12 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4> 



Mr. Chartk. We had a total of $30,300,000. The first tower con- 

 structed, No. 2, had consumed approximately $12 million of that, 

 and that left then approximately $18 million for the construction of 

 towers Nos. 3, -l, and 1. When the bids were received, it was clear 

 that only two of them could be constructed within those funds. 



Mr. Kendall. That was primarily a decision on fund limitation 

 rather than operational requirements ; is that correct ? 



Mr. Charyk. That is correct, at that point. 



Mr. Kendall. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 



Senator Stennis. All right, Mr. Counsel. 



Senator Saltonstall has shown a fine, judicious attitude, if I might 

 say, about this matter which is of great concern to him. I want to 

 call on hun now. 



Senator Saltonstall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have roughly 

 three questions at this time. 



Dr. Charyk, on page 5 of your statement, you said, and I quote — 



while underwater workers were readying the A and B legs for installation of 

 the cable bracing, the first of which was scheduled for delivery later in that 

 month, a new break was found in the lowest tier of underwater bracing on 

 the A-B plane. 



You did not state just what that break was. 



Mr. Chartk. It was a break in the joint, in the diagonal attach- 

 ment at the point indicated. 



Senator Saltonstall, So that one of your fundamental bracings 

 at the very bottom tier, between —125 and —175, was broken, then? 



Mr. Chartk. This meant that there was now damage in all of the 

 tiers. 



BRACING DAMAGE 



Senator Saltonstall. In all of them? Would you please name 

 all the breaks in bracings once again ? 



Mr. Chartk. The above-water bracing, the bracing at the minus 

 25-foot level, the minus 75, and at the minus 125. 



Senator Saltonstall. So that there were breaks in four different 

 panels. 



Mr. Chartk. Four different planes, damage in four different 

 planes. 



Senator Saltonstall. Four different planes. Now, who is respon- 

 sible for the maintenance of Radar Tower No. 4? Is it the Air Force 

 or the Na-s^? I bring that out because the Air Force seems to call 

 upon the Navy, and the Navy called upon the contractors. Who is 

 responsible for the maintenance of the tower after the Navy turned 

 it over to the Air Force ? 



Mr. Chartk. This was an Air Force responsibilitv. 



Senator Saltonstall. It was an Air Force responsibility. _ So the 

 Air Force turned to the Navy for expert advice on construction and 

 so on. 



Mr. Chartk. In regard to repairs. Senator, the Air Force con- 

 tracted directly with the same architect-engineering firm, and with 

 the same construction contractor who designed and built the structure 

 to effect the repairs. 



Senator Saltonstall. Would you repeat that, please? 



