Sunny side up for Hangar One Sunny side up for Hangar One (June 17, 2005)

As Navy explores clean-up options, some hope to replace toxic siding with solar panels

By Jon Wiener

Unlike the U.S.S. Macon, Hangar One's future is still up in the air.

The Moffett Field landmark has had a storied history since it was built in 1933 to house the world's largest zeppelin, the Macon, which promptly sank. Its uncertain future was on display Monday, following a months-long search for solutions to the toxic contaminants that remain in the building's construction materials.

Two hundred feet tall and eight acres wide, Hangar One was found to be the source of toxic contamination in the late 1990s. NASA discovered that a rare PCB that turned up in the soil around a drainage pond (see story at right) originated at the hangar, forcing the doors to close and the Navy to apply an emergency coat of paint to keep more chemicals from flaking off.

Already, there is evidence that the two-year-old paint job is wearing thin. Monday, the Navy presented more than a dozen potential long-term solutions, all of which fell into one of four main categories: treat or remove the contaminants, reapply a protective coating to the outside of the building, continue to collect and treat storm water runoff, or demolish the building. Only the first option would leave the structure usable in the future.

Under the federal law governing the cleanup, the Navy does not have to completely remove all the contaminants.

Incomplete removal options may not sit well with those who want to see a museum return to the hangar, but they "can be considered as long as the risk is minimized," according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) project manager Lida Tan.

Minimizing the risk to public and ecological health is the Navy's only responsibility under the law -- it's up to other agencies to worry about restoring or reusing the hangar. Scores of local residents showed up at the open house (which was actually held just outside the base, rather than inside the hangar), and many of them spoke wishfully about various potential saviors who might come up with the money to save the building.

Under one cleanup option that seemed to draw a lot of people's interest, the Navy could remove the hangar's siding and leave NASA in possession of a giant wooden frame. The idea is that, rather than pay to put up a new shell, the agency could convince an entrepreneur to cover the sides of the building with photovoltaic solar panels.

"If you can't save the historic building in its present status, and you have no other option, why not?" asked Carl Honaker, a former NASA-Ames chief who has been rallying community support to save the hangar. "The hangar's got great solar exposure."

Even NASA and EPA officials were intrigued by the idea of turning the National Historic Landmark into a sort of high profile power plant -- despite a predominantly east-west orientation and an installation cost estimated to run in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

"At this point, it's really an opportunity for an entrepreneur or an energy company," said NASA environmental chief Sandy Olliges.

For its part, NASA is preparing for the worst. Because the space agency owns the building, NASA is responsible for mitigating any lost historical value if the hangar winds up being demolished. In view of this, the agency is preparing a video chronicling the hangar through time.

The Navy's draft report on the costs and feasibility of the various options for the hangar is due out on Aug. 3. The Navy is hoping to begin clean-up work in December or January.

E-mail Jon Wiener at jwiener@mv-voice.com

E-mail a friend a link to this story.