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)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

89 Dr. Rhoads. If the final word of the Public Buildings Service had been that that building was unsatisfactory for the kind of use we were to put it to, we would not have moved in. Mr. Ingram. You would not liave moved in ? Dr. RiioADS. Xo, sir. Mr. Ingram. You said in your testimony on Tuesday : As a result of this most recent fire, we are taking all steps possible to protect the remaining film until it can be converted. We are enforcing the rule that only one vault door may be opened at a time ; that all doors must be closed unless someone is working on the vault. We have required that a fire plan be coordinated with the local fire departments. Just to clarify, is there a fire plan now that is in place, that you referred to in the testimony on Tuesday ? Dr. Rhoads. Mr. Murphy ? INIr. Ingram. Dr. Rhoads, I am asking you because there appears to be conflict in the later answer received from Mr. Murphy, who said there Avere no provisions in the procedures about setting up a fire plan Avitli the Prince (reorges County Fire Department or with other fire departments. I just want to clarify that. Dr. Rhoads. We have had meetings with the Prince Georges County Fire Department subsequent to the fire. I believe Chief Estepp testified to that on Tuesday. They have been through there. They know what the lay of the land is; they know what kind of material the ^ are dealing with. Whether that meets your definition of a "fire plan," x i; not certain. Mr. Ingram. I was just curious whether NARS required this b regulation. I take it the answer is "No" — that there is no regulation which would require this at present. Dr. Rhoads. I do not think there is any fonnal regulation in existence at the moment that requires that, but it has been done. Mr. Ingram. As I understand it, you are presently talking abou putting in a lab at Suitland. Dr. Rhoads. Yes. Mr. Ingram. In your reply to Mr. Preyer, you said, with regard to the amount of residential area, "A lot of the residential areas that are now aromid the Suitland plant, I think we would all agree, are too close to our film vaults,'* but houses had not as yet been built at the time when the vault was placed there. I was curious about why you were putting a lab there, when you acknowledge — or at least you appear to acknowledge — ^that the vault is too close to the residential area for safety. Dr. Rhoads. The purpose of putting in the lab, of course, is to expedite the conversion of the film. Putting the lab there would not result in any net increase of flammable materials in the Suitland area, and it would be of assistance in our goal to reduce the amount of flammable materials there just as quickly as possible. Mr. Ingram. So, you recognize that it maght be a fire hazard, but it is the best you can do luider the circumstances, short of searching for alternative sites? Dr. Rhoads. I would say yes. Mr. Ingram. You said also that the film that had bum^ had been inspected no earlier than 30 days before the fire — "We thiiill it is un