14 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4i 



volved in a determination of the adequacy of either the design or the 

 construction. 



Senator Symington. AVlio found out these deficiencies? 



Mr. Charyk. Insofar as the deficiencies on the platform, are con- 

 cerned, these were of a very minor nature. The resident officer in 

 charge listed some 14 or 15 m^inor items, such exterior painting, tags 

 for valves, replacement of windov/s, and so on. 



Senator Symington. Is there any paper between the Air Force and 

 the Navy as to who is responsible for the tower? 



Mr. Charyk. Insofar as the design and the construction is con- 

 cerned, this is clearly the responsibility of the agency charged with 

 the construction. 



Senator Symington. "Wliich agency is 



Mr. Charyk. The Navy. 



Senator Symington. But now you say the Air Force took it over. 

 '\^^len it took it over, did they agree to maintam it? 



Mr. Charyk. This is the normal procedure. 



Senator Symington. Well, I am not talking about the normal 

 procedure. It is not the normal procedure for a tower to fall on its 

 face in the water. "\^niat I want to laiow is, at any time did the Air 

 Force saj', "Now, this is our responsibility from here out." 



Mr. Charyk. This was implied in the final acceptance. We ac- 

 cepted the tower under the understanding that it was designed and 

 constructed to withstand the type of conditions that could be antici- 

 pated to be encountered. 



Senator Symington. Did you agree to take over the responsibility 

 for its maintenance ? 



Mr. Charyk. Yes. 



Senator Symington. Now, you say the first notable event was in the 

 summer of 1958. The Navy made an underwater inspection to ascer- 

 tain the causes. Why did not the Air Force make the underwater 

 inspection ? 



Mr. Charyk. The observations of the tower's behavior suggested a 

 possible construction or design deficiency. We therefore felt that it 

 was appropriate to ask the Navy to make a check to determine whether 

 in fact such a deficiency existed. 



Senator Symington. Well, why did you not make the check vour- 

 self? 



Mr. Charyk. The Navy, as the construction agency, had the re- 

 sponsibility to insure the structural integrity of the design. And we 

 therefore felt it appropriate to have them make the check. 



Senator Syminqton. And if that were true, the Navy never lost 

 that responsibility, did they ? 



Mr. Charyk. Well, this is within the first year after the completion 

 of the contract, and we felt that this was within the time period in 

 which this could be considered a part of the original job. 



Senator Symington. Well, supposing it happened in the second 

 year, would that not be considered part of the original job? 



Mr. Charyk. It could have been done either way at that point. 

 We could have gone back to the Navy on subsequent occasions and 

 asked them for a further check. 



Senator Symington. Well, I trust you realize how cloudy your 

 testimony is as to who is responsible for the maintenance of this 

 tower. 



