The Project on Capacity Enhancement for Establishing ...gwweb.jica.go.jp/km/ProjDoc245.nsf/VIEWJCSearchX/786D31177D4409F... · The Project on Capacity Enhancement for Establishing

Japan International Cooperation Agency

National Water Commission (CONAGUA)

The Project on Capacity Enhancement for

Establishing Mexican Norms of Water Quality Criteria

Inception Report

July 2008

Ides Inc.

ABBREVIATIONS LISTA DE ACRONIMOS

ABC ABC Laboratory

ABC Química, Análisis e Investigación, S.A. de C.V. BHC Benzene hexachloride Hexacloruro de benceno BOD Biological Oxigen Demand DBO Demanda Biológica de Oxígeno COD Chemical Oxygen Demand DQO Demanda Química de Oxígeno CONAGUA National Water Commission

Comisión Nacional del Agua CD Capacity Development DC Desarrollo de la Capacidad C/P Counterpart

Contraparte Mexicana DDT Dichloro diphenil trichloroethane

Diclorodifeniltricloroetano DIC Draft Inception Report

Informe Inicial (borrador) EU European Union UE Unión Europea EPA Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.A.

Agencia de Protección Ambiental de los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica FR Final Report

Informe Final GC/ECD Gas Chromatography / Electron Capture Detector CG /DCE Cromatógrafo de Gases/Detector de Captura de Electrones GC/MS Gas Chromatography / Mass Spectrophotometer CG/EM Cromatógrafo de gases /espectrómetro de masas GM of LA General Manager for Legal Affaires

Administrador General de Asuntos Legales IC Inception Report

Informe Inicial JCC Joint Coordination Committee CCC Comité Coordinador Conjunto

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency Agencia de Cooperación Internacional del Japón

LDL Lowest Detection Limit Límite de Detección Mínima

M/M Minutes of Meeting

Minuta de Entendimiento MPC Maximum Permissible Concentration CMP Concentración Máxima Permisible NOM Mexican Official Norm Norma Oficial Mexicana NMX Mexican Norm

Norma Mexicana PCM Project Cycle Management MCP Manejo del Ciclo del Proyecto PDM Project Design Matrix MDP Matriz de Diseño del Proyecto PFC Parameters for Criteria PPC Parámetros para los Criterios PO Plan of Operations PO Plan de Operaciones PRTR Pollutant Release and Transfer Register Descarga contaminante y registro de transferencia PR Progress Report

Informe de Avance QL Quantification Limit Límite de Cuantificación R/D Record of Discussions

Registro de Discusiones SEMARNAT Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources

Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales SOP Standardized Operative Procedures POE Procedimientos Operativos Estandarizados TDI Tolerable Daily Intake Consumo Diario Tolerable TOC Total Organic Carbon COT Carbono Orgánico Total

TSS Total Suspended Solids SST Sólidos Suspendidos Totales VOC Volatile Organic Compounds COV Compuestos Orgánicos Volátiles WS Workshop TT Taller de Trabajo WBS Work Breakdown Structure Estructura de Desglose de Trabajo WG Working Group Grupo de Trabajo WHO World Health Organization OMS Organización Mundial de la Salud WQC Water Quality Criteria

Criterios de Calidad del Agua

Table of Contents

Page

CHAPTER 1 PROJECT OUTLINE ............................................................. 1

1.1 Back Ground ...................................................................................1

1.2 Purpose of the Project ......................................................................1

1.3 Project Outputs ...............................................................................2

1.4 Project Area....................................................................................2

1.5 Project Schedule ..............................................................................3

1.6 Project Organization.........................................................................3

1.7 Japanese Experts .............................................................................7

1.8 Project Team....................................................................................7

CHAPTER 2 APPROACHES TO THE PROJECT.......................................... 8

2.1 Basic Considerations and Present Situation ..........................................9

2.2 Basis for Implementation of the Project ................................................12

CHAPTER 3 METHODLOGY OF THE PROJECT ........................................ 29

3.1 Flowchart of Activities ......................................................................29

3.2 Implementation Method of Each Project Activity.....................................31

3.3 Division of roles ...............................................................................44

3.4 Outputs of technical cooperation ........................................................47

1

CHAPTER 1 PROJECT OUTLINE

1.1 Back Ground

United Mexican States is facing a lot of issue, such as lack of water supply, drying up of underground water due to extreme pumping-up and serious deterioration of water quality. The “National Water Plan (2007-2012)” points the necessity of improvement of issues caused by water pollution. The National Water Commission (herein after referred to as “CONAGUA”), which is independent organization under the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (herein after referred to as “SEMARNAT”), established “National Water Quality Monitoring Network” in 1974 and systematically keep monitoring of water quality1. The number of monitoring points is 964 in the year of 2004 covering the prioritized water bodies in the country, while following issues are pointed out:

- It is not operated uniformly, - Regulation system is not completed and - It does not cover present problems in the country regarding water quality. 2 3

Establishment of environmental water-quality criteria (herein after referred to as “WQC”) is important from viewpoint of strategic management of water quality. Current WQC were established in 1989 based on the criteria by the Environmental Protection Agency in U.S.A., although they lack legal orientation and their values are considered that they do not meet the actual conditions. December 2005, CONAGUA established bidding for a study on WQC, which consist of about 300 parameters. But they have not been verified due to lack of experience and technique. Therefore, the work for revision of WQC, which is supposed to end by the year of 2012, has not progressed. Under these circumstances, the government of the United Mexican States requested a technical cooperation project to the government of Japan in September 2006, targeting capacity enhancement for establishment of water quality criteria based on the natural condition and uses of each public water area. Implementation of this project was agreed after the record of discussions and the minutes of meeting (R/D, M/M) were signed and exchanged on April 2008.

1.2 Purpose of the Project

The project aims the enhancement of capacity for the establishment of water quality criteria with CONAGUA as implementation organization. The overall goal and project purpose of the project are follows.

1) Overall Goal

The water quality criteria are established as a Norma Mexicana (NMX) and are utilized as water quality standard.

2) Project Purpose

The capacity of CONAGUA for establishing water quality criteria (WQC) is enhanced. 1 Material by JICA: Summary of Environmental Law of Mexico 2 Material by JICA: Japanese translation of “Gerencia de Saneamiento y Calidad del Agua Red Nacional de

Monitoreo”, Nov. 2003, CONAGUA 3 Material by CONAGUA: Estadísticas del Agua en México Edición 2006

2

1.3 Project Outputs

Following outputs are expected by implementation of the project.

Output 1: The capacity of identifying parameters for criteria (chemicals and others) (PFC) in freshwater to protect aquatic life and human health is enhanced.

Output 2: The capacity of deciding maximum permissible concentrations and levels of the identified

PFC appropriate to the moderate tropical environment in the American continent is enhanced.

Output 3: CONAGUA is capable of analyzing the chemicals in the draft of WQC (such as Total

Organic Carbon [TOC], agricultural chemicals, Volatile Organic Compounds [VOC] and others upon the Mexican and the Japanese side), with sufficient reliability.

1.4 Project Area

The project area is shown in Figure 1.1. Activities are mainly conducted in Mexico City where the Office of Water Quality of CONAGUA is located. It is effective to choose specified area as a pilot area to conduct actual activities to enhance capacity for establishing WQC. Following three areas are candidate for the pilot area at moment. One area should be chosen with discussion. Area 1: Upper stream of Rio Grande de Santiago, Guadalajara, Jalisco

Area 2: Panuco River, Tampico, Tamaulipas Area 3: Turbio River, Leon, Guanajuato

Figure 1.1 Project Area (Source: http://www.ncm-center.co.jp/tizu/mekisiko.htm）

Guadalajara

Mexico City

Pilot Area 1

Main Activity Area

Pilot Area 2

Pilot Area 3

Leon

□Tampico

3

1.5 Project Schedule

Project schedule is shown in Table 1.1. The entire period of the project is 25 months, from June 2008 to June 2010.

Table 1.1 Project Schedule

Year 2008 2009 2010 Month J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

Fiscal year

WS

Seminar

JCC

Report

Legend) WS: Workshop, JCC: Joint Coordinate Committee, DIC: Draft Inception Report, IC: Inception Report, PR: Progress Report, FR: Final Report

1.6 Project Organization

Organizational structure of the project is shown in Figure 1.2. Members on the project from Mexican side are as follows:

• Project Director: Mr. Felipe I. Arreguín Cortés, Deputy Director General (Technical Area), CONAGUA

• Project Manager: Mr. Enrique Mejía Maravilla, General Manager of Manager’s Office of Water Quality, CONAGUA

• Technical Counterpart:

[Output 1 & Output 2]

Mr. Eric Gutiérrez López. General Submanager of Water Quality Studies and Environmental Impact, CONAGUA Mr. Jesús García Cabrera, Submanager of the National Measurement Network of Water Quality, CONAGUA Mr. Jesús Núñez Morales, Submanager of Technical Dictamination, Hydroecological Emergencies and Environmental Services Ms. Sylvia F. Vega Gleason, Hydraulic Specialist, Department of Water Quality Studies and Environmental Impact, CONAGUA Mr. Fernando Rosales Cristerna, Head of Water Quality Studies Area, CONAGUA

FR

First Third

PR1 PR2 PR3

Second

DIC IC

4

Ms. Ivonne Cuesta Zarco, Hydraulic Specialist, Water Quality Studies Area, CONAGUA Ms. Claudia Nava Ramírez, Head of the National Monitoring Network, CONAGUA

[Output 3] Ms. Margarita Lobato Calleros, Head of National Laboratories Network, CONAGUA Ms. Valia M. Goytia Leal, Head of National Reference Laboratory Operation, CONAGUA Ms. Norma L. Heiras Rentería, Hydraulic Specialist, National Measurement Network of Water Quality, CONAGUA. Ms. Guadalupe Machado Osuna, Hydraulic Specialist, National Measurement Network of Water Quality, CONAGUA

• Joint Coordinating Committee:

The Joint Coordinating Committee (here in after referred to as “JCC”), which consists of both the Mexican side and the Japanese side, is established for smooth and effective implementation of the project. JCC will basically meet twice a year or whenever necessary arises. The functions of JCC are as follows:

- To formulate the annual operational work plan of the project based on PDM (Project design Matrix) and PO (Plan of Operation).

- To review the results of the annual operational work plan and the overall progress of the project.

- To exchange views on major issue arising from or in connection with implementation of the project.

Chairperson: Mr. Felipe I. Arreguín Cortés, Deputy Director General (Technical Area), CONAGUA (Project Director)

Members:

【Mexican Side】 Mr. Felipe I. Arreguín Cortés, General Director (Technical area), CONAGUA Mr. José Antonio Rodríguez Tirado, Deputy Director General (Planning area), CONAGUA Mr. Enrique Mejía Maravilla, General Manager of Manager’s Office of Water Quality (Project Manager), CONAGUA Mr. Eric Gutiérrez López, Submanager of Water Quality Studies and Environmental Impact, CONAGUA Mr. Jesús García Cabrera, Submanager of the National Measurement Network of Water Quality, CONAGUA Mr. Jesús Núñez Morales, Submanager of Technical Dictamination, Hydroecological Emergencies and Environmental Services, CONAGUA Ms. Irma González López, Deputy Manager of Sectorial Programs, CONAGUA Mr. Guillermo Gutiérrez Gómez, Head of International Cooperation, CONAGUA Ms. Liliana Martin Escalante, Head of Administrative Systems, General Subdirection of Planning, CONAGUA Mr. Fernando Rosales Cristerna, Head of Water Quality Studies Area, CONAGUA Ms. Margarita Lobato Calleros, Head of the Department of the National Laboratories Network, CONAGUA Ms. Valia M. Goytia Leal, Head of National Reference Laboratory Operation, CONAGUA Mr. Máximo Romero Jiménez, Coordinator for General Director of Technical and Scientific Cooperation, Secretariat of Foreign Affairs Mr. Efraín del Ángel Ramírez, Deputy Director for Asia Bilateral Cooperation, Secretariat of Foreign Affairs Mr. Cesar Arellano, Coordinator for Bilateral Cooperation with Japan, Secretariat of Foreign

5

Affairs The Representative of the Direction of Legal Affairs, CONAGUA The Representative of the Direction of Economic Analysis and Legal of the Primary Sector and Renewable Natural Resources, SEMARNAT The Representative of the Direction of Normativity of the Primary Sector and Renewable Natural Resources, SEMARNAT The Representative of Coordination Unit of International Affairs, SEMARNAT

【Japanese Side】 Experts Representatives of JICA Mexico Office Members of JICA study team, to be dispatched when necessary Official(s) of the Embassy of Japan in Mexico may attend the JCC as observer(s).

