The Ozone Operations Resource Group (OORG) 19th Meeting, March 28th, 2002 MDIs, TAPs, and Lessons Learned By Geno Nardini, OORG Aerosol Specialist
Financial Assistance for MDI Producers in Article Five Countries, a Brief Overview: First of all, there aren t many. Most MDIs are made by multinational companies that are not eligible for financial assistance under the MP MLF. The following table was supplied by Paul Atkins, a member of ATOC. Note that with the exception of CIPLA, most reported MDIs are ineligible for MLF funding they are made by multinationals.
Financial Assistance for MDI Producers in Country Article Five Countries, a Brief Overview: Table of MDI units use (not production) in Article 5 countries in 2001 (Approximated Data) Argentina Brazil China Mexico Pakistan Phillipines India (2) South Africa (3) Turkey Total Number MDIs (M) 3.34 6.13 1.89 1.88 1.98 1.2 9.47 1.95 2.47 Number of HFA MDIs (M) 0 0 0 0 0 0.68 (1) 0 (2).025 0 % MDIs Produced by Multinationals 87 99 90 98 85 94 21.2 53 95 (1) Philippines has moved much of market to HFA MDIs (over 60%). (2) Vast majority of MDIs in India manufactured by Cipla who have launched a salbutamol HFA MDI. This was not picked up in the audited sales figures I have looked at. (3) Cipla also has a strong presence in South Africa (ca 25% of market).
Financial Assistance for MDI Producers in Article Five Countries, a Brief Overview: Investment project proposals should be prepared or carefully reviewed by both a medical specialist and an aerosol expert, there are difficulties here. 1. True MDI conversions require complicated and expensive machinery, the machines used to fill CFC MDIs cannot fill HFC 134A MDIs. 2. The new machinery is eligible for funding. 3. There is a significant IOC factor involved, the CFC 11/CFC 12 being replaced is less expensive than the HFC 134A. 4. Formulation costs, testing and trials should also be eligible for reimbursement. 5. Much of this is difficult to evaluate correctly.
Financial Assistance for MDI Producers in Article Five Countries, a Brief Overview: Most pharmaceutical projects so far identified as MDI Projects are not, they are Pharmaceutical Aerosol Projects. 1. They typically include topical sprays, burn sprays, antibiotic sprays, throat sprays, bandage sprays, analgesic sprays, etc. 2. They are not eligible for essential use exemptions; they may use CFCs, or HFCs, but they do not have to. 3. They should be converted to propane/butane; not HFC 134A. IOC should NOT be paid for converting these products if the enterprises chose expensive propellants. 4. Yes, even throat sprays use propane / butane.
The Aerosol Technical Assistance Programs An important element in conversion without accidents. The Bank has done these in Indonesia and Tunisia; and UNDP in Malaysia, Thailand, and India. Several hundred fillers have converted from CFCs to hydrocarbons in these countries without accidents. There was a warehouse fire in Indonesia, and a solvent fire in Delhi; neither related to the aerosol conversion process.
The Aerosol Technical Assistance Programs The basics of the programs are as follows: 1. A consultant team one foreign and one local consultant visits a representative group of aerosol enterprises four times at 3 6 month intervals. 2. Plants running with HCs are audited for safety; those using CFCs are helped to convert. 3. Results everywhere have been incremental, nowhere did a company accept the consultant s recommendations FULLY during the first visit. 4. The aerosol industry in every country where TAPs have been done is fully aware of the hazards that exist for companies filling HCs.
The Aerosol Technical Assistance Programs 5. Enterprises are cajoled and convinced to improve safety, there is no command and control backup. Government representatives frequently accompany the consultants, but there is no attempt to legally enforce safety. 6. Many important safety improvements are of minor expense, and enterprises do them to protect their own investments. 7. At the end of the one two year program, the NOU receives a copy of the final report, and then may chose to legally impose remedies for serious safety problems identified during the TAP.
The Aerosol Technical Assistance Programs TABLE INDONESIA TAP RESULTS (this table demonstrates the effectiveness of the TAPs).
