Residents cite USC health modeling and urge York County to pause SILFAB permits; council asks legal staff to review

Residents and community members urged York County Council on Jan. 1 to act on newly presented health modeling tied to the proposed SILFAB facility, saying the analysis shows chemicals at the site could produce dangerous conditions within minutes and place nearby schools and neighborhoods at risk.

At public forum, Ashley Horn said a USC Arnold School of Public Health assessment used ALOHA emergency modeling and examined five chemicals planned for storage, and concluded that in multiple realistic scenarios "toxic concentrations capable of causing life‑threatening or irreversible injury can form and travel miles." She told the council the study shows "the critical issue identified in the report is time" because hazardous clouds can form within minutes and "children do not have minutes."

Nearby resident John Worth described similar findings from the assessment, telling council that "silane will ignite upon contact with air and instantly cause overlapping toxic fire and blast zones" and that "an‑hydrous ammonia creates immediate dangerous conditions that can extend more than 2 miles from the site." Worth said the modeled exposure zone would include Flint Hill schools, more than 1,500 students and other community facilities.

Brandon Langford cited a July 14, 2025 opinion from the South Carolina attorney general and said the legal guidance affirms the council's police‑power authority to act when a permitted use threatens public health, safety or welfare. "There is no absolute vested right in a permit when credible safety risks exist," Langford told the council, and he urged enforcement of a unanimous Board of Zoning Appeals ruling that staff had previously said was being ignored.

Council members responded by asking county staff and the county attorney's office to review the USC assessment, the attorney general opinion, and legal options for staying or revoking permits. One council member said the AG opinion and the report should be reviewed to identify "what we can do for next steps." Another requested that staff collect and circulate the documents presented at the meeting and brief council in upcoming sessions.

No immediate regulatory action was taken during the meeting. Council members said they would pursue legal review and additional information before deciding whether to place holds on future permits or take other administrative steps. The county attorney and planning staff told council they would examine deed history, the BZA ruling, and possible administrative tools and report back.

The council scheduled further discussion and indicated it expected staff and legal to return with recommendations; no ordinance or permit revocation was adopted on Jan. 1.