INVESTIGATION PRACTICES FOR ODOR COMPLAINT RESOLUTION AT A REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Transcription

1 INVESTIGATION PRACTICES FOR ODOR COMPLAINT RESOLUTION AT A REGIONAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Jane Curren Environmental Science and Engineering Program UCLA Fall 2011

2 PRESENTATION OUTLINE Background Odor complaints at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Odor complaint and odor nuisance resolution strategies Development of odor wheels Evaluation of odor intensity rating methods Evaluation of odor characterization methods through a field study

3 BACKGROUND

4 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (AQMD) AQMD Goals Enforce compliance with requirements of permit conditions and applicable federal and state regulations Develop and enforce local air quality rules Ensure prompt remediation of non-compliance Ensure prompt resolution of community air quality complaints and Support pollution control and reduction efforts and development of tools to address air quality problems

5 AIR QUALITY COMPLAINTS

6 REGULATORY AUTHORITY IN CALIFORNIA California Health and Safety Code Section (AQMD Rule 402) A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, determent, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of people.

7 INVESTIGATION OF ODOR COMPLAINTS Confirm odor with complainant Notice of Violation (NOV) for Rule 402 can be issued if complaints are confirmed with 6 or more complainants Data Type Temporal Facility Operations Meteorological Odor Plume Parameters Date and time Operations and operation schedules Wind speed and direction, humidity, temperature, and sky cover Confirm that odor originates from source doing up-wind & down-wind analysis. Evaluate extent of odor plume in the community

8 REGULATION OF ODORS: RULE 410 Odors from Transfer Stations and Material Recovery Facilities Effective January 1, 2008 Facilities handling >100 tons per day (TPD) of solid waste must have an AQMD-approved odor management plan Odor complaints attributed to these sources have declined from approximately 10% to 20% since Rule 410 was first implemented in 2008

9 MOTIVATION FOR PROJECT Clean Communities Plan (CCP) Enhance effectiveness of AQMD s Rule Nuisance Address nuisance issues preemptively through industry-specific rules or programs How does the odor assessment project fit into the CCP? Identify ways to enhance data collected during the investigation of odors Evaluation of the complaint database to identify industries responsible for large numbers of odor complaints received by the AQMD

10 THESIS OBJECTIVES 1. Identify major sources of odor complaints 2. Develop and identify methods for evaluation of odor character and intensity 3. Demonstrate use of odor evaluation methods in a field study

11 ODOR COMPLAINT HISTORY AT AQMD

12 DATABASE COMPLAINT CLASSIFICATION Unknown Landfills Transfer Stations/Recycling Wastewater Treatment Auto body/car dealerships Foundry/Metal Processing Restaurant/Prepared Food Transportation Construction/Painting/ Asphalt Refinery/Oil Industry Commercial Residential/Open Space Agriculture/Landscaping Rendering/Cremation Miscellaneous Industrial Not Enough Information to Classify

13 DATABASE REVIEW: KNOWN SOURCES OF ODORS ( ) 34-47% of odor complaints unknown Odor Complaints NOV s issued based on Rule 402

14 DATABASE REVIEW, SOURCES OF ODORS BY SECTOR ( ) Sector Total % Major Source of Odor Complaints A Wastewater Treatment Facility, Refinery B Unknown (~70%) C Landfill D Foundry, Transfer Station Other Total

15 DATABASE REVIEW CONCLUSIONS Transfer Stations, Landfills, Refineries, and Foundries are the major sources of odors in the South Coast Air Basin Rules similar to Rule 410 could be developed for these sources. Rule development may also be effective at reducing odor problems at rendering facilities Complaint classification and investigation procedures improvement could reduce the number of unknown complaints.

