214 COLLAPSE OF TEXAS TOWER NO. 4 



In connection with the lashing clown of the diagonal braces in the 

 three planes, we had sugg'ested since this was a temporary lashing 

 down, we submitted a drawing which, first was approved, and then, 

 finally, just before we sailed, it was disapproved and changed. 



'We objected to this; in fact, we wrote a letter to that effect that we 

 didn't think the lashing down, the securing of these braces in these 

 three planes, was as secure as the suggested method that we had made, 

 and so, as I say, indicated in a letter, a copy of which we have here. 



]\Ir. Kendall. Will you make that a part of the record, Mr. Eau, 

 please ? 



Mr. Eau. Yes, sir; we will, Mr. Kendall. 



(The document referred to follows :) 



January 23. 1957. 

 Officer in Charge of Construction, 

 Texas Towers, Boston, Mass. 



Dear Sib : Todar, we reeeiAed from Moran, rrnctor. Mueser & Rutledge 

 S. & :\I.-K drawing No. 47. Rev. 1. CCS plan Xo. 3038-00-33, and CCS plan No. 

 3038-00-21. All these drawings contain notes or corrections which we consider 

 beyond the requirements of our contract. 



All of these drawings contained the following note: "For field welds to perma- 

 nent bracing preheat prior to welding, and use low hydrogen electrodes. Post- 

 heat to 400° F." or words to that effect. 



Insofar as known to us, this type of requirement is not required in NavDock 

 Specifications 47142. Therefore, if this procedure is to be required, we request 

 that you issue us a directive so that it may be considered as a modification to 

 our contract. We do believe, however, that if this procedure is to be required 

 that it will result in a delay in the fabrication and erection of Texas tower 

 No. 4. 



On CCS plan No. .3038-00-21 Texas tower No. 4 template bracing stowage at 

 elevation minus 73.67, several corrections were indicated. This CCS plan is 

 based on S. & M.-K drawing 43. Rev. 1. which was approved liy Moran, Proctor. 

 ISIueser & Rutledge on July 24, 1956. The corrections indicated for the CCS plan 

 modifies the S. & M.-K drawing. Furthermore, we feel that the changes now 

 indicated by iloran. Proctor. Mueser & Rutledge will not give us as secure a 

 structure as shown on S. & M.-K drawing 4.3. Rev, 1, which has already been 

 approved. Also, these changes at this late date will result in a po.ssible delay 

 to our subcontractor Continental Copper & Steel Industries. Inc. We, therefore, 

 request that you reconsider the corrections indicated to be made on CCS plan 

 No. 3038-0O-2] with the view of eliminating same. 

 Very truly yours. 



Steers & Morrison-Knudsex. 

 By E. G. Herb, 



Alternate Project Man^iger. 



Mr. Eat:. In order to assure ourselves that we were able to tow this 

 template and to know what conditions we could do it under, we em- 

 ployed a consulting engineer to figure the stresses during tow, and it 

 was determined, after consulting with the Navy and the architect- 

 engineer that a 15-foot wave was the maximum wave that we wanted 

 to tow this template in, and that 15-foot wave, as I remember, if my 

 memory serves me right, would give us about 10.000 to 12,000 pounds 

 stress, which is far under anything that would be allowable on this 

 structure. 



With the Weather Bureau at Logan Airport in Boston, Woods 

 Hole, Flovd Bennett Field in Long Island, and the XaA7>^ weatherman 

 here in Washington, we were able, every 4 hours, to Ui^i a reading on 

 the weather, and after launching started towintr it to the site. 



We arrived at the site on the morning of July 4, 1957. At that time 

 the template and the bracing were entirely intact. 



