. .
yi/ible emi//ioA
in/pectioA procedure/
Stationary Source Enforcement Division,
Office of General Enforcement,
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
EPA VISIBLE EMISSION INSPECTION PROCEDURES
August 1975
Prepared By
Kenneth B. Malmberg
Division of stationary Source Enforcement
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.
-------
EPA VISIBLE EMISSION INSPECTION PROCEDURES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page_No;
I. PREFACE 2
A. Background 2
B. Introduction 2
II. PRE-ENTRY PROCEDURES 3
A. Literature Review 3
B. Review and Preparation 5
C. Notifications 6
D. VE Regulations 9
E. Arrival at the Source 10
III. ENTRY 10
A. Introduction 10
B. Signing-In Procedures 12
IV. INSPECTION PROCEDURES 15
A. Personal Contacts 15
B. Source Types 18
C. Methodology 19
D. Non-Stack Emission Sources 25
V. REPORT WRITING 30
A. The Narrative 30
B. The Field Report 31
VI. PHOTOGRAPHY 35
-------
EPA VISIBLE EMISSION INSPECTION PROCEDURES
I . PREFACE
A . Background
This document is intended to explain the making of visible
emission observations from the evaluator's viewpoint, to insure
credibility, accuracy, and completeness in his work. Should the
evaluator be relied upon to later explain and elaborate on his
results, by following acceptable procedures he can assure
consistent, accurate, and confident responses to examination in a
judicial proceeding.
This document sets forth procedures for the performance of
visible emission evaluations of process operations. The
procedures below are intended for use by EPA inspectors. This
guideline defines acceptable field techniques for making opacity
evaluations for purposes of compliance monitoring and enforcement
case development.
Opacity evaluations of visible emissions are the singly most
effective field enforcement regulation available for particulate
emission prevention and control. The methods described here have
gained acceptance over the years by various State and local air
pollution control agencies and EPA regional offices in their
respective field enforcement programs. These methods are set
forth here as guidance for the EPA evaluator in the field to
-2-
-------
produce results which are reliable, consistent, and ultimately,
enforceable.
II- PRE-ENTRY PROCEDURES
Prior to requesting visible emission observations, air
enforcement attorneys should:
1. summarize VE (visible emission) regulations in the
affected region in written, narrative form and thoroughly, discuss
and explain each regulation with the evaluator before he enters
the State. Unless the local regulation is referenced in the SIP,
the appropriate State regulation is the one applied. Attachment
1 is an example of a narrative summary of a typical opacity
regulation.
2. require that a checklist be used by the evaluator
and that he is an EPA certified VE observer, that his
certification is still valid, and he has received available
training in the field of opacity evaluation.
A- literature Review
The following items will provide guidance and technical
information for the majority of sources in a region. While this
list is not meant to be inclusive, review of these items will
provide the necessary background for the evaluator to
comprehensively evaluate a point source for visible emissions.
-3-
-------
1. NEDS data, as originally submitted and updated by
the State;
2. CDS data;
3. Section 114 "Requests for Information" as received
by the regional office;
4. Discharge permits prepared by the Water Permits
Section, which often include detailed drawings of the source;
5« £i§13 Operations and Enforcement Manual for Air
Pollution. Control, by Melvin I. Weisburd, APTD #1101, #1102.
EPA, August 1972. Volumes II and III.
6. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, AP-40; 1972.
7. Permits and other source data on file with the
State or local air pollution agency;
8. The Kirk-Othmer Handbook of Chemical Technology,
1970;
9. Any available inspection manuals. (DSSE will
issue inspection manuals on various industries from time to
time.)
Analysis of all available sources prior to an inspection may
sometimes be impossible. Therefore the visible emissions
inspector must balance the extent of his pre-entry procedures
with the technical problems he may anticipate from the source.
As his proficiency grows, industry-to-industry, he will rely
increasingly on previous experience.
-------
B. Review and Preparation
1. Prior review must be performed on the facility to
be evaluated when the inspector is unfamiliar with the processes
in the industry. An inspection manual for the particular
industry should be consulted whenever possible. The following
questions should be answered prior to the initial inspection of a
given point source:
a. How many and what kind of processes are
contained within the plant?
b. What is the type and efficiency (if
available) of each control device pertaining to these
processes?
c. What visible emission points can be expected
at this facility?
d. How many visible emission points should be
expected at this facility?
e. What unique processes or problems may be
expected at this facility?
f. What is the normal operation rate for this
plant?
By doing this review in conjunction with his review of
available literature, the evaluator will familiarize himself with
the processes, control equipment, and possible air problems that
might be encountered at this plant, and others similar to it.
-5-
-------
2. To perform a comprehensive evaluation, the
evaluator uses some or all of the following items during a plant
evaluation:
a. Stopwatch, compass (Geologists) , wind meter,
rangefinder, psychrometer, and carrying bag.
b. Camera (35 mm) with accessories.
c. Respirator/face mask.
d. Topographical maps, VE forms, extra pens.
e. Safety helmet, goggles, boots, and ear
protectors (OSHA approved) .
In certain cases, binoculars and cold weather
protection are also needed. This requirement is dependent on the
particular evaluating conditions. A complete list of equipment
utilized in visible emission evaluations is included as
Attachment 2 .
c.
Successful inspections of some sources are dependent on
prior notice being given to the source and/or the local air
pollution agency. Some air pollution agencies are helpful in
providing requested information. Data can be obtained from their
files which is helpful in an inspection. These agencies may also
be willing to accompany an EPA inspection team, if asked. During
an inspection, the local agency can assist in asking questions of
a source which they may have inspected prior to EPA becoming
interested in the source. After the inspection, the local agency
may be more alert to questions from the source regarding the
-6-
-------
particular State Implementation Plan. They also can confirm
details relating to their particular opacity regulation.
However, it should be kept in mind that successful opacity
inspection depends on normal operating conditions at the source
to fairly and accurately evaluate compliance of that source. If
the source is made aware of the general date and time of this
evaluation by the local agency, these operating conditions could
be changed. If such events occur it is not EPA policy to give
notice to such agencies of our pending inspections. This dilemma
is best resolved by the regional office. Clearly, EPA is not
obligated under the Clean Air Act to notify other parties in
advance of upcoming visible emission evaluations. In all cases,
however, the EPA inspector must notify the affected source
immediately following his readings.
Individual sources will have to be evaluated in a manner
which is justified by previous contact with that source. (See
Section E, "Arrival at the Source".)
The United States Supreme Court said, in Air Pollution
Variance Board vs. Western Alfalfa Corp. (Slip opinion, No. 73-
690), that "Depending upon the layout of the plant, the inspector
may operate within or without the premises but in either case he
is well within the 'open fields1 exception " The thrust of
this decision is that EPA inspectors, without notice, may enter
property which is also accessible to the general public for
purposes of performing their evaluations. Generally, an EPA
inspector may observe what anyone who is near the particular
-7-
-------
source may observe, without the knowledge or previous consent of
the facility being observed.
If the layout or size of the source requires surveillance
from within the facility, then the owner or operator is notified
prior to surveillance. After entering the plant, the evaluator
should make the purpose of his visit as clear as possible. He
should tell the source the honest reason for his visit. It it is
to ascertain compliance with the applicable SIP or NSPS opacity
regulation this fact should be explained. If he is asked for
copies of his data records written while on company property, he
may leave a copy with plant personnel if he has obtained prior
permission to do so from the Enforcement Division. It is EPA
policy that final reports be made generally available only after
they have been checked for accuracy and cleared for release by
the Enforcement Division. The evaluator may obtain the signature
of a responsible company official on his opacity form, which
would serve to place the source on notice of where and when the
readings were taken and the results of those evaluations. The
signature would merely acknowledge that opacity evaluations were
performed, and is optional on the part of the company. The
owner/operator of the source must be given notice of any opacity
readings made as soon as possible after they are taken. The
evaluator could also ask that an official of the company
accompany him when performing his visible emission observations,
whether on company property or off. By so doing, the evaluator
-8-
-------
eliminates any misunderstanding or confusion about the purpose
and results of his inspection.
Section 114 (c) specifies that records, reports, or
information obtained under S114 (a), shall be made available to
the public. EPA shall make the same records, reports, or
information available to the source, should they so request it.
The source should be informed that they may obtain completed
copies of the reports by contacting the regional office, usually
the Enforcement Division.
D. VE Regulations
The appropriate opacity regulation should be obtained from
the SIP and studied carefully by the inspector. State and local
opacity limits in SIP* s range from 40 percent opacity allowed
down to no visible emissions. Various exemptions for particular
processes or industries are applied in each SIP. The evaluator
should be aware of any time exemptions and take them into account
in his final calculations. Relevant parts of Method 9 are
included as Attachment 4.
NSPS opacity requirements are directed toward a specific
type of source (40 CFR 60). The method of evaluation is
specified as Method 9 (39 F.R. #219, Appendix A). Exemptions of
a few minutes out of any 60 minutes may exist in some NSPS
requirements and should be so noted in evaluation of new sources.
