No progress on rule restricting PFAS & flame retardants
Canada is strengthening its regulatory framework for toxic substances, particularly targeting per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and flame retardants due to their persistence in the environment and harmful effects. The Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations 2022 aims to restrict the manufacture, use, sale and import of chemicals such as Dechlorane Plus (DP) and Decabromodiphenyl Ethane (DBDPE), as well as products containing these substances. The proposed regulations would also extend restrictions on perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids (LC-PFCAs), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which are already subject to prohibition—with some exemptions—under the current regulations. These substances are of concern because of their potential for long-term environmental damage and bioaccumulation.
The 2022 proposal seeks not only to improve environmental protection but also to align with international agreements such as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Additionally, it aims to streamline Canada’s existing regulations by consolidating and clarifying the rules surrounding toxic substances.
While the regulatory framework was initially expected to be finalized in 2023, the Government of Canada announced a delay in August of that year, pushing the release of the final rule to no earlier than Summer 2024. As of Autumn 2024, there remains no clear timeline for when the final regulations will be published, leaving industries and environmental groups awaiting further updates.
State of PFAS Report & mandatory data submission
In July 2024, Canada released an updated draft of its State of PFAS Report, offering a comprehensive analysis of PFAS across the country. The revised draft incorporates a significant amount of feedback and data gathered during the initial consultation period, as well as information from additional sources. It aims to provide a qualitative assessment of the fate, sources, occurrence and potential impacts of PFAS on both the environment and human health.
In parallel, a mandatory information request was initiated for the 2023 calendar year, requiring companies to report on 312 types of PFAS that were manufactured, imported or used in Canada above specified thresholds. The deadline for submitting information—including company details, facility information, quantities of substances handled and data on related goods—is Jan. 29, 2025. Although foreign suppliers are not directly obligated to report, they are “encouraged to inform” their Canadian importers, promoting collaboration across supply chains to ensure accurate and comprehensive reporting. Health Canada has published a guidance manual for responding to the mandatory data submission notice, which outlines who is responsible for submitting information and how to complete the submission; as well, it explains the reporting thresholds and activities for PFAS listed in the notice.
Federal Plastics Registry set for 2025 launch
As part of Canada’s broader initiative to achieve zero plastic waste by 2030, the Federal Plastics Registry has been introduced to track plastic production, imports and waste management. The registry, managed by Environment & Climate Change Canada (ECCC), will require companies to report data on the lifecycle of plastics, including details on how plastic waste is managed. Reporting will be phased in between 2025 and 2027, with categories including plastic packaging, electronics, textiles and single-use plastics.
The registry, which was first outlined in an April 2024 publication by ECCC, will provide crucial data to support efforts against plastic pollution and promote a circular economy. Additional guidance to aid companies with reporting obligations is expected soon.
The first phase of reporting will begin in September 2025, focusing on plastic products placed on the market during the 2024 calendar year. The reporting system was expected to become accessible in the second half of 2024 to give companies time to prepare, but as of the time of writing, no update has been provided. Schedule 1 of the regulation outlines the types of plastics to be reported, broken down by resin types, resin sources, packaging and other plastic products, organized into various categories and subcategories.
The Government of Canada is considering developing a suite of open standards for plastics data. Due to the fragmented way plastics data is currently collected by various public and private entities, it is difficult to compare or combine datasets. Open standards would provide consistent definitions, formats and organization, improving data interoperability. These standards would help harmonize reporting, reduce administrative burdens for businesses and facilitate the exchange of information for better understanding of plastics flows in Canada.
Recent CEPA Developments
Several key initiatives have been introduced under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), focusing on enhancing transparency, chemical safety and addressing environmental justice concerns. One significant update is the implementation of new software that uses an automated workflow to prioritize chemicals listed on the Domestic Substances List (DSL). This tool allows regulators to efficiently identify substances requiring assessment or regulatory action by analyzing factors such as toxicity, exposure and bioaccumulation. The system integrates diverse data sources, supporting more effective resource allocation and contributing to the broader modernization of CEPA’s chemical management framework.
The Government of Canada has proposed unmasking the identities of 198 chemicals on the DSL that are currently classified as confidential business information. This would involve removing the concealed names and adding these substances to Part 1 of the DSL with their Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers. These amendments, which are part of CEPA reforms under Bill S-5, allow the Minister of the Environment to disclose the identities of substances after 10 years. The 198 substances included in this notice have been listed confidentially on the DSL since 2004 or earlier. The initiative aims to enhance transparency while maintaining protections for proprietary data when necessary.
Another significant development is the passage of Bill C-226, the National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism & Environmental Justice, which received royal assent in June 2024. This legislation mandates the creation of a national strategy to address environmental racism, a phenomenon where marginalized communities are disproportionately affected by environmental hazards. The bill’s goal is to reduce exposure to harmful pollutants in these communities, while improving overall environmental health and equity. The focus now shifts to implementation, which includes developing the strategy, ensuring community involvement and ongoing monitoring to effectively address environmental injustices. Bill C-226 marks an important step toward ensuring that vulnerable populations are protected from environmental injustices. SPRAY
Most people outside of certain regulated industries have never heard of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). They may recognize that consumer products are regulated, but don’t know by who or the specific requirements that manufacturers and marketers have to meet in order for products to be available for sale.
The Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)i gives CPSC the authority to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury and/or death from consumer products, including children’s toys, off-road recreational vehicles and consumer chemical products.ii To do this effectively, the CPSC initiates rulemakings; develops voluntary standards (usually in coordination with industry); recalls products and arranges for their repair, replacement or refund; conducts research on product hazards; and provides education to consumers.
CPSC is working on a rulemakingiii on aerosol dusters, which I wrote about in the last edition of Pressure Points, but with the Commission currently considering its Fiscal Year 2025 Operating Plan,iv I want to discuss what else may be on their agenda.
The CPSC has a robust list of priorities, mostly focused on quickly identifying and communicating with consumers about hazardous products, especially those imported and sold online. This focus on aggressive enforcement stemsv from CPSC’s recent “reinvention,” which is demonstrated by the increase in notices of violation and monetary settlements.vi
In 2025, the Commission will aim to prioritize consistent enforcement of e-commerce platforms—as well as monitor post-recall actions to identify if additional compliance, enforcement or communication—is necessary. CPSC has already established numerous performance goals to assess the speed and effectiveness of these priorities.
CPSC will also continue to focus on new and ongoing regulatory activity. Beyond aerosol dusters, the Commission is expected to finalize a rule to amend mandatory information disclosure standards under Section 6(b) of the CPSAvii, which requires CPSC to provide manufacturers and marketers with advance notice and “a reasonable opportunity to submit comments” to the Commission on proposed disclosures of certain information. While this rulemaking is meant to streamline the process by which CPSC shares information with the public, the regulated community has expressed concerns that it could result in incorrect information or unintended consequences, such as damaging brand reputation.
Further, the CPSC plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to review consumer product labeling. The operating plan does not indicate what this would specifically cover, but could include enforcing existing Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) labeling requirements; ensuring products subject to certification and labeling requirements meet these obligations; reviewing consumer understanding of hazard and precautionary labeling; or something else entirely. No matter what the proposal entails, the Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA) will engage as necessary on behalf of member companies.
Finally, CPSC plans to engage in the development and/or revision of 92 voluntary standards, including chemical test methods, child-resistant packaging and flame mitigation.
The Commission also has several other ongoing projects, including support for the statistical analysis of the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) data, maintenance of the Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System (CPSRMS) and activity related to indoor air quality, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and non-animal alternative test methods.
CPSC is considerably smaller than other Federal agencies that the household and commercial products industry commonly works with, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA), but they certainly have a lot on their plate for the remainder of 2024 and into 2025.
To stay up to date on CPSC’s activity or if you have specific questions, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
i 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051−2089
ii link
iii link
iv link
v link
vi link
vii link
CARB
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) finally released the product categories planned for the next survey; these categories have the potential to be in the next round of rule development.
On Oct. 30, CARB staff presented a webinar (view the recording here). It provided Industry with rationale for the product categories selected to be surveyed. There were three drivers—the first was to fulfill the 2022 CARB State Implementation Plan (SIP).
SIP requires CARB staff to reduce emissions in Consumer Products by 20 tons per day (tpd) by 2037. To do this, CARB needs to select categories that are either high in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or high in sales, preferably both. CARB is looking for 20tpd emission reductions because it expects Consumer Product emissions to grow by 28tpd by 2037. Thus, the 20tpd reduction is only a partial amount of the total VOC growth that CARB is trying to remediate. For the first time in the Consumer Product Program history, the SIP commitment is expressed by a choice of two metrics: VOC tons or VOC–eq.
VOC-eq is new to the program and means VOC Equivalent Ozone Forming Potential (OFP). In short, VOC-eq uses reactivity to measure the amount of reduction. Reactivity has been used in the past Aerosol Coatings Multi-purpose Lubricant Alternative Compliance option and the new Innovative Product Exempt Provision for Hairspray, Dry Shampoo and Personal Fragrances. However, this is the first time that CARB will embark on product regulation by OFP. The product categories that are being considered for survey to fulfill the SIP commitment are:
• General Purpose Cleaner (non-aerosol)
• Anti-microbial Dry Hand Wash (hand sanitizer)
• Laundry Detergent
• Hand and Body Conditioner, Cream, Lotion & Moisturizer
• Air Freshener, Liquid/Pump Spray
• Deodorant
• Plastic Pipe Cement & Primer
• Disinfectant Aerosol
• Conditioner without styling claims
• Floor Wax Stripper
• Oven & Grill Cleaner (non-aerosol)
• Sunscreen (hair or body) (aerosol)
• Body Wash/Mousse/Gel/Soap/Foam/Scrub
As a qualifier, just because a category is being surveyed does not mean it will be regulated. There are many factors that could prevent a product category from being regulated. If you make products in the above categories, you should stay involved in this process or get involved in the process to protect your products.
The second driver is U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. Remember, EPA prohibited Methylene Chloride in Paint Strippers in 2019. The Paint Remover or Stripper product category has had to reformulate this product and may be using more VOC compounds. This is due to two factors:
1. Methylene Chloride is an exempt compound, meaning it does not count towards the VOC limit because the compound is not a VOC.
2. The limit for Paint Remover or Stripper has a VOC limit of 50%, but due to the use of Methylene Chloride, the actual average VOC content of this category was below 25% VOC.
Thus, manufacturers have likely raised the VOC content in their products. CARB is attempting to capture this change. Possibly there could be some VOC reductions of emissions from this product category that will assist with the SIP commitment.
