Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Infrastructure Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves Part 2 for proposed 5MW Hartley Road battery storage; members demand emergency‑response and fire‑safety details
Summary
The board voted to accept a modified Part 2 of the EAF for a proposed 5MW, 31.2‑acre battery energy storage system at Hartley Road, while pressing the applicant for a detailed emergency response plan, fire‑suppression strategy and documentation on battery monitoring and chemical hazards.
The Town of Goshen Planning Board voted June 5 to accept a modified Part 2 environmental assessment form for a proposed Tier‑2 battery energy storage system (BESS) on about 31.2 acres at 114 Hartley Road, while conditioning further review on delivery of specific emergency response information.
Travis Rosencrantz of Creighton Manning, representing the applicant, described updated plans that include revised grading to direct stormwater from equipment pads to an existing on‑site pond and clarified impervious/green‑space calculations after staff review. The proposal would yield a system with a nominal five‑megawatt capacity and included areas reserved for future augmentation to offset battery degradation, the team said.
Board members focused most of their comments on fire‑safety, emergency response and operational monitoring. One member asked whether the containers have internal fire suppression and the applicant confirmed internal monitoring and suppression features, and said a battery monitoring system will send immediate alarms for overheating cells. Rosencrantz said the applicant will supply an emergency response plan and an engineering analysis from an independent emergency/safety reviewer (ESRG) that addresses plume dispersion, chemicals released during a fire and recommended fire department actions.
Why it matters: BESS installations raise distinct emergency‑response issues—thermal runaway, off‑gassing and extended burn events—that can affect surrounding populations, critical facilities and emergency responders. Board members emphasized the need for OEM‑specific data to inform evacuation planning and hazardous‑materials response.
Board direction and decision: The planning board accepted Part 2 as modified to reflect potential impacts and called for a forthcoming Part 3 that integrates emergency response documentation. The board asked the applicant to provide: OEM battery specifications, a complete emergency response plan (including monitoring alarm timelines and notification procedures), equipment‑specific information on potential combustion products and recommended suppression/response tactics, and a clear plan for fire‑lane maintenance and recorded easements to ensure emergency access. The applicant agreed to pursue those deliverables; the board also discussed coordinating a meeting with the fire department.
Other technical notes: The applicant corrected an earlier impervious/green‑space interpretation and told the board some existing gravel areas would be decompacted and restored to non‑impervious condition. The applicant also explained there will be pole‑mounted distribution components and said it will confirm which poles are customer‑owned versus utility‑owned.
Ending: With Part 2 adopted as modified, the project advances in SEQRA review but remains contingent on submission of OEM battery specifications, a detailed emergency response plan and coordination with emergency services to address public‑safety concerns before final site‑plan approval.