The evaluator should determine the correct exemption to be
applied, prior to his actual inspection to assure a comprehensive
evaluation and report.
-9-
-------
E- Arrival at the Source
On arriving at the plant, the evaluator immediately makes an
outside assessment of the facility, including photographs of all
obvious emission sources. An accurate sketch is made so that a
particular emission source can be identified later from within
the premises. At this time, if violations of the applicable
visible emissions regulation are observed, the emissions should
in most cases be recorded for at least 6 minutes per source, but
a record of 30-60 minutes is preferable. If possible,
photographs representative of the emission points observed,
should be taken from the observation points at which the
emissions are recorded. The outside surveillance should last as
long as necessary, so that all obvious sources of air pollution
are recorded. At times as much as three or four hours may be
spent in pre-entry surveillance.
III. ENTRY
A- Introduction
Sometimes the first contact a source has with EPA is the
evaluator's approach to the guard at the main gate. As time goes
by, the Agency's reputation has steadily improved, but most plant
guards are not impressed with a reputation. This is a prime
reason why the evaluator's presence must be explained and the
authority for his visit thoroughly understood. Through 8114 of
the Clean Air Act, and the use of credentials (see below), entry
to a plant should not ordinarily be a problem.
-10-
-------
Appropriate safety equipment must always be worn. An
evaluator should not expect the source to provide safety
equipment. The list of safety equipment and suggested possible
sources of procurement is included in Attachment 2.
The evaluator should perform the following steps to
correctly and courteously enter the facility for purposes of
conducting his inspection;
1. Contact should be made with a responsible plant
official. A responsible plant official may be an officer of the
company, or the person responsible for environmental control at
the plant. This individual must have authority to provide
answers to pertinent questions, as well as allow access to
pertinent areas of the plant, for purposes of making a complete
visible emissions evaluation.
2. Identification credentials are always shown. The
credentials are always retained in the personal possession of the
evaluator. Credentials are obtained for all visible emission
evaluators in accordance with EPA Order 1400.1, May 16, 1973,
"Issuance and Control of Environmental Protection Agency
Credentials."
3. When the evaluator presents his credentials the
guard should call his superior on the phone and may ask the
evaluator to wait. If the evaluator knows the name of the plant
environmental engineer, he should request the guard to call him
directly. A log of these events and calls, and the amount of
time he is kept waiting should be kept by the evaluator. Later
-11-
-------
this log should be expanded to include a narrative summary of
events as they occurred prior to an during inspection of the
facility. For example, if the evaluator feels he is being
delayed from entering the plant, a narrative report may be useful
later on and contribute to an enforcement case. If the evaluator
feels his entry will be denied, he should inform the plant guard
of any opacity evaluations he has performed and ask that the
plant environmental engineer be so informed.
4. The evaluator should take note of the length of
time he is kept waiting, cooperation and attitude of plant
personnel, and any changes in operating conditions which may
result from his presence. The latter may affect the credibility
of the evaluator1s finding should he later be asked about these
conditions during testimony.
B• Signing-In^Prgcedures
1. Most companies provide blank sign-in sheets, if
requested. If such a form is provided, it is possible to sign
it, as it is only intended to be a "body count", containing your
name and affiliation.
2. John Quarles1 memo of November 8, 1972, which was
included as an appendix to EPA Guideline S.12, specifically
instructs EPA employees to refuse to sign a release (waiver) upon
entering a source under the authority of 8114 (see Attachment 3).
These instructions also apply to EPA contractors in pursuit of
their authorized duties if the contractor has been designated an
-12-
-------
"authorized representative." OEGC must authorize these
contractors by letter, citing relevant parts of Section 114.
3. Under no conditions should the evaluator sign a
visitor's release for liability while on the plant premises. To
do so could waive the evaluator*s right to obtain damages for
injury as explained in Mr. Quarles1 memo.
Language at the top of a sign-in sheet and also in
passes issued to tour the plant, may read similar to the
following:
"All persons other than employees must fill out the
following information. Their signature hereto in
consideration of a pass to visit the plant agrees that
ABC, Incorporated, shall not be liable, under any
circumstances, whether of negligence of employees or
otherwise for any injuries sustained by that person
while on company property . . .."
4. In encountering a waiver such as this, one
response toward complying with Mr. Quarles' memo is to cross out
the language of the waiver before signing the sheet, thereby
making it a sign-in sheet only. This may have a negative effect
on the company, however, since other signatures may also be on
the sheet. He could also sign the visitor's book and write "no
waiver" or something similar next to his signature.
5. In most cases, the issue can be resolved and entry
obtained, by citation of relevant subsections of 8114 (a) (2) as
follows:
"The Administrator or his authorized representative
upon presentation of his credentials -
(A) shall have a right of entry to, upon, or through
any premises in which an emission source is located or
-13-
-------
in which any records required to be maintained tinder
paragraph (1) of this section are located, and
(B) may at reasonable times have access to and copy
any records, inspect any monitoring equipment or method
required under paragraph (1), and sample any emissions
which the owner or operator of such source is required
to sample under paragraph (1)."
Either Subpart (A) or (B), or both, may be recited and referenced
so they are clearly heard and understood by the parties involved.
6. If refusal is still forthcoming, the evaluator
should not contest the issue with the source representative, but
will immediately do the following:
a. determine the complete name and position of
the individual representing the source;
b. ask him/her to identify themselves as an
authorized representative of the company, and record
their exact answer;
c. ask him/her if they heard section 114 of the
Clean Air Act which was read aloud, and if they
understood the reason for your presence, and record
their answer;
d. leave.
7. After leaving the source's property, the evaluator
must immediately, without fail, inform the appropriate
enforcement attorney by telephone of the events as they happened.
Every detail should be recorded by the attorney, as well as the
evaluator can recall.
-14-
-------
Visible emissions data obtained after leaving the
source's property should be placed in report form, with notation
included of the denied entry.
As soon as possible, the evaluator should write down
everything he can recall of the incident. These reports will
prove to be of positive value in any future enforcement
proceeding, along with the visible emissions report.
IV. !NSPECTION_PROCEDURES
A- Personal,Contacts
After signing in, the evaluator proceeds immediately into
the facility, to observe equipment or processes known to be
operating from his previous observation of the plant. At this
point, when the evaluator is asked what he wants to see, he must
not foreclose inspection of those sources which may not have been
visible from previous surveillance. All emission sources are to
be inspected, if possible, and not just those visible from
outside the plant.
If any flagrant sources of air pollution had been observed
and/or evaluated during the pre-entry period, the evaluator
should ask to see these sources first. As the inspection
proceeds, he then should ascertain, by questions and inspection
of operating records for the previous time of evaluation, whether
or not his earlier observations were fairly representative of
operating condition.
There are many things which could interfere with the
evaluation of a process, i.e., shift change, equipment
-15-
-------
malfunction, change in production rates, or just a slowdown in
operation because the evaluator is there. He must insist, that
baring the normal delays mentioned, operations remain normal, so
he can ascertain whether or not emissions are excessive from a
particular process. If normal operations are impossible, he must
record the reasons given, and ask when normal operations will
resume.
40 CFR 60.11 specifies that new sources operating under
startup, shutdown, or malfunction conditions are not subject to
opacity regulations. The evaluator must determine if these
conditions are present and the extent of such conditions at the
time of inspection. The EPA inspector is entitled to ask direct
questions of any plant personnel who would have knowledge of the
operation of a process which is responsible for visible
emissions.
While actually obtaining opacity readings for a facility,
the process conditions should be available to the evaluator.
Someone else on the inspection team should personally inspect the
process during actual evaluation, and determine that conditions
are representative and make note of process conditions. These
determinations should be included in the valuator1s field
report. Where transmissometers are installed, tney should be
inspected to check the accuracy of any self-recording data.
1. Specific Requests - During the inspection, it is
useful to ask for a plot plan of the plant, with all emission
sources clearly marked. A building diagram would also prove
-16-
-------
useful to indicate the actual height and location of vents,
flues, stacks, and chimneys with distances clearly marked. These
two documents should be signed and dated by a responsible company
official.
2. Confidentiality - The refusal of the source's
personnel to release information requested by the inspector based
on a claim of confidentiality of trade secrets contained therein,
is an unjustified refusal. The claim of confidentiality relates
only to the public availability of such data, not to its
availability to EPA personnel performing duties under 8114 of the
Act. Emission data is never confidential information.
When the claim is made, the evaluator should explain
that confidentiality applies only to public availability of that
information, and that the source may request a determination as
to applicability of the confidentiality provisions of S114 (c) to
that information from the regional office (40 CFR 2.105 -
2.107(a)). Such a request should include the reasons for the
claim as well as supportive technical data and legal authority.
Until such time as that determination is made, such information
will remain exempt from public disclosure (Guideline S.12).
