|
|
Focused
Public Health Assessment
Drinking Water Supplies and Groundwater Pathway Evaluation
Isla de Vieques Bombing Range
Vieques, Puerto Rico
Isla de Vieques (Vieques) is part of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, located about seven miles southeast of the main island of Puerto Rico. The United States Navy (Navy) owns approximately one-third of the island and conducts military training exercises that, until recently, included live bombing. Live bombing was conducted over an area of about 900 acres known as the Live Impact Area (LIA), located on the east side of Vieques to the west of the Punta Este Conservation Zone. Residents of Vieques live in the central portion of the island, where tourism, agriculture, and fishing dominate the economic market. The LIA is about 7.9 miles away from the residential population.
A resident of Vieques requested (petitioned) the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to determine if hazardous substances from the detonation of munitions at the Navy's bombing range pose a public health threat. A hazardous substance can affect human health only if people come into contact with the substance at the source or if the substance is transported to the public through a pathway (e.g., air, groundwater, soil, or biota  ). This public health assessment specifically focuses on the drinking water pathway with particular emphasis on explosive-related contamination. In the future, ATSDR will publish additional focused public health assessments that will address specific questions about the air, soil, and biota pathways as the data become available.
Historically, rainwater and groundwater have been used to supply the residents of Vieques with drinking water. Because of maintenance and salt water intrusion problems, the primary source of groundwater, the Esperanza valley well field, was shut down in 1978. In 1977, an underwater drinking water pipeline from the mainland was built. Most residents receive their drinking water supply from the Puerto Rico mainland through this pipeline. This water is stored in aboveground tanks prior to distribution. A few public and private groundwater wells still exist on the island and are occasionally used when the public water supply is interrupted. The number and current use of rainfall collection systems are unknown.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Puerto Rico Department of Health (PRDOH), and an environmental firm hired by the Navy sampled public water supply tanks and groundwater wells on Vieques to characterize drinking water supplies. ATSDR also reviewed data collected by the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from monitoring wells (not used for drinking water supply) or other inactive or closed wells. After evaluating the findings of those investigations of groundwater and drinking-water sources and comparing detected levels of contamination to health-based guidelines known to be protective of public health, ATSDR determined that only nitrate plus nitrite levels in Well 3-7, a shallow, private drinking water well, were a public health hazard.
ATSDR concluded the following about the drinking water pathway:
- The public water supply system is safe to drink. People who drink the water provided by Compania de Aguas from the mainland are not being exposed to harmful levels of contaminants.
- Drinking the groundwater from the three Sun Bay wells, the four B wells, and Well 2-3 does not pose a public health hazard. The levels and types of chemicals detected are naturally occurring and are not expected to cause adverse health effects if or when these wells are used for drinking water supply when the public water supply is interrupted.
- The concentration of nitrate plus nitrite, most likely resulting from agricultural pollution, in Well 3-7, a private drinking water well, was detected at levels higher than those that are considered safe for children. Because of elevated concentrations, ATSDR has determined that a public health hazard exists for people, especially children and pregnant women, who drink water from Well 3-7. PRDOH has issued an advisory and has personally informed the residents that water from this well is not safe for consumption.
- At this time, ATSDR does not have any use or sampling data for the rainfall collection systems that are being used as a source of drinking water. ATSDR will revisit this potential pathway when new information or data become available on the occasional or continuous use of rainfall collection systems for the supply of drinking water.
- Very low levels of explosives and potential products of explosive combustion were reported in drinking water data from 1978, however, the validity and utility of the data is uncertain. None of the data provided any evidence which would lead agency scientists to conclude that the water sampled posed a past public health hazard on the island. Even assuming the validity of the data and the presence of the compounds, the reported concentrations were well below levels considered harmful to human health.
 In May 1999, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) was requested (petitioned) by a resident of Isla de Vieques (Vieques), Puerto Rico to determine whether hazardous substances from the detonation of munitions at the United States Navy (Navy) bombing range on the island pose a public health threat. ATSDR conducted a site visit to Vieques in August 1999 to meet with the petitioner, tour the island and bombing range, and gather available environmental data. As a result of this site visit, ATSDR accepted the resident's petition and initiated a public health assessment (PHA) to investigate public health concerns related to operation of the Navy's bombing range on Vieques.
An ATSDR PHA includes a review of chemical releases from a facility or site and a determination of whether members of the public come into contact with these chemicals. If the review of the environmental data shows that people have or could come into contact with hazardous substances, ATSDR scientists then evaluate whether there will be any harmful effects from these exposures. This process may be lengthy, especially when addressing complex environmental issues. In order to be responsive to the resident petitioner and the people of Vieques, ATSDR will publish focused PHAs that will address specific questions as data become available. These PHAs are focused on specific pathways of potential human exposure to contaminants. Any exposures identified while developing the focused PHAs will be considered together to ensure the evaluation of the total exposure to a chemical, even if that exposure comes through several pathways.
This PHA defines the issues to be addressed on Vieques in this and subsequent focused PHAs. One of those issues defined in this PHA is the concern residents have expressed about how activities at the Live Impact Area (LIA) could affect the quality and safety of drinking water on Vieques. ATSDR realizes that other potential sources for contamination (e.g., local industries, car exhaust, municipal landfill, and farming/cattle ranching) exist on the island. However, these other sources are not discussed in this PHA unless they are determined to constitute a health concern. The focus of this report is to answer the petitioner's concern regarding potential contamination from the LIA.
Currently, water supplied to the residents of Vieques is piped in from the mainland of Puerto Rico. Water resources used by residents of Vieques in the past include groundwater wells and rainfall collection systems that are still used to a lesser extent today. This PHA fully addresses the current water supply and groundwater well usage. However, additional modeling and data collection are needed for the evaluation of the impact, if any, of Navy bombing operations on rainfall collection systems on the island. This information will be evaluated in a future PHA addressing the potential for chemicals to move through the air to the populated areas of Vieques. Additionally, future work will also address the potential for chemicals to be incorporated into the food chain and be carried to the communities in the food they eat.
A very important aspect of the public health assessment process is to define and address health concerns of community members. Throughout the public health assessment process, ATSDR has been working and will continue to work with the community to define specific health issues of concern. On multiple trips to the island, ATSDR has met with a variety of individuals and organizations, including local officials, physicians, nurses, pharmacists, leaders of women's groups, school educators, fishermen, and businessmen. ATSDR also met with individual families who live on the island to understand their health concerns. Meeting with community members is critical to determine health issues of concern and to assess the environmental health issues on Vieques. Discussions with the community have also helped define ways in which ATSDR can provide information to the community on issues of health concern. Throughout the process, ATSDR will work with physicians, nurses, and school officials to provide educational materials that will benefit the communities and support the overall public health of residents of Vieques.
This document is a result of ATSDR's evaluation of drinking water and groundwater resources on Vieques. This information was presented for public comment in a draft dated February 20, 2001. This focused PHA on drinking water and groundwater addresses the comments received during the public comment period in Appendix F.
Vieques is approximately seven miles southeast of the main island of Puerto Rico (Figure 1). It is the largest offshore island that is part of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico--20 miles long, 4.5 miles at its widest point, and about 33,088 acres in area (51 square miles). Vieques has low rounded hills and small valleys, with an east-west ridge near the center. The average elevation is about 246 feet above mean sea level. The highest point is Monte Pirata (987 feet above mean sea level), which is located in the southwest corner. There are no permanent streams (i.e., no surface water drinking supplies) on the island; however, after rainfall, temporary streams flow for a few days (Cherry and Ramos 1995).
