INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
FOR THE MEXICO-U.S. BORDER AREA
(First Stage, 1992-1994)
\
UJ
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TEXAS
SECRET ARIA DE DESARROLLO URBANO Y ECOLOGIA
WORKING DRAFT
AUGUST 1, 1991
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
FOR THE MEXICO-U.S. BORDER AREA
(First Stage, 1992-1994)
San Ofogo
5
\
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TEXAS
SECRET ARIA DE DESARROLLO URBANO Y ECOLOGIA
WORKING DRAFT
AUGUST 1, 1991
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
A. Preparation of the Border Plan 1-1
B. The Border Environment: Physical Setting, Population, Economy 1-2
C. The Border Environment: Status of Environmental Problems 1-3
D. Existing Environmental Institutional Framework 1-5
E. Environmental Priorities 1-5
F. The Border Environmental Plan (First Stage) 1-6
G. Concluding Recommendations 1-7
II. INTRODUCTION II-l
A. The Presidents' Communique II-l
B. Objectives II-l
C. Scope of Plan II-2
D. The Plan Process II-2
III. THE BORDER ENVIRONMENT III-l
A. Nature of the Border Area III-2
B. Water Quality 111-16
C. Hazardous Materials and Hazardous/Municipal Solid Wastes 111-25
D. Air Quality 111-30
E. Contingency Planning/Emergency Response 111-35
F. Other Multimedia Issues 111-37
REFERENCES 111-40
IV. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE BORDER AREA . IV-1
A. Overview of SEDUE and Mexican Environmental Laws
Impacting the Border Area IV-1
B. Overview of the EPA and U.S. Environmental Laws Impacting
the Border Area IV-3
C. Applicable International Agreements and Treaties IV-5
D. Environmental Agencies of Mexican and U.S. Border States and Cities IV-10
A91-537.10C ii PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
V. ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES V-l
A. General V-l
B. Environmental Health V-2
C. Geographic Ranking of Risks V-3
D. Non-Geographic Ranking of Risks V-4
VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN VI-1
A. Specific Implementation Plans VI-1
B. Concluding Recommendations VI-27
A91-537.10C ill PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
III-l. Mexico/United States Border Area (showing major sister cities) HM
III-2. Protected Areas in the Mexico/United States Border Area 1H~4
III-3. Numbers of Maquiladoras in Mexican Border States 111-18
III-4. Products Produced by Mexican Industries as of 1991 III-l9
III-5. Products Produced by U.S. Industries as of 1989 111-20
A91-537 toe iy PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1-1. Major Mexican/U.S. Border Sister City Populations 1-3
III-l. Major Mexico/U.S. Sister Cities Populations3 III-8
III-2. Populations of Mexican Border States III-9
III-3. Top Mexican/U.S. Land Border Ports of Entry Ranked by Persons Entering U.S Ill-10
III-4. Growth in Employment in U.S. Border Counties, 1970-1988 111-12
III-5. Business Employment Patterns for U.S. Border Counties 111-13
III-6. Number and Employment of Maquiladoras 111-17
A91-537.toc V PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
-------
SECTION I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
A. Preparation of the Border Environmental Plan 1-1
B. The Border Environment: Physical Setting, Population, Economy 1-2
C. The Border Environment: Status of Environmental Problems 1-3
D. Existing Environmental Institutional Framework 1-5
E. Environmental Priorities 1-5
F. The Border Environmental Plan (First Stage)
G. Concluding Recommendations
1. Cooperative Enforcement Strategy . .
2. Effective Protection of Transboundary Environmental Resources
3. Strengthened Financing of Environmental Protection in the Border Area
4. Mobilizing Private Sector Support
5. Joint Emergency Planning and Response Capability
6. Coordination of Environmental Programs in the Border Area
7. Border Area Environmental Round Table Meetings
8. Other Programs to Promote Public Awareness and Increase Participation
9. Updating of the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement and its Annexes -9
10. Periodic Review of the Border Environmental Plan 1-9
-6
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
-7
A91-537.exe I-i PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
-------
WORKING DRAFT
INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
FOR THE MEXICO - U.S. BORDER AREA
(First Stage, 1992-1994)
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. PREPARATION OF THE BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
On November 27, 1990, President Salinas de Gortari of Mexico and President George Bush of the United States
met in Monterrey, Mexico, to discuss important issues of interest to both countries. Their joint communique
"emphasized the need for ongoing cooperation in the area of environmental protection" and
"instructed the authorities responsible for environmental affairs of their countries to prepare a
comprehensive plan designed to periodically examine ways and means to reinforce border cooperation in
this regard, based on the 1983 Bilateral Agreement. Such a mechanism should seek ways to improve
coordination and cooperation, with a view to solving the problems of air, soil, and water quality and of
hazardous wastes. State and municipal authorities of both governments and private organizations in
both countries should participate in such tasks as appropriate."
The responsible environmental agency of Mexico (The Secretaria de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologica (SEDUE))
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been meeting since December 1990 to develop the
Border Environmental Plan requested, namely one that was "comprehensive," that would have the goal of
"solving" pollution problems in the Border Area, that would be reviewed periodically and which would seek the
participation of both the public and private sectors. The Presidents also indicated that the plan should be based
on the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement between Mexico and the United States. This means that SEDUE
and EPA serve as the national coordinators responsible for shaping and coordinating the Border Environmental
Plan and that the Border Area to be covered by the plan is to be an area 100 km on each side of the
international boundary (this is the area referred to as the "Border Area" in the Border Environmental Plan
prepared by SEDUE and EPA).
The objectives of this first stage (1992-1994) of the integrated Border Environmental Plan are as follows:
• To outline the environmental characteristics of the Border Area and describe the present status
of significant environmental issues in the Border Area;
A91-537.exe 1-1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• To summarize the cooperative border environmental accomplishments achieved to date by
binational, National, State and local environmental agencies;
To articulate the commitment of all these environmental agencies, both Mexican and U.S., to
work cooperatively to better understand environmental issues in the Border Area; to establish
priorities and to develop mechanisms for implementing solutions;
• To set out implementation plans to mobilize the cooperative efforts of governments at all
levels, and to involve the non-governmental sector as well, in seeking solutions to the Border
Area's priority environmental problems; and
• To set out concluding recommendations to make the Border Environmental Plan fully effective.
Building on the experience of SEDUE and EPA under the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement and
subsequent annexes, existing SEDUE/EPA working groups dealing with the principal environmental concerns
relating to water quality, hazardous wastes, air quality and chemical emergencies affecting the Border Area
provided the expertise on which the Plan is based. As a result of their deliberations, SEDUE and EPA have
created a fifth working group on enforcement to help guide implementation of the Plan. Representatives of the
International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) have participated in the water issues working group, and
IBWC will be the binational mechanism for planning and constructing the water treatment plants needed under
the Plan.
It was the intent of both Presidents that the Border Environmental Plan involve the participation of governments,
businesses, academic institutions and environmental organizations in the Border Area as appropriate. The public
and private sectors are being invited to submit relevant information and to comment on the Plan. Under the
Plan's continuing recommendations (see Recommendations 4, 6, 7, 8, 9) these organizations and groups will play
continuing roles under the Plan. Following review by the appropriate government agencies and public comment,
SEDUE and EPA will publish the Border Environmental Plan, First Stage (1992-94) as adopted. The Plan will
again be reviewed and revised in 1994 with a similar process of governmental and public participation. The
progress of the Plan's implementation will be reviewed by SEDUE and EPA on at least an annual basis.
B. THE BORDER ENVIRONMENT: PHYSICAL SETTING, POPULATION, ECONOMY
The Border Area between Mexico and the United States extends for nearly 2500 kilometers (1550 miles) from
the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. Dry desert conditions exist over most of the area Six Mexican states,
Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas adjoin the border. Across the border
lie the U.S. states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The population of the Border Area has grown
rapidly in recent years, increasing from over three million in 1980 to approximately six million in 1990. The
population is concentrated in six principal "sister cities" located across the border from each other. Population
data for these sister cities are shown in Table 1-1.
A91-537.exe
1-2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE 1-1. MAJOR MEXICAN/U.S. BORDER SISTER CITY POPULATIONS (1990 CENSUS)
Tijuana, Baja California 742,686
San Diego, California 1,737,299
Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua 797,679
El Paso, Texas 515,342
Mexicali, Baja California 602,390
Calexico, California 18,633
Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas 217,912
Laredo, Texas 122,899
Matamoros, Tamaulipas 303,392
Brownsville, Texas 98,962
Nogales, Sonora 107,119
Nogales, Arizona 19,489
Economic and population growth over most of the Border Area has been vigorous in the past decade. Annual
crossings of the border have approached 200 million, making it the most frequently crossed border in the world.
On both sides industry has become more important. Mexican industrial growth in the Border Area in recent
years has been led by the "maquiladoras," processing plants which receive raw materials and machinery from the
U.S., duty free, and return the assembled products to the United States with the U.S. duty limited to the value
added by processing in Mexico. There are now over 1600 such maquiladoras on the Mexican side of the Border
Area, employing over 370,000 people. The maquiladora industry overall is the second largest foreign exchange
earner for Mexico, following petroleum products and ahead of tourism. Industry on the U.S. side of the border
consists of electronic, petroleum, plastic, chemical, food, agricultural, metal finishing, textile, and transportation
equipment supplies. Based on 1988 business data the major industry employment on the U.S. side was
1,386,709.
C. THE BORDER ENVIRONMENT: STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
As the industrial sectors of the economy in the border cities have grown, the added economic activity and
corresponding population increase have produced strain on the Border Area's infrastructure. Congestion,
uncontrolled urban development, and lack of basic public health and sanitation facilities have become significant
problems in many Mexican border communities. In U.S. Border Area communities, although environmental
problems are not as severe, environmental pressures of growth have also been evident.
A91-537.exe 1-3 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
SEDUE and EPA have identified a wide variety of serious environmental problems in the Border Area with
respect to the region's water and air quality, handling of wastes and response to chemical accidents. As noted,
these problems exist on both sides of the border. Just as there are industrial effluent problems on the Mexican
1e affecting border waters, there are also transborder air quality problems in El Paso and San Diego. The
Border Area environmental system has many interrelationships and the sister cities in many cases share the air
basins, cross border traffic, border surface waters, and transboundary aquifers.
Water quality in the Border Area is threatened by limited sewage treatment and collection facilities, untreated or
inadequately treated industrial effluents, and improperly handled hazardous wastes. Inadequately treated
wastewater flows into the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande, Colorado and other Border Area rivers, causing conditions that
present a significant health risk and resulting in drinking water safety being a public concern.
Since the Water Treaty of 1944, the Mexican-U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) has
had the lead role for water sanitation works on border waters mutually agreed to by Mexico and the U.S. This
has produced projects at Nuevo Laredo/Laredo, Ciudad Juarez/El Paso, Nogales/Nogales and Tijuana/San Diego,
the last of which represents an investment of several hundred million dollars. Additional border water sanitation
projects are under study by the IBWC and will play an important role in reaching the Border Environmental Plan
goals.
The management of hazardous wastes from industry will receive close attention under the Plan and be the
subject of a cooperative enforcement program between SEDUE and EPA. One of the first steps to be taken is to
ascertain the extent of the hazardous and solid waste problem in the Border Area, the volume of waste being
generated by industry and how that waste is being disposed. SEDUE plans to foster the development of
hazardous waste handling capacity on the Mexican side of the border.
The current status of air quality in the Border Area on the U.S. side is not well characterized, except in the
largest U.S. Border cities. Among the principal U.S. sister cities along the border, both San Diego and El Paso,
including the adjoining community of Sunland Park, New Mexico, fail to meet U.S. standards. Much less is
known about air quality conditions on the Mexican side, although more monitoring is now underway, including a
new monitoring network begun in Juarez in June 1990. Major SO2 sources on the Mexican side of the border
may be contributing to the degradation of visibility in some scenic areas along the border.
There have been a number of spills or explosions in the Border Area involving toxic chemicals indicating a need
to build a strong joint response team capacity. There are also a number of environmental issues in the Border
Area including maquiladoras, colonias (rural, unincorporated settlements with substandard housing, inadequate
roads and drainage, and substandard or no water and sewer facilities) and pesticide use which require a
multimedia approach.
A9j.537.elie 1-4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
D. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
SEDUE and EPA both administer comprehensive national pollution control laws and have been building an
increasingly strong cooperation under the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement and its five annexes on specific
issues. Mexico's enforcement efforts have been hampered by a lack of resources, A World Bank loan to
partially remedy this deficiency is under negotiation. SEDUE and EPA are exploring the possibilities to
mobilize more resources for the Border Area EPA plans to increase materially the amount and varieties of
technical assistance it makes available to SEDUE.
The Mexican and U.S. Presidential commitments in November 1990 to strengthen cooperative activities between
Mexico and the United States in the Border Area builds on the previous SEDUE-EPA collaboration under the
1983 Border Environmental Agreement and the IBWC's experience in handling border water projects, and
therefore creates a flexible, binational mechanism for upgrading the environment of the Border Area. The Plan
will draw in and coordinate the participation of the border states and cities, the private sector and the public. By
approaching the Plan in stages, a continuing process of review and refinement involving all the relevant parties
will be initiated.
In general, SEDUE is more centralized than EPA and a much larger portion of Mexico's environmental
protection regime is currently developed and implemented by federal authorities. Mexican law and regulations
contemplate an expanded role for the states but this has not yet been fully implemented. Since the Mexican
General Ecology Law was enacted in early 1988, eighteen Mexican states, including Coahuila, Sonora and
Nuevo Leon in the Border Area and the Federal District, have adopted environmental statutes. Mexico is
currently examining how SEDUE might be "decentralized" by shifting some of the functions which it now
carries on centrally to state environmental authorities.
In the United States, many pollution control standards, including those for pesticides, are set at the federal level
by EPA and are usually supplemented by state plans. The states may require more stringent but not less
stringent pollution control measures, with Federal authorities retaining oversight responsibility. Examples of this
approach include the U.S. air and water pollution control regimes.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES
Mexico and the United States both recognize that certain activities, actions or projects within their respective
jurisdiction in the Border Area can potentially cause transboundary pollution. Therefore, SEDUE and EPA have
established the following list of priorities for their cooperation to address the transboundary pollution problems in
the various environmental media:
1. Control industrial and municipal discharges into surface waters to prevent/reduce contamination
of surface and subsurface waters;
A91-537.exe 1-5 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
2. Monitor/track the movement and disposal of hazardous wastes to ensure environmentally sound
disposal and prevent contamination of surface or subsurface waters;
3. Prevent air pollution which exceeds ambient standards by controlling stationary, area, fugitive
and mobile source emissions; and
4. Develop contingency and emergency response plans for hazardous material emergencies.
With respect to the sister city areas, the top priorities were identified as follows:
Tijuana/San Diego - municipal wastewater and ozone/carbon monoxide
MexicaJi/Iinperial County - municipal wastewater and paniculate matter
Nogales/Nogales - municipal wastewater and paniculate matter
Ciudad Juarez/El Paso - ozone/carbon monoxide and paniculate matter
Nuevo Laredo/Laredo - municipal wastewater
Matamoros/Brownsville - municipal wastewater and water supply sources
Environmental issues related to border industry were assigned high priority in all sister city areas. These issues
include the transboundary movement and disposal of hazardous wastes, and the detection and remediation of
abandoned hazardous waste sites, as well as air and water problems.
F. THE BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN (FIRST STAGE)
Actual cleanup implementation plans are discussed in the final section of the First Stage (1992-1994) of the
Border Environmental Plan. In many cases, these plans involve collecting more data and Mexican-U.S.
agreements about specific cleanup projects and technical assistance arrangements. Agreement about new border
water treatment projects will be reached through the IBWC mechanism. SEDUE and EPA are discussing ways
of mobilizing a substantial increase in the resources available for cleanup in the Border Area. The
implementation plan proposed on water quality will address water supply, municipal wastewater, and control of
industrial wastes in the Border Area, as well as, ground water monitoring. The implementation plan addressed to
wastes covers transboundary movement of hazardous wastes, abandoned dump sites, and municipal solid waste
landfills. The air quality plan focuses on studies at Ciudad Juarez/El Paso, Tijuana/San Diego and
Mexicali/Calexico on how to reduce air pollutants in the Border Area air basins. There are also plans to
strengthen chemical emergency preparedness and contingency response along the border, a public/private cleanup
program aimed at industrial sources, including the maquiladoras, and a plan to develop a SEDUE/EPA
cooperative enforcement strategy.
A91-537.exe
I_6 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
G. CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS
The Border Environmental Plan concludes with ten recommendations jointly agreed upon by SEDUE and EPA.
They cut across most of the border problems and SEDUE and EPA will seek their early implementation:
1. Cooperative Enforcement Strategy
SEDUE and EPA should establish a program to control pollution from point sources, which will focus on
developing a cooperative enforcement strategy for the Border Area, recognizing the sole and sovereign
responsibilities of their respective governments for law enforcement in their own territory. To help implement
the enforcement program, a Work Group on Enforcement has been added to the four existing Work Groups
under the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement.
2. Effective Protection of Transboundary Environmental Resources
SEDUE and EPA should take steps to assure that the environmental standards and requirements of each, and
their enforcement, provide effective protection to transboundary environmental resources in the Border Area such
as the border surface waters, transboundary aquifers, and the air basins of sister cities.
3. Strengthened Financing of Environmental Protection in the Border Area
SEDUE and EPA should review ways to resolve resource problems and strengthen their cooperation in
mobilizing funding for pollution control facilities needed in the Border Area. Where pollution control facilities,
such as those for handling hazardous wastes, are lacking or inadequate, consideration should be given to
developing market incentives and use charges on pollution sources to pay for such facilities. It is recognized that
external resources will be required to achieve complete implementation of this Plan.
4. Mobilizing Private Sector Support
The private sector in Mexico and the United States should be mobilized to assist hi accelerating environmentally
sound development in the Border Area in a variety of ways including a program of voluntary pollution
reductions agreed to with major firms operating in the Border Area. This program will be similar to EPA's
"33/50 initiative" and will provide technology transfer through treatment, control, and pollution prevention
technology seminars and other mechanisms for the maquiladora and other Border Area industries.
5. Joint Emergency Planning and Response Capability
SEDUE and EPA should identify appropriate Federal, State and local officials on both sides of the border, who
can assist in the cooperative development of emergency response capabilities; work jointly toward the
development of an accident prevention program focused on facilities handling toxic substances improve cross-
A91-537.exe 1-7 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
border communications related to the development of emergency preparedness and response capabilities; and
facilitate cross-border mobility of emergency response equipment and personnel.
6. Coordination of Environmental Programs in the Border Area
SEDUE and EPA should each coordinate their country's activities in the Border Area with those of the other
major environmental agencies with jurisdiction in the area (including the IBWC). Both SEDUE and EPA should
appoint Border Area Coordinators at their headquarters offices responsible for coordination and oversight of
Border Environmental Plan implementation.
7. Border Area Environmental Round Table Meetings
To promote further coordination, Border Area Environmental Round Table meetings should be established at the
local, State and Border Area wide levels. These Round Table meetings would serve the following purposes:
• Provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and discussions of environmental problems,
including those related to land-use and public health, and their resolution throughout the Border
Area;
• Build a communication network among industry, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and
State and local governments;
• Promote community relations activities and right-to-know policies;
• Promote information transfer among industry, NGOs, local, State, national and binational
environmental agencies. Information to be shared would include monitoring/sampling data,
treatment control and waste reduction or pollution prevention technology and identification of
problem areas;
• Provide a mechanism for participation in the environmental resource development and
allocation process to fund solutions for environmental issues; and
• Provide a forum to discuss the effects of proposed environmental regulations.
8. Other Programs to Promote Public Awareness and Increase Participation
To ensure effective implementation of the Border Environmental Plan, it is essential to make the public aware of
the Plan and to enlist their participation in implementing it. In addition to the Environmental Round Table
meetings proposed, the following are also recommended: additional public meetings, conferences, and
workshops; SEDUE/EPA publication in English of Mexican environmental laws, regulations, and standards
A91-537.exe 1-8 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
together with guidance on their use; and Environmental Watchdog arrangements to receive public complaints and
information.
In addition, SEDUE and EPA should jointly publish annual environmental indices and data on the Border Area
and SEDUE should establish requirements for public availability of data on emissions and industrial discharges
of pollutants. Additionally, private volunteer initiatives should be initiated to promote increased environmental
awareness in the border communities and to address the specific public health and social infrastructure problems
that contribute to adverse environmental conditions in the Border Area.
9. Updating of the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement and its Annexes
The 1983 Environmental Agreement between Mexico and the United States and its Annexes will be updated at a
future time as appropriate to take account of new information that results from implementation of this Plan.
10. Periodic Review of the Border Environmental Plan
SEDUE and EPA will review and update the Border Environmental Plan periodically. Following review by the
relevant governmental agencies and public comment, the Border Environmental Plan (First Stage) will be
adopted this year. The Plan will again be reviewed and revised in 1994. At that time there will be similar
opportunities for participation by the governmental, public and private sectors before the Plan's Second Stage is
adopted. In the interim, SEDUE and EPA will annually conduct a review of the Plan's implementation.
A91-537.exe 1-9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
-------
SECTION II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
II. INTRODUCTION II-l
A. The Presidents' Communique II-l
B. Objectives II-l
C. Scope of Plan II-2
D. The Plan Process II-2
A91-537.2 Il-i PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
-------
SECTION H
INTRODUCTION
A. THE PRESIDENTS' COMMUNIQUE
On November 27, 1990, President Carlos Salinas de Gortari of the United Mexican States and President George
Bush of the United States of America held one of their periodic meetings, this time in Monterrey, Mexico to
discuss important issues of interest to both countries. The Presidents were accompanied by the heads of their
respective environmental authorities and discussions took place concerning environmental conditions along the
Mexico/U.S. border. The result of the meeting was a joint communique that included commitments and
directives for cooperative activities in response to these issues. The Presidents agreed to direct their respective
environmental authorities (The Ecological Sub-Secretariat of Secretaria de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologica
(SEDUE) of Mexico, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)), to work together to develop a
comprehensive border environmental plan designed to solve environmental problems in the Border Area.* The
text of their joint communique on the Border Environmental Plan is as follows:
The Presidents emphasized the need for ongoing cooperation in the area of environmental
protection. Both Presidents instructed the authorities responsible for environmental affairs of their
countries to prepare a comprehensive plan designed to periodically examine ways and means to
reinforce border cooperation in this regard, based on the 1983 Bilateral Agreement. Such a
mechanism should seek ways to improve coordination and cooperation, with a view to solving the
problems of air, soil, and water quality and of hazardous wastes. State and municipal authorities
of both governments and private organizations in both countries should participate in such tasks as
appropriate.
B. OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this comprehensive Border Environmental Plan is to strengthen the base for continuing
cooperation between Mexico and the United States in improving the environment of the Border Area. The
Presidents specifically asked that the Plan be comprehensive, that it have the goal of solving pollution problems
in the Border Area, that it be reviewed periodically, and that the participation of ...state and municipal
authorities of both governments and private organizations of both countries... be sought as appropriate.
In accordance with these guidelines, this Border Environmental Plan:
• Outlines the environmental characteristics of the Border Area and describes the present status of
significant environmental issues in the Border Area;
'Article 4 of the 1983 U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Agreement (often referred to as the "La Paz Agreement") defines the Border Area
as an area 100 km on each side of the international boundary. "Border Area" will have the same meaning in this Plan.
A91-537.2 II-l PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• Summarizes the cooperative environmental accomplishments achieved to date in the Border Area
by binational, national, state and local environmental agencies;
• Articulates the commitment of all the environmental agencies, both Mexican and U.S., to work
cooperatively to better understand environmental issues in the Border Area and to establish
priorities and develop mechanisms for implementing solutions;
• Sets out implementation plans to mobilize the cooperative efforts of governments at all levels, and
to involve the private sector as well, in seeking solutions to the Border Area's priority
environmental problems; and
Sets out concluding recommendations to help make the Border Environmental Plan fully effective.
C. SCOPE OF PLAN
This Border Environmental Plan is organized into four sections. Section III describes the Border Area and
existing environmental issues of concern. Cooperation between the governments, progress achieved to date and
current needs with respect to these issues are also discussed in Section III. Section IV describes the existing
institutional, regulatory and environmental policy framework applicable to these issues. Section V outlines the
procedure followed for assessing environmental priorities in the Border Area. Section VI presents the first stage
of the Plan through 1994 and lists ten concluding recommendations for making the Border Environmental Plan as
effective as possible on both sides of the border as soon as possible.
D. THE PLAN PROCESS
Mexico and the United States have long pursued common interests in water resources and water sanitation in the
Border Area through the binational International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). Formal efforts
between Mexico and the United States to protect and improve the environment in the Border Area began in 1983
with the adoption of the Agreement Between the United States and the United Mexican States on Cooperation for
the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area (1983 Border Environmental
Agreement). The 1983 Border Environmental Agreement outlines the primary objectives of common border
environmental cooperation; establishes a mechanism for additional agreements, annexes, and technical actions;
and provides for regular high-level meetings and special technical meetings to further promote and encourage
environmental cooperation between the two countries. The 1983 Border Environmental Agreement also
establishes formal communication procedures and provides that both countries designate National Coordinators to
coordinate and monitor the implementation of the agreement. Currently, Dr. Sergio Reyes Lujan, Undersecretary
for Ecology in the Secretariat of Urban Development and Ecology (SEDUE) is serving as the Mexican National
Coordinator and Timothy B. Atkeson, Assistant Administrator for International Activities of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is serving as the U.S. National Coordinator. The 1983 Border
Environmental Agreement appears as Appendix B to this document and is discussed in more detail in Section IV.
A91-537.2 D-2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
In response to the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement and subsequent annexes, SEDUE/EPA woiking groups
were established and communication procedures were developed for dealing with the principal environmental
concerns relating to water, hazardous wastes, air and chemical emergencies affecting the Border Area. (A
representative of the ffiWC participates in the water working group.) These working groups have provided the
bulk of the expertise on which this Plan is based. Although the 1983 Border Environment Agreement does not
currently include an annex on solid waste, SEDUE and EPA recognize that this is a significant environmental
and public health concern and have therefore attempted to address this issue in the plan as well.
It was the intent of both Presidents that preparation of this Plan involve the participation of governments,
business, academic institutions and environmental organizations as appropriate. The public and private sectors
have been invited to submit relevant information and to comment on the Plan. Following review by the
appropriate government agencies and public comment, SEDUE and EPA will publish the Border Environmental
Plan, First Stage (1992-1994) as adopted. Under the Plan's Concluding Recommendations (see
Recommendations 4, 6, 7, 8, 9) these organizations and groups will also play continuing roles. The Plan will
again be reviewed and revised in 1994 and subjected to a similar process of governmental, private and public
participation.
Perhaps former President de la Madrid of Mexico best characterized the growing support for environmental
protection in the Border Area in his introduction to the far-reaching 1988 Mexican General Law of Ecological
Balance and Environmental Protection (General Ecology Law) when he stated that "...the conflict between
environmental protection and economic development in Mexico has now arrived at the point where the best
environmental solution is also often the best economic solution." This Border Environmental Plan is based upon
a general recognition today that the Border Area's growth must now be made environmentally sustainable with
the participation of industry and all elements of the Border Area community.