INDONESIA TAP RESULTS (this table demonstrates the effectiveness of the TAPs). Annex # 2: Stage # 4 Summary of Improvement 6/18/1997 Visit Stage Visit Visit Visit Much Not Code Company Name Stage #1 Audit Stage #2 Stage #3 Stage # 4 Safer Safer Same Valid TAP # 1 Pt. Universe Lion Yes I No Yes Yes ++++ TAP # 2 Pt. Kiwi Indonesia Yes I Yes Yes Yes ++++ TAP # 3 Pt. Tensia Mfg. Indonesia Yes I Yes Yes Yes ++++ TAP # 4 Pt. Candi Swadaya Sentosa Yes I Yes Yes Yes ++++ TAP # 5 Pt. Tancho Indonesia Co. Ltd. Yes I Yes No Yes ++++ TAP # 6 Pt. Siseda Pepade Yes I Yes No Yes N/A (3) TAP # 7 Pt. Morel Renee Parfum M. Yes I Yes Yes Yes ++++ TAP # 8 Pt. Bayer Indonesia Yes I Yes Yes Yes ++++ TAP # 9 Pt. Vycaris Cosmetics Yes I No No No N/A (1) TAP # 10 Pt. Limbert Sakti Yes N/A Yes No No N/A (1) TAP # 11 Romos Inti Cosmetics Industry Yes II Yes No Yes N/A (1) TAP # 12 Avian Paint No II Yes No No N/A (4) TAP # 13 Chemaco Chemical Division Yes I No No Yes ++++ TAP # 14 Pt. Famastar Jayaperdana Yes I Yes No No ++++ TAP # 15 Pt. Erje London Chemicals Yes I Yes Yes Yes ++++ TAP # 16 Pt. Yasular Indonesia Yes I Yes Yes No N/A (2) TAP # 17 Pt. Cedefindo Yes I Yes Yes Yes ++++ TAP # 18 Pt. Sumber Makmur Bahagia Yes I Yes Yes No ++++ TAP # 19 PT. Multi Prima Ekatama No II Yes Yes Yes ++++ TAP # 20 Interatlas Murni PT. No II Yes No Yes N/A (5) TAP # 21 PT Aerosolindo Perdana Nusant. No II Yes Yes No ++++ TAP # 22 P. T. Asia Chemindo No III No Yes Yes ++++ TAP # 23 Fumikilla No N/A No Yes No N/A (4) TAP # 24 PT Triple Ace Corporation No N/A No Yes No N/A (1) TAP # 25 P. T. Nipsea Paint No III No Yes Yes ++++ TAP # 26 S. C. Johnson & Son No III No Yes No N/A (4) Note: (1) All companies not filling aerosols (Limbert, Fumikilla, Triple Ace, etc) are rated N/A. (2) Yasular's plant virtually cannot be improved - therefore this comparison is not valid. No visit necessary. (3) Production suspended due to a warehouse fire. Audited anew in Stage # 4. (4) Only one visit - comparison not possible. (5) Constructing new aerosol area - comparison not possible. Since Start of TAP
A Few Lessons Learned in Aerosol Sector Work: I. Old Machine Destruction. Destroying aerosol filling machinery is ineffective as far as avoiding false projects is concerned. In India alone, there are hundreds of manual machines and dozens of pneumatic ones out of service. They can be bought at pennies on the dollar. Destruction thus does not impede false projects. Destroying aerosol filling machinery is effective in preventing enterprises from requesting extra machines that they don t need.
A Few Lessons Learned in Aerosol Sector Work: II. We are almost finished in Aerosols There are very few good projects left with significant volumes. NOUs and IA want projects. This is leading to: ODS consumption data not being strictly checked in some cases. Dates not being carefully checked. We have not written hundreds of projects because CFC consumption took place in 1990 or 1992, not 2000 or 2001. There is great pressure to cheat on dates. The serious problems relating to both CFC consumption figures and to dates of consumption is probably occurring in all sectors, not the aerosol sector only.
A Few Lessons Learned in Aerosol Sector Work: III. Careful Documentation Needed: The best way to avoid these problems is careful documentation. The consultant should request his (or her) own proof of consumption. He (or she) should check dates of consumption. He (or she) should use their eyes. He (or she) should be dealing with reality, not just making fees. This work will also facilitate filling out the PCRs, which are becoming increasingly important in controlling our activities. Clicking out carbon copy projects will not be possible this way, maybe it was never a good idea. More time in project preparation will be needed.
A Few Lessons Learned in Aerosol Sector Work: IV. Counterpart Funding is Important: True counterpart funding is a strong factor in keeping projects honest. There should be some external review of this, someone should check actual bills and verify that counterpart funding took place. Projects 100% funded no counterpart funding should be permitted, but they should be scrutinized even more than normal projects. A CPF ratio would help evaluate projects. Projects with 80% of the grant covered by counterpart funding are better projects than projects with 10% CPF.