I N T E G R I T Y E F F I C I E N C Y A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y E XC E L L E N C E
Inspector General U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Military-Occupied Facilities Evaluation – Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar
D E C E M B E R 2 1 , 2 0 1 7
Report No. DODIG-2018-049
I N T E G R I T Y E F F I C I E N C Y A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y E X C E L L E N C E
MissionOur mission is to provide independent, relevant, and timely oversight of the Department of Defense that supports the warfighter; promotes
accountability, integrity, and efficiency; advises the Secretary of Defense and Congress; and informs the public.
VisionOur vision is to be a model oversight organization in the Federal Government by leading change, speaking truth,
and promoting excellence—a diverse organization, working together as one professional team, recognized
as leaders in our field.
dodig.mil/hotline |800.424.9098
HOTLINEDepartment of Defense
F r a u d, W a s t e, & A b u s e
For more information about whistleblower protection, please see the inside back cover.
DODIG-2018-049 (Project No. D2017-D000PT-0103.000) │ i
Results in BriefU.S. Military-Occupied Facilities Evaluation – Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar
ObjectiveOur objective was to evaluate U.S. military-occupied facilities at Al Udeid Air Base to verify compliance with DoD health and safety policies and standards regarding indoor air quality, electrical systems, fire protection systems, and active and inactive fuel systems.
FindingsWe found that indoor air quality, electrical systems, fire protection systems, and inactive fuel systems were not being maintained in accordance with DoD health and safety policies and standards. However, we found that the active fuel systems at Al Udeid Air Base were generally maintained in accordance with DoD health and safety policies and standards.
We identified a total of 253 deficiencies that could affect the health, safety, and well-being of DoD personnel: 13 related to indoor air quality, 105 related to electrical systems, 49 related to fire protection systems, and 86 related to inactive fuel systems. The deficiencies identified during our evaluation resulted from acceptance of new construction that did not comply with DoD health and safety policies and standards, moisture intrusion into facilities, and inadequate facility maintenance.
We considered five of the electrical deficiencies we identified to be critical deficiencies requiring immediate corrective action and issued a notice of concern on June 7, 2017, to the Commander, 379th Air Expeditionary Wing.
December 21, 2017
On June 21, 2017, the Commander responded to these concerns and indicated that they were addressed or in the process of being addressed. See Appendix B for additional information on the notice of concern and the Commander’s response.
RecommendationsWe recommend that the Commander, 379th Air Expeditionary Wing:
• Conduct a root cause analysis and implement a corrective action plan for all deficiencies identified in this report. Ensure that facility operations and maintenance comply with the Unified Facilities Criteria and the National Fire Protection Association standards. Determine the causes of the moisture intrusion into occupied facilities. Include an assessment of the fuel system pipelines in accordance with the American Petroleum Institute (API 570) piping inspection code.
• Conduct a root cause analysis and implement a corrective action plan to ensure that all construction projects are reviewed for compliance with applicable fire protection and fuel systems codes and standards before they are accepted by the Government as complete.
Management Comments and Our ResponseThe Commander, 379th Air Expeditionary Wing (AEW), agreed with our findings and recommendations, and has taken action to mitigate and reduce the risks to Government personnel and property. The Commander stated that he had taken steps to identify root causes and correct deficiencies identified in the report. Specifically, he stated that the 379th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron (ECES) had conducted inspections of all facilities for the types of electrical deficiencies identified in the report and had implemented corrective actions, including replacing electrical panels, adding protective barriers around
Findings (cont’d)
ii │ DODIG-2018-049 (Project No. D2017-D000PT-0103.000)
Results in BriefU.S. Military-Occupied Facilities Evaluation – Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar
transformers, and purchasing electrical diagnostic equipment to identify problems. The Commander further stated that the base operations support contractor had updated the status of fire suppression systems for all facilities and was correcting all deficiencies. Where timely correction of fire deficiencies was not possible, the Commander stated that 379 ECES was mitigating the risk. In addition, the Commander stated that the command had added the services of a fire protection engineer to the base operations support contract for the design and execution of construction projects. Finally, the Commander stated that a contract was awarded to correct the fuel system deficiencies and to bring the system into full compliance with the Unified Facilities Criteria by May 2018.
Therefore, four of the six recommendations are resolved but remain open. We will close these recommendations once we verify that the stated corrective actions have been implemented.
Comments from the Commander, 379 AEW, did not address the recommendation to ensure that all construction projects are reviewed for compliance with applicable fuel systems standards before the Government accepts the systems as complete.
Additionally, the Commander did not address the recommendation to determine the cause of the water intrusion and the poor air quality in the facilities and correct the related deficiencies. The Commander stated that there is no active roof inspection program, but he did not confirm that roof infiltration is the only contributor to indoor air quality problems. Therefore, these two recommendations are unresolved. We request that the Commander, 379 AEW, provide additional comments on these recommendations within 30 days of the issuance of this report. The additional comments should address all specific causes of the moisture intrusion and air quality problems in facilities and corrective action plans. In addition, the Commander’s comments should address the specific actions planned to ensure that fuel system construction projects are reviewed for compliance with applicable fuel systems standards before the Government accepts them as complete.
Please see the Recommendations Table on the next page.
Management Comments (cont’d)
DODIG-2018-049 (Project No. D2017-D000PT-0103.000) │ iii
Recommendations TableManagement Recommendations
UnresolvedRecommendations
ResolvedRecommendations
Closed
Commander, U.S. Air Forces Central C.1.b and D.1 A.1, B.1.a, B.1.b, and C.1.a None
Please provide Management Comments by January 14, 2018. Note: The following categories are used to describe agency management’s comments to individual recommendations.
• Unresolved – Management has not agreed to implement the recommendation or has not proposed actions that will address the recommendation.
• Resolved – Management agreed to implement the recommendation or has proposed actions that will address the underlying finding that generated the recommendation.
• Closed – OIG verified that the agreed upon corrective actions were implemented.
