Mr. YARMOLINSKY. We plan to contract with architects, and engineers to do the actual survey, and we will include those plans in the submission. (The following information subsequently was received:) What is the number of people from the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Yards and Docks to be made available for civil defense training, and what are the plans for contracting our survey work? In round numbers, the personnel from the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Yards and Docks to be associated with the civil defense training program on a full-time basis is approximately 100. These persons would be responsible for providing training for approximately 1,000 supervisory personnel of architectengineer firms. They, in turn would be responsible for providing the requisite training for the shelter survey field engineers, who would probably number approximately 10,000. Currently, the plan for survey and marking shelters contemplates the award of multiple contracts to qualified architect-engineer firms throughout the United States. These contracts would be managed by existing district offices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the local public works offices of the U.S. Navy Bureau of Yards and Docks. These 38 Army and 12 Navy district offices are distributed throughout the United States. The field office (Army or Navy) for each State would coordinate the administration of all contracts for surveys within that State. The contract form would be a standard document used by both the Army and the Navy. It would require a potential contractor to demonstrate that his key people are professional engineers, registered to practice in their particular field, and that members of the survey teams are technically qualified to collect and evaluate survey data. USE OF EXISTING MANUALS Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Here are some of the things that have already been done. There is a shelter guide manual [indicating] "Fallout Shelter Survey, Guide for Architects and Engineers." Here is another: "Fallout Shelter Survey, Guide for Executives." So that you have quite. a few surveys already made. Mr. CANNELL. That is the instructions on how to do it, and is the reason that we can now have the training course. It is sort of like. having a book on how to design a bridge, but until you have communicated this to a person who is actually going to do it, that is, the rules that are set forth in the book, he can't execute the job. Mr. YARMOLINSKY. Mrs. Griffiths, this is textbook material for use in the courses which are necessary to get the people trained. Mr. CANNELL. It is sort of like Von Braun has been talking of going to the moon for 10 years, he has made steps toward it every year. He isn't there yet. There are steps toward this survey every year they have been working. Maybe they haven't been fast enough, but they are ready to execute it now. The material is available to do the execution. Mrs. GRIFFITHS. At the present rate Von Braun will reach the moon first. UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Yarmolinsky, can you advise the committee why this program which is designed to get shelter spaces most quickly, in the least costly way, is limited to structures? Why have you not considered all the other potentials, such as subways, tunnels, mines? Mr. YARMOLINSKY. It is not limited to structures, Mr. Roback. Mr. ROBACK. Do you have a program for mine marking? Mr. YARMOLINSKY. We would propose to mark such underground spaces, mines, and caves, or what not, as would be within reasonable reach. Mr. ROBACK. Do you have a program for marking the storm sewers? Mr. YARMOLINSKY. We have in mind the storm sewers, underground passages, the shuttle subway Mr. ROBACK. Are you now stating to this committee that this is a part of the identification program that you have asked $93 million for? Mr. YARMOLINSKY. Yes. Mr. BREWER. Mr. Roback, one of our shelter surveys which is now in progress in the State of Missouri, I believe, includes the survey of existing cave and mine space. Mr. ROBACK. I am asking a specific question, Mr. Brewer, and that is, in regard to this identification program which has been explained to this committee, does it include shelter potentials other than structures? And the answer has been "Yes," and unless it is incorrect and you want to modify it in a subsequent statement, we will take it as it stands. