Battery plant owners get more time to respond to East Hampton on toxic plume

The developers of a battery storage plant linked to a toxic plume in East Hampton Town have asked for and received another month to respond to a long list of information demands and action plans by East Hampton as testing of groundwater continues.

In a letter sent to the town Aug. 14, Gary Morris, vice president of the East Hampton Energy Storage Center, requested that the town extend deadlines from a July 31 letter to the facility by 30 days. Morris said the company, in the interim, was "prepared to communicate with the town during this review period regarding matters that may require more immediate attention and, where appropriate, provide information on a rolling basis."

East Hampton Supervisor Kathee Burke-Gonzalez wrote back Aug. 21 saying she wanted a final emergency-action and waste-management plan by Sept. 30, and new design and engineering controls to capture future water in the event of a fire, as well as a study of the plant’s necessity, by Oct. 31.

Burke-Gonzalez also asked for access to the plant for town analysts, saying the town "sees no need to delay access" since Suffolk County and the state have already been granted access. As for the "full reimbursement" of costs, she provided a number for the town attorney to arrange payment.

The Morris letter is the most communication seen to date from developer NextEra and its partner, National Grid, since revelations about the toxic plume were first reported by Newsday in June.

East Hampton first publicized its list of demands on Aug. 4. The July 31 letter followed revelations reported in Newsday that water used to extinguish a thermal runaway fire at the plant in 2023 may have contaminated drinking water wells near the Cove Hollow Road plant. The plant continues to operate, and the Suffolk County Water Authority, which has sued to seek reimbursement, has stopped using the four wells for Hamptons drinking water, which contained levels of a forever chemical, known as PFPrA, above a new state screening level.

East Hampton’s initial letter requested clarification about representations made by agents for the battery storage plant in 2017, when the town was reviewing the plan with an understanding that chemical constituents of the batteries could not be released.

"The failure is that you knew (or should have known) that a lithium-ion fire at this facility could be met with water, knew (or should have known) that thermal runaway opens cells, and that therefore building a containment for transformer oil and nothing else was not likely to contain runoff on site," Burke Gonzalez wrote.

"The concern, which appears to have manifested, is that [battery] cells may open under thermal runaway and that whatever is used to put the resulting fire out carries their contents into the ground," she wrote.

The site plan approved by the town’s planning board notes the facility was designed to contain potentially leaked mineral oil for on-site transformers "and nothing else," the letter said.

"Nothing else on the site would have held anything," the letter stated, a fact that may have caused the plume after more than 2.2 million gallons of water were poured on the burning plant when it caught fire.

"Based on recent information, the Town understands that the applicant’s representations to the Town may not have been accurate," the letter concluded.

The new emergency response plan demanded by the town would require that NextEra "specify how every gallon of that volume [of fire water in the event of another thermal runaway] will be collected, contained, characterized, and lawfully disposed of, with zero discharge to soil, groundwater, surface water."

The town also wants new controls to capture and hold "all fire water and all fire-related runoff." It also wants a hazardous-waste management plan that would govern "every waste stream a thermal event or equipment failure could generate" going forward, including through eventual decommissioning.

In requesting all spill-related representations made by the battery plant owners, the town is demanding the results of any sampling conducted by the companies before and after the fire. It’s also requesting a study that examines the necessity of the facility to the East End grid. 

NextEra spokesperson Chris Curtland, in an email, confirmed the company had received the town's Aug. 21 letter and is "reviewing its requests carefully." 

East Hampton in a statement said it will "continue to do what is the best interests of residents, including ensuring that the actions outlined in our letter are addressed. There is no meeting with NextEra planned at this time."

By Mark Harrington

mark.harrington@newsday.comMHarringtonNews

Mark Harrington, a Newsday reporter since 1999, covers energy, wineries, Indian affairs and fisheries.