-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
Iowa
Iowa State Department of
Health, Environmental
Engineering Service
Black Hawk County
Health Department
Linn County
Health Department
(City of Cedar Rapids)
Des Moines-Polk County
Health Department
( continued on the
next page)
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
No
No
Yes . Ordinance
No. 81-70,
Sees. 26.11
and 26. 23.
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Regulation,
Sees. 5-15(3),
5-16(1), 5-5(2)
B-2, 5-11, 5-12
and 5-20.
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
By agency,
based on
detection
criteria
Dilution
Device
Reading
Scentometer
used
Scentometer
may be used
If Detectable
After dilution with
odor free air:
4 vol.01
20 vol. v*
_ , WY
8 vol.1
After dilution with
7 vol. odor free
air
Frequency
of Odor
2 separate
trials
within 1
hour, at
least 15
minutes
apart
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Equipment
used ex-
clusively
for the
processing
of food for
human
consump-
tion.
Any plant
subject to
& opera-
ting under
inspection
by the
Meat
Inspection
Division
of the
U.S.Dept.
of
Agricul-
ture.
Prohlbition( s) and
Control Requirement( s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall cause or permit the emission of
any objectionable odorous matter into the
ambient air.
It shall be unlawful to install a device to conceal
emissions for the purpose of circumvention of
. . .applicable Air Pollution Control Ordinances.
Any act of emission of . . .poisonous, noxious,
toxic or offensive odors from any single source
in violation or excess of the limitations estab-
lished in or pursuant to this ordinance shall be
deemed and is hereby declared to be a public
nuisance.
No person may cause, permit, or allow the
emission of odorous gases or matter in such
durations as to cause an objectionable odor.
All incinerators shall be designed and operated
so that all gases, vapors, and entrained efflu-
ents shall, while passing through the final com-
bustion chamber, be maintained at a tempera-
ture adequate to prevent the emission of
objectionable odors, provided, however, that
the Health Officer shall approve any other
method of odor control which is equally
effective.
No slaughterhouse, building or place for
slaughtering of animals shall be allowed or
permitted to emit odorous gases or matter. . .
that is injurious or dangerous to the health.
comfort or property of individuals or to the
public.
-------
Name of Agency
( by State)
(continued)
Des Moincs-Polk County
Health Department
Kansas
Kansas State Department
of Health, Division of
Environmental Health
Kentucky
Kentucky Air Pollution
Control Commission
Air Pollution Control
District of Jefferson
County
Louisiana
Louisiana State Department
of Health, Air Control
Section, Bureau of
Environmental Health
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
No
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Law, Regula-
tion No. 9.
Yes
No
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
Scentometer
used
If Detectable
After dilution with
7 vol. odor free
air
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
DvnhlHiHnn/ cS onH
rroniDicion^ sj ana
Control Requirement s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
A person shall not operate or use any article.
machine, equipment or other contrivance for
the reduction of animal matter unless all non-
condensable toxic or odorous gases or matter,
effluents from such article, machine, equip-
ment or other contrivance are incinerated or
processed in such a manner as determined by
the Health Officer to be effective for the purpost
of air pollution control.
Installation or use of any equipment which con-
ceals an emission which would otherwise
constitute a violation is prohibited.
Odor control has been attained through a
"nuisance" regulation.
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
Maine
State of Maine
Department of Environ-
mental Protection
Maryland
Maryland State Department
of Health and Mental
Hygiene, Bureau of Air
Quality
Allegany County
Health Department
Anne Arundel County
Department of Health,
Division of Environmental
Health, Air Quality
Control Section
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
No
Yes. Regulations
Governing the
Control of Air
Pollution, Sees.
43P060401
(AreaV),
43P050401
(Area IV), and
43P040406
(Area III) .
No. State
"Regulations
Governing the
Control of Air
Pollution," as
stated in the
Prohibition(s)
column, are
applied.
No. State
"Regulations
Governing the
Control of Air
Pollution," as
stated in the
Prohtt>ition( s)
column, are
applied.
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Any
installation
engaged
exclusively
in the
processing
of food for
human
consump-
tion.
Pr ohibition( s ) and
Control Requirement a)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit
any discharge of gases , vapors or odors beyonc
the property line of an installation in such a
manner that a nuisance or air pollution is
created.
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit
the use of any installation primarily engaged in
the reduction of offal or vegetable oil unless
all gases, vapors and gas -entrained matter
from gaid installation are: ( 1) First cooled to
i 160 F and then (2) The non-condensable
fraction is incinerated at £1400°F for i 0.4
second. (3) Alternate methods may be used If
determined by the Department to be equally or
more effective for the purpose of controlling
air pollution. Any person processing or incin-
erating gases, vapors or gas -entrained matter
as required above shall install, operate and
maintain in good working order and calibration,
continuous recording devices for indicating
temperature, or pressure or other operating
conditions. Such devices shall be approved by
the Department. . .No person shall cause, suffer
allow or permit any offal or vegetable oil to be
handled, transported or stored or to undertake
the preparation of any offal or vegetable oil
without taking reasonable precautions to pre-
vent odors from being discharged. Such rea-
sonable precautions. . . shall include. . . ( 1)
Storage of all offal or vegetable oil, prior to or
in the process of preparation, in properly en-
closed and vented equipment or areas , together
with the use of effective devices and/or methods
to prevent the discharge of odors or odor bear-
ing gases. (2) Use of covered vehicles or con-
tainers of watertight construction for the han-
dling and transporting of offal or vegetable oil.
( 3) Use of hoods and fans to enclose and vent
the storage, handling, preparation and convey-
ing of any odorous materials together with ef-
fective devices and/or methods to prevent
emissions of odors or odor bearing gases .
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
Baltimore City Health
Department, Division
of Air Pollution Control
Baltimore County
Department of 1 lealth
Frederick County
Health Department, Air
Quality Control
Montgomery County
Health Department,
Division of Environmental
Health
Prince George's County
Health Department
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Ordinance, Sec.
7 A. Also, Stale
"Regulations
Governing the
Control of Air
Pollution," as
previously sta-
ted, are applied.
Noc
No. State
"Regulations
Governing the
Control of Air
Pollution," as
previously
stated, are
applied.
Yes. Ord. No.
6-40, Sec. 74-5.
Also.State'Reg-
ulations Govern-
ing the Control
of Air Pollution,"
as previously
stated, are
applied.
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Ordinance, Sec
9c, f, and g.
Also,State"Reg-
ulatlons Govern
Ing the Control
of Air Pollution,'
as previously
stated, are
applied.
Condltlon( s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Unusual
conditions
or mal-
function
of equip -
ment.y
P«*nhiVilfinn/ B\ anH
rruniDHion{ a) ana
Control Requirement s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person, firm, corporation or agency oper-
ating or using, or intending to operate or use.
any equipment, process, structure or space,
indoors or outdoors, static or mobile, shall
allow such equipment, process, structure or
space, to emit any noxious acid, gas, vapor.
odor. . .in such manner as to be dangerous or
detrimental to the health or safety of the public
or to interfere unreasonably with the comfort
of the public.
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit
the discharge Into the atmosphere of gaaes.
vapors or odors beyond the property line in
such a manner that a nuisance or air pollution
is created.
Odor may be treated as a nuisance.
Any condition or operation which results in the
creation of odors of such intensity and charac-
ter as to be detrimental to the health and
welfare of the public or which interferes un-
reasonably with the comfort of the public shall
be removed, stopped or so modified as to
remove the odor.
No person shall cause , suffer or allow any
emissions of gases, vapors or odors beyond
the property line from which such emissions
occur, to be in sufficient quantities and of such
characteristics and duration as is or is likely
to be injurious to the public welfare, to the
health of human, plant or animal life, or to
property, or which interferes with the enjoy-
ment of life and property.
Installation or use of any equipment for the sole
purpose of diluting or concealing an emission
is prohibited.
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
Massachusetts
City of Boston
Air Pollution Control
Commission
Metropolitan Boston
Air Pollution Control
District
Pioneer Valley
Air Pollution Control
District
Michigan
Michigan Department
of Public Health,
Division of Occupational
Health, Air Pollution
Control Section
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Regulations
for the Control
of Atmospheric
Pollution, Reg.
2. Also, State
Regulations for
the Control of
Air Pollution,
Reg. 9, as sta-
ted below, are
locally enforced
No. State
"Regulations
for the Control
of Air Pollu-
tion," as
stated in the
Prohibition(s)
column, are
enforced
locally.
No. State
"Regulations
for the Control
of Air Pollu-
tion," as
stated in the
Prohibition(s)
column, are
enforced
locally.
Yes. Rules
R 336. 46 and
R336.48.
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Abnormal
conditions
or break-
down of
equipment^
Prohibition(s) and
Control Requirement^ s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person or persons owning, leasing, or
controlling the operation of any air contamina-
tion source or sources shall willfully, negli-
gently, or through failure to provide necessary
equipment or facilities or to take necessary
precautions, permit the emission from said
air contaminant source or sources of such
quantities of air contaminants which will cause
a condition of atmospheric pollution.2
No person having control of any dust or odor
generating operations such as, but not limited
to, land clearing, construction work, dump
operation, building demolition, or agricultural
operation shall permit emissions therefrom to
the extent that such cause or contribute to a
condition of air pollution.
No person shall cause or permit the emission of
an air contaminant or water vapor, including
an air contaminant whose emission if not
otherwise prohibited by these rules, or an air
contaminant or water vapor which reacts or
may react with any other air contaminant or
natural air, and which causes or will cause
detriment to the safety, health, welfare or
comfort of any person, or which causes or will
cause damage to property or business.2
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
City of Flint
Department of Public
Works and Utilities
Muskegon County
Health Department,
Air Pollution Control
Section
Wayne County
Department of Health,
Air Pollution Control
Division
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Ordinance
No. 297. Sees.
20.3 and 20.5.
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Rules and Regu-
lations, Art.IV,
Sees. F and H.
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Regulation,
Sees. 6.5,
6.6, and 6.3F.
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Abnormal
conditions
and break-
down of
equipment'
Upset
conditions
or break-
down of
equipment?
Prohibitions ) and
Control Requirement a)
Specified In Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall keep, place or have on or In any
private house, place of business, lot or prem-
ises within the City of Flint, any dead carcass
... or other animal or vegetable matter or sub-
stance which may cause any unwholesome, ob-
noxious or offensive smell. Nor shall any per-
son collect or confine any horse. . .or other
domestic or undomesitcated animal. . .in pens
... or otherwise so as to create an unwhole-
some, unsightly, malodorous, obnoxious or
offensive condition.
Any cart. . . or other vehicle used for the purpose
of conveying away swill, offal, garbage or
excrement shall be perfectly tight and covered
so as to prevent the contents from leaking.
spilling or becoming offensive because of odor,
and no such cart. . .or vehicle when not actually
in use, shall be allowed In any street. . .or pub-
lic place within the limits of the City of Flint.
No person shall cause or permit the emission of
an air contaminant or water vapor, including
an air contaminant whose emission is not other-
wise prohibited by these rules, or an air con-
taminant or water vapor which reacts or may
react with any other air contaminant or natural
air, and which causes or will cause detriment
to the safety, health, welfare or comfort of any
person, or which causes or will cause damage
to property or business.2
It shall be unlawful for any person to permit or
cause the emission of such quantities of air
contaminants from whatever source in such
place or manner as to be detrimental to any
person or to the public or to endanger the
health, comfort, or safety of any person or the
public, or in such manner as to cause injury
or damage to property or business.2
When the odor of hydrogen sulfide is found to exist
beyond the property line of the source, mea-
surements shall be taken by the method set
forth In another section and if measured levels
of hydrogen sulfide are found to be in excess of
0.005 ppm by volume for a maximum period of
2 consecutive minutes, the person causing or
permitting such emissions into the atmosphere
shall be deemed in violation of this section.
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
Minnesota
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency,
Division of Air
Quality
St. Cloud
Health Department
St. Louis County
Health Department
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Air
Quality Regu-
lation, Sees.
b through f .
Yes. Ordinance
No. 668, Sec.
6.
Yes
Conditlon(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Agri-
business.
Upset
conditions
or break-
down of
equipment^
Temporary
operational
breakdown
or cleaning
of air
pollution
control
equipment,
unless an
immed.
public
health
hazard
re suits .v
Frohibltion(s) and
Control Requirement a)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall cause, permit or allow emission
into the ambient air of odorous air contaminants
in excess of the standards and parameters whicl
follow: ( 1) Odor sources emitting from well-
defined stacks >50 ft. above grade elevation
and with adequate dispersion characteristics as
determined by the Agency shall not emit odors
in > 150 odor concentration units. (2) Odor
sources of < 50 ft. elevation above grade or
otherwise falling to create good dispersion
conditions as determined by the Agency shall
not emit >25 odor concentration units. (3) No
odor source shall have an odor emission rate
> 1,000,000 odor concentration units /minute.
(4) No odor source shall emit air contaminants
into the ambient air which cause odor outside
the alleged polluter's property line in excess
of the following limitations: ( a) One odor unit
in areas zoned residential, recreational, insti-
tutional, retail sales, hotel or educational.
( b) Two odor units in areas zoned light Indus .
( c) Four odor units in areas zoned other than
in subsections (a) and (b) above.
The production or maintenance of Air Pollution
within the City is deemed to be a public
nuisance; it shall be unlawful for any person to
cause or maintain an air pollution nuisance in
the City.2
No person shall cause, suffer, or allow any
emissions of gases, vapors, or odors beyond
the property line from which such emissions
occur, to be in sufficient quantities and of such
characteristics and duration as is or is likely
to be injurious to the public welfare, to the
health of human, plant or animal life, or to
property, or which interferes with the enjoy-
ment of life and property.
In the absence of appropriate control measures
no person shall use products which, either by
themselves or due to additives or impurities.
result in air pollution.
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
Mississippi
Mississippi Air and
Water Pollution
Control Commission
Missouri
Missouri Air
Conservation Commission
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Air
Quality Regu-
lations, Sec.
3.4.
Yes. Air
Quality Stan-
dards and Air
Pollution Con-
trol Regulations
Regulations XV
(AandB). XVI
(A2, B. andC),
andS-IV (D3
and F).
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
hmt
By persons;
By persons""1
after dilution
with odor
free air:
> 20 vol/
> 4 vol.
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Equipment
used
exclusive!;
for the
processing
of food for
human
consump-
tion in
food
service
establish-
ments.
Incinerators
on resides
tial prem-
ises and
used exclu-
sively to
dispose of
refuse
originating
on the same
premises,
provided
that the
total no.
of dwelling
units on
that prem-
ises does
not exceed
four.
Prohibition) s) and
Control Requirement! a)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall cause, permit, or allow the
emission of particles, or any contaminants la
sufficient amounts or of such duration from any
process as to be injurious to humans, animals,
plants, or property, or to be a public nuisance.
or create a condition of air pollution.
No person shall emit odorous matter such as to
cause an objectionable odor: (1) on or adjacent
to residential, recreational, Institutional, re-
tail sales, hotel or educational premises; (2)on
or adjacent to industrial or other premises, as
shown in another column.
No person shall operate or use any device, ma-
chine, equipment or other contrivance for the
reduction of animal matter unless all gases,
vapors, and gas -entrained effluents from such
facility are incinerated at * 1200°F for * 0.3
second, processed in such manner as deter-
mined by the Executive Secretary to be equally
or more effective for the purpose of air pollu-
tion control. Effective devices and/or mea-
sures shall be installed and operated such that
no vent, exhaust pipe, blow-off pipe or opening
of any kind shall discharge into the outdoor air
any odorous matter, vapors, gases, or dusts
or any combination thereof which create odors
or other nuisances In the neighborhood of the
plant. Odor producing materials shall be
stored and handled in a manner such that odors
produced from such materials are confined.
Accumulation of odor producing materials re-
sulting from spillage or other escape is pro-
hibited. Odor bear ing gases, vapors, fumes,
or dust arising from materials in process
shall be confined at the point of origin so as to
prevent liberation of odorous matter.
All new incinerators shall be designed and
operated so that all gases, vapors and en-
trained effluents shall, while passing through
the final combustion chamber, be maintained
at a sufficient temperature to destroy all odor.
provided, however, that the Executive Secretary
shall approve any other method of odor control
which he determines is equally effective.
-------
Name of Agency
( by State)
Greene County-City of
Springfield Air Pollution
Control Authority
Independence
Health Department
Kansas City
Health Department
City of St. Louis
Division of Air Pollution
Control
( continued on the
next page)
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Standards, Sees.
2A-39, 2A-40.
and2A-47.
Yes. Ordinance
No. 1977, Sees.
11. 156 and
11.163.
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Code, Sees.
18.98, 18.88,
and 18.90(82).
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Ordinance
54699, Sees.
22, 23, and 38
and Ordinance
50163, Sec. 15.
Condition( a) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
One6
One,6
verified
at point
of
complaint
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
By persons;11
By persons lun
after dilution
with odor
free air:
>20 vol.v
>4vol.w
Dilution
Device
Reading
No. 2 odor
strength
No. 2 odor
strength
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
2 measurei
Duration
of Odor
nents
within one hour,
at least 15 min.
apart
2 measurements
within one hour.
at least 15 min.
apart
Exceptions
Upset
conditions
in or break
down of
equipment-
Uncontrol-
lable force
or upset
conditions!
Uncontrol-
lable force
or upset
conditions]
Upset
conditions,
breakdown
or sched-
uled
mainte-
v
nance.'
Prohibltion(s) and
Control Requirement s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall emit odorous matter such as to
cause an objectionable odor: (l)on or adjacent
to residential, recreational, institutional,
retail sales, hotel or educational premises;
(2) on or adjacent to Industrial or other
premises, as shown in another column.
Installation or use of any equipment for the sole
purpose of diluting or concealing an air
contaminating emission is unlawful.
No person shall cause or permit odorous
emissions so as to cause a violation (see
other columns for specifics) .
The emission into the ambient air of air con-
taminants resulting in air pollution. In violation
of any section under this article, is declared to
be and shall constitute a public nuisance, and it
shall be unlawful for any person to cause, per-
mit or maintain any such public nuisance.
No person shall cause or permit odorous emis-
sions so as to cause air pollution.
All incinerators shall be designed and operated
so that all gases, vapors and entrained effluents
shall, while passing through the final combus-
tion chamber, be maintained at a temperature
adequate to prevent the emission of objection-
able odors. Provided however, that the direc-
tor shall approve any other method of odor con1
trol which he determines is equally effective.
No person shall cause or permit the emission of
odorous matter so as to cause an odor amount-
Ing to air pollution: (1) on or adjacent to prem-
ises situated in residential, local business, or
central business districts; (2) on or adjacent to
premises located in industrial or unrestricted
districts, when diluted with 20 vol. of odor free
air; (3) on or adjacent to premises located in
the commercial districts, when diluted with
4 vol. of odor free air.
The emission or escape into the open air within
the city. . .from any source or sources whatso-
ever , of . . . odors ... in such manner or in such
amounts as are detrimental to or endanger the
health, comfort, safety or welfare of or cause
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
(continued)
City of St. Louis
Division of Air Pollution
Control
St. Louis County
Health Department
Division of Air Pollution
Control
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Code, Regula-
tions XV and
XVI.
Conditlon(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
By persons!'
By persons hm
after dilution
with odor
free air:
> 20 vol.v
> 4 vol.w
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Equipment
used
exclusively
for the
processing
of food for
human
consump-
tion in food
service
establish-
ments .
Prohibition(s) and
Control Requirement s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
severe annoyance or discomfort to, or is offen-
sive and objectionable to the public, or shall
cause injury or damage to property or inter-
fere with the normal conduct of business, is
hereby declared to be and shall constitute a
public nuisance. . .It shall be unlawful for any
person to cause, permit or maintain any such
public nuisance.
No person shall operate or use any device, ma-
chine, equipment or other contrivance for the
reduction of animal matter unless all gases.
vapors, and gas -entrained effluents from such
facility are incinerated at i!200°F for i 0.3
second, or processed In such a manner as de-
termined by the Commissioner to be equally or
more effective for the purpose of air pollution
control. Effective devices and/or measures
shall be Installed and operated such that no
vent, exhaust pipe, blow-off pipe or opening of
any kind shall discharge into the outdoor air
any odorous matter, vapors, gases, or dusts
or any combination thereof which create odors
or other nuisances in the neighborhood of the
plant. Odor producing materials shall be
stored and handled in a manner such that odors
produced from such materials are confined.
Accumulation of odor producing materials re-
sulting from spillage or other escape is pro-
hibited. Odor bearing gases, vapors, fumes.
or dust arising from materials in process
shall be confined at the point of origin so as to
prevent liberation of odorous matter.
No person shall emit odorous matter such as to
cause an objectionable odor: (1) on or adjacent
to residential, recreational, institutional, re-
tail sales, hotel or educational premises; (2)
on or adjacent to industrial or other premises.
as shown in another column.
Control requirements and prohibitions regarding
the reduction of animal matter are the same as
those stated above for the City of St. Louis ,
except that Executive Secretary is substituted
for Commissioner.
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
Montana
Montana State
Department of Health
Billings- Laurel -
Yellowstone County
Air Pollution
Control Program
Cascade County
Air Pollution
Control Program
Missoula City-County
Health Department
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Regula-
tion 90-009.
Yes . Regulation
No. 009.
Agency's regu-
lations are
identical with
those of the
State .
Yes. Regula-
tions, Sec. XVI.
Agency's regu-
lations are
identical with
those of the
State .
Yes. Agency's
regulations are
identical with
those of the
State .
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Equipment
used
exclusively
for the
processing
of food for
human
consump-
tion in food
service
establish-
ments .
Same as
above.
Prohibition( s) and
Control Requirement s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall cause, suffer, or allow any
emissions of gases, vapors, or odors beyond
the property line in such manner as to create a
public nuisance.
A person operating or using any machine, device,
equipment, or other contrivance which dis-
charges into the outdoor air any odorous matter
or vapors, gases, dusts, or any combination
thereof which create odors, shall provide,
properly install, and maintain in good working
order and in operation such devices as may be
specified by the Director.
Odor producing materials shall be so stored and
handled that odors produced thereby do not
create a public nuisance. No person shall
accumulate such quantities of such materials
as to permit spillage or other escape.
Odor bearing gases, vapors, fumes, or dusts
arising from materials in process shall be so
confined at the point of origin as to prevent
liberation of odorous matter.
No person shall operate or use any device, ma-
chine, equipment or other contrivance for the
reduction of animal matter unless all gases,
vapors, and gas -entrained effluents from such
facility are incinerated at i 1200°F for i 0.3
second, or processed in such manner as deter-
mined by the Director to be equally or more
effective for the purpose of air pollution con-
trol. A person incinerating or processing
gases, vapors or gas -entrained effluents pur-
suant to this rule shall provide, properly in-
stall and maintain, in good working order and
in operation, devices as specified by the
Director for indicating temperature, pressure,
or other operating conditions.
The following prohibition is in addition to the
control regulations stated above.
Installation or use of any device which conceals
or dilutes an emission of air contaminant
which would otherwise violate an air pollution
control regulation is prohibited.
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
Nevada
State of Nevada
Bureau of
Environmental Health
Clark County
District Health Depart-
ment) Air Pollution
Control Section
Washoe County
District Health
Department
New Hampshire
New Hampshire Air
Pollution Control
Agency
New Jersey
New Jersey State Bureau
of Air Pollution Control,
Division of Environmental
Quality, Department of
Environmental Protection
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Regulation XVII
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Regulations,
Sees. 29 and
12.
No.a Proposed:
Air Pollution
Control Regu-
lations, Sees.
040.050 and
020.085.
No.a Proposed:
Regulation No.
16.
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Code, Sec. 3.4.
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
Onee
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
By an Indepen-
dent panel, ll
when diluted
with odor free
air:
2 vol. in light
Indus, areas;
W
4vol.
Dilution
Device
Reading
Scentometer
may be
used
If Detectable
After dilution with
> 8 vol. of odor
free air
After dilution with
i 2 vol. of odor
free air
After dilution with
i 8 vol. of odor
free air
Frequency
of Odor
2 meas.
within 1
hour, at
least 15
minutes
apart
2 meas.
within 1
hour, at
least 15
m in. apart
2 meas.
within 1
hour, at
least 15
minutes
apart
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Upset,
breakdown
or sched.
maint.y
Upset,
breakdown
or sched.
maint.y
Upset,
breakdown
or sched.
malnt.y
Malfunction
or break-
down, up to
48 hoursv.
Odors re-
sultlngfron
the normal
production
and cultura
practices
of agric.
Prohibition( s) and
Control Requirement! 8)
Specified In Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
It is unlawful for any person to discharge, or
cause to be discharged from any source whatso-
ever any material or air contaminant of any kirn
or description, which is or tends to be, offen-
sive to the senses or Injurious or detrimental to
health and safety, or which in any way unduly
interferes with or prevents the comfortable en-
joyment of life or property by any considerable
number of persons or the general public.2
It is unlawful for any person to discharge, or
cause to be discharged, from any source what-
soever, any quantity of odorous or gaseous
emissions, materials, or air contaminants of
any kind or description, which is, or tends to
be offensive to the senses, or injurious or
detrimental to repose, health, and safety, or
which in any way unduly interferes with or
prevents the comfortable enjoyment of life or
property by any considerable number of
persons or the general public.
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit
the discharge of materials into the ambient air
which cause or contribute to an objectionable
or obnoxious odor at any location occupied by
the public as follows: (1) in areas zoned resi-
dential, recreational, institutional, retail
sales, hotel or educational;(2) in areas zoned
light industrial and in areas other than those
already described ( see other columns for
specifics) .
No person shall construct, install, use or
cause to be used any common incinerator or
any special incinerator which will result in
odors being detectable by sense of smell in
any area of human use or occupancy.
-------
Name of Agency
( by State)
City of Elizabeth
Department of Health,
Welfare and Housing,
Division of Housing and
Inspections
Suburban Air Pollution
Commission
(West Orange)
New Mexico
State of New Mexico,
Environmental Improve-
ment Agency
City of Albuquerque
Department of
Environmental Health
New York
New York State
Department of
E nvironmental
Conservation
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes . Sanitary
Code, Sees.
