p.1 

OAR Box 1811 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

25) 11 -A-6 

Docket Number: 

A-84-22 

Printed 10/30/2008 1:19:24 PM Sheet 25 of 82 
inspection procedure/ 

.* • 

,*;_ j ^m 

yy- i 

^ " 

Stationary Source Enforcement Division, 

Office of General Enforcement, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, D. C. 20460 
P.3 

EPA VISIBLE EMISSION INSPECTION PROCEDURES 

August 1975 

Prepared By 

Kenneth B. Malmberg 

Division of Stationary Source Enforcement 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, D. C. 
P.4 

EPA VISIBLE EMISSION INSPECTION PROCEDURES 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page No. 

I. PREFACE 2 

A. Background 2 

B. Introduction 2 

II. PRE-ENTRY PROCEDURES 3 

A. Literature Review 3 

B. Review and Preparation 5 

C. Notifications 6 

D. VE Regulations 9 

E. Arrival at the Source 10 

III. ENTRY 10 

A. Introduction 10 

B. Signing-In Procedures 12 

IV. INSPECTION PROCEDURES 15 

A. Personal Contacts 15 

B. Source Types 18 

C. Methodology 19 

D. Non-Stack Emission Sources 25 

V. REPORT WRITING 30 

A. The Narrative 30 

B. The Field Report 31 

VI. PHOTOGRAPHY 35 
P.5 

EPA VISIBLE EMISSION INSPECTION PROCEDURES 

I. PREFACE 

A. Background 

This document is intended to explain the making of visible 

emission observations from the evaluator's viewpoint, to insure 

credibility, accuracy, and completeness in his work. Should the 

evaluator be relied upon to later explain and elaborate on his 

results, by following acceptable procedures he can assure 

consistent, accurate, and confident responses to examination in a 

judicial proceeding. 

B. Introduction 

This document sets forth procedures for the performance of 

visible emission evaluations of process operations. The 

procedures below are intended for use by EPA inspectors. This 

guideline defines acceptable field techniques for making opacity 

evaluations for purposes of compliance monitoring and enforcement 

case development. 

Opacity evaluations of visible emissions are the singly most 

effective field enforcement regulation available for particulate 

emission prevention and control. The methods described here have 

gained acceptance over the years by various State and local air 

pollution control agencies and EPA regional offices in their 

respective field enforcement programs. These methods are set 

forth here as guidance for the EPA evaluator in the field to 

-2-
P.6 

produce results which are reliable, consistent, and ultimately, 

enforceable. 

II. PRE-ENTRY PROCEDURES 

Prior to requesting visible emission observations, air 

enforcement attorneys should: 

1. summarize VE (visible emission) regulations in the 

affected region in written, narrative form and thoroughly discuss 

and explain each regulation with the evaluator before he enters 

the State. Unless the local regulation is referenced in the SIP, 

the appropriate State regulation is the one applied. Attachment 

1 is an example of a narrative summary of a typical opacity 

regulation. 

2. require that a checklist be used by the evaluator 

and that he is an EPA certified VE observer, that his 

certification is still valid, and he has received available 

training in the field of opacity evaluation. 

A« Literature Review 

The following items will provide guidance and technical 

information for the majority of sources in a region. While this 

list is not meant to be inclusive, review of these items will 

provide the necessary background for the evaluator to 

comprehensively evaluate a point source for visible emissions. 

-3-
P.7 

1. NEDS data, as originally submitted and updated by 

the State; 

2. CDS data; 

3. Section 114 "Requests for Information" as received 

by the regional office; 

4. Discharge permits prepared by the Water Permits 

Section, which often include detailed drawings of the source; 

5« Fi,eld Operations and Enforcement Manual for Air 

Pollution Control, by Melvin I. Weisburd, APTD #1101, #1102. 

EPA, August 1972. Volumes II and III. 

6. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, AP-40; 1972. 

7. Permits and other source data on file with the 

State or local air pollution agency; 

8. The Kirk-Othmer Handbook of Chemical Technology, 

1970; 

9. Any available inspection manuals. (DSSE will 

issue inspection manuals on various industries from time to 

time.) 

Analysis of all available sources prior to an inspection may 

sometimes be impossible. Therefore the visible emissions 

inspector must balance the extent of his pre-entry procedures 

with the technical problems he may anticipate from the source. 

As his proficiency grows, industry-to-industry, he will rely 

increasingly on previous experience. 

-4-
P.8 

B. Review and Preparation 

1. Prior review must be performed on the facility to 

be evaluated when the inspector is unfamiliar with the processes 

in the industry. An inspection manual for the particular 

industry should be consulted whenever possible. The following 

questions should be answered prior to the initial inspection of a 

given point source: 

a. How many and what kind of processes are 

contained within the plant? 

b. What is the type and efficiency (if 

available) of each control device pertaining to these 

processes? 

c. What visible emission points can be expected 

at this facility? 

d. How many visible emission points should be 

expected at this facility? 

e. What unique processes or problems may be 

expected at this facility? 

f. What is the normal operation rate for this 

plant? 

By doing this review in conjunction with his review of 

available literature, the evaluator will familiarize himself with 

the processes, control equipment, and possible air problems that 

might be encountered at this plant, and others similar to it. 

-5-
P.9 

2. To perform a comprehensive evaluation, the 

evaluator uses some or all of the following items during a plant 

evaluation: 

a. Stopwatch, compass (Geologists), wind meter, 

rangefinder, psychrometer, and carrying bag. 

b. camera (35 mm) with accessories. 

c. Respirator/face mask. 

d. Topographical maps, VE forms, extra pens. 

e. Safety helmet, goggles, boots, and ear 

protectors (OSHA approved). 

In certain cases, binoculars and cold weather 

protection are also needed. This requirement is dependent on the 

particular evaluating conditions. A complete list of equipment 

utilized in visible emission evaluations is included as 

Attachment 2. 

c« Notifications 

Successful inspections of some sources are dependent on 

prior notice being given to the source arid/or the local air 

pollution agency. Some air pollution agencies are helpful in 

providing requested information. Data can be obtained from their 

files which is helpful in an inspection. These agencies may also 

be willing to accompany an EPA inspection team, if asked. During 

an inspection, the local agency can assist in asking questions of 

a source which they may have inspected prior to EPA becoming 

interested in the source. After the inspection, the local agency 

may be more alert to questions from the source regarding the 

-6-
P.10 

particular State Implementation Plan. They also can confirm 

details relating to their particular opacity regulation. 

However, it should be kept in mind that successful opacity 

inspection depends on normal operating conditions at the source 

to fairly and accurately evaluate compliance of that source. If 

the source is made aware of the general date and time of this 

evaluation by the local agency, these operating conditions could 

be changed. If such events occur it is not EPA policy to give 

notice to such agencies of our pending inspections. This dilemma 

is best resolved by the regional office. Clearly, EPA is not 

obligated under the Clean Air Act to notify other parties in 

advance of upcoming visible emission evaluations. In all cases, 

however, the EPA inspector must notify the affected source 

immediately following his readings* 

Individual sources will have to be evaluated in a manner 

which is justified by previous contact with that source. (See 

Section E, "Arrival at the Source".) 

The United States Supreme Court said, in Air Pollution 

Variance Board vs. Western Alfalfa Corp. (Slip opinion, No. 73-

690), that "Depending upon the layout of the plant, the inspector 

may operate within or without the premises but in either case he 

is well within the

 Jopen fields* exception " The thrust of 

this decision is that EPA inspectors, without notice, may enter 

property which is also accessible to the general public for 

purposes of performing their evaluations. Generally, an EPA 

inspector may observe what anyone who is near the particular 

-7-
P.11 

source may observe, without the knowledge or previous consent of 

the facility being observed. 

If the layout or size of the source requires surveillance 

from within the facility, then the ovmer or operator is notified 

prior to surveillance. After entering the plant, the evaluator 

should make the purpose of his visit as clear as possible. He 

should tell the source the honest reason for his visit. It it is 

to ascertain compliance with the applicable SIP or NSPS opacity 

regulation this fact should be explained. If he is asked for 

copies of his data records written while on company property, he 

may leave a copy with plant personnel if he has obtained prior 

permission to do so from the Enforcement Division. It is EPA 

policy that final reports be made generally available only after 

they have been checked for accuracy and cleared for release by 

the Enforcement Division. The evaluator may obtain the signature 

of a responsible company official on his opacity form, which 

would serve to place the source on notice of where and when the 

readings were taken and the results of those evaluations. The 

signature would merely acknowledge that opacity evaluations were 

performed, and is optional on the part of the company. The 

owner/operator of the source must be given notice of any opacity 

readings made as soon as possible after they are taken. The 

evaluator could also ask that an official of the company 

accompany him when performing his visible emission observations, 

whether on company property or off. By so doing, the evaluator 

-8-
P.12 

eliminates any misunderstanding or confusion about the purpose 

and results of his inspection. 

Section 114(c) specifies that records, reports, or 

information obtained under S114 (a), shall be made available to 

the public. EPA shall make the same records, reports, or 

information available to the source, should they so request it. 

The source should be informed that they may obtain completed 

copies of the reports by contacting the regional office, usually 

the Enforcement Division. 

D. VE Regulations 

The appropriate opacity regulation should be obtained from 

the SIP and studied carefully by the inspector. State and local 

opacity limits in SIP's range from 40 percent opacity allowed 

down to no visible emissions. Various exemptions for particular 

processes or industries are applied in each SIP. The evaluator 

should be aware of any time exemptions and take them into account 

in his final calculations. Relevant parts of Method 9 are 

included as Attachment 4. 

