|
|
Advocacy Blog
Imaging Through the Red Tape.
August 24th, 2010
In July, I posted information about Maricopa County’s newly proposed air regulation. And, yes this proposal impacts both screen printing as well as digital printing operations. SGIA did submit comments to the Air District asking for a reinstatement of the exemption for digital printing operations.
In an earlier draft, digital printing was exempted from coverage under the rule, as is radiation cured coatings. However, in the latest version, only digital printers used in offices were exempted. SGIA argued to reinstate the total exemption.
New York state has finalized its VOC regulations for both permitting of graphic arts facilities as well as their VOC regulations. SGIA is working with Printing Industries Alliance and will be presenting a webinar on September 23rd from 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. New permit requirements went into effect on July 8th as well as reporting requirements. SGIA members are urged to attend this free webinar to gain a stronger understanding of their regulatory obligations. To register, contact Marci Kinter at marcik@sgia.org.
And, finally, New Hampshire. A proposal has been released, and only the sections covering industrial cleaning activities impacts our industry sector. At this time, digital printing is exempt for the provisions as well as cleaning in the screen print sector as long as the VOC content of the product used contains no more than 4.2 pounds of VOC per gallon, as applied.
Thoughts?
Submitted by Marci Kinter
Posted in Air Emissions, Graphic Imagers, Industrial, New Hampshire, New York, Suppliers, digital printing, garment decoraters | No Comments »
August 12th, 2010
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released a pre-publication copy of a proposed rule that would significantly amend the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Update Rule (IUR). This will impact all companies that manufacture chemicals.
Among the more significant proposed changes, EPA would:
- Require electronic reporting of the IUR data, using an Agency provided, web-based reporting software (e-IURweb) to submit IUR reports through the Internet to EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX).
- Require increased detail for reported manufacturing, processing, and use data.
- Change the reporting frequency from every 5 years to every 4 years.
- Require reporting if the production volume of a substance met or exceeded the 25,000 pound threshold not in the preceding calendar year but in any calendar year since the last principal reporting year. This proposed method would be effective after the 2011 IUR submission period.
- Eliminate the 300,000 lb. threshold for processing and use information, and require all reporters of non-excluded substances to complete all sections of the IUR form.
- Eliminate the 25,000 lb. threshold for certain substances that are the subject of certain TSCA rules and/or orders and require manufacturers and importers of such substances to report regardless of their production volume.
- Require reporting of production volume for each of the years since the last principal reporting year.
- Require upfront substantiation when processing and use information is claimed as CBI and disallow confidentiality claims for processing and use data elements identified as not “known to or reasonably ascertainable by.”
While the proposal has yet to be released, EPA anticipates promulgating a final rule by the spring of 2011. EPA envisions a 60-day comment period on the proposal.
Submitted by Marci Kinter
Posted in Green Chemistry, Suppliers, TSCA, manufacturers | No Comments »
July 28th, 2010
On July 1, House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) introduced the Miner Safety and Health Act of 2010 (H.R. 5663). While the bill primarily seeks to overhaul existing mine safety laws, it includes numerous onerous provisions taken from the long-pending Protecting America’s Workers Act. Instead of encouraging employer efforts to make workplaces safer, the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act related provisions in the bill would place new costs on businesses and increase the threat of litigation.
These provisions offer the most sweeping changes to the OSH Act since its inception and would hinder manufacturers’ safety efforts by promoting an adversarial relationship between OSHA and employers. Included in the proposed provisions are:
- Requirements that manufacturers shut down operations and immediately make corrective actions based on allegations of hazardous violations by a regional OSHA inspector – prior to being able to appeal the inspector’s decision.
- An overhaul of the current system of whistleblower procedures by creating a new, complicated and costly process that allows employees to sue employers for alleged whistleblower cases.
- The introduction of a vague new set of expanded criminal penalties for company directors and officers without defining how the responsibility for violations would be determined.
