York County Responds. But Where Are the Answers?

On March 17, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson raised serious questions about zoning, permitting, and oversight of the Silfab Solar facility.

York County has now issued its response. But despite the length of the letter, key questions remain unanswered, and no clear accountability or forward plan was outlined.

The County states:

• Council only approved incentives

• Council was not involved in zoning or permits

• Staff followed established processes

• Ongoing litigation limits Council action

But:

• Incentives help secure projects and influence where companies locate

• County Council establishes policy and oversees departments issuing approvals

• Following internal processes does not guarantee the interpretation was correct

• The Attorney General’s letter suggests local authority may still exist
  

While the response focuses heavily on past actions and legal process, it does not address:

• Whether policies will be reviewed

• Whether oversight will be strengthened

• Whether safeguards will be evaluated

• What steps, if any, will be taken moving forward

The County also states that no regulated chemical operations are occurring on site. But the word "regulated" matters.

For example, Silfab uses hydrofluoric acid (HF) at approximately 49% concentration. While this concentration may fall below certain regulatory thresholds for the liquid itself, hydrofluoric acid at that level can still emit hydrogen fluoride gas, which is regulated as a Category 3 pollutant due to its potential to cause death or permanent injury after very short exposure to small amounts.

The serious nature of these chemicals cannot be minimized by regulatory definitions alone.

More broadly, concerns have developed over time, including:

• Chemical incidents and emergency calls

• Questions about safety systems and equipment readiness

• Delayed reporting of incidents

• Issues addressed only after they were discovered or reported

These patterns raise questions about transparency, operational readiness, and whether issues are being proactively managed.

This also raises questions about whether the facility is operating as a strong safety partner and steward within the community, particularly given its proximity to homes and schools.

And perhaps most importantly:

Despite the County’s response, no documentation has been provided showing submission and approval of a Zoning Compliance Application as required under York County ordinances 155.1122 and 155.1123.

After all of these statements and explanations, the core question remains: Where is the zoning compliance approval?

Fort Mill families deserve transparency, accountability, and clear answers.