Biess ted

Environmental Assurance for NASA Systems

Ted BiessNASA Headquarters Environmental Management DivisionFebruary 7, 2007

Outline• Alignment with Mission• Environmental Assurance Context• Example Environmental Impact on Shuttle• Focus, Definition, and Goals• Organizational Structure

– Principal Centers– International Component– Partnerships

• Trends• Summary• Contracts and Resources

Alignment with Mission

Compliance‘End of Pipe’

Environmental Management Drivers, Context, and Issues

• Activity is driven by external requirements (e.g., statutes, Executive Orders, public outcry)– Regulatory framework is the main driver for

change• Identify, quantify, measure, monitor,

review and assess environmental problems.

• Sometimes in conflict with mission goals

Agency Strategic GoalsFly the Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement, not later than 2010.

Complete the International Space Station in a manner consistent with NASA’s International Partner commitments and the needs of human exploration.

Develop a balanced overall program of science, exploration, and aeronautics consistent with the redirection of the human spaceflightprogram to focus on exploration.

Bring a new Crew Exploration Vehicle into service as soon as possible after Shuttle retirement.

Encourage the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging commercial space sector.

Establish a lunar return program having the maximum possible utility for later missions to Mars and other destinations.

1

654

3

2

Environmental Management Goals to Support Mission

Direct Mission SupportProvide direct mission support by integrating environmental considerations into programs and projects.

Proactive Risk MitigationProactively reduce NASA’s exposure to institutional, programmatic and operational risk.

Protect Mission ResourcesPursue environmental initiatives designed to restore, protect and enhance mission resources.

1

3

2

Alignment with Mission

Environmental Management

Direct Mission SupportNational

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Cultural & Historic Preservation

Regulated Materials

Proactive Risk Mitigation

Environmental Assurance

Center Future Operational Assurance

Energy

Division Management & Support

Protection of Mission Resources

Environmental Functional Reviews

Cleanup and Remediation

Environmental Management Sys.

Emerging Contaminants

Recycling & Affirmative Proc.


Context

System Inputs & OutputsModel

INPUTS

OUTPUTS

raw materials

waste heat

solid waste

air emissions

water emissions

usable products

fuels / energy

‘end of

pipe’

waste stream

attributes determine

inputs and

outputs

Concept Exploration

Lifecycle Cost

Operations and Support

ProductionSystem Acquisition

System R&D

Lifecycle cost locked in

100958570

50

10

Production and Development

Initial Operational Capability

Lifecycle cost expended

Time

60%30%10%

$

Concept and Validation

Full Scale Development

Out of Service

From W. J. Larson & L. K. Pranke (1999) Human Spaceflight: Mission Analysis and Design

Disposal Cost?

Impacts of Design Decisions

Managing to External Requirements

• Agency Regulations • Archaeological Resources Protection Act • Biobased Product Procurement

Requirements • Clean Air Act (CAA)• Clean Water Act (CWA)• Safe Drinking Water Act• Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)• Costal Zone Management Act• Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)• Endangered Species Act (ESA)• Energy Policy Act of 2005• Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain

Management• Executive Order 11990 - Protection of

Wetlands• Executive Order 12114 - Environmental

Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions• Executive Order 12898 - Environmental

Justice• Executive Order 13148 - Greening the

Government

• Executive Order 13287 - Preserve America• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act• Global Climate Protection Act• Green Computer (EPEAT) Procurement

Requirements• ISO14001 - Environmental Management

Standard• Landfill Disposal Standards• Local Regulations• Marine Mammal Protection Act• Migratory Bird Treaty Act• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)• National Historic Preservation Act• Occupational Safety and Health Act

(OSHA)• Pollution Prevention Act (PPA)• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA)• State Regulations• Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act (SARA)• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

Increased regulation means increased operational restrictions, mandated controls, cost uncertainty, and schedule delays

Apollo VSE2010 2020 2030 2040

What will be the added effects/regulation from more liberal Administrations and Congresses?

?

?

?

