archived content contenu archivé 553.8 h45 1997-eng.pdf · contenu archivé l’information dont...

ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Contenu archivé

L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.

This document is archival in nature and is intended for those who wish to consult archival documents made available from the collection of Public Safety Canada. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided by Public Safety Canada, is available upon request.

Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et fait partie des documents d’archives rendus disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.

A HEAVY URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE

CAPABILITY FOR CANADA:

PROPOSED STRATEGY OPTIONS

TL 553.8 7,A45 19r7

MMAME§Meeffl RgeZefflenekm

A HEAVY URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE CAPABILITY FOR CANADA:

PROPOSED STRATEGY OPTIONS

Emergency Programs and Exercises Directorate _ Emergency Preparedness Canada

Draft as of February 27, 1997

iinaLN

•

A Heavy Urban Search and Rescue Capability for Canada

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• PURPOSE AND SCOPE

DEFINITIONS 1

BACKGROUND 3 General 3 The United States Experience 5 Other International Experiences 6

HUSAR WORKSHOP -: SEPTEMBER 1996 8 Workshop Summary 8 Workshop Conclusions 9 Consideration of Program Options 11

PROPOSED STRATEGY OPTIONS 17 Options 18 Analysis of the Options 19 Conclusions 20 Employment 21 Training 21 Medical 22 Deployment 22 Role of NG0s/Volunteers 22 International 23 Funding 23

THE WAY AHEAD 24

CONCLUSION 25

Annex A: HUSAR CENTRAL COO.RDINATING GROUP - TERMS OF REFERENCE . . . . 26 Appendix 1 to Annex A: Certification & Heavy Urban Search and Rescue - A

Discussion Paper 27

• Annex B: HUSAR RESOURCES WORKING GROUP - IIERMS OF REFERENCE 29


Appendix 1 to Annex B.- Dogs and Heavy Urban Search and Rescue - A Discussion Paper 31

Annex C: HUSAR TRAINING WORKING GROUP - TERMS OF REFERENCE 35 Appendix 1 to Annex C. HUSAR and Training Sites - Questions for Discussion Paper 36

Annex D.- DRAFT HUSAR MEDICAL WORKING GROUP - TERMS OF REFERENCE . . . 37

.......■

■•■■••

• 11


"If an earthquake hits View Royal [a suburb of Victoria] , residents better rwt expect a rescue party supplied by the town to come dig them out."'

PURPOSE AND SCOPE:

The purpose of this document is to propose stra.tegy options for the development of a heavy urban search and rescue capability in Canada. It is recognized, however, that Heavy Urban Search and Rescue is only one element of a broader Urban Search and Rescue panoply and that it catmot be addressed in complete isolation. An effective Heavy Urban Search and Rescue capability will depend to a large extent, upon the existence of the slçills and expertise in the more common, but less demanding area of Light Urban Search and Rescue.

• The document will set out definitions, provide background information and an outline of premises used to develop the strategy options, describe the proposed strategy, examine various options and suggest a way forward. The strategy options described below are the result of initial brain-storming within Emergency Preparedness Canada, a nation-wide consultation process, a Workshop held in September 1996 and ongoing discussions. More details on the 1996 Workshop will be provided below.

DEFINITIONS:

— Search and Rescue (SAR): the location and rescue of people who are lost or in distress within Canada's juris—dictional area2 .

Urban Search and Rescue (USAR):

1. the search activities required to locate individuals trapped in collapsed structures and the rescue activities required to- extracEthem. USAR is not the searCh for missing individuals who just happen to be in an urban area.

Mayor Bill Camdem, as quoted in Coldstream Gazette, 18 November, 1992.

2 Definition from National Search and Rescue Secretariat.

• 3 Definitions for Urban Search and Rescue, Light Urban Search and Rescue, Heavy Urban Search and Rescue

and Incident Control Team are adapted from US documents.

1


Note: The United States uses this term for their heavy USA_R task forces, but use the abbreviation US&R. Also, the United States uses the term "Task Force" to describe a HUSAR teai

Light Urban Search and Rescue (LUSAR):

2. the search and rescue of victims in collapsed structures without the requirement for a large amount of specia_lized equipment and training. An example would be the location and extraction of victims of a house fire. LUSAR teams are usually not self sufficient.

Heavy Urban Search and Rescue (HUSAR):

3. the location of trapped persons in collapsed structures using dogs and sophisticated search equipment; the use of heavy equipment such as cranes to remove debris; the work to breach, shore, remove and lift structural components; the removal and txeatment of victims; and the securing of partially or completely collapsed structures. Teams are usually self sufficient for 72 hours.

Note: Some use the term, Urban Search and Heavy Rescue - in this paper, it means the same thing as HUSAR.

HUSAR Control Team (HCT):

4. the term Canada uses to describe a coordinating team which Is brought into place if more that one task force is deployed. This team would be responsible for such efforts as coordinating work schedules, accommodation, areas to be searched, and local liaison.

Note: The United States uses the term, "Incident Control Team (1CT)", vice HCT. Such a team was deployed after the Oklahoma City bombing, when 11 task forces where deployed during the search period.

2


BACKGROUND:

General:

In the past two years, five events have focussed attention on the need for a HUSAR capability in Canada. The Kobe earthquake demonstrated that a large number of people can be trapped in structures without warning and during a time when it is very difficult for first responders to cope with more than the most rudimentary of assistance. The collapse of the department store in Seoul illustrated the fact that there doesn't have to be an earthquake for there to be a need for HUSAR resources. The Oklahoma City bombing showed that an established, trained, and available national capacity for HUSAR can save lives, relieve the suffering of families and friends, and locate essential forensic evidence. The copy-cat bombing at the Charlottetown legislature and the Toronto subway crash alerted Canadians that HUSAR resources could be required in Canada.

Some figures will perhaps provide some food for thought as an entrée to this subject. If the major earthquake predicted for the lower mainland of British Columbia were to occur, studies done in 1989 for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation 4 indicate that 10-30% of residential construc tion would become uninhabitable and up to 30% of transportation routes unusable. Fifty to 100% of unreinforced masonry buildings would collapse. Up to 60% of older schools and hospitals (constructed prior to 1940) that have not been strengthened would becorne unusable.

In a 1990 study, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation s compared the damage done in the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989 with that which could be expected in the Greater Vancouver area following a major earthquake. The report concluded that the level of damage which could be expected in the greater Vancouver area would be greater than that which was experienced in California, due primarily to differences in seismic building codes and geology. International experience with earthquakes demonstrates 6 that the rate of survival for persons

4 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Assessment of Earthquake Fffects on «Residential Ruilding,s and

Servions in the Greate'r Vancouver Area, February 1989.

5 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Partbquake Damage in the_San Francisco Atea and Projection

to Crreatnr Vancouver, January 1990.

6 ERNET broadcast, "Urban/Disaster Search and Rescue - Initial Response Strategies", broadcast 2

September, 1992.