38-247 and 38-
284(86).
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Code, Sec.
8:13.
Yes
Yes. Animal
Control Ordi-
nance, Sec. 39.
Yes. Rules to
Prevent Air
Pollution, Sees.
186. land 187. 3;
Ambient Air
Quality Stan-
dards, Table II.
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Prohibition(s) and
Control Requirement^ s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall create, commit, maintain or
permit to be created, committed or maintained
any nuisance.2
No person shall cause, suffer, permit or allow
any odorous matter, vapor, gases, particulates
or any combination thereof to cause air pollution
No person shall construct, install, use or cause
to be used any common incinerator or any
special incinerator which will result in odors
being detectable by sense of smell in any area
of human use or occupancy.
Odor problems handled on a nuisance basis.
Any animal or animals that habitually or contin-
uously bark, howl or otherwise disturb the
peace and quiet of the inhabitants of the City of
Albuquerque or are kept or maintained in such
a manner or in such numbers as to disturb by
noxious or offensive odors or otherwise endan-
ger the health and welfare of the inhabitants of
the City of Albuquerque are declared to be an
animal nuisance. It shall be unlawful for any
person to keep, harbor or maintain an animal
nuisance as defined above within the City of
Albuquerque.
No person shall permit or cause any air contam-
ination source to produce air pollution.2
No person shall cause, permit or allow the
emission of air contaminants from an emission
source resulting from an operation begun or
modified, after the effective date of this Part,
which exceeds the permissible emission rates
specified.
Consistent with the economic and social well-
being of the community, the ambient air shall
not contain odorous substances in such concen-
trations or of such duration as will prevent
enjoyment and use of property.
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
Brie County
Department of Health
Monroe County
Department of Health
County of Nassau
Department of Health,
Bureau of Air Pollution
Control
City of New York
Department of Air
Resources, Environ-
mental Protection
Administration
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes . Sanitary
Code, Art. XIV,
Rules 7.5, 1.3k
and 4. 4.
Yes. Sanitary
Code, Art. V,
Sec. 11.1.
Yes. Local
Law 1-1967,
Sees. 9-21.46
and 9-21. 48.
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Code, Art. 9,
Sec. 1403.2-
9.01.
Conditlon(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Prohibitlon(s) and
Control Requirement^ s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall cause , suffer or allow air
pollutants to escape to the open air in such
amounts as to be a nuisance . A nuisance shall
be considered to exist when air pollutants are
allowed to escape to the open air in such
amounts to affect the health, comfort, or prop-
erty of any considerable number of persons.2
No incinerator regardless of size, date of manu-
facture or date of installation shall. . .release
to the atmosphere offensive and obnoxious
odors detectable to the Commissioner or his
agents at the property line.
No person owning, operating, in charge of or in
control of any air contamination source shall
cause, permit or participate in discharging
into the atmosphere any air contaminant which
causes air pollution. z
No person shall cause or permit the emission of
an air contaminant which causes or may cause
detriment to the health, safety, welfare or
comfort of any person, or causes or may
cause damage to property or business.2
Installation or use of any device to conceal or
mask an emission of an air contaminant shall
be unlawful.
No person shall cause or permit the emission of
air contaminant, including odorous air contam-
inant, or water vapor if the air contaminant,
or water vapor causes or may cause detriment
to the health, safety, welfare or comfort of any
person, or injury to plant and animal life, or
causes or may cause damage to property or
business, or if it reacts or is likely to react
with any other air contaminant or natural air ,
or is induced to react by solar energy to pro-
duce a solid, liquid or gas or any combination
thereof which causes or may cause detriment
to the health, safety, welfare or comfort of
any person, or injury to plant and animal life,
or which causes or may cause damage to
property or business .
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
Niagara County
Health Department,
Division of Environmental
Health Services
Onondaga County
Department of Health,
Division of Environmental
Sanitation
Rockland County
Department of Health
Suffolk County
Department of
Environmental Control
North Carolina
State of North Carolina
Department of Water
and Air Resources
Western North Carolina
Regional Air Pollution
Control Agency
Unifour Air Pollution
Control Program
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
No
No
No
No
Yes. Rules and
Regulations
Governing the
Control of Air
Pollution,
Regulation No.
5.
Yes. Rules and
Regulations
Governing the
Control of Air
Pollution, Regu-
lation No. 5.
Yes. Regulations
Governing the
Control of Air
Pollution, Regu-
lation No. 5.
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Prohibition(s) and
Control Requirement s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit
any plant engaged in the processing of animal,
mineral, or vegetable matter to be operated
without employing suitable measures for the
control of odorous emissions including wet
scrubbers, incinerators, or such other devices
as may be approved by the Board.
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit
any plant engaged in the processing of animal,
mineral, or vegetable matter to be operated
without employing suitable measures for the
control of odorous emissions including wet
scrubbers, incinerators, or such other devices
as may be approved by the. . .Board.
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit
any plant engaged in the processing of animal,
mineral, or vegetable matter to be operated
without employing suitable measures for the
control of odorous emissions including wet
scrubbers, incinerators, or such other devices
as may be approved by the Board.
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
County of Forsyth
Air Quality Control
Department
Gaston County
Health Department
Ohio
State of Ohio
Department of Health,
Air Pollution Control
Board
Akron -Barberton-Summ It
County Air Pollution
Control Agency
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Regulation
No. 7.00.
No. This
agency applies
State odor
regulations.
No.a Proposed
regulation:
AP-2-07.
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Code, Sees.
755.12,
755.08.1(7 and
10), and 755.10
(E3).
\ w*
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Prohibition(s) and
Control Requirement s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit
any plant engaged in the processing of animal,
mineral, or vegetable matter to be operated
without employing suitable measures for the
control of odorous emissions including wet
scrubbers, incinerators, or such other devices
as may be approved by the Air Quality Control
Director.
The emission or escape Into the open air from
any source or sources whatsoever, of. . .odors
. . .in such a manner or in such amounts as to
endanger or tend to endanger the health, com-
fort, safety or welfare of the public, or is un-
reasonably offensive and objectionable to the
public, or shall cause unreasonable injury or
damage to property or Interfere with the com-
fortable enjoyment of property or normal con-
duct of business, is hereby found and declared
to be a public nuisance. It shall be unlawful
for any person to cause, permit or maintain
any such public nuisance.
Installation or use of any device or any means
which conceals or dilutes an emission of air
contaminant which would otherwise violate any
regulations of the Board is orohi^ed.
No owner , occupant or person in charge ( by
himself, his agent or employee) of any fuel-
burning equipment , internal combustion en-
gine, incinerator, railroad locomotive, vehi-
cle, premises, open fire or stack, processes
or process equipment, shall cause, suffer or
allow, the discharge, emission or release,
into the atmosphere therefrom, or from any
other source whatsoever, of any. . .air con-
taminants so as to cause a nuisance.2
It shall be unlawful for any person to permit or
cause foul or offensive odors. . .in the mainte-
nance of an incinerator. Incinerators, includ-
ing all associated equipment and grounds.
shall be designed, operated and maintained
so as to prevent the emission of odors.
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
Canton City
Health Department,
Air Pollution Control
Division
City of Cincinnati
Department of Sewers,
Division of Air Pollution
Control
Ironton Air Pollution
Control Agency
Lake County
Combined General
Health District
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Rules and
Regulations,
Art. IV, Sees.
14, 11, and 8.
Yes . Ordinance
No. 36-1969,
Sees. 2501-1.3,
and 2501-3.
No
No
Condltion(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
ehmt
By persons;
By persons6""1
after dilution
with odor
free air:
i 20 vol.v
> 4vol.w
Dilution
Device
Reading
> No. 8 or
equivalent
dilution;w
> No. 16 or
equivalent
dilution, in
M3, Heavy
Mfg. Dis-
txicts »
If Detectable
If detectable at a
distance >25 feet
from the incinera-
tor chimney or at
a location of a
citizen complaint
whichever is a
greater distance.
If detectable after
dilution with o.f.a
7 vol.w
15vol. in. M3
districts.
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
A period
or periods
> 15 min.
in any 8
hours.
Exceptions
Prohibition(s) and
Control Requirement s)
Specified In Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No owner, occupant or person in charge by him-
self, his agent or employee, shall cause, suffer
or allow the emission of air contaminants into
the atmosphere so as to cause a nuisance as
determined by the Air Pollution Control Officer.
No owner, occupant or person in charge, by him-
self, his agent or employee, shall cause, suffer
or allow the emission of odorous matter into
the atmosphere such as to cause an objectional
odor, as determined by the Air Pollution Con-
trol Officer: (1) on or adjacent to residential,
recreational, institutional, retail sales, hotel
or educational premises;(2) on or adjacent to
industrial or other premises ( see other
columns for specifics) .
Installation or use of any device or any means
to conceal or mask the emission of an air con-
taminant is prohibited.
In the operation of an incinerator, no person
shall cause or permit the emission of offensive
odor. . .i.e. , any odor similar to that of burn-
ing garbage, paper, or other cellulose mate-
rial (see If Detectable column for limits) .
No person shall emit or cause the emission of
odorous substances from any source which, at
any point on the surface beyond the source
property line or at the location of a citizen
complaint beyond the source property line,
will cause the outdoor air to become odorous
air ( as specified in other columns) .
The emission of odorous substances which
cause a nuisance are also prohibited.
-------
1
Name of Agency
( by State)
Montgomery County
Combined General
Health District,
Department of Health
City of Portsmouth
Air Pollution Control
Authority
Steubenvllle
Air Quality Region
City of Toledo
Pollution Control
Agency
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Regulation,
Sec. 126.0.
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Code,
Sees. 1377.03,
1377.04,
1373.09, and
1377.10.
Yes. Regulation,
Art. VI, Sees.
2 and 3, Art.
IX, Sec. 5.
Yes . Pollution
Control Code,
Sec. 3-60-30.
Condltlon(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
By the
Commissioner
of Air Pollu-
tion Control 01
his authorized
representa-
tive;1 by the
above, after
dilution with
odor free air:
> 20 vol.v
> 4vol.w
By the Chief
Control
Officer or his
representa-
tive;1 by the
above , after
dilution with
odor free air;
> 20 vol.v
> 4 vol.w
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Breakdown
of equip-
ment . '
Prohibition; s) and
Control Requirement s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall cause, allow, or permit the
emission of any air contaminant so as to
cause air pollution.2
No owner, occupant or person In charge, by
himself, his agent, or employee, shall cause.
suffer or allow the emission of odorous matter
into the atmosphere such as to cause an objec-
tionable odor, as determined by the Commis-
sioner of Air Pollution Control or his duly
authorized representative: (1) on or adjacent to
residential, recreational, institutional, retail
sales, hotel or educational premises; (2) on or
adjacent to Industrial or other premises (see
other column for specifics) .
No person shall operate or cause to be operated
a rendering plant unless: all vents to the
atmosphere from such rendering are substan-
tially free of any odor causing air pollution;
odor producing materials are confined and
handled in such a manner that odors produced
within or outside the rendering plant from this
source can be controlled; excessive accumula-
tions of odor producing materials resulting
from spillage or escape do not occur; all
finished products , by-products, and waste
materials are either odor free or so treated as
to eliminate or prevent air pollution.
Installation or use of any equipment for the sole
purpose of diluting or concealing an emission
or distorting stack test emission results is
prohibited.
No person shall unreasonably permit the emis-
sion of any substance into the ambient air
which causes an objectionable odor, so as to
cause discomfort or endanger the public health
or welfare, or in such a manner as to cause
injury or damage to business or property; and
such air pollution is hereby found and declared
to be, and shall constitute a public nuisance.
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Department of Health,
Air Pollution Control
Division
Oklahoma City-County
Health Department,
Air Quality Control
Division
Tulsa City-County
Health Department
Oregon
State of Oregon
Department of
Environmental Quality
( continued on the
next page)
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
No.b Proposed
Regulation No.
10.
Yes . Ordinance
12,575, Chap.
10, Sec. 9. 10. 02.
Yes
Yes. Administra
tive Rules Com-
pilation, Sees.
25-055 and 25-
325(3) .
Conditlon( s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Equipment
used
exclusively
for the
processing
of food for
human
consump-
tion.
Prohibition(s) and
Control Requirement^ s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall cause, suffer, or allow any
emissions of gases, vapors, or "objectionable"
odors beyond the property line from which such
emissions occur, to be in sufficient quantities
and of such characteristics and duration as can
be shown to be injurious to the public welfare.
to the health of human, plant, or animal life,
or to property, or which interferes with the
enjoyment of life and property.
It shall be unlawful and an offense for any person,
firm or corporation to permit the emission of
any obnoxious, injurious or offensive odors. . .
from any premises, machinery, smokestacks,
boilers, chimneys, owned, operated, occupied,
controlled or leased by such person, firm or
corporation, or any such odors. . .which by
reason of the nature thereof, annoy any person
or persons, or interfere with the peaceable
enjoyment of the home, residence or premises
of any person or persons, or are a menace to
the public peace, health or safety.
The general nuisance section of the Public
Health Code can be applied to odors .
A person shall not operate or use any article,
machine, equipment or other contrivance for
the reduction of animal matter unless all gases,
vapors and gas -entrained effluents from such
an article, machine, equipment or other con-
trivance are: (1) incinerated at > 1200°F for
£ 0.3 second, or (2) processed in such a man-
ner determined by the Sanitary Authority to be
equally, or more, effective for the purpose of
air pollution control than ( 1) above. A person
incinerating or processing gases, vapors or
gas -entrained effluents pursuant to this rule
shall provide, properly install and maintain in
calibration, in good working order and in oper-
ation, devices as specified by the Sanitary
Authority, for indicating temperature, pres-
sure or other operating conditions.2
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
( continued)
State of Oregon
Department of
Environmental Quality
Columbia-Willamette
Air Pollution
Authority
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Ambient
Air Standards,
Sees. 8.4,
6.2(2), 6.5,
and 6.8.
Condltion(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
> No. 0
or equivalent
dilution ( > 1
to < 2 d/t);su
i No. 2
or equivalent
dilution ( > 8
to < 32 d/t)w
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
2 meas.
within 1
hour, at
least 15
m in. apart
taken off
the
property
surround-
ing the
source
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Manufac-
turing
process, if
highest and
best prac-
ticable
treatment
and control
currently
available
Is used to
maintain
lowest
possible
emission
of odorous
gases.
Outdoor fires
(a) for agric
burning; (b)
for recrea-
tional pur-
poses or
cooking food
for human
consumption
(c) those set
or permitted
by any pub-
lic officials
for fire pre-
vention or
fire control
training.
D»*nVllMH fvn/ e>\ anrl
rronLoition( 8) anu
Control Requirement^ s)
Specified In Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall operate any hardboard tempering
oven unless all gases and vapors emitted from
said oven are treated in a fume incinerator ca-
pable of raising the temperature of said gases
and vapors to il500°F for - 0.3 second.
Specific operating temperatures lower than
1500°F may be approved by the Department
upon application, provided that information is
supplied to show that operation at said tempera-
tures provide sufficient treatment to prevent
odors from being perceived on property not
under the ownership of the person operating
the hardboard plant.
No person shall cause or permit the emission of
odorous matter in such manner as to contribute
to a condition of air pollution, or exceed the
limits shown in other columns.
No open outdoor fire shall be allowed within the
territory which contains garbage, asphalt,
waste petroleum products, paint, paint coated
metals, wire, rubber products, plastics or
any substance which normally emits dense
smoke, noxious odors or creates a public nui-
sance.
Control apparatus and equipment shall be in-
stalled and operated to reduce to a minimum
odor-bearing gases or odor-bearing particulate
matter emitted into the atmosphere. Gas ef-
fluents from animal matter reduction or incin-
eration shall be maintained at a temperature of
1200°F for > 0.3 second, or controlled
in another manner determined by the Program
Director to be equally or more effective. The
Authority may require that buildings or equip-
ment be closed and ventilated so that all air,
gases and particulate matter are effectively
treated for removal or destruction of odorous
matter.
; Installation or use of any device or means to
conceal or mask an emission of air contami-
nants which would otherwise violate these
Rules is prohibited.
-------
Name of Agency
( by State)
Lane County
Regional Air Pollution
Authority
Mid-Willamette Valley
Air Pollution Authority
Pennsylvania
Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Department
of Environmental Re-
sources , Bureau of Air
Quality and Noise Control
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Ambient
Air Standards,
Sec. 2-7.3.
Yes. Ambient
Air Standards,
Sees. 14-020,
16-140, and
16-130.
No
Condltion( a) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
2 No. 0 or
equivalent
dilution in
industrial
park areas
and other
areas;8"
>No. 2 or
equivalent
dilutlonv
> No. 0 or
equivalent
dilution1;
> No. 2 or
equivalent
dilutionw
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
2 measurements
within one hour,
at least IS min.
apart
2 measurei
nents made
within one hour.
at least 15 min.
apart, off the
property surrounding
the emission point.
Exceptions
Prohibition(s) and
Control Requirement^ s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall cause or permit the emission of
odorous matter in such manner as to cause a
public nuisance or contribute to a condition of
air pollution or that occurs in areas used for
residential, commercial, industrial park, or
other industrial areas, as specified in other
columns.
No person shall cause or permit the emission of
odorous matter in such manner as to cause a
public nuisance or that occurs in areas used
for residential, recreational, educational.
institutional, hotel, retail sales or other simi-
lar purposes and in all other land use areas ,
as specified in other columns.
Control apparatus and equipment shall be
installed and operated to reduce to a minimum
odor bearing gases or odor bearing particulate
matter emitted into the atmosphere. Gas efflu
ent from animal matter reduction or incinera-
tion shall be maintained at a temperature of
1200°F for > 0.3 second, or controlled in
another manner determined by the Director to
be equally or more effective. The Authority
may require that building or equipment be
closed and ventilated so that all air, gases,
and particulate matter are effectively treated
for removal or destruction of odorous matter.
Installation or use of any device or means to
conceal or mask an emission of air contami-
nants which would otherwise violate these rules
is prohibited.
Odor problems are handled under the provisions
of the Air Pollution Control Act.
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
Allegheny County
Health Department,
Bureau of Air Pollution
Control
Air Pollution Control
Board of Greater York
Lehigh Valley
Air Pollution
Control District
(continued on the
next page)
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Rules and
Regulations,
Sees. 1713 and
1710.
No
Yes. Ordinance
No. 20, Sec. 3
(1, 2 and 6).
Conditlon( s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Prohibition( s ) and
Control Requirement s)
Specified In Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall cause, suffer, or allow. . .air
contaminants. . .to escape to the open air in such
amounts as to cause annoyance or discomfort to
or be offensive and objectionable to the public
or shall cause injury or is a health hazard.2
No person shall operate or use any device, ma-
chine, equipment or other contrivance for the
reduction of animal matter unless all gases,
vapors, and gas -entrained effluents from such
facility are incinerated at a temperature of
1600°F for - 0.5 second, or processed in such
manner as determined by the Bureau Chief to be
equally or more effective for the purpose of air
pollution control. Effective devices and mea-
sures shall be installed and operated in a man-
ner such that no vent, exhaust pipe, blowoff
pipe or opening of any kind shall discharge into
the open air or atmosphere any odorous matter,
air contaminants , dusts or any combination
thereof which create odors. . . Odor-producing
materials shall be confined and handled in a
manner such that odors produced within or out-
side the plant from such materials are con-
trolled. Accumulation of odor -producing mate-
rials resulting from spillage or other means is
prohibited. Odor -bearing air contaminants
arising from materials in process shall be con-
fined at the point of origin so as to prevent
liberation of odorous matter into the workroom.
It shall be unlawful for any person to emit or
cause, suffer or allow to be emitted or to per-
mit the escape into the open air of any. . . odors
... of the quantity or character which violates
any of the provisions of this ordinance.
It shall be unlawful for any person to operate or
maintain or cause to be operated or maintained
any installation, equipment or device which by
reason of its operation or maintenance will be
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
( continued)
Lehigh Valley
Air Pollution
Control District
Philadelphia
Department of Public
Health, Air Management
Services
Rhode Island
Rhode Island
Department of Health,
Division of Air Pollution
Control
South Carolina
South Carolina
Pollution Control
Authority
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
No
Yes. Rules and
Regulations for
the Prevention,
Control and
Abatement and
Limitation of
Air Pollution,
Regulation 7 .
No
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Prohibition( s) and
Control Requirement s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
capable of emitting. . .odors. . .unless he shall
install and maintain in conjunction therewith
such control equipment as will prevent the
emission or escape into the open air of any
such. . .odors. . .of a character and in a quantity
that would violate any of the provisions of this
ordinance.
It shall be unlawful for any person to cause,
suffer or allow to be emitted into the open air
from any fuel-burning equipment, internal com-
bustion engine , process furnace, stack, prem-
ises or open fire. . .odors. . .that are a detri-
ment to the property of others or that are a
nuisance to any person not being therein or
thereupon engaged. When the Director shall
declare a nuisance as above defined to exist.it
shall be deemed to have been created and may
be summarily abated by the Director or his
duly authorized agent.
A proposed form of an odor regulation is being
considered.
No person shall emit any contaminant which
either £ilon6 or in connection with other emis~
sions, by reason of their concentration and
duration may be injurious to human, plant or
animal life, or cause damage to property or
inconvenience to property owners , or create a
disagreeable or unnatural odor or obscure
visibility or which in any way interferes with
the enjoyment of life and property.
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
Charleston County
Health Department,
Air Pollution Control
Section
City of Spartanburg
Tennessee
Tennessee Department of
Public Health, Division
of Air Pollution Control
Chattanooga-Hamilton
County Air Pollution
Control Bureau
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes
No
No
Yes. A Regula-
tion for the
Control of Air
Pollution, Sec.
9, Rules 14.1
and 12 . 1 throug
12.3, and Sees.
14-Band 14-C.
Condition; s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
By persons P
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Upset
conditions ,
breakdown
or sched.
maint.y
Pr'rth) hif Inn/ ti\ anrl
rroniuiiion^ o) anu
Control Requirement s)
Specified In Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Odors from incineration must be reduced to such
a point as not to create an undesirable level,
I.e. , the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of
one or more air contaminants or any combina-
tion thereof in sufficient quantity and of such
duration as to be injurious to human health or
welfare, or to damage plant, animal or marine
life, to property or which unreasonably inter-
feres with enjoyment of life or use of property.
A public health nuisance law has also been
successfully employed in abating odors.
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit
or fail to take reasonable steps to abate or
terminate the discharge from any source what-
soever of air contaminants or other material
which shall cause injury, detriment, nuisance.
or annoyance of the public or which endanger
the comfort, repose, health or safety of the
public or which cause or have a tendency to
cause injury or damage to business or
property.
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit
emission such as to cause an "objectionable"
odor on or adjacent to residential, recreation-
al, institutional, retail sales, hotel or educa-
tional premises.
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit
emission such as to cause an "objectionable"
odor on or adjacent to premises other than
those listed above unless air containing such
odorous matter is diluted with 2 4 vol. of
odor-free air.
-------
Name of Agency
( by State)
Knox County
Department of Air
Pollution Control
City of Mem phis -Shelby
County Health Department
Metropolitan Health
Department of
Nashville and
Davidson County
(continued on the
next page)
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Regulations ,
Sees. 22, 14,
19(c), 25(d),
and 39.
Yes. City Code,
Sec. 3-6.
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Ordinance,
Sec. 4-1-10.
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
By persons
after dilution
with > 8 vol.
odor free air
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Upset
conditions,
breakdown
or sched.
maint.y
Prohibition(s) and
Control Requirement s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall cause, suffer, or allow any
emissions of. . . "Objectionable" odors beyond
the property line from which such emissions
occur, to be in sufficient quantities and of such
characteristics and duration as can be shown to
be injurious to the public welfare, to the health
of human, plant, or animal life, or to property.
or which unreasonably interferes with the en-
joyment of life and property.
No person owning, leasing, or controlling the
operation of any air contamination source shal
willfully, negligently, or through failure to
provide necessary equipment or facilities or to
take necessary precautions, permit the emis-
sion from said air contamination source of
such quantities of air contamination as will
tend to cause a condition of air pollution.2
Hereafter no person shall construct a new
incinerator unless it has a secondary burner
for use when necessary to destroy. . .odors.
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit
the emission from any motor vehicle operated
in Knox County of objectionable odors. . .that
tend to endanger the human health or safety or
prohibit the peaceful enjoyment of life and
property.
No person owning, leasing, or controlling the
operation of any air contamination sources
shall willfully, negligently, or through failure
to provide necessary equipment or facilities or
to take necessary precautions, permit the
emission from said air contamination source
or sources of such quantities of air contami-
nants as will cause, by themselves or in con-
junction with other air contaminants, a
condition of air pollution.2
The emission or discharge into the atmosphere
of odorous air contaminant from any source
whatsoever which causes injury, detriment,
nuisance or annoyance to any considerable
number of persons or to the public or which
endangers the comfort, repose, health or
safety of any such persons or the public or
which causes or has a natural tendency to
-------
Name of Agency
( by State)
( continued)
Metropolitan Health
Department of
Nashville and
Davidson County
Texas
Texas State Department of
Health, Air Pollution
Control Services
City of Dallas
Health Department
City of Fort Worth
Department of Public
Health
Galveston County
Air Control Department
City of Houston
Department of Public
Health, Pollution
Control Division
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
No
Yes. Clean Air
Ordinance ,
Sec. 5A-13(7);
Zoning Ordi-
nance. Sees.
10-430 through
10-435.
No
No
No
Conditlon( s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
If odor exceeds the
odor threshold
(2 odor units) in
heavy industrial
district after
dilution with an
equal volume of
odor free airx
If odor exceeds the
odor threshold^
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Prohobition(s) and
Control Requirement s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
cause injury or damage to business or property
will constitute a nuisance, and any person
violating any provision of this section will,
upon conviction, be subject to penalties.
No use shall be operated in any zoning district
of the City of Dallas in such a manner that the
emission of odorous matter occurs in such
quantity or volume as to produce a nuisance,
source of discomfort or hazard beyond the
bounding property lines of such use .
