Mr. ROBACK. Well, it is a press release from the Los Angeles shelter study, for immediate release. I do not see any date on it offhand, but it says, "Shelter survey shaping up."

It alerts the property holders and the householders to the fact that the survey is being made and persons who will come in will bear from the mayor an official identification badge, so people will know that they have a legitimate purpose.

The purpose of the master study, which will continue for a year, is to classify and catalog all buildings possessing radioactive shelter potential.

It says that this is the first survey of a city in the country in which this detailed technical scrutiny is being made.

It says that the budget for a 1-year operation is $200,000; the staff is 23. They are being recruited and indoctrinated by the survey director, Rear Adm. Frank R. Dunbar, radiological division chief of the Los Angeles civil defense, and T. D. Smith, executive officer.

Then they talk about what they will do with the mass of facts and figures they will get.

Who is sponsoring this activity and will you accept these figures or will you go back and do the survey, as Mr. Riehlman is inquiring, in areas already being surveyed?

Mr. DEVANEY. This is an OCDM survey.

Mr. ROBACK. It is?

Mr. DEVANEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBACK. What is the nature of the OCDM sponsorship? Is it a partial contribution to the expenses, or total financing?

Mr. DEVANEY. I am not sure, but all of the similar surveys have been totally OCDM financed.

Mr. ROBACK. This is part of the program which was in process and is now transferred to the Department of Defense; is that right?

DOD IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM INCLUDES ESTIMATE OF MODIFICATION COSTS

Mr. DEVANEY. Yes, sir. If I could say something on the difference in estimated costs between our $50 million and Defense's $93 million

Mr. ROBACK. Please do.

Mr. DEVANEY (continuing). The $50 million we thought would identify existing shelters that would be acceptable, and put signs on them.

But there is another problem in that some of these can provide shelter for more people if you modified them some, if you provide ventilation and so on.

for

Well, somebody has to look at them to find out what needs to be done. The Department of Defense's estimate includes enough money to also do that. So that, in essence, the survey that they propose $93 million is a little more detailed than the survey that we costed at $50 million.

Mr. ROBACK. A little more detailed survey; then it is just the survey costs that are involved?

Mr. DEVANEY. That is right. It involves information which will be usable if and when the country goes ahead with a modification program.

73266-61--7

OBTAINING PERSONNEL TRAINED FOR SURVEY WORK

Mr. ROBACK. And the OCDM has put out various publications which give guidance to architects and engineers and to executives who may be interested in directing the work on how to go about making a shelter survey; is that not correct?

Mr. DEVANEY. That is correct.

Mr. ROBECK. In the case of Los Angeles, you are using employees. indoctrinated and trained for this purpose, paid for, I assume, by the city, is that correct? Isn't that the case?

Mr. DEVANEY. The costs are all borne out of funds provided by OCDM.

Mr. ROBACK. In other words, the funds were paid out by OCDM. Is the survey staff specially hired or are they regular civil defense staff of the city?

Mr. DEVANEY. Of this I am not sure. It has been done both ways. Some of the surveys have been contracts with private architect-engineer organizations; others have been done by contract with the local civil defense organizations.

Mr. ROBACK. Here is an important question that was not developed, but it is implicit in Secretary McNamara's testimony; namely, will the $93 million that is going to be spent within the next year and a half for surveys--the Secretary indicated that the Bureau of Yards and Docks in the Department of the Navy, and the Engineer Corps in the Department of the Army, will be signing contracts with people to conduct the surveys.

Now, the question is, Is the type of information that you seek the kind that is easy to get people to do on a volunteer basis, let us say, or by local civil defense staffs, or is this a highly technical and engineering requirement?

Mr. DEVANEY. It is not highly technical, but it is different from the normal capabilities; there must be training, and that will be the first step in any such program. This must be done to train the people who are technically competent in some fields to gain this technical competence in other fields and apply it.

