►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Welcome
to
our
natural
resource
committee
meeting
well
that
chairman
Gooch
answer
his
phone
real,
quick.
A
As
we
get
started,
I
have
asked
representative
Wesley
if
he
would
to
lead
us
in
prayer
and
then
after
that,
we'll
be
doing
the
pledge
of
allegiance
at
this
time.
I
will
turn
it
over
to
representative
Wesley
to
lead
us
in
prayer.
B
Let's
pray
father,
we
just
thank
you
today,
God
for
your
goodness
and
mercy,
and
we
thank
you
for
this
assembly
and
God
as
we
gather
together
Lord
for
the
best
of
our
communities
and
the
state
Lord.
We
ask
you
to
give
us
Direction
and
and
help
our
leadership
God,
lead
and
guide
us
Lord,
and
especially
to
help
those
that
went
through
the
floods
and
the
the
tragedies
this
past
year.
God,
if
there's
any
way
that
we
can
help
them
and
fund
them
in
any
kind
of
way.
B
A
A
We
will
get
started
I'm
going
to
yield
to
my
co-chair
chairman
Gooch,
to
see
if
he
has
any
any
comments
this
morning,
not
at
this
time,
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
very
good.
Do
I
have
any
of
our
members
that
have
special
guests,
family
members
or
people
from
the
district
that
are
here
that
we'd
like
to
recognize
anyone
have
NC,
Senate
or
representative
Blanton.
Thank.
E
You
Mr
chairman
I,
would
like
to
recognize
one
of
my
constituents
from
Pike
County.
That's
here
today:
Mr
Bob
shirtleff
from
up
in
Pikeville.
We
appreciate
him
being
here
today.
A
I
also
see
our
commissioner
fish
and
wildlife
back
there,
commissioner
storm
good
to
have
you
with
us,
and
anyone
else
have
any
special
guests
we'd
like
to
introduce
all
right.
That
said,
let's
go
ahead
and
get
right
into
our
meeting.
If
we
could.
Oh
excuse
me
yeah
at
this
point,
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
roll.
A
And
co-chair
Gooch
all
right,
very
good.
We
do
have
a
quorum,
so
this
time
we
actually
will
approve
have
to
approve
our
minutes.
So
if
I
have
a
motion
or
second
for
the
approval
of
our
minutes,
have
a
motion
by
representative
fugit:
do
we
have
a
second
by
Tom,
Odell
or
representative
Smith,
Oh
Dawson,
very
good
at
this
time?
All
those
in
favor
signify
I
opposed
likewise
motion
carries.
Thank
you.
Let's
go
ahead
and
get
started.
We
have
a
lot
to
cover.
J
I
All
right,
thank
you
again.
My
name
is
Todd
Trapp
I've
been
I've,
been
with
the
Department
I.
Guess,
let's
see
30
about
33
years.
This
past
summer,
I've
really
worked
with
Lahey
over
the
last
10
12
years
of
my
career
and
so
I'm.
Sorry
I
get
that
every
time
you
think
I
know
by
now.
Thank
you.
I
So
I've
got
a
lot
of
experience
with
live,
so
the
department
administers
the
LIE
program
is
responsible
for
doing
so.
The
division
of
family
support
is
within
the
department
for
community-based
services
under
Lisa,
Dennis
or
our
commissioner.
So
we
administered
the
program
in
through
a
partnership
with
Community,
Action
Kentucky
and
the
120
I'm
I'm.
Sorry,
the
23
Community
Action
agencies,
Statewide
serving
on
120
counties,
so
live
was
established
in
1982.
It's
essentially
a
safety
net
program
and
it
primarily
can
help
meet
the
home
energy
needs
for
low-income
households.
I
You
see
here,
we've
spent
so
far
this
ffyi
60.6
million.
We
still
have
some
funding
set
aside
for
the
last
ffy
last
quarter
of
the
ffy,
and
then
we
anticipate
the
federal
funding
for
2024
to
be
58
million,
and
it's
that's
100,
federally
funded
90
of
the
benefits
have
to
be
spent.
90
of
the
block
grant
I
should
say,
has
to
be
spent
on
benefits,
so
we're
limited
to
10
percent
for
administrative
costs.
I
We
set
aside
15
for
weatherization
activities
and
again
that
15
is
subject
to
that
same
90,
10
split
so
and
then
64
000.
That's
that's
set
aside.
That
is
straight
benefits,
and
that
is
the
division
of
protection
and
permanency
has
that
to
for
child
welfare
uses
to
help
prevent
any
need
for
an
intervention.
If
that
can
be
used
to
do
so.
I
Here's
the
income
scale,
basically
for
household
size,
one
through
eight,
it's
150
percent
of
the
federal
poverty
level
and
then
the
benefits.
Essentially,
there
are
a
couple
of
kinds
of
benefits:
there
there's
the
monthly
payments
which
can
assist
with
households,
monthly
utility
bills.
Those
are
split
into
a
couple
of
different
types.
I
One
is
subsidy,
we'll
talk
about
those
a
little
bit
more
and
then
crisis
and
then
emergency
assistance,
which
is
provided
by
the
agencies
for
those
experience,
households
experience
an
extreme
emergency
outside
of
just
that
bill
payment
and
then
weatherization
activities
which,
as
I
said,
we
set
aside
15
for
that,
so
the
subsidy
component,
it's
it's
basically,
a
any
household
that
has
a
has
a
verified
expense
and
meets
the
income
limits,
it's
a
credit
to
their
bill
credit
or
a
payment
on
their
monthly
bill,
and
it's
based
on
their
percentage
of
poverty
and
then
generally,
that
runs
for
the
heating
program
November
through
mid-December
or
until
the
the
allocated
funding,
Runs
Out.
A
John,
let
me
ask
you
a
question
here,
while
we're
thinking
about
this,
so
over
the
years
of
where
I'm
at
down
in
Eastern
Kentucky,
what
we
would
see
is
the
vouchers
you
would
you'd
be
able
to
come
to
say
a
local
gas
station
or
some
convenience
store
and
get
kerosene.
You
won't
remember
these
days
and
take
it
back.
If
you
had
a
heater,
you
could
even
get
stoker
coal
at
one
time,
but
some
of
the
vouchers
do
we
see
that
much
anymore.
A
Is
that
something
that
just
I
know
so
many
truthfully,
so
many
places
have
closed
in
our
area
that
that's
not
really
much
of
an
option
to
go
and
get
the
coal
or
even
really
get
kerosene
that's
hard
to
come
by,
but
how
much?
A
percentage
of
that
are
we
still
seeing
out
in
these
rural
areas
where
they're,
using
their
vouchers
for
this
style
of
heating
and
warming
their
homes,
either
the
kerosene
or
a
coal.
I
D
I
do
not
know
the
percentage
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
I
can
tell
you
that
we
use.
We
do
electricity,
natural
gas
and
you
predominantly,
of
course,
see
the
natural
gas
in
your
urban
areas,
but
as
a
person
who
grew
up
with
with
propane
and
wood
in
my
home
in
our
rural
communities,
we
we
have
see
a
lot
of
propane
and
electric,
of
course,
but
wood
and
coal.
We
see
a
little
bit
of
fuel
oil.
We
do
see
some
kerosene
out
there
and
those
are
allowable
benefits
under
the
program.