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
Jefferson County
Environmental Control
Department
Laredo -Webb County
Health Department
City of Pasadena
Health Department
Utah
Utah State Division of
Health
Vermont
State of Vermont
Agency of Environmental
Conservation, Air
Pollution Control
(continued on the
next page)
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
No
No
No
No
Yes. Health
Regulations,
Sees. 5-473
and 5-474.
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
By persons
occupying or
frequenting
places closes
to, but beyonc
the property
line of the
source of
odors .
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Domestic
odors
Prohibition(s) and
Control Requirement( s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall operate or use any device, ma-
chine, equipment or other contrivance for the
industrial processes which as determined by
the Director, Division of Industrial Hygiene is
an odoriferous process per se, unless all
gases, vapors, and gas -entrained effluents
from such facility are incinerated at a
temperature of 1600°F for - 0.5 second, or
processed in such a manner as determined by
the Director, Division of Industrial Hygiene to
be equally or more effective for the purpose of
air pollution control.
Effective devices and measures shall be in-
stalled and operated in a manner such that no
vent, exhaust pipe, blowoff pipe or opening of
any kind shall discharge into the open air or
atmosphere any odorous matter, air contami-
nants, dusts or any combination thereof which
create odors or other nuisances .
Odor -producing materials shall be confined and
-------
Name of Agency
( by State)
( continued)
State of Vermont
Agency of Environmental
Conservation, Air
Pollution Control
Virginia
Commonwealth of Virginia
State Air Pollution
Control Board
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. d Rules for
the Control and
Abatement of
Air Pollution,
Rules 6 and 9 .
Proposed: Rule
4.06.
Conditionf s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
By agency on
the basis of a
review of data
obtained by
Investigation
directed by
the Board and
by holding a
public hearing
to hear com-
plaints .
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Accidental
or other
infrequent
emissions
of odors.
Natural
odors
resulting
from the
normal
production
and cul-
tural prac-
tices of
agriculture
Incinerators
with a
rated heat
input of
i 40
million
BTU per
hour.
Prohibition(s) and
Control Requirement( s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
handled in a manner such that odors produced
within or outside the plant from such materials
are controlled. Accumulation of odor-producing
materials resulting from spillage or other
means is prohibited.
Odor-bearing air contaminants arising from
materials in process shall be confined at the
point of origin so as to prevent liberation of
odorous matter into the workroom. . .
Installation or use of any equipment to reduce or
conceal an emission which otherwise would
constitute a violation of these regulations is
prohibited.
No owner shall allow the emission into the out-
door atmosphere of any odor which is deter-
mined by the Board to be objectionable to the
extent that it causes an unreasonable interfer-
ence with human life or the reasonable use of
property.
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit
any plant engaged in the processing of animal,
mineral, vegetable, or plant matter to be
operated without employing suitable measures.
for the control of odorous emissions including
wet scrubbers, incinerators, or such other
devices as may be approved by the Board.
No owner shall allow the operation of an incin-
erator so as to discharge into the outdoor
atmosphere. . .odor sufficient to cause a
condition of air pollution. Incinerators, in-
cluding all associated equipment and grounds ,
shall be designed, operated and maintained so
as to prevent the emission of objectionable
odors.
Installation or use of any device or means
which conceals or dilutes an emission of air
contaminant which would otherwise violate
these regulations is prohibited (this section
does not prohibit the construction of a stack
or chimney) .
-------
Name of Agency
( by State)
City of Alexandria
Health Department
Arlington County
Fairfax County
Health Department
Division of Environ-
mental Health
( continued on the
next page)
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes.a Guide for
Odor Control,
No. 5.
Proposed: Sec.
3B-7 .
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Ordinance,
Sec. 32-9 (b2,
cl, and e5).
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Ordinance ,
Chap. 1A-9,
Par. C.
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
By persons ,fm
occupying or
frequenting
places close
to, but
beyond the
property line
of the source
of odors.
By agency,
after inves-
tigation
directed by
Director and
holding of a
public hear-
ing to hear
complaints ?
Dilution
Device
Reading
Scentometer
may be
used
If Detectable
If objectionable
odors resulting
from the burning
of refuse in fuel-
burning equipment
are detectable
beyond the prem-
ises on which the
installation is
located.
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Malfunction
of equip-
ment^
Prohibition(s) and
Control Requirement(s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person or owner shall cause, permit or allow
the emissions of any odor into the outdoor at-
mosphere which results in air pollution.
No owner or person shall use or operate any
article, machine, equipment or other contriv-
ance for the reduction of animal matter by any
heated process , including rendering, cooking.
drying, dehydrating, digesting, evaporating and
protein concentrating unless odor control de-
vices and procedures acceptable to the
(Department) are provided.
No owner or person shall transport, haul or
move in any vehicle or conveyance materials
causing or giving rise to odors resulting in
air pollution.
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit
any source to discharge air contaminants which
cause an objectionable odor or create a nui-
sance without employing adequate measures for
the control of odorous emissions as may be
approved by the Director. a
No owner shall cause, suffer or allow any emis-
sions of gases, vapors or odors beyond the
property line from which such emissions occur.
to be in sufficient quantities and of such charac-
teristics and duration as is or is likely to be
injurious to the public welfare, to the health of
human, plant or animal life, or to property, or
which interferes with the enjoyment of life and
property.
The burning of refuse in fuel-burning equipment
is prohibited except in equipment from which
. . .no objectionable odors arising from the
installation are detectable beyond the premises
on which the installation is located.
Installation or use of any equipment for the sole
purpose of concealing an unlawful emission is
prohibited.
No owner shall cause or allow any emissions of
gases, vapors or odors beyond the property
line from which such emissions occur to be in
sufficient quantities and of such characteristics
and duration as is or is likely to result in air
pollution.
In the absence of appropriate control measures
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
(continued)
Fairfax County
Health Department,
Division of Environ-
mental Health
City of Roanoke
Air Pollution
Control
Roanoke County
Health Department .
Air Pollution Control
Division
Virgin Islands
Virgin Islands Department
of Health, Division of
Environmental Health
Washington
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
No
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Ordinance,
Sec. 8 (C, F,
and G).
No
No
Condltlon(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Malfunction
of equip-
ment7
ProniDition( s) ano
Control Requirement; s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
no owner shall use products which, either by
themselves or due to additives or impurities,
result in air pollution .
No person shall cause, suffer, or allow any
emissions of gases, vapors, or odors beyond
the property line from which such emissions
occur, when determined by the Director to be
in sufficient quantities and of such characteris-
tics and duration as is or is likely to be injur-
ious to the public welfare; to the health of hu-
man, plant, or animal life; or to property; or
which interferes with the reasonable use of
property.
In the absence of appropriate control measures,
no person shall use products which, either by
themselves or due to additives or impurities
result in air pollution.
Installation or use of any equipment for the sole
purpose of concealing an unlawful emission is
prohibited.
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
Northwest Air
Pollution Authority
Olympic Air Pollution
Control Authority
Puget Sound
Air Pollution
Control Agency
( continued on the
next page)
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes
Yes . Regulation
1. Sees. 9.11,
9.01(b5), 9.13,
and 9. 15.
Yes . Regulation
1, Sees. 9.12,
9.13, and 9. 16.
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Upset
conditions
and /or
breakdown
of equip-
ment^
Upset
conditions
and/or
breakdown
of equip-
mentv
Prohibition(s) and
Control Requirement s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Effective control facilities and measures shall be
installed and operated to reduce odor -bearing
gases or paniculate matter emitted into the at-
mosphere to a reasonable minimum.
The Board or Control Officer may establish rea-
sonable requirements that the building or equip
ment be closed and ventilated in such a way that
all the air, gases and particulate matter are
effectively treated for removal or destruction
of odorous matter. . .before emission into the
atmosphere.
The ambient air shall not contain odorous sub-
stances, such as (but not limited to) hydrogen
sulfide, mercaptans, organic sulfides and other
aromatic and aliphatic compounds, in such con-
centration or of such duration as will threaten
health or safety or prevent the enjoyment and
use of property.
Effective control apparatus and equipment shall
be installed and operated to reduce odor -bear-
ing gases or particulate matter emitted into the
atmosphere to a minimum, so as not to create
air pollution.
The Board may establish requirements that the
building or equipment be closed and ventilated
in such a way that all the air, gases and par-
ticulate matter are effectively treated for re-
moval or destruction of odorous matter. . .
before emission to the outdoor atmosphere.
No material containing asphalt, petroleum prod-
ucts, paints, rubber products, plastic or any
substance which normally emits dense smoku
or obnoxious odors will be burned.
Installation or use of any device or means to
conceal or mask an emission of air contaminant
which would otherwise violate these rules is
prohibited .
Effective control facilities and measures shall
be installed and operated to reduce odor-
bearing gases or particulate matter emitted
into the atmosphere to a reasonable minimum.
The Board or Control Officer may establish
reasonable requirements that the building or
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
( continued)
Puget Sound
Air Pollution
Control Agency
Southwest Air Pollution
Authority
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes . Regulation
2, Sees. 5.03,
5.05, and 5. 07;
Regulation 1 ,
Sees. 4.01
No. 0 or
equivalent
dilution ( > 1
to < 2 d/t);su
> No. 2 or
equivalent
dilution ( > 8
to < 32 d/t)^
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
2 meas.
within 1
hour, at
least 15
minutes
apart.
made off
the
property
surround-
ing the
air con-
taminant
source.
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Manufactur
Ing process
if highest &
best prac-
ticable
treatment
and control
currently
available
Is used to
maintain
lowest
possible
emission
of odorous
gases.
Upset
conditions
or break-
down of
equipment )
Vehicles for
transport
of passen-
gers or
freight.
Fuel burn-
ing equip.
in dwell-
ings for not
> 4 families
Space heat-
ing equip-
ment other
than boiler.'
Internal
combustion
engines .
Prohibitionf s) and
Control Requirement s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
equipment be closed and ventilated in such a
way that all the air, gases and paniculate
matter are effectively treated for removal or
destruction of odorous matter. . .before emis-
sion to the atmosphere.
Installation or use of any device or means to
conceal or mask an emission of air contaminant
which would otherwise violate these rules is
prohibited.
No person shall allow, cause, let, permit or
suffer the emission of odorous gases from any
source, except as provided in this Regulation,
in such concentration as to cause a public nui-
sance or exceed limits shown in other columns.
Effective control apparatus and equipment shall
be installed and operated to reduce odor-
bearing gases or paniculate matter emitted
Into the atmosphere to a reasonable minimum,
so as not to create air pollution.
The Board may establish reasonable require-
ments that the building or equipment be closed
and ventilated in such a way that all the air ,
gases, and participate matter are effectively
treated for removal or destruction of odorous
matter., .before emission intothe ambient air.
No material containing asphalt, petroleum pro-
ducts, paints, rubber products, plastic or any
substance which normally emits dense smoke
or obnoxious odors will be burned.
Installation or use of any device or means to
conceal or mask an emission of an air contam-
inant which would otherwise be considered a
violation is prohibited.
-------
Name of Agency
( by State)
Spokane County
Air Pollution
Control Authority
Yakima County
Clean Air
Authority
West Virginia
West Virginia
Air Pollution Control
Commission
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Regulation
I, Sec. 6.04.
Yes. Regulation
I. Sees. 5.01,
5.04, 5.05,
and 5.06.
Yes. Administra
live Regulations,
Sees. 2 and 6.
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
By Commission
representative
based on his
investigations
or his inves-
tigations and
complaints
Dilution
Device
Reading
Scentometer
may be
used
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Upset
conditions
or break-
down of
equipment
Fuel -burn-
ing equip-
ment for
domestic
housing.
Internal
combustion
engines.
Agriculture
production
operations.
Prohibition( s) and
Control Requirement(s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Effective control apparatus and measures shall
be installed and operated to reduce odor-
bearing gases and paniculate matter emitted
into the atmosphere to a reasonable minimum.
The Board or Control Officer may establish rea-
sonable requirements that the building or equip
ment be closed and ventilated in such a way
that all the air, gas, and particulate matter
are effectively treated for removal or destruc-
tion of odorous matter. . .before emission to
the atmosphere.
All air contaminant sources emitting odor
bearing gases and odor bearing particulate
matter shall be operated or controlled in such a
manner as to eliminate as far as practicable
noxious odors. Proven technological improve-
ments, to the extent that the same are econom-
ically feasible, shall be incorporated in such
air contaminant sources to reduce the emission
of noxious odors in the ambient air.
No person shall ignite, cause to be ignited, per-
mit to be ignited or suffer, allow or maintain
any open fire within the jurisdiction of the
Authority except as provided in another section
and no person shall burn in any open fire any
material containing asphalt, petroleum prod-
ucts, paints, rubber products, plastics or any
substance which normally emits dense smoke
or obnoxious odors.
Installation or use of any device or means to
conceal or mask an emission of air contami-
nant which would otherwise be considered a
violation is unlawful.
No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit
the discharge of air pollutants which cause or
contribute to an objectionable odor at any
location occupied by the public.
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
City of Wheeling
Air Pollution Control
Department
Wisconsin
State of Wisconsin
Department of Natural
Resources, Bureau of Air
Pollution Control and Solid
Waste Disposal
Eau Claire City-County
Board of Health
City of Green Bay
Department of Air
Pollution Control
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Ordinance,
Sees. 2 (land
g), 4. and2(h)
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Control
Rules, NR
134.08, and
NR 154.03(5).
Yes. Air Pollu-
tion Ordinance,
Summary and
Sec. III.
No.
Condltlon(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
.
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
By persons?11111
By persons, hm
after dilution
with odor free
air:
20 vol. v
4vol.w
Dilution
Device
Reading
If Detectable
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
Exceptions
Upset
conditions
or break-
down of
equipment V
Prohibitions ) and
Control Requlrement(s)
Specified In Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
It is unlawful for any person to permit or cause
the emission of such quantities of air contami-
nants from whatever source in such place or
manner as to be detrimental to any person or ti
the public or to endanger the health, comfort 01
safety of any person or the public, or in such
manner as to cause or have a tendency to cause
Injury or damage to property or business.2
No person shall emit odorous matter such as to
cause an objectionable odor on or adjacent to
residential, recreational, institutional, retail
sales, hotel or educational premises; on or
adjacent to industrial or other premises as
shown In another column.
Installation or use of any equipment for the sole
purpose of diluting or concealing an emission
is prohibited.
No person shall emit into the ambient air mal-
odorous substances at levels which cause air
pollution.
A person shall maintain his premises , and
materials stored on his premises, so as to
minimize air pollution from. . .odors.
Materials moved on public roads, railroads,
and navigable waters shall be secured and
protected in such a manner as to minimize the
spreading of ... odor. . .
No person shall use or have under his control
any equipment or process which causes,
creates, modifies, handles, conveys, controls
discharges or comes in contact with air pollut-
ants which are subsequently discharged to the
atmosphere.2
Open burning is prohibited in any residential
areas and any areas where air pollution would
result.2
-------
Name of Agency
(by State)
Milwaukee County
Department of Air
Pollution Control
Wyoming
State of Wyoming
Department of Health
and Social Services,
Division of Health
and Medical Services
Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
Governing Odor?
No. Proposed:
Air Pollution
Control Ordi-
nance, Sec. 1,
Sec. 89.11(8).
Yes. Air Qual-
ity Standards
and Regula-
tions, Sees. 5,
6, and 13.
Condition(s) Necessary for Violation of Odor Ordinance or Nuisance Law
No. of
Complaints
One6
If Deemed
Offensive/
Objectionable
Dilution
Device
Reading
No. 2 odor
strength
If Detectable
1
Frequency
of Odor
Duration
of Odor
2 measurements
within 1 hour,
at least 15 minutes
apart
Exceptions
Equipment
used exclu-
sively for
the pro-
cessing of
food for
human
consump-
tion in food
service
establish-
ments .
Abnormal
conditions
and equip-
ment mal-
function.^
Prohibitions ) and
Control Requirement(s)
Specified in Odor Ordinance
or Nuisance Law
No person shall cause or allow to be emitted into
the open air from any process or control equip-
ment, internal combustion engine, premises,
or open fire, any air pollutants in a manner to
cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoy-
ance, or to endanger the health or safety of any
person, or to cause or have a natural tendency
to cause injury or damage to business or prop-
erty or to interfere with the reasonable use
and enjoyment of life and property.2
No person shall cause or permit odorous emis-
sions so as to cause air pollution. An odor
occurrence shall be deemed a violation under
the conditions stated in the other columns .
No person shall operate or use any device ,
machine, equipment or other contrivance for
the reduction of animal matter unless all gases
vapors, and gas -entrained effluents from such
facility are incinerated at a temperature
11200 F for a period iO.3 second, or process-
ed in such manner as determined by the Divi-
sion to be equally or more effective for the pur
pose of air pollution control. A person incin-
erating or processing gases, vapors or gas-
entrained effluents pursuant to this rule shall
provide, properly install and maintain, in good
working order and in operation, devices as
specified by the Division for indicating temper-
ature, pressure, or other operating conditions.
Effective devices and/or measures shall be in-
stalled and operated such that no vent, exhaust
pipe, blow-off pipe or opening of any kind shall
discharge into the outdoor air any odorous
matter, vapors, gases, or dusts or any com-
bination thereof which creates odors or other
nuisances in the neighborhood of the plant.
Odor producing materials shall be stored and
handled in a manner such that odors produced
from such materials are confined. Accumu-
lation of odor producing materials resulting
from spillage or other escape is prohibited.
Odor bearing gases, vapors, fumes or dusts
arising from materials in process shall be
confined at the point of origin so as to pre-
vent liberation of odorous matter.
-------
APPENDIX B
REQUIREMENTS FOR AGENCY PARTICIPATION
-111-
-------
APPENDIX B
REQUIREMENTS FOR AGENCY PARTICIPATION
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE PROGRAM
Copley International Corporation has been retained by the Environmental
Protection Agency to develop a model odor control ordinance for the purpose of
assisting state and local authorities in combating community odor problems. This
project, under EPA Contract No. 68-02-0095, represents the culmination of two
and one half years of continuous odor problem research by Copley International
Corporation for the federal government.
The project was designed to include a comprehensive evaluation of the
model ordinance and a set of procedures developed for use in connection with the
model ordinance. The evaluation is to be conducted by four air quality enforce-
ment agencies, each to be selected by the following criteria:
Location in a metropolitan area having numerous possible com-
munity odor problems.
Known involvement in the study and control of community odor
problems.
Willingness to complete the requirements specified below.
PERIOD OF PARTICIPATION
Participation of a selected agency would be for a period of seven months,
beginning January 17, 1972. The first six months would be devoted to the applica-
tion of the enclosed "Procedures for the Identification and Assessment of Commu-
nity Odor Problems" to actual chronic situations in the jurisdiction of the agency.
This application would be in connection with the attached "Tentative Model Odor
Control Ordinance." Although agency evaluation of the procedures and tentative
model ordinance would continue throughout the first six months and although agen-
cy comments would be accepted by Copley International Corporation at any time,
a formal statement of agency recommendations would not be required until the
seventh month.
-1-
SPECIFICS OF THE PROGRAM
Preliminary Activities
After agreement by the agency director to participate in the program, repre-
sentatives of Copley International Corporation and Pope, Evans and Robbins, Inc.
(the project subcontractor), would travel to the agency to hold discussions with the
agency officials. This would occur approximately four weeks before the beginning
of the application and evaluation period.
The officials would be instructed in the use of the enclosed manual. Special
emphasis would be placed on such complex tasks as the delineation of test and con -
trol areas, analysis of public attitude survey results, proper use of the scentometer,
and training and deployment of odor judgment panelists. The officials would be asked
to focus their evaluation on:
The complexity of the procedures versus the skills possessed by
their personnel.
The costs involved.
The information obtained versus that needed to support effective
odor control activities.
The overall utility of the procedures.
The discussions would then be centered on the basis of the tentative model
ordinance. Initial recommendations of the officials for changes in the structure
and content of the tentative version would be covered at that time.
Application of the Procedures (Field Work)
Application of the procedures to actual chronic situations would be directed
by agency officials alone. Copley International Corporation and Pope, Evans and
Robbins, Inc., would provide guidance only when called upon to do so. Such guid-
ance would be advisory in nature and would consist of answering specific questions.
However, all four agencies participating in the program would be informed of any
developments that would benefit the program as a whole.
During the first six months of agency participation, the agency would be
required to complete a minimum of 12 public attitude surveys in accordance with
the procedure for problem identification. Six of these surveys would be conducted
in possible odor problem communities ("test areas") and six would be conducted in
matched odor free communities ("control areas"). Source verification would be
required for each test area in which an odor problem is identified.
-2-
-------
Evaluation of the Procedures and Model Ordinance
Representatives of Copley International Corporation and Pope, Evans and
Robbins, Inc., would visit the selected agencies twice during the field work. Both
visits would be for the purpose of inspecting the progress of evaluation. The first
visit would occur sometime in the third month of the field work.
A comprehensive evaluation form would be prepared by Copley International
Corporation to assure that the evaluation data reported by each of the four agencies
are comparable. The form a series of open ended questions would be made
available to the agency officials during the second visit, which would occur about
two weeks before the end of the field work.
During the seventh month of agency participation, agency officials would
be required to complete the evaluation form and submit it to Copley International
Corporation. The evaluation data would be reviewed extensively. Omissions and
ambiguous statements would be discussed with the appropriate officials. Similarly,
unusual findings would be verified for accuracy.
REPORT ON THE RESULTS
A report on the results of the project would be prepared by Copley Interna-
tional Corporation for the Environmental Protection Agency. A copy of the report
would be presented to each of the agencies that participated.
REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL EXPENSES
Copley International Corporation will reimburse each agency that completes
the requirements of the program up to $6,000 for actual expenses incurred in apply-
ing the procedures to actual chronic situations.
PROCEDURE GUIDANCE
The following individuals would be contacted for guidance related to the
application of the procedures:
Mr. R. David Flesh Mr. James C. Burns
Project Director Senior Staff Chemist
Copley International Corporation Pope, Evans and Robbins, Inc.
7817 Herschel Avenue 564 Market Street, Suite 300
La Jolla, California 92037 San Francisco, California 94104
(714) 454-0391, ext. 246 (415) 981-7903
-3-
-------
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW EXAMPLES USED TO TRAIN
AGENCY PERSONNEL
-115-
-------
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW EXAMPLES USED TO TRAIN
AGENCY PERSONNEL
The following are transcribed examples of simulated telephone interviews
used to train air pollution control agency personnel In preparation for conducting
the public attitude surveys described in the procedure for problem identification.
The examples were recorded on magnetic tape. Copies of the tape were given to
the project supervisor at each of the participating agencies.
INTERVIEW EXAMPLE NO. 1
This example depicts an almost ideal situation in which the respondent
answers all questions with little hesitation. Although few interviews will actually
progress this smoothly, the example can be used to familiarize the trainee with
the questionnaire and the technique of telephone interviewing. Duration of the
interview is two minutes.
Respondent: Hello.
Interviewer: "Hello. My name is Marian Olson. I'm calling for a government
agency Interested in certain community problems. I'd like to talk
with the lady of the house and get her opinion on a few questions.
Are you the lady of the house?"
Respondent: Yes, lam.
Interviewer: "Have you lived at your present address more than six months?"
Respondent: Yes, I have.
Interviewer: "Lately, people have become very much concerned about the en-
vironment and various types of pollution. Do people complain
about any kind of pollution in your neighborhood?"
Respondent: Yes, they do.
Interviewer: "Do they complain about air pollution in your neighborhood?"
Respondent: Uh.. .yes, they do.
-1-
Interviewer: "Water pollution in your neighborhood?"
Respondent: No...no, not water pollution.
Interviewer: "Airport, industrial, or traffic noise in your neighborhood?"
Respondent: No.
Interviewer: "Noticeable odors in your neighborhood?"
Respondent: Yes, there are some noticeable odors in the neighborhood.
Interviewer: "Have you noticed any odors in your neighborhood in the last three
months?"
Respondent: Yes, I have.
Interviewer: "How often have you noticed these odors?"
Respondent: Oh, about once a day.
Interviewer: "Generally speaking, how long do these odors last?"
Respondent: Oh.. .about half an hour or more.
Interviewer: "How strong would you say these odors smell?"
Respondent: Oh, quite strong.
Interviewer: "Would you say very strong, strong.. .7"
Respondent: Yes, very strong.
Interviewer: "When was the last time you noticed odors in your neighborhood?"
Respondent: Uh.. .yesterday.
Interviewer: "Would you say these have bothered you?"
Respondent: Yes, they do.
Interviewer: "How much would you say they have bothered you? Would you say
very much, much...?"
Respondent: Very much.
-2-
-------
Interviewer: "Where would you say most of these odors originate, that is, who
or what causes them?"
Respondent: My guess would be the oil refinery.
Interviewer: "All this information is strictly confidential, but we need it for
statistical purposes. What company do you work for?"
Respondent: I'm a housewife.
Interviewer: "What companies do other members of your family work for?"
Respondent: My husband works for the Widget Company.
Interviewer: "That completes the interview. Thank you very much for your
time."
Respondent: Thank you.
Interviewer: Bye.
INTERVIEW EXAMPLE NO. 2
The respondent hangs up! Occasionally, a respondent will be pressed for
time or, for various reasons, will not wish to be interviewed. His/her coopera-
tion should be solicited, but not forcefully nor persistently. Duration of the
incompleted interview is one minute.
Respondent:
Interviewer:
Respondent:
Interviewer:
Respondent:
Interviewer:
Hello.
"Hello. My name is Marian Olson. I'm calling for a government
agency interested in certain community problems. I'd like to talk
with the lady of the house to get her opinion on a few questions.
Are you the lady of the house?"
Yes, I am.
"Have you lived at your present address more than six months?"
Yes.
"Lately, people have become very much concerned about the en-
vironment and various types of pollution. Do people complain
about any kind of pollution in your neighborhood?"
-3-
Respondent: What kind of pollution are you interested in?
Interviewer: "Do people complain about any kind of pollution in your neighbor-
hood?"
Respondent: I believe you already said that.
Interviewer: I'm sorry. I'm allowed only to repeat the question, not to com-
ment on it. I'll be happy to repeat it again.
Respondent: Are you trying to sell me a product?
