Re: “Chemical company one step closer” (TNT, 5-5).
According to the article, “The chemicals would be nonexplosive, mainly used in water treatment and cleaning, according to information from the city.”
In the Final Environmental Impact Statement, we finally got both the applicant and the city to admit that in fact when acids and bleach mix, chlorine gas is the result. I find this continued expression of “water treatment” completely inadequate.
Our little town is undeserving of this toxic chemical plant so close to residences, businesses, major transportation routes, the Sounder commuter station and right next to the White River. It would be on soils prone to liquefaction during seismic events and on a piece of property whose structures were significantly damaged duing the 1949 earthquake.
Now that the city has published the final EIS, which excluded this information about the damage of past earthquakes, we need help and guidance to continue to oppose. We have done the best we could on little resources.
We have retained legal advice by holding garage sales. We have tried involving and inspiring elected officials to care. There is a lot more daylight on this construction project than there was seven years ago, but the bottom line is there now is a Sepa Decision Letter of Approval for a project to construct a chemical plant.
How do we win?