1. Environmental
Assurance for
NASA
Systems
Ted Biess
NASA Headquarters
Environmental Management Division
February 7, 2007

2. 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

3. Alignment with
Mission

4. Compliance
‘End of Pipe’

5. 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

6. Agency Strategic Goals
Fly the Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement, not later
1 than 2010.
Complete the International Space Station in a manner consistent
2 with NASA’s International Partner commitments and the needs of
human exploration.
Develop a balanced overall program of science, exploration, and
3 aeronautics consistent with the redirection of the human spaceflight
program to focus on exploration.
Bring a new Crew Exploration Vehicle into service as soon as
4 possible after Shuttle retirement.
Encourage the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the
5 emerging commercial space sector.
Establish a lunar return program having the maximum possible
6 utility for later missions to Mars and other destinations.

7. Environmental Management
Goals to Support Mission
Direct Mission Support
1 Provide direct mission support by integrating
environmental considerations into programs
and projects.
2 Proactive Risk Mitigation
Proactively reduce NASA’s exposure to
institutional, programmatic and operational risk.
3 Protect Mission Resources
Pursue environmental initiatives designed to
restore, protect and enhance mission
resources.

8. Alignment with Mission
Environmental Management
Division Management & Support
Protection of Direct Mission Proactive Risk
Mission Resources Support Mitigation
Environmental National Environmental
Functional Reviews Environmental Assurance
Policy Act (NEPA)
Cleanup and Center Future
Remediation Operational
Cultural & Historic
Environmental Preservation Assurance
Management Sys.
Regulated Materials Energy
Emerging
Contaminants
Recycling &
Affirmative Proc.

9. Environmental
Assurance
Context

10. System Inputs & Outputs
Model
OUTPUTS
INPUTS
waste heat
raw materials solid waste waste
stream
air emissions
attributes ‘end
determine of
fuels / energy inputs water emissions
pipe’
and
outputs usable products

11. Impacts of Design Decisions
Lifecycle Cost
Operations and Support
System Acquisition
$ Production
System
R&D
100
95 Lifecycle cost
85 locked in
70 Lifecycle cost
expended
50
Disposal
60% Cost?
10% 30%
10
Time
Concept Production and Initial Out of
Exploration Development Operational Service
Concept and Full Scale Capability
Validation Development
From W. J. Larson & L. K. Pranke (1999) Human Spaceflight: Mission Analysis and Design

12. Managing to External
Requirements
• Agency Regulations • Executive Order 13287 - Preserve America
• Archaeological Resources Protection Act • Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
• Biobased Product Procurement • Global Climate Protection Act
Requirements • Green Computer (EPEAT) Procurement
• Clean Air Act (CAA) Requirements
• Clean Water Act (CWA) • ISO14001 - Environmental Management
• Safe Drinking Water Act Standard
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, • Landfill Disposal Standards
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) • Local Regulations
• Costal Zone Management Act • Marine Mammal Protection Act
• Emergency Planning and Community • Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
• Endangered Species Act (ESA) • National Historic Preservation Act
• Energy Policy Act of 2005 • Occupational Safety and Health Act
• Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain (OSHA)
Management • Pollution Prevention Act (PPA)
• Executive Order 11990 - Protection of • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Wetlands (RCRA)
• Executive Order 12114 - Environmental • State Regulations
Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions • Superfund Amendments and
• Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Reauthorization Act (SARA)
Justice • Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
• Executive Order 13148 - Greening the
Government

13. Trends for Long-Life Systems ?
Increasing Env. Regulation
?
Increased regulation
means increased
?
operational
restrictions,
mandated controls, What will be the
cost uncertainty, added
effects/regulation
and schedule delays from more liberal
Administrations
and Congresses?
2010 2020 2030 2040
Apollo Shuttle VSE
Source: J. A. Cusumano, New Technology for the Environment, Chemtech, 1992, 22(8), 482–489

14. Includes DDT&E and operations – environmental
factors act primarily in the ops phase
Adapted from Ares 1 SRR Presentation, Nov 6-7, 2006

15. NASA incurs O&M
costs and risks
associated with
environmental
issues
Adapted from Ares 1 SRR Presentation, Nov 6-7, 2006

