Wastewater Treatment in Las Vegas, Santa Barbara, Honduras

by

Matthew M. Hodge

B.S. Civil and Environmental Engineering

University of South Carolina, 2004

S.M. Technology and Policy

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007

Submitted to the Civil Engineering Department in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degrees of
Master of Engineering in Civil and Environmental Engineering

at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

June 2008

2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

All Rights Reserved.

Signature of Author....
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
May 9, 2008

Certified by....
E. Eric Adams
Senior Research Engineer and Lecturer of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Thesis Supervisor

Accepted by...
Daniele Veneziano
Chairman, Departmental Committee for Graduate Students
 Wastewater Treatment in Las Vegas, Santa Barbara, Honduras
by

Matthew M. Hodge

Submitted to the Civil Engineering Department on May 9, 2008 in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degrees of
Master of Engineering in Civil and Environmental Engineering

ABSTRACT

The Municipality of Las Vegas, Honduras is located immediately to the west of Lake
Yojoa, the largest inland lake in Honduras. Beginning in 2005, the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) began working with stakeholders around the lake to assess
anthropogenic environmental impacts on the lake. In January 2008, a technical team
composed of Dr. Eric Adams from MIT, Arida Herrera a civil engineer from Malcolm
Pirnie, and MIT students Anne Mikelonis and Matthew Hodge, traveled to Las Vegas to
work with the Municipality on domestic wastewater discharge, one of the previously
identified environmental impacts on Lake Yojoa. In preliminary discussions with the
Municipality, the team identified three goals for the project: evaluate the performance of
the existing wastewater treatment facility, test the possibility of enhancements to this
facility, and evaluate options for expanded sewerage and wastewater treatment
throughout Las Vegas.

The results of this project are a set of three recommendations for the Municipality to
improve wastewater treatment. First, regular maintenance of existing facilities is
necessary to achieve optimal performance for existing wastewater infrastructure. Second,
substantial non-waste water is entering the sewerage leading to an average daily flow of
1,000 L/person/day that has diluted concentrations of important wastewater
contaminants. This situation makes any treatment difficult and prior to expanding
sewerage, it is valuable to Las Vegas to investigate the source of non-waste water and to
reduce the total flow to existing infrastructure. Finally, if the first two recommendations
are acted upon, expanded treatment is subject to the constraints of Las Vegas, which are
limited land availability and limited technical expertise. Given this situation, a low
maintenance small footprint technology like Imhoff tanks or septic tanks will provide
economically efficient primary wastewater treatment for the Municipality.

Thesis Supervisor: E. Eric Adams

Title: Senior Research Engineer and Lecturer of Civil and Environmental Engineering
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following people for their help in the completion of this thesis. I
would like to thank Dr. Eric Adams, Arida Herrera, and Anne Mikelonis being great
partners on this project. I would also like to thank the Municipality of Las Vegas for
their interest in our efforts as well as the extreme hospitality that they showed us while
we were visiting Honduras.

4
1. Executive Summary.................................................................................................6
2. Background .............................................................................................................8
2.1. History of Honduras.........................................................................................8
2.2. Honduran Environmental and Sanitation Regulation ........................................9
2.3. Las Vegas ........................................................................................................9
2.4. Previous Studies.............................................................................................11
2.5. Request for Assistance ...................................................................................12
2.6. Summary .......................................................................................................12
3. Data Collection in Las Vegas.................................................................................13
3.1. Conceptual Understanding of Wastewater Sources.........................................13
3.2. Existing Treatment for Wastewater and Water ...............................................14
3.3. Characteristics of Wastewater ........................................................................14
3.3.1. Flow.......................................................................................................14
3.3.2. Contamination........................................................................................18
3.4. Receiving Water Body ...................................................................................20
3.5. Summary .......................................................................................................23
4. Maintenance ..........................................................................................................24
4.1. Imhoff Tank Remediation ..............................................................................24
4.2. Sludge Drying Bed.........................................................................................26
4.3. Monitoring and Evaluation.............................................................................27
4.4. Summary .......................................................................................................27
5. Improved Wastewater Treatment in Las Vegas ......................................................28
5.1. Goals .............................................................................................................28
5.2. Limitations.....................................................................................................29
5.3. Basic Principles of Wastewater Treatment .....................................................30
5.4. Options for Expanded Treatment....................................................................31
5.5. Centralized vs. De-Centralized.......................................................................38
5.6. Summary .......................................................................................................39
6. Recommendations .................................................................................................40
6.1. Screening .......................................................................................................40
6.2. Discussion .....................................................................................................42
6.3. Recommendations on Maintenance ................................................................43
6.4. Summary .......................................................................................................44
7. Conclusions ...........................................................................................................45
7.1. Technical Recommendations..........................................................................45
7.2. Future Work...................................................................................................45
7.3. Summary .......................................................................................................46
Appendix A: Timeline ...................................................................................................49
Appendix B: Collected Data..........................................................................................52
Appendix C: Example Calculations ...............................................................................54

5
1. Executive Summary
The Municipality of Las Vegas, Honduras is located just to the west of Lake Yojoa. The
total population is estimated to be approximately 30,000 people, but 17,000 people live in
the urban centers of Las Vegas, El Mochito, and San Juan. The largest industries in Las
Vegas are fishing, farming, tourism, and mining. All of this activity has a substantial
environmental impact on Lake Yojoa. In 2005, a group from the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT) Master of Engineering in Civil and Environmental Engineering
(MEng) Program began a study of Lake Yojoa. The original study focused on lake water
quality and stakeholders around the lake. In this study, the municipal wastewater from
Las Vegas was identified as one of the impacts that has a large effect on the lake.
Subsequent work with the Municipality revealed that there was only limited primary
treatment of wastewater prior to discharge into receiving water bodies that carried the
water to Lake Yojoa. In 2007, Las Vegas agreed to work with MIT on a study of existing
wastewater treatment and an assessment of potential remediation and expansion of
wastewater treatment throughout the Municipality. A technical team composed of Dr.
Eric Adams, Arida Herrera a civil engineer from Malcolm Pirnie Inc., and MIT MEng
students Anne Mikelonis and Matthew Hodge traveled to Las Vegas.

This thesis describes the results of a year of study which included a month long site
investigation. In Chapter 2, a review of the past work in and around Lake Yojoa is
presented with a particular focus on information relevant to Las Vegas. Chapter 3
recounts all of the findings of the current team during their site visit to Las Vegas. This
includes information about the geographic makeup of Honduras as well as the results of
water quality testing of influent and effluent water from the only existing treatment
facility, an Imhoff tank. In addition to assessing removal efficiencies, Chapter 3 also
presents the results of chemical oxygen demand testing in the main receiving water body,
Raices Creek. Chapter 4 focuses on the need for maintenance of existing facilities. It
indicates what benefits might be gained as well as presents recommendations for how to
perform regular maintenance. Chapter 5 begins a consideration of options for expansion
in Las Vegas. The goals for wastewater treatment and the limitations that Las Vegas
faces are important considerations in assessing options. The chapter also presents both a
review of the processes involved in wastewater treatment and a synopsis of conventional
wastewater treatment technologies available to Las Vegas. Chapter 6 makes
recommendations on what types of treatment will be best for Las Vegas and Chapter 7
provides the conclusions of the team in assessing wastewater treatment in Las Vegas.

In summary, Las Vegas faces many challenges in regards to wastewater treatment. The
study of the Imhoff tank revealed that the system is hydraulically overloaded. Based on
information from the Municipality and flow measurements, it appears that wastewater
production in Las Vegas is approximately 1,000 L/person/day. This leads to diluted
wastewater that is difficult to treat. An explanation of such large per capita flows focuses
on inflow of non-wastewater water to the system. At present, the Imhoff tank provides
solids removal of 26% while the removal of biochemical oxygen demand and chemical
oxygen demand was found to be 19%. Maintenance can improve the level of treatment
for Central Las Vegas, but real gains can only be made if some of the sources of clean
water entering the wastewater system are eliminated.

6
Based on the topography of Las Vegas, the available resources, and the difficulty posed
by inflow to the sewage system, the best wastewater treatment system for Las Vegas is a
decentralized system that takes advantage of the natural creeks to convey water
downstream. The smaller treatment facilities that would make up this decentralized
system should include some form of primary treatment to remove solids and possible
some form of secondary treatment to remove pathogens. One example of an
appropriately designed unit would be an Imhoff tank and maturation pond combination.
In addition to these unit processes a sludge drying bed is necessary to allow the
Municipality to maintain the facilities and remove sludge after it has been digested. In
conclusion, Las Vegas can reduce its environmental impact on Lake Yojoa by beginning
a culture of regular maintenance within the municipal staff and installing primary
treatment throughout the Municipality.

7
2. Background
Since 2005 MIT has been studying Lake Yojoa, the largest inland lake in Honduras, and
the various stakeholders around the lake who contribute to the anthropogenic
environmental impact on the lake. The chronology of the project can be found in
Appendix A. The Municipality of Las Vegas is one of these stakeholders and in January
2008, Dr. Eric Adams, Arida Herrera, Anne Mikelonis, and Matthew Hodge traveled to
Honduras to work with the Municipality on its wastewater treatment system. This thesis
is the individual work of the author, Matthew Hodge. While in Las Vegas, Hodge
worked closely with Mikelonis to study many aspects of wastewater treatment in Las
Vegas. His work focused on characterizing existing conditions in Las Vegas and
considering options for expansion of sewerage and treatment to other urban areas in the
Municipality. The purpose of this work was two fold. Not only did this work provide
information to Las Vegas, it also supported the work of Mikelonis who studied the
efficacy of chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT) in the existing wastewater
treatment facility (Mikelonis 2008). Hodge and Mikelonis quickly learned that there
were many non-technical issues that effect wastewater treatment in Las Vegas and
Honduras in general. For this reason, the thesis begins with a review recent history in
Honduras and of the substantial information that has been collected in the previous work
in and around Las Vegas.

2.1. History of Honduras

Located in Central America, Honduras is bordered on the southeast by Nicaragua, on the
west by Guatemala, on the southwest by El Salvador, and on the north by the Atlantic
Ocean, shown in Figure 1. The countrys capital is Tegucigalpa, but the industrial center
is San Pedro Sula. Approximately two thirds of the way between these two cities is the
Lago de Yojoa, or Lake Yojoa. The Municipality of Las Vegas is located approximately
5 kilometers to the west of Lake Yojoa.

Figure 1 Map of Honduras and Central America (Honduras 2007)

The country gained independence in 1821. Honduras is currently considered the second
poorest country in Central America and one of the poorest countries in the Western
Hemisphere (Honduras 2007). During the twentieth century the majority of economic

8
development was driven by foreign companies (Booth and Walker 1993) which built
infrastructure and provided services to their employees. As a consequence of this
situation, the concept of paying tariffs or taxes to local government in return for basic
services (i.e. water and sanitation) is not a part of Honduran culture or society (Chavez
2008). Now efforts to improve water and sanitation services through local municipalities
is a focus of a World Bank program known as the Strategic Plan for Modernization of the
Water and Sanitation Sector (PEMAPS). The goal of this program is to develop a
strategic plan for the modernization of water and sewerage services at the municipal level
(Status of Projects in Execution-FY07 2007). The need for increased treatment in
Honduras is substantial.

2.2. Honduran Environmental and Sanitation Regulation

In 2004 it was estimated that approximately 68% of Hondurans had access to adequate
sanitation. Approximately 25% of the population had domestic connections (i.e. flush
toilets) and the remaining 43% had latrines. Within urban areas it is estimated that 88%
of the population had access to sanitary services (SERNA 2005). In an effort to change
this situation, the government of Honduras established the Consejo Nacional de Agua
Potable y Sanamiento (CONASA) in 2003. This advisory board is composed of existing
government officials including: the Secretary of Health, the Secretary of Governance and
Justice, the Secretary of Natural Resources and the Environment and other
representatives (Sanamiento 2005a). Through CONASA national effluent quality
standards were carried over from previous developments in 1997 (Sanamiento 2005b).
Under the supervision of CONASA is the agency: Servicio Autonomo Nacional de
Acueductos y Alcantarillados (SANAA) which is responsible for supporting both
municipalities and local water boards in developing infrastructure to meet effluent water
quality standards across the country (Sanamiento 2005c). While this regulatory structure
is well designed a potential shortcoming arises in that the effluent water quality standards
appear to be designed specifically for advanced secondary treatment. This level of
treatment is not within the financial capabilities of many municipalities in Honduras.
Most existing treatment is not capable of meeting these effluent standards, making
enforcement quite difficult.

