York County Government Statement on Silfab Solar

York County addresses common concerns related to two recent chemical incidents at Silfab Solar

In an effort to keep residents informed about the status of operations at Silfab Solar following two recent chemical incidents, and to continue to provide background and responses to commonly asked questions, York County has compiled the information below.

This information includes a summary of the compliance agreement between Silfab Solar and SC Department of Environmental Services, clarification related to zoning of Silfab’s facilities, and a response to the July 2025 letter from the SC Attorney General commonly referenced by residents.

South Carolina Department of Environmental Services (SC DES) Compliance Agreement with Silfab

• During last night’s Council meeting (3/16/26), the County was provided a copy of a formal Compliance Agreement entered into by SC DES and Silfab.
• The Compliance Agreement resulted from a full day site visit and assessment conducted by SCDES and EPA on Monday, March 9, 2026, along with County representatives.
• The SCDES and EPA review confirmed that there was not a threat to public health and safety during the chemical leaks, nor is there a current threat to public health and safety at the site.
• This is consistent with the assessment of the County’s emergency management services and first responders during their investigations into the chemical leaks.
• A link to the full Compliance Agreement is available here: https://des.sc.gov/sites/des/files/2026-03/Compliance%20Agreement%203.16.pdf
• The Compliance Agreement provides the following:
  • Manufacturing operations utilizing regulated chemicals remain halted, with access restricted to the area, pending compliance with the terms of the agreement.
  • Silfab agreed not to bring additional regulated chemicals onsite until the specified requirements have been met.
  • Silfab is required to add a third containment measure for the hydrofluoric acid (HF) leak and empty the existing HF tank to allow for a comprehensive assessment.
  • Silfab will conduct root cause analysis and submit a report SC DES for review and comment, with a final report due no later than April 13, 2026.
  • Except for the activities required by the agreement, Silfab agreed to continue to pause use of the scrubber pending compliance with the terms of the agreement.
  • Within 13 days, Silfab is required to provide SC DES proof that there are no ongoing chemical leaks at the site.
  • Silfab is required to retain a third-party professional engineer to evaluate the chemical processes, including leak prevention and response methods used in the manufacturing operations. The third-party engineer will prepare and submit a written report to SC DES for review. Along with the engineer report, Silfab is required to submit a written plan for implementing the recommendations of the engineer.
  • Silfab is required to complete a review of the site’s emergency response procedures and submit to SC DES for review. The review must address the site’s emergency response training, coordination with local emergency responders, emergency drills and exercises, and notification procedures.
• Following completion of the above required actions, Silfab is required to inform SC DES at least seventy-two (72) hours in advance of restarting delivery, handling, or use of regulated chemicals associated with the start of manufacturing activities.
• For one (1) year after execution of the Compliance Agreement (until March 17, 2027), Silfab is required to notify SC DES as soon as reasonably possible of any release or leak of chemicals on the site exceeding one (1) gallon.
• While the procedures of the Compliance Agreement are being fulfilled, Silfab is permitted to continue ongoing assembly processes on the site.

Claims Regarding Illegal Zoning

• The issues regarding zoning and permitting are before the circuit court (not Council).  The court has not declared any use by Silfab illegal.
• County Council did not rezone or make any zoning decision in this matter. The decisions regarding zoning were made beginning in 2022 by staff, without Council involvement. Staff determined that the uses by Silfab were allowed by right in its LI zoning classification.  That determination was not appealed and was confirmed as final by the circuit court.
• The subsequent zoning interpretation request, issued by staff and appealed to the BZA, did not come before County Council. State and local law dictates that all appeals from staff zoning determinations go to the BZA, and all appeals thereafter must go to the circuit court, not Council. The decision of the BZA on the interpretation request is currently on appeal to the circuit court.
• The propriety of the issuance of permits (both state level and local) have also been appealed to the courts for determination.
• In light of the determination by DES, EPA and Emergency Management officials that no health or safety threat to the public exists currently, the Council has no justifiable basis to revoke any permits.
• We understand there are bills currently pending at the State level regarding this matter.  Council has asked its attorneys/legal staff to monitor this legislation closely.  If the legislature grants Council new authority to revoke permits or COs retroactively, or to otherwise take action in this situation, Council will promptly inform the community.

Attorney General (AG) July 2025 Letter

• There is NO formal AG opinion rendered in this matter.
• The July, 2025, letter that is being referenced on social media and in emails, is NOT an AG opinion. The letter states explicitly that it is not an opinion and further states that the AG office has no intention of and no legal authority to usurp the court in matters pending before the court. The letter declined to speak to Council’s authority to take any direct action against Silfab. As also stated very clearly in the letter, none of the cases cited in the letter have upheld Council action to revoke permits.
• If the AG issues a formal opinion identifying any legal authority that directly supports revocation of permits in this instance, we will promptly inform the community.

Fee in lieu of Taxes (FILOT) and State Incentives

• The only decision made by Council regarding Silfab was related to a FILOT incentive.
• State law authorizes and proscribes the terms of these agreements, and state commerce recruits and attracts these businesses to our state for economic growth.
• State Commerce helped recruit this business to York County and specifically provided $2M in tax incentives to support Silfab’s operations. Because of Act 388 (state law governing property taxes in South Carolina) FILOTs and state incentives are commonly used across the state to remain competitive in attracting business investment and job creation.