AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PRIOR TO THE MEETING
AGENDA NO: PC
MEETING DATE: May 28, 2024
Dana Swanson
From: Rosemarie < rosemarie. barnard@gmail. com>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 12:01 PM
To: Dana Swanson
Subject: Public Comments for agenda correspondence RE: BESS proposal Attachments: BESS Best Practices. pdf
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
To Morro Bay City Clerk, Dana Swanson
Dear Ms. Swanson,
I have attached a PDF version of my public comments regarding the proposed Vistra BESS project in Morro Bay. I am a resident of Monterey County, living 5.2 miles from the Vistra BESS site at Moss Landing. Although I live in Monterey County, my husband and I own a property in Los Osos, CA. We spend a great deal of time both in Los Osos and in Morro Bay.
Thank you for submitting my correspondence as part of the agenda.
Kind regards,
Rosemarie Barnard
Supervisorial District 2
Monterey County
You don't often get email from rosemarie. barnard@gmail. com. Learn why this is important 1 May 25, 2024
City of Morro Bay
Attn: Kim Fowler, Interim Planning Manager
955 Shasta Avenue
Morro Bay, California 93442
BESScomments@morrobayca. gov
Re: Public comment to Vistra Draft EIR for Battery Storage proposal known as BESS Dear Ms. Fowler,
The Otay Mesa BESS fire now burning for 10 days in an industrial area just east of San Diego serves as a significant and dramatic backdrop to the most compelling arguments against a BESS facility on the Morro Bay Embarcadero. The small tourist-rich coastal town of Morro Bay will never be appropriate for a BESS facility. The entire idea of the Lithium-Ion storage facility in Morro Bay should be abandoned. Why? There are many reasons. Let’s examine two of the issues.
1. The risks outweigh the benefits andthe citizens and businesses of Morro Bay do not want it located in their front yard.
2. It violates the law and spirit of the 1976 Coastal Act
1. The risks outweigh the benefits andthe citizens and businesses of Morro Bay do not want it located in their front yard.
The citizens and businesses of Morro Bay have said ‘NO’. No Lithium-Ion battery storage facilities on their beach-front property. The residents are not saying ‘NO’ to BESS facilities in general, they are saying it does not belong in Morro Bay on beach-front property in a thriving tourist-rich business and residential environment. Notwithstanding Vistra's desire to use the old PG&E site, the BESS facility should not be located in Morro Bay for numerous reasons. Primarily, thermal runaway fires and the resulting toxic, corrosive gases, pose significant risks to humans, wildlife, as well as vegetation. An analysis of exposure to these harmful fumes and potential explosions were omitted from the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR's omission of a discussion on these hazards is a critical oversight that necessitates a rewrite and recirculation of the document. Allow me to highlight two recent thermal runaway incidents.
Our family lives 5.2 miles from the Moss Landing Vistra Lithium-Ion Battery Storage Facility.
Three times in as many years, we have heard this warning from the Monterey County office of Emergency Management, ( OEM).
There is an ongoing hazardous materials incident in Moss Landing. "Please shut your windows and turn off your ventilation systems. In the event of changing weather patterns, impacted areas may enlarge."
Included with the warning was a map with a large circle extended for miles in each direction of the Vistra BESS site in Moss Landing. Dozens of businesses, farm fields, a post office, restaurants, harbors and fishing industry, a major Highway, all of the surrounding surface 2 streets, and all residents of Moss Landing were impacted by mandated shuttering. How long? Each incident was different, but each lasted hours. In September of 2022 Highway 1 was shut down for 12 hours. The danger? Hydrogen Fluoride exposure and Phosphoryl Fluoride due to fire at the Vistra Battery Storage Facility in Moss Landing. These are the known issues. What are the unknown health risks? They simply do not disclose these risks to the public. Vistra has not named or disclosed any of these known toxins in their Draft EIR for the proposed Morro Bay BESS project.
According to the National Library of Medicine (NLM), we can’t aeord the health risks of poisoning by these gasses. https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC5577247/ The results of testing have been validated using two independent measurement techniques and show that large amounts of hydrogen fluoride ( HF) may be generated ( during battery storage facility fires), ranging between 20 and 200 mg/Wh of nominal battery energy capacity. In addition, 15– 22 mg/Wh of another potentially toxic gas, phosphoryl fluoride ( POF3), was measured in some of the fire tests.
In a recent Wired article, Guillermo Rein, professor of fire science said, “Safety measures for these storage facilities are still evolving.” “ There are significant gaps in our understanding of how to prevent and lessen the impact of the most catastrophic blazes.” “ We’re playing catchup,” he said in an interview with Wired. “ The risk is unknown, and it has to be measured.” More time is needed. How much more time? I appeal to you; Do not experiment with the residents, businesses and visitors of Morro Bay.
The article continues: “ Arcs, sparks and flames are a risk in any electrical system. When they occur in or around a battery, the outcome can be disastrous. When flames warm a battery cell, one of the repeating components of a larger battery, beyond a certain temperature, a chemical reaction begins that produces more heat, triggering the same process in neighboring cells.
Thermal runaway can take off in just milliseconds before smoke or heat can be detected by any alarm system. The fire spreads first within a cluster of surrounding cells that share electronics, known as a module, and then onto others, until a whole rack of batteries is ablaze.” The article referenced the Vistra Lithium-ion Battery storage facility in Moss Landing:
Battery systems installed by Vistra Energy in a former natural gas plant in Moss Landing, California, were shut down for months after incidents in 2021 and 2022 in which heatsuppression systems, intended to curb thermal runaway, were accidentally triggered, dousing batteries in water that caused arcing and short circuiting.” The result of which spread toxic fumes for miles.
https:// www.wired. com/ story/ big-grid-batteries- are-booming- so-are-fears-fire/ The dangers of fire or, thermal runaway, as it is commonly called in the industry, have not been addressed even once in the Morro Bay Draft EIR. Yet, this is the number one concern for those living, working, and visiting Morro Bay. The term ‘thermal runaway’ only relates to Lithium-ion batteries because heat alone will cause combustion leading to uncontrollable fire, shut-down, and evacuation of large areas.
3 The Draft EIR is 2,052 pages in length. Nearly twice the length of Tolstoy’ s War and Peace. Yet it does not address the real impact on the coastal community when a thermal runaway occurs. In fact, there is no citation for, or mitigation against thermal runaway. Nor does the term ‘thermal runaway’ or ‘thermal fire’ in the document. No local evacuation measures are included. No address of compensation to businesses impacted by a shut-down due to toxic gases released, nor does it address evacuation of a tourist rich environment. Instead, the Draft EIR states:
Emergency response and evacuation procedures are addressed in Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The MBFD has retained independent engineering and safety consultant to assist with a public safety analysis of the BESS Facility which would be used by the City and MBFD specifically in making decisions regarding BESS safety element design, emergency planning, and hazard minimization.”
However, Section 4.7 refers to a Morro Bay Fire Dept, (MBFD) document that is wholly insufficient to address the issue of thermal runaway. In fact, the cited document was written in 2008, well before the use of any US-based BESS facility. The section simply says:
The City has adopted a Multi-Hazard Emergency Response Plan, most recently revised in 2008 and developed by the Morro Bay Fire Department ( MBFD). The Emergency Response Plan covers City policies and concepts for responding to any and all emergencies that could affect the health, safety, and property of the public within City limits, including earthquakes, hazardous materials, multi- casualty events, storms and floods, wildland fires, terrorism, nuclear power plant events, and tsunamis (City of Morro Bay 2008). Most of the hazards in the response plan are also contained in the LHMP. The policies and general approach to emergency situations delineated in the Response Plan follow a number of widely adopted emergency response standards and operations protocols, including the National Incident Management System, the State Emergency Management System, and the Incident Command System.” A Good Neighbor?
The standard boilerplate response to the question about evacuation is wholly inadequate to address the real problem of emergency evacuation when people are on the beach and on the Embarcadero. The very real likelihood of a thermal runaway event cannot be underestimated or deemed “ insignificant” by someone who is simply checking a box. The insincere act of copy/ paste of other state and local documents does not quell the serious nature of questions posed by the residents of Morro Bay, nor does is make a significant question “ insignificant”.
WHAT is your evacuation plan in the very real, very likely event of thermal fire? To the people who live in Morro Bay, this is a significant concern which deserves a concerted effort in the reply from Vistra. The National Fire Prevention Association, NFPA, has recommendations for ‘Best Practices’ protocol for BESS facility operations, beginning with a pre-incident plan:
https:// www.nfpa.org/About-NFPA
Pre-Incident Planning
4 Vistra should develop a pre-incident plan for responding to fires, explosions, and toxic fume discharges as part of the emergency conditions associated with the BESS Draft EIR, and the preincident plan should include the following elements:
1. Understanding the procedures included in the facility operation and emergency response plan described
2. Identifying the types of BESS technologies present, the potential hazards associated with the systems, and methods for responding to fires and incidents associated with the particular BESS
3. Identifying the location of all electrical disconnects in the building and understanding that electrical energy stored in BESS equipment cannot always be removed or isolated
4. Understanding the procedures for shutting down and de-energizing or isolating equipment to reduce the risk of fire, electric shock, and personal injury hazards
5. Understanding the procedures for dealing with damaged BESS equipment in a post-fire incident, including the following:
a. Recognizing that stranded electrical energy in fire-damaged storage batteries and other BESS has the potential for reignition long after initial extinguishment b. Contacting personnel qualified to safely remove damaged BESS equipment from the facility (This contact information should be included in the facility operation and emergency response plan.)
Emergency Operations Planning
An emergency operations plan should be created as a part of the Draft EIR and should contain elements such as procedures to safely shut down the system, procedures for the removal of damaged BESS, procedures for disposal of contaminated water, general emergency procedures, and annual staff training.
San Diego BESS Thermal Runaway
The following map is a scaled overlay of the evacuated area of the Otay Mesa thermal runaway fire. It is overlayed onto an equally scaled map of Morro Bay. Keep in mind the Otay Mesa BESS is 250MW facility while the proposed Vistra BESS is 600MW. The purple border shows the area of evacuation during the Otay Mesa thermal runaway. Now, the overlay onto a map of Morro Bay.
Note the extent of the evacuation area in Morro Bay. It includes the beach, the entire Embarcadero area, residents and businesses, extending east beyond Highway 1. 5 When asked on Friday May 17 when the fire would be extinguished, Cal Fire representative said:
We’re not sure. We’re preparing for the worst and making plans to be here for a long time, two to four weeks and will reevaluate then,” said Captain Brent Pascua with Cal Fire San Diego. “ You have to put water on it to keep the fire confined, but that water damages the batteries also allowing them to arc starting another fire. We’re just trying to keep the public safe and keep the fire contained to the building,” he said. The chain reaction can happen when a lithium-ion battery creates heat faster than it can dissipate. That rapid increase of temperature can then turn to fire.
The fire began last Wednesday at the Gateway Energy Storage facility and flare-ups over the weekend put evacuations warnings for the surrounding area back in place. Firefighters remain on standby to monitor air quality and water runoff. They will stay on site until it is confirmed there is no longer a threat to public safety,” Cal Fire said.
A road closure is still in place near Camino de la Fuente at Paseo de la Fuente. The road closure as of this writing, has been in place for 10 days. CalFire reports they have used 5,000,000 gallons of water (5Million). What do you do with 5,000,000 gallons of contaminated water? Apparently Vistra also doesn’ t know. Although the word ‘Water’ is used 87 times in the Draft EIR it is never used in conjunction with contaminated water drained from thermal runaway.
The following incident reports, issued by CalFire and public warning flyer were sent out to the public.
6 Please read the Situation Summary on each report. Then imagine for a moment, the thermal fire is on beach front property…imagine a fire of this magnitude on the Morro Bay Embarcadero site but instead of 250MW BESS facility, a 600MW BESS facility is on fire. Instead of an industrial area in Otay Mesa being evacuated, imagine the entire Embarcadero being shut down and evacuated for 10 days. Imagine every business, every hotel being asked to either shelter in place or leave the area immediately. Imagine this happening on a Spring day in May at 3:00 in the afternoon! That is exactly what happened in Otay Mesa Bess facility San Diego CA.
Firefighters responded to a commercial structure fire involving Hazardous Materials Lithium-lon Batteries) in thermal runaway within an Energy Storage Facility in East Otay Mesa on the afternoon of May 15. This is an ongoing incident due to the complexity of the battery system and the harmful gasses making access an issue for firefighters. The building' s sprinkler system is currently being supplemented with the use of the existing standpipe system and the fire is still contained to the building of origin. We have hazardous materials teams from the County and City of San Diego as well, as Subject Matter Experts on site to help get this evolving situation under control.” Fire Incident Report May 17, 2024, 2-days after ignition.
WARNING
CAL FIRE/San Diego County Fire is at scene of the re-ignited structure fire near 600 Camino De La Fuente, Otay Mesa. The San Diego County Sheriff’ s Department has issued an Evacuation Order. An Evacuation Order requires immediate movement out of the affected area due to an imminent threat to life. All persons in the impacted area should prepare to evacuate.
Evacuation Order means:
There is extreme danger in your area.
You must leave now
Do not wait.
Contact your neighbors and share information
An Evacuation Warning has also been issued. An Evacuation Warning requires immediate movement out of the affected area due to an imminent threat to life.
Evacuation Warning means:
You may be in danger soon.
Leave now if you need extra time, or do not feel safe.
Call your emergency contacts now if you need help.
Contact your neighbors and share information.
Vulnerable populations such as people with disabilities, people with access or functional needs, and/or large animals should leave now.
For all updates, monitor @SDSheriff and @CALFIRESANDIEGO https:// www.alertsandiego. org/en-us/incident-page.1255.html On May 17, the above warning was issued to all persons known to live, work, and recreate in the evacuation area of the Otay Mesa BESS facility. Please note the road closures, 1-4 miles from the thermal runaway. The entire Morro Bay Embarcadero would be closed down when a thermal runaway fire occurs. BESS facilities do not belong in populated tourist rich environments. They belong in industrial and scarcely populated areas.)
7 8
9 10
The Draft EIR fails to provide for compliance to the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA), which requires public lead agencies to impose feasible mitigation measures as part of the approval of a “project” in order to substantially lessen or avoid the significant adverse effects of the project on the physical environment. California Code of Regulations, Title 14 (CEQA Guidelines), Section 15370 defines “ mitigation” as:
Avoiding the impact altogether,
Minimizing the impact by limiting its degree or magnitude, Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environmental resource,
Reducing or eliminating the impact over time, through actions that preserve or maintain the resource, and
Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environmental conditions, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements.
In the DEIR, a resident asks: “( Will) the fire department require additional equipment or training to serve the proposed project.”
Answer given: “ The fire prevention and suppression technology for the BESS Facility are described in Section 2, Project Description. As discussed therein, the safety features required for the BESS Facility would be developed in consultation with the MBFD. The potential for environmental impacts to fire protection services is discussed in Section 4.10, Effects Found Not to be Significant. The MBFD has retained independent engineering and safety consultant to assist with a public safety analysis of the BESS Facility which would be used by the City and MBFD specifically in making decisions regarding BESS safety element design, emergency planning, and hazard minimization. “
Yet, the overwhelming evidence for a more thoughtful answer is obvious to the average reader. A closer look at the Camino Fire incident reports of the Otay Mesa BESS fire indicate considerable equipment, manpower and training. At the onset of the fire, five engines and 40 firefighters were deployed, and it took 10 days to bring it under control. This is not to mention that Cal Fire expects to be on site for an additional 2 weeks. To categorize these “Effects Found Not to be Significant” is an insincere attempt to address a known risk, thermal runaway. It’s insulting and entirely insufficient for a Draft EIR.
2. It violates the law and spirit of the 1976 Coastal Act - The Morro Bay BESS facility is not coastal dependent and therefore should not be located in populated areas where already exist a concentration of buildings, infrastructure and economic activity. Bess projects should be located away from coastal roads where ingress and egress would be impeded. https:// www.coastal. ca.gov/ coastact. pdf
The Coastal Commission has been a champion of protecting the California coastline 11 Background:
The California Coastal Commission was established in response to growing public concern over the development of California’ s waters and coastlines. The commission' s creation was driven by grassroots activism, leading to legislative action and a voter-approved initiative, after the devastation of an oil spill in the waters off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969. The public outcry was palpable. After the Santa Barbara oil spill, an activist group organized the “Save our Coast” initiative. In fact, the next election cycle became the pivotal moment in the establishment of the California Coastal Commission with the passage of Proposition 20, also known as the Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972. Later it became, the California Coastal Act of 1976.
Corporations could no longer reap substantial profits at the expense of pristine coastal property.
This legislation then established the California Coastal Commission as a permanent body. The Coastal Act provided the Commission with the authority to plan and regulate land and water uses along the California coast, ensuring public access, and environmental protection. Since the proposed BESS facility is not coastal dependent, building it at the proposed Morro Bay site is in violation of the Coastal Act, because it disregards the following foundational principles:
The Coastal Act recognizes the importance of both the natural environment and economic development that is dependent upon the resources of the coast. Any and all of the proposed BESS projects in Morro Bay deprives the public from the use of the iconic rock and beach along this stretch of the central coast.
The Coastal Act begins with a section (30001) on the importance of the California coast and its ecological balance:
The Legislature hereby finds and declares:
a) That the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people and exists as a delicately balanced ecosystem. b) That the permanent protection of the state’s natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation. c) That to promote the public safety, health, and welfare, and to protect public and private property, wildlife, marine fisheries, and other ocean resources, and the natural environment, it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone and prevent its deterioration and destruction.
d) That existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of this division, are essential to the economic and social well-being of the people of this state and especially to working persons employed within the coastal zone. “
Among other guarantees, The Coastal Act promises the people, to prioritize certain types of activities and development over other types, in the coastal zone. “ For instance, “ visitor-serving 12 commercial”, recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation are prioritized over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal- dependent industry (30222). Recreational boating and its related facilities are encouraged in the Coastal Act (30224).” The Morro Bay BESS project site is currently zoned as ‘Visitor- serving Commercial’ according to the Morro Bay General plan. This is a prima facie and undeniable fact. Therefore, any plan to build out a BESS facility in Morro Bay is illegitimate.
Since BESS is not a coastal dependent project, and it possesses an undeniable risk of terrorist sabotage and a high likelihood of thermal runaway, it does not fit the spirit of, or letter of the law.
The Coastal Act (30253) further dictates that new development be designed and sited to minimize adverse impacts to coastal resources, both natural and visitor-serving, as follows:
New development shall do all of the following: (a) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (b) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. (c) Be consistent with requirements imposed by an air pollution control district or the State Air Resources Board as to each particular development. ( d) Minimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled. (e) Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.
The proposed BESS site at Morro Bay does not meet the criteria outlined in the California Coastal Act of 1976.
A lithium-ion battery storage facility on beachfront property could potentially violate both the letter and spirit of the 1976 California Coastal Act in several ways: The Coastal Act emphasizes the protection, enhancement, and restoration of the natural and scenic qualities of the coastal zone. It requires that development be carried out in a manner that minimizes adverse environmental impacts. A lithium-ion battery storage facility could pose risks such as thermal runaway fires, toxic and corrosive gas emissions, and potential explosions, which can harm the coastal environment, including wildlife and plant habitats. The Act mandates that maximum public access to the coast and recreational opportunities be provided. Constructing an industrial facility on beachfront property might limit public access and reduce the recreational value of the coastline. This goes against the Act's provisions that ensure public access and enjoyment of the coast. The Coastal Act requires the protection of marine resources and maintenance of the biological productivity of coastal waters. Potential leaks, spills, or other incidents from a lithium-ion battery storage facility could pollute the coastal waters, harming marine life and ecosystems, thereby violating the provisions aimed at protecting the marine environment.
13 The Coastal Act is a safeguard for the Preservation of Scenic and Visual Coastal Qualities:
The spirit of the Coastal Act includes preserving the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas for public enjoyment. An industrial facility could significantly alter the natural beauty of the beachfront, undermining the aesthetic and recreational values cherished by the public. The Coastal Act promotes development that is consistent with the preservation and sustainable use of coastal resources. The risks associated with lithium-ion battery storage, such as potential environmental hazards and safety issues, contradict the sustainable and careful use of coastal resources that the Act envisions.
The establishment of a lithium-ion battery storage facility on beachfront property is likely to contravene both the legal requirements and the underlying principles of the 1976 Coastal Act.
These include protecting coastal resources, ensuring public access and enjoyment, safeguarding marine environments, and maintaining the scenic and sustainable use of coastal zones. To comply with the Coastal Act, such facilities should ideally be located away from sensitive coastal areas to prevent environmental degradation and preserve public access and enjoyment of the coast.
The following provisions are set forth in the Coastal Act:
a) Protect, maintain, and where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources. b) Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state. c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners. d) Assure priority for coastal- dependent and coastal-related development over other development on the coast.
e) Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone.
The Coastal Commission shall prioritize the public’ s right to access the shoreline (30210 to 30214): Maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.
Coastal development should not impede existing rights of access: Development shall not interfere with the public’ s right of access to the sea, where acquired through use or legislative authorization.
14 When thermal runaway occurs, Vistra will be required to set aside the Coastal Act for days, weeks, or longer. This is what happened in Moss Landing with the closure of Highway 1. This is what would have happened in Otay Mesa if the facility had been located on the coast.