• 3

•


rescued from collapsed buildings drops dramatically day by day over the first four to five days, alter which the prospects of survival are extremely small regardless of the extent of effort still made. According to one source7, 80% of those rescued on the first day are likely to survive. This rate drops to 34% on the second day and falls to only 7% by the fifth day. These figures are not all that dissimilar to the Kobe HUSAR circumstances. In Oklahoma City, no live rescues occurred after the first 24 hours following the explosion8 . Eleven United States US&R task forces were deployed to Oklahoma City after the bombing9 . Based on FEMA experience, the following statistics pertain to the rescue of trapped and injured persons from collapsed buildinge:

Location of Trapped Percentage of Total Rescued By Persons Number Trapped

Entombed 5% HUSAR Teams

Void Space 15% Light Rescue Teams (Local Fire Departments)

Non-structural entrapment 30% Disaster Assistance Teams (Fire, Police, Military, etc)

Injured but not trapped 50% Spontaneous Rescue Teams (Neighbours, Passers-by, etc)

The presence of trained HUSAR teams can reduce the number of deaths among untrained, but enthusiastic rescuers - in the Mexico City earthquake, more than 130 untrained rescuers died in their efforts to save others. In Oklahoma City, one rescuer was lost and she was not a member of a HUSAR team.

7 Reference currently untraceable, but likely from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation study

quoted above at Footnote No. 5. _

8 Interview with Mr Sean Foohey, Head of Operations Division, Emergency Response Branch, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, 4 December 1995.

• 9 •

10 • Figures presented by FEMA at 9th Emergency Preparedness Conference, Vancouver, Oct 96.

• 4


Sadly, the rescue of survivors will not be the only measure of HUSAR success. The extrication of deceased victims will allow the grieving process to move to closure. In addition, trained HUSAR teams are invaluable in the collection of forensic evidence (as demonstrated in Oklahoma City).

There is an extensive system of land, sea and air search and rescue resources in this country. The system is nation-wide, volunteer-based and among the best in the world. The saine, however, cannot be said for USAR, especially HUSAR. At present, with one or two exceptions, in a situation involving trapped and injured persons, local jurisdictions would likely have to rely on locally available, professional and volunteer first responders, possibly with extensive responder training, but lacking the specialized heavy rescue training and experience. They would rush to assist and could put both the trapped and other rescuers at risk.

•

There are currently two exceptions to this situa tion. The first is the City of Vancouver which has taken concrete steps to develop a HUSAR team - procedures and protocols have been prepared, staff have been trained at the schools used by the United States US&R task forces, and their team is beginning to take shape. Construction of a Vancouver training site is well advanced. In the City of Calgary, four platoons of firefighters have been trained in HUSAR to the technician level using United States standards and are capable of providing 24/7 service within the City.

• As well, a number of other municipalities have taken the friitial steps towards consideration of a HUSAR capability. An example is those municipalities in the Toronto area who have set up a working group with the ultimate aim of developing a team. Regina has also taken preliminary action to establish a team. Interest has been expressed in New Brunswick and in _ the City of Edmonton.

The United States Experience:

In the United States, the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System is a, "framework for structuring existing emergency services personnel from the local level into integrated disaster response task forces". The system is outlined in the Federal Response Plan (the US parallel to the National Support Planning Framework) in Emergency Support Function 9 - the Urban Search and Rescue Annex. FEMA provides significant funding (but nowhere- near 100%) for the establishment and maintenance of local or state task forces and runs the nation-wide programme. There are currently 18 deployable task forces, and eight others that are

5

• A Heavy Urban Search and Rescue Capability for Canada

licensed by FEMA but are not deployable. Each Task Force nominally has 60 members (plus backup whenever possible) with expertise in four areas: search, rescue, medical and technical. A chart showing the task force establishment is shown at Figure 1, located at the end of this paper. It is understood that the most successful task forces have grown out of local fire department LUSAR teams, augmented by the addition of the more speciolized resources from elsewhere in the community. The teams that are struggling to reach a deployable status have been developed as state-wide teams with members brought in from a number of jurisdictions and backgrounds. Ail 18 deployable task forces now have practical experience and two task forces have been deployed internationally on several occasions.

EPC is pursuing the completion of a Memorandum of Understanding with FEMA concerning the possible provision of US&R task forces should there be a need for international assistance before and after the development of a national capability.

Other International Experiences:

Several other countries have HUSAR teams, some of which are deployable abroad. The setup of these teams are all roughly similax to the United States task forces. There are a set of protocols sponsored by the United Nations called the International Search and Rescue Protocols. Teams which are deployable outside of the assisting countries must meet certain conditions (in terms of capability, self sufficiency, translation ability and deployability), and are then registered with the UN. Countries seelcing assistance after a disaster may then request the assistance of these teams through the United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs. The informal word on this arrangement is that it is cumbersome and takes too long for teams to deploy.

The International Red Cross has several HUSAR teams which are deployable outside their host country.

Australia is pursuing the development of a national strategy for HUSAR and Emergency Managemerft Australia Is holding a seminal workshop in September 1996. EPC has established a link with the Australian coordinators of their programme, and an exchange of information is ongoing. A review of the Summary Record of the Australian September Workshop revealed a remarkable congruency with that held in Canada at about the same time and discussed below. The topics, considerations and conclusions were very similar to those of the Canadian event as evidenced by the following: The syndicate identified the following features that need to be incorporated into an Australian USAR model:

•

• 6

•

•

A Hea.vy Urban Search and Rescue Capability for Canada

a. A multi-service, multi-skilled and multi-functional task force developed within the framework of ffltisting response agencies.

b. Standardised command and control structure across states. c. A single national coordinator during interstate responses (EMA). d. Nationally accepted tiered training competency standards. e. National equipment standards. f. Self-sufficiency during interstate operations. g. National resource data base of equipment and skills. h. Graduated operational response to deploy required resources only. i. Ability to respond within 24 hours and remain self-sufficient for 72 hours.

The workshop identified that if a nationally accepted tiered training standard was implemented, states would only need to focus their training and resources on the tier level that best suits their requirements and budgetary constraints: 11

The final recommendations stemming from the Worlcshop bear a similarly close relationship to those of the Canadian Workshop, as can be seen from the following:

"'The Workshop recommends that:

1. A national strategy for the development and implementation of an Australian USAR capability be formulated by a steering committee and coordinated by

_EMA;

2. The USAR strategy be developed in conjunction with progression of the recommendations of the Inter-State/Territory Emergency Management Arrangements workshop;

3. State and territory databases of available US-AR res-ôurces be developed and inaintained such that they are accessible nationally and between states and territories;

4. National training standards for USAR be developed under the guidance of the steering committee;

Summary Record, Emergency Management Australia Urban Search and Rescue Workshop, 9-12 September, 1996.