D
I
agree
that
you're
you're
right
we've
seen
a
lot
of
operations
close
up,
so
sometimes
that
has
harmed
some
of
our
folks
that
used
to
be
able
to
get
down
the
road
to
get
those
fuels,
and
now
they
have
to
travel
further.
But
in
no
case
is
a
monetary
payment
made
to
the
customer.
It's
always
made
to
that
vendor.
So
if
they
go
and
use
that
voucher,
then
that
supplier
will
turn
turn
in
the
voucher
and
once
we
receive
the
voucher,
then
we
issue
payment
directly
to
the
vendor.
No.
C
K
Lot
of
those
like.
E
How
about
now
all
right
good
deal?
Sorry,
but
while
we're
talking
on
vouchers,
I
wanted
to
jump
in
here,
really
quick.
So
if
I
receive
a
voucher,
are
there
any
safeguards
in
place
that
ensures
that
I'm
using
that
voucher
in
a
proper
manner?
And
if
so,
can
you
explain
that.
D
Sure
that
is
a
concern.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
the
benefit
is
being
used
by
the
person
who
is
supposed
to
receive
that
benefit
in
the
case
of,
for
example,
propane.
We
request
that
the
we
require
excuse
me
that
the
propane
vendor
provide
a
some
written
documentation
that
it
was
delivered
at
that
house.
It
can't
be
sent
to
a
different
address,
so
whatever
the
address
on
record
has
to
go
there,
then,
if
it
is
a
voucher
where
someone
were
picking
up
like
a
bulk
fuel,
they
have
to
match
that
name
on
there.
D
So
we
we
want
to
see
them
matching
the
name
of
the
receipt
back
to
that
person
who
had
that
voucher
and
presented
it
and
make
sure
that
those
things
line
up
so
we've.
We
definitely
want
to
reduce
any
sort
of
the
benefit
going
to
the
wrong
person.
I
have
a
true
distaste
for
somebody
who
wants
to
misuse
a
program
like
this,
because
when
they
do
that
they
could
be
taking
away
from
somebody
who
was
deserving,
and
so,
if
we
do
find
those
instances,
we
investigate
them
or
we
turn
them
over
to
the
oig.
E
Thank
you
and
I
totally
agree
with
you.
There
has
been
there's
often
times
conversations
dealing
mostly
with
the
kerosene
part
where
people
will
get
the
vouchers
and
then
they'll
sell
their
vouchers
or
you
know
so.
E
Are
the
people
that's
taking
the
vouchers?
Are
they
required
to
get
some
type
of
ID
from
these
individuals?
That's
name
is
on
the
voucher
to
ensure
it's
them,
which
there's
nothing
to
keep
them
from
going
and
getting
the
cursing
and
then
turn
around
selling
the
kerosene
right,
but
I
know
that
that
is
seems
to
be
a
a
fairly
common
issue
in
my
area
when
it
deals
with
the
the
kerosene.
D
That
they
are
supposed
to
do
that.
That
is
supposed
to
be
done.
There
is
a
vendor
agreement
that,
if
you
want
to
participate
in
the
program,
you
have
to
follow
certain
stipulations
and
I
would
take
very
seriously
any
accusation
of
that
and
I
would
follow
up
with
those
vendor
or
I'd.
Have
my
folks
in
this
in
the
field
they're
there
to
follow
up
with
those.
If
they're
reported
to
me
very.
L
D
A
A
You
would
provide
the
whole
committee
with
that.
Would
that
be
really
good
to
see
and
folks
listen,
we're
most
of
us
are
very
familiar
with
your
program
and
we
can
save
you
all
some
time
today.
We
have
to
take
actually
take
a
motion
on
this,
so
for
finding
a
fact:
does
he
want
to
go
ahead
and
present
it
with
her?
I
was
just
going
to
save
you
all
some
time.
If
you
want
to
go
ahead
and
be.
A
I
think
happy
to
share
this
in
our
in
our
packet
with
it,
but
this
is
a
statutory
requirement
for
us
that
we
approve
their
finding
effect.
You've
got
the
sheet
and
stuff
in
front
of
you.
If
there
is
any
specific
questions
from
the
committee
we'll
be
glad
to
let
them
ask,
but
if
not,
we
can
go.
A
Paramore
very
good:
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second
all,
those
in
favor
of
the
sign
of
I,
the
Motions
prove
favorably
in
passes
and
we'll
hand
this
over.
Thank
you
all
for
your
time,
we'll.
N
A
A
All
right
we
have
got
now.
The
discussion
on
polychlorinated
substances
or
pfas
in
Kentucky
I
was
looking
for
Tony
Tony
there.
You
are
yes,
sir
commissioner
Hatton
Welcome
to
our
committee
and
you
guys
go
ahead
and
take
the
table
and
just
have
everyone
introduce
themselves
for
our
record
as
you
know,
and
then
we'll
turn
it
over
to
you.
O
All
right,
chairman,
Smith
members
of
the
committee,
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
share
some
information
with
you
all
I
think,
based
on
some
requests
you've
made.
My
name
is
Tony
Hatton
I'm,
commissioner
of
the
department
for
Environmental
Protection.
My.
K
Name
is
Larry
Taylor
I'm,
the
executive
advisor
in
the
office
of
legislative
and
intergovernmental
Affairs,
and
glad
to
see
everybody
here.
We
I've
worked
with
several
of
you
in
the
past
on
constituent
issues
from
the
legislative
perspective,
but
now
I
get
to
to
meet
with
you
on
some
technical
issues.
K
O
O
O
I
think
it's
important
as
we
delve
into
that,
and
certainly
we're
going
to
have
information
to
that
effect
that
we
sort
of
set
some
context
of
what
we're
talking
about,
because
this
is
a
complex
issue
in
a
lot
of
ways,
and
so
I
think.
Maybe
one
of
the
first
things
worth
pointing
out
is
that
you
know
pfas
is:
is
compounds
are
things
that
are
in
Commerce
or
in
consumer
products
and
we
are
not
statutory
authorized.
Nor
is
it
our
job
to
address
issues
related
to
Consumer
products.
O
Our
primary
responsibility
is
protection
of
air
quality,
water
quality
and
solid
sustainable
waste
management
practices.
O
So
that's
important
sort
of
moving
forward
to
to
help
everybody
understand
what
our,
what
our
piece
of
this
is,
and
what
we've,
what
we've
been
doing
so
pfas
for
those
who
are
engaged
in
my
vocation
or
people
that
work
in
in
the
same
space
that
I
do
is
something
that
gets
talked
about
quite
a
bit.
It's
commonly
they're
referred
to
as
forever
chemicals
or
emerging
contaminants.
O
You
know
it's
a
really
long,
really
long
official
name,
purr
and
polyfloral
alkyl
substances
or
pfas
pfas,
and
you
know
we
talk
with
Folks
at
the
national
level.
We
talk
with
some
of
our
counterparts
at
EPA
and
what
we
know
is
just
based
on
our
experiences
that
different
states
are
taking
different
approaches
and
have
different
strategies
to
how
they're
going
to
manage
these
issues
in
those
areas
for
which
they're
responsible,
of
course,
EPA
has
a
road
map
and
they've
had
that
road
map
out
for
a
couple
of
years.
O
We
also
have
a
road
map
in
the
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky.
It's
slightly
different
and
we
are
perhaps
looking
at
things
that
we
think
are
should
be
considered
a
little
bit
earlier
on
and
a
little
more
seriously
and
I'll
get
down
and
not
not
that
they're
not
considering
them
seriously.
