2008 InteractiveHealth, Safety and

Environment Reportthe tRW AUtOMOtIVe heAlth, SAfety, enVIROnMent And SecURIty PROgRAM

2

3

4 Letters to the Stakeholders

6 Health, Safety & Environment Alignment with the Business: An Introduction

8 Health, Safety & Environment: Program Overview and Back-to-Basics Integration

11 TRW HS&E Management Systems: An Introduction

13 Safety Excellence: An Overview

16 Behavior-Based Safety: One-on-One Coaching

19 Ergonomics

21 Safety Leadership

24 Environmental Excellence: Introduction

26 Product Stewardship

29 Environmental Remediation

31 HS&E Cost Determination and Reduction (CDR) and Energy Reduction: Overview

35 Energy and Water Reduction Program

38 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

40 Environmental Release/Natural Resource (ERNR) Metric: Introduction

44 Select HS&E Data Tables

50 Value-Added: Global Health, Safety, Environment & Security Program

table of contents

4

March 2009

Dear Stakeholders:

While the year ahead poses many challenges, the year behind us is one of accom-

plishment.

In the past, TRW has reiterated its commitment to stewardship of its own

resources and those of the environment. Two key measures of an organization’s

commitment to health, safety and the environment are its employee total recordable

incidence rate (TRIR) and the percent of waste it is able to reclaim and recycle. In

2008, TRW’s TRIR dropped 18 percent from 1.53 to 1.26 per 100 employees, and

its waste recycling or reclamation rate increased in 9 of 11 waste categories.

This report tells the story of TRW’s health, safety and environment (HS&E)

efforts in 2008 -- but it does more than that. 2008 is one chapter in the ongoing

story of TRW’s belief that it can manage its business to profitability by

continually adding to the world’s broadest portfolio of active and passive safety

systems. It is also a chapter in the company’s continuing effort to integrate health,

safety and environmental considerations into its design, manufacturing and product

retirement processes.

Please know that despite the economic downturn, TRW remains committed to

its HS&E programs. While the downturn is short-term, TRW intends to continue to

protect its employees and the environment in a long-term and sustainable manner.

Sincerely,

Steve Lunn

Chief Operating Officer

TRW Automotive

5

March 2009

Dear Stakeholders:

We are pleased to bring you good news about TRW’s health, safety, environmental

and security (HS&E) performance in 2008.

In this report, you will find descriptions of TRW’s HS&E philosophy and the

programs we have in place to help us manage our product design, manufacturing and

reclamation/retirement processes. This report also describes our efforts to provide

safe workplaces for employees and healthy environments for the communities in

which we operate. As you read, you’ll learn more about Safety Excellence and our

participation in the Back-to-Basics program, both of which engage employees in the

workplace in protecting their own health and safety.

At this time, the entire management team of TRW and I would like to recognize

and thank the many thousands of employees throughout the company who have

assumed leadership roles in HS&E programs. Your enthusiasm and suggestions for

continuous improvement have made a positive difference in our facilities, and we

look forward to your participation in the coming year.

Finally, we will not be printing the 2008 Interactive Health, Safety and Environ-

ment Report this year as both a measure of environmental responsibility and due to

the need for the business to conserve expenditures. Please enjoy this new online

edition, which gives us the chance to keep you up to date regarding many exciting

TRW programs and accomplishments.

Sincerely,

Thomas Koenig

Vice President, Global HS&E

TRW Automotive

6

In TRW, the business goals are simple:

best quality, lowest cost, global reach,

and innovative technology. These

four goals drive the TRW continuous

improvement process. The Health,

Safety & Environment (HS&E)

Program is well integrated with these

goals and the strategies to achieve them.

In this report, you will find descriptions

of the HS&E processes and organization

and see major systems and tools that

help TRW achieve both its business and

HS&E goals. As shown in Figure 1,

all of these HS&E systems or processes

are ultimately aligned with the TRW

business strategy.

To support the TRW goals of

best quality, lowest cost, global reach,

and innovative technology, the

HS&E Strategy of “Pursuing

Excellence and Building Value” is

being implemented by addressing

four strategic priorities with the

health, Safety & environment Alignment with the Business: An Introduction

TRW Automotive Goals and Strategy

HS&E Goals and Strategy

HS&E Processes and Organization

Critical Systems and Tools

DR

IVER

S

EN

AB

LER

S

Figure 1. It all starts with the tRW Automotive goals and strategy to drive change and ensure business integration.

7

HS&E program (see Figure 2). These

strategies have been in place for several

years and are anticipated to remain for

the foreseeable future.

These strategic priorities encompass

the entire value chain and are designed

to: 1. Ensure governance and assurance

with HS&E laws and regulations as

well as customer requirements, 2. Drive

HS&E performance improvement and

risk reduction, 3. Identify emerging

issues, and 4. Create sustainable HS&E

Excellence throughout TRW’s more

than 200 facilities worldwide.

This drive towards excellence will

help TRW continue towards reaching

implementation of the triple bottom

line. By focusing on the environmental

and social aspects as well as the

economic considerations of the business,

the operations become more sustainable

(see Figure 3).

During the current business

downturn, these strategic objectives and

targets are more important and relevant

than ever as we manage the business.

The rest of this report highlights TRW’s

Safety Excellence, Product Stewardship,

Environmental Remediation and Cost

& Energy Management efforts, all of

which contribute to the triple bottom

line and illustrate the company’s HS&E

involvement.

EnsureHS&E

Compliance

1

Ensure FunctionalEfficiencyand Drive

Business Integration

4

Governance andAssurance

Reduce HS&E-Related Costs

3

Reduce HS&E-Related

Risks/Impacts

2

PerformanceImprovement

HS&EExcellence

Emerging Issues and Sustainability

Environment

Social Aspects

Economy

How HS&EPerformance

Contributes to TRW’sAutomotive Success

Reputation Management

EmployeesInnovation

Profitability

Resource Efficiency/

Cost Reduction

TRW Automotive Success and HS&E Performance

Concept of Sustainability — Triple Bottom Line

Risk Minimization

Figure 2. focusing on these four strategic hS&e priorities drive tRW towards hS&e excellence.

Figure 3. the ability to sustain the business economically, socially and environmentally, the triple bottom line, is important to minimize hS&e risks, protect employees, enhance tRW’s reputation and reduce costs and resource usage objective.

8

TRW’s HS&E Program continues

global implementation of health, safety,

environment, and security activities,

and product stewardship. Increasingly,

these efforts are integrated into engineer-

ing, production, purchasing and quality

systems. In short, HS&E awareness

has become a way of life for TRW

employees.

Integrating HS&E activities has

helped TRW operations improve their

operational efficiency. The integrated

approach also provides the foundation

for launching HS&E Excellence (see

Figure 4), a process that starts with the

Chief Operating Officer and cascades

throughout the organization down to

first-line supervisors and employees.

The Safety Excellence (SE) program

was developed in 2006, and implemen-

tation began in 2007. The path has now

broadened in 2008 to include Environ-

mental Excellence (E2) programs.

The drive towards excellence encour-

ages a culture of sustainability that starts

with HS&E risk reduction that includes

employee health, employee safety, envi-

ronment protection, and the company’s

security. The risk reduction process has

expanded to encompass product design,

material specifications and purchase and

now progresses through all aspects of the

manufacturing process to finally focus

on the disposal of manufacturing wastes

and retired products. However, the

culture of sustainability only truly begins

when both employees and the company

respect HS&E as a core value.

Described below are the elements

of both SE and E2, all of which are

supported by the HS&E Management

Systems (MS).

n Safety Excellence (SE). SE has been

an evolution within TRW to bring its

safety performance to a sustainable

world-class level of a TRIR of one or

less and to ensure effective prevention

of the most severe injuries to em-

ployees. SE is the TRW approach for

reaching sustainable world-class safety

performance by fully implementing:

health, Safety & environment: Program Overview and Back-to-Basics Integration

SafetyExcellence

EnvironmentalExcellence

Health

ImplementationStarted

In Progress

Employee Behavior-Based SafetyErgonomics

Safety ProgramSafety Leadership

Product StewardshipEnvironmental RemediationCDR & Energy Management

Management System

Health PromotionAdverse Health Prevention

Medical ServicesWork-Life Balance

Figure 4. tRW has established a continuing path toward achieving excellence, one that addresses safety of employees, environmental protection, and health of the workforce.

9

•Behavior-Based Safety (BBS).

The behavior-based safety program

has increased employee involvement

and improved the depth of discus-

sions with employees on safety. The

use of a BBS system is a part of the

HS&E MS in HS&E 03, Employee

Involvement.

•Ergonomics. The continued

implementation and refinement of

ergonomic programs has become an

integral part of lean manufacturing.

By training employees in ergonom-

ics, from work station design to

proper postures, the program has

contributed to reducing employee

injuries. The development and

implementation of the ergonomics

program is a part of the materials

supporting HS&E 06, Management

of HS&E Risks.

•Safety Leadership. Starting with

the Chief Operating Officer and his

direct reports, a new level of safety

leadership and a safety culture has

been established. Safety leadership is

in the process of cascading a

commitment to safety down to all

the business units and the manufac-

turing and engineering facilities. As

part of safety leadership, the existing

safety program elements have been

revisited and reinvigorated. The

Safety Leadership program comprises

many parts of the HS&E MS, from

leadership to employee involvement.

n Environmental Excellence (E2).

E2 is the TRW’s stewardship process,

which is demonstrated in the reduced

use of natural resources (energy and

water), as well as reduced manu-

facturing waste and less wastewater

generation. E2 is the TRW approach

for reaching sustainable world-class

environmental performance by fully

implementing:

•Product Stewardship. The Product

Stewardship activities go beyond the

removal of heavy metals and other

substances of concern; they demon-

strate a commitment to producing

more environmentally sustainable

products. The development and

implementation of the Product

Stewardship program comprises two

elements in the HS&E MS, HS&E

11, HS&E and Supply Chain Man-

agement, and HS&E 12, HS&E

and Product and Process Design.

•Remediation. This program focuses

on addressing the legacy environ-

mental issues created as a result of

100 years of manufacturing. The re-

mediation program is supported by

HS&E 06, Management of HS&E

Risks and in particular the specific

requirement for the Protection of

Soil and Groundwater.

•Energy and Water. The creation

of a new energy and water reduction

program in late 2008 will help the

company improve energy manage-

ment and reduce energy purchase

costs.

•Cost Determination and Reduc-

tion (CDR). This program drives

continuous improvement by using

a range of tools to eliminate wastes

in tandem with systematically

driving risk reduction. Both the

energy and water reduction program

and the CDR program are driven

by HS&E 08 and are integral to

process improvement.

Back-to-Basics

Back-to-Basics (B2B) was started in

2008 and is the TRW methodology for

further improving operating efficiencies

and reducing waste. The B2B program

10

is working to improve communication

throughout the manufacturing process,

increase operating leanness, and better

develop management talent. B2B

incorporates elements of:

• theTRWOperationsExcellence

roadmap

• plantmanagerdevelopment

• leanmanufacturingandleanline

design (the process to improve

manufacturing efficiency)

• manufacturingcellinformationboards

and plant communication centers

• alayeredauditprocess

As a part of B2B, each TRW plant

conducts six fundamental reviews daily,

both at the cell or line level and at the

plant level: safety, quality, delivery,

effectiveness, waste elimination, and

housekeeping. To improve commu-

nication during the B2B reviews, the

team members present the following

information and then take action on the

manufacturing cell and/or plant level

(see Figure 5).