16. Example
Environmental
Impact on Shuttle

17. Ozone Hole Discovered in 1985
NASA and NOAA
Announce Ozone Hole is
a Double Record Breaker
October 19, 2006
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

18. Shuttle Ozone Depleting
Substance (ODS) Applications
External Tank
Solid Rocket Boosters
External Tank:
4 TPS Foams Orbiter
Forward SRB/ET
Attach Strut
RSRM Orbiter
Applications:
Main Propulsion
SRB/ET Attach System and
Ring Aft SRB/ET Power Reactant
Attach Struts (3) Storage and
Distribution
System
Aft
Stiffener
Rings (3) Locations of HCFC
141b foams are
RSRM: noted in blue Space Shuttle
Nozzle Main Engines

19. Thermal Protection System (TPS)
Development Timeline
1988 Initiated CFC 11 blowing agent replacement investigations
Made decision to implement HCFC 141b as near drop-in replacement
rather than pursue Essential Use Exemption. Initiated detailed
1991 development activities and design verification testing with HCFC 141b.
Estimated completion date 1996.
Began development of ODS-free (without HCFC 141b) foam; estimated
1992 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
1993 formulations containing HCFC 141b
2002 Replaced remaining CFC 11 foam with HCFC 141b alternate
HCFC 141b phased out in US. ODS-free foam is not available. Resources
2003 and attention is overtaken by Columbia Accident and Return to Flight
NASA still requires Essential Usage Exemption for continued use of
2007 HCFC 141b within SSP. No plans for development of ODS-free foam due
to Shuttle retirement in 2010.

20. Elimination of Ozone Depleting
Substances within NASA
ODS Usage - kg (pounds)
End Use Classification
1991 2004 Reduction
Foam Blowing 36110 11530
(Thermal Protection System Foams)
68%
(79600) (25400)
Rubber Cleaning, Surface Activation, and 385100 10700
Bonding
97%
(849000) (23500)
Solvent Cleaning, Precision Cleaning, 1171000 23000
and Cleanliness Verification
98%
(2600000) (50700)
130200 19000
Refrigeration and Operational Cooling 85%
(287000) (41800)
3720 95
Fire Suppression 97%
(8200) (210)
• 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

21. Environmental
Assurance
Focus, Definition,
and Goals

22. Environmental Assurance Focus
Risks posed by the Program to the
environment
• 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
Risks posed to the Program by
environmentally-related drivers
• Real-time risks from a new environmental driver
• Real-time risks from configuration issues/changes that trigger an
existing driver

23. 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.

24. Environmental Assurance Goals
1. 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.

25. Environmental
Assurance
Structure

26. Environmental Assurance Structure
Environmental Management Leadership &
Division (EMD) Coordination
NASA Headquarters
Regulatory Risk Analysis and Principal Centers
Communication (RRAC)
MSFC
Technology Evaluation for
Environmental Risk Mitigation
(TEERM) - KSC
Centro Para Prevenção da
Partner Organization
Poluição
(C3P)
Lisbon, Portugal

27. Leadership & Coordination - EMD
• Provides management
Environmental Management
oversight of Principal
Division (EMD)
NASA Headquarters Centers
• Interfaces with partner
organizations - SEA, JGPP,
Regulatory Risk Analysis and JANNAF, CAASSC
Communication (RRAC)
MSFC • Coordinates activity with
regulatory agencies
• Provides legislative
Technology Evaluation for
support, policy review, and
Environmental Risk Mitigation
(TEERM) - KSC guidance
Centro Para Prevenção da
Poluição
(C3P)
Lisbon, Portugal

28. Principal Center – RRAC
• Performs regulatory review
Environmental Management
and impact analysis
Division (EMD)
NASA Headquarters • Captures and analyzes
emerging risks
Regulatory Risk Analysis and • Develops mitigation
Communication (RRAC) options
MSFC
• Recommends actions for
influencing regulatory
authorities
Technology Evaluation for
Environmental Risk Mitigation • Communicates risks to
(TEERM) - KSC NASA programs and
projects
Centro Para Prevenção da
Poluição
(C3P)
Lisbon, Portugal

