ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
REPORT ON
POLLUTION AFFECTING
LAS VEGAS WASH, LAKE MEAD
THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER
NEVADA - ARIZONA - CALIFORNIA
DIVISION OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS - DENVER CENTER
DENVER.COLORADO
AND
REGION IX SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
DECEM BER 1 971
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
Report on
Pollution Affecting
Las Vegas Wash, Lake Mead
&
The Lower Colorado River
Nevada - Arizona - California
Division of Field Investigations - Denver Center
Denver, Colorado
and
Region IX San Francisco, California
December 1971
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title
LIST OF FIGURES ii:L
LIST OF TABLES i±i
I INTRODUCTION 1
II SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 2
III RECOMMENDATIONS 10
IV DESCRIPTION OF AREA 13
V WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 15
A. NEVADA 15
B . ARIZONA 16
C. CALIFORNIA 16
VI WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS 17
A. LAS VEGAS WASH 17
B. LAKE MEAD 19
C. LOWER COLORADO RIVER 22
VII SOURCES OF POLLUTION 24
A. MUNICIPAL WASTE SOURCES 24'
City of Las Vegas 24
Clark County Sanitation District 27
City of Henderson 30
Summary of Municipal Waste 34
Treatment Needs
B. INDUSTRIAL WASTE SOURCES 36
Basic Management, Incorporated, 36
Industrial Complex
1. Basic Management, Incorporated 36
2. Jones Chemical Company, 41
Incorporated
3. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation 41
4. State Stove and Manufacturing 42
Company
5. Stauffer Chemical Company and 42
Montrose Chemical Corporation
6. Titanium Metals Corporation 46
of America
7. U.S. Lime Division, Flitkote 46
Company
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Title Page
Nevada Power Company 47
1. Sunrise Steam Electric 47
Generating Station
2. Clark Steam Electric 47
Generating Station
Nevada Rock and Sand Company 48
Summary of Industrial Pollution 49
Abatement Needs
REFERENCES 51
APPENDICES
A. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
B. SUMMARY OF MEETING OF REGION IX
ENFORCEMENT OFFICE REPRESENTATIVES
WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF LAS VEGAS
VALLEY MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL
WASTE SOURCES - SEPTEMBER 28, 1971
ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
Title
Location Map
Inside
back cover
LIST OF TABLES
Table No,
Title
Page
VI-1
VII-1
VII-2
VII-3
VI1-4
VII-5
VII-6
Summary of Water Quality Conditions
in Las Vegas Wash
Summary of Municipal Waste Sources
Average Effluent Characteristics
City of Las Vegas Waste Treatment
Plant
Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and
Dissolved Solids Loads Discharged
to Las Vegas Wash by Municipal and
Industrial Waste Sources
Average Effluent Characteristics
Clark County Sanitation District
Waste Treatment Plant
Average Effluent Characteristics
Henderson Sewage Treatment Plant
Summary of Industrial Waste Sources
18a
26
29
29
31
33
44
iii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Various technical investigations conducted during the period from I960
to 1971 have demonstrated that direct and indirect discharges of municipal
and industrial wastes to Las Vegas Wash from sources in Las Vegas Valley,
Nevada, are causing interstate pollution of Lake Mead and the Lower
Colorado River which is deleterious to the health or welfare of persons
living in Arizona, California and Nevada. This pollution also causes
violations of Federal-State water quality standards applicable to Lake Mead
and the Colorado River.
Engineering studies were completed in 1969 which demonstrated that
practicable means exist for achieving region-wide abatement of pollution
by municipal wastewaters. To date, no positive steps have been taken toward
construction of needed region-wide pollution control facilities.
As a result of the continuing delays in securing pollution abatement
the Regional Administrator, Region IX, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
notified municipalities and industries discharging wastes into Las Vegas
Valley that such discharges were in violation of established State-Federal
water quality standards.
This report summarizes the technical information documenting the
interstate pollution and recommends remedial abatement actions.
-------
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Las Vegas Wash, an intrastate tributary of the Colorado River,
drains Las Vegas Valley and the Las Vegas, Nevada, metropolitan area.
The Wash is an intermittent stream except for the lower 11 miles
reaching from Lake Mead to the metropolitan area. A majority of the
perennial streamflow in this reach consists of municipal and indus-
trial waste discharges. Water quality in the Wash is characterized
by high dissolved solids concentrations and excessive levels of nitrogen
and phosphorus, nutrients that stimulate algal growths. Nevada has
established water quality standards applicable to the Wash which take
effect in 1973, with more stringent requirements to aprly in 1980.
Present water quality will not meet the,1973 standards.
2. Las Vegas Bay is an arm of the Boulder Basin area of Lake Mead.
Las Vegas Wash enters the Bay at its western extremity. The Bay is
heavily utilized for water-based recreation including water contact
sports. A small craft marina is located on the Bay near the mouth of
Las Vegas Wash. The nutrients load discharged by the Wash has pro-
duced high nitrogen and phosphorus levels in much of Las 'Vegas Bay.
Excessive algal growths have occurred, producing a distinct green
color in the Bay, odors and nuisance conditions. Algal masses 20-25
times greater than background levels in other areas of Lake Mead have
been measured in the Bay. These conditions reduce the recrea-
tional value of the Bay and interfere with beneficial water uses.
Studies have shown that Lake Mead downstrean fron Las Vegas Bay and
the Colorado River below Hoover Dam have a higher algal growth po-
-------
tential than Lake Mead upstream from Las Vegas Bay, indicating that
the nutrients discharged by Las Vegas Wash may also be affecting
these waters.
3. Lake Mead is an interstate impoundment of the Colorado River.
Water quality standards applicable to the lake have been established
by Nevada and Arizona and approved as Federal standards. Water
quality conditions in Las Vegas Bay are in violation of Uevada stand-
ards provisions requiring that the waters be "free from materials
attributable to domestic or industrial waste or other controllable
sources ... in amounts sufficient to change the existing color,
turbidity, or other conditions in the receiving stream to such a
degree as to create a public nuisance, or in amounts sufficient to
interfere with any beneficial use of the water".
4. Studies have shown that phosphorus concentrations limit algal
growths year around in most of Lake Mead and during most of the year
in Las Vegas Bay. Nitrogen concentrations may limit algal growths
during the summer in the Bay. To provide maximum assurance that
algal growths in the Bay are not stimulated by waste discharges from
Las Vegas Valley will require that essentially all waste discharges
be eventually removed from Las Vegas Bay.
5. About 21 million gallons per day (mgd) of treated municipal
wastes are discharged through a short outfall ditch to Las Vegas
Wash by the City of Las Vegas secondary waste treatment plant. This
effluent is a major source of dissolved solids and algal nutrients
-------
contributing 52.4, 68.A, and 22.8 percent, respectively, of the known
municipal and industrial discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus, and dis-
solved solids to the Wash. The effluent provides about half of the
total flow discharged by Las Vegas Wash into Lake Mead. Present
waste inflow is approaching design capacity for existing treatment
facilities. Expansion of the plant is planned within the next five
years. Existing treatment processes cannot produce an effluent that
will meet the 1973 Nevada water quality standards for the Wash.
6. The Clark County Sanitation District discharges about 10 mgd of
treated municipal effluent from its secondary waste treatment plant
through a mile-long outfall ditch to Las Vegas Wash. This effluent
is also a major source of dissolved solids and algal nutrients.
Nitrogen, phosphorus, and dissolved solids loads average 29.0, 31.4,
and 15.0 percent, respectively, of known municipal and industrial dis-
charges of these substances to the Wash. The effluent contributes
about one-fourth of the average flow in the Wash. Present waste in-
flow to this plant exceeds design capacity, resulting in reduced
treatment efficiency. Expansion of treatment facilities to a design
capacity of 32 mgd is planned for the immediate future. The Nevada
water quality standards implementation plan called for completion of
this expansion during 1971. As in the case of Las Vegas, plant
effluent after expansion will not meet the 1973 Nevada standards for
Las Vegas Wash.
7. Nevada Power Company discharges cooling tower blowdown averaging
about 0.9 mgd from two steam electric generating stations to Las
Vegas Wash. These discharges are sources of dissolved soliJs and
-------
nitrogen. Clark Station discharges about 0.7 mgd to Duck Creek about
three miles above its confluence with the Wash. Nitrogen and dissolved
solids loads discharged are about 1.2 and 4.1 percent, respectively, of
known municipal and industrial discharges of these substances. Sunrise
Station discharges about 0.2 mgd of blowdown directly to Las Vepas
Wash. This effluent contains about 0.5 and 1.1 percent, respectively,
of known nitrogen and dissolved solids discharges. Effluents from
both power stations will not meet 1973 Nevada standards for Las Vegas
Wash. No changes in treatment and/or disposal practices are planned
during the next few years.
3. Nevada Rock and Sand Company discharges about 0.5 mr.d of wpste-
water from an asphalt hot nix plant to a small tributary of Las Vegas
Wash. This waste discharge contributes about 0.4 and 0.2 percent,
respectively, of nitrogen and dissolved solids loads discharged to Las
Vegas Wash by municipal and industrial sources. Existing quality of
this waste discharge will not meet 1973 Nevada standards for Las Vegas
Wash. The Company is constructing a water reuse systcr.i which is
designed to have no discharge.
9. Uasic Management, Incorporated (BMI), operates a waste disposal
system that includes a secondary type domestic sewage treatment plant
and a large complex of waste disposal ponds covering an area of more
than 1300 acres. About 250 acres of the ponds arc presently in use.
The ponds receive about two mgd of inadequately treated domestic
wastes from the City of Henderson municipal plant and the BMI sewage
plant and about nine mgd of untreated industrial wastes. Sources of
-------
industrial waste include Kerr-McGec Chemical Cnrporntiejn; Jones
Chemical Company, Incorporated: Montrose Chemical Corpontinr.; State
Stove and Manufacturing Company; Stauffer Chemical Corrfnv 'L'itaniurn
Metals Corporation of America, and U.S. Lime Division - Flintkote
Company. Industrial waste characteristics are hiniily variable, rang-
ing from relatively uncontamiuated coolinf u.iter to hivhJy drleterinas
wastes. Dissolved solids concentrations as hi«,ii PS 200,000 mg/1, a
ph range from 2 to 13, and nitrate concentrations as Vii?,h ,is 300 mr,/l
have been observed in the combined waste stream. Since- the disposal
ponds are unlined, these wastes percolate into Lhe near-surface
aquifer underlying the ponds and enter Las Vegas Wash as groundwater
seepage. This seepage presently averages more than five mr,d nnd is
a major source of dissolved solids and nitrates. Altnnurh Lnc seepage
contributes only one-sixth of the total flow in the '..'ssh, iL contri-
butes 16.4 and 56.B percent, respectively, of the nitro°en nnd djssolveu
solids loads discharged to the Wash by muiiicip.il and industrial sources.
The minimal treatment and/or disposal improvements prcsontiy planned
by the waste sources discharging to the disposal ponds will be inade-
quate to abate the pollution attributable to these sources.
10. Lor.R-tcrrn seepage of industrial wastes from the J)MI waste
disposal poncis and from waste ponds ana conveyance channels in the
BMI industrial complex area has resulted in the development of an
artificially elevated groundwater mound in the near-surf.ice anuifer.
This groundwater is highly contaninated with industrial wastes. Dis-
solved solids concentrations exceeding 2f),nCM) np./l and nitrate
-------
concentrations exceeding 150 mg/1 have been measurcii. Owiiv» to the
presence of the groundwater mound, contaminated groundwater seepage
would continue for several years after ail artificial recharp.e of the
near-surface aouifer was stopped. This seepage could be prevented
and residual industrial wastes in the ^rounuwatcr system recovered by
the operation of a shallow well system along Las Vegas '..'ash to inter-
cept aquifer outflow. Disposal of recovered wastes by evaporation in
impermeable impoundments would be required to prevent return flow to
the Colorado River system. Elimination of the seepage would substan-
tially reduce the dissolved solids and nitrates loads discharged by
Las Vegas Wash.
11. Disposal of all highly mineralized industrial wastes by impound-
ment and evaporation in impermeable ponds with no discharge would
substantially reduce the discharge of dissolved solids into Las Vegas
Wash. Use of such disposal methods for all waste discharges from the
City of Henderson and the BMI industrial complex would eliminate all
artificial recharge of the contaminated near-surface aquifer.
12. Waste treatment technology is currently available that will
reduce nitrogen and phosphorus in municipal waste effluents to levels
necessary to meet 1973 Water Quality Standards for Las Ve?as Wash.
Application of such treatment technology to all sources of municipal
waste would result in as much as 98 and 90 percent reductions,
respectively, in phosphorus and nitrogen loads discharged to Las Vegas
Wash bv municipal sources. Available technology would not produce
an effluent that would meet 1980 water quality standards for Las Vegas
Wash.
-------
8
13. The Las Vegas Valley Water District has been desi«nnted by the
Nevada Legislature as the agency responsible for elimination of the
water pollution problems in Las Vegas Wash and Lake Mead. The District
is empowered to conduct feasibility studies and to construct, operate,
and maintain pollution control facilities.
14. Total dissolved solids and sulfate concentrations in Lake Mead
and the Lower Colorado River presently exceed the recommended limits
specified by the Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards.
These waters are used for municipal water supplies. They are also
used for industrial supplies and irrigation; both uses that are
adversely affected by excessive dissolved solids levels. Economic
studies have shown that small incremental changes in dissolved solids
levels in the Lower Colorado River have a substantial economic impact
on water users in Arizona and southern California. The average annual
dissolved solids load of 150,000 tons discharged from Las Vegas Wash
into Lake Mead increases average total dissolved solids concentrations
in the Colorado River at Hoover Dam by 10 mg/1. This increase is
estimated to produce a detrimental economic impact on downstream
water users nf $670,000 per year, which is equivalent to a present
worth of $13 nillion. The increase in total dissolved solids in
the Colorado River due to waste discharges from the Las Vc°;as
Wash, an
-------
to abatement under the provisions of Section 10 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
-------
10
III. RCCOlC'iHNDATIOliS
To achieve timely abatement of waste discharges in the Las Vegas
Valley that rresently cause pollution of the interstate waters of Lakc
Mcr.c and the Lower Colnrnilo River, it is recommended that:
1) Municipal ';nste waters from the City of Las Vegas, the Clark
County Sanitation District, the City of Henderson, and sanitary wastes
from industrial sources be collected, treated, and discharged through a
regional waste management system such that established water quality
standards for Las Vegas Wash, Lake Head and the Lower Colorado River are
net. This regional municipal waste treatment system shall be implemented
and administered by the Las Vegas Valley Water District according to an en-
gineering plan develoneu by July 1, 1972 and approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency and the State of Nevada.
If facilities consistent with the interim regional plan, as adopted
by the State of Nevada pursuant to 18 CFR Part 601 (Code of Federal
Regulations), are implemented, they should be operated to achieve a maximum
practicable removal of phosphorus and nitrogen in the waste effluent, con-
sistent with available technology.