If the source continues after explanation of the
confidentiality provisions to refuse such information as
requested, the evaluator shall record the type of information
requested, and the name of the individual claiming
confidentiality as a basis for refusal. A S114 letter can later
be sent to the source requesting the refused information and
-17-
-------
including a more detailed discussion of the confidentiality
provisions of the Clean Air Act.
3. Summing Up - On completing the inspection, the
evaluator should once again go over the maps and drawings with
company officials to accurately locate processes and effluent
points, and to answer any questions he may have formed. During
the inspection his time is almost completely distracted by the
surroundings and processes, with few if any chances to receive
answers regarding stack height, feed rates, and emissions.
Usually, only the immediate operating conditions and records can
be observed by the evaluator. The number of company
representatives with the evaluator should number no more than two
or thr«e of the key operations people. Later on, before
departure, he may discuss his visit more thoroughly with any
company executive who requests it.
B. Source Types
Visible emissions are generally divisible into two general
categories:
Category 1 - visible emissions from stacks and chimneys.
Category 2 - Visible emissions from all other sources, including
flues, ducts, roof vents and monitors, door and window
openings, conveyor belts, etc.
Procedures for evaluation of sources in category 1 are
included in the attached Method 9.
While stack or chimney emissions are sometimes the most
obvious sources of visible emissions, significant portions of the
-18-
-------
total particulate burden are contributed by the minerals industry
and other sources which sometimes occupy large geographic areas
and whose emissions are not emitted through stacks or chimneys.
The following methods apply to category 2 sources.
C. Methodology
It is necessary that the evaluator establish a disciplined
approach toward evaluation of non-stack emission source. With
emissions discharged at or near ground level, and with little or
no control of those emissions, large quantities of visible
particulate become a prime target of visible emission
regulations. Method 9 (39 FR 219, November 12, 1974), is
followed as closely as possible for accuracy and completeness in
performing these visible emissions evaluations (Attachment 4).
To accurately do this, the following steps must be taken in
performing visible emission observations:
1. Procedures - The observer qualified in accordance
with Method 9 uses the following procedures for visually
determining the opacity of emissions:
a. Position. The qualified observer stands at a
distance sufficient to provide a clear view of the
emissions with the sun oriented in the 140° sector to
his back. Consistent with maintaining the above
requirement, the observer (as much as possible), makes
his observations from a position such that his line of
vision is approximately perpendicular to the plume
direction and when observing opacity of emissions from
-19-
-------
rectangular outlets (e.g. roof monitors, open
baghouses, non-circular stacks), approximately
perpendicular to the longer axis of the outlet. The
observer's line of sight should not include more than
one plume at a time when multiple emission sources are
involved, and in any case the observer should make his
observations with his line of sight perpendicular to
the longer axis of such a set of multiple sources.
b. Field records. The observer shall record the
name of the plant, emission location, type facility,
observerfs name and affiliation, and the date on a
field data sheet (Attachment 4). The time, estimated
distance to the emission location, approximate wind
direction, estimated wind speed, description of the sky
condition (presence and color of clouds), and plume
background are recorded on a field data sheet at the
time opacity readings are initiated and completed.
c. Observations. Opacity observations are made
at the point of greatest opacity in that portion of the
plume where condensed water vapor is not present. The
observer does not look continuously at the plume, but
instead observes the plume momentarily at 15-second
intervals.
d. Attached steam plumes. When condensed water
vapor is present within the plume as it emerges from
the emission outlet, opacity observations are made
-20-
-------
beyond the point in the plume at which condensed water
vapor is no longer visible. The observer records the
approximate distance from the emission outlet to the
point in the plume at which the observations are made.
e. Detached steam plume. When water vapor in
the plume condenses and becomes visible at a distinct
distance from the emission outlet, the opacity of
emissions should be evaluated at the emission outlet
prior to the condensation of water vapor and the
formation of the steam plume.
f. Recording observations. Opacity observations
are recorded to the nearest 5 percent at 15-second
intervals on an observational record sheet. (See
Attachment 4 for an example.) A minimum of 24
observations are record-ed. Each momentary observation
recorded is deemed to represent the average opacity of
emissions for a 15-second period.
g. Data Reduction. Opacity is determined as the
average of 24 consecutive observations recorded at 15-
second intervals. Divide the observations recorded on
the recorded on the record sheet into sets of 24
consecutive observations. A set is composed of any 24
consecutive observations. Sets need not be consecutive
in time and in no case shall two sets overlap. For
each set of 24 observations, calculate the average by
summing the opacity of the 24 observations and dividing
-21-
-------
this sum by 24. if an applicable standard specified an
averaging time requiring more than 24 observations,
calculate the average for all observations made during
the specified time period. Record the average opacity
on a record sheet. (See Attachment 4.) DSSE will
provide guidance on specific SIP exemptions at a later
date. In those cases of intermittent or fugitive
emission evaluation, the six-minute averaging
requirement is not a feasible approach. DSSE
encourages application of SIP opacity regulations on an
individual basis for this type of emission evaluation.
2. The forms included in Attachment 4 (39 FR #219,
Appendix A) are completely filled out in accordance with the
above procedures. The following are important points in
correctly evaluating visible emissions from a stationary source
of air pollution.
a. The position of the evaluator must whenever
possible, conform to the above conditions (i.e. sun
behind observer and plume at right angles to his line
of sight).
b. Evaluations performed at night may be
performed with a light source behind the plume. Until
night reading procedures become a part of Method 9,
with adequate data to support their accuracy, the
region will need to document the accuracy of the
readings in an individual enforcement proceeding.
-22-
-------
c. The evaluator must, not study the emission, as
eye fatigue develops rapidly if he does. Evaluations
are performed by glancing at the emission and recording
its opacity immediately. While it is not possible in
all situations, a thoroughly experienced evaluator can
evaluate more than one plume in conterminuous time
frames. This technigue is acquired only after the most
thorough training and practice.
d. Evaluation times are recorded in terms of
minutes and quarter-minutes, and are recorded so as to
best represent consecutive changes in opacity as it
occurs.
e. As discussed below enough evaluations are
recorded to show a significant violation of the
applicable opacity regulation.
f. Photographs are not to be taken during an
actual evaluation, and may only be taken in between
each separate evaluation. Another EPA employee may
take photographs of the evaluator and the emission
simultaneously however. These photographs add
credibility to the evaluator's comments on his
evaluation form.
g. Emissions from non-stationary sources are not
to be evaluated by the above procedures. DSSE will
issue separate guidelines for this category should they
be deemed necessary.
-23-
-------
h. Precise identification must be made of each
affected process, emission point, and type of emission.
A company official should furnish the appropriate
identification of these items.
i. Intermittent visible emissions should be
evaluated over a period of time considered adequate to
determine compliance status, including a number of
complete operation cycles, if possible.
j. Continuous emissions should be evaluated for
a standardized time period considered adequate for
development of a case, and in all cases in excess of
the minimum time required within the applicable visible
emission regulation. It should be remembered that some
regulations allow excursions above the opacity limit
for a specified time (e.g., Ohio allows three minutes
of 60 percent opacity per hour in the SIP).
k. On a given source only one evaluator shall
evaluate the same emission over any given time period.
Duplicate observations are misleading and could be
construed as an attempt to present the particular
source in an unfavorable light.
1. At least two EPA inspectors are required to
perform a comprehensive visible emissions evaluation of
a facility. This requirement is the only possible
means of simultaneous process evaluation. It is
usually necessary to do simultaneous process
-24-
-------
evaluations in support, of an Enforcement Action, but
not during routine surveillance.
m. The evaluator must fill out all pertinent
field data at the time of the evaluation to assure
reliable and consistent results months later when the
actual evaluation conditions are reviewed.
Below are procedures used for visible emission evaluation of
specific non-stack emission sources which insure a consistent
approach for specific industries. Accepted evaluation procedures
must remain in conformance with Method 9 requirements,
particularly regarding the observer's position with respect to
the sun and wind.
1. Emissions from coke batteries are evaluated in the
following manner:
a. Charging operation. Emissions included in
this evaluation emanate from the:
(1) charging holes ;
(2) larry car hoppers;
(3) larry car control system;
(4) standpipe lid.
These emissions are evaluated from atop the battery.
The attached sketch illustrates these emission points
(Attachment 5 (a) ) . The evaluator positions himself
with an unobstructed view of the emissions and labels
-25-
-------
his evaluations according to the oven that is being
charged.
b. Pushing Operation. These emissions are
evaluated from ground level on the coke side of the
battery, as they arise from the coke as it is pushed
into the quench car. Emissions are evaluated from the
time the door is removed until it is replaced. The
evaluator positions himself a safe distance from the
operation and evaluates these emissions as they arise
against the sky. Figure 2 of the attached sketch
illustrates the push operation. (Attachment 5 (b))
c. Door Leakage. Door leakage from either side
of the battery is recorded from ground level after the
door (s) are replaced. Door leakage includes those
emissions from the leveler door and the oven door
itself, and are evaluated against the battery
structure. Figure 3 of Attachment 5 (b) illustrates
these potential emission points.
d. Safety. Minimal safety requirements for
evaluation in this category are:
(1) respirator (activated charcoal type or
self-contained oxygen for use atop the battery);
(2) safety glasses with side shields;
(3) safety helmet;
(4) safety boots.