DODIG-2018-049│ v
December 21, 2017
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: U.S. Military-Occupied Facilities Evaluation – Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar (Report No. DODIG-2018-049)
We are providing this report for review and comment. We found that the active fuel systems at Al Udeid Air Base were generally maintained in accordance with DoD health and safety policies and standards. However, we found that indoor air quality, electrical systems, fire protection systems, and inactive fuel systems were not being maintained in accordance with DoD health and safety policies and standards. We conducted this evaluation in accordance with the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, “Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation.”
We considered comments from the Commander, 379th Air Expeditionary Wing (379 AEW), when preparing the final report. DoD Instruction 7650.03 requires that recommendations be resolved promptly. Comments from the Commander, 379 AEW, partially addressed the recommendations. Therefore, we request additional comments on Recommendations C.1.b and D.1 by January 14, 2018.
Please send a PDF file containing your comments to [email protected]. Copies of your comments must have the actual signature of the authorizing official for your organization. We cannot accept the /Signed/ symbol in place of the actual signature. If you arrange to send classified comments electronically, you must send them over the SECRET Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET).
We appreciate the courtesies extended to the staff.
Randolph R. StoneDeputy Inspector General Policy and Oversight
INSPECTOR GENERALDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE4800 MARK CENTER DRIVE
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22350-1500
vi │ DODIG-2018-049
Distribution:UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER), DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERUNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICYASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT); ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH DIRECTORATE DIRECTOR, COST ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM EVALUATIONDOD PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT OFFICER/DEPUTY CHIEF MANAGEMENT OFFICERUNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICSCOMMANDER, UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMANDAUDITOR GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCESECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE INSPECTOR GENERAL COMMANDER, UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMANDDEFENSE LOGISTICS EXTERNAL AUDIT LIAISONCOMMANDER, 379TH AIR EXPEDITIONARY WINGINSPECTOR GENERAL, 379TH AIR EXPEDITIONARY WING
DODIG-2018-049│ vii
Contents
IntroductionObjective ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................1
Background ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................1
FindingsFinding A. AUAB Electrical System Deficiencies..............................................................................................................4
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................7
Recommendation, Management Comments, and Our Response .........................................................8
Finding B. AUAB Fire Protection Deficiencies ....................................................................................................................9
Maintenance Deficiencies ..................................................................................................................................................................9
Construction Deficiencies ..............................................................................................................................................................10
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Finding C. AUAB Inactive Fuel System Deficiencies ..................................................................................................14
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................................................................16
Recommendations, Management Comments, and Our Response ...................................................17
Finding D. AUAB Indoor Air Quality Deficiencies ....................................................................................................... 18
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................................................................................19
Recommendations, Management Comments, and Our Response ...................................................19
AppendixesAppendix A. Scope and Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 21
Use of Computer-Processed Data.......................................................................................................................................... 21
Use of Technical Assistance......................................................................................................................................................... 21
Prior Coverage ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 21
Appendix B. Notice of Concern .......................................................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix C. Evaluation Standards and Criteria ........................................................................................................... 29
Management CommentsCommander, 379 AEW .................................................................................................................................................................................. 31
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 34
Introduction
DODIG-2018-049│ 1
Introduction
ObjectiveOur objective was to evaluate U.S. military-occupied facilities at Al Udeid Air Base (AUAB) to verify compliance with DoD health and safety policies and standards regarding indoor air quality, electrical systems, fire protection systems, and active and inactive fuel systems. This project was conducted in support of overseas contingency operations, Operations INHERENT RESOLVE and FREEDOM’S SENTINEL, and was completed in accordance with our oversight responsibilities, described in Section 8L of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. See Appendix A for information about the scope, methodology, and prior coverage.
Background The DoD Office of Inspector General (OIG) regards the health and safety of DoD personnel as a priority and has previously performed similar evaluations of U.S military-occupied facilities in Southwest Asia, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and the United States. This evaluation was conducted onsite at AUAB, Qatar, which is on the east coast of the Arabian Peninsula surrounded by the Persian Gulf and attached by land to Saudi Arabia (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Regional Map
Source: Master Plan Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, prepared by CH2M May 2015.
Introduction
2 │ DODIG-2018-049.
AUAB, QatarAUAB is a staging and operational base for the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing (AEW). According to the base master plan, the 379 AEW protects U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization interests throughout U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) and Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa, with its primary focus on Southwest Asia. The 379 AEW is the largest, most diverse expeditionary wing in the Air Force. The wing and its associate units operate more than 90 aircraft, making the base a large hub for humanitarian airlift activity, while providing mission-essential combat power, aeromedical evacuation, airlift, air refueling, and intelligence gathering for multiple theaters of operations.
Evaluation Process and CriteriaWe evaluated indoor air quality, electrical systems, fire protection systems, and fuel systems in U.S. military occupied facilities at AUAB to verify compliance with DoD health and safety policies and standards. All DoD health and safety policies applied at AUAB are mandated by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), and Air Force standards. Where contracted support is employed, these policies and standards are required by the base operations support (BOS) contract.1 The 379th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron (ECES) personnel performed the operation, maintenance, and repair of electrical systems inside these facilities. However, the operation, maintenance, and repair of fire protection systems and large air handling units (AHU) were performed through contracted services. The criteria used for the evaluation of the fire protection systems and the AHU’s that support indoor air quality were contained in the BOS contract under FA8051-15-D-0008, “Engineering Support.”2 The inactive fuel systems, which is a fuel system that is not in use, was a military construction project and is therefore required to comply with the UFC. See Appendix C for the DoD health and safety policies and standards used in this evaluation.
We evaluated 71 buildings. The buildings included offices, dining facilities, living quarters, bathhouses, warehouses, an indoor pool, a vehicle maintenance shop, a clinic, and a dog kennel. We also evaluated 74 support facilities, which included fuel storage, fuel distribution, hazardous waste storage, and an outdoor pool.
1 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 246.2, “Contract Quality Requirements,” requires contracts for the construction, installation, repair, maintenance, or operation of facilities acquired for use by DoD personnel, including facilities existing in host nation, to require contractor compliance with unified facilities criteria (UFC) 1-200-01, “general building requirements,” to minimize safety and health risks.