Work Cell Information Boards:

•Keyperformancemetricssuchas

HS&E, production, quality, delivery

and cost

•Hourlyproductionperformance

•Trendperformance

•Actionplans

Plant Communication Center:

•Keyplant-wideperformancemetrics

such as HS&E, production, quality,

delivery and cost

•Allworkcellperformanceona

daily basis

HS&E is fully integrated and part

of B2B:

•WorkCellandPlantCommuni-

cation boards, where key HS&E

metrics are recorded and reviewed as

the first measure of performance

•PlantManagerTrainingProgram,

where SE is integrated into the TRW

training and philosophy

•Leanmanufacturingdesignand

implementation, where ergonomics

are taught and integrated into all

aspects of lean manufacturing

In summary, the improvement in

communications and production

efficiency driven by B2B is essential

during these challenging economic

times. Making HS&E an integral part

of B2B yields many benefits: lower

employee injury rates, better morale,

reduced absenteeism, consistent product

quality, and improved productivity.

You can learn more about changes in

the TRW HS&E Program by visiting:

http://corpnet.trw.com/hse.

Figure 5. A B2B communication Board is used by supervisors and managers to track hS&e performance and identify areas requiring attention.

11

The HS&E Management System (MS)

is TRW’s “backbone” for managing and

reducing HS&E-related risks. The MS

serves to implement the Health, Safety,

Environment and Security Policy and

is available in more than 10 languages

by visiting http://corpnet.trw.com/hse.

If you do not have access to the TRW

Intranet, visit http://www.trwauto.com/

who_we_are/health_safety_environ-

ment to view all HSE&S Policies. The

Policy establishes the Company’s HSE&S

Vision, Mission, Means of Execution,

and Responsibility for implementation of

Policy requirements (see Figure 6).

The HS&E MS empowers the busi-

ness unit and facility management teams

to incorporate their HS&E efforts by

providing the controls needed to stay on

task and on target in the area of HS&E.

Supporting the HS&E MS is a series

of Specific Requirements and Guidance

documents, all of which are

incorporated in the TRW Business Policy

Manual. These documents are published

on the internal HS&E website. If you

have access to the TRW Intranet visit

the HSE&S Management Systems at

http://corpnet.trw.com/hse.

Updates to the HS&E MS

Each year, the Global HS&E Team,

as a learning organization, by design

considers enhancements to the system

to address newly identified program

needs and to maintain its effective-

ness and efficiency. The changes to the

management system can originate from

requirements outside the company, such

as governmental regulations and cus-

tomer requirements, or can be generated

internally from the findings of the audit

program and bench-marking. The issues

are prioritized, requirements or guidance

developed for the top priorities, and the

changes are made. The 2008 changes

to the management systems include

the following:

New Specific Requirements

and Guidance:

•HSE06-SR-67,ChemicalPlating

Systems – establishes equipment

requirements and operating

procedures

•HSE06-G-71,Ergonomics–

formally links ergonomics to the

MS and provides the structure for

the ergonomic process

Revised Specific Requirements

and Guidance:

•HSE03,EmployeeInvolvement–

modified to emphasize expectations

regarding the use of BBS process

approaches other than the TRW-

sponsored BBS process

•HSE06-SR-65,HazardousMaterials

Management – changed to include

a range of changes to enhance this

requirement

•HS&E6-SR-67,Managementof

Plating Systems – revised to add

coverage for the plasma transferred

tRW hS&e Management Systems: An Introduction

Execution

TRW Automotive will execute a World Class HS&EManagement Program by:

• Developing & Implementing an Integrated HS&E

Management System,

• Engaging and supporting all our employees in

achieving our vision,

• Ensuring Management Ownership and

Accountability,

• Establishing meaningful HS&E metrics and targets for

performance, and

• Sharing global resources, knowledge, best practices

and lessons learned.

We will measure progress, are committed to deploying SixSigma and living the TRW Automotive Behaviors.

Responsibility

Management, at all levels, is responsible for the imple-mentation of this policy within their areas of control.Managers are expected to take ownership and ensure thatHS&E is integrated into the management of their business.

The management of the company takes overall responsibil-ity for this policy. Authority for leading and measuring itsimplementation is delegated to the HS&E executive ofTRW Automotive.

Vision

The TRW Automotive HS&E system and performance willbe recognized by our employees, customers, shareholdersand the communities in which we operate as protectingour employees and our community while adding value toour business.

Mission

TRW Automotive will therefore manage Health, Safety andthe Environment in all its operations and functions/activi-ties as to:

• Comply with legal and regulatory requirements,

• Comply with Customer requirements,

• Reduce work related health & safety impacts to

employees,

• Reduce adverse environmental impacts,

• Achieve operating conditions that minimise costs

and HS&E risks

• Reduce HS&E impacts for the entire value chain,

• Consider the life-cycle HS&E impacts when design-

ing its products,

• Continually Improve and Measure its HS&E Systems

and Performance,

• Maintain the Security of its Employees and Facilities

TRW Automotive Health, Safety, Environmental and Security Policy

HSE&S Policy Version 1.0August 1, 2003

Figure 6. tRW’s health, Safety, environment & Security Policy established that the com-pany is committed to employee well-being, a healthy environment and secure facilities.

12

arc (PTA) process and a number

of revisions

•HSE11,HS&EandSupply

Chain – made content changes

regarding legal requirements and

the TRW restricted and prohibited

substances list

•HSE12,HS&EandProductsand

Process Design – incorporated

updates to the TRW restricted and

prohibited substances list

Results and Accomplishments

The HS&E MS’s benefits to the com-

pany are measured in two ways. One –

the self-assessment by staff twice a year

at each manufacturing and engineering

facility is the primary means of measur-

ing implementation. Two – the TRW

Management Systems audits are

completed at each manufacturing and

engineering facility on average once

every 3 years. Both methods utilize a

defined protocol to ensure consistency.

Results of the MS self-assessments

or the MS audits, whichever is more

recent, are utilized to determine if the

implementation level meets the annual

target. As shown in Figure 7, the target

level of implementation for the HS&E

MS at the end of 2008 was 95 percent,

with the average level of implementa-

tion at 92 percent. Although the MS

implementation steadily increased, it has

leveled off recently as TRW has added

facilities and has created additional

requirements.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2002

60%

75% 77%

87% 87% 89% 90% 91%

70%

80%85%

90%95%95%

2003 2004 2005

Year

2006 2007 2008

MS Implementation Score MS Implementation Objective

Per

cent

Man

agem

ent

Sys

tem

s (M

S)

Impl

emen

tati

on

Figure 7. the progress in MS implementation continues even as the requirements of the hS&e Management System have increased over the past several years.

13

As the premier supplier of active and

passive automotive safety systems in the

world, the same philosophy of safety

is apparent in TRW’s manufacturing

and management systems. As shown in

Figure 4 on page 8, SE is the next step

in the HS&E excellence journey. SE

engages all levels of employees in safety

both actively (i.e., safety leadership)

and passively (i.e., engineered controls).

Just as TRW strives for excellence as an

automotive parts supplier, it strives to

ensure the safety of its workforce.

Why Pursue SE

A culture of excellence supports a

sustainable business model. Achieving

and sustaining excellence in safety is

hard work. It requires the efforts of

many focused on a variety of safety-

related factors, such as:

•Theinfluenceofeachindividual’s

values and experiences and that of

TRW’s organizational culture on

workplace behaviors

•Theriskspresentedbytheman-

machine interface, known as

ergonomics

Safety excellence: An Overview

14

•Theneedforbusinessleaderswho

make clear the importance and value

of striving for excellence in safety

•Theneedfortheactiveinvolvement

of all employees in ensuring their

own safety and that of their co-workers

While taking pride in past improve-

ments, TRW recognizes the necessity

of challenging the organization to

achieve and sustain world-class perfor-

mance. This effort is described as SE.

Achieving excellence in safety requires

a culture where safety is considered a

value. This can only happen when

everyone is involved, at each TRW

facility, within each department, and

in a manner that involves every

employee at all levels.

Results and Accomplishments

Pursuit of excellence in safety can be

measured in many ways. The three

measures TRW relies on are the Total

Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR), the

Severity Rate, and the Lost Workday

Incident Rate (LWIR).

TRIR describes how frequently TRW

has workplace incidents that result in

employee days away from work or medi-

cally required work restrictions to ad-

dress a work-related medical condition.

The number of incidents is reported as a

ratio of work-related injury/illness cases

per 100 employees.

The Severity Rate describes the

impact that workplace incidents have

in employee days away from work or

medically required work restrictions

to address a work-related medical

condition. The Severity Rate is

reported as a ratio of work-related

injury/illness lost and restricted days

per 100 employees.

The LWIR is a subset of the TRIR

and describes only the impact that

workplace incidents have in employee

days away from work to address a

work-related medical condition. The

LWIR is reported as a ratio of work-

related injury/illness lost days per

100 employees.

Figure 8 demonstrates that the efforts

to continuously reduce the frequency

of injuries have netted real results. Over

the past nine years, the TRIR has been

reduced from 3.47 to 1.26 per 100

employees, the Severity Rate has been

15

TRIR Severity RateLWIR

Tota

l Rec

orda

ble

Inci

dent

Rat

e (T

RIR

)Lo

st W

orkd

ay I

ncid

ent

Rat

e (L

WIR

)

Sev

erit

y R

ate

Year

3.50

3.00

2.50

4.00

4.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 YTD0.00

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

3.4

7

50.1

62.1

45.5

38.6

33.0

36.141.0

34.3

28.6

15.6

3.0

4

2.5

7

2.1

2

1.6

7

1.6

4

1.7

2

1.5

3

1.2

6

1.0

4

Continuous Improvement2000: Launch of HS&E MS

Continuous Improvement2007: Launch of Safety

Excellence

2.5

2.3

5

1.8

8

1.5

7

1.2

8

1.2

3

1.2

1

1.0

6

1.3

4

0.8

5

reduced from 50.1 to 28.6, and the

LWIR has been reduced from 2.50 to

1.06. These reductions have had an

obvious effect on employees and their

families. It also has a very positive effect

on the business through employees

being more engaged in their own safety

(employee involvement), higher

employee morale, lower operating costs,

and sustainable product quality.

While Figure 8 demonstrates a good

improvement in the safety record from

2002-2004,theTRIRremainedflat

from 2004-2006 and the severity rate

actually increased. To improve and

then to achieve and sustain world-class

health and safety performance, TRW

started the development of SE in 2006.

SE incorporated two existing programs,

BBS and ergonomics, and involved the

development of a new program, safety

leadership. The following sections

explore these three key program areas

that comprise SE.

Figure 8. the long-term improvement in tRIR and total lWIR shows that tRW employees are more engaged in their own safety.

16

The Behavior-Based Safety (BBS) pro-

gram is the first of three key areas in SE.