-26-
-------
2. The evaluator should take note of the following,
regarding each coke battery evaluated:
a. total number of ovens;
b. average coking cycle;
c. average time between observed charges;
d. total number of doors observed leaking beyond
30 minutes;
e. ongoing door maintenance, e.g. cleaning of
edges after each push and number of spare doors on
hand;
f. number of ovens not in operation, if
applicable;
g. the charging series during the evaluation.
This information is easily obtained from direct observation, and
is very useful in assessing the general maintenance of a coking
facility. Suggested formats for recording this data, and
additional information, are included as Appendices A and B. The
use of checklists like these provide the evaluator with an
effective tool for a thorough evaluation of a coke battery.
3. Emissions from rock or mineral drilling, crushing,
conveying, screening, and storing are evaluated in the following
manner (see Attachment 6) .
a. Drilling. Emissions from drilling operations
are evaluated from a safe distance (30-40 feet or
more), from the drilling machine as they are released
from the drilling device or from the drill hole.
-27-
-------
b. Crushing. Emissions included at this
evaluation point are released as material is discharged
from the primary and secondary crushing machines.
Observations are performed at a safe distance (e.g. 30-
140 feet) from the discharge point and on the same
elevation as the discharge if possible.
c. Conveying. Visible emissions are evaluated
as material is discharged at conveyer belt transfer
points and loading points. Evaluation shall occur at
the same elevation as the discharge if possible.
d. Screening. Visible emissions are evaluated
as material is discharged from the screen into the
chutes. The observer shall obtain an observation point
as close to the same elevation of the screens as
possible.
e. Storage. Visible emissions from the air
separator or other devices are evaluated at the point
of discharge onto the conveyor. Observations are
performed at ground level.
f. safety. Minimal safety requirements for
evaluation in this rock or mineral category are:
(1) respirator/face mask;
(2) safety glasses;
(3) safety helmet;
(4) safety boots;
(5) noise suppressors.
-28-
-------
In operations involving rock or mineral drilling,
moisture content of the material plays an important
part in type and quantity of visible emissions.
Therefore, any addition of moisture to the process
should be noted.
g. Emissions from the operations below are
evaluated in a manner consistent with the above
procedures:
(1) dry concrete batching plant;
(2) deep hopper grain unloading (include
type grain, type or lack of hood surrounding
unloading);
(3) woodworking plants;
(4) coal preparation plants;
(5) lime plants;
(6) mining operations.
4. Process emissions from roof monitors are evaluated
in the following manner:
a. BOP furnace roof monitor - Visible emissions
are evaluated as they are released through the
horizontal roof monitor, from ground level. The
evaluation is performed at the point of densest
emissions. The attached sketch illustrates this
emission point. (Attachment 7)
b. Emissions from roof monitors of the
operations below are evaluated in a similar manner:
-29-
-------
(1) aluminum smelters;
(2) brick kilns;
(3) ferro-alloy plants.
V. REPQRT_WJRITj;NG
The entire thrust of the visible emissions evaluator's
effort is summarized in his reported observations, and
conclusions. Without a clear and concise explanation of what was
observed, no possibility exists to meaningfully develop
information for a potential enforcement proceeding for the source
in question.
A- The^ Narrative
In addition to his field report (discussed below), the
evaluator should write a brief narrative summary of his
evaluation, to include those points which may not have been
recorded during his plant visit, but which may be important in
refreshing his memory months later when the case is discussed in
an administrative or legal proceeding. This narrative should be
in outline form. A suggested format is included as Attachment 8.
The evaluator should be as precise as possible in the
nomenclature used describing sources of visible emissions. Avoid
subjective descriptors such as leaking v^Lve, unknown open
hearth, large, thick or heavy, emissions, etc. These types of
words can be interpreted in many different ways, both from a
technical and a legal viewpoint. This list is by no means
inclusive, but the need for accurate designations of sources
should be obvious. Alternatives to these would include the
-30-
-------
technical -term for -the unit, stack, or chimney being observed,
and a numerical designation to further identify the subject.
This number may be assigned by the evaluator at the time of
observation, only in lieu of a more complete description obtained
from the source.
B. The Field Report
!!• II •!! • I Cl •• ••
The actual field report is a compilation of all relevant
emission data recorded during the actual plant visit. Thus the
field report includes a copy of the actual visible emission
observation form used to record the opacity of emissions, a
complete sketch of relevant features of the facility, and a data
summary, which clearly compiles and illustrates the opacity data.
Each of these features of the field report are discussed below.
1. Observation Form. This form should include all
pertinent information necessary to determine the plant operating
conditions at the time of the evaluation. This format includes
but is not limited to the following:
a. date and time of evaluation.
b. name and address of source.
c. name and location of emission point (name of
process is acceptable).
e. wind speed and direction.
f. ambient temperature and relative humidity.
g. height of emission point.
h. sky condition, general weather condition
(overcast, broken, scattered, clear).
-31-
-------
i. color of emission.
j. name of plant official accompanying
evaluator.
k. name and date of certification of observer,
and signature.
1. space for remarks considered relevant to the
case being developed.
The evaluator shall also record on the observation form
any process condition which is abnormal and which may affect
observed emissions. This fact should be noted immediately on
being discovered. In no case should the evaluator rely on his
memory to fill in his evaluation forms.
The evaluator shall also note any deviations from
accepted evaluation procedures as promulgated in Method 9, and
record the reason for his deviation from accepted procedures.
Any deletions or changes in the recorded data is to be lined out,
and the correct figure recorded close by. No erasures or other
changes are to be made on the evaluation form. A suggested
visible emissions observation form is included as Attachment 9.
It is extremely important to note conditions observed
during the plant visit where processes were found to be in
operation and where visible emissions were negligible or meeting
the applicable regulations. Such a report on these processes may
be as important in terms of assessing a source's compliance as
evidence of a violation. These reports aid in forming a complete
picture of the plant's compliance.
-32-
-------
The evaluator follows established chain-of-custody
procedures for the original data sheets. These procedures follow
the one-key, one-file, one-man approach to custody, and must be
maintained continually for all unresolved cases.
2. Sketch - A complete sketch is included in the
field report illustrating the following:
a. name and address of company.
b. identification of source being evaluated.
c. specific geographic features such as streets,
buildings and highways to positively identify source
and plant locations.
d. observer's location and estimated distance
from the source.
e. arrow showing wind direction.
f. arrow showing north direction.
g. the sketch should include the position of the
sun with respect to the observer. A relatively simple
method of doing this is to draw a figure similar to
that shown below where the circle represents the
horizon; the intersection of the quadrant line
indicates the observers location; the arrow represents
his line of sight; and the small circle indicates sun
position.
-33-
-------
Line of
Sight
Horizon
Observation
Point
Position
of Sun
3. Data Summary - A data summary is included with the
report. Relevant data of the following type must be included
with this summary:
a. name of source.
b. range of opacity readings.
c. total number of opacity readings taken.
d. total number of opacity readings in excess of
that allowed in the standard.
e. reading averages (sets of 24).
f. citation of the appropriate opacity
regulation.
g. the name and certification date of the
visible emission evaluator.
A statistical presentation of the above data is
particularly necessary for presentation to other parties in an
administrative conference, hearing, or lawsuit. The data must be
-34-
-------
summarized in a form to allow comparison with the approriate
regulation.
VI. PHOTOGRAPHY
Photographs are sufficiently important that a separate
section is here devoted to the use of a camera on or near a
source. EPA has the authority under 8114, to take photographs of
actual or potential emission points under circumstances in which
an inspector may inspect a source.
By taking good quality photographs the visible emission
evaluator can illustrate the conditions he will be exposed to in
evaluating various plumes which are in violation of opacity
standards. Photos can also illustrate the complex setting of
some of the emissions the evaluator is called upon to evaluate.
Clearly, not all emissions are released from easily observed
chimneys and stacks, and the evaluator, by photography, will be
able to accurately identify the emission source.
Photographs can also illustrate the correct evaluation
procedures followed by an inspector, in compliance with Method 9
of the November 12, 1974, Federal Register (39 FR 219, pp 39873-
39875). Usually, the complexity of some emission sources makes
it incumbent on the inspector to familiarize himself with most
processes and operations in his region, so that if and when he
offers testimony on what he observed, he does not make any
mistakes which could have been avoided.
Photographs can also illustrate conditions the inspector
cannot include in his report, in supplementing hard evidence of
-35-
-------
opacity violations he may have observed. For example, if a
particular plant was shut down on the day of inspection, analysis
of photographs of nearby structures and plant life can
graphically illustrate that significant amounts of particulate
are emitted from the source.
