Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Industrial Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents urge Fort Mill district to press York County to revoke Silfab permits after university health-risk report
Summary
Three parents told the school board that a University of South Carolina phase‑1 health‑risk assessment and outside experts show Silfab Solar’s proposed heavy‑industrial facility could endanger nearby schools and vulnerable residents; they urged the district to demand county action or join litigation.
Brenda McCluskey, a Fort Mill resident, told the board she supplied a phase‑1 health‑risk assessment from the University of South Carolina’s Arnold School of Public Health and said it models worst‑case air dispersion for chemicals Silfab plans to store and use. "This report is phase 1 of an ongoing health risk assessment…in regards to the dangers posed by Silfab at its proposed heavy industrial factory," McCluskey said, urging the board to act as adjacent property owners.
Mary Katherine Langford, who said she relocated her family because of safety concerns, cited the USC modeling and district enrollment figures and warned the maps show many Fort Mill schools inside risk radii. She told the board the report estimates about 1,408 students within a 0.2‑mile radius for silane, about 6,611 students inside a 2‑mile radius for hydrofluoric acid, and roughly 8,700 students inside a 3.4‑mile radius for hydrochloric acid. "Put children first every day," Langford said, urging the district not to open Flint Hills schools while the facility remains sited nearby.
Jamie Costilla said the community has sought scientific and legal review and urged the school board to use its authority: "The failure to act is not just negligence, it's complicity in endangering the health and safety of our children," she said, referencing South Carolina code language about permit approvals and remedies for adjacent property owners. Costilla asked the board to demand York County revoke permits, to join litigation, or to press for Silfab’s relocation.
Board members did not take a formal vote during the public‑comment period. The district’s leadership did not offer an immediate commitment to legal action on the record; board discussion that followed moved on to other agenda items, including the superintendent search and budget planning.
Why this matters: Parents and nearby residents asked a public‑school governing body to use its standing as an adjacent landowner to seek reversal of county permits and to protect students from potential chemical exposure. The board may consider whether to seek counsel, request additional technical review, or coordinate with York County officials and state regulators before any school‑opening decisions are finalized.