NSPS opacity requirements are directed toward a specific 

type of source (40 CFR 60). The method of evaluation is 

specified as Method 9 (39 F.R. #219, Appendix A). Exemptions of 

a few minutes out of any 60 minutes may exist in some NSPS 

requirements and should be so noted in evaluation of new sources. 

The evaluator should determine the correct exemption to be 

applied, prior to his actual inspection to assure a comprehensive 

evaluation and report. 

-9-
P.13 

E. Arrival at the Source 

On arriving at the plant, the evaluator immediately makes an 

outside assessment of the facility, including photographs of all 

obvious emission sources. An accurate sketch is made so that a 

particular emission source can be identified later from within 

the premises. At this time, if violations of the applicable 

visible emissions regulation are observed, the emissions should 

in most cases be recorded for at least 6 minutes per source, but 

a record of 30-60 minutes is preferable. If possible, 

photographs representative of the emission points observed, 

should be taken from the observation points at which the 

emissions are recorded. The outside surveillance should last as 

long as necessary, so that all obvious sources of air pollution 

are recorded. At times as much as three or four hours may be 

spent in pre-entry surveillance. 

III. ENTRY 

A. Introduction 

Sometimes the first contact a source has with EPA is the 

evaluator's approach to the guard at the main gate. As time goes 

by, the Agency's reputation has steadily improved, but most plant 

guards are not impressed with a reputation. This is a prime 

reason why the evaluator's presence must be explained and the 

authority for his visit thoroughly understood. Through 8114 of 

the Clean Air Act, and the use of credentials (see below), entry 

to a plant should not ordinarily be a problem. 

-10-
P.14 

Appropriate safety equipment must always be worn. An 

evaluator should not expect the source to provide safety 

equipment. The list of safety equipment and suggested possible 

sources of procurement is included in Attachment 2. 

The evaluator should perform the following steps to 

correctly and courteously enter the facility for purposes of 

conducting his inspection; 

1. Contact should be made with a responsible plant 

official. A responsible plant official may be an officer of the 

company, or the person responsible for environmental control at 

the plant. This individual must have authority to provide 

answers to pertinent questions, as well as allow access to 

pertinent areas of the plant, for purposes of making a complete 

visible emissions evaluation. 

2. Identification credentials are always shown. The 

credentials are always retained in the personal possession of the 

evaluator. Credentials are obtained for all visible emission 

evaluators in accordance with EPA Order 1400.1, May 16, 1973, 

"Issuance and Control of Environmental Protection Agency 

Credentials." 

3. When the evaluator presents his credentials the 

guard should call his superior on the phone and may ask the 

evaluator to wait. If the evaluator knows the name of the plant 

environmental engineer, he should request the guard to call him 

directly. A log of these events and calls, and the amount of 

time he is kept waiting should be kept by the evaluator. Later 

-11-
P.15 

this log should be expanded to include a narrative summary of 

events as they occurred prior to an during inspection of the 

facility. For example, if the evaluator feels he is being 

delayed from entering the plant, a narrative report may be useful 

later on and contribute to an enforcement case. If the evaluator 

feels his entry will be denied, he should inform the plant guard 

of any opacity evaluations he has performed and ask that the 

plant environmental engineer be so informed. 

4. The evaluator should take note of the length of 

time he is kept waiting, cooperation and attitude of plant 

personnel, and any changes in operating conditions which may 

result from his presence. The latter may affect the credibility 

of the evaluator's finding should he later be asked about these 

conditions during testimony. 

B. Signing-In Procedures 

1. Most companies.provide blank sign-in sheets, if 

requested. If such a form is provided, it is possible to sign 

it, as it is only intended to be a "body count", containing your 

name and affiliation. 

2. John Quarles' memo of November 8, 1972, which was 

included as an appendix to EPA Guideline S.12, specifically 

instructs EPA employees to refuse to sign a release (waiver) upon 

entering a source under the authority of S114 (see Attachment 3). 

These instructions also apply to EPA contractors in pursuit of 

their authorized duties if the contractor has been designated an 

-12-
P.16 

"authorized representative." OEGC must authorize these 

contractors by letter, citing relevant parts of Section 114. 

3. Under no conditions should the evaluator sign a 

visitor's release for liability while on the plant premises. To 

do so could waive the evaluator's right to obtain damages for 

injury as explained in Mr. Quarles' memo. 

Language at the top of a sign-in sheet and also in 

passes issued to tour the plant, may read similar to the 

following: 

"All persons other than employees must fill out the 

following information. Their signature hereto in 

consideration of a pass to visit the plant agrees that 

ABC, Incorporated, shall not be liable, under any 

circumstances, whether of negligence of employees or 

otherwise for any injuries sustained by that person 

while on company property . . .." 

4. In encountering a waiver such as this, one 

response toward complying with Mr. Quarles' memo is to cross out 

the language of the waiver before signing the sheet, thereby 

making it a sign-in sheet only. This may have a negative effect 

on the company, however, since other signatures may also be on 

the sheet. He could also sign the visitor's book and write "no 

waiver" or something similar next to his signature. 

5. In most cases, the issue can be resolved and entry 

obtained, by citation of relevant subsections of 8114 (a) (2) as 

follows: 

"The Administrator or his authorized representative 

upon presentation of his credentials -

(A) shall have a right of entry to, upon, or through 

any premises in which an emission source is located or 

-13-
P.17 

in which any records required to be maintained under 

paragraph (1) of this section are located, and 

(B) may at reasonable times have access to and copy 

any records, inspect any monitoring equipment or method 

required under paragraph (1), and sample any emissions 

which the owner or operator of such source is required 

to sample under paragraph (1)." 

Either Subpart (A) or (B), or both, may be recited and referenced 

so they are clearly heard and understood by the parties involved. 

6. If refusal is still forthcoming, the evaluator 

should not contest the issue with the source representative, but 

will immediately do the following: 

a. determine the complete name and position of 

the individual representing the source; 

b. ask him/her to identify themselves as an 

authorized representative of the company, and record 

their exact answer; 

c. ask him/her if they heard section 114 of the 

Clean Air Act which was read aloud, and if they 

understood the reason for your presence, and record 

their answer; 

d. leave. 

7. After leaving the source's property, the evaluator 

must immediately, without fail, inform the appropriate 

enforcement attorney by telephone of the events as they happened. 

Every detail should be recorded by the attorney, as well as the 

evaluator can recall. 

-14-
P.18 

Visible emissions data obtained after leaving the 

source's property should be placed in report form, with notation 

included of the denied entry. 

As soon as possible, the evaluator should write down 

everything he can recall of the incident. These reports will 

prove to be of positive value in any future enforcement 

proceeding, along with the visible emissions report. 

IV. INSPECTION PROCEDURES 

A. Personal Contacts 

After signing in, the evaluator proceeds immediately into 

the facility, to observe equipment or processes known to be 

operating from his previous observation of the plant. At this 

point, when the evaluator is asked what he wants to see, he must 

not foreclose inspection of those sources which may not have been 

visible from previous surveillance. All emission sources are to 

be inspected, if possible, and not just those visible from 

outside the plant. 

If any flagrant sources of air pollution had been observed 

and/or evaluated during the pre-entry period, the evaluator 

should ask to see these sources first. As the inspection 

proceeds, he then should ascertain, by questions and inspection 

of operating records for the previous time of evaluation, whether 

or not his earlier observations were fairly representative of 

operating condition. 

There are many things which could interfere with the 

evaluation of a process, i.e., shift change, equipment 

-15-
P.19 

malfunction, change in production rates, or just a slowdown in 

operation because the evaluator is there. He must insist, that 

baring the normal delays mentioned, operations remain normal, so 

he can ascertain whether or not emissions are excessive from a 

particular process. If normal operations are impossible, he must 

record the reasons given, and ask when normal operations will 

resume. 

40 CFR 60.11 specifies that new sources operating under 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction conditions are not subject to 

opacity regulations. The evaluator must determine if these 

conditions are present and the extent of such conditions at the 

time of inspection. The EPA inspector is entitled to ask direct 

questions of any plant personnel who would have knowledge of the 

operation of a process which is responsible for visible 

emissions. 

While actually obtaining opacity readings for a facility, 

the process conditions should be available to the evaluator. 

Someone else on the inspection team should personally inspect the 

process during actual evaluation, and determine that conditions 

are representative and make note of process conditions. These 

determinations should be included in the valuator's field 

report. Where transmissometers are installed, tney should be 

inspected to check the accuracy of any self-recording data. 

1. Specific Requests - During the inspection, it is 

useful to ask for a plot plan of the plant, with all emission 

sources clearly marked. A building diagram would also prove 

-16-
P.20 

useful to indicate the actual height and location of vents, 

flues, stacks, and chimneys with distances clearly marked. These 

two documents should be signed and dated by a responsible company 

official. 

2. Confidentiality - The refusal of the source's 

personnel to release information requested by the inspector based 

on a claim of confidentiality of trade secrets contained therein, 

is an unjustified refusal. The claim of confidentiality relates 

only to the public availability of such data, not to its 

availability to EPA personnel performing duties under 8114 of the 

Act. Emission data is never confidential information. 

