PFAS Regulations, Drinking Water MCLs, and What Comes Next with Eurofins Taryn McKnight

Speaker A: And that's, that's what gets me up, uh, in the morning and gets me excited to do things like this is to talk to individuals who have that same passion to do something positive for our environment.

Speaker B: Yeah. And solving complex problems.

Speaker A: Absolutely.

Speaker C: Welcome to the Environmental Transformation Podcast where we bring you interviews with industry leaders, climate champions, sustainability practitioners, EHS and HAZMAT professionals making an impact in their businesses today. Each leader solving complex challenges and delivering solutions within their areas of expertise. I'm your host, Sean Grady and thanks for joining us today. Before we jump in, make sure to follow us on your devices and visit my website@uh, www.sean kgrady.com and sign up for our newsletter and email announcements. Now let's get started.

Speaker A: Welcome to the Environmental Transformation Podcast. I'm your host, Sean Grady. Today's guest is Taryn McKnight. Taran is one of the leading PFAS leaders and thought leaders in the industry who works for your fins laboratories. And Taryn, you are a two time guest on the show. So thankful for you to come back on the show. And this time we're actually meeting in person. This is our first opportunity to do that. So I'm super excited.

Speaker B: Thanks for having me back.

Speaker A: Absolutely. So Taryn, you know the, we're here at the Patel Conference here in Dallas Fort Worth and uh, wow. It's, it's everything PFAS here, it seems like, I mean, I know it's the chlorinated conference, but I think it's really the PFAS conference when you agree.

Speaker B: Yeah, it is. It's much more the fluoridated conference at this point.

Speaker A: Yeah, there you go. It's, it's kind of morphed. They just didn't catch up with the name. Yeah, but no, it's been great to see, uh, all the participants here and all the technology that's out there. Uh, as we look at the landscape of PFAS and the regulatory frameworks that we're all trying to achieve, uh, limits and criteria and solutions for, let's kind of dive into what is the status of the PFAS regulations in the US right now.

Speaker B: Yeah, so there were a lot of regulations that the previous administration had put forth and got over the finish line. And then we had a new administration, a new Congress come in and there was a lot of pending litigation over those regulations. So the status we're in right now is kind of a holding pattern. What is going to happen with those cases? And this is all going to be decided in the courts. Right. So there were challenges to the Drinking Water NClS and to the CERCLA hazardous substance designation.

Speaker A: Oh, yeah, that was a big.

Speaker B: And those are both still pending.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker B: I think the most significant one is the drinking water regulation, because you've got public water systems that have to come into compliance with those.

Speaker A: Yes, they do.

Speaker B: And that takes years to prepare for. And the clock is ticking with all of this uncertainty about whether these rules are going to stand or they're going to fall.

Speaker A: Yeah. And if I. If I'm. If I'm correct, I believe the compliance deadline is 2029.

Speaker B: It is actually 2029. So EPA just came out with their announcement about a proposal to extend that deadline.

Speaker A: That's right.

Speaker B: But that requires a rulemaking process, and that takes time to carry forward public comment and all the reviews process. So hopefully that. That option to extend to, uh, 2030 goes through. But we.

Speaker A: We don't know.

Speaker B: We don't know. And then the other part of that proposal is to rescind part of the drinking water regulation. Right. Just keep an MCL for ppas and get rid of the rest. But it's not up to EPA to rescind that rule.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker B: So in the Safe Drinking Water act, there's a no backspace lighting provision that prohibits the EPA from ever making a promulgated drinking water rule less restrictive.

Speaker A: Oh, wow. I didn't know that. That's an interesting little tidbit.

Speaker B: Because of that, they don't have the option to rescind that by rulemaking, so

Speaker A: they have to rely on the courts to allow them to do that.

Speaker B: So the courts will have to decide whether the drinking water regulation was established in accordance with the statute. The Safe Drinking Water Act.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: If they decide it wasn't, then the rule becomes null and void. It's like it never existed. And then there's no backsliding provision effect. Right.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: So then EPA can move forward with their proposal to just regulate pfa. Pfas. But if the judges don't throw out the rule.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: Then that's it. We're stuck with that.