7


5. National Standards for USAR specialized equipment be developed under the guidance of the steering committee;

6. A standardized and nationally recognized incident management system for single or multi-agency operations be developed urgently;

7. A national USAR marketing, promotion and finance strategy be established under the guidance of the steering committee;

8. The NEMS (National Emergency Management Committee - akin to a combination of the Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee and the Fed/Prov/Territorial Conference of Senior Officiais) promote the inclusion of Australian USAR capabilities in all emergency planning arrangements for public events;

9. If requested, EMA be responsible for the coordination of aLl state/territory and international requests for USAR assistance." 12

New Zealand is also involved in a HUSAR development programme. Their program is coordinated - by the New Zealand Fire Service. There is one te,am in place although it does not include an official search component. This task is viewed as the responsibility of the police and is conducted separately.

HUSAR WORKSHOP - SEPTEMBER 1996

Workshop Summary:

EPC sponsored a two-day workshop in September 1996 at the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College to discuss the requirement for a Canadian HUSAR capability and to consider the form of -such a capability. -

Roughly fifty persons took part in the Workshop with representation from a wide variety of jurisdictions. Five federal departments with both national and regional representation were

_ present. Six provinces were represented by provincial ministry personnel. Six municipalities were represented. There was a representative from the Red Cross and_two delegates from the

12 Ibid.

•

• 8

- •


volunteer community. Finally, there was a representative from the FEMA Urban Search and Rescue program who was able to provide valuable insights into the United States program.

Following a presentation from the FEMA representative, the Cities of Vancouver and Calgary made presentations on the progress that they had each made on developing a HUSAR capability. They were followed by a presentation from the Province of Ontario on a program being developed in that province to establish a capability. The formal presentations were completed with two from the volunteer community that emphasized the existence of valuable resources that could be brought to bear in the development of a national HUSAR capability.

Armed with this background material, the balance of the Workshop was devoted to discussion, both in plenary session and in a number of subject-matter break-out sessions

Workshop Conclusions:

The following summarizes the direct and indirect conclusions of the Workshop and related discussions:

• There is a requiremen.t for a national urban search and rescue capability in Canada including light and heavy components.

• _ The hazards that Canada faces that might require the use of HUSAR resources includes not only earthquakes, but any natural or human-caused disasters involving infrastructure. Planning for a HUSAR capability must consider all hazards. Therefore, there are a range of possible disaster scenarios - from a single building collapse as a result of a bomb or other explosion to a subway disaster to a multiplicity of damaged concrete structures throughout a large urban area.

Jurisdictional responsibility is important. At the same time, arrangements for HUSAR cannot be the sole responsibility of any one jurisdiction, as no one jurisdiction can reasonably or affordably develop this capacity alone. All levels of government and interested private and semi-private organizations must aim to work with ea.ch other and contribute as they are able.

• Based on a comparison with the FEMA system, and relative populations of Canada and the United States, one tenth of the FEMA system of 26 task forces implies that Canada should develop 2.6 (say two) teams. The logic of the traditional 10:1 ratio doesn't apply in the case of HUSAR resources because a catastrophic emergency, or a major bombing of the

9

A Heavy Urban.Search and Rescue Capability for Canada

scale of Oklahoma City, would require more teams. Canada clearly doesn't need 26 teams, but Canadian requirements should fall somewhere in between two and 26 teams. We should start small - continue to support the teams already under development, evaluate progress and eventually build up to eight or nine teams. i3 With this number of teams, assuming that they are all deployable, Canada should have the capability to deal with an event of the same nature, if not the same scale, of an Oklahoma City-like situation. As well., this number of teams would approach filling the similar requirement in the earthquake-prone regions of Canada.

• Once four or fi.ve teams are in place, it may be necessary to enlarge one team, to form a HUSAR Control Team (HCT).

• Since delaying the extraction of victims reduces the chances of survival, the timely arrival of HUSAR teams is imperative. All teams should be capable of deployment to any area of the country within a specified time period.

• All teams should be developed and trained to a similar, if not identical, standard and use compatible equipment. This approach will allow for interoperability on deployment, and possible economies of scale in training and procurement. Adjustments may have to be made to pre-existing teams in order to ensure interoperability.

• The United States has a proven model in the set up and establishment of their US&R task forces. They have also provided us with examples of their equipmént lists, and some of their training manuals. International examples are also available. Rather from building from scratch, we should draw from these examples, putting a Canadian slant on them where applicable, and build a Canadian system. Significant differences between the two countries in legislation and workplace regulations, for example, may mandate the development of a different syStem.

• Learning from the Vancouver and Calgary experiences, the next two - to three teamS should be built using individuals who already are in thé rescue/safety professions and who volunteer for this service. The concern that people already in these professions would be double-hatted during an emergency will have to be addressed. Most of the individuals who

13 Note: This was a conclusion arising from the Workshop. Since that-time, other options have been developed for consideration.

10

Wane» A Heavy Urban Search and Rescue Capability for Canada

will form a team should already work for the same jurisdiction for ease of team building, work schedules, and access to training.

• The HUSAR medical element must integrate and coordinate with the medical capabilities of the community. In a catastrophic emergency, transportation and medical facilities may be extensively damaged. Medical protocols vary considerably from community to community, and the question of interoperability of protocols will have to be resolved. In addition, there is a need to resolve and verify medical liability, licensing, certification, hospital privileges and authorized procedures in various jurisdictions.

• Subsequent HUSAR teams will require additional personnel with very specialized skills, such as a crane operator, dog handlers, structural engineers, and emergency trauma physicians or paramedics. Licensing and certification of all team members across provincial/territorial boundaries will have to be arranged in advance. These team members could be drawn from other local organizations, such as local hospitals, volunteer SAR dog teams, and private companies.

• • Customized resources for transporting (both ground and air) will have to be identified and arranged for. This resource should be available to move HUSAR teams to all areas of the country. Perhaps it would be better to design the team so that standard commercial transport could be used instead of customized resources. In a catastrophic emergency, such as a major earthquake, there will be a big demand for the use of scarce aircraft resources to satisfy a variety of requirements. This is an area in which the transportation resources of the Canadian Forces might be called upon. It could be that the priority needs of many victims could outweigh the needs of only a few trapped victims, which would require an agonizing prioritization of scarce resources.

• Non-government and private or semi-private organizations may have a role to play in HUSAR. Consultation on that role would be required, however, some thoughts on their potential participation are offered later in this paper. - -

Consideration of Program Options:

In reaching these conclusions the Workshop had considered a number of potential options as follows:

Option 1 That Canada not develop a national HUSAR capability but rather rely on ad hoc arrangements based on existing capabilities and on international assistance.

11


Option 9. That HUSAR in Canada be based on existing and/or future municipal capabilities and not linked into a national network.

Option 1: That HUSAR in Canada be recognized as a provincial responsibility and capabilities be developed and organized along provincial lines.

Option 4: That a national HUSAR network be created based on the cooperative use of federal/provincial and municipal resources. To the extent that they are available and/or appropriate, this option would also include resources currently owned by NGOs and the private sector.

A further option proposed was that of HUSAR as an extension of a wider Urban Search and Rescue continuum. It is fully agreed that there is a requirement for such a continuum in Canada, however, the segment posing the greatest difficulties by way of resources and skills, and that which represents the greatest gap in capability, is HUSAR. For that reason, it is deemed sensible to focus on the HUSAR component in this strategy in the hope that its development will lend impetus to the expansion of existing light and medium urban search and rescue capabilities.

