COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 141 



sure at that time but what he might make an objection to that 

 installation. 



He did not ; later he installed it. 



Mr. Kendall. Will you make that memorandum or a copy of it a 

 part of the record ? I think it is dated December 4, 1958. 



Commander Foster. Yes, sir. 



(The memorandum referred to is as follows :) 



December 4, 1958. 

 From : District Public Works Officer, 1st Naval District. 

 To: U.S. Air Force Installations Representative Office, New England region, 



building 112, south, 424 Trapelo Road, Waltham 54, Mass. 

 Subject : Texas tower No. 4 ; stability and deficiencies. 

 Reference: (a) AFIRO, NER Itr GEN/CPS-1 of November 21, 1958. 

 Enclosures: (1) Copy of inspection report dated November 25, 1958, made by 

 Marine Contractors Co., Inc. 

 (2) Sketch shovping T-bolt replacements — two sheets. 



1. Enclosure (1) is furnished herewith as requested by reference (a). The 

 inspection covered by the report was carried out September 12, 1958, through 

 October 5, 1958. 



2. Beginning November 1, 1958, repairs in the area of the dardelet bolts on 

 the A caisson were begun. These repairs consist of the substitution of 40 

 specially fabricated T-bolts for the 78 dardelet bolts originally installed. It 

 is considered that this installation when completed will be superior to the 

 dardelet bolts in that it will be better able to withstand the tendency to work 

 loose indigenous to subject structure. 



3. Adverse weather has impeded progress of the repair work to date. Out 

 of 27 days it has been possible to make only 16 dives. Out of the last 13 days 

 only 2 dives were possible. It is estimated that approximately 50 percent of 

 the scheduled work has been accomplished to date, consisting principally of 

 cutting slots for the new bolts. No bolts have been installed ; it being considered 

 desirable not to place the bolts until all slots are ready to receive them. 



4. Concurrent with the work of repairing the A leg collar the Marine Con- 

 tractors Co., Inc., has conducted a detailed inspection of the dardelet bolts at 

 the B leg collar. A copy of the report of this inspection will be forwarded 

 when received. 



5. Concerning responsibility for the troiibles encountered at the collars the 

 following conclusions are submitted : 



(a) "A" leg dardelet holt failure. — Responsibility not determinable. Although 

 there is reason to believe that the contractor may not have installed these bolts 

 in accordance with the plans, there is no way to demonstrate this conclusively 

 at this time. Conversely, It is possible that the bolts were correctly installed. 

 ( Refer to enclosure ( 1 ) . ) 



(&) "7?" leg dardelet bolts. — Although no failure was observed, approximately 

 half the bolts were loose and could be extracted by hand. Interim reports from 

 Marine Contractors Co., Inc., to date establish that bolts are not all of design 

 diameter and length, and some holes are oversize. This is considered to be a 

 construction deficiency. The contractor has verbally agreed to make the proper 

 installation as soon as weather permits in the spring. It is not considered that 

 the contractor is obliged to provide the alternate T-bolt installation on this leg 

 without extra reimbursement although as previously stated, the latter design 

 is believed to be superior. It is intended to provide diver inspection under Navy 

 contract after the original contractor completes repairs contingent upon the 

 availability of funds to finance such inspection. 



6. As indicated by enclosure (1) there is still an oil leak in the "A" caisson, 

 in an area covered by the collar. It is possible that a hole similar to the one 

 already plugged exists in which case a construction deficiency is indicated. It 

 is also possible that the leak is through the housing on the interior of the caisson 

 to accommodate the dardelet bolts, in which case a design deficiency is indicated. 

 Based upon interim reports of the current inspection the latter alternative 

 appears more probable. Unless a hole in the caisson is discovered during the 

 course of the repair to the collars it is considered that the leak will have to be 

 accepted. Although no firm estimate of cost to remedy the leak is possible at 

 this time, it is believed that this cost will be exorbitantly high. If the using 

 agency can operate without the storage provided by the "A" leg caisson, it is 



