NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE FILM- VAULT FIRE AT SUITLAND, MD.
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
GOYERNMENT OPERATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION-
JUNE 19 AND 21, 1979
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
i
From the collection of the
^ n
o PreTnger
I . a
ibrary p
£
San Francisco, California 2008
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
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 61-332 0 WASHINGTON : 1979
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS JACK BROOKS, Texas, Chairman
FRANK HORTON, New York JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois JOHN W. WYDLER, New York CLARENCE J. BROWN, Ohio PAUL M. McCLOSKEY, JR., California THOMAS N. KINDNESS, Ohio ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania ARLAN STANGELAND, Minnesota M. CALDWELL BUTLER, Virginia LYLE WILLIAMS, Ohio JIM JEFFRIES, Kansas OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine WAYNE GRISHAM, California JOEL DECKARD, Indiana
L. H. FOUNTAIN, North Carolina
DANTE B. FASCELL, Florida
WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD, Pennsylvania
BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, New York
FERNAND J. ST GERMAIN, Rhode Island
DON FUQUA, Florida
JOHN CONYERS, Jb., Michigan
CARDISS COLLINS, lUinols
JOHN L. BURTON, California
RICHARDSON PRBYER, North CaroUna
ROBERT F. DRINAN, Massachusetts
GLENN ENGLISH, Oklahoma
ELLIOTT H. LEVITAS, Georgia
DAVID W. EVANS, Indiana
TOBY MOFFETT, Connecticut
ANDREW MAGUIRB, New Jersey
LES ASPIN, Wisconsin
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FLOYD J. FITHIAN, Indiana
PETER H. KOSTMAYER, Pennsylvania
TED WEISS, New York
MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma
ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
EUGENE V. ATKINSON, Pennsylvania
William M. Jones, General Counsel
John E. Mooeb, Staff Adminiatrator
Elmer W. Hkndersox, Senior Counsel
John M. Duncan, Minority Staff Director
Government Information and Individual Rights Subcommittee RICHARDSON PREYER, North Carolina, Chairman
ROBERT F. DRINAN, Massachusetts GLENN ENGLISH, Oklahoma DAVID W. EVANS, Indiana PETER H. KOSTMAYER, Pennsylvania TED WEISS, New York
THOMAS N. KINDNESS, Ohio
M. CALDWELL BUTLER, Virginia
JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois
JACK BROOKS, Texas
Ex Officio
FRANK HORTON, New York
Timothy H. Ingram, Staff Director
Edward J. Gleiman, Counsel
Timothy R. Hdtchens, Processional Staff Member
Thomas G. Morr, Minority Professional Staff
(II)
CONTENTS
Hearings held on — Page
June 19 1
June 21 71
Statement of —
Curran, Donald, Associate Librarian of Congress, Washington, D.C. ; accompanied by Eric Barnow Chief, Motion Picture Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division ; Paul Spehr, Assistant Chief, Motion Picture Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division; and Stephen E. Bush, Safety Officer 176
Degenkolb, John G., fire safety engineer, Los Angeles, Calif 145
Estepp, M. H., chief. Prince Georges County Fire Department ; accom- panied by D. Brooks Cross, consulting engineer ; David M. Ban- warth, fire protection engineer; and David Malberg, investigator 17
Gish, Lillian, actress and lecturer 40
Keilman, Dennis, Acting Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration; accompanied by Jack Galuardi, Assistant Commissioner for Buildings Management ; O. R. Maisch, Director, Accident and Fire Prevention Division ; Ronald Mariotti, Construction Management Division ; William H. Hart. Accident and Fire Prevention Branch ; Thomas E. Goonan, Fire Safety Engineer ; James Hawkins, Accident and Fire Prevention Branch ; Moy Yip, Construction Engineer; Wallace Shipp, Building Manager, Suit- land ; and Denver Livingston, Operating Engineer 103
Luczak, Daniel W., senior investigative engineer, Cadcom Division, ManTech of New Jersey Corp., Annapolis, Md 161
Ottinger, Hon. Richard L., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York 2
Rhoads, Dr. James B., Archivist of the United States ; accompanied by John J. Landers, Executive Director, National Archives and Records Service ; James W. Moore, Director, Audiovisual Archives Division, Office of the National Archives ; William Murphy, Chief, Motion Picture and Sound Recording Branch, Audiovisual Archives Division, Office of the National Archives, National Archives and Records Service ; and Melvin C. Hudson, Safety Project Develop- ment Engineer, Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, Md 45, 72
Stevens, George, Jr., director, the American Film Institute 32
Vanden Bossche, William G., director of insurance. Universal Studios,
New York, N.Y. ; accompanied by Gayle Title, counsel 167
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by —
Bernard, Marvin A., president and chief executive officer, Filmlife : Prepared statement 4^14
Curran, Donald, Associate Librarian of Congress, Washington, D.C. : Prepared statement 180-186
Degenkolb, John G., fire safety engineer, Los Angeles, Calif. : Pre- pared statement 153-160
Galuardi, Jack, Assistant Commissioner for Buildings Management. Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration : Com- parative cost of modifying the sprinkler system in building A 120
Hawkins, James, Accident and Fire Prevention Branch, Public Build- ings Service, General Services Administration : Prelease inspection report of the Lansburgh's Building, Washington, D.C 121-132
Keilman, Dennis, Acting Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration : Cost of bringing the vaults into compliance with the two ad hoc
investigating committees' recommendations 134
Prepared statement 135-144
(HI)
IV
Letters, statements, etc., — Ck)ntinued Page
McHugh, William, employee representative, Ad Hoc Committee To Investigate the Suitland Fire, National Archives: July 9, 1979, letter to Chairman Preyer concerning the possibility of spontaneous
combustion 101-102
Preyer, Hon. Richardson, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina, and chairman. Government Information and Individual Rights Subcommittee: June 19, 1979, letter from Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, concerning survey of the nitrate film facili- ties of the National Archives 69-70
Rhoads, Dr. James B., Arcliivist of the United States :
Criteria concerning Universal film 79^2
Material concerning action taken on the report of industrial
hygiene survey of NARS activities 92-97
Safety procedures for Suitland nitrate vaults and for handling
film 58-66
Shipp, Wallace, Building Manager, Suitland, Public Buildings Service, General Service Administration : Information concerning automatic
sprinkler protection 118
Stevens, George, Jr., director, the American Film Institute 34-38
Vanden Bossche, William G., director of insurance. Universal Studios, New York, N.Y. : Submissions to additional subcommittee questions 172-175
APPENDIXES
Appendix 1. — Report of the Ad Hoc Committee To Investigate the Fire, December 7, 1978, Suitland, Md 195
Appendix 2. — Occupational Safety and Health Administration review of Archives film laboratory and vaults 312
Appendix 3. — Letter from Ted S. Ferry, chairman. Safety Department, University of Southern California 382
Appendix 4. — Deed of gift to Government of Universal Pictures newsreel collection 389
Appendix 5. — Memorandums relating to sprinkler system installation at film vaults 397
Appendix 6. — Memorandum relating to air-conditioner work 403
Appendix 7. — National Fire Protection Association standards for nitrate film vaults [excerpt from 1974 edition of National Fire Protection Asso- ciation Pamphlet No. 40 entitled, "Standard for the Storage and Han- dling of Cellulose Nitrate Motion Picture Film"] -^05
Api)endix 8. — American Film Institute-sponsored study of preservation of
newsreels 409
Appendix 9. — Responses to subcommittee questions by National Archives and Records Service 438
Appendix 10. — Responses to subcommittee questions by GSA Public Build- ings Service 469
Appendix 11. — Responses to subcommittee questions by Library of Con- gress 488
Appendix 12. — Photographs of damaged film vaults 491
Appendix 13. — Charts used in testimony by Fire Chief Estepp 494
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE FILM-VAULT FIRE AT SUITLAND, MD.
TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1979
House of Representatives,
Government Information AND Individual Rights Subcommittee OF THE Committee ox Gox'ernment Operations,
Washington^ D.O.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Richardson Preyer (chair- man of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representaitives Richardson Preyer, Robert F. Drinan, David W. Evans, Thomas N. Kindness, and M. Caldwell Butler.
Also present: Timothy H. Ingram, staff director; Timothy R. Hutchens, professional staff member; Maura J. Flaherty, clerk; and Thomas Morr, minority professional staff, Committee on Government Operations.
Mr. Preyer. The subcommittee will come to order.
We begin the first of 2 days of hearings today to discuss the fire in the Xational Archives' film-vault building in Suitland, Md., on Decem- ber 7th of last year.
On that day, fire destroyed about 12.5 million feet of film, most of it old newsreel outtakes — the footage that ended up on the cutting room floor rather than on the screens of movie theaters.
The destroyed film was nearly half of a collection of newsreel foot- age that Universal Studios had donated to the ArcJiives in 1970. Fol- lowing the 1970 gift, the Archives also accepted a similar collection of INIarch of Time newsreels which fill an identical vault building in Suitland.
In this other building, a fire broke out during August of 1977, but was contained to just one of 27 vaults. In December's fire, the film in 21 vaults was destroyed.
The cause of last winter's fire may never be known. As we will hear this morning, the fire department believes the film ignited spontane- ously because the vaults were too warm.
However, an investigating subcommittee from the General Services Administration speculates that the cause may have been associated with workmen using a power drill in a vault. '
But whether or not we ever find out the exaxit cause of the fire, we hope to explore the reasons that the vault building did not contain the December fire, and generally, the ability of the Archives to store all of the film it acquires.
Mr. Kindness, do you have some comments before we proceed?
Mr. Kindness. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(1)
I look forward to today's hearing concerning the 1978 fire at build- ing A in Suitland. It does appear from the material that we have had available for review that a number of ovei-sights or en-ors and mistakes in judgment have resulted in the tragic loss of millions of feet of nitrate film.
I believe it is important for us to carefully examine the problems that led to the two fires, with emphasis on seeking information that can be used to prevent future occurrences of this sort.
It is far more important that we help establish procedures and safe- guards to prevent future fires than to attempt to place blame for those that have already occun*ed.
I hope we can promote improved GSA cooperation with local fire departments around the country as well.
Likewise, we should be assured that NARS is doing the best they can to protect and store and copy the nitrate film that it has available.
I am sure that today's hearing will be enlightening. I want to apologize for being tardy this morning, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Drinan is also not available because he was in the same place I was, working on the criminal code.
I look forward to hearing the testimony today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Preyer. Thank you, Mr. Kindness.
We are glad to have Congressman Ottinger here this morning. It was Congressman Ottinger's original request that involved GAO in this situation and initiated the GAO report.
[Subcommittee note : See GAO report LCD-78-113, June 19, 1978, "Valuable Government-Owned Motion Picture Films are Rapidly Deteriorating."]
Mr. Preyer. So, we will be interested in having his comments on that report and the comments generally on the Government's problems with film storage.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD L. OTTINGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Ottinger. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify on this subject. I wish to begin by thanking you at the outset of your investigation into the fire at the Suitland Archives.
As you know, I have been concerned with the general issue of nitrate film storage for some time. I look to these hearings as a new start in a nationwide effort to preserve forever that part of our country's past which is recorded on film.
I have with me Mr. Marvin Bernard, president of Filmlife, Inc. His distinctions in life are first being a constituent of mine and second, being an expert, in the preservation and restoration of old films. Such knowledge as I have of this subject, I have learned from him.
If you have questions alx)ut what it takes to fix up old films and what the extent of the dangers are and what the costs of repair are, he is available to answer those questions.
He has a prepared statement which we would like to submit for the record. Mr. ]
) this point. [Mr. Bernard's prepared statement follows:]
Mr. Preyer. Without objection, that will be inserted in the record at this point.
mm
DIVISION OF AMERICAN FILM REPAIR INSTITUTE
141 MOONACHIE ROAD MOONACMIE. NEW JERSEY 07074
(?01) 440 8500
ABRASIONS
SCRATCHED SOUND TRACK
OIL STAINS
CMRT
SHRINKAGE
"RAIMy
CURLS
LOST BRILUANCE
TEARS
WRITTEN STATEMENT AS REQUESTED BY:
House of Representatives
Government Information And Individual Rights
Subcommittee
Of The
Committee on Government Operations
IN THEIR LETTER OF: MAY 31, 1979
RE: THE FILM VAULT-FIRE IN Building A Sultland Federal Center
TO BE GIVEN ON: June 19, 1979
Submitted by:
Marvin A. Bernard
President and Chief Exec. Officer
Hy name Is Marvin A. Bernard, and I am the second generation and now President and Chief Executive Officer of FILMLIFE. For 28 years I have been in the business of restoring, protecting and preserving damaged motion picture film for Hollywood, television and Industry. Periodically, I have done work for the Federal Government - most recently saving from total loss the archival film collection of the U. S. Marine Corps due to a fungus growth on thousands of rolls of film. I have detailed documented evidence In the attached file showing my frustrations over the years in trying to prevent such disasters as the one you are investigating here. Not only in this instance, but there have been many other losses over the years of one of a kind films - never to be seen again - a piece of history lost forever.
I am delighted that this worthy body has convened to focus attention on a tragic, historical film loss for hopefully you will prevent another film explosion which is very likely to occur.
Based upon my experience I would like to make five (5) salient points to thJ.s committee at this time. I believe
they will help this committee to focus In on the essential problems.
1. In my opinion, due to the way films are being stored, and because there are still many millions of feet of nitrate film in storage around the country, another nitrate film explosion is virtually assured .
2. All film collections, be it nitrate or safety, should be under a film inspection and annual film maintenance program, both In-house and provided by outside services, which can offer additional preservation. To my know- ledge to this date while this concept exists extensively In industry and the private sector, it is no where to
be found amongst federal film collections.
3. It is my belief that all government film collections are still lacking reel to reel inspection by its personnel. Instead, these people are maintaining paper records and files and forgetting about the physical film Itself.
A. As you get more and more into these film problems, you should separate the film collections Into the following
three (3) catagorles:
(a) Historical one of a kind films which must be kept for posterity.
(b) Training and current circulating films which have a short life span because of subject matter.
(c) Nitrate film, which must be immediately restored and transferred to safety film If you intend to keep the subject matter recorded on it.
Make no mistakes. "C" is the most important problem requiring immediate attention. While no film lasts forever and Is subject to chem- ical breakdown resulting in deterioration, the nitrate film is a live hand grenade and totally unstable .
5. What are the components of a film maintenance program? While I have documented this in detail for the purposes of this last recommendation, I will simply state that all films must be physically examined annually foot by foot on a routine schedule, and must be wet cleaned with appropriate records being kept.
(701)440 8500
miMLIFE
DIVISION OF AMERICAN FILM REPAIR INSTITUTE
141 MOONACHIE ROAD MOONACHIC. NEW JERSEY 07074
SCRATCHES BRiraENESS
AaiusiONS
SCRATCHED SOUND TRACK
OIL STAINS
DIRT
SHRINKAGE
-HAMf
CURLS
LOSTWiLUANCE EXCLUSIVE SPECIFICATIONS
SwSf^T^^ocKETs FOR MOTION PICTURE FILM
REJUI/ENATION, PROJECTION AMP PRESERC/ATION
;. Eack illm li ZKa.mine.d by kand to dzttimlne. the. zxte.nt oi damag^i to both the. emuli-Lon and bait.
2. The damagei wh-lch we aKe tnipect-Lng ion. ale ai ioltou)6:
Sciatzhes [Black]
Sc.A.atched Sound Tfiaek
"Rainy" Appean.ance
Cut-Thiough ScA.atchei [Coloied]
Abiai^oni
Toin Spn.ocket Holei
SpAOdket Tooth Punctaiei
BiZttleneii
Lamp Buini
Team, Cleaned on Bioken pA.tm
Weakened Sptlaei
Vlit
Loit BKltllanee^
ShXA-nkage
Cant
Oil Stalni
Emulijion VeteKlo nation
3. depending upon the type oi damage uie ilnd, each illm li piocei&ed ion. It6 pantlculan. damage problem.
4. All ipllcei an.e checked and bad onei nemade.
5. All tean.6 on bneaki ane ipllced, pnoiealonally "V'd" oat on. taped.
b. Exclusive FLOOP-CLEAf) cheml6tn.y li applied to the entlne iuniace oi youn illm as It li bathed In iolutlon uilXk cuitom designed needle hlgh-ipeed bnuihei nemovlng all Imbedded and ianiace dint.
FUMLIFE SPECIFICATIOWS iCONTlNUEV)
7. All 6ciatchei , {black llmi] , a/ce removed ifiom both thf. znmliion and baie.. UiZng both F/iencfi and Ge.'iman chtmlcal/mzchanicol tzdhnology the. amal&lon l& 6u)zlle.d up and mzlte.d down izvz^al t'ime.6 vihA.le. tht ba6& -Li Impizgnatzd with liquid plaitlc undzK ipeclilc tzmptiatulz hzat and humidity contioli. {IDz do not be- lle.vz In thz uie. oi any coatlngi 01 lacquzi tizatment £01 thli le-itoKatlon a.i It aiie-cti vliual claKlty and dailnltlon.)
S. Kitdt youA. illm6 havz be.in n.zjave.nated, e.xcluilve. FILMGARP labilcatlon, out new illm pKote.ctlon ioimala, li applltd.
9. A ilnal ha.nd Impaction oi youK lllm IniuKzi that all damage.i have bzzn izpalizd io that upon iztuKn to you, the.y ale. ttady ion. yoan. icieenlng pleaiuKZ.
NOTE: Theie l6 ne\)e>i a ahaKgz don. a illm we cannot n.(Uton.e. to active clnculatlon even though we have taken time to examine It and make thli detenmlnatlon.
10
f* i^^ ^^t^y^^KjSc40O^CtO^'^
Guide to film damage and pretention
FILMLIFE BUILDING
, N.X 07074 U01)44fr«S00
Causes
Cure
ThrvMl projvctor nuklnt mir« wrocktt t««th
th«|r tftafts and »ro»«r fMm looM v« mslnutnaO. Tum »tM fn*nual conuoi aMwai tlm« to that ttM pulHlowrt cUw to catchint ti>a pvrforatlont vnd f»m to mcnrtnt ■mootnty. K*«p »rf>t*ctor and film cM»n uilnt ff » *ni»actloii tlo<>»» wfiH* •xamlnm^ in«i*ct nmw «r>d t for bum on odf l, Protector prouur* »«>t« and ap«nurt vHh an oranfa «vood ftlcfc (awoM uiln« maUNk kwtrumontf).
LMaoMMm
r «MGor anpnmam
OM or lUteinim f Hm oainant H iMyfflclMl «rvln« lima M wUoar H Tf wwrffatlona
of fNnx Thraad yeuf claanod and hibrtcatod pro^Mtor to that ipfoctiM antaiad and film la tocicad In aacuv*ly and raalf m% I thatr ihaftfc. Turn tha manual control aavdral ttonat le M carUIn film to anM»^d and loco* ara cofWtanL Pvo«orty wowfM fUm to tifhl and smooth on both sMa« of tha raaL fHm ■or*d m a controllod a«- HiOiphTC CxtromM of tam^aratura or humWHy dama^aa fMm and tfwrtana lU WfiL
Cn«ata »rocicat taath In porioratlofts and ba lura pro^ar fbA> loop to malntalnod. Turn tha manual control i tha flm to movln« froaty. AM parforatlooa on tha fNm iHoyW bo In pood tfiaoa and both roato wlrMflnt itralfht and unK formty. Soma film nockt raouira ramo>Ml
FaUura to ramo^ a«nuHk>n eomp«at*ty to tha torpiit ^mm c*uM of »ilc« fabura. FUm camant that to and parmntod to thkfcan to uiiliii for
11
Causes
Cure
1. dry film
I of film loop
Too much t«n«lon on Ml* or Uko>up
Hlffi tomp«raturw or low humMKv cauaa dry fHm, whlOt In turn CBUSM bfWlfn— > «rvd w«r»ki«. £tor« film In • eontroMo^ •tnMMphar^ Ctwck y«ur proctor porlcOcilly for ouV«f>HiM nirli Ipfoffc^l Moth mint bo •tt^mfta vmI pfpar film I
Incorroct UicOHip roM tin & Spliu«« of 1»m, and itopplnf c & Unovon rowind I of f Hn
Badwiica
Torn parforatlonf
SArlnkaffa
impropar thraadlof
l_ou of film loop
Dirty prolactor
1. Too mucft htiinMlty
ANovf fllrtn^wj^r^ wind* or
df-<K(«tinC^y In • controlMd atmoa*
' ii^ra and humidity that to apoy
abova 60% raiatlwa humidity wOl
Color dyas ara afiadad by tamparatura
iM FlinvOard. tor aM now film protactlon.