Historically, sugarcane was grown throughout the island and milled in Centrales (Torres-Gonzalez 1989). The sugarcane industry caused a peak in Vieques' economic growth in the late 19th century, however, sugarcane is no longer commercially grown on the island. The Navy bought much of the island in the 1940s, after the decline suffered by the sugar cane industry. The Navy used the eastern third and western third of Vieques until 2001, when the western third of the island was released to la Isla de Vieques, the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust, and the U.S. Department of the Interior. Manufacturing became more important for the economy in the 1960s and 1970s, especially with the construction of the General Electric Plant in 1969 (Bermudez 1998). Currently, there is minimal manufacturing on the island.
Currently, the land is used mostly for cattle pasture land, minor agriculture, and urban development. In the past, sugarcane was the principle crop on the island. Other crops have included coconut, grains, sweet potatoes, avocados, bananas, and papayas. Commercial fishing is operated out of both Esperanza and Isabel Segunda. More recently, tourism has been increasing in economic importance. Small restaurants and hotels have been opened in the cities.
ATSDR examines demographic information (i.e., population information) to identify the presence of sensitive populations, such as women of childbearing age (ages 15 to 44), young children (age 6 and under), and the elderly (age 65 and over). Demographics also provide details on residential history in a particular area--information that helps ATSDR assess time frames of potential human exposure to contaminants.
The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau reported that 9,106 people live on Vieques. This figure includes residents on both the residential lands and Navy property. Three potentially sensitive populations were identified: women of childbearing age, children, and the elderly. About 19% (1,701 residents) of the population consists of women of childbearing age. Children account for 11% (1,001 residents) of the population and 14% (1,263 residents) of the population is elderly. According to several anecdotal accounts, the population of Vieques is not highly mobile; many are lifelong residents of the island.
Most of the residents of Vieques live in the two largest towns on the island, Isabel Segunda and Esperanza. Although these towns are located relatively close to the Navy property, they are several miles removed from the LIA. Specifically, the nearest point on residential lands to the geographic center of the LIA is approximately 7.9 miles (12.7 kilometers). Therefore, before any contaminants from the LIA can reach the residential populations of Vieques, they would have to travel over a distance of at least 7.9 miles.
Vieques was formed from igneous and volcanic rock, mostly granodiorite, quartz diorite, and some lavas which created the bedrock of the island. This bedrock is exposed and weathered on most of the western half of the island and on the central portion of the eastern half of the island. Because of the weathering of the bedrock, gravel and sands wash downhill during storms. Over the years this material has gathered in valleys by the ocean, forming alluvial deposits (sediment deposited by flowing water) where the valley meets the sea. The alluvial sedimentary deposits generally consist of a mixture of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Other portions of Vieques have ancient marine deposits from a time when the island was submerged, revealing areas with some limestone, sandstone, siltstone, and other sedimentary rocks at the surface.
All the groundwater on Vieques is derived from rain that falls on the island. This water runs downhill as intermittent stream runoff or it seeps into the soil and underlying deposits. Water in pore space, cracks, and fractures in the weathered bedrock eventually flows to the ocean or into alluvial deposits.
 There are two main types of aquifers on Vieques.
The first type is within the upper portion of the bedrock and sedimentary rocks. The weathering, fracturing, and faulting of this rock has created pore space, joints, or fractures where water can seep underground. The flow of groundwater in these unnamed aquifer systems is controlled by the influence of gravity and flows in a downhill direction through the pore space and along fracture or joint surfaces. Although groundwater flow may be locally obstructed in areas where dense, nonporous rock or fault surfaces block the downhill flow, the groundwater cannot flow through the bedrock in an east-west direction from one side of the island to another. This fact was confirmed in a groundwater study that examined monitoring wells installed across the center of the island from north to south along the boundary of the Eastern Maneuver Area (EMA) [CH2MHILL and Baker 1999].
The second type of aquifer is within the alluvial deposits where water seeps into the sand and gravel areas, filling up the pore space between these materials. These alluvial aquifers are found below the hills in the low flat valleys along the coast (Figure 2). Water flow within these aquifers is also downhill and generally towards the sea in most cases. The alluvial aquifers are self-contained; water cannot flow from one alluvial aquifer to another on the island.
Within Esperanza valley, the largest alluvial valley in Vieques, is the primary aquifer on the island. The alluvial deposits extend from the vicinity of Ensenada Sombre in the residential area to Bahia Tapon in Camp Garcia. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) studied the Esperanza valley in 1989 and reported that groundwater flow in the alluvial deposits of Esperanza valley was toward the south and the sea. Other aquifers studied by USGS include: the Resolucion valley aquifer, the Playa Grande aquifer, and the Camp Garcia aquifer (Figure 2). Small unnamed alluvial deposits exist around the island, and they may contain groundwater, but they have not been used or studied.
Esperanza valley is located in the south-central area of the island. The area of the valley is about 10 square miles and the alluvial deposits are about 60 feet thick. The water table ranges from 10 to 100 feet above mean sea level. Transmissivity values (the rate of groundwater flow through a certain thickness) have been reported as ranging from 200 square feet (ft2)/day near Camp Garcia to as much as 2,000 ft2/day east of Ensenada Sombre. The hydraulic conductivity (the rate of groundwater flow) of the valley increases toward the coast where the amount of sand in the deposits increases. Hydraulic conductivity values for the valley have been estimated as less than 1 ft/day along the north-central hills in the valley to as much as 35 ft/day near the coast. Rainfall is the primary source of recharge to the aquifer; with the rainy season usually from August to November. Recharge is limited by the low permeability of limestone located along the south-central shoreline and by a 5-foot thick clay layer that exists near the top of the aquifer at a depth of 25 feet or less.
Within Resolucion valley is an 8-square mile aquifer located in the northwestern section of Vieques. The alluvial deposits average about 30 feet thick and overlie the bedrock (granodiorite and quartz diorite). This valley also has a semi-confining clay layer at about 20 to 30 feet below ground surface. Because of its location next to Monte Pirata, the highest point on the island, this aquifer typically receives more rainfall recharge than the others.
Vieques climate is tropical-marine with temperatures that average about 79 degrees Fahrenheit. Annually, the temperature ranges from an average of 76 degrees Fahrenheit in February to 82 degrees Fahrenheit in August. Vieques lies in the path of the easterly trade winds, which regulate the rainfall on the island. The average amount of precipitation is about 45 inches a year. The western part of the island receives a higher amount of rainfall (about 50 inches a year) than the eastern section (about 25 inches a year). The rainy season is from August through November while the remainder of the year is drier. Tropical storms are common from June to November (NCDC 1985-1994; Torres-Gonzalez 1989).
In the summer, Vieques receives an increase of airborne dust particles through the natural occurrence of African dust storms. Each year, large quantities of dust from the Sahara Desert in Africa are transported at high altitudes to the Caribbean Sea and southeastern United States. The African dust can include soil fungus (e.g., Aspergillus), chemicals (e.g., iron, phosphorous, and sulfates), or even insects (e.g., African desert locusts) [USGS 2000].
