website states SK WILL be using PFAS at their West Lafayette location? About 3/4 of the way down the page, it says:

“PFAS Management: SK hynix will use its best efforts to segregate known process per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) that contain chemicals from other waste streams to a closed bulk storage system for off-site management by licensed and permitted treatment and disposal facilities.”

https://www.nist.gov/chips/sk-hynix-indiana-west-lafayette

Expand full comment
Erin Easter's avatar

It is a required component by the federal government, which you can find on all CHIPS federally funded projects in the community impact document. They must have a plan for dealing with the waste. They've opted to not use them at this facility.

Expand full comment
Kelsie Newberry's avatar

Can you please share the community impact document and the page you are referring to?

Expand full comment
Ed Teach's avatar

Again, is there a realistic scenario in which this doesn't either go in at the re-zoned spot or at the original location right across the street? I know every bit of distance from the neighborhood helps, but it seems like a pretty minor effective difference.

Expand full comment
Jennet's avatar

It should not go to either site and should not be near anyone’s home. Rejecting this rezone will reduce the toxic area by 50%, and logically disqualify the other site. Since both PRF and SL Hynix claimed they care about community, community is widely concerned now, they should go to an appropriate location, not squeeze into neighborhoods.

Expand full comment