When the claim is made, the evaluator should explain 

that confidentiality applies only to public availability of that 

information, and that the source may request a determination as 

i 

to applicability of the confidentiality provisions of 8114 (c) to 

that information from the regional office (40 CFR 2.105 -

2.107(a)). Such a request should include the reasons for the 

claim as well as supportive technical data and legal authority. 

Until such time as that determination is made, such information 

will remain exempt from public disclosure (Guideline S.12). 

If the source continues after explanation of the 

confidentiality provisions to refuse such information as 

reguested, the evaluator shall record the type of information 

requested, and the name of the individual claiming 

confidentiality as a basis for refusal. A S114 letter can later 

be sent to the source requesting the refused information and 

-17-
including a more detailed discussion of the confidentiality 

provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

3. Summing Up - On completing the inspection, the 

evaluator should once again go over the maps and drawings with 

company officials to accurately locate processes and effluent 

points, and to answer any questions he may have formed. During 

the inspection his time is almost completely distracted by the 

surroundings and processes, with few if any chances to receive 

answers regarding stack height, feed rates, and emissions. 

Usually, only the immediate operating conditions and records can 

be observed by the evaluator. The number of company 

representatives with the evaluator should number no more than two 

or three of the key operations people. Later on, before 

departure, he may discuss his visit more thoroughly with any 

company executive who requests it. 

B. Source Types 

Visible emissions are generally divisible into two general 

categories: 

Category 1 - visible emissions from stacks and chimneys. 

Category 2 - Visible emissions from all other sources, including 

flues, ducts, roof vents and monitors, door and window 

openings, conveyor belts, etc. 

Procedures for evaluation of sources in category 1 are 

included in the attached Method 9. 

While stack or chimney emissions are sometimes the most 

obvious sources of visible emissions, significant portions of the 

-18-
total particulate burden are contributed by the minerals industry 

and other sources which sometimes occupy large geographic areas 

and whose emissions are not emitted through stacks or chimneys. 

The following methods apply to category 2 sources. 

C. Methodology 

It is necessary that the evaluator establish a disciplined 

approach toward evaluation of non-stack emission source. With 

emissions discharged at or near ground level, and with little or 

no control of those emissions, large quantities of visible 

particulate become a prime target of visible emission 

regulations. Method 9 (39 FR 219, November 12, 1974), is 

followed as closely as possible for accuracy and completeness in 

performing these visible emissions evaluations (Attachment 4). 

To accurately do this, the following steps must be taken in 

performing visible emission observations: 

1. Procedures - The observer qualified in accordance 

with Method 9 uses the following procedures for visually 

determining the opacity of emissions: 

a. Position. The qualified observer stands at a 

distance sufficient to provide a clear view of the 

emissions with the sun oriented in the 140° sector to 

his back. Consistent with maintaining the above 

requirement, the observer (as much as possible), makes 

his observations from a position such that his line of 

vision is approximately perpendicular to the plume 

direction and when observing opacity of emissions from 

-19-
rectangular outlets (e.g. roof monitors, open 

baghouses, non-circular stacks), approximately 

perpendicular to the longer axis of the outlet. The 

observer's line of sight should not include more than 

one plume at a time when multiple emission sources are 

involved, and in any case the observer should make his 

observations with his line of sight perpendicular to 

the longer axis of such a set of multiple sources. 

b. Field records. The observer shall record the 

name of the plant, emission location, type facility, 

observer's name and affiliation, and the date on a 

field data sheet (Attachment 4). The time, estimated 

distance to the emission location, approximate wind 

direction, estimated wind speed, description of the sky 

condition (presence and color of clouds), and plume 

background are recorded on a field data sheet at the 

time opacity readings are initiated and completed. 

c. Observations. Opacity observations are made 

at the point of greatest opacity in that portion of the 

plume where condensed water vapor is not present. The 

observer does not look continuously at the plume, but 

instead observes the plume momentarily at 15-second 

intervals. 

d. Attached steam plumes. When condensed water 

vapor is present within the plume as it emerges from 

the emission outlet, opacity observations are made 

-20-
P.24 

beyond the point in the plume at which condensed water 

vapor is no longer visible. The observer records the 

approximate distance from the emission outlet to the 

point in the plume at which the observations are made. 

e. Detached steam plume. When water vapor in 

the plume condenses and becomes visible at a distinct 

distance from the emission outlet, the opacity of 

emissions should be evaluated at the emission outlet 

prior to the condensation of water vapor and the 

formation of the steam plume. 

f. Recording observations. Opacity observations 

are recorded to the nearest 5 percent at 15-second 

intervals on an observational record sheet. (See 

Attachment 4 for an example.) A minimum of 24 

observations are recorded. Each momentary observation 

recorded is deemed to represent the average opacity of 

emissions for a 15-second period. 

g. Data Reduction. Opacity is determined as the 

average of 24 consecutive observations recorded at 15-

second intervals. Divide the observations recorded on 

the recorded on the record sheet into sets of 24 

consecutive observations. A set is composed of any 24 

consecutive observations. Sets need not be consecutive 

in time and in no case shall two sets overlap. For 

each set of 24 observations, calculate the average by 

summing the opacity of the 24 obseirvations and dividing 

-21-
P.25 

this sum by 24. If an applicable standard specified an 

averaging time requiring more than 24 observations, 

calculate the average for all observations made during 

the specified time period. Record the average opacity 

on a record sheet. (See Attachment 4.) DSSE will 

provide guidance on specific SIP exemptions at a later 

date. In those cases of intermittent or fugitive 

emission evaluation, the six-minute averaging 

requirement is not a feasible approach. DSSE 

encourages application of SIP opacity regulations on an 

individual basis for this type of emission evaluation. 

2. The forms included in Attachment 4 (39 FR #219, 

Appendix A) are completely filled out in accordance with the 

above procedures. The following are important points in 

correctly evaluating visible emissions from a stationary source 

of air pollution. 

a. The position of the evaluator must whenever 

possible, conform to the above conditions (i.e. sun 

behind observer and plume at right angles to his line 

of sight) . 

b. Evaluations performed at night may be 

performed with a light source behind the plume. Until 

night reading procedures become a part of Method 9, 

with adeguate data to support their accuracy, the 

region will need to document the accuracy of the 

readings in an individual enforcement proceeding. 

-22-
P.26 

c. The evaluator must not study the emission, as 

eye fatigue develops rapidly if he does. Evaluations 

are performed by glancing at the emission and recording 

its opacity immediately. While it is not possible in 

all situations, a thoroughly experienced evaluator can 

evaluate more than one plume in conterminuous time 

frames. This technique is acquired only after the most 

thorough training and practice. 

d. Evaluation times are recorded in terms of 

minutes and quarter-minutes, and are recorded so as to 

best represent consecutive changes in opacity as it 

occurs. 

e. As discussed below enough evaluations are 

recorded to show a significant violation of the 

applicable opacity regulation. 

f. Photographs are not to be taken during an 

actual evaluation, and may only be taken in between 

each separate evaluation. Another EPA employee may 

take photographs of the evaluator and the emission 

simultaneously however. These photographs add 

credibility to the evaluator's comments on his 

evaluation form. 

g. Emissions from non-stationary sources are not 

to be evaluated by the above procedures. DSSE will 

issue separate guidelines for this category should they 

be deemed necessary. 

-23-
P.27 

h. Precise identification must be made of each 

affected process, emission point, and type of emission. 

A company official should furnish the appropriate 

identification of these items. 

i. Intermittent visible emissions should be 

evaluated over a period of time considered adequate to 

determine compliance status, including a number of 

complete operation cycles, if possible. 

j. Continuous emissions should be evaluated for 

a standardized time period considered adequate for 

development of a case, and in all cases in excess of 

the minimum time required within the applicable visible 

emission regulation. It should be remembered that some 

regulations allow excursions above the opacity limit 

for a specified time (e.g., Ohio allows three minutes 

of 60 percent opacity per hour in the SIP). 

k. On a given source only one evaluator shall 

evaluate the same emission over any given time period. 

Duplicate observations are misleading and could be 

construed as an attempt to present the particular 

source in an unfavorable light. 

1. At least two EPA inspectors are required to 

perform a comprehensive visible emissions evaluation of 

a facility. This requirement is the only possible 

means of simultaneous process evaluation. It is 

usually necessary to do simultaneous process 

-24-
P.28 

evaluations in support of an Enforcement Action, but 

not during routine surveillance. 

m. The evaluator must fill out all pertinent 

field data at the time of the evaluation to assure 

reliable and consistent results months later when the 

actual evaluation conditions are reviewed. 

D. Non-Stack Emission Sources 

Below are procedures used for visible emission evaluation of 

specific non-stack emission sources which insure a consistent 

approach for specific industries. Accepted evaluation procedures 

must remain in conformance with Method 9 requirements, 

particularly regarding the observer's position with respect to 

the sun and wind. 

1. Emissions from coke batteries are evaluated in the 

following manner: 

a. Charging operation. Emissions included in 

this evaluation emanate from the: 

(1) charging holes; 

(2) larry car hoppers; 

(3) larry car control system; 

(4) standpipe lid. 

These emissions are evaluated from atop the battery. 

