Let's Talk About Forever Chemicals

You might not know it, but “forever chemicals” are all around us. They can be in products you use or encounter every day, in the soil beneath you, or in the water you drink. While they are helpful, they can also be harmful. In this episode, Frazer-Nash Consultancy expert Lauren Josey walks us through what forever chemicals (PFAS) are, how some of them can affect us, the current regulatory push to avoid harmful PFAS, and how Frazer-Nash and KBR are helping customers navigate new usage rules and embrace environmentally and human-friendly innovation.

Transcript

John Arnold 0:00

The views and opinions expressed in this episode are not necessarily those of KBR Inc. or its subsidiaries. Hello, I'm John, and this is In Orbit. Today's topic is something that affects us all, whether we know it or not, and that's a category of chemicals, per or polyfloral alcohol substances or PFAS commonly referred to as forever chemicals. Where do you see them? Usually in things labeled as waterproof or oil, grease, or heat resistant. And while there are thousands of excellent use cases, humankind might be paying a high price later for that perceived convenience today, in both health and nature-related consequences. And with us here today to talk about it is Lauren Josie. Lauren is a consultant with Fraser Nash Consultancy, a KBR company. Welcome to the podcast, Lauren.

Lauren Josey 1:22

Hi there. Thank you for having me. I'm so glad to finally talk to you about this really important subject to me. So thank you.

John Arnold 1:29

Very glad to be part of the process of spreading the message about this important topic. But before we get into PFAS, why don't you tell us about yourself and your career?

Lauren Josey 1:40

Yeah, of course. So I joined Fraser Nash Consultancy back in September 2023 as a graduate. So in my third year, I did a placement year in a small lab and I was working on formulating conductive inks for printed electronics. So that's where I started out in the world of work. And then in my final year of university, I did a project on solid state electrolytes for lithium-ion batteries, and kind of looking into different electrolytes and the safety benefits they could have over your traditional liquid electrolytes, that kind of thing. And then after university, I didn't really know what I wanted to do. I didn't want to stay in the lab every single day. Lab works great. I think every chemist loves it, but I didn't want to be in the lab every single day. So I heard about Fraser Nash from, I think it was a family member actually. They mentioned it to me. And there was a role for a graduate engineer in the materials performance team and joined in September. And since then I've been doing various different things, and my role kind of sits at the intersection, I suppose, between chemistry and material science. And so cutting across both of those topics to help clients at the end of the day. And a lot of it involves translating chemistry or science concepts to those with very different backgrounds to myself. So often I'm in the room with civil engineers or mechanical engineers and trying to explain chemistry to them, essentially, which has its challenges at times, but it's interesting.

John Arnold 3:18

That's extremely important to have someone in the room that can translate these concepts to people who may not know what it is that they're listening to. That's an extremely interesting job as someone who lives sort of in that world. I could completely empathize. In your position as a consultant and with your background in chemistry and the like, what kinds of problems are you helping customers solve there at Fraser Nash?

Lauren Josey 3:40

Yeah, so a real mix of things. I've worked across various different industries since being at Fraser Nash. I've done defense work looking at mainly materials assurance. So that's looking at the compliance regulation side of materials and chemicals. Also, I've done some civil nuclear work. So that's been in your standard fission reactors, new build, and also in small modular reactors, SMRs. I've done some bits and bobs around coolant chemistry, coatings, that kind of thing. And also in fusion recently as well, looking at what materials are needed for fusion and can withstand fusion environments. And then also done some work in the water industry. So that's been looking at pipe degradation failure mechanisms, also chemical contamination in water. So a lot of my work is around chemistry, materials challenges, compliance with regulations, but also looking at the life cycle of assets or products and degradation mechanisms, that kind of thing. I suppose the key passion of mine, though, is around chemical contamination and especially around PFAS.

John Arnold 4:50

I love listening to people tell me about their jobs and that it sounds so interesting. You said PFAS, I said it in the introduction. What in the world is a per or polyfluoral alcohol substance?