Speaker A: Wow. And so what, is there a timeline for this decision that they discussed?

Speaker B: All we know is that they're expecting oral arguments to proceed this fall.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker B: So we saw this time unlikely that we would get a decision from the court before next year. Maybe at best early next year, but certainly not this year.

Speaker A: Okay. All right.

Speaker B: And again, that clock is still.

Speaker A: Clock is ticking.

Speaker B: We're waiting for that decision.

Speaker A: So a lot of the utilities are in essence, in limbo to some degree, because they probably don't want to do certain aspects of the investment they need to make to be in compliance. Right?

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Because they're going to hedge their bets in a sense to wait to see what the.

Speaker B: I mean at a minimum they have to start monitoring. So that's part of the compliance timeline requirements. That's true. So they're kind of stuck there. They've got to start the monitoring. They can't wait for, for the courts to decide on that aspect.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: And then a lot of them have the UCMR data already.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: So they know what they're potentially dealing with. Yeah, it's a, it's a, uh, it's interesting.

Speaker A: And there's a lot of affected communities that are really up in arms about this pullback or this proposed pullback of PFAS regulation.

Speaker B: So the thing about that though, if you look at the UCMR data, it's does not justify setting an MCL for those other compounds. So the occurrence data from our UCMR monitoring exercise says we rarely ever detect those compounds in drinking water.

Speaker A: So you're me specifically meaning like the short chain Gen X level compounds.

Speaker B: Yeah, like the Gen X HFPODA was detected in three public water systems. Systems.

Speaker A: Okay. So it's, it's. And then it was those, those parameters were part of the UCMR or uh. Yeah, five analyte list. And so you're saying only a handful occasions that even come into play.

Speaker B: So rescinding them materially has no effect.

Speaker A: Not a big issue.

Speaker B: All the public water systems that had exceedances for PFOS were going to have to proceed anyways if EPA's new rule, uh, were to take effect. Right. And then there were almost no exceedances of the others anyway. So those weren't going to drive any remediation or there weren't the exposure risks

Speaker A: there, there, there are, I would imagine there are a few of those though impacted communities that do have the short chains that are out there. Maybe like the Capes here river certainly watershed.

Speaker B: Uh, those though, they are well aware of their contamination and you know, having to address those already and they're involved

Speaker A: through consent decrees and stuff like that. Right.

Speaker B: And not all small systems are part of UCMR 5. So it's true for smaller communities we don't necessarily know what their exposure profile looks like.

Speaker A: Okay, good point, good point.

Speaker B: But in large part the UCMR M data would not have justified per the normal process for rulemaking for drinking water rule, you'd get the occurrence data and then that would inform whether you established a national primary drinking water Regulation and in this case it would not have.

Speaker A: So in a, in a way the decision for EPA to pull back the four is not as detrimental as perceived maybe by some in the, in public. In the public arena.

Speaker B: I agree. Yeah.

Speaker A: Okay. I, I think I could, I can understand that perspective. And two, if I'm focusing on PFO and pfas I'm still. Or PFOS I'm going to get.

Speaker B: If you're treating

Speaker A: the other ones too. Right. So I get that kind of like I'm going to get them anyway concept. Right. So uh, which is I, That's I think a fair point.

Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. I just think the most important thing is for people to understand the drinking water MCLs are very much still in effect. They have not been rescinded.

Speaker A: Right. So you still have to comply.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: You know, I think that little nuance is something that I believe some state are still probably because they're waiting to see what EPA is doing. They're not. A lot of state agencies are not moving forward with a lot of their own internal criteria developments. I've recently been educating and uh, presenting uh, a lot of the environmental state agencies on what we do as a company with the oleon PFAS treatment and our capabilities in water and waste. And uh, it's been very enlightening to see some of the concerns that some states have. Some states they're like well, we really don't have a problem here really, you know, which. Okay, yeah, I guess I could see that. But in certain states they're like oh yeah, we have a big problem. But what we found by and large taren, is that biosolids was the biggest issue that they're all grappling with because it is getting accumulated in wastewater that's being processed and treated. And that biosolids traditionally has been used as land application, land application amendments, nutrient amendments to uh, crops and, and whatnot. And now they're worried about the bioaccumulation aspect of that.