2.3. Las Vegas

Lake Yojoa is the largest inland lake in Honduras. The lake has maximum dimensions of
16.2 km in length and 6.2 km in width (Chokshi 2006). Figure 2 demonstrates the
general shape of the lake and the major creeks that outlet to the lake.

9
 Las Vegas

Figure 2 Map of Lake Yojoa (Trate 2006)

The Municipality of Las Vegas is located to the west of Lake Yojoa in the general area
along the creek named Quebrada de Raices in Figure 2. The Municipality has a total
population of 30,000 with approximately 17,000 people in towns or neighborhoods and
the remainder living in rural areas throughout the Municipality. The major urban areas
are: Las Vegas, El Mochito Mocho Arriba (El Mochito), and San Juan. Figure 3 outlines
the approximate extents of the Municipality and the location of the urban areas.

10
 2 km

Figure 3 Aerial Image of the Municipality of Las Vegas modified from Google (2008a)

The city of Las Vegas is located in the center of the region. All three locations are
amongst the foothills and mountains that surround Lake Yojoa. The terrain in this region
is increasingly mountainous as one moves away from the lake. Each urban area has a
different cause for its concentrated population. The City of Las Vegas is the seat of the
municipality and the center of commerce for the region. El Mochito is home to the
AMPAC Mine, the largest mine in Central America (Chokshi 2006). Finally, San Juan is
largely a residential area providing labor to the AMPAC Mine.

2.4. Previous Studies

In 2006 the first MIT project, focused on Lake Yojoa, was conducted by Mira Chokshi
and Tia Trate, who were Master of Engineering students at MIT. They performed a
stakeholder impact study on Lake Yojoa and found many anthropogenic sources of
pollution discharging into the lake. Amongst the many sources, wastewater from Las
Vegas was considered a substantial environmental impact on the lake (Chokshi 2006;
Trate 2006). Chokshi and Trate found that the only existing wastewater treatment in Las
Vegas was an Imhoff tank that was not being maintained.

Subsequent to the work of Chokshi and Trate, Arida Herrera completed a study of this
Imhoff tank as a part of research at the University of Texas at Austin. He was able to
corroborate what was found in 2006 and extend knowledge about the existing treatment.
According to interviews conducted by Herrera, the existing treatment was built in 1992

11
and had not been maintained since its construction (Herrera 2006). Because of this, the
Imhoff tank (a single tank with two parallel chambers) of Las Vegas was not functioning
properly. While as of 2003 the tank still provided ample suspended solids removal, it
was no longer providing expected biochemical oxygen demand removal. Further
evidence of ineffective primary treatment was an increase in fecal coliform
concentrations in the effluent when compared to the influent (Experco 2003). Herrera
described in detail many of the complications that may have arisen in the Las Vegas
treatment system from the lack of maintenance and developed a set of recommendations
regarding the remediation of the existing Imhoff tank in Las Vegas.

2.5. Request for Assistance

As a part of Herreras work he developed strong working relationships with the
Municipality of Las Vegas. In 2007, he recommended to Dr. Eric Adams that Las Vegas
was ready to remediate the tank and that the Municipality was in need of additional
technical assistance. Based on this recommendation, Dr. Adams began development of
the current project with Herrera, Anne Mikelonis and Matthew Hodge. Six focus areas of
study were identified prior to the site visit.

1) Removal efficiency of the existing tank

2) Downstream water quality analysis
3) Options for sludge handling
4) Identification of local sources of coagulants
5) Bench and/or pilot scale testing of chemically enhanced primary
treatment (CEPT)
6) Conceptual design of a full scale system for CEPT application

Once on site, an additional request for assistance was specified by the Municipality: a
conceptual design of a complete wastewater treatment system for all of the urban areas in
the Municipality of Las Vegas.

2.6. Summary
Las Vegas, Santa Barbara, Honduras is a growing municipality that discharges
wastewater to a system of creeks that eventually outlet into Lake Yojoa. The
Municipality has limited wastewater treatment. The Municipality wants to both improve
the performance of existing facilities and expand sewerage and treatment to other areas of
the Municipality. This thesis describes the analysis carried out by Matthew Hodge which
focuses on: existing conditions at the existing treatment facility, downstream water
quality analysis, options for sludge handling, and a conceptual design of wastewater
treatment for the urban area of Las Vegas.

12
3. Data Collection in Las Vegas

One of the major focuses of the site visit in January 2008 was the collection of
information about wastewater treatment in Las Vegas. For the existing facility the
questions that needed to be answered were: where does the wastewater come from, how
much flow is there, and what are the concentrations of contaminants in the influent and
effluent water? There are also questions that are relevant to system expansion: how many
people require access to sewerage, is there any existing treatment in other areas, and if
not what is currently done with human waste in these areas? The answers to these
questions were found through discussions with the municipal staff, water quality testing
and personal observation.

3.1. Conceptual Understanding of Wastewater Sources

The source of domestic wastewater in Las Vegas is predictably private residences. These
are concentrated in the three urban centers, El Mochito, San Juan, and Las Vegas. The
municipal staff provided information about the number of residences in each urban area.
A schematic representation of this information is presented in Figure 4. Note that Las
Vegas has been broken out into two sections because Central Las Vegas already has
primary wastewater treatment while the northern region of the city does not.

El Mochito
418
Residence North LV
San Juan
181 392
Residence Residence

Central LV
556
Residence

Lake
Raices Creek Yojo

Figure 4 Schematic Diagram of Las Vegas Urban Areas

Figure 4 shows the number of official properties, either already connected to sewerage in
the case of Central Las Vegas or legally deeded properties in the other areas. According
to the Municipality, the number of actual connections would be somewhat larger in all
cases because of illegal connections or non-deeded properties. As an example, in Central
Las Vegas it is estimated that the 556 legal connection that have been made to the Imhoff
tank are augmented by and additional 40 to 50 illegal connections (Godoy 2008a). A
similar unofficial need for sewerage is likely to exist in the other urban areas. Another
valuable observation that is presented in Figure 4 is the system of creeks that pass by
each urban center and eventually merge to form Raices Creek. All wastewater, treated

13
and untreated, from the urban areas is currently discharged into these creeks and
conveyed to Lake Yojoa.

3.2. Existing Treatment for Wastewater and Water

Prior to entering the creeks, there are three levels of treatment that were found in the
urban centers of the Municipality. Central Las Vegas has primary treatment with a single
Imhoff tank. The design capacity of this facility is the wastewater production for 4,000
people, who produce on average 200 L/person/day (Ortiz 1991). The next level of
treatment is partial primary treatment. El Mochito does not have a central treatment
facility, but has had a system of septic tanks for quite some time. Few details were
available about this system, but according to engineers with the AMPAC Mine, one of
the companies that had previously owned the mine built a sewage system for its
employees in El Mochito (Bautista 2008). A single septic tank receives wastewater from
anywhere from 4 to 30 residences (Godoy 2008a). From visual inspection it was clear
that most if not all of these tanks were in total disrepair and discharging wastewater
directly into the nearest creek. Much like the Imhoff tank, these septic tanks are in need
of regular maintenance. The third level of treatment in Las Vegas is non-treatment.
Many residences discharge wastewater directly into the nearest creek without any form of
treatment.

3.3. Characteristics of Wastewater

The sources of wastewater are clear. The next question that needs to be addressed is how
much is generated and what is the makeup of this wastewater. It was not possible to
directly measure either of these things in all three urban areas, but a study of wastewater
quantity and quality was conducted for the Imhoff tank that treats the wastewater of
Central Las Vegas. The results of this study were assumed to apply to the other urban
areas in Las Vegas.

3.3.1. Flow
In his 2006 thesis, Herrera found and reported a study by Experco International, a
Canadian engineering consulting firm. Experco conducted both water quality testing and
continuous flow monitoring for a 24 hour cycle in April 2003. The results of that flow
study are re-presented in Figure 5.

14
Figure 5 Diurnal Flow for Las Vegas Imhoff Tank (Herrera 2006)

15
From these plots, it is clear that even in 2003 the tank was overloaded. The reported peak
flow from this data is 143 m3/hr, and the daily average flow is 69 m3/hr. During the site
visit in January 2008 flow data was also collected and this data matches well to the
Experco International data. Prior to presenting this data the method utilized in
determining flow should be explained.

In the absence of a flow meter, the flow rates were collected utilizing a cross-section and
velocity method. Immediately upstream of the tank, the wastewater passes through a
long stretch of circular 0.305 m (12) diameter concrete pipe. At each end of this 50 m
pipe is a box opening and approximately 20 m from the upstream box is a break in the top
of the concrete pipe that allows for depth measurements. The velocity was measured by
dropping a buoyant brightly colored object into the water (a tangerine with an
approximate diameter of 5 cm) at the upstream box and timing how long the object took
to arrive at the downstream box. At the same time the depth of water at the 20 meter
location was measured. From this depth the area could be calculated. The velocity
multiplied by the cross-sectional area is equal to the flow. Since the object is buoyant,
velocity is being measured at or near the free surface where velocity will be at a
maximum. Friction along the pipe wall will reduce velocity near the pipe walls. Thus it
is recognized that flow measurements with this method would be an upper bound for
actual average flow, but from visual inspection it is clear that there is substantial debris in
the pipe and the flow is very turbulent. It was concluded that the flow as measured was a
serviceable approximation of actual flow in the pipe.

The flow was monitored periodically between January 14 and January 25. Table 1
presents both the time of observation and the calculated flow.

16
 Table 1 Collected Flow Data from Imhoff Tank (Original Data Available in Appendix B)
Flow Rate
Date Time
m3/hr
1/16/2008 09:30 191
1/16/2008 14:30 191
1/17/2008 04:30 103
1/17/2008 10:00 173
1/19/2006 14:00 161
1/20/2008 10:00 180
1/21/2008 09:30 164
1/25/2008 15:00 145
1/29/2008 10:45 170
1/29/2008 12:00 156
1/29/2008 12:30 149
1/29/2008 13:00 153

From these flow measurements, it can be concluded that the average peak flow to the
tank during the day was approximately 180 m3/hr. Given that only a single data point
was collected during low flow times it is not possible to say that the 103 m3/hr represents
an average value for low flow periods. It is, however, clearly an indication that there is
substantial flow in off peak hours. Based on visual observation of the tank during the site
visit and analysis of the data collected by Experco International, it is appropriate to
consider the tank to have a two stage diurnal flow. This two stage flow is composed of a
daytime flow that varies between 190 m3/hr and 160 m3/hr and a nighttime flow that
varies between 60 m3/hr and 100 m3/hr. Assuming 18 hours of daytime flow and 6 hours
of nighttime flow and 6 people per residence, this flow is equivalent to approximately
1,000 L/person/day. To give a frame of reference for this value, typical values for design
of wastewater treatment in Western Europe are on the order of 200 L/person/day, which
was also the design basis for Imhoff tank. Wastewater production on a per capita basis is
extremely high and warranted further investigation. In talking with municipal staff some
potential sources of non-domestic wastewater emerged.

Potential additional sources of influent water include: infiltration of groundwater and

storm-water, cross-connects with stormwater piping, non-domestic water usage, and
illegal connections. It was observed that the concentration of total suspended solids
during off peak hours is very low. This suggests that relatively clean water is entering
the sewerage system in Las Vegas. Evidence is also available that supports the idea of
non-domestic wastewater production. Figure 6 is a photograph taken of the scum
chamber of the Imhoff tank.

17
 Figure 6 Photograph of Coffee Beans Present in Wastewater

De-pulped coffee can clearly be seen in the wastewater. This region of Honduras grows
coffee commercially. The municipal engineering staff indicated that in depulping coffee,
water is allowed to run over the picked fruit for upwards of 24 hours (Godoy 2008b). It
appears from this photograph that the depulping of coffee is an activity that may be
carried out in the home. Depending on the extent of in home depulping, this may
represent a substantial portion of clean water inflow. Finally, illegal connections are a
known, but un-quantified source of flow in the Municipality. It is not uncommon for an
existing residence to illegally plumb its own connection to a sewer main in order to avoid
paying initial connection and monthly charges for service. The cumulative effect of these
sources explains the substantial wastewater production in Las Vegas.

3.3.2. Contamination
In order to assess the performance of the Imhoff tank and to understand the
characteristics of wastewater in Las Vegas, wastewater samples were taken from the
influent and effluent channels of the tank. Four measures of water quality were used:
total suspended solids (TSS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), and total coliforms (TC).