By the end of 2008, more than 60 TRW

facilities in 13 countries were participat-

ing in BBS. What best demonstrates this

high level of employee involvement in

BBS is the number of employees at these

facilities who were involved as active

observers. More than 2,300 employees

not only participated in the initial train-

ing at their facilities, but have continued

to refine their skills through updated

training. In 2008, these BBS observers

conducted more than 86,000 observa-

tions, which means they initiated on

average more than 300 conversations

per day regarding the safety of their

fellow employees (Figure 9).

The Design of BBS

BBS has been designed to increase

employee understanding of how they

can contribute to their own and their

colleagues’ safety by their behavior. In

about 90 percent of all injuries, people’s

at-risk behavior has been identified as a

contributing root cause. “At-risk

behavior” must be understood as a

neutral term that describes an action

rather than criticizes or blames a person.

To further reduce injuries, at-risk

behaviors must be identified and turned

into “safe” behaviors. This is achieved

by a systematic study process where

activities are observed and the behaviors

that relate to safety are discussed in a

positive, constructive, non-confron-

tational manner. With BBS, workers

displaying at-risk behaviors are not

chastised, they are motivated to correct

them. Participants learn more about safe

work practices, identify improvement

opportunities, increase teamwork, and

heighten their commitment towards

safety, among other benefits. The results

are empowered employees who take

ownership for their own safety and

develop a strong safety culture. Ongoing

management commitment has helped

make the BBS program a success.

Behavior-Based Safety: One-on-One coaching

Figure 9. After a BBS observation, employees provide feedback to a work cell colleague.

Results and Accomplishments

The BBS process produces a range

of data about behaviors. Figures 10

and 11 provide two examples of

what management and employees

see regarding the results of the BBS

process. This data helps management

identify improvement opportunities in

the overall HS&E program, from train-

ing to developing new or revised work

instructions and procedures.

2008 Observation Count

20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,00010,0000

Number of Acceptable Behaviors Number of At-Risk Behaviors

1.1 Eyes on Path

1.2 Eyes on Work

1.3 Stable Surface

1.4 Lifting

1.5 Overexertion

1.6 Line of Fire

1.7 Rushing/Shortcuts

1.8 Ascending/Descending

1.9 Pinch Points

1.10 Overextending

1.11 Path of Travel

1.12 Awkward/Cramped

2.1 Walking/Working Surfaces

2.2 Barricades/Warning

2.3 Obstructions

2.4 Housekeeping

2.5 Awkward/Cramped

2.6 Lighting

2.7 Ventilation

3.1 Selection

3.2 Use

3.3 Condition

3.4 Vehicle Operation

4.1 Eye and Face

4.2 Head

4.3 Hands

4.4 Fall Protection

4.5 Body Protection/Coveralls

4.6 Shoes

4.7 Hearing Protection

4.8 Respirator Protection

5.1 Pre-Job Inspection/Planning

5.2 Adequate Personnel

5.3 Communication

5.4 Complying with Lockout/Tagout

5.5 Complying with Permits

5.6 Written Procedures

6.1 Hair

6.2 Clothes

6.3 Jewelry

7.1 Floor

7.2 Equipment

7.3 Storage of Materials

7.4 Disposal of Materials

68,193

68,076

59,400

65,922

62,749

50,717

62,023

34,930

55,237

54,207

47,089

65,070

45,847

35,571

43,201

69,111

44,435

62,594

56,284

61,950

59,852

56,902

24,992

61,054

20,798

53,763

20,333

45,758

61,650

36,929

19,994

43,201

43,175

45,850

36,299

32,399

59,614

57,331

58,511

55,071

58,936

49,304

60,300

49,525

1,146

832

1,655

2,124

1,7631,426

1,158

1,686

1,895

1,5781,019

3,243

6,034

1,966

2,065

2,604652

1,023

1,828

1,223

703

537

624893

883

698

423

716

409

475

282

654

477618

1,913

2,724

844

2,009

1,232

2,074

1,169

759

1,426

2,276

Cri

tica

l Per

form

ance

Che

cklis

t (C

PC

) Ele

men

ts

Figure 10. In 2008, the “at-risk” behaviors (hashed tips) were identified as a small minority of the total behaviors observed, and decrease as Se is implemented.

17

18

TRW adapted this behavior descrip-

tion measurement from an industry-

standard to measure safety performance.

The data in Figure 10 demonstrates that

about 97 percent of the total observed

behaviors across the entire company

were considered as acceptable or “safe.”

This percent of acceptability does

vary among facilities. At facilities new

to the BBS process, usually 90 percent

of the total observed behaviors were con-

sidered “acceptable.” The facilities that

energetically and successfully participate

in BBS now show acceptable behavior

rates at above 99 percent.

From the data shown in Figure 10,

a refinement can be made in the data to

identify the top five “at-risk” behaviors.

Based on Figure 11, 2,276 conversations

were initiated about Awkward/Cramped

Work Spaces and how to work more

safely in them. These conversations help

both facilities and the HS&E determine

the root cause and drive solutions.

Value-Added – BBS Strategy

BBS is not a stand-alone program but is

aligned with other TRW safety programs

such as ergonomics and safety leader-

ship. BBS helps by driving communica-

tion throughout the organization. In

some facilities, these BBS observations

have contributed to quality enhance-

ments. BBS is not a “quick fix,” but is a

way to deliver long-term and sustainable

changes to employee behaviors related to

safety. The result is a strong, sustainable

safety culture and a tool to help improve

safety performance.

1.12

Awkw

ard/

Cram

ped

2.3

Obst

ruct

ions

2.4

House

keep

ing

2.7

Vent

ilatio

n

7.1

Floo

r

2,276

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Num

ber

of “

At-

Ris

k” B

ehav

iors

Critical Performance Checklist (CPC) Elements

3,243

6,031

2,603 2,723

Figure 11. Based on the 2008 data in figure 10, the BBS process can identify the top five “at-risk” behaviors to help facilities train and work with employees.

19

The Ergonomic Risk Management

Process (Ergonomics) program is the

second of three key areas in SE. In 2008,

more than 42 TRW facilities in 10

countries were conducting ergonomics

training. What best demonstrates this

high level of employee involvement in

ergonomics is the number of workshops

and process improvements identified

and made at these facilities. Since the

ergonomics process was started in TRW

in 2002, it has been enhanced through a

wide range of efforts to apply it globally

and make it a sustainable process.

Ergonomics – The TRW Approach

Ergonomics is an enabling technology

that applies human performance

principles to prevent or reduce

muscular-skeletal disorder injuries

in the workplace. When ergonomic

techniques are done well, facilities

see a decline in operating costs as

employee absenteeism and sick leave

drop. Optimizing ergonomics requires

an integrated process that involves

HS&E, product engineering, manu-

facturing engineering, maintenance,

plant management, and employee

teams. TRW’s Ergonomics Risk

Management program relies on:

•Model Ergonomics Process: This

process helps facilities develop and

implement location-specific ergo-

nomics risk management processes.

•Ergonomics Workshop Process:

This process helps to drive ergonomics

implementation through integration

with the lean manufacturing process.

•Ergonomics Training Programs:

Several levels of ergonomics training

programs are offered for work cell

employees, technicians, supervi-

sors, and managers in the plant to

engineers, Lean Promotions Officers

(LPOs), and HS&E professionals

in the office.

•Ergonomic Resources Library:

HS&E makes available a variety of

multimedia, multi-language resources

via the company website.

Results and Accomplishments

In 2008, the ergonomics program gener-

ated the following accomplishments:

•Existingergonomicprogramelements

were formally integrated into the TRW

HS&E Management System within

Element HSE06 – Risk Management.

The TRW HS&E Management

Systems Audit process is used to

evaluate facility ergonomics activities.

•Achievedsignificantreductions

in the number of TRIR cases and

the severity of injuries in relation to

ergonomics

20

figure 12. the 2007-2008 ergonomics data shows a sustained reduction in both the num-ber of ergonomics-related injuries reported and in the number of days that employees were absent from work due to these injuries.

the total number of lost and restricted

days (see Figure 12).

•Definedandsuccessfullylaunched

an ergonomics improvement work-

shop process that provides websites

with a structured approach to support

the company’s Operations Excellence

Workshops by identifying, assessing,

prioritizing and managing ergonomic

risks.

•Successfullycompleted16

workshops globally that resulted

in the identification of 244 process

improvements and process cost

reduction opportunities of more

than several hundred thousand

dollars.

•Initiatedanergonomicsworkshop

performance metric, and perfor-

mance indicates positive balance

of process improvements and

cost reductions.

•Collectedergonomiclessons

learned and successes from

Ergonomic Improvement Work-

shops and shared these throughout

the business (TRW Best Practice

Forums).

•Morethandoubledthenumberof

improvement actions implemented

in 2008 compared to 2007 at manu-

facturing and assembly operations;

these actions identified and reduced

exposures to ergonomic risks.

•Furtherdefinedtrainingneedsand

requirements and provided appropriate

tools and training courses throughout

the business on ergo principles, tools

and techniques.

•Increasedparticipationinthe

“Ergo Hit List” (posture

recognition) training.

•Completeddevelopmentof

eLearning modules for the

“Ergo Hit List” and “Ergo Basics

Refresher” training courses,

with online training launched

in January 2009.

Value-Added – Ergonomics Risk

Management Strategy

Implementation of the ergonomics risk

management strategy and associated

improvement actions will continue to

drive the long-term sustainability of

the SE culture, injury reduction and

productivity improvement. As the

ergonomics process is further imple-

mented, sites will continue to benefit

from reduced numbers of employee

injuries and lower operational costs.

2007 Data

2008 Reduction Goal

2008 Data

Reduction in Number of Cases(2007 to 2008)

Reduction Percentage

229

-10%

156

-72

-31%

25%

21%

Number of Cases % TRIR Cases

Reduction in Severity of Ergonomic-Related CasesTotal Number of Lost & Restricted Days

2007 Data

2008 Reduction Goal

2008 Data

Reduction in Total Lost &Restricted Days (2007 to 2008)

Reduction Percentage

7,247

-400 days

4,102

-3,145 days

-43%

39%

28%

Lost & RestrictedWorkdays

% of Total Lost &Restricted Workdays

Reduction in Number of Ergonomic-Related Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR) Cases

2007 Data

2008 Reduction Goal

2008 Data

Reduction in Number of Cases(2007 to 2008)

Reduction Percentage

229

-10%

156

-72

-31%

25%

21%

Number of Cases % TRIR Cases

Reduction in Severity of Ergonomic-Related CasesTotal Number of Lost & Restricted Days

2007 Data

2008 Reduction Goal

2008 Data

Reduction in Total Lost &Restricted Days (2007 to 2008)

Reduction Percentage

7,247

-400 days

4,102

-3,145 days

-43%

39%

28%

Lost & RestrictedWorkdays

% of Total Lost &Restricted Workdays

Reduction in Number of Ergonomic-Related Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR) Cases

21

Safety Leadership program is the third of

the three key areas within SE. Beginning

in 2007, TRW started implementation

of a series of Safety Leadership Work-

shops. These workshops systematized

TRW’s safety resources and approach,

providing business leaders with a focused

message and tool kit to address the safety

process at their business units. The SE

initiative engages all levels of management

from corporate executives to first-line

supervisors. At TRW, Safety Excellence

is synonymous with doing work “the

right way,” as shown in Figure 13.

