Pentagon acknowledges Hangar One's historic value Pentagon acknowledges Hangar One's historic value (August 24, 2005)

But 'our number one priority is to protect human health and the environment,' spokesperson says of Hangar One's future

by Geoff S. Fein

For nearly 75 years Hangar One at Moffett Field has weathered the elements, earthquakes and even threats of closure.

"When it was built, it was built very, very well," said Jill Votaw, a spokesperson for the Pentagon's Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program management office in Washington, D.C.

There's just one problem: the building is toxic. The siding materials used to keep Hangar One more or less weatherproof are made of materials that are 50 percent PCBs, along with a thick coating of lead-based paint -- neither of which were known to be health hazards when the hangar was built.

A rare type of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) called Aroclor 1268 (a recognized carcinogen) was discovered in a contaminated marsh area at Moffett Field several years ago, triggering a major clean-up controversy throughout the 1990s. Then NASA traced PCB back to the hangar's siding -- abruptly changing the Navy's thinking about the hangar's future, Votaw said.

Everyone working in the hangar was told to leave, the Moffett Field Museum was closed and the hangar was sealed off. Regulators told the Navy the toxic materials had to be removed.

Because the siding was coated with PCBs, it couldn't be sandblasted, Votaw said.

"NASA tried to see if we could chemically strip the building," she said. But the chemicals required were almost as toxic as the panels, she added.

Votaw acknowledges the hangar's historic value. She said even her brothers oppose demolishing the building.

"Our number-one priority is to protect human health and the environment," she said. "The hangar has been here 75 years. The Navy will do everything it can to save [it]."

She said there is still hope: The Navy is undergoing an Engineering, Evaluation and Cost Analysis for the hangar, due Sept. 3.

"We got in 25 different options," Votaw said.

One alternative is to remove the old sheeting. But the Navy would still have to dispose of the material as hazardous waste, an expensive project.

Votaw said maybe then someone, or an organization, can step forward to get new siding, as funding such a replacement is beyond the scope of the Navy's BRAC program. If the building were restored, it would most likely become home to NASA's space camp and a major air, space, science and technology center.

Geoff S. Fein is a writer for Defense Daily in Arlington, Va., and a former staff writer for the Palo Alto Weekly.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]