2 Contract number FA8051-15-D-0008 Air Force Installation Contracting Agency 772 Enterprise Sourcing Squadron/PkD.
Introduction
DODIG-2018-049│ 3
Notice of ConcernOn June 7, 2017, we issued a notice of concern (NOC) documenting critical electrical deficiencies identified during this evaluation that required immediate corrective action. Specifically, the NOC identified electrical panels intended for indoor use that were being used outside. The panels had open vents that can allow dust and water to enter and contact exposed wires, increasing the risk of shock and electrocution. We also found two 11,000-volt transformers that were not protected from vehicle traffic. The transformers could be knocked off their platform by a vehicle, exposing feeder cables, and putting personnel at grave risk of shock or electrocution. We also identified four European metric panels with poorly fitted American circuit breakers. The incompatible breakers in the panels were not adequately secured, causing the panels to overheat. Overheated circuit breakers greatly increase the risk of explosion, fire, and injury. Additionally, on a food service counter at a dining facility, we found exposed wires spliced together outside a protective junction box that could send an electric current through the metal serving counter and shock workers and patrons. At the outdoor swimming pool, we identified inadequate bonding and inadequate ground fault circuit interrupt (GFCI) protection. A person could be electrocuted if a pool pump motor that is not bonded has a voltage surge and the circuit breaker does not trip because is it not GFCI protected. All of these critical electrical deficiencies present a significant and immediate risk of electrocution or fire.
The Commander, 379 AEW, responded to our NOC on June 21, 2017, with a plan to correct the safety deficiencies. See Appendix B for a copy of the NOC and the Air Force’s response.
Findings
4 │ DODIG-2018-049
Finding A
AUAB Electrical System Deficiencies
We identified 105 deficiencies related to electrical systems. These deficiencies could have been mitigated if the 379 ECES electricians had properly maintained electrical systems as required by applicable National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) codes and standards. As a result, these deficiencies pose an increased risk of fire, injury, and loss of life or property.
Figure 2. Electrical Deficiencies by Category
Source: Deficiency log created by DoD OIG evaluation team.
The standard that applies to electrical deficiencies is the NFPA 70, “National Electrical Code.” We documented 105 electrical systems deficiencies at AUAB (see Figure 2). The deficiencies were related to wiring, equipment, GFCI, accessibility to equipment, and grounding and bonding. All of these deficiencies pose a risk of fire, injury, and loss of life or property. Examples of these deficiencies include the following:
We found four circuit breaker panels in building 3947. Two of the panels showed signs of overheating, likely due to incompatible circuit breakers. The NFPA 70, article 110.12, requires panels to have adequate strength to allow safe operation and to prevent overheating. Overheated circuit breakers greatly increase the risk of explosion, fire, and personnel injury.
Findings
DODIG-2018-049│ 5
We identified deficient electrical cable splices, panels, and junction boxes. The panels and junction boxes were missing covers resulting in personnel being exposed to the risk of electrocution. Deficient splices, open junction boxes, and open panels were a systemic problem and an indication of the lack of compliance with electrical safety standards. Figure 3 shows one example of a noncompliant splice made outside the control box on a heated serving table in the Manhattan dining facility. The NFPA 70, article 354.56, requires splices to be made inside junction boxes or other enclosures to prevent injury from electrocution.
We found electrical panels installed outdoors that were not designed for outdoor conditions. Figure 4 shows a 240-volt, 100-amp live panel behind building 10014. The NFPA 70, article 312.2, requires energized equipment mounted in wet locations to be weatherproof, that is, sealed to prevent water intrusion. The panels we found did not have proper seals around the doors, which allowed water and dust to infiltrate the panels. If the enclosure is energized, there is a risk of shock or electrocution.
Figure 4. Indoor electrical panels used outdoors (Deficiency No. AUAB-EL-170526-001)
Figure 3. Nonconforming splice (Deficiency No. AUAB-EL-170526-005)
Findings
6 │ DODIG-2018-049
Behind building 1101, two 11,000-volt transformers were not adequately protected because they were accessible to unauthorized personnel and were insufficiently protected from potential physical damage by vehicular traffic. Specifically, the transformers could be hit by a vehicle, resulting in exposure of the 11,000-volt feeder cables, which would lead to shock or electrocution. The NFPA 70, article 110.27, requires electrical equipment to be protected from physical damage, and article 110.31 requires these transformers to be enclosed to prevent access by unauthorized personnel.
We found eight occurrences of inadequate clearances around electrical equipment. Proper clearance around, and in front of, energized panels and equipment is required to allow for safe and quick access, especially during an emergency. Additionally, adequate clearance enables escape in the event of an arc flash while performing maintenance on the electrical equipment.3 In all three dining facilities, we found electrical equipment that did not comply with NFPA 70, article 110.26, which requires adequate access and working space around electrical equipment. For example, a food cart was in front of disconnect switches in the Independence dining facility. Another instance of this deficiency was a stove installed in front of electrical panels in the Blatchford Preston Complex (BPC) dining facility. In addition, storage racks were placed in front of electrical panels in the Manhattan dining facility. Figure 5 shows a room in building 6671 with chairs blocking the required electrical panel safe access space.
3 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defines an arc-flash as a phenomenon when electric current leaves its intended path and travels through the air from one conductor to another or to the ground. The results are often violent, and when a human is in close proximity to the arc flash, serious injury and even death can occur.
Figure 5. Chairs in panel access area (Deficiency No. AUAB-EL-170526-010)
Findings
DODIG-2018-049│ 7
We noted that eight of the buildings we visited did not have adequate GFCI protection. We tested the only GFCI receptacle we found in the Manhattan dining facility, and it failed to operate properly. Additionally, GFCI protection was not installed at the Coalition Compound (CC) outdoor pool. The NFPA 70, article 210.8, requires GFCI protection of electrical systems in wet areas like kitchens and pools to prevent the risk of shock or electrocution.