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ON SHELTER CONSTRUCTION Why does the program not include prototype group shelters and why aren't you studying group shelters? You may have to build some. Mr. YARMOLINSKY. We expect to study prototype group structures as well as prototype individual shelters in the research and development program for which we are asking $15 million. Mr. ROBACK. You feel that this is still an R. & D. program? Mr. ROBACK. As far as the mix of structures goes, the different kinds, and their location? Is this part of the R. & D. program? And do you still have to find out what are good building materials that won't cost much? Are those the kinds of problems you are interested in? Mr. YARMOLINSKY. I don't think we have yet arrived at a per capita cost figure for constructed shelters which is at anything like the limit of what research and development and I would emphasize "development"-can produce. The figures that we have seen in the course of our necessarily very brief explorations have covered such a wide range per capita that we feel that there is room for an intensive R. & D. effort. Mr. ROBACK. And this R. & D. effort will tell you about new shelter problems and possibilities? Mr. YARMOLINSKY. I should say that, as a complement of this R. & D. effort, the survey itself, we feel, is essential in indicating what the difference is between the available shelter of existing buildings and spaces and the need for shelter in terms of population concentrations and target probabilities. DEGREE OF EMPHASIS ON WARNING SYSTEM Mr. ROBACK. Mr. McNamara in the course of his testimony suggested that the warning problem is not really too crucial as far as fallout shelter is concerned, because in the nature of the case there will be time to move, if people have places to move too. How do you explain the emphasis on the warning system if the warning problem is less urgent than the shelter program? Mr. YARMOLINSKY. It seems to us that a working warning system is necessary. I believe what the Secretary at least intended to say in his testimony was that instantaneous warning, very rapid warning, is not essential for fallout purposes, as you all are aware. But a person who is not warned at all, who doesn't have the benefit of that period of, let's say, a half hour to several hours to gather together what possessions he is going to take to the shelter, to find some cans of food and a battery radio and a flashlight, is that much worse off. Mr. ROBACK. I am not suggesting that the warning program is not important. I am only raising a question as to its timing, its emphasis in relation to your fallout shelter program, when warning, according to the Secretary, and on a commonsense basis, is less urgent than the fallout hazard? Mr. YARMOLINSKY. We are not proposing to devote to the NEAR system program resources which we feel should otherwise we aren't taking resources away from the survey, the shelter survey, in order to devote them to the warning program. We feel that the warning program is a long-range program, and you have got to get started now on completing the systems test and getting the generators installed. ESTIMATED COST OF NEAR SYSTEM We think that the NEAR warning system is a 3- or 4- or maybe 5-year program to cover the parts of the country that ought to be covered, and therefore we think that on balance, and in your best judgment, an investment of $10 million in NEAR would be appropri ate. Mr. HOLIFIELD. This would go mainly to the generators that would cause the fluctuation in the current? Mr. YARMOLINSKY. Yes, Mr. Chairman; it would. Mr. ROBACK. Your estimate was less than the OCDM estimate? Did they have an estimate as to those requirements, Mr. Brewer? Mr. BREWER. All of our data have been made available to the Department of Defense. Mr. ROBACK. Let me ask you, before the shiftover of responsibility, did you have a budget concept? Did you have a budget figure? Mr. BREWER. We had a budget figure of approximately $50 million. Mr. ROBACK. For the NEAR system? Mr. BREWER. For the NEAR system-this was an overall figure. I believe the Director mentioned this yesterday as an overall cost of $50 million. Mr. ROBACK. Did you prepare a budget and submit it to the Department of Defense saying, "This is what we would do if we were still retaining responsibilities"? 73266-619 Mr. BREWER. No, sir; we did not prepare a formal submission to the Department of Defense. We are in a period of transition, as you understand, and some of our people have been working with them, so naturally the same data have been used, both in the formulation of projects within our agency and within the Department of Defense, and they have had other resources available to them. So that I don't know that we can draw a fine appraisal of how theirs compares with ours. IS NEAR SYSTEM PROVEN? Mr. ROBACK. We heard from Mr. Ellis that that NEAR system was ready to go, as far as he understood. And we gathered from Mr. McNamara's testimony that if it proves out, they will go ahead with it. Now, is there anyone from either agency who is in a position to tell us what is the status of the test program, whether it is complete or still under investigation? Mr. YARMOLINSKY. I think I can answer that question. There is no question in our minds but what