Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Navy and NASA proceeds with plans to remove toxic panels from Hangar One

Wednesday, June 10, 2009
http://www.wikio.com

As the Navy proceeds with plans to remove toxic panels from Hangar One at Mountain View's Moffett Field, negotiations to replace the siding seem to have stalled, to the dismay of preservationists.

Moffett Field Restoration Advisory Board Member Lenny Siegel has urged fellow preservationists to pack a meeting tonight on the topic, saying in e-mails this "may be our last chance to pressure the Navy."

For years, the Navy and NASA have been negotiating over responsibility for removing and replacing the hangar's siding, which contains the hazardous organic compound PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls). The Navy operated Moffett Field until 1994, and is responsible for cleaning up the Superfund site, but there is no agreement to replace the siding once it's removed. Preservationists fear that leaving the historic hangar's frame open to the elements would cause it to corrode.

"As far as I can tell, there are no serious negotiations going on" to restore the siding, Siegel said.

At tonight's advisory board meeting, the Navy will give an update on its schedule to remove the siding, Navy Base Closure Manager John Hill wrote in an e-mail. There's not a specific deadline to remove it, but the current coating applied in 2004 to stop the toxins from leaking out is intended to last through only this year, Hill said.

The Navy is in the midst of soliciting bids from companies to remove the panels and expects to choose one by the end of July, Hill

said.

The Navy is also racing to use federal funds that will expire at the end of the federal fiscal year on Sept. 30, NASA Ames Deputy Director Lew Braxton said.

"We're coming to a high-water mark," Braxton said. "There's no doubt about it."

Siegel and other preservationists were optimistic earlier this year, when NASA offered to maintain the site if the Navy replaces the hangar's siding.

"The Navy found (the offer) not very palatable," Braxton said. "They would have to come up with roughly another $40 to $50 million" to replace the hangar's siding.

Braxton said he's still hopeful the Navy will return to the table on that offer.

Hill blamed NASA for the stalled negotiations.

Discussions "have slowed as a result of NASA not being able to finalize a re-use for the hangar or a plan to re-side the hangar at this time," Hill wrote in an e-mail.

Braxton contested that, saying NASA had a thorough plan that would have led both agencies to a "win-win situation."

Restoration Advisory Board co-chairman Bob Moss said he hopes political intervention will help the preservationists' cause, since President Barack Obama appointed a new Navy secretary last month. U.S. Rep Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, wrote to Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus last week, urging him to see the importance of re-siding the hangar and included a similar letter signed by 13 local representatives last September.

In underlined type, she says: "I'm asking you to exercise your leadership to review (the Navy's plans to strip the siding) and put an immediate stop to the plans underway until a full audit/review can be conducted."

Moss said he believes a solution could lie with an Akron, Ohio-based company called Thomarios, which used a special coating to cover the inside of a similar hangar in Akron two years ago.

The president of that company, Paul Thomarios, said contractors on behalf of the Navy had recently asked his company to submit a proposal to coat the frame of Hangar One. Though he couldn't give details before the bids were due, he said coating the entire hangar, including the panels, would be significantly less expensive than removing and replacing the panels.

"There's every reason to believe that they're at least going to slow things down and take it seriously," Moss said.

In the meantime, Siegel said he hopes to see at least 100 Hangar One supporters at tonight's meeting. If the Navy ultimately leaves the hangar a skeleton, he said it will make it harder to get a new cover but preservationists will continue to push for one.

"We won't give up," Siegel said.

0 comments:

Post a Comment