The third driver is Toxics. CARB is attempting to reduce toxic chemicals from Consumer Products and has already prohibited some toxics—namely Methylene Chloride, Perchloroethylene and Trichloroethylene—from 43 consumer product categories. CARB will next be looking at Parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF) in Consumer Products. PCBTF is another compound that was an exempt VOC and used by manufacturers in the following 19 Consumer Product categories that will be surveyed by CARB:
1. Thinner/Reducer/Retardant (Motor Vehicle Coating Systems)
2. Paint Thinner (non-aerosol)
3. Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-chemically curing)
4. Lacquer Thinner
5. Footwear or Leather Care Product (all other forms)
6. Multi-purpose Solvent (non-aerosol)
7. Footwear or Leather Care Product (aerosol)
8. Clean up Solvent
9. Rust Preventative or Rust Control Lubricant (aerosol)
10. Undercoating (aerosol only)
11. Carpet & Upholstery Cleaner (non-aerosol-dilutable)
12. General Purpose Degreaser (aerosol)
13. Metal Polish/Cleanser (aerosol)
14. Cutting or Tapping Oil (aerosol)
15. General Purpose Degreaser (non-aerosol)
16. Spot Remover (non-aerosol)
17. Sealant or Caulking Compound (chemically curing)
18. Multi-purpose Dry Lubricant
19. Penetrant
Unfortunately, when CARB regulates the above categories, it will be likely that more VOC emissions will need to be achieved.
Currently, CARB is planning to survey 34 product categories. The current timeline is:
• November 15, 2024: Industry to submit comments
• November 2024: CARB to finalize Product Categories for survey
• December 2024: Webinar on Reporting Tool
• December 2024: Survey launch
• Early March 2025: Deadline for completion of survey
By Nov. 15, Industry would have needed to comment on categories. In early December, CARB will instruct Industry how to complete the survey. Finally, CARB wants the surveys to be completed by March 2025. Obviously, this is very ambitious and Industry will ask for more time.
Industry has been waiting for the survey process to begin. I encourage anyone that has products in these categories to be involved as much as possible. The survey process is only the beginning of what will likely be a two or three year process.
More to come.
Wishing you all Happy & Safe Holidays! SPRAY
In today’s business landscape, the collection and analysis of environmental data are gaining ever more importance. Companies are facing demanding sustainability regulations, while consumers are demanding greater transparency regarding the carbon footprint of the packaging they purchase. Tinplate steel manufacturer thyssenkrupp Rasselstein, based in Andernach, Germany, is addressing this need by sharing its expertise in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) with its customers—packaging manufacturers.
LCA is a methodical approach used to evaluate the environmental impact (such as CO2eq.) of a product throughout its entire life cycle. By providing detailed emissions data, thyssenkrupp Rasselstein equips its customers with insight into the environmental performance of tinplate steel. Furthermore, we offer support to customers in calculating an LCA for their own products.
“We frequently encounter customers who are keen to understand the carbon footprint of their products and identify opportunities for CO2 savings within their production processes,” explained Dr. Linda Kerkhoff, Development Engineer, Materials, Applications, Technology Dept., thyssenkrupp Rasselstein GmbH.
“In tinplate production, we recognized early on the importance of evaluating the entire product life cycle, which is why LCA has become a core component of our sustainability strategy. LCA is now embedded in our product development process from the very beginning stages,” she added.
Conducting an LCA offers numerous advantages for companies. Rasselstein packaging steel has been verified and certified by Det Norske Veritas (DNV), a global certification body in business assurance. The certification helps ensure a reliable database and calculation methodology, facilitating transparent communication with end customers, enhancing competitiveness with other packaging materials and serving as a foundation for the LCA of customer’s products.
Overall, the LCA enhances transparency, offering valuable insights into production processes and their environmental impact, thereby enabling the development of more sustainable packaging solutions.
Analysis supported
Over the past three years, thyssenkrupp Rasselstein has significantly expanded its expertise in LCA. It has developed a comprehensive energy management system that provides the essential data foundation for conducting LCAs of tinplate production. Close collaboration with colleagues at the steelworks in Duisburg, Germany, from which the hot-rolled strip for the production of tinplate is sourced, has established an additional database.
“We have access to all relevant data sets, enabling us to calculate our product’s environmental impact with precision,” said Kerkhoff. This allows the packaging steel manufacturer to comprehensively represent the entire process in its LCA, from steel production at the Duisburg plant to the point when the tinplate leaves the Andernach facility en route to the customer.
In an LCA, emissions are categorized into three different scopes. Scope 1 covers all direct emissions generated on-site, including emissions from the combustion of natural gas. Scope 2 and Scope 3 are referred to as indirect emissions. Scope 2 encompasses emissions from the generation and procurement of electricity, natural gas and steam. Scope 3 includes emissions from the upstream value chain, such as the extraction and production of raw materials like tin, iron ore and steel/hot-rolled strip.
CO2 savings potential
The LCA conducted by thyssenkrupp Rasselstein revealed a total carbon footprint of 2.45 t CO2 eq./t of packaging steel. The majority of these emissions are attributed to the hot-rolled strip supplied by thyssenkrupp Steel Europe in Duisburg, classified as Scope 3 emissions.
Throughout the packaging steel production process, Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions are generated. At the Andernach site, Scope 1 and 2 emissions are being continuously reduced through ongoing energy efficiency initiatives, such as the construction of a more modern coating line and the implementation of innovative recuperators in the annealing lines.
