►
Description
This meeting is delayed due to weather
C
D
Here
just
came
in
okay,
we
do
have
a
quorum.
We
we
apologize
for
the
confusion
this
morning.
I
know
it
was
really
difficult
to
make
plans
when
you
have
this
kind
of
weather
out
there.
I
appreciate
everybody
that
has
made
an
effort
to
to
join
us,
and
I
think
it
took
a
big
commitment
on
your
part
and
and
we
we
really
appreciate
it.
The
first
thing
we're
going
to
do
is
we're
going
to
get
started.
B
F
Absolutely
thank
you
patrick
good
morning,
chairman
and
committee
members,
like
I
said,
I'm
leanne
thacker
partner
with
top
shelf
lobby.
We
represent
the
master
contractors.
We've
been
working
on
this
issue
for
probably
almost
two
years
now
with
patrick
and
the
other
groups
that
are
supportive
of
this
piece
of
legislation.
Today,
it's
been
a
very
collaborative
effort.
B
F
Applaud
all
of
the
groups
for
coming
to
the
table
and
working
on
such
a
monumental
piece
of
legislation.
The
master
contractors
are
concerned
really
about
two
pieces
of
this
bill
and
I'll
be
brief,
because
I
know
you
guys
heard
this
in
the
interim,
but
we
were
concerned
about
call
center
uniformity.
F
Obviously
this
is
not
a
mandatory
membership
bill.
We've
dealt
with
that
in
the
past.
That's
not
what
this
is,
but
we're
looking
for
some
uniformity
across
the
call
center
across
the
call
centers,
just
a
couple
of
things
that
we
have
mandated
that
they
do
is
just
be
staffed
to
answer
the
calls
during
regular
business
hours
to
issue
an
electronic
or
written
locate
ticket
to
the
excavators
to
keep
records
of
those
locate
tickets
and
then
to
update
the
positive
response
portal.
F
F
There
are
a
lot
of
things
that
are
set
out
in
statutes
that
the
excavator
has
to
do
before
they
can
dig
into
the
ground,
and
if
we
follow
all
of
those
rules,
we
adhere
to
the
timelines
that
are
set
out
in
the
piece
of
legislation,
and
we
also
then
give
the
utilities
and
others
a
second
notice
that
we
are
getting
ready
to
go
out
and
to
perform
the
work.
Then
we
feel
like
that.
F
D
D
B
G
G
Our
members
provide
broadband
voice
and
video
service
for
about
45
counties
all
are
part
of
45
counties
in
the
commonwealth.
First
off
and
I'll
again
to
echo
leanne's
comments
earlier
I'll.
Try
not
to
take
up
too
much
of
your
time.
We
made
some
of
these
points
during
the
interim.
I
do
want
to
thank
representative
santoro.
He
is
a
good
friend.
We've
worked
together
on
issues
when
I
was
at
klc
in
the
past
and
I
think
a
lot
of
sal
and
excuse
me,
representative
santoro,
and
so
I
do.
G
I
do
appreciate
him
meeting
with
me
prior
to
the
session,
to
discuss
our
concerns
with
the
bill
and,
and
I
think
the
proponents
of
the
bill
as
well.
Leanne
and
patrick
we've
had
dialogue,
but
we
you
know
we
just
simply
on
the
on
the
merits
of
the
bill.
We
we
have
some
disagreements,
and
so
you
know
at
a
time
when
broadband
access
that
the
demand
for
broadband
access
has
never
been
higher.
G
The
new
definition,
as
defined
in
the
bill
for
untonable
or
unmapped
facilities,
will
increase
locate,
request
times
from
the
current
law
of
two
working
days
to
five
working
days,
and
these
large
project
requests,
which
are
locate,
requests
over
two
thousand
feet.
They
would
increase
from
current
five
working
days
to
eight
working
days.
That's
more
than
any
of
our
surrounding
states.
G
G
The
addition
of
unmapped
facilities
will
provide
another
exception
for
additional
time
to
be
afforded
for
future
locate
requests,
and
we
feel
that
that
provision
itself
is
problematic.