But
what
what's
the
first
thing,
if
you
want
to
look
at
an
issue
like
this?
What's
your
first
concern
or
what
should
it
be
and
where
should
you
Center
your
resources
based
on
that?
O
If
you,
if
you
look
at
what's
developing
out
there,
you
really
don't
see
a
whole
lot
now
from
from
federal
EPA
on
what
concerns
there
might
be
related
to
dermal
contact
or
inhaling
pfas.
But
certainly
ingestion
through
contaminated
water
is
viewed
by
most
people
as
the
most
sensitive
receptor
scenario.
O
And
we
don't
disagree
with
that
and
that's
why
we
have
centered
most
of
our
efforts
towards
trying
to
ascertain
where,
in
the
Commonwealth
we
might
have
pfas
in
Source
Waters
that
are
used
for
the
purpose
of
drinking
water
and
I.
Think
it
was
important
for
us
to
to
start
gathering.
Information
and
I
want
to
make
I
want
to
make
sure
we
all
understand.
We
have
gathered
a
lot
of
information.
O
None
of
the
information
that
we've
gathered
has
has
been
or
ever
was
intended
to
be
used
for
regulatory
purposes,
but
was
primarily,
we
primarily
felt
we
needed
to
gather
information
for
a
couple
of
other
very
important
purposes.
One
is
we
sort
of
have
a
duty?
It's
our
mission
to
protect
Public,
Health
and
I.
Don't
know
if
I
should
say
this
or
not.
O
O
O
The
last
thing
we
want
to
do
is
find
ourselves
in
a
position
some
months
down
the
road
rules
Come
into
place
and
we're
sitting
here
with
no
information
and
no
data,
so
that
was
another
motivating
factor
for
us
to
sort
of
prepare
ourselves
for
when
those
when
those
things
might
come.
Another
important
aspect
of
it
and
we'll
get
to
the
first
slide
here
in
a
second
is
assuming
that
some
of
those
rules
are
going
to
come
down,
particularly
on
the
drinking
water
side
that
could
potentially
it's
not
just
necessarily
a
public
health
impact.
O
It
could
be
a
cost
and
implementation
impact
or
our
drinking
water
facilities.
So
we've
gathered
information
and
I'll.
Get
I'll,
show
you
that
here
shortly
in
large
part
to
get
out
ahead
of
those
potential
responsibilities
that
might
accrue
to
some
of
our
water
utilities
so
that
we
can
begin
to
assist
them
early
on
with
technical
assistance
and
looking
for
financial
assistance
ahead
of
the
game,
so
that,
when
that
that
day
does
come,
which
it
likely
will
will
be
as
prepared
ahead
of
time
as
we
can
be.
O
So
on
that
first
slide
there
pfos
are
they're
a
chemical
compound
which
is
basically
two
or
more
atoms
chemically
bonded.
Together
they
were
first
developed
in
the
1940s
and
they
have
wide
use
they're
used
in
a
lot
of
consumer
products.
O
They
I'm
become
familiar
with
them
over
the
last
couple
years.
They
they
are
consist
of
a
carbon
and
fluorine
chemical
bond.
They
they're
they're
chain
type
compounds
and
by
Design
they're,
very
difficult
to
break
apart.
That's
the
way
they
were
designed
to
be
very
resistant,
they're
heat
resistant,
their
stick
resistance
and
resistant,
and
there
are
many
variations
of
that
chain.
Long
chain
short
chains.
You
might
have
an
atom
or
two
hanging
out
over
here
or
there
that
sort
of
changes
it,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
they're
per
or
polyfloral
alkylated
substances.
O
They
have
been
widely
used
in
consumer
products,
Industrial
Products
I
mentioned
Teflon
and
Scotchgard.
Those
are
not
the
only
products
in
which
they've
been
used,
but
two
of
them
primarily
there's
a
reason
that
your
Teflon
Skillet
doesn't
stick
very
well
and
can
can
stand
up
to
a
considerable
amount
of
heat.
Scotch
Guard
is
used
in
many
many
types
of
applications,
stain
resistance.
Things
like
that.
O
It's
in
food
packaging
paper
products,
aqueous
film,
forming
foam,
which
is
a
type
of
foam
I,
think
that
was
maybe
originally
developed
by
the
Department
of
Defense,
It's,
very
effective
at
putting
out
fires
that,
because
it's
so
heat
resistant
it
literally
when
it's
applied.
It
covers
a
fire
and
Smothers
it
and
starves
it
of
oxygen.
So
it's
very
very
effective
that
in
some
in
some
Industrial
Products
as
well,
a
variety
of
Industrial,
Products
and
I
use
the
phrase
tenacious
Bond.
O
They
don't
readily
break
down
in
the
environment
and
we're
talking
about
things
having
to
do
with
releases
to
the
environment.
They
don't
readily
break
down,
and
it's
been
our
experience
that,
when
released
into
the
environment
there
in
not
such
a
good
way,
a
very
effective
at
migrating
through
groundwater
readily
migrating
through
groundwater,
because
they're
physical
characteristics,
very
low
solubility
and
ability
to
move.
So
they
do
also.
We
do
know
that
they
do
accumulate
in
aquatic
organisms.
O
A
An
international
effort
on
Seafood
there's
an
issue
where
they're
looking
at
how
much
this
will
have
an
impact
on
on
you
know
seafood
and
fish
and
different
products
that
are
made
available.
Now
we
have
our
commissioner
fish
and
wildlife.
Here
we
have
a
lot
of
people
that,
like
to
fish
and
eat
the
fish.
A
They
they
catch
out
of
Kentucky
waters
as
they're
that
you've
talked
about
as
far
as,
if
that's
what
we
having
seeing
that
in
any
of
our
the
fish
and
Fish
and
Wildlife
that
you
all
know
of,
or
is
that
something
that
we're
going
to
be
looking
into?
Yes,.
O
A
Okay,
yeah
I,
just
we'll
wait
to
get
to
that
point,
but
I
am
very
I'm
curious
about
that.
One.
G
Yes,
sir,
thank
you
Mr
chairman,
so
what
exactly
happens
to
like
the
the
the
metal
Skillets
deteriorate,
leaving
the
of
the
hydrocarbons
to
go
to
or
the
the
PA
pfas
substances
to
go
down
into
the
groundwater
or
or
you
know,
I
I've
always
had
a
little
bit
of
a
hesitancy
about
non-stick
I
think
you
know
just
a
cast
iron
or
ceramic
or
steel
with
some.
You
know
oil
on
it
works
just
about
as
good
or
better.
But
you
know,
I
I
know
that
there
are
a
ton
of
these
out
there.
O
O
The
environment
they're,
probably
not
a
major
contributor
emissions
and
discharges
from
industrial
processes
are
primarily
where
you
might
see
the
opportunity
for
impacts
to
groundwater
to
take
place,
such
as
so
you
had
a
situation
where
you
had
a
fire,
a
tire
fire
or
something
like
that
that
typical
application
of
water
wasn't
going
to
work
and
you
used
aqueous
film,
foam
or
anti-film
forming
foam.
O
That's
that's
a
high
likelihood
that
that
will
readily
impact
groundwater,
so
the
the
consumer
product
side
of
it
is
is
something
that
that
probably
is
not
a
big
contributor
in
of
themselves
to
impacts
to
groundwater.
