Plant 44 Audit Reports - Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

RECORD REPRODUCTION COVER SHEETThe attached records are:Releasable to the Public 0Denied to the PublicDSubject:Title:FOIA Control Number:ICR- SOc:) fy~ IDate Reproduced: I~~uvv,.oc; I

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCEHEADQUARTERS AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS CENTER (AFMC)Wl~IC;HT·PATTERSONAIR FORCE BASE OHIOMEMORANDUM FOR RAYTHEON SYSTEMS COMPANYATTN: D.R, DENEKI~, FACILITIES CONTRACTSP.O. BOX 11.137RlJILDING 807. MIS D6TUCSON, AZ 85734·1 :B7lll04FROM: ASCIENVK, Bldg 81801 10 th StreetWright-Patterson APB OH 45433-7626SUBJECT: Contract F33657-93-L-2257, Annual Facility Review Report, 8-11 March 2004.Air Force Plant 44, Tucson, AZ (ENVK-04-040)1. Attached is a copy of the trip repOli and the Annual Facilities Review Repoli withfindings. Request that Raytheon Systems Company (RSC) provide a corrective actionplan in response to the recommendations of the facility review team no later than30 June 2004.2. This notification is Issued wlth the undcrstandl11g that it does not result in any changeto the contractual requirements whICh would warrant a change 1I1 estimated cost to thelease. If RSC IS not in agreement with such understanding, and a change in estimatedcost of the lease is conSIdered to be warranted, this direction shall bc automatically nulland void. If applicable, written notIce of non-conCUlTcnce shall be furnished to theContracting Officer within seven (7) days after receipt hereof. Failure to notify as hereinprovided shall constitute RSC's concurrence and agreement to comply.3. Please contact the AFP 44 Supervising Engineer, RichanJ Spotts, at (937) 255-1971 ifYOLl have any technical questions on this submittal. Contractual questions may bedirected to William G. Smith II at (937) 255-2501./,I (/t /{'~'\jiEL D, HORI"JEContracting OfficerACl..jLllsltJOn Environmental, Safely& Health Oi ViSIOIlEngineering DirectorateAttachment:Annual Facilities Review Reportcc:DCMDW/RTOD 0. Taylor)

TRIP REPORT1. PERSONS MAKING THIS TRIPRichard A. Spotts, ASC/ENV (44), AFP 44 Supervising Engineer/Team LeaderRomeo S. Arengo, ASC/ENVP, Fire Protection EngineerDavid L. Dickson ASC/ENVP, Fire Protection EngineerWilliam Kapella, ASC Det 1, Safety SpecialistWilliam J. LaFountain, ASC/ENVV, Industrial Hygienist2. DATES OF VISIT: 8-11 March 20043. ACTIVITY VISITED: Air Force Plant (AFP) 44Raytheon Missile Systems Company (ItMSC)Tucson, Arizona4. PURPOSE OF THE VISIT: To conduct the annual AFP 44 Facilities Review.Areas of the review include normal maintenance, fire protection and industrial safety.5. PERSONNEL CONTACTED:RSCDoug SteinerDave DenekeRichard PadillaChristine StarkBrent BeanNick CajeroRandy Rogers-GardnerDave StonerBob BoothFerdinand MorellRichard ForceSally UtheJames PriceSteve KreienkampDennis TwardowskiAFP 44 IPT Lead for RaytheonContractsEHS ManagerSecurityFacilities ManagerFacility ServicesFacility ServicesFacility ServicesMaintenanceMaintenanceEnvironmental Health & SafetyEnvironmental Health & SafetyEnvironmental Health & SafetyPlant ProtectionPlant Protection

6. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS:a. The Facilities Review began with an in-brief between the team members andRaytheon Systems Company (RSC) personnel. The briefing consisted of progress statuson past findings, new objectives, and the week's agenda.b. All team members were paired with an RSC host. The tentative schedule wasagreed upon and the team was provided with a conference room so that we could conveneat the end ofeach day. Each team was also assigned with a person and camera to takephotographs of facilities and areas identified for an action.c. The findings and the information contained within this report were briefed to RSCon Thursday, II March 2004. The Raytheon team provided a list of work orders that hadbeen initiated during the review and photographs on a CD disk.7. RECOMME~NDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:a. The efforts ofRSC to correel problems is commendable, however there are stillareas that require improvement. In general the plant appearance is outstanding andprovides a safe, productive working environment.b. Teanl members conducted their own independent reviews. The results, findings, andrecommendations are provided in the following attachments: Normal Maintenance(Attachment 1), Fire Protection (Attachment 2), Industrial Safety (Attachment 3), andIndustrial Hygiene (Attachment 4).c. RSC personnel were cooperative, helplul, and supportive during this year's annualfacilities review. I would like to recognize and thank Mr. Doug Steiner, RSCGovemment Liaison for Facilities, for his efforts in orchestrating this year's plant visitand making it a success.8. IMPACT ON ASC/ENY AND DCMA:Many of the corrective initiatives initiated by RSC are now well established whileothers still need further development. Follow-on management is critical to ensure timelyand appropriate progress on problem areas further attention is needed to insure that allnormal maintenance requirements arc met.9. MODE OF TRANSPORTATION:Commercial airlines travel to and from Tucson, AZ., and rental car in the local area.~I ./".'1 " j ...•e" _c~l~._~(/& 5J~~--RICHARD A. SPOTTS IAnnual Facilities Review Team LeaderAcquisition Environmental, Safety &Health DiVision, Engineering Directorate

ATTACHMENTS:I. Normal Maintenance Review2. Fire Protection Review3. Industrial Safety Review4. Industrial Hygiene Compliance Audit5. Fire Protection Operation

AFP 44 ANNUAL FACILITIES REVIEWNORMAL MAINTENANCE8-11 March 20041. PURPOSEThe purpose of this year's review was to: (I) assess the overall appearance and conditionof the real property, (2) determine the adequacy ofaction taken as result of last year'sfindings and/or recommendations, and (3) assess RSC's effectiveness in accomplishingnormal maintenance of real property.2. OVERALL APPEARANCE AND CONDITIONa. Housekeeping The plant appearance is outstanding. The general housekeeping inand around the plant facilities appears to receive a great deal attention at all levels. It isobvious that Raytheon and its employees have worked hard to maintain a clean and safeplantsite.b. Corrosion Control The attention to facility corrosion control and preventioncontinues to be outstanding. Several areas were found to require some increasedattention to corrosion control.c. Roof Maintenance The plant roofs are generally being maintained in anacceptable manner and several major roof repair projects have been recently completed orare nearing completion.3. ASSESSMENT OF NORMAL MAINTENANCEa. Building 801: A walk-through ofthe building was accomplished. Only minorfacility maintenance discrepancies were noted. The roof area appears to be in goodcondition. The following maintenance concerns were noted:i. Walk pads on the roof near column GIl were pulled up and need to be replaced.ii. Roof flashing on vent stack at column C 14 needs repaired.iii. A walk-through ofthe EOSPA clean room was accomplished. The manager inthe EOSPA pointed out several areas in the clean room where they are having problemswith roof leaks.b. Building 809: A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Housekeepingpractices in this building including the mezzanine areas were found to be adequate. Nofacility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.c. Building 810: A walk-through of the building and roof were accomplished andno facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.Attachment 1

d. Building 811 A walk-through of the building and roof were accomplished and nofacility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.e. Building 811 Trailer: A walk-through of the trailer was accomplished with nomaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies noted.f. Building 812 A walk-through of the building and roof were accomplished and nofacility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.g. Building 813 A walk-through of the building and roof were accomplished and nofacility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.h. Building 814 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and the foHowingfacility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted:i. Black steel fence panel has been broken and needs to be repaired. Seeattached photos.ii. Paint improperly stored underneath electrical transformer/switchgear cabinet.i. Building 816 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. No facilityhousekeeping discrepancies were noted.j. Building 817 A walk-through ofthe building was accomplished. No facilityhousekeeping discrepancies were noted.k. Building 820/821/822 A walk-through ofthe FACO lunch room buildings wereaccomplished. No facility housekeeping discrepancies were noted.I. Building 826 (Ground Water Treatment Facility) A walk-through of thebuilding and equipment yard was accomplished. No facility housekeeping discrepancieswere noted.m. Building 827 (Gasoline/Diesel Storage) A walk around the area wasaccomplished. The only maintenance identified was for corrosion control and painting ofthe piping and support structure.n. Building 827C A walk-through of the building was accomplished. No facilityhousekeeping discrepancies were noted.o. Building 828 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and thefollowing facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted:i. Windows along the west side of the building need maintenance attention.Windows need to be recaulked, reglazed and metal trim reattached.p. Building 830 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and thefollowing facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted:Attachment 1

i. Roof insulation fall ing in front of electrical closet. See attached photo.q. Building 831 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Nohousekeeping discrepancies were noted.r. Building 833 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and thefollowing facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted:i. A rearrangement project was accomplished to expand the break area. A newwall in the battery charging area was damaged by forklifts and needs to be repaired. Seeattached photos.ii. Wooden halfwall on mezzanine with chain link fence is broken near stairs.The wall is breaking loose from the mezzanine structure.s. Building 837 This is the chilled water/fire protection reservoir. There is erosiondamage along the concrete stairs leading down to building 838 that needs to be repaired.t. Building 838 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Nohousekeeping discrepancies were noted.u. Building 849 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Nohousekeeping discrepancies were noted.v. Building 851 Battery charger/golf cart shed has been hit and damaged by a truck.w. Building 852 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. No facilityhousekeeping discrepancies were noted.x. Building 853 This facility is contaminated with nitroglycerin and currentlyunoccupied. A walk-through ofthe building was accomplished. The following facilityhousekeeping and maintenance discrepancies were noted:i. Evidence was noted that there are major roof leaks. Stained walls and ceilingtiles.ii. Fiberglass insulation falling from the ceiling.iii. Poor housekeeping. Junk and trash has been abandoned in this faci Iity.y. Building 855 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. The followingfacility housekeeping and maintenance discrepancies were noted:i. Occupant has noted that there are several roof leaks.ii. Top piece of door trim is missing on door in Bay 3.z. Building 862 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. The followingfacility housekeeping and maintenance discrepancies were noted:i. Door to outside fire riser is severely corroded to the point that the door isextremely difficult to open and close. Door needs to be replaced.Attachment 1

ii. Exterior wall is damaged and birds have been attacking the exposedinsulation.aa. Building 864 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. The followingfacility housekeeping and maintenance discrepancies were noted:i. Electric panel L3N-I 0 I is missing screws holding front panel on cabinet.bb.BuiJding 865 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Building 865 isa small building (280 SF) built in 1975 and utilized for TOW testing. In 2002 thisbuilding was found to have numerous discrepancies caused by a lack of normalmaintenance. The necessary maintenance work has been completed and this facility isgreatly improved.CC. Building 868 A walk-through ofthe building was accomplished. The followingfacility housekeeping and maintenance discrepancies were noted:i. Florescent lights in Bay 3 need to be repaired. Replace burned light socket.ii. Concrete block wall at the end of North Test Cell needs to be sealed.Moisture is causing the block to deteriorate.dd.Building 870 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. The followingfacility housekeeping and maintenance discrepancies were noted:i. The building occupant has a problem with a roof leak along the joint wherethe existing building and the new addition connect.ii. Also a minor roof leak in the new office area.4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORMAL MAINTENANCE PLAN: Jt isevident that Raytheon is doing an outstanding job of maintaining the plant. The softwarepackage, FAMIS, which was procured to handle the maintenance planning functions, hasgreatly improved the effectiveness ofthe Preventative Maintenance Program.5. CONCLUSION: Raytheon is commended for their responsiveness in correctingdeficiencies identified during this visit. In many cases the deficiencies were corrected onthe spot, or within 24 hours of the finding. Special thanks to Mr. Bob Booth and Mr.Nick Cajero for the exceptional job in taking corrective action on all the special FacilitiesReview Work Orders that were called in during the facility review. Raytheon is doing anexcellent job maintaining the facilities. Air Force Plant 44 is looking good and it appearsthat the employees take pride in their workplace.RICHARD A. SPOTTSAFP 44 Supervising EngineerAcquisition Environmental, Safety& Health Division, Engineering DirectorateAttachment 1

Photo 1Buildin 814 FencePhoto 2830 Roof InsulationAttachment 1

Photo 3Building 833 Damaged WallPhoto 4Building 801 Roof Damage by DrumAttachment 1

AFP 44 FACILITY REVIEWRAYTHEON SYSTEMS COMPANY8-11 March 2004FIRE PROTECTION1. PURPOSEThe intent of this facility review was to examine the inspection and testing program forfire protection systems, review the status of the corrective actions on last year's findings,validate future requirements, and identify potential fire protection problems during a walkthrough of the facilities.2. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCERECORDSTime did not allow for the records review of the inspection and testing program for thefire protection systems. However based on previous visits this was an area that did notpresent any major problems. Thus it was felt it was more important to see as much of theplant as possible in lieu of spending time reviewing maintenance and inspection records.3. PREVIOUS FACILITY REVIEW CORRECTIVE ACTION STATUSAll corrective actions taken as a result oflast years' facility review were completedaccording to the work order listing that was provided to us. Time or facility access didnot allow us the opportunity to validate all ofthe corrective actions taken. Those that wedid get to, the corrective actions taken were adequate with the following exceptions.3.1. Building 849, room 226. A home made anechoic chamber consisting of plywoodand foam absorbers was found. The construction material and fire protection must beevaluated to ensure they meet the proper criteria for anechoic chambers. The work orderto apply fire retardant paint was closed due to the operators wanting a more permanentanechoic chamber.3.2. Building 855. The back hallway is unprotected and is being used for storage. Thereshould be sprinklers if the area will be used for storage. The work order listing indicatedthat the work to install smoke detectors (WO# 206557) was closed on 21 Apr 03. Thisneeds to be verified. Smoke detectors would be adequate if the stored items are kept to aminimum and are temporary. However ifthe area is used for regular storage on apermanent basis, then automatic sprinklers are the preferred fire protection.Attachment 2

4. FACILITY REVIEW OBSERVATIONSThe following items were noted during the walk through of the plant:4.1. Items that can affect sprinkler operation.4.1.1. Building 814, near column C-5. Two sprinklers are covered with masking tape.4.1.2. Missing ceiling tiles were found in the following areas;Building 855, break room, hallway and Bay 5.Building 801, room C 1200, hallway near column C 15, room 1200a near columnA 15, TOW assembly area near column G 19 and G20, standard Missile area near columnL 15, area near column L 18, RAM area near column N8 and P8, and the access cover nearcolumn M23.Building 849, first floor east end.4.1.3. Building 814, paint booth has a sprinkler that is located right against the filter.4.1.4. Building 864, paint booth number 4, the plastic bags over the sprinklers needreplacing.4.1.5. Building 801, the paint booth in room C1200a, near column A 15 has a sprinklerhead whose protective plastic bag is filled with water. Aside from replacing the plasticbag, need to determine source of the water.4.1.6. Building 801, Stinger area anechoic chamber, the sprinklers in the chamber isrecessed too far into the foam absorbers to be effective. The sprinklers should be loweredor the drop down type be installed so that the water distribution will not be affected.4.1.7. Building 864, all ofthe exhaust ducts ofthe paint booth have sprinklers in them.However the sprinkler needs to be secured and/or the opening around the pipe penetrationneeds to be closed up.4.1.8. Building 849, the 2 nd floor room with the "home-made" anechoic test chamber has3 cable chases (approx 2'xl' rectangle) penetrations in the suspended ceiling leading toequipment on the roof. These need to be sealed as much as practical minimize thespread of smoke or fire.4.2. Areas that need additional sprinkler coverage.4.2.). Building 8) 4, there are a considerable amount of ducts that are greater than fourfeet in width that should have sprinklers below these ducts. It is our understanding that aconsiderable amount of duct rearrangement is taking place and that is the reason for themissing coverage. Once all of the duct work is completed, a survey should be taken toensure all obstructions greater than four feet in width have sprinklers installed belowthem.Attachment 2

4.2.2. Building 814, the entry area near column B4 could use a sprinkler.4.2.3. Building 814, the canopy on the north side should have fire protection (sprinklers)since that area is now being used for storage.4.2.4. Building 833 has an addition that is about 2500 sq. ft. that is being used to housevehicles. This area should be protected with sprinklers.4.2.5. Building 855, the main hall could use another sprinkler.4.2.6. Building 801, in the Standard Missile Assembly area, near column M] 9, asprinkler could be used in the corner of the room.4.2.7. Building 80 I, in the Standard Stores area near column C] 2, a sprinkler is neededbeneath the duct that is at least four foot in width.4.2.8. Building 801, in the hall near column N8, a sprinkler should be installed above thelockers.4.3. Potential life safety concerns.4.3.1. Building 814, the basement has an exit sign in the middle of the area that providesmeaningless direction. To avoid confusion, this should be removed.4.3.2. Building 801, the office area between columns A8 and C8 appears to have a deadend travel problem. This area should be re-examined and determine if there is a LifeSafety Code violation.4.3.3. Building 80 I, in the basement a new fence and gate with cipher lock was recentlyinstalled. However this arrangement cuts off one of the occupants and/or other visitingpersonnel from having an alternative means of egress. This area must be re-examined tofind a suitable solution to all occupants.4.3.4 Building 80], the TOW assembly area has an exit that opens into a break area.There is a sliding bolt on the outside of the door that should be removed or pad locked inthe open position.4.3.5. Building 849, the south storage needs to be re-arranged to allow for more aislespace for emergency egress.4.4 Miscellaneous deficiencies.4.4.1. Building 80 I, in the TOW launcher lab, this area is extremely congested and thereis concern the fire loading exceeds the capability of the sprinklers in event ofa fire. Thisarea should be thinned out as much as possible.Attachment 2

4.4.2. Building 80 I, room G 1315. This is the HVAC shop that has a wall that does notmeet the ceiling. The wall should be completed to the ceiling to minimize the possibilityof a fire from migrating from one area to the next.4.4.3. Building 849, the northwest stairwell is still being used for storage under the stairs.4.4.4. Building 830, near column D2. Plastic sheeting is being used to divide work areas.This should be removed or replaced with a more permanent non combustible materiel.4.4.5. There are numerous escutcheon plates loose or missing from sprinkler heads in thefollowing areas;Building 80 I, operations office near column D IBuilding 80 I, near column K20Building 80 I, RAM area near column N8Building 80 I, Standard Missile area near column M 14-16Building 849, first floorBuilding 827c, room A0700A4.4.6. Sprinklers are drooping and the hangars should be re-adjusted in the followingareas: Building 801 near column K20 and in the RAM area near column N8; Also thefirst floor of building 849.4.5 New ConstructionA considerable amount of new construction has taken place since the last visit. Building810 has a new foyer, Building 817 has been renovated, and a new shipping and receivingarea was completed in Building 801. Building 827C is currently undergoing majorchanges. It appears all new work is being accomplished with the proper fire protection.The only question is the new receiving and shipping area in Building 801. We could notascertain if the proper fire separation was provided between the receiving/shipping areaand the rest of Building 801. The plans should be reviewed and ensure a minimum ofonehour fire rated walls are provided and all openings are appropriately protected with rateddoors and frames.4.6 General CommentsThe fire station, Building 828, could use a major upgrade. The facility is inefficient andlacks the necessary space for training and other briefings. In addition locker space is at apremium for the number of personnel in the building. As time and funds permit, the firestation should be renovated to meet current fire station standards.5. RECOMMMENDATIONRaytheon takes the necessary steps to correct the items identified in paragraphs 3 and 4.Attachment 2

6. SUMMARYThe plant looks good from an overall fire protection standpoint. The fire departmentcontinues to do a good job of managing the fire protection program. Most ofthe itemsidentified can easily be corrected; others will have to be budget for. Continued review byfire protection personnel of all projects regardless of importance or time constraints willresult in fewer costly changes later on. Locating the fire prevention officers with thefacility folks should help with the coordination process.DAVE DICKSONFire Protection EngineerROMEARENGOFire Protection EngineerAttachment 2

Air Force Plant 44 Facilities ReviewTUCSON, ArizonaRaytheon Missile Systems Company8 - 11 March 2004Industrial Safety Evaluation1.0 OVERVIEW: The annual ASC/EMV Industrial Facilities Review of the RaytheonMissile Systems Company (RMSC), Air Force Plant 44, Tucson, Arizona, was conducted8 - II Mar 2004. Mr Bill Kapella, ASC, DET I/SE, on behalf of ASC/ENV, performedthe Industrial Safety evaluation. Mr. Richard Force, RMSC Safety, accompanied Mr.Kapella. The purpose of the review was to conduct an examination of the RMSCresponsible facilities/workplaces and evaluate the Occupational Safety Programadministration and its effectiveness. Due to the time constraints, it was not intended toperform a thorough examination of the facilities visited; therefore, all hazards and/ordeficiencies that may exist within the work place may not be identified.2.0 PREVIOUS OBSERVATIONS: After visual inspection from the 2002 report onlyone finding is a repeat violation from the 2002 inspection and is stated below.2.0.1 2003 Finding 1. Bldg 801 Storage room southside kitchen. Housekeeping/storage ofmaterial with 18" ofsprinkler.3.0 FACILITY OBSERVATIONS (2004): The following discrepancies were notedduring the walk through of the plant. Also during this inspection several discrepanciesthat were noted were corrected either on the spot or were called into the plant's facilitiesteam and were abated prior to the completion of this inspection.3.1 Finding 04-01. General Finding. Lightning Protection: Several faci lities thatwere protected with lighting protection have discrepancies associated with the airterminal, down cable, metallic material higher than air terminals, and/or side arcinghazard potential. Example:3.1.1 bldg 849 has roof stairs taller than surrounding air terminals and down wirespainted,3.1.2 bldg 827C has a newly installed exhaust/vent system and associated tie downcable higher the surrounding air terminals,3.1.3 bldg 827A has the down wires painted,3.1.4 bldg 855 has down wires painted and has metal conduit in the close proximity ofthe down wire causing a side arc hazard,3.1.5 bldg 864 has down wires painted.Recommend checking the PM card to ensure the above discrepancies are listed as amandatory check for all lightning protection PMs on all facilities equipped with lightningprotection.Attachment 3

3.2 Finding 04-02. Bldg 827C. RTL area back shop. Electrical wire on machineryhad inadequate strain relief on plug. (/'aul's l'Iwfo