Mr. ROBACK. Do you believe that it is wise at this stage to engage architectural-engineering firms rather than civil defense employees to do the kind of marking program which, as you have testified, the Department of Defense contemplates to include some improvement? Mr. Devaney. I believe that the architect-engineer firms provide the greatest reservoir of talent for this, and in most cases the only reservoir of supervisory talent.

The other people have to be trained the people who go out and make a survey of the building itself. But the architect-engineer is in a better position to train them than anybody else.

ESTIMATE FOR EXPANSION OF SHELTER CAPACITY BY 25 MILLION IS $1.5

BILLION

Mr. ROBACK. We have talked about the costs and the differences between the two agency estimates, costs that are based upon different considerations.

What can you tell us about the so-called habitability costs? In other words, not only have you, perhaps, improved the structure from

the standpoint of the radiation factor, but also you have the problem of livability. What are the estimates of costs for a nationwide shelter program such as you have put forth. That is, survey and improvement of existing structures. What are the dimensions of the cost of improving the shelters so they are not only livable but give a reasonable degree of protection from radiation?

Mr. DEVANEY. Well, to begin with, based on the few shelter surveys we have, and this is from the pilot studies made, it looks like it might be feasible to make improvements that would provide shelter for about 25 million people more than you can get without the improvements, and that is about the limit to what there is in existing buildings.

Mr. ROBACK. Will you state that again? Twenty-five million people above those who would find their own way?

Mr. DEVANEY. No. Let us say that, when we mark the existing shelter, we could find acceptable shelter now for about 40 to 50 million people. If we make the feasible improvements in those buildings, we could increase the amount of shelter to 75 million; in other words, provide shelter in existing buildings for 25 million more people. That is all there probably will be. You cannot feasibly improve all buildings to shelter all people, because it would probably cost much more than to build separate shelters out in the park, let us say. All buildings are not susceptible to improvement.

Mr. ROBACK. What are the dimensions of the cost of these 25 million spaces to be upgraded?

Mr. DEVANEY. It would be on the order of $12 billion, probably, for the total cost, public and private.

Mr. ROBACK. $12 billion to

Mr. DEVANEY. Shelter that 25 million.

Mr. ROBACK. To get 25 million more people into existing shelters. What are the premises of radiation protection, that is, the degree of attenuation? Everybody can come in out of the rain in this country, you know, if he gets under a roof. The question is how good is the roof from the standpoint of fallout or other radiation.

Mr. ELLIS. You know these questions really pertain to a function which is now being performed by DOD.

Mr. ROBACK. I understand.

Mr. ELLIS. Of course, we do have a background of experience in the area, and the question is difficult to answer because the degree of protection that you may have is dependent upon the amount of money that you spend; thus, your expense would be difficult to determine. It would have to be just on the basis of minimum criteria, and that would be what you would have to assume. You would have to assume a lot

in order to answer the question.

Mr. ROBACK. Well, these studies were prepared and worked up pretty well in the OCDM.

Mr. ELLIS. That is right.

Mr. ROBACK. To a degree the Department of Defense is now taking over a majority of this work, and maybe keeping its fingers crossed about some of the estimates, I do not know.

But in any event, you have testified that the improvement program is of the order of $1.5 billion, Mr. Devaney?

Mr. DEVANEY. Yes.

FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL, AND PRIVATE COSTS INCLUDED IN $20 BILLION ESTIMATE

Mr. ROBACK. What then does the $20 billion figure comprise that we have heard here from time to time, timewise, shelterwise?

Mr. ELLIS. I do not think that figure given here was in order. To be perfectly frank with you, it is a figure contemplated first an expenditure by the Federal Government which would stimulate in turn, State, municipal, county, local and individual expenditures, and all of those expenditures wrapped together would run to a figure of that amount over a 5-year period.

Mr. ROBACK. In other words, this was not a Federal budgetary figure.

Mr. ELLIS. No, sir; it is not a call upon Federal funds whatever. Mr. ROBACK. All right.