Lauren Josey 5:03

Yeah, so it's a bit of a mouthful, per or polyfluoroal alcohol substances, often abbreviated to PFAS for obvious reasons. And they're commonly referred to as forever chemicals. So these are a group of synthetic, so man-made chemicals that we've been using now since around the 1940s, 1950s, they started to really become popular. And they're chemicals that have really excellent properties. So that's why we use them so widely. Thousands of chemicals in the PFAS group, depending on which definition you use. And the definitions do vary in different industries or different people use different definitions. But generally they are oil-resistant, grease resistant, heat resistant, waterproof, so they repel water, and you can tune the properties of the chemical depending on how you make it. So the key thing around PFAS is that they have very strong bonds in their chemical structure. So they have carbon to fluorine bonds. You might remember from school days, listeners might remember the chemical structures on the board. But so we have carbon bonded to fluorine, and that's the strongest bond in organic chemistry. So they don't break down very naturally because it takes so much energy to break that bond up. So when we release PFAS into the environment, like we have done for many, many years now, just by using them, the carbon-fluorine bond doesn't want to break down and they hang around like crazy in the environment. So they persist for many decades and they also bioaccumulate as well. So in ecosystems, in animals, and in people, the levels of PFAS are rising. And we're seeing now that a lot of people will have PFAS in their bloodstream, so measurable amounts of PFAS within us, and even in samples of breast milk and things like that. So it it's a really big challenge that we're facing at the moment in the environment. But it's close to home, really, as well, because uh they're within us. Right.

John Arnold 7:02

So where in life would the lay person, the average person, not just in the engineering world, encounter PFAS?

Lauren Josey 7:09

Yeah, so as I've mentioned, they are used in so many different places. Their use has been extremely widespread for many years now in both industry, as you said, but also in consumer products. So if we're looking at industry, we'll start with that first. We're looking at things like firefighting foams, electronic components, lubricants and coatings, things like textile treatments to make things fire resistant or stain resistant, and also in construction materials like waterproof coatings for roofs or sealants in some cases. And then in consumer products, so things that we interact with on the daily, nonstick pans, so nonstick cookware, things like Teflon are made from PFAS. Fast food packaging is often cardboard that's been coated with a PFAS coating to stop the food sticking to the cardboard essentially. Also things like waterproof clothing, cosmetics, even. So if you see a cosmetic product that's branded as this will last for 24 or 48 hours, which I'm not really sure why you'd want in the first place. But that will typically have a PFAS like mascara or foundation, um a PFAS molecule within it, and even some cleaning products as well. So as a general rule of thumb, if something is oil, water, heat, or stain resistant, there's a high chance of PFAS being involved in that product somewhere.

John Arnold 8:36

Yeah, I'm thinking of myriad containers under my kitchen sink right now. And then also, as far as answering your question about you, I don't know, you might be out for a couple of days and it'd be the need of 24-hour, 48-hour mascara. Who knows? So you and I spoke previously, and you mentioned that there is a regulatory push to restrict their usage. And I guess we'll get into some of the long-term effects. Is that regulatory push to restrict global or is that specific to the UK right now?