Speaker B: Yeah, I agree. The wastewater and biosolids is a real primary focus now at this point for most of the states.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: And still on EPA's radar. So this administration has made it clear that they're more interested in deregulation than proposing new regulations. However, on the wastewater side they are still proposing to move forward with addressing PFAS and wastewater. So whether that's through affluent limitation guidelines for industry or addressing it Nifty's permits, um, there is some movement still there and the states very much are having to figure out how to navigate this as well.

Speaker A: You're right. And there were a few states we've had, you know, discussions with who are a little more proactive than others where they are implementing PFAS discharge limits in pretreatment, industrial discharge permit. So, you know, and guidance on that. Uh, others are like, well, we don't really want to do anything until we have better understanding of what EPA is doing. And so. And it's a resource issue, a technical capability as well. Uh, and so, uh, we're seeing a lot of states just pull back and say, well, we're going to just wait and see what happens.

Speaker B: Or they wait for another state to figure it out that has some resources.

Speaker A: That's right. Yep. I mean, Michigan comes to mind. New, uh, Jersey's kind of pretty active. There's a few others, but I would say a lot of the other ones are just, we're going to wait and see.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: And, uh, and that's understandable too.

Speaker B: Yeah. Because limited resources.

Speaker A: Yeah. And. And by law the states are required to at least be as stringent as the epa and not. And you could be more if you want to, but. So I think they're all just waiting to see what's going to be the bar.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: You know, what's the bar here? Right. So that's going to be interesting. Where do you see the industry going with, um, the challenges around some of the. I guess you. I would call it the, um. He talked about the circle of designation of being a, uh, hazardous dish challenged in the court. That one's waiting on that one. I got. I do have some. I guess I'd call it sympathy for like a passive receiver of ways.

Speaker B: Oh, yeah.

Speaker A: That they're like, look, we didn't cause this problem and we don't want to be held liable under cercla. I think there's a lot of reasons to reconsider where that provision sits within the regulatory environment.

Speaker B: So EPA does not have the authority to address passive receivers. Only Congress can address that. So EPA did the best they could by clarifying their discretionary authority and clarifying that with their discretion, they will not be going after what they consider to be passive receivers.

Speaker A: Exactly.

Speaker B: But that's the best they can do. They can't prohibit anyone else from making a third party claim.

Speaker A: Exactly. Which is the crux of the problem right there.

Speaker B: So Congress has been debating this for years.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker B: Every year they propose bills to address this, and every year they do not pass. It seems like this year there's a little more traction than previous years. Yeah. Uh, but they have a really Big question to answer. I think most people can get behind treatment plant a uh, landfill are very much passive receivers. They did nothing to contribute to this contamination. They're just a pass through for. But where do you draw the line? Is the local fire station, uh, passive receiver or your local airport that was mandated by the federal government.

Speaker A: Right. To use the afff? Yeah, yeah.

Speaker B: Is the farm that land applied the biosolids that had, that led to contamination off site. Right.

Speaker A: Where do you draw the line? Right. You get the military as well. Right.

Speaker C: They're in there.

Speaker B: They're the federal government, by the federal government.

Speaker A: It's complicated.

Speaker B: My guess is that's what makes it hard to get this bill over the uh, finish line.

Speaker A: But yeah, no, you're spot on on that. I, I've been watching this too and really observing the complexity of the situation. We as a company uh, that I work for, we're obviously very concerned about the passive receiver kind uh, of situation.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Um, as are so many other other of us that are in the same industry.

