TRENDS IN INTEGRATED COLLAPSE RESCUE OPERATIONS

Photos courtesy of author.

TRENDS IN INTEGRATED COLLAPSE RESCUE OPERATIONS

The response to collapse-related incidents has undergone significant changes over the past 10 years as a result of the increased focus on the need for safer and stronger strategic and tactical deployment and operations. Collapse-related incident operations traditionally have been based on local and regional operational procedures rooted in methodologies based on historic incident response parameters within respective jurisdictions.

These operational procedures also have been influenced by and are based on procedures and methods developed from studies of the European fire services’ responses to the devastating effects of the World War II bombings of urban centers throughout England and Europe and the subsequent development of U.S. civil defense response procedures during the Cold-War era. These operational procedures and techniques remained basically unchanged up through the middle to late 1970s. During this period, several factors began to alter these traditional methods and spurred the recognition of the need for alternative and refined collapse rescue techniques.

AN INTEGRATED APPROACH

The concept of an integrated approach to collapse and heavy rescue response can be traced to California in the 1970s. The devastating 1971 San Fernando Valley earthquake focused attention on preparedness, training, and increasing and strengthening capabilities for emergency response to disasters and related collapse and heavy rescue conditions The studies and assessments of existing readiness levels showed inadequacies and limitations, prompting California State Senator William Campbell to introduce legislation calling for the development of a prototype statewide program for heavy rescue training.

The terminology for heavy rescue came to differentiate between the characteristics typically associated with basic extrication or light rescue tasks and those requiring extended operational time; involving greater tactical complexities; and necessitating an increased deployment of resources, equipment, and manpower. Although the term “heavy rescue” had been part of specialized rescue and squad companies in various regions throughout the country for many years, heavy rescue as an integrated and specialized technical system began to emerge at this time.

In 1981, the Office of the State Fire Marshal and the California Fire Service Training and Education System instituted the California Heavy Rescue Training Curriculum, which eventually developed into a comprehensive 40-hour program. It since has become the basis of and model for a national technical rescue training program currently under development at the National Fire Academy in Emmittsburg, Maryland.

Since this heavy rescue development primarily focused on preparedness, training, and earthquake-type responses, the general national fire service community did not realize that these heavy rescue strategies and techniques could be applied to general collapse rescue response and focused little attention on them.

MAJOR INCIDENTS

During the early 1980s, significant and numerous site-specific and regionwide collapse and collapse-related incidents challenged the fire and emergency service community. ITie Hyatt Regency Skywalk collapse in Kansas City, Missouri, and the Harbor Cay Condominium collapse in Coco Beach, Florida, brought into perspective the need for multiple-agency response, innovative adaptation of rescue equipment and tools, and the requirements for using external community-based resources and technical assistance. The incidents also demonstrated the need for effective preplanning to identify the risk factors associated with potential large-scale or disaster responses.

The Harbor Cay Collapse in March 1981 involved heavy floor and wall construction consisting of precast reinforced concrete slabs and cast-inplace concrete components. Under construction at the time of collapse, all five floors and the roof of the condominium collapsed in a pancake configuration, trapping an unknown number of construction workers. The incident involved more than 60 hours of continuous rescue operations and the resources of five county fire districts; 16 municipal fire departments; and an integrated response of civil defense, military, and private-sector technical/operational specialists. Eleven civilians died and 23 were injured.

Less than four months later, in July 1981, two suspended walkways within the 50-foot-high interior atrium of the Hyatt Regency Hotel collapsed during an evening social event, leaving 113 people dead and 186 injured. The suspended walkways, constructed of structural steel and lightweight concrete, spanned 120 feet across the atrium space. The high number of dead and injured civilians; the location of the collapse, which was within a limited-access interior area; the magnitude of the collapse material loads; and the ineffectiveness of the typical emergency service tools and appliances available created severe logistic rescue limitations. The incident required a strong presence and integration of medical personnel, who worked alongside the rescue specialists during all stages of the extended operations. Heavy rigging and construction specialists and equipment also were needed to complete the rescue operations. Twenty-nine victims subsequently were pulled out alive from under the collapse debris during these rescue operations.

These two incidents, each exhibiting unique logistic and operational challenges, focused a national interest on aspects of heavy rescue deployment, site-specific disaster collapse response, and the need for specialized tools and equipment to effectively and efficiently handle the characteristics of building and construction materials. The extent of interagency response, coupled with the integration of numerous agencies and private sector personnel, as well as the coordination of those resources, were the early stages of what has come to be known as urban search and rescue (USAR) principles.

