2. Date:10-14-2013 Incident #AB13001507 Address:4800 Harbour Pointe Blvd. SW Time:16:49:54

3. The PIA is not to blame or point fingers at anyone. It is presented to analyze the following: What actions took place? What actions were beneficial? What actions could be changed/taken in the future? Any safety issues and/or equipment failures? Any suggestions to improve our service?

5. M2516:49:54(BLS) L2316:54:?(FS) B1116:56:?(FC) B16 L15 E10 E11 TR21 EN6 A24 MDC (CH25)

6. AC16 AC11 FM25 SF25 MSO21

7. Was the alarm reported, received, and dispatched correctly? Reported = NO initially. YES by additional callers. Received = Yes Dispatched = Yes

8. Established & maintained = M25 Had one unit arrive and “report to command” Had one unit arrive and ask “report to command?” after being told to standby.

9. IC (M25) M25A24L23E10EN6TR21L15E11 Safety (AC16) Aide (AC11) (B11)(SF25)(CH25) FM (FM25)

10. Did the initial arriving officer properly size-up the building? For the most part. No mention on size or use of building. Officer did state smoke conditions, location and initiate command.

11. Smoke showing from the C/D Corner. Some evacuation had occurred. One sprinkler head was operational over the fire area.

12. Recon Rescue Confinement Extinguish Overhaul

13. Was 2in/2out established? = Yes Was ISO established? = Yes. AC16 Was gross decon established? = No Was rehab established? = It was determined that the incident would not need an official rehab. Was appropriate PPE in place during fire attack? During overhaul? = Yes. Proper PPE was being used during the incident. Was there air monitoring and appropriate PPE in place after overhaul was completed? = Yes

14. Was there a need for rescue efforts and if so were they done appropriately? Aggressive evacuation was needed. Officer from M25 went to doorway and told all remaining employees of the business in the fire area to evacuate.

15. Were there any exposures? If so, were they addressed? Yes. The rest of this mega size building was a potential exposure. M25 crew closed the fire doors early on in the incident.

16. Was the fire completely extinguished? = Yes Was the area of origin preserved as much as possible? = Yes Was the structure secured prior to leaving? = Business continued operations in the building. Was the building turned over properly? = Yes

17. L23

18. Did law enforcement provide traffic control? Mukilteo PD arrived, but there was no need for traffic control.

19. Were the utilities handled effectively and within a reasonable timeframe? There was no need for a utility company response. However, in the fire room there was some operating electrical that had not been dealt with. There was an operational sprinkler head, yet there was still some equipment operating in the room.

20. Was support 7 requested? Incident size did not need the resources of Support 7. Was a chaplain offered? No

21. Were radio communications clear & concise? Yes. The IC did an excellent job of communicating the initial assignments on the TAC channel in clear, concise terms. Were all communications answered & understood? Yes. Interior crew’s communications were received routinely on the first transmit.

22. Were there any safety issues? Trip hazards in the doorway The ladder might have been a little close to the building if it needed to be relocated in a hurry IC failed to don a command vest IC was more mobile than he needed to be. Were there any equipment failures? None reported

27. Sparks from a grinding operation made entry into a filter system that caused the filters to catch on fire.

28. A comprehensive pre-fire plan for the building and its suppression system would have been very beneficial. Discontinue stealth mode responses. Staff each station with a Captain, PM, & FF and only send one EMS unit to BLS emergencies. Grid was not correct with SNOCOM. Definitive direction for the basing of apparatus and the location of staging. Especially applicable because of multi-jurisdictional response. Pre-fire plan would have been very beneficial to us for RIT.