Because the Morro Bay BESS facility is proposed for beach front property, it is vulnerable to terrorist attack. Yet the Draft EIR does not address mitigation against terrorist strikes. Electric Infrastructure, ( EI) and their exposure to terrorist attacks are discussed in detail on several internet websites. EI and terrorist attacks have become a common theme in government reports, industry journals, and academic articles. The Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress reports that EI is “an obvious target to a range of actors who would seek to strike at the U.S. homeland.”
https:// www.hstoday. us/subject- matter-areas/ counterterrorism/ how-terrorists- could-proceedwith-the-next-physical- attack-on-energy-infrastructure/ The Draft EIR has not addressed any worst-case scenarios, and has simply rubber-stamped the questions “ found to be insignificant”. The Draft EIR does not oeer mitigation for thermal runaway, toxic and corrosive fumes, (which are not named or disclosed). The Draft EIR has no plan for safely evacuating thousands of people, shuttering hundreds of businesses and moving people oe the ocean and out of the surf. The Draft EIR does not include mitigation for a terrorist attack on the facility. The Draft EIR does not address the impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat for sensitive endangered species; ESHA, (The Morro Bay harbor is ideally conducive to the life of otters because of the shallow waters).
The Draft EIR does not address the necessary evacuation of Morro Bay High School, which is 3.1 miles away, and it doesn’t address evacuation of the children’s park which lies on their property.
The Draft EIR does not disclose the fact that the BESS facility is NOT coastal dependent and is therefore ineligible for the Embarcadero site. The Draft EIR does not cite the conflict between the current zoning designation “ visitor-serving commercial” and the contentious fight to re- zone, which they hope will save their project.
The Draft EIR does not acknowledge the role of the California Coastal Commission in their authority to prioritize coastal recreation, commercial and industrial uses that need a waterfront location. The proposed Morro Bay BESS facility fails on this point alone.
Vistra oeicials have openly admitted they haven't yet decided on a definitive project design to implement. With only one project permissible at a time, the developer' s indecision—wavering between the “project” in the application and “alternative # 5”—is unacceptable. If Vistra wishes to change the design, they must withdraw the current application and start over with a new Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as required by CEQA 15088. 5 (4).
The Draft EIR is fundamentally and egregiously inadequate, preventing meaningful public review and comment, a clear violation of CEQA 15088. 5. This is not just a bureaucratic misstep—it's a blatant disregard for the community' s right to a transparent and thorough environmental review. 15 The fire hazard analysis and safety protocols, irresponsibly outsourced to DNV Energy, USA through the MB Fire Department, are to be addressed later. However, CEQA 15126.4 (b) explicitly states that the formulation of mitigation measures shall not be deferred. This negligence jeopardizes public safety and environmental integrity.
The community deserves better than this dismissive and reckless approach. Vistra's actions undermine the EIR process's integrity and threaten public safety. It is imperative for the developer to comply with legal requirements, ensuring transparency and accountability by starting the process anew. This is why I must demand the Draft EIR be Recirculated.
While I am grateful, and thank Vistra for their interest in, and commitment to reducing the overall carbon footprint, and for their willingness to develop and acquire low or no carbon assets. In my mind, the push to industrialize the Morro Bay coastline with their enormous 600MW Lithium-ion battery storage facility is eerily similar to Union Oil’s contract to drill for oil oe the California Coast of Santa Barbara. It will all work well… until it doesn’t. If we have learned one thing it has been to plan for, and expect the worst. Vistra, in their Draft EIR has failed to plan for thermal runaway and the inevitable toxic poison fumes that will follow. It is irresponsible. They simply leave it up to the Morro Bay Fire Department’ s 2008 policy and protocol for emergency thermal runaway fire. This is not good enough for the people of Morro Bay. Simply put, our community believes the proposed Vistra BESS facility is unequivocally wrong for our neighbors and our community.
Finally, the most salient reason to shut down this proposed project is because the good people of Morro Bay have shouted a resounding “ NO”! “ Not in our front yard”. As elected oeicials, these are the people you made a commitment to serve. These are the residents who want to feel safe in their community. They are your top priority. Vistra makes the claim that they want to be good neighbors. For this pledge, the residents of Morro Bay applaud, but also hasten to say, you don’t go into a neighbor’ s front yard without consent. We do not consent.
Sincerely,
Rosemarie Barnard
Monterey County
CC: Mayor Wixom and Morro Bay City Council; Planning Chair and Commissioners; Sarah MacGregor, Coastal Planner, California Coastal Commission Dana Swanson
From: Laura Candler < laura@lauracandler. com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 8:41 AM
To: Dana Swanson
Subject: Letter of Concern Regarding the Proposed BESS Project Attachments: Laura Candler' s Response to the DEIR May 27 2024.pdf CAUTION: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
Good morning!
Please see the attached PDF of my letter expressing my concerns about the proposed BESS project. I’ve already emailed itto the city manager, the mayor and city council, the planning commission, and the California Coastal Commission. However, I was asked to send a copy to this email so that you could publish it as agenda correspondence. Thanks!
Laura Candler
You don't often get email from laura@lauracandler. com. Learn why this is important May 27, 2024
City of Morro Bay
Attn: Kim Fowler, Interim Planning Manager
955 Shasta Avenue
Morro Bay, California 93442
[email protected]
Dear Ms. Fowler,
The first time I visited Morro Bay, I fell in love with your beautiful coastal community! I live in North Carolina, but my sister is a resident of Morro Bay, so I'm able to visit Morro Bay on a regular basis. I always look forward to my visits because there's so much to see and do in the area. My sister and I love walking on the beach together, as well as kayaking in the harbor, swimming in the ocean, going whale watching, exploring the quaint shops and restaurants, observing the adorable otters, and photographing the amazing sunsets! The reason I'm writing this letter is to express my deep concerns about the proposed BESS project, and I also want to respond to the draft version of the EIR that was released several months ago. Even though I'm not a resident, I've been in Morro Bay enough to know that the selected site is NOT an appropriate location for the proposed battery storage facility. My sister and I have walked the Embarcadero out to Morro Rock many times, so I'm familiar with the area. In fact, the proposed site is so absurd that it makes me wonder what kind of company would choose to build a potentially dangerous battery storage plant in that location. The proposed site in the middle of a quaint tourist town on a dead end road that leads to Morro Rock. The site is in close proximity to a high school, it's near a national estuary, and it's within walking distance of a state park! If any incident occurred that required nearby residents and visitors to evacuate, it would be almost impossible to get everyone OUT of the area while allowing first responders and emergency personnel to get IN to deal with the incident.
Furthermore, the proposed location is in a flood and tsunami zone, which is notable because lithium ion batteries become unstable and can spontaneously combust when exposed to salt water! If that weren't enough, the proposed site is located in an area where the sand and soil has the potential for liquefaction in the event of an earthquake! According to the Earthquake Track website which uses USGS data to track seismic activity, in the last year alone there have been over 150 small earthquakes (M1.5 or greater) in Morro Bay! It's not unreasonable to assume that a significant earthquake might result in liquefaction of the soil under the storage plant, potentially damaging the batteries and leading to battery fires.
If a visitor to Morro Bay like myself can easily identify dozens of problems with the proposed site, it defies logic to think that any responsible energy company would want to build one of the world's largest battery storage plants in this area. Since an environmental impact report is required as a part of the approval process, one might expect that the EIR would bring these problems to light. Unfortunately, as I read the draft EIR that was released in March, I was disappointed to discover that it failed to adequately address even the most obvious problems. 1 Furthermore, the conclusions at the end of the report were based on skimpy evidence and faulty logic. For example, despite the fact that dozens of fires have occurred at battery storage facilities over the last few years, the DEIR downplays the chance that a fire might occur at the Morro Bay site, and it downplays the length of time such a fire might last. It also doesn't explain how a battery fire would be extinguished or even contained if one does occur. Fires from lithium ion batteries are extremely hot and cannot be extinguished with water, so the process of thermal runaway causes them to spread from one battery unit to another. Even though the fires can't be extinguished with water, massive amounts of water are sprayed on them in an attempt to cool the batteries and keep the fires from spreading. Since the fires can't be extinguished, they often burn out of control for days or weeks! The recent battery storage fire in Otay Mesa has been burning for 10 days and it's still not completely out. Furthermore, over millions of gallons of water have been used to try to contain that fire. Morro Bay has a water shortage, which makes me wonder where the water would come from to contain a battery fire in Morro Bay.
When I searched the EIR to see how it addressed the prospect of a runaway battery fire, I was shocked to discover that it never even mentions the term "thermal runaway"! Furthermore, it doesn't include a clear and specific plan to explain how residents and visitors in the area would be evacuated safely at the same time that emergency personnel are attempting to access the site. The topic is only addressed in a general sense, including a mention that safety protocols are being outsourced to DNV Energy, USA through the Morro Bay fire department and that those protocols will be developed at a later date. Considering the fact that the proposed site is on a dead end road near a high school, I can see why they would want to outsource this task.
But no matter how many times they outsource it, it's hard to imagine ANY company being able to come up with a safe plan for evacuating the area.
This is just one example of how the draft EIR fails to adequately identify and address the potential problems associated with the proposed BESS location in Morro Bay. That document is over 600 pages long, but a close reading reveals that it consists of page after page of faulty logic, has many glaring omissions, and includes conclusory statements that are based on flimsy evidence. In short, the BESS draft EIR is fundamentally flawed and needs to be recirculated.
Since I'm not a resident of Morro Bay, you might be wondering why I'm taking time to write this letter and express my concerns. I think my perspective as a visitor allows me to truly see and appreciate the uniqueness of Morro Bay, and I want to do everything in my power to make sure that Morro Bay retains its charm and character. Not only is Morro Bay a quaint and friendly town, it's also a haven for outdoor enthusiasts and wildlife lovers. People travel from all over the world to visit Morro Bay, and those visitors enjoy many activities such as golfing, swimming, kayaking, whale watching, surfing, and hiking. Morro Bay also hosts many special events throughout the year that draw thousands of visitors at a time to the area. Some of the more notable events are the Morro Bay Bird Festival in January, the Kite Festival and Ironman competition in May, and the Witch's Paddle in October. Visitors love to view the wildlife in Morro Bay including many species of birds, as well as sea otters, harbor seals, dolphins, sea lions, and humpback whales. Morro Bay is also a great place to enjoy a seafood meal at a waterfront restaurant. I love the map on the Morro Bay visitor's website that shows many of the fun places to visit and highlights the recreational opportunities in the area. I've included a copy of that map 2 along with some photos of Morro Bay at the end of my letter because words alone can't adequately convey the unique character of this small town.
According to information available on the Morro Bay website, the town attracts more than 800,000 visitors a year. Tourism is a huge part of the local economy, so it's important to consider how the construction of a battery storage plant might impact tourism in the area. As a frequent visitor myself, I'm horrified to imagine how the people and wildlife in Morro Bay would be subjected to several years of construction noise, dust, and increased traffic while the battery storage plant is being built. Then after construction is finished, who will want to visit a town which is the site of a huge battery storage plant? As people become aware of the potential dangers of these storage facilities, they aren't going to want to spend time anywhere near them.
I've been in Morro Bay on a weekend in the summer when thousands of people can be seen enjoying outdoor concerts in the parks, visiting Morro Rock, kayaking in the bay, or dining at the harbor restaurants. All of these activities take place within a mile of the proposed site, setting up the potential for a disastrous outcome if a fire were to break out at the BESS. If that happens, traffic will be insane as thousands of people try to leave the area, potentially obstructing access for the emergency vehicles that are trying to get into the area to deal with the incident. People who are visiting Morro Rock will be trapped at the end of the road with no way out. Even if a fire never occurs at this location, I suspect that tourists who regularly visit Morro Bay will look for new coastal destinations where they don't have to be concerned about their safety. In addition, organizations that host special events in Morro Bay will be looking for new venues that aren't located near facilities that have the potential to endanger their participants.
For all of these reasons, I object to the BESS project proposed for Morro Bay and I ask that the draft EIR be rewritten and recirculated before any further consideration is given to the proposal. The purpose of an EIR is to inform the public and decision makers about the potential environmental effects of a proposed project and to identify ways to mitigate or avoid these effects, but the draft EIR released in March falls well short of this goal. Despite the length of the document, many questions are left unanswered, including the ones below:
What steps will be taken to ensure that the BESS is built on a foundation that can withstand the effects of soil liquefaction during a major earthquake? What steps will be taken to ensure that the battery units will not be exposed to salt water in the event of seawater flooding?
In the event of a fire, what will be the source of the water needed to cool the batteries and attempt to contain the fire?
What is the plan for safely evacuating thousands of people from the area near the BESS in the event of a fire, while at the same time allowing emergency personnel to access the site?
What steps will be taken during the construction process to reduce the impacts on tourism from noise, additional traffic, and airborne particles such as dust? Even if the EIR is rewritten and these questions are answered, I find it hard to believe that the revised EIR will be able to reassure Morro Bay residents and visitors that the proposed BESS project will not significantly impact their community in a negative way. It should be clear to 3 anyone who is familiar with the location that it's not an appropriate site for a battery storage facility of any size. I hope that after recirculation and all of the potential impacts are identified, considered and reviewed, the city will not certify this EIR and will reject the project.
Sincerely,
Laura Candler
CC: Mayor Wixom and Morro Bay City Council; Planning Chair and Commissioners; Sarah MacGregor, Coastal Planner, California Coastal Commission Map of Morro Bay showing the location of parks and recreational opportunities as well as their proximity to the proposed site (indicated by the red arrow). 4 Morro Bay in Pictures
These photos are included because they show the charm and character of Morro Bay as well as some of the wildlife in the area. Morro Bay is not an industrial town. It's a vibrant and thriving coastal community that is not an appropriate location for a battery storage plant. 5 6
7 8
9 Dana Swanson
From: Jeanne Marie Colby < colbysplacemb@gmail. com>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 2:52 PM
To: Dana Swanson
Subject: Otay Mesa and my comment letter
Attachments: Jeanne Marie Colby comment letter to DEIR 5_24_2024.pdf CAUTION: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
Dear Ms. Swanson,
Attached is my public comment letter to the BESS project. I have submitted it to Ms. Fowler, but would also ask that it is also published as part of the correspondence for either or both, the city council and planning commission due to the urgent need to notify the public and various agencies of the consequences of an Otay Mesa type thermal runaway event, if it were here in Morro Bay.
Thank you,
Jeanne Marie Colby
You don't often get email from colbysplacemb@gmail. com. Learn why this is important To the city of Morro Bay
Re: Public comment to draft EIR for battery storage proposal May 24, 2024
From: Jeanne Marie Colby
The project site, the city of Morro Bay and a precious National Estuary. 1 City of Morro Bay
Attn: Senior Planning Manager
955 Shasta Avenue
Morro Bay, California 93442
Email: BESScomments@morrobayca. gov
Cc: City Council and Mayor Wixom
Planning Chair and Commissioners
California Coastal Commission
Dawn Addis, Assemblymember 30th district
Re: Public comment to draft EIR for battery storage proposal May 24, 2024
Dear Ms. Fowler,
I am a resident of Morro Bay, and have lived here for two years. I love this town, the friendly people, the beaches and the estuary with its richly diverse wildlife. Along with many other devoted residents here, I am fighting to keep Morro Bay from industrializing. Hugged by Morro Rock and the sandspit, the national estuary is a haven for wildlife, with thousands of species of fish, birds and marine mammals breeding, nesting and overwintering here. People visit or move to Morro Bay to get away from all the noise and the rat race of metropolitan areas. Morro Bay harbor is so highly protected that a young gray whale came in and swam around the harbor, and back out to sea, day after day for about two weeks during April of this year. We want our community and harbor to stay safe for humans and wildlife. An unsafe facility such as the proposed BESS is not acceptable to this community.
The draft EIR is inadequate in that it failed to acknowledge the single most common and dangerous impact; thermal runaway, and the hazardous toxic fumes that are released from the fires that result. These thermal runaway incidents are so common there is a database for them,1 and a BESS plant in Otay Mesa, California is on day 8 of thermal runaway. The failure to identify the impacts and the hazardous materials releases that will follow thermal runaway is a fatal flaw requiring recirculation.
On May 15, 2024, a module of lithium-ion batteries ignited in a 250 MW BESS facility in Otay Mesa, near San Diego. Firefighters barricaded a 600 foot perimeter as they detected toxic gasses in that area. The fire was believed to be extinguished after 22 hours, but it reignited itself multiple times in a six day period. The Otay Mesa BESS 1 BESS Failure Event Database - EPRI Storage Wiki
2 situation is a textbook thermal runaway and an example of what could happen here, except in Morro Bay it would be an unmitigated disaster because of the fragile environment and proximity to residential neighborhoods, downtown and recreational areas.
Robert Rezende, battalion chief and the Alternative Energy Emergency Response Coordinator for the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, was at the storage facility Friday. Rezende said he wasn’t surprised the fire keeps reigniting because that’s common with lithium-ion batteries.“ You might stop the original fire, but then you may have damage to neighboring batteries that might take two, three, four hours before they start going into thermal runaway,” Rezende said.“ You end up having these kind of cascading events for an undetermined amount of time ..." 2 “ While unfortunate, this development was not unexpected.” Rev Renewables, a subsidiary of LS Power that owns and operates the Gateway facility said.
Describing the expected duration of the thermal runaway in Otay Mesa, Cal Fire Capt. Brent Pascua stated,“ Speaking with the experts, in the past they’ve had situations like these and it’s anywhere from seven days to a couple of weeks," Pascua said a few days ago. The stubborn fire has 40 firefighters and 5 engines working to extinguish it.3 Days later, on May 21, Capt. Brent Pascua stated,“ We’re preparing for the worst and making plans to be here for a long time, two to four weeks and we will reevaluate then.” 4 As of now, the whole building is in flames and they just hope it does not spread to another building.
If the Otay Mesa BESS runaway fire were in Morro Bay it would have devastating consequences. In Morro Bay, within the vicinity of the project site are homes, numerous restaurants and shops, residential areas, tourists walking around, riding bikes, paddling and surfing; the endangered sea otter nurseries, steelhead trout in Morro Creek, the endangered western snowy plover and other nesting birds, and many protected species. 5 As the fire reignites over a period of many days or weeks, most of the city would be evacuated for an extended period. Wildlife would be killed, nests abandoned, and tourists gone for good. Firefighting assistance from neighboring jurisdictions may not be able to access the facility due to gridlock during evacuation. Residents and visitors may be sickened from the toxic fumes. All of this would be due to the location of the project.
Otay Mesa raises some important questions. What will those toxic fumes do to a small community, visitors and the wildlife? How will we evacuate from Morro Rock and 5 Firefighters battling blaze at battery storage facility in Otay Mesa, - The San Diego Union-Tribune.… 4 Otay Mesa battery facility fire could take weeks to put out entirely.pdf 3 Otay Mesa fire keeps reigniting
2 Fire flares up again at battery storage facility in Otay Mesa - The San Diego Union-Tribune.pdf 3 the Embarcadero and where will we go for several weeks? How much water does it take for fire suppression for a thermal runaway event that lasts for several weeks? Where is that water going to come from? Where does the contaminated water go after it is used for fire suppression? If Otay Mesa needs 40 firefighters for 250 MW, and we have 600 MW here, will we need 100 firefighters and where are they going to come from? If the barricaded perimeter in Otay Mesa in which toxic, corrosive gasses were detected is 600 feet, what would the barricaded area in Morro Bay need to be for a facility almost 3 times the size?
4 The sprinklers inside the BESS facility are reportedly using 350 gallons per minute (GPM) of water. That equals 504,000 gallons for a 24 hour period just for the sprinklers in the building. For the exterior of a burning commercial structure, an uninterrupted flow of 500 GPM from three hose lines with each handline flowing a minimum of 150 GPM is required. 6 That is 720,000 gallons per 24 hour period. The total amount of water used for both interior and exterior fire suppression, is estimated at 1,224,000 gallons per day. For a two week period that will be approximately 17,136,000 gallons.
The Offsite Consequences Analysis is a flawed document.
Nine days after the Draft EIR was published, a document was published that was erroneously excluded from the CEQA process. Rincon knew or should have known of the document; they used Figure 02 from Ramboll, the authors of the “Offsite Consequence Analysis”( OCA). The OCA was the first acknowledgement there might be a thermal runaway exposing Morro Bay to toxic and corrosive fumes, but most of the public and agencies who review the project will not see this document as it is not referenced in the EIR. The OCA was inexplicably excluded from the CEQA process in a letter from Vistra to the city dated May 7, 2024. 7
Ramboll identifies toxic gas exposure to humans nearby as an impact but discounts it as “less than significant.” The analysis is based on flawed assumptions including:( 1) that exposures will only be for 24 hours, an arbitrary “lowball” figure, as the Otay Mesa thermal runaway has been ongoing for six days now, reigniting itself, and many of these incidents last for days;( 2) that only one container of batteries would ignite (Otay Mesa has had several modules of batteries ignite and burn in thermal runaway) and (3) that only BESS fires in the U.S. should be studied 8 Thermal runaway fires and the toxic, corrosive gasses that result are an impact that can result in exposure to toxic, corrosive fumes to humans and wildlife. It can also cause explosions. The failure to discuss this in the DEIR itself is a fatal flaw requiring a rewrite and recirculation of the DEIR.9
9 As the Supreme Court in Banning Ranch, at p. 25-26, cited above, indicated,“... a fragmented presentation is inadequate. Readers of an EIR must not be required to “ferret out” an unreferenced discussion in related material …The data in an EIR must not only be sufficient in quantity, it must be presented in a manner calculated to adequately inform the public and decision makers, who may not be previously familiar with the project. Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova ( 2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435 (Vineyard).)”
8. Vistra/ Ramboll OCA analysis
7 May 7 Vistra letter
6 Fire Service Hose- Lines and NFPA 14 Requirements
5 Thermal runaway fires keep happening in the battery storage industry, despite all the marketing claims that technology has made great strides.10 But the extent of the draft EIR analysis on the BESS fire danger is “we cannot be assured there will not be a fire,” on the last page. This is grossly inadequate.