• Technical Committee:

The function of the Technical Committee is to discuss technical or practical details of the project. Technical Committee is formed by the following members.

Project Manager: - Mr. Enrique Mejía Maravilla

Administrator General: - Mr. Eric Gutiérrez López

Administrating Members: - Dr. Jesus García Cabrera - Mr. Jesus Núñez Morales - Ms. Irma González López

Chief Adviser of the Expert Team: - Mr. Yoichi Harada

• Working Group:

The working groups consist of the technical counterparts from the Mexican side. Occasionally, members from other organizations out of CONAGUA are also included in the Working Groups.

6

Figure 1.2 Organizational Structure

Note: WG: Working Group Relevant Basin Organizations of CONAGUA that will participate in the Project will become collaborators.

Project Manager

CONAGUA Japanese Expert Team

SEMARNAT

Project Director

Project Manager

WG

River Basin Committee

JICA

Technical Committee

JCC

Administrators

Chief Advisor

WG WG

WG WG

7

1.7 Japanese Experts

Table 1.2 shows the members of the Japanese Expert Team and their schedule for the project is shown in Table 1.3.

Table 1.2 Japanese Experts Name Field

Yoichi HARADA Chief Adviser/Water quality standard/ Chemical analysis of organic compounds

Koyo OGASAWARA Chemical risk assessment Yarai SATO Industrial effluent Masatoshi NAKAMURA Toxicologist Yasunori ITO Chemical analysis of organic compounds Kyoko MISHIMA Coordinator

Table 1.3 Schedule for the Project

Year 2008 2009 2010 Month J F M A M J J A S O N D J F MAM J J A S O N D J F MA M J J A S O N D

Yoichi Harada

Koyo Ogasawara

Yarai Sato Masatoshi Nakamura

Yasunori Ito Kyoko Mishima

1.8 Project Team

Project team is formulated on this project. Project team is a task force, consisted of technical counterparts of Mexican side, who will also be a part of the Working Groups, and experts from Japanese side, to cooperatively implement the project.

8

CHAPTER 2 APPROACHES TO THE PROJECT Based on the terms of reference, report on preparatory study for this project and related materials, basic considerations and methodology to the project are summarized below and are described further on in this chapter.

Basic Considerations 1. Roles of criteria on water environmental management should be recognized.

2. To ensure accuracy for trace analysis and capacity for establishing criteria values adopted with present condition is fundamental.

3. Criteria must be revised continuously based on the various conditions in the future, and propose solutions to the problems related to the project for a practical revision of the criteria.

Basis for Implementation of the Project 1. To understand roles of criteria to apply for environmental management.

2. To phased step-up of analytical accuracy and revision of criteria values based on the present condition.

3. To recognize capacity improvement and revise activities of the project.

4. To support activity of CONAGUA to retain human resources for sustainable technical succession.

5. To support activity of CONAGUA for intentional and continuous supply of equipment and materials.

6. To support activity of CONAGUA for mutual support and improve the coordination with the Ministry of Health, SAGARPA and the state governments regarding technical analysis.

7. To support activity of CONAGUA for liaison with state governments to collect monitoring data and information for establishing WQC.

8. To support activity of CONAGUA to inform its programs to the public for future establishment of WQC.

9. To frequently exchange information between the “Coastal Water Quality Monitoring Network Project” team for effective and smooth implementation of the project.

10. To communicate positively with related projects by other donor to exchange information for multiplier effect on common activities.

9

2.1 Basic Considerations and Present Situation

2.1.1 Basic Considerations

Relating to the project purpose and the overall goal, expectations by three outputs are interpreted as follows:

- Output 1 (Capacity to identify parameters for WQC in freshwater) is necessary ability for CONAGUA to establish WQC based on present conditions, which would be an indicator for water management and for countermeasures to pollution.

- Output 2 (Capacity to decide maximum permissible concentrations) is ability to decide practical value for each criteria parameter based on various conditions such as toxicity of parameter, aquatic biota in the target area, number of population, land use, industrial effluents and their future transition.

- Output 3 (Analysis with sufficient reliability) is to secure accuracy, which is scientifically appropriate and practical for supporting the Output 1 and the Output 2.

Sufficient reliability by Output 3 is able to support abilities by Output 1 and Output 2 technically, and as a result WQC and its values can be determined. Figure 2.1 shows activities, which is described in Chapter 3. Activities related to Output 1 are mainly conducted at the first half stage of the project, and activities related to Output 2 are conducted from the middle to the later half of the project. Activities related to Output 3 are conducted from the middle to the later half of the project to technically support them. It is considered that securing “consistency of analytical accuracy” is important point on this project. That is:

- Criteria values (ideal criteria value) result from Output 1 and Output 2 are theoretical values. - Minimum detection limit is determined based on limitation of equipment and analytical skills. - Minimum detection limit should be low enough than ideal criteria value (normally one tenth). - Temporal criteria value is determined if the detection limit can not reach to the value because of limitation by equipment and technique. - Temporal criteria value should be gradually closer to the ideal criteria value by replacement of equipment or by training of the skill.

The procedure is the “consistency of analytical accuracy” and it is summarized in Figure 2.3 in the later section.

10

Figure 2.1 Activity Flowchart

Study on parameters

Agricultural chemicals

and pesti c ides

Information about pilot area

Technical Transfer

Sample parameters Materials & reagents

Determination of d e tection limit

Confirmation of consistency of analytical accuracy

New criteria values

Interview

Discussio n

Draft Criteria

New draft criteria

Manual for criteria

establishment

SOP

Risk analysis

Ideal criteria values

Reality？

Yes

No

Determination of

parameters

Output 1

Output 2

Output 3

11

2.1.2 Present Situation

Present situation, which is recognized at moment, is described below.

■ Situation-1

“Study on establishment of draft revision of water quality environmental criteria” (here in after referred to as “Draft Criteria”), which CONAGUA committed to local consultant “ABC”, recommend about 300 parameters for three water usages (conservation of aquatic life, drinking water and agricultural water).4 Those values are set uniformly in entire country and parameters are divided into 3 levels. In case a parameter in the lowest level is detected, parameters in higher levels are examined. On the other hand, criteria in Japan are set from 2 points of view, criteria related to conservation of living environment and criteria related to conservation of human health. Criteria related to conservation of human health include 26 parameters and are uniformly adopted to entire public water area and to groundwater. Criteria related to conservation of living environment include 11 parameters and their values are different depending on water areas considering water usage such as potable water, fishery, industrial water, agricultural water and swimming. Criteria related to conservation of human health are based on an idea that human health (including aquatic life) must be the most prioritized and difference between water bodies or an extension time to accomplish target criteria should not set. Criteria related to conservation of living environment are determined from an idea that it is appropriate to establish criteria considering usage of water and characteristic of each water area. 5 As mentioned above, criteria between the 2 countries are different because of a lot of factor such as way of approach to establishment of criteria, social situation and purpose of water usage. Common idea is that healthy water environment must be protected by criteria, which regulate water quality on water management. It is necessary to clarify the roles of WQC and the procedure for establishing WQC over discussion within the project team, referring guidelines by international organization such as WHO and EU or environmental leading country such as U.S.A, Germany and Canada.

■ Situation-2

As the concentration of parameter in the Draft Criteria is very low, analytical skill must clear the level that can detect the concentration. In case the skill does not clear the concentration level, it is necessary to enhance the skill to the level by technical transfer. But if the target concentration is set far beyond the skill level, effectiveness by the project may not be sustained because self-supported continuation is difficult.

4 Report on preparatory study for the Project on Capacity Enhancement for Establishing Mexican Norms of Water

Quality Criteria in the United Mexican States, Apr. 2008, JICA 5 Practical business for environmental standard, regulation and countermeasures, Study team of environmental law,

Daiichi Houki

Roles of criteria are recognized.

Accuracy for trace analysis is fundamental.

12

It is important, therefore, to establish WQC, which concentration is determined considering application now and in the future based on actual conditions regarding analytical skill.

■ Situation-3

CONAGUA, which is enormous organization, has 13 regional offices and laboratories. Nowadays, the number of new employment does not increased due to insufficient budget, although staffs are aging and the number of retirees is increasing, As a result, problems, such as drought of human resources and difficulty of technical succession arise. Also insufficient supply of consumption materials or exchange parts for analytical equipment, due to same financial difficulty, causes problems on accuracy management for analysis. These issues may block progress of the project or self-supported evolution by the technical counterpart (here in after referred to as “C/P) after the project end. Those issues should be clarified within the project team to be solved. Liaison with related organization is effective not only from a viewpoint of mutual cooperation for establishing NMX, but also viewpoints such as information exchange, technical support and budget coverage. Japanese expert team will support those activities.

2.2 Basis for Implementation of the Project

Principles for implementation of the project are described below based on the above mentioned situations.

2.2.1 Understanding the Roles of WQC

As described in【Situation-1】, basic idea for establishing WQC, such as categorization of PFC, between Mexico and Japan may be different. Before starting of evaluation of the Draft Criteria, roles of WQC are clarified by interview to the ABC Company, who prepared the Draft Criteria, and agreement within the project team at the beginning of the project. Guidelines by international organization such as WHO and EU or environmental leading country such as U.S.A, Germany and Canada are referred for evaluation of the Draft Criteria. And appropriateness of the criteria values is evaluated based on the fundamental roles of WQC. Lectures or workshops may be considered if necessary to promote better understanding by related personnel. Mexico has various natural environments such as highland over 5000m, tropical rain forests and deserts. And it is well known as the one of richest biodiversity-country in the world, where endemic aquatic-species are living. On the other hand, water pollution by increasing of domestic wastewater discharges is getting worse and problems such as shortage of agricultural water and destruction of natural environment are realized. Analytical determination for establishing WQC is necessary, based on information from various viewpoints such as natural condition (meteorology, geology, surface effluent, underground water), aquatic biota (rare species, commercial species) and usage of water resources (discharges of each water usage, water quality of discharges).

Organizational issues should be improved.

13

<Approach to WQC Evaluation> Plan for clarifying the target of WQC is identified after comparing the difference of categorization of PFC and target (human health, conservation of aquatic life, etc.) between several countries that the Draft Criteria referred. Criteria in major country are roughly divided into two categories, criteria related to conservation of human health and aquatic life and criteria based on the usage of water, and common idea for criteria of each country is to establish considering present situation in the country. Hence, it is important whether situation of Mexico was considered to determine PFC and values (maximum permissible values) in the Draft Criteria. Criteria related to conservation of human health and aquatic life should be revised with comprehensive point of view, following the procedure shown in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 (especially for risk assessment), after selecting the target PFC based on the information such as toxicology and epidemiology.