Preparation of the Border Environmental Plan has been greatly facilitated by a spirit of close cooperation
between SEDUE and EPA and a recognition that environmental problems exist on both sides of the Border and
affect the other side. Just as there are unsolved waste problems of industries affecting border waters, there are
air pollution problems in the Greater El Paso area (including Sunland Park, New Mexico) and San Diego
affecting the air basins of their sister cities. The Border Environmental Plan is a dynamic, binational document
that will be revised and expanded as new information is developed, as implementation of solutions evolves, and
as further experience is gamed in working together to achieve common goals. Mexico and the United States are
aware of and concerned about the issues of the environment and the relationship between environmental
protection and continued economic growth in the Border Area. Both governments have pledged to enhance the
environment in the Border Area while maintaining economic development thereby maintaining an economically
sustainable and environmentally compatible growth. This Plan lays the basis for translating that commitment
into action.
A91-537.2 H-3 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPZR
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
-------
SECTION in
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
III. THE BORDER ENVIRONMENT III-l
A. Nature of the Border Area III-2
1. Physical Setting III-2
2. Demographics III-7
3. Economic Base III-7
B. Water Quality 111-16
1. Overview 111-16
2. Drinking Water Supplies IH-21
3. Wastewater Treatment 111-22
C. Hazardous Materials and Hazardous/Municipal Solid Wastes 111-25
1. Overview 111-25
2. Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes 111-27
3. Cooperative Enforcement of Hazardous Waste Regulations 111-28
4. Education of the Regulated Community 111-29
5. Abandoned Dump Sites 111-29
6. Municipal Solid Waste 111-29
D. Air Quality 111-30
1. Overview 111-30
2. Ciudad Juarez/El Paso 111-31
3. Mexicali/Imperial County 111-32
4. Tijuana/San Diego 111-33
5. Other Areas 111-34
E. Contingency Planning/Emergency Response 111-35
1. Overview 111-35
2. Joint Response Team (JRT) Activities 111-35
F. Other Multimedia Issues 111-37
1. Colonias 111-37
2. Pesticides 111-38
REFERENCES IH-40
A91-537.3 Hl-i PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
-------
SECTION HI
THE BORDER ENVIRONMENT
The first part of this section describes the physical, demographic and economic characteristics of the Border
Area. The materials presented are meant to provide only an overview of the conditions and recent history that
have shaped the Border Area. Water quality, hazardous and solid waste, air quality, pesticides, and contingency
planning and emergency response issues are discussed in subsections B, C, D and E. Environmental issues
associated with industrial facilities and colonias are also discussed.
The material set forth on each of the environmental issues presents (1) information on the current situation, (2)
accomplishments to date, and (3) additional information needs. Background materials used to develop this
section come from the individual Work Group action plans and follow the focus of efforts during the next
three years on six priority sister cities. These have been identified as Tijuana/San Diego, Mexicali/Imperial
County, Ciudad Juarez/El Paso, Nuevo Laredo/Laredo, Nogales/Nogales and Matamoros/Brownsville.
Identification of the interim priority placed upon these "sister cities" does not limit consideration of
environmental issues in other locations within the Border Area. One of the long term purposes of the Plan is to
investigate and ultimately address environmental issues throughout the Border Area.
The implementation plans set out in Section VIA draw upon available data and experience to resolve the Border
Area issues. Refinement of these plans will be conducted as new information is obtained. Only in a limited
number of cases will implementation await the collection of new information and these cases have been clearly
identified in both Sections IE and VI.
While there are industrial pollution problems on both sides of the border, the rapid growth of the maquiladora
and non-maquiladora industries along with federal and national industries and the attendant public health and
environmental impacts have been a major concern to both countries. There is a need for better controls on air
emissions and wastewater effluents in many cases, but most public attention with respect to maquiladoras has
been drawn to problems of hazardous waste management (improper storage and disposal, spills, fires, and leaking
surface impoundments, landfills, open dumps and waste piles). The attendant threats to human health range from
accidental contact with hazardous waste to infiltration and contamination of ground water supplies. For this
reason, the discussion of Hazardous and Municipal Solid Wastes in Section IIIC refers in large part to issues
relating to maquiladora industries.
A91-537.3 III-l PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
A. NATURE OF THE BORDER AREA
1. Physical Setting
The border between Mexico and the United States extends for nearly 2500 kilometers (1550 miles) from the
Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. Six Mexican states and four U.S. states adjoin the border, as illustrated in
Figure III-l. The Border Area is defined in Article 4 of the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement as the area
within 100 kilometers of each side of the international boundary. Figure III-l shows the 100 kilometer-deep
Border Area, it's major cities, and the six principal sister cities along the border. Protected areas in the Border
Area are shown in Figure III-2. The climate, topography, hydrology, and geology along the Border Area can be
divided into six physically distinct regions.1 These regions are, (from west to east), the Baja
California/California Region, the Sonora Plains/Colorado River Basin Region, The Sierra Madre
Occidental/Continental Divide Region, the Northern Plateau/Great Plains Region, the Sierra Madre
Oriental/Santiago Mountain Region, and the Gulf of Mexico/Gulf Coast Lowlands Region.
Physical Description
A large part of the Border Area is arid wasteland with some forest areas and irrigated farmlands. The physical
characteristics of each region in the Border Area are discussed below.
The Baja California/California Region extends from the Pacific coast to the low plains along the Colorado River.
The Sierra de Juarez (California Coastal Mountain Range) runs down the middle of this region. The arid coastal
lands to the west of the mountains are a series of coastal terraces, mesas, and small basins with riverine deltas
and restricted coastal strips. Irrigated portions of this arid region support agricultural production. The western
face of the Sierra de Juarez has a gentle slope climbing up to a height of approximately 10,000 feet along the
border.2 The high peaks support forest and woodlands. The eastern face drops off sharply descending steeply
down to the Colorado River Basin.
The Sonora Plains/Colorado River Basin (The Pacific Lowlands) Region extends from the base of the Sierra de
Juarez to the Continental Divide. This arid low lying region has insufficient natural precipitation to support
agriculture without irrigation. In its natural state it is dotted with shrubs, sparse grass, and wasteland. Irrigation
in the Mexicali Valley, the Colorado Delta, and along the Magdalena River has made agriculture possible
although saline waters and soil are still a problem.3 Extensive irrigation supports crops of cotton, alfalfa, and
grain. Large areas of copper deposits have been mined from this area. This region contains the cities of
Calexico, Mexicali, Yuma, and San Luis Rio Colorado.
The Sierra Madre Occidental/Continental Divide Region separates the plains of the Colorado River Region from
the high plateaus of Mexico and the southern United States. This mountain range serves as a natural boundary
between the normal western and eastern weather systems of this arid region.4 The mountain precipitation
supports forests of oaks and pines on its peaks.
A91-537.3 III-2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
N
San Diego
Tijuana
2
I
o
o
33
m
O
o
5
TJ
m
3D
TEXAS
Austin
CALIFORNIA
Tecote Mexican
Ensenodo
BAJA
CAIFOR
SONORA
• Hermosillo
Chihuahua • \
Guoymos f^ CHIHUAHUA
Ciudad O®on
COAHUILA
Monterrey
SaltWo •
NUEVO
LEO
TAMAULffAS
International Boundary
State Borders
100km Border Area
Gomez Palocio . (. Torreon
DURANGO
Corpus Christ!
Brownsville
Matamoros
100
Figure III —1. Mexico/United States Border Area (showing major twin cities)
163712*0-1
-------
San Dtego
Tijuana
TEXAS
•a
3
I
o
o
m
International Boundary
State Borders
Continental Divide
Port of Entry
TJ
m
35
Figure 111-2. Protected Areas in the Mexico/United States Border Area"
18S71I4-I
-------
The Northern Plateau/Great Plains Region of the Border Area extends from the Sierra Madre Occidental
(Western Sierra Mountains) and the Sierra Madre Oriental (Eastern Sierra Mountains) and crosses the northern
portion of the Central Plateau System of Mexico. This arid and mild arid region is comprised of plateaus, or
mesas with mountain ranges, valleys, and normally dry arroyos.5 The Rio Bravo/Rio Grande forms the
international border along all but the western most portion of mis region. This region supports little more than
shrub and sparse grass without irrigation. Extensive irrigation along the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande and the Pecos
River has made agriculture possible.
The Sierra Madre Oriental/Santiago Mountain Region is a high mountain range that divides the Central Plateau
and the Gulf of Mexico Coastal lands. This region is semi-arid supporting shrubs and sparse grass. Mountain
precipitation supports forests along its peaks.
The Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plain/Gulf Coast Lowland Region of the Border Area follows the Rio Bravo/Rio
Grande from the Sierra Madre Oriental to the Gulf of Mexico. The tropical maritime air and the extensively
irrigated land support many types of crops. Irrigation and the lowlands along the coast have allowed agriculture
to encompass much of the Border Area along the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande.
Climate
Dry desert conditions exist over most of the Border Area with the exception of the areas along the peaks of the
Sierra de Juraves (California Coastal Range), at the mouth of the Colorado River and irrigated sections of the
Sonora Plains, along the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande and along the Gulf of Mexico.6 The climate west of the
Continental Divide is strongly influenced by the semi-permanent Pacific subtropical anticyclone. This system
stabilizes the off-shore circulation in the Baja California/California Region year round and is responsible for
trapping air pollution.7 The system moves south during the winter months allowing an occasional storm to reach
the western Border Area. Nearly all of the Border Area between the Baja California/California Region and east
to the Sierra Madre Oriental Region receive less than 10 inches of rainfall yearly. Only the mountainous areas
receive enough rain to support agriculture without irrigation. The majority of the Border Areas in the Gulf of
Mexico Coastal Plain receive between 12 to 20 inches (30 to 50 cm) of precipitation yearly, with the easternmost
coastal area receiving up to 39 inches (100 cm) annually. Irrigation is also important to the agriculture of these
regions.
Temperatures in the coastal Baja California and Gulf of Mexico area remain largely uniform year round with
average yearly temperature extremes of 55 - 75°F along the Pacific Coast and 65-80T along the Gulf of
Mexico.8 Temperatures between the Sonora Plains/Colorado River Basin and the Northern Plateau/Great Plains
Region are largely dependent on elevation.9 At elevations below 2,500 feet above sea level the mean annual
temperature is 75T. At elevations between 2,500 and 6,000 feet above sea level the mean annual temperature is
65-75T. At elevations between 6,000 and 10,000 feet above sea level the mean annual temperature is 55-65'F.
At elevations above 10,000 feet the mean annual temperature is below 30°F.
A91-537.3 III-5 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Topography
The Border Area has three mountainous zones passing through it In the west, the Baja California/California
Region is split by the Sierra de Juarez (California Coastal Mountains) with an approximate elevation of 10,000
feet above sea level. The Sonora Plains/Colorado River Basin Region is a low lying area (100-500 feet above
sea level) that extends from the Baja California/California Region to the base of the Sierra Madre
Occidental/Continental Divide mountain ranges (peaks of up to 7,000 feet above sea level).10 The Northern
Plateau/Great Plains Region (approximately 4,000 feet above sea level) is the northern portion of the Central
Plateau System of Mexico.11 Bordering the Plateau Region to the east is the Sierra Madre Oriental/Santiago
Mountains Region with peaks up to 7,000 feet above sea level. The Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plain/Gulf Coast
Lowland Region follows the Rio Grande from the Great Bend (of the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande) to the Gulf of
Mexico.
Hydrology
The majority of the Border Area between the Sonora Plains/Colorado River Basin and the Sierra Madre
Oriental/Central Highlands is dry arid to semi-arid with little or no ground water. Rivers and streams flowing
between the Sierra de Juarez and the Sierra Madre Occidental drain toward the Colorado River Basin. The
waters from many rivers and streams are used extensively for irrigation. Low humidity, high temperatures, dry
ground, and heavy irrigation cause many rivers and streams to dry up before reaching the Gulf of California.
The high salinity of the soil and of the river water in this area is a problem for the agricultural industry.
The area between the Sierra Madre Occidental and the Sierra Madre Oriental (Northern Plateau/Great Plains
Region) within the Border Area drains internally with few permanent rivers and streams. The ground in this
region is generally salt bed or salt lake floors.
The Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plain/Gulf Coast Lowland Region relies on the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande and ground
water for irrigation. Insufficient supplies of ground water in the Border Area of this Region are restricting new
settlement and agriculture.
Geology
Arid gray-brown desert soils cover most of the Border Area. These soils are high in lime and soluble salts. The
underlying structures within each of the six regions are unique to a specific time of formation.12 The mountains
of the Baja California/California Region are a westward tilted fault block with metamorphosed and
unmetamorphosed sediments. The Sonora Plains/Colorado River Basin Region is characterized by its broad
basins separated by isolated hills and low mountains. The detached block ranges are aligned generally north to
south. The Sierra Madre Occidental/Continental Divide has an underling strata that was deformed by folding and
A91-537.3 III-6 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
faulting. Paleozoic strata overlie Ordovician and Cambrian materials in the northern portions of the Sierra Madre
Oriental. The Northern Plateau/Great Plains is composed largely of folded Mesozoic strata with Cretaceous and
Upper Jurassic formations predominating among exposed rocks. The Sierra Madre Oriental/Central Highlands is
composed largely of folded sedimentary rock, that has been deformed by uplifting, faulting, and erosion.
Exposed formations in the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plain/Gulf Coast Lowland Region are of an older strata that
roughly parallel the coast
2. Demographics
Most of the Border Area is sparsely populated. Its inhabitants live mainly in a number of "sister cities" across
the border from each other. Tijuana/San Diego have a combined population of close to two million while
Ciudad Juarez/El Paso have a combined population of over one million. Four other sister cities
(Calexico/Imperial County, Nogales/Nogales, Nuevo Laredo/Laredo and Matamoros/Brownsville) each have a
combined population of over 200,000.
It appears that the total population of the Border Area is hi excess of six million. Populations of the major sister
cities for 1980 and 1990 are shown in Table ni-1. These data include official Census results for Mexico and the
United States for 1980, preliminary U.S. Census data for 1990, IBWC estimates and Mexican population data
provided by SEDUE.
The population of major sister cities in the Border Area has grown rapidly in recent years, increasing from
3,279,369 in 1980 to 6,272,874 (IBWC data) in 1990. According to official Mexican and U.S. Census data, the
smaller city in most sister city pairs experienced more relative growth from 1970 to 1980, creating severe
pressures on infrastructure. Population growth in the Border Area has paralleled the expansion of the industrial
base of the border cities. Table 111-2 shows population figures for Mexican Border States. It is likely that actual
growth rates for the Border Area in Mexico are considerably higher than shown by the available census data but
the frequency of movement across the border and the actual counting process complicates any census. There are
close to 200 million crossings of the border every year, making it the most frequently crossed border in the
world. Table in-3 shows figures for the top Mexican/U.S. land Border Ports of Entry ranked by the numbers of
persons entering the U.S.
3. Economic Base
The most notable element of the Mexican/U.S. border economy is the disparity in wealth on the two sides of the
border. In 1984, the per capita income in the most affluent part of the U.S. border, the San Diego, California
metropolitan area, was more than 6.5 times greater than that of the Mexican national average. Borderwide per
capita incomes on the U.S. side of the border remain at least twice the Mexican average. Nevertheless,
collectively, U.S. border counties rank among the poorest in the United States.
A91-537.3 III-7 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE III-l. MAJOR MEXICO/U.S. SISTER CITIES POPULATIONS'
•
Tijuana, Baja California
San Diego, California1"
Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
El Paso, Texas
Mexicali, Baja California
Calexico, California
Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas
Laredo, Texas
Matamoros, Tamaulipas
Brownsville, Texas
Nogales, Sonora
Nogales, Arizona
Total
Mexican Total
U.S. Total
1990
Census
742,686
1,737,299
797,679
515,342
602,390
18,633
217,912
122,899
303,392
98,962
107,119
19,489
5,283,802
2,771,178
2,512,624
1990
ffiWC
Data
1,270,000
1,080,000
1,050,000
407,000
414,000
166,000
6,272,874
4,387,000
1,885,874*
1980
Census
429,500
875,538
544,496
425,259
341,559
14,412
201,731
91,449
188,745
84,997
66,000
15,683
3,279,369
1,772,031
1,507,338
"U.S. population data were taken from 1990 Preliminary Census of Population, U.S. Bureau of the Census, and from 1980 Census of
Population, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Mexican population data were provided by SEDUE.
"Population for the San Diego Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area was 2,490,016 for 1990 and 1,861,846 for 1980.
Population for San Diego also included cities of Chula Vista, National City, Imperial Beach, Coronado, and other unincorporated localities.
CIBWC U.S. cities population estimate
A91-537.3
m-8
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE III-2. POPULATIONS OF MEXICAN BORDER STATES
Baja California
Coahuila
Chihuahua
Nuevo Leon
Sonora
Tamaulipas
Border State Total
Mexico National Total
Border Percent of
National Total
1988
1,388,500
1,906,100
2,238,500
3,149,200
1,799,700
2,266,700
12,748,700
82,734,500
15.4%
1980
1,177,900
1,557,300
2,005,500
2,513,000
1,513,700
1,924,500
10,691,900
66,846,800
16.0%
Growth
1980-1988
17.9%
22.4%
11.6%
25.3%
18.9%
17.8%
19.2%
23.8%
16.3%
1970
874,200
1,115,000
1,612,500
1,694,700
1,098,700
1,456,900
7,852,000
48,225,200
Growth
1970-1988
34.7%
39.7%
24.4%
48.3%
37.8%
32.1%
36.2%
38.6%
Sources: Mexico Demographyco, Breviario 1988, Consejo National De Poblacion.
1980 Mexican Census of Population, Volume 1, Table 2.
1970 Mexican Census of Population, Resuraen General.
A91-537.3
III-9
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE III-3. TOP MEXICAN/U.S. LAND BORDER PORTS OF ENTRY RANKED BY PERSONS
ENTERING U.S.
Persons Entering U.S. in Millions
Port of Entry
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Average Annual
Growth Rate (%)
1986-1990
San Ysidro/Otay Mesa, CA
El Paso, TX
Calexico, CA
Laredo, TX
Hidalgo, TX
Brownsville, TX
Nogales, AZ
San Luis, AZ
Eagle Pass, TX
Douglas, AZ
41.5
33.1
15.8
14.4
13.5
14.2
11.7
5.2
4.9
4.3
44.6
32.4
15.7
15.1
13.2
13.6
11.9
5.5
5.2
4.2
51.6
39.8
21.4
16.6
13.4
12.8
13.7
7.1
6.0
4.4
60.4
42.4
27.6
16.8
15.0
14.8
14.0
7.3
6.7
4.6
62.2
43.1
29.9
17.9
16.6
15.8
15.2
7.9
6.3
4.9
10.8
7.2
18.3
5.7
5.5
3.0
6.9
11.3
7.0
3.3
Source: U.S. Customs Service Border Interdiction Committee.
A91-537.3
III-10
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Along the U.S. portion of the Border Area, 25 percent of all families fall below the poverty line. An additional
50 percent of all families earn less than $12,000/year. During 1991, unemployment rates across the U.S. portion
of the Border Area ranged from 8.3 percent in San Diego to a high of 14 percent in Brownsville, Texas.
Of the six major U.S. cities on the Mexican/U.S. border, the San Diego economy remains the most diversified
with major employers in the defense, electronic, light manufacturing and biotechnology industries. Tourism,
agriculture and government are also strong mainstays of the regional economy. For the rest of the U.S. border
region, however, opportunities for economic development are more limited and are mostly tied to cross-border
trade with Mexico. Tables III-4 and III-5 show employment growth rates in U.S. border counties for 1970-1988
and business patterns for employment for these U.S. counties for the same period.
Across the U.S. Southwest border, communities are dominated by trade and service industries including
transportation, customs brokerages, finance and warehousing. Retailing is another important border industry.
Both these sectors remain Peso dependent with regional employment linked to the strength of the Mexican
economy.
Although in most cases the economic growth of the U.S. portion of the border region has brought with it local,
state, and Federal investment in transportation, water supply and treatment and other public works projects, there
are a few well-documented problems with rural, unincorporated subdivisions (colonias) in U.S. border counties
which have substandard housing, inadequate roads and drainage, and substandard or nonexistent water and sewer
facilities. It is estimated that about 215,000 residents of Texas and New Mexico live in such communities.
Similar settlements exist in the Mexican border states.
On the Mexican side of the border, industrialization policies since 1965 have emphasized the attraction of foreign
subsidiaries to promote manufactured exports from Mexico. These firms, primarily of U.S. origin, were
encouraged to use Mexican labor under special provisions granted by the Mexican and U.S. governments.
Exports from Mexico's border industries rose from virtually nothing in the mid-1960s to $800 million in 1980,
approximately 50 percent of which was attributable to value added in Mexico. Border industry exports
accounted for two-thirds of Mexico's total gross manufactured exports for 1980.'3 These new industries, called
"maquiladoras," are a dynamic component of the economy of the Border Area.
The term "maquiladora," or mill, historically referred to grain grinding mills and "maquila" was the mill owner's
share of the flour received for grinding the grain. Today, the term refers to processing and assembly plants in
the Border Area. The maquiladora program was initiated in 1965 by the Mexican government specifically to
attract labor-intensive industries to Mexico. The program permits industries based outside Mexico to bring
capital equipment, components and raw materials into Mexico without paying import duties, provided all
hazardous wastes generated in Mexico through the use of these materials are returned to the country of origin or
recycled in accordance with Mexican law. Finished maquiladora products are then exported to the United States
or other foreign markets subject only to duty on the value added in Mexico.
Under the maquiladora program, components or materials are considered to be temporarily imported, resulting in
the term "in-bond" industry. The arrangement of closely-related production facilities in Mexico and nearby in
the United States has also resulted in the use of the term "twin plant" to describe this industry.
