Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wastewater Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Draft wastewater plan flags infiltration and potential $25M treatment upgrades; town to prioritize I&I mitigation
Summary
Consultants briefed the council on the wastewater facilities plan: the town’s RPDES flow limit is 1.7 million gpd, historical peak months approach thresholds, and consultants recommended addressing infiltration & inflow and using pretreatment controls for high‑strength dischargers; a moving‑bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) was presented as a compact upgrade option with an estimated capital cost around $25 million.
Consultants and town staff presented the required wastewater facilities plan update and answered extensive council questions about capacity, infiltration and upgrade options.
Presenters noted the town’s RPDES discharge permit limits flow at 1,700,000 gallons per day. Current long‑term average flows were presented around 0.9 MGD, but consultants said maximum‑month flow events have approached the permit threshold; projections that include planned infill development and approved projects could push future flows and pollutant loads to levels that would require plant upgrades. Consultants recommended treating infiltration & inflow (I&I) as a priority mitigation because reducing extraneous flow is substantially cheaper than building a larger treatment facility.
The presentation identified industrial‑pretreatment as an important tool for high‑strength dischargers (consultants cited a local brewery and the need to meter and/or precondition brewery waste). For nutrient removal the team recommended a moving‑bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) as a compact, proven technology with a life‑cycle cost profile the consultants estimated in the mid‑tens of millions (presenters cited an MBBR capital estimate near $25,000,000 vs. other options in the high $20 millions range). Staff and consultants told the council an alternative path is aggressive I&I mitigation (pipe lining, targeted repairs and flow monitoring) and then re‑evaluating flows over a two‑year monitoring period; consultants said spending $1–2 million on I&I work could defer or reduce the need for multi‑tens‑of‑millions in plant upgrades.
The council did not take action that night. Staff said the facility plan will be submitted to RIDEM for intergovernmental review; RIDEM may issue a draft RPDES permit that could trigger consent‑agreement negotiations with milestones and compliance deadlines. Councilors pressed for clear cost estimates, a sequencing plan (I&I remediation, flow monitoring, pretreatment limits, then plant upgrades if needed) and a timetable for eventual consent‑agreement negotiation if the draft permit imposes new limits.
