A Survey of International Urban Search and Rescue Teams Following the Ji Ji Earthquake.

© Overseas Development Institute, 2002.

Published by Blackwell Publishers, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden , MA 02148, USA.

Reports and Comment

A Survey of International Urban

Search-and-rescue Teams following the Ji Ji Earthquake

Wen-Ta Chiu

Jeffrey Arnold

Taipei Medical University

Baystate Medical Center

Yaw-Tang Shih

Kuang-Hua Hsiung

Natl Health Research Insts

Central Police University

Hsueh-Yun Chi

Chia-Huei Chiu

Dept of Health

Taipei Medical University

Wan-Chen Tsai

William C. Huang

Taipei Medical University

Taipei Medical University

On 21 September 1999, the Ji Ji earthquake killed 2,347 people. In the immediate after-math the international community mobilised rapidly and sent urban search-and-rescue (US&R) teams to the scene. This paper will present an annotated survey of the expertise and standard of equipment of international US&R teams following that earthquake which could serve as a blueprint for the establishment of US&R teams elsewhere at risk from earthquakes.

Keywords: Taiwan, earthquake, search-and-rescue efforts.

Introduction

September 21 at 1:47 a.m., the Ji Ji earthquake, measuring 7.3 on the Richter scale, hit central Taiwan near the Nantou area. The epicentre of the earthquake was only one kilometre underground, and the rippled shaking that extended to the most northerly tip of the island had a magnitude of 3.0. The shallowness of this earthquake’s epicentre thus brought catastrophe to the whole island. The results were great loss of life and massive damage to the economy.

Immediately after the earthquake, the international community mobilised rapidly to send urban search-and-rescue (US&R) teams to Taiwan. US&R task forces are a multidisciplinary resource with a mission to locate, reach, medically treat and safely extricate victims trapped within collapsed structures beyond the capability of local fire and rescue services (Macintyre et al., 1999). There were 37 US&R teams from 21 nations and

international organisations, and none had any tie with the Taiwanese government. Rescue activity was based on simple humanitarian motives.

This paper will present an annotated survey about the expertise and standard of equipment of international US&R teams following the Ji Ji earthquake. The information could serve as blueprint for setting up US&R teams in other countries threatened by earthquakes.

Method and materials

The impact of the Ji Ji earthquake was severe and extensive. Massive damage is reflected in the death and injury data, based on government estimates. Data on the dead are strictly limited to those deaths caused directly by the earthquake. The Central Weather Bureau provided the time, seismological information including location of epicentre, depth and magnitude of the earthquake. The Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) provided data of economic losses caused by the earthquake (Executive Yuan, 2000).

Data to do with the US&R teams’ activities were based on registration records kept by both the Fire Department and Department of Foreign Affairs (Fire Department/Ministry of the Interior, 1999). The total number of US&R teams and their members were gathered from arrival records kept by the Department of Foreign Affairs. Other teams were later deployed by the Fire Department based on expertise and equipment capability, accompanied by personnel from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Based on Fire Department data, we were able to map the rescue areas of the individual US&R teams. Combining the expertise and equipment capability data from the Fire Department as well as the entrance record from the Department of Foreign Affairs, we obtained essentially complete data of all foreign US&R rescue activities. In the chaos of the disaster, however, some data may have gone missing or been miscounted.

The US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) categorises emergency equipment into five major groups: rescue, medical, technical, communication and logistical according to function. These categorisations were used for summarising the huge amount of data about the standard equipment list and descriptions supplied by the Fire Department. Outcomes and details of US&R teams’ activities were also gathered from other sources such as the internet, journals, magazines, local reports and newspapers.

Results

Earthquake casualties

The Ji Ji earthquake caused 2,347 deaths and injured 11,305 people (Department of Health, 1999). DGBAS estimated the total economic loss from the disaster at US$11.5 billion, including $8.4 billion in property loss and $3.1 billion in potential revenue losses.