You
know,
if
you
have
underground
facilities,
they
should
be
on
some
type
of
digital
or
physical
map,
so
that
that
and
of
itself
is
an
issue
and
then
already
in
the
current
law,
accuracy
is
a
problem
being
able
to
accurately
locate
lines
for
non-metallic
metallic
facilities
is
an
issue.
G
Current
law
states
that
non-metallic
facilities
that
don't
have
metallic
tracer
wire
must
be
located
as
accurately
as
possible,
based
on
field
location
records.
This
results
in
a
wide
interpretation
of
the
current
law
and
current
practices
to
locate
those
lines.
The
bill-
and
this
is
this-
is
an
important
point
for
our
members.
The
bill
does
nothing
to
address
the
accuracy
of
these
lines
and
it
gives
operators
extended
time
frames
to
try
and
locate
these
facilities,
as
I
already
said
that
are
far
beyond
what
other
states
do.
G
So
without
this
accuracy
requirement
we're
giving
operators
extended
time
and
they're,
probably
not
going
to
be
able
to
locate
them
any
more
accurately
than
they
can
today,
and
so
we
we
feel
that
the
definition
of
approximate
location
should
include
that
type
of
accuracy
requirement.
You
know,
I
believe
that
we
can
all
agree.
The
pandemic
has
highlighted
the
need
for
more
broadband
in
kentucky.
I
I
no
doubt
that
the
general
assembly
shares
our
goals
in
deploying
broadband
to
as
many
residents
in
the
commonwealth
as
possible.
G
You
know
our
members
work
diligently
every
day
in
these
rural
areas
that
are
very
high
cost
areas
to
serve
to
bring
world-class
broadband
to
our
rural
residents
and
businesses.
We
we
agree
that
kentucky's
dig
law
needs
improvement.
You
know
the
streamlining
of
the
811
contact
centers
and
the
waiver
of
liability
are
not
issues
for
our
association.
G
However,
the
timelines
in
the
bill
and
the
lack
of
being
able
to
act
or
accurately
locate
these
lines.
My
members
feel
strongly
that
that
will
impede
broadband
employment
and
it
really
won't
improve
on
damage
prevention.
With
that,
I
again
truly
appreciate
your
time
again.
I
want
to
thank
sal
for
his
dialogue
with
us.
Representative
santoro
has
has
had
an
open
dialogue.
We
just
our
members,
feel
strongly
about
this
issue
and
we
just
have
not
been
able
to
come
to
an
agreement
on
the
language.
E
Thank
you,
chairman.
Just
a
couple
of
comments.
There
there
have
literally
been
hundreds
of
hours
put
into
this
bill,
working
on
a
compromise
between
the
utilities
and
excavators.
We
have
over
20
organizations
that
have
come
out
in
support
of
this
bill,
including
a
number
of
other
broadband
companies.
E
E
I
think
we
can
all
agree
that
our
rural
water
systems
probably
can't
afford
to
dig
up
all
their
lines
and
lay
trace
or
wire
and
then
re-bury
their
lines.
I
think
we
all
know
they're
struggling
as
it
is
so
approximate
location
has
been
part
of
the
law,
and
you
know
in
this
bill
would
remain
part
of
the
law.
I
agree
with
tyler.
You
know
that
there
is
a
need
for
us
to
be
able
to
locate
more
accurately
the
intent
of
the
time
frames
just
to
lay
out
an
example.
E
E
E
So,
on
thursday
friday,
we
have
to
wait
for
the
other
utilities
to
respond
to
our
ticket,
so
the
earliest
that
we
could
feasibly
comply
with
the
law
is
on
monday,
the
fifth
day,
so
the
the
untoneable
language
was
not
just
an
arbitrary
number
that
we
pulled
out
of
the
air
and
said
it'd
be
nice
to
have
five
days
to
go
out
and
locate
for
us
to
comply
with
the
law.
We
need
five
days
to
be
able
to
go
out
and
pothole
and
locate
those
facilities,
and
I
think
that's
important
to
emphasize
it
this.
E
This
wasn't
just
something
that
we
thought
would
be
nice
to
have
more
time,
and
I
know
that's
unprecedented-
it's
it's
not
in
the
surrounding
states,
but
I
will
also
say
the
waiver
of
liability
is
not
in
any
other
state's
law
across
the
country.
