BRIEFING DIRECTOR OF LOGISTICS STAFF MEETING ON STATUS OF EMERGENCY PLANNING PROGRAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00039R000100190002-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 23, 2006
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: September 25, 1970
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Release 2006/04/13 : CIA-RDP72-039R000100190
25 September 1970
SUBJECT: Briefing Director of Logistic Staff Meeting on Status
of Emergency Planning Program
1. At Jack Blake's invitation I was asked to attend his
,weekly staff meeting (24 September 1970) of Logistics Division an,?
Branch Chiefs and brief them on our progress, current status, and
future plans in the Emergency Relocation Program.
2. In introducing me to the group, Jack explained that
what had triggered his request for a, briefing, was a comment from
that he had learned "informally" that-we had eliminated t'
(Jac'
was concerned about what other "changes" have been made in our
HP program that would effect the Logistics support responsibiliti
to this program). Evidently has been serving as the off:i-
in charge of the Logistic's planning for this area and was "surer.'
to learn that we have eliminated this facility from Agency emerge
relocation planning. (Everyone agreed that it was a logical deci
they were merely questioning if the decision had been formally ma ;
and if so when it would be formally announced).
3. I spent about 45 minutes with them reviewing the back
ground that went into our 3 February study on Emergency Planning
the status of action taken on the recommendations which were appr,
in that memorandum. Significant points made by me during; this br
were as follows:
A. Our decision to eliminate
as a "secondary" relocation site was based
on information contained in a memorandum from
sated 18 December 1969. The D;)/S wear;
briefed (January 1970) on contents ofF_
memo and the DD/S concurred in our recommendation
that we abandon our outdated plans for use of thi
,facility. There has been no "formal" paperwork i~
this, as it is intended that this be done by re-
vising the HR's on Emergency Planning, deleting
all reference to I. In
this regard I reviewed the changes we are making
in the five Agency regulations (explaining sub-
stantive changes in the draft of new regulations
now in Security for initial coordination, see
attachment).
Approved For Release 2006/04/13 : CIA-RDP72-00039R000100190002-7
 Approved For Release 2006/04/13: CIA-RDP7 039R000100190002-7
B. Decisions to cut back on costs of maintaining
equipment and supply inventory and tying up space
exclusively for relocation program was made
on two assumptions:
(1) Lacking funds to install a "hardened" site at
= it is unrealistic to assume this installa-
tion could ever provide a capability to support
a relocation force in the event of a thermo-
nuclear attack, hence it does not make sense
to continue to fund even the current modest
amount we have been spending to maintain these
stocks and occupy space badly needed for current
operations
(2) Further it is unlikely that there would be any
survivors of a surprise nuclear attack on
Washington, so why spin our wheels on any relo-
cation site program.
C. The above notwithstanding we are obliged by President
Executive Orders to maintain an emergency relocation
plan and for this purpos 1will remain our "desig--
nated" relocation site for 1200 man initial emer-
gency relocation force and we will maintain a plannin
"framework" which we may or may not be able to imple
ment depending on the severity of the crisis which
would trigger a relocation situation. The $64 questi
which I could not satisfactorily answer was: "Preci.E
what Logistic requirements for supplies, material,
transportation, equipment, and manpower should be
cranked into our planning framework?" I pointed out
that the only certainty is that we will not obtain
additional manpower or the money to develop detailed
plans to establish and maintain inventories of equip-
ment solely for relocation purposes. Nor can we ex-
pect any serious effort on the part of the various
components to come up with "requirements" for support
based on what their relocation mission might be
tried unsuccessfully for 10 years to obtain
this kind of information).
Approved For Release 2006/04/13 : CIA-RDP72-00039R000100190002-7
 Approved For Release 2006/04/13 : CIA-RDP709039R000100190002-7
D. Consequently the only "guidelines" I could offer
Logistics on their responsibilities for support of
the relocation program were as follows:
(1) They should base their housekeeping, and office
supply planning on a relocation force of 1200
for 30 days (I offered to provide the position
roster of the 1200) and develop general require
ments upon which they can place prepositioned
requisitions with the military for food and
clothing; office supplies and equipment to come
from existing stock levels (may
require slight increase in stock levels).
(2) Printing Services Division -- earmark their
supplies and equipment to go from presen
inventories at the PSD plant. (Recognizing the
do not have guidance they need on requirements
and our difficulty in defining requirements).
(3) Logistics will not be expected to develop detai.
and elaborate plans at this time.
E. I told Jack Blake that the DD/S had been briefed on
this approach during the time the February study wa.r
being prepared and we had obtained his concurrence n.
that time. We intend to again review this general
approach on relocation planning when we next brief
the DD/S in late October on the overall Emergency
Planning Program.
I
Deputy Chief
Support Services Staff
Approved For Release 2006/04/13 : CIA-RDP72-00039R000100190002-7
 Approved For Release 20004/13 : CIA-RDP72-00039ROOO-1-0-0190002-7
Approved For Release 2006/04/13 : CIA-RDP72-00039R000100190002-7