Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Approving construction of a facility that uses hazardous chemicals close to a residential area never seems like a wise idea. But that’s exactly what the York County Council did when it approved the Silfab Solar facility in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

There’s no doubt that electricity generated by solar panels offers a number of benefits. To encourage more companies to start producing solar panels, or expand existing capacity, the Biden administration agreed to award a total of $23,876,822,809 to a host of renewable energy companies to pursue the manufacture and distribution of “green energy” products. It came as no surprise that individual grants were to be given out as freely as the Tooth Fairy placing money under pillows for lost teeth, but in much larger amounts.

Silfab Solar Cells SC, which has built a new manufacturing facility in Fort Mill, SC was scheduled to be one of the recipients of taxpayer funds. Silfab was listed on the Department of Energy’s grant list as being scheduled to receive $4,964,999. Unfortunately, for Silfab and all the other companies standing in line with their corporate hands out, on October 8th, 2025, the Trump administration cancelled all grants.

Losing almost $5 million in free money didn’t seem to matter as Silfab is charging ahead with the finishing touches on its now operational Fort Mill facility. And that has created a number of problems as residents and community groups in the Fort Mill area have organized protests to voice their concerns about potential environmental impacts, questions about the transparency of the approval process and the fact that the hazardous chemicals used in the manufacturing process place approximately 1,500 school kids in the kill zone in the event of a mishap.

The major concerns about the potential health hazard that the facility presents are enumerated in The Health Risk Assessment-Phase 3 Report, released 12/23/2025 by the University of South Carolina (USC) Department of Environmental Health Sciences and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Division of Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health. That report, in addition to the Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports, documents the strong concerns about the potential danger posed by the hazardous chemicals used in manufacturing solar panel cells.

The report notes, “Silfab officials have listed 21 chemicals, most of them known to be hazardous in the quantities indicated, on its Slug Discharge Control Plan. However, this report investigated only the following chemicals to be delivered/stored at the Silfab facility: ammonia, nitrous oxide, silane, hydrochloric acid, and hydrofluoric acid.

“Furthermore, it is important to note that there are several additional hazardous effects not considered in this report, such as: the adverse effects of other bulk chemicals stored at the Silfab facility, chemical reactions and chemical mixing, particulates, hazardous fragments, and cascading events, the latter where one hazard initiates another and potentially another. An example of cascading events is an explosion that breaches containment vessels and the facility’s façade and leads to the release of one or more toxic chemicals to the environment.”

Keep in mind that with regard to their effects on human life, these chemicals can be as deadly as a bullet invading a vital organ. Below is one of several maps from the Health Risk Assessment Report that shows the toxicity intensity at various distances from the release point of hydrochloric acid. At 1500 feet, an intensity of 100 parts per million would result in serious, permanent injury; inside the red circle (less than 1500 feet from the chemical’s release point, the result would be death. At 3531 feet, an intensity of only 22 parts per million would result in serious injury. Even at a distance of 11,616 feet, (2.2 miles) an intensity of only 1.8 parts per million would result in discomfort. The study (which you can read by clicking the link above) also includes maps showing that anhydrous ammonia is toxic at 24,288 feet from point of discharge and silane has a toxic effect at up to 10,560 feet from point of discharge.

As indicated by the warning for another hazardous chemical- hydrofluoric acid- used at the Fort Mill facility, exposure can literally be deadly. This acid can be fatal if inhaled, swallowed or contacts skin. Although effects may be less severe if exposure is through dust, mist, gas, fumes or vapors, some form of injury is very likely to result.

To the surprise of absolutely no one who sits upright and takes nourishment, Silfab has disputed the data in the USC study. According to The Post and Courier, “None of the reports, Silfab said, includes the company’s actual processes and safety measures used to assess worst-case scenarios.”

Whether that’s true is irrelevant because Silfab’s safety measures have not been tested in worst case scenarios at the Fort Mill location where over 1,500 school children are inside the danger zone if a chemical mishap should occur. Further, it is false to infer actual processes and safety measures have assessed worst case scenarios because some scenarios are not yet known. That was likely the scenario when the Three Mile Island nuclear facility was built. Undoubtedly, worst case scenarios were considered but that did not prevent the worst nuclear incident in U.S. history– the partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor in 1979.