The attached sketch illustrates these emission points 

(Attachment 5 (a)). The evaluator positions himself 

with an unobstructed view of the emissions and labels 

-25-
P.29 

his evaluations according to the oven that is being 

charged. 

b. Pushing Operation. These emissions are 

evaluated from ground level on the coke side of the 

battery, as they arise from the coke as it is pushed 

into the quench car. Emissions are evaluated from the 

time the door is removed until it is replaced. The 

evaluator positions himself a safe distance from the 

operation and evaluates these emissions as they arise 

against the sky. Figure 2 of the attached sketch 

illustrates the push operation. (Attachment 5(b)) 

c. Door Leakage. Door leakage from either side 

of the battery is recorded from ground level after the 

door (s) are replaced. Door leakage includes those 

emissions from the leveler door and the oven door 

itself, and are evaluated against the battery 

structure. Figure 3 of Attachment 5(b) illustrates 

these potential emission points. 

d. Safety. Minimal safety requirements for 

evaluation in this category are: 

(1) respirator (activated charcoal type or 

self-contained oxygen for use atop the battery); 

(2) safety glasses with side shields; 

(3) safety helmet; 

(4) safety boots. 

-26-
P.30 

2. The evaluator should take note of the following, 

regarding each coke battery evaluated: 

a. total number of ovens; 

b. average coking cycle; 

c. average time between observed charges; 

d. total number of doors observed leaking beyond 

30 minutes; 

e. ongoing door maintenance, e.g. cleaning of 

edges after each push and number of spare doors on 

hand; 

f. number of ovens not in operation, if 

applicable; 

g. the charging series during the evaluation. 

This information is easily obtained from direct observation, and 

is very useful in assessing the general maintenance of a coking 

facility. Suggested formats for recording this data, and 

additional information, are included as Appendices A and B. The 

use of checklists like these provide the evaluator with an 

effective tool for a thorough evaluation of a coke battery. 

3. Emissions from rock or mineral drilling, crushing, 

conveying, screening, and storing are evaluated in the following 

manner (see Attachment 6) . 

a. Drilling. Emissions from drilling operations 

are evaluated from a safe distance (30-40 feet or 

more), from the drilling machine as they are released 

from the drilling device or from the drill hole. 

-27-
P.31 . 

b. Crushing. Emissions included at this 

evaluation point are released as material is discharged 

from the primary and secondary crushing machines. 

Observations are performed at a safe distance (e.g. 30-

40 feet) from the discharge point and on the same 

elevation as the discharge if possible. 

c. Conveying. Visible emissions are evaluated 

as material is discharged at conveyer belt transfer 

points and loading points. Evaluation shall occur at 

the same elevation as the discharge if possible. 

d. Screening. Visible emissions are evaluated 

as material is discharged from the screen into the 

chutes. The observer shall obtain an observation point 

as close to the same elevation of the screens as 

possible. 

e. Storage. Visible emissions from the air 

separator or other devices are evaluated at the point 

of discharge onto the conveyor. Observations are 

performed at ground level. 

f. Safety. Minimal safety requirements for 

evaluation in this rock or mineral category are: 

(1) respirator/face mask; 

(2) safety glasses; 

(3) safety helmet; 

(4) safety boots; 

(5) noise suppressors. 

-28-
In operations involving rock or mineral drilling, 

moisture content of the material plays an important 

part in type and quantity of visible emissions. 

Therefore, any addition of moisture to the process 

should be noted. 

g. Emissions from the operations below are 

evaluated in a manner consistent with the above 

procedures: 

(1) dry concrete batching plant; 

(2) deep hopper grain unloading (include 

type grain, type or lack of hood surrounding 

unloading); 

(3) woodworking plants; 

(4) coal preparation plants; 

(5) lime plants; 

(6) mining operations. 

4. Process emissions from roof monitors are evaluated 

in the following manner: 

a. BOP furnace roof monitor - Visible emissions 

are evaluated as they are released through the 

horizontal roof monitor, from ground level. The 

evaluation is performed at the point of densest 

emissions. The attached sketch illustrates this 

emission point. (Attachment 7) 

b. Emissions from roof monitors of the 

operations below are evaluated in a similar manner: 

-29-
P.33 

(1) aluminum smelters; 

(2) brick kilns; 

(3) ferro-alloy plants. 

V. REPORT_WRITING 

The entire thrust of the visible emissions evaluator's 

effort is summarized in his reported observations, and 

conclusions. Without a clear and concise explanation of what was 

observed, no possibility exists to meaningfully develop 

information for a potential enforcement proceeding for the source 

in question. 

A. The Narrative 

In addition to his field report (discussed below), the 

evaluator should write a brief narrative summary of his 

evaluation, to include those points which may not have been 

recorded during his plant visit, but which may be important in 

refreshing his memory months later when the case is discussed in 

an administrative or legal proceeding. This narrative should be 

in outline form. A suggested format is included as Attachment 8. 

The evaluator should be as precise as possible in the 

nomenclature used describing sources of visible emissions. Avoid 

subjective descriptors such as leaking valve, unknown open 

hearth, large, thick or heavy emissions, etc. These types of 

words can be interpreted in many different ways, both from a 

technical and a legal viewpoint. This list is by no means 

inclusive, but the need for accurate designations of sources 

should be obvious. Alternatives to these would include the 

-30-
P.34 

technical term for the unit, stack, or chimney being observed, 

and a numerical designation to further identify the subject. 

This number may be assigned by the evaluator at the time of 

observation, only in lieu of a more complete description obtained 

from the source. 

B» %he Field Report 

The actual field report is a compilation of all relevant 

emission data recorded during the actual plant visit. Thus the 

field report includes a copy of the actual visible emission 

observation form used to record the opacity of emissions, a 

complete sketch of relevant features of the facility, and a data 

summary, which clearly compiles and illustrates the opacity data. 

Each of these features of the field report are discussed below. 

1. Observation Form. This form should include all 

pertinent information necessary to determine the plant operating 

conditions at the time of the evaluation. This format includes 

but is not limited to the following: 

a. date and time of evaluation. 

b. name and address of source. 

c. name and location of emission point (name of 

process is acceptable). 

e. wind speed and direction. 

f. ambient temperature and relative humidity. 

g. height of emission point. 

h. sky condition, general weather condition 

(overcast, broken, scattered, clear). 

-31-
P.35 

i. color of emission, 

j. name of plant official accompanying 

evaluator. 

k. name and date of certification of observer, 

and signature. 

1. space for remarks considered relevant to the 

case being developed. 

The evaluator shall also record on the observation form 

any process condition which is abnormal and which may affect 

observed emissions. This fact should be noted immediately on 

being discovered. In no case should the evaluator rely on his 

memory to fill in his evaluation forms. 

The evaluator shall also note any deviations from 

accepted evaluation procedures as promulgated in Method 9, and 

record the reason for his deviation from accepted procedures. 

Any deletions or changes in the recorded data is to be lined out, 

and the correct figure recorded close by. No erasures or other 

changes are to be made on the evaluation form. A suggested 

visible emissions observation form is included as Attachment 9. 

It is extremely important to note conditions observed 

during the plant visit where processes were found to be in 

operation and where visible emissions were negligible or meeting 

the applicable regulations. Such a report on these processes may 

be as important in terms of assessing a source's compliance as 

evidence of a violation. These reports aid in forming a complete 

picture of the plant's compliance. 

-32-
P.36 

The evaluator follows established chain-of-custody 

procedures for the original data sheets. These procedures follow 

the one-key, one-file, one-man approach to custody, and must be 

maintained continually for all unresolved cases. 

2. Sketch - A complete sketch is included in the 

field report illustrating the following: 

a. name and address of company. 

b. identification of source being evaluated. 

c. specific geographic features such as streets, 

buildings and highways to positively identify source 

and plant locations. 

d. observer's location and estimated distance 

from the source. 

e. arrow showing wind direction. 

f. arrow showing north direction. 

g. the sketch should include the position of the 

sun with respect to the observer. A relatively simple 

method of doing this is to draw a figure similar to 

that shown below where the circle represents the 

horizon; the intersection of the quadrant line 

indicates the observers location; the arrow represents 

his line of sight; and the small circle indicates sun 

position. 

-33-
P.37 

Line of 

Sight 

Horizon 

Observation 

Point 

Position 

of Sun 

3. Data Summary - A data summary is included with the 

report. Relevant data of the following type must be included 

with this summary: 

a. name of source. 

b. range of opacity readings. 

c. total number of opacity readings taken. 

d. total number of opacity readings in excess of 

that allowed in the standard. 

e. reading averages (sets of 24). 

f. citation of the appropriate opacity 

regulation. 

g. the name and certification date of the 

visible emission evaluator. 

A statistical presentation of the above data is 

particularly necessary for presentation to other parties in an 

administrative conference, hearing, or lawsuit. The data must be 

-34-
P.38 

summarized in a form to allow comparison with the approriate 

regulation. 

VI. PHOTOGRAPHY 

Photographs are sufficiently important that a separate 

section is here devoted to the use of a camera on or near a 

source. EPA has the authority under 8114, to take photographs of 

actual or potential emission points under circumstances in which 

an inspector may inspect a source. 

By taking good quality photographs the visible emission 

evaluator can illustrate the conditions he will be exposed to in 

evaluating various plumes which are in violation of opacity 

standards. Photos can also illustrate the complex setting of 

some of the emissions the evaluator is called upon to evaluate. 

Clearly, not all emissions are released from easily observed 

chimneys and stacks, and the evaluator, by photography, will be 

able to accurately identify the emission source. 

Photographs can also illustrate the correct evaluation 

procedures followed by an inspector, in compliance with Method 9 

of the November 12, 1974, Federal Register (39 FR 219, pp 3 9873-

39875). Usually, the complexity of some emission sources makes 

it incumbent on the inspector to familiarize himself with most 

processes and operations in his region, so that if and when he 

offers testimony on what he observed, he does not make any 

mistakes which could have been avoided. 

