United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/R-98/070
June 1998
vvEPA
Life-Cycle Impact
Assessment
Demonstration for the
GBU-24
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-98/070
June 1998
LIFE-CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT DEMONSTRATION
FOR THE GBU-24
by
Duane Tolle
Bruce Vigon
David Evens
Battelle Columbus Laboratories
Columbus, Ohio 43201
CR822956
Project Officer
Kenneth R. Stone
Sustainable Technology Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
NOTICE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development funded and
managed the research described here under Cooperative Research Grant No. CR822956 to Battelle.
It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for
publications as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land,
air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the
ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program
is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation of
technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the
environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the prevention and
control of pollution to air, land, water and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public
water systems; remediation of contaminated sites and ground water; and prevention and control of
indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze development and implementation of
innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies; develop scientific and engineering information
needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and information
transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations and strategies.
This publication is a product of the Laboratory's Life Cycle Engineering and Design research
program, an effort to develop life cycle assessment and evaluation tools that can be applied for
improved decision-making by individuals in both the public and private sectors. Life Cycle Assessment
is a part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. This document is published and made
available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user community and to link
researchers with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
m
-------
ABSTRACT
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) policy has elevated environmental considerations to an
equivalent level of importance with cost and performance. Thus, with sponsorship from the Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), the DoD, U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) have cooperated in a program to develop
technologies for clean production of propellants,
energetics, and pyrotechnic (PEP) materials. Since the
PEP program framework is strongly oriented around life-
cycle assessment (LCA), a baseline life cycle inventory
(LCI) of the guided bomb unit-24 (GBU-24) made with
RDX explosives was conducted prior to this study in order
to demonstrate the LCA approach.
DoD EPA
FDOE
SERDP
Strategic Environmental Research
and Development Program
Improving Mission Readiness Through
Environmental Research
The primary goal of this project was to develop and demonstrate a life-cycle impact assessment
(LGIA) approach using LCI data on PEP materials. Thus, an LCIA methodology and modeling
approach were developed based on the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry's
(SETAC's) Level 2/3 equivalency assessment framework and applied to the previously collected
GBU-24 LCI data. The LCIA considered potential impacts on human health, ecological health, and
resource depletion associated with the GBU-24 life cycle. The approach includes Classification,
Characterization, Normalization, and Valuation. Quantitative equivalency factors were obtained
from the literature or developed for 11 of 14 potentially relevant impact categories. A regional
scaling factor approach was developed to improve analysis of 4 of the 14 impact criteria, whose
sensitivity to potential impacts varies on a regional basis.
The LCIA methodology based on impact equivalencies described in this report provides a much
more accurate approach to potential impact evaluation than the "less-is-best" approach (SETAC
Level 1) using inventory data only. The method described in this report includes both regional
scaling factors to improve characterization accuracy and geographically-relevant normalization
factors to provide perspective. This bench-marking analysis can be used for comparison with other
alternatives.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Project Scope 16
3.0 LCIA Methodology 17
4.0 Impact Assessment Results , 21
5.0 Interpretation 32
6.0 References 34
Appendix A Inventory Data 36
Appendix B Stressor/lmpact Chains for Baseline GBU Process . . . . 39
Appendix C Environmental Impact Equivalency Calculations .47
Appendix D Regional Scaling Factor Development 54
Appendix E Normalization Factor Development , 63
Appendix F Impact Score Calculations 68
Appendix G Decision Maker Perspective Weighting Factors 80
-------
FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Agile program modeling system: different levels of tools for different functions. .. 2
Figure 1-2. Relationship of life cycle design and product assessment concepts 3
Figure 1-3. GBU-24: A conventional explosive earth penetrator weapon 7
Figure 1-4. GBU-24 Life cycle model 8
Figure 1-5. Pollution burden by sector 12
Figure 1-6. Airborne pollution by sector 12
Figure 1-7. Airborne pollution from CXM-7 production. 13
Figure 1-8. Solid waste generated by CXM-7 production 13
Figure 1-9. Holston army ammunition plant chemical releases 14
Figure 4-10. Normalized Impact Scores Contribution to Total Impact 28
Figure 4-11. Hierarchy tree and weights for "Policy" Perspective 29
Figure 4-12. Hierarchy tree and weights for "Local" Perspective 29
Figure 4-13. Impact category percentages of total impact score weighted by the "Policy"
perspective for the baseline GBU process 31
Figure 4-14. Impact category percentages of total impact score weighted by the "Local"
perspective for the baseline GBU process 31
Figure C-1. Decision tree for oral LD50 data selection 48
Figure C-2. Decision tree for oral LD^, hazard value 48
Figure C-3. Decision tree for inhalation LC50 data selection 49
Figure C-4. Decision tree for inhalation LC^, hazard value 49
Figure C-5. Decision tree for fish LC^, data selection 50
Figure C-6. Decision tree for aquatic LC^, hazard value 51
Figure C-7. Decision tree for BOD half-life hazard value 52
Figure C-8. Decision tree for hydrolysis half-life hazard value 52
Figure C-9. Decision tree for BCF hazard value 53
Figure C-10. Decision tree for inhalation LDg, data selection 53
Figure D-1. Facilities with PM-10 emissions greater than or equal to
100 tons per year. 56
Figure D-2. Non-attainment designations for PM-10 56
Figure D-3. Regions in North America with lakes that may be sensitive to acid
precipitation, using bedrock geology as an indicator 57
Figure D-4. Regions with significant areas of sensitive soils 58
Figure D-5. Facilities with SOX emissions greater than or equal to 100 tons per year 59
Figure D-6. Facilities with VOC emissions greater than or equal to 100 tons per year 59
Figure D-7. Non-attainment designations for ozone as of May 1995 60
VI
-------
TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of LANL RDX-Based GBU-24 Life Cycle Inventory ................. 5
Table 1-2. Summary of Holsten AAP Inventory Streams 10
Table 4-1. Equivalency Factors by Impact Category for Resource Use and Environmental
Releases from Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle. ..... 22
Table 4-2. Carcinogenicity Equivalency Scores Based on Weight-of-Evidence
for Two Agencies , 25
Table 4-3. Information Used for Developing Regional Scaling Factors for ,
Four Impact Criteria 26
Table 4-4. Comparison of Normalized Impact Scores by Criteria for the baseline GBU-24
Production Process 27
Table 4-5. Abbreviations Used in Valuation Hierarchy Trees 30
Table 4-6. Valuation Weights Assigned to Impact Criteria by the AHP From Two Different
Perspectives 30
Table A-1. GBU-24 Baseline Life Cycle Inventory ; .37
Table B-1. Impacts of manufacturing explosives (CXM-7) For GBU-24 at Holston Army
Ammunition Plant (HSAAP), Kingsport, TN 40
Table B-2. Impacts of Load, Assemble, and Pack (LAP) Operations for GBU-24 at
McAlester Army Ammunition Plant (MCAAP), McAlester, OK 43
Table B-3. Impacts From Demilitarization (Pbx Waterjet Extraction/Incineration) of the
GBU-24 Bomb 44
Table B-4. Impacts of Transportation for GBU-24 46
Table D-1. Regional Scaling Factors for Four Impact Criteria by State 61
Table E-1. Calculation of Impact Category Normalization Values for GBU-24 LCIA
Based on Most Relevant Geographic Maximum Extent of Impact 64
Table E-2. Calculation of Total OOP Impact . 65
Table E-3. Calculation of Total GWP Impact 65
Table E-4. Calculation of Total Resource Depletion Impact 66
Table E-5. Calculation of Total Acid Rain Impact 66
Table E-6. Calculation of Total Smog Impact 66
Table E-7. Calculation of Total Inhalation Toxicity Impact . 66
Table E-8. Calculation of Total Carcinogenicity Impact 66
Table E-9. Calculation of Total Terrestrial Toxicity Impact 67
Table E-10. Calculation of Total Aquatic Toxicity Impact 67
Table E-11. Calculation of Total Eutrophication Impact 67
Table F-1. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact
Calculations for Ozone Depletion Potential (OOP) 69
Table F-2. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Life Cycle Impact Calculations for
Global Warming Potential (GWP) 70
Table F-3. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations
for Resource Depletion Potential 71
Table F-4. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations
for Acid Rain Formation Potential 72
Vll
-------
Table F-5. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations
for Smog Formation Potential (POCP) 73
Table F-6. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations
for Human Inhalation Toxicity Potential •. 74
Table F-7. Baseline (PBSN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations
for Carcinogenicity Potential 75
Table F-8. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations
for Land Use (from Waste Disposal) Potential 76
Table F-9. Baseline (PBSN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations
for Terrestrial (Wildlife) Toxicity Potential 77
Table F-10. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations
for Aquatic (Fish) Toxicity Potential 78
Table F-11. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations
for Eutrophication Potential -79
Table G-1. Policy Decision Maker Perspective LCIA Weighing Factors and Impact Scores
for GBU-24 Baseline ; • 81
Table G-2. Local Decision Maker Perspective LCIA Weighting Factors and Impact Scores
for GBU-24 Baseline 82
Vlll
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process
AIRS Aerometric Information Retrieval System
AIRS EXEC AIRS Executive
AP Acidification potential ("acid rain")
BCF bio-concentration factor
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
CAA Clean Air Act
CIS Chemical Information Systems
COCO contractor-owned/contractor-operated
COD chemical oxygen demand
CWA Clean Water Act
DoD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
EC Expert Choice™
EIA DOE's Energy Information Administration
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
GBU-24 Guided Bomb Unit (Earth penetrator bomb; Navy version is B/B)
GOCO government-owned/contractor-operated
GWP global warming potential
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HSAAP Holston Army Ammunition Plant
HV hazard value
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
IPPD integrate product and process development
ISO International Organization of Standards
LCA life-cycle assessment
LCI life-cycle inventory
LCIA life-cycle impact assessment
LCImA life-cycle improvements assessment
MCAAP McAlester Army Ammunition Plant
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NSWC Naval Surface Warfare Center
ODP Ozone Depletion potential
PCB polychlorinated biphenals
PCS permit compliance system
PEP propellants, energetics, and pyrotechnics
PM10 particulate <10 microns aerodynamic diameter
POCP photochemical oxidant creation potential ("smog")
QSAR quantitative structure activity relationship
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
IX
-------
R&D research and development
RDX trimethylenetrinitramine explosive
SAR structure activity relationship
SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
SERDP Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
TDS total dissolved solids
TRY tons per year
TRI toxic release inventory
TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act
TSS total suspended solids
VOC volatile organic compound
WOE weight-of-evidence
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the use of life-cycle inventory data collected under the SERDP
Program in the form of reports by J.K. Ostic and others from Los Alamos National Laboratory
and L. Brown from Holston Army Ammunition Plant.
Also gratefully acknowledged is the continued project support for LCA methods development and
report review by staff in the Sustainable Technology Division, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, especially Mr. Kenneth Stone, Mr.
James Bridges, and Ms. Jane Bare.
XI
-------
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Development of future weapons systems will occur with
considerations of environmental impacts during the
acquisition process. In fact, current U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD) policy has elevated environmental
considerations to an equivalent level of importance with
cost and performance (Perry, 1994). In 1990, Congress
established the Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program (SERDP) as a multi-agency effort
to support environmental Research Design and
Development (RD&D) programs. With SERDP
sponsorship, DoD, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
have cooperated in a program to develop technologies for
the clean production of propellants, energetics, and
pyrotechnic (PEP) materials. Along with the technology-
oriented effort, a parallel activity has been to develop and
demonstrate analysis methods and tools for estimating
and managing the environmental aspects of PEP
materials and the associated end items. The modeling
tools under development in the Agile, Clean Manufac-
turing Technology Program and their interrelationship as
a part of a synthesis and manufacturing process design
and an overall systems assessment application are shown
in Figure 1-1.
The framework for the activity has been strongly oriented
around life-cycle assessment (LCA). The life cycle of a
weapons system includes a number of development steps
prior to full scale deployment. Various milestones are
achieved from initial concept to production of a system,
each of which involves a number of environmental issues
which must be resolved by the Single Manager prior to
securing approval from the Defense Acquisition Board to
proceed (Laibson and Vigon, 1995). This definition of
"life-cycle" is related to, but distinguishable from, the more
conventional, physical, "cradle-to-grave" definition of life-
cycle as used in the LCA literature. The interrelationship
of these two concepts is shown in Figure 1-2.
In order to demonstrate the validity of the life-cycle
approach, a baseline inventory (LCI) of the current Guided
Bomb Unit-24 (GBU-24) earth penetrator bomb was
conducted during 1993 and 1994 (the data basis was 1992
operations). The LCI was based on the Navy version of
the GBU-24, which is sometimes given the additional
designation B/B. That effort attempted to adhere very
closely to the LCI methodology described in Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) and
U.S. EPA technical guideline publications (SETAC, 1991
and U.S. EPA, 1993). Preliminary results of that analysis
have been reported in several forums and publications
(Ostic, 1994; Brown, 1995; Newman and Hardy, 1995) and
are briefly summarized below. Numerous organizations
supplied information for the baseline effort including the
following:
Commercial Raw Materials Production, Fuels Acquisition,
and Electric Power Generation: Battelle Columbus
Intermediate/Fill Materials Production and L/A/P
Operations: Holston and McAlester Army Ammunition
Plants
Use/Maintenance and Demil Operations: Naval Surface
Warfare Center (NSWC), and Coordination of Inventory
Data Assembly: Engineering Systems Analysis
Department, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Assembly and validation of the data together with the
modeling of the system resource consumption and
environmental burdens were performed by the Technology
Modeling and Analysis Group at Los Alamos National
Laboratory.
The purpose of this Life-Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
demonstration is to develop and demonstrate the LCIA
methodology using GBU-24 LCI data. This is a baseline
or bench-marking analysis, which can be used for future
comparisons.
The effectiveness of various options for modifying the
materials, processes and operations involved in
manufacturing, testing, maintaining, and ultimate recycle
or disposal of the obsolete systems will be the subject of
a separate life-cycle improvement assessment (LCImA).
The purpose of this proposed LCImA will be to identify and
evaluate in a relative manner the environmental benefits
-------
Macro LCA Tool
Different Levels of
Tools for
Different
Functions
Micro Tools
FIGURE 1.-1. Agile program modeling system: different levels of tools for different function.
-------
_CD
O
>-
O
CD
CD
E
O.
_CD
CD
>
CD
Q
Concept Development/
Design
Laboratory Scale
Syntheses
Small Pilot Scale Production
Scale-Up/Large
Pilot Scale Production
Raw
Materials
Acquisition
Materials
Manufacture
(Full Scale)
Product
Manufacture
(Full Scale)
Transportation
and
Distribution
Use/Reuse/
Maintenance
End of Life
Product and
Material
Management
Product Life Cycle
Figure 1-2. Relationship of life cycle design and product assessment concepts.
3
-------
to be derived from implementing various changes in the
system. The environmental aspects of these changes can
then be combined with assessments of any effects,
positive or negative, in the cost and performance profile to
decide whether environmental pollution prevention and
sustainable production goals can be met without
unreasonable adverse impacts in other areas. The intent
of a future LCImA effort will be to develop information on
one specific improvement alternative — substitution of a
replacement PEP material for the RDX used in the current
GBU-24.
BASELINE GBU LCI
The GBU-24 is an earth penetrator bomb equipped with a
laser guidance package designed to penetrate up to 6 feet
of reinforced concrete. As shown in Figure 1-3, the
assembled item consists of several component and
subcomponent parts. The BLU-109 bomb body is the
largest physical component and contributes the majority of
the material mass to the system. The other components
listed were not included because they are minor in
comparison and are readily reused in any event. Within
the BLU-109, the bomb case itself is the largest source of
material (approximately 70% of the total weight) and
efforts are underway to evaluate ways to reduce pollution
from its manufacture through recycling of the steel.
Approximately 27% of the total comes from the explosive
fill. The PBXN-109 is a blend of four components: CXM-7
explosive mix, aluminum powder, thermoset plastic binder,
and miscellaneous other blending and forming agents.
About 3% of the mass is contributed by thermal insulation
applied to the bomb exterior and asphalt interior liner.
The work flow representation of the GBU-24 life cycle is
illustrated in Figure 1-4. Raw materials are sourced for the
energetic materials production from commercial
commodity chemical producers. The synthesis of RDX,
together with the coating and blending to manufacture
CXM-7, is provided by Holston Army Ammunition Plant
(HSAAP) in Kingston, TN. The CXM-7 is then shipped to
McAlester Army Ammunition Plant (MCAAP) in McAlester,
OK. Load/assemble/pack (L/A/P) operations are
performed at MCAAP, which includes blending the CXM-7
with aluminum and other additives to produce the plastic-
bonded explosive used for the GBU-24. The steel bomb
bodies are also shipped to MCAAP from a commercial
producer (National Forge).
Modeling of the GBU-specific manufacturing operations
was performed in considerably greater detail than for the
commercial sector activities. This was done for several
reasons, not the least of which was trying to be attentive to
the fact that the span of control of DoD for influencing
such major industrial activities as steel and ammonia
manufacture is limited. In addition, detail is needed due to
other production items at HSAAP and MCAAP.
Operations at HSAAP that were included in the baseline
model are:
nitric acid production and concentration
ammonium nitrate production
acetic acid concentration and anhydride production
nitrolysis and recrystallization/coating/packing
operations
spent acid recovery, and
* on-site utilities (steam and power) production.
Once the bomb unit is manufactured it undergoes
qualification tests. Final assembly of the GBU-24 with
fuse, guidance control unit, adapter group, and air-foil
group is performed on aircraft carriers. (This analysis
assumed that the Navy version of the GBU-24 (B/B) is the
system of interest.) Storage of the unit over the lifetime
of the weapon is included. Following retirement, the item
is decommissioned using waterjet extraction of the fill and
open burning/detonation of the energetic materials.
Types of Modules Included in LCI
Table 1-1 illustrates the life cycle inventory modules
included in the Los Alamos National Laboratory LCI. Brief
discussions of a number of the modules are included
below.
Geologic and Biotic Resource Extraction
Bauxite
Bauxite is the raw mineral ore from which alumina is
extracted. Alumina is refined to produce aluminum. One
of the primary waste products from the production of
alumina is a concentrated iron oxide slurry called red mud,
which is disposed as solid waste. Sodium hydroxide and
lime are used in the alumina extraction process, along
with significant amounts of energy, much of it in the form
of electricity. The primary sources of bauxite in the U.S.
are surface mines in Alabama and Georgia, which supply
less than 30 percent of the U.S. annual consumption. The
balance is from foreign sources, which were not modeled.
Coal
Coal is used extensively in the life cycle as an energy
carrier. It is used both on-site, as at Holsten AAP in the
production of Producer gas, and, predominantly, off-site in
the production of electricity. Mining of coal, by either strip
mining or deep mining, leads to production of much solid
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Data Included in LANL RDX-based GBU-24 Life Cycle Inventory
Consumption
Process or Activity Resources Energy
1 " YIV''"-- % " " " vx " "<=*^
Bauxite
Coal
Iron Ore
Limestone
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Acetic Acid
Acetone
Aluminum
Ammonia
Coke
Cyclohexanone
Dioctyl Adipate (DOA)
Formaldehyde
Hexamine
Nitric Acid
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Propyl Acetate
Steel
Steel Forging
Trichloroethane
Triethyl Phosphate
Acetic Acid Production
Acetic Anhydride Concentration
Area A Steam Plant
Explosives Plant
Nitric Acid Production
Spent Acid Recovery
Nitric Acid Concentration
Nitric Acid - Ammonium Nitrate Production
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant
Filtered Water Production
Burning Ground
Incinerator
Inert Preparation
Receiving
Mixing
Casting
Bomb Seal
Final Assembly
k>bfc;''*t«l Sk&feS- {«!
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
^ffltjtW^fefte&fetetl
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
included
Included
Included
Included
ff y
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
fe&sffee exfraet
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Air
\t'f f ' *s,
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
• ' '
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Emissions
Water
'"//'' ' ••''••
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
' - - -..
f v-Vi
Included
Included
Included
, Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
"' :" : ;
Included
Included
Solid Waste
~N » ,, ''?- 'f'"'.
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
. •¥"
Included
Included
Included
Included
• ,
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
'''
Included
Included
Included
Included
-------
Table 1-1. Continued
Process or Activity
Radiography
Chemical Laboratory
Boiler ^ W1V^_
Disassembly
Water Jet Washout
Solvent Soak
Burning Ground
Water Treatment
Coal-fired Plant
Diesel-fired Plant
Natural gas-fired Plant
National Grid
f *" "•""" <
^ y ^ * *
Transportation
Consumption
Resources Energy
Included
Included
Included
""It* - ' o**ft(8taiS8i
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
>X rt> ~VS -S •. f. +*'t?*'T4^f^
Included
Included
Included
Included
aim '"
Included
Included
Included
Included
*• >
(jjwwstipR
Included
Included
Included
Included
ih£a?
«"">
Included
Emissions
Air Water Solid Waste
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
-
Included
Included
Included
Included Included
Included Included
Included
•"•••*, H- Yff
Included
Included
Included
Included
Included
'"*
Included
-------
c
o
Q.
03
0>
0)
c
o
Q_
LU
O
"55
jo
Q.
X
LU
C
O
C
o
O
ro
0
Csl
m
o
O) ,
«: C _
4fc *> •& *?
O
•= <;
o 3
*> C M= •g
'Is 2 -2-
"•- •r- OO
10 , . «>
•«- *-f '
t 0) -•- C
•c « ?S
-M e S °-
O) c * w
CD
Figure 1-3. GBU-24: A conventional explosive earth penetrator (the functional unit for the LCA is the bomb body
called BLU-109).
