My own county of York, in South Carolina, continues to allow toxic spills to continue without bringing a solar plant to accountability. What’s worse is that these are occurring near public indoctrination centers and children are being affected. It looks like those that people voted in care more about a company than they do the people they claim they are to serve and is just another example of what men should not give any consent to any other man to govern them.
Dave Emanuel has the story at Palmetto State Watch Foundation:
Two chemical spills. Twelve 911 calls. Workers vomiting blood. An elementary school a thousand feet away. And a county council that keeps defending the facility responsible. York County’s handling of the Silfab Solar plant isn’t just another zoning dispute, it seems to be a case study in what happens when local government decides a company matters more than the people it was elected to protect.
Our first article about the Silfab solar facility in Fort Mill, SC was entitled, “Silfab Fort Mill- Seems the Fix is In”. Each passing day of the past 8 weeks, brings increasing indication that “Seems” is superfluous. We are not accusing anyone of doing anything illegal, immoral or fattening. But in evaluating the situation, each time we add 2 plus 2 the answer comes up minus 1.
For background information, refer to our first article, linked above, and to Silfab Fort Mill- where Nothing Can Possibly Go Wrong*
MoveSilfab, a citizen group has for a number of years has, as its name implies, been attempting to have the Silfab manufacturing facility moved so that its stored hazardous chemicals are not a threat to the community. To no avail. Even after two chemical spills, the York County Council doesn’t merely ignore their protests, it continually defends its decision to approve a facility engaged in chemical manufacturing to be built in an area zoned “Light Industrial”.
Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity (CAGI) has also addressed the potential danger Silfab’s manufacturing facility presents to Fort Mill residents. CAGI filed a lawsuit seeking to stop construction of the plant and revoke all permits. On January 29th, 2025, visiting Judge Martha Rivers paused the CAGI case that sought to stop construction on the plant and revoke all permits. You can find more details HERE. CAGI has petitioned the United States Supreme Court for “its day in court” by filing a writ of certiorari. If granted, the US Supreme Court will review CAGI’s case against Silfab.
The issue for both organizations is Silfab’s use of extremely dangerous chemicals in its manufacturing process and the county council’s refusal to address that danger.
Even after the county’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) unanimously found that solar manufacturing is NOT a permitted use within a Light Industrial zone.
Even after two hazardous chemical spills (hydrofluoric acid and potassium hydroxide).
Even after the hydrofluoric acid spill prompted Flint Hill Elementary School administrators to implement emergency procedures to protect students. (The school is located approximately 1,000 feet from Silfab.)
Even after the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services (SCDES) ordered Silfab to cease all operations pending an investigation.
Even after 12 calls to York County Fire/EMS Emergency Dispatch for service at Silfab. According to charlottestories.com, “Publicly available dispatch calls show repeated calls for breathing trouble, chest pain, vomiting, seizure activity, and other significant health and safety issues at Silfab’s factory at 7149 Logistics Lane over the past couple months.” These calls include:
- 3/30/2026, 3:59 p.m. – an emergency call came in for a person at Silfab experiencing blood pressure problems.
- 3/28/2026, 12:50 a.m. – 25-year-old woman vomiting blood with abdominal pain, lightheadedness, and headache.
- 3/26/2026, 1:01 p.m. — 23-year-old male trouble breathing call; dispatch said the patient called from inside the building
- 3/9/2026, 9:51 p.m. — neighbors called after hearing emergency evacuation alarms; no injuries were reported
- 3/4/2026, 8:03 p.m. — woman reported sickness, breathing trouble, inability to talk or swallow, and vomiting; transported to Pineville
- 3/1/2026, 6:48 p.m. — 21-year-old woman reported sickness and vomiting for about 30 minutes
- 2/26/2026, 1:42 p.m. — 45-year-old woman reported severe headache and high blood pressure; taken to Pineville Hospital
- 2/20/2026, 12:45 a.m. — 37-year-old man reported cardiac symptoms and chest pain
- 2/19/2026, 10:48 p.m. — 40-year-old woman reported trouble breathing and confusion
- 2/17/2026, about 3:00 a.m. — gas leak call brought fire, emergency management, and sheriff’s deputies; caller reported people getting sick
- 2/4/2026, 3:28 a.m. — seizure call
- 1/12/2026, 8:10 a.m. — 29-year-old man reported chest pain and difficulty breathing
A few of those calls could have been for incidents that had nothing to do with exposure to the chemicals stored at the Silfab site. But can it be coincidence that so many people at the site are coughing up blood, vomiting, having trouble breathing and experiencing severe headaches? All are common symptoms of exposure to hazardous chemicals.