Here are some of the reported BESS thermal runaway events/ fires in recent years:
A BESS thermal runaway May 15, 2024 in Otay Mesa, near San Diego, that was thought to be extinguished after 22 hours but reignited several times and continues as I submit this letter;
two Vistra BESS fire incidents at Moss Landing in 2021 and 2022; one Moss Landing PG&E BESS fire;11
a lithium-ion battery fire at the port of Oakland, May 12 of this year; a BESS fire in Germany, April 27 of this year;
900 tons of li-ion batteries burning in Viviez, France February 18, 2024; a BESS fire in Surprise AZ, with an explosion blowing the doors off the facility and causing permanent injuries to trained HAZMAT team members, 12
a BESS fire in Flagstaff AZ;
a 14 day BESS fire in Chandler AZ;
a fire at the “Big Bessie” in Australia in 2023,
at least four BESS fires in NY leading to moratoriums and proposed legislation;
a BESS fire in Valley Center, California, 2023;
over 30 BESS fires in South Korea;
a 2020 BESS fire in Liverpool, UK;
a BESS fire database indicates there have been at least 86 BESS fires reported. 13
The project site is in the coastal zone, governed by the Coastal Act of 1976 which is codified in the California Public Resources Code, starting at Section 30000. The main goals of the Coastal Act include to “protect, maintain,”“ enhance and restore” the quality of the coastal zone environment. Section 30001.5 states that the Coastal Act will prioritize “coastal-dependent” development. Coastal dependent uses are those which require a location on or adjacent to the sea in order to function at all, and are highly 13 BESS Failure Event Database - EPRI Storage Wiki
12 A deflagration event in the Surprise, Arizona incident resulted in a jet flame that extended at least 75 ft outward and an estimated 20 ft vertically; all four HAZMAT team members lost consciousness; injuries included traumatic brain injury, chemical burns, broken bones and a collapsed lung. Four Firefighters Injured In Lithium-Ion Battery Energy Storage System Explosion - Arizona 11 This fire resulted in a shelter-in-place several miles across with a hazardous materials warning. 10 A number of insurers have withdrawn from the market on the back of fires at BESS facilities around the world.Fire risk at battery energy storage systems | Gallagher UK 6 protected by the Coastal Act and the City of Morro Bay. These are uses such as commercial fishing and boating, and aquaculture facilities. 14 Battery storage does not require a coastal location and is an inappropriate use for such precious property.
The project site borders the Morro Bay National Estuary, which has a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan.” Morro Bay hosts one of the most significant and least disturbed wetland systems on the central and southern California coast. It serves as a vital stopover and wintering ground for migratory birds and is home to a diverse assembly of habitats and plant and wildlife species,“ many of which are not found anywhere else in the world.” 15 The national estuary has been completely ignored in this CEQA administrative process, and the National Estuary Program (NEP) was not notified of the proposed project by the city.
Residents and visitors will be subjected to toxic air contaminants during construction as well as high levels of noise and vibration. The construction phase creates potential impacts to wildlife that will be significant, unavoidable and so widespread that effective mitigation may not be feasible. It would require teams of biologists in the field to monitor nests and nurseries 24/ 7, and still they would not be able to protect the nesting birds, fish and sea otters from the cumulative construction impacts from noise and vibrations.
Any decision makers need to know that lithium-ion batteries are prone to thermal runaway leading to the release of toxic gasses. The DEIR should be recirculated with a heavy focus on the environmental impact of the harmful chemicals, the lithium compounds, the toxic air contaminants, the toxic plumes from thermal runaway, the heavy metals, and how they will impact humans and wildlife. The DEIR does not adequately inform decision makers and the public of the toxins we will be exposed to. 16 Decision making agencies and the public need to be informed of the engineering design features in order to review and respond in a meaningful way.
On top of the inherent dangers from lithium-ion battery storage, the project site is subject to “acts of God'' such as flooding, tsunamis and earthquakes. The BESS would be a high risk industry in a high risk area.
The new applications of battery containers that “vent” the explosions and toxic fumes upward, such as alternative #5, give me great concern that these chemical releases will not be deemed an “incident” and not reported, even though toxic, corrosive gasses are released. Industry experts may value ventilation, but with lithium-ion 16 Toxic fluoride gas emissions from lithium-ion battery fires 15 2022 Update Prepared by: Morro Bay National Estuary Program Morro Bay, California 14 Plan Morro Bay, p. 3-29
7 batteries placed near humans and wildlife,“ ventilation” is dangerous and containment is crucial.
The city hired Rincon and failed to insist that the scope of the EIR include a fully independent analysis of potential thermal runaway impacts. The city allowed this DEIR to be published despite its failure to identify impacts and mitigations. Since the Offsite Consequence Analysis, the only document that acknowledges toxic exposures, is not part of the CEQA process, agencies that must make decisions and issue permits have not been adequately informed. I am learning far more about BESS hazards from my own research and community members sharing, than from the Rincon DEIR.
These thermal runaways can smolder for days and send toxic, corrosive fumes into nearby areas. BESS incidents have been a huge concern of communities near BESS plants, leading to a global uprising of citizens against BESS facilities in their neighborhoods and near their schools, many moratoriums on building BESS, and even legislation introduced to prohibit BESS near residential areas or schools (New York). As I write this and Otay Mesa burns and spews toxic fumes, a proposed project in Escondido is protested and its residents are justifiably fearful.
The Coastal Act §30253 (a) provides that new development shall “minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood and fire hazards.” The developers’ project violates this section by exposing us to an extreme risk of toxic gasses resulting from thermal runaway, in a flood and tsunami zone. The risk is amplified by potential saltwater exposure to the batteries.
The Coastal Act §30253 (e) states that new development on the coast shall, where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.” emphasis mine). Morro Bay is a special community with unique characteristics that are popular visitor destination points, and the city is required to protect it from high risk industrial development.
Any installation of lithium-ion batteries at the project site will not protect this unique coastal property adjacent to Morro Rock, a sacred indigenous cultural resource and visitor attraction. The proposed installation at 600 MW is expected to power 450,000 homes when other sources of energy are not available. This is 75 times more power than the amount Morro Bay will need with our 6,000 homes. The batteries will benefit the LA area and the Bay Area, not Morro Bay; and will place a disproportionate burden on this small community that is not outweighed by any claimed benefit to the city. In fact, it is a detriment to a tourism based economy. If the estuary is destroyed, the economy in Morro Bay will be destroyed.
8 PMB policy LU-8.7 states,“ In the Embarcadero area .... development shall include all feasible measures to avoid, or if avoidance is infeasible, to mitigate against coastal hazard threats and potential impacts to coastal resources.” PMB, p. 3-56.
Introducing a new and unnecessary threat to the coast and Embarcadero with unpredictable fire hazards, is directly contrary to this policy.
Even if the lead agency does allow the process to move forward on one project while the applicant switches to another, the draft EIR is still so fundamentally flawed and basically inadequate and conclusory that meaningful public review and comment are precluded. Pursuant to CEQA §15088.5 (4), for the reasons set forth below, the city must rewrite the draft EIR for recirculation.( Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com.( 1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).
Further, the DEIR is inadequate because proper notice of the project has not been provided to all trustee and responsible agencies. As a project bordering a national estuary, the Department of US Fish and Wildlife should have been notified at the NOP stage. The National Estuary Program (NEP) should also have been notified. Additional numerous state and federal agencies that made commitments to enforce the Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) set forth in section 4.3, also must be notified when the EIR is rewritten. The U.S. Coast Guard should have been notified.
THE EIR MUST BE REWRITTEN AND RECIRCULATED
1. Alternative #5 is a new project requiring a new EIR.
Mid-stream in the DEIR process, in a letter dated May 7, 2024; addressed to the planning commission, Vistra indicated they “fully support” the enclosures alternative, which is alternative # 5.17 This announcement was in a letter, not the DEIR, so agencies and the public are mostly unaware of it.Yet the applicant and city knew because a document known as the “Offsite Consequence Analysis”( OCA) was published 9 days after the DEIR, containing the first acknowledgement that we will be exposed to toxic gasses when there is thermal runaway. The OCA also favors alternative #5. Why did the city not delay publishing the DEIR and revise it to include information from the OCA that favored the enclosures alternative and revealed the toxic gas impacts? The DEIR lacks transparency and does not pass muster under CEQA, as this separate but important document identifying toxic hazards was withheld from the CEQA 17 May 7 Vistra letter
9 process. While a discussion of the alternatives is important, a substantial difference in the alternative chosen requires a new EIR. Alternative #5 is substantially different.
Alternative #5 will include 174 containers instead of 3 large warehouses as set forth in the original application.18 Due to the presence of hazardous materials onsite at a lithium-ion battery storage facility, and the potential for toxic plumes from a battery fire, the exact engineering design of the project under review as well as the type of materials used, MUST be selected and submitted with an application before the draft EIR process begins. It is crucial that all relevant information be included in the EIR for review.
The DEIR doesn’t inform us what toxic gasses will be “off-gassing.” This venting process was discussed at the Vistra community meeting as if it were a mitigation measure, but it is in fact a significant impact. Venting toxic, corrosive gasses into the environment likely requires an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permit and approval, which may not be possible to obtain. The DEIR should discuss whether these chemicals are ozone depleters as well.
The current project, as set forth in the project application, involves 3 large warehouses filled with batteries. Agencies and the public are relying on the DEIR for that project. When trustee and responsible agencies must comply with CEQA for the same project, the document prepared by the lead agency must be used by these other agencies to fulfill their CEQA obligations, with some limited exceptions. For the purpose of clarity to all of these agencies and the public, there must be only one project per DEIR.19
The issues regarding containment of hazardous materials will be vastly different depending on the project under review. Impacts due to the presence of lithium compounds, heavy metals, toxic plumes, corrosive toxic gasses, particulate matter, and acidic compounds that could enter the environment, and harm humans and wildlife will be different depending on the project selected. They need to be addressed in the recirculated DEIR for our review. 20 Agencies and the public cannot review the impacts until we have been adequately informed of the design of the project itself.
2. Pursuant to CEQA §15126.4 (b),“ formulation of mitigation measures shall not be deferred until some future time” yet that is exactly what the DEIR does.
20 The May 7, 2024 Vistra letter states that the technical report entitled “ Offsite Consequence Analysis” is unrelated to the CEQA process.” It is inexplicable that this technical report, the only acknowledgment of serious impacts from lithium-ion thermal runaway and toxic plumes, is excluded from the DEIR. 19 CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures
18 Original application plans for the project
10 The DEIR for the BESS project in Morro Bay wholly fails to properly inform the public as required by CEQA §15121. This is unacceptable and fails to comply with §15121, requiring a do-over and recirculation. The following important mitigation measures were among those deferred, but need to be addressed in the DEIR:
The city outsourced the fire hazard analysis to DNV Energy USA, Inc., a consultant hired by the Morro Bay Fire Department (MBFD), who will conduct a “hazard assessment/ quantitative risk analysis including thermal runaway and smoke plume modeling to provide recommendations for engineered hazard mitigation design features” after the DEIR process.
A realistic, detailed health and safety plan (HASP), p. 2-22 which should include worse case scenarios;
A site specific Fire Prevention Plan (FPP), p.2-24;21
A BESS facility emergency and evacuation plan; this is particularly important given the geographic location of the project site; A Construction Monitoring Treatment Plan;
A Soil Management Plan;
A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan;
A Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan;
A Traffic Management Plan;
A Reclamation and Decommissioning Plan and a fund to cover decommissioning;
A Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan.
It’s even more important in a fragile environment with a high density of residents and tourists nearby, that mitigation measures are disclosed in the DEIR so they can be reviewed by the public and responsible agencies. Deferring this until after the EIR process is not acceptable.
3. The DEIR did not acknowledge the single most important and dangerous impact from lithium-ion battery storage, thermal runaway.
A search for the term “thermal runaway” in the DEIR resulted in zero hits. I still cannot grasp how this DEIR was published without a thorough review of the thermal runaway hazard and toxic gas exposure. The inherent nature of this technology itself makes these batteries prone to thermal runaway; but add mechanical failure, human error, and “acts of God” such as floods, tsunami, or earthquakes, and this is a high risk project in a high risk location.
21 See Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1394- 1395 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 170], which in turn discussed two earlier cases involving claims of improperly deferred mitigation: Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino ( 1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 352] and Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council ( 1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 478]( SOCA). 11 The DEIR treatment of impacts to human life and wildlife is severely deficient.
The proposed project will be in the middle of a small, densely populated tourist town, bordering a national estuary, State Marine Reserve and overlapping and surrounded by ESHA. Its potential onsite and offsite impacts to wildlife will be dramatic and widespread. The developer should not be permitted to experiment on this town and its wildlife. The DEIR fails to provide evidence that impacts are less than significant or can be effectively mitigated.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: CHAPTER 4
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(1) states that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to (1) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species;( 2) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; or (3) substantially reduce the number of restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species.
Due to the project location, implementation of the project will have significant impacts pursuant to CEQA 15065(a).
The DIER is a conclusory document replete with boilerplate language and vague, unsupported reassurances or promises to “minimize” impacts leading to a conclusion that impacts are therefore less than significant.
The DEIR does not adequately assess offsite impacts. The project will violate the Coastal Act and many goals and policies of Plan Morro Bay, and will have far-reaching environmental impacts and mitigation that will not be effective or feasible.
The project site is uniquely vulnerable to an accelerated rate of flooding events from climate change. 22 The EPA website describes coastal flooding:“ the average number of flood events per year has progressively accelerated across decades since 1950.” On the north side of the project site is Morro Creek, which floods from runoff that comes from the hills during rainstorms, and it can flood up from the ocean during king tides. When those events are combined, the danger will be amplified. The east side is an area of Main St., route 1 and Quintana Rd. that can flood as a result of rainwater from the hills. Last year that area was referred to as “Radcliffe Lake.” Significant FEMA funds were expended twice in the last two years to remediate the flood damage. This area is just behind the project site.
22 Evidence - NASA Science
12 In an article by the KMB Design Group dated April 11, 2023, the choice of a safe location for battery storage was discussed. The site must be located in an area that is not sensitive to environmental impacts, such as wetlands or endangered species habitats. The site should also be located in an area that is not prone to flooding or other natural disasters. The project fails these requirements.
Non-negotiables” included the following,“ soil at a site must be able to support the weight of the BESS and the associated equipment. Soil should also be free of contaminants that could damage the system; the site must be located in areas that are not subject to extreme weather conditions, such as flooding, high winds, or earthquakes.
This project fails that test; the site must be zoned for industrial or commercial use, and it must comply with all applicable zoning and permitting requirements.” 23 This project fails these tests.
In a letter dated March 4, Dawn Addis, Assemblymember, 30th District; and Monique Limon, Chair, Assemblymember, 19th District requested additional budget resources to address climate change and sea level rise challenges facing the central coast of California. In that letter Addis wrote,
According to the California Energy Commission in its 2018 report, sea-level rise SLR) will have “widespread adverse consequences for California’s coastal resources including coastal flooding and erosion that will affect built structures, coastal agriculture, wetland habitat, sandy beaches, tidal marshes, and estuaries with these impacts increasing over time.” With erosion threatening 70% of California’s beaches, accelerating SLR combined with a lack of ample sediment in the system will drive the landward erosion of beaches,“ effectively drowning them between the rising ocean and the backing cliffs and/ or urban hardscape.” 24
The project site is vulnerable to tsunami danger (see photo below). At the April 24, 2024 community meeting with Vistra, I asked about the increased danger from lithium-ion batteries in a flood and tsunami zone. The answer was to downplay the chance of a flood and strangely indicate that a tsunami would strike from a southerly direction, with the sandspit and rock buffering the project site. This is absurd.
Even the DEIR acknowledges that “Coastal flooding has occurred on occasion in the past and strong storm events may become more frequent and/ or more severe in Morro Bay.”( DEIR 4.7-11) The photo below shows that the project site is vulnerable to a tsunami from any direction, and the sandspit will definitely not protect it.This should be enough reason alone to find another location for the project. 24 Dawn Addis letter to Budget Chairs.pdf
23 Battery Energy Storage System ( BESS) Site Requirements You Need To Consider | KMB 13 Effective mitigation will not be feasible.
Mitigation measures that might work for a battery storage project in another location, will simply not be effective or feasible due to the location of the project.
Lithium-ion batteries are prone to thermal runaway and the release of toxic, corrosive gasses which is not acceptable in a tourist town with nearby residences and schools, and on a national estuary. Recent thermal runaway events at Otay Mesa and other facilities show they are impossible to prevent, and firefighters are unable to extinguish them. The following map shows the vulnerability of the site to flooding and tsunami danger.
4.1 Aesthetics/ Visual Resources
The project will have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, would substantially damage scenic resources, and would substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and surroundings. 25
25CEQA appendix G: environmental checklist form
14 Impacts AE 5.1-5.4 are all addressed in the DEIR by asserting that compliance with Plan Morro Bay (“PMB”) policies, goals and Title 17 of the Morro Bay Municipal Code would ensure that these impacts would be “less than significant.” This statement defies credulity. The project can only proceed if there’s an amendment to PMB changing the land use to industrial, allowing for the resulting degradation of views and visual resources, which means that the project will NOT comply with PMB as currently written to effect this community’s intent. Any photos of BESS facilities tell the truth about the impact they will have on Morro Bay views. This view of the Moss Landing facility cannot be mitigated and is not “visitor serving.”
The degradation of views as seen from the photo of the Moss Landing facility above, is a significant impact that the draft EIR failed to acknowledge. With transmission lines, batteries and substations, the views will not integrate with any coexisting visitor serving development that Morro Bay residents envision on the power plant property.
The project site is in a tourist area, along a promenade where many visitors walk to the seafood restaurants, the otter viewing area, and down to Morro Rock. Directly across the street from the project site are beloved seafood restaurants: Tognazzini’ s Dockside, Harbor Hut, and the Great American Seafood Company along with many other businesses. Across the street is “mother’s beach,” a recreational area with kayaking, stand up paddleboards, and open water swimming. A popular surf spot with 15 many competitions is a short distance away on Morro Rock beach. Hazardous industrial land uses like battery storage are incompatible with tourist and recreational areas.
The proposed project will violate Plan Morro Bay’s Policy C-9.2, to protect views along the coast, and C-9.9, and encourage infrastructure that does not block or detract from views. The city’s conclusion that “No mitigation would be required because the impact(s) would be less than significant” is unwarranted and should be rejected.
4.2 Air Quality
Appendix G to CEQA sets forth the following thresholds. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Yes, the project would conflict with PMB policies set forth below. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Yes, from both construction impacts and a potentially lengthy thermal runaway event, spewing large amounts of toxic, corrosive gasses into the environment. Either project design could result in an extended thermal runaway lasting days or weeks. It defies logic that battery modules only ten feet apart will not overheat from a neighboring module on fire and go into thermal runaway.
Recent information about design features of battery enclosures indicates they vent” toxic fumes out the top, which is not safe in a densely populated tourist town.
This is a new significant impact, not mitigation. The impacts and EPA requirements for venting poisonous gasses need to be addressed for a reasonably foreseeable scenario like the one happening right now in Otay Mesa, that could go on for “weeks.” The DEIR should address these EPA requirements when it is recirculated. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? See answer to (b) above.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Yes, there are many school children and elderly people in Morro Bay and they are sensitive receptors.” In addition, they may not be able to easily evacuate. While the impacts are not limited to sensitive receptors and the toxic gasses emitted during thermal runaway will poison all humans and wildlife, CEQA recommends avoiding land 16 uses that expose sensitive receptors to a potential source of accidental releases of hazardous materials.
A thermal runaway event would certainly fail all of the above thresholds, given that toxic, corrosive gasses are released. Since these thermal runaway events often last days to weeks, any claim that air quality standards would be met is flawed.
The project would violate Plan Morro Bay goals and policies in its air quality plan:
POLICY C-3.3: Pollutant Sites. Identify opportunities to locate new air pollutant sources away from the general population. The project would create a new source of air pollution close to the general population.
POLICY C-3.6: Air Quality in Sensitive Land Uses. Minimize exposure of sensitive land uses to toxic air contaminants by locating new pollutant sources away from sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, parks, playgrounds, residential areas, and natural and open space areas.26 During construction the project would not minimize, but would maximize, exposure of toxic air contaminants near schools, residential areas, playgrounds and open spaces (Lila Keiser park, Morro Rock, Coleman park and beach, possibly all parks in the city). Post-construction potential impacts include toxic plumes contaminating the air at sensitive uses including numerous playgrounds, parks and schools in Morro Bay, Coleman beach less than 200 feet away, Morro Rock and the beach and multi-use path in that area, and residential areas very close by.
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4), a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The above impacts are significant and the mitigation measures proposed inadequate.
To the extent air quality issues are addressed in the DEIR, it is only with respect to the potential impacts from construction activities during the BESS construction and power plant demolition. In Table 4.2-7, it is concluded that the lifetime excess cancer risk is exceeded by the project construction and demolition.27 As to cancer risks from toxic gasses released during thermal runaway, the DEIR did not address this, but should do so when recirculated.
27 However, since Vistra is switching projects this impact is now unknown. 26 Plan Morro Bay, p. 4-30.
17 Mitigation measures include AQ-1(a) SLOAPCD Standard Mitigation Measures for Construction Equipment. Measures described in DEIR 4.2-18 include: maintain construction equipment; use proper fuels, use construction equipment that is compliant with regulations, use certified diesel equipment, do not idle equipment for over 3 minutes, no diesel idling within 1000 feet of sensitive receptors, no staging and queueing within 1000 feet of sensitive receptors, use electric or alternative powered equipment in lieu of diesel, and follow standard mitigation measures for construction equipment.