Foreign rescue teams

Immediately after the earthquake, the international community (21 countries or international organisations) deployed 37 US&R teams (see Tables 1 and 2). Table 1

summarises the US&R teams according to their expertise and equipment. As shown, there were nine countries consisting of 18 teams from Europe, 13 teams from eight countries in Asia, four teams from three countries in the Americas and two UN teams. All together, the teams had 728 personnel and 103 trained rescue dogs with only 674 personnel and 96 rescue dogs recorded due to the missing data. These nations or international organisations included Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, the UK, the UN and the US.

As indicated in Table 2, most international assistance efforts were concentrated in the most heavily damaged central part of Taiwan. Taichung had the largest number of deaths (1,177), followed by Nantou (824). Eight and 18 US&R teams were deployed in the Taichung and Nantou areas, respectively. A total of 30 rescue teams and 75 per cent of total manpower effectively reinforced rescue activity in central Taiwan which includes Nantou, Taichung, Chang Hua and Yun Lin prefectures. Although not reflected in Table 2, many teams also provided rescue activities in the Taipei prefecture although they maintained their main focus on central Taiwan. The Hong Kong team was the only team to work exclusively with rescue activities in the Taipei prefecture. Table 2 does not include Russia and Canada’s missing data. In the meantime, two UN and one Australian US&R team devoted their efforts to helping coordination and evaluation of rescue activities in central governmental agencies.

Table 3 shows the five FEMA functional grouping of equipment the teams brought with them (FEMA, 1999). Of all available rescue equipment, rescue dogs are the most essential and preferred; nearly half of the US&R teams brought rescue dogs. The second-best type of equipment are devices that can detect signs of life. These were brought by one-quarter of US&R teams.

Six civilians were saved unharmed and thousands of injured were also rescued. Most of those saved were residents of central Taiwan prefectures.

Discussion

According to a Health Department survey, the Ji Ji earthquake caused 2,347 fatalities. From the study by Dr de Ville and others, the ratio of injured to dead following an earthquake is roughly 3.5 on average (de Ville de Goyet et al., 1976), in the case of Ji Ji it was 4.8 — which is unusually high. The numbers of dead owing to the Ji Ji earthquake makes trauma the second-leading cause of death in Taiwan, next to cancer. Traumatic death, which was the third-leading cause of death from 1967 to 1997, dropped to the fourth-leading cause in 1998 in the wake of a law requiring riders to wear motorcycle helmets (Chiu et al., 2000). In 1999, the earthquake’s 2,347 death rate drastically reversed the downwards curve of traumatic death when it suddenly rose to the number-two position. The data indicate the significance and importance of disaster prevention.

To minimise earthquake casualties, several interventions may be made before, during and, especially, after an earthquake. To reduce injuries following building collapse, more effective search-and-rescue methods and more emergency medical care are both necessary (Armenian et al., 1997). Disaster prevention is as important as other public health issues, and a positive consequence of this earthquake is that it prompted the Taiwanese government to improve its existing disaster prevention programme.

Table 1 Summary of 37 international US&R teams according to nationality, expertise and equipment

No. Country Rescue team Personnel Expertise Equipment

1 Australia Queensland Fire and

Rescue Authority 5 Coordination of rescue activity —

2 Austria Internationale

Rettungshunde Organization

14 Rescue y Rescue dogs

(10)

3 Austria Austrian Forces

Disaster Relief Unit

10 Prevent chemical disaster from the destroyed areas — 4 Canada — — — — 5 Czech

Republic Adventist Development and Relief Agency 6 Search for survivors and identify the dead y Rescue dogs (5)

6 France Association Nationale

des Equipes Cynophile de Recherche et de Sauvetage 6 Rescue and rescue dog training y Rescue dogs (6)

7 France Comite des Secours

Internationaux 6 Rescue and medical Assistance y Life detectors y Sonar detectors y Emergency med y Rescue dogs (4) y Tents, sleeping bags y Food 8 German Bundesanstalt Technisches Hilfwerk (THW)

25 Rescue y Life detectors

y Sonar detectors y Emergency

med

y Rescue dogs (6) y Electricity gen

9 German German Federal

Association for Rescue Dogs 12 Rescue dogs training and management y Safety equipment y General rescue equipment y Tents y Rescue dogs (7) 10 German Internationale Rettungshunde Organization 25 — —

