EPA-340/1-85-019
Guide To Effective Inspection
Reports For Air Pollution Violations
Prepared By:
Barbara Burton
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
Under Subcontract To:
JACA Corporation
550 Pinewood Road
Fort Washington, PA 19034
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3962
Work Assignment No. 20
EPA Project Manager: John Busik
EPA Work Assignment Manager: Kirk Foster
U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
Washington, DC 20460
September 1985
-------
INTENDED. PURPOSE
This document is issued by the Stationary Source Compliance
nivision Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA.
5J il iSiendeS for use in technical workshops on compliance in-
spection procedures presented by agency staff.
This is not an official policy and standards document. The
ot.iniSns finding! and conclusions are those of the author and
n1£ necessarily ?hose of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Every aSmpt has been made to represent the current state-of-the-
art^n thl?ubjJct area, but it is anticipated that changes will
be made to the document as information on new or revised inspection
procedures become available.
CODies of this guideline are available through the Library
Service Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
tlsltrch Triangle Park N.C. 27711; or from the Stationary Source
Compliance Division Workshop Coordinator (MD-7), at the same
address.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
REPORT CONTENT 5
BASIC BACKGROUND INFORMATION 7
DOCUMENTATION OF VIOLATION 10
WHY THE VIOLATION OCCURRED 15
OTHER MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING FACTORS 20
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24
PHOTOGRAPHS 25
CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION OR TRADE SECRETS 27
CHECKLIST FOR A COMPLETE REPORT 30
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: "A Discussion of Report Writing Techniques
Prepared for the Bay Area Pollution Control
District"
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure #
Figure #2
Figure #3A
Figure #3B
Figure #4
Figure #5
Figure #6
Figure 17
Figure #8
Figure #9
Page
- Examples of Complete Background Information 9
- Checklist for Opacity Readings Following 12
Method 9
Example of Complete Violation Documentation 13
Visible Emissions Report Form 14
Example of Incomplete Description of the Cause 17
of Violation
Example of Complete Description of the Cause 18
of Violation
Example Report Segment on Mitigating and 23
Aggravating Factors
Confidential Business Information - Federal 29
Requirements
Checklist for a Complete Violation Report 31
Example Complete Report 32
11
-------
INTRODUCTION
The goal of all air pollution control agencies is to maintain clean
air in our communities. A major means of accomplishing this is
through the enforcement-of existing air pollution control laws and
regulations. Inspectors, through carefully documented violation
reports and well thought out follow-up actions, are the key to any
effective enforcement program.
Air pollution control enforcement programs all have the same goal
- to discourage sources from violating regulations, and to return
violators to operating in compliance as quickly as possible and with
as little expense of time and resources by the agency as possible.
A well written inspection report is the single most important element
of any case that ends up in court. It is crucial to an agency's
winning court cases. But, more importantly, properly documented
violations can prevent most cases from going to court. When the
company receives the notice of violation and sees the well-documented
violation, it is much less likely to challenge the agency in court
than if it appears the agency has a weak case. Having a source
understand that a violation has occurred, and that the agency can
prove it, is the important first step in moving them towards continuous
compliance without the expense and delay involved in contested
violations.
- 1 -
-------
If a violation should have to go to court or be appealed administra-
tively, a well-written inspection report is of considerable value
to the agency's case. Often, such cases may not be heard until years
after the violation occurred. Without complete documentation, no
inspector could be expected to accurately reconstruct what happened
several years after the violation. The complete inspection report
also will help agencies avoid prosecuting (and losing) weak cases.
A complete inspection report will prevent some defenses by the
violator, such .as a later claim of unavoidable process upset or
equipment malfunction when the inspector documented another cause
of the violation. Finally, while an incomplete inspection report
can often be fleshed out by the agency attorney through formal
information/data requests and through depositions and subpoenas of
the company officials, it is much cheaper and quicker if the inspector
gets this critical information during the inspection and documents
it in the initial inspection report.
Inspection reports also are important in determining what enforcement
action, if any, is appropriate for a given violation. Certainly, a
deliberate shutting down of control equipment during an air pollution
"episode is likely to result in a more severe agency response than a
true upset by a company located in a sparsely settled area. As the
person on the spot, most closely interacting with the source and
with the public, the inspector is in a unique position to evaluate
violations and recommend appropriate enforcement actions. A clear,
- 2 -
-------
well-written inspection report documenting the seriousness of the
violation and efforts (past and present) of the source to comply will
be extremely important in determining what agency action is taken.
Finally, a violation report provides a written record for future
action. Some agencies may choose not to pursue a particular violation.
Careful documentation in the inspection report is still necessary,
however, in case more violations occur and the agency proceeds with
enforcement action in the future. The earlier reports, if properly
done, can be used to establish a pattern of violations. A well-
written inspection report, then, will accomplish the following:
Encourage timely compliance by convincing the source a
violation has occurred and can be proven;
Minimize agency cost by preventing enforcement actions
being challenged by the source;
Allow the choice of" appropriate follow-up action;
Provide a solid basis for court cases;
Allow the inspector input into follow-up enforcement
actions; and
Provide a written record for use in future enforcement
actions.
This guide was prepared primarily to assist State and local air
pollution control agency inspectors. It is not intended to be a
general guide to writing inspection reports, but rather focuses
specifically on documenting violations found during inspections.
- 3 -
-------
Some agencies may limit the role of the inspector in the enforcement
process to on-site fact gatherers. This guide is aimed at the more
common agency policy of giving the inspector a major role in determin-
ing whether or not a violation occurred, and for making recommendations
as to follow-up actions.
- 4 -
-------
REPORT CONTENT
An inspection report describes what actually happened during the
inspection. There is no one format for a good report. However,
there are certain types of information that must be included:
Basic background information. This would include such
information as the date and time .of the inspection, and
the name and location of the source.
Documentation of the violation.
Mitigating and aggravating factors. This would include
such factors as the seriousness of the violation and the
past history of the source in complying.
Recommendation for follow-up action.
The report should be written so that it is clear, concise, but
complete. The reader should be able to clearly understand what
happened during the inspection. A narrative style is recommended,
with complete sentences and paragraphs used. Presenting what happened
in chronological order is one way of organizing the report in a
logical manner.
The writer must clearly distinguish between what he/she personally
observed or measured, what company officials said, and what the
inspector concluded based on the information gathered. Personal
observations or measurements are preferred and should be documented
where possible to support or refute company official's statements.
- 5 -
-------
When quoting or paraphrasing statements by others, the speaker should
be identified. Avoid the use of pronouns when the person referred to
is not clear.