The Navy has occupied portions of Vieques since 1941, when 10,362 people lived on the island (Bermudez 1998). The Navy facilities are under the command of the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station on the mainland of Puerto Rico. In 1960, the Navy established targets on Vieques and, in 1971, began training exercises on the eastern part of the island. EMA is located to the east of the residential land and is used for training by Marine amphibious units, battalion landing teams, and combat engineering units. Camp Garcia is located within the southern section of EMA. Further east, the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility (AFWTF) is used for naval gunfire support and air-to-ground ordnance delivery training (CH2MHILL and Baker 1999). At the eastern end of the island, within AFWTF and to the west of the Punta Este Conservation Zone, is the LIA, where live bombing occurred. Recently, however, the Navy and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico agreed that only nonexplosive bombs (including inert and practice bombs), instead of live munitions, would be used. Prior to May 2001, the Navy owned 8,200 acres on the western third of the island for the Naval Ammunition Support Detachment (NASD). Most of the NASD lands are undeveloped and were used for limited Navy operations, mainly storage. In May 2001, the Navy transferred most of the NASD to la Isla de Vieques, the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust, and the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Navy retained about 1% of the former NASD lands for a communication facility (Navy 2001a).
The LIA has, until 1999, been used for live ammunition training from off-shore ships, airplanes, and land-based personnel. The major exercises usually occur in the spring and fall with smaller activities conducted throughout the year (IT 2000). Within the LIA an Open Burning/Open Detonation (OB/OD) area is used to treat unexploded ordnance (UXO; i.e., bombs or explosive projectiles that did not explode) and to detonate waste military munitions. The UXO are taken to the authorized area and detonated with a remote control charge. If UXO cannot safely be transported to the OB/OD area, it is detonated on site in accordance with all existing requirements.
 Many different types of military ordnance (e.g., fire bombs, parachute flares, rockets, inert rockets, machine guns, practice bombs, and live explosives) were used at Vieques. The explosive components of the bombs include 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), cyclotrimethylene trinitramine (RDX), methyl-2,4,6-trinitrophenylnitramine (tetryl), cyclotetramethylene tetranitramine (HMX), ammonium picrate (explosive D), and various combinations of these chemicals. Two types of explosives were commonly used at Vieques. Each has a different set of byproducts from the explosion reaction.
The first kind of explosive is made from organic nitrated compounds (i.e., only carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen). Carbon dioxide (35%), nitrogen (27%), and carbon monoxide (16%; which rapidly oxidizes to carbon dioxide) are the primary byproducts that result from an explosion from this type of bomb. Water (8%), ethane (5%), carbon (6%), and propane (2%) are other minor byproducts. Trace amounts (less than 1%) of ammonia, hydrogen, hydrogen cyanide, methane, methyl alcohol, and formaldehyde are also formed.
The second kind of explosive contains aluminum. The byproducts from a bomb made with this type of material includes all the chemicals listed for the first kind as well as acetylene, ethylene, phosphine, and aluminum oxide. The primary byproducts are aluminum oxide (38%), carbon monoxide (24%; which rapidly oxidizes to carbon dioxide), nitrogen (18%), and carbon (13%). Ethane (3%), water (1%), and hydrogen (1%) are formed to a lesser degree. Less than 1% of the remaining byproducts (i.e., carbon dioxide, ammonia, propane, hydrogen cyanide, methane, methyl alcohol, formaldehyde, acetylene, ethylene, and phosphine) are formed (Young 1978).
Historically, during typical naval gunfire support training, 82% of the bombs used have been nonexplosive bombs and 18% were live bombs. During typical air to ground ordnance delivery training, 85% of the bombs used were nonexplosive bombs and 15% were live bombs (Navy 1990). Generally, bombing activities are the greatest in February and August with fewer maneuvers in April, May, November, and December.
A recent event that resulted in community concern was the inadvertent use of depleted uranium (DU) ammunition during a February 19, 1999 training exercise (NRC 2000). On that date two U.S. Marine Corps aircraft fired 263 rounds of ammunition armed with DU penetrator projectiles on the LIA. The use of DU ammunition rounds on the LIA is not authorized under the permit issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Navy personnel reported the incident to the Environmental Quality Board in person as soon as notification was received from the U.S. Marine Corps.
The NRC was notified by the Naval Radiation Safety Committee (NRSC) on March 5, 1999 and between March 10 and 19, 1999 a team of Navy health physics personnel were sent to the LIA. That team successfully recovered the equivalent of 57 complete DU penetrators. The Navy has committed to recover all detectable DU penetrators from the LIA and has reportedly as of September 2001, recovered 116 equivalent units. Removal of the remaining units will be accomplished during range refurbishment as the units are exposed over time. The remaining units are in locations where UXO is a concern. The NRC continues to monitor the Navy's efforts to recover the remaining DU rounds (NRC 2000).
From June 6 to 15, 2000 the NRC conducted an inspection of Vieques including the LIA, the EMA, the central residential sector of the island, and the NASD area. That inspection was for the purpose of collecting direct radiation measurements and environmental samples, for subsequent analysis, to evaluate if the DU rounds fired by aircraft on the LIA may have contaminated the environment and, in turn, may result in a potential source of radiation exposure for Vieques residents. Sampling locations were selected based upon a predetermined grid. A total of 84 soil, 17 vegetation, seven surface water, and six sediment samples were collected.
The results of the NRC investigation were released on September 28, 2000 and disclose that the only detections of uranium, at levels above the natural background level, were measured in five samples collected in the holes where DU rounds were found. The NRC concluded that there was no spread of DU to areas outside the LIA and that the public outside the LIA has not been exposed to DU contamination or radiation above normal background levels (NRC 2000). Further, the NRC concluded that Vieques inhabitants could have only received a measurable dose of radiation from the DU firing event if they had direct access to a DU penetrator for an extended period of time (NRC 2000).
ATSDR has reviewed the findings of the NRC report and concludes that the levels of radiation detected on Vieques do not represent a public health hazard. This DU ammunition firing event does not represent a potential source of groundwater or drinking water contamination. For this reason, this potential source of contamination will not be discussed further in this PHA.
In preparing this PHA, ATSDR reviewed and evaluated information provided in the referenced documents. The environmental data presented in this PHA are from reports produced by the Navy, Puerto Rico Department of Health (DOH), USGS, NRC, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).The limitations of these data have been identified in the associated reports.The sampling procedures, analytical methods, and detection limits established for those investigations were consistent with the objectives of those investigations. Based on our evaluation, ATSDR determined that the quality of environmental data available in the site-related documents for Vieques is adequate to make public health decisions.
 This section of the PHA addresses the potential for human exposure to contamination. Figure 3 describes ATSDR's exposure evaluation process. ATSDR identifies and evaluates exposure pathways by considering how people might come into contact with, or be exposed to, a contaminant. For a public health hazard to exist people must come into contact with areas of potential contamination, contamination must be present, and the amount of contamination must be sufficient to affect people's health.
For the purpose of evaluating the public health impact of chemical releases into the environment, it is critical to determine if any people come into contact with the chemicals. If no one comes into contact with a chemical, then there is no exposure; therefore, no health effects could occur. Often the general public does not have access to the source area of the environmental release; this lack of access makes it more important to determine whether the chemicals are moving through the environment to where people may come into contact with them. The route of movement of chemicals is the pathway. An exposure pathway may involve air, surface water, groundwater, soil, dust, or even plants and animals.