Ciaan ttta profactor and apartura ptataa thoroufhiy . . , din partlciat tand to bulM up thara. Both raali ihouM ba fraa of wot>t>ia% bands or bunx A bant or wobMy raal can cauaa oiu and ilnat on aach ravolutlon of tha film. Handia fUm only with claan Impaction tlo«*fc
Turn off lamp bafora Mopplnf projactor, Fira ahuttar tfiouM ba In Ht propar posNIoa Film and proiactor mus and lubrlcatad aiff Iclantly to Maura all parts runninf at max»> imoothnaia and afflclancy. ExoauKa liArlcatlon It datrlmanui to both fMm and pro>actar.
Tha taka-up raal tfiouM ba at laast tha lama capacity a« tfia faad raal to that film will not ovarflow. vllling on to tha floor, Lock raau to thair tfiafu to ihay don't "m»ti*-ot1,** watch to aaa that film wind* avaniy and imoothiy without protruding rld9*s on Uk»4ip raaL Maintain constant flm 'k>op« ... a wddan >ark can tlfhtan tha film and cauaa braak.
Alt wlkas ihouM ba aaalad tiffht wtth no torn parforatlons protrudlnfl anywttara. Propar humidity a«td tamparatura controlt m ftoraffa araat wM kaap moKtura In tha fMm and pra««nt damap^ Ctaan proiactor to Imura Ks imooth par^ formaitc^ wtian thraadlni^ anta9« tha iprockat taath In parforallofts and ntamtaln propar film loop& Tact wtth maiiy al controls
watar and film do not mix. Idaal storafa laJna aMiadcanat SOOF. and 50% raUtlva humidity. Cxtrama* abo«a TSor. and ratatKa humidHy that falls balow )S% and riaaa afeoaa M% will tarlouaty damapa flinw
Q %%74 nUiUFE, IPiC.
12
Historically, both the government and private sector have always been Interested In pre-production and pre-storlng the film for distribution. It seems that once a film Is developed and put Into the can, It Is a generally accepted fact that It will be there forever and all we have to do Is use It. Some 35 years ago Hollywood and television people learned the raw truth about film and its aging processes. Since then, several of them are well Into rejuvenation, protection and preservation of their classical and cherished films. FILMLIFE has been happy to be a major contributor to the continued long life running films of these companies. Through our efforts such films as, "Gone With The Wind," "Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs," "Bambi," etc. etc. have been seen for generations using the same print. No copies were made and no films were lost with very few exceptions.
The enclosed documentation shows a serious effort on my part to introduce this concep't of film maintenance and preservation both in house and out to the government. The greatest opposition has come from the lack of know- ledge by the personnel who are running and in control of these film collections. The second problem arises when they have learned and would now like to Implement a program and find they do not have money, time or staff to take it on.
13
Earlier I said there Is a great Interest and knowledge In the pre-production operations of film. For more documentation on this phase, I suggest you contact the CBS program 60 Minutes because within the past year they did a program entitled, "Filming On The Potomac." They have also been numerous stories about the annual government expenditures in audio-visuals which estimates reach some 500 million dollars. One of the trade publications In the Industry called BUSINESS SCREEN delved Into this in detail I believe some time in 1977.
I wish I had a crystal ball so that 1 could see how this committee Investigation Is going to reach out, harness this monumental task of examining all film collections physically to determine their condition, and then to establish a film maintenance program for their on going protection and preservation before we have another gigantic film loss. That, gentlemen, is the most important decision that can come out of these hearings and, in the case of the film In the "C" catagory mentioned earlier, time Is of the essence.
I wish to take a moment at this time to thank two or three of your worthy colleagues who had the forsight and interest to see the seriousness of this problem the moment it was
51-332 0-79-2
14
brought to their attention, in particular, your Congressman Richard Ottlnger, who succeeded In preparing a report to the Congress of the United States in June of 1978 covering the deterioration of government film collections.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to define the problem which you are facing, not only with National Archives, but with all your film collections.
[Subcommittee note: remainder of submission available in subcommittee files.]
15
Mr. Ottinger. His knowledg:e of the subject and his expert aware- ness of the hazards of nitrate film enable him to depict with what I am afraid is frightening detail the vast number of threatened film in our Archives.
I would like to say that I think this is a case of the Grovernment being pennywise and pound-foolish. For a relatively small amount of money, we could by now have preserved our film and eliminated a very serious safety hazard.
For failure to do that, we presently have a considerable hazard on our hands. We have a good deal of our history in jeopardy.
A new start is needed because the story of our film preservation en- deavors is the sad tale of a project well begun and then forgotten.
One year ago today, on June 19, 1978, the General Accounting Office released a report whose title was a warning that "Valuable Govern- ment-Owned Motion Picture Films Are Rapidlv Deteriorating."
The report could not have been more explicit. It presented over- whelming proof that the many nitrate film storage vaults scattered across this country do not preserve film, but instead, turn thousands of reels of film into bombs. The GAO report even contained photo- graphs of a nitrate film explosion and its devastating results.
Even when, through luck, no explosions occur, the nitrate film is deteriorating, inexorably and inevitably. And when it does, we are robbed of the record of our past.
The GAO report left no doubt of this dual danger : nitrate film dis- integrates and, in doing so, creates the hazard of a powerful, spontane- ous explosion.
Six months after the release of the GAO report, an explosion and fire destroyed the film vaults in building A at the National Archives facility in Suitland, Md. The danger, of which the GAO report had warned, had become a reality.
Worse still, the danger has not passed, has not been dealt with, and the threat of spontaneous combustion exists now in archives across this country.
This, incidentally, is true, both with respect to Government facili- ties, and with respect to manv of the film studio archives that we probably ought to be interested in, as well.
My concern is tliat we have not addressed these problems— have not taken the dramatic, determined steps necessary to prevent the danger- ous deterioration of nitrate film.
The fact is that the efforts to transfer the nitrate film to safety film have been, in large part, paltry.
The Suitland fire was a hint, an intimation, of the losses we will suffer unless we act.
This deplorable situation was brought to my attention by Marvin Bernard. As I indicated previously, he is an expert in the preserva- tion and restoration of old films. Mr. Bernard has come to Washington today to submit for the record a statement of the continuing and grow- ing danger posed by the storage of nitrate films.
I wish to draw your closest attention to Mr. Bernard's submission to the record. His knowledge of this subject and his expert awareness of the hazards of nitrate film enable him to depict with frightening detail the vast number of threatened films and archives.
16
Mr. Bernard and I are both deeply disturbed by the fact that the recommendations and conclusions contained in last year's GAO re- port seem to have been forgotten. Yet, had these recommendations been aggressively pursued, it might not have become necessary for this panel to convene in search of the cause of a devastating fire.
I hope that in the course of these hearings you will bear in mind that the fire at Suitland was only a suggestion of a far larger catastrophe. When you find the cause of the explosion and fire there, you will have found the cause of explosions and fires that may yet occur at other archives throughout the country.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to the knowledge gained from these hearings to help prevent any recurrence of the calamity at Suitland, any smiilar disaster at any archive, and to help preserve our past as it is recorded on film.
Thank you.
Mr. Preyer. Thank you very much. We appreciate your early in- terest in this. As you say, it is tragic that the GAO's warnings were not heeded in time to prevent the fire.
I think our staff people would like to talk with you, Mr. Bernard, further, perhaps during lunch today. We then may have some more questions relating to your expertise.
Are there any comments?
If there are no questions, then we want to thank Mr. Ottinger and Mr. Bernard for their presence.
I understand that we now have some samples of the type of newsreel film that was destroyed in last December's fire. These examples escaped the blaze because they had already been converted from nitrate-base film to safety-base film and were stored in different vaults.
If our Cecil B. DeMille on the staff will turn out the lights, we will have the film.
[Movie shown and slides shown.]
Mr. Preyer. Thank you very much.
Those were very interesting and nostalgic. We end the fun now and have to get to work.
Our next witness is Fire Chief Jim Estepp of the Prince Georges County Fire Department.
We appreciate your being with us today, Chief Estepp.
For investigative purposes. Chief, it is the committee's custom to swear in its fact-finding witnesses. If all of you will please stand, I will administer the oath.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
rChorus of I do's.]
Mr. Preyer. Chief, your men performed heroically during this fire. I understand that 14 of them were hospitalized for burns or ex- posure to this highly toxic smoke which was given off by the burning nitrate film.
When the first firemen arrived, I understand they entered the build- ing at risk to their own lives to look for people whom they thought might have been trapped there.
In their search, they apparently opened vault doors and thus de- feated the building's purpose of keeping a fire compartmentalized.
17
although I do not think anyone would want to fault you for looking for people who might have been trapped.
Later, the blowout panels were knocked out and some vault windows also. This may have helped spread the fire.
I am happy to learn that steps are being taken to solve the com- munication problems between the fire department and the fire safety people within the Public Buildings Service of GSA.
The GSA investigating committee recommended that the fire de- partment and the GSA sit down and plan strategy on how to fight fires in the vault building.
I know you have some strong \dews that are at odds with the GSA fire report.
Let me ask you now to proceed with your report in any way you see fit.
STATEMENT OF M. H. ESTEPP, CHIEF, PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT; ACCOMPANIED BY D. BROOKS CROSS, CON- SULTING ENGINEER; DAVID M. BANWARTH, FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER; AND DAVID MALBERG, INVESTIGATOR
Mr. EsTEPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to present perhaps an overview of my testimony detailing some of the points of disagreement with the GSA ad hoc report and some of the other information that they have compiled.
I would like to introduce Lt. David Malberg, an investigator with our department; Mr. Brooks Cross, who is a professional engineer and a consultant to the fire department; and Mr. David Banwarth, a registered fire protection engineer.
We have some of our other people here today as well.
My name is Jim Estepp, fire chief of Prince Georges County, Md. In that capacity, I am responsible for firefighting and rescue opera- tions for all areas w^ithin the boundaries of the county, except the confines of Andrews Air Force Base, with which we have a mutual aid firefighting agreement similar to those in effect with surrounding political jurisdictions.
In all other Federal buildings in the county, the Prince Georges County Fire Department provides fire protection under the same operational guidelines that cover any occupancy in the county. The only exception to this is the area of buildings both occupied and owned by the Federal or State governments. In these buildings, we have the responsibility to provide fire protection, but do not have code en- forcement authority or inspectional powers.
We have been provided a copy of the ad hoc committee report on the circumstances surrounding the fire at building A of the Suitland Federal Center, which occun-ed on December 7, 1978, and welcome this opportunity to comment on that report.
As an advance summary to my comments, let me say that there are areas of the report with which we concur, but there are several points and theories with which we disagree, and we take exception to sev- eral statements, and to the general tone of the entire report.
For the sake of continuity, my remarks will follow the same gen- eral order as the report itself.
18
In part II, which provides an abstract of the general scenario of the fire, the report indicates that the fire broke out around 12 noon, and that the fire department units arrived about 15 minutes later. Such slow response is an affront to the desire and tradition of the fire service to respond to emergency calls as quickly as we can.
Actually, the total elapsed time from our first receipt of a tele- phone alarm — 12:06 — until the fire location was announced to sta- tions— 12 :08 — was about 1.5 minutes; the first unit reported on the air and responding immediately, and the first unit arrived on the scene about 3 minutes later — 12 :11 — followed within seconds by four other pumpers and a command officer.
Our total response time, from receipt of a telephone call to units on the scene, was between 4 and 5 minutes.
Incidentally, during the first 2 minutes of this sequence, we re- ceived four telephone reports of the fire ; three from businesses across Suitland Road from the film bunker, and one from the county police. We did not record a call from the Federal Center during that period. Our first reaction to this is that something must be inadequate in the fire reporting procedures of the Center if an alarm is delayed this much. I understand that the GSA's fire reporting procedures call for the person discovering a fire to first report it to the Center's guard force.
I question the wisdom and purpose of this regulation. To the best of my knowledge, the guards are not equipped or trained to fight a fire, and this reporting procedure can only serve to delay fire depart- ment response to an emergency.
Part IV of the report, which deals with background information, contains two areas of contradiction, one with other parts of the report itself, and one with information gathered by our department.
First, the report describes the results of tests conducted in the 1940's that indicate a deluge sprinkler system to be more than five times as effective as a conventional wet pipe system at controlling a nitrate film fire — 7 percent burnout versus 37 percent in the same timeframe — yet the report in part VII says that both a deluge and a wet pipe sys- tem will control a fire.
Granted, a wet pipe system is better than no system, we would be foolish to equate the quality of such a system to a deluge system.
Let me briefly describe the differences in the two types of sprin- kler systems T have just mentioned. In a wet pipe system, water under pressure is contained in the system's pipes. Each outlet is sealed with a fusible link, which melts at a predetermined temperature and re- leases water through the sprinkler head.
This type of system is excellent for most conventional installations, but since each head must be heated in order to allow water to flow, there is a significant time delay in situations where there is the likeli- hood of a rapid heat buildup, such as is the case in fire involving cel- lulose nitrate film.
For this type installation, a deluge system is recommended. In this type system, all the heads in a given area are open, and the water is held back from these heads by a single valve.
The central valve is activated by a smoke detector, or as in the case of the film vaults, by a heat sensitive link. When activated, the valve opens to permit water to flow to all heads at the same time, thus flood- ing the area with water.
19
Second, part IV of the report indicates that the PBS engineers re- ported the building's air-conditioning system was operating the day of the fire. Our fire investigators interviewed workers in the building that day and received information that the air-conditioning compres- sor was cycling repeatedly on and off, and that both supply and return Freon lines were hot to the touch, indicative of low Freon.
There had apparently been a leak in the cooling system for about 2 months, which was being treated with regular doses of Freon.
The building supervisor had reported the possibility that the sys- tem needed Freon 6 days before the fire, and the system was checked the morning of the fire. Our efforts to interview the worker who checked the unit were futile, so we were unable to determine what work, if any, was done.
The unit did continue to cycle on and off through the morning. Also, the contractors working in the building reported that the area in which they were working was warm enough that they removed their jackets while working inside and put them back on to go outside to perform duties.
We have received information from Mr. Al Daily, the refrigeration man for the Kocharian Co., the contractor working in the building that day, which was later substantiated by Mr. Cross, our independent heating and air-conditioning consultant, of the characteristics of the type air-conditioning unit in service at the Suit land Federal Center.
Conditions of low Freon and low ambient temperature, such as ex- isted on the day of the fire, lead to erratic operation of the unit. Wlien this occure, heated Freon gas, in excess of 100°, bypasses the system's condensing unit and is pumped directly into the vault fan units.
In effect, the system thus becomes a heating unit, and it is quite rea- sonable to assume temperatures of over 90° in closed vaults.
Storage of cellulose nitrate film is recommended by Eastman Kodak Co. to be in areas of 50° F., or below with a relative humidity of 40 to 50 percent.
According to the U.S. Weather Bureau, the relative humidity on the morning of the fire ranged from 66 percent to 79 percent. In the days immediately preceding the fire, it was almost constantly above 50 per- cent and ranged up to 97 percent.
Thus, the film was stored in conditions that exceeded recommenda- tions in both temperature and humidity.
Archivists believe the humidity may be more important than tem- perature as it relates to accelerated decomposition of the film.
Above these limits of temperature and humidity, the film begins to decompose. The decomposition process is a chemical reaction that produces its own heat, produces its own oxygen, produces its own flam- mable vapors, and feeds upon itself, leading to even faster and faster decomposition. If unchecked, this chemical reaction eventually leads to spontaneous ignition of the film.
I feel it would be appropriate to briefly examine building A in light of existing fire protection standards and in particular, the National Fire Protection Association Standard No. 40.
In the report, several references are made to NFPA pamphlet No. 40. This pamphlet is written by the National Fire Protection Association, and is solely devoted to recommendations and model fire codes regard- ing the storage and handling of nitrate film.
20
Although the most recent revision of the standard is dated 1974, and is not specifically promulgated as being retroactive, I feel it would be beneficial to examine Building A in light of NFPA 40, to see just what sort of building we were dealing with.
One of the primary items in NFPA 40 is the installation of approved fire doors at the entrances to every film vault, and at key separations within the building. To qualify as an approved fire door, an assembly must meet certain design criteria, including self -closures and positive latches.
This means that the doors must close and latch without manual action whenever they are opened. According to Mrs. Annie Ward, the supervisor of operations at the film bunkers, many of the doors in this building required an excessive degree of force to latch. In fact, she had to occasionally get help to close a vault door.
This is not acceptable according to NFPA 40.
[See app. 13 for chart.]
Mr. EsTEPP. You can notice by this diagram there are three points where the door has to be plumb with the door jamb and they have to line up at all three points in order for the door to close.
The doors, according to the GSA report, were homemade, using "C" channel and %-inch sheet metal and were fitted with a latching mech- anism that required a handle to be turned about 30 degrees to either open or close it.
NFPA 40 also recommends that these doors be insulated to retard the transmission of heat through the door. The doors were not insu- lated and, being metal, probably aided in the transmission of radiant heat.
Further, the propping open of fire doors, as was apparently the practice in the building, negates the value of fire doors, which only do their job when closed and latched.
We are very interested in determining what standards GSA applies to the construction of these buildings, if there are any.
Other deficiencies noted in the building, when compared to NFPA 40, included the lack of plaster coating on interior walls of vaults to prevent the instrusion of flammable vapors, and film stacked on shelves too high to be within the effective protection of the sprinkler system.
However, the most devastating building condition was the woeful in- adequacy of the sprinkler system as it existed at the time of the fire. This system, which should have had sprinkler heads installed in a deluge design for optimum effectiveness, was installed with six con- ventional wet-pipe heads per vault, and two of those had been removed 3 months earlier, apparently by the contractor.
Not only did the wet-pipe heads respond much slower to the fire than deluge-type heads would, since each head has to be heated to 165 degrees before opening ; but, even when all heads in a vault were flow- ing, the amount of water being applied to the fire was probably in- capable of controlling itvS spread.
If we look at the nearly explosive speed with which a cellulose nitrate film fire spreads, and add the time delay that is inherent in any wet pipe svstem to react to the fire, it is quite reasonable to anticipate a vault fully involved in fire by the time all sprinker heads are activated.
Using the data in the GSA report., we have calculated that, with a
21
vault fully involved, and all four sprinkler heads flowing water, the water extinguished as little as 10 percent of the fire.
The rest of the fire's heat energy was being vented to the outside or was spreading throughout the rest of the building, continuing the spread of the fire to other vaults.
The removal of two heads in each vault presented another problem to the efficiency of the system. Each vault was a little less than 700 cubic feet in volume, the maximum allowed by NFPA 40.
Originally, the sprinker heads were evenly spaced so that each head covered about 108 cubic feet. Wlien the two heads at the end of the line were removed, the others were not relocated. This left the head now at the end of the line with a volume of over 300 cubic feet to protect.
This was three times its intended capacity.
A building's fire protection features are intended to fit together, much like the pieces of an arch, to form a system of protective features. eTust as the removal of one stone from an arch starts its downfall, the elimination or reduction of one element of a building's fire protection system can initiate a chain of events leading to a total failure of that system.
In building A, the inadequate fire doors, the subverted sprinkler system, the imsealed walls that permitted the travel of flammable vapors literally through the walls, are examples of just such a down- fall. But there were other factors in Suitland that led to the prob- lems on December 7.
Housekeeping was shoddy — containers of film were left on the floor in cardboard boxes; there was no early warning or fire detection system ; the film cans were not vented to relieve the gases of decom- position, as is recommended by Eastman Kodak ; the film vaults them- selves were not vented to remove these same gases ; the air conditioning system was not working properly ; some vault doore were left stand- ing open by workers, and the employees of the facility, who should have been familiar with the dangers of the material they worked with daily, apparently did not correct the situation.
An earlier report of the fire would have been possible, but the water flow alarm switch, which was installed in early 1978 to detect the flow of water in the sprinker system and transmit an alarm to the guard office, did not work due to being improperly connected, according to the GSA report.
With all of this going against us, the inevitable happened, and fire broke out on December 7. Shortly thereafter, the buildings' occupants hastily exited the bunker for various parts of the Federal Center.
Due to the distance they had to travel, the first fire reports came from persons in the neighborhood, not NAKS employees.
When our units arrived on the scene, they were not met by anyone. They saw a car parked by building A, and the front door was ajar.
This indicated the strong possibility of a trapped person. Fully aware of the dangers they were facing, they entered the building to search for victims.
A second crew of firefighters followed the first crew into the build- ing to serve as a backup, while a third crew was assigned to ventilate the building.
[See app. 13 for chart.]
Mr. EsTEpp. You will notice on the enclosed visual, building A, and the green dot there is the approximate location of the automobile.
Let me point out that ventilation is a standard procedure for us on all structural fires. We ventilate to remove smoke and gases for the relief and protection of firefighters who may be working inside a building, such as our people were in building A.
In the case of the film vaults, the crew assigned to ventilate did so by removing several blowout panels at the far right rear comer of the building.
They had removed three panels by the time the first crew had checked about a third of the building's vaults. At that point, the fire ground commander determined the building was too hazardous and ordered the interior crews to pull out.