Total Suspended Solids

TSS is a measure of the particle matter that exists in the water column. TSS is a
contaminant of concern because it can limit the penetration of sunlight into a receiving
water body. If the solids are denser than water they can settle out of the water column
and be deposited on the sediment of a water body. When particles settle onto the
sediment they can have a detrimental effect on invertebrates that inhabit the water body
floor and can also harm aquatic life by limiting growth rates and reducing resistance to
disease (Viessman and Hammer 2005). Typical municipal wastewater has a TSS of
between 450 and 1250 mg/L (Reynolds and Richards 1996).

18
TSS is measured by filtering a water sample under a partial vacuum. The filter is
weighed prior to and after the filtering of the water sample. The difference in weight is
the measure of total solids in the sample. This mass divided by the volume of the water
sample yields the concentration of TSS. The methodology used in testing TSS is the
Total Suspended Solids Gravimetric Method Standard Method 2540.

Chemical and Biochemical Oxygen Demand

COD and BOD are in and of themselves not directly a pollutant of concern. However,
the presence of dissolved oxygen (DO) is one of, if not the, most important water quality
indicators. Typically, a DO concentration of 5 mg/L is necessary to maintain healthy
aquatic life in water bodies (Viessman and Hammer 2005). As potential sinks of
dissolved oxygen, BOD and COD become important water quality indicators as well.
BOD is a measure of the oxygen used by microorganisms in order to biodegrade
contaminants in receiving water bodies. COD on the other hand is the oxygen
equivalent of the organic matter susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidant
(Viessman and Hammer 2005).

Typically, BOD is of greater interest for domestic wastewater, but BOD testing is timing
consuming typically consisting of either a 5 day or 28 day measurement of water
samples. COD can be correlated to BOD so a common practice is to take limited BOD
readings and many COD readings and then estimate BOD from COD. That procedure
was followed in this project. The method used to measure COD was the HACH
Chemical Oxygen Demand Colorimetric Method 8000 and for BOD the Biochemical
Oxygen Demand Method 5210 method was used.

Total Coliforms
TC is not a wastewater contaminant in and of itself either. It is used as a surrogate for
measuring the presence of microbes, viruses, and bacteria that can cause sickness in
humans. Testing for individual pathogens requires many complicated testing procedures.
In lieu of such intensive testing, TC has been adopted as a good indicator of the potential
presence of pathogens. They originate in the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals
including humans. Therefore, if coliforms are present, it is reasonable that other fecal
matter may be present. Non-human coliforms are indistinguishable from human
coliforms so utilizing coliform counts to assess the risk of pathogens requires knowledge
about contributing waters, sources and destinations.

TC counts are typically performed by incubating a sample of water in a nutrient rich

environment and then applying a dye to the background media that reacts with the
coliforms to produce a different color. From there, the coliforms can be counted and this
number divided by the volume of the water sample to determine the concentration of
coliforms. The approved method for measuring coliforms is the Membrane Filter
Technique for Members of the Coliform Group Standard Method 9222. Due to
limitations of onsite laboratory equipment, a simplified testing method was utilized in
place of the standard method. 3M E.Coli/Coliform Count Plates were used to measure
TC in Las Vegas. This test is similar in principle to Standard Method 9222.

19
While for the most part, on site investigations went very smoothly, there were some
complications that had a direct effect on the availability and accuracy of water quality
data. The first complication was the lack of an analytical balance. While on site, the
investigators were able to use an analytical balance at the laboratory of the Aqua Finca
fish farm. However, this balance only had accuracy to 0.001 grams. Since the difference
of pre and post weights of TSS samples were often less than 0.01 grams only two
significant digits were recorded for these readings. A second complication arose when
the 3M E. Coli/Coliform Plates were stolen from the Las Vegas laboratory facility. For
this reason, TC counts are only available from early sampling.

Table 2 presents the removal rates for the water quality characteristics that were
monitored during the site visit. For all test data refer to Appendix B.

Table 2 Treatment Performance of Imhoff Tank Without Remediation

Characteristic Influent Effluent Percent Change
TSS 190 mg/L 140 mg/L - 26%
BOD 150 mg/L 120 mg/L - 19%
COD 320 mg/L 260 mg/L - 19%
TC 500 x 106 1800 x 106 + 260%

The results of the assessment of the performance of water quality for the influent and
effluent flow to the Imhoff tank are comparable to the values that would be theoretically
expected for an Imhoff tank that has such large flows to an undersized sedimentation tank
(Reynolds and Richards 1996). The only abnormal result that was found was the
substantial increase in TC passing out of the Imhoff tank. While sedimentation is not
considered an effective method for coliform removal, it is an effective method for solids
removal. It is expected that a large portion of bacteria, especially fecal coliforms would
be attached to the fecal matter (solids). Therefore it is logical to expect at least some
reduction in TC concentrations.

A potential reason for this situation was found through visual inspection. It was observed
that methane gas is released from the digestion chamber through the central
sedimentation tank as well as the scum chambers. At times, this gas carries up to the
surface large masses of partially digested solids. These solids, which would likely be
very high in bacteria, do not immediately descend to the bottom of the chamber when the
methane bubble breaks. Instead they float on the surface. When this occurs close to the
outlet of the Imhoff tank they become part of the effluent water. This bubbling and solids
re-suspension is a regular occurrence and may explain the increase in TC concentrations.
Imhoff tanks are actually designed to prevent just this situation, so it is possible that the
Imhoff tank in Las Vegas was not correctly built and remediation may be necessary.

3.4. Receiving Water Body

Immediately downstream of the Imhoff tank is the Raices Creek. This receiving water
body may be an important factor in assessing wastewater treatment options in Las Vegas
because it is the way that most people in Las Vegas come in contact with the effluent

20
wastewater flow. It is also the way that all wastewater is conveyed to Lake Yojoa. Some
study of the creek was possible, specifically measuring the COD in the creek. Figure 7
highlights the flow path of the Raices Creek to Lake Yojoa.

1 km

Figure 7 Flow Path of Raices Creek Modified from Google (2008b)

The creek takes on flows from creeks that pass by El Mochito, San Juan, and North Las
Vegas. Currently this creek is not only accepting semi-treated effluent from the Imhoff
tank, but also receiving untreated wastewater from each of these other areas. Locals who
live near the creek have another name for Raices Creek that loosely translated means
Feces Creek. The local community is aware of the poor water quality in the creek. All of
the creeks that eventually join to form Raices Creek are steep and have relatively
turbulent flow. Figure 8 is typical of the creeks.

21
 Figure 8 Representative Section of Raices Creek

Substantial turbulent flow is to be expected given that the creek must achieve an
elevation drop of approximately 250 meters in the span of only 6.6 kilometers. Many
cascades exist in the creek as well as small areas of ponding. Both reaeration and
sedimentation of BOD may be helping to naturally treat the effluent that is discharged to
the creek. In an effort to understand what affect this has on the water quality of the creek
COD samples were taken at various points along the creek.

Returning to Figure 7, each red circle represents a sampling location. Point 1 is

immediately upstream of where the flow from the Imhoff tank joins Raices Creek. Point
2 is immediately downstream of where the flow joins the creek. Point 3 is approximately
75% of the length of the creek between the Lake Yojoa and Las Vegas, but it is still in the
portion of the creek where the flow is completely from the system of creeks. Point 4 is at
the mouth of the creek where it joins Lake Yojoa. The total flow in the Creek at points 1,
2, and 3 are on the same order of magnitude, but at point 4 the flow is substantially mixed
with lake water. A sample of water was taken from each point and analyzed for COD.
Table 3 presents the results of these tests.

Table 3 COD Concentration at Creek Sampling Points

Location COD (mg/L)
Point 1 19
Point 2 32
Point 3 15
Point 4 1

In the results from the Imhoff tank, BOD correlated to COD with a factor of
approximately 0.5 (see Table 2). If the relationship between COD and BOD in the

22
Imhoff tank is assumed to be valid in the creek as well, then the concentration of BOD
decreases substantially prior to reaching Lake Yojoa. Three things may be responsible
for the reduction in BOD concentration. They are: dilution, settling, and aerobic
digestion in concert with reaeration from the atmosphere.

If the goal of treatment is to prevent organic loading from reaching the lake only, both
settling and aerobic digestion would constitute treatment. Dilution on the other hand is
not reducing the total mass of BOD reaching the lake. From looking at the aerial
photography presented in Figure 3 and Figure 7 it is reasonable to think that there is
substantial inflow from surface runoff entering Raices Creek as it approaches Lake
Yojoa. Given that the travel time to Lake Yojoa is on the order of hours and typical
digestion rates for BOD range between 0.3 and 0.6 d-1 (Reynolds and Richards 1996), it
is unlikely that aerobic processes play a substantial role in changing BOD concentrations.
While the relatively substantial elevation drop from Las Vegas to Raices Creek may
increase the availability of dissolved oxygen by increasing the reaeration coefficient, it
also creates more turbulent flow that will prevent BOD settling from taking place. In
summary, the changes in BOD concentration are most likely due to substantial dilution
and to a much lesser extent settling of BOD. Aerobic processes are likely to have only a
very small influence on the level of BOD in the creek. It is likely that the organic loading
to the lake is reduced, but only to a small degree.

3.5. Summary
The Municipality of Las Vegas is composed of many smaller communities. The three
largest communities (the City of Las Vegas, El Mochito, and San Juan) make up about
two thirds of the total population of the urbanized area. These three areas are connected
by the system of creeks that eventually join and flow to Lake Yojoa. There is existing
sanitation infrastructure in Las Vegas and El Mochito which have an Imhoff tank and a
system of septic tanks respectively. The wastewater production in Las Vegas is
approximately 1,000 L/person/day, or about five times the design flow. A large portion
of this flow is not wastewater. Subsequently, the contaminants in the wastewater are
diluted. The primary treatment in Central Las Vegas provides a reduction in oxygen
demand of approximately 19% and solids removal of 26%, but increases in coliforms
through the treatment process suggest potentially faulty construction of the Imhoff tank.
The receiving water body, Raices Creek provides very limited natural treatment to the
organic loading that originates from Las Vegas.

23
4. Maintenance
Before Las Vegas builds new wastewater treatment facilities, there is an opportunity to
improve the performance of existing facilities through maintenance. As has already been
mentioned, prior to Herreras study, the Imhoff tank had not been properly maintained in
over 15 years. In December 2007, the tank was emptied of sludge, but no other
maintenance was performed. In addition to regular maintenance, a sludge drying bed is a
necessary extension of the facility in Central Las Vegas so that digested sludge can be
eliminated in an environmentally appropriate manner.

4.1. Imhoff Tank Remediation

To assess just how beneficial maintenance is to the performance of wastewater treatment,
remedial action was performed on the Imhoff tank in January, 2008. Efforts were made to
improve consistency of average residence time in the Imhoff tank. First, control gates
were replaced to prevent the short-circuiting of the treatment process (see Mikelonis
(2008) for further discussion), shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9 Control Gate Installation in Imhoff Tank

A second remedial action was taken to improve the distribution of flow within the Imhoff
tank. Baffles were placed in the inlet channel to reduce the water velocity as it entered
the channel, shown in Figure 10.

24
 .
Figure 10 Control Gate for Flow Control in Imhoff Tank

Once these simple control mechanisms were in place, much better performance was
observed due to the fact that a much higher percentage of the total flow was actually
receiving treatment and the treated water had an increased residence time in the Imhoff
tank. Table 4 demonstrates the improved performance.

Table 4 Results and Performance of Imhoff Tank with Remediation

Characteristic Influent Effluent Percent Change
TSS 200 mg/L 120 mg/L - 40%
COD 410 mg/L 270 mg/L - 34%

After this remedial action, an increase in solids removal of 14% was observed in
comparison to conditions prior to remedial action (see Table 2). Additionally, a 15%
increase in the removal of COD, and it is believed BOD, were observed as well. These
results for the remediated Imhoff tank highlight the necessity for a regular maintenance
plan for all wastewater treatment facilities.

Imhoff tanks are generally considered an attractive technology for developing countries
because they require minimal maintenance. Minimal maintenance, however, is not a lack
of maintenance. Table 5 summarizes regular maintenance practices as recommended by
Herrera (2006).

25
 Table 5 Recommended Maintenance Schedule for Imhoff Tank
Period Actions
Daily Remove refuse from the influent channel, examine gates and
baffles to ensure proper flow distribution, examine effluent
piping and remove any obstructions
Semiweekly Remove scum from scum chamber and place in sludge drying bed
Monthly Reverse flow direction to distribute sludge evenly in digestion
chamber
Semiannually Remove approximately 40 m3 of sludge from digestion chamber
and place in sludge drying bed

This table is not the sum total of necessary knowledge to maintain an Imhoff tank, but it
is a set of rules that will lead to better tank performance. Should these guidelines be
followed, a new problem will arise regarding maintenance. Digested sludge must be
disposed of in some manner. During maintenance in January 2008, the sludge was
discharged directly into the creek. This is not an acceptable practice. The simplest forms
of sludge disposal are incineration, land application, or burial. Prior to any of these
processes, the liquid sludge must be dried to a solid material. Therefore the construction
of a sludge drying bed is perhaps the most important step towards regular maintenance
that the Municipality can take.

