Orangetown planners press battery-storage developer for more safety data and hire outside reviewer

Orangetown Planning Board members pressed a developer on emergency response, air-monitoring and testing protocols for a proposed 15-megawatt battery energy storage facility and voted to hire outside reviewer AKRF, with the applicant agreeing to cover the consultant’s cost.

Board members focused questions on how quickly an emergency response team would arrive, what gases battery thermal runaway emits and what post-fire monitoring would be provided. The applicant said an on-call response team of eight (rising to nine) responders is based locally, that a 24-hour phone line exists, and that the plan anticipates a phone answer within 15 minutes and an on-scene response "depending on traffic" in roughly 30 minutes. The applicant also said continuous monitoring and a hazmat support team would perform a fire watch after the fire department leaves.

Why it matters: battery energy storage projects store large quantities of energy near populated areas and use lithium-ion chemistry. Residents and board members asked whether those risks and emergency procedures are sufficiently documented for SEQR (the state environmental review) and whether the town should require additional third-party scrutiny before moving forward.

The developer cited testing under UL 9548 large-scale fire testing and told the board the testing identifies smoke constituents; the presenter said hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide make up the majority of typical smoke constituents, with smaller amounts of hydrocarbons. The applicant also said that some container cabinets may have a clean agent but that batteries are generally removed rather than left inside cabinets, and that code does not require suppression inside each cabinet.

Resident David Mark, who gave public comment, cited a prior Orange County battery fire and warned of hazardous gases and long-duration burns. Mark asked the town to consider alternate, less-populated sites and to require a performance bond to cover potential evacuations. He told the board, "Tesla Megapack XLs, which is what the drawing said, have caught on fire." The applicant responded that it is working with the fire department and will provide additional materials and studies to address concerns.

Board members also pressed for technical clarifications included in project documents: the site plan shows the closest battery at about 109 feet from an existing building and roughly 50 feet to the west property line; a 100-foot operational safety radius is referenced in the response plan; a heat-flux analysis performed on earlier projects produced a 28-foot human-safety metric for radiant heat; the noise study should reflect 24/7 dorm occupancy; and transformer specs and any non-biodegradable oils will be confirmed.

The board voted to engage AKRF to perform an outside review of the project’s energy and safety materials; the applicant agreed to pay for that review. The board also moved to be the lead agency for SEQR steps and requested a continuation to allow AKRF to complete its review and for the applicant to provide any additional requested information. The applicant stated it had submitted extensive documentation (describing the submission as many hundreds of pages) and said it would collaborate with the town and fire officials to fill gaps.

Next steps: the board will receive AKRF’s independent review and additional materials from the applicant before setting further action. The meeting record shows the board requested visible signage marking the 100-foot perimeter, clarified monitoring and response expectations, and asked the applicant to provide UL 9548 test data or equivalent results to the fire marshal.