3.17 Finding 04-17. Bldg 830. Cincinnati press has pulleys exposed and are notproperly guarded. (J)(/1··C's J'!J%:()()J() (\:- no!!)3.18 Finding 04-18. Bldg 814, room B0400. Acetone and Isopropyl Alcoholcontainers are not equipped with a spring loaded splash screen or fusible link and!or arenot labeled as to its content. (Dave's Ph% tWO f:: (~ ()(j J3)3.19 Finding 04-19. Bldg 817, paint mix room. Funnel in waste container found openand unattended.3.20 Finding 04-20. Bldg 816, south. Raw stock area, machine #H59746 has an openground on its electrical receptacle. (Dare's Photo jl(j() J-1)3.21 Finding 04-21. Bldg 80 I, kitchen. Service line has electrical cords penetratingunprotected (no grommet) metal counters4.0 RECOMMENDATION: Abate the above finding as required. Not all ofthefacilities and work places were surveyed; it is imperative that Raytheon ensure likediscrepancies do not exist. The above discrepancies that can be added to the maintenanceplan or supervisor's daily inspection checklist should be. Safety items that are consideredbeyond normal maintenance should be submitted as Capital Type Rehabilitation (CTR)projects in the next budget submittal and assigned appropriate Risk Assessment Codes(RAC) accordingly.5.0 Any questions concerning the above report may be directed to ASC, DET liSE, Mr.Bill Kapella, Area Code (661) 272-6719.BILL KAPELLASafety & Occupational Health ManagerAttachment 3

AIR FORCE PLANT 44INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE COMPLIANCE AUDIT8-11 March 2004IntroductionA. PurposeThis report summarizes the results of an industrial hygiene compliance audit conductedby William J. LaFountain of ASC/ENV at AFP 44. The objectives of this audit were toreview:• The compliance status of the facility with respect to applicable federal, state,and local laws and regulations;• The facility's conformance with Raytheon Company policies and procedures;• The industrial hygiene management systems that currently exist in the facilities.B. ScopeThe scope of the audit included the following areas:C. ApproachI. Ventilation (1910.94)2. Occupational Noise Exposure (1910.95)3. Nonionizing Radiation (1910.97)4. Dip Tanks (1910.108)5. Personal Protective Equipment (1910.132 through 1910.134)6. Permit-Required Confined Space Entry (1910.146)7. Air contaminants not regulated by their own OSHA standards8. Certain air contaminants regulated by OSHA standards9. Bloodborne Pathogens (1910.1030)10. Hazard Communication (1910.1200)11. General Industrial HygieneThe audit was conducted from March 8-12, 2004The audit was based on:• Physical examination of the facility;• Examination of selected safety and industrial hygiene administrative operatingrecords made available by facility staff;• Interviews and discussions with key facility management and staffAttachment 4

The audit followed an audit protocol based on Air Force established audit procedures,which was modified for the Raytheon audit. It should be understood that the auditconsisted of evaluating a sample of practices and was conducted in a short span of timerelative to the review period. Efforts were directed toward sampling major facets ofindustrial hygiene performance during the period under review, but it is important torecognize that this method is intended to uncover major program deficiencies, and thisaudit might not have identified all potential problems.Audit FindingsA. Previous Findings:I. Emergency eyewash/showers: It was identified that a systemic problem existswith the preventive maintenance (PM) ofeyewash/shower stations. An excellentprocedure had been established for PM ofthe equipment but was not being accomplishedby the responsible individuals thereby allowing the PMs to be not completed in a timelyfashion. (Corrected)2. Local Exhaust Ventilation Systems (LEV): An excellent system for measuringand recording the airflow of the LEVs in worksites had been established. It was noted inmultiple locations that the annual PM was not being accomplished. It as also noted thatlocations of measurements were not recorded which decrease the ability of the Industrialhygienist to reproduce readings which would be comparable for evaluation. (Corrected)3. Bldg. 827: Multiple unsecured gas cylinders were identified outside thebuilding. (Corrected)4. Bldg. 864: Paint mix room had one flammable cabinet which had beenpenetrated by a plastic hose which had not been properly sealed reducing the ability ofthe cabinet's resistance to fire. Five open electrical boxes were identified in the area of theHarris chamber. Exposed electrical wiring was identified in the NE Mechanical room.Approximately three feet, which had been cut off and left exposed, of electrical wire wasfound sticking out of the ground in the back of the building. Above the paint booth #3exposed electrical wiring was identified. (Corrected)5. Bldg. 852: Mechanical room had one missing knockout plug. (Corrected)B. New Findings:I. Inconsistent requirement for daily operator checks on paint booths prior to usewas identified. This appears to be a lack of training of the booth operators.2. Bldg. 801: Needs to have the Machine Shop area evaluated for eyewashrequirements.Attachment 4

3. Bldg, 830: In the welding area there were two compressed gas cylinders in astore room which were unsecured. In the center aisle the eyewash was blocked and twoflammable cabinets were missing the sidewall plugs. Outside the building there weremultiple unsecured compressed gas cylinders, this is a repeat finding.4. Bldg. 864: On the north side ofthe building outside there was an unsecuredcompressed gas cylinder.5. Bldg. 815: The mechanics room needs to be evaluated for the requirement ofeyewash. The loading dock was util izing an unapproved set of portable stairs to accessthe dock area. There were several improperly secured compressed gas cylinders on theloading dock.6. The portable eyewash bottles, which have an expiration date, were labeledwith a Raytheon label indicating no expiration.C. Overall OpinionBased on the review of the program at Plant 44, Raytheon, I believe that a significantimprovement ofthe IH program continues to be made over the previous years and meetsall applicable governmental and company policies and procedures. This opinion is basedon my professional judgment and the application of USAF established audit procedures. Iwish to thank the IH staff for their assistance in the effort.Recommendation: That all open items be accomplished. That the IH staff be commendedfor their continued improvement ofthe work sitesWilliam J LaFountainIndustrial HygienistUSAF ASC/ENVAttachment 4

AFP 44 ANNUAL FACILITIES REVIEW8 - 12 March 2004Fire Protection Operation1.0 The annual ASC/ENV Industrial Facilities Review of the Raytheon Missile SystemsCompany (RMSC), Air Force Plant 44, Tucson, Arizona, was conducted 8 - 12 Mar 04.Mr Bill Kapella, ASC/ENV Det I Fire Marshal, on behalf of ASC/ENV, performed thereview ofthe Fire Department Operations. The purpose of the review was to conduct anexamination of the RMSC Fire Department operations for effectiveness, performance,knowledge, and abilities. Due to the time constraints, it was not intended to perform athorough examination; therefore, not all deficiencies that may exist within theiroperations could be identified.2.0 NFPA 1410 Fire Exercise. On 10 Mar 04, approximately 0830, a NFPA 1410exercise was provided at bldg 866. The exercise was used to measure the initial attackcapability of the fire department's first responding units and personnel for performancelAW NFPA 1410 Trainingfor Initial Fire Attack.2.1 The following observations were noted:2.1.1 KUDOS. Although this was an exercise to evaluate structural first responseactions lAW the NFPA standards, the fire department carried it well beyond theminimum requirements and involved communication techniques, accountabilityand other fire ground duties.2.1.2 The first responding vehicle reported that there is smoke and flames showingfrom the building. The actual wind direction and temperature was to be used.2.1.3 All aspects of structural fire fighting such as, but not limited to, catching thehydrant, laying the appropriate amount of supply line, deploying handlines andbackup lines, proper sequences of charging the lines with water, nozzle pressures,and pump operations were well demonstrated and executed within the requiredtime constants ofthree minutes.2.1.4 The hydrant used for this exercise was leaking below the surface indicating thehydrant was not properly opened to the full extent or the hydrant is in need ofrepair. If freezing is not a factor, recommend if the hydrant needs to be replacedit should be replaced with a wet-barrel type hydrant. This is suggested forhydrants that need replacing to be replaced with the wet-barrel instead of the drybarrel type. (Action required)3.0. Structural Fire Exercise. On 11 Mar 04, approximately 0815, a structural fire andrescue exercise was provided at bldg. 810. The exercise was used to measure the initialattack capability of the fire department's first responding units and personnel forperformance. The scenario was an explosion on the roofs second HVAC unit resultingin fire and smoke coming from the roof and one worker unaccounted for. A critiquedwas held on site upon termination of the exercise.Attachment 5

3.1 The following observations were noted:3.1.1. KUDOS. Security was prompt in responding and setting up for traffic controlbefore the fire department's arrival. The use of the 'bike patrol' was beneficialallowing quick response to control pedestrian and vehicle traffic early in theevent. The locked gate (Gate C) on the access road adjacent to the building wasimmediately opened allowing fire approach from the quickest and appropriatedirection. The coordinated response by the security, maintenance and fire wascommendable.3.1.2. Mutual Aid. The Fire Officers were counting on several fire ground duties,operations and support to be performed by outside fire companies during the earlystages of the incident. Although mutual aid training is a requirement, trainingwithout their support should also be accomplished. (Action required)3.1.3. Radio communication and the switch to the emergency frequency were welldemonstrated.3.1.4. Hose Advancement: The appropriate fire hydrant was used the supply the firstEngine. Using the exterior stairs, a supply line was hauled up the stairs that waslater used to supply a smaller hose from a gated wye. In addition, a 'highrise/hospital pack' was also advanced to the roof for the initial attack making theinitial attack more manageable.3.1.5. Incident Management System: The communications between the incidentcommander from the operation commander (81 OIC) and rescue personnel wereweak. The IC was duel role as the Fire Officer lC and a Security Officer. TheFire Officer should have been the Incident Commander (8tOIC) and the CrewChief from the first Engine whose call sign was 81 OIC should have beenOperations-IC/Roof-lC. Putting the IC at the close proximity to the incidentforced supporting agents to report to the OpslC instead of the IC who has overallresponsibility. This removes the IC from having full control of the operations andplaces support people too close to the scene and possibly interfering with theoperations of the OpslC. Case-in-point, the Security representative that was faceto-facewith the OpsIC was exposed to on-scene dangers. The rescue and firesuppression operations on the roof were not monitored or directed by a fire officerin view ofthe operations. As a result, the fire suppression operation was beingperformed in an unsafe manner by one fire fighter on the end of the hose line ashis backup person separated himself from the operations. Recommendation:Establish requirements for an incident management system to be used byemergency services to manage all emergency incidents IA W NFPA 1561,Standard on Emergency Services Incident Management System. Also ensure thatthe Incident Management System is compatible with outside support agencies.(Action required)3.1.6. Immediate Danger to Life and Health (lDLH): It was unclear to the evaluators asthe where the IDLH area was established. This made it unclear as to where to setup the Accountability person and where fire fighters were required to be 'on-air'and where the Rapid Intervention Team (RIT) and Rehap area were to be formed.Recommendation: Conduct more exercises. Ensure all fire operations are lAWAttachment 5

local standards and procedures and meet all the National Standards as required.Procedures shall be in place to identify the IDLH area IA W NFPA 1500 for allexercises and emergency responses involving fire and/or Hazmat incidents plusbroadcasting as required. Ref: OSHA 191O.134(g), NFPA 1500, par. 5-3,6-4.(Action required)3.1.7. Safety Officer. During evaluation, when asked who was the Safety Officer onscene, it was first suggested that the Industrial Safety Manager, who is notqualified lAW the NFPA standard, was the fire department's Safety Officer.Later, it was learned that the duties were actually assigned to another Crew Chief.Nonetheless, the Safety Officer was not in a position to monitor the scene andreport the status of conditions, hazards, and risks to the incident commander. TheSafety Officer left his post to assist in rescue operations. He did not ensure thatthe fire department's personnel accountability system was being utilized. Also hedid not ensure that established safety zones, collapse zones, hot zone, and otherdesignated hazard areas are communicated to all members present on scene andadvise the incident commander of hazards, collapse potential, and any fireextension in such building(s). As a result, the rehap area was established in thevicinity of the engine company exposing crews and victims to exhaust fumes.Also, the inside ofthe building was not checked for fire extension.Recommendation: The fire department shall have a Safety Office that meets therequirement of NFPA 1521, Standardfor Fire Department Safety Officer.Separate training subjects are required for the fire department Safety Offices.Also include procedures to perform 360-degree checks for fire extension. (Actionrequired)3.1.8. Accountability: The fire department had accountability tags for each assigned firefighters, which appeared to be used only to account for fire fighters on the firegrounds. However, accountability was not established prior to allowingfirefighters inside the IDLH area. Although times were announced by dispatch,accountability was not maintained and time each fire fighter went on air could notbeing monitored at the scene. In addition, a Personnel Accountable Report (PAR)was not conducted routinely and after a firefighter went down. (Action required)3.1.9. Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE): The use of PPE including self-containedbreathing apparatus (SCBA) and the enthusiasm expressed by the firefighters arecommendable. However, not knowing where the lDLH area required most of thefirefighters to go on air prematurely. Also a buddy check could not be performedat the IDLH area to ensure a 'last chance' check of PPE. Recommendation: A'buddy system' should be used by the firefighters to ensure PPE and otherequipment is properly in placed and ready to use as designed prior to startingassigned duties inside the lDLH area. (Action required)3.1.1 0. The Rapid Intervention Team (RIT): Although the fire department followed thestandards for the initial response to have '2-in and 2-out' the department failed toestablished a dedicated RIT IA W NFPA 1500. The second engine company toarrive failed to lay a backup line for the RIT. See NFPA 1500, para 8.4. (Actionrequired)3.1.11. Rescue Operations: The rescue team preformed an unsafe act by allowingthemselves to separate during the rescue search operations. Crew members shallAttachment 5

e in proximity to each other to provide assistance in case of emergency IA WNFPA 1500, para 8.4.6. (Action required)3.2 Recommendations: Increase the training frequency without mutual aid supportuntil desired proficiency and knowledge are demonstrated. The training program shall bedesigned to improve individual knowledge, confidence and performance reliability. Theproficiency-training program shall enhance a firefighter's ability to work as a teammember. Operational procedures shall be established to identify and transmit the IDLHarea for every structural emergency keeping in mind that the area can be shorten asconditions change.3.3 Summary: The fire department was successful in reacting to unplanned situationswhich tasked some their procedures, i.e. fire fighter down, hydrants out of service,workers obstructing operations, mutual aid delays, etc. The discussions by the firefighters during the critique brought up several 'what if' scenarios, which were alsodiscussed. The fire department exercise was well executed4,0 Fire Department Operations: Due to the time constraints fire departmentorganizational functions and operations were not evaluated during this review.5.0 Fire Department Facilities. The quality of life within the fire departments needsattention for upgrades. The housing of first response vehicles and proper trainingfacilities are undesirable.6.0. Any questions concerning the above report may be directed to ASC, DET liSE, Mr.Bill Kapella, Area Code (661) 272-6719.BILL KAPELLAASC Det 1, Fire MarshalAttachment 5

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;August 19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition EnvironmentalSafety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433TRIP REPORT1. PERSONS MAKING THIS TRIPRichard A. Spotts, ASC/ENY (44), AFP 44 Supervising Engineer/Team LeaderRomeo S. Arengo, ASC/ENYP, Fire Protection EngineerDavid L. Dickson ASC/ENYP, Fire Protection EngineerWilliam Kapella, ASC Det I, Safety SpecialistWilliam J. LaFountain, ASC/ENYY, Industrial HygienistMajor Robert Schmedake, ASC/ENYS, Explosive Safety2. DATES OF VISIT: 4-7 April 20053. ACTIVITY VISITED: Air Force Plant (AFP) 44Raytheon CompanyTucson, Arizona4. PURPOSE OF THE VISIT: To conduct the annual AFP 44 Facilities Review. Areas ofthe review include normal maintenance, fire protection and industrial hygiene.5. PERSONNEL CONTACTED:RSCDoug SteinerDave DenekeJoseph CoyleRichard PadillaChristine StarkBrent BeanBarb KunkleNick CajeroRandy Rogers-GardnerDave StonerCharles J. McAfeeBruce HodgesBob BoothFerdinand MorellRichard ForceSally UtheJames PriceRon KunkleRobert K. HannifanSteve KreienkampDennis TwardowskiRick JohnsonAFP 44 IPT Lead for RaytheonContractsOperations SupportEHS ManagerSecurityFacilities ManagerFacility ServicesFacility ServicesFacility ServicesFacility ServicesFacility ServicesFacilities Site ManagerMaintenanceMaintenanceEnvironmental Health & SafetyEnvironmental Health & SafetyEnvironmental Health & SafetyEnvironmental Health & SafetyEnvironmental Health & SafetyPlant ProtectionPlant ProtectionPlant Protection

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; adndnistrativeloperational use;August 19, 2005. Other requests for this document shaD be referred to the Chief, Acquisition EnvironmentalSafety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 454336. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS:a. The Facilities Review began with an in-brief between the team members andRaytheon Company personnel. The briefing consisted of progress status on past findings,new objectives, and the week's agenda.b. All team members were paired with a Raytheon host. The tentative schedule wasagreed upon and the team was provided with a conference room so that we could convene atthe end of each day. Each team was also assigned with a person and camera to takephotographs of facilities and areas identified for an action.c. The findings and the information contained within this report were briefed toRaytheon on Thursday, 7 April 2005. The Raytheon team provided a list of work orders thathad been initiated during the review and photographs on a CD disk.7•.RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:a. The efforts of Raytheon to correct problems is commendable. however there are stillareas that require improvement. In general the plant appearance is adequate and provides asafe, productive working environment.b. Team members conducted their own independent reviews. The results, findings, andrecommendations are provided in the following attachments: Nannal Maintenance (Attachment1), Industrial Hygiene (Attachment 2), Explosive Safety (Attachment 3), and Fire DepartmentEvaluation (Attachment 4). Nonnallyan Industrial Safety Audit is also conducted during thisreview, however, due to the requirement for an extensive Fire Department Evaluation this auditwas not conducted this year.c. Raytheon personnel were cooperative, helpful, and supportive during this year'sannual facilities review.8. IMPACT ON ASCtENV: Overall Raytheon is doing an adequate job of maintaining andoperating Air Force Plant 44. Several deficiencies were observed in the various areasreviewed, as identified in the attached reports, and will require follow-up over the next yearby ASCIENV personnel.9. MODE OF TRANSPORTATION:Commercial airlines travel to and from Tucson, AZ., and rental car in the local area.gcJLYa~RICHARD A. SPOTISAnnual Facilities Review Team LeaderAcquisition Environmental, Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;August 19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition EnvironmentalSafety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433ATTACHMENTS:1. Normal Maintenance Review2. Industrial Hygiene Compliance Audit3. Explosive Safety Evaluation4. Fire Department Evaluation