The DEIR concludes that the risk of cancer after these measures will not exceed any threshold, and is less than significant, but it fails to provide sufficient detail or the nexus necessary to reach that conclusion. Further, it will be difficult or impossible to comply with the “1000 feet” limit from sensitive receptors for diesel fuel idling, staging and queueing. Within that 1000 foot radius from the project site; tourists including children and the elderly live, surf, paddle, play at parks, and eat at restaurants.
The DEIR on the topic of air quality fails to identify the potential for release of hazardous toxic fumes released after a thermal runaway event or during “venting.” Mitigation measures would apparently be to blow the toxic plume out of the top of the container, and instruct residents to close their windows and turn off their ventilation systems (as Moss Landing residents were instructed to do). This is not mitigation; it is another significant and unmitigable impact. A comprehensive review of the potential impact on air quality of a BESS thermal runaway should include research from this potentially catastrophic hazard, including studies that were done in Arizona after the 18 BESS thermal runaway that injured firefighters; and in South Korea, and the recent ongoing Otay Mesa incident in which air quality data is collected by robots and drones.
An article written June 5, 2021 entitled, Safety of Grid Scale Lithium-ion Battery Energy Storage Systems, describes the details of the hazard. 28 Li-ion batteries can fail by “thermal runaway” where overheating in a single faulty cell can propagate to neighbors with energy releases popularly known as battery fires”. These are not strictly “fires'' at all, requiring no oxygen to propagate.
They are uncontrollable except by extravagant water cooling. They evolve toxic gasses such as Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) and highly flammable toxic gasses including Hydrogen (H2), Methane (CH4), Ethylene (C2H4) and Carbon Monoxide (CO). These in turn may cause further explosions or fires upon ignition. The chemical energy then released can be up to 20 times the stored electrotoxic energy.
No existing engineering standards address thermal runaway adequately, or require measures ( such as those already used in EV batteries) to pre-empt propagation of runaway events.
Lacking oversight…the entire responsibility for major accident planning currently lies with local Fire and Rescue Services. Current plans may be inadequate in respect of water supplies, or for protection of the local public against toxic plumes.
The scale of Li-ion BESS energy storage envisioned at “mega scale” energy farms is unprecedented and requires urgent review. The explosion potential and the lack of engineering standards to prevent thermal runaway may put control of “battery fires” beyond the knowledge, experience and capabilities of local Fire and Rescue Services. BESS presents special hazards to fire-fighters; four sustained life-limiting injuries in the Arizona incident.
28( PDF) Safety of Grid Scale Lithium-ion Battery Energy Storage Systems 19 Image of the latest technology from “Power” magazine.
In a July 20, 2021 article from Powermag.com, Protecting Battery Energy Storage Systems from Fire and Explosion Hazards, it was acknowledged that “[t]here are serious risks associated with lithium-ion battery storage systems but indicated the container design contains vents on the top to “safely” direct an explosion upward…” 29 This is not encouraging and would likely require an EPA permit.30 In the April 24 meeting materials, Vistra presented a similar design approach including “M-dampers” that release heat and gas to minimize propagation, and deflagration panels” that automatically open with predetermined pressure to prevent explosion similar to the above design in”Power” magazine. These images are disturbing and provide even more evidence that the facility should not be near humans or wildlife. 30 Vistra’s April 23 presentation included images of a similar venting system for toxic smoke. 29Protecting Battery Energy Storage Systems from Fire and Explosion Hazards 20 4.3 Biological Resources
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the project may have a significant adverse impact if it would do any of the following:
1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Yes, see below.
2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Yes, see ESHA section below.
3. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Yes, in the national estuary.
4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Yes, including sea otter nurseries, harbor seal pupping, nesting bird sites; see otter section below as well as discussion of nesting and migrating birds.
5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Yes, see discussions regarding Plan Morro Bay policies violated.
6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?31 Yes, among others, the National Estuary Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, in which preserving biodiversity and reducing toxic pollutants are priorities. 32
The DEIR, studying only the wildlife onsite or within 50 feet, is severely deficient in discounting the potential impacts to fish and wildlife. The Otay Mesa firefighters used equipment to detect toxic fumes within a 600 foot perimeter, barricaded that area and a much larger area was evacuated. The area barricaded and evacuated would likely be much larger in Morro Bay. But inside a 600 foot perimeter in Morro Bay, are many 32 2022 Update Prepared by: Morro Bay National Estuary Program Morro Bay, California 31 CEQA appendix G: environmental checklist form
21 species of birds that nest or overwinter nearby and there is a significant risk mothers will abandon their nests. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects local cormorants, hawks, falcons, osprey, great blue herons, egrets, pelicans, loons and more. The sea otter population with their nurseries directly across the street, up and down their primary habitat from Morro Rock to the south T-pier are thriving in Morro Bay, but still threatened overall. California Fish and Wildlife has indicated their overall population is still threatened. The project has the potential for direct mortality or disturbance to the sea otters and other species, resulting in an unlawful “taking.” Effective mitigation for the abundant wildlife will not be feasible in Morro Bay.
The number and density of nesting birds in a realistic impact zone (from cumulative construction impacts and toxic fumes from thermal runaway) is too many to monitor and prevent impacts. The reason we have the laws provided in the national estuary, Marine Mammal Protection Act, the State Marine Reserve, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the NEP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, among others…is to protect this wildlife and their habitat. Thermal runaway release of toxic, corrosive gasses could kill wildlife and events such as tsunamis, floods, and earthquakes increase the risk that a large number of containers will ignite.
When imposing mitigation, lead agencies must ensure there is a “nexus” and rough proportionality” between the measure and the significant impacts of the project.
CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4, subd.( a)( 4)(A)–(B), citing Nollan v. Ca. Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374.) All mitigation must be feasible and fully enforceable, and all feasible mitigation must be imposed by lead agencies.( CEQA Guidelines,§ 15041.) 33 Under the Coastal Act, the Commission is required to protect the coastal zone's delicately balanced ecosystem.(§ 30001, subds.(a)-( c); 30001.5, subd.( a); City of San Diego v. California Coastal Com.( 1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 228, 233, 174 Cal.Rptr. 5; Sierra Club v. California Coastal Com.( 1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 602, 611, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 779 (Pygmy Forest
In terms of the general protection the Coastal Act provides for the coastal environment, it is analogized to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 21000-21174). The courts are enjoined to construe the statute liberally in light of its beneficient purposes. The highest priority must be given to environmental consideration in interpreting the statute.’ Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 71 Cal. App. 4th 493, 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 850 (1999). 33 CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures, p. 1
22 Morro Bay is a State Marine Reserve (SMR). Any disturbance of marine resources could constitute harassment and result in an unlawful taking. The SMR is remarkable in its rich variety and density of wildlife, yet the draft EIR treatment of impacts to the many sensitive species, endangered species, and nesting birds is severely deficient. The draft EIR should have not only addressed potential impacts to wildlife on the project site or in the vicinity, but should have anticipated impacts to wildlife due to toxic gasses emitted during thermal runaway.
Thermal runaway at a 600 MW facility is going to produce toxic, corrosive fumes that will likely cause significant impacts to the entire national estuary and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA). The proposed BESS “vicinity”( using Rincon’s terminology) for potential impacts from a thermal runaway would be the entire city, the entire estuary and Morro Rock, an area much greater than Figure 02, the blue circle map or the purple Moss Landing shelter in place map. The DEIR failed to do this important analysis. 34
The Atlas of Sensitive Species for Morro Bay, prepared by the NEP and the California Department of Parks and Recreation , describes 95 sensitive species. For the few species that are identified in the EIR, the conclusion is always the same…that there will be no significant impact or that it can be mitigated by education, surveys and monitoring.
The Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
Special- status species and habitats of the Project site are afforded protection under the California Coastal Act and through enforcement of goals and policies contained in the City of Morro Bay’s LCP. To address Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) consistent with the CCA, the Local Coastal Plan applies the following criteria for designating ESHAs:
Unique, rare or fragile communities which should be preserved to ensure their survival in the future;
Rare and endangered species habitats that are also protected by state and federal laws;
Specialized wildlife habitat which are vital to species survival; 34 Draft EIR at p. 4.3-7. No marine mammals or reptiles were observed during the field surveys conducted on the Power Plant Property. The Project Site is situated within approximately 220 feet of Morro Bay but does not include marine or shoreline habitats with the potential to support marine mammals or reptiles (Appendix C). 23 Outstanding representative natural communities which have an unusual variety or diversity of plant and animal species;
Areas with outstanding educational values that should be protected for scientific research and education uses now and in the future.( Morro Bay, 1982).
Morro Bay has all of the above in the vicinity of the project site. The “rock” provides homes for nesting and overwintering bird populations. Peregrine falcons do not build nests, but nest near water on ledges of rocky cliffs …they scrape a small depression in the ledge and often return to the same spot year after year. Other unique resources include the sandspit dunes, the southern sea otters with their habitat bordering the project site, the snowy plover nesting in the nearby dunes, the great blue heron rookeries, the sea lion raft, pelicans of both types, osprey, and many others in the ESHA, State Marine Reserve and national estuary. Habitats for all of them can be found in the vicinity of the project site and their breeding and nesting sites are likely to be impacted by construction noise and vibrations.
In addition, bald eagles and osprey nest in the vicinity of the project site. Night herons nest in eucalyptus trees near the stacks; great blue herons, great egrets, double crested cormorants and swallows nest nearby at the Fairbanks point rookery, and numerous raptors nest in the tall eucalyptus and cypress lining the shores all along the waterfront. Many California sea lions stay most of the year, harbor seals pup in the vicinity, and the snowy plover nest on the sandspit and nearby dunes. Numerous protected species winter over in the vicinity. The southern sea otter habitat is right across the Embarcadero from the project site. Their habitat covers the area from Morro Rock to the back bay; the sea otter is discussed further below.
If these habitats and their wildlife survive three to four years of construction, they could be killed by toxic fumes from fires due to thermal runaway.
A Biological Assessment consultant noted the project may disrupt wildlife, displace breeding and nesting, and cause mortality to wildlife.
In 2022, Padre Associates, Inc,(“ Padre”), a consulting group of engineers, geologists and environmental scientists, was hired by the city to do a Biological Assessment Report for the project site and vicinity. The report was updated in 2023.
Padre biologists conducted field surveys including the eelgrass habitat around Coleman Beach and the T-piers (§3-2). The DEIR referenced the Padre reports, so they are part of the CEQA process. Padre acknowledged direct impacts from construction, but failed to identify impacts from toxic gasses released during thermal runaway. Padre stated, construction equipment used during Project implementation will temporarily increase noise, increase the potential for vehicle strikes, and may 24 disrupt wildlife behavior. Ground disturbance has the potential to result in injury or death of wildlife and/ or destruction of bird nests. Steel piling driving may produce noise levels that would disturb or displace wildlife breeding or nesting in the Project vicinity.” 35
Effects on biological resources in the Project site area have the potential to be short-term (temporary) and long-term (permanent). Initial Project activities (staging, grading, demolition, and construction) will temporarily alter the natural movement and behavior of wildlife, and potentially occurring special-status species (if present), within the Project site area. Further, initial Project activities may cause mortalities to existing wildlife and special-status wildlife species (if present) due to equipment and vehicle strikes. Project activities also have the potential to cause temporary indirect impacts such as erosion and sedimentation to Morro Creek, thereby indirectly impacting potentially occurring special-status fish species (i.e.; tidewater goby and South-central California coast steelhead).
There is the potential for long-term loss of wildlife habitat and special-status botanical resources, ESHA, and potential mortalities to special-status wildlife species due to Project grading, demolition, and construction activities, and development of above ground facilities, infrastructure, and impervious surfaces. The permanent loss of habitat may reduce the available suitable habitat for special-status wildlife including obscure bumblebee, Morro Bay blue butterfly, coast horned lizard, silvery legless lizard, migratory birds and raptors, California red-legged frog, pallid bat, Townsend’ s big-eared bat, and big free-tailed bat. The Project development will permanently remove special-status botanical resources including Silver bush lupine scrub vegetation community, Blochman’s leafy daisy, Monterey cypress and Monterey pine trees, and bird rookeries and Back Dune/ Dune Scrub ESHAs.
Short and long-term impacts would be avoided or minimized to the extent feasible with implementation of applicant proposed mitigation measures provided above.” 36
To the extent feasible” is qualifying language that requires a critical analysis. The above description just mentioned killing protected wildlife and destroying sensitive habitat, against the provisions of the Coastal Act, CEQA standards, the ESA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Estuary Program, the Marine Life Protection Act 36 Padres Bio Assessment 2023,§ 5-6
35 Padres Bio Assessment 2023,§ 5-3
25 the California Supreme Court rulings, all related implementing regulations, and then said the developer will minimize impacts “to the extent feasible.” The proffered mitigation will not be feasible, but what is feasible is another location for the project. Southern sea otters are in the project vicinity; in plain sight all day, but the Padre field biologist somehow overlooked them even though they noted the Shallow Bay/ Mudflat/ Eelgrass habitat in which the otters live.( The California Natural Diversity Database occurrence records have been updated to show the southern sea otter habitat in Morro Bay.) Padre acknowledged the impacts from construction noise and vibrations and how they can disturb or displace wildlife breeding or nesting; it is the sea otters and their nurseries,( among other species) that will be disturbed.
Many species that will be adversely impacted by toxic, corrosive gasses from thermal runaway are further than 50 feet away but still inside a realistic perimeter where toxic gasses will be detected based on what we are learning from Otay Mesa. The area of impact would likely be much larger for a thermal runaway in Morro Bay due to the size of the facility.
The density and extent of wildlife in Morro Bay is incomparable to anything I’ve seen before. Many guests and visitors have made the same observation. Teams of biologists would be required to monitor the nesting and otter nurseries, but the damage control would not be enough to mitigate the adverse impacts and prevent disturbances and unlawful takings.
When imposing mitigation, lead agencies must ensure there is a"nexus " and rough proportionality” between the measure and the significant impacts of the project.
CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4, subd.( a)( 4)(A)–(B), citing Nollan v. Ca. Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374.) All mitigation must be feasible and fully enforceable.”( emphasis mine). 37 Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(j),set forth in the DEIR at p. 4.3-26
4.3-31 are only designed to protect species on the project site or the vicinity (EIR p.
4.3-27). Measures such as a “worker environmental awareness program,”“ surveys” and monitoring” lack the nexus to the impacts and will not save the wildlife in the estuary when those toxic, corrosive fumes are released.
The Biological Assessment failed to identify offsite impacts from the project.
Section 4.4.2 of the Padre report describes the ESHA referred to as Shallow Bay/ Mudflat/ and Eelgrass Potential mapped within the water off the Coleman Park Beach area (Rincon, 2018). The Morro Bay harbor and estuary supports areas of 37 CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures
26 seagrass beds comprised of eelgrass (Zostera marina) that are considered to be a valuable coastal habitat worldwide (Morro Bay Estuary Program, 2021). The report then indicated that the project site is located approximately 150 feet east of the harbor, therefore there will be no impacts. However, pile driving noise and vibrations can be felt and heard from great distances, as the DEIR indicates, and certainly within the otter habitat and habitat for the nesting birds nearby.
Toxic fumes from thermal runaway will significantly impact and likely destroy parts of the ESHA. These battery “fires” are unplanned and when they occur, it will be too late for mitigation. The aquatic resources and wetland habitats, the breeding and overwintering sites at the rock, the dunes, and trees, and the other sensitive natural communities will be severely impacted. These impacts were not addressed in the DEIR.
Figure 4-1 identifies some of the ESHA that may be impacted, but it is flawed in that the study area is too small and excludes habitat for many species that could be adversely impacted, particularly in view of the foreseeable thermal runaway that could last weeks.
Padre acknowledged the potential impacts to many species as set forth in §5-1 to 5-6; but depending upon the species, I disagree with any inference that 3 to 4 years of construction activities is “temporary,” for wildlife. Each species is different. 27 The project is contrary to PMB Goal C-1 and related policies Goal C-1 of PMB states: Sensitive habitats are protected from potential negative impacts of land use and development. Policy C-1.1 states,“[ p]rotect Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. The ensuing policies in PMB are designed to carry out the above goal of protecting the ESHAs.“ Buffers”are minimums, only apply if they protect the ESHAs, and cannot be used to shield a developer from compliance when the primary goal is to protect the ESHAs.
Policies C-1.3 to C-1.17 : The project site and its vicinity include many ESHA. The foreseeable impacts from construction and operation of the BESS, including potential li-ion battery fires, will encroach on the ESHA and result in unmitigable impacts. The project will violate all of the above policies.
Battery storage is not coastal dependent, and is not compatible with the ESHA.
In Banning Ranch Conservancy v. the City of Newport Beach, 2 Cal.5th 918, 216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 306, 392 P.3d 455 (Cal. 2017), the California Supreme Court addressed treatment of ESHAs in an EIR. In that case, the city of Newport Beach had omitted any identification of the ESHAs, but the language and holdings in the case are instructive.
In Banning Ranch, Coastal Commission staff pointed out that under the Coastal Act, development must avoid impacts to ESHA, indicating that CEQA §30240 does not permit “non-resource dependent impacts to an ESHA area.”§ 30240 states that development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
CEQA guideline §15125(c) states: Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts. Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project. The EIR must demonstrate that the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project were adequately investigated and discussed and it must permit the significant effects of the project to be considered in the full environmental context.
Emphasis mine).
The Supreme Court in Banning Ranch held that the EIR was insufficient, because it failed to account for the Coastal Act ESHA protections.“ The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR’s function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental 28 consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured those consequences have been taken into account.( Laurel Heights I,supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 391-392.)” Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 449; see Concerned Citizens, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 935-936.)
The Supreme Court in Banning Ranch ultimately found that by certifying an inadequate EIR, the City abused its discretion.“[ F]ailure to disclose information called for by CEQA may be prejudicial, regardless of whether a different outcome would have resulted if the public agency had complied with the law (§ 21005, subd.( a)).” Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 463.)
The project conflicts with Plan Morro Bay policies and the Coastal Act. The city of Morro Bay has a General Plan and Local Coastal Plan, known as “Plan Morro Bay,” which has been certified by the Coastal Commission. Plan Morro Bay, p. 4-12 to 4-27, sets forth it’s goals and policies, including Policy C-1.2:
Development in ESHA (as defined in Policy C-1.1 and Coastal Act Section 30107.5) shall be limited to uses dependent on the resource (e.g., habitat restoration, scientific research, and low-intensity public access and recreation), as well as the uses specified in Coastal Act Sections 30233 and 30236 for wetlands and streams, respectively. All allowable development in ESHA shall be sited and designed to protect against significant disruption of habitat values, including to rare and endangered species. The analysis should also consider potential effects on off-site overwintering and nesting sites, if applicable. Development in areas adjacent to ESHA shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitats.38 Consistent with this policy and the rest of Plan Morro Bay are the other policies that are related to protecting the ESHA, policies C-1.1 to C-1.17. Construction and operation of a lithium-ion battery storage facility is not consistent with the continuance of the ESHA habitats, and will degrade these areas.
38 Plan Morro Bay
29 In this case, the DEIR treatment of ESHAs was grossly inadequate because it failed to address the EHSA impacts in the vicinity of the project, which could result from construction noise and vibrations or toxic thermal runaway.
The Supreme Court in Banning Ranch stated that “by definition, projects with substantial impacts in the coastal zone are regionally significant.” Id. at 19. The city of Morro Bay and the proposed project site are therefore regionally significant, but in addition, the list of environmental resources that require protection as they are “rare or unique” in Morro Bay is long. This includes Morro Rock as a cultural resource, a geologic feature and as a habitat.
The DEIR for the BESS in Morro Bay, instead of construing the language of the Coastal Act as it is intended, to protect the ESHA, fabricates a narrow application of the Act by (1) ignoring the cumulative impacts from heavy machinery resulting in noise and vibrations during construction; likely impacting the nesting birds, sea otters and other 30 sensitive species;( 2) ignoring the foreseeable thermal runaway releasing toxic plumes that will significantly impact ESHA and wildlife in the vicinity (3) relying on narrow buffers to avoid addressing the issues in (1) and (2) above, as if all of the possible impacts from a 600 MW battery storage facility will remain on site. This approach is not realistic and is contrary to the protective provisions of the Coastal Act and the holding in Banning Ranch.
The endangered Southern Sea Otter was once believed to be extinct.
In a letter to the California Department of Fish and Game dated February 2nd, 1915, lighthouse keeper John W. Astrom reported on a small southern sea otter population off the coast of Big Sur. At that time the sea otters were believed to be extinct, but Mr. Astrom did not know that his observations would help launch one of the greatest and most iconic conservation success stories in history.
Prior to the arrival of fur trappers and merchants along the Pacific Coast of North America, there were 150– 300,000 sea otters living along the coasts. Like all sea otters along the North Pacific rim, southern sea otters were hunted to near extinction during the fur trade of the 1700s and 1800s. 39 By the time they were rediscovered, laws had been enacted to protect the otters from further hunting, namely the Fur Seal Treaty of 39 The Fall and Rise… and Fall Again of Sea Otters
31 1911 and state protections in 1913. Later the United States congress would pass further legislation protecting sea otters and other vulnerable animals through the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. These pieces of legislation have been the catalyst for sea otter recovery. 40 The sea otters survived because a few dozen animals eluded hunters off the rugged coast of Big Sur. In 1937, people traveling on California’s newly built Highway 1 saw something astonishing. Far below them at the edge of the Big Sur cliffs, tossed on rough waters, was a cluster of bobbing sea otters. On June 20, 1938, Life magazine published a photo of what it called “one of the rarest sights on earth”—a large raft of 40 Sea Otters Return
32 several dozen sea otters near Bixby Bridge. Its headline proclaimed,“ The ‘extinct’ sea otter swims back to life.”41
The sea otter population slowly grew back to around 3,000 but has remained at that level and its only habitat is the central coast between Monterey and Santa Barbara.