Safety Leadership Drives

Sustainability

The Safety Leadership initiative is

focused on improving upon three core

areas of the safety process. To drive

safety leadership takes the involvement

in leadership at all levels, the engaging

of employees in BBS, and the further

strengthening of the HS&E MS.

All three SE areas have a range of

activities on-going; however, the major-

ity of the efforts are directed towards

providing all levels of TRW leaders with

the training and support to more effec-

tively lead the safety process. The result

of these endeavors will be lasting change

to the organization’s culture. Today,

employee safety is measured in lost days,

injuries and dollars lost. The goal of a

safety culture is to create this as a value

that is so basic that measurement of in-

juries will almost become an unnecessary

objective.

The Role of Leadership in

Ensuring Workplace Safety

Safety Leadership Workshops provide

leaders with an understanding of the

need to pursue SE, the characteristics of

an organization that has achieved the ob-

jective, and the leadership principles and

actionsofleaderswhowishtoinfluence

the culture of their organization. The

implementation of SE is based upon the

model outlined in Figure 14.

In 2008, TRW conducted 200

Safety Leadership Workshops involving

Safety leadership

SafetyLeadershipWorkshop

Model

Site Management Team: SafetyLeadership

Module 1 Workshop(1/2 Day)

Business Unit:Safety Leadership

Module 1Workshop(1/2 Day)

Site Management Team: SafetyLeadership

Module 2 Workshop(1/2 Day)

Site Employees:Safety Leadership

Modules 3 & 4Workshops(2 Hours)

Repeat with allleaders andemployees

Figure 14. At tRW, business leaders devote almost two full days to participating in Safety leadership Workshops.

Figure 13. employees are reminded to keep safety in mind when they see this graphic on posters displayed in their workplaces.

22

more than 2,100 employees at more

than 40 facilities. The four workshop

modules consisted of the following:

•SafetyLeadershipfortheBusiness

Unit is for the Vice President and the

management team. It is focused on

introducing the foundation principles

need by management to more

effectively lead the safety effort.

•SafetyLeadershipModule1isfor

Site Management Teams and first-line

supervisors and is focused on introduc-

ing the foundation principles needed

by all supervisory employees to ef-

fectively lead the safety effort. Much of

the discussion and workshop activities

are oriented towards understanding

the current safety culture, and learning

how to set the stage for moving toward

one that leads towards sustainable

excellence in safety.

•SafetyLeadershipModule2

continues the discussion begun

with leadership teams and centers

on ensuring understanding of how

workplace incidents and injuries

occur, and steps that leaders can

take to avoid similar problems in the

future. Discussion topics lead to

enhanced skills in identifying hazards

in the workplace, increase under-

standing of the incident causation

cycle, and introduce tools for identi-

fying strategies to change individual

and organization behaviors that

result in workplace injuries.

•SafetyLeadershipModules3&4are

for non-supervisory employees and

introduce concepts, tools, and needed

skills similar to those discussed during

management team Modules 1 & 2.

However, Modules 3 & 4 emphasize

the need for each employee to take

action to address risks encountered in

the workplace and to become actively

involved in preventive measures, such

as hazard identification and corrective

actions.

In support of the employee-orient-

ed Safety Leadership Modules 3 & 4, a

series of workshop safety posters have

been developed to raise awareness and

reinforce concepts discussed during the

training. Figure 15 shows some of the

materials developed to support these

workshops.

Results and Accomplishments

Since safety leadership began in 2007,

more than 225 workshops in 14 coun-

tries have been completed, as shown in

Figure 16. The success of these work-

Figure 15. Se posters help reinforce a safety culture at facilities.

23

shops is more than the large number of

workshops and the global distribution, it

is the fact these workshops engaged more

than 2,000 business leaders. These leaders

were from corporate functions, many

of the business units, and more than 50

manufacturing sites.

To further create sustainability,

the recent rollout of Safety Leadership

Workshop modules for non-supervisory

employees has helped thousands of em-

ployees to become more knowledgeable

about the essential role they play in

ensuring their own safety and the safety of

those who work with them. As shown in

Figure 17, the TRIR for the facilities that

participated in SE shows improvement at

a rate greater than the TRIR for those

facilities that have not participated in SE.

The implementation of SE leader-

ship activities will continue through 2010,

resulting in all leaders at business units,

engineering facilities, manufacturing, and

distribution locations becoming involved

in efforts to implement and sustain the

company’s excellence in safety.

Value-Added – Safety Excellence

Achieving excellence in safety occurs

with leadership from all levels of man-

agement, from executives to first-line

supervisors. With the help of SE initia-

tives like Safety Leadership Workshops,

Number ofWorkshops

Number ofAttendees

2007 2008Year

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Tota

l Rec

orda

ble

Inci

dent

Rat

e (T

RIR

)

1.531.27

1.712.62

TRIR for TRW Facilities Implementing SE

TRIR for All TRW Facilities

Figure 16. Safety leadership Work-shops are helping to create a global Safety culture at tRW.

Figure 17. the rate of improvement in the tRIR is greater for facilities with leaders trained in Se vs. those facilities with leaders not trained in Se.

leaders become more effective in engag-

ing colleagues and employees to partici-

pate in ensuring their own safety and that

of their fellow employees. If done well,

this process can result in lasting changes

to workplace culture and sustainable

world-class safety performance. The goal

is to ensure that the company’s most

important asset, its employees, are ready

to safely work each and every day.

24

Environmental Excellence (E2), as

shown in Figure 18, is the second step

in TRW’s HS&E excellence journey.

E2 comprises Product Stewardship,

Environmental Remediation, Cost

Determination and Reduction (CDR),

and the new Energy and Water

Reduction Program.

Environmental sustainability, as

compared to the sustainability of a

“safety culture,” can require quite

different processes. In terms of a

manufacturing company, sustainability

is defined as using processes capable of

being continued with minimal long-

term impact on the environment.

Environmental impact includes air

emissions and wastewater discharges,

and wastes generated from the

manufacturing process.

In TRW, when it comes to environ-

mental sustainability, protection, and

risk reduction, it is the HS&E manage-

ment systems that are relied upon to

support the E2 programs and improve-

ments. More than Safety Excellence,

E2 must engage all elements of the

environmental excellence: Introduction

25

business (e.g., engineering, purchasing)

and not just the manufacturing

operations in order to support a more

sustainable business model.

E2 – The Elements of

Sustainability

In late 2008, TRW initiated E2 to

achieve more efficient use of natural

resources and to reduce waste, with

efforts focused on:

•Education

•Wasteminimization/pollution

prevention/waste reduction/risk

reduction

•Energyefficiency/greenhousegas

reduction

•Continuedcompliancewith

environmental legislation and

regulations

•Continuousimprovementofthe

company’s environmental manage-

ment system and manufacturing

and facility processes

E2 is a process – not a program – that

promotes environmental stewardship.

The underlying premise of E2 is that

the simple choices people make every

day can and do make a difference. E2

acknowledges that every person makes

an impact on the environment and

encourages education to raise awareness

and seek solutions. E2 asks employees

to consider the environment in their

everyday choices and choose to be more

environmentally responsible.

E2 is key to improving sustainabili-

ty. Even during times of severe econom-

ic challenge, TRW is working towards

technological innovation, enhanced

efficiency, and increased productivity.

The following sections explore the key

program areas that comprise E2:

•ProductStewardship

•EnvironmentalRemediation

•CostDeterminationand

Reduction

•EnergyandWaterReduction

Supporting the components of E2

are the metrics systems for calculating

greenhouse gases and for recording usage

of energy and water and the creation of

industrial wastewater and wastes:

•GreenhouseGases(GHG)

•EnvironmentalReleaseand

Natural Resources (ERNR)

Figure 18. e2 is the second step in the tRW process towards achieving hS&e excellence.

SafetyExcellence

EnvironmentalExcellence

Health

ImplementationStarted

In Progress

Product StewardshipEnvironmental RemediationCDR & Energy Management

Management System

Health PromotionAdverse Health Prevention

Medical ServicesWork-Life Balance

Employee Behavior-Based SafetyErgonomics

Safety ProgramSafety Leadership

26

Product Stewardship (PS) is the first

of the three key areas within E2. The

initiatives within PS demonstrate TRW’s

commitment to innovation by produc-

ing more environmentally sustainable

products. PS is not just being advocated

by regulators, Non-Governmental Orga-

nizations (NGOs), and consumers, but

also by proactive businesses. PS is about

creating the products that in turn allow

TRW customers to develop environ-

mentally sustainable vehicles.

As the level of legislation has increased

globally, TRW has responded with a

comprehensive approach that spans all

products, regions, and manufacturing

processes. The TRW PS program is

built upon supplier integration, prod-

uct design, management support, and

employee engagement.

TRW’s PS initiatives span the entire

product life cycle, as shown in Figure

19. These initiatives demonstrate a

commitment to producing more envi-

ronmentally sustainable products that

reduce TRW’s environmental footprint.

TRW product designers take into con-

sideration regulatory requirements that

might apply to, or that might impose

design restrictions on, TRW’s products

in the global marketplace, including

the United States, the European Union,

Japan, Korea, China and Canada, as

well as emerging requirements in certain

states in the United States. To meet these

regulatory challenges and to create prod-

uct sustainability, TRW continues to:

•Removeheavymetalsandother

hazardous substances from a wide

array of its products (discussed in

the next section)

•Designfortheenvironmentbycre-

ating more fuel-efficient products for

hybrid and alternative-fuel vehicles

Design for HS&E

To ensure that TRW’s products meet

current and anticipated regulatory and

customer requirements, HS&E con-

siderations have been integrated into

TRW’s Global Development Product

Introduction Management (GDPIM)

system. The goal of the Design for

HS&E Program is to continue to

Product Stewardship

SustainabilityMaterials Selection

& Acquisition

Manufacturing

ProductEnd-Of-Life

Product Use

Product Design

ProductPackaging

Figure 19. the Product Stewardship cycle influences decisions from design and material selection through product retirement.

27

integrate HS&E considerations into

GDPIM through use of the standardized

HS&E Product Assessment tool, which

is to be used by Engineering on a global

basis through all phases of the product

and process development. This approach

is consistent with the requirements of

TRW’s Business Policy Manual A68 –

HSE12, HS&E and Customers and

Products. The evidence of the Design

for HS&E is provided in the following

sections.

Removing Hazardous Substances

from Products – The Lead-Free

Challenge for Global Electronics

TRW continues to eliminate the use of

hazardous substances in the manufacture

of many of its products. This is done

to minimize potential adverse human

health and environmental effects when

these parts reach the end of their useful

life. The biggest challenge in 2008, one

that will continue for the next several

years, has been to transition to lead-free

solder in electronic applications.

TRW continues to work closely with

its global customers to meet the latest

European End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) le-

gal requirements pertaining to lead-free

electronics. TRW has already designed

and mass produced lead-free electronics

for some customers. The challenge now

is to convert TRW’s entire customer base

and electronic product portfolio to be-

come lead free. The Lead-Free Electron-

ics Team has been working collabora-

tively with customer engineering teams

since 2008 to review more than 130

projects and potential designs affected

by the new ELV deadline of December

31, 2010.

While there are major challenges

to converting to a lead-free soldering

process, the benefits are compelling.

