Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Energy Battery Storage topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board defers Harwood battery storage decision after hours of safety and water concerns

2394718 · February 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The King George Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on Open Road Renewables' Harwood battery energy storage facility and deferred a decision to Feb. 18 after extended public comment and detailed presentations on emergency response, water supply and monitoring plans.

The King George County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 4 heard a staff report and a lengthy public hearing on a proposed battery energy storage facility (BESS) from Open Road Renewables and Harwood Power, then voted to defer a final decision to the board's Feb. 18 meeting.

Kelly LaDuke, the county's community development director, told the board the project would sit on about 12 acres in an industrially zoned area near Route 301 and Washington Mill Road and requires a special-exception permit under section 3-4-3 of the county zoning ordinance. The planning commission recommended approval with conditions, LaDuke said.

Cyrus Tashicori, a Harwood Power representative, and energy-safety consultant Eric Wood of Energy Safety Response Group (ESRG) responded to firefighter and resident concerns by describing proposed safety measures, 24/7 remote monitoring, an on-site 30,000-gallon fire-support water tank, and commitments to annual training for local emergency responders. "We take this very seriously," Tashicori told the board, and said the company had incorporated fire-and-rescue input into the application.

Speaking to the board, Chief Moody of King George Fire & Rescue and other public-safety speakers sought greater detail on response capability, equipment, water supply and training. Retired and active firefighters in the public record — including Ryan McGill and James Morris — urged the board to ensure plans addressed known hazards from lithium-ion thermal events, possible toxic smoke and runoff and the resources local departments would need to respond safely.

Eric Wood described laboratory and field testing his team has done on battery fire behavior and runoff: he said tests to date have shown off-gases from outdoor BESS incidents are chemically similar to those from structural fires and that water remains the most effective suppressant for exposures. He said that, in controlled events, a fully involved 40-foot container can burn out in single-digit hours and that water collection and laboratory analysis of fire-runoff samples have not met federal hazardous-waste thresholds in prior tests that his firm has conducted. Wood also outlined how 24/7 battery-management and remote-control systems can isolate modules before an incident escalates and reduce the need for direct firefighter intervention.

Multiple residents expressed concern about the proximity of the site to Meschosta Creek headwaters, aquifers and the Claydales settlement area, citing research on heavy-metal contamination following some high-profile fires elsewhere. Adam Lynch, the community planning liaison officer for Naval Support Activity Dahlgren, told the board the base views battery storage and generation projects as potential benefits for localized grid reliability and resilience and said the base would welcome ongoing conversations.

County staff and the applicant confirmed several conditions would be attached to any approval, including a funded decommissioning plan, a site-specific hazard mitigation analysis, locally coordinated emergency-response drills and requirements that the applicant not rely on well water for the firefighting tank. LaDuke said the draft conditions and a proposed siting agreement would be developed further if the board asked the parties to continue negotiations.

After more than an hour of public comment and technical explanation, the board voted to defer action to its Feb. 18 meeting to allow additional refinements to conditions and time for staff, emergency services and the applicant to work through outstanding concerns. The board instructed staff and the applicant to prepare a siting agreement and more detailed emergency-response and water-access plans before the next vote.

The public hearing was the latest step in a state-regulated special-exception review; if the board approves the permit later, site plan review and further permitting will follow. The matter remains before the board; written comments submitted for the Feb. 4 hearing are part of the public record.