Numerous other site-specific and disaster/heavy rescue incidents that occurred in the decade of the ’80s challenged and expanded the concepts of technical urban search and rescue operational principles. These incidents included a wide variety of situations and impediments requiring an expanded and complex incidentmanagement and tactical-deployment system for specialized rescue responses. Among these incidents were the following:

• Highway collapse; East Chicago,
• Indiana; 1982
• Plane crash; Kenner, Louisiana; 1982
• Hurricane; Alicia, Texas; 1982
• Colingia earthquake, California, 1983
• Propane explosion/collapse; Buffalo, New York; 1983
• Mexico City earthquake, Mexico, 1985
• L’Ambiance Plaza collapse; Bridgeport, Connecticut; 1987
• Whittier Narrows earthquake, California, 1987
• Below-grade well rescue; Midland, Texas; 1987
• Brownsville collapse, Texas, 1988
• Armenia earthquake; Soviet Armenia, U.S.S.R.; 1988
• West 31st Street collapse; New York, New York; 1988
• San Bernardino train derailment/ collapse, California, 1989
• Hurricane Hugo; East Coast, U.S.A.; 1989
• Cypress Strcet/I-880 collapse; Oakland, California; 1989
• Loma Prieta earthquake, California, 1989

NATIONAL GROUPS

The early 1980s also saw the formation of national groups and committees that focused on issues and objectives relating to the broad parameters surrounding urban search and rescue and structural collapse operations. The National Association for Search and Rescue (NASAR) formed an Urban Heavy Rescue Group, which began developing research and training methodology for related collapse response and incident deployment. Concurrent developments and refinements related to expanding strategic, operational, and resource elements for USAR applications were taking place in various regions of California.

The Mexico City earthquake in 1985 drew the international rescue community’s attention to the largescale and widespread destruction of a major urban center that required a disaster/heavy rescue presence greater than any seen in modern times. The earthquake, which measured 8.1 on the Richter scale, caused the structural collapse of more than 264 major structures/occupancies and widespread damage to and partial collapses of 7,000 smaller structures. More than 23,000 of the 18 million residents of Mexico City were killed; 30,000 were injured; and more than 300,000 were left homeless. The impact of these varying degrees of partial to full structural collapses of numerous occupancy types, coupled with the high number of trapped and entombed civilians, more clearly brought into focus the need for integrated urban search and rescue deployment and innovative search and rescue techniques.

INTERNATIONAL DATA GATHERING

The subsequent call-out of and request for international assistance brought rescue teams and specialists from countries around the world, including the United States. These rescue specialists, the personnel from the Mexico City emergency services, and countless other civilian volunteers challenged and pushed the limits of the then-current collapse rescue techniques and skills. A wealth of information was gathered from the postincident analysis of this disaster and the investigations that followed.

A great deal was learned about emergency medical considerations when dealing with survival rates, injury’ analyses, the mechanics of collapse rescue response, and the delivery of field medical services. Aspects dealing with the “golden 24-hour window” of operations (based on recent major earthquake disasters, a collapse victim’s chances for survival are much higher if the rescue occurs within 24 hours of the inception of the disaster ) and procedures for dealing with crush syndrome expanded the medical component of collapse operations and, consequently, victim survivability.

The Mexico City search and rescue operations also brought to light the high degree of risk and danger associated with collapse rescue operations; more than 100 rescue personnel died as a result of search and rescue operation efforts. Also, much was learned and documented relative to collapse considerations/construction profiles; the reasons for and signs of building failure; and the effectiveness, limitations, and adaptability of rescue equipment and tools. This information has expanded the body of knowledge in the areas of building failures/ collapses, extrication, cutting, and void penetration.

The demands for cohesive and coordinated integrated rescue, medical, and technical resources were clearly identified as a result of incident operations, as were the demands for continuous operations to reach trapped occupants, thus increasing the potential for victims’ survival by reaching more victims within the first 24 hours of the incident’s onset. The devastating effects to the urban infrastructure system and the impact on strategic, logistic, and tactical operations prompted a review of the existing concepts associated with collapse rescue responses.

A major milestone was reached in June 1987 when the NASAR Urban Heavy Rescue Working Group published a white paper entitled “Heavy Rescue Operations.” This report was one of the many reports and papers that began addressing issues relative to defining urban search and rescue. It established a forum for discussions on policies, procedures, operational concepts, tool and equipment applications, team organization, and incident management.