Photographs can also illustrate conditions the inspector 

cannot include in his report, in supplementing hard evidence of 

-35-
P.39 

opacity violations he may have observed. For example, if a 

particular plant was shut down on the day of inspection, analysis 

of photographs of nearby structures and plant life can 

graphically illustrate that significant amounts of particulate 

are emitted from the source. 

-36-
ATTACHMENT #1 

BULES AMD REGULATIONS APC 11 

CHAPTER ELEVEN: APC 11 

APC 11 Restriction of Emission of Visible Air Contaminants 

(a) Smoke restrictions applicable to existing installations including boats 

and ships except existing incineration. No person shall cause or permit the 

emission of smoke or any other air contaminant which has a shade or density: 

(1) Darker than No. 3 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart or of such 

opacity as to obscure an observer's view to a degree equal to or greater than 

smoke of No. 3 Ringelmann density. 

(2) Darker than No. 2 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart but less than 

No. 3 on said chart, if such emission continues for longer than 4 minutes 

in the aggregate in any 60-minute period, or of such opacity as to obscure 

an observer's view to a degree equal to or greater than smoke of No. 2, but 

less than No. 3 Ringelmann density during such period. 

(3) Darker Uian No. 1 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart but less than 

No. 2 on said chart, if said emission continues for longer than 4 minutes in 

the aggregate in any 30-minute period, or of such opacity to obscure an 

observer's view to a degree equal to or greater than smoke of No. 1, but less 

than No. 2 Ringelmann density during such period. 

The density of smoke or other air contaminant shall be measured at the 

point of its emission, except, when the point of emission cannot be readily 

observed, measurement shall be made at the nearest observable point on the 

plume from the point of emission origin. 

(b) Smoke restrictions applicable to new installations and all incinerators. 

No person shall discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of 

. emission whatsoever any air contaminant which has a shade or density: 

(1) Darker than that designated as No. 1 on the Ringelmann Smoke 

Chart; or 

(2) Of such opacity as to obscure an observer's view to a degree greater 

than smoke described in subsection (b) (1) of this regulation. 

(c) Exceptions. 

(1) A person may discharge into die atmosphere from any single source 

of emission for a period or periods aggregating not more than 4 minutes in 

any 60 minutes air contaminants of a shade or density: 

(aa) Not darker than No. 2 on the Ringdoann Smoke Chart; or 

(bb) Of such opacity as to obscure an observer's view to a degree not 

greater than does smoke described in subsection (a)(1) (aa) of this regulation. 

Where the presence of uncombined water is tie '"ily reason for failure 

of an emission to meet the requirements of sectioi:.. or (b) of this regulation, such sections shall not apply. The provisions of this regulation shall not 

apply to: 

(i) Transfer of molten metals; 

(ii) Emissions from transfer ladles; 

(iii) Coke ovens when pushing coke fronioven; 

(iv) Water quenching of coke on discharg. from ovens; 

37 
P.41 

APC 1 1 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 

(v) Existing grey iron jobbing cupolas as defined in Regulation 

APC 5; and 

(vi) Blast furnaces during slips. 

(2) A temporary operational breakdown of any equipment, installation 

or facility may be permitted by the Agency to be an exception to the provisions of Regulation APC 11 provided the owner or operator immediately 

advises the Director of the circumstances and outlines an acceptable corrective program. A temporary breakdown of less than 15 minutes duration is 

an exception to the provisions of Regulation APC 11 and need not be reported. No equi* -nent, installation or facility shall be operated which has an 

unreasonable b lkdown frequency as determined by the Director. In any 

event, no open on that may cause an immediate public health hazard shall 

be deemed an :ception from this regulation. 

(d) Ringel; .nn Smoke Chart. The Ringelmann Smoke Chart shall mean 

and include y of die following: 

(1) Th Ringelmann Smoke Chart with instructions for use (Information Circul: 8333, May, 1967, Rev. of IC 7718) as published by the U. S. 

Bureau of ines; 

(2) Ti s Ringelmann Smoke Chart, photographically reduced to 1/ 19th 

in size and known as Power's Microringelmann Chart, copyright 1954 by 

McGraw-Hill Publishing Company; and / 

(3) Such other method or apparatus for determining smoke density or 

opacity as the Agency may approve. 

[July 7, 1969; amended September 14, 1971; amended April 13, 1972] 

38 
P.42 

ATTACHMENT #1 

REGULATION ANALYSIS 

Minnesota 

A. In Minnesota* the emission of smoke or any other air contaminants 

from existing point sources of any opacity equal to or greater than 

No. 3 Ringlemann is prohibited. In brief, this means that emissions of a density equal to or greater than 60% opacity are in violation of the regulation. 

This regulation is applied to all existing point sources within 

the State, except incinerators. 

Each opacity reading of 60% opacity in an aggregate of 4 minutes 

per hour constitutes a violation of the regulation and is enforceable by U.S. EPA. 

The following exceptions apply to APC-11: 

1. Smoke or other air contaminants of a shade or density equal 

to or darker than No. 2 Ringlemann (40%) but less than No. 

3 Ringlemann (60%) for not more than four minutes, in the 

aggregate, in any 60 minute period is allowed. 

2. Smoke or other air contaminants of a shade or density equal 

to or greater than No. 1 Ringlemann (20%) but less than No. 

2 Ringlemann (40%) for not more than four minutes in the 

aggregate in any 30 minute period is allowed. 

B. The emission of any air contaminant from new installations and all 

incinerators in excess of 20% opacity is prohibited. The following 

limitations apply: 

1. Air contaminants of a shade or density equal to but not 

darker than No. 2 Ringlemann are permitted, not to exceed an 

aggregate of four minutes in any 60 minutes. 

2. Breakdowns of equipment, if reported, are an exception to the 

regulations. The density of the plume shall be evaluated at 

the point of its emission, or at a point observable near the 

point of emission. 

The presence of uncombined water in the plume shall not contribute to a violation of this regulation. The regulation 

shall not apply to the following operations: 

*Rule APC-11, Restriction of Emission of Visible Air Contaminants. 

Rules and regulations-Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (Attached.) 

39 
P.43 

(1) Molten metal transfer; 

(2) Transfer ladle emissions; 

(3) Coke pushing operations; 

(4) Coke quenching; 

(5) Grey iron cupolas; 

(6) Blast furnace slips. 

40 
ITEM 

STOPWATCH 

COMPASS 

WIND METER 

CAMERA 

GAS MASK 

RESPIRATOR 

BINOCULARS 

RANGEFINDER 

PSYCHROMETER 

DUFFEL BAG 

CLIPBOARD 

SAFETY HELMET 

SAFETY GOGGLES 

SAFETY BOOTS 

NOISE PROTECTOR 

FOLDING STOOL 

TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS 

PARKAS, COLD WEATHER GEAR 

COVERALLS 

LANTERN 

RUBBER IDENTIFICATION STAMP 

FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLE 

ATTACHMENT 2 

VE EQUIPMENT LIST 

MINIMUM STANDARD 

ADDITIVE-1 -HOUR MINIMUM 

GEOLOGISTS 

35 MM F1.8 LENS 85-210 MM ZOOM LENS 

ACTIVATED CHARCOAL 

REPLACABLE FILTER 

35 MM 

5% ACCURACY 

RANGE (-20°F TO 110°F) 

LARGE 

OSHA APPROVED 

POSSIBLE SOURCE 

GSA 6605-171-5121 

DWYER MFG: MICHIGAN CITY IN. 

HONEYWELL PENT AX 

MSA TYPE N, MODEL SW-CANISTERS: GMC-5 

AMERICAN OPTICAL R-6057 

SA-SO CO., GRAND PRA|RIE, TX, 68J141 

BROOKSTONE CO. L-2420 HOLSTER K-2421.6 

SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC. #21 0 

SEARS ROEBUCK & CO. #14F-5888H #2 2 

GSA #7520-2815918 

AMERICAN OPTICAL BX18L 

AMERICAN OPTICAL 482B 

SEARS ROEBUCK & CO. 

GSA 7105-282-0684 

USGS 

J*. 

J*. 
P.45 

ATTACHMENT 3 TAB D 

' . * *** . '** • 

\§$2j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

**«.*/& WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 

WATERSIDE MALL 

NOV 81972 

Memorandum 

To: All Regional Counsels 

From: Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and 

'General Counsel 

» 

Subject: Visitors' Releases and Hold Harmless Agreements 

as a Condition to Entry of EPA Employees on 

Industrial Facilities „ 

FACTS 

As a condition to entry on industrial facilities, certain 

firms have, required EFA employees to sign agreements which 

purport to release the company from tort liability. The following 

"Visitors Release" required by the Owens-Corning Fiberglas 

Corporation is an example: 

VISITORS RELEASE 

In consideration of permission to enter the 

premises of Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation 

and being aware of the risk of injury from 

equipment, negligence of employees or of other 

visitors, and from other causes, the undersigned 

assumes all risk, releases said corporation, 

and agrees to hold it harmless from liability 

for any injury to him or his property while upon 

its premises. . . 

READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING 

In addition to such "Visitors Releases" employees or 

their supervisors have been asked to sign entry permits which 

include an agreement that EFA will pay for any Injury or damage 

resulting from our activities at the facility. 

43 
P.46 

QUESTIONS 

1. Does signing such a "Visitors Release" effectively 

valve the employee's right to obtain damages for tortious injury? 