For its part, it appears the York County Council has worked diligently to fulfill what is apparently part of their oath of office–to work diligently at doing nothing to find a solution to a problem that could literally result in death and serious injury. And when they are not busy doing nothing to address that problem, council members appear to be working just as diligently to keep the doors open of the facility that has created the potential for causing serious injury and death. This, in spite of the county’s own BZA ruling that Silfab is operating in clear violation of the county’s code of ordinances. In that document, Table 155.271-2 specifically DOES NOT list chemical and plastic manufacturing as permitted uses within a Light Industrial zone.
In their ruling that Silfab was in violation of county zoning, York County’s BZA members agreed unanimously. During a May 9th, 2024 meeting, the board reversed the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator that solar panel manufacturing is permitted in a Light Industrial district under Computer and Electronic Manufacturing Use. A copy of the letter announcing this decision was emailed to Greg Basden (Silfab’s Director of Operations) on May 30, 2024.
Hundreds of citizens have shown up to watch and testify regarding the Silfab solar cell manufacturing. We were here an hour early and were still moved to one of the several packed overflow rooms.
You can watch the hearing live here: https://t.co/2WNcrIHdWM pic.twitter.com/wnkRMBRTFm
— Palmetto State Watch (@WatchPalmetto) May 9, 2024
In response to ongoing lawsuits and citizen protests, the York County Council has claimed that nothing can be done to force Silfab to permanently cease manufacturing processes that are not permitted uses within a Light Industrial district. On March 23, 2026, the county issued a statement entitled, York County Clarifies Zoning Compliance and Approval Process Related to Silfab Solar.
The statement is an excellent example of “creative writing” (a euphemism for a bovine waste product). It states, “After rounds of revisions and review, the submitted construction plan for Silfab was approved on April 24, 2024. This approval included zoning approval affirming compliance with the Zoning Code.”
Which brings up the question, “If a lack of critical thinking skills isn’t a requirement for serving on the county council, why else would the council approve construction of a facility that was ruled in violation of county zoning by the county’s own BZA?”
That brings up another question, “Why have a Board of Zoning Appeals when the county council subverts its findings by “affirming (zoning) compliance a month after the BZA found that the construction plan was for a facility that was in violation of the county’s zoning ordinance?”
In what we can only call a failed attempt to justify its decision, the above referenced document goes on to state, “The Vested Rights Act is codified in the South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 6, Chapter 29, Article 11. Under the Act, once a site-specific development plan is approved, it is vested for a minimum of two years, even without any commenced construction. Vesting shields the approved plan from any rule changes that a local government might make.”
The BZA objection was filed before the site-specific development plan was approved. There were no relevant rule changes made after development plan approval. In fact, “local government” did nothing to make any relevant rule changes. Local government, in fact, doubled-down by issuing a certificate of occupancy (CO) on February 13th, 2026 in spite of multiple outstanding lawsuits. Issuance of the CO would seem to clarify the council’s view- damn the threat of poisonous chemicals, full speed ahead.
The South Carolina Public Interest Foundation published an excellent article that provides a background of the legal aspects of the Silfab case.
On March 17th, Attorney General Alan Wilson wrote to York County Council chairwoman Christi Cox asking for clarification on a number of issues. We’ll publish her response if there ever is one.