Each of the above options were considered and its- accompanying advantages and disadvantages enumerated as follows.

Option 1: That Canada not develop a national HUSAR capability but rather rely on ad hoc arrangements based on existing capabili.ties and on international assistance.

Advantars a. No/limited cost involved.

b. Most required capabilities are available in major Canadian urban centres, _ albeit not in a coordinated or organized- form. —

c. There are good international HTJSAR capabilities that have demonstrated an eager willingness to assist in offshore disasters.

Disadvantages

a. Does not provide a coordinated national capability.

• 12


b. International assistance, despite its willingness, takes time to arrive - time that is critical to the saving of lives. It suffers from a lack of local knowledge, and sometimes language that hampers its effectiveness. It also involves a number of issues that can be troublesome, eg: customs clearance (particularly for dogs and medical supplies), liability for injury or death, etc. Reliance on international assistance could be politically difficult for the federal government and the involved provincial government(s).

liptinn 2: That HUSAR in Canada be based on existing and/or future municipal capabilities and not linked into a national network.

Advantages a. Local teams would be highly mo tivated to deal with local emergencies (if

they survive), would possess local knowledge, and be on the scene quickly.

b. Teams could be assembled based on existing local resources with only limited augmentation by other specialised expertise or equipment.

c. A relatively inexpensive approach, particularly for the federal and provincial orders of government.

d. Existence of a local HUSAR team would contribute to community confidence (albeit, possibly misplaced).

sarivan tau a. Does not provide a coordinated national capability.

b. Based on recent international experience, unless a municipality were able to develop several teams, the local capability would quickly be overwhelmed by a major emergency. _ _

c. Reliance on a local capability might be misplaced if all or part of the team becomes a victim of the disaster.

« d. Could be an expensive prospect for municipalities without any outside funding assistance.

e. Lack of standards for equipping and training team

13


f. In a major disaster there will still be a ne,ed to rely on international assistance with its inherent problems.

Option 1: That HIJSAR in Canada be recognized as a provincial responsibility and capabilities be developed and organized along provincial lines.

Advantages a. Potentially provides a coordinated capability at the provincial level.

b. Provides the possibility of provincial/municipal cost sharing. No cost to the federal government.

c. Would enable the development of provincial standards for HUSAR teams.

d. Existence of a provincial HUSAR program would be evidence of good governance and contribute to confidence on the part of the population.

Disadvantages a. Does not provide a coordinated national capability.

b. Possibly contributes to provincial insularity and unevenness of emergency preparedness across Canada. -

c. In a majoT disaster, Canada will still need to rely on international assistance with its inherent problems.

Option 4. That a national HUSAR network be created based on the cooperative use of federal/provincial and municipal resources. To the extent that they are available and/or appropriate, this option would also include NGOs and the private sector.

Advantnges a. Provides a coordinated national capability based on common standards of

equipment and training.

b. Provides means for equitable cost sharing, albeit that ihe initial bill might be high and that a continuing budget for training and equipment replacement would have to be maintained.

•

• 14

A Heavy Urban Search and Rescue CapabiLity for Canada

c. Promotes federal/provincial cooperation in the enhancement of the safety and security of Canada's population and contributes to the principle of a reasonably uniform level of emergency preparedness across the country.

d. Takes advantage of existing resources and expertise (primarily at the municipal level), the funding resources of the federal and provincial governments, and the national coordination capability of federal government.

e. Reduces reliance on international assistance with its dual disadvantages of late arrival and potential political embarrassment.

DiRadvantages a. Potentially relatively expensive.

b. Potential for inter-jurisdictional disagreements.

■■■

•

c. Requirement for provincial/municipal authorities to agre,e in advance on conditions under which their resources would be used elsewhere in the event of a major emergency requiring HUSAR intervention. (à la Canadian Inter-Agency Forest Fire Centre)

d. Development requires considerably more time and effort for consultation, consensus and achievement of results.

As indicated above, participants at the Worlcshop rejected Option 1 as a morally, professionally and politically unacceptable means of deaLing with the safety and security of Canadians in an emergency requiring such a capability. After much discussion it emerged that Option 4 was the ultimate goal, but one tliat was based upon the building blocks represented by the other two options (2 & 3). In other words, the Workshop participants agreed, in support of their conclusion that there is a requirement for a national HUSAR capability, that such a capability should be based upon municipal teams and/or components' employable in municipal, provincial and/or national emergency contexts with the associated procedures,

14 Note: The original wording of the strategy has been slightly amended to reflect the range of options now being considered as opposed to the original, single option.

15


standards and protocols in place and the required funding, resources and training made available.

A Central Coordinating Group (Terms of Reference at Annex A) was established as follows:

Central Coordinating Group EPC/DEPE (Braham) Chair EM Ontario (Unger) AB Transporta.tion/Utilities (Holmes) Sauvetage Canada Rescue (Namur) Vancouver Fire & Rescue Services (Holdgate) Man EMO (Miller) NB EMO (MacGillivray) Chair Resources WG (Peters) Chair Medical WG (Burden) Chair Training WG (deBeaupre)

To address specific issues on behalf of the Central Coordinating Group and to provide that Group with technical input into future iterations of the implementation proposal for a national HUSAR capability, a number of Working Groups were established as follows. • Re,sources Working Group EPC/DGRO (Peters) Chair

EPC RD ON (Brocidehurst) EPC/DEPE (deBeaupre) Vancouver Fire & Rescue Services (Bissett) RCMP (Duff) Calgary Fire Department (Wilson) Ontario Urban SAR WG (Hare) Winnipeg Fire Department (Burton)

The Working Group held an initial meeting via teleconference on 8 January 1997. At that meeting, the Terms of Reference were agreed. In addition, agreement was reached to develop a questionnaire designed to identify all urban search and rescue resources in Canada (both heavy and light). It is intended that this survey will be conducted through municipal fire departments under the coordination of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs. Also arising from this meeting was agreement to compare the HUSAR equipment lists of FEMA, Vancouver and Calgary to identify potential shortcomings, costs and areas of requixed interoperabilty. The next meeting of this Worldng Group is scheduled for March 1997. _

• 16

Training Working Group

•


The Terms of Reference of the Resources Working Group are at Annex B.

Medical Working Group Within edsting Fed/Prov/Terr EHS/ESS Directors Forum HC (Burden) Co-Chair HC (Hart) Co-Chair EPC/DEPE (deBeaupre) DND/DHO (F'olkmann)

The Working Group has reported good progress in its efforts to develop a program for the certification of medical practitioners in cross-border situations. In brief, it appears that designation of team members as federal employees should satisfy inter-provincial certification requirements.

The Draft Terms of Reference of the Medical Working Group are at Annex D.

