Richard Ellenbogen
In Tom Wolfe’s novel The Bonfire of the Vanities, a single catastrophic night shatters the illusion that the powerful can bend reality to fit their narrative. Today’s rush to deploy Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) in densely populated areas rests on a similar illusion: that regulators can wish away very real safety and environmental risks with reassuring talking points and incomplete data.
Watts Up With That has previously published blog articles that described my concerns with BESS. I authored a white paper titled The Intrinsic Danger of Siting Utility Scale Lithium Based Energy Storage Systems In Densely Populated Areas that provides an overview of those concerns, and my most recent post was a summary of my New York State Public Service Filing, “An INES Type Scale to Rate Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Incidents and a Comparison of 50 Years of US Nuclear Generating Plant Operation with the Past 2-1/2 Years of BESS Operation in the United States” (“PSC Filing”). This post describes an addendum to that filing, prompted by a real-world New York case that underscores how quickly a “managed” battery incident can turn into a literal bonfire of the batteries
Initial Filing
In my initial filing I compared the safety records of the BESS industry and the nuclear industry. I found that the BESS industry has a far worse safety and environmental record over the past 2-1/2 years than the nuclear industry has over the past 50 years, a period twenty times as long. NY State regulators and policy makers are ignoring these facts and allowing these systems to be installed in populated neighborhoods while also ignoring the potential consequences.
My filing described negative health impacts of the cathode metals used in Li-Ion BESS. I found that exposure to nickel, manganese, and cobalt from battery fire runoff in porous soil and shallow aquifers heightens risks due to rapid leaching into groundwater, amplifying ingestion and dermal contact pathways. These metals, common in lithium-ion batteries, can contaminate drinking water and crops, leading to bioaccumulation in the food chain. Health agencies like the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry note that such scenarios mirror industrial pollution patterns where soil pH and redox conditions accelerate mobility.
I prepared the material used in the filing at the request of the Hauppauge Fire Department because of their concerns about a proposed large BESS in their jurisdiction. The proposed location is close to streams and has a high-water table. In a location with these characteristics, a lithium-ion battery fire, of the type that frequently has occurred at BESS facilities, could produce long-term, catastrophic environmental damage. This is in addition to the more immediate, very serious threat to people and structures at the school and in nearby neighborhoods from heat and toxic gases in the event of a fire. At the time I prepared the filing I was unaware of a New York example of this problem.
Addendum to the Filing
On June 8 I submitted an addendum noting that on May 29 the Suffolk County Water Authority sued the owners of a BESS Facility in East Hampton, NY for the contamination of two water wells as a result of runoff from a BESS Fire on May 31, 2023. The wells were alleged to have been contaminated in the manner described in my white paper. A different battery chemical is evident in the water supply, but the same method of contamination is described in the lawsuit.
The filing contains three appendices. The first is a copy of the Newsday article on the topic published on June 2. A copy of the Lawsuit appears in Appendix 2. Appendix 3 presents the results of a search of publicly available information about the BESS fire.
The EPRI BESS Fire Database contains a record of all reported BESS Fires. As will become apparent, the database is inadequate. Figure 1, below, has the EPRI record for the East Hampton fire in question. The database event description states that the fire was contained by an internal sprinkler system. “A ‘smoldering battery’ was reported, closing down roads and stopping train service for about an hour until the fire was contained. NextEra reported that an internal sprinkler system contained the fire. “
However, the suit alleges that 2.2 million gallons of water were used to suppress the fire. This quantity was based upon the sprinkler system requirements at the facility and the fact that it ran for 30 hours, not one as is implied by the entry in the EPRI database. The following will put 2.2 million gallons of water into perspective. A DOT 117 Train Tank Car, the largest rail tank car, can hold between 23,600 and 30,600 gallons of liquid, depending on the model. 2.2 million gallons would fill a 72 car long to 93 car long freight train and the water would weigh approximately 18 million pounds.
Coincidentally, I spoke to a group of Suffolk County fire fighters on June 4. While no one will go on the record for fear of losing their jobs, according to conversations that I had with several fire fighters, the fire did not take one hour to put out as the EPRI record implies. It took many hours. The EPRI record is apparently a whitewash of the event. Further, the fact that the truth is being suppressed for political purposes presents a huge public safety issue. How many other records in the EPRI database must now be called into question?
Additionally, after three years, many of the fields in the EPRI record are blank and the bottom of the record it states, “If you have any details or corrections you would like to contribute to the database please reach out to our Storage Safety email.” The blank fields include “Extent of Damage”, “Root Cause”, “Failed Element”, and the “Description” is at odds with reality. No one wants that information “On the Record” but in the name of public safety, it must be. The amount of water used to suppress the fire should be an additional entry.