On September 19, 2023, after a challenge to their status, the US Department of Fish and Wildlife announced that the southern sea otters will retain Endangered Species Act protections.
Southern sea otters occupy only about 13 percent of their historical range. They once ranged from Oregon to Baja California, Mexico. Today, they inhabit portions of the central California coast from San Mateo County to Santa Barbara County and the waters surrounding San Nicolas Island in Ventura County.
Southern sea otters are now protected under the ESA, Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and California state law as a species of special concern. The southern sea otter population has grown slowly since receiving federal protections in the 1970s, fluctuating around 3,000 in recent years.
Sea otters play a fundamental role in the ecological health of nearshore ecosystems. Their presence in the ocean enhances biodiversity, increases carbon sequestration by kelp and seagrass, and makes the ecosystem more resilient to the effects of climate change. They are a well-known keystone species.
While southern sea otters have made strides toward recovery after coming back from the brink of extinction in our recent history, they continue to face significant threats from climate change , shark-bite mortality, and limited range,” said Steve Henry, field supervisor for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Ventura.“ Based on scientific projections of future conditions for the species, these threats will continue to impact southern sea otter abundance and connectivity between populations in ways that will most likely reduce the ability of the species to sustain itself in the future.” 42 Impacts to the southern sea otters in Morro Bay will be profound and unmitigated.
The uniquely calm, protected harbor in Morro Bay harbor is home to 45 adult sea otters, and 11 pups as of February, 2024.43 There are not many estuaries in the southern sea otter habitat that offer this protection for these nurseries that Morro Bay has against 43 This information is per Sea Otter Survey, an organization that conducts monthly counts in Morro Bay estuary. Sea Otter Savvy letter- otter count.pdf 42 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announces southern sea otters will retain Endangered Species Act protections
41 Searching for the Southern Sea Otter - Lost & Found - Positive Conservation Storytelling 33 predators and challenging ocean conditions. Their habitat is directly across from the project site. Section 4.3 of the DEIR compares the otters to pinnipeds (walruses, seals, sea lions, and elephant seals) and downgrades the impact to otters from construction noise and vibration to “less than significant.”§ 4.3-24. This assessment is a major failure of the draft EIR, which did not address the impacts to the sea otter’s daily requirements for sleep, ability to feed, and reproduce.
Construction and battery fires have the potential to interfere with the otters’ sleeping, breeding, and eating, and will constitute a significant impact pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(1). The project has the potential to (1) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species;( 2) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; or (3) substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species. With respect to the sea otter in particular; the project, has the potential to adversely impact the sea otter population in any or all of the three categories outlined in §15065(a).
When a sea otter becomes pregnant, the implantation and development of the embryo often stops, and the embryo may not implant for several months. Gestation is many months, depending on the time of implantation of the egg in the uterus.44 Scientists believe the purpose of delayed implantation in sea otters is to allow for the birth of pups when environmental conditions and food supplies are most favorable.
The gestation period for sea otters is immensely longer than other otters, lasting between 4 and 12 months. After fertilization takes place, the sea otters go through a phase called delayed implantation and development is suspended. This phase usually lasts between two and three months. Sea otters give birth to their pup in the water and very rarely ever give birth on land.
Newborn otters are extremely helpless because they are blind and not very mobile. The growth rate of the otter is very slow. The first swimming attempts take place at about three months, but diving takes more time. After four months they follow the female on nightly travels for food. About 8 months after birth the pup begins to go out on its own and begins to take care of itself.” 45
Females devote a considerable amount of energy to pup rearing, while males provide no parental care. By the end of the pup dependency period, females may be expending twice as much energy producing milk, sharing prey, and caring for their pups as they would during periods without a pup. This can result in seriously compromised health and body condition of the female at the time of pup weaning, particularly in populations where sea otters are present at high densities and the food supply is limited. 45 Sea Otter Reproduction
44 Southern Sea Otter | Online Learning Center | Aquarium of the Pacific 34 During this time, female sea otters may be particularly vulnerable to changes in prey abundance, aggressive males, disease and “chronic disturbance.” 46 For the southern sea otters, pupping happens year round in Morro Bay, and in between pupping the gestation period and weakening strength of the mother otters are sensitive periods that must be protected. Construction impacts for sensitive wildlife will be unmitigable. The timing and duration of potential impacts from thermal runaway toxic fumes cannot be predicted and are also therefore unmitigable.
Interference with marine mammal breeding, and “pupping” is an unlawful taking. In April of 2022, harbor seals in Pacific Grove were so disturbed by nearby road construction that it interfered with their pupping season. Construction was halted for the remainder of pupping season, but it was too late. According to Thom Akeman, a long-time volunteer with the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Network’s Bay Net docent group, Pacific Grove beaches saw 60 successful harbor seal births this year — and 29 losses. That’s a loss rate of about 33% percent.47 Akeman attributed the difference to noise from roadwork. To lose a third of the pregnancies is very abnormal,” he said.“ It was all due to miscarriages. Pregnant seals on the beaches get disturbed,… they’re hypersensitive and get nervous.” Akeman said 23 of the 29 losses occurred during the eight weeks of Pacific Grove’s initial street repair attempt on Ocean View Boulevard. The question is, can the city of Morro Bay learn from this and prevent a calamity from this foreseeable danger to sleeping, breeding and feeding of the southern sea otter, the nesting birds, the harbor seals in Morro Bay? Interference with the otters’ daily sleep needs alone may result in reduced reproductive success, reduction in health, and direct mortality to the otters, who have pups year round.
In response to a question at the April 24, 2023 Vistra meeting about impacts to wildlife from unplanned chemical releases, Dr. Shari Libicki candidly answered:
These ecological studies, offsite consequence analyses are in their infancy in terms of their ability to do things and its primarily because people don't understand for each species, for humans there are all of these studies to determine what does hydrogen fluoride do for people and you can imagine how much more difficult it is to look at all the various species and determine what the hydrogen fluoride is doing for them so, the short answer is "no" and the slightly longer answer is we just don't have the data. 1:22
47 Pacific Grove to Protect Harbor Seal
46 Natural History of the Southern Sea Otter
35 This is alarming. If road construction was enough to interfere with harbor seal pupping in Pacific Grove, a multiple years long construction period for the project will be much worse. Post construction, toxic, corrosive gasses from thermal runaway will harm humans and wildlife, and the project has the potential to (1) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species;( 2) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; or (3) substantially reduce the number of or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species. These impacts will be significant; and adequate, effective mitigation will not be feasible.
The project will impede the use of native wildlife sea otter nurseries.
The DEIR fails to identify the impact set forth in CEQA Appendix G, chapter IV that the project would (d)“ interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.” The preferred sea otter habitat at its closest point is the harbor, 220 feet from the project site as set forth in the DEIR §4.3-7 but their nurseries are mostly at the T-pier and Morro Rock, a short distance away. They are present in the “back bay” near Los Osos as well. Shops along the Embarcadero sell postcards and T-shirts with cute sea otter mom and pup images, as well as stuffed otters. The otters are a major part of our tourist economy.
The DEIR fails to address these construction impacts or how the city could mitigate the hazard of toxic fumes for the otters and their pups, short of building a dome over the battery installation. The DEIR fails to specify a plan to mitigate the hazard of contaminated runoff water to the endangered steelhead trout in Morro Creek, the peregrine falcons hatching in their nests at the rock and the many other sensitive species in the national estuary.( See the Atlas of sensitive species for Morro Bay).
The two photos below show common locations to see “ rafts” of sea otters in Morro Bay, but they are seen all over the harbor and back bay. These photos are followed by a map from the “Atlas of Sensitive Species of Morro Bay,” showing the preferred habitat of the sea otter, which borders the project site. 36 Sea Otters at the Morro Bay T-Pier and Morro Rock
37 Atlas of Sensitive Species Morro Bay Area, p. 194-195 The DEIR “Maximally Exposed Map,” Figure 02, includes sea otter nurseries; Figure 02 in the DEIR below, shows the consultant’s idea of maximally exposed individual receptor area which includes residential areas next to the project site, the seafood restaurants and shopping center across the street. It also includes part of the sea otter habitat, steelhead trout in the creek, many nesting birds and many other species which were not identified as potentially impacted in the DEIR. Figure 2 underestimates the exposure area, because it does not account for construction noise impacts or toxic fumes from thermal runaway events, which can last for weeks. But even within this area, the DEIR is inadequate in evaluating impacts to the wildlife and habitat which includes the otter nurseries and nesting birds. The “barricaded zone” of toxic gas exposure in Morro Bay would likely be a larger area than that in Otay, Mesa, but either way it would include the otter nurseries.
38 DEIR chapter 4.8-8 describes the 36-month construction phase of the BESS including sonic booms, blasting and pile driving. The mitigation measures cited in the DEIR would not reduce the impacts to less than significant.
Disturbing sea otters would disrupt normal behaviors and constitute a “taking.” The DEIR fails to adequately identify the impacts of this noise and vibration to the sea otters and other sensitive species. Building a BESS so close to the endangered sea otter nurseries would result in an unlawful “taking” under the Endangered Species Act. The project has the potential to increase sea otter mortality, as well as to adversely impact their ability to sleep, feed and reproduce successfully.
The DEIR at p. 4.2-24 states:“ NMFS has used 90 dB RMS as the in-air disturbance threshold for harbor seals and 120 dB RMS for non-harbor seals (NMFS 2018). For sea otters, similar weighting functions conservatively fit with those used by NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) for pinnipeds in air and underwater (U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 2021).”( emphasis mine).
It is absurd that the DEIR is using data about sea lion, elephant seal and walrus noise thresholds to form conclusions about sea otters, a much smaller animal with 39 different sensory, behavioral and reproductive systems. The developer cannot experiment on protected species. Based on this ridiculous comparison and a failure to discuss cumulative noise impacts in §4.8, the DEIR concludes the project “would not result in a significant impact on marine resources, such as pinnipeds, mustelids, cetaceans, and fish.”
The above is the sum total of the analysis of impacts to the sea otters, and it is severely deficient. Under the Code of Federal Regulations, 50 CFR 17.3, 17.21, 17.31 Harassment under the Endangered Species Act), it is unlawful to “take” any threatened or endangered species. Take includes harassment. Harassment is defined as an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. A “take” could also then include disrupting the normal behavior patterns of sea otters that include sleeping 10-12 hours per day. Otters who are unable to sleep will also be unable to feed and reproduce.
Construction and operation of the BESS so close to endangered sea otters would likely violate the Marine Mammal Protection Act. According to 50 CFR 216.3, 216.11 Harassment under the Marine Mammal Protection Act), it is unlawful to “take” any marine mammal, which includes harassment….any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure (Level A) or disturb by causing disruption of behavioral patterns (Level B) a marine mammal or marine mammal in the wild.
According to the California Code of Regulations, 14 CCR 251.1 ( Harassment of Animals), it is unlawful to harass, herd or drive any game or non-game bird or mammal or fur bearing mammal. Building a BESS facility in Morro Bay would result in disruption of numerous species' normal behavior patterns, not just the southern sea otter. The peregrine falcons, great blue herons, pelicans and many other species of birds have nests nearby and fly through airspace above the project site. These species were not studied, but an unlawful taking could result from both construction noise and vibrations, toxic air contaminants, heavy metals or particulate matter in the air and water, and toxic fumes or contaminated water from battery fires.
There are many state and federal pertaining to lethal take of wildlife, including the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act,(MBTA)48 National Park regulations, and several state regulations. Causing nest abandonment is illegal under the MBTA. The city needs to inform all of these agencies so they can take action to protect wildlife they are tasked to protect.
48 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 40 Under the Coastal Act, the Commission is required to protect the coastal zone's delicately balanced ecosystem. The Coastal Act provides heightened protection to ESHAs. Section 30107.5 identifies an ESHA as “any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.”
The Project does not carefully safeguard the preservation of ESHA in Morro Bay.
The Court of Appeals in Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 71 Cal. App. 4th 493, 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 850 (1999) stated that development in adjacent areas (to an ESHA) must carefully safeguard their preservation.” 49 Placing a BESS in or adjacent to an ESHA is clearly in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the Coastal Act, and is contrary to California Court decisions. Sierra Club v. California Coastal Com.( 1993) 12 Cal. App. 4th 602, 611 [ 15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 779]( Pygmy Forest).
Construction noise and vibrations, toxic air contaminants and smoke from battery fires, as well as contaminated runoff, will likely be unmitigable impacts to the southern sea otter, bird nesting sites, and potentially many species in the national estuary, the ESHA, and the Marine Reserve Area.
Impacts from toxic, corrosive fumes could result in an unlawful taking under the legal protections cited above, due to wildlife exposure to toxic gasses including hydrofluoric acid, hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide and phosphoryl fluoride.
Species of Special Concern are protected as Morro Bay is a State Marine Reserve.
Morro Bay is also a State Marine Reserve (SMR). The otters are included in this area, along with harbor seals, sea lions and hundreds of species of birds that nest or migrate here. All “take” of living marine resources is prohibited, and placing a BESS facility so close to an SMR could result in an unlawful taking of many species including marine mammals and night herons, great blue herons, great egrets, double crested cormorants and swallows; a birds that nest at Fairbanks Point by the Inn at Morro Bay, and numerous raptors that nest in the eucalyptus and cypress lining the waterfront.
These species, just some of those listed in the “Atlas,” live in the various ESHA.
Some of these species are considered “Special Animals” deserving of protection. This category includes “Species of Special Concern”( SSC) but is broader. 50 Many of the following have SSC status and are entitled to protection under state law. 51 51 Species of Special Concern
50 Special Animals List
49 Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court (California Coastal Com.)( 1999) 41 Many Federal agencies are tasked with protecting migratory birds and should have been notified of this project, given the large number of migratory birds in the vicinity of the project.52 In 2001 President Bush signed an executive order to direct federal agencies with carrying out the legislation enacted to protect migratory birds, indicating they “are of great ecological and economic value to this country and to other countries” and “they contribute to biological diversity and bring tremendous enjoyment to millions of Americans who study, watch, feed, or hunt these birds throughout the United States and other countries.” The United States has recognized the critical importance of this shared resource by ratifying international, bilateral conventions for the conservation of migratory birds.” 53
The DEIR failed to identify potential offsite impacts in the vicinity from construction activity and toxic plumes caused by thermal runaway to the following birds, some of whom are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, and have SSC status. The following species of birds and other wildlife were identified in the “Atlas of Sensitive Species of Morro Bay,” created jointly by the Morro Bay National Estuary Program and the California Department of Parks and Recreation.54 Most of these were not adequately addressed in the DEIR, and none of the offsite impacts to these species from toxic fumes were studied.
The Long-billed Curlew and their habitat; see p. 120-121 of the “Atlas.” The Western Snowy Plover, an endangered species, and possible habitat destruction, from construction noise and vibration as well as from toxic fumes caused by thermal runaway; see p. 114-115 of the “Atlas,” snowy plover habitat has been disrupted in Morro Bay by vehicle traffic which will be exacerbated by BESS construction trucks entering and leaving the construction site.
The Northern Harrier; see p. 96-97 of the “Atlas;” this species has lost much of its nesting and foraging habitat in California due to development.
The Osprey; see p. 92 of the “Atlas;” this species nests throughout the area.
The Double-breasted Cormorant; see p.88-89 of the “Atlas.” The California Brown Pelican; see p. 86-87 of the “Atlas;” they are no longer endangered but can be threatened by human disturbances. 54 Atlas of Sensitive Species Morro Bay Area
53 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies To Protect Migratory Birds 52 the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703– 711), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Acts (16 U.S.C. 668– 668d), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661– 666c), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ( 16 U.S.C. 1531– 1544), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321– 4347) 42 The American White Pelican; see p. 84-85 of the “Atlas;” their colonies are extremely concentrated and therefore vulnerable to catastrophic losses. White pelicans are present in Morro Bay.
The Common Loon; see p. 82-83 of the “Atlas.”
The Brant; see p. 78-79 of the “Atlas;” this species can easily be disturbed by noise and coastal development.
The Peregrine Falcon; see p. 108 of the “Atlas.” The American peregrine falcon is listed as a federally endangered species during its nesting season.“ This bird of prey species frequently nests near water on ledges of rocky cliffs or buildings, and occasionally will use abandoned nests of other species. Peregrine falcons do not build nests but scrape a small depression in the surface of their nesting site and typically nest year after year in the same locations. American peregrine falcons are fairly uncommon throughout San Luis Obispo County and are generally found along coastal areas. Long-term nest use (over 15 years) has been recorded at the Morro Rock Natural Preserve, approximately less than one mile of the BSA.
This is one of only a few sites within the County where nesting peregrines are consistently found, although migrants and winter transients augment wintering populations. Focused surveys were not conducted for American peregrine falcon within the BSA, and this species was not observed during the September 2015 or December 2020 field survey; however, its distribution throughout the region is well documented (Padre, 2015a). Due to the mobility of this species and nearby occurrences, American peregrine falcons have the potential to occur transiently within the Project site during foraging and/ or movement throughout the region.” 55
Other species of wildlife that the project could potentially impact include:
The Tidewater Goby; see p. 67-68 of the “Atlas;” threatened by loss of habitat due to coastal development.
The Steelhead Trout, an endangered species; see p. 66-67 of the “Atlas;” the steelhead trout habitat in Morro Creek directly borders the project site and would be impacted by contaminated runoff or chemical condensation due to rain or fog; The Harbor Seal; see p. 190-191 of the “Atlas;” harbor seals are extremely vulnerable and sensitive to human disturbances, abandoning their pups if they experience loud noises; they are common in Morro Bay. Construction in Pacific Grove was halted during pupping season for the harbor seals nearby in that area. 55 Padres Bio Assessment 2023, 4-38-39.
43 The California Sea Lion; their habitat is directly across the Embarcadero from the project site and overlaps the sea otter nurseries; see p. 200-201 of the “Atlas.” The Southern Sea Otter, on the federal list of Endangered Species as threatened, and they are discussed separately in this letter.
Morro Rock is a permanent or temporary home to dozens of species of birds.
This year alone, 2024, at least 123 species of birds have been observed at the “rock.”56 Morro Bay wildlife is protected by the California Marine Life Protection Act Morro Bay has two protected areas under the California Marine Protection Act; the Morro Bay State Marine Reserve and State Marine Recreational Management Area.
Under the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) passed in 1999, California began a historic effort to establish a science- based, statewide network of MPAs through a collaborative effort.57 In January of 2010, a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) was reached for the implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA, California Fish and Game Code Section 2850 et seq.).
The first ten agencies below were signatories to their commitment to implement the MLPA and for implementation of the state's draft Master Plan for the MLPA. 58 The list also includes agencies to be notified for the national estuary and the environment.
California Ocean Protection Council;
California Natural Resources Agency;
the California Environmental Protection Agency;
California Department of Fish and Game;
California Department of Parks and Recreation;
State Water Resources Control Board;
NOAA Western Regional Collaboration Team United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Navy Region Southwest DoD Regional Environmental Coordinator; Board of Trustees California Ocean Science Trust;
Resources Legacy Fund Foundation.
US Fish and Wildlife (not a signatory to this MOU, but should have been notified as the project site borders a national estuary); National Estuary Program;
The U.S. Coast Guard;
The Environmental Protection Agency
58 MOU California Marine Life Protection Act.pdf
57 State Marine Reserve
56 Morro Rock bird list
44 These agencies were not notified in the NOP stage of this CEQA process. When this DEIR is recirculated, the city should notify each agency and send them all of the information related to the proposed project including these comment letters.
Mitigation measures proposed will not be effective and are not feasible.
When imposing mitigation, lead agencies must ensure there is a “nexus” and rough proportionality” between the measure and the significant impacts of the project.
CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4, subd.( a)(4)(A)–(B), citing Nollan v. Ca. Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374.) All mitigation must be feasible and fully enforceable, and all feasible mitigation must be imposed by lead agencies.( CEQA Guidelines,§ 15041.)
CEQA advises developers to avoid mitigation measures that are intended to solely educate’ which is exactly what the applicant for the project wants to do with its mitigation measure BIO-1(a):“ Worker Environmental Awareness Program.” CEQA advises developers to avoid repeating federal, state, or local legal requirements. If there is already a law that addresses the impact, compliance with the law should be discussed in the analysis but does not need to be a mitigation measure.
This type of mitigation measure is just “filler”... compliance with state and federal laws is required anyway. 59 The repetitive boilerplate “regulatory compliance” promise is used as mitigation throughout the DEIR and inappropriately used to justify downgrading a significant impact to less than significant. What is needed is actual, effective, measurable, feasible mitigation; but that is unlikely in the project location.
BIO-1(b) and (c), best management practices, and surveys, do not truly provide effective mitigation of the impacts to wildlife.
BIO-1(e)-( j),Avoidance, Minimization, and/ or Mitigation Measures for Special Status Species, are only described for wildlife observed on the project site. The Special Status Species included are the obscure bumblebee and/ or Morro Bay blue butterfly, red-legged frog, the legless lizard and/ or coast horned lizard, the pallid bat, Townsend' s big-eared bat, and big free-tailed bat and special status or nesting birds. If there are any nesting birds in the trees that border the property, or trees that are planned for removal, they must not be disturbed. However, again, the impacts of this project will go far beyond the project site itself and all special status wildlife, including the above but also the sea otters, fishes and nesting birds in a realistic study area must be protected.
Since the DEIR failed to adequately address any off site impacts to humans or wildlife, the document must be rewritten and recirculated. Offsite impacts include noise 59 CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures
45 and vibration, traffic, light, toxic plumes from venting thermal runaway incidents, and more. All of this must be studied, disclosed and reviewed.