But
certainly
you
know
people
have
to
make
personal
decisions
about
what
types
of
products
they
use
to
the
extent
that
they
can
but
yeah
over
time.
You
know,
Teflon
Skillet
gets
heated
up
a
lot.
O
You
might
see
it
start
to
crack
and
break
a
little
bit
so
I'm
a
big
fan
of
cast
iron
myself,
but
that
doesn't
really
not
really
important
to
this
conversation.
But.
A
We
have
two
other
Representatives
that
have
questions
real
quick
representative,
Tom,
Odell,
Smith
I'll
yield
to
him
at
this
time.
C
C
There
is
something
that
started
in
our
state
and
I
think
you
may
be
aware
of
it
that
can
turn
into
I.
Consider
a
catastrophic
event
where
our
landfills
dispose
of
the
water
to
the
local
treatment
facility
is
treated
and
in
return,
the
local
landfill
receives
the
slurrier
sludge
from
the
treatment
facility.
So
it's
been
a
Cooperative
effort
between
both
of
them
to
kind
of
a
system
that
they've
had
over
years
and
you're.
C
Aware
of
yes,
it's
been
brought
up
in
the
last
few
months
or
a
water
facility
refused
to
take
any
more
of
it,
and
this
could
create
a
domino
effect
with
concerns
from
citizens
all
sudden
uprising
over
forever
chemicals
saying
forever,
meaning
is
a
long
time
for
disposal
or
for
it
to
go,
get
rid
of
right.
So
what
is
the
cabinet
looking
at
to
address
something?
C
That's
already
started,
and
what
do
you
have
as
far
as
a
game
plan
to
keep
this
from
happening
across
the
state
or
Garbage
bills
have
already
doubled
in
the
last
so
many
years
we're
starting
to
see
a
rise
in
cost
in
disposing
right
and
our
water
treatment
facilities
are
trying
to
hang
on
with
sewage
being
at
the
cost
that
it
is,
and
you
can't
be
in
just
sewage,
business
and
utilities,
anymore
or
local
governments.
C
You
have
to
have
the
water
to
offset
it
as
far
as
cost,
but
if
they
start
refusing
to
take
the
water
or
the
waste,
that's
coming
off
of
the
landfills
and
then
the
landfills
refuse
to
start
taking
the
slurry
because
of
the
sludge
because
they
refuse
to
take
the
their
water
to
treat
it.
What
is
a
cabinet's
position
on
fixing
that,
and
do
you
have
a
statement
for
those
citizens
that
have
caused
a
water
treatment
to
already
refuse
it?
Can
you
make
a
public
statement
on
giving
them
advice
on?
That's
probably
not.
The
best.
C
First,
move
is
to
shut
down
a
system,
that's
been
operating
for
years
or
a
practice
that's
been
operating
for
years
and
the
reason
I
bring
it
up
is
because
you
know
that
it's
a
topic
right
now
in
in
my
area.
So
if
you
could,
could
you
address
that
if
it's
all
right,
Mr,
chairman
I,
don't
want
to
get
in
front
of
his
presentation.
O
Me
well,
that's
that's
a
good
question
right
out
of
the
gate
and
I.
Don't
remember
every
aspect
of
it,
so
you
can
help
remind
me
of
it
as
I
go
along,
so
industrial
discharges
into
publicly
owned
treatment.
J
O
Is
a
long-term
common
practice?
We
have
26
Municipal
landfills
in
the
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky
and
25
of
those
manage
their
leachate
through
discharges
to
publicly
owned
treatment
works
the
leachate
when
you
have
the
operating
landfill.
You
have
rain
events.
The
water
leaches
down
through
the
waste
landfills
are
required
to
have
liner
systems
and
leak
collection
systems
at
the
bottom
of
them
to
collect
that
leachate,
because
so
many
consumer
products
contain
pfas,
then
to
a
degree
landfills
have
become.
O
Perhaps
I
don't
want
to
speak
too
much
on
their
part
because
I'm,
not
a
landfill
operator,
but
I've
I've
helped
in
my
former
life
site,
landfills,
they're
receiving
materials
sort
of
passively,
and
now
they
find
that
they
have
something
in
their
leachate.
That
is
going
to
potentially
cause
a
problem
for
the
next
person
down
the
line.
In
this
case,
the
publicly
owned
treatment
work.
O
I
think
the
short
answer
to
answer
your
question:
what
we're
doing
and
what
we're
trying
to
concentrate
on
it's
there's
two
things
to
look
at
here,
irrespective
of
your
view
of
the
toxicity
and
the
danger
in
the
public
threat
posed
by
these.
Some
think
that
it's
really
real
and
some
thinks
Maybe.
Not
maybe
it's
not
like
that
intensive
and
here's
the
way
that
I
think
about
it.
Here's
the
way
that
we're
looking
at
it
there
are.
O
If
you
assume
that
drinking
water
is
perhaps
the
thing
you
should
concentrate
on
and
I
think
it
is,
that
is
a
that
is
a
an
issue.
That's
implementable!
It's
it's
an
achievable
thing
in
a
relatively
short
period
of
time
to
add
treatment
to
your
to
your
water,
to
your
raw
water.
To
remove
these
compounds
before
they
reach
the
consumer,
that's
just
it
technologically!
It's
it
can
happen.
It's
a
matter
of
cost
and
there's
be
significant
cost
then,
on
the
other
piece
of
it,
because
these
things
have
been
used
so
widely
and
they're.
O
If,
if
a
potw
decides
not
to
take
it,
they
may
have
reasons
for
doing
that.
That
I'm
not
sure
that
we
have
really
any
influence
or
authority
over
that
decision
being
made.
But
what
I
would
say
to
to
to
to
those
who
are
interested
in
hearing
is
that
drinking
water
is
the
most
important
thing
and
we
can
address
that
start
addressing
that
and
taking
care
of
it
while
over
the
next.
O
However,
long
period
of
time
it
takes
to
start
removing
or
managing
the
stuff
in
the
Commerce
train
that
it's
in,
because
that
is
a
long-term,
very
complicated,
currently
hotly
debated
set
of
issues.
O
So,
with
regards
to
to
a
decision
that
was
made,
I
think
I
would
I
think
I
would
have
to
say
it's
a
local
decision
that
was
made
it
might
have
been
based
on
concerns.
It
might
not
be
the
risk,
that's
actually
there
might
not
support
that,
but
different
people
see
things
differently
and
have
different
levels
of
concern
and
there's
always
that
challenge
of
over
or
under
reacting
to
anything.
O
C
Mr,
chairman
of
this
follow-up,
please
real
quick,
it's
Somerset
utilities,
the
water
district
is
yeah
and
if
you
could
reach
out
to
them,
I
was
reached
out
to
to
see
because
they
knew
the
hearing
was
coming
so
I'd
appreciate
if
you
could
reach
out
to
them,
because
I
think
it's
very
important
to
the
members
in
the
legislative
body
to
know
when
something
is
starting
up
to
maybe
get
it
fixed
before
it
turns
into
a
a
a
Pandora's
Box.
It
opens
up
and
and
I
think
you
understand
how
it
could.
C
O
C
O
Finished
drinking
water
from
I
think
Burns.
These
Burns.
O
A
Mary
again,
this
will
be
something
that
this
committee
will
follow
as
well.
We
have
several
of
our
members
that
would
like
to
speak,
and
so
as
I
yield
to
them.