The length of the violation inspection report will vary depending
on the complexity of the violation and source. Two or three type-
written pages, not counting attached documents, will be sufficient
for many less complex non compliance situations.
In all cases, a professional tone should be used. The language
should be reasonably jargon-free, as company officials and attorneys,
who are not air pollution control experts, may well read the report.
Under no circumstances should "cute", sarcastic, or derogatory
language be used in the report. The credibility of the inspector
rests largely on his/her professionalism and detachment. Any
adversarial tone will greatly diminish the credibility of the
inspector in court. -
Edwin Dubiel, Assistant Attorney General for the State of California,
has best described the goal of an air pollution inspector's report:
"The more thorough and intelligent the form of the report is,
the more believable will be its substance. The goal of the
inspector's report should be the same as the lawyer's court
documents: written not so that persons reading in good faith
will understand it, but so that persons reading in bad faith
will not misunderstand it."
The content of a good report will be discussed in more detail in the
following sections.
- 6 -
-------
BASIC BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Each report should start out with some basic information about the
inspection and the source inspected.
Source identification. Full name of company or individual
responsible for the violation and location of source.
Time. Date and time of inspection.
Reason for inspection. Routine patrol, response to a
complaint, routine annual inspection.
Proper entry procedures. Credentials presented to
responsible company official, purpose of inspection
explained.
Responsible source official contacted. Full name and title.
The actual party or company responsible for the violation will usually
be obvious. In some cases it may be difficult to sort out who the
responsible party is, but it is important that the inspector get a
clear picture of this while on-site if at all possible. For example,
an open-burning violation may be caused by a sub-contractor working
at a plant site. If the violation is issued to the plant owners,
they may challenge this by claiming they were not responsible. Such
challenges are common, and much time and expense can be saved by
sorting out the responsibility or at least listing all possible
responsible parties in the inspection report.
Documenting that proper entry procedures were followed is recommended.
Under the Clean Air Act, and many state environmental laws, entry
v
-------
onto premises for inspections is permitted _if proper identification
is shown and the purpose of the visit explained. Documenting that
this occurred will prevent future disputes over whether the violation
documentation was legally obtained.
Two examples of complete background reports are shown in Figure 1.
ft
-------
FIGURE 1
Examples Of Complete Background Information
Example A Narrative form
"March 31, 1984, I was on routine patrol in the Eastgate area.
At 9:35 a.m. I noticed a plume of dense black smoke. I traced it
to the Roscoe Company located at 2342 Eastgate Highway in
Springfield. At 9:40 a.m. I stopped at the office of Roscoe
Company at the above address. I identified myself to the
receptionist and requested to speak with the plant manager.
The receptionist said he was not in the office, but that Joe
Brown, the Environmental Engineer for Roscoe Company, was in.
I then met briefly with Mr. Brown and identified myself as
representing the Springfield APCD. I also explained that I was
there to investigate the thick black plume I had seen. Mr.
Brown expressed surprise that there was any smoke. I requested
that we go together to see if we could find the cause of the
smoke. He agreed, and we then went out into the plant."
Example B - Outline form
Source names Roscoe Company
Location: 2342 Eastgate Highway, Springfield.
Date: March 31, 1984
Time: First saw plume at 9:35 a.m., entered plant at 9:40 a.m.,
left plant at 11:10 a.m.
Source contact: Joe Brown, Environmental Engineer
Reason for inspection: To investigate dense black plume seen
while on routine patrol in Eastgate
area.
Proper entry procedures followed?: Yes. Credentials presented
to Joe Brown, entry permitted by Mr. Brown.
_ o _
-------
DOCUMENTATION OP VIOLATION
The actual documentation of the violation is the heart of the report.
Each regulation that was violated should be listed by number and a
full description included of why the inspector thinks the regulation
was violated. As in all sections of the report, it is important to
distinguish between what was personally observed or measured, what
was told by plant personnel, and what was concluded based on other
information.
In deciding what information is required in this section, carefully
look at the regulation that has been violated. Each section of the
regulation must be proved and that no exemptions to the regulation
apply. This includes requirements for applicability of the
regulation, such as date of installation, location of the source,
and type of process equipment.
For example, assume a boiler stack exhaust was read at greater than
20% opacity for six minutes, which is in excess of the rule which
only allows three minutes per hour above 20%. However, another
1 v , i '
section of the regulation allows 20 minutes of excess emissions for
boiler start-up. By documenting that the inspector looked at the
steam chart and that the steam output was normal and close to the
rated capacity during the opacity reading and for one hour before
the reading, that exemption was effectively eliminated as a possible
defense.
- 10 -
-------
The method used to measure excessive emissions must be fully documented
in the report. In almost all cases, standard methods either formally
specified by the agency, or using federally approved methods included
in the New Source Performance Standards should have been used. Use
the method as a checklist to make sure that each requirement of the
method was used and documented. For opacity readings, this information
is generally included on the opacity form. Figure 2 gives a checklist
of required information for opacity readings under the federally
approved Method 9. If you have deviated from the approved method in
any way, you should document what the deviation is and why you did
it. Figure 3 gives a section of an example report that clearly
documents a violation.
- 11 -
-------
FIGURE 2
Checklist For Opacity Readings
Following Method 9
Required Information
Name of plant.
Emission location.
Type facility.
Observer's name and affiliation.
Date and time of reading.
Estimated distance to the emission location.
Wind direction and estimated speed.
Description of sky condition and plume background.
Opacity observations at 15-second intervals.
Sun position relative to the observer.
Presence of steam in the plume, and where the plume was read,
- 12 -
-------
FIGURE 3A
Example Of Complete Violation Documentation
"Attached is the opacity reading I took on the asphalt plant rotary
dryer. I followed Method 9 specifications in taking the reading,
which showed a six-minute average opacity of 42.7%. This is in
excess of Regulation 42.035, which prohibits opacity from an asphalt
plant located in Jefferson County and built after July 1, 1971, from
exceeding 20% opacity. The plant is located in Jefferson County (3
miles east of Vernon) and was built in 1975 according to the company's
permit application dated February 3, 1976."
- 13 -
-------
FIGURE 3B
Visible Emissions Report. Form
VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATION FORM
- 14 -
-------
WHY THE VIOLATION OCCURRED
Answering this one question is often the most difficult part of the
inspection and report, as well as being one of the most important
parts of the report. An accurate determination of the cause of the
excess emissions will:
Help determine whether or not enforcement action is taken,
and if so, what type of action.
