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*\

s>
S5
4S"
7ft
(r£
4^















15
4^
_,
«r
frfi
£b
r-f,
f7>
5"5~
4-C

^c?
52>
£*T
6fT
,
£,e^-
ff,
TT
55"
t-r-
<*T
5"C>
ro

50
6f
7.T
60
CT
















45
<2>
£-£•
55"
To
57?
rv-
TO
55
'fS"
,-ro
So
(p^
70

tt















COMMENTS
"•





























OBSERVERS NAME (PRINT)
^TdntL OrC""4-
OBSERVER'S SIGNATURE DATE
ORGANIZATION , ,
rr&^h/fifffVTJ &/&?&• nftCsM&ll ~l ^••^/ ^^
CONTINUED ON VEO FORM NUMBER
               -  36 -

-------
                             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 away•from 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

-------

-------