Implementation of waste disposal facilities by the Las Vegas Valley
Water District shall proceed according to the following schedule:
a) execute agreement for design services - April 1, 1972
b) secure approval and initiate design
of facilities - July 1, 1972
c) advertise for construction bids - April 1, 1973
-------
11
d) initiate construction - July 1, 1973
e) all facilities in operation - December 31, 1974
2) Industrial process waste waters, boiler blowdown water,
cooling system blowdown water, and other highly mineralized wastes be
segregated from cooling water and evaporated in impermeable ponds with
no discharge,or otherwise disposed of such that established water
quality standards for Las Vegas Wash, Lake Mead and the Lower Colorado
River are met. The volume of such waste waters should be reduced to
the maximum feasible extent by in-plant process control and reuse in
order to minimize water use and pond area required. A system of ob-
servation wells should be developed to enable monitoring of water
quality in the near-surface aquifer in the vicinity of the waste dis-
posal ponds. These facilities should be in operation by December 31, 1972.
3) Once-through cooling water systems either be converted to re-
circulating systems, or the cooling water be discharged to surface water
following treatment as required to assure that the quality of the ef-
fluent meets State-Federal water quality standards for Lake Mead and
the Lower Colorado River. Discharge to surface waters should be either
through a pipeline or impermeable canals. These measures should be in
effect by July 1, 1973.
4) Ground water in the near-surface aquifer, presently contaminated
by residual industrial waste waters, lying under and down-gradient from
the Basic Management, Incorporated (BMI) ponds, be recovered by BMI through
-------
12
installation ana operation of a. pumping system with pumpage to be disposed
of by evaporation in inperneable ponds or by other means that would neet
appropriate wrter quality standards. All artificial recharge to the near-
surface aquifer in Section 36, T. 21 S., R. 62 E.; Section 31, T. 31 S.,
R. 63 E.; Sections 11, 12; 13 and 14, T. 22 S., R. 62 E.; and Sections 5,
6 and 7, T. 22 S., R. 63 E. should be eliminated. Pumping should be con-
.tinued until the quality of the pumped water is equal to the quality of
water in the near-surface acmifer up-gradlent from the BMI ponds, or until
it is determined by the Environmental Protection Agency that seepage from
the near-surface aquifer will not degrade the quality of the waters of
Las Vegas Wash or the Colorado River at Hoover Dam. The pumping system
should be in operation by July 1, 1973.
5) Reports on progress in Implementing recommended pollution abate-
ment measures be submitted to the State of Nevada and the Environmental
Protection Agency on July 1, 1972, and at six-month intervals thereafter
by each of the recipients of water quality standards violation notices.
-------
13
IV. DESCRIPTION OF AREA
The Las Vegas metropolitan area is located near the southern end of
Las Vegas Valley in southeastern Nevada. Lake Mead, an interstate impound-
ment of the Colorado River created by Hoover Dam, is located to the east
of the metropolitan area [See location map inside back cover}. Outflow
from Las Vegas Valley enters the Las Vegas Bay arm of Lake Mead via Las
Vegas Wash.
Clark County, which encompasses all of the metropolitan area, had a
1970 population of 273,288. This population does not reflect the transient
tourist population that is estimated to exceed four million visitors
annually. The City of Las Vegas Is the major incorporated area within the
metropolitan area. Others are North Las .Vegas, Henderson and Boulder City.
Tourism and recreation, centered around the gambling casinos and resort
hotels of Las Vegas and the scenic resources of Lake Mead and Hoover Dam,
are the mainstay of the area's economy. Chemical and metal industries
near Henderson, the Nevada Test Site activities of the nuclear program, and
military activities centered on Nellis Air Force Base are also important
economic factors.
A typical arid desert climate with low rainfall, abundant sunshine,
mild winters and long, hot summers characterizes the area. This climate
is one reason for the popularity of the area with tourists. The climate
also results in heavy water use for air conditioning and lawn irrigation.
Little irrigation of crops is practiced in the Valley since cheap water is
not readily available.
-------
14
Prior to the settlement of Las Vegas Valley, Las Vegas Wash was an
ephemeral stream. This is still true upstream from the metropolitan area,
but below the city, discharges of municipal and industrial wastes sustain
a perennial stream.
Las Vegas Valley is underlain by two aquifers, separated by a semi-
impermeable formation. The deep aquifer is artesian and springs and
artesian wells were commonly used for water supplies during early develop-
ment of the Valley. Mining of groundwater has reduced artesian pressures
and largely eliminated springs and flowing wells.
Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Nellis Air Force Base primarily obtain
their municipal water supplies from groundwater sources. Some water is
obtained from Lake Mead. Henderson, Boulder City, and the Basic Management,
Incorporated, Industrial complex at Henderson obtain their water supplies
from Lake Mead. Completion of the Southern Nevada Water Project in the
near future will result in the importation of large volumes of Lake Mead
water into the Las Vegas area.
-------
15
V. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
A. NEVADA.
Water quality standards applicable to the interstate waters of Lake
Mead and the Colorado River in Nevada were established by the State in
1967 in accordance with the provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1965.
These standards received full Federal approval on June 27, 1968.
Nevada established specific water quality criteria applicable to Lake
Mead and the Colorado River below Hoover Dam [See Appendix A, Table A-l]
and a second set of criteria applicable to the Colorado River below Davis
Dam {See Appendix A, Table A-2], Nevada also adopted additional water
quality requirements for the Colorado River in conformance with guidelines
developed by the Colorado River Basin States [See Appendix A, Table A-3].
Two provisions in the Nevada water quality requirements, adopted from
the Colorado River Basin States' guidelines, are of special interest. One
of the "Basic Principles" provides that" ... all identifiable sources of
water pollution will be managed and controlled to the maximum degree
practicable with available technology in order to provide water quality
suitable for present and potential future uses of the [Colorado River]
System's interstate waters. '
The "Minimum Quality Criteria" provide that Interstate waters
of the Colorado River shall be "free from materials attributable to
domestic or industrial waste or other controllable sources ... in
amounts sufficient to change the existing color, turbidity or other
* Numbers in parentheses refer to bibliographical references.
-------
16
conditions In the receiving stream to such a degree as to create a public
nuisance, or in amounts sufficient to interfere with any beneficial use of
the water.it(16)
On August 26, 1969, the Nevada State Board of Health adopted water
quality standards applicable to Las Vegas Wash. Since the Wash is an
intrastate stream, these standards are not subject to Federal approval.
The standards established two sets of water quality criteria, an interim
set to take effect in 1973 and more stringent requirements to take effect
in 1980 [See Appendix A, Table A-4].
B. ARIZONA
Water quality standards applicable to Lake Mead and the Lower Colorado
River were established by Arizona in 1967. The original Arizona standards
were revised on July 18, 1968, and subsequently fully approved as Federal
standards on September 27, 1968. The Arizona standards [see Appendix A,
Table A-5], contain narrative criteria comparable to the Nevada provision
(14)
previously quoted.
C. CALIFORNIA
Water quality standards applicable to the Lower Colorado River were
established by California in 1967. These standards were approved with some
exceptions on January 9, 1969. California standards contain narrative
criteria comparable to the Nevada criterion previously quoted [see Appendix
A, Table A-6]
-------
17
VI. WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
Municipal and industrial sources of pollution in Las Vegas Valley
contribute to degradation of water quality in three water bodies, Las Vegas
Wash, Lake Mead, and the Lower Colorado River [see the location map inside
back cover]. This water quality degradation results in violations of
water quality standards and interference with beneficial water uses, with
accompanying economic losses to water users. Water quality degradation is
most severe in the Las Vegas Bay portion of Lake Mead.
A. LAS VEGAS WASH
Prior to the initiation of waste discharges, Las Vegas Wash was an
ephemeral stream. Downstream from the Las Vegas metropolitan area the Wash
is now a perennial stream. Except during periods of precipitation, a
majority of the streamflow consists of municipal and Industrial wastes
that are either discharged through surface channels to the Wash or reach
the Wash as diffuse groundwater discharges fed by seepage from waste dis-
posal ponds. Limited volumes of natural groundwater augmented by seepage
from lawns and irrigated farmland also reach the Wash.
At least five separate studies defining water quality conditions
present in Las Vegas Wash and Las Vegas Bay have been conducted since
1965* ' ' ' ' . Those studies show that water duality in the Wash re-
flects characteristics of the waste sources from which the majority of flow
is derived. Upstream from the vicinity of the BMI waste disposal ponds
near Henderson, streamflow in the Wash consists of the effluent from the
City of Las Vegas and Clark County Sanitation District municipal waste
-------
18
treatment plants, cooling tower blowdown from the Clark and Sunrise Power
Stations of Nevada Power Company, asphalt plnnt wastewaters from Nevada
Rock and Sand Company, and small groundwater contributions. Concentrations
of nitrogen and phosphorus, nutrients that stimulate algal growths, are
hit;h throughout the upper portion of the Wash, decreasing as the flow moves
downstream from the two municipal waste treatment plants as the result of
uptake by aquatic growths. Total dissolved solids (IDS) concentrations in
the same reach are from three to ten times higher than maximum levels (400
mg/1) found in p.roundwater used for the Las Vegas municipal supply. [Water
quality conditions observed during the various surveys are summarized in
Table VI-1. The USGS Rage is located near the BMI waste disposal ponds.]
A small increase in streamflow and substantial degradation in water
duality occurs between the vicinity of BMI waste disposal ponds and Las
Vegas Bay. Seepage from the waste disposal ponds is the primary source of
this water quality degradation. Municipal wastes fron the City of Henderson
and domestic and industrial wastes from seven industrial facilities in the
BMI conplcx are discharged to the ponds for disposal by evaporation and
seepage. Uitrogen and TDS loads carried by the Wash more than double in
this lower reach. [These water quality changes are reflected in the data
presented in Table VI-1.] Some of the waste seepage enters the Wash
upstream fron the USCS gage.
As Las Vegas W.ish enters Las Vegas Bay, the Wash carries a l.irpe
load of dissolved solids and nutrients. These pollutants are a primary
cause of the -;ator nunlity degradation in Las Vegas Bay that rosults in
violations of applicable water quality standards. As shown ir.
-------
TABLE VI-1
Summary of Water Quality Conditions
in Las Vegas Wash
Location
Confluence of STP
Effluents (mile 9
USCS Gage
(mile 6.0)
North Shore Road
(mile 0.6)
Mile 9.3
Mile 6.0
Mile 0.6
Mile 9.3
Mile 6.0
Mile 0.6
Flow
mgd
.3) 15.1
13.7
16.9
March
No
Measurement
18.1
No
Measurement
July
No
Measurement
10.0
14.8
Nitrogen Phosphorus Total Diasolved Solids
mg/1 Ib/day mg/1
Mav 1966 FUPCA Study
18.2 2300 12.0
1.8 210 9.3
8.6 1210 4.9
1968 Bureau of Reclamation
_ _ —
3.5 530 12.8
10.7 - 7.8
1968 Tipton and Kalmbach
. M —
3.9 330 16.5
11.9 1480 8.0
Ib/day
1520
1070
690
Study
_
1890
-
Study
_
1380
990
mg/1
1130
2740
5230
3342
4778
3980
5480
Ib/day
143,000
315,000
740,000
506,000
-
334 ,000
680,000
December 1968 Bovl - CH?M Study
Mile 9.3
Mile 6.0
Mile 0.6
No
Measurement
24.4
30.0
23.0 - 10.6
7.7 1560 7.0
13.0 3250 4.1
_
1420
1025
1138
2800
4800
_
570,000
1,200,000
June-December 1970 Desert Research Institute Study
Mile 9.3
Mile 6.0
Mile 0.6
25.3
26.9
32.3
13.6 2880 8.3
5.1 1152 6.1
11.9 3210 3.0
1760
1375
808
1180
3021
4209
250,000
679,000
1,140,000
-------
19
Table VI-1, these pollutant loads are increasing with time, primarily as
the result of increased municipal waste discharges and increased seepage
from the BMI ponds. Under present conditions total dissolved solids
carried by the Mash exceed 150,000 tons per year. Nitrogen and phosphorus
loads total 600 and 150 tons per year, respectively. Under existing
conditions extensive treatment would be required to utilize water from
the Wash for most beneficial uses.
Biological conditions in the Wash were observed during the May 1966
field investigations conducted by the Federal Water Pollution Control
fg\
Administration. ' Bottom organisms often associated with organic wastes
were found in most locations. Below the two municipal waste treatment
plants a few sludgeworms and midges were the only organisms present.
gphaerotolis. a sewage associated bacterium, covered sticks and rocks along
the Wash. Near its mouth the Wash supported only a pollution tolerant
population of midges and snails.
Substantial enhancement of existing water quality conditions in the
Las Vegas Wash will be required to meet the applicable Nevada water Quality
standards that take effect in 1973 (see Appendix A, Table A-4].
B. LAKE MEAD
Three investigations of water quality conditions, between 1966 and 1970,
in selected areas of the Boulder Basin reach of Lake Mead demonstrated
that water quality in Las Vegas Bay was substantially degraded below con-
ditions observed elsewhere in Lake Mead. In May 1966, algal counts as
(9)
high as 27,000 per ml were observed in Upper Las Vegas Bay. Algal
counts in excess of 9,000 per ml were observed as far as three miles from
-------
20
the mouth of Las Vegas Wash. These counts were in sharp contrast to
average and maximum algal counts of 1,000 and 2,100 per ml, respectively,
observed elsewhere in Lake Mead. A distinct difference in color and
clarity existed between Upper Las Vegas Bay and other areas of Lake Mead.
Total phosphorus concentrations in the areas supporting dense algal
growths were substantially higher than in relatively unpolluted areas of
Lake Mead (0.06 mg/1 in polluted areas vs 0.005 mg/1, expressed as P,
(q\
at control stations). A direct correlation between algal densities
and phosphorus concentrations appears to exist. Total organic nitrogen
concentrations were found to be high, ranging from 0.4 to 1.0 mg/1
(9)
(expressed as N). These values were above levels believed to be
limiting for algal growth.
The Bureau of Reclamation sampled four locations in Boulder Basin
and Las Vegas Bay during March, May, August and November of 1968.
Chlorophyll a_ concentrations were measured as a means of evaluating living
algal populations. Chlorophyll concentrations were found to be 20 to 25
times greater in Las Vegas Bay than in Boulder Basin. Total insoluble
phosphate concentrations as high as 0.15 mg/1 (expressed as P) were found
in Las Vegas Bay in contrast to values of < 0.03 mg/1 elsewhere.
The Federal Water Quality Administration conducted a study of the
Boulder Basin portion of Lake Mead and the Colorado River between Hoover
and Davis Dams during several periods of 1970 to evaluate existing nutrient
levels and algal populations and the potential impact of additional
nutrient inputs on algal growth. Results of this study were in agree-
ment with previous studies with respect to the relative conditions in Las
Vegas Bay and other Lake Mead waters.
-------
21
Tests of algal growth potential were made on water samples taken from
Las Vegas Bay, areas of Lake Mead upstream and downstream from Las Vegas
Bay, and from the Colorado River below Hoover Dam. These tests were designed
to measure maximum algal growths under favorable conditions at these loca-
tions and to evaluate algal growth responses to various levels of nutrients.
Samples taken from Las Vegas Bay exhibited maximum algal growth (as measured
by peak chlorophyll ji concentrations) ranging from two to five times higher
than for other locations in Lake Mead. Colorado River waters below Hoover
Dam showed slightly higher algal growth potential than Lake Mead waters
upstream of Las Vegas Cay. The algal growth potential tests demonstrated
that phosphate concentrations limited algal growths in Lake Mead and the
Colorado River throughout the year. Nitrogen concentrations nay limit algal
growths during summer months in Las Vegas Bay.