Speaker C: Hello ET Nation. I want to thank you for listening to the podcast. If you're enjoying the interviews we bring you, consider supporting the program by visiting my website@sean kgrady.com and buy me a cup of coffee. Proceeds will go towards helping me continue producing timely content and offset production costs. I'd also like to take a moment and recognize a few of our sponsors of the show who have been amazing partners and are ET Nation legends. If you're looking for a drilling and environmental contracting firm to help you delineate the extent of contamination at your site, then look no further than Cascade Environmental. Cascade has over 37 offices the across across the country and offers a huge range of environmental and geotechnical drilling, site characterization and remediation services. With their huge fleet of equipment and nationwide coverage, Cascade is a great choice to support your environmental and infrastructure needs. To learn more check out their website at cascade-env.com that's cascade-env.com. hey, are you looking for an equipment rental company to help help you with your next wastewater remediation or waste management project? Etank is the only environmental equipment rental company in the industry that offers 100% guaranteed certified clean temporary liquid storage tanks at uh, no additional cost. This protocol gives peace of mind for the previous customer by limiting their downstream liability as well as the future customer by preventing any cross contamination for all of their rental tanks. E Tank also runs a one of a kind complete maintenance program for all rental items including liquid tight roll off containers, fluid transfer Pumps and filtration items. The next time you are presented with an environmental challenge, call e tank to come up with the solution for your problem. I want to thank one of our sponsors, Wastelink. Wastelink is the all in one software platform transforming how environmental professionals manage waste. Connecting generators, uh, service providers and disposal facilities in a way that is simple, connected and transparent. Their platform helps streamline everything from waste profiling and routing to inventory management and billing, giving you the tools you need to operate more efficiently and reduce cost. Whether you're a generator looking for better options or a service provider seeking greater efficiency, WasteLink has you covered. If you're ready to take control of your waste management processes and optimize your business, visit WasteLink.com to schedule a demo today.

Speaker A: Uh, yeah, it's, it's interesting times. I kind of think that they should take the provisions of hazards and move it out of circle. Put it in recra. Yeah, just put it in a record. It's, it's a better, uh, program to be under, in my mind.

Speaker B: But that would probably fall under the. This administration won't be putting forth any new regulations.

Speaker A: Yeah, probably so. Yeah, I would agree. Yeah. When you talk about this administration with epa, have you ever experienced the amount of news updates, you know, regulatory happenings, program development? Uh, I've never seen that. So with the speed and frequency that I've seen the CPA, which is something.

Speaker B: There's headlines about PFAs. And, and I think that's part of the complication is this stuff is very complex and headlines don't capture complexity. And, uh, so people read headlines like, EPA's pulled back the drinking water. And it's like, no, not. No, not. That's not exactly.

Speaker A: Wait a minute.

Speaker B: Read on.

Speaker A: Right, right, right. The sky is falling. What happened? Yeah, no, you're right. And, uh, there's a lot of, um, interest in this topic across the board. A lot of it. A lot of affected communities. Um, I've had a few, um, interviews with the, uh, Cape Fear organization and Emily Don Donovan there. Uh, it's just a fabulous individual and they genuinely have real impact concerns. And I feel for them because they have been living in an exposed environment more than a lot of other people.

Speaker B: Well, and it's their advocacy, honestly, that has led to all of this activity.

Speaker A: Shout out to Emily Donovan and the Cape Fear group. Yeah, absolutely. I would agree with you.

Speaker B: I mean, which is why we are seeing EPA action at an unprecedented rate. Right?

Speaker A: It is good.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: And then. But I think there's a lot of advocacy on the Industrial side too.

Speaker B: Sure.

Speaker A: And they're taking that into consideration because there's a lot of activity there that needs to really be, you know, considered when you're looking at a big decision like this. Because we're not talking just like a million dollars or I mean we're talking trillions of dollars to really do this job.

Speaker B: And for a topic where the science is still in the nascent station, early, early days, unknowns and not understood and.

Speaker A: Right. I'm also seeing uh, a lot of interest in the medical field trying to connect dots with recognized or symptoms uh, of, you know, in certain patients that come through and, and they have never in the past have like tried to link or connect an environmental exposure to a scenario. It's been something maybe more, you know, direct ingestion.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: From um, you know, something that maybe a carcinogen that they would recognize like tobacco or something like that. Right, right. This is different. Now they're trying to. Where do you live? You live in an impacted community. Maybe that's the reason we have cancer rates higher.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: And I think they're starting, the medical field is starting to really look at this.