So
the
willingness
of
the
utilities
to
allow
the
excavators
to
have
a
waiver
of
liability
if
they
cause
damage
after
they
have
gone
through
the
process
laid
out
in
representative
santoro's
bill
is
unprecedented.
E
G
Just
just
a
quick
just
a
quick
comment,
and
you
know
it's
to
patrick's.
You
know
discussion
of
the
dates
I
mean
for
most
of
our
members.
You
know
when
we're
in
very
rural
areas
getting
to
2000
feet
for
a
world
broadband
provider
is
pretty
easy
to
do
so
right
now.
You
know
we.
The
law
says
that
for
a
large
project,
you
have
five
days
well.
This
is
automatically
going
to
push
that
back.
So
our
our
comments
about
the
days
are
not
just
arbitrary
either
you
know
we
we
have
to
rent
equipment.
G
We
we
actually
obviously
work
with
contractors.
Subcontractors
and
you
know
we're
a
rolling
construction
site
essentially,
and
so
we
can
get
down
the
road
hundreds
of
miles
and,
if
that's
lit,
we
may
and
if
there's
a
problem
when
I
say
lit
the
electronics
are
lit
and
the
fiber
is
actually
live,
we
would
have
to
go
back
and
you
know
we
could
have
to
go
back
and
remark
again
as
well
and
for
these
large
projects
again
if
it
goes
from
a
week
to
another
eight
days.
This
is
again
this
is
this.
G
You
know
I.
I
will
say
that
that
does
not
appear
in
some
provisions
of
the
law
in
other
states.
He
is
correct
that
provision
does
not
apply
to
gas,
and
so,
even
if
you
have
a
gas
utility
in
kentucky
and
it's
there,
that
waiver
is
not
applicable,
so
you
will
still
have
to
wait
and
for
good
reason,
obviously,
for
public
safety,
but,
like
I
said
you
know,
though,
that
waiver
is
there,
but
we
would
argue
that
if
you
again
follow
the
law
and
enforcement,
I
think
we
can.
G
G
General
assemblies,
but
I
will
say
that
if
you
follow
the
law
as
it
is
now
and
the
those
time
frames
that
are
in
there
now,
you
know
you
shouldn't
be
held
liable
for
those
damages
anyway,
and
so
again
I
know
that
the
the
approximate
location
is
a
part
of
the
law,
but
every
state
around
us
is
moving
toward
more
accurately
locating,
and
so
my
members
just
feel
strongly
that
we
need
to
be
moving
closer
to
that.
Not
extending
the
time
frames
out
when
it
could
further
delay.
Fiber
construction.
H
I
don't
really
have
a
question.
I
just
like
to
make
a
statement.
I
appreciate
the
the
compromise
that
the
author
has
been
willing
to
do
to
work
with
the
telecoms,
and
it
sounds
like
to
me
that,
except
for
maybe
large
projects
which
are
small
in
number
compared
to
all
the
small
digs
that
go
on
all
over
the
state
that
we're
we're
stumbling
over
large
projects
when
we
really
don't
need
to
be
so,
my
suggestion
would
be
to
to
have
this
bill.
H
I
intend
to
fully
support
it,
because
if
we
can
then
evaluate
if
large
projects
are
slowed
down,
I
don't
believe
they
will
be.
I
believe
large
projects
are
going
to
move
just
fine,
but
if
they
don't,
we
can
evaluate
that,
and
this
body
can
then
give
you
some
compromise
towards
that,
but
we
don't
need
to
get
in
the
way
of
the
majority
of
digs,
which
are
small,
small
issues
in
the
safety
that
goes
along
with
that.
So
I
think
this
is
a
good
good
compromise.
H
B
B
B
B
I
D
D
C
D
E
C
Sir,
yes,
you
can
because
of
my
local
telecoms
that
have
reached
out
to
me
early
on.
I
actually
were
the
first
ones
to
reach
out
to
me.
I'm
gonna
be
a
no
today
and
and
I'm
hoping
that
my
telecoms
and
and
everybody
else,
because
I've
got
friends
on
both
sides
of
this
issue,
and
so
I'm
hoping
we
can
get
this
ironed
out.
So
I
reserve
the
right
to
to
still
vote
for
it
on
the
floor.
But
for
today
I
have
to
be
a
no
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Okay.