Interviewer: No. We're asking a few questions about the environment, and
we'd appreciate your cooperation in answering them.
Respondent: I think that this is going to take too much time for me.
Interviewer: We'd appreciate your cooperation.
Respondent: No, I'm really not interested. (Click!)
INTERVIEW EXAMPLE NO. 3
The respondent requires prompting on several questions. The interviewer
maintains strict control by repeating the question several times. To reduce the
possibility of antagonizing the respondent, the interviewer could have said, "I'm
sorry. I am not permitted to comment on the questions, but I may repeat them if
you wish." Duration of the interview is three and a half minutes .
Respondent: Hello.
Interviewer: "Hello. My name is Marian Olson. I'm calling for a government
agency interested in certain community problems. I'd like to talk
with the lady of the house to get her opinion on a few questions.
Are you the lady of the house?"
Respondent: Yes, lam.
Interviewer: "Have you lived at your present address more than six months?"
Respondent: Yes.
-4-
-------
Interviewer: "Lately, people have become very much concerned about the en-
vironment and various types of pollution. Do people complain
about any kind of pollution in your neighborhood?"
Respondent: Well.. .uh.. .what type of pollution?
Interviewer: "Do people complain about any kind of pollution in your neighbor-
hood?"
Respondent: Oh.. .yes, they do. Are you trying to sell me a product?
Interviewer: No, we're just asking a few questions about the environment, and
we'd appreciate your cooperation.
Respondent: I see. OK.
Interviewer: "Do people complain about air pollution in your neighborhood?"
Respondent: Yes.
Interviewer: "Water pollution in your neighborhood?"
Respondent: No.
Interviewer: "Airport, industrial, or traffic noise in your neighborhood?"
Respondent: No, not in this neighborhood.
Interviewer: "Noticeable odors in your neighborhood?"
Respondent: Yes.. .noticeable odors. I could say that.
Interviewer: "Have you noticed any odors in your neighborhood in the last
three months?"
Respondent: Yes.
Interviewer: "Have.. .how often have you noticed these odors?"
Respondent: Urn .. .about once a week.
Interviewer: "Generally speaking, how long do these odors last?"
Respondent: Uh.. .you mean during the daytime or during the evening?
-5-
Interviewer: "Generally speaking, how long do these odors last?"
Respondent: Oh.. .about a half hour altogether.
Interviewer: "How strong would you say these odors smell? Would you .say
very strong, strong, moderate, or slight?"
Respondent: Oh.. .1 would say strong.
Interviewer: "When was the last time you noticed odors in your neighborhood?"
Respondent: Well, the last time I noticed that people were complaining about
odors.. .was last week.
Interviewer: "When was the last time you noticed odors in your neighborhood?"
Respondent: Last week.
Interviewer: "Would you say these odors have bothered you?"
Respondent: Yes, they have.
Interviewer: "How much would you say they have bothered you? Would you say
very much, much, moderately, or little?"
Respondent: I would say they have bothered me.. .much.
Interviewer: "Where would you say most of these odors originate, that is, who
or what causes them?"
Respondent: Um.. .can you give me a few ideas?
Interviewer: "Where would you say most of these odors originate, that is, who
or what causes them?"
Respondent: Uh.. .you mean specific companies, or do you mean.. .uh.. .areas?
Interviewer: "Where would you say most of these odors originate, that is, who
or what causes them?"
Respondent: Oh.. .then I couldn't tell you. I really don't know.
Interviewer: "All this information is strictly confidential, but we need it for
statistical purposes. What company do you work for?"
-6-
-------
Respondent: I'm a housewife.
Interviewer: "What companies do other members of your household work for?"
Respondent: My husband works for the Widget Company.
Interviewer: "That completes the interview. Thank you very much for your
time."
Respondent: You're welcome.
Interviewer: Bye.
INTERVIEW EXAMPLE NO. 4
Interviewer leads the respondent in answering several questions. Such a
practice should be avoided, since it usually injects unmeasurable bias into the
results of the survey. Duration of the interview is three minutes.
Respondent: Hello.
Interviewer: "Hello. My name is Marian Olson. I'm calling for a government
agency interested in certain community problems. I'd like to talk
with the lady of the house to get her opinion on a few questions.
Are you the lady of the house?"
Respondent: Yes, lam.
Interviewer: "Have you lived at your present address more than six months?"
Respondent: Yes, I have.
Interviewer: "Lately, people have become very much concerned about the en-
vironment and various types of pollution. Do people complain
about any kind of pollution in your neighborhood?"
Respondent: No, I haven't heard them complain about it.
Interviewer: "Do people complain about air pollu..." Oh, I'm not supposed to
ask you that question. Just a minute; I'll have to look here and
see what I'm supposed to do next.
Respondent: Oh. OK.
-7-
Interviewer: Um.. ."Have you noticed any odors in your neighborhood in the
last three months?"
Respondent: Uh.. .yes, I have.
Interviewer: "How often have you.. .have you noticed these odors?"
Respondent: Oh.. .1 really couldn't tell you that. I don't know.
Interviewer: Well, I mean, like once a week., .or once a month, or...maybe
every day?
Respondent: I notice it in the morning mostly.
Interviewer: Oh.. .uh...
Respondent: About an hour, maybe.
Interviewer: OK. Now, let's see what I'm supposed to ask you. Um...
"Generally speaking, how long do these odors last?" Oh! You
already said an hour. Uh.. .is that right?
Respondent: Uh.. .that's approximately right, yes.
Interviewer: OK.. .Um.. .Now this is a really dumb question. I hate to have
to ask it but.. .well, it's on here and I have to. "How strong
would you say these odors smell? Would you say very strong,
strong, moderate, slight, don't know..." Oh! I'm not supposed
to read the "don't know" part.
Respondent: Oh, I would say strong.. .they smell quite strong.
Interviewer: "When was the last time you noticed the odors in your neighbor-
hood?"
Respondent: Last week.. .no, make it this week. This week I noticed it.
Interviewer: Um.. .this is another dumb question. "Would you say these odors
have bothered you?"
Respondent: Well, of course they have! If 1 noticed them, they bothered me.
Interviewer: "How much would you say they bothered you?"
Respondent: Well, I thought I answered that. Very much!
-------
Interviewer: Oh.. .OK.. .Yes, I guess you did answer that. Uh..."Where
would you say most of these odors originate, that is, who or
what causes them?"
Respondent: Oh, I really don't know. I.. .1 couldn't answer that.
Interviewer: You don't think it might he the Widget factory in your area, do
you?
Respondent: Uh.. .it could be, but I don't know for sure.
Interviewer: Um.. .Now I gotta say another dumb thing. "All this information
is strictly confidential, but we need it for statistical purposes.
What company do you work for?"
Respondent: I'm a housewife.
Interviewer: Oh. "What companies do other members of your household work
for?"
Respondent: Well, my husband works for the Widget Company.
Interviewer: Well, I guess that's about it. Um.. .it says here to say, "That
completes the interview," and to thank you very much for your
I ime.
Respondent: Oh, you're welcome. Thank you.
Interviewer: Bye.
INTERVIEW EXAMPLE NO. 5
Respondent leads the interviewer. As in Example No. 4, this situation
usually produces unmeasurable bias and, therefore, should be avoided. Of equal
importance, the inadequate control maintained by the interviewer unnecessarily
increases the survey time and cost. Duration of the interview is six and a half
minutes.
Respondent: Hello.
Interviewer: "Hello. My name is.. .is Marian Olson. I'm calling for a govern-
ment agency interested in certain community problems. I'd like
to talk with the lady of the house to get her opinion of a few ques-
tions . Are you the lady of the house?"
-9-
Respondent: Yes, lam.
Interviewer: "Have you lived at your present address more than six months?"
Respondent: Oh...yes. Oh, longer than that. Yes, much longer.
Interviewer: Uh.. ."Lately people have become very much concerned about the
environment and various types of pollution. Do people complain
about any kind of pollution in your neighborhood?"
Respondent: Oh, all kinds. Yes, they talk about air pollution and the smog and
water pollution and the bay, the.. .Oh, haven't you noticed?
Interviewer: Well, yes., .uh.. .yes. You know, it's just all over the whole
area. The...
Respondent: Doesn't it bother your eyes?
Interviewer: Oh, yes. Some days I can hardly see to drive to work because the
air pollution is so bad.
Respondent: I know. You know, if it weren't for my contact lenses, I.. .I'd
probably have a really bad problem.
Interviewer: Well, you know, sometimes I arrive at work and my eyes are so
red I look like I've been crying. I don't know what my boss thinks
about that.
Respondent: Oh, I know. You can go through a box of Kleenex in one day. I
know. It affects my sinuses.. .just everything.
Interviewer: Oh, it sure does. It's really bad. Uh.. .I'm . ..The next question
I have to ask you is, "Have you noticed any odors in your neighbor-
hood in the last three months?"
Respondent: Oh, yes. I've noticed that. Oh, all kinds of odors .. .in the air-
port, in the traffic. I've noticed it just opening my windows.
Sometimes I can't even do that. I've.. .Oh, everybody complains
about the odors. We don't know if.. .it could be the oil refinery.
Interviewer: Yes, well.. .you know.. .1 think they've got to do something about
these industries that are putting all these odors in the air. They're
just awful! They're just awful!
Respondent: I know. And it could probably affect your laundry, too.
-------
Interviewer:
Respondent:
Interviewer:
Respondent:
Interviewer:
Respondent:
Interviewer:
Respondent:
Interviewer:
Respondent:
Interviewer:
Respondent:
Interviewer:
Respondent:
Interviewer:
Respondent:
Interviewer:
Respondent:
Interviewer:
Yes. Well, you know, I.. .I'd like to hang my clothes outside,
but I just can't anymore because they don't smell fresh when I
bring them in.
You know, I've used that non-polluting laundry detergent and...
uh.. .1 hope I'm doing my part.
Well.. .I'm sure you are. I'm sure you are.
Are you selling that?
Oh, no. This is just a bunch of.. .of questions about.. .uh...
odors and things like that.
Oh. Who's the study for?
Well, it's for a government agency.
Oh, which agency is that?
Well, I'm not supposed to tell you until after the interview's over.
I'll be glad to tell you when the interview's over, though.
Yes, I'd like to know how this turns out. You know, I want to see
something done about this.
Well.. .I've got some more questions to ask you...
Oh...OK. Fine. Go right ahead.
You said you noticed odors. "How often have you noticed these
odors?"
Oh, I'd say about once a week.. .at least.
And.. ."Generally speaking, how long do these odors last?"
Oh.. .a good part of the morning.
Um.. ."How strong would you say the odors smell? Would you
say very strong, strong, moderate, slight...?"
Oh, they're pungent, all right.
Uh.. .well.. ."Would you say they were very strong?"
-11-
Respondent: Um.. .very strong.. .OK. That's a good one.
Interviewer: Uh.. ."When was the last time you noticed odors in your neighbor-
hood?"
Respondent: Yesterday.
Interviewer: Did you have your laundry out then?
Respondent: I didn't have my laundry out then. I'm trying to gauge my washing
with the weather. Can you believe that? Isn't it awful?
Interviewer: Well.. .it's awful that you have to do that.
Respondent: Right. I just wait until it's a smoggy day or a day when there's
odor, and then I wash the next day.
Interviewer: Does that really work? I mean, does it usually clear the next day?
Respondent: Yes.. .it doesn't last that long.. .quite a few hours, but it doesn't
usually go into the next day.
Interviewer: I'll have to try that. I hadn't thought of doing it that way.
Respondent: But you have to get a system with this kind of pollution.
Interviewer: Yeah, I guess you're right. Let's see, I got another question
here . Um... "Would you say the odors have bothered you?"
Well, I guess you've already said that.
Respondent: I said that. They sure do.
Interviewer: And, uh, "How much would you say they bothered you? Would
you say...7"
Respondent: Well, quite a bit.
Interviewer: Uh.. .like "very much or much or moderate..."
Respondent: Very much. Put me down for very much.
Interviewer: OK. Uh.. ."Where would you say most of these odors originate,
that is, who or what causes them?"
-12-
-------
Respondent: Oh, well, I could take a guess. It comes out in the traffic, the
oil refinery, the bay, the ocean, the trash, the garbage. Oh...
Interviewer: Yes, I'm sure all of those things that you mentioned are.. .uh...
arc things that cause odors. Uh.. .Do you...?
Respondent: You'd think if they could get a man up in the moon they'd be able
to clean up the city a little.
Interviewer: You sure would think so, but I just don't know. I guess they're
trying, but, uh.. .It's kinda hard.
Respondent: Yes. I'd sure like to find out how this survey comes out.
Interviewer: Well, uh.. .we'll.. .we'll.,.
Respondent: Are we finished?
Interviewer: No, I've got a couple more questions here I have to ask.
Respondent: Oh, OK.
Interviewer: Uh.. ."All this information is strictly confidential, but we need
it for statistical purposes. What company do you work for?"
Respondent: I'm a housewife.
Interviewer: "And what companies do other members of your household work
for?"
Respondent: Uh, my husband works for the Widget Company.
Interviewer: Oh.. .Aren't they one of the companies in your area that cause
some of the odors?
Respondent: Yes, they arel I bet that's probably one of the main sources right
in this particular area.
Interviewer: Well, maybe...
Respondent: I'm appalled that my husband would keep on working for the
company...
Interviewer: Maybe he could help the company...
-13-
Respondent: .. .but you have to have that money coming in.
Interviewer: Maybe he could help the company do something about those awful
odors down there.
Respondent: Well, you have to be at the top to do something like that. You
know, if you're low man on the totem pole, you can't really do
much...
Interviewer: Yes, I...
Respondent: .. .except maybe quit!
Interviewer: Yes, I suppose that's right. I suppose that's right.
Respondent: Yes, I think so.
Interviewer: Uh... "This completes the interview. Um .. .Thank you very much
for your time." I told you I would tell you what agency this is for.
It's for the Air Pollution Control Agency in the city.
Respondent: Air Pollution Control. Oh.. .OK.
Interviewer: They're...
Respondent: Is that the same one as the one who's doing all the work on the
smog?
Interviewer: Well.. .Yeah, that is the same one.
Respondent: OK.
Interviewer: Thanks very much. Bye.
-14-
-------
APPENDIX D
EVALUATION FORM
-123-
-------
APPENDIX D
EVALUATION FORM
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this form is to provide each participating air pollution control
agency with a standardized format for reporting its evaluation of (1) the manual, en-
titled "Procedures for the Identification and Assessment of Community Odor Problems,
and (2) the March 1972 revision of the Tentative Model Odor Control Ordinance. The
form is designed to promote the comparability of Information supplied by the agencies.
It is not meant to limit the extent nor to influence the content of such information.
Indeed, each agency is encouraged to supply Information in addition to that requested
below as may be necessary to assure a complete statement of its evaluation.
The part of the form dealing with the procedure manual should be completed
by the agency employee(s) who supervised the problem identification and source ver-
ification activities. The part of the form involving the model ordinance should be
completed by the agency's attorney or by the agency employee who supervised the
problem Identification activities in consultation with the agency's attorney. The
agency director should review and approve the completed form which must be sub-
mitted to Copley International Corporation on or before October 17. 1972.
Space is provided after each question for the agency employee's comments.
If additional space is required for a complete statement to any question or for the
provision of supplemental Information, the blank pages at the end of the form should
be used. The back side of the pages should not be used.
EVALUATION OF THE PROCEDURE MANUAL
A comprehensive evaluation of the manual must include a discussion of the
preliminary information leading to the use of the procedures, the procedures them-
selves, and the costs incurred from the usage. (Exception: Since use of the
"Procedure for Problem Assessment" found on page 47 of the manual was not re-
quired, discussion of this procedure is left at the option of the agency.)
Preliminary Information
The introductory pages of the manual include: (1) a paragraph stating the
purpose of the procedures and to whom they are addressed, (2) a background infor-
mation section to describe the philosophy upon which the procedures are based,
-1-
and (3) a conditional use section to list the conditions under which the procedures
should be employed.
Ql) Do you feel that the preliminary Information adequately describes...?
(a) The purpose of the procedures
(b) The difficulties associated with using analytical equipment or com-
plaints initiated by residents for solving community odor problems
(c) The proper function of complaints
(d) Why public attitude surveys would satisfy public nuisance law
(e) When the use of sensory techniques must be considered
(f) The preference for dealing with emissions of measurable
concentrations of substances as possible infractions of air
quality standards rather than as possible violations of odor
regulations
-2-
-------
Q2) Two types of odor situations "acute episodes" and "chronic situations"
are given. What kind of situations do you feel "acute episodes" and "chronic
situations" are meant to describe?
Q3) Is it clear why such situations are distinguished under public nuisance law?
Q4) A "chronic situation" should be considered as a possible odor problem under
any of three given conditions. The purpose of the conditions is to prevent
unnecessary use of the procedures and, thus, to minimize the costs of in-
vestigation. Based on your experience with these conditions during the field
activities, do you feel that they are too restrictive, not restrictive enough,
or adequate as given? If you are not in agreement with the conditions as
given, what changes do you suggest and why? (Please comment on each of
the conditions separately.)
-3-
Procedure for Problem Identification
This procedure is the key part of the manual. The results obtained from
applying the procedure determines whether or not a community odor problem exists
in the test area under investigation. Under the provisions of the Tentative Model
Odor Control Ordinance, the source of such a problem would be in violation of law.
The procedure contains seven sections: (1) an introductory section, (2) a
paragraph advising when to use the public attitude surveys, (3) a section describing
the delineation of test and control areas, (4) a section on sample selection, (5) a
section on conducting interviews, (6) a result determination section, and (7) a mis-
cellaneous use section. Questions about the latter five sections are posed below.
In addition to answering these questions, please complete the following summary
information tables.
Table I. Comparison of socioeconomic characteristics of test and control areas.
(Complete parts A through H by the chronological order in which each set of public
attitude surveys was performed. Explain source of data if different from 1970
U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing Census Tract Reports.)
A.
Characteristic
County name
Census tract no .
Population
Median income
Median home value
Median gross rent
Median no. of rooms
Year built (percent)
B.
Characteristic
Test Area Control Area Tolerance
±20%
±20%
±20%
±10%
±20%
Test Area Control Area Tolerance
Actual Percent
Difference
Actual Percent
Difference
County name
Census tract no.
Population
Median income
Median home value
Median gross rent
Median no. of rooms
Year built (percent)
±20%
±20%
±20%
±10%
+ ma.
-4-
-------
c.
Actual Percent
Characteristic
County name
Census tract no .
Population
Median Income
Median home value
Median gross rent
Median no, of rooms
Year built (percent)
D.
Characteristic
County name
Census tract no .
Population
Median income
Median home value
Median gross rent
Median no. of rooms
Year built (percent)
E.
Characteristic
County name
Census tract no .
Population
Median income
Median home value
Median gross rent
Median no. of rooms
Year built (percent)
F.
Characteristic
County name
Census tract no .
Population
Median income
Median home value
Median gross rent
Median no . of rooms
Year built (percent)
Test Area Control Area Tolerance
±20%
±20%
±20%
±10%
±20%
Test Area Control Area Tolerance
±20%
+ 20%
±20%
±10%
±20%
Test Area Control Area Tolerance
±20%
±20%
±20%
±10%
±20%
Test Area Control Area Tolerance
±20%
±20%
±20%
±10%
±20%
Difference
--
Actual Percent
Difference
--
Actual Percent
Difference
--
Actual Percent
Difference
--
-5-
G. (Applicable to City of Houston, Texas, and Hillsborough County, Florida, only.)
Actual Percent
Characteristic Test Area Control Area Tolerance Difference
County name
Census tract no.
Population
Median income
Median home value
Median gross rent
Median no . of rooms
Year built (percent)
H. (Applicable to City of Houston,
Characteristic Test Area
County name
Census tract no .
Population
Median income
Median home value
Median gross rent
Median no. of rooms
Year built (percent)
±20%
±20%
±20%
±10%
±20%
Texas, and Hillsborough County, Florida, only.)
Actual Percent
Control Area Tolerance Difference
±20%
±20%
±20%
±10%
±20%
Q5) For what reasons did you select each of the test areas?
-------
Q6) How did you select each of the control areas?
Q7) Did you establish the test and control area boundaries coincident with those
of census tracts? If not, how did you establish the test and control area
boundaries?
-7-
Q8) What difficulties, if any, did you encounter in setting up the test and control
areas? What do you suggest to avoid these difficulties or to simplify the pro-
cedure?
Table II. Summary of public attitude survey results. (Complete parts A through
H by the chronological order in which each set of public attitude surveys was per-
formed.)
A.
Information Item
Test Area Control Area
Survey no.
Date(s) survey was conducted
No. of homes in area
Sampling interval used
Sample size
No. of homes called, but not contacted
No. of interviews refused
No. of interviews completed
No. of respondents bothered by odors (Q9)
No. of respondents who mentioned source being
investigated (Qll)
Value of the normal deviate, z
Odor problem index no.
-------
B.
Information Item
Test Area Control Area
Survey no.
Date(s) survey was conducted
No. of homes In area
Sampling interval used
Sample size
No. of homes called, but not contacted
No. of interviews refused
No. of interviews completed
No. of respondents bothered by odors (Q9)
No. of respondents who mentioned source being
investigated(Qll)
Value of the normal deviate, z
Odor problem index no.
C.
Information Item
Test Area Control Area
Survey no.
Date(s) survey was conducted
No. of homes in area
Sampling interval used
Sample size
No. of homes called, but not contacted
No. of interviews refused
No. of interviews completed
No. of respondents bothered by odors (Q9)
No. of respondents who mentioned source being
investigated (Qll)
Value of the normal deviate, z
Odor problem index no.
D.
Information Item
Test Area Control Area
Survey no.
Date(s) survey was conducted
No. of homes in area
Sampling interval used
Sample size
No. of homes called, but not contacted
No. of interviews refused
No. of Interviews completed
No. of respondents bothered by odors (Q9)
No. of respondents who mentioned source being
investigated (Qll)
Value of the normal deviate, z
Odor problem index no.
-9-
E.
Information Item
Test Area Control Arua
Survey no.
Datc(s) survey was conducted
No. of homes in area
Sampling interval used
Sample size
No. of homes called, but not contacted
No. of interviews refused
No. of Interviews completed
No. of respondents bothered by odors (Q9)
No. of respondents who mentioned source being
investigated (Qll)
Value of the normal deviate, z
Odor problem index no.
F.
Information Item
Test Area Control Area
Survey no.
Date(s) survey was conducted
No. of homes in area
Sampling interval used
Sample size
No. of homes called, but not contacted
No. of interviews refused
No. of interviews completed
No. of respondents bothered by odors (Q9)
No. of respondents who mentioned source being
investigated (Qll)
Value of the normal deviate, z
Odor problem Index no.
G. (Applicable to City of Houston, Texas, and Hillsborough County, Florida, only.)
Information Item Test Area Control Area
Survey no.
Date(s) survey was conducted
No. of homes in area
Sampling interval used
Sample size
No. of homes called, but not contacted
No. of interviews refused
No. of interviews completed
No. of respondents bothered by odors (Q9)
No. of respondents who mentioned source being
investigated (Qll)
Value of the normal deviate, z
Odor problem index no.
-10-
-------
H. (Applicable to City of Houston, Texas, and Hillsborough County, Florida, only.)
Information Item Test Area Control Area
Survey no.
Date(s) survey was conducted
No. of homes in area
Sampling interval used
Sample size
No. of homes called, but not contacted
No. of interviews refused
No. of interviews completed
No. of respondents bothered by odors (Q9)
No. of respondents who mentioned source being
investigated (Qll)
Value of the normal deviate, z
Odor problem Index no.
Q9) What difficulties, if any, did you encounter in obtaining samples of test and
control area homes to survey? What do you suggest to avoid these difficulties
or to simplify the procedure?
-11-
Q10) Which of the three conditions listed in the Introductory pages of the manual
prompted you to conduct each set of surveys?
Qll) What percentage of telephone interviews were conducted at times other
than your agency's normal working hours? (Please estimate the percent -
age for each set of surveys.)
-12-
-------
Q12) Was each set of surveys conducted concurrently? If not, why not?
Q13) During each set of surveys, were the interviewers switched about half way
through the sample? If not, why not?
Q14) Which of the surveys listed in Table II were replicates of earlier surveys?
-13-
Q15) To what extent do you attribute differences between the results obtained from
the replicate surveys and those obtained from the earlier surveys to...?
(a)
The manner in which the surveys were conducted
(b) Changes at the sources of odors (e.g., changes in production sched-
ules, installation of odor control equipment, etc.)
(c) Changes in meteorological conditions
(d) Other factors (please describe in detail)
Q16) What difficulties, if any, did you encounter in conducting the surveys? What
do you suggest to avoid these difficulties or to simplify the procedure?
(Please discuss in terms of pretesting, instructing interviewers, and tabu-
lating results.)
-14-
-------
Q17) What difficulties, if any, did you encounter in computing the value of the
normal deviate, z, and the odor problem index number? What do you
suggest to avoid these difficulties or to simplify the procedure?
Q18) What is your opinion of the results obtained from each set of surveys?
-15-
Q19) Do you feel that the results justify the effort required to obtain them?
not, why not?
Q20) Do you feel that the procedure for problem identification is applicable to
all possible community odor problems within your agency's jurisdiction?
If not, why not?
Procedure for Source Verification
Whenever an odor problem has been identified, the source of the odor must
be verified if the problem is to be remedied. When the odor is not familiar or
occurs downwind of more than one possible source, the specific offender may be
difficult to pinpoint. To deal efficiently with such cases, the use of sensory tech-
niques must be considered.
This procedure is to instruct agency personnel in the proper use of two sen-
sory techniques the scentometer and the odor judgment panel and in the analysis
of data obtained from such use. The procedure contains six sections: (1) an intro-
ductory section, (2) a section advising when to use the scentometer, (3) a section
advising when to use an odor judgment panel, (4) a proper use section regarding the
scentometer, (5) a proper use section regarding the odor judgment panel, and (6) a
result determination section. In addition to answering the questions posed below.
please complete the following summary information table.
