Planned battery storage facility hearing moves to next phase

Tuesday’s meeting was a continuation of a public hearing on the proposed battery facility that the board has continued since January.

In November, the board accepted preliminary plans of a proposed battery energy storage system that would include 136 battery containers expected to produce 100 megawatts of power over a four-hour period.

The proposed site would include lithium iron phosphate battery cells stacked into modules and put onto racks that would be stored in temperature-controlled steel containers under 24-hour monitoring.

Utility scale energy storage systems (ESS) add capacity and resiliency to power grids. The systems consist of a series of modular battery containers located within a fenced gravel yard, according to Eolian Energy, the company that would receive the permit for the facility while Catskill Grid would be in charge of the facility.

A public hearing on the matter was held Jan. 23 and it was scheduled to be continued to Feb. 27. The applicants requested a postponement of the February hearing continuation, but meeting attendees forced the issue and the board opened the February hearing to public comment.

The board requested the applicants submit additional information regarding emergency response and fire safety plans at its March 26 meeting, which the applicant provided to the board April 18.

“We are still trying to absorb all 224 pages,” board Chairperson Teresa Golden said.

The updated application included revised site plans, a noise consultant letter, a revised draft emergency response plan, a draft of facility operations and maintenance plan, a vibration evaluation report, responses to public comments, and initial findings of the New York State Interagency Fire Safety Working Group.

“One comment was about the vibrations and how it would affect the facility,” Golden said. “But the applicant did a vibration study and included that in the updated application.”

The vibration study, the applicants addressed the board’s concerns.

“We understand that the Town of Catskill Planning Board is concerned that vibrations from the frequent freight trains on the rail tracks, east of the site, will impact the function of the BESS,” according to the report.

There were two vibration monitors placed on the property, about 120 feet west of the train tracks. The monitors measure vibrations as low as 0.0001 inches per second and measure the amplitude in three directions.

The study was conducted daily from April 5 to April 15.

“Daily monitoring reports indicate that periodic vibrations were measured that are likely due to the rail traffic based on their frequency of about once per hour,” according to the vibration study. “For the 11 days of recording, the maximum recorded peak particle velocity was 0.03 inches per second. The maximum direction peak particle velocities were also about 0.03 inches per second. The predominant frequency of all recordings was between 5 and 20 Hertz or cycles per second.”

The numbers in the study indicate the anticipated vibrations produced by the trains will not adversely effect the proposed battery storage system.

“Yes, the facility will be able to operate as designed given the limited vibrations that occur due to the trains passing by the facility on the CSX rail line,” according to Eolian Energy. “During the span (of the vibration tests), periodic vibrations were measured that are likely due to the rail traffic, based on their frequency of about once per hour….The measured vibrations induced by the nearby railroad tracks will not impact the function of the facility foundations.”

Additional questions posed to the applicant at Tuesday’s meeting involved long-term impacts on toxins produced from fires potentially breaking out at the facility, the safety protocols for fires and its proximity to the village where possible toxic fumes could spread to in the event of a fire, Golden said.

“In the rare event of a fire, industry standard best practices are to let such fires burn out as the (UL certified) systems are designed and tested to do,” said Elian Energy Vice President Justin Adams said at Tuesday’s meeting. “The design of the facility’s battery cabinets are important to consider in evaluating why this best practice has emerged. The battery cabinets are installed to manufacture specifications, which incorporate building and fire safety codes and therefore a thermal event is not likely to spread to adjoining battery cabinets.

“The facility’s battery enclosures are also each equipped with an internal deflagration system and overpressure vents that automatically combust flammable gasses released during a thermal event and direct pressure upwards and safely from the enclosure,” they continued. “If water is used, it is at the discretion of the emergency responders and based on the specific onsite situation.”

According to the emergency response plan, the batteries may release flammable and toxic gas during failure.

In the event of a fire, the site should not be entered unless there is an imminent threat to life safety, according to the plan. Only a trained firefighter in full protective gear, including a self-contained breathing apparatus should enter the site during a fire or off-gassing event.

“A fog pattern from a handline or monitor nozzle may be an effective way to control the off-gassing event on the exterior of the battery container from migrating to unwanted areas,” according to the plan. “However, if water is used in extinguishing flames, these gasses can become acids which may cause skin irritation.”

Gov. Kathy Hochul released initial recommendations earlier this month from the interagency Fire Safety Working Group, outlining enhanced safety standards for battery energy storage systems.

The draft recommendations include potential updates to the state’s fire code, as well as a list of additional opportunities for defining and implementing best practices. If adopted, the changes will codify enhanced safety standards and continue to position New York as a national leader in responsible and reliable battery energy storage development, Hochul said.

The recommendations followed the release of initial data that found that there were no reported injuries or harmful levels of toxins detected following fires at battery energy storage systems in Jefferson, Orange and Suffolk counties last summer.

Golden said the board expected to receive an updated report from Hochul, but it is still awaiting the update.

Some members of the community remains concerned about the facility.

“This is a big issue for the town and the village,” Judy Guldenstern, a local resident said at the March meeting.

Golden was in agreement with Guldenstern and said the board is listening to the public.

“We are doing everything we can to keep this moving but we want everyone to know we are listening to their comments and concerns,” Golden said Wednesday.

The board is awaiting the results of a state environmental assessment, or SEQRA, Golden said.

“The next step really is to complete the environmental assessment to determine the magnitude of its (proposed facility) effects,” she said.

The board hopes to review documents and have the environmental assessment completed within the next month. The results of the assessment is a determining factor in the board’s decision to approve the proposed project.

The board will accept written public comments on the proposed facility over the next two weeks and can be submitted to the Catskill town offices at 439 Main St., Catskill.