Speaker B: So the practice of biomonitoring, Ah. Where we look at what's in our environment that's affecting human health is, Was so obscure and not in like the public domain until pfas. I feel like pfas and probably on the heels of pfas, microplastics.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: We've. Biomonitoring is in the public domain now for what it feels to me like the first time, if I'm having friends and family members ask me about this, to me that's like, okay, we're officially in the public domain now.

Speaker A: Yeah, you sure are. Absolutely. And oh, by the way, Urofins is one of the leading laboratories.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: That is designed and set up for that type of bio analytical testing of blood. I, uh, talk a little bit about your, your personal blood sampling kits that you can, you know, offer everyday citizens to determine what type of level of PFAS they may have in their blood.

Speaker B: Yeah. Most of that testing is done by researchers who are trying to understand the real effects of our environment on significant populations or demographics. But sure, I mean it was available to them. We figured make it available to everyone so private citizens can um, you know, contribute to their citizen science.

Speaker A: And that's the thing. We need to build a database of this information to have better understanding of the impacts and toxicity of this compound. Right. I mean, how else are you going to do it?

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, I know you need Large data.

Speaker A: Large data sets. So that's really important. You know, I think, uh, you guys are one of the leaders in this industry. Europeans, as a laboratory testing company, I mean, talk a little bit about how you have seen the growth in your industry because of pfas.

Speaker B: Yeah. You know, it changed the dynamic, I think, of the role that we play in the industry. Rather than testing just being done according to standard methods to permit and regulation standards and all of that, we're charting the path forward as an industry. Yeah. From responsible parties to consultants to regulators to laboratories, we're all trying to figure this out together. And that requires a lot of innovation.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: And development and experiment and research. And that's our strength. So getting to. To really, you know, bring that to the forefront of something. Yeah. PFAS was instrumental in that.

Speaker A: I love the, I think, you know, the advocacy that you guys are doing in the industry, too. I know you're very involved with educating the community that we work in every day. You know, engineers and geologists and scientists. You know, we're all, you know, working together to solve these issues. And I like to say that we're all on mission. Yeah, we're all on mission to, you know, do something positive for the environment that we all live in. Because we care about each other.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: And we're trying to protect the environment and, uh, leave it better place than what we left it. And so it creates this, like, fraternity of individuals working. And it's a bond, so to speak. Right?

Speaker B: It is. Especially when you're trying to tackle such a challenging issue. This one. The bonds become pretty strong and the

Speaker A: partner capabilities or opportunities are so immense and numerous. Right. I know you are a big partner with us, um, at Veolia, and you, uh, do a great job of supporting us. We support you. I mean, that's such a great relationship that we value. I know you value it as well. But when you're out there talking to people, they. They are genuinely glue, clued in, I want to say, glued to the tv, but, like, they're listening, right. They're at the edge of their seat. Because you have brought a level of, uh, authority in what you talk about. Your knowledge in this space is so great.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker A: Yeah, absolutely.

Speaker B: I just, I try to keep up.

Speaker A: That's a great way to say it because it's always changing and something is changing. And same for me as well. It's like, okay, hey, did you know that New Mexico is the first state in the union to regulate PFAS as hazardous waste? I'm like, oh, My gosh.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: That is, this is unprecedented in the industry. Right?

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Uh, so how is that even going to work? How are they going to roll that out?

Speaker B: Well, look like it is a limited designation.

Speaker A: Okay, well, good. If you know a little more about it, let's please, please enlighten me.

Speaker B: Gosh, I, I, I don't remember the specifics off the top of my head at the moment, but I believe it's specific to a triple F. Okay. I'm not sure if it goes as far as AFFF impacted waist. Um, but it is just maybe the narrow. It is narrower than just any and all that's impacted waist. Yeah.

Speaker A: Okay. So there maybe had some cooler heads were prevailing and, and, and made a little limitations on it.

Speaker B: Right. Yeah. Or maybe, you know, maybe steps.