Chapter 4.5 Geology and Soils
Implementation of the project introduces new hazards to an area with expansive soils and liquefaction risk, adding significant risk to the community. Appendix G to CEQA asks if the project would:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii)Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Yes-Liquefaction is a process in which saturated soil temporarily becomes fluid during intense and prolonged ground shaking, or because of a sudden shock or strain.
Liquefaction typically occurs in areas with loose sand or silt where groundwater is shallow. See discussion below.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?” 60
The answer to all of the above is yes, these impacts are foreseeable and significant, with ineffective mitigation measures proposed. The DEIR at ES-18 notes that the project site is in an area with the potential for ground shaking, which can cause 60 CEQA appendix G: environmental checklist form
46 liquefaction, settlement, lateral spreading, subsidence, and/ or collapse in areas with loose sand or silt where groundwater is shallow. The DEIR then states,“ with implementation of mitigation requiring the Project Applicant to implement project-specific design recommendations to treat the Project Site in such a manner as to address seismically induced geologic hazards, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.” Implement what recommendations?“ Project specific” design recommendations has no meaning when the developer has not yet selected the project design. This could not be more vague.
The project has the potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss or injury. Given the nature of the industry and history of thermal runaway that often result from damage to the batteries, a project site subject to liquefaction and expansive soils is not the place for lithium-ion batteries.
The DEIR also notes that the project site is in an area with expansive soils with the potential to shrink and swell, which is contrary to section (d) above, but the mitigation measure is a “geotechnical assessment” which will not be effective given the circumstances that damage to lithium-ion batteries leads to thermal runaway.
The project violates Plan Morro Bay goals and policies related to geologic hazards.
POLICY PS-2.9: New Development in High-Risk Areas. Require that new development in areas subject to liquefaction and/ or landslide hazards is constructed and located in a manner that will minimize risks to life and property.
POLICY PS-2.13: Additional Standards for Development Subject to Geologic and Seismic Hazards. In addition to other hazard requirements that may apply, development in areas that are potentially subject to geologic hazards,( including Alquist-Priolo earthquake hazard zones and areas subject to landslides, liquefaction, steep slopes averaging greater than 30 percent, and unstable slopes regardless of steepness) shall comply with the seismic safety standards of the Alquist-Priolo Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 2621. et seq.) and all applicable seismic provisions and criteria in the most recent version of State and County codes; shall incorporate siting and design techniques to mitigate any such geologic hazards; and shall not create a hazard or diminish the stability of the area.
As discussed in Section 3.3, the Project Site overlies Quaternary- aged alluvium composed of gravel, sand, and some clay, and the material in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site is beach and dune sands (Figure 2). Areas containing beach and dune sand deposits have a high liquefaction potential (SLO County 1999), and the Site has a 47 moderate potential" liquefaction risk (SLO County 2023)....An adjacent site was assessed to have soils that are highly susceptible to liquefaction (Bengal 2014). 61 Based on this information, the Project Site soils are susceptible to liquefaction and associated settlement that may result from a seismic event. According to the DEIR, this impact is potentially significant.
Building a high risk battery storage facility on the project site would be contrary to the Morro Bay Municipal Code, chapter 14, which includes building and construction requirements to reduce hazard potential applicable to new construction. The Morro Bay Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is a plan to improve the resiliency in the community by identifying natural hazards present in Morro Bay, determining the community' s vulnerability to each hazard, and identifying development mitigation strategies to reduce vulnerability before emergency situations develop.
Figure PS-3 from PMB shows the project site is moderate to high risk for liquefaction.
The mitigation measure is a “Geotechnical Assessment,” which may not be sufficient or effective considering the type of hazardous materials involved. Assessment 61 DEIR appendices part 2, Geologic and Soils Hazard evaluation report, p. 28 48 is important, but does not replace mitigation. Since the impacts are derived from the location of the proposed project, the mitigation is to move the project to a safe location.
Implementation of the project is inconsistent with the “Morro Bay Municipal Code and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan,” as the project introduces new hazards to the area, adding significant risk to the community.
Chapter 4.6 Greenhouse Gasses Appendix G requires us to ask, would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The DEIR does not adequately address this. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses?” 62
The DEIR makes the unfounded claim that any environmental impact from the BESS would be less than that from all other visitor-serving commercial uses. Shops, restaurants,hotels, parks, aquariums and apartments do not experience thermal runaway.
The DEIR also assumes the area will be heavily developed with high density shopping or housing,( which is not high on the list of options presented in the 2023 survey) and from that assumption draw the baseless conclusion that greenhouse gasses will be higher with any option other than the BESS. It also ignores thermal runaway incidents that could result in an ecological disaster here, contaminating the community and the estuary.
In Morro Bay in a single day, the wind often begins as an offshore breeze, turns to cross-shore, and then onshore from the W/ NW or even south. If it’s foggy, the toxic fumes will sit right here in town and over the harbor for the duration of the thermal runaway;“ weeks” long now, according to experts cited in the Otay Mesa thermal runaway. The EIR contains no analysis of an actual worst-case scenario involving multiple battery containers in thermal runaway on an average day, that could have fog or wind shifts exposing all of us. Either way the toxic plume will not remain on the project site.
The developer has creatively interpreted each threshold to promote their idea that their project will only serve and benefit the city of Morro Bay. This is seen easily in the “Conflict Analyses” in p. 4.6-17 to 4.6-20. Under policies such as “practice environmental stewardship” and “public safety,” there is no mention of the impacts from lithium-ion thermal runaway events that are happening globally now. 62 CEQA appendix G: environmental checklist form
49 Venting harmful toxic gasses into the environment is an impact, not mitigation The off-gassing of toxic gasses through a vent, likely to happen if the developer switches to the “enclosures alternative,” is a potential short or long-term significant impact, but it was discussed as a mitigation measure in the Vistra meeting because the gasses would be “dispersed.” The DEIR fails to identify the off-gassing of hazardous materials through a vent. Instead, they assert they will minimize impacts to the environment with their design, construction and operation, therefore the impact will be insignificant. A promise to “minimize” an impact is too vague to be considered mitigation.
4.7 Hazardous Materials and §6.2.2 Potential Environmental Damage from Accidents The DEIR failure to address thermal runaway, that can lead to the exposure to toxic chemical releases smoldering for days, is appalling.
Figure 1: Thermal runaway is a chain reaction that leads to a destructive feedback loop.
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines. For the purposes of this EIR, implementation of the project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would do any of the following:
1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; 50 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;
3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area;
6. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; and/ or
7. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.63 The toxic and corrosive gasses that will result from thermal runaway are a significant impact that cannot be feasibly mitigated since the firefighting approach is let it burn.” 64 Whether the gasses are contained in a building or enter the environment directly from containers, they will be entering the environment. The DEIR at 4.7-26 does not adequately identify potential, reasonably foreseeable impacts set forth in the thresholds of significance. I will be addressing # 1, 2,3, and 6 here. 1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; The DIER failed to adequately address the dangers of transporting the batteries.
Lithium-ion batteries can easily be damaged in transport, making them more prone to thermal runaway when they arrive in Morro Bay.
Lithium batteries are dangerous to ship and are highly regulated by the US Department of Transportation, another agency that should be notified when the new project documentation is filed and the EIR rewritten and recirculated. In a DOT bulletin regarding transportation of lithium-ion batteries, the hazards were described.
The risks posed by lithium cells and batteries are generally a function of type, size, and chemistry. Lithium cells and batteries can present both chemical (e.g., corrosive or flammable electrolytes) and electrical hazards. Unlike standard alkaline 64 Recharging the transition: The role of battery energy storage systems 63 CEQA appendix g: environmental checklist form
51 batteries, most lithium batteries manufactured today contain a flammable electrolyte and have an incredibly high energy density. They can overheat and ignite under certain conditions, such as a short circuit, physical damage, improper design, or assembly. Once ignited, lithium cell and thermal runaway can be difficult to extinguish.” 65 The following threshold relating to §4.7 was not adequately identified in the DEIR.
2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
The DEIR fails to address the release of toxic, corrosive gasses that will be an impact of thermal runaway.
The Otay Mesa thermal runaway fire, ongoing now, is entirely foreseeable in Morro Bay and would have devastating impacts here. A realistic impact zone from toxic gasses would include all of Morro Bay and the estuary.
The following map, shaded purple, is the shelter in place “lockdown” map for a PG&E BESS thermal runaway in Moss Landing, in September of 2022. Numerous BESS fires incidents globally have had similar evacuation or shelter-in-place orders. A similar lockdown or evacuation area for a thermal runaway in Morro Bay would include all of downtown, all of the residential neighborhoods of Morro Bay, Morro Bay high school, the entire tourist area at Morro Rock and the Embarcadero, the endangered otter nurseries, the peregrine falcon nesting sites at the rock, the Great Blue Heron rookeries, the sea lion habitat, the ESHA and national estuary with all of its other sensitive species, and areas outside the city limits on route 41. As BESS in Morro Bay will be larger than the PG&E facility in Moss Landing, our evacuation areas and shelter-in-place areas would likely be larger.
65 Transporting Lithium Batteries | PHMSA
52 There have been three BESS incidents at Moss Landing in a two year period, and at least 86 BESS “ fires” globally. A resident of Moss Landing who was present during a shelter-in-place that resulted from the PG&E BESS fire in 2022 indicated they received the following warnings:
There is an ongoing hazardous materials incident in Moss Landing.
Please shut your windows and turn off your ventilation systems. In the event of changing weather patterns, impacted areas may enlarge.” 66 A proper analysis of the impacts would include several possibilities, with modern computer modeling and spreadsheets. One of those possibilities is a 14 day thermal runaway such as the one in Chandler, Arizona. Any assumptions for modeling need to be explained by an expert. 67
Due to its proposed location, there are significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided or sufficiently mitigated if the project or any lithium-ion battery project is implemented on the proposed site. CEQA §15126.2. The location is located in a tourist area, next to a mobile home park,. 31 miles from a high school, within a quarter mile of downtown, and within a few blocks of residential homes. The danger to human 67 Fire crews tend to massive, smoldering battery in Chandler facility 66 Rosemarie Barnard letter.pdf
53 life is great, and the danger to wildlife will likely be unmitigated. When thermal runaway starts, it will be too late to mitigate. Dousing the thermal runaway and developing an evacuation plan are crisis mode efforts to minimize damage, not mitigation measures.
The environmental impacts and the mitigation measures both need to be identified and discussed in detail,“ at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process,” otherwise they are in direct conflict with the guidelines implementing CEQA..68 California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15070, subdivision (b)(1).
The DEIR fails to analyze the unique challenges in fighting thermal runaway.
The DEIR indicates that the enclosures will be spaced 10 feet apart from each other, but this is not safe. In the UK, the recommendation is a standard minimum of 6 meters, or over 19 feet distance between BESS units “unless a competent fire engineer creates a design that can safely reduce the distance.” 69 The extent of Rincon’s impact analysis for thermal runaway hazards is found on the very last page of the EIR, in §6.2.2, when they acknowledge that “while fire risks can be minimized through use of proposed safety systems, fuel reduction, and siting, it cannot be assured that fire hazards could be completely avoided upon implementation and operation of the BESS facility.”
When there is a thermal runaway and toxic fumes are vented, some of the toxic fumes we will be exposed to include the following, as set forth in their Material Safety Data Sheets (“ MSDS”):
Hydrogen fluoride (Hydrofluoric acid):
Colorless liquid with a pungent, irritating, penetrating odor. Concentrations above 40%fume in air. Will not burn. Cylinders or tanks may rupture and explode if heated. Highly reactive. Contact with metals, such as iron or steel, slowly releases flammable and potentially explosive hydrogen gas. VERY TOXIC. May be fatal if inhaled, absorbed through the skin or swallowed. CORROSIVE to the nose, throat and respiratory tract. Causes lung injury-effects may be delayed. CORROSIVE to the eyes and skin. Causes severe burns. May cause blindness and permanent scarring. Absorbed fluoride can cause metabolic imbalances with irregular heartbeat, nausea, dizziness, vomiting and seizures. Long-term exposure may cause skeletal fluorosis (weakened bone structure). Target Organs: Lungs, teeth, eyes, skin, bone, mucous membranes.” 70 70 Hydroflouric Acid MSDS.pdf
69 Grid-Scale-Battery-Energy-Storage- System- planning- Guidance- for-FRS.pdf, p.7. 68 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 | Casetext Search + Citator 54 Hydrogen Chloride:
Potential Acute Health Effects: Very hazardous in case of skin contact corrosive, irritant, permeator), of eye contact (irritant, corrosive), of ingestion,.
Slightly hazardous in case of inhalation (lung sensitizer). Non-corrosive for lungs.
Liquid or spray mist may produce tissue damage particularly on mucous membranes of eyes, mouth and respiratory tract. Skin contact may produce burns. Inhalation of the spray mist may produce severe irritation of the respiratory tract, characterized by coughing, choking, or shortness of breath. Severe over-exposure can result in death.
Inflammation of the eye is characterized by redness, watering, and itching. Skin inflammation is characterized by itching, scaling, reddening, or, occasionally, blistering.
Potential Chronic Health Effects: Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact sensitizer). CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Classified 3 (Not classifiable for human.) by IARC [Hydrochloric acid]. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. The substance may be toxic to kidneys, liver, mucous membranes, upper respiratory tract, skin, eyes, Circulatory System, teeth. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage. Repeated or prolonged contact with spray mist may produce chronic eye irritation and severe skin irritation. Repeated or prolonged contact with spray mist may produce chronic eye irritation and severe skin irritation. Repeated or prolonged exposure to spray mist may produce respiratory tract irritation leading to frequent attacks of bronchial infection. Repeated exposure to a highly toxic material may produce general deterioration of health by an accumulation in one or many human organs.” 71
Hydrogen Cyanide:
this gas mixture is a colorless gas which is odorless. Hydrogen Cyanide is an extremely toxic gas; even brief over-exposures to relatively low doses may have significant health consequences. Acute low-level exposure can cause symptoms such as cyanosis, headache, dizziness, unsteadiness of gait, a feeling of suffocation and nausea.
Additionally, releases of this gas mixture may produce oxygen-deficient atmospheres especially in confined spaces or other poorly-ventilated environments); individuals in such atmospheres may be asphyxiated.” 72
72 Hydrogen Cyanide MSDS
71 Hydrochloric acid MSDS
55 Carbon Monoxide:
Causes damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure; Contains gas under pressure; may explode if heated; extremely flammable gas, may damage fertility or the unborn child, and toxic if inhaled.” 73
The containment measures will be significantly different for 174 enclosures, requiring a new DEIR.
Containing the lithium compounds, toxic plumes, heavy metals, particulate matter, etc. will all be significantly different for the new project, alternative #5, indicating the need for a new DEIR for that project. Quantitative measurements of heat release and fluoride gas emissions during thermal runaway for seven different types of commercial lithium-ion batteries were studied in this article, so the EIR needs to specify the batteries that will be used. 74 Many BESS projects are now using these containers with marketing about how the engineering design will prevent thermal runaway, but these BESS incidents keep happening. Like Vistra, many of these battery storage companies put a huge focus on safety in their marketing materials. Several layers of risk engineering should make li-ion batteries safe, but the battery racks continue to go up in flames and toxic gasses. If the newest technology in fire suppression systems results in a melted fire suppression system, it’s worthless to mitigate the impact.
The Uniform Fire Code, Article 80 (Section 80.103 of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to HSC Section 13143.9), includes specific requirements for the safe storage and handling of hazardous materials. These requirements are intended to reduce the potential for a release of hazardous materials and for mixing of incompatible chemicals, and specify the following specific design features to reduce the potential for a release of hazardous materials that could affect public health or the environment ( EIR p. 4.7-19):
Separation of incompatible materials with a noncombustible partition; Spill control in all storage, handling, and dispensing areas; and Separate secondary containment for each chemical storage system. The secondary containment must hold the entire contents of the tank, plus the volume of water needed to supply the fire suppression system for a period of 20 minutes in the event of a catastrophic spill.
If the city and its consultants don’t think thermal runaway is a problem, why does the DEIR mention the fire department 95 times, and keep reassuring us the fire department will be ready?
74 Toxic fluoride gas emissions from lithium-ion battery fires | Scientific Reports 73 Carbon Monoxide MSDS
56 Approximately 350 gallons per minute (GPM) of water is used in the interior sprinkler system at Otay Mesa, and 500 GPM for the exterior hose lines. For a 24 hour period the total is 1,224,000 and for two weeks, the total is over 17 million gallons of water. This is a conservative estimate because some exterior hose lines have a much greater capacity. How will they store enough gallons of water to suppress a two week fire, and where is that water coming from? How do you contain that much contaminated water?All of these questions need to be answered.
The DEIR fails to identify how much water will be used to stop a thermal runaway that occurs in a Costco sized building filled with li-ion batteries. The DEIR fails to explain how the area will be sealed so that none of the chemicals from dousing thermal runaway or from toxic gasses will enter the environment, and how compliance will be achieved with all federal and state safety and health laws as well as environmental laws regarding containment. If toxic gasses are vented to be dispersed in the environment, the frequency and the short term and long term impacts were not addressed in the DEIR. Venting toxic gasses are significant impacts requiring EPA permits.
The contaminated water from extinguishing fires, and toxic plumes that condense into the river or estuary, are a severe risk to humans, birds and marine life. In an abstract entitled, Ecotoxicity Evaluation of Fire-Extinguishing Water from Large-Scale Battery and Battery Electric Vehicle Fire Tests, a study reported differences in the environmental impact resulting from fires in lithium-ion battery electric vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles. In order to control thermal runaway in EVs, it was clear that firefighters must prolong the application of extinguishing water. In this work, extinguishing water from three vehicles and one battery pack fire test were analyzed for inorganic and organic pollutants, including particle-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and soot content. The study showed,“.... the acute toxicity of the collected extinguishing water on three aquatic species was determined.” 75 The method of collecting contaminated water into tanks and keeping it out of the environment, and collecting the toxic gasses from thermal runaway, was not identified in the DEIR. The representatives at a Vistra community meeting assured us that water would be contained and treated for safe release, but how that will be accomplished, is not set forth in the DEIR, and it will be different for the project vs. alternative #5. The city of Morro Bay should hire a fully independent chemical engineer to study the containment issues of the project that is submitted, before making any decisions. 75 Ecotoxicity of Extinguishing Water from Battery Fires 57 Saltwater Makes Li-ion batteries Combustible
Figures 4.7-3 and 4.7-4, from the DEIR make clear the danger to our community from the possible inundation of the project site. Any water damages the batteries and can make them ignite, but saltwater is even more corrosive.
Following hurricanes Ian and Idalis, Florida’s coastal population suffered flooding and was warned “ to move their EVs to higher ground because saltwater can trigger spontaneous combustion of LIBs leading to explosions and fire.” They were told Don’t drive through water.” There were many instances of this happening in Florida.
Since saltwater exposure can significantly degrade Li-ion batteries, causing an extreme fire risk, and the Morro Bay project site is in a flood zone, the city should protect its citizens and wildlife, and deny the project.76 Thermal runaway can potentially result in an unmitigable and unpredictable series of catastrophic level impacts which are completely avoidable by moving the project to another location.
On March 1, 2024, the “Felicity Ace", a car carrier carrying nearly 4,000 luxury automobiles off the coast of Portugal, caught fire, allegedly due to a faulty Porsche EV lithium-ion battery. The crew was safely rescued, the fire raged for two weeks, and attempts made to extinguish thermal runaway were unsuccessful. The ship sank and lawsuits are pending. 77 As a result of this and many other thermal runaway incidents 77 Extreme fire risk with EV´ s exposed to salt water - Coast Guard issues alert to not allow on ships | CTIF 76 Saltwater Intrusion Causes Damage to Electronic Vehicle Batteries | WorkBoat 58 involving saltwater exposure to lithium-ion batteries, the US Coast Guard has issued alerts not to allow these batteries on ships.
The Morro Bay BESS project site is bordered on one side by the ocean and a marine harbor, 220 feet away; and a creek on the other that floods from the ocean and the hills; but there’s the added danger of coastal fog on lithium-ion batteries. It is irresponsible to construct a facility to hold lithium-ion batteries in a marine location such as this. Over the twenty year life of the battery storage facility, it is wishful thinking to believe we will be able to avoid saltwater inundation due to floods or tsunamis. Even without flooding or tsunamis, li-ion battery fires are happening regularly and will expose our residents, visitors and wildlife to harmful chemicals.
The DEIR failed to identify the potential impact of our foggy coastal climate on lithium-ion batteries. At the time of the investigation into lithium-ion battery fires in South Korea, there were over 20 fires in BESS installations. Even after their investigation, thermal runaway incidents continued and the most recent count of BESS fires in South Korea is over 30.
The following is a study I found regarding the impact of saltwater mist (fog) on lithium-ion batteries. The BESS facilities in South Korea had so many fires they had an extended moratorium to study the causes of the fires.“ Unraveling the Characteristics of ESS Fires in South Korea: An In-Depth Analysis of ESS Fire Investigation Outcomes,” an article in the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) journal from 2023, revealed a multi-phase investigation to determine the causes of ESS fires. One of the issues studied in South Korea is cause for concern in the coastal foggy climate of Morro Bay. The study revealed that lithium-ion batteries exposed to coastal fog can be compromised and are at a higher risk of a thermal runaway event.
In response to the occurrence of 23 ESS fires ( now over 30 in South Korea), the government organized a joint investigation committee comprising 20 experts to analyze the causes of these incidents. Despite the lack of definite evidence to explain the ESS fires, the committee utilized a methodology of hypothesis and verification to arrive at potential causes. One of the tests was an experiment conducted to investigate the potential impact of salt water mist on insulation resistance in the ESS. Due to the higher conductivity of salt water compared to pure water, it is easier to compromise insulation resistance. This can lead to a short circuit between the terminals of the ESS and fires...” 78
78 Unraveling the Characteristics of ESS Fires in South Korea: An In-Depth Analysis of ESS Fire Investigation Outcomes
59 The following threshold relating to §4.7 was not adequately addressed in the DEIR:
3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
The city should engage in CEQA §15186 notice and consultation provisions due to the project’s close proximity to Morro Bay High School.
