I got this from an airline email list I’m on.
I’ve already emailed the Navy. More emails can’t hurt - let’s stop the possible demolition of this important piece of aviation history.
Send your emails or letters to
Mr. Rick Weissenborn
BRAC Environmental Coordinator, Navy BRAC Program
Management office West
1455 Frazee Road
Suite 900
San Diego CA 92108
e-mail richard.weissenborn@navy.mil
There will be a public meeting May 23 2006 at Building 943, Moffett Fiel=
d, CA
Please don’t stay silent or assume others will speak out. The more objec
tions to this awful plan the navy is forced to hear, the better.
Posted on Mon, May. 01, 2006
mercurynews.com/mld/merc…/printstory.jsp
Navy study to urge razing Moffett Field’s Hangar One
PRESERVATIONISTS UPSET BY RECOMMENDATION FOR CONTAMINATED BUILDING THAT =
DATES TO 1933
By Joshua Sabatini
Knight Ridder
A Navy study due out Friday will recommend demolishing the historic Hang=
ar One at Moffett Field in Mountain View, the agency announced in a news=
paper advertisement.
It's totally unacceptable,'' said Lenny Siegel, founder of the Save Ha= ngar One Committee. The hangar is irreplaceable. There ought to be a w=
ay to save it without all the hazardous substance built into it.‘’
Hangar One – built in 1933 to house the airship U.S.S. Macon – was fou=
nd to be contaminated with lead, asbestos and PCBs in the late 1990s. Th=
e Navy is responsible for cleaning up Moffett Field, which once was a Na=
val Air Station. NASA Ames Research Center now occupies the land.
To what extent and how the Navy cleans up Moffett Field have come under =
fire in the past.
Now taking center stage in the cleanup debate is how the Navy will remed=
iate the contaminated hangar, which some consider a national landmark, a=
kin to the Eiffel Tower in Paris or the Golden Gate Bridge in San Franci=
sco.
The Navy’s engineering evaluation and cost analysis study for Hangar One=
will detail 13 options for cleaning up the 200-foot-high and 300-foot-w=
ide hangar.
The Navy is usually tight-lipped about its Moffett Field decisions until=
the studies are issued, but broke this tradition last week by placing a=
n ad in Friday’s edition of the local community weekly, the Mountain Vie=
w Voice. Navy officials were unavailable for comment Sunday.
The contents of the ad quickly circulated through an e-mail message netw=
ork established by Save Hangar One committee members.
``The recommended alternative consists of complete demolition and off-si=
te disposal of Hangar One,‘’ the ad states.
The ad also said as part of demolition, the Navy would document the stru=
cture’s history with such things as photos and drawings as well as mark =
the hangar site with something ``to denote the size of the structure,‘’ =
as it once stood.
Demolition ``provides the best solution because the contaminant source (=
the hangar siding and structure) would be completely controlled by remov=
ing the source from the site,‘’ the ad said.
The report will come out Friday for a 30-day public review period. A pub=
lic meeting in building 943 at Moffett Field will be held by the Navy on=
May 23 from 7 to 9 p.m. to discuss the study.
It won’t be clear why demolition is the best option for the Navy until t=
he report comes out, but it’s likely the other possible options, such as=
encapsulating the structure to contain the pollutants, proved costlier =
and required some form of maintenance in the future, something the Navy =
and NASA would frown upon.
Siegel said he wasn’t surprised by the Navy’s recommendation since the = Navy didn’t start out with that goal’’ of preserving the hangar to allo=
w for reuse.
It will be a terrible loss to the entire community,'' said Bob Moss, w= ho sits on the Restoration Advisory Board, a Navy set-up community group= charged with overseeing its Moffett Field cleanup. Not only is it a l=
andmark, but if it was made usable it would be a valuable opportunity fo=
r an awful lot of organizations to move in there and use it effectively.=
‘’