Also, at the CC outdoor pool and the BPC indoor pool, we found insufficient bonding of electrical equipment. The CC outdoor pool had three water pumps that were not bonded together. The NFPA 70, article 680.26, requires these pumps to be bonded together using solid copper conductors inside a rigid metal corrosion-resistant conduit. Bonding the pool pumps would prevent a voltage gradient in the pool area.4
At five locations, we found air conditioning equipment that was missing the required electrical disconnects. Disconnects are required to ensure that maintenance workers can keep the equipment de-energized while performing maintenance. The NFPA 70, article 440.14, requires disconnecting means to be visible or readily accessible for air-conditioning equipment. If the equipment becomes energized, a worker performing maintenance could be shocked or electrocuted.
According to the lead contracting officer representative for the BOS contract, the 379 ECES is responsible for maintaining the electrical systems inside the facilities at AUAB.5 However, a contractor is responsible for the maintenance of the electrical grid and power supply outside the facilities.
Conclusion The 379 ECES electricians did not maintain and repair electrical systems at AUAB in accordance with applicable NFPA standards, potentially affecting the health and safety of DoD personnel. Further, the lack of maintenance and repair of the electrical systems has resulted in pervasive issues that increase the risk of personnel being electrocuted.
4 OSHA defines a voltage gradient as a difference in electric potential. 5 Contract number FA8051-15-D-0008 Air Force Installation Contracting Agency 772 Enterprise Sourcing Squadron/PkD.
Findings
8 │ DODIG-2018-049
Recommendation, Management Comments, and Our ResponseRecommendation A.1We recommend that the Commander, 379 AEW, conduct a root cause analysis and implement a corrective action plan for all electrical deficiencies identified in this report. Ensure that all current and future facility operations and maintenance comply with the National Fire Protection Association standards. Provide the DoD Office of Inspector General a copy of the analysis and plan within 30 days of the issuance of this report.
Commander, 379 AEW, CommentsThe Commander, 379 AEW, agreed with the recommendation and stated that steps have been taken to identify root causes and correct the deficiencies identified in the report. The Commander further stated that the 379 ECES conducted a 100-percent check of electrical panels, disconnect switches, and transformers. He also stated that projects were being designed and funded to correct deficiencies. The Commander also stated that a contract had been awarded to replace the incorrect enclosures in building 3947 with new enclosures and that electrical diagnostic equipment had been ordered to help identify electrical problems. Finally, the Commander stated that special emphasis was being placed on enforcement of clearance requirements around electrical equipment, electrical panels, and in mechanical rooms by adding it to the mandatory facility manager training plan.
Our ResponseComments from the Commander, 379 AEW, addressed all specifics of the recommendation. Therefore, the recommendation is resolved but remains open. We will close the recommendation once we verify that the corrections have been implemented. No further comments are required.
Findings
DODIG-2018-049│ 9
Finding B
AUAB Fire Protection Deficiencies
We identified 49 deficiencies related to fire protection systems. The deficiencies were related to a lack of maintenance or improper construction. These deficiencies pose an increased risk of fire, injury, and loss of life or property.
Figure 6. Fire Protection Deficiencies by Category
Source: Deficiency log created by DoD OIG evaluation team.
The standards that apply to the fire protection deficiencies are the NFPA and the UFC. We documented 49 fire protection deficiencies at AUAB (see Figure 6). Of the 49 fire protection deficiencies, 33 were related to the construction or modification of facilities and 16 were related to the maintenance of the facilities. The deficiencies included fire suppression, fire prevention, means of egress, and fire alarm systems. These deficiencies pose an increased risk of fire, injury, and loss of life or property.
Maintenance DeficienciesAt the Independence dining facility, we found that one of the kitchen hood fire suppression systems had discharged, and it had not been refilled. The NFPA 96, “Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations,” article 10.1.2, requires fire extinguishing equipment in the hood of cooking equipment that produces grease-laden vapors that might cause a fire. The code further stipulates that cooking equipment should be tagged
Findings
10 │ DODIG-2018-049
and taken out of service while its fire-extinguishing system is nonoperational or impaired. Grease from the cooking equipment could ignite and cause injury, damage, or loss of life or property.
We found combustible materials stored in electrical and mechanical rooms in seven of the buildings we evaluated. Figure 7 shows cardboard boxes on a wooden pallet stored in a mechanical room. The NFPA 1, “Fire Code,” article 10.19.5.1, states combustible material shall not be stored in boiler rooms, mechanical rooms, or electrical equipment rooms. The storage of combustible materials in those spaces could increase the risk of fire and restrict access to the equipment.
Building 8320 contained an automatic sprinkler system that had been deactivated and no warning signs were posted and the main control valve supplying water for the sprinkler system was turned off. Additionally, the automatic electric switch that allows the fire alarm system to activate the fire suppression system had been removed from the automatic sprinkler water valve. The Unified Facility Criteria (UFC) 3-601-02, “Operation and Maintenance: Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Fire Protection Systems,” section 1-10, requires building occupants to be notified whenever any of the fire protection systems are out of service or impaired to a degree that presents an increased risk to any occupant. The lack of warning signs results in the occupants of the building not having the required notice of the increased risk.
Construction DeficienciesThe new warehouse, building 8322, completed in May 2017, is approximately 7,500 square feet and does not have automatic sprinkler protection. The UFC 3-600-01, “Fire Protection Engineering for Facilities,” section 6-11, requires warehouses greater than 5,000 square feet to have sprinkler protection. This new
Figure 7. Storage of combustible material in mechanical room (Deficiency No. AUAB-FP-170526-007)
Findings
DODIG-2018-049│ 11
facility is an example of the failure to comply with DoD health and safety policies and standards. Additionally, the UFC 3-600-01, section 1-5, requires the design services and review of a qualified fire protection engineer for major projects.6
An additional example of the failure to comply with applicable construction standards includes the incomplete sprinkler coverage in mission-critical facilities like the Combined Air and Space Operations Center (CAOC) and the Wing Operations Center. These buildings were constructed with automatic sprinkler systems but were missing sprinkler heads in the electrical and mechanical rooms. The UFC 3-600-01, section 4-2, requires facilities that are protected by automatic sprinklers to be provided with coverage throughout the facility including electrical and mechanical rooms. Additional facilities that did not have complete sprinkler coverage in electrical and mechanical rooms were buildings 10295 and 10550.