-------
II
*'i
II
so
w o
*JJ! »»iw
CO +•<
3
5
Figure 1-4. GBU-24 life cycle model.
-------
waste in the form of overburden, and dust from coal
processing - cleaning and sizing - operations.
Iron Ore
Iron ore is the principal mineral ingredient for the pro-
duction of steel. Production in the U.S. is primarily via
open pit mines located in the Upper Great Lakes region.
Approximately 25 percent of the iron ore consumed in the
U.S. is imported from overseas. These sources were not
included in the model. Overburden and solid wastes from
extraction are primary waste streams.
Limestone
Lime, hence limestone, is used in a number of operations
within the life cycle. Domestic sources are spread
throughout the U.S. and account for over 98 percent of
consumption. However, the majority of the production is
concentrated in the upper Mississippi and Ohio River
Valleys. Within the LCI model, only the energy
consumption from limestone extraction and lime
production was included.
Natural Gas
Natural gas is used within the LCI as both an energy
carrier and a chemical feedstock, although primarily the
former. Domestic supplies are concentrated in the oil and
gas-producing region along the Gulf of Mexico
(approximately two-thirds of U.S. production). Imports
account for less than 8 percent of total consumption and
were not modeled explicitly.
Petroleum
Petroleum (crude oil) extraction data were provided by
Battelle. The model is based on typical U.S. practice with
data taken from a number of Department of Energy
publications, Environmental Impact Statements, American
Petroleum Institute Publications and engineering
references. Further, it assumes foreign extraction
operations practice similar or identical measures to
minimize resource and energy consumption and
emissions. Thus, the environmental emissions and
consumption profile would be similar or identical for
foreign sources. Allocation within the model is based on
an energy content basis for each flow stream; the
justification is that petroleum is predominantly an energy
carrier.
Intermediate Materials Manufacture ,
As illustrated in Table 1-1, a number of intermediate
materials are consumed in the production of the GBU-24.
The draft report on the LCI (Life-Cycle Inventory for GBU-
24 and M-900 Weapon System, Draft for Comment, Los
Alamos National Laboratory, 1995) does not list specific
data sources for these materials. It states that the model
for each process was based on typical, commercial sector
practice, which was current at that time.
While most chemical production operations were
characterized, meaning that resource and energy
consumption, and emissions information was included in
the LCI, no information was included for cyclohexanone,
dioctyl adipate, propyl acetate, trichloroethane, and triethyl
phosphate. Additionally, emissions data for coke
production or steel forging were not included, nor were
resource consumption data for coke production. Other
emissions streams were also not included as can be seen
in Table 1-1.
Holsten AAP
Data for the activities at Holsten AAP and at McAlester
AAP were modeled at the unit .operation level using data
taken from a current production run of GBU-24 munitions.
The descriptions presented in Table1-1 are aggregations
of the actual unit operations modeled. With the exception
of the production of Filtered Water for use in the steam
plant, and waste disposal activities - Burning Ground and
Incinerator, the activities were well characterized. Primary
consumption and emissions streams are summarized in
Table 1-2, below.
McAlester AAP
Similar to the data for the activities at Holsten AAP, the
data for activities at McAlester AAP were modeled at the
unit operation level using data taken from a current
production run of GBU-24 munitions. The descriptions
presented in Table 1-1 are aggregations of the actual unit
operations modeled. Again, primary consumption and
emissions streams are summarized in Table 1-3, below.
Demilitarization
A number of technologies currently exist for removal of
PBXN-109 from a GBU-24-that has reached its end-of-life.
The LCI modeled waterjet extraction as being the
technology most likely to see widespread deployment.
The extraction process is used to remove only the PBXN-
109 from the bomb body. This is followed by a soak in
trichloroethane to dissolve the asphaltic liner. Flash
treatment to remove the traces of TCA and the thermal
insulation are the final step. Bomb bodies may be reused
or recycled as scrap steel depending upon condition and
need.
The flash treatment step results in formation of
combustion by-products (solid and gaseous) along with
alumina. Significant amounts of asphalt- and HE-laden
TCA, and VOCs are generated from the soaking process.
Electricity Generation
For activities at Holsten AAP and McAlester AAP the. local
North American Electric Reliability council regional electric
grid fuel mix was used. For the balance of the activities
within the life cycle the fuel mix used was the U.S. fuel
mix using information supplied by Battelle. Each of these
-------
Table 1-2. Summary of Holsten AAP Inventory Streams
Process
Resources
Consumed
Energy Consumed
Air Emissions
Water Emissions
Solid Wastes
Acetic Acid Production
Acetic Anhydride
Concentration
Area A Steam Plant
Explosives Plant
Nitric Acid Production
Nitric Acid - Ammonium
Nitrate Production
Industrial Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Filter Water Production
Burning Ground
Incinerator
Inert Preparation
Receiving
Mixing
Glacial acetic acid
Recycled acetic
acid
Acetic anhydride
N-Propyl acetate
Cooling water
Triethyl Phosphate
Ethylene glycol
Water
Freon
Coal
Steam
Acetic acid
Propyl formate
Steam
Producer gas
Acetic acid
Phenol
Fugitives
SOX
NOX
CO
CO2
Particulates
Phenol
Hexamine powder
Acetic acid
Water
Cyclohexanone
Dioctyl adipate
Ammonia
Platinum
Rhodium
Palladium
Magnesium oxide
Ammonia,
anhydrous
Cooling water
Steam
Nitric oxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Hexamine
Acid
Acid
Cooling water
Sludge
n-Propyl acetate
Sludge
n-Propyl acetate
Tar
Dust
Coal ash
Evaporator sludge
Acetic acid
Cyclohexanone
HE filter solids
Ammonium nitrate
Nitric acid
Casting
• HF niter solids
Bomb body
Paint
Asphaltic liner
Thermal insulation
CXM-7
Aluminum powder
Dioctyl adipate
PolyBD
Thermoplastic
Liquid
DHE
Isophorone
isocyanate
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethane
Electricity
• Blasting grit
Trichloroethane
CXM-7
Trichloroethane
Electricity
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethane
CXM-7
10
-------
Table 1-2. Continued
Process
Bomb Seal
Resources
Consumed
• Felt pad
• Aft closure
• Fuse loiner
Energy Consumed Air Emissions Water Emissions
• Steam
Solid Wastes
Final Assembly
Radiography
Chemical Laboratory
Boiler
Shipping plug
X-ray film
Photoprocessing
chemicals
Aceton
n-Heptane
Water
Electricity
Electricity
Natural gas
X-ray processing
wastewater
VOCs
Solid waste
Solvent waste
models includes resource and emission numbers for the
electric generating activity proper, as well as the upstream
fuel acquisition and processing operations.
Transportation
The transportation infrastructure assumed one of three
modes of transport; the exact mode of transport was
dependent upon both distance and weight. Raw materials
transport was assumed to take place by barge or by rail.
Transportation during other life cycle stages was assumed
to be by rail or by over-the-road truck. The model further
assumed that all trucks used were of 10 tons net capacity.
Emissions calculations were limited to three items: CO,
Hydrocarbons, and NOX, since data for other types of
emissions was not available for all transportation sources.
Fuel consumption was also calculated for each mode of
transportation.
Presentation of LCI Results
About 60 modules are included in the baseline model; 40
percent of them are process related. Preliminary results
of the baseline modeling are shown in Figures 1-5 to 1-9.
A summary of the baseline LCI data is provided in
Appendix A.
Total Wastes
Figure 1-5 illustrates, by life cycle stage and sector, the
total emissions across all media. It emphasizes the fact
that activities upstream of the GBU-24 production
operation are the most significant cause of environmental
degradation. These activities are those over which the
military has the least direct control, but have the most
potential for improvement. For example, the emissions
from raw materials extraction alone are greater than the
total emissions of all of the upstream activities. One
method of reducing these emissions would be to reduce
the consumption of materials during production of the
GBU-24, either through increased process efficiency or
through reuse and recycling. ;
Figure 1-5 also illustrates the distribution of emissions by
environmental compartment. Solid wastes are by far the
largest emission stream. Further, solid wastes are the
largest emission stream for every life cycle stage - raw
materials extraction, materials manufacture, GBU-24
manufacture, and demilitarization.
Air Emissions
Figure 1-6 illustrates the types of air emission streams
characterized in the LCI with their point of origin. The
combustion by-products — SOX, NOX, CO and TSP —
originate primarily from raw materials extraction, electric
power generation and Holsten AAP. Therefore, if air
emissions are a concern, these activities can be subjected
to further investigation of options for air emissions
reduction.
Figure 1-7 is also an illustration of air emissions, but only
for the activities at Holsten AAP. It can be seen that three
activities, Acetic Acid Production, and both Steam Plants,
account for the bulk of the emissions. The Steam Plants
release the typical combustion by-products, while Acetic
Acid Production produces acetic acid emissions. In fact,
most of the operations at Holsten AAP have a charac-
teristic emission, nitric acid from nitrolysis, cyclohexanone
from the sizing operation, etc.
SoJid Wastes
Figure 1-8 illustrates solid waste for Holsten AAP only.
Again it can be seen that three activities account for the
bulk of the emissions, the two Steam Plants and the
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility (IWTF). Again
the Steam Plants' emissions are characteristic of fuel
combustion. The waste from the IWTF is sludge that
results from the treatment of water used for frequent
washing-down of the HE production facilities. Washing the
HE facilities is done to control the explosion hazard.
11
-------
3,500
Airbo rn e
E fflu e n t
Solid Waste
Figure 1-5. Pollution burden by sector.
250.0 T
0 Chemicals
E3 Demilitarization
DMcAIester
BHolston
BTransportation/Waste/Service
B Electrical
E9 Metals
I Raw Materials
0.0
AcHO
SOx
TSP
Pollutants
Solvents
Other
Figure 1-6. Airborne pollution by sector.
12
-------
Airborne Pollution
Pounds per Pound of CXM-7
a o o o p p
b b b b P •* r*
hj &. O> OQ .A M ^
i i i i i ii
/
Q Nitric Acid
Q Acetic Acid
E3 Volatile Organic:
DD N-Propy!
• Particulates
§ Acatone
EH Cyclohaxanone
Q Carbon Monoxide
S3 Nitrogen Oxides
Q Sulfur Oxides
fffl
Q Y *••"* ! " ' l
(O *-
S. S
0
5
1
i
^
Cuf s*f$
7
1
I
s-* J^A re
?
X
-
1
^
las
9
y *T 2 6 -a Q-J! 3 ' t E " E
"* 5 ^
HSAAP Systems
X
Figure 1-7. Airborne pollution from CXM-7 production.
1-
0.8^
1
5 0.6-
X
O
»- 0.4-
5 o
5 § °-2'
> O
-— .. 1^.
O Q}
co a.
W -0.2-
c
= -0.4-
-0.6-
-08-
f
^
Solid Wastes
/
Recycled Materials
«T-u5f~la o ^; Q. «i •>*• i
wO-i^'o eSO'SiSl
>* OL Oc u tf o *- ^ o "-? •
o o •? ° °- 5 8 *
« S o 2 •"
z S. i -3
« ^ <
HSAAP Systems
rT\
L.
i
i
I
5
E
i
a
p
6
i
1
1
--
5
rl
R
W
CQ
?!
lx
^
B Flyash Waste
Q Bio/Alum Sludge
B3 Coal Tar
3 Boxes/Liners
E3 Filter Cloths/Sacks
QQ Catch Basin Explosive
• Hexamine Bags
3 Recycled Flyash/Cinders
Figure 1-8. Solid waste generated by CXM-7 production
13
-------
1400
Water Bodies
Stack/Point Releases
Fugitive Releases
87 89 91
Acetone
89 91
Ammonia
88 90 92
Nitric Acid
89 91
Chlorine
Figure 1-9. Hotston army ammunition plant chemical releases.
Chemical Releases
Figure 1-9 illustrates, for a select group of emissions, the
total release and the distribution of each release to water
and to air, either as point or stack release or as a fugitive
emission. Data for 1987 through 1993 are shown for each
emission. The following points should be noted. One, air
emissions were the predominant release for the chemicals
selected. Two, waste reduction or minimization efforts do
not appear to be making any progress, except for
ammonia releases. Three, fugitive emissions have been,
and continue to be, a significant portion of the air releases
for most of the selected chemicals.
On a total life cycle basis, the major amounts of natural
resources are consumed by two activities, production of
steel for the bomb body (44 percent) and generation of
electricity and steam from coal (44 percent). The
remaining raw materials are consumed in relatively small
amounts. Energy consumed in the life-cycle is mostly
derived from primary fuels consumption and not electricity.
Disaggregated by activity sector, production of aluminum
and steel followed by off-site and on-site power and steam
generation are the most significant uses. Both Holston
(coal-based) and McAlester (natural gas-based) operations
are significant energy consumers. A slightly different
picture emerges for the pollution burdens by sector,
particularly if the toxic and hazardous wastes are
emphasized. Although the metals production and
manufacturing operations continue to be important, the
emissions from demilitarization activity become notable.
Although the releases from raw materials extraction are
large in terms of inventory quantity, their overall impact is
not proportionately as great due to their lower hazard
potential.
OVERALL SERDP PROGRAM GOAL AND
PURPOSE
The objective of the overall SERDP/EPA/DoD/DOE
program is to identify opportunities for introduction of
novel technologies and integrated product and process
development (IPPD) technologies and tools to achieve
concepts for reconfiguring existing PEP life-cycle facilities
into a clean, agile virtual enterprise that will function
economically with total life-cycle waste reduced by 90%.
The objective of the LCA effort is to define and implement
an analytical approach to characterizing the life-cycle
inputs and outputs. The previously described set of
activities (1993-94 baseline) provided the benchmark
against which progress toward the 90% waste reduction
goal can be measured.
The wastes counted towards the waste reduction goal
include toxic wastes as defined under EPCRA Sections
14
-------
313 (TRl) and 329(3), categorical and characteristic
hazardous wastes as defined under RCRA, Hazardous Air
Pollutants (HAPs) under the Clean Air Act (CAA), and
Priority Pollutants under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Other LCI inputs (resources consumed and energy used)
and outputs, i.e., other environmental releases (volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and ozone depleting
compounds (ODPs) not included in the aforementioned
categories, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides,
biochemical oxygen demand, carbon monoxide, and
methane) were quantified as well. These data items will
be used to judge the degree of change associated with
potential decreases in the hazardous wastes from
alternatives. Given some options in meeting the
hazardous waste goal, the effects on these parameters
can be used as part of future trade-off analyses.
DEMONSTRATION OF LIFE-CYCLE IMPACT
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The primary goal of the task described in this report is to
develop and demonstrate the use of a life-cycle impact
assessment (LCIA) methodology that fits within the
SETAC framework for LCIA using inventory data on PEP
materials collected under the SERDP Program. It is
expected that the technical results of the LCIA demon-
stration will be used by a multitude of groups including
both technical staff (chemists, analysts, engineers, and
product managers) and project managers. The former will
employ the LCIA methodology to design and run the
manufacturing and other operations in the most
environmentally sound manner. The latter will use the
method/tool as an integral part of the end item/
manufacturing process planning and development cycle.
To facilitate maximum usability and credibility, the LCIA
methodology was developed and conducted ,in
accordance with user needs and current U.S. and
international guidelines for LCIA. These guidelines
encompass the Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle
Impact Assessment (SETAC, 1993a), the SETAC Code of
Practice (SETAC, 1993b), and the International
Organization for Standards (1SO)14040 (1995).
From the perspective of the U.S. EPA, it is important to
provide product designers and process developers with
examples of how LICA can be used to identify and assess
the environmental impacts of different material choices
and to structure pollution prevention initiatives.
15
-------
2.0 PROJECT SCOPE
The project scope consisted of establishing an LCIA
methodology and modeling framework based on the use
of impact equivalency factors and applying it to the RDX-
based munition. The objective of the GBU-24 LCIA case
study was to conduct a site-independent evaluation of the
potential impacts on human health, ecological health, and
resource depletion associated with the life-cycle
operations for the GBU-24 B/B earth penetrator bomb by
using the baseline LCI information supplied by the SERDP
Program. The approach for the LCIA followed the
framework outlined by the Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) and ISO, which
includes Classification, Characterization, Normalization,
and Valuation. The first phase was preceded by a Goal
Definition and Scoping step that was used to establish the
study boundaries and determine any additional LCI data
needs. The impact evaluation of chemical stressors
utilized the Level 2/3 methods suggested by SETAC and
resource depletion impacts were evaluated from a global
perspective. The Level 2/3 method includes the use of
equivalency factors to combine stressor data within impact
categories. Equivalency factors for toxicity consider
toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation of chemicals.
LCA BOUNDARIES
The LCI/LCIA included activities from cradle (raw
feedstock materials such as ammonia) to grave (final
disposition through disposal/recycling) for PEP end-use
items. The LCI data acquired included primary
information from government controlled operations for the
manufacturing and use operations and more generic
information for ancillary operations. Ancillary operations
include feedstocks and external power grids.
Three criteria - mass contribution, energy contribution, and
environmental relevance - were used to set and finalize
the system boundaries. Operations were excluded from
the system beginning at a point where they no longer
contribute in an amount greater than the confidence in the
previously obtained data. That is to say the inclusion of
activities that are not primary to the end use item were
determined by judging their significance relative to the
total mass and energy per functional unit of product.
LCI DATA COLLECTION
Data were collected in two principal ways - by survey and
from the literature. Survey data collection was employed
for government controlled facilities including direct
government operated, government-owned/contractor-
operated (GOCO), and contractor-owned/contractor-
operated (COCO) plants.
For secondary data, more generic sources were used.
These include government publications (e.g. Energy
Information Administration), government data bases (e.g.
EPA Permit Compliance System), and open literature
citations accessed through keyword searches. Required
data quality for these sources were determined through
sensitivity analysis on the basis of their contribution to the
total system energy, input requirements, and emissions.
16
-------
3.0 LCIA METHODOLOGY
PRELIMINARY STRESSOR/IMPACT
NETWORKS FOR SCOPING
Scoping included an evaluation of the data available from
the LCI (Ostic et al., 1995; Goldstein et al., 1994;
unpublished data from Los Alamos, 1995), a preliminary
determination of the impacts of concern, whether addi-
tional data are needed for evaluating specific stressors,
and a decision on the level(s) of impact analysis. In order
to facilitate the scoping, stressor/impact networks were
prepared with preliminary (including non-quantitative)
inventory data to determine the most appropriate impact
categories for analysis and to determine if the LCI data are
in the correct form for impact analysis (e.g., data on total
VOCs is not nearly as useful as data on the individual
chemical species). Stressors are conditions that may lead
to human health or ecological impairment or to resource
depletion. Preliminary stressor/impact chains (Appendix
8) were developed by considering the energy, water, and
raw material inputs to each life-cycle stage, as well as the
air, water and solid waste emission outputs from each life-
cycle stage. The inputs and outputs were then compared
against lists of potential impacts (e.g., SETAC, 1993a;
Heijungs, 1992a), in order to develop stressor/impact
chains (e.g., Tolle et al., 1994). An iterative approach was
used to balance the data needs for impact analysis with
the availability of actual or estimated inventory data.
FUNCTIONAL UNIT
The basis of comparison between two systems in an LCA
framework is the functional unit. The functional unit is
determined by the quantities associated with equivalent
performance levels of the alternatives. In the baseline
inventory (Appendix A), the basis of the analysis was one
GBU-24 unit (See Figure 1-1). This same unit was used
in the LCIA.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT/HAZARD
ASSESSMENT
An LCIA (as defined by SETAC, 1993a) involves the
examination of potential and actual environmental and
human health effects related to the use of resources
(energy and materials) and environmental releases. An
LCIA can be divided into the following four stages:
Classification, Characterization, Normalization and
Valuation. In instances where the purpose of an LCA is
the assessment of the current system, i.e. a baseline
analysis, a Valuation phase may logically be included in
the LCIA (or optionally may be part,of Interpretation). The
normalization stage, which compares the contributed
potential impact of the system under investigation to the
overall environmental problem magnitude, is included
after characterization to place the system-level results in
perspective relative to the local, regional, or global
perspective of the impact.
Classification was conducted after scoping and is the
process of linking or assigning data from the LCI (Ostic et
al., 1995; Goldstein et al., 1994; unpublished data from
Los Alamos, 1995) to individual stressor categories within
the three major stressor categories of human health,
ecological health, and resource depletion. This process
included creation of complex stressor/impact chains,
because a single pollutant can have multiple impacts, and
a primary impact can result in.secondary (or greater)
impacts as one impact results in another along the
cascading impact chain.
Characterization involved the analysis and estimation of
the magnitude of the potential for stressors associated with
the baseline GBU-24 to contribute to each of the impact
categories. The equivalency analysis approach functions.
by converting a large .number of individual stressors within
a homogeneous impact category into a single value, by
comparing each stressor with a reference material. The
procedure generally involves multiplying the appropriate
equivalency factor by the quantity of a resource or
pollutant associated with a functional unit of GBU-24 (1
bomb) and summing over all of the items in a
classification category.
