Fluoro Waxes Banned in the US?

[trailtrimmer]

Yeh, I'm totally expecting fake fluor to show up on eBay soon

 

[James]

I suppose I could've just bought the sunflower stuff.

It checks all the boxes. No idea how it is going down.

• 100% Biodegradable
• Plant Based
• PFC Free
• No Fluoros
• No Toxic Chemicals
• Made in the USA

https://purlwax.com/products/purl-sunflower-speed-paste-2-oz-container

 

[Dakine]

So ski racers will now be on the dark web looking to buy illegal performance enhancing substances from China to aid their performance.
Same as it ever was......
China is already the biggest manufacturer of banned fluorocarbon refrigerants so they can add to their portfolio with a niche product.

 

[cantunamunch]

China is already the biggest manufacturer of banned fluorocarbon refrigerants so they can add to their portfolio with a niche product.

Just repurpose some of the fireworks product lines.

 

[Jacques]

Ironing with lower temp (120c or even your preferred 60c) won't do anything to fluoro powders. They won't even melt, not that they would melt enough to get into ptex. So if you feel uncomfortable with 180c,then it's better to just kork it in instead of bothering with iron. Result will be way better

I'm sure it must be true. What I was saying is I never use fluorocarbon in any form. I don't race, I just ski!

 

[Primoz]

What I was saying is I never use fluorocarbon in any form. I don't race, I just ski!

I still do, but just on xc skis. It's more fun if skis are fast in xc. For alpine I never bother either

 

[Sibhusky]

I use it in the spring sometimes if I'm having issues. Usually the structure is enough, but I crayon on a bit of fluoro sometimes. Seems to help. RaceWax gave me a sample of their Universal Fluoro a few years back and I finally ran out of it... Well it got too small to hold comfortably.

 

[crgildart]

I remember when we did the same dance with this..

 

[eok]

I remember when we did the same dance with this..

I remember that stuff - but never used it. What was the issue? Did it contain a heavy metal (like lead)?

 

[crgildart]

I remember that stuff - but never used it. What was the issue? Did it contain a heavy metal (like lead)?

I think it may have had mercury in it.. Don't remember exactly..

 

[ScotsSkier]

I think it may have had mercury in it.. Don't remember exactly..

lasted forever though and really easy to rub on!

 

[scott43]

Wonder if they push the doped skiers down the hill to see how goes faster...

 

[crgildart]

lasted forever though and really easy to rub on!

Wouldn't surprise me it that was the secret to DPS Phantom.

 

[Jacques]

From Dominator Wax "Cleared by the EPA as safe for the user and environment, our patented fluorinated additives is what separates our athletes from the rest. Send us a message to order your high fluoro race wax for this championship season."

 

[Tom K.]

I heard that DPS lobbied heavily to get the EU to institute this ban.......

 

[Steve]

Copied from a Facebook Post. Thanos has been around the forums for years.


This is Thanos Karydas, and I am the founder and technical director of DOMINATOR. During the past season a number of wax companies have not delivered fluorinated waxes to their customers and a variety of explanations have been offered. We are hearing comments like “fluoro waxes have been banned,” and “the EPA is going after all the wax companies,” both of which are inaccurate. As is often the case when limited information is available, and especially in technical matters, confusion reigns supreme as misinformation is passed around. For the benefit of wax users I feel it is necessary to clarify the situation, but this will involve a somewhat lengthy explanation that goes back to basic definitions and rules. I will first explain the role of fluorochemicals in ski and snowboard waxes, and then describe how the use of fluorochemicals is controlled by government regulations. Today’s situation with fluoro waxes will become clear to everyone who reads this.

About fluorochemicals
Since the 1950’s, fluorochemicals have been widely used in many industrial and commercial applications because they offer low friction and high water and oil repellency. The best known fluorochemical is Teflon®, DuPont’s trade name for polytetrafluoroethylene or PTFE, which is used as a coating for non-stick cookwear and other metallic surfaces, on printed circuit boards, and engine components. It prevents oil, dirt and aqueous stains from sticking to the surfaces, so they stay clean. Similarly, other fluorochemicals are used in the treatment of textiles like tablecloths, raincoats and upholstery to resist rain and aqueous and oily stains.

