P U B L I C M E E T I N G O F T H E N A P R T R P R O J E C T

W A S H I N G T O N O C T O B E R 1 8 T H , 2 0 1 6

F. ADRIÁN VÁZQUEZ MARIA ELENA GINER

MARIO VAZQUEZ TOMAS BALAREZO

THE BORDER LAND

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF VALLE DE JUAREZ

•First phase performed in 2008-2009 • Baseline conditions through epidemiological survey, sampling and analysis of

drinking water, wastewater, human feces, and soil. • Educational outreach.

•Second phase, funded by Border 2012, from September 2012 to date • Multi-institutional team approach: PAHO, BECC, UACJ, University of Texas,

COLEF, AQUA XXI. • Revisit communities and perform epidemiological survey (not an IA

requirement) and questionnaire on use of constructed water/wastewater facilities as indicated in the IA methodology.

• Interview local authorities as to the condition / operation of the new

water/wastewater infrastructure. • Sampling and analysis of the same media as in phase one.

Statistics, to date …

• 278 survey questionnaires applied in 10 communities (160 applied in 5 communities with BECC/NADB projects)

• 36 interviews with local officers (in synthesis process)

• 79 samples collected to determine 27 physical-chemical and 6

microbiological parameters (2,607 lab analysis performed)

28.3%

35.3%

26.7%

66.3%

84.5%

37.6% 41.0%

37.1%

69.0%

83.4%

33.8%

69.8% 67.6%

81.3%

52.5%

39.0%

70.0%

64.4%

76.9%

45.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Agricultureworkers

Householdsconnected to the

public sewagesystem

Plumbing withinthe household

Water available24/7

Drinking wateradditional

treatment withinthe household

2008

2009

2012

2014

CASE STUDY: VALLE DE JUAREZ

Impact Assessment Indicators

Remarks: • The number of

agriculture workers increased in the last 2 years • The % of households

connected to the sewer, households with plumbing inside, and continuity of service are maintained, despite the population increase. • The % of households

giving additional treatment to the drinking water continued to fall steadily.

Could industrial pollution be

an indicator in assessing

basic infrastructure

capacities of border

communities

Health impact of proper management

of hazardous wastes

POLLUTION TRANSFER MODEL

Heavy

metals

CAN WE TRACE THE LEAD?

0.00E+00

5.00E-03

1.00E-02

1.50E-02

2.00E-02

2.50E-02

3.00E-02

3.50E-02

4.00E-02

4.50E-02

5.00E-02

1993 1994 1999 2000 2004 2014

Pb

, m

g/L

Industrial pollution in waste water

Valle de Juarez

1/ Peralta et al., 1993 2/ Figueroa et al., 1994 3/ Palomo et al., 1999 4/ Contreras 2000 5/ Flores 2004 6/ Flores 2014

PRTR- METALS CIUDAD JUÁREZ

0.00E+00

5.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.50E+05

2.00E+05

2.50E+05

3.00E+05

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Total Transfer, Kg

Solid waste

air transfer

Surf Water discharges, Kg

Recycling

FINAL REMARKS

• PRTR instrumental in accounting for lead – the lead

is not staying in town;

• PRTR platform is friendly and practical, however is

unreliable at a city level because of possible bad

registries;

• Pollution transfer indicators could be developed if

QA/QC algorithms are introduced to identify

possible outlier registries.