The Surprising Science Shift That Changed His Career — A Conversation with Richard J. Fehir, Ph.D.
This week, I had the pleasure of speaking with my new colleague, Richard J. Fehir, Ph.D., Senior Chemist/Regulatory Scientist, at B&C and its consulting affiliate, The Acta Group (Acta®), to discuss his career at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and how he is now deploying his considerable scientific chops at B&C and Acta. Rick is a bit unusual, as he has worked for both EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) and Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), which is a very opportune combination for our clients!
This podcast transcript has been lightly edited for accuracy. It is an approximation of the podcast audio, and the audio recording remains the definitive record.
Lynn L. Bergeson (LLB): Hello, and welcome to All Things Chemical, a podcast produced by Bergeson & Campbell (B&C®), a Washington, D.C., law firm focusing on chemical law, business, and litigation matters. I am Lynn Bergeson.
This week, I had the pleasure of speaking with my new colleague, Dr. Richard Fehir, aka [also known as] Rick, Senior Chemist and Regulatory Scientist at B&C and our consulting affiliate The Acta Group (Acta®). We discussed Rick’s career at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and how he is now deploying his considerable scientific chops at B&C and Acta. Rick is a bit unusual in that he has worked for both the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). This is a very opportune combination for our clients. Now, here’s my conversation with Dr. Rick Fehir.
Rick, it is wonderful having you in the studio today. I’ve been looking forward to having this conversation. For the benefit of our listeners, maybe you can tell us a little bit about yourself, and your background, and your illustrious career at EPA.
Richard J. Fehir (RJF): Sure, I can. I’m also very happy to be here at the firm and with Acta. A little bit about myself: I went to graduate school at Michigan State University.
LLB: Yay!
RJF: Yes, go green, go white, to all my friends out there, all the listeners, great place to be. That’s where I got my Ph.D. In chemistry. I did a lot of growing up, so to speak, in McCusker Lab. Basically, at that time, it was very difficult to find a job. When you’re graduating from grad school, you’re applying everywhere. You’re applying anywhere you could possibly think of: industry, government, every agency. I had multiple applications in to industry. I had an application in to EPA. I wasn’t really expecting to work at EPA, because academics, usually they push you to go to industrial chemistry labs, normally. I got a couple of job offers, and it was doing chemistry-related work, but it wasn’t actually —
LLB: — chemistry-adjacent.
RJF: Yes, chemistry adjacent, but the EPA job was actually doing chemistry, so it sort of led me down the path to say, “Okay, I’m going to accept the EPA position.”
LLB: Wonderful. Did you grow up in the Michigan area?
RJF: Yes, I’m a born and bred Michigander, metro Detroit area. My baseball team’s the Tigers, Lions, football. Now that I live in D.C., my other teams are the Commanders and the Nationals.
LLB: All right. That’s the appropriate response.
RJF: Yes.
LLB: It sounds like you weren’t born wanting to work for the government, but the opportunity to work for EPA — was it EPA headquarters or EPA Region 5, which is the Michigan/Illinois/Ohio area?
RJF: Yes, it was EPA headquarters in D.C. I actually applied through USAJOBS, which is, as those who work in the government know, it’s nearly impossible to navigate the USAJOBS process and actually get a federal appointment.
LLB: Oh, I didn’t know that.
RJF: Yes, it’s very difficult. It takes a matter of four to six months, at least at that time. Hopefully it’s improved; I can only hope. But if you don’t have any preference points, things like that, as a person who never worked for the government, it’s hard to navigate your name to the top of that certification list. It’s one of those Easter eggs.
LLB: Got it.
LLB: What attracted you to a career in science writ large? You’re an inorganic chemist. Number one, what’s the difference between inorganic and organic chemistry? And what drove you into that side of science?
RJF: I was always interested in chemistry. I had a good high school chemistry teacher. I started thinking about it, maybe I’ll study this in college. The professors there were very supportive. You’re taught organic and inorganic chemistry, and I fell in love with my metals.
LLB: Really?
RJF: Yes. It was more interesting to me, just the complexes you can make. No offense to my organic chemist friends.
LLB: I know, I was just going to say, don’t let Rich Engler hear this.