4.2. Sludge Drying Bed

A sludge drying bed is an open area with a porous media (typically sand over gravel) as a
base and some form of walls to keep sludge in the specified area. Figure 11 provides a
schematic diagram of a typical sludge drying bed.

L
sand gravel

drain
Figure 11 Schematic Diagram of Sludge Drying Bed Adapted from Reynolds and Richards (1996)

After digested sludge is removed from a wastewater treatment installation, it is composed

mostly of water. The solids content of digested sludge typically ranges from 10% to 15%
(Reynolds and Richards 1996). As such, it is not easily handled. If the sludge is dried,
then the solids content can reach as high as 40% (Reynolds and Richards 1996). Once
this process has been completed, sludge can be handled much more easily and can be
moved for final disposal in a landfill, incineration, or agricultural applications.

26
A sludge drying bed achieves the removal of water by both drainage of water through the
porous media and by evaporation of water to the atmosphere. The required maintenance
is minimal and typical sizing is usually in the range of 6 m 9 m by 8 m 38 m, for an
individual bed. In the case where more drying area is needed, multiple beds can be built
side by side. In dryer environments appropriate drying typically occurs in 2 to 4 weeks
(Reynolds and Richards 1996). In the case of Las Vegas it will be important to include a
roof or other cover structure to prevent rain from diluting and rewetting the sludge in the
drying bed. Sludge removal and processing is a critical step in any wastewater treatment
system that generates sludge. It is necessary in both a centralized system design and a
decentralized system design. For detailed calculations of appropriately sized sludge
drying beds for Las Vegas, see Appendix C.

4.3. Monitoring and Evaluation

If the municipal staff begins to perform regular maintenance and potentially expands the
wastewater treatment system in Las Vegas, regular monitoring will also become
important. Ideally this would include solids loading and organic loading to each
treatment facility. This type of testing can be expensive and complicated, but at the very
least the Municipality can easily begin to monitor the total flow to each of their facilities.
A simple way to improve monitoring would be to place a V-Notch weir in the influent
channel for each treatment facility. By monitoring the depth of flow over the weir, the
total flow can be accurately calculated with accepted equations. The relationship
between flow and water depth will depend on the angle of the notch, but once in place
and calibrated, measurements of flow will be substantially easier than the tangerine
method utilized in the current investigation.

The placing of a V-notch weir in the existing Imhoff tank may prove to be impossible
since the influent channel did not have much freeboard during January, the dry season.
During the rainy season, an obstruction in the channel like a weir may cause wastewater
to overflow the channel before it reaches the Imhoff tank. A detailed investigation of a
weir will be required before a recommendation can be as to the viability of a weir for the
existing treatment facility.

4.4. Summary
Las Vegas is interested in expanding wastewater treatment in the Municipality. Prior to
expanding treatment, the Municipality must focus on establishing regular maintenance
for existing wastewater treatment. The recommendations made by Herrera are
appropriate for maintaining the existing Imhoff tank. Additionally, the Municipality has
a need for a sludge disposal system. Central to this is a sludge drying bed so that the
sludge can be dried sufficiently to be disposed of with conventional means.

27
5. Improved Wastewater Treatment in Las Vegas

The Municipality of Las Vegas is committed to reducing the impact that it has on Lake
Yojoa. It was clear in meeting with the Mayor, Carlos Fuentes, and other stakeholders
around the lake that there is a perception that Las Vegas is one of the major polluters of
Lake Yojoa. In addition to having a perception as a polluter, the Municipality is also
engaged in an extensive program of development which includes expansion of electricity
services, expansion of paved roads, and expansion of sewerage. As of December 2007
the Municipality had already secured funding from the government of Taiwan to expand
and improve wastewater collection in the Municipality. Whether motivated by public
perception or by development goals, the Municipality has committed to expanding
sewerage and wastewater treatment. The question becomes, what will be the best system
for Las Vegas? This depends on the level of treatment that the Municipality wants to
achieve and what limitations it faces for new projects. After determining the goals and
limitations for the situation in Las Vegas, it is possible to consider the technology options
available to Las Vegas, but prior to that, it is instructive to review the basic principles that
are relevant to wastewater treatment.

5.1. Goals
In Honduras, there are many levels of treatment that Las Vegas may aspire to achieve.
One potential set of objectives are the national wastewater effluent standards, presented
in Table 6.
Table 6 Honduras National Effluent Standards (Sanamiento 2005b)
Effluent Regulations
Parameter Max Permitted
BOD5 50.0 mg/l
COD 200.0 mg/l
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 30.0 mg/l
Ammonia as Nitrogen 20 mg/l
Total Phosphorous 5.0 mg/l
PH 6.0 9.0
Sulfates 400.0 mg/l
Aluminum 2.00 mg/l
Settleable Solids 1.0 ml/l/h
Suspended Solids 100.0 mg/l
Total Fecal Coliforms 5000/100 ml

These standards apply across all of Honduras. These standards, however, are very
demanding given that few municipalities in Honduras have treatment systems that are
more advanced than primary treatment and many have no effective treatment at all. An
alternative framing of treatment goals was suggested by Pedro Ortiz of SANAA. In an
interview at the SANAA headquarters in Tegucigalpa, he indicated that it would make
more sense for municipalities to focus on prioritizing wastewater treatment instead of
trying to achieve unrealistic national standards. Ortiz pointed out that many of the
receiving water bodies in Honduras have substantial elevation change over short
distances which leads to the entrainment of oxygen in the water. He believes that it is

28
better to focus on solids removal in primary treatment and particularly focus on methods
to remove pathogens from effluent water in secondary treatment (Ortiz 2008).

While the recommendation to focus on solids removal and pathogen removal are well
reasoned and apply generally to wastewater treatment across Honduras, a third approach
that Las Vegas can pursue is to prioritize its own wastewater treatment needs. In Las
Vegas, at present, there is only limited exposure to wastewater. Once wastewater enters
the system of creeks that conveys the water to Lake Yojoa, there is only one community
that comes into regular contact with the contaminated water. Immediately downhill of
the Imhoff tank that treats wastewater from Central Las Vegas, there is a community of
approximately 25 families that cross through Raices Creek every day as they walk the
road between their residences and Central Las Vegas. Other than that, no measurable
portion of the population comes into contact with the stream until it reaches Lake Yojoa.
The lake can act like an enormous detention pond where natural die off rates of
microorganisms will eliminate nearly all pathogens. It may in fact make sense for Las
Vegas to focus exclusively on the removal of solids from wastewater.

5.2. Limitations
In addition to the goals for treatment, the available resources of Las Vegas will play a
role in determining the best wastewater treatment options for Las Vegas. Las Vegas has
substantial financial resources from multiple sources, including: the AMPAC Mine, the
government of Taiwan, and the United States Agency for International Development.
This is an advantage not typical of all municipalities in Honduras, but Las Vegas does
face limitations regarding land, technical expertise, and political processes.

Las Vegas is a large area, but it is also in the center of Honduras which is a mountainous
region. There is very little flat land available for large infrastructure projects. Similarly,
there is very little clear land. Any undeveloped land is covered by thick vegetation and
trees. Any large scale infrastructure project would require an enormous amount of
earthwork. The one exception to this is the area that was cleared during the construction
of the Imhoff tank. This area is largely a flat open area, but, as has already been
mentioned, immediately downhill approximately 25 families have begun living in the
area. Any development in the area will see substantial public opposition.

In addition to limited availability of land, Las Vegas is constrained by available technical

expertise. The Municipality has one civil engineer on staff and he is responsible for
everything from wastewater treatment, to road construction, to maintenance of
government buildings. The technical capability of the Municipality does not include the
kind of expertise necessary to operate modern wastewater treatment facilities like what is
found commonly in the United States. An added problem with any modern system is the
availability of materials. There are hardware stores in Las Vegas, but anything that must
be imported can take months to arrive in Las Vegas.

Politics play a role in everything in Honduras, including public services like wastewater
collection and treatment. The entire staff of a municipality is changed when a new mayor
is elected. This is especially true when the new mayor is from a different political party

29
than the previous mayor. The complete changeover of staff calls into question whether
any of the improvements that are made during the current mayors term of office will be
maintained. Las Vegas is limited by project horizons. Long term planning is nearly
impossible in this political situation. Any wastewater treatment design should take into
account all of these factors.

5.3. Basic Principles of Wastewater Treatment

The treatment of wastewater has two stages. The first stage is the removal of
contaminants from water and the second stage is the final elimination of these
contaminants. There are three types of processes that can be used to achieve both
removal and elimination of contaminants. These processes are: physical, chemical, and
biological. Physical processes are used principally in the removal stage of wastewater
treatment while biological and chemical processes are used in both the removal and the
elimination stage of the treatment. Most treatment systems will incorporate more than
one process to effectively reduce the environmental impact of wastewater. A description
of each process is supplied here to enhance understanding of the actual technology
options available in designing a wastewater treatment system.

The dominant physical process used in wastewater treatment is sedimentation.

Sedimentation takes advantage of the fact that much of contamination in wastewater is in
a solid form. If these solid particles are denser than water they will tend to sink and settle
out of the water column. According to Stokes Law (Tchobanoglous et al. 2003), the
velocity at which a particle will settle out of the water column can be calculated with
Equation 1.

2 r g( p F )
2

vs = (1)
9
where:
vs = settling velocity
r = radius of the particle
g = constant of gravity
P,F = density of the particle or fluid
= dynamic fluid viscosity

This process of settling can be utilized to remove settleable contaminants by forcing

wastewater into a tank whose dimensions are such that particles will fall to the bottom of
the tank before they exit the tank. By calculating the vertical settling velocity and the
horizontal flow velocity of the water, it is possible to size a tank to remove a large portion
of contaminant particles from wastewater. The key parameter in the sedimentation of
solids from wastewater is hydraulic residence time (equation 2)

30
.
V
= (2)
Q
where:
Q= flow to sedimentation tank
V= volume of sedimentation tank
= residence time

The hydraulic residence time is the average time that a parcel of water spends in a
volume. Given, enough time, non-colloidal particles will settle out of the water column.

Chemical processes can also be used in the removal of contaminants from wastewater or
for the elimination of contaminants. In the case of removal of contaminants, chemical
processes are most commonly used to enhance sedimentation by destabilizing colloidal
particles, but can also be used to disinfect, as in the case of chlorination (for further
discussion of these chemical processes see CEPT and Chlorination later in this chapter).

Finally, biological processes are used in the removal and elimination of contaminants in
wastewater, but are most commonly used in digestion (elimination) of contaminants.
Biological processes eliminate many types of contaminants ranging from chemicals, such
as nitrogen, to microorganisms and pathogens. The process of eliminating all of these
contaminants is known as digestion. Generally speaking digestion is the consumption of
contaminants by living bacteria and microorganisms to fuel growth and reproduction.
The individual agents and interactions that are involved in digestion are complicated and
varied, but the processes can be understood in two forms: aerobic digestion and anaerobic
digestion. Aerobic digestion occurs in the presence of oxygen. Conversely, anaerobic
digestion occurs in the absence of oxygen. Equation 3 (Aerobic digestion) and Equation
4 (Anaerobic digestion) (Reynolds and Richards 1996) provide generic equations to
represent these biological processes.

OrganicMatter + Free _ O2 New _ Cells + NH 3 + 3CO2 + H 2 O + Solids (3)

OrganicMatter + Combined _ O New _ Cells + CH 4 + CO2 + Solids (4)

These processes remove approximately 99.8% of fecal coliforms present in the sludge
(Reynolds and Richards 1996) as well as a substantial fraction of volatile solids. Each
biochemical reaction described above is catalyzed by microbes that thrive in the
particular environment (e.g. aerobic microbes in aerobic digestion and anaerobic
microbes in anaerobic digestion). Wastewater treatment technologies utilize at least one
of these three types of processes and often utilize combinations of all three to achieve
removal and elimination of contaminants.

5.4. Options for Expanded Treatment

There are many types of wastewater treatment technologies for the Municipality of Las
Vegas to choose from. Prior to actual design it makes sense to determine which

31
technologies can be screened out by the goals and limitations of Las Vegas. A brief
description of many types of conventional wastewater treatment is presented here to
provide a basic understanding of the range of options available to Las Vegas.