Las Vegas Bay is heavily used for water-based recreation, including
water contact sports. A small craft marina is located on the Bay near the
mouth of Las Vegas Wash. Excessive algal growths cause a distinct green
color in the Bay and odors and nuisance conditions. These conditions
decrease the recreational value of the Bay and interfere with such uses.
Water quality conditions in the Bay are in violation of Federal-State water
quality standards that require that the waters be "free from materials
attributable to domestic or industrial waste or other controllable sources
in amounts sufficient to change the existing color, turbidity, or other
conditions in the receiving streams to such degree as to create a public
nuisance, or in amounts sufficient to interfere with any beneficial use of
the water."(16)
-------
22
Concentrations of dissolved solids in Lake Mead are above recommended
(13)
limits specified in the Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards.
Sulfate concentrations are also above recommended limits. As measured at
Hoover Dam, TDS concentrations reached an annual flow weighted average
of 809 mg/1 in 1965 in comparison with the recommended maximum limit of
500 BIR/1.
Waters of Lake Mead are used for municipal and industrial purposes.
Increases in TDS levels above 500 mg/1 have been shown to be detrimental
to such water uses and to create economic losses to water users.
Discharges of dissolved solids from Las Vegas Wash cause a 10 mg/1 average
increase in TDS concentrations at Hoover Dam. This incremental increase
in TDS contributes to interference with beneficial uses of Lake Mead water
for municipal and industrial purposes, in violation of the water quality
criterion quoted above.
LOWER COLORADO RIVER
TDS concentrations in the Lower Colorado River are primarily a function
of TDS levels in discharges from Hoover Dam. As a result of high levels in
Lake Mead, TDS concentrations are above acceptable limits for municipal,
industrial, and agricultural water uses in the entire Lower Colorado River.
Water uses and evapotranspiration losses in the lower river tend to magnify
any increase in TDS levels at Hoover Dam. At Imperial Dam TDS concentrations
for the 1941-1968 period averaged 751 m?/l in comparison to an average of
687 mg/1 at Hoover Dam. TDS concentrations reached an annual average of
916 mg/1 at Imperial Dam in 1965, far in excess of the 500 mg/1 threshold
level for physical and economical effects on water uses.
-------
23
Owing to the large scale of water use in the Colorado River Baein below
Hoover Dan, small incremental changes in dissolved solids levels have been
shown to produce a large economic impact on water users and the regional
economy. Under present conditions, discharges of dissolved solids from
Las Vegas Wash to Lake Mead cause an increase in average TDS concentrations
of 10 mg/1 and 12 rag/I at Hoover and Imperial Dam, respectively. These
incremental increases produce an estimated detrimental economic impact of
$670,000 per year, distributed among water users and the regional economy
in Arizona and Southern California. This economic impact has a present
worth of $13 million. This widespread interference with beneficial water
uses is in violation of the water quality standards provision quoted above.
The interstate movement of dissolved solids discharged into Lake Mead by
Las Vegas Wash contributes to these violations.
-------
24
VII. SOURCES OF POLLUTION
Municipal and industrial waste sources in Las Vegas Valley are the
major sources of pollution of Las Vegas Wash and Las Vegas Bay of Lake
Mead. An average of about 50 million gallons per day (mgd) of municipal
and Industrial wastewater is discharged to treatment and/or disposal
facilities in Las Vegas Valley by six municipal and domestic sewage col-
lection systems and ten industrial sources. Two large municipal waste
treatment facilities discharge about 31 mgd of treated effluent directly
to Las Vegas Wash. About one mgd of Industrial waste is discharged
directly to the Hash. An additional 5-10 mgd of Industrial wastes reach
the Wash in the form of ground water flow augmented by seepage from waste
disposal ponds.
A. MUNICIPAL WASTE SOURCES
Major sewage collection systems in Las Vegas Valley are operated by
the City of Las Vegas, the City of North Las Vegas, the Clark County
Sanitation District, Nellis Air Force Base, the City of Henderson, and
Basic Management, Incorporated (BMI). Sewage treatment facilities are
operated by the City of Las Vegas, Clark County Sanitation District, the
City of Henderson, and BMI [see map inside back cover for locations of
plants]. Other collection systems are connected to these treatment facili-
ties [see Table VII-1 for details of municipal waste sources].
City of Las Vegas
Municipal wastes from the entire sewered portion of the incorporated
Cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas are discharged to one large waste
-------
25
treatment facility operated by Las Vegas. In I960, this system served an
estimated population of 190,000.
Plant influent in 1967 averaged about 17 mgd, with July 1968 flows
averaging 21 mgd. Present plant influent is reported to average about
25 mgd including about 2.5 mgd bypassed by the Clark County Sanitation
District facility. The treatment facilities, which utilize the hit»h
rate trickling filter process, were expanded in 1967 from a design
capacity of 15 mgd to the present capacity of 30 m?,u. The City has
tentative plans to expand the plant in 1973-74, possibly doubling the
capacity to 60 mgd.
A portion of the plant effluent is used for irrigation of farmland
and for cooling water supply for the Nevada Power Company's Sunrise Generating
Station. In 1967, about 25 percent of the plant effluent or an average of
about 4 mgd was used for these purposes [see Table VII-1]. An average
of about 13 mgd was discharged to Las Vegas Wash in 1967. During winter
months, almost the entire plant effluent is discharged to the Wash. Under
present conditions, the effluent discharged to the Wash is probably averaging
about 21 mgd annually, or about half of the total flow in Las Vegas Wash.
Average effluent characteristics observed in 1967-68 [see Table VII-2]
indicate that the plant generally meets the present State of Nevada treat-
ment criteria that require an effluent containing 20 mg/1 or less of
suspended solids and 20 mg/1 or less of five-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD,.). A BOD,, removal efficiency of about 92 percent was achieved in
1967-68. The plant also removed about one-third of influent phosphates
and minor amounts of nitrogen. TDS, total nitrogen and total phosphorus
-------
TABLE VII-1
Summary of Municipal Waste Sources
Plant
Population Influent
Source Served mnd
City of Las Vegas 190,000 25
Clark County 90,000 15-16
Sanitation District
City of Henderson 18,000 1.0
Treatment
Processes
Secondary
(High rate
Trickling Filter)
Secondary
(High rate
Trickling Filter)
Inhoff Tanks
Plant
Effluent
mad
1.3
2.5
21
2.5
1.5-3.5
1.4
8-10
0.8
Effluent
Disposal
Cooling water supply f°r
Sunrise Generating Station
Irrigation
Las Vegas Wash
Bypassed to City of Las Vegas
STP for Treatment
Cooling water supply for
Clark Generating Station
Irrigation
Las Vegas Wash
BMI Lower Ponds
Renarks
Plant also serves
North Las Vegas
Influent includes
bypassed by Clark
Plant also serves
Air Force Base
City of
2.5 mgd
County
Nellis
Pond seepage reaches
1.0
and oxidation ponds
No Treatment
1.0
BMI Sewage Treatment Plant
Las Vegas Wash
Half of henJcrson municipal
waste treated by BMI
See Table VII-6.
-------
27
concentrations similar to 1967-68 levels were observed in the plant effluent
by the FWPCA in May 1966 and Desert Research Institute during late 1970
(9 12)
ard early 1971. ' A major improvement in effluent ouality will be
required tc meet the interim water ouality standards for Las Vcpas Fash
that Lake effect in 1973. The present facilities arc not cnrable of pro-
ducing an effluent that can meet these standards.
Two characteristics of the plant effluent, excessive nutrient concen-
trations and total dissolved solids, are of major concern. In May 19 Of-,
the Las Vegas effluent contained 78. C and 77.4 percnnt respectively of the
total nitrogen and total phosphorus loads discharged directlv to L.is VCI™?T.
(9)
'..'ash by municipal and industrial waste sources. Based on n flow of 21 miS effluent characteristics in Table VII-?, the
Las Vegas plant is estimated to be discharging 52.4, 63. A, and 22. S percent,
respectively, of the nitronen, phosphorus, and dissolved solids loads
carried by known discharges of municipal and industrial wastes to Las Vegas
Wash [see Table VII-4]. Several studies have shown that about 3S percent
of this phosphorus load reaches Lake Mead. Due to seasonal changes in
plant uptake, the amount of nitrogen load remaining in Las Veqas Wash at
Mile 6.0 near the BMI waste disposal ponds ranges from 3 to 31 percent of
the discharged load. Essentially all of the dissolved solids load
reaches Lake Mead.
Sanitation District
Clark County Sanitation District serves the unincorporated developed
areas of Clark County southerly and easterly of the Cities of Las Vegas
and North Las Vegas. Population growth in the District's 161 square mile
-------
28
area has been rapid, with the sewered population increasing from 70,000 in
1966 to 34,000 in 1969. Nellis Air Force Base recently connected to the
District.
Present treatment facilities, which use the high-rate trickling filter
process, have a design capacity of 12 mgd. In 1968, plant influent averaged
,ibout 10 mgd with average daily flows in peak months approaching design
capacity. At present, the District is reported to be producing about
15-16 mgd of wastes of which about 2.5 rcgd are diverted to the City of Las
Vegas plant for treatment. The remaining 12.5 to 13.5 mgd are treated
at the District plant, producing overload conditions. The District has
applied for a Federal construction grant to expand the plant capacity to
32 mgJ. A partial grant offer was made in October 1, 1971. The Nevada
water nuality standards implementation plan called for completion of this
plant expansion during FY 1971.
A portion of the plant effluent is utilized for irrigation of the
Paradise Valley Country Club and Winterwood Golf Course and for a cooling
water supply for Nevada Power Company's Clark Generating Station [see
Table VII-1]. In 1967, about three mpd or 33 percent of the average plant
effluent of nine mgd were used for these purposes. The remaining six
mgd were discharged directly to Las Vegas Wash. If reuse of plant effluent
for irrigation has remained constant, the present discharge of effluent
to the Wash would average about 8-10 mgd depending upon the amount used
for cooling water. This is about one-fourth of the flow in the Wash.
As shown in Table VII-3, characteristics of the waste effluent are
similar to the City of Las Vegas effluent. However, owing to the overload
conditions, the plant effluent does not neet State of Nevada criteria for
-------
29
TABLE VI1-2
Average Effluent Characteristics
City of Las Vegas Waste Treatment Plant
(1)
Parameter
COD
NO.,
P04 (Total)
TDS
SS
Fiscal Year 1967-63
Tests by STP Personnel
Average Value
15 mp/1
19 mg/1 as N
10 mf*/l as P
780 niR/1
21
December 1968
Tests by ]ioyle-CH2M
Average Value Ranf>e
110 mt>/l
16 mt?/l
18 mg/1 as N
2.2 me/1 as N
11.2 PR/1 as P
676
17 ms/1
100-120
15-17
18
1-3.4
8.0-11.7
660-692
17
TABLE VI1-3
Average Effluent Characteristics
Clark County Sanitation District Waste Treatment Plant
(1)
Parameter
COD
BOD5
mi 3
N03
P04 (Total)
TDS
SS
December 1968
Average Value
147 m?/l
23 mg/1
22 mn/1 as N
1.4 mg/1 as N
10.7 m<»/l as P
950 me/1
17
Ranso
91
21
15
0.2
10.4
706
15
202 rag/1
26 mg/1
30 mg/1
2.6 mp/1
11.0 mg/1
1178 mg/1
25
-------
30
BOD_. An average BOD5 removal efficiency of 85 percent was observed in
1968. As a result of the increased plant loading, effluent quality has
(9)
deteriorated fron that observed in May 1966. Expansion of present
facilities using the same treatment processes will result in a slight
improvement in effluent quality. As in the case of Las Vegas, this improve-
ment will not be adequate to meet the 1973 Nevada water quality standards
for Las Vegas Wash.
Since high concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, and dissolved
solids are present in the effluent, the plant discharges substantial loads
of these materials to Las Vegas Wash. In 1966, when the pl?mt effluent was
much smaller, the District contributed 19.5 and 21.9 percent, respectively,
(9)
of the nitrogen and phosphorus loads discharged to the Wash. Based on
a flow of 10 mf>d and the December 1968 average effluent characteristics
[see Table VII-3], this source is estimated to be presently contributing
31, 29, and 15 percent, respectively, of the known nitrogen, phosphorus,
and dissolved solids loads discharged directly to Las Vegas Wash by
municipal and industrial sources [see Table VII-4].
City of Henderson
The City of Henderson is located southeast of the Las Vegas and Clark
County Sanitation District service areas adjacent to the BMI industrial
complex. Only about two of the City's 50 square miles have a population
density requiring a sewer system. The Henderson sewer system is inter-
mingled with small portions of the BMI sewer system. A total waste flow
approaching two mgd is collected by the Henderson system from an estimated
population of 18,000. About half of tnis waste flow is treated at the
-------
TABLE VII-4
Summary of ilitrogen, Phosphorus and Dissolved Solids Loads
Discharged to Las Vegas Wash by Municipal and Industrial Waste Sources
Source
City of Las Vegas
Sewage Treatment Plant
Clark County SD
Sewage Treatment Plant
Nevada Rock and Sand Co.
Nevada Power Company
Clark Generating Station
Nevada Power Company
Sunrise Generating Station
Basic Hanagement, Inc.
Waste Disposal Pond Seepage
Total
mcd
21
10
0.5
0.7
0.2
5
37.4
Flow
Percent
56.2
26.7
1.3
1.9
0.5
13.4
100.0
Nitroeen
Lb/dav as U
3530
1950
30
80
37
1100
6727
Load
Percent
52.4
29.0
0.4
1.2
0.5
16.4
100.0
Phosphorus Load
Lb/d.iv as P Percent
1940 68. 4
890 31.4
-
2 0.1
5 0.1
2837 100. n
Total Dissolved
Lb/dav
120,000
79,000
1,000
21,000
6,000
300.000
527,700
Solids Load
Percent
22.8
15.0
0.2
4.1
1.1
56.8
100.0
-------
32
City of Henderson treatment facility and the remainder at the BMI domestic
treatment plant discussed in a following section on industrial wastes.
Treatment facilities opcrateu by the City of Henderson were constructed
in 1958 ana consist of two Imhoff tanks operated in parallel and two oxida-
tion ponds with a total area of 5.4 acres. Effluent from the oxidation
ponds is discharged to the BMI lower waste disposal ponds from which there
is no surface discharge.
Flow measurements are not routinely made at the plant. In October and
November, 1970, measurements by Desert Research Institute showed plant
(12)
effluent averaged 0.8 mgd. This is only about half of the design
capacity of 1.5 ragd. Estimates of evaporation losses from the BMI ponds
indicate that only a small fraction of this flow actually evaporates.
It is probable that more than 0.5 mgd of effluent from this source seeps
into the near-surface aquifer underlying the BMI ponds and eventually dis-
charges as groundwater flow into Las Vegas Wash.
Average characteristics of effluent from the Henderson oxidation ponds
in December, 1968, are summarized in Table VII-5. Changes in the quality
of the effluent occur as the flow passes through the BMI lower ponds and
into the groundwater system. These changes are indeterminate as the
Henderson effluent is mixed x*ith industrial waste seepage from other BMI
waste disposal ponds. Effluent from the present Henderson treatment
facility does not meet Nevada requirements for discharge to surface waters
and cannot be discharged to Las Vegas Wash without further treatment.