A91-537 3 HI-11 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE III-4. GROWTH IN EMPLOYMENT IN U.S. BORDER COUNTIES, 1970-1988
County
Yuma, AZ
Puna, AZ
Cochise, AZ
Santa Cruz, AZ
Subtotal
San Diego, CA
Imperial, CA
Subtotal
Hidalgo, MM
Luna, NM
Dona Ana, NM
Subtotal ,
El Paso, TX
Hudspeth, TX
Culberson, TX
Jeff Davis, TX
Preside, TX
Brewster, TX
Terrell, TX
Val Verde, TX
Kinney, TX
Maverick, TX
Dimmit, TX
Webb, TX
Zapata, TX
Jim Hogg, TX
Starr, TX
Hidalgo, TX
Willacy, TX
Cameron, TX
Subtotal
Total
Total Number of Employees
1970
10,698
76,496
9,868
3,586
100,648
290,958
11,866
302,824
800
1,824
9,932
12,556
81,269
203
816
46
605
951
241
3,423
209
2,706
519
12,922
227
540
1,115
27,807
1,162
25,270
160,031
576,059
1980
16,281
149,545
11,674
6,710
184,210
533,027
18,129
551,156
1,322
2,232
16,174
19,728
130,753
140
587
160
599
1,345
140
5,417
276
4,883
1,580
24,363
652
574
1,712
41,249
1,741
47,866
264,037
1,019,131
1988
22,502
209,786
15,260
7,962
255,510
767,646
18,835
786,481
1,342
2,487
24,754
28,583
152,179
215
513
195
536
1,452
94
5,266
245
4,018
1,069
26,818
706
535
2,518
67,775
1,662
53,621
319,417
1,389,991
Average Annual
1970-1980
5.22
9.55
1.83
8.71
8.30
8.32
5.28
8.20
6.53
2.24
6.28
5.71
6.09
-3.10
-2.81
24.78
-0.10
4.14
-4.19
5.83
3.21
8.05
20.44
8.85
18.72
0.63
5.35
4.83
4.98
8.94
6.50
7.69
Growth Rate
1980-1988
3.82
4.03
3.07
1.87
3.87
4.40
0.39
4.27
0.15
1.14
5.30
4.49
1.64
5.36
-1.26
2.19
-1.05
0.80
-3.29
-0.28
-1.12
-1.77
-3.23
1.01
0.83
-0.68
4.71
6.43
-0.45
1.20
2.10
3.64
Source: County Business Patterns, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
A91-537.3
111-12
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE III-5. BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS FOR U.S. BORDER COUNTIES
Number of Employees by Industry, 1970
County
Yuma, AZ
Pima, AZ
Cochise, AZ
Santa Cruz, AX
Subtotal*
San Diego, CA
Imperial, CA
Subtotal*
Hidalgo, NM
Luna, NM
Dona Ana, NM
Subtotal*
El Paso, TX
Hudspeth, TX
Culberson, TX
Jeff Davis, TX
Presido, TX
Brewster, TX
Terrell, TX
Val Verde, TX
Kinney, TX
Maverick, TX
Dimmit, TX
Webb, TX
Zapata, TX
Jim Hogg, TX
Starr, TX
Hidalgo, TX
Willacy, TX
Cameron, TX
Subtotal*
Total
Total
10,698
76,496
9,868
3,586
100,648
290,958
11,866
302,824
800
1,824
9,932
12,556
81,269
203
816
46
605
951
241
3,423
209
2,706
519
12,922
227
540
1,115
27,807
1,162
25,270
160,031
576,059
Agriculture
Forestry
and Fishing Mining
380
347
7
D
734
2,145
540
2,685
107
71
178
256
D
D
14
D
D
D
D
D
746
D
865
1,881
5,478
D
6,053
D
D
6,053
551
17
568
D
D
13
13
169
D
D
D
D
D
D
101
105
67
62
116
416
651
17
74
1,778
8,412
Construction
739
8,752
D
167
9,658
19,982
566
20,548
D
119
823
942
6,297
7
D
D
27
33
D
189
12
60
20
403
23
49
18
1,894
63
1,875
10,970
42,118
Manufacturing
948
7,574
1,681
200
10,403
73,302
1,288
74,590
D
251
1,425
1,676
22,467
D
D
42
D
D
908
1,147
D
5
2,861
63
4,987
32,471
119,140
Transportation
and Public
Utilities
616
4,173
636
289
5,714
19,394
826
20,220
46
255
934
1,235
6,826
D
D
56
112
25
231
D
148
19
1,153
D
D
27
1,329
55
1,904
12,275
39,444
Wholesale Retail
Trade Trade
1,079
3,582
327
769
5,757
13,758
1,435
15,193
26
33
337
396
6,917
D
19
24
90
D
175
D
93
D
1,015
D
32
33
5,533
301
2,353
16,585
37,931
3,646
20,641
2,648
1,430
28,365
74,012
4,655
78,667
336
651
3,388
4,375
18,552
102
272
299
339
%
1,125
49
1,052
242
5,089
68
171
399
8,543
436
7,328
44,189
155,596
Finance,
Insurance, Unclassified
Real Estate Services Establishments Subtotal*
531
5,008
528
134
6,201
19,683
561
20,244
32
117
675
824
4,884
D
D
30
43
D
228
D
98
33
730
14
D
D
1,245
57
1,325
8,687
35,956
2,690
19,947
1,810
478
24,925
66,442
1,948
68,390
207
265
2,190
2,662
14,475
53
69
88
280
22
545
D
226
85
2,801
47
46
169
4,778
164
4,402
28,250
124,227
D
419
D
112
531
1,697
30
1,727
D
76
76
426
D
3
42
D
D
D
D
227
D
168
866
3,200
10,629
76,496
7,637
3,579
98;341
290,966
11,866
302,832
647
1,798
9,932
12,377
81,269
162
360
524
942
143
2,549
61
2,686
504
12,795
214
414
1,067
27,807
1,156
25,272
157,952
571,502
A91-537.3
III-13
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE III-5. BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS FOR U.S. BORDER COUNTIES (CONTINUED)
Number of Employees by Industry, 1980
County
Yuma, AZ
Pi ma, AZ
CocKise, AZ
Santa Cruz, AZ
Subtotal*
San Diego, CA
Imperial, CA
Subtotal*
Hidalgo, NM
Luna, NM
Dona Ana, NM
Subtotal*
El Paso, TX
Hudspeth, TX
Culberson, TX
Jeff Davis, TX
Preside, TX
Brewster, TX
Terrell, TX
Val Verde, TX
Kinney, TX
Maverick, TX
Dimmit, TX
Webb, TX
Zapata, TX
Jim Hogg, TX
Starr, TX
Hidalgo, TX
Willacy, TX
Cameron, TX
Subtotal*
Total
Total
16,281
149,545
11,674
6,710
184,210
533,027
18,129
551,156
1,322
2,232
16,174
19,728
130,753
140
587
160
599
1,345
140
5,417
276
4,883
1,580
24,363
652
574
1.712
41,249
1,741
47,866
264,037
1,019,131
Agriculture
Forestry
and Fishing
1,069
950
28
A
2,047
4,266
770
5,036
B
307
307
399
A
A
B
A
A
104
B
635
102
295
1,535
8,925
Mining
16
6.685
458
A
7,159
658
B
658
A
26
B
26
259
A
43
B
A
B
A
168
193
1,136
C
126
97
831
160
88
3,101
10,944
Construction
1,620
17,189
893
291
19,993
10,293
2,120
38,904
18
127
2,111
2,256
11,477
A
9
A
30
84
446
50
C
125
1,615
48
30
70
4,722
53
3,343
22.102
83,144
Manufacturing
1,467
20,589
1,925
858
24,839
28,547
1,302
29,849
F
170
1,843
2,013
35,089
B
B
23
A
745
G
231
2,183
A
A
A
7,921
323
11,960
58,475
97,740
Transportation
and Public
Utilities
866
7,805
1,152
496
10,31')
28,219
1,783
30,002
B
227
925
1,152
9,128
A
20
A
47
134
12
327
B
218
136
2,878
A
A
90
2,423
172
2,988
18,573
59,893
Wholesale
Trade
1,426
7,367
448
1,099
10,340
127,219
6,219
133,900
52
192
705
949
9,759
26
19
25
58
257
293
167
2,008
7
106
65
8,951
116
4,209
26,066
67,357
Retail
Trade
5,590
37,971
3,682
277
47,520
127,681
1,230
45,076
393
839
4,999
6,231
31,058
58
264
44
273
535
94
2,229
45
1,860
397
8,982
189
206
805
15,354
491
13,298
76,182
263,833
Finance,
Insurance,
Real Estate
786
9,902
637
329
11,654
43,846
3,142
152,529
B
162
1,088
1,250
7,045
11
A
A
43
57
A
388
B
228
64
1,201
B
A
69
2,356
85
2,696
14,243
72,223
Services
3,220
39,625
2,256
1,024
46,125
149,387
E
5,477
C
344
3,824
4,168
25,269
19
135
26
76
327
A
924
B
392
244
3,821
93
58
393
7,471
228
8,602
48,078
250,900
Unclassified
Establishments
221
1,462
195
110
1,988
5,477
17,817
453,844
38
B
E
38
1,271
8
35
A
47
B
A
B
3
96
B
435
55
15
46
585
11
387
2,994
10,497
Subtotal*
16,281
149,545
11,674
4,484
181,984
436,027
501
2,087
15,802
18,390
130.754
122
525
70
541
1,218
106
5,316
98
3,255
1,557
24,363
392
541
1,635
51,249
1,741
47,866
271,349
925,567
A91-537.3
m-14
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE III-5. BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS FOR U.S. BORDER COUNTIES (CONCLUDED)
Number of Employees by Industry, 1988
County
Yuma, AZ
Pima, AZ
Cochise, AZ
Santa Cruz, AZ
Subtotal*
San Diego, CA
Imperial, CA
Subtotal*
Hidalgo, NM
Luna, NM
Dona Ana, NM
Subtotal*
El Paso, TX
Hudspeth, TX
Culberson, TX
Jeff Davis, TX
Preside, TX
Brewster, TX
Terrell, TX
Val Verde, TX
Kinney, TX
Maverick, TX
Dimmit, TX
Webb, TX
Zapata, TX
Jim Hogg, TX
Starr, TX
Hidalgo, TX
Willacy, TX
Cameron, TX
Subtotal*
Total
Total
22,502
209,786
15,260
7,962
255,510
767,646
18,835
786,481
1,342
2,487
24,754
28,583
152,179
215
513
195
536
1,452
94
5,266
245
4,018
1,069
26,818
706
535
2,518
67,775
1,662
53,621
319,417
1,389,991
Agriculture
Forestry
and Fishing Mining
1,814
1,991
79
17
3,901
7,135
1,847
8,982
B
165
165
481
A
A
A
26
A
16
A
21
B
935
74
315
1,868
14,916
B
1,801
151
1,952
678
E
678
A
A
61
61
78
A
B
A
B
B
109
476
127
35
B
850
A
B
1,675
4,366
Construction
1.482
18,143
761
302
20,688
58,917
1,170
60,087
21
92
2,496
2,609
9,216
B
A
24
15
58
225
A
50
67
930
38
19
48
3,632
41
2,279
16,642
100,026
Manufacturing
1,725
31,618
1,398
1.008
35,749
124,379
1,634
126,013
F
92
2,585
2,677
39,170
B
A
A
36
A
475
1,028
B
1,515
A
A
A
10,031
E
9,278
61,533
225,972
Transportation
and Public
Utilities
992
9,111
1,211
393
11,707
33,065
1,215
34,280
44
119
1,360
1,523
8,679
B
A
A
68
124
A
330
B
174
66
4,074
13
26
143
2,492
128
2,871
19,188
66,698
Wholesale Retail
Trade Trade
1,392
8,619
437
1,838
12,286
42,723
1,799
44,522
17
154
1,136
1,307
9,790
A
37
11
79
A
418
209
35
1,840
A
47
118
9,452
79
3,764
25,879
83,994
7,337
52,459
5,102
2,734
67,632
184,606
6,196
190,802
472
975
7,181
8,628
35,311
135
213
57
282
515
43
2,115
52
1,534
418
9,115
288
263
1,236
20,734
582
15,715
88,608
355,670
Finance,
Insurance,
Real Estate Services
969
12,837
847
408
15,061
64,541
828
65,369
B
222
1,759
1,981
8,571
A
A
A
54
172
A
370
16
261
67
1,837
B
57
158
3,645
116
3,870
19,194
101,605
6,541
71,527
5,081
1,142
84,291
243,821
3,583
247,404
204
760
7,623
8,587
39,366
9
144
87
74
416
27
1,210
84
621
218
6,517
159
70
645
14,856
302
14,893
79,698
419,980
Unclassified
Establishments Subtotal*
C
1,680
193
120
1,993
7,781
C
7,781
1
37
388
426
1,517
4
9
2
8
B
B
10
B
3
493
12
A
56
1,148
20
F
3,282
13,482
22,252
209,786
15,260
7,962
255,260
767,646
18,272
785,918
759
2,451
24,754
27,964
152,179
148
403
170
512
1,400
70
5,169
162
3,893
983
26,818
637
517
2,404
67,775
1,342
52,985
317,567
1,386,709
• Subtotals for individual employment categones do not include data withheld to avoid disclosure.
Letters indicate figures withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual companies:
- For 1970. D denotes figures withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual companies.
- For 1980 and 1988, employment-size classes for these companies are indicated as follows: A-0 to B-20 to 99, C-100 to 249, E-250 to 499, F-SOO to 999.
Source: County Business Patters, US. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
A91-537.3
m-15
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Incentives for U.S. investment in maquiladoras have included: comparatively lower labor costs in Mexico;
flexibility in corporate structure and relaxation of Mexican foreign-ownership restrictions and tariffs; and
proximity to U.S. distribution centers and markets.
Table III-6 shows the number and locations of maquiladoras in Border Area cities for 1989, 1990 and 1991. The
number of employees is also shown for the current year. Within the Border Area, over 370,000 people are
employed by maquiladoras, while other industries are estimated to employ over 500,000. Figure III-3 shows the
locations and numbers of maquiladoras in border states. Current growth in the number of maquiladoras is
estimated at 14 to 20 percent annually. Maquiladoras have become the second largest source of foreign
exchange earnings for Mexico, second only to the petroleum industry and ahead of tourism. The U.S.
International Trade Commission has predicted that the end of special tariff concessions and a free, trade
agreement will attract new maquiladora type investment south, toward Mexico's main economic centers.
As of 1991, the largest segments of the Mexican border industries were the chemical, transportation and
electronics sectors as shown in Figure III-4. Figure III-5 shows the types of industry on the U.S. side of the
border as of 1989.
As maquiladora industries and other sectors of the economy in the Mexican border cities have grown, the added
economic activity and attendant population increases have produced substantial strain on the Border Area's
infrastructure. Congestion, uncontrolled urban development, and lack of basic public health and sanitation
facilities have become significant problems. On the U.S. side of the border, industrial growth has not been as
dynamic, amounting to 2.0 percent in the last decade. However, there are many of the same types of industries
on the U.S. side of the border as found on the Mexican side.
B. WATER QUALITY
1. Overview (For relevant implementation plan, see pages VI-3 through VI-10).
In some areas of the border, the waters that cross the boundary or that drain toward the international rivers
present unsuitable sanitary conditions attributable to the disposal of wastewaters in these water courses. There is
the related risk of pollution of transboundary ground waters if proper management and treatment of surface
wastewaters and hazardous wastes is not carried out.
Under the terms of the Water Treaty of 1944 between Mexico and the United States, which authorizes the
IBWC's program, both governments are required to take the necessary measures to ensure that the quality of the
waters of international rivers and the beneficial uses of those waters are not impaired.
Since the Water Treaty of 1944, the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) has had the lead
role for undertaking water sanitation measures and water related works mutually agreed to by Mexico and the
United States. These projects have consisted of activities such as constructing wastewater collection systems,
constructing wastewater treatment plants, and conducting water quality monitoring. Important examples of
IBWC achievements in solving water quality issues in the Border Area are identified in the following pages.
A91-537.3 111-16 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE III-6. NUMBER AND EMPLOYMENT OF MAQUILADORAS
Border Cities (within 100 km.)
Tijuana
Ciudad Juarez
Mexicali
Matamoros
Tecate
Nuevo Laredo
Nogales
Reynosa
Piedras Negras
Ciudad Acuna
Ensenada
Agua Prieta
San Luis Rio Colorado
Naco
Palomas
TOTAL
June 1991
Number of
Maquilas
530
320
158
94
90
93
80
82
43
44
41
32
23
6
5
1641
June 1991
Number of
Employees
65,255
134,838
20,576
38,268
4,665
21,000
21,084
30,000
8,130
14,151
1,735
7,500
3,000
1,200
137
371,509
March 1990
Number of
Maquilas
530
309
148
89
86
67
65
57
39
36
33
28
12
0
0
1499
March 1989
Number of
Maquilas
334
260
131
72
46
63
64
35
30
32
~
28
0
0
0
1100
Source: Twin Plant News
A91-537.3
IIM7
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
N
So
Di jo
lijuana
(530)
oo
T3
o
o
3D
m
O
m
o
TEXAS
Austin
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
• Phoenix
NEW MEXICO
tnssnada
(3ST-
BAJA
CALIFORMIA
Palomos
(5) Ciudad
Juarez
• Del Rio
Ciudad Acuna .^ >
(44)
Chihuahua .
(61)
CHIHUAHUA
• Ciudad Obj-egon
(3)
COAHUILA
Mort^errey
Saltillo " '
International Boundary
State Borders
100km Border Area
Gomez Palacio • (. Torreon
(29) <
DURANGO
Corpus Chnsti
Brownsville
/Matamoros
(94)
100 Kilom«lers
-o
m
DO
Figure 111-3. Numbers of Maquiladoras in Mexican Border States
163712413—3
-------
EEA
9%
EMS
34%
OMP
14%
KEY
PPC Petroleum, Petroleum Products, Plastics,
Chemicals
EEA Electronic/Electric Equipment/Apparatus
FA Food and Agricultural
S Services
OMP Other Manufactured Products
M Metal Industries
TES Transportation Equipment & Supplies
COT Clothing and other Textiles
EMS Electronic/Electric Materials & Supplies
MS Medical Supplies
Figure III-4. Products produced by Mexican Border Industries as of 1991.
A9I-389E
III-19
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
EMS
23%
COT
1%
TES
13%
M
16%
PPC
20%
KEY
PPC Petroleum, Petroleum Products, Plastics,
Chemicals
EEA Electronic/Electric Equipment/Apparatus
FA Food and Agricultural
S Services
OMP Other Manufactured Products
M Metal Industries
TES Transportation Equipment & Supplies
COT Clothing and other Textiles
EMS Electronic/Electric Materials & Supplies
Figure III-5. Products produced by U.S. Border Industries as of 1989.
111-20
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Through the IBWC, SEDUE and EPA are exchanging the water pollution control regulations and industrial
wastewater pretreatment regulations of their respective countries. Other information exchanges have included
documentation supporting the development of categorical effluent standards and a computer program which
determines the potential treatability of industrial wastes. EPA has also provided information on effluent
limitation guidelines for existing sources, performance standards for new sources, and pretreatment standards for
new and existing sources of water pollution. Through the Mexican section of the IBWC, SEDUE has provided
EPA with adopted water quality criteria, final effluent guidelines for several different types of industries, and
proposed discharge criteria for industrial releases into treatment and collection systems. SEDUE and EPA
actively support the development of cooperative action plans to implement safe drinking water and wastewater
treatment projects in the Border Area.
In May 1990, EPA and the State of California conducted a two-week training seminar in San Diego for SEDUE
and IBWC personnel on operations and maintenance of municipal wastewater treatment facilities. This technical
assistance exemplifies the cooperative training efforts undertaken to date in the Border Area. SEDUE, EPA, and
the IBWC conducted an international forum on the Microbial Rock Plant Filter at El Paso in March 1991. This
forum provided for technology transfer in designing, constructing, operating and maintaining municipal
wastewater treatment technology.
2. Drinking Water Supplies (For relevant implementation plan, see pages VI-3 through VI-4).
Mexico and the United States are concerned about the adverse public health and environmental impacts
associated with pollution of transboundary drinking water supplies in the Border Area.
Both governments have enacted laws and created regulations for the adequate treatment of drinking water. In the
United States, the application of these regulations rests with the state governments with oversight by EPA. In
Mexico, responsibility rests with the Federal government but may be delegated to the states.
Communities along the Mexican/U.S. border that obtain their drinking water from the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande
include Ciudad Acuna, Coahuila; Piedras Negras, Coahuila - Eagle Pass, Texas; Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas -
Laredo, Texas; Reynosa, Tamaulipas - Mission, McAllen, Hidalgo, Texas; and Matamoros, Tamaulipas -
Brownsville, Texas. Tijuana, Baja California - San Diego, California; Tecate, Baja California; and Mexicali,
Baja California - Calexico, California import all or a part of their water supply from the Colorado River. Yuma,
Arizona obtains water directly from the Colorado River. The other border communities obtain drinking water
from both renewable and non-renewable ground water sources. Rapid growth in the border communities will
continue to put pressure on the region's water resources.
The programs of the Mexican and U.S. governments to address the data needs and water treatment requirements
of the Border Area are discussed on pages VI-5 through VI-8.
Ground water quality monitoring occurs in the Border Area principally in the regions that rely upon ground
water sources as a public water supply. The United States Geological Survey has a network of monitoring wells
which are sampled and analyzed for water quality parameters such as hardness, pH, temperature, and Total
Dissolved Solids. The Texas Department of Health monitors all public water supplies including those in areas
A91-537.3
IH-21 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
where the source of the public water supply is ground water. However, these areas are scattered along the
Border Area with the primary concentration of ground water sources of public water supply located in El Paso
County, Texas. In El Paso County, bolson deposits of both the Mesilla and Hueco aquifers are the major source
of ground water for municipal and industrial needs for the City of El Paso and nearby communities. The Rio
Grande alluvium is an important source of shallow ground water as a supplemental source since the Rio Grande
River is not sufficient to meet the total agricultural water needs of the farmers in the Rio Grande Valley.
When aquifers in the Mesilla and Hueco bolsons are pumped heavily, significant quantities of ground water enter
these aquifers as induced recharge from the Rio Grande River and from storage in the Rio Grande alluvium.
The quality of the surface water in the Rio Grande River and the quality of the ground water in storage in the
river alluvium can have a significant impact on the quality of the ground water in the bolsons.
Potable ground water shortages would most likely first impact the El Paso County area of West Texas, whereas,
the quantity of ground water available for agricultural purposes throughout the Border Area could be adversely
affected by significant industrial growth. Widespread industrial growth and associated residential development in
close proximity to El Paso County could create high rates of ground water withdrawal from the bolsons and
result in unacceptable ground water quality degradation that would force the City of El Paso and other large
ground water users in El Paso County to import supplemental drinking water supplies from sources outside the
county.
The border regions that rely on ground water sources are scattered along the Border Area with the main reliance
on ground water sources of public water supply located in El Paso County in Texas, as noted above. At present,
both the Mexican and U.S. governments through the IBWC are exchanging information on ground water
developments along the border in accordance with IBWC Minute 242 which requires consultations with respect
to development of this resource. The IBWC is giving priority to this matter in the Ciudad Juarez/El Paso area.
Salinity and sanitary data for surface water are obtained and exchanged by Mexico and the United States through
the IBWC for the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande, Colorado, the New River and the Tijuana River. The IBWC
administers water measuring and data collection for the two countries as provided for in the Water Treaty of
1944 for the Rio Grande and the Colorado River. The two governments, through the IBWC, exchange data on
surface flow for all streams that cross the boundary.
3. Wastewater Treatment (For relevant implementation plan, see pages VI-4 through VI-10).
a. Tijuana/San Diego (See pages VI-4 through VI-5).
The Tijuana wastewater collection system cannot convey and treat all of the wastewater being generated. This
has resulted in raw sewage from Tijuana flowing across the border into San Diego.14 Since the 1960s, in
accordance with IBWC Minute 222, the City of San Diego has treated the City of Tijuana's wastewater
whenever necessary. In accordance with IBWC Minute 270, Mexico has carried out works in the first phase of
the Integrated Plan for the Water Supply and Sewage System of Tijuana, Baja California The main components
were the construction of a pumping plant, pressure line, conveyance channel and treatment plant and at the
present these facilities are functioning properly.
A91-537.3 m-r.2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
In addition, the Government of Mexico, in order to stop the uncontrolled flows of wastewaters that were crossing
the border in the canyon areas and Tijuana beaches, constructed and operates the pumping system that conveys
the wastewaters to the treatment system at San Antonio de los Buenos built under the first phase.
The IBWC is constructing interim works to divert untreated wastewaters from the Tijuana River and convey
them for treatment to existing facilities in both countries. These interim controls are expected to be in place by
late 1991.
The international treatment plant is expected to be completed by early 1995. Section 510 of the 1987
amendments to the Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to make grants to the IBWC for its design and construction.
The United States, with IBWC supervision, is designing this treatment plant. Construction of the first land
outfall component began in the spring of 1991. Mexico is working on collection system modification and plans
to convey Tijuana wastewaters to the new international plant. A cooperative program is being developed to
control and pretreat industrial discharges into the proposed plant.
Currently, San Diego wastewater is treated to an advanced primary level, and the city and EPA are discussing
upgrading treatment to a secondary level before ocean discharge, three and one-half miles from shore. Among
improvement options, San Diego is considering additional treatment facilities adjacent to the proposed
international plant The additional treatment facilities are needed to increase the sewage treatment capacity and
to meet treatment levels set by EPA.
b. MexicalUlmperlal County (See pages VI-5 through VI-6).
The New River, originating south of Mexicali, flows north, carrying both raw and partially treated sewage,
industrial wastes and agricultural wastes into California where additional agricultural runoff enters the river.15
The Mexicali wastewater system is insufficient for all of the wastewaters generated in that city, resulting in
transboundary contaminated flows in the New River. While a large part of Mexican's sewage is treated, the
effluent is discharged into the New River without disinfection. The remaining sewage flows without treatment to
the New River or drainage tributaries. Industrial wastes from several areas of Mexicali are also discharged into
drains that empty into the New River.
The situation in Mexicali has improved since 1980 when the city's water quality problems were due to the
existence of an inadequate collection system that discharged municipal wastewater into the New River. Other
discharges into the New River included untreated industrial wastewater, waste from pigpens, and drainage from
the open-air municipal solid waste dump. To resolve these problems, Mexicali has installed wastewater
treatment systems in some of the factories, relocated the pigpens so that their discharge does not affect the river,
relocated the municipal solid waste dump, and improved the municipal collection system.
The IBWC is developing a conceptual plan to resolve Mexicali's water sanitation problem which will be
presented for consideration of both governments during the second half of 1991. On May 23, 1991, the Mexican
section of the IBWC provided its U.S. counterpart with plans for long term elimination of all domestic and
industrial raw wastewater discharges into the New River. These plans also include provisions for handling
wastewater discharges associated with the proposed Port of Entry east of Mexicali-Calexico.
A91-537.3
IH-23 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
c. Nogales/Nogales (See pages VI-6 through VI-7).
Surface water assessments by the State of Arizona since the 1970s indicate that surface water in Nogales is
contaminated intermittently with fecal coliform. In order to confirm the results of studies, an intensive survey is
underway by ADEQ, the City of Nogales, AZ, the IBWC and responsible authorities in Mexico to characterize
the contaminants. In addition, defensive measures of chlorination in Mexico and facilities for pumping of
Nogales wastewater in U.S. were constructed jointly by the IBWC to control fecal coliform counts pursuant to
Arizona standards.
The wastewaters of Nogales, Sonora and Nogales, Arizona are treated together in an International Treatment
Plant north of the boundary which was built in 1951 and relocated and expanded in 1972. The plant is now
being expanded from 8.2 mgd to 17.2 mgd capacity, and expansion is nearly complete. Uncontrolled sewage
crossing the international boundary through the Nogales Wash and its tributaries should cease in 1991, the
completion date for the international plant.
In Nogales, Sonora, sewer collection has increased from 44 to 85 percent and it is planned that the sewer
collection network will increase coverage to 95 percent during 1991.16 The Nogales Wash covered floodway
extension in Nogales, Sonora is 35 percent complete.
d. Ciudad Juarez/El Paso (See page VI-7).
In Ciudad Juarez, untreated wastewater flows into the Rio Grande from urban areas. Small, continuous,
untreated wastewater discharges from Ciudad Juarez and intermittent discharges of untreated wastewaters used
for irrigation in the agricultural Juarez Valley flow into the Rio Grande.17
Wastewaters from Ciudad Juarez are collected and discharged to an open ditch without treatment. That ditch
conveys approximately 22 million gallons per day (mgd) of Ciudad Juarez wastewaters along with irrigation
waters consisting of surface water diverted from the Rio Grande and larger quantities of ground water pumped
from the Juarez Valley. The mixed waters are used to irrigate field crops, which are mostly cotton. On
occasion, during the non-irrigation season, some of these mixed waters have been discharged into the Rio
Grande.
Effluent from El Paso's four wastewater treatment plants that discharge to the Rio Grande are treated to
secondary levels with disinfection.
e. Nuevo Laredo/Laredo (See pages VI-7 through IV-8).
Nuevo Laredo has a limited sewage collection system and no wastewater treatment facilities, resulting in
discharges directly into the Rio Grande. A combined flow of 27 mgd of untreated wastewaters enters the Rio
Grande from more than 30 points in Nuevo Laredo.18 All such sewage will be conveyed by an improved
collection system and treated to standards agreed to by the two governments in an international treatment plant
located on the Mexican side by 1994. Mexico is currently carrying out the expansion and rehabilitation of the
A91-537.3 111-24 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Nuevo Laredo wastewater sewer system and the construction of the two principal interceptors which will convey
the wastewater to the international treatment plant The design and procurement for the international treatment
plant, and its associated pumping stations, are being handled through the ffiWC.
Municipal wastewater in Laredo, Texas is treated by sewage treatment facilities and complies with Federal and
Texas water quality regulations for total suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).
/. Bajo Rio Bravo/Lower Rio Grande (See pages VI-8 through VI-9).
The waters of the Rio Grande released from Falcon Dam supply drinking water to more than one million people
and irrigate more than 1.2 million acres of agriculture in both countries.19 Due to inadequate treatment and
collection facilities, untreated or partially treated sewage is discharged into the Rio Grande from some
communities in the international boundary area from Falcon Dam to the Gulf of Mexico.
Of all the U.S. communities along the Rio Grande, only one of the City of Brownsville's treatment plants
discharges secondary treated and disinfected effluent into the Rio Grande. Other U.S. border communities
discharge into interior drainage systems away from the river.
Most Mexican communities in the lower reaches of the Rio Grande River also discharge their wastewaters into
interior drainage systems away from the river. The City of Reynosa, however, provides treatment to collected
sewage by means of a 16-lagoon system adjacent to the Rio Grande. The effluent is discharged without
disinfection into a tributary drain that empties into the river. Water quality sampling under an IBWC program
has found high bacterial levels in the Rio Grande immediately downstream of these discharges.
C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS/MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTES
1. Overview (For relevant implementation plan, see pages VI-10 through VI-14).
The management of hazardous waste in both Mexico and the United States is of concern to both countries due to
the potential for transboundary contamination and potential public health and environmental impacts. The extent
of the waste problem in the Border Area is unknown. The volume of waste being generated and how these
wastes are being disposed of is also uncertain at the present time. The management of municipal solid waste is
also an environmentally related issue and is discussed separately in subsection C.6.
Since environmentally sound management of waste is an issue that geographically concerns the entire Border
Area, the discussion that follows attempts to characterize the nature of the problem as a whole and describes the
bilateral programmatic efforts aimed at developing solutions.
A9]_537 3 111-25 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Specific issues of concern include the following:
• Significant quantities of raw materials are transported across the border into Mexico where waste is
generated. There is not an adequate system for tracking how the materials are used and how they
are disposed.
• Illegal dumping of hazardous wastes is periodically reported. Concerns related to this issue include
potential impacts to public health via direct or indirect exposure from contamination of air, water or
soil.
• On both sides of the border, siting of regulated and controlled treatment, storage and disposal
facilities for hazardous waste is hampered by the "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY) syndrome.
Many of the materials handled by border industries are hazardous, including solvents, acids, resins, paints,
plastics, heavy metals, oils, varnishes, etc. The amount of toxicity of these chemicals has the potential to be
reduced via pollution prevention. These materials are transported on heavily traveled roads and could present a
risk to traffic and residential areas if a release occurred. The last 4 years have seen intense growth of industry
within the Border Area at Reynosa, Matamoros, Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana, Nogales, Mexicali, and Nuevo Laredo.
In practice, the actual fate of wastes generated by industry and the extent of the return of such wastes to the U.S.
have not been monitored. According to EPA data from Region 6, 91 parent companies have returned waste
through Texas Customs ports to the U.S. from maquiladoras since 1987. These parent companies return waste
from one or several maquiladoras during each shipment. According to EPA records, the number of shipments of
hazardous waste through Texas has grown from 9 shipments and 189.9 tons in 1987 to 356 shipments and
2388.5 tons in 1990. It is believed that there are more illegal shipments made from Mexico to the U.S. than
previously appeared to have been documented due to inconsistencies in tracking and mistakes in documentation.