Sedimentation Tank
A sedimentation tank is a simple form of wastewater treatment that is always paired with
a form of treatment to eliminate contaminants. Sedimentation tanks can take on many
forms, but the basic function of a sedimentation tank is to provide a laminar flow
environment to allow gravity to cause solids in the water to settle out of the water column
and be deposited on the bottom of the tank. Hydraulic residence time is the key
parameter in sizing sedimentation tanks. It is necessary for a parcel of water to spend
enough time in the tank to allow settleable solids to be removed from the water column.

Imhoff Tank
An Imhoff tank is the combination of a sedimentation tank and a chamber for anaerobic
digestion. Figure 12 is a schematic of an Imhoff tank viewed from the influent/effluent
ends. The sedimentation tank is the upper zone of the tank.

Figure 12 Cross Section of Imhoff Tank

It removes solids from the water column through gravity acting on these particles in the
influent water. An Imhoff tank allows for safe expulsion of the gases of this process
(CH4 and CO2) through the channels at the extreme left and extreme right of the
schematic diagram. This process also results in residual digested sludge. Digested sludge
is largely inoffensive (Metcalf 1935) and can be removed through the bottom hopper in a
variety of ways.

Through the combination of sedimentation and anaerobic digestion, an Imhoff tank

provides substantial primary treatment of wastewater. Typical treatment levels that can
be expected from a properly maintained Imhoff tank are the same as those for isolated
sedimentation. Typically this will allow for between 10% and 40% BOD5 removal and a
TSS removal rate of between 20% and 70% (Reynolds and Richards 1996). The actual

32
removal rate for a specific tank will be a function of influent water quality and tank
residence time.

Septic Tank
A septic tank is a low maintenance, high reliability, treatment method. A septic tank is
identical in removal method to the upper chamber of an Imhoff tank. A watertight
container is used to retain wastewater for approximately 24 hours. For a single
household this typically requires a volume of 1.9 m3 to 5.7 m3 (Reynolds and Richards
1996). Once an appropriate residence time is achieved, gravity allows the settling of
solids out of the water column and the buoyancy of fats and oils brings them to the
surface in the tank.

Depending on the relationship between flow rate and volume, a septic tank should also
achieve TSS removals on the order of 20%-70% and BOD removals of 10%-40%
(Reynolds and Richards 1996). Once the solids have settled to the bottom of the tank
they begin to undergo anaerobic digestion (again as in an Imhoff tank). The retained
water serves to prevent odor from being a nuisance in the area surrounding the tank.
However, without a second compartment for this process there is a greater likelihood of
scouring from the digesting sludge as compared to an Imoff tank. In addition to the risk
of reintroducing sludge into the effluent, as the tank fills with sludge, the volume
available for water decreases. Therefore, the residence time is reduced and the level of
treatment drops.

Waste Stabilization Pond

Waste stabilization ponds (WSPs) or oxidation ponds are a series of shallow open surface
ponds that are fed by influent flows of wastewater. This technology is an increasingly
popular form of wastewater treatment in Honduras (Chavez 2008). A 2000 publication
by Oakley catalogued and explained many successful implementations of WSPs in
Central America (Oakley et al. 2000). The results of this article were expanded and
translated into a manual for the design, construction and maintenance of WSPs by
USAID and FHIS.

A typical installation of a WSP will consist of an anaerobic pond and/or a facultative

pond followed by a maturation pond. The system is built in series, but each unit is
usually built with a parallel unit to allow for maintenance while still treating influent
wastewater. An anaerobic pond removes BOD through sedimentation of organic solids
in the wastewater. Anaerobic conditions are maintained by preventing aerobic bacteria
such as algae from growing in the pond. According to Mara (2004), a properly designed
anaerobic pond can achieve BOD removal of up to 60%. The sludge that is generated is
digested anaerobically, just as was described for an Imhoff tank. Typical design
parameters for an anaerobic pond are depths of 2-5 meters and an organic loading rate of
greater than 100 g BOD/m3-d (Mara 2004), high enough to prevent the presence of
dissolved oxygen in the water column, yet still maintain a residence time of
approximately 1 day.

33
While an anaerobic pond is often optional for a WSP system, facultative ponds are rarely
omitted. A facultative pond also treats BOD, but this time it treats organic loading with
aerobic processes. If a facultative pond is used as primary treatment, it will remove some
BOD through sedimentation of solids; however, the main treatment mechanism is
oxidation. Oxygen is provided to the water column through the prodigious growth of
algae on the pond surface. Because the process is aerobic, loading to a facultative pond
must be substantially less than an anaerobic pond. Typical design for a facultative pond
includes a depth of 1.5 meters and a loading rate of 10-40 g BOD/m2 (Mara 2004) With
this reduced flow an appropriate residence time is approximately 4 days.

Regardless of primary treatment, any WSP system will have a maturation pond for the
removal of pathogens. The removal of viral pathogens through physical processes is not
completely understood, but it is generally believed that sedimentation is again responsible
for die-off rates for pathogens (Mara 2004). Similarly, for bacterial removal, not all
processes are completely understood, but sedimentation and consumption by other
bacteria and micro invertebrates contribute as well as increased bacterial die-off rates
from elevated temperatures. In consideration of these various mechanisms, the key
parameter for design remains residence time. A typical maturation pond has a maximum
depth of 1 m to maintain both high levels of light intensity and reduce variations in
dissolved oxygen through the depth of the pond. Given that a maturation pond is
typically relatively well mixed, a residence time of 4.9 days will achieve a one log, or
90%, removal of pathogens (for details of this calculation see Appendix C).

Trickling Filter
A trickling filter is in fact not a filter at all. A trickling filter, or bio-filter is a porous
media that is used as a structure to grow bacteria populations. Since the media is porous,
a lot of surface area is generated for wastewater to come in contact with the bacteria that
will digest organic matter in the wastewater. This aerobic digestion of bacteria is
accomplished by periodically discharging wastewater onto the media and letting the
water percolate to the bottom of the trickling filter where it is again collected for final
disposal. By alternating between wastewater and exposure to the air, anaerobic
conditions are prevented. Figure 13 demonstrates the processes that are occurring on the
surface of a trickling filter.

34
 microbial
growth
carbon dioxide
release
oxygen and
medium organic sorption

moving
water layer

fixed water
layer
Figure 13 Organic Digestion in Trickling Filters (Reynolds and Richards 1996)

Trickling filters cannot provide primary treatment, but when they are properly maintained
they do provide adequate secondary treatment. Low rate filters are typically loaded with
a hydraulic rate of 1.8 L/min-m2 and an organic loading rate of 0.2 kg BOD/m3-d
(Reynolds and Richards 1996).

In operation a trickling filter it is important to prevent the development of anaerobic

conditions and to periodically flush the system so that as bacterial growth sloughs off of
the media it does not clog pore space in the trickling filter. Another important
consideration is the inclusion of methods to deal with the presence of flies which have
been found to be nuisance in most low rate trickling filters (Reynolds and Richards
1996).

Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket

Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) systems provide primary treatment for the
removal of solids through settling processes as well as digestion of solids through
anaerobic processes. UASBs are concrete structures that allow influent wastewater to
enter through the bottom of a tank. Either through hydraulic head or by pumping, water
is forced upwards through a sludge layer (the blanket) allowing for contact between
wastewater and anaerobic bacteria. As water passes upwards out of the blanket, the flow
rate is maintained at a low rate so any solids that have passed through the blanket or
organic material that may have come free from the blanket will again settle towards the
bottom of the tank. Effluent channels are sloped upwards to promote this settling
process.

The recommended residence time for wastewater in a UASB is between 6 hours and 12
hours. Typical maximum capacities of UASBs are 4,000 m3 per day, and for a properly

35
maintained system BOD removal rates are on the order of 70% (Mara 2004).
Dimensions of an UASB are limited by a typical maximum volume of 1,000 m3 and are
usually rectangular with a length to width ratio of less than 4:1. In designing an UASB,
some of the important considerations are the ability to regulate flow and access to the
digestion zone. Because flow is in the opposite direction of settling particles, a delicate
balance between the upward advective force of the water and the settling force of gravity
must be controlled. If flow is inconsistent or too high, the settling of particles will be
stopped and an UASB will stop providing treatment. Just as flow must be actively
controlled, sludge removal must be frequently managed as well. According to Mara
(2004), sludge removal must occur as frequently as every 2 weeks. The byproducts of
digestion are released to the atmosphere through a venting system that prevents gas
bubbles from passing up through the sludge blanket and disrupting the bacterial growth.

Aeration
Aeration is the use of mechanical means to increase the presence of oxygen when organic
matter in wastewater comes in contact with bacteria that will digest the material. This
process is typically achieved by pumping oxygen in gas form into the bottom of a tank
and letting that air rise through the water column. Oxygen will diffuse from the gas
phase to the dissolved phase while the bubbles are in contact with water that is depleted
of oxygen. Aeration can also be achieved by providing substantial mixing in the water
column. In this form of aeration, the atmosphere acts as the source of oxygen and mixing
helps to increase the rate at which this oxygen will diffuse into the water by constantly
circulating the water and allowing water particles at all depths to come in contact with the
surface. This process can be used in open air lagoons or ditches, but is most commonly
used in activated sludge treatment processes.

Activated Sludge
Activated sludge is the most common form of treatment for urban areas in the developed
world. The process requires a fluidized bed of microorganisms that are capable of
digesting the organic material in wastewater in an aerobic environment. In this advanced
process, influent wastewater is mixed with activated sludge prior to entering a reactor.
Activated sludge is sludge that has been recycled from the effluent of the reactor. Prior
to being joined with influent wastewater it passes through some form of aeration to
reintroduce high levels of oxygen into the sludge. This is what makes it activated. Once
in the reactor, solids from the influent wastewater quickly sorb to the activated sludge.
Digestion occurs rapidly as well as rapid cell production. This means that the net gain in
growth must be removed from the reactor and from the recycling stream to maintain a
stable reactor environment. The operation of an activated sludge system is complicated
and involves expertise in microbiology, chemistry, and physics. Without writing a full
text book it is difficult to give a comprehensive understanding of an activated sludge
treatment facility. While such facilities do tend to be complicated, they also provide high
levels of treatment, achieving BOD removal rates of as high as 95% (Reynolds and
Richards 1996).

36
 Latrine
A latrine or pit latrine is the most basic form of wastewater treatment. It is simply an
open hole or pit in the ground that collects domestic waste. The waste is then left to
decompose. Ventilated improved pit latrines provide ventilation to the storage chamber
to increase oxygen and provide a sink of gases that may cause odor problems (Ujang and
Henze 2006). This form of aerobic digestion of waste is slow and is typically only used
for a single residence. A latrine can be built for a single use and then filled with soil, or
parallel containment tanks can be built and used in an alternating pattern to allow for full
digestion and removal of waste from one while the other is in use. Latrines are a basic,
but effective way to reduce the amount of contact between human waste, a health hazard,
and humans.

Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment

Chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT) is the use of coagulants such as
aluminum sulfate (alum) and polymers to improve the removal of colloidal particles
through sedimentation. In water, alum reacts with the natural alkalinity of the water to
form aluminum hydroxide flocs. The electrolytic charge of the flocs overcomes the
repulsive nature of colloidal particles forcing them to come into contact and form larger
particles which will then settle through sedimentation. Polymers are added to provide a
structure for the destabilized particles to attach to. The larger particles have higher
settling velocities and will settle out of the water column.

Obviously, CEPT can only be used in conjunction with regular settling and the necessary
amount of chemicals will depend heavily on the characteristics of wastewater being
treated. The use of CEPT leads to an increase in the generation of sludge in
sedimentation. If the right conditions exist, it can increase settling rates substantially.
Increases in the removal of both TSS and BOD have been observed in past testing
(Mikelonis 2008).

Constructed Wetlands
Constructed wetlands depend on sedimentation and ecological metabolism to treat
domestic wastewater. These are the same processes that are active in WSPs. A
constructed wetland is typically a partially controlled natural environment of either free
water surface or submerged media that creates an environment where treatment
mechanisms can function. The EPA identifies constructed wetlands as a treatment
method that can receive primary effluent and will treat water to secondary standards
(EPA 2000). Given this limitation, any installation of a constructed wetland must be in
coordination with a form of primary treatment. The EPA (2000) reports average values
for constructed wetlands in the United States to be: 80% removal for BOD5, 99%
removal for total coliforms, and 82% removal for TSS.

