Residents, board raise completeness and contamination concerns about IWS DEIS and operations

Goshen Environmental Review Board members and residents told the town board the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for IWS does not provide full, usable answers on contamination control, worker and public health protections, and soil disposal plans.

The board and public speakers flagged what they said were gaps in the DEIS and raised several alleged permit and property-boundary issues that, if accurate, could affect whether a past special permit was properly granted. A resident provided recent aerial photos showing uncovered lowboy trailers and other trucks parked outside the area the applicant identified as its property.

Why it matters: IWS is a facility that handles contaminated material and related wastes. Board members said the town board, which is the lead agency for the SEQRA review, should not accept a DEIS that leaves operational and health safeguards vague. Multiple members recommended the town require specific contractors, testing protocols and disposal destinations be named rather than general promises that a vendor "will be engaged." A resident said uncovered trailers and alleged off-property parking raise immediate concerns about run-off and airborne contamination.

Board and public concerns Board members and commenters said several items in the DEIS were handled in a way that addresses the topic but lacks the technical specificity needed for a conclusive environmental finding. For example, the DEIS lists an estimated 200 tons of excess soil and states that locations for disposal will be identified prior to construction; reviewers told the board that the town should require specific disposal locations, chain-of-custody testing, and transport/disposal contracts or commitments before treating the issue as resolved.

Resident Susan (identified in the meeting) described the picture evidence and told the board that uncovered lowboy trailers were visible in an aerial photo she provided. "If those trucks are on the property and uncovered, that was part of their previous approval that they could not have uncovered trailers," she said at the meeting. Board members asked for a clear survey showing the facility's property lines and how parked equipment aligns with those lines.

Permit and property-boundary questions The transcript record shows repeated discussion of whether a prior special permit for the facility was properly conditioned and whether the operator has expanded activity onto adjoining land without recorded lease or purchase. Board members said earlier approvals included conditions (for example, covered trailers and a back-fence) that should be checked for current compliance. One reviewer said a soils map included in the DEIS (figure referenced in the filing) appears to show parked equipment outside the applicant's property boundary, which could also place existing buildings within a required setback.

Operations, odors and worker safety The DEIS presents mitigation measures including increased air exchanges in a proposed building and "atomized water" dust/odor suppression systems. Board members said the description lacks information about the specific chemicals proposed, inhalation safety for employees and neighbors, and monitoring or oversight plans. The board noted prior enforcement history mentioned in the transcript, including an EPA test and an earlier consent order related to contaminated discharge onto a neighbor's property. Members asked whether any on-site washing or vehicle decontamination (for example, tire baths) is planned and whether those procedures were described.

Next steps and town-board role The ERB members said their role is to advise the town board. They recommended the town board, as lead agency, require more detailed technical documentation before making a completeness or adequacy determination: a qualified geotechnical report, specific contractor names and disposal sites, a current boundary survey, and a health/industrial hygiene review to evaluate employee and community exposure. Several members suggested the town hire or request expertise from health or industrial hygiene consultants.

The board discussed scheduling an additional ERB meeting to prepare formal comments before the town board takes final action. Members said they expected the town board to request consultant review as part of its lead agency responsibilities.

Ending: The ERB did not make a final finding on DEIS completeness at the meeting; instead the board recommended the town board seek more detail and technical review. Board members and residents asked for a follow-up meeting and for the town board to require named contractors and disposal destinations, a boundary survey, and clearer contamination-control measures before the project moves forward.