Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town reviewers press IWS on leachate, aquifer and truck counts for transfer-station upgrades
Summary
Town officials reviewed a proposed 9,000-square-foot covered transfer building and related upgrades at the IWS transfer station, focusing on leachate containment, an underlying aquifer, stormwater controls and discrepancies in projected truck traffic.
Town of Goshen officials on Wednesday reviewed a proposed expansion and operating-permit update for IWS’s transfer station at the Hartley Road site, raising questions about leachate handling, groundwater risk to a mapped aquifer, stormwater controls and inconsistent truck-count figures.
The board’s review centered on a 9,000-square-foot covered tipping and transfer building, a new leachate collection system and a double-walled leachate tank, plus related traffic and operational limits. Town reviewers asked IWS to clarify how fluids from tipping operations will be captured and routed, and pressed for clearer documentation of the number and type of trucks the facility will receive and dispatch.
Why it matters: The site sits within a locally mapped aquifer area and near municipal wellfields, making containment of liquids and proper leachate control a central public-health and environmental concern. Board members also said community quality-of-life problems — smells, leachate dripping onto Hartley Road and the safety effects of heavy truck traffic — must be evaluated before the town acts on the permit request.
Key details and questions - Facility layout: The applicant proposes a roofed concrete tipping floor with concrete walls and a trench drain to collect liquids; those liquids would be pumped to a proposed double-walled leachate tank with alarms at roughly 75% and 90–95% capacity, according to the plan documents provided to the board. - Leachate handling: Board members asked for particulars on the leachate piping (the plan shows a multi-inch pipe) and whether the tank and piping will include interstitial monitoring and alarm systems. The town asked whether the older on-site leachate infrastructure will be retrofitted to the new alarm standards. The applicant described a containment trench and a pump to move liquids to the tank. - Truck counts and traffic: Planning materials and consultant reports offered differing truck counts. IWS representatives said their current operating levels match the DEC permit they already hold and that the town permit request is to align local authorization with DEC tonnage, not to increase traffic. Reviewers said they need reconciled, auditable truck logs and a clarified traffic analysis because apparent discrepancies materially affect roadway impacts on Hartley Road and 17M. - Aquifer and nearby wells: Board members pointed to planning maps showing the site within a mapped aquifer and noted municipal wells for Goshen and neighboring jurisdictions are hydraulically connected. Members asked for a groundwater-risk analysis tied to the proposed operations, and requested that stormwater and any contaminated runoff be routed away from sensitive areas. - Odor and on-road drip: Officials reiterated long-standing public complaints that wet days make the road smell and slippery from material dragged from transfer-site vehicles. The board asked whether the tipping sequence and loading operations can be reconfigured so that fluids do not reach vehicle tires and leave the site. - SEQR and permitting sequence: The town indicated SEQR completeness review is still outstanding and that planning and town-board decisions will depend on that review; the board said no final town permit would be issued until SEQR and necessary DEC coordination are complete.
What the board directed or discussed - Information requested: reconciled truck-count data (tipping vs. transfer trucks), a detailed stormwater and leachate containment plan showing pipe sizing and monitoring, documentation of alarms and interstitial detection for double-walled tanks and piping, and an operations description showing how fluids will be prevented from reaching public roadways. - Scheduling and follow-up: The board agreed to meet again in two weeks on this application to review additional materials; members asked staff to provide outstanding documents and to verify SEQR timing.
Background and context - IWS operates under DEC authority and already receives municipal solid waste under a state permit. The town’s action is limited to local operating and solid-waste construction permits and SEQR completeness. Historically, the site has drawn complaints for odor and material tracking onto Hartley Road; town members said complaints declined after a covered building was added years ago, but recent reports of leachate tank pumping and occasional odors prompted renewed scrutiny.
Next steps Town staff will request more detailed engineering and operational documentation from the applicant and will present the updated materials at the next ERB/planning meeting in two weeks. The board signaled it will not finalize a local permit before SEQR is completed and outstanding technical questions are answered.
