ENGIE-commissioned analysis finds no groundwater risks by proposed solar farm

Oct. 31—A proposed 1,800-acre solar farm for eastern Howard County has a "non-existent" chance of contaminating groundwater in the event one or more panels becomes cracked or damaged, according to a technical memorandum by Tetra Tech, a California-based consulting and engineering services firm.

The memo, presented to the Howard County Commissioner on Oct. 16 by Rob Wilhelm, a senior hydrogeologist for Tetra Tech, was commissioned by ENGIE North America.

ENGIE is planning on installing and operating a 200 Megawatt solar farm, dubbed Emerald Green Solar, near the Duke Energy-owned Greentown substation.

According to the memo, the silicon-based solar panels ENGIE North America intends on using for Emerald Green Solar are "not known for their propensity to leach harmful chemicals into the environment."

Specifically, ENGIE is, according to the memo, planning on buying their panels from Japanese company VSUN. Such panels do not contain any liquids or semi-solids and if any of the panels contain metals or PFAS, they're "bound within the solid matrix of the PV panels and do not represent a credible risk of contamination to underlying groundwater," the memo reads.

That is due, in large part, to the type of soil that is in the project area, according to the memo.

Much of the soil in the area is "densely compacted, low permeability and unsaturated glacial till" that makes for excellent growing soil because it maintains moisture, such as water, well. That property makes it difficult for anything to make it to any groundwater source some 20 to 60 feet below the surface.

"That silt clay wants to hold the water so for stuff to get deep here, down into what would be a usable groundwater system, is very difficult," Wilhelm said. "Your hydrogeologic setting is really ideal even in the implausible event contamination would ever get out of these panels."

Possible contamination of groundwater has been a sticking point for opponents of the proposed solar farm project, as has the temporary loss of arable land and the fear of declining property values.

Howard County's ordinance on commercial solar farms allows any county resident within a half mile of the solar project to request well testing, at the cost of the solar energy company, at the start of the construction of the solar project and within 30 days after completion of the solar project.

Tom Schoder, lead developer of Emerald Green Solar, said the company would go a step further and pay for additional testing of a well when the solar farm is in operation for those who would want it.

Emerald Green Solar received its special exception approval from the Howard County Board of Zoning Appeals in February, one of many governmental approvals needed before the project can begin construction. Other needed approvals include drainage approval, road use approval, stormwater plan approval, decommissioning plan approval and economic development agreement approval.

Currently, though, the project is in limbo after a handful of project adjacent property owners filed a lawsuit seeking judicial review of the county BZA's decision to approve the special exception.

The lawsuit is still in litigation in Howard County Circuit Court. Most recently, the petitioners were granted a motion to include as part of the official record two binders presented and given to the BZA at its Feb. 28 meeting by the opposition and the petitioners' lawyer, Jason Kuchmay.

The binders contained thousands of pages of information on solar farms' impact on farmland, potential environmental and safety concerns and arguments that green energy is not so "green," among other things.

The two binders were not included as part of the official record of the Feb. 28 BZA meeting.

In a motion filed in July, the petitioners argue the binders are necessary for the judge to make a ruling.

"Without a copy of the transcript, and without copies of the documents submitted and considered by the BZA (i.e., the evidence presented to the BZA), this Court is unable to properly rule upon the propriety of the BZA's decision," the petitioners state in their motion.

In response, the county, through its attorney Alan Wilson, argued the BZA could not possibly review the thousands of pages in the binders before making a decision and that the petitioners did not attempt to present the information in the binders.

"Regardless, the information in the binders that Petitioners now ask to be made part of the Record was never considered by the Board at the meeting and has not been identified as a basis for the Board's decision," Wilson writes in his response. "As such, as a matter of law, it is not properly made a part of the Record and Petitioners' motion to supplement the record with this information should be denied."

The court held a hearing on the matter Oct. 5 and ruled in favor of the petitioners.

"... The materials constitute part of the evidence submitted, whether the Board members actually considered them or not in making its decision," Howard County Circuit Court Judge Lynn Murray wrote in her order.

Tyler Juranovich can be reached at 765-454-8577, by email at tyler.juranovich@kokomotribune.com or on Twitter at @tylerjuranovich.