- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Washington State’ Ban on Printer Ink,
13,000 Jobs and $700 Million in Wages at Risk.
The Washington Department of Ecology (DoE) has once again stirred controversy within the printing industry by including printing inks in its latest Safer Products Report, reigniting concerns despite previous setbacks in regulating inadvertent polychlorinated biphenyls (iPCBs) in pigments.Since 2022, PRINTING United Alliance has been a vocal opponent of these efforts, successfully blocking legislation aimed at banning chlorinated pigments in inks. However, a new challenge surfaced in January 2024 when the DoE petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to impose stricter limits on iPCBs under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In April, the EPA rejected the petition, stating that the DoE had failed to provide adequate evidence that inks significantly contribute to iPCB levels or pose a health risk.
Despite the EPA’s ruling, the DoE is moving forward with its push to regulate inks, arguing that non-chlorinated alternatives are available—yet providing no legal justification or scientific evidence to back their claim. PRINTING United Alliance has strongly opposed the DoE’s actions, submitting detailed comments before the December 31, 2024, deadline, pointing out that the DoE has not demonstrated the need for regulation or proven the availability of viable ink alternatives.
Chlorinated pigments play a vital role in the printing industry, providing the durability and color stability that non-chlorinated pigments often cannot match. If Washington enforces these restrictions, the consequences could be far-reaching, potentially threatening more than 13,000 jobs, $700 million in wages, and nearly $3 billion in annual shipments. In addition, printing operations in or destined for Washington could face disruptions, leading to nationwide effects.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.