A completed pathway exists when the five elements of a pathway connect a source of contamination to a receptor population. If contaminants migrate from a source area to a point where people can contact them, a completed pathway of exposure could exist. In addition, completed pathways are likely to occur when people enter source areas. For example, anyone entering the LIA or the OB/OD area could potentially come into contact with chemical residue from the detonation of explosives in soil and water at the site. Additionally, there is a risk of disturbing UXO and detonating it, with obvious related health effects.
Navy personnel or their contractors routinely spend no more than eight to ten weeks per year cleaning the LIA's targets during the semi-annual refurbishment efforts. Therefore, the population potentially exposed for the greatest length of time were the protestors who occupied the LIA from April 1999 until May 2000. Soil samples are needed from these areas in order to permit exact definition of which chemicals are in the soil, so that a health evaluation can be completed. At the request of ATSDR, the Navy collected surface samples on the LIA and recorded sample locations. Evaluation of these samples will be addressed in a future PHA.
A potential pathway exists when information for one of the five elements is unknown or missing. There are several potential pathways that may exist on Vieques. For example, if the wind carries potential contaminants 7.9 miles from the LIA to the residential section of Vieques, people could be potentially exposed through the air, through dust as it settles, or through the food chain. In addition, contaminated soils may be washed into the sea from the LIA. People could be potentially exposed if those contaminants migrated to populated areas or entered the food chain.
Data do not yet exist to permit direct assessment of these potential pathways. ATSDR will continue to work with other agencies to collect relevant data and, where necessary, to model the movement of chemicals in the environment.
This PHA, Drinking Water Supplies and Groundwater Pathway Evaluation, evaluates only those pathways that potentially impact drinking water supplies on the island. Other pathways are not assessed in this PHA, but will be addressed by ATSDR in the future as more data become available and the public health implications of the data are assessed. The pathways evaluated in this PHA are summarized in Table 1. The following questions regarding the safety of the drinking water supplies on Vieques are addressed in this PHA:
- Is the current public water supply safe to drink?
- Is the groundwater on Vieques safe to drink?
- Is the water from rainfall collection systems safe to drink?
Future PHAs will address the remaining issues related to completed or potential pathways from the LIA to the residents of Vieques. The issues being evaluated by ATSDR at this time include:
- The potential for contaminants to travel from the LIA to populated areas of the island through the air will be addressed in a future focused PHA. It will address potential exposures through the air, including the impact of any air transport of chemicals on dust, soil, and water. A further discussion of rainfall collection systems will also be included.
- The potential for contaminants to travel from the LIA and deposit in residential areas of Vieques will be addressed in a focused PHA concerning exposures to soil on Vieques. This document will address exposures that the residential population might typically experience as well as exposures that individuals who lived on the LIA between April 1999 and May 2000 might have experienced.
- The potential for residents to be exposed to contaminants through consumption of fish and shellfish collected in the nearby waters will be addressed in a future focused PHA.
As ATSDR's investigations proceed, additional issues and concerns may be identified and, if so, they will be evaluated.
The petitioner and other residents of Vieques have voiced a concern that contaminated groundwater may move from beneath the LIA and the OB/OD area to the populated areas of Vieques. However, the geology and topography of the island prevents groundwater from moving in that direction.
 Any groundwater that might exist in the marine sediments and sand deposits at the LIA and the OB/OD area will move slowly downhill, under the influence of gravity, toward lagoons and the ocean that surround the LIA on most sides. Any movement of groundwater westward would be intercepted by the sea and lagoons on either side of the isthmus, or else would be prevented from further migration by the rising bedrock and topography of the island, west of the isthmus. Therefore, groundwater cannot move uphill from the LIA westward--there is no connection between groundwater at the LIA and groundwater of the central portion of the island. Neither the Esperanza aquifer, nor the shallow groundwater around Isabel Segunda and other populated areas of the island is directly impacted by groundwater beneath the LIA or the OB/OD area.
The only way the Esperanza aquifer or other groundwater in the center of the island could be impacted by operations at the LIA and the OB/OD area is through air transport, deposition, and later movement of contaminants through the soil into the underground aquifers. ATSDR does not know yet if any measurable amount of chemical residue has traveled through the air to these areas. However, recent groundwater sampling did not detect explosives or their residues in any groundwater on the island. Since the point of exposure, usable water, has been sampled and no ordnance-related contaminants found, the groundwater route is an incomplete pathway.
Drinking Water Supplies:
 The public water system on the island of Vieques is currently supplied with water from the main island of Puerto Rico. Any residents or businesses purchasing water from Compania de Aguas are getting water that was collected and treated on the main island of Puerto Rico, then piped into the distribution system through an underwater pipeline. This water originates in the mountains of the main island of Puerto Rico and is not affected by activities at the bombing range on Vieques.
Prior to having water piped from Puerto Rico in 1978, the water distribution system on Vieques was supplied from groundwater wells on the island of Vieques. These wells, located in the Esperanza and Resolucion valleys, are within localized aquifers and are not connected to the groundwater on the eastern end of the island. Increasing water demands of the communities on Vieques and the increased salinity of these water supplies (because of salt water intrusion) mandated the need for a better water supply for residents of Vieques. The use of these wells was therefore, phased out when the decision was made to supply water from the main island of Puerto Rico by pipeline.
Prior to the existence of the current public water distribution system and the installation of the Esperanza and Sun Bay well fields in the early 1960s, water was supplied by smaller private groundwater wells and by rainfall collection systems. Some of these sources may still be used today to augment water supplies in some households and businesses.
Each source of water is addressed below in the form of answers to questions. The answers given are based on the most current epidemiologic, toxicologic, and medical information available. When available, chemical analysis of the water is evaluated to determine whether there is any indication that the water has been impacted by range activities and whether the water is safe to drink and use in the home. The current public water supply and various groundwater wells have been sampled and analyzed by PRDOH, USGS, an environmental firm hired by the Navy, and EPA. Sampling summaries are provided in Appendix B and a complete list of chemicals tested by each agency is shown in Appendix C. Earlier sources of water use are more difficult to address, particularly when limited chemical analysis is available or when there is uncertainty about where the samples were taken. At this time, data do not exist to permit a full evaluation of the use of rainwater collection systems on the island; this water source will be more fully addressed through additional environmental sampling on Vieques and through computer modeling of air dispersion to evaluate the potential for airborne contaminants to affect these systems.
Answer:
The water supplied by pipeline to the island of Vieques is safe to drink and is suitable for all home and business use.
Recent chemical analysis of water in the public water supply system indicates that the water has not been impacted by bombing activities at the LIA.
There is no completed pathway between the LIA and the OB/OD area and the public water supply system for the island of Vieques.