11 German Der Nundesverband

des Deutschen Bestattungsgewerbes e. V. 17 — y Remains disinfection and antiseptic equipment

No. Country Rescue team Personnel Expertise Equipment

12 Hong Kong Hong Kong Fire

Services Department

16 Life and gas

detection

y Life detectors y Gas detectors y Explosive

equipment

13 Hungary Miskolic special

Relief and Rescue Service

5 Life detection y Satellite phone

14 Japan Japan Rescue

Association 14 Life rescue yLightening equipment

y Satellite phone y Rescue dogs (8)

15 Japan International Fire

Assistant Team 105 Special disaster assistant y Life detector y Destruction equipment y Lights

16 Japan Fuji Disaster Rescue

Dog Association 10 Rescue dogs training and rescue y General rescue equipment y Rescue dogs (5)

17 Japan Rescue Dog Trainer

Association 6 Rescue dogs training and rescue

y General rescue equipment y Rescue dogs (5)

18 Japan International Disaster

Relief Team (Medical Team)

— —

19 Korea National 119 Rescue

Service 16 Rescue y Rescue dogs

20 Mexico Brigada de Rescate

Tops Mexico AC 5 Rescue y Hand tools y Power tools y Life detectors

21 Mexico Fratemidad Socorro

Alpino de Mexico 4 Rescue

y Hand tools y Power tools y Life detectors

22 Mexico Brigada de Rescate

Topos de Tlatelolco AC 9 Remains disinfection and antisepsis y Remains disinfection and antiseptic equipment

23 Russia Rescue Team of The

Ministry for Civil Defence and Emergencies

73 — y Rescue dogs (3)

24 Singapore Singapore Army

Medical Team 17 Field medical service y Car yCommunication equipment y Sharp resusci- tator +oxygen tanks y Lardeal suction unit

25 Singapore Singapore Civil

Defence 44 Disaster assistance ySaw blades yRescue dogs (4) yDetector equipment

No. Country Rescue team Personnel Expertise Equipment

26 Slovakia

Republic Camage Rescuse Service Slovakia Republic

5 Rescue y Rescue dogs (4)

27 Spain Asociacion Espanola

de Perros de Rescate e Intervencion 4 Rescue y Rescue equipment yTelecom y Rescue dogs (3)

28 Spain Consorcio Provincial

Contra Incendios y Salvamento de Huelva

12 Rescue y Satellite phone

y Life-maintaining equipment, y Rescue dogs (8)

29 Swiss Rettungskette

Schweiz in Taiwan 42 Search for survivors in collapsed building

y Rescue dogs (12)

30 Thailand Thai Medical Team 9 Medical service y Med

31 Turkey AKUT(Arama

Kutarma) 18 Rescue and primary

emergency care

y Life detectors y Equipment for

emergency care

32 Turkey Sivil Savunma 20 Rescue and

primary emergency medical service y Electricity generators y General search tools y Rescue dog (1) y Tents

33 Turkey GEA-SAR ( Rescue

and Preparedness in Disaster, RAPID, in Turkey) 7 Search for survivals y General rescue equipment y Emergency med 34 UK RAPIDUK (Rescue and Preparedness in Disaster UK) 5 Personnel management and training y Life detectors y Sonar detectors y GPS y Electricity generator y Emergency med

35 UN UN Office for the

Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

4 Coordination of

rescue activity —

36 UN UN Office for the

Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) 6 Evaluation of rescue activity — 37 US Fairfax Country

Urban Search and Rescue Team 92 Search and rescue in ruined areas y Camera, y Listening device y High-pressure airbag y Rescue dogs (5)

Table 2 Distribution of international urban search and rescue teams, total number of personnel and corresponding number of deaths Location Number of _deaths Country Number of _{US&R teams} Number of US&R _personnel

Taipei 132 Hong Kong 1 16

Nantou 824 Japan Germany Korea UK Czech Republic Spain Thailand Austria Mexico Slovak Republic Turkey Hungary 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 135 17 16 5 6 16 9 14 18 5 5 5 Taichung 1,177 Singapore Germany Switzerland Austria France 2 2 1 1 2 61 50 42 10 12