Just after that, an explosion rocked the building, injured several firefighters still inside, and blew out at least one more panel, some- where in the middle of the building where the firefighters had not yet reached, as Lt. Malberg is pointing out.
The firefighters inside were, at this point, concerned with survival, and did not stop to tidy up to make sure doors were latched on their way out. In any event, they were unable to see the door latches, since visibility above knee level was zero. The firefighters had to crawl in the building.
The fire eventually spread to at least 19 vaults, including several that had not been opened by either workers or firefighters. Some vaults that had been opened were unbumed.
The GSA report indicates that an NAES worker reported to fire- fighters that no one was in the building. According to his actions, we have identified this employee as Mr. Vernon Early, who was inter- viewed at length by our investigators, and he made no statements regarding the alleged report to firefighters, nor can we find anyone with whom he spoke.
At our request, and at the invitation of GSA, our fire investigators conducted an investigation commencing immediately after the fire in building A was extinguished and continuing for several days. Once again, we do not have investigative authority concerning fires that occur on federally owned property within the county except by invitation.
The results of our investigation differ with those of the GSA report regarding the area of fire origin, and the mechanism of origin. Due to the heavy damage of the ceiling of vault 8, as is ^hown here, and the spallation of concrete on the underside of the roof outside the same vault, conditions strongly suggest that the fire may have originated in vault 8,
No one had entered that vault on the day in question.
It is also our belief that the fire originated as the result of decom- position of the nitrate film, which self-ignited.
The decomposition, we feel, was precipitated by the film being stored at temperatures and humidity levels well above those recom- mended for cellulose nitrate film. Ignition is quite likely to have originated in just one film can that was decomposing and producing heat that could not be relieved because of the lack of venting.
The fact that the vault had not been opened that day, and the air handling system did not introduce fresh air into a vault, prevented the high temperatures and flammable vapors from being dispersed.
23
We do not accept the dual theory of the drill being associated with the fire cause.
We have examined, and cannot accej)t, the theories of the GSA report blaming the fire origin on activities associated with the work bemg done on the building. Both theories associated with the electric drill used by the contractors do not appear to have been reasonably associated with causing the fire.
First, the thought of a red-hot chip from a reinforcing rod struck by the drill falling onto or into a cardboard box and igniting it is too remote for serious consideration.
Even if it had landed there, the volume of the chip, its initial heat, the rate of its cooling, and the amount of heat energy required to ignite the cardboard are not compatible in this case.
Any material combustible enough to burn in this manner would probably ignite right away, and be obvious to anyone working in the same room.
Secondly, a tlieory was advanced that the drill itself was laid in contact with some comlbustible material, such as a cardboard box, and the heat of the drill itself somehow ignited the box.
First, if the drill's temperature would have been at or near the 700 degrees required to ignite the box, no one could have held it; the drill was found after the fire, lying on top of a stool where the contractor had left it when quitting for lunch.
Neither the drill case nor bit was touching or close to any material other than the stool, which was relatively undamaged.
Further, unbumed cardboard 'boxes were found on the floor of the same vault as the drill, eliminating that area as a point of origin for the fire ; this was vault 10.
The report mentions, briefly, firefighting activities on the day of the fire, and indicates that the Fire Department did not pump into the sprinkler system.
Again, referring to the diagrams that Lt. Malberg has, this was not the case. Following standard procedure for sprinkler-protected build- ings, not one, but two engine companies connected to and charged the building's sprinkler Siamese coim^ection.
These lines were disconnected from the pmnpers when the units were ordered to pull back from their positions fairly close to the building following two interior explosions.
They were not recharged after the units pulled back.
In fact, the retreat was done with such haste, the one pumper backed up dragging lines that were still connected, and the officer of the other pumper cut his unit's supply lines with an axe in order to clear the unit.
In my opening remarks, I referred to our taking exception to the general tone of the report. Let me address that point in closing.
Nowhere in this report does the Federal Government accept any responsibility for any of the conditions that caused this fire to be as serious as it was. The report is quick to blame the contractors for starting the fire, the contractors for modifying the sprinkler system, and the contractors and the fire department for leaving the doors open.
But I note the conspicuous absence by GSA or NARS of any ac- ceptance of responsibility for a temporary building still in use for
24
high hazard storage after 30 years, or for the sprinkler system not being installed as it was originally intended — a deluge system, or for not detecting that the sprinkler system had been in an altered condi- tion for three months, or for apparently never testing the flow switch after it had been installed, or for not installing doors that could reasonably be expected to retard the spread of a fire, or for not train- ing building personnel in the proper actions in a fire, or for taking a piecemeal approach to repairing the vital air conditioning system.
There seems to have been a general shrug of bureaucratic shoulders about this building being in the midst of a populated area.
[Photos shown.]
Mr. EsTEPP. You will notice from these aerial photographs that there are several apartment projects, commercial areas, a well-traveled high- way, and a nursing home adjacent to those three film bunkers.
Even more than that, I view attempts to "scapegoat" any blame away from GSA as an attempt to cover their own ineptness, which was demonstrated by the condition of the building before the fire, and was emphasized by some of their actions immediately after the fire.
The film that was not burned in the fire was removed to a refriger- ated trailer parked in the middle of the Suitland Federal Center. The trailer was not secured ; in fact, a television reporter was able to go up to the trailer and open the door unchallenged.
The refrigeration broke down some time later, and the operators attempted to remove the trailer, including its cargo, by truck in order to drive it to a shop to get the refrigeration fixed. Before that, they even requested the fire department to bring a pumper to the site in order to hose the truck down with water to reduce the inside temperature.
The Prince Georges County Fire Department accepts its responsi- bility to provide fire protection to the Suitland Federal Center and other Federal facilities in our county.
In fact, discharging that responsibility almost cost the lives of sev- eral firefighters last December. But this fire points out that, while we have the responsibility to provide fire protection, we do not have the authority to enforce any local fire codes on Federal sites, nor do we have any real control over the condition or contents of any buildings.
We look to the Federal Government to carry out its responsibility. We hope we do not have to wait imtil a firefighter's funeral is the proof that they are falling far short of it.
Thank you. I certainly would be glad to answer any questions that you may have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Preyer. Thank you very much, Mr. Estepp.
Anybody who tries to make you a scapegoat has a formidable ad- versary on his hands. That is very impressive testimony.
You make a statement that the whole facility should be removed at once. That sounds a little bit like Congressman Ottinger's description of these vaults as being "bombs," wliich is the way I think he put it.
This raises the question of whether you got to the fire in 15 minutes, or wliether it took you 5 minutes to get there, would it have made any difference.
Mr. Estepp. That is a good point. I think if the sprinkler system had been working properly, there is a possibility that there could have been
25
some fire control, but in my own opinion, you ar right — those buildings are like "bombs" and what we could have done is problematical.
Mr. Preyer. Would any sprinkler system have made a difference, like the deluge type or a standard type?
Mr, EsTEPP. The key to a system working properly and to a system doing its job is that it must be the right type of system and it must be installed i)roperly. So far as we can determine, we did not have enough heads to cover the fire loading in the vaults, and, of course, two heads had been removed by a contractor, rendering the remaining system wholly inadequate to cover any fire that might have occurred.
We had another problem in that the deluge system i^equires open sprinkler heads that would dump water immediately into the vault. Of course, these were closed heads and had to reach a temperature of 165° before they opened.
Mr. Preyer. You mentioned that the fire eventually spread to a num- ber of vaults, I think 19, and that some of those were closed. How many of the vaults burned that had the doors closed ? If so, how did the fire spread to supposedly closed vaults ? I think the earlier fire out there in 197Y was confined to one vault. How was that one confined to one vault and this one spread to 19 ? Was this even through closed vaults ?
Mr. EsTEPP. To say that our science is so exact that I could tell you why only one vault burned in 1977 and several burned in 1978 would be like trying to predict whether Metro was going to be on time. It would be difficult to do that.
Obviously conditions would have to be repeated exactly. We have already learned that a number of vault doors were open at the time that this fire occurred.
We know that the heating and air-conditioning system was not func- tioning. I do not think there is a valid comparison of the film in the 1978 fire, that is, the film in the vaults in building A, as compared to the vaults in building C that burned in 1977.
We would have to say that the conditions of the two fires were exactly the same. I do not think those conditions can be exactly re- peated.
You are dealing with something that literally is operating like dy- namite. There are a number of actions that occurred in 1978 that were different than 1977. The building was open. There were workers inside. It was not a secure operation.
I am not sure that just the closing of those vault doors was the factor that contained the fire in 1977 as compared to 1978.
Mr. Preyer. Was the fire in 1977 in a situation of vaults that were generally like the one you described here, that is, with uninsulated doors, which were difficult to shut ?
Mr. EsTEPP. Yes. So far as I know, those three bunkers are con- structed just about the same.
Mr. Preyer. After the fire 16 months earlier, did you take any steps to call to the attention of the authorities that this building was like a "bomb," and, for one thing, to familiarize yourself with the vault situation so that your firefighters would know how to deal with it? Mr. EsTEPP. I did not take over our department until 1978, so I cannot speak for events prior to that so far as our top administration is concerned.
26
I would say that, from what I have learned, it was very difficult to gain access to some of the facilities in the Federal Center, and to have the kind of mutual exchange of ideas and preplanning that we would normally find in facilities that were not controlled by some other third party.
I would think that in my review of the 1977 fire, our people appar- ently thought that the situation was going to be corrected, that that near disaster was evidence enoug:h that something needed to be done, and expected the proper authorities within GSA to follow up.
Apparently that was attempted but not completed by the time of the 1978 fire.
Mr. Preyer. You say that it was attempted and that you had diffi- culties in gaining access.
What was the problem in gaining access ?
Mr. EsTEPP. I do not think the problem in gaining access was one that was deliberate. I think it was the case that at that site there are multiple Federal tenants who are under the control of GSA.
Apparently there are some secure areas on the property other than the film vaults, and even with the film vaults there are two different tenants, the Archives and the Library of Congress.
The general impression left by the security people to our company officers was that these were restricted areas and their access was limited.
Whether, in fact, that was the case or not, is open to speculation, but in any event, the message transmitted was that these were secured areas.
Mr. Preyer. Mr. Kindness ?
Mr. Kindness. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief, I want to thank you for your testimony.
I am curious whether you could describe to the subcommittee, the types of contacts that you or your Department have had with GSA, the Library of Congress, or any other part of the Federal Government concerning these buildings, following the 1977 fire, and perhaps more pertinently, following the 1978 fire.
Could you describe whom you contacted and what sort of results occurred ?
Mr. EsTEPP. I can speak more authoritatively, I think, since the 1978 fire. Through our county executive, we contacted Dr. Rhoads, the National Archivist. He made available staff personnel who allowed us access to the buildings. We were, at that point, communicating in a manner that we probably should have been communicating in years past.
Since the 1978 fire, we have had no problem gaining access or doing anything else that was necessary.
In the 1977 incident, so far as I know, our investigators did come in, at GSA's request, and did have a cursory look at the buildings and again pointed out some of the problems.
It was our understanding that those conditions were going to be corrected.
We certainly do not have the manpower to check up on all of their activities and see, on a day-to-day basis, that these things are being carried through.
Mr. Kindness. At the present time, are there conditions that exist, not just with respect to the nitrate film, perhaps, but otherwise in that area ? Do they need correction ?
27
Is there a systematic way for you to determine that those steps are being taken ?
Mr. EsTEPP. Are you talking about the film bunkers themselves or other Federal installations ?
Mr. Kindness. Yes; the film bunkers and other buildings.
Mr. EsTEPP. Basically we have a pretty good relationship with GSA when it comes to other Federal facilities. I am not certain of the actual control, but NASA, for example, I would imagine that does not come under GSA. But that is a Federal facility that takes up a lot of ground in Prince Georges County.
We have an excellent rapport with them. If there are conditions introduced at NASA, their fire protection people give us a call. We go onsite and preplan. There is an exchange back and forth by which they notify us of tiling that we need to know.
This kind of situation did not exist at Suitland. I believe that since the last incident, and with the kind of contact that we have had, we will have good close communication in the future. I do not believe that those bunkers are in the proper location. They should not be sitting approximately 100 or 150 feet away from a highly congested roadway.
In the photographs in the upper left-hand corner, you can see Suit- land Road mth an automobile passing. You can see the fire in the early stages. The products of combustion are probably at their most toxic level at that particular stage, when the cloud is yellow. It — ^the smoke — is shown traveling toward Suitland Road because the wind was blowing in that direction.
To me, there is a threat to the public safety now. It has existed and we have just been lucky.
The removal of those bunkei-s is the only thing that would forestall any further problems there, even though they are working to correct conditions within the building. I think things are too unstable to say that the situation will not repeat itself.
Mr. Kindness. In the case of the storage of the nitrate film, is it unusual to have a backup system for the sprinkler system, or is that recommended procedure ?
Mr. EsTEPP. There are a number of conditions that are recommended. First of all, in the building construction, there is redundancy required in fire doors, which did not exist on these vaults. There should be two doors — an inner door that would be closed in a sliding manner by the activation of a fusible link, and a door on the outside that would close by a self-closing mechanism when anyone entered or left the vault.
There is a great deal of redundancy. As I mentioned earlier, it is a total system. The air-conditioning system failure certainly was the final flaw. Without the air-conditioning system working, there was a problem. "WTien the problem starts, all of the other building features are designed to control it, but if they are not working in concert with each other, then the whole system is going to fail.
I think that is what occurred.
Mr. Kindness. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Preyer. In connection with your statement that the facility should be removed from this area, and assuming that you had an ex- plosion of the worst possible dimensions there — in which all of the vaults could blow up all at once or catch on fire — ^how far would the toxic gas spread in the area ?
28
Mr. EsTEPP. That would be hard for me to estimate. Depending on how much was involved and what occurred, we could expect these toxic gases to travel several hundred feet without any question.
There are incidents on record involving this type ot material where people as far as 300 feet away from a fire or explosion were seriously burned. I think that is an indication that certainly 150 or 200 feet of clearance is not sufficient for a facility operating on a daily basis when there have been incidents of people injured as far away as 300 feet.
Mr. Preyer. Did you evacuate any of the residents during this fire?
Mr. EsTEPP. Yes, sir. We evacuated over 100 families and businesses in the immediate vicinity of the three bunkers.
The wind was traveling in that direction, as you can see from the photos. Directly across Suitland Road from the bunkers, there is a populated areas.
We thought it best at that time to evacuate those areas.
Mr. Preyer. Assuming that you had a deluge sprinkler system, and that the doors were insulated and everything was properly done, are you saying to us that even under optimal conditions nitrate film is so unstable and so dangerous that it should not be located in an area where there is heavy population ?
Mr. EsTEPP. I think that is a fair statement ; yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Preyer. So what you are saying, really, and your basic answer is to transfer all nitrate film into safety film ; is that correct ?
Mr. EsTEPP. Yes ; and do it away from Suitland, not store those mate- rials there. [Laughter.]
I would follow up that remark, Mr. Chairman, by asking if you would like to have several cases of dynamite stored in your neighbor- hood. That same comparison could perhaps be made even if it were in nice concrete vaults. I do not think I would want it.
Mr. Preyer. I recognize Mr. Ingram.
Mr. Ingram. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief, you propose the theory that the fire was started by self-igni- tion of the flammable nitrate brought on by a breakdown in the air-con- ditioning system.
Are you able to prove this theory to the exclusion of all others ?
Mr. EsTEPP. No ; I do not think we can. I think it would be purely speculative for me to say that we could do that. We feel that cause to be where the facts point the most.
Mr. Ingram. Could a cigarette have started the fire ?
Mr. EsTEPP. It is possible, but again, conditions do not indicate that. In vault 10, presuming that we are talking about where people were working, and if somebody opened the door and dropped a cigarette into one of the vaults, I guess that could be possible.
But if we are concentrating on the areas that workmen were known to have been in, I think conditions would have been different had a cigarette been dropped into these materials.
Mr. Ingram. You speculate that the fire may have started in vault 8. Was the door to that vault open or closed ?
Mr. EsTEPP. We do not know. When Mi's. Ward looked down the corridor, she was about 50 feet away from the area that was involved. She said that her view was blocked by opened vault doors.
29
However, we feel that probably the fire started in vault 8, and that the door was most likely closed.
Mr. Ingram. Your findings seem to go well beyond the GSA fire investigating committee in presenting facts and theories.
Were you asked to make your fuidings available to the GSA committee ?
Mr. EsTEPP. We had a meeting with them and, according to Lieuten- ant Malberg, who was present — and that is the reason he is here to- day— the committee came in with a theory that apparently was de- termined before that meeting and they did not want to be confused with the facts.
Mr. Inrgam. Did you see your investigation at odds or antagonistic with GSA's committee investigation, which may have been for dif- ferent purposes?
Mr. EsTEPP. I think our investigation is at odds with their investi- gation. I think they have made a cursory investigation, and they have slipped over some important points and apparently zeroed in on one theory from the very beginning.
I do not think that is a good way to approach an investigation, that is, to have one thought in your mind and exclude all others.
Mr. Ingram. What you are saying, then, is that there was not a working relationship between you and the GSA
Mr, EsTEPp. Lieutenatnt Malberg could better express that, but I think it is safe to say that the kind of working relationship, where people exchange ideas and facts and sit down and come to some con- sensus, was not present.
Mr. Ingram. The film vault out at the Suitland facility is small when compared to the main Suitland Kecords Center, which houses most of the documents from the Vietnam war and priceless historical records relating to our Government.
If there Avere a fire there tomorrow at the main Suitland Records Center, involving millions of paper records stored there, would the members of your department be familiar with the records center? Would you know precisely how to fight that fire ?
Mr. EsTEPP. I think they would certainly know how to handle a fire involving those materials. The preservation of the materials is not going to be uppennost in our minds. Our minds are going to be geared toward rescue, evacuation of building occupants, trying to save the general structure if we can, and, certainly, firefighter safety.
If we can save these records we would certainly attempt to do that. We have preplanned that facility and we are aware of most of the con- ditions that are there. I am not certain we know all of the documents that are contained there.
Again, there is very little information that has flowed from those people concerning what is onsite,
Mr. Ingram. That is the point I was trying to get at; that is, whether or not you are aware, for example, "if the Records Center is in compliance with the county fire codes or the GSA fire codes.
Mr. EsTEPP. We would not have inspected the entire building. We avail ourselves to the primary fire protection features of the building, the Siamese connections, where the hydrants are located, and how rnany people are inside. We would not be making full-fledged inspec- tions of those facilities.
51-332 0-79
30
Mr. Ingram. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Preyer. Mr. Evans ?
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Have you examined the GSA fire code ?
Mr. EsTEPP. I am not familiar with the GSA fire code, but they make leference generally to the same standards that are used universally throughout the fii*e service.
Mr. Evans. That is what I wanted to know.
Mr. EsTEPP. I think standard No. 40 is the same standard that they were attempting to apply as it relates to those bunkers.
Mr. Evans. Do you think those bimkers were in compliance with that standard?
Mr. EsTEPP. No, sir, they were not.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Preyer. Mr. Morr?
Mr. MoRR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief, are you familiar with how the film that was not damaged in the fire was handled after the fire ?
Mr. EsTEPP. I am familiar with some of it. Apparently they removed a lot of the material from that bunker. I would imagine they put some of it into other bunkers, but also they apparently brought in a trailer to store much of the nitrate film onsite. They moved it further away, further back into the complex, but we had a little bit of a problem with that particular storage facility also.
It was a refrigerated truck. The film was put inside. It was rather hot. We were asked on a couple of occasions to go down and cool the truck down because the system had broken down inside the trailer. There was even an attempt made to take it offsite to have the refrigera- tion fixed. We just thought that would be too dangerous to attempt.
I believe that is where the bulk of the film was being stored until recently.
Mr. MoRR. Do you know how long it was stored in that refrigerated truck?
Mr. EsTEPP. For several weeks, I know that. According to Lieuten- ant Malberg, I think it was a couple of months.
In their behalf, let me say this. They communicated with us regard- ing that particular unit. I think they were on the right track by ask- ing us to come down and cool it down, but we could not concur in driv- ing that over the highway with that amount of film in it.
Mr. MoRR. To your knowledge, was the truck secured or inspected ?
Mr. EsTEpp. From what I am told, a television reporter following up the fire went down and found the site unchallenged in terms of his being able to get close to it and found the vehicle unlocked.
Mr. MoRR. How close was the truck in proximity to other buildings ?
Mr. EsTEPP. I am not certain the photograph we have helps with that. It was toward the Records Center building. It was a good dis- tance away from the bunkers in an open area. There was a much better attempt to put it in a safer area.
[Photo shown.]
Mr. EsTEPP. They moved it back several hundred feet.
Mr. MoRR. I have one other question that occurred to me.
You mentioned that the pumpers were ordered to back away from the unit, that it was done in haste, and that at least one line was severed.