Lauren Josey 9:07

Yeah, great question. So there is, I would say, a global trend towards phasing PFAS out, and that's through restrictions in their use in certain products. So especially in consumer products, things like cosmetics, there's a greater need to restrict PFAS in those products, or whether it be outright bans on their usage or an increase in reporting requirements. So that's where if you're using these chemicals in processes or products or systems, you have to declare to the supply chain that look, this is where a PFAS molecule is being used, this is why it's being used, and explain that. So in the UK, PFAS are primarily regulated under the UK REACH framework. So that's our chemicals legislation framework. And the Health and Safety Executive, HSE, is currently assessing PFAS as a group of chemicals and looking into future restrictions on their use. And that's kind of closely aligned with some of the stuff that we're seeing going on in the EU. I'll get onto that in a second. But we're also seeing tightening of restrictions in drinking water, and that's to reflect the kind of growing mounting evidence now that PFAS are harmful to human health. Not all PFAS, I should say, there's different groups of PFAS, and some are more harmful than others. But generally, so they're being monitored more closely in drinking water. And there are some targeted bans that are already in force in the UK. So, for example, PFOA is one molecule and that's got eight carbons in the chemical structure. And related substances to PFOA have been banned now in firefighting foams. So there's certain niche use cases where they are getting banned or restricted more tightly. When you look over to the EU, the European Chemicals Agency has proposed a broad ban on PFAS, quite a sweeping restriction under their regulations. And that could potentially see a huge impact in the global kind of PFAS landscape. Individual countries in Europe are taking stricter approaches. So Denmark's a really good example. They're pretty hot on their chemicals legislation, and they have banned PFAS in food packaging, and they're also moving towards restrictions in, I think, textiles, things like waterproof clothing and shoes. So it depends on the country slightly in Europe. And then in the US, for your interest, there's obviously not a single nationwide ban, and regulation varies significantly by state. So there's some federal action that's increasing via the Environmental Uh Protection Agency, particularly around drinking water limits and how you designate different hazardous chemicals. But it depends on the state. Some states that are stricter, California and New York.

John Arnold 12:05

That makes sense.

Lauren Josey 12:05

I think they're leading the way, yeah, with some restrictions in consumer products like cosmetics and the like. So regulation definitely isn't harmonized and it depends on the jurisdiction that you're in. But we I think we're clearly heading towards tighter controls and also kind of holding manufacturers more accountable than we have done in the past. And I think that plays into some of the polluter pays principles. I don't know if you've heard that term before, but looking at the people that are polluting the environment, the organizations that are actually polluting the environment and making them either pay sums of money to help with remediation or carrying out remediation themselves.

John Arnold 12:47

Lauren, I'm sure that this is different from PFAS to PFAS, depending on what the chemical is or its use case, besides accumulation of these things sitting around forever. What are some of the effects that people can experience from some of the more severe uses of PFAS? You mentioned it being found in the bloodstream, for example.

Lauren Josey 13:08

Yeah, so there's a lot of evidence now that has tied PFAS, again, certain PFAS molecules, to increased risk of certain cancers, reproduction issues and fertility issues, organ damage as well. So serious health effects from some of these PFAS, especially in high doses. So we've seen cases where people that have worked at factories in industry that have dealt with a lot of PFAS in their lifetime will be more likely, obviously, to experience significant health impacts than a general person going about their day-to-day life. But I think the important thing to get across here to the listeners is that it does affect all of us and we are all getting exposed in our everyday lives, even if we're not working in an industry where PFAS use is very prevalent. So yeah, that's what I'd say to that.

John Arnold 14:00

Excellent. Thank you for answering that one a little off the cuff. So what has been the impact of regulation, say supply chains, manufacturers, infrastructure developers, etc.

Lauren Josey 14:11

The most common thing that I see in this is in in every industry that's dealing with the PFAS problem, which is every industry, is confusion. I think people are confused about PFAS. Organizations are trying to understand where they're using PFAS, where PFAS are present in their products or in their assets, where they're present in their supply chains, especially supply chains are so complicated and the correct information's not always flown up the chain. Right. So I think some of our clients have faced issues where they know there's PFAS somewhere in their product. They don't know how it got there. They're not getting the right declarations from their suppliers around PFAS. So that's a real issue. And they're also grappling with what's actually regulated now versus what might be next on the horizon. So again, because it varies so much in different jurisdictions and it's changing quite rapidly. Obviously, regulation takes time to get going. Right. Um, but there's definitely it's definitely a hot topic. So those are the two main things. Obviously, there's a cost associated with acting on PFAS. So whether that's testing new formulations right at the start of the development phases, whether that's redesigning products so that you are replacing PFAS-containing parts or components or substituting things entirely, there's going to be a huge cost for companies that are dealing with that. But I think there's also possibly going to be an even larger cost through inaction. So if regulation comes into force more aggressively, there could be huge lawsuits, there could be cases, liability around not adhering to the law around PFAS or contaminating land. There's also the impact of losing market access when regulation changes. So I know that a lot of chemical companies are confused if they are supplying into different jurisdictions what it might mean. If one gets changes in the law around PFAS and the other one doesn't, do they keep making PFAS? Do they stop completely or only sell to one market? But I think another piece of the puzzle really is it's forcing industries to ask what uses are genuinely critical. So there are critical uses for PFAS, and we're not going to totally get rid of all PFAS. That's nobody really thinks that's going to happen. Right. But there are plenty of cases, and we've done this for many years because they're really great products. There's a reason we use them in so many different things where we are over-engineering things. We don't need such high-performing materials in some systems or in some products. Makeup's a classic example.