Just
remember
for
for
etiquette
and
to
move
this
along
try
to
come
back
through
the
chair,
just
as
what
representative
Smith
did
for
follow-up
questions,
because
I
may
have
somebody
else
in
line
waiting
or
another
question.
So
at
this
time,
I
yield
to
co-chairman,
gooch.
P
Thank
you
Mr
chairman
commissioner
Hatton.
P
We
talk
about
the
the
pfos
and
and
you've,
given
a
pretty
good
example
of
how
you
know
what
kind
of
things
cause
the
problems
or
whatever,
but
I
heard
you
mentioned
something
about
that.
They're
used
in
firefighting
for
very
intense
heat
situations.
Is
that
correct.
O
P
I
think
I
think.
One
of
the
reasons
that
brings
me
to
my
question
is
that
you
know
we,
we
see
a
problem
here
and
we
try
to
fix
a
problem
and
then
yet
we
do
other
things
that
may
actually
make
the
problem
worse
and
one
of
the
things
that
we've
seen
recently
is.
You
know
where
we
have
this
huge
shift,
mostly
from
the
federal
government
in
a
push
to
electric
vehicles
and
they've
been
in
Kentucky.
P
You
know,
auto
manufacturers
are
really
trying
to
make
that
push
and
we're
doing
all
that
we
can
to
facilitate
that.
But
one
of
the
things
that
I,
don't
think
is
disputed
is
the
potential
for
very
hot,
very
intense
fires
when
those
electric
vehicles
catch
fire
to
the
point
where
the
local
fire
departments
are
telling
me
that
they
really
can't
take
the
fire
truck
out
and
put
those
things
out.
P
We
even
had
a
situation
in
the
Owensboro
or
recently
where
they
had
to
call
the
airport
and
actually
bring
something
from
from
the
airport
that
was
used.
P
It
was
a
foam
type
which
may
or
may
not
have
contained
pfos,
but
I
would
suspect
that
it
does,
and
you
know
we're
we're
talking
about
a
complete
shift
away
from
conventional
gas
powered
or
diesel
powered
natural
gas
powered
automobiles
to
all
electric,
and
we
have
been
told
that
homeowners
policies
may
go
up,
because
if
that
car
catches
on
fire
in
your
garage
they're
not
going
to
be
able
to
save
your
home
in
most
cases
where
or
they're
going
to
have
to
come
out
and
use
something
else,
and
that
that's
something
else
probably
is
going
to
involve
the
chemicals
that
we're
talking
about
here
and
so.
P
I.
Think
that
that
our
the
path
that
we
are
going
down
is
probably
going
to
make
this
problem
much
much
worse.
Hope
that
it
doesn't
but
I
think
that
it
does,
and
I
can
tell
you
that
some
of
us
are
going
to
try
to
do
all
that.
We
can
to
make
sure
that
we
help
solve
some
of
some
of
that
before
we
cause
you
a
problem
that
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
handle
because
there
there.
P
We
just
saw
this
week
where
electric
vehicle
caught
on
fire
and
people
burn
up
inside
of
it,
and
that
really
makes
me
concerned
as
to
why
we
would
have
a
vice
president,
who
actually
talks
about
how
wonderful
it
is
to
put
our
children
on
buses
that
are
electric
powered.
That
could
and
probably
will
be
a
hazard
because
of
the
high,
intense
and
and
the
high
probability
of
fires
on
those
school
buses
and
I'm
not
going
to
want
to
do
anything
that
that
would
push
this
state
down
that
path.
P
But
can
you
comment
on
or
have
you
looked
at
that
possibility
of?
Do
you
really
increased
risk
of
fires
in
electric
vehicles.
O
No
I
I
have
not
the
only
thing
that
I
could
say
to
that
representative
Gooch
is
the
the
use
of
a
triple
F
foam
for
firefighting
is
still
it's
still
illegal
legal
activity.
I
think,
a
few
years
ago
the
legislature
moved
to
have
the
use
of
that
phone
for
training
purposes
it's
no
longer
available,
but
when
you
you
get
into
the
issue
of
electric
vehicles
and
fire
risk,
that's
really
outside
my
bailiwick.
P
M
You
Mr
chair,
I,
hear
you
when
you're
saying
we
got
to
focus
on
drinking
water.
First
I
know,
there's
a
lot
of
research
about
the
health
impacts
of
that
all
the
cancers.
The
hormone
disruption
I
also
worry
that
if
we
focus
just
on
drinking
water
without
looking
Upstream
at
all
of
the
products
that
are
sort
of
the
source
of
it
leaching
into
our
drinking
water
that
we're
we're
really
too
Downstream.
We're
really
not
solving
the
problem.
I'm
also
aware
of
some
other
routes
of
ingestion
that
seem
problematic,
so
I'm
thinking,
particularly
of
children's
products.
M
It's
my
understanding
that
sometimes
pfas
go
on
Linings
of
strollers
and
car
seats
and
kids
coats
and
all
kinds
of
things,
because
kids
are
messy.
You
want
to
make
sure
things
are
flame
resistant
and
that,
over
time,
those
liners
break
down
and
into
dust
and
the
kids
because
of
their
High
hand-to-mouth
activity,
which
is
developmentally
appropriate
end
up
ingesting
large
amounts
of
that
dust,
and
so
they
can
end
up
with
concentrations
of
pfas,
far
greater
than
what
we
say
is
problematic
in
our
drinking
water
and
so
I
I.
Suppose.
M
One
of
my
questions,
for
you
is
when
I
found
about
out
about
this
as
a
parent
that
there's
pfas
breaking
into
dust,
it's
getting
into
kids
bodies,
I
was
horrified,
I
went
to
try
to
find
out,
you
know.
Does
my
stroller
does
do
my
kids,
the
things
they
use
with
my
kids?
Do
they
have
these
chemicals
and
it's
really
hard
to
find
that
out
and
so
I
was
wondering
if
there
are
any
requirements
in
state
or
federal
law
that
require
consumers
or
government
to
be
notified
about
these
substances.
M
That
seems
to
me,
as
the
public
becomes
more
aware,
of
the
health
risks
of
this
whole
cycle
of
we
buy
these
products.
These
products
end
up
in
our
landfills.
It
leeches
into
our
water
system.
It
ends
up
in
our
bodies,
and
the
cycle
keeps
repeating
itself.
One
Step
might
be
for
consumers
to
just
want
to
make
choices,
to
limit
their
own
exposure
and
the
amount
they're
putting
in
the
environment
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
you
can
speak
to
anything
that
might
help
consumers
be
empowered
in
that
way.
Well,.
O
I,
don't
want
you
I,
don't
want
anyone
to
think
that
by
saying
we're
concentrating
on
drinking
water
first
means
that
we
are
not
we're
not
concerned
about
the
sources
of
those
drinking
that
drinking
water,
pfoa
and
pfos,
which
have,
to
date,
been
considered
to
be
the
two
most
toxic
or
no
longer
widely
in
distribution
or
Manufacturing.
O
I
think
you
will
see
over
time
a
little
bit
more
of
an
effort
for
the
use
of
these
materials,
maybe
to
be
further
Limited
in
consumer
products.
You
talk
to
some
folks,
they'll
say
well.
Some
of
these.
Some
of
these
products
are
essential
to
our
ability
to
be
able
to
make
and
manufacture
things.