-------
33
TABLE VII-5
Average Effluent* Characteristics
Henderson Sewage Treatment Plant
December 1968
Parameter Average Value Range
COD 137 mg/1 104 - 169 mg/1
BOD 30 mg/1 30 mg/1
NH3 10.9 mg/1 as N 10.9 mg/1
N03 3.7 mg/1 as N 0.2 - 7.2 mg/1
P0$ 4.8 mg/1 as P '4.5 - 5.0 mg/1
IDS 4534 mg/1 4148 -4920 mg/1
SS 86 mg/1 35 - 137 mg/1
Effluent is representative of flow leaving the final oxidation pond of
the Henderson STP. This flow then enters the BMI lower ponds. No sur-
face discharge to the Las Vegas Wash occurs.
-------
34
Summary of Municipal Waste Treat menj: Needs
The City of Las Vegas and Clark County Sanitation District municipal
waste treatment plants collectively contribute about 81.4 and 99.8 percent,
respectively, of the nitrogen and phosphorus loads discharged to Las Vegas
Wash by municipal and industrial sources. Extensive algal growths in
Las Vegas Bay are produced by the discharge of algal nutrients (nitrogen
and phosphorus) to the Bay from Las Vegas Wash. These algal growths pro-
duce water quality conditions that violate applicable Federal-State"water
quality standards. Both waste sources contribute directly to these
violations of standards. Phosphate concentrations have been shown to
limit algal growth in Las Vegas Bay during most of the year except the
summer months when nitrate concentrations may limit growth. A major
reduction in nutrient concentrations in the Bay will be required if algal
growths are to be limited to acceptable levels.
Available waste treatment technology (lime coagulation, filtration,
and ammonia stripping) is capable of a high degree of nitrogen and phosphorus
removal from secondary sewage treatment plant effluent. Application of such
treatment technology to the Clark County and Las Vegas discharges could
result in 98 and 90 percent reductions, respectively, in phosphorus and
nitrogen loads discharged to Las Vegas Wash by municipal sources. Effluent
from such a plant would meet the 1973 Nevada water quality standards for
Las Vegas Wash but would not tieet the 1930 standards. This hlt>h level of
waste treatment should be provided for the two major municipal sources
through a regional collection and treatment facility prior to any discharge
to the Colorado River system.
-------
35
An interim regional waste treatment plan has been adopted by the State
of Nevada and accepted by the EPA pursuant to 1C CFP. 601. This plan includes
valley-wide collection of municipal wastes, a regional waste treatment
facility providing a high degree of nutrient removal, and discharge of
treated effluent to the Colorado River below Hoover Dam. If waste treatment
and disposal practices consistent with this interim plan are implemented,
n high decree of nitrogen removal nr.d the maximum practicable removal of
phosphorus will be required to insure that the treated effluent x*ill meet
established water quality standards.
The City of Henderson effluent does not directly contribute nutrients
to Las Vegas Wash. It does, however, contribute to seepa?e into the Wash
of industrial wastes high in nitrates and dissolved solids. To eliminate
continued recharge of the contaminated groundwater system, the Henderson
effluent should either be discharged to the regional waste treatment
facility, or be given the necessary level of waste treatment to achieve the
effluent requirements for other municipal waste sources and discharged to
surface waters, or be impounded in impermeable ponds for evaporation with
no discharge.
Until 1971, the Las Vegas Valley Water District was concerned primarily
with providing a water supply for most of the Las Vegas metropolitan area.
Its geographical boundaries encompass the entire metropolitan area including
Henderson and the BMI complex. In 1971, however, the District was desig-
nated by the Nevada Legislature "as the agency to undertake elimination
(4)
of water pollution problems" in the Lake Mead - Las Vegas Wash Area.
The District is empowered to make "any investigations necessary to
-------
36
determine the most feasible solution", and "implement such solution by
construction, operation and maintenance of facilities." Implementation
of a regional waste treatment and disposal system could thus be undertaken
by the District.
B. INDUSTRIAL WASTE SOURCES
Industrial waste sources are located in two general areas of Las Vegas
Valley [see map inside back cover for locations]. The largest volumes of
waste are generated by seven industries located in the BMI complex near
Henderson. These industries discharge waste to disposal ponds operated by
BMI. Seepage from the ponds carries a large pollution load into Las Vcf.as
Wash. Three other sources, two thermoelectric power plants operated by
Nevada Power Company that discharge cooling tower blowdown directly to
Las Vegas Wash, and an asphalt hot mix plant that discharges scrubber water
to the Wash, are located just east of Las Vegas.
Basic Managemen t, Incorpor ated, Indus_trial_ Complex
This complex includes seven industries located in close proximity on
a site near Henderson. All sanitary and industrial wastes generated by the
complex are discharged tn the BMI waste disposal facilities. Details of
specific industrial waste discharges are summarized in Table VI1-6.
Bas_ic Management, Incorporated - Basic Management, Incorporated, a
corporation jointly owned by Stauffer Chemical Company; the Flintkote
Company; Titanium Metals Corporation of America; and Kerr-McGee Chemical
Corporation; was formed to operate the facilities for water supply, waste
disposal, electric power, and railroad sidings which serve the plants of
-------
37
Che owner corporations located in the old Basic Magnesium, Incorporated,
facility at Henderson. VJith respect to waste disposal, BMI operates two
types of facilities, an industrial waste facility, and a secondary sewage
treatment plant which receives sanitary wastes from the BMI industrial
complex and municipal wastes from about 2500 homes in Henderson.
Flow measurements and influent and effluent quality analyses are not
regularly made at the sewage treatment plant. The only known effluent
data are a few grab samples and flow neasurenents taken by Desert Research
f 12)
Institute during late 1970 and early 1971. These data indicate that
effluent quality is similar to the three municipal sources previously dis-
cussed and that effluent flow averaged 1.0 mgd. This is slightly higher
than the reported design capacity of 0.6-0.9 mgd for this trickling filter
plant built in 1942. Recent data submitted by BMI indicate that the plant
influent may be as hi^h as 1.53 mgd, including 1.0 mgd from Henderson.
BOD,, and suspended solids data are not available. It is thus not
known if the effluent meets Nevada requirements for discharge to surface
streams. The plant overload would tend to indicate the plant effluent
would not meet requirements. Also, in 1969 it was reported that industrial
wastes characterized by low pH were occasionally received at the plant, with
detrimental effects on treatment operations.
Effluent from this facility is discharged to the 3MI upper waste dis-
posal ponds where it is mixed with industrial wastes. A small fraction of
the combined wastes evaporates and the remainder seeps into the ground.
The industrial waste facility operated by BMI consists of waste col-
lection and conveyance pipes and ditches and two lar^e series of waste
-------
38
disposal ponds. The waste disposal ponds were originally constructed as
tailing ponds for the magnesium plant operated at this site during World
War II. The ponds are divided into two sets of numerous small cells terraced
down the land slope between Henderson and Las Vegas Wash. The "lower ponds",
with a total area of about 430 acres, are located adjacent to Las Vegas
Wash, to the west of Pabco Road. The "upper ponds" are located further
uphill to the southeast of Pabco Road and have an area of about 915 acres.
Both sets of ponds are unlined and excavated in semi-pervious materials.
Ditches conveying industrial wastes to the ponds are also unlined.
Prior to January, 1971, the lower ponds received industrial wastes
from the Stauffer Chemical Company and Montrose Chemical Corporation.
These wastes arc now discharged to the upper ponds. Treated effluent
from the City of Henderson municipal waste treatment plant is also dis-
charged to the lower ponds. In early 1969, the surface area of ponded
wastes including the Henderson effluent was about 146 acres. Owing
to the diversion of Stauffer and Montrose wastes to the upper ponds, the
ponded area will probably decrease to about 10 acres.
In addition to the Stauffer and Montrose. effluents, the upper ponds
receive waste effluents from Kerr-McGee Chemical Company; U.S. Lime
Division-Flintkote Company; Titanium Metals Corporation of America; Jones
Chemical Company; State Stove and Manufacturing Company; and the BMI
sewas»e treatment plant. In early 1969, the wetted area of the upper ponds
was about 96 acres. It is probable that this area has been increased
by the addition of the Stauffer and Montrose effluents. Only the upper
few tiers of ponds have been used in the past.
-------
39
An average of about nine mgd of industrial wastes and two mgd of
sanitary wastes are discharged to the disposal ponds. Only a fraction of
the wastes evaporates. Since there is no surface discharge from the ponds,
the majority of the wastes seep into the ground. Recent studies have
conclusively demonstrated that this industrial waste seepage has contam-
inated a large area of the near-surface aquifer underlying the BMI complex
and that groundwater flow augmented by this seepage carries a large pol-
(12)
lution load into Las Vegas Wash.
Perhaps the most conclusive evidence of the hydraulic connection
between the waste disposal ponds and Las Vegas Wash is the high tritium
levels found in groundwater and seepage near the ponds. Tritium levels
in the near-surface and deep aquifers underlying Las Vegas Valley are
uniformily below five tritium units (T.U.). In contrast, Colorado River
water supplied to the BMI complex and the City of Henderson has tritium
concentrations of more than 300 TU tritiun measurements of groundwater
from the near-surface aauifer in the vicinity of the BMI complex and of
seepage below the waste disposal ponds showed tritium concentrations of
200 to 400 T.U. uhich inuicate this water originated from the Colorado
River.C12)
A second indicator of the movement of industrial wastes into Las Vegas
Wash is nitrate concentrations in the groundwater and in Las Vegas Wash.
Wastes entering the upper ponds have nitrate concentrations greater than 20
mg/1. Nitrate concentrations in the groundwater as high as 150 ma/1 were
(12)
measured down-eraiiier.t from the upper ponds. It is estimated that
industrial waste, seepage from the BMI ponds contributes a seasonally
fluctuating loau of nitrates of 1000 to 1700 pounds per dav (expressed as
-------
40
nitrogen) to Las Vegas Wash. Total nitrogen loads in Las Vegas Wash
decrease substantially between the Las Vegas and Clark County waste treat-
ment plants and the vicinity of the riMI ponds. The nitrate load from the
pond seepage substantially Increases nitrogen loads carried by the Wash
flow into Lake Mead. The nitrogen load contributed by pond seepage is
about one-sixth of the total discharged to Las Vegas Wash by municipal and
industrial sources and about one-third of the nitrogen load entering Lake
Mead from the Wash.
Wastes entering the ponds, groundwater in the vicinity, and seepage
entering the Wash are all high in dissolved solids. This imposes a large
dissolved solids load on the Wash. A number of studies have been made
which indicate that this dissolved solids load averages about 300,000
pounds per day. This is about 57 per cent of the total dissolved solids
load discharged to the Wash by municipal and industrial waste sources.
Since much of the industrial waste seepage enters Las Vegas Wash as
diffuse groundwater discharges, direct flow measurement is not possible.
Enough of the flow has been measured, however, to determine that the seenace
averages at least five mgd. The TDS and nitrogen loads [see Table VII-A]
for the pond seepage are based on increases in observed loads carried by
Las Vegas Wash between the Pabco Road gage and the North Shore Road gage.
It is highly probable that some waste seepage enters the Wash upstream
from Pabco Road. It is also possible that some seepage reaches the Wash
downstream from North Shore Road. It is believed the actual waste loads
carried into the Wash by pond seepage are considerably higher than the
loads actually measured.
-------
The long-term seepage of industrial wastes from the waste disposal
ponds, coupled with additional seepage from waste retention ponds and
conveyance channels in the BMI industrial complex, has produced an arti-
ficially elevated groundwater mound in the near-surface aquifer underlying
the BMI facilities. This groundwater is highly contaminated with industrial
wastes. IDS concentrations exceeding 20,000 mg/1 and nitrate concentrations
in excess of 150 mj»/l have been observed. If artificial recharge of this
aquifer is allowed to continue, further displacement of contaminated ground-
water into the surrounding aquifer and Las Vegas Wash will occur. If
artificial recharge is stopped, the contaminated groundwater would continue
to seep into Las Vegas Wash for a number of years until the groundwater
mound has dissipated. This contaminated seepage could be intercepted and
the flow to the Wash stopped by operation of a shallow well field along the
lower edge of the groundwater mound.
Jones Chemical Company. Incorporated - The Jones Chemical Company
operates a small plant manufacturing industrial chemicals. An unknown
amount of sanitary wastes are discharged to the BMI treatment plant. A
small volume of industrial wastes (300-400 gallons per day) , primarily
rinse and wash water containing small amounts of chlorides, is discharged
from this facility to the BMI upper ponds. The Company has indicated
that it plans to install an evaporator by early 1972 to dispose of all
of the industrial wastes.
Kerr-McGec Chemical Corporation - Kerr-McGec Chetr.ical Corporation
operates an inorganic industrial chemical plant that primarily produces
manganese dioxide. Plant operation and associated wnste discharges bewail
prior to 1950.
-------
42
Sanitary wastes are discharged to the EMI sewage treatment plant.
Industrial wastes flow through an open unlined ditch to the QMI upper waste
disposal ponds. The volume of these wastes ranges fron 0.5 to 4.0 mgd with"
(4)
an average of 0.6 msd. This is about seven percent of industrial waste
inflow to the BMC ponds. About half of the industrial waste is cooling
water [see Table VII-6], The wastes are slightly basic (pK = 8) with high
dissolved solids (average TUS = 3800 mp./l) and low nutrient concentrations.
Other characteristics, such as toxicity, are unknown.
No treatment or control other than in-plant controls is presently
provided by Kerr-McGee. The Corporation has no immediate plans for treat-
ment improvements.
State Stove and Manufacturing Company - This company manufactures residen-
tial and commercial water heaters. The plant has been in operation since
June 1970.
Sanitary wastes from about 200 employees are discharged to the Bl-ff
sewage treatment plant. Industrial waste volumes are small. Mixed cooling
and process wastes, totalling about 35,000 gallons, are batch dumped about
once per month. These wastes have a pH of about five and TDS concentration
(4)
in excess of 25,000 mg/1. Some neutralization and chemical treatment
of the wastes is effected in the plant. Prior to October, 1971, cyanide
was used in the manufacturing process, but such use has been discontinued.
Industrial wastes are discharged to the BMI upper ponds.
Stauffer Chemical Company and Montrose Chemical Corporation - The
Industrial Chemical Division of Stauffer Chemical Company and its subsidiary,
Montrose Chemical Corporation, operate a plant that produces industrial
organic and inorganic chemicals and agricultural pesticides. Plant oper-
-------
ation began In 1942.
Sanitary wastes are discharged to the BMI sewage treatment plant.
Industrial wastes [see Table VII-6] are discharged to the BMI waste disposal
ponds. The Company reports these wastes average about 4.2 mgd, with cooling
sisti
(12)
(4)
water contributing about 3 mgd of this total. This volume is consistent
with measurements of the discharge made in late 1970 and early 1971.
This source contributes about 47 percent of the industrial waste inflow to
the BMI ponds.