-16-
-------
Table III. Summary of odor source information. (Complete parts A through H
by the chronological order in which each set of public attitude surveys was per-
formed. Where a complex of odor sources was involved, indicate "complex of
odor sources," but provide information only on the source of odors most frequently
detected in the test area.)
A.
Information Item
Data
Name of source
Location of source (address, if applicable)
Age of source (if applicable)
Principal line of products (if applicable)
Census tract no. of test area affected by
source
Chemical name(s) of substance(s) emitted
by source and most frequently detected
in test area
No. of odor complaints against source
received by agency from all parties
during 1972 (year to date)
1971
1970
1969
1968
No. of odor complaints against source
received by agency from residents of
the test area during 1972 (year to date)
1971
1970
1969
1968
-17-
B.
Information Item
Data
Name of source
Location of source (address, if applicable)
Age of source (if applicable)
Principal line of products (if applicable)
Census tract no. of test area affected by
source
Chemical name(s) of substance(s) emitted
by source and most frequently detected
in test area
No. of odor complaints against source
received by agency from all parties
during 1972 (year to date)
1971
1970
1969
1968
No. of odor complaints against source
received by agency from residents of
the test area during 1972 (year to date)
1971
1970
1969
1968
-18-
-------
c.
Information Item
Data
Name of source
Location of source (address, if applicable)
Age of source (if applicable)
Principal line of products (if applicable)
D.
Information Item
Data
Name of source
Location of source (address, if applicable)
Age of source (if applicable)
Principal line of products (if applicable)
Census tract no. of test area affected by
source
Chemical name(s) of substance(s) emitted
by source and most frequently detected
in test area
Census tract no. of test area affected by
source
Chemical name(s) of substance(s) emitted
by source and most frequently detected
in test area
No. of odor complaints against source
received by agency from all parties
during 1972 (year to date)
1971
1970
1969
1968
No. of odor complaints against source
received by agency from residents of
the test area during 1972 (year to date)
1971
1970
1969
1968
No. of odor complaints against source
received by agency from all parties
during 1972 (year to date)
1971
1970
1969
1968
No. of odor complaints against source
received by agency from residents of
the test area during 1972 (year to date)
1971
1970
1969
1968
-19-
-20-
-------
E.
Information Item
Data
Name of source
Location of source (address, If applicable)
Age of source (if applicable)
Principal line of products (if applicable)
F.
Information Item
Data
Name of source
Location of source (address, if applicable)
Age of source (if applicable)
Principal line of products (if applicable)
Census tract no. of test area affected by
source
Chemical name(s) of substance(s) emitted
by source and most frequently detected
in test area
Census tract no. of test area affected by
source
Chemical name(s) of substance(s) emitted
by source and most frequently detected
in test area
No. of odor complaints against source
received by agency from all parties
during 1972 (year to date)
1971
1970
1969
1968
No. of odor complaints against source
received by agency from residents of
the test area during 1972 (year to date)
1971
1970
1969
1968
No. of odor complaints against source
received by agency from all parties
during 1972 (year to date)
1971
1970
1969
1968
No. of odor complaints against source
received by agency from residents of
the test area during 1972 (year to date)
1971
1970
1969
1968
-21-
-22-
-------
G. (Applicable to City of Houston, Texas, and Hillsborough County, Florida, only.)
Information Item Data
Name of source
Location of source (address, if applicable)
Age of source (if applicable)
Principal line of products (if applicable)
Census tract no. of test area affected by
source
Chemical name(s) of substance(s) emitted
by source and most frequently detected
in test area
No. of odor complaints against source
received by agency from all parties
during 1972 (year to date)
1971
1970
1969
1968
No. of odor complaints against source
received by agency from residents of
the test area during 1972 (year to date)
1971
1970
1969
1968
-23-
H. (Applicable to City of Houston, Texas
Information Item
and Hillsborough County, Florida, only.)
Data
Name of source
Location of source (address, if applicable)
Age of source (if applicable)
Principal line of products (if applicable)
Census tract no. of test area affected by
source
Chemical name(s) of substance(s) emitted
by source and most frequently detected
in test area
No. of odor complaints against source
received by agency from all parties
during 1972 (year to date)
1971
1970
1969
1968
No. of odor complaints against source
received by agency from residents of
the test area during 1972 (year to date)
1971
1970
1969
1968
-24-
-------
Q21) Have any of the sources listed In Table III Installed odor control equipment
since 1968? If so, for each source, what type of equipment was installed
and what was the approximate date of installation?
Q22) Has the total number of potential odor sources in your agency's jurisdiction
Increased, decreased, or remained about the same since 1968? On what
facts do you base your answer?
Q23) Has the total number of "chronic situations" in your agency's jurisdiction
increased, decreased, or remained about the same since 1968? On what
facts do you base your answer?
-25-
Q24) For each community odor problem that you identified, what method did you
use to verify the source of the odor? In each case, why did you select that
method over other methods?
-------
Q25) Did your agency compare the operation of the scentometer at fixed points
with the operation of the device in a moving automobile? If so, was the
comparison made on the same date? Was the same odor source used?
(Please describe the comparison in detail.)
Q26) What difficulties, if any, did the scentometer operators encounter in using
the scentometer? What do they suggest to overcome these difficulties or to
simplify the procedure?
-27-
Q27) Does your agency have a particular procedure for using the scentometer?
(If so, please describe the procedure in detail, particularly how your
agency recommends dealing with transient odors.)
Q28) Did you use scentometer measurements to plot peak odor intensities down-
wind of any of the sources listed in Table III? If so, did the pattern of
intensities point toward the source?
Q29) Did your agency employ an odor judgment panel? If so, how were the
panelists recruited?
-28-
-------
Q30) In your opinion, how effective were the triangle tests and odor intensity
(reference standard) tests in training the panelists for field work?
Q31) How many hours do you feel should be spent to adequately train an odor
judgment panel? How many hours were spent to train your agency's panel?
Q32) Which of the sources listed in Table HI did you select for odor judgment
panel evaluations? What substance emitted by this source was most fre-
quently detected in the test area? What reference standard did you prepare
to represent this substance?
Q33) Did you conduct any calibration tests in the field? If so, were the results
consistent with those obtained during the odor intensity (reference standard)
tests? If not, why not?
-29-
Q34) What difficulties, if any, did you encounter in conducting odor judgment
panel evaluations? What do you suggest to overcome these difficulties or
to simplify the procedure?
Q35) Did you use mean odor intensities or percent of time odor was detected by
the panelists to plot odor isopleths? If so, did the pattern of isopleths indi-
cate the direction of the source?
Q36) Do you feel that the results from using the scentometer or the odor evaluation
panel justify the effort required to obtain them? If not, what other method(s)
would you consider for source verification?
-30-
-------
Costs Incurred From Using Procedures
Estimates of the costs of services and materials necessary for problem
identification and source verification are included in the Appendix of the manual.
These estimates are based on 1971 prices averaged for the United States as a whole.
Please complete the following actual cost table and answer the questions provided
below.
Table IV. Actual costs incurred from using the problem identification and source
verification procedures. (Complete parts A through C. Indicate total costs in-
curred during the field work by cost category.)
A. Public Attitude Survey Costs
Actual Cost
Cost Category
Mandays
Dollars
Direct labor:
Supervisory time
Technician time
Clerical time
Total direct labor costs
Other direct costs (please list):
Indirect costs (please list):
Total public attitude survey costs
-31-
B. Scentometer Measurement Costs
Cost Category
Actual Cost
Mandays
Dollars
Direct labor:
Supervisory time
Technician time
Clerical
Total direct labor costs
Other direct costs (please list):
Indirect costs (please list):
Total scentometer measurement costs
C . Odor Judgment Panel Costs
Cost Category
Actual Cost
Mandays
Dollars
Direct labor:
Supervisory time
Technician time
Clerical time
Total direct labor costs
Other direct costs (please list):
Indirect costs (please list):
Total odor judgment panel costs
-32-
-------
Q37) How many sets of public attitude surveys did you conduct during the field
work (one set of public attitude surveys equals one survey In a test area
and one survey in a matching control area)? On how many separate occa-
sions was the scentometer used? How many odor judgment panels were
used?
Q38) What percentage of total public attitude survey costs were incurred during
...? (Estimate as closely as possible.)
(a) The first set of surveys
(b) The second set of surveys
(c) The third set of surveys
(d) The fourth set of surveys
(e) The fifth set of surveys
(f) The sixth set of surveys
(g) The seventh set of surveys (if applicable)
(h) The eighth set of surveys (if applicable)
Q39) Did your agency hire any full-time or part-time employees to support its
participation in the project? If so, how many employees did your agency
hire, and to what tasks were they assigned?
-33-
Q40) By approximately what percentages did the actual costs incurred by your
agency differ from the estimated costs contained in the Appendix of the
manual? (Answer separately for each of the following activities.)
(a) Public attitude surveys
(b) Scentometer measurements
(c) Odor judgment panel evaluations
Overall Evaluation of the Procedure Manual
Please list and discuss any aspects of the manual or of the individual pro-
cedures which you feel are particularly helpful in dealing with odor problems in
your agency's jurisdiction.
-34-
-------
EVALUATION OF THE TENTATIVE MODEL ODOR CONTROL ORDINANCE
The procedures for problem identification and source verification were de-
veloped after several years of study to assist governmental agencies in dealing with
community odor problems caused, particularly, by industrial operations. The pro-
cedures are offered for use in connection with public nuisance law. The philosophy
on which they are based is discussed in the introductory pages of the manual.
The Tentative Model Odor Control Ordinance is an advanced draft of a legal
model which, after possible refinement, would provide governmental agencies with
as scientific a vehicle for taking action as has been yet developed against the sources
of community odor problems. To assist in the preparation of the final draft, please
answer the following questions.
Specific Questions
Q41) Do you feel that the Tentative Model Odor Control Ordinance is consistent
with public nuisance law? If not, why not?
-35-
Q42) In your opinion, are the definitions given in Section I sufficiently clear and
complete to support the general provision and the procedural establishment
of a violation? If not, what changes do you suggest?
-36-
-------
Q43) In your opinion, is the general provision stated in Section II a clear and Q44) In your opinion, is the procedural establishment of a violation given in
complete statement of what is Intended to be prohibited? If not, what Section III sufficiently clear and complete to be understandable to the court
changes do you suggest? and to all parties likely to be involved in the prosecution of an alleged vio-
lator of the general provision? If not, what changes do you suggest?
-37- -38-
-------
Q45)
What additional or alternative sections, if any, do you recommend for
inclusion in an odor control ordinance?
-39-
Q46) Does your jurisdiction presently have an odor control ordinance? If so,
is it a public nuisance law, or does it limit the type, intensity, or other
characteristic(s) of odor?
Q47) Would the Tentative Model Odor Control Ordinance be compatible with
other air pollution control laws existing within your jurisdiction? If not,
why not?
-40-
-------
Q48) Would you favor the adoption of the Tentative Model Odor Control Ordinance
for use In your jurisdiction? If not, why not?
Other Information
Please discuss any additional aspects of the Tentative Model Odor Control
Ordinance, as you may wish.
-41-
SIGNATURE OF PROJECT SUPERVISORS AND AGENCY DIRECTOR
Evaluation of the procedure manual was completed by:
Signature:
Name and Title:
Signature:
Name and Title:
Evaluation of the Tentative Model Odor Control Ordinance was completed by:
Signature:
Name and Title:
Signature:_
Name and Title:
The evaluations were reviewed and approved by:
Signature:
Agency Director:
Date:
-42-
-------
PROCEDURE MANUAL
-145-
-------
PROCEDURES FOR THE
IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT
OF COMMUNITY ODOR PROBLEMS
Prepared for the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Under Contract No. 68-02-0095
By
COPLEY INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
7817 Herschel Avenue
La Jolla, California 92037
Contributions to this manual were made by
POPE, EVANS AND ROBBINS, INC.
564 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94104
February 1973
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Copley International Corporation is grateful to the City of Houston (Texas)
Department of Public Health, the Hillsborough County (Florida) Environmental
Protection Commission, the Columbia-Willamette (Oregon) Air Pollution Authority,
and the State of Maryland Bureau of Air Quality Control. The technical and legal
staffs of these agencies applied and evaluated a previous version of the procedures
contained herein and a tentative form of the model odor control ordinance. Their
evaluations were of great value in the preparation of this manual.
Copley International Corporation acknowledges the cooperation of many
private citizens who gave generously of their time by participating in personal
interviews. Without their wholehearted cooperation, this manual would not have
been possible. Copley International Corporation is especially grateful to Mr.
Richard C. Dickerson of the Environmental Protection Agency for his counsel
and assistance in the development of this document.
CONTRIBUTIONS
The overall responsibility of this study was undertaken by Mr. R. David
Flesh, Director, Environmental Economics, Copley International Corporation.
Others who contributed to this manual included:
Dr. Amos Turk, Project Consultant and Professor, City College
of the City University of New York.
Mr. James C. Burns, Senior Staff Chemist; and Mr. P.M. Conn,
Vice President; of Pope, Evans and Robbins, Inc.
Mrs. Marian O. Doscher, Senior Industrial Economist; and Mr.
R. Paul Weddell, Senior Economist and Statistician; of Copley
International Corporation.
-i-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS i
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . vii
FORMS vii
IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY ODOR
PROBLEMS 1
INTRODUCTION 1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1
CONDITIONS WARRANTING USE OF THE PROCEDURES 3
PROCEDURE FOR PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION BASED ON BRIEF
PUBLIC ATTITUDE SURVEYS 7
INTRODUCTION 7
WHEN TO USE PUBLIC ATTITUDE SURVEYS 8
SETTING UP TEST AND CONTROL AREAS 8
OBTAINING A SAMPLE 10
CONDUCTING THE SURVEY n
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 19
ALTERNATE MEANS OF PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 20
OTHER USES OF SURVEY RESULTS 25
STATISTICAL REFERENCE SECTION 35
-in-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PROCEDURE FOR SOURCE VERIFICATION BASED ON SENSORY
TECHNIQUES 41
INTRODUCTION 41
WHEN TO USE THE SCENTOMETER 41
WHEN TO USE AN ODOR JUDGMENT PANEL 42
THE SCENTOMETER 42
THE ODOR JUDGMENT PANEL 45
SOURCE VERIFICATION 52
OTHER DILUTION DEVICES FOR SOURCE VERIFICATION 53
PROCEDURE FOR PROBLEM ASSESSMENT 59
INTRODUCTION 59
WHEN TO ATTEMPT PROBLEM ASSESSMENT 59
APPENDIX 61
ESTIMATES OF COSTS INCURRED FROM USING
PROCEDURES 61
SUGGESTED REFERENCES 66
-iv-
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1 Example comparison of possible control area with test area
by categories of year structure was built 9
2 Numbers of telephones listed for streets that are located
within a hypothetical test area 10
3 Sampling interval 11
4 Sequential sampling plan for deciding whether or not an
odor problem exists in a community being surveyed
(AOL =0.100, OPL = 0.263, a = 0.05, 6=0.05) .... 21
5 Sequential sampling plan for deciding whether or not an
odor problem exists in a community being surveyed
(AOL =0.150, OPL = 0.333, a =0.05, 6 =0.05) .... 21
6 Sequential sampling plan for deciding whether or not an
odor problem exists in a community being surveyed
(AOL =0.200, OPL = 0.393, a = 0.05, 6 =0.05) .... 22
7 Sequential sampling plan for deciding whether or not an
odor problem exists in a community being surveyed
(AOL =0.250, OPL = 0.453, a =0.05, 8 =0.05) .... 22
8 Sequential sampling plan for deciding whether or not an
odor problem exists in a community being surveyed
(AOL =0.300, OPL = 0.510, a =0.05, B = 0.05) .... 23
9 Correction factors for use when sample size is a large
fraction of the total number of telephones in the
area to be surveyed 37
10 Concentration of reference standard in odorless solvent
used to simulate four strengths of the odor expected
to be encountered in the test area 48
11 Recommended work schedule 51
-v-
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Recommended form of a model odor control ordinance ..... 5
2 Barnebey-Cheney, Model 1-3 Scentometer ............ 43
3 Example of isopleths representing mean odor intensities
recorded by odor judgment panelists stationed in
a test area at the points indicated 54
4 Example of isopleths representing percentages of time
odor was detected by odor judgment panelists
stationed in a test area at the points indicated 54
FORMS
PUBLIC ATTITUDE SURVEY OF COMMUNITY ODOR PROBLEMS
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE 26
PUBLIC ATTITUDE SURVEY TABULATION FORM 30
ODOR PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 33
DETERMINATION OF THE ODOR PROBLEM INDEX 34
SCENTOMETER LOG SHEET 55
ODOR INTENSITY RATING SHEET 56
ODOR INTENSITY RATING SUMMARY SHEET 57
-vii-
-------
IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF
COMMUNITY ODOR PROBLEMS
INTRODUCTION
The procedures described in this manual are designed to assist governmen-
tal agencies in dealing with community odor problems caused, particularly, by
industrial operations. The procedures are addressed to "local" agencies, since
the investigation of community odor problems usually occurs within the public
health departments or air quality offices of local government. They are, however,
equally applicable to the needs of state agencies operating at the local level. A
mechanism for the official use of the procedures in the establishment of a violation
is found in the recommended form of a model odor control ordinance given below.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The contents of this manual were developed primarily from the results of
two studies the national survey of the odor problem, conducted in 1969, and a
study of the social and economic impact of odors, conducted in 1970 and 1971.
Both were conducted by Copley International Corporation for the Environmental
Protection Agency. Secondarily, the contents evolved from the findings of other
research done in the United States and Sweden, and from the opinions of scientists,
jurists, and many local agency officials. The contents were then modified in
response to the recommendations of four agencies which applied the procedures
to actual community odor problems over an eight month period in 1972.
The difficulty with the investigation of community odor problems lies in
the lack of objective evidence that such problems exist. Analytical equipment
is available to measure low concentrations of a few odorous substances, but even
in situations involving such substances, there is no way to translate known con-
centrations into odor intensities. Equally distressing, there is no way to translate
known odor intensities into some form of an odor problem index. Thus, for the
present at least, reliance must be placed on the personal evaluations of those who
are exposed.
Traditional methods for solving community odor problems include the
presentation of subjective evidence to the courts for consideration under public
nuisance law which, for remedy, requires substantial and unreasonable inter-
ference to any considerable number of persons in the community. The most
widely used form of such evidence has been complaints initiated by residents.
On the surface, it would seem that such evidence must define the existence of
a problem. Yet, under a literal interpretation of public nuisance law, it may
not. It is seldom determined from complaints whether the complainants, indi-
-1-
-------
vidually or as a group, actually suffered interference and, if so, whether the
interference was substantial and unreasonable.
The procedures described in this manual are offered for use in connection
with public nuisance law in lieu of counting complaints or attempting to extract
meaningful information from complainants' remarks. Within these procedures,
complaints are relegated to a proper function of alerting local authorities to the
locations of possible odor problems. The procedures are also offered for use in
connection with statutory law in lieu of attempting to base violations on the mere
perception of odors or on arbitrary levels of odor intensity.
Problem Identification Based on Public Attitude Surveys
The most direct means of identifying community odor problems is an atti-
tude survey. This stems from the personal nature of odor evaluation and the
concept that attitudes reflect personal evaluations. Unlike odor complaints, an
attitude survey of a randomly selected sample of residents would satisfy public
nuisance law. The random sample would represent "any considerable number of
persons." Attitudes expressing annoyance (typical in odor cases) would repre-
sent interference.
To determine whether interference is substantial and unreasonable creates
a complexity. Equity is involved. It is unfair to find substantial and unreasonable
interference on the basis of an arbitrary percentage of residents who express
annoyance. Recent studies have found that, even in virtually odor free areas, up
to 50 percent of the residents may express annoyance to odors. This is due to a
variety of factors including, for example, residents with unusual sensitivity to
background odors, feelings against nearby industry, and neurosis.
The procedure for problem identification provides an equitable basis for
showing the extent of interference suffered. It is assumed that the percentage of
residents who would express annoyance to odors when odors are not present is
approximately equal in all communities of similar socioeconomic characteristics
in the agency's jurisdiction. (Once established for communities of similar socio-
economic characteristics, the percentages must not be applied to communities of
other characteristics in the agency's jurisdiction or to communities of similar
characteristics in other agencies' jurisdictions.) This assumption is supported
by the results of the study of the social and economic impact of odors. It is also
assumed that residents of all communities have equal right to odor free air. By
comparing the results of identical attitude surveys conducted in a suspected odor
problem community and a similar, but odor free, community, it can be statisti-
cally determined if a greater percentage of residents in the former area express
annoyance. If so, an odor problem is identified and an equitable basis for show-
ing substantial and unreasonable interference is provided.
-2-
-------
Source Verification Based on Sensory Techniques
Whenever an odor problem has been identified, the source of the odors must
be found if the problem is to be remedied. When odors are experienced in a com -
munity frequently or over long duration, it is common for the residents to know or
at least suspect the source. Still, the source must be verified by local authorities.
Source verification is a straightforward endeavor when the odor is easily
recognized and only one possible source of such an odor is located near the prob-
lem community. In such cases, a simple investigation is adequate. However,
when the odor is not familiar or occurs downwind of more than one possible source,
the specific offender may be difficult to pinpoint. To deal efficiently with such
cases, the use of sensory techniques must be considered. The procedure for
source verification describes two of the most successful techniques one featur-
ing immediate availability; the other, depth of evaluation.
The use of sensory techniques in problem identification may be possible in
the future. This alternative to the use of public attitude surveys may save time
(including the time of residents who would otherwise be interviewed) and expense
without much loss of confidence in the results. What is needed to examine this
possibility is concurrent use of the sensory techniques and public attitude surveys
recommended by this manual on numerous Occasions over time and, based on the
results of such use, the development of appropriate dose-response relationships.
Based on the outcome of field activities performed during the study of the
social and economic impact of odors, the scentometer or equivalent dilution device
is recommended for indicating the locations of possible odor problems during rou -
tine surveillance. A condition for its use in this capacity is given in a following
paragraph.
Problem Assessment
By problem assessment is meant a determination of the economic and social
impact of odors on a community. Such information would support, but not replace,
the need for problem identification in odor cases. Tentative methods of problem
assessment have been developed, the most comprehensive of which are documented
in the final report of the social and economic impact study. However, because
they are not yet refined to the level of problem identification and source verifica-
tion and because they require highly specialized behavioral science skills not
possessed by most local agencies, they are not included in this manual.
CONDITIONS WARRANTING USE OF THE PROCEDURES
Two types of odor situations may exist in a community. One may lead to
an odor problem; the other does not. They are referred to as breakdown episodes
-3-
-------
and chronic situations. Reference to "breakdown episodes" is meant to preclude
unexpected malfunctions involving industrial processes from prompting investiga-
tions of community odor problems . However, a limitation of one day in any three
month period is included in the following definition as incentive for industrial
operators to minimize the duration of such episodes should they occur, as well as
the possibility that such episodes can occur at all.
Breakdown Episodes
A breakdown episode is defined as a causation of odors to persons beyond
the property limits of a source, occurring no more than once and lasting no more
than one day in any three month period. A breakdown episode involving the emis-
sion of measurable concentrations of odorous substances into the atmosphere
should be dealt with as a possible infraction of the air quality standards governing
such substances. A breakdown episode should not be considered as a possible
odor problem regardless of the characteristics of the odors caused.
Chronic Situations
A chronic situation is defined as a causation of odors to persons beyond
the property limits of a source occurring more than once or lasting more than
one day in any three month period. A chronic situation involving the emission
of measurable concentrations of odorous substances should be dealt with as a
possible infraction of the air quality standards governing such substances. A
chronic situation should be considered as a possible odor problem under any of
the following conditions:
(1) If an odor complaint is initiated by a resident of a commu-
nity and verified by local authorities after the first day of
the first occurrence in any three month period.
(2) If odor complaints are initiated by five or more residents
of a community, but not verified by local authorities after
the first day of the first occurrence in any three month
period.
(3) If odors are detected in a community by local authorities on
more than one day in any three month period. Such odors
must be of sufficient intensity to be detected using a Barnebey-
Cheney Model 1-3 Scentometer, or equivalent dilution device,
set at 7 dilutions to threshold.
The existence of a chronic situation and any of these conditions should be neces-
sary and sufficient for the employment of the following procedures. A mechanism
for their official use in the establishment of a violation is given in Figure 1.
-4-
-------
Figure 1. Recommended form of a model odor control ordinance.
SECTION I - DEFINITIONS
Chronic Situation - A causation of odors to persons beyond the property limits of a source occurring more
than once or lasting more than one day in any three month period.
Community - A group of at least 20 houses, apartments, or rooms occupied as separate living quarters.
Community Odor Problem - A condition which is said to exist when it has been determined, by public attitude
surveys of randomly selected samples of residents, that a significantly greater proportion of respon-
dents in a community in which an odor problem is suspected state they were bothered by odors than
respondents in an odor free community of similar socioeconomic characteristics.
Odor - Perception of smell, referring to the experience.
Odor Free Community - A community from which no odor complaints have been received by local authorities
and in which no odors have been detected by local authorities during the past twelve months.
Odorous Substance - A substance that stimulates the olfactory receptors and, thus, causes odor.
Person - Any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation, company,
contractor, supplier, installer, user, or owner, or any state or local governmental agency or public
district, or any officer, agent, or employee thereof.
Significantly Greater Proportion of Respondents - Determination by use of a mathematical test of statistical
significance that the difference between the proportion of respondents in one community who gave a
particular answer to a survey question and the proportion of respondents in another community of
similar socioeconomic characteristics who gave the same answer to the same survey question is an
actual difference and not the result of sampling error.
SECTION II - GENERAL PROVISION
No person shall permit, cause, suffer, or allow the emission of odorous substances into the atmos-
phere that result in a community odor problem from any source under his control.
SECTION HI - PROCEDURAL ESTABLISHMENT OF A VIOLATION
Violation of this ordinance shall be established by identification of a community odor problem. Such
identification shall be undertaken by the air quality enforcement agency serving this jurisdiction in accordance
with the "Procedures for the Identification and Assessment of Community Odor Problems," prepared for the
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-02-0095, dated March 1973.