-36-
-------
ATTACHMENT #1
RULES AND REGULATIONS APC 11
CHAPTER ELEVEN: APC 11
APC 11 Restriction of Emission of Visible Air Contaminants
(a) Smoke restrictions applicable to existing installations including boats
and ships except existing incineration. No person shall cause or permit the
emission of smoke or any other air contaminant which has a shade or density:
(1) Darker than No. 3 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart or of such
opacity as to obscure an observer's view to a degree equal to or greater than
smoke of No. 3 Ringelmann density.
(2) Darker than No. 2 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart but less than
No. 3 on said chart, if such emission continues for longer than 4 minutes
in the aggregate in any 60-minute period, or of such opacity as to obscure
an observer's view to a degree equal to or greater than smoke of No. 2, but
less than No. 3 Ringelmann density during such period.
(3) Darker than No. 1 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart but less than
No. 2 on said chart, if said emission continues for longer than 4 minutes in
the aggregate in any 30-minute period, or of such opacity to obscure an
observer's view to a degree equal to or greater than smoke of No. 1, but less
than No. 2 Ringelmann density during such period.
The density of smoke or other air contaminant shall be measured at the
point of its emission, except, when the point of emission cannot be readily
observed, measurement shall be made at the nearest observable point on the
plume from the point of emission origin.
(b) Smoke restrictions applicable to new installations and all incinerators.
No person shall discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of
. emission whatsoever any air contaminant which has a shade or density:
(1) Darker than that designated as No. 1 on the Ringelmann Smoke
Chart; or
(2) Of such opacity as to obscure an observer's view to a degree greater
than smoke described in subsection (b) (1) of ths regulation.
(c) Exceptions.
(1) A person may discharge into the atmosphere from any single source
of emission for a period or periods aggregating no! more than 4 minutes in
any 60 minutes air contaminants or a shade or cfcsKiry:
(aa) Not darker than No. 2 on the RingeSnann Smoke Chart; or
(bb) Of such opacity as to obscure an observer's view to a degree not
greater than does smoke described in subsection (aid) (aa) of this regulation.
Where the presence of uncombined water is tie - ily reason for failure
of an emission to meet the requirements of sectim . or (b) of this regula-
tion, such sections shall not apply. The provisions of this regulation shall not
apply to:
(i) Transfer of molten metals;
(ii) Emissions from transfer ladles;
(iii) Coke ovens when pushing coke fronioven;
(iv) Water quenching of coke on discharg, from ovens;
39
-------
APC 11 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
(v) Existing grey iron jobbing cupolas as defined in Regulation
APC 5; and
(vi) Blast furnaces during slips.
(2) A temporary operational breakdown of any equipment, installation
or facility may be permitted by the Agency to be an exception to the provi-
sions of Regulation APC 11 provided the owner or operator immediately
advises the Director of the circumstances and outlines an acceptable correc-
tive program. A temporary breakdown of less than 15 minutes duration is
an exception to the provisions of Regulation APC 11 and need not be re-
ported. No equipment, installation or facility shall be operated which has an
unreasonable breakdown frequency as determined by the Director. In any
event, no operation that may cause an immediate public health hazard shall
be deemed an exception from this regulation.
(d) Ringelmann Smoke Chart. The Ringelmann Smoke Chart shall mean
and include any of the following:
(1) The Ringelmann Smoke Chart with instructions for use (Informa-
tion Circular 8333, May, 1967, Rev. of 1C 7718) as published by the U. S.
Bureau of Mines;
(2) The Ringelmann Smoke Chart, photographically reduced to I/19th
in size and known as Power's Microringelmann Chart, copyright 1954 by
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company; and
(3) Such other method or apparatus for determining smoke density or
opacity as the Agency may approve.
[My 7, 1969; amended September 14, 1971; amended April 13, 1972]
40
-------
ATTACHMENT #1
REGULATION ANALYSIS
Minnesota
A. In Minnesota* the emission of smoke or any other air contaminants
from existing point sources of any opacity equal to or greater than
No. 3 Ringlemann is prohibited. In brief, this means that emis-
sions of a density equal to or greater than 60% opacity are in vio-
lation of the regulation.
This regulation is applied to all existing point sources within
the State, except incinerators.
Each opacity reading of 60% opacity in an aggregate of 4 minutes
per hour constitutes a violation of the regulation and is enforce-
able by U.S. EPA.
The following exceptions apply to APC-11:
1. Smoke or other air contaminants of a shade or density equal
to or darker than No. 2 Ringlemann (40%) but less than No.
3 Ringlemann (60%) for not more than four minutes, in the
aggregate, in any 60 minute period is allowed.
2. Smoke or other air contaminants of a shade or density equal
to or greater than No. 1 Ringlemann (20%) but less than No.
2 Ringlemann (40%) for not more than four minutes in the
aggregate in any 30 minute period is allowed.
B. The emission of any air contaminant from new installations and all
incinerators in excess of 20% opacity is prohibited. The following
limitations apply:
1. Air contaminants of a shade or density equal to but not
darker than No. 2 Ringlemann are permitted, not to exceed an
aggregate of four minutes in any 60 minutes.
2. Breakdowns of equipment, if reported, are an exception to the
regulations. The density of the plume shall be evaluated at
the point of its emission, or at a point observable near the
point of emission.
The presence of uncombined water in the plume shall not con-
tribute to a violation of this regulation. The regulation
shall not apply to the following operations:
*Rule APC-11, Restriction of Emission of Visible Air Contaminants.
Rules and regulations-Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (Attached.)
-------
(1) Molten metal transfer;
(2) Transfer ladle emissions;
(3) Coke pushing operations;
(4) Coke quenching;
(5) Grey iron cupolas;
(6) Blast furnace slips.
-------
Nl
~PH
frl 2^
** u
w?
^3
HO
^
W
r i
| POSSIBLE SOURC
§
Q
^5
s
^
s
z
s
s
PJ
H
2
^
s
s
tt
a
)DITIVE-l-HOi
M
<
[ STOPWATCH
GSA 6605-171-5121
OLOGISTS
H
O
[ COMPASS
Z
DWYER MFC: MICHIGAN'CITY I
WIND METER
HONEYWELL PENT AX
VI
a
o
o
N
s
s
o
S
00
s
00
s
•/">
CO
| CAMERA
•n
1
1
MSA TYPE N, MODEL SW-CANIS'
3
O
^>
<&
«r"
TIVATED CHj
o
w
S
O
AMERICAN OPTICAL R-6057
04
w
s
PLACABLE Fl
PJ
| RESPIRATOR
i — i
H- )
00
SA-SO CO., GRAND PRAjRIE, TX
S
| BINOCULARS
vq
(N
e
BROOKSTONE CO. L-2420 HOLS'
ACCURACY
^
j RANGEFINDER
o
| SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC. #21
p-
o
o
O
H
U-
0
o
(N
W
O
T
1 PSYCHROMETER
*
00
oo
oo
SEARS ROEBUCK & CO. #14F-f
w
^*
\ DUFFEL BAG
GSA #7520-28 159 18
| CLIPBOARD
AMERICAN OPTICAL BX18L
| SAFETY HELMET
AMERICAN OPTICAL 482B
j SAFETY GOGGLES
J SEARS ROEBUCK & CO.
j SAFETY BOOTS
Q
HA APPROVE
Vl
O
| NOISE PROTECTOR
GSA 7 105-282-0684
| FOLDING STOOL
VI
V
| TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
w
O
c£
w
s
| PARKAS, COLD WE^
| COVERALLS
| LANTERN
E~^
C/3
z
g
§
| RUBBER IDENTIFIC
PJ
3
o
w
w
[ FOUR-WHEEL DRTV
-------
ATTACHMENT 3 TAB D
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
WATERSIDE MALL
NOV 81972
Memorandum
To: All Regional Counsels
From: Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
^General Counsel
*
Subject: Visitors1 Releases and Hold Harmless Agreements
as a Condition to Entry of EPA Employees on
Industrial Facilities .
FACTS
As a condition to entry on industrial facilities, certain
firms have, required EPA employees to sign agreements which
purport to release the company from tort liability. The following
"Visitors Release" required by the Owens-Corning Fiberglas
Corporation Is an example:
VISITORS RELEASE
In consideration of permission to enter the
premises of Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation
and being aware of the risk of injury from
equipment, negligence of employees or of other
visitors, and from other causes, the undersigned
assumes all risk, releases said corporation,
and agrees to hold it harmless from liability
for any injury to him or his property while upon
its premises. . .
READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING
In addition to such "Visitors Releases" employees or
their supervisors have been asked to sign entry permits which
include an agreement that EPA will pay for any injury or damage
resulting from our activities at the facility.
-------
2
QUESTIONS
1. Does signing such a "Visitors Release" effectively
valve tha employee's right to obtain damages for tortious injury?
2. May EPA employees contractually obligate the Agency
to pay for any injury or damage caused by our activities?
3. May firms condition EPA's entry upon signing such
agreements?