Discussion:
Drinking Water Supply:
Most of the residents of Vieques receive their drinking water supply from the mainland of Puerto Rico. An underwater pipeline was built in 1977 from the mainland to Vieques and provides 800,000 gallons of drinking water per day to the residents of Vieques (Cherry and Ramos 1995). The source of water is the Rio Blanco (i.e., White River), which originates in the Yunque Rainforest in the mountains of the main island of Puerto Rico. Compania de Aguas, a company hired by the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) to maintain and operate the water supply system, is responsible for distributing drinking water to the residents of Vieques. Treated water from the Rio Blanco Filtration Plant in Naguabo, Puerto Rico, is distributed to the Arcadia storage tank in the NASD area on Vieques through the underwater pipeline. This above ground storage tank has an engineered cover and is not susceptible to atmospheric deposition. The water is further treated by chlorination just before it reaches the Arcadia storage tank. Drinking water from the Arcadia storage tank is then supplied to all the other distribution and storage tanks on the island, which in turn supply water to both residents and Navy personnel. Figure 4 graphically displays the locations of the tanks in the public water supply system.
Sampling Summary:
The water provided from the mainland was sampled for many different types of chemicals, including explosives, metals, other inorganics compounds, herbicides, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and radionuclides. Various tanks and taps within the PRASA public water supply system on Vieques were sampled by EPA and by the Puerto Rico DOH at different times in 1999 and 2000 (See Appendix B for a summary). All public storage tanks and a tap that is representative of the public drinking water supply on the island were included in the studies. Water from the Rio Blanco Filtration Plant in Puerto Rico, which provides the water piped to Vieques, was sampled for explosives by EPA. Additionally, in September 1999, an environmental consulting firm working for the Navy sampled the storage tank maintained by the Navy (NASD tank), splitting samples with EPA to confirm the findings. A sampling summary is provided in Appendix B and a complete list of chemicals tested by each agency is shown in Appendix C.
Water Quality:
Explosive-related chemical compounds were not detected in any of the samples, using current EPA approved analytical techniques. As disclosed in Table 2, the water from the public water supply system includes the usual, naturally occurring assemblage of metals and inorganic constituents and a few VOCs that are byproducts of water chlorination. Table 2 indicates the chemicals that were found and how much was present.
Evaluation of the Impact of Water Quality on Public Health:
 The metals and other inorganic constituents found in the water from the public supply system reflect the geologic rock types, weathering, and soil formation occurring in the Rio Blanco watershed on the mainland of Puerto Rico. All these metals were present at concentrations well below any level of health concern. Barium, fluoride, aluminum, iron, manganese, and zinc were below the appropriate EPA drinking water standards (see Table 2). Additionally, the other inorganic compounds--chloride, sulfate, nitrate, and nitrite--were well within the applicable water standards. Although ammonia, boron, and strontium do not have maximum contaminant levels (MCLs, see text box for definition), the levels found in the Vieques drinking water are not a health concern. The small amounts one would be expected to ingest from the water is well below recommended maximum doses of these chemicals according to ATSDR's comparison with the minimal risk levels (MRLs) and EPA's reference doses (RfDs). Please refer to Appendix D for further details concerning how ATSDR estimated exposure doses and determined health effects.
The remaining metals do not have EPA or ATSDR standards for comparison. However, the levels detected for the remaining metals are also very low. A person drinking this water every day would consume a very small amount of each of these metals. For example, the essential nutrients, magnesium and potassium, do not have EPA MCLs. In fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends people consume a minimum amount of these metals to stay healthy--400 milligrams (mg) per day for magnesium and 3,500 mg per day for potassium. Based on magnesium and potassium detected in the drinking water, Vieques adults drinking 3 liters of the water per day would consume 11.1 mg of magnesium and 3.9 mg of potassium--5.5 mg and 2.0 mg, respectively, for children drinking 1.5 liters per day. These amounts are far below the recommended intake of these essential nutrients and are in no way harmful to adults or children. In fact, the presence of these metals in the drinking water aids in supplying the body with two essential nutrients, although the contribution to the diet is very low.
All of the VOCs found in the water were also below their corresponding MCLs. ATSDR estimated exposure doses for VOCs by using the highest detected concentrations and assuming people drank 3 liters of water a day (1.5 liters for children) for 70 years (6 years for children). The resulting doses for both children and adults were orders of magnitude lower than levels believed to cause adverse health effects.
 The trihalomethanes (THM) found in the drinking water--including total THM, chlorodibromomethane, chloroform, and dichlorobromomethane--are known byproducts of drinking water disinfection and are most likely disinfection byproducts from the chlorination process rather than environmental contaminants. According to ATSDR dose calculations, the levels detected in the public water supply system for Vieques were far lower than levels known to cause adverse health effects. The presence of these compounds in the water at these low levels does not appreciably increase the risk of cancer or other adverse health effects.
Answer:
Water from the public supply wells in the Esperanza aquifer is safe to drink, according to all available analyses. The high total dissolved solids (TDS) and salinity may impact taste but are not a health hazard. When drinking from these wells, however, residents need to be aware of their additional sodium intake. Although the supply wells were not sampled for explosives, samples from other Esperanza aquifer wells are not contaminated by explosives.
There are no health hazards from exposure to explosives or their byproducts by drinking groundwater on Vieques. Although it was not possible to test the Esperanza drinking water supply wells for explosives, testing for explosives in other wells in that aquifer that are located closer to the LIA did not disclose the presence of those compounds. In addition, no other wells on the island detected the presence of explosives.
The water from Well 3-7, a shallow, private drinking water well, is not safe to drink because of elevated nitrate plus nitrite levels. Children, especially infants, and pregnant women should not drink water from this well. PRDOH has issued a health advisory on this well and notified local users. The levels of nitrate plus nitrite most likely result from agricultural pollution and are not conclusive evidence of explosive contamination.
Discussion:
Groundwater Resources for Drinking Water:
The fresh water supply on Vieques is limited by annual rainfall and the water stored in the alluvial aquifers. Prior to piping drinking water from the main island of Puerto Rico, the public water distribution system was supplied by pumping groundwater from wells in the Esperanza aquifer. Navy wells in the Camp Garcia area pump from connected alluvial deposits (Torres-Gonzalez 1989), which for the purposes of this report are considered the same alluvial system. Minor usage of the remaining aquifers on Vieques includes two Navy supply wells and approximately 14 individually owned wells across the center of the island, many of which were dry or unused when surveyed by the USGS in 1991 (Cherry and Ramos 1995). Figure 5 graphically displays the locations of the groundwater wells discussed in this PHA.
Water Use of the Esperanza Aquifer:
Several wells that pump from the Esperanza aquifer, including the Sun Bay and the B wells, were installed in the 1960s. PRASA operated these wells in the valley to provide drinking water for the residents of Vieques. During operation, the well field yielded an average of 425,000 gallons of water per day. Increased water production caused saline water to intrude into the wells near the coast. Chloride concentration, as a measure of salination, was shown to increase from around 100 mg per liter to as high as 300 mg per liter from 1973 to 1977 (Torres-Gonzalez 1989). This increase in salinity, as well as the natural limitation on the volume of water that could be pumped from the aquifer, were key factors in the decision to shut down the Esperanza valley well field in 1978.
Since groundwater management was initiated by PRASA in 1977, the Esperanza aquifer has nearly recovered to pre-developed conditions (CH2MHILL and Baker 1999). If properly maintained and utilized, the Esperanza valley well field could provide an alternate water source in the case of an emergency (Cherry and Ramos 1995). A two-dimensional groundwater model developed by USGS indicates that the aquifer can yield approximately 300,000 gallons of water per day during the wet season and 200,000 gallons per day during the dry season.