So
that's
that's
going
to
be
an
ongoing
conversation,
but
as
we
get
a
little
bit
further
down,
you
know,
let
me
try
to
explain
as
best
I
can
so
in
the
Paradigm.
O
We
are
at
a
point
in
time
right
now,
where
the
regulatory
basis
on
on
pfas
compounds
has
not
yet
been
established
once
that
becomes
established,
then
then
sources
will
be
something
that
will
be
probably
more
heavily
addressed,
but,
for
instance,
when
we
get
a
somebody
who
wants
to
to
to
do
a
manufacturing
process,
they're
going
to
have
an
air
permit,
they
give
us
an
application.
We
say:
okay,
what
are
you
doing?
What's
going
to
be
in
your
emissions?
O
We
usually
solve
those
problems
from
starting
with
the
S
and
moving
to
the
right
in
a
situation
where
we're
in
right
now,
where
there's
not
a
lot
of
Regulation,
we
felt
we
needed
to
move
over
to
the
far
end
of
the
receptor
and
start
there
first
and
work
our
way
back.
So
we
will
be
in
the
process
of
working
our
way
back.
O
The
the
consumer
piece
over
here
that
keeps
adding
to
it
that
that's
something
that
is
yeah
arguably
needs
to
be
addressed
if
you
keep
replenishing
the
source,
but
where
it's
at
in
the
environment
and
groundwater
and
surface
waters,
that's
a
much
more
complicated
long-term
process.
It's
not
just
a
matter
of
Technology.
It
becomes
a
matter
of
cost
and
liabilities
and
who's
responsible
for
what
and
are
they
financially
responsible
to
solve
a
problem
that
they
may
or
may
not
have
caused?
H
M
Mayor,
thank
you.
It's
my
understanding
that
some
states
have
already
started
a
framework
for
regulating
certain
types
of
high-risk
risk
products
such
as
children's
products
such
as
things
that
are
go
into
the
body.
My
question
is
in
the
case
of
the
children's
product
circumstance.
Is
there
any
reason
to
think
that
a
child
ingesting
pfas
dust
is
in
any
way
biologically
processing
that
differently
than
an
adult
drinking
drinking
water?
It
should
have
the
same
negative
impact
on
the
body.
Correct,
yeah,.
K
N
You
Mr
chairman,
my
District's,
been
grappling
with
this
issue
for
about
three
years
now,
a
little
town
of
South
Shore
on
the
river
and
a
lot
of
my
district
is
on
the
Ohio
River.
We
have
a
lot
of
industrial
contamination
and-
and
you
know
I
know
you
all
were
actively
involved
in
trying
to
help
us
get
to.
N
We
got
an
appropriation
announced
just
a
week
or
so
ago,
through
Appropriations
legislature,
made
I
want
to
thank
my
colleagues
for
doing
that,
because
you're
going
to
get
a
town
of
about
a
thousand
people
with
not
much
going
on,
I've
been
hit
pretty
hard
economically,
and
this
is
what
you're
going
to
find
with
communities
throughout
America,
particularly
Kentucky,
especially
along
the
Ohio
River
Henderson,
even
had
a
problem,
a
few.
You
know
two
to
deal
with
that
was
kind
of
in
the
news.
N
So
we've
been
grappling
with
this
and
pretty
knowledgeable
about
it,
and
you
know
everybody
kind
of
blames,
lifestyle
issues
on
our
resident
cancer
rate
and
it's
not
all
lifestyle
issues.
We
we've
had
exposures
and
if
you
look
at
cancer,
organ
damage
thyroid
hormonal,
like
it's
already
been
mentioned:
birth
defects
and
even
high
cholesterol.
You
know
my
our
residents
are
impacted
along
those
lines.
N
So
this
is
a
big
deal
and
I've
always
felt
water
was
our
most
necessary
resource
and
done
everything
I
could
to
protect
it
and
make
it
better
and
I
just
appreciate
you
all
being
so
forthright
and
being
so
cooperative
and
trying
to
help
us
come
up
with
Solutions
which,
which
you
did
and
I
appreciate
that,
but
that's
just
tip
of
the
iceberg
and
when
you
talk
about
cause
cost
prevention
cost
of
treatment.
It's
also
there's
going
to
be
cost
of
litigation.
N
It's
a
real
Hot
Topic
in
trial
lawyer
circles,
it
right
now
and
who's
responsible
for
what
and
I'm
sure
the
courts
are
going
to
tell
us
some
of
that
at
some
point.
But
we
need
to
be
as
proactive
as
we
can
and
anticipate
Rising
costs
in
every
aspect,
because
those
litigation
costs
are
going
to
be
passed
on.
N
So
those
are
just
some
things
from
a
budget
standpoint
that
we
need
to
be
familiar
with,
and-
and
you
know
we
always
that's
because
I'm-
a
former
prosecutor,
natural
resources
and
water,
if
we've
always
underfunded
them,
I
mean
there's
not
enough
of
them
and
not
enough
money
there.
Now
this
is
going
to
be
something
that
we
need
to
look
at
increasing
their
budget.
We
need
to
because
the
Federal
Regulations
are
forthcoming.
When,
when
we
got
in
South
Shore,
we
couldn't
the
people,
there's
no
notice
requirement
to
tell
people
they
were
being
exposed.
N
There
was
no
notice
requirement
people
and
that's
a
problem.
I
think
we
all
have
the
right
to
be
notified
when
we're
dealing
with
the
Commodities
that's
necessary
for
life,
and
those
are
just
things
that
we've
lived
through
lately
that
I
don't
want
to
go
through
again
and
I
certainly
don't
want
any
anybody
to.
But
we
do
appreciate
what
you
all
did
and
the
continuing
effort
on
the
budget
that
you
have.
Thank
you.
L
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
and,
thank
you
all
so
much
for
this
presentation.
It's
very
timely
and
we
need
to
act
quickly.
I'm
sure
you
agree.
My
question
relates
to
your
proposal
in
addressing
drinking
water.
I.
Think
that
makes
sense.
That
seems
to
be
consistent
with
what
the
EPA
is
doing
and
so
I'm
glad
that
we're
we're
looking
in
all
directions
to
find
the
right
methods,
because
the
cost
of
implementing
water
purification
through
carbon
is
going
to
be
significant.
L
Are
there
any
sort
of
interim
things
that
the
legislature
could
do
in
terms
of
making
filtration
levels
possible
at
a
smaller
level?
You
know?
Is
there
can
we
provide
our
constituents
with
home-based
carbon
purification
systems?
Could
could
we
do
something
like
that
until
we're
able
to
address
it
at
a
better
larger
scale?.
O
Maybe
I
need
to
take
another
look
at
this,
and
maybe
what
I
can
do
in
the
interim
and
then
you
know
as
we
move
along
the
presentation,
I'm
going
to
have
at
least
some
general
information
on
what
drinking
water
facilities
might
be
looking
at
in
terms
of
cost
and
Technologies,
so
I
think
in
the
meantime,
I
mean
there's,
there's
always
that
balance
to
and
it's
all
it's
oftentimes
a
personal
decision.
A
Attorney,
thank
you
for
accommodating,
so
many
sort
of
questions.
Sure
Midway.
Through
your
presentation.
We
are
running
a
little
bit
late
on
time.
So
if
we
asked
questions
or
covered
it
that
you
may
be
able
to
skip
over
those
parts
as
you
go
forward,
then
please
go.