Source: J. A. Cusumano, New Technology for the Environment, Chemtech, 1992, 22(8), 482–489

Shuttle

Trends for Long-Life SystemsIncreasing Env. Regulation

Adapted from Ares 1 SRR Presentation, Nov 6-7, 2006

Includes DDT&E and operations – environmental factors act primarily in the ops phase

NASA incurs O&M costs and risks associated with environmental issues

Adapted from Ares 1 SRR Presentation, Nov 6-7, 2006

Example Environmental

Impact on Shuttle

Ozone Hole Discovered in 1985

From September 21-30, 2006 the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles. This image, from Sept. 24, the Antarctic ozone hole was equal to the record single-day largest area of 11.4 million square miles, reached on Sept. 9, 2000. The blue and purple colors are where there is the least ozone, and the greens, yellows, and reds are where there is more ozone.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ozone_record.html

October 19, 2006

NASA and NOAA Announce Ozone Hole is a Double Record Breaker

Shuttle Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS) Applications

External Tank

Solid Rocket Boosters

Orbiter

RSRM:Nozzle

Space Shuttle Main Engines

External Tank:4 TPS Foams

Locations of HCFC 141b foams are noted in blue

Orbiter Applications:Main Propulsion System and Power Reactant Storage and Distribution System

RSRM

Forward SRB/ET Attach Strut

Aft SRB/ET Attach Struts (3)

SRB/ET Attach Ring

Aft Stiffener Rings (3)

Thermal Protection System (TPS) Development Timeline

1988

2003

2002

1993

1992

1991Made decision to implement HCFC 141b as near drop-in replacement rather than pursue Essential Use Exemption. Initiated detailed development activities and design verification testing with HCFC 141b. Estimated completion date 1996.

Began development of ODS-free (without HCFC 141b) foam; estimated completion by 2003 which is phase-out date of all Class II ODS.

Initiated production implementation of 3 out of 4 CFC 11 foams with formulations containing HCFC 141b

Replaced remaining CFC 11 foam with HCFC 141b alternate

HCFC 141b phased out in US. ODS-free foam is not available. Resources and attention is overtaken by Columbia Accident and Return to Flight

NASA still requires Essential Usage Exemption for continued use of HCFC 141b within SSP. No plans for development of ODS-free foam due to Shuttle retirement in 2010.

Initiated CFC 11 blowing agent replacement investigations

2007

Elimination of Ozone Depleting Substances within NASA

• ODS elimination has been a priority within NASA• The majority of ODS usage has been eliminated• Mission critical uses remain for existing space vehicles, and

possibly for future programs

1991 2004 Reduction

36110 11530(79600) (25400)385100 10700

(849000) (23500)1171000 23000

(2600000) (50700)130200 19000

(287000) (41800)3720 95

(8200) (210)

End Use ClassificationODS Usage - kg (pounds)

Rubber Cleaning, Surface Activation, and Bonding

Solvent Cleaning, Precision Cleaning, and Cleanliness Verification

Refrigeration and Operational Cooling

Fire Suppression

Foam Blowing (Thermal Protection System Foams) 68%

97%

98%

85%

97%


Focus, Definition, and Goals

Environmental Assurance Focus

• Identified under NEPA through the Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) process prior to Program inception

• The EIS describes programmatic options and addresses environmental considerations associated with each

• Real-time risks from a new environmental driver• Real-time risks from configuration issues/changes that trigger an

existing driver

Risks posed by the Program to the environment

Risks posed to the Program by environmentally-related drivers

Environmental Assurance Definition

Environmental Assurance is the proactive detection, analysis, mitigation, and communication of environmentally driven risks to NASA mission-required research, development, fabrication, processing and operations.

Environmental Assurance Goals1. Identify, analyze, and measure environmentally

driven programmatic and institutional risks. 2. Communicate environmentally driven

programmatic and institutional risks to appropriate owners (when possible, in early phases of program and project planning and execution)

3. Team/partner with risk owners to proactively reduce risk’s impact, likelihood, and scope (e.g., may apply to multiple programs and projects)– Influence regulatory authorities– Acquire special waivers, if possible, from regulating

organization– Identify and validate appropriate solutions for mitigation of

environmentally driven risks. As needed, adapt high-TRL technology and/or increase TRL for new technology for NASA’s use.

