National Archives and Records Service film-vault fire at Suitland, Md. : hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Ninety-sixth Congress, first session, June 19 and 21, 1979 (1979)

88 I mi^ht add that, after they changed their minds, and we got into the business of occupying the building, we did, in fact, install smoke detectors in the building, which give us an advance warning of any fire. Mr. IxGRAM. Let me just call to your attention a subsequent rex)ort from Mr. Howard — who I believe will be here a little later — and Mr. Hawkins, finding still serious deficiencies in the fire safety standards of that building. There is a gap in the record between this letter to Dr. Rhoads in Julv and December when, later, there was this apparent approval. Dr. Rhoads, I would like to know what went on between July 1975 and December 1975 when this was approved. I take it you sat back and heard nothing further from them. Or was there some communication between you and Mr. Sampson ? Dr. Rhoads. As best I can recall, the communications were between Mr. Landers' office and the people in the Public Buildings Service. I do not recall any specific personal involvement that I had in that. Does that accord with vour recollection ? Mr. LA>rDERS. Yes, I think that is correct. Mr. Ingram. You had no personal involvement, yet you did receive this correspondence from the Public Buildings Service upon whom you rely for fire safety advice, pointing out some very substantial fire safety hazards for that building. Your testimony — just to clarify — is that you left this up to Mr. Landers who took care of matters with GSA ? Dr. Rhoads. That is my testimony. I do not have the time or the expertise to take care of every piece of correspondence that is addressed to me. I rely on people who have the time, the function, and the responsibility, and greater expertise than I have in some of these technical matters. Mr. Ingram. The technical matter we are talking about is the moving into a fairly large building which, in terms of XARS' overall resources, is a fairly good chunk of allocation of resources. What is your present feeling about the safety standards of the Lansburgh's building following the 1976 and 1978 reports to you? Dr. Rhoads. Well, there is no question but that if we were to build a new building, we would require certain standards that are not met in the Lansburgh's building. We had a need for additional storage space ; the records that we are not able to accept for lack of space, by and large, are probably in space that is less caref ullv tended, and much of it comes further from meeting fire safety regulations than the Lansburgh's building. It is not ideal ; we have viewed it as a temporary facility; we will be glad when we are to the point where we can move out of Lansburgh's and move into a building that does meet all our criteria; but we think, in terms of the safety of the records and so on, that has not been diminished when compared with the scattered facilities of the Government that records would have been housed in otherwise. Mr. Ingram. The point, again, seems to be that you have to rely on the Public Buildings Service for this advice. They have provided the advice. Perhaps, again, this raises some questions about the advice you have been getting. Or, as I said, it seems to raise some substantial questions as to now, again, you ended up in the building.