Prior to January, 1971, the Stauffer industrial wastes were conveyed
by a long unlined ditch to the BMI lower ponds. The Desert Research
Institute groundwater investigations indicate that seepage from the convey-
ance channel probably caused substantial contamination of groundwater in
addition to the contamination caused by seepage from the waste disposal
ponds. In January, this waste stream was diverted to the BMI upper
ponds. The water level in a well near the abandoned waste channel dropped,
indicating that seepage had been maintaining a higher water table.
Information on the characteristics of this waste discharge is limited.
Sampling of the industrial wastes in December, 1968, and late 1970 indicated
that pH was high (11-12.6) and that specific conductivity was highly
variable, ranging from 2,000 to 200,000 umhos. ' Sodium and chloride
concentrations totalling more than 50,000 mg/1 have been measured.
Stauffer Chemicai Company reports a pH range of 8-10 and an average TDS
(4)
concentration of 3919 mg/1. Tliis corresponds to an average TDS dis-
charge of 137,000 pounds per day. Nutrient levels in the wastes are
believed to be low.
-------
lAISLt VH-fi
Sunmarv of Industrial Waste Sources
Industry
Basic Management, Inc.
Jones Chemical Co.
Kerr-McCee Chemical Corp.
Nevada Power Co.
Clark Generating Station
Nevada Power Co.
Sunrise Generating Station
Nevada Rock & Sand Co.
Industry
Tvpe
"
Industrial
Chemicals
(SIC 281)
Industrial
Inorganic chemicals
(SIC 2819)
Electric
Powerplant
(SIC 491)
Llectrlc
Powerplant
(SIC 491)
Asphalt hot
Mix Plant
Waste
Volume
mgd Waste Tyre
1.53 Sanitary
8.92 Mixed Industrial
Cooling & Process
was tes
<0.001 Process
0.03 Sanitary
0.30 Cooling & Boiler
Blowdown
0.35 Process
0.70 Cooling Tower
Clowdown &
Boiler Blowdown
0.20 Coolinr, Tower
Blowdown &
Boiler Blowdown
0.50 Scrubber
Wastewater
Waste
Character is tic-s
normal Sewage
ph range 2-13
iliRh TDS and tK>3
Unknown
Normal Sewage
Normal Sewage
High TDS
high TDS, NO
high TDS, N03
high TDS, H03
Treatment
Secondary
(liic.h rate
Trickling Filter)
None
Hone
BMI STP
None
None
None
Hone
Settling Pond
Disposal
BMI Upper Ponds
BMI Upper Ponds
BMI Upper Ponds
BMI Upper Ponds
BMI Upper Ponds
BMI Upper Ponds
Las Vegas Hash
Las Vegas wash
Las Vegas Wash
Renarks
Includes 1.0 mgd
nuniclp.il wastes
from Henderson
Seepage from ponds
enters Las Vegas
Wash
Evaporation system
to be completed in
1972
Water reuse system
with no discharge ^
planned. *•
I/ Basic Management, Inc. operates a aewage treatment plant and waste disposal ponds for sanitary and industrial wastes from Jones Chemical Co.,
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp., Montrose Chemical Corp., State Stove and Manufacturing Co., Stauffer Chemical Co., Titanium Metals Corp. of America,
and U.S. Lime Division-Flintkote Co.
-------
TABLE VII-6 (Continued)
Summary of Industrial Waste Sources
Industry
State Stove and
Manufacturing Co.
Stauffer Chemical Co.
(Incl. Montrose Chemical
Corp.)
Titanium Metals Corp.
of America
U.S. Line Division
Fllntkote Co.
Industry
Type
Manufacture
V.'ater heaters
(SIC 3639)
Industrial inorganic
& organic chemicals
(SIC 281, 2879)
Produce Titanium
Ingots
(SIC 3356)
iiydrated Line
(SIC 2819)
Waste
Volume
msd
<0.001
0.34
3.50
0.70
0.16
3.59
0.40
0.06
Waste Type
Cooling & Process
Sanitary
Cooling & Boiler
Process
Sanitary
Cooling
Process
Cooling &
Dust Control
Haste
Characteristics
HiRh IDS
Normal Sewage
High pli & TDS
Normal Sewage
Low ph, Hien :<0,
liis'i solIJs
Treatment
None
B»n STP
Hone
None
3:a STP
Hone
.tone
None
Disros.il Remarks
B"1I Upper Ponds Hatch dump 35,000
isnl. per mnntli
B*tl Upper Pond?
B>n Upper Pondsl/
BMI Upper Ponds—
B'tl L'prcr Ponds
31fl Upper Ponds
BMI L'rper Ponds Rccvclinj; or
cvapornllon under
Itll'lv
BXI Upper Polio's
y Prior to January, 1971, these wastes were discharged to the BMI los-er pnnus.
-------
46
Titanium Metals Corporation ot_ America - This corporation operates a
facility for the production of titanium ingot from imported rutile. The
plant has been in operation since July, 1951.
Sanitary wastes are discharged to the BMI sewage treatment plant.
Industrial wastes [see Table VII-6] averaging about 4.0 mpd are discharged
with no treatment to the BMI upper ponds. This is about 45 percent of the
Industrial waste inflow to the ponds. Only limited data on waste character-
istics are available. The main known deleterious characteristics are a
very acidic pll (2.15) ana high nitrate concentrations (4-256 mg/1 with an
(12)
average of 101 mg/1 measured in 1970-71). The Corporation has indicated
that most of its waste discharge is cooling water (3.5 mj»d) but one process
waste stream is very high in nitrates. The Corporation has research
underway to develop control for the nitrate wastes. Separation of the
waste stream and recycling or discharge to lined evaporation ponds is
contemplated.
ILs-JLj. Lime Pi vie ion. Flintkote Company - This company operates a
facility for the conversion of magnesium oxide to hydrated lime. The plant
has been in operation since 1951.
Sanitary wastes from about 40 employees are discharged to the BMI
sewage treatment plant. Industrial wastes from cooling and dust control
operations, averaging about 60,000 gallons per day, are discharged without
treatment to the BMI upper ponds. These wastes are characterized by hi.ah
pH (11.S), high temperature (130°F.), and dissolved solids and suspended
solids concentrations of about 1500 mg/1 each. The wastes are low in
nutrients.
-------
47
Nevada J?ower_ Cgmp_any_
Sunrise. Sjican Electric Gejierating §tat_ion_ - This power plant, operated
by Nevada Power Company, is located near the City of Las Vegas municipal
waste treatment plant. The plant is gas fired and has a generating capacity
of 85,000 KW. Plant operation began in 1964.
A closed cooling system including cooling towers is used by the plant.
Treated effluent averaging 1.3 mgd from the City of Las Vegas municipal
(4)
waste facility is used for cooling water makeup. The effluent is treated
to reduce ammonia ana phosphate concentrations.
Cooling tower blowdown is maintained at a rate which results in a
five to one concentration of dissolved solids levels in the feed water.
An average of 0.2 mgd of cooling tower blowdown and minor amounts of boiler
blowdown and wastewater from water softeners and demineralizers are dis-
charged directly to Las Vegas Wash through an unlined ditch.
This discharge has an average pH of 8.4, TDS concentration of 3510 mg/1,
total nitrogen concentration of 19.5 mg/1, and total phosphorus concentra-
(4)
tion of 0.3 mg/1. The average TDS load discharged is about one percent
of the TDS load discharged directly to Las Vegas Wash by municipal and
industrial waste sources [see Table VII-4]. The discharge will not meet
1973 Nevada nitrogen criteria for Las Vegas Wash.
Steam Ele_ct.ric_ Generating Station - This power plant , also
operated by Nevada Power Company, is located about one-fourth mile south
of the Clark County Sanitation District municipal w.iste facility. Operation
of the power plant is very similar to the Sunrise Station. Treated effluent
averaging 3.5 mgd is obtained from the Clark County facility, given further
-------
48
treatment, and used in a closed loop cooling system with cooling towers.
Cooling system blowdown, which averages about 0.7 mgd, is discharged through
an unlined ditch to Las Vegas Wash.
Blowdown TDS concentrations average 3750 mg/1. Other characteristics
of the effluent are similar to the Sunrise Station effluent. The average
TDS load discharged is about four percent of the total discharged by
municipal and industrial sources to Las Vegas Wash [see Table VII-4]. This
waste discharge will not meet 1973 Nevada standards for Las Vegas Wash.
Nevadja Rock and Sand Company
This company operates an asphalt hot mix plant just east of the
Sunrise power plant. The Stewart Brothers gravel washing operation
and Nevada Ready-Mix, a concrete plant, are located adjacent to the
asphalt plant. Only the asphalt plant has a waste discharge. This
discharge (0.5 mgd average) is from the scrubber used for air pollu-
tion control. Deleterious constituents include nitrogen and dissolved
solids. The wastes flow through a settling pond with overflow going
to Las Vegas Wash. This discharge contributes about 0.4 and 0.2 per-
cent, respectively, of nitrogen and dissolved solids loads discharged
to Las Vegas Wash by municipal and industrial sources [see Table VII-4].
The existing wnstc discharge will not meet the 1973 Nevada stand-
ards applicable to Las Vegas Wash. The Company plans to construct a
water reuse systeir and install a new hot mix plant with a bag house
that will eliminate the wet scrubber discharge in 1972.
-------
Summary oif Indus trial Pollution Abatement: Needs
highly nineralized industrial wastes and cooling system hlowdown
waters are mnior sources of dissolved solids that reach Lake Mead and the
Lower Colorado River by way of Las Veqas Wash. Excessive dissolved solids
concentrations in Lake Mead and the Lower Colorado River result in economic
damages, interference with established water uses, and violations of
Federal-State water quality standards. Each of the above industrial waste
sources contributes dissolved solids to Lake Mead and the Lower Colorado
River.
Disposal of highly mineralized industrial wastes by impoundment in
impermeable ponds and evaporation with no discharge would substantially
reduce the discharge of dissolved solids from waste sources to Lake Mead
through Las Vegas Wash. Such disposal would also eliminate the discharge
of other pollutants, such as algal nutrients, from these sources.
About 80 percent of the industrial wastes presently discharged to the
BMI waste disposal ponds is relatively uncontaminated cooling water obtain-
ed from Lake Mead. Reuse of this water in closed cooling systems would
substantially reduce the volume of mineralized wastes to be impounded for
evaporation. If reuse is implemented, the cooling system blowdown should
be disposed of in the same manner as other mineralized wastes. Alternately,
if the quality of once-through cooling water is not degraded below existing
water quality in Lake Mead, the cooling water could be returned to surface
waters. This should be done in such a manner that no seepage to the
near-surface aquifer would occur.
-------
50
Sanitary wastes from the BMI complex contribute to recharge of the
contaminated groundwater system. These wastes should be discharged to the
municipal system where practicable, or should be Impounded and evaporated.
Unless controlled, residual industrial wastes in the contaminated
near-surface aquifer in the vicinity of the BMI waste disposal ponds will
continue to seep into Las Vegas Wash for many years after all new additions
of waste to the groundwater system have been stopped. This seepage is a
major source of the dissolved solids and nitrate loads carried by Las Vegas
Wash and causes violations of Federal-State water quality standards for
Las Vegas Bay and Lake Mead. Residual industrial waste could be recovered
by controlled pumping from the aquifer. This would also control seepage
from the aquifer into Las Vegas Wash. All recovered wastes should be
impounded in impermeable ponds and evaporated to prevent return flow to
the Colorado River system.
-------
51
REFERENCES
1. Boyle Engineering and Cornell, Rowland, Hayes and Merryfield
Consulting Engineers. 1969, "A Comprehensive Water Quality
Control Program for the Las Vegas Drainage Basin, Phase I,"
a report to the Clark County Board of Commissioners, Las Vegas,
Nevada, 130 p.
2. Boyle Engineering and Cornell, Howland, Hayes and Merryfield
Consulting Engineers. 1969, "A Comprehensive Water Quality
Control Program for the Las Vegas Drainage Basin, Phase II,"
a report to the Clark County Board of Commissioners, Las Vegas,
Nevada, 125 p.
3. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Open File Report.
A Technical Assistance Rejort to the StaJEe of Nevada. Depart-
ment^ q^jiealthv Welfare. and Rehabilitation: "R~eport on Water
Pollution Problems in Las Vegas Wash and Las Vegas Bay," San
Francisco, California, November 1971.
4. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, San Francisco,
California, Refuse Act Permit^ Program files.
5. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Enforcement Divi-
sion, Summary of Meeting of Region IX Lnforcement Office Rep-
resentatives with Representatives pC Las Vegas Valley Municipal
and Industrial Waste Sources. September 28, 1971.
6. Environmental Protection Agency, Regions VIII and IX, "The
Mineral Quality Problcn in the Colorado River Basin," Appendix
A - Natural nnd Mnn-Ifcde Conditions Affecting Mineral Quality,
1971. "
7. Environmental Protection Agency, Regions VIII ana IX, "The
'tLneral Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin," Appendix
B_ - Physical and Economic Impacts. 1971.
b. Environmental Protection Agency, Regions VIII and IX, "The
Ilineral Quality ?robleir in the Color^u'io River Basin," Appendix
C'.__- Salinity Control ar.cl i!anagenent Aspects, 1971.
9. Federal Water Pollution Conrol Administration, U. S. Depart-
ment of tlic Interior, '"Report or. Pollution in Las Vegas Wash
and Las Vegas bav," January 19f>7.
-------
52
REFERENCES (Continued)
10. Federal 'Jater Duality Administration, U. S. Department of the
Interior, Interim Technical Assistar.ce Report to the State of
Nevada. Department of Health. Welfare and Rehabilitation;
"Analysis of Algal Growth Potential and Possible Discharge Re-
quirements for the Colorado River," May 1970, 46 p.
11. Hoffman, D. A., P. R. Tranutt, and F. C. heller, Bureau of
Reclamation, U. S. Department of the Interior, "The Effect of
Las Vegas Wash Effluent Upon the Water Quality in Lake Mead,"
January 1971, 28 p.
12. Kaufmann, Rober F. , Desert Research Institute, Effects of Basic
Management. Incorporated, Effluent Disposal on the Hydrology and
Water Quality of the Lower Las Vegas Wash Area, Las Vegas. Nevada;
an interim progress report to the Environmental Protection Agency
on WQO-EPA Project No. 13030 EOB, "Effect of Water Management on
Quality of Ground and Surface Recharge Las Vegas Valley,"
November 1971.
13. Public Health Service, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards. Revised
1962.
14. State of Arizona, State Department of Health, Water Quality Con-
trol Council, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters in
Arizona. 1968.
15. State of California, The Resources Agency, State Water Quality
Control Board; Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Water Quality Control Policy for Colorado River
in California. 1967.
16. State of Nevada, Department of Health and Welfare, Health Divi-
sion, Interstate Water Quality Standards and Plan of Implementa-
tion. 1967.
17. Tipton and Kalmbach, Inc., Engineers, Engineering Report on the
Lake Adair Project. September 1968.
18. U. S. Department of the Interior, Quality of Water - Colorado
River Basin, "Progress Report No. 5," January 1971.
19. Vincent, James R., and James D. Russell, Federal Water Quality
Administration, "Alternatives for Salinity Management in the
Colorado River Basin," Paper No. 71076 of the Water Resources
Bulletin (Journal of the American Water Resources Association),
August 1971.