Figure 2.2 Flowchart for Risk Assessment

To clarify the roles of WQC, following procedure is used based on the Draft Criteria considering situation in Mexico with mutual understandings within the project team.

1) Evaluation of method to select PFC in the Draft Criteria - Appropriateness of determination PFC (conservation of human health, conservation of aquatic life, water usage)

Dishcarge source & volume（PRTR etc.）

Annual change of discharge volume

Purpose & Source

Concentration in Environment

Annual change in environment

Environmental measures

Estimation of degree of exposure to human & environment Annual change of exposure level

Analysis for uncertainty Allowance for safety

Evaluation of harmfulness (Human health, Ecology)）

Toxicological Test

Determination of end point

Countermeasure for cutback of risk

Evaluation of exposure

Estimation of exposure by product

Risk assessment

Judgment of risk

14

- Necessary information related to target chemicals is enough? - Differences to approach to risk assessment between countries are considered?

2) Collecting information about water basins in Mexico (including information of the pilot area)

- Differences between discharge source, discharge volume and water area - Monitoring of ambient concentration and its annual change - Estimation of exposure amount in water area

3) Collecting information relating to evaluation of exposure

- Application of target chemical substances - Process of exposure and its medium (drinking water, foods, skin contact, absorption) - Concentration of exposure and its degree

4) Selection of PFC based on the risk assessment

- Relationship between No-Observed-Adverse-Effect level (end point) and Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for the target parameters used in Mexico - Decision method for the Maximum Permissible Concentration of selected PFC by risk assessment

It is necessary to select PFC, which is related to health such as conservation of the water source, from viewpoint of risk assessment. For utilization of industry such as agriculture, fishery and manufacturing industry, it is necessary to take into account not only water resources and water environment in Mexico but also type of industry, distribution, its further development, etc. Determination of Maximum Permissible Concentration referring to technical levels of public water-treatment-facility or industrial-treatment-facility, the extent of its spread, tendency of effluent standard and reinforcement of regulation is also important.

2.2.2 Phased Step-up of Analytical Accuracy and Revision of WQC

As described in【Situation-2】, it is necessary to establish applicable WQC considering suitable concentration, which is able to be detected and handled continuously, based on present situation.

Principles for the situation are described below. ＜Phased Step-up of Accuracy＞

1. Present analytical accuracy, whether the accuracy fulfills the concentration that WQC demands (Target value), is confirmed. Methodology such as quality management including a way of determination of detection limit is understood in advance.

2. Experimental analysis is conducted referring existing manual to confirm whether the detection limit meets the Target value. Capacity, which is able to consider and contrive for maintaining and improving the accuracy by oneself using information by literature or alternative facility, is fostered in case accuracy can not reach to the target value because of different sample matrix or limitation of facility and resources.

3. Consistency between criteria value and analytical accuracy is determined. Procedure to determine realistic and sustainable criteria value based on the available equipment and present analytical skill is discussed.

The procedure mentioned above is summarized in Figure 2.3.

15

Draft Criteria

Selection of Parameter

Analytical Equipment

ReagentInformation of Toxicity

Ideal Value

RepeatedAnalysis

Methodology（Detection Limit,]

Accuracy Management）Detection Limit<Ideal Value×1/10

Detection Limit

No

New Draft Criteria

Yes

Temporal Criteria

Information of Basin

StandardMaterial

Figure 2.3 Phased Step-up of Accuracy

＜Procedure of Technical Transfer for Analysis＞ Procedure for confirmation of consistency between detection limit and criteria value including phased step-up of accuracy is explained below.

1. Target parameters to be trained are discussed. 2. Criteria value (ideal value: Target value) from viewpoint of risk assessment is determined.

And target detection limit is set as one tenth of the Target value. The Target value is basically considered as same as foreign countries regarding pesticides and heavy metals, which relates to human health.

3. Methodology for accuracy management including way of calculation of detection limit is understood.

4. Analysis for the parameter chosen at procedure-1 is conducted if the detection limit at Procedure-3 is fulfills the Target value. Capacity, which is able to consider and contrive for maintaining and improving the accuracy by oneself using information by literature or alternative facility, is fostered in case accuracy can not reach to the target value because of different sample matrix or limitation of facility and resources.

5. Consistency between criteria value and accuracy is discussed. One of following sub procedures is used depending on the difference between the Target value and calculated detection limit. It is necessary to maintain the accuracy or to improve the accuracy continuously, even though any sub procedure is chosen.

a. Detection limit < 1/10 of Target Value Target value can be used as criteria value. Monitoring and storing data (1/10 of criteria value) to know the variation of water pollution by the target parameter is possible.

b. 1/10 of Target Value < Detection limit ≤ Target Value Target value is set as temporal criteria value. Temporal criteria should be revised by sustainable improvement of accuracy to move to sub procedure-a.

c. Detection limit ≥ Target Value

16

Detection limit is set as temporal criteria value. Temporal criteria should be revised by sustainable improvement of accuracy to move to sub procedure-a or to sub procedure-b.

Slight fluctuation of detection limit is generally found on every analysis or in every laboratory. This fact should be taken into consideration on the determination of temporal criteria. Temporal criteria value must be revised by sustainable improvement of accuracy considering software improvement (concentration and refining of sample, retrieval of higher capacity of equipment) and hardware improvement (replacement of equipment or instrument).

2.2.3 Phased Confirmation of Progress for Capacity Enforcement Progress of capacity enhancement of the Project team is evaluated periodically using project-management-methodology, WBS (Work Breakdown Structure), relating to the project purpose “Enhancement of capacity for establishing water quality criteria”. Table 2.1 shows an example of evaluation table. Evaluation table is used to grasp the phased progress for enhancement of capacity, at the beginning of the project and every 6 months until the end of the project. If the degree of progress is low, activity is occasionally changed from viewpoint of project management to reach higher progress.

Table 2.1(1) Evaluation Table *The "report" means “Revision of the water quality criteria for water usage specified by the National Waters Law and Federal Law of Rights"

Level of progress（Level 1-5)Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 2008 2009 2010

<Output> <Overall> <Tasks> First Dec. June Dec. June

1.1.2.1　Gathering information related todischarge and water useage1.1.2.2　Gathering information related pesticidesand herbicides1.1.2.3　Gathering information related to pollutantin industrial/domestic discharge

1.1.4.1　Evaluating and revising three categoris forwater usage1.1.4.2　Evaluating and revising three levels ofparameters1.1.4.3　Establishing new criteria for selectingPFC

1.1.5.1　Comparing established criteria forselecting PFC with parameters in current draft1.1.5.2　Comparing usage of pesticides andherbicides with parameters in current draft WQC1.1.5.3　Comparing pollutant inindustrial/domestic discharge with parameters incurrent draft WQC1.1.5.4　Selecting parameters for WQC based on1.1.5.1-31.1.5.5　Evaluating relevancy of selectedparameters from the viewpoint of protection ofhuman helth and water resouces1.1.5.6　Evaluating appropriateness of process andmethod for selecting PFC1.2.1.1　Deciding table of contents1.2.1.2　Ordering the process for identifying PFC1.2.2.1　Drafting1.2.2.2　Printing and binding

1.3.1　Planning and preparing1.3.2　Executing and participating

1.1.3　Reviewing parameters proposed in the "report" * from toxicological point ofview

Output 1:The capacityof identifyingparameters for criteria(chemicals and others)(PFC) in freshwater toprotect aquatic lifeand human health isenhanced.

1.1　IdentifyingPFC

1.1.2　Gathering information relatedto current condition in Mexico

1.1.4　Evaluating and revising thecriteria for selecting PFC based on1.1.1-1.1.3

1.1.5　Revising and decidingparameters for WQC

1.2Developingmanual

1.3　Holdingseminor

1.2.1　Deciding contents

1.2.2　Developing

1.1.1　Gathering examples of criteria applied by international organization/majorcountries

17

Table 2.1(2) Evaluation Table Level of progress（Level 1-5)

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 2008 2009 2010<Output> <Overall> <Tasks> First Dec. June Dec. June

2.1.1.1　Collecting information on thecharacteristics of water body (ambient2.1.1.2　Collecting information on aquatic life2.1.2.1　Ordering value of criteria applied byinternational organization/major countries2.1.2.2　Comparing the result of 2.1.2.1 withcurrent draft criteria2.1.3.1　Selecting target parameters2.1.3.2　Reviewing biotoxicological andepidemiological information2.1.3.3　Reviewing information related toregulation and water usage2.1.3.4　Estimating influence concentration2.1.3.5　Risk assesment based on 2.1.4.2-42.1.3.6　Evaluating the existing methodologyrelated to maximum permissible concentarions2.1.3.7　Revising methodology2.1.4.1　Drafting revised value of criteria based on2.1.2-2.1.32.1.4.2　Comparing draft of revised value withcurrent water quality level and pollutant source,as well as confirming the relevancy2.1.4.3　Decideing revised value

2.2.1.1　Deciding table of contents2.2.1.2　Ordering the process for identifying PFC

2.2.2　Developing 2.2.2.1　Drafting2.2.2.2　Printing and binding

Output2: The capacityof deciding maximumpermissibleconcentrations andlevels of the identifiedPFC appropriate tothe Mexicanenvironment isenhanced.

2.1　Decidingmaximumpermissibleconcentrationsand levels

2.1.1　Collecting information relatedto current condition in Mexico andthe pilot area2.1.2　Revewing maximumpermissible concentrations andlevels of PFC selected by theactivities on output 12.1.3　Evaluating the method (riskassesment) of deciding maximumpermissible concentrations andlevels of selected PFC by theactivities on output 1

2.1.4　Revising maximumpermissible concentrations andlevels of selected PFC by theactivities on output 1

2.2.1　Deciding contents2.2Developingmanual

2.1.5　Selecting analytical methodology

18

Table 2.1(3) Evaluation Table Level of progress（Level 1-5)

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 2008 2009 2010<Output> <Overall> <Tasks> First Dec. June Dec. June

3.1　Deciding the chemicals for training3.2.1.1　Training with installed equipment3.2.1.2　Preparing SOP3.2.2.1　Understanding the present lowestdetection limits (LDLs)3.2.2.2　Compareing LDLs with maximumpermissible concentrations3.2.2.3　Deciding temporal value of criteria3.2.3.4　Preparing SOP3.2.2.5　Planning for capacity enhancement ofanalytical technique3.2.3.1　Training for measureing3.2.3.2　Preparing SOP

3.3　Training regional laboratories by central laboratory3.4.1　Planing and preparing3.4.2　Executing and participating

Output3: CONAGUA iscapable of analyzingthe chemicals in thedraft of WQC (such asTotal Organic Carbon(TOC), agriculturalchemicals, VolatileOrganic Compounds(VOC) and othersupon the Mexican andthe Japanese side),with sufficientreliability.

3.2　Trainingformeasurement

3.2.1　Training for measureing TOC

3.2.2　Training for measureingpesticides and VOCs

3.2.3　Training for other chemicals

3.4　Holdingworkshop

19

20

＜Revision of PDM＞ Methodology of PCM (Project Cycle Management) is used for comprehensive management of the project.

That is: - Project is recognized as “cycle”. - Monitoring and evaluation are achieved at each level of the project using PDM (Project design

Matrix) - Quality of the project is improved by “Grasping of progress” of the project, “Analysis” by

“comparison with plan” and “Countermeasure (revision if necessary)”. Revising PDM and PO was discussed between CONAGUA, Secretariat of Foreign Affairs and JICA expert team, and was agreed in the JCC. It is referred in Attachment 3 and 4. The current condition of each indicator in PDM and its objective to be achieved by the end of the project are shown in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2(1) Initial condition of each indicator and its objective to be achieved

Verifiable Indicator Initial Condition Objective to be achieved by the end of the project

Remarks

Overall Goal 1. Draft of NMX approved by

Inter-institutional Working Group.