John Arnold 16:55

Right.

Lauren Josey 16:55

Why do you need it for 48 hours? Right. Why do we need a PFAS containing mascara right next to your eyes? So I think people that use PFAS in products, systems, assets, infrastructure need to look at is it a critical, genuine use case? And there will be those in aerospace, in defence and the like. Or can we accept a less perfect material? Can we maybe replace something a little bit more often if it's degrading a bit quicker, or something like that? And I think the final piece is that it is driving innovation. As more regulation comes through, we will see more innovation. And that's all the way from university labs looking at different chemicals that can replace use cases all the way through to scaling up production by chemical manufacturers. I think one example that I'd really like to talk about is ski wax. Ski wax was typically always containing PFAS because of their, again, really excellent properties, non-slip properties. The I think it was the International Ski and Snowboard Federation banned PFAS in ski wax. It didn't happen overnight, but relatively quickly, manufacturers adopted fluorine-free alternatives, and they actually have really excellent characteristics, very similar to their PFAS-containing counterparts. And now testing's really widely performed in the ski industry. And I believe there were even disqualifications at the Winter Olympics this year when people were found to have PFAS-containing ski waxes because they are banned now. I think that's a really great story where quite a niche product that was reliant on PFAS now broadly doesn't use fluorine chemistry at all and uses different types. So yeah, that's a success story, really. And I'd like to see lots of different products go that way.

John Arnold 18:45

I'm really interested in our listeners hearing more about opportunities for innovation for safer materials, what those look like, what those alternatives are made out of. Way to go ski industry, way to go ski in snowboards.

Lauren Josey 19:00

Yeah, so I think it's important to talk about safer here. So the definition of safer, it's going to depend massively on the use case, the exposure pathway, the life cycle of the PFAS. To put it bluntly, there's no drop-in replacement. You can't say, oh yeah, you use PFAS here, just use this different chemical, and that'll solve all your problems. That's not going to be the case in the vast, vast majority of uses. So innovation is not just about swapping chemicals, it's about rethinking your performance requirements. So what are you actually trying to get out of the product? Some of the answers are using non-fluorinated coatings, so things like silicons or wax-based treatments or polyurethanes instead. There's been a fair amount of research into bio-inspired materials. So can we use cellulose and starch-based structures to replace PFAS? Because if we look to nature generally in chemistry, there's a big drive to look into more natural solutions to stuff. And how do we use something that nature does so well and it's been engineered over thousands of years to do a purpose really well? How can we use that to inspire a next generation of chemicals? So there's that. And then there's also redesigning the materials we already have. So could you almost layer packaging in such a way so that it doesn't need a coating on the outside to make things not stick to it? Or could you use a fabric with a much tighter weave built into it so that it is more naturally stain resistant or use more natural fibres instead of using things like polyester and that kind of thing? Generally, innovation at the moment is mostly in consumer products, like the Skiwax example. High-tech uses like electronic components and the like are still very reliant on PFAS. So it will be exciting to see in the coming years when more research is going into areas like that, what researchers can come up with really. Another thing to note on innovation and creating safer products and safer materials is that we want to avoid a thing called regrettable substitution. That is where you replace one hazardous or persistent chemical with another that you think is safer and it gets around the regulations because it's not one of the banned substances. But later it comes out, and as more research is done, that it has very similar properties to the original chemical that you phased out. So a good example of this is Gen X was a chemical that was manufactured and it was used to replace PFOA. That's just another carbon eight carbons in the structure, used a lot in firefighting frames historically, and that is now being banned a lot. But Gen X, that was meant to be safer than PFOA, was actually found to have similar health effects, similar toxical. Effects and was actually more difficult to remove from water than the original one. So that's where regrettable substitution will inevitably happen as regulation comes in. Because manufacturers sometimes want an easy get-out, or we'll just replace it with this. It's very similar. But I'd like to see people avoiding that wherever possible because that is not the answer. And we really do need to look at our performance requirements and think about different materials. And different materials may be more expensive, they may be less durable, they may be less heat resistant or not have as good performance characteristics. But in some cases, that's fine.

