Rhinebeck reports plant back in compliance, selects H2O Innovation for 12-month operations contract

Village officials reported that Rhinebeck’s wastewater treatment plant is again meeting state permit limits and briefed residents on a recent consent order, repairs and plans for longer-term operation.

The village presenter said weekly testing since late May shows the system in compliance and that the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) inspected the facility on the day of the meeting. “We are officially in compliance at this time,” the village official said. The DEC has agreed to allow testing twice a month beginning in July, the presenter said.

Why it matters: the plant’s compliance affects downstream water quality and zoning and development options in the village. Officials said restoring reliable operation also makes it possible to consider sewer expansion projects—potentially enabling denser housing—while needing to account for wetlands, PFAS monitoring, capital costs and long-term operations.

Details of compliance and enforcement

Officials said DEC performed an inspection in March, issued a notice of violation on April 14 and the village subsequently received a consent order. The consent order lists a fine of $24,999, the presenter said, and village attorneys are negotiating with DEC about whether some of the listed violations are legitimate. The presenter said the consent order and related documents are posted on the village website.

Operational fixes and interim measures

Village staff and the temporary operator described a mix of mechanical fixes and temporary work-arounds that staff say led to the improved results. Problems cited included oversized or undersized pumps, an undersized equalization (EQ) tank, and insufficient blower capacity for the aeration tanks. Staff described installing temporary above-ground piping and pumps and a roughly 3,500-gallon above-ground holding tank to give several hours’ buffer when alarms trigger.

Officials said the alarm system was installed as a temporary measure and that the village is working with its security vendor on a permanent notification plan. The presenter confirmed two backup generators exist on site and said some temporary mechanical fixes still must be made permanent as part of the village’s response to DEC about how it will remain in compliance long term.

Operator selection and contract terms

After soliciting proposals from three firms, the village selected H2O Innovation Operations and Maintenance LLC for a 12-month contract, officials said. The village presenter said H2O will provide the certified operator onsite and oversee day-to-day work by village staff. Roy Rosenhier, vice president of H2O Innovation, and Les (surname not specified), identified as senior area manager and chief operator for the system, attended the meeting.

Les said H2O’s contract includes minimum on-site standards—“you have to be there 30 days out of a 90 day reporting quarter for a minimum of 2 hours per day”—but the company expects to provide substantially more on-site support early in the relationship. The village plans for the contractor to begin work Aug. 1 and described the 12-month length as an initial term to stabilize operations.

Wetlands, expansion and grants

The village said it has a recent wetland delineation that covers only part of the wetland area and is exploring a broader wetland health study and restoration plan. Officials discussed pursuing grants (some administered at the county level) to fund engineering and wetland testing; a county-administered grant reported in local media was described as not disbursed directly to the village. Village staff invited residents and local groups to join a meeting on grant strategy and wetland study planning.

Officials also reviewed options for system upgrades and expansion technologies. They described the existing package activated-sludge plant (the “PureStream BESST” system in the transcript) and discussed membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology as an option that reduces the risk of solids carrying over because the treated water passes through membranes rather than clarifiers.

Numbers discussed included references to an original 25,000-gallon-per-day design, an existing 50,000-gallon figure, and conceptual plans that included larger capacities cited at one point as 250,000 gallons (the transcript used the term “NBR”/MBR for the larger facility concept). Officials said the existing plant footprint and proximity to the water table (noted as roughly 10 feet above) are considerations in design and risk assessment. Officials emphasized they will follow DEC permitting, including any SPDES and wetlands permit requirements, as expansion studies progress.

PFAS and monitoring

The village noted DEC’s current approach requires PFAS sampling in new permits but not yet numeric effluent limits for PFAS in wastewater; the permits typically require monitoring. A speaker from the meeting estimated PFAS treatment systems could add several million dollars to project costs and said PFAS removal typically requires separate treatment beyond activated-sludge processes. Officials said PFAS will be part of broader planning and cost discussions.

Community monitoring and next steps

Residents asked about downstream testing on the Sawkill and nearby sites. Village staff pointed to local watershed groups’ testing work and said those groups would present recent results at a separate public meeting. The presenter said the village’s effluent sampling is performed at the plant discharge point and invited residents to upcoming meetings and a planned September sewer update (or earlier updates posted to the village sewer operations webpage).

No formal vote or binding action was reported at the meeting; officials described ongoing negotiations with DEC, the forthcoming 12-month contract with H2O Innovation, and plans for engineering studies, wetland assessments and permitting.