It is often necessary to treat paper so it resists penetration by oily and water-based fluids. During a BBQ you do not want sauce, grease or salad dressing going through the plate and ending up on your lap; the inside of a microwave popcorn bag is coated to prevent the oil from migrating to the outside of the bag; and, animal food bags are coated to prevent oils and fats from soaking the bag.

Fluorochemicals are also used in the ski and snowboard wax industry. They prevent water and dirt from sticking to the base, so the base glides faster on snow.

To visualize how fluorochemicals work, think of them as microscopic umbrellas. When certain fluorochemicals are placed close to each other, they form regions of little umbrellas that are frozen in place, packed tightly, upright and parallel to each other.

This umbrella network forms a barrier that water and oil cannot go through so they roll off the treated surface. In the case of a treated ski or snowboard base, dirt and water do not stick to it, so it glides easily on wet snow and stays clean when gliding on dirty snow. Fluoro waxes were game changers for the ski and snowboard wax industry and the reality is that competitions cannot be won without them.

Because of their unique repellency properties, fluorochemicals have been used in extremely large volumes for industrial, military, and consumer applications for more than 50 years. Concerns started to develop in the 1990’s. Two synthetic chemicals, perfluorooctanoic acid (abbreviated PFOA) and perfluorooctyl sulfonic acid (abbreviated PFOS) were detected globally in the environment, and in wildlife and humans. These acids have been shown to be persistent in the environment, to bio accumulate (when they get in the body, they stay there for long periods) in wildlife and humans, and to have toxicological properties of concern.

In response to these environmental and health concerns, in 2006 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited the eight major fluorochemicals manufacturers to join in a global stewardship program and commit to working toward the elimination of these chemicals from emissions and products by 2015.

The fluorochemicals that may lead to the generation of PFOA and PFOS belong to a class called C8 fluorochemicals. Studies have found that fluorochemicals belonging to a class called C6 do not demonstrate the health and environmental concerns demonstrated by the C8 fluorochemicals. When the EPA announced the stewardship program in 2006, DOMINATOR initiated a research program aimed at replacing all C8 with C6 technology; we were soon successful and C6 technology was incorporated in our waxes long before the EPA deadline.

I believe that some on the confusion related to the perceived “ban” of fluoro waxes is related to the withdrawal of C8 technology from the market. It is important to realize that fluoro waxes are still available, but they are now based on C6 rather than C8 technology. To conclude, fluoro waxes have been reformulated but are still available.

The EPA petition process as it relates to manufacturing and importation:
Environmental stewardship, which is a means to a more sustainable future, is the responsibility for environmental quality shared by all those whose actions affect the environment. This clearly includes all chemicals manufacturers and importers, wax companies amongst them. But it is not an unregulated process, left up to the individual. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is a United States law administered by the U.S. EPA that regulates the introduction of new or already existing chemicals in the United States. Before a new substance is manufactured or imported for the first time, the manufacturer or importer must petition the EPA for permission.