Identification of a community odor problem shall require:
(A) the existence of a chronic situation as defined in SECTION I of this ordinance, and
(B) the existence of any of the following conditions:
(1) if an odor complaint is initiated by a resident of a community and verified
by local authorities after the first day of the first occurrence in any three
month period, or
(2) if odor complaints are initiated by five or more residents of a community,
but not verified by local authorities after the first day of the first occurrence
in any three month period, or
(3) if odors are detected in a community by local authorities on more than one
day in any three month period (such odors shall be of sufficient intensity to
be detected using a Barnebey-Cheney Model 1-3 Scentometer, or equivalent
dilution device, set at 7 dilutions to threshold), and
(C) the determination, by public attitude surveys of randomly selected samples of resi-
dents, that a significantly greater proportion of respondents in a community in
which an odor problem is suspected state they were bothered by odors than respon-
dents in an odor free community of similar socioeconomic characteristics.
-------
PROCEDURE FOR PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
BASED ON BRIEF PUBLIC ATTITUDE SURVEYS
INTRODUCTION
The following procedure is designed to allow local agencies to conduct, with
their own personnel, public attitude surveys to identify community odor problems.
If sufficient funds are available to the local agency, a professional interviewing
or survey firm could be engaged to perform many of the tasks described in this
procedure. However, the additional expense is not necessary if the procedure
outlined is followed with care by local agency personnel. It is important to note
that failure to adhere to the procedure could lead to survey results that are mis-
leading or meaningless.
Before describing the detailed steps to be undertaken in conducting a public
attitude survey, it may be helpful to summarize the major tasks to be completed.
These tasks are described in general terms below.
This survey is designed to compare the attitudes of people residing in a
community in which an odor problem is suspected with attitudes of similar people
residing in an odor free community. Attitudes of both groups are determined by
conducting interviews by telephone with residents of both communities. (Tasks
followed by an asterisk (*) could be done by an interviewing firm.)
(1) The first task is to define the geographic limits of the pos-
sible odor problem community.
(2) Next, a matching odor free community is located.
(3) Utilizing a street address (reverse order) telephone direc-
tory, a list of telephone numbers in each community is made,
and a sample of these telephone numbers is selected at ran-
dom.*
(4) Utilizing the questionnaire provided in this procedure, tele-
phone interviews are conducted with the man or lady of the
house for each telephone number included in the sample. *
(5) The total number of responses to key questions asked in both
communities is then tabulated and compared for problem
identification.
(6) Finally, if an odor problem is found, an odor problem index
number is calculated.
-7-
-------
WHEN TO USE PUBLIC ATTITUDE SURVEYS
A public attitude survey should be conducted only after any of the three
conditions stated in the previous section of this procedure indicate the location
of a possible odor problem .
SETTING UP TEST AND CONTROL AREAS
The community in which an odor problem is suspected is called the "test
area." The first task to be undertaken is to define the geographic limits of the
test area. This can be done by driving an automobile in a grid pattern throughout
the general area, while noting the boundaries within which the odor is perceived.
Meteorological data indicating wind patterns can also be helpful in setting these
boundaries, as can complaint patterns.
Next, the socioeconomic characteristics of the test area must be deter-
mined. If the boundaries of the test area are coincident with those of a census
tract, the following characteristics of the test area should be listed by reference
to the latest U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing Census Tract Reports
(PHC) covering the agency's jurisdiction: median income for families, median
value of owner occupied housing units, median gross rent of renter occupied
units, median number of rooms, and year structure was built.
An odor free community must now be located that matches the test area
as closely as possible. This community is called the "control area." The fol-
lowing criteria should be used in choosing the control area.
(1) The control area should be as odor free as possible. To
ensure this, the local agency should not have received any
odor complaints from residents of the area nor detected
any odors in the area during the past twelve months.
(2) The control area should be located within ten miles of the
test area.
(3) The control area should have similar access to heavily
traveled roadways as the test area.
(4) The control area should be located within approximately
the same distance from commercial or industrial estab-
lishments as the test area.
(5) The median income, home value, and gross rent for the con-
trol area should not differ from that of the test area by more
than 20 percent. Using the above mentioned Census Tract
-8-
-------
Reports, note the four categories of "year structure built"
and the corresponding number of homes listed in the census
tract to be used as a test area. Find the modal category.
Determine the percentage of the total number of structures
in the test area built in this category of years. Next, deter-
mine the percentage of the total number of structures in a
possible control area built in the same category of years.
The percentage for the control area should be within 20 per -
cent of that for the test area.
For example, assume the categories and numbers of structures
are listed as in Table 1.
Table 1. Example comparison of possible control area with
test area by categories of year structure was built.
Test Area Control Area
Census Tract Census Tract
Category 219.01 6.01
1960 to March 1970
1950 to 1959
1940 to 1949
1939 or earlier
Total
312
1,068
321
118
1,819
203
1,926
185
197
2,511
The modal category for census tract 219.01 is 1950 to 1959,
at which time 1,068 structures were built. This represents
59 percent of the total number of structures in the test area.
During the same category of years, 1,926 structures were
built in census tract 6.01. This represents 78 percent of the
total number of structures in the possible control area. The
difference is 19 percent (78% - 59%), which is acceptable.
(6) The median number of rooms (per housing unit) should not
differ by more than 10 percent.
If the community in which an odor problem is suspected is coincident with
more than one census tract, it is preferable to use each census tract as a separate
test area. However, if the socioeconomic characteristics of the census tracts do
not differ in excess of the above criteria, a weighted average of characteristics
should be calculated for use in locating a control area. The population of each
census tract should be used as the weighting factor.
If the boundaries of the test area are either smaller or larger than a cen-
sus tract, the agency should enlist the aid of a professional real estate appraiser
-9-
-------
in locating a suitable control area. An appraiser should be driven through the test
area and then asked to suggest the location of a community that would meet as many
of the above criteria as possible. To minimize the cost of such a service, the
agency may wish to request the loan of an appraiser from the planning (or other)
department of the local government.
OBTAINING A SAMPLE
First, list in alphabetical and/or numerical order all of the streets that are
located within the test area. Using a street address (reverse order) telephone
directory, which can be obtained from the telephone company, count the total num-
ber of telephones that are listed for these streets within the test area. To do this,
the house number of the first and last house on each street that runs beyond the
test area will have to be determined. In this count do not include professional
offices, commercial establishments, government offices, or industrial facilities.
Next, using a table of random numbers, select one number that falls between the
number "1" and the total number of telephones in the test area. Determine by cu-
mulative addition the street on which the sample selection will begin. Finally,
refer again to the street address telephone directory. Find the street on which
the sample selection will begin, and count down to the starting point, i.e., to the
first telephone to be used for the sample. For example, assume the streets listed
in Table 2 are located within the test area:
Table 2 . Numbers of
hypothetical test area .
Name /Number
of Street
Adams Street
Baker Street
Charles Street
Denver Street
35th Street
36th Street
telephones listed for
No . of Telephones
on Street Within
the Test Area
32
28
32
30
12
10
streets that are located within a
Cumulative Total
No . of Telephones Within
the Test Area
32
60
92
122
134
144
Assume the random number chosen is 99. Note from the cumulative total column
that the starting point must be the seventh telephone (within the test area) listed
on Denver Street. Write down this address and telephone number.
Refer to Table 3 to determine the number of telephones to be passed over
before a second telephone is chosen (the sampling interval). Continuing the example,
since there are 144 telephones in the test area, the sampling interval is 2. Thus,
-10-
-------
the ninth telephone (within the test area) listed on Denver Street would be the second
telephone to be included in the sample. Continue in this manner until all addresses
and telephone numbers in the test area have been written down or passed over as
part of the sampling interval. It should be noted that, if the starting point is toward
the middle of the streets listed (such as Denver Street), when the last street in the
test area is reached the sampling should be continued by returning to the first street
listed (such as Adams Street).
When this procedure has been completed for the test area, the same thing
should be done for the control area. If a multi-family dwelling such as an apart-
ment building is encountered in the test area or the control area, each family
should be counted as though they lived in a spearate house. The numerical or
alphabetical sequence of apartments is usually listed in the street address tele-
phone directory. This sequence is convenient for purposes of selecting a sample.
If more than one telephone number is found for a single family dwelling, count
only the first number and ignore any others. If more than one telephone number
is found for a multi-family dwelling, count the first number for each family.
Table 3 . Sampling interval .
Number of Telephones
in the Area
1-90
91-180
181-270
271-360
361-450
451-540
541-630
631-720
721-810
811-900
901-990
991-1080
1081-1170
1171-1260
1261-1350
1351 and over
Sampling Interval
include all telephones
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
CONDUCTING THE SURVEY
Each time interviews are conducted in the test area, they must also be
conducted in a matching control area. This is necessary to permit the statisti-
-11-
-------
cal comparisons required to verify the findings of the survey. Surveys should be
conducted concurrently in the test and control areas. The same control area may
be used for different test areas if the residents have the same socioeconomic
characteristics as those in a second test area.
Telephone calls to administer the questionnaire should not be made before
9:00 a.m. nor after 9:00 p.m. To reduce the elapsed time needed to complete the
telephone calls, the samples should be divided among two or more interviewers.
If only two interviewers are used, one should be assigned to call the control area
sample while the other calls the test area sample. To reduce the possibility of
interviewers biasing the results of the survey, it is desirable to switch the inter-
viewers about halfway through the sample; i.e., after one-half of the telephone
calls in the test area have been made by one interviewer, this person should make
calls in the control area. The other interviewer should make the balance of the
test area calls. A blank copy of the questionnaire will be needed for each tele-
phone number to be called.
If a survey in a test area or control area is not completed in one day,
simply complete the required number of interviews between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00
p.m. of the following day. A brief review of the first day's results may suggest
a time period (e .g., dinner time) when it is most likely that residents of an area
will be at home. Concentrating the remaining calls about such a time would in-
crease the efficiency of interviewing and, thereby, reduce survey costs. For
optimum comparability of the test area and control area results, a like percentage
of interviews should be completed in both areas during a given period of time.
Pretesting the Survey
Because it is unlikely that local agency personnel are experienced in con-
ducting telephone surveys, it will be of considerable help to pretest the survey.
However, the pretest results should not be combined with those of the actual
survey.
For the convenience of the agency, five simulated interview examples are
included in Appendix C of the final report, "A Study of the Social and Economic
Impact of Odors, Phase in." Arrange for the persons who will conduct the tele-
phone interviews to review these examples and to read the "Instructions for
Interviewers" section of this procedure. When this has been done, have each
interviewer go through the questionnaire asking the questions aloud of another
agency employee. Note whether the interviewer is following instructions in every
detail, and correct any errors in interviewing technique. Then, select at random
five telephone numbers for each interviewer who will participate in the survey.
These telephone numbers should be different from those chosen as part of either
the test or control area samples. Have each interviewer call five numbers and
administer the questionnaire. Again, note whether the interviewer is following
instructions, and correct any errors. When each interviewer is thoroughly
-12-
-------
familiar with the questionnaire and interviewing technique, begin calling the tele-
phone numbers in the test and control area samples.
Instructions for Interviewers
Because people would usually like to tell you what they believe you want to
hear, it is important that the interviewer restrict what is said to the questions or
comments on the questionnaire. If the interviewer engages in pleasantries or
chats with the person answering the questions, the responses received may be
different from those that would otherwise be obtained. The interviewer should
be particularly careful not to indicate by either comment or tone of voice any
reaction to the answers received. It is also important for the interviewer not to
reveal the name of the agency conducting the survey nor the reason the survey is
being conducted. Some respondents may challenge the interviewer or question the
validity of the survey. Such situations must be handled with a great deal of tact on
the part of the interviewer. The respondent has the right to determine whether
the survey is legitimate, but if information about the agency or the survey is
given before the questions are asked, the respondent's answers may not be valid.
Therefore, if possible, the interviewer should agree to tell the respondent this
information after the questionnaire is completed. If the respondent refuses to
continue the interview without this information, the interview should be terminated.
The respondent may suspect that the call is being made in connection with
the sale of a product. The interviewer may assure the respondent that this is not
the case prior to asking the questions. It may also be necessary to tell the re-
spondent that the answers given will become a part of a statistical summary and
individual responses will not be revealed in any way. If required, this may also
be done prior to asking the questions.
Never suggest an answer or train of thought to the respondent. Do not
prompt in any way. The most important job of an interviewer is to encourage the
respondent to express his or her attitudes and to be specific in conveying these
attitudes. Close attention to the clarity and completeness of the responses is
important. Never talk up or down to a respondent. Do not comment on the mean-
ing of any question or indicate in any way what kind of answers are expected.
If the respondent asks a question or fails to understand or respond to a
question, read the question over again more slowly, using a pleasant but neutral
tone of voice. On occasion, it may be necessary to repeat a question more than
once before obtaining a response. Do not allow any tone of impatience to creep
into your voice. if necessary, explain that you are not permitted to discuss the
meaning of the questions.
When asking the questions, stress only those words that are underlined.
Do not change the wording of any question. These questions have been carefully
-13-
-------
constructed to obtain the information desired. Do not change the order of the
questions from that listed on the questionnaire.
Before making a telephone call, the interviewer should fill out the upper
portion of the questionnaire (a copy of the questionnaire is included at the end of
this procedure). From the sample listing, fill in the telephone number, street
address, and city to which the call will be made. The "File No." blank is pro-
vided for identification of the odor source under investigation. This blank should
not be filled in until the source has been verified. The "Survey No." blank is
provided to allow differentiation between test and control area responses, as well
as surveys conducted at a later time. For example, before the first survey of a
suspected odor problem, "Survey No. 1A" could be assigned to the test area and
"Survey No. IB" could be assigned to the control area. If the same areas are the
subject of another survey at a later date, survey numbers 2A and 2B could be
assigned, respectively.
The "Respondent No ." should be left blank until tabulation of the survey
results is begun. However, the date of the call and the time of day the call is
made should be noted on the questionnaire before the call is made.
Interviewer Instructions for Making Calls
Call the telephone number filled in on the questionnaire. If there is no
answer or the line is busy, go on to the next telephone number on the list.
If the call is answered, read the opening statement, saying your name in
the appropriate place. If the person who answers the telephone is obviously a
woman, use the feminine alternatives in the statement; if a man, the masculine
alternatives. Children, relatives, or friends living in or visiting the household
should not be interviewed. In addition, no person under 18 years of age should
be interviewed. Make sure that the person with whom you are speaking is the
man or lady of the house. If he or she is not, try to talk with the man or lady of
the house. If this cannot be done, terminate the call, check that the interview
was not completed, note the reason, and go on to the next telephone number in
the sample.
If the man or lady of the house refuses to be interviewed at all, note that
the interview was not completed and the reason. "Refused" is a sufficient expla-
nation .
The numbered blanks in the right hand margin of the questionnaire are to
be used in tabulating the responses. Do not write in these spaces at this time.
Every question has a list of responses after it. Except for question 3, only one
answer should be checked. If the respondent gives more than one answer for a
question, ask which answer is the best answer to the question. When a question
is followed by three dots, such as "How strong would you say these odors smell?
-14-
-------
Would you say...?", read the answers provided in the order they are listed, but
do not read either the answer numbers or the response "Don't know."
When a question is not followed by three dots, such as "When was the
last time you noticed odors in your neighborhood?", do not read the responses.
When a question has a space provided for "Other answers," write down everything
the respondent says. If local agency secretaries are used as interviewers, they
should use only longhand to write down "Other answers."
Interviewer Instructions for Specific Questions
The following instructions should be adhered to in asking the specific ques-
tions on the questionnaire.
IfTkT ft
Question 1. Do not read the responses. If the respondent answers "No,
read the statement following the "No" response and terminate the interview.
Question 2 . Do not read the responses . If the respondent answers "Yes,
ask question 3. If the respondent answers "No" or "Don't know, " ask question 4.
Question 3 . This question should be asked only of those people who
answered "Yes" to question 2. Read the responses, except for "Don't know."
Check all answers that the respondent gives to this question.
Question 4. Do not read the responses . If the respondent answers "No, "
or "Don't know, " skip to question 12. If the respondent answers "Yes, " ask ques-
tion 5.
Question 5. Do not read the responses. Check the response that covers
a period most like that identified by the respondent. Repeat the question, if neces-
sary, to obtain a response, but do not read the possible responses .
Question 6 . Do not read the responses . Check the response that covers
a period most like that identified by the respondent. Repeat the question, if neces-
sary, to obtain a response, but do not read the possible responses.
Question 7 . Read the responses rather slowly, pausing between each
possible response. Do not read "Don't know." Repeat the question and responses,
if necessary, to obtain a reply.
Question 8 . Do not read the responses. Check the response that covers
a period most like that identified by the respondent. Repeat the question, if neces-
sary, to obtain a response, but do not read the possible responses.
-15-
-------
Question 9. Do not read the responses. If the respondent answers "No"
or "Don't know," skip to question 11. If the respondent answers "Yes," ask ques-
tion 10.
Question 10. Read the responses rather slowly, pausing between each
possible response. Do not read "Don't know." Repeat the question and responses,
if necessary, to obtain a reply.
Question 11. Do not read the responses . Clarify the response, if neces-
sary, by asking the respondent to explain more fully what is meant by the answer
given. For example, if the respondent says "Some factory," clarification might
elicit the answer, "An oil refinery near my neighborhood." Write down any other
source(s) identified by the respondent.
Next, read the statement preceding question 12 regarding the confidential
nature of the information being gathered.
Question 12. Do not read the responses. Clarify the response, if neces-
sary, as explained under question 11. Write down the other company mentioned
by the respondent if the answer is not the source(s) under investigation.
Question 13. Do not read the responses . Clarify the response, if neces-
sary, as explained under question 11. Write down the other companies or employ-
ers mentioned if the answer does not include the source(s) under investigation.
Interviewer Instructions for Completing Interviews
Read the statement at the end of the questionnaire and terminate the inter-
view. Write your name in the space provided, and check the space for a completed
interview on the first page of the questionnaire. Go on to the next telephone number.
Interviewing should be continued until all of the telephone numbers in the
sample have been dialed once. Review the completed questionnaires, and remove
those where the answer to either question 12 or question 13 indicates a member
of the household is employed by the odor source under investigation. This is
recommended because of potential bias the respondent may have either in favor
of or against the employer. If the source has not been verified by an agency in-
spector, this step should be ignored.
Next, count the number of completed questionnaires remaining for the
test area. If there are at least 30, the interviewing portion of the survey is com-
plete. If not, continue to interview, utilizing those telephone numbers where
no-answers or busy signals were received, until all no-answers or busy signals
in the sample have been called a second time. Do the same thing for the control
area.
-16-
-------
Tabulation
If the local agency has access to electronic data processing equipment,
and the number of respondents in either the test or control area exceeds 90, con-
sult with those in charge of such equipment to set up procedures for tabulating the
survey. If such equipment is not available or the number of respondents in each
area is small, hand tabulating is quite satisfactory.
Regardless of the tabulating procedure utilized, the completed question-
naires must be edited and coded. Editing should be done by persons other than
those who conducted the interviews. The purpose of this task is to insure that
all questions have been asked and answers recorded. Inconsistencies also can
be identified and corrected.
On each questionnaire there should be a response to all appropriate ques-
tions . For example, if question 2 concerning people in the neighborhood com -
plaining about pollution has been answered with a "Yes," then question 3 dealing
with the kind of pollution people complain about should have also been answered,
even if the answer is "Don't know."
The following comments regarding each question on the questionnaire may
be used as a guide for editing. If editing uncovers errors or omissions, it may
be necessary to call the respondent again to clarify an answer which has been
incorrectly recorded or to eliminate an inconsistency.
Question 1. If the response is "No, " all other questions on the question-
naire should be unanswered.
Question 2. If the response is "Yes," there should be an answer to ques-
tion 3. If the response is "No," there should be no response to question 3.
Question 3. There should be no response to this question if question 2
has a "No" reply.
Question 4. If the response is "No" or "Don't know," questions 4, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, and 11 should not contain responses. If the answer to question 4 is
"Yes," questions 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 must have been answered, also, even if
the answer is "Don't know."
Question 5. There should be a reply to this question only if question 4
was answered "Yes." If so, there must be a reply to this question.
Question 6. Same as question 5.
Question 7. Same as question 5.
-17-
-------
Question 8. Same as question 5.
Question 9. Same as question 5.
Question 10. If the response to question 9 was "No" or "Don't know,"
there should be no response to this question. If the response to both question 4
and question 9 was "Yes, " this question should have been answered, also.
Question 11. Same as question 5.
Question 12. There should be a response to this question on all question-
naires except those where the response to question 1 was "No."
Question 13. Same as question 12.
When the editing is completed, the questionnaires should be coded. This
merely means writing the number of the response to each question on the appro-
priate line near the right hand margin of the questionnaire. If there was more
than one response to question 3, the number of each type of pollution mentioned
may be written in the margin.
When the coding is completed, each questionnaire should be numbered on
the first page in the blank following "Respondent No." The same sequence of num-
bers may be used for the test area and the control area, since the areas will be
distinguished by the survey numbers assigned earlier.
Tabulation may be accomplished in one of two ways. A form can be de-
signed on which to tally the number of responses of each kind to each question.
(A recommended form is provided at the end of this procedure.) An alternative
is to sort the questionnaires themselves into stacks according to the answers to
a particular question and count the number of questionnaires in each stack. This
method tends to be somewhat more error free than tallying.
Regardless of the method used, the total of all responses to each question
(except question 3) must match the total number of people asked that question.
This provides a check on the accuracy of the tabulation. (Since question 3 is a
multiple response question, the total number of all responses may exceed the
total number of people asked that question. Questionnaires containing more than
one response to question 3 should be separated from those having only one response.
Tabulate and total the responses on questionnaires having only one response. Then,
tabulate separately the responses for each kind of pollution mentioned on the ques-
tionnaires with more than one response. Finally, add the two tabulations together
to obtain the total number of responses for each kind of pollution included in
question 3.)
-18-
-------
For purposes of odor problem identification, it is not necessary to tabu-
late the responses to all questions. Question 1 is included in the survey to avoid
errors caused by the use of street address telephone directories that may be as
much as six months old. (Such directories are usually published at six-month
intervals.) Questions 2 and 3 are included for introductory purposes. Questions
4 through 10 provide odor problem definition. Question 11 permits possible iden-
tification of the odor source. Questions 12 and 13 are included so that employees
of the source under investigation may be removed from the sample.
All questions may be tabulated and will yield useful information, but for
odor problem identification, tabulation should begin with question 9. The re-
sponses to question 9 alone will indicate whether an odor problem exists. If it
is determined that an odor problem does not exist, complete tabulation of all
questions need not be undertaken.
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
The decisive step in odor problem identification is to determine whether
a significant difference exists between the proportion of respondents in the test
area who state they have been bothered by odors and the proportion of respondents
in the control area who state they have been bothered by odors. This is done by
using the tabulated results of question 9 from the test area and control area sur-
veys . A form entitled "Odor Problem Identification" is included at the end of this
procedure to provide a convenient method for determining whether a significant
difference exists. A technical explanation of the method is presented in the
"Statistical Reference" section of this procedure.
If, after completing the "Odor Problem Identification" form, the number
in the box labeled "z" is equal to or larger than 1.65, a significant difference
exists between the test and control areas. If "z" is less than 1.65, no significant
difference exists. If this analysis indicates no significant difference, then it
should be concluded that the test area is not an odor problem area. If a signifi-
cant difference is indicated, then an odor problem index number should be calcu-
lated to indicate the extent of the odor problem relative to other odor problems
identified within the jurisdiction of the local agency. The odor problem index
number may be simply constructed by completing a form entitled "Determination
of the Odor Problem Index." This form is also included below. It is based on a
formula given in the "Statistical Reference" section.
It is important not to confuse the value of "z" with the odor problem index
number. The value of "z" depends upon whether or not annoyance exists in rela-
tion to the number of interviews completed in the test area and the control area.
As such, it is used merely to decide whether or not a community odor problem
exists. The odor problem index number, however, takes into account the extent
-19-
-------
to which odors have caused bother in each area and, therefore, is used properly
for comparative purposes.
ALTERNATE MEANS OF PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
An alternate means of odor problem identification called sequential
analysis is available to agencies that have conducted several public attitude
surveys in accordance with the above instructions. It involves combining the
results obtained from surveys conducted in at least three control areas, selecting
a sequential sampling plan, and comparing the results obtained in future test area
surveys with the plan selected. It should be considered for use particularly in
cases where the existence of an odor problem is very likely.
Combining Control Area Results
The results obtained from public attitude surveys of at least three control
areas that were conducted within the agency's jurisdiction during the past twelve
months should be combined. This is done by simply dividing the total number of
"Yes" responses to question 9 obtained from these areas by the total number of
interviews completed in these areas. The average thus calculated is called the
"acceptable odor level (AOL)."
Selecting a Sequential Sampling Plan
It is estimated that the AOL for almost all jurisdictions will fall between
0.100 and 0.300. For the convenience of local agencies, five sequential sampling
plans are given in Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. These plans are for use in
jurisdictions in which the AOL is determined to be 0.100, 0.150, 0.200, 0.250,
or 0.300. They may be used in other jurisdictions as described below. However,
more precise plans can be developed for these other jurisdictions as explained in
the "Statistical Reference" section.
Once an AOL has been calculated for a jurisdiction, only one sequential
sampling plan is appropriate for use in that jurisdiction. It may be considered
to remain appropriate until such time that the agency feels a noticeable change
in ambient odor intensities has occurred throughout the jurisdiction.
If the AOL differs from the above five, the sequential sampling plan with
the next largest AOL should be selected. For example, if an AOL of 0.118 is
calculated, the plan with an AOL of 0.150 should be selected. If an AOL larger
than 0.300 is calculated, sequential analysis should not be used. The effect of
using a plan with the next largest AOL would be equivalent to requiring a "z"
value slightly larger than 1.65 for a community odor problem to be identified.
-20-
-------
Table 4. Sequential sampling plan for deciding whether or not an odor problem
exists in a community being surveyed (AOL = 0.100, OPL = 0.263, a = 0.05,
6=0.05).
i
to
Sample
Size
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
No Odor
Problem
Decision No.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Odor
Problem
Decision No.