RJF: No, no. I’ve learned a heck of a lot of organic chemistry working at EPA, too. Yes, this is the bread and butter of some of the chemicals that people register. But my heart goes out to anyone with a metal in their complex.
LLB: Is it all that different? I would imagine toxicologically speaking, and from a chemical perspective, there are probably many fundamental differences between organics and inorganics.
RJF: Yes, I would say it’s completely different. Every metal has a different reactivity, different chemistry. My specialty was chromium and nickel compounds for my graduate thesis, so those were my two favorites going through that process.
LLB: Those are very important compounds, certainly for our practice, and there’s been an awful lot of EPA activity devoted to those two compounds. Were you able to work in those areas when you were at EPA?
RJF: Yes. Since the title of the position was Inorganic Chemist, that also drew my eye when I applied for the position.
LLB: Yes, it seemed kind of perfect, right?
RJF: Yes, any new premanufacture notice (PMN) or low-volume exemption (LVE) that contained a metal seemed to come my way. There were only two of us at the time who had any experience working in inorganic chemistry, so we both shared the load for all the chemistry reports for all those chemicals.
LLB: You noted that you had a good teacher in high school. Was that inspirational for you, or directionally was that teacher very instrumental in your selection of being an inorganic chemist as a profession?
RJF: I think he was instrumental in just pushing me to continue my pursuit of chemistry in college. I think professors there, when they were teaching both classes, I think I just fell in love with the inorganic chemistry part of it just a little bit more than the organic chemistry side.
LLB: To have a teacher inspire that strong attraction — kudos to that teacher, and a shout-out to all the teachers of the world who help inspire their students and push them into, in particular, science careers, which is kind of a tough sell in high school.
RJF: It is. It’s hard, because where are you going to work? They almost need someone in the fields to come and talk to them, to say, what are your options for using this Ph.D. degree in chemistry? What kind of options can you navigate?
LLB: I know you have a daughter. It’s probably a little too early to be pushing her into STEM [science, technology, engineering, math] activities.
RJF: Any chance I get, we talk about science. You have to — I buy her the National Geographic little kits.
LLB: Do you really? Oh, how adorable.
RJF: Yes, she loves dinosaurs, loves painting. We have some glow-in-the-dark rocks. We talk about the chemistry of that.
LLB: I think that’s wonderful!
RJF: Chemistry of colors. The Fourth of July is coming up. There are a lot of metals used in fireworks, so everyone should review their firework chemistry. You can be the star of the barbecue party, knowing which metals produce what color.
LLB: Wonderful trivia questions, right?
You have a really distinguished and long 17-year career with EPA. As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, interestingly, you’ve been both in the toxics office in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), and in EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP). That kind of dual participation at EPA is a little bit, from my perch, unusual. Usually, people drop their anchor in one or the other, and you have been in both. Maybe you can tell our listeners a little bit about what you’ve been up to, and how is it that you found your way into both OPPT initially, right, and then shifted to OPP?
RJF: Yes, the initial grab for me in OPPT was just that title, that position. I’d been doing chemistry for multiple years in graduate school. I wanted to continue using that knowledge. It was very obvious to me that was a good choice, but as I was there, mastering the TSCA [Toxic Substances Control Act] PMN program, I started thinking about what’s leadership like at EPA.
There weren’t a lot of leadership opportunities in the office, so if you’re a fed, one option that’s available to you is to examine other offices. I saw a position — my first time I moved was the Antimicrobials Division (AD) in OPP, where I became a team leader. It was mostly for the registration review program. Basically, all antimicrobial chemicals were in my portfolio on that team, so it was a very, very busy time.
LLB: Busy and diverse, right. It’s a very busy office, the Antimicrobials Office at EPA.
RJF: But from there — just to continue my leadership path that I was seeking — a position became available in the conventional pesticides office, the Health Effects Division (HED), so I applied and was successful in achieving that to become a branch supervisor of a risk assessment branch.
LLB: Excellent, probably honed your managerial skills overseeing a lot of projects, and also working in HED in OPP is, in my view, a very interesting area of both the law and science.
RJF: Yes, definitely great scientific challenges, great people who are there —
LLB: — Excellent people.
RJF: I had a great team that I dearly miss, but the hard part about being in the management team is you do do less science. But you help and guide the overarching chemical issues, and you rely on your rock star staff to make it happen, so to speak.