The project site is .31 from Morro Bay High School (MBHS), and creates a potential hazard for students and faculty. The map in figure 02 produced by Vistra’s consultant Ramboll, indicates the maximum exposure area borders close to high school property. Any shelter-in-place area for a 600 MW battery storage facility would certainly include MBHS; this alone should trigger the important notice and consultation process of §15186.
It is doubtful that §15186 was written with battery storage in mind, and that distance of .25 of a mile may not protect students and staff from a toxic plume coming from the largest BESS facility in the world. A hazardous industry for which safety standards are not fully developed should not be built in the vicinity of a school. Since a shelter-in-place boundary for a 600 MW facility would likely include Morro Bay High School, the city should follow the notice and consultation provisions of §15186. The school board, staff, families and school children need to be informed of what is coming, and 6/ 100 of a mile shouldn’t get in the way of that. If there is a two or three week BESS fire, or maybe even a one day fire, the toxic, corrosive fumes will not stop at .25 of a mile. Any schools in Morro Bay should also be notified pursuant to §15186.
Finally, the DEIR failed to adequately address the evacuation problem from the thresholds set forth in Appendix G. This cannot be deferred until a later date. Any plan that includes evacuation and sheltering in place should be disclosed as part of the EIR process particularly since Morro Bay will be uniquely challenging in that regard.How to evacuate nearby schools needs to be addressed in the recirculation of this DEIR as well.
The following appendix G threshold for §4.7 was not addressed in the DEIR:
6) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Morro Bay cannot evacuate safely from a thermal runaway event on the project site.
The DEIR fails to identify the evacuation hazard from having lithium-ion batteries on the proposed project site. The site is located on a dead-end road with tourist attractions on the far end. Subchapter 4.7 mentions that an evacuation plan will be 60 developed by the fire department sometime in the future, but given the project site location in Morro Bay, that plan is critical and should have been addressed in the EIR.
The unique geography of the location creates a blocked artery of traffic in case of emergency, because the only road to Morro Rock is the Embarcadero; a dead-end, two lane road that forks off to Coleman Road, which is another dead-end, two lane road.
Thousands of visitors drive, walk or ride bikes to the Rock and the beach parking area by Morro Creek footbridge. 79 As all of that traffic attempts to escape the smoke and flames, they will have to drive towards the danger first and pass it before leaving town.
Over two years ago the developer stated, in response to comments to the NOP, that the Morro Bay Fire Department (MBFD) had retained an independent engineering and safety consultant, DNV Energy USA, Inc, to assist with a public safety analysis of the BESS Facility which “would be used by the City and MBFD specifically in making decisions regarding BESS safety element design, emergency planning, and hazard minimization.”( EIR 1-14). The fire safety analysis should not have been deferred. The impacts from a thermal runaway event to nearby residents, tourists and wildlife are serious potential impacts of the BESS once in operation, and identification of the 79 Just attending a kite festival can take almost an hour and a half to get out of the parking lot at the rock and drive .8 of a mile when the festival is not even over. Imagine the panic if people saw smoke or flames at the BESS site and were attempting to leave. This is a foreseeable scenario and cannot be mitigated without changing the location of the BESS.
61 impacts and mitigation measures cannot be deferred until after the EIR is published. As described above, according to CEQA §15121 and §15070, this is unacceptable. All potential impacts must be addressed in the EIR so that the public can be adequately informed.
Also, the draft EIR p. 4.7-31 states “MBFD would be responsible for final review and approval of the project city’s building plans…” A chemical fire from lithium-ion battery storage places our firefighters in danger and they are not equipped to handle the demands of thermal runaway, with an ensuing evacuation crisis. And how do tourists, surfers, and people on bicycles and kayaks shelter in place? We have a potential evacuation nightmare for people visiting Morro Rock and the Embarcadero. It is no wonder people call this proposed project “insane.”
The developer plans to build a bike path along the Embarcadero through that mysterious blue circle, Figure 02 in the DEIR (above), where hundreds (or possibly thousands of visitors if there is an event) will have to travel through the blue circle to escape the fumes. Cars will sit in traffic in that blue circle, gridlocked when there’s thermal runaway. Families and elderly people who may be home-bound will be stuck in that blue circle while thermal runaway emits toxic, corrosive gasses into the neighborhood. But since the blue circle doesn’t seem to have any scientific basis, the consultants need to study a much larger potential impact zone that will be affected by toxic fumes, and the city should hire a truly independent expert consultant to do an analysis.
Fires caused by thermal runaway are becoming more frequent.
Due to their high energy density, being environmentally friendly, and long cycle life, LIBs have been widely used in mobile communications, transportation, new energy storage, and other fields. However, fire incidents caused by LIBs have become more and more frequent, with TR (thermal runaway) being a significant accident cause.”( highlighting is mine). Research Progress in Thermal Runaway Vent Gas Characteristics of Li-Ion Battery, revised September 2023.80 Marsh McLennan, a risk analysis company, writes “Site developers and operators must engage early and establish relationships with local fire services. In some fire losses involving BESS-where clear protocols were not developed in advance-the immediate actions taken have actually worsened the situation.
The article continues,“ Even if the fire is suppressed, thermal runaway alone can generate enough heat to damage adjacent cells and propagate the reaction ...Large-scale thermal runaway events have occurred in almost every jurisdiction with BESS 80 See also Public pushback and fears against large lithium based BESS growing | CTIF 62 deployments over the last few years. For example, South Korea suffered multiple destructive fire events between 2017 and 2019, which led to a government investigation and orders to shut down some units and limit the charge rates of other BESS installations nationwide.
Despite these changes, other fire events have occurred in South Korea.
Additional fires in Europe and North America have highlighted that this failure mode is not unique to a particular manufacturer or design — it’s inherent in the technology. 81 In sum, the following worse case scenario is entirely feasible:( 1) Thermal runaway in Li-ion batteries are damaged from flooding, tsunami, earthquake, or a chunk of the stacks falls on them causing an explosion;( 2) thermal runaway ensues and multiple or all battery modules ignite and release toxic, corrosive fumes;( 3) an evacuation crisis in the city in which people are trapped and fire trucks cannot gain access;( 4) fire smolders for days sending toxic plumes;( 5) residents, tourists, wildlife are sickened, injured or die. And of course that would be followed by the fiscal impacts from the dropoff in tourism.
4.8 Noise
According to the DEIR, the City has not adopted specific construction/ demolition noise level standards that would apply to the project.§4.8-12. In this situation, with many years of construction and potential demolition, the city should hire independent noise specialists who are not affiliated with energy companies and are not funded by Vistra. Our community cannot afford to allow a construction project of this size to go forward without independent, scientific consultation regarding what the actual effect of three to four years of noise and vibration will be on its residents, visitors and wildlife.
The DEIR sets forth the types of equipment that will be operating: backhoes, concrete saws, cranes and excavators, front end loaders, jackhammers, pavers, pneumatic tools, dozers, pumps, rollers and portable generators, trucks and graders, scrapers and pile drivers.
The DIER indicates the dominant sources of construction vibration will be sonic booms, blasting, pile driving, pavement breaking, demolition, diesel locomotives, and rail-car coupling. Other less intense sources of vibration include heavy equipment such as bulldozers/ trucks and vibratory rollers.§4.8-10.
The DEIR states on p. 4.8-2, that in addition to the instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is important since sounds that occur over a long 81 Recharging the transition: The role of battery energy storage systems 63 period of time are more likely to cause annoyance, direct physical damage, or environmental stress. But then indicates that the noise metric used for duration and sound level is “Leq,” but it is typically “summed over a one-hour period.” I don’t know how this relates to a BESS construction that will take three to four years.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 states that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)( 3), cumulatively considerable means "that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." DEIR Table 4.8-5 indicates separate noise impacts of each type of equipment, but the equipment operators will not be taking turns working. The DEIR fails to calculate the cumulative effects of many of these noise and vibration creating construction activities from different types of equipment operating at once. These heavy construction impacts will be heard all over our densely populated city and tourist area, impacting all of us and the wildlife. The stress on the employees and patrons of Morro Grill, Dockside, Harbor Hut, and all of the other businesses across the street could mean the end of some of those businesses. People come here to listen to the sounds of the birds and ocean waves, not sonic booms, blasting, jackhammers and pile drivers.
Both thresholds of significance set forth below, based on Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, will be exceeded, meaning that the project will have a significant adverse impact because it will (1) result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies and it will (2) result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
The project will violate noise policies and implementation actions of Plan Morro Bay 82 The project will violate both of these policies from Plan Morro Bay. POLICY NOI-1.1: Noise Compatibility. Ensure new development is compatible with existing and future noise environments by continuing to use potential noise exposure as a criterion in land use planning.
The project fails to comply with this policy in that temporary and permanent construction and operation noise levels created by the project are not compatible with 82 Plan Morro Bay, p. 3-140-3-141
64 existing noise environments, which include the sounds of marine life, birds, and tourists on holiday.
POLICY NOI-1.2: Noise-Sensitive Land Uses. Maintain acceptable stationary noise levels at existing noise-sensitive land uses.
The project fails to comply with this policy in that it will not maintain acceptable noise levels at existing noise-sensitive land uses.
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION NOI-2: Mitigate noise created by new proposed stationary noise sources, or by existing stationary noise sources which undergo modifications that may increase noise levels, so as not to exceed the noise level standards of Table NOI-5 on lands designated for noise-sensitive land use.
Plan Morro Bay p. 3-129 describes “ noise sensitive land uses” to include Morro Bay High School, parks, offices, the library, and Bayside Care Center. The threshold of acceptable noise for these uses is less than 60 dB. The cumulative effect of various heavy machinery operating at once during BESS construction will be far greater than that and will create significant impacts that will be impossible to effectively mitigate. It is a major concern that several schools are nearby, and in particular Morro Bay High School, and the cumulative effects of heavy construction equipment noise could impact the students’ ability to learn.
It appears the city was led to accept a higher noise exposure level for this project.
The DEIR states, at 4.8-12,“ The City has not adopted specific construction/ demolition noise level standards that would apply to the project. The FTA identifies a daytime noise level of 90 dB Leq as a reasonable criterion for construction noise impact assessment FTA 2006). The FTA guidance states that adverse community reactions may result if this noise level is exceeded during construction/ demolition activities. Additionally, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that noise exposure levels should not exceed 70 dB over a 24-hour period, and 85 dB Leq over a 1-hour period to avoid hearing impairment (WHO 2022). The 1-hour, 85 dB noise level is the more appropriate threshold for construction noise, as it captures the intermittent aspect of construction noise, without taking into consideration nighttime noise levels and operating restrictions (operation of heavy equipment would only occur during allowable daytime hours). Therefore, the City has elected to use an 85 dB Leq threshold in this analysis to assess the potential for construction and demolition related noise levels to result in significant noise impacts to off-site sensitive receptors in the Project Site vicinity.” If the city has indeed agreed to this higher noise level, it should not have done so without public input. In any case, construction noise is likely to far exceed 85 dB. 65 Evidence does not support the conclusion that construction noise will be “less than significant.”
DIER Table 4.8-5 shows chart of typical noise levels produced by construction equipment used individually (not used at the same time which would be normal):
The DEIR fails to provide any details to support the conclusion that the construction noise will be less than significant. The cumulative noise impacts from construction will be many times higher than 85 dB, which does not include cumulative impacts from other construction activities from adjacent construction on the power plant property. The DEIR treatment of these impacts is flawed. The construction of an industry such as the BESS will just be too loud and too close to the nearby residents and visitors in Morro Bay, as well as the wildlife. Further, the DEIR analysis fails to compute cumulative noise impacts from adjoining property construction activity happening at the same time.
But the stress from all that noise and vibration will not end when the BESS is constructed…it will just be different during operation, like the constant buzz of tinnitus.
BESS facilities tend to produce high noise levels generated mostly by the compressors and fans in the electrical equipment cooling systems. According to a March 14, 2024 publication in Noise Monitoring Services, BESS are relatively new to the US and the operation of the BESS in communities is becoming “ an increasing noise problem.” 83 The 83 Battery Energy Storage System ( BESS) Noise Challenges and Solutions 66 DEIR fails to address the BESS operational noise, and how it will affect other development on the property. This will seriously limit any visitor serving development.
4.10 Effects Found Not To Be Significant (according to the DEIR) The DEIR engaged in some creative analysis to come up with their conclusions of less than significant” impacts. To the extent not previously addressed, I will comment on them here.
Land Use Planning. From Appendix G to CEQA:
Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established community?Yes, the project site is between a tourist area along the Embarcadero, and Morro Rock. People will be parked right next to the project site who are using Coleman beach. There is a beach promenade and bike path from the Embarcadero shops and restaurants over to the Rock. The project site is along that route.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental Effect?Yes, the project conflicts with the general plan Plan Morro Bay) and local coastal program in many respects as discussed in this letter. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Yes, the project if implemented will conflict with the National Estuary Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan.
Public Services. Appendix G asks:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
67 Yes, the project would result in the “need for new or altered governmental facilities” due to the strain placed on them by the project in this location. A substantial increase in fire and police protection would be necessary, at the minimum. Events such as “Ironman” which was just held in Morro Bay, bring tens of thousands of people to this area. If the batteries exploded or went into thermal runaway emitting toxic gasses, those tens of thousands of people, along with our residents, would be trapped. On most average weekends in the spring, summer and fall, recreational opportunities and festivals bring thousands of visitors to Morro Bay. Even on an average day, there are too many people close by in the neighborhoods, restaurants and on the Embarcadero, a tourist area.
Table 4.6-4 Plan Morro Bay Conflict Analysis
Government Code section 65860, all California cities must set forth their development policies, objectives and standards in a general plan. The general plan is a city's basic planning document and considered the “blueprint” for any city's development. The California Supreme Court held the general plan to be "the constitution for all future development."( Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 531, 540.) The general plan is the city’s single most important planning document and the project lacks general plan consistency.
CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d) requires an EIR to discuss any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable general plans, specific plans and regional plans. The project DEIR takes the approach that instead of developing the property in a manner consistent with Plan Morro Bay, Plan Morro Bay will just be amended to be consistent with their energy project; therefore, the project will have general plan consistency.
Table 4.6-4 analysis under each topic is self-serving, conclusory and biased. For example, under “Public Safety,” the Plan Morro Bay policy is to “consider how climate change impacts may change anticipated hazard conditions when planning for emergency response.” Accordingly, the DEIR should address how sea level rise and flooding would increase the likelihood of lithium-ion battery exposure to flooding or saltwater intrusion, and increase the chance of an evacuation crisis and ecological disaster in Morro Bay. Instead the DEIR authors state “the project would improve grid reliability and the availability of energy supply…..” EIR p. 4-6-19.
Since the energy provided by the BESS would go into the grid and support 450,000 homes (OCA, p. 7), the potential positive impacts are outside of Morro Bay, but the adverse impacts will be felt in Morro Bay, surrounding communities, and the estuary. The use of our city’s resources will be disproportionate and we will suffer the 68 exposure to toxic fumes from thermal runaway incidents. The real reason for the project is to benefit the developer who will use the project to sell energy to wholesale markets for a profit.
The proposed project violates both the character of our community as set forth in Plan Morro Bay, and the Coastal Act. Policy CD-1.2 of Plan Morro Bay “require(s) new development projects to be compatible with the character vision for the area in which it is located…” Plan Morro Bay also states,
The Coastal Act requires the City to prioritize uses that serve important needs for the community and visitors, such as recreation, coastal access, open space, and visitor- serving and coastal-dependent uses. Nearly all of Morro Bay is in the coastal zone. Coastal priority uses range from visitor-serving recreation and services to coastal- dependent businesses such as aquaculture and commercial fishing.
The Coastal Act does not envision battery storage or other industrial uses on coastal lands. Plan Morro Bay highlights the community; our vision includes renewable energy, but we have specifically rejected battery storage (citizen survey, 2023).
Renewable energy that is acceptable may be rooftop solar or other alternatives.
The updated Plan Morro Bay was a seven year intentional process that included significant public participation, concluded in 2021 and confirmed by the citizens survey in 2023. Plan Morro Bay reflects the intentions of the residents of Morro Bay. To carry out our vision for Morro Bay, developments need to be consistent with the city’s general plan, the community’s wishes and the Coastal Act.
To simply amend PMB to accommodate an industrial use in the middle of a tourist town, would result in denial of due process to the residents of Morro Bay who were involved in the public participation in developing Plan Morro Bay and decided they did not want industrial development on the property along the Embarcadero. A dangerous industrial facility prone to toxic runaway fires should not be forced on a community that does not want it.
69 Our vision according to Plan Morro Bay:
POLICY LU-5.4:
Vistra Site Master Plan. Create a master plan for the redevelopment of the former Vistra power plant site and surrounding area, which could include reuse of some of the existing buildings. The master plan will be the responsibility of the developer or property owner upon property development. Encourage extensive community participation in the master plan process. Ensure that the land use map identified in Figure LU-4 and development capacity established in Table LU-2 guide land use 70 planning for the site. LU-4, below, shows the project site as “Visitor Serving Commercial.”
The “Visitor Serving - Commercial” land use designation for the power plant property was a significant change from the past. The lead agency is required to ensure that the map in LU-4 guides planning for the site. No developer will want to build visitor-serving commercial” developments next to a battery storage facility with a history of toxic thermal runaway. It’s a money-loser and will be impossible to insure.
Thermal runaway BESS events are a global problem leading to many moratoriums.
A review of BESS fires helps us understand that our concerns are not unwarranted …there have been many such events; enough to have a BESS fire database on Wikipedia. Also, there are many moratoriums on BESS storage facility development. 84 Here are just a few:
84 Public Pushback Against BESS Growing
71 Royalton, NY town board March 4, 2024 approved a moratorium on the development of renewable energy systems that utilize battery storage; Southold, NY just extended its’ moratorium for an additional year, and legislation is being introduced to ban BESS installations near residential areas and schools; 85
Solano County, CA: a moratorium on LIB battery storage was extended to January 26, 2026;
South Korea: 28 fires out of 30 facilities led to an extended moratorium to conduct an in-depth investigation; now they have had over 30 fires; Jefferson County, Tennessee has a moratorium as of July, 2023 after a ruling by county commissioners;
Duanesberg, Washington;
Oyster Bay, NY as of March 11, 2024 is considering a moratorium, concerned that “lithium-ion batteries and electric vehicles are at high fire risk if exposed to salt water, the risk of coastal saltwater for BESS facilities should be fully assessed before permitting these facilities near our shorelines.” 86
The most recent example of dangerous thermal runaway is the incident in Otay Mesa, still ongoing as I write this letter. That fire requires far more resources than the city of Morro Bay has. Two weeks of fire suppression from internal sprinklers plus external fire hoses amounts to over 17 million gallons of water. That fire is terrible in its current location but would be far more devastating here with the dense population, tourists, outdoor recreation and fragile marine environment.
The OCA indicates 450,000 homes will have power during an outage (OCA, p.7), but this is 75 times the amount of power needed in Morro Bay for our 6,000 homes.
Vistra will benefit from the profit they gain from selling this power, and the larger metropolitan areas and valley will benefit. We do not benefit.
The DEIR should have provided an alternative location.
An alternative location for the project should have been provided, particularly knowing that the location is the major issue of controversy, and extremely problematic from a safety standpoint. The DEIR failed to explain why residents and visitors to Morro Bay should be exposed to any cancer-causing toxic air contaminants, construction noise and the toxic plumes from thermal runaway, when alternative locations would be more suitable. That the applicant “owns the property” is not enough reason to endanger the health and safety of this town.
86 Town Of Oyster Bay Considers Moratorium For Battery Storage Facilities - Anton Media Group 85Southold Extends Battery Storage Moratorium
72 A location for energy storage in which the point of use is close to the point of generation would be ideal, but that location is not Morro Bay. Power stored by this facility will serve hundreds of thousands of homes; homes in metropolitan areas and homes in the valley that run air conditioners 24/ 7 for half the year. There are remote places where the power stored can directly feed a PG&E transmission system and correspondingly the downstream distribution system, and a location such as this would be ideal. Morro Bay doesn’t make sense from any perspective, even before you look at the safety hazards. Large BESS installations should be sited in the valley where air conditioning is needed, or just outside metropolitan L.A. where there are many homes that will need power. In Morro Bay, there are no overriding considerations making the project “worth it.”
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. CEQA Appendix G asks:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or Prehistory?
Yes, the project will substantially degrade the quality of the environment CEQA §15065 (a) requires a mandatory finding of significance if the project “has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment.” This is the same as CEQA guideline §15382 which considers if the project could cause a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.” It is foreseeable that a hazardous industry that transports and stores lithium, and has a history of toxic thermal runaway fires, will degrade the environment. And the DEIR, filled with boilerplate and vague reassurances, does not give us confidence that Vistra will be able to avoid those impacts.
Indeed, it may be impossible to avoid them, given the type of industry, the density of residents, visitors and wildlife, and the evacuation issues.
DEIR section 4.10-9 states,“ During project operation, runoff would be directed to a combination of the gravel bed and vegetated infiltration areas near the BESS Site perimeter, with overflow directed to onsite storm drains. Storm water collected through the onsite storm drains would be conveyed to the City’s existing stormwater management system.” Does this also refer to contaminated water from fire suppression? 73 And if there is a plan to contain the contaminated water, will that include storage for over 17 million gallons?