*
*
*
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
Sample
Size
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
No Odor
Problem
Decision No.
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
Odor
Problem
Decision No.
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
Table 5 . Sequential sampling plan for deciding whether or not an odor problem
exists in a community being surveyed (AOL = 0.150, OPL = 0.333, a = 0.05,
B = 0.05).
* A no-odor-problem decision cannot be reached until 15 interviews have been com-
pleted; an odor-problem decision cannot be reached until 4 interviews have been
completed.
Sample
Size
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
No Odor
Problem
Decision No.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
Odor
Problem
Decision No.
*
*
*
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
Sample
Size
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
No Odor
Problem
Decision No.
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
Odor
Problem
Decision No.
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
' A no-odor-problem decision cannot be reached until 13 interviews have been com-
pleted; an odor-problem decision cannot be reached until 4 interviews have been
completed.
-------
I
bo
to
I
Table 6. Sequential sampling plan for deciding whether or not an odor problem
exists tn a community being surveyed (AOL = 0.200, OPL = 0.393, a = 0.05,
6 = 0.05).
Sample
Size
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
No Odor
Problem
Decision No.
*
#
#
*
*
*
*
*
*
>f
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
Odor
Problem
Decision No.
*
*
*
*
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
Sample
Size
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
No Odor
Problem
Decision No.
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
Odor
Problem
Decision No.
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
21
21
Table 7.
exists in a
8 =0.05).
Sequential sampling plan for deciding whether or not an odor problem
community being surveyed (AOL = 0.250, OPL = 0.453, o = 0.05,
Sample
Size
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
No Odor
Problem
Decision No.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
No Odor
Problem
Decision No.
0
*
*
*
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
Sample
Size
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
No Odor
Problem
Decision No.
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
Odor
Problem
Decision No.
14
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
21
22
22
22
23
23
24
24
24
25
k A no-odor-problem decision cannot be reached until 11 interviews have been com-
pleted; an odor-problem decision cannot be reached until 5 interviews have been
completed.
* A no-odor-problem decision cannot be reached until 10 interviews have been com-
pleted; an odor-problem decision cannot be reached until 5 interviews have been
completed.
-------
Table 8. Sequential sampling plan for deciding whether or not an odor problem
exists in a community being surveyed (AOL = 0.300, OPL = 0.510, a = 0.05,
= 0.05).
Sample
Size
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
No Odor
Problem
Decision No.
*
*
*
*
*
*
#
*
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
Odor
Problem
Decision No.
*
*
*
*
*
6
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
Sample
Size
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
No Odor
Problem
Decision No.
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
20
20
20
Odor
Problem
Decision No.
16
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
22
22
22
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
26
26
26
27
27
28
28
to
CO
I
A no-odor-problem decision cannot be reached until 9 interviews have been com-
pleted; an odor-problem decision cannot be reached until 6 interviews have been
completed.
-------
Comparing Results From Test Area Surveys With the Plan Selected
Once a sequential sampling plan has been selected by a local agency, the
results obtained from future test area surveys should be compared to the plan,
not to results obtained from control area surveys. In fact, except when a deci-
sion cannot be reached by using the plan or until such time that the agency feels
that a noticeable change in ambient odor intensities has occurred throughout the
jurisdiction, additional control area surveys should not be conducted.
The results obtained from a test area survey are compared to the plan
selected by the agency as follows. Interviews are conducted with residents of the
test area in the order in which their telephone numbers were randomly selected.
At the end of each completed interview, the number of completed interviews and
the responses to question 9 are tallied by the interviewer. The cumulative num-
ber of "Yes" responses should be kept separate from the cumulative number of
"No" and "Don't know" responses. Reference is then made to the plan selected.
The cumulative number of completed interviews is shown as the "Sample
Size." A comparison is made by simply finding the cumulative number of com-
pleted interviews in the "Sample Size" column and then noting the "No Odor
Problem" and "Odor Problem" decision numbers corresponding to the cumulative
number of completed interviews. If the cumulative number of "Yes" responses
to question 9 is equal to the "No Odor Problem Decision No.," no odor problem
exists in the test area. (Such a finding means that there is no significant differ-
ence between the results of the test area survey being conducted and the combined
results of the control area surveys that were used in calculating the AOL.) If the
cumulative number of "Yes" responses to question 9 is equal to the "Odor Problem
Decision No., " an odor problem exists in the test area. (Such a finding means
that there is a significant difference between the results of the test area survey
being conducted and the combined results of the control area surveys that were
used in calculating the AOL.)
Once either of these decisions has been made, the survey should not be
continued. If, however, the cumulative number of "Yes" responses to question 9
is greater than the "No Odor Problem Decision No.," but less than the "Odor
Problem Decision No.," an additional interview must be completed. The responses
to question 9 are again tallied and the cumulative numbers of completed interviews
and "Yes" responses are again compared to the plan selected.
For example, assume that the plan with an AOL of 0.150 is selected (see
Table 5 ) and that a test area has been established to investigate a possible odor
problem. Further assume that after completing interviews with four residents
of the test area, the cumulative number of "Yes" responses to question 9 is also
four. By reference to Table 5, this is sufficient for an odor problem to be said
to exist. (For a "Sample Size" of 4, the "Odor Problem Decision No." is 4.)
As a second example, assume that after completing interviews with 13 residents
-24-
-------
of Che test area, none of the respondents stated that they were bothered by odors.
Under the same sequential sampling plan, the decision is that no odor problem
exists. (For a "Sample Size" of 13, the "No Odor Problem Decision No." is 0.)
As a final example, assume that after completing interviews with four
residents of the test area only three of the respondents were bothered by odors.
By reference to Table 5, a decision cannot be reached. Consequently, an addi-
tional interview must be completed, the responses to question 9 again tallied, and
the cumulative numbers of completed interviews and "Yes" responses again com-
pared to the plan selected. If a decision cannot be reached after 60 interviews
have been completed or after the entire sample of telephone numbers in the test
area has been exhausted and all no-answers and busy signals have been called a
second time, a matching control area should be established. A random sample
of telephone numbers should be drawn and a public attitude survey should be con-
ducted in this control area within three days following the survey conducted in the
test area. In such a case, whether or not an odor problem exists in the test area
is decided by completing the "Odor Problem Identification" form.
Considerable time and expense can be saved through the use of sequential
analysis in most cases. However, it should be remembered that this alternate
means of problem identification does not provide an indication of the extent of an
odor problem relative to other odor problems identified within the jurisdiction of
the local agency.
OTHER USES OF SURVEY RESULTS
During abatement proceedings, it may be necessary to refer to the results
of the test area survey to indicate the percentage of test area residents who re-
sponded in a particular way. For example, it may be necessary to state the per-
centage of all test area residents who noticed odors in their neighborhood during
the week of the survey. It would be inaccurate, however, to use directly the
percentage of test area residents who answered "This week" to question 8. An
adjustment is required to eliminate responses to question 8 that are actually
based on variables other than odors.
The adjustment is easy to accomplish. Simply subtract the percentage
response to the question in the control area from the percentage response in the
test area. The answer is then divided by one hundred percent minus the percent-
age response in the control area. The resulting percentage is the true percentage
response for the test area. Thus, if 65 percent of test area residents and 25
percent of control area residents stated they noticed odors in their neighborhoods
"This week," then 53 percent would represent the true percentage of test area
residents who noticed odors in their neighborhood during the week of the survey
(65% - 25%/(100% - 25%) = 53%).
-25-
-------
PUBLIC ATTITUDE SURVEY OF COMMUNITY ODOR PROBLEMS
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Respondent:
Phone No.
Street Address_
City
File No.
Survey No.
Respondent No.
Record of Call:
Date
Time
Check If
Interview
Completed
Check If
Interview Not
Completed
Reason If
Not Completed
(name)
. I'm calling (long dis-
'Hello. My name is
tance) for a government agency interested in certain community problems.
I'd like to talk with the man/lady of the house to get his/her opinion on a few
questions . Are you the man/lady of the house?" (IF NOT, ASK: "May I talk
with him/her?")
Ql) Have you lived at your present address more than six months?
1. Yes
2. No (SAY: "I'm sorry. This survey was designed for
longer term residents. Thank you for your time.")
Q2) Lately, people have become very much concerned about the environ-
ment and various types of pollution. Do people complain about any
kind of pollution in your neighborhood?
1. Yes (ASK Q3.)
2. No(ASKQ4.)
3. Don't know (ASK Q4.)
Page 1
-------
Q3) Do people complain about...?
1. Air pollution in your neighborhood
2. Water pollution in your neighborhood
3. Airport, industrial, or traffic noise in your neighborhood
4. Noticeable odors in your neighborhood
5. Don't know (DO NOT READ THIS RESPONSE.)
Q4) Have you noticed any odors in your neighborhood in the last three
months?
1. Yes (ASK Q5.)
2. No (SKIP TO Q12.)
3. Don't know (SKIP TO Q12.)
Q5) How often have you noticed these odors?
1. At least once a day
2. At least once a week, but not every day
3. At least once a month, but not every week
4. Less than once a month
5. Don't know
Q6) Generally speaking, how long do these odors last?
1. At least one day
2. At least one hour, but less than one day
3. At least 15 minutes, but less than one hour
4. Less than 15 minutes
5. Don't know
Page 2
-------
Q7) How strong would you say these odors smell? Would you say ?
1. Very strong
2. Strong
3. Moderate
4. Slight
5. Don't know (DO NOT READ THIS RESPONSE .)
Q8) When was the last time you noticed odors in your neighborhood?
1. This week
2. Last week
3. Two to four weeks ago/a month ago
4. More than a month ago
5. Don't know
Q9) Would you say that these odors have bothered you?
1. Yes(ASKQ10.)
2. No (SKIP TO Qll.)
3. Don't know (SKIP TO Ql 1.)
Q10) How much would you say they have bothered you? Would you say...?
1. Very much
2. Much
3. Moderately 10_
4. Little
5. Don't know (DO NOT READ THIS RESPONSE .)
Page 3
-------
Qll) Where would you say most of these odors originate, that is, who or
what causes them?
1. Source(s) being investigated
_2. Other source(s):
3. Don't know
"All this information is strictly confidential, but we need it for statistical
purposes."
Q12) What company do you work for?
1. Source(s) being investigated
2. Other company/none:
12
3. Refused
Q13) What companies do other members of your household work for?
1. Source(s) being investigated
2. Other company(ies)/none:
3. Refused
"That completes the interview. Thank you very much for your time."
Interviewer's Name:
Page 4
-------
PUBLIC ATTITUDE SURVEY - TABULATION FORM
File No.
Survey No.
Instructions. Place a tally mark in the appropriate box to record the answer to each completed
question on the questionnaire. By tallying the fifth duplicate response with a diagonal line, count-
ing total responses is simplified ( TH1 = 5 responses).
Question 1. (Tabulate only if desired)
Response 1
Total Response 1
Response 2
Total Response 2
Total
Question 2. (Tabulate only if desired)
Response 1
Response 2
Response 3
Total Response 1
Total Response 2
Total Response 3
Total
Question 3. (Tally all responses given on each questionnaire, if desired)
Rl
R2
R3
R4
:RS
Total R 1
Total R2
Total R 3
Total R 4
Total R 5
Total
Question 4.
Rl
Total R 1
R2
Total R 2
R3
Total R 3
Total |
Question 5.
Rl
Total R 1
R2
Total R2
R3
Total R 3
R4
Total R 4
R5
Total R 5
Total J
Page 1
-------
PUBLIC ATTITUDE SURVEY - TABULATION FORM (Continued)
Question 6.
Rl
Total R 1
Question 7 .
Rl
Total R 1
Question 8.
Rl
Total R 1
Question 9.
Rl
Total R 1
Question 10.
Rl
Total R 1
R2
Total R2
R2
Total R2
R2
Total R 2
R2
Total R 2
R2
Total R 2
R3
Total R 3
R3
Total R 3
R3
Total R 3
R3
Total R 3
R3
Total R 3
S
R4
Total R 4
R4
Total R 4
R4
Total R 4
R4
Total R 4
R4
Total R 4
File No.
urvey No.
R5
Total R 5
R5
Total R 5
R5
Total R 5
R5
Total R5
R5
Total R 5
Total
Total
Total ]
Total
Total
Page 2
-------
PUBLIC ATTITUDE SURVEY - TABULATION FORM (Continued)
File No.
Survey No.
Question 11. (Tabulate only if desired)
Rl
Total R 1
R2
Total R2
R3
Total R 3
Question 12 . ( Tabulate only if desired)
Rl
Total R 1
R2
Total R2
R3
Total R 3
Question 13. (Tabulate only if desired)
Rl
Total R 1
R2
Total R 2
R3
Total R 3
Total
Total
Total
Page 3
-------
ODOR PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Instructions
2.
3.
4.
5.
In each box labeled "A," fill in the number of interviews completed in the Control Area survey. (The number of interviews
completed = the number of problem identification questionnaires checked as completed.)
In each box labeled "B, " fill in the number of interviews completed in the Test Area survey.
In each box labeled "C," fill in the number of "Yes" responses (R 1) to Question 9 from the Test Area survey.
In each box labeled "D," fill in the number of "Yes" responses (R 1) to Question 9 from the Control Area survey.
Follow the direction of the arrows. Perform the calculations indicated. (The square root can be easily found by referring
to a standard table of square roots and, therefore, need not be calculated.)
If the number in the box labeled "z" is 1.65 or more, an odor problem exists.
Subtract
Divide
Add
+ B
t
Find Square
Root
Multiply
A
C
A
c
*
Add
+
Add
+
Add
*
:*
D
B
D
Multiply
Divide
A
-------
DETERMINATION OF THE ODOR PROBLEM INDEX
Instructions
Insert the total numbers of responses tabulated from the surveys in the boxes provided. Follow the direction
of the arrows. Perform the calculations indicated.
Test Area Responses
Rl R2
lx 1.25 =
Q6
Q7 [ZZ3+CZI]-
Q8 I 14- I I =
Q4
I
d=>d=] = dZ]
Q9
Control Area Responses
Rl R2
QS i i+i i= i i+r~~i+
Q6 I l+dZH =
Q7
Q4
Q10
Q9
en:
-1 1+5.00 =1
= 1 lx I lx 1.25=1 I-
OPI
A
-------
STATISTICAL REFERENCE SECTION
Statistically Significant Differences for Odor Problem Identification
To determine whether there is a significant difference between the test and
control area responses to question 9 of the Problem Identification Questionnaire,
the following hypotheses must be tested:
Hypothesis 1 (Hi): irt = ir
Hypothesis 2 (H2): ^t > ^c (one -tail test)
o = 0.05
where: ir^ = the true or universe proportion of "Yes" responses
to question 9 in the test area
ir = the true or universe proportion of "Yes" responses
to question 9 in the control area
a = the probability of concluding, on the basis of sample
values, that no significant difference exists between
test and control areas when a significant difference
in universe values exists
Using the normal approximation:
- TTC)
nc
where: n = the sample size, i.e., the number of interviews com-
pleted in the test area
n = the sample size, i.e., the number of interviews com-
pleted in the control area
Jc. = the number of "Yes" responses to question 9 in the
test area
k = the number of "Yes" responses to question 9 in the
control area
-35-
-------
p = __
"t
k
Assuming the null hypothesis (Hi) is true, this equation becomes:
(2) z =
n* n
A k k
Estimating TT by if = * '*'£
Ilj. + Hj,
and setting N = nt + ^
and K = kt + kc
then (2) can be rewritten as:
k k
_t _ _c
n n n k nk
t c c t - t c
z = ---==^ =
K(N -K)
N
If z is normal, then the probability of z £ 1 .65 = 4.95% or approximately 5%.
It is noted that, in cases where sample size nt (or nc) is a large fraction
of the total number of telephones in the test area (or control area), the calculated
value of "z" will somewhat understate any difference in irt and IT £. in such cases,
marginally significant differences between ^ and ^c may not be indicated by the
calculated value of "z" and, consequently, marginally existent community odor
problems may not be identified. To preclude this possibility, the value obtained
from using the "Odor Problem Identification" form should be multiplied by one of
the following correction factors. If the resulting corrected value of "z" is equal
to or larger than 1.65, a community odor problem is said to exist.
-36-
-------
Table 9, Correction factors for use when sample size is a large fraction of the
total number of telephones in the area to be surveyed.
If the number of Multiply the value obtained from the
telephones in the area is: "Odor Problem Identification" form by:
1-90 census of area, no correction factor applied
91-180 1.09
181-270 1.06
271-360 1.04
361-450 1.03
451-540 1.03
541-630 1.02
631-720 1.02
721-810 1.02
811-900 1.02
901-990 1.02
991-1080 l.Ol
1081-1170 1.01
1171-1260 1.01
1261-1350 1.01
1351 and over < 1% error if no correction factor applied
-37-
-------
Determination of the Odor Problem Index
OPI =1.25
(Rl +R2)
Q10
(Rl)
Q4
(Rl)
Q9
Test Area
- 1.25
(Rl +R2)
Q10
(Rl)
Q4
(Rl)
Q9
Control Area
+ 5.00
oo
t
where: OPI = Odor Problem Index
Rl = response 1; R2 = response 2; etc.
Ql = question 1; Q2 = question 2; etc.
The above formula is based on the Problem Identification Questionnaire. Assuming that the control area is
as odor free as possible (at least as free of odors as the test area), the formula will yield an index number between
zero and 10. The size of this number depends upon the combination of frequency (Q5), duration (Q6), intensity (Q7),
and recentness (Q8) of odors noticed in the test area as compared to the control area. This combination of problem-
inducing variables is weighted by the extent to which odors have caused bother in each area.
-------
Development of a Sequential Sampling Plan
The first step in the development of a sequential sampling plan involves the
calculation of an acceptable odor level (AOL) as described in the procedure . The
second step requires the calculation of an odor problem level (OPL) by trial and
error. To accomplish the latter step, use the "Odor Problem Identification" form
to find the number of "Yes" responses to question 9 from a test area survey (the
boxes labeled "C") that would have had to be obtained for "z" to equal 1.65. Fill
in the boxes labeled "D" with the number that results from multiplying the AOL
by 30 . Fill in the boxes labeled "A" and "B" with the number 30 . The OPL is
calculated by dividing the number found for the boxes labeled "C" by 30.
The third step requires the calculation of h^, h2, and s, where:
OPL
AOL(l-OPL)
, . 1-6,. OPL (1-AOL)
h2 = log -s-Vlog AOL (1 -OPL)
s = log OPL
5
1-OPL AOL (1 -OPL)
a = the probability that an odor problem decision will
be reached when no odor problem exists = 0.05
6 = the probability that a no odor problem decision will
be reached when an odor problem exists = 0.05
AOL = an acceptable odor level
OPL =an odor problem level
Generation of the series of decision numbers from which the plan is developed is
accomplished by calculating c^ and C2 for n equal to 1 through 60, where:
c^ =a no odor problem decision number = -hj + sn
G£ = an odor problem decision number = h2 + sn
n =the sample size
In general, c represents the number of respondents in the community being
surveyed who stated they have been bothered by odors . Thus , the series of decision
numbers generated above must be rounded to equal zero or whole numbers accord-
ing to the following rules:
-39-
-------
For Cp any fraction of a whole number should be rounded to the next
lowest whole number. Negative numbers in the series should be ig-
nored .
For C2> any fraction of a whole number should be rounded to the next
highest whole number. Negative numbers should not be encountered.
As a final step, the series of rounded decision numbers should be put into
a tabular form similar to those of Tables 4 through 8 of the procedure. It is
noted that a sequential sampling plan developed in this manner will provide the
same decision as z = 1.65 only when n equals 30 completed interviews. At less
than 30 completed interviews, decisions under such a plan would be comparable
to z > 1.65 (the decisions, therefore, being made with somewhat greater confi-
dence). At greater than 30 completed interviews, decisions under such a plan
would be comparable to z < 1.65 (the decisions, therefore, being made with some-
what less confidence).
Adjustment to Eliminate Test Area Responses Based on Variables Other Than Odors
The formula is a Bayesian type of correction for chance success:
P'(S's) = P(S|s) - P(S|n)
100-P(S|n)
where: P'(S|s) = the percentage of "signal" attributable
to the variable under study
P(Sls) = the total percentage of "noise" plus
"signal" measured in the test group
P(S)n) = the percentage of "noise" measured
in the control group
-40-
-------
PROCEDURE FOR SOURCE VERIFICATION
BASED ON SENSORY TECHNIQUES
INTRODUCTION
This procedure is designed to assist local agencies in source verification of
identified odor problems. It describes the proper use of two sensory techniques
one using a Barnebey-Cheney Model 1-3 Scentometer, the other employing an odor
judgment panel trained to evaluate an odorized environment in terms of memorized
reference standards. As implied below, the choice of techniques for use in a par-
ticular case depends upon the extent of information desired.
An odor judgment panel can be used to obtain extensive information about
the quality and areal extent of odors as they vary with time. This information
enables verification of specific sources of odors and provides detailed documen-
tation of chronic situations in test areas. The size of an odor panel depends on
the size of a test area. In most cases, one panelist per city block is essential to
provide adequate coverage. Therefore, a considerable number of panelists are
required if the test area is large.
A scentometer can be used to measure the intensity of ambient odors in
relation to the four ranges of dilution to threshold. To determine the correct
range requires a minimum time period of about one minute. When odors are
strong and constant, scentometers can be used to obtain information similar to
odor judgment panels, but when low intensity and transient odors are encountered,
the scentometer is more applicable for measuring maximum, rather than average,
intensities. With strong and constant odors, one scentometer may be adequate to
cover a square mile or more, but with low intensity and transient odors, one
scentometer may be adequate to cover only a few city blocks .
WHEN TO USE THE SCENTOMETER
The scentometer is best suited for use in routine surveillance of chronic
situations. It should be used to determine if odors can be detected at or above 7
dilutions to threshold and, thereby, to indicate the locations of possible odor
problems.
The scentometer can be used to assist a trained observer to verify the
source of an identified odor problem. Specifically, it can be used:
(1) To provide a measure of odor intensity at a particular loca-
tion at a particular time.
-41-
-------
(2) To establish a pattern of peak odor intensities while system-
atically traversing the test area in an automobile, which,
when combined with a consideration of the existing meteoro-
logical conditions, may pinpoint the source of the odor.
The scentometer can also serve as an odor free air chamber to refresh the
trained observer whose ability to continuously sense the odor under investigation
may otherwise be lessened due to fatigue.
WHEN TO USE AN ODOR JUDGMENT PANEL
An odor judgment panel should be used to verify the source of an identified
odor problem if such verification cannot be established by a trained observer alone
or by a trained observer using a scentometer or equivalent dilution device. For
source verification, an odor judgment panel can be used:
(1) To establish patterns of mean odor intensities and percent-
ages of time odor was detected from concurrent evaluations
at points throughout the test area.
(2) To judge the odor under investigation when odors of different
qualities are encountered in the test area.
Such uses are possible only after lengthy selection and training processes
necessary to ensure that the panelists can accurately relate to the quality and
range of intensities expected to be encountered in the test area.
THE SCENTOMETER
The scentometer (Figure 2) has been described in the literature and used
by at least twelve local air quality agencies throughout the United States. Most of
the descriptions have focused on the physical characteristics of the device and the
principles of operation. Emphasis in this procedure is based on experience gained
from actual use.
Preparation for Field Use
Before going into the field, the scentometer should be checked for proper
function as follows: Tapes must be placed over the four dilution orifices in such
a way that they can be pulled clear of the orifices and replaced repeatedly. It
should be determined that odors are effectively absorbed by the charcoal beds .
If necessary, fresh charcoal should be installed. Before each use, the scentometer
should be shaken gently in a horizontal position to distribute the charcoal evenly
over the beds, thereby eliminating the possibility of channeling.
-42-
-------
Figure 2. Barnebey-Cheney, Model 1-3 Scentometer.
0
Inches
-43-
-------
The scentometer must be examined for leakage, especially around the two
bulbs which fit to the operator's nostrils. If the bulbs are applied with pressure to
the nostrils to avoid leakage, soreness can develop during constant use in the field.
If the bulbs are placed gently against the nostrils, leakage can result. Before and
during measurements, the operator should check that no leakage of any type is
occurring. This is done by using the scentometer in an area of strong odor after
blocking the four orifices. No odor should be discernible.
Field Measurements
Before field measurements are attempted, the scentometer operator must
first neutralize the effects of ambient odors by inhaling odorless air through the
charcoal beds of the scentometer while keeping the four orifices blocked. When
this is accomplished, he should open the orifices of the scentometer in turn until
he can identify the smallest orifice through which odor can be detected.
It is noted that, while this technique is generally successful with strong
and constant odors, very few readings may be obtained with low intensity and
transient odors. Under the latter conditions, it is advantageous to use the scent-
ometer while driving through a community. The application of this technique by
a mobile operator is fairly simple and considerably more effective.
If odor is encountered in a community during routine surveillance, the in-
tensity should be measured with the scentometer. Intensities detected at or above
7 dilutions to threshold would indicate the location of a possible odor problem. Be-
fore attempting measurements, the operator should relax and breathe odor free
air. This can be done by using the scentometer as an odor free chamber. How-
ever, it is more desirable to drive outside the affected area, since it is difficult
for the operator to relax with the scentometer bulbs pressed against the nostrils.
When the operator is suitably refreshed, the car is driven through the
affected area. Throughout this drive the operator breathes through the scento-
meter with a selected orifice open. The route then may be retraced with a
different orifice uncovered in order to further define the odor intensity. Each
time the route is traversed, the operator calls out the points at which negative
readings change to positive and vice versa. These points should be plotted on a
map of the area or recorded on a form such as the "Scentometer Log Sheet" pro-
vided at the end of this procedure. It is possible to have four operators and a
driver traverse the area in one car. With a different orifice open on each scent-
ometer, a reading for any odor in the area can be quickly obtained.
This method, while more effective than scentometer readings taken at a
fixed point, entails some problems. The automobile must be well ventilated and
maneuverable. There must be two to five people in each car. If there are less
than five people in a car, the success of the technique depends upon the constancy
-44-
-------
of the odor, since two or more trips through the area would be required to obtain
readings through all of the orifices.