FIGURE 1 – EPRI BESS Database Record of East Hampton Fire
Appendix 3 shows the available information that Perplexity AI could find on the event. Perplexity noted the lack of information in many of the fields of the EPRI record in Figure 1. I highlighted the Perplexity finding: “This is effectively the closest thing to a concise “fire report” publicly accessible, but it is a secondary compilation drawing on local reporting, not a primary NFIRS or fire‑service investigation document.”
Fighting the fire at the East Hampton, NY BESS Fire on May 31, 2023 allegedly contaminated two wells and there is concern about two others. For an event that has potentially contaminated 7% of the water supply of Suffolk County to have no discernible government record shows a failure of public policy, especially since these systems are being promoted by NY State to support their poorly planned energy policy. In the aftermath, Suffolk County must now find a new source of water at great expense and Suffolk County residents may experience water pressure issues because of the inability to use the contaminated wells.
Another aspect of this is that the Water Authorities test for PFAS on Long Island because they have the equipment for that and PFAS is a known issue. Sixteen months after the Moss Landing fire, researchers working in the marshes around that facility are still finding the markers for the heavy metals that are released during a BESS fire. One researcher noted:
We are actually finally getting the results from our water sampling in the waterways near the Moss Landing BESS that we did for one year every month after the battery fire and the metal signal is there too.
We have discovered that the metals dissolved very quickly, in a matter of weeks, in the soils and then the dissolved cathode metal components moved to the waterways and got exported out in the ocean during outgoing tides.
The same mechanism could also work in a different , non coastal setting, that is that the dissolved metals can diffuse to the groundwater and contaminate it.
The Moss Landing BESS fire environmental analyses in the days immediately after the fire state that there was little to no environmental contamination. Similar claims were made about the East Hampton fire in its aftermath. However, environmental researchers happened to be working in the marshes around the BESS facility in Moss Landing for several months prior to the fire and they had both the equipment to analyze the damage and the expertise to know how to use it. References to their work appear in the February 2 document filed with the PSC. To understand the negative impacts of ingesting heavy metals, the information is included in both prior documents. The major questions that remain in East Hampton is how far from the two damaged wells the chemicals will migrate and is there heavy metal contamination that has not been discovered because no one has tested for it. No one can answer either question accurately at the present time.
As the May 31 document stated, “A Stage 2–4 BESS fire releases a chemically complex, multi-pathway hazardous plume that would trigger federal reporting requirements under almost any other industrial sector.” Multi-pathway includes airborne, waterborne, and direct contact.
CONCLUSION
When the May 31 paper was written, I had no knowledge of the East Hamton lawsuit and the “hazardous plume” was only a theoretical, if highly likely, outcome of a BESS Fire. Unfortunately, for the people of Suffolk County, the highly likely outcome is now their reality, and government agencies are apparently trying to suppress the truth by silencing first responders that fought the fire.
Taking the veracity of the Suffolk County Water Authority’s Federally filed court document at face value, the 2.2 million gallons of water used on the fire is not speculative. The Water Authority would be fully aware of how much extra water they had to deliver on the days of the fire.
These BESS events need to be more clearly and thoroughly documented as the May 31 paper suggested, so a better database can be developed. Further, the documentation must be done by an independent agency, not the BESS System owners or the local governments caught in their economic gravity. The local politicians seem to be oblivious to the fact that they will also have to drink the contaminated water, and their children will have to wear clothes washed with “forever chemicals” or heavy metal laden water. It is disappointing that the same environmental groups that pushed for the PFAS apparel ban in NY State have been silent on PFAS in the drinking water from BESS fires. However, searching their donor list reveals the potential for large donations from the energy industry and Lithium Battery installers. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
The apparent exemption of the battery industry from regulations that would apply to every other industry is now presenting major complications for the people of NY State. How much environmental damage must be done before government officials start doing their job of protecting their constituents, instead of trying to put band-aids on the wounds caused by their energy system mismanagement?
There is plenty of blame to go around and the net combined effect is working against the health and wellbeing of NY State residents. This needs to be fixed, and quickly.
Richard Ellenbogen, M.E.E., is President of Allied Converters and brings extensive hands-on experience with issues related to New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act). His work reflects a practical understanding of how climate policy affects real-world business operations.
Roger Caiazza has previously published several of his articles, including a summary of his keynote address at the Business Council of New York’s 2023 Renewable Energy Conference, titled “Energy on Demand as the Lifeblood of Business and Entrepreneurship in New York State.” A video of the presentation, “Why New York State Must Rethink Its Energy Plan and Ten Suggestions to Help Fix the Problems,” is also available.
An engineer by training, Ellenbogen has long demonstrated a commitment to environmental stewardship, having been an early adopter of renewable energy technologies at both his home and business more than two decades ago.
