We know that microplastics are bad for us, but we just don't
know exactly how bad they are. So both of these agencies have
really made a, you know, they've been talking a lot about how
they really want to invest in that research and that is why
these items get put on the CCL. 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 at
www.seankgrady.com and sign up for our newsletter and e-mail
announcements. Now let's get started.
Welcome to the Environmental Transformation Podcast.
I'm your host, Sean Grady. Today's guest is Megan Quinn.
Megan She is a senior. Reporter for waste.
Dive and has been covering the waste and recycling industry for
over a decade. Her beats include state and
federal recycling policy, P Foss, chemical recycling,
environmental justice, and EPA regulatory changes.
She lives in the Washington, DC area and we're excited to have
her on the show. Welcome, Megan.
Thanks for having me. Recently you guys put out a
little piece on the new contaminant candidate list, the
CCL 6 list. Sorry about that, was kind of
spit that out. A lot of anchor nervous in in
the EPA. Yeah, I.
Know right, there's so much coming out of the EPA right now,
but you know, as I read the the new list and the and discussions
around I thought, wow, this is interesting.
You guys have a good take on it. I thought let's get together and
talk about this and so welcome to the show.
Let's dive in here. Yeah.
Tell us a little bit about your role there at Waste Dive before
we do so we can kind of get a flavour for what you're
covering, how you're, you know, what's important to you guys at
at Waste Dive and, and what the industry response is bad.
Yeah, so I'm a senior reporter for Waste Dive.
A big part of what I cover is happenings in the EPA,
particularly how those things are going to relate to laced and
landfill operators. So anytime the EPA makes a
decision, talks about making a decision, publishes something
new on a list like we'll talk about today, you know, our
readers wonder how that's going to affect them.
And typically when I'm covering ETA related regulations, a lot
of times it's related to PFOS. So I'll probably talk about that
a lot today because there are some parallels, even though
microplastics and pharmaceuticals are not the same
as PFOS, but there's some parallels in terms of how ETA is
kind of starting to talk about them.
It's a good point. There are a lot of parallels
with that, absolutely, With the EPA recently, you know,
proposing this new CCL 6. It is kind of a big deal in the
industry. And if we look at this, you
know, the list includes microplastics, which is a big
deal, I think in the industry. Because now they're really
wanting to figure out how bad or what impact do microplastics
have on the human body, which is I think a good thing.
Also, they're going to also look at additional pharmaceuticals on
the list for the first time in your view.
Why is this a watershed? Moment for Safe Drinking Water
Act and what does it tell us about the EP as current
priorities? Well, I think this is really
interesting because as you said, this is the first time
microplastics and pharmaceuticals are included on
this CCL. So the contaminant candidate
list, just to back up a little bit, this is a list that the EPA
has to publish every so often. I believe it's every three to
five years. I should have, I don't know
exactly, but it's, it's a pretty it, it's pretty common that
we'll see additions to this list.
But what this list is, it's not a regulation.
It's just a sort of signal that the EPA is going to be looking
into these materials more closely and getting more
research into them because these items on this list might
eventually be regulated, but nothing on the CCL is a
regulation itself. But to go back to your original
question, you know, adding microplastics is really
interesting because we are seeing, you know, people really
concerned about what microplastics might be doing to
our bodies. And the EPA specifically, when
they made this announcement, they made it alongside, you
know, the the Maha movement that Make America Healthy Again
movement because that agency is doing some parallel research
into microplastics. And the two agencies together
are really trying to deliver this united front and say, hey,
we need to do more research on microplastics and how they're
affecting human health. We're going to do it together in
some different ways. And that might end up signalling
some future regulations. But those things take quite a
long time. You know, federal regulations
take a long time, and adding this to the list is really just
that first initial step. Yeah.
I mean, so right now they've published the list of chemicals
and there is a public comment period opening that closes June
5th to 2026. So right now the EP as got it,
the the published list of priority contaminants out there
that they're wanting to focus on.
They want to get more science based information so they can
kind of make better decisions. They say that they're going to
finalize the list in November, on the 17th of November in 2026.
And then that'll kind of like basically, I guess move it
towards the UCMR program. I believe is kind of at some
point what that'll end up happening.
But and then they'll figure out where they're going to go with
the with the various chemicals that they want to list.