O
O
O
You
know
granule
activated
carbon
works,
but
you
have
to
have
enough
of
it
and
enough
residence
time
to
reduce
we're
talking
about
really
low
levels
here,
I
think
in
their
cost
assessment,
they're
looking
at
120,
000
pounds
of
granulated
aquifer
or
granulated
carbon
in
three
containers,
40
000
pounds
a
piece:
that's
about
a
million
dollar
startup
cost,
that's
an
add-on
to
their
existing
treatment
facility
and
the
thing
about
carbon,
it's
great
stuff,
but
once
the
once
The
receptors
get
filled,
it
doesn't
want
to
hold
on
anything
anymore.
O
You
have
to
regenerate
it
or
replace
it.
So
there's
only
ongoing
costs.
That's
just
a
rough
number
that
we've
seen
from
a
drink
and
water
facility
that
second
bullet
there
through
the
state
revolving
fund
and
those
are
federal
dollars
that
come
to
the
state.
For
the
state
to
distribute
to
for
projects
emerging,
contaminants
has
become
one
of
the
criteria
on
which
needs
might
be
ranked
and,
for
example,
in
2024
srf
request
we're
around
115
million
dollars.
O
O
So
I
don't
think
we
could
say
that's
115
million
dollars
worth
of
actual
treatment,
train
costs,
but
that
gives
you
an
idea
of
what
some
of
the
drinking
water
facilities
are
thinking
about
as
they're
looking
out
into
the
future
and
seeing
what
requirements
they
may
come
to
them
and
trying
to
get
ahead
of
that.
So
I'll
move
real
quick
in
2019
we
did
our
initial
drink
finished
drinking
water.
O
This
is
all
finished
drinking
water
that
comes
out
of
the
spigot
we'd
studied
81
facilities
across
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky
and
I'll
show
a
map
here
in
a
minute,
but
we
saw
predominance
of
pfas
compounds
in
drinking
water
facilities
along
the
Ohio
River
basin
and
as
Senator
Webb
mentioned,
South
Shore
Kentucky
was
one
that
sort
of
stood
out
above
the
crowd
a
little
bit
into
mayor,
Moore's
credit.
She
she
she
worked
with
us
and
we've
worked
to
get
a
little
bit
better
situation
up.
O
There
now
actually
quite
quite
a
bit
better
situation
because
she
she
was
interested
in
getting
out
ahead
of
it
and
we
were
interested
in
in
helping
her
do
that.
So
this
is
a
case
of
where
us
going
out
and
collecting
data.
We
found
something
that
was
a
little
bit
different
than
what
we
normally
found.
Their
numbers
were
quite
a
bit
higher
they've
got
a
groundwater
system
up
there
old
groundwater.
O
Well,
at
that
point,
it's
not
really
that
important
to
know
where
it's
coming
from
it's:
how
do
we
treat
it
or
how
do
we
remove
it
from
the
citizens
that
are
drinking
it?
Since
then,
we've
gone
out
and
sampled,
the
remaining
113
drinking
water
plants
in
the
state,
this
map
here
sort
of
shows
that
the
red
squares
are
where
we.
This
is
in
many
cases
it's
just
one
piece
of
data,
and
so
one
piece
of
data
is
not
a
story
make.
O
In
some
cases,
we've
actually
collected
some
additional
data,
but
this
may
give
you
an
idea
of
what
we
found.
The
red
squares
are
at
or
above
a
draft
MCL
and
I'll
talk
about
what
an
MCL
is
in
a
minute.
It's
a
maximum
contaminant
level.
There's
a
draft
MCL
out
there
that
EPA
has
proposed
to
four
parts
per
trillion
for
pfoa,
pfos
and
that's
detected
at
levels
that
exceed
that
draft
MCL,
which
is
currently
still
not
yet
the
law,
the
the
blue
colored
squares,
or
whether
it's
at
or
above
above
a
health
advisory.
O
This
is
what
I
mean
by
that.
This
is
going
to
be
a
little
bit
of
a
a
risk
communication
challenge
for
everybody,
because
we
can
detect
it
in
our
lab
down
to
four
parts
per
trillion,
but
we
can
actually
see
it
at
levels
less
than
four
parts
per
trillion.
But
what
happens
is
once
it
gets
down
to
those
lower
levels?
We
can't
quantify
it.
We
can
say
yeah
it's
there,
but
we
couldn't
quantify
it.
We
couldn't
defend
it
if
we
had
to
use
it
for
whatever
purposes,
but
it's
still
it
shows
up
on
our
instrument.
O
So
you
can
see
that
where
those
blue
squares
are
where
we
have
very
low
numbers
that
are
above
epa's,
current
health
advisory
for
these
compounds,
one
of
which
is
four
parts
per
quadrillion,
which
is
basically
zero
and
where
you
see
a
few
of
the
purple
blocks
is
where
we
detected
pfos,
but
other
pfos,
not
the
pfoa
and
the
pfos
and
in
the
green
squares,
the
more
of
those
we
can
find,
the
better
we
like
it
or
where
we
got
no
detections
above
a
detection
limit
from
our
lab.
O
We
did
all
these
samples
ourselves
and
we've
gone
back
to
a
few
of
these
locations
and
and
re-verified
some
things
in
Kentucky
we
have
our
drinking
water
facilities,
get
their
Source
water
from
surface
water
and
from
groundwater
from
groundwater
aquifers,
particularly
down
to
Jackson
Purchase
Salon,
the
Ohio
River
Louisville,
Valley,
they're
more
likely
to
to
get
their
their
Source
water
from
groundwater.
We
have
a
couple
of
groundwater
systems
down
in
Western
Kentucky
that
that
we
found
very
low
levels
of
pfos
and
I,
frankly
being
a
hydrogeologist.
O
I
was
a
little
surprised
by
that
it
just
sort
of
speaks
to
the
mobility
of
these
compounds
once
they're
released
into
the
environment.
So
that's
sort
of
snapshot
of
where
we're
at
on
the
the
drinking
water
system
that
data
will
be
used
and
can
be
used
and
drinking
water
systems
were
more
than
glad
for
us
to
collect
it
on
their
behalf.
That
data
is
data
they
can
use
to
try
to
do
some
planning
moving
forward
about
what
they
might
have
to
do.
O
Do
they
need
to
start
planning
ahead,
looking
at
perhaps
treatment
costs
and
those
types
of
things?
That's
the
reason
for
which
We
Gather
that
information
along
the
way
we
did
find
the
one
location
Senator
Webb
spoke
to
us
about
in
and
the
city.
We
helped
them
work
on
solving
that
issue
sooner
rather
than
later,
and.
K
There's
something
I
would
add
to
that
is
that
from
a
management
perspective,
when
you
look
at
most
of
the
areas
that
are
above
that
draft
MCL,
the
interior
of
the
state,
most
of
those
are,
are
not
showing
that
they
are
above
that
draft
MCL.
So
if
EPA
were
to
finalize
maximum
containment
level,
this
will
help
those
facilities
to
identify
whether
and
for
you
to
see
what
the
impact
would
be
to
the
the
Water
Systems
within
Kentucky,
and
since
most
of
these
are
along
the
Ohio
River
we're
fortunate
in
Kentucky.
K
O
We've
also
done
to
Senator
Smith
to
get
to
a
question
you
asked
a
few
minutes
ago.
