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.

114 is concerned. Since that time, to upgrade the facility, we have put in a new water main to make it more reliable as far as the water source protection goes. We have extended stand pipe and hose systems in the Records Center, at the recommendation of the fire officials. Mr. Kindness. I thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Preyer. Tliank you. Is ;Mr. Shipp here ? Mr. Shipp. Yes, sir. Mr. Preyer. I believe you are the building manager at the Suitland field office. Mr. Shipp. That is right, sir. Mr. Preyer. Evidence has shown that the alaiTn that was supposed to sound in the guard's office when the sprinkler system went off in building A did not function i)roper]y. Could you tell us why that failed to operate ? INIr. Shipp. Yes, sir. There is a line from Federal building 3 to the film vault A — one line. The contractor had taken out the onlv line and was installing his system in that line. So, at the time of the fire, it did not work. Also, the power was off, so it did not work for that reason. Mr. Preyer. When it was originally installed, was it tested and approved ? ^f r. Shipp. Yes, sir, Mr. Preyer. And it was working satisfactorily ? Mr. Shipp. Yes. Mr. Preyer. When this contracting work was being done, it was disconnected ? Mr. Shipp. Part of the contract was to run a new system, but it did not work on the day of the fire. It is working now. Mr. Preyer. He was to install some sort of temporary system? My. Shipp. The other lines were out — he took the other lines out of the conduit and ran his lines through. It was hooked up incorrectly and did not function on the day of the fire. Mr. Preyer. So, when he ran in his lines, it was never tested by anyone as to whether it would work or not ? Mr. Shipp. No. The fire alarm people did not test that operation. Mr. Preyer. A^Hien was the last time that the sprinkler alarms were tested in buildings B and C ? INIr. Shipp. They are checked weekly. They were checked last week. Rut not that particular alarm. It was under contract. INIr. Preyer. Is INIr, Livingston here? Mr. Livingston. Yes, sir. INIr. Preyer. I miderstand you are the man who would be responsible for the air-conditioning side of things. Mr. Livingston. Yes. Mr. Preyer. Were you in charge of maintaining the airconditioning? ]\fr. Livingston. Yes, sir. INfr. Preyer. Tliere was some testimony, I believe, from a workman on an air-conditionincf contract in building A. He told the firemen that ho heard the air-conditioning unit cycling. That is, it was cutting on and off because it was low on Freon. ^Hl