9TH ANNUAL AEROSPACE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

DENVER, COLORADO SEPTEMBER 28-30 1994

TECHNICAL PAPER COVER SHEET (Please Type)

Paper Title;

Montreal Protocol's Essential Use Exemption Process

Number of Paces: 13

Primary Author:

Name: Darrel Staley Company: Address:

Boeing Defense & Space Group P.O. Box 3999, M/S 89-18 Seattle, WA 98124-2499

Phone: 206-773-0046 Fax: 206-773-2432

Presenter:

Name: Same as above. Company: Address:

Phone: Fax:

Co-Authors: (Please give name, company, address, phone & fax)

Name: Stephen Andersen Company: EPA Address: 401 M Street S. W.

Mail Code 6205J Washington D.C. 20009

Phone: 202-233-9069 Fax: 202-233-9576

Have all necessary releases been obtained in order to present this paper at this conference? Yes

Montreal Protocol’s Essential Use Exemption Process Co-authored by:

Dr. Steven 0. Andersen, EPA and Darrel A. Staley, Boeing Defense & Space Group

Introduction

On January 1,1989, concerned nations began to enforce an international

agreement to control the use of ozone depleting substances (ODSs). Five years

later, 128 countries have committed to the original agreement known as the

Montreal Protocol. It is viewed by some as the model for international

environmental cooperation. However, in addition to increasing coopera tion, the

Protocol is forcing some of the most far reaching changes modern industry has

ever faced.

The Protocol itself has undergone many changes since its development.

Originally it called for a 50% reduction in the 1986 production level of five

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) by July 1998 and to limit the production of three

halons to 1986 levels by 1990. Although the initial production control measures

have already been met, amendments made since 1989 have significantly revised

the original plan.

In 1991 the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Solvents, Coatings,

and Adhesives Technical Options Committee (TOC) performed a review of the

available alternatives for the replacement of ozone depleting solvents. The

Solvents TOC generally felt that a complete production phaseout would be very

challenging but possible by the end of 1997 for developed nations. Then in

Copenhagen in 1992, on the heels of new scientific evidence of faster ozone layer

degradation, the dates for a complete phaseout of ODSs were accelerated to the

end of 1995. To meet the extremely ambitious goals of the Copenhagen

amendments, it was deemed necessary to create a mechanism that would

1

authorize limited production of ODSs after their phaseout. Continued

production would only be authorized for specific essential uses, to be

determined by technical review and diploma tic decision.

With a complete production phaseout rapidly approaching, the search for ODS

alternatives over the last five years has been intense. The alternatives search has

made the world very aware of how much we have come to depend on these

chemicals. The ODS alternatives search has involved nearly every industry.

However, it is the replacement challenge faced by the aerospace industry which

may be the most diverse. Over the past fifty years aerospace companies have

incorporated ODSs into an enormous variety of processes used to make their

products. Their ODS reduction efforts are further complicated by the ever

present concern for process changes which may adversely affect flight safety and

mission success. Although the industry has made excellent progress in finding

alternatives, it still faces some important challenges. When no acceptable

alternative is found it may be that the only feasible solution will be to seek

authorization for the temporary continuation of ODS production, through the

Montreal Protocol's Essential Use Exemption process.

The goal of this paper is to help inform the aerospace industry of an existing

international process designed to smooth the accelerated transition from ODSs.

The paper will review the criteria and process for making an essential use

request, discuss the new Handbook On Essential Use Nominations, and provide

an example of a potentially successful essential use exemption application in

which the NASA/Thiokol team has demonstrated that their ODS use is essential.

Criteria

The essential use process has been designed to ensure that there is a last resort

option for very special uses of ODSs. It would be, however, a serious mistake to

2

preliminarily slow down or reduce ODS replacement efforts and rely instead on

receiving an essential use exemption. Experience is showing that although i t is

possible, designation as an authorized essential use is very difficult to obtain.

Before a final decision can be made regarding a proposed use, the application

must go through an eight step process that includes four separate reviews. The

best way for an applicant to increase the likelihood of receiving an essential use

exemption is to carefully consider whether the proposed use meets each of the

following essential use criteria:

A use of a controlled substance will qualify as essential only if:

It is necessary for the health, safety or is critical for the

functioning of society (encompassing cultural and intellectual

aspects); and

there are no available technically and economically feasible

alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the

standpoint of environment and health.

Production and consumption of a controlled substance will be permitted only if:

All economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the

essential use and any associated emission of the controlled

substance; and

the controlled substance is not available in sufficient quantity and

quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled controlled

substances.

. 3

Process

Once an organization has carefully assessed their ODS use and believes that it

meets the criteria for an essential use exemption, they must complete and submit

an application for review by the relevant authorities in their national

government (e.g., the U.S. EPA). This is the first of an eight step process. It will

take about a year for the request to successfully make its way through the

Montreal Protocol's review process (see figures 1 and 2). Regardless of the

ultimate success of a request, the completion of an application is beneficial to the

applicant. It forces the organization to perform an in depth analysis of their

process. In many cases this thorough process review helps reveal ways to

minimize use and can even lead to the discovery of a feasible alternative.