The USCENTCOM dormitory had sidewall sprinklers in the sleeping quarters that were installed 19 inches below the ceiling. The NFPA 13, article 8.7, requires sidewall sprinklers to be installed 4 to 6 inches from the ceiling. Buildings 10560 and 10725 had improperly installed pendent sprinkler heads that extend down from the ceiling. The pendent sprinkler heads in the mall food court of building 10560 were installed approximately 5 feet from the ceiling. Additionally, in building 10725, the pendent sprinklers were installed 32 inches from the ceiling. The NFPA 13, article 8.6, requires pendent sprinkler heads to be installed not more than 12 inches from the ceiling. The fire generates heat that activates the sprinkler. The heat rises and collects in a layer at the ceiling. The closer the sprinklers are to the layer of heat that collects at the ceiling the sooner they will activate. The increased distance of the sprinklers from the ceiling will delay sprinkler activation, which increases the risk of injury and the loss of property.
Initiating devices for smoke and fire detection were not properly installed in the BPC dormitory. The distance from the ceiling to the sidewall-mounted smoke detector was 21 inches. The NFPA 72, “National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code,” article 17.7.3.2, requires spot-type smoke detectors to be located on the ceiling or, if on a sidewall, not more than 12 inches below the ceiling. The fire generates smoke that activates the smoke detectors. The smoke rises and collects in a layer at the ceiling. The closer the smoke detectors are to the layer of smoke that collects at the ceiling the sooner they will initiate. Improperly installed smoke detectors delay the signal to initiate the fire suppression system and delay alarm warnings for building occupants. We did not access all sleeping rooms in this dormitory to minimize the disruption to sleeping airmen who work mid- and swing-shift schedules, however, every room we did access had improperly installed smoke detectors.
6 The UFC 3-600-01, section 1-5, defines ‘major projects’ as not only new construction but projects that involve designing or modifying fire-rated construction, fire detection, fire suppression, or life safety systems.
Findings
12 │ DODIG-2018-049
Five of the six permanent dormitories we visited had penetrations through the walls and ceilings. These penetrations or holes lacked fire-stopping measures. The NFPA 101, “Life Safety Code,” article 8.3.5.1, requires protection by a fire stop system for all electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and communication systems penetrations that pass through a wall, floor, or ceiling assembly constructed as a fire barrier. The lack of adequate fire stopping measures for penetrations through fire barriers could contribute to the spread of fire and smoke through the dormitory. Figure 8 shows cables running through a hole in the wall, which should be sealed using NFPA-approved fire-stopping measures. In addition, we observed fire doors that were propped open, which can allow the rapid spread of smoke and fire throughout a building. Also, we found that the latches on stairwell fire doors had been tampered with, which prevented the doors from remaining closed when activated by a fire alarm. These doors need to remain closed to prevent fire and smoke from filling the exit stairwells.
ConclusionConstruction projects are being accepted as complete that do not meet DoD health and safety policies and standards, and fire protection systems are not being maintained according to the NFPA and the UFC. These deficiencies pose an increased risk of fire, injury, and loss of life or property.
Figure 8. Penetration without fire-stopping measures (Deficiency No. AUAB-FP-170526-010)
Findings
DODIG-2018-049│ 13
Recommendations, Management Comments, and Our Response
Recommendation B.1We recommend that the Commander, 379 AEW:
a. Conduct a root cause analysis and implement a corrective action plan for all fire protection deficiencies identified in this report. Ensure that all current and future facility operations and maintenance comply with the Unified Facilities Criteria and the National Fire Protection Association standards. Provide the DoD Office of Inspector General a copy of the corrective action plan within 30 days of the issuance of this report.
b. Prepare and implement a corrective action plan to ensure that all construction projects are reviewed for compliance with applicable fire protection standards before they are accepted by the Government as complete. Provide the DoD Office of Inspector General a copy of the corrective action plan within 30 days of the issuance of this report.
Commander, 379 AEW, CommentsThe Commander, 379 AEW, agreed with the recommendations and stated that steps had been taken to identify root causes and to correct the deficiencies identified in the report. The Commander stated that he tasked the BOS contractor with providing the status of all fire suppression systems and with making required corrections. Additionally, the Commander added the services of a fire protection engineer to the BOS contract to assist with design and construction. The Commander stated that, where sprinkler and smoke detectors were not installed in compliance with fire protection standards, the 379 ECES is developing a corrective action and operations risk management plan to ensure that the existing deficiencies are mitigated while a long-term solution is designed and executed by contract.
Our ResponseComments from the Commander, 379 AEW, addressed all specifics of the recommendations. Therefore, the recommendations are resolved but remain open. We will close the recommendations once we verify that the corrections have been implemented. No further comments are required.
Findings
14 │ DODIG-2018-049
Finding C
AUAB Inactive Fuel System Deficiencies
The active fuel facilities at AUAB were generally maintained in accordance with DoD health and safety standards. However, we identified deficiencies with the close air support ramp inactive fuel system that is being converted to active use. The deficiencies we found increase the risk of fire, injury, or death.
At AUAB there are fuel systems that are currently active (in use) and fuel systems that are inactive (not in use). The active fuel systems provide fuel for aircraft and ground vehicles throughout the base. During our evaluation, we found the active fuel system to be well-maintained. However, the inactive fuel system integrated into the close air support (CAS) ramp had not been maintained since it was built in 2012. The ramp is a large concrete pad for fueling aircraft. The fuel system at the CAS ramp was constructed to fuel B-52 aircraft that are loaded with munitions in a location distant from other combat support aircraft to mitigate injury or damage if there is a fuel mishap or an explosion. We evaluated the fuel system at the CAS ramp, which is currently inactive, because the Air Force was in the process of placing it into service. In August 2017, the Air Force Civil Engineering Center awarded a construction project contract for the restoration and modernization required to bring the system into operation. The 379th Expeditionary Logistics Readiness Squadron requested and were provided details on the fuel systems deficiencies we found during this evaluation to ensure they are included in the contract.