For those unfamiliar with this process, what now has to happen
with this draft? I mean, we've got this are we
wait, we're just going to be waiting to hear and, and you
know, walk through, walk us through maybe some of the, the
journey of this, of this substance takes to go through
this process before it's actually regulated.
Yeah, it's a bit of AI. Don't want to say it's a
mystery, but because, you know, there are so many items on this
list and not all of those do end up becoming regulated in certain
ways. It's not clear like which ones
actually end up becoming part of a regulation later on.
One thing that like you mentioned, so ETA does have to
go through public comment period.
This is just a 60 day period. So they're really asking people
to get in quick and get those comments in.
Yeah. That's.
For sure, yeah. And, and nothing, I don't always
notice EPA saying a specific day that they plan to release
regulation. So I think that's also
interesting to me that kind of signals that they're pretty
serious about just like getting this going.
But one other thing they have to do is they do have to run it
through there. It's an independent science
Advisory Board. Before finalizing that list, the
science Advisory Board is made-up of a bunch of different
individuals with different backgrounds who take this
independent lens. And this is something that has
been around for a long time. But when one interesting note is
that that board was completely reset when the Trump
administration came into office for the second time.
So everybody who was, I think almost everybody who was on that
board ended up leaving, were asked to leave.
And we do see this happen when there's administration changes.
I know that during the Biden administration, they did
reshuffle a few people on that board.
But on just last week, they, the administration announced who is
going to be the next people on this science board, which I
think might give us an indication on what kind of lens
some of these chemicals are going to take.
Because some of the the people who have been added to this
board include people who used to work for Dow, Kimors, DuPont,
things like that. So we're really seeing that kind
of shift towards maybe more industry focused advisory panel.
So all that to say that there's a lot been a lot of changes in
the EPA obviously from the time that the Trump administration
took office again. So it's a little unclear sort of
what the next steps are other than the steps of the EPA has
already said. So public comment period,
they're expecting to potentially sign this and make this official
by November and go through this advisory period in the meantime.
And I think where it's going to be interesting to see sort of
like what happens in the meantime, so.
Yeah. It's going to be interesting to
see what that Advisory Board does with the review process
when when these that chemicals are finalized after November,
how do they make it to the next level of the review process?
When we talk about who is affected by the CCL 6 list, is
this strictly a headache for municipal wastewater or
municipal water utilities or or should private industry really
be looking over their shoulder too?
I think we saw in the case of the last time P Foss were
included on the CCLS that any industry that is even like
remotely related will be taking notice of the CCL.
And again, this is just the draft CCL 6, so nothing set in
stone. But you know, I think public
water systems are obviously they pay close attention to this
list. I looking at some other analysts
and what they had to say about who they think is most affected.
It's pretty, some pretty standard folks, right, like
folks who work in, you know, chemical manufacturing, anybody
who works in pharmaceutical manufacturing are probably just
going to be paying attention to this.
And but I do think that public water systems are, are probably
like the main, the main target audience.
And for our audience, you know, in the waste and recycling
industry, we take note of this list because, you know, anytime
there is eventual regulations for drinking water, you know,
the like landfill operators care about that because their
leachate goes to water treatment systems.
So they want to know, hey, is there something I need to be
doing in the interim? Is there going to going to be a
situation where I'm going to have to change what I do or
change my relationship with the water treatment systems?
So specifically from a waste industry, even though the CCL
doesn't really like directly apply to our industry, it
definitely signals things to watch out for in conversations
that maybe waste operators are going to be having with water
treatment systems down the line. Yeah, absolutely.
I mean it's definitely now put, you know these contaminants or
these potential contaminants on their radar.
I guess the big question would be for a company is should we
sample, you know, what is the expectation?
My understanding this isn't a regulation that's requiring
somebody to sample. So that's one thing, but should
companies be beginning, you know, should they begin sampling
for these contaminants now or is it too premature to invest in,
you know, any of the monitoring of this before the list is
finalized? Yeah, I think that's always the
question that in affected industries have when they start
hearing about potential regulations.
We did see like down a couple years ago when the waste
industry was getting wind that certain P Foss might be
regulated, not in CCL 5 though there are, there were P Foss in
CCC CL5, but some of those P Foss ended up being regulated as
a separate regulation for you know, drinking water standards
and also 2P Foss were right regulated as hazardous
substances, though both of those things are going through a court
process right now. So those are all up in the air.
But when the industry was getting wind that those might be
regulated, that was a big question, right?