LLB: Right, exactly. Before you transitioned over to OPP, what kinds of work were you doing in OPPT?
RJF: The main work was PMN, LVE type of work.
LLB: Premanufacture notices for new chemicals, right?
RJF: For new chemicals. There was a lot of existing chemical work at that time.
LLB: Really?
RJF: It was a little different. I worked on mercury, lead, cadmium, nanomaterials as well. It was the burgeoning project —
LLB: The nano version of inorganic substances?
RJF: Yes.
LLB: Interesting. Were those in — we do an awful lot of PMN work here, new chemical review. When you moved over to OPP, did you miss the novelty of the New Chemicals Program?
RJF: You hit the nail on the head there, because working here I’m starting to see the new technologies that are coming out. I did really miss that, because you see that you’re at the forefront of industry. What are they developing? And what’s critical to them to try to register with a PMN or LVE at EPA and seeing that science? It’s great to be part of that again. It’s exciting.
LLB: I know. Some of our clients’ innovations are just mind-blowing, and if I were at EPA working in that area, as you did for quite a long while, right? Is there novelty, though, in the new chemicals area of pesticide programs, too? Were you able to catch a glimpse of that in antimicrobials, for example, or was it largely reviewing and re-registering existing antimicrobials?
RJF: Yes, I think for antimicrobials, it was mostly existing, because there are not too many new active ingredients (AI) that are coming out as an antimicrobial pesticide.
LLB: In the antimicrobial area. In the biological area, there probably is.
RJF: Yes. But on the conventional side, there were a lot of new AIs that came through when I was there. Those were interesting to see; there were some novel processes, how they were used. It’s never been registered before, so all the science is completely new. It was a great challenge to see that science project come to fruition.
LLB: Right, absolutely. Looking back over your many years at EPA, do you have any standout memories of extraordinary either innovations or science challenges, or things that just — you tell your daughter about, or will be telling her about when she’s a little older — as just being incredible experiences for you?
RJF: We were there when the first quantum dot PMNs came through.
LLB: No kidding!
RJF: Yes, it was just amazing to see, and it made me — when I’m buying a new TV, I had to buy one that had the quantum dots in it that I knew was registered at EPA. It was such a — technology at the forefront of where it was at.
LLB: Absolutely.
RJF: That’s very memorable. Some other projects — the Green Chemistry program. Maybe we’ll talk about that later, but that’s also a very memorable time to be there, all the great technologies that came through that. I was also on a committee for the American Chemical Society (ACS), the Committee on Environmental Improvement [now the Committee on Environment and Sustainability]. It was a great opportunity as a member of EPA to be part of that committee, to try to forward those goals and also to attend all the ACS meetings and be part of that and discuss the science.
LLB: You were kind of a liaison with OPPT — ACS — EPA?
RJF: Yes.
LLB: Excellent, excellent. Are there any significant regulatory initiatives, Rick, that inorganic chemical stakeholders might be especially interested in knowing about, either now or might have been really key when you were with OPPT on the inorganics side? To my understanding, given some of the work we do for some of metal interests in the industry, there seem to be a number of inorganic initiatives with regard to the risk framework for metals. Might any of our listeners be interested in hearing more about something?
RJF: Yes, definitely. I’m keeping my eye on the cathode active materials (CAM) space. A recent SNUR [significant new use rule] came out that was proposed increasing basically the restrictions on the use of those chemicals. So all the listeners, please take a look at your CAMs. Make sure they’re not listed in the SNUR.
LLB: Maybe for some of our listeners who might not be quite as familiar with the parlance, a cathode active material is what, and used for what applications?
RJF: It’s for battery use, yes.
LLB: Both automotive and storage batteries?
RJF: Yes, automotive and storage is correct.
LLB: Not the little Ni-CDs [nickel-cadmium] that we put in transistor radios.
RJF: Yes. They’re mass producing these chemicals for the battery technology. They’re sorely needed, too.
LLB: Absolutely.
RJF: Absolutely needed, and it’s difficult, I would say, to register a new one with the EPA current process. That’s where we can help.
LLB: That could probably be said for any new chemical, but maybe particularly CAMs.
RJF: Yes, because of all the restrictions based on their use.