Figure 9. Fuel Facility Deficiencies by Category
Source: Deficiency log created by DoD OIG evaluation team.
Findings
DODIG-2018-049│ 15
We documented 86 deficiencies related to the inactive fuel system at the CAS ramp (see Figure 9) based on the UFC standards. The deficiencies we found were related to equipment, pipelines, and fuel containment. These deficiencies increase the risk of fire, injury, or death. Examples of these deficiencies include the following:
The corrosion protection (referred to as “cathodic protection”) of the underground fuel pipeline at the CAS ramp was not installed correctly and had not been maintained since it was installed. The UFC 3-460-01, “Design: Petroleum Fuel Facilities,” section 2-13.2, requires all underground steel fuel piping to have cathodic protection. Cathodic protection is a technique used to minimize corrosion of metal surfaces by electrically connecting the metal to be protected to a more easily corroded “sacrificial metal.” The sacrificial metal then corrodes instead of the protected metal. The objective of the cathodic protection system is to reduce metal pipe rust and corrosion. The underground pipeline has not been protected from corrosion for over 4 years. Pipe corrosion weakens pipes and can lead to fuel leaks and spills.
The CAS ramp was missing pipe inspection equipment, known as pig launchers and receivers. The UFC 3-460-01, chapter 6, requires inspection equipment be installed so that pipelines are “smart piggable” and chapter 12 of the same UFC, requires pipe inspections to be conducted in accordance with American Petroleum Institute (API) 570.7 Smart pigs are pipeline inspection tools that consist of large pieces of machinery combined with powerful technology that aid in the maintenance of pipelines. Smart pigs can be inserted into the pipeline at a location, such as a valve or pump station, that has a special configuration of pipes and valves where the inspection tool can be loaded into a device known as a launcher. The launcher is closed and sealed, and the flow of fuel in the pipeline can be directed to launch the inspection tool. The inspection tool or ”pig” travels through the pipeline collecting data from the inside of the pipe, including restrictions, deformations of the pipe, as well as metal loss. The pig provides critical data on the condition of pipelines, which helps gauge the integrity of the pipes.8 The lack of inspection capability and the lack of cathodic protection on the inactive fuel system at the CAS ramp pipelines increases the risk of fire, injury, or death.
Outdoor above-ground piping and equipment throughout the inactive fuels system and the CAS ramp had rust and corrosion due to paint coating failures. The UFC 3-460-03, “Inspection and Maintenance – Pipe Penetrations,” requires the quarterly inspection of coatings for signs of deterioration, corrosion, or damage.
7 The UFC 3-460-01defines pigging as the use of internal pipe inspection tools, called pigs, to clean the inside of the pipe, determine the geometry of the pipe, and determine the location and magnitude of any internal or external corrosion occurring on the pipe.
8 See CORROSIONPEDIA at www.corrosionpedia.com for more information from corrosion subject matter experts.
Findings
16 │ DODIG-2018-049
We also found six valves in the filter building that were corroded. Corrosion weakens pipes and equipment and can lead to fuel leaks and spills. This increases the risk of fire, injury, or death.
Along the pipeline, there were 16 pits that aid in the removal of water and air from the system. A pit is a hole with a removable cover that provides access to valves attached to the underground fuel pipeline. We found that 6 of the 16 pits had grounding wires that were connected to the wrong side of the isolation joint (See Figure 10). The UFC 3-460-01, requires grounding to prevent the build-up of static electricity. Static electricity build-up can cause a spark leading to a fuel system fire or explosion.
Conclusion The deficiencies were related to a lack of maintenance and improper construction. The inactive fuel systems at the CAS ramp was not maintained according to DoD health and safety policies and standards, thus increasing the risk of fuel spills and leaks, which can cause fire, injury, or death. Fuel systems construction projects, such as the fuel systems project at the CAS ramp, are being accepted as complete that do not meet DoD health and safety policies and standards.
Figure 10. Pit with improper grounding and corrosion (Deficiency No. AUAB-POL-170517-007)
Findings
DODIG-2018-049│ 17
Recommendations, Management Comments, and Our ResponseRecommendation C.1We recommend that the Commander, 379 AEW:
a. Conduct a root cause analysis and implement a corrective action plan for all close air support ramp fuel hydrant system deficiencies identified in this report. Ensure that all current and future facility operations and maintenance comply with the Unified Facilities Criteria and the National Fire Protection Association standards. The plan should include an assessment of the pipelines at fuel facilities in accordance with the American Petroleum Institute (API 570) piping inspection code. Provide the DoD Office of Inspector General a copy of the analysis and corrective action plan within 30 days of the issuance of this report.
b. Prepare and implement a corrective action plan to ensure all construction projects that involve fuel systems are reviewed for compliance with applicable fuel systems standards before they are accepted by the Government as complete. Provide the DoD Office of Inspector General a copy of the corrective action plan within 30 days of the issuance of this report.
Commander, 379 AEW, CommentsThe Commander, 379 AEW, agreed with the recommendations and stated that a complete inspection of the fuel system was performed along with a design for corrective actions. The Commander further stated that the deficiencies noted in this report would be corrected under the Air Force Civil Engineering Center contract to bring the system into operation.
Our ResponseComments from the Commander, 379 AEW, addressed all specifics of Recommendation C.1.a. Therefore, the recommendation is resolved but remains open. We will close the recommendation once we verify that the corrective actions have been implemented. No further comments are required.
Comments from the Commander, 379 AEW, did not address the specifics of Recommendation C.1.b. Therefore, the recommendation is unresolved and remains open. We request that the Commander, 379 AEW, provide additional comments, within 30 days of the issuance of this report, regarding the performance of a root cause analysis and implementation of corrective action plans to ensure that all construction projects that involve fuel systems are reviewed for compliance with applicable fuel systems standards before the Government accepts them as complete.