16 ODOR COMPLAINT AND ODOR NUISANCE RESOLUTION STRATEGIES

17 ODOR ASSESSMENT TOOLS Odor Assessment Tools Determine Unknown Source/Odorant Monitoring Known Odors Planning Character* F/L F/L Odor Intensity* F F/L Profiling Duration F F znose (Problem-Not selective) F F Chemical GC-MS/FID/FPD L L Analysis GC-Sniff L enose F Modeling (Dilution to Threshold) P F = Field L = Laboratory P = Planning *Developed in this project

18 ODOR NUISANCE REGULATION Setback Distance Zoning Best Available Control Tech. Odorant (Chemical) Concentration Number of Complaints (Nuisance) Odor Concentration (Dilution to Threshold) Character of Odor = C Intensity of Odor = I Duration/Frequency = D Odor Regulation Land Use X X Air Quality Management X X X Odor Determination Sensory Discriminatory Descriptive X X X X

19 INTENSITY V. ODOR CONCENTRATION Intensity: Is the odor weak, mild, or strong? Anchored to words only or to reference standards Odor Concentration: Volumes of odor free air required to dilute a sample to odor threshold Laboratory method: Dynamic Ofactomoter Field method: Nasal Ranger Odor Intensity slope = 5 slope = 0.5 slope = 0.05 Log of Odor Concentration Jiang et.al., 2006

20 IMPROVED INVESTIGATIVE METHODOLOGY Character Develop odor wheels Used successfully in drinking water and wastewater treatment industries Intensity Compare intensity scaling methods Odor intensity anchors allow for statistical evaluation of odor intensity data Duration Can be determined based on complaint history Not developed as part of this study

21 DEVELOPMENT OF ODOR WHEELS

22 CHARACTER: ODOR WHEELS Urban Odor Wheel - Inner and Middle Wheel Odor descriptors were taken from the AQMD complaint database Categorized based on previous urban odor wheel odor categories New categories added when descriptors didn t fit existing categories Complaints categorized by source type, for each source type. Complaints sorted into odor types for all complaint except unknown

23 OBJECTIVE 2: ODOR WHEELS Outer wheel Potential odorants causing odor problems based on literature review of previously developed odor wheels and monitoring data around landfills, refineries, and foundries

24 OBJECTIVE 2: URBAN ODOR WHEEL

25 OBJECTIVE 2: OTHER ODOR WHEELS DEVELOPED Refinery Foundry

26 OBJECTIVE 2: OTHER ODOR WHEELS DEVELOPED Landfill Industrial

27 ODOR INTENSITY RATING METHODS EVALUATION

28 ODOR INTENSITY Intensity: Is the odor weak, mild, or strong? Anchored to words only or to reference standards ASTM Method E544 (Butanol Scale) Used by other air agencies 0, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 640, 1280 mg/l butanol in water Flavor Profile Analysis (Sugar Scale) Used by water utilities 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 Anchored to sugar water standards (0, 5, 10, 15% sugar in water) Standard Methods for the Evaluation of Water and Wastewater

29 ODOR INTENSITY Evaluation of Odor Intensity Scales Panel of 8 UCLA students were assembled for a total of 10 sessions to evaluate odor standards using both scales. Odor standards were a concentration series of a single chemical. Butyric Acid (µg/l) Dimethyl Sulfide (µg/l) , , ,

30 ODOR INTENSITY Rescaling the Data The ASTM and FPA use different scales to rate odor intensity The ASTM method uses a linear scale The FPA scale uses a logarithmic scale In order to compare, the data needed to be rescaled ASTM rescaled = 1+ ln(astm/2.5)/ln(2) if ASTM > =2.5 FPA rescaled = (FPA/6)*5 The ASTM method contains more points in the intensity scale. ASTM has 11 pts FPA has 8 pts

31 ODOR INTENSITY Odor intensity scales were evaluated using linear mixed models. The model took into account the fixed effects of the four concentration levels (β) and the random effects from the panelists (φ) and the sessions (σ). Both models were valid. Intensity scaling methods were evaluated based on the variation in the data caused by panelists and sessions effects.

32 ODOR INTENSITY: LINEAR MIXED MODEL RESULTS ASTM FPA Odorant Random Effect Variance SE 95% CI Variance SE 95% CI Panelist Butyric Acid Session Panelist Dimethyl Sulfide Session

33 ODOR INTENSITY The FPA method showed less variation between sessions. ASTM/FPADMS = 4.1 ASTM/FPABA = 7.1 The ASTM method showed less variation between panelists. ASTM/FPADMS = 0.9 ASTM/FPABA = 0.2 The lower variance between sessions with the FPA method indicated that it may be a better method for evaluating odor intensity using a panel.