Help in evaluating the reasonableness and timeliness of
corrective action by the violator.
Help ensure that corrective actions will prevent recurring,
similar violations.
The causes of emission violations can range from a deliberate shutting
off of control devices to a genuine, unavoidable mechanical breakdown.
In all cases, a distinction must be made in the report between what
the inspector was told by source personnel, what he/she observed,
and what he/she concluded based on available information. Direct
observations are the best evidence and should be documented in the
report even if source officials admit to a specific cause for the upset.
Any and all relevant information regarding the possible cause of the
violation should be included in the report. Such information could
include: production rates (as seen in logs or on charts), unusual
appearance of raw materials or final products, unusual plume
appearance, air pollution control equipment operating gauge readings,
- 15 -
-------
unusual appearance of the control or process equipment, maintenance
records, purchase orders for repairs to be done, unusual sounds or
vibrations in process or control equipment, and so on.
Of particular concern will be documentation regarding the possibility
of an upset or other exempt activity. Most states will allow excessive
emissions under certain limited conditions, including a truly
unavoidable upset, during necessary control equipment repair, and
sometimes during start-up or shut-down. Sources will often claim
this exemption. The rules and definitions regarding such exemptions
should be read carefully by the inspector, prior to writing the
report, if they are not already known, and should be used as a guide
in determining what is relevant to include. If excessive emissions
are allowed only during truly unavoidable upsets, then include any
information that will either prove or disprove a true upset.
Figure 4 is a section from an example report illustrating incomplete
information, plus an analysis of why it is incomplete. Figure 5
shows an example of a more complete report section on the cause of
the violation.
- 16 -
-------
FIGURE 4
Example Of Incomplete Description
Of The Cause Of Violation
Example
"After recording the attached opacity reading, I then spoke
with the boiler operator. The cause of the excess emissions was
an unavoidable upset."
Problems
The above description is obviously incomplete. Was the
inspector's finding based on his/her own observations? A guess?
A quote from the unidentified boiler operator? What was the
"unavoidable upset" - a stuck damper, poor fuel quality, wide
swings in steam demand? What did the inspector see, what
specifically did the boiler operator say? Figure 5 gives a
much better example of complete reporting.
- 17 -
-------
FIGURE 5
Example of Complete Description
'Of The Cause Of Violation
"After recording the attached opacity reading, I then spoke with the
boiler operator, Sam Jones. He said the cause of the heavy smoke was
an upset. I asked him what caused the upset. He said the company
had received a load of "off-spec" coal that contained too many fines.
He also said the coal would be used up by the following week.
I then observed the outside coal pile. There were a lot of coal
fines seen in the area around the pile, in some cases as deep as two
inches. I saw about one inch of coal dust blown up against the
boiler house, which is located about 50 feet from the nearest edge
of the coal pile. This was much more coal dust than I have seen at
this source before.
I then went back into the boiler house and asked Mr. Jones what the
steaming rate had been for the last two hours. He pointed to a chart
labeled "Steam Rate". I read the steam chart for the time period
of 10:00 - 11:15 a.m. at 155,000 to 160,000 pounds/hour steam. This
is well above the rated capacity of 140,-000 pounds/hour that is in
the operating permit for the boiler.
Regulation 27 provides an exemption for excess emissions for
malfunctions, but only when "the malfunction could not reasonably
- 18 -
-------
have been prevented". Regulation 27 also requires that the Department
be notified within one hour of malfunctions resulting in excess
emissions. No notification was received in the office. In my
opinion, the excessive emissions were caused by the extra coal fines,
or the higher than permitted steaming rate, or both.1
some agencies, there may be a policy limiting the role of the
inspector from making conclusions as to violations and causes of
violations. These conclusions are made by enforcement specialists,
rather than the inspector. In such cases, all the above information
except for the last sentence should be included in the report.
- 19 -
-------
OTHER MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING FACTORS
Once a violation is documented, there are a number of factors used
by most agencies in deciding what, if any, enforcement action is
taken. The inspection report should include information to assist
in this decision.
Seriousness Of Violation
The seriousness of the violation will be important in deciding
possible agency follow-up:
How much was emitted? Could you see the plume two miles
away? Was there an inch of fall-out on a neighbor's
property? Were there in-stack monitors showing only a
minimal violation?
How long did the excess emissions last? Do complainants
report seeing the black cloud for two weeks? Does the in-
stack monitor chart show a violation for only two minutes
in the last month? Does the production log show above
average production for the last week? Did plant personnel
say the scrubber has been down for repairs for the last
two days? Did the excess visible emissions last for your
entire inspection?
Location? Is the plant located three miles from the nearest
home? In the middle of a non-attainment area? A block from
a hospital?
Type of emissions? Were the emissions highly toxic,
hazardous? Large particles causing fall-out nuisance?
Odors causing a nuisance?
Perceived public impact? Did the agency receive 20
complaints? No complaints? Did the local hospital notify
you of numerous patients suffering from respiratory
problems linked to the excess emissions?
- 20 -
-------
Efforts To Correct The Violation
The inspection report should document the source's efforts to
correct the violation, if known to the inspector, at the time
of writing the report. Included should be any efforts taken by
the source to correct the violation during the inspection. Were
these efforts underway when the inspector arrived? Only after
the agency car was seen? Did the efforts seem reasonable and
appropriate? Did responsible company officials promise to
correct the violation, and if so, when and how?
For any company communication after the inspection, a separate
memo may be desirable. , The inspector may wish to reference
such information in the initial inspection report.
Ease Of Complying
The ease of complying obviously is tied into the cause of the
violation. Most agencies and judges will be much more sympathetic
with a source having made a good faith effort to comply with a
tough standard with new technology that failed, than with a
source that tried to save money by turning down the power to
an ESP. The major factors here would be:
Availability of technology
Cost of complying
Disruption of production
Time required to correct the violation
- 21 -
-------
Past Violations
For many agencies, deterring future violations is at least as
important as correcting current ones. The past history of a
violator is important in deciding what type of enforcement
action is most appropriate in gaining future compliance.
How many violations have been documented?
What were the violations? Were they similar to the one
documented in the inspection report?
What was the probable cause of the violations? Negligence,
lack of maintenance, genuine upset?
What corrective actions were taken for past violations?
Figure 6 is an example of a complete (but brief) discussion of
relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.