At DOMINATOR, we manufacture our own fluoro additives that go into our waxes and, in 1994, our first year of operation, we successfully petitioned the EPA before introducing our fluoro waxes to the market. Later on, we converted from C8 to C6 technology to comply with the EPA stewardship directive. Importers and distributors have the same petition obligations as manufacturers and, to comply with environmental law, must know what they are importing. They must petition before the first importation and, during subsequent importations, must sign a statement that the imported products are either TSCA compliant on not subject to TSCA. Clearly, an importer must not sign this statement without knowing what is included in the imported products as there are very serious implications to non-compliance. Knowingly signing a false statement is punishable by law; signing something you don’t understand is, at the very least, foolish, and if it is a false statement, is equally punishable by law. In either case, either tell the truth or, if you don’t understand the question, find somebody who does. There is no excuse for environmental irresponsibility, the law is crystal clear on that.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gives EPA the authority to obtain information, reports, documents, or answers to questions to assess a company’s compliance to the law.
Starting, we believe, in early 2018, the EPA exercised this authority by sending requests for information regarding the use of fluorochemicals to many wax companies operating in the US, ours included. DOMINATOR responded to this request for information and continued business as usual. I understand that a number of companies voluntarily quarantined their fluorinated waxes. We have no way of knowing their motives for this action but the law is very clear: Once you state that you believe you may be in violation of the environmental law, you must immediately stop all commerce (importing, selling and distributing). Failure to do so will be seen as a criminal act and transform the case to a criminal one with everything that implies.

I am fairly certain that the unavailability of some fluorinated waxes is related to the EPA’s request for information; there is certainly no ban on fluorinated waxes that are in compliance with EPA regulations.

Some in the industry have said that the EPA is targeting wax companies, with huge possible fines that may put the smaller ones out of business. It is very wrong to see the EPA as the villain in this situation. The role of EPA is that of a gate keeper, protecting the environment and the people living in the US. Everything that we are exposed to must be scrutinized, whether it is baby powder or nuclear waste. It would be catastrophic if companies were given free rein to import or manufacture, unchecked, whatever they wanted. The EPA petition process may be time consuming and complex, and with significant costs, especially for small companies. But, for both ethical and legal reasons, it is a process that should not be bypassed.

In closing, the EPA has not banned the use of fluoro waxes; any restrictions, voluntary or involuntary, that may have been imposed are a result of compliance being scrutinized. At DOMINATOR we have complied fully with EPA regulations, and all our waxes are available and ready to ship.

 

[James]

Can we just merge this with the other fluoro thread?
https://www.pugski.com/threads/fluoro-waxes-banned-in-the-us.14244/

 

[Steve]

Oops. Please do.

 

[Jacques]

Copied from a Facebook Post. Thanos has been around the forums for years.


This is Thanos Karydas, and I am the founder and technical director of DOMINATOR. During the past season a number of wax companies have not delivered fluorinated waxes to their customers and a variety of explanations have been offered. We are hearing comments like “fluoro waxes have been banned,” and “the EPA is going after all the wax companies,” both of which are inaccurate. As is often the case when limited information is available, and especially in technical matters, confusion reigns supreme as misinformation is passed around. For the benefit of wax users I feel it is necessary to clarify the situation, but this will involve a somewhat lengthy explanation that goes back to basic definitions and rules. I will first explain the role of fluorochemicals in ski and snowboard waxes, and then describe how the use of fluorochemicals is controlled by government regulations. Today’s situation with fluoro waxes will become clear to everyone who reads this.

About fluorochemicals
Since the 1950’s, fluorochemicals have been widely used in many industrial and commercial applications because they offer low friction and high water and oil repellency. The best known fluorochemical is Teflon®, DuPont’s trade name for polytetrafluoroethylene or PTFE, which is used as a coating for non-stick cookwear and other metallic surfaces, on printed circuit boards, and engine components. It prevents oil, dirt and aqueous stains from sticking to the surfaces, so they stay clean. Similarly, other fluorochemicals are used in the treatment of textiles like tablecloths, raincoats and upholstery to resist rain and aqueous and oily stains.

It is often necessary to treat paper so it resists penetration by oily and water-based fluids. During a BBQ you do not want sauce, grease or salad dressing going through the plate and ending up on your lap; the inside of a microwave popcorn bag is coated to prevent the oil from migrating to the outside of the bag; and, animal food bags are coated to prevent oils and fats from soaking the bag.

Fluorochemicals are also used in the ski and snowboard wax industry. They prevent water and dirt from sticking to the base, so the base glides faster on snow.