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operationaluse; August 8, 2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson AirForce Base, OH 45433AFP 44 ANNUAL FACILITIES REVIEWNORMAL MAINTENANCE REVIEW4-7 April 20051. PURPOSEThe purpose of this year's review was to: (I) assess the overall appearance and conditionof the real property, (2) determine the adequacy of action taken as result oflast year'sfindings and/or recommendations, and (3) assess Raytheon's effectiveness inaccompl ishing normal maintenance of real property.2. OVERALL APPEARANCE AND CONDITIONa. Housekeeping The plant appearance remains outstanding. The generalhousekeeping in and around the plant facilities appears to receive a great deal of attentionat all levels. Raytheon and its employees continue to work hard to maintain a clean andsafe plantsite.b. Corrosion Control The attention to faci lity corrosion control and prevention isadequate to maintain the condition of the plant equipment and facilities. Several areaswere found to require additional attention to corrosion control.c. Roof Maintenance The plant roofs are generally being maintained in anacceptable manner.d. Pavement Maintenance The plant pavements are generally being maintained inan acceptable manner. There are several areas around the plantsite that need attention. Acomprehensive plan for maintaining the paved areas needs to be developed. This planneeds to include both normal maintenance tasks and projected eTR projects.3. ASSESSMENT OF NORMAL MAINTENANCEa. Building 801: A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Only minorfacility maintenance discrepancies were noted. The following maintenance concernswere noted:i. The steps up to the high bay area near column K-27 need repairs to the flashing.ii. Fanhouse 0-9-HV has corrosion along the bottom that needs to be repaired.iii. Fire hose box near 0-9-HV is corroding badly and should be repaired. Analternative could be to remove the box and patch the roof.iv. The joint along the high bay to low bay areas is badly cracking along the roofedge.Attachment 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operationaluse; August 8, 2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson AirForce Base, OH 45433v. An exhaust fan L-01 (R000589X) has been disconnected and abandoned inplace, awaiting disposal. The unit should be closed up as long as it remains in place.vi. The roof edging near column A-3 is separating and needs to be repaired.vii. Canopy roof panels between buildings 80 I and 817 are beginning to separate.b. Building 809: A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Housekeepingpractices in this building including the mezzanine areas were found to be adequate. Nofacility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.c. Building 810: A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Only minorfacility maintenance discrepancies were noted. The roof area appears to be in acceptablecondition. The following maintenance concerns were noted:1. The roof edge between F-I and G-2 on the south side needs to be repaired.ii. Equipment area outside building 810 has a steel fence section that was cut outand temporarily removed and replace and is now corroding. This corrosion needs to berepaired and the fence to be painted.d. Building 811 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and no facilitymaintenance discrepancies were noted. Attention is required to correct poorhousekeeping practices outside the building under the north canopy.e. Building 811 Trailer: A walk-through of the trailer was accomplished with nomaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies noted.f. Building 812 A walk-through ofthe building and roof were accomplished and nofacility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.g. Building 813 A walk-through ofthe building and roof were accomplished and nofacility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.h. Building 814 A walk-through ofthe building and roof were accomplished and thefollowing facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted:i. Trash and debris on the east end ofthe roof needs to be removed.ii. North side canopy roof has begun to rust and needs to be painted.iii. The basement is currently being used for storage. This area needs to be betterorganized and the aisles need to be defined with striping on the floors and exit lightsinstalled. Fire protection sprinklers are currently being installed.iv. An electrical junction box was found in the basement storage area with thecover missing.i. Building 816 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. No facilityhousekeeping discrepancies were noted.Attachment 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operationaluse; August 8, 2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson AirForce Base, 0" 45433j. Building 817 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. No facilityhousekeeping discrepancies were noted.k. Building 820/8211822 A walk-through of the FACO lunch room buildings wereaccomplished. No facility housekeeping discrepancies were noted.I. Building 826 (Ground Water Treatment Facility) A walk-through of thebuilding and equipment yard was accomplished. The door lock hardware on themechanical room exterior entrance door is broken. This hardware needs to be repaired inorder to properly secure this facility.m. Building 827 (GasolinelDiesel Storage) A walk around the area wasaccomplished. No facility housekeeping discrepancies were noted.n. Building 827C A walk-through of the building was accomplished and thefollowing facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted:i. Damaged sheet rock in the corridor needs to be repaired.ii. The fire protection sprinkler system needs maintenance and repair. Thepiping is corroding and there appeared to be several leaks.iii. Old evaporative coolers have been removed from the roof. The metal curbingfrom the removed units and the metal roof are corroding. These areas need to be treatedand sealed.iv. Corrosion around the flashings at the roof edge also need to be repaired.o. Building 830 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and thefollowing facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted:i. The elastomeric coating in the gutter between the building sections is comingloose and pealing. This deterioration needs to be repaired as soon as possible to avoid asignificant roof leak problem. Note: Building 828 is the same type construction and theroof was coated at the same time; therefore it may also need the same maintenanceaction.ii. Several of the evaporative cooling units located outside the building are wiredwith rubber insulated electrical cords plugged into outdoor electric outlets. This shouldbe changed to hardwire the units. (R81 T006 & R02BO 12)p. Building 831 A walk-through ofthe building was accomplished. Nohousekeeping discrepancies were noted.q. Building 833 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and thefollowing facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted:i. The outside canopy over the water pumps needs to be painted.ii. The eye wash fixtures in the battery charging area need maintenance andrepair as they do not operate properly. The equipment tags indicated that they receivedpreventative maintenance in Apr 05.Attachment 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operationaluse; August 8, 2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson AirForce Base, OH 45433r. Building 834/835 (Cooling Towers) A walk around of the area and inspection ofthe cooling towers was accomplished. Several discrepancies were noted:i. The paved berm around cooling towers is erodingii. Potable water line is badly corroded and requires maintenance/corrosioncontrol.s. Building 837 This is the chilled water/fire protection reservoir. There is erosiondamage along the concrete stairs leading down to building 838 that needs to be repaired.t. Building 838 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Nohousekeeping discrepancies were noted.u. Building 849 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and thefollowing facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted:i. Housekeeping attention is needed in the electrical/mechanical equipmentroom on the northwest side of the building.ii. The exterior door to the electrical transformer vault is inoperative.v. Building 851 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. No facilityhousekeeping discrepancies were noted.w. Building 852 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. No facilityhousekeeping discrepancies were noted.x. Building 853 A walk around ofthe area and inspection of the cooling towers wasaccomplished. No housekeeping or maintenance discrepancies were noted.y. Building 854 A walk around ofthe area and inspection of the cooling towers wasaccomplished. No housekeeping or maintenance discrepancies were noted.z. Building 855 A walk around ofthe area and inspection of the cooling towers wasaccomplished. No housekeeping or maintenance discrepancies were noted.aa. Building 856 A walk around of the area and inspection of the cooling towerswas accomplished. No housekeeping or maintenance discrepancies were noted.bb. Building 862 A walk-through ofthe building was accomplished. The followingfacility housekeeping and maintenance discrepancies were noted:i. Door to outside fire riser is severely corroded to the point that the door isextremely difficult to open and close. Door needs to be replaced.ii. Exterior wall is damaged and birds have been attacking the exposedinsulation.Attachment 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operationaluse; August 8, 2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson AirForce Base, OH 45433CC. Building 864 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. The followingfacility housekeeping and maintenance discrepancies were noted:i. A temperature and humidity sensor mounted on the wall in the test bay is nolonger used and needs to be removed.ii. The exterior exit door in the chemical lab was blocked on the outside by aporta-john.iii. The lab is constructed as a class I, division I room, however the computersare located on the floor. If this is a class I, division I area then the computers need to beinstalled in another location above the floor.IV. The wall-roofjoint on the fuel pump house is badly cracked and needs to berepaired.dd. Building 865 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Building 865is a small building (280 SF) built in 1975 and utilized for TOW testing. In 2002 thisbuilding was found to have numerous discrepancies caused by a lack of normalmaintenance. The necessary maintenance work has been completed and this facility isgreatly improved.i. Temporary test equipment located outdoors in the test range area was poweredwith multiple extension cords and power strips. This is an inadequate method to provideelectrical power. This setup needs to be replaced with a hardwired, weather proofelectrical outlet.ii. The occupant pointed out that the FACO public address system does not reachbuilding 865 or the associated test range.ee. Building 866 A walk-through ofthe building was accomplished. Damagedsiding along the ramp needs to be repaired.ff. Building 867 A walk-through ofthe building was accomplished. Nohousekeeping or maintenance discrepancies were noted.gg. Building 868 A walk-through ofthe building was accomplished. The followingfacility housekeeping and maintenance discrepancies were noted:i. The evaporative cooler R85E027 is badly corroded around the base of theunit. If necessary, repair or replacement of this unit should be considered for futureconsideration as a "other than normal maintenance" CTR project.ii. Asphalt paving around the building needs to be maintained with crack repairsand seal coating.iii. The eyewash unit outside the loading dock has a broken foot pedal.iv. Housekeeping attention is required in the electrical equipment room (868-2).Debris, old heat detectors, conduit and other junk needs to be removed.v. A new modular office unit has been requested for installation at building 868.An explosive site plan has been submitted for approval; the approval has not yet beengranted. It was observed that trenching for the utility services has already been startedwithout the necessary approvalS.Attachment 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operationaluse; August 8, 2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson AirForce Base, OH 45433hh. Building 870 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Nohousekeeping or maintenance discrepancies were noted.4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORMAL MAINTENANCE PLAN: It isevident that Raytheon is doing an adequate job of maintaining the plant. The softwarepackage, FAMIS, which was procured to handle the maintenance planning functions, hasbeen replaced with a new system called "Prism" by SAP.5. CONCLUSION: Raytheon's responsiveness in correcting deficiencies identifiedduring this visit was helpful in ensuring that the review was successful. In many casesthe deficiencies were corrected on the spot, or within 24 hours of the finding. Correctiveactions on all the special Facilities Review Work Orders that were called in during thefacility review were promptly acted upon.RICHARD A. SPOTTSAFP 44 Supervising EngineerAcquisition Environmental, Safety& Health Division, Engineering DirectorateAttachment 1

•FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to 000 components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August 19,2005.Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety & Health Division,Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433IntroductionAIR FORCE PLANT 44INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE COMPLIANCE AUDIT4-7 April 2005A. PurposeThis report summarizes the results of an industrial hygiene compliance auditconducted by William J. LaFountain of ASC/ENV at AFP 44. The objectives ofthisaudit were to review:• The compliance status ofthe facility with respect to applicable federal,state, and local laws and regulations;• The facility's conformance with Raytheon Company policies andprocedures;• The industrial hygiene management systems that currently exist in thefacilities.B. ScopeThe scope ofthe audit included the following areas:C. Approach1. Ventilation (1910.94)2. Occupational Noise Exposure (1910.95)3. Nonionizing Radiation (1910.97)4. Dip Tanks (1910.108)5. Personal Protective Equipment (1910.132 through 1910.134)6. Permit-Required Confined Space Entry (1910.146)7. Air contaminants not regulated by their own OSHA standards8. Certain air contaminants regulated by OSHA standards9. Bloodborne Pathogens (1910.1030)10. Hazard Communication (1910.1200)II. General Industrial HygieneThe audit was conducted from April 5-7, 2005The audit was based on:• Physical examination ofthe facility;• Examination of selected safety and industrial hygiene administrativeoperating records made available by facility staff;• Interviews and discussions with key facility management and staffAttachment 2

•FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to 000 components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August 19, 2005.Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety & Health Division,Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433The audit followed an audit protocol based on Air Force established audit procedures, which wasmodified for the Raytheon audit. [t should be understood that the audit consisted of evaluating asample of practices and was conducted in a short span of time relative to the review period. Effortswere directed toward sampling major facets of industrial hygiene performance during the periodunder review, but it is important to recognize that this method is intended to uncover major programdeficiencies, and this audit might not have identified all potential problems.Audit FindingsA. Previous Findings:I. Inconsistent requirement for daily operator checks on paint booths prior to use wasidentified. This appears to be a lack of training of the booth operators. (Corrected)2. Bldg. 80 I: Needs to have the Machine Shop area evaluated for eyewash requirements.(Corrected)3. Bldg, 830: In the welding area there were two compressed gas cylinders in a store roomwhich were unsecured. In the center aisle the eyewash was blocked and two flammable cabinetswere missing the sidewall plugs. Outside the building there were mu[tiple unsecured compressedgas cylinders, this is a repeat finding from the 2003 facility review. (Not Corrected)4. Bldg. 864: On the north side of the building outside there was an unsecured compressedgas cylinder. (Corrected)5. Bldg. 815: The mechanics room needs to be evaluated for the requirement of aneyewash. The loading dock was utilizing an unapproved set of portable stairs to access the dockarea. There were several improperly secured compressed gas cylinders on the loading dock.(Corrected)6. The portable eyewash bottles, which have an expiration date, were labeled with aRaytheon labe[ indicating no expiration. (Corrected)B. New Findings:1. Bldg, 830: Outside the building there were multiple unsecured compressed gascylinders, this is a repeat finding, third year in a row.C. Overall OpinionBased on the review ofthe program at Plant 44, Raytheon, over the last 7 years, I believe that asignificant improvement ofthe IH program continues to be made over the previous years and meetsall applicable governmental and company policies and procedures. This opinion is based on myprofessional judgment and the application of USAF established audit procedures. I wish to thankthe IH staff for their assistance in the effort.Attachment 2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to 000 components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August 19,Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety & Health Division,Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Recommendation: That all open items be accomplished as soon as feasible. That the IH staffbecommended for their continued improvement of the work sitesWilliam J LaFountainIndustrial HygienistUSAF ASC/ENVAttachment 2

•FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August]9,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Air Force Plant 44 Facilities ReviewRaytheon Missile Systems Company4 - 8 April 2005Explosive Safety Evaluation1.0 OVERVIEW: The annual ASC/ENV Explosive Safety Review of the RaytheonMissile Systems Company (RMSC), Air Force Plant 44, Tucson, Arizona, was conducted4-8 April 2005. Maj. Robert Schmedake, ASC/GRS on behalf of ASC/ENV, performedthe Explosive Safety evaluation. Mr. Ron Orr and Mr. Doug Long RMSC Safety,accompanied Maj. Schmedake. The purpose of the review was to conduct an examinationof the RMSC responsible facilities/workplaces and evaluate the Explosive SafetyProgram administration and its effectiveness. Due to the time constraints, it was notintended to perform a thorough examination of the facilities visited; therefore, all hazardsand/or deficiencies that may exist within the work place may not be identified.2.0 PREVIOUS OBSERVATIONS: After visual inspection from the 2004 a repeatfinding is related to the lightning protection system air tenninals, down conductors. Thediscrepancy is cited relates to AFI32-1065, which is applied to Raytheon through 0004145.26M, paragraph CI.6 that directs the contractor to 000 6055.9 and the applicableservice regulation. In this case, construction of Lightning Protection Systems on AirForce property is in accordance with AFI 32-1065. 0004145.26M also directs thecontractor to applicable NFPA standards for lightning protection systems. Thesestandards are consistent with each other.05-01 Repeat Finding - Lightning Protection System Deficiencies:Many down conductors and connections for conductors are painted on a number offacilities, including BIds 864, 865, 811, and 812. I expect that most of the facilities havethis issue. Raytheon does perform the periodic visual inspections (6months) andresistance tests (2 years) and does maintain record for these inspections. According to thestandard AFI 32-1065:A4.1.9. Do not paint down conductor connectors unless they are the highcompressionor exothermic (or welded) type. Conductors on roofs must be bare.000 4145.26M refers the contractor to NFPA 780-14, which states:K.5.3 Painting. Bonding connectiom and conductor splices should not be painted.Paint on lightning protection conductors should not exceed a level at which theconductor's physical continuity can be confirmed.Recommend all conductors be cleaned to the point that continuity may be confinned. Allconnections that are painted need to be replaced and bonding connections need to be re­accomplished without any paint present at the connection.Other Findings05-02 BId 864 Test Cell (North) a piece of test equipment had frayed wiring on thepower cord. The outside insulation was stripped.Attachment 3

•FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental SafetyHealth Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 4543305-03 BId 864 near Door 864-14 an LPS wire had sharp 90 degree bend. According toAFl 32-1065:A4.1.5. Down conductors must not have sharp bends or loops. All bends musthave a radius of203 millimeters (8 inches) or greater and measure not less than90 degrees from the inside ofthe bend. The 203-millimeter radius does not applyto "T" or "Y" splices. These splices. however, can be used only for the purposeintended.000 4145.26M refers contractor to NFPA standards. Contained in NFPA 780-144.9.5 Conductor Bends. No bend ofa conductor shallform an included angle ofless than 90 degrees, nor shall it have a radius ofbend less than 203 mm (8 in.),as shown in Figure 4.9.5.Ra

•FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433ROBERT A. SCHMEDAKE, Major, USAFRIndividual Mobilization AugmenteeWeapons SafetyAttachment 3

,•FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;August 19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCJENV, Wright Patterson AirForce Base, OH 45433Air Force Plant 44FIRE DEPARTMENT EVALUATION4 - 8 April 20051.0 Purpose. The Annual Facilities Review areas of Fire Protection and Fire Operationswere altered this year to conduct a more in depth Fire Department Evaluation (FDE) tocompare current requirements to the requirements established in AFI 32-2001. The FireProtection Operations and Fire Prevention Program. The FOE's intent is to highlightcurrent shortfalls in meeting AFI 32-2001 requirements. The Air Force MaterielCommand Inspection Guidance Checkl ist (15 September 2004 edition) was used toevaluate management plans, training requirements, operational capabilities,communications and other fire department programs. In addition, a couple ofexerciseswere conducted to assess the fire department's ability to accomplish all of the fire groundfunctions with the current staffing.2.0 Overview. An early, aggressive, and offensive primary interior attack on a workingfire is usually the most effective strategy to reduce loss of lives and property damage.The AFP 44 fire department is not adequately staffed with trained and certified firepersonnel lAW AFI 32-200 I to provide an aggressive offensive interior fire attack. Inaddition, the smaller available pumper's ability to meet fire flow demand is questionable.The following shall identify the equipment and minimum staffing levels as necessary tomeet the deployment criteria to ensure that a sufficient number of members are assigned,on duty, and available to safely and effectively respond to emergencies.3.0 Fire Protection Staffing and Vehicle Standards. According to AFI 32- 200 I,paragraph 3.1.2. 00016055.6; Air Force Manpower Standard 44EF, Fire Protection(AFRC and ANG MAJCOM utilize individual manpower standards); AllowanceStandard 019, Vehicle Fleet (Registered) All MAJCOM Common; OSHA regulations;and NFPA standards outline minimum acceptable staffing and equipage requirements. Inaddition, AFCESA 1710-01, Air Force Fire and Emergency Services TechnicalInformation Guide (also known as TIG 1710-01), provides standard determinations,interpretations and equivalencies to implement NFPA 1710, Standardjor theOrganization and Deployment ojFire Suppression Operations, Emergency MedicalOperations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, and isprovided as an attachment.Note: Air Force fire departments are staffed and equipped to respond to one majoraircraft, structural, or hazardous material incident at a time.3.1. Staffing Requirements. AFI 32-2001, ASOl9, AF Manpower Standard 44EF. 00016055.6 and NFPA establishes a minimum ofone Incident Commander. two structuralfire-fighting vehicles with four each fire fighters and a rescue company with threefirefighters. This requires a minimum of 12 firefighters, however, the incident sceneAttachment 4

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;August 19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson AirForce Base, 0" 45433duties per NFPA 1710 optimally require staffing at a minimum of 17 firefighters. Theseduties can be multi task temporarily with the initial 12-firefighter response untiladditional staffing arrives via mutual aid or other appropriate backup. Incident sceneduties per NFPA 1710 states initial full alarm assignment shall provide for the following:3.1.1. One incident commander (usually the first arriving senior officer).3.1.2. One pump operator per vehicle (2 vehicles minimum required).3.1.3. Two firefighters are required per hand line and two hand lines are required.3.1.4. One support fire fighter minimum is required for hydrant hookup and to assist inline lays, utility control, forcible entry, water, vitals, triage or other duties as assigned.This position can be multi task.3.1.5. Two firefighters minimum are required for a victim search and rescue team.3.1.6. Two firefighters minimum are required for a ventilation team. This position can bemulti task.3.1.7. One firefighter shall function as an aerial operator if a ladder truck is provided.3.1.8. Two firefighters minimum for Incident Rapid Intervention Crew (IRIC). Thisposition can be multi task.3.1.9. One firefighter assigned as a Safety officer.3.1.10. One firefighter assigned as an Accountability officer.3.2. Vehicle Requirements. The core vehicle set includes a minimum of two structuralfire-fighting vehicles for an installation. These structural fire-fighting vehicles can beany combination of engine or ladder companies. In addition a rescue vehicle is required.3.2.1. According to AS 019, MIL-HDBK-1008C provides procedures to determine thefire flow demand and duration for non-sprinkled facilities. If the computed fire flowexceeds the capacity of assigned structural fire fighting vehicles, additional capacity willneed to be satisfied thru procurement of different or additional vehicles.4.0 Certification, Education, and Training. According to AFI 32-2001, para 3.2 allcontractor-operated fire department members will be certified by the DoD Fire andEmergency Services Certification Program in accordance with DoDI 6055.6-M, AFMAN32-2003, AFI 32-4002, Hazardous Material Emergency Planning and ResponseCompliance, and the CerTest Computer-Based Testing Procedural Guide. Civilianemployees must be certified at the next higher level to be eligible for promotion to thatAttachment 4

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;August 19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson AirForce Base, OH 45433level. Minimum proficiency training requirements are listed in AFI 32-200 I. attachment2.5.0 Summary. To bring AFP 44 in compliance with AFI 32-2001, staffing will need tobe increased to meet minimum requirements mentioned above (para 3.1) along withproper DoD certification and training. Vehicle equipment needs to be evaluated to ensurethey meet sufficient fire flow demand.5.1 Reference attached AFMC Compliance checklist for other responses that requirecorrective actions.6.0 Any questions concerning the above report may be directed to ASC, DET liSE, Mr.Bill Kapella, (661) 272-6719.BILL KAPELLAASC Det I, Fire MarshalAttachments:Atch I AFMC Inspection Guidance Checklist with findingsAtch 2 Fire Exercise EvaluationAttachment 4