New draft criteria, which will be the draft of NMX, have not been submitted to the Inter-institutional Working Group.

New draft criteria is submitted to the Inter-institutional Working Group. The new draft criteria are discussed and approved by the Inter-institutional Working Group.

Project Purpose 1. Progress of revision of the

current draft of WQC.

CONAGUA has not revised the current draft of WQC.

Parameters and their maximum permissible concentrations are revised theoretically. Methodology to verify the relevancy of the revised concentrations is established through risk-assessment works targeting on selected parameters as well as training for analytical techniques.

2. Appropriateness of the reviewing process of WQC.

CONAGUA has not obtained reviewing process of WQC.

Reviewing process of WQC, which is appropriate to protect aquatic life and human health in moderate tropical environment in the American continent, is established.

3. Appropriateness of the manual for establishing WQC.

CONAGUA has not obtained manual for establishing WQC.

A manual which describes reviewing process of WQC appropriately is established.

Output 1 1. Appropriateness of collected

information on pesticides and herbicides.

CONAGUA has not obtained information related to pesticides and herbicides.

Information related to pesticides and herbicides used in Mexico is collected.

Collected information covers common persistent pesticides and herbicides used in the world.

2. Number of parameters reviewed for selecting PFC from toxicological view point.

CONAGUA has not reviewed parameters from toxicological view point.

Around 300 parameters listed by ABC laboratory are classified from toxicological viewpoint.

21



Remarks

Output1 3. Appropriateness of the relations

between chemicals discharged and the current draft of WQC.

CONAGUA has obtained information of discharged chemicals, but has not summarized the relations with the draft of WQC.

The relations between discharged chemicals and parameters in the current draft of WQC are summarized based on the monitoring reports on discharged pollutants.

4. Appropriateness of the relations between usage of pesticides and herbicides and the current draft of WQC.

CONAGUA has not summarized the relations between usage of pesticides and herbicides and the current draft of WQC.

The relations between usage of pesticides and herbicides and the current draft of WQC are summarized based on the collected information of pesticides and herbicides used in Mexico.

5. Relevance of the selected PFC from the point of protection of human health and water resources.

CONAGUA has not evaluated the relevancy of parameters from the point of protection of human health and water resources.

Selected parameters are evaluated their relevancy from the point of protection of human health and water resources.

6. Appropriateness of process and method for establishment of WQC.

CONAGUA has not obtained process and method for establishment of WQC.

Appropriate process and method for establishment of WQC to protect aquatic life and human health are developed.

Appropriateness is verified theoretically based on toxicological information as well as applicability of WQC to Mexico.

7. Result of review work for “Revision of the water quality criteria for water usage specified by the National Waters Law and Federal Law of Rights (Report)”.

CONAGUA has not reviewed the report.

Categorization for water usage and classification of parameters are reviewed and revised.

Reviewing and revising are discussed based on examples of international organizations and countries protecting the environment as well as toxicological information.

8. Number of participants of the seminar and levels of understanding.

CONAGUA has not held seminar. About 100 staffs from CONAGUA and related organizations participate to the seminar and understand about the criteria.

The levels of understanding are verified by questionnaire distributed to the participants.

9. Development of manual. CONAGUA has not developed manual related to criteria.

Development of the manual, which describes process of selecting parameters for criteria, is completed.

22



Remarks

Output2 1. Appropriateness of the

understanding of characteristic of water pollution for decision of maximum permissible concentrations and levels.

CONAGUA has not collected information for understanding characteristic of water pollution for decision of maximum permissible concentrations and levels.

Information which covers all over the country with various natural conditions, various water usages, and various levels of pollutant discharges is collected to decide maximum permissible concentrations and levels appropriate to various environments. More practical and detailed information on pilot area is collected to verify the relevance of decided concentrations and levels.

2. Number of PFC of which maximum permissible concentration are reviewed from toxicological view point.

CONAGUA has not reviewed maximum permissible concentration of parameters from toxicological view point.

Maximum permissible concentrations of five (5) parameters out of parameters selected by the activities related to Output1 are discussed by risk-assessment procedure.

3. Appropriateness of comparison with international organizations and major countries protecting the environment and evaluation regarding maximum permissible concentrations and levels.

CONAGUA has not compared maximum permissible concentrations and levels of parameters with international organizations and major countries protecting the environment.

Maximum permissible concentrations and levels of parameters proposed by ABC laboratory are compared with those of international organizations and major countries protecting the environment.

4. Appropriateness of relations between maximum permissible concentrations and levels, and current levels of water quality and pollution sources.

CONAGUA has not summarized the relations between maximum permissible concentrations and levels of parameters, and current water condition and pollution source.

The relations between reviewed concentrations of the representative parameters, and current water condition and pollution source are summarized to verify their consistency.

At least five (5) parameters are targeted as representative parameters.

23



Remarks

5. Technical and practical appropriateness of selected methods for analysis

CONAGUA has draft methods for analysis, but the technical and practical appropriateness has not been verified.

Technical and practical appropriateness of selected methods are verified based on their accuracy and applicability to Mexico.

6. Relevance of reviewed criteria. CONAGUA has not reviewed criteria.

Criteria are reviewed by indicated methodology, and their relevance is verified from toxicological view point and applicability to various types of environment.

7. Development of manual. CONAGUA has not developed manual related to criteria.

Development of the manual, which describes process of reviewing maximum permissible concentrations and levels, is completed.

Output3 1. Number of participants for

training of analysis of TOC, agricultural chemicals, VOC and others, levels of understanding, number of participants acquiring knowledge.

CONAGUA has not experienced the analysis of TOC, agricultural chemicals, and VOC which are requested to be trained.

Four (4) staffs are trained and all of them obtained the analytical techniques.

2. Number of SOP. CONAGUA has not experienced the analysis of TOC, agricultural chemicals, and VOC which are requested to be trained.

SOPs are developed for all parameters of which analysis are trained.

3. Technical and practical appropriateness of LDLs of pesticides and VOC.

CONAGUA has not determined LDLs of pesticides and VOC.

LDLs are determined with technical and practical appropriateness verified from theoretical viewpoint and applicability to current analytical technique in CONAGUA.

24



Remarks

4. Capacity of analysis of central laboratory and capacity of guidance for regional laboratories.

Both central and regional laboratories of CONAGUA have not experienced the analysis of TOC, agricultural chemicals, and VOC which are requested to be trained.

Staffs in central laboratory are trained by JICA experts to achieve high analytical repetitiveness. Staffs in regional laboratory are trained by central laboratory and understand the analytical techniques.

5. Number of participants of workshop and levels of understanding.

CONAGUA has not held workshops. About 20 staffs from CONAGUA participate to the workshop and understand about the analytical technology.

The levels of understanding are verified by questionnaire distributed to the participants.

6. Decrease the analysis errors from true value of standard materials.

CONAGUA has not experienced the analysis of TOC, agricultural chemicals, and VOC which are requested to be trained.

No analysis errors from true value of standard materials are detected.

25

26

2.2.4 Retention of Human Resources for Sustainable Technical Succession CONAGUA, which is enormous organization, has 13,000 employees. 6

Nowadays, the number of new employment is restrained due to insufficient budget, although staffs are aging and the number of retiree is increasing. Retirement and shortage of staffs, as a result of aging, will increase for next several years. Technical succession must be guaranteed on this project and for overall goal. Younger generation should be involved for sustainability. It is necessary to discuss about systematic outline, such as bestowal intensive on staffs or common ownership of knowledge and technique, for further sustainable technical succession.

2.2.5 Support for Intentional and Continuous Supply of Materials and Reagents Training for analysis of pesticides and VOC is major activity on the project. Existing equipment in CONAGUA is used for training. And necessary standard materials and consumable supplies are prepared by CONAGUA. As procedure of requirement of budget for the next coming year in CONAGUA starts from July to August, Japanese expert team will actively support CONAGUA to get the budget discussing about parameters for analysis, necessary materials and reagents. Japanese expert team prepares those for the first-year-activity of the project because of systematic difficulty of CONAGUA as mentioned above. Manual for procurement, storage and maintenance of materials and instruments is prepared for long-term and continuous retention of materials and instruments.

2.2.6 Cooperation with the Ministry of Health The Ministry of Health has been conducting water quality monitoring of drinking water resource and drainage water by its own chemical analysis facility.7 Cooperation with the Ministry will enable to obtain more data resulting in higher accuracy of criteria validation. Regarding eco toxicity, general view will be transferred but real testing will not be done in this project. CONAGUA may need the testing technology when they try to set their own criteria. It is not certain whether the Ministry conducts eco toxicity testing at the moment, however, the continuous cooperation with the Ministry will have synergy effect when new technology is necessary.

2.2.7 Cooperation with State Governments State governments have been conducting the operation, management, and fee collection of treatment system of sewage and drainage. They have been supervising discharging condition into the treatment system and checking the compliance. Water quality monitoring has been conducted by each operator of water service and sewage system. CONAGUA will communicate with the state governments to obtain supplemental data and future plan of watershed management for the establishment of WQC.

6 Report on preparatory study for the Project on Capacity Enhancement for Establishing Mexican Norms of Water Quality Criteria in the United Mexican States, Apr. 2008, JICA 7 Coastal water quality monitoring network plan of the united states of Mexico; Interim Report of JICA Expert in the field of pipeline management for water quality environment, May 2007, Hiroyuki Kojima

27

To realize the project’s overall goal of “The water quality criteria are established as a Norma Mexicana (NMX) and utilize as water quality standard.” including the project’s policy 6, it is essential to make general consensus among relating organizations by having workshops.

2.2.8 Effective Information Dissemination and Public Relations by Website CONAGUA has its own website and disseminates information. Monitoring data are accessible by CONAGUA staff members only at the moment. JICA’s “Coastal Water Quality Monitoring Network Project” links its project’s website to CONAGUA website to report project’s activities. The project will make an effort to disseminate information of WQC based on the agreement with CONAGUA. Such information dissemination by websites would make the new criteria easier to be accepted once WQC are certified as NMX and are mandatory in each water area by NOM.

2.2.9 Cooperation with the “Coastal Water Quality Monitoring Network Project” Water quality department of CONAGUA is also involved in the “Coastal Water Quality Monitoring Network Project”. It is necessary to manage the project carefully because a part of staff members will be the counterparts of both projects. Duplication of implementation schedule, technology transfer contents etc of both projects should be avoided.

2.2.10 Cooperation between Donors It is necessary to obtain information of other donor’s project such as “Water resource management project” by World Bank to avoid duplicated activities. Care should be taken to obtain synergy effect by both projects through communicating with other donor when necessary.

2.2.11 Utilization of External Knowledgeable Persons

Necessary information and advices will be supplied by experts not only inside the project team companies but also external knowledgeable persons when necessary (see Chapter 3, 【B-9】in details).