31
Would it have been possible to move those trucks back, connect more hose, and continue to pump into the Siamese hookup ?
Mr. EsTEPP. I thinlv at that stage of the game that pumping into that Siamese was a futile etl'ort. It would have served no purpose because the major damage had been done.
Mr. MoRR. Thank you.
Thank you, ]SIr, Chairman.
Mr. Preyer. Mr. Kindness ?
Mr. Kindness. There is always the advantage of hindsight, of course, but there has not been any mention made of what would usually be required in a circumstance like this where some sort of work is being done in a building that houses flammable material.
I would tend to reach the conclusion, up until this point, that it would have been wase to remove those materials from the building where the alteration work was being done and stored elsewhere tem- porarily until the work was completed.
Would this sort of procedure be required under GSA's code, or Prince Georges County code, or the Maryland fire code ?
Mr. EsTEPP. Yes. Certainly we would not have allowed something that hazardous. First of all, we would not have allowed the building's fire protection to be altered without consulting us and without our approA ing some type of means to provide for protection, or requiring that the materials be removed.
There is no way, in my opinion, that that film should have been left in the vault under those conditions.
Mr. Kindness. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Preyer. I have one final question. I would like to ask your air- conditioning expert a question.
Do you concur with the statements that have been made about the air-conditioning failure? Or do you wish to qualify that in any way?
Mr. Cross. There is no doubt that the system was not functioning, at least on the day of the fire.
As to what temperature conditions existed in the vault, that is strictly speculation. It is possible that the vault temperatures were elevated to a point where it may have been in the 80-degree or 90- degree range.
Mr. Preyer. That is possible, but there is no way we can know ?
Mr. Cross. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. EsTEPP. Mr. Preyer, if I might, let me add this.
Again, probably the vault temperature, once it had gone above a cer- tain degree Fahrenheit, was a problem. Decomposition was occurring.
But we again are speculating that the film self-ignited, meaning that it generated its own heat in a contained can. You probably did not need an outside source of temperature in the range of 100 degrees. It w'as producing its own heat that elevated it to that level.
]Mr. Ingram. What is the flash point of the nitrate film ?
Mr. EsTEEP. If it is brand new, the flash point would probably be close to ignition temperature, which would be in the range of 300 degrees. It could be as low as 105 degrees, or even lower, with un- stable nitrate film.
Mr. Ingram. So you are suggesting that, if the temperature in the vault had reached 105 degrees, the deteriorating film could have self- ignited ?
32
Mr. EsTEPP. There is no question about it. In fact, I am saying that could have occurred with temperatures in excess of even 70 degrees, with the generation of its own heat and oxygen that it fed upon itself and generated its own heat inside that can. You did not need an outside source, although certainly that did not help the situation.
Mr. Ingram. As best as we can determine, that was the cause of the 1977 fire, this self-ignition ?
Mr. EsTEPP. I think GSA indicates they felt it was self -ignition and the minority report indicates that possibility even exists in the 1978 fire, that is, that perhaps conditions were even the same.
Mr. Ingram. Thank you.
Mr. Preyer. Chief, we appreciate the presence of you and your colleagues. This has been very helpful.
Our next witness is Dr. James B. Rhoads. I would like to ask him if he would allow us to present the following witnesses out of order, inasmuch as this has gone a little longer and there are some scheduling problems.
With Dr. Rhoads' consent, we would like to call a panel of two wit- nesses at this time.
One is Mr. George Stevens, Jr., the director of the American Film Institute. He has given us a lot of pleasure from his various activities at the Kennedy Center, including his productions, such as the "Tribute to Premier Hsiao Ping," Avhich was a magnificent evening.
Our other member of the panel is Miss Lillian Gish, who is a great American actress and who is also an expert on film restoration and has lectured and talked around the country on that subject.
We respect her very much as an actress. Today we are interested in her other area of expertise — film restoration.
Mr. Stevens and Miss Gish, would you please come forward.
Miss Gish. I have been at the New York airport since 8 o'clock this morning trying to get here. I must apologize, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Preyer. We appreciate even more your being here as a result.
I do not know how you wish to proceed. Would you like Miss Gish to proceed, Mr. Stevens?
Mr. Stevens. As you please.
Miss Gish. Since I have not been here to hear you, might it be better to ask me questions which I would be delighted to answer, if I can, intelligently, I hope.
Mr. Preyer. I am sure they will be intelligent answers.
Perhaps we should start, then, with Mr. Stevens and then we will go to the questions.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE STEVENS, JR., DIRECTOR, THE AMERICAN FILM INSTITUTE
Mr. Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a statement, but I think in view of the substantial amount of territory we wish to cover, if it is agreeable to you, I will submit my prepared statement for the record.
I will make some summary remarks. With my statement, I will also submit for the record a report prepared for the American Film Insti- tute last year by William T. Murphy of the National Archives and
33
Records Service, which relate to a national program for the pi-eserva- tion of newsreel materials.
[See app. 8,]
Mr. Preter. Without objection, your prepared statement and its enclosures, M'ill be inserted in the record at this point.
[Mr. SteA'^ns' i^repared statement follows:]
34
STATEMENT OF GEORGE STEVENS, JR.
DIRECTOR, THE AMERICAN FILM INSTITUTE
be fore
HOUSE GOVERNMENT INFORMATION AND
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS SUBCOMMITTEE
Tuesday, June 19, 1979
One of the inost remarkable events in Washington in recent times was the exhibition at the National Gallery of Art of the artifacts from the tomb of King Tutankhcunen . Americans had the opportunity to look into a world that existed over 5,000 years ago and to gain a vivid impression of the civilization of ancient Egypt. The most vivid record of life in America in the first half of the century was recorded on motion picture film. Tens of thousands of movies and thousands of hours of newsreels presented for the first time a sound and picture image of a great nation and its people.
The purpose of these Congressional hearings is to determine if that film record of our civilization is worth preserving. American archivists and filia scholars have addressed this question for many yeaxs and based on their studies and records I am pleased to be here to urge that we as a nation give a much higher priority to the preservation of these vinique records of American life.
When any one of us reflects on recent American history how greatly our perceptions would be altered had we never been able to see a newsreel of Franklin Roosevelt's Day of Infamy speech presented to Congress in December of 1941, or to recall our vision of the memorable footage of the air battles of World Wair I, the Nonnandy Invasion from World War II and the vivid filmed impressions of Americans such as Charles Lindbergh, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Marian Anderson and Babe Ruth.
The visual record accumulated in newsreels dating from the time of Edison's first experiment with motion picture photography and the remarkable cultural record contained in the movies which have, since the turn of the last century.
35
been the major democratic art — represent together an Inconparable record of
a nation.
Preserving this important record has been central to the Film Institute's
purpose since the time of its creation. The announcement in June of 1957 by
the National Endowment for the Arts of the founding of the Americcin Film
Institute stated the mandate of the Film Institute with regard to preservation.
"Preservation and cataloging of films is a task which lies at the heart of the Film Institute ' s purpose. It is as important to conserve as to create, and the founders wish emphatically to bring attention, as others have before, to the necessity of preserving this Nation's film heritage."
This statement of purpose is still our guide. Our concern touches the entire spectrum of American Filmmaking. This program is limited by money, but our perception of its responsibilities is not. Our work is to assure that a broad cross section of the Americain film heritage is safeguarded properly in archives, and ultimately preserved. This will assure that future generations will be able to view, study, and enjoy the creative efforts that have gone into film and television.
In 1967, the principal institutions holding "nitrate" films — the Library of Congress, the National Archives, the International Museum of Photography at George Eastman House, the Museum of Modern Art and the UCLA Film Archives — held about 70 million feet of nitrate film needing preservation. The total preservation expenditures by all of these institutions in that year was no more than $150,000.
Since then, due in large part to the work of the AFI preservation program with funding support from the National Endowment for the Arts, over 4.6 million dollars in preservation funding has been administered by the AFI. The total of Federal and private expenditures since 1967 is 11.2 million dollars. This has enabled the preservation of about 42 million feet of nitrate, or roughly
36
11,000 motion pictures. The emnual expenditure rate is now over 2.5 million dollars, 15 times that of 1967.
The AFI program, awards grants to help organizations restore, preserve and catalog films of artistic or cultural value. Grants have been awarded to large institutions such as the Museum of Modern Art in New York and the International Museum of Photography in Rochester, as well as to smaller insti- tutions such as the Oregon Historical Society in Portland, the American Jewish Historical Society in Boston, and the Center for Southern Folklore in Memphis, Tennessee. In an effort to prevent a future crisis with color film as severe as the present nitrate crisis, small research grants will be awarded in the com- ing year to study the application of laser holography to color preservation.
After fifty years of archival neglect, our priority in 1967 was the acquisition and safeguarding of nitrate films. Today, there are more than 14,000 films in the AFI Collection at the Library of Congress, and thousands of other films have been acquired by the other major archives.
One of my favorite search and rescue stories involves John Ford's 1939 classic, STAGECOACH, starring John Wayne and made by an independent producer. This film was high on our first priority list of endangered films , but we were uneible to locate good 35mm material for preservation ctnywhere, until we dis- covered that the Duke himself had kept a print in his personal collection. Wayne generously funded a preservation negative and donated it to the Institute for permanent archival retention.
To assure a coordinated national preservation effort, the Film Institute has joined our sister archives sind several smaller related institutions in the Film Archives Advisory Committee, which meet four times per year. This group has evolved over the years into an essential forum where the working archivists advise each other of their problems and successes, and set standards, priorities
37
ernd objectives for the combined preservation effort. It is through contact such as this that the tasks of preservation are discussed, where the territory is parcelled out and where each archive has assumed a special responsibility for preserving certain parts of American production in order to avoid dupli- cation cf effort.
Historically/ the private archives, as well as the Library of Congress have concentrated their efforts primarily on the art of film, on the edited narrative works and documentary films. They have been unable to handle the preservation of huge quantities of actuality material which requires a dif- ferent approach to cataloging and use than does fiction material. The National Archives, as the agency responsible for the preservation of the permanently valuable records of the United States Government, has been acquiring newsreels for preservation, not as official records but as historical source materials complimenting other records. It has been estimated that well over 40% of the newsreels directly relate to subjects of national interest and importance, particularly to the activities of the United States Government and its officials. It is the preservation of these materials which is the point of these hearings.
When historians, and the general public as well, study our times they will get the most vivid insights from documentary, actuality and newsreel footage. How could one fully understand the last 75 years without having seen the film record of great people and great events? These events and these people are vivid in our national memory because they survived on film.
Last year the Film Institute commissioned a study entitled A NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR THE PRESERVATION OF AMERICAN NEV7SREELS, by VJilliam Murphy at the National Archives. The impetus for this was a desire on the part of the mem- bers of the Film Archives Advisory Committee to have solid information and realistic figures on the size and scope of the problem of newsreel preservation.
38
I am Eubmitting a copy of this report along with my testimony. This study was reviewed by the Film Archives Advisory Committee, and accepted as a basic document for guidance in making decisions regarding this significant portion of our American legacy. Among the key points are:
• Access to records of the past is fundamental to the precepts of a democratic society. The preservation of news- reels will increase opportunities for the study and teaching of American history, and due to the uniqueness of the record, will allow the recreation of the past as a visual form.
• The National Archives, a federal agency, is best equipped to act as a central newsreel depository. The National Archives has forty years of newsreel experience to fall back upon; it already possesses the basis for a national newsreel collection and good working relationships with the newsreel owners.
• Between 15 to 30 million dollars will be required to preserve endangered newsreels.
• Finally, paper documentation such as the newsreel continu- ity sheets should be preserved along with the films.
The concensus of the Film Archives Advisory Committee was that the National Archives should take the responsibility for the newsreel preservation effort, that it should drastically expand the scope of its nitrate preservation program to include not just the film presently held by the National Archives, but also the remaining newsreel material held privately.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to encourage the Committee to favorably con- sider present and future funding requests from the National Archives to deal with the preservation of nitrate film. It is necessary to deal with this problem promptly lest deterioration or the ravages of fire intervene to deny us the opportunity to conserve these unique and priceless records of our nation.
39
Mr. SiT.vENs. It occurred to mo in thinking? about this hearing that this flammable material we are talking al>out, which causes great grief and risk to our firefighters, is material that requires continual custody and care by several of our agencies.
I think back to one of the more exciting events of last year in Wash- ington, which was the National Gallery exhibition of the artifacts and remnants of the tomb of King Tut of Egypt from some 5,000 years ago. What a remarkable window on another civilization that relatively small group of artifacts was.
I think of our own civilization, which has invented this absolutely remarkable device for recording, dramatizing, and illuminating our life and our history.
The King Tut materials have lasted over 5,000 years and here we are struggling, somewhat helplessly, it would seem, in an effort to pre- serve the record and the culture of our own century.
We are a country with such great resources, technologically and financially, and yet we permit this to happen.
The American Film Institute, w^hich I represent here today, has, since its founding 12 years ago, been concerned with the preservation of what has been recorded on motion picture film and on television tape.
It has been a somewhat frustrating struggle because it is very hard to give strong and active attention to the importance of it.
I think the case was made very well this morning by the brief showing of excerpts from our history as recorded on newsreel film. I think these scenes and Miss Gish's presence, as an artist whose career has spanned this century, are two of the most indelible arguments for the need to preserve this material.
The fact that it is explosive and that it can be compared with dyna- mite does not argue that we should treat it like waste from the Three Mile Island.
We are talking about what is dangerous material, but it is material that is subject to a very simple solution — that we act as sensible citizens to preserve it.
This is essentially a financial problem.
You will hear testimony from people from the agencies who have this responsibility and who have done, in mv view, remarkable work over the years to safeguard and transfer to permanent stock the news- reel material and, in the en se of the Library of Congress, w'hat we might call the cultural material, or the artistic material, which comprises much of motion picture films.
As long as I have been alert to the situation, I have heard people advocate rather eloquently the need to deal with it.
It seems the only time it really comes to our consciousness in a serious wav is when we have a fire or a catastrophe.
Chief Estepp made an excellent argument for the need to deal with this matter as it relates to human life and safety.
I think Miss Gish and I are here to advocate that it is not simply a safety matter, ratlier, as the chainnan suggested a few moments agf that the simple, direct, and only obvious solution is to appropriate funds so that these materials can be preserved once and for all .
There is a fixed amount of nitrate film that exists in the United States. It is a task that can be undertaken and over a period of years
40
the nitrate film can be transferred to safety film. We will have accom- plished two things.
We will have preserved for future generations the remarkable record of our life and our history of this 20th century. We will have preserved that forever.
And, we will have rid ourselves forever of the problem of the fire hazard and the explosive nature of the material.
I would like to observe this, Mr. Chairman. I say this because I have a feeling that this is of great importance. I hope I do not tread on the toes of other agencies, but it has been my observation that the major agencies of the Government, the Library of Congi^ess and the National Archives, which have the resiK)nsibility for this work, were created in the first instance for other purposes.
They both existed before motion picture film came into being. There is a tradition and a priority within those agencies to be concerned with paper. The records of our firet 100 years of this country existed primarily on paper until Mr. Edison came along and developed this highly flammable and quite remarkable device called motion picture film.
It seems to me if the Congress could encourage, by appropriation, a more equal and direct financial application to the problem of pre- serving film, that we would do great service to our countiy and to these agencies who have the substantial responsibility of safeguarding and preserving this material.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Preyer. Thank you, Mr. Stevens.
That was an eloquent statement.
T would like to ask Miss Gish this.
What is the current status of copies of your films ?
Do you know how many are in existence and how many have been lost as victims of time ?
STATEMENT OF LILLIAN GISH, ACTRESS AND LECTURER
Miss GisH. A great many have been lost, of course. I do not believe they appreciated film and its power, other than the men who gave film its grammar, form, and did the first historic film — I'm referring to D. W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation."
It went into towns and played to three times the population across this country and around the world.
It is a power. It is beyond anything I can explain. It has influenced the entire world.
I have been around the world twice in the last 4 years. As you come into port, every city looks like one of ours with tall buildings. We have to have tall buildings, particularly in New York where there is no place to go but up.
But here, around the world, in cities along the eastern coast of Africa, for example, from a distance they look like any of our cities.
Therefore, whatever film is is beyond words. Our great historians from the beginning of time have tried to make history visual with words.
We come along in the 20th century, and we have the visual form of history. Every war and every ^eace conference and every important
41
meeting is there. Last night you saw one in Vienna. You have been to Poland and have seen the Pope. Whatever has happened in the world in the last almost 100 years is up there. It is on film. It is visual. It is powerful.
However the world is today, if it is lawless, or if it is wicked, or if it is good or if it is beautiful — film is more than any other thing re- sponsible for that.
It was silent film that the world could understand with music. That was the universal language. We were told this as children when we went into film, not to make fun of this. We were taking the first steps in the universal language predicted in the Bible. Eventually it could bring about the millennium.
I grew up with that. I still believe it, as I see it around the world. All the film cathedrals in every country of the world showed this with 100-piece orchestras. That was a power. We in film must take the re- sponsibility. I hope we will from now on. Our past film is an American invention. It goes beyond any other invention of this century because it is the only one that can get to the minds and hearts of mankind.
Mr. Preyer. I wish you had been here early enough to have seen the clippings of some newsreels which were shown this morning. There was a shot of Bess Truman attempting to break a bottle of champagne on the nose of a new aircraft.
She hit it from the right and from the left six or seven times. Then the military man assisting her tried to break it. He could not break it.
There is no way that that picture could have been described in words. It is a perfect example of what you are saying about the power of the visual.
Do you have any rough idea — and perhaps Mr. Stevens does as Avell — as to just how many of your films have been lost in terms of numbers ?
Ms. GiSH. I made 100 films. I never owned one of them. I was not a businesswoman. I wanted to work with the finest people. I had a life of people and talent rather than money.
I do not own my films, but I can tell you about Charlie Chaplin's films. He has them. He owned them. They are all in rooms under his great house in Vevey, Switzerland.
These rooms have a temperature the same all year round. Some are one and some are another, but it is all scientifically done. I would think that is the way to preserve our newsreels. They are the important things.
You have the Treaty of Versailles in the First World War and the Second World War and the others.
We liave had four wars in my century. I do not think one of them really was our war. We had a war that we recorded in "The Birth of a Nation" and other films. That was for us and the belief that we had in our country.
We cannot tell when we will have another, but if we do, then we can look at the record leading up to these wars and the effect of them.
The First World War began, I guess, the decline of the British Em- pire. The Second concliided that.
It is powerful history. We should preserve the living record of it.
I know it takes money. The first time I ever heard the words "film
42
library," they were used by a lady called Iris Barry. She was an English lady who had this dream. She had a tiny room up on Madison Avenue. It was her dream to oi^en a film library. Nobody would give her film. She asked me if I could use my influence to get to D. W. Griffith to give her some of his films, which he did. That began the film library at the Museum of Modern Art in New York.
Before that, Rochester House, I believe, preserved film. I do not know about California. I am sure they have since then done things, but I have never lived tliere so I cannot give you that history.
Did I answer your question ?
Mr. Preyer. Yes; very eloquently. In fact, you answered questions which I had not thought to ask you. [Laughter.]
Mr. Stevens, how about the economics of the film industry. I ask this on behalf of the taxpayers of the United States.
Why should not the film industry itself do something about preserv- ing newsreel footage ? Is there not some way to make the preservation pay for itself, in part, by using it as educational materials for schools and that sort of thing ?
Does the Government have to put up all the money for changing this to safety film, for example ?
Mr. Stevens. I wish the industry would do more. However, certain of the companies have done a great deal in preserving their own film.
There are others that are less active in that regard.
Financially, for a company today that holds a great supply of nitrate film, it is not an economically desirable thing for them to go to the great expense of preserving it.
In other words, the end result does not have income-producing power proportional to what it is going to cost to do it.
So, I fear that puts us in the position of having the Government de- cide whether what they will not do is of sufficient importance for us to do.
The material that we preserve will not have greater or even substan- tial revenue-producing effects after it is preserved.
Mr. Preyer. I suppose it also raises the question whether privately held newsreel material ought to be duplicated and maintained in some sort of national archive. I think you suggested this in your written statement.
Miss Gish mentioned the Charlie Chaplin films. We are really talking about a national heritage, I assume, rather than just things that private individuals should be able to control entirelv.
If all privately held newsreel film was preserved by the Federal Government, I think you estimated it would cost $15 to $30 million; is that right?
Mr. Stevens. That is privately held and that held by the Govern- ment as well.
Mr. Preyer. You mentioned a fixed amount of nitrate film. Are we talking now about just nitrate film ?
Mr. Stevens. Yes.
Mr. Preyer. So, for $15 to $30 million, we could preserve all of that newsreel film safely for the future?
Mr. Stevens. That is my understanding. I would suggest you con- firm that with the Archivist, but that is the result of our study.
43
There are two topics here. They are of equal importance, I believe.