However, the total amount of waste produced by maquiladoras is not known and it is expected to be significantly
higher than the recorded values. It is therefore likely that along with "nationalization" and legal recycling of
hazardous wastes allowed under the 1983 Maquiladora Decree of Mexico, illegal storage and dumping are
occurring. Improper manifesting for proper disposal in the United States is also probable. Such a flow of
hazardous wastes can produce a variety of public health and environmental problems including direct personal
exposure to toxic chemicals, contaminated surface and ground water, and airborne contaminants from
volatilization and open-air burning.
As of 1990, seven Mexican facilities were authorized by SEDUE to recycle hazardous waste throughout Mexico.
One is in the Border Area (Tijuana) and three others are in border states (two in Monterrey and one in
Chihuahua). Typically, these wastes are recycled for recovery of solvents, oils, greases, and metals. There are
also three authorized facilities for "controlled confinement" land disposal for stabilized hazardous wastes and
metal-containing wastes. (One of these authorized facilities is in Mexicali, one is in Hermosillo, another is in
San Bernabe near Monterrey). Mexican treatment, storage, and disposal facilities do not accept maquiladora
waste unless it is brought into the Mexican economy with payment of duties, which is a rare occurrence. Wastes
not destined for these facilities must be returned to the country of origin.
A91-537.3 111-26 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Approximately 400 facilities in the Border Areas of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California have been
identified as generators of hazardous waste under RCRA, the U.S. hazardous waste disposal law. A large
percentage of these hazardous waste generators are small quantity generators such as dry cleaners, automobile
shops and small scale painting operations, which are, for the most part, exempt in the United States under
RCRA. There are similar types of hazardous waste generators in Mexico. About one percent of the total
number of facilities that generate hazardous waste on the U.S. side of the Border Area are also storage facilities
and have received or will receive permits. There are no commercial treatment, storage or disposal facilities
within the Border Area although there are numerous facilities that perform these functions in the border and
neighboring states of Texas, California, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Utah and Arizona.
Because of the increased population caused by regional industrial growth, solid waste generation in the Border
Area has changed in both quantity and type, requiring changes in collection and disposal procedures as well as
changes in disposal locations. (Solid waste is discussed in more detail in Section ni-C.6).
The Mexican and U.S. governments are addressing data needs and hazardous and solid waste handling
requirements of the Border Area (For relevant implementation plan, see pages VI-10 through VI-13). The data
needs involve the following:
• Transboundary movement of hazardous wastes;
• Abandoned dump sites; and
• Municipal solid waste.
2. Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes (For relevant implementation plan, see pages
VI-10 through VI-13).
Transboundary movement of hazardous waste between Mexico and the United States poses unique challenges. A
primary concern is the difficulty in tracking shipments. This is due to several factors:
• The difficulties in coordinating numerous agencies responsible for regulation of the transported
wastes;
• The logistics of transboundary transport;
• The amount of hazardous waste generated by maquiladoras from U.S. raw materials is
unknown; and
• The amount and type of hazardous waste transported and where it is disposed of is unknown.
Current waste tracking in Mexico relies on the Guia Ecologica (Ecological Guides), which serve as an
import/export notification document (i.e., the manifest) and the information received in each company's semi-
annual report. The Guia Ecologica includes a Manifest of Delivery, Transport, and Acceptance of Hazardous
Residues form which is used in the transport of hazardous materials. This form must be forwarded to the
A91-537.3
Ul-21 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
General Department of Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution within SEDUE. Since this reporting
mechanism is new and is currently being implemented, the amount of waste produced, stored and/or shipped off-
site is not known.
Annual tracking of U.S. waste legally exported to Mexico is monitored by EPA. Mexico is currently accepting
only the import of a steel dust from which zinc and small amounts of copper and aluminum metal is reclaimed.
U.S. waste exporters are required to file with EPA an annual notice of the projected amount of waste that they
will ship. EPA uses this information to request consent from SEDUE for the shipment to take place. If the
consent is given, the shipment may proceed. By March 1 of every year, U.S. exporters must also provide a
summary of their shipments in the past calendar year. The discovery of illegal shipments, however, is becoming
more commonplace. In the past five years, SEDUE and EPA have discovered four illegal exports of waste to
Mexico. The most recent case involved 84 drums of waste paint from the United States discovered outside an
abandoned facility in Tijuana (see details in subsection 3 (Cooperative and Enforcement of Each Country's
Environmental Regulations)). The frequency of illegal waste exports to Mexico is not known, nor is the ultimate
fate of such illegal shipments. SEDUE and EPA are currently developing a mechanism to accelerate the process
of returning illegal hazardous wastes to the country of origin.
Waste is tracked within the United States by State manifest and biannual waste reporting systems. Some states,
such as Texas, require more frequent (monthly) reporting of waste movement. Since compliance with these
requirements is relatively good, waste generation rates are known for most facilities operating in the U.S. portion
of the Border Area. Current U.S. tracking of waste received from a foreign source consists of manifest and data
from other reports. This information is often incomplete. In addition, U.S. treatment, storage and disposal
facilities must notify EPA in advance of their first receipt of a shipment of each waste stream from a foreign
source. This gives both EPA and U.S. Customs advance notice of the Mexican facility shipping the waste and
the U.S. parties involved. EPA has taken enforcement actions against four companies that have violated U.S.
import notification requirements.
Several training programs for U.S. Customs Inspectors have been conducted on hazardous waste, manifesting,
placarding, insurance and safety issues. These programs have included EPA, the DOT, the ICC and state
agencies. They were followed by "border inspection blitzes" involving all incoming and outgoing truck traffic at
several points along the border.20
3. Cooperative Enforcement of Hazardous Waste Regulations (For relevant implementation plan, see
pages VI-25 through VI-27).
EPA and SEDUE have undertaken a variety of activities to enhance industry compliance with hazardous waste
regulations in both countries. These include:
• SEDUE and EPA personnel have together participated in over 24 cooperative training visits at
Mexican and U.S. industrial facilities in sister cities along the border since 1989,21 In
addition, SEDUE and California State and county personnel have visited 16 U.S. facilities.22
A91-537.3 111-28 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
• EPA has provided SEDUE with training and technical assistance on hazardous waste
incineration and other hazardous waste treatment techniques since 1987 and in 1988 and 1989
provided permitting guidance for a hazardous waste incineration facility being constructed in
Tijuana.23 EPA is currently arranging a cooperative training visit to commercial hazardous
waste management facilities for SEDUE inspectors.24 SEDUE personnel have also attended
various training courses sponsored by EPA in protection and safety of personnel, technologies
for the treatment of hazardous wastes, and emergency response for incidents occurring in the
handling of hazardous substances.
SEDUE and EPA have also coordinated several investigations and enforcement efforts involving the illegal
disposal of hazardous waste. A recent example occurred in 1990 when hazardous material of U.S. origin was
identified in Tijuana. SEDUE and EPA worked together to conduct a preHminary assessment of the materials,
which appeared to be solvents, heavy metals, and off-specification paints. Following lab analyses, the drummed
wastes were packed, shipped to the United States, and disposed. EPA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
are pursuing criminal enforcement actions against the U.S. source of the materials.25
4. Education of the Regulated Community (For relevant implementation plan, see page VI-13).
In order to educate the regulated community on hazardous waste requirements, SEDUE and EPA published a
Maquiladora Manual on hazardous waste regulations in 1989 hi both Spanish and English. The Manual set forth
the relevant authorities and policies governing hazardous waste management and transportation. The Manual
also focused on the hazardous waste import and export requirements of both countries. The first edition was
distributed at the second annual Maquiladora Environmental Educational Conference hosted by SEDUE and EPA
in 1989. Individuals from Mexican and U.S. environmental agencies, Departments of Transportation
and Customs spoke at this conference, which attracted more than 500 participants. An updated Manual was
released at the third annual conference which attracted over 700 participants. The fourth annual SEDUE-EPA
Maquiladora Environmental Educational Conference will be held in Ciudad Juarez in November, 1991.25
5. Abandoned Dump Sites (For relevant implementation plan, see pages VI-13 through VI-14).
The presence of abandoned hazardous waste sites is a problem in both countries. These sites can affect human
health and the environment as contaminants migrate through the soil and into the ground water. By their nature
these sites are often secret, their number is unknown, and locating them is difficult. The extent of contamination
resulting from illegal dumping is unknown. SEDUE is currently developing a program to remediate abandoned
and hazardous waste disposal sites. EPA currently has in place the Superfund program to handle abandoned
sites.
6. Municipal Solid Waste (For relevant implementation plan, see page VI-14).
The Border Area has a population in excess of six million. The Mexican side of the Border Area has a per
capita waste generation rate of 0.645 kg/day. This yields a total of 3,286 metric tons per day (3,202 tons per
day). The per capita waste generation rate on the U.S. side of the border is 2.2 kg/day. This results in a total of
6,446 metric tons per day (6,281 tons per day). Of the total Mexican solid waste generated, it is estimated that
A9J-537.3 111-29 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPLR
-------
only 1,511 metric tons per day are collected. This suggests that 1,775 metric tons per day (1,729 tons per day)
are disposed of improperly. About 65 percent of collected garbage is disposed of in open air dumps. The
proliferation of noxious odors and air pollution resulting from both intentional and unintentional burning causes
additional air pollution. In the absence of adequate landfills, many communities have no way of disposing of
these wastes properly. In addition, characteristics of the waste have changed in recent years from typical organic
residues to ones of slower degradation (e.g., plastics).
SEDUE has contracted with private firms to design properly constructed landfills for municipal waste disposal in
the following communities: Tijuana, Mexicali and Ensenada, Baja California; Nogales and San Luis Rio
Colorado, Sonora; Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua; and Nuevo Laredo, Reynosa and Matamoros, Tamaulipas.
Siting of solid waste facilities in the Border Area is an issue of importance due to its potential impact on
subsurface and surface water sources, emissions of air pollutants, traffic and disease control. An example of
these issues can be seen in the pending permit for a solid waste sanitary landfill, composting facility, and
materials recovery facility on the U.S. side of the border near the Campo Indian reservation. The size of this
facility, located in the southern portion of the reservation between Campo and Jacumba, California and between
Interstate 8 and the Mexican border, is estimated to be 600 acres. The environmental impacts of this facility will
need to be addressed prior to final approval.
D. AIR QUALITY
1. Overview (For relevant implementation plan, see pages VI-14 through VI-19).
The levels of U.S. criteria pollutants (ozone, CO, PM-10, NO,, SO2, and lead) are monitored in several of the
larger U.S. Border Area communities. In addition, there are five visibility monitoring stations along the border
near Douglas, Arizona with additional visibility monitors at several National Park Service areas near the Border
(e.g., Big Bend, Guadelupe Mountains, and Carlsbad Caverns National Parks). U.S. border communities
currently not attaining one or more U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are: San Diego
(ozone, CO) and Imperial County, California (PM-10); El Paso County (ozone, CO, PM-10), Texas; Yuma,
Pima, Santa Cruz and Cochise counties, Arizona (PM-10); and Dona Ana County, New Mexico (PM-10).27
There are no current sets of data sufficient to characterize air quality in the Mexican portion of the Border Area,
although monitoring has recently begun in Ciudad Juarez and one station has recently been put in service in
Tijuana. The new cooperative sampling/monitoring network for Ciudad Juarez and El Paso includes five sites in
Ciudad Juarez with equipment to monitor PM-10, CO, ozone and meteorological parameters. Activated in June
1990, this network also includes four sites in El Paso and is part of a cooperative SEDUE-EPA air basin study
program agreed to under Annex V of the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement.28
Emission inventories on the U.S. side for the relevant criteria pollutants have been prepared for most of the non-
attainment areas cited above, and inventories for all non-attainment areas are required by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. Data on emissions and characteristics of major point sources (over 100 tons per year per
A91-537.3 III-30 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
facility) are reported by State or local agencies in the United States to EPA. In addition, the EPA National Air
Data Branch compiles county-level inventories for area and mobile sources which were most recently updated for
1986.
Sulfur dioxide emissions from copper smelters and utilities on both sides of the border have been a concern in
the past but are currently not having major impacts on ambient SO2 levels due largely to cooperative efforts
between the two governments under Annex IV to the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement. Regular
exceedances of the NAAQS for SO2 in southern Arizona ceased after 1985 when control or closure of several
large smelter operations eliminated these emissions. Of the five smelters in the United States portion of the
Border Area, two are shut down and the others have instituted major SO2 and paniculate controls.29
Visibility studies in pristine areas of the Southwest indicate that long-range transport and atmospheric
transformation of emissions from these types of sources are still of concern due to their contribution to sulfate
levels in areas hundreds of kilometers from the sources.
Under certain conditions, major SO2 sources in the Border Area or even deeper in Mexico or the United States
can contribute to degradation of visibility in scenic areas along the border (such as Big Bend National Park and
Parque International Del Rio Bravo), as well as in areas as far away as the Grand Canyon.
Very little is known about the potential levels of hazardous or toxic air pollutants in Mexico or the U.S. Border
Areas, since very little monitoring of non-criteria pollutants has been conducted in the border region. However,
the U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 establish a major new regulatory program for control of toxic air
pollutants. U.S. agencies along the border will be responsible for this process as specified in the Act. Also,
during the summer of 1991 cooperative EPA-SEDUE air monitoring of non-methane hydrocarbon species is
occurring at one site in Ciudad Juarez and one site in El Paso. Air quality issues for each of three geographical
areas needing immediate air quality monitoring are discussed in the following pages.
2. Ciudad Juarez/El Paso, Texas - Sunland Park, New Mexico (For relevant implementation plan, see
pages VI-15 through VI-16).
Since the 1970s, El Paso and the adjoining community of Sunland Park, New Mexico have failed to meet the
U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone (O3), inhalable particulates (now PM-10), and
carbon monoxide (CO). Although the State of Texas and City of El Paso have developed regulations under EPA
guidance to reduce emissions of hydrocarbons (VOC), CO, and PM-10 in El Paso County, these emission
reductions have not resulted in attainment with NAAQS; in fact, ambient concentrations of O3, CO, and PM-10
have increased over the last ten years, possibly due to continuing high emissions of these pollutants in Ciudad
Juarez. Preliminary air monitoring in Ciudad Juarez indicates an ambient problem in Ciudad Juarez at least as
severe as that in El Paso. Ambient concentrations in Ciudad Juarez may exceed the comparable Mexican
ambient air quality goals for at least O3, CO, and PM-10. Attainment of the NAAQS in El Paso cannot occur
without close cooperation with SEDUE to quantify and mitigate the impact of Ciudad Juarez emissions on El
Paso.
A91-537.3 111-31 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
In Ciudad Juarez, attainment of the Mexican ambient goals cannot occur without an ambitious quantification of
all Ciudad Juarez emissions and mitigating those that have a large scale impact The ASARCO primary copper
smelter in El Paso operates a supplementary control system to avoid SO2 exceedances. It consists of a series of
meteorological stations, SO2 monitors and stack samplers. Data from this system are used to reduce smelter
production when conditions indicate that an exceedance might occur. Since the use of this monitoring system is
restricted to the U.S. side of the border, there is a possibility that emissions from this smelter may be impacting
the Ciudad Juarez area. However, this will need to be investigated in order to make a proper impact
determination.
Ciudad Juarez/El Paso is the only study area currently authorized under Annex V to the 1983 Border
Environmental Agreement. Recent air monitoring efforts have included aerial and "saturation sampler" studies of
PM-10 episodes in 1990, and deployment of monitors in Ciudad Juarez and El Paso since June 1990. An
emission inventory program has been developed to collect information relating to releases in the Ciudad
Juarez/El Paso airshed. Currently, only sources in Ciudad Juarez are included in this study. A standardized
questionnaire was prepared in Spanish and was distributed to over 500 potential sources in Ciudad Juarez. A
one-day workshop on questionnaire response preparation was given to over 250 firms in Ciudad Juarez in
September 1990.
A two-week field effort was conducted in April 1991 to identify and evaluate stationary, area and fugitive
emission source locations in the Ciudad Juarez study area. In addition to collecting these data, assistance was
provided to facilities in the preparation of individual emission estimates required by SEDUE. Facilities evaluated
ranged from simple tile/brick kilns to complex state-of-the-art component production facilities. Unpaved roads,
open dumping, quarries and other open sources were also investigated. Sampling of vehicle emissions in Ciudad
Juarez was performed in the Fall of 1990 to develop mobile source emission factors. A study of vehicle miles
travelled in Ciudad Juarez is pending funding. A special study of PM-10 emissions and meteorology during a
December 1990 episode in the air basin is scheduled for completion by September 1991.30
During 1985-1987, EPA Region 6 developed three air quality training courses for use by Mexican personnel
covering monitoring, quality assurance, and emission inventory techniques and also sponsored attendance of
SEDUE personnel at a week-long training for a variety of monitoring methods in 1989. Training also preceded
SEDUE involvement in a PM-10 saturation monitoring study in December of 1989. The ongoing air quality
monitoring effort in Ciudad Juarez/El Paso has included training of Mexican personnel to operate and maintain
the monitoring sites in Ciudad Juarez.
3. Mexicali/Imperial County (For relevant implementation plan, see pages VI-16 through VI-17).
Ambient PM-10 concentrations exceed the annual and 24-hour PM-10 standards at the Brawley, El Centre, and
Calexico sampling sites in Imperial County. In 1987, the PM-10 concentration measured at the Calexico monitor
was 405 ug/m3 for the highest 24-hour average and 140 ug/m3 for an annual average (applicable NAAQS is
50 ug/m3). It is likely that PM-10 concentrations currently also reach unhealthy levels in the Mexican city of
Mexicali.
A9I-537.3 111-32 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
The California Air Resources Board has prepared a PM-10 emissions inventory for Imperial County, but little
information exists about emissions in Mexicali. Therefore, an emission inventory of major PM-10 sources is
needed for the City of Mexicali. Information is also needed about episodic emissions (e.g., field burning, tilling)
that may affect PM-10 levels. It is suspected that a large portion of the highest PM-10 concentrations are caused
by fugitive dust emissions (e.g., unpaved road dust, windblown dust, agricultural tilling, aggregate mining and
handling, and construction). The precise locations and timings of these dust emissions are unknown. The
chemical profiles for dusts from various activities are very similar and it is unlikely that ordinary modeling
methods can distinguish between the sources. Therefore creative new approaches must be developed to identify
the sources of these fugitive dust emissions.
SEDUE and EPA have agreed on bilateral participation in a Mexicali/Imperial County PM-10 study. Formal
addition of this study area to Annex V of the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement has been proposed. EPA
Region 9 will develop a study plan for monitoring of sources and receptors and for the application of receptor
models to apportion ambient PM-10 to its sources.31
The Mexicali/Imperial County PM-10 action plan calls for workshops to transfer technology from the research
community to local air pollution control personnel in Mexico and the United States. Workshops on measurement
technology include emissions survey techniques, ambient sampler operation and maintenance, and meteorological
measurement systems. Similar workshops for training in PM-10 modeling techniques are also planned. The
monitoring program is scheduled to last one year and will be followed by chemical analyses, computer modeling,
and report preparation.32
4. Tijuana/San Diego (For relevant implementation plan, see pages VI-17 through VI-19).
Tijuana and San Diego share an atmospheric basin, where the prevailing meteorological conditions in both cities
are determinants in the diffusion and transport of pollutant emissions to both sides of the border. The
topographic conditions, characterized by numerous canyons, and long seasons of drought, wide zones of erosion
and the consequent removal of paniculate material (by wind erosion), cause complex contamination patterns
common to both territories. Mobile and stationary source emissions are two of the principal atmospheric
problems of the Tijuana/San Diego area. Mobile sources include private automobiles, cargo transport and
passenger transport vehicles, and public and private airplanes. Stationary sources include industrial
manufacturing plants.
In San Diego, as in most of California, ozone is the most significant pollutant, followed by inhalable particulates
(PM-10), sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide. Air quality is monitored at ten different
locations in the city. San Diego has not succeeded in meeting federal standards for ozone and carbon monoxide,
but has met standards for NO2, SO2, and inhalable particulate (PM-10). The California Clean Air Act of 1988
established general guidelines for areas in non-attainment of standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen
dioxide. The San Diego area has been classified by the State of California as having severe air quality problems.
It is doubtful that the city will succeed in meeting the state standards before the year 2000. Therefore, it is
required to reduce its emissions by 5 percent annually.
A91-537 3 111-33 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
In the case of Tijuana, paniculate material monitoring has not been carried out on a continuous basis, resulting in
inconsistency in the PM-10 data base for this area. Gaseous pollutant monitoring equipment has been installed at
the Autonomous University of Baja California, but data are not currently available. In addition, the Tijuana
emissions inventory is very sparse, providing only general information and principally oriented toward
maquiladoras.
In Tijuana, some paniculate monitoring occurred under a Total Paniculate (TSP) Monitoring Network which was
conducted from 1979 to 1984 and consisted of monitors in three locations. The program was conducted by the
Mexican Subsecretariat for Environmental Improvement (SMA), with technical assistance provided by the San
Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD).33 However, no recent information is available concerning ambient
levels of paniculate matter or other pollutants. Consequently, air quality information in these areas is needed in
order to identify and evaluate emissions sources and determine their impacts.
There has been some preliminary study of potential cross-border impacts of transported ozone and ozone
precursors in the Tijuana/San Diego area. When winds are from the south (i.e., flowing from Tijuana into San
Diego), ozone readings only as high as 0.08 ppm have been recorded, although an upward trend has been noted
under these conditions. Local officials in San Diego have expressed a desire to include an area of Mexico 30 or
40 kilometers deep in their SIP analyses but are now planning modeling and other activities with U.S. data only,
due to unavailability of required information for Baja California. San Diego County studies have also indicated
that ozone levels there are affected by overnight transport of emissions from Los Angeles caused by sea breezes.
Due to the wind patterns involved, similar levels may be occurring in Tijuana on days in which transport from
Los Angeles affects San Diego.
Attempts have been made to include the Tijuana area in air quality modeling of the San Diego basin, but the
lack of Tijuana emissions data currently prevents this. However, Tijuana/San Diego has been proposed as an
additional study area to be covered by Annex V to the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement. This would yield
much useful data for evaluating the Tijuana/San Diego air quality and emissions impacts.
5. Other Areas
Other Border Areas also require research concerning air emissions. The sister cities of Nogales/Nogales, San
Luis/Yuma and Agua Prieta/Douglas are currently exceeding the NAAQS for PM-10. Additional ambient air and
meteorological monitoring and sampling is needed in Matamoros/Brownsville, Nuevo Laredo/Laredo, and
Reynosa/McAllen. There is also a need to study visibility problems in Big Bend National Park, Guadalupe
Mountains National Park, and Carlsbad Caverns National Park, as well as southwest New Mexico. Little
information beyond routine PM-10 compliance monitoring is currently available. With the expected increase hi
the number of industrial facilities in the Border Area and resulting growth in population and vehicle use, baseline
air quality data in the Border Area would be needed before recommendations as to control strategies can be
made.
A91-537.3 111-34 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
1. CONTINGENCY PLANNING/EMERGENCY RESPONSE
1. Overview (For relevant implementation plan, see pages VI-19 through VI-21).
The potential for accidental releases of hazardous materials in the Border Area requires responsible contingency
planning and preparation for response to such emergencies. The Mexican/U.S. Inland Joint Response Team
(JRT) was established under Annex II to the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement to coordinate hazardous
emergency preparedness and response activities along the Mexican/U.S. border. Most small spills are handled by
each country at the local level in coordination with the IBWC as part of the JRT response. The Inland JRT is
activated in the event of a significant hazardous substances incident in the Border Area. It is chaired for Mexico
by SEDUE and for the U.S. by EPA, Additionally, the JRT serves as a conduit for information about each
country's hazardous substances emergency preparedness and response activities. The JRT meets regularly to
address issues to improve the status of emergency preparedness and response along the border.34
2. Joint Response Team (JRT) Activities (For relevant implementation plan, see pages VI-19 through
VI-21).
In addition to addressing policy, protocol and program development issues, the JRT participates in a number of
activities including:
• Contingency Planning. Under the auspices of the JRT, the Joint Mexican/U.S. Contingency
Plan for Accidental Releases Along the Border (JCP) was developed and presented to the
Presidents of both countries in January 1988. Once the JCP was developed, emphasis shifted
to developing contingency plans in the fourteen pairs of sister cities along the border.
Currently, contingency plans are being developed for Mexicali/Imperial County, Tijuana/San
Diego, and Matamoros/Brownsville.
• JRT Conferences. In April 1989, the JRT convened its first conference to initiate planning
and preparedness efforts in fourteen sister cities along the border. The conference brought
together representatives from the public and private sectors of both countries. A second
conference focusing more specifically on the development of sister city contingency plans and
response mechanisms was held in June 1990. Future conferences and workshops will build
upon the efforts of these two conferences.
• Simulation Exercises and Other Training Initiatives. The JRT has sponsored several
simulation exercises including a table-top exercise in Mexicali/Imperial County in 1989, and a
full field exercise in Matamoros/Brownsville in 1990.35
The JRT has been involved in several exercises in the past two years in Tiji«uia/San Diego,
Matamoros/Brownsville, and the Ciudad Juarez/El Paso areas. In December 1990, JRT members were invited by
SEDUE to observe a field .exercise which was planned by a maquiladora facility in Matamoros. The exercise
involved a simulated emergency response to a hypothetical release that threatened the surrounding residential
community in Matamoros and had the potential to threaten the downtown area of Brownsville, Texas.36
A91-537 3 111-35 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
In the Fall of 1989, Brownsville, Texas through the Cameron County Local Emergency Planning Committee
(LEPC) and Matamoros, Tamaulipas through the Local Committee on Mutual Assistance (CLAM) began
working with members of the JRT to develop the first full-field exercise in the Border Area which occurred in
March of 1990. This exercise represented the culmination of activities in which these two entities prepared for
and responded to a border incident. The JRT, which sponsored the exercise, is encouraging and supporting the
establishment of such local action committees as these to work together in developing the sister cities plans and
in all emergency preparedness, prevention and response activities. The second CLAM is being formed in Ciudad
Juarez to work with the El Paso LEPC in JRT activities.
The JRT also encourages the active participation of industry, particularly the maquiladoras, along the border to
participate as working members of the LEPCs and CLAMs with training efforts, to participate in border exercises
and training sessions, and in providing emergency equipment to enhance community efforts and response
capabilities.
A two-day training workshop developed by EPA Region 6 currently is being offered to first responders to
hazardous materials incidents. Training materials are being translated into Spanish to facilitate similar training of
Spanish-speaking personnel and to promote consistent response to accidents involving the release or potential
release of hazardous materials on both sides of the border.37 In 1990, EPA Region 9 conducted training in San
Diego and in Calexico concerning hazardous materials recognition for first responders to hazardous materials
incidents. These sessions were bilingual and were conducted in collaboration with other federal agencies.
Primary attendees were local emergency officials from both sides of the border.
The Mexican and U.S. governments are addressing the various data needs and coordination mechanisms
necessary to enhance the contingency planning/emergency response capabilities of the Border Area. These
actions are discussed on pages VI-37 through VI-41 and cover the following areas:
• Developing a joint response capability along the border;
* Improving cross-border communications;
• Facilitating the establishment of local planning and preparedness groups (LEPCs in U.S.
border cities; CLAMs in Mexican border cities);
• Promoting an understanding of the laws and regulations;
• Increasing the level of preparedness, response training and technical assistance to border
communities;
• Developing improvements in cross-border hazardous materials transportation policy;
• Developing an accident prevention program;
• Developing a database on accidental releases in the border area; and
A91-537.3 111-36 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Expanding JRT membership to include appropriate planning and response officials at the
federal, state and local levels.