EPC/DEPE (deBeaupre) Chair SARDAA (K. George) Sauvetage Canada Rescue (Namur) Ontario Fire Marshal (Bigrigg) Regina Fire Department (Priddell) Calgary Fixe Department (Wilson) Fire Commissioner of Manitoba (Popowich)

Three discussion papers have been drafted by this Working Group for further development. They are attached as Appendices to the Annexes of this paper.

The Terms of Reference of the Training Worldng Group are at Annex C.

It is anticip_ated the a number of other Working Groups will become necessary as the project - advances.

_

PROPOSED STRATEGY OPTIONS:

That a national HUSAR capability, based on municipal teams and/or components, and employable in municipal, provincial and national emergency scenarios be developed, under the overall coordination of EPC.

• 17


That the team model, standards, procedures and equipment be developed on the United States model adapted as necessary to meet specific Canadian requirements.

This agreement, reached at the 1996 HUSAR Workshop, led to an initial consideration of a re,quirement for nine teams spread across Canada, each being an autonomous unit in its own right with the complete capabilities of a HUSAR team.

The Federal-Provincial-Territorial Conference of Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Preparedness, at their meeting in February 1997, reaffnmed their support for the HUSAR concept, but expressed a number of concerns in relation to its implementation. Their concerns included the costs involved, particularly in light of the infrequent likelihood for the requirement; and, the commitment required of tea.m members for an operational function that was likely to only take up a small portion of their time.

In light of these valid concerns, the possibility of other options have been considered. They are examine-d further below, in comparison with the wdsting option.

Options: The three options are as follows:

1. Nine teams 15 are considered to be an optimum requirement to create a credible national capability distributed as follows: Vancouver, BC; Calgary, AB; Regina, SK; Winnipeg, MB; Toronto, ON; Montreal, QB16 ; Moncton, NB; Halifax, NS; and, St John's, NF. Each team should preferably be from the same municipality, and preferably first responders. Specia lized staff would be obtained locally from volunteers in private industry, the hospitals, and volunteer groups. Each team would likely have around 60 participants with up to the same number as backup.

2. Two complete teams be established (probably in Vancouver and Calgary, given the progress already made). The balance of the required capability to consist of "plug-

To date, Vancouver and Calgary have begun development of teams, Regina, Toronto and New Brunswick have indicated interest in the development of tearas. The other cities listed are merely representative of an even distribution across the country, and should not be construed as indicating any commitment on their part.

16 At the Feb 97 F-P-T Conference of Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Preparedness, the Quebec delegate noted tl3at Quebec would not participate in the national program, nor would it form dedicated HUSAR tearas, but rather, would rely on existing resources.

15

• 18

in" component parts such as search teams, rescue squads, medical teams, etc. These latter would be community based and would serve to augment the capability of the two "core" teams as determined by the situation.

3. The entire capability be made up of "component parts" that would be brought together as required to meet the demands of each situation.

Analysis of the Options:

1. Option 1 is that already on the table. It carries the advantage of a comprehensive country-wide coverage of HUSAR capability, particularly in the major urban centres where the

requirement is most likely to be needed. It provides most provinces with a core capability to meet the initial demands of a major structural emergency before the arrival of outside assistance. This option would provide a strong sense of team identity and morale. Team cohesiveness would be strong given the required team training.

The principal disadvantage is one of cost. Based on the United States experience it costs approximately $1.5 million to establish and equip a team and a further $50K per armum to maintain and train it. In addition, there is a heavy burden on participating individuals, particularly firefighters, who must usually take on the HUSAR role as a secondary duty to their normal job requirements.

The movement of all or most of these teams to the site of a major emergency would pose a significant heavy airlift burden - one probably only possible using the resources of the Canadian Forces, which may, or may not be available_due to other taskings.

Fùially, this option is essentially an "all or hothing" approach, with very little incremental flexibility.

2. CIption_2 addresses some of the diffi.culties posed by Option 1. Costs would be significantly lower. Only two teams would bear the full costs of development and _

-- maintenance. The balance of the capability would be made up of "bite-sized" chunks across _ the country and would provide for an incremental build up, both of potential and of capàbility. - This option would open up the program to smaller communities and to remoter parts of the country that could not afford to participate in the more expensive option of developing a complete team.

• Communities could develop components that best suited their resources and circumstances, thereby overcoming some of the problems of dual tasking associated with Option 1. The set-up and maintenance costs associated with individual components should be relatively light and potentially spread over a broader base than the other, more focussed option.

19

20


This option would suffer from an inability to develop the sense of team spirit inherent in Option 1, nevertheless such esprit de corps could effectively be transferred to the lower operational level of the component units.

The base teams would presumably become the "centres of excellence" and take on the responsibility for team training of the various components to ensure the required standardization of procedures and capability, with individual communities, provincial training centres and the CEPC concentrating on the required specialized training. There is of course, a not insignificant cost associated with this unit training and the movement of components to take part in "team training".

This option takes greater cognizance of the potential role of the wdsting light urban search and rescue resources and of the various volunteer agencies that could bring their skills to bear.

With the exception of the two core teams, the transportation burden associated with the various component parts would be considerably less bulky, although perhaps more numerous, than Option 1, thereby making civil air transportation possible in most cases.

Finally, it should be recognized that the approach suggested by Option 1 has been used operationally in the United States with success, wherea.s, that proposed in Option 2 is notional, and carries the risk that it would be less effective that the more resource oriented Op tion 1.

3. Option is similar in most respects to Option 2 except it lacks the "parent team" into which to integrate for training and operations. This suggests the requirement for some form of "management and coordination component" to perform a surrogate role. As a result, it would probably be the cheapest of the three options, but would carry the risk of being the lea.st operationally effective.

Conclusions: The above options provide planners with three approaches to theeoblem of providing a national heavy urban search-and rescue capability. One contains provisions for a _ -comprehensive capability at a relatively heavy price, whereas the other two carry certain operational risks, but are far less resource-heavy. Inste,ad of viewing Option 2 as being separate from Option 1, it could be considered as a graduated approach to the more comprehensive model. As time progressed, other major municipalities might decide it prudent to possess complete teams of their own, thereby moving the Option 2 version closer to that of Option 1. While such a progression would not be impossible from Option 3, it would be more difficult, given the lack of a formed team upon which to build.


All of the options carry with them an additional benefi.t of value added training and capability for the municipalities that possess complete teams or modular components. Options 2 and 3 perhaps provide a greater value for money in this regard in light of the overall lower outlay of initial resources (except for the municipalities having complete teams).

Employment:

It is thought that HUSAR teams and/or their components could be employed in three broad scenarios within the Canadian context. The first would be within the confines of the municipality, or immediate environs, within which a team/component is located. In such a case, local procedures for the employment of the team/component in a HUSAR role would apply.

• The second would be in the case of a "provincial emergency" or one in which the assistance of a HUSAR team and/or components was required within the province, but not in a location where a team or appropriate components were located. In this case, provincial coordination procedures would apply.