- 22 -
-------
FIGURE 6
Example Report Segment On
Mitigating And Aggravating Factors
"I saw the smoke plume from approximately two miles away. The excess
emissions were observed for the entire time period I was within sight
of the stack (9:35 a.m. to 11:40 a.m. on October 23, 1984). The
production log that I looked at on October 23 showed production rates
in excess of the 43,000 ft/hour allowed in their permit starting at
8:00 a.m. on October 19, 1984 and continuing on to the last entry
at 10:00 a.m. on October 23. These hourly production rates varied
from 44,000 #/hour at 8:00 a.m. on October 19 to 57,000 #/hour at
10:00 a.m. on October 23.
"The plant is located in a remote area, with the nearest residence
over a mile from the plant. No complaints have been received by
this office.
"This is the third violation recorded this year for opacity violations
from the kiln. On all three occasions, the cause of the excess
emissions appeared to be production rates above the permitted values.
The company has reduced production rates when notified of violations
but have returned to the higher production rates.
- 23 -
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Some agencies, including EPA, may have a policy of limiting the role
of the inspector to strictly an information gatherer. Conclusions
as to whether or not a violation occurred and the cause of the
violation may be made by specialists in the enforcement section of
the agency, rather than by the inspector. In such cases, the inspector
will still be required to gather the necessary information to help
others draw conclusions and make recommendations as to follow-up
actions. For inspectors working in these agencies, the section on
conclusions and recommendations should be deleted.
Most agencies, however, assign the inspector a much broader role in
the enforcement process. The conclusions as to whether or not a
violation occurred, the cause, and evaluating other mitigating or
aggravating factors, all are part of the inspector's report.
Recommendations by the inspector as to follow-up action are also
important, although the actual follow-up action may finally be decided
by senior agency officials in conformance with overall agency goals
and agency responses to other violations. As in all portions of the
report, the inspector should take care to maintain an impartial,
professional tone in making the recommendations for agency follow-up.
- 24 -
-------
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographs are desirable and can be;'very convincing, particularly
if the violation is taken to court. In any adversary procedures,
the violator's attorney will attempt to discredit the inspector's
testimony as being inaccurate, false, or exaggerated. A picture of
a black plume reaching into the sky is hard for defense counsel to
explain away, however.
There are two major requirements for photographs presented in court
- they must be relevant, and they must be representative of what the
inspector or other observers saw. Photos taken at unusual angles
or with special lenses or filters that distort the perspective should
not be used.
Each photo should be identified as to picture content, date and time
shot, angle shot from, and anything of special interest to the viewer.
If a visible plume is shown and is of particular interest, the
approximate sun angle should be given.
Film should be processed with each roll kept separate, and preferably
be returned from the processor uncut. This will ensure that the
inspector will be able to match each picture with the inspector's
notes or photography log prepared at the time each picture was taken.
When the photos are cut, each should be labeled on the back with
date, time, and picture content.
- 25 -
-------
A sketch of the plant site with major features identified can be
useful in describing the location of the photographer in relation
to the objects pictured, as well as helping to eliminate any confusion
over exactly which equipment is involved in the violation. Plot
diagrams are also very useful in future inspections to track changes
in plant operations and equipment.
- 26 -
-------
CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION OR TRADE SECRETS
Some information gathered by the inspector may be sensitive in nature
and the source may request it be kept confidential and not be made
available to the public. Such information could include secret
industrial processes, production rates, and annual sales figures.
There are two conflicting rights involved - the right of the company
to withhold certain business secrets from the public, and the right
of the public to know certain information that directly relates to
the emissions from a facility. For data gathered by EPA personnel,
the criteria for use in deciding whether or not a claim of confidential
business information is valid is included in Figure 7. Information
that cannot be withheld from the public under federal law includes
any information dealing with "emission data", and a general
description of the location and nature of the source of emissions.
"Emission data" would include process rates and a description of the
process, both of which are used in estimating emissions.
Many states also have laws regarding confidential business
information. Such laws will generally include a definition of
information that is to be considered confidential, a procedure for
claiming and determining confidentiality, and penalties for state
employees who improperly disclose confidential business information.
- 27 -
-------
The inspector has the obligation to ensure that confidential
information be kept securely, until the information is turned over
to the agency records section. The information should either be in
the possession of the inspector or locked up at all times.
It is recommended that information claimed to be confidential be
excluded from the inspector's report if possible. If the information
is important, the best procedure is to refer to it in the main
inspection report, but keep the confidential information separate.
The entire inspection report will be labeled "confidential" if any
portion of it is confidential. All materials, including inspection
reports, that contain any confidential information must be securely
stored, generally in separate locked filing cabinets.
In general, the inspection report should not include sensitive data
unless necessary and relevant to the violation. Agency Counsel
should be consulted if the source is claiming confidentiality.
- 28
-------
FIGURE 7
Confidential Business Information
Federal Requirements
Criteria For Use In Confidentiality Determinations; 1
1. Claim for confidentiality properly filed by company; and
2. Company shows it has taken "reasonable measures" to protect
the confidentiality of the information, and will continue
to do so; and
3. The information is not reasonably obtainable by use of
legitimate means, except by other governmental agencies
or by court action; and
4. No statute specifically requires disclosure; and
Either
1. Company has shown that the disclosure will cause substantial
harm to the company's competitive position; or
2. Information was voluntarily submitted and disclosure would
likely impair the government's ability to obtain future
information.
Information That Is Exempt From Confidentiality 2
1. Emission data - any information that is necessary to
determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration,
or other characteristics of the emissions (including a
description of the manner or rate of operation of the
source); and
2. General description of the location and/or nature of the
emission source.
1 40 CFR § 2.208
2 40 CFR § 2.301
- 29 -
-------
CHECKLIST FOR A COMPLETE REPORT
A complete report must contain, at a minimum, basic identifying
information (name of source, date, etc.) plus the documentation of
the violation, and should contain other information on the mitigating
or aggravating factors involved and the inspector's recommendations.
Figure 8 lists in outline form the information necessary for a
complete violation report.
While this outline might indicate a lengthy report, in fact most
violation reports will not need to be over two or three pages. Figure
9 contains an example of a complete report. Appendix A includes an
example of an incomplete report, a discussion of why it is incomplete,
and a revised complete report.
- 30 -
-------
FIGURE 8
Checklist For A Complete Violation Report
I. Basic Background Information
A. Name and location of source.
B. Name and title of responsible official contacted.
C. Date and time of inspection.
D. Why the inspection occurred (response to complaint, routine
annual inspection).
E. Document that proper entry procedures were followed.
II. Documentation of Violation
A. Cite regulation violated.
B. Document all information that proves the violation
occurred, using the elements of the rule as a guide.
