|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A newly released health risk assessment from the University of South Carolina (USC) has underscored community concerns related to Silfab Solar’s proposed manufacturing facility in Fort Mill, S.C., projecting potential chemical dispersion risks to nearby schools and neighborhoods.
The Canadian-based solar panel manufacturer insists its safety measures are robust and compliant with federal standards and local zoning regulations. Silfab currently operates two factories in Washington state. Its planned Fort Mill location would be the firm’s first photovoltaic cell manufacturing facility.
Silfab estimates it will bring 800 jobs to the region (starting at an hourly wage of $19). The company has been granted tax incentives by county officials looking to land its $150 million dollar investment.
The USC report was compiled by Arnold School of Public Health professor Dwayne E. Porter at the request of the Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity (CAGI) group. It used the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) RMP*Comp protocol to model worst case scenario releases of four chemicals used in solar cell production: silane, anhydrous ammonia, hydrochloric acid (37%), and hydrofluoric acid (50%).
Porter’s report concluded that a catastrophic release of hydrochloric acid could disperse up to 3.4 miles, potentially reaching Flint Hill Elementary School and Flint Hill Middle School, which are projected to have a combined 1,500 students by 2026. Anhydrous ammonia and hydrofluoric acid could spread 2.2 and 2.0 miles, respectively, while a silane explosion could cause overpressure effects up to 0.2 miles.
Upon the release of the report Silfab issued a press statement disputing the findings and made members of their staff available for interview. FITSNews spoke with the company’s director of operations Greg Basden about the report – and Silfab’s risk mitigation practices.
(Click to view)
***
“It’s both inaccurate and incomplete,” Basden said, arguing the report’s worst case scenario for hydrochloric acid, which modeled a 51,961 pound release as if it released into open air — ignored the firm’s passive containment measures.
“Our tanks for hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid … are sitting in a containment vessel,” Basden said, explaining that ruptures would be contained within an enclosed building, which he argues significantly reduces risks.
Basden also criticized the report’s use of rural terrain assumptions, which assume flat, unobstructed land and predict wider dispersion than releases in urban environments.
“It’s not flat,” he said. “There’s a lot of trees and there’s a lot of buildings around, and that fits the definition of urban.”
Basden further highlighted that the report was conducted at the request of the Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity (CAGI), a group founded by Fort Mill resident Andy Lytle. As our audience is well aware, Lytle has led efforts to fight the construction of the facility through the zoning and legal processes.
***
“I’m confident … their report would match ours” if the university had collaborated with Silfab, Basden said, calling the report “irresponsible” for not reflecting the company’s fail-safe procedures.
FITSNews asked Basden how the firm interpreted a unanimous board of zoning appeals decision which determined that Silfab’s facility doesn’t fall under the county’s light manufacturing zoning requirements.
“From the very beginning we were zoned appropriately, it’s light industrial,” he said, citing approvals for air, wastewater, and sprinkler system permits from York County and state officials. “It’s unfortunate that the zoning decision was overturned.”
“The county came back and they gave us a letter, a legal notice that the appeal decision didn’t apply to us, so that allows us to continue,” he said, referring to the continued construction of the facility.
***
RELATED | S.C. SOLAR PANEL FACTORY DRAWS COMMUNITY IRE, LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY
***
“If you go to the York county ordinance for the definition of light industrial, what you’re going to read is … no visual smoke, no odor – those are key things,” he added. “It says no chemical manufacturing – we don’t manufacture chemicals. Yes, we use chemicals, but the chemicals we use are part of our process. It says you can’t be a wastewater treatment facility. We’re not, we do pre-treatment. We check all the boxes for light industrial.”
Basden said he anticipates production of panels at the plant will begin “very soon.”
“Right now we have a little over 200 people, and we’ll be ramping up quickly to about 800 over the next three or four months… production is right around the corner,” Basden added.
FITSNews noted that Silfab has aggressively pushed back on arguments made by community groups like CAGI, and invited Basden to address members of the community directly on behalf of the firm to attempt to assuage their concerns about living and sending their children to school near the factory.
“Safety is obviously the most important thing for all of our people here,” Basden pointed to his willingness to relocate to live near the facility.
***
***
“I relocated here about a year ago with my family,” Basden said.
He further reiterated his “confidence in all of our safety measures,” which he said naturally protect the surrounding “neighborhood and the community.”
“They’re going to get that level of safety for free, because nothing’s more important than the safety of our team members,” Basden said.
Attorney J. Cameron Halford told said he believed the university did a good job on the report.
“The USC report is balanced,” he said. “I think it is factual, and I think it shows some glaring discrepancies.”
Halford represents intervening neighbor Walter Buchanan alongside the CAGI group and provided FITSNews with a condensed version of the legal arguments (.pdf) he has made on behalf of those clients.
