Goshen officials press New Leaf Energy for more safety details after battery storage briefing

Town of Goshen officials and volunteer fire chiefs said they need more technical information and formal commitments from New Leaf Energy before the planning board moves forward with a proposed battery energy storage system (BESS) planned for Hartley Road.

The Environmental Review Board convened fire chiefs, department officers and residents to review safety concerns raised by the system's design and by prior incidents in other communities. Chief Chuck Gambhutti, Second Assistant Chief, described the department’s limited equipment and training for large battery fires and said the town would likely need new gear and repeated training if the project proceeds.

The concerns centered on thermal runaway — a chemical reaction that can make lithium‑ion fires difficult to extinguish — and on the potential for long‑duration blazes and reignition. John Cassidy, who presented at a regional training session, told the group that reignition can occur long after an initial fire: “Thirty‑one days is record right now for reignition,” he said, referring to a case discussed at the training.

Speakers urged the planning board to require New Leaf Energy to provide detailed safety plans, manufacturer materials and site‑specific procedures. “We need the distribution,” said Chris Haley, an Environmental Review Board member, describing the board’s role in forwarding technical questions to the planning board. Several chiefs also asked that the company commit to scheduled, on‑site training for all shifts and to contractually accept responsibility for equipment or training costs so taxpayers would not pay for new apparatus or annual specialized drills.

Fire leaders described operational gaps if BESS units ignite. Chief Gambhutti said department personnel were instructed at training that some manufacturers or operators advise firefighters to “let it burn” and stage. That guidance, combined with the risk of hazardous airborne byproducts and long reignition windows, prompted discussion about how and when to order evacuations and who would determine when homes and businesses were safe to re‑occupy. Residents and chiefs noted nearby sensitive facilities — including a jail, Mid Hudson psychiatric center and orchard operations — and questioned evacuation notification and air monitoring plans.

Other operational questions included proximity to onsite fuel tanks and other combustibles, whether the containers would be ventilated, and the location of an electrical shutoff. Participants asked for clear commitments about where the system’s electrical isolation points would be sited and how quickly the operator would be able to respond on site. “If they can’t show us who will be there to run it and what their response time is, you can’t expect us to take a risk,” said a volunteer chief.

Board members proposed several conditions for the planning board: require New Leaf Energy to supply manufacturer material safety data sheets (MSDS), manufacturer guidance on firefighting and suppression for the exact batteries proposed, a written emergency response plan coordinated with Goshen and county hazmat, and a schedule for multi‑shift training for local firefighters. The group also discussed options for physical mitigations, including dedicated water or foam tanks, fenced fire lanes, and limits on parking or storage near the array footprint to preserve access.

New Leaf Energy had previously met with the planning board and town board, according to participants; the company also agreed to further meetings with local fire leadership. Environmental Review Board members and chiefs said they will seek a direct technical briefing from New Leaf Energy and, if needed, independent reviewers paid by the company to vet safety claims.

Town officials emphasized that they were not making a final decision but advising the planning board. “This is new technology for Goshen,” Haley said. He told the board the ERB’s role was to surface questions the planning board may not have asked and to press for documentation and conditions before any approval. The planning board was advised to delay or condition action until the department and outside experts review the manufacturer data and site plans.

Proposed next steps included scheduling a meeting between New Leaf Energy and fire department leaders, collecting written manufacturer guidance and MSDS, and asking the planning board to require enforceable commitments that training, equipment and response obligations will be covered by the operator rather than by town taxpayers. The ERB said it would help identify independent reviewers with battery‑fire expertise for the planning board to hire at the developer's expense.

If the planning board continues to consider the application, speakers asked that evacuation notification plans, on‑site response times, hazmat monitoring protocols and the location of shutoffs be spelled out in writing and added to any approval conditions. The ERB and fire officials said they would return recommendations to the planning board as a package after reviewing materials from the company and any third‑party reviews.

Votes or formal approvals were not taken at the ERB meeting; participants said their goal was to collect technical answers and to advise the planning board rather than to approve or block the project.

Ending: The ERB and fire officials said they will pursue a rapid review of New Leaf Energy’s materials and request a follow‑up presentation. The planning board was urged to require manufacturer data, response commitments and on‑site training before granting final approval.