Bellingham hearing over proposed 26 Pearl Street battery storage draws safety and contamination questions; commission orders peer review

The Town of Bellingham Conservation Commission on July 8 opened a public hearing on a proposed battery energy storage facility at 26 Pearl Street, a town-owned parcel along the Charles River, and asked the applicant for a peer review and additional technical materials before continuing the matter.

Tom Portlet of ZP Battery DevCo presented the project and said the company won the town RFP in 2020 and has a long-term ground lease for the approximately 19.5-acre site. Civil engineer Jack Kent of Pleasant O'Neil described the project footprint: an energy storage area fenced at roughly a quarter-acre, a gravel access road from Pearl Street, removal of older concrete foundations, and stormwater improvements including a sediment forebay and an infiltration basin. Kent said wetland resource areas—bordering vegetated wetlands, an isolated vegetated wetland and the 200-foot riverfront area—were delineated and that the proposed work would be located above the 100-year flood elevation. "The lowest portion of our work...is at 184," Kent said, and "the lowest corner of the fence line we have is at 186.4," placing the work above the cited 100-year elevation.

Why it matters: the site sits within a historic mill footprint and adjacent to the Charles River, so neighbors and commissioners said they need clarity on flood risk, containment of fire water, and the potential for disturbed soils to release legacy contamination downstream.

During a roughly 45-minute public-comment period, residents asked detailed questions about emergency response, air emissions from a thermal event, how fire water would be handled, and whether the town previously remediated mill contaminants. One neighbor identified herself as Shree Praki of Plain Street and said she and others were concerned about downstream impacts to the river. Suzanne Domestico, who said she lives at 10 Pearl Street, asked whether the project team had investigated what lay beneath the concrete pad on the river channel and how the work could affect that man-made channel.

Portlet and Kent told the commission and residents the project follows industry guidance and state oversight. Portlet described two subsurface secondary-containment areas with a polyvinyl membrane and crushed stone designed to hold runoff and, in alarmed conditions, to isolate and allow pumped removal. He said the combined capacity of the two containment areas is roughly 17,000 gallons (the smaller north containment about 7,000 gallons and the southern portion about 10,500 gallons) and that the system is sized to account for crushed stone porosity. Portlet added the system would be covered by a $7,000,000 environmental insurance policy through PCI and that an emergency response plan and coordination with the fire department are in place.

Commissioners pressed the applicant for the technical basis behind some figures. "You said about 18,000 gallons—does that include the gravel that is in there?" one commissioner asked. Portlet answered that the calculations account for crushed stone and concrete pads and offered to provide the detailed calculations and the FEMA flood profile. The commission asked the applicant to provide the FEMA flood map and related documentation before the next hearing and to be ready for a peer review of the technical material.

On coolant and chemical safety, Portlet said each battery container uses a closed-loop ethylene-glycol mixture (approximately 400 liters per container, with a secondary containment pan exceeding the 110% requirement). He said the battery chemistry is lithium iron phosphate and that the company will provide manufacturer and cell-testing documentation previously submitted to the planning board.

Action taken: the commission moved to require a peer review of the 26 Pearl Street notice of intent and to continue the hearing to Aug. 12, 2026, at 7 p.m. The commission also encouraged the public to submit written questions and asked the applicant to provide FEMA flood mapping, the technical calculations for containment and fire-water volumes, and the spill/response plan for review.

What happens next: the hearing was continued to Aug. 12. The commission requested that peer-review scope, flood-elevation documentation, and the applicant’s technical appendices be posted in advance so the commission and the public can evaluate them prior to the resumed hearing.