Finally, in the case of a "national emergency" or any other, where a province requested HUSAR assistance from the federal government, coordination of the operation would be conducted through the National Support Centre in accordance with the arrangements contained in the National Support Planning Framework. Regardless of the identity of the lead department in such an emergency, EPC should retain leadership of the Urban Search and Rescue Emergency Support Function and hence, coordination of national HUSAR resources.

Training:

For team and component training above the basic level, a national training site should be selected - possibly in the Lower British Columbia Mainlànd due to the availability of year-round training and the existence of a training site in Vancouver. Alternative or additional sites could be one of the provincial Emergency Measures Organizations' training sites, the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College, police or fire training academies, Department of National Defence training facilities, or other government training sites. Another possible training strategy would be to arrange to pay for training using the US National Search and Rescue training programme (which currently trains the United States US&R task forces). Field training might be collocated or take advantage of a vacated commercial or industrial site or another area where building collapse could be simulated. Training issues, including •

21

A Heavy Urban Search and Rescue Capabi lity for Canada

recognized certification and standardization, are to be refined by the Training Working Group. A preliminary discussion paper is attached as Appendix 1 to Annex C.

Medical:

In order to overcome certification and licensing problems, the medical component of the HUSAR team rnight be made federal employees for the duration of any deployment outside their home province. The legislation required to make this arrangement possible should be developed in consultation with the appropriate profession al associations and the jurisdictions involved. Work in this area probably applies to other professionals required to cross provincial borders, therefore, it will provide a useful precedent. These issues and others pertaining to the medical field are to be resolved by the Medical Working Group.

Deployment:

Deployment by air will need to be arranged and could possibly be provided by the Department of National Defence, particularly in the case of complete teams. Air transportation for component modules could, in most cases, use civil air resources. To-and-from ground transportation outside the local jurisdiction will need to be arranged. Transportation questions are to be dealt with by a Transportation Working Group to be formed later.

Role of NG0s/Volunteers:

Consultation on the possible role of non-government and private or semi-private organizations has begun and inputs received from the Canadian Red Cross and Sauvetage Canada Rescue. The following is a summary of the points provided by the Canadian Red Cross, "Volunteers can work as an integrated component of the HUSAR team, primarily in the support functions,

•such as providing food and accommodations for the te,ams ... Trained volunteers can also _ provide backup emergency communication services and shuttle/runner services to support the

HUSAR team ... also ...help law enforcement officials with crowd control support ... Registration and Inquiry workers might support ...by registering evacuees so that HUSAR workers would have better intelligence concerning who was or was not in the building. First Aid workers could care for the walking wounded ...a limited contingent of volunteers could fill one or more HUSAR functions ... trained EMT physicians ... SAR Dog teams. "17

17 Canadian Red Cross letter dated 11 October 1996

•

• 22


International:

Arrangements for international HUSAR assistance in the event of an emergency will continue to be pursued by EPC. As the development of a Canadian capability becomes a reality, it will become necessary to consider the possibility of the deployment of C anadian teams and/or components to assist in international disasters.

Funding:

Funding will, of course, be the bottom line. Based on the United States experience, it costs approximately $1.5 M to establish a team and roughly $50K annually to maintain and train each team thereafter. These figures imply a total start-up cost (on the unlikely assumption that all teams [Option 1] are formed at the same time) of approximately $13.5M and, when all teams are formed, a total annual O&M cost of $450K (Option 1).

• The Vancouver team is funded jointly using local, provincial and federal resources. The Calgary team is funded solely from City of Calgary Fire Department funds, although it has recently applied for Joint Emergency Preparedness Program (JEPP) funding.

No one organization at present has the financial resources to carry all the funding required alone. The federal government cannot and should not take on the funding of this activity by itself. Multiple joint funding arrangements will be necessary and perhaps unique sources of funding will have to be tapped. Perhaps funds could be made available from the Joint Emergency Preparedness Programme (JEPP), from JEPP-like funding or from other fediral or provincial/territorial funds. Methods of reducing overàll costs could include arrangements to make the training facilities available at no or little cost; task sharing; or private companies might be interested in donating funds, uniforms or equipment.

Arrangements for voluntary or partiall-y voluntary sources might be possible, particularly in-areas such as dog. teams or heavy equipment operators -.

The Resource Worlcing Group has been tasked to consider the funding question and to make proposals for an equitable cost-sharing approach. The following Table provides a rough summary of costs associated with a number of HUSAR initiatives currently in place or being developed:

• 23


FINANCIAL CO1VIPARISON OF HUSAR TEAMS

Orgardzation Initial Set Up Value of Armual 0 & M Funding Name Costs Equipment Arrangement

Cache

FEMA US&R $2.5 million > $1 million $50 - 100K usually joint Task Forces (100,000 apiece incremental per state and FEMA (US$) for 25 task task force

forces)

City of Year 1 (95-96) Year 1 - $28K joint - Vancouver $106.3K Total projected municipal/provi

Ye,ax 2 (96-97) $270K ncial/federal $262K (through JEPP) Year 3 (97-98) $262K

City of Calgary $150K $200K to date Training 100% City of currently $5K Calgary to date. peryear Applied for

JEPP grant

City of Regina (TBD)

Metropolitan Toronto (TBD)

Note: Initial set up costs include equipment, 0 & M, and training.

THE WAY .AHEAD

It is hoped to finalize this Strategy Options Paper, reinforced with inputs from the various Worldng Groups, at a second National HUSAR Worlcshop at the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College in September 1997 and then place it before the Federal Provincial

•

• 24

A He,avy Urban Search and Rescue Capability for Canada

Conference of Senior Officials Responsible for Emergency Preparedness meeting in February 1998 with a recommendation that the Strategy Options be considered by the Council of Ministers Responsible for Emergency Preparedness for approval for implementation.

CONCLUSION

Canadians are subject to a number of natural and man-made disasters that could require a HUSAR capability to alleviate suffering and prevent death. At present there is no coordinated national HUSAR capability in this country. The implications of such a short-coming are potentially devastating, both to the possible victims and to governments that must address such a capability gap in the event of a catastrophic event. It is concluded, therefore, that all levels of government must cooperate to produce a viable capability for HUSAR. Such a capability could be produced for relatively little expense, using existing resources and expertise. To be effective, however, it will require an unprecedented level of unselfish cooperation between all three levels of government.

•

•

.■■•

25


Annex A: HUSAR CENTRAL COORDINATING GROUP - TERMS OF REFERENCE

Working with EPC/DEPE, the HUSAR Central Coordinating Group will concentrate on the following activities:

a. Oversee the efforts of the three HUSAR Worlcing Groups - Resources, Medical and Training - providing ideas, guidance, and assistance. Develop specific proposals and strategy options from Working Group input.

• b. Identify general issues or problems which do not fall under the purview of the Worldng

Groups and recommend options for implementation.

c. Contribute to presentations/proposals for senior officials or ministers.

d. Lead promotion of the development of a HUSAR capability in Canada.

10 December 1996.

• 26


Appendix 1 to Annex A: Certification & Heavy Urban Search and Rescue - A Discussion Paper

Introduction:

The purpose of this paper is to generate discussion on the issue of certification.

