Written by Timothy J. Hegarty, A Concerned Citizen of York County:
By now, it is abundantly clear that SCDES, also known as the SC Department of Environmental Services, would be more appropriately named if referred to as the SC Department of Economic Services as you will come to realize reading this article. Admittedly, the article is a little long but it clearly spells out why the Silfab issue in Fort Mill clearly underscores the impact to citizens when the top environmental regulatory agency in the state restructures to support economic competitiveness over its core environmental responsibilities.
The recently issued Compliance Agreement between SCDES and Silfab Solar is an excellent example. The document is dated March 16, 2026, and is intended to allow Silfab to potentially return to the manufacture and production of solar cells and modules following a verified discharge of Potassium Hydroxide and what is described as a drip of Hydrofluoric Acid.
These are the issues I have noted as significantly concerning in this document:
- Page 3, #11. The last sentence states that “HF (Hydrofluoric Acid) is stored and will be used at the Facility at a concentration of 49%, below the applicable concentration to qualify as a Regulated Substance under Part 68 and Section 112(r)”.
- This is noteworthy because at 50% concentration HF becomes a Regulated Substance. HF at 49% is considered a dangerous acid that can cause severe delayed-onset burns and deep tissue damage. In general, HF is an extremely corrosive and toxic chemical that can also cause severe hypocalcemia (a dangerous blood condition) and potential cardiac arrest upon exposure. The SCDES considers a 1% difference in concentration enough to deem HF safe to store and use in the current Silfab location 850 feet from schools.
- Page 4, #13d. Silfab is directed to “Notify the Department as soon as reasonably possible of any future releases of any chemical from any piping or tank system”.
- Reasonably possible is a weak requirement allowing for much interpretation and delay. This should read “Immediately following notification to EMS and affected neighboring property owners”.
- The words “of any quantity” should be included following “future releases” to ensure that it includes spills, leaks, drips or any other description that would constitute a release.
- Page 5, #19. The last sentence states “While not yet required, Silfab did not produce documentation for process safety information (PSI) and process hazard analysis (PHA) for HCL during the inspection.
- This statement is concerning and requires clear explanation. It is a double negative; it’s not yet required, yet SCDES felt it necessary to state that it was not provided. Why is this confusing statement included in the document?
- Page 5, #2. “…continue cessation of Commissioning Activities involving the handling or use of Regulated Substances or HF and pause delivery of additional Regulated Substances to the Facility…”
- The above sentence highlights the inconsistency within the document to references of Regulated Substances and HF even within the same sentence.
- This is true on pages 3, 5 and 6 where sometimes it states Regulated Substances alone, sometimes it includes HF and there’s even one such reference that includes Potassium Hydroxide. Such inconsistency only serves to add confusion and opportunity for failure to comply.
- Page 6, #7. States “For one (1) year after the execution date of this Compliance Agreement, provide notice to the Department as soon as reasonably possible of any release or leak of any chemical regulated under the Clean Air Act, EPCRA, or CERCLA exceeding one (1) gallon from any piping or tank system at the facility regardless of whether such release or leak would be reportable under law”.
- This is only applicable for one year. Why not in perpetuity?
- It uses the vague “as soon as reasonably possible” language again.
- It only applies to amounts exceeding one gallon. Is that one gallon in one continuous spill? One gallon per hour? Per day? Per week? Again, vague language only allows for confusion and potential failue to comply.
- Silfab is on record in their last press conference as saying that they didn’t report the HF leak because “they weren’t obligated to”. This document needs to use firm, strict and even burdensome language in the event Silfab is ever able to reach manufacture or production status in the future.
You can read the full compliance agreement between SCDES and Silfab Solar by clicking HERE
The mission of the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services (SCDES) is to protect and preserve the environment and natural resources of South Carolina for the benefit of all its residents. However, the SCDES 2026 Budget presentation to the House Ways & Means Constitutional Subcommittee dated February 4, 2025, page 8 is titled “Permitting – #1 Priority”. Page 9 of this presentation lists their top priorities in the following order:
- Improving Permitting Timeframes (this document does not but other documents specifically state a SCDES primary goal to issue permits within 90 days of application)
- Enhancing Delivery of Business Services
- Hazardous Waste Clean-up
You can read the full report by clicking HERE
Page 10 of this document lists the following Critical Need: “…Additional funding is needed to ensure adequate Agency staffing, a reduction in permit timeframes and continued economic competitiveness”. Page 10 also includes the following prediction: “Impact of not Receiving Funding: Permit timeframes will increase and impact SC’s economic competitiveness”.
Much reference to Economic Competitiveness and Business Services, not so much to the Mission Statement reference “to protect and preserve the environment and natural resources of SC for the benefit of all its residents”. Under normal circumstances, these issues seem to indicate that SCDES has abandoned its core mission. In the situation of Silfab, when violation of zoning laws have allowed a heavy industrial facility to be placed in a densely populated area adjacent to two schools, this mission shift from “protecting and preserving” to “economic competitiveness” is simply careless and irresponsible.
SCDES Director Myra Reece needs to hop in a car with her key department heads, swing by the SC State House to pick up Governor McMaster and take a ride to Flint Hill Elementary School and the Silfab facility to see what their policies have allowed.
It is way past time for SCDES (and the York County Government for that matter) to stop equivocating on reasons why they can’t (won’t?) take actions in this matter to protect the residents of Fort Mill.
Silfab Solar, York County Council and Management and SCDES all need to accept and admit that the intentional and unintentional errors and omissions made by all three parties during the FILOT submittal and approval process, the air quality permitting process and the zoning compliance process collectively contributed to this issue. This issue cannot be corrected by Compliance Agreements, mediation or remediation. This glaringly incompatible use at 7149 Logistics Lane can only be properly resolved by undoing what errors and omissions have allowed to occur and “Move Silfab”.
Respectfully,
Timothy J. Hegarty
Fort Mill, York County, SC resident
Proud American
SCPIF is not directly affiliated with any litigation of this issue