B
D
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
I'm
chris
friedland
chris
fugate's
a
super
guy,
though
the
bill
I'm
presenting
today
is
house
bill
386
and
I'm
thankful
to
have
representative
jim
duplissy
as
the
primary
sponsor
of
this,
and,
and
this
is
an
important
bill
to
the
people
of
my
district
in
western
kentucky
and
really
all
of
western
kentucky.
J
J
B
D
K
So
I
just
you
know
for
one
that
that's
directly
would
have
a
direct
effect
on
this
that
they
I
talk
to
them,
and
they
have
they
they're
fully
supportive
of
this.
So
I
just
want
everyone
to
be
aware
of
that
and
that
they
would
be
the
ones
probably
at
the
most
detriment
of
what
what
this
would
do.
So
thank
you.
J
Right,
please
continue
thank
you,
and
this
is
not
an
allowance
to
to
pollute
more
into
the
water
that
is
not
what's
at
stake.
This
is
just
clarifying
language
so
that
a
test
can
be
implemented
that
they
can
reach
right
now.
The
regulations
are
are
in
place
that
don't
allow
these
companies
to
even
meet
the
standards.
J
H
Yeah
I
was,
I
was
on
the
list
to
speak,
but
I
was
waiting
my
turn.
I
do.
I
actually
do
water
treatment
for
a
living.
That
is
what
I
do
outside
of
this
body,
so
I
do
know
a
little
bit
about
it.
I've
been
doing
it
for
28
years,
helping
factories
meet
their
permit
requirements,
so
just
real
quickly,
representative.
H
What
this
is
talking
about
is
a
mixing
zone.
If
you
can,
let's
think,
let's
just
think
about
a
medication.
Okay,
because
everybody
talks
about
chemicals,
chemical
chemicals,
everything's,
chemical,
water
is
a
chemical
h2o
is
a
chemical
compound,
so
chemicals
aren't
bad
so
take
that
out
of
your
mind,
bad
chemicals
are
bad
good.
Chemicals
are
good.
If
you
take
a
medicine
and
you
take
it
at
the
right
dose,
it
does
what
it's
supposed
to
do.
H
If
you
take
a
medicine
at
a
really
high
dose,
it
can
be
detrimental
if
you
take
it
a
really
low
dose,
it
has
no
effect
on
your
body.
Same
thing
goes
with
bioaccumulators
out
in
the
water.
So,
if
we're
talking
about
pollutants
that
we're
sending
out
guidelines
are
set
so
that
if
you
exceed
certain
levels,
those
can
be
toxic
to
the
fish
to
fleas
they.
We
worry
about
the
fleas
on
the
water,
because
fleas
feed
the
fish
and
the
fish
feed
the
okay.
It's
that
whole
cycle,
so
we
actually
test
for
these
things.
H
So
we
know
what
ppms
of
every
chemical
out
there
are
are
dangerous,
which
ones
are
maybe
even
slightly
dangerous
and
where
they,
what
dosages
have
no
effect.
So
representative
freeland
is
talking
about
specifically
there's
a
company
out
in
his
district
that
is
being
required
to
have
levels
of
a
bioaccumulator
that
are
so
low.
It's
a
below
the
industry's
ability
to
even
test
for
it.
Okay,
we're
talking
parts
per
trillion.
H
H
But
if
you
spread
that
out
across
a
let's
just
say
the
ohio
river,
which
has
trillions
of
gallons
of
water
flow
a
minute
you
spread
that
out.
Well,
the
dosage
is
now
so
low
that
it
doesn't
harm
anything.
So
that's
what
a
mixing
zone
does.
Basically,
so
if
what
this
bill
does
is,
it
says
mixing
zones
which
are
okay
by
the
epa.
H
It
allows
these
companies
to
use
mixing
zones,
but
it
also
allows
our
our
state
to
to
go
to
certain
industries
and
have
a
method
to
take
away
their
mixing
zone.
If
there's,
if
needs
be,
so
this
is
just
a
very
good
bill
that
makes
it
good
for
our
businesses
without
having
any
any
harm
to
our
environment.
So,
thank
you,
mr
freeland,
for
bringing
this
forward.
Okay.