The second step of the request process is the review and nomination of the

proposed use to the Montreal Protocol Secretariat by the organization's national

government. The nomination must be made to the Montreal Protocol Secretariat

by January 1 of the year that a decision on the essential use application is

requested from the nations that are party to the Montreal Protocol (the Parties).

During the third step of the process the Protocol Secretariat forwards the

nomination to the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP). The

TEAP then assigns the nomination to the appropriate TOC. There are seven

TOCs and in some cases an application may be reviewed by two or more options

committees (e.g., an ozone depleting solvent delivered as an aerosol).

During the first part of the fourth step the TOC reviews the application against

the essential use criteria listed in the previous section. Although the TOC looks

at each one of the criteria, the primary focus of their analysis is to determine

whether any feasible alternative exists. The Protocol's review system is made up

. 4

of over 300 experts from 37 countries around the world. Their combined

knowledge of alternatives often provides the applicant with new avenues of

research. After reviewing the applications, the TOCs either recommend

acceptance or offer ”no recommendation” to the TEAP. The second part of the

fourth step is the TEAP review of the TOC reports from each of the seven

sectors. The TEAP then writes their summary report to the Open-Ended

Working Group (OEWG).

In the fifth step of the essential use process the OEWG reviews the TEAP

summary report and then makes their recommendation to the Parties. The

decision by the Parties is finally made during step six. Steps seven and eight are

only necessary if there was a decision by the Parties to allow an essential use

exemption. Step seven is the authorization by the party (i.e., national

government) in possession of an exemption. The authorization allows the

applicant to acquire and use the controlled substance according to the terms of

the decision. During the final step the applicant exercises its authorization to use

the controlled substance. To date it has not been necessary to perform steps

seven and eight. However, during the 1994 OEWG meeting in July (step five of

the process) it was decided to forward the first recommendation for essential

uses to the Parties.

After reviewing the essential use exemption process one point should be very

clear: it is not simple. An attempt to obtain an exemption should only be made

as a last resort and with appropriate consideration of the time and resources

required to complete the process successfully.

Handbook On Essential Use Nominations From the organization’s standpoint, the first step (Le., the application step) is the

most critical to the success of an essential use exemption request. Many of the

5

requests reviewed for the 1994 decision year did not reach the later steps of the

process because of complications with the completion of the applications. To

help solve these problems and because far more applications are expected in

upcoming years, an instruction manual titled the Handbook On Essential Use

Nominations has been developed. Much of the information provided in this

paper is from draft versions of the handbook. The following excerpt is section

1.2 of the Handbook and describes the content and structure of the manual.

”The Handbook contains three sections: (1) a review of the essential use process;

(2) instructions for the completion of essential use nominations; and (3)

appendices containing nomination summary forms and other relevant

documents. In its review of the essential use process, the Handbook describes

the framework for decision making as it has evolved through Articles of the

Protocol and decisions of the Parties; the procedures followed under the

Protocol; and the experience of the Panel and its TOCs in managing the process

to date. The Handbook also sets forth instructions for the preparation of

essential use nominations. Finally, the appendices contain provisions of the

Montreal Protocol, decisions of the Parties to the Protocol and excerpts from

reports of the TEM which are relevant to the essential use process. Forms for

essential use nominations and annual reviews of volumes are also included.”

Future applications for essential use exemptions will have the benefit of both the

Handbook and examples of past efforts. The next section describes how the

NASA/Thiokol team demonstrated that their proposed ODS use for solid rocket

motor manufacturing meets the essential use criteria.

6

The NASA/Thiokol Example The United States has nominated the use of l,l,l-trichloroethane (TCA) by the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Thiokol

Corporation for an exemption to the phaseout of ODSs. The nomination is for

use in critical cleaning, bonding, and rubber surface activation applications, as

well as related processes and procedures on the main booster rocket motors of

the Space Shuttle. The request is for 56,800 kgs/yr for the years 1996-2000. In

July, 1994, during its tenth meeting (step six of the essential use process), the

OEWG decided to recommend the NASA/Thiokol use to the Parties. The

Parties will make their decision on the NASA/Thiokol use during their sixth

meeting this October, in Nairobi, Kenya. Only two other nominations were

recommended to the Parties by the OEWG. Those nominations are Aerosol

Metered Dose Inhalers and Global Laboratory/Analytical uses.

The OEWG's favorable recommendation to the Parties on the Space Shuttle was

possible because of the time and effort invested by the NASA/Thiokol team.

Their application consisted of over 200 pages of detailed information regarding

TCA use. Topics include the benefits of using TCA in their processes, evaluation

of alternatives, reduction of emissions, and the possibility of stockpiling. In

addition to writing an excellent application, the team hosted the UNEP Solvents,

Coatings, and Adhesives TOC on tours of both their Utah and Florida

operations. Video tapes were also given to each committee member to provide

further detail on processes reviewed on site.