34 ODOR INTENSITY How reliable is the panel data? Contaminant Concentration ASTM %CV FPA % CV BA % 140% BA % 84% BA 5 169% 36% BA % 33% DMS 5 372% 114% DMS % 56% DMS % 40% DMS % 30%

35 ODOR INTENSITY: CONCLUSIONS The lower variance between sessions with the FPA method indicated that it may be a better method for evaluating odor intensity using a panel. The high coefficient of variation in the intensity scales indicate that it may be useful for understanding relative odor intensities, but should not be used as an absolute measure. Odor intensity scales should not be used to define regulatory limits.

36 EVALUATION OF ODOR CHARACTERIZATION METHODS THROUGH A FIELD STUDY

37 FIELD STUDY OBJECTIVES Evaluate the ability of the odor wheel to standardize odor response and help characterize the odor problem. Evaluate the utility of measuring odor intensity of individual odor characters. Evaluate the applicability of the odor wheel to targeting chemical analysis.

38 FIELD STUDY SITE Trash Transfer Station

39 STUDY SITE Typical Wind Direction

40 ODOR PROFILING An odor panel of 9-10 AQMD staff evaluated odor characters and intensities at the facility and in the surrounding community Panelist evaluated the odor character using the landfill odor wheel at each sample location Panelist evaluated odor intensity of each odor character at each study location FPA odor intensity scale was used

41

42 ODOR PROFILE 7.0 Odor Intensity Rancid Sulfur Frangrant Musty Dusty Terpene Site

43 ODOR PROFILE Odor Intensity Site 3 Site 2 Clarifier Tipping Floor Observation Deck Green Waste Odor Type

44

45 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS Sulfur: Samples were collected in 0.7 L Tedlar bags Analyzed using ASTM D5504 Aldehydes: DNPH cartridges (100 L air) US EPA method TO-11A Carboxylic Acids: Treated silica gel tubes (SKC ) (100 L air) GCMS Terpene/Other GCMS and GC-Sniff

46

47 ALDEHYDES Compound OTC ppbv 7/5/2011 7/05/2011 7/20/2011 7/14/2011 7/20/2011 Green Tipping Tipping Observation Observation Waste Floor Floor Deck Deck ppbv ppbv ppbv ppbv ppbv Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde Crotonaldehyde 23 ND ND ND 1.1 ND Butyraldehyde 1 ND Benzaldehyde

48 CARBOXYLIC ACIDS 7/5/11 7/5/11 7/20/11 7/14/11 7/20/11 Green Tipping Tipping Observation Observation Compound OTC ppbv Waste ppbv Floor ppbv Floor ppbv Deck ppbv Deck ppbv Acetic Acid Propionic Acid 6 ND Methylpropanoic Acid 1.5 ND ND 0.93 Butanoic Acid Pentanoic Acid ND ND 0.65 ND ND Hexanoic Acid 0.6 ND ND

49 SULFUR Compound OTC ppbv 7/20/2011 7/20/2011 Observation Deck ppbv Tipping Floor ppbv Hydrogen Sulfide ND Carbonyl Sulfide * ND Methyl Mercaptan ND Carbon Disulfide * ND *Tedlar bag artifact

50 TERPENES Site Identified Odorants Odor Character MS Retention Time GC-Sniff Retention Time Observation Deck Limonene Lemon/Solvent Tipping Floor Green Waste Limonene Lemon/Solvent ɤ-Terpinene Terpene Carene Spicy Myrcene Terpene

51 OTHER Site GC-Olfactometry Odor Profile Method Observation Deck Tipping Floor Green Waste Rancid*, terpene*, fragrant, sulfur, solvent, musty, spicy Rancid*, terpene*, sweet, sulfur, solvent, fruity, musty, fecal Rancid*, terpene*, dusty, musty, fecal, fruity rancid, sulfur (rotten vegetable), musty (dusty), terpene (pine), fragrant (fruity, sweet) rancid, sulfur (rotten vegetable), musty (musty), frangrant (fruity, sweet), putrid terpene (pine), sulfur (rotten vegetable), musty (musty) * Detected multiple time in multiple samples

52 FIELD STUDY CONCLUSIONS Odor sources could be distinguished based on their odor profiles. Off site odors could be traced back to their source based on the odor profiles of the odor sources on site. Odor intensity help define the odor and track how odors changed with space and time. The odor wheel helped identify chemical analysis needed to identify odorants causing odor problems.