Until recently, Compania de Aguas maintained three Sun Bay wells that were used during emergencies (e.g., hurricanes, drought, or electrical outage) when the water supply from the mainland was interrupted. These wells are located in the Esperanza valley aquifer and are now reportedly closed. In the case of an emergency, the Sun Bay wells could be safely utilized, at least for a limited period of time. Four other wells, the B wells, are still available for emergency use.
In the past, the Navy also used groundwater wells in the eastern portion of this alluvial aquifer for its drinking water supply. Until 1998, Camp Garcia personnel received their drinking water from U.S. Marine Well 6 and Navy Well 14. Together, these two wells pumped 84,000 gallons of water per day, twice a week. However, in 1998, because of deterioration and maintenance problems, the Navy decided to bring drinking water from the NASD tank by tanker truck to Camp Garcia rather than continue to pump from these two wells. Navy Well 14 is now used to supply water to cattle.
Water Use of Other Alluvial Valleys:
Several former Navy wells were identified by USGS within the NASD in the Resolucion valley, along the northwest coast of the island (USGS 1997). Their former use is unclear for all but one of the wells--Navy Well 17 is known to be a former supply well (Cherry and Ramos 1995). None of the wells are currently usable.
A small unnamed alluvial valley north of Ensenada Honda also has one known well. A small (13 feet deep) hand-dug well was reportedly used by the Navy in this remote portion of the island. This well is apparently no longer in use, since it had chloride concentrations of over 4,000 mg per liter (Cherry and Ramos 1995).
Water Use of Other Groundwater Resources on Vieques:
 The balance of the wells across the center of the island draw water from the upper portion of the weathered bedrock, from isolated patches of alluvial deposits, or from channels and faults in sedimentary rocks (e.g., limestone). Groundwater use is limited on Vieques because only minor aquifer recharge occurs from precipitation due to the high evapotranspiration rate (estimates suggest about 90% of the precipitation is lost to evapotranspiration, Torres-Gonzalez 1989).
Six wells were reportedly still in use in 1991 (Cherry and Ramos 1995). One well is used agriculturally to water livestock and three wells are used for drinking water and other domestic purposes. The last two wells (Well 2-3 and Well 3-7) are only used as an emergency water supply when the pipeline is not in operation. Well 2-3 is located in a remote area of the island, with access restricted by 80 to 100 feet of dense vegetation. Well 3-7 is located in a residential area where people fill containers with water from the well and take them home (EPA 1999b).
Sampling Summary:
In May 1995, PRDOH sampled the three Sun Bay wells and the four abandoned B wells on Vieques for VOCs, SVOCs, inorganics, metals, herbicides, pesticides, and PCBs. The USGS sampled five former Navy wells on NASD in November 1996 for inorganics. Three of these wells were additionally tested for VOCs and organochlorine pesticides. In August 1999, an environmental consulting firm hired by the Navy sampled the former supply well (Navy Well 17) on NASD property and the former drinking water well (Navy Well 14) in Camp Garcia for VOCs, SVOCs, inorganics, metals, herbicides, pesticides, PCBs, and explosives. In September 1999, EPA sampled the three Sun Bay wells and two emergency drinking water wells (Well 2-3 and Well 3-7) for VOCs, SVOCs, inorganics, metals, and explosives. Based on a review of the data, EPA determined that the explosives data were unusable; therefore, in January 2000, EPA returned and re-sampled the two emergency water wells for explosives and nitrate plus nitrite. The three Sun Bay wells were not re-sampled because they had been closed. See Appendix B for a summary of sampling by each agency and Appendix C for a complete list of chemicals tested by each agency.
Additional sampling was performed on monitoring wells. Monitoring wells are not used to supply drinking water to the public; rather, they are used to sample water quality in the aquifer. Because these wells are not used as a water source, the results at these wells are described only to help characterize the groundwater quality. In August 1999, the environmental consulting firm hired by the Navy installed 11 monitoring wells along EMA's western boundary and sampled them for explosives. Of the 11 monitoring wells installed along EMA's western boundary, two were placed to allow sampling in the alluvial deposits in the Esperanza aquifer. The remaining wells sample water within the weathered bedrock across the center of the island.
Water Quality:
Water Quality of the Esperanza Aquifer:
 Water samples from the Esperanza aquifer contained metals, high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), and high salt (sodium and chloride) [Table 3]. These results are consistent with earlier reports of high salinity in the Esperanza valley wells (Torres-Gonzalez 1989). In general, this aquifer is not a high quality water supply. Several of the metals found in the Sun Bay wells and the TDS in all wells are above their secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCLs, see text box for definition). TDS--including boron, iron, manganese, and sodium--are commonly found in groundwater. The presence of these metals is directly related to the high levels of TDS in the water and probably reflects the natural geology of the island. Igneous and volcanic rocks, which make up the bedrock of Vieques, are a common source of iron and manganese (USGS 1997). Very small amounts of chloroform and total trihalomethanes were found in one of the B wells and in Navy Well 14. Di-n-butylphthalate was also detected in Navy Well 14.
Neither the Sun Bay wells nor the B wells were sampled for explosives by any agency. Currently, the Sun Bay wells are closed and there are no plans to reopen those wells; leaving them unavailable for re-sampling. Therefore, the only groundwater samples in the Esperanza aquifer available to characterize the potential for explosives contamination are the Navy wells that were sampled in 1999. Navy Well 14 was sampled for 16 explosive compounds and none were detected above the method detection limits (Table 3) [Baker 1999]. The Navy has also installed and sampled two monitoring wells in the alluvial deposits at EMA's western boundary (Well NW-8 and Well RCRA-4). As was the case with the old supply well, water samples from these wells did not contain any of the explosive compounds tested. All three of the Navy wells are located closer to the LIA than the Sun Bay wells and B wells and would detect any potential groundwater contamination from the LIA before it reached the Sun Bay wells and B wells.
Water Quality of Other Alluvial Valleys:
The Resolucion valley is the only other alluvial valley sampled. Navy Well 17 and four other former Navy wells in NASD were sampled by the Navy and USGS for the presence of contaminants. As was the case with water samples from the Esperanza aquifer, the Resolucion water samples had high TDS and salinity (sodium and chloride) with some trace metals (e.g., barium, calcium, and iron) [Table 4]. No explosives were detected above the method detection limits. Traces of benzene, chloroform, toluene, di-n-butylphthalate, and siloxane were found at levels very close to the method detection limits.
Water Quality of Other Groundwater Resources on Vieques:
Two of the six shallow water wells potentially in use by the general public were sampled by EPA--Well 2-3 and Well 3-7. In addition to expected trace metals (barium, boron, manganese, and zinc), these two wells had high TDS and a slightly higher salinity (chloride and sodium) than what was found in the Esperanza aquifer (Table 5). TDS does exceed the SMCL and chloride is close to the SMCL. The combined nitrate plus nitrite for Well 2-3 was similar to that of the Sun Bay wells, but Well 3-7 contained much higher levels, up to 12,600 parts per billion (ppb). This combined nitrate plus nitrite exceeds the MCL of 10,000 ppb. When EPA re-sampled Well 3-7, the nitrate plus nitrite levels were found to be considerably lower (1,700 ppb). However, after reviewing quality control data, EPA determined that the second sampling event probably underestimated the concentrations of those samples.