Continuous CNN coverage of the 1987 I.’Ambiance Plaza collapse in Bridgeport, Connecticut, which resulted in 28 fatalities, and the extended below-grade well rescue efforts in Midland, Texas, focused national attention on integrated technical/collapse rescue response operations. A multiagency contingent of East and West Coast USAR specialists, under the authority of the United States Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) and in cooperation with the International Association of Fire Chiefs (LAFC), was deployed to the site of the 1988 Soviet Armenian earthquake in the U.S.S.R for firsthand fact gathering. The contingent participated in rescue operations due to the great number of collapsed structures and regional areas devastated by the earthquake.

Information compiled during and assessments made after the Armenian response operations, coupled with the collapse incident trends that had been developing since the national and international collapse/disaster incidents that occurred during the 1980s, led to the LAFC’s decision to appoint the Urban Rescue and Structural Collapse Committee in 1988. The committee’s objective was to begin a unified and collective effort for developing and enhancing urban search and rescue capabilities within the national emergency preparedness and delivery systems. On the federal level, the Interagency Committee on Search and Rescue (ICSAR) was established to coordinate federal efforts for search and rescue-related activities and operational functions.

FEMA’S USAR TASK FORCES

As a result of Hurricane Hugo and the Loma Prieta earthquake in late 1989, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in January 1990, convened a week-long workshop on Urban Search and Rescue in Seattle, Washington. This workshop brought together more than 85 invited specialists, representing a wide spectrum of technical and professional USAR experts from the federal, state, local, and private sectors.

Out of the Seattle workshop came consensus criteria for initiating a national USAR response system for developing regional-based Urban Search and Rescue Task Forces that could be deployed to assist local agencies in mitigating site-specific or regional (large-scale) disasters.

The concept of the USAR Task Forces was to develop a team of multidisciplined technical specialists who could function as a self-sustaining unit and be deployed to catastrophic disasters anywhere in the United States or its territories. In addition, specific criteria were established to make available personnel for operations on a 24-hour basis; to make available enough tools, equipment, and supply caches for 72 hours of self-sufficient operations; and to have the capability to respond from the team’s base of call-out within six hours.

The 56-member Task Force contingent was comprised of qualified personnel with the technical expertise needed to fill out 16 identified operational areas within the four major functions of search, rescue, medical, and technical.

To accomplish the monumental task of developing the USAR Task Force System, FEMA appointed five working groups consisting of national USAR technical specialists, assembled within the areas of standards, equipment, communications, management/ coordination, and training.

The standards and the equipment working groups consisted of specific task groups for the components of USAR operations: search, rescue, medical, and technical for USAR operations.

The 76 technical specialists making up these working groups were charged with developing the criteria for the organization and operations of the USAR Task Force within these respective areas. The specialists began their work in July 1990 during the first assembly of the working groups at the National Emergency Training Center in Emmitsburg, Maryland. These working groups developed the guidelines, published in January 1991 as the 229-page FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Response System Manual, for the National USAR Task Force system. This document soon was followed by the 142-page companion manual USAR Operational System and Mission Operational Procedures. Working under contract for FEMA, NASAR facilitated the coordination, development, and subsequent implementation of the FEMA National Response System.

In September 1991, the first 24 FEMA/USAR Task Force teams were selected. These teams since have been undergoing various levels of FEMAsponsored orientation and specialty training in the operations, deployment, and technical curriculum areas, in preparation for full deployment response capabilities. (See page 69 for an update on the FEMA/USAR Task Force teams’ response.)

NFPA STANDARD 1470

In response to lobbying efforts and recommendations of the IAFC and other national groups involved with USAR-related activities, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) appointed in mid-1991 a subcommittee to its Training Committee; by September of 1991 the NFPA 1470 Committee began drafting the proposed standard, Search and Rescue Training for Structural Collapse Incidents.

The scope of the proposed document is to identify and establish levels of training for the safe and effective conducting of operations at structural collapse incidents. The purpose of the proposed standard is to assist the authority having jurisdiction to assess the structural collapse hazard within its response area, identify its level of operational capability, and establish training and safety criteria. The main objective of the committee was to create a standard applicable to any jurisdiction or agency involved with or having the potential to respond to or operate at structural-collapse incidents. Early in the developmental stages of the document, the committee agreed to ensure that the standard’s performance objectives could be achieved by all departments — from the smallest department that hits a significantly low potential for collapse response to the largest urban department that faces risk factors which could necessitate responses to a myriad of collapse situations.

The proposed standard establishes levels of operational capability based on the degree of hazard and jurisdictional risk assessment, the training level of personnel, and the availability of internal and external resources. The four operational levels developed are Basic, Light, Medium, and Heavy. These operational levels are commensurate with identified structural and construction characteristics for collapse-related responses.