John Arnold 22:40

How are you and your colleagues at Fraser Nash helping customers navigate PFAS regulation and or adopting more sustainable, healthier alternatives that are not regrettable substitutions?

Lauren Josey 22:54

So at Fraser Nash, we kind of sit at the intersection of engineering, science, also looking into regulation. We've got plenty of sustainability experts. And we can help companies understand the ever-changing chemicals regulations, especially in the UK since we exited the EU. There's not been a huge amount of change since we adopted the law, but now there is more change coming. We can help companies with risk assessments on where PFAS may be used in the supply chain. So going back to that question of how are these PFAS here? We know we've got PFAS. Where on earth are they coming from? What items are they likely to be used in? We can help explore different alternatives depending on the use case. So helping with those performance requirements and whether you can accept a less highly performing material for the certain use case that the client might have, and also supporting some of that testing and validation to check, okay, yeah, this material will be okay. It will degrade in this way under these conditions, etc. And I think we play a role in that whole life cycle thinking, not just is a replacement legal today and is it safer, but what happens from production to use right through to disposal of that PFAS-containing product. I think we can help with that. Most importantly, I think when it comes to something like this, because there can be a lot of debate around a subject like this. There's a lot of public pressure around chemical contamination, especially in the water supply and the like and in consumer products. So we're independent and any advice that we give on PFAS isn't tied to a particular product or removal technology. And we, I'd like to think, and I certainly do, genuinely care about people in the environment. So we actually want to help.

John Arnold 24:44

I love that. I genuinely care too, and I want people to care more about PFAS. We just have a few more questions, but I'm interested in learning more and on our listeners learning more about the disposal process and what that looks like, I guess, especially in the industrial space.

Lauren Josey 25:01

At the moment, a lot of the onus to deal with PFAS contamination has been put on water companies.

John Arnold 25:08

Right.

Lauren Josey 25:09

So obviously, we're trying to get to more of a polluter pays principle where polluters have to pay for or undertake remediation themselves. But at the moment, and especially in the UK context, a lot of it is falling on the shoulders of water companies because they have limits, they have to keep clean water safe for people to drink. So it's typically removed by ion exchange resins or by activated carbon filters at the moment in water. Another thing to note here is that it's a bit easier to test for PFAS in water. They do contaminate soils, but it's soils a much more complicated matrix to test in a lab. There's just more going on with it. So water's where a lot of the focus for testing has been so far. So you've got a filter media, right, with PFAS in it. So you filtered out water and you've got PFAS on this filter. Where does that go then? You've got a heavily laden material with loads of PFAS on it. So it's typically regenerated, it's heated up or incinerated to really high temperatures, PFAS waste is. Obviously, that has a huge energy cost, a bunch of carbon emissions, because there's a lot of carbon in PFAS molecules, and it's really expensive. So to get them that hot, that's a whole challenge in itself. There's a lot of work being done in other technologies like using sonolysis, so you little bubbles and cavitation effects to break up PFAS molecules. So that's interesting, and a couple of others, other more quirky ones as well. But a key thing and how I think about it is that we don't want to shift PFAS around. We don't want to just send it somewhere else and then let it get into the environment again and we're distribute it and get far and wide then across the earth. We actually want to properly dispose of the PFAS molecules. And yeah, at the moment it is through incineration.