Like do we what we do now, like are we waiting and seeing for
there to be a final regulation before we spend money?
We want to get ahead of the curve.
And we did see in the waste industry companies taking both
tack and deciding. Some decided like, yeah, we're
going to just see which way the wind blows.
Others we're investing or partnering with P Foss
management companies to, you know, just kind of get ahead of
it also, because there's also state regulations that are that
happened way before some of these federal regulations.
And I think we're also going to see that with some of the new
materials on the CCL 6 like micro plastics.
However, one day I just did want to mention to when I was at the
EPA for this announcement a couple weeks ago, Jessica
Kramer, who's the the, she's the assistant administrator for the
Office of Water at the EPA. She had made a comment that, you
know, the CCL is not a regulation like we said, but she
kind of framed it as the idea that there is these proposed
benchmarks that can come out of it.
And those might be some sort of like just ways for industry
specifically, you know, water treatment facilities to kind of
get some waypoints of what they might want to monitor down the
line. So that it's there's no clear
answer. I guess there's no clear answer
with a lot of these things. But I think we've, we've seen in
the case of PFOS, the industry kind of doing, you know, a
couple different things to sort of prepare.
But you know, the EPA has not told industry, hey, you got to
start monitoring this or hey, you got to start or, or even
like what to measure, right? There's no metrics for a lot of
these things that are on the proposed CCL 6.
Like there's no big, there's no big metrics for microplastics,
for example. I think the big issue that will
be for a lot of companies who are maybe interested in learning
if they actually have microplastics and then some of
these other pharmaceuticals and there's waste dreams would be
that there's not really a good solid standard analytical method
yet, right? I mean, that's the big thing
that the laboratory industry side of the house with this new
proposed CCL 6 list is they need to develop really solid test
methods like PFOS. When it came out, they were
struggling to come up with really solid analytical,
repeatable methods before it could be standardized for
companies to use. And now that they have those,
it's more, you know, adopt, you know, everyone's adopted those
methods, but I don't think that's ready to go yet for some
of these. Parameters, right?
From my understanding and you know, microplastics is not
really something I cover super like compared to like something
like T Foss. But to your point, I mean, I
think because there's just not really there's not a lot out
there to point to. There's no yardstick really
right now. And that is something that I
think some, you know, environmental groups have also
brought up as being kind of a, a criticism and something that
they want to see more of. And also a lot of these health
groups that have been kind of influencing the direction that,
you know, the Maha movement is going where they're all staying.
Like, hey, we know that microplastics are bad for us,
but we just don't know exactly how bad they are.
And, you know, so both of these agencies have really made a, you
know, they've been talking a lot about how they really want to
invest in that research. And that is why these items get
put on the CCL, because the CCL is sort of this indication of
what kind of time and resources these agencies, well,
specifically the EPA, is going to put into that research
because there needs to be more research before you can come up
with, you know, metrics and methods.
So yeah. Yeah.
Well, just to kind of look at, you know, how the agency's
approaching this, you know, in Maha, I I got to commend them.
I mean, they are actually trying to address some contaminants
that are a bit of concern or now that are being raised a concern
and they're saying, look, industry, we don't have enough
science, we need to study it, we need to figure it out, let's do
this. This is the process.
That's good, I think, right? Yeah, One thing I would say to
that also. So because I'm sitting, you
know, when I was at the EPA, I was sitting there hearing all
these presentations from these scientists that are saying like,
here's what we're working on, here's what we want to work on.
You know, the the federal government is putting quite a
bit of time and money into this. However, there's also a lot has
been happening at the EPA in the last year.
And one of the things that happened was the name, the main
research office for the EPA was was disbanded and a lot of the
people working in that research office either ended up in other
parts of the agency or potentially were laid off.
And you know, the EPA right now is operating with a a very small
budget. Yeah, like I'm out of people
compared to the last couple years.
So I think another criticism that we are seeing, again, this
is mainly from environmental groups, which are saying like
it's great that the EPA is saying that they want to, you
know, monitor microplastics. Like that's wonderful.
However, they're they eliminated the Office of Research and
Development and that seems to be like working in direct, you
know, is not working in alignment with.
So I mean, depending on I think that's that's going to be
interesting to see sort of what happens, you know, what kind of
time and resources are are put into that research, especially
because and and you know, also speaking from, you know, another
side of this, EPA last year rolled back drinking water
standards for certain PFOS. So.