LLB: Right, right. That’s very important — I know we do some work for metal manufacturers and processors. Are there new initiatives underway with regard to redefining the risk framework for metals writ large?
RJF: I’m trying to think of a specific example, but do you have one you were thinking of? I’m trying to remember.
LLB: I’m chatting with some of our North American metal clients, and I think there is some movement afoot to just refresh the metals framework —
LLB: — Oh yes.
LLB: — with a view toward ensuring that, consistent with the administration’s commitment to gold standard science, to make sure that the metals framework for registering and assessing risks from metals and inorganics is on par with everything else that’s been going on with regard to organic chemistries.
RJF: Yes. Our CAM Science Alliance here is engaging with EPA on that topic, and I’ve recently joined to be a part of that. We’re hoping to make some steps in a positive direction —
LLB: — wonderful! —
RJF: — within that area.
LLB: Let’s talk a little bit about your time at OPPT, where you were a principal reviewer of green chemistry and sustainability projects, and you coordinated green chemistry development with industry, academia, and government stakeholders. Are there any particular technologies that are standout in your mind as an exemplar of how that commitment to working with all stakeholders for green chemistry and sustainability? It was just an excellent example of how that type of commitment has worked well.
RJF: Yes, just to go back to my quantum dots, QD Vision was a Green Chemistry Challenge Award winner.
LLB: No kidding! No, actually, I did remember that, QDV, right.
RJF: Yes, QD Vision, such a great technology, green reaction conditions, saving a lot of solvents and energy by the way they make their quantum dots. It was definitely a standout. For me as an inorganic chemist, it’s an easy one to vote for as a winner.
Just to build on that, there was another one in 2016. Professor Chirik had a catalysis with earth-abundant transition metals using, I think, cobalt instead of very hard — or what we call it — iron or cobalt catalysis, not rare earth, which is expensive —
LLB: Right, and rare.
RJF: Yes, definitely rare. What else?
My other example is an industry example. Cytec — they were acquired by Solvay — they had a very interesting improvement to the Bayer process that — it converts bauxite to alumina when they’re actually making aluminum. A lot of mineral scale gets deposited on the heat exchangers in this Bayer process. Removing that scale, they usually have to clean it with strong acid, like sulfuric acid.
LLB: Which are probably fairly aggressive as regards the environmental footprint those chemicals leave, right?
RJF: Right, and Cytec developed a sodalite scale inhibitor for the Bayer process with high-molecular-weight polymers that really saved a lot of scale buildup and really improved the process that they’re using today. These are great examples of academia, industry —
LLB: — and EPA working together.
RJF: They’re working together, yes.
LLB: That’s excellent, that’s excellent. Because you’ve worked in both sides of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, have you discerned any differences culturally between OPPT and OPP? The program offices administer very different statutes, TSCA being the OPPT statute that most of the OPPT staff are tasked with implementing, whereas the Office of Pesticide Programs deals largely with FIFRA [the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act] and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act [PRIA], collecting fees and whatever. But in your mind, is it really one big office, or are there two separate visions?
RJF: It’s a good question. It is one big office. We were one EPA. I think both offices try to work together wherever they can, but they are operating differently under the laws that they have to operate under. The conventional OPP office is data-rich. If you have to register a pesticide, they get a lot of information —
LLB: — exactly —
RJF: — whereas a new chemical in OPPT, there isn’t a lot of information. Whatever is reasonably ascertainable, we can provide.
LLB: Right.
RJF: That might not be a lot.
LLB: And there may not be. But then when there are data deficits, as it were, the agency has perfected a lot of different models to assess toxicity and the environmental implications of new chemistry. So in OPP, there tend to be, to your point, Rick, lots more data that are required as part of the registration process for a new active ingredient.
RJF: Right.
LLB: Did you find that transition working from models and model data in OPPT to actually working with actual data in OPP different or interesting? Or how did you manage that transition?
RJF: It was definitely different. Even if you have data, how do you interpret it?
LLB: Exactly.
RJF: What kind of lens are you looking at it with? Conservative approach — EPA commonly takes the most conservative approach, but is that the correct approach? Coming from OPPT, where we had few data, just based on some structures, analogs, basic chemistry, we could make a call that was maybe not too conservative and get that chemical to market.