C. Document method of determining violation occurred,
including any deviations from the standard method.
D. Document all information that proves the cited regulation
applies to the source.
E. Document that possible exemptions do not apply.
III. Cause of Violation
A. Document all information regarding the possible cause of
the violation.
1. Direct observations - control device guage readings,
production logs, physical appearance of materials,
physical appearance of process and/or control
equipment. "
2. Statement by source personnel.
B. Document supporting information confirming/disproving
possible claim of upset or other exempt activity.
IV. Other Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
A. Seriousness of violation - amount of emissions, length of
time of excess emissions, nature of emissions, location
of source, perceived public impact.
B. Efforts to correct the violation - during the inspection
and immediately after.
C. Ease of complying - availability of technology, cost of
complying, time required to correct the violation.
D. Past violations - number, type, efforts to correct
violations»
V. Recommendations and Conclusions
- 31 -
-------
FIGURE 9
Example Report.
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 25, 1984
Marilyn Seymour, Supervisor of Compliance Division
John Brown, Environmental Specialist
Inspection of ABC Pulp Mill on June 24, 1984
On June 24, 1984 I observed what appeared to be excessive emissions
from hogged fuel boiler #1 at the above facility (located at 2342
Evergreen Blvd., Evergreen) at approximately 11:30 a.m. as I was on
routine patrol in the area. I stopped and took the attached opacity
reading. This reading was taken off the facility premises, across
Evergreen Boulevard, starting at 11:35 a.m.
The plume was read after the steam dissipated, approximately fifty
feet from the stack exit. There were no interfering plumes during
the reading. All requirements of State Method 3 for opacity were met.
After completing the reading, I stopped by the mill office and spoke
with Ron Grey, the company's chief environmental engineer. I presented
my credentials and showed him the reading and said that the values
I recorded were in excess of the 40% opacity allowed under Regulation
42. He said he was not aware that the boiler was smoking but that
he would attempt to find out what the problem was.
- 32 -
-------
Memo
John Brown
Page 2
The two of us then proceeded to boiler house, where we spoke with
George Smith, the boiler operator on duty. Mr. Smith said that the
company had received several loads of wet fuel the week before, and
that he expected it would take several more days before all the wet
fuel was used up. I observed the fuel. There appeared to be more
wet sawdust in it than I have seen before. It was wet to the touch when
I picked up a handful.
I then examined the opacity meter and steam meter. The opacity meter
was reading "zero". Mr. Smith said he did not know how long it had
been out of operation. The steam meter showed 152,000 pounds per
hour of steam at 12:10 p.m. this is in excess of the 140,000 pounds
per hour steam allowed in the facility's operating permit.
I told Mr. Grey that the facility's operating permit only allowed
operation at or below 140,000 pounds per hour. Mr. Grey said that
the mill was operating at full capacity and needed the extra steam.
I said that he would have to apply for a permit modification, but that
in all likelihood we would not approve it unless the company could
demonstrate compliance with opacity and mass emission limits while
operating at the higher steaming rate. I also told Mr. Grey that
the company was responsible for operating within the emission
- 33 -
-------
Memo
John Brown
Page 3
regulations at all times. Mr. Grey said he would have to check with
his supervisor in Seattle as to what the company would do next. He
said he could not make the decision to reduce the steaming rate or
stop using the wet fuel.
I also informed Mr. Grey that his company is required to operate and
maintain the opacity meter at all times under the operating permit.
He said he would get it fixed as soon as possible. I left the plant
site at 1:35 p.m.
There was no report of upset or malfunction recorded in our office
from the company as of the time of writing this report (3:30 p.m.,
June 24, 1984).
This facility is located abour 1/4 mile from a small sub-division.
We have received several complaints over the last year but received
none on June 24. The wind was blowing away from the sub-division at
the time of the inspection.
Recommendations and Conclusions
The excess emissions were in violation of Regulation 42. The steaming
rate observed was in violation of permit condition 3. The opacity
- 34 -
-------
Memo
John Brown
Page 4
meter not working was in violation to permit condition 6a. Both
permit violations were in violation of Regulation 15, which requires
that permit holders comply with all conditions of their permits at
all times.
I , . ; '
In my opinion, the cause of the excess emissions was the wet fuel, the
high steaming rate, or both. This is the third time this year that
ABC Pulp Mill has been in violation of emission limits and permit
conditions. I recommend that a $500.00 fine be issued and that we
schedule an office conference to get a commitment from the company
to operate within the permit limits and discuss any problems they
may have in achieving continuous compliance.
Attachment
JB/br
- 35 -
-------
FIGURE 9
Visible Emissions Report Form
VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATION FORM'
No.
COMPANY NAME
1>,ll«» Ml'11
STREET ADDRESS '
^
"^ EVcr^/nettf.
PHONE (KEY CONTACT)
WA- ^fooD
SOURCE ID NUMBER
("PROCESS EOUIPMENT//^fi«i yW t>l<-*l 1 OPERATING MODE 1 1
"burning Wei- **t*>ettt&-/- 115 /e /o&a.
CONTROL EQUIPMENT OPERATING MODE
MH l-h'clone.
DESCRIBE EMISSION PONT ^^
HEIGHT ABOVE GROUND LEVEL
DISTANCE FROM OBSERVER
S»B ICOO' End SMO.
HEIGHT RELATIVE TO OBSERVER
Sun ' 75' Entl
DIRECTION FROM OBSERVER
Sun N End «**«
DESCRBE EMISSIONS
EWSSON COLOR
Sun iOhift, End
F WATER DROPLET PLUME
AuawdK Douchecj D
POINT W THE PLUME AT WHICH, OPACTtT WAS ut I CMJBINUU
DESCRIBE PLUME BACKGROUND
San Gtdt**. f fRS End VxrJ-
BACXOnOUNp COLOR
WIND SPEED
AUSIENTTEUP
San 75* f
S«A
W$n UHHB
Punw
Sun ^
^±
* End
San Ow clouts End i »*-t-
W1ND DIRECTION
San *""* W Eno <*»**
WET BULB TEMP RH, percora
SOURCE LAYOUT SKETCH Draw Nonn Anow
(D
c
fco/
I
&^>'z~-- _ -
r / ~ "
<*' tmotion fcinl
AOXTONAL INFORMATION
OBSERVATION DATE
6/Z4/63
\SEC
1
2
3
4
£
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1E
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
29
30
0
V?
*?>
^
45
r*\
-------
REFERENCES
1. Inspector's Statements, by James J. Morgester, Chief Enforcement
Branch, California Air Resources Board.