F. OTHER MULTIMEDIA ISSUES
The Mexican and U.S. governments are addressing relevant data needs and other multimedia issues in the Border
Area. The response is discussed on pages VI-43 through VI-49. The actions required involve the following
areas:
• Obtaining information on industrial sources;
• Conducting training programs;
• Developing methods of transboundary technology transfer;
• Developing methods to track industrial facilities usage of hazardous materials and disposal of
hazardous wastes;
• Performing risk studies;
• Performing monitoring studies;
• Conducting cooperative training visits to facilities;
• Exchanging enforcement information; and
• Developing private initiatives.
1. Colonias
According to a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) study, over 200,000 residents of Texas and New
Mexico reside in colonias. Colonias are rural, unincorporated subdivisions with substandard housing, inadequate
roads and drainage, and substandard or no water and sewer facilities. Seventy-six percent of the Texas colonias
have water supplies, but less than 1 percent have sewage systems. There are 500 colonias in Texas with a total
population of 140,000. In New Mexico, 80 percent of the colonias have water and 7 percent have sewer
systems. In colonias without public water systems, residents typically use shallow wells that can be potentially
contaminated from private septic systems. In colonias without sewers, residents typically use septic tanks and
privies which do not meet public health standards.
Both Texas and New Mexico have funding programs for water and sewer development needs in colonias. Texas
recently authorized a $100 million bond issue for water and sewer projects in economically distressed counties
and in all counties adjacent to the Mexican border. While state and local efforts in New Mexico have provided
public water supplies to colonias, efforts to provide sewer systems have not been as successful.
A91-537.3 111-37 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Though not as extensive as Texas and New Mexico, California also has residents residing in colonias. Within
the 100 kilometer border area of San Diego County there are approximately 10,000 residents living in
substandard housing and migrant worker camps without adequate water and sewage facilities. Similarly, in
Calexico there are a number of colonias within the city limits.
2. Pesticides
Pesticides are important in the Border Area to the extent that their use creates health or environmental problems
because of spray drift, worker exposure or contamination of air and water. There is little hard data on any of
these issues in the Border Area.
There are agricultural lands on both sides of the border which are utilized for crop production, particularly the
Imperial Valley of California and the Rio Grande Valley. The Arizona-Mexico border is less developed in this
regard but has been increasing its agricultural production. The Rio Grande Valley on both sides of the border is
a prolific producer of agricultural products, ranging from cotton in the upstream areas to fruits and vegetables in
the lower Rio Grande. Both the Mexican and U.S. growers use significant quantities of pesticides in the
production of these crops, particularly for fruits and vegetables. Generally, the pesticides used in both countries
are the same or at least closely related. One major difference is that a few pesticides are used in Mexico on
crops which do not have the same registered uses in the United States, although they are often approved for
other food uses in the United States. These include Omethoate (which is not registered in the United States but
is a derivative of Metabolite which is registered); Deltamethin (application for use now being reviewed in the
United States); Chloidone (strictly controlled in Mexico for land use only. Mexican officials plan to phase this
pesticide out); and EPN (No food uses allowed in the U.S. but there are U.S. residue tolerances for many crops.
Mexican officials have noted plans to phase out EPN use).
Spray drift across the border and the potential for non-point source pollution of water bodies are the two most
relevant issues. Anecdotal incidents of both have been identified although there are no good statistical data on
either. Evaporation and transport of pesticides through air, sometimes for very long distances, has been
hypothesized. An information system on pesticide usage in the Border Area is needed as a beginning point to
controlling pesticide use and for applying existing monitoring systems. Another important issue to both countries
is the illegal import/export of pesticide.
Mexican law and regulations require registration (similar to U.S. requirements) for all pesticides. However,
completely effective implementation of the regulations and protection of health and environment is hampered by
a number of factors. The Mexican government currently has not implemented a Good Laboratory Practices
(GLP) program that would ensure quality of data for registration purposes and lacks control over potential uses.
While pesticides are registered and instructions are provided on recommended uses, farmers and growers may
often use pesticides contrary to directions.
A91-537.3 111-38 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
SEDUE and EPA plan to oversee pesticide issues in the Border Area as part of their national pesticide regulatory
programs rather than create a specific Working Group on this issue for the Border Area. They will attempt to
understand the extent of pesticide-related problems and develop control mechanisms which can be mutually
accepted and implemented by both countries. The water and air Working Groups will, of course, watch for signs
of pesticide runoff or drift.
TTT-^Q PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
A91 537.3 1U Jy
-------
REFERENCES
1. Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 15, pp 329, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
2. Encyclopedia Americans International Edition, Volume 18, pg 817, Grolier, Inc.
3. The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 24, pg 31, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
4. Climates of the States, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., Volumes 1 and 2, pg 678, Gale
Research Company, Book Tower, Detroit, MI, 1978.
5. Climates of the States, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., Volumes 1 and 2, pg 677, Gale
Research Company, Book Tower, Detroit, MI, 1978.
6. Colliers Encyclopedia, Volume 16, pg 79, Maxwell Macmillan International Publishing Group.
7. Climates of the States, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., Volumes 1 and 2, pp 937 and 938,
Gale Research Company, Book Tower, Detroit, MI, 1978.
8. The World Book Encyclopedia, Volume 13, pg 465, World Book, Inc.
9. Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 15, pg 326, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
10. Climates of the States, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., Volumes 1 and 2, pg 48, Gale
Research Company, Book Tower, Detroit, MI, 1978.
11. The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 24, pg 27, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
12. Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 15, pg 323, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
13. Kim, K.S., 1986. Industrialization in Mexico: Issues and Strategies, Working Paper #67. The Helen
Kellogg Institute Studies, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, p. 7.
14. Memo from H. Serydarian, Region IX Water Management Division to T. Atkeson, U.S. EPA OIA.
Overview of activities to address water quality issues along the U.S./Mexico border since 1983 (and
Attachments). March 29, 1991.
15. Memo from H. Serydarian, Region DC Water Management Division to T. Atkeson, U.S. EPA OIA.
Overview of activities to address water quality issues along the U.S./Mexico border since 1983 (and
Attachments). March 29, 1991.
16. SEDUE-provided information, May 17, 1991.
17. Memo from H. Serydarian, Region IX Water Management Division to T. Atkeson, U.S. EPA OIA.
Overview of activities to address water quality issues along the U.S./Mexico border since 1983 (and
Attachments). March 29, 1991.
18. S. Hudson, National Wildlife Federation. Remarks at Congressional Staff Briefing on Opening Up the
Debate: The FT A with Mexico and Environmental Concerns. January 15, 1991.
19. Memo from H. Serydarian, Region IX Water Management Division to T. Atkeson, U.S. EPA OIA.
Overview of activities to address water quality issues along the U.S./Mexico border since 1983 (and
Attachments). March 29, 1991.
A91-537.3 111-40 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
20. Region 6 Hazardous Waste Management Division, U.S./Mexico Review of Existing Program (Faxed to
L. Clark by K. Lohry, EPA Region VI, on March 19, 1991).
21. Memo from T. Atkeson, U.S. EPA OIA dated March 15, 1991 enclosing report on Border Work
Groups by P. Charles.
22. Memo from T. Atkeson, U.S. EPA OIA dated March 15, 1991 enclosing report on Border Work
Groups by P. Charles.
23. Region 6 Hazardous Waste Management Division, U.STMexico Review of Existing Program (Faxed to
L. Clark by K. Lohry, EPA Region VI, on March 19, 1991.
24. Telecon between M. Michaud, EPA Region VI, and L. Clark, Alliance Technologies Corporation,
March 19, 1991.
25. K. Shimmin, EPA Region IX - "Tijuana Drum Site, General Overview of Process," prepared
October 22, 1990.
26. Region 6 Hazardous Waste Management Division, U.S^Mexico Review of Existing Program (Faxed to
L. Clark by K. Lohry, EPA Region VI, on March 19, 1991.
27. U.S. EPA Press Release. EPA announces 96 areas failing to meet Smog Standards, 41 areas violating
CO standards. By EPA Office of Public Affairs. August 16, 1990.
28. Status Report on Annex V to the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement, January 28, 1991.
29. Provided by J. Yarbrough, EPA Region 6, April 22, 1991.
30. Status Report on Annex V to the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement, January 28, 1991.
31. Action Plan - PM-10 Air Quality in Imperial County/Mexicali. Prepared by U.S. EPA, Region IX.
February 1991.
32. Action Plan - PM-10 Air Quality in Imperial County/Mexicali. Prepared by U.S. EPA, Region IX.
February 1991.
33. Conversation between M. Smith, Alliance and H. Brown, San Diego Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) March 26, 1991.
34. U.S./Mexico Integrated Border Environmental Plan, Section F.IV: Emergency Preparedness for
Accidental Releases (Draft, February 14, 1991).
35. Memo from T. Atkeson, U.S. EPA OIA dated March 15, 1991 enclosing report on Border Work
Groups by P. Charles.
36. Memo from T. Atkeson, U.S. EPA OIA dated March 15, 1991 enclosing report on Border Work
Groups by P. Charles.
37. Memo from T. Atkeson, U.S. EPA OIA dated March 15, 1991 enclosing report on Border Work
Groups by P. Charles.
A91-537.3
111-41 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
-------
SECTION IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
IV. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE BORDER AREA IV-1
A. Overview of SEDUE and Mexican Environmental Laws
Impacting the Border Area IV-1
B. Overview of the EPA and U.S. Environmental Laws Impacting
the Border Area IV-3
C. Applicable International Agreements and Treaties IV-5
1. Bilateral Agreements Between Mexico and the United States IV-5
2. Multilateral Environmental Agreements IV-7
3. Mexican-U.S. Environmental Planning and Coordination Mechanisms IV-8
4. Federal-State Environmental Relationships in Mexico
and the United States IV-9
D. Environmental Agencies of Mexican and U.S. Border States and Cities IV-10
1. Mexico IV-10
2. United States IV-11
AQ1 ,._ , IV-i PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Ayi-jj/.4
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
-------
SECTION IV
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
FOR THE BORDER AREA
A. OVERVIEW OF SEDUE AND MEXICAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS IMPACTING THE
BORDER AREA
Mexican environmental laws, regulations and standards are administered and enforced by the ecological sub-
secretariat of the Secretaria de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologica (SEDUE), the Ministry of Urban Development and
Ecology. Mexico's first modern environmental laws were passed in 1972, 1982 and 1984. These laws were
superseded in 1988 by the "General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection" (the "General
Ecology Law"), a comprehensive statute covering all types of pollution as well as the protection and preservation
of natural resources.
Four regulations relating to national air pollution, air pollution within the Mexico City Metropolitan Zone,
environmental impact assessment and hazardous wastes have been issued under the General Law since 1988. A
fifth regulation covering wastes at sea and implementing the London Ocean Dumping Convention was adopted in
1979 and will remain in force until superceded. A new regulation dealing with a range of water pollution issues
has been drafted and is expected to be released shortly. As of November 1990, 54 technical ecological standards
(NTE's) and ecological criteria have been issued to implement the regulations. Since November 1990, several
additional NTE's involving source categories for water have been approved by the Secretary of SEDUE. Other
NTE's, particularly in the air and hazardous waste pollution areas, are slated to be presented for approval later in
1991.
Mexico's environmental laws, regulations and standards are similar in many respects to those in the United
States. The General Ecology Law embodies principles similar to those in U.S. laws and regulations, and the
technical standards for implementing the General Ecology Law are comparable to those of the United States.
Mexico is committed to ensuring new source compliance and to "growing clean." Most new facilities or
modifications to existing facilities, whether public or private, are required to file with SEDUE an environmental
impact analysis and, for high risk activities, a risk assessment. SEDUE reviews these analyses and has the
authority to deny authorization for a project or to impose design, construction, and operating conditions to avoid
significant adverse environmental effects. Even in cases where all applicable NTE's have not yet been
developed, SEDUE can impose limits and other "special conditions." Separate air, water, and waste permits are
also necessary where applicable.
A9J-537.4 IV-1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
In accordance with the General Health Law in Mexico, the Secretariat of Health is authorized to issue water
quality standards for human use and consumption, as well as those relating to treatments for water disinfection
and to perform monitoring and certification of drinking water quality. A national system of monitoring and
certification of water has been established and is applicable in all Mexican territories.
Likewise, the Secretariat of Health is responsible for the establishment of sanitary quality criteria of wastewaters
for their treatment and use for agricultural, aquacultural, or recreational purposes. In addition, it is entitled to
prohibit discharges of wastewaters in bodies of water that comprise sources of drinking water supply.
In addition, the Secretariat of Health is responsible for establishing health standards and criteria and for
monitoring the health of workers and the general population for risks of exposure to toxic products and
hazardous wastes. Programs are under way for establishing the normative framework as well as for training the
sanitary regulation personnel to evaluate the effects on the health by exposure to hazardous wastes.
Similarly, the Secretariat of Health is the entity responsible for establishing the maximum allowable limits of
pollutants in the air, as well as, evaluating the effects of air pollution on health and orienting the population
toward reducing the risks.
The Secretariat of Commerce and Industrial Development (SECOFT) oversees the operations of Mexico's
maquiladora industry under the August 15, 1983 "Decree for the Fostering of the Exporting Maquiladora
Industry." Under the Decree, if wastes resulting from materials imported into Mexico from the United States
cannot be "nationalized" by the maquiladora operator in accordance with Mexican law, it must be returned to the
United States.
Since the General Ecology Law was passed, SEDUE has taken increasingly strong measures to bring existing
sources into compliance and to demonstrate its commitment to enforcing the law. From March 1988 through the
end of 1990, 5,405 inspections resulting in 980 partial or temporary closings and 3 permanent closings occurred.
In the period January 1 through May 15, 1991, there were more than 275 plant inspections in Mexico City
resulting in the temporary or partial closing of more than 102 facilities and 2 permanent closings. In March
1991, Mexican President Salinas de Gortari closed the "18th of March" Pemex oil refinery near Mexico City.
The closing of this refinery, which accounted for eight percent of Pemex's total distillation capacity and involved
a $500 million investment and 5,000 jobs, demonstrates Mexico's commitment to improving the environment.
SEDUE has recently hired fifty new inspectors for Mexico City and is in the process of hiring fifty additional
inspectors to be assigned to the Border Area.
Mexico's enforcement efforts have been hampered by a lack of resources. However, the 1991 SEDUE budget is
approximately $39 million (U.S.), more than three times the 1990 budget. In addition, Mexico is currently
negotiating with the World Bank for a loan in excess of $45 million (U.S.) to benefit SEDUE which, together
with allocations from the central government of Mexico, is expected to provide significant additional resources
for SEDUE's enforcement activities.
A91-537.4 IV-2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
B. OVERVIEW OF THE EPA AND U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS IMPACTING THE BORDER
AREA
Most U.S. pollution prevention laws are administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a federal
regulatory agency headed by an Administrator who is appointed by and reports to the President Formed in
1970, EPA is responsible for pollution abatement and control programs, including air and water pollution control,
water supply and radiation protection, solid and toxic waste management, emergency preparedness and
contingency planning, pesticides control, and toxic chemicals regulations. Those offices within EPA having the
most direct responsibility for the Border Area are the Office of International Activities, which maintains Agency
contacts with SEDUE; Office of Chemical Preparedness and Prevention, which maintains contact with SEDUE
on spill preparedness and response issues; and the EPA Regional Offices in Dallas (Region 6, which includes the
Texas and New Mexican borders with Mexico) and San Francisco (Region 9, which includes the California and
Arizona borders with Mexico), which help implement and enforce national policy and the range of EPA
environmental programs. As the Border Environmental Plan is implemented, a number of other EPA offices,
including the Office of Enforcement, will have increased involvement in Border Area issues.
The MARPOL Convention establishes international environmental rules on the design, construction, and
operation of ships. The International Maritime Organization's Marine Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC) is expected to vote on the inclusion of the Gulf of Mexico and the Wider Caribbean Region as a special
area under MARPOL at the July 1991 Meeting of the MEPC. Approval is expected. The amendment would
prohibit the discharge of oil, oily mixtures, and garbage from ships operating in the region.
Enforcement of the EPA administered statutes affects the border environment positively. Some U.S. anti-
pollution laws impact directly upon certain maquiladora operations. For example, the return of hazardous waste
materials to the United States from maquiladora facilities is regulated by both U.S. federal and state laws once
those materials reach the U.S. border.
Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which authorizes EPA to regulate hazardous
wastes and develop hazardous waste management practices, EPA tracks the domestic movement of hazardous
wastes from generation to final disposal. Transboundary shipments of hazardous wastes are also tracked.
Through reporting and manifesting requirements, exported hazardous wastes are tracked from their generation in
the United States to their final Mexican destination. For each such export, the exporter must notify EPA of its
intent to export; the Mexican government must consent to receive the export; a copy of the Mexican government
consent must be attached to the manifest accompanying each shipment; and each shipment must conform to the
terms of the consent. Imports of hazardous waste from Mexico are tracked from the time they reach the U.S.
border until they reach their final U.S. destination.
EPA and authorized States have the authority for administrative enforcement of RCRA requirements. A variety
of tools exists under U.S. law to compel transporters, brokers, TSDFs (Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facilities), U.S. sister plants, other intermediaries and any other RCRA violators to come into compliance. These
enforcement tools include administrative orders, civil actions, criminal actions, and special penalty actions.
A91-537.4 IV-3 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reautborization Act (SARA) of 1981 contains U.S. provisions for
preparing for, preventing, and responding to extremely hazardous substance releases. Under Section 301, all
U.S. states are required to establish Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) that are responsible for
developing local emergency plans for chemical accidents. Section 304 requires immediate notification of
chemical releases above a certain threshold level. Sections 311-312 require facilities to provide information on
chemicals produced, stored, and used. Section 313 requires facilities to report routine releases of certain
chemicals. Finally, Section 325 sets forth penalties and enforcement criteria for failure to meet Title III
requirements.
EPA has the authority on the U.S. side of the border to protect the supply of drinking water delivered through
the public water systems. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to develop drinking water standards,
commonly known as Maximum Contaminant Levels, which are applied to the public water systems. In addition,
EPA administers a program within the Border Area to improve access to water and sewer systems. To ensure
water quality within the Border Area, the Clean Water Act provides the authority for the enforcement of
limitations on point sources discharging into U.S. waters. Water quality standards developed by the states and
approved by EPA consist of designated uses and criteria to meet those uses.
Section 815 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA), which remains in force until July 1, 1995,
authorizes the EPA Administrator, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of State and affected border States,
to agree upon a cooperative program with Mexico to monitor and improve air quality in regions within the
Border Area. Section 815 provides, among other things, for establishing air quality monitoring and remediation
programs and annual progress reports to Congress which are to include funding recommendations for monitoring
and remediation efforts.
Monitoring components include ambient air quality monitoring programs, emissions inventory development and
collection of additional monitoring data to support state-of-the-art mathematical modeling studies. The ultimate
goal of these programs will be to collect and produce data projecting the level of emissions reductions necessary
in both Mexico and the United States to attain both primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) and other air quality goals in areas within the United States along the Mexican border. The
EPA Administrator is authorized to negotiate with appropriate Mexican representatives to develop remediation
measures for reducing airborne pollutant levels to achieve and maintain air quality standards and goals. This
remediation program will also identify those control measures to be implemented by Mexico with the help of
material or financial assistance from the United States.
Section 818 of the CAAA amends the requirements governing State implementation plans (SIPs) in international
border areas. Among other things, it provides that if a State can demonstrate that the SIP would be adequate to
attain and maintain the relevant NAAQS by the specified attainment date, except for emissions emanating from
outside the United States, EPA should approve the SIP provided it meets all applicable requirements other than
the NAAQS attainment and maintenance and/or not penalize the U.S. city in question by "bumping up" its
pollution severity category.
A91-537.4 IV-4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
C. APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND TREATIES
1. Bilateral Agreements Between Mexico and the United States
Two major groups of bilateral agreements between Mexico and the United States relate to water resource
protection and pollution control.
The first group of agreements includes the 1889 International Boundary Convention which established the
binational International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), and the Water Treaty of 1944 which extended
the IBWC's authority to address water quality, conservation, and use issues. The IBWC is made responsible for
undertaking any border water sanitation measures or works mutually agreed upon by the two governments. Such
agreements are expressed in the form of an IBWC minute1 and relate to planning, construction, operation, and
maintenance of joint works, cost sharing, and other aspects of joint activities. Wastewater treatment facilities are
presently under construction at Nuevo Laredo and Nogales, and are being proposed for the New River at
Mexicali/Calexico. Through the IBWC, Mexico and the United States have just launched their largest project to
date, a new international secondary sewage treatment plant in the Tijuana/San Diego area.
The second major group of relevant bilateral agreements includes the 1983 Agreement between the United States
and Mexico on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area (the
"1983 Border Environmental Agreement") and its five Annexes. The 1983 Border Environmental Agreement
provides a framework for cooperation between Mexican and U.S governmental authorities to prevent, reduce, and
eliminate sources of air, water, and land pollution in a 100-kilometer wide zone along each side of the
international boundary. The Agreement creates the general structure under which specific projects set out in
technical annexes (currently five) are implemented.
Annex I signed on July 18, 1985 addresses Tijuana/San Diego wastewater treatment facilities. Activities relating
to this project have been conducted by the IBWC in coordination with SEDUE/EPA.
Annex II signed on July 18, 1985 and the 1988 Joint U.S./Mexico Contingency Plan for Accidental Releases of
Hazardous Substances Along the Border authorize the establishment of the Inland Joint Response Team (JRT).
The JRT undertakes emergency actions to respond to accidental oil and hazardous substance spills along the 200-
kilometer-wide inland Border Area defined by the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement. The JRT also
coordinates international hazardous substance emergency preparedness and response activities in this area.
1 IBWC Minute - The 1944 Water Treaty establishes that agreements of the IBWC be expressed in the form of
minutes. The minutes provide specific recommendations for the joint solution of common problems. The U.S. and
Mexican Commissioners, appointed by their respective presidents to serve in this international organization, are
responsible for adopting the minutes. Once signed by the Commissioners, the minutes are required to be referred to
the two governments for approval, when they then become executive agreements binding compliance by both
countries under the terms stipulated in each particular minute.
A91-537 4 IV-5 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Establishment of the JRT supplemented the 1980 Agreement of Cooperation between Mexico and the United
States regarding Pollution of the Marine Environment by Discharges of Hydrocarbons and other Hazardous
Substances (implemented by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Mexican Navy), which establishes a similar
i :hanism for the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Ocean regions of the Border Area.
Annex III signed on November 12, 1986 governs the transboundary shipment of hazardous wastes and hazardous
substances between Mexico and the United States. It establishes notification and consent procedures which
require exporters of hazardous waste to provide written notice to, and obtain consent from, the country of import
prior to commencing export The Annex further requires the country of export to readmit any shipment of
hazardous waste returned for any reason by the country of import. For the United States, this means that the
U.S. will allow re-entry of hazardous waste and hazardous substance shipments in compliance with domestic
U.S. law where the exporter is responsible for the shipment. In addition, hazardous waste generated from raw
materials admitted to either country "in-bond" for purposes of processing must be readmitted by the country from
which the raw materials originated, as in the case of hazardous wastes generated in maquiladora facilities. With
respect to hazardous substances, Annex III requires each party to notify the other of regulatory actions
undertaken to bar or severely restrict a pesticide or chemical and to give notice of any ongoing hazardous
substances export that comes to the attention of the country of export.
Annex IV signed on January 29, 1987 requires copper smelters in the border area of Arizona, New Mexico,
Texas and Sonora, Mexico, operating as of January 29, 1987, to comply with certain emissions limits that are no
stricter than U.S. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). The Annex contains an annual reporting
requirement and provides for the transfer of emissions and compliance monitoring data between SEDUE and
EPA.
Annex V signed on October 3, 1989 provides for a quantitative appraisal of causes of, and potential remedies
for, urban air pollution problems in Mexico/U.S. border cities identified as "study areas". Under Annex V, for
each study area, SEDUE and EPA will compile emissions inventories (including major stationary, mobile, and
area sources), estimate requirements needed to attain control levels, conduct ambient air quality monitoring, and
perform air modeling analysis to evaluate air quality changes that would result from airshed-wide emissions
reductions. The first study area to be identified under Annex V is Ciudad Juarez/El Paso. Tijuana/San Diego,
and Mexicali/Calexico will be scheduled for study under Annex V in the near future.
Four work groups of technical experts were established prior to 1991 to implement the terms of the 1983 Border
Environmental Agreement and its technical Annexes; the Water Work Group, the Hazardous Waste Work Group,
the Air Work Group, and the Inland Joint Response Team (JRT). An Enforcement Cooperation Work Group
was established in June 1991.
A91-537 4 IV-6 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
The Mexico/United States Mutual Legal Assistance Cooperation Treaty became effective in May 1991 and
provides for mutual legal assistance by the parties in criminal matters. Mexico is also a recent signatory of the
Hague Convention On the Taking of Evidence Abroad, to which the United States is also a party. These
agreements will make it easier in criminal and civil proceedings for enforcement and judicial authorities in one
country to obtain assistance from the enforcement and judicial authorities of the other.
Since 1983, the following other bilateral and trilateral cooperative agreements associated with protecting natural
resources in the border area have been signed by Mexico and the United States:
• Agreement between the Directorate General of Natural Resources of SEDUE and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for Cooperation in the Conservation of Wildlife (1984)
• Memorandum of Understanding among the Directorate General of Natural Resources of
SEDUE and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Canadian Wildlife Service of the
Department of the Environment of Canada to Evaluate the Possibilities of Developing Strategies
for Conservation of Migratory Birds and their Habitats (1988)
• Memorandum of Understanding between SEDUE and the U.S. National Park Service on
Cooperation in Management and Protection of National Parks and Other Protected Natural and
Cultural Heritage Sites (1988)
Discussions are currently proceeding between the U.S. Park Service and their SEDUE counterparts to develop a
binational protected area on both sides of the Rio Grande River in Big Bend National Park.
2. Multilateral Environmental Agreements
Several multilateral agreements to which Mexico and the United States are parties affect the Border Area. Both
Mexico and the United States are parties to the Montreal Protocol On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,
which entered into force in 1989. Mexico was the first country to ratify this agreement, which has as its
objective the protection of the ozone layer through precautionary measures for the control of emissions that
deplete it. Both Mexico and the United States have signed the Basel Convention on the Transboundary
Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (the "Basel Convention"). Mexico has ratified the Basel
Convention and President Bush has submitted it to Congress for its advice and consent to ratification. The Basel
Convention will require contracting parties to provide the receiving country with advance notice of proposed
shipments of waste and the prior written consent of the receiving country. It will also require that the exporting
country be assured that the waste will be managed in an "environmentally sound manner" in the receiving
country. Article 11 of the Convention provides that parties can enter into bilateral agreements with non-parties
A91-537.4
JV-7 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
and with other parties for the trans-shipment of hazardous wastes, so long as the provisions of these agreements
are no less protective of the environment than the Basel Convention itself. As noted above, Mexico and the
United States are parties to Annex in to the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement, signed in 1986, which
covers the transboundary shipment of hazardous wastes and hazardous substances and provisions dealing with
land based sources of pollution.
Both Mexico and the United States are parties to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the
Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region and Protocol (the "Cartagena Convention") which entered
into force in 1986. Article 3 of the Protocol requires parties to promote contingency plans for combatting oil
pollution. The parties are now attempting to develop an Annex to the Protocol covering hazardous substances
and provisions dealing with land based sources of pollution.