Customers already have several ways to reduce the carbon footprint of aerosol and food cans.
“For instance, manufacturers can opt for tinplate made from CO2-reduced bluemint steel, which can directly cut their Scope 3 emissions from packaging steel by up to 62%,” noted Kerkhoff.
“Further CO2 reductions are achievable through the use of products such as rasselstein D&I Solid and rasselstein Solidflex, which allow for a reduction in material thickness,” she added.
To further assist customers, thyssenkrupp Rasselstein collaborates closely to examine their processes and products, offering to conduct a tailored LCA that identifies CO2 savings potential and optimization opportunities and provides guidance on how to best implement these improvements.
“We have an in-depth understanding of our customers’ needs and what packaging manufacturers truly value. Our goal is to partner with our customers to showcase tinplate steel as a viable and sustainable packaging material for the future,” concluded Kerkhoff. SPRAY
Nicole Korb: Communications & Market Development, thyssenkrupp Rasselstein GmbH
On July 31, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) issued a notice of proposed rulemakingi to prohibit the sale of any aerosol duster that contains more than 18mg in any combination of HFC-152a and/or HFC-134a under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA).
This proposed rulemaking stems from a petitionii submitted in 2021 by Families United Against Inhalant Abuse (FUAIA), which requested CPSC to conduct a rulemaking to address the injuries and deaths associated with the intentional misuse of aerosol dusters through inhalant abuse. The Commission granted the petition in 2023 and directed staff to initiate a rulemaking.
In lieu of a product ban, CPSC staff assessed four alternatives to the proposed rule:
1. Performance requirements
2. Aversive agents (bitterants)
3. Labeling requirements; and
4. Take no regulatory action and continue to rely on the voluntary standards process
Deciding that none of these alternatives would adequately address the hazard associated with aerosol dusters, the Commission pursued a ban under multiple sections of the FHSA, including 15 U.S.C. 1261(q)(1)(B), which grants CPSC the authority to ban any substance or product sold to consumers if the hazard is such that the objective of protecting public health and safety can only be adequately served by keeping the substance/product out of the channels of interstate commerce. According to CPSC’s analysis, HFC-152a and HFC-134a are addictive and can damage the heart when abused, so must be prohibited in aerosol dusters.
In reviewing CPSC’s citations for the analysis, it’s clear that the Commission relied heavily on studies about general inhalant abuse, not specific research related to HFC-152a or HFC-134a. In fact, the primary studyiii that CPSC cited to prove the addictiveness of these propellants is actually about Toluene (a clear, colorless liquid that becomes a vapor when exposed to air at room temperature, typically used in a mixture with other solvents and chemicals, such as paint pigments–Editor).
The Commission also failed to acknowledge that inhalant abuse is a behavioral issue that needs to be addressed at its core, not a problem with a specific product.iv
Additionally, there is an issue with the Commission’s application of the FHSA. The authority to ban substances in products has been utilized previously; however, it has never been done in an instance where the end-user would have to intentionally misuse the product. While CPSC has the authority to address accidental misuse and defects within products, the Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA) does not believe this authority extends to situations in which a product is safe when used as intended and according to the label directions, but is misused intentionally for the purpose of getting high.
HCPA and member companies agree that it is extremely important to address the dangers of inhalant abuse and that action needs to be taken. With that in mind, HCPA provided an alternative proposal—based on a law enactedv in Minnesota earlier this year—for CPSC to consider rather than a product ban.
(1) Definitions. For the purposes of this voluntary standard, the following terms have the meanings given:
a. “Aerosol duster” means a product used to clean electronics and other items by means of an aerosol sprayed from a pressurized container.
b. “Behind-the-counter” means placement by a retailer of a product to ensure that customers do not have direct access to the product before a sale is made, requiring the seller to deliver the product directly to the buyer.
(2) Requirements for retail sale. A retailer must only sell an aerosol duster product to a consumer:
a. from behind the counter;
b. to a purchaser who presents valid evidence that the purchaser is at least 21 years of age; and
c. in a quantity that complies with the purchasing limit established in the next section (3).
(3) Purchasing limit.
a. A retailer is prohibited from selling a consumer more than three cans of an aerosol duster in a single transaction.
b. A retailer is prohibited from selling consumers aerosol dusters through same day pick up services or same day delivery services.
(4) Exemption.
a. Section 2 and Section 3 do not apply to a business purchasing aerosol dusters online.
b. Office wholesalers can sell more than three cans of aerosol dusters to a business they have a contract with.
(5) Labeling.
a. An aerosol duster manufactured after Jan. 1, 2026, must not be sold in the U.S. unless the aerosol duster clearly warns against the dangers of intentionally misusing duster aerosol products.
b. The font size of this warning shall be the same or larger than other warning language. The font color and background of the label must be in contrasting colors.
c. The label on each can of aerosol duster product must contain the following:
i. The words “DANGER: DEATH! Breathing this product to get high can kill you!”; and
ii. The poison control phone number, 1-800-222-1222.
d. In order to comply with paragraph (a), a label may include, but is not limited to the words:
i. “Deliberate misuse by concentrating and inhaling the contents can be harmful or fatal!”; and
ii. “Intentional misuse by deliberately concentrating and inhaling the vapors can be harmful or fatal!”
e. An aerosol duster may not be named or marketed as “compressed air.”
f. The safety symbols and color standards of the label described in this section must conform with the ANSI Z535 safety signage standards guidelines established by the American National Standards Institute.