The risk owners (e.g., programs and projects) will have day-to-day responsibility for management of their risks.

Environmental Assurance Structure

Environmental Assurance Structure

Environmental Management Division (EMD)

NASA Headquarters

Technology Evaluation for Environmental Risk Mitigation

(TEERM) - KSC

Regulatory Risk Analysis and Communication (RRAC)

MSFC

Centro Para Prevenção daPoluição

(C3P)Lisbon, Portugal

Leadership & Coordination

Principal Centers

Partner Organization

Leadership & Coordination - EMD

Environmental Management Division (EMD)

NASA Headquarters


(TEERM) - KSC


MSFC



• Provides management oversight of Principal Centers

• Interfaces with partner organizations - SEA, JGPP, JANNAF, CAASSC

• Coordinates activity with regulatory agencies

• Provides legislative support, policy review, and guidance

Principal Center – RRACEnvironmental Management

Division (EMD)NASA Headquarters


(TEERM) - KSC


MSFC



• Performs regulatory review and impact analysis

• Captures and analyzes emerging risks

• Develops mitigation options

• Recommends actions for influencing regulatory authorities

• Communicates risks to NASA programs and projects

Principal Center – TEERMEnvironmental Management



(TEERM) - KSC


MSFC



• Leads work to identify and test environmentally preferable alternative materials and processes

• Analyzes materials and processes

• Manages joint test projects

• Disseminates test results

• Develops risk mitigation options

• Participates with partners on joint projects – C3P and Joint Group on Pollution Prevention (JGPP)

Partner Organization – C3PEnvironmental Management



(TEERM) - KSC


MSFC



• Works with multiple European partners

• Conducts joint projects focusing on elimination of hazardous materials to meet emerging EU regs.

• Operates in ways similar to TEERM

• Monitors European projects concerning elimination of hazardous material

• Provides conduit into European Union for other activities of interest to NASA (e.g., energy, REACH, lead-free solder)

Partnerships

Shuttle Environmental Assurance (SEA)

Joint Army, Navy, NASA and Air Force (JANNAF)

Joint Group on Pollution Prevention (JGPP)

Department of Defense Clean Air Act Services Steering Committee

(DOD CAASSC)

• EMD serves on Steering Committee

• RRAC and TEERM participate

• EMD is a member

• RRAC is implementation lead

RRAC - Regulatory Risk Analysis and Communication TEERM - Technology Evaluation for Environmental Risk Mitigation

• Participate within Safety and Environmental Protection Subcommittee (SEPS)

• EMD is a member

• Provides insight into impacts from regulation

Trends

Environmental Assurance Risk Drivers

Other Environment, Health, and Safety Considerations• Considerations related to environment, health or safety• Often, but not always, related to “government requirements”Vendor Economics & Issues• Vendor decisions to change formulations, cease production of a material, or

otherwise impact materials and processes• Often related to the other driversTechnology and Market-Based Forces• Technology advances can reduce manufacturers’ incentives to produce

technologically obsolete materials• Global trends in materials selection and procurement can impact materials

availability by reducing production viability of certain low-volume itemsNatural Disasters• Manufacturing facilities and infrastructure damage by earthquake, hurricane, fire

and other disasters can affect manufacturers’ ability or willingness to produce materials

Government Requirements• EHS-related statutes, regulations, executive orders, or policies that set

requirements

US Regulatory Trends and Issues Create New External Requirements

• New U.S. air emission requirements• More international requirements and pressures to manage

chemical/material risk• Expansion of climate change measures • More restrictive requirements for worker, public, and

environmental safety

• NASA will continue to comply with external requirements (US)• Implementation of external requirements without understanding

mission impacts may compromise both implementation of requirements and NASA’s ability to execute its mission effectively

• NASA will choose how to meet external requirements to maximize mission success

Environmental Regulatory Landscape

Multi-LateralEnvironmental

Agreements (MEAs)U.S. Federal Regulations

State and Local Regulations

Foreign Statutes and Regulations

United StatesInternational

Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) Generated Risk Drivers

• Future ratification of MEAs could initiate U.S. activities to comply with new requirements, either through existing laws and regulations or development of new ones

