A systematic approach to assist in life-cycle assessment of ammunition demilitarization process: a case study with the 105-mm HE M1 ammunition

Abstract

Purpose

High amounts of ammunition that has reached the end of life stored in depots have become a large-scale problem for many countries around the world. The disposal of this type of product has been causing great concern to societies in general, given the potential environmental impacts and risks to human health. Therefore, in view of the facts previously presented, this research presents, as its main goal, a systematic approach to assist in the preparation of the inventory of the conventional ammunition demilitarization process to perform a life-cycle assessment, related to the disposal phase of product. This fact provides an early analysis of the product disposal action and can help in decision-making processes, guiding actions and decisions in a more environmentally responsible direction.

Methods

A systematic approach based on the basic principles of the life-cycle assessment processes, structured in phases and detailed in a logical sequence of activities, is presented. So it is possible to analyze the demilitarization process of some conventional models of tank, artillery, and mortar ammunitions. A case study is carried out with the 105-mm HE M1 ammunition. In this case study, two different hypothetical scenarios are analyzed: scenario no. 1 uses traditional demilitarization techniques, known as open burning and open detonation and scenario no. 2 uses alternative demilitarization techniques, with the use of equipment for mechanical removal of the fuze, sectioning of the projectile by saw, and destruction of the energetic material in a static kiln. The life-cycle impact assessment is carried out based on three complementary methods (CML, USETox, and TRACI) to assess eleven impact categories.

Results and discussion

The results show that the systematic presented effectively assists in the preparation of the inventory and in the life-cycle impact assessment of the ammunition demilitarization process. Additionally, it proved to be simple and practical to use. About the case study, the results show that the use of alternative techniques may be a more responsible option to perform the ammunition demilitarization, when compared with traditional techniques, although it may be greatly influenced by the boundary conditions of the scenario in which it is inserted.

Conclusions

The fact of that systematic approach presented effectively assists in the preparation of the inventory and in the life-cycle impact assessment of the ammunition demilitarization process demonstrates that it is capable to provide an early analysis of the product disposal action. So it can be stated that the respective systematic can help in decision-making processes, showing which ammunition demilitarization process presents itself as a more environmentally responsible option.

Appendices

Appendix A

Fig. 9

Ammunition demilitarization process map

Appendix B

Table 11 Matrix of activities, inputs, and outputs of the ammunition demilitarization process

$${\mathrm{Energy}}_{(\mathrm{transport})} = {\mathrm{Energy}}_{(\mathrm{type\;-\;transport})}\; .\;{\mathrm{Qty}}_{(\mathrm{mat})}\;.\;{\mathrm{Distance}}_{(\mathrm{section})}$$

(1)

$${\mathrm{Emission}}_{(\mathrm{transport})} = {\mathrm{Qty}}_{(\mathrm{mat})} \; .\;{\mathrm{Distance}}_{(\mathrm{section})}\; .\;\mathrm{ Carbon\; Footprint}$$

(2)

$${\mathrm{Energy}}_{(\mathrm{equip}.)} = {\mathrm{Pot}}_{(\mathrm{equip}.)}\; .\; {\mathrm{Time}}_{(\mathrm{use})} \; .\;(3.6)$$

(3)

$$\begin{aligned}{\mathrm{Emission}}_{(\mathrm{equip}.)} =&\; {\mathrm{Pot}}_{(\mathrm{equip}.)} \;.\;{\mathrm{Time}}_{(\mathrm{use})}\\&\;.\;(\mathrm{Country\; Mix \;Energy,\; ^{\prime\prime}kg.}{\mathrm{CO}}_{2}/\mathrm{kW.h^{\prime\prime}\; value})\end{aligned}$$

(4)

$${\mathrm{Emission}}_{(\mathrm{burn})}= {\mathrm{Qty}}_{(\mathrm{mat})}\;.\;(\text{Combustion:}\; {\mathrm{CO}}_{2}\mathrm{ \;released \;value})$$

(5)

$${\mathrm{Water}}_{(\mathrm{equip}.)}= {\mathrm{Flow}}_{(\mathrm{equip})}\;.\;{\mathrm{Time}}_{(\mathrm{use})}$$

(6)

Appendix C

Fig. 10

Flowchart for OB and OD emissions calculation. (*Elaborated by the authors. Based on the methodology presented by SEESAC (2004))

$$\mathrm{{E}_{({PM})}} = {(\mathrm{EF}/\mathrm{EFF})}_{(\mathrm{PM})}\;.\; \mathrm{ NEQ}$$

(7)

$$\mathrm{E}_{({{SO}}_{2})} = {(\mathrm{EF}/\mathrm{EFF})}_{({{SO}}_{2})}\;.\; \mathrm{ NEQ}$$

(8)

$$\mathrm{E}_{{{M}_{{i({case}})}}} = {(\mathrm{EF}/\mathrm{EFF})}_{{{(M}_{{case}}})} \;.\;{{M}}_{{{i}({case})}}$$

