Planning board hears technical briefing on proposed battery energy storage site at 114 Hartley Road; experts flag fire‑safety, aquifer and review needs

The Town of Goshen Planning Board heard a technical briefing on a proposed Tier 2 battery energy storage system (BESS) at 114 Hartley Road, a 31.2‑acre site that the applicant plans to subdivide into two lots, each intended to host a 5‑megawatt power installation with roughly a four‑hour duration (about 20 megawatt‑hours of energy per lot as presented).

Presenters included New Leaf Energy’s Michael Conway (senior director and business lead for energy storage), engineer Travis (site engineer, Crate Manning), and Paul Rogers, co‑founder of Energy Response Safety Group and a former head of FDNY hazardous materials, who addressed safety, monitoring and code requirements.

What the board heard

- Project configuration and schedule: The applicant said plans are revised to include two lots; each lot is proposed to provide a 5 MW power delivery capability with four hours of energy storage (presented as 5 MW / 20 MWh per pad). The team is coordinating with Orange & Rockland (O&R) on distribution poles and will submit updated plans, a zoning board application for variances, and a subdivision application to form the two lots. The project team intends to return to the planning board in subsequent submissions; staff discussed a likely submission deadline in early June to place the next materials on a mid‑June agenda.

- Equipment and technology: Conway and staff explained the distinction between the megawatt (power) rating and megawatt‑hours (energy storage) and said equipment manufacturer details remain undecided because some manufacturers or models are under review or restriction; the applicant said it will select a system that meets listing and testing requirements.

- Fire‑safety testing and listings: Paul Rogers summarized state and national testing and code requirements. He said systems must have national recognized testing laboratory (NRTL) listings (UL 9540/UL 9540A and related test standards), include battery management systems (BMS) that monitor state‑of‑health, and generally require large‑scale fire testing so the tested heat‑release profile can be used to set safe separation distances. Rogers said the New York State code updates exceed NFPA 855 in places and require peer review, monitoring, annual inspections and training for local fire services. He described the large‑scale destructive fire tests that yield heat release rates and drive approved separation distances; those distances depend on the tested equipment and manufacturer‑provided results.

- Monitoring, controls and emergency response: Presentations covered redundancy in remote monitoring and alarm transmission, closed‑circuit cameras, the BMS and automated shutdown capability, and “estop” disconnection points. Rogers and the applicant said the state code requires a monitored operating center able to reach a knowledgeable contact within a short interval (presented to the board as “within 15 minutes”) and to have personnel who can be on site if the incident commander requests it (the code language discussed cited a four‑hour mobilization window). The board and presenters discussed annual training for local fire departments, potential need for specialized equipment (e.g., thermal imaging, gas meters), and the value of joint drills and tabletop exercises.

- Environmental concerns, aquifer and fuel tanks: Planning staff and board members raised groundwater and contamination questions because the site overlies a principal aquifer and an existing parcel contains an LP tank and a county water main that appears in historic records. The project team said it is coordinating with the Orange County Department of Health to identify a potential secondary well location and to satisfy county requirements for a non‑transient, non‑community public water supply. Staff noted a documented easement over a water main filed in 1898 and recommended the applicant contact the Orange County Attorney’s Office to determine whether the county wants a recorded easement; the applicant already is engaging county survey and staff to clarify the main’s alignment.

- Zoning and variances: Presenters and staff listed potential variances needed: internal side‑yard setback variances, a possible front‑yard setback variance, and road‑frontage variances because the proposed new lots would be landlocked and accessed by easement. The applicant said it would pursue subdivision and zoning board review; staff discussed the option of a joint public hearing among boards to streamline review.

Board concerns and next steps

Board members pressed for: (1) clear language on what is sought now versus what is reserved for future augmentation of energy capacity; (2) clarity on whether future equipment additions or changes would require return to the board; (3) precise plan notes limiting “future” capacity to replacements intended to restore initial day‑one performance rather than to expand site power; and (4) specific assurances about containment of fuels and double‑wall tanks already shown on the plan. The board asked the project team to provide examples of similar BESS projects in operation, documentation of monitoring and peer‑review arrangements, and evidence that fuel and LP tanks on the parcel are properly contained.

The applicant stated it will submit updated site plans and responses to the town’s review letter, file the subdivision and ZBA applications, coordinate peer review and fire‑service outreach, and continue to work with Orange County Department of Health on well siting and water supply classification.

Why it matters: battery energy storage projects raise technical fire‑safety, environmental and emergency‑response issues that are handled through equipment listings, peer review and site‑specific mitigation; the board’s decisions will determine setbacks, easements and the set of enforceable conditions that protect public safety and water resources.