ANSWERS
1. Gene'rally, yes; employees waive their right to
damages and the government is prevented frora^exercising its
right of subrogation under the Federal Employees' Compensation
Act.
2. No; federal tort liability is established and limited
by the Federal Tort Claims Act, and such agreements are also
invalid as violative of the Anti-Deficiency Act.
3. No; EPA employees possess a right of entry under
both the Clean Air Act and the Federal W^ter.Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972.
DISCUSSION
Although the precise effect of an advance release of
liability for negligence cannot be determined without reference
to the law of the state in which the tort occurs, we must
assume that such agreements are generally valid. By signing
such agreements EPA employees may effectively waive their right
to sue for damages and the government's right of subrogation
under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 USC 8101 et seq.
The Restatement of Contracts. Ch. 18, § 575 states;
A bargain for exemption from liability for the
consequences of a willful breach of duty is illegal,
and a bargain for exemption from liability for
the consequences of negligence is illegal if
(a) the parties are employer and employee and
the bargain relates to negligent injury of
the employee in the course of the employment,
or,
(b) one of the parties is charged with a duty of
public service, and jfhe bargain relates to
negligence in the performance of any part
of its duty to the public, for which it has
received or been promised compensation . . .
-------
With the exceptions mentioned in the Restatement of Contractst
supra, no general public policy seems to exist against express
agreements for assumption of risk, and they need not be
supported by consideration. 10 Prosser on Torts § 55 and
Restatement of Torts 2d, Ch. 17A, §4968. Despite this general
rule, cases arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act involving
releases signed by civilian passengers prior to boarding ill-fated
government aircraft indicate that the courts do not favor such
agreements. (Friedman v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.. 138 F. Supp.
530 (1956)—a release is no defense against gross, willful, or
wanton negligence in New York; Rogow v. U.S.. 173 F. Supp. 547
(1959)—a release is Ineffective unless the flight is gratuitous;
Montellier v. U. S. . 315 F2d 180 (1963)—a release does not
destroy a cause of action for wrongful death in Massachusetts.)
Such apparent judicial disfavor of advance releases is, of coursfe,
insufficient justification for assuming the risk of signing them,
and ordinary prudence requires us to assume their validity. Although
signing a release does not affect the employee's right to benefits
under FECA, such compensation will ordinarily be much less than
might be recovered in a tort action against the negligent
corporation.
Since the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 USC 8131
and 8132,. provides that an employee may be required to assign
his right to sue third parties to the United States and that
the employee must, within limitations, pay over any recovery
from third parties as reimbursement of FECA benefits, the
employee's release prejudices the government's rights as well
as h,is own. Employees should therefore be instructed not to
sign such releases under any circumstances.
Although an EPA employee's express assumption of the risk
of injury to himself may be valid, an agreement which purports
to obligate EPA to pay all damages caused by our activities is
not- The Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 USC 2674 provides:
The United States shall be liable, respecting
the provisions of this title relating to tort
claims, in the same manner and to the same
extent as a private individual under like
circumstances, but shall not be liable for
interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages , . .
S
Congress has granted only a limited waiver of the government's
sovereign immunity, and 28 USC 2680 lists exceptions to the
-------
general waiver stated in 28 USC 2674, supra. Exceptions which
might be relevant in cases arising out of the actions of EPA
employees include 28 USC 2680(a):
Any claim based upon an act or omission of an
employee of the Government, exercising due care,
in the execution of a statute or regulation,
whether or not such statute or regulation be
valid, or based upon the exercise or performance
or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary
function or duty on the part of-a federal agency
or an employee of the Government, whether or not
the discretion involved be abused;
and 28 USC 2680(b):
Any claim arising out of assault, battery,
false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious
prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander,
misrepresentation, deceit, or interference
with contract rights . . .
Since the government's tort liability is limited by statute,
an administrative undertaking to expand such liability by
contract is probably invalid. In any event, EPA should not
create the occasion for judicial resolution of the question.
An additional basis for considering such indemnification
agreements invalid is the Anti-Deficiency Act, which provides
at 31 USC 665(a):i
•
No ojfficer or employee of the United States shall
make; or authorize an expenditure from or create
or authorize an obligation under any appropriation
or fund in excess of the amount available therein. . .
Since the extent of the government's obligation is uncertain,
the Comptroller General has stated that a contractual assumption
of tort ^Liability is not a lawful obligation of the United States,
and payment may not be made pursuant to such agreements. (7 CG 507,
16 CG 803, and 35 CG 86.) In fairness to companies which may
rely upon the validity of such indemnity provisions, employees
should be instructed not to sign them.
Inasmuch as the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water
Pollution Control! Act Amendments of 1972 grant EPA employees
a right of entry to corporate facilities, a company may not
-------
lawfully condition the exercise of this right upon the signing
of a release or indemnity agreement. The Clean Air Act
provides, at 42 USC 1857c--9(a)(2):
. . .the Administrator or his authorized
representative, upon presentation of his
credentials (A) shall have a right of entry
to, upon, or through any premises in which
an emission source is located or in which any
records required to be maintained"under paragraph
(1) of this section are located . . .
k
The procedure for enforcement of this right is provided in
42 USC 1857c—8:
(a)(3) Whenever, on the basis df any information
available to him, the Administrator finds that any
person is in violation of. . . any requirement
of section 1857c—9 of this title, he may issue an
order requiring such person to comply with such section
or requirement, or he may bring a civil action in
accordance with subsection (b) of this section.
(b) The Administrator may commence «a civil action for
appropriate relief, including a permanent or temporary
injunction, whenever any person—(4) fails or refuses
to comply with any requirement of section 1857c—9
of this title.
When a firm refuses entry to an EPA employee performing his
functions under the Clean Air Act, the employee may appropriately
cite the statute and remind the company of EPA's right to seek
judicial enforcement. If the company persists in its refusal,
EPA should go to court in preference to signing a "Visitors
Release."
In addition to procedure for judicial enforcement
similar\f.o that of the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 reinforce EPA's
right of entry with criminal and civil penalties. Section 309
states:
(c)(1) Any person who willfully or negligently violates
section . . .308 of this Act (Note—Section 305 establishes
the right of entry). . . shall be punished by a fine of not
less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day of violation,
or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both.
-------
If the conviction is for a violation committed after
a first convJction of such person under this paragraph,
punishment shall be by a fine of not more than $50,000
per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more
than two years, or by both.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection, the term 'person*
shall mean, in addition to the definition contained in
section 502(5) of this Act, any responsible corporate
officer.
(d) Any person who violates section . . .308 of this Act.
and any person who violates any order issued by the
Administrator under subsection (a) of this section
(Note—subsection (a) provides for administrative orders
to enf&fce the right of entry), shall be subject to a
civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per day of such
violation.
In See v. Seattle. 387 U.S. 541(1967) the Supreme Court
reversed the conviction of a corporation for refusal to admit
building inspectors of the City of Seattle. Justice White
held that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments required a
warrant for such inspections, even where the search was
reasonably related to protecting the public health and safety
and even where a corporation, rather than an individual, was
the subject. Under See evidence obtained by inspectors of
the Food and Drug Administration has been held inadmissible
where the inspectors obtained consent to enter by threatening
prosecution under 21 USC 331, which provides criminal penalties
for refusal to permit entry, U.S. v. Kramer Grocery Co..
418 F2d 987 (8th Cir., 1969). Although two more recent Supreme
Court decisions, Colonnade Catering Corp. v. U.S.. 397 U.S. 72
(1970) and U.S. v. Biswell. 92 S. Ct. 1593 (1972), may create
doubt as to whether See retains its original vigor (see
Memorandum of the Assistant to the Deputy General Counsel,
September 29, 1972), the possibility that evidence obtained
under the FWPCA Amendments of 1972 will be ruled inadmissible
is a risk EPA need not assume.
Since the Amendments provide for judicial enforcement of
the right of entry, EPA employees should be instructed not
to mention the civil or criminal penalties of Section 309
when faced with a refusal to permit entry. When such refusals
occur, this office should be informed immediately so that a
decision can be made as to whether to issue an order of the
Administrator under 309(a) or seek an appropriate judicial
remedy under 309(b).
V/John R. Quarles, Jr.
-------
ATTACHMENT 4
METHOD 9—VISUAL DETERMINATION OF THE
OPACITY OF EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES
Many stationary sources discharge visible emissions into the atmos-
phere; these emissions are usually in the shape of a plume. This method
involves the determination of plume opacity by qualified observers. The
method includes procedures for the training and certification of observers,
and procedures to be used in the field for determination of plume opacity.
The appearance of a plume as viewed by an observer depends upon a
number of variables, some of which may be controllable and some of which
may not be controllable in the field. Variables which can b,e controlled,
to an extent to which they no longer exert a significant influence upon
plume appearance include: angle of the observer with respect to the
plume; angle of the observer with respect to the sun; point of observation
of attached and detached steam plume; and angle of the observer with
respect to a plume emitted from a rectangular stack with a large length
to width ratio. The method includes specific criteria applicable to
these variables.