Now, we gather from the testimony of the Secretary yesterday that the requests he was making for $207 million were in relation to the marking program, and the identification program. Nothing was said bevond that.

Do you have in your office any concept of a 5-year program or a 10-year program for civil defense?

Mr. ELLIS. Obviously we have studied it on the basis of those periods of time, and we have submitted preparations and plans, but they have never been officially accepted or officially adopted.

Mr. ROBACK. Are you in position, Mr. Ellis, to give us some idea of what a 5-year program would cost in terms of need?

Mr. ELLIS. I would prefer not to do that now without further study and discussion with Budget and with other areas of our operations. I believe it is so serious that a rough estimate should not be given to the committee. It would be misleading.

GAO AUDIT OF CIVIL DEFENSE PROGRAMS

Mr. ROBACK. One of the statements made by the chairman when he opened these hearings had to do with the effort to avoid the pitfalls of the past.

Now, some criticisms of civil defense go to concept, some of them go to administration, perhaps. We have been advised by the General Accounting Office staff, who have made various surveys, audit surveys in the civil defense field, that they have made certain findings. If I may just refer to the Comptroller General's statement, and this statement will be placed in the record with the committee's permission, the gist of it, as I recall, is that in the grant aid program and in the donable property program, both of which now are within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense, substantial amounts of the equipment, certainly at least under the portion surveyed by the General Accounting Office, have been diverted to noncivil defense uses. (See Appendix 8A, p. 391.)

Suppose a local organization needs and wants a fire truck, and gets it through civil defense channels but uses it for the community. Maybe that is good or maybe it is not good. But the question is whether the Congress intended that the program be administered in that way.

The GAO is making a serious statement that most of the civil defense equipment donated under the special provisions of the law that permits it, and the grant aid program, to the degree that it was surveyed by the General Accounting Office, is going for noncivil defense purposes, being diverted from its intended uses.

Mr. ELLIS. Well, I can illustrate a situation like that.

For instance, we have a tugboat that is surplus property, and we turned it over to a political subdivision. They either tie it up at the dock and let it rot, waiting for an emergency to arrive, or use it for some occasional service so that it could be available for civil defense matters, a drill or something of that sort. They keep it in shape by using it that way, and often that is an intelligent way to handle the

matter.

Mr. ROBACK. Well, the General Accounting Office criticizes your agency-this is not necessarily your responsibility, you inherited it. Mr. ELLIS. That is right. We tried to tighten up on it.

Mr. ROBACK. It criticizes your agency for failing to develop criteria and enforce reasonable compliance with the criteria.

Have you been acquainted with this problem? Has your attention been directed to it?

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir; it has been called to my attention. It has been subject to criticism and, therefore, we have tightened the reins on it. Where one agency requests the use of certain barges, for rental pay— in other words, after they got them as surplus equipment they wanted to rent them out, and we refused to permit that to be done, and then they had no alternative, because they could not afford to maintain them, but to turn them back.

We have put the reins on this because we do not want to be in violation of the regulations of the General Accounting Office in any way. Mr. ROBACK. Will you instruct one of your staff to examine a copy of the statement which we have from the Comptroller General and be prepared to respond at tomorrow's meeting when we have followup testimony?

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, sir. We are very familiar with the audit.

ROLE OF OEP DIRECTOR IN EMERGENCY OPERATIONS

Mr. ROBACK. What is your concept, Mr. Ellis, of the emergency authority which the President reserved for himself, that is, your role in the emergency?

Mr. ELLIS. Well, in my statement I did comment pretty elaborately on that.

Mr. ROBACK. I am thinking in terms not of all the things that have got to be done, that have to go into operation, but in terms of directing, the supreme directing authority in the country at the time of emergency.

If the President is incapacitated as a casualty of the attack, does his function devolve on you as the Deputy, or do they devolve upon a successor under the Presidential law of succession? Was there any thinking along this line, before this delegation was made to the Secretary of Defense, as to whether the Administrator of Civil Defense conceived of himself as the director of operations?