B
B
L
This
is
actually
an
issue
that
we
have
worked
on
for
several
years.
We
have
weighed
in
during
the
kentucky
division
of
waters,
triennial
review
process
it's
in
every
three-year
process,
where
they
look
at
water
quality
standards.
We
weighed
in
on
this
issue
twice,
so
it's
not
new
to
us.
It
is
clearly
a
technical
issue
and
I
think
representative
duplicy
has
explained
it
well
as
his
representative
freeland.
So
I'm
not
going
to
try
to
to
explain
the
bill.
L
L
This
bill
is
important
to
the
competitiveness
of
the
chemical
industry
in
kentucky,
our
chemical
manufacturers
compete
against
facilities
in
other
states
that
do
not
have
the
same
limiting
practice
or
do
not
recognize
mixing
zones
in
the
same
restrictive
way
that
we
do.
Furthermore,
kentucky
standards
are
either
not
interpreted
at
face
value
or
more
restricted
than
the
federal
government's
rules.
When
we
have
regulations
and
practices
in
place
that
are
more
stringent
than
federal
or
that
you
know
more
stringent
than
other
states,
we
worry
about
our
competitiveness
and
are
we
losing
competitiveness
relative
to
those
states?
L
L
We
employ
more
than
15
000
people
in
2019,
we
exported
over
743
million
dollars
in
basic
chemicals,
which
is
about
seven
and
a
half
percent
increase
over
the
previous
year,
and
so
I
think
it's
important
that
we
send
a
message
that
this
industry
is
important
to
our
overall
economy
and
the
role
and
our
role
as
a
top
exporter
in
the
united
states.
When
you
consider
the
size
of
our
population
or
economy,
we
really
punch
above
our
weight
when
it
comes
to
exports,
and
this
is
due
in
part
to
our
chemical
industry.
D
B
B
D
D
D
M
Let
me
let
me
preface
this
by
by
suggesting
that
I
don't
believe
that
representative,
freeland
or
or
representative
plessy
are
trying
to
increase
pollution
loads
in
the
tennessee
river
from
the
westlake
vinyls
facility.
This
is
a
very
technical
issue
and
we
very
quickly
get
down
to
the
weeds
on
this.
The
issue
is
dealing
with
hexachlorobenzene,
which
is
a
bio
accumulative
chemical
of
concern
in
my
in
another
life.
Mr
chairman,
I
am
a
federal
commissioner
on
the
ohio
river
valley.
M
Water,
sanitation
commission,
which
is
kentucky,
is
a
signatory
to,
along
with
the
all
the
other
states
in
the
main
stem
of
the
ohio
river.
The
genesis
for
the
prohibition
on
mixing
zones
for
biocumulative
chemicals
concerned
arose
in
the
great
lakes
and
then
was
determined
by
orsanco,
as
it's
known,
to
be
appropriate
for
the
ohio
river.
So
we're
not
alone
in
in
having
a
ban
on
mixing
zones
after
2004
and
the
companies
have
you
know,
new
companies
that
are
siding
in
the
main
stem
of
the
ohio
have
understood
this
since
that
time.
M
The
company
has
indicated
that
it
doesn't
believe
the
technologies
are
there
to
achieve
any
lower
numbers
and
has
requested
a
variance.
We
call
them
exceptions
to
criteria,
but
epa
calls
them
variances
in
order
to
allow
them
to
continue
to
discharge
at
that
higher
level,
because
the
technology
is
not
available.
M
That's
that's
pending
and
there's
no
indication
that
the
cabinet
has
made
a
decision
one
way
or
another
on
it,
but
it
is
a
permit
by
permit
decision
that
is
made
based
on
looking
at
the
stream,
because
mixing
zones
can't
be
of
a
certain
greater
than
a
third
of
the
reach
of
the
stream,
and
you
look
at
what's
downstream.
You
look
at
the
the
nature
of
the
chemical
and
one
of
the
reasons
that
bcc's
as
they're
known,
are
now
no
longer
subject
to
mixing
zones
is
because
they
don't
disperse
in
the
environment.
M
They
accumulate.
They
accumulate
biologically
through
the
as
as
representative,
classic
indicate
the
water
fleas
and
the
fish.
And
so
that's
you
know.
