Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposed 15 MW battery storage project prompts fire‑safety and siting concerns; board asks for outside review
Summary
A developer proposed a 15 MW lithium‑ion battery facility at 524 Route 303; the board and residents raised questions about thermal runaway, toxic smoke, evacuation plans and nearby freight rail and campus dorms. The board agreed to bring in an outside consultant (AKRF) paid by the applicant and continued the application pending that review.
Adam Farcus, the project developer, told the planning board the proposed battery facility would occupy under an acre behind an existing warehouse at 524 Route 303, connect to the local Orange and Rockland distribution system, and operate as a 15 MW storage asset cycling daily to support grid reliability.
Project team members included civil engineers (Stantec), emergency response specialists (ESRG) and legal counsel (Hodgson Russ). The application packet contained an emergency response plan, stormwater pollution prevention plan, operations and maintenance plan, decommissioning plan, wetland/stream delineation and a noise and visual study. Farcus said the team had coordinated with federal and state agencies, including FAA, FEMA, Army Corps, DEC, USFWS and New York State Parks.
Public safety questions dominated the hearing. Board members and residents asked how the site would withstand rare but high‑impact events: a thermal runaway, release of combustion gases, or a rail derailment on the adjacent active freight line. Paul Rogers of ESRG outlined measures including listed battery components, battery management systems that can shut the units down remotely, on‑site monitoring, and a hazard support team to provide post-incident firewatch and mitigation. He said the applicant has air‑monitoring capability and a protocol to be on the phone within 15 minutes and have specialists on site within a few hours; he added that shorter local response times are possible because ESRG maintains personnel in the region.
Residents cited past multi‑day battery fires and the risk of toxic gases; one public speaker noted hydrogen cyanide detection in a previous event and urged the town to consider alternate, more mature battery technologies or more distant siting. Board members also highlighted proximity to Dominican University dorms across the tracks, and asked whether university security and the town fire department were engaged in planning. The applicant said they had provided materials to the fire chief and would meet for more detailed event protocols.
Board action and next steps: the board voted to serve as lead agency for SEQRA and to seek an independent technical review by AKRF (the applicant agreed to pay). Members requested additional details on emergency response timelines, the specific products' large‑scale fire test data (gas constituents and monitoring reports), noise and visual mitigations, transformer oil specifications and spill containment, and explicit coordination procedures with Dominican University and local emergency services. The applicant requested a continuation; the board accepted a continuation and directed staff to engage AKRF and circulate the consultant’s scope to both the applicant and the town fire department.
Ending: The board did not reach a final decision and continued the matter to allow the independent consultant review and submission of the additional safety and technical documentation the board requested.
