Downloaded from https://www.everyspec.com e. Members of the U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) and U.S.Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) communi- ties and others involved in the acquisition process should refer to their respective command’s publications for further elaboration of the issues presented herein. a c t i o n s a r e r e c o r d e d i n a h a z a r d t r a c k i n g s y s t e m u n t i l s y s t e m disposal. (4) All tests and pretest training involving soldiers have safety releases.
(5) Test and evaluation plans and test design plans require the collection and recording of data from which an independent assess- ment of hazards can be made, and that results are documented in all test reports and independent evaluation reports. 1–7. Additional assessment considerations When the LCSMM phases are combined or eliminated, preparation for the next phase/milestone review will address the full range of combined requirements.
For example, if the approved acquisition strategy (AS) calls for a combined concept exploration/definition/ demonstration/ validation phase followed by engineering and manu- facturing development, the full range of activities and events appli- cable to milestone decision review (MDR) I and MDR II must be accomplished and accounted for prior to completing milestone II. The following are additional ILS program assessment considerations for assessing the severity of problems that are applicable when s p e c i f i c i s s u e s i n c h a p t e r s 2 t h r o u g h 7 a r e n o t s a t i s f a c t o r i l y answered:
(6) A tailored system safety program is implemented for all sys- tems including NDI and MCM efforts. Include a System Safety Risk Assessment (SSRA) for all residual hazards being considered at all milestone decision reviews (MDRs), and ensure that it is forwarded to the appropriate decision level. (7) An independent assessment of system safety risks will be provided in all ASARC/IPR packages and to the program decision authority for all MDRs. a. The contribution of the action to the overall objective of field- ing a supportable system. (8) Systems with residual hazards will not be fielded or used without coordination of associated risks with the combat developer and user(s). b.
The likelihood that the ILS program can “get well” prior to the next milestone decision review or initial fielding. b. It is Army policy to ensure conscientious attention to federal, state, local and applicable host–nation environmental policy and regulations, at every major decision point in the life cycle, from acquisition through demilitarization and disposal. c. The eventual impact on system operational effectiveness, read- iness, sustainability, and support costs if no corrective action is taken or the proposed corrective action is not successful. The impact on the ability to field the system without interim support measures. c.
The following are the five broad categories into which a pro- posed action may fall for environmental review: exemption by law, emergency, categorical exclusions (CX), environmental assessment (EA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Development and acquisition of new weapon systems normally require at least an EA. See AR 200–2 for guidance, including appropriate documentation. 1–8. Manpower and personnel integration (MANPRINT) The ILS and MANPRINT processes are mutually supporting and will be integrated in materiel development and acquisition programs.
Areas of consideration under MANPRINT are human factors en- gineering, manpower, personnel, training, system safety, and health hazards. They are specifically addressed within the design influence, manpower and personnel, training and training devices elements within this pamphlet. Consult AR 700–127 and AR 602–2 to iden- tify additional ILS/MANPRINT interface requirements for assess- ment purposes. d. The Army goal is to integrate environmental reviews concur- rently with other Army planning and decision–making actions and avoid delay in mission accomplishments.
To achieve that goal, pro- ponents should provide complete environmental documents for early inclusion with any recommendation or report to decision makers. 1–9. Environmental planning 1–10. Replaced and displaced systems a. A replaced system is any Army end item being replaced by a new or product improved system. These systems are redistributed, declared excess, transferred, or disposed of in accordance with AR 40–60, AR 40–61, AR 710–1, AR 710–2, AR 750–1, and other applicable guidance when not specifically designated by HQDA as a displaced system needing special management and control.
Replaced system support planning should be conducted simultaneously with the ILS planning for the proposed new system, and a replaced system should remain fully supportable until the new system is introduced. a. As with many of the 17 ILS assessment considerations, envi- ronmental planning is not an isolated subject. Several aspects of environmental planning so closely relate to other ILS elements that they are difficult to address separately.
Obvious examples include environmental impacts in the areas of health hazards and safety, technical data, transportation, packaging handing and storage, train- ing, support management and analysis, facilities, materiel fielding planning, and cost analysis and funding. AR 385–16 identify re- sponsibilities and details for System Safety and Engineering Man- agement policies to ensure that— (1) Verifiable safety, health and environmental standards are in- cluded in requirement documents, according to AR 385–10 and AR 200–1. b.
Displaced systems are those HQDA designated materiel sys- tems that are planned for replacement by new systems, and for v a r i o u s r e a s o n s , r e q u i r e s p e c i a l m a n a g e m e n t p o l i c i e s a n d procedures. This pamphlet identifies issues associated with those dis- placed materiel systems that are to be distributed to a major Army command (MACOM) within the system that has not been previously fielded. (2) Emphasis has been placed on designing systems to reduce or eliminate hazards and pollution. Training, administrative procedures, and labels should be used as last options to address system hazards.
(3) All hazards are identified and the status of their corrective Table 1–1 Paragraph Number Cross Reference Areas For ILS Assessment Considerations vs Milestone Type ILS Assessment NDI NDI Areas MS I MS II MS III FUE MS I/II MS I/III Design Influence 2–1 3–1 4–1 5–1 6–1 Maintenance Planning 2–4 3–4 4–4 5–3 6–5 Manpower & Personnel 2–6 3–8 4–7 5–7 6–9 Supply Support 2–11 3–13 4–12 5–11 6–15 7–14 Packaging, Handling & Storage 2–13 3–17 4–16 5–14 6–19 7–18 Support Equipment & TMDE 2–17 3–20 4–19 5–15 6–22 7–21 Training & Training Devices 2–21 3–23 4–22 5–19 6–26 7–24 Technical Data 2–26 3–27 4–26 5–23 6–31 7–29 2 DA PAM 700–28 • 15 April 1994