Chairman Conoby opened the continuation of the hearing for the Boardwalk School’s hazardous waste permit pertaining to their proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS).
Public Health Inspector Matthew Dow provided an update noting that the health division still has concerns with the information that was provided by the applicant as well as additional concerns raised by Fire Chief Arnum, and she was at the meeting to address those concerns. Dow noted that the Health Division has asked for additional information, but still hasn’t received all of it. That information includes an alternative site analysis and financial impact information, in addition to a noise study.
Mike Harris, Nexamp: It was mentioned that there are several things that we haven’t provided yet, such as an explanation of an alternative location. When we looked at alternative sites, we submitted emails that provided explanations. When we come to the decision of the best location, we examine the potential flaws. If there’s a wetland, we can’t go there. All of our assumptions were outlined in our emails. Our current location was chosen from a safety cost and schedule impact. And from a safety perspective, battery storage was chosen for this location.
Looking at the student egress during an evacuation situation, the school campus houses over 1000 students and staff daily. We looked at egress from the building in the event of an emergency and the largest point of egress is from the facilities through the main doors of the building at the Spruce St. parking lot. From a safety perspective, if the kids and the faculty must go out the main part of the building, they would be walking towards the site of an emergency.
From a cost and schedule perspective, the infrastructure laid out during construction of the building would need to be ripped up. It would be cost prohibitive. Our estimate is from several hundred thousand to probably over a million, which would effectively kill the project.
Board Member McInnis: You say that it’s possible to have a different location, but it would be cost and schedule prohibitive. In the Board’s hazardous material bylaw, costs and schedule are not the criteria that we’re supposed to judge a project on. From a safety perspective, you have an evacuation of the students based on the evacuation plan for the school. That is a consideration. I would like to hear Fire Chief Arnum’s opinion regarding a battery storage fire, if the best thing to do is to shelter in place, not evacuate the building.
Fire Chief Arnum: We have studied some of the failures that have occurred across the country and why they failed. There is some specific information which Nexamp has complied with but, because it’s within 100 feet of a building, lot lines, and public ways, a hazard mitigation analysis must be provided. Nexamp did provide that and it’s a very basic hazard mitigation analysis. There was some discussion about sheltering in place and yes, that’s obviously an option. I’m not sure if there are air handlers on the roof within that 100 feet, though, that would bring air into the school. That’s something that would need to be looked at. It should be noted that if a battery fire occurs, our plan of action is to let it burn. It’s not extinguishable, so it’s going to burn for a significant period. One of the recent events that occurred up in New York, I think they evacuated an area for two weeks because of a battery burning.
Nexamp hired a consultant that gave a three-page analysis when it came to safety. The only thing presented was that the location of the best installation was chosen with due regard for practicality and safety. I asked how they analyzed the safety. I spoke with them and there’s several things that I asked if they considered, and they had not. They did not consider the number of students and the ages. If you’re looking at pre-K to six, a lot of these students, if there’s something significant going on, it’s going to take a fair number of people that would corral them and make sure they’re accounted for. They did not take into consideration the fire department apparatus, staffing and availability, the fire station locations and distances to the school, the limited access to the hydrant within the minimum 100-foot exclusion zone.
Ellen Smith, Spruce Street: Regarding the location, there were some great points made, but I didn’t hear much talk about the floodplain, and it’s relatively close by. I just wanted to make that point and I know there’s a big concern with lithium-ion batteries if water gets in. So that’s another point against the location. Does the project consider the eventual disposal of lithium-ion batteries?
Kassamali, Nexamp: When you talk about alternative locations, if you looked at the floodplain, one of the reasons why we had to put it where we did was because of the way the floodplain wraps itself around the western, northern and the eastern edge of the school. When you get onto the western side of the school, you start impinging upon that floodplain.
Aiden Smith, Spruce St.: I wanted to note that the school has not had an opportunity to answer the questions that the residents sent to them last week. I also wanted to acknowledge the Board of Health position in terms of focusing on the permit itself. But there is the higher cause with the Board of Health in terms of safety for residents, and I encourage you to keep that in mind as we’re moving forward with this process. I am still significantly opposed to this location, for the safety of the students and the safety of the residents.
Kurt Marden, Arlington St. property owner: It’s been stated that the applicant can shut the system down remotely. It’s unclear to me how that would apply to a thermal runaway situation, which is the most prevalent issue with lithium-ion batteries. You can’t shut that down once it’s happened. It’s a thermal runaway. It’s going to have to burn itself out. Chief Arnum, how would you deal with a situation where you have a 17-foot wall around something that is requiring, at best, cooling from hoses being 100 feet outside of the area where this wall is located?
Fire Chief Arnum: We would not be applying water to a lithium-ion battery fire. Because of the containment of the cells, we couldn’t get water to where it needs to go to cool it. Our strategy would be to allow it to burn because these things will even burn underwater. Our goal would be to evacuate anyone in the facility and to protect any exposures as best as possible. Typically, when batteries go into runaway, they off-gas quite a bit of material before they catch fire, and that’s something that we are concerned with, particularly some of the toxic materials that come off.
Resident Dan Jones: We had a discussion at one point about sheltering in place. With over one thousand little children sheltering in place for 24 hours, this is not practical. You must evacuate. You have the student and staff population trying to evacuate from this single building safely with the battery burning with toxic gasses, potentially blowing over the building. It seems unimaginably dangerous. It may be a low probability that the system would catch fire. But if it did catch fire, the consequence would be unimaginable. I can’t conceive how we could install this battery and put all our kids here. Placing them at risk defies common sense. I can’t imagine that we will go forward with this, and I just can’t tell you how much I oppose this.
The Board moved to continue the hearing.
DK Halley was Acton Health Director from 1987 to 2015. He is now a volunteer writer for the Acton Exchange.