Other variables which may not be controllable in the field are
luminescence and color contrast between the plume and the background
against which the plume is viewed. These variables exert an influence
upon the appearance of a plume as viewed by an observer, and can affect
the ability of the observer to accurately assign opacity values to the
-------
2
observed plume. Studies of the theory of plume opacity and field studies
have demonstrated that a plume is most visible and presents the greatest
apparent opacity when viewed against a contrasting background. It
follows from this, and is confirmed by field trials, that the opacity of
a plume, viewed under conditions where a contrasting background is
present can be assigned with the greatest degree of accuracy. However,
the potential for a positive error is also the greatest when a plume is
viewed under such contrasting conditions. Under conditions presenting a
less contrasting background, the apparent opacity of a plume is less and
approaches zero as the color and luminescence contrast decrease toward
zero. As a result, significant bias and negative errors can be made
when a plume is viewed under less contrasting conditions. A negative
bias decreases rather than increases the possibility that a plant operator
will be cited for a violation of opacity standards due to observer
error.
Studies have been undertaken to determine the magnitude of positive
errors which can be made by qualified observers while reading plumes under
contrasting conditions and using the procedures set forth in this method.
The results of these studies (field trials) which involve a total of 769
sets of 25 readings each are as follows:
(1) For black plumes (133 sets at a smoke generator), 100% of the
sets were read with a positive error* of less than 7.5% opacity; 99%
were read with a positive error of less than 5% opacity.
*For a set, positive error + average opacity determined by observer's
25 observations - average opacity determined from transmissometer's 25
recordings.
-------
3
(2) For white plumes (170 sets at a smoke generator", 168 sets at
a coal-fired power plant, 298 sets at a sulfuric acid plant), 99% of the
sets were read with a positive error of less than 7.5% opacity; 95% were
read with a positive error of less than 5% opacity.
The positive observational error associated with an average of
25 readings is therefore established. The accuracy of the method must be
taken into account when determining possible violations of applicable
opacity standards.
1. Principle and applicability.
1.1 Principle. The opacity of emissions from stationary sources
is determined visually by a qualified observer.
1.2 Applicability. This method is applicable for determination of
the opacity of emissions from stationary sources pursuant to 860.11(b) and
for qualifying observers for visually determining opacity of emissions.
2. Procedures. The observer qualified in accordance with paragraph
3 of this method shall use the following procedures for visually determining
the opacity of emissions:
2.1 Position. The qualified observer shall stand at a distance
sufficient to provide a clear view of the emissions with the sun oriented
in the 140° sector to his back. Consistent with maintaining the above
requirement, the observer shall, as much as possible, make his observations
from a position such that his line of vision is approximately perpendicular
to the plume direction, and when observing opacity of emissions from rec-
tangular outlets (e.g. roof monitors, open baghouses, noncircular stacks),
approximately perpendicular to the longer axis of the outlet. The observer's
line of sight should not include more than one plume at a time when multiple
stacks are involved, and in any case the observer should make his obser-
vations with his line of sight perpendicular to the longer axis of such a
set of multiple stacks (e.g. stub stacks on baghouses).
-------
2.2 Field records. The observer shall record the name of the plant,
emission location, type facility, observer's name and affiliation, and the
date on a field data sheet (Figure 9-1). The time, estimated distance-1
to the emission location, approximate wind direction, estimated wind speed,
description of the sky condition (presence and color of clouds), and plume
background are recorded on a field data sheet at the time opacity readings
are initiated and completed.
2.3 Observations. Opacity observations shall be made at the point
of greatest opacity in that portion of the plume where condensed water
vapor is not present. The observer shall not look continuously at the
plume, but instead shall observe the plume momentarily at 15-second intervals,
2.3.1 Attached steam plumes. When condensed water vapor is present
within the plume as it emerges from the emission outlet, opacity observations
shall be made beyond the point in the plume at which condensed water vapor'
is no longer visible. The observer shall record the approximate distance
from the emission outlet to the point in the plume at which the observations
are made.
2.3.2 Detached steam plume. When water vapor in the plume condenses
and becomes visible at a distinct distance from the emission outlet, the
opacity of emissions should be evaluated at the emission outlet prior to
the condensation of water vapor and the formation of the steam plume.
2.4 Recording observations. Opacity observations shall be recorded
to the nearest 5 percent at 15-second intervals on an observational record
sheet. (See Figure 9-2 for an example.) A minimum of 24 observations
shall be recorded. Each momentary observation recorded shall be deemed
to represent the average opacity of emissions for a 15-second period.
-------
2.5 Data Reduction. Opacity shall be determined as an average of
24 consecutive observations recorded at 15-second intervals. Divide the
observations recorded on the record sheet into sets of 24 consecutive
observations. A set is composed of any 24 consecutive observations.
Sets need not be consecutive in time and in no case shall two sets
overlap. For each set of 24 observations, calculate the average by
summing the opacity of the 24 observations and dividing this sum by 24.
If an applicable standard specifies an averaging time requiring more
than 24 observations, calculate the average for all observations made
during the specified time period. Record the average opacity on a record
sheet. (See Figure 9-1 for an example.)
3. Qualifications and testing.
3.1 Certification requirements. To receive certification as a
qualified observer, a candidate must be tested and demonstrate the
ability to assign opacity readings in 5 percent increments to 25 different
black plumes and 25 different white plumes, with an error not to exceed
15 percent opacity on any one reading and an average error not to exceed
7.5 percent opacity in each category. Candidates shall be tested according
to the procedures described in paragraph 3.2. Smoke generators used
pursuant to paragraph 3.2 shall be equipped with a smoke meter which meets
the requirements of paragraph 3.3.
The certification shall be valid for a period of 6 months, at which
time the qualification procedure must be repeated by any observer in order
to retain certification.
3.2 Certification procedure. The certification test consists of
showing the candidate a complete run of 50 plumes—25 black plumes and 25
white plumes—generated by a smoke generator. Plumes within each set of
-------
6
25 black and white runs shall be presented in random order. The candi-
date assigns an opacity value to each plume and records his observations
on a suitable form. At the completion of each run of 50 readings, the
score of the candidate is determined. If a candidate fails to qualify,
the complete run of 50 readings must be repeated in any retest. The smoke
test may be administered as part of a smoke school or training program,
and may be preceded by training or familiarization runs of the smoke
generator during which candidates are shown black and white plumes of known
opacity.
-------
LU
OO
CQ
O
u_
o
o:
I
o
o.
I— O
«C >—i oo
CJ t— -Z. C£.
1-1 ^ 2 S
>-i _J 00 CJ
a:
cc: a: u.
UJ LU UJ O
> > >
o: ce: oc I—
LU UJ LiJ Z
oo oo oo »—<
ca CQ co o
O CD O Q.
o
LU
o
01
01
(O
T3
T3
"oi
a>
s-
3
O)
00
O
O
o
«t _i
U. O
a:
UJ t—
D- ^
>- O
I— O
>_
1 —
0
a.
o
ii.1
CO
C£
UJ
c^
u_
o
>-
a;
$r*
"£.
00
^
•r—
U
o
Q) .O
«/> E
.^ i
]
1 1
1 r 1
"-'
u
a.
0
0
E
O
i.
<*-
T3
Q)
en
c
to
*"
in
C7)
c:
•r—
•o
(U
01
r^
X_>
j-
•»->
31
ai
o
c.
to
r—
Q.
E
O
U
c
*r—
+J
O
c
in
ro
^
—
C/)
i
o
1_
13
O
V)
a)
i
(U
-a
lO
E
to
c
0
•1—
^>
to
3
ro
>
a>
O)
E
^~>
OJ
J_J
O)
en
i-
S_
OJ
in
jn
O
en
ai
O
>—«
a- to
•-« z:
o: o c
o •— o
OO t— 1—
LU t—' •»->
O Q U TO
•ZL o to
o a;
Ct LU -O -O
CO X C C
^ I— -r- -r-
CJ et 3 3:
CQ S»
O)
S-
3
•»J
•a:
u
(V
s- •
ro in
at xi
"o o
u
OO
o
«—t in
o 10
z: o
O s-
cj a>
o
O-
CJ
oo
LU
O 1-
o
LU "—
E O
^) CJ
(U
o
c
(O
o
-------
COMPANY
LOCATION
TEST NUMBER
DATE
FIGURE 9-2 OBSERVATION RECORD
OBSERVER
PAGE
OF
TYPE FACILITY
POINT OF EMISSIONS
Hr.
Min.
0
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
Seconds
0
Ib
3(J
4b
STEAM PLUME
(check if applicable)
Attached
Detached
COMMENTS
-------
COMPANY
LOCATION
TEST NUMBER
DATE
FIGURE 9-2 OBSERVATION RECORD
(Continued)
OBSERVER
PAGE
OF
TYPE FACILITY
POINT OF EMISSIONS
Hr.
M1n.
