|
Community Liaison Council Meeting
Minutes
January 19, 2006, 4:00–6:00 p.m.
Visitor Information Center, Building 45 (Natcher Building)
National Institutes of Health
HANDOUTS
- Building 33 Complex—Presentation to the CLC
- Security and Emergency Response, Office of Research Services—Perimeter
Security System Usage Update
- NIH Campus Map
- January 2006—NIH News in Health
- December 2005—NIH News in Health
WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
By John T. Burklow, Acting Director, OCL, NIH
Mr. Burklow announced that two CLC members, Ms. Debbie Michaels
and Ms. Ginny Miller, would serve on the interview committee
for the new OCL director. He also announced that, at the end
of January, the OCL will be moving to offices on the third
floor of Building 1, Room 322. Office telephone numbers and
e-mail addresses will remain the same.
Mr. Burklow welcomed Mr. Kyung Kim to report on Building
33—now to be named after Congressman C.W. Bill Young
(R-Fla.). The next meeting of the CLC will be held on February
16.
PRESENTATIONS
C.W. Bill Young Biodefense Laboratory (Building 33)
Update
By Kyung Kim, Project Officer, ORF, OD, NIH
The Building 33 complex is located in the northeast corner
of the campus, bisected by North Drive. Mr. Kim detailed the
project as encompassing a 1,230-space parking garage; 150,000
gross square feet of laboratory space with four stories, including
the basement level