2. May EPA employees contractually obligate the Agency 

to pay for any injury or damage caused by our activities? 

3. May firms condition EPA's entry upon signing such 

agreements? 

ANSWERS 

1. Generally, yes; employees waive their right to 

damages and the government is prevented frora^exercising its 

right of subrogation under the Federal Employees' Compensation 

Act. 

2. No; federal tort liability is established and limited 

by the Federal Tort Claims Act, and such agreements are also 

invalid as violative of the Anti-Deficiency Act. 

3. No; EPA employees possess a right of entry under 

both the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water.Pollution Control 

Act Amendments of 1972. 

DISCUSSION 

Although the precise effect of an advance release of 

liability for negligence cannot be determined without reference 

to the law of the state in which the tort occurs, we must 

assume that such agreements are generally valid. By signing 

such agreements EPA employees may effectively waive their right 

to sue for damages and the government's right of subrogation 

under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 USC 8101 et seq. 

The Restatement of Contracts, Ch. 18, § 575 states: 

(1; A bargain for exemption from liability for the 

consequences of a willful breach of duty is illegal, 

and a bargain for exemption from liability for 

the consequences of negligence is illegal if 

(a) the parties are employer and employee and 

the bargain relates to negligent injury of 

the employee in the course of the employment, 

or, 

(b) one of the parties is charged with a duty of 

public service, and .the bargain relates to 

negligence in the performance of any part 

of its duty to the public, for which it has 

received or been promised compensation . . . 

44 
P.47 

With the exceptions mentioned in the Restatement of Contracts. 

supra, no general public policy seems to exist against express 

agreements for assumption of risk, and they need not be 

supported by consideration. 10 Prosser on Torts § 55 and 

Restatement of Torts 2d, Ch. 17A, §496B. Despite this general 

rule, cases arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act involving 

releases signed by civilian passengers prior to boarding ill-fated 

government aircraft indicate that the courts do not favor such 

agreements. (Friedman v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.. 138 F. Supp. 

530 (1956)—a release is no defense against gross, willful, or 

wanton negligence in New York; Rogow v. U.S.. 173 F. Supp. 547 

(1959)—a selease is Ineffective unless the flight is gratuitous; 

Montellier v. U. S.. 315 F2d 180 (1963)— a release does not 

destroy a cause of action for wrongful death in Massachusetts.) 

Such apparent judicial disfavor of advance releases is, of coursfe, 

insufficient justification for assuming the risk of signing them, 

and ordinary prudence requires us to assume their validity. Although 

signing a release does not affect the employee's right to benefits 

under FECA, such compensation will ordinarily be much less than 

might be recovered in a tort action against the negligent 

corporation. 

Since the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 USC 8131 

and 8132,. provides that an employee may be required to assign 

his right to sue third parties to the United States and that 

the employee must, within limitations, pay over any recovery 

from third parties as reimbursement of FECA benefits, the 

employee's release prejudices the government's rights as well 

as h,is own. Employees should therefore be instructed not to 

sign such releases under any circumstances. 

Although an EPA employee's express assumption of the risk 

of injury to himself may be valid, an agreement which purports 

to obligate EPA to pay all damages caused by our activities is 

not. The Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 USC 2674 provides: 

The United States shall be liable, respecting 

the provisions of this title relating to tort 

claims, in the same manner and to the same 

extent as a private individual under like 

circumstances, but shall not be liable for 

interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages , . . 

\ 

v 

Congress has granted only a limited waiver of the government's 

sovereign immunity, and 28 USC 2680 lists exceptions to the 

45 
P.48 

general waiver stated in# 28 USC 2674, supra. Exceptions which 

might be relevant in cases arising out of the actions of EPA 

employees include 28 USC 2680(a): 

Any claim based upon an act or omission of an 

employee of the Government, exercising due care, 

in the execution of a statute or regulation, 

whether or not such statute or regulation be 

valid, or based upon the exercise or performance 

or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary 

function or duty on the part of-a federal agency 

or an employee of the Government, whether or not 

the discretion involved be abused; 

and 28 USC 2680(b): 

Any claim arising out of assault, battery, 

false imprisonment, false arrest,-malicious 

prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, 

misrepresentation, deceit, or interference 

with contract rights .. . 

Since the government's tort liability is limited by statute, 

an administrative undertaking to expand such liability by 

contract is probably invalid. In any event, EPA should not 

create the occasion for judicial resolution of the question. 

An additional basis for considering such indemnification 

agreements invalid is the Anti-Deficiency Act, which provides 

at 31 USC 665(a) :i 

No officer or employee of the United States shall 

make: or authorize an expenditure from or create 

or authorize an obligation under any appropriation 

or fund in excess of the amount available therein. . . 

" | . 

Since the extent of the government's obligation is uncertain, 

the Comptroller General has stated that a contractual assumption 

of tort liability is not a lawful obligation of the United States, 

and payment may not be made pursuant to such agreements. (7 CG 507, 

16 CG 803, and 35 CG 86.) In fairness to companies which may 

rely upon the validity of such indemnity provisions, employees 

should be instructed not to sign them. 

Inasmuch^as the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water 

Pollution Control! Act Amendments of 1972 grant EPA employees 

a right of entry to corporate facilities, a company may not 

46. 
P.49 

lawfully condition the exercise of this right upon the signing 

of a release or indemnity agreement. The Clean Air Act 

provides, at 42 USC 1857c—9(a) (2): 

. . .the Administrator or his authorized 

representative, upon presentation of his 

credentials (A) shall have a right of entry 

to, upon, or through any premises in which 

an emission source is located or in which any 

records required to be maintained"under paragraph 

(1) of this section are located . . . 

The procedure for enforcement of this right is provided in 

42 USC 1857c—8: 

(a)(3) Whenever, on the basis df any information 

available to him, the Administrator finds that any 

person is in violation of. . . any requirement 

of section 1857c—9 of this title, he may issue an 

order requiring such person to comply with such section 

or requirement, or he may bring a civil action in 

accordance with subsection (b) of this section. 

(b) The Administrator may commence A civil action for 

appropriate relief, including a permanent or temporary 

Injunction, whenever any person—(4) fails or refuses 

to comply with any requirement of section 1857c—9 

of this title. 

When a firm refuses entry to an EPA employee performing his 

functions under the Clean Air Act, the employee may appropriately 

cite the statute and remind the company of EPA's right to seek 

judicial enforcement. If the company persists in its refusal, 

EPA should go to court in preference to signing a "Visitors 

Release." 

In addition to procedure for judicial enforcement 

similar\to that of the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 reinforce EPA's 

right of entry with criminal and civil penalties. Section 309 

states: 

(c)(1) Any person who willfully or negligently violates 

section . . .308 of this Act (Note—Section 305 establishes 

the right of entry). . . shall be punished by a fine of not 

less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day of violation, 

or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both. 

47 
P.50 

If the conviction is for a violation committed after 

a first conviction of such person under this paragraph, 

punishment shall be by a fine of not more than $50,000 

per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more 

than two years, or by both. 

(3) For the purposes of this subsection, the term 'person' 

shall mean, in addition to the definition contained in 

section 502(5) of this Act, any responsible corporate 

officer. 

(d) Any person who violates section . . .308 of this Act. 

and any person who violates any order issued by the 

Administrator under subsection (a) of this section 

(Note—subsection (a) provides for administrative orders 

to enf&rce the right of entry), shall be subject to a 

civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per day of such 

violation. 

In See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541(1967) the Supreme Court 

reversed the conviction of a corporation for refusal to admit 

building inspectors of the City of Seattle. Justice White 

held that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments required a 

warrant for such inspections, even where the search was 

reasonably related to protecting the public health and safety 

and even where a corporation, rather than an individual, was 

the subject. Under See evidence obtained by inspectors of 

the Food and Drug Administration has been held inadmissible 

where the inspectors obtained consent to enter by threatening 

prosecution under 21 USC 331, which provides criminal penalties 

for refusal to permit entry, U.S. v. Kramer Grocery Co.. 

418 F2d 987 (8th Cir., 1969). Although two more recent Supreme 

Court decisions, Colonnade Catering Corp. v. U.S., 397 U.S. 72 

(1970) and U.S. v. Biswell. 92 S. Ct. 1593 (1972), may create 

doubt as to whether See retains its original vigor (see 

Memorandum of the Assistant to the Deputy General Counsel, 

September 29, 1972), the possibility that evidence obtained 

under the FWPCA Amendments of 1972 will be ruled inadmissible 

is a risk EPA need not assume. 

Since the Amendments provide for judicial enforcement of 

the right of entry, EPA employees should be instructed not 

to mention the civil or criminal penalties of Section 309 

when faced with a refusal to permit entry. When such refusals 

occur, this office should be informed immediately so that a 

decision can be made as to whether to issue an order of the 

Administrator under 309(a) or seek an appropriate judicial 

remedy under 309(b). 

Vjohn R. Quarles, Jr. 

48 
P.51 

ATTACHMENT 4 

METHOD 9—VISUAL DETERMINATION OF THE 

OPACITY OF EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES 

Many stationary sources discharge visible emissions into the atmosphere; these emissions are usually in the shape of a plume. This method 

involves the determination of plume opacity by qualified observers. The 

method includes procedures for the training and certification of observers, 

and procedures to be used in the field for determination of plume opacity. 