-------
APPENDIX A
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Table A-l.
Nevada Water Quality Standards for
Lake Mead and the Colorado River Below Hoover Dam.
Table A-2.
Nevada Water Quality Standards for
the Colorado River Below Davis Dam.
Table A-3.
Additional Nevada Water Quality Requirements
Guidelines for Formulating Water Quality
Standards for the Interstate Waters of the
Colorado River System*
January 13, 1967
Table A-4.
Nevada State Board of Health Water Quality Standards
for Las Vegas Wash
Table A-5.
Arizona Water Quality Standards
Applicable to Lake Mead and the
Lower Colorado River
Table A-6.
California Water Quality Standards
for the Colorado River
-------
A-l
Table A-l.
Nevada Water Quality Standards for
Lake Mead and the Colorado River below Hoover Dam.
Control Point - Below Hoover Dam and Various Points in Lake Mead Proper.
Temperature °C
Summer
Winter
Single Value
Single Value
pH Units
Annual Median
Single Value
Dissolved Oxygen - mg/1
Average (June through September)
Single Value
BOD - mg/1
Single Value
Phosphates (PO&) - mg/1
Nitrates (N(H) - mg/1
Not more than 18
Not more than 14
Within Range 7.5-8.2
Within Range 7.0-8.5
Not less than 6.0
Not less than 5.0
Not more than 2
(Pending Further Analysis)
Single Value
Annual Average
Not more than 7
Not more than 4
MF Coliform/100 ml (Average of the last five samples)
Maximum value of 1000 if MF Fecal Streptococci are less than 100.
Maximum value of 5000 if MF Fecal Streptococci are less than 20.
To apply to all swimming areas of the Colorado River within Nevada.
The "Guidelines for Formulating Water Quality Standards for the Interstate
Waters of the Colorado River System" as adopted January 13, 1967 are
incorporated as a supplement to the standards for this stream. (Table A-3)
-------
Table A-2.
Nevada Water Quality Standards for
the Colorado River below Davis Dam.
A-2
Control Point - Below Davis Dam
Temperature °C
Summer Single Value
Winter Single Value
pH Units
Annual Median
Single Value
Dissolved Oxygen - mg/1
Average (June through September)
Single Value
BOD - mg/1
Single Value
Phosphates (POA) - mg/1 (Pending Further Analysis)
Nitrates (NO?) - me/1 - (Tentative)
Single Value
Annual Average
Not more than 20
Not more than 14
Within Range 7.5-8.0
Within Range 6.5-8.5
Not less than 6.0
Not less than 5.0
Not more than 3
Not more than 7.0
Not more than 5.0
The "Guidelines for Formulating Water Quality Standards for the Interstate
Waters of the Colorado River System" as adopted January 13, 1967 are incor-
porated as a supplement to the standards for this stream. (Table A-3)
-------
A-3
Table A-3.
Additional Nevada Water Quality Requirements.
Guidelines for Formulating Water Quality
Standards for the Interstate Waters of the
Colorado River System*
January 13, 1967
General Considerations
Past and future economic growth of the States served by the Colorado
River System** has been and will continue to be dependent upon the develop-
ment and utilization of its water resources. Appropriate water quality
standards will enhance this development by protecting the quality and pro-
ductivity of the System's waters. Such standards will not be used to
restrict reasonable use and development of each State's apportionment of
water in the Colorado River System***. Nothing herein is intended to con-
strue the Colorado River Compacts***.
The System's interstate waters are used for municipal and industrial
supplies, irrigation, fish and wildlife, and recreation. Maximum effort
must be directed toward maintaining the highest possible water quality for
these uses consistent with reasonable beneficial future, development and
utilization of all resources within States served by the System.
In order to develop practicable and reasonable quality standards for
interstate waters of the Colorado River System, full consideration must
be given to the numerous factors and variables connected with the control,
development, utilization, conservation, and protection of the System's
water resources. It is evident that future development and utilization
of the System's water resources for expansion of irrigated agriculture,
increases in population, and industrial growth will be accompanied by pro-
gressive increases in consumptive losses of water and attendant increases
in concentrations of dissolved solids.
* Developed by the State Conferees in the Matter of Pollution of the
Interstate Waters of the Colorado River and its Tributaries at a
series of meetings during 1966 and 1967, in the interest of compatible
State water quality standards. Several water resource interests of
each State were involved in most meetings, particularly the last two,
held in Scottsdale, Arizona on December 7, 1966 and January 13, 1967.
** The Colorado River and all those streams contributing water thereto.
*** California and Nevada do not agree with these two sentences, but pro-
pose that there be further negotiations and discussions to resolve this
issue.
-------
A-4
In view of the anticipated increase in consumptive use of water,
augmentation of the Colorado River is essential just to maintain the
existing water quality. Enhancement, as contemplated by the Guidelines
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, of the present
water quality of the Lower Colorado River is most practicable by a major
water augmentation program. One objective of a major water augmentation
program would be to approach the limits for total dissolved solids,
chlorides, and sulfates recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service
Drinking Water Standards of 1962.
Basic Principles
1. The States served by the Colorado River System recognize that
answers to important questions regarding total dissolved solids,
chlorides, sulfates and sodium are lacking or are based on factors
that are not yet well-defined. In respect of this recognition
the States agree that pending the development of acceptable answers
to enable the setting of criteria for total dissolved solids,
chlorides, sulfates and sodium for the interstate waters of the
Colorado River System, such criteria should be stated in qualitative
terms. At the same time it is agreed that all identifiable sources
of water pollution will be managed and controlled to the maximum
degree practicable with available technology in order to provide
water quality suitable for present and potential future uses of the
System's interstate waters.
2. Reviews of all available technical knowledge* pertaining to the
water quality problem and evaluation of new pollution potentials
will be made at intervals of not greater than 3 years by repre-
sentatives of the seven System States with the view and intent of
improving, strengthening, or otherwise modifying the quality stan-
dards .
3. Monitoring of the quality of interstate waters will be carried out
at designated points near State lines and other key locations for
all constituents covered by the standards. In addition, measurements
will be made at these locations for total dissolved solids, sulfates,
chlorides, and sodium.
* During the periodic reviews of technical knowledge full consideration
will be given to all new technological or other developments and research
which may be utilized to upgrade the standards to provide for the pro-
tection and enhancement of water quality. This will Include possibilities
such as: (1) importation of water of better quality from outside the
System; (2) control or management of natural sources of salinity;
(3) reduction of total dissolved solids in Irrigation return flows
through reasonable and practicable means; and (4) other suitable
measures.
-------
A-5
4. Any State may convene a meeting of all seven States to discuss
remedies in those instances where the quality of water available
to that State has been adversely affected or threatened by pol-
lutants discharged into the Colorado River System.
Minimum Quality Criteria Applicable to Interstate Water at
Agreed State Line Sampling Points
1. Free from substances attributable to domestic or industrial waste
or other controllable sources that will settle to form sludge or
bottom deposits in amounts sufficient to be unsightly, putrescent
or odorous, or in amounts sufficient to interfere with any bene-
ficial use of the water.
2. Free from floating debris, oil, grease, scum, and other floating
materials attributable to domestic or industrial waste or other
controllable sources in amounts sufficient to be unsightly or in
amounts sufficient to interfere with any beneficial use of the
water.
3. Free from materials attributable to domestic or industrial waste
or other controllable sources in amounts sufficient to produce
taste or odor in the water or detectable off-flavor in the flesh
of fish, or in amounts sufficient to change the existing color,
turbidity or other conditions in the receiving streams to such
degree as to create a public nuisance, or in amounts sufficient
to interfere with any beneficial use of the water.
4. Free from high temperature, biocides, organisms pathogenic to
human beings, toxic, corrosive, or other deleterious substances
attributable to domestic or industrial waste or other controllable
sources at levels or combinations sufficient to be toxic to human,
animal, plant or aquatic life or in amounts sufficient to inter-
fere with any beneficial use of the water.
5. Radioactive materials attributable to municipal, industrial or
other controllable sources shall be minimum concentrations which
are physically and economically feasible to achieve. In no case
shall such materials exceed the limits established in the 1962
Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards or 1/30 of the
168-hr values for other radioactive substances specified in National
Bureau of Standards Handbook 69.
6. No waste from municipal or industrial or other controllable
sources containing arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, chromium,
cyanide, fluoride, lead, selenium, silver, copper and zinc, that
are reasonably amenable to treatment or control will be dis-
charged untreated or uncontrolled into the Colorado River System.
At agreed points of sampling above Imperial Dam in the Colorado
River System the limits for concentrations of these chemical con-
stituents will be set at values that recognize their cumulative
-------
A-6
effects and which will provide River Water quality consistent with
the mandatory requirements of the 1962 Public Health Service Drinking
Water Standards.
7. The dissolved oxygen content and pH value of the waters of the
Colorado River System shall be maintained at levels necessary to
support the natural and developed fisheries.
********************************
These regulations, adopted by the Nevada State Board of Health,
became effective July 1, 1967.
-------
A-7
Table A-4.
Nevada State Board of Health Water Quality Standards
for Las Vegas Wash
Parameter
Temp.
pH
D.O.
BOD
SS
MB AS
P (Total)
N (Total)
Colifora
Taste - Odor
Turbidity
Oil
°C
Units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1 as P
mg/1 as N
mpn/100 ml
JTU
Interim
(1973)
Standard
<=30
6.5 - 8.3
>-6.0
<-10.0
<-10.0
<-0.5
<=1.0
<=7.0
<-1000,(1) 5000 (2)
No Adverse Effect
on Fish
No Adverse Effect
No Visible Floating
1980 Standards
<=30
6.5 - 8.3
>=6.0
<«3.0
<«2.0
<=0.5
<=0.05
<=0.05
<-100(3)
No Adverse Effect
on Fish
<=5.0
No Visible Float!
Floating Solids
Bottom Deposits
Miscellaneous Contaminants
and Radionuclides
COD
Color
mg/1
Oil
None Other Than
Natural
None Other Than
Natural
Conform to PHS
1962 DWS
N/A
None Other Than
Natural
(1) If M.F. Fecal Coliform <=200
(2) If M.F. Fecal Coliform <-AO
(3) Arithmetic mean; coliform colonies per standard
95% of all samples; 5 consecutive daily samples
Oil
None Other Than
Natural
None Other Than
Natural
Conform to PHS
1962 DWS
15 mg/1
None Other Than
Natural
samples <=4/100 ml in
per week required.
-------
A-8
Table A-5.
Arizona Water Quality Standards
Applicable to Lake Mead and the
Lower Colorado River
Basic Standards Applicable to All Waters
All waters of the State shall be:
1. Free from substances attributable to domestic or industrial waste or
other controllable sources that will settle to form sludge or bottom
deposits in amounts sufficient to be unsightly, putrescent or odorous,
or in amounts sufficient to interfere with any beneficial use of
the water.
2. Free from floating debris, oil, grease, scum, and other floating
materials attributable to domestic or industrial waste or other con-
trollable sources in amounts sufficient to be unsightly or in amounts
sufficient to interfere with any beneficial use of the water.
3. Free from materials attributable to domestic or industrial waste or
other controllable sources in amounts sufficient to produce taste or
odor in the water or detectable off-flavor in the flesh of fish, or
in amounts sufficient to change the existing color, turbidity or
other conditions in the receiving stream to such degree as to create
a public nuisance, or in amounts sufficient to interfere with any
beneficial use of the water.
4. Free from toxic, corrosive, or other deleterious substances attri-
butable to domestic or industrial waste or other controllable sources
at levels or combinations sufficient to be toxic to human, animal,
plant or aquatic life or in amounts sufficient to interfere with any
beneficial use of the water.
Most Restrictive Additional Water Quality Standards Applicable to Lake Mead
and the Lower Colorado River.
1. Bacteriological Quality - The fecal coliform content of primary contact
recreation waters shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 ml, nor
shall more than 10% of the total samples during any 30-day period ex-
ceed 400/100 ml, as determined by multiple-tube fermentation or mem-
brane filter procedures, and based on a minimum of not less than five
samples taken over not more than a 30-day period.
2. pti - The pH shall remain within the limits of 6.5 and 8.6 at all times.
The maximum change permitted as a result of waste discharges shall not
exceed 0.5 pH units.
-------
A-9
3. Dissolved Oxygen - The discharge of wastes that lower the dissolved
oxygen content below 6 mg/1 is prohibited where the receiving body
of water is a fishery.
4. Temperature
(a) Warm water fisheries - Heat added to any warm water fishery
shall be the lowest practical value. In no case shall heat be
added in excess of that amount that would raise the temperature
of the minimum daily flow of record for that month more than 5° F
above the monthly average of the maximum daily water temperature
prevailing in the water or stream section under consideration;
nor shall heat be added in excess of that amount that would
raise the stream temperature above 93° F. This provision shall
not apply to lakes or impoundments owned by a firm or individual
for the express purpose of providing and/or receiving heat wastes.
(b) Cold water fisheries - Heat added to cold water fisheries shall
be the lowest practical value. In no case shall heated wastes
be discharged in the vicinity of spawning areas. In other areas,
winter temperatures (November through March) shall not be raised
above 55° F and summer temperatures (April through October) shall
not be raised above 70° F. In both winter and summer, heat shall
not be added in excess of that amount that would raise the tem-
perature of the minimum daily flow of record for that month more
than 2° F above the monthly average of the maximum daily water
temperature prevailing in the water or stream section under con-
sideration. These provisions shall not apply to lakes or im-
poundments owned by a firm or individual for the express purpose
of providing cooling water and/or receiving heat wastes.
5. Turbidity - Turbidity of the water will be maintained at the lowest
practicable values possible, but in no case shall:
(a) Turbidity in the receiving waters due to the discharge of wastes
exceed 50 Jackson units in warm water streams or 10 Jackson units
in cold water streams.
(b) Discharge to warm water lakes cause turbidities to exceed 25
Jackson units, and discharge to cold water or oligotrophic lakes
cause turbidities to exceed 10 Jackson units.
A violation of the above numerical turbidity standards resulting from
construction, mining, logging, and related land uses shall be grounds
for abatement in accordance with ARS 36-1851 to 1868 inclusive.
6. Biocides - Biocides concentrations shall be kept below levels which
are deleterious to human, animal, plant or aquatic life, or in amounts
sufficient to interfere with this beneficial use of the water.
-------
A-10
7. Radioactivity - The concentration of radioactivity in the surface
waters of the State shall not:
(a) Exceed l/30th of the MPCy values given for continuous occupational
exposure in National Bureau of Standards Handbook No. 69.
(b) Exceed the Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards for
water used for domestic supplies.
(c) Result in the accumulation of radioactivity in edible plants or
animals that present a hazard to consumers.
(d) Be harmful to aquatic life.
Since any human exposure to ionizing radiation is undesirable, the
concentration of radioactivity in natural waters will be maintained
at the lowest practicable level.
-------
A-ll
Table A-6.
California Water Quality Standards
for the Colorado River
WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Objectives for controlling the quality of Colorado River water in
California are divided into two categories, viz:
1. General Water Quality Objectives
2. Specific Water Quality Objectives
General Water Quality Objectives
1. Waste discharges into Colorado River water shall not endanger the
public health.
2. Waste discharges shall not adversely affect the esthetic condition
of waters, including their clarity, and freedom from unsightliness,
odors, and adverse taste.