In particular, the switch to lead-free

significantly reduces the generation of

hazardous waste from the manufactur-

ing process, which reduces potential

environmental impacts and lowers waste

disposal costs. Use of lead-free solder

also eliminates potential exposures to

human health from leaded solder.

Fuel Efficiency and

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

TRW’s product portfolio continues to

move in the direction of more sus-

tainable products: products that offer

increased fuel efficiency and hence a

reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG)

or CO2 emissions. TRW continues to

expand its range of hybrid-enabling

technologies and products that meet

the challenges of vehicle manufacturers

who are offering more hybrid electric

vehicles every year. Key hybrid-enabling

technologies that offer fuel savings and

environmental benefits are:

•Electricallypoweredsteering

•Regenerativebrakingsystems

Electrically Powered Steering

In 2008, TRW launched its belt drive

Electrically Powered Steering (EPS)

system for the first major vehicle manu-

facturer in North America to use this

technology. This technology offers fuel

savings of up to 3.5 percent compared

with standard hydraulic powered

steering gears. Electric steering also is

among the technologies with the greatest

potential to reduce CO2 emissions and

enable further integration with other

electronically controlled systems to

enhance vehicle safety and comfort.

EPS is a key component of vehicle

manufacturers’ and TRW’s sustainability

plans, given that EPS saves 0.3 liters

of fuel per 100 km, or about 1 mpg,

compared with the traditional hydraulic

steering system. EPS systems have

evolved through the initial solution of

electrically powered hydraulic steering

(EPHS), a hybrid approach that com-

bined hydraulics with electronics, to

column drive EPS and rack drive (higher

torque) EPS. With each offering, addi-

tional environmental and other benefits

28

have been achieved, when compared to

hydraulic steering systems.

One of the key benefits of electrically

assisted steering is the reduction in en-

ergy use. EPHS uses only 15 percent of

the power of an equivalent conventional

hydraulic power rack & pinion (PR&P)

system, while EPS uses only 10 percent.

An EPS gear is pictured in Figure 20.

Energy use is reduced with the EPS

system because it relies on an electric

motor to drive the steering column or

steering rack and draw energy only when

assistance is needed. In a conventional

hydraulic system, the engine-driven

pump draws energy constantly to main-

tain the system’s pressure whether or not

the driver is turning the steering wheel.

EPHS utilizes an electrically driven

pump to provide hydraulic pressure to

the steering wheel only when needed.

Regenerative Braking Systems

TRW’s advanced brake system technol-

ogy, called Slip Control Boost (SCB), is

an integral part of regenerative braking

systems used in hybrid vehicles.

Regenerative braking systems capture

the kinetic energy that would otherwise

be lost to heat when the brakes are ap-

plied and stores this energy in electric

batteries for future use in a hybrid

platform.

SCB replaces traditional boosters,

master cylinders and vacuum pumps

with an electro-hydraulic control unit

and a master cylinder reservoir de-

vice. This design produces fuel savings

by requiring fewer components than

competitive systems, which translates to

weight savings and thus fuel savings.

Like Electrically Powered Steering,

SCB and other regenerative braking

systems can be integrated with other

vehicle systems to enhance safety. One

example is the integration of SCB with

Electronic Stability Control to increase

vehicle maneuverability on curves.

Product Stewardship –

The Bottom Line

Through the product stewardship

process, TRW is designing, engineering,

and manufacturing products that:

• Eliminatehazardoussubstances

• Increasefuelefficiencyandreduce

CO2 emissions

• Reducethecompany’senvironmen-

tal footprint

To learn more about EPS, SCB and

other TRW technologies, please visit

www.trw.com.

Figure 20. tRW’s expertise in power steer-ing now extends to a new energy-efficient electrically powered gear.

29

Environmental Remediation is the

second of the three key areas within

E2. Some of TRW’s manufacturing

sites are more than 100 years old. At

the end of 2008, the company’s world-

wide portfolio of active remediation

projects (including U.S. Superfund

sites) consisted of 72 sites. To minimize

the environmental impact and restore

these sites, TRW’s remediation program

employs a wide range of technologies

to reduce the potential environmental

impact of past activities. The injection

of potassium permanganate to oxidize

chlorinated solvents and land farming

of petroleum-contaminated soils are just

two of the many innovative remediation

technologies used (see Figure 21).

TRW’s goal is to reach “closure” of

these sites and drive down the associ-

ated financial liabilities. Last year, TRW

completed work or “closed” nine sites,

while adding two new sites, resulting in

a net decrease of seven sites. (New sites

Figure 21. this soon to be completed, in-situ chemical oxidation (IScO) system will be used to remediate chlorinated solvents in the groundwater.

environmental Remediation

30

are typically the result of recent discov-

ery of impacts from historical opera-

tions.) But the number of sites is not

the whole story. Figure 22 demonstrates

that from 2004 to the end of 2008, the

number of remediation projects had

been reduced by more than 35 percent.

While TRW works to complete re-

mediation projects with all governments

in a timely manner, the company is

committed to protecting human health

and the environment. As it performs

remediation work, TRW also seeks ways

to make significant reductions in the

lifecycle costs.1 TRW continues to apply

the Six Sigma process to the remediation

function. Using innovative technolo-

gies and leveraging experienced service

providers, the environmental and legal

professionals work together to reduce

both the costs and the risks associated

with the company’s remediation efforts.

Summary – Remediation

As sites are closed and the human

health and the environment risk

decreases, the dollar amount set aside

in TRW’s financial reserves generally

decreases. At the end of 2008, the

reserves set aside to deal with remedia-

tion were USD $45 million, a decrease

of USD $8 million.

0

-50

50

2004

Num

ber

of

Rem

edia

tion

Sit

es

2005 2006

Year

2007 2008 March 2009

150

100

Closed Remediation Sites

New Remediation Sites

Existing Remediation Sites

88 92 82 77 70 63

-8 -11 -5 -7 -9

2112

Figure 22. from 2004 to the present, tRW has been able to close out remediation projects at a steady rate.

Footnote 1. To manage and report environmental remediation liabilities, TRW follows the

guidelines of American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Statement of Position (SOP) 96-1.

In addition, to ensure compliance with the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act and to meet reporting require-

ments of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, TRW internal and external auditors

provide significant financial oversight of the Remediation Program.

31

The third of the three key areas within

E2 has two key components, the CDR

program and the new Energy and Water

Reduction program. CDR – which has

been implemented globally – has two

main benefits:

•ItprovidesHS&Eprofessionals

and others a systematic approach

to identify, evaluate and reduce or

eliminate HS&E-related risks and

costs associated with various supply,

production and disposal processes.

•CDRalsoenablesemployeesto

continually identify and implement

improvement opportunities.

During the past several years, TRW’s

HS&E organization has helped con-

duct more than 200 CDR Workshops,

leading to projects that have resulted in

more than USD $20 million in validat-

ed savings. These cost savings can also be

translated into HS&E performance im-

provements in terms of reduced waste,

air emissions, natural resources (water

and energy), as well as reduced risk to

employees and the environment.

CDR is administered through the

completion of highly structured work-

shops that last two to three days. A

trained practitioner leads a cross-

functional team of six to eight team

members, including engineers, techni-

cians, managers and specialists. They use

Six Sigma DMAIC (Define, Measure,

Analyze, Improve, Control) and Activity

Based Costing (ABC) methodologies to

effectively analyze the impact and costs

of vital HS&E processes.

The CDR program, with its focus

on continuous improvement and risk

reduction, is an integral part of the

company’s HS&E Management Systems.

The CDR program integrates a number

of risk reduction, Six Sigma, and con-

tinuous improvement tools that allow

HS&E professionals, engineers, Lean

Production Officers, and others to sys-

tematically evaluate and reduce HS&E-

hS&e cost determination and Reduction (cdR) and energy Reduction: Overview

32

related risks and costs associated with

the supply, production, and disposal

processes used in manufacturing.

In 2008, the TRW CDR Program

was recognized for its accomplishments,

as it was one of three finalists for the

World Conventions & Business Forums’

(WCBF) prestigious Global Six Sigma

& Business Improvement Award. This

award nomination was based on the

wide range and depth of the continu-

ous improvement projects generated by

the CDR program. Figure 23 illustrates

why the CDR process is successful, as it

focuses on identifying, and to the extent

possible, reducing, or eliminating risks

associated with HS&E processes and

operations.

E2 – Examples of Sustainability –

CDR Case Studies

Timisoara, Romania: Waste Minimi-

zation/Environmental Protection

The Timisoara facility, which manufac-

tures steering wheels, implemented a

project to recycle metallic packaging

materials. Prior to this project, the

contaminated packaging materials were

Figure 23. the hS&e cost determination and Reduction (cdR) Process Model works to reduce the inputs required for the opera-tion (left side), while minimizing the non- product outputs at its manufacturing facilities (right side).

HS&E SUPPLY PROCESSES HS&E DISPOSAL PROCESSESPRODUCTION PROCESSES

Overall HS&E Management & HS&E Training

Res

ourc

e In

put

Non-P

roduct Output

Wastewater Management

Waste Management

Air Emissions Management

Noise Management

Packaged Product

H&S Hazards Management H&S Incidents Management H&S Related Absence Management

Water Management

Non-hazardous Materials Management

Hazardous Materials Management

Energy Management

33

disposed of as waste. Now, after decon-

tamination, the metal is recycled. The

net effect is several fold – it increases

recycling, lowers the quantity of

material to be disposed and reduces

disposal costs by USD $25,000 per year.

Ponte de Lima, Portugal: Energy

Conservation

At Ponte de Lima, an airbag facility, a

project was implemented to reduce the

energy consumption of metal detectors

used in production. In the past, the

facility’s 36 metal detectors were left on

24 hours per day, regardless of whether

airbags were being tested or not. Con-

trollers were installed to turn on the

metal detectors only when a bag is ready

to be tested. The result has reduced the

“on” time of the metal detectors by 72

percent, and has reduced energy cost at

the facility by USD $17,000 per year. In

addition, the energy saved has reduced

the generation of carbon dioxide and

other pollutants formed in the genera-

tion of electricity.

Fenton, Michigan, USA: Material

Usage/Environmental Protection

The Fenton facility, a manufacturer of

anti-lock braking systems, changed from

multiple cutting coolants to a single

product. This coolant has superior lu-

bricating properties and is used at lower

concentrations. The facility reduced

consumption of cutting coolant by

16,000 gallons (60,500 liters) per year,

and reduced the cost by approximately

USD $37,000 per year.

The same project was also implement-

ed at the Fowlerville, Michigan plant, a

sister facility, for an additional savings of

USD $26,000 per year. The combined

annual savings for the two facilities was

USD $63,000 with an estimated savings

of 25,000 gallons (94,500 liters) of cool-

ant. The savings to the environment

include reduced chemical production,

reduced wastewater treatment, and lower

part scrap rate (due to the superior lubri-

cating properties).

Reynosa, Mexico: Waste Minimiza-

tion/Environmental Protection

The Reynosa facility, which manufac-

tures automotive switches and HVAC

products, implemented a project that

reduced the amount of grease waste gen-

erated from its window lift and mirror

processes. The facility used to purchase

single-use tubes of grease for these pro-

cesses, and would dispose of the empty

tubes. This project identified refillable

grease tubes and bulk grease. The result

is more efficient use of the grease, re-

duced waste disposal, and an annual cost

savings of USD $34,000. The benefit

to the environment includes reduced

burden on the landfill, less material and

packaging waste, and a more efficient

manufacturing process.