John Arnold 26:59

I'm certainly not a scientist, but then I wonder, you know, KBR has a long history in carbon capture, storage, utilization. And I wonder if there's some way to combine the destruction of PFAS chemicals, and then because it is so carbon intensive, to then somehow harness the power of that carbon for other uses.

Lauren Josey 27:15

Yeah, that's an interesting thought.

John Arnold 27:16

Hey, there you go. Tell them I thought of it when it goes when it goes mainstream. So what does the push for less PFAS mean for industries and regular people in the long term?

Lauren Josey 27:30

Yeah, so for industry, it means more regulation, as we've said, and more scrutiny of the materials and the chemicals they're using. But hopefully more transparency, more transparency throughout the whole supply chain and in the products and systems and assets that they're supplying to others. Short term, there's going to be pain. There's going to be cost implications, especially if entire supply chains need to be reviewed and changed. But long term, as we've mentioned, I think there'll be innovation and I think really great things will come out of it. And then for regular people, hopefully it will lead to safer, cleaner water, safer consumer products that might be higher cost in the short term, but have less hidden risks, really. And possibly one of the downsides for consumers is that there'll be fewer magic materials, I like to call them. So like your nonstick pans that some people have thought have just been incredible products that we've all made use of over the years. There might be fewer of those because we're accepting a less highly performing material. Unless maybe researchers find something else that's safer and equally as highly performing. But we'll we'll see about that.

John Arnold 28:44

Yeah, to all of our cooks out there, this podcast is not paid for by the uh carbon fiber woven pan industry.

Lauren Josey 28:51

I think it's important to say that we have been used to kind of ease and performance of products at any cost, and we need to move away from that really to help the environment and to help ourselves. So I think it'll be disruptive at first, but I think for the better in the long run.

John Arnold 29:10

Yeah, this portion of the podcast is definitely more opinion that human consumers in general have sacrificed a lot for perceived convenience and speed, and by adopting a little more analog methods of things or more natural alternatives, while there might be some pain at first, that we can reteach ourselves very quickly as is evidenced by our very rapid adoption of technologies and all sorts of other things. So that's that's very, very interesting. Lauren Josie, is there anything else that you would like to leave our listeners with before I let you go today?

Lauren Josey 29:41

Yeah, so I think the key one is that PFAS is not a niche environmental issue that you only worry about if you're tucked away in a lab somewhere or you're an environmentalist. It does affect all of us in everyday life, and it's a really complex challenge, and that needs amazing engineers, researchers, scientists working on it, but also consumers who are more informed and making some more conscious choices about the products that they do use. So change is happening, there's hope, but it's gradual and it's not perfect yet.

John Arnold 30:16

Well, we will hope for the best, and we will rely on you and the other good people at Fraser Dash Consultancy to help us find the path forward.

Lauren Josey 30:24

Definitely.

John Arnold 30:24

Lauren Josty, thanks so much for joining us today.

Lauren Josey 30:27

Thank you so much for having me. It's been great.

John Arnold 30:35

Well, as Lauren Josie said, PFAS is not a niche issue. It's something that affects us all. We want to thank Lauren again for her time and expertise, sharing with us her knowledge on this important subject and for the work she's doing at Fraser Nash Consultancy to help us clean up our collective act. If you are interested in the work Lauren and her colleagues are doing, you can learn more at fnc.co.uk or over at kbr.com. Also, if you have an idea for a topic or a subject matter expert for a future episode, please let us hear from you. You can email us at inorbit at kbr.com. As always, we want to thank everyone out there who's listening. Hopefully, you're enjoying the podcast and learning a few things from it. We do it for you after all, and we appreciate you taking some time out of your day and keeping us in your orbit. Be kind to each other and take care.