This document will set out definitions, outline general principles, and propose a process that will allow for a certification process in the training of Canadian Heavy Urban Search and Rescue (HUSAR) team members.

Definitions:

Heavy Urban Search and Rescue (HUSAR): The location of trapped persons in collapse structure using dogs and sophisticated search equipment; the use of heavy equipment such as cranes to remove debris; the work to breach, shore, remove and lift structural components; the removal and treatment of victims; and the securing of partially or completely collapsed structures.

Certification: A formal statement of the fulfilment of requirements. A trainee who has successfully completed a prescribed course of study taught by a formally-recognized trainer is certified in that particular area.

Principles:

1. All HUSAR team and component members must complete the following certification, prior to being considered members of the team:

What should this be? Should it include Rescue Systems I or II? Should it also include something like CPR and Basic Emergency First Aid qualifications? Or should there even be a n-ationally-agreed-to minimum level of t -raining. Cin individual teams ask for higher training for entry level than what is specified here? Should this basic training also include the special team members?

2. Specialized team/component members, including crane operators, engineers, medical staff require current certification and membership in the appropriate professional association as required by their profession in the home jurisdiction of the HUSAR team. Specialized team/component members must also meet the basic requirements of all team members.

•

• 27

.... ..... .....


3. The following training programmes will be considered acceptable for certification of HUSAR team/component members:

a)suggestions?? b) c)

4. There should be a section here on the certification of dogs and dog hcmdlers. This section will be developed with the consultation of the dog handler communizy, and in conjunction with the discussion paper on Dogs and HUSAR. Suggestions for content in this section are wekome.

5. Canada will eventually develop its own certification process for HUSAR trainers. In the interim, trainers certified by the fo llowing organizations will be permitted to certify Canadian HUSAR team/component members:

a) suggestions?? • b) c)

Proposed Action:

This discussion paper will be circulated to the emergency preparedness training and the HUSAR training community soliciting feedback. This feedback will be incorporated in the discussion paper. Depending on the results of that feedback, circulation further afield may be required. Additional discussion vvill continue as appropriate until a consensus is reached and the results will form part of the overall strategy for developing a Canadian capability in HUSAR.

At some future date, a made-in-Canada certification process for HUSAR trainers will be developed.

Emergency Programs and Exercises Emergency Preparedness Canada

3 February, 1997;

• 28

•


Annex B: HUSAR RESOURCES WORKJNG GROUP - TERMS OF REFERENCE

Reporting to the Central Coordinating Group, and working with EPC/DEPE staff, the Resources Worldng Group will concentrate on the following activities:

1. Financial:

a. Research financial information for existing teams, or similar teams/components in both Canada and abroad.

b. Analyse the applicability of any international cost bre,akdowns to the Canadian context

c. Propose a budget for the development of a team/component, taking into consideration the use of in-kind resources.

d. Develop and analyse arrangements that would be possible for the use of in-kind arrangements. Recommend possibilities to the Central Coordinating Group.

e. Identify sources of possible funding at various levels of government. Make recommendations for new funding programmes if required.

g.

f. Contribute financial arguments to presentations/proposals for senior officials or ministers.

Advise on the development of policy and procedure related to fin ancial aspects of the HUSAR programme.

2. Human:

a. Inventory existing USAR resources in Canada.

b. Review the FEMA US&R task force establishment to identify whether adaptations should be made for the Canadian context.

c. Research and recommend roles for volunteers, NG0s, and private industry.

d. Identify unusual sources of human resources especially for specialty components.

• 29

30


3. Canine:

a. Inventory national canine resources as part of the inventory described above.

b. Review of canine resources and requirements is not included in the terms of reference of this working group.

4. Equipment:

a. Provide general input on matters of equipment to the Central Coordinating Group.

b. Analyse and recommend the compatibility and interoperability of equipment, both internationally and within Canada, to the Central Coordinating Group.

A specific equipment working group may be appropriate when the HUSAR programme has been developed in more detail.

5. General:

a. Promote the development of a HUSAR capability in Canada • 09 Januaxy 1997


Appendix 1 to Annex B: Dogs and Heavy Urban Search and Rescue - A Discussion Paper

When there is a disaster, one of the first things needed is an ability to find people. One of the best ways to do this is with trained dogs. 18

Introduction: This paper has as its basic premise that trained canine teams have a high accuracy rate in the early location of victims in collapsed structures (can anyone provide statistics/sources?). The purpose of this paper is to promote discussion on the specifics of the role of canine components on heavy urban search and rescue teams in Canada.

This document will set out definitions, outline general principles, and propose a strategy that will allow for the integration of canine components into Heavy Urban Search and Rescue teams in Canada.

• Definitions: Heavy Urban Search and Rescue (H(JSAR): The location of trapped persons in collapsed structure using dogs and sophisticated search equipment; the use of heavy equipment such as cranes to remove debris; the work to breach, shore, remove and lift structural components; the removal and treatment of victims; and the securing of partially or completely collapsed structures.

Search and Rescue (SAR): The location and rescue of people who are lost or in distress within Canada's jurisdictional area. There are three types of SAR: ground, air, and sea.

Canine Unit?: One- dog and one handler (plus backup hcmdler?).

Canine Team?: Several canine units grouped together (with perhaps an overall canine coordinator who coordinated the canine search and looks after liaison with the HUSAR team? What should this coordinator be called - maybe canine search coordinator?) (Or should this be two dogs, two handlers and a backup person? - So that one dog and handler can work the. rubble and do cm alert/indication and then a second dog-and handler --ie from- the same canine unit are brought in to confirm the alert?)

Do we. need a term to describe all the dogs and hcmdlers on a HUSAR team? What should be the optimum size of this group?

18

• From a speech by Kevin George, Search and Rescue Dog Association of Alberta, at the first HUSAR WorIcslaop held at Arnprior, Ontario, 5 September, 1996.

31


Should we agree on the name for the type of dogs that will be doing this type of work? Rubble-trained dogs? Disaster dogs? Search dogs?

Principles: To develop a consensus among the participants in the development of a HUSAR capability, agreement should be reached on the following principles:

1. Dogs and their handlers will form an integral part of any HUSAR team being developed in Canada. (Is this the correct approach)?

2. Should dog teams be deployed ahead of the HUSAR team (le as soon as possible)?

3. Dogs and handlers do not need to be formally attached to the same organization or live in the same geographical area as the HUSAR team to which they belong so long as written arrangements are in place for periodic joint training and for transportation of the dogs and handlers during an actual deployment. (Is this the best way to go?)

4. A national set of protocols/principles will be established and used for all canine units regardless of location. Specific protocols with individual HUSAR teams may be necessary to provide a degree of flexibility for local arrangements. (For all: suggestions concerning what should be included in these protocols are wekome. Some of you have already begun work on these - how would you like to proceed? If you would like to send proposals into EPC, we would ensure circulation to all for feedback.)