Five levels of analysis have been suggested by SETAC
for assessing the potential human health and ecological
impacts of chemical releases associated with the life cycle
of a product (SETAC, 1993a). These five levels of impact
17
-------
analysis in increasing level of complexity, effort, and site
specificity can be grouped as site independent or site
dependent. The LCIA approach used in this report
focuses on a combination of the Level 2 and Level 3, site-
independent approaches discussed below:
• Level 2 - Equivalency Assessment (data
aggregated according to equivalency factors for
Individual impacts (e.g., ozone-depletion potential
or acidification potential; assumption is that less
of the chemicals with the greatest impact potential
is better)
Level 3 - Toxicity, Persistence, and
Bioaccumulation Potential (data are grouped
based on physical, chemical, and toxicological
properties of chemicals that determine exposure
and type of effect; assumption is that less of the
chemicals with the greatest impact potential is
better).
Classification and Stressor/lmpact Chains
The classification phase involved linking or assigning data
from the LCI to individual stressor categories within the
three major stressor categories of human health,
ecological health, and resource depletion. Stressor/impact
chains were developed as discussed above by considering
the raw material inputs to, and emission outputs from,
each life-cycle stage, in order to develop stressor/impact
chains.
Characterization
The characterization phase involved a site-independent
evaluation of the magnitude of potential impacts caused
by individual stressors. For chemical stressors this took
the form of a Level 2 and/or Level 3 assessment of the
physical and chemical properties of each chemical to
determine the potential hazard of that chemical.
The hazard potential approach used in this study is
different from the environmental assessment (EA) and
environmental impact statement (EIS) requirements under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or a human
health/ecological risk assessment (RA) approach. The
hazard potential approach in LCIA deals with the potential
Impacts of non-localized systems, whereas the EA, EIS,
and RA deal with site-specific impacts, typically predicted
by modeling. Risk assessment is concerned with the
probabilities and magnitudes of undesired events, such as
human or biota (plants and animals) morbidity, mortality,
or property loss (Suter, 1993). In some NEPA-type impact
assessments and nearly all human health or ecological
risk assessments, quantities of emissions released from a
facility or group of facilities at a single location are
modeled and exposure concentrations received by
humans, wildlife, and plants in the area are predicted in
order to quantify the potential severity of impact or risk on
well-defined assessment endpoints.
For the Level 2 impact assessment (hazard potential)
evaluation used in this study, a limited subset of the
chemicals identified during the LCI had already been
assigned impact equivalency units in published
documents. Examples of groups of chemicals that have
been evaluated for impact equivalency include nutrients,
global warming gases, ozone depletion gases, acidification
potential chemicals, and photochemical oxidant precursors
(Heijungs, 1992b; Nordic Council, 1992). As discussed
below, some of the equivalency factors reported in the
literature were modified by application of regional scaling
factors.
New impact equivalency (hazard potential) units for
toxicity and carcinogenicity impact criteria were created
for some chemicals identified in the baseline LCI, by a
modification of the Level 3 Toxicity, Persistence, and
Bioaccumulation Potential Approach, by adapting the
hazard ranking approach described in an EPA (1994)
report, which was summarized and published by Swanson,
et al. (1997). This included evaluation of impacts (e.g.,
toxicity to humans, fish, or wildlife) other than the impacts
evaluated in Level 2, although a few chemicals with
multiple impacts were evaluated by both the Level 2 and
3 approaches. Some data were obtained from the EPA
(1994) report, which described a method for ranking and
scoring chemicals by potential human health and
environmental impacts. Toxicity, persistence, or
carcinogenicity data for chemicals not included in the EPA
(1994) chemical ranking report were obtained from
electronic non-bibliographic databases available through
the MEDLARS or Chemical Information Systems (CIS)
clearinghouses. The MEDLARS (1996) clearinghouse is
available through the National Library of. Medicine and
contains databases such as RTECS, HSDB, and IRIS.
The CIS (1996) clearinghouse is available from the
Oxford Molecular Group, Inc. and contains databases such
as AQUIRE and ENVIROFATE. Toxicity data are
available for humans and standard laboratory animals
from IRIS, RTECS, and HSDB. AQUIRE contains data on
toxicity of chemicals to aquatic animals.
Evaluation of the magnitude of resource depletion impacts
associated with the life-cycle of the GBU-24 bomb started
with the resource use inventory information from the LCI.
Resources included in the analysis involved both flow
resources, such as water, and stock resources, such as
minerals, primary energy sources (e.g., gas, oil, coal), and
land. These impacts were evaluated from a sustainability
(time-metric standpoint), which considers the time to
exhaustion of the resource. Information on the world
reserve base and production of minerals came from
18
-------
various documents by the U.S. Geological Survey's,
Minerals Information Center (previously the U.S. Bureau
of Mines) on the World Wide Web. Information for energy
sources came from the Annual Energy Review for 1994 by
DOE's Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA,
1995).
Normalization
Normalization is recommended after characterization and
prior to valuation of LCIA data, because aggregated sums
per impact category need to be expressed in equivalent
terms before assigning valuation weight factors (SETAC,
1993a; Guinee, 1995; Owens, 1995). The valuation
weight factors are based on a subjective assessment of
the relative environmental harm between impact
categories. The normalization step helps to put in
perspective the relative contribution that a calculated
characterization sum for an indicator category makes
relative to an actual environmental effect. The approach
to normalization used in this study involves the determi-
nation of factors that represent the total, annual,
geographically relevant impact (expressed in Ibs/yr) for a
given impact category.
Key Assump tions for LCI As
Key assumptions/limitations regarding the LCIA for the
baseline include the following:
• Evaluation of the primary impact for a particular
impact category is assumed to be a good indicator
of the true impact of concern, which is typically
further down the stressor/impact chain (e.g., an
increase in the acid precipitation potential is a
good indicator of the loss of aquatic biodiversity,
including sport fishing). Thus, primary impacts
are used as indicators of secondary, tertiary, or
even quaternary impacts.
The generic hazard evaluation criteria discussed
previously are assumed to be useful indicators of
the general impact potential and incorporate some
of the factors dictating the magnitude of site-
specific impacts (e.g., the criteria for human,
terrestrial, and aquatic toxicity include
consideration of chemical toxicity and
persistence). However, the exposure dose and
existing environmental conditions cannot be
evaluated without site-specific modeling (e.g.,
using human health or ecological risk assessment
methods). Although the hazard values
determined using the method discussed in the
document by EPA (1994) ranked some chemicals
as essentially non-toxic when the maximum dose
determined to be toxic in the laboratory (e.g.,
inhalation L.CSO, ingestion LD^, or aquatic concen-
tration LCso) was greater than levels considered
likely to ever occur in the environment, there was
no way of determining if the remaining chemicals
with lower toxicity thresholds would actually
exceed this concentration in the environment.
The fact that equivalency factor information was
not available for a few chemicals (e.g., the toxicity
or persistence of some chemicals were not in the
databases searched) is assumed to have an
insignificant impact on comparable impact
category scores for an alternative (e.g., if the
information fora particular chemical is missing for
the baseline, it would also be missing for an
alternative).
The consequences of having a specific compound
in the inventory for one life-cycle stage and a
class of compounds in another was investigated
using a sensitivity analysis. By evaluating the
chemistry of the contributing operation and/or
ingredient group, it was possible to estimate which
compound or compounds were likely members of
the category. Data for the selected specific
compounds were then substituted and the impact
equivalencies recomputed to assess the overall
effect on the comparison.
Valuation Procedure
Valuation involves assigning relative values or weights to
different impacts, so they can be integrated across impact
categories for use by decision makers. It should be
recognized that this is largely a subjective process, albeit
one that is informed by knowledge of the nature of the
issues involved. The valuation method used in this study
is known as the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP
is a recognized methodology for supporting decisions
based on relative preferences (importance) of pertinent
factors (Saaty, 1990). .
The AHP process involves a structured description of the
hierarchical relationships among the problem elements,
beginning with an overall goal statement and working
down the branches of the tree through the major and
minor decision criteria. Once the decision tree is defined,
the actual assignment of the weight factors occurs. For
this study, a preliminary assignment of weights was done
as a group exercise by Battelle staff. The advantages of
the AHP method include its structured nature and the fact
that the valuation process does not deal with the entire set
of criteria at one time, an effort that would be
overwhelming. Rather, preferences are expressed by the
team in a pair-wise manner supported by a software
package known as Expert Choice™ (EC). The team was
asked to reach a consensus on the weight factors prior to
19
-------
their being entered into the model. Although divergences
of preference could in principle be retained as separate
sets of criteria, it was felt that for this application, a single
internally consistent process would lead to clearer
understanding of how the implementation of the results
should proceed.
One of the key assumptions in applying the AHP method
is that the environmental perspectives of the Battelle staff
conducting the AHP to determine the assignment of
weighting values for comparison of different impact criteria
are assumed to be a reasonably good cross section of the
views held by similar stakeholders in the decision process.
Because the five staff included two process engineers,
one environmental engineer, one resource manager, and
one ecologist, we believe that the mix (and the resulting
weights) are reasonable.
The valuation process was conducted in a step-wise
fashion, beginning with the construction of the hierarchy
tree and continuing with the weighting. The reader should
understand that the structure of the hierarchy is
determined by the analyst and the technical team. There
is no single correct hierarchy, only decision structures that
appear to make sense in analyzing the weights to be
assigned. The environmental criteria are first grouped by
spatial/temporal scales into global (world-wide and long
term), regional (intermediate area and term), and local
(site-specific and short to intermediate term) issues. The
terms spatial and temporal scales refer to distance/area
and rate/time, respectively. Thus, the primary emphasis
of the three groups selected was the geographic extent of
the potential impact. Preliminary hierarchies were
developed to reflect two perspectives: "policy" and "local"
. The "policy" perspective emphasizes the global impacts
of concern to a national policy maker. The "local"
perspective emphasizes the local impacts of more concern
to someone siting a specific facility. Within the global,
regional and local criteria, further subdivision is made to
facilitate assigning preferences in an intuitive manner.
It is important to note that there is some overlap in
temporal characteristics between impact criteria in each of
the three spatial/temporal groups (i.e., global, regional,
and local) of the AHP hierarchy. For example, the global
Impact categories include ozone depletion and global
warming and the regional impact categories include acid
deposition and smog, which may result in long term
Impacts on human and ecological health due to the
cumulative releases from many different life-cycles.
However, human and ecological health are listed as
subdivisions of the local impact group, because they are
typically associated with chemical toxicity from localized
releases due to the single life-cycle of interest. Thus, the
group involved in the valuation weighting process was
reminded that weighting for impact categories affecting
human and ecological health should be divided among the
impact categories in all three spatial/temporal groups.
A final set of valuation weight factors were developed
using three key Army personnel involved in the GBU-24
program. They were asked to comment on the relative
importance of the three spatial/temporal groups (i.e.,
global, regional, and local), from both a DoD policy and
local site perspective. Their responses were used to
modify the valuation weights, so that the final numbers
were a better reflection of the Army's views regarding
global versus site-specific impacts.
20
-------
4.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESULTS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT/HAZARD
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Scoping and Impact Criteria Selection
The stressor/impact networks shown in Appendix B were
prepared for interpretation of the GBU-24 baseline
inventory information and to facilitate selection of the 14
primary impact categories initially planned for impact
analysis. Water Use (consumption) was not selected as
one of the primary impact categories, because it was
known at the outset that these data were not included in
the inventory and because water availability is not
considered to be a problem at MCAAP, HSAAP, or
NSWC. Quantitative equivalency factors were developed
for 11 of the 14 impact categories. A regional scaling
factor approach (see below) was developed to improve
analysis of 4 of the 14 impact criteria, whose sensitivity to
potential impacts varies on a regional basis. Although the
accuracy of the impact scores for these four impact criteria
is improved by this process, the resulting impact scores
are still not as accurate as the impact scores for the global
criteria that are unaffected by regional differences in
sensitivity. Since the impact category for suspended
particulates (PM10) only included one stressor, the regional
scaling analysis was used without a need for equivalency
factors. The inventory provided by the Los Alamos
National Laboratory model did not include data for
emissions associated with the ozone depletion impact
criteria, even though the preliminary scoping analysis
indicated that inventory data for this impact category
should have been available. Land use associated with
natural resource extraction was not evaluated due to the
difficulty in determining the quantity of land used for many
of the resources identified in the inventory.
The stressor/impact networks (Appendix B) show the
secondary, tertiary, and quaternary impacts that can result
from the primary impacts selected for impact equivalency
calculations. Impacts to human health, for example, can
result from several impact categories (e.g., inhalation
toxicity, smog formation, and ozone depletion). The
potential for both positive and negative impacts were
viewed from a global perspective. For example, global
warming may increase food production in some areas
(e.g., cold climates) and decrease food production in other
areas (e.g., warm climates). Where the global net
difference in positive and negative change for a single
impact criterion was not clear, both types of impacts were
listed for that criterion.
Development of Equivalency Factors within
Impact Categories
In order to combine data on individual chemicals or
resources within an impact category, it was necessary to
select existing, or develop new, impact equivalency
factors as recommended by SETAG (1993a) for a Level
2/3 LCIA. These equivalency factors express the relative
hazard potential of different chemicals within an impact
category, but do not represent actual impacts. The
equivalency factors for each impact category are listed in
Table 4-1. Information for developing equivalency factors
for photochemical oxidant creation potential (POCP),
acidification potential (AP), global warming potential
(GWP), Eutrophication Potential, and ozone depletion
potential (OOP) were taken from Heijungs (1992b); the
derivation of these factors is described in a companion
document (Heijungs, 1992a).
The general approach for calculating equivalency factors
for the three toxicity and one carcinogenicity impact
criteria (Appendix C) was modified from an EPA (1994)
document prepared by the University of Tennessee.
Details for determining the equivalency factors for the
three toxicity criteria, carcinogenicity, land use, and
resource depletion are discussed below. Equivalency
factors for human health inhalation toxicity, terrestrial
toxicity, and aquatic toxicity used in this LCIA incorporate
both toxicity and persistence information (EPA, 1994) as
recommended by SETAC (1993a) for a Level 3 LCIA. The
SETAC Level 3 approach recommends combining toxicity,
persistence, and bioaccumulation properties of chemicals
in the inventory
21
-------
Table 4-1. Equivalency Factors by Impact Category for Resource Use and Environmental Releases from Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb
Life Cycte.
POCP OZONE ACID GLOBAL EUTROPH- CARCINO- HUMAN WILDLIFE FISH LAND RESOURCE
CHEMSCALNAME (SMOG)1 DEPL.J RAIN' WARM.3 ICATION GENICITY INHAL.TOX. TOX. TOX. USE DEPLETION
ACETIC ACID (AcOH)
ACETIC ANHYDRIDE
(Ac20)
ACETONE 0.178
ALDEHYDES (avg.) 0.443
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM DUST
ALUMINUM OXIDE (AI2
O3)
ALUM SLUDGE
AMMONIA
ASH (burning ground -
AI2O3))4
ASH (bomb case flashing)11
ASH (solvent + hotmelt incineration)5
ASPHALTIC HOTMELT
(Werfor)
ASPHALTIC
PARTICULATES
BAUXITE
BINDER *
BIOLOGICAL SLUDGE
(IWTP)
BOMB CASE (to landfill)
BOTTOM ASH
1,3-BUTADIENE
CATALYST (TPB)
CFC-11 1
(trtehtorofluoromethane)
CHARCOAL (spent from
IWTP)
CHLORINE
CO
COj
COAL
COAL TAR NAPTHA (Stoddard
solvent)
COD (chemical oxygen
demand)
CXM-7*
CYANOX DUST (Antioxidant 2246)7
CYCLOHEXANONE
DHE
D10CTYLADIPATE
FGD SOLIDS
FLY ASH
FORMATE
HC (hydrocarbons - avg,) 0.377
HEPTANE (n) 0.529
HEXAMINE
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
(HCI)
HYDROGEN FLUORIDE
Ml
4.02
6
0
NA
15.6
NA
1.88 5.7
3.5 NA
3.5 NA
4 0
NA
3,400 0
0 22.05
4.47
1 NA
5 NA
0.022
1.5 NA
NA
0.57
NA
0 NA
NA
0
NA
0.88 0 14.82
1.6 0 24.6
2.95
2.01
1.86
NA
0
NA
9.03
NA
NA
0.75
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
0
10.21
6.69
2.55
NA
0
2.19
9.5
1.05
5.74
19.8
5.62
NA
0
NA
0
NA
21.85
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22.5
NA
NA
NA
13.02
11.49
1.35
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.86
6
2.19E-04
6.58E-04
6.58E-04
4.23E-04
9.87E-04
9.87E-04
9.87E-04
5.43E-04
8.23E-04
1.13E-04 3.89E-03
NA
5.89E-04
3.05E-04
9.87E-04
NA
3.44E-03
1.08E-03
9.87E-04
9.87E-04
22
-------
Table 4-1. (Continued)
POCP OZONE
CHEMICAL NAME (SMOG)' DEPL.2
HYDROXIDE
HYDROXY1.3
BUTADIENE
IRON
IRON ORE
ISOPHORONE
DIISOCYANATE
KEROSENE
LEAD10
LIMESTONE
METHANE 0.007
METHANOL 0.123
METHYL ETHYL KETONE 0.473
NATURAL GAS
NOX
NITRATE (as Sodium
nitrate)
NITRIC ACID
NITRIC OXIDE (NO)
NITRITE
NITROGEN GAS (N2)
ORGANIC ACIDS
PBXN-1098
PD-680 (solvent)
PETROLEUM (crude oil)
PHENOL
PHOSPHATE
PLUTONIUM (fissile &
nonfissile)
PM(TSP) '
PM-1Q
POLYBUTADIENE
POT LINER
PROPYL ACETATE ' 0.215
PROPYL FORMATE
RDX
(TRIMETHYLENETRINITRAMINE)
RED MUD
SLAG
SODIUM CHLORIDE (rock
salt)
SOLID WASTE (e.g., dust, rags, boxes)
SOX
STYRENE RESIN
SULFIDE
SULFURICACID
TDS (total dissolved solids)
THERMAL INSULATION RESIN (exterior)7
Total N
Total P
TRICHLOROETHANE 0.001 0.12
(TCA)
TSS (total suspended
solids)
ACID GLOBAL EUTROPH- CARCINO- HUMAN
RAIN3 WARM.3 ICATION .- GENICITY INHAL.TOX.
NA
NA
NA
15
3.5
3.5 15.24
11 NA
0 0
0 1.4
0.7 0.13 15
NA*
0.2 26.4
1.07 6.36
15
0.42
NA
1.5 NA
3.5 NA
0 22.33
1
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
1 .5 NA
: NA
1 3.6
.3.5 3.74
NA
1 0 30
3.5
0.42
3.06
100 0 7.52
WILDLIFE
TOX.
NA
NA
NA
3.3
0
6.41
NA
0
1.86
NA
2.79
10.2
NA
7,17
NA
10.21
NA
7.6
NA
0
0.6
10.21
NA
6.51.
6.81
3.6
0
FISH
.' TOX..
4.5
NA
2.94
NA
NA
27.06
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
15.6
NA
13.2
NA
13.02
15
11.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.02
NA
22.04
'14.31
15
11.81
LAND RESOURCE
USE DEPLETION
4.35E-03
5.00E-03
1.51E-02
3.29E-04
2.01 E-02
3.95E-04
1.08E-03
4.49E-04
6.16E-04
1 .OOE-06
1.32E-03
NA
5.15E-04
23
-------
Table 4-1. (Continued)
CHEMICAL NAME
POCP
(SMOG)'
OZONE
DEPL.3
ACID
RAIN'
GLOBAL EUTROPH- CARCINO- HUMAN WILDLIFE FISH
WARM.3 ICATION GENICITY INHALTOX. TOX. TOX.
LAND RESOURCE
USE DEPLETION
URANIUM (235,236. 238)
4-VINYL-1-
CYCLOHEXENE
VOC (volatile organic
compounds - avg.)
WATER USE
3.5
0.397
NA
NA
15
NA
2.25
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
POCP average is for appropriate chemical group (e.g., ketones, alcohols, etc.)
Applies to air emissions only
Applies to air emissions only; factor is for 100-yr time period
Ash from burning extracted PBXN-109. or flashout of PBXN-109 remaining in bomb
Ash from burning TCA + asphaltic hotmelt
Thermal Insulation Resin toxicity based on styrene resin (17.6% of paint) toxicity
a.a'-Methylene Ws(4-melhyl-6-tert-butylphenol) used in formula for PBXN-109
Toxicity for CXM-7 and PBXN-109 based on RDX toxicity
Binder consists of polybutadiene, IPDI, and DHE
Inhalation toxicity data for tetraethyl lead
= Data not available from on-line sources searched.
to assess their fate and environmental effect. The toxicity
data used for each of the three toxicity impact criteria were
as follows:
• Human Health Inhalation Toxicity - use the lowest
rodent LC^, (ppm) experimental or structure-activity
relationship (SAR) value and convert to a 4 hr acute
test basis,
• Terrestrial Toxicity - use the lowest rodent LDSO
(mg/kg) experimental or SAR value, and
• Aquatic Toxicity - use the lowest fish LCgo (mg/l)
experimental or quantitative SAR (QSAR) value for a
96-hr test.
In each case, the log of the toxicity value was used to
establish a toxicity hazard value (HV). The HV was given
a 0 or 5, respectively, if it was above or below certain
threshold values, as indicated in the figures in Appendix C,
which were taken from the EPA (1994) chemical ranking
document. The HVs for toxicity data between these
threshold values were determined from the formulas
indicated in the EPA (1994) document.
A similar approach was used to obtain the following three
measures of persistence: biological oxygen demand
(BOD) half-life, hydrolysis half-life, and bioconcentration
factor (BCF). The natural log (In) of the BOD and
hydrolysis half-lives and the log of the BCF were used with
the formulas in the EPA (1994) document to develop HVs
from 1 to 2.5. The final equivalency factor for a chemical
was based on the formula:
Equivalency Factor = (toxicity HV)(BOD HV + hydrolysis
HV + BCF HV)
Thus, the maximum equivalency factor any chemical
could have is (5) (2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5) = 37.5.
