Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board presses IWS over stormwater contamination and EPA consent decree during expansion review
Summary
The Planning Board reviewed a scoping document for an IWS facility expansion and repeatedly urged the company to address an EPA consent decree and longstanding stormwater runoff that board members say is contaminating adjacent property and surface water; members also asked for independent testing and clear plans for excavated soils.
The Goshen Planning Board spent substantial time reviewing a draft scoping document for a proposed expansion at an IWS waste-handling facility and repeatedly flagged an existing environmental compliance problem flagged by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Board members said they understood the EPA had issued a notice and reached a consent agreement requiring IWS to address contaminated stormwater leaving the site. Members told the applicant the consent-decree obligations should be documented and addressed as part of any town-level approvals for new construction or increased municipal solid waste throughput.
Planning participants emphasized two separate but related issues: (1) the town’s immediate concern about contaminated leachate and stormwater that currently flows off the site and onto neighboring properties and into a downstream ditch that reaches the Walker River; and (2) how excavation required for the proposed expansion would disturb and potentially export soils that might themselves be contaminated.
Board members repeatedly asked that the scoping document require the applicant to: identify any EPA and DEC orders or consent decrees affecting the site; provide third-party laboratory testing of soils and stormwater with complete chain-of-custody documentation and valid hold times; disclose destinations for any soils exported from the site; and describe proposed measures to stop contaminated runoff from leaving the property immediately, not as a future mitigation step.
Several members criticized earlier analytical results the applicant provided. The board noted samples were submitted to labs with improper holding times and headspace in sample bottles — conditions that can invalidate results — and asked that future testing be performed and submitted using recognized protocols and a third-party laboratory, with costs billed to the applicant as part of review expenses.
Members also requested that the scoping document consider worker and public health during construction and excavation: the board asked for pre‑excavation borings to characterize contaminants, off‑site disposal plans if soils exceed hazardous thresholds, and a construction‑phase health and safety plan that specifies personal protective equipment and dust-control measures for laborers and neighbors.
Planning Board members asked staff to provide the EPA consent-decree documents to the board and directed the applicant to address the consent-decree obligations before the Planning Board would consider permit approvals for the expansion. The board did not vote at the meeting but instructed staff to share the EPA documents with board members and to circulate more complete testing and mitigation proposals from the applicant.
