Engineer tells Hood County filing for Apache Hill battery site 'fails miserably' to meet NFPA 855; officials urged to pause work

Dr. Andrew Wolford, an engineer and physicist, told Hood County officials that the hazard and safety documents submitted for the Apache Hill battery energy storage site “fail miserably to meet the requirement of 855” and are ‘‘completely deficient,’’ arguing the filings omit or mischaracterize key analyses required by NFPA 855 and related standards.

Wolford said he reviewed vendor test reports, the site’s Hazard Mitigation Assessment (HMA) and computational studies and identified about 16 deficiencies. He told the meeting that vendor testing described an indoor test setup that may not apply to Apache Hill’s outdoor installation, and that the HMA assigns low risk levels in ways that avoid triggering required safeguards. “The HMA is contrived,” Wolford said, adding that the study lacks reference to accepted criteria and independent subject-matter review.

Why it matters: Wolford said vapor-dispersion modeling shows toxic-gas concentrations at levels he described as health effects could reach Rainbow’s Promise Daycare, within several hundred feet of some containers. He highlighted gaps in testing (UL954A), venting/explosion analysis (NFPA 68/69) and the lack of validated computational tools and conservative sensitivity testing.

Wolford urged immediate steps: he recommended Hood County seek an injunction to stop work until compliance with NFPA 855 is demonstrated to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ); asked that the county AHJ and fire marshal issue formal review findings; and suggested the developer commit to funding county fire-response resources and include Hood County specialists in any re-run hazard workshops. “Hood County should issue an injunction to Apache Hill to stop work until compliance with NFPA 855 is proven satisfactory to the AHJ,” he said.

County fire officials and meeting participants said local emergency response capacity is limited: speakers estimated volunteer fire-department response from nearby stations at roughly 7–13 minutes depending on time of day, and discussed specialized mitigation options such as cryogenic/ELSA systems for lithium-ion thermal-runaway events. Jeff (the county fire marshal, as identified in the meeting) said the county lacks a full permitting, fee and inspector complement and has requested a full-time code/enforcement employee in the next budget cycle.

Project status and regulatory controls: participants said containers and some containment infrastructure are on site but batteries are not yet energized. Speakers noted that a certificate of occupancy will be required before commercial operation and that annual inspections are contemplated, but that critical documentation Wolford requested — including a functional safety assessment and validated CFD/modeling files — were not provided or were unreadable in the materials he reviewed.

Ownership and sourcing questions also surfaced: Wolford said he found public records tying project names to multiple entities and described uncertainty over the developer/operator chain and financial capacity; he raised compliance and enforcement questions about the Lone Star Act’s self-certification model for sourcing.

What’s next: Wolford said he will provide a fuller draft of his detailed findings to the county; meeting participants said the engineer’s materials would be posted and that the county could pursue additional legal or technical review. The meeting did not record any formal vote on the Apache Hill project; the court adjourned after the presentation.