HCPA recognizes that CPSC does not have the authority to create a regulation with all of these requirements. Therefore, HCPA proposed to the Commission that it create a voluntary standard that it would then make mandatory. Not only did HCPA members collaborate on this proposal, but it was also shared with other stakeholders, including retailer trade associations, so it could ensure consensus moving forward.
It is important to classify inhalant abuse as a form of substance abuse—the same as alcohol, illicit drugs and prescription drugs—and recognize that those people who engage in this behavior often have underlying issues that must be addressed through appropriate treatment. This alternative proposal would help educate people about the dangers of inhalant abuse, hopefully helping to resolve this behavioral issue.
Many consumer products (more than 1,000)vi have the potential of being abused as an inhalant. Banning a product due to this misuse will not solve the problem—people will choose another product or illicit substance to abuse as a way to get high.
HCPA’s comments to the Commission are available onlinevii; it will continue to advocate on this critical issue with both CPSC and Congress. For more information or to discuss this issue further, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
i link
ii link
iii link
iv Radparvar S. The Clinical Assessment and Treatment of Inhalant Abuse. Perm J. 2023;27(2):99-109. doi:10.7812/TPP/22.164
v link
vi link
vii link
CARB
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) should be releasing information on its next volatile organic compound (VOC) survey soon. In discussions with CARB management, it was determined that the potential number of categories for the next survey is likely to be between 40 and 50. CARB used the 2013–2015 survey results to choose the following categories:
• High VOC by mass
• High VOC by reactivity
• Where toxics are present
The following are the top ten categories for High VOC by mass:
1. Hairspray
2. Hand Sanitizer
3. Personal Fragrance Product: 20% or less
4. Rubbing Alcohol
5. Disinfectant (aerosol)
6. General Purpose Cleaner (non-aerosol)
7. Air Freshener (liquid pump)
8. Detergent
9. Sunscreen
10. Charcoal lighter material
The following are the top ten categories for High VOC by Reactivity:
1. General Purpose Cleaner (non-aerosol)
2. Detergent
3. Air Freshener (liquid pump)
4. Personal Fragrance Product: less than 20%
5. Hand Sanitizer
6. Hair Finishing Spray
7. Hand & Body Cleaner (Soap)
8. Liquid Fabric Softener
9. Scented Candles
10. Floor Wax Stripper
Also included in the Reactivity top 25 are the following:
• Shampoo
• Multi-purpose Solvent
• Pet Care Products
• Paint Thinner
• Sunscreen
• Rubbing Alcohol
• General Use Hand Soap
These categories are listed because CARB will likely—for the first time—choose to regulate categories by reactivity instead of mass.
Remember that Hairspray and Personal Fragrance Products were regulated in the last rulemaking, so it is questionable as to whether these product categories will be on the list. My guess is that they will be, so that CARB can update its emission numbers on high VOC categories. However, that remains to be seen.
CARB has stated that it will also survey products that include toxics. CARB did an in-depth review of product categories and developed an elaborate mechanism to rate toxics. The top five toxic compounds were:
1. PCBTF
2. Methylene Chloride
3. Perchloroetylene
4. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
5. Trichloroethylene
None of these compounds are a surprise, nor are the following top five product categories containing these compounds:
1. Paint Remover or Stripper
2. Energized Electrical Cleaner
3. Thinner (Motor Vehicle Coatings)
4. Mothballs
5. Paint Thinner
Again, no surprises there. My only comment on these categories is that, with the Federal ban on Methylene Chloride, the Paint Stripper category will likely be moved farther down on the list.
As reported in the last issue, CARB will be holding preliminary meetings with Industry on its choice of product categories for the survey; this will likely have started in late October. This is our opportunity to comment to CARB on product categories. This is likely our only opportunity to comment on which categories are added to the survey, so Industry needs to take advantage. However, there is nothing that guarantees our comments will influence CARB’s decision.
Finally, it appears the process will begin for the next rulemaking.
Oregon
Oregon held its second advisory committee meeting on Sept. 13. It is uncertain in which direction the State will go on its rulemaking. If Oregon goes right to the CARB regulation, it will be the first State to take this approach. Oregon has said that it will reveal its position at the next advisory committee meeting.
This whole process has been bizarre due to the fact that Oregon is a State in Attainment and therefore does not need emission reductions.
New Jersey
We are expecting New Jersey to adopt OTC Model Rule IV. A virtual meeting was held on Oct. 15; more information will be provided in a future issue.
Clark County, Nevada
Still no news!
AIM Technology Transition Rule
The American Innovation & Manufacturing Act (AIM) Technology Transition Section has requirements for labeling, effective Jan. 1, 2025. Therefore, there are only two months left to get a four-digit date code onto products. Please review the October 2024 edition of Regulatory Issues for complete information.
Reporting starts in March 2025. SPRAY
The staff at the British Aerosol Manufacturers’ Association (BAMA) is terrible at throwing anything away. In a recent “tidy up,” we generated 15 sacks of wastepaper, which were sent away to be shredded and recycled. However, before we did this, everything was packed up, sent to be scanned and stored on our ever-expanding cloud drive archive.