2. Inspectors' Statements and Diaries - What to Include/Not to
Include, by Roye Jackson, Proceedings from CARB Enforcement
Symposium, 1981.
3. The Proper Use of Criminal Prosecution of Air Quality Laws,
Rules, and Regulations, by Jonathan S. Leo, Deputy City
Attorney, Los Angeles Office of City Attorney, Proceedings
from GARB Enforcement Symposium, 1984.
4. Documentation of the Violation, by Beverly Daniels, Proceedings
from CARB Enforcement Symposium, 1981.
5. How to Prepare a Report of Violation, by James Morgester,
Proceedings from CARB Enforcement Symposium, 1982.
6- Amount of Detail, by Barbara A. Frantz and Karen Haack, South
Coast Air Quality Management District, Seminar on Report
Writing, November, 1982.
7. Who, What, When, Where, and How, by Barbara A. Frantz, South
Coast Air Quality Management District, Seminar on Report
Writing, November, 1982.
8. A Discussion of Report Writing Techniques Prepared for the Bay
Area Air Pollution Control^District, by William A. O'Malley
and Robert D. Blasier, Jr., July 3, 1974.
9. Air Compliance Inspection Manual, EPA 340/1-85-020, Published
by SSCD, U.S. EPA, September, 1985.
10 Layman's Guide to Investigating Section 10 Violations, by Wallace
H. Johnson, David W. Jessup, and Paul F. Campbell.
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
A DISCUSSION OF REPORT WRITING TECHNIQUES
Prepared by
WILLIAM A. O'MALLEY
District Attorney
and
ROBERT D. BLASIER, JR.
Deputy District Attorney
Contra Costa County
Prepared for
The Bay Area Air Pollution Control District
July 3, 1974
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
This memo discusses the writing of reports by an inspector
upon completion of the investigation of a reported violation
of district regulations. There is always the possibility that
a particular violation will be the subject of a court hearing at
some later time. For this reason it is vitally important that
the report be thorough, complete and detailed in its description
of the violation. As will be discussed below, having an adequate
report is also extremely helpful in processing violations that -
don't go through the court process.
This package of materials .contains the following:
1. a sample notice of violation;
2. a critique of that notice discussing what
information should have been included;
3. a rewritten notice;
4. a discussion of the reasons why a report
should contain the information discussed;
5. legal principles that an inspector should
be aware of; and , , ,
6. a check list of information which should,
be contained in every report.
-------
SAMPLE NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Date of Violation: July 4, 1974 at 0100 hours
Location of Violation: The Ace Auto Wreckers Yard,
222 First Street, Richmond, California
Nature of Violation: Open fire in violation of Regulation 1
consisting of gasoline and gasoline tank
Issued to: George Peterson, Owner
Issuing Inspector: Jane Robinson
INSPECTOR'S REPORT
I. Introduction: While on routine patrol on July 4, 1974,
R/I noted dense smoke coming from the Ace Auto Wreckers
Yark on First Street in Richmond, California
II. Observations; R/I proceeded to the above location and ob-
served an open fire in a gasoline tank of an auto which was
being wrecked. R/I contacted the owner, Mr. George Peterson
for an explanation of the cause of ignition.
HI. statements; Mr. Peterson stated that an employee was re-
moving a gasoline tank from an auto while another employee
was cutting on the front of the same vehicle with a cutting
torch. A spark from the cutting torch ignited the contents
of the gas tank. The fire suppression equipment was in-
adequate, consisting of a one-inch water hose too short to
reach the burning auto.
IV. Recommendations, Opinion, Conclusions; In R/I's opinion
Mr. Peterson was negligent in that the gas tank was not
removed from the auto before torch cutting began. Addi-
tionally, fire suppression equipment was inadequate. R/I
recommends a Health and Safety Code 24361 complaint by the
local district attorney.
A-2
-------
CRITIQUE OF SAMPLE NOTICE
Anyone reading the sample notice would have a good general idea
of what occurred at the Ace Auto Wrecking Yard on July 4,
1974 at 1:00 PM. However, a great deal of very important in-
formation does not appear in the report.
The following is a list of criticisms and recommendations for
additional information which should have been included within
the report. Some of the information may not be important at
the time the notice is issued but could assume a great deal of
importance at a later date.
1. The report states that Inspector Robinson, on routine patrol,
became aware of the fire when he observed dense black smoke.
The report fails to state the specific time and location of
Inspector Robinson when this first observation was made.
Whether Inspector Robinson was one block away from the fire
when she first observed it or several miles would help in
determining the size and intensity of the fire. Her time
of first observation relative to the time he arrived at the
scene would also give some indication of the duration of
the fire.
2. The report should contain some statement regarding the
density and color of the smoke, and the size of the plume
when it was first observed. . These same parameters should
also be noted at the time the inspector arrives upon the
scene. This would help.to determine whether or not efforts
had^been made to put out the fire prior to the inspector's
arrival, or if the arrival of the inspector prompted the
fire prevention steps.
3. We are told in the report that upon arrival Inspector Robinson
observed a fire in a gasoline tank of an auto which was being
wrecked. A more specific description of the fire at this point
would be helpful. Were actual flames observed or was- only smoke
observed? What is the physical layout of the lot and at what
location did the fire start? Were there other vehicles in the
vicinity? Was there a possibility of the fire spreading?
4. There is nothing in the report stating what efforts were made
to put out the fire by anyone on the scene. For instance, at
the time of the inspector's arrival, was the fire burning
freely or were the employees attempting to put the fire out?
Was the fire department called?
5. -It might be helpful at a later time to know what kind of
vehicle was on fire and what condition the vehicle was in.
For instance, was it on its side, upside down, or right side
A-3
-------
up? Were the upholstery" and other flammable items still in
the vehicle or had they been removed? If the fire was burning
freely and the upholstery and other flammable items were still
in the vehicle it might be argued that the .owner was intention-
ally burning the vehicle as a short cut to the wrecking pro-
cedure. This information might also help to negate a claim
by the owner at a later date that he always removes flammable
items and gas tanks from the vehicles except in this one in-
stance where an employee forgot to remove the gas tank from
the vehicle.
6. The report does not indicate that any pictures of the fire
were taken. Pictures substantiating the inspector's observa-
tions are vitally important in this type of case. It is much
more difficult for an owner or defendant to convince someone
(a jury for example) that a picture is incorrect as opposed
to convincing someone that the inspector's observations were
incorrect or his memory is hazy or he is not telling the truth.