During times when scentometer measurements are performed for prolonged
periods, some operators have reported discomfort to their nostrils or have exper-
ienced difficulty in continually drawing air through the scentometer by action of
their lungs . To avoid this, a small air pump can be used to draw the required
dilution of ambient air through the scentometer, thereby distributing the diluted
sample under positive pressure through a face mask to the operator. The most
satisfactory system appears to be dependent solely on the individual operator's
preference.
THE ODOR JUDGMENT PANEL
If a local agency wishes to perform odor judgment panel evaluations, panel
members could be recruited from among the agency employees. This approach
could reduce the urgency of preliminary activities and lower costs considerably,
since panelist selection and training could be conducted at leisure at the agency
facilities. It must be considered, however, that the results of evaluations by
agency employees could be criticized as being biased against the source under
investigation.
Regardless of this possibility, certain preliminary activities must be
undertaken each time an odor judgment panel is to be used. These activities in-
clude determination of the size of the panel required, location of suitable stations
(points in the test area at which panelists would be placed), location of a panel
headquarters (if the agency facilities cannot be used), and preparation for trans-
porting the panelists between the headquarters and the test area.
Preliminary Activities
The community in which an odor judgment panel is to be used should be
visited to determine the areal extent of the odor to be investigated. It should be
initially planned to provide one panelist for each city block affected by the odor.
If the test area is very large, the size of the panel must be determined by budget-
ary constraints. It is recommended that a minimum of twelve panelists be used
for source verification in any case where public nuisance law is applicable.
The stations should be located in a systematic manner so that panel mem-
bers are roughly equally spaced, with intervening distances not exceeding one
city block (approximately 100 yards). Local odor interferences such as caused
by automotive service garages, bakeries, or heavily traveled roadways should be
avoided when selecting stations. Large scale maps of the test area should be used
-45-
-------
to plot all stations. Such maps should be sketched if none are available from com -
mercial or governmental sources .
In addition to selecting stations, convenient locations for performing panel
calibration tests must be found. These locations must be immediately downwind
from an odor source, at places where the presence of large panel groups will not
cause much disturbance in the neighborhood. Public parking lots, particularly for
municipal golf courses and parks, work well.
The headquarters, which is the site used for testing, screening, training,
and assembling, should be located close to the test area. The shorter the distance
between the locations, the less the expense and proportion of daily schedule consumed
in travel. However, one problem with having a headquarters close to the site is the
possibility of leakage of information to the source under investigation. Thus, depend-
ing upon secrecy requirements, it may be necessary to locate several miles away
from the site. Once in the test area, the presence of an odor panel is quickly noticed
not only by residents, but possibly by employees of the facilities under investigation.
Thus, to minimize the number of interruptions from curious outsiders and to further
reduce the possibility of leakage of information, it may be desirable to use the panel
for single days only or for two or more randomly chosen days.
Transportation of the panelists to the test area can be by either cars or a bus.
If a bus is used, all panelists may be transported together and only one local agency
representative is required to serve as driver. However, a significant amount of
maneuvering is required in this work, and buses are not readily maneuverable.
Cars are more maneuverable but, as the entire panel cannot be transported in one
car, additional drivers are required. Cars are preferable as long as the area is
known and several drivers are available, while a bus is preferable to a convoy of
cars in an unfamiliar area.
To ensure proper selection, training, and deployment of panelists, one
agency representative should be assigned to work with a maximum of six panelists.
If such representatives would serve as drivers, the requirement for additional
drivers is easily satisfied. Nine passenger station wagons provide an ideal com-
promise between buses and cars. With vehicles of this capacity, six panelists
and their assigned agency representative can be transported together.
Recruiting Potential Panelists
If sufficient agency employees are not available, candidates for odor panel
work must be recruited from other sources. If an odor panel is required for short
periods of one week or less, college students or temporarily unemployed people
are usually available, but for longer periods or for continuing use at regular inter-
vals, housewives are the most available group. It may be convenient to assign the
task of recruiting potential panelists to an employment agency or professional
survey firm.
-46-
-------
Initial Selection of Panelists
After sufficient candidates have been recruited, the screening of potential
panelists should be undertaken. Such screening is intended to exclude individuals
with particularly insensitive or irrational responses to odors. Series of triangle
tests are used initially to screen potential panelists. This method is quick, easy,
and inexpensive to perform. The necessary equipment consists of a supply of
2-ounce paper cups, water, and odorous food extracts such as vanilla and winter-
green. The prospective panel members are given three cups to sniff and are
instructed to specify the cup with the different odor. The three cups presented
to the panelists may be one of the three following combinations:
(1) Two with the same odor, one with a different odor.
(2) Two with water (no odor), one with an odor.
(3) Two with the same odor, one with water (no odor).
It is best to begin this test using strongly scented samples detectable to
everyone. The concentration of extract should be gradually decreased in water
toward threshold levels. If the tests are conducted over several hours, breaks
should be taken at regular intervals to avoid sensory fatigue. The test room
should be well ventilated and odor free. Use of an activated carbon room puri -
fier unit, such as the Barnebey-Cheney Model ABB (4,000 cfm) or Model ADB
(10,000 cfm), may be necessary to ensure an absence of ambient odors.
After each test involving all panelists, the scores should be reviewed to
ascertain the percentage of correct answers. A range of correct answers should
be chosen as a target, say 50% to 75%. If, for most prospective panelists, the
actual percentage is outside this range, the concentration of odorants must be
readjusted. When 6 to 9 tests within the chosen range of correct answers have
been completed, potential panelists should be accepted or rejected on the basis
of their scores. An acceptable range of plus and minus two correct answers from
the mean of the group is recommended.
Final Selection of Panelists
After the preliminary screening by triangle testing, training with reference
standards is begun. A stable, non-toxic standard(s) should be chosen that closely
matches the odor(s) to be encountered in the test area. Using various concentra-
tions of this standard, the remaining candidates (now called "panelists") are trained
to recognize the strengths of the odor with which they will be concerned. Any one
of a variety of standards may be utilized. In a study of solvent emissions, for
example, a methyl chloroform series may be used for degreasing process odors,
a turpentine series for thinner odors, or an amyl acetate series for lacquer solvent
odors. A panel recruited to observe rendering plant odors can be trained with
ethanolamines. For refinery odors, reference standard solutions of tertiary
dodecyl mercaptan are suitable.
-47-
-------
If the affected area is close to an industrial complex in which a number of
chemical plants produce similar products, selection of stable, non-toxic reference
standards for each odor quality encountered is virtually impossible. In such cir-
cumstances, standards representing each odor quality may be used for identification
purposes; however, a single standard, such as 1-butanol, should be used for inten-
sity training.
The reference standard is dissolved in varying concentrations in an odor-
less solvent and numbered according to strengths. The number of strengths in a
series may vary from 4 to 12 depending upon the range of odor intensities expected
to be encountered and the ability of the trained nose to differentiate between the
strengths of adjacent solutions. As exemplified in Table 10, if the number of
strengths in a series is limited to four, each solution might be four times more
concentrated than the previous solution.
Table 10. Concentration of reference standard in odorless solvent used to simu-
late four strengths of the odor expected to be encountered in the test area.
Odor Intensity Concentration in Solvent
Rating (milliliters/liter) Layman Assessment
1 0.125 slight
2 0.5 moderate
3 2 strong
4 8 very strong
The reference standards should be mixed ahead of time, although the undi-
luted odorant and solvent should be brought to the panel headquarters in case
different or additional concentrations must be prepared.
Again, the test room should be well ventilated and odor free. The standards
may be presented in capped, 4-ounce, polyethylene bottles with a polyethylene in-
sert to minimize the possibility of leakage caused by shaking. Even with these
bottles, however, napkins or paper towels should be kept on hand in case of spills.
Dark bottles are preferred to prevent the panelists from noticing any color the
diluted odorant may possess.
Panelists should be instructed to shake the bottle gently once or twice,
remove the cap, and squeeze the sides once as they hold the bottle under the nose.
After a period of memorizing the different strengths and a few breaks to avoid
fatigue, they should be encouraged to test themselves by removing a standard
from the series at random and attempting to judge its intensity. At this time,
the panel instructors should circulate about the room and test the panelists with
unmarked samples. Prior to the training, a few sets of standards should be pre-
-48-
-------
pared on which the numbers are not clearly shown but are hidden on labels attached
to the bottom of the bottles. All panelists should be asked to sniff one of these
samples and judge the strength of the odor. Panelists' scores should be recorded
and combined with the results of field calibration tests (described below) before
the panel selection is finalized.
Instructions to Panelists
When the results of the reference standard tests indicate that the panelists
are ready to go into the field, briefing on recording procedure is necessary. In
addition, the following points should be stressed to them:
(1) All evaluation materials, including clipboards, rating sheets,
and pencils, will be supplied by the local agency.
(2) A watch with a second hand and a large, easily read face is
to be worn by each panelist.
(3) Appropriate clothing, including hats, coats, and gloves, is
to be worn by each panelist if unfavorable weather is to be
expected. (The work involves standing on streets . Cold
wind and dampness, which may be present, can affect the
efficiency of the unprepared panelist.)
(4) Smoking is forbidden.
(5) Perfume and other strongly scented toiletries are not to be
worn.
(6) Gum chewing and similar diversions by panelists are dis-
couraged .
(7) The recognition of transient odors requires constant atten-
tion. Panelists must be as alert to the task as possible.
(8) Panelists must rate odors encountered in the test area in
accordance with the strengths of the reference standards
memorized in the test room .
All values should be recorded on an "Odor Intensity Rating Sheet, " an
example of which is included at the end of this procedure . How frequently values
should be recorded depends upon the frequency, duration, constancy, and inten-
sity of the odors. Normally, panelists should be asked to record the highest
intensity present during each minute. The time recorded should reflect the end
-49-
-------
of each minute. For example: "Time: 10:40 a.m., Rating: 1" means that 1 was
the highest intensity perceived between 10:39 a.m. and 10:40 a.m. Similarly,
"Time: 3:45 p.m., Rating: 0" means that no odor was detected between 3:44 p.m,
and 3:45 p .m.
Determining the "quality" of the odor perceived is often a problem, i.e.,
whether or not an odor encountered is that which bothers test area residents.
Panelists should be instructed as follows:
(1) If the panelist is not sure whether the odor is like that used
during training, he must record the odor intensity as accu-
rately as possible and make a notation regarding odor quality.
(2) Only if the panelist is certain that the odor is foreign, i.e.,
if he can positively identify it as coming from some source
other than that under study, should he record a zero. Even
in such a case he should describe the quality of the odor per-
ceived .
Calibration Tests
Uniformity of response among panelists must be monitored during both
the training and field phases of the work. This is done by conducting field cali-
bration tests, i.e., by having all panelists record data at one site. There should
be a distance of at least two yards between panelists to ensure independent record-
ings . Any panelists who consistently record values significantly different from
those of the majority should be rejected. Calibration tests actually serve two
purposes. In addition to indicating the uniformity of the panelists' responses and,
consequently, the reliability of the field values, they provide additional training
and experience in the field.
Work Schedule
To get all panelists to work as a unit and, thereby, avoid those delays
which result in reduced evaluation time in the test area, a rigid adherence to
schedule is required. It has been observed that about one hour is the optimum
time to leave a panelist on station. The panelists* concentration capabilities
deteriorate significantly after working in solitude in one place for an hour. The
type of schedule shown in Table 11 has been found to work well.
Panel calibration tests can be incorporated into the schedule by reducing
the 1 hour and 10 minute periods allocated to panelists at individual stations.
Normally, one 10 minute calibration test in the morning and another of equal
duration in the afternoon is sufficient to monitor uniformity of response.
-50-
-------
Table 11. Recommended work schedule.
Time
9:30 a.m
9:50 a.m
10:10 a.m
11:20 a.m
11:40 a.m
12:50 p.m
1:10 p.m
2:10 p.m
2:20 p.m
2:40 p.m
3:50 p.m
4:10 p.m
5:20 p.m
5:40 p.m
Period
. - 9:50 a.m.
. - 10:10 a.m.
. - 11:20 a.m.
. - 11:40 a.m.
. - 12:50 p.m .
. - 1:10 p.m.
. - 2:10 p.m.
. - 2:20 p.m.
. - 2:40 p.m.
. - 3:50 p.m.
. - 4:10 p.m.
. - 5:20 p.m.
. - 5:40 p.m.
. - 5:45 p.m.
Total time
Total time
Total time
Total time
Activity
Arrival of panelists , ready for departure
Travel to site, position panelists at first stations
Panelists record at first stations
Transfer to second stations
Panelists record at second stations
Return to headquarters
Lunch, restroom, etc.
Short discussion, ready for departure
Travel to site, position panelists at first stations
Panelists record at first stations
Transfer to second stations
Panelists record at second stations
Return to headquarters
Dismissal of panelists
evaluating odors 4-3/4 hours
working 7-1/4 hours
on break 1 hour
per day 8-1/4 hours
General Observations
Based on the results of the use of odor judgment panels during the national
survey of the odor problem and the study of the social and economic impact of odors,
some observations are offered for local agency consideration.
(1) Some panelists become very anxious during calibration
runs, whereas they are relaxed when alone during actual
field measurements.
(2) Some panelists have difficulty in concentrating if left
alone for long periods and start talking to passers-by,
listening to radios, etc. Some discipline is required.
(3) Panelists should be instructed to try to avoid direct ques-
tions from passers-by and, if necessary, should indicate
that they are surveying cars or other objects unrelated to
odors. Some are able to be convincing without difficulty,
while others may have trouble.
(4) Panelists are sometimes questioned by police. It is there-
fore necessary to inform the local police of the field schedule
before the evaluations take place.
-51-
-------
SOURCE VERIFICATION
The data recorded by each panelist should be in the form of a series of odor
intensity ratings against time, with one intensity value recorded each minute dur-
ing a period of evaluation. Such information should be obtained for each station in
the test area. From this, the distribution of odor over the portion of the test area
covered by the odor judgment panel can be estimated by local agency personnel.
After each evaluation, the intensity values recorded by each panelist should
be averaged separately. Psychologists generally prefer the use of median values
as a measure of central tendency of data generated by human evaluation. But, be-
cause of the highly skewed distribution of odor intensity ratings that are typically
obtained (particularly when odors are transient, many "no odor" ratings are listed),
the mean values recorded at each station are recommended for source verification
purposes. Thus, averaging is performed by simply adding the intensity values
recorded and dividing the total by the number of observations.
In addition, the percentage of time that odor was detected by each panelist
should be determined. This permits an estimation of odor distribution based on
whether or not odor was perceived and depends only upon the panelists' judgment of
odor quality in relation to the reference standards. The percentage is determined
by counting the number of times odor was perceived, dividing the total by the num-
ber of observations, and multiplying this answer by 100.
During the preliminary activities leading to the use of an odor judgment
panel, all stations should have been plotted on a map of the test area. Now, for
each station the mean odor intensity should be noted on the map as in Figure 3 and
the percentage of time that odor was detected should be noted on a duplicate map
as in Figure 4. After this, isopleths lines of equal mean odor intensity or equal
percentage of time that odor was detected should be constructed. By construct-
ing such isopleths, studying recorded wind data for the periods of panel evaluation,
and noting the topographical features of the test area, the odor source usually can
be verified with confidence and patterns of odor distribution within the test area
can be established.
During the course of an investigation of a particular test area, several
odor judgment panel evaluations may be completed. (Based on the recommended
work schedule, a total of four evaluations per day would be completed.) The data
recorded should be summarized separately for each evaluation so that changes in
odor distribution due to variations in wind, other meteorological conditions, and
even source emissions can be documented. A form entitled "Odor Intensity
Rating Summary Sheet" is provided at the conclusion of this procedure for the
convenience of local agency personnel in preparing the summary information.
-52-
-------
OTHER DILUTION DEVICES FOR SOURCE VERIFICATION
It is noted that dilution devices other than the scentometer have become
available since the performance of the field activities that led to the development
of this procedure. It is possible that these devices also can be used to obtain
measurements of ambient odor intensity for purposes of source verification.
-53-
-------
Figure 3. Example of isopleths representing
mean odor intensities recorded by odor judg-
ment panelists stationed in a test area at the
points indicated.
Figure 4. Example of isopleths representing
percentages of time odor was detected by odor
judgment panelists stationed in a test area at
the points indicated.
-------
File No .
Community(s) Affected
Operator 1
Operator 2
SCENTOMETER LOG SHEET
Odor Source(s)
Operator 3
Date
Operator 4
Points at Which
Readings Were Taken
Street
Traveled
Cross Street
or Landmark
Operator No . and D/T Setting
Opr:
D/T:
Opr:
D/T:
Opr:
D/T:
Opr:
D/T:
Time and Reading (+ or - )
T
R
T
R
T
R
T
R
Points at Which
Readings Were Taken
Street
Traveled
Cross Street
or Landmark
Operator No . and D/T Setting
Opr:
D/T:
Opr:
D/T:
Opr:
D/T:
Opr:
D/T:
Time and Reading {+ or -)
T
R
T
R
T
R
l
R
-------
ODOR INTENSITY RATING SHEET
NAME DATE
LOCATION
TIME
RATING
COMMENTS
LOCATION
TIME
RATING
COMMENTS
-------
ODOR INTENSITY RATING SUMMARY SHEET
Panelist
Location
(Station)
Percent Time Detected and Mean Odor Intensity
Date :
AM
%
M
PM
%
M
Date:
AM
O7
/O
M
PM
%
M
Date:
AM
O7
/O
M
PM
%
M
Date:
AM
%
M
PM
%
M
Date:
AM
%
M
PM
H7
/O
M
-------
PROCEDURE FOR PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
INTRODUCTION
Tentative methods of problem assessment are contained in the final re-
port, "A Study of the Social and Economic Impact of Odors, Phase II." The
principal economic effect of odors can be measured in terms of property value
differentials, especially residential property value differentials. A description
of the data required and analysis employed in this aspect of problem assessment
is presented in Chapter VI. An effects determination questionnaire was developed
to determine how residents feel odors have affected themselves, their families,
and their properties. Property values, living patterns, and health symptoms are
covered. A description of the questionnaire and its use is included in Chapter VII.
WHEN TO ATTEMPT PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
The most common effect of odors annoyance is readily measured
using the procedure for problem identification. Based on results of the above
mentioned study, economic and other social effects are measurable only in an
extremely chronic situation. Such a situation may be presumed to exist if more
than 50 percent of the test area residents interviewed, using the problem identi-
fication questionnaire, state they have been bothered "Very much" by odors in
their community (question 10, response 1).
-59-
-------
APPENDIX
ESTIMATES OF COSTS INCURRED FROM USING PROCEDURES
Estimates of the costs of services and materials necessary for problem
identification and source verification are listed below by task and cost category.
Where possible, these estimates are based on 1972 prices averaged for the
United States as a whole. Consequently, they may differ somewhat from actual
costs incurred in a particular metropolitan area.
Local agency labor requirements are listed in terms of mandays only.
Daily rates must be applied by agency officials .
Public Attitude Survey Costs
The estimates given in this section represent the costs of conducting iden-
tical public attitude surveys in one test area and one control area.
Estimated Cost
Task/Category
Unit
Total
Task I: Select Test and Control Areas
Supervisory time
Clerical time
Purchase of U. S. Census of
Population and Housing Census
Tract Reports (first survey
only)
Purchase of census tract maps
for agency's jurisdiction (first
survey only; necessary only if
maps are not included in U. S.
Census of Population and Hous -
ing Census Tract Reports
1 manday/area
1 manday/area
$5
$15
2 mandays
2 mandays
$5
Task II-A: Select Telephone Numbers for Samples
Clerical time 1 manday/area
Rental of street address telephone
directories (for usual six month
period) $50/directory/area
$15
2 mandays
$100
-61-
-------
Estimated Cost
Task/Category
Unit
Total
Task II-B: Conduct Interviews
Supervisory time (first survey
only)
Clerical time:
Training (first survey
only)
Interviewing
Reproduction of questionnaires
Telephone toll charges (if appli-
cable)
1 manday
2 mandays
2 mandays/area
120 questionnaires @
$0.20/question-
naire
60 calls/area @
$0.25/call
Task II (Alternative): Select Sample and Conduct Interviews
Reproduction of questionnaires
Professional survey firm charges:
Select sample
Conduct interviews
Telephone toll charges
(if applicable)
Task III: Edit Questionnaires
Clerical time
Task IV: Code Questionnaires
Clerical time
Task V: Tabulate Responses
Clerical time
Reproduction of tabulation forms
Task VI: Evaluate Survey Results
Supervisory time
Clerical time
120 questionnaires @
$0.20/question-
naire
$50/sample/area
60 interviews/area @
$3.50/interview
60 calls/area @
$0.25/call
0.5 manday/area
0.5 manday/area
2 mandays/area
120 forms @ $0.15/
form
1 manday
1 manday
1 manday
2 mandays
4 mandays
$24
$30
$24
$100
$420
$30
1 manday
1 manday
4 mandays
$18
1 manday
1 manday
-62-
-------
Estimated Cost
Task/Category Unit Total
Estimated Total Costs (Task II Performed By Agency)
First set of surveys:
Supervisory time 4 mandays
Clerical time 17 mandays
Services and materials $192
Each additional set of surveys:
Supervisory time 3 mandays
Clerical time 15 mandays
Services and materials $172
Estimated Total Costs (Task II Performed By Professional Survey Firm)
First set of surveys:
Supervisory time 3 mandays
Clerical time 9 mandays
Services and materials $612
Each additional set of surveys:
Supervisory time 3 mandays
Clerical time 9 mandays
Services and materials $592
Scentometer Measurement Costs
The following estimates represent the use of a scentometer in routine
surveillance for one day.
Estimated Cost
Task/Category Unit Total
Task I: Prepare for Field Use
Purchase of Barnebey-Cheney
Model 1-3 Scentometer
(first use only) $85 $85
Task II: Conduct Field Measurements
Technician time:
Scentometer operator 1 manday 1 manday
Driver 1 manday 1 manday
Agency vehicle use 200 miles @ $0.12/
mile $24
-63-
-------
Estimated Cost
Task/Category
Unit
Total
Task III: Evaluate Measurements
Supervisory time
0.5 manday
0.5 manday
Estimated Total Costs
First use:
Supervisory time
Technician time
Materials
Each additional use:
Supervisory time
Technician time
Materials
0.5 manday
2 mandays
$109
0.5 manday
2 manday s
$24
Odor Judgment Panel Costs
The estimates provided below include the costs of selecting, training, and
using twelve odor judgment panelists for source verification in one test area.
Task/Category
Estimated Cost
Unit
Total
Task I: Preliminary Activities^
Supervisory time
Agency vehicle use
1 manday 1 manday
100 miles @ $0.12/
mile $12
Task II: Screen Candidates
Supervisory time
Technician time
Rental of odor free room
Purchase of Barnebey-Cheney
Model ABB Activated Carbon
Room Purifier Unit (first
use only)
Purchase of food extracts, mix-
ing bottles, and cups
Payments to candidates (success-
ful candidates only)
1 manday 1 manday
1 manday 1 manday
$25/day $25
$480 $480
$10 $10
12 candidates @ $20/
candidate $240
-64-
-------
Estimated Cost
Task/Category
Unit
Total
Task III: Train Panelists
Supervisory tirre
Technician time
Rental of odor free room
Purchase of odorant, solvents,
mixing bottles, plastic bottles
Payments to panelists
Task IV: Perform Field Evaluations
Supervisory time
Technician time
Rental of station wagons
Reproduction of rating forms
Payments to panelists
Task V: Summarize Field Evaluations
Supervisory time
Technician time
1 manday
1 manday
$25/day
$50
12 panelists @ $20/
panelist
1 manday
1 manday
2 station wagons @
$17/day plus
$0.17/mile
(200 miles)
80 forms @ $0.05/
form
12 panelists @ $20/
panelist
1 manday
2 mandays
1 manday
1 manday
$25
$50
$240
1 manday
1 manday
$68
$4
$240
1 manday
2 mandays
Estimated Panel Preparation Costs
First panel:
Supervisory time
Technician time
Services and materials
Each additional panel:
Supervisory time
Technician time
Services and materials
Estimated (Daily) Field Evaluation Costs
Supervisory time
Technician time
Services and materials
3 mandays
2 mandays
$1,082
3 mandays
2 mandays
$602
2 mandays
3 mandays
$312
-65-
-------
SUGGESTED REFERENCES
Census Tract Data
U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing; 1970.
Census Tracts. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Off ice,
1972.
Census tract data for use by each local agency are recorded in one
of a series of reports under the above title. The Bureau of the
Census should be contacted to determine the report number for the
agency's jurisdiction. Census tract maps are included with these
reports.
Odor Judgment Panel Information
Wittes, Janet, and Turk, Amos. "The Selection of Judges for Odor Discrimina-
tion Panels," Correlation of Subjective-Objective Methods in the Study
of Odors and Taste. Special Technical Publication No. 440, American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1968.
This comprehensive discussion of the use and analysis of screening
tests was co-authored by Amos Turk, the originator of the odor
judgment panel technique.
Scentometer Information
Huey, Norman A., Broering, Louis C., Jutze, George A., andGruber, Charles
W. "Objective Odor Pollution Control Investigations," Journal of the Air
Pollution Control Association, X, No. 6 (December, 1960), 441-446.
This article, by the developers of the scentometer, provides the most
comprehensive description available of the physical characteristics of
the device and the principles of operation.
Statistical Tables
Mathematical Tables From Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Cleveland,
Ohio: Chemical Rubber Publishing Company, any edition.
Tables of square roots, needed for Odor Problem Identification (see
page 33) and other values are included in this mathematical section
of the widely used handbook.
-66-
-------
The Rand Corporation. A Million Random Digits With 100,000 Normal Deviates
Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1955.
This book contains an extensive listing of 5-digit random numbers.
These numbers can be used to select an unbiased sample of test area
and control area telephone numbers from a street address telephone
directory (see page 10, "Obtaining a Sample"). The first two digits of
any of the 5-digit numbers would provide a starting point for areas
having zero to 99 listed telephones. Similarly, the first three digits
would provide a starting point for areas having zero to 999 listed tele-
phones .
-67-
-------