29. Principal Center – TEERM
• Leads work to identify and
Environmental Management
test environmentally
Division (EMD)
NASA Headquarters preferable alternative
materials and processes
• Analyzes materials and
Regulatory Risk Analysis and processes
Communication (RRAC)
MSFC • Manages joint test
projects
• Disseminates test
Technology Evaluation for results
Environmental Risk Mitigation
(TEERM) - KSC • Develops risk mitigation
options
Centro Para Prevenção da • Participates with partners
Poluição on joint projects – C3P and
(C3P) Joint Group on Pollution
Lisbon, Portugal Prevention (JGPP)

30. Partner Organization – C3P
• Works with multiple
Environmental Management
European partners
Division (EMD)
NASA Headquarters • Conducts joint projects
focusing on elimination of
hazardous materials to
Regulatory Risk Analysis and meet emerging EU regs.
Communication (RRAC)
MSFC • Operates in ways similar to
TEERM
• Monitors European projects
Technology Evaluation for
concerning elimination of
Environmental Risk Mitigation
(TEERM) - KSC hazardous material
• Provides conduit into
Centro Para Prevenção da European Union for other
Poluição activities of interest to
(C3P) NASA (e.g., energy,
Lisbon, Portugal REACH, lead-free solder)

31. Partnerships
• EMD serves on Steering
Shuttle Environmental Committee
Assurance (SEA)
• RRAC and TEERM participate
Joint Group on Pollution • EMD is a member
Prevention (JGPP)
• RRAC is implementation lead
• Participate within Safety and
Joint Army, Navy, NASA and Air
Force (JANNAF) Environmental Protection
Subcommittee (SEPS)
• EMD is a member
Department of Defense Clean Air
Act Services Steering Committee • Provides insight into impacts
(DOD CAASSC) from regulation
RRAC - Regulatory Risk Analysis and Communication TEERM - Technology Evaluation for Environmental Risk Mitigation

32. Trends

33. Environmental Assurance
Risk Drivers
Government Requirements
• EHS-related statutes, regulations, executive orders, or policies that set
requirements
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 drivers
Technology 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 items
Natural Disasters
• Manufacturing facilities and infrastructure damage by earthquake, hurricane, fire
and other disasters can affect manufacturers’ ability or willingness to produce
materials

34. 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

35. Environmental Regulatory
Landscape
International United States
Multi-Lateral
Environmental U.S. Federal
Agreements (MEAs) Regulations
Foreign Statutes State and Local
and Regulations Regulations

36. 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

37. Key Multilateral Environmental
Agreements (MEAs)
Multilateral Environmental Initial Ratified
Agreements (MEAs) Agreement
Parties by U.S. Focus
Montreal Protocol 1989 189 Yes ODS phaseout
Basel Convention 1992 167 No recyclables trade
Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 188 No biodiversity/access &benefits
Law of the Sea 1994 149 No ocean governance
Chemical Weapons Convention 1997 176 Yes weapon bans/ inspections
Biosafety Protocol 2003 131 No LMOs commodities
LRTAP – Heavy Metals 2003 27 Yes heavy metals
LRTAP – POPs 2003 25 No chemical bans
Rotterdam PIC Convention 2004 102 No chemicals trade
Stockholm POPs Convention 2004 119 No chemical bans
Kyoto Protocol 2005 160 No climate change

38. International Influences on
Material Selection and Use
Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)
• Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
• Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP)
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

39. 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)

40. Summary

41. 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.

43. Contacts and
Resources

44. Contacts and Resources
James Leatherwood Chris Brown
Director, Environmental Management Division Technology Evaluation for Environmental
202.358.3608 Risk Mitigation
james.leatherwood-1@nasa.gov 321.867.8463
christina.m.brown@nasa.gov
David Amidei
Environmental Assurance for NASA Systems
Steve Glover
Shuttle Environmental Assurance
202.358.1866
256.544.5016
damidei@nasa.gov
steve.e.glover@nasa.gov
Ted Biess
Environmental Assurance for NASA Systems
Paul Robert
Center Operational Assurance
202.358.2272
202.358.1305
theodore.biess-1@nasa.gov
paul.robert-1@nasa.gov
Sharon Scroggins
Regulatory Risk Analysis and Communication
256.544.7932
sharon.scroggins@nasa.gov

45. Websites
Environmental Management Division
http://oim.hq.nasa.gov/oia/emd/index.html
Technology Evaluation for Environmental Risk
Mitigation
http://acqp2.nasa.gov/
FedCenter (Government Environmental Portal)
http://www.fedcenter.gov/
Clean Joint Group on Pollution Prevention
http://www.jgpp.com/index.html