Pictures taken with a simple Instamatic camera would be ade-
quate. Pictures should have been taken when the fire was
first observed by the inspector as well as when the inspector
arrived on the scene. It would be helpful to have pictures
showing the lack of adequate fire fighting equipment if that
is possible.
7. Inspector Robinson states that the owner, Mr. Peterson was
"contacted". He does not state where Mr. Peterson was con-
tacted. Was he in a building on the other side of the lot or
was he standing next to the fire? Did he drive into the lot
after the inspector? It is vitally important in determining
whether or not the owner was aware of the fire or whether or
not he intentionally started the fire to determine exactly
where he was at all times during the course of the fire.
Any information showing what knowledge the owner had of the
fire prior to being contacted by the inspector is important.
8. The report states that Mr. Peterson is the "owner" of the
lot. The report does not state how the inspector knows this.
It does not state whether Mr. Peterson is the sole owner of
the lot/ whether or not it is a corporation, who other
partners might be, etc. This information is helpful in
determining who should eventually be held responsible for
the fire.
9. Inspector Robinson tells us the owner stated that two employees
had been working on the vehicle. The report fails to identify
those two employees. If their names and addresses had been
listed in the report it would be much easier to contact them
at a later date to obtain their version of the incident, if
necessary.
A-4
-------
10. The report gives only a conclusion as to how the fire
started, namely by a spark from the torch. It doesn't
describe the circumstances of ignition. For instance, who
had the torch when the fire started? Where was the torch
in relation to the gas tank? Where was the second employee
when the fire started, where was the owner when the fire
started? It is important that specific facts and specific '"
descriptions be included as to the. fire itself. :
11. One of the most important considerations in determining how
, the violation should be processed is what fire fighting and
fire prevention facilities were available to the lot owner.
Additionally,., what steps were taken to put out the specific
fire in question. The only reference in the report to this
aspect of the case is that there was a one-inch hose that
did not reach the area of the fire. It would be helpful to
know how long that hose was and how far awayfrom the fire it
was. Also, the inspector might have turned on the hose to
determine whether or not there was any water pressure in the
hose. The owner might claim-at a later time that there was
another available nearby that could have been used. If the
inspector had determined that there was no water pressure in
that outlet, the owner's explanation would be somewhat dis-
credited.
12. The report does not indicate whether the inspector checked
the area for other fire fighting equipment. There should be
a specific statement that the inspector looked around and
did not observe any fire extinguishers or water or other fire
fighting equipment within the area.
13. The report should recite in detail what steps were taken to
put out the fire. It would make quite a difference if, upon
the inspector's arrival, the fire was vigorously being fought
by the fire department as opposed to burning freely with little
or no effort to extinguish until the inspector requested that
the fire be put out.
14. Although Inspector Peterson gives the owner's explanation for the
fire, she does not state specifically what the owner said. The
report should contain, to the greatest extent practical, the
exact statements made by the people at the scene. This may
help to overcome a later claim by the owner that the inspector
misunderstood him. The circumstances under which statements
were made are also important. As will be discussed shortly,
it could make a great deal of difference whether the statement
about the origin of the fire was made by the owner in response
to a general question from the inspector upon arrival at the
scene or if the response was made after the inspector had been
at the scene awhile and specifically sought out the owner and
questioned him directly.
A-5
-------
It is very important that the inspector make notes of his
observations as soon after the events as practical. The notes
should be made in a form so that the inspector can refer back
to them at a later time and reconstruct what occurred. The in-
spector may be called upon at a much later time and asked to state
specifically what occurred during a particular violation. For
instance, the violation at the Ace Yard might be the first
fire ever occurring at that location. However, three years from
now, after the 20th fire, formal action might be initiated. At
this later time it might be necessary for the inspectors involved
in the first 20 fires to be able to describe those fires in order
to show a pattern of conduct on the part of the lot owner. Thus,
what may seem like a minor incident at the time could assume greater
importance at a later date.
Following is a revised sample notice describing the same incident at
the Ace Auto Wrecking Yard. The revised notice incorporates
much of the information discussed above, enabling the officials who
must determine what, if any, further action should be taken to make
a much more well informed and considered decision.
A-6
-------
. REVISED SAMPLE NOTICE
Date of Violation: July 4, 1974, at 0100 hours .
Location of Violation: The Ace Auto Wrecking Yard,
222 First Street, Richmond, California
Nature of Violation: Open fire in violation of Regulation
I consisting of gasoline and gasoline tank ,
Issued to: George Peterson sole owner of the wrecking
yard : ' .
Issuing Inspector: Jane Robinson
INSPECTOR'S REPORT
I. Introduction; At 12:35 PM on July 4, 1974 while on routine
patrol at 23d and Macdonald in Richmond, R/I noted a dense
smoke coming from the north Richmond wrecking yard area.
A narrow plume of dense, black smoke appeared to extend
several hundred feet into the air.
II- Observations; R/I proceeded in the direction of the smoke
and traced source to the "Ace Auto Wrecking Yard" at 222
First Street, Richmond California. R/I arrived at that location
at 0100 hours and observed that the plume of smoke continued
to extend several hundred feet into the air and had riot appeared
to dimish in density or height. As R/I approached .the .wrecking
yard two male adults were observed near the burning vehicle.
One of the males had a cutting torch and was Working on the
front left portion of the vehicle. Upon pulling into the drive-
way of the lot in R/I's blue State vehicle (with the State seal
on each door), the male with the the cutting torch was observed
to extinguish the torch and both men walked away from the area
of the fire in the opposite direction from R/I.
When R/I first arrived at the scene, the entire vehicle ap-
peared to be giving off dense black smoke. Some flames
(approximately one foot high) were observed in the area of the
gas tank.
R/I approached the male who had been operating the cutting
torch (later identified as Frank Fitzgerald and asked him "how
did the fire get started?" Mr. Fitzgerald stated "you'd better
ask the boss, he was here but walked into the office when you
drove up." R/I went to the office, which was located approxi-
mately 50 feet north of the burning vehicle and located a Mr.
George Peterson in the office. R/I asked Mr. Peterson
A-7
-------
how the fire got. started. Mr. Peterson stated "Frank
(Frank Fitzgerald) was cutting up the car and Tom (later
identified as Thomas Brown) was pulling the gas tank and
the fire just somehow started. Nothing unusual, it happens
all the time."