Findings
18 │ DODIG-2018-049
Finding D
AUAB Indoor Air Quality Deficiencies
We identified 13 deficiencies related to indoor air quality. These deficiencies resulted in poor indoor air quality that may negatively impact the health and quality of life of AUAB personnel.
Figure 11. Indoor Air Quality Deficiencies
Source: Deficiency log created by DoD OIG evaluation team.
The standards that apply to indoor air quality deficiencies is the Air Force 2005 Mold Policy Memorandum.9 This policy requires that a clean and dry environment be maintained within facilities. We documented 13 indoor air quality deficiencies (see Figure 11). The deficiencies were related to water intrusion, mold, and ventilation. These deficiencies may negatively impact the health and quality of life of the facility occupants. Examples of these deficiencies include the following.
Water damage and mold growth were observed on the ceiling in all three administrative buildings we evaluated. Administrative buildings 6671, 6874, and 10090 did not have any surface mold area greater than one square foot. However, mold should not be allowed to grow inside a building. Also, water damage is an indicator that moisture intrusion has occurred and may lead to mold growth. If the water intrusion is stopped within 24-48 hours of the initial intrusion, then mold should not be able to grow.
9 Air Force Mold Policy Memorandum from HQ U.S. Air Force, dated May 10, 2005, co-signed by the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installations and Mission Support, U.S. Air Force and the Assistant Surgeon General, Health Care Operation titled, “Interim Policy and Guidance for the Prevention, Surveillance, and Remediation of Water Damage and Associated Mold Contamination in Air Force Facilities.”
Findings
DODIG-2018-049│ 19
We found mold growing in two of the seven dormitories we evaluated. Dormitory building 10570 had water damage and mold on the ceiling tiles in the common area (see Figure 12). Dormitory building 10405 had mold under the kitchen sink in two of the living quarters. Furthermore, in dormitory building 10405, we also observed water damage around a hole in a shower ceiling panel. It appeared that the hole had been made to drain water that had pooled above the ceiling panel. If this water intrusion is not addressed, mold will grow on the ceiling panel.
ConclusionThese indoor air quality deficiencies could have been avoided with stricter adherence to the Air Force 2005 Mold Policy Memorandum. These deficiencies resulted in poor indoor air quality that may negatively impact the health and quality of life of AUAB personnel.
Recommendations, Management Comments, and Our ResponseRecommendation D.1We recommend that the Commander, 379 AEW, conduct a root cause analysis and implement a corrective action plan for all indoor air quality deficiencies identified in this report. Determine the causes of the moisture intrusion into occupied facilities. Ensure that all current and future facility operations and maintenance comply with the Air Force 2005 Mold Policy Memorandum. Provide the DoD Office of Inspector General a copy of the analysis and plan within 30 days of the issuance of this report.
Figure 12. Ceiling tile mold (Deficiency No. AUAB-EN-170526-002)
Findings
20 │ DODIG-2018-049
Commander, 379 AEW, CommentsThe Commander, 379 AEW, agreed with the recommendation and stated that he has requested funding for a contract to complete an inventory and baseline inspection of AUAB’s roof systems for prioritizing future roof repairs and replacements.
Our ResponseComments from the Commander, 379 AEW, did not fully address all specifics of the recommendation. The Commander did not indicate that a root cause analysis had been performed or that roof infiltration was the only source of water intrusion into facilities. Therefore, the recommendation is unresolved and remains open. We request that the Commander, 379 AEW, provide additional comments, within 30 days of the issuance of this report, regarding the conduct of a root cause analysis for the moisture intrusion.
Appendixes
DODIG-2018-049│ 21
Appendix A
Scope and MethodologyWe conducted this onsite evaluation from May 14, 2017, through May 25, 2017, in accordance with the “Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation,” published in January 2012 by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. Those standards require that we adequately plan the evaluation to ensure that objectives are met and that we perform the evaluation to obtain sufficient, competent, and relevant evidence to support the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. We believe that the evidence obtained was sufficient, competent, and relevant to lead a reasonable person to sustain the findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
We independently selected facilities based on size, type, and age. We also interviewed the BCE and other 379 ECES personnel, including the contracting officer’s representative.
Use of Computer-Processed DataWe did not use computer-processed data to perform this evaluation.
Use of Technical AssistanceDuring this inspection, we used the assistance of subject matter experts (SMEs). We used a certified master electrician to evaluative electrical distribution systems and a fire protection engineer to evaluate fire protection systems. We used a team of fuel facility subject matter experts that included a mechanical engineer, a civil engineer, and an electrical engineer to evaluate the fuel facilities. We used an industrial hygienist to conduct the indoor air quality evaluation. All subject matter experts were certified in their associated fields.
Prior CoverageDuring the last 5 years, the DoD OIG issued nine reports relating to health and safety evaluations U.S. military facilities.
Appendixes
22 │ DODIG-2018-049
DoD OIGReport No. DODIG-2017-087, “U.S.-Controlled and -Occupied Military Facilities Inspection – Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti,” June 7, 2017
We found that new construction of U.S. military-occupied facilities at Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, were generally well-built. However, some new construction that was accepted as complete did not fully comply with health and safety policies and standards regarding electrical and fire protection systems. We found that existing facilities were not being maintained to DoD health and safety policies and standards. The deficiencies identified during the evaluation resulted from: acceptance of new construction that did not comply with DoD health and safety policies and standards, inadequate contractor maintenance, insufficient Government inspection of work performed by the contractor, and lack of onsite Government specialized skills in electrical and fire protection inspections.
Report No. DODIG-2017-004, “Summary Report - Inspections of DoD Facilities and Military Housing and Audits of Base Operations and Support Services Contracts,” October 14, 2016
Deficiencies in electrical system safety, fire protection systems, and environmental health and safety were pervasive because of a lack of adequate preventative maintenance and inspections being performed at the installations. As a result, DoD personnel and military families were exposed to health and safety hazards at installations around the world. DoD policy and guidance requires periodic inspections of DoD facilities. However, none of these inspections comprehensively examine the effectiveness of facility sustainment processes with respect to the overall health and safety of occupants.