Peterlee, UK: Energy Conservation/

Natural Resource Management

The Peterlee facility, which makes

airbaginflatorsandmodules,imple-

mented an improved cooling system

that reduced energy consumption by

95 percent. Previously, the site utilized

a cooling tower that had high energy

consumption and required feedwater

to operate. The cooling tower was

replaced with an adiabatic blast cooler

that uses significantly less energy and no

feedwater. The change yielded annual

savings of more than USD $80,000 and

significantly reduced water consump-

tion at the facility. The impact in water

savings is obvious, but less obvious is

the decrease in the quantity of water

treatment chemicals and the decrease

in the packaging required to hold these

chemicals.

Value-Added – 2008 CDR Program

Results

Through minimizing wastes, eliminating

hazards, and reducing energy consump-

tion, the CDR Program has helped

34

improve processes and lower risks for

TRW, its employees and customers, and

the communities where TRW operates.

Not surprisingly, CDR has also contrib-

uted to reducing operational costs.

TRW uses CDR workshops to engage

employees in identifying practices that

detract from a sustainable business.

Since the CDR program began in 2003,

more than 1,200 projects have been

identified in nearly 200 workshops

completed through 2008 worldwide.

Figure 24 shows the distribution of

projects identified and savings achieved

by year since the CDR program was

rolled out in 2003.

The ability to drive continuous

improvements is measured both in

cost savings and in the corresponding

reduction in wastes, etc., which can

be seen in the Environmental Release/

Natural Resource section of this report.

2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

2007 2008

1,00050

100

150

200

250

300

350

0

Valid

ated

Cos

t D

eter

min

atio

n an

d R

educ

tion

(C

DR

) Sav

ings

(U

SD

$000’s

)

Tota

l Cos

t D

eter

min

atio

n an

d R

educ

tion

(C

DR

) P

roje

cts

Iden

tifie

d

0

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Total CDR Projects Identified Validated CDR Savings

$203

$1,514

$3,752

$4,826$5,181 $5,422

Figure 24. Since 2003, the validated savings from cost determination and Reduction (cdR) projects have increased even as the number of projects actually declined.

35

Global Trends

Despite the recent drop in energy prices

as a result of the economic downturn, it

has been predicted that the demand for

energy resources will rise dramatically

over the next 25 years:

•Globaldemandforallenergysources

is forecast to grow by 57 percent over

the next 25 years.

•U.S.demandforalltypesofenergy

is expected to increase by 31 percent

within 25 years.

•By2030,56percentoftheworld’s

energy use will be in Asia.

•ElectricitydemandintheU.S.will

grow by at least 40 percent by 2032.

•Newpowergenerationequalto

nearly 300 (1,000MW) power plants

will be needed to meet electricity

demand by 2030.

•Currently,50percentofU.S.electrical

generation relies on coal, a fossil fuel,

while 85 percent of U.S. greenhouse

gas emissions result from energy-

consuming activities supported by

fossil fuels.

As energy prices rise due to increased

demand and constrained supply, the

business impacts are obvious:

•Reducedprofitsduetohigher

operating costs.

•Declineofsalesorhighercostsof

energy-using products.

•Lossofcompetitivenessinenergy-

intensive businesses.

•Disruptionsinsupplychainsas

suppliers are unable to meet cost

obligations or go bankrupt.

energy and Water Reduction Program

(Sources: Annual Energy Outlook [DOE/EIA-0383, 2007], International Energy Outlook 2007 [DOE/EIA-0484, 2007], Inventory of U.S. Green-

house Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005 [April, 2007] [EPA 430-R-07-002])

Electricity WaterNatural Gas & Oil

Cos

t (U

SD

$000’s

)

Year

2006

130

150

2007 20080

30

60

90

120

150

180

114

23

5 6 6

2330

Figure 25. Increases in expenditures for electricity (24 percent), natural gas and oil (23 percent) from 2006-2008 provide an opportunity for energy reduction projects.

36

Figure 26. from 2004-2008, the cost savings from cdR energy projects increased significantly.

Recent history also demonstrates that

catastrophic weather events, terrorism,

and shifting economic centers are not

just events of the imagination but reali-

ties of this life.

The Impact to TRW

TRW spends more than USD $186

million per year for energy and water

(see Figure 25), with more than 80

percent spent on electricity. Although

some energy prices decreased at the end

of 2008, TRW needs to be prepared for

future increases in energy prices that will

invariably occur.

Since 2003, the Global HS&E Team

has been facilitating energy reduction via

the CDR Program (as shown in the pre-

vious section). During this time, energy

reduction projects have been responsible

for much of the CDR savings achieved

(see Figure 26). Now the Global HS&E

Team has been challenged with the

task of expanding the use of the CDR

process to conserve even more energy, to

further reduce energy costs, and to

cushion the impact of future energy

market volatility.

Energy Reduction –

The Path Forward

In 2008, a new cross-functional Energy

Team (ET) was formed. It is led by the

Global HS&E Team and includes mem-

bers from purchasing, finance, business

excellence /continuous improvement

and others as needed. The ET relies on

the proven Six Sigma DMAIC (Define,

Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control)

process to help develop new energy-

saving methodologies and projects.

Starting in 2009, TRW’s Energy

Program team will:

•Catalogglobalenergyexpenditures

and define goals for improving

energy management.

•Systematicallyidentifyandimple-

ment energy efficiency, conservation,

and cost reduction opportunities.

•Researchandplanforfutureenergy

market volatility.

•Developandimplementgreenhouse

gas reduction targets and implement

methodologies.

$211

$362$332

$486

$661

2004$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

2005 2006

Year

2007 2008

Valid

ated

Cos

t D

eter

min

atio

n an

d R

educ

tion

(CD

R)

Ene

rgy

Sav

ings

(U

SD

$ 0

00’s

)

37

Figure 27. tracking and managing energy costs is the goal of the tRW Sustainable energy Plan.

Processes

Level Energy SupplyManagement

• Error Resolution

• Rate Optimization

• Account

Management

• Accessibility

• Monthly Bills

• Key Performance

Indicators

and Benchmarking

• Reporting

• Facility Walk-throughs

• Benchmarking and

Ranking Facilities

• Corrective

Maintenance

Program

• Systems Control

• Preventative

Maintenance Program

• Lighting Upgrades

• Alternative Energy

• System Upgrades

• Standards

• New Technology

• System Measurement

and Verification

• Awareness and

Participation

• Energy Manager’s

Role

• Energy Planning

• Performance and

Training

• Resource

Management

• Budget Preparation

• Project Approval

• Results Auditing

• Financial Impact

and Incentives

• Accountability and

Review

Energy DataManagement

Energy Use inFacilities

EquipmentEfficiency

OrganizationalIntegration

Projects

Programs • Supplier Choice

• Supplier Reliability

and Quality

• Demand-Supply

Optimization

• Risk Management

• Load Profiling

• Interval Data

• Sub-metered Data

• Diagnostic Audits

• Operating Procedures

• Investment Grade/

Comprehensive Audits

• Commissioning

• On-going Monitoring

These objectives will help TRW be

more cost-competitive in the long-term.

In the short-term, these efforts are ex-

pected to yield at least USD $1million in

additional energy cost savings by the end

of 2009. The key elements of TRW’s

Sustainable Energy Program are further

outlined in Figure 27.

38

Two metrics systems support the

components of E2. The first calculates

greenhouse gas (GHG) production,

while the second records the usage of

energy and water and the creation of

industrial wastewater and wastes. To

quantify company-wide GHG emissions

for 2006, 2007 and 2008, TRW utilized

fuel usage and electricity consumption

for all manufacturing, engineering, and

distribution facilities worldwide. The

objective of this work was to provide

a preliminary worldwide inventory of

GHG emissions.

GHG Emission Sources

The contribution to total GHG emis-

sions by source type for each of the three

reporting years is shown in Figure 28

(2006-2008 Emissions by Source Type).

As shown in Figure 29, emissions from

electricity consistently are the single

largest contributor to TRW’s global

GHG emissions, followed by liquid and

natural gas (including bunker and diesel

fuel), and purchased heat.

Distribution of GHG Emissions

As seen in Figure 30, emissions from

electricity use and bunker fuel (also

known as No. 6 fuel oil) were relatively

constant between the three years, while

natural gas, diesel fuel and purchased

heat had significant variation. As part of

the GHG emissions analysis, the majority

of emissions are attributed to electricity

consumption, at 74 percent for 2008

and ranging between 69 and 77 percent

of total emissions for all three reporting

years. Natural gas contributed 20 percent

of total emissions for 2008, and between

16 and 28 percent for all three years, as

the second largest contributor. Purchased

heat (steam and hot water), diesel fuel,

and bunker fuel together represent a

relatively insignificant fraction of total

emissions for each year.

GHG Emissions Methodology

The methodologies for quantifying

GHG emissions were based on best

practice reporting guidelines, including

the World Resources Institute and the

World Business Council for Sustainable

Development (WRI/WBCSD) Green-

house Gas Protocol Initiative’s guidance

documents and calculation tools, The

Climate Registry’s General Reporting

Protocol, and American Petroleum Insti-

tute’s 2004 Compendium of Greenhouse

Gas Emissions Estimation Methodologies

for the Oil and Gas Industry.

Worldwide GHG emissions were

estimated from aggregated fuel usage and

electricity consumption on a country-

specific basis. Total GHG emissions

greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions

Figure 28. the trend from 2006-2008 is a 14 percent decline in the normalized greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions, expressed as tons of cO2 equivalents.

2006

2007

2008

224,004

212,997

123,573

564,134

643,864

649,265

$13,144

$14,700

$15,000

788,137

856,860

772,837

59.96

58.29

51.52

ReportingYear

Direct EmissionsSources Subtotal

(tons CO2e)

Indirect EnergyImport Emissions

Subtotal(tons CO

2e)

Total Emissions(tons CO

2e)

Sales(USD $1,000)

Normalized CO2e

Emissions(tons CO

2e/

USD $1,000)

39

estimates were calculated using methods

and emission factors from the WRI/

WBCSD GHG Protocol calculation

tool. Emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O

were estimated, as well as total carbon

dioxide equivalents (CO2e).

Next Steps in Measuring GHG

Emissions

The GHG emission data presented in

this report for 2006-2008 is the first

estimate performed by TRW. Both the

energy data and the methodologies used

to calculate the emissions estimates will

continue to be refined. For example,

natural gas in all its forms will be

speciated (separated into its component

parts). Due to the wide range of

products manufactured by TRW,

production data was not utilized in

normalizing data. Therefore trends in

emissions are not known (i.e., therefore

it is not possible to distinguish between

production declines and efficiency

improvements). Reductions in GHG

emissions will come from process changes

as a result of the continuation of the

CDR program and the implementation

of the TRW Sustainable Energy Plan.

2006 2007 2008

Liquid andNatural Gas

Diesel Fuel Bunker Fuel

Source

Electricity Purchased Heat

Log

(met

ric

tons

CO

2e)

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

12.00

10.00

14.00

16.00

11.7112.06

12.30

8.31

10.55

6.96 7.016.57

9.57 9.55

10.93

13.2213.35

13.29

7.32

Figure 29. Based on 2008 data, purchased electricity comprises the greatest source of ghg emission for tRW and therefore is a focus of the company’s energy efficiency efforts.