There is the newsreel film, wliich is the responsibility of the National Archives and Records Service. There is also the cultural or motion picture entertainment film. That is the responsibility more directly of the Library of Congress working with sister archives around the counti*y.
They are equally important, in my view. I believe this hearing is more directed toward the National Archives question, probably be- cause of the fire.
A great deal has been done. The Chaplin films, for example, have now been preserved, I believe, almost entirely at the expense of the Chaplin interest.
All of this does not fall upon the Government. The MGM Co. has preserved their films, but there is a substantial amount of nitrate film held also by the Library of Congress.
Although it may not be directly the subject of this hearing, it is the other half of the problem because I fear that one day we will be having the same kind of hearing because of an accident simply because the material is volatile.
The problem is not going to get any better. These films are going to continue to have the corrosive process take place. It would seem to me that if we could set a plan in motion to deal with this problem once and for all at this time, then we could move on to new problems in the 1980's.
Mr. Preye-r. I have one final question that I would like to ask Miss Gish.
From your wide experience, do you know what the situation is in foreign countries, so far as newsreel and film preservation goes ? Wliat is their attitude toward protecting their heritage ?
Ms. GisH. Not definitely, only from observation.
I was taken through a television studio in Japan, and I was told how it began and how they were trying to make it better and preserve what they had.
I also went to Russia, as a guest, in July 1969. They had asked Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, and I to come there as guests in 1928. My mother was ill and I could not go. Mary and Douglas went. Chaplin never went. They asked me again 10 years ago. It was during the film festival.
"We showed our film "2001," which made me very proud. I thought that was a beautiful example to send to them from us.
Then I was taken to their studio. They ran some of their films which I had never seen, of course.
I had seen "War and Peace'' as all of us did when it came here in two 4-hour versions. I saw it in France in French. I saw it about three or four times, but it was their history from a book by Tolstoy.
They give them all of their history. They give them all of their classics. They also show them Russia at its most beautiful in the springtime with fruit trees in bloom with lovely children playing under them and factories looking so lovely you would like to live in them,
Siberia looked like a poem in white. They arouse such pride in their country with their film that I think that is what holds their country
44
together. Mother Earth and Mother Russia holds them together. They are all devoted to that.
I believe, because of this, that they must take care of their film. They must have the record of all the wars, particularly Leningrad in the 1940's, and the common graves that we were taken out to see.
I believe eventually when two countries are about to have a war that they will have the record of wars in one country versus the record of wars in other countries. They will show them and let the people decide. It could come to that ; could it not ?
Ms. GiSH. It is a living record of the history of every country in the world. They all have their films now. We used to lead the world. Now I think we are way down in the number of films we make as compared to India and Japan and other countries.
Mr. Preyer. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kindness?
Mr. Kindness. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stevens, you mentioned in your statement the future crisis or problem with color film. Would you care to expand on that a bit, please ?
Mr. Stevens. Yes. Color film has an inevitable decay built into it. It is not one of hazard, such as nitrate, but the dyes that make color film deteriorate with time.
Our archivists have been working with the people in other agencies and private archives to try to develop a process that will preserve color film.
Essentially it works this way. The original color film was produced on three separate strips of film for three different colors. Later, the Eastman color j^rocess was developed in a single strip of film.
The only sure way to preserv^e color materials is to make those three color separations and preserve each of them. Tliat is essentially the problem.
Mr. Kindness. I certainly want to express my thanks to you, Miss Gish, and to you, Mr. Stevens, for being with us this morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Preyer. Mr. Evans ?
Mr. Evans. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Preyer. Mr. Drinan ?
Mr. Drinan. I apologize for being late. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Preyer. I join all of the panel in thanking you. Miss Gish and Mr. Stevens.
I hope you do not have to wait so long to catch your plane back to New York, Miss Gish.
Ms. Gish. I hope you do not think I am a Communist to give them such a g(x>d review as that. [Laughter.]
That is from their films. It was like that.
But we took the ]:>rize for "2001."
Mr. Preyer. I think your description is fine. I was in Russia at Eastei-. AVliat comes across strongly is their love of Mother Earth and Mother Russia.
IMs. Gish. Yes.
Mr. Preyer. It is almost like a parent-child relationship. It is very possible.
45
Ms. GiSH. They realize that power and they do it with film.
Mr. Preyer. Films must have had a lot to do with that. Our film at the Air and Space Museum, I think, has some of that effect. It shows what a beautiful country we have. I think it does help in that regard. It fastens that bond.
Ms. GiSH. Yes, it is a great power.
Mr. Preyer. Well, we are grateful to you for the pleasure you have given us in your films throughout your great career.
We appreciate all you are doing. Mv. Stevens. We look forward, as we say in North Carolina, that "You will both keep on keeping on." [Laughter.]
Tliank you very much for being with us.
Our next witness is Dr. James B. Rhoads, Archivist of the United States.
Because of the shortness of time, I w^ould like to ask you to summarize the highlights of your testimony and your statement.
I also notice that some of your remarks go to the issue of general records pi-eservation at the Archives.
As you know, next Monday the subcommittee will be hearing from the General Accounting Office on its findings about the preservation efforts at the Archives. We will have an opportunity at that time to explore that particular aspect of these hearings in more detail.
Today, we should perhaps confine our testimony to the Suitland fire and the safety programs at the Archives.
I note what Mr. Stevens said about how agencies have done remark- able work over the years in attempting its preservation work. He basically said what you needed was more financial support.
He put you in the proper trajectory there. We are glad to have you at this time.
You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES B. RHOADS, ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN J. LANDERS, EXECUTIVE DI- RECTOR, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE; JAMES W. MOORE, DIRECTOR, AUDIOVISUAL ARCHIVES DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES; AND WILLIAM MURPHY, CHIEF, MOTION PICTURE AND SOUND RECORDING BRANCH, AUDIOVISUAL ARCHIVES DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE
Dr. Rhoads. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a pleasure for me to be here, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful to Mr. Stevens or having launched us on that kind of a trajectory. As you say, Mr. Stevens and Miss Gish are a hard act to follow.
I will be happy to touch on some of the highlights of my prepared statement.
First of all, I should introduce the gentlemen who are accompanying me. To my right is Mr. John Landers, Executive Director of the National Archives and Records Service. To my left is Mr. James Moore, Director of the Audiovisual Archives Division in the National Archives, and on his left is William Murphy, who is the Chief of the Motion Picture and Sound Recording Branch.
46
Thank you for inviting me to testify on a matter of great concern to the National Archives and Records Service, that is, the fire last De- cember 7 in building A, one of our film vault structures at the Federal Center in Suitland, Md.
Archivists feel personally diminished whenever records of value in their custody are damaged or destroyed, and on that unfortunate day, 12.6 million feet of Universal Pictures newsreel footage were lost. The loss was primarily in outtakes — film not used in completed produc- tions— but recent experience tells us that we would have retained from 62 to 68 percent of that footage as archivally valuable, disposing of the rest.
The film lost dated from 1930 to 1951. Portions deemed worthy of further preservation would have been converted from the chemically unstable and flammable nitrate base to safety film. But that was not to be.
What was lost was part of the original 28 million feet of film — 17 million feet of nitrate and 11 million feet of safety film — donated by Universal in 1970 and accepted by the National Archives on behalf of the American people for its historical value.
Substantial amounts of the edited Universal releases had already been converted at the time of the fire, and major conversion of the outtakes had been scheduled this year.
I know that this committee is principally concerned today with what the National Archives and Records Service has been doing to preserve its film holdings and to prevent further tragic instances such as that which occurred last December.
But I also know that you are very much interested in what we are doing to preserve all the records in the National Archives: The 1.3 million cubic feet of paper records, the 5 million photographs, 1.6 million maps, 107,000 sound recordings, 9.7 million aerial photographs, and 3,600 reels of ADP tapes — as well as the 85 million feet of motion picture film.
Before I concentrate on film, therefore, let me say a few words about preservation problems generally at the National Archives.
There is no sense in deluding ourselves. The problems are enormous. The National Archives started wrestling with them in 1934 when it came into existence and inherited the Nation's official records which had suffered from 150 years of neglect.
We now estimate that there are some 3 billion items in the National Archives and, like all finite things, they began deteriorating the day they were created. Some need preservation work now, some will need it in 10 years, some in 100 years.
We have been trying to assign priorities and spread our preserva- tion dollars around, but there ai-e never enough funds for all the work that needs doing. It would be desirable, for instance, to deacidify all of the paper records in the National Archives, but we estimate that to do this for the records we will liave by the year 2000 would cost about $1 billion.
To microfilm them would cost several hundred million dollars. That is why we are searching for new technologies to bring costs down : such advances as bulk deactification of documents and improved automa- tion in microfilming processes. That is why we have made a series of
47
indepth studies since I became Archivist in 1968 to keep on top of our preservcation needs and to set priorities.
One major study in 1960 led to increased funds for the preservation of nontextual i-ecords, reflectino^ our judgment that these records- motion picture films, still pictures, sound recordings, maps, and aerial photographs — require relatively rapid duplication or restoration be- fore their short lifespans end.
Another study in 1976 brought the nontextual records preservation picture — substantially changed through increased accessions — up to date. Last year, deviations in temperature and humidity in the Na- tional Archives Building were studied. Now that a major overhaul of our heating and cooling system is in its final phase, we expect im- proved environmental conditions.
Another extensive study completed last year assessed our total pres- ervation needs against present and anticipated technologies for long- range planning and budget request purposes.
Spending on direct preservcation efforts was increased from about $200,000 a year to about $1 million a year in 1971 and to $1.8 million in fiscal year 1978. It will rise to approximately $2 million in the cur- rent fiscal year, about 18 i^ercent of the portion of the NARS budget earmarked for the National Archives.
With preservation funds available from 1969 through last year, NARS has copied 8.7 million feet of motion pictures, and 1.3 million aerial images. During the last 5 years, we have reproduced 17,000 sound recordings, and 300,000 still pictures as part of our nontextual preservation program. Several million units of textual preservation have also been completed.
Our motion picture work included conversion of 2.3 million feet of nitrate motion picture film. Another 3 million feet of motion pic- ture film will be converted in the current fiscal year. This will leave us with 4.7 million feet of nitrate movie film and 32,000 nitrate still pictures to be converted.
Some 2.3 million aerial images require convereion. If we receive the supplemental funds requested we hope to have all the nitrate mo- tion picture footage on safety film by August 1980. The aerials can be completed shortly thereafter but will depend upon when the addi- tional laboratory space becomes available.
Two fires in less than 2 years at our nitrate vaults in Suitland have made it clear that we would have been wiser to spend more of our scarce preservation funds on nitrate conversion in recent years even at the cost of deferring other needed preservation work on badly deteriorating records.
On the other hand, we have stored film in these specially constructed vaults since 1949 and until August 1977 Avithout incident. Based on nearly 30 years of nitrate storage experience, we felt the risk of suffering a severe loss from fire was minimal.
Our nitrate holding-s have been kept in two specially constructed buildings, A and C, each containing 27 vaults, in Suitland. A third building, building B, is used for similar purposes by the Library nf Congress.
The compartmentalized vaults — each equipped with a blowout panel — were designed to confine any fire to a single vault area.
48
The first nitrate fire occurred in building C on August 29, 1977. Some 800,000 feet of March of Time outtakes — no edited releases — were lost along with 109 rolls of nil rate aerial film. The aerial film, foi-tunately, had already been copied on safety film. Also fortunately, the compartmentalized system worked and the fire Avas confined to only 1 of the 27 vaults.
The ad hoc. committee responsible for investigating the fire con- cluded that the fire was attributable to a combination of excessive heat in the vaults, due to faulty air-conditioning systems, a spell of hot weather for several weeks, and the presence of some 25,000 feet of deteriorating film.
In short, the committee felt conditions favorable to spontaneous combustion of the film were present.
As a result of the committee's recommendations, NARS quickly changed its procedure for the disposal of decomposing and copied film, and installed new safety and security procedures, and a daily temperature monitoiing system. New procedures for handling nitrate film were placed in effect, as well as an accelerated film inspection schedule.
Two recommendations were not implemented. Because of a lack of sufficient storage space, film could not be removed from temporary storage on tlie floors of the vaults in building C and some is still being stored in this manner.
Also, rather than use NARS manpower to administer a test of minimal benefit in providing data on film storage life, it was decided that the manpower could be more effectively used by increasing the rate of conversion and disposal of nitrate film.
With these two exceptions, all of the ad hoc committee's recom- mendations directed at NARS were carried out.
The Public Buildings Service — PBS — also moved to implement the committee's recommendations concerned with upgrading of the build- ings. A sprinker system was installed in Building C. A sprinkler system paid for by Universal Pictures had been installed in Building A when the collection was accessioned.
A contract covering new air-conditioning and air-handling systems, increased insulation, and humidification controls was awarded by PBS in fjanuary 1978. It was during this upgi-ading work that the second fire broke out on December 7, 1978, destroying some 12.6 mil- lion feet of Universal newsreel footage in 20 vaults.
The ad hoc committee investigating this second fire concluded that: "The fire was most likely caused accidentally as a result of activities associated with upgrading the air-conditioning system."
The committee went on to observe that spontaneous ignition of the nitrate film was unlikely "as none of the conditions favorable to spon- taneous ignition were present."
Specifically, all of the film had been inspected 30 days before the fire and all decomposing film had been removed and temperature readings for the days preceding and including the day of the fire were 55 degrees or below.
Perhaps as important as the question of cause is the question of why the fire spread so extensively. Although the sprinklers operated prop- erly, the system of compartmentalization broke down. Rather than being confined to the vault of origin, the fire spread to other vaults.
49
The reasons for the breakdown are alhided to in the ad hoc com- mittees's report.
I am not an expert in these matters and cannot speak authoritatively on the reason for the extensive damage to so many vaults. However, a reading of the report indicates that it may have Ijeen a combination of too many open or unlatched doors Avhen the fire began, and in- creased ventilation resulting from the firefighters' efforts.
At this point. Mr. Chairman, I think Ave should say that we do not blame the firemen for their zealous efforts. In the usual firefighters' ti'adition, they fought the blaze to the best of their ability. We thank them for that. Thej^ were careful to see that no lives were lost, at the risk of their own.
I can say that, based on extensive tests on the combustibility of nitrate film, which NARS conducted jointly with the Navy at its Indian Head, Md., facility after the fire, I disagree with the con- clusion of the minority report, written by one member of the com- mittee that :
It is probable that the December 1978 fire at the Suitland film vaults was caused by conditions rather similar to those that caused the August 1977 fire. Tliat is, deteriorating film being subjected to temperatures that were too warm.
The quote continues:
In the second instance, however, spontaneous combustion was likely pre- cipitated by heat-producing activities of the workmen who were installing a new air-conditioning system.
Evidence from the NARS-Xavy test rules out this possibility. The recently-received report of these tests is now being edited, and can be made available Avithin the next several days.
As a result of this most recent fire, we are taking all steps possible to protect the remaining film until it can be converted, and to convert it as quickly as funds and capacity allow.
Specifically, we have added personnel to the conversion program and expanded the laboratory workday to include Saturdays, bringing our annual production capability to approximately 4 million feet. Advance notice and the presence of a GSA contract supervisor each day will be required when a contractor is working on the film vaults.
We are enforcing the rule that only one vault door may be opened at a time and that all doors must be closed unless someone is working in a vault. We have required that a fire plan be coordinated with the local fire department and that all film be removed from a vault before any hazardous work is performed by a contractor.
We also have reached agreement' with PBS that XARS officials will review all specifications dealing with alterations to the buildings or equipment before a contract is let.
In conjunction with PBS, we are investigating the possibility of converting Building A to a film laboratory to enable us to expand our capacity and to eliminate the necessity of taking nitrate film into the Archives Building.
Once the nitrate is converted, we will use the laboratorv for needed expansion space for reproducing safety film, as well as for other processes for which we need additional laboratory space. Most of the unfinished improvements on Building C will be completed late this year.
50
Because of the short time in which we will need to occupy Build- ing C for storage, however, it has been determined to forgo the new air-conditioning system and instead to repair the present system and install standby compressors.
As I mentioned earlier, we have requested funds that would enable us to complete our nitrate conversion process in as little as 2 years after completion of additional laboratory facilities and, thus, substan- tially reduce the risk of further loss.
Our estimates, however, include two significant variables. First, based on our current processing, we are disposing of approximately 40 percent of the newsreel material. This percentage is subject to change, however, as we encounter new time periods and subject areas.
Second, our new process for converting aerial film has yet to be thoroughly tested and something unforeseen may necessitate adjust- ment in the process or a reduction in our projected rate of conversion.
Without any increase in funds, the nitrate conversion program would be lengthened considerably.
The remaining motion picture film is comprised of the March of Time and Universal newsreel collections — 5.6 million feet and 2.1 million feet respectively — the aerial photographs are those accessioned from several Federal agencies, and the still-picture collection records are from the Army Signal Corps, Navy, Work Projects Administra- tion, and the Department of Agriculture.
Excluding the Universal and March of Time collections received between 1971 and 1975, the majority of the nitrate motion picture film accessioned into the Archives resulted from small donations of two to five items, or, like the Ford film collection donated in 1964, were converted with funds provided by the donor organization or agency.
By the time the 1969 study on nontextual preservation was pre- pared, NARS had only 3,000 reels — 2.4 million feet — of nitrate film requiring conversion.
Our aerial film was accessioned during the years 1962 through 1977 and although most had been copied on safety film by the time of the December 7, 1978, fire, the original had not been disposed of and requires refilming.
This second conversion is required because the technology available to us at the time of the initial conversion did not provide a satisfactory image. This is particularly true for some of our user groups — specifi- cally those researchers using the photographs in connection with archeological endeavors who have recently expressed interest in these collections.
We were aware of the limitations of the copying process and result- ing product at the time we began the conversion process, but we were also working under the assumption that NARS would retain inde- finitely the nitrate original for purposes of making sharp reproduc- tions— the copy being made onlv as a safety or preservation copy in case the originals were accidentally destroyed.
This was because some image loss in copying is unavoidable, no matter hoAv advanced the technology or how carefully applied. NARS, however, changed its policy and ordered the destruction of the nitrate originals as a safety measure afj:er the August 1977 fire.
51
AVe now plan to convert the aerial images to 105-nim film rather than 70 nmi. We will be utilizing a recently developed process that we hope will enable us to convert the images with acceptable clarity for approximately one-fourth the cost of a 1-to-l conversion — the only previously available technology that would have provided an accept- able reproduction image. If this procedure is not satisfactory, we may have to reconsider a 1-to-l conversion.
Your conmiittee also has expressed interest in the policies and prac- tices of the National Archives in accepting film fix>m public agencies and private sources, and in our capability to preserve the film we acquire.
I would like first to comment on the INIarch of Time and Universal collections specifically, a2id newsreels generally. I believe these col- lections are representative of the types of materials NARS has been and would be willing to accession.
These two collections were targets of the Comptroller General's report of a year ago on the Government's care of motion picture hold- ings which criticized our film accessioning policies.
The Archives Act of 1934 authorized the National Archives "* * * to accept, store, and preserve motion picture films and sound record- ings pertaining to and illustrative of historical activities of the United States."
NARS' interest in the preservation of newsreels stems from this act and our active accessioning policies of the 1930's and 1940's. The Federal Records Act of 1950, although less specific in its authorizing language, was never interpreted in principle or practice to exclude non-Federal films of historical value, and our policy of accessioning ncAvsreels obviously continued after passage of that act.
The largest accession of newsreels by NARS was the Universal collection, comprised of some 17 million feet of nitrate film and 11 million feet of acetate film. Agreement for the transfer was made in November 1970, and the transfers of film took place from 1971 through 1974. These newsreels cover the period from 1929 through 1967.
Other newsreels acquired by NARS include : Paramount News, 1940- 57, accessioned between 1941 and 1957; Fox ^fovietone, 1957-63, ac- cessioned between 1957 and 1963; News of the Day, 1963-67, acces- sioned between 1964 and 1967; and March of Time, covering the years 1935-51, accessioned in 1975.
With the exception of the March of Time and Universal collections, the accessions were composed solely of theater releases. Paramount newsreels from the nitrate periocl were converted to safety film shortly after transfer to NARS.
The NARS efforts to preserve American newsreels are particularly important because of their value in studying American history and culture, and in showing the interaction of tlie Government with its citizens. The rapid disintegration of newsreel negatives still held in the private sector without any provision for preservation underlines the need for a Federal effort.
Since Government and the activities of public officials are by definition newsworthy, much of the newsreel footage relates to the activities of the Federal Government. Visual documentation of most of these activities is not duplicated in records created by the Federal Government.
52
For example, the Government did not usually film the speeches of Presidents. Newsreel camermen, on the other hand, followed the Presidents and filmed speeches, campaigns, and conventions.
Durinof the 1930's there were numerous stories about U.S. relations with other countries and the developing crises in Europe and Asia. The newsroels liad stories on the introcluction of new^ military tech- nology, esi)ecially in aviation, and covered congressional joint sessions, House and Senate hearings, and White House ceremonies.