3. Wastes discharged from municipal, industrial, and other controllable
sources which are reasonably amenable to treatment shall be controlled
with the objective of not increasing the mineralization or adversely
affecting the existing chemical, physical, and biological character-
istics of the waters for agricultural, raw domestic, recreational,
and industrial purposes, and its suitability as a habitat for aquatic
plant and animal life (including waterfowl).
Specific Water Quality Objectives
Colorado River water shall conform to the following water quality
objectives:
Bacteriological
Colorado River waters shall remain free of organisms pathogenic to human
beings.
Physical Characteristics
1. Waste discharges shall not cause such change in the temperature of
Colorado River water as may adversely affect any beneficial use.
2. The following objectives shall be maintained in Colorado River water
in the entire California reach, subject only to river control operations
-------
A-12
of the Bureau of Reclamation in the reach between Imperial Dam and
Laguna Oam.
(a) The waters shall be free from substances attributable to domestic
or industrial waste or other controllable sources, that will
settle to form sludge or bottom deposits, or that may cause
putrescence or odors, or that may otherwise interfere with any
beneficial use of water.
(b) The waters shall be free from floating debris, oil, grease,
scum, or other carried or floating materials.
(c) The waters shall be free from materials attributable to domestic
or industrial waste or other controllable sources, which may
produce taste or odor in the water or detectable off-flavor in
the flesh of fish, that may alter the water's existing color or
turbidity, or that may adversely affect other conditions in the
river.
Chemical Characteristics
General
Colorado River water shall be free from biocides, corrosive substances,
and other substances which may be considered toxic or deleterious to
humans, to stock, animals, or to aquatic or wildlife resources.
1. Constituents contributing to salinity and to increase in sodium
percentage.
Deterioration in water quality will result from increased intensity
of beneficial usage of water within the Colorado River system.
Although such water quality deterioration is expected to increase,
the magnitude cannot presently be determined quantitatively with
reasonable precision. Therefore, pending the development of more
definitive information on water quality deterioration associated
with the in-system developments, quantitative objectives are not
presently prescribed for constituents which contribute to salinity
and which cause increase in sodium percentage. Concurrently, all
identifiable sources of water pollution will be managed and control-
led to the degree reasonably practicable with available technology.
2. Heavy metals and associated chemicals.
Wastes, from municipal, industrial, or other controllable sources,
containing heavy metals or associated chemicals shall not be dis-
charged into the Colorado River in amounts such that their cumulative
effects may interfere with any beneficial use. In no event shall
wastes be discharged into the River in quantities that will, at any
time, cause the concentrations of these constituents to exceed the
following limits at Imperial Dam.
-------
A-13
Constituent Limiting Concentration
(me/1)
Arsenic (As) 0.05
Barium (Ba) 0.5
Cadmium (Cd) 0.01
Chromium (Hexavalent) (Cr ) 0.05
Copper (Cu) 0.05
Cyanide (CM) 0.10
Lead (Pb) 0.05
Selenium (Se) 0.01
Silver (Ag) 0.05
Zinc (Zn) 0.5
3. Biocides
Biocide concentrations in Colorado River waters shall be kept below
levels which are deleterious to domestic water use and to fish and
wildlife.
4. Radioactivity
Concentrations of radioactive substances in Colorado River water
shall not exceed the following limits:
(a) Radium - 226 - 1 up/liter
(b) Strontium - 90 - 2 yy/liter
(c) Alpha emitters - 8 yy/liter
(d) Gross Beta - 50 yy/liter
5. Dissolved Oxygen
The dissolved oxygen concentrations in Colorado River water shall at
all times be maintained above 6 mg/1.*
* In the reach between Imperial Dam and Laguna Dam achievement of the
objective for dissolved oxygen shall remain subject to river control
operations of the Bureau of Reclamation.
-------
A-14
6. Other Chemical Characteristics
Concentrations of the below-listed chemical characteristics in Colorado
River water, as determined by the annual average of analyses under the
surveillance schedule," shall not exceed the following limits:
Chemical Unit of Allowable limits of
Indicator Measure annual average of
analyses under the
surveillance schedule
Methylene blue anionic
surfactant (MBAS) mg/1 0.1
Boron (at Imperial Dam) mg/1 0.4
Nitrate mg/1 5
Iron mg/1 0.2
Manganese rag/I 0.05
Ammonia (NH.) mg/1 1
pH mg/1 8.0
Precise maximum limits are not being prescribed on concentrations of
the above-listed constituents as may be indicated by the analyses of
a single sample. However, in general, single-sample maximum limits
shall not exceed the average limits by more than ten percent; except
that pH shall remain within the limits of 6.5 and 8.6.
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary of Meeting of Region IX
Enforcement Office Representatives
with
Representatives of Las Veijas Valley
Municipal and Industrial Waste Sources
September 28, 1971
-------
B-l
Summary oE Meeting Held at Western Environmental Research Laboratory,
Environmental Protection Agency, University of Nevada Campus, Las Vegas,
Nevada, at 9:30 a.m. September 28, 1971. Prepared by EPA, Region IX,
Enforcement Division
Representatives of the invited attendees were as follows:
Clark County Sanitatipn Pistrict
Janes Parrott
City, of Las^Vegas^
V. B. Uehling
William E. Adams
Louis A. Anton
City of Henderson
R. T. Whitney
S. C. Ditsworth
Nevada Power Company
M. H. Crum
B. V. Quinn
J. H. Zornes
G. Barney
Basic Management. Inc.
Rex R. Lloyd
Glen C. Taylor
Titaniuci _Metals_ Corporation of America
Rex R. Lloyd
Stauffer Chemical Company
John Rohnan
James Wiseman
George Stcwnrt
G. Barney
Mont rose Ch em i c a1 Comp any
John Rohnan
H. J. Wurzer
-------
B-2
U. S. Lime Division. Flintkote Company
Dan VJalker
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation
C. B. Armstrong
Jones Ch_enical_ Company. Inc.
Gerald Derthick
Las Vegas Valley Water District
T. R. Rice
Nevada Commission o^Ejivijrgninen_tal Protection
Roland D. Westerfiard
Wendell D. McCurry
Office of the Governor
Thomas Wilson
Others Present:
Mary Manning Clark County District Health Department
Dorothy Eiscnberg League of Women Voters, Las Vegas
Roy B. Evans Western Environmental Research Lab. L. V.
Daisy J. Talvitie League of Women Voters, Las Vegas
Thorne Butler State Board of Health
Envirornnental Prptection Agencyj
R. L. O'Connell, Director, Enforcement Division, Region IX
Elise 1C. Guevara Secretary, Enforcement Division, Region IX
James D. Russell Chief, Enforcement Branch, Region IX
David S. Mow clay Attorney, Enforcement Branch, Region IX
-------
B-3
Mr. R. L. O'Connell reviewed the purpose of the meeting. The Environmental
Protection Agency believes that State-Federal water quality standards for
the waters of Lake Mead are being violated, and that this condition of pol-
lution is subject to abatement under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. EPA has participated in attempts to find solutions to this water
quality problem over a long period of time. This participation has been
through grants for construction of water pollution control facilities,
through grants to assist water quality management planning, through grants
to carry out research, and through technical assistance to develop infor-
mation necessary to bring about solutions to the problem. EPA is now
exploring the situation to determine whether or not further Federal action
is warranted and what type of action may be required. Therefore, EPA's
purpose in calling the meeting was to learn from those invited, their views
on the situation and what water pollution control actions they are planning
to take.
Mr. James Parrott, Manager, Clark County Sanitation District, stated that
the District collects about 15 mc.d - 16 n?d of municipal wastcwaters and
has 12 mod of capacity f
-------
B-4
Mr. R. T. Whitney, Director of Public Works, City of Henderson, introduced
Mr. S. C. Ditsworth of Boyle Engineering, who presented the view of the
City. The City of Henderson now has a 2 mgd sewage flow. 1 im»d passes
through the Basic Management, Inc. domestic sewage treatment plant and 1
mgd Henderson treats itself (Imhoff tank and oxidation ponds). They real-
ize this process will not meet standards and Henderson will either have to
join with other municipalities on a larger project or give additional treat-
ment at their own plant.
They have no project planning under way, but have retained Boyle Engineering
to provide a study of their wastewater problems.
Mr. J. II. Zornes stated that the Nevada Power Company currently utilizes a
part of the waste water effluent from the Clark County Sanitation District
and the City of Las Vegas treatment plants, for cooling water at two power
plants in the Las Vegas area. They are trying to put together a program
whereby all of the effluent from the City of Las Vegas and the Clark County
Sanitation District will be used for power generation at a proposed new
plant in Arrow Canyon, a closed basin. A contract toward that end is under
negotiation at the present time with the District and the City. They have
not yet fornally applied to the State Engineer for a secondary permit to
use these waste waters. According to State law, a contract is required in
order to proceed, and they do not yet have a signed contract. There is no
fixed timetable for carrying out this plan. At the present time no indus-
trial waste waters are being considered for use under this program. However,
the BMI industries and City of Henderson could conceivably be included.
The Power Company believes that the blowdown waste waters from its existing
two Las Vegas power plants could be mixed with the municipal waste waters
and exported to Arrow Canyon for re-use in cooling. They have no other
plans for changes in the treatment or disposal practices presently applied
to blowdown waters from their too existing plants.
Mr. Rex Lloyd stated that BMI is a service organization, and is responsible
for collection of effluent and disposal by means of ponds. BMI has no con-
trol over what is in the waste waters, nor do they have any authority under
the charter to treat the industrial wastes. BMI is 100 percent owned by four
principal operation companies: Titanium Metals Corporation of America,
Stauffer Chemical Company, Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation and U.S. Line
Division-Flintkotc Conr>«qny. Tiie arount of effluent fluctuates from time
to Line, but runs around 10 - 12 mi;d. An investigation by Desert Research
Institute corroborates this flow. BMI's evaporating ponds are not very
tight. They do not have a flow measuring weir, nor Jo they krov how much
of their waste waters contribute to pollution of the Las Vegas Wash. Las
Vc^r.s Wash drains the whole valley and presumably sone of the effluents
which core fron the n>T. ponds do find their way to the K'ash.
fji'I also operrifes a rinncstic waste water treatment facility fron which
effluent is discharged to the urpcr !iMI ponds. These facilities are also
usca bv the Cil.y of ilenderson. The o<;ner Cnmar.ics have all filed with
-------
B-5
the Corps of Engineers for permits and will have to meet requirements to
obtain permits. BMI does not have in progress any planning for improvements
in waste water disposal practices nor does it have any studies going or
planned on ground water conditions. It is definitely understood that BMI's
function is limited to collection of effluent and diverting it into ponds.
Any responsibility for planning, or studies, rests with the Companies. BMI
docs not know whether their wastes are causing pollution or not.
Mr. Zornes, Nevada Power Company, stated that in the letter Nevada Power
received from EPA there is mention about water quality standards violation
in the Colorado River System and asked what standards are being violated.
Mr. Parrott, CCSD, also asked the same question.
Mr. O'Connell replied that the water duality standards referred to were
those adopted in 1968 under the provisions of the Water Quality Act of
1965. These standards were adopted by each of the States and when approved
by the Federal government, became Federal standards also. The standards
include general narrative criteria and specific numerical criteria for cer-
tain water quality indicators. The general narrative criteria for the
Colorado River include the "five freedoms" covering substances attributable
to domestic or industrial waste, floating debris, color and turbidity,
which apply to all waters. In addition there are specific numerical crite-
ria, for pH, DO, nitrates, etc. which vary according to location within the
Colorado River System. The specific standard that appears to be violated
in Lake Mead is the following:
3. Free from materials attributable to domestic or industrial waste or
other controllable sources in amounts sufficient to produce taste or odor
in the water or detectable off-flavor in the flesh of fish, or in amounts
sufficient to change the existing color, turbidity or other conditions in
the receiving stream to such degree as to create a public nuisance, or in
amounts sufficient to interfere with any beneficial use of the water."
What EPA is concerned with here is nutrients such as nitrogen and phospho-
rous which contribute to algal blooms in Las Vegas Bay and mineral salts
that add to an already severe water quality problem in the Colorado River
System.
John Rohnan, Legal Counsel, speaking for Stauffer Chemical Company and their
subsidiary, Montrose Chemical Company, assured EPA that they will cooperate
fully to the extent that they are capable. They will take all practical
steps to eliminate pollution. However, to take effective action, they feel
they should have a clearer understanding about the water quality standards,
and would appreciate if they could be advised of the specific water qunlitv
standards applicable and how they are applicable. They feel that clarifi-
cation of these points would be of great help in forming plans for correc-
tive steps. At the present time they have a United ground water survey
-------
B-6
under way, but they have no plans for improvement and feel that they cannot
formulate plans until they have better information of what the problem is.
Dan Walker, U. S. Lime Division-Flintkote Company, stated that Flintkote
uses about .25 mp,d of water; 60,000 gallons per day are used in cooling
and dust control. The water goes through two settling ponds and the efflu-
ent has a pll of 11 or 11.5. The only problem that they see is solids which
they will attempt to take out of their waste stream. The pK may be neu-
tralized by acids from other industries at BMI; tiiey are not sure.
Mr. O'Connell asked if BMI or any particular industry took positive steps
to insure that acid and alkaline waste waters were combined for neutral-
ization. From the answer given, it appeared that no one assumes that
responsibility and any neutralization which takes place through mixing of
waste waters from different industries would occur by chance. Uo one
present had any plans for neutralization by this means.
Mr. R. R. Lloyd, speaking for Titanium Metals Corporation of America, stated
that at the present time the Titanium Metals Corporation plant is shut down.
Normally they produce an effluent of 4 mga, most of which is cooling water
which meets the same specifications as Lake Head. However they do have one
waste strean which they know is bad: it is very high in nitrates. They
have been working on processes to take care of the nitrates for the last
year, but so far without success. They anticipate that they will separate
this nitrate stream from the other waste waters, re-cycle it, or discharge
it into separate rubber-lined ponds, where it would be evaporated. This
heavy nitrate stream contributes 80 percent of their pollution of water;
what the remainder is, they do not know. The main streams are acid.
Titanium realizes and understands that they have a problem in the nitrates,
but they do not know how much of this gets to the Wash. They know they
have to do something about it, but they do not have a time schedule. They
say that everybody is tied up in air pollution now, and they do not know
when they will do this other job.
Mr. Lloyd stated that there were no phosphates in Titanium's effluent.
Mr. C. B. Armstrong, Plant Manager of Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation,
stated that Kerr-McGee's position is much the same as the other companies.
They are working with the Corps of Engineers and have filed an application
for permit. They do not know what the standards arc which will have to be
met, or whether there is a problem with their effluent. Their effluent
goes into the BMI System.
Mr. O'Connell asked the individual industrial representatives and BMI to
what extent they are committed to the concepts of the Boyle - Cl^M Water
Quality Management Plan, and if they were seriously looking into the
recommended plan. Had they considered joint action with the municipalities
in treatment and disposal and had they looked into the system of using
waste water for cooling?
-------
B-7
Mr. Lloyd stated that they had given the plan serious consideration, had
not examined the alternatives but that, as a Rroup, they feel there are
many problems, particularly when the criteria get down to parts? per billion.