To visualize how fluorochemicals work, think of them as microscopic umbrellas. When certain fluorochemicals are placed close to each other, they form regions of little umbrellas that are frozen in place, packed tightly, upright and parallel to each other.

This umbrella network forms a barrier that water and oil cannot go through so they roll off the treated surface. In the case of a treated ski or snowboard base, dirt and water do not stick to it, so it glides easily on wet snow and stays clean when gliding on dirty snow. Fluoro waxes were game changers for the ski and snowboard wax industry and the reality is that competitions cannot be won without them.

Because of their unique repellency properties, fluorochemicals have been used in extremely large volumes for industrial, military, and consumer applications for more than 50 years. Concerns started to develop in the 1990’s. Two synthetic chemicals, perfluorooctanoic acid (abbreviated PFOA) and perfluorooctyl sulfonic acid (abbreviated PFOS) were detected globally in the environment, and in wildlife and humans. These acids have been shown to be persistent in the environment, to bio accumulate (when they get in the body, they stay there for long periods) in wildlife and humans, and to have toxicological properties of concern.

In response to these environmental and health concerns, in 2006 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited the eight major fluorochemicals manufacturers to join in a global stewardship program and commit to working toward the elimination of these chemicals from emissions and products by 2015.

The fluorochemicals that may lead to the generation of PFOA and PFOS belong to a class called C8 fluorochemicals. Studies have found that fluorochemicals belonging to a class called C6 do not demonstrate the health and environmental concerns demonstrated by the C8 fluorochemicals. When the EPA announced the stewardship program in 2006, DOMINATOR initiated a research program aimed at replacing all C8 with C6 technology; we were soon successful and C6 technology was incorporated in our waxes long before the EPA deadline.

I believe that some on the confusion related to the perceived “ban” of fluoro waxes is related to the withdrawal of C8 technology from the market. It is important to realize that fluoro waxes are still available, but they are now based on C6 rather than C8 technology. To conclude, fluoro waxes have been reformulated but are still available.

The EPA petition process as it relates to manufacturing and importation:
Environmental stewardship, which is a means to a more sustainable future, is the responsibility for environmental quality shared by all those whose actions affect the environment. This clearly includes all chemicals manufacturers and importers, wax companies amongst them. But it is not an unregulated process, left up to the individual. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is a United States law administered by the U.S. EPA that regulates the introduction of new or already existing chemicals in the United States. Before a new substance is manufactured or imported for the first time, the manufacturer or importer must petition the EPA for permission.

At DOMINATOR, we manufacture our own fluoro additives that go into our waxes and, in 1994, our first year of operation, we successfully petitioned the EPA before introducing our fluoro waxes to the market. Later on, we converted from C8 to C6 technology to comply with the EPA stewardship directive. Importers and distributors have the same petition obligations as manufacturers and, to comply with environmental law, must know what they are importing. They must petition before the first importation and, during subsequent importations, must sign a statement that the imported products are either TSCA compliant on not subject to TSCA. Clearly, an importer must not sign this statement without knowing what is included in the imported products as there are very serious implications to non-compliance. Knowingly signing a false statement is punishable by law; signing something you don’t understand is, at the very least, foolish, and if it is a false statement, is equally punishable by law. In either case, either tell the truth or, if you don’t understand the question, find somebody who does. There is no excuse for environmental irresponsibility, the law is crystal clear on that.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gives EPA the authority to obtain information, reports, documents, or answers to questions to assess a company’s compliance to the law.
Starting, we believe, in early 2018, the EPA exercised this authority by sending requests for information regarding the use of fluorochemicals to many wax companies operating in the US, ours included. DOMINATOR responded to this request for information and continued business as usual. I understand that a number of companies voluntarily quarantined their fluorinated waxes. We have no way of knowing their motives for this action but the law is very clear: Once you state that you believe you may be in violation of the environmental law, you must immediately stop all commerce (importing, selling and distributing). Failure to do so will be seen as a criminal act and transform the case to a criminal one with everything that implies.