5. — What type of say should a HUSAR team have in accepting one particular canine unit or not? Presumably, they should set some requirements too? Presumably the same requirements that they might set for the acceptance of other specicilty team member?.

6. Dog and handler must successfully complete a HUSAR-approved certification evaluation maintain their certification (should we be specific?). Ground, police and water search? dogs may join HUSAR teams, but will require the:successful completion of the same evalùation prior to their acceptance. Handlers must meet the basic requirements established for all HUSAR team members (Should this be a requirement?). (Do we neeêl to talk about the use of SAR dogs and police dogs for HUSAR purposes?)

7. The canine component equipment cache should be stored vvith the dogs, and not with the HUSAR team. (Or the other -way around?) The contents of the equipment cache will be based on the same requirements as the HUSAR team cache - for example, self sufficiency

• 32


for 72 hours. Whenever possible, equipment should be standardized among canine components, and among handlers (/s it too early to start a standardized equipment list?).

8. As most dogs and handlers are volunteers, HUSAR teams must make prior arrangements for the reimbursement of canine unit expenses during an actual search. What about during joint training and maybe during evaluation? Do we need to be consistent nationally on this?

9. Unattached canine units must have successfully completed the HUSAR certzfication/evaluation process prior to any consideration for inclusion during an actual search. Is this the right way to word this - the concern is with unattached _freelancers who just show up - and start going to work.

10. What amount/types of support should a HUSAR team be expected to provide to a canine unit? A list of required support is at Annex A.

11. Canine units from other countries must meet Canadian customs, immigration and agricultural requirements. (These should be identified and put into an annex to this discussion paper). Unattached canine teams (je teams which are not part of a formal HUSAR team) from other countries will not be accepted at disaster sites except by prior arrangement.

12. What should be the training/certification requirement for backups? Unit leaders, etc.

Proposed Action:

This discussion paper will be circulated to the emergency preparedness, HUSAR and canine communities soliciting feedback. This feedback will be incorporated into the discussion paper. Additional discussion will continue as appropriate until a consensus is reached and the results will forrn part of the-ov. erall strategy for developing a Canadian capability in HUSAR.

This feedback will also be.fed into the efforts of the Resources and Training Working Groups set up after the first HUSAR Workshop in September 1995.

In the initial stages of the development of a national capability, it may be more approi5riate to develop one canine team (perhaps composed from units across the country?) who has successfully completed the evaluation process and who can be viewed as a national resource. After the initial stage, the number of canine units on any particular team will depend on a variety

33


of factors, but there should always be a minimum of two (four? six?) units. The optimum numbers would be (how many?) units per team. This arrangement will ensure proper rest periods for dogs and handlers, and well as proper safety protocols during searches.

The consensus will form the basis of a general set of protocols for the use of all canine teams.

Emergency Programs and Exercises Emergency Preparedness Canada 04 February 1997.

34


Annex C: HUSAR TRAINING WORKING GROUP - TERMS OF REFERENCE

Reporting to the Central Coordinating Group, and working with EPC/DEPE staff and the Federal/Provincial/Tenitorial Training Conference, the Training Working Group will concentrate on the following activities:

a. Research existing training structures, both nationally and internationally, for the training of HUSAR teams/components. Inventory the costs and options for this training.

b. Identify specialized training requirements (such as canine or medical), and identify how this training requirement could be me, and what resources exist.

c. As the HUSAR strategy options develop, analyse and develop training options (cg buy from others or develop in-house). Recommend possibilities to the Central Coordinating Group.

• e. Work with the Resources Working Group to identify sources of possible funding at

various levels of government. Make reconunendations for new funding programmes if required.

f. Contribute training information and arguments to presentations/proposals for senior officials or ministers.

g. Promote the development of a HUSAR capability in Canada.

10 December 1996.

• 35


Appendix 1 to Annex C: HUSAR and Training Sites - Questions for Discussion Paper

The following are a number of questions which are designed to promote discussion on training areas for the development of a Heavy Urban Search and Rescue (HUSAR) capability in Canada.

1. Should each tearn/component have its own training site? If so, what skills should be trainable on these sites? Should they be dedicated facilities, or should they be shared with other training requirements for the same jurisdiction (eg the HUSAR team uses the municipal fire department training area)? What would be required to adapt an existing training site used by a large municipal fire department for HUSAR purposes? Since there is a security/access concern, how can the site be protected from non authorized access. Who should 'own' the sites - if not the HUSAR teams?

2. Could new, developing teams/components train on the facilities of existing HUSAR teams. How would that work?

3. Is there a requirement for a national site. If so, what sldlls and who should be trained on that site. Where should this site be. Is there a site that already exists that we could use with minor adaptation (or no adaptation)? If so, what ldnd of adaptation would be required?

4. What kind of training site is required for training of the specialized HUSAR resources - medical, canine, maybe crane operators? Does this type of training have to be done at the same site as the HUSAR team? Should it be done at the same site?

5. Are there some innovative solutions, pieces of training apparatus that other teams could adapt. How can we collect and then distribute this information?

Emergency Programs and Exercises Emergency Preparedness Canada 3 February 1997.

36


Annex D: DRAFT HUSAR MEDICAL WORKING GROUP - TERMS OF REFERENCE

Reporting to the Central Coordinating Group, and working with EPC/DEPE staff; the Medical Worlcing Group will concentrate on the following activities:

a. Provide advice on medical issues to those teams already under development and to the Central Coordinating Group.

b. Research and develop the medical requirements for HUSAR teams.

c. Identify medical training requirements (for both the medical component of the teams and for all team members) and work with the Training Worldng Group to conceive, analyse and develop training options.

d. Work towards the resolution of concerns over the validity of medical licences and certifications during deployment of teams/components.

e. Advise on the development of po licy and procedures related to the medical aspects of the HUSAR programme.

29 January 1997

37

1

Search. Team Medical Team. Search Team Leaders (2) I Medkal Team Leaders (2)

I I

Tasit.FeeLeuder I Asst Task Force Leader

Technical Teatri Technical Team Leaders (2)

l Rescue Tearn Rescue Team Leaders (2)

1 Medical

Specialists (2) 1 1 1

Medical

Specialists (2) 1 Canine Search

Specialists (2)

Canine Search

Specialists (2)

I Technical Search

Specialists (2)

Technical Info I Rescue Squad

Specialists (2) — Officer/5 Specialists,'

Communications I Rescue Squad 1 Specialists (2) — Officer/5 Specialists

SpeL:igailuistitGes(2)

Structure I Rescue Squad

Specialists (2) — Officer/5 Specialists

Haz Mat Rescue Squad

Specialists (2) — Officer/5 Specialists

Heavy Rigging & Rescue Squad I

— Eqpt SPecialists (2) — Office/5 Specialists


Figure 2: Establishment of an American US&R Task Force

38

il I 11 L15ïri.l91?

IL A heavy urban search and

553.8 rescue capability for Canada

I145 : proposed strategy options 1997

DATE DUE SLIP

archived content contenu archivé 553.8 h45 1997-eng.pdf · contenu archivé l’information dont...

Documents