2.2.12 Joint Coordinating Committee, Workshop, and Seminar

To implement the project smoothly, Joint Coordinating Committee (JCC), workshop, seminar etc shown in Table 2.3 will be held when necessary. Joint Coordinating Committee (JCC) will be held regularly to explain the progress of the project and to discuss the project’s future plan. JCC is described in Chapter 1 - 1.6. Workshops will be held to provide technical information and to discuss technical issues. Training course of chemical analysis organized by CONAGUA staff members will be held also. Target of workshop:

CONAGUA staff members JICA Expert Team

In seminar, CONAGUA will explain project’s implementation policy and activity plan. Also, lecturer will be invited from Japan to provide information on administration of water environment for the

28

enlightenment of participants. Target of seminar:

Inter-Institutional Working Group CONAGUA staff members JICA Mexico Japan Embassy JICA Expert Team

Table 2.3 Major meetings and their agenda Year Committee,

Workshop Target Date Major Agenda

JCC 1 Jul. 25th, 2008 - Explanation and discussion of Draft Inception Report

Seminar Nov. 2008 - Explanation of the project - Establishment of criteria and

administration of water environment Workshop 1 Early Dec. 2008 - Chemical substance and risk

assessment

1st Year

JCC 2 Feb. 2009 - Report of the 1st year activities JCC 3 Late May 2009 - Explanation of work plan of the 2nd

year Workshop 2 Oct. 2009 - Trace chemical analysis Workshop 3 Feb. 2010 - Trace chemical analysis

2nd Year

JCC 4 Mar. 2010 - Report of the 2nd year activities Workshop 4 Mid Jun. 2010 - Prepared SOP 3

rd Year JCC 5 Late Jun. 2010 - Report of the project completion and

discussion for the future

29

CHAPTER 3 METHODLOGY OF THE PROJECT

3.1 Flowchart of Activities

Flowchart of activities is shown in Figure 3.1.

30

Figure 3.1 Flow Chart of Activities

(A) 1st work inJapan

Reporting,discussing,

etc.

<Outpput 1>The capacity ofidentifyingparameters forcriteria(chemicals andothers) (PFC)n freshwater toprotect aquaticlife and humanhealth isenhanced.

<Output 2>The capacity ofdecidingmaximumpermissibleconcentrationsand levels ofthe identifiedPFCappropriate tothe moderatetropicalenvironment inthe Americancontinent isenhanced.

<Output 3>CONAGUA iscapable ofanalyzing thechemicals inthe draft ofWQC (such asTotal OrganicCarbon (TOC),agriculturalchemicals,VolatileOrganicCompounds(VOC) andothers agreedupon theMexican andthe Japaneseside), withsufficient relia

May 2010 - June 2010 (the 3rd year)Year & Month June 2008 - March 2009 (the 1st year) May 2009 - March 2010 (the 2nd year)

(D) 3rd work in Mexico(C) 2nd work in MexicoJapan/Mexico (B) 1st work in Mexico

ProjectReports

Collecting

referenceand

information,

analysis

Studyon

implementation

plan

【A-

1】Prep

arationand expl

anation of Dra

ftInceptionRe

port

【B-2】

Explanationan

ddiscussion

ofDraftInceptio

nReport

【B-16】Pr

eparationof

Progress

Report

(1)

JCC

Workshop

【C-1】

Explanationof

theactivi

typlan

forth

esecond

year

●

Inception

Report

●

Progress Report (2)

【B-4】Capacity assessment of

CONAGUA

【B-11】Capacity assesment of

CONAGUA

【C-6】Capacity assesment of

CONAGUA

【C-10】Obtaining the lowest

detection limits (LDLs)

ﾟ作成

【C-13】Pr

eparationof

Progress

Report

(2)

説明協議説明協議整備教材

【D-3】Planning of workshop

【B-13】Maximum permissible

concentrations and comparison of

the levels

【B-12】Information gathering of

water characteristics in model water

area and aquatic life

JCC

【B-9】Planning a seminar

【B-5】Information gathering on pesticides and

herbicides in Mexico

【B-10】Preparation of manual of criteria

setting method

Supplementary survey

【C-3】Review and revision of the

maximum permissible concentrations

and levels of PFC

【C-4】Selecting the appropriate

analytical methods for PFC

【B-7】New benchmark setting for PFC

selection

【C-2】Revision of the methodology if

necessary

【B-6】Evaluation of selecting philosophy in the report

of revising water quality criteria

【D-4】

Preparationof

FinalRe

port

JCC

(Final)

【B-

2】Collection

of basel

inedata

●

Progress Report (1)

【B-14】Evaluation of the existing guidelines and

criteria from the risk assessment view

【C-5】Developing a

manual

【C-7】Confirmation of the

chemicals for training 【C-8】Training on TOC

measurement

【C-9】Preparation of a SOP for

the TOC measurement

【C-11】Training on the analysis of trace

substances (pesticides and VOC)【C-12】Preparation of SOPs for the

chemicals relating to output 3

【D-1】Training on the measurement

of other chemicals

【D-2】Preparation

of SOPs

【B-3】

Preparat

ion of equ

ipment procure

ment

【B-8】Selectinon of PFC

Seminar

Supplementary survey

【C-11】Training on the analysis of trace

substances (pesticides and VOC)

【C-14】Pr

eparationof

Progress

Report

(3)

●

Progress Report (3)

★

Final Report

Workshop

Preparationof

work planfor

the1styear

JCC

Workshop

Workshop

JCC

【B-15】Confirmation of the

chemicals for training

31

3.2 Implementation Method of Each Project Activity

【A】1st work in Japan (June 2008) 【A-1】:Preparation and explanation of Draft Inception Report

Draft Inception Report will be prepared after approved by JICA. It will be based on a preliminary consideration of basic policy of project implementation, method (including method of capacity development assistance), items and contents, implementation system, schedule etc, focusing on capacity development for criteria establishment by review and analysis of the following documents.

Documents provided by JICA The Draft Criteria prepared by ABC Inc. Documents of criteria/standards prepared by WHO Others

The Draft Inception Report will be explained in the supporting committee in Japan before JICA Expert Team leaves for Mexico.

【B】1st work in Mexico (June 2008 to March 2009) (Common to all outputs)

【B-1】: Explanation and discussion of Draft Inception Report Draft Inception Report will be finalized based on the explanation and discussed with counterparts. The finalized Inception Report will be explained in JCC to make a consensus. To establish an implementation system of the project, the following items will be confirmed.

Member of counterparts and their assignment Adjustment of JICA Expert Team stay in Mexico and counterparts schedule Adjustment of the schedule with “Coastal Water Quality Monitoring Network Project” Target personnel of technology transfer Operation method of JCC Characterization and method of seminar, workshop

Practical implementation system will be constructed based on the confirmation.

【B-2】: Collection of baseline data To obtain data to be compared in pre-evaluation, mid-evaluation, and final-evaluation, baseline data will be collected such as objectively verifiable indicators of PDM, capacity assessment items, etc. Information of contaminants in industrial effluent such as textile, paper making, chemistry, petroleum will also be obtained from CONAGUA.

【B-3】: Preparation of material and reagent CONAGUA prepares procurement plan by August of previous year. When the budget is allocated after April of the next year, the convocation to the public bidding is published in the Official Gazette and the budget is procured according to the signed contracts with the suppliers. Necessary materials and reagents of the project in the 1st year can not be in time for the above procedure. Therefore, the project team begins the procurement by itself. The candidate of necessary materials and reagents is shown in Table 3.1 based on 1) preparatory study report that mentions CONAGUA’s existing equipment in the central

32

laboratory and 2) targeted technology transfer parameters in terms of reference of the project. After refining the candidate materials and reagents by discussion, the procurement will start. From the 2nd year, it will be procured through the counterparts. The project team will assist the procurement process from the 2nd year in a positive manner.

Table 3.1 Necessary Materials and Reagents (Draft)

Products Amounts Notes

Vial kit 500 Vials with screw capsVial insert 500 For minimum volumeScrew cap 500 For vials, with PTFE/Silicon rubber septumContainer 5 For vialsGlass tube 300 For concentration of organic solventsSampling bottle 5 500mL volume, brown glass and screw capScrew cap 5 For 500mL sampling bottleMicrosyringe 1 100μL volumeMicrosyringe 1 500μL volumeDisposable gloves 200Supelclean Carboxen1000,220mg/0.5mL

60 Solid phase extraction cartridge

Supelclean ENVI-Carb,250mg/3mL

54 Solid phase extraction cartridge

Sep-Pak Plus tC18 50 Solid phase extraction cartridgeOasis HLB Plus 50 Solid phase extraction cartridgeDisposable filter 100 Cellulose acetate, pore size 0.45μmTSKgel Super IC-AP 1 A column for chromatographyMCP (MCPA) standard 200mgEndothal standard 10mgParaquat standard 100mgGlyphosate standard 200mgSiduron standard 200mgcis -Chlordane standard 1mL x 5trans -Chlordane standard 1mL x 5Carbaryl standard 200mgMalathion standard 200mgChlorpyrifos standard 200mgPropylene glycol 500mLPropylene glycol-d8 5gEpichlorohydrin 25mLAcrolein 10mLFormaldehyde standard 1mL x 5Trichloroacetic acid standard 2mL x 10Dibromoacetonitrile 5g

(Output 1)

【B-4】：Capacity assessment of CONAGUA The capacity assessment will be done for CONAGUA’s “capacity to identify necessary PFC (chemical substance and other parameters) to protect health of life in freshwater and human”. The capacity assessment items which are shown in Table 3.2 as draft will be completed by discussion. <Capacity assessment> Capacity development (hereinafter CD) is the project’s essential goal because the project is a

33

technical cooperation project. CD is defined in CD Handbook8 as “development process of “capacity” (to solve the problems) of individual, organization, system and society by solving the problems or by achieving the goal set by themselves through taking their roles individually or collectively”. Based on this, CONAGUA’s capacity issues will be clarified in 3 levels of individual, organization, and system to realize the way of capacity development. Draft items to assess the capacity of CONAGUA by the 3 levels are shown in Table 3.2. In the individual level, assessment items are 1) sense of responsibility, 2) knowledge and technique, and 3) ability to get things done. In the organizational level, assessment items are 1) human resource, 2) material resource, and 3) intellectual resource. In the society level, assessment items are social conditions whether the individual and organizational performance can be realized.

Table 3.2 (1) Draft items of capacity assessment of CONAGUA for 3 Outputs

Output Output 1 Output 2 Output 3 Level Capacity

Identification of necessary PFC to protect health of life in freshwater and human

Identification of appropriate maximum permissible concentrations in the moderate tropical environment in the American continent

Reliable analysis of chemical substances in draft water environment criteria by CONAGUA

Sense of responsibility

Understanding of the need of criteria, level of sense of responsibility

Understanding of the need of maximum permissible concentration, level of sense of responsibility

Understanding of importance of analysis accuracy, level of sense of responsibility

Knowledge and technique

Identification process of PFC, necessary information, method to collect the information and analysis method

Identification process of maximum permissible concentration, necessary information, method to collect the information and analysis method

Analysis process, method to use equipment, detection limit, quality control method of accuracy

Individual

Ability to get things done

Ability to get the above things done



8 Capacity development handbook: for effectively and sustainability of JICA project, JICA

34

Table 3.2 (2) Draft items of capacity assessment of CONAGUA for 3 Outputs

Output Output 1 Output 2 Output 3

Level Capacity

Identification of necessary PFC to protect health of life in freshwater and human

Identification of appropriate maximum permissible concentrations in Mexico

Reliable analysis of chemical substances in draft water environment criteria by CONAGUA

Human resource

Number of staff, assignment, age, availability, training opportunity, training of next generation



Material resource

Work space, computer for data filing and analysis

Work space, computer for data filing and analysis

Facility of the laboratory, number and performance of analysis equipment, procurement of regents and standard materials

Intellectual resource

Availability of data of existing survey, statistical data, literature, manual, information gathering network

Availability of data of existing survey, statistical data, literature, manual, information gathering network

Analysis manual, quality management system

Organization

Organizational structure, leadership, ownership

Structure of working team, demarcation and consistency between central and local organizations, common understanding between organizations, cooperation between relating organizations



Legal system, regulations, standards

CONAGUA’s authority when identifying criteria, consistency between system/administration and CONAGUA’s policy towards standardization of ambient water quality standard

CONAGUA’s authority when identifying maximum permissible concentration, consistency between system/administration and CONAGUA’s policy towards standardization of ambient water quality standard

Rules of analysis, regulations to procure regents and standard materials, allocation of necessary budget

Consensus and cooperation with relating organizations

Cooperation with SEMARNAT

Cooperation with SEMARNAT

Availability of support by local institutes, cooperation with the Ministry of health

Society

Public opinion, social consensus

Social consensus towards standardization of water quality standard

Social consensus towards standardization of water quality standard

Society’s valuation of reliability on CONAGUA’s analysis

35

【B-5】：Collecting Information on pesticides and herbicides in Mexico To consider the validity of present Draft Criteria, information on pesticides and herbicides used in Mexico will be collected. After confirming and reviewing the existing survey results by CONAGUA and ABC Inc., the information will be collected through CONAGUA and relating organizations. The information on the following items of pesticides and herbicides used in Mexico will be gathered.