Hydraulic residence time is once again the critical design parameter and just like a WSP,
constructed wetlands can be designed for a specific water quality characteristic based on
necessary residence times. Some other typical design guidelines are an average wetland

37
depth of 1 m and a maximum organic loading rate of between 4.5 and 6.0 g BOD/m2*day
(EPA 2000).

In addition to general design characteristics for wastewater treatment, there are a number
of other complicated design decisions that are a part of designing and implementing a
constructed wetland. Part of efficient operation is maintaining the overall health of both
plant and animal life in the constructed wetlands. Considerations range from pond
bottom sloping to species variation and compatibility. In addition, an understanding of
invasive species in the area is necessary. Even with these requirements, the main
treatment process in a wetland is residence time. Therefore, it can be sized with methods
similar to those used for WSPs and will require comparable size. In addition to the
requirements of ample land, it will also require more maintenance.

Chlorination
Chlorination is one of the most common forms of disinfection. It is a practice in many
water and wastewater applications in the United States. When chlorine is added to water
hydrogen and chlorine ions disassociate, shown in Equation 5 (Viessman and Hammer
2005).

Cl 2 + H 2 O HOCl + H + + Cl (5)

These ions will attach and corrode any material they come in contact with including cell
walls of microorganisms. In this way they will kill microorganisms in wastewater.
Determining the appropriate dose of chlorine to disinfect wastewater, but not harm
aquatic life in the receiving water body, is a difficult process and requires a full
understanding of water quality characteristics especially pH. Depending on the
constituents of wastewater, it is possible to generate both chlorophenols and
trihalomethanes. Some technical expertise is required to accurately determine
appropriate levels of chlorination. In addition to technical needs, dosing chlorine in
wastewater can be a substantial cost. The bulk cost of chlorine can be the limiting factor
in the potential use of chlorine for wastewater disinfection.

As should now be clear, there are many types of technology available to Las Vegas for
wastewater treatment. The calculus of selection is not limited to technical considerations.
In the next chapter a screening process is used to select preferred technologies given the
limitations and goals of Las Vegas.

5.5. Centralized vs. De-Centralized

As well as selecting specific technologies, Las Vegas has a more general decision to
make. The Municipality can either have a centralized system for treating all of the
wastewater in a single location and piping to transport wastewater to this location or it
can have a decentralized system with smaller treatment facilities near each urban area. A
centralized system for Las Vegas would have to be located at an elevation that is lower
than all of the urban areas so that it can be a gravity driven system. This leaves only the
area immediately downhill of the existing Imhoff tank. A decentralized system of
wastewater treatment would provide a local treatment facility for each urban area. This

38
system can then take advantage of the existing system of creeks to convey the effluent
wastewater. The disadvantage of a decentralized system is that it requires the use of
space in each urban area. It would also mean more locations within the Municipality that
would be exposed to the harms and risks of wastewater treatment.

5.6. Summary
There are many options in wastewater treatment technologies. The right system for a
specific installation depends on the goals for treatment and the limiting local conditions.
For the Municipality of Las Vegas, the ideal wastewater treatment system is low
maintenance, resilient, and requires very little land for installation. The next chapter will
determine which combination of technologies meets this requirement.

39
6. Recommendations
Based on the information collected during the site visit to Las Vegas (Chapter 3), the
goals and limitations of the Municipality of Las Vegas (Chapter 5) and knowledge about
the types of technologies available for conventional wastewater treatment (Chapter 5), it
is now possible to assess what options are best for Las Vegas.

6.1. Screening
The best wastewater treatment system for Las Vegas is a low maintenance, small
footprint, gravity driven, and highly durable system. This will enable whatever system is
put into place to overcome the limitations of technical expertise and availability of land
as well as potential changes in municipal governance. To determine which technologies
meet these criteria, Table 7 presents each of the conventional wastewater treatment
technologies previously described and summarizes how they treat wastewater.

Table 7 Conventional Wastewater Treatment Technologies

Technology Removal of Contaminants Elimination of Contaminants
Sedimentation Tank Physical (settling) None
Septic Tank Physical (settling) Biological (anaerobic digestion)
Imhoff Tank Physical (settling) Biological (anaerobic digestion)
Waste Stabilization Physical (settling) Biological (anaerobic digestion)
Pond (Anaerobic)
Waste Stabilization Physical (settling) Biological (anaerobic digestion)
Pond (Facultative)
Waste Stabilization None Biological (aerobic digestion)
Pond (Maturation)
Trickling Filter None Biological (aerobic digestion)
Upflow Anaerobic Physical (settling) Biological (anaerobic digestion)
Sludge Blanket
Activated Sludge None Biological (aerobic digestion)
Latrine Containment Biological (aerobic digestion)
Chemically Enhanced Chemical None
Primary Treatment
Constructed Wetlands Physical (settling) Biological (aerobic digestion)
Aeration None Biological (aerobic digestion)
Chlorination None Chemical (disinfection)

Each technology has a substantial cost either in the form of installation or operation or
both. The cost of a technology comes in three forms: land, electricity, and chemical
supplements. Depending on the location of a wastewater treatment facility, the monetary
value attached to each of these types of cost will vary and in combination with the
required level of treatment will be the deciding factor in selecting an appropriate
technology for wastewater treatment. Table 8 groups the technologies by they type of
cost they incur (need for land, need for electricity, or need for chemical supplies) and
ranks them within each type in order of ascending cost.

40
 Table 8 Grouping of Wastewater Treatment Options by Cost
Land Electricity Chemical
Supplements
Latrine Aeration CEPT
order of
Septic Tank Activated Sludge Chlorination
increasing
resource Sedimentation Tank UASB
demand Imhoff Tank
Trickling Filter
Waste Stabilization
Ponds
Constructed Wetlands

Beyond the cost of a facility it is important to evaluate the capacity and technical
expertise required to conduct maintenance. Figure 14 plots all of the technologies on
axes that represent technical expertise and a qualitative measure of residents served
(capacity).

Capacity
Low Medium High

Septic Tank
Latrine Waste Stabilization
Low Sedimentation Pond

Imhoff Tank
Technical Requirements

UASB

Medium CEPT Constructed

Wetlands
Trickling Filters

Activated Sludge
High Aeration
Chlorination

Figure 14 Relative Technical Requirements and Capacity of Wastewater Treatment Technologies

Now with an understanding of the form and relative cost of conventional wastewater
technologies as well as an understanding of the technical requirements for maintenance

41
and the capacity of each technology, it is possible to look at the case of Las Vegas and
make preliminary recommendations about the best options for the Municipality.

6.2. Discussion
An analysis of the conventional technologies available to Las Vegas reveals that there are
multiple tradeoffs involved with each option. This chapter has detailed the relative
positions of the various technologies so recommendations can be made to Las Vegas to
provide the most economical means to achieve their wastewater treatment goals. Given
the specifics of Las Vegas, treatment technologies should be low maintenance and high
capacity (the upper right corner of Figure 14). Additionally, the cost should be in the
form of land, but as little land as possible.

Looking at Figure 14, WSPs are the best technology for Las Vegas when considering the
tradeoff of capacity and technical expertise, but WSPs do not score well in terms of land
cost. The amount of land necessary to construct a system of WSP for Las Vegas would
be approximately 83,000 m2 for existing flow conditions. The limiting design parameter
for WSPs is loading rate. Since much of the wastewater is diluted with clean water, any
gains in reducing non-wastewater inflow will be offset by equal increases in
concentrations (for details on this calculation see Appendix C). WSPs are not a viable
option for Las Vegas.

A technology that reaches a compromise between land use, capacity, and technical
expertise is a combination system like an Imhoff tank, septic tank, or UASB. The one
risk of a UASB is the likely need for flow regulation so as to not upset the sludge blanket.
This could be achieved with a pumping system. Additionally, a UASB would not be
particularly durable because if the suspended sludge bed becomes damaged or eliminated,
it can not easily be remediated. This leaves Imhoff tanks and septic tanks. When
appropriately sized and maintained, both forms of tank can supply appropriate levels of
primary treatment and do not violate any of the limitations of Las Vegas. They are
gravity driven, small footprint, low maintenance, and durable technologies. They have
the added advantage of being familiar to the municipal staff of Las Vegas.

The major shortcoming of Imhoff tanks and septic tanks is that they do not provide
pathogen removal. While it is debatable whether or not pathogen removal should really
be a concern of Las Vegas, it is worth considering what options are available for Las
Vegas to focus on pathogen removal. The primary treatment provided by sedimentation
in an Imhoff tank or septic tank can be augmented by some form of secondary treatment
to remove pathogens. There are two ways to achieve pathogen removal. The first way is
disinfection with chlorination or other comparable technology. The second way is
through the use of natural die off rates pathogens to remove them from effluent water.
Maturation ponds are one example of a technology that eliminates pathogens through
their natural die off. Of the two technologies, maturation ponds violate fewer of the
limitations faced by Las Vegas and with a hydraulic residence time of approximately 5
days, a maturation pond can achieve 99% reductions in total coliforms (Mara 2004). So,
if pathogen removal is a concern of the Municipality, a combination of primary treatment

42
from an Imhoff tank and secondary treat from a maturation pond will achieve the goals of
wastewater treatment without violating any of the limitations.

An added advantage of this system is that it can easily be built in stages or broken up into
a decentralized system. As was shown in Chapter 3, Raices Creek provides limited
treatment of organic matter and it is assumed that the other creeks that convey wastewater
from San Juan and El Mochito will also provide some minimal level of treatment as well
as conveyance. If these streams are incorporated into the overall wastewater treatment
design then each urban area can have its own wastewater treatment facility providing
substantial savings in terms of the cost of constructing and maintaining many kilometers
worth of sewage mains. To give an idea of how much area is needed for each region,
Table 9 shows the results of preliminary sizing of the Imhoff tank, maturation pond
system for both the existing wastewater flow levels and a 50% reduction in wastewater
flow (for details on these calculations see Appendix C). The necessary surface area of
the Imhoff tank for each area is shown as well as relative size when compared to the
existing facility in Central Las Vegas.

Table 9 Necessary Dimensions for a Decentralized Wastewater Treatment System

Dimensions
Urban Area Treatment Existing Flow Size Reduced Flow Size
Technology
Central LV Tank 110 m2 (2.1) 55 m2 (1.0)
Maturation Pond 17640 m2 8820 m2
North LV Tank 77 m2 (1.5) 39 m2 (0.7)
Maturation Pond 12350 m2 6180 m2
San Juan Tank 37 m2 (0.7) 19 m2 (0.3)
Maturation Pond 5880 m2 2940 m2
El Mochito Tank 83 m2 (1.6) 42 m2 (0.8)
Maturation Pond 13230 m2 6620 m2

6.3. Recommendations on Maintenance

It cannot be stressed enough how important maintenance is for achieving good levels of
wastewater treatment. In Chapter 4, an explanation of the improvements seen through
simple maintenance of the existing Imhoff tank showed how much benefit can be
derived. Further remediation of the Imhoff tank may be able to stop the increase of
coliforms through the tank as well. From personal observation it appeared that the
overlap between the two sloping wall of the sedimentation chamber of the Imhoff tank
left a gap for gas to escape. If a board or other surface can be attached to one side of the
Imhoff tank, it may provide enough overlap to prevent the escape of gas bubbles into the
sedimentation chamber.

In addition to day to day cleaning and caretaking, the second portion of Chapter 4
discussed sludge drying beds which are a critical part of maintenance. If sludge is
removed from a wastewater treatment facility, it should not be discharged to the creeks.
Once the sludge is dried, it can be easily disposed of in any number of ways. A single
sludge drying bed of the type described in Chapter 4 can serve all of the wastewater

43
treatment facilities that may be built throughout Las Vegas. If the Municipality can
acquire a small tank to transport the wet sludge then the drying periods can be rotated for
a single sludge drying bed.

6.4. Summary
The Municipality of Las Vegas has multiple options to treat wastewater. These options
range from latrines to waste stabilization ponds to activated sludge systems. Given the
specific situation of Las Vegas, treatment technologies that have a small footprint are
preferable. This leads to the conclusion that septic tanks and Imhoff tanks will provide
more economical treatment for the Municipality. To improve pathogen removal, these
primary systems can be coupled with secondary treatment in the form of maturation
ponds. Finally, central to any expansion should be the inclusion of sludge drying bed for
dewatering of sludge produced in wastewater treatment.