Several other multilateral instruments may also be relevant to the Border Area. Principle 21 of the 1972
Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment provides that States have the sovereign right to exploit their
own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies and the responsibility to ensure that activities within
their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or areas beyond their
jurisdiction.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which contains provisions on natural
resources and protection of the marine environment, has been signed and ratified by Mexico and is part of the
supreme law of that country. While UNCLOS has not been signed or ratified by the United States, the United
States accepts and acts in accordance with the balance of interests relating to the traditional uses of the ocean set
out in the non-deep seabed mining provisions of UNCLOS.
3. Mexican-U.S. Environmental Planning and Coordination Mechanisms
The Presidential commitments to strengthen cooperative environmental activities between Mexico and the United
States hi the Border Area with the planning goals set hi the November 1990 joint Presidential communique, the
SEDUE-EPA collaboration under the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement, and the experience with IBWC
management of border water projects creates a flexible binational mechanism for upgrading the environment of
the Border Area. The Plan will draw in and coordinate the participation of the border states and cities, the
private sector and the public. By approaching the Plan in stages, a continuing process of review and refinement
involving all the relevant parties will be initiated.
The Presidents of Mexico and the United States hold regularly-scheduled meetings to discuss issues of mutual
concern including environmental issues and to promote continued friendly and cooperative relations. Progress
reports on this Plan will be made available on such occasions.
A91-537.4 IV-8 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
The next level of Mexican-U.S. planning activities occurs within the framework of the Mexican-US, cabinet to
cabinet Binational Commission, which brings together the highest levels of authority within the environmental
agencies of both countries. The Secretary of SEDUE and the Administrator of the EPA meet at least annually as
part of this cabinet-level Binational Commission to further discussions involving cooperative environmental
agreements between the two nations.
The 1983 Border Environmental Agreement provides for an annual meeting between the National Coordinators
of the Agreement. The Mexican coordinator is the Under Secretary for Ecology of SEDUE and the U.S.
Coordinator is the Assistant Administrator for International Activities of EPA. The foreign affairs ministries of
both countries and the IBWC also participate. Additional representatives from both countries are asked to attend
these meetings to facilitate the discussion and understanding of technical and policy issues depending on the
agenda for the individual meetings. The purpose of these meetings is to review the manner in which the Border
Environmental Agreement is being implemented and to review other environmental cooperation between SEDUE
and EPA. It is planned that representatives of the Mexican and U.S. border states join the SEDUE-EPA
Coordinator's meeting in 1992 for a day of discussions.
4. Federal-State Environmental Relationships in Mexico and the United States
SEDUE is more centralized than the EPA. As compared with the United States, a much larger portion of
Mexico's environmental protection regime is currently developed and implemented by federal authorities.
Mexican laws and regulations provide for an expanded role for the states but this has not yet been fully
implemented. For example, in its achievement of ambient air quality standards, Mexico relies on a source
permitting program which is currently carried out at the federal level through SEDUE. SEDUE intends to
eventually turn most permitting responsibilities over to the states as intended by Mexico's air regulation. Under
Mexican water pollution law, either federal or state governments may authorize wastewater discharges into
bodies of water or into the soil or subsoil.
Since the General Ecology Law was enacted in early 1988, eighteen of the Mexican states, including the States
of Coahuila, Sonora and Nuevo Leon in the Border Area, plus the Federal District have adopted environmental
statutes. Other states have yet to adopt such statutes, leaving to the federal government exclusive jurisdiction
over most environmental matters. Those regulations and standards passed or promulgated at the state level may
not be less stringent than the federal regulations or standards.
Mexico is currently examining how SEDUE might be "decentralized" by shifting some of the functions which it
now carries on centrally to state environmental authorities.
In the United States, many minimum pollution control standards are set at the federal level. However, these are
often implemented by state plans, which may call for more but not less stringent pollution control measures, with
Federal authorities retaining oversight responsibility. Examples of this approach include the U.S. air and water
pollution control regimes. Under the U.S. Clean Air Act, the states develop state implementation plans or "SIPs"
which are submitted to EPA for approval. The SIPs are subject to federal oversight and must contain a number
A91-537.4 IV-9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
of measures prescribed by the federal statute. Under the U.S. Clean Water Act, the EPA sets minimum
technology-based guidelines for pollutant discharges into surface waters. These are implemented through a
permitting program largely carried out by the states under federal oversight, except where states have chosen not
to participate. Standards are developed by each state with respect to the quality of their own receiving waters
which may be more but not less stringent than the federal standards. On the other hand, implementation of some
U.S. Programs, including those in the pesticides area, remain highly centralized.
Both SEDUE and EPA have reviewed this Plan with their border state environmental authorities and have
included in the final recommendations to this Plan (See #6) a recommendation on coordination of environmental
programs in the Border Area.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES OF MEXICAN AND U.S. BORDER STATES AND CITIES
The following subsection briefly describes the State and city agencies involved along the Mexican/U.S. border
which administer, manage, monitor, permit and enforce environmental regulations.
I. Mexico
There are six Mexican States that border the United States: Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila,
Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas.
SEDUE has offices ("delegaciones") in each of the border States. Three of the States, Sonora, Nuevo Leon and
Coahuila, have State environmental laws, although regulations have not been promulgated pursuant to those State
laws.
The principal municipal governments affected include: Tijuana and Mexicali in Baja California; Nogales in
Sonora; Ciudad Juarez in Chihuahua; and Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros in Tamaulipas.
Chihuahua
Ciudad Juarez assisted SEDUE and the State of Texas in establishing a long-term air pollution monitoring
network. This network, the first long-term network of its kind in a Mexican Border city, was first activated on
June 10, 1990 and will continue in operation at least through August 1992. SEDUE and Ciudad Juarez are
investigating the establishment of a vehicular inspection/maintenance program.
Tamaulipas
Nuevo Laredo is in the process of constructing a sewage collection and treatment system in the context of a
bilateral cooperation project agreed upon by Mexico and the United States.
A91-537.4 IV-10 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
2. United States
The States of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas share a border with Mexico. The principal municipal
governments affected include the following: San Diego and Calexico in California; Nogales in Arizona; and El
Paso, Laredo, and Brownsville in Texas. The bulk of existing data on concentrations of metals, volatile organic
compounds, and other toxic constituents (i.e., non-conventional pollutants) is a result of state monitoring
programs supported by funds from the EPA under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act and the states. For
example, California has been routinely monitoring conventional pollutants in border water bodies since the mid-
1970s and many priority pollutants since the mid-1980s.
California
The principal environmental officer in the State of California is the Secretary of Environmental Affairs, a
cabinet-level position that oversees the activities of the various pollution control boards. The boards, such as the
Water Resources Control Board and the Waste Management Board, manage individual, media-specific programs.
Although the Water Resources Control and Waste Management boards are independent agencies, the Secretary is
responsible for ensuring that board activities are consistent with State policy. The Secretary chairs the Air
Resources Board. Emergency planning is carried out by the Governor's Office of Emergency Services.
Along with CARB, the San Diego Air Pollution Control District as well as the Imperial County Air Pollution
Control District have provided technical assistance and resources. It is anticipated that this assistance will
increase as programs implemented under the Border Environmental Plan are begun.
Air Quality Control
The statewide custodian of air quality is the California Air Resources Board (CARB), located in Sacramento.
CARB oversees regulations of California's various air quality management districts. CARB coordinates the
plans prepared by the individual districts into an overall state implementation plan and has the authority to
override district decisions regarding state ambient air quality standards and emission limitations. CARB also has
the authority to replace district standards.
Water Quality Control
The administration of California's water quality programs is divided among nine regional water quality control
boards that must report to the California Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento. The nine boards are
authorized to adopt regional water quality control plans, prescribe waste discharge requirements, and perform
other water quality control functions within their respective regions, subject to state-board review or approval.
A9]_537 4 IV-11 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
The State Water Resources Control Board and two Border Area Regional Boards have provided a significant
amount of technical assistance with regard to border water quality issues. California has been routinely
monitoring conventional pollutants in border water bodies since the mid-1970s and many priority pollutants since
the mid-1980s. The state has also apportioned $5.3 million in matching funds for the design and construction of
wastewater treatment works to address the Tijuana sanitation problem.
Solid Waste Quality Control
Solid waste disposal facilities, including landfills, transfer processing stations, and waste-to-energy facilities, must
obtain permits and are otherwise regulated by local enforcement agencies under the overall coordination of the
California Waste Management Board. The local agencies may consist of counties or cities or both.
Hazardous Waste Quality Control
The California Department of Health Services regulates hazardous waste generators and runs the State hazardous
waste program.
California law regulates all firms generating waste oil, asbestos, or polychlorinated biphenyls. Once the amount
stored exceeds prescribed thresholds, Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) laws take effect,
requiring that the waste be manifested within 90 days.
In California, the Department of Food and Agriculture regulates the use of pesticides, however, this responsibility
may be shifted by an upcoming state government reorganization.
Emergency Response/Contingency Planning
Emergency planning is carried out by the Governor's Office of Emergency Services. There are local planning
efforts as well.
Arizona
In 1987, Arizona created a new cabinet-level Department of Environmental Quality. All sources with the
potential to emit significant amounts of any regulated pollutant must have installation and operating permits in
Arizona. The State regulates only the major sources, i.e., those capable of individually generating more than
75 tons of air contaminants per day and those that are involved in copper smelting or in crude oil refining.
Emergency planning at the state level is the responsibility of the Division of Emergency Services of the Arizona
Department of Emergency and Military Affairs.
A91-537.4 IV-12 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Air Quality Control
Air pollution programs are managed by the Office of Air Quality which seeks to prevent, control and abate air
pollution by testing, determining standards, conducting investigations, compiling and publishing reports, and
initiating and prosecuting enforcement actions.
Water Quality Control
Arizona's water quality control activities are managed by the Office of Water Quality within the Department of
Environmental Quality. The state administers substantial portions of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program, while EPA is responsible for carrying out enforcement functions.
Arizona has been routinely monitoring conventional pollutants in border water bodies since the mid-1970s and
many priority pollutants since the mid-1980s. ADEQ, in cooperation with the IBWC, the city of Nogales, and
Santa Cruz County, recently developed a four month surface and ground water quality monitoring program for
the Nogales area.
The Office of Waste and Water Quality Management approves construction of sanitary facilities; provides
general construction supervision; conducts routine operation and maintenance inspections; certifies operators of
treatment facilities; and administers federal construction grants through the water quality control council.
Solid/Hazardous Waste Quality Control
In Arizona, solid waste landfills are under the jurisdiction of the communities, although the Office of Waste
Programs monitors those efforts. All hazardous waste and much industrial waste must be removed from the
State.
In Arizona, the State Chemist regulates the use of pesticides.
Emergency Response/Contingency Planning
Emergency planning at the state level is the province of the Division of Emergency Services in the Arizona
Department of Emergency and Military Affairs. There are local planning efforts as well.
New Mexico
New Mexico's environmental programs are managed by the State Environmental Department. Emergency
planning is led at the state level by the Division of Emergency Services. Each county has a local Emergency
Planning Committee, which implements the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Program. New
Mexico has complete responsibilities, as designated by EPA, for new source review permitting for sources hi the
state.
A91-537 4 IV-13 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Air Quality Control
New Mexico's ambient air quality standards include EPA's criteria pollutants as well as other pollutants. Any
new or existing source that, without controls, would emit more than 0.25 parts per million (ppm) of the pollutant
per eight-hour shift must use the best available control technology (BACT) to reduce those emissions.
Water Quality Control
New Mexico has not assumed full authority to manage any of the Federal water quality control programs. State
rules specify that discharges covered by the NPDES permit programs are not subject to state regulations unless a
source has not corrected a violation within 30 days of receiving notice from EPA. In such cases, State discharge
regulations take effect until the violation has been rectified.
Solid/Hazardous Waste Quality Control
Solid nonhazardous waste management is under the overall jurisdiction of the Solid Waste Bureau of the New
Mexico Environmental Department (NMED). The Bureau has a key role in the development and implementation
of State and Federal regulations governing solid waste management While the NMED has a role in the citing,
permitting and operation of solid waste facilities in New Mexico, primary responsibility for managing solid waste
disposal rests with the counties and municipalities.
Hazardous waste regulation in New Mexico is under the jurisdiction of the Hazardous and Radioactive Waste
Bureau of the NMED. The NMED is authorized under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and State law to issue permits to, and enforce against, hazardous waste facilities. Thus, it has a role in the citing
and operation of hazardous waste disposal facilities in New Mexico. The NMED also has a role in the
transboundary movement of foreign waste through the monitoring of waste manifesting required under RCRA.
In addition, the NMED administers the RCRA import/export regulations which require all hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal facilities in New Mexico to provide notification of anticipated receipt of foreign
waste. NMED has also cooperated in case development investigations related to the enforcement of RCRA
import/export regulations.
In New Mexico, pesticide use falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture.
Emergency Response/Contingency Planning
Emergency response and contingency planning activities in New Mexico are performed or coordinated by the
Department of Public Safety, Emergency Management Bureau. The Bureau serves as the coordinator and
repository for all hazardous materials emergency planning information and response activities for the State
Emergency Response Commission (SERC).
A91-537.4 IV-14 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Texas
Environmental programs in Texas are decentralized and are administered by several individual offices. Unlike
California and Arizona, Texas has as yet no comprehensive cabinet level environment department.
Air Quality Control
The Texas Air Control Board has complete autonomy over all matters related to air pollution, including
managing and enforcing all federally required air permit programs. The central office in Austin is responsible
for enforcement, monitoring and technical support, and program development, while routine day-to-day activities
are carried out by 12 regional offices. Texas has only partial delegation of the Federal new source permit
program, so EPA-Region 6 signs the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits.
Since the signing of the Mexico-U.S. Border Environmental Agreement in 1983, the City of El Paso and the
State of Texas have increased their activity in Border Area air concerns. They have attended meetings of the
National Environmental Coordinators, have sponsored meetings of the local Ciudad Juarez/El Paso air quality
working group with SEDUE-Ciudad Juarez which have served as technology transfer opportunities, and have
assisted in providing training to Mexican and U.S. personnel working in the Border Area. Of particular
assistance has been the City and State involvement in the provision of technical guidance to SEDUE-Ciudad
Juarez in the set-up and operation of the long-term Ciudad Juarez PM-10, CO, O3) and meteorology monitoring
network. This network, the first long-term network of its kind in a Mexican Border city, was first activated on
June 10, 1990 and will continue operation at least through August 1992.
Water Quality Control
The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) administers the Construction Grant Program under delegation
from EPA. The TWDB also administers the State Revolving Loan Fund and the Economically Distressed Areas
Program (Colonias SRF) which receives funding from EPA. The TWDB provides administrative, financial, and
engineering support for these programs.
The Texas Department of Health (TDH) administers the public water supply program to regulate all public water
systems in Texas for drinking water quality, system design and operation and certification of operating personnel.
The TDH also jointly administers the Wellhead Protection Program with the Texas Water Commission (TWC) to
protect ground water quality as a source of public water supply.
Other Texas Programs Related to Water Quality
Texas Department of Health - Mexico/U.S. Border Council
The Texas legislature, in 1989, created an Office of Texas-Mexico Health and Environment within the Texas
Department of Health to determine health and environmental problems along the Mexican-Texas border and
A91-537.4
IV-15 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
make recommendations to the legislature toward solutions to these problems. An interagency advisory council,
composed of members from State and Federal agencies and universities, is in the process of preparing a report
on border problems.
Mexico/Texas Border Health Association
This Association has existed for many years and has provided a forum for health and environmental officials
from Mexico and Texas to discuss problems and needs.
Texas Water Development Board Economically Distressed Areas Program
In the border area along the Rio Grande, corresponding to the states of Texas in the United States and the states
of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas hi Mexico, there has been a history of rural subdivision
development which has accelerated during the past decade. These residential subdivisions are referred to as
colonias. A colonia has the following common characteristics: it is outside the Corporate limits of any city or
town or outside the limits of a utility district providing water and sewer service; it includes at least some
substandard housing; and it is not currently served by a sewer collection line. Often the residents obtain water
from a yard tap or common tap which serves several residences, and human waste is disposed of in private pits.
While colonias along the border dramatize the problem, the Texas Legislature has created a broader program
than just a colonia program. Under the State legislation, the project area defined as an Economically Distressed
Area must be located within an affected county. Affected counties are those where per capita income is
25 percent below the State average and unemployment is 25 percent above the State average for the last three
years. Economically Distressed Areas were defined by the Legislature to be those areas that have inadequate
water or wastewater systems, financial resources inadequate to meet those needs, and 80 percent of the dwellings
to be served were occupied on June 1, 1989.
The FY 1990 Appropriation Act for EPA programs allocated $15 million for establishing a special revolving
fund (SRF) for loans in the colonias of 12 Texas counties. This SRF will work in concert with the State
program. Whereas the State program will fund water and wastewater treatment facilities, the colonias SRF will
fund individual plumbing needs and connections to sewer collection systems and water mains.
Solid/Hazardous Waste Quality Control
The Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Solid Waste Management has responsibility for solid (non-
ha/ardous) waste in Texas. The Bureau drafts and implements regulations applicable to all aspects of solid
waste management to include permitting of solid waste disposal facilities and enforcement of regulations.
County and municipal authorities play a major role in the implementation of the regulatory requirements.
Various Councils of Governments (COGs) in Texas are developing regionalization plans for solid waste
management. As these plans become final and are implemented, these COGs will be assuming greater roles in
regulatory implementation.
A91-537.4 IV-16 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
The Texas Water Commission (TWC) has jurisdiction over hazardous waste management in Texas. The TWC
issues permit to hazardous waste TSDs and enforces applicable regulations, including RCRA import notification
requirements. The TWC has a role in the citing and operation of hazardous waste facilities as well as the
transboundary movement of hazardous waste. The TWC recently gained authorization from some of the RCRA
export regulations including the reporting requirements for hazardous waste exporters in Texas. Import/export
information obtained by the TWC from the regulated community is supplied to the Regional Office as part of the
implementation of their annual grant work plans.
The TWC has been active with Customs in responding to accidental chemical spills and providing assistance in
the identification/classification of unknown substances crossing the border. Their activities also include
Operation Exodus (spot checks of exports to Mexico).
The TWC periodically conducts informative workshops for the regulated community on import/export
regulations. In addition, the TWC is planning to have an educational conference on hazardous waste
management for the regulated community along the border in El Paso, Texas, in July 1991.
The TWC has participated in some of the cooperative inspections with SEDUE and Region 6. The TWC has
cooperated in case development investigations related to the enforcement of RCRA import/export regulations.
In Texas, the state's Department of Agriculture controls the use of pesticides.
Emergency Response/Contingency Planning
The State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) is chaired by the Governor's Division of Emergency
Management (DEM). The DEM coordinates contingency planning and preparedness activities of the county-
based Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) and also becomes the lead state agency for emergency
response action where a disaster has been declared. Other emergency response responsibilities are shared by the
Texas Water Commission for spills of hazardous substances, the Texas Air Control Board for air releases, the
Texas Railroad Commission for land based oil spills, and the General Land Office for marine oil spills. The
Texas Department of Health is the repository for facility hazardous substance inventories.
The Texas SERC was awarded a $75,000 grant by the EPA in 1991 to conduct workshops in border cities to
foster development of contingency plans and emergency response capabilities.
A91-537.4
IV-1? PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPLH
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
-------
SECTION V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
V. ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES V-l
A. General V-l
B. Environmental Health V-2
C. Geographic Ranking of Risks V-3
D. Non-Geographic Ranking of Risks V-4
A91-537.5
y_j PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
-------
SECTION V
ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES
A. GENERAL
As noted in Section IV, Article 11 of the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement authorizes SEDUE and EPA to
establish technical advisory groups to address environmental issues facing the Border Area. The first annual
meeting of National Coordinators was held in November 1984 to institute such groups. Following this meeting,
three work groups were staffed from SEDUE, EPA, the IBWC, the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the
U.S. Department of State to address the topics of water, air, and hazardous waste. A work group on contingency
planning was added later. The topic of training was included in the agenda of each group. These work groups
meet with the National Coordinators at least once a year to discuss significant issues along with past and future
activities.
In December 1990, SEDUE, EPA, representatives of the foreign ministries of both countries, and the IBWC met
in Washington, DC, in response to the request made by President Salinas and President Bush in Monterrey,
Mexico on November 27, 1990 that an environmental plan be prepared for the Border Area. SEDUE and EPA
agreed to seek a risk-based approach to prioritize environmental issues in the Border Area. It was acknowledged
that a quantitative risk assessment could not be conducted at this time due to a lack of sufficient data which
would have to be accumulated as the First Stage of the Border Environmental Plan is launched.
The following qualitative approach was adopted to set priorities for this First Stage of the Border Environmental
Plan, with the goal of a further review of priorities in preparing the Plan's Second Stage in 1994.
In January 1991, the Work Groups met in Dallas, Texas to establish environmental priorities for the Border
Environmental Plan based on a comparison of actual and potential risks. Participants at the meeting contributed
their technical experience, knowledge, and professional judgment. In addition to working on setting
environmental priorities, the Work Groups prepared outlines for action plans based on the results of the priority-
setting exercise.
Both EPA-Region 6 and EPA-Region 9 had recently conducted comparative risk projects to identify and evaluate
the human health and ecological risks posed by environmental problems in their respective regions. In this
process, risks, both quantitative and qualitative, were determined, and each region developed a relative ranking of
the risks associated with the particular environmental problems. The results of this experience provided the
Work Group participants with useful insight into how environmental priorities for the Border Environmental Plan
should be set. Participants from both SEDUE and EPA had also reviewed the EPA's Science Advisory Board's
report entitled "Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection" (EPA-SAB-EC-90-
021A-C).
A91_537 5 V-l PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
The evaluation of environmental priorities in the Border Area has been assisted by the recent "Project Consenso
Final Report" on state and local environmental health priorities of border communities. This report, published by
the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Association in April 1991, identifies Environmental Health as one of the six
main health concerns of the region. At the final borderwide meeting of the Border Health Association in El Paso
in March, these environmental health concerns were described as follows1.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
"Environmental conditions directly affect the whole border population. Further, in terms of the environment,
solutions will be effective only if issues are addressed binationally. General considerations included:
• The need to improve the urban infrastructure of services which, due to migration, is sorely
lacking in water quality and disposition of solid wastes.
• Due to the emergence of the maquiladora industry, there is a need for surveillance,
accountability, and disposition of hazardous wastes.
Specific areas addressed:
• Water, soil and air pollution
• Hazardous wastes
• Education and legislation"
All of these topics are addressed in this Border Environmental Plan.
Environmental priorities in this Plan have been assessed on the basis of combined impacts to public health, the
environment, and public welfare. Problem areas have been identified through experience with known violations
of current environmental laws. The environmental issues determined to pose the greatest risk to the Border Area
were identified as water, hazardous waste, air, and chemical emergencies. Although pesticide exposures were
not ranked high by the Work Groups, it was decided that pesticides should be included in the Plan for
monitoring and potential action purposes.
SEDUE and EPA agreed that action plans to deal with the four major environmental problem areas dealt with by
the Work Groups should be incorporated into the Border Environmental Plan as follows:
1. Media specific issues including municipal wastewater, water supply sources, and air (i.e.,
ozone and paniculate matter);
2. Source control issues including industrial wastewater, hazardous and municipal solid waste, air
toxics, and accidental releases;
A91-537.5 V-2 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
3. Hazardous and municipal waste issues including import/export of hazardous waste,
abandoned hazardous waste sites, and municipal solid waste sites along with the collection and
transportation of municipal solid waste; and
4. Emergency response/contingency planning including the development and coordination of all
affected agencies to prepare, train and respond to potential/actual accidental releases.
The Work Groups also agreed to target environmental priorities geographically, concentrating on the six largest
sister city areas along the border which were determined to have the highest risks from environmental
contamination based on the severity of the problems and population density. While the Work Groups agreed that
these six geographic target areas should receive first priority in the Plan (see Subsection B), it was also agreed
that other less populated areas and their related environmental issues should be included in the Plan, along with
other non-geographic environmental issues facing the Border Area (see Subsection C). These other areas and
issues considered at the January meeting would be addressed as the Plan progressed. As the Plan evolves and is
reviewed, environmental priorities will be evaluated and revised or modified as appropriate.
C. GEOGRAPHIC RANKING OF RISKS
The initial six priority geographic target areas identified by the Work Groups are; Tijuana/San Diego,
Mexicali/Imperial County, Nogales/Nogales, Ciudad Juarez/El Paso, Nuevo Laredo/Laredo, and Lower Rio
Grande/Rio Bravo. The groups evaluated the environmental issues that both Mexico and the United States had
ranked high for each of these six areas. An effort was made not to prioritize environmental media for the whole
Border Area but rather to rank those media of concern with respect to each geographic target. The Work Groups
emphasized that though these areas were initially targeted, other areas will be evaluated as experience is gained,
when implementation plans are instituted, or as better data on public health and ecological risks become
available.
It was agreed that the following media-specific initiatives should be geographically targeted as follows:
Tijuana/San Diego - municipal wastewater and ozone/carbon monoxide
Mexicali/Imperial County - municipal wastewater and paniculate matter
Nogales/Nogales - municipal wastewater and paniculate matter
Ciudad Juarez/El Paso - ozone/carbon monoxide and paniculate matter
Nuevo Laredo/Laredo - municipal wastewater
Rio Bravo/Lower Rio Grande (Matamoros/Brownsville) - municipal wastewater and water supply sources
The group agreed that control of industrial sources should initially be focused in Tijuana/San Diego and Ciudad
Juarez/El Paso and spread to the other sister cities. Industrial source controls are process-oriented and involve
multimedia responses. The Work Groups recommended that solutions to this problem be pursued through a
combination of government and private initiatives.
A9J-537 5 V-3 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
It was recommended that the problem of import/export of hazardous waste should initially be focused in the
Tijuana/San Diego, Ciudad Juarez/El Paso, and Matamoros/Brownsville areas with the goal of developing a
hazardous waste treatment capacity on the Mexican side of the Border Area. The relevant Work Group
recommended that emergency response/contingency planning should be scheduled for all sister cities (and that
information gained should be shared with all interested parties).
D. NON-GEOGRAPHIC RANKING OF RISKS
Several environmental issues were identified that do not have specific geographic focuses but need to be
addressed borderwide. In particular, the maquiladora issue introduces multimedia source problems throughout
the Border Area. This issue will be addressed in all the implementation plans. Other border-wide issues include
import/export of hazardous waste, abandoned hazardous waste sites, and municipal waste sites. Numerous
shipments of hazardous waste occur each year, but the lack of a standardized paperwork tracking system
precludes the determination of the magnitude of this issue.
A91-537.5 V-4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
SECTION VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section page
VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN VI-1
A. Specific Implementation Plans VI-1
1. Water Quality VI-3
2. Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes VI-10
3. Municipal Solid Waste VI-14
4. Air Quality VI-14
5. Contingency Planning/Emergency Response VI-19
6. Industrial Multimedia Source Control Requiring Government
and Private Initiatives VI-21
7. SEDUE/EPA Cooperative Enforcement Strategy VI-25
B. Concluding Recommendations VI-27
1. Cooperative Enforcement Strategy VI-28
2. Effective Protection of Transboundary Environmental Resources VI-28
3. Strengthened Financing of Environmental Protection
in the Border Area VI-28
4. Mobilizing Private Sector Support VI-29
5. Joint Emergency Planning and Response Capability VI-29
6. Coordination of Environmental Programs in the Border Area VI-30
7. Border Area Environmental Round Table Meetings VI-30
8. Other Programs to Promote Public Awareness
and Increase Public Participation VI-31
9. Updating of the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement
and its Annexes VI-32
10. Periodic Review of the Border Environmental Plan VI-32
A91-537.6
-------
This page is intentionally left blank.
