Residents and engineers urge council to block solar panel manufacturer near schools, citing chemical risks

Several public commenters at the June 2 York County Council meeting urged elected officials to halt construction and permit activity for a proposed solar panel manufacturing facility (referred to in testimony as Silfab / DILFAB / CILFAB) near Fort Mill-area schools, arguing the proposed use involves hazardous, pyrophoric chemicals and alleged zoning irregularities.

Frank Jernak, a retired engineer with decades of industrial experience, told council he had joined a group concerned about the plantand said materials used in the manufacture of solar panels include "pyrophoric" gases that "will either spontaneously ignite upon exposure to air" and hydrofluoric acid, which he described as "extremely dangerous" because of its systemic toxicity. Jernak said the site would create risks from both on-site storage and deliveries on public roads.

John Worth, who identified himself as a longtime engineer, said a recent county press release overstated authoritiespositions about safety. Worth said federal and state agencies review compliance with emissions and wastewater standards but do not "guarantee safety," and he noted the York County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) had earlier ruled that solar-panel manufacturing is not permitted in a light industrial zone. He said litigation resulted after the county did not implement the BZA ruling.

Alicia Paris told council she represents many Fort Mill residents and described the project as "a fight for the safety, health, and future of our children and our community." Paris said the facility would be located "just feet from our schools," including Flint Hill Middle School, and cited a University of South Carolina risk assessment she said estimated tens of thousands of people could be affected by a chemical release. She told council that the countyin her viewhad failed to enforce the BZA decision.

What council heard and did not do: This public forum record shows multiple residents expressed safety and zoning concerns, but the transcript does not record a council vote or staff action taken at the meeting specifically in response to these comments. Council members and staff repeatedly referenced ongoing litigation in the matter during the meeting and several speakers noted that the topic was the subject of pending court action. The county manager reminded the audience that the county had posted statements about litigation and regulatory processes.

Background referenced in testimony: Speakers referenced the York County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) decision, University of South Carolina (USC) risk analysis, and review processes by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services (referred to in testimony as DES). Speakers alleged construction permits were issued after the BZA ruling and criticized county handling of zoning verifications.

Ending: Council did not resolve those public concerns during the meeting. The transcript shows county staff and legal representatives repeatedly noting the matter is in litigation; any regulatory or permitting decisions referenced by residents are but one part of ongoing legal and administrative processes.