They did. So there's that concern.
I, I don't disagree. There's that concern and maybe
maybe they're thinking along the lines of, and I don't know this
yet to you know, but we need to probably confirm this and some
investigative reporting could help.
But you know, maybe they're going to be outsourcing, you
know, to third party some of this research instead of doing
it in house where you've got industry doing the research is
probably a little more technically advanced than the
EPAI would. I'm just thinking out loud.
I could be wrong, but I feel like there's some good
possibility there that maybe the speed of effort too could could
work. I don't know, but let's take a
look at that because maybe that's how they're going to kind
of solve the problem a little bit.
Yeah, that that's actually a great.
That's a really interesting point.
If you if you hear of any federal agencies working with
private industry on that, let me know.
I mean, that wouldn't be unheard of.
Obviously right now we're seeing like the DoD, for example, a lot
of their big and like environmental efforts for
battery recycling, for example. This is not the same thing.
But just as an example, you know, the DoD has said like,
hey, we want to work with private industry, like it's
accelerating sort of what we can get out of it.
Here's some money, please do some research for us.
And and we have seen EPA work with, you know, private
companies, public companies on research specifically for PFOS,
for example. Yeah, like, hey, like.
You know, it was a huge that they've invested millions into
that. Yeah, yeah.
So this is definitely, this wouldn't be a a radical right,
you know, path, but yeah. And and also because the the
Trump administration has really said like, hey, we're very pro
business. We really want to, you know,
work with more businesses, so. It might be just a just a
different way of skinning the cat, so to speak, but you know,
outside the norms of the traditional government process.
So I don't, I, I mean, just the thought, I don't know, but maybe
that's how they're thinking about doing it.
I think when you look at the, you know, the concern about
this, are there any particular challenges or red flags that
maybe Publix are rising or raising the concerns about
anything there that you've heard so far?
Yeah, I think so. I I went to go to this the
public comment space just to see if EPA had uploaded any public
comments yet for this and I didn't see any that had been
uploaded. But that is actually a great
resource for anybody to look at. If you're wondering, you know
what people are saying directly to the agency about these
proposed, this would be regular. I almost said proposed
regulation. The CCL is not a regulation.
Something will have been uploaded currently.
But you know, just talking to some folks, talking to different
sources and things about what either some concerns are or just
what they're looking for. And it kind of goes back to some
of the things that we've been talking about already about.
OK. So we want to potentially for
the regulate some of these materials down the line.
Like how do we even go about doing that?
What's the plan? I think also because like we had
have mentioned before, it's not always clear what sort of has
one. Item from the CCL rise to the
top and kind of end up becoming a different regulatory path
though that I mean the EPA has said you know there's a
combination of different they need, you know certain amount of
research and you know science involved before they can really
like build that path. So I think there's just because
microplastics, for example, are such a new frontier and there's
just so there's so much we don't know.
And I think that maybe it's not a red flag necessarily, but when
I'm talking to sources about this, I think that's a big
question that folks have. OK, Like this seems good.
Seems good that it's on this list.
It seems good that it's on EP as radar and you know.
And it takes time to get these chemicals listed.
I mean, so for instance, if we go back to, you know, with the
history of P FOS, P fo, P FOS, P FOS, I think it was initially
listed on the CCL 3 back in 2009 and then it was re issued or are
added again with additional parameters in 2019.
I believe on this the, the next CCL are the yeah, the CCL 5.
So it, I mean it does take a while.
And then of course, obviously it became part of the UCMR 5
sampling efforts, which is where the EPA were able to, you know,
get a lot more scientific data on the, the, the pervasity of P
Foss throughout the, the drinking water utility systems.
So I think that was interesting. And so it's going to take some
time. Microplastics may not be just
like immediately added to the UCMR, you know 6 list just
because it's here, but it is. Interesting that it's there.
There needs to be some analytical test methods that
are, you know, developed that are reliable, repeatable.
It's a different type of test. I'm sure there's going to be
some interesting conversations with some of the analytical
laboratories that are in the industry.
I could think of Eurofense, pace, enthalpy, you know,
there's a handful of them like that that will have a, I'm sure
a position on this and maybe they'll be on the show in the
next months or so because I think that would be a good
conversation. Let me know when that happens.
I'll listen in because that's an area that I, I don't know a lot
about. And you know, I think like we've
seen with I don't know this. So this is a little bit of a
speculation on my part, but because we don't know.
