Silfab Solar plant in Fort Mill to remain closed through the weekend
A leak of acid at Silfab Solar in Fort Mill reported to county officials Thursday was actually a “small drip” from a tank valve that started a week ago on Feb. 27, the plant manager said Friday at a news conference outside the facility.
That Thursday report came just two days after a leak of about 300 gallons of another chemical at the plant, which is just south of the North Carolina state line and has been the subject of years of protests and citizen opposition. Both incidents caused community alarm this week, and Thursday’s news prompted the Fort Mill school district to close an adjacent school on Thursday and Friday as a precaution.
In response to questions from The Herald, Plant Manager Greg Basden said the “small drip” that Silfab officials knew started a week ago was not large enough that it required any notification to county or state regulatory or emergency officials.
“We’ve got nothing to hide,” Basden told media representatives who were allowed on the property for the news conference.
He said “a drip of that magnitude far from qualifies for notification.” (Read the full Silfab statement here).
On Friday morning, Basden said Siflab hoped to begin work again later in the day. But Friday evening, the company announced it would remain closed through the weekend. Government inspectors will be reviewing Silfab further on Monday.
Basden showed the media the tank and valve where the drip happened and said the amount of the drip is just tablespoons in volume and has caused no air quality problems. Silfab still has a dry containment substance under the valve that the media could see.
Fort Mill schools and Silfab
Fort Mill schools officials told The Herald on Thursday that they were told of the Thursday incident — which Silfab now says had been going on since Feb. 27 — around 7 a.m. Thursday morning.
Fort Mill schools superintendent Grey Young said he first asked York County emergency officials at 5:53 a.m. Thursday, after calls from the public the night before, if there was another problem at Silfab after the Tuesday leak. Young said he was told there was not. County officials then called him back at 7 a.m. saying there actually was another problem at Silfab.
Silfab’s Basden said county officials called the company around 7 a.m. Thursday asking about a second incident, and that’s when Silfab told county emergency management, “We’ve had a small drip that’s been contained.”
Basden said Silfab offered a “sincere apology” to parents of Flint Hill Elementary, which sits adjacent to Silfab, about the closure, but maintained that testing showed the closure was not necessary for safety reasons.
Silfab disputes the drip being called a “leak,” Basden said Friday at Silfab’s news conference.
Fort Mill schools officials Joe Burke and another district administrator, Latoya Dixon, were at the news conference at Silfab but did not address the statement from Basden about the decision to close the school.
Silfab and York County
In a statement Thursday, York County did not call the second incident “a drip.” The county called it “a leak.”
“York County received initial questions from the Fort Mill School District about a leak of hydrofluoric acid (HF) at approximately 6 a.m.,” the county statement Thursday said.
“The County was not aware of the issue and reached out to Silfab to determine if there was an active HF leak. Upon receiving confirmation of the HF leak, York County Emergency Management responded to the plant. Initial information indicated the leak was contained and posed no threat to the public and was verified by Emergency Management on scene.
“Upon confirmation of the leak by emergency management, the Fort Mill School District was notified by the County to make the most appropriate determination for school operations.”
Silfab’s news conference ended at around the same time the York County Council went into a closed session meeting 20 miles away in York to get legal advice about Silfab. That council meeting ended around 1:30 p.m.
The county council issued another statement about Silfab later Friday. The council read a motion in closed session to direct county management to “invoke and exercise all powers within the county’s authority to direct, support and ensure that all (S.C. Department of Environmental Services) directives are strictly adhered to and followed,” according to Greg Suskin, the county public information officer.
Those directives could include issuing cease and desist orders, invoking emergency ordinance powers, and assisting SCDES and EPA efforts.
Friday: Silfab says it is transparent
In Silfab’s first major statement since this week’s incidents pushed politicians to seek the plant’s closure, Basden said Silfab remains “committed to safety.”
“We’ve been transparent from the beginning,” Basden said at the news conference.
Basden gave an explanation about how the Tuesday spill was first reported by county officials as over 1,500 gallons of a chemical when it was later reported to be around 300 gallons:
He said Silfab reported to county officials “the worst case” scenario of over 1,500 gallons because that is how much the tank on a scrubber outside the building holds. Further review found the spill (a mixture of water and the chemical) to be 300 gallons, he said.
Basden said employees and the public were not at risk this week or since last Friday.
Opposition growing to Silfab
However, Silfab opponents and many state and local politicians have said they want the plant shuttered for good over safety concerns and a lack of transparency and accountability.
It remains unclear if Silfab having a news conference to reassure the public of its safety measures will sway those who are against the plant.
S.C. Rep. David Martin, R-Fort Mill, told The Herald on Thursday at a school news conference, “I don’t trust anything Silfab says at this point.”
Martin, like fellow Republican state senators Michael Johnson and Wes Climer of York County, have demanded a full shutdown of the plant.
Late Friday: Silfab agrees to “pause production” through weekend
The South Carolina Department of Environmental Services on Tuesday and Thursday ordered Silfab to cease all operations at the plant. Basden said Friday morning Silfab “shut down” operations at the plant Thursday night, but is “collaborating” with state government and York County officials.
In a statement released around 7 p.m. Friday, Silfab said it will continue to “pause production” at the plant in Fort Mill through the weekend. The company said federal and state regulators will be on site Monday.
“In collaboration with state officials, Silfab Solar will continue to pause production operations at its Fort Mill facility through the weekend (March 7-8),” the Silfab statement said.
“During this time, Silfab employees will be on site for non-production related activities while discussions with federal, state and local officials remain ongoing. Silfab looks forward to restarting assembly activities, those consistent with the safe and normal operations it began in October, on Monday at 7 p.m. following U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services reviews on site that day.”
Silfab added it “remains committed to continuing safe operations at Fort Mill for its employees and the community” and “welcomes the additional reviews by DES and EPA.”
In a joint statement from Martin, Johnson and Climer, issued around 7 p.m. Friday, the three York County Republican lawmakers confirmed Silfab agreed to stay closed through the weekend.
“Silfab agreed to continue ceasing all manufacturing and assembly operations at the facility,” the statement said. “This agreement remains in effect while state and federal agencies continue their investigation and oversight.”
The three legislators confirmed the EPA will start its investigation Monday and would update the public after Monday’s review.
Friday morning update from state of SC
After Silfab agreed to Thursday’s stop work order, SCDES wrote in a letter to the company that if they resume operations prematurely, they could face legal consequences.
The letter “strongly encourages” Silfab not to reopen before the department has completed its assessment of the spills.
“We are committed to working with Silfab to ensure the safety of its employees and the public,” the letter states. “If Silfab elects to restart assembly work before determining the root causes of the spills and completion of the assessment, the Department will take appropriate legal action.”
The department said Friday morning that its investigation is active and an SCDES inspector remains at the Silfab facility.
“We’re working closely with local officials, state partners and the U.S. EPA, which is sending representatives to perform a federal-level inspection at the facility,” the state agency said in a statement. “Our number one priority continues to be the health of residents and the environment — there remains no impact to nearby communities. Details about this incident will be provided when our investigation concludes, and updates will continue to be posted at des.sc.gov/silfab.”
This story was originally published March 6, 2026 at 1:09 PM.