But with the amount of data in the pesticide program, it’s very — it goes through a lot of peer review groups, which is a good thing. You get a lot of scientists, a lot of eyes on the data, but I think we don’t always have to go to the most conservative endpoint if the science doesn’t justify that. If we have enough data that point to an answer, but this is where it comes in for the interpretation, with the OPPT hat on. Okay, this makes sense to me, but if I’m in OPP, I might want hard data that say, “This is the answer.”
LLB: Right, rather than extrapolating from —
RJF: Right.
LLB: — from the right source.
RJF: You have to be confident in your scientific judgment that all the data, the weight of evidence of everything I’ve looked at support my — whatever my decision may be.
LLB: I’ve often wondered if over the years, especially since 2016, when TSCA was very significantly revised through the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg). In 2016, I think EPA OPPT scientists were probably less experienced in risk assessment and risk evaluation than their counterparts in OPP. You were with OPPT when Lautenberg was newly passed, or you must have been starting right about then.
RJF: I was right there at the transition, yes.
LLB: So, maybe the juxtaposition between the nascent stage of risk evaluation and risk assessment in OPPT may not be as stark to you as to others, but did you learn from your colleagues at OPP who had very sophisticated risk evaluation and risk assessments skill sets derivative of FIFRA? Was there any type of sharing of lessons learned, or skill sets, or scientists in the early days of Lautenberg?
RJF: I think definitely the OPP colleagues asked and got as much information as they could about the OPP process and how to use that to incorporate into their standard operating procedures because the OPP process was working.
LLB: Very much so.
RJF: To your point, I think you’re 100 percent correct. We weren’t used to doing those sorts of risk assessments until Lautenberg came around, and I think a lot of it was, “How are we going to do this?” It takes a while to develop that process and to get everyone to learn what that is to make it successful.
LLB: Over the past ten years — we’re coming up to the tenth anniversary of Lautenberg’s enactment — I think OPPT has learned an extraordinary amount about perfecting risk assessment, risk evaluation techniques, consistent with what the law requires. Is there a lot of interplay between the two offices now, or is it you either work at OPP and you work on FIFRA, or you work at OPPT and you work on TSCA, and never the twain shall meet?
RJF: It’s mostly the latter. Everyone’s in their OPP or OPPT silo, but I think if there’s certain science expertise that’s needed that could be found in OPP, OPPT may ask for assistance, or vice versa, but depending. An example I could think about is OPP has a lot of experience in assessing cancer data, because we often get that for —
LLB: — sure —
RJF: — new active ingredients. So we could assist OPPT in that area, or they could assist OPPT in that area if they needed to.
LLB: In making the transition to the private sector, as you have — and you’ve done so very well, Rick — you seem to very much enjoy working with clients, learning what their issues are and trying to move them in a direction to having successful commercial applications of their innovations. What do you miss most about EPA?
RJF: The people. I miss all the people, everyone I worked with. Just remember, everyone at EPA is a hard worker, a great scientist. They are trying their best to get all the actions out on time. I feel for them. A lot of staff were lost recently with the various programs and the new political environment. Those who have stayed are picking up all the slack, and they’re working very hard. They’re very dedicated to the mission, and I miss them dearly.
LLB: I’m sure they miss you, but we have you now.
RJF: I am happy to be here, but I can still see my EPA colleagues at a happy hour, or maybe a holiday party, things of that nature.
LLB: Yes, of course. We are always appreciative of our colleagues at EPA. I’ve worked with EPA staff for decades, and to a person, EPA people work very hard and are very conscientious. Over the last several years, it’s not unusual to get e-mails from EPA on Sunday afternoon, on Saturday, at eight o’clock at night. People work — I know it’s a function of just the way we all are working differently these days, but I always admired the work ethic at EPA, the commitment to excellence and getting the job done, which I see in your work, Rick, all the time.
RJF: I appreciate that.
LLB: Do you have any advice for product innovators as they embark upon the very strenuous process of having, for example, a new innovation approved by EPA? In either area? I know there haven’t been a lot of new innovations in pesticides in the Antimicrobials Division where you worked, but you certainly see new innovations in the OPPT industrial chemicals area. Do you have any thoughts for people who might be starting out, or into the process already, on what they should be looking for with this EPA in either program office?
