Mr. SAUNDERS. There were two different tests. One was the quonset type which was described yesterday by AEC, that is NRDL under contract to AEC, and the other was the DOD sponsored quonset.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. There were other DOD structures besides the Navy's.

Mr. SAUNDERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Do you have reports on those tests also?

Mr. SAUNDERS. We are now receiving interim test reports of the military tests.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. What type of structures did they have in comparison with the type you had?

Mr. SAUNDERS. They had domes which were similar in size to ours with the exception of wall thickness. Theirs were heavier. Of course, theirs were designed for a different purpose. They were interested in the blast phenomena and how the pressure waves acted as they passed over the structure. We were interested in response, that is, how does a structure of this shape respond to blast loading. They also had some underground ammunition bunker-type structures which are the arch type. They also tested aboveground arch structures and then they tested some corrugated steel pipe structures.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Any questions of Mr. Saunders?

Mrs. Griffiths.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Did I understand that these were not tested for radioactive fallout?

Mr. SAUNDERS. No, ma'am. The family shelters were heavily instrumented for radioactivity, not only fallout, but initial and neutron radiation. The garage had the same instrumentation. The dome was not instrumented for radiation protection because it did not have the earth cover. We were interested in the response of the dome under blast loading and not its sufficiency in giving protection from radiation.

Actually, you see in use as the model demonstrates back here, the dome would have been sufficient earth cover to give it the radiation protection required.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Then may I ask, Mr. Chairman, I do not know which one should answer, but why do you not suggest or support or do both, an amendment to the Housing Act which does not permit Federal money to insure housing that does not have a shelter?

Mr. SAUNDERS. I think that Mr. Gallagher would probably be the one to answer that.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you very much. I do not have a very good answer to that, Mrs. Griffiths. I remember our discussions in the past on the same subject. We have so urged, but this gets to be an action that another agency undertakes. It has not been undertaken to secure the new authority that they insist they need for the inclusion of the cost of shelters in the appraised value of housing. This is their problem. Presently they cannot include the shelter cost in the appraised value. They say they need negislation.

Mrs. GRIFFITH. I would be glad to sponsor such legislation. It comes before Banking and Currency. The housing bill will be up shortly, and I think if you are really convinced that it protects, then it seems that the fastest way to get shelters built in this country is for the Federal Government to say no house is really worth anything that does not have a shelter.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Well, I think you heard me talking about the emergence of policy here which we are anticipating and maybe that sort of thing will be said, I do not know. But let me check again with the housing agency on the point you are making here.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Well, as a matter of fact, let us face it. There is no national policy for shelters. That is the reason for it. The basic reason is that there has been no policy adopted by the Federal Government advocating shelters or recognizing that shelters are needed in the nuclear age and as a result of no policy, there are no recommendations for legislation, either to allow tax amortization or special tax privileges for people who would install their own or to give Federal asistance to the protection of lives of people in the case of attack.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, did Mr. Gallagher say this was included in the proposal of December 1956 or not, this type of proposal? Mr. GALLAGHER. The proposal of 1956 did anticipate the inclusion of shelters in houses; yes.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. It has nothing to do with the Housing Act.

Mr. GALLAGHER. It did not relate or refer to the Housing Act. This was simply a concept of what level of protection and where it ought to be and what it would cost as I said before.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. You confined your recommendation to the protection that would be given under such circumstances but you did not, of course, attempt to set policy which was beyond your scope of jurisdiction?

Mr. GALLAGHER. That is correct.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. The fact that you recommended it, however, indicates that you feel that such a procedure would be beneficial, providing that public policy is set?

Mr. GALLAGHER. But at the same time we appreciate all of the other problems or aspects of this problem that bear on any ultimate decision.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Well, whether you appreciate it or not has nothing to do with it. There you mean that you recognize there are other problems?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Any further questions? If not, why thank you. Thank you, Mr. Saunders.

Mr. GALLAGHER. The next witness will be Mr. Benjamin Taylor who is Director of our Engineering Research and Development Office in FCDA. He is going to talk about the status of shelter planning, design and research.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Taylor, we remember your testimony before the committee once before. We are glad that you are still with the FCDA and can give us the benefit of your long years of experience in this field.

STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN TAYLOR, DIRECTOR, ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, FEDERAL CIVIL DEFENSE ADMINISTRATION

Mr. B. TAYLOR. I am happy to be here, sir.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. You have been studying this shelter program for quite awhile?

Mr. B. TAYLOR. Yes, I have been associated with it intimately for 5 or 6 years.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. When did you start on shelter data?

Mr. B. TAYLOR. Actually I got into it most extensively 42 to 5 years ago.

Mr. Holifield, ladies and gentlemen of the subcommittee, since the last appearance by representatives of the Federal Civil Defense Administration before your committee on the subject of shelter, our agency has adopted a new concept of target areas upon which much of our broad shelter planning has been based.

It appears desirable, therefore, to acquaint you with this concept. (See slide No. 44.) On the screen you will see a map of the Baltimore-Washington area. On this map are shown several of the 315 potential target areas recognized by the Federal Civil Defense Administration. The small solid red areas encompassing a target such as Baltimore, Washington, Patuxent River Naval Test Center, and others, represent those areas within which we believe it is most likely an enemy would attempt to place his weapons.

These areas comprise population densities, important industrial concentrations, major airports, military installations and the like, where they are so closely grouped that they cannot be logically construed as separate targets. Around each of these aiming areas are shown 4- or 5-mile wide bands which indicate varying anticipated degrees of blast damage to conventional structures (ranging from complete destruction in the inner ring to minor damage in the outer ring) from weapons exploded near the edge of the aiming area, which is the solid red inner area. Each of these aiming areas with its four bands is considered a potential blast area and all remaining areas on the map are considered to be fallout areas, or areas where the likelihood of fallout only is the greatest.

The national shelter program recommended to the executive branch, which was referred to earlier by Mr. Gallagher, was based upon this aiming area concept. Blast shelter, designed to a minimum of 30 pounds per square inch overpressure, was specified for the total population in the blast areas of the country, and fallout protection for the total population in the fallout areas.

Studies have been made for a number of other graduations of shelter throughout the blast areas and further studies are currently in progress. In order to effect the greatest economies in any shelter program which may be initiated, we are giving special emphasis to the design of improvable fallout shelters which we have had under consideration as a practical measure for some time. By a small additional expenditure at the time of constructing a shelter, provision can be made for converting this shelter later, at an additional cost, to a shelter having a high degree of blast resistance with considerable saving over the construction of a new blast shelter.

25978-58-pt. 1—11

SLIDE NO. 45.-Improvised basement fallout shelter.

With this brief background of shelter location criteria, I will proceed to describe, with the aid of slides, some of the shelter designs which have been prepared by the Federal Civil Defense Administration. These designs and others that are being developed constitute a part of an overall program of providing the public with a wide variety of shelter plans to meet varying requirements. As you will see, they range from the simple do-it-yourself, improvised shelters for one family to large underground structures providing shelter for several hundred people or more. The designs vary from a minimum type providing fallout protection only to structures providing protection from initial radiation, blast, heat, and residual radiation.

Slide No. 45: The slide now on the screen, depicts an improvised fallout shelter in the corner of the basement of an existing home. This represents one of the simplest forms of protection against fallout which can be constructed from materials usually available around the