-------
SECTION VI
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN
(First Stage, 1992-1994)
This section describes specific actions that SEDUE, EPA and the other relevant environmental agencies intend to
implement during the First Stage of the Plan (1992 - 1994). The action items have been prepared by
SEDUE/EPA Work Groups and reviewed by the relevant participants.
SEDUE and EPA will be primarily responsible, pursuant to the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement, for
ensuring full coordination and implementation of activities under this Border Environmental Plan. Other Federal,
State, and local agencies, as well as industrial and non-governmental organizations and the IBWC, are each
expected to play an integral part in carrying out activities under this Border Environmental Plan.
While media-specific implementation plans are set out in this section, it is expected that cooperation will occur
through coordination of data collection tasks, technology transfer of multimedia pollution prevention information
and through cross-over benefits of reducing toxic and hazardous materials in the work place. Implementation of
the hazardous waste plan, for example, will serve the goals of several implementation plans by eliminating
potential sources of surface and ground water contamination, reducing emissions of toxic substances into the air
and lowering the risks of accidental releases or spills. In this fashion, activities within the IBWC, Federal, State
and local agencies and between governments can be guided to ensure that the maximum benefit to the Border
Area is realized.
A. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
The specific implementation plans set out below collectively constitute the first stage, 1992-1994, of a continuing
process of assessing and responding to the Border Area's environmental needs.
The Border Environmental Plan envisions an integrated approach to implementation of numerous environmental
solutions. Specifically, it seeks to do four things.
• Continue media-specific and multimedia monitoring and pollution control activities in the
Border Area.
• Strengthen present environmental regulatory activities as appropriate in the Border Area through
new SEDUE-EPA cooperative programs and supplement the 1983 Border Environmental
Agreement with new cooperative programs.
A91-537.6 VI-1
-------
• Mobilize additional resources for pollution control in the Border Area.
• Supplement present pollution control programs through pollution prevention and voluntary
action programs.
Examples of cooperative multimedia activities include: development of a uniform data base to be used for risk
based management; inspections of industrial facilities generating hazardous waste, wastewater discharges, and air
emissions; inspections of municipal facilities receiving industrial wastewater, sponsorship of industrial
conferences focusing on water, hazardous waste, air and emergency response/contingency planning and
compliance issues; and promotion of waste minimization, source reduction and other facets of pollution
prevention programs. Private sector pollution prevention initiatives include voluntary reporting of wastes
generated or emitted, industrial waste minimization, source reduction, recycling and reuse. The significance of
the slightly different definitions of hazardous waste in the two countries must also be evaluated and addressed.
Implementation topics are discussed in the following order:
• water quality
water supply, including ground water monitoring
municipal wastewater and control of multimedia industrial wastes
• wastes
transboundary movement of hazardous wastes
abandoned dump sites
solid waste
• air quality
• contingency planning/emergency response
• multimedia industrial source control requiring government and private initiatives
A sixth topic, a SEDUE/EPA cooperative enforcement strategy, sets out cooperative approaches meant to obtain
maximum impact from enforcement actions.
Although the majority of the Plan focuses on the six pairs of sister cities in the Border Area having the highest
populations, this is not meant to exclude environmental activities at other locations. The six sister city pairs
serve as models for addressing environmental issues across the entire Border Area. Scheduled environmental
projects in sister cities will be completed as planned and additional environmental projects will be funded as
resources become available.
A91-537.6 VI-2
-------
I. Water Quality (For current status, see pages III-16 through 111-25).
Water quality implementation plans are discussed in terms of water supply, municipal wastewater, and control of
industrial wastes affecting water quality in the Border Area.
a. Surface Drinking Water Supplies (For current status, see pages 111-21 through 111-22).
The objective is to identify the sources and ensure the quality of the drinking water supplies of Mexican and
U.S. Border Area communities that are supplied from transboundary sources (i.e., border rivers, lakes, and
reservoirs).
Surface water supplies are apportioned by the IBWC under the Water Treaty of 1944 for the Rio Bravo/Rio
Grande, Colorado and Tijuana Rivers. Specifically for the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande and Colorado River, the
surface water is delivered to each country under the supervision of the IBWC pursuant to the Treaty. For the
Rio Bravo/Rio Grande, the U.S. Section of the IBWC makes deliveries at American Dam at El Paso, Texas and
subsequent delivery points at the request of the Rio Grande Water Master for the State of Texas under U.S. law.
It is the responsibility of the State of Texas to apportion water under Texas water laws to the U.S. cities and
other entities on the Texas side of the Rio Grande.
For the Colorado River, the IBWC in cooperation with Bureau of Reclamation delivers apportioned Treaty
waters to Mexico at Morelos Dam near Yuma, Arizona. Other surface waters of the Colorado River in the
United States are under the Colorado River Compact of the Slates of Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah,
Nevada, Arizona and California, delivered under Compact rules by the Secretary of the Interior.
On the Mexican side, the apportioned surface waters from the Colorado River and Rio Bravo are delivered by
the IBWC to the Mexican National Water Commission (SARH) for distribution to Mexican users.
The implementation plan for surface drinking water supplies is presented at the end of the following section on
Border Ground Water Supplies.
b. Border Ground Water Supplies (For current status, see pages 111-21 through 111-22).
The Governments of the United States and Mexico are concerned about adverse impacts on public health and the
environment in border areas where transboundary ground waters may be contaminated or are threatened with
contamination. The two Governments utilize the IBWC as the vehicle for exchange of information and
consultations regarding border ground waters pursuant to the Water Treaty of 1944 and IBWC Minute No. 242.
In the United States, EPA and the four U.S. border states share jurisdiction over border ground water quality
matters within their respective boundaries. In Mexico, SEDUE and the National Water Commission (CNA) have
corresponding jurisdiction. There is a need to identify border ground water aquifers that may be contaminated or
are threatened with contamination. With such aquifers as a first priority, a cooperative Mexican-U.S. ground
water quality monitoring program and database need to be developed through the IBWC, with the cooperation of
A91-537.6 VI'3
-------
responsible agencies of both countries. This process will require some time for its implementation. It can be
initiated with data gathering in 1992 and identification of problem areas in 1993, along with the development of
criteria for remediation. Among remediation alternatives could be enforcement actions by the proper agencies in
each country, international construction projects, and other cooperative solutions and preventative measures.
Implementation Plan for Surface Drinking Water and Ground Water Supplies
• Based on data obtained from appropriate authorities in each country, SEDUE-CNA (Mexico's
National Commission of Water)/EPA/IBWC will develop an inventory of the source, quality,
and treatment processes of the existing drinking water facilities of the sister communities by the
1992 meeting of the National Coordinators. In addition, each government will determine the
priority needs for water supply treatment and distribution systems for existing and future
development in the sister communities.
• SEDUE-CNA/EPMBWC will identify any areas where any drinking water source common to
both countries is contaminated or there is an identifiable threat of contamination (1992).
• SEDUE-CNA/EPA/IBWC will develop cooperative programs for solving identified problems
under existing Mexican/U.S. agreements (1993).
c. Wastewater Treatment (For current status, see pages 111-22 through ni-25).
Implementation plans are set out separately for six geographic areas: Tijuana/San Diego Mexicali/Imperial
County, Nogales/Nogales, Ciudad Juarez/El Paso, Nuevo Laredo/Laredo, and the Lower Rio Grande/Bajo Rio
Bravo.
(1) Tijuana/San Diego (For current status, see pages 111-22 through 111-23).
The objectives for this location are to:
• eliminate all uncontrolled Tijuana wastewater flows and treat them in existing facilities in 1991
through interim IBWC works;
provide adequate treatment at the new international treatment plant to be completed in 1995 for
domestic Tijuana sewage that is presently treated at the Tijuana plant; and
• begin an industrial pretreatment program in early 1992.
A91-537.6 VI-4
-------
The Government of Mexico is participating in the financing of an international wastewater treatment plant in San
Diego County near the international boundary with Mexico that would handle about one half of the projected
sewage load from Tijuana to the year 2010. The international wastewater treatment plant would be one of
several components of an international solution to the Tijuana border sanitation problem.
Three major components would make up the international solution works:
• construction of sewage works in Tijuana;
• construction of a land and ocean outfall in San Diego County near the international boundary;
and
• construction of a 25 mgd secondary treatment plant in San Diego County near the international
boundary.
Implementation Plan for Tijuana/San Diego Wastewater
• Start construction of the first land outfall component (June 1991).
• Construct an interim treatment works in 1991.
• The IBWC, EPA, and SEDUE will open talks on industrial pre-treatment cooperative program
(July 1991).
• Construct an international treatment plant under IBWC supervision (1992-1995).
(2) Mexicali/Imperial County (For current status, see page 111-23).
The objectives are to eliminate discharge of all raw Mexicali domestic and industrial wastewaters into the New
River and to prevent pollution of the Alamo River.
The IBWC has sought an interim solution to the New River border sanitation problem at Calexico, California,
and Mexicali, Baja California, Under the IBWC agreement in Minute No. 264, water quality standards are
established for the New River at the international boundary, and Mexico has undertaken a number of corrective
measures as its expense designed to meet those quality standards. For a long term solution, Minute No. 264
envisions the disposal of Mexican's sewage away from the border.
The IBWC opened talks on May 23, 1991 for a long term solution, and the Mexican Section has provided
Mexico's views for a conceptual plan to correct pollution in the New River at Mexicali/Calexico.
A91-537.6 VI-5
-------
Among components under consideration for such a conceptual plan are:
• efficient operation of existing wastewater treatment lagoons;
• complete construction of new treatment facilities in southeast Mexicali to handle domestic and
industrial wastewaters from this industrial area of Mexicali;
• reduce all discharges of untreated domestic and industrial wastewaters through expansion of the
sewage collection system;
• install additional pumping capacity to existing pumping stations including standby equipment;
• incorporate into the sanitary system called Mexicali II the waste waters of new urban
development that will be generated as a result of the construction of new Mexicali/Calexico
Port of Entry; and
• reduce wastewater discharges into the New River by utilizing the effluent totally in Mexico.
Implementation Plan for Mexicali/Imperial County Wastewater
• The IBWC will recommend a concept for a long term solution for border sanitation problems
on the New River at Mexicali/Calexico (1991).
• The IBWC will review Mexican and U.S. plans for wastewater controls associated with the
proposed new port-of-entry east of Mexicali/Imperial County (1991).
• Implementation of the IBWC recommendations (1992-1995).
(3) Nogales/Nogales (For current status, see page 111-24).
The objectives in Nogales/Nogales are to ensure elimination of all uncontrolled wastewater flows and to begin an
industrial wastewater pretreatment program.
In September 1988, the IBWC recommended, and the two Governments approved, a new expansion to the
Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant as stipulated in Minute No. 276 of July 26, 1988. This
expansion is for the treatment of generated volumes, from both Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales, Sonora, up to the
year 2000. Expansion of the plant will be completed in October 1991. Capacity will increase from 8.2 mgd to
17.2 mgd of which Mexico's share would increase from 4.85 to 9.9 mgd. Mexico in turn is rehabilitating its
sewer collection system to stop uncontrolled sewage flows across the border. The two countries are required to
provide pre-treatment to industrial wastes before discharge to the international plant
A91-537.6 VI-6
-------
Implementation Plan for Nogales/Nogales Wastewater
• The IBWC, EPA, and SEDUE will open talks on an industrial pretreatment cooperative
program (September 1991).
• The IBWC will begin expanded treatment plant operation (November 1991).
• Sonora will complete wastewater collection works and covered first stage of Nogales Wash
Floodway (November 1991).
• The IBWC will explore solutions to renegade transboundary sewage flows that may occur from
the Nogales Canyon area.
• The IBWC will open talks on planning for future flows in excess of the expanded international
treatment plant capacity in 1991.
(4) Ciudad Juarez/El Paso (For current status, see page 111-24).
The objective is to eliminate discharges of untreated wastewater into the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande as specified in
IBWC Minute No. 261.
Ciudad Juarez needs to make improvements to its wastewater collection system to eliminate existing discharges
into the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande. Also, treatment facilities need to be constructed with a capacity to treat
estimated flows by the year 2010. The effluent could still be used for irrigation, but, if any of it reached the Rio
Grande, its potential for causing pollution would be lower than that of the present discharges into the river.
Implementation Plan for Ciudad Juarez/El Paso Wastewater
• The IBWC will develop a plan to control/treat wastewater discharges into this reach of the Rio
Bravo/Rio Grande (1991).
• The IBWC will recommend a solution for wastewater discharge into the Rio Bravo/Rio Grande
(1992).
(5) Nuevo Laredo/Laredo (For current status, see pages 111-24 through 111-25).
The objectives are to eliminate untreated wastewater discharges into the Rio Grande for Nuevo Laredo and to
begin an industrial pretreatment program.
A91-537.6 VI-7
-------
IBWC has agreed on "Joint Measures to Improve the Quality of the Waters of the Rio Grande at Laredo,
Texas/Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas" in a Minute which provides for a sanitation project for the city of Nuevo
Laredo, Tamaulipas, to be jointly funded by the Mexican and U.S. Governments. The works recommended by
the Commission, and approved by the two Governments, consist of six principal elements to be completed by
1994:
• construction of the Riverside Collector;
• construction of the Coyote I Collector as an extension of the Riverside Collector;
• expansion of the sewage collection system to collect and convey to the Riverside and Coyote II
Collectors sewage generated in areas not currently served and which presently discharge into
the Rio Grande;
• rehabilitation of the sewage collection system at specific points to intercept and convey to the
Riverside and Coyote I Collectors those uncontrolled sewage flows that presently discharge into
the Rio Grande through existing storm drains;
• construction of a pumping plant that would convey the sewage from the Riverside Collector to
a treatment plant; and
• construction of a secondary treatment plant with an estimated capacity of 31 mgd located seven
miles downstream of the Juarez/Lincoln International Bridge.
Implementation Plan for Nuevo Laredo/Laredo Wastewater
• The IBWC will open talks on industrial pretreatment cooperative program, on surface water
standards for this reach of Rio Grande, and on operation and maintenance details (1991).
• The IBWC will complete expansion and rehabilitation of the wastewater collection system and
construction of the pumping station and interceptor (1992).
*
• The IBWC will complete wastewater treatment plant construction (1994).
(6) Bajo Rio Bravo/Lower Rio Grande (For current status, see page 111-25).
The objective is to eliminate discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewaters into the Rio Bravo/Rio
Grande in the segment from the Falcon Dam to the Gulf of Mexico.
A91-537.6 VI-8
-------
Implementation Plan for Bajo Rio Bravo/Lower Rio Grande Wastewater
IBWC will recommend a solution for the sewage discharges into the Rio Grande (1992).
(7) Other Sister Cities
The IBWC, in accordance with the Water Treaty of 1944 and its Minute 261, will assess water quality at the
source of supply and will assess wastewater management options. The studies of the IBWC will include:
• potential population growth;
• water supply needs; and
• wastewater collection, treatment and disposal needs.
In 1992 the IBWC studies will be focused in the following cities:
Acuna/Del Rio
Tecate/Tecate
Piedras Negras/Eagle Pass
Agua Prieta/Douglas
Ojinaga/Presidio
d. Characterization of Wastewater Flows to Protect International Treatment Plants
In cases where unsuitable and untreated wastewater, which at times may include industrial wastewater, enters or
threatens to enter transboundary water courses or where there are jointly financed international waste water
treatment facilities, each country recognizes the mutual obligation to ensure that pretreatment procedures will be
implemented for industrial wastestreams before the flows are delivered to the international treatment plants or the
transboundary water course.
Both governments under the Water Treaty of 1944 and IBWC Minutes 261, 264, 279, and 283 have given the
responsibility to the IBWC to coordinate the domestic industrial control programs of EPA and SEDUE in order
to ensure proper performance of the international treatment facilities and to avoid any degradation of
transboundary water sources which may adversely impair stream water quality and beneficial uses. This
coordination with EPA, SEDUE, and other domestic agencies will include:
• characterization of influent flows to international treatment facilities;
definition of substances that would adversely impact and impair the efficiency of treatment
facilities, and specification of permissible levels for such substances entering the sewerage
collection system;
A91-537.6 VI-9
-------
• definition of substances that, despite standard pretreatment requirements, would adversely affect
receiving water quality and/or beneficial uses (i.e., by pass-through mechanisms). For such
substances, specification of permissible discharge levels, including any necessary prohibitions
on discharge;
development of industrial inventories by EPA and SEDUE to identify potential sources and
contaminants, consistent with the industrial multimedia source control initiative outlined in this
section;
• determination, by means of the industrial inventories developed by EPA and SEDUE in their
respective countries, the source of any substance undesirable in treatment facilities and control
of such substances in accordance with the respective laws of each country; and
• consultation once per year by EPA, SEDUE and the IBWC with other responsible agencies in
each country to review the results of this cooperative industrial control program.
2. Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes (For current status, see pages 111-25 through 111-30).
Implementation plans considering waste per se are grouped in this subsection under: transboundary movement of
hazardous wastes and abandoned dump sites. The related topics of waste generation, hazardous materials mass
balances, pollution prevention and waste minimization are also considered in subsection VI.A.5, Industrial Source
Control Requiring Government and Private Initiatives.
a. Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes (For current status, see pages 111-27 through ffl-28).
Goals have been developed for: waste tracking, surveillance/enforcement, education of the regulated community,
and transportation issues.
The primary waste tracking objective is to determine the amount of waste generated in the Border Area and the
ultimate fate of this waste (treatment, storage, or disposal in Mexico or the United States or illegal disposal in
either country). A secondary objective is to develop a cooperative Mexican/U.S. system for tracking hazardous
waste transported between the two countries. Enforcement objectives include: a cooperative border intercept
program, cooperative Mexican and U.S. Customs training, high visibility deterrent enforcement, the development
of a Mexican/U.S. border surveillance system to monitor hazardous waste shipments; increased enforcement of
notification and reporting requirements for hazardous waste shipments between the two countries; and increasing
the number of cooperative enforcement actions against maquiladoras and their parent companies where this is
appropriate. The regulated community must be educated in Mexican and U.S. environmental laws and
regulations through training conferences. Environmental regulations should be printed in Spanish and English.
A91-537.6 VI-10
-------
A hotline for tips on illegal movement of waste should be established. Transportation objectives are to increase
coordination between both SEDUE and the Mexican Secretariat of Transportation (SCT) and EPA and the
Department of Transportation (DOT) and to assess the threat of transboundary movement of hazardous wastes to
the population in the Border Area.
Implementation Plan for Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste
Implementation of the proposed activities would occur across the Border Area but with concentrated efforts
occurring in the following high priority city-pairs: Tijuana/San Diego, Ciudad Juarez/El Paso, and
Matamoros/Brownsville. Overall, the implementation plan is based on a shared data base, training, regular
border checks, a continuous presence at the border, routine/regular personnel exchanges, and coordination with
State/local/other federal entities in Mexico and the United States. Mexico has a future goal of increasing the
hazardous waste treatment capacity for Mexican wastes in the above three cities through private initiative, with
either domestic or foreign investment.
(1) Hazardous Waste Tracking
Binational Inventory of Wastes Produced in the Border Area
• Information on waste generation rates of Mexican and U.S. facilities in the Border Area will be
collected. SEDUE will provide the information from semi-annual industrial reports and EPA
will, if possible, collect this information through inspections and review of U.S. manifest data
(1992).
• EPA will attempt to collect information regarding amounts of raw materials being sent to
maquiladora facilities from the U.S.
• A mass balance methodology will be investigated to permit calculations of waste and by-
products generated for each industrial process. SEDUE and EPA will require industries to
provide the information for a mass balance at each plant in their respective territories (1993).
• Manifests and associated paperwork on shipments of waste will be exchanged by Mexico and
the United States. The exchange of transportation data including manifests and Guia Ecologica
is currently limited by the absence of a central binational computer tracking system addressing
this data. SEDUE and EPA, with the assistance of the state environmental agencies, will
develop and provide such a computer system (1993).
• Facility visits and inspections will be conducted to determine the amount and types of
hazardous waste produced in the Border Area (1992).
A91-537.6
-------
Mexican/U.S. Database
• Initiate a regular data exchange of manifests and other transportation paperwork (1992).
• Develop training for SEDUE and EPA inspectors in issues related to the transboundary
movement of hazardous waste (1992).
• Initiate an inspectors sub-work group to discuss common problems including manifest and
database issues.
SEDUE/EPA will review U.S. Customs paperless tracking system (1992).
(2) Cooperative Enforcement Strategy
Customs Initiative
• Explore opportunities to enhance the environmental enforcement capabilities at key border
crossings, including the ability to discover illegal shipments of hazardous waste.
• Institutionalize program with Mexican Aduana and U.S. Customs so that data is exchanged
regularly (1992).
• Conduct additional inspections by SEDUE and Mexican Aduana and by EPA and U.S. Customs
to find illegal shipments of hazardous waste in their respective countries along with increased
training visits (1992-1994).
Enforcement Initiative
• Consult concerning priorities for Mexican and U.S. respective enforcement activities.
Increase cooperation among Mexican Aduana, U.S. Customs, and State/local enforcement
entities (1992). Information relevant to transboundary pollution and related enforcement
activities will be exchanged on at least an annual basis (1992).
• Investigate Mexican and U.S. municipal disposal sites as possible points of illegal disposal of
exported/imported hazardous wastes (1992).
• Develop a program to increase cooperative enforcement activities against companies that cannot
verify ultimate fate of wastes they have generated (1993).
A91-537.6 VI-12
-------
(3) Education of Regulated Community
• Evaluate border industry informational and educational needs (1992).
• Identify cities that should be targeted for additional education and input (1992).
• Analyze the above information to determine the most effective means of transferring
information regarding regulations to the affected companies (1992).
• Publish a cooperative document covering environmental and transportation requirements for the
transboundary movement of hazardous wastes (1993).
(4) Transportation Issues
• Perform an environmental evaluation of increased traffic carrying hazardous wastes in the
Border Area with recommendations for reducing risks (1993).
• Obtain training for SEDUE and EPA personnel from respective transportation agencies in waste
transportation requirements (1993).
b. Abandoned Dump Sites (For current status, see page ni-29).
Goals have been developed for two topics: site identification and education. For site identification, the goal is
to devise a strategy for locating abandoned hazardous waste dump sites in the Border Area. For education, the
goals are to develop deterrents to illegal dumping and to heighten the environmental awareness of the regulated
community and government officials.
Implementation Plan for Abandoned Dump Sites
Initially, site identification would be conducted borderwide.
Site Identification
• Devise a strategy to locate abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Border Area (1992).
• Implement a strategy to locate sites (1993),
Education
Devise a SEDUE/EPA educational program for the regulated community, state and local
officials regarding proper waste disposal (1992).
A91-537.6 VI-13
-------
• Develop a referral system for citizen's reports of illegal dump sites (1994).
• Present education programs through conferences, meetings and publicity, with one of the
education goals to inform the public in the use of the referral system (hotline) (1993).
3. Municipal Solid Waste (For current status, see pages 111-29 through HI-30).
Goals have been developed for two topics: assessment and public outreach. The assessment should determine
the infrastructure, regulations, and numbers/locations/types of landfills needed in the Border Area to mitigate
public health/environmental threats associated with municipal solid waste disposal. The public outreach goal is
to involve the general public in the prevention of illegal dumping and to foster pollution, prevention, waste
minimization and recycling.
Implementation Plan for Municipal Solid Waste
Assessment
• Assess the public health/environmental threat associated with municipal waste disposal in the
Border Area (1992).
• Determine the infrastructure and regulatory needs for municipal waste handling and disposal
(1992).
• Determine the number, location, and types of landfills needed (1993).
Public Outreach
• Provide training regarding site selection (1992).
• Provide training regarding facility management (1992).
• Develop educational campaign on the detrimental effects of illegal dumping and on alternatives
to illegal dumping (1992).
• Organize border recycling workshops (1993).
4. Air Quality (For current status, see pages 111-30 through IH-34).
The air quality action plans are based on the premise that monitoring, modeling, and emission inventory
development form the fundamental basis for a cost-effective emissions reduction strategy.
A91-537.6 VI-14
-------
a. Ciudad Juarez/El Paso, Texas - Sunland Park, New Mexico (For current status, see pages 111-31
through 111-32).
The primary objective of the Ciudad Juarez/El Paso air quality studies is to reduce ambient concentrations of air
pollutants to mutually acceptable levels throughout the airshed.
New requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) may influence implementation of the action plan in the
United States. Under the CAA, El Paso must accomplish the following three major tasks. First, as a serious
ozone non-attainment area, El Paso must implement VOC and/or nitrogen oxides reduction strategies to attain the
NAAQS by November 15, 1999. These requirements include obtaining reductions of 15 percent in VOC by
1996 and 3 percent every year thereafter until attainment, implementing an enhanced I/M program, implementing
a new source permitting program, implementing additional stationary source Control Technology
Guidelines (CTGs) and vapor recovery controls for gasoline fueling, participating in EPA's fleet vehicle "Clean
Fuels Program," and completing a major air modeling effort by 1994. Second, for CO, El Paso must implement
an alternative vehicular fuels program to be used during winter months. Third, for PM-10, El Paso must
implement additional "Reasonably Available Control Measures" (RACM) for existing affected stationary and area
sources.
In addition, major stationary sources in El Paso will be subject to new requirements for control of toxic air
pollutants and new requirements for operator permits.
Implementation Plan for Ciudad Juarez/El Paso Air Quality
Technical Aspects
• Continue long-term air and meteorological monitoring throughout Ciudad Juarez/El Paso (1991-
1994).
• Perform additional short-term field studies as required (including summer 1991 Ciudad Juarez
hydrocarbon monitoring) (1991-1993).
Identify air modeling techniques and wind models to be used (1992).
Complete a refined air emission inventory for Ciudad Juarez, including stationary, area, and
mobile sources, facilitated by a study of Ciudad Juarez VMT (1993).
• Develop realistic control strategy scenarios for evaluation, based upon refined emissions
estimates (1992-1994).
SEDUE, with assistance from EPA, will establish a vehicular inspection/maintenance program
in Ciudad Juarez (1991).
A91-537.6
VI-15
-------
• Execute computer modeling to evaluate the selected control scenarios (1994).
• Disseminate the project's technical results to Mexican and U.S. policy-makers at the local,
State, and Federal levels (1994).
Administrative Aspects
Compile a report comparing and contrasting the current responsibilities, operational procedures,
and funding mechanisms/levels of the Mexican and U.S. air pollution control agencies that play
a role in regulating air quality in Ciudad Juarez/El Paso (1993).
• Prepare a report detailing the principal organizations (including non-governmental
organizations) and individuals involved in making public policy in Ciudad Juarez and El Paso
as well as the social and political framework within which these groups and individuals operate
(1993).
• Hold follow-up meetings (arranged during the bilateral discussions by the Ciudad Juarez/El
Paso policy-makers) to encourage harmonization of the air regulatory programs throughout
Ciudad Juarez/El Paso (1993).
b. Mexicali/Imperial County (For current status, see pages in-32 through 111-33).