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August] 9,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433AIR FORCE MATERIEL COMMANDINSPECTION GUIDANCE CHECKLIST(15 September 2004 Edition)FIRE PROTECTIONAir Force Plant 44, Tucson, AZ5 - 7 April 2005This guidance implements AFPD 90-2, Inspector General - The Inspection System, and AFI 90­201, Inspector General Activities. It is designed to assist in your preparation for the CommandUCI and is not intended as the sole source of inspection material but should be used inconjunction with the applicable governing directives: All 000 Directives, NFPA Standards,AFOSHSTDs, 32 Series AFPDs, AFHs, AFIs, AFlls, AFlMANs, AFMANs, AFPAMs,AFlPAMs and AFVAs; and MAlCOM supplements (see core paragraphs for specificreferences).Functional Area: Admin (Rome Arengo)Ref: AFPD 32·20, 2.3Item # 001 Has the Fire Chief ensured operations comply with all applicable national, state, local, and DoD regulationsas well as NFPA standards?No - Raytheon does not have proper certifications. (action item)Ref: AFI32-2001, 1.7.1 -1.7.3Item # 002 Has HQ USAFIILE approved permanent deviations, AFMC/CE approved long-term deviations (more than 18months), and the installation commander approved short·term deviations (less than 18 months) when NFPA standards are not met?N/A. No deviations to standards are in place since Raytheon believes they are meeting standards.Ref:AFI32-2001,17.3Item # 003 Have Operational Risk Management (ORM) plans been developed for Air Force, NFPA, and OSHAdeficiencies and deviations? Has the installation commander approved the plans and forwarded copies to AFMC/CE/SE?ATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to 000 components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this'document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433No - since they believe they are/were meeting standards, no ORM plans have not been developed.Ref: AFI 32-2001. 2.3Item # 004 Has the Fire Chief developed and implemented management plans for the following areas:a. Fire risk management plans and operational policies when resources and staffing levels fall below AirForce standards?Yes - Raytheon has Standard Operating Procedures that establish staffing requirements and providesguidance in event a backfill is required.b. ORM plans when the fire department fails to comply with DoD and Air Force instructions. OSHAregulations, and NFPA standards?No - There are no ORM plans in place.c. Firefighter occupational and health program?Yes - There is an occupational and health program in effect.d. Procedures to ensure environmental pOllution control during all fire protection activities?No - It was not readily evident that procedures are in place to ensure there is environmental pollution control.e. Hazardous materials emergency response?Yes - There is a plan in place to handle hazardous materials response.f. Responses to incidents occurring in rough and difficult to reach terrain and off-installation AirfieldCompatibility Use Zone (AICUZ) areas.N/A. This is not applicable since Raytheon does not have any ARFF responsibilities.g. Selective response procedures to reduce the number of aircraft rescue and fire fighting vehiclesresponding to an emergency when appropriate?N/A. This is not applicable since Raytheon does not have any ARFF responsibilities.h. Confined space rescue?Yes - There is a confined space rescue plan in place.Yes but limited.Emergency medical response?j. Off-installation responses?Yes - The off installation response is limited to mutual aid agreements.Ref: AFI 32-2001, 3.1.2ATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Item # 005 Are sufficient number and type of vehicles available to meet mission requirements?Raytheon has one 1250 gpm engine and one 750 gpm engine. They also have one rescue vehicle. A fuelloading analysis needs to be made of Raytheon's most hazardous non sprinkled facility to determine fire flowrequirements. This will determine if the current pumpers can meet the fire flow demand. (action item)Ref: AFI 32·2001, 3.1.2.1Item # 006 Are sufficient personnel on duty to properly staff vehicles?No. There are 5-8 fire fighters on duty. Required per DoD! 6055 is 4 fire fighters per truck per shift andthey'll need two trucks for first response. A rescue vehicle also has to be staffed with three fire fighters.Including the incident commander, this translate to 12 fire fighters per shift. (action item)Ref: AFI 32-2001, 3.1.2Item # 007 How do the Fire Chief and Base Civil Engineer inform the installation commander of fire departmentcapabilities?Within Raytheon's management structure, the telephone is the most common means of communicating firedepartment capabilities.Ref: AFI 32-2001, 3.1.2Item # 008 Has the Fire Chief established standard operating procedures on incident response priorities for approval bythe installation commander?No - Raytheon's management structure does not require a SOP (action item).Ref: AFI 32-2001, 3.12.3Item # 009 Do firefighters perform additional duties outside the fire department compromising mission support and AirForce acceptable levels of risk for safe fire fighting as determined by the Fire Chief?No - The fire fighters do not perform additional duties outside the fire department mission.Ref: AFI 32-2001, 3.16 & Atch 3Item # 010 Are emergency responses reported lAW the automated Fire Incident Reporting System?No - Raytheon does not use FIRS or any other type of automated reporting system. (action item to establishprocedures)Ref: AFI 32-2001, 3.1.7 & Atch 4 and 6ATeH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Item # 011 Are Mutual Aid Agreements approved and managed lAW 32-2001?Yes - Mutual aid agreements are in effect with the Air National Guard and the Tucson International Airport.However, the agreements are old and are being updated. They are currently in draft form. These should beupdated signed as soon as possible.Ref: AFt 32-2001, 3.1.7.1Item # 012 Has the Fire Chief coordinated with local agencies to familiarize them with the incident command systemused by each and to determine the level at which these agencies comply with NFPA.Yes. In addition mutual drills are conducted annually.Ref: AFI 32-2001,3.1.7Item # 013 Does the installation commander approve mutual aid arrangements and emergency responses to localcommunities that are not covered by mutual aid agreements?No - Raytheon management approves emergency responses that are not covered by mutual aid agreements.Ref: AFt 32-2001,3.1.7.2Item # 014 Are annual off-base surveys of the surrounding area conducted to fully understand potentialhazards/obstacles involved with mutual aid responses?Yes - Off base surveys of the surrounding areas are conducted annually.Ref: AFI 32-2001, 3.1.7.2Item # 015 Has the Fire Chief obtained copies of the local department's plans for high hazard areas where mutual aidmay be requested?NO. Raytheon is aware of the hazard areas BUT there are no copies of the local department's plans for highhazard areas.(action item)Ref: AFI 32-2001, 33.4Item # 016 Have the installation and MCF commanders approved initial medical response and initial patient stabilizationperformed by fire protection personnel?Yes - Raytheon management approved initial medical and initial patient stabilization performed by fireprotection personnel.ATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: AFI 32·2001, 3.3.4Item # 017 Has the MCF commander approved emergency medical care protocols used by the fire department?Yes - Raytheon management has approved the use of the southern Arizona EMS protocols through one of thelocal hospitals.Ref:AFMAN 24-309, 2.1.7Item # 018 Has the commander appointed a CEF member as a Vehicle Control Officer or alternate in writing?Yes - Raytheon's motor pool manager serves as the vehicle control officer.Ref: AFI 32-2001. 3.3.1[tern # 019 Is an incident management system in use and compliant with NFPA 1561 and the National Fire AcademyIncident Command System as modified by AFMAN 32-4004?Yes - An incident management system is in use and compliant with NFPA 1561 and the national FireAcademy Incident Command System.Ref:AFI 32-2001. 3.3.7[tern # 020 Can the fire department meet aircraft emergency response requirements?N/A - Tucson Airport and Air National Guard are equipped and trainined to respond to acft incidents.Raytheon provides limited mutual aid backup but is not required, trained or equipped to fight acft fires.Ref:0001 6055.6. E2.5Item # 021 Can the fire department meet the facility response requirements?Yes - The most remote facility is Building 870, which the fire department can respond to in 5 minutes.Ref:NFPA1521,6-1.2Item # 022 Is there an SOP that defines the criteria for the response or appointment of an incident safety officer?Yes - Raytheon has a SOP that outlines the requirements of the incident safety officer.Ref:On-line tech order libraryATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OR 45433Item # 023 Are there tech orders available for all assigned type vehicles? Do they have the most current changes?No - Not able to confirm. Raytheon needs to verify they have the latest manufacturer's technical data fortheir vehicles. (action item)Ref:TO 36-1-3Item # 024 Are the vehicles properly numbered?Not verified. (action item)Functional Area: FACC (Rome Arengo)Ref:00016055.6, E2.5.14.5Item # 025 Is the FACC staffed with qualified personnel and equipped to provide 24-hour emergency services androutine communications services?No - Properly staffed but not certified. The FACC is equipped to provide 24 hour emergency services androutine communication services. Training for the most part is OJT. There is annual 8 hour training (non­certified) given by an outside vendor (Power Phone Inc). (action item to certify training)Ref:00016055.6, E2.5.14.5Item # 026 Do all dispatchers have proper training/certifications for their assigned duties?No. There is no certification program. Training is provided annually by an outside vendor (Power PhoneInc). Otherwise training is by OJT. At the time of this visit there were 4-6 operators who have not beentrained by Power Phone. Raytheon will need to obtain the necessary training to obtain the DoD certification.(action item)Ref: NFPA 1221, 4-2.4Item # 027 Has the fire chief certified all personnel who work in the FACC?No.Ref: NFPA 1201,18-4.1Item # 028 Does the FACC maintain an accurate listing of fire alarm, suppression and detection systems. and hydrantsATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433out-of-service?NO. The FACC does not maintain a listing of fire system outages BUT they primarily rely on the statusprovided by the control panel.Ref:AFMAN 32-4004,1-4Item # 029 Is the grid map current and used by all agencies on base? Is the correct overlay equipment available?Yes - The grid map is current and updated yearly.Ref: AFMAN 91-201, 2.18.2Item # 030 Does the FACC have a map or computer generated display that identifies facilities with munitions in themand their fire and hazard symbols posted? Does it depict primary and secondary munitions movement routes?No. Maps would help potential mutual aid responders. (action item)Ref: NFPA 1221. 4-6Item # 031 Are all radio and telephone transmissions recorded?YesRef:000 5200.1-RItem # 032 Are classified materials kept in the FACC? Is it properly secured?Classified materiel is not kept in FACe.Ref: NFPA 1221, 4.7.1.2.Item # 033 Is the FACC capable to provide continuous operations long enough to transfer of operations to an alternatecommunications center that is capable of providing a continuous operation?YES the FACC has a generator to provide the back up power long enough to transfer to an alternatecommunication center.ATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shaIl be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref:NFPA 1201,16-2.2Item # 034 Is the FACC capable of receiving communications from the hearing impaired?NoRef:AFI 32-2001, 3.3.12Item # 035 Are all fire stations equipped with automatic start/transfer emergency generator back-up power?YesFunctional Area: Fire Prevention(Dave Dickson)Ref: AFI 32-2001, 3.4Item # 036 Are the AF Form 218's up-to-date?NO this AF Form 218 (which describes various fire protection/prevention systems within a facility) is notused BUT the Fire Inspectors use a similar Raytheon form which is sorted differently. It would seem thatthe Raytheon form could be altered or converted for meet AF Form setup/sort. (action item)Ref: AFMAN 91-201, 2.25Item # 037 Do facilities requiring Fire Symbols or other placarding have them applied correctly?Yes - Some areas do. They are currently working toward standardizing placarding.Ref:AFI32-2001,3.4.2Item # 038 Are fire prevention assessments of facilities conducted at required frequencies?Yes. They have a good routine program where fire fighters PM the equipment and become familiar with thefacilities. The Fire Inspectors check facilities for Life Safety Code issues and compliance with other NFPAcodes.ATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: AFI 32-2001 para 3.4.4Item # 039 Are deficiencies appropriately identified on AF Form 14871NO the AF Form 1487 (which annotates fire deficiencies found during routine inspections) is not used BUTthe Fire Inspectors use PDA's with similar stored information on past deficiencies and can enter newdeficiencies that can be downloaded to a computer. It would seem that Raytheon could alter or convert infointo AF Form setup/sort. (action item)Ref: AFI 32-2001, 3.7Item # 040 Does the Fire Chief provide consultation and design recommendations for projects regarding fire fightingoperational requirements?Yes designs are reviewed regarding operations and NFPA requirements but not by the Fire Chief. The FireInspectors review and provide comments on designs and the design is further reviewed by the Assistant FireChief who consolidates his comments with the Fire Inspector comments. This is acceptable.Ref: AFOSH 91-501, 6.2.1 (updated 15 Sep 04)Item # 041 Do managers of assembly facilities maintain a certification system to ensure employees have been trainedand understand their fire prevention and protection responsibilities?NO certification system is used in assembly buildings.Ref: AFOSH 91-501, 6.2.1 (updated 15 Sep 04)Item # 042 Does the certification system includes documented training of employees?Yes. Raytheon's Chris Kelly is the certs and training POc.Ref: NFPA 96, Para. 10.1.1Item # 043 Are automatic fire suppression systems provided to protect cooking equipment, ducts, and grease removingdevices?Yes and they are trip tested 2 times per year.Ref: NFPA 96, Para. 6.2.1.4Item # 044 Are grease filters installed in all grease hoods? Are spare filters available for systems that operatecontinuously?YES grease filters are installed in all grease hoods.NO spare filters are readily available. Recommend Raytheon keep spare filters on hand. (action item)ATeH)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: NFPA 96, Para. 11.1.2. and 11.16Item # 045 Do users stop cooking when all required filters are not installed?Yes. Inspections are done weekly to verify. lfunit is not available, other food is prepared that does notrequire hood use.Ref: NFPA 96, Para. 11.4.2Item # 046 Are all installed grease filters and exposed surfaces of hoods thoroughly cleaned as needed to preventgrease bUildup?Yes. They are serviced monthly by an outside contractor which is suftient.Ref: NFPA 96, Para. 11.2.1 and t 1.4.1Item # 047 Are hood and ducts cleaned at least every six months, or more frequently when required by the fireprevention authority?Yes. They are serviced monthly by an outside contractor which is sufficient.Ref: NFPA 96, Para. 11.1.1 and 11.1.6Item # 048 Do exhaust fans operate continuously during cooking operations?YesRef: NFPA 96, Para. 4.1.9Item # 049 Are portable or temporary cooking equipment that uses grease or oil located beneath an installed fireextinguishing system?N/A. There is no portable or temp cooking equipment that use grease or oil.Ref: NFPA 96, Para. 12.2Item # 050 Are deep fat fryers equipped with thermostats as required by NFPA 96?Not verified and Fire Inspectors didn't know. This would have to be verified by the shop that administers themaintenance contract. (action item)ATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: NFPA 10, Para. 6.3Item # 051 Are fire extinguishers maintained lAW NFPA 10 and applicable T.Os? Are Records maintained?YesRef: NFPA 10, Para. 4.1 and 4.2Item # 052 Are fire extinguishers appropriate for the hazard classification?YesRef:NFPA 10, 7.1.1 and 7.2.Item # 053 Are all extinguishers within their hydrostatic date?YesRef:NFPA 10,6.2.1Item # 054 Do facility managers conduct a monthly extinguisher inspection and annotate a tag or label attached to each?Yes - Fire Fighters do this function.Ref:TO 13F4-4-121Item # 055 Are flighlline fire extinguishers receiving 6-year break-down inspection?Yes per maintenance records review.Ref: AFI91-301, Atch 8Item # 056 Is the FSD correction program managed lAW AF directives? Is the RAC program properly managed?No they do not use AF Fire/Safety Deficiency (FSD) and Risk Assessment Code (RAC) systems but they havetheir own system that is acceptable. We recommend Raytheon review the AF system and adopt bestpractices. (action item)ATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: AFI 32-2001, 3.3.2Item # 057 Have pre-incident plans been developed for high fire risk facilities, high life risk facilities, andassigned/transient aircraft?Yes - These plans are updated by fire fighters quarterly.Functional Area: Logistics(Dave Dickson)Ref: AFt 32-2001, 3.3.10Item # 058 Are Force Activity Designators for fire protection vehicles and equipment equal to the mission beingsupported?N/A. This is a confusing question and there is no reference para 3.3.10 found in the Apr 1999 version of AFI32·2001. AFMC is aware and new version due out shortly (6 - 9 months away).Ref:AFt 32-2001, 3.1.3Item # 059 Are adequate levels of support and reserve equipment maintained?Not Verified. (Action Item)Ref: AFI 32-2001, 3.3.11Item # 060 Is a reserve quantity of AFFF and dry chemical agent equal to the total capacity of assigned vehiclesmaintained at the fire station? N/A. AFFF is used for acft fires which they are not required to fight.Ref:AFI 32-2001, 3.3.11Item # 061 Is a secondary reserve of AFFF and dry chemical agent equal to the total capacity of assigned vehiclesmaintained?N/A AFFF is used for acft fires which they are not required to fight.Ref: NFPA 1971-1976Item # 062 Does protective clothing meet the applicable standards of NFPA?YesATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref:AF123-111Item # 063 Is supply discipline practiced and is an equipment accountability program in place?Yes - contact Raytheon POC Ed MillerRef:AF164-117Item # 064 Is the IMPAC program managed lAW AF directives?YES - Ed Miller is the poe for Raytheon's credit card purchases. The intent of use is similar AF directivesbut they follow Raytheon rules which is acceptable.Functional Area: Operations(Bill Kapella)Ref: NFPA 1500 TIG, para. 4.6.5Item # 065 Are vehicle and equipment inspection, maintenance and service records maintained in the ACES FDdatabase?NO· The ACES FD in not implemented. BUT Raytheon has a data base kept at maintenance and anInstruction 301 that meets the intention.Ref:AFI32-2001,33.12Item # 066 Are a minimum of two radio frequencies for communications provided? Is one frequency limited to firedepartment access only?YesRef: NFPA 1500, 7.14.3Item # 067 Is life safety rope immediately removed from service after it has been damaged or subjected to impact orchemicals?YesRef: NFPA 1500, 714.6Item # 068 Are records maintained to document the use of life safety ropes used at fires, emergencies, and exercises?Not verified but they should have a written Instruction. (action item)ATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: AFI 32-2001,3.1.3Item # 069 Are inspections and tests of equipment (not maintained on vehicles) recorded on AF Form 1071 orautomated products?NO an AF Form 1071 in not being used, BUT an equivalent Raytheon form is being used. However, the hosetest is out of date and the records for ladders and other equipment was not checked. (action item)Ref:AFI32-2001,3.3.10Item # 070 Are all fire pump tests, maintenance, and certifications recorded on AF Form 1078 or automated product?NO an AF Form 1078 in not being used, BUT an equivalent form is being used and it is incomplete. (actionitem)Ref: AFt 32-2001, 3.3.3Item # 071 Has a dedicated rescue team(s) been established for each shift? Do members meet DoD and AFqualification standards?Yes - A rescue team has been established and has received formal classes for the local fire academy and nowworking on training a train-the-trainer.No - they do not meet DoD and AF qualification standard. They do not have graduates of or scheduled toattend the AETC or USAFE Fire Fighter Rescue Course. (action item)Ref:AFI32-2001,3.36Item # 072 Does the SFO ensure the safety of firefighters during fire department operations?Yes. Covered in Instruction 306.Ref: NFPA 1500,8.1.2Item # 073 Are written operating procedures in place to establish an incident management system that meet NFPA1561?Yes. Covered in Instruction 302.ATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: NFPA 1521,6-1.3Item # 074 Is the safely officer easily identifiable at emergency and exercise locations?No.Ref: AFI 32-2001, 3.3.9Item # 075 Does the SFO dispatch an AF firefighter to serve as the safety officer for AF portions of operations for offbaseresponses?NO. This was not demonstrated and an Instruction is not developed. BllT according to Raytheon, themutual aid departments provide a Safety Officer. (action item)Ref:NFPA1521,6-1.1Item # 076 Is the safety officer integrated with the incident management system?Yes. Covered in Instruction 302.Ref: NFPA 1521, 6-2.6Item # 077 Does the safety officer ensure safety/hazard zones are communicated to all members present at emergencyand exercise scenes?No - This was not well demonstrated during an exercise conducted by the AF. See Facility Review report.Ref: NFPA 1521, 6-5.4Item # 078 For hazardous materials responses, does the safety officer ensure that a safety briefing, including an incidentaction plan and safety plan, is developed and made available to all membersNo - This was not demonstrated and was not covered in an Instruction.Ref: NFPA 1521,4-5.5Item # 079 Does the safety officer ensure the hot. warm, and decontamination zones are clearly marked?No - This was not demonstrated and was not covered in an Instruction. However, all firefighters are StateHazMat Tech LevelATCH 1

•FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OR 45433Ref: NFPA 1500, 8.7.2Item # 080 Has the fire dept established written procedures for actions that involve violence, unrest, or civil disturbanceetc?Not verified but they should have a written Instruction. (action item)Ref: NFPA 1500.8.7.4Item # 081 Has a communication method been developed that would indicate a crew is faced with a life or deathsituation requiring immediate law enforcement intervention?No. (action item)Ref: AFI 32-2001, 3.3.11Item # 082 Are procedures in place for the immediate transportation of AFFF for emergency operations?N/A. Not required as Raytheon does not have flying activities. They do have rapid re-supply of class A foamfor structural fire fighting.Ref: AFI 24-302. 2.16Item # 083 Are inspection forms properly maintained?Not verified but they should have a written Instruction. (action item)Ref: NFPA 1500, 6.5.7Item # 084 Are vehicle inventory sheets available and accurate?Yes.Ref: AFI 24-302. 2.16.3Item # 085 Are vehicle safety discrepancies promptly reported to vehicle maintenance?Yes.ATeH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref:AFI24-302,2.14Item # 086 Does vehicle maintenance provide timely support for fire fighting vehicles?No. A priority system has not been established to ensure timely response to expedite repair of emergencyvehicles. (action item)Ref:AFMAN 32-4004,1-4Item # 087 Do all vehicles have current grid maps and correct overlay? Are crews proficient in their use?No.Ref:NFPA 1500, 6.5.8 ; AFI 24-302, 1.1312.8.1Item # 088 Are equipment and tools cleaned, inspected, tested, and kept in good operation condition and appearance?Yes.Ref:NFPA 1500, 6.5.9Item # 089 Is any toollequipment deemed unsafe removed from the vehicle and tagged for repair?Yes.Ref:Applicable Vehicle Tech OrderItem # 090 Are tires gauged correctlyYes.Ref:Applicable Vehicle Tech OrderItem # 091 Are agent cylinder and expellanttanks within hydrostatic test dates?N/ARef:NFPA 1581,6-49Item # 092 Are SCBA masks cleaned for use by fire fighters?Yes - Each Firefighter has his/her own mask.ATCHI

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: NFPA 1521. 5.2.3.Item # 093 Are written procedures in place for the response and appointment of a safety officer during emergencies andtraining?YesRef: NFPA 1500. 4.1.2Item # 094 Are written policies in place to document the organization structure, membership, roles and responsibilities,expected functions, and training requirements? Do they include the following:ATypes of standard evolutions that are expected to be performed?b. The minimum number of members necessary to perform functions or evolutions and themanner in which they will be performed?c. The number and types of apparatus and the number of personnel that will be dispatched to incidents?d. The procedures that will be employed to initiate and manage operations at emergencies?No to all. Raytheon should incorporate the above items into their management plans if they have not beenincluded. (action item)Ref: NFPA 1500, 4.3.1Item # 095 Are all fire department policies and procedures incorporated into risk management plans? Do the plansinclude goals and objectives?No.ATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref:NFPA 1500, 4.2.2Item # 096 Do the risk management plans cover the following areas:a. Administrationb. Facilitiesc. Trainingd. Vehicle operations (80th emergency and non-emergency)e. PPEf. Operations at emergency scenesg. Operations at non-emergency scenesh. Infection controli. Other - munitionsNo to all. Raytheon should ensure the risk management plans include the above items.(action item)Ref: NFPA 1500, 43.1Item # 097 Is there an official written policy that identifies specific goals and objectives for the prevention and eliminationof accidents and occupational injuries, exposures to communicable diseases, illnesses, and fatalities?Yes.Ref: NFPA 1500, 47.1Item # 098 Has the Fire Chief appointed a fire department health and safety officer?Yes.Ref:NFPA 1500, 4.7.1.1Item # 099 Does the health and safety officer comply with NFPA 1021 and 1521?YesATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: NFPA 1500. 4.5.1Item # 100 Has a safety and health committee been established?YesRef: NFPA 1500, 4.5.3.1/4.5.3.2Item # 101 Does the committee hold regular meetings at least every six months and provide written minutes of eachmeeting?Yes - meets weekly but minutes not verified. (action item)Ref: NFPA 1500. 6.2.7.Item # 102 Are written procedures in place for safely driving vehicles during emergency and non-emergency operations?Do they include specific criteria for the following:a. Vehicle speedb. Crossing intersectionsc. Traversing railroad grade crossingsYes to all.e. Use of warning devicesATCHI

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: NFPA 1500, 6.2.8Item # 103 When responding to emergencies, do drivers bring vehicles to a complete stop:a. When directed by law enforcement personnel?b. At red traffic lights?c. At stop signs?d. At negative right of way and blind intersections?e. When the driver can't account for all lanes of traffic at an intersection?f. When other intersection hazards are present?Yes to all.g. When a school bus with warning lights flashing is encountered?Ref:NFPA 1500, 6.4.4Item # 104 Is a list of major defects in place to be utilized to evaluate when a vehicle shall be declared unsafe?No. Raytheon should develop a list of major defects so that they can better determine if a vehicle should bedeclared unsafe. (action item)Ref:NFPA 1500, 7.1.3Item # 105 Is structural gear cleaned at least every six months as specified in NFPA 1851?No. (action item)Ref: NFPA 1500,7.1.7 and 1581, 2-1.3Item # 106 Are procedures in place to clean protective clothing and station work uniforms?No for regular cleaning of protective clothing and yes for work uniforms - personnel get a clothing allowanceand are responsible for cleaning their own uniforms which is acceptable.Ref:NFPA 1500, 7.8.2.Itern # 107 Has the Fire department established written procedures for the safe use of respiratory protection inhazardous atmospheres?No. There are procedures but they are not documented. (action item)ATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: NFPA 1500, 7.9.3Item # 108 Is breathing air tested quarterly and does it meet the required standards?Yes.Ref: NFPA 1500, 7.16.2Item # 109 Do firefighters use hearing protection when exposed to hazardous noise (over 90db)?Yes.Ref: NFPA 1500, 7.16.3Item # 110 Are members engaged in a hearing conservation program?Partially - they receive annual audiograms and are currently being enrolled into the hearing conservationprogramRef: NFPA 1500, 8.3.1Item # 111 Have written procedures been established for a personnel accounlability system lAW NFPA 1561?Written procedures are in place but was not demonstrated well during the exercise.Ref: NFPA 1500, 9.1.2, NFPA 1581 ch 3Item # 112 Does the fire station have an area for disinfecting, cleaning, and storage lAW NFPA 1581?NO BUT All contaminated items are properly collected and disposed of instead of cleaning them which isacceptable.Ref: NFPA 1500, 9.1.4Item # 113 Are sleeping and living areas equipped with smoke and carbon monoxide detectors?Yes - They are being installed as part of the fire station alarm upgrade project.Ref: NFPA 1500, 9.2.119.2.2Item # 114 Is the station inspected annually and documented for compliance with NFPA 1500?No.ATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref:NFPA 1500, 9.2.3Item # 115 Is the station inspected monthly to identify safety and health hazards/deficiencies?Yes.Ref: NFPA 1521, 5.6.4Item # 116 Are records maintained of all recommendations made and actions taken to correct hazards/deficiencies orunsafe practices?Yes.Ref: NFPA 1521,5.6.5Item # 117 Are records maintained of all measures taken to implement safety and health procedures and accidentprevention methods?Yes.Ref: NFPA 1500,10.1.3Item # 118 Do fire fighters meet medical requirements lAW NFPA 1582 prior to being certified for duty by the firedepartment physician?YesRef: NFPA 1500, 10.2.4Item # 119 Have firefighters been evaluated and certified as meeting the physical performance requirements of NFPA1583.YesRef: NFPA 1521, 5.6.6Item # 120 Does the safety officer issue a report to the Fire Chief annually on all fire department accidents, injuries,No.illnesses, deaths, and exposures?ATCHI

