Goshen planners press for more safety, evacuation and environmental review for Harvey Road battery storage proposal

GOSHEN — Members of the town’s planning and environmental review groups spent more than an hour on concerns about a proposed battery energy storage system on Harvey Road, pressing the applicant and the planning board to slow the approval process and supply independent technical reviews.

Meeting participants said they are particularly worried about fire behavior for lithium-ion arrays, long-duration reignition of battery fires, hazardous runoff to local groundwater and wetlands, and the potential need to evacuate nearby facilities including the Orange County jail and mental-health center. The applicant’s presentation included emergency procedures and training commitments, but planning board members and residents said the materials and responses so far were insufficient.

The conversation centered on three kinds of risk: fire dynamics and firefighting response; environmental contamination in the event of firefighting runoff or fire-borne debris; and community safety planning, including evacuation and alerting responsibility. Board members and residents repeatedly asked for specific, third‑party information on: medical effects of prolonged exposure to BESS combustion products; likely plume behavior and evacuation zones under variable wind conditions; whether fire suppression would rely on water, chemical agents such as “Purple K,” or a strategy of containment and controlled burn; and assurances about long-term site remediation and financial security for cleanup.

Several speakers described findings from recent training for local firefighters, including that battery fires often cannot be fully extinguished and can reignite days later. A presenter the group cited as a fire-service representative told the board — according to attendees — “we let the fire consume itself,” language that drew strong reactions from board members and residents who said the remark underscored the need for clearer mitigation and oversight. The applicant told the board the nearest occupied residence is about 700 feet from the proposed site and that some mitigation measures and annual trainings would be provided, but participants said that did not answer who would be responsible for long-duration response or for cleanup if the site were severely damaged.

Participants also raised environmental justice and groundwater concerns. Board members pointed to mapping in the applicant’s materials showing the site lies within or near a state-identified disadvantaged area and atop a New York State aquifer that contributes to local water supplies. Attendees asked the board to request an environmental specialist’s review of potential soil and aquifer contamination if firefighting runoff carried contaminants into wetlands or groundwater.

Speakers urged the planning board to require a thorough Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) scoping process and to bring experts to public hearings: a pulmonary or public-health specialist to advise on the health effects of combustion products; the Goshen fire chief and Orange County hazmat officials for operational response details; and environmental hydrogeologists for aquifer and runoff modeling. They also recommended the board evaluate decommissioning and bonding proposals: the applicant’s packet included a decommissioning estimate (noted in the materials as about $49,000 for one site and roughly $100,000 when both sites and inflation were considered) but attendees said that would be inadequate for a large-scale contamination or structural failure.

Multiple residents asked who would be responsible for notifying residents and critical facilities if a fire or toxic plume developed and whether the 9-1-1 center and county agencies had a prearranged protocol. Board members suggested requesting evidence that emergency alarms and on-call response meets any state timelines (some attendees noted a proposed state standard requiring a company response within 15 minutes and on-site presence within four hours). People representing or located near the site, including a business owner whose property would host the project, asked that operators show proof of insurance, cleanup funds, and detailed decommissioning plans held in escrow. Attendees suggested bonds or escrow accounts sized to account for worst-case remediation costs.

Where the BESS would connect to the grid also drew questions. Residents asked why the project would not be sited at the nearby substation and whether siting near population centers contradicted earlier state guidance that such systems are best placed near end-use areas.

At the meeting’s close, the committee asked the planning board to: pause final consideration; require the applicant to provide additional technical documents; invite fire, hazmat, public-health and environmental specialists to hearings; and scope an EIS that addresses worst-case plume, evacuation, remediation and bonding measures. Speakers said they wanted answers before the planning board moves forward.

The planning board is scheduled to consider the project again in a publicly noticed hearing cycle. Residents and board members said they will monitor the next meeting and press for independent review.