December 18, 2024

Ecology Proposes Restrictions on PFAS in Outdoors Apparel and Ski Wax: What Does that Mean for Skiers and Snowboarders?

Washington State Department of Ecology recently proposed a rule that implements reporting requirements on outdoor apparel and gear containing PFAS starting in 2026 as well as restrictions on the manufacture and sale of certain PFAS-containing apparel and gear in 2027.

This rule proposal is part of the Safer Products for Washington Program, which aims to address the presence of PFAS in consumer goods. Ecology’s draft rule, published in September 2024, signals a significant shift in how the Washington state outdoor industry will manage PFAS—particularly in gear essential to skiers, snowboarders, mountaineers, and other outdoor enthusiasts.

Why are PFAS of Particular Concern to the Outdoor Industry? 

The outdoor industry widely uses PFAS to make clothing and equipment waterproof and durable. And PFAS-containing wax is used to enhance glide and increase speed on skis and snowboards. Skiers and snowboarders in the Pacific Northwest know a waterproof layer and a good application of ski wax can make or break a day in Cascade Concrete!

However, the very properties that make PFAS so useful—like their resistance to water—also make them highly persistent in the environment and bio-accumulative in the human body.

For example, a study out of Colby College in Maine, found high PFAS levels in snow, groundwater, and soils on the college’s Nordic ski race track. Similar studies at ski resorts in Austria revealed that soils contained PFAS concentrations up to four times higher than control sites. This is especially problematic in areas where glacial melt is a large component of the drinking water supply—such as Washington, California, Oregon, and Utah.

In addition to environmental concerns, one study found that professional ski waxers have particularly high concentrations of PFAS in their blood. Exposure to PFAS has been linked to serious health issues, including cancer, reproductive problems, thyroid conditions, and developmental delays. And, these chemicals also accumulate in wildlife, with species higher on the food chain, such as Southern Resident Orcas, being particularly vulnerable to their negative impacts.

Ecology’s Draft Rule Proposes Bans and Restriction on PFAS in Outdoor Apparel and Gear

Ecology, in partnership with the Washington State Department of Health, implements the Washington Toxic Pollution Law (RCW 70A.350), known as the “Safer Products for Washington Program.” This program aims to reduce the use of harmful chemicals in consumer products.

In 2022 Ecology identified PFAS in outdoor apparel and gear as priority products of concern. In May 2024 Ecology published a study analyzing the use of PFAS in these product categories, evaluating whether safer alternatives are available, and determining the best methods to mitigate exposure. If there are safer reasonable alternatives for a product, then Ecology recommended phasing out and restricting PFAS in those products. If there are no safer reasonable alternatives, then Ecology recommended reporting requirements.

Ecology determined that there are alternatives to PFAS for some products—such as alternative fabrics and wicking technologies for waterproof clothing. However, it determined that no suitable substitutes were available for some “extended use” outdoor apparel and gear designed for “experts.”

Based on its study, Ecology’s draft rule states that, starting in 2027, “No person may manufacture, sell, or distribute” most apparel containing intentionally added PFAS in Washington. Certain products, such as high-performance gear defined as “outdoor apparel designed for experts or professionals who are exposed to extreme weather for extended periods of time,” are not yet subject to PFAS restrictions, but will be subject to reporting requirements starting in 2026. Violation of the rule could result in civil penalties up to $5,000 for a first violation and $10,000 for repeat offenses.

The reporting requirements apply to all persons who manufacture, distribute, sell (including online), or offer to sell a product that contains PFAS in Washington State. The reporting requirements include submitting a list to Ecology of all PFAS-containing products manufactured or sold in the state, as well as the amount of and type of PFAS in the products. Notably, the requirements do not cover the recycling or disposal of existing stock. And, while reporting requirements apply to gear manufactured before 2027, the restriction on sales does not apply to gear manufactured before 2027. The reporting will be publicly available.

In addition to alternatives for apparel and gear, Ecology also considered alternatives to PFAS in ski wax. Because ski wax formulations are often proprietary, Ecology has been unable to determine if safer alternatives exist. Therefore, the draft rule proposes a reporting requirement for wax starting in 2026, rather than a complete ban on PFAS in wax.

While Ecology’s draft rule currently proposes only a reporting requirement for expert gear and ski wax, consumer groups are advocating for Ecology to turn those reporting requirements into complete bans.

What the Proposal Means for Outdoor Apparel Manufacturers, Retailers, and Consumers

While the proposed rules may seem burdensome, many outdoor brands are already working towards phasing out PFAS in their products. Notable brands like Patagonia have pledged to be PFAS-free by 2025, and Burton has committed to eliminating PFAS by winter 2026. The International Ski Federation (FIS) banned PFAS in ski wax during the 2023-2024 ski season and enforced the ban by testing racer’s skis for banned substances.

In the absence of a federal rule, each state is dealing with the PFAS issue differently. Along with Washington, numerous other states are also implementing regulations on PFAS in apparel and wax. Vermont banned the sale of PFAS-containing wax in 2023, Minnesota’s ban goes into effect in 2025, and Colorado’s and Maine’s respective bans go into effect in 2026. Further, California and New York have enacted bans and reporting requirements on PFAS in certain apparel starting in January 2025.

In Washington, Ecology has set a very low threshold for what qualifies as a product containing PFAS. For example, while California sets the reporting threshold at 100 ppm, Ecology presumes the presence of PFAS if total fluorine is detected in the product. This low threshold could have the effect of a de facto ban on all products containing PFAS, as detecting any level of fluorine may trigger reporting obligations.

Another challenge lies in Ecology’s broad definition of “outdoor apparel” and “gear,” which includes a wide range of products—from jackets to fishing waders, backpacks, sleeping bags, camping furniture, and climbing rope. And, while the draft regulation proposes only reporting requirements on “extended use” gear for experts, in practice there is no clear guidance on what qualifies gear as professional-level.

Further, although previously owned items are exempt from the sales ban, they are still subject to reporting requirements. This raises concerns for gear exchanges and thrift stores, which may be required to track the PFAS content of used items—further complicating the regulatory landscape.

PFAS reporting requirements may also be challenging on the technical side. There are very few labs that have the capability to test for specific PFAS and there are no standardized methods for testing PFAS across labs. Manufacturers and retailers should think ahead about possible delays in testing capabilities due to lab shortages. The lack of standardization also means identical products may show different levels or type of PFAS depending on what lab performs the testing.

Finally, because reporting requirements are publicly available, it may expose manufacturers and sellers to third party litigation.

Looking Ahead: The Landscape of Ecology’s Regulation of PFAS in the Ski Industry in Washington State

Ecology is expected to release a final rule on PFAS in outdoor apparel and gear by December 2025. This leaves manufacturers and retailers with limited time to adjust their operations and inventory and to perform required lab testing, if the final rule maintains a January 2026 initial reporting deadline. Because non-compliance could result in fines and penalties, it’s crucial for industry stakeholders to begin preparing their PFAS reporting teams and assessing products for compliance.

This is likely just the tip of the iceberg for regulation of PFAS within Washington State’s broader outdoor industry. Given that much of the state’s drinking water is sourced from glacial melt that passes through ski resorts and popular backcountry trails, Ecology may focus its regulatory efforts around these locations. This could include increased enforcement efforts regarding PFAS in wastewater treatment plants, groundwater, drinking water, and soils in and around ski resorts. These efforts would complement Ecology’s recent incorporation of PFAS reporting into the Industrial Stormwater General Permit (ISGP)  and inclusion of PFAS in the state’s updated Aquatic Life Criteria.