One
of
the
reasons
we
have
limitations
on
on
the
ability
to
eat
fish
from
our
rivers,
and
some
of
our
streams
is
because
of
the
bioaccumulation
of
things
like
mercury,
and
so
there's
there's
a
reason
why
we
do
the
things
we
do
and
there
is
an
escape
valve.
There
is
a
relief
valve
here,
which
is
called
a
variance.
M
I
am
concerned
not
I'm
not
suggesting
that
that
westlake
may
or
may
not
have
met
the
standards
for
for
getting
an
exception
to
criteria,
and
I've
been
in
conversation
with
with
bob
babbage,
who
is
a
friend
and
a
colleague
of
many
years,
and
we
will
continue
that
conversation.
But
my
concern
is
that
legislating
that
you
are
entitled
to
a
mixing
zone
if
you
had
one
in
2004
and
that
you
have
to
adopt
a
regulation
in
order
to
extinguish
that
is
inconsistent
with
our
obligations
under
the
clean
water
act.
M
M
You
know,
and
I'm
concerned
as
a
matter
of
policy,
that
if
we
we
are
going
to
start
adopting
legislation
that
seeks
to
to
determine
the
the
issuance
of
individual
permits,
rather
than
allowing
the
permitting
process
to
unfold
the
way
that
it's
intended
we're
gonna
need
a
whole
lot
more
time
for
for
this
committee
and
the
general
assembly
to
meet
because
every
time
there's
a
technical
issue,
somebody's
going
to
be
coming
over
and
asking
for
relief
from
the
general
assembly.
So
with
that,
I
appreciate
your
time
very
much.
M
I'm
just
concerned
that
this
is
not
the
way
to
resolve
this
long-standing
issue
between
the
agency
and
this
discharger
and
could
have
consequences
that
would
affect
our
ability
to
continue
to
maintain
our
delegated
program
under
the
clean
water
act,
and
I
have
a
habit
answering
questions
and
I
look
forward
to
continuing
the
dialogue
with
the
company
and
hopefully
with
the
cabinet,
to
see
if
we
can
achieve
a
solution
without
the
necessity
of
enacting
this
measure
into
law.
Okay,.
H
A
H
Is
correct
for
for,
for
certain
reasons
that
don't
apply
in
our
rivers
and
orsanco
back
in
2015
actually
withdrew
their
van
and
said
they
would
leave
it
up
to
the
states,
so
orsanco
no
longer
has
that
ban
on
mixing
zones
that
you
mentioned
in
in
your
testimony.
You
made
it
sound
like
that
they
or
sanco
signed
on
to
the
the
great
lakes,
but
yet
they
did,
but
then
they
back
back
off
of
it.
H
Can
you
cite
for
me
one
one
factory,
one
discharger
in
our
entire
state
that
is
even
close
to
as
low
as
this
west
lake
is
because
westlake
is
about
10
times
lower
than
the
permitted
levels
for
other
industries
in
our
state.
So
I'd
like
to
know,
if
you
know
of
any
any
industry,
since
you
mentioned
westlake
that
is
lower
than
them.
M
M
H
M
But
let
me
let
me
clarify
a
couple
of
points,
and
you
mentioned
you
know:
parts
per
trillion
is
is
pretty
low.
We
actually
have
another
discharger
in
the
commonwealth,
where
we're
dealing
with
parts
per
quadrillion
which
is
below
detectable
levels
right
of
dioxin,
so
you're
right.
The
dose
makes
the
poison
I'm
not
suggesting
that
the
levels
that
are
currently
being
discharged
or
having
an
adverse
biological
effect,
because
I
have
not
done
the
research
okay.
H
That's
apparent
fair
enough,
so
I
just
want
this
committee
to
understand
that
that
we're
not
talking
about
putting
high
levels
and
then
dilution
is
a
solution
to
pollution.
That's
not
what
we're
talking
about
we're,
not
talking
about
allowing
an
industry
to
to
circumvent
what
would
be
safe
for
our
water.
H
So
at
some
point
as
legislators,
we
have
to
also
look
out
for
the
folks
who
have
jobs
for
the
folks
who
are
are
trying
to
make
a
living
and
when
we
have
common
sense
things
that
we're
not
getting
done
for
our
factories.
