ENFORCE26450 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

© h1 r. Tan IGdAerr&rd~ Cdonulo Drisimr cfMveraLs mrl Gcdagy Qrdxr 25, 2000 Pn~e 2 the CDMG had a current, valid copy of the certificate in their files. HGCC believes the CDMG had a current, valid copy of the certificate less than two hours after HGCC received the notice of violation. HGCC acknowledges that it is our responsibility to keep our pemtit current and up-to-date. A communication breakdown caused the issuer of the certificate to not send the renewed certificate on or about June 30, 2000. Even though the public file did not contain a current, valid certificate between June 30, 2000 and October 12, 2000, we would like to point out that there was no time the policywas not in effect. The current, valid policy was effective as of June 30, 2000. We request that the CDMG note that HGCC was very responsive in addressing Mr. Kaldenbach's concern regarding the expired certificate, and, as indicated above, that the CDMG had a copy of the current, valid certificate within two hours of issuance of the notice of violation. Section 5.04.5 describes the assessment of civil penalties. It is our understanding that the amount of penalty assessed is governed by the following detemtinations: • Iitstoryof previous violations; • Seriousness; and, • Fatdt. We request that the CDMG note that HGGC does not have a history of previous violations and that this violation was not serious with regards to potential or actual damage. This violation occurred due to a communication breakdown. Please note that this was not a willful occurrence, nor did it occur because of indifference. HGCC respectively requests that the CDMG considers our excellent working relationship and carefully reviews the information in this letter during its penalty assessment. We also wish to note that Section 5.04.5(3)(d) allows the CDMG to subtrac[ up to $1,250 of the penalty assessmen[ if the person to whom the notice of violation was issued took extraordinary measures to abate the violation and that the abatement was achieved in the shortest possible time and before the expiration of the time fixed for abatement. We believe that the violation was issued for a minor compliance violation and that the information we have presented demonstrates that this HGCC has been very responsive in achieving compliance. Consequently, we respectively request thac, under Section 5.04.5(3)(d), the CDMG negate any and all civil penalties for Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-008. Sincerely, Montgomery Watson Mining Group On Bdwlf cf H-G Coal Company ~ ~~_ J C Weinman Local Representative ca Bob Medler, W.R Grace Project File 1342877 P: YP/:UJIV(dl///CvmpnbdT'IX'/.bLm lot.)/Ud