Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />24 <br />1 done. <br />2 Now, the laws and regulations are <br />3 relatively silent as to what occurs after that. The <br />4 oversight direction and the regs seem to tell us that <br />5 we are out there inspecting at certain frequencies with <br />6 the ability to reduce that frequency, but the law and <br />7 the regs don't say much more than that. <br />8 The oversight process that we're engaged <br />9 in right now, as I understand it -- and these guys can <br />10 correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, it's <br />11 just to see what's out there at revocation sites. <br />12 Frankly, the state has been very <br />13 hesitant in years past to bring oversight or OSM in any <br />14 manner to these revoked sites because in the late '80s <br />15 there was great controversy. There were citizen groups <br />16 indicating that these revoked sites should be <br />17 maintained to the precise same standards as an <br />18 operational site. The state said we can't possibly do <br />19 that. There's no way we can do that. And so we've <br />20 been very hesitant to get back into that battle. <br />21 I don't believe we're there anymore. I <br />22 think the OSM is legitimately there to see is there or <br />23 is there not or are there or are there not off -site <br />24 impacts. I think overall it's probably safe to say the <br />25 impression has been positive. <br />