That's
when
this
that's,
when
we
need
to
step
in
and
this
bill
does
fits
and
anybody
else
listening,
allow
our
state
regulators
to,
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
disallow
mixing
zones
if
they
have
good
sound
science
to
do
so.
This
does
not
say
you
across
the
board.
H
M
Mr
chairman,
let
me
just
briefly
respond.
I
appreciate
your
you're
mentioning
what
orsanco
did
representative
felicia,
because
I
wrote
that
and
negotiated
that
that
language,
what
the
and
I'm
certainly
not
speaking
today,
as
a
federal
commissioner
or
on
behalf
of
orsanco,
but
the
pollution
control
standards,
were
revised
not
to
eliminate
the
ban
on
on
bioaccumulative
chemicals
are
concerned.
M
So
we
synced
up
the
determination
of
whether
you're
entitled
to
a
continued
mixing
zone,
because
you've
done
everything
that
you
can
technologically
and
we
synced
it
up
with
the
kpds
or
npds
permitting
process,
so
they
didn't
eliminate
it.
But
for
those
that
were
grandfathered,
they
created
a
process
which
is
very
similar
to
our
exception
to
criteria
process
that
allows
you
to
demonstrate.
M
But
I
appreciate
your
point
and
you
do
have
wonderful
nephews
and
nieces
down
the
street
here
and
but
and
I'd
be
happy
to
at
some
point,
send
everybody
a
copy
just
for
your
records
of
orsanco's
current
standards,
because
this
is
an
issue
that
it's
not
just
kentucky,
and
it's
not
just
west
line.
That's
grappling
with
this,
but
it
is.
M
It
is
one
where
the
there
needs
to
be
a
an
escape
valve
and
and
this
and
in
this
case
we
think
there
is
one
there
already
and
that's
the
concern
with
legislating
it.
So
with
that,
mr
chairman,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
of
the
questions
and
I
appreciate
representative
du
plessis.
You
know
you
were
always
on
point
when
it
comes
to
talking
about
the
science
and-
and
I
always
appreciate
that,
whether
it's
net
metering
or
this
issue,
okay,.
D
M
M
You
go
back
five
years
and
you
say:
look
the
technology
hasn't
changed,
there's
no
way
to
reduce
the
concentrations
at
the
upper
end
of
the
pipe.
So
therefore
we
continue
to
need
to
to
use
to
have
our
compliance
point
measured
after
a
certain
amount
of
mixing
has
occurred,
and
so
it's
you
know
it's.
It
is
it's
as
permanent
as
anything
is
in
when
you're
dealing
with
with
environmental
science.
D
Then
what
happens
is
that
investment
investment
may
go
to
another
state
and
those
jobs
are
somewhere
else,
and
so
you
know
we.
We
understand
that
sometimes
state
government
doesn't
operate
too
fast,
but
that
that's
kind
of
an
understatement.
Now
we
we
think
they
need
to
be
a
little
bit
more
receptive
to
needs
for
our
businesses
out
there.
So
with
that,
we
do
have
a
motion
and
second
on
on
the
bill,
I
I
will
ask,
I
think,
representative
pamela
stevenson.
I
hope
that
we've
been
able
to
get
you
on.
D
Okay,
okay,
well,
we're
glad
you're
able
to
review
at
least
some
of
the
some
of
the
discussions
and
and
but
you
know,
obviously,
we
can't.
We
won't
be
allowed
to
count
you
as
involved,
but
yes,
but
we
are
glad
that
you're
that
you're
you're
able
to
to
attend
with
us
hope
the
weather
is
better
there
than
it
was
here
in
frankfurt
this
morning
it
was
pretty
rough.
So
with
that
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
roll
please.
B
B
H
B
E
D
Yes,
the
deal
does
pass
with
favorable
inspection.
The
same
should
pass.
We
are
going
to
have
to
adjourn
because
they
do
need
to
clean
the
meeting
before
the
next
one.
I,
for
I
think
the
committee
did
very
good
work
today,
because
we,
when
we
first
got
here,
we
weren't
sure
we
were
going
to
be
able
to
meet
and
for
us
to
get
through
this
agenda
and
about
45
minutes.
I
think
we
did
an
excellent
job,
so
thank
you.