The appearance of a plume as viewed by an observer depends upon a 

number of variables, some of which may be controllable and some of which 

may not be controllable in the field. Variables which can he. controlled 

to an extent to which they no longer exert a significant influence upon 

plume appearance include: angle of the observer with respect to the 

plume; angle of the observer with respect to the sun; point of observation 

of attached and detached steam plume; and angle of the observer with 

respect to a plume emitted from a rectangular stack with a large length 

to width ratio. The method includes specific criteria applicable to 

these variables. 

Other variables which may not be controllable in the field are 

luminescence and color contrast between the plume and the background 

against which the plume is viewed. These variables exert an influence 

upon the appearance of a plume as viewed by an observer, and can affect 

the ability of the observer to accurately assign opacity values to the 

49 
P.52 

2 

observed plume. Studies of the theory of plume opacity and field studies 

have demonstrated that a plume is most visible and presents the greatest 

apparent opacity when viewed against a contrasting background. It 

follows from this, and is confirmed by field trials, that the opacity of 

a plume, viewed under conditions where a contrasting background is 

present can be assigned with the greatest degree of accuracy. However, 

the potential for a positive error is also the greatest when a plume is 

viewed under such contrasting conditions. Under conditions presenting a 

less contrasting background, the apparent opacity of a plume is less and 

approaches zero as the color and luminescence contrast decrease toward 

zero. As a result, significant bias and negative errors can be made 

when a plume is viewed under less contrasting conditions. A negative 

bias decreases rather than increases the possibility that a plant operator 

will be cited for a violation of opacity standards due to observer 

error. 

Studies have been undertaken to determine the magnitude of positive 

errors which can be made by qualified observers while reading plumes under 

contrasting conditions and using the procedures set forth in this method. 

The results of these studies (field trials) which involve a total of 769 

sets of 25 readings each are as follows: 

(1) For black plumes (133 sets at a smoke generator), 100% of the 

sets were read with a positive error* of less than 7.5% opacity; 99% 

were read with a positive error of less than 5% opacity. 

*For a set, positive error + average opacity determined by observer's 

25 observations - average opacity determined from transmissometer's 25 

recordings. 

50 
P.53 

3 

(2) For white plumes (170 sets at a smoke generator"; 168 sets at 

a coal-fired power plant, 298 sets at a sulfuric acid plant), 99% of the 

sets were read with a positive error of less than 7.5% opacity; 95% were 

read with a positive error of less than 5% opacity. 

The positive observational error associated with an average of 

25 readings is therefore established. The accuracy of the method must be 

taken into account when determining possible violations of applicable 

opacity standards. 

1. Principle and applicability. 

1.1 Principle. The opacity of emissions from stationary sources 

is determined visually by a qualified observer. 

1.2 Applicability. This method is applicable for determination of 

the opacity of emissions from stationary sources pursuant to 960.11(b) and 

for qualifying observers for visually determining opacity of emissions. 

2. Procedures. The observer qualified in accordance with paragraph 

3 of this method shall use the following procedures for visually determining 

the opacity of emissions: 

2.1 Position. The qualified observer shall stand at a distance 

sufficient to provide a clear view of the emissions with the sun oriented 

in the 140° sector to his back. Consistent with maintaining the above 

requirement, the observer shall, as much as possible, make his observations 

from a position such that his line of vision is approximately perpendicular 

to the plume direction, arid when observing opacity of emissions from rectangular outlets (e.g. roof monitors, open baghouses, noncircular stacks), 

approximately perpendicular to the longer axis of the outlet. The observer's 

line of sight should not include more than one plume at a time when multiple 

stacks are involved, and in any case the observer should make his observations with his line of sight perpendicular to the longer axis of such a 

set of multiple stacks (e.g. stub stacks on baghouses). 

51 
2.2 Field records. The observer shall record the name of the plant, 

emission location, type facility, observer's name and affiliation, and the 

date on a field data sheet (Figure 9-1). The time, estimated distance-* 

to the emission location, approximate wind direction, estimated wind speed, 

description of the sky condition (presence and color of clouds), and plume 

background are recorded on a field data sheet at the time opacity readings 

are initiated and completed. 

2.3 Observations. Opacity observations shall be made at the point 

of greatest opacity in that portion of the plume where condensed water 

vapor is not present. The observer, shall not look continuously at the 

plume, but instead shall observe the plume momentarily at 15-second intervals. 

2.3.1 Attached steam plumes. When condensed water vapor is present 

within the plume as it emerges from the emission outlet, opacity observations, 

shall be made beyond the point in the plume at which condensed water vapor' 

is no longer visible. The observer shall record the approximate distance 

from the emission outlet to the point in the plume at which the observations 

are made. 

2.3.2 Detached steam plume. When water vapor in the plume condenses 

and becomes visible at a distinct distance from the emission outlet, the 

opacity of emissions should be evaluated at the emission outlet prior to 

the condensation of water vapor and the formation of the steam plume. 

2.4 Recording observations. Opacity observations shall be recorded 

to the nearest 5 percent at 15-second intervals on an observational record 

sheet. (See Figure 9-2 for an example.) A minimum of 24 observations 

shall be recorded. Each momentary observation recorded shall be deemed 

to represent the average opacity of emissions for a 15-second period. 

52 
P.55 

2.5 Data Reduction. Opacity shall be determined as an average of 

24 consecutive observations recorded at 15-second intervals. Divide the 

observations recorded on the record sheet into sets of 24 consecutive 

observations. A set is composed of any 24 consecutive observations. 

Sets need not be consecutive in time and in no case shall two sets 

overlap. For each set of 24 observations, calculate the average by 

summing the opacity of the 24 observations and dividing this sum by 24. 

If an applicable standard specifies an averaging time requiring more 

than 24 observations, calculate the average for all observations made 

during the specified time period. Record the average opacity on a record 

sheet. (See Figure 9-1 for an example.) 

3. Qualifications and testing. 

3.1 Certification requirements. To receive certification as a 

qualified observer, a candidate must be tested and demonstrate the 

ability to assign opacity readings in 5 percent increments to 25 different 

black plumes and 25 different white plumes, with an error not to exceed 

15 percent opacity on any one reading and an average error not to exceed 

7.5 percent opacity in each category. Candidates shall be tested according 

to the procedures described in paragraph 3.2. Smoke generators used 

pursuant to paragraph 3.2 shall be equipped with a smoke meter which meets 

the requirements of paragraph 3.3. 

The certification shall be valid for a period of 6 months, at which 

time the qualification procedure must be repeated by any observer in order 

to retain certification. 

3.2 Certification procedure. The certification test consists of 

showing the candidate a complete run of 50 plumes—25 black plumes and 25 

white plumes—generated by a smoke generator. Plumes within each set of 

53 
P.56 

6 

25 black and white runs shall be presented in random order. The candidate assigns an opacity value to each plume and records his observations 

on a suitable form. At the completion of each run of 50 readings, the 

score of the candidate is determined. If a candidate fails to qualify, 

the complete run of 50 readings must be repeated in any retest. The smoke 

test may be administered as part of a smoke school or training program, 

and may be preceded by training or familiarization runs of the smoke 

generator during which candidates are shown black and white plumes of known 

opacity. 

54 
COMPANY 

LOCATION 

TEST NUMBER, 

DATE 

TYPE FACILITY 

CONTROL DEVICE 

Figure 9-1. Ffeld data sheet. 

HOURS OF OBSERVATION, 

OBSERVER 

OBSERVER CERTIFICATION DATE_ 

OBSERVER AFFILIATION 

POINT OF EMISSIONS 

HEIGHT OF DISCHARGE POINT 

cn 

cn 

CLOCK TIME 

OBSERVER LOCATION 

Distance to Discharge 

Direction from Discharge 

Height of Observation Point 

BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION 

WEATHER CONDITIONS 

Wind Direction 

Wind Speed 

Ambient Temperature 

SKY CONDITIONS (clear, 

overcast, % clouds, etc.) 

PLUME DESCRIPTION 

Color 

Distance Visible 

OTHER INFORMATION 

Initial Final 

. • 

Readings ranged from to 

Set 

Number 

SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY 

Tln-P 

Start—End 

Opacity 

Sum Average 

% opacity 

The source was/was not in compliance with 

the time evaluation was made. 

at 

-J 
P.58 

FIGURE 9-2 OBSERVATION RECORD PAGE OF 

COMPANY 

LOCATION _ 

TEST NUMBER 

DATE 

OBSERVER 

TYPE FACILITY 

POINT OF EMISSIONS 

Hr. 

i 

Min. 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

Seconds 

~0~ 15 30 45 

STEAM PLUME 

(check 1f aoplicable) 

Attached Detached COMMENTS 

56 
P.59 

FIGURE 9-2 OBSERVATION RECORD 

(Continued) 

PAGE OF 

COMPANY 

LOCATION 

TEST NUMBER 

DATE 

OBSERVER 

TYPE FACILITY 

POINT OF EMISSIONS 

Hr. 

, , 

Min. 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

Seconds 

0 15 30 45 

STEAM PLUME 

(check if applicable). 

Attached Detached COMMENTS 

57 
ATTACHMENT 5a 

FIGURE 1 

TOPSIDE VIEW-COKE BATTERY 

PRIMARY EMISSION POINTS 

cn 

co 

LARRY CAR HOPPER 

CHARGING HOLE 

OTHER 

EMISSION POINTS 

OBSERVER 

POSITION 

LARRY CAR 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

STANDPIPE LID 

10/9/74 

KM 
P.61 

ATTACHMENT 5b 

FIGURE 2 

DOOR REMOVED 

VISIBLE EMISSIONS 

QUENCH CAR DOOR REMOVAL MACHINE 

COKE 

OBSERVER POSITION 

GROUND LEVEL-COKE SIDE 

PUSHING OPERATION 

EMISSIONS EMANATE FROM THE COKE AS IT ENTERS THE QUENCH CAR AND 

ARE EVALUATED AGAINST THE SKY. 