44
7. Conclusions

The Municipality of Las Vegas, in Santa Barbara, Honduras has substantial political will
to reduce the environmental impact that the Municipality has on Lake Yojoa. One of the
major environmental impacts that Las Vegas has on the lake is domestic wastewater.
Three urban areas represent approximately 60% of the 30,000 people who live in the
Municipality. The wastewater from El Mochito, San Juan and North Las Vegas is
discharged directly into a system of creeks that eventually outlet into Lake Yojoa.

The only existing wastewater treatment in Las Vegas is an Imhoff tank in Central Las
Vegas. The Imhoff tank is overloaded which results in theoretical hydraulic residence
times of approximately 30 minutes. Direct observation indicates that the actual residence
time is substantially less. Treatment levels are accordingly reduced. Total suspended
solids, chemical oxygen demand, and biochemical oxygen demand is currently being
removed at approximately 20%. At the same time total coliforms are increasing by
260%. This is most likely because of scouring from the digestion chamber of the Imhoff
tank. Maintenance improved total suspended solids and chemical oxygen demand to
almost 40%. It is speculated that a similar reduction in biochemical oxygen demand
results from maintenance as well.

The limiting factor in improving existing wastewater treatment is the amount of

wastewater flow. Based on flow measurements and municipal records, typical
wastewater production for Central Las Vegas is approximately 1,000 L/person/day. It is
speculated that there are sources of wastewater that are not accounted for by the
Municipality. Infiltration, illegal connections, open faucets, and non-domestic water use
in the home all contribute to the excessive flow to the Imhoff tank. This extra flow
dilutes wastewater. Wastewater is further diluted when it enters Raices Creek.

7.1. Technical Recommendations

Las Vegas should determine what level of treatment it wants to provide to its wastewater
prior to discharge of effluent to receiving water bodies. Based on the goals of protecting
the environment and human health, a reasonable goal is to focus on primary treatment of
all effluent with a secondary goal of focusing on the removal of pathogens from
wastewater. Given the limitations of Las Vegas an appropriate technology for achieving
this goal would be one that is gravity driven, low maintenance, small, and durable. After
reviewing the breadth of conventional wastewater treatment technologies, the best option
for Las Vegas is a set of Imhoff tanks or septic tanks. If additional pathogen removal is
desired the sedimentation and digestion tanks can be followed by maturation ponds.
There are multiple benefits to such a system of wastewater treatment. First, the
municipal staff is already familiar with the technology. Second, this system can be
implemented in stages and increased incrementally as needed. Finally, the technologies
can be built in a single centralized location or in a decentralized way with each urban area
having its own local treatment facility.

7.2. Future Work

45
Future work in Las Vegas has many potential avenues. Assuming that wastewater
treatment is expanded in the Municipality there will be many opportunities for future
engineering groups to monitor the performance of these systems. Perhaps the most
interesting area of future work would be to investigate methods, technical and economic,
that can help to reduce water consumption in the area. One first step would be to
determine a method to monitor flows in the existing Imhoff tank. The effectiveness of
wastewater treatment and implementation of water treatment will be completely
controlled by the flow rates. To make any form of treatment economically attractive,
water must be treated as a resource and not wasted. In areas like Las Vegas, water is
readily available and scarcity is not a motivation to conservation. Therefore, other
methods must be utilized to reduce consumption and make economies of scale in
wastewater and water treatment realistic. In addition to treatment work, AMPAC Mine
mentioned an interest in working with future groups to explore environmental concerns
related to the mine. The work of Chokshi and Trate made it clear that there was a need
and in some places an interest in environmental engineering services for all of the
stakeholders around Lake Yojoa.

7.3. Summary
The Municipality of Las Vegas, Santa Barbara, in Honduras can expand sewerage and
wastewater treatment. Based on the results of an analysis of the existing wastewater
treatment, a number of changes are necessary to produce effective treatment. The
Municipality must make regular maintenance of treatment facilities a priority. In
addition to maintaining treatment facilities, the Municipality must explore ways to reduce
the amount of wastewater generated in the residences of the Municipality. Finally,
system wide expansion will be most effective if it takes advantage of the natural
conveyance and treatment available through a system of creeks that connect all of the
urban areas. This means that a decentralized wastewater treatment system will be the
most effective treatment in both economic and technical terms.

46
 Bibliography

Bautista, M. 2008. Personal Communication with Bautista, M., AMPAC Engineer:

During Presentation and Discussion to AMPAC Mine. El Mochito, February 1
2008.
Booth, J. A. and T. W. Walker. 1993. Understanding Central America. 2nd ed. Boulder:
Westview Press.
Chavez, H. 2008. Personal Communication with Chavez, H., FHIS Engineer: Wastewater
Treatment in Honduras. Tegucigalpa, January 12, 2008.
Chokshi, M. 2006. Temperature analysis for lake Yojoa, Honduras. Thesis M. Eng. --
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering 2006. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering.
EPA, U. 2000. Manual: Constructed Wetlands Treatment of Muncipal Wastewaters,
edited by N. R. M. R. L. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development: US Environmental Protection Agency.
Experco, I. L. a. D. B. 2003. Estudio de Factibilidad Para la Gestin Integrada de Las
Aguas Residuales y Desechos Slidos en La Cuenca del Lago de Yojoa -
AMUPROLAGO. Honduras, C.A.
Godoy, M. 2008a. Personal Communication with Godoy, M., Municipal Engineering
Staff: El Mochito Site Visit. Las Vegas, January 12 2008.
Godoy, M. 2008b. Personal Communication with Godoy, M., Municipal Engineering
Staff: Coffee Depulping, Domestic Connections. Las Vegas, January 21 2008.
Google. 2008a. Google Maps. http://maps.google.com/. Accessed February 29 2008.
Google. 2008b. Google Maps. http://maps.google.com/. Accessed March 14 2008.
Herrera, A. 2006. Rehabilitation of the Imhoff Tank Treatment Plant in Las Vegas, Santa
Brbara Honduras, Central Amricathesis, University of Texas, Austin.
Honduras. 2007. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/ho.html. Accessed February 15 2008.
Mara, D. D. 2004. Domestic wastewater treatment in developing countries. London ;
Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications.
Metcalf, L. 1935. American sewerage practice. 3rd ed. New York,: McGraw-Hill.
Mikelonis, A. 2008. Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment of Wastewater in
Honduran Imhoff Tanks: Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Oakley, S. M., A. Pocasangre, C. Flores, J. Monge, and M. Estrada. 2000. Waste
stabilization pond use in Central America: The experiences of El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Water Science and Technology 42(10-11):
51-58.
Ortiz, P. 1991. Construction Drawings Imhoff Tank: Las Vegas, Santa Barbara,
Honduras. Construction Drawings.
Ortiz, P. 2008. Personal Communication with Ortiz, P., SANAA Engineer: Wastewater
Treatment in Honduras. Tegucigalpa, January 17 2008.

47
Reynolds, T. D. and P. A. Richards. 1996. Unit operations and processes in
environmental engineering. 2nd ed, PWS series in engineering. Boston: PWS
Pub. Co.
Sanamiento, E. R. d. l. S. d. A. P. y. 2005a. Ente Regulador de los Servicios de Aguas
Potables y Sanamiento: Normativas. http://www.ersaps.gob.hn/portal/normativa/.
Accessed February 29 2008.
Sanamiento, E. R. d. l. S. d. A. P. y. 2005b. NORMAS TCNICAS DE LAS
DESCARGAS DE AGUAS RESIDUALES A CUERPOS RECEPTORES Y
ALCANTARILLADO SANITARIO.
http://www.ersaps.gob.hn/NR/rdonlyres/9D578951-ECC7-4FFD-B4C6-
F58A232750C9/817/NormasTecnicasDescargasAguasResiduales.pdf. Accessed
February 29 2008.
Sanamiento, E. R. d. l. S. d. A. P. y. 2005c. Reglamento General de la Ley Marco del
Sector de Agua Potable y Saneamiento.
http://www.ersaps.gob.hn/NR/rdonlyres/9D578951-ECC7-4FFD-B4C6-
F58A232750C9/813/ReglamentoLeyMarcoSectorAguaPotableySaneamiento.pdf.
Accessed February 29 2008.
SERNA. 2005. Informe del Estado y Perspectivas del Ambiente. Tegucigalpa: Secretara
de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente.
Status of Projects in Execution-FY07. 2007. Washington DC: The World Bank.
Tchobanoglous, G., F. L. Burton, H. D. Stensel, and M. Eddy. 2003. Wastewater
engineering : treatment and reuse. 4th ed, McGraw-Hill series in civil and
environmental engineering. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Trate, T. M. 2006. Nutrient load analysis of Lago de Yojoa, Honduras. Thesis M. Eng. --
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering 2006. thesis.
Ujang, Z. and M. Henze. 2006. Municipal wastewater management in developing
countries : principles and engineering. London: IWA.
Viessman, W. and M. J. Hammer. 2005. Water supply and pollution control. 7th ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

48
Appendix A: Timeline

Timeline

MIT Involvement with Lake Yojoa, Honduras

Time Activity
Fall MIT Master of Engineering Program in Civil and Environmental
2005 Engineering identifies Lake Yojoa as a potential thesis project for students
completing their MEng Degree in Environmental Engineering.

Winter Dr. Eric Adams, Tia Trate, Mira Chokshi, and Arida Herrera conduct on
2005-2006 site study focused on stakeholder identification and lake water quality
(nutrients and thermal profile).

Spring Trate and Chokshi complete report on stakeholders and lake water quality.
2006 The report quantifies nitrogen levels in the water as well as the thermal
profile of the lake. Additionally, Trate and Chokshi identify 7 stakeholders
that have interest in environmental health of lake. These stakeholders are:
Aquafinca, AMPAC Mine, Las Vegas, Las Marias, a hydropower plant,
and a restaurant association. Report is available from:
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/35495
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/35078

Summer Herrera returns to Lake Yojoa to study the wastewater treatment facility of
2006 Las Vegas, a potential source of pollution cited by Chokshi and Trate.

Winter Herrera completes report that describes the existing wastewater treatment
2006-2007 facility in Las Vegas, an Imhoff tank. The report also recommends
remediation approach for existing wastewater treatment in Las Vegas.

Fall Herrera recommends follow on project working with Las Vegas to examine
2007 options for improving the existing wastewater treatment in Las Vegas.
This project is accepted by MEng students Anne Mikelonis and Matthew
Hodge.

Winter Dr. Adams, Mikelonis, Hodge, and Herrera return to Honduras to assess
2007-2008 options for improved wastewater treatment in Las Vegas. While in Las
Vegas, the Municipality requests comprehensive preliminary study of
options for wastewater treatment throughout Las Vegas.

Spring Mikelonis and Hodge complete preliminary assessment of wastewater

2008 treatment options for Las Vegas.

49
On Site Activities of Team in Winter 2007-2008
Date Activity
January 7 Team of Arida Herrera, Anne Mikelonis, Matthew Hodge, and Dr.
Eric Adams arrive in Honduras. Team meets with representative from
NGO Water for People.

January 8 Team meets with Municipality of Las Vegas leadership including

Mayor Carlos Fuentes and Chief Engineer Alexis Rodriguez. During
the meeting, project goals are explained and refined.

January 9 Team meets with Aqua Finca Manager Israel Snir to update him on
project and request assistance in finding lab equipment. Aqua Finca
agrees to supply the use of an analytical balance during the teams time
in Honduras.

January 10 Team meets with Ramon Cordona, Infrastructure Director for the
Honduran Social Investment Fund (FHIS) and Hugo Chavez, an
engineer for FHIS, to discuss wastewater treatment in Honduras and the
goals of the Las Vegas project.

January 11 Team examines another Imhoff tank in Marcala, Honduras. Team

returns to Las Vegas to have second meeting with the Mayor and
indicate the questions they will answer while on site. The questions
they specify are:
1. Removal efficiency of the existing tank
2) Downstream water quality analysis
3) Options for sludge handling
4) Identification of local sources of coagulants
5) CEPT (chemically enhanced primary treatment) testing (bench
and/or pilot scale)
6) Conceptual design of a full scale system for CEPT application

January 12 Team visits El Progreso and La Lima at the recommendation of FHIS

to see good examples of popular treatment technology, waste
stabilization ponds. Herrera and Dr. Adams return to the United States.

January 15 22 Team collects influent and effluent water samples, measures flow and
conduct jar tests to determine appropriate dosing of chemicals for
CEPT pilot test on Imhoff tank. Hodge begins to collect necessary
information for preliminary design of wastewater treatment system for
Las Vegas. Mikelonis designs pilot test for CEPT.

50
January 23 Team meets with original contractor that built Imhoff tank in Las
Vegas, Agua Para el Pueblo (APP) and acquires original design
drawings of tank. Team also meets with Pedro Ortiz, a senior manager
for the National Agency of Water Supply and Sewerage (SANAA) to
discuss wastewater treatment in Honduras.