We've
done
some
surface
water
sampling,
which
is
all
surface
waters,
are
potential
sources
for
drinking
water
facilities.
We
sampled
40
surface
waters
in
the
state.
We
found
the
Texas,
p-fast
and
36
of
those
samples
we
will
be
that
will
become
part
of
our
occurring
ambient
sampling
program.
O
We've
also
collected
fish
tissue
data
from
lakes
and
rivers
across
the
state.
To
date,
all
the
fish
samples
that
we've
collected
and
analyzed
for
have
had
the
text
of
PF,
particularly
pfos,
which
is
one
of
the
pfos
compound
that
tends
to
accumulate
in
fish
we've,
and
you
can
see
all
that
information
in
the
reports
that
we
have
tagged
here,
but
we've
seen
it
in
lakes
and
rivers.
O
Strangely,
some
of
the
highest
concentrations
that
we've
seen
is
in
Lakes
was
Kentucky
lake
and
Tennessee
lake,
and
we've
been
wondering
if
there
are
potential
sources
in
Tennessee
or
Northern
Alabama.
That
might
be
adding
to
that.
We
work
with
our
friends
at
Fish
and
Wildlife,
and
what
we've
done,
because
we
understand
the
value
of
consuming
fish
and
recreational
fishing.
O
There
were
already
some
fish
tissue
advisories
for
mercury
that
have
been
posted
for
a
long
time
in
Kentucky
fisheries,
and
we
just
we
added
just
the
notification
to
to
those
fish
advisories
that
pfas
is
also
present,
and
you
should
consider
if
you
choose
to
to
follow
those
fish
consumption
advisories
that
have
already
been
established
over
time.
We
hope
that
the
lessening
of
sources
to
these
to
surface
waters
will
ultimately
we'll
see
a
decrease
in
concentrations
in
fish
tissue.
O
We
certainly
don't
want
to
see
it
going
the
other
way
this
is
this
is
a
list
here,
and
you
remember
my
sources,
Pathways
exposures
example.
This
is
this
is
a
list
of
potential
sources
across
the
state.
This
is
not
not
finger
pointing
this
is
all
this
is
all
pretty
much
public
information.
There's
things
called
naics
codes
or
sic
codes
that
Define
certain
types
of
activities
for
which
pfest
might
be
related
or
managed,
or
something
such
as
that.
O
One
of
the
reasons
that
we're
looking
at
these
are
these
types
of
facilities
and
where
they
may
occur
with
present
point
in
time,
is
to
determine.
If
we
have,
perhaps
you
know
a
preponderance
of
domestic
well
users
in
an
area
that
might
be
being
potentially
impacted,
domestic
use,
Wells
aren't
they're,
not
regulated
like
a
municipal
well
or
like
a
municipal
water
source,
we're
in
the
early
stages
of
that.
O
A
Good,
we
have
two
last
questions
here,
representative
McCool,
we'll
yell
to
you
at
this
time.
H
O
H
B
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman,
just
a
quick
question:
I've
been
in
several
meetings
about
dredging
the
rivers
and
creeks
I.
Remember
that
they
used
to
do
that.
A
lot
I
meant
I
heard
you
mention
about
that.
You
was
doing
some
kind
of
sampling
for
the
surface
wood
dredging
help
sense
that
all
the
settlements
is
going
to
the
bottom
of
the
rivers
and
creeks.
If
we
dredge
the
rivers
and
creeks,
would
that
help
with
our
water
issue.
O
It
wouldn't
likely
wouldn't
help
with
this
water
issue,
because
pfos
is
so
soluble
it's
in
the
water.
You
know,
unlike
some
contaminants
we
used
to
deal
with
years
ago,
that
tended
to
settle
out
and
get
in
the
sediment.
Pfas
doesn't
really
like
to
do
that.
It
stays
in
solution
and
it
likes
to
run
basically
right
with
the
water.
These.
K
O
Well,
if
there's
a
capacity
issue
where
your
intake
is
getting
to
a
position
where
it
might
not
have
sufficient
Waters
I,
suppose
it
could
but
right
off
top
my
head
representing
Wesley
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
aware
of
anything
that
I
could
say
that
it
would
immediately
or
or
she
could
make
a
Nexus
where
it
would
help
water
quality.
I
mean
there
are
other
reasons
for
doing
that
and
making
sure
you're
doing
it
responsible.
So
you
don't
adversely
impact
water
quality
once
you're
doing
it.
A
All
right,
very
good
Tony.
Thank
you
all
for
for
coming.
Obviously,
there's
a
lot
of
questions
about
it.
We
appreciate
you
accommodating
each
one
of
those.
It
shows
this
is
an
important
issue
to
this
body,
and
we,
the
issue,
has
brought
up
by
representative
Smith,
is
one
that
we
really
want
to
follow
and
we
appreciate
the
heads
up
on
that.
I
know
senator
to
me
early
on
it
and
ask
us
to
kind
of
take
a
look
into
this.
A
So
hopefully
this
is
a
shot
across
the
bow
for
us
to
be
able
to
engage
with
you
all
to
be
helpful
for
what's
coming
before.
We
have
a
problem,
not
so
much
after,
but
with
that
said,
Thank
you,
gentlemen,
for
coming
appreciate
your
presentation.
The
last
thing
we
have
committee
is
the
fish
and
wildlife.
A
These
are
referred
Administration
regulations,
so
there's
no
real
action
required
from
us,
but
I
encourage
you
to
take
a
look
in
your
packet
and
read
some
of
the
stuff
in
here
that
have
been
proposed,
and
since
we
have
this
here,
commissioner
storm
is
there
anything
you'd
like
to
add
about
the
sea
still
of
the
room
on
this
issue?
A
I
do
not
I,
don't
see
him
I
think
he
might
have
stepped
out,
but
with
this
said,
take
a
look
at
this
so
you're
familiar
and
do
we
have
any
other
questions
or
comments
by
any
of
our
members
on
the
committee
chairman
gooch.
P
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman.
Most
of
your
members
know
this
committee
meeting
is
a
little
bit
later,
so
our
next
meeting
will
be
two
weeks
from
today,
which
is
not
a
lot
of
time
between
meetings
and
we're
going
to
hear
from
the
pjm
about
the
POS
about
reliability
as
far
as
the
electric
grid
should
be
a
very
interesting
discussion.
So
thank.
A
P
A
Is
so
please
make
note
of
that
also,
as
were
the
members
that
we
have
there's
something
in
your
District,
that
you're
learning
about
or
it's
important
to
you
please
come
to
us
as
your
chairman
and
speak
to
us
if
you'd
like
to
have
a
chance
to
address
that
issue
here,
sometimes
shed
light
auditor
assisted.
So
please
keep
that
in
the
back
of
your
head,
that
this
is
a
good
place
to
bring
something
that
we
may
be
able
to
help
you
specifically
with
in
your
region
with.
P
Back
I
know
back
to
me:
I
do
what's
referring
to
representative
Wesley's
question
about
dredging
some
of
our
rivers
and
and
lakes,
and
when
I
was
mayor
40
years
ago
at
my
community
we
had
a
tradewater
river
really
did
need
that
type
of
dredging,
and
that
was
my
first
accident.
Involvement
with
fish
and
wildlife
and
I
can
tell
you
they
were
the
biggest
impediment
to
us,
trying
to
get
that
Lake
dreads.
So
good
luck
to
you
on
that.
Oh.