The following NASA/Thiokol responses are included here to provide insight as

to the type of justification that may be required to meet the essential use criteria.

The text was selected from the TEAP report to the OEWG printed in March 1994.

Necessary for health, safety or is critical to the for the functioning of society:

7

”Space programs are essential to the functioning of society because they provide

scientific information critical to understanding the environment and essential for

health, safety, and defense. For example, the NASA ‘Mission to Planet Earth”

programs are conducted in cooperation with many nations and the data and

scientific results are widely available and used to guide protection of the global

environment. It is ironic that the Space Shuttle requires TCA in order to safely

and reliably take scientific instruments and crew into space for monitoring the

ozone layer and quantifying the adverse effect of chemical substances controlled

by the Montreal Protocol. TCA is essential to the safety and survival of the

Space Shuttle crew because no other chemical has been tested and verified to

provide a satisfactory adhesive bond on solid rocket motors. . . ”

Technically and economically feasible alternatives and substitutes:

’There are currently no known technically feasible, and proven alternatives or substitutes to the use of TCA in critical bond applications associated with the

manufacture of solid rocket motors.”

The solvent performs a series of specialized functions. In addition to cleaning

the substrate, TCA prepares the components of the adhesive and polymer for a

reliable bond. The adhesive and insulation must be compatible with the solvent

residue and the solvent must be compatible with all metallic and elastomeric

components. The contact of the solvent with these components must also be

demonstrated to not cause any long-term adverse effects such as stress cracking,

embrittlement or general corrosion. The solvent must be non-flammable because

the manufacturing process involves 500,000 kg of highly explosive solid

propellant for each rocket motor.

8

It is not possible to verify the performance of potential substitute solvents during

the period of the exemption nomination because adhesive bonds must be age

tested before they are qualified for flight use. Further complications arise since

there are no known accelerated aging procedures that adequately simulate long-

term aging. . . "

Feasible steps to minimize use and emissions.

"By 1997 Thiokol will reduce by 90% the TCA purchased and used in base year

1992 through improved housekeeping, containment, recycling, and substitution

in non-critical uses. . ."

Availability of TCA in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of

banked or recycled substances:

"TCA must be stored with chemical stabilizers. Under long-term storage TCA

will degrade due to environmental conditions such as moisture, oxygen

concentration, or contact with metals. The stabilizers neutralize the harmful by-

products of this degradation and therefore are consumed in the process and also

degrade which necessitates the periodic addition of more stabilizing

compounds. Under long-term storage (in excess of 6-18 months) various and

different levels of contamination caused by the neutralization of chemical by-

products of these stabilizing systems may occur. These contaminants may not

pose problems for most general cleaning applications but may be catastrophic to

the necessary physical and chemical properties of TCA for critical bonding

applications identified by Thiokol in solid rocket motor assembly. . .'I

It is likely that the Parties will agree with the recommendation of the OEWG and

authorize the NASA/Thiokol essential use request in October. The team's

9

receipt of this authorization will be the result of successfully addressing the

essential use criteria, documenting their challenges and efforts, and ensuring

that their nomination for essential use was well understood by those reviewing

it.

Summary The first three nominati ns for essential use f ODSs will go before th Par ties

for a decision in October. The limited number of requests reaching the Parties in

the 1994 decision year are the result of three factors. First and foremost, the

Montreal Protocol’s exemption process is truly limited to only essential requests.

This is controlled by the strict essential use criteria imposed throughout the

review process. Second, the process itself is long and difficult and may have

deterred past potential applicants. However, the Handbook On Essential Use

Nominations will reduce the chances for this to impede future applicants. In

addition, next year’s applicants will have the benefit of looking at past successful

efforts such as the NASA/Thiokol request for TCA. It seems likely that the

aerospace industry may utilize this process again before alternatives are found

or developed for the remaining challenges. It is the obvious intention of the

amended Protocol however, that any use request that does receive authorization

will truly be essential.

References Montreal Protocol On Substances That Deplete The Ozone Laver: UNEP 1994

Report of the TechnoloPy and Economic Assessment Panel, March 1994.

Preliminarv Draft: UNEP Handbook On Essential Use Nominations, July 1994.

10

Contact Information:

Dr. Stephen 0. Andersen Stratospheric Protection Division US. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street SW Mail Code 6205J Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: 202-233-9069 Facsimile: 202-233-9576

Darrel Staley Boeing Defense & Space Group

Seattle, WA 98124-2499 Telephone: 206-773-0046 Facsimile: 206-773-2432

P.O. BOX 3999, M/S 89-18

..._ :.

11

Montreal Protocol

Open Ended Working Group (OEWG)

--

Article 6: Assessment and Review of Control Measures

Assessment Panels

Scientific

Technical Options I Committees (TOC)

Technical and Economics Environmental Effects

Figure 1

L

'..

I

nat’l Eodt

I 8.

3. y1 Assigns to

Organhation Executes

authorization

I TOC I

& reports to TEAP

Montreal Protocol’s Eight Step

Essential Use Exemption Process

.

.