ACTION NEEDED: Contact your member of the House of Representatives and urge them to oppose the legislation. Specifically, manufacturers should express strong opposition to the inclusion of provisions that would overhaul the way OSHA safety laws are enforced.
Need help? Contact Marci Kinter at marcik@sgia.org
Submitted by Marci Kinter
Posted in Graphic Imagers, Industrial, garment decoraters | No Comments »
July 22nd, 2010
On Tuesday, July 20th, I participated in an OSHA stakeholder meeting on their proposed activity to develop an Injury and Illness Prevention Program regulation. And, while the majority of the discussions around the table focused on a systems approach to the development of a program, OSHA did clearly state that their intention is to develop an enforceable mandatory rule.
It was an interesting meeting. Representatives from various union organizations, such as the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees to the AFL-CIO and Farmworkers Justice. Business was also represented by various trade associations, including SGIA. The healthcare and education sectors were also represented.
There is no doubt in my mind that this rule will hugely impact the small business community. The intent of this program is to require employers to develop a hazard determination and prevention plan for each hazard identified in the workplace. And, yes, it does appear that this would go beyond what is currently regulated by OSHA — think ergonomics. In a direct question to OSHA it was asked as to the intent of this program standard. Specifically, will employers be required to identify hazards that go beyond what is currently regulated by OSHA. It was not clear in the answer provided if the employer will need to address all hazards, whether or not currently regulated. And, this does raise red flags for the small business community.
As a whole, the business community stressed the need for a program that did indeed have a beginning, middle and end. A business must know when it is in compliance. An ongoing systems approach will not afford a business the comfort of knowing whether or not they are in compliance with the program’s requirements.
This is a priority rulemaking for the Agency. However, they did announce that they will convene a panel of small businessowners to solicit input regarding costs associated with the implementation of any proposed rulemaking. SGIA hopes to have a seat at that table.
More to come.
Submitted by Marci Kinter
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
July 15th, 2010
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (AZ) has released a proposed rule updating Rule 337, Graphic Arts. This rule regulates emissions of volatile organic compounds, and, most importantly, the Department has included digital printing operations within the rule’s list of impacted facilities. And, this rule does impact manufacturers and suppliers to our industry.
While not in effect yet, it is important to understand the ramifications of the proposal. Digital printing has been defined as a method of printing that does not use a physical master, stencil or plates but uses an electronic device to transfer variable data, in the form of an image, from a computer to a variety of substrates. Digital printing methods include, but are not limited to, ink jet printing, electrophotographic printing, dye sublimation printing, thermal wax printing and solid ink printing. The rule’s requirements also apply to screen printing operations.
Under the rule’s provisions, manufacturers and suppliers are defined as any person offering for sale within Maricopa County any VOC contatining maerails for use in graphic arts operations. This would include both screen and digital operations. MSDSs or product data sheets are to be supplied showing the material name, manufacturer’s name, specific mixing insturctions, if applicable, and VOC content of the product as applied. It is important to note that the rule does exempt radiation cured inks and coatings from coverage under the regulation.
For both screen and digital operations, there are proposed VOC content limitations for ink systems as well as requirements to reduce VOC emissions from cleaning solvents through the use of work practices.
Comments will be accepted on this proposal until August 23rd. SGIA plans to present comments to the Department regarding the proposed requirements. If this rule-making impacts you, and you have any questions or comments, please contact SGIA’s Government Affairs Department at govt@sgia.org.
Submitted by Marci Kinter
Posted in Air Emissions, Graphic Imagers, Industrial, Suppliers, Uncategorized, digital printing, garment decoraters | No Comments »
June 30th, 2010
The US EPA, in August 2009, issued a proposed rule to revise the exemption for articles under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program. While the proposal focused on one specific industry sector, i.e., the wood treatment industry, the proposed changes are much more far reaching.
In a 1988 letter, Charles Elkins, Director of Office of Toxic Substances, provides insight into EPA’s position. This letter discusses releases from the use of plastic wrap. Releases when plastic wrap was cut by a hot knife while being applied DID need to be counted as reportable as they occurred when the wrap was in use.