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (22 ppb in Well 3-7) was the only organic compound found in these wells. Although it was not detected in the laboratory quality control samples, EPA's laboratory noted that di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is a common laboratory contaminant and that the presence of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is "most likely due to contamination of the sample during the collection and analysis of the samples" (EPA 1999b). Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is a plasticiser in many common materials found both in the home and in the laboratory. Unless the well is known to contain synthetic materials that may contain di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, this result should be considered introduced by the laboratory.
Evaluation of the Impact of Water Quality on Public Health:
Explosives:
Currently, there are no health hazards from exposure to explosives or their byproducts by drinking groundwater on Vieques. No explosives were found in any of the groundwater wells tested (Baker 1999; CH2MHILL and Baker 1999; EPA 2000). Although it is theoretically possible that traces of explosives were present at levels below the limits of detection, no health effects would be expected at such low levels. The explosives reportedly used on the LIA include TNT, RDX, tetryl, HMX, and ammonium picrate (Navy 1990).
 The limits of detection for TNT, RDX, tetryl, HMX, and TNT degradation products are well below any level of concern for noncancer health effects, an indication that these adverse health effects would not be expected even if contaminants were present below detection limits. Additionally, dose calculations for water intake over a lifetime exposure, at the detection limits indicate that these levels of intake are below levels of concern for cancer health effects. The potential cancer effects of RDX, TNT, and dinitrotoluenes (TNT breakdown products) can be more thoroughly evaluated than HMX or tetryl because more is known about those compounds. Please refer to Appendix D for further details concerning how ATSDR estimated exposure doses and determined health effects.
Very low levels of RDX, tetryl, ammonia, and nitrate plus nitrite may have been present in drinking water samples taken by the Navy in 1978. The validity and utility of the data is uncertain because of the small number of samples collected and the description of the location or media represented by the samples. Regardless, the concentrations of explosive compounds reported in drinking water in the past were well below levels considered harmful to human health and any potential past exposure to these compounds would not have posed a public health hazard. Please refer to Appendix E for a discussion and evaluation of this sampling event.
Nitrate plus nitrite (measured together as nitrogen) was elevated in Well 3-7 at 12,600 ppb. This well was not sampled for nitrate and nitrite separately; the nitrogen found could be from either nitrate, nitrite, or both. The detected level of nitrogen is above the MCL for either nitrate, nitrite, or both together (10,000 ppb, 1,000 ppb, or 10,000 ppb, respectively). Excessive levels of nitrate/nitrite in drinking water can cause serious short- and long-term health effects for children because nitrite interferes with oxygen uptake in blood (EPA 1995). The greatest concern is for infants or pregnant women who may be drinking water with elevated levels of nitrate or nitrite. Nitrate can be converted in an infant's intestines to nitrite. The nitrite can then interfere with the oxygen-carrying capacity of the child's blood. Older children and adults do not convert as much nitrate into nitrite, and therefore, nitrate is of less concern if older children and adults are exposed. Nitrite, on the other hand, is of equal concern for all ages, since it does not need to be transformed in the intestines to actively interfere with oxygen uptake in the blood.
Both adults and children drinking all their water each day from Well 3-7 would consume more nitrite than recommended each day, assuming that all of the nitrogen in the water represented nitrite. However, it is unlikely that all the nitrogen is attributable to nitrite because (1) the elevated nitrate/nitrite levels in this well are most likely a product of agricultural chemicals, which contain nitrate, not nitrite and (2) of the eight wells on the island that were sampled for nitrite, nitrite was never detected, and there is therefore, no indication that large amounts of nitrite would be expected in this well. If all the nitrogen was an indication of the presence of nitrate, there would be no hazard for adults and older children. However, infants might be at risk, especially if they are drinking formula made with this water. Finally, the two samples taken at this well had very different levels of nitrogen--12,600 ppb and 1,700 ppb. If the levels in the well are fluctuating seasonally or because of other factors, an increase in the nitrates in the well could pose a hazard for older children and pregnant women. Therefore, the levels of nitrite/nitrate in this well may pose a public health hazard. Children, especially infants, and pregnant women should avoid drinking this water. PRDOH has issued an advisory and has personally informed the residents that water from Well 3-7 is not safe for consumption.
Other Inorganics:
All the groundwater sources sampled have high levels of TDS, high salinity (sodium and chloride), and elevated levels of naturally occurring metals. Iron and manganese found in the Sun Bay and NASD wells and the TDS in all groundwater wells are above EPA's SMCL. Levels detected above the SMCL may affect the taste, odor, or color of the water or result in secondary health effects, such as discoloration of teeth. Chemicals found at levels above the SMCL do not indicate a health hazard; several of these elements are actually essential nutrients for the body. Although the supply wells in the Esperanza aquifer were used for less than 20 years, the discussion will assume a lifetime use in order to be protective of any individuals who may still be using groundwater as the primary source of drinking water in their home. Please refer to Appendix D for further details concerning how ATSDR estimated exposure doses and determined health effects.
The detected concentrations of TDS are well within levels EPA would consider to be usable (EPA considers water with more than 10,000,000 ppb of TDS to be unusable for drinking). In fact, some people may tolerate and/or actually enjoy the taste of water with high levels of TDS, especially if that is what they are used to drinking (EPA 1984). Included among the TDS are iron, manganese, sodium, and boron.
Iron, manganese, and sodium are important minerals that maintain basic life functions.
Iron is used by the body to make hemoglobin, which transports oxygen in the blood from the lungs to other areas of the body that need oxygen. It also helps increase the body's resistance to stress and disease (ANR 2000). FDA's Daily Value for iron is 18 mg.  ATSDR's calculated daily intake of iron from the Sun Bay wells was about one third of the Daily Value for adults and less than one fifth of the Daily Value for children. Iron was not detected in the other drinking water wells. The additional iron that would be received by drinking water from the Sun Bay wells is not harmful. The reason that an SMCL is set for iron is not that the iron can cause adverse health effects, but rather that water with high levels of iron may have an unpleasant taste to some people and may stain material that is washed in water with high iron concentrations.
Manganese is an antioxidant that helps produce energy for the body. The average amount of manganese in a normal diet is about 1 to 5 mg a day (ATSDR 1997). However, very high levels of manganese in the diet may cause harmful effects. Therefore, ATSDR conservatively compared probable intake levels (i.e., ATSDR calculated doses) of manganese to available health guidance values and found that the detected concentrations were below levels that would likely result in adverse health effects due to drinking water.
Sodium is another essential nutrient used by the body to control blood pressure and volume. In addition, sodium helps the muscles and nerves function properly. However, too much sodium can cause high blood pressure. ATSDR calculated daily intakes of sodium according to the highest detected concentration in drinking water wells. Adults who drink 3 liters of water from Well 3-7 receive an additional 687 mg of sodium each day they drink from that well. For comparison, residents who drink 3 liters of water from the public water supply system are ingesting only an additional 30 mg of sodium a day. FDA's Daily Value for sodium is 2,400 mg (USDA and USDHHS 2000). Residents drinking water from a well with elevated sodium levels should be aware that their sodium intakes are increasing and should modify their diets accordingly. People who already have elevated blood pressure or who are on a sodium-restricted diet should avoid drinking water from wells with elevated sodium levels. Determining whether the additional sodium intake will adversely affect a person's health is strictly an individual determination based on that person's diet and health status. Residents concerned about their intake of sodium, should seek advice from their physician.
