Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Industrial Safety Silfab topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to block Silfab plant near schools, cite chemical‑hazard concerns
Summary
Multiple residents told York County Council on June 2 they oppose a Silfab solar‑panel manufacturing facility planned near schools, citing silane, hydrofluoric acid and other chemical hazards. Speakers said litigation and Board of Zoning Appeals rulings are unresolved.
Several residents used the council’s public comment period on June 2 to object to the proposed Silfab (referred to in public comments as Silfab/Dilfab) solar‑panel manufacturing facility planned near Fort Mill schools and neighborhoods.
Frank Jernak, a retired engineer with 42 years’ experience in industrial plants, said the plant would be heavy industry and warned of chemical risks. Jernak described silane as “pyrophoric” and warned of “a risk of significant explosion from the 23,000 pounds of silane gas at this site or on our roads by regular deliveries.”
Alicia Paris told council the site sits “just feet from our schools, separated only by a fence,” and called the county’s handling of permitting and approvals “a betrayal of trust.” She cited a University of South Carolina risk assessment and said it estimated that “over 53,000 people could be affected by a spill.”
John Worth, who said he has more than 40 years of engineering and manufacturing experience, disputed a county press release he said misrepresented the status of litigation and permit decisions. Worth said no court had ruled and that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) had stayed some matters pending appeal. He said the BZA had determined solar‑panel manufacturing is not allowed in the county’s light industrial zoning district and argued the county should respect that ruling.
Speakers also raised transportation and permitting concerns. Several referenced ongoing litigation and expressed distrust of permit reviews and claims made in public statements.
Council did not take action on the plant during this meeting. County staff reiterated that litigation and permitting matters for the project are the subject of ongoing legal process and public information releases.
Why it matters: Residents described the proposed plant as involving hazardous materials and expressed concern about proximity to schools and neighborhoods. Several said a zoning board ruling and litigation remain unresolved and urged council to intervene or require stricter review.
What’s next: No council action recorded in the meeting minutes on the plant; speakers said court appeals and the BZA process were still active and likely to determine next steps.