Newsre^ls also ran many stories which, although not related directly to the activities of the Federal Government, are important for an un- derstanding of this country's historical development.
These include stories on labor strikes, conditions during the Great Depression, movements in foreign countries — such as Germany and Italy in the year immediately preceding the outbreak of World War II — technological change, scientific achievement, ethnic and racial minorities in the United States, the changing perceptions of women in social and vocational roles, activities of famous and infamous person- alities, and the performing arts and communications.
It is true, on the other hand, that newsreels contain much ephemera since they typically mixed light entertainment with journalism. Hence, there are numerous stories concerned w^ith sports events, human inter- est situations, disasters, the weather, beauty contests, fashion shows, and stunts and oddities of limited interest.
During the negotiations for the deposit of the Universal Newsreel Library, as well as for the ^larch of Time, the donors would not consider dividing collections at the j)lace of storage to separate footage of lasting value from the ephemeral, although it w^as agreed that non- valuable items would not be duplicated as NARS worked thix)ugh the footage when stored in its vaults.
NARS was fully aware that much of the footage did not warrant permanent preservation, and for this reason we indicated at the time of accession that we would select for j^reservation only those portions eventually evaluated as having historical significance.
The newsreel volumes — that is, the edited releases — were given first priority for preservation and are being preserved in their totality. This is be<?ause historians have recognized that the value of news- reels is based on unique pictorial information and editorial comment. This dual value is ]>articularly important for the pretelevision era in which newsreels played a significant role in formulating public perceptions of national and international issues. Also, organic series deserve to be preserved in the original order as they were seen by their contemporary audiences.
Predominance of outtakes does not lessen a collection's research value. They offer the possibility of access to significant historical foot- age whicli was eliminated from the final release versions during the editing process, and, consequently, was not seen by contemporary audiences. The research value of outtakes may be briefly sunnnarized. They represent relatively unadultei-ated film evidence "of past events. They show events in far greater detail than was permitted in the brief edited stories.
They serve as a basis for evaluating the biases of the newsreel editors in selecting shots for a finished story.
53
Newsreel footage is used extensively by researchers — by individual scholars as well as by numerous television and film producers. We be- lieve that the footage is important to an understanding of our recent history and to a better comprehension of the Federal Government's activities documented in its paper records.
Audiovisual records aid in the study of written records. Since the Goverimient did not systematically record events in an audiovisual medium, we believe NARS, as the repository of all the Government's permanently valuable records documenting its organization, fimctions, and activities, is the most logical repository for privately produced audiovisual materials reflecting or further illuminating these activ- ities.
I might add that we have developed a 10-year plan for the preser^'^a- tion needs of the audiovisual records in our custody.
In respect to film accessioned from Government agencies, the major determination of the archival value of motion picture film is made dur- ing the initial appraisal of the records before they are transferred to NARS. Records which have already been accessioned into NARS are systematically inspected for physical deterioration, and reevalu- ated for continued retention, when reviewed for cataloging. During any of these procedures, film footage may be determined to be non- archival and set-aside for disposal.
The Government-wide standard for determining the retention period and archival value of film is General Records Schedule 21 — GRS-21. Broad in scope, it is intended to complement approved agency records schedules. Records that cannot be destroyed in accordance with GRS- 21 must be described on an agency records schedule and submitted to NARS for appraisal.
^Yhen GRS-21 was being drafted in 1976, all major film producing agencies of the Federal Government were consulted and indicated that the schedule and the accompanying explanatory notes would be use- ful in assisting them in records disposition.
The schedule had been in effect for a year and a half when the GAO report was issued. As a result of that report, NARS began a review of the schedule and is currently receiving comments from agency rec- ords officers on the application and adequacy of GRS-21. Alterations in GRS-21 will be made on the basis of these comments and our own staff members' ree valuations of the schedule.
We have also undertaken a review of our criteria for accessioning non-Federal records. In the past we have interpreted our accessioning authority broadly and have obtained some invaluable film records.
However, in the interest of preserving the records already in our custody, we have begun to review our policies on accepting non-Federal records.
In regard to our capability to preserve the film we acquire, NARS lias developed a 10-year plan for the preservation needs of the audio- visual records in its custody. This 10-year plan details cost estimates for a comprehensive film inspection program, and if additional funds become available, the program will be promptly implemented.
At the present time, however, because of staff and budget limita- tions, the conversion of nitrate film must take precedence over the implementation of a comprehensive inspection program for safety film.
54
Integral to the 10-year program is an effort to insure that Federal agencies manage the disposition of their records in accordance with General Records Schedule 21 or approved agency record schedules, and that they manage and transfer audiovisual records to NARS in accord- ance with the provisions of GSA regulations.
Current regulations require that agencies transmit original nega- tives, master positives, and projection prints as well as unedited out- takes to the National Archives.
In the future, if NARS can receive in the original accession what it is now paying to produce itself for past accessions; that is, enough copies of a film to provide efficient reference and reproduction service while also preserving the film, then we anticipate a substantial de- crease in preservation costs after completion of the 10-year program.
In addition to the nitrate conversion, I should point out that there are other pressing preservation needs. These include copying very valuable glass and nitrate negatives in our still picture holdings, and inspection and reproduction of sound recording discs.
Without additional funds, however, this accelerated nontextural preservation cannot be implemented and our efforts to protect these records from further deterioration will be seriously impaired.
Storage conditions, although still certainly not ideal, will improve greatly with the completion of the second major portion of the Ar- chives Building cooling and air-handling systems expected to be com- pleted this year.
Another $750,000 has been programed by PBS for fiscal year 1980 to fine tune the system and to provide for automatic monitoring devices to replace the current daily manual recordings of temperature and humidity.
We believe these changes will insure proper environmental control for our black and white films. We are also considering the continued utilization of building C for safety film storage, after completion of the nitrate conversion program, to relieve overcrowding in the Archives Building.
The storage of color film presents unique problems, since it should be stored at approximately 35° F. We are exploring the possibility of including a 6,000-square-foot refrigerator vault in a facility we plan to lease in Alexandria, Va.
The vault would have a capacity of 12,000 cubic feet and would hold approximately 160,000 reels of film. NARS would utilize 8,000 cubic feet and the remainder would be available to other agencies for film appraised as permanently valuable.
Finally, to insure that agencies properly manage their audiovisual records, including motion picture films, NARS has accelerated its eval- uation of agencies, audiovisual records and management programs.
During fiscal year 1979, several agencies which are large producers of audiovisuals, are being surveyed or evaluated. These agencies in- clude the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Depart- ment of Transportation, and the Veterans' Administration.
During fiscal year 1978, evaluations of the Environmental Protec- tion Agency, the Department of the Navy, and the Office of the Secre- tary of Defense were completed.
In summary, we have been and are making progress in preserv- ing our film and other nontextual holdings, in spite of limited funds and a large backlog of preservation work to be done.
55
We, too, hope that improvements in the program can be realized but, to a great extent, this will depend upon the availability of addi- tional resources.
Thank you.
Mr. Preyer. Thank you very much, Dr. Rhoads, for your testimony.
You mentioned the building was designed to confine a blaze to a single building. Was this building designed with the idea in mind of storing film in it?
Dr. EnoADS. Yes, sir, it was.
Mr. Preyer. When the building was located where it is, was it an isolated area or was it relatively populated as it is today ?
Dr. Rhoads. I was not in Washington in 1949, Mr. Chairman. I sus- pect there wei-e some other Federal buildings on the Federal complex at Suitland at that time. A lot of the commercial and residential areas that are now, I think we would all agree, too close to our film vaults had not, as yet, been built.
Mr. KiNDXEss. ]Mr. Chairman, I was in Washington at that time. That was in the countryside. [Laughter.]
Mr. Preyer. You mentioned some recent tests that apparently the Navy had run on the combustibility of film. Was there anything you learned from those tests that would either back up or contradict Chief Estepp's testimony that this kind of film is like having dynamite in the neighborhood.
Dr. Rhoads. There is no doubt that once this film catches on fire it behaves in a very volatile way.
The tests at Indian Head, however, did demonstrate that nitrate film in good condition was very difficult to ignite.
A number of tests took place. There were tests that dropped film from a height of 40 feet, both flat and on its edge. There were attempts made to start fires with electrical currents through the film cans.
There were tests that put open flame underneath the film cans. There were friction tests. There was quite a panoply of tests which were performed.
Tliese tests demonstrated, to my satisfaction, that film in good con- dition must reach a temperature of at least 240 degrees Fahrenheit before ignition takes place. Film in the vaults that burned had been inspected no earlier than 30 days before the fire. The film that we found to be decomposing had been removed. We think it is unlikely that there was any seriously degraded film in the vaults at that time.
The ambient temperature, the outdoor temperature, was only about 55 degrees on that day. There had been relatively cool weather for several weeks beforehand.
Mr. Preyer. So the study, you think, bolsters vour suggestion or the suggestion of tlie PBS committee that, rather than igniting spon- taneously, it might have been caused accidentally ; is that right ?
Dr. Rhoads. I cannot be certain anv more than I think anyone else can be certain, but I think tlie evidence suggests that it was ignited accidentally and not through spontaneous combustion.
Mr. Preyer. How much nitrate film does the Archives have left to convert to safety film ? I think we all agree that is one final solution to the problem.
Dr. Rhoads. Yes ; there is no question that is the only final solution. We have approximately 13 million nmning feet of nitrate motion picture film m our custody. Most of that is newsreel footage.
56
In our efforts to convert that film, we find that something in the vicinity of 60 percent of the outtakes meet our criteria for retention and for copying.
The 13 million feet should be reduced by a factor of perhaps 40 per- cent which leaves us with roughly 7 million feet to convert.
]Mr. Preyer. Is that the amount that you estimate you could com- plete converting in 2 years if you had sufficient funds ?
Dr. Rhoads. Yes, sir. We are going to complete converting that in 2 years whether we are given additional money or not. We have re- pro^ramed funds from other activities so we can get that problem behmd us.
The motion picture conversion, we are confident, will be completed by the fall of 1980.
We still have a substantial amount of nitrate aerial photography that remains, however.
Mr. Preyer. If you had unlimited funds — let us dream a little bit — could you complete it in a much quicker time than 2 years, or is that amount of time necessary because of the techniques?
Dr. Rhoads. Because of the techniques involved, I am inclined to think that we would not be able to do a great deal better than the 2-year conversion period.
Mr. Preyer. George Stevens suggested all old newsreels that are now privately held in the country should be turned over to you.
Do you have a horseback estimate as to how large a volume that would be ?
Dr. Rhoads. I have read the same reports that Mr. Stevens referred to. I do not have any independent opinion as to whether that is the right figure or not.
Mr. Preyer. Would you accept that material if he was able to gather it together for you? Let us say it is another 14 million feet.
Dr. Rhoads. I think that these films, or at least certain portions of them are undoubtedly worthy of preservation. The National Archives probably more than any institution in this country, is a recognized center for storage of newsreel film.
However, I must say that I would be very reluctant to accept it without a clear and firm indication that we had sufficient resources to convert it in a very short period of time.
Mr. Preyer. Incidently, in that connection, I understand when you accepted this film from Universal Pictures, that it was agreed they would install a deluge sprinkler system ; am I right ?
Dr. Rhoads. You are correct, sir, yes.
Mr. Preyer. Why was that never done ?
Dr. Rhoads. Perhaps one of my colleagues can supplement what I have to say on that, Mr. Chairman, but I think we were under the im- pression that the sprinkler system which was installed did meet the specifications that were implied in the gift.
Mr. Landers. I think that is correct, Mr. Chairman. My understand- ing was that the sprinkler system that had been installed was, in fact, a deluge system ; but it was not, obviously.
Mr. Preyer. As I understand it, it was described as a deluge system. It had some aspects of a deluge system, but in fact it had the closed valves.
Dr. Rhoads. It had the wrong kind of heads, yes.
57
Mr. Preyer. Yes.
This made it, in effect, a nondeluge sprinkler system.
Going back to the nitrate tilm conversion project, I understand that the Library of Congress is planning a new film laboratory at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio for the purpose of convert- ing nitrate film.
Can the Archives use this facility? Would it be in existence soon enough? I understand they can convert nitrate film to safety film for 25 cents a foot. I wonder if you can do it that economically and also I wonder why you would not use the Library of Congress facility.
Dr. Rhoads. Mr. Chairman, the figure that you cited as the Library of Congress cost per foot is essentially the same as the figure for our own program.
It is my understanding that that facility will not be in full opera- tion at Dayton, Ohio, until sometime in the summer of 1980 and by the fall of 1980 we think we are going to have our motion pictures all converted.
Mr. Preyer. Thank you.
[Subcommittee note : The quotation of $0.25 a foot is in error. Ac- tually, the nitrate film conversion cost for the Library of Congress for fiscal year 1978 was $0.1567 per foot. This figure does not include complete foot-by-foot inspection costs. The laboratory conversion cost for National Archives is $0.18 per foot, and rises to $0.22 per foot wnp! inspection costs are included.]
Mr. Preyer. Mr. Kindness, do you have any questions ?
Mr. Kindness. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Rhoads, of course, combustion is an archivist's nightmare. Wi all recognize that.
Wliat written procedures and standards relating to the conduct of work specifically at Suitland and at other facilities of a similar nature are there ? I am wondering whether we might just make that a part of the record.
Mr. Rhoads. Yes, we have such procedures for the work at Suit- land. We would be happy to submit that for the record.
Mr. Kindness. Thank you.
Mr. Preyer. Without objection, so ordered.
[The material follows :]
58
October 17, 1977
Safety Procedures for Suitland Kiti-ate Vaults and for Eandlir^; ITitrato rila
As a rosxilt of a aeetins en September 23 » 1977> involving FD, ITU, 17NV, '.'AS, etc., it vas at;:rGcd that VITV should acsicre full respansibilitj for the cocurity of Buildings A and C, S'.J.tland Nitrate Vaiilts. Building 3 rexiLsinG xzndcr the supervision of the Library of Confess, These build:.n>^ houLO n^rchival originals cade of nitrocell'oloae filn wiiich is chemically -ur^table end higblj- flannable. To ensure the safety of all pcrconncl vho are assigned to these buildings and to Eafe£raard archival originals fron the risk of fire the encloeed retri^a-tiCTnc KTJint be otrictly observed. These regulations also pertain to the ■•■■r.dling of niirate filia in the Kational /jrchives building.
'-TLLI/.K T. l7JPJ'~i, Chief
Kotion Picture r.-d Sound Hecording
Audiovisual Arcrdves Division
Att'aoteient
59
All exterior dooro nuBt be kept locked at ell times oven when staff personnel axe inside.
All windows and doors will be socurod at the end of eaoh work day.
All vaxilt dooro nust be properly eocvired at all tixies except when someone is inside.
A visitoi^'s lo^ nust be naintained In each buildir;^. Everyone zrost sign in end out, including all NARS employees.
jj.1 visitors n-j^t be OBCorted ai all tinea while in the vaults. An exception is the ?3S naintenance engineers who regularly enter the vaults.
Only persons v;ith official business are permitted to enter the buildir.gs.
AJl keys to buildings A ar.d C will be recrilled and registered and will be reissuGC. by 11177 at its discretion.
The naznes and official and residential telephone nunbers of the ITitrate Vault S-jpor-.-isor, the Chief of the Motion Picture and Sound Hocordir-c Eranch, and the Director arid Deputy Director of the Audiovisual /jTcMves rivisicr. A.-ill be posted on the building entra;icos. The Federal Protective Oifico will also be given this inforaation to report eaergcncieE
FPO will be reauosted to secure the coajjound gate at k:U^ p.m. each work da^-.
60
RKLATiarS V^TH PBS
Tcriperaturo reading n'JLst be recorded each work day at approximately 2:00 p.E., vlien the outside acbient tesporatiire is aba-/e 55^» Tlie reading E.ust bo recorded in a log and initialed by the icnil employee vho inakes the readings. The air conditioning Id Bet for 55° • All reading3 abCT'/e 55° are to be reported to the PBS Field Kanager's Office; the report of this call should be indicated in the log's renarks colv^n.
The Supervisor rrost maintain a record of all calls to PBS concerning air conditioning proble~B or other equipment breakdowns. Ti:j Super- viBor should notify the Branch Chief about these calls end should also report follow up action by PBS.
F3S naintcnance engineers will enter the buildings after hours on their regular tours. Other repairacn Buch as pfepefitters or painters vho do not regc;larl;\' enter the va'-ilts must be accompanied by en KhTI-; staff member.
61
R/JIDLITCG PKOCnuORES
No nitrate fila is pemitted in the vork roons overnight. It chould be placed in a vavilt.
No core than 10,000 feet of nitrate filn ehould be brought into the vork roo3 at any one tir:e. Film is to remain in covorod cans at all times except vhea it ie bein^ worked on.
!To Gnoking xb per:2itted anywhere in ths buildir,^ except in office areas. Ko Eaoki ng is ever pemitted in the vork roonis.
Devices that produce static electricity or intense heat may not be used; nor nay inilEziziable liquids or solvesitB be used.
All nitrate filn that is sent out of the building' should be placed in a metal can vith a red label identifying it as nitrate film,
Eveiy can of nitrate filn vill be sight inepccted on a Beni-annual basis. An inspection clip vill be inserted in each caa oontaining the date of inspection and name of iiispector. In addition, a record vill be kept of the incl-osive can numbers in each vaxilt vith a date of the last inspection.
Films EhOT/ing signs of advanced deterioration (i.e., savere adhesion, melting together and bubbling, and brov-Ti powder) must immediately be destroyed by e^iib-srsicn in a water ban-el closed by a tight lid. The amount of footage destroyed, cen nimber and vault number ahould be tabulated end included in the Supervisor's monthly report to the Branch Chief.
Scrap film will also be submerged pending disposal.
Films Ehovfing moderate tackiness should be given priority for copying on to safety-'Ease film.
All e\ibmerged film avaiting diepoeal should be stored in a vault (Vault 13, Diiildir.g A) by itself. All s-^'hrnerged film should be removed from the building within ten vorking da>-6 from its discoveiy. This can be effected by requesting the Branch Chief to preppre a requisition. Under no circu~-tanceB should submerged film be removed from the barrels except for hauling away from the building.
I<o film cans cr cartons may be stored on vault floors or in the corridors.
51-332 0-79
62
HJ THE V/UTT C? A FIRE
All personnel vill ervacxia.te tha btiildin^ end go to a safe diotance. The SuperviBor or other available pcrsocriel will go to a rhone in another hulldiji^ ar.d call the IPO field office (763-7581). If the line iB bu£v', the Price George's Countj Fire Department can be reached by dialing 911»
Do not use the fire extlnfiruif-herB in the buildings to fight nitrate fires or electrical fires. They are for sole use on a paper or Eimilar fire that nay occur.
63
DATE: March J'4, 1 979
BEfLY TO .,.,,, u
ATTN OF: NNVM
SUBJECT! Nitrate Film Vault Procedures
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
National Archives and Records Service Washington. DC 20408
As a result of recommendations by the ad hoc committee to investigate the fire of December 7, 1978, and our observations during the course of the fire, some changes in nitrate fiJm handling and storage pro- cedures are necessary. The attached set of procedures incorporates these changes. The major ones Include a daily temperature reading re- gardless of outside ambient temperature; daily reporting of construction activities; and accounting for personnel in the event of an emergency.
Although the vault Supervisor has primary responsibility for seeing that these rules and procedures are carried out, everyone who works there should be familiar with them. Each individual has an obUgation to be vigilant and to report immediately any activities or conditions that may constitute a fire hazard.
i^iCw>'i ''
WILLIAM T. MURPHY, ChieA
Motion Picture snd/sou/d Recording Branch
Audiovisual Archi vVs^i vi sion
64
All exterior doors must be kept locked at oil times even when staff personnel are Inside.
All windows and doors will be locked at the end of each work day.
All vault doors must bo properly latched at all times except when someone is inside.
A visitor's log must be maintained and everyone must sign in and out, including all NARS employees.
All visitors must be escorted at all times while in the vaults. An ex- ception is the PBS maintenance engineers who regularly enter the vaults.
Only persons with official business are permitted to enter the buildings.
FPO has been requested to secure the compound gate at h:hS p.m. each work day,
RELATIONS WITH PBS
Temperature readings (and humidity readings when available) must be recorded each work day. The readings must be recorded in a log and initialed by the NNVM employee who makes the readings. The air conditioning is set for 55° F. All readings above 55 are to be reported to the PBS Field Manager's Office; the report of this call should be indicated in the log's remarks column.
The Supervisor must maintain a record of all calls to PBS concerning air conditioning problems or other equipmC;nt breakdowns. The Supervisor should notify the Branch Chief about these calls and should also report follow-up action by °;''iS.