• Growing influence by Europe, China, and others in setting global environmental agenda and standards

• Diminished U.S. role in international arena with respect to– Prioritization of environmental issues– International requirements development– Environmental problem solving

Key Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)

Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)

Initial Agreement Parties

Ratified by U.S. Focus

Montreal Protocol 1989 189 Yes ODS phaseoutBasel Convention 1992 167 No recyclables tradeConvention on Biological Diversity 1992 188 No biodiversity/access &benefitsLaw of the Sea 1994 149 No ocean governanceChemical Weapons Convention 1997 176 Yes weapon bans/ inspectionsBiosafety Protocol 2003 131 No LMOs commoditiesLRTAP – Heavy Metals 2003 27 Yes heavy metalsLRTAP – POPs 2003 25 No chemical bansRotterdam PIC Convention 2004 102 No chemicals tradeStockholm POPs Convention 2004 119 No chemical bansKyoto Protocol 2005 160 No climate change

International Influences on Material Selection and Use

European Union• Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals

(REACH)• Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) • Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)

Asia• Emerging RoHS-like laws in China and Korea

Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)• Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)• Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP)

Partial List of Materials and Processes of Concern

• Trichloroethane• Precision Cleaning and Cleanliness Verification Processes

Requiring ODSs (HCFC 225 and HCFC 225g)• TPS and Cryoinsulation Containing ODS (HCFC 141b)• Chromate Primers• Cadmium Plating• Hexavalent Chromium Conversion Coating• Paint Strippers Containing Methylene Chloride• Lead Based Solid Film Lubricants• Paints Containing Perchloroethylene• High-Level Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Coatings • Alkaline Cleaners Containing Hexavalent Chromium• Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Inks• Methyl Ethyl Ketone• Materials and Products Containing Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonates• Materials Containing Brominated Flame Retardants• Materials Requiring Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)

Summary

Summary

• We are leveraging and refocusing environmental capabilities at Centers and Headquarters to develop Environmental Assurance in support of mission

• Environmental Assurance practiced at NASA will work to proactively identify, communicate, and mitigate risks to mission in a changing regulatory and resource-constrained climate to maximize options for programs and projects.

Contacts and Resources

Contacts and ResourcesJames LeatherwoodDirector, Environmental Management [email protected]

David AmideiEnvironmental Assurance for NASA [email protected]

Ted BiessEnvironmental Assurance for NASA [email protected]

Sharon ScrogginsRegulatory Risk Analysis and [email protected]

Chris BrownTechnology Evaluation for Environmental Risk [email protected]

Steve GloverShuttle Environmental [email protected]

Paul RobertCenter Operational [email protected]

WebsitesEnvironmental Management Divisionhttp://oim.hq.nasa.gov/oia/emd/index.html

Technology Evaluation for Environmental Risk Mitigationhttp://acqp2.nasa.gov/

FedCenter (Government Environmental Portal)http://www.fedcenter.gov/

Clean Joint Group on Pollution Preventionhttp://www.jgpp.com/index.html

Backup

Montreal Protocol

http://ozone.unep.org/Treaties_and_Ratification/2B_montreal_protocol.asp

• Antarctic ozone hole discovered in late 1985

• Governments recognized the need for stronger measures to reduce the production and consumption of a number of CFCs and Halons

• Adopted on 16 September 1987 in Montreal Canada

• Signed by President Reagan on April 5, 1988

• Came into force on 1st January 1989, when it was ratified by 29 countries and the European Economic Community

NASA Systems and Processes Requiring Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS)

• Foam Blowing (Thermal Protection System Foams)

• Rubber Cleaning, Surface Activation, and Bonding

• Solvent Cleaning, Precision Cleaning, and Cleanliness Verification

• Refrigeration and Operational Cooling• Fire Suppression

Requirement for Essential Usage Exemption from EPA

• The document mentions that different alternatives have been tested, but it gives no indication if those tests are ongoing and at what level, what substances, etc - NASA needs to be more explicit. There is no mention of a reduction in their use of ODS over time, unlike in other sections of the document.