Upon R/I's request, Mr. Peterson ordered Mr. Brown and
Mr. Fitzgerald to put out the fire with buckets of water
obtained from a faucet on a wash basin in the back of the
office. The car was extinguished at approximately 1:30 PM
after numerous buckets of water had been thrown on the fire
for a period of about 15 minutes. The fire department was
not called as there was little chance the fire would spread.
The area within 50 feet of the burning vehicle was clear.
R/I asked Mr. Peterson why no effort had been taken to put
out the fire until R/I requested it. Peterson stated "we
usually just let the cars burn out unless ydu guys come around.
It's much quicker than stripping the vehicle by hand".
After the fire was extinguished R/I observed that the vehicle
that had been burning was a 1955 Edsel which had been turned
on its right side with the bottom of the vehicle facing the
driveway entrance to the yard. The seats and upholstery and
other flammable materials had been removed from the vehicle.
R/I examined the yard for fire fighting equipment and observed
one one-inch hose approximately 20 feet in length connected to
a faucet approximately 100 feet from the scene of the fire.
R/I checked the water in the faucet and determined that the
water pressure in the hose was extremely low. There were
no fire extinguishers or any other fire fighting equipment
in evidence on the lot.
III. Witnesses; 1) Inspector Jane Robinson
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, California
771-6000
George Peterson
222 First Street
Richmond, California
233-7060
Thomas Brown
#4 Sutton Place
Lafayette, California 784-3332
A-8
-------
III. Witnesses (continued) ...
4) Frank Fitzgerwald "
Room 38, Hotel Don * ' '
Richmond, California
233-8410
IV. Additional Evidence; R/I took the following Instamatic
photographs:
1) photograph of plume from 23D and Macdonald when smoke
first observed:
2) photograph of fire taken upon arrival at the yead;. and
3) photograph taken while employees were'extinguishing
fire with buckets of water.
An overhead sketch of the yard showing the location of the fire
is attached to R/I's report. The photographs will be processed
upon request.
V. Conclusions and Recommendations; Based on R/I's observa*- *'
tions and statements made by the employees and the owner, Mr.
Peterson, it is R/I's opinion that the fire was most likely
intentionally set in order to expedite the stripping of the
vehicle and that no effort was made to put out the fire until
R/I arrived on the scene. Further, there was inadequate fire
fighting equipment at the location to handle any possible
fires. R/I recommends that the case be referred to the dis-
trict attorney's office for further action. .-
A-9
-------
COMMENTARY ON REVISED REPORT
The revised report is obviously longer than the original re-
port and would take more time and care to compose. However,
there are a great number of reasons why this extra care should
be taken if at all possible.
Although only a small percentage of violations ever come to
court, there are numerous reasons other than court preparation
for having clear, complete and detailed reports. Actually, the
better the report is written the better the chance that the case
can be disposed of to the district's satisfaction without a court
proceeding.
For instance, when the responsible party is given a copy of the
citation and report and asked to respond, in many cases he will
present that report to a private attorney and request advice.
If the report is thoroughly prepared and complete and shows that
a violation clearly occurred, the attorney is much more likely to
recommend that the party cooperate with the district and accept the
recommendations that might be made. If it looks from the report
that a court case would be weak at best or difficult to prove
because the information is sketchy and incomplete then the attorney
is more likely to recommend that the responsible party contest the
citation.
Prior to any court action, the report inspector's superiors must
make a decision as to what to do as a result of the particular
violation. The only information they have about what occurred
may be the inspector's report. If that report is complete and
clear, your superior is in a much better position to make a
correct assessment of what should be done in the way of process-
ing the citation.
One of the best reasons for taking the extra time to compose a
complete report is to preserve the information so that it can be
reconstructed by the inspector at some later date. Although a
particular violation may not be serious enough to warrant action
when it occurs, continued violations in the future at the same
location may increase the importance of the original violation.
If the inspector is able to clearly recall what occurred at the
earlier date, use of that earlier incident will be very helpful
in enabling the district to achieve its objectives.
Consider now those cases where the district recommends that a
criminal complaint be filed. The quality of the inspector's
report is vital- in determining the success of any proposed
criminal case. The district attorney must decide whether or
not there is sufficient evidence to justify the filing of a
criminal complaint. He must decide, on the basis of the in-
spector's report, whether or not he will be able to convince
twelve people beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty
that a crime occurred and that the defendant committed that
A-10
-------
crime. Once the district attorney determines that there is
sufficient evidence to make a conviction possible then the
inspector's report becomes additionally important. From reading
the report, the district attorney can obtain additional leads and
conduct any further investigation that might be necessary, such as
interviewing witnesses listed on the report, having the pictures
that were taken processed, etc. Having a clear, detailed report
helps to prevent surprises in court which can often sabotage the
best of cases. Rest assured that the defense attorney will have
available all of the information that the inspector has left out
of his report and will use that information to his best advantage.
A complete report can help to negate possible defenses the defen-
dant might consider raising. For instance, in our example,
Peterson might claim that he ordinarily strips cars before
cutting and had ordered his employees to remove the gas tank. The
gas tank had not been removed due to negligence on the part of an
employee who he has since been fired. However, looking at the re-
vised report it is clear that: (1) the statement is incorrect in
that the defendant stated that he does this all the time and (2)
whether or not the employee was at fault and was since fired can be
verified since the employee's name and address are readily available.
Assume now that the district attorney was able to convince 12 people
that the lot owner should be found guilty of a crime, the case then
goes to the judge and the probation department for their considera-
tion. At the time of sentencing, which may be several months after
the trial, the judge reviewing the case may not remember the testi-
mony given at the trial. Therefore, the only information he will
have is what is contained in the report. If the report is detailed
and complete, he will be in a better position to order the best
alternative or the best sentence for the purpose of solving the
problem. The same holds true for the probation department (who
would not be present at the trial in the first place). The only
information they have is what you have included in your report and
any other information you may be able to remember.
There is one other consideration which should be kept in mind.
Suppose a criminal complaint is filed on the basis of a general re-
port such as in our example. The defendant, knowing that he is
guilty, may decide to go into court and plead guilty and accept the
punishment. In that case the judge would hear no testimony at all.
His only information would come from your report and directly from
the defendant. Unless your report refutes statements made by the
defendant, the judge is likely to accept the defendant's information
as correct. In our example, given the first notice, Mr. Peterson
could state to the court without contradiction that: (1) he was not
aware of the fire until the inspector arrived, (2) fires rarely
occur on his lot, (3) his practice is to strip vehicles before
cutting, (4) and that he had an adequate fire hose behind the office
which the inspector didn't see and plenty of water pressure to fight
fires.
A-ll
-------
------- |