Speaker A: Okay, fair enough, fair enough. Um, I think that's going to be a future podcast and just talk about that, because how do you comply? What's the parameters? Is this truly a record framework?

Speaker B: You're right. I think the whole discussion around is fascinating because even if there isn't a repra regulation, you still have CERCLA and CIRCLE essentially creates a liability for anyone who, uh, who's ever touched it. So that kind of covers what Rick work covers as well.

Speaker A: True.

Speaker B: So it is, I mean, I think it's fascinating on how people are making decisions on how to navigate between these and, you know, we talk all about regulation, but litigation is a massive driver for decision making.

Speaker A: Sure. Uh, absolutely. And I know there's lots of, you know, attorneys in the litigation phase and defending phase as well. Obviously. You know, we've had, uh, Robert Blot on the show twice.

Speaker B: Oh, have you?

Speaker A: Yeah. So they got to interview him in person last year, which was just, it's,

Speaker B: uh, pretty surreal, huh?

Speaker A: Yeah, it was, I have to admit it. I was like, geeking out, like bad guy, you know, it was just, it was because I told the story to the audience because he was our keynote speaker last year at the EHS Hazmat summit. So I was able to secure him to be a keynote speaker and he agreed. And, um, so I had to tell the story of how I actually met him. And so I had a friend of mine who was, um, calling me on a somewhat frequent basis like, hey, have you seen the movie Dark Waters? I was like, no. And he goes, you should watch it. It's very powerful and it's about our industry and it's what we do. You're an environmental professional in this space. You need to have seen this. Uh, I watch it. So I ended up getting around to watching it, uh, 2021 sometime. Which was like a year after it actually came out.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: And I'm just like, oh my gosh, this is crazy. It was a great movie.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Knowing that it's true too. That was. The other part is like, okay, this isn't just like fairy tales. This is real. So I'm in my recliner after the end. The credits are going up and I get my phone and I look on LinkedIn and I wrote his name on there, typed it up. There he was. I hit connect and like the next day he accepted my invitation.

Speaker B: Huh.

Speaker A: I was like, wow. So two days go by. I'm like, I'm gonna message you to

Speaker B: ask him to come on the podcast.

Speaker A: Yeah. And I did. And he said okay. And I was like, oh. Oh my gosh, I can't believe I, I'm gonna get this guy. This is gonna be awesome. And uh, so took about two months to. After we settled the. To get him in and I was able to read his book Exposure, which gave a whole bunch more insight into what he was dealing with. And you know, being a former consultant doing the assessments, remediation and working with PRPs, you know, I, I was in like deep end. I was all thing. And uh. Yeah. Interviewed him. It was a fantastic interview. Just loved it. And then, um, and then to get to meet him in person and have him be the keynote speaker. And I uh, got to interview him after the keynote. It was a special day last year. It was really, really great. And because he has in a sense single handedly been the real.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Individual who's daylighted all of these concerns to the EPA to force their hand to regulate this compound. Whether you agree or not agree. And you know, as the listeners to, to this. But I think that um, he's done a lot for us as a, as the industry to protect the people, a lot of impacted communities.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: So it was awesome. I don't know where else I'm going with that, but that was pretty good.

Speaker B: I know what you mean. It is.

Speaker A: It was exciting. It was, it was super exciting.

Speaker B: I did the same fan girl thing when I met him at a conference. Did you say it was like 2015? It was before. He was really kind of out there on the circuit making public appearances and he just casually was wandering up and down a hallway by himself.

Speaker A: And that was before the movie came out?

Speaker B: Yeah. Oh yeah. Long before. And I saw him m. Oh my God. Thank you so much for everything you do. And I, Yeah, I had same moment.

Speaker A: I understand Book and it was great. I loved it was awesome. And that's, that's what gets me up in the morning and gets me excited to do things like this is to talk to individuals who have that same passion to do something positive for our environment.

Speaker B: Yeah. And solving complex problems.