The DEIR then states that battery fluids and other substances would not be susceptible to spills or release as runoff, because they will comply with the Stormwater Management Guidance Manual, and not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. This is another one of those circular arguments seen throughout the DEIR….
The project will not create a significant impact because we agree to comply with the law- we will let you know later how we will accomplish that, therefore the impact is less than significant.”
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?(" Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Yes; the cumulative impacts from construction, BESS operating noise, and thermal runaway will be considerable and were not adequately addressed in the DEIR.
See §4.8 above on noise.
The projects’ individual impacts will be significant as well, but DEIR Section
4.10-9 fails to adequately address how the cumulative construction impacts will be considerable. The cumulative noise impact will be unbearable to this little community and will disrupt the wildlife nests and nurseries. The cumulative impact of noise from BESS operation will stress this community to no end.
The DEIR fails to anticipate the foreseeable thermal runaway event that will be doused with water that then becomes severely contaminated, and that contaminated water draining into the ocean, creek and harbor. It fails to anticipate how the toxic plumes will be absorbed into the bay, the ocean and Morro Creek and disrupt ecosystems and wildlife. There are insufficient resources in this small town for firefighting, fire suppression, and emergency evacuations for a thermal runaway event of any size, let alone one like the Otay Mesa Gateway Energy storage facility. These are all cumulatively considerable.
74 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes, and the project is already causing undue anxiety and distress to the people of this small coastal city.
The adverse impacts will only be worse when construction noise begins and we suffer from noise during the facility’s operation along with the constant threat of exposure to toxic fumes from thermal runaway incidents. The danger to our health and safety is clear from studying the consequences of the Otay Mesa fire if it were here in Morro Bay. Years of toxic air contaminants and construction noise, followed by potentially weeks of toxic fumes while an uncontrolled thermal runaway is poisoning our city and national estuary, will cause substantial adverse effects on the residents and visitors of Morro Bay.
Conclusion
This DEIR for a project that appears to be changing to a different alternative must be withdrawn and rewritten once the design of the project has been selected and plans are drafted and submitted. The developer may not pursue two projects at once and decide later which project to build. The failure to inform the public of the potential for exposure to toxic, corrosive fumes as a result of thermal runaway, is a fatal flaw in the DEIR. Finally, it is improper to defer identification of impacts and mitigation measures until after the EIR process.
The consultants take the “trust us” approach… trust us to figure out which project design we want, identify the impacts and mitigation measures, and comply with environmental, and health and safety laws; even though we will do this all later, we already know now that the impacts will be less than significant. Lacking data and a scientific basis, conclusions are repeatedly reached that there will be no significant impact, even though the technical consultant admits that there is not enough data regarding the impact of toxic chemicals on wildlife. The DEIR lacks credibility.
The draft EIR failed to disclose the impacts of the project, and its methodology is flawed. A common theme goes like this:“ Compliance with applicable rules, regulations, and policies described above;( or Plan Morro Bay goals and policies; state and federal laws; city regulations; applicable standards; permit requirements etc.), would ensure that any impacts associated with —------------(fill in the blank) would remain less than significant. We promise to minimize the impacts, therefore the impacts will be less than significant.” This is saying nothing. There is no nexus and it defies logic. 75 If this project is approved, the character of the town will be destroyed, and the residents, tourists and wildlife will be placed in harm's way. The project site is in a densely populated residential and tourist area with schools nearby, and it is in a flood and tsunami zone. Any agency that would approve such a project without fully independent scientists analyzing its potential impacts in a worse case scenario, is recklessly endangering the health and safety of its residents, visitors and wildlife.
The project proposed is contrary to the Coastal Act, contrary to Plan Morro Bay, contrary to the wishes of the residents of Morro Bay, and this DEIR does not meet the CEQA requirements of informing the public. There is no way to make a battery storage project in Morro Bay safe. The project is a high risk project in a high risk location, with a history of unpreventable and uncontrollable toxic, corrosive runaway fires. The citizens of this city are not willing to take such extreme risks, and this project should be built in a more suitable location. We hope and believe that after recirculation and all of the potential impacts are identified, considered and reviewed, the city will not certify this EIR and will reject the project.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Marie Colby
76 Dana Swanson
From: Carole Truesdale < carole_truesdale@hotmail. com> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 9:29 AM
To: Dana Swanson
Subject: Agenda Correspondence for next week' s meeting Attachments: Larry K Truesdale Comments for BESS Draft EIR.pdf CAUTION: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
Dana,
Due to the recent battery fire at Otay Mesa, I would like to submit into public record Larry's letter he addressed to Council et al.
I feel that it is important for people to understand the severity of such a fire.
Thank you,
Carole Truesdale
Food without wine is a corpse; wine without food a ghost. United and well matched, they are as body and soul; living partners!" chef...Andre Simon ( 1877- 1970)
arry K. Truesdale Mobile: 858-337-8339
331 Kodiak Street
Morro Bay, CA 93442- 1313
May 17, 2024
City of Morro Bay
ATTN: Kim Fowler, Interim Planning Manager
955 Shasta Avenue
Morro Bay, California 93442
Email: [email protected]
Re: Public Comment to Draft EIR for battery proposal
April , 2024
Dear Ms. Fowler,
I am a resident of Morro Bay for the past 14 years. I became aware of this beautiful area during numerous diving trips along the California coast in the 1960’ s and 1970’ s and decided to retire here then if I lived that long. This unique coastal area is an environmentally fragile and important part of the West Coast of the United States. As a resident I feel I must play a role in assuring that all development here is done responsibly. Therefore, I am writing to you regarding the Preliminary EIR for the proposed battery storage facility referred to as BESS.
First, let me professionally introduce myself to help you understand my background. I received an AB degree in Chemistry with a minor in economics from UCSD in 1969 and then went to graduate school at UCLA graduating in 1973 with a Ph. D. in Chemistry.
Then I went to MIT in Massachusetts for two more years of post-doctoral research. I have worked for several Major chemical and pharmaceutical companies and have help start three new companies. Concurrently, I have been an adjunct professor at Rutgers University and San Diego State University. I was also an editor for the American Chemical Society’s Combinatorial Science journal.
I am going to primarily focus my remarks on the “ Offsite Consequence Analysis” for the Vistra Morro Bay BESS Project: Project number 1690027676 dated March 20, 2024. The authors state the report is intended to aid the City of Morro Bay in considering Vistra’ s proposed BESS project and provide information to the community . The draft EIR claims the BESS project “ does not present any significant health and safety risks to the public .” From details they presented I disagree with their conclusion. Furthermore, offsite consequences must include the impact of the environmentally sensitive estuary and the life, flora, and fauna it supports.
arry K. Truesdale Mobile: 858-337-8339
331 Kodiak Street
Morro Bay, CA 93442- 1313
2 Much of the report’s critical discussion centers around four toxic substances . During my career I have personally worked with large quantities of all of them; 1. Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN), which is a liquid below 78 degrees Fahrenheit; 2. Hydrogen Fluoride HF), which is a liquid below 67 degrees Fahrenheit: 3. Hydrogen Chloride ( HCl), which is a gas and 4. Carbon Monoxide ( CO), a colorless, odorless gas at room temperature.
HCN is a relatively mild acid (pKa 9.2) while HCl and HF are strong acids with HF being the strongest. HF and HCL are hygroscopic and mix exothermically with water.
With regards to toxicity both HCN and CO bind strongly to hemoglobin preventing one’s circulatory system from transporting oxygen and carbon dioxide safely throughout one’s body—thus these toxins suffocate animals that breath air. HCl is a strong acid and is usually encountered as a dilute solution in water, such as in a swimming pool. Undiluted it will severely “burn” body tissues which is a nice way to say it denatures and destroys bodily parts such as skin. These burns can be quite painful. HF is a stronger acid and more efficiently does the same thing HCl does to body tissues.
However, exposure to it has been known to lead to fatalities when one has an accident in which as little as 10% of ones skin is involved in a spill. In these cases, the damage to the skin is not believed to be the cause of death, but something systemically is likely such as the inactivation of necessary enzymes for supporting life. A definitive explanation was not unknown at the time, but when handling HF either as a gas or as an aqueous solution, I used considerably greater precautions including respiratory protection since the respiratory system could be an easy path to systemic exposure.
The Offsite Consequences Analysis for the draft EIR only considers the human residents of the Morro Bay area. It really needs to cover all life forms there. Morro Bay and Los Osos surround an environmentally sensitive estuary that is key to many hundreds of migratory birds and is home to air breathing mammals such as sea otters and sea lions, is a rookery/spawning ground for many fish. The essential plant life in the estuary provides habitat for the sea life and serves as a detoxification system for the water entering the estuary and is very sensitive to man-made pollutants. Eel grass is the most talked about plant, but it is just one of many plants that call the estuary home. They are essential to keep the estuary vibrant.
Morro Bay and Los Osos are dependent on the estuary for much of their livelihood. It is an environmental tourist destination that attracts both the tourists and residents.
Without a vibrant estuary the residents would just live next to a stream outlet. The migratory birds depend on it for their survival. There would be no habitable place south of the Monterey peninsula for the already endangered California sea otter. Bottom line is all life in the greater Morro Bay Area needs to be considered in the draft EIR. The loss of any one of the species in the estuary will disturb the delicate balance necessary to a viable estuary.
arry K. Truesdale Mobile: 858-337-8339
331 Kodiak Street
Morro Bay, CA 93442- 1313
3 Industrialization of Morro Bay is potentially detrimental to its stretch of the coast. Last time it was done in the 1950’ s, a power plant was placed on the waterfront of the successful, small fishing village. Any benefits to the area were minimal and coincided. with the decline of the fishing industry. The primary purpose of the power plant was to provide electricity to the Central Valley to moderate hot summer weather for its residents. It was not a tourist attraction and at best, only stunted the development of the tourist venue. For the long-term financial viability of Morro Bay it is essential the impact of another massive industrial facility be fully understood. That means the viability all life forms that makes this destination vibrant. This needs to be included in the revised EIR.
The Offsite Consequences Analysis report does have sections addressing the battery technology that could be used for storage of electrical energy , design and safety measures that could be considered, an analysis of fires and thermal runaways at the facility, potential air emissions, impact of local weather patterns and a hazard analysis that brings these subjects together. The information presented is critical to being able to assess the value and potential impact the BESS facility could have on this fragi le environmental area of the California coast.
Putting on my editor’s hat for an international science journal, I have to say the report would not past muster for publication due to lack of clarity in the use of very basic chemical science terms requiring me to spend much effort to speculate what the authors were talking about. Something as basic as the word “oxygen” was routinely misused and significantly masked the intended message. Even my experience in high temperature carbon chemistry to make carbon nano tubes for batteries among other things, was unable to clearly unravel what was meant. I do not know if the field of lithium- ion batteries has usurped the word for an element to have a new technical meaning. That is very unlikely. Fortunately, the document is a DRAFT EIR and there is time to properly rewrite the report and I would strongly recommend it be done, should Vistra continue with its EIR for Morro Bay.
Another clarification definitely needed is to be crystal clear what the difference between a fire and a thermal runaway (p15) is and make sure the terms are always used correctly. That means when “ fire” is used it is a fire and not a thermal runaway and vice versa. It would be helpful to discuss how battery fires are fought and how thermal runaways are fought. This will make for a clearer understanding for the reader.
I got the impression that at certain parts of the report that the term fire was used as a generic term. These two terms are definitely different where one requires oxygen (that means the gas O2) and the other occurs without oxygen.
The distinction of the differences between NMC batteries and LFP batteries was a very useful, rather concise summary of a large amount of data . The stability data for the two shows why one is chosen over the other. The NMC batteries are known for a higher energy density than the LFP batteries suggesting NMC batteries would be preferred, arry K. Truesdale Mobile: 858-337-8339
331 Kodiak Street
Morro Bay, CA 93442- 1313
4 but the thermal runaway temperature for the NMC batteries was 60 degrees Centigrade lower than the LFP batteries ( 210 for NMC; 270 for LFP). Therefore, the LFP batteries have proven to be less flammable prone. This is clearly a choice where safety is a strong driver, but it does not necessarily mean LFP’ s are safe. From an economic perspective a plant built with LFP will likely have fewer fires and that is good for all. No fires is better still for all and that needed to be addressed.
Later in the report it was noted that the Pacific Northwest Labs calculated a fire incidence probability of 2.9%. That is a surprisingly high number for a facility on the waterfront in Morro Bay. However, this does raise the question as how well this number represents past data. A search of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) failures is a proverbial can of worms with many variables since the technology has been rapidly evolving making it difficult to make direct comparisons between each reported incident. It does appear the rate of failures has decreased over time based on the number of BESS facilities suggesting research in this relatively new technology is advancing. The need for much more research to advance the field from its infancy to a mature technology has many years, possibly decades, to go. The 2.9% fire incident occurrence number put forward in the draft EIR should be viewed as a soft number.
Glancing over the worldwide incidents data, I would think a 3 -6% number range is a more realistic one. From a safety perspective, the immaturity of BESS Technology would also dictate that large facilities are premature. Smaller facilities appropriately placed will reduce the negative impact of failures. A 600 MW energy storage facility is definitely not ready for prime time.
The report stated LFP batteries contained either Lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) or lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4) dissolved in an organic solvent. These constitute the electrolyte. While these batteries may perform similarly, it would be nice to know which lithium salt is being used as well as which solvent they are dissolved in. The report indicates the electrolyte is a flammable liquid. In the case of a thermal runaway there will likely be different gasses and solids dispersed over the area. Of the gasses emitted during a thermal runaway event, HCL constitutes approximately 75% of the mass. The report indicates that the battery separator is a source of the HCl emitted but is a highly chlorinated solvent also an additional source of HCl. Since the organic solvent may have a low boiling point, does it create high pressure in a cell fire leading to the cells rupture or does the cell contain it for until there is a thermal runaway. All these details are important in evaluating what is being emitted from the battery cells and when? This could also be a safety issue should fire fighters go near this toxic fire, I believe this is a significant omission from the discussion.
The report describes the main hazards for BESS facilities to be electrical shock, toxic emissions, fires and resulting explosions and particularly the risk of a thermal runaway.
Mitigating the possibility of them happening is critical for safety. Studies have shown when they do occur four major toxic gasses are emitted. The magnitude of the toxic gasses that would be emitted were projected to be as shown below per module. Their arry K. Truesdale Mobile: 858-337-8339
331 Kodiak Street
Morro Bay, CA 93442- 1313
5 assumption was it was unlikely all three modules would be involved in an emission event at once so the numbers are for only for a third of the actual BESS capacity. The numbers clearly show the magnitude of the facility projected for Morro Bay, These gasses are likely to be emitted as a hot gas stream mixture into the atmosphere either directly or for a contained module, into the interior before it can exit the module, if possible.
The contained modules have a firewall around it that is supposed to be able to contain fire. It is not clear from the report at what temperature the firewall will fail and whether it could contain an explosion from a thermal runaway. These would be desired features for the firewall, if possible. Also, if water is used inside the contained module, how the contaminated liquid will be recovered without being released to the outside was not discussed.
Containment is used in pharmaceutical pilot plants and production facilities in case there are spills of hazardous chemicals or there is a fire. Inside the facilities there are drains leading to underground tank( s). They capture all liquids from inside and store them there. The hazardous wastes are neutralized and pumped into tank trucks for waste disposal. These tanks are also used for routine cleaning of the interior. I did not see any such protections from the toxic emissions to be captured and stored underground for future neutralization and disposal. To the contrary, their modeling expected the atmosphere absorb the toxic gasses and disperse them over a large area. This is problematic to me for a variety of reasons. That is partly influenced by the fact I have problems allowing such a large amount of toxic gasses to disperse at the whims of the weather present on whatever day the thermal runaway happens.
Containing and neutralizing such toxic materials should be a must. The pharmaceutical industry does it! Remember there is an estimated 2.9% chance of a thermal event.
The report states BESS facilities are not expected to pose a significant risk to soil, water or habitats. Since the proposed BESS facility is to be on the waterfront in Morro Bay, the last sentence is definitely invalid. The proposed layout for the facility has a battery cluster within approximately 150 feet of the bay. Fighting a fire with water over multiple hours, unless completely contained (more about this later) would leak toxic, acidic water into the bay. A major sea otter rookery is in that corner of the bay and the species is notoriously sensitive to pollutants. It is also close to the entry to the bay/ estuary and those pollutants would be washed up the estuary on every incoming tide. A twenty - four-hour fire could be seriously hazardous to the environment. This is something that Species 1 hr Emission 24 hr Emission
HCN 11 lbs 264 lbs
HF 105 lbs 2,520 lbs
CO 24 lbs 576 lbs
HCL 428 lbs 10,272 lbs
TOTAL 568 lbs 13,632 lbs
arry K. Truesdale Mobile: 858-337-8339
331 Kodiak Street
Morro Bay, CA 93442- 1313
6 could be completely avoided inexpensively by locating the facility inland away from the estuary. In fact, there is no significant benefit by placing it on the waterfront.
The proposal made in the draft EIR is based on “typical” weather, considering prevailing winds, to disperse of the toxic, hazardous emissions. It does not seem to specifically discuss what is expected during a heavy fog? The emissions are likely to be hot, possibly several hundred degrees hot. The expectation is that this hot gas would warm the fog for a short time before the surrounding air/fog cools it down. At this point will the fog reform to make an acidic, toxic fog? Will this slowly diffuse through the normal fog, or will the fogs distribute the effluents between themselves? Ultimately, heavy fogs drip toward the ground or condense on the ground giving the appearance of a light rain.
Such a fog could be rather dangerous for people outside breathing it in. This acidic fog should be harmful to plants structures and vehicles. Unlike the acid rains back east caused by sulfur in coal burned in power plants, this effluent from a BESS facility also contains toxic gasses as well and likely would be at noticeably higher concentrations.
The tables of toxic exposure in the draft EIR do not provide a level of confidence that they are relevant to a wide range of weather circumstances. Morro Bay has regular heavy fogs about five months out of the year. That is a significant part of the year but , not the majority of the time. Other conditions need to be discussed.
An analysis of how the effluent gasses spread during a light rainstorm and for a heavy rainstorm would be very different. These storms often come in from the northwest or the southwest and should have different distribution patterns. This sort of information is essential for the comfort level of the residents in the area. It is not available at this time.
Another assumption is only one module would be compromised at any time. First, I am not sure that is an absolute. What happens to the BESS facility if there is a tsunami that inundated the plant? The city was forced by the Coastal Commission to relocate a sewage treatment plant out of the area because they feared a tsunami would inundate it. Second, what would happen to the BESS facility if a major earthquake struck Morro Bay. How do you build an earthquake proof building, particularly one covering dozens of acres on coastal sand? Third, what would happen to the facility if a severe thunderstorm struck it? I would suspect an electrical surge would compromise the cells in each of the units. I am not sure how one does this but there must some industry safety guidelines for battery facilities. This should be explained in the EIR. Bottom line, assumptions about weather need to include weather extremes ; they do happen.
That is the only way to determine if the battery poses an unacceptable hazard to the region, It may also dictate what precautions are necessary if the facility were to be constructed. That is why I find it difficult to accept their mode l justifying how typical weather conditions would allow for the massive release of toxic vapors without doing any harm.
Apparently, battery cells are basically sealed to the outside environment and their construction material even prevents water from entering. During the heating of cells, arry K. Truesdale Mobile: 858-337-8339
331 Kodiak Street
Morro Bay, CA 93442- 1313
7 are they stable if external water gets on them? Are they shock sensitive if cold water is flushed on them to facilitate cooling and how efficient is such a cooling process? Also how thermally conductive are the shells? Would it be safe for a properly suited up firefighter to try to enter a contained module and try to stop a fire before it becomes a runaway thermal event? Is there any role for firefighters in dealing with battery fires? This was not discussed, but from a safety and hazard perspective this would be helpful information for all to know. These sorts of fires are beyond the experience of most and some clarity here would be useful. What is unknown can easily be blown out of proportion so why not inform the those interested. If safety and acceptance are Vistra’ s goal, then transparency is a significant step forward. Ultimately, the Morro Bay estuary area is a valuable but fragile environment that can be easily harmed. Remediation is questionable and like would require over 100 years to accomplish if it is at all possible.
This means the ultimate EIR for impact to the Morro Bay area must meet higher safety standards than in many other areas.
Sincerely,
Larry K. Truesdale
Larry K. Truesdale PhD
CC: City of Morro Bay Morro Bay Planning Commission
Attn: Mayor and City Council Attn: Chairman and Commissioners 595 Harbor Street 955 Shasta Street
Morro Bay, CA 93442 Morro Bay, CA 93442
council@morrobayca. gov planningcommission@morrobayca. gov California Coastal Commission
Attn: Sarah MacGregor, Coastal Planner
725 Front Street, Suite # 300
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
[email protected]
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PRIOR TO THE MEETING
AGENDA NO: 9.a
MEETING DATE: May 28, 2024
Dana Swanson
From: betty winholtz < winholtz@sbcglobal. net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2024 2:45 AM
To: Carla Wixom; Laurel Barton; Jennifer Ford; Zara Landrum; Cyndee Edwards Cc: Dana Swanson; Michael Codron
Subject: regular meeting agenda item 9a
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
Dear City Council,
My big take away from this update is that HdL is being enabled to continue work with the STRs because the City is giving them a different outsourcing helper.
That is not the public solution I heard. This does not address the public complaints which were unanimous. That's not the conclusion we, including yourselves, came to.
My interpretation is that the business aspect of STRs would be brought back in-house so there is coordination with code enforcement; and, the money paid by STR owners would fund this position. What is your recollection?
Regarding signage: there needs to be uniformity in signage, not just with the information on the sign but the appearance as well. This reduces confusion.
Sincerely,
Betty Winholtz