Can Silfab say unequivocally that their safety measures are adequate for the failure of every vehicle delivering or removing hazardous materials when they don’t know the condition of those vehicles or the events that may cause damage? Are they prepared for a truck loaded with hydrochloric acid overturning right outside or barely inside their gated entry? Another question- has Silfab been operating illegally as charged by former employee Jason Rhoades?

Related Post: Silfab Solar Whistleblower Alleges Secret Illegal Operations in Fort Mill

Apparently, none of those considerations matter because it seems the fix is in. In 2022, York County provided Silfab with a preliminary document indicating that a solar cell and panel manufacturing facility was appropriate for an area zoned light industrial pending further review. In 2024 the county Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) ruled that solar manufacturing was not a permitted light industrial use. That makes sense because, among other considerations, light industrial manufacturing does not make use of large quantities ofammonia, nitrous oxide, silane, hydrochloric acid, and hydrofluoric acid.

In response to the BZA decision, Silfab’s attorneys argued that it is undisputed that the zoning code does not list solar cell or panel manufacturing as a prohibited use category. In a November, 2025 court filing, the attorneys stated, “However, a zoning code’s failure to identify a use with specificity does not mean that such use is prohibited. Instead, our state’s judicial precedent shows that uses should be analyzed flexibly and in accordance with the language of the governing text to determine whether a specific use is consistent with the legislative intent of the local government’s governing body.”

Depending on your perspective, that’s either legal gobbledygook, or a misrepresentation of the ordinance. Or both. The BZA’s decision is based on its determination that solar component manufacturing does not fit within the “light industrial” zoning specifications. The fact that it does not specifically exclude a particular type of manufacturing would seem to be irrelevant because all other types of manufacturing require approval through a conditional use permitting process.

Section 155.041 of the York County Code of Ordinances states,

A) Purpose.

(1) The intent of the Light Industrial District (LI) is to create and protect industrial areas for light manufacturing and distribution.

(2) LI is intended to accommodate less intensive industrial uses with operations primarily conducted indoors. The district’s less intensive uses protect nearby residential areas from the encroachment of heavy industrial uses.

As referenced in this section of the code of ordinances, light industrial zoning is intended for “less intensive” uses than in areas zoned Industrial Development (ID). Yet Silfab’s Fort Mill plant engages in the most intensive level of solar panel manufacturing which includes both cell and photovoltaic (PV) module production as documented by the company’s November 21, 2024 press release. It states, “Silfab Solar Inc. (“Silfab”), North America’s leading photo-voltaic (“PV”) module manufacturer, today announced that it has closed on $100 million of new financing to scale its state-of-the-art solar cell manufacturing plant. The release went on to state, “The Green Loan and equity financing will advance the overall capacity of Silfab’s cell production and PV module manufacturing within its new facility in Fort Mill, South Carolina…”

According to a U.S. Department of Energy report on PV module manufacturing, “Polysilicon is commonly manufactured using methods that rely on highly reactive gases, (either a silicon, hydrogen, chlorine gas or a silicon-hydrogen gas depending on the specific process). Polysilicon is then turned into ingots using a chemical process and then sliced into thin wafers which are chemically textured. Solar panel production also involves the use of plastics.

The fact that chemical and plastic processes are used at Silfab’s Fort Mill facility is relevant because according to definitions within the county’s code of ordinances;

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING. A land use category for industrial establishments engaged in the transformation of organic and inorganic raw materials by a chemical process and the formulation of products.

PLASTICS AND RUBBER PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING. Establishments that make goods by processing plastics materials and raw rubber.

Both chemical and plastics manufacturing are prohibited by county ordinance within the Light Industrial zone. Yet here we are, with Silfab employing both types of manufacturing.

As such, it is difficult to refute the BZA’s decision that Silfab Solar’s Fort Mill facility was not appropriate for an area zoned Light Industrial. Hopefully, the BZA’s decision will stand and Silfab will move the portion of its manufacturing operation that uses dangerous chemicals to another location. If the BZA’s decision is overturned, it would seem that indeed the fix is in- that is, regardless of the potential danger created by the location of the Silfab manufacturing facility, members of the York County Council don’t care that they approved a use that is prohibited within their county’s code of ordinances. More disturbing is apparently they don’t care that over a thousand school children will remain at risk of chemically induced injury or death.