• It is problematic for NASA to state that it has "[no] plans to seek replacement for implementation on [Space Shuttle Program]" (pg 12 in table 4.1). The petition process as currently designed requires anyone who seeks an exemption to be actively searching for alternatives and documenting that search in their petitions. EPA expects an affirmative statement about NASA’s research plans for ODS substitutes for new vehicles. (Seema Schappelle, Bella Maranion, and Suzie Kocchi)

Recent Feedback from EPA

• NASA is required to actively search for alternatives to materials and processes which use phased out ODS

• NASA is required to perform semiannual usage reports and submit them to the EPA

NASA Advisory Groups

Inspector General

Chief Engineer

Office of the Administrator

AdministratorDeputy Administrator

Associate Administrator

Chief Safety & Mission Assurance

Program Analysis & Evaluation

Aeronautics Research

Exploration Systems

Science

Space Operations

Chief Financial Officer

Chief Information Officer

General Counsel

Integrated Enterprise Mgmt Program

Innovative Partnership Program

Security & Program Protection

Chief Health & Medical Officer

Institutions & Management

Mission Directorates Mission Support Offices

Strategic Communications

NASA Shared Services Center Human Capital Management

Diversity and Equal Opportunity Procurement Small & Disadvantaged Business Utilization

Education External Relations Legislative Affairs Public Affairs

Dryden Flight Research Center

Glenn Research Center

NASA Centers

Goddard Space Flight Center

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Johnson Space Center

Kennedy Space Center

Marshall Space Flight Center

Langley Research Center

Stennis Space Center

Ames Research Center

Chief of Staff

The NASA Organizational Chart

Infrastructure and Administration

Impacts of Design Decisions

• For a typical product, 70% of the cost of development, manufacture and use is determined in its design phase.

• Graphs are analogous for environmental impacts• Engaging in upfront product design can increase efficiency, reduce

waste of materials and energy, reduce costs, impart new performance and capabilities, incorporate “inherently benign”

Environmental Management Initiatives

Mission Success

Envi

ronm

enta

l Per

form

ance


Pollution Prevention

Compliance1969

1992

2006

Environmental Management Initiatives

Compliance (initiated in 1969)• Comply with Environmental Regulations• Creates unexpected consequences (e.g., costs, etc.) that threaten

mission• Seen as a burden

Pollution Prevention (initiated in 1992)• Attempt to prevent environmental hazards and costs• Improve control of environmental performance• Save funding by avoiding expenditures from environmental damage• Save funding from avoiding cost of compliance

Environmental Assurance (initiated in 2006)• Focus on increasing environmental quality, improving cost

effectiveness, and reducing risks to mission• Enlarges trade space for mission• Seek situations where there is a win for mission and a win for the

environment

chemical usage tracking1976Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

ODS phaseout, hazardous air pollutants1970Clean Air Act (CAA)

guidance for national climate program1987Global Climate Protection Act

cleanup of hazardous substances1986Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)

hazardous waste management1976Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

national policy for pollution prevention1990Pollution Prevention Act (PPA)

protection of worker safety1970Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)

protection of threatened and endangered species1973Endangered Species Act (ESA)

reporting releases of chemical hazards1986Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)

cleanup of hazardous substances1980Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

regulation discharge of pollutants to waterways1977Clean Water Act (CWA)

environmental assessments for proposed Actions1969National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

FocusPublishedRegulation

Key U.S. Federal Laws

Example of Indirect Impact on Supply Chain

Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS)• Effective 1 July 2006• Bans several materials used in new electrical and

electronic equipment (EEE)

- Lead- Cadmium- Mercury- Hexavalent Chromium- PBB and PBDE flame

retardants

Tin whisker growing from the case of one relay in the direction of an adjacent relay.