Tlie long-term air quality goal in the Mexicali/Imperial County area is to develop a cooperative relationship
between Mexican and U.S. air pollution control organizations to define the PM-10 problem in Imperial Valley
and to develop effective emissions reduction strategies which are beneficial to the populations of Mexicali and
Imperial County.
Implementation Plan for Mexicali/Imperial County Air Quality
• When the proposed study has been approved, convene a study team composed of
representatives from air pollution agencies in Mexico and the United States to refine a recently
developed study plan and identify resources for the proposed study and appoint a principal
investigator to coordinate various aspects of the study (1991).
• Estimate the spatial and temporal distribution of PM-10 concentrations in Mexicali and Imperial
County (1992).
• Apportion PM-10 concentrations to source emissions (1993).
Estimate cross-border fluxes of PM-10 (1993).
A91-537.6 VI-16
-------
• Finalize a control strategy (1993-1994).
• Begin the implementation of the control strategy (1994).
Tijuana/San Diego (For current status, see pages flI-33 through 111-34).
Tijuana and San Diego share an atmospheric basin where the prevailing meteorological conditions in both cities
are determinants in the diffusion and transport of pollutant emissions to both sides of the border. The primary
objective of the proposed Tijuana/San Diego study is to reduce ambient concentrations of air pollutants to
mutually acceptable levels throughout the airshed.
For Tijuana, objectives include: (1) identification of the factors that determine the transborder interchange of
pollutants and its impact on air quality and potential health risks; (2) development of a method to determine the
potential emission sources and to determine the reduction that would be feasible for the sources that are
identified; and (3) establishment of the terms under which the reduced levels that are set (as goals) should be
reached, and at the same time the goals for air quality at a regional level be reached. San Diego objectives
include: (1) attainment of the ambient air quality standard for ozone (0.12 parts per million) by November 2005;
(2) attainment of the ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide (9.0 parts per million) by November
1995; (3) installation of maximum achievable control technology (MACT) on plants that are major sources of air
toxics; (4) attainment of California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and inhalable
particulates (PM-10) as soon as practical; and (5) reduction of non-attainment pollutants or their precursors by 5
percent or more per year.
Implementation Plan for Tijuana/San Diego Air Quality
Tijuana
• When the proposed study has been approved, create the infrastructure required to evaluate air
quality in the City of Tijuana, complementing the information provided by the station at Mesa
de Otay, which is operated by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (1991-1994).
• Establish a local working group whose sole responsibility would be the task of evaluating air
quality in Tijuana (1991).
• Establish a similar working group for the cooperative enforcement and control of emission
sources (to work in coordination with its U.S. counterparts (1991)).
Establish a program for training a SEDUE working group in different aspects of the program
(1991).
Identify and implement approaches to reduce vehicular emissions at border crossings (1992).
A91-537.6 VI-17
-------
• Develop and promote a phased approach I/M Program (1991).
Implement Phase I of the I/M Program (1992).
Implement Phase II of the I/M Program (1992-1995).
San Diego
Major Requirements under the Federal Clean Air Act are listed below:
• As part of the ozone control strategy, achieve annual VOC emissions reductions of 3 percent
per year after the first six years, with compliance measured every three years;
• Install reasonably available control technology on existing stationary sources emitting in excess
of 25 tons per year of VOCs and nitrogen oxides;
• Implement a construction permit program for new stationary sources of VOCs and NO,
requiring the lowest achievable emission rate and offsetting emissions reductions from other
sources by a ratio of 1.3 to 1; implement an operating permits program for these new stationary
sources (1993);
• Implement control measures such as hose and nozzle controls on gas pumps to capture fuel
vapors, enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, tighter tailpipe controls
(1994), clean fuel fleet program (1994);
• Develop transportation control measures, such as carpooling programs, driving restrictions, and
high occupancy vehicle lanes, if they are needed (1993);
• Establish an oxygenated fuels program (1993);
• Require maximum achievable control technology (MACT) on plants that are major sources of
air toxics (plants with the potential to emit at least 10 tons per year of any one of the 189 toxic
air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990) (1994);
• Require preparation and implementation of risk management plans by facilities where a
regulated substance is present in more than a threshold quantity; the plan is to provide for
prevention and detection of releases and emergency response (1993); and
• Apply EPA's New Source Performance Standards to control air emissions from municipal,
hospital, and other commercial and industrial incinerators (1991).
A91-537.6 VI-18
-------
Major Requirements Under the California Clean Air Act are listed below:
• Ensure that there are no net increases in emissions from new or modified sources (1992);
• Require the installation of best available retrofit technology (1993-1994);
• Control heavy-duty truck traffic during commuting hours (1992-1993); and
• Comply with the following statewide emission control measures: clean fuels and low-emission
vehicles; reformulated gasoline; heavy duty diesel smoke enforcement program; and emissions
reductions from construction and farm equipment, locomotives, marine vessels, off-road
motorcycles, off-highway vehicles, and utility engines (1992-1994).
d. Air Pollution at Ports of Entry
The Binational Committee on Bridge and Border Crossing is working cooperatively to promote improvements in
infrastructure, procedures and staffing which would facilitate legal border crossings and, as a consequence, help
reduce the problem of air pollution which may exist at certain high volume traffic areas.
5. Contingency Planning/Emergency Response (For current status, see pages 111-35
through 111-37).
In its efforts to strengthen chemical emergency preparedness and response along the border, the Inland Joint
Response Team (JRT) has identified several important areas to be addressed in the coming years:
• Clarify legal authorities of both countries; promote understanding of and compliance with laws
and regulations;
• Increase the level of preparedness and response training and technical assistance to border
communities;
• Create the appropriate mechanism for addressing political, legal, and financial concerns for
cross-border transport of response equipment and personnel;
• Establish a formal notification system between governments to ensure timely response and
awareness of releases affecting border areas;
• Encourage participation from industry along the border concerning preparedness, prevention and
response activities; and
• Develop an accident prevention program focused on facilities with acutely toxic substances.
A91-537.6 VI-19
-------
Implementation Plan for Contingency Planning/Emergency Response
For the initial implementation stages of this Border Environmental Plan, contingency plans in the three original
areas (Matamoros/Brownsville; Mexicali/Imperial County; and Tijuana/San Diego) should be improved and
tested. Three other geographic areas have been targeted for specific projects: Ciudad Juarez/El Paso,
Nogales/Nogales, and Nuevo Laredo/Laredo. These three additional areas were chosen because of their potential
rate of industrial development and the corresponding threat to large or growing population centers should an
accident occur.
The agenda in these areas follows:
• Establish a working relationship with each Sister City pair focused on contingency planning,
preventing and responding to hazardous substances incidents from fixed facilities or
transportation-related releases (1992).
• Establish additional local groups such as the Matamoros/Brownsville Local Committee on
Mutual Assistance (CLAM)TLocal Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) organization for
coordination of planning, prevention, and response activities. Membership in CLAM/LEPC
should include broad-based representation from each community including: local planning,
emergency and environmental officials, elected and other public officials, representatives from
industry and businesses, representatives from non-governmental organizations concerned with
border issues, and state representatives where possible (1992).
• Establish a formal 24-hour notification system in Sister Cities that includes both sides (1992).
• Improve the existing hazardous material release notification systems (1992).
* Establish protocols to facilitate cross-border mobility of emergency response equipment and
personnel (1992).
• Begin the development of contingency plans for each sister city pair (1992-1993).
• Conduct a simulation exercise to test parts of the system (1992-1993).
• Initiate the establishment of an information exchange system on chemical facilities,
transportation routes of major concern, and response capabilities (1992-1994).
• Establish a database of hazardous substances releases in the Sister Cities (1992-1993).
• Test the established 24-hour cross-border notification system for accidents (1992).
• Sponsor a workshop/conference on border activities (1993).
A91-537.6 VI-20
-------
• Finalize the Sister City contingency plans (1993-1994).
• Conduct a simulation exercise to test the full system thoroughly (1993).
• Revise contingency plans where necessary (1994).
• Continue to update/exchange database information on releases.
• Conduct annual reviews of the Sister Cities plans.
While these activities will be the focus of the three geographic areas mentioned above for initial implementation
of the Plan, these activities will be repeated for each Sister City pair, until the entire Inland Border is covered
and a regular process of reviewing, updating, and testing is established and maintained. Although initial focus
will be in these three areas, the JRT is encouraging and supporting all Sister Cities to have their contingency
plans developed by 1994.
6. Industrial Multimedia Source Control Requiring Government and Private Initiatives
The goals of industrial multimedia source control are: to minimize the degradation of water, air and land
resources and to minimize the environmental and public health threats by minimizing the use and discharge of
hazardous substances into the environment. This is achieved through: (1) an assessment of industrial sources
and risk, (2) regulatory review, (3) enforcement of regulations, and (4) private initiatives including pollution
prevention.
Assessment of industrial sources and risks involves the identification of the locations of industries in the Border
Area and the nature of their actual and potential discharges and releases of hazardous substances into the
environment. This is followed by an assessment of the potential human health and environmental risks
associated with these discharges and accidental releases.
SEDUE and EPA will develop and implement a cooperative enforcement program to assure compliance with all
applicable regulations in their respective jurisdictions in order to minimize pollution from industrial sources in
the Border Area. Subsection A.7 discusses the SEDUE/EPA cooperative enforcement strategy planned.
The private pollution control initiative consists of voluntary programs, established by industry and NGOs, to
minimize waste and prevent pollution. In addition, voluntary programs could be established for items not
specifically covered under the regulations of each country such as the reporting of wastes generated or emitted.
Typical examples of private initiatives are listed below:
• pollution prevention - changing chemical use or processes so that fewer toxic waste streams are
produced;
A91-537.6 VI-21
-------
• waste minimization - minimization of waste and releases through source reduction, the use of
less toxic chemicals, or the recycling of the waste;
• voluntary emission reductions - voluntary reduction of pollutants;
• chemical safety audits - a review of facility management practices which might be applied to
reduce the possibility of a significant, accidental release of hazardous materials from the
facility; and
• corporate ethics.
Implementation Plan for Industrial Multimedia Source Control
Ongoing activities will continue throughout 1991 and many of the tasks will be incorporated into the overall
integrated plan. Some parts of the Plan may be accomplished ahead of schedule or in a different time frame
than the one proposed here. Formal Plan implementation will begin in 1992 following adoption of the Integrated
Border Environmental Plan. This plan will be implemented initially in Ciudad Juarez/El Paso and Tijuana/San
Diego and expanded to the other sister cities in the near future. A brief description of the relevant activities
follows.
Quantitative objectives presented below are meant to be taken as potential targets for each year. Experience
gained in 1991 and 1992 may result in new approaches or unexpected challenges which could expedite or delay
the schedule estimates for plan implementation.
Assessment
Identification of Facilities with Water, Air or Hazardous Waste Discharges
• Track industrial facilities' usage of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous waste as a
means of identifying potential illegal disposal activities for enforcement follow-up, develop
estimates of waste quantities a generator is expected to produce, checked against documented
quantities shipped domestically and internationally and/or reuse or storage on-site (1992).
• Identify the border industrial facilities in key sister city areas including the location, owner,
type of operation, type of waste produced, and release and discharge history; develop
information on U.S. corporate affiliations with maquiladora plants (1992).
• Develop a shared computer system to store facility information, compliance history, and other
data (1993).
A91-537.6 VI-22
-------
Study of Risk
• Begin collection of the discharge and release data necessary for the development of an initial
comparative risk study (1992).
• Continue to collect the discharge and releases data necessary for completing the comparative
risk study (1993).
• Collect discharge and release data until completed (1994).
Monitoring
• Begin ambient air, water, and ground water monitoring to assess the impact of the industrial
sources in the Border Area (1992).
• Continue to monitor the impact of industrial sources (1993).
• Complete a substantial portion of the monitoring to assess the impact of industrial sources
(1994).
Regulatory Review
Exchange the full spectrum of applicable Federal and State statutes, regulations, policies,
procedures and their development; translate the documents (1992).
Cooperative Visits to Facilities
Conduct an increasing number of cooperative training visits to facilities in pairs of border cities
in which officials of the environmental authority of one country participate as observers at the
invitation of the environmental authority of the other country.
Regulatory Program Implementation
Training
As an expansion of existing efforts, develop and implement a training plan for SEDUE and
EPA inspectors, regulation writers, and enforcement personnel working in the Border Area;
training should include direct experience of selected personnel with facility visits (1992).
Institutionalize the training sessions (1993).
A91-537.6 VI-23
-------
Communication with Regulated Community
• Develop methods regarding transboundary technology transfer and dissemination of information
to industry on pollution prevention, waste minimization, and waste recycling (1992).
• Begin preparations for the First Annual SEDUE/EPA Multimedia Environmental Educational
Conference (1992).
SEDUE and EPA will attend Fourth Annual Maquiladora Conference (1992).
• Hold Third Annual Joint Response Team Conference (1992).
• Hold the First Annual SEDUE/EPA Multimedia Environmental Educational Conference (1993).
• Continue to hold annual conferences on multimedia issues to enhance industry compliance
(1994).
Enforcement Information Exchange and Publicity
• SEDUE and EPA will exchange enforcement information on Border Area facilities, including
administrative and civil enforcement actions brought against Border Area facilities and a listing
of facilities shut down due to compliance problems (1992).
• Initiate a "hot-line" complaint system and institute follow-up procedures (1992).
• Draft and implement cooperative enforcement strategies, e.g., simultaneous initiation of
enforcement actions in the case of transboundary episodes (1992).
• Improve access to laboratory facilities and information by EPA personnel in Mexico and
SEDUE personnel in the United States (1992).
• Implement cooperative enforcement activities relating to industrial multimedia source control
(1993).
Private Initiatives
Technology Transfer
• Initiate cooperative efforts on data software to enable the agencies to share data easily (1992).
A91-537.6 VI-24
-------
Develop mechanisms for SEDUE/EPA technology transfer, e.g., data/compliance information
software, transfer of pollution control technology to regulators or regulated entities,
demonstration projects (1992).
• Hold a three-day technology transfer conference regarding pollution prevention, waste
minimization, and pollution control for the maquiladora industry in three border cities (1993).
Voluntary Reductions
• Identify trade associations, citizen groups and other NGOs and begin meeting with these groups
to receive input on voluntary industrial waste reductions (1992).
• EPA Administrator and Regional Administrators from Regions 6 and 9 to meet with a number
of chief executive officers of U.S. companies in the Border Area with the goal of having them
consider a voluntary reduction program (33% in 1992 and 50% by 1994). Additionally, a
strong effort will be made to encourage Border facilities to voluntarily make 90% (95% for
particulates) reduction in air toxics as called for under the U.S. 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments, Title HI; Hazardous Air Pollutants, early reduction provision.
7. SEDUE/EPA Cooperative Enforcement Strategy (For current status, see pages ni-28 through 111-29).
While recognizing the sole and sovereign responsibilities of each government for law enforcement in their
respective jurisdictions and territories, Mexico and the United States recognize that damage to human health and
the environment in the Border Area may be reduced through increased cooperation, and that enforcement activity
is necessary to promote compliance and ensure the integrity of environmental laws and requirements. They
further agree that, because the problems of the border are common to both countries, a cooperative enforcement
strategy between the two governments can achieve and convey a more effective message of deterrence. They
recognize that compliance can also be fostered by addressing infrastructural needs and public attitudes by
assuring that technological development and human and financial resources are such that compliance by the
regulated community is feasible. To this end, the Mexican government has recently executed a training and
technology compact with key elements of the Mexican industrial community and a number of universities that
should help assure the availability of pollution control equipment and technical expertise to Mexican industry.
The SEDUE and EPA cooperative enforcement strategy will include the following operational elements:
Targeting Violations - Enforcement should be "targeted" so that initiatives focus enforcement
action by each government against priority targets, such as industries with poor compliance
histories, specific pollutants, and sensitive geographic areas of mutual interest and concern;
A91-537.6 VI-25
-------
• Preventative Solutions -- Pollution prevention/waste minimization is a principal goal of
enforcement Pollution prevention strategies will focus on either the medium in which the
original violation occurred or require within the scope of the regulations reductions in other
media in order to leverage the scope and impact of compliance agreements; and
• Communications ~ Enforcement should cast a broad shadow of deterrence which dissuades
violation of the laws. SEDUE and EPA will use the stigma of unfavorable publicity to
encourage industries to realize that noncompliance involves serious risks. The two agencies
will cooperate in developing an enforcement communications capability to ensure that the
public and the regulated community is informed about industry's record of environmental
compliance and SEDUE's and EPA's enforcement accomplishments in the Border Area.
a. Cooperative Enforcement Strategy Working Group
SEDUE and EPA recently established a Cooperative Enforcement Strategy Working Group which, in the spirit of
Article II of the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement, will meet regularly (no less than annually) and will:
(1) Consult concerning priorities for the parties' respective enforcement activities.
(2) Discuss opportunities for increasing cooperative efforts to enhance the effectiveness of each
government's enforcement activities and develop implementation plans and communications
strategies when such opportunities are identified.
(3) Submit to the National Coordinators, on an annual basis, a report on the activities and
discussions of the work group.
(4) Exchange information relevant to transboundary pollution and related enforcement activities on
at least an annual basis under the respective statutory or regulatory requirements of both
countries. The work group will in this respect explore the development of compatible computer
software to facilitate prompt and meaningful exchange of such information.
(5) Explore opportunities to enhance the environmental enforcement capabilities at key border
crossings, including the ability to discover illegal shipments of hazardous waste and other
prohibited materials, and to enhance law enforcement SEDUE and EPA will carry out high
visibility border stops on their respective sides of the border, working to enhance their impact
and facilitate cross-border cooperation.
A91-537.6 VI-26
-------
(6) Explore opportunities to enhance existing training efforts for inspectors and other enforcement
personnel. Efforts will focus on methodologies for compliance evaluation and related
environmental enforcement training presented in workshops, seminars, and practical
applications. EPA will, to the extent practicable, seek to make available for use by SEDUE its
U.S. laboratory facilities relevant to enforcement (ex.: a LIDAR unit from NEIC).
(7) Facilitate personnel exchanges, where appropriate, as a means of sharing enforcement
experiences and techniques.
(8) Facilitate technology transfer and technical cooperation between the governments regarding
computerized data systems and laboratory analytical techniques.
b. Leadership Roles
SEDUE and EPA will encourage senior officials of companies of their respective country operating
plants hi the Border Area to fully comply with the environmental laws and requirements of the
regulatory jurisdiction in which they are operating. SEDUE and EPA agree to focus on this Leadership
Function as a highly visible general policy and to share, when appropriate, information relating to the
environmental conduct of transnational companies.
c. Evidence Sharing
SEDUE and EPA will assist one another in accordance with the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty and the
Hague Convention for criminal and civil proceedings involving enforcement
d. Visits and Observer Participation
Officials of each agency will, subject to mutual agreement, participate as observers in visits to facilities
located within the other country's Border Area. Efforts will be made to expand cooperative interaction
of SEDUE and EPA personnel through such visits and to implement a communications strategy to
maximize their public impact by publicizing the environmental enforcement record of companies
operating facilities in the Border Area.
B. CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS
In planning for an environmentally sound Border Area, SEDUE and EPA have developed the following
concluding recommendations as an integral part of the Border Environmental Plan. Most cut across many of the
border problems, and all merit early implementation.
A91-537.6 VI-27
-------
1. Cooperative Enforcement Strategy
SEDUE and EPA should develop a program to control pollution from point sources, which would focus on
developing a cooperative enforcement strategy for the Border Area, recognizing the sole and sovereign
responsibilities of their respective governments for law enforcement in their own territory. The strategy would
include information exchange, plant visits in which officials of the environmental authority of one country
participate as observers at the invitation of the environmental authority of the other country, and information
exchange of each country's enforcement priorities for specific compliance problems, including:
• an accelerated program for identifying all significant pollution sources in the Border Area;
• discharge/emission monitoring programs for all significant polluting sources;
• improved identification of violations involving the most significant environmental and health
risks;
• case screening to choose the most appropriate response to. violations; and
• innovative settlements, which correct specific violations, address underlying causes, and apply
appropriate sanctions to promote broader deterrence.
This cooperative enforcement strategy should develop collaborative border enforcement initiatives to resolve
particular environmental compliance problems, protect sensitive ecological areas, and address transborder
pollution episodes.
To help mobilize this cooperative monitoring and enforcement program, a Work Group on Enforcement has been
added to the four existing Work Groups under the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement.
2. Effective Protection of Transboundary Environmental Resources
SEDUE and EPA should take steps to assure that the environmental standards and requirements of each agency,
and their enforcement, provide effective protection to transboundary environmental resources in the Border Area
such as the border surface waters, transboundary aquifers, and air basins of sister cities.
3. Strengthened Financing of Environmental Protection in the Border Area
SEDUE and EPA should review ways to resolve resource problems and strengthen their cooperation in
mobilizing funding for pollution control facilities needed in the Border Area. Where pollution control facilities,
such as those for handling hazardous wastes, are lacking or inadequate, consideration should be given to
developing market incentives and use charges on pollution sources to pay for such facilities. SEDUE and EPA
should periodically review the need for technical assistance in developing such market incentives and use
charges, as well as, for preparing proposals for loan financing of pollution control facilities in appropriate cases.
It is recognized that external resources will be required to achieve complete implementation of the Plan.
A91-537.6 VI-28
-------
4. Mobilizing Private Sector Support
The private sector in Mexico and the United States should be mobilized to assist in accelerating environmentally
sound development in the Border Area in at least the following two important ways:
a program of voluntary pollution reductions agreed to with major firms operating in the Border
Area similar to EPA's "33/50 Initiative"; and
technology transfer through treatment, control, and pollution prevention technology seminars
and other mechanisms for all Border Area industries to speed the transfer of environmental
technology.
5. Joint Emergency Planning and Response Capability
SEDUE and EPA should:
• identify appropriate Federal, State and local officials on both sides of the border, who can assist
in the cooperative development of emergency response capabilities;
• establish appropriate mechanisms to address financial, political, and operational issues
pertaining to cross-border movement of emergency equipment and personnel in the event of an
incident;
• work jointly toward the development of an accident prevention program focused on facilities
handling toxic substances;
• improve cross-border communications related to the development of emergency preparedness
and response capabilities and facilitate cross-border movement of emergency response
equipment and personnel;
• identify appropriate future JRT activities such as training and technical assistance for existing
emergency planning and response entities such as the Cameron County Local Emergency
Planning Committee hi Brownsville and the Local Mutual Aid Committee in Matamoros to
assist in promoting awareness of preparedness and response activities on both sides of the
border; and
• identify the need for written materials and provide Spanish and English versions of such
materials.
A91-537.6 VI-29
-------
6. Coordination of Environmental Programs in the Border Area
SEDUE and EPA should each coordinate their country's activities in the Border Area with the other major
environmental agencies active in the area. These include the IBWC and the environmental agencies of the
Mexican states of Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Sonora and Baja California and the U.S. states
of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Border sister city environmental authorities should also be
consulted where their particular interests are involved (e.g., for the Ciudad Juarez/El Paso air basin study).
Intergovernmental coordination and consultation should include the following elements:
• regular exchange of data on the number of plants operating in the border region, ownership of
the plants, the amount and type of wastes generated, pollution control measures adopted, and
enforcement actions taken;
• identification of the principal environmental technologies and information that will be of
interest to Mexico;
exchange of budget and staffing data by SEDUE, EPA and the IBWC;
• cooperative environmental monitoring in the Border Area; and
• periodic meeting of the relevant authorities to facilitate exchange of data, consult on
environmental problems arising in the Border Area, increase the efficiency of pollution control
efforts, encourage full implementation of the Border Environmental Plan, and suggest future
directions for the Plan.
Finally, both SEDUE and EPA should appoint a Mexican and a U.S. Border Area Coordinator at their respective
headquarters who will be responsible for coordination and oversight of the implementation of this Plan. These
Coordinators would ensure that regional, State and local environmental agencies, the IBWC and relevant private
sector groups are made aware of each agency's recommendations and actions. The Border Area Coordinators
should discuss matters on at least a monthly basis in addition to attending all Border Area environmental
meetings. They should also ensure the coordination of resource requirements and generally resolve conflicts
between their agencies, commissions and work groups. At the end of each year, the Border Area Coordinators
should prepare a progress report documenting the environmental progress achieved in the Border Area and make
recommendations concerning the activities for the following year.
7. Border Area Environmental Round Table Meetings
To promote further coordination, Border Area Environmental Round Table meetings should be established at the
local, State and Border Area wide levels. These Round Table meetings would serve the following purposes:
• provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and discussion of environmental problems, including
public health and land use issues, and their resolution throughout the Border Area;
A91-537.6 VI-30
-------
• build a communications network among industry, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and
State and local governments;
• promote community relations activities and right-to-know policies;
promote information and technology transfer among industry, NGOs, local, State, national and
binational environmental agencies (Information to be shared would include monitoring/sampling
data, treatment control technology and identification of problem areas.);
• provide a mechanism for participation in the environmental resource development and
allocation process to fund solutions for environmental issues; and
• provide a forum to discuss the effects of proposed environmental regulations.
8. Other Programs to Promote Public Awareness and Increase Public Participation
To ensure effective implementation of the Border Environmental Plan, it is essential to make the public aware of
the Plan and to enlist their participation in implementing it In addition to the Environmental Round Table
meetings proposed, the following additional activities are recommended:
• Public Meetings, Conferences and Workshops. SEDUE and EPA should develop educational
and information programs about the Border Environmental Plan, targeted at Mexican and U.S.
industries, governmental agencies, academic entities and the general public in the Border Area.
Programs should address both technical and policy issues, and focus on opportunities for the
private sector and for technology transfer.
• SEDUE/EPA Translation of Environmental Laws, Regulations, Standards and Guidance.
SEDUE and EPA should publish a SEDUE/EPA-approved English language translation of the
1988 Mexican comprehensive General Ecology Law, the regulations and technical norms or
standards developed to implement the law, and such other Mexican and U.S. laws, regulations,
standards and guidance as SEDUE and EPA deem appropriate. The relevant U.S. laws,
regulations, standards and guidance would be translated into Spanish. These publications
should be regularly updated.
Public Information on Environmental Conditions in the Border Area. SEDUE and EPA should
publish annual environmental indices and data on the Border Area. SEDUE should establish
requirements for public availability of data on emissions and effluents of pollutants.
• Environmental Watchdog Arrangements to Receive Public Complaints and Information.
SEDUE and EPA should establish a mechanism for receiving complaints and information from
the public about environmental conditions in the Border Area. It is important for citizens living
in the Border Area to have a role in implementing the Border Environmental Plan.
A91-537.6 VI-31
-------
• Private Volunteer Initiatives. Promote increased environmental awareness in the border
communities through private initiatives to address the specific public health and social
infrastructural problems that contribute to adverse environmental conditions in the Border Area.
9. Updating of the 1983 Border Environmental Agreement and its Annexes
The 1983 Border Environmental Agreement between Mexico and the United States and its Annexes may be
updated at a future time, as appropriate, to take account of new information that may result from implementation
of this Plan.
10. Periodic Review of the Border Environmental Plan
SEDUE and EPA should review and update this Border Environmental Plan periodically. Following review by
the relevant governmental agencies and public comment, the Border Environmental Plan (First Stage) will be
adopted this year. The Plan will again be reviewed and revised in 1994. At that time there will be similar
opportunities for participation by the governmental, public and private sectors before the Plan's Second Stage is
adopted. In the interim, SEDUE and EPA will conduct an annual review of the Plan's implementation.
A91-537.6 VI-32
------- |