Another element detected in the water is boron, which occurs naturally in rocks. It is naturally released to the environment through the weathering process of rocks that contain boron. Various organs in the human body can be harmed if large amounts of boron are consumed (e.g., greater than 4,000,000 ppb) [ATSDR 1992]. ATSDR calculated doses of boron from drinking 3 liters of water (1.5 liters per day for children) on a daily basis from the well with the highest concentration. ATSDR compared the calculated intake levels to available health guidance values and found that the conservative doses were well below levels that would be likely to cause adverse health effects.
Organics:
Two wells in the Esperanza aquifer (one of the B wells and Navy Well 14) contained traces of one organic compound, chloroform. The levels of chloroform were well below EPA's MCL. Additionally, the calculated intakes, even over a lifetime of usage, are well below a level that would produce any adverse health effects. Please refer to Appendix D for further details concerning how ATSDR estimated exposure doses and determined health effects.
Although the source of the benzene and toluene in Navy Well 17 is unknown, the levels are far below the MCL. A lifetime of water usage from this well would not result in drinking enough of these compounds to produce any adverse health effects.
The two former Navy supply wells (Navy Well 14 and Navy Well 17) had di-n-butylphthalate reported in the samples. Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was present in Well 3-7. As components of many plastics and common laboratory contaminants, these chemicals are probably not actually present in the drinking water. However, even assuming their presence, the levels found are not of health concern. A lifetime exposure to the maximum amount found in these samples does not increase the risk of any adverse health effects.
Well Construction:
EPA is concerned that the construction of Well 2-3 and Well 3-7 is inadequate to protect the water from surface runoff. ATSDR evaluated the chemical data gathered from these wells and found only the nitrate plus nitrite level in Well 3-7 to pose a health concern. ATSDR agrees with EPA that the poor well construction could potentially lead to contamination in the future.
Answer:
Additional data need to be gathered in order to answer this question adequately. Historical data may not exist to provide a full answer to this question for past exposures.
Discussion:
Drinking Water Supply:
Some private residences may have rainfall collection systems to supplement their drinking water supply. In 1995, it was reported that the rainfall collection systems were a second source of freshwater, although the authors did not specify if the basins were used for drinking water supplies (Cherry and Ramos 1995). It is ATSDR's understanding that most of these basins have been converted into closed tanks that are supplied with public water. However, some residents may still use rainwater from rainfall collection systems in addition to the public water supply. In a 1998 sanitation survey for Vieques, 541 cisterns and tanks were identified (DOH 1998). These tanks may be used for water storage from the public water system, although some may be used in conjunction with rainfall collection systems.
Sampling Summary:
No sampling has been conducted to analyze drinking water from rainfall collection systems. In a 1978 study (see the discussion for Question 4), it was reported that one of the drinking water samples was diluted with rainwater (presumably from the use of rainfall collection system). This one sample point does not provide sufficient data to determine the impact on water quality from potential aerial dispersion of LIA-generated contaminants.
Water Quality:
Because no data are available on the rainfall collection systems, the associated water quality cannot be determined at this time. However, collected rainfall could contain substances from several different sources. Any dust, debris, or chemicals that might collect on the roof between rainfalls could be washed into the collection container unless provisions are made to ensure that the initial rainfall runoff, that rinses potential contaminants off the roof or collection surface, is not collected in the storage container. Otherwise, the water quality in the collection basin would reflect what was in the dust or other contaminants that fell on the collection surface between rainfalls.
ATSDR is in the process of evaluating whether airborne chemicals may travel across Vieques during Navy operations at the LIA. Winds on Vieques generally blow from east to west, potentially carrying dust and chemicals in the direction of populated areas. However, no data are available to quantify what chemicals might be transported across the island. Soil samples from the LIA are currently being analyzed to provide information on what chemicals are at the surface of the LIA. Historical information about weapons usage is also being gathered and an air dispersion model is in development to help provide estimates about how far chemicals may travel.
The seasonal African dust storms are also a major source of dust on both Vieques and the main island of Puerto Rico. The volume of dust as well as the metals that may be contained in the dust will also be evaluated. Finally, local use of pesticides over the years may have resulted in pesticides being deposited on collection areas and washed into collection basins.
Evaluation of the Impact of Water Quality on Public Health:
This potential impact on public health cannot be evaluated at this time because ATSDR does not have information about the location, use, or extent of contamination in rainfall collection systems. This question will be evaluated once data become available.
An integral part of the public health assessment process is to address concerns of the community related to environmental health. Throughout the public health assessment process, ATSDR has been working and will continue to work with the community to define specific health issues of concern. On multiple trips to the island, ATSDR has met with a variety of individuals and organizations, including local officials, physicians, nurses, pharmacists, leaders of women's groups, school educators, fishermen, and businessmen. ATSDR has also met with individual families to understand their health concerns. Meeting with community members is critical to determine health issues of concern and to assess the environmental health issues on Vieques.
General issues of health concern related to drinking water have been assessed in this public health assessment. Public health issues related to potential exposure pathways involving contaminant transport through the air or food chain are currently being evaluated by ATSDR.
As discussed in this document, evaluation of drinking water supplied by rainfall collection systems is not complete. Any information provided by the community about the past or current usage of such systems will be helpful in our continued evaluations.
Community members can direct their health concerns to:
Program Evaluation and Records Information Services Branch
ATSDR, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Attn: Isla de Vieques, Puerto Rico
1600 Clifton Road, NE (E-56)
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
Community members can also telephone our regional representatives in New York, New York, at (212) 637-4307 or call our toll-free telephone number, 1-888-42-ATSDR.
ATSDR recognizes that infants and children may be more sensitive to environmental exposure than adults in communities faced with contamination of their water, soil, air, or food. This sensitivity is a result of the following factors: 1) children are more likely to be exposed to certain media (e.g., soil or surface water) because they play outdoors; 2) children are shorter than adults, which means that they can breathe dust, soil, and vapors close to the ground; and 3) children are smaller, therefore childhood exposure results in higher doses of chemical exposure per body weight. Children can sustain permanent damage if these factors lead to toxic exposure during critical growth stages. ATSDR is committed to evaluating their special interests at sites such as Vieques as part of the its Child Health Initiative.
Based on a thorough review of the available data pertaining to drinking water for the residents of Vieques, ATSDR concludes the following concerning children:
- If children drink water from Well 3-7, they may be exposed to harmful levels of nitrates and/or nitrites which can cause serious health effects for children because nitrite interferes with oxygen uptake in blood (EPA 1995). Children, especially infants, should not drink water from this well. PRDOH has issued a health advisory for Well 3-7 and informed residents that water from this well is not safe to drink. For a full discussion on the exposure potential, please read the "Nitrate/Nitrite" section in the "Evaluation of the Impact of Water Quality on Public Health" discussion under "Question 2: Is the groundwater on Vieques safe to drink?".
- ATSDR did not identify any other situations that would result in adverse health effects in children from the drinking water pathway.
- ATSDR is also addressing the needs of children through educational efforts about environmental health and other health issues in the schools. As mentioned in the public health action plan, ATSDR has initiated work with school officials to identify and address environmental health educational needs of children and families.
Next Section Table of Contents
|