January 24-28 Hodge conducts preliminary screening of appropriate wastewater

treatment technologies for Honduras and Mikelonis prepares to conduct
pilot test of CEPT in Imhoff tank.

January 29 Team conducts pilot test of CEPT in Imhoff tank.

January 31 Team makes final presentation to Mayor and municipal staff of Las
Vegas.

February 1 Team meets with AMPAC Mine and presents findings to engineering
staff of mine at the request of the Mayor of Las Vegas.

February 2 Mikelonis and Hodge return to the United States.

51
Appendix B: Collected Data

Flow
Date Time Depth Time Distance Flow
(m) (s) (m) (m3/hr)
16-Jan 9:30AM 0.184 56 50 184
16-Jan 9:30AM 0.184 51 50 169
16-Jan 2:30PM 0.191 55 50 189
16-Jan 2:30PM 0.191 56 50 192
17-Jan 4:30AM 0.121 53 50 103
17-Jan 10:00AM 0.184 52 50 172
19-Jan 2:00PM 0.165 56 50 161
20-Jan 10:00AM 0.178 57 50 180
21-Jan 9:30AM 0.165 57 50 164
25-Jan 3:00PM 0.153 55 50 145
29-Jan 10:45AM 0.203 46 50 169
29-Jan 12:00PM 0.178 49 50 156
29-Jan 12:30PM 0.178 47 50 150
Notes:

Total Suspended Solids

Date Time TSSinf TSSeff
(mg/L) (mg/L)
15-Jan 9:30AM 700 200
15-Jan 9:30AM -- 400
17-Jan 10:00AM 200 160
17-Jan 10:00AM 200 140
29-Jan 10:45AM 200 130
29-Jan 10:45AM 220 110
Notes:
- The only available analytical balance had three significant figures of accuracy
(0.000g). This limited the accuracy of testing to 10 mg/L.
- For each set of two tests, the influent and effluent should be averaged and then
compared to determine removal rates.

52
Chemical Oxygen Demand
CODinf CODeff
Date Time
(mg/L) (mg/L)
15-Jan 9:30AM -- 317
15-Jan 9:30AM -- 323
17-Jan 10:00AM 273 175
21-Jan 9:15AM 323 235
29-Jan 10:45AM 407 272
Notes:
- The influent samples for January 15 were found to faulty as they returned values
well above 1000 mg/L and too close to the upper limit of the test to be reliable.
Also, the sample was a distinct green color inconsistent with prescribed HACH
method recommendations.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

BODinf BODeff
Date Time
(mg/L) (mg/L)
15-Jan 9:30AM 290 300
15-Jan 9:30AM 132 150
21-Jan 9:15AM 137.5 130
21-Jan 9:15AM 157 110
Notes:
- The results from 15 January did not meet the requirements of standard testing
for BOD. There was not enough dissolved oxygen remaining in tested samples.
The tests on 21 January did meet all requirements.

Coliforms
TCinf TCeff
Date Time
(#/100 mL) (#/100 mL)
15-Jan 9:30AM -- 6.00E+09
15-Jan 9:30AM -- 3.00E+09
17-Jan 9:15AM 5.00E+08 1.80E+09
Notes:
- The results from the tests on 15 January did not produce adequate influent
results due to the use of too many dilutions of sample water. While the tests were
properly conducted they gave a non representative result of 0 TC/100 mL. While
it is not representative, it does support the finding that effluent counts are higher
than influent counts.

53
Appendix C: Example Calculations

Sludge Drying Bed [Based on Reynolds and Richards (1996)]

Sludge Density Calculation

Assumed Values:
% solids in sludge (Ps) = 15
% volatile solids (PV) = 54

Variables:
Ss = Specific Gravity of Dried Solids Sludge
Pw = Percent Water = 1-Ps
S = Specific Gravity of Wet Sludge

Specific Gravity of Dried Solids Sludge

250
Ss = = 1.38
100 + 1.5 PV

Specific Gravity of Digested Sludge in Imhoff tank

100S S
S= = 1.043
Pw S S + 100 PW
sludge = S water = 1043 kg
m3

54
 Solids Deposition Calculation
Assumed Values:
% removal of TSS (R) = 40 %
TSS influent (TSSin) = 200 mg/L
Daily Flow (Q) = 3600 m3/day
Time Between Maintenance (T) = 183 days
Time for Anaerobic Digestion (Tdig) = 40 days (Reynolds and
Richards 1996)
Typical Drying Bed Sludge Thickness (t) = 0.25 m

M sludge = TSS in R * Q = 288kg / day

Vsludge = M sludge / sludge = 0.28m 3 / day
Vsludge 6month = Vsludge T = 50.5m 3
Vdigested = Vsludge 6 month (T Tdig ) / T = 39.5m 3

This final number is the sludge produced through settling that will have been digested in
the last 183 days, 6 months. This is the sludge that can be safely removed from the
Imhoff tank digestion chamber.

Necessary Area Calculation

Sludge drying beds are typically designed in terms of area considering a constant
thickness of sludge in the bed. Typical thickness of sludge is 0.25 m.

Area = Vdigested / t = 158m 2

TSS in RQ
Area = (T Tdig )
t

55
Results:
Table 10 presents the same calculation just completed for various scenarios in Las Vegas.
The scenario is presented on the far left, the critical characteristics of that scenario are
presented in the middle and the far right column indicates the necessary area for a sludge
drying bed.

Table 10 Appropriately Sized Sludge Drying Bed

Q TSSin Area
Scenario Removal %
(m3/day) (mg/L) (m2)
Centralized
Existing Imhoff tank, no
3600 200 40 158
flow change
Existing Imhoff tank, 50%
1800 400 55 217
reduction in flow
Additional Imhoff tank, no
3600 200 60 237
flow change
Expansion for all Las
Vegas, properly sized, no 12000 200 60 790
flow change
Expansion for all Las
Vegas, properly sized, 50% 6000 400 68 895
reduction in flow
Decentralized
El Mochito, properly sized,
2700 200 60 178
no flow change
El Mochito, properly sized,
1350 400 68 201
50% reduction in flow
San Juan, properly size, no
1200 200 60 79
flow change
San Juan, properly sized,
600 400 68 90
50% reduction in flow
North Las Vegas, properly
2520 200 60 166
sized, no flow change
North Las Vegas, properly
1260 400 68 188
sized, 50% reduction in flow

56
Waste Stabilization Ponds

Facultative Pond [Based on Mara (2004)]

Assumed Values
Water Temperature (T) = 18 deg C
Daily Flow (Q) = 3600 m3/s
Concentration BOD (C) = 150 mg/L

Allowable Organic Loading ( (kg/ha-day))

= 350(1.107 0.002T ) T 25
= 217 ha
kgBOD
day

Required Surface Area

CQ
A=

A = 25,000m 2

Results:
Table 11 presents the same calculation just completed for various scenarios in Las Vegas.
The scenario is presented on the far left, the expected flow is presented in the middle and
the far right column indicates the necessary area for a facultative pond given the limit of
BOD loading and a depth of 1.5 m.

57
 Table 11 Appropriately Sized Facultative Pond
Q BOD Area
Scenario
(m3/day) (mg/L) (m2)
Centralized
Central Las Vegas, no flow
3600 150 25000
change
Central Las Vegas, 50%
1800 300 25000
reduction in flow
Expansion for all Las Vegas,
12000 150 83340
properly sized, no flow change
Expansion for all Las Vegas,
properly sized, 50% reduction in 6000 300 83340
flow
Decentralized
El Mochito, properly sized, no
2700 150 18750
flow change
El Mochito, properly sized, 50%
1350 300 18750
reduction in flow
San Juan, properly sized, no flow
1200 150 8340
change
San Juan, properly sized, 50%
600 300 8340
reduction in flow
North Las Vegas, properly sized,
2520 150 17500
no flow change
North Las Vegas, properly sized,
1260 300 17500
50% reduction in flow

58
 Maturation Pond [Based on EPA (2000)]
Assumed Values
Well Mixed
Focus on Coliform Removal (EPA 2000)
Ambient Water Temperature (T) = 18 deg Celsius
% Removal of Total Coliforms (R) = 90
Depth of Pond (h) = 1 m
Daily Flow (Q) = 3600 m3/day
Removal Efficiency, Independent of Influent Concentration

Coliform Die-off Rate

k p = 2.6(1.19 T 20 ) = 1.8day 1

Necessary Residence Time

R
(1 R)
= = 4.9days
kp

Pond Surface Area Calculation

Volume = Q = 17640m 3
Area = Volume / h = 17640m 2
Q
Area =
h
Results:
Table 12 presents the same calculation just completed for various scenarios in Las Vegas.
The scenario is presented on the far left, the expected flow is presented in the middle and
the far right column indicates the necessary area for a maturation pond to receive a 1 log
(90%) removal of pathogens.

59
 Table 12 Appropriately Sized Maturation Pond
Q Area
Scenario
(m3/day) (m2)
Centralized
Existing Imhoff tank, no
3600 17640
flow change
Existing Imhoff tank, 50%
1800 8820
reduction in flow
Additional Imhoff tank, no
3600 17640
flow change
Expansion for all Las Vegas,
properly sized, no flow 12000 58800
change
Expansion for all Las Vegas,
properly sized, 50% 6000 29400
reduction in flow
Decentralized
El Mochito, properly sized,
2700 13230
no flow change
El Mochito, properly sized,
1350 6620
50% reduction in flow
San Juan, properly sized, no
1200 5880
flow change
San Juan, properly sized,
600 2940
50% reduction in flow
North Las Vegas, properly
2520 12350
sized, no flow change
North Las Vegas, properly
1260 6180
sized, 50% reduction in flow

60
Imhoff and Septic Tanks [Based on Tchobanoglous et al. (2003) and Herrera (2006)]

Assumed Values
Daily Flow (Q) = 3,600 m3/day
Acceptable Overflow Rate (OFR) = 1.36 m/hr
Existing Tank Area (AreaExisting) = 2 x 2.3 m x 11.5 m = 53 m2

Necessary Surface Area

Area = (Q / OFR ) = 110m 2
Area
NoTanks = = 2.1
Area Existing

Results:
Table 13 presents the same calculation just completed for various scenarios in Las Vegas.
The scenario is presented on the far left, the expected flow is in the middle, and the last
two columns present the necessary tank area as well a multiple. The multiple is the
number of tanks of identical dimensions to the existing tank (which is a two chamber
tank with each chamber having a surface area of 2.3 m x 11.5 m) that would be necessary
to provide the total area required for adequate treatment.

The above calculation is for the scenario Existing Imhoff tank, no flow change. As has
already been discussed the existing Imhoff tank is undersized. An appropriately sized
Imhoff tank must be approximately twice as large as the existing tank. Therefore, if no
reduction in flow can be achieved, another duplicate tank (with two chambers) can be
added to the existing structure to provide adequate primary treatment. If a 50% reduction
in flow can be achieved for Central Las Vegas, then no expansion would be necessary.
The required area would be approximately 55 m2, only slightly larger than the existing
Imhoff tank.

For the areas of North Las Vegas, San Juan, and El Mochito, Imhoff tanks can be
designed for a range of areas, but the multiple of the existing tank gives a good idea of
how big the facility would have to be. For systems that can be small (as in the case of
San Juan with reduced flow), the necessary area could be achieved with a one chamber
tank, but this is not recommended. During times of maintenance wastewater would have
to bypass all treatment and be discharged directly. Therefore, it is better to have a two
chamber tank that is oversized to allow for cleaning and potentially increased use.

61
 Table 13 Appropriately Sized Imhoff Tanks
Multiple of
Q Area
Scenario Existing
(m3/day) (m2)
Imhoff Tank
Centralized
Existing Imhoff tank, no
3600 110 2.1
flow change
Existing Imhoff tank, 50%
1800 55 1.0
reduction in flow
Expansion for all Las
Vegas, properly sized, no 12000 368 6.9
flow change
Expansion for all Las
Vegas, properly sized, 50% 6000 184 3.5
reduction in flow
Decentralized
El Mochito, properly sized,
2700 83 1.6
no flow change
El Mochito, properly sized,
1350 42 0.8
50% reduction in flow
San Juan, properly sized,
1200 37 0.7
no flow change
San Juan, properly sized,
600 19 0.3
50% reduction in flow
North Las Vegas, properly
2520 77 1.5
sized, no flow change
North Las Vegas, properly
sized, 50% reduction in 1260 39 0.7
flow

62