53 STUDY CONCLUSIONS Identify major sources of odor complaints Transfer Stations, Landfills, Refineries, and Foundries were identified as major sources of complaints Develop and identify methods for evaluation of odor character and intensity Odor wheels were developed to characterize odors in the urban environment. The Flavor Profile Analysis was selected as odor intensity evaluation method. Demonstrate use of odor evaluation methods in a field study Odor character and intensity can help define odor problems to make odor sources easier to identify and help trouble shoot odor problems.

54 FUTURE RESEARCH Apply and validate odor evaluation tools to more complex odor problems. Use odor evaluation methods to better understand odor problems at different odor source types Development of source specific regulations

55 QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?

56 EXTRA SLIDES

57 Categories for Suffet et.al. (2007) Urban Odor Wheel ew Categories Foundry Rendering Refinery Restaurant Trash Wastewater Agriculture Autobody Misc. Industrial Description absent or not clear Fecal/Sewery < < Fuel/Solvent/Gas Station Earthy/Musty/Moldy <1 - <1 - < <1 <1 Terpene/Pine/Lemon/Grassy < Fragrant/Fruity - <1 - <1 2 <1 - < <1 Restaurant <1 - Bakery Sweet <1 - - <1 <1 - - <1 < Fishy/Ammonia <1 - <1 7 < <1 - <1 Putrid/Dead Animal <1 23 <1 - <1 <1 - - <1 <1 <1 <1 Rancid <1 1 - <1 <1 - <1 Sulfur/Cabbage/Garlic <1 < Burnt < Acid 2 - <1 - - <1 - <1 <1 <1 - - Metal 11 - <1 - < <1 - <1 Nose Feel 2 <1 <1 - <1 <1 2 - <1 - <1 <1 Other < <1 - <1 - Spicy Greasy Chlorine <1 - <1 < Transportat Commercial Construction

58 Source Type Foundry Rendering Refinery Restaurants/Prepared Food Solid Waste Wastewater Agriculture Autobody Misc. Industrial Transportation Construction Commercial Common Odor Descriptors by Category Burnt (Burnt Plastic, Burnt Oil, Burnt Rubber, Burnt Brakes, Acrid), Chemical (Plastic, Resin), Sulfur (Rotten Egg), Metal ( Metallic, Hot Metal, Nose Feel (Pungent) Putrid (Dead Animal, Dog Food), Burnt (Burnt Animal) Chemical (Gasoline, Oil), Sulfur (Rotten Egg, Natural Gas), Burnt (Exhaust, Burnt Rubber) Restaurant (Coffee), Burnt (Burnt Wood, Toast, Exhaust), Fecal (Sewage, Fecal), Fishy (Fishy, Urine), Rancid (Vomit, Vinegar, Rotten Fruit), Sulfur (Rotten Egg) Rancid (Sour), Sulfur (Rotten Egg, Natural Gas, Skunk), Putrid (Dead Animal), Fragrant (Perfume), Fishy (Ammonia) Fecal (Raw Sewage, Fecal), Earthy (Musty), Fishy (Fishy), Sulfur (Rotten Egg, Natural Gas), Burnt (Burnt Chemical Burnt (Exhaust), Nose Feel (Pungent), Fishy (Ammonia), Fecal (Manure), Earthy (Mildew), Putrid (Dead Animal), Rancid (Sour) Chemical (Paint) Chemical (Acetone, Fiberglass, Glue, Paint, Plastic, Resin, Styrene), Fishy (Ammonia), Sulfur (Rotten Egg, Natural Gas), Burnt (Burnt Plastic, Burnt Rubber, Burnt Wood, Exhaust), Metal (Hot Metal, Metallic) Burnt (Exhaust, Burnt Oil), Chemical (Paint, Gasoline, Fuel), Sulfur (Rotten Egg, Natural Gas) Burnt (Tar, Exhaust), Chemical (Oil, Paint, Gasoline), Sulfur (Rotten Egg, Natural Gas), Fecal (Sewer) Burnt (Exhaust, Tobacco, Tar), Chemical (Paint, Acetone), Sulfur (Rotten Egg), Fragrant (Perfume), Fecal (Fecal, Sewer)