I am fairly certain that the unavailability of some fluorinated waxes is related to the EPA’s request for information; there is certainly no ban on fluorinated waxes that are in compliance with EPA regulations.

Some in the industry have said that the EPA is targeting wax companies, with huge possible fines that may put the smaller ones out of business. It is very wrong to see the EPA as the villain in this situation. The role of EPA is that of a gate keeper, protecting the environment and the people living in the US. Everything that we are exposed to must be scrutinized, whether it is baby powder or nuclear waste. It would be catastrophic if companies were given free rein to import or manufacture, unchecked, whatever they wanted. The EPA petition process may be time consuming and complex, and with significant costs, especially for small companies. But, for both ethical and legal reasons, it is a process that should not be bypassed.

In closing, the EPA has not banned the use of fluoro waxes; any restrictions, voluntary or involuntary, that may have been imposed are a result of compliance being scrutinized. At DOMINATOR we have complied fully with EPA regulations, and all our waxes are available and ready to ship.

Nice Steve. I was just going to post this too!

 

[Jacques]

This is from Thanos at Dominator Wax.

"
This is Thanos Karydas, and I am the founder and technical director of DOMINATOR. During the past season a number of wax companies have not delivered fluorinated waxes to their customers and a variety of explanations have been offered. We are hearing comments like “fluoro waxes have been banned,” and “the EPA is going after all the wax companies,” both of which are inaccurate. As is often the case when limited information is available, and especially in technical matters, confusion reigns supreme as misinformation is passed around. For the benefit of wax users I feel it is necessary to clarify the situation, but this will involve a somewhat lengthy explanation that goes back to basic definitions and rules. I will first explain the role of fluorochemicals in ski and snowboard waxes, and then describe how the use of fluorochemicals is controlled by government regulations. Today’s situation with fluoro waxes will become clear to everyone who reads this.

About fluorochemicals
Since the 1950’s, fluorochemicals have been widely used in many industrial and commercial applications because they offer low friction and high water and oil repellency. The best known fluorochemical is Teflon®, DuPont’s trade name for polytetrafluoroethylene or PTFE, which is used as a coating for non-stick cookwear and other metallic surfaces, on printed circuit boards, and engine components. It prevents oil, dirt and aqueous stains from sticking to the surfaces, so they stay clean. Similarly, other fluorochemicals are used in the treatment of textiles like tablecloths, raincoats and upholstery to resist rain and aqueous and oily stains.

It is often necessary to treat paper so it resists penetration by oily and water-based fluids. During a BBQ you do not want sauce, grease or salad dressing going through the plate and ending up on your lap; the inside of a microwave popcorn bag is coated to prevent the oil from migrating to the outside of the bag; and, animal food bags are coated to prevent oils and fats from soaking the bag.

Fluorochemicals are also used in the ski and snowboard wax industry. They prevent water and dirt from sticking to the base, so the base glides faster on snow.

To visualize how fluorochemicals work, think of them as microscopic umbrellas. When certain fluorochemicals are placed close to each other, they form regions of little umbrellas that are frozen in place, packed tightly, upright and parallel to each other.

This umbrella network forms a barrier that water and oil cannot go through so they roll off the treated surface. In the case of a treated ski or snowboard base, dirt and water do not stick to it, so it glides easily on wet snow and stays clean when gliding on dirty snow. Fluoro waxes were game changers for the ski and snowboard wax industry and the reality is that competitions cannot be won without them.

Because of their unique repellency properties, fluorochemicals have been used in extremely large volumes for industrial, military, and consumer applications for more than 50 years. Concerns started to develop in the 1990’s. Two synthetic chemicals, perfluorooctanoic acid (abbreviated PFOA) and perfluorooctyl sulfonic acid (abbreviated PFOS) were detected globally in the environment, and in wildlife and humans. These acids have been shown to be persistent in the environment, to bio accumulate (when they get in the body, they stay there for long periods) in wildlife and humans, and to have toxicological properties of concern.