(9)

$$\mathrm{E}_{{{M}_{j(\mathrm{coat})}}} = {(\mathrm{EF}/\mathrm{EFF})}_{{{(M}_{{coat}}})} \;.\;{{M}_{j({coat})}}$$

(10)

$$\mathrm{E}_{{M}_{k(E)}} = {(\mathrm{EF}/\mathrm{EFF})}_{{{(M}_{E})}} \;.\;{{{M}_{k(E)}}}$$

(11)

$$\mathrm{E}_{{E}_{l}} = {(\mathrm{EF}/\mathrm{EFF})}_{(\mathrm{E})}\;.\; {E}_{(l)}$$

(12)

$$\mathrm{E}_{{CO}} = {(\mathrm{EF}/\mathrm{EFF})}_{({CO})}\;.\;\mathrm{ TC}$$

(13)

$$\mathrm{E}_{{{NO}}_{2}} = {(\mathrm{EF}/\mathrm{EFF})}_{({{NO}}_{2})}\;.\;\mathrm{ TN}$$

(14)

$$\mathrm{E}_{{HCl}} = {(\mathrm{EF}/\mathrm{EFF})}_{(\mathrm{HCl})}\;.\;\mathrm{ TCl}$$

(15)

$$\mathrm{E}_{{{C}}_{6}{{H}}_{6}} = {(\mathrm{EF}/\mathrm{EFF})}_{({{C}}_{6}{{H}}_{6})}\;.\;\mathrm{ TC}$$

(16)

$$\mathrm{E}_{{{C}}_{2}{{H}}_{6}} = {(\mathrm{EF}/\mathrm{EFF})}_{({{C}}_{2}{{H}}_{6})}\;.\;\mathrm{ TC}$$

(17)

$$\mathrm{E}_{{{C}}_{2}{{H}}_{4}} = {(\mathrm{EF}/\mathrm{EFF})}_{({{C}}_{2}{{H}}_{4})}\;.\;\mathrm{ TC}$$

(18)

$$\mathrm{E}_{{{CH}}_{4}} = {(\mathrm{EF}/\mathrm{EFF})}_{({{CH}}_{4})}\;.\;\mathrm{ TC}$$

(19)

$$\mathrm{E}_{{{C}}_{10}{{H}}_{8}} = {(\mathrm{EF}/\mathrm{EFF})}_{({{C}}_{10}{{H}}_{8})}\;.\;\mathrm{ TC}$$

(20)

$$\mathrm{E}_{{TEQ}} = {(\mathrm{EF}/\mathrm{EFF})}_{(\mathrm{TEQ})}\;.\;\mathrm{ NEQ}$$

(21)

Legend:

• NEQ – The explosive mass detonated or burned, excluding the mass of all nonenergetic materials (kg)

• TC – The total amount of carbon in the energetic material to be destroyed (kg)

• TN – The total amount of nitrogen in the energetic material to be destroyed (kg)

• TCl – The total amount of chlorine in the energetic material to be destroyed (kg)

• E_PM – Amount of particulate matter emitted to the environment (kg)

• ${E}_{({\mathrm{SO}}_{2})}$ – Amount of SO₂ emitted to environment (kg)

• E_Mi(case) – Amount of the metal “i,” from the casings, emitted to the environment (kg)

• E_Mj(coat) – Amount of the metal “j,” from the coatings, emitted to the environment (kg)

• E_Mk(E) – Amount of the metal “k,” from the energetic materials, emitted to the environment (kg)

• E_El – Amount of the energetic material “l” emitted to the environment (kg)

• E_CO – Amount of CO emitted to the environment (kg)

• ${E}_{{\mathrm{NO}}_{2}}$ – Amount of NO₂ emitted to the environment (kg)

• E_HCl – Amount of HCl emitted to the environment (kg)

• ${E}_{{\mathrm{C}}_{6}{\mathrm{H}}_{6}}$ – Amount of C₆H₆ emitted to the environment (kg)

• ${E}_{{\mathrm{C}}_{2}{\mathrm{H}}_{6}}$ – Amount of C₂H₆ emitted to the environment (kg)

• ${E}_{{\mathrm{C}}_{2}{\mathrm{H}}_{4}}$ – Amount of C₂H₄ emitted to the environment (kg)

• ${E}_{{\mathrm{CH}}_{4}}$ – Amount of CH₄ emitted to the environment (kg)

• ${E}_{{\mathrm{C}}_{10}{\mathrm{H}}_{8}}$ – Amount of C₁₀H₈ emitted to the environment (kg)

• E_TEQ – Amount of TEQ emitted to the environment (kg)

• M_i(case) – Amount of the metal “i” in the casings (kg)

• M_j(coat) – Amount of the metal “j” in the coatings (kg)

• M_k(E) –Amount of the metal “k” in the energetics (kg)

• E_l – Amount of the energetic “l” (kg)

• (EF/EFF) – (Emissions factor)/(Environment Fate Factor). According to SEESAC (2004, Table 4 , p. 17)

• TEQ – The total mass of chlorinated dioxin and furan compounds standardized to the mass of the most toxic dioxin compound (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodioxin) (kg)