Past NASA Environmental Assurance Successes

Preparation and Negotiation of 2 Exemption Petitions for Continued Production and Use of HCFC 141b

– Blowing agent currently is used in mission-critical thermal protection systems (TPS)

– Storing (stockpiling) HCFC 141b poses unacceptable risk of instability and contamination

– Continued production of this banned substance is essential to SSP

– These exemptions allow for the procurement of fresh material for use in External Tank TPS; RSRM Nozzle Foam Plug; Orbiter’s cryogenic insulation; and Booster bolt catchers, repairs and closeouts.

Past NASA Environmental Assurance Successes

Active NASA participation in the rulemaking negotiation process for several National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) regulations

– significant benefits to space operations by influencing several categories– rules under the Clean Air Act requiring stringent control measures for reducing HAP

emissions

Aerospace NESHAP: obtained exemptions from surface coating and cleaning requirements for space vehicles

Rocket Engine Test Firing NESHAP: convinced EPA that it is impractical to impose emission limitations on rocket engine test firing operations

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP: On-site NASA metal surface coating & related operations were excluded from this rule

Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP: On-site NASA plastic & composite surface coating & related operations were excluded from this rule

Defense Land Systems and Miscellaneous Equipment (DLSME) NESHAP (ongoing):On-site NASA non-flight hardware surface coating, cleaning and paint removal operations will likely have only limited restrictions that are tailored to NASA systems and requirements

Risk Characterization

Risk = f(Hazard, Exposure)

Risk = f(Hazard, Dose, Time)

National Academy of Sciences, 1983.

NASA Risk Statement StructureGiven that there is a possibility that

CONDITION CONSEQUENCEwill occur

A good risk statement must be ACTIONABLE and have ONE condition and ONE consequence per statement

• Must be a FACT or perceived to be FACT

• Must be REALITY BASED

• Can have NO uncertainty attached

• Must have a NEGATIVE impact to the CONDITION

Additionally, a single event could trigger several risks and have multiple consequences

Example EA Risk

Given that there is a possibility that

• ODS will be specified for development and O&M of Cxsystems

• NASA will not have access to needed supplies of ODS

• Cx systems will not have ability to perform critical precision cleaning and cleanliness verification operations

• The SSP utilizes Class I and Class II ozone-depleting substances (ODS) for critical precision cleaning and cleanliness verification operations

• Cx systems have shuttle-heritage• Some LOX systems currently do

not have substitutes for these ODSs (e.g., CFC 113, HCFC 225) for critical precision cleaning and cleanliness verification operations

• All Class II ODS production will be discontinued and usage will be highly regulated in the US by January 1, 2015

The Twelve Principles of Green Chemistry

1. Prevention. It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it has been created.2. Atom Economy. Synthetic methods should be designed to maximize the incorporation of all

materials used in the process into the final product.3. Less Hazardous Chemical Syntheses. Wherever practicable, synthetic methods should be

designed to use and generate substances that possess little or no toxicity to human health and the environment.

4. Designing Safer Chemicals. Chemical products should be designed to effect their desired function while minimizing their toxicity.

5. Safer Solvents and Auxiliaries. The use of auxiliary substances (e.g., solvents, separation agents, etc.) should be made unnecessary wherever possible and innocuous when used.

6. Design for Energy Efficiency. Energy requirements of chemical processes should be recognized for their environmental and economic impacts and should be minimized. If possible, synthetic methods should be conducted at ambient temperature and pressure.

7. Use of Renewable Feedstocks. A raw material or feedstock should be renewable rather than depleting whenever technically and economically practicable.

8. Reduce Derivatives. Unnecessary derivatization (use of blocking groups, protection/ deprotection, temporary modification of physical/chemical processes) should be minimized or avoided if possible, because such steps require additional reagents and can generate waste.

9. Catalysis. Catalytic reagents (as selective as possible) are superior to stoichiometric reagents.10. Design for Degradation. Chemical products should be designed so that at the end of their

function they break down into innocuous degradation products and do not persist in the environment.

11. Real-time analysis for Pollution Prevention. Analytical methodologies need to be further developed to allow for real-time, in-process monitoring and control prior to the formation of hazardous substances.

12. Inherently Safer Chemistry for Accident Prevention. Substances and the form of a substance used in a chemical process should be chosen to minimize the potential for chemical accidents, including releases, explosions, and fires.