Chang Hua 49 Germany Turkey 1 2 12 38 Yun Lin 88 _{US 1 92} Total 2,270 31 584

As indicated in Table 2, most US&R teams concentrated their efforts in the Nantou prefecture. The deployment of foreign rescue teams was according to geo-graphical location with Nantou as the earthquake’s epicentre. Taichung prefecture had the highest number of recorded deaths (1,177), but had fewer (eight) rescue teams than Nantou’s 18. The Taiwanese government was blamed for inexperience demonstrated in the immediate response, and then its poor preparation and loose coordination when deploying US&R teams. The casualty data from the earthquake proved that population density is as crucial as the magnitude of the earthquake when rescue manpower is coordinated.

Studies showed that death and injuries occurring within 48 hours of the earthquake were associated with the collapse of houses (de Bruycker et al., 1985). Proper rescue resources and procedures are essential. As indicated in Table 3, 18 of the 37 US&R teams had rescue dogs and 10 owned the detective equipment. Despite progress in new technology, sniffer dogs have not been superseded, but are still considered the most useful tools in disaster rescue although they take years to train and are inconvenient to transport. This view prompted government officials to determine the priority of equipment procurements and to look for established programmes to train rescue dogs.

From the experience of US&R teams, six countries brought medical supplies as essential standard equipment versus a total of seven countries which consider destructive tools and equipment as their most standard list item. Evidence shows that

Table 3 List of task-force equipment, teams of utilisation and percentage

Five categories of task-force

equipment and numbers Numbers of utilised team Utilised percentage Rescue

Rescue dogs

Destructive equipment Saw blades

Sustaining equipment Hand tools and power tools Explosive equipment General rescue equipment

18 7 1 1 2 1 8 48.6 18.9 2.7 2.7 5.4 2.7 21.6 Medical Emergency medicine Remains disinfection and antiseptic equipment 6 1 16.2 2.7 Technical Lights Detective equipment Life detectors Sonar detectors Gas detectors Listening devices Cameras High-pressure airbags Electricity generators 2 10 8 4 1 1 3 2 5.4 27.0 21.6 10.8 2.7 2.7 8.1 5.4 Communications Car Telecommunications Satellite phone Global positioning satellite 1 3 2 1 2.7 8.1 5.4 2.7 Logistics

Camping equipment (tent, sleeping bags)

Food and drinking-water 5 3 13.5 8.1

most deaths are immediate or rapid, and relatively few are delayed (Sapir, 1993). Thus, the crucial component of the health-care system for reducing deaths is immediate pre-hospital care for casualties with life-threatening injuries and must be provided within the first six hours (Fawcett and Oliviera, 2000). Disaster preventionshould concentrate not only on the training of the rescue activities, but also on post-rescue medical treatment. In the Ji Ji earthquake, crushing syndrome and headinjury were two major causesof death within the first hour following a successful rescue. A total of 330 out of 639 and 142 out of 208 victims had both intra-cranial and crushing injuries, respectively, and died within the first hour after successful rescue. Nearly half of all deaths were due to inappropriate medical treatment immediately after rescue (Department of Health, 1999).

Studies of earthquakes in Turkey and China also indicate that two to six hours after entrapment, less than 50 per cent of people buried under collapsed buildings will still be alive (de Bruycker et al., 1985; de Bruycker et al., 1983). The casualty data from the earthquake and the survey of the US&R teams in Ji Ji have led government officials to

realise that the importance of disaster medicine in disaster prevention requires better research on possible causes of death and the provision of proper medical treatment on site.