46. Backup

47. Montreal Protocol
• 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
http://ozone.unep.org/Treaties_and_Ratification/2B_montreal_protocol.asp

48. 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

49. Requirement for Essential Usage
Exemption 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
Recent Feedback 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)

50. The NASA Organizational Chart
Chief Safety & Mission Assurance
Office of the Chief of Staff
Administrator
Program Analysis & Evaluation Administrator Inspector General
Deputy Administrator
Chief Engineer Associate Administrator NASA Advisory Groups
Mission Directorates Mission Support Offices
Aeronautics Research Chief Financial Officer
Exploration Systems Chief Information Officer
Science General Counsel
Space Operations Integrated Enterprise Mgmt Program
Innovative Partnership Program
NASA Centers Security & Program Protection
Ames Research Center
Chief Health & Medical Officer
Dryden Flight Research Center
Institutions & Management
Glenn Research Center
NASA Shared Services Center
Goddard Space Flight Center Human Capital Management
Infrastructure and Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory Diversity and Equal Opportunity
Procurement
Johnson Space Center
Small & Disadvantaged Business Utilization
Kennedy Space Center
Strategic Communications
Marshall Space Flight Center Education
Langley Research Center External Relations
Legislative Affairs
Stennis Space Center Public Affairs

51. 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”

52. Environmental Management
Environmental Performance Initiatives
Environmental
Assurance
2006
Pollution
Prevention
1992
Compliance
1969
Mission Success

53. 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

54. Key U.S. Federal Laws
Regulation Published Focus
environmental assessments for proposed
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1969
Actions
Clean Air Act (CAA) 1970 ODS phaseout, hazardous air pollutants
regulation discharge of pollutants to
Clean Water Act (CWA) 1977
waterways
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
1980 cleanup of hazardous substances
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
Emergency Planning and Community Right-
1986 reporting releases of chemical hazards
to-Know Act (EPCRA)
protection of threatened and endangered
Endangered Species Act (ESA) 1973
species
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 1970 protection of worker safety
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) 1990 national policy for pollution prevention
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
1976 hazardous waste management
(RCRA)
Superfund Amendments and
1986 cleanup of hazardous substances
Reauthorization Act (SARA)
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 1976 chemical usage tracking
Global Climate Protection Act 1987 guidance for national climate program

55. 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.

56. 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.

57. 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

58. Risk Characterization
Risk = f(Hazard, Exposure)
Risk = f(Hazard, Dose, Time)
National Academy of Sciences, 1983.

59. NASA Risk Statement Structure
Given that there is a possibility that
CONDITION CONSEQUENCE
will occur
• Must be a FACT or • Must have a
perceived to be NEGATIVE impact to
FACT the CONDITION
• Must be REALITY
BASED Additionally, a single event
• Can have NO could trigger several risks
uncertainty attached and have multiple
consequences
A good risk statement must be ACTIONABLE and have
ONE condition and ONE consequence per statement

60. Example EA Risk
there is a
Given that
possibility that
• The SSP utilizes Class I and Class
II ozone-depleting substances
• ODS will be specified for
(ODS) for critical precision development and O&M of Cx
cleaning and cleanliness
verification operations systems
• Cx systems have shuttle-heritage • NASA will not have access to
• Some LOX systems currently do
not have substitutes for these needed supplies of ODS
ODSs (e.g., CFC 113, HCFC 225) for
critical precision cleaning and • Cx systems will not have
cleanliness verification operations ability to perform critical
• All Class II ODS production will be
discontinued and usage will be precision cleaning and
highly regulated in the US by cleanliness verification
January 1, 2015
operations

61. 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.

62. 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 investment
when 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.

63. U.S. Climate Change Proposals
Climate Change Legislative Proposals in
U.S. Congress
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1997-1998 1999-2000 2001-2002 2003-2004
Note: President Bush’s 2007 State of the Union address

64. Worker Safety
• OSHA
– Hexavalent Chromium PEL Reduction
– Crystalline Silica Exposure Standard
– Beryllium Exposure Standard
– Explosives Standard
• State Requirements
• International Requirements

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

66. 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 depth
Next 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