Laserfiche WebLink
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'k years. <br />