In response to these environmental and health concerns, in 2006 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invited the eight major fluorochemicals manufacturers to join in a global stewardship program and commit to working toward the elimination of these chemicals from emissions and products by 2015.

The fluorochemicals that may lead to the generation of PFOA and PFOS belong to a class called C8 fluorochemicals. Studies have found that fluorochemicals belonging to a class called C6 do not demonstrate the health and environmental concerns demonstrated by the C8 fluorochemicals. When the EPA announced the stewardship program in 2006, DOMINATOR initiated a research program aimed at replacing all C8 with C6 technology; we were soon successful and C6 technology was incorporated in our waxes long before the EPA deadline.

I believe that some on the confusion related to the perceived “ban” of fluoro waxes is related to the withdrawal of C8 technology from the market. It is important to realize that fluoro waxes are still available, but they are now based on C6 rather than C8 technology. To conclude, fluoro waxes have been reformulated but are still available.

The EPA petition process as it relates to manufacturing and importation:
Environmental stewardship, which is a means to a more sustainable future, is the responsibility for environmental quality shared by all those whose actions affect the environment. This clearly includes all chemicals manufacturers and importers, wax companies amongst them. But it is not an unregulated process, left up to the individual. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is a United States law administered by the U.S. EPA that regulates the introduction of new or already existing chemicals in the United States. Before a new substance is manufactured or imported for the first time, the manufacturer or importer must petition the EPA for permission.

At DOMINATOR, we manufacture our own fluoro additives that go into our waxes and, in 1994, our first year of operation, we successfully petitioned the EPA before introducing our fluoro waxes to the market. Later on, we converted from C8 to C6 technology to comply with the EPA stewardship directive. Importers and distributors have the same petition obligations as manufacturers and, to comply with environmental law, must know what they are importing. They must petition before the first importation and, during subsequent importations, must sign a statement that the imported products are either TSCA compliant on not subject to TSCA. Clearly, an importer must not sign this statement without knowing what is included in the imported products as there are very serious implications to non-compliance. Knowingly signing a false statement is punishable by law; signing something you don’t understand is, at the very least, foolish, and if it is a false statement, is equally punishable by law. In either case, either tell the truth or, if you don’t understand the question, find somebody who does. There is no excuse for environmental irresponsibility, the law is crystal clear on that.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gives EPA the authority to obtain information, reports, documents, or answers to questions to assess a company’s compliance to the law.
Starting, we believe, in early 2018, the EPA exercised this authority by sending requests for information regarding the use of fluorochemicals to many wax companies operating in the US, ours included. DOMINATOR responded to this request for information and continued business as usual. I understand that a number of companies voluntarily quarantined their fluorinated waxes. We have no way of knowing their motives for this action but the law is very clear: Once you state that you believe you may be in violation of the environmental law, you must immediately stop all commerce (importing, selling and distributing). Failure to do so will be seen as a criminal act and transform the case to a criminal one with everything that implies.

I am fairly certain that the unavailability of some fluorinated waxes is related to the EPA’s request for information; there is certainly no ban on fluorinated waxes that are in compliance with EPA regulations.

Some in the industry have said that the EPA is targeting wax companies, with huge possible fines that may put the smaller ones out of business. It is very wrong to see the EPA as the villain in this situation. The role of EPA is that of a gate keeper, protecting the environment and the people living in the US. Everything that we are exposed to must be scrutinized, whether it is baby powder or nuclear waste. It would be catastrophic if companies were given free rein to import or manufacture, unchecked, whatever they wanted. The EPA petition process may be time consuming and complex, and with significant costs, especially for small companies. But, for both ethical and legal reasons, it is a process that should not be bypassed.

In closing, the EPA has not banned the use of fluoro waxes; any restrictions, voluntary or involuntary, that may have been imposed are a result of compliance being scrutinized. At DOMINATOR we have complied fully with EPA regulations, and all our waxes are available and ready to ship."