This week we have studied Risk Management and Disaster Planning, but what if the hazard was in the very being of an archive itself. When concidering an example of a disaster in an archive I was brought back to my time working at the London Borough of Sutton Archive. I was working at the end of a 4 year project to digitise and catalogue the collection of local Edwardian Photographer, David Knights-Whittome, mostly compromising glass plate negatives and a small selection of prints. Prior to joining, a Conservation team at Leicester University were contracted to clean and restore the most damaged negatives, and we received these back during my Internship. However, the conservator couldn’t return everything. Within the collection were a small series of Nitrate negatives.
Cellulose Nitrate film was mostly used between 1890 and 1950 and it can be found in many collections from this time. It is well known for its highly flammable nature, becoming toxic with degradation, while keeping it can effect insurance policies. The Science and Media Museum advices that there are 5 stages of deterioration of the film;
‘At stage 1 or 2, film can be copied. At stage 3, it may be possible to copy parts of films. At stage 4 and 5, the film is useless and should be immediately destroyed by your local fire brigade because of the dangers of spontaneous combustion and chemical attack on other films.’
In order to control the deterioration of Nitrate film and to prevent spontaneous fires, it is widely understood that it should be kept at controlled cool temperatures and at best within a freezer. It is safe to say there were no freezers at Sutton Archive. Luckily, our conservators were able to digitise some of the negatives, before swiftly destroying the film in a controlled area. Although it seems against digitisation rules to dispose of the original material, in this case it was a necessity to avoid a possible disaster.
However, there have been many unfortunate occasions where collections have been lost to fire because of nitrate film.
On 7th Dec 1978, a fire ripped through building A at the US’ National Archives and Record Service in Suitland. The building held a vast collection of nitrate film, with the fire destroying 12.6 million feet of Universal Newsreel footage. Being so easily sensitive to heat, nitrate film was the cause of several cinema fires during its heyday.
In this case there were other factors involved in sparking the collection’s destruction. A fire had occured in a similar way a year earlier, which lead to work to overhaul the sprinkler system inside the building. On the day of the fire, construction workers had to remove a third of the sprinklers, and although instructed not to do so, had used electrical equipment inside the room. A few days earlier the archive team had also brought attention to the air conditioner system which had been leaking Freon. The final decision was that the fire was caused when the faulty air conditioning system began heating the room instead of cooling.
Credit National Archives
Today, these fires are rare, as archives such as The Bodleian undertake reports with specialists to identify nitrates within their collections, and the necessary precautions to take in caring for them. Many archives choose to completely eliminate their nitrate holdings after copying them. Or alternatively in 2011 the BFI built a cold storage vault specifically for holding early nitrate films in order to preserve Britain’s film history faster than the time, cost and effort of digitising all nitrate films.
A few weeks before leaving my position at Sutton Archive I undertook a last tidy of the archive office and volunteer workroom. Inside a box full of blank negative enclosures, I discovered more nitrates disguised as empty envelopes (having become sticky and gluing themselves to the inside). Lingering unbeknown in the warm office for atleast 4 years, I was thankful that a disaster hadn’t occured.
Further Resources:
Burn After Viewing, or, Fire in the Vaults: Nitrate Decomposition and Combustibility
IMProvising Archivists 
This is a really interesting post reflecting on your own time at Sutton Archives and, more generally, the issues that arise with nitrate film. It’s unsettling to think of something so flammable being part of an archives collection and potentially coming into close proximity with other records. Not to mention health and safety concerns for staff.
It sounds problematic all round; if you have the material in your collection, you either keep/maintain it (but then have to invest in expensive cooling storage, or at least rehouse it somewhere that does). If you dispose of it then I imagine that isn’t without complications either; can you justify getting rid of the records/how will you safely destroy them? Perhaps digitisation/duplication is an option, but again, that could be time-consuming and costly.
I’m sure you felt very uneasy finding the nitrate in your own workplace. I wonder if this is commonplace in repositories? That it could be lurking somewhere disguised as something else. Particularly worrying given that it gets more lethal as it degrades, like a time bomb!
It’s certainly another consideration when thinking about risk assessments and disaster planning in the information management sector. The incident of the 1978 fire is particularly harrowing; the loss of 12.6 million feet of newsreel footage is unimaginable. It sounds like a perfect storm, all possible things that could go wrong did that day. It’s good to know that nowadays such incidents don’t occur so often as we’ve become more aware of its hazards and have consequently adapted safeguarding measures.
LikeLike
It has been enjoyable to read your post, This is such an interesting post, thank you!
I know many damages of archives was caused by fire, but it is surprise to know the records itself can be a hazard.
It is my first time hearing about Nitrate film, which is well known for its highly flammable nature, becoming toxic with degradation. Especially between 1890 and 1950, Cellulose Nitrate film was widely used, which caused great worry to the storage of records and the staffs. It is really nervous to work closely with this records.I was very nervous when you said you actually found a box full of blank negative enclosures in your workroom. Really thankful that a disaster hadn’t occur.
It is very sad to know that a fire destroying 12.6 million feet of Universal Newsreel footage in 1978 because of the building held a vast collection of nitrate film, which 12.6 million is absolutely a shocking number. Fortunately, these fires are rare nowadays thanks to the good Disaster Planning.I am very happy to learn that the BFI built a cold storage vault specifically for holding early nitrate films in 2011. So, It is necessity and important to avoid a possible disaster.
LikeLike
Keziah, I really loved reading this blog and completely appreciate reading a blog from a more personal perspective. To have been involved with something so potentially dangerous and catastrophic from within the archive itself, not an external threat, is such an interesting and refreshing take on this topic.
I wonder if the loss of some of the David Knights-Whittome negatives impacted the collection significantly and whether the loss could be quantified financially? Coming from a business archive background any loss or gain would have always been quantified for the purposes of presenting to upper management, how did a local archive reason the loss of these? Also, I was curious as to whether this discovery lead to an over hall of the existing collections in the Sutton Archive and whether it incentivised or promoted a closer relationship with the conservationists? I have not experienced or read about the way in which conservators handle these threats, did they need to come into the archive or request any other negatives for testing? I would be really interested to hear any additional details regarding this experience.
The emphasis placed upon the financial constraints of archive preservation in your blog was also very interesting to read about. To acknowledge the Sutton Archive’s constraints in having a freezer for storage and even an big institution like the BFI having to use cold storage as opposed digitising the collection; fascinating.
LikeLike