One of the dangers of having an extensive archive is that sometimes you go off to find one piece of information to answer a question and then get drawn in, spending long hours reading back through old discussions, comparing filling stats from years gone by, finding pictures of people you knew—and still know—and then sniggering at how they have changed while you are still as handsome, vital and debonair as you were 25 years ago.
However, what is odd (or maybe isn’t) is that many of the issues we faced back in the day, we still continue to face today. Take, for example, this discussion in the BAMA Annual Report from 1963 on hairspray and the potential risks of inhalation of hairspray resins:
Given that the products we make, whether from a pressurized aerosol can, trigger or pump dispenser, go up into the air around us as they are used, it is not a surprise that researchers and regulators are as concerned about the potentially detrimental effects from inhalation today as they were back in 1963.
Measuring VOCs today
Today, analytical techniques have become significantly more accurate and, probably more importantly from a research perspective, portable. BAMA is involved with one such study and part of its work involves traveling around to different cities measuring volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions using a mass spectrometer (in the back of a van) that is sampling the air around it. BAMA can then map the level of VOCs as it travels along the high street or in industrial areas.
It probably won’t come as a surprise that the mass spectrometer sees higher levels of VOCs when passing hair salons and nail bars, and there are also spikes in the industrial areas traveled through. The study is also finding spikes when traveling past restaurants and takeaways as a combination of gas stoves, cooking oil and the frying of various ingredients releases a whole variety of materials into the local atmosphere. The study is also making similar measurements in the home.
The question is: what is the danger to public health from being exposed to these materials? As an industry, we make detailed health assessments of the products we place on the market. There are constant changes to regulations that require the reduction or elimination of ingredients as new scientific data becomes available. The 1963 formulation of a hairspray, for example, is very different to those on the market in 2024.
We must never lose sight of the need to reassure consumers that the products we produce are as safe as they can possibly be, based on the best possible scientific information. Should consumers ever lose confidence in our products, this would have a far more detrimental effect on the industry than anything any regulator could ever do. SPRAY
Hello everyone. In the last issue, we discussed the complexity of corrosion and how one could determine if spray package corrosion will or will not occur. I listed the nine known factors that cause or contribute to spray package corrosion.
The empirical equation for these nine factors help determine what type(s) of corrosion occurs and how fast corrosion occurs.
Equation 3 provides an empirical equation for all nine factors that could be used to estimate corrosion rates and help determine what type(s) of corrosion are occurring.
The symbols in Equation 3:
• Ψ and Γ have the same meanings as in Equation 2
• Subscript and superscript items have the same meanings as in Equation 2
• ß is proportionality constant that converts the probabilities into corrosion rates
• f (letter or phrase) is the exponent for each group of factors—each is a complex function
Obviously, Equation 3 is more complex than Equation 2. The increased complexity occurs because it answers both the What type(s)? and How fast? questions. Equation 2 only answers the question, Will it corrode?
There are ~362,880 possible combinations of the nine factors that could cause corrosion or contribute to spray package corrosion—making corrosion probabilistic instead of deterministic. Groups that have probabilities (ψ1-9) >1 affect corrosion and those that are (ψ1-9) = 1 have no effect on corrosion. Consequently, Equation 3 provides information about the type(s) of corrosion that occur.
Let’s look at each group in Equation 3, proceeding from left to right for the first two (pH and metal type), and then from the second line (surface tension) to the bottom.
The first group estimates how pH affects the corrosion rate magnitude. ψ1 is the probability that the pH of formula water or contaminant water will decrease or increase the corrosion rate, and the exponent “a” determines how much pH affects the rate, and is typically a single number.
The second group (metal type) estimates how the type of package interacts with the product. Spray package metals could be tinplated steel, tin-free steel, aluminum and aluminum foils. Coated metals, laminated metals and uncoated metals corrode at different rates when exposed to the same formula. Consequently, the second factor accounts for how different types of metals/coated-metals influence the rate of spray package corrosion. The exponent f(h) is a complex function that generates a single number for each metal type exposed to a specific formula.
The third group estimates how surface tension affects package corrosion. Surface tension determines how easy or difficult it is for formula ingredients to:
1. Absorb onto uncoated metal surfaces;
2. Diffuse through polymer coatings and laminate films; and
3. Adsorb onto substrate metals under laminated films and coatings.
The exponent f(i) is a complex function that generates a single number for each component surface tension.
The fourth group estimates how electrochemically active (ECA) ions and molecules affect corrosion rates. The ECAϒj symbol represents the electrochemical activity for individual ions and molecules in a formula that are electrochemically active. The exponent f(j) is a complex function that generates a single number for each specific electrochemically active ion or molecule in a formula.
The fifth group estimates how the metal surface treatments affect corrosion rates. Surface treatments include polymer coatings or laminate films, tin coatings on steel and chromium/chromium oxide coatings on steel (tin-free steel). The exponent is a complex function that generates a single number for each type of surface treatment.
The sixth group estimates the cathode/anode area ratios on the metal surface that determines if pitting corrosion will occur and how fast pitting corrosion will penetrate through a package. Metal surfaces—both coated and uncoated—are composed of cathodic areas where valence electrons are transferred from surface atoms to ECA formula ingredients and anodic areas where the atoms are ejected from the bulk metal as ions.
This factor also helps determine if corrosion will be either general or localized. Pitting corrosion occurs when the exponent f(m) is >0. The exponent is a complex function whose magnitude is determined by the specific chemical composition of a formula and the type of package materials.
