Flesh-dissolving acid warnings at battery storage site

2
Skip to next photo
1/1
Show caption
1/1
This article is brought to you by our exclusive subscriber partnership with our sister title USA Today, and has been written by our American colleagues. It does not necessarily reflect the view of The Herald.
Close Icon

Find, save and share Public Notices that affect you in the area.

Search the Public Notice Portal What is the Public Notice Portal?

What is the Public Notice Portal?

The Public Notice Portal carries statutory public notices published in local newspapers and is the fastest and most effective way of finding out what is happening in YOUR neighbourhood.

Search the Public Notice Portal

A DISASTER at a planned battery storage facility could release acid that "dissolves the flesh" across neighbouring communities, councillors have been warned.

Concerns over plans for a new battery energy storage site (BESS) at Cockenzie saw calls for East Lothian Council to object to it.

And fears over the impact of a fire on the site, which would be less than 100 metres from people’s homes, saw some councillors back objectors amid fears that not enough safeguards were in place.

Objector Brian Hall told a meeting of the council’s planning committee on Tuesday that the type of batteries likely to be used at the site could, in a disaster, lead to hydrofluoric acid being released into the community.

He said: “If the worst happens, it can release acid that dissolves the flesh.”

He pointed to incidents in California where fires had broken out at BESS projects.

The proposed facility would consist of 140 lithium-ion battery containers, intended to provide electricity for export to the grid; the batteries would store surplus electricity to be fed into the grid when required at short notice.

READ MORECouncillor concerned over Cockenzie battery storage facility

Ward councillors Lachlan Bruce and Colin Yorkston had both called the application in front of councillors due to local concerns.

Both Cockenzie and Port Seton, and Prestonpans Community Councils raised objections over safety concerns.

However, Councillor Norman Hampshire, planning convenor, said that BESS was part of a "fundamental move towards sustainable energy" and dismissed concerns about fires or its proximity to housing.

He said: “Concerns have been raised regarding some people thinking these things have a fire risk. If you believe they have a fire risk, it doesn’t matter where you put them in East Lothian, the impact would be on the whole of East Lothian because the wind blows in all directions, so every community would be at risk.

“I fundamentally don’t believe there is a massive fire risk with these facilities. I believe the technology will continue to develop and move forward.

“I am comfortable we have a technology which is being used around the world.”

The proposals for the storage facility, south of Inglis Farm and partly on farmland, had come before councillors last June, at which time they agreed to object to the proposals.

READ MOREFire safety concerns raised at planned battery storage site

Approval of the project, which is considered a national development, will be given by the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU); East Lothian Council is only able to comment or lodge objections.

Since last summer's meeting, the council’s chief planning officer had liaised with the ECU and conditions for the original objection had been resolved.

Planning officers had recommended no objections to the amended application, which is broadly similar to the original, with a small change of splitting the development into two ‘parcels’ of land.

At Tuesday's meeting, Mr Hampshire warned fellow members of the committee that objecting would lead to a public inquiry which they would lose and would cost money.

However, some councillors were concerned about a lack of fire safety input into the development, as well as criticising the applicants for failing to involve the local community in any emergency or contingency planning.

Jamie Scott, appearing as the agent for the applicant Cockenzie Storage Ltd, told the committee that emergency plans were in place in the event of something going wrong at the facility and it would be monitored remotely for signs of problems.

The committee agreed by seven votes to four to back officers' recommendations not to object to the plans but agreed to insist that the ECU ensure the "proposed BESS would not result in an unacceptable fire safety risk or that the matter of fire risk is competently dealt with under other legislation".

They further agreed to demand that their planning officers are involved in future talks with the unit, applicants and the community to ensure that their voices are heard, while an amendment from Councillor John McMillan that called for community councils to be consulted should a site safety management plan be required was also approved.

Get involved
with the news

Send your news & photos