As an example, the three toxicity equivalency factors for
acetic acid are based on the following information:
. Persistence Data - BOD yz-life is 5 days (HV =1.07);
hydrolysis 1/i-life is very brief (<4 days) (HV = 1); BCF
is <1 (HV = 1). Thus, the sum of the three persistence
HVs is 3.07.
• Human Inhalation Toxicity - based on lowest Rodent
LCso of 1250 ppm for 4 hr (HV = 1.31); The
equivalency factor is calculated as the sum of the
persistence HV scores (3.07) times the toxicity HV
score (1.31), which equals 4.02.
• Terrestrial (Wildlife) Toxicity - based on lowest Rodent
LD50 of 3310 mg/kg (HV = 0.96); The equivalency
factor is calculated as the sum of the persistence HV
scores (3.07) times the toxicity HV score (0.96), which
equals 2.95.
• Aquatic (Fish) Toxicity - based on lowest Fish LC^ of
79 mg/L/96 hr (HV = 1.83); The equivalency factor is
calculated as the sum of the persistence HV scores
(3.07) times the toxicity HV score (1.83), which equals
5.62.
The equivalency factors for the solid waste disposal
impact criterion under land use are based on the
estimated volume calculated using the specific weight (in
Ib/yd3) of each type of solid waste. Since the LCI data for
solid wastes are expressed as weight/functional unit,
multiplication of the weight and inverse of the specific
weight describes the landfill volume required.
24
-------
The carcinogenicity equivalency factor is based on the
weight-of-evidence (WOE) for carcinogenicity as des-
cribed by either the international Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) or the EPA. Chemicals are classified by
experts in chemical carcinogenesis and related fields
based on published information. Because each agency
has different ranking groups, the equivalency score is
based either on an average of the two scores for each
agency, or the score for one agency if only one agency
has ranked the chemical. Table 4-2 indicates the
equivalency value score given for the different set of
Table 4-2. Carcinogenicity Equivalency Scores Based on Weight-of-
Evidence for Two Agencies
IARC Classification EPA
Classification
WOE Group
Score
WOE Group
Score
4
3
NA
2B
2A
0
0
NA
3.5
4.0
. E
D
C
B2
B1
0
0
1.5
3.5
4.0
5.0
5.0
carcinogenicity WOE groups within each agency. The
higher the score, the stronger the evidence for human
carcinogenicity. Definitions for the WOE groups for each
agency are given in the EPA Chemical ranking document.
The basis for resource depletion equivalency factors was
the inverse of sustainability, which can be expressed as
the world annual production of a mineral or fossil fuel
divided by the world reserve base. The Minerals
Commodity Summary information dated January 1996,
which contains data for 1995, was obtained from the U.S.
Geological Survey's, Minerals Information Center
(previously the U.S. Bureau of Mines) on the World Wide
Web. The fossil fuel data were based on global reserves
and production, and were obtained from the Annual
Energy Review for 1994 by the DOE/EIA (1995).
It should be noted that the sustainability scores do not take
into account potential technological advancements for
economically locating or mining natural resource deposits
not currently included in the reserve base. Also, the
scores do not consider the influence of increased recycling
on decreasing the demand for remaining reserves.
Development of Regional Scaling Factors
Regional scaling factors were developed for the following
four impact criteria: Suspended Particulate (PM10) Effects,
Acid Deposition, Smog Creation, and Eutrophication.
These impacts have either a regional or local spatial
resolution, because environmental conditions in different
locations cause the same emission quantity to have more
or less impact. Some locations/regions may be highly
sensitive to one of these impacts and other locations may
be only moderately affected or may not experience any
impact at all from the same quantity of emissions. For
each one of these four impact categories, different levels
of sensitivity throughout the U.S. were defined and linked
with scaling factors for use in refining the final impact
category scores. In some cases these scaling factors were
Indicated on maps, based on a composite of information,
such as sensitive receptors, emission sources, and
emission deposition rates. In all four cases the scaling
factors were averaged for each state according to the
percent of area covered by all scaling factors for a given
impact category within a particular state. These average
state scaling factors were necessary for allocating
emissions among states, when specific facility locations
were not known or too numerous (e.g., emissions
associated with the national grid of electric power
generation plants).
Information used in regional scaling factor development
for each of the four impact criteria is itemized in Table 4-3.
A more detailed description of scaling factor development
for each impact criteria, including sensitivity maps and a
table of the average regional scaling factor by state is
provided in Appendix D.
Development of Normalization Factors
Normalization is recommended after characterization and
prior to valuation of LCIA data, because aggregated sums
per impact category need to be expressed in equivalent
terms before assigning valuation weight factors (SETAC,
1993a; Guinee 1995; Owens 1995). The valuation weight
factors described below are based on a subjective
assessment of the relative environmental harm between
impact categories. The normalization step helps to put in
perspective the relative contribution that a calculated
characterization sum for an indicator category makes
relative to an actual environmental effect.
This approach to normalization, which is discussed in
more detail in Appendix E, involves the determination of
factors that represent the total, annual, geographically
relevant impact.(expressed in Ibs/yr) for a given impact
category. The goal is to develop scientifically defensible
normalization factors, making use of existing emissions or
resource extraction data. Impact categories are divided
according to three spatial perspectives: global, regional,
or local. The global impact categories (e.g., global
warming) are assumed to be independent of the
geographic location in which emissions are released or
resources are extracted. The regional impact categories
(e.g., acid rain) are relevant to fairly large areas, but are
clearly not global or limited to one site. Thus, data
25
-------
selected for the regional normalization factors were based
on the maximum annual state total impact (total emissions
of relevant chemicals multiplied by a regional scaling
factor). Local impact categories were limited to the three
acute toxicity categories (e.g., terrestrial [wildlife] toxicity),
because the area within which a single
Table 4-3. Information Used for Developing Regional Scaling Factors for Four Impact Criteria
Impact Criteria
U.S. Maps and Information Used for Scaling
Suspended (PMIO) Particulate Effects
Acid Deposition
Smog Creation
Eutrophicatfon
1. Map of Facilities Emitting i 100 TRY PM10 by USEPA, AIRS
2. Map of PM10 Non-Attainment Areas by USEPA, AIRS
3. Approximate TPY of PM,0 from Facilities Included in LCI
1. Map of Regions with Acid Sensitive Lakes, based on Bedrock
2. Map of Soils Sensitive to Acid Deposition in Eastern U.S.
3. Maps of Facilities Emitting * 100 TPY of SO2 or NO2 by USEPA, AIRS
1. Map of Facilities Emitting a 100 TPY of VOCs or NO2by USEPA, AIRS
2. Map of Ozone Non-Attainment Areas by USEPA, AIRS
1. Map of Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen
2. Maps of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Input from Animal Manure
3. Maps of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Input from Fertilizer
organism is Impacted for each of these acute toxicity
categories is very small. The total impact used for deter-
mining the local normalization factor was considered to be
the maximum annual emission of relevant chemicals
emitted from a single facility in the United States into the
environmental medium of concern.
Use of the maximum annual emission from a single facility
is not the only option for normalization of local impact
categories for acute toxicity, but it is the most practical.
For example, it would be possible, although very time
consuming, to determine the maximum annual emission
of a particular chemical within the boundary of a single city
or within a specified length of a single river. However, it
is unlikely that a single human or animal would be
exposed to this total amount, due to dilution between
multiple facilities in an airshed or river.
The normalization factor for resource depletion was
calculated as the global production for a given natural
resource times the equivalency factor (global production
divided by global reserves) for that same resource. As
with other impact categories, the impact quantities
computed for each natural resource were summed to get
the total global impact of natural resource use, which was
used as the normalization factor.
Normalized Impact Criteria Scores for
Baseline Process
Impact criteria scores (hazard potential) were developed
for the baseline GBU-24 production processes using the
inventory quantities of each stressor per functional unit.
Appendix F has separate tables for eleven impact
categories with equivalency factors showing how the
impact criteria scores are calculated by multiplying the
inventory quantity times the impact equivalency factor for
each individual chemical and then dividing by the total
normalization factor for that impact category. Each table
in Appendix F shows the individual chemical total impact
scores for each of nine subprocesses and the impact score
for all processes combined. For example, the global
warming normalized impact score is calculated in Table F-
2 by multiplying the inventory total per functional unit for
CO2. (2.61 E+04) times the equivalency factor for CO2 (1)
and dividing by the normalization factor for global warming
(1.03E+14) to get the final score (2.55E-10). Since CO2 is
the only chemical in the LCI contributing to global
warming, no summation of stressors is requied to get a
final score. The impact category on Suspended Particulate
(PM10) Effects was not included in these tables, because
equivalency factors are not necessary when there is only
one type of emission. Inventory data were not included for
the resource extraction/production and ozone depletion
potential impact categories, because the Los Alamos
inventory model did not include any data on emissions or
land use associated with these potential impacts.
The normalized impact scores in Table 4-4 indicate that
the Terrestrial Toxicity impact category shows the greatest
normalized impact score (4.26E-06) for the baseline GBU-
24 process, when all impact categories are considered to
be of equal importance (i.e., the valuation weights have
not been applied). The relative contribution of each
normalized impact score to the total normalized impact
score for the baseline GBU-24 process is shown in Figure
4-10. This figure indicates that the Carcinogenicity and
Terrestrial Toxicity impact categories contribute,
respectively, 41 % and 42% of the total impact when all
normalized impact scores are considered of equal
importance (no valuation weights applied).
26
-------
Table 4-4. Comparison of Normalized Impact Scores by Criteria for the
Baseline GBU-24 Production Process
Impact Category
Baseline
Process % of Total
Normalized Normalized
Impact Score Scores
Ozone Depletion Potential
Global Warming
Resource Depletion
Acid Rain
Smog
Suspended (PM10) Particulates
Human Inhalation Toxicity
Carcinogenicity
Solid Waste Disposal Land Use
Resource Extraction/Production Land
Use
Terrestrial (Wildlife) Toxicity
Aquatic (Fish) Toxicity
Eutrophication
NA<*>
2.55E-10
5.79E-09
2.83E-08
2.28E-07
1 .79E-07
2.84E-07
4.21 E-06
1.14E-07
NA
4.26E-06
7.06E-07
1.64E-07
0
0
0
0
2
2
3
41
1
0
42
7
2
w NA = Data not available; relevant chemicals not listed in LCI
VALUATION RESULTS
AHP Valuation Weights
Preliminary hierarchies were developed to reflect two
perspectives: "policy" (Figure 4-11) and "local" (Figure 4-
12). Abbreviations used in these figures are shown in
Table 4-5. The AHP valuation process assigned weights
to global, regional, and local, respectively, of 32%, 33%,
and 35% forthe "policy" perspective, and 17%, 37%, and
47% forthe "local" perspective. The final weights for each
of the 14 impact criteria are given in Table 4-6.
In each case the procedure for applying the valuation
process to the impact assessment results was to create a
"ruler" by normalizing the baseline impact scores per
functional unit to the total, geographically-relevant impact
in each impact category. Then, the values for an
alternative can be measured relative to that score. This
produces a set of values that is internally consistent to the
decision being made, but neither guarantees the metric is
theoretically as. robust as possible (i.e., its ability to
differentiate alternatives in principle could be greater) nor
allows decisions made in one setting to be compared to
those made in another.
Valuation-Weighted Impact Scores for
Baseline Process
The weights developed by the AHP valuation process
were multiplied by the normalized scores for each impact
category, and these weighted, normalized impact scores
were summed to get a total score for the baseline GBU-24
production processes. Since the normalized impact
scores for each process were weighted using both the
"policy" and "local" perspective, the two tables are pro-
vided in Appendix G showing the calculations for each
perspective.
The scores for each chemical or resource contributing to
a particular impact category were divided by the
normalization factor for that impact category (Appendix E).
This was considered necessary before multiplying by the
valuation weights, to prevent introduction of bias due to
the large quantities typically associated with resource
extraction and use compared to the small quantities
typically associated with emissions released after emission
control devices.
The pie diagrams shown in Figures 4-13 and 4-14 illustrate
the percentages that each weighted, normalized impact
category score contributes to the total weighted impact
score, respectively, for the "policy" and "local" valuation
perspectives. Forthe "policy" perspective (Figure 4-13),
the two impact categories contributing the greatest
percentages to the total weighted score are
Carcinogenicity (41 %) and Terrestrial Toxicity (40%). The
values for the same impact categories from the "local"
perspective (Figure 4-14) were Carcinogenicity (42%) and
Terrestrial Toxicity (40%). Thus, Carcinogenicity and
Terrestrial Toxicity are the top contributors to the total
impact of the baseline. GBU process, regardless of which
of the two valuation perspectives are used.
In order to reduce the impact caused by the two impact
categories (Carcinogenicity and Terrestrial Toxicity)
contributing the most to the total, weighted impact for the
baseline GBU process, the emissions contributing the
most to these categories are logical choices to consider
reducing first. For example, NOX, coal tar naphtha
(including Stoddard solvent), and asphaltic particulates
from material processing at MCAAP contribute the most to
potential Carcinogenicity impacts (Appendix F). Similarly,
acetic acid from material processing at HSAAP contributes
the most to potential Terrestrial Toxicity impacts. Other
chemicals contributing significantly to potential Terrestrial
Toxicity impacts at Army facilities are: at
HSAAP—acetone, cyclohexanone, and CXM-7; at
MCAAP—styrene resin, heptane, PBX-109, thermal
insulation, and CXM-7.
27
-------
TERRTOX
42%
AQTOX
7%
EUTROPH SUSPPART
2% SMOG 2%
2% INHLTOX
3%
CARCINGN
41%
WSTDISP
1%
Figure 4-10. Normalized Impact Scores Percent Contribution to Total Impact (only those impact categories contributing 1 percent or more to the total are
Included).
28
-------
"Policy Perspective"
"Local Perspective"
iOAL-
OOP
(.116)
GLOBAL I GLBLWRM—
(.316)
REGIONAt- 'SMO
(.333)
(.117)
RESDEPb—
(.083)
ACIDDEP—
(.106)
(.117)
SUSPPAR?-
(.111)
r
INHLTOX—.
(.087)
LOCAL-
(.351)
HMNHLTH—L CARCINGN—
(.15) (.063)
LANOUSE—.- WSTOISP—
(.051) I (.017)
RESEXTR—
(.034)
TERRTOX
(.06)
ENVHLTH—4. AQTOX
(.15)
(.06)
EUTROPH—
(.03)
!OAL-
fTTLIMPCT-
(1.)
GLOBAt
(.167)
ACIDDEP—
(.116)
REGIONAtJ. SMOO
(.367)
(.128)
SUSPPAR*.
(.122)
LOCAt
(.466)
HMNHLT!
(.199)
JIN
Cl
INHLTO>«—
.116)
CARCINGN-
(.083)
LANDUSe-j- WSTDISP—
(.067) I (.022)
IRESEXTH—
(.045)
TERRTOX—
(.08)
ENVHLTH-4- AQTO>«
(.2)
(.08)
EUTROPH—
(.04)
Figure 4-11. Hierarchy tree and weights for "Policy" Perspective
Figure 4-12. Hierarchy tree and weights for "Local" Perspective.
29
-------
Table 4-6. Abbreviations
ABBREVIATION
Used in Valuation Hierarchy Trees
DEFINITION
ACIDDEP
AQTOX
CARCINGN
ENVHLTH
EUTROPH
GLBLWRM
GLOBAL
HMNHLTH
INHLTOX
LANDUSE
LOCAL
OOP
REGIONAL
RESOEPL
RESEXTR
SMOG
SUSPART
TERRTOX
TTLIMPCT
WSTDISP
Acidic materials deposition
Toxicity to aquatic organisms (fish)
Carcinogenic'rty to humans
Environmental Health
Nutrient loadings to water and land
Global warming potential
Global level impacts
Lethal or chronic toxicity effects on humans
Acute inhalation toxicity to human health
Area of land "consumed" and habitat loss
Local scale impacts
Ozone depletion potential
Regional to national scale impacts
Depletion of natural resources
Area of land devoted to extraction or production of input resources
Photochemical smog formation potential
Suspended particulate matter (TSP and PM10)
Toxicity to terrestrial organisms (wildlife)
Assess overall least environmentally impacting option
Amount (mass/volume) of waste disposed to land
Table 4-C. Valuation Weights Assigned to Impact Criteria by the AHP From Two Different Perspectives
Percent Weight Assigned to Impact Criteria"
Impact Category "Policy" Perspective "Local" Perspective
Ozone Depletion
Global Warming
Resource Depletion
Acid Rain
Smog
Suspended (PM10) Particulates
Human Inhalation Toxicity
Carcinogenic ity
Solid Waste Disposal Land Use
Resource Extraction/Production Land Use
Terrestrial (Wildlife) Toxicity
Aquatic (Fish) Toxicity
Eutrophication
11.6
117
8.3
10.6
11.7
11.1
8.7
6.3
1.7
3.4
6.0
6.0
3.0
6.1
6.2
.4.4
11.6
12.8
12.2
11.6
8.3
2.2
4-5
8.0
8.0
4.0
30
-------
ACIDDEP SMOG
AQTOX
7%
SUSPPART
3%
INHLTOX
4%
' Figure 4-13. Impact category percentages of total impact score weighted by the "policy" perspective for the baseline GBU
process.
EUTROPH SUSPPART
1H SMOG 3%
3% INHLTOX
4% .
Figure 4-14. Impact category percentages of total impact score weighted by the "Local" perspective for the baseline GBU
process.
31
-------
5.0 INTERPRETATION
Life-cycle inventory data (resource use and emissions)
compiled by the Army under SERDP for the GBU-24 B/B
earth penetrator bomb with the baseline RDX explosive
were evaluated using a methodology designed to fit within
the LCIA framework developed by SETAC and ISO 14000.
This framework includes four components: classification,
characterization, normalization, and valuation. The LCIA
case study involved a site-independent evaluation of the
potential impacts on human health, ecological health, and
resource depletion associated with life-cycle operations for
the GBU-24 bomb. Eleven out of 14 potential impact
categories considered during scoping were evaluated in
the final calculations, including two global categories
(global warming potential and resource depletion), three
regional categories (acid deposition potential, smog
formation potential, suspended particulate-PM10), and six
local categories (human inhalation toxicity, carcino-
genicity, waste disposal land use, terrestrial toxicity,
aquatic toxicity, and eutrophication). Data were not
available from the LCI in order to evaluate ozone
depletion potential, water use, or resource extraction land
use. Water use was not considered to be a problem at the
Army bases evaluated. The geographic scope of regional
and local impact categories were limited to the U.S.
An impact equivalency methodology was developed and
implemented successfully during the characterization
component of LCIA to quantify the level of potential
hazard from resource use and emissions associated with
life-cycle processes for the GBU-24 bomb. Regional
scaling was developed and applied to improve the
accuracy of partial equivalencies for four impact cate-
gories (PM10, acid deposition, smog creation, and
eutrophication), which vary geographically in their
sensitivity to stressors. This methodology fits the SETAC
Level 2/3 framework.
The normalization stage, which compares the potential
impact of the system under investigation to the overall
environmental problem magnitude, was included after
characterization to place the system-level results in
perspective relative to the local, regional, or global nature
of the impact prior to valuation. Normalization data for
regional or local impact categories resulting from chemical
emissions were based on the maximum U.S. annual
emissions, respectively, for a state or single facility.
These data were available through the electronic
databases AIRS EXEC and TRI. Use of 1.5 times the
maximum U.S. annual facility emission for a local impact
category normalization value was determined by
sensitivity analysis to be a good approximation of a worst
case scenario where facilities emitting the same chemical
into the same medium are clustered. (See Appendix E for
discussion of sensitivity analysis.)
The Terrestrial Toxicity impact category shows the
greatest normalized impact score (4.26E-06) for the
baseline GBU-24 process, when all impact categories are
considered to be of equal importance (i.e., the valuation
weights have not been applied). The Carcinogenicity and
Terrestrial Toxicity impact categories contribute,
respectively, 41% and 42% of the total for all normalized
impact scores.
The weights developed by the AHP valuation process
were multiplied by the normalized scores for each impact
category, and these weighted, normalized impact scores
were summed to get a total score for the baseline GBU-24
production processes. The normalized impact scores for
each impact category were weighted using both the
"policy" and "local" perspective.
Pie diagrams were used to illustrate the percentages that
each weighted, normalized impact category score
contributes to the total weighted impact score. For the
"policy" perspective, the two impact categories
contributing the greatest percentages to the total weighted
score are Carcinogenicity (41%) and Terrestrial Toxicity
(40%). The values for the same impact categories from
the "local" perspective (Figure 4-14) were Carcinogenicity
(42%) and Terrestrial Toxicity (40%). Thus,
Carcinogenicity and Terrestrial Toxicity are the top
contributors to the total impact of the baseline GBU
process, regardless of which of the two valuation
perspectives are used.
32
-------
Since the Carcinogenicity and Terrestrial Toxicity impact
categories contribute the most to the total, weighted
impact for the baseline GBU process, the emissions
contributing the most to these categories are logical
choices to consider reducing first. For example, coal tar
naphtha (including Stoddard solvent) and asphaltic
particulates from material processing at MCAAP contribute
the most to potential Carcinogenicity impacts. Similarly,
acetic acid from material processing at HSAAP contributes
the most to potential Terrestrial Toxicity impacts.