PBS maintenance engineers will enter the buildings on various shifts. Other repairmen such as pipefitters or painters who do not regularly enter the vaults
must be accompanied by an NNVM staff member.
The Supervisor must report construction or repair work daily. No construction or repair v/ork in vaults v;ith nitrate film is authorized.
GENERAL HANDLING PROCEDURES
No nitrate film is permitted in the work rooms overnight. It should be placed in a vault.
Not more than 12,000 feet of nitrate film should be brought into the vvfork rooms at any one time. Film is to remain in covered cans at all times except when it is being v/orked on.
No smoking is permitted anywhere in the buildings. Signs should be posted. Devices that produce static electricity (e.g., high speed rewinds) or intense
65
.eat may not be used; nor may inflammable liquids or solvents be used.
All nitrate film that is sent out of the building should be placed in a metal can with a red label Identifying It as nitrate film.
Every can of nitrate film will be sight inspected on a semi-annual basis. An Inspection slip will be inserted in each can containing the date of inspection and name of inspector. In addition, a record will be kept of the inclusive can numbers In each vault with a date of the last Inspection.
Films showing signs of advanced deterioration (i.e., severe adhesion, melting together and bubbling, and brown powder) must Immediately be destroyed by submersion In a water barrel closed by a tight lid. The amount of footage destroyed, can number and vault number should be tabulated and included in the Supervisor's monthly report to the Branch Chief. Scrap film will also be sub- merged pending disposal.
Films showing moderate tackiness should be given priority for copying on to safety-base film.
All converted nitrate film should be disposed of by submersion upon the inspection of a satisfactory safety copy.
All submerged film awaiting disposal should be stored In a vault by Itself. All submerged film should be removed from the building within ten working days. The vault Supervisor should requisition a pick up from NAS. Under no circumstances should submerged film be removed from the barrels except for hauling away from the building.
To avoid blocking sprinkler coverage, vertical storage of film cans between horizontal stacks Is, not perm'tted.
No film cans or cartons may be stored on va'--lt floors or in the corridor;, and no film may be stored within 12 Inches from the roof.
IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE
All personnel will evacuate the building and go to a safe distance. The Supervisor or other available personnel will go to a phone in another building and call the FPO field office (763-758I). If the line is busy, the Prince George's County Fire Department can be reached by dialing 911.
The Supervisor is responsible for taking attendance of all personnel in the building where a fire may occur and for designating someone to inform a fire depart- ment captain or equivalent whether any personnel remain inside.
Do not use the fire extinguishers In the buildings to fight nitrate fires or electrical fires. They are for sole use on a paper or similar fire that may occi^r.
66
HANDLING NITRATE FILM IN THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES BUILDtNG
Nitrate prints are not available for reference purposes. Nor may nitrate prints be projected In tiie theater.
All nitrate film sent into the building for laboratory work must be labeled with red tape.
Nitrate may only be stored temporarily in the 5th floor vaults In steel trays, which must be properly closed. Since this will make keeping a large order together quite difficult it is advisable to hold nitrate in Suitland until the day the laboratory is ready to work on it, in which case the nitrate should be sent in on the morning shuttle van. The nitrate film should be returned to Suitland Inmediately upon completion of laboratory work.
67
Mr. Kindness. Do they contain any specific ways of going about co- operating witli local fire officials, fire safety standards and inspections and the preparation or the possibility of firefighting actually having to occur on Federal facilities ?
Dr. Rhoads. I recall that in those procedures, there is a section re- lating to fire, but I think Mr. ISIoore or Mr. IMurphy could answer that more specifically.
Mr. Murphy. The procedures for the nitrate vaults include a section on what to do in case of a fire. There are provisions for vacating the building, for reporting fire, and going to a safe distance.
There are no provisions in the procedures about setting up a prefire plan with the Prince Georges County Fire Department.
]Mr. Kindness. Would it be desirable to review those procedures from the standpoint of all facilities that might be similarly involved, not only with respect to nitrate film, but with regard to paper docu- ments which are also subject to potential losses?
I am talking in terms of getting a more regularized way of assuring that" there would be cooperation with local fire officials.
Dr. Rhoads. Yes. I think it is correct that we have a fairly close liaison with local fire departments in most of our facilities. The Fed- eral Records Center is very conscious of the possible hazards of fire there. It is my impression, although I cannot speak out of detailed personal knowledge, that in each of those facilities we do indeed have a close relationship with the local fire departments. I think that is essential.
INIr. Kindness. People do forget. So, would it perhaps be desirable to have something in the written standards or procedures?
Dr. Rhoads. That is an excellent idea. If we do not have it in there, we will certainly seriously consider adding it.
Mr. Kindness. Are any commercial facilities available at reasonable costs for the reproduction of nitrate film on safety film?
Dr. Rhoads. We have explored the possibility of using commercial facilities without a great deal of success. Perhaps Mr. Landers can add some detail.
]\Ir. Landers. IMr. ISIoore has done most of the searching, and I think we have finally been able to find one firm in town which is able to han- dle this material. We had a couple of other suppliers out of town that did not turn out, from a quality point of view, to our satisfaction.
We either have or almost have a contract with this firm. We will be sending them material as they can handle it. Grenerally speaking, it is difficult to find commercial firms that are interested in the business.
Mr. Kindness. Is there anything special bv way of requirements relating to the transportation of film when it is going back and forth to the commercial processor that might pose a problem?
Mr. Landers. It needs to be well taken care of. Mv impression is this. I am not an expert, but my impression is that as long as you are not crossing State lines, you do not get into the ICC requirements for having each can in a separate container.
Mr. Kindness. Is there any other place where NARS stores film, nitrate or otherwise?
Dr. Rhoads. We store a very small amount of nitrate occasionally in the National Archives building in intricately constructed vaults. We only bring in an amount equivalent to a single day's work to be copied in our lab in the Archives building.
68
We have discovered in recent weeks, at least two or three instances in our Federal Records Centers, where there was some nitrate film. I think a little bit of motion picture film and some cut film was there. We have removed it from the premises and returned it to the agencies from which we received it.
This is material that is still in the official and legal custody of the depositing agency rather than in our own custody.
Mr. Kindness. Has there been any reinspection or ree valuation of the storage at the laboratory facility in the main Archives building recently in view of the fire experience ?
Dr. JRhoads. Yes, we have taken another look at that since the fire. Although our preference would be to do this copying out of the Archives building, we do have firewalls and sprinklers in our labora- tory. We bring in only the small amount which can be processed in one day.
Mr. Kindness. Are we sure it is a deluge sprinkler system ?
Dr. Rhoads. Mr. Kindness, I am not sure.
Mr. Kindness. I thought that was almost a facetious question, but it is not, it turns out. I then must ask this. With regard to cooperation with the District of Columbia Fire Department, have they, since the fire in Suitland, been asked to come in and look at the circumstances in tlie Archives building?
Mr. Rhoads. T am not sure. Perhaps Mr. Landers can respond to that.
Mr. Landers. The Public Buildings Service's accident and fire protection people have been in twice. The Occupational Safety, and Health people were in last week. We have the reports from the PBS inspections. So far as I know, the system is either satisfactory or we are underway to make it satisfactory. I think it is the former.
I do not have any report yet from the OSHA people.
Whether PBS has gotten together with the District of Columbia Fire Department, T am not sure.
Mr. Ingram. Excuse me, Mr. Kindness.
I meant to call the committee's attention earlier to the fact that prior to the hearing today we were handed a response of OSHA to a letter from the Chairman. If you wish, I could read that into the record.
Mr. Kindness. We might do that in a moment.
I am more concerned with firefighters who have to go in there and fight a fire if something does occur. I am wondering whether it would not be a good idea to make sure that the District of Co- lumbia Fire Department is contacted and does have the opportunity to look specifically at this and make any recommendations that they might have.
Dr. Rhoads. That is a very good suggestion. We will follow through on that.
Mr, Kindness. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Preyer. We have run a little longer than we intended to today. We have a vote on the floor right now, and I am afraid there are luncheon engagements.
Thursday we will be going into the whole preservation of records problem generally and not just the Suitland fire.
69
So, I wonder if it would be agreeable to yon, Dr. Rhoads, to break at this time and then Thursday perhaps we can give you a certain time, like 2 o'clock in the afternoon, to complete the questioning on this subject that we are on today.
Mr. Ingram. Mr. Preyer, out of fairness to the witness, we did re- ceive the OSHA response today. If I might, I might read it into the record to allow the witness an adequate opportunity to respond to it on Thursday.
Mr. Kindness. Mr. Chairman, I would move that the letter be made a part of the record and copies he made available to Dr. Rhoads.
Mr. Preyer. All right.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The material follows :]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration WASHINGTON. D.C. 20210
Office of the Assistant Secretary
19JUNI379
Honorable Richardson Preyer Chairman, Subcommittee of the
Government Information and
Individual Rights Committee on Government Operations House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Preyer:
As you requested in your letter of May 4, 1979, a survey of the nitrate film facilities of the National Archives was conducted by Occupational Safety and Health Admin- istration staff. The facilities at 7th and Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, and Building C located in Suitland, Maryland were visited during this survey.
The full report of findings is being prepared at this time
and will be provided to you as soon as it is completed.
In the meantime, the following major findings are provided:
1. The physical structure of the film laboratory, its location, and the deficiencies in fire suppression and fire exit requirements, could cause serious harm to both Federal employees and the public in the event of a nitrate film fire in the laboratory.
2. The laboratory processing, the film load, and its handling are such that it is possible to have a serious nitrate film fire.
3. Although the decomposition products of nitrate film are known to be toxic, there have been no industrial hygiene surveys of exposures to Federal employees who work with the film.
70
4. The structural deficiencies in the Suitland film vaults were discussed in GSA reports of 1957 and 1973. Very little upgrading resulted from the reports, except for the aborted deluge system for Building A vaults. Since 1977, GSA plans called for major corrections, but these have not been completed. At this time, the facility is still exposed to the hazard of nitrate film fires.
Sincerely,
Eula' Bingham \y ■ \ 'Assistant Secretary :'','-■' Occupational Safety and Health
[See app. 2 for final OSHA report.]
Mr. Preyer. Dr. Rhoads, is that agreeable ?
Dr. Rhoads. Yes.
Mr. Preyer. Then, without objection, the subcommittee will stand in recess until 10 a.m. Thursday morning.
[Whereupon, at 12 :3() p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to recon- vene at 10 a.m., Thursday, June 21, 1979.]
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE FILM-VAULT FIRE AT SUITLAND, MD.
THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 1979
House of Representatives,
Government Information AND Individual Rights Subcommittee OF THE Committee on Government Operations,
Washington^ D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Richardson Preyer (chair- man of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Richardson Preyer, David W. Evans, Thomas N. Kindness, and M. Caldwell Butler.
Also present: Timothy H. Ingram, staff director; Timothy R. Hutchens, professional staff member; Maura Flaherty, clerk; and Thomas Morr, minority professional staff, Committee on Government Operations.
Mr. Preyer. The subcommittee will come to order.
We continue today our examination of the circumstances behind the fire at the Suitland, Md.. film vault run by the National Archives and Records Service.
Our first witness today is Dr. James B. Rhoads, x^rchivist of the United States, with his associates. AVe had begun the questioning of Dr. Rhoads on Tuesday, but unfortunately we Avere unable to finish, so we welcome him back this morning.
Dr. Rhoads, I will ask you and all of your associates, as we do in all of our investigative mattei-s, to stand and be sworn at this time.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God ?
[Chorus of "I do's.'']
Mr. Preyer. Thank you.
I believe you have an additional statement that you wish to present at this time. Dr. Rhoads.
(71)
72
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES B. RHOADS, ARCHIVIST OP THE UNITED STATES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE; ACCOM- PANIED BY JAMES W. MOORE, AUDIOVISUAL ARCHIVES DIVI- SION, OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, NARS; WILLIAM MURPHY, CHIEF, MOTION PICTURE AND SOUND RECORDING BRANCH, AUDIOVISUAL ARCHIVES DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, NARS; JOHN J. LANDERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ARCHIVES; MELVIN C. HUDSON, SAFETY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER, NAVAL ORDNANCE STA- TION, INDIAN HEAD, MD.
Dr. Khoads. With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention, first of all, that, in addition to having the same three col- leagues with me as appeared with me on Tuesday — Mr. Landers, Mr. Moore, and Mr. Murphy — I also have with me Mr. Melvin Hudson who is a civilian physicist and professional engineer working for the Navy who supervised the tests of nitrate film for us that were re- cently completed at Indian Head, Md. He is completing his report, but I thought I would bring him along in case you might wish to ask him any questions. He is sitting on the front row, immediately behind me.
I would like to make just a few additions to my response when the hearing was recessed on Tuesday.
First of all, I want to be sure that there are the best possible work- ing arrangements between our facilities and the local fire departments. Our administrative people have talked with the accident and fire pro- tection specialist in the Public Buildings Service in the last 2 days on this subject, and it was agreed that meetings would be held with the Prince Georges County Fire Department at Suitland and the Dis- trict of Columbia Fire Department at the Archives Building to make absolutely certain that there is maximum communication and coopera- tion to prevent any future fires and, should the unforeseen unhappily occur, to fight them efficiently.
There has been cooperation between oru people and the fire depart- ment. The District fire officials, for example, have been through the main Archives Building from top to bottom. But we want to be sure, as you do, that no effort is spared.
Particular attention will be given to areas where the nitrate film is stored at Suitland and where the conversion process takes place in our laboratory in the main building.
Those meetings will take place as soon as possible.
Second, the Fire and Accident Prevention Branch in GSA's re- gional office has confirmed that the existing wet pipe sprinkler system, which they had inspected in our reproduction laboratory, is adequate. A limited amount of nitrate film is there at any one time for conver- sion. However, here again, we want to be on the safe side, and we are going to ask the GSA fire safetv people to make a further study, and wc will also ask the advice of the District Fire Department. If a change to a deluge system is indicated, we will certainly have it done as expeditiously as possible.
At the close of the hearings on Tuesday, you gave us a copy of the preliminary OSHA report on the survey of our nitrate film facilities
73
at Suitland and at the main library building in Washington and indi- cated that you would like some comment from us.
The letter, which I have now read, is really a very generalized set of assertions and says that a report of findings is still being prepared. I really think that, lacking the detailed report, it would be very diffi- cult for me to comment in any meaningfid way at this time. E. t once that report is in, we will, of course, study it and be happy to respond.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Preyer. Thank you, Dr. Ilhoads.
Mr. Kindness ?
Mr. Kindness. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Dr. Rhoads.
I am greatly encouraged that these steps are being taken. I wonder if we might expand our realm of thought just a little this morning. This may not be entirely fair to you because it is a thought that has occurred to me since the other day, but it is something to be consid- ered in line with this inquiry.
In terms of disaster of one sort or another, is there in the planning of NARS some preparation for what might occur in the event of a tornado, hurricane, or other type of circumstance that might do dam- age to the building ? Would that have any effect on the operation, for example, of the air-conditioning system and result in greater exposure to risk of fire with nitrate film ?
Second, in the event of any type of activity that might cause fire to the building from the outside, is there anything that needs to be prepared for?
I realize this is a little beyond the scope
Dr. Rhoads. I think that about all I can say, Mr. Kindness, is that the systems to protect the film are, by and large, automatic systems. We do not have to have someone there to turn something on. So, if there were casualties, injuries, or worse, presumably the systems w^ould operate; although I guess I would have to qualify that, depending on the kind of catastrophe it was. It is entirely possible that a tornado, earthquake, or something like that could damage those systems.
I think you are making an important point, but there are so many possible vaiiables in the scenarios that you set forth that I find it a little difficult to respond.
Mr. Kindness. Right. I am not suggesting this is a high-risk prob- lem, or that it occurs to me as being such, but, rather, whether, as a re- sult of these events that have occurred, some thought ought to be given to what might need to be put in place by way of protection and plan- ning ahead, or whether it might be determined that there is no un- usual risk to be contemplated by any foreseeable event occurring along those lines. I simply had not thought about it really until this morning.
Mr. Ingram. Pardon me, Mr. Kindness.
Perhaps, Dr. Rhoads, the question might be : whom you rely upon, for advice, both on fire safety and for other possible natural disasters — whether you have on your staff trained engineers who could provide that assistance.
Dr. Rhoads. In terms of trained engineer, of course, we would be relying on the Public Buildings Service for this kind of expertise.
We are giving serious consideration to the establishment of a new position in the National Archives of a security officer who would have
74
a systemwide responsibility for, not only physical security — preven- tion of theft or compromise of our holdings — but who would also be the person who would be looking into safety problems.
The Public Buildings Service is allocated that responsibility to a large extent, but I think it might be well to have someone on our staff who would be making an initial response to anything that any member of our staff brought to our attention that appeared not to be as it should be and who would be our main point of contact with the Public Buildings Service, monitoring activities and making sure that steps were taken promptly when it became apparent that they needed to be.
It would seem to me that part of the responsibility of that person might very well be to deal with the kind of potential problems that you have raised, Mr. Kindness. That is certainly something that we ought to be thinking about.
Mr. Kindness. Similarly, the other materials maintained by the National Archives — I suppose some thought has been given to what happens in the event of an unusual occurrence to some of the things at the main building, and, I suppose, in all locations where you have mate- rials maintained for storage this same function might be performed. Dr. Rhoads. That is right.
The proposed position I was referring to would be for someone who would have this responsibility generally throughout the National Archives and Records Service system.
Mr. Kindness. On another topic, what authority does NARS have at the present time to accession film collections ?
There was testimony the other day to the effect that it might be desir- able if the Federal Government, or some part of it, were to be more aggressive about acquiring nitrate films and doing something about the preservation of those parts of our history. Would you care to comment in that area ? Dr. Rhoads. Yes.
The Federal Records Act of 1950, which has been amended, of course, but which is our basic charter, authorizes us to accept materials, includ- ing audiovisual materials, from non-Federal sources if they — and I am not quoting the exact language — supplement in an important way the coverage of fimctions of the Federal Government.
We believe that extensive portions of newsreels, including outtakes, do cover Federal Government activities or the implications of Federal Government actions in a way that was not available from Government sources. So, it is under that authority that we have felt free to accept newsreel material.
I should also say that we have had a longstanding agreement — from 1949 — with the Library of Congress as to what kinds of nongovern- mental audiovisual materials each institutions would collect. That was brought up to date in 1975. We now have a rather current formal agreement with the Library of Congress which divides the turf in what I believe to be a reasonable way.
We are interested in acquiring materials that relate to governmental activities, important public events, and news. The Library of Congress is responsible primarily for those films which would deal with other kinds of matters that are not normally associated with Government.
It is my understanding that the National Endowment for the Humanities is planning to begin a program under its hoped-for new
75
authorization which would address the whole question of preservation of historical materials, too. I do not have any details on that, but that is another Federal agency that may be able to play an important role in this in the future.
Mr. Ingram. Would that program overlap with cun-ent activities of the Archives or the National Historical Publications and Records Commission ?
Dr. Rhoads. I hope that it would supplement it rather than overlap, but I do not have enough details about the NEH proposal myself to be able to give you any categorical answer on that.
Mr. Ingram. They would coordinate this with you in advance?
Dr. Rhoads. There is a great deal of coordination between the staff of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the staff of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, and there may have been some discussions already on this of which I am not personally aware.
Mr. Kindness. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan.
Thank you. Dr. Rhoads.
Mr. Preyer. Thank you.
Mr. Kindness has mentioned the possibility of additional footage of film coming to the Archives. We have heard about the March of Time films and the Universal newsreels.
Are there any specific large acquisitions that are contemplated by the Archives at the present time ?
Dr. Rhoads. From non-Federal sources ?
Mr. Preyer. Yes.
Dr. Rhoads. I do not believe there are, but I think Mr. Moore could perhaps answer that.
Mr. ISIooRE. No, there are no large accessions we contemplate from non-Government sources at this time.
Mr. Preyer. Assuming Miss Gish, who is a very effective campaigner and champion for the cause of getting more newsreel films, convinces more non-Federal groups to donate films to you, (1) would you accept them ; and (2) where would you store them, if they came in tomorrow, for example ?
I understand the old Lansburgh's Department Store facility has been closed as far as any use of nitrate film goes, which I think is a wise move. "Wliere would you store it ?
Mr. Moore. If we were offei*ed any nitrate film, we would not ac- cession it : we would have to convert it before accessioning it.
I assume that if we brought in safety film, the only possibility for storage would be tem^wraiy storage at the Federal Records Center. That is the only other space we have at the present time.
Mr. Preyer. I am glad to hear your comment that you would trans- fer it to safety film before you stored it. Is that a firm policy ?
Mr. Moore. That is a firm policy.
Mr. Preyer. Why did we not do that back in 1970 ?
Incidentally, who would transfer it to safety film? Is that the Archives' responsibility, or would it be the donor's responsibility?
