RAND Review
Five Years After 9/11
Protecting Emergency Responders
at Sites of Collapsed Buildings
By Henry H. Willis
Henry Willis is a RAND policy researcher with expertise in risk analysis, maritime security policy, transportation policy, and public health and emergency preparedness.
Hundreds of emergency workers who responded to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center towers in New York City five years ago have become permanently disabled from the exposures at ground zero, primarily from respiratory illnesses. To reduce the extent of such injuries in the future, we at RAND have proposed guidelines for better protecting emergency responders from the numerous hazards produced when large buildings collapse.
It is prudent for emergency response agencies in urban areas across the United States to make contingency plans for the hazards of multistory-building collapses, even though such events have been infrequent. As seen in the past, causes of building collapses — earthquakes, natural gas explosions, engineering defects, construction failures, or terrorist attacks — can occur anywhere in the country. Hazards from the collapse of a multistory building are larger and more uncertain than usual, and the duration of the response is much longer than usual, requiring protection that is different from what emergency responders are typically provided.
The greatest risks . . . are the chemicals that could be inhaled. Asbestos and crystalline silica are of particular concern. |
In conducting our study, we reviewed all potential hazards that could be present following a tall building collapse, all missions that emergency responders may have to conduct, and the full range of emergency workers who are most likely to respond to large structural collapses. These include police officers; urban search and rescue units; fire, medical, and hazardous materials teams; and construction and utilities support personnel.
Although our guidelines encompass the duration of an emergency response, our emphasis is on protection during the first hours and days after a collapse. This is the critical time for rescue operations and also the time when the hazards are greatest, the logistical challenges are toughest, and the exposure monitoring might not be available, making the full extent of hazards highly uncertain.
The greatest risks facing emergency responders in the immediate aftermath of a building collapse are the chemicals that could be inhaled. Asbestos and crystalline silica are of particular concern because of their toxicity and prevalence in building materials. Such chemical hazards are the most difficult ones to identify, and the respirators often used to protect responders from these hazards can be heavy and cumbersome. A critical challenge in selecting respiratory protection from tall building collapses is choosing equipment that provides the required protection but does not impede the ability of responders to work and maneuver.
In addition to dangerous chemicals that could be inhaled, a diverse array of hazards can be expected in a building collapse environment: rubble and debris, protruding rebar and steel trusses, unstable surfaces, dust from pulverized glass and concrete, harmful metals, heat, standing water, severed electrical lines, excessive noise, and oxygen-deficient air due to smoke and fire.
Firemen take a break near the site of the World Trade Center in New York City on Sept. 12, 2001. The surgical and paper masks being worn by some in the photo provide less protection than the air-purifying respirators recommended in a RAND report. |
The following guidelines propose how emergency responders should assess the hazards, select protective equipment, and manage safety:
- Until hazard monitoring results are available, emergency responders should assess the hazards using visual cues and readily available information. Visual cues include the presence of dust, smoke, or fire. Other available information pertains to the building’s structural materials, contents, and commercial tenants.
- Air-purifying respirators should be available to emergency responders working at a collapse site. Unlike standard firefighter gear that uses an air tank, the proposed types of respirators use cartridges, weigh less, and last longer. If conditions allow, responders can wear half-mask respirators, which cover just the nose and mouth, as opposed to full face-piece respirators.
- Responders who will be treating victims or handling human remains should wear gloves, goggles or face shields, and water-resistant clothing and boots — all to shield the hands, eyes, face, and body from pathogens. Bloodborne, waterborne, and airborne diseases can be serious, but exposures to these biological hazards are easily identifiable and avoidable.
- Individuals without respiratory protection who are exposed to the dust cloud from a building collapse should be removed from the site and given medical treatment.
- Responders without protective equipment should not be allowed to enter hazardous areas at a building collapse site.
Beyond proposing guidelines for the selection and use of personal protective equipment, we offer these recommendations for logistic support and safety training:
- Responders in cities with tall buildings should have quick access to the protective equipment specified above.
- Because search-and-rescue operations might extend over many days, emergency planning should include provisions for decontaminating and replacing personal protective equipment.
- Training for emergency responders should include risk assessments and the use of protective equipment appropriate for building collapses. Everyone likely to be involved in the response effort — police officers, firefighters, urban search-and-rescue units, medical and hazardous materials teams, construction and utility workers — needs this training.
Our report was the fourth in a series of RAND studies examining the safety and health risks for emergency responders at the sites of terrorist attacks and natural disasters. This report was prepared for the National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 
Top