Residents urge York County to revoke Silfab permits, cite hazardous chemicals and proximity to schools

Dozens of Fort Mill residents urged York County Council on May 19 to rescind permits and approvals for a Silfab Solar manufacturing site they say operates as heavy industrial chemical manufacturing next to Flint Hill Elementary and Middle schools.

Speakers told the council the facility stores and uses hazardous chemicals, operates water and wastewater treatment for manufacturing use and has built or expanded multiple structures that they say are not allowed in a light industrial zone. Several presenters pointed to the Board of Zoning Appeals’ unanimous decision classifying the operation as heavy industrial and cited York County ordinance 155.1239, which they said allows revocation of permits issued in error or procured by materially incorrect information.

The issue drew repeated, emotional public comment. “Light industrial does not include hazardous material treatment or storage,” said Lana Vivant, who identified her address in Fort Mill. She and other speakers said Silfab’s permit applications, air dispersion modeling inputs and risk management plan understate potential off‑site impacts. Brandon McCluskey cited a Phase 2 report from the USC Arnold School of Public Health that, he said, expands worst‑case release radii for hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids to miles and would affect parts of York and Mecklenburg counties.

Other residents presented similar concerns about toxic chemical volumes and proximity to children. Jennifer Williams, who said she lives about a mile from the site, told council members Silfab plans to “manufacture, not just assemble, solar cells,” use “bulk quantities of regulated hazardous chemicals and gases,” and treat about 1,000,000 gallons of water a day with on‑site treatment before pumping water back to Rock Hill.

Speakers asked the council to use county authority under ordinance 155.1239 to revoke permits and approvals they said were issued based on incomplete or incorrect information. Several residents also asked the council to audit the fee‑in‑lieu‑of‑tax (FILOT) grant associated with the project; one speaker referred to a roughly $2,000,000 development grant described in public comment.

Council staff told the room that York County has been named as a defendant in litigation tied to the matter and that the county’s attorneys have advised against public comment while cases are pending. The chair reiterated that the county will rely on legal counsel and noted the zoning issues are also before South Carolina circuit court.

Council discussion at the meeting did not include a vote to revoke permits. After public comment concluded, the council moved on to the consent agenda and other business. Later, while in executive session, the council authorized a press release on the Silfab matter and voted to authorize the county manager and council chair to issue that release.

The county attorney, council members and staff did not offer a timetable for any administrative revocation; several council members asked staff to compile the documents presented by residents and to return with them for discussion at a future meeting.