*Anastas, P. T.; Warner, J. C. Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press: New York, 1998, p.30.

The Twelve Principles of Green Engineering

1. Inherent Rather Than Circumstantial. Designers need to strive to ensure that all materials and energy inputs and outputs are as inherently nonhazardous as possible.

2. Prevention Instead of Treatment. It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it is formed.

3. Design for Separation. Separation and purification operations should be designed to minimize energy consumption and materials use.

4. Maximize Efficiency. Products, processes, and systems should be designed to maximize mass, energy, space, and time efficiency.

5. Output-Pulled Versus Input-Pushed. Products, processes, and systems should be "output pulled" rather than "input pushed" through the use of energy and materials.

6. Conserve Complexity. Embedded entropy and complexity must be viewed as an investmentwhen making design choices on recycle, reuse, or beneficial disposition.

7. Durability Rather Than Immortality. Targeted durability, not immortality, should be a design goal.8. Meet Need, Minimize Excess. Design for unnecessary capacity or capability (e.g., "one size fits

all") solutions should be considered a design flaw.9. Minimize Material Diversity. Material diversity in multicomponent products should be minimized to

promote disassembly and value retention.10. Integrate Material and Energy Flows. Design of products, processes, and systems must include

integration and interconnectivity with available energy and materials flows.11. Design for Commercial "Afterlife". Products, processes, and systems should be designed for

performance in a commercial "afterlife."12. Renewable Rather Than Depleting. Material and energy inputs should be renewable rather than

depleting.

* Anastas, P.T., and Zimmerman, J.B., "Design through the Twelve Principles of Green Engineering", Env. Sci. and Tech., 37, 5, 95 ? 101, 2003.

U.S. Climate Change Proposals

Climate Change Legislative Proposals inU.S. Congress

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1997-1998 1999-2000 2001-2002 2003-2004

Note: President Bush’s 2007 State of the Union address

Worker Safety

• OSHA– Hexavalent Chromium PEL Reduction

– Crystalline Silica Exposure Standard

– Beryllium Exposure Standard

– Explosives Standard

• State Requirements

• International Requirements

European Union RoHS Directive• Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS)

– EU Directive banning “placing on market” new electronic equipment containing specific levels of the following after July 1, 2006

• Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyl (PBB), polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants

– Seeks to reduce the environmental impact of EEE by restricting the use of certain hazardous substances during manufacture

– Related legislation underway in China and Japan• Consumer electronics are driving commercial market to lead-free alternatives

– Lead-free brings new and re-emerging failure modes in electronics – Most consumer electronics are throw away– NASA has unique operating environment which drive additional requirements– Electronic industry minimally impacted by aerospace requirements

• Estimated aerospace use = 1% solder and components• Primary lead-free impacts

– Lead-free solder issues– Tin whisker failures– Availability of leaded solder and components– New processes / configuration control

• Commercial solution strategies for lead-free may not apply to Military / Aerospace applications

JCAA/JG-PP Lead-Free Solder Testing for High-Reliability Applications

Background• International collaborative effort

– Project begun under the auspices of the U.S. DoD’s Joint Group on Pollution Prevention (JG-PP), then turned over to the DoD’s Joint Council on Aging Aircraft (JCAA) (concerned about numerous lead-free solder logistical and repair issues)

– DoD, NASA, U.S. and European defense and space OEMs, and component & solder suppliers

– Project Completed• Results highly anticipated by NASA & industry. Issues critical for Constellation

program risk reduction.• Findings of high value to hundreds of stakeholders. No one else looking at lead-free

solder for high reliability applications as in depthNext Step• NASA Lead-Free Electronics Project

– Data generated from the this project is required to gain a better understanding of how lead-free electronics will perform in high-reliability aerospace applications.

– Even though NASA and the aerospace community are exempt from lead-free laws and regulations, there may not be enough suppliers available to meet needs

– Military and aerospace OEMs are receiving unwanted electronics components with lead-free finishes

JCAA/JG-PP Lead-Free Solder Testing for High-Reliability Applications