The seventh group accounts for emulsion stability. Emulsions break after a certain age and when exposed to either high or low temperatures. Water and cream phases are typically generated when an emulsion breaks—and one or more of these phases could be very corrosive. Consequently, the exponent for this factor is an equation that is a function of both temperature and emulsion age. This particular factor is zero for non-emulsion products and greater than one for emulsions.
The eighth group is the age of a product in its spray package. General corrosion typically occurs shortly after a package is filled; pitting corrosion follows afterward. The exponent “n” for this factor is typically a single number that is determined by the specific chemical composition of a formula and the type of package materials.
The ninth factor accounts for formulas incorporating corrosion inhibitors. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all corrosion inhibitor.
There are also many types of formula ingredients, such as fragrances, that in some instances act as corrosion inhibitors. Consequently, the exponent of this factor is a complex function that accounts for specific formula chemical compositions, pH, synergy between all formula ingredients that could inhibit corrosion and the effective concentration range for each ingredient that inhibits corrosion.
To summarize both Parts 1 and 2 of this series:
• Predicting corrosion with Equation 2—the theoretical equation for whether corrosion will or will not occur—does not provide operational data for making decisions on product-package longevity.
• There is no available public domain knowledge for the parameters needed to use empirical Equation 2 and Equation 3 for predicting corrosion and corrosion rates.
Consequently, corrosion testing with either a storage stability test and/or an electrochemical corrosion test are the only ways to reliably measure and predict if corrosion will occur and how fast corrosion will penetrate spray packaging.
Both types of tests must be conducted with the appropriate testing procedures (e.g., a minimum of one year for a storage test), data analysis procedures and models for predicting both service lifetimes and their associated percent failures.
Thanks for your interest and I’ll see you in an upcoming issue. Contact me at 608-831-2076; rustdr@pairodocspro.com or from our two websites: pairodocspro.com and aristartec.com. SPRAY
AIM Technology Transition
The American Innovation & Manufacturing Act (AIM) Technology Transition section regulates hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in Consumer Aerosol Products and Technical Aerosol Products. This regulation was adopted Oct. 24, 2023, and becomes effective Jan. 1, 2025; as of this date, any Consumer Aerosol Product that has an HFC compound with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) above 150 is prohibited from use unless the product is a Technical Aerosol. Listed below are all the Technical Aerosol Products that can continue to use HFC compounds greater than 150 GWP; HFC-134a is used in most products:
• Cleaning products for removal of grease, flux and other soils from electrical equipment or electronics;
• Refrigerant flushes;
• Products for sensitivity testing of smoke detectors;
• Lubricants and freeze sprays for electrical equipment or electronics;
• Sprays for aircraft maintenance;
• Sprays containing corrosion preventive compounds used in the maintenance of aircraft, electrical equipment or electronics, or military equipment;
• Pesticides for use near electrical wires or in aircraft, in total release insecticide foggers or in certified organic use pesticides for which EPA has specifically disallowed all other lower-GWP propellants;
• Mold release agents and mold cleaners;
• Lubricants and cleaners for spinnerets for synthetic fabrics;
• Duster sprays specifically for removal of dust from photographic negatives, semiconductor chips, specimens under electron microscopes and energized electrical equipment;
• Adhesives and sealants in large canisters;
• Document preservations sprays;
• Topical coolant sprays for pain relief; and
• Products for removing bandage adhesives from skin
HFC-152a has a GWP of less than 150; it is therefore not restricted under this rule, except for labeling.
Lastly, products manufactured or imported before their respective effective date of Jan. 1, 2025, or Jan. 1, 2028, have a three-year sell-through period.
Under the AIM Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created disclosure and reporting requirements. Starting Jan. 1, 2025, all Consumer Aerosol Products must disclose the use of any HFC on the label. For technical aerosol products, the use of HFCs must be disclosed starting Jan. 1, 2028. Additionally, each aerosol product needs to identify the date of its manufacture.
EPA is also requiring annual online reporting from manufacturers and importers of aerosol products. This requirement takes effect for all sectors and subsectors beginning with calendar year 2025 data. Reports are due to the EPA 90 days after each calendar year. Thus, the first reports submitted by manufacturers and importers will be due March 31, 2026.
This means you have three months to get labeling on your product, mainly for those containing HFC-152a. Also, remember that numerous States have HFC regulations, as well.
CARB
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is still working on preparing the next Consumer Products Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) survey. As discussed in my September column, we expect CARB to survey 40–50 product categories. Industry has learned that CARB will likely hold a few preliminary meetings this month (October 2024) on what product categories will be added to the survey, so Industry will at least have an opportunity to comment. However, this doesn’t mean that Industry comments will influence CARB’s ultimate decision.
Oregon
Oregon has begun its look into Consumer Product and Architectural Coating VOC regulations. Its most recent advisory committee meeting was held Sept. 13. Oregon will likely adopt Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) Phase IV for Consumer Products and OTC Phase II for Architectural Coatings.
New Jersey
New Jersey is proposing to amend its existing Consumer Products VOC regulation, which is currently at OTC Model Rule II. The Garden State is likely to move to OTC Model Rule IV. A virtual public meeting will be held on Oct. 15, 2024, at 12:30 EDT and written comments are due by Oct. 18, 2024.
SCAQMD
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) continues to work through its variety of VOC rules to remove the compounds parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF) and tert-Butyl acetate (TBAc). On Aug. 30, 2024, SCAQMD held its first Public Workshop, which followed three workgroup meetings on Rule 1151 Automotive Coatings.