59 Odorant Concentration (µg/l) ASTM FPA BA 1, , , DMS

60 6/30/2011 7/5/2011 7/14/2011 7/20/2011 Site Odors Intensity Odors Intensity Odors Intensity Odors Intensity Site 1 Exhaust 2.7±2.7 Exhaust 3.4±2.7 Exhaust 1.4±1.3 Rancid 1.8±2.1 Rancid 3.8±4.4 Site 2 Sulfur 3.3±2.7 Sulfur 3.7±2.7 Sulfur 5.2±2.2 Fragrant 4.9±3.0 Fragrant 2.2±2.1 Sweet 1.6±1.6 Site 3 Rancid 2.4±2.6 Sulfur 4.1±2.3 Sulfur 4.4±2.0 Sulfur 1.2±2.4 Fragrant 1.6±1.9 Rancid 5.8±2.1 Rancid 3.8±4.2 Rancid 5.6±4.1 Clarifier Sulfur 6.0±4.4 Sulfur 5.2±3.2 Sulfur 5.4±2.8 Sulfur 6.6±3.4 Fragrant 5.6±3.3 Fragrant 2.3±1.6 Exhaust 2.4±2.6 Rancid 5.1±2.5 Rancid 7.3±4.3 Rancid 5.0±3.6 Tipping Floor Sulfur 4.7±3.5 Sulfur 5.1±4.5 Sulfur 6.2±4.4 Sulfur 3.4±4.7 Musty 6.8±4.1 Musty 4.0±4.2 Fragrant 2.6±3.0 Fragrant 3.2±3.6 Putrid 4.4±4.9 Sweet 3.2±2.5

61 * No. Complaints Percent Unique Sources No. Complaints Percent Unique Sources No. Complaints Percent Unique Sources No. Complaints Percent Unique Sources No. Complaints Percent Unique Sources Agriculture Autobody 446** Commercial Construction/Painting Foundry/Metal Processing Misc. Industrial Not Enough Info. to Classify Refinery/Fossil Fuel Rendering/Slaughtering/ Cremation Residential/Open Space Restaurant/Prepared Foods Transfer Stations/Recycling Landfills Transportation Unknown Wastewater/Water Treatment Total

62 6/30/2011 7/5/2011 7/14/2011 7/20/2011 Site Odors Intensity Odors Intensity Odors Intensity Odors Intensity Rancid 3.6±3.0 Rancid 8.9±3.8 Rancid 7.0±4.3 Rancid 5.2±3.7 Observation Deck Sulfur 2.7±2.7 Sulfur 5.3±4.8 Sulfur 5.6±4.2 Sulfur 5.0±4.2 Musty (dusty) 4.2±4.5 Musty 7.2±3.0 Musty 3.4±3.1 Terpene 3.8±4.4 Terpene 3.4±3.7 Fragrant 3.2±4.6 Fragrant 2.4±2.5 Sweet 4.2±3.6 Musty 4.3±3.5 Musty 3.3±2.8 Musty 6.2±3.7 Musty 5.6±2.6 Green Waste Terpene 4.2±3.4 Terpene 3.8±2.8 Terpene 4.2±2.9 Sulfur 3.1±3.9 Sulfur 2.6±2.3

63

64 PANEL TRAINING Panelists were trained in identifying odor character using odor wheels and the FPA method. Training was evaluated using a triangle test and a mixture test. Panelists selected for the field study were asked to evaluate the training and give their opinion on odor evaluation methods.

65 PANEL TRAINING: TRIANGLE TEST Sample Correct Odor ABC 14/ /16 Rotten Vegetable Canned Corn Medicinal Plastic

66 PANEL TRAINING: MIXTURE TEST Fraction Correct Odor Character Category Intensity Sweet 1/16 3/ Comments confused with plastic and sour milk Rotten Vegetable 8/16 15/ Plastic 5/16 7/ Canned Corn 11/16 14/ Grassy 12/16 12/ confused with sweet and sour milk Sour Milk 3/16 3/ confused with sweet and plastic Rotten Fruit 8/16 9/ confused with plastic Medicinal 7/16 12/ Canned Corn 7/16 12/