1) Types, estimated used amount, production amount, imported amount of pesticides and herbicides used now.

2) Types, estimated used amount of pesticides and herbicides used in the past. Highly persistent pesticides and herbicides such as BHC and DDT are considered.

3) Measured concentrations of pesticides and herbicides of 1) and 2) in ambient water. The above information on pesticides and herbicides will be referenced when selecting PFC after prioritizing by behavior in the environment, influence to human health, and eco toxicity.

【B-6】: Evaluation of selecting philosophy in the report of revising WQC

“Chemical substance and parameter selecting philosophy” in the Draft Criteria will be evaluated. <Interview> The following interviews to CONAGUA and ABC Inc. (contractor of the Draft Criteria) will be done for the evaluation.

CONAGUA 1) As a new water management effort, CONAGUA has recently surveyed, pollution

source, amount of pollution load, amount of river discharge, natural purification capacity, etc in each watershed. CONAGUA tries to estimate maximum allowable pollution load of each pollution source so that river water quality meets with the criteria based on mathematical model of variable pollution loads and water quality. CONAGUA, then, announces the allowable pollution load as ordinance and each watershed committee takes countermeasures for that. The relation between the above story and criteria prepared by ABC Inc. will be interviewed.

2) Regarding the targeted pilot watershed, the survey results of contaminants in industrial effluent such as textile, paper making, chemistry, petroleum will be interviewed. Characteristics of the industry and possibility of future expansion of the industry will also be interviewed.

3) Mexican government policy of protection and promotion of industries and industry side policy will be interviewed.

4) The reality of industrial effluent treatment in Mexico will be interviewed. 5) The reality of water quality equipment and analysis ability in local will be

interviewed. 6) The reality of administration of industrial effluent will be interviewed. 7) The preparation process of criteria for industrial effluent will be interviewed. 8) The target schedule towards NMX and NOM, once new draft criteria are prepared. 9) CONAGUA’s mandate when new draft criteria become NMX and NOM.

36

ABC Inc. 1) How “industrial effluent” was included when determining 300 water quality criteria

contracted by CONAGUA? The thinking process and supporting data will be interviewed.

2) The background and process of preparing draft criteria that conducts evaluation by categorization of 3 purpose and 3 steps will be interviewed.

3) The relation between 2 criteria (CRITERIOS DE CALIDAD DEL AGUA META and CRITERIOS DE CALIDAD NORMATIVOS) will be interviewed.

4) The relation between draft criteria proposal by NOM001 in Table 6.3 in the Draft Criteria and 2 criteria of the above 3).

5) Bioaccumulation to higher trophic-level in the food chain is considered or not regarding water quality evaluation by bioassay.

<Evaluation method> The evaluation will be conducted based on toxicity information and epidemiological survey results on chemical substance by international organizations and major countries protecting the environment. The evaluation will also be based on supplemental interview to ABC Inc., water quality monitoring information in Mexico, and survey results of pesticides and herbicides in Mexico.

1) WHO, major countries standards/criteria parameters are the latest or not 2) Categorization of PFC (protection of health, conservation of ecology, water use) are

properly considered or not 3) Toxicity information of targeted chemical substances are collected and organized

enough 4) The difference of risk assessment approach in different countries are considered or not 5) The reality of use of targeted pesticides and herbicides 6) Target parameter’s effluent source, effluent amount, and their dynamics in watershed 7) Monitoring results of ambient concentrations and their change in years of time 8) Prioritization is conducted by considering 5) to 7) or not 9) Water quality analysis ability in laboratories and monitoring ability in the field are

considered or not 10) Water resource, water use conditions, industrial structures/distributions are considered

or not 11) The criteria are linked to water pollution control regulations like effluent standards etc

or not 12) 3 level monitoring method and categorization are appropriate as a method of water

quality evaluation or not

【B-7】: New benchmark setting for PFC selection

New benchmark to select PFC will be determined if necessary, considering issues and improving measures, and clarifying selection benchmark in the draft criteria. The Draft Criteria proposed 3 step water quality evaluation method. The evaluation item of 1st step of toxic substance is eco toxicity only; resulting in no 2nd or 3rd step (heavy metals, pesticides, and herbicides) will be conducted if 1st step is negative. This means toxicity evaluation only depends on eco toxicity. The validity of this way should be discussed more considering influence to human. The benchmark to select criteria should be clarified based on the above mentioned discussion.

【B-8】: Selection of PFC

37

Based on the benchmark set in【B-7】, the Draft Criteria will be reconsidered and the new draft will be proposed. The new draft will be explained in JCC to have an agreement with participants. Special explanation will be done again in JCC for parameters in which the technology transfer of the analysis is difficult due to inadequacy of the analysis equipment. Value setting for such parameters will be future tasks (see a flowchart of Figure 2.3).

【B-9】: Seminar A Seminar will be held targeting Inter-Institutional Working Group that consists of experts from relating government organizations, private laboratory staff members, etc. It should be noted that contribution of the project to “National Water Plan (2007 – 2012)” should be appealed positively. A lecturer will be invited from Japan to give presentation on criteria setting. The candidate of the lecturer and the agenda of the seminar are shown below.

<Agenda of the seminar> (The host name is in bracket.) - Implementation policy of the project (Mr. Jesús García Cabrera, CONAGUA) - Explanation of plan of activity (Ms. Valia M. Goytia Leal, CONAGUA) - Explanation of activities carried out in CONAGUA up to now (Ms. Margarita

Lobato Calleros, CONAGUA) - National Water Plan and the project (Mr. Enrique Mejía Maravilla, CONAGUA) - Towards NMX (Mr. Enrique Mejía Maravilla, CONAGUA) - Lecture: Conservation of water environment and criteria setting of ambient water

quality (JICA Expert Team)

Candidate lecturer (One lecturer from below) Expertise Name Organization Watershed management

Prof. Hiroaki TANAKA Prof. Hiroaki FURUMAI Prof. Futaba KAZAMA

Kyoto Univ. Univ. of Tokyo Univ. of Yamanashi

Criteria setting Prof. Mitsumasa OKADA Prof. Masaaki HOSOMI Prof. Hideshige TAKADA

Hiroshima Univ. Tokyo Univ. of Agriculture and Technology Tokyo Univ. of Agriculture and Technology

Eco toxicology of aquatic life

Prof. Meiko WAKABAYASHIProf. Takashi KUSUI Prof. Koji ARIZONO

Ehime Univ. Toyama Prefectural Univ. Toyama Prefectural Univ.

Risk assessment Prof. Shoichi KUNIKANE Dean of Department of Water Supply Engineering, National Institute of Public Health

The above professors are front runner of each field. They often give advice to our consultant team.

【B-10】: Preparation of manual of criteria setting method Draft manual on criteria setting method will be prepared as an appendix of Progress Report 1. <Draft table of contents>

38

What are criteria? Categorization of criteria Necessary information on target water area to set the criteria Needs to understand the treatment condition of toxic materials How to select target PFC? Risk assessment Consideration of analysis accuracy Consideration of detection limit Consideration of criteria values

(Output 2) 【B-11】: Capacity assessment of CONAGUA

“Ability to determine maximum permissible concentrations of identified (by the activity of Output 1) PFC appropriate in Mexico” will be assessed (Capacity assessment). Draft capacity assessment items shown in Table 3.2 will be completed by discussion.

【B-12】: Collecting Information of water characteristics in model water area and aquatic life

The information of water characteristics in model water area and aquatic life will be collected based on CONAGUA’s monitoring data and the Draft Criteria. The information will be gathered after checking the existing information and considering the study contents with the counterparts.

Population, major industries, and future plan in the model water area Reality of ambient water use in the model water area (agriculture, fishery, industry, water

service, sewage, etc) Ambient water quality in the model water area Inhabiting conditions of aquatic life (fish, benthos, phyto- and zooplankton) in the model

water area Survey results of violation of effluent regulation by “Federal environment protection

prosecutors office” which is the authority of legal sanction Past records of “withdrawing effluent permission of industry” Supplemental survey on future plan of industries and industry sectors in Mexico

【B-13】: Maximum permissible concentrations and comparison of the levels The levels of maximum permissible concentrations, temperature, color, etc will be compared between:

1) Those proposed in the Draft Criteria for selected PFC; and 2) Those applied in international organizations and major countries protecting the

environment. The basic principle should be to compare with the most recently revised or the most stringent maximum permissible concentrations in the international organizations of major countries protecting the environment. It is because there are cases that:

1) Tentative criteria in the past have not been updated to meet with the latest risk assessment; or

2) Lax criteria are used to protect domestic industries and to consider the national food culture.

Although care should be taken to domestic industries, national food culture, (and analysis accuracy at the end) in Mexico, safety side criteria should be established as an initial step. Temperature and color will be established taking account of natural environment in Mexico. The Draft Criteria considered PFC by referencing WHO, EU, United States, Germany,

39

Canada, and Japan. In this project, the latest information as below will be used for comparison. Other country’s information, if necessary, would be added based on the discussion.

EU Directive to protect surface water from pollution (July 2007), EU Environment Directorate General

WHO Guidelines for drinking-water quality (3rd Edition), WHO US EPA Water Quality Criteria (2006), US EPA

【B-14】：Evaluation of the existing guidelines and criteria from the viewpoint of

risk assessment

About five parameters will be chosen from the PFC selected by the activities on Output 1. The existing guidelines and criteria related to the maximum permissible concentrations and levels of the parameters will be evaluated from the viewpoint of risk assessment. Three kinds of bylaws in CONAGUA will be referred for this task. At least one parameter will be chosen from the following three categories respectively to evaluate existing guidelines and criteria.

Category Reason for extraction Draft evaluation methodology Metal (ex: copper, zinc) Organic compound (ex: agricultural chemicals which is popular in the country)

Most substances are easy to be accumulated in the body and have high eco toxicity. They affect ecology and human health directory.

Inorganic matter (ex: total nitrogen, total phosphorus)

These substances affect both ecosystem and social economy by causing eutrophication

Eco-toxicity and epidemiologic survey results

Selection of parameter

Determination of predicted no-effect concentration

Initial ecological risk assessment

Information about regulation, usage, physical and chemical characteristics

Prediction of ambient concentration

40

Example of evaluation targeting zinc is shown below. Ex) zinc Physical and chemical characteristics

Atomic symbol: Zn, Atomic weight: 65.4, Melting point: 419.5-419.8℃, Boiling point: 907.0-908.0℃, Specific gravity: 7.140-7.142, Aqueous solubility of compounds: ZnO 0.0016mg/L, ZnCl2 4320g/L

Source, usage, etc. Usage: zincograph, brass, zinc alloy, etc. Amount of production in the country: about 654,000 ton

Regulation Water quality standard for drinking water: less or equal 1.0mg/L, Effluent standard: less or equal 5mg/L, Water quality standard for fisheries: 0.001mg/L(fresh water), Class I Designated Chemical Substance in PRTR

Criteria in other countries Criteria by USEPA: 0.065mg/L, Criteria by Canada: 0.030mg/L, Criteria by U.K.:0.008mg/L(fresh water)

Behavior in ambient water Rare in natural water. Mainly attributed to mine and plant effluent.