Staff is working hard to remove PCBTF and TBAc from Automotive Coatings. These two compounds have been exempt from this rule for a long time and manufacturers have relied on them to formulate Automotive Coatings. SCAQMD staff has set a pathway to quickly phase out these compounds by temporarily allowing higher limits at rule adoption—which is Phase I, followed by Phase II—that provide time for a future effective date, and that lowers the limits back down. Staff is doing this at the direction of the Board to remove toxic compounds instead of reducing VOC compounds.
This rule will make it challenging for manufacturers to reformulate products with a reduced number of exempt compounds to work with. The higher limits will be the National VOC Automotive Limits for Phase I. The Rule will be adopted by Nov. 1, 2024. Staff had requested that all comments on the proposed rule be submitted by Sept. 13. In addition, SCAQMD is proposing to add a Reactivity Limit of 1.0 Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) for Automotive Thinner by Jan. 1, 2030. Although this is a long time away, even SCAQMD is aware of the benefits of Reactivity in dealing with VOC reductions. SPRAY
Keeping up with the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) regulatory landscape continues to be a daunting challenge for manufacturers and their supply chains. It’s been a rollercoaster trying to understand which chemicals are considered PFAS due to the lack of a standardized scientific definition of this class of substances and the different statutory interpretations used by jurisdictions across the U.S.
Some jurisdictions treat all substances with at least one fluorinated carbon atom as PFAS, while others use a more measured approach, recognizing that not all fluorinated compounds are identical. A recent example is the Updated Draft State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Reporti by Health Canada (HC) and Environment & Climate Change Canada (ECCC), which indicates that fluoropolymers may have significantly different exposure and hazard profiles compared to other fluorinated compounds. Based on this evidence, HC and ECCC have proposed excluding fluoropolymers from the PFAS chemical class.
Regardless of this evidence, many States in the U.S. continue to define PFAS as one fully fluorinated carbon atom and insist that this entire chemical class is dangerous and must be eliminated from products. With that in mind, it’s important to stay informed about recent activity and upcoming restrictions.
U.S. (Federal)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) updated reporting period for the one-time PFAS Reporting Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is November 2024–July 2025. The March 2024 edition of Pressure Pointsii discussed this reporting obligation in more detail.
California & Colorado
California and Colorado both passed laws restricting the sale of personal care/cosmetics containing intentionally added PFAS, beginning Jan. 1, 2025.
Aerosols are included under the Colorado law; however, hydrofluoroolefins in personal care/cosmetics are exempt through 2027. Cleaning products (among other product categories) will be on the restricted list starting in 2026.
In California, legislation was sent to the Governor to establish a compliance framework for certain products related to registration and testing. While aerosols are not currently in scope, it is important to be aware of the provisions should this new structure be considered for future product categories.
Connecticut
In June, Connecticut passed a law restricting the sale of personal care/cosmetics and cleaning products, beginning in 2028; however, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and hydrofluoroolefins used as propellants in personal care/cosmetics are exempt.
Maine
In April, Maine enacted legislation to amend the State’s PFAS in Products Program. Changes to the bill include the elimination of the broad notification requirement that was scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2025; the addition of numerous exemptions; and allowing the use of aerosol propellants that are considered PFAS to be used until Jan. 1, 2040. Manufacturers should be aware that, starting Jan. 1, 2026, cleaning products and personal care/cosmetics are prohibited from containing intentionally added PFAS (unless that PFAS is an aerosol propellant). The 2026 prohibition also includes products packaged in a fluorinated container.
Maine requires manufacturers of products containing intentionally added PFAS, which the State has determined is a “currently unavoidable use” (CUU), to provide detailed information on the product.iii However, the recent amendments to the PFAS in Products Program have significantly decreased the number of products within scope of the reporting requirements.
Minnesota
In March, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency solicited input on how to consider and make determinations about PFAS applications that qualify as a CUU. These determinations would be for products that may be banned from sale and distribution in Minnesota beginning in 2032. However, beginning Jan. 1, 2025, 11 product categories will be prohibited from containing intentionally added PFAS, including cleaning products and personal care/cosmetics. It should be noted that Minnesota’s 2025 prohibition applies to all primary packaging, including the container and any components that dispense the product.
Minnesota also requires that a product manufacturer using intentionally added PFAS report detailed information about each product to the Commissioner by Jan. 1, 2026, with limited exemptions for pesticides or agricultural products sold, offered for sale or distributed in the State. There are also testing and certification requirements to ensure compliance.iv
Washington State
Under the Safer Products for Washington Program, the Washington Dept. of Ecology is working through the regulatory process that will require either a PFAS reporting requirement or prohibit the use of intentionally added PFAS. Product categories under current review include cleaning products, polishes and waxes, and hard surface sealants. It should be noted that aerosol propellants are currently proposed to be out of scope of the rules.
Canada
Canada is currently collecting information on certain PFAS substances—either alone or in mixtures, products and manufactured items—that are for sale in Canada. This information will help establish baseline use commercial data and inform future regulatory activity related to PFAS. The reporting period opened in July and will close on Jan. 29, 2025.
It is obvious that legislative and regulatory activity on PFAS will not stop anytime soon, and companies need to stay up-to-date on the different requirements to ensure compliance.
For more information about PFAS or State-specific questions, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