Speaker A: Absolutely. And I think the conference here at Battelle, which is a lot of smart

Speaker B: people are here, it's phenomenal.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: I mean I'm having the most amazing conversations with people about what are we going to do next, what are we going to research, what are we going to try to figure out?

Speaker A: Well, I mean, what are we doing next on the CCL6 and the potential UCMR6 coming out with microplastics and uh, what is the other. The td.

Speaker B: But you know, I think that's another case of uh, a headline that's missed,

Speaker A: missed the mark on misinterpreted.

Speaker B: CCL is just a, a place to put things to think about that we might want to do something about. Right. I mean that's effectively. It's just a little something we want

Speaker A: to focus on maybe.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: It needs a little time to warm up and get some more clarity on what those compounds may. Really. Yeah.

Speaker B: But the headlines made it sound like the EPA was regulating microplastics.

Speaker A: That's true. I put it this way. I interpret it as they're considering reviewing the impacts of microplastics. So it could be.

Speaker B: So it's an important step for consideration.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: But there's a huge step that has to come after that to select it for monitoring for UCFR 6. Um, and there is no guarantees that that selection would be made.

Speaker A: So talk about maybe the challenges with getting it to that point. Like for instance, the methodology. Right. The laboratories that are developing or that want or need to develop a reliable methodology that could be repeated constantly throughout.

Speaker B: So reliable methodology exists. But that's not the hurdle. The hurdle is it has to be an EPA promulgated method to require for UCMR monitoring. So now way we're a ways off from that.

Speaker A: We're way away. So. Okay, so more to come on that topic. I, uh, mean, because that's.

Speaker B: It's a reliable methodology.

Speaker A: So it's already there.

Speaker B: Yeah. So the foundation for EPA to take, take and promulgate a method from that exists.

Speaker A: Well, maybe the next step then for DPA is they know there's a method, but they need to understand like what is that potential toxicity of concern.

Speaker B: So then they have to decide what it is they're concerned with about microplastics, which type of method serves that need.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: And then just pick a method to move forward with on validating and promulgating, and then they can move forward with monitoring.

Speaker A: But doesn't that also move you into another level of testing outside of just the verification of microplastics are in a substance of water or whatever? But then how about the epidemiology, exposure within somebody's body.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker A: Of microplastics?

Speaker B: Uh, so UCMR is just for the sake of occurrence, does it occur enough to cause a potential issue? So there has to be exposure. Right. But there is a second element of determining to move forward with a national primary drinking water regulation, and that has to be that there is a health risk. So you get the exposure from your current data, but then there has to be a negative health impact from the exposure. So they do still need that information, but that's further down the road. They can move forward with UCMR without that.

Speaker A: Okay. Okay. All right.

Speaker B: Now, it's unlikely they would if they didn't have an indication.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: That.

Speaker A: That's kind of what I was getting at. Like, it just needs to be a little.

Speaker B: They don't have to cross that. They don't have to check that box quite yet.

Speaker A: Okay, very good. Okay, good to know. Good to know. Well, Taren, as usual, you're a wealth of knowledge and, and you're exciting to talk with and because you're staying up on the latest and greatest of the regulatory updates. And so I always enjoy talking with you about what's going on in the industry and keeping me fresh and being able to communicate to the audience what's happening and even with customers that I work with as well. Right. It's awesome.

Speaker B: We want to develop solutions for the right problems. Right. If we don't understand what the landscape is, we don't know what we're trying to navigate.

Speaker A: Absolutely, absolutely. You know, for listeners who don't know how to get a hold of you and also maybe, uh, more and learn more about your fence. How do they do that?

Speaker B: I sort of. Our website is probably the best starting point, so eurofinsus.com but we have a eurofins.com PFAS if you want to check in with us specifically on the PFAS topic.

Speaker A: Yeah, all right, sounds good. I'll, uh, make sure we, uh, get that information for the listeners on the website when, uh, this episode comes out. And, uh, thanks for coming on the show. Really appreciate it.

Speaker C: All right, thanks for listening and watching the show. If you enjoyed the show, then please share it with your friends and coworkers on social media and tell somebody in person. Thanks for being with us, ET Nation.