The LCIA methodology based on impact equivalencies
described in this report provides a much more accurate
approach to potential impact evaluation than the "less-is-
best" approach (SETAC Level 1) using inventory data
only. The "less-is-best" approach ignores the substantial
differences in impact potential between different
chemicals contributing to the same impact category. For
example, more hydroxide is released in wastewater per
FU than ammonia (Table A-1), but due to the higher
aquatic equivalency factor for ammonia, its normalized
aquatic impact potential is greater (Table F-10).
The "less-is-best" approach is also inaccurate when entire
impact categories are considered. If stressor quantities
are summed for air emissions, water emissions, solid
wastes, and carcinogens, the respective totals for each of
these impact categories in Ibs per FU are 2.69E+04,
3.54E-02,1.27E+03, and 1.14E+01 (see Table A-1). This
Level 1 approach suggests that air emissions associated
with the human health inhalation toxicity impact category
have a much greater impact than water emissions
associated with aquatic toxicity, or carcinogenic emissions
associated with Carcinogenicity. However, valuation
results for both of the perspectives indicate that the
greatest potential impact from these three impact
categories is from carcinogenic emissions (see Figures 4-
13 and 4-14).
The method described in this report includes both regional
scaling factors to improve characterization accuracy and
geographically-relevant normalization factors. Although
this method is expected to be somewhat less accurate
than the generic or site-specific exposure/effect
assessment approaches using modeling, it requires much
less effort than either of these methods.
33
-------
6.0 REFERENCES
Documents
Brown, L. 1995. Agile Engineering, Strategic Environ-
mental Research and Development Program (SERDP),
TaskMS. Tech. Rept. No. HDC-125-95. Holston Army
Ammunition Plant, Kingston, TN.
Goldstein, R., B. Elmasri. D. Trinidad. 1994. Detailed
Process Simulation in Support of Life-Cycle Inventory
Analysis, pp. 66-74. In: Life Cycles of Energetic
Materials. 1994 Conference Proceedings, Del Mar, CA,
Dec. 11-16,1994.
Guinee, J. B. 1995. Development of a Methodology for
the Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment of Products:
With a Case Study on Margarines, Doctoral
Dissertation, Leiden University, The Netherlands.
Printed by Optima Druk, Molenaarsgraaf.
Heijungs, R. (Final Editor). 1992a. "Environmental Life-
Cycle Assessment of Products: Guide - October 1992".
Report 9266, CML (Centre of Environmental Science)
in Leiden, TNO (Netherlands Organisation for Applied
Scientific Research) in Apeldoorn, and B&G (Fuels and
Raw Materials Bureau) in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Heijungs, R. (Final Editor). 1992b. "Environmental Life-
Cycle Assessment of Products: Backgrounds - October
1992." Report 9267, CML (Centre of Environmental
Science) in Leiden, TNO (Netherlands).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
1992. Climate change 1992: The Supplementary
Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment. Eds. J.T.
Houghton, B.A. Callander, and S.K. Varney, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Laibson, LR. and B.W. Vigon. 1995. Life-Cycle Impact
Assessment and Decisionmaking. Paper presented at
SETAC LCA Impact Assessment Work Group Meeting,
Washington, D.C. January 25-26,1995. 19pp.
Me Fee, W.W. 1980. Sensitivity of Soil Regions to Acid
Precipitation. EPA-600/3-80-013. Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Newman, K.E. and R.A. Hardy. 1995. Data Collection for
Life Cycle Assessment Models: Part 1. GBU-24B/B
Penetrator Bomb. IHTR 1784, Indian Head Division,
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head, MD. 17
PP-
Nordic Council. 1992. Product Life Cycle Assessment -
Principles and Methodology. The Nordic Council,
Stockholm, Sweden. 288 pp.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1991.
Changing by Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse
Gases. OTA-O-482. Office of Technology Assessment,
Congress of the United States. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Ostic, J.K. 1994. "Life-Cycle Assessment of RDX
Products." Report No. LA-UR-94-4415. Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM. December,
1994.7pp.
Ostic, J.K., P.T. Reardon, R.Y. Parker, and J.M.
Gonzales. 1995. Life-Cycle Inventory for GBU-24 and
M-900 Weapon Systems. Draft. Technology Modeling
and Analysis Group, TSA-7, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM. 72 pp.
Owens, J. W. 1995. "Layout and Organization of Life-
Cycle Impact Assessment," Discussion Paper submitted
September 27, 1995 to ISO TC207/SC5/WG4 on Life
Cycle Impact Assessment for the U.S. delegation.
Perry, W.J. 1994. "Comprehensive Pollution Prevention
Strategy - Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military
Departments, et al.," Department of Defense, August
11,1994.
34
-------
Puckett, L.J. 1995. Identifying the Major Sources of
Nutrient Water Pollution. Environ. Sci. Tech.
20(9):408A-414A.
Saaty, T.L. 1990. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS
Publications, Pittsburgh, PA. 287pp.
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(SETAC) 1991. A Technical Framework for Life-Cycle
Assessments, Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry and SETAC Foundation for Environmental
Education, Inc., Pensacola, FL.
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(SETAC). 1993a. A Conceptual Framework for Life-
Cycle Impact Assessment, Eds, J. Fava, F.Consoli, R.
Denison, K. Dickson, T. Mohin, and B. Vigon, Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and SETAC
Foundation for Environmental Education, Inc.,
Pensacola, FL.
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(SETAC). 1993b. Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assess-
ment: A "Code of Practice". Eds.iConsoli, F., D. Allen,
I. Boustead, J. Fava, W. Franklin, A. Jensen, N. de
Oude, R. Parrish, R. Perriman, D. Postlethwaite, B.
Quay, J. Seguin, and B. Vigon. Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC),
Pensacola, Florida.
Suter, G.W., II. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment.
Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, Ml. 538 pp.
Swanson, M.B., G.A. Davis, L.E. Kincaid, T.W. Schultz,
J.E. Bartmess, S.L. Jones, and E.L. George. 1997.
Screening Method for Ranking and Scoring Chemicals
by Potential Human Health and Environmental Impacts.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16(2):372-383.
Tolle, D.A., 1997. "Regional Scaling And Normalization in
LCIA: Development and Application of Methods." Int.
J. LCA (accepted for publication).
Tolle, D. A., B. W. Vigon, J. R. Becker, and M. A. Salem.
1994. Development of a Pollution Prevention Factors
Methodology Based on Life-Cycle Assessment:
Lithographic Printing Case Study, EPA/600/R-94/157,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1993.
Environment Data Report 1993-94.Blackwell Publishers,
Printed at The Alden Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration (DOE/EIA). 1995a. Annual Energy
Review 1994. Energy Information Administration, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration (DOE/EIA). 1995b. Crude Oil and
Petroleum Products Supply and Disposition. Petroleum
Supply Annual. Energy Information Administration, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1981. Acid Rain
Information Book. Final Report. DOE/EP-0018. U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Chemical
Hazard Evaluation for Management Strategies: A
Method for Ranking and Scon'ng Chemicals by Potential
Human Health and Environmental Impacts, EPA/600/R-
94-177, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office
of Research and Development, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati,
OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Life-cycle
assessment: Inventory Guidelines and Principles.
EPA/600/R-92/245, Written by B.W. Vigon, D.A. Tolle,
B.W. Cornaby, H.C. Latham, T.L. Boguski, C.L
Harrison, R.G. Hunt, and J.D. Sellers, Published by
Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, ISBN: 1-55670-015-
9, 108 pages.
Wuebbles, D.J. and J. Edmonds. 1991. Primer on
Greenhouse Gases. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea,
Michigan. 230 pp.
Databases
AIRS EXEC. 1996. The AIRS Executive Database
Version 3.0 for 1996 is available from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Information Transfer
Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park.
CIS. 1996. The Chemical Information Systems (CIS)
clearinghouse for electronic databases, which include
AQUIRE and ENVIROFATE, is available from Oxford
Molecular Group, Inc.
MEDLARS. 1996. The MEDLARS clearinghouse for
electronic databases is available from the National
Library of Medicine. This clearinghouse includes the
Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET), which includes
HSDB, RTECS, and IRIS.
TRI. 1993. The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) for 1993
is available through the National Library of Medicine's
(NLM), Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET).
35
-------
APPENDIX A
Inventory Data
36
-------
Table A-1. GBU-24 Baseline Life Cycle Inventory
Quantities by Site or Life Cycle Stage (in lb/GBU-24 unless noted otherwise)
RMAS- Service/
Offsite HSAAP MCAAP ... , = • -
Material Wasle Energy
Processing Material Energy Material Energy NSWC-IH Transport. Manage. Production lolal
Hem Processing Production Processing Production Demil. (All) Offsite Offsite
Pat Erofeswns '
Acetic acid
Acetone
Aluminum powder
Cyanox dust
Cyclohexanone
Hydrocarbons
Nitric acid
NOx
SOx
Stoddard solvent
Wgslewater Emtesfens _.
Acetic acid
Acetone
Ammonia
Hydroxide
Methanol
Phenol
Sulfurio acid
Trichloroethane
BaJJdWtesles"\
Aluminum
Aluminum oxide
Pot Liner
RDX
Styrene resin
ATf Emissions ^^
Asphaltic particulates
CO
CO2
n-Heptane
n-Propyl acetate
Total Particulates
Unspecified
Wasfewaler Emissions
Iron
n-Heptane
Oil
Other Acid
Other Metals
Sulfide
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Suspended Solids
"'-•-'•'•.^, ", s '„;„",•;,",".."' '"'.„. "", ' , Ms^W^B^ee, v c „' , „', , ...... -" "\,
4.09E-03 2.11E+01
3.60E+00 6.00E-02
5.59E-02
2.82E-02
3.53E+00
2.36E+02 8.55E-01
1.32E-02
9.60E+01 2.31E+00 1.57E+01 3.35E+01 1.08E+01 3.41E+00
2.59E+01 4.36E+01 ' 1.73E-02
2.95E+00
5.36E-02
2.59E-01
7.73E-03
1;59E-02 . - . .
6.18E-02
4.49E+00
6.90E+00 2.17E+02
4.55E-04
2.55E+02
2.88E+00
1.36E-03
2.82E+00
", vr^^-w- ' - -, 3*&u^*i*^~'
1.26E+00
3.23E+01 5.74E+00 4.52E+00 1.42E+00 1.45E+00
2.49E+03 O.OOE+00 6.04E+03 O.OOE+00 1.41E+03 2.09E+02 1.88E+02 7.73E+02
2.86E-02
1.24E+00
1.26E+01 5.51 E-01 2.17E-01
9.87E-01 5.77E-02 1.63E+01
1.12E+00
2.70E-01
1.24E-01
1.24E-01
6.18E-02
6.18E-02
9.64E+01 . , 1.17E+01
3.84E+00 ' 1.17E+01
% "^f"" ™? ' i
2.11E+01
3.66E+00
5.59E-02
2.82E-02
3.53E+00
2.37E+02
1.32E-02
6.15E+01 2.23E+02
1.08E+02 1.77E+02
2.95E+00
5.36E-02
2.59E-01
7.73E-03
1.59E-02
O.OOE+00
6.18E-02
4.49E+00
2.24E+02
4.55E-04
2.55E+02
2.88E+00
1.36E-03
2.82E+00
- ' ' '"', '
1.26E+00
6.79E+00 5.23E+01
1.50E+04 2.61 E+04
2.86E-02
1.24E+00
6.21E+01 7.55E-I-01
2.53E-01 1.76E+01
1.12E+00
2.70E-01
1.24E-01
1.24E-01
6.18E-02
6.18E-02
1.08E+02
1.56E+01
37
-------
Table A-1. Continued.
Quantities by Site or Life Cycle Stage (in lb/GBU-24 unless noted otherwise)
RMAi Servioe/
Offsite HSAAP MCAAP Waste Energy
Material ., . . r- ^IOIAI^ iu -r* «n»r4 Manage. Production
P • Material Energy Material Energy NoWU-ln i ranspon. rvfs;te Offsite
Processing Proeessjng production Processing Production Demit. (All)
Ic4WW;rctsF*i;-" ":':'T:.'1
Aluminum sludge
Ash
Binder
Btesolids
Bottom ash
Catalyst
CXM-7
FGO Solids
Fly ash
PBXN-109
Recycle
Red Mud
Slag
Thermosetting compound
Unspecified Solid Waste
Bauxite
Coal
Iron ore
Lime
Natural gas
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Petroleum
Roek«H,w, „
fete
-------
APPENDIX B
Stressor/lmpact Chains for Baseline GBU Process
39
-------
Table B-1. Impacts of manufacturing explosives (CXM-7) For GBU-24 at Holston Army Ammunition Plant (HSAAP), Kingsport, TN
5 "
It
Second
Impact
m
is
to
" §
ifrastructul
eritage Re
Loss of In
Loss of H
2s ra
=§ §•«
o 35 IT*
CQ CC
-n -o -2
OJ 0> 0
W 0) Jn
s 1 1
8"~ b E
to o
Q Q O
(0
jS =
m =
12
11
"O -^
ll
§1
0) O>
Q C£
UJ
8
(Q
0)
8
Q
"ro
In
al & Terre;
ity Effects
Agricultur
Productiv
en
t>
•S
UJ
c
0
I
0)
I
"S^S
Iji
qj <•—
i"
1=5
1 =
"I!
< CL
08
D) O
S gj
a) a)
OH
!
"C
1-B
ffl -0
11
en =
co
in
1)
X
o ^
0) o
0} A
v> ro
la
'to
>
•a
ai
Decreasi
§
si
"i.
ui
•s g>
E §
£-°3
O V)
1 i §
8-1 1
o> S =£
Qi D- i
1
Q
S
0)
-S
o
s
UJ
S
0)
I
'to
tt
-o
s
I
o;
T3
W
O
CO
.§
§
a:
T3
O
o
o
40
-------
Table B-1. Continued.
to
c
fctj
It
£•-
1 1
f« ^
Secondary
Impact
If
h.
O
cn
w
£
CO
I
^
$1 | 1
to to S S
,-. 08 03
2" in in
O Xi Xi
III
, => JS S"
•m- j= c S co g ^;£
> 0~< 2 c Ki£b..E
£ o
W 3 To
SJ "o .S2
I||
fils
0) 0
1 I
u- <
T3 T3 i"
01 01 «
w u> 2
to to tu
£ £ —
o o -^
0) QJ O
Q Q in
£•
~
O
1
Q_
O
f
1
O
0)
Q
:t
x o
° I
_O CT
ra 2
1 *•
5s °
Ju -*-J
^ 0)
-a "t
W S JJ
^ 3 <0
uli§.
Oxygen Depletion
.!
1
.2 S
I|
fl
HI <
Z
.11
0>
s|
If
u S
o
15
reased Commerci
reational Fishing
o o
01 01
Q a:
'o
01
^
s ^
'5> ?
Destruction of Biolo
Community
Reduced Recreatiol
Surface Water
o_
?
•c-
i
"w
i
o
16
reased Commerci
reational Fishing
01 01 -^
in coo
Sto ri
01 -ci
0 0 2
O
16
reased Commerci
-eational Fishing
01 01
Q ce
jT
• . .^
"o -
13
T3
S
o.
Decreased Aquatic
Biota Toxicity
•B
ro
f
(U
of
o: <
)>
t3
-eased Plant Prod
S
Q
c
0
3
0)
-C
Decreased Light Pe
>•
T3
la
to
01
o
"S
01
"o
1
Q_
Decreased Aquatic
en
c.
ion of Spawni
Destruct
•eational Fishing
1
.1
to
IE
£
to
•eased Commerci
•eational Fishing
o o
0) (U
Q a:
0
c
to
_|w
•a S
Direct Mortality,
Reduced Growth Re
Reduced Disease R
pfects on Fish
w
1
b
o
13
•eased Commerci;
eational Fishing
01 01
Q OL
&
.>
•££
|
o!
Decreased Aquatic 1
ing of Benthic
Smother!
Habitats
41
-------
Table B-1. Continued.
ra
ll
•*•* re
2 o*
§1
£*«-•
r S.
ra
o m
u a.
01 C
in £
ra "3
CL-i
iressor
U)
>,
1
JO
1
cr
It
ra "o
3
§
O
a>
It
O 03
ro c
-a- _Q>
c o
J3 S
8
8.
w
1
3
*a
a)
to
S
0
0)
Q
.
f
55
"5
If fl
izi:
sH
Q a!
^
1
ra
0
CO
o
to
|
CO
_c
'_ro
a;
5
o
ra (/)
^ S
T3 5
C Q.
.355
(U
O
ro
Q.
W
T3
c
CO
1
ra
£
O
•
'g
5K cou.
"ro
W
ra
m
a)"
.i
— 1
sf
i; ^
(U (O
O Q-'Z.
ef
> g §
s|S
42
-------
Table B-2. Impacts of Load, Assemble, and Pack (LAP) Operations for GBU-24 at McAlester Army Ammunition Plant (MCAAP), McAlester, OK
£•
re
.g ^
3 S.
al
Q.
CO
r
Secondary Impact
S.
E
>,
ra
E
CL.
Q
ca
to
2J
V)
.w
>
CJ
•3
05
2 s-
=i .-3
3 O
O 3
I1!
T3 — .
->, CD CO
-£•«>•£:
1° S "•»
-egg
sS£
CD
C
*o<
O
£
.0)
-g
* 1 I
lc£j
-o .2 £• c
Ill.il
>^- — Q--si . a> -c: a)
Q LU Q: J= >
S fflf-
-o a sl
g w -y w
11 l¥
0) m 2 N
Q Jj O O
.a ? •'
C -^ CO .=
"g 8 K o
tC >• to 3 c 52,
^.2-gSQ J-g c-
^jocoxw- g a; c
^=l-s5 iw 1 '
^ 1 g"-Q — -™ ~ 5 ^§
o_ ^-C020.
"5T c
. s I g |
~ > ~ "c
0. 2 2 Q. 2 LU
3 §."5 3 S--—
^o J2. raoS
ti)
OJ
o
1 '
OQ
Flooding/Land Loss,
Lower Food Production
More Food Production,
Decreased Biodiversity
Production
in
c
-------
Table B-3. Impacts From Demilitarization (PBXN-109 Waterjet Extraction/Incineration) of the GBU-24 Bomb
ra
Its
— ra
§ 0.
ol
ft
Secondary
Impact
It
w
Q
tn
W
01
35
1
«
u
TJ
•S
S"
^
O
1—
«
ra
f
;§
£
"ro
(U
c
ra
:n
0"
O)
•Q
ra .0
O 2
1
3
2 ''"^
i1!
£ **~
39,
C" ->»
-^: O "in
Flooding/Land Loss
Lower Food Produc1
More Food Product!
Decreased Biodiver
Forest Production
c
ra
K
af O
»" i*
°ss'
£ S^f
fc ra S -^
•*-^ — 03 "* C
o) (n CO R T" tn
11 is f I
o o o o J^ ra
Q. CO _J U. O Q.
O)
c
c:
Global Warn
C i.
'•5 Si
ra CD
<1) (O
Q u.
•§
m
Loss of Heritage
Resources,
Decreased Aquatic
Reproduction &
.1
•5
Water Quality (Acidif
ra
"S J2
il
H- LLI
It
o 13
O) »—
< O-
1
"w -
Populations,
Agricultural & Terre
Productivity Effects
Vegetation Effects
Vegetation Effects,
Soil Effects
CO
*£
ra
o:
2
o
01
o
U)
ra
O
(U
- CO
gig3
o
!s?
)— O)
Decreased Comme
Recreational Fishin
"o
4?
ra >
.2 "S
Oxygen Depletion
Destruction of Biolog
Community
Reduced Recreation;
Surface Water
ra
_gi
^
>
'(O
tn
S
UJ
I
"ra
o
J^ 7?
o.£
l|
UJ O
ra
a.
tn
•a
c
ra
i
Decreased 1
ll
T3
C ^^
2-55
0 ra
|S
§ 0
CD 2.
"ra
si
>r -Q
S I
Q 0.
^
Aquatic Biota Toxic
^
c
c
'ra
Landfill leachate conl
0)
o
ra
n.
CO
-o
c
Decreased
1
44
-------
Table B-3. Continued
£?
<0
s-s
l2-
r §.
Secondary
Impact
1 *
.| 0.
f_
o
8
ro
0} O
11
m in
"o •§ -o p
| gw ro|
§ || | ||
_
'o
*x
£
1—
o
"(0
JS
JZ
c
1 ° g
CO II ^3
cu =i: co
X .E ."
r- ro ^:
1 ^ 2
3 '•§ "3
x <; uj
0 ' <-,
O Z
_ "oT
.is
|||
CO £ 2.
o a>
d> Q
a) -S
(n to
OL
to
man He
-
O
og
Acid R
utrophi
Global W
O
O
o
S1
Bomb Case
(Off Gasses
O
O
•
(00
< 00
45
-------
Table B-4. Impacts of Transportation for GBU-24
O JE
i
£
(0
1
4
8 EC
ls,|
t
I
O.
S
o o g . ^ S
§§§£-111
_j -J Q ofl < UJ >
O
=5 oj
=3
on
-S S1 =5
5 > -w
.3
3
Decreased
Productivity
0) O
0) -Q
•ffi
SS^ §
3 T3 5 .2:
—1 O *3 T3
ll-xi
31*-S§
?•£ £ a i
llsif
El _j 5 d a.
of O
8 I03
3f-g I
lil5
a-3
-------
APPENDIX C
Environmental Impact Equivalency Calculations
47
-------
select most
sensitive rodent j
test results
Flag data missing,
set HV = 0
estimate
Figure C-1. Decision tree for oral LD^ data selection (from EPA 1994).
