On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:24:25 -0700, L Carpenter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I was curious about something I heard today from an offsite storage vendor.
>The vendor indicated that some records centers are stacking and storing 4
>boxes high. It was also indicated that 4 high is "industry standard".
>
>I'm currently without my copy of the Robeck et all book, the ARMA records
>center handbook, and, of course the ARMA Records Storage Task Force
>documentation. But, I don't recall that 4 high has ever been an industry
>"standard". Maybe when items are on pallets and shrink wrapped, 4 high may
>be "standard" (e.g. 40 per pallet), but in terms of items stored on
>shelves, I'm recalling that the optimum is no more than 3 high on shelves,
>but that 2 high is preferable.
Well Laurie-
I can tell you from personal experience, having operated more than 4
in-house record centers and also having offered record storage commercially
while I was consulting, 4-high is not a good business practice unless you're
trying to maximize your profits as an operator, and the records are those
that are EXTREMELY INFREQUENTLY accessed.
In support of this, I went out to Google Images and did a search, wso this
is completely unbiased, and I harvested all of the images I found on the
first 22 pages of rack storage of boxed records... and of 25 located, only
one stored at 4 high, and that was in one bay of a unit only. So I wouldn't
say that 4% represents a "standard" in this industry.
http://snipurl.com/4tao8 [images_google_com]
http://snipurl.com/4tap5 [www_lkgoodwin_com]
http://business-record-storage123.com/
http://www.movebisson.com/images/docsecurity/dsw11.jpg
http://snipurl.com/4taru [www_rousseaumetal_com]
http://snipurl.com/4tast [www_pragermoving_com]
http://long-term-record-storage.com/images/d.jpg
http://www.archives.gov/preservation/images/boxed-records.jpg
http://www.madelogix.com/files/images/RecordStorage.png
http://snipurl.com/4tawb [www_recordstoragerack_com]
http://www.corriganrecords.com/images/100_0580.jpg
http://www.maxlokstorage.com/MaxLOK/Box-Storage.jpg
http://www.movestore.com/Racked%20Box%20Storage.JPG
http://allstorageproducts.com/racks/record_storage.gif
http://www.prestigemoving.com/images/Records.jpg
http://www.bpp-llc.com/images/record%20boxes.JPG
http://www.averyarchives.com/images/record_storage.jpg
http://www.alltypedata.com/images/warehouse.jpg
http://www.totalrecords.com.au/img/records_storage.jpg
http://www.greatlakesrecordstorage.com/graphics/warehouse.jpg
http://www.anchorarchives.com/images/racking-records-box.jpg
http://www.mabeys.com/storage/business%20image1.jpg
http://www.kenwoodrecords.com/images/aboutPhoto.jpg
http://www.information-storage.com/img/offsite0.jpg
http://www.recordstorage.com/images/Morn_meeting.jpg
As a principal member of the NFPA 232 Standards Committee, and a former
Chair (and member) of the ARMA Standards Development Committee and
Co-Project Maanger of the ARMA "Guideline for Evaluating Offsite Records
Storage Facilities"
http://www.arma.org/bookstore/productdetail.cfm?ProductID=2220 I can tell
you this is anything BUT a standard practice.
There have been comments submitted by others related to the fire safety
issues, and I CERTAINLY won't discount those. I also won't agree or
disagree with the comments about dense pack vs. less dense pack, telephone
books vs. loose sheets, flue spaces vs. back-to-back storage (even though
NFPA 13 and NFPA 232 require them), new sprinkler designs that will
obviously help mitigate loss, (but how many vendors will retrofit to install
them?) but I would like to mention other concerns, such as floods, hurricane
force winds, earthquakes, floor loading, live load issues with fewer cross
members in shelving, etc. for consideration as well.
Larry
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
|