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref:NFPA1521, 5.7.1Item # 121 Does the safety officer review specifications of new equipment for compliance with safety standards?Yes.Ref:NFPA 1500,12.1.2/3; NFPA 1521, 5.13.1Item # 122 Does the fire department have a written policy that establishes a Critical Incident Stress Program Criteria toimplement the program?Yes.Ref:NFPA 1521, 5.14.1Item # 123 Are health and safety issues addressed during post-incident analysis?Yes.Ref:NFPA 1521,5.14.2Item # 124 Does the safety officer provide written reports about incidents related to safety and health issues?Yes.Ref:NFPA1581,2-11Item # 125 Is a written infection control policy in place with the goal of identifying and limiting exposure to members?Yes.Ref:NFPA1581,2-1.2Item # 126 Has the department developed an infection control program?No. (action item)Ref: NFPA 1581,2-2.3 and 2-2.2Item # 127 Does the risk management plan for infection control address facilities, medical operations, cleaning anddisinfecting PPE?NO BUT - All contaminated items are properly disposed of properly and replaced.ATCHI

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: NFPA 1581, 2-4.1Item # 128 Has the Fire Chief designated an infection control officer?No.Ref: NFPA 1581, 2-4.3Item # 129 Does the infection control officer take appropriate actions when notified of an exposure to include notification,verification, treatment, and medical follow-up of members?No. (action item)Ref: NFPA 1500, 7.1.72Item # 130Does the fire department provide at least one washing machine to clean contaminated protective clothing asspecified in NFPA 1581?No BUT All contaminated items are properly disposed of properly and replaced which is acceptable.Ref: NFPA 1581,2-5.1 and 2-5.2.Item # 131 Have all firefighters received vaccination for hepatitis-B? Are declination statements available for individualsthat declined vaccination?Yes to both.Ref: NFPA 1581, 2-5.3Item # 132 Have all firefighters received screening for tuberculosis at least annually?Yes.Ref: NFPA 1581, 2-5.6Item # 133 Is a confidential health database maintained for each member as specified in NFPA 1582?Yes.Ref: NFPA 1581, 2-6.2Item # 134 Is a procedure in place for members to immediately report an exposure incident?YesATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref:NFPA 1581, 2-6.4Item # 135 Are all exposure incidents recorded in writing?Yes.Ref: NFPA 1500, 4.18.1Item # 136Does the fire department's infection control program meet the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1030 and NFPA1581?No. (action item)Ref: NFPA 1581, 2-6.7Item # 137 VVhen firefighters are exposed to hazardous conditions, are exposure incident data added to the members'health data base as specified in NFPA 1500, Chapter 10?Yes.Ref: AFI 32-2001, 3.2.2[tern # 138Are all firefighters participating in the approved fitness/wellness program?NO - Not IAW AFI 32-2001, BUT an intense fitness/wellness program is implemented for Raytheonfirefighters. (action item)Ref:NFPA 1581, 3-2.1Item # 139 Are food preparation surfaces made of non-porous materials?Yes.Ref: NFPA 1581,3-2.2Item # 140 Is a drip-dry system in place for drying cleaned food preparation utensils? Does the system empty directlyinto a sanitary sewer or septic system?Yes.Ref:NFPA 1581,3-2.3Item # 141 Is the kitchen equipped with two sinks and a sprayer?No.ATCH I

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: NFPA 1581, 3-2.5Item # 142 Is food that was removed from original manufactured packaging kept in tightly sealed containers or wrappedin plastic food wrap?No.Ref:NFPA 1581, 3-3.1Item # 143 Is a minimum of 60 sq ft provided per bed space?No. They get 57 sq ft each. We have recommended a refurbished or new station before and this spaceshould be increased during the next major fire station upgrade. (action item)Ref:NFPA 1581, 3-3.2Item # 144 Are sleeping areas properly ventilated?YesRef: NFPA 1581, 3-4.2Item # 145 Are latrine rooms posted with signs to remind members to wash their hands?Yes on all doorsRef: NFPA 1581, 3-6.1Item # 146 Are medical supplies that are not stored on vehicles kept in a dedicated, enclosed area that is secured andlabeledYesRef: NFPA 1581,5-2.4Item # 147 Is PPE that is used for emergency medical care, including masks. eyewear, gloves. and fluid resistantclothing kept on vehicles that are used to provide emergency medical operations?YesRef: NFPA 1581. 6-31Item # 148 Is PPE used when cleaning and disinfecting clothing and equipment?YesATCHI

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: NFPA 1500, 7.11.1Item # 149 Are personnel qualified to wear SCBA's verified by a qualilative fittest prior to initial use, annually thereafter,and when new types of SCBA or face pieces are issued?YesRef: NFPA 1500, 7.13.2, 7.13.3 and NFPA 1521,3-6.3Item # 150 Are PASS devices provided to all firefighters and tested at least weekly and prior to each use?YesRef:NFPA 1500, 8.2.5Item # 151 Does the SFO designate a safety officer at emergencies and exercises?YesFunctional Area: Training(Bill Kapella)Ref: NFPA 1500, TIG, para. 5.3.4Item # 152 Does the fire department conduct an annual skills check for all assigned firefighters to verify minimumprofessional qualifications of its members?No but a program is in process. Raytheon has adopted an excellent county skill test modified fortheir use and is currently enrolling their people for training.Ref: NFPA 1500, TIG, para. 53.3Item # 153 Has the department developed, and does it maintain, a system to monitor and measure training progress andactivities of its members?Yes. Raytheon has an in-house doctor used as a fitness trainer and evaluator. They haveequipment and tracking system. The program is in the FD CBA and is required I-hour/week and3-hours/week for 8-hour shift personnel.Ref: NFPA 1500 TIG, para. 4.6.4 and AFI 32-2001, para. 32Item # 154 Are training records tracked and maintained in the ACES FD database?NO BUT training records are tracked using their own data base program. (action item)ATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref:NFPA 1500, 8.8.1Item # 155 Has the Fire Chief established procedures for standardized post-incident analysis of significant events?Not verified. (action item)Ref:AFMAN 32-2003, Ch 1 and 0001 6055.6MItem # 156 Does the Assistant chief for training have the proper certifications for the position?No. (action item)Ref:AFI32-2001,3.2Item # 157 Is the Certification Program administered lAW 000 6055.6 and AFMAN 32-2003?No. (action item)Ref:AFI 32-2001,324Item # 158 Have senior fire officers attended the On-Scene Commanders course as specified in AFI-32-4002?No. (action item)Ref:CFETPItem # 159 Are active duty fire fighters completing ARFF, Pumper, and Mobile Water Supply certification courses within15 months to attain their 5-level? (ANG/AFRES personnel have 1 year to complete each certification)N/A This pertains to acft fire fighting which is not on contract.Ref:AFI 32-2001,3.2Item # 160 Are proficiency training requirements met lAW AFI 32-2001, Atch 2?No. (action item)Ref: noneItem # 161 Do all assigned flight personnel have the required certifications for their current duty assignment?No. Not DoD certified (action item)ATCHI

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: AFI 36-2201 (military mobility function)Item # 162 Is upgrade and qualification training conducted as specified in AFI 36-2201?Not ApplicableRef:AFI 36-2201 (military mobility function)Item # 163 Is AF Form 623, OJT Records, being maintained as specified in AFI 36-2201? Is the current CFETP beingused?Not ApplicableRef: NFPA 1041, AFI-32-2001, AFI 36-2201Item # 164 Does the Training Program include the following:a. A master training schedule?b. An adequate reference library to support upgrade and certification training?c. A classroom of suitable size equipped with training aids to promote learning?d. Lesson plans for all lessons taught?e. A measuring tool to determine the effectiveness of training?No.f. A feedback or student critique system?Ref: AFI 32-2001. 3.2.1Item # 165 Does an aircraft live fire training area exist? Is it operated lAW 1.0. 35E1-2-13-1? Are inspections conductedat the required intervals and documented?Not ApplicableRef: AFI 32-2001 Atch 2Item # 166 Have all firefighters completed the required Aircraft Live Fire Training program at least twice during the past12 months?Not ApplicableATCHI

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: AF132-2001, 3.2.1Item # 167 Is the structural live fire training facility of adequate size and design to support proficiency and certificationtraining?No, however, structural training is conducted at the local Public Safety Academy (PSA)Ref: AFOSH 91-25, 2.8.3Item # 168 Has the Fire Chief ensured firefighters on the Confined Space Program Team (CSPT) are trained forconfined space requirements?Yes.Ref:AFOSH 91-25, 2.8.3Item # 169 Has each member on the CSPT allended a formal confined space course?Yes.Ref: NFPA 1500, 5.4.112/3/4Item # 170 Does the fire department provide specific training to members likely to respond to situations involving specialoperations such as confined space rescue, hazmat etc?Yes.Ref: AFOSH 91-25, 5.5.1Item # 171 Have rescue team members received initial and annual hands on practice removing simulated victims fromactual or representative confined spaces?Yes.Ref: AFOSH 91-25, 5.7Item # 172 Has confined space training been documented and certified lAW AFOSH 91-25 on AF Form 55 or automatedproduct?Not ApplicableATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: NFPA 1500, 5.1.10Item # 173 Does the training program include procedures for the safe exit of members from dangerous areas andevents?Yes. Instruction #309.Ref:NFPA 1500, 5.2.13Item # 174 Are members trained on care, use, inspection, maintenance and limitations on PPE?Not verified. (action item)Ref:NFPA 1500, 5.1.11Item # 175 Are members trained in the incident management system?Yes, via training CD.Ref: AFI 32-2001 Atch 2Item # 176 Is hands-on egress training for all mission assigned aircraft being conducted as often as necessary tomaintain proficiency, but not less than twice a year?Not ApplicableRef:NFPA 1500, 5-4.3Item # 177 Are firefighters trained to the appropriate level for hazardous materials operations?Yes. All entry lever FF have to be trained to HazMat Operations Level.Ref:AFI 32-2001, Atch 2Item # 178 Is a FACC Operator Training program established?No. (action item)ATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Ref: AFI 32-2001 Atch 2Item # 179 Are all firefighters who are involved in fire ground operations certified to the first-aid first responder level andin CPR?Yes. All FF are at least EMTs.Ref:AFt 32-2001 Atch 2Item # 180 Have all firefighters accomplished bi-monthly classroom training sessions on structural firefighting tactics?No. They only train 4-time/year, not 6-time/year. (action item)Ref: NFPA 1521,4.2.1. - 4.2.6 and 4.4.1. - 4.4.6.Item # 181 Are members that may be assigned duties and responsibilities of a health and safety officer and/or anincident safety officer been trained to meet the minimum requirements of NFPA 1521?YES. Base line training is at National Fire Academy rather than in-house training. BUT there isno Instruction for this.Ref:NFPA 1500, 5.3.8Item # 182 Does the Respiration Protection Training Program meet the requirements of NFPA 1404?Not verified. (action item)Ref:NFPA 1500, 5.2.11Item # 183 Is all training conducted under the supervision of a qualified instructor?No. A list of qualified instructors not available. (action item)Ref: AFI 10-210, 3.6.2.1Item # 184 Have all military fire fighters received home station Category 1 and Category 2 initial and refresher training?Not ApplicableATCH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; August19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, 0" 45433Ref:AFI10-210,3.8Item # 185 Have fire fighters assigned to core positions on UTC's attended Silver Flag Category 3 training?Not ApplicableATeH 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;August 19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson AirForce Base, OH 45433AFP 44 ANNUAL FACILITIES REVIEW4 - 8 April 2005Fire Protection Operation1.0 The annual ASC/ENV Industrial Facilities Review of the Raytheon Missile Systems Company(RMSC), Air Force Plant 44, Tucson, Arizona, was conducted 4 - 8 Apr as. Mr Bill Kapella, ASC/ENVDet 1 Fire Marshal, on behalf of ASC/ENV, performed the review of the Fire Department Operations. Thepurpose of the review was to conduct an examination of the RMSC Fire Department operations foreffectiveness, performance, knowledge, and abilities. Due to the time constraints, it was not intended toperform a thorough examination; therefore, not all deficiencies that may exist within their operations couldbe identified.2.0 NFPA 1410 Fire Exercise: On 7 Apr OS, approximately 1000, a NFPA 1410 exercise was provided atbldg 866. The exercise was used as a timed response trial and to measure the initial attack capability of thefire department's first responding units and personnel for performance fA W NFPA 1410 Training/orInitial Fire Attack.2.1 The following observations were noted:2.1.1 The time response was met. The units arrived within the 5-minute maximum time requirementlA W Do016055.6, DoD Fire and Emergency Service Program. A second truck was notdispatched therefore; the time for a second response vehicle was not taken.2.1.2 The fire department failed to execute all requirements of evolution number I lAW NFPA 1410.The supply line from the fire hydrant was not the full length of300 feet. The attack line was notcharged in a timely manner from the truck's booster tank and was not provided adequate workingpressure. There was also a delay in supplying the backup line after being supplied from thehydrant. The second hand line was charged 4.75 minutes after the start of the exercise. The totalevolution was not completed within the 3-minute maximum time limits. (Action required)3.0. Structural Fire Exercise. On 6 Apr OS, approximately 1500, a structural fire and rescue exercise wasprovided at bldg. 810. The exercise was used to measure the initial attack capability of the firedepartment's first responding units and personnel for performance without the assistance of Mutual Aidsupport. The objective was to control and/or extinguish the fire and rescue victim in a timely matter. Thescenario was an explosion on an electrical panel occurred while two electricians were working in thebasement of bldg 810. Dispatch was notified that one worker remained in the basement as the otherescaped uninjured. The worker reported fire and smoke in the SE corner of the basement. A critiqued washeld upon termination ofthe exercise.3.1 The following observations were noted:3.1.1. Security was prompt in responding and setting up for traffic control before the fire department'sarrival. The quick response resulted in the control of pedestrian and vehicle traffic early in theevent. The coordinated response by the security, maintenance and fire was commendable.3.1.2. Although the security force was not provided an input card stating the condition of the scene,security should be aware ofwhat they observe upon their arrival and report situation to the firedepartment.3.1.3. The locked gate (Gate C) on the access road adjacent to the building was delayed in being opened.This delayed the initial attack resulting in the simulated death of the victim due to delaying rescueattempts. (Action required)ATCH2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;August 19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson AirForce Base, OH 454333.1.4. Mutual Aid. The Fire Officers were counting on several fire ground duties, operations and supportto be performed by outside fire companies during the early stages ofthe incident. The IC adjustedwell without them during the initial attack with their limited staffing. Once the mutual aid supportshowed at the gates, the security escort and coordination with the fire department IC was wellexecuted.3.] .5. Radio communication and the switch to the emergency frequency were well demonstrated.However, communication inside the building was degraded which jeopardizes the safety ofthefirefighters.3.1.6. Hose Advancement: The appropriate fire hydrant was used to supply the first Engine. However,the crews delayed the pulling ofthe pre-connect hose lines. When the crews attempted to pull thehose down to the basement the hose tangled and there were not enough firefighters (FFs) availableto assist. There was also a delay in charging the line. Once in the basement, the crews haddifficulties advancing the line due to the line was charged and tangled outside the building. Aftera short advance toward the simulated fire and victim, one FF ran short on air and had to withdraw.This action required both FFs to exit the building. Instead of laying the nozzle down they delayedtheir exit by attempting to remove the hose back to the exit instead of following the hose out.However, they did exit as a team instead of separating. In tum, by not laying the hose downdelayed the replacement crews in fire fighting efforts and rescue attempt. The second crew wasnot briefed by the first crew as to the process already accomplished. The crews also failed to takeappropriate equipment with them on the initial attack i.e., the thermal imaging device which wouldhave enhanced their probability of finding the fire and victim. (Action required)3.1.7. Incident Management System: The IC set up in an ideal location and had complete vision oftheoperations. Although a checklist was not used, the IC demonstrated total knowledge of hisresponsibilities and duties. His command and control abilities were well performed. Thesupporting personnel, i.e., security, maintenance, etc reported to the IC and all were gathered in asafe area away from danger. The communications between the operation commander and hand­line personnel were weak. The first crews to arrive fai led to report their observation of the sceneimmediately to dispatch and the IC after an input card was provided. The OpslC was over tasktrying to perform duties ofthe OpslC and Safety Officer. FFs were entering the basement withoutaccountability and reporting to or being directed by the OpsIC. As a result, the fire suppressionand rescue operation was being performed in an unsafe manner and the objectives ofsaving a lifeand extinguishing the fire was not met. Once it was determined the fire could not be extinguishand the victim could not be rescued, the IC immediately placed his crew in a defense mode which,unfortunately, was the proper call. Recommendation: Provide more FFs on the fire groundslAW NFPA ]710. (Action required)3.1.8. Immediate Danger to Life and Health (IDLH): The IDLH was not declared. This made it unclearas to where to set up the Accountability person and where FFs were required to be 'on-air' andwhere the Rapid Intervention Team (RIT) and Rehab area were to be formed. Recommendation:Conduct more exercises. Ensure all fire operations are lAW local standards and procedures andmeet all the National Standards as required. Procedures shall be in place to identify the IDLH areaIAW NFPA ]500 for all exercises and emergency responses involving fire and/or Hazmatincidents plus broadcasting as required. Ref: OSHA 191 0.134(g), NFPA ]500, par. 5-3,6-4.(Action required)3.1.9. Rehab: The rehab vehicle and equipment was set up as directed by the IC in a safe area awayfrom immediate danger. However, with limited staffing, it was not always manned. When FFswere directed to go the rehab. the EMT/paramedic was not equipped with necessarytools/equipment i.e., a watch with a sweep hand to take vitals, etc. By not having the requirednumber of FFs on scene, FFs are performing prolong duties without proper rehab.Recommendation: Follow the Raytheon medical department's recommendation as to whatequipment is necessary for the safe being of FF on scene to ensure proper rehab and care.3.1.10. Safety Officer: Department is not properly staff to assign a Safety Officer at an emergencyincident. The Safety Officer was not readily identified by a vest or the like. He did not ensure thatATCH2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;August 19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson AirForce Base, OH 45433the fire department's personnel accountability system was being utilized. A FF entered the firearea (IDLH zone) unaccompanied to deliver the thermal imaging device to the hand-line crew.Although there is a lack of FFs on the fire grounds the OpslC, Safety Officer, and theAccountability person should have disallowed the separations of fire crews. Also he did notensure that established safety zones, collapse zones, hot zone, and other designated hazard areasare communicated to all members present on scene and advise the incident commander of hazards,collapse potential, and any fire extension in such building(s). Also, the inside of the building wasnot checked for fire extension. The exercise was terminated before the fire was under control andbefore a primary and secondary search could be accomplished. Recommendation: The firedepartment shall have a Safety Office that meets the requirement ofNFPA 1521, Standard/orFire Department Safety Officer. Separate training subjects are required for the fire departmentSafety Offices. Also include procedures to perform 360-degree checks for fire extension. (Actionrequired)3.UI. Accountability: The accountability program did not work as planned. The accountability personis normally the last-chance person to check FFs for proper use of PPE. One FF entered thebuilding with a loose mask which ended in delay of fighting fire and rescuing victims. In addition,a Personnel Accountable Report (PAR) was not conducted routinely and after a firefighter comeout of the fire area due to the lack ofair. (Action required)3.1.12. Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE): The use of PPE including self-contained breathingapparatus (SCBA) and the enthusiasm expressed by the firefighters are commendable. However,not knowing where the IDLH area is located caused most of the firefighters to go on airprematurely. Also a buddy check could not be performed at the IDLH area to ensure a 'Iast­chance' check ofPPE. Recommendation: A 'buddy system' should be used by the firefightersto ensure PPE and other equipment is properly in placed and ready to use as designed prior tostarting assigned duties inside the IDLH area. This is normally done by the Accountability person.(Action required)3.1.13. The Rapid Intervention Team (RIT): Although the fire department followed the standards for theinitial response to have '2-in and 2-out', the department failed to established a dedicated RIT lAWNFPA 1500. The second engine company to arrive failed to lay a backup line for the RlT. SeeNFPA 1500, para 8.4. (Action required)3.1.14. Rescue Operations: The lack of adequate number ofFFs on the fire ground, a rescue team was notformed. As a result, the objective of performing a rapid and safe rescue was not met. (Actionrequired)3.2 Recommendations: Develop checklist for expected incidents to be used during emergencies andchecklist for post incident briefings. Increase the training frequency without mutual aid support untildesired proficiency and knowledge are demonstrated. The training program shall be designed to improveindividual knowledge, confidence and performance reliability. The proficiency-training program shallenhance a firefighter's ability to work as team members. Operational procedures shall be established toidentifY and transmit the IDLH area for every structural emergency/exercises keeping in mind that the areacan be shorten as conditions change. The purchase ofa smoke machine and light kits will enhance thetraining program and make it more realistic for identifYing the IDLH zone and fire area. In addition, werecommend the IC's vehicle carry equipment that would provide wind speed and direction at the scene.With the close proximity offacilities at Raytheon the condition of wind current could change withoutnotice or knowledge of the dispatcher. Also increase the number of firefighters assigned to fire groundoperations beyond the defensive mode as demonstrated above.3.3 Summary: The fire department failed to meet objectives. The exercise utilized the assistance of the8-hour staff yet was unsuccessful. Having less FF during other shifts, weekends, and holiday force thedepartment to respond in a defensive mode until other recourses arrive. This was demonstrated in theabove exercise when the initial attempt failed and the IC was forced to place his department in thedefensive mode for the safety of his firefighters. This method is unacceptable for the protection ofATCH2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;August 19,2005. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson AirForce Base, OH 45433government assets and facilities. The fire department exercise identified shortfalls that if left uncorrected,will jeopardize the safety of fire fighters and degrade Raytheon's abilities to protect government assets.4.0. Any questions concerning the above report may be directed to ASC, DET liSE, Mr. Bill Kapella,(661) 272-6719.BILL KAPELLAASC Det I, Fire MarshalATCH2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; March16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433TRIP REPORT1. PERSONS MAKING THIS TRIPRichard A. Spotts, ASC/ENV (44), AFP 44 Supervising Engineer/Team LeaderRomeo S. Arengo, ASC/ENVP, Fire Protection EngineerDavid L. Dickson ASCIENVP, Fire Protection EngineerWilliam Kapella, ASC Det 1, Safety SpecialistWilliam J. LaFountain, ASC/ENVV, Industrial HygienistMajor Robert Schmedake, ASC/ENVS, Explosive Safety2. DATES OF VISIT: 13-16 March 20063. ACTIVITY VISITED: Air Force Plant (AFP) 44Raytheon CompanyTucson, Arizona4. PURPOSE OF THE VISIT: To conduct the annual AFP 44 Facilities Review. Areas ofthe review include normal maintenance, fire protection and industrial hygiene.5. PERSONNEL CONTACTED:RSCDoug SteinerDaisy JenkinsKen WhiteHyte JohnsonChristine StarkBrent BeanBarb KunkleNick CajeroRandy Rogers-GardnerRichard MendezCharles 1. McAfeeDeanna SnyderBob BoothDennis StebbinsRichard ForceSally GestautasJames PriceCesar RomeraRobert K. HannifanSteve KreienkampAFP 44 IPT Lead for RaytheonSecuritySecurityEnvironmental Health & SafetySecurityFacilities ManagerFacility ServicesFacility ServicesFacility ServicesFacility ServicesFacility ServicesFacility ServicesMaintenanceFacility ComplianceEnvironmental Health & SafetyEnvironmental Health & SafetyEnvironmental Health & SafetyFacility ServicesEnvironmental Health & SafetyFire Department

