FIGURE 1
No
BA5: System Development & Demonstration (TRL 8)
BA4:
Advanced Component Development & Prototypes (TRL 6, 7)
BA3: Advanced
Technology Development (TRL 4, 5, 6)
BA2: Applied Research (TRL 2,3)
BA1: Basic Research (TRL 1)
Note: This figure is conceptually based on the integrated Defense Acquisition and Logistics Life Cycle Management System Chart, but is not an exact representation of the acquisition and RDT&E cycles.
A
UNACCEPTABLE PROCESS Materiel Solution Analysis MDD
BA – Budget activity B C Technology Development Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support MDD – Materiel development decision TRL – Technology readiness level Key
Are there adequate ESOH data, and are the ESOH risks acceptable?
No: ESOH risk unacceptable; additional RDT&E or ESOH data required.
Yes: RDT&E manager or PM/PEO accepts risk.
Documented ESOH risks accepted by PM/PEO
Yes
Methods used to evaluate ESOH risks should be appropriate to the stage of project development, with quicker, less expensive methods at the beginning of a development eff ort and more compre- hensive detailed methods after initial selection decisions have been made; hence the term “phased.”
For the development of energetic materials—explosives, propellants, pyro- technics, etc.— this phased approach has been captured in the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E2552, “Standard Guide for Assessing the Environmental and Human Health Impacts of New Energetic Compounds” (online at
http://astm.nufu.eu/std/ ASTM+E2552+-+08).
While Army Regulation 70-1, “Army Acquisition Policy,” does not mandate development of the PESHE before Milestone B, by that point critical decisions have already been made on material selection in
specifi c formulations and
In the current process of ESOH evaluation, program managers (PMs) and program executive offi - cers (PEOs) are required to evaluate ESOH risks at Milestones B and C through the PESHE. There is little or no guidance for what data to include, however, so PMs must evaluate and accept risks based solely on known ESOH data. Any unacceptable risks in the weapon system could require signifi cant additional research and development. (SOURCE: AIPH)
engineering designs. If the down-selected materials have signifi cant ESOH risks, the Army could become liable for occupational exposures, requiring extensive remediation and restoration that also could aff ect future range use and training throughput. T e phased approach to toxicity assessment evaluation
seeks compatible
to make an ESOH with
each
stage of the development process by applying appropriate assessment
An early evaluation of toxicity for each new substance has been an
impor-
tant part of these eff orts, ensuring that potential replacement compounds and formulations are less toxic and environmentally hazardous than the materials they are replacing. A ratio- nal, phased approach to toxicity evaluation can help reduce
risk and
support decision-making from the very beginning of the development eff ort.
For example, if a substance has chemi- cal properties that could raise an issue for environmental transport to ground- water, binders or other materials may be used to help reduce its mobility, thereby increasing
sustainment potential. tools.
Additionally, it adds a data requirement to each stage for which managers can plan and program, keeping projects on time. Quicker, less-expensive assessment tools apply early in the development process as an indicator of potential problem areas, whereas more detailed, expensive assessment tools are used only as the item in development transitions past Milestone B.
ASC.ARMY.MIL 53
ACQUISITION
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168
