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.

158 1. Sight inspections, such as \icrc made in the period Oct. 23-27 are totolly inadequate. The conditi'^n of the film cannot bo dcterMinod vn'thout the use of a hand rev.'ind, 2. Wiiile one report referred to the construction of the vault as being of cinder blocic, it seems to have actually been of 3 inch thick concrete b1oc!<s. If there vrerc cracks or holes in the blocks, the inside and the outside vmIIs should have been plastered, 3. It is apparent that storage racks extended to the ceiling. There should have been an absolute minimum of 12 inches between the top of the storage and the sprinl;ler heads. The lov/ering of the sprinkler lines will further leave shelves unprotected. The storage of films in the aisle to a height of 3-k feet further renders tlic sprinkler system ineffective. k. The metal shelving does not meet requirements because it is not insulating in nature, './hcther the size of individual compartments meets the requirements of the Standard is unknown to me. 5. Tine use of asbestos board which requires 35 psi to vent is an extreme violation of venting requirements. So, the explosion vents could certainly not serve as decomposition vents. As a result, the decomposition products had no where to go, 6. Due to insufficient information concerning the sprinkler installation, no specific coments can be made. Obviously the removal of 2 heads is a fl arrant violation of safety requirements. 7. The procedure of leaving vault doors open in addition to the door to the examining room is most unsound particularly so since the doors v/erc not firo doors, v/ere not self-closing nor automatic closing and i-/ere not automatic latching. Personally I could accept the use if a single 3 liour fire door vn' th a lov/ heat transmission figure since I believe a sliding door is not acceptable for