Planning and Natural Resources has ordered the Hovensa refinery and Diageo distillery to immediately take action to address foul odors that plagued St. Croix for a week, closing schools and sickening scores, according to a statement from the V.I. Territorial Emergency Management Agency.
DPNR has led Health, Education, Fire Services, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies in responding to the situation through a multi-agency unified incident command coordinated by the V.I. Territorial Emergency Management Agency.
“We found that a generalized condition of air pollution existed on St. Croix between May 10 and May 20, requiring emergency action to protect the environment, the public’s health and safety,” Barnes said in a statement sent to the press Monday.
DPNR has directed that both companies take immediate corrective actions, including setting up community emergency response and evacuation plans for communities surrounding their facilities, establishing 24-hour odor complaint hotlines, and quickly repairing malfunctioning equipment responsible for the emissions.
Diageo has been required to submit a vapor and odor control plan and Hovensa has been directed to develop a plan for testing the cistern of residents in surrounding communities and to provide that information to DPNR. Diageo has not been required to test cisterns.
The orders became effective Saturday. Both Hovensa and Diageo will be subject to further enforcement actions, including civil penalties and fines, Barnes said.
Based on information submitted by Gov. Juan Luis Hospital, the Frederiksted Health Center, private physicians and its own records, the Department of Health has reported that between May 11 and 20, a total of 291 individuals sought medical care as a result of odors permeating the island.
The unified incident command concluded that a series of equipment malfunctions at both Hovensa and Diageo caused the odors and identified the odors as a combination of volatile organic compounds, hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide. All are chemicals found in industrial processes.
Although Hovensa claimed responsibility for a vapor release that stretched across St. Croix, from mid-island to Frederiksted May 13, no one claims responsibility for odors May 10 through May 12. Through a process of elimination, with data collected from air monitoring devices, known wind speeds and directions, and so forth, the Unified Command believes it has conclusively pinpointed Hovensa and Diageo as the two sources of the odors.
Regarding Diageo, the Unified Command team found the distillery reported a shutdown of the biogas scrubber as a result of testing of the emergency power and fire alarm systems. May 16, Unified Command’s onsite investigation at the distillery determined hydrogen sulfide had been generated from the distillery. The cause of the release was due to the accumulation of organic solids generated from Diageo’s de-scaling operations.
On May 16, Diageo acknowledged it was a possible source of the St. Croix odors for parts of the island. DPNR issued a verbal order directing Diageo to cease certain specific maintenance operations until an Odor and Vapor Control Plan was submitted to and approved by DPNR.
Barnes has ordered Diageo to:
— submit a report to DPNR within seven days indicating the sources of the emissions, identifying the contaminants and the rate they were released into the atmosphere;
— map out the scope of the emissions and all properties affected;
— say what is being done to prevent a recurrence; and
— develop a community emergency response and evacuation plan for nearby communities and develop a 24-hour odor complaint hotline.
Regarding Hovensa, tests found low levels of sulfur dioxide at St. Croix Central High on one of the days it closed this month due to fumes and odors, and many residents complained of a propane-like odor, leading DPNR to look at possible sulfur dioxide emissions from Hovensa.
On May 13, the most severe odor day (and the day in which the most schools and offices were closed), Hovensa, according to the statement, reported two incidents at its refinery:
— Sewer boxes overflowed resulting in the discharge of 39 barrels of oily water into a lagoon on the refinery’s property. Hovensa indicated that tests conducted at its property detected volatile organic compounds but not hydrogen sulfide or sulfur dioxide.
— The pilot flame on the no. 6 Flare was extinguished between 1:45 a.m. and 5:50 a.m. As a result of the outage of the no. 6 Flare, 4,450 pounds of hydrocarbon and less than one pound of hydrogen sulfide were released into the air. Operators at the refinery re-lit the flare around 5:50 a.m.
On May 16, Hovensa acknowledged that it had been a possible source of the generalized odor for parts of the island of St. Croix, according to the statement.
Barnes order to Hovensa is similar to that for Diageo, but also asks for:
–a description of corrective measures taken to prevent emissions from recurring at the No. 6 Flare and the sewer boxes, to reduce overflows to the sewer boxes by increasing the size of the separator, or directing the overflows to a tank, and to prevent the overflow of wastewater to the lagoons to control against discharging hazardous waste to the lagoons;
— a preventive maintenance plan for its wastewater treatment system, a facility storm-water management plan with current hydrology date and a plan for implementing vapor control systems for the loading and unloading portions of the refinery;
— a preventive maintenance plan for the No. 6 Flare. Hovensa must ensure all flares are working properly and continuously to avoid the release of highly toxic gases into the atmosphere, evaluate the condition and operation of each flare to ensure that they meet good air pollution-control practices and ensure each flare is being run as its manufacturer’s manual says it should.
— plans to hire a “flare expert” to assess each flare and make recommendations to correct observed deficiencies.
Hovensa has also been required to submit a plan for sampling home cistern water in affected communities.
“We looked comprehensively at the corrective measures that must be addressed to avoid the incidences from recurring, as well as steps that must be taken to address the needs of the surrounding communities,” Barnes said. “The compliance order, however, in no way concludes our investigation of these incidents. DPNR will move ahead with plans to assess applicable fines and penalties.”
