Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Industrial Permit Concerns topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge pause on Silfab solar plant wastewater permit, cite toxic discharge and emergency-response concerns
Summary
Several residents urged York County Council to pause or require stricter conditions on a wastewater discharge permit tied to the planned Silfab solar component manufacturing facility, citing large daily flows, heavy metals and chemicals and gaps in emergency communication and evacuation planning.
During the public‑comment period on Oct. 6, multiple residents addressed the council with concerns about a wastewater discharge permit for the planned Silfab solar facility and the county’s preparedness to respond to chemical or radiological emergencies.
Frank Chernak told the council that Silfab’s operation will use and discharge large volumes of industrial wastewater and that the company’s own materials listed heavy metals (lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, nickel, silver) and volatile organics (benzene, trichloroethylene). “Silfab will use about 1,200,000 gallons of water a day, which is more than the approximate daily usage of all of Tega Cay,” Chernak said. He asked the council to pause the permit until the county requires independent verification of pretreatment, proof the plant can meet final pollution limits on day one, and a community health impact assessment.
John Worth, another resident, raised emergency‑communication concerns tied to recent regional incidents and a Labor Day water main break that he said exposed gaps in timely, specific warnings. He asked whether the county could coordinate evacuation and communication plans with neighboring jurisdictions and Duke Energy in case of a chemical release, explosion or other event requiring road closures and inter‑county response.
Council did not take immediate action during the public‑comment period; commenters asked the council to consider stronger protections before the permit allows any discharge. No formal motion or vote on the permit appears in the Oct. 6 meeting minutes; council staff did not make a presentation on this item during public comment.
