The purpose of this guide is to provide a logical, tiered approach in the development of environmental health criteria coincident with level and effort in the research, development, testing, and evaluation of new energetic materials. Various levels of uncertainty are associated with data collected from previous stages. Following the recommendation in the guide should reduce the relative uncertainty of the data collected at each developmental stage. At each stage, a general weight of evidence qualifier shall accompany each exposure/effect relationship. They may be simple (for example, low, medium, or high confidence) or sophisticated using a numerical value for each predictor as a multiplier to ascertain relative confidence in each step of risk characterization. The specific method used will depend on the stage of development, quantity and availability of data, variation in the measurement, and general knowledge of the dataset. Since specific formulations, conditions, and use scenarios are often not known until the later stages, exposure estimates can be determined only at advanced stages (for example, Engineering and Manufacturing Development; see 6.6). Exposure data can then be used with other toxicological data collected from previous stages in a quantitative risk assessment to determine the relative degree of hazard.
Data developed from the use of this guide are designed to be consistent with criteria required in weapons and weapons system development (for example, programmatic environment, safety and occupational health evaluations, environmental assessments/environmental impact statements, toxicity clearances, and technical data sheets).
Information shall be evaluated in a flexible manner consistent with the needs of the authorizing program. This requires proper characterization of the current problem. For example, compounds may be ranked relative to the environmental criteria of the prospective alternatives, the replacement compound, and within bounds of absolute environmental values. A weight of evidence (evaluation of uncertainty and variability) must also be considered with each criterion at each stage to allow for a proper assessment of the potential for adverse environmental or occupational effects; see 6.8.
This standard approach requires environment, safety, and occupational health (ESOH) technical experts to determine the risk and energetic materials researchers to evaluate the acceptability of the risk. Generally, the higher developmental stages require a higher managerial level of approval.
1.1 This guide is intended to determine the relative environmental influence of new munition constituents, consistent with the research and development (R&D) level of effort and is intended to be applied in a logical, tiered manner that parallels both the available funding and the stage of research, development, testing, and evaluation. Specifically, conservative assumptions, relationships, and models are recommended early in the research stage, and as the munition technology is matured, empirical data will be developed and used. Munition constituents may include fuels, oxidizers, explosives, binders, stabilizers, metals, dyes, and other compounds used in the formulation to produce a desired effect. Munition systems range from projectiles, grenades, rockets/missiles, training simulators, smokes and obscurants. Given the complexity of issues involved in the assessment of environmental fate and effects and the diversity of the munition systems used, this guide is broad in scope and not intended to address every factor that may be important in an environmental context. Rather, it is intended to reduce uncertainty at minimal cost by considering the most important factors related to the environmental impacts of energetic materials. This guide provides a method for collecting data useful in a relative ranking procedure to provide the muniti......
Copyright ©2024 All Rights Reserved