So there's so much we don't know about microplastics.
And this came up in at the EPA announcement too, that there's
so much we don't know about microplastics to the point where
there might be a case where different types of microplastics
might be regulated different ways if there does end up being
a regulation down the line. That's that wasn't something
that that came up when folks were speaking at the EPAA couple
weeks ago. And we, I mean, we saw that and
we see that with PFOS too, where like the more we learn about all
the different PFOS chemicals, we are already seeing them be
treated differently in regulations and also in the CCL.
So, yeah, I mean, there we might be getting more and more in the
weeds as we go and I think that might just be a sign of having
more information. But yeah.
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. At.
Seangrady.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 our ET nation legends. If you're looking for a drilling
an 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
across the country and offers a huge range of environmental.
And geotechnical drilling site. Characterization and remediation
services with their huge fleet of equipment 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
you with your next wastewater remediation or waste management
project? E Tank is the only environmental
equipment rental company in the industry that offers 100%
guaranteed certified clean temporary liquid storage tanks
at 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, Waste.
Link waste link is the. All in one software platform,
transforming how environmental professionals manage waste,
Connecting generators, 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. So how does these types of EPA
announcements, and there's been a flurry of these announcements
in the past, this past year so far, I mean, starting from
January to now, there's been a number of announcements.
I was an outlet like waste dive, respond and cover, figure out
what's, I mean there, there's a lot going on.
It seems like happening. And you're right there in DC
too, right? So you're, you're an epicenter.
You can go to the meetings if you need to, right?
Talk a little bit about that process for you guys and what
you're focused on. I think with the DPA, obviously,
you know, they're the top in the federal level, right?
So I think anytime, you know, we get so many announcements from
VPA and I'm reading through them, talking to people and you
know, my first question is always, hey, does this apply to
the waste industry in some way? Or if it doesn't directly apply,
how might it apply to their partners or some other
regulations that might end up kind of building into the
ecosystem of the waste industry because the waste industry is
obviously highly regulated. And at the same time, it's like
from day to like from day-to-day.
If you're a landfill operator, like you have a lot going on
besides like just checking to see what the EPA is doing.
And in fact, like you might actually be more concerned with
what's happening on a state or federal level.
So that's something that that I try to track too.
And yeah, so there's there's a lot.
Yes, there's a lot going on. I think right now, obviously
drinking water standards are or top of mind because of this
conversation. But you know, there's also air
emission standards that Mike, my colleague Jacob Wallace covers
and he's really a good resource for any type of EPA decision on
air emissions, which we're also seeing at the state level are
going to be certain states have, you know, tighter air emissions
as well. So we got the air, we got the
water, anything that's coming out of the leachate, anything
that's coming out of the top of the pile.
And I mean, I'm focusing on landfills for the sake of this,
not a part of the conversation. But, you know, we also cover
recycling facilities and organics facilities.
So incinerators. Right, Yeah, right.
The the The Dow just released their new waste guidance,
lifting the ban of Vince P Foss incineration, which was a big
deal in the. Industry.
I don't know if you've covered that topic yet, but the company
I work for is really interested in that, so supply some
information to you on that. And oh, by the way, something
you guys. Probably are going to cover, I
don't know, but I'm interested in this too is.
New Mexico is the first. State to regulate P Foss as a
hazardous. Waste.
Did you heard that? I yes, actually, when you see
our newsletter today, we don't have a story about it
specifically yet, but we always include stories from other
publications. So that's in there today.
And that's something that I'll be following just to see how
that's going to go. Because this, yeah, this goes
back to our conversation about, you know, the states are often
the first to release with the tone, you know, and a triple F
is, you know, you know, something that the DoD has
really been trying to get their arms around.
And not just the DoD, but, you know, also like local agencies
too. So.
And yeah. And then also like that
department also recently released a document sort of
similar to the EPA's destruction and disposal guidelines.
This is specifically for PFOS. But.
And they were saying, hey, like here's some of the the ways that
we see as being the most feasible to get rid of this
material. Maybe I'll get rid of it, but to
manage or dispose of destruct. So I talk about P Foss a lot.
