Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />Phone memo Page 2 <br />*She asked me why I was doing "this". I said because you did not <br />submit the report on time and its our job. She said "No it's <br />not!", your job is to help us understand and comply with the <br />regulations. <br />*She said this violation does nothing but give them a slap on the <br />hand. <br />*She said issuing this violation does nothing to improve our <br />relationship. <br />*She said our files are in bad shape and knows she sent them. (She <br />did admit that she did not submit one for the first half of 1992.) <br />She said its our fault that we do not have the reports. I said I <br />checked 3 sources: Jim Pendeleton, who in the past has reviewed <br />all subsidence reports. His files show the last report he reviewed <br />was for October 1990 (J.P.'s memo dated January 3, 1991); the <br />Division's data base computer reports (tickle sheet) which has <br />shown that a semi-annual subsidence report was due on July 30, 1991 <br />and people are pretty good about marking these dates off when the <br />reports are received; and, the public and specialist copy of the <br />files. I feel sure that we did not receive these reports. I <br />encouraged her to send in the reports if she had them because the <br />regulations allow the operator to send information that pertains to <br />the violation within 15 days of the receipt of the violation. <br />*She said, towards the end of the conversation, that if I was still <br />intent on writing the violation... <br />*She ended the conversation with I appreciate you letting me know <br />you were going to write this violation and I will be talking to my <br />management and I am sure you will be hearing from yours. <br />*She also mentioned she has been upset with my recent adequacy <br />letters; how picky they were. She told me to keep looking because <br />there are bound to be more things like this (I am not sure what she <br />was referring to). She said no permit was perfect. <br />*She was upset about my AHR review. She said it referred to <br />things dated back to 1987. I said it was only for the 1990 <br />and 1991 AHR. It asked for information that was asked by the <br />Division to put in the AHR and never was. <br />*She also said that she thought I would of considered that they are <br />(MCC) trying to get this permit revision out and working on getting <br />the renewal issues finished up. And that issuing this violation is <br />wasting a lot of time and money on her end and mine. <br />*She said that she's showed me the data during my complete <br />inspection. I said that is not why the violation is being written. <br />It is because the reports were not submitted for 1~ years. <br />