Implementing Safer Alternatives to Lithographic Cleanup Solvents to ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE V.Hazardous Ingredients in Alternative Low-VOC Cleanup Products by Chemical (N=20 chemicals)Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 20:17 10 February 2009HazardousIngredientsChemical AbstractNumber (CAS #)Number ofProducts with CASConcentration% (w/w)1 None listed N/A 4 N/A2 Mineral spirits 64742-47-8 2 Not given to < 103 Aromatic hydrocarbon 64742-95-6 2 Not given to < 104 Acetone 67-64-1 2 70–1005 Surfactants Various 2 15–906 Propylene glycol n-propyl ether 001569-01-3 1 9511 D-Limonene 5989-27-5 1
TABLE VI.Opportunities and Barriers to Implementing Safer Lithographic Cleanup ProductsDownloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene] At: 20:17 10 February 2009Opportunities1 Regulations to improve air quality led to the identification ofcleanup solvents that were less hazardous for theenvironment and workers. The alternative cleanup solventswere competitive in cost and efficacy compared with morehazardous cleanup products. Although worker health andsafety did not drive the search for alternatives,occupational health was considered at the beginning ofefforts to develop low-VOC alternatives.2 Workers were concerned and interested in their health andsafety.3 Representatives of two unions were supportive of workerhealth and safety and recognized that unionized printerscould utilize collective bargaining and grievance processesto encourage the implementation of safer alternatives.4 Some employers had a demonstrated commitment to“greening” their business and had prior experience andsuccess with making changes to comply withenvironmental regulations.5 Vendors established ongoing relations with press shops andserved as a source of information and assistance inpurchasing cleanup chemicals.6 Manufacturers had factored occupational safety into printingpress design, i.e., mechanisms existed to prevent workers’hands and arms from being caught in machinery.7 Representatives of local, state, and federal governmentagencies supported the linkage of occupational andenvironmental health and recognized how such linkagecould support their agencies’ environmentalhealth-oriented mandates.BarriersRegulations to improve air quality were opposed by somemembers of the printing industry and have required asignificant amount of time to implement; regulations werespecific to SCAQMD; they were not implementedstatewide; exclusive focus on VOC limits could have led tothe development of products with toxic ingredients andunintended health risks to workers and communities.Workers lacked information about the health hazards ofcleanup solvents they used even though most had receivedhealth and safety training. Workers did not know that lesstoxic alternatives were available.Unions were hard pressed to address the economic and joblosses of their members and occupational health wasdifficult to prioritize in this climate.Production shops lacked the technical expertise to evaluatethe occupational and environmental health impacts ofalternatives; testing alternatives competed with fast-pacedproduction schedules; some individuals in supervisorypositions were resistant to change.Chemical companies and suppliers of lithographic cleanupchemicals were generally not engaged in the identificationand distribution of safer alternatives prior to the regulation;factors unrelated to occupational and environmental health,cost, or efficacy such as perks and personal relationships,influenced printer cleanup solvent purchasing choices.The design of all printing presses required some workerhandling of cleanup solvents. Printing press manufacturerswere not in the loop regarding decisions about safercleanup solvents. A large manufacturer of printing pressescould not respond to questions about the compatibility ofalternative cleanup products with presses’ seals,information that is relevant to the selection and proper useof cleanup solvents.With the exception of specific pollution prevention grantswhich funded collaborative efforts to protect workers,communities, and the environment, there was a shortage ofongoing, institutional, inter-disciplinary mechanisms toleverage the benefits of linking occupational andenvironmental health.d-limonene (CAS #5989-27-5); (14−16) or causing neurotoxicityand skin and respiratory tract irritation, i.e., propylene glycoln-propyl ether (CAS #1569-01-3). (33)Opportunities and Barriers to Implementing SaferAlternativesMany factors influenced the availability of and printers’decisions regarding the choice of cleanup products (Table VI).RegulationsThe foremost opportunity was the SCAQMD regulationof VOC emissions from lithographic cleanup solvents.Less hazardous, low-VOC products that were competitivein cost and efficacy compared with high-VOC solvents existedas a direct result of the SCAQMD regulation andrelated government support for alternatives research anddevelopment.184 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene March 2009
Page 1 and 2: Journal of Occupational and Environ
Page 3: Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of O
Page 6 and 7: TABLE II.Hazardous Ingredients in L
Page 8 and 9: TABLE III.Hazardous Ingredients in
Page 12 and 13: Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of O
Page 14: Downloaded By: [UOEH - Journal of O

Implementing Safer Alternatives to Lithographic Cleanup Solvents to ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?