the NEAR system is in acceptable condition; it has been brought to the point where extensive tests have been completed. However, before going ahead with large-scale installation, we believe, and the OCDM experts whom we have consulted believe, that it is necessary and desirable to conduct what is called a systems test. The purpose of this systems test is not to decide whether or not the system passes the test, but to improve the system to get out any last remaining bugs in it as a system before going ahead with a large-scale installation. This is not a pass or fail test: this is a "What do we have to do before we go ahead with large-scale installation?" test. And I may say that this opinion we derive from our extensive consultations with the OCDM people who are in charge of the NEAR system program. Mr. ROBACK. Are you satisfied, or do you still have to investigate whether the State of Michigan is representative and provides a useful basis for planning substation modifications all around the country? Mr. YARMOLINSKY. The OCDM experts are satisfied that they will obtain satisfactory systems test results from the installation in the State of Michigan. HABITABILITY OF SHELTERS Mr. ROBACK. What consideration in this shelter program do you give to actions of people who have to be sheltered; that is, operations of the shelter, problems of emergence from shelters? Mr. YARMOLINSKY. If I may, I am going to ask Mr. Cannell to respond to that, since he has addressed himself to this problem particularly in the course of our task force work. Mr. ROBACK. Before he responds, let me ask Mr. Cannell this: From the standpoint of the ultimate survival of the people, is it the case that marking shelters is perhaps the least important part of the job? Because the people have to be able to live in the shelters, to have food and drink, and to come out into an environment which will permit them to survive. What can you tell us about those phases of the program? Mr. CANNELL. I concur completely with you that the provision of the shelter or the place which protects you from the fallout environment is only part of the total system. And so when we prepared this year's program of survey and marking shelter we included all of the other aspects of the system that we felt were essential to make it work. And that included the providing of a minimum supply of food, of water, communication, radiation instruments, and the full range of components for the system. Mr. ROBACK. Let's ask a little homespun question here. You say you provision the shelters with food, you provision them with water. How do people drink water when they are packed into a shelter? Mr. CANNELL. You mean how do you package the water so they can drink it? Mr. ROBACK. How is it packaged and how is it consumed? Do you have cups? Mr. CANNELL. There is a full range of options on how you do it. If you wanted to you could all take turns drinking out of a bucket, or paper cups. Mr. ROBACK. I want to know if they plan to have people drink out of cups or out of the bucket. Mr. CANNELL. It varies completely with the size of the shelter how you carry out the operations in that shelter. In most cases you need subcontainers in order to distribute it just as in any distribution system, you have to have a way to get it from central containers to individuals. Mr. ROBACK. What are the cup procurement plans? Mr. CANNELL. I think what would be helpful if we submitted to you a completely itemized breakdown of how we intend to handle each of these aspects. It will give much more of a sense of completeness than if we explore them one at a time. These points you bring up have all been a serious part of the consideration in preparing the budget and the planning. PLAN TO STOCK 50 MILLION SHELTER SPACES Mr. ROBACK. Do you plan to stock all 50 million shelter spaces that the Secretary talked about? Mr. YARMOLINSKY. No, we do not plan to stock all 50 million shelter spaces out of funds requested for this fiscal year, because we don't expect to be able to stock them in this fiscal year. We are requesting funds to stock 30 million of the 50 million spaces. We expect that by the end of the fiscal year we will have identified 34 million, and there is a slight lag on the stockage, and therefore, we are talking about stocking 30 million. Mr. ROBACK. What can we construe from the Secretary's statement that, except for some limited reference to fiscal 1963 requirements, this is the program so far as the Secretary is concerned? Did he mean in his testimony that this is the program for the next fiscal year, or the next 2 fiscal years, or is this the sum and substance of program that he envisages? Mr. YARMOLINSKY. I believe what he intended by the statement to which you refer is that this program in and of itself does not entail any financial commitments except a commitment to stock the remain. |