The expertise of US&R teams is summarised in Table 1. Major expertises of the US&R teams include skilful rescue, rescue dog training, medical assistance and coordination and management. In planning a programme of disaster prevention, the personnel must be well trained in the knowledge of the above-listed expertises. The importance of the rescue dog training and immediate medical intervention has been discussed previously. Rescue activities require the full range of equipment of the five groups as listed in Table 3 and the maintenance of this equipment can be economically burdensome. Usually, only people in developed countries can afford to maintain well-equipped rescue programmes. Fortunately, rescue dog training is time consuming but less economically burdensome and could be easily managed by most countries. In the meantime, rescue techniques such as ‘confining space rescue’ requires delicate and systematic procedures. Training for ‘confining space rescue’ needs not only more research but also extensive field experience.

Poor results in the field deployment of the US&R teams by the Taiwanese government has highlighted the importance of coordination and management. This expertise is essential to any leader of a local or federal emergency department to coordinate information about the catastrophic event and then manage the appropriate immediate response. Even with help from the two UN US&R teams, the lack of effective communication precluded anything but a poor performance for the emergency response in the context of the Ji Ji earthquake.

The Taiwanese government has learned from a survey of the US&R teams after the Ji Ji earthquake, and from the symposium of disaster medicine it organised in March 2000. Officials have also recognised that inadequate research is a major reason why the earthquake was able to cause such extensive damage. Research had been done, papers published and information deseminated in the area of disaster medicine in many countries (including Japan, Armenia and Iran), but this has only been sporadic in Taiwan. More research of disaster in all areas is urgently needed for the future development of global disaster prevention. Using the current survey to collect data about the 37 US&R teams is only one attempt to develop disaster prevention in Taiwan.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to devoted 37 US&R members for their heroic efforts in the aftermath of the Ji Ji earthquake of September 1999. Thousands of Taiwanese were rescued by these teams and the gratitude for the assistance will be remembered forever.

We would also like to thank the Department of Health, National Science Council, National Health Research Institute, National Fire Administration and the Taipei Medical University for their efforts in organising the International Symposium of Disaster Management in Health-care Systems in March 2000. Also, personal thanks to Dr Shen Wu-Dian and Dr Su Chian-Tian for their help in editing this paper.

References

Armenian, H.K., A. Melkonian, E.K. Noji and A.P. Hovanesian (1997) Deaths and Injuries Due to the Earthquake in Armenia: A Cohort Approach. Int J Epidemiol: 806–13.

De Bruycker M., D. Greco, I. Annino et al. (1983) The 1980 Earthquake in Southern Italy: Rescue of Trapped Victims and Mortality. Bull World Health Organ 2: 34–47.

De Bruycker, M., D. Greco and M.F. Lechat (1985) The 1980 Earthquake in Southern Italy: Morbidity and Mortality. Int J Epidemiol 14: 113–17.

De Ville de Goyet, C., E. de Cid, A. Romero et al. (1976) Earthquake in Guatemala: Epidemiologic Evaluation of the Relief Effort. Bull Pan Am Health Organ 10: 95–109.

Department of Fire/Ministry of Interior (1999) Ji Ji Earthquake: Federal response survey report. Department of Health/Executive Yuan (1999) Public Health in the Republic of China.

Executive Yuan (2000) Comparison of Taiwan-1022, Taiwan-921 (Ji Ji), Hanshi-Awaji & North Ridge Earthquake. Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting & Statistics Website. Available at: http://www.dgbasey.gov.tw/dgbas03/bs7/0921t01.xls. Accessed June 23.

Fawcett, W. and C.S. Oliveira (2000) Casualty Treatment after Earthquake Disasters: Development of a Regional Simulation Model. Disasters 24(3): 271–87.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000) National Urban Search and Rescue System. Available at http://www.fema.gov/r-n-r/usr/cache.htm. Accessed August 11.

Macintyre, A.G., S. Weir and J.A. Barbera (1999) The International Search and Rescue Response to the US Embassy Bombing in Kenya: The Medical Team Experience. Prehosp Disaster Med 14(4): 215–21.

Sapir, D.G. (1993) Health Effects of Earthquakes and Volcanoes: Epidemiological and Policy Issues.

Disasters 17(3): 255–62.

Address for correspondence:

and Control, Taipei Medical University, 250 Wu-Hsing Street, Taipei 110, Taiwan. E-mail: <<wtchiu@tmu.edu.tw>>