“It keeps me awake at night,” Buchanan said. “What if this thing goes active? What if they’re wrong? Nobody wants that on their conscience. Ultimately, somebody – most likely a court – is going to determine that somebody’s right and somebody’s wrong. The question is, will they be in operation when that occurs.”
***
***
S.C. circuit court judge Martha M. Rivers has stayed CAGI’s lawsuit pending the disposition of Silfab’s zoning board appeal ruling – telling attorneys representing York County, Silfab and CAGI that they must attempt to resolve the dispute in mediation before the case can be set for trial.
Multiple sources familiar with the litigation tell FITSNews mediation was unsuccessful.
Anyone with information they would like to share about this story is encouraged to email Dylan@FITSNews.com. Also, if you’re passionate about this issue (from any perspective) please consider availing yourself of our “open mic policy” and submit a letter to the editor or guest column for publication.
Count on FITSNews to keep our audience apprised of the latest developments related to this story…
***
THE USC REPORT…
HALFORD’S ARGUMENTS…
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
(Via: Travis Bell)
Dylan Nolan is the director of special projects at FITSNews. He graduated from the Darla Moore school of business in 2021 with an accounting degree. Got a tip or story idea for Dylan? Email him here. You can also engage him socially @DNolan2000.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
6 comments
Silfab is bringing clean energy jobs and a $150 million investment to Fort Mill—a win for the local economy and the environment . The USC report, commissioned by CAGI and Andy Lytle, is based on exaggerated worst-case scenarios that ignore Silfab’s safety systems and containment measures . Greg Basden rightly points out that the report assumes flat, rural terrain, not the actual urban setting, and overlooks the facility’s robust safety protocols . This fearmongering, led by Lytle, Halford, and Buchanan, seems more about obstruction than genuine concern . Let’s support innovation and progress, not baseless opposition .
Baseless opposition?
Show me another company that has 50,000+ lbs of level 3 toxic chemicals that can cause irritation of eyes, nose throat, cessation of breathing and explosions, has its own wastewater treatment plant on-site less than 0.25 miles of two schools.
Oil refineries and rocket companies have safety systems as well, but you don’t see those operations near vulnerable communities areas. Safety systems do fail and/or malfunction. Is the inherent risk to health and safety worth it?
Where is your York County letter telling you can operate in a light industrial zone and who signed it?
Where is your zoning verification letter?
Show me your air permit and your RMP. Do they both use rural or do they both use urban or did you use whichever suited your needs / gave you favorable results?
How is an independent/ third party report biased when they used Silfabs own inputs from the permit application, which is public record.
Silfab, in one of the most divisive times in our country’s history has truly united our community to move you out of Fort Mill. We aren’t against solar or innovation or jobs, we are for companies that don’t circumvent the law and due process and backdoor their way into getting what they want.
Your point about oil refineries is unfounded.
Take a drive around the Gulf coast of Texas, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, East Chicago, Batton Rouge, etc and then tell me Oil Refineries don’t operate near vulnerable communities. MUCH of the US oil refining capacity is in heavily populated areas.
Rocket companies are absolutely in the middle of nowhere like Northrop Grumman in Corinne, UT.
I don’t like Silfab either but stick to actual facts.
Stick to facts: Page 7 of the SC DES 23 page response to citizen concerns on the DES-Silfab website states: “Approximately 23% of the 3 km area surrounding the facility was shown to have urban-type characteristics as identified by GIS technology. In this case, the model should is rural dispersion coefficients per guidelines.”
The regulator used rural per guidelines. USC professors used rural per guidelines. Silfab used urban, against guidelines.
There are hundreds of concerned parents that the 3 gentlemen you noted are standing up for. They are courageous for fighting for us and our kids. The idea that parents’ concerns for the health and safety of their own children isn’t genuine is wild. Technological innovation is great, but we’ve all experienced technology fail. The community along with an empowered board of appeals have said no to this unacceptable risk.
Move Silfab.
Stick to facts: Page 7 of the SC DES 23 page response to citizen concerns on the DES-Silfab website states: “Approximately 23% of the 3 km area surrounding the facility was shown to have urban-type characteristics as identified by GIS technology. In this case, the model should is rural dispersion coefficients per guidelines.”
The regulator used rural per guidelines. USC professors used rural per guidelines. Silfab used urban, against guidelines.
There are hundreds of concerned parents that the 3 gentlemen you noted are standing up for. They are courageous for fighting for us and our kids. The idea that parents’ concerns for the health and safety of their own children isn’t genuine is wild. Technological innovation is great, but we’ve all experienced technology fail. The community along with an empowered board of appeals have said no to this unacceptable risk.
Move Silfab.
We do have the facts. Silfab is using chemicals that are explosive and toxic in an area zoned for light industry use. You are not a light manufacturing company. Find an area that is properly zoned for your type of heavy industrial manufacturing. MOVE SILFAB!
Thank you Dylan Nolan for following and reporting this situation.