All members must be trained at least to the Basic Operational Level, which covers competencies and capabilities for surface rescue at structural collapse incidents involving the removal of debris and/or building contents to extricate easily accessible victims. The remaining three operational levels (discussed below), which are progressively complex, are associated with specific construction characteristics.

Light Operational Level: Minimum capability to conduct safe and effective search and rescue operations at structural collapse incidents involving the collapse or failure of light frame, ordinary construction.

Medium Operational Level: Collapse or failure of cinder block, reinforced and unreinforced masonry construction.

Heavy Operational Level: Collapse or failure of concrete tilt-up, reinforced concrete and steel frame construction.

The proposed NFPA 1470 document is presently out for public review and comment as a technical committee report. A finalized version of the proposed standard, which will be compiled after a review of the public comments, will be submitted to the NFPA general membership at the NFPA Fall Meeting scheduled for November in Phoenix, Arizona.

GUIDES FOR FIRE DEPARTMENTS

The trends and developments of the past four years have been remarkable considering the magnitude of the effort, cooperation, and coordination needed to bring the proposed concepts and ideas to life. We have witnessed quantum leaps in the areas of training, procedures, tool and equipment research and development, and management principles within the broad and expanding areas of urban search and rescue and collapse operations.

Formalizing USAR task force response and operational criteria — aside from its application to the national USAR Task Force teams—provides numerous communities and jurisdictions across the country’ with meaningful information and guidelines for preparing for and preplanning collapse and disaster responses.

Adoption of the proposed NFPA 1470 standard, anticipated to take place in Fall 1993, will provide the framework by which fire departments, jurisdictions, and all other agencies responding to structural collapse incidents in a primary or support capacity can initiate, develop, and enhance local community capabilities for subsequent emergency responses.

Urban search and rescue and collapse rescue response takes on many forms and characteristics. The fire and emergency service community should not disregard the applicability of USAR-related principles or methodologies because of the terminology used or the fact that they are directed toward “urban” search and rescue. Whether we speak in terms of weather-related catastrophes—such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, or other weather-induced conditions— or in terms of other disasters—such as fires, explosions, structural failures, terrorism, or transportation-related incidents—the integrated methodologies and procedures already developed and those that will be developed in the future by USAR teams are the means through which local community capabilities in USAR-related responses will be strengthened.

Whether a jurisdiction is urban, suburban, or rural, urban search and rescue concepts can provide the means by which it can adequately prepare for disasters, properly outfit personnel, and train personnel to develop the skills necessary to successfully handle the challenges of collapse rescue operations. The explosion/collapse of the Crested Butte (CO) State Bank (1990); the disastrous tornado that swept through Will County, Illinois, (1990); and the effects of Hurricane Andrew (1992) on the city7 of Homestead, Florida, and the southern coast of Louisiana all posed the challenges and demands that call for an integrated urban search and rescue system; in the case of at least one, Crested Butte, these challenges were met by a small, volunteer organization.

SOME AGENCIES INVOLVED IN USAR

California State Office of Emergency Services US&R Program

2151 East “D” Street, Suite 203A Ontario, CA 91764

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

Public Assistance Division

Office of Disaster Assistance Programs

SL-OE-FR-OP

500 “C” Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20472

International Association of Fire Chiefs (LAFC)

Urban Rescue and Structural Collapse Committee 4025 Fair Ridge Drive Fairfax, VA 22033-2868

National Association for Search and Rescue (NASAR)

P.O. Box 3709 Fairfax, VA 22038

National Institute for Urban Search and Rescue (NIUSAR)

P.O. Box 91648

Santa Barbara, CA 93190-1648

Urban Search and Rescue Inc.

P.O. Box 2570 Camarillo, CA 93011-2570

United States Fire Administration (USFA)

USAR Programs

16825 South Seton Avenue

Emmitsburg, iMD 21727

The impact of these collective efforts will provide the impetus for local jurisdictions to examine and identify weak links within their technical heavy rescue capabilities. These applications will enhance factors affecting potential responses to structural failures as well as other complex technical rescue incidents.

What hazardous materials was to the 1980s, urban search and rescue will be to the 1990s. The United Nations General Assembly declared the 1990s as the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. Through the cooperative efforts of this nation’s fire and emergency service community, we are witnessing the growth and enhancement of a new era in specialized technical rescue response management and the continuing developments in urban search and rescue.

Note: To complement FEMA’s efforts in the urban search and rescue area, the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) also has initiated researchand-development and informationdissemination efforts on USAR. Casestudy reports, being prepared under the USFA “Investigation of Urban Search and Rescue Incidents” program, highlight the lessons learned from some of the incidents discussed above. The reports soon will be available through the USFA.