Figure C-2. Decision tree for oral LD^ hazard value (from EPA 1994).
48
-------
select test with
duration closest to
4 hrs, and not
exceeding 3 hrs.
Flag data missing,
set HV'=0
Figure C-3. Decision tree for inhalation LC^ data selection (from EPA 1994).
Yes
l
= 5
HV = (8.0 - 2.0»log LQ0 '.
Figure C-4. Decision tree for inhalation LC50 hazard values (from EPA 1994).
49
-------
Construct SMILES
(ofqanics only)
Select Nonpolar
Narcosis Toxicity
Typo
logLCs
0= as AH
log
LCSO
* excluding trout
b includes good electrophiles, good nucleophiles, strong acids, chemicals with an aromatic ring,, and certain
reactive groups
Figure C-5. Decision tree for fish LC^ data selection (from EPA 1994).
50
-------
Experimental
LCso data?
log LCso^ 3
dOOOmg/l)
log LQw < 0
(1 mg/I)
HV = -1.67* log LCsc,+ 5.0
Figure C-6. Decision tree for aquatic LC^ hazard value (from EPA 1994).
51
-------
HV = 0.311 In 800 Half-life -f 0.568
HV = 1
HV = 2.5
Figure C-7. Decision tree for BOD half-life hazard value (from EPA 1994).
HV = 1
HV = 2.5
HV = 0.311 In Hyrolysis Half-life 4- 0.563J
Figure C-8. Decision tree for hydrolysis half-life hazard value (from EPA 1994).
52
-------
HV = 0.5 log BCF + 0.5 i
Figure C-9. Decision tree for BCF hazard value (from EPA 1994).
J select test with
duration closest to
4 hrs, and not
exceeding 8 hrs.
Flag data missing,
sat HV = 0
Figure C-10. Decision tree for inhalation LC^ data selection (from EPA 1994).
53
-------
APPENDIX D
Regional Scaling Factor Development
Regional scaling factors were developed for the following
fourimpact criteria: Suspended Particulate (PM10) Effects,
Acid Deposition, Smog Creation, and Eutrophication.
These impacts have either a regional or local spatial
resolution, because environmental conditions in different
locations cause the same emission quantity to have more
or less impact. Some locations/regions may be highly
sensitive to one of these impacts and other locations may
be only moderately affected or may not experience any
impact at all from the same quantity of emissions. For
each one of these four impact categories, different levels
of sensitivity throughout the U.S. were defined and linked
with scaling factors for use in refining the final impact
category scores. In some cases these scaling factors were
indicated on maps, based on a composite of information,
such as sensitive receptors, emission sources, and
emission deposition rates. In all four cases the scaling
factors were averaged for each state according to the
percent of area covered by all scaling factors for a given
impact category within a particular state. These average
state scaling factors were necessary for allocating
emissions among states, when specific facility locations
were not known or too numerous (e.g., emissions
associated with the national grid of electric power
generation plants). Information used in scaling factor
development for each of the four impact criteria and
regional allocation of LCI data to individual states for the
baseline GBU production processes are discussed below.
Regional Allocation of Emissions
Allocation of emissions from the baseline GBU process
involved several allocation processes, based on the most
likely source location. This allocation procedure is
referred to in subsequent paragraphs as the "source
location methodology." Emissions directly attributable to
HSAAP (Tennessee) or MCAAP (Oklahoma) were so
assigned. Emissions from the demilitarization process
were assigned to NSWC (Maryland). Emissions from the
acquisition of coal, natural gas, and petroleum were split
by mass among coal, natural gas, and petroleum usage
and allocated to the states by fossil fuel production ratios.
Emissions from the coal-fired electricity production were
allocated among the bases in proportion to the solid waste
production as this was deemed a reasonable surrogate for
electrical usage estimation.
Emissions from acetic acid and formaldehyde production
were assumed to be in the vicinity of HSAAP, and
therefore, were assigned to the eastern Tennessee area.
Emissions for aluminum powder production were assumed
to be in the vicinity of MCAAP, and therefore were
assigned to the eastern Oklahoma area.
Transportation emissions were split with 20 percent
assigned to MCAAP, 40 percent to HSAAP, and 40
percent to NSWC. This split was based on the variety of
materials shipped to each base and the estimated
distances from suppliers to the base.
Acid deposition consisted of NOX and SOX allocated by the
source location methodology outlined above. There were
no HCI, ammonia, or NO releases reported for the
baseline GBU process.
Eutrophication potential consisted of NOX allocated by the
source location methodology outlined above. There were
no ammonia, COD, NO, phosphorus, or nitrate releases
reported in the baseline inventory.
Smog potential consisted of hydrocarbons (HC) and other
miscellaneous solvents allocated by the source location
methodology outlined above.
Suspended particulates consisted of PM10 allocated by the
source location methodology outlined above. The total
54
-------
suspended participate (TSP) were categorized as to small,
medium, and large generators. Coal-fired plants were
considered large. Most other generators were considered
medium. The TSP emissions from coal-fired plants were
converted from TSP to PM10 using a factor of 90 percent,
while the TSP emissions from other stationary sources
were converted to PM10 using a factor of 80 percent.
Water Use data were not available.
Suspended Particulate (PM10) Scaling
Factors
LCI data on suspended particulates were converted to
PM10 and allocated to states as indicated above. These
emission quantities allocated to each state were multiplied
by the state scaling factor. The information used to
develop the scaling factor for each state is as follows: (1.)
U.S. map of facilities emitting ^ 100 Tons Per Year (TRY)
PM10 last revised May 1997 by U.S. EPA (Figure D-1),
(2.) U.S. map of PM10 non-attainment areas last revised
May 1997 by U.S. EPA (Figure D-2), and (3.) approximate
TPY of PM10 from facilities included in LCI. The
unweighted, factored value for PM10 for one state was
determined by multiplying the regional scaling factor for a
given state times the percent of PM10 emissions allocated
to that state. The total unweighted, factored PM10 score
for the U.S. was determined by adding the regionally
scaled PM10 values for all states combined.
Acid Deposition Scaling Factors
Regional scaling factors for acid deposition potential were
developed by making a composite map of the U.S., which
combines information from the following four maps: (1.)
U.S. map of regions with acid sensitive lakes, based on
bedrock geology (DOE, 1981) (Figure D-3), (2.) map of
regions with soils sensitive to acid deposition in the
Eastern U.S. (McFee, 1980) (Figure D-4), (3.) U.S. maps
of facilities emitting 2: 100 TPY of SO2 (Figure D-5) or NO2
by U.S. EPA (last revised May 1997). Scaling factors for
acid deposition potential in each state were obtained by
using the average state value from the composite map,
based on the area covered by each value in that state.
This value represents the average within the state, but not
every point within the state will have this level of
sensitivity. The unweighted, factored value for a given
chemical (e.g., SOJ for one state was determined by
multiplying the regional scaling factor for a given state,
times the percent of emissions for the particular chemical
allocated to that state, and times the equivalency factor for
the particular chemical. The total unweighted, factored
score for a particular chemical contributing to acid
deposition throughout the U.S. was determined by adding
the regionally scaled and factored values for that particular
chemical for all states combined.
Smog Creation Scaling Factors
Regional scaling factors for photochemical oxidant
("smog") creation potential were developed by making a
composite map of the U.S., which combines information
from the following four maps: (1.) U.S. maps of facilities
emitting z 100 TPY of VOCs and NO2 by U.S. EPA (last
revised May 1997)(Figure D-6), (2.) U.S. map of ozone
and NO2 non-attainment areas as of May 1997 by U.S.
EPA (last revised May 1997)(Figure D-7). Scaling factors
for smog creation potential in each state were obtained by
using the average state value from the composite map,
based on the area covered by each value in that state.
Calculation of the unweighted, factored score for smog
creation potential was done in the same fashion as for acid
deposition, except that the chemicals included were only
those contributing to smog.
Eutrophication Scaling Factors
Regional scaling factors for eutrophicatipn potential were
developed by making a composite map of the U.S., which
combines information from the following three types of
color maps found in Puckett (1995): (1.) U.S. map of
atmospheric deposition of nitrogen, (2.) U.S. maps of
nitrogen and phosphorus input to watersheds from animal
manure, and (3.) U.S. maps of nitrogen and phosphorus
input to watersheds from fertilizer. Scaling factors for
eutrophication potential in each state were obtained by
using the average state value from the composite map,
based on the area covered by each value in that state.
Calculation of the unweighted, factored score for
eutrophication potential was done in the same fashion as
for acid deposition, except that the chemicals included
were only those contributing to eutrophication.
Matrix of Geographic Scaling Factors for
Four Impact Criteria by State
The geographic scaling factors for each of the four impact
criteria discussed above are shown by state in Table D-1.
Separate scaling factors are used for Suspended
Particulates (PM10), depending on whether the source is
considered medium or large.
55
-------
UNITED STATES ^FACILITIES «HTH Ptf 1 tf^SSJONS GE 10CTPY
"'oPEf?At"|f*J ^ru^f OPERATlNe. S&SQUJtL, UNSPECpFfep " -
,itew OF RECORD^|A}) SK:(W!]I """ \ "
Shadad otctea hava faciHtTea
BPft
Total emla*lana: 734-.030 tone
(BD s of National PM10 emlsat
Focilty Locntlan (
3O Nat Diapfayod. Lodk Lnl-Uin
Da/D1/B7
Figure D-1. Facilities with PM-10 emissions greater than or equal to 100 tons per year.
The UNtTED STATES .,>.'„*
Hon-Allammeni DssfgnqtipngforPM-l^ as of May
Non-Attainrncnt Status:
Part of County t-iwSSSI Whole County
U3tM.C«!«. B
Figure D-2. Non-attainment designations for PM-10.
O5/57/H7
56
-------
Figure D-3. Regions in North America with lakes that may be sensitive to acid precipitation, using bedrock geology as an indicator.
57
-------
AcT\
REGIONS WITH SIGNIFICANT
AREAS OF SOILS THAT ARE
NON SENSITIVE -
SLIGHTLY SENSITIVE
SENSITIVE
WITHIN THE EASTERN U S
Figure D-4. Regions with significant areas of sensitive soils.
58
-------
UNFTEO STATES FACILITIES W!TH 5D2 EfcUSSfG^S GS 10D TRY
STATUS; OPERAIM* SEKSOfML WSPECfflED
Shadad states haua facilities
Total •mr**lons; 17,1.70.625 tana • FocllHy Location (
(93 X of National 5O2 Cfntxsiona} 43 Nat Dispfcjyed, Lack Lot-Lan
USEP^ cuqn, itra. uranmiKW TRWisnR CROJI>
Figure D-5, Facilities with SO2 emissions greater than or equal to 100 tons per year.
OB/H1/B7
STATES FACiUTIES WH VOC OviiSSIOHS CE 10Q TPf
Shaded etatoa have focilltl*
Total amla*lene: 2.0fi8.7S2 tone
(79 I of National VOC emraaforra)
Fodlily Location (
1 16 Nat Displayed. Lack Lai-Lan
m»o, nfn«iuic« TRUISFTR CWUP
Figure D-6. Facilities with VOC. emissions greater than or equal to 1 00 tons per year.
QS/D1/U7
59
-------
'""
The UNITED STATES
«•••" y
oa
ERA
Non—Attainment Status:
Part of County m&mi Whole County
Figure D-7. Non-attainment designations for ozone as of May 1997.
60
-------
Table D-1. Regional Scaling Factors for Four Impact Criteria by State
ACID DEPOSITION EUTROPHICATION SMOG SCALE
STATE* SCALE FACTORS SCALE FACTOR FACTORS
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
Ml
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK (Ig. src.)***
OK (med. src.)*"
OK (sm. src.)*"
OR
PA
Rl
SC
SD
TN (Ig. src.)***
TN (med. src.)*"
TN (sm. src.)***
3
NA"
1
1
2
1
9
9
9
4
5
NA
3
9
9
1
1
9
1
9
9
9
9
5
3
1
1
1
1
9
9
1
9
9
1
9
1
3
9
9
5
1
9
5
NA
1
5
5
3
7
7
7
5
5
NA
1
7
7
7
5
7
5
3
7
7
6
5
5
7
1
5
1
7
7
1
8
5
2
8
5
1
9
7
5
4
6
7
NA
3
7
9
3
9
9
9
7
7
NA
1
7
7
5
3
8
8
8
9
9
6
3
7
6
1
3
1
8
9
3
8
7
2
8
5
5
8
9
7
3
7
PM10 SCALE
FACTORS
5
5
9
5
9
9
5
5
5
5
5
5
9
9
9
5
5
5
5
9
5
5
9
9
5
5
9
5
9
5
5
9
5
5
5
9
5
3
1
9
9
5
5
5
5
3
1
61
-------
Table D-1. Continued
STATE*
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
Wl
WY
ACID DEPOSITION
SCALE FACTORS
1
1
3
9
3
9
9
1
EUTROPHICATION
SCALE FACTOR
3
1
7
7
5
8
6
1
SMOG SCALE
FACTORS
8
1
8
7
7
8
7
1
PM10 SCALE
FACTORS
9
9
5
5
9
9
5
9
Two-Letter U.S. Postal Codes for States
NA = Not Available
Ig. src, = large source (> 100 TPY); med. sro. = medium source (100-15 TPY)
sm. src. = small source (<1S TPY)
62
-------
APPENDIX E
Normalization Factor Development
Normalization is recommended after characterization and
prior to valuation of life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
data, because aggregated sums per impact category need
to be expressed in equivalent terms before assigning
valuation weight factors. The valuation weight factors are
based on a subjective assessment of the relative
environmental harm between impact categories.
Normalization factors are described in the SETAC (1993)
"Code of Practice" as the actual magnitude of the impacts
within an impact category for a selected geographic area.
Normalization has also been described by Guinee (1995)
as the process of defining the relative contribution of the
characterization scores by impact category to the total
impact for that category. This was accomplished by
dividing the characterization score for an impact category
by the total extent of the relevant impact score for a
certain area and a certain period of time. Since most of
the impact categories considered by Guinee (1995) were
global in nature, his initial approach to normalization
factors involved values forthe entire world. Owens (1995)
has submitted recommendations to International
Organization for Standards (Technical Committee 207,
Subcommittee 5, working group 4) that LCIA should
include a normalization step to understand the relative
contribution that a calculated characterization summation
(indicator) makes relative to an actual environmental
effect. Normalization should be used to interpret
characterization results by considering the actual
occurrence of the effects in each impact category based
on the contribution from the LCA system studied to the
overall effect.
In this study the normalization approach involves the
determination of factors that represent the total, annual,
geographically relevant impact for a given impact
category. The goal is to develop scientifically defensible
normalization factors, making use of existing emissions or
resource extraction data. Impact categories are divided
according to three spatial perspectives: global, regional,
or local (Table E-1). Details on the bases forthe values in
Table E-1 may be found in Tables E-2 through E-7. The
global impact categories include ozone depletion, global
warming, and resource depletion, because the total impact
in these categories is assumed to be independent of the
geographic location in which emissions are released or
resources are extracted.
The normalization factor for resource depletion was
calculated as the global production of a given resource
times the equivalency factor (global production divided by
global reserves) for that same resource. The equivalency
factor is the global use rate specific to each resource type.
As with other impact categories, the impact quantities
computed for each resource were summed to get the total
global impact of resource use, which was used as the
normalization factor.
Regional impact categories include acid deposition ("acid
rain"), photochemical oxidant creation ("smog"),
suspended particulates (PM10), carcinogenicity, solid waste
disposal land use, and eutrophication. Since these
regional impact categories are relevant to fairly large
areas, but are clearly not global or limited to one site, the
regional data selected forthe normalization factorwasthe
maximum annual state total impact (total emissions of
relevant chemicals multiplied by a regional scaling factor).
Although a slightly larger or smaller area might be more
appropriate for determination of normalization factors for
some of the regional impact categories, inventory
emission data are primarily available by state, and
regional scaling factors were developed to meet this
limitation.
63
-------
Table E-1. Calculation of Impact Category Normalization Values for GBU-24 LCIA Based on Most Relevant Geographic Maximum Extent of Impact
Normalization Value
Geographic Maximum Extent of Impact (Measurement
Impact Category (Measurement Quantity Description) Quantity X EF)("
Ozone Depletion
Global Warming
Resource Depletion
Acid Rain
Smog
Suspended Particulates (PM-10)
Human Inhalation Toxicity
Carcinogenfcity
Solid Waste Disposal Land Use
Terrestrial (Wildlife) Toxicity
Aquatic (Fish) Toxicity
Eutrophication
global (total annual air emissions per chemical)
global (total annual air emissions per chemical)
global (total annual production per resource type)
regional (max. state total annual air emission per chemical in U.S.)
regional (max. state total annual air emission per chemical in U.S.)
regional (max. state total annual air emissions in U.S.)
local (max. annual air emissions per chemical by facility in U.S.)
regional (max. annual state total emissions per chemical in U.S.)
regional (max. state annual industrial solid waste volume in U.S.)
local (max. annual solid waste emissions per chemical by facility in U.S.)
local (max. annual water emissions per chemical by facility in U.S.)
*.y :
regional (max. state total annual emissions per chemical in U.S.)
4.76 x10" Ib/yr11"
1.03x10" Ib/yr^
2.26x1011lb/yrld)
5.24x1010lb/yr(
1.52x10'° Ib/yr11"
4.54x1 0s Ib/yr10
5.22x107cuyd/yr®
2.16 x107 Ib/yr11"
3.88x1 0s Ib/yr11'
8.91 x10" Ib/yr1""
er
W
01
("I
W
0
N
EF = Equivalency Factor
Based on sum of 1985 (OTA, 1991) or 1990 (IPCC, 1992), global, annual, man-made emissions per chemical times OOP equivalency factors (Heijungs,
1992a) (Table E-2). .
Based on sum of 1988 (Wuebbtes and Edmonds, 1991) or 1990 (IPCC, 1992), global, annual, man-made emissions per chemical times GWP
equivalency factors (Heijungs, 1992) over a 100-yrtime horizon (Table E-3).
Based on 1994 data from U.S. DOE/EIA (1995a), DOE/EIA-0384(94), for world total annual production per energy resource type and 1995 data on
mineral resources from the Mineral Commodity Summaries available from the USGS on the World Wide Web times the Resource Depletion equivalency
factors (global production divided by global reserves) (Table E-4).
The maximum state acid deposition air emission impact per chemical after multiplication times the state regional scaling factor and acid deposition
eqdvatency factor, based on data for NO2 and SO2 from AIRS EXEC for the years 1988-1995 and data on ammonia and HCl from TRI for 1993 (Table
E-5).
The maximum state VOC air emission impact is for the state of Texas after multiplication times the state regional scaling factor (8 for Texas) based on
data from AIRS EXEC fortheyears 1988-1995 (Table E-6).
The maximum state PM-10 air emission impact is for the state of Indiana after multiplication times the state regional scaling factor for large sources >100
TPY (9 for Indiana) based on data from AIRS EXEC for the years 1988-1995.
Based on sum of 1993, max. annual air emissions per chemical by facility in U.S. times Human Inhalation Toxicity equivalency factors. Each max. annual
air emission for a facility was multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to account for clusters of facilities emitting the same chemical (Table E-7).
Based on sum of 1993, max. state total annual emissions per chemical times Carcinogenicity equivalency factors (Table E-8).
Based on maximum state total industrial solid waste volume for four states contacted which had available data (Ohio, New York, Texas, and Indiana);
1994 data reported for the state with the maximum volume (Ohio) assumes that the waste is compacted to 3 cu yd/ton.
Based on sum of 1993, max. annual solid waste emissions per chemical by facility in U.S. times Terrestrial Toxicity equivalency factors. Each max. annual
solid waste emission for a facility was multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to account for clusters of facilities emitting the same chemical (Table E-9).
Based on sum of 1993, max. annual water emissions per chemical by facility in U.S. times Aquatic Toxicity equivalency factors. Each max. annual water
emission for a facility was multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to account for clusters of facilities emitting the same chemical (Table E-10).
Based on sum of 1993, max. state annual air and water emissions per chemical after multiplication times the state regional scaling factor and
Eutrophication equivalency factor, based on data for NO2 from AIRS EXEC for the years 1988-1995 (Table E-11).
Local impact categories were limited to the three acute
toxicity categories: human inhalation toxicity, terrestrial
(wildlife) toxicity, and aquatic (fish) toxicity. The area
within which a single organism is impacted for each of
these acute toxicity categories is very small. Thus, the
total impact used for determining the normalization factor
was considered to be the maximum annual emission of
relevant chemicals emitted from a single facility in the
United States into the environmental medium of concern,
multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to compensate for facility
clustering. For example, the normalization factor for
inhalation toxicity involved the maximum air emissions per
relevant chemical from a single facility anywhere in the
United States. After comparing the maximum annual air
emission for a particular chemical from a single facility in
the U.S. with the total annual air emissions forthe same
chemical from the entire county where the maximum
facility is located, it became fairly obvious that co-located
facilities seldom exceed more than 1.5 times the U.S.
maximum annual air emissions for a single facility. In
fact, the total annual air emissions for a single chemical
from counties known to have substantial industry present
(e.g., Harris County, Texas, which includes Houston; Lake
County, Indiana, which includes Hammond and Gary; and
East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, which includes most
of Baton Rouge) was typically lower for the entire county
than forthe single facility emitting the maximum annual air
emissions forthe same chemical in the U.S.