A, because it's a big part of my group, and B, because P Foss is
one of those types of classes of chemicals where it's a pathway
that we see the regulation occurring on the state and
federal level. And there's not always going to
be an apples to apples comparison with other types of
materials. But it is, it's one of those
examples where you can say like there's president to see how
agencies have looked at P Foss, manage P Foss and a lot of the
legal ramifications for how these things are managed that we
might be able, we might end up seeing for something like
microplastics or something for example, down the line.
We just don't know. But it's 1/2.
Well, I've got a good topic to follow up with you on within the
incineration set space with P5. So I'll follow up with you on
that separately after the after this interview because that's
good content that I think we can collaborate on.
So, you know, I think as, as you know, any advice to stakeholders
that are, you know, looking at this new CCL 6 list, you know,
what to possibly expect, what they should do, any
recommendations there for the listeners who are piqued, you
know, their interest is piqued about this conversation.
I so I'm not in the business of giving advice since I'm I'm not
actually your industry cover your industries, but submitting
your comments to EPA because this comment period is so short.
They do. I actually look at them
sometimes it's not clear like where those comments end up
going, but I'm talking to EPA officials.
They do read them and it it's a it's a way for if this is
something that you're reading through the draft CCL and you're
like, that doesn't sound right or I've questions.
That's kind of one Ave. that you know, the agency is definitely
wanting you to take. I think also just, I, I'll, this
is maybe like a question that I turned back on you because I am
curious to see how industries are, are talking about this and
thinking about this. I know sometimes, you know,
depending on the size of the company, you might have somebody
on staff who is well versed in these things, especially because
CC, the CCL is a, a list that has been around for a long time
and it gets updated periodically.
So even though we're seeing some firsts on it, like
pharmaceuticals and microplastics are our first, the
CCL itself is not new. So I think that there's
definitely people in the industry who know quite a lot
about how these things work. And and my other advice is, you
know, if you have if you feel strongly about it and you want
to talk to a reporter, shameless plug to reach out to me in ways
I've so. That's right.
I like that. That's good.
That's good stuff. I mean, you know, I think most
companies will probably have a government relations department
who are tracking these types of things, right?
Then they're going to work with their local, you know, divisions
who are, you know, responsible for either the management or the
processing of these types of chemicals and, and to make a
determination from business side what is the impact.
And that's let me, that's what I would be doing or the company I
work for does. So that's what we do.
But you know, that's. That's the benefit of.
Working for a good sized firm that can focus on those things
and, and, you know, to have a strategic response or a plan to
address them as they become, I guess real, you know, they
become regulated. And so I think the
infrastructure that's needed to support these types of
substances for, you know, monitoring, we're still not
there yet. We still need to put a little
more effort into that side of the equation to make this more
effective. So I could see some of these
chemicals that may be of concern now that are listed just don't
quite make the final list until the infrastructure and the and
the capabilities of testing itself become I'm more
available. It's going to take it maybe a
little more time. So we'll see what happens.
But I think this is something to watch.
It's definitely a good topic to bring up and and kind of, you
know, have conversations with industry on and see where the
EPA is going with these things. So.
Yeah, yeah. And actually I have a question
for you if you don't mind. I am curious if you know if
there are any entities that are even like screening for
monitoring for microplastics right now like in from your
industry side, Like how big of a deal is that?
Yeah. I I'm not, to be honest with
you, I'm not sure. Obviously, you know, it would be
more in the the drinking water side of the of the House of most
industries that are wanting to put together technologies for
treating. And so that is a good question.
And it's something that we certainly I'm going to be
looking at and having conversations with others in the
industry to figure out what they're doing.
But yeah, let's stay in touch to kind of, you know, compare
notes. Yes, I would love that.
That's good. Well, Megan, thanks for coming
on the show today. I really appreciate your time
and all the great work you're doing at Waste Dive.
I've been a subscriber of the the magazine and your articles
for quite a while now and great content that comes out.
Really appreciate that and I'm sure anybody that wants to reach
out to you will have. Megan's contact information.
That you can, you know, get from the website, my website and
Megan anything, anything else you'd like to add to the for the
the listeners? Yeah.
Thanks for having me. And yeah, this is an ongoing
conversation. We're kind of at the beginning
stages of this. So I'm very curious to see where
this is going to go and love to keep talking about it.
All right. We'll keep up the good
reporting. I really appreciate it.
Yeah. Thank you.
Thanks for having me. Thanks for listening and
watching the show. If you enjoyed the show then
please share it with your friends and Co workers on social
media and tell somebody in person.
Thanks for being with us, ET Nation.