FIGURE 3 

ALL DOORS IN PLACE LEVELING DOORS CLOSED 

VISIBLE EMISSIONS 

AREA 

GROUND LEVEL-PUSH SIDE 

DOOR LEAKAGE 

•OBSERVER POSITION 

EMISSIONS EMANATE FROM THE EDGES OF THE COKE DOORS AND LEVELING 

DOORS, AND ARE EVALUATED AGAINST THE BATTERY STRUCTURE. 

.'60 
ATTACHMENT 6 

P.62 

DRILLING RIG 

DRILLING 

EMISSION POINT 

LOADING 

HOPPER 

CRUSHING 

EMISSION POINT 

LOADING HOPPER 

PRIMARY CRUSHER SECONDARY CRUSHER 

CONVEYING - SCREENING 

CONVEYOR EMISSION POINT 

SCREENING EMISSION POINT 

STORAGE 

EMISSION POINT 

10/10/74 

61 
P.63 

ATTACHMENT 7 

ROOF MONITOR EMISSIONS 

EMISSION POINTS ROOF MONITOR 

OBSERVER POSITION 

10/10/74 

62 
P.64 

ATTACHMENT 8 

Industrial Air Pollution Survey of Point Source 

Ken Malmberg 

Technical Advisor 

Ken Shih 

Chief, Field Support Section 

NAME & LOCATION 

ABC Grain Co. 

Decatur, IN 46733 

DATE OF SURVEY 

January 31, 1974 

EPA PERSONNEL PARTICIPATING 

Kenneth B. Malmberg 

William Beyer 

PERSONNEL CONTACTED 

Mr. Ben Jones, Plant Manager 

PURPOSE 

ABS responded to a request from Enforcement Division to ascertain 

whether or not the suspect source was in apparent violation of visible 

emission regulation APC-3, for the state of Indiana. Specifically, we were 

to inspect the elevator operations, and the oil extraction plant, and take 

note of any other emissions that are near the visible emissions limit of 

40% opacity. 

PRODUCTS 

Soybean oil and soybean meal is produced at this feed mill which processes 70,000 bushels per day of soybeans. The meal is used as a constituent 

to animal feed with approximately (5/6) of total production sold to other 

producers. The remaining (1/6) of the meal is combined with grains into 

a complete line of animal and polutry feeds, bagged and shipped from this 

location. Mollasses and meat scraps are additives to various of these 

feeds. 

63 
P.65 

The crude soybean oil is filtered, then degummed with an alkaline solution in the initial refining stage. It then proceeds to the edible oil 

refining and shortening plant for final processing prior to shipping. 

PROCESS 

The soybean is unloaded from boxcars into deep receiving hoppers for 

elevator storage. From the elevator the beans are removed as needed. 

After cleaning the bean is cracked by feeding it through rolling equipment, and then the hulls are removed. The remaining part of the beans are 

rolled into a flake and hexane is injected into the process to remove the 

fat. Since the hexane is volatile, a closed system of recovery is provided 

for recovery of the solvent. Any solvent remaining is driven off as a 

vapor by toasting the flake and then condensed for eventual recovery in a 

separation tank. 

MAJOR RAW MATERIALS 

Soybeans, alfalfa, corn, phosphates. 

TECHNICAL SURVEY OF EMISSION SOURCES 

1. Boiler house (6) readings were recorded over 40% opacity during (30) 

minutes of evaluation. The remainder of readings (50 readings) were 

in the (35%) to (40%) opacity range. This boiler house consists of 

(2) coal-fired boilers, and' (1) gas-fired boiler, with all (3) boilers 

venting into a common stack. 

2. East Workhouse Dryer-Emissions from the vent on this dryer were in the 

25% to 35% opacity range while observed. They were located on top of 

North Receiving House Elevators. 

3. ill Truck Dump Aspiration-This ground-level collector was emitting 

particulate in the 30% to 40% opacity range during observation. This 

emission had ceased by the time the inspection was begun. This is the 

only truck dump which does not have a baghouse collection device. 

4. Tunnel Belt Aspiration-Jumbo Silos-This collection device was emitting 

in the 20 to 30% opacity range during the entire time of observation 

of the boiler house. 

5. Top Belt System Aspiration-Prior to the in-plant inspection, this 

source was observed emitting particulate in the 20% to 30% opacity 

range. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

In view of the numerous emission sources at this plant, many of which 

are borderline with respect to visible emission violations, emission factors 

should be used to substantiate violations of applicable State regulations. 

Continued surveillance of this source would probably produce opacity 

readings similar to the above which were not in excess of (50%) opacity. 

64 
P.66 

SOURCE NAME, 

ATTACHMENT 9 

VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATION FORM 

(EXAMPLE) 

OBSERVER 

ADDRESS. DATE 

OBSERVATION POINT 

STA<°K- DISTANT FR<">M _ HFir.HT 

WIND - SPF*P.,„. nippPTinN 

<ivv rnNnmnNm i OR O F RMTSSION* _ 

RFT ATTVF HTIMmfTYORSFRVATTDN RFP.AN FNTIFn 

4MRIFMT AIR TFMPFRATTIRFFVAI IIATDR'S Sir.NATURF.: 

TFRTTFir ATION nATFCOMMENTS: 

PLANT REPRESENTATIVE: 

NAME: 

TTTT F0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

0 15 30 45 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

0 15 30 45 

65 
P.67 

COMPANY -

LOCATION . 

INSPECTION. 

COM. REP. . 

APPENDIX A-l 

DOOR OBSERVATIONS 

SKY CONDITION 

BACKGROUND 

WIND DIRECTION 

WIND VELOCITY 

DATE: 

BATTERY OVEN NO. 

PUSH OR 

COKE SIDE 

TIME: START 

FINISH COMMENTS 

• 

66 
P.68 

A" 3 

CHARGING OBSERVATIONS 

COMPANY 

LOCATION 

INSPECTOR 

COMPANY REP. 

BATTERY ID 

OVEN ID 

DATE 

OBSERVATION LOCATION 

o 

o 

o 

> 

cc 

cc 

< 

SKY CONDITION 

BACKGROUND 

WIN D DIRECTION (SHOW ON DIAGRAM ) 

WIND VELOCITY • 

CODE: INDICATE POSITION RELATIVE 

TO LARR Y CAR 

TIME OF CHARGE: START END 

TIME> % OPACITY MAX. OPACITY 

MARK DOMINANT 

EMISSION POINTS 

COMMENTS 

67 
P.69 

A-2 

TOPSIDE OBSERVATIONS 

COMPANY « 

LOCATION _ 

INSPECTOR, 

BATTERY ID, 

DATE 

COMPANY REP.. 

OVEN NO. 

LEAKING 

TIME: 

START 

FINISH 

PUSH SIDE 

OPENINGS 

PS LIDS CS 

1 2 3 4 

COKE SIDE 

OPENINGS COMMENTS 

. 

CODE: OPENING: C-CAP 

F-FLANGE 

B-BASE 

O-OTHER 

LIDS =*> V 

SKY CONDITIONS 

BACKGROUND 

WIND DIRECTION 

WIND VELOCITY 

68 
PUSHING OBSERVATIONS 

COMPANY 

LOCATION 

INSPECTOR 

COMPANY REP. 

OVEN/BATTERY 

(A) 

TIME DOOR 

REMOVED 

(B) 

TIME OF 

PUSH 

DATE: 

(C) 

TIME DOOR 

REPLACED 

TIME >. TIME .> 

BETWEEN (A-B) BETWEEN (B-C) 

MAX. % 

DURING (B-C) COMMENTS 

UD 

3* 

DIAGRAM 

SKY CONDITION 

BACKGROUND 

WIND DIRECTION (SHOW ON DIAGRAM) 

WIND VELOCITY 

TOP VIEW 

OF BATTERY 

. o 
P.71 

• 

CO. NAME: 

APPENDIX B 

COKE OVEN EVALUATION FORM 

ADDRESS: STATEOVEN DATA 

TOTAL 

Nn RATTFRIFS- u n nv 

RATTFRV NO s 

D 

COI 

TNS: 

INGLE M 

OUBLE J 

Oven No. 

• 

>fTROL EQUIPME 

SHEI 

AIN: MO 

/IAIN: 

NTCHAI 

BILE HO 

OTH 

DATE: 

INSP. BY: 

ICING METHOD 

SEQUENTI 

nn: 

RR: 

AL: 

STAG 

OTHE 

PLACE CHECKMARK IN APPROPRIATE SPACE 

CHARGING 

SLEEVES CHG. LIP 

4 

COKING 

DOORS 

PUSH COKE CHUCK 

STAND 

PIPES 

PUSHING 

Push 

ToQu. 

Tower 

QUENCHING 

Quench 

To 

Wharf 

QUENCH TOWERS 

RAFFLESE: nEMTSTFRS: 

R: OTHER: 

REMARKS 

,-

TOTAL 

% LEAKING 

% ALLOWED 

VIOLATION 

REGULATION 

«U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:19*5 210-810/32 1-3 

70