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; March16,2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety &Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433Dennis TwardowskiHoward CampbellKelly MarionJean RobertsPaul KramkowskiPedro VasquezDoug LongBart ParkerWayne CranPatricia TerrienAl BuhlDCMAKaryn PierowayLorna TaylorFire DepartmentFire DepartmentFire DepartmentEnvironmental Health & SafetyEnvironmental Health & SafetyFacility ServicesEnvironmental Health & SafetyEnvironmental Health & SafetyEnvironmental Health & SafetyProperty ManagementMetal Composite FabtPropertyProperty6. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS:a. The Facilities Review began with an in-brief between the team members andRaytheon Company personnel. The briefing consisted of progress status on past findings,new objectives, and the week's agenda.b. All team members were paired with a Raytheon host. The tentative schedule wasagreed upon and the team was provided with a conference room so that we could convene atthe end of each day. Each team was also assigned with a person and camera to takephotographs of facilities and areas identified for an action.c. The findings and the information contained within this report were briefed toRaytheon on Thursday, 16 March 2006. The Raytheon team provided a list of work ordersthat had been initiated during the review and photographs on a CD disk.7. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:a. The efforts of Raytheon to correct problems is commendable, however there are stillareas that require improvement. In general the plant appearance is adequate and provides asafe, productive working environment.b. Team members conducted their own independent reviews. The results, findings, andrecommendations are provided in the following attachments: Normal Maintenance (AttachmentI), Industrial Hygiene (Attachment 2), Explosive Safety (Attachment 3), Industrial Safety(Attachment 4) and Fire Protection (Attachment 5). The Industrial Safety Audit and FireProtection Audits were suspended last year in order to accomplish the AFI 32-2001 mandatedFire Department Evaluation but were resumed for this years review.c. Raytheon personnel were cooperative. helpful, and supportive during this year'sannual facilities review.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized 10 DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; March16.2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmenta~ Safety &Health Division. Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV. Wright Patterson Air Force Base. OH 454338. IMPACT ON ASC/HNV: Overall Raytheon is doing an adequate job of maintaining andoperating Air Force Plant 44. Several deficiencies were observed in the various areasreviewed, as identified in the attached reports, and will require follow-up over the next yearby ASC/ENV personnel.9. MODE OF TRANSPORTATION:Commercial airlines travel to and from Tucson. AZ., and rental car in the local arCH.(2~:;;':~;t'--,-_· ­RICIIA){]) A. SPOTTSAnnual Facilities Review Team I.cadcrAcquisition J:nvironmental. Saldy &lIealth Di .... ision. l:n~inl.:~rillg Dircl.:l\lld!l:AITA('IIMI:NTS:I. Nnrlll:ll Mainknancc R~vicw') Industrial Ilygicllc Complian(~ AuditJ. I~.xplosivc Sakt}' Evuluation4. Industrial Salet)' Evailiutiun5. Fire Pmlccti(ln Review

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;March 16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air ForceBase, OH 45433AFP 44 ANNUAL FACILITIES REVIEWNORMAL MAINTENANCE REVIEW13-16 March 20061. PURPOSEThe purpose of this year's review was to: (I) assess the overall appearance and conditionof the real property, (2) detennine the adequacy of action taken as result of last year'sfindings and/or recommendations, and (3) assess Raytheon's effectiveness inaccompl ishing nonnal maintenance of real property.2. OVERALL APPEARANCE AND CONDITIONa. Housekeeping The plant appearance remains outstanding. The generalhousekeeping in and around the plant facilities appears to receive a adequate attention atall levels. Raytheon and its employees continue to maintain a clean and safe plantsite.b. Corrosion Control The attention to facility corrosion control and prevention isadequate to maintain the condition of the plant equipment and facilities. Several areaswere found to require additional attention to corrosion control.c. Roof Maintenance The plant roofs are generally being maintained in anacceptable manner.d. Pavement Maintenance The plant pavements are generally being maintained inan acceptable manner. There are several areas around the plantsite that need attention. Acomprehensive plan for maintaining the paved areas needs to be developed. This planneeds to include both normal maintenance tasks and projected CTR projects.3. ASSESSMENT OF NORMAL MAINTENANCEa. Building 801: A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Only minorfacility maintenance discrepancies were noted. The following maintenance concernswere noted:i. Numerous areas where the roof edges need to be maintained/repaired were noted.Several of the areas also have blistering near the edges.ii. Several electrical panels were found in various locations around the building thathad un~readable and/or no panel schedules attached.iii. A break room near column HI-21 needs wall and floor tile repairs and the wallsneed to be re-painted.iv. Several of the fire sprinkler riser closets need debris cleaned out and some neednew door hardware.Attachment 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;March 16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air ForceBase, OH 45433b. Building 809: A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Housekeepingpractices in this building including the mezzanine areas were found to be adequate. Nofacility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.c. Building 810: A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Only minorfacility maintenance discrepancies were noted. The roof area appears to be in acceptablecondition. The following maintenance concerns were noted:i. Outside wall along west side has damage from vehicles bumping into thebuilding..d. Building 811 A walk-through of the building and roof were accomplished andthe following facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted:i. There is minor roof damage from an equipment installation that needs to berepaired.ii. The overhead door in the shipping/receiving area does not operate properly.The control system needs to be repaired and/or readjusted.iii. Four air handling systems on the roof of the building have damaged ductinsulation that needs to be repaired.e. Building 812 A walk-through of the building and roof were accomplished andthe following facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted:i. The restroom is dirty and has a leaking sink faucet.ii. Large electrical box in the test cell has a 1;4" steel plate cover that is hangingloose.f. Building 813 A walk-through of the building and roof were accomplished and nofacility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.g. Building 814 A walk-through of the building and roof were accomplished and nofacility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.h. Building 815 (IWTP Complex) A walk-through of the former IWTP complexwas accomplished and the following facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancieswere noted:i. There are numerous fire alarm audio visual devices that are obstructed fromview. As a result of changes to the building functions an evaluation of the fire alarmlayout should be re-accomplished. Furniture, equipment and/or cabinets that areobstructing fire alarm devices need to be moved or the fire alarm devices re-installed atother locations.Attachment 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;March 16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air ForceBase, OH 45433i. Building 816 A walk-through of the building and roof were accomplished andthe following facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted:i. The guard shack attached to the north end of the building has a brokenwindow and insect (possibly termite) damage.j. Building 817 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. No facilitymaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.k. Building 820/821/822 A walk-through of the FACO lunch room buildings wereaccomplished. No facility housekeeping discrepancies were noted.I. Building 826 (Ground Water Treatment Facility) A walk-through of thebuilding and equipment yard was accomplished. No facility housekeeping discrepancieswere noted.m. Building 827 (GasolinelDiesel Storage) A walk around the area wasaccomplished. No facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.n. Building 827C A walk-through of the building was accomplished. No facilityhousekeeping discrepancies were noted.o. Building 830 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and thefollowing facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted:i. Several of the evaporative cooling units located outside the building are wiredwith rubber insulated electrical cords plugged into outdoor electric outlets. This shouldbe changed to hardwire the units.ii. Two overhead doors in the paint storage room do not operate properly andhave to be propped open.p. Building 831 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and no facilitymaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.q. Building 833 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and no facilitymaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.r. Building 849 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and thefollowing facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted:i. Several doors throughout the facility have loose or inadequate door hardware.These doors require the associated hardware to be re-adjusted, repaired or replaced.s. Building 852 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and no facilitymaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.t. Building 853 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and no facilitymaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.Attachment 1

•FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;March 16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air ForceBase, OR 45433u. Building 854 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and no facilitymaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted..v. Building 855 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and no facilitymaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.w. Building 856 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and no facilitymaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.x. Building 862 A walk-through ofthe building was accomplished. The followingfacility housekeeping and maintenance discrepancies were noted:i. Equipment/carts were improperly stored on top of HVAC duct work.ii. The roof ofthe underground test cell (currently used for storage) needs roofmaintenance done. Re-coat the roof with an appropriate roof coating material.y. Building 864 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. The followingfacility housekeeping and maintenance discrepancies were noted:i. A temperature and humidity sensor mounted on the wall in the test bay is nolonger used and needs to be removed (repeat).ii. The wall-roofjoint on the fuel pump house is badly cracked and needs to berepaired.(repeat)z. Building 865 A walk-through ofthe building was accomplished. Nohousekeeping or maintenance discrepancies were noted.aa. Building 866 A walk-through ofthe building was accomplished. Nohousekeeping or maintenance discrepancies were noted.bb. Building 868 A walk-through ofthe building was accomplished. The followingfacility housekeeping and maintenance discrepancies were noted:i. The exterior of the building has been painted. The painting was done in avery haphazard, sloppy fashion with large amounts of overspray.cc. Building 870 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Nohousekeeping or maintenance discrepancies were noted.4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORMAL MAINTENANCE PLAN: It isevident that Raytheon is doing an adequate job of maintaining the plant. The softwarepackage, FAMIS, which was procured to handle the maintenance planning functions, hasbeen replaced with a new system called "Prism" by SAP.Attachment 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;March 16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air ForceBase, OH 454335. CONCLUSION: Raytheon's responsiveness in correcting deficiencies identifiedduring this visit was helpful in ensuring that the review was successful. In many casesthe deficiencies were corrected on the spot, or within 24 hours of the finding. Correctiveactions on all the special Facilities Review Work Orders that were called in during thefacility review were promptly acted upon.RICHARD A. SPOTTSAFP 44 Supervising EngineerAcquisition Environmental, Safety& Health Division, Engineering DirectorateAttachment 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to 000 components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; March 16,2006.Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety & Health Division,Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433IntroductionAIR FORCE PLANT 44INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE COMPLIANCE AUDIT13-16 March 2006A. PurposeThis report summarizes the results of an industrial hygiene compliance audit conducted by William1. LaFountain of ASCIENV at AFP 44. The objectives ofthis audit were to review:• The compliance status ofthe facility with respect to applicable federal, state, and locallaws and regulations;• The facility's conformance with Raytheon Company policies and procedures;• The industrial hygiene management systems that currently exist in the facilities.B. ScopeThe scope ofthe audit included the following areas:C. ApproachI. Ventilation (1910.94)2. Occupational Noise Exposure (1910.95)3. Nonionizing Radiation (1910.97)4. Dip Tanks (1910.108)5. Personal Protective Equipment (1910.132 through 1910.134)6. Permit-Required Confined Space Entry (1910.146)7. Air contaminants not regulated by their own OSHA standards8. Certain air contaminants regulated by OSHA standards9: Bloodborne Pathogens (1910.1030)10. Hazard Communication (1910.1200)11. General Industrial HygieneThe audit was conducted from March 13-16, 2006The audit was based on:• Physical examination of the facility;• Examination of selected safety and industrial hygiene administrativeoperating records made available by facility staff;• Interviews and discussions with key facility management and staffThe audit followed an audit protocol based on Air Force established audit procedures, which wasmodified for the Raytheon audit. It should be understood that the audit consisted of evaluating asample of practices and was conducted in a short span oftime relative to the review period. EffortsAttachment 2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use; March 16,2006.Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, Acquisition Environmental Safety & Health Division,Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433were directed toward sampling major facets of industrial hygiene performance during the periodunder review, but it is important to recognize that this method is intended to uncover major programdeficiencies, and this audit might not have identified all potential problems.Audit FindingsA. Previous Findings:1. Bldg, 830: Outside the building there were multiple unsecured compressed gascylinders, this is a repeat finding, third year in a row. (Corrected)B. New Findings:1. Bldg. 817: In the Calendar Shop Area there was an operation being performed on acounter top which was giving off a significant smell of solvent vapors. Upon examination ofMaterial Safety Data Sheets provided by Raytheon it was determined that this potentiallyrepresented an exposure to materials that could cause narcosis and cardiac problems. On theadjacent wall there was located a table top that had a slotted hood local exhaust ventilation system.The industrial hygienist at Raytheon advised that he would conduct an analysis of the operation todetermine the risk and recommend appropriate control measures.C. Overall OpinionBased on the review of the program at Plant 44, Raytheon, over the last 8 years, I believe that asignificant improvement of the IH program continues to be made over the previous years and meetsall applicable governmental and company policies and procedures. This opinion is based on myprofessional judgment and the application of USAF established audit procedures. I wish to thankthe IH staff for their assistance in the effort.Recommendation: That all open items be accomplished as soon as feasible. That the IH staffbecommended for their continued improvement of the work sitesWilliam J. LaFountainTechnical Expert for Industrial Hygieneand Occupational HealthUSAF ASC/ENVVAttachment 2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;March 16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air ForceBase, OB 45433Air Force Plant 44 Facilities Review13 -16 March 2006Explosive Safety Evaluation1.0 OVERVIEW: The annual ASC/EMV Industrial Facilities Review of the RaytheonMissile Systems Company (RMSC), Air Force Plant 44, Tucson, Arizona, was conducted13 - 16 Mar 2006. Maj Bob Schmedake, MSW/ENSA, on behalfof ASC/ENV,performed the Ordnance Safety evaluation. Mr. Ronald Orr, RMSC Ordnance Safety,and Douglas Long accompanied Maj. Schmedake. The purpose of the review was toconduct an examination ofthe RMSC responsible facilities/workplaces and evaluate theOrdnance Safety Program administration and its effectiveness.2.0 Previous Observations:3.02006 FindingsMaj. Schmedake accompanied the facilities electricians on their visual inspection of thelightning protection system at Bid 864. The electricians performed a thorough inspectionof the existing air terminals, conductors, ground conductors, and ground rods. Theelectricians found and documented discrepancies such as loose air terminals. Also notedwere the presence of an air vent at southern test cell for Bid 864, and a mast withelectrical cable, installed on the northern test cell. Both of these structures extend abovethe air terminals and have no lighting protection installed.A review of the explosive site plans in work was conducted. There are 22 explosive siteplans that have been submitted to the Phoenix DCMA office since early 2005. Of these,the AFMC-AFP44-05-S01 plan has made it through DCMA, ACO, PCO, ASC, AFMC,AFSC and is not at the DDESB. The remaining 21 plans are still with the PhoenixDCMA review and have not been sent to ASC yet. The earliest of the plan submittalsoccurred in July 2005 and as late as January 2006. The delays in ESP reviews haveimpacted efficient operations at Raytheon.Among the 22 ESPs there are 4 ESPs on AFP44 property (others are in work for otherRaytheon facilities) that were required to be submitted by the Phoenix DCMA forfacilities with HC 1.4 explosives. There is no requirement in 000 4145 .26M, 0006055.9, or AFM 91-201 for these site plans. It is unclear why the contractor was requiredto do more than license the facilities for the 1.4 cabinet and operating locations.Attachment 3

•FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;March 16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air ForceBase, OH 45433ACTION REQUIRED: There needs to be resolution within the Phoenix DCMA on howto handle reviews in an expeditious manner. DCMA needs to understand their role onGOCO explosive site plan reviews, and they need to enforce the requirements withoutexceeding them as they have done on the Hazard Class 1.4 facilities. The lack ofunderstanding of these requirements has had a negative impact on efficient operations atRaytheon.ROBERT A. SCHMEDAKE, Major, USAFRIndividual Mobilization AugmenteeWeapons SafetyAttachment 3

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;March 16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air ForceBase, OH 45433AIR FORCE PLANT 44 FACILITIES REVIEW13 -16 March 2006Industrial Safety Evaluation].0 OVERVIEW: The annual ASC/EMV Industrial Facilities Review of the RaytheonMissile Systems Company (RMSC), Air Force Plant 44, Tucson, Arizona, was conducted13 - 16 Mar 2006. Mr Bill Kapella, ASC, DET l/SE, on behalf of ASC/ENV, performedthe Industrial Safety evaluation. Mr. Richard Force, RMSC Safety, and Randy Rogers­Gardner, RMSC Compliance accompanied Mr. Kapella. The purpose of the review wasto conduct an examination of the RMSC responsible facilities/workplaces and evaluatethe Occupational Safety Program administration and its effectiveness. Due to the timeconstraints, it was not intended to perform a thorough examination of the facilitiesvisited; therefore, all hazards and/or deficiencies that may exist within the work placemay not be identified.2.0 PREVIOUS OBSERVATIONS: After visual inspection from the 2004 report thefollowing are repeat findings and are reprinted below for review and action as required.2.0.1 2004 Finding 3.1 General Finding. Lightning Protection: Several facilities thatwere protected with lighting protection have discrepancies associated with the airterminal, down cable, metallic material higher than air terminals, and/or sidearcing hazard potential. Example:2.0.2 2004 Finding 3.1.1. bldg 849 has roofstairs taller than surrounding airterminals and down wires painted,2.0.3 2004 Finding 3.1.2. bldg 827C has a newly installed exhaust/vent system andassociated tie down cable higher than surrounding air terminals,2.0.4 2004 Finding 3.1.3. bldg 827A has the down wires painted.2.0.5 2004 Finding 3.1.4. bldg 855 has down wires painted and has metal conduit inthe close proximity ofthe down wire causing a side arc hazard,2.0.6 2004 Finding 3.1.5. bldg 864 has down wires painted.Recommend checking the PM card to ensure the above discrepancies are listed as amandatory checkfor all lightning protection PMs on allfacilities equipped with lightningprotection.2.0.7 2004 Finding 04.11. Bldg 830, outside. Acetylene compressed gas cylinders notproperly secured. (Carl's Photo #()015)Attachment 4

•FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;March 16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air ForceBase, OH 454332.0.8 2004 Finding 3.12. Finding 04-12. Bldg 830. Stroll saw, #H55949-1 notproperly guarded. (f)(1\'e's Photo tiOO(3)2.0.9 2004 Finding 3.13. Finding 04-13. Bldg 830, woodshop. Delta/Rockwell drillpress (H059436) has pulleys exposed and are not properly guarded. (Dave '.I'Pholo iJOOO-l)2.0.10 2004 Finding 3.17. Finding 04-17. Bldg 830. Cincinnati press has pulleysexposed and are not properly guarded. (I )av(' .~ Pholo i;()()! ()

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;March 16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air ForceBase, OH 454333.1.2. Bldg 864A-E. The mask system adjacent to bldg 822 had only one down cabelconnected to the air terminal. See NFPA 780, para 4.6.1.3. Such connectionsshall provide a minimum of two paths to ground.3.1.3. Bldg 827A. LPS conductors have bends too tight in several locations, downconductors painted, air terminals instalIed on corner of awnings are more than 2feet from the edge, no test wells around ground rods for testing (ground rods arenot accessible), air terminals missing for one of the 5-tanks, air terminals for tanksare more than two feet in length and not supported, ground conductor on one ofthe air terminal inside the dike is disconnected, etc. See NFPA 780, Chp 4/7 andAFI 32-]065 para A4.].9 and AFM 91-201, para 2.52.] .3.NFPA 780, para 4.9.5. Conductor Bends. No bend ofa conductor shallform an included angle of less than 90 degrees, nor shall it have a radius ofbend less than 8 in, as shown in Figure 4.9.5.I.\\;W";S"~~\\90 degrees mill t;lNote: Angle 01 bend f"l~)j less than 90 deqlflet- '...to-!FIGURE 4.9.5 Conductor Bends.NFPA 780, para 4.8.2. Location of Devices. As shown in Figure 4.8.2,strike termination devices shall be placed at or within 0.6 m (2 ft) of ridgeends on pitched roofs or at edges and outside corners of flat or gentlysloping roofs.3.1.4. Bldg 827C. LPS is not being maintained and test-wells for ground rod notaccessible for test. The LPS has not been extended to new construction on side ofbuilding. Air terminals were not added to highest shack on roof.3.1.5. Bldg 830. LPS not being maintained. No test-wells for ground rod provided.3.1.6. Bldg 849. LPS not installed properly. Many conductors do not have a downwardpath to grounds. Some air terminals have been knocked down, some metalstructures are not bonded, etc. See NFPA 780, para 4.9.4.1 Conductors shallmaintain a horizontal or downward coursing free from "U" or "V" (down and up)pockets.Attachment 4

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;March 16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air ForceBase, OH 454333.1.7. Bldg 849 (and other buildings). LPS air terminals (strike terminals) did not allhave two paths to ground. See NFPA 780, para 4.6.1.3. Such connections shallprovide a minimum of two paths to ground.3.1.8. bldg 864. LPS does not have access to ground rods for tested, some areas notbonded to eliminate side flashing, conductors painted, air terminals missing, etc3.1.9. Bldg 855. LPS ground rod test-wells not provided.3.1.10. Bldg 855. LPS air terminals over 24" in height are not all supported. See NFPA780, para 4.6.3.2.".f.L:i.2 .\h It"lrllil1,d' (-,:\/f'rll'".11 ;\ PUiiH Ilnlll'!