The normalization factor for a particular impact category
64
-------
was determined only for the chemicals relevant to each of
the impacts that were identified in the specific LCI under
consideration. The exceptions to this rule are for the two
global impact categories based on emissions (ozone
depletion and global warming). For these two categories
the normalization factor was based on available data for
all chemicals known to contribute to these impacts,
whether these chemicals were part of the LCI or not. For
global resource depletion and all regional or local impact
categories, the normalization factor was based only on the
chemicals reported in the LCI for which equivalency
factors have been determined. For these later impact
categories, the total impact relevant for normalization
depends on which chemicals are being considered. For
example, the total worldwide use of bauxite does not have
any direct relationship on the total worldwide use of silica.
Similarly, the total inhalation toxicity of chemical A in
Columbus, Ohio does not have any direct relationship to
the total inhalation toxicity of chemical B in Los Angeles,
California.
A sensitivity analysis was performed to verify the
reasonableness of using only the list of chemicals included
in the LCI as part of the normalization factor for local
impact categories. For this LCI, most of the emissions are
released in Hawkins County, Tennessee (includes HSAAP)
and Pittsburg County, Oklahoma (includes McAAP). Thus,
searches of the TRI and AIRS EXEC databases were
made to determine all chemicals emitted into either the
air, water, or land in each of these two relevant counties.
Chemical emitted into the air of Hawkins or Pittsburg
Counties included, respectively, eleven and two chemicals
reported in either TRI or AIRS EXEC that were not part of
the LCI. However, when the air emission data used for
normalizing Human Inhalation Toxicity impacts was
examined, 99% of the normalization factor was due to four
criteria pollutants. Since none of the additional chemicals
emitted into Hawkins or Pittsburg Counties that are not
part of the LCI are criteria pollutants, their contribution to
the normalization factor would be sufficiently small that
they would not change the normalization factor used. The
same approach was used to compare water and land
emissions reported in TRI for the two relevant counties
against the list of chemicals from the LCI used for
normalization. Four additional TRI chemicals emitted into
water in Hawkins County were not part of the LCI.
However, the Aquatic Toxicity Impact due to ammonia and
sulfuric acid, which are part of the LCI, are so large
(99.9%), that adding these additional water emissions
would not change the normalization factor used. No new
TRI chemicals were emitted to land in Hawkins County
that are not in the LCI.
Normalization factor calculation data and information
sources for impact categories with multiple chemicals or
resources (10 of the 12 categories evaluated) are provided
separately (Tables E-2 through E-11), so the contribution
of different chemicals or resources to the total impact is
transparent. For example, in calculating the total global
resource depletion impact, the impact of petroleum use is
the primary contributor to this impact category. The main
contributors to the total aquatic toxicity impact are sulfuric
acid and ammonia.
Separate tables are not included for two impact categories
(suspended particulates and solid waste disposal land
use), since data and information sources for the single
inventory item represented in these impact categories are
provided in Table E-1. The normalization factor for solid
waste is based on the maximum state total industrial solid
waste volume expressed as cubic yards per year, since
almost all of the solid waste identified in the inventory was
industrial solid waste. In order for the units of the factored
impact scores to match the normalization value for solid
waste, these values were divided by the weight of a cubic
foot of water in pounds (62.43) and divided by the number
of cubic feet (27) in a cubic yard.
Table E-2. Calculation of Total OOP Impact
World Total
Chemical Emissions (Ib)
AIICFCs* for 1990"
HCFC-22"*
Carbon Tetrachloride"*
Methyl Chloroform***
Halon-1211""*
Halon-1301"***
1.82E+09
4.54E+08
2.27E+09
1.19E+09
1.62E+07
1.62E+07
OOP***
1
0.055
1.08
0.12
4
16
TOTAL OOP IMPACT
OOP
* IMPACT
1 .82E+09
2.50E+07
2.45E+09
1.43E+08
6.48E+07
2.59E+08
4.76E+09
Includes CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, & CFC-115
Emissions for 1990 (IPCC, 1992)
Emissions for 1985 (OTA, 1991)
' ODPs From Heijungs (1992)
**** Assumes 33% drop in halons from 1986 to 1990
(OTA,1991;UNEP, 1993)
Table E-3. Calculation of Total GWP impact
World Total GWP
Chemical Emissions (Ib) GWP**** IMPACT
Carbon Dioxide*
Methane*
Nitrous Oxide*
AIICFCs*" for 1990*
HCFC-22"
Carbon Tetrachloride**
Methyl Chloroform**
5.98E+13
1.12E+12
8.72E+10
1.82E+09
2.20E+08
1 .98E+08
1.79E+09
TOTAL GWP
1
11
270
3400
1600
1300
100
IMPACT
5.98E+13
1.23E+13
2.35E+13
6.19E+12
3.53E-H1
2.58E+1 1
1 .79E+1 1
1.03E+14
Emissions for 1990 (IPCC, 1992)
* Emissions for 1988 (Wuebbles and Edmonds, 1991)
** Includes CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CFC-114, & CFC-115
*** From Heijungs (1992)
65
-------
Resource
RESOURCE TYPE Production Units
COAt_ 7.88E+12 Ib/yr 3
NATURAL GAS 3.28E+12 Ib/yr 3
PETROLEUM (CRUDE OIL) 6.41 E+1 2 Ib/yr 3
SODIUM CHLORIDE (SALT) 4.08E+11 Ib/yr 4
BAUXITE 2.40E+11 Ib/yr 4
IRON ORE 2.20E+12 Ib/yr 4
LIMESTONE 2.03E+12 Ib/yr 4
Global
Res. Def
Reserves Un-rts Equiv. Fa<
Global
,1 Res. Depl.
Impact
:tor
2.29E+15 Ib 1 3.44E-03
2.17E+14 Ib 2 1.51E-02
3.19E+14 Ib 2 2.01 E-02
4.08E+17 Ib 4,5 1.0QE-06
6.17E+13 Ib 4 3.89E-03
5.07E+14 Ib 4 4.35E-03
4.06E+14 Ib 4,6 5.00E-03
1 US DOE/EIA 1 995a. Annual Energy Review, DOE/EIA-0384(94), p. 315
2' U S DOE/EIA, 1995a, Annual Energy Review, DOE/EIA-0384(94), p. 289
3' U.S DOE/EIA, 1995a. Annual Energy Review, DOE/EIA-0384(94), p. 287
4 U S Geological Survey. Minerals Information, 1 996, World Wide Web, Mineral Commodrty Summaries (1 995 data)
5 RWerWvalue is calculated to be enough for 1 ,000.000 years at current production, based on USGS estimate of "unhmrted reserves.
6. Reserve value is calculated to be enough for 200 years at current production, based on USGS estimate of adequate reserves.
Table E-5. Calculation of Total Acid Rain Impact Table E-7. Calculation of Total Inhalation Toxicity Impact
Max. Human racimy
Max. State lotai CHEMICAL NAME Facility Inhal.Tox. Cluster
CHEMICAL NAME Emissions Acid Ram Total Acid uncm^M » Multiplier
Times Reg. Equiv. Fac. Rain Re,ease ^
Scale. Fac. Impact nb/ifrt
NOx(asN02r 9.76E+09 0.7 6.83E+09
SOx(asSOj)' 4.56E+10 1 4.56E+10
TOTAL ACID RAIN IMPACT 5.24E+1 0
• Based on data from AIRS EXEC for the years 1988-1 995; State with
maximum total acid deposition impact for NO2 is Illinois and SO2 is Ohio.
Table E-6. Calculation of Total Smog Impact
Max. State Total Smog* Total
CHEMICAL NAME Emissions Equiv. Smog
Times Reg. Fac. Impact
Scale. Fac.*
VOC (volatile organic compounds) 6.48E+09 0.397 2.57E+09
* Maximum state total VOC emissions calculated in AIRS EXEC database
after application of regional scaling factor was for state of Texas
ACETIC ACID 2.95E+03 4.02
ACETONE 2.22E+07 0
ALUMINUM DUST 6.67E+05 15.6
CO (carbon 4.84E+08 4.47
monoxide)"
CYCLOHEXANONE NA 0.57
HEPTANE NA 0
NOx (nitrogen oxides 2.22E+08 15
as NO2)"
NITRIC ACID* 1.97E+05 26.4
SOx (sulfur oxides as 7.47E+08 3.6
SO,)"
VOC (volatile organic 1.29E+08 15
compounds)**
TOTAL INHALATION TOXICITY IMPACT
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
From TR1 database for 1 993
** From AIRS data on WWW for 1 990-93
Table E-8. Calculation of Total Carcinogenicity Impact
Maximum Carcino-
CHEMICAL NAME State gen
Total Equiv.
Emissions Fac.
to all Media
ASPHALTIC PARTICULATES NA
COAL TAR NAPTHA (a) 9.09E+05
RDX (component of CXM-7) NA
TOTAL CARCINOGENICITY IMPACT
3.5
5
1.5
2.71 E+10
4.94E+10
1.29E+11
4.08E+05
9.35E+08
9.59E+09
1.02E+10
2.26E+11
Human
Inhal. Tox.
Impact
1.78E+04
O.OOE+00
1.56E+07
3.24E+09
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
4.98E+09
7.82E+06
4.03E+09
2.89E+09
1.52E+10
Total
Carcinogen
Impact
O.OOE+00
4.54E+06
O.OOE+00
4.54E+06
(a) State with maximum total emissions for coal tar naptha is Texas.
66
-------
Table E-3. Calculation of Total Terrestrial Toxicity Impact
Max. Terrestrial Facility Total
CHEMICAL NAME Facility Toxicity Cluster Terrestrial
Solid Waste Equiv. Fac. Multiplier Tox.
Release Impact
(Ib/yr)
ACETONE*
AMMONIA*
CYANOX DUST
CYCLOHEXANONE
HEPTANE (n-)
NITRIC ACID*
PHENOL*
PROPYL ACETATE
RDX (component of
CXM-7)
STYRENE RESIN*
SULFURIC ACID
(H2S04)*
2.90E+05
1.16E+06
NA
NA
NA
1.19E+05
5.09E+04
NA
NA
8.10E+04
4.00E+05
1.86
9.03
0
2.55
9.5
10.2
7.6
0.87
10.21
4.04
3.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
TOTAL TERRESTRIAL TOXICITY IMPACT
8.09E+05
1.57E+07
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.83E+06
5.80E+05
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
4.91 E+05
2.16E+06
2.16E+07
Table E-10. Calculation of Total Aquatic Toxicity Impact
Quantity reported in TRI 1993 database for land disposal.
CHEMICAL NAME
ACETIC ACID
AMMONIA*
HYDROXIDE (as sodium
hydroxide)
IRON
PETROLEUM (CRUDE
OIL)**
PHENOL*
SULFIDE (as sodium
sulfide)
SULFURIC ACID
(H2S04)*
TRICHLOROETHANE
fTCA)
Max.
Facility
Water
Release
(Ib/vrt
NA
3875000
NA
NA
1512000
10612
NA
11602616
6700
Aquatic
Tox.
Equiv.
Factor
5.62
21.85
4.5
2.94
15
11.4
14.31
15
11.81
TOTAL AQUATIC TOXICITY IMPACT
Facility Aquatic
Cluster Toxicity
Multiplie Impact
r
1.5 O.OOE+00
1.5 1.27E+08
1 .5 O.OOE+00
1.5 O.OOE+00
1.5 3.40E+07
1.5 1.81 E+05
1.5 O.OOE+00
1.5 2.61 E+08
1.5 1.19E+05
4.22E+08
* From TRI database for 1993
** From Energy Information Administration (1995b) Petroleum Supply
Annual
Table E-11. Calculation of Total Eutrophication Impact
Max, State Total Eutroph- Total
CHEMICAL NAME Emissions Times ication Eutrophication
Reg. Scale. Fac.
Equiv.
Fac.
NOx(asNO2)* 6.86E+09 0.13
TOTAL EUTROPHICATION IMPACT
Impact
8.91 E+08
8.91 E+08
Based on data from AIRS EXEC for the years 1988-1995;State with
maximum total eutrophication impact for NOx is Pennsylvania
67
-------
APPENDIX F
Impact Score Calculations
68
-------
Table F-1. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations for Ozone Depletion Potential (OOP)
•o
N S
OL
B«S,5
•5 to w US
Sg rag
«0 E
tf
o
a.:?
£<
w
£
1
Q
>,!
^ II
« Ul 0
< 0)
s Is
ra u
= e
Q.
||
0 "|
1 «!"
Is
a o
E 2
a.
a>
s g u S
£
,_ UJ *
t; o a.
U- O Q
UJ
E
g
^
O
UJ
O
g ° '"
UJ
to ••
5 '
f
ff
o *•
o
i, •;
g ,
d %%
O;
UJ^*""
g/'
°\""
g".
llj f f
s. ^
o •••.
o: %
o
4. ••••••
g;;
d A
0 "
o
£
g ,
d
f
0 /
is
ui g
o ^-**^
d'-'' *•
s\ %%
UJ ""
§.
^
Qff^ff
+ ff:
UJ
g''
d
•" •*
§\ '
§;
d
^
^/^
r^
o ^3"* %
^ i£s ^
O)
5 **
"5 x
E M,
i -r
f
-. >
o o o
§88
+ + +
g g g
o o o
o
o
§'
_
0
g
UJ
s
d
o
o
g
d
s
£
o
o
d
o
Q
d
I
o
g
d
0
i
d
§
o
o
d
c*i
d
1?
Q M ****
£i CO ^
^ 1 t-
P UJ
5 z
^" "5
Il|
Jj
^ 3 S
: s o H
v ^^
? *
^""
*•
1 '?
O
_. o
'J'4 o
'•f' f °
:' IU
' 0
$, °
,, o
' * O
s O
^ , i
g
",% o
"/•"* o
^ o
" .. o
-, d
v o
o
s UJ
o
o
' % d
$•
o
% S- UJ
H O
"3 UJ
c C3
^ °
^ " o
•••> o
f'- O
o
d
^ % o
o
•UJ
^ O
Sfgff
f>
*"• O
% v* 0
- §
d
^
'' '2%
v" H
' ' ^
"•%< ^
A
'
^ ^ V
v~*w
Tr/*
2:
a
1
01
"S
5
w
.2
a
^
69
-------
Table F-2. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Life Cycle Impact Calculations for Global Warming Potential (GWP)
i
4J
C
Ul
u •>
I £
„
~ 4)
g-o o
CO
0 °>
z
"re
£
reduction
Offslte
o_
s s
I i
1 1
4>
•z
V
£
c
o
•55
"(•
I
o* *
<£ •gj
E jt
*
1
C
c
j
1 1
UI £
a.
o
1 |
H J
2 £
a.
i
ro 1
£ i
Ul (
{
!
5 •;
n
OL
~s
gj
"5
E
I
S S 5
|3 i
0 g
1
? £ "S S
h |J| + +•
3 S 88
r^ ** $00
C
3 % 1 ?
ui ui uJ
5 ' § S
CM O O
-* O
O e O
s x s
T- 0
ft 0
I I
s f
iii ^ ui
r- O
CM O
° t °
^« g
1 < ", 1
O A ^ S
'\ oE"
s
r
§
o
8
J
s
o"
1
Ul
1
Is
§
o
_l
0<
(-
^w O O
UJ U-I
^ ir> m
x in ifi
\%*^ CN C4
***
^ 1 1
^ Ul UJ
' , S 5
'/ * ci rJ
f - 1 ?
~ , Ul UJ
'» ' S S
^- -
>;| s s
i" S B
\ g g
"" , UI U
^ » «
"• o c
ui tu
en a
;S S
•* ••
v-w co n
•«- o o
tf +• H
ffi Ui U
JS
*S o C
* s ^
"• ' o c
o o
"*
V CO CO
UI L
- s s
(& t
"*
->' f t
', " Ul i
^ o o
O 0
0 O
^00
•s UI t
"" Ol (
% * CM O
••^ i
s s
-. *S
* I
?^it
•••* -^
"• ^
" j -y
•"' "^
X '
"B
a.
ID
E
o
^
^
•i
£
"Q
•H
•^
o
(A
g
'w
0)
I
'S
£
«
I
.
70
-------
Table F-3. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations for Resource Depletion Potential
w
o
u
CO
"o
s.
~m V
1 1
1 °
V 4»
Dl
5
"5J oi
o -J5
£ «
, .2
4) 3
c -a
Ul O
a.
Dl
11
4) O
la o
E 8
OL
D)
— c
•C Tn
flj W
13 o
So
\—
a.
LU Z
0 0
^ P
S3
co a_
LU LU
Q^ Q
<
SLU
Ul £
I <
oz
' ^
^ ^s
r'
CB ^•1
r*.
10 w-
o'
+
UJ
CO ..
CO ff
^
5 ;
CM ^'
o s
o
LU
CM
f";
^" y
^
f"^
LU •"•"
o'
d
o *•
o
i ,
o--
o
d ..
ff
o .
u.
CM %
O
*"* <"•
^
O
o
LU
O
o f
o
^
0 '
LU
O
^"
\^
8
Ul
o %
o-. f
d'
CM
O f
CM v
Ol<,"
•<~
-1
^
x/'%
D) -A
"^ ' fe
15 %-H3
II 1 3
g
g
d
o
o
+
UJ
§
Q
.OOE+00
o
g
Ul
o
o
0
g
UJ
g
0
g
&
g
d
§
u.
g
0
g
Ul
o
o
o
o
o
LU
o
o
0
Ul
g
o
OOE+00
0
ff
•ft
!
jiff *
f
"^
:• O>
-vS
o>
' r^
%s ^
^
'-g
^ iu
^. 0>
*• °°.
•. ' <«••
J
$ o
-'=fi
v ^ *^
'•• » N
" g
, UJ
' *•
/'<§
LU
^ o
o
J d
^ \
- ;g
"•••••
^ o
. ' UJ
V M
V °
' ™
f
o
'"''"?
"" ^ LU
O
o
11 o
f LU
„ g
/' ^
%
•.-,•.•.•. o
% O
'•v "J
' O
o
^ d
J
-;':g
"I
1 "-
v^v
,.
«
1?
II
CO
o
LU
in
CO
0)
cn
S
s
T-
g
LU
S
t—
.OOE+00
0
g
g
o
g
UJ
o
o
o
g
UJ
g
o
o
o
UJ
o
o
o
o
o
UJ
8
o
g
UJ
o
o
o
g
LU
o
o
o
52E+00
*-
CO
9
UJ
s
D
BAUXIT
O CO
ft O
UJ UJ
T- 0)
***: **!
CM OT*
O)
9 9
UJ UJ
00 CM
T- O
t— T-
5 g
UJ UJ
o> in
CO" 0)
5 g
+ +•
111 Ul
* s.
CM O
O O
0 0
g g
0 O
g g
g g
o" d
go
0
UJ Ul
g g
0 0
g g
g g
o" d
o o
0 0
UJ UJ
§o
0
o o
g g
UJ UJ
o o
CO O
r-" o
g g
UJ UJ
O 0
o 5
d d
85E+00
75E+00
OJ O)
9 9
LU LU
? 8
co* -
UJ
o
LIMEST
0
UJ
5
Tf
9
UJ
r~
CO
v-
o
UJ
r-
CO
.OOE+00
o
9
UJ
CO
g
Ul
g
d
g
Ul
o
o
0
Ul
s
CM
g
UJ
s
o
o
o
+
g
o
g
LU
g
o"
o
UJ
CO
CO
9*
Ul
^
zo
T_
^~
Ul
Ol
CM
O
UJ
cn
in
in
o
UJ
CM
r-'
.OOE+00
o
9
Ul
CO*
g
UJ
o
o-
d
g
g
O
o
o
UJ
*~
g
+
g
o*
o
o
-f-
UJ
g
o"
O
o
UJ
g
o'
o
UJ
m
cn
-------
Table F-4. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations for Acid Rain Formation Potential
= £
•
I
§
? ?1
i
"3 4,
O S
•tt
§.=•
S S,
S
II
£ 5 I
"w tt-
-
Elf
£ S
m u
S £
D.
_ ui o
S Q-
tS
x - c
i!
si
3Hf
ss i §
CO co
9 9
_ ui ui
t CO W •*-
ii co i- r-
c-i T= r-:
is a a
• UJ LU UJ
i CO t— to
[ ^ CO 01
a s
:•*••<- +
i 111 111 UJ
18 S 5
!§ S S
+ +• +
i 111 UJ UJ
IS S S
;g i g
UJ UJ
r- o
O> O
• co co o
*m 5 5 g
o o
\ UJ UJ UJ
SI
S!
A3
Si
§ S
: UJ UJ
: N CO
to •*-
I f
1 UJ UJ UJ
: S B S
| CO t£J O
: CO CO •*-
09 in CO
co w
s i
s s
oi 10
: X X
8
I ?
is s
: O O
;§ S
: UJ LU
§ §
O
: ui
§
: ui
S
1
: Ul
i
i!
;: i
72
-------
Table F-5. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations for Smog Formation Potential (POCP)
ra
41
C
UJ
o <£•
••s 13
« a
a
. "w
u
c
o
w
o
X
88 £
11
]3
re
u.
•o
o>
ii
(Q
O
z
c
^
U
|
£
£
re
c
m
r
o
0
£
>,
01
01
Material
>,
01
<5
5
4)
15
"re
C
c
u:
"n
'o
l-
£
•y
i
0)
1
<
i
a
a
c
£
1
£
Processing
c
1
CL
V)
41
u
o
i
o
_c
I/I
'roces
a.