RJF: It’s not easy to register something new. I would definitely use our firm if you don’t — or someone to help you, a consultant that knows the process. I’ve been at EPA for — I was there for over 17 years, and now that I’m here at B&C and Acta, I’ve learned a couple of new things myself about the registration process. I’m constantly learning from my colleagues here, and I think if you want to increase your success, definitely have someone help you prepare your package. It’s critical. You could try to do it yourself. It could really put your new technology years and years behind if you have to start the process over, if EPA doesn’t approve your package.
LLB: It is a little quirky, for sure.
RJF: I would definitely get help, and we are here to help you, definitely. I can put a plug in for us. I know we do excellent work. I’ve been here for a couple months now, and everyone — all the staff here — are top-notch.
LLB: We definitely think so.
RJF: Yes.
LLB: But we also are here to help people.
RJF: That’s right. We are here to help. We’ll help you navigate this process in the best way that we can.
LLB: I’ve often fantasized an opportunity for having EPA staff embedded in industry programs so that EPA regulators can understand both the opportunities and the very significant challenges the private sector has in launching a new chemistry and having it reviewed and approved by EPA, whether it’s in the pesticide office or in the toxics office. I know that it isn’t possible to have that type of embedded opportunity to be kind of an intern, just to understand better the process, and vice versa — to have industry sorts embedded at EPA so we have a better understanding of the challenges (budget challenges, staff shortages, IT [information technology] issues, you name it) just so everybody has a better shared understanding of the burdens and the challenges that we each have as we embark upon working through a legally required process.
I know that’s not going to happen, but to some extent you’ve seen both sides of the aisle. Who has the harder job?
RJF: When you were asking this question, I was picturing — we used to have what’s called the crop tour in the conventional pesticide area —
LLB: Yes, that’s very popular.
RJF: — where staff could go out. They could see how the pesticides are applied, used, handled. I think that is extremely beneficial, but that is also conducive on budget, and is travel allowed. I know it’s difficult. Sometimes EPA can’t travel, or they might not have budget. Or maybe industry could foot that bill, which would be positive, but I think there’s less of that in the OPPT program, which I think would be critical to have some sort of mirror program to a crop tour, to go into the industry — maybe for a day or two — to see this process, because it is critical. There are new technologies that would be great to have on the market, but it’s just not reasonably attainable through the regulatory process as it currently stands.
LLB: No. Actually, Rich Engler and I were talking about that the other day, because we always really celebrate opportunities to have EPA staff and leadership attend plant tours, particularly on some new technology, for example, to demonstrate how the technology has been perfected and how exposures in the workplace are contained and well managed, just to give EPA a glimpse of how a product is made, especially novel technologies, where the familiarity with how something might be made is less known to the agency, so having a comparable program, like the crop tour experiences that the Office of Pesticide Programs has done for years now, right?
RJF: Yes, it’s very, very successful.
LLB: It’s very successful, yes. That would be great, but it takes time and money. Institutionally, it’s not part of the DNA of OPPT to do that. But it’s a great idea, Rick. Maybe we’ll try to work on that.
Any closing thoughts? I know you miss EPA, and your EPA colleagues miss you, but any message you have for them now that you’re on the other side of the fence?
RJF: Yes, being outside EPA, you’re working with industry directly, and industry really is 100 percent. They’re trying to be as compliant to the letter of the law, and they are using us and doing whatever they can to maintain that compliance. I’m really seeing that, and as an EPA staffer, you don’t maybe think about that from that perspective. You’re like, “Okay, I have this package to review, I’m reviewing it,” but I’m not thinking about, oh, industry is really trying to do everything in their power to follow the law, the law of the land.
LLB: That’s a great message. I’m very glad you’re here with us now, Rick. We very much enjoy all your contributions and skill sets, and working on both sides of the OPP and OPPT aisle is a real find, and we’re fortunate to have you. Thank you for joining me today in the studio and giving our listeners a glimpse of what you’ve been doing and what you’re doing now.
RJF: Yes, thank you, Lynn. I’m excited to be here.
LLB: Thank you.
Thanks again to Rick for sharing his insights on TSCA and FIFRA and how he is now deploying his considerable skills with B&C and Acta.
ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW.
©2026 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. All Rights Reserved