Report No. DODIG-2016-139, “Military Housing Inspection – Camp Buehring, Kuwait,” September 30, 2016
We found significant deficiencies in electrical and fire protection systems during the physical evaluations of the U.S. military-occupied facilities at Camp Buehring. The majority of those deficiencies resulted from insufficient inspection, inadequate maintenance, lack of an effective maintenance and inspection plan, and ineffective project oversight. In addition, Camp Buehring did not have any permanent, Government-employed master electricians or f ire protection engineers. The maintenance contract does not require that the contractor perform electrical maintenance to any specific standard. Also, the contract inspection, testing, and maintenance requirements for fire alarm and fire protection systems do not reference the appropriate Unified Facilities Criteria.
Appendixes
DODIG-2018-049│ 23
Report No. DODIG-2016-106, “U.S. Military-Occupied Facilities Inspection – King Abdullah II Special Operations Training Center (KASOTC),” July 7, 2016
Report No. DODIG-2015-181, “Continental United States Military Housing Inspections – Southeast,” September 24, 2015
Report No. DODIG-2015-162, “Continental United States Military Housing Inspections – National Capital Region,” August 13, 2015
Report No. DODIG-2015-013, “Military Housing Inspections – Republic of Korea,” October 28, 2014
Report No. DODIG-2014-121, “Military Housing Inspections – Japan,” September 30, 2014
Report No. DODIG-2013-099, “Compliance with Electrical and Fire Protection Standards of U.S. Controlled and Occupied Facilities in Afghanistan,” July 18, 2013
Appendixes
24 │ DODIG-2018-049
Appendix B
Notice of Concern
Appendixes
DODIG-2018-049│ 25
Notice of Concern (cont’d)
Appendixes
26 │ DODIG-2018-049
Notice of Concern (cont’d)
Appendixes
DODIG-2018-049│ 27
Response to the Notice of Concern
Appendixes
28 │ DODIG-2018-049
Response to the Notice of Concern
Appendixes
DODIG-2018-049│ 29
Appendix C
Evaluation Standards and CriteriaThe operation, maintenance and repair of electrical systems inside facilities were performed by the 379 ECES. The criteria we used for the evaluation of the electrical systems came from the ECES Facility Manager Handbook and Air Force Instruction 32-1064, “Electrical Safe Practices,” both of which require compliance with the NFPA.
The operation, maintenance, and repair of fire protection systems and AHU’s supporting indoor air quality were performed through contracted services. The criteria we used for the evaluation of fire protection and the AHU’s were contained in contract FA8051-15-D-0008, “Engineering Support,” for civil engineering consolidated base operations support (BOS) at AUAB, Qatar. The appendices of the BOS contract we reviewed included:
• Appendix B, “Publications and Forms,”
• Appendix D, “OM&R--Fire Alarm, Suppression and Mass Notification Systems, Fire Hydrants & Backflow Prevention Systems Basewide,”
• Appendix F, “Facility Management of the CAOC, ISRD, AFFOR Facilities,”
• Appendix G, “Industrial Chilled Water, Industrial Control Systems, and Sanitary Sewer Systems Training, and Operation, Maintenance and Repair (OM&R) of Selected Systems, “ and
• Appendix H, “Electrical Power Production and Distribution.“
The BOS contract requires the BOS contractor to comply with:
• All U.S. laws,
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines,
• Qatari Labor Laws,
• The Overseas Environmental Baseline Guidance Document,
• U.S. Building Codes,
• Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC),
• National Electric Code (NEC),
• National Electric Safety Code (NESC),
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards, and
• National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
Appendixes
30 │ DODIG-2018-049
The CAS ramp inactive fuel hydrant system was a military construction (MILCON) project and therefore required to comply with the UFC. For facility planning, design, construction and maintenance, the DoD complies through the UFC program. Use of the UFC is directed by DoD Directive 4270.5, “Military Construction.” The NFPA is incorporated by reference in the UFC.
Management Comments
DODIG-2018-049│ 31
Management Comments
Commander, 379 AEW
Management Comments
32 │ DODIG-2018-049
Commander, 379 AEW (cont’d)
Management Comments
DODIG-2018-049│ 33
Commander, 379 AEW (cont’d)
34 │ DODIG-2018-049
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronyms and AbbreviationsAcronym Definition
AEW Air Expeditionary Wing
AFCEC Air Force Civil Engineering Center
AHU Air Handling Unit
API American Petroleum Institute
AUAB Al Udeid Air Base
BOS Base Operations Support
BPC Blatchford Preston Complex
CAOC Combined Air and Space Operations Center
CAP/ORM Corrective Action Plan/Operations Risk Management Plans
CAS Close Air Support
CC Coalition Compound
COCO Contractor-Owned and Contractor-Operated
DFARS Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement
ECES Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron
EMSG Expeditionary Mission Support Group
GFCI Ground Fault Circuit Interrupt
HQ Headquarters
MILCON Military Construction
NEC National Electrical Code
NESC National Electrical Safety Codes
NFPA National Fire Protection Agency
NOC Notice of Concern
OIG Office of Inspector General
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Admiration
SME Subject Matter Expert
UFC Unified Facility Criteria
USCENTCOM U.S. Central Command
USAFCENT U.S. Air Force Central Command
Whistleblower ProtectionU.S. Department of Defense
The Whistleblower Protection Ombudsman’s role is to educate agency employees about prohibitions on retaliation and employees’ rights and
remedies available for reprisal. The DoD Hotline Director is the designated ombudsman. For more information, please visit the Whistleblower webpage at
www.dodig.mil/Components/Administrative-Investigations/DoD-Hotline/.
For more information about DoD OIG reports or activities, please contact us:
Congressional Liaison 703.604.8324
Media [email protected]; 703.604.8324
DoD OIG Mailing Lists www.dodig.mil/Mailing-Lists/
Twitter www.twitter.com/DoD_IG
DoD Hotline www.dodig.mil/hotline
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE │ OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL4800 Mark Center Drive
Alexandria, Virginia 22350-1500www.dodig.mil
Defense Hotline 1.800.424.9098