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;March 16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air ForceBase, OH 454333.2 Bldg 809, Calm 0-5. Electrical bus bar had cover missing. Opening was coveredwith clear orange tape.3.3 Bldg 809, Calm M-6. By Panel N5B-4]. Electrical multi-outlet extension cord usewith permanent equipment.3.4 Bldg 8] 5. Outside dock. Gas Cylinder not supported. (Corrected)3.5 Bldg 8] 5. Door 6. Electrical cord running thru overhead door to cart. (Corrected)3.6 Bldg 849. Room M0400. Data closet 2 nd floor. Electrical Panel 230A had breaker#29 missing and taped over. Must be properly covered.3.7 Bldg 849. Room A0500, Comm Room SW comer. Open knock-out on 4-plexreceptacle and unsecured gas cylinder next to exit door.3.8 Bldg 827A, Two electrical conduit mounded on the dike wall has LB covers withscrews missing exposing live conductors.3.9 Bldg 827A. There are no marked/]abeled grounding points for use tankers to useduring offloading.3.1 OB Idg 827C Outside. Flammable storage locker has covers missing from vents.3.1] Bldg 827C SW Comer Outside. Knock-out cover missing on electrical box.3.12Bldg 830, Calm N-03. Refrigerator inside wood cabinet and has plug wire taped.Wire needs replaced.3.13 Bldg 830, calm 0-1. Knock out missing on 4-plex receptacle.3.14 Bldg 830, Calm F-l / F-2. Electrical cords penetrate metal lockers.3.15 Bldg 830. Outside welding shop has two gas cylinders stored without protectivecaps installed.3.16 Bldg 830, street painting storage area. Flammable storage locker has incompatibleliquids stored inside.3.] 7 Bldg 8] 6. Outside door] 4. Machine R89K003 has cover missing on knockout.3.18 Bldg 816. Outside door 14. Clock on column has an unauthorized slice in cord.3.19 Bldg 817. Calm C-2. Electrical panel 101, breaker#19 not completely covered.Attachment 4

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;March 16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air ForceBase, OH 454333.20 Bldg 817. Colm C-1, SW comer room. Conduit not secured to wall.3.21 Bldg 801, Colm D-12. Drill press (H67192) has pulleys exposed on top and are notproperly guarded.3.22 Bldg 801, Colm A-Ii. Machine (H67372) has an open ground on its electricalreceptacle.3.23 Bldg 801. Main Computer room. Colm C-7, open J-box overhead in roomB0500B.3.24 Bldg 801. Main Computer room. Room B0500B, equipment room. Poorhousekeeping. Lot of trash and residue from electrical work under raised floor area.Several areas inside the computer room had trash and debris under floor panels.3.25 Bldg 864. Fuel Bam. Steel tank used for transferring fuel is being pressurized with20 PSI shop air according to a worker. Compressed air can not be used to transfercombustible or flammable liquids except as permitted by NFPA 30, para 7.3.7.4.Verify pressure vessel meets the requirements according to NFPA 30, para 7.3.7Liquid Handling, Transfer, and Use.3.26 General Finding: All bench grinders had a local placards attached with instructionsand photos as to the proper adjustments are required lAW the OSHA Standard. Inaddition, metal depth gauges were attached to ensure proper clearances weremaintained yet many grinders were found out of compliance.3.27 General Finding: Electrical food prep items i.e., refrigerators, microwaves, etcwere found in wood and metal cabinets in shop/work areas. Most were not wiredIAW the electrical code. (bldg 80 I & 830)3.28 General Finding: Several flammable storage lockers were not completely latched inthe close position. (bldg 801 & 830)3.29 General Finding: The placards for explosive storage locations should have firesymbols of four distinctive shapes. The symbol dimensions shall be 24" for thenormal minimum sizes. The half-size symbols will be 12" and may be used whenapplicable, such as on doors and lockers inside buildings. See AFM 91-201, para2.25.4.3.30 General Finding: Make backing for fire symbol decals the shape of the decal andout of non-combustible material. If heat from the fire bums off the numbers, the firedepartment can act on the shape. See AFM 91-201, para 2.25.7.4.Attachment 4

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;March 16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCfENV, Wright Patterson Air ForceBase, OH 454334.0 RECOMMENDATION: Abate the above finding as required. Not all of thefacilities and work places were surveyed; it is imperative that Raytheon ensure likediscrepancies do not exist. The above discrepancies that can be added to the maintenanceplan or supervisor's daily inspection checklist should be. Safety items that are consideredbeyond nonnal maintenance should be submitted as Capital Type Rehabilitation (CTR)projects in the next budget submittal and assigned appropriate Risk Assessment Codes(RAC) accordingly.5.0 FIRE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS: Fire department operations were notreviewed other than the follow-up on their official response to last year's fire departmentevaluation. The follow-up concluded with concerns with DoD certified fire fighters,which will need an assessment from HQ AFMC/A7COX. An observation of threeexercises revealed much progress. They showed teamwork that can only beaccomplished by vigorous training over the last 12 months and showed a level ofconfidence ofperfonnance from each oftheir assigned duties.6.0 Any questions concerning the above report may be directed to ASC, DET I/SE, Mr.Bill Kapella, Area Code (661) 272-6719.BILL KAPELLASafety & Occupational Health ManagerAttachment 4

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;March 16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air ForceBase, OH 45433AFP 44 FACILITY REVIEWRAYTHEON SYSTEMS COMPANY13-16 Mar 2006FIRE PROTECTION1. PURPOSEThe intent of this facility review was to examine the inspection and testing program forfire protection systems, review the status of the corrective actions on last year's findingsand identify potential fire protection problems during a walk through of the facilities.2. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCERECORDSRecords for the most part are centrally kept with the inspectors and are in good ordershowing that periodic testing and inspections per NFPA are being accomplished.Observation: When problems are encountered during inspections or testing that can notbe corrected on the spot, we recommend listing the work order number that is issued tocorrect the problem. The work order (or project) number should be carried through inrecords for subsequent inspecting/testing intervals until fixed. This was a hit or mississue during random record checks of PlY or sectional valve testing.Observation: Emergency lighting and fire exit sign testing/maintenance is an electricshop function. Recommend the fire inspectors do periodic random fire exit sign andemergency light testing on their area walk through to ensure that this work is beingaccomplished. Emergency lights in some facilities are built into normal ceiling lightfixtures and were hard to identify during the walk through. Recommend marking thosefixtures in some way to identify their locations. Also recommend taking advantage ofany facility power outages and accomplish a walk through as necessary to ensureemergency light and exit sign coverage is adequate.3. PREVIOUS FACILITY REVIEW CORRECTIVE ACTION STATUSNot all ofthe corrective actions taken as a result of our 2004 facility review findings werefield verified but of those reviewed, the actions were adequate with exception ofthefollowing clarifications.3.1 FACO Bldg 852 sprinklers too low. Clarification - recommend raising sprinklerheads in South corridor to suspended ceiling level.Attachment 5

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;March 16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASCIENV, Wright Patterson Air ForceBase, OH 454333.2 B-833 new vehicle maintenance addition on west side. In 2004 we recommendedadding sprinklers to this area and it is our understanding that Raytheon is now going tofund a project to install sprinklers.4. FACILITY REVIEW FINDINGSThe following items were noted during the walk through of the plant:4.1 Items that can affect sprinkler operation.4.1.1 B-801, column M12 with a new open grate mezzanine added for storage.Sprinkler heads underneath the mezzanine floor will not collect enough heat to operatebecause heat will rise thru the open grate floor and not collect at the sprinkler heads.Recommend adding heat collectors at the sprinkler heads.4.1.2 B-801, column 012 (Sparrow area). Storage on racks along walls is too high.Recommend lowering storage heights to less then 12 feet high or install in-rack sprinklersper NFPA 13 for storage over 12 feet high.4.1.3 B-809 column 03 clean room lab exhaust hood. Solvents are used and recommendinstalling a sprinkler head in the hood.4.1.4 B-815A west side storage room. Storage on racks is too high. Recommendlowering storage heights to less then 12 feet high (per NFPA) or install in-rack sprinklersper NFPA 13 for storage over 12 feet high.4.2 Areas that need additional sprinkler coverage.A considerable amount of new construction has taken place since the last fire protectionreview in 2004. It appears all new work is being accomplished with proper fireprotection with exception of:4.2.1 B-809 clean room area general finding. Walls and curtains have been addedwithout taking into account sprinkler head coverage that is now lacking in some areas.Some problem areas were pointed out but overall we recommend an area survey forsprinkler head coverage and adding heads or relocating walls and curtains as necessary toobtain proper coverage. This includes those rooms-within-rooms for laser testing thathave enclosed ceilings and block sprinkler head coverage as well. In these laser testingrooms, Raytheon may want to consider adding smoke detectors instead of sprinklers if aquicker response is desired to protect equipment.Attachment 5

..FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYDistribution authorized to DoD components and their contractors only; administrative/operational use;March 16, 2006. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the Chief, AcquisitionEnvironmental Safety & Health Division, Engineering Directorate, ASC/ENV, Wright Patterson Air ForceBase, OH 454334.2.2 B-809 Data Rooms. Although these rooms have sprinklers, we were told theycontain high value mission essential communication and other electronic equipment. Werecommend smoke detectors be added. The idea with adding smoke detectors is to get anearly alarm in hopes someone will be around to shutdown power and/or extinguish thefire with a portable extinguisher before the sprinkler goes off and thereby minimizingwater damage to other high value electronic equipment.4.3 Potential life safety concerns.4.3.1 FACO Bldg 852 had many fire exit signs that were not working. This makesemergency lighting suspect as well. Recommend electric shop make corrections asnecessary.5. GENERAL COMMENTSThe security/fire station, Building 828, could use a major upgrade. The facility isinefficient and lacks the necessary space for bed rooms, lockers, training and otherbriefings. The 2005 Fire Department Evaluation has identified additional fire fighters areneeded for each shift. Recommend the security/fire station be renovated or replaced tomeet current fire station standards.LAUDATORY - Raytheon has done a good job with the 50 year old sprinkler headreplacement program (per NFPA) to date. More work is still needed.LAUDATORY - Raytheon has also done a good job with their extensive replacement offire alarm audio/visual aids. Recommend paying attention to future relocation of thesedevices as necessary when renovating/re-arranging building interiors.LAUDATORY - Missing ceiling tiles leave a "hole" in the ceiling plane that allows heatfrom a fire to escape delaying sprinkler head activation. Missing ceiling tiles are usuallya routine finding but this year the plant looked extremely "tight" ... Iess then a dozen tileswere found missing during our facility visits and some of those were due to on goingmaintenance actions. Outstanding job in this arena.6. RECOMMMENDATIONRaytheon takes the necessary steps to correct the items identified in paragraphs 3 and 4.Attachment 5

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYTRIP REPORT1. PERSONS MAKING THIS TRIPRichard A. Spotts, ASC/ENV (44), AFP 44 Supervising Engineer/Team LeaderDavid L. Dickson ASCIENVP, Fire Protection EngineerWilliam Kapella, ASC Det 1, Safety SpecialistRobert Follett, ASClENVP, Security Specialist2. DATES OF VISIT: 4-7 February 20083. ACTIVITY VISITED: Air Force Plant (AFP) 44Raytheon CompanyTucson, Arizona4. PURPOSE OF THE VISIT: To conduct the annual AFP 44 Facilities Review.Areas of the review include normal maintenance, fire protection and industrial hygiene.5. PERSONNEL CONTACTED:RSCRobert K. HannifanDavid DenekeRichard MendezKen WhiteHyte JohnsonCarmen MarriottChristine StarkJim FollisMike BurmoodRyan HarwellPam CrosbySteve KillianKevin BrownRandy Boni lIaNick CajeroIgnacio GuerreroCharles 1. McAfeeJames PricePaul KramkowskiDennis TwardowskiHoward CampbellAFP 44 IPT Lead for RaytheonContractsFacility ServicesSecurityEnvironmental Health & SafetyLegalSecuritySecurityFacility ServicesFacility ServicesFacility ServicesFacility ServicesFacility ServicesFacility ServicesFacility ServicesPropertyEnvironmental Health & SafetyEnvironmental Health & SafetyEnvironmental Health & SafetyFire DepartmentFire Department

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYKelly MarionRSC (cont'd)Ken MatymkaRichard KennedyRick JohnsonJeff GeorgeDCMAMichael MessinaLorna TaylorJames MagnanFire DepartmentFire DepartmentFire DepartmentFire DepartmentFire DepartmentPropertyPropertyACO6. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS:a. The Facilities Review began with an in-brief between the team members andRaytheon Company personnel. The briefing consisted of progress status on past findings,new objectives, and the week's agenda. Raytheon presented a briefing on their progressin closing last years findings.b. All team members were assigned to one of four teams including the appropriateRaytheon counterpart. The tentative schedule was agreed upon and the team wasprovided with a conference room so that we could convene at the end ofeach day. Eachteam was also assigned with a person and camera to take photographs of facilities andareas identified for an action.c. The findings and the information contained within this report were briefed toRaytheon on Thursday, 7 February 2008.7. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:a. The efforts of Raytheon to correct problems is commendable, however there arestill areas that require improvement. In general the plant presents a good appearance, thehousekeeping is adequate and the plant provides a safe, productive working environment.b. Team members conducted their own independent reviews. The results, findings, andrecommendations are provided in the following attachments: Normal Maintenance(Attachment 1), Industrial Hygiene (Attachment 2), Fire Department Operations Evaluation(Attachment 3) and Fire Protection (Attachment 4). The Industrial Safety and WeaponsSafety evaluations were not conducted concurrently with the Annual Facil ities Review thisyear. The ASC Safety Office will conduct separate reviews later in the year.c. Raytheon personnel were cooperative, helpful, and supportive during this year'sannual facilities review.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY8. IMPACT ON ASCIENV: Overall Raytheon is doing an adequate job ofmaintainingand operating Air Force Plant 44. Several deficiencies were observed in the various areasreviewed, as identified in the attached reports, and will require follow-up over the nextyear by ASCJENV personnel.9. MODE OF TRANSPORTATION: Commercial airlines travel to and from Tucson,AZ., and rental car in the local area.{2~a~-RICHARD A. SPOTISAnnual Facilities Review Team LeaderAcquisition Environmental, Safety &Health Division, Engineering DirectorateATTACHMENTS:1. Normal Maintenance Review2. Industrial Hygiene Review3. Fire Operations Evaluation4. Fire Protection Review

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYAFP 44 ANNUAL FACILITIES REVIEWRAYTHEON SYSTEMS COMPANY4-8 FEBRUARY 2008NORMAL MAINTENANCE REVIEW1. PURPOSEThe purpose of this year's review was to: (I) assess the overall appearance and conditionof the real property, (2) determine the adequacy ofaction taken as result of last year'sfindings and/or recommendations, and (3) assess Raytheon's effectiveness inaccompl ishing the preventative or normal maintenance ofthe plant facilities.2. OVERALL APPEARANCE AND CONDITIONa. Housekeeping The plant appearance remains outstanding. The generalhousekeeping in and around the plant facilities appears to receive adequate attention at alllevels. Raytheon and its employees continue to maintain a clean and safe plantsite.b. Corrosion Control The attention to facility corrosion control and prevention isadequate to maintain the condition ofthe plant equipment and facilities. Several areaswere found to require additional attention to corrosion control.c. Roof Maintenance The plant roofs are generally being maintained in anacceptable manner.d. Pavement Maintenance The plant pavements are generally being maintained inan acceptable manner. The areas around the plantsite that need attention have beenidentified for maintenance and a number ofareas are scheduled for other than normalmaintenance (CTR) projects.3. ASSESSMENT OF NORMAL MAINTENANCEa. Building 801: A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Only minorfacility maintenance discrepancies were noted. A recurring roof leak problem nearcolumn G 11 was discovered and the maintenance department is working the repairs.b. Building 809: A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Housekeepingpractices in this building including the mezzanine areas were found to be adequate. Nofacility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.Attachment 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYc. Building 810: A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Only minorfacility maintenance discrepancies were noted. The roof area appears to be in acceptablecondition.d. Building 811 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Only minorfacility maintenance discrepancies were noted. The roof area appears to be in acceptablecondition.e. Building 814 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Only minorfacility maintenance discrepancies were noted.i. The roof gutter along west side of the building needs to be repaired. Thegutter has broken apart above the trash compactor and there is corrosion thatneeds to be addressed be treated/repaired.ii. Access to the electrical power panel at column B5 is blocked.f. Building 815 (IWTP Complex) A walk-through of the complex wasaccomplished. No facility maintenance discrepancies were noted. The roof area appearsto be in acceptable condition.g. Building 816 A walk-through of the building and roof were accomplished andthe following facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted:i. Door A 1312 has a broken door closer that needs to be replaced.j. Building 817 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. No facilitymaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.k. Building 820/8211822 A walk-through of the FACO lunch room buildings wasaccomplished with no facility housekeeping discrepancies noted.I. Building 826 (Ground Water Treatment Facility) A walk-through ofthebuilding and equipment yard was accomplished. No facility housekeeping discrepancieswere noted.m. Building 827 (GasolinelDiesel Storage) A walk around the area wasaccomplished. No facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.n. Building 827C A walk-through ofthe building was accomplished. The roofstructure of the battery charging shed is damaged and needs to be repaired.o. Building 830 A walk-through of the building and equipment yard wasaccomplished. No facility housekeeping discrepancies were noted.p. Building 831 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and no facilitymaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.Attachment 1

FORFICIAq. Building 833 A walk-through of the building was accomplished with only minorfacility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.i. On the mezzanine there is BX type electric cable and communication cablesthat are hanging loose and need to be properly secured.ii. Also on the mezzanine there is an uncovered junction box that needs to have acover installed.iiLHousekeeping is generally poor and needs management attention.r. Building 849 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and thefollowing facility maintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted:i. White paint overspray on the side of the building needs to be cleaned upwhere the building occupants have been spray painting wooden crates.ii. Air handling unit G-R12887 (Hastings) is corroding at the steel mountingframe.s. Building 851 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and no facilitymaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.t. Building 852 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and no facilitymaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.u. Building 853 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and no facilitymaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted..v. Building 855 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and no facilitymaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.w. Building 856 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and no facilitymaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.x. Building 862 A walk-through ofthe building was accomplished. The followingfacility housekeeping and maintenance discrepancies were noted:i. The roof of the underground test cell (currently used for storage) needs roofmaintenance done which is rapidly developing into roof repairs.y. Building 864 A walk-through of the building was accomplished and no facilitymaintenance or housekeeping discrepancies were noted.z. Building 865 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Nohousekeeping or maintenance discrepancies were noted.aa. Building 866 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Nohousekeeping or maintenance discrepancies were noted.t,ttachrnent 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYbb. Building 868 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. The followingfacility housekeeping and maintenance discrepancies were noted:i. The exterior of the building was painted several years ago. The painting wasdone in a very haphazard, sloppy fashion with large amounts of overspray.CC. Building 870 A walk-through of the building was accomplished. Nohousekeeping or maintenance discrepancies were noted.4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORMAL MAINTENANCE PLAN: It isevident that Raytheon is doing an adequate job of maintaining the plant. Thepreventative software planning package "Prism" by SAP is now fully functional and isadequately supporting the maintenance crews.5. GENERAL OBSERVATIONSa. A condition was found throughout the plant where numerous electrical power andlighting distribution panel schedules are missing or outdated. The electrical maintenancecrews with assistance from the electrical engineers need to survey each facility andcorrect this deficiency.b. Several new canopy structures have been installed around the plantsite. Severalof these new structures have not been painted. These structures need to be painted inorder to improve their appearance as well as preventing the development of corrosion.6. CONCLUSION: Raytheon's responsiveness in correcting deficiencies identifiedduring this visit was helpful in ensuring that the review was successful. In many casesthe deficiencies were corrected on the spot, or within 24 hours of the finding. Correctiveactions on all the special Facilities Review Work Orders that were called in during thefacility review were promptly acted upon.RICHARD A. SPOTTSAFP 44 Supervising EngineerAcquisition Environmental, Safety& Health Division, Engineering DirectorateAttachment 1

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYAFP 44 ANNUAL FACILITIES REVIEWRAYTHEON SYSTEMS COMPANY4-8 FEBRUARY 2008INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE REVIEWIntroductionA. PurposeThis report summarizes the results of an industrial hygiene compliance review conductedby William J. LaFountain of ASC/ENV at AFP 44. The objectives of this review were toreview:• The compliance status of the facility with respect to applicable federal, state,and local laws and regulations;• The facility's conformance with Raytheon Company policies and procedures;• The industrial hygiene management systems that currently exist in the facilities.B. ScopeThe scope of the review included the following areas:C. ApproachI. Ventilation (1910.94)2. Occupational Noise Exposure (1910.95)3. Nonionizing Radiation (1910.97)4. Dip Tanks (1910.108)5. Personal Protective Equipment (1910.132 through 1910.134)6. Permit-Required Confined Space Entry (1910.146)7. Air contaminants not regulated by their own OSHA standards8. Certain air contaminants regulated by OSHA standards9. Bloodborne Pathogens (1910.1030)10. Hazard Communication (1910.1200)11. General Industrial HygieneThe review was conducted from February 4-8, 2008The review was based on:• Physical examination ofthe facility;• Examination ofselected safety and industrial hygiene administrative operatingrecords made available by facility staff;• Interviews and discussions with key facility management and staffAttachment 2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYThe review followed an review protocol based on Air Force established reviewprocedures, which was modified for the Raytheon review. It should be understood thatthe review consisted ofevaluating a sample of practices and was conducted in a shortspan of time relative to the review period. Efforts were directed toward sampling majorfacets of industrial hygiene performance during the period under review, but it isimportant to recognize that this method is intended to uncover major programdeficiencies, and this review might not have identified all potential problems.Review FindingsA. Previous Findings:I. Bldg. 817: In the Calendar Shop Area there was an operation beingperformed on a counter top which was giving off a significant smell of solvent vapors.Upon examination of Material Safety Data Sheets provided by Raytheon it wasdetermined that this potentially represented an exposure to materials that could causenarcosis and cardiac problems. On the adjacent waIl there was located a table top thathad a slotted hood local exhaust ventilation system. The industrial hygienist at Raytheonadvised that he would conduct an analysis of the operation to determine the risk andrecommend appropriate control measures. (Corrected by IH evaluation and sampling.)2. Overall AFP 44: Storage of compressed Gas Cylinders has significantlyimproved and is no longer considered a finding.B. New Findings: Bldg 833: In the garage area a gasoline powered forklift was beingfueled inside the building. The garage area does not contain the appropriate electrical orother necessary protective equipment to allow for fueling of vehicles. (This wascorrected by the building supervisor immediately upon being brought to hisattention.)C. Overall OpinionBased on the review of the program at Plant 44, Raytheon, over the last 9 years, I believethat a significant improvement of the IH program continues to be made over the previousyears and meets all applicable governmental and company policies and procedures. Thisopinion is based on my professional judgment and the application of USAF establishedreview procedures. I wish to thank the IH staff for their assistance in the effort.Recommendation: That all open items be accomplished as soon as feasible. That the IHstaff be commended for their continued improvement of the work sitesWilliam J LaFountainTechnical expert for Industrial Hygieneand Occupational HealthUSAF ASC/ENVVAttachment 2