Eco toxicity 【Human】Acute intoxication is caused by 400-500mg/kg body weight. One of the essential metals for human body (essential nutrient) which retards growth, reproductive function, and cause disorder on skin and skeleton when it lacks. 【Aquatic organisms】Drake fly: 0.030mg/L(NOEC)、Water flea: 0.040-2.29mg/L, Rainbow trout: 0.10-7.21mg/L(LC50)

Measured concentration in ambient water

1.6mg/L maximally

Draft criteria 【Drinking water】1.0mg/L 【Ambient water】0.001mg/L

Evaluation Necessary to be selected as PFC and reduce the concentration in ambient water, since the ambient concentration has vastly exceeded that of eco toxicity.

Note) Data in the table shows number in Japanese as an example.

41

（Output 3）【B-15】：Confirmation of the chemicals for training

Chemical parameters for training will be determined through discussion. Required materials, reagents, and their procurement will be discussed based on the candidates of parameters drafted by the expert team. The target parameters will be discussed and determined considering efficiency of training based on the priority by risk assessment, group characteristic of the parameter (number of parameters which belong to the same group), and necessary time for training. At this point, proposed 17 parameters by CONAGUA are considered as target parameters reordered their priority shown below. The final determination will be made based on the possibility of procurement of required materials, priority, and so on.

1. Organochlorinated pesticides: Chlordane 2. Organophosphorus pesticides: Malathion and Chlorpyrifos 3. Herbicides and pesticides Phenoxy compounds: MCPA Aromatic carboxylic acid compounds: Endothal Bipyridium compounds: Paraquat Amino-acid compounds: Glyphosate Urea compounds: Siduron Carbamate compounds: Carbaryl

4. Volatile organic compounds Propylene glycol Epichlorohydrin Acrolein Formaldehyde

5. Disinfection byproduct Haloacetic acids: Trichloroacetic acid Chloramine: Chloramine Brominated compounds: Dibromoacetonitrile and other brominated compounds

（Common to all output）【B-16】：Preparation of the Progress Report (1)

The result of activities in the first year will be summarized as a Progress Report (1). It will be prepared by the project team through sufficient discussion. In addition, the contents will be explained in JCC.

42

【C】2nd work in Mexico（May 2009 – March 2010）（Common to all output）

【C-1】：Explanation of the activity plan The activity plan will be explained in JCC and agreed.

（Output 2）

【C-2】：Revision of the methodology Relevance of the methodology of determining PFC will be discussed and the methodology will be revised if necessary.

【C-3】：Review and revision of the Maximum Permissible Concentrations and levels

Proposed Maximum Permissible Concentrations and levels of the PFC, which was selected based on the result of activities above, will be discussed and revised if necessary. The concentrations and levels will be newly determined as criteria if new PFC has been proposed in this project. In principle, the existing results of risk assessment will be adopted as maximum permissible concentrations. Most harmful substances have been assessed by international organization and major countries protecting the environment shown in 【B-14】and their values of criteria have been already known.

【C-4】：Selecting the appropriate analytical methods Appropriate analytical methods for selected PFC will be chosen based on the discussion considering current equipment owned by CONAGUA, equipments planed to be procured by CONAGUA, and current analytical methods described in the Draft Criteria. It may be difficult to follow the methodology described in the manuals completely due to the difference of sample matrix or limitation of equipment. In those cases, the purpose of training should be aim to enhance the capacity of using one’s initiative to maintain and improve the analytical accuracy utilizing references and alternative equipments.

【C-5】：Developing a manual

The JICA Experts will support CONAGUA to develop manual about the activities related to Output2.

43

（Output 3）【C-6】：Capacity assessment of CONAGUA

The analytical capacity for specific chemicals (total organic carbon (TOC), pesticide, volatile organic compound (VOC), etc.) will be assessed. Items for the capacity assessment will be finalized thorough discussion on the draft shown in Table 3.2.

【C-7】：Confirmation of the chemicals for training

The target parameters for training selected through the discussion on the first year will be reconfirmed and finalized.

【C-8】：Training on TOC measurement

Training of TOC measurement will be conducted if the equipment for TOC measurement is installed by CONAGUA and TOC is considered as PFC. The necessary reagent and consumable supplies will be discussed at the beginning of the project to obtain the budget.

【C-9】：Preparation of SOP for TOC measurement

SOP will be developed based on the training on 【C-8】. In principle, C/P will mainly develop the SOP being supported by the JICA expert to increase their own capacity.

【C-10】:Determination of the Quantification Limits

The JICA expert will instruct the calculation method on the Quantification Limits (QLs) of the parameters which is able to be analyzed by the current equipment of CONAGUA. After that, actual methodology of measurement will be trained. Calculated QLs will be compared and contrasted with the selected draft criteria referring existing manuals about QLs. If QLs are unable to meet the Draft Criteria, possibility of improvement by instructing methodology will be discussed. If QLs based on the existing manuals are higher than the Draft Criteria, the Draft Criteria will be revised or alternative equipment will be introduced. When alternative equipment is introduced, QLs of the equipment model should be considered to decide the model. (See Figure 2.3)

【C-11】：Training on the analysis of pesticides and VOC Training on the analysis of pesticides and VOC which QLs exceed the Maximum Permissible Concentrations. Following three factors affect QLs. The weak point on the capacity to improve the QLs will be reinforced integrating usable equipments and other conditions.

・Specification and performance of the equipment In general, gas chromatography with mass spectrometry (GC/MS) has higher sensitivity than gas chromatography with electron capture detection (GC/ECD). Furthermore, high-resolution GC/MS should be used when ultra-trace detection is required for substance such as dioxins.

・Knowledge and technique to maximize the equipment Recent analytical equipments such as mass spectrometry have been black box for beginners. The important thing for analyzers is to familiarize with a lot of specific parameters to set on the equipment and points to remember.

・Technique for sample concentration and refining Sample characteristics positively depend on the matrix such as hardness, salinity, detergent foam, fat derived from food and organisms, and so on. Therefore, the

44

techniques for sample concentration and refining should be changed according to each sample characteristic as uniformed methodology is unable to cover all characteristics.

【C-12】：Preparation of SOPs for the chemicals relating to Output 3.

SOPs will be developed based on the training which relates to Output 3. In principle, C/P will mainly develop the SOP being supported by the JICA expert to increase their own capacity.

（Common to all output）

【C-13】：Preparation of Progress Report (2) The result of activities from May to September in 2009 will be summarized as a Progress Report (2). It will be prepared by the project team through sufficient discussion. In addition, the contents will be explained in JCC.

【C-14】：Preparation of Progress Report (3) The result of activities from October in 2009 to March in 2010 will be summarized as a Progress Report (3). It will be prepared by the project team through sufficient discussion. In addition, the contents will be explained in JCC.

【D】3rd work in Mexico (May 2010 to June 2010) （Output 3）

【D-1】：Training on analysis for other parameters Analysis for other parameters proposed by CONAGUA will be trained. In the case of no proposal, analytical techniques, which have been transferred, will be repeated. Also, the methodology of sample conditioning, which fits the typical sample matrix (i.e. hardness, detergent foam) in Mexico, will be trained as well as process-improvement measures for efficiency and labor saving.

【D-2】：Preparation of SOPs

SOPs will be developed based on the training on 【D-1】. In principle, C/P will mainly develop the SOP being supported by the JICA expert to increase their own capacity.

【D-3】：Planning of workshop

A workshop will be held for staffs in the central laboratory and related organization to report the project activities and introduce SOPs. A workshop for staffs in local offices of CONAGUA will be held by the central laboratory of CONAGUA. The staffs in the central laboratory will act as lecturers.

（Common to all output）

【D-4】：Preparation of the Final Report All of the project results will be summarized as a Final Report. The contents will be explained in JCC and submitted after appropriate correction.

3.3 Division of roles

Table 3.3 shows division of roles between technical C/P in CONAGUA and JICA experts as well

45

as implementation schedule based on PO (ver.2) in Attachment 4.

Table 3.3 Activities, Division of Roles, and Schedule Year Activity Number Related

Number on PDM Output Activities 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6

B-4 1-1 1 To assess the capacity of CONAGUA. ◎ ○

B-5 1-2 1To collect information on pesticides and herbicides(kinds, production, consumption and amount of importetc.) in the country.

◎ ○

B-6 1-3 1

To evaluate the criteria for selecting PFC in the report“Revision of the water quality criteria for water usagespecified by the National Waters Law and Federal Law ofRights (Report)”.

◎ ○

B-7 1-4 1To establish new criteria for selecting PFC ifnecessary

◎ ○1 B-8 1-5 1 To select PFC for the draft of WQC. ◎ ○

B-9 1-6 1 To plan and conduct a seminar. ○ ◎B-10 1-7 1 To integrate the above process as a manual. ○ ◎

B-11 2-1 2 To assess the capacity of CONAGUA. ◎ ○

B-12 2-2 2To collect the information on the characteristics ofwater body and aquatic life in Mexico based on thepresent data and information.

○ ◎

B-13 2-3 2

To compare the maximum permissible concentrations andlevels of PFC selected by the activity 1-5 which areproposed in the Report with those of internationalorganizations and major countries such as WHO, USEPA and

◎ ○

B-14 2-4 2To evaluate the methodology for deciding the maximumpermissible concentrations and levels of the selected PFCby the activity 2-3 from the risk assessment view point.

◎ ○

B-15 3-2 3To confirm the chemicals for training based on theproposal from CONAGUA at the Preliminary Study of the

B-16 - C To prepare progress report (1) ◎ ○C-2 2-5 2 To revise the methodology if necessary. ◎ ○

C-3 2-6 2To review and revise the proposed maximum permissibleconcentrations and levels of the selected PFC based onthe result of activity 2-5.

◎ ○

C-4 2-7 2To select the appropriate analytical methods for the PFCconsidering their maximum permissible concentrations andlevels.

◎ ○

C-5 2-8 2 To integrate the above process as a manual. ○ ◎C-6 3-1 3 To assess the capacity of CONAGUA ◎ ○

C-7 3-2 3To confirm the chemicals for training based on theproposal from CONAGUA at the Preliminary Study of the

◎ ○

2 C-8 3-3 3 To train on TOC measurement. ◎ ○C-9 3-4 3 To prepare a SOP for the TOC measurement. ○ ◎

C-10 3-5 3To obtain the lowest detection limits (LDLs) ofpesticides and VOC which CONAGUA can analyze.

◎ ○

C-11 3-6 3To train on the analysis of pesticides and VOC which LDLsare higher than their maximum concentrations.

◎ ○

C-12 3-7 3 To prepare SOPs of the above chemicals. ○ ◎C-13 - C To prepare progress report (2) ◎ ○C-14 - C To prepare progress report (3) ◎ ○

D-1 3-8 3To train on the analysis of chemicals proposed byCONAGUA

◎ -3 D-2 3-9 3 To prepare SOPs of the above chemicals. ○ ◎

○ ◎

J S W J J W W J WJ

D-4 - C To prepare final report ◎ ○

D-3 3-10 3 To plan and conduct a workshop.

201020092008JICATeam

CONAGUA

<Legend> ◎：Main, ○：Support, C: Common Output, J:JCC, S: Seminar, W: Workshop

46

<Legend> ◎：Main, ○：Support, C: Common Output, J:JCC, S: Seminar, W: Workshop

47

3.4 Outputs of technical cooperation

Following outputs will be provided through the activities above. Time of delivery is shown in parenthesis.