They are all concerned with the fact that they can snend a great deal of
money and still not solve the problem of Las Vegas Wash. And they wonder
whether a group solution is better than an individual solution. The
companies have filed with the Corps of Engineers and will have to meet
specifications of the State and_ the Corps of Engineers.
They would like to participate in using waste waters for cooling.
Mr. Parrott added that Nevada Power Company purchases sone of the effluent
from Clark County SD and the City of Las Vegas to use for power generation.
A contract is under negotiation between these three for the Power Company
to receive almost all of the effluent for power generation. The Power
Company will furnish 67 percent of the capital for the export. The contract
will only be between the City of Las Vegas, Clark County and Nevada Power.
They have not reached the stage of negotiation with the other industries.
Nevada Power cannot use water high in dissolved salts; however, this could
be taken care of witii sore processing.
Mr. G. J. Derthick stated that Jones Chemical Co. Inc. is not affected by
the law because of their type of operation: repackaging and distributing.
They only use 300 or 400 gallons/day, mainly rinse and wash water, which
might contain a smell amount of chlorides. They decided to use a new
method of disposal. They are going to nut in their own evaporator, and
the sanitary waste will go to CMI. They will start operating in about
2-1/2 months and they will not discharge anything but sewage. Industrial
waste will be taken care of on their own property and solids residue will
be disposed of in a Class 1 dumping area. They will haul it to California
if necessary to find a suitable durcp site.
Mr. T. R. Rice, Manager, Las Vegas Valley Water District stated that the
State legislation has directed that the Water District undertake to find
a feasible solution to the pollution problem. There was a start on this
some years ago which came to nothing,. Now the Colorado River Commission
is junding the effort and the District is trying again. The District does
not hcive a solution. They neeci more information, advice and help. They
have employed a group of consultants to look at the information and deter-
mine whether the information is sufficient and what additional information
is needed. A Scientific Evaluation Committee is composed of Jack McKee,
liarvey Banks, Andrew Gaufen and Dr. Otto Ravenholt. This Committee has
met several times, developed some information and made some recommendations,
and the District is working on their advice. The District hopes it will
have some progress to report back to the Legislature's 1973 session. They
feel if time ami money permit, they will do something.
In response to Mr. O'Connell's question, Mr. Rice said that consideration
would be given to what needed to be done not only by municipalities but
by industries as well.
-------
B-8
Mr. O'Connell asked what consideration had been or would be given to the
conclusions and recommendations of the Boyle report.
Mr. Rice stated that it was felt that the Boyle report contains very good
recommendations, based on the constraints and concerned with total water
use and total pollution considerations, but the population was probably
too high. This has a profound effect on any interim solution or on any
permanent solution. Since the report, there are a number of new considera-
tions. The problem of termperature is important: it is a matter of mixing,
and this will have to be done on a controlled basis. Fish and Game is
concerned with temperature.
Mr. O'Connell asked if there was a time schedule for the Water District's
planned work. Mr. Rice stated that they will make a recommendation of the
most feasible solution. If they are ahead of time, so much the better,
but they are unable to say at the moment how soon this will be.
Mr. Roland Westergard of the State Commission of Environmental Protection
stated that the Commission was established effective July 1 and has authority
but the Division of Environmental Health has standard-setting authority
until December 31, 1971. Mr. Westergard said he is concerned about the
deficiencies as to what has been done; there is too much of a tendency to
"fluctuate". Another consideration is the proposed amendments EPA might
make if it is assigned to take over the application of the 1899 Act. The
local people find themselves unable to know what direction to take.
Mr. Westergard asked for EPA's comment on any pending legislation that was
germane.
Mr. O'Connell replied that at present the pemit provisions of the 1899 Act
are administered by the Corps of Engineers, with guidance from EPA. Thus,
if legislation took CE out of the picture and EPA had sole responsibility,
there would not be any change in the substance of the program. Some of the
administrative procedures would probably be modified, and it would probably
be an improvement to eliminate one Agency.
Mr. Westergard recalled the EPA changed position regarding air. Were there
any other Congressional changes that might affect them?
Ilr. 0'Council cited soire proposals. Some of then propose higher levels for
grants. What is now 30% or 55% Federal grants for treatment plant construc-
tion mijjht go up to 75% or even higher. Also, Congress is cnr.sirleriiu;
increase^ support for State progr.ims. There arc mr.ny, rany proposals under
consideration at this time. ?tr. Westerjard stated that the serious part
of the problem is not knowing what to expect next from the Federal govern-
ment .
Mr. Thomas Wilson of the Office of the Governor stated that he feels that
there is some 'fluctuation" in dirrction. The Colorado River Comrission
proviJ.es assistance to the City and Clark County, but the dilemma is not
-------
B-9
only lack of information, but legislation. The Governor is quite aware of
the roadblocks in local laws. He would like to know about Nevada Power
Company: can it be cited with air pollution: can this really be done? Is
it the ansv;er to convert wnter pollution to air pollution?
Mr. Rice asked if the EPA through current legislation is going to impose
effluent standards. If local municipalities knew what quantity might be
allowed and what quality, they might know what to do. There might be
different handling. They feel that generally requirements are becoming more
severe.
Mr. O'Connell replied that EPA has applications for permits from industries
and will be required to tell them what kind of effluent quality they must
achieve in order to discharge. EPA does not have the sane responsibility
for municipalities; however, this has been proposed in pending legislation.
The absence of a regional plan creates problems in acting on the industrial
permit applications. Without a regional approach EPA would have to give
industry individual reouirements, which in some cases could be a less cost
effective solution than a regional approach.
Mr. Rice asked if grant money would be controlled by these considerations.
Mr. O'Connell said that was correct. Legislation gives EPA responsibility
to see that Federal grant money is spent in a proper way. EPA is looking
for the most cost effective solutions to pollution problems before making
grants of Federal funds.
Mr. Parrott asked if in the absence of a regional plan, Federal funds
would not be forthcoming.
Mr. O'Connell stated that what EPA needs is assurance that spending is
sound and at least a step in a logical program leading toward ultimate
solution of pollution problems. Each individual project must be viewed
in that context.
Mr. Parrott stated that he felt that due to economic circumstances their
District had come to a very critical position which could result in gross
pollution of the Lake, should their plant expansion project be delayed.
He feels that an emergency situation exists and this should be the primary
consideration. All agree on the ultimate objective, but at the moment it
is more important to consider immediate needs than future planning.
Wendell McCurry said that the State water quality standards implementation
plan requires that the Clark County SD expand their existing plant. The
State used the Boyle report as an interim basin plan so that the District
would be eligible for Federal grant funds, and in the meantime municipali-
ties and industry continue to pollute. As far as Corps of Engineers permits
-------
B-10
are concerned, Che State certifies as to compliance with the requirements,
implementation plans and schedules adopted by the Commission. They feel
discharge standards should be handled at the local level.
Mr. Rice stated that the ol
-------
MAYOR OR AN K GRAGSON
COMMII1IONCRI
HANK THORNLIY
ALEXANDER COBLCNTZ. K D.
GEORGE C FRANKLIN. JR.
HALF. MORCLLI
CITY OF
CIT
CARL P. CRIPENTROO
CITV MANA6CN
A. H.TRELCASC
B-ll
LAS VEGAS
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
760 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Attention:
Dear Sir:
Paul DeFalco, Jr., Acting
Regional Administrator
At the meeting called by your agency held under the direction of Mr. Richard
O'Connell on September 28, 1971 at the U.N.L.V. campus, certain statements
were given by parties responsible for the discharge of wastes into the Vegas
Wash arm of the Colorado River. In addition to the statement made orally by
the City of Las Vegas at this meeting, the following additional comment is
offered for the record:
Realizing that the abatement of conditions which contribute to the pollution
of waters draining into the Vegas Wash arm of Lake Mead are complex and the
waters involve many sources, consideration must be made for a complete plan
to accomplish the desired results. The task force committee which was en-
gaged in the engineering studies and review of reports has accepted the Boyle
CH2M report as being a general plan of attack for the Las Vegas Valley. The
report, as adopted, does not recommend any single method of solution, but in-
cludes information toward: 1. an export of all waste vaters; 2. the treat-
ment of waste waters to a standard that insures no effect on receiving waters;
or 3. a reuse of all current waste waters, or a combination of these.
It is therefore proposed that the end result be accomplished in a planned
stage development in which each stage is thoroughly investigated as to con-
fer uia nee with the master plan abatement and is properly financed.
As a step in this direction the City of Las Vegas, in coordination with the
III LAS VF<3 AS IH.VD NO . \.t S VFO AC. « CV AO A II101 • (70S| 3HJ-I >11
-------
B-12
Environmental Protection Agency -2- October 12, 1971
Clark County Sanitation District, arc negotiating vith th« Nevada Power Co.
for a beneficial use of 48 tngd of sever effluent based upon the maximum dis-
charge of effluents from the tvo plants, vhich it estimated to be available
after June, 1979.
It will be of primary importance that the EPA give full cooperation toward
assistance on financing of the water pollution control facilities proposed
for the Las Vegas Valley.
Very truly yours,
R. P. SAUER, P.E.
Director of Public Works
RPS:VBU:lra
-------
B-13
LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
37OO WEST CHARLESTON BOULEVARD
Box 4427 P. O ANNEX
LAS VEGAS. NEVADA 89102
TELEPHONE 67O-2O1I
. 1971
Mr. R. L. O'Connell
Director, Enforcement Division
Environmental Protection Agency
760 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Dear Mr. O'Connell:
This Is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1971, received in this office
on October 15, 1971. On Page No. 8 of the attached summary of the
meeting is the report of commission made by me at the meeting. I think
that the summary of my statement should perhaps be rewritten along the
following lines:
"Mr. T. R. Rice, Manager of the Las Vegas Valley Water District,
stated that the 1971 State Legislation has directed that the Water
District undertake to find a feasible solution to the pollution problem.
There was a start in this direction a year ago by the Colorado River
Commission, but this came to nothing because of state politics. Now,
as a result of the 1971 legislation, the District is trying to find a
solution using funds supplied by the Colorado River Commission. Aj
present the District does not have a solution. More information,
advice, and help is needed. The District has employed a group of
consultants to look at existing information to determine whether this
information is sufficient and what additional information is needed
in the decision-making process. This group is known os the Scientific
Evaluation Committee and is composed of Jack McKee, Harvey O. Banks,
Arden Gaufin, and Dr. Otto Ravenholt. The committee has met several
times, has digested much of the available information, and has made
some recommendations to the District for additional information to be
obtained, and the District is working on this matrer at present. The
-------
B-14
Mr. R. L. O'Connell -2- October 19, 1971
District is required to prepare a report with its recommendations
to the 1973 session of the State Legislature. If a solution to the
problem, either interim or final, is at hand before that time and
money is available, work will be started prior to the submission
of such report . "
The next two paragraphs are all right as written. The following paragraph
should be changed as follows:
"Mr. Rice stated that it was felt the Boyle Report contains much
good information and basic data but that the recommendations
made were based on constraints as to total water use, populaHon,
and effluent standards at that time. This influenced wr recommen-
dations. The population projections used were probably too high in
light of the 1971 census and the registered growth in that area since
that time. This will have a profound effect on any solution, either
interim or permanent. Since the Boyle Report there have been a number
of new suggested solutions to the problem. These need to be explored.
The recommendation of the Boyle Report regarding dumping the Vegas
Wash discharges below Hoover Dam produced a concern'over the
temperature effect as well as the nutrient problem. The Fish and Game
Commission was more concerned with the temperature effect on the
fishery below Hoover Dam."
The remainder of the statements appear to be sufficiently accurate to suffice.
Sincerely,
Thomas R. Rice
General Manager
-------
B-15
NEVADA POWER COMPANY
FOURTH STREET AND STEWART AVENUE
P. O. BOX 2 3 O . L A S VEGAS. NEVADA. 89IOI
October 15, 1971
Mr. R. i.. O'Connell
Director, Enforcement Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX 760 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Dear Mr. O'Connell:
Referring to your letter of October 13, 1971, we do have
several comments regarding our statement made on September 28, 1971.
In the second sentence the actual statement made was that a
major part of the effluent generated would be used upon completion of
the plant in 1979 or 1980, depending on the final construction schedule.
From that point-in-time the surplus effluent would be impounded in the
Dry Lake area or utilized for agricultural or other purposes if possible.
Although the plant has been named the Arrow Canyon Plant,
its proposed location is in Hidden Valleyj a closed basin which is imme-
diately north of Dry Lake.
In the fourth sentence, Nevada Power Company actually made
application to the State Engineer for secondary permits in November of
1970. As stated in the following sentence, the Slate law states that a
signed contra.ct with the persons or agency holding the primary permit
is required in order for the'State Engineer to proceed with the processing
of the applications. We have appeared before a number of public agencies
during the past few months in order to more fully explain our plan. Con-
tract negotiations are being actively pursued at the present time.
A question was asked regarding the inclusion of DMI industries
and Henderson into the overall export planning. Our reply was that if
it were determined by the experts that the Dry Lake area is in fact a
closed basin, it should be possible to impound the more highly polluted
waters in a reservoir in the Las Vegas Valley and intermittently export
them through the pipeline to Dry Lake for disposal.
-------
B-16
R. L. O'Connell October 15, 1971
EPA, Enforcement Division Page 2
A question was also asked with regard to time table. Two
public bodies must act on the contract for the effluent and the State
Engineer then must carry out the hearing and decision making pro-
cesses with regard to granting the permits for the water for the plant.
Finally, environmental impact studies must be made for use by the
State and Federal bodies, therefore, it is extremely difficult to fix a
time table. It is expected, however, that all these procedures can be
completed in time for pipeline installation within the next several years.
We have attached a rough draft of your condensation of the
statement with minor changes that make it correct. With the clarifi-
cation above we believe the plan is reasonably clear.
Finally, under the list of people in attendance from Nevada
Power Company, Mr. D. Barneby was present rather than Mr. Barney
as shown.
Very truly yours,
, James H. Zornes
A,Vice President;',
Production I/
JHZrjsb
Enclosure
-------
B-17
NEVADA POWER COMPANY
Statement made at Meeting held at Western Environmental Research
Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada.
September 28, 1971.
Mr. J. H. Zornes stated that the Nevada Power Company currently
utilizes a part of the waste water effluent from the Clark County Sanitation
District and the City of Las Vegas treatment plants, for cooling water at
two power plants in the Las Vegas area. They are trying to put together a
program whereby a major portion of the effluent from the City of Las Vegas
and the Clark County Sanitation District will be used for power generation
at a proposed new plant in Hidden Valley, a closed basin north of Dry Lake.
A contract toward that end is under negotiation at the present time with the
District and the City. They have applied to the State Engineer for a secondary
permit to use these waste waters. According to State law, contracts are
required in order to proceed, and they do not yet have signed contracts.
There is no fixed timetable for carrying out this plan. At the present time
no industrial waste waters are being considered for use under this program.
However, the BMI industries and City of Henderson could conceivably be
included. The Power Company believes that the blowdown waste waters
from its existing two Las Vegas power plants could be mixed with the muni-
cipal waste waters and exported to Arrow Canyon for re-use in cooling.
They have no other plans for changes in the treatment or disposal practices
presently applied to blowdown waters from their two existing plants.
GPO 83B-B44
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
------- |