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYAFP 44 ANNUAL FACILITIES REVIEWRAYTHEON SYSTEMS COMPANY4 - 8 FEBRUARY 2008FIRE PROTECTION OPERATIONS1.0 The annual ASC/ENV Industrial Facilities Review ofthe Raytheon Missile SystemsCompany (RMSC), Air Force Plant 44. Tucson, Arizona, was conducted 4 - 8 Feb 08.Mr Bill Kapella, ASC/ENV Det I Fire Marshal, on behalf of ASC/ENV, performed thereview ofthe Fire Department Operations. The purpose ofthe review was to conduct anexamination of the RMSC Fire Department operations for effectiveness, performance,knowledge, and abilities. Due to the time constraints, it was not intended to perform athorough examination; therefore, not all deficiencies that may exist within theiroperations were identified.2.0 NFPA 1410 Fire Exercise: On 5 Feb 08. at approximately 1330, an NFPA 1410exercise was conducted by the day shift adjacent to Bldg 827. The exercise was used as atimed response trial and to measure the initial attack capability of the Fire Department'sfirst responding units and personnel for performance lAW NFPA 1410 Training forInitial Fire Attack, evolution No.1.2.1 The following observations were noted:2.1.1 The exercise was initiated via a radio transmission to the alarm room. The alarmroom operator did not repeat the correct information to the responding crews.Nevertheless, the crews responded and completed the exercise. (Action required)2.1.2 Excellent response from security to support the exercise.2.1.3 The Fire Department's recommended minimum time of3-minutes was met. Infact, the crews were able to lay a 300' supply line, pull a 150' attack line from oneside of the truck and a 150' backup line from the other, plus pump 300 GPM inless than 2-minutes. Their structural attack and abilities to respond were welldemonstrated.2.1.4 The plugman exposed himself to potential injuries by not using proper techniqueswhen wrapping the hose around the hydrant and securing it as the pumper droveaway. (Action required)2.1.5 At the start ofthe exercise, a real world fire alarm was received. The Chief incharge elected to send a crew of three firefighters to investigate. The personreporting information to the Fire Officer was well versed in requirements andprotocol. Radio communication from him to the Fire Officer demonstratedexcellent information on size up and evaluation of the emergency. As a result ofhis expertise in fire operations, no other response was necessary. saving time andexposure to additional crews.Attachment 3

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY3.0. Structural Fire Exercise. On 6 Feb 08, at approximately 1330, a structural fire andrescue exercise was provided at Bldg 845. The exercise was used to measure the initialattack capability of the Fire Department's first responding units and personnel forperformance without the assistance of Mutual Aid support. The objective was to controland/or extinguish the fire and rescue the victim in a timely matter. The scenario was analarm sounding and reports from occupants of smoke in the hangar. Later, it wasreported smoke was seen coming out of a pedestrian door. Dispatch was notified that oneworker remained in a back room of the hangar. A critique was held upon termination ofthe exercise.3.1 The following observations were noted:3.1.1. Security: Security personnel were prompt in responding and setting up trafficcontrol before the Fire Department's arrival. There were several gates the FireDepartment had to go through to get to the exercise facility. The Security Forcesdid a good job so as not to delay the Fire Department access.3.1.2. Dispatch: The dispatcher provided data that was different from their instructionsand from the pre-drill briefing that was based on the scenario. The dispatcherprovided information and updated data to the Fire Department's IncidentCommander (lC), however, it was not apparent that the responsible dispatcherwas clearly familiar with the terminology used in the fire service duringemergencies. A review of the dispatcher's qualifications and requiredcertification appears to meet or exceed the DoD requirements forTelecommunications Levell & II, however, additional OJT on fire emergencylingo would enhance firefighters' safety during emergencies. (Action required)3.1.3. Pre-brief/De-brief: Although the briefer did not use a checklist to ensure allsafety items, goals, and objectives were covered and met; he did a good jobshooting from the hip. A checklist to cover goals, objectives, safety recall of FFs,PAR requirements, tasks that will be simulated, etc., shall be used. (Actionrequired)3.1.4. Mutual Aid was simulated being delayed. The IC adjusted well without them,however, in addition to Raytheon'S normal staffing by the 24-hour crews,additional crew members also responded to fill some critical fire ground positionsin order to make an aggressive offensive fire attack and rescue. Without theadditional staffing, the goals and objectives would not have been met. (Actionrequired)3.1.5. Radio communication: Radio operations and the switch over to the emergencyfrequency were well demonstrated.Attachment 3

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY3.1.6. Hose Advancement: Two separate fire hydrants were used, one by each pumper.The appropriate fire hydrant was used to supply each pumper during the durationofthe exercise. The supply lines to both trucks were charged, however, toeliminate the risk ofwater damage to the hangar, the charging of the attack lineand the backup line was simulated. The advancement ofthe attack line andbackup line were, for the most part, well demonstrated. Both the attack line andthe backup line got snagged and FFs had to readjust the hoses, causing delays forfire suppression activities. The line used for the Rapid Intervention Team (RIT)was from a separate pumper, as required.3.1.7. Incident Management System: The IC set up in an ideal location and hadcomplete vision of the operations. After his position was established, his EngineCompany set up in an area where the lC's view was partially blocked and the ICshould have relocated. Other than not having a clear view of the incident, the ICdemonstrated total knowledge of his responsibilities and duties.3.1.8. Immediate Danger to Life and Health (JDLH): The IDLH was not immediatelydeclared. This made it unclear as to where FFs were required to be 'on-air.'Once established, the Fire Captain was able to reduce in size the IDLH area,conserving air and alIowing the Rapid Intervention Team (RIT) to repositioncloser to the hazard, which would allow faster response time to assist FFs whenneeded.3.1.9. Rehabilitation: The rehab vehicle and equipment were set up as directed by theIe in a safe area away from immediate danger. However, with limited staffing, itwas not staffed during this exercise. Although the exercise victim and a 'down'FF were rescued, proper medical care could have been delayed until they couldwithdraw FFs from their other assigned duties. By not having the requirednumber of FFs on scene, FFs were performing prolonged duties without properrehab and/or risking medical care. (Action required)3.1.1 O. Safety Officer: The Fire Department is not properly staff to assign a dedicatedSafety Officer at an emergency incident occurring after hours. Although therewas a Safety Officer on the fire grounds during this exercise, this position wouldhave been accomplished as additional responsibility of another Fire Officer atincidents occurring after normal duty hours. For the benefit of FFs safety, aSafety Officer is assigned to advise the Incident Commander of hazards, collapsepotential, and any fire extension, along with other safety duties. For the mostpart, the Safety Officer position himselfat the IDLH area limited his abilities toevaluate all facets ofthe fire ground operations. In that location, he was able toprovide 'last chance' inspections of FF's personnel protection equipment andother duties specific for that area, but in doing so, he limited his fire ground safetyduties to one area. Those functions he performed at the IDLH area could havebeen accomplished by someone other than the Safety Officer, i.e., theAccountability person, which would free up the Safety Officer to move about.The person designated as a Safety Officer shall meet the requirements of FireOfficer Level I, as specified in NFPA 1021. Standardfor Fire OfficerProfessional Qualifications and trained to NFPA 1521, Standardfor FireDepartment Safety Officer. (Action required)Attachment 3

-_._-----~-,FOR F Ie N3.1. I I. Accountability: The accountability program was initiated at the exercise. Theseduties were accomplished by an additional duty Fire Officer and worked asdesigned. The Accountability person does not have to have the qualifications of aFire Officer Levell. It was noted that the Accountability person positionedhimself with the IC. Although the requirements are met, the Accountabilityperson could have been in position at the IDLH area, freeing up the Safety Officerto perform his duties more effectively. The Accountability person is normally the'last-chance' person to check FFs for proper use of PPE. After hours staffing isnot sufficient. (Action required)3.1.12. Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE): The use of PPE, including self-containedbreathing apparatus (SCBA), and the enthusiasm expressed by the firefighterswere commendable. One FF was not wearing hand protection when handlinghose. Overall, the FF did a great job with the proper use of PPE.3.1.13. The Rapid Intervention Team (RIT): The RIT was well executed and was inplace prior to FF entering the IDLH area.3.1.14. Rescue Operations: The rescue procedures used during this exercise were welldemonstrated. When the FF went down with simulated injuries, the FF actedproperly and professionally. The rescue operations and 'down FF' procedureswere oftextbook quality3.1.15. Staffing: The Raytheon Fire Department staffing does not meet the minimumrequirements ofNFPA 1710, Standardfor the Organization and Deployment ofFire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and SpecialOperations to the Public by Career Fire Departments or the USAF Concept ofOperations for Fire Prevention and Consequence Management, which requires 12firefighters and one Level III Fire Officer, on duty 24/7. The below diagram is anexcerpt from the ConOps, figure 4. (Action required)Structural Response ­At!~ili() lal ."sb I.'·"'.•· Patient C,,,e L.VAIIIiI~-tlit'HIP'J!liitiJ'" PI',,"!:>'!O.lll,., tlKtil.'';· Sta'Jint1· R.llabililalroll-~ K';-A:C• S,o),FT"v. 2......-: £. CC• A:':C'··~tE·'H••~~_tr.~"' .... t.. ;~,'""·,·I'.._,• «n-·"""oufld: 12 FFslie~ _~ __ ~F ~"',,'Yo"·· •U"'//4,-""';"'1Attachment 3

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY3.2 Additional observations noted:3.2.1. Fire Department Records: Several records, i.e., SOPs, training, hose, ropes,ladders, etc., were reviewed and found to be satisfactory. A significant strength intheir recordkeeping program is an effective use of their records for review as theywere well laid out, well organized, and complete, with no deficiencies.3.2.2. Truck and Equipment Check: A review of their vehicle check was welldemonstrated by a very knowledgeable FF. The FF took pride in the vehicle andassociated equipment. There were no records of tires being checked forappropriate pressures or records of air being added. Records indicated someshifts did not check some of the equipment, i.e., the AED. Some limited shelf-lifeitems' expiration dates had passed. The inventory sheet did not match theequipment by compartments, indicating equipment missing or misplaced. Insome cases, there was equipment in the compartments but not on the list. Therewas equipment in the driver's cab not secured in place, which could becomeprojectiles or interfere with the driver's operations. The means of hold ing theitem in place or the compartment should be designed to minimize injury topersons in the enclosed area of the fire apparatus. Loose equipment during theevent of a crash, a rapid deceleration, or a rapid acceleration can be the cause ofserious injury or the crash of the apparatus. See NFPA 1500, para 6. I.5. (Actionrequired)3.2.3. Fire Personnel Certifications: Not all positions held in the fire service are withDoD Certifications. Raytheon in aggressively pursuing abating this requirement.(Action required)3.2 Recommendations: There are several improvement opportunities that could enhancethe effectiveness of the fire ground operations program: Develop checklists for expectedincidents to be used during emergencies and checklists for pre- and post- incidentbriefings. Ensure operational procedures are in place and practice to identify andtransmit the IDLH area for every structural emergency/exercise. It is critical that a FireOfficer Levell trained as a Safety Officer is assigned for all emergencies. As stated inNFPA 1500 and the USAF ConOps, during actual emergencies, the effectiveness of firecompanies can become critical to the safety and health offire fighters. Potentially fatalwork environments can be created very rapidly in many fire situations. Increase thenumber of firefighters assigned to fire ground operations beyond the defensive mode asdemonstrated above IA W NFPA 1710 and the Air Force ConOps. Facilities should takean aggressive role in solving the fire distribution system at the Plant. Considerconverting two ofthe '6-pack' tanks as fire water reservoirs. Raytheon shall also providea timeline as to when all the fire service personnel will became DoD certified.3.3 Summary: Both exercises were accomplished using additional duty personnel toaugment the normally assigned firefighters, which increased the number of firefightersneeded to fulfill critical positions on the fire ground. In order to meet the minimumstaffing requirements, the weekend, holiday, and after-hour staffing needs to beincreased.Attachment 3

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY4.0 Any questions concerning the above report may be directed to ASC, DET USE, Mr.Bill Kapella, Area Code (661) 272-6719.BILL KAPELLAASC Det 1, Fire MarshalAttachment 3

For Official Use OnlyAFP 44 ANNUAL FACILITIES REVIEWRAYTHEON SYSTEMS COMPANY4-8 FEBRUARY 2008FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW1. PURPOSEThe intent of this facility review was to examine the inspection and testing program forfire protection systems, review the status of the corrective actions of last year'sobservations and identify potential fire protection problems during a walk through of thefacilities. Assisting me with this years fire protection review were Raytheon's DennisTwardowski, Rick Johnson and Jeff George.2. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCERECORDSRecords for the most part are centrally kept with the inspectors and are in good ordershowing that periodic testing and inspections per NFPA are being accomplished with oneconcern.Fire Hydrant isolation valves should be exercised and lubricated annually. While theFire Dept. says they do inspect the isolation valves while annually inspecting/testing thefire hydrants, the inspection description for fire hydrants does not mention anything aboutinspecting the isolation valve in the branch line just ahead of the hydrant. Recommendadding isolation valve inspection as part ofthe fire hydrant inspection or as a separatetask altogether.3. PREVIOUS FACILITY REVIEW CORRECTIVE ACTION STATUSNot all of the corrective actions as a result ofour 2006 facility review report were fieldverified but ofthose reviewed, the corrective actions were adequate with exception of thefollowing repeat observations;3.1 FACO Bldg 852 sprinklers along south corridor too low. The ceiling is used to trapheat and activate the sprinkler heads. With the sprinkler head lowered approx 2 ft belowceiling level, activation could be delayed in a fire event. Our understanding is this taskwill be completed this year (2008).3.2 B-833 new vehicle maintenance addition on west side. We recommended addingsprinklers to this area and it is our understanding that Raytheon has completed thisproject. Additionally when the overhead door is down on the west side of the originalbay, there is no secondary personnel exit for this original bay. We recommend adding asecondary exit. Secondly, when this same overhead door is in the up position, it blocksAttachment 4

For Official Use Onlysprinkler coverage for area below the door. We recommend adding sprinklers under theraised door or changing the slide-up door to a roll-up door.3.3 FACO Bldg 852 had several fire exit signs that were not working. This makesemergency lighting suspect as well. Recommend electric shop corrections as necessary.4. FACILITY REVIEW OBSERVATIONSThe following items were noted during the walk through ofthe plant:4.1 B-852 south side exit doors. The doors have draft socks along the floor to preventdrafts, dirt and rain from blowing in under the doors. These "socks" may becometripping hazards in an emergency exit situation. This is not an acceptable buildingmaterial or practice and we recommend removing these socks and installing effectivedoor sweeps/thresholds and/or exterior wind blocks as necessary.4.2. Anechoic chamber sprinkler heads. I noticed many heads buried in the coneswhich is OK if these are the telescoping heads that pop-out or extend below the cones inthe event of a fire and provide proper spray patterns. The inspectors indicated these arenot telescoping heads and ifso, I recommend replacing them with telescoping heads.4.3. B-809 Clean Room sprinkler head locations. Sprinkler heads were located in theceiling mounted return air grates at suspended ceiling level with another approx 3 ft ofreturn air plenum space above suspended ceiling level. In a fire event, smoke should shutthe air handler down but I question ifthe sprinkler heads will provide timely activationwith approx 3 ft ofopen space above the heads. Recommend a design review ofsprinkler head location/situation and provide feedback of the situation and includepossible corrective actions if applicable.4.4. Additional fire protection study recommended in B-801. 8-801 has been"rearranged" over the years to meet changing missions and there are a few activities suchas paint/chemical mixing rooms and milling operations that may require a higher level offire protection/separation then what has been provided to date. The roof construction issuspect with excess rooftar build-up and no tire breaks per the insurance companysurvey. The Fire Department questions internal exit corridor integrity and lack of hosestations both internally and externally on the roof. I recommend a NFPA 101 Life SafetyCode study of the facility be accomplished by a reputable engineering firm. Provide anexecutive overview and evaluation with prioritized recommended fixes and optionsincluding cost estimates.5. GENERAL COMMENTSLAUDATORY - Missing ceiling tiles leave a "hole" in the ceiling plane that allows heatfrom a fire to escape delaying sprinkler head activation. Missing ceiling tiles have beencommon enough to note in the past but for the second year in a row, Raytheon has donean outstanding job of keeping ceiling tiles in place. Keep up the good work.Attachment 4

For Official Use OnlyLAUDATORY - Kudos to Raytheon for stepping up and initiating an emergency lightinglocation and marking contractor task which will also bring as-built dwgs up-to-date. Thisshould be a tremendous help with ensuring emergency lighting is working properly thruoutthe plant.6. RECOMMMENDATIONRecommend Raytheon take the necessary steps to correct the observations identified inparagraphs 2, 3 and 4.7. SUMMARYFire protection in general looks good and the Raytheon fire inspectors are to becommended for continuing to do a good job with records management and overallmanaging ofthe fire protection program in their respective areas. Raytheonhousekeeping and facility appearance overall is looking good and we appreciate thediligence of all involved.DAVE DICKSONFire Protection EngineerAttachment 4

,TRIP REPORTl. PERSONS MAKING THIS TRIPRichard A. Spotts, ASC/ENV (44), AFP 44 Supervising Engineer/Team LeaderDavid L. Dickson ASC/ENVP, Fire Protection EngineerWilliam Kapella, ASC Det I, Safety SpecialistSMSgt Glen C. Paveglio, HQ AFMC/A70X, Fire Protection Functional Manager2. DATE OF VISIT: 7 April 20083. ACTIVITY VISITED: Air Force Plant (AFP) 44Raytheon CompanyTucson, Arizona4. PURPOSE OF THE VISIT: To conduct a "No Notice" Fire Department Evaluationof the Raytheon Fire Department. This evaluation was conducted in response to aCongressional Inquiry.5. PERSONNEL CONTACTED:Raytheon CompanyKen WhiteHyte JohnsonChristine StarkBob HannifanRick KennedyKen MatynkaKelly MarionBob GuthDCMACarlos BastidosDirector, SecurityDirector, Environmental Health & SafetySenior Manager, Fire DepartmentRaytheon IPT LeadFire Department - Station ChiefFire Department - Station ChiefFire Department - Assistant Chief (Absent)Human ResourcesDACO6. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS:a. The Fire Department Evaluation began with a head count of on-duty fire fighterpersonnel and an in-brief between the team members and Raytheon Company FireDepartment managers.b. The findings and the information contained within this report were briefed toRaytheon at the end ofthe visit.

c. Fire Department Organization: The organizational staffing at Air Force Plant44 is without a 000 certified Fire Chief that has direct authority over the fire suppressionand fire prevention branches. According to an organization chart provided to theinspection team, a non-fire officer, Senior Manager, has direct authority over AssistantChief of all fire suppression operations and the Assistant Chief of the Fire Preventionfunctions, which circumvents the authority and responsibilities of a Fire DepartmentOrganizational Fire Chief to carry out the duties required in 000 6055.06-M, DoD FireAnd Emergency Services Certification Program, 000 Instruction (DoDI) 6055.06,000Fire and Emergency Services (F&ES) Program, and AFI 32-2001, The Fire ProtectionOperations And Fire Prevention Program. According to the above standards the FireChief is directly responsible for several functions listed in AF I 32-2001 and forestablishing and maintaining a comprehensive Fire and Emergency Service (F&ES)Program. lAW 000 6055.06-M the Fire Chief shall be 000 certified as a Fire OfficerIV, which the person as the Senior Manager is not.d. Fire Department Staffing: On the day of the visit the Raytheon Fire Departmentwas staffed as follows: (I) At 0930,6- firefighters (FF) + 1- Fire Officer IncidentCommander (IC), (2) at 1230, 5-FF + I-IC, and (3) at 1825, 5-FF + I-Ie. The staffinglevels at Air Force Plant 44 is in direct violation of Department of Defense Instruction(DoDI) 6055.06, DoD Fire and Emergency Services (F&ES) Program, and the Air Forceimplementing instruction AFI 32-200 I, The Fire Protection Operations And FirePrevention Program. The required staffing is 12-firefighters (F F) and I-Fire OfficerIncident Commander (IC).e. Fire Department Exercise: The Team conducted a no-notice exercise. At thetime of the first exercise (0930), the fire crews were away from the fire stationconducting other fire business. The exercise was a simulated fire in the fire station.Within 4-minutes one fire engine arrived with 2-FFs. Within 5-minuntes, a fire inspectorarrived. Before the exercise was completed, a real-world emergency erupted requiringthe service of their main engine company with a crew of four. The exercise wasterminated at that time. The exercise revealed that their full response was Engine 741with a crew of4, Engine, 742 with a crew of2, and 2-fire inspectors via limitedtransportation and an IC within the 12 minute response requirement. The response timewas met but the crew was short of the 12 firefighter requirement by four fire fighters. At1230 a pre-announced exercise was held on bldg 853 in the Final Assembly and Check­Out Area (FACO). During this exercise, 5-FF, 2-inspectors and an lC responded.Although the 12-minute time response was met, there was a slight delay in providingaggressive offensive fire attack due to the inadequate number of firefighters on scene.For this exercise Raytheon was short of the 12 firefighter requirement by five firefighters.f. Staffing Reduction: Raytheon asked if deviations to the required staffing levelswere authorized. lAW AFI 32-2001, paragraph 3. 1.2. I. Staffing Reduction states:"Installation commanders have the authority to reduce levels ofaircraft rescue andfirefighting capabilities during periods when the flight control tower is not operational dueto non-jlying, and combined with no aircraft ground servicing or maintenance ". Thisstaffing reduction would not apply to AFP 44.

g. Equipment Issues1) The Raytheon Fire Department has two fire engines that currently meet AFI32·2001 requirements. Raytheon is also in the process ofbudgeting for a companycapital expenditure to purchase one replacement vehicle.2) The Raytheon fire fighters have adequate Bunker gear however they do notcomply with the DoD requirement to clean or replace the bunker gear every six months.A functional washer and dryer are currently available for the cleaning of fire fighterunifonns and bedding. They do not have the necessary equipment to clean the personalprotective equipment (i.e. bunker gear liners).h. Facility Issues: The existing plant protection facility, building 828, is more thanfifty years old and as such has numerous maintenance issues. Raytheon has adequatelymaintained this facility and no health or safety issues were found. Due to the age of thisfacility and the currently crowded conditions due to increased security forces personnelas well as anticipated increase in fire fighter staffing the construction of a new fire stationhas been recommended. Raytheon and the Air Force are currently in the process ofidentifying the requirements and design criteria for the construction of a new fire station.7. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:a. Recommendation: Staff the Fire Department with a certified Fire Chief that hasdirect duties and responsibilities over the fire suppression department and fireprevention department and carry out the requirements of the above standards.b. Recommendation: Staff the Fire Department lAW the DOD standards; 12 DODcertified fire fighters and one DOD certified Incident Commander on a 24/7 basis.c. Recommendation: Purchase and install equipment for cleaning the bunker gear orcontract out the service to a third party.d. Raytheon personnel were cooperative, helpful, and supportive during this "no-notice"Fire Department Evaluation.~~c?q.>I