|
145
<br /> 1 And so as far as the different types of 1 MR. SINGLETARY: I guess in W
<br /> 2 tests, I don't think that changes my mind that it was 2 observation of what staff has brought to us on other
<br /> 3 inadequate testing procedure. 3 situations, you know, I think -- you know, I'm kind of
<br /> 4 MS. UITER U-NORhM: I hear your 4 understanding a little bit of water situations. I -- I
<br /> 5 point. I think it's a well-taken point, but I usually 5 think that testing was adequate.
<br /> 6 have found if -- I'm not saying doing 10 different 6 You know, I understand we can go find,
<br /> 7 types of tests, but I think that river is close enough 7 you know, many ways to tests, but I think they
<br /> 8 that that has to be fully discounted that it did not in 8 identified with their knowledge what test it would take
<br /> 9 any way affect the -- the change in the water tables 9 to verify the conclusion they came to. In other words,
<br /> 10 there. And I would like that disproven, and then fine, 10 I think they probably thought about different types of
<br /> it then I would accept the other one. 11 testing and, you know, what might or may be useful and
<br /> 12 But I think that one other -- either 12 some not useful. So I feel confortable with what --
<br /> 13 that or another type of test could have been done, and 13 with the testimony that was presented in that regard.
<br /> 14 it would have been financially within the bounds of 14 And I like staff, and you know as well
<br /> 15 efficiency and would have rounded it out. 15 as I do, I don't always agree with them. I watch --
<br /> 16 You're going to choose your test where 16 they're very discerning about, you know, what they put
<br /> 17 you think you're going to get results that perhaps you 17 together because they don't want to cane back in here
<br /> 18 want. I don't know that you go in there saying, Well, 18 and do it again, and -- so I feel like the tests were
<br /> 19 we'll just find out and see what we're going to do. If I19 adequate.
<br /> 20 you're hired to do a test, you often will do the test 20 MS. VAN NOORD: Should we talk about the
<br /> 21 that revealed the results that whamver is hiring will 21 proposed plan?
<br /> 22 want. That's not always the case. 22 MR. SINGLETARY: Go ahead. You're so
<br /> 23 But I think when you make sane 23 eloquent at it.
<br /> 24 choices -- because there are a number of different 24 MS. VAN NOORD: I think the proposed
<br /> 25 tests out there -- you're going to be very careful how j25 plan -- in looking at the plan, we look at what TR-69
<br /> 318 320
<br /> 1 you select those tests, certainly by the person 1 is designed to do, and that's to address the issue that
<br /> 2 who's -- or the person who's going to be paying the 2 has been identified through the testing that was
<br /> 3 bill. 3 identified in the inspection.
<br /> 4 It doesn't mean that you're biasing it. 4 And I understand that the property
<br /> 5 But I think there could have been two -- two different 5 Owners would like to get a much larger fix, a much
<br /> 6 types of tests. I wouldn't say 10; I wouldn't say 6 larger investigation of what may be out there or not,
<br /> 7 five; but two different types to justify or tighten up 7 but that's not what we're looking at here. You know,
<br /> 8 the testing procedure itself. It was awfully loose. 8 that's -- we're looking at a specific issue that was
<br /> 9 MS. VAN NOORD: Meat do you mean, "it 9 identified that was further investigated through
<br /> 10 was loose"? 10 testing, and the proposed plan, it's going to address
<br /> 11 MS. UITERBACK-NORM M: The draping of 11 that issue, as far as I understand.
<br /> 12 the water, it -- it kind of -- well, we did 10 this 12 I mean, I'm not a mine engineer, but
<br /> 13 time and then did 8.5 over here a little later. You 13 based on the evidence that was given to us, it appears
<br /> 14 know, you plan to do it all at the same time; you do 14 adequate to address the issue specifically identified.
<br /> 15 the same amounts in each of those holes; you watch it. i5 And if we have to cane back and do this again, we'll do
<br /> 16 It isn't this day this and that day that. 16 our job. And I'm not going to be influenced by the
<br /> 17 MS. VAN NOORD: Okay. 17 fact that we may have to see these people again.
<br /> 18 MR. SINGLETARY: Nothing? 18 W. UITERBACK-NORMANN: To me the
<br /> 19 MR. RANDALL: I mean, I will just say I 19 adequacy of the testing and of the proposed plan are
<br /> 20 tend to agree with Jill's read on this that given what 20 certainly tied together, though we're looking at them
<br /> 21 we were presented, I think the testing was adequate, 21 separately. Since I don't agree with the testing
<br /> 22 and that's not to say that there couldn't be additional 22 procedures, did not feel that they were adequate, the
<br /> 23 tests done, but I think they met their standard to 23 proposed plan doesn't meet that.
<br /> 24 determine hydrologic connection, just in my view of the 24 But even if you take the proposed plan,
<br /> 25 evidence that we saw. 25 for me, the tests that were done, I -- I have some
<br /> 319 321
<br />
|