Subsequently, this proposal was released because the US EPA lost a court case regarding their interpretation of the article exemption and the release of listed toxic substances from that article as a result of processing or using the article at the facility. In 2007, the wood treatment industry sought clarification from US EPA regarding releases from treated wood in storage. The industry believed that they need not report releases from this stored wood. US EPA disagreed stating that releases from post-treatment did need to be reported. A court challenge ensued and in May 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction against the EPA enforcing its interpretation.
While the EPA states that this interpretation will only apply to one industry sector, SGIA has its doubts. The proposed rule clearly states that this regulatory action applies to any facility required to report under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act. SGIA plans to attend a meeting between industry representatives and the Office of Management and Budget on this very issue.
Stay tuned for developments as we move forward.
Submitted by Marci Kinter
Posted in Graphic Imagers, Industrial, Suppliers, manufacturers | No Comments »
June 30th, 2010
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has issued new regulations governing solvent cleaning operations. This state is the last in a long line of actions taken to incorporate changes required by the US EPA.
To determine applicability under the new standard, facilities must review their cleaning operations to determine if their emissions of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, are equal to or more than 15 pounds per day. Roughly, this equates to the use of about 1 and a half gallons of solvents used in cleaning operations per day. There are a few notable exemptions. Most importantly, if you are exempt from this regulation scroll to the end of this blog to see what you are required to do!
Stripping of cured coatings, inks or adhesives, including screen reclamation activities are not covered by this new regulation. Further, any cleaning operation performed in pre-press areas, including the cleaning of film processors, color scanners, etc. are exempt.
Most importantly, cleaning operations associated with digital printing are exempt from the requirements in this new regulation.
So, what is left? Cleaning of ink application equipment. For screen printing, the VOC content limit for this activity has been set at 4.2 pounds of VOC per gallon. Facilities do have the option of using a solvent with a vapor pressure of 8 mmHG or less.
If you operate a facility in Illinois, here is what you need to do:
- Take a look at ALL your cleaning operations. Perform a calculation to show that emissions from all cleaning operations never exceed 15 pounds per day, in the absence of any air pollution control equipment. From this calculation, remove any solvents used to strip cured inks and coatings, solvents used in screen reclamation activities, and solvents used in cleaning operations for digital equipment.
- By April 1, 2011, submit a certification to the Agency that includes a declaration that your facility is exempt from the requirements and include a copy of the your calculations.
If you determine that your facility is subject to the requirements of this rule, contact me as there are specific record keeping and declarations that you must make.
Submitted by Marci Kinter
Posted in Air Emissions, Graphic Imagers, Illinois, Industrial, digital printing | No Comments »
June 24th, 2010
Yes, it is true that the stay of enforcement for testing and certification of products for both lead and phthalate content, as required under the CPSIA, is still in effect, and will not expire until Feb. 10, 2011. However, I do know that some customers are requiring testing. And, I would like to hear your story.
Have you been asked by your customer to test your product? Are they willing to accept component testing in lieu of final product testing? And, are you having any issues with the testing protocols for either lead or phthalate content? While we find no issue with the testing for lead content, pthalates is a whole different animal.
I ask, as SGIA does not believe that the testing protocol developed by the CPSC for the testing of phthalate content in children’s products works. It is our belief that the approved labs are over-reporting restricted phthalates.
Based on anecdotal information, laboratories are not accurately distinguishing between the various restricted and non-restricted phthalates found in the products undergoing testing. SGIA members are receiving results indicating that a product has “failed” because of the presence of restricted phthalates when the chemical manufacturer has certified that the sample does not contain any restricted phthalates. Several labs acknowledge that the analytical technique can result in elevated levels of restricted phthalates and have stated that this is due to the detection and inclusion of “non target compounds, some of which are other non regulated phthalates”.
