Ashley Horn, a resident of Regent Park who lives less than a mile from Silfab, told York County Council the University of South Carolina Arnold School of Public Health conducted an analysis that modeled releases of five chemicals planned for storage and use at the facility. "They found that in multiple scenarios, toxic concentrations capable of causing life-threatening or irreversible injury can form and travel miles from Silfab," Horn said during the public forum.

John Worth, another nearby resident, summarized the study’s findings in greater detail: he cited anhydrous ammonia’s potential to create immediate dangerous conditions extending more than two miles, silane’s extreme flammability, and hydrofluoric acid’s potential to cause delayed fatal deep-tissue injury. "Exposure begins immediately and spreads across an increasing area," Worth said, adding that emergency responders measured in minutes cannot prevent initial exposure that can unfold in seconds.

Brandon Langford asked council to consider a July 14 letter from the South Carolina attorney general that he said confirms the council retains police-power authority to act when a permitted use threatens public health and safety. "There is no absolute vested right in a permit when credible safety risks exist," Langford said, and he urged the council to enforce a prior Board of Zoning Appeals unanimous ruling that the use was not appropriate for the light-industrial zone.

Several speakers asked the county to pause or deny further permitting while legal and technical reviews proceed. Council members responded by requesting that staff and the county attorney review the USC assessment and the AG letter and return with legal options; one council member explicitly asked staff to identify "what we can do for next steps" to manage permits and legal risk.

Council did not take formal action on Silfab at the meeting. During committee and member comments later in the agenda, multiple council members reiterated the request for staff and legal to examine the independent health and engineering analysis and the AG guidance and report back with possible administrative or legal remedies.

What’s next: Council directed staff and the county attorney to review the materials and identify possible next steps; no vote or permit suspension occurred at the meeting.