Mr. Moore. If we were given a gift, and if the donor were not able or willing to pay for the conversion of the material, it would be the responsibility of the Archives to determine if it was valuable enough for us to spend Federal funds to convert that material.
Mr. Preyer. And if you found it was not valuable enough, presum- ably you would not accept it.
76
Mr. Moore. That is correct.
Mr. Preyer, Was any effort made to get donors to do the conversion ?
Mr. MooRE. In the past ?
Mr. Preyer. Well, under your present policy.
Mr. MooRE. Yes; we have. In each case, when we have attempted to accession non-Government materials, we have discussed the possi- bility of having the donor contribute money for the transfer of that material.
Mr. Preyer. Why was that not done at the time the Universal news- reel was accepted? Why was it not transferred to safety film before you stored it, as nitrate film is so dangerous ?
Mr. Moore. At the time the Universal material was transferred to us — we negotiated with Universal for approximately 2 to 3 years to get the transfer — we had sufficient storage facilities for nitrate film at the Suitland vaults and we felt that we could actually accession that material in its original form and gradually convert it, as funds were available.
We did not have sufficient funds to convert it in advance.
Mr. Preyer. So ; it was a question of funding ?
Dr. Rhoads. Mr. Chairman, I think, to keep this in perspective, we should remember that in 1970 we had been occupying those film vaults which were built and designed specifically for the storage of nitrate film for over 20 years, and had had no untoward experiences. Maybe we were lucky, but there was nothing in our experience to indicate that this was not an acceptable way of proceeding in terms of the hazards that we all knew were inherent in the situation.
Mr. Preyer. All right.
There is one other thing I would like to ask about the current policy, and I think it is a very good one now. In view of hindsight, it is easy to say: "We should have done it then," as you point out. It is good policy to transfer it to safety film before it is stored.
Dr. Rhoads quoted from the law that you are only supposed to accept those aspects of the film which have some public interest. Presumably, you have to screen the film to do it.
I understand that, of the Universal newsreels, approximately 60 percent of that film would be kept. Is that right ?
Dr. Ehoads. That is right.
Mr. Preyer. You would discard the rest of it.
Dr. Rhoads. Yes.
Mr. Preyer. Is it not wise to do that screening process at the time that you accept it, so you have 40 percent less film to store ?
Dr. Rhoads. I cannot disagree with that, Mr. Chairman, given what has happened.
The film, as I understand it, was in a location near New York City, and it would have meant tliat we would have had to send a number of employees up there for an extended period of time. We would have in- curred transportation and per diem costs over an extended period of time. We felt that we could do it more efficiently and less expensively if we transferred the whole mass down here to the Washington area and did it here.
Mr. Ingram. Let us clarify. Dr. Rhoads. You had the film in your possession at the Suitland facility for approximately 5 years, as I understand it, before you began to do any determination as to how much of that material is of archival value.
77
Dr. Rhoads. That is right.
At the outset, we did not really know how nnich of it was of archival v^alue. We knew enough about it that wo assumed some of it was not of archival value, but Ave did not knoAv how much. You are correct.
Mr. IngrxVm. But you accepted it as historically significant material, had it in your possession for 5 years, and then, only after the fire, made a determination as to how nnich of the material was of historical value under the statute.
As I understand it, there are index cards to the reels of film. I am a little hard pressed to understand why it would not have been possible to have done a review^ of the index cards Avhich refer to the outtake material, to make at least a rough-cut determination from the index cards' subject headings as to which of those outtake materials may have related to Government functions or may have related to two-headed cows and Harvard Crimson grafitti contents.
Mr. Moore. There are several factors involved in why we did this. No. 1, the Universal stock footage library had no shelf list. We had no way of determining exactly from the index cards and the other find- ing aids which film really existed.
Mr. Ingram. Excuse me.
You are saying now that you took the stuif without even knowing what you got.
Mr. Moore. No. I am saying that there may have been some disposal or dete^rioration. Some materials may have been disposed of before we got them. We realized that everything that was listed on the cards did not exist.
In order to determine exactly what is there, you have to go through the film itself, look at the label, and make a list of what is there. This is what we are doing now — making a list of materials that are in exist- ence now, sending that list in, and having it appraised.
So, we had no shelf list to be able to make the appraisal from the the beginning.
The other point is this. And this is a policy of archival institutions that have nitrate film. They retain the nitrate as long as possible be- cause they can get the best possible copy from the earliest generation of the film. It was a policy of trying to provide the best possible quality whenever someone wanted to duplicate.
Mr. Ingram. Absolutely. But what we are talking about — I am sorry, Mr. Chairman — is the separation of historically significant material from that which is insignificant.
Mr. MooRE. Correct.
Mr. Ingram. It also appears to me that, if what you are saying is that the card index was not complete, it raises even more of a question that you may not have gotten wdiat presumably you thought you were getting — that there may have been historically significant missing pieces somewhere out there that Universal might still have that you did not know about. —
Mr. MooRE No. Universal did not have it. They transferred their entire library. "\^niat was available was transferred to us.
I am stating that there was deterioration, as there is deterioration in any nitrate collection. But we do not know specifically, until we go through the film, exactly what is there. A percentage of the material had deteriorated before it had been transferred to us.
51-332 0-79-6
78
Dr. Rhoads. And had been disposed of by Universal.
Mr. Moore. That is correct.
We had sufficient storage space for the material. As we went through it, we disposed of it if it had deteriorated or if we found out it was material we did not want. After we changed our policy, we destroyed the original nitrate film after conversion. Before that, to preserve the integrity of the collection itself, we kept the library in its entirety as long as it was in good physical condition.
Mr. Preyer. Who makes the decision as to what is of historical value ?
Dr. Rhoads. We have a set of criteria that we have used in going through the Universal film. I would be glad to read some portions of it, or perhaps we could submit it for the record.
Mr. Preyer. We would like a copy of that for the record.
Without objection, it will be included in the record at this point.
[The material follows :]
79
'■totion picture footage selected for nermnent retention by X'ARP rij>t, provide substantive docunentation of the organization, functions, policies, procedures, and essential transactions of a Federal agency; or contain information that is unique in substance, arrangement or manner of presentation and unavailable in another form; or document significant events or phenomena; or utilize a sipiificint new technology and represent an advance in the state of the art; or provide a social, technological, and general historical nersnective regarding the growth and development of the nation as a v/hole; or shov; the interaction of tJie Government with its citizens.
Specific guidelines developed for the evaluation of Ifniversal >'exvsreel Outtakes 1929-51 and the '<arch o^ Time Stock Film I.ibrarv 19315- 19S1 are attached.
80
Guidelines for £vi>luatinT universal Newsreel Outtakes 1929-51, and the March or Time Stock Film Library, 1935-51 General categories to be converted:
1. Significant activities of the U.S. Government and its officials, in- cluding all President-^l and vice-presidential activities whether of- ficial, partisan, or personal; Senators -and Representatives; Supreme Court; cabinet-level officials and or department heads; and other high- ranking officers.
2. Events and topics or other phenomena with national implications, e.g., labor strikes and union activity or topics relating to or illustrative of the effects of the Great Depression. Scenes showing living and working conditions in all aspects of American society.
3. International news events and topics, especiaHy those involving U.S. foreign relations; also wars, conferences, foreign heads of state ''royalty, presidents, prime ministers, etc.) and conditions in foreign countries.
U, Prominent, well known, famous or infamous personalities in all fields
of endeavor, e.g., arts, culture, entertainment, politics, sports, tecn- nology, etc. Especial W desirable is sound film with synchronized speech. Early sound interviews are also important.
5. Technological change and advancement, e.g., in architecture, convev- ances, medicine, transportation, etc.
6. Scientific achievement, including discoveries, announcements, experi- Tients , and demonstrations.
7. rootage relating to ethnic and racial minorities, such as Polish- American, Italian-Americans, Afro-Americans, ana Hispanics; 'ootage relating to immigrant groups; rootage relating to v/omen ana to the chanainq perception or v/omen i n social and vocational roles.
81
Soorts root'aoe snouio oe iimitea Co oivnoic Games ,na rro'ess lono i
chamoionshio games or matches and orofessional all-star aames . 9. Cultural activities, including the perrorming arts and connmuni cat ion arts (radio, television, and motion oictures). Some. speci fie categories to be converted:
1. Outtakes relating to "landmark" newsreel stories as mentioned in Fielding's book The American Newsreel 1911-67. (Required reading.)
2. Outtakes relating to MOT issues of particular editorial significance as mentioned in Fielding's other book The March of Time, 1935-1951. (Reauired reading. )
3. Significant recreated events involving the participants. k. Experimental reels (MOT).
5. Camera footage by Richard de Rochement, Julien Brvan, and Eric Salomon.
6. Completed productions identified as "cut negative." (This is not the same as "negative cuts," which are in fact unedited outtakes.)
7. Controversial or censored films. Categories to be avoided:
1. Sports — amateur and college sports and non-chamoionshi p professional games or matches.
2. Human interest stories such as 'cute kids" and scooter races, unless thev have unusual anthropological, sociological, or cultural value.
3. Disasters, exclusive of the "Oust Sowl" during the lS30s and eartncuakes. '■*. Local, regional, or Canadian "local" stories unless there ars oroacer
impl icat ions . 5. Weather stories such as hurricanes and snow storms. 5. Seautv and fashion snows.
82
7. Ship launchinqs and other ceremonies.
8. Obvious stunts and "oddities."
9. World War II official film, provided there is adequate coverage in other record groups.
10. Fore i gn- language versions.
11. Staged, dramatized events with actors.
12. Animation outtaKes .
83
Mr. Preyer. The only comment I would make about that is that I hope you are not being too rigid in what is considered to be of histori- cal value so that you do not eliminate things, like the Bess Truman film clip we saw the other day, on the grounds that it is frivolous.
I guess James Boswell changed the whole history of the writing of biography. He was greatly criticized for it when he wrote about Dr. Johnson because he put in all the details of his life which were regarded as beneath the dignity of biography before that time, and that is exactly why we read it today. So, I think a lot of the details, the minutiae, could be historically very important.
Dr. Rhoads. You put your finger on a dilemma that we have. We do not want to stretch our legal authority too far. I think there are some who feel that maybe we have interpreted a little bit too liberally. On the other hand, you are quite right; there are things that might not meet our criteria that do have some interest as social history. So, we walk a kind of fine line there and hope that we do a judicious job of making those decisions.
Mr. Preyer. Is that a notice quoi'um ? Mr. Kindness. Yes.
Mr. Preyer. Then I will recognize Mr. Butler at this time. Mr. Butler. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan.
Wiiat is involved in converting or creating a film laboratory ? Does that involve substantial capital expenditure or physical changes?
Mr. Rhoads. Mr. Landers, perhaps, can be more specific about that than I can.
Mr. Landers. I would say fairly substantial but not a fortune. AVe have had a lab in the basement of the Archives building for several yeai*s. From time to time, we have modified it and remodeled it. If you are talking about construction expenses, or purchase of new printer machines, or new devices, the old ones are not as good as the new ones sometimes, or the old ones wear out.
Were you thinking that we ought to build a new laboratory some- place out in the woods ?
Mr. Butler. No. Is there not a supplemental request to turn one of the buiTied-out vault areas into a film laboratory ? Dr. Rhoads. That is encompassed in our supplemental request — ^yes. Mr. Blttler, Does the Libraiy of Congress have a film laboratory, also?
Dr. Rhoads. The Library of Congress is developing, or perhaps expanding, its nitrate film conversion facilities at Wright-Patterson Field in Dayton, Ohio.
It is my understanding — and Mr. Curran will be the best witness about this — that they expect this to be completed in the summer of 1980, and we hope to have our motion picture film convei-sion com- pleted by the fall of 1980.
Mr. Butler. You do not feel that we are duplicating effort in this regard — or expense?
Dr. Rhoads. I think that the Library of Congress has enough nitrate film to be converted that they can probably run full tilt in their new facilities, and we can do the same.
Mr. Butler. So, you really think we need two ? Dr. Rhoads. I think we do, unless we really want to take the risk of prolonging this process. Given what has happened over the last
83
Mr. pRtYER. The only comment I woul make about that is that 1 hope you are not being too ri^d in what • onsidered to l>e of histori- cal value so that you do not elimir ' • ::s, like the liess Truman
Is that it is frivolous.
ory of the writing of
n ho wn>te alM>ut Dr.
life which were regarded
t time, and that is exact Iv
•^mma that we have. We '»<> far. I think then» are 1 a little bit t<x> liU>rally. re are tilings that migtit •i*st as .social hi.'^torj*. So, lilt we do a juiiicious yAy
film clip we saw the other day, on
I guess James liosw*" biography. He was gn' Johnson Ijocause he put as lx»neath the dignity or
why we rea*l it today. .So, 1 thmk a loof the details, the minutiae, could be historically ver>* inn -^ - *
Dr. R110AD6. Vou put yo do n(K want to .some who fi'el i
On the other hand, you are quite 1 not meet our criteria' that tio have we walk a kind of fine line there at of making those de<cision8.
.Mr. pRKVKJi. Is that a not ice quorum f
.Mr. KiNDNrjw. Yes.
.Mr. PKKvrjL'Ilien I will rpcogni^i» \f H..fl... .
.>! r Hmj*. Thank you, Mr. (
What lA invn'- ' -^ . ,1 f,|,,,
that involve sn ,)|- pl,^
Mr. RiioAm. Mi. l^aiidnii, perhapb, in l-*i more specilic about timt
than I ran.
Mr. LANDrjw. I would .nav fairly suHantial but not a fortune.
We have had a lab in the iMLsemei of the .Vrchives building for
several year*. From time to time, we ave moflifie*! it an«l n'inoihhyl
it. If yo
printiT
now
ue.
Does
wjiocls
r llic f> that
It.
place out in the wjiods?
•Mr. Hm.rjj. No. Is f of the bunu«<l-out vault .
Dr. HiioAiKi. 1"
Mr. HiTij.H. 1 also?
Dr. RiioAi>8. The Lib:. 4. expanding, its nitrate film .Fieldin Da vf on. Ohio.
. or ptinha.M> of new n- not as goo<l aA the
•>'•" lal)orator>' sofni*
I '|iM-f to turn one
• pliiurntal have a tV
re<iuest--yes.
Ill 1 il M ii-^itoi-y,
con
^ is developing, 01 {nrhaps < ilities at U'right-Patterson
mdcrstanding — and MrCiirran will iat they e.\i>ect this td)e (-omplcti'd^ io|M* to have our nionn pjctun^ fall of lOKO.
lou do not fvv
nT>
ntne.sg^
CCongi iMv rui >jiiiie
Jiinkvo need nl«s we n diat hi
84
couple of years, I am not enthusiastic about prolonging the conversion process one day longer than it needs to be prolonged.
Mr. Butler. Well, that statement surprises me.
Mr. Preyer. Would the gentleman yield on that?
Mr. Butler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Preyer. I believe there was some testimony that you could com- plete the conversion process by 1980.
Dr. Rhoads. The late summer or fall of 1980.
Mr. Preyer. And that the Wright-Pattei-son facility of the Library of Congress really would not go into oi:)eration until about that time.
Dr. Rhoads. Perhaps a couple of months before is my understand- ing of the schedule.
Mr. Preyer. Thank you, Mr. Butler.
Mr. Butler. Well, you are concerned about the risk involved in maintaining the nitrate film forever?
Dr. Rhoads. I am, indeed.
Mr. Butler. Mr. Preyer talked about an earlier screening process. Have you explored all of that?
Of course, you do not have any great acquisitions in the offing, but it seems to me that it makes sense to do the screening as early as possi- ble and have your criteria pretty well laid out. Have you explored that aspect of it? Have you got a policy with respect to the next generous donor who comes along?
Dr. Rhoads Mr. Butler, I hope that the experiences we have had have taught us something.
Certainly, in the unlikely event that we should be offered another large donation of nitrate film, we would take our experience of the last couple of years very seriously in our negotiations with the donor and the arrangements under which we were willing to accept it and in our procedures in dealing with the material if, in fact, a gift was consummated.
Again, we felt that we were saving the taxpayers some dollars by not going through and making this visual inspection and separation of the Universal films until we could make it a part of the conversion process. This enabled us to avoid some time-consuming double handling.
But, in view of our experiences, we are certainly sensitized to the need to prevent a recurrence of what has ha])pened.
There is one other point that I perhaps should make. The storage facilities for the Universal collection before it was transferred to us were certainly less satisfactory in terms of caring for the film. For example, they were not air-conditioned. By bringing the film into our vaults, we felt Ave were giving it a better lease on life than where it was.
Mr. Butler. T have one more observation.
I feel that this is not a one-way street. We are not tlie only bene- ficiaries of your preservation activities. I am sure Universal are gen- erous souls, and all that, but it was nice for them to be able to think — it turned out not to be altogether nice — that their films were going to be preserved in a good situation. So, I hope you would explore seriously the possibility of imposing on future donors the responsibility for the cost of the transfer and any other expenses that are instant to it.
It seems to me that you make a judgment based on the value of the film. Whether it is going to cost you anything should not be based on
85
the value of the fihn. But if the film is valuable and we are rendering a service to the people who want their records preserved, I think it is entirely reasonable for the Government to insist that the cost of the transfer be borne b}' the donor. This is only my opinion.
Dr. RiiOADS. I think that is not an unreasonable opinion. I think one has to balance that off against the value of the film and also against the fact that at least the general practice of newsreel companies has been not to spend any of their money for conversion. They use the film, make whatever profit they can ifrom furnishing copies of it to persons who want it for as long as the film lasts
Mr. Butler. They also ]:)robably take some tax advantages from the donation ; would you not think ?
Dr. Rhoads. I think that is entirely conceivable.
Mr. Butler. AVell, I do not like to^
Dr. Rhoads. No. That is something we should try in the future very hard to see happen. I certainly do not want to take over again a major, long-range, expensive commitment for conversion if there is any pos- sible way around that.
Mr. Butler. All right. I thank you.
I am sure my time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Preyer. I see we have a vote, and I think this might be a good time to break for it.
Along the lines Mr. Butler was questioning you — about the tax bene- fit to the donors — is there any use benefit to the donors also ? What has been the use of these Universal newsreels? Has I^niversal used them in any way, or have educational institutions, or any groups asked to use them ? Do you charge anything if they do use them ?
Dr. Rhoads. In 1974, when Universal deeded over all of their rights to these materials to us, the films were placed in the public domain.
We do not charge people for using the film. We do not charge them any kind of a licensing fee, as commercial firms do. They are available for use by anyone. We do, of course, charge them the cost of making copies, if they wish to have copies.
Mr. Preyer. Has any of the Univei'sal newsreel footage been used by educational institutions, or has it not been in shape to be used.
Dr. Rhoads. Oh, I think they have been used. My colleagues on my left would be better able to answer that.
Mr. Murphy. Since the Universal newsreel library was placed in the public domain in 1974, virtually every major film and television organization in the United States has used it at one time or another, including a number of universities — ^the University of Texas, for ex- ample; the California State University at Long Beach; Boston, and soon.
Mr. Ingram. Are these the outtakes you are talking about?
Mr. Murray. Outtakes plus the releases.
In fact, that has been one of the things, I think, that has somewhat interfered with the preservation program. There has been such a great public demand for the use of Universal material. This sometimes stands in the way of the program.
Mr. Ingram. Generally, the requesters of this material will be pay- ing for the conversion from nitrate to safety film. One would expect, with this heavy use that you point to, that all of that stuff that burned up out there would have been on safety film by now.
86
Mr. Murphy. This is the first year in which we have instituted a 30- percent service charge, to go back to our preservation activities, for the use of the material. The 30 percent is based upon the laboratory costs for duplication.
Mr. Butler. Excuse me, Mr. Ingram ; 30 percent of what ?
Mr. Murphy. Laboratory costs. If a television company wants to ob- tain reproductions of film, they pay a laboratory charge, and we have tacked on a 30-percent service charge that goes back to our preserva- tion activities.
Mr. Butler. So, it is 130 percent. They pay the cost plus 30 percent.
Mr. Murphy. That is right.
Mr. Ingram. And that goes back into what fund?
Mr. Murphy. It goes back to our motion picture preservation activities.
Mr. Ingram. Back to the U.S. Treasury or the Archives ?
Mr. Murphy. I think Mr. Landers could answer that.
Mr. Ingram, Wliere does that money go ?
Mr. Landers. All the fees that we collect for all the reproductions that we sell go into the National Archives Trust Fund. Within that fund, we then set aside these surcharges in order for us to be able to convert additional nitrate movies into safety film.
I might add that — and I will need some help on the dates — with regard to Mr. Ingram's question as to why it was that the purchasers of the footage had not paid for the conversion to safety film. We did not feel that it was fair, at that time — we have changed our minds subsequently — to have the first person who comes in and wants to buy a reproduction of this segment pay the total cost of copying that film onto safety film and from there to make the copy that he is going to get.
So, our practice in the past — not today — was to make his copy directly from the nitrate film, and