SGIA has been in contact with CPSC staff regarding these issues. And, I need your help. Do you have test data showing that a product has failed even though the restricted phthalates are not present? Will you be willing to share. If we can show a consistent problem with the testing protocol in place, then maybe we can make a change!
Submitted by Marci Kinter.
Posted in CPSIA, garment decoraters, manufacturers | No Comments »
June 17th, 2010
OSHA held the first of its three stakeholder meetings on a safety program rule that would require all employers to identify workplace hazards and plan, implement, evaluate and improve activities to protect worker safety.
The purpose of these stakeholder meetings is to gather information regarding the development of the standard, as well as possible enforcement issues. Regarding enforcement issues, OSHA staff have indicated that they are not interested in using this standard to “double dip.” OSHA staff sees an enforcement strategy that focuses on the process of a program and ensuring that the process is actually implemented as the route to take. It is recognized that OSHA will need to instill a culture change into its enforcement staff to understand how to enforce a process oriented rule rather than a hazard based standard.
As expected, there are widely different viewpoints regarding the regulatory approach that should be taken by OSHA for this rulemaking. There are advocates for a highly prescriptive rule that encompasses a step by step apporaoch outlining the specific elements to be included and required. There are others that voiced the opinion that a standard may not even be necessary.
OSHA’s goal in developing this standard is to provide a program that is effective for small employers as well as large employers. While there is interest in requiring all employers to implement, there is discussion to limit the application by creating exemptions based on factors such as industry type, employee size, or incidence rate. The approach to limit application was not universally accepted by the stakeholders present.
There are three more stakeholder meetings planned. One will be held in Washington DC and SGIA is planning to participate. If you care to offer any suggestions, please contact me at marcik@sgia.org. OSHA would like to issue a proposed rule by the fall of 2010.
Submitted by Marci Kinter
Posted in Graphic Imagers, Industrial, PDAA, Safety, garment decoraters | No Comments »
June 10th, 2010
The National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) held a public meeting this week on June 8, 2010 with the Assistant Director of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Dr John Howard, and the Assistant Secretary of OSHA, Dr. David Michaels. Although there was some discussion on promoting injury and illness preventative programs in the workplace, much of the meeting was occupied with the topic of the recent oil spill in the Gulf Coast and NIOSH and OSHA’s response to it. The following are highlights from the public meeting:
- Both Dr Michaels and Dr Howard expressed NIOSH and OSHA’s continued dedication and efforts to safety incentive programs and reaching out to vulnerable and hard to reach workers. They also expressed how NIOSH and OSHA are both working hard on the ground monitoring and assuring workers and volunteers in the oil spill clean-up efforts are protected from hazards (using proper protective gear and equipment) and that Bp is giving appropriate training to all. There have been 600 site visits at stage areas of the spill so far.
- Committee discussed their concerns with worker safety issues of those helping with the oil spill clean-up efforts, which included excessive working hours, exposure and exhaustion to extreme heat. Committee members called for the need for more guidance and recommendations made for specific groups involved and exposed (hired workers, volunteers, residential communities, etc). The Committee also discussed possibly holding workshops specifically on oil spill worker safety and health.
- Michael said he was giving high priority to creating a recommended exposure limits and asked the Committee to submit comments on how to begin such a process.
- Committee members talked about using social media to reach out to younger generations and a boarder audience in order to raise awareness of worker safety.
- Some talk about Work Life Programs to help aging workforce and Dr Michaels expressed OSHA’s commitment to such programs, especially considering the 50 plus age group will continue to increase significantly.
- The Committee also talked about coming up with recommendations to submit on ways to expedite the process of injury and illness prevention programs. Workplace violence was brought up and Dr Michaels responded that hopefully illness and preventative program will address the issue and stress more responsibility on employers to prevent workplace violence.
- Some Committee members argued that workplace illness rate is a misleading factor when used to identify workplace hazards — it was suggested that near-miss reporting/data be used instead to identify hazards in order to provide more accurate measurements.
Submitted by Zulaikha Safi
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
|