30
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
Seconds
0
15
30
45
STEAM PLUME
(check if apnlicable) ,
Attached
Detached
COMMENTS
-------
UJ
5
I
o
-------
ATTACHMENT 5b
FIGURE 2
DOOR REMOVED
VISIBLE EMISSIONS
QUENCH CAR
\
\
DOOR REMOVAL MACHINE
COKE
O
O
OBSERVER POSITION
GROUND LEVEL-COKE SIDE
PUSHING OPERATION
EMISSIONS EMANATE FROM THE COKE AS IT ENTERS THE QUENCH CAR AND
ARE EVALUATED AGAINST THE SKY.
FIGURES
ALL DOORS IN PLACE
LEVELING DOORS CLOSED
n
D
D
D
D
^
D
^
D
W
D
ii
D
D
D
D
rf
D
D
D
•^K.
n
**-«^
vTys/T/ffiwyysWs.
n
•—«.
• — \
t
1
GROUND LEVEL-PUSH SIDE
DOOR LEAKAGE
"*" 'C
VISIBLE EMISSIONS
AREA
OBSERVER POSITION
EMISSIONS EMANATE FROM THE EDGES OF THE COKE DOORS AND LEVELING
DOORS, AND ARE EVALUATED AGAINST THE BATTERY STRUCTURE.
-------
ATTACHMENT 6
DRILLING RIG
DRILLING
EMISSION POINT
r O
CRUSHING
LOADING
HOPPER
\
EMISSION POINT
I J LOADING HOPPER
EMISSION POINT
PRIMARY CRUSHER
SECONDARY CRUSHER
CONVEYING - SCREENING
CONVEYOR EMISSION POINT
SCREENING EMISSION POINT
STORAGE
EMISSION POINT
10/10/74
-------
ATTACHMENT 7
ROOF MONITOR EMISSIONS
EMISSION POINTS
V,
ROOF MONITOR
OBSERVER POSITION
10/10/74
-------
ATTACHMENT 8
Industrial Air Pollution Survey of Point Source
Ken Malmberg
Technical Advisor
Ken Shih
Chief, Field Support Section
NAME & LOCATION
ABC Grain Co.
Decatur, IN 46733
DATE OF SURVEY
January 31, 1974
EPA PERSONNEL PARTICIPATING
Kenneth B. Malmberg
William Beyer
PERSONNEL CONTACTED
Mr. Ben Jones, Plant Manager
PURPOSE
ABS responded to a request from Enforcement Division to ascertain
whether or not the suspect source was in apparent violation of visible
emission regulation APC-3, for the state of Indiana. Specifically, we were
to inspect the elevator operations, and the oil extraction plant, and take
note of any other emissions that are near the visible emissions limit of
40% opacity.
PRODUCTS
Soybean oil and soybean meal is produced at this feed mill which pro-
cesses 70,000 bushels per day of soybeans. The meal is used as a constituent
to animal feed with approximately (5/6) of total production sold to other
producers. The remaining (1/6) of the meal is combined with grains into
a complete line of animal and polutry feeds, bagged and shipped from this
location. Mollasses and meat scraps are additives to various of these
feeds.
-------
The crude soybean oil is filtered, then degummed with an alkaline solu-
tion in the initial refining stage. It then proceeds to the edible oil
refining and shortening plant for final processing prior to shipping.
PROCESS
The soybean is unloaded from boxcars into deep receiving hoppers for
elevator storage. From the elevator the beans are removed as needed.
After cleaning the bean is cracked by feeding it through rolling equip-
ment, and then the hulls are removed. The remaining part of the beans are
rolled into a flake and hexane is injected into the process to remove the
fat. Since the hexane is volatile, a closed system of recovery is provided
for recovery of the solvent. Any solvent remaining is driven off as a
vapor by toasting the flake and then condensed for eventual recovery in a
separation tank.
MAJOR RAW MATERIALS
Soybeans, alfalfa, corn, phosphates.
TECHNICAL SURVEY OF EMISSION SOURCES
1. Boiler house (6) readings were recorded over 40% opacity during (30)
minutes of evaluation. The remainder of readings (50 readings) were
in the (35%) to (40%) opacity range. This boiler house consists of
(2) coal-fired boilers, and (1) gas-fired boiler, with all (3) boilers
venting into a common stack.
2. East Workhouse Dryer-Emissions from the vent on this dryer were in the
25% to 35% opacity range while observed. They were located on top of
North Receiving House Elevators.
3. #2 Truck Dump Aspiration-This ground-level collector was emitting
particulate in the 30% to 40% opacity range during observation. This
emission had ceased by the time the inspection was begun. This is the
only truck dump which does not have a baghouse collection device.
4. Tunnel Belt Aspiration-Jumbo Silos-This collection device was emitting
in the 20 to 30% opacity range during the entire time of observation
of the boiler house.
5. Top Belt System Aspiration-Prior to the in-plant inspection, this
source was observed emitting particulate in the 20% to 30% opacity
range.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In view of the numerous emission sources at this plant, many of which
are borderline with respect to visible emission violations, emission factors
should be used to substantiate violations of applicable State regulations.
Continued surveillance of this source would probably produce opacity
readings similar to the above which were not in excess of (50%) opacity.
-------
SOURCE NAME ,
ATTACHMENT 9
VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATION FORM
(EXAMPLE)
OBSERVER
ADDRESS .
DATE
OBSERVATION POINT
STA^K- DISTANT FR^M HFTHHT
WiNn spF.F.n niRFrnnN
SKY TDNDTTinN-
POT DR OF EMISSION: ,
REI ATIVF HTiMIPITY-
OBSERVATION RF.C.AN FNDED
A.MRTFNT AIR TFMPFR ATTTRF-
FVATTTATnR'S Sir.NATURF-
PFRTIFir ATIHN HATF:
COMMENTS:
PLANT REPRESENTATIVE:
NAME:
TITT F-
0
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
0
15
30
45
30
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
0
15
30
45
-------
APPENDIX A-1
DOOR OBSERVATIONS
COMPANY .
LOCATION .
INSPECTION.
COM. REP. .
SKY CONDITION
BACKGROUND
WIND DIRECTION
WIND VELOCITY
DATE:
BATTERY
OVEN NO.
PUSH OR
COKE SIDE
TIME: START
FINISH
COMMENTS
-------
A-2
TOPSIDE OBSERVATIONS
COMPANY .
LOCATION,
BATTERY ID ,
DATE
INSPECTOR ,
COMPANY REP..
OVEN NO.
LEAKING
TIME:
START
FINISH
PUSH SIDE
OPENINGS
PS LIDS CS
1234
COKE SIDE
OPENINGS
COMMENTS
CODE: OPENING =^> C-CAP
F-FLANGE
B-BASE
n OTHRR
V
SKY CONDITIONS
BACKGROUND
WIND DIRECTION
WIND VELOCITY
-------
A-3
CHARGING OBSERVATIONS
COMPANY
LOCATION
INSPECTOR
COMPANY REP.
BATTERY ID
OVEN ID
DATE
o
o
o
OBSERVATION LOCATION
SKY CONDITION
BACKGROUND
WIND DIRECTION (SHOW ON DIAGRAM)
WIND VELOCITY
CODE: INDICATE POSITION RELATIVE
TO LARRY CAR
TIME OF CHARGE: START
TIME> % OPACITY
END
MAX. OPACITY ,
MARK DOMINANT
EMISSION POINTS
r
COMMENTS
r
-------
A-4
w
ftj ^
o >-
H Z
P-! Oj
p. >«;H
Z O
a o
C/3
O
C/3
ca
O
O
w
o
S
SO
u
All
i§
CD
1
z
DATE:
(C)
DF TIME DOOR TIME
i REPLACED BETW
(2Q pj &5
H
^Q
^|w
LLJ
H
H
CQ
W
O
. w
HO
s §
I §
o o
Q Q
Z Z
-------
APPENDIX B
COKE OVEN EVALUATION FORM
CO. NAME:
ADDRESS:
TOTAL
NO. BATTERIE
BATTERY NO.
d
1
O
OVEN DA
«•
TA
NO. O^
S
D
STATF.:
DATE:
INSP. BY:
CONTROL EQUIPMENT CHARGING METHOD
FUNS:
INGLE M
OUBLE J
ATN:
SHEI
MO
rtAIN:
->! ST
BILE HO
OTH
OD:
iQUENTI
ER:
AL:
STAG
OTHE
PLACE CHECKMARK IN APPROPRIATE SPACE
CHARGING
SLEEVES
CHG. LID
COKING
DOORS
PUSH
COKE
CHUCK
STAND
PIPES
PUSHING
Push
ToQu.
Tower
QUENCHING
Quench
To
Wharf
QUENCH TOWERS
RAFFTF.S-
R: , , DF.MISTFRS-
R: OTHER:
REMARKS
TOTAL
% LEAKING
% ALLOWED
VIOLATION
REGULATION
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1975 210-810/32 1-3
------- |