O
0
to
Ul
^
o
UJ
I
O
OT (- ,
+ 9
UJ Ul
r-— oo
u> TH ;;
csi
To
Z
£
o
9
UJ
CO
*•
46E+00
•»
S
Ul
8
d
S
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
UJ
o
o
o
o
o
UJ
o
o
o
9
UJ
o
CO
r^-
o
o
8
o
o
o
UJ
CO
<9
8
UJ
8
O
?
ro
o
f*-.
^~
UJ
§
a
r-
9
UJ
CJ
81E+02
10
8
UJ
S
o
s
o
o
o
+
g
CM
O
O
UJ
o
q
o
o
o
UJ
s
o"
o
o
+
UJ .
o
o
0
s
+
UJ
8
o ""
CD
O
o;
CM
O
UJ:
in
i —
CO
in
o>
s
CM;
* — "-,
ax
(0
tn
|
n
Q
J.
O
I
^
s
,
I
73
1
I
'
o
8
•^
.42E-01
«
g
Ul
o
o
0
g
Ul
g
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
UJ
g
o
o
o
UJ
o
o
0
7.S7E-02
g
Ul
o
o
o
I
CM
O
o
UJ
o
o
o
75
•g
2
^
V
UJ
CM
1
in
"•~
8
Ul
S
d
S
Ul
8
O
S
o
o
0
8
Ul
8
O
8
S
0
7.57E-02
g
UJ
o
o
0
s
UJ
s
o"
o
o
UJ
o
o
o
to
^
UJ
1
UJ
X
o
UJ
s
0
lii
O
'E
01
-§
a.
g
a.
«
£
average is
Q.
8
a.
«
73
-------
Tabte F-6. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations for Human Inhalation Toxicity Potential
•o
a s
in 6
6
z
7s
i2
>. ! a
S1 t3 |
4) 13 £
S I S
CL
"aJ g, «i a*
|1 J|
r
2 — *
o. — -
s <.
s
h-
4)
I5 tj
5 3
v- = "0
V Ul O
tii £
03
< _ f
E 5 »
«_« Q>
£ 2
a.
>, 2
C 13
c ui o
S °-
Ul
a 01
•*- "S —
5 w
13 u
2 2
a.
ra
SsSf
^ s— *"• ®
^ *; ra o
^ ° E g
a.
si^x
sill
UJ
2
^
5
I 3>
- c>i
S
«*"
^^
j-
CO
o
+
Ul
s.
T-
o
o
&
§
o
5
C4
O
Ul
UJ
5
Ul
r-
CO
g
+
UJ
CO
o
UJ
CM
^J
S
Ul
oo
u
s «
CO
s
ii
re
g
O
z
uj uj iti u!i ill ujuiuiuiuiuiuJuiiijuj
^858^8 S85SS8????
'fiuiujiJJii iiuiuJujuiS!"ggg
gSS^S 8 5 " S 8 8. S S 5 o.
-* «o* d °° o" d CM M co" (o* o ^ °
<.1i.J.
S8SS SSS 5 8
uiuiuiui"* Souiuiui^ui^ui^
n S. S. S o CM. co o o
T-OOO' oenco co o
8888 888 S S
uj LU LU li < ^oiijujiii^uj^ui^
S 8 S S 2 z 8 S S z S z 8 z
d o* d d odd o" o*
«-OOO O'-Q Q O
O O O O OOO O O
CNOQoZ "Z. ocMO-2ddd 010*0 CM o
fEooSo 5oo o o
+ + O O O Z Z O tO ?*- ^- tO ^- O ^
en o o o p co in « p
eoo'do" OCM-*- CM o
•*
'gS88 i°°? f ?
uiuiuJui"^ *^t:ujujiij^iij5uj^
MOOOZ ZgOD(oO-iQ-£.O^
CM IO O 0 O • "^ °. R R
r^cddd (vjf^coo o o
ffuOO OCOv- CM O
g5o ooo o o
; UlUJUJUJ^ ^oUJUJLLJ^UJ5^J5
LOpOO O^CO "T p
T-T~dd d T— ai T- o
«•
oo S "*
-------
Table F-7. Baseline (PBSN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations for Carcinogenicity Potential
>
a
a
£
o *
J~ w
3
S
t>
41
<
U
c
°
"o
ft 2
< Ta
K 0
S
"o
u.
1
1
« 1
§ £
o
z
c
1-
• 1 „
II
al
a* *
c S
(O t
St,
t
M E
c S.
2
i-
1
c
c
-^ c
OJ f
i_ *•
g f
UJ C
a_
o
— c
•n "5
, °
°* ^
i 1
5 •—
aJ in
IS O
So
li
a.
en
1 8
13 S
CL
i£
y g
§ s
0 O
UJ
E
3
CHEMICAL r
g
y
•H
U
*t
-------
Table F-S. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations for Land Use (from Waste Disposal) Potential
i
?
v
•?
£
£
IS
M 4,
S w
a o
c o
£ tn
o
Z
c
>. 5 «
0 T! SS
5 3 £
iS o a
a!
*3 aj * flj
O i* D) *£
^5 If
5.? (S f*
* E °
S
o. =•
c <
S ~
£2
^ c
S1 t
V -
*• S "5
£ UI C
jj Q.
ej
< Dl
E 1 -i
S S
S- f
S 2
a.
>, 1
ll
c ui c
S o-
isl
s «
£ C
CL
1
_~ |
S 2 S !
c o ra '
c
3 Q ,
o i S
UL 5
I
•
1
i
i
5 o
S 2
(i *~
•*.
g ,
g
3?
(O
to
Ovf-
o>&&*.
o
UJ
O
o
o
o
o
UJ
**
§""
UJ
§ X
o
|j£$
o
0
UJ
o
Q
o
^
?"
Ul
" V
"^
a
ir
Ul •«•
CO
g
w>
"
•*£?
o
o
i
X
&¥5
s <
> Jl
fll ^3
s -
8 °
CO *~ V
cs J
£ X
1 1
I 3
in C)
o» *" °
Q UJ UJ
!£ £ S
CN T-1 CO"
CO
SSS
uj S S
o g
? i,
g ° s
0 o'
o
o •*•
H ° S
S 3
o
o 8
8 ,t,
j. UJ
g ° 8
o o
a
° 1
° ui
g ° 8
o o
o
° f
^ m
g ° 8
o o
o
s s ?
T „', UJ
UJ ^ 0
fe S °-
10 3> o
*" O)
?,•*•.
UJ
I ° 1
o
o
8 I
l°i
^_
^~ s*
9 uj
g o S
CD T-
9 9
Ul Ul
O) CO
T- in
CN 10
OJ
S-
UI
Q
: X
f 0
.-II
: 5 2 5
* a 3 3 5
OT < ^^^
' ? ? ?
CO o' o'
99?
;, g ffi g
v io •«- d
O O CM
"• ^ ^ 9
1: S !| g
^ f W d "^
\
99
•wvfr CM «
"5
2
§ s
ff 3
pT uj
ig- o
'K ^
^ ll
76
O 0
Ul
0>
(d
gg
g S
o'
g
1 g
o
g
M
o'
g
z- ^
O
o
o
s ^
o
o
o
o
0*
8
z |
o"
9
^ R
CO
g
O
Z a
o
o"
o
"Z- S
in*
UJ
g
^
<0
_l
li
O) O r- Oi
9 V 9
UJ UJ UJ
TT oq CM
eo to cq
•^ CO* CM
9 1 9 9
9 < ? 9
•«- o" *~
8 88
8 g S g
O O O
g g g
Ul < Ul Ul
S ^ E S
d o' d
o o o
o o o
%*gg
O 0 O
0 O 0
o o o
o o o
0 00
8 S g
g z <= i
d *~ d
5 g S
1 ^ g g
t- do
§co o
o o
UJ < UJ UJ
g z 5 g
0 t- 0
O S a
+ --•+• +
g ^ 8 8
d do
o o o
eo Z 0 CO
OT «— Ol
co 55
< i- Q
5 *" ~
lilii
co CM 01 o c
9 V 9 V
UJ UJ UJ UJ I
Sin en co i
CM co o
d o" «> d
9999
cq c\ ^ T^.
O) (O "^ (O
go
llil
§-r-
T—
U UJ
M CM
O CM
O CM
ij
3 T—
D d
3 Q
a o
s s
d d
88
Ul Ul
8 S
c> o"
8 S
i i
O 0
o o
o o
0 0
§ro
* S
s s
0 ^
g 8
O O
d d
S 8
UJ UJ
O 0
o o
g g
+ +
S 5
•^r d
9 9
m 1-;
T- m
Z
0
[" w
I— ^
Q g Z
^
E
£
.E
j=
E
'to
C
i
X
m
a.
'o
—
o
1
t.
o
§'
X
m
a.
To
2
o
c
from bu
1
«
"3J
•g
-C
O
"re
j^
s-
03
+
^
O
h-
cp
c
3
.a
^
r-
*
«
«
-------
Table F-9. Baseline (PBSN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations for Terrestrial (Wildlife) Toxicity Potential
N 4*
« c
>, 1 _
sig
£ ? §
llll
r
§.=-
II
n: o
En
"ra o
2 2
O.
3 Q
t; _j
?9 '9992?Sf
8U S 5 g 8 8 S g
r^ o* o" «>
gg
UI
g
z z
g
^
§
ooo
ooo
+ + +
888
+ + +
UJ LU LU
888
o o" o*
5358
T- T- O
ooo
•*• + +
. o o
T- T- *~ O
t*- Q o o> co o
95299V
«o* -^ o" o" *o c>i to
o o o o o o o
*~ eo" o" d *~ ^ *~
11 If ? ?
U] UJ "^ LU UJ LU LU
go Z o O Q Q
p . o p o o
do d d d o'
g g 8888
888
8 8 S
o* o" o*
oooo"
UJ UJ UJ LU
dodo
8g gg ggg
0*0*0*0*
Bo oooo
o oooo
+ + -+ + + +
UJ LU "^ UJ UJ LU UJ
o o Z o o o o
o* o" o* o" o" o"
5§ 8-8 8 g
d d- d »-
o" o" o' o o" o'
O O O a O o O
+ + +++V +
d «e! - d »- d d
88 885
or-i^Q
?99§
susi
f ° ? ?
d *~ T- d
8 8 8
UJ UJ LU
S. S 8
d o° d
ggg
*<• + + +
< UJ UJ LU
888
o" o" d
So o
o o
+ + +
odd
ggg
ooo"
<-r -f -r
_ UJ LU UJ
Z Q O O
p. o p
o" o' o"
588
888
+ + +
UJ UJ lit
ooo
p p p
d o" o"
85
d d d «o
T- O Op Q v- O O O T-
oo oooooooo
UJ UJ UJ UI UJ Ul Ul Ul Ul UJ
SO OOPCM'T'^'COID
S p 5 S CO CO
-------
Table F-10. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations for Aquatic (Fish) Toxicity Potential
>,
k.
C
Ul
4)
tn
5
w
f
u
c
a
"ta
0
X
1
^
_o
c
£
e S
§
3
o
H
C
Q
^J —
"O ^
o O
CL
flj «
« ^
« §
S
Q
0. =
1 ~
f:
*c
a
>. 1
2" t!
Ii
OL
a
— c
ll
E ^
a.
s, 1
fl
5 1
k
a.
c
T5 —
4W 4
£ £
a.
if
«rf 4
(Q C
2 2
a.
x >•
<2 g
U. 1-
UI
JJ
c.
I
c
CO I^^A,
o p ••
A S, ,
Si Is* -v
V
CM X
o
LU
CO v
o>
CM"'
O
UJ
o
Q '
^*
f ,
ii
1-
JjjvSv..
O ""
o
UJ
O ^
o •>
% , '
g'^
LU
O
O
o A
o
UJ
8 ^
d ,
f. ^
5- "
£
to
Is" *"
*r
I'
j
"~
£ s
8 o ^
& *- -
c »-
5
"ra
E
o
z
f t
t~ 0
9 V
111 UJ
CM "^
CO* 1^
CM i-
o o
i ui
S! 5
CM CO
§f
UJ LU
0 S
O O
§ 8
UJ UJ
g 8
O O
o o
o S
+ +
LU LU
g R
0 0
§0
o
UJ UJ
5= §
CM O*
S g
Ul LU
O O
O O
o o
g g
Ul LU
O O
0 0
o o
g g
LU LU
0 0
S R
0 g
o o
o o
i S
S 5
to co
g
in*
1
3?*
' W
••*
fjf.
ACETIC ACID
0 0
ill
S
?. 9
UJ UJ
o en
5 .
o o
uj ii
S p
1^ to
S 8
UJ UJ
o o
0 0
O 0
g s
UJ UJ
s s
0 0
o o
o o
UJ Ul
s s
O 0
o o
o S
8 S
o" o"
8 8
ii ii
§o
0
o o
8 8
UJ UJ
O O
O O
0 0
8 8
Ul UJ
8 S
O O
o o
o S
g g
0 0
o o
LU LU
S R
r- to
V. u,
^*
a
PHENOL
SULFURIC ACI
.30E-07
10
o
UJ
CM
s
UJ
8
O
S
UJ
8
O
8
UJ
8
0
S
Ul
o
o
d
g
UJ
g
o
g
UJ
O
O
o
g
UJ
g
o
8
8
O
O
o
UJ
8
O
5
£Z
3"
o
fc
Ul
1
E
TRICHLOROE1
-
-
^
*
'
•x&tf
ff
f
''
'^
fff-
ei
%
1
"ft
5
^
',,;
,,",
% V
f
ff~'
^
.*&
f
jj
"'"
-
.81E09
,OOE+00
^ 0
S 8
UJ UJ
n o
CO O
o
o
ii <
8 *
d
8
UJ <
S *
d
g
UJ <
s *
o
s
ii <
s z
o"
o
o
UJ <
s.
d
o
o
LU ^
s *
O
O
o
UJ <
g *
o
g
tu <
o Z
o
d
8
ii <
s
(d
<
3
2
w
••
8
g 8
o' d
o o
o S
UJ UJ
R R
O O
S
< UJ
Z O
o
d
g
*C QJ
S
d
g
< UJ
* S
0
8
$ i
^ 8
d
8
< UJ
^ o
o
d
g
< LU
iZ o
o
d
8
< Ul
2 8
o"
g
< UJ
Z g
d
8
^ UJ
Z o
CO
< s
^ CM
HEPTANE (n)
IRON
s s
UJ UJ
G) O>
fO O
TT CM
O T-
? 9
in ui
CO
-------
Table F-11. Baseline (PBXN-109 Explosive) GBU-24 Bomb Life Cycle Impact Calculations for Eutrophication Potential
13
.£ 4)
75 c
E u
E ui
o
z
7
'J
1-
c
« 3 »
Ul O
a.
?} « 0) »
» 3 « ?
OT * E °
tf
o
a. =
w ^
IS
E
c
E1 t
^ ui c
< O)
o — c
1 «
« tJ
E c
a.
5s 1
g> t>
JM
«M •«:
5
Q T^
g 3
O
5
O
§ '
UJ
CM
U)
f-.ff
O:
u,
00
CO
£ TB
s 2
«J ^
D>
73
73 ^
t5
z
^
^ v °
Ul tU UJ
CO h-. to
ggs
UJ UJ UJ
(A CO to
^ in ^
••••••• *~ t—
5 S 5
Ul UJ UJ
383
** ci -
•r- O •»—
C* O CM*
§ g g
A i i
000
o o o
o o o*
o o o
+ + -f
Ul UJ UJ
CO O CO
o o o
T^ d T-*
I 9?
UJ UJ UJ
CM eg T-
^ ^.
o o o
UJ UJ UJ
CO O CO
CM 0 CM
ui o to
01
CM CD
' CO
s
o"
w
m
!S
5
*^
Q
o
^
•• y
t 8
2 21
o o o
-,
o o o
o 5 o
UJ LU Ul
,888
o o o
f
"8
"' S
o
o
*• o
8
0
'' o
o
o
., o
, d
0
IJJ
8
o"
o
o
JJ, +
JJ UJ
1 §.
& °
13
4* o
w o
? i
§ §
§
Ul
§
o
-•
o
o
'§
"
% .;
% o
0
o
•, o
5! §
o' co
-^3
'^S
-S
3
^ "*•?
_,
'
•- \
•Z. Q.
]ffl Is
-. "o "o
79
-------
APPENDIX G
Decision Maker Perspective Weighting Factors
80
-------
Table G-1. Policy Decision Maker Perspective LCIA Weighing Factors and Impact Scores for GBU-24 Baseline
•a
tt)
_N
O
to
2
c
c
£
c
J
^
o
t
n
C
J
•a
a
.c
c
•1
O ^
S- 8
E co
c
01
•s
o
. >
A
12
c
tj
re
u.
O]
§C
^
a
'3
S
a.
x
^
'«
0)
~
o
01
O
t>
£
E
i--
CD
LU
3
CD
,_
5
CO
1
co'
CTl
01
LO
n
d
o
o
8
p
*-
t
o
0 CD
Q_
2
Hj
1—
h-
8 v'v
rti UJ UJ
§s c^
O) O
d ^ °J
8 S
li
o N
Nf N- OO
00 01 T-
1/3 ffl OO
•r- -r- CO
•r- i— O
O O O
S.
I
Is
CL ta to
Q _J LU
o CD a:
»- T- ^
g CN S
CO CN in
CO CN O
-r- Oi O)
999
LU LU LU
co in r-
CN h- •*-
CO T- O
•r- x- T-
0 O 0
000
000
BAUXITE
COAL
IRON ORE
^f -r-
LU LU
en in
K S
CM T-
2 g
UJ LU
T- O
^T CO
CN •«-
O O
0 0
0 0
C/)
LU O
LIMESTON
NATURAL
CM CO
LU LU
••- O>
CO 0
in Tf
0 -r-
LU LU
CD CO
s s
in co
0 0
o o
o o
LU
Q
a:
ix
PETROLEl
SODIUM C
CO
9
LU
O)
^
g
•1-
LU
o"
8
i
o"
§
o
o
CO
o
(O
oo
CO
d
URANIUM
_i
<
•z.
o
CD
LU
OH
O) CO CO
999
LU LU LU
O> CO O)
CM CM ^--
CO f- l~-
999
LU LU LU
r- r~- (---
CM r~- co
CO CN N-
CM CN W
•r- O CN
in co a>
LO CO O
T— T— *e—
d d d
h-
Q. ^
LU <
C" CD gl
9 o w
o S ^
<. (A (fi
^
2
i
in
&
LU
s
CO
CN
00
8
T—
o
CO
cn
o
M
O
X
b
x
5
x
_i
^
O
9
LU
CO
*-'
00 §
99 9
LU LU LU
CO CO CO
CN CM ^
h- CO 1^
99 9
LU LU LU
CO CM T-
CN •* r-^
03 in ^~
T- CO CO
1^- CN CO
SCO *~
o o
do d
I
o
d
v CD O.
O Z '*"
H- 0 g
— J fif f~
Z < ' W
^ 0 §
LU
3
•z.
5
9
LU
O
CO
fr^> co o
999
UJ LU LU U,
§5 l-~ co
in CN cc
0 CN •* Tf
o co f- f-
o o o o
m LU LU LU
§ O CO OO
S 8 S
o •* r-^ -^
CO T- O) O
CB -r- tT CC
CO CO CO C^
d d d c
o
in
d ,
a: x x
u- O Q,
!^j i ^^ Q
LU CK O a:
c/3 a: i- t-
LU LU a rj
m i- < LU
*y
b
1
LU
81
-------
Table G-2. Local Decision Maker Perspective LCIA Weighting Factors and Impact Scores for GBU-24 Baseline
in
o
o
W
£
0
g5
IS
0
tj
re
a
i
01
a
3
-a
03
£i o «
| | 8
I""1
c
c
R
o
^
S!
t
re
u.
CT
S
C
2
Q
<
*
i
'i
<
1
t
^
3
11
00*
"JI
UI
S
"Or
O r— *r-
UJ UJ UJ
d •*• "
CM CM CM f
111 Ul UI UJ
a! 5? 8 co
00 CD U) T-
O O Ol O5 O) CM
0 v 9 9 9 v
|"y UI UI UI UI Uf
§ uS S t 5 §
0- CM' -r- -^- T- CM
in U5 in in
So o o
ooo
o o o o
01 en 01
o S p
o" d o
s-
o"
1
^j
ul So
b _j ° co
< o | s
_ m 0 £ Zi
5 _i
a: a.
5 Q
Q _i UI
_J
<
1 OQ
P^ *±T
o o
a. — '
Zi
9 9
UI UJ
co co
ui r-:
8 § o o 8 o
til ul u! ul ul uj
CO CM CO ^ O C')
CM 05 r- CD 10 O
CO CM CN CO" CM ^f
£228 §§88 §88
UlUJUIuj lilUI UJuj UIUJUI
in § ^ § CM S &5 g °> <8 9
t~^ co" CM o co' co' CM' o co' in co
82^8 Sfecp fe8 fef g§§
LU UJ LU yj IJJ UJ UJ o^ m1^ OOOOO
C^Sojg OD(Nr^- COCJ '^"o CM 0
oooo -r-co cs-^r t— CD co
OOOO T— O OO OOO
0*0*0*0 o o oo ooo
5 S S S2 2 S
S oo CM 01 N- ^ H
0}
^
^3
m
o
D)
0)
S
Q.
e
•N
82
S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1999 • 750-101/00029
-------
-------
m
1
o
g
DO
O O m c
5' § 3 3.
o. 3.
o
1
CD
m 3.
< —
CD o Q.
CD
K) ^
CD 3
00 CD
3
SL
CD
a
o
ZJ >
CD
-------
|