Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />23 <br />1 doesn't seem that that's the case anymore. <br />2 So we can certainly reduce our <br />3 inspection frequency. We are not interested in being <br />4 on these sites any more than we need to be on these <br />5 sites. <br />6 MR. CATTANY: I guess the follow -up <br />7 question I've got is when we accept primacy from OSM <br />8 for a state program, we're held to certain standards by <br />9 OSM. Now, if we've made the decision that we're not <br />10 going to do any more reclamation at the site, are they <br />11 going to have a different opinion about what the needs <br />12 are at the site and, therefore, get back into the <br />13 second guessing hell that we've found ourselves in with <br />14 OSM in the past? <br />15 MR. BERRY: Its certainly within the <br />16 realm of possibility. I believe -- well, there is some <br />17 controversy, I believe, as to what the oversight <br />18 process is relative to these revoked sites. <br />19 The state's position has been that once <br />20 the division, the primacy authority, has gone through <br />21 the entire process of forfeiture, pursuing any parties <br />22 that may be responsible out there, and then determining <br />23 whether or not -- well, determining that there are no <br />24 more parties to pursue in any productive manner, the <br />25 moneys are spent to the best of our abilities and were <br />