Description in the Progress Reports

- Results of review and analysis of industrial pollutants from each sector (February 2009)

- Results of consideration on criteria of selecting PFC (February 2009)

- Results of evaluation on scientific relevance of PFC (February 2009)

- Comparison of maximum permissible concentrations and levels of PFC (February 2009)

- Training reports on measuring TOC, pesticides, VOC, and so on. (September 2010)

- SOPs for targeted chemical analysis (March 2011)

- Implementation reports on the workshops (February 2009, September 2010, and March 2011)

Description in the separated volumes

- Revised draft criteria (February 2009)

- Manual for establishing criteria (September 2010)

- Manual for maximum permissible concentrations/levels and consideration of analytical methodology (September 2010)

- Procurement and preservation manual for each equipment (February 2009)

Attachments

Attachment-1: R/D Attachment-2: M/M Attachment-3: PDM (ver.2) Attachment-4: PO (ver.2)

Attachment-1：R/D

Attachment-2：M/M

Attachment-3：PDM (ver.2)

Annex: PDM Ver.2 Name of Project: Project on Capacity Enhancement for Establishing Mexican Norms of Water Quality Criteria Created Date: July , 2008 Terms of Project: 25 months Project Area: Mexico City and Turbio River and Valsequillo Dam Target Group: CONAGUA

Narrative Summary Objectively Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Important Assumptions Overall Goal The water quality criteria are established as a Norma Mexicana (NMX) and utilize as water quality standard.

1. Draft of NMX approved by Interinstitutional Working Group

.

1. Draft NMX 2. Annual report of CONAGUA

Project Purpose The capacity of CONAGUA for establishing water quality criteria (WQC) is enhanced.

1. Progress of revision of the current draft of WQC

2. Appropriateness of the reviewing process of WQC.

3. Appropriateness of the manual for establishing WQC.

1. The draft of the WQC The government of Mexico actively applies the outputs of the Project to policies.

Output 1. The capacity of identifying parameters for criteria

(chemicals and others) (PFC) n freshwater to protect aquatic life and human health is enhanced.

1. Appropriateness of collected information on pesticides and herbicides.

2.Number of parameters reviewed for selecting PFC from toxicological view point

3.Appropriateness of the relations between chemicals discharged and the current draft of WQC

4.Appropriateness of the relations between usage of pesticides and herbicides and the current draft of WQC

5.Relevance of the selected PFC from the point of protection of human health and water resources

6.Appropriateness of process and method for establishment of WQC

7. Result of review work for “Revision of the water quality criteria for water usage specified by the National Waters Law and Federal Law of Rights (Report)”.

8.Number of participants of the seminar and levels of understanding

9.Development of manual

1. Reports on study for selecting PFC* 2. Reports on study for appropriateness of PFC

from scientific and technical view point* 3. Draft of manual for establishment WQC (*: The se items are included in the Progress Reports)

The role of CONAGUA regarding development of WQC is not changed.

2. The capacity of deciding maximum permissible concentrations and levels of the identified PFC appropriate to the moderate tropical environment in the American continent is enhanced.

1. Appropriateness of the understanding of characteristic of water pollution for decision of maximum permissible concentrations and levels

2. Number of PFC of which maximum permissible concentration are reviewed from toxicological view point

3. Appropriateness of comparison with international organizations and major countries and evaluation regarding maximum permissible concentrations and levels

4. Appropriateness of relations between maximum permissible concentrations and levels , and pollution sources

5. Technical and practical appropriateness of selected methods for analysis

6. Relevance of reviewed criteria 7. Development of manual

1. Table to show comparison of maximum permissible concentrations /levels of PFC*

2. Draft of manual for study of maximum permissible concentrations/levels and methods for analysis

(*: This item is included in the Progress Reports)

3. CONAGUA is capable of analyzing the chemicals in the draft of WQC (such as Total Organic Carbon (TOC), agricultural chemicals, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and others agreed upon the Mexican and the Japanese side), with sufficient reliability.

1. Number of participants for training of analysis of TOC, agricultural chemicals , VOC and others , levels of understanding, number of participants acquiring knowledge

2. Number of SOP 3. Technical and practical appropriateness of

LDLs of pesticides and VOC 4. Capacity of analysis of central laboratory

and capacity of guidance for regional laboratories

5. Number of participants of workshop and levels of understanding

6. Decrease the analysis errors from true value of standard materials

1. Reports of trainings for TOC, agricultural chemicals , VOC and others*

2. SOPs for analysis of target chemicals 3. Report of workshop* 4. Analysis of standard materials (*: The se items are included in the Progress Reports)

Activities Output-1 The capacity of identifying parameters for criteria (chemicals and other parameters) (PFC) in freshwater to protect aquatic life and human health is enhanced. 1-1 To assess the capacity of CONAGUA. 1-2 To collect information on pesticides and herbicides (kinds, production, consumption and amount of import etc.) in the country. 1-3 To evaluate the criteria for selecting PFC in the report “Revision of the water quality criteria for water usage specified by the National Waters Law and Federal Law of Rights (Report)”. 1-4 To establish new criteria for selecting PFC if necessary. 1-5 To select PFC for the draft of WQC. 1-6 To plan and conduct a seminar. 1-7 To integrate the above process as a manual.

Inputs. Japanese side 1. Short term experts

1) Chief Adviser/Water quality standard/ Chemical analysis of organic compounds 2) Chemical risk assessment 3) Industrial effluents 4) Toxicologist 5) Chemical analysis of organic compounds

2. Lecturers for a seminar and a workshop 3. Project operation and management cost Mexican side 1. Counterpart personnel 2. Building and facilities 3. Project operation and management cost

Output-2. The capacity of deciding maximum permissible concentrations and levels of the identified PFC appropriate to the moderate tropical environment in the American continent is enhanced 2-1 To assess the capacity of CONAGUA. 2-2 To collect the information on the characteristics of water body and aquatic life in Mexico based on the present data and information. 2-3 To compare the maximum permissible concentrations and levels of PFC selected by the activity 1-5 which are proposed in the Report with those of international organizations and major countries such as WHO, USEPA and Japan. 2-4 To evaluate the methodology for deciding the maximum permissible concentrations and levels of the selected PFC by the activity 2-3from the risk assessment view point. 2-5 To revise the methodology if necessary. 2-6 To review and revise the proposed maximum permissible concentrations and levels of the selected PFC based on the result of activity 2-5. 2-7 To select the appropriate analytical methods for the PFC considering their maximum permissible concentrations and levels. 2-8 To integrate the above process as a manual.

C/P is continuously allocated for implementation of project activities. Budget for implementation of the Project is continuously allocated. Procurement process of reagents is improved.

Output 3. CONAGUA is capable of analyzing the chemicals in the draft of WQC (such as Total Organic Carbon [TOC], agricultural chemicals , Volatile Organic Compounds [VOC] and others agreed upon the Mexican and the Japanese side) with sufficient reliability. 3-1 To assess the capacity of CONAGUA 3-2 To confirm the chemicals for training based on the proposal

Pre-condition: Necessary C/P, equipment and budget are prepared by CONAGUA.

from CONAGUA at the Preliminary Study of the Project 3-3 To train on TOC measurement. 3-4 To prepare a SOP for the TOC measurement. 3-5 To obtain the lowest detection limits (LDLs) of pesticides and VOC which CONAGUA can analyze. 3-6 To train on the analysis of pesticides and VOC which LDLs are higher than their maximum concentrations. 3-7 To prepare SOPs of the above chemicals. 3-8 To train on the analysis of chemicals proposed by CONAGUA 3-9 To prepare SOPs of the above chemicals. 3-10 To plan and conduct a workshop. Tentative chemicals proposed by CONAGUA: MCPA, Chlordane, Chrorpirifos, Carnaryl, Malathion, Propilen glycol, Paraquat, Endothall, Glyphosat, Dyuron, Epichrolohydrine, Acrolein, Bromates, Chloramines, Formaldehyde, Trichloroacetic acid, Dibromo-acetnitrile etc.

Attachment-4：PO (ver.2)

AnnexⅡ Ver.2Tentative Plan of Operation Created Date: July, 2008

Output 1.The capacity of identifying parameters for criteria(chemicals andothers)(PFC) in freshwater to protect aquatic life and human health isenhanced.

CONAGUA

CONAGUA

CONAGUA

CONAGUA

CONAGUA1-6 To plan and conduct a seminar.

CONAGUA

CONAGUA2. The capacity of deciding maximum concentrations and levels of theidentified PFC appropriate to the moderate tropical environment in theAmerican continent.

CONAGUA

CONAGUA

CONAGUA

CONAGUA

CONAGUA

CONAGUA

Japanese Experts

Japanese Experts

Japanese Experts

Japanese Experts

Japanese Experts

Japanese Experts

Japanese Experts

Japanese Experts

△

W△ △

201095 6 7 81 2 3 49 10 11

2009125 6 7 81 3 42

△

Work Shop(W)/Seminar(S)

Japanese Experts

S W

1-1 To assess the capacity of CONAGUA. Japanese Experts

△

2008127 8 9 10 116

2-5 To revise the methodology if necessary.

2-6 To review and revise the proposed maximum permissible concentrationsand levels of the selected PFC based on the result of activity 2-5.

2-1 To assess the capacity of CONAGUA.

2-2 To collect the information on the characteristics of water body andaquatic life in Mexico based on the present data and information.

2-3 To compare the maximum permissible concentrations and levels of PFCselected by the activity 1-5 which are proposed in the Report with those ofinternational organizations and major countries such as WHO, USEPA andJapan.2-4 To evaluate the methodology for deciding the maximum permissibleconcentrations and levels of the selected PFC by the activity 2-3 from therisk assessment view point.

YearMonth

Project Implementation Period

JCC

1-3 To evaluate the criteria for selecting PFC in the report “Revision of thewater quality criteria for water usage specified by the National Waters Lawand Federal Law of Rights (Report)”.1-4 To establish new criteria for selecting PFC if necessary.

1-7 To integrate the above process as a manual.

W W

1-5 To select PFC for the draft of WQC.

Japanese Experts

1-2 To collect information on pesticides and herbicides (kinds, production,consumption and amount of import etc.) in the country.

Japanese Experts

Japanese Experts

CONAGUA

CONAGUAOutput 3. CONAGUA is capable of analyzing the chemicals in the draft ofWQC.

CONAGUA

CONAGUA

CONAGUA

CONAGUA

CONAGUA

CONAGUA

CONAGUA

CONAGUA

CONAGUA

CONAGUAJapanese Experts

Japanese Experts

Japanese Experts

Japanese Experts

Japanese Experts

Japanese Experts

Japanese Experts

3-3 To train on TOC measurement.

2-8 To integrate the above process as a manual. Japanese Experts

Japanese Experts

Japanese Experts

Japanese Experts

3-2 To confirm the chemicals for training based on the proposal fromCONAGUA at the Preliminary Study of the Project

Japanese Experts

3-10 To plan and conduct a workshop.

3-4 To prepare a SOP for the TOC measurement.

3-1 To assess the capacity of CONAGUA

3-9 To prepare SOPs of the above chemicals.

3-5 To obtain the lowest detection limits (LDLs) of pesticides and VOCwhich CONAGUA can analyze.

3-6 To train on the analysis of pesticides and VOC which LDLs are higherthan their maximum concentrations.

3-7 To prepare SOPs of the above chemicals.

3-8 To train on the analysis of chemicals proposed by CONAGUA

2-7 To select the appropriate analytical methods for the PFC consideringtheir maximum permissible concentrations and levels.