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.

479 10 nitrate were expressed at several pre-construction meetings. This concern was not fully shared by the contractor and those who administered the contract. The committee being aware of this^nd the vagueness of safety precautions in the contract, stipulated in the recommendations that all contracts (specification) be submitted to the Accident and Fire Prevention Branch and NARS officials for review prior to any request for bids. Maintenance was being performed on a daily basis to the air-conditioning system by the field office. The sprinkler system, including the water alarm (sprinkler alarm) was not being maintained by the field office because the alarms were being installed under the sprinkler contract and remained under control of the contractor until contract completion. The system had not been tested or accepted by the Construction Management Division. The system would only be maintained by the field after acceptance by GSA. 20. Why didn't the committee determine who was responsible for the malfunctioning of the sprinkler alarm? Testing for contract compliance and acceptance had not been performed at this time. The system was still the responsibility of the installer. The malfunctioning of the sprinkler alarm would be the responsibility of the installer.