Figure 30. While the fuel sources vary, they are all used to produce electricity for tRW facilities and all produce greenhouse gases.

74% Electricity, 593,573 tons CO2e

4% Diesel Fuel, 1,054 tons CO2e

2% Purchased Heat,

55,674 tons CO2e

20% Liquid and Natural Gas,

121,804 tons CO2e

40

The second of the two E2 metric

systems is the system for recording usage

of energy and water and the creation of

industrial wastewater and wastes. Since

2005, TRW has measured and tracked

the four categories of ERNR data:

n Energy: Electricity, natural gas, heating

oil and purchased heat (i.e., steam and

hot water).

• Water Usage: Water usage including

drinking, sanitary and process use.

• Industrial Waste Water Generation:

Wastewater that is generated by the

manufacturing process and directly

discharged to a sewer or an on-site/

off-site treatment system.

• Waste Generation: Twelve different

waste streams are measured: cardboard/

paper, computer/electronic waste,

electroplating waste, metals, nylon/

plastics, oil-contaminated waste,

process wastewater taken off-site for

treatment, sludge, non-segregated

(municipal)waste,flammableliquids/

oils/greases, wood, and “other” waste.

For each of these waste streams, the

quantities are divided into three

sub-categories according to the

ultimate end of the waste:

•Disposal (land disposal, solidifica-

tion or other method of disposal

where the waste is not intended to

be used again)

•Incineration (a thermal process

where the sole purpose is to destroy

the waste [heat recovery is not a

goal])

•Recovery (recycling, reuse, return

environmental Release/natural Resource (eRnR) Metric: Introduction

Water Use Normalized Water Use

3,000

Wat

er U

se (

000’s

m3)

Nor

mal

ized

Wat

er U

se(l

iter

per

USD

$1,0

00

,000)

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000,

500

02005 2006 2007

Year2008

2,5

39

200,835181,211 192,931

143,667

2,3

81

2,8

36

2,1

55

Figure 31. from 2005-2008, the normalized water usage in tRW facilities decreased by more than 20 percent.

41

to the supplier, burned for heat

recovery, etc.)

Waste and Resource Reduction –

Evidence of Sustainability

The following sections present a

four-year summary, 2005-2008, of

ERNR data. The data includes a

normalization based on sales, which

best correlates with actual production

changes. By using sales, TRW can track

the relationship of material usage and

waste generation directly to its finances.

Water Usage and Industrial

Wastewater Generation

As shown in Figures 31 and 32, from

2005-2008, both water usage and

waste-water generation* overall

decreased 9.5 percent and 9.0 percent

respectively (from 2,539,163 m3 to

2,155,007 m3 and from 828,427

m3 to 753,955 m3, respectively).

In addition, when using “normalized”

figures (water usage and wastewater

generation per total annual sales), both

parameters decreased, by 20.7 percent

and 9.6 percent, respectively.

Waste Generation

From 2005-2008, as production

increased, total waste generation

(all 12 categories) increased 38.1

percent (from 213,628 metric tons

to 295,092 metric tons). However,

when normalized, the waste generation

(waste generation per total annual sales)

increased 16.4 percent. This increase

in the normalized waste generation is

largely attributable to a range of factors:

a new foundry coming on-line in 2008

with more than 10,000 tons of foundry

sand generated, the decommissioning

of a large facility with large quantities

of electronic waste, improved ERNR

recordkeeping and reporting systems,

and the creation of a new computer/

electronic waste category.

Figures 33 and 34 provide the mean

waste distribution over the four-year

750

800

850

900

950828

739

59,290

65,525

56,250

859

50,264

753

700

650

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

10,000

02005 2006 2007

Year2008

Industrial Waste Water Generation Normalized Industrial Waste Water Generation

Indu

stri

al W

aste

Wat

er G

ener

atio

n(0

00

’s m

3)

Nor

mal

ized

Ind

ustr

ial W

aste

Wat

er

Gen

erat

ion

(lit

er p

er U

SD

$1

,00

0,0

00

m)

Figure 32. from 2005-2008, the normalized industrial wastewater generation in tRW facilities decreased by more than 9 percent.

*Wastewater generation accounts for industrial wastewater discharged via pipe. Wastewater taken off-site

via truck or lorry is accounted for in the waste category.

42

0.9% Electroplating Waste

1.0% Computer or Electronic Waste

5.5% Cardboard/Paper

10.6.% Other Waste Streams

3.4% Wood

49.4% Metals

8.1% Trash/Municipal Waste

Garbage/Non-Segregated Waste

2.7% Sludges

1.7% Oil-Contaminated Waste

3.3% Nylon/Plastics1.8% Flammable Liquids/Oils

Used Oils/Greases

11.7% Process Wastewater

(taken off site by lorry or truck)

period and the change in that distribu-

tion from 2005-2008, respectively.

A few highlights over the four-year

period include (values are not normal-

ized), as demonstrated in Figures 33 and

34, include:

n As expected, metals are the largest

contributor to total waste (49.4

percent). The metals category is

followed by process wastewater taken

off-site for treatment (11.7 percent),

other waste (10.6 percent) and trash

(8.1 percent). The largest component

of the other waste category is foundry

sand from the company’s two iron

foundries.

n Relative contribution of the waste

streams generally considered to be

“hazardous waste” demonstrate the

following trends:

•Oilcontaminatedwastedecreased

63.6 percent

•Processwastewatertakenoff-site

for treatment decreased 21.4

percent

•Sludgedecreased20.9percent

•Electroplatingwasteandflammable

liquids both increased 18.8 percent

and 4.7 percent, respectively

•Overall,therelativecontribution

of these wastes generally regulated

as hazardous waste to total waste

generated decreased 4.6 percent

(from 19.8 percent in 2005 to

15.2 percent in 2008)

n Nearly all cardboard/paper (14,626

metric tons or 98.6 percent in 2008)

is recycled, nearly all computer/elec-

tronic waste is recycled (11,257 metric

tons or 99.8 percent in 2008) and

nearly all metal (145,423 metric tons

or 99.8 percent in 2008) is recycled,

nearly all wood (8,887 metric tons or

95.5 percent in 2008) and nearly all

nylon/plastic (7,973 metric tons or

94.1 percent in 2008) is recycled.

n Recovery/recycling increased in every

waste category, except for electroplat-

ingwaste(-8.4percent)andflam-

mable liquids (-1.4 percent)

n Recovery/recycling of the materials

generally considered to be hazardous

waste increased 10 percent from 2005

figure 33. Metals were the largest contributor to tRW’s mean waste stream distribution during the period 2005-2008.

43

2 4 6 8 10 12 14

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120Percentage of Waste in the Total Waste

Per

cent

age

Cha

nge

in G

ener

atio

n R

ate

0

13.1% Decrease in Cardboard/Paper

100.0% Increase in Computer or Electronic Waste

18.8% Increase in Electroplating Waste

3.5% Increase in Metals

3.4% Decrease in Nylon/Plastics

63.6% Decrease in Oil-Contaminated Waste

21.4% Decrease in Process Wastewater (taken off site by lorry or truck)

20.9% Decrease in Sludges

5.5% Decrease in Trash/Municipal Waste/Garbage/Non-Segregated Waste

4.7% Increase in Flammable Liquids/Oils/Used Oils/Greases

4.8% Decrease in Wood

5.4% Increase in Other Waste Streams

to 2008 (from 58.1 percent to 68.1

percent). Although regulations vary

from country to country, this category

includes electroplating waste, oil con-

taminatedwaste,flammableliquids,

oils, and used oils.

Value-Added – Waste Reduction

and Decrease in the Use of

Natural Resources

Efforts to continuously reduce water

usage and decrease wastewater and waste

generation are undertaken as a result of

HS&E CDR Workshops, regulatory

requirements, and other TRW

continuous improvement opportunities.

All of these efforts combine to improve

sustainability, to protect the environ-

ment, and help competitiveness in the

marketplace.

Figure 34. the change in the waste generation composition from 2005-2008 demonstrates the progress tRW facilities have made in waste minimization, waste reduction, and recycling (note computer/electronic waste recording started in 2008).

44

Select hS&e data tablesHealth and Safety Data, 2000 – 2008

3.47

3.04

2.57

2.12

1.67

1.64

1.72

1.53

1.26

2.5

2.35

1.88

1.57

1.28

1.23

1.34

1.21

1.06

50.1

62.1

45.5

38.6

33

36.1

41

34.3

28.6

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Total RecordableIncident Rate (TRIR)

Year Lost WorkdayIncident Rate (LWIR)

SeverityRate

HS&E Management Systems Scores2002 – 2008

75%

77%

87%

87%

89%

90%

91%

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Year HS&E Management SystemsImplementation Score

45

Select hS&e data tables

Water Usage, 2005 – 2008

Year Water Usage(liters)

2005 2,539,163 200,835

2006 2,381,835 181,211

2007 2,836,091 192,931

2008 2,155,007 143,667

Normalized Water Usage(liters/USD $1,000)

Industrial Wastewater Generation, 2005 – 2008

Year

2005 828,427 65,525

2006 739,347 56,250

2007 870,834 59,240

2008 753,955 50,264

Industrial Wastewater

Generation (liters)

Normalized Industrial Wastewater

Generation (liters/USD $1,000)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2006 – 2008

788,137

788,137

856,860

59.96

59.96

58.29

2006

2007

2008

TonsCO2e/year

Year Normalized TonsCO2e/USD $1,000

46

Select hS&e data tables

Critical PerformanceChecklist Items

Number of AcceptableBehaviors

Number “At-Risk”Behaviors

Percentage of “At-Risk” Behaviorsto Acceptable Behaviors

1.1 Eyes on Path 68,193 1,146 1.68%

1.2 Eyes on Work 68,076 832 1.22%

1.3 Stable Surface 59,400 1,655 2.79%

1.4 Lifting 65,922 2,124 3.22%

1.5 Overexertion 62,749 1,763 2.81%

1.6 Line of Fire 50,717 1,426 2.81%

1.7 Rushing/Shortcuts 62,023 1,426 2.30%

1.8 Ascending/Descending 34,930 759 2.17%

1.9 Pinch Points 55,237 1,158 2.10%

1.10 Overextending 54,207 1,686 3.11%

1.11 Path of Travel 47,089 1,895 4.02%

1.12 Awkward/Cramped 65,070 2,276 3.50%

2.1 Walking/Working Surfaces 45,847 1,578 3.44%

2.2 Barricades/Warning 35,571 1,019 2.86%

2.3 Obstructions 43,201 3,243 7.51%

2.4 Housekeeping 69,111 6,034 8.73%

2.5 Awkward/Cramped 44,435 1,966 4.42%

2.6 Lighting 62,594 2,065 3.30%

2.7 Ventilation 56,284 2,604 4.63%

3.1 Selection 61,950 652 1.05%

3.2 Use 59,852 1,023 1.71%

3.3 Condition 56,902 1,828 3.21%

3.4 Vehicle Operation 24,992 1,223 4.89%

4.1 Eye and Face 61,054 2,074 3.40%

4.2 Head 20,798 703 3.38%

4.3 Hands 53,763 1,169 2.17%

4.4 Fall Protection 20,333 537 2.64%

4.5 Body Protection/Coveralls 45,758 624 1.36%

4.6 Shoes 61,650 893 1.45%

4.7 Hearing Protection 36,929 883 2.39%

4.8 Respirator Protection 19,994 698 3.49%

5.1 Pre-Job Inspection/Planning 43,201 423 0.98%

5.2 Adequate Personnel 43,175 716 1.66%

5.3 Communication 45,850 409 0.89%

5.4 Complying with Lockout/Tagout 36,299 475 1.31%

5.5 Complying with Permits 32,399 282 0.87%

5.6 Written Procedures 59,614 654 1.10%

6.1 Hair 57,331 477 0.83%

6.2 Clothes 58,511 618 1.06%

6.3 Jewelry 55,071 1,913 3.47%

7.1 Floor 58,936 2,724 4.62%

7.2 Equipment 49,304 844 1.71%

7.3 Storage of Materials 60,300 2,009 3.33%

7.4 Disposal of Materials 49,525 1,232 2.49%

Total 2,224,147 61,738 2.78%

2008 Total Observations – Critical Performance Checklist

47

Critical PerformanceChecklist Items

Number of AcceptableBehaviors

Number “At-Risk”Behaviors

Percentage of “At-Risk” Behaviorsto Acceptable Behaviors

1.1 Eyes on Path 68,193 1,146 1.68%

1.2 Eyes on Work 68,076 832 1.22%

1.3 Stable Surface 59,400 1,655 2.79%

1.4 Lifting 65,922 2,124 3.22%

1.5 Overexertion 62,749 1,763 2.81%

1.6 Line of Fire 50,717 1,426 2.81%

1.7 Rushing/Shortcuts 62,023 1,426 2.30%

1.8 Ascending/Descending 34,930 759 2.17%

1.9 Pinch Points 55,237 1,158 2.10%

1.10 Overextending 54,207 1,686 3.11%

1.11 Path of Travel 47,089 1,895 4.02%

1.12 Awkward/Cramped 65,070 2,276 3.50%

2.1 Walking/Working Surfaces 45,847 1,578 3.44%

2.2 Barricades/Warning 35,571 1,019 2.86%

2.3 Obstructions 43,201 3,243 7.51%

2.4 Housekeeping 69,111 6,034 8.73%

2.5 Awkward/Cramped 44,435 1,966 4.42%

2.6 Lighting 62,594 2,065 3.30%

2.7 Ventilation 56,284 2,604 4.63%

3.1 Selection 61,950 652 1.05%

3.2 Use 59,852 1,023 1.71%

3.3 Condition 56,902 1,828 3.21%

3.4 Vehicle Operation 24,992 1,223 4.89%

4.1 Eye and Face 61,054 2,074 3.40%

4.2 Head 20,798 703 3.38%

4.3 Hands 53,763 1,169 2.17%

4.4 Fall Protection 20,333 537 2.64%

4.5 Body Protection/Coveralls 45,758 624 1.36%

4.6 Shoes 61,650 893 1.45%

4.7 Hearing Protection 36,929 883 2.39%

4.8 Respirator Protection 19,994 698 3.49%

5.1 Pre-Job Inspection/Planning 43,201 423 0.98%

5.2 Adequate Personnel 43,175 716 1.66%

5.3 Communication 45,850 409 0.89%

5.4 Complying with Lockout/Tagout 36,299 475 1.31%

5.5 Complying with Permits 32,399 282 0.87%

5.6 Written Procedures 59,614 654 1.10%

6.1 Hair 57,331 477 0.83%

6.2 Clothes 58,511 618 1.06%

6.3 Jewelry 55,071 1,913 3.47%

7.1 Floor 58,936 2,724 4.62%

7.2 Equipment 49,304 844 1.71%

7.3 Storage of Materials 60,300 2,009 3.33%

7.4 Disposal of Materials 49,525 1,232 2.49%

Total 2,224,147 61,738 2.78%

2008 Total Observations – Critical Performance Checklist2008 Total Observations – Critical Performance Checklist (Continued)

Critical PerformanceChecklist Items

Number of AcceptableBehaviors

Number “At-Risk”Behaviors

Percentage of “At-Risk” Behaviorsto Acceptable Behaviors

1.1 Eyes on Path 68,193 1,146 1.68%

1.2 Eyes on Work 68,076 832 1.22%

1.3 Stable Surface 59,400 1,655 2.79%

1.4 Lifting 65,922 2,124 3.22%

1.5 Overexertion 62,749 1,763 2.81%

1.6 Line of Fire 50,717 1,426 2.81%

1.7 Rushing/Shortcuts 62,023 1,426 2.30%

1.8 Ascending/Descending 34,930 759 2.17%

1.9 Pinch Points 55,237 1,158 2.10%

1.10 Overextending 54,207 1,686 3.11%

1.11 Path of Travel 47,089 1,895 4.02%

1.12 Awkward/Cramped 65,070 2,276 3.50%

2.1 Walking/Working Surfaces 45,847 1,578 3.44%

2.2 Barricades/Warning 35,571 1,019 2.86%

2.3 Obstructions 43,201 3,243 7.51%

2.4 Housekeeping 69,111 6,034 8.73%

2.5 Awkward/Cramped 44,435 1,966 4.42%

2.6 Lighting 62,594 2,065 3.30%

2.7 Ventilation 56,284 2,604 4.63%

3.1 Selection 61,950 652 1.05%

3.2 Use 59,852 1,023 1.71%

3.3 Condition 56,902 1,828 3.21%

3.4 Vehicle Operation 24,992 1,223 4.89%

4.1 Eye and Face 61,054 2,074 3.40%

4.2 Head 20,798 703 3.38%

4.3 Hands 53,763 1,169 2.17%

4.4 Fall Protection 20,333 537 2.64%

4.5 Body Protection/Coveralls 45,758 624 1.36%

4.6 Shoes 61,650 893 1.45%

4.7 Hearing Protection 36,929 883 2.39%

4.8 Respirator Protection 19,994 698 3.49%

5.1 Pre-Job Inspection/Planning 43,201 423 0.98%

5.2 Adequate Personnel 43,175 716 1.66%

5.3 Communication 45,850 409 0.89%

5.4 Complying with Lockout/Tagout 36,299 475 1.31%

5.5 Complying with Permits 32,399 282 0.87%

5.6 Written Procedures 59,614 654 1.10%

6.1 Hair 57,331 477 0.83%

6.2 Clothes 58,511 618 1.06%

6.3 Jewelry 55,071 1,913 3.47%

7.1 Floor 58,936 2,724 4.62%

7.2 Equipment 49,304 844 1.71%

7.3 Storage of Materials 60,300 2,009 3.33%

7.4 Disposal of Materials 49,525 1,232 2.49%

Total 2,224,147 61,738 2.78%

2008 Total Observations – Critical Performance Checklist

48

Select hS&e data tables

Waste Recycling, 2005 – 2008

2005 2006 2007 2008 Change 2005

to 2008

Cardboard/Paper 77.80% 95.70% 99.80% 98.60% 20.80%

Computer/ N/A N/A N/A 99.80% 66.50%Electronic Waste

Electroplating Waste 76.10% 68.70% 72.20% 67.70% -8.40%

Metals 98.30% 98.60% 99.80% 99.80% 1.40%

Nylon/Plastics 73.30% 87.20% 90.30% 94.10% 20.80%

Oil-Contaminated Waste 33.10% 70.20% 36.30% 41.90% 8.80%

Process Wastewater 61.90% 57.20% 37.90% 73.80% 11.90%(taken off site by lorry or truck)

Sludges 54.80% 47.30% 58.80% 57.80% 3.00%

Trash/Municipal Waste/ 8.40% 11.00% 12.50% 25.60% 17.30%Garbage/Non-Segregated Waste

Flammable Liquids/Oils/ 65.10% 49.80% 57.10% 63.80% -1.40%Used Oils/Greases

Wood 91.60% 88.20% 97.00% 95.50% 3.80%

Other Waste Streams 16.30% 20.30% 19.50% 18.10% 1.80%

49

50

TRW has continued to develop a

company-wide safety culture in 2008.

This effort would not have been possible

without the entire management team

of TRW, the global Health, Safety,

Environment and Security Program,

and the many thousands of employees

throughout the company who have

assumed leadership roles in HS&E

programs.

The leadership, enthusiasm, dedica-

tion, and suggestions for continuous

improvement have made a positive

difference in TRW facilities, and as

shown below have contributed to the

“triple” bottom line (economy, environ-

ment, social aspects) in many ways:

n Health and Safety. Work-related

health and safety impacts to employees

decreased, as evidenced in the TRIR,

from 3.47 in 2000 to 1.26 per 100

employees in 2008. This reduction

is being achieved through the imple-

mentation of Safety Excellence and the

integration within Back-to-Basics.

n Product Stewardship. As a result of

Product Stewardship efforts, the com-

pany produces a range of lead-free

electronics and aggressively pursues

the development of components to

improve fuel efficiency for conven-

tional and hybrid vehicles.

n Continuous Improvement. HS&E

and Lean Manufacturing workshops

have educated employees whose

observations and recommendations

have led to savings of more than

USD $20 million since 2002, with

USD $5.4 million saved in 2008

alone. Employees trained in these

workshops have helped the company

achieve operating conditions that

minimize HS&E risks and costs.

n Energy Reduction. The new

Energy Team defines goals for

improving energy management

and systematically identifies and

implements energy efficiency, con-

servation, and cost reduction oppor-

tunities. In addition, the team helps

the company plan for future energy

market volatility and develops and

implements greenhouse gas (GHG)

reduction targets.

n Greenhouse Gases. The GHG

emission data presented in this

report for 2006 – 2008 is the first

estimate performed by TRW. Both the

Value-Added: global health, Safety, environment & Security Program

51

energy data and the methodologies used

to calculate the emissions estimates

will continue to be refined. Reductions

in GHG emissions

will come from process changes

as a result of the CDR and Energy

programs.

n Waste Reduction. The focus on

reducing HS&E impacts across the

entirevaluechainisreflectedinall

HS&E Programs, especially the risk

reduction efforts. This progress is best

evidenced by the fact that recovery/

recycling increased in 10 of 12 waste

categories.

n Security. With the economic down-

turn, new concerns have immerged

globally in regard to a range of security

risks. TRW continues to ensure the

security of its employee and facilities

by robust implementation of its

HS&E MS.

First Safety Excellence, then Environ-

mental Excellence and next a Health

Program — the TRW roadmap for

HS&E efforts is clear. The company

has many successful programs in place

to protect employees and is working to

improve its product stewardship and

reduce its energy consumption. Despite

economic uncertainty, TRW is com-

mitted to these areas and expects to see

additional improvements in both in

2009. While economic challenges come

and go, TRW realizes that the need for

health, safety and environmental

responsibility is ongoing.

2008 Interactive Report

www.trwauto.com

this report was prepared by the tRW Automotive global health, Safety and environment team for tRW Automotive employees and interested parties. the electronic version is available to tRW Automotive employees on the tRW intranet page, http://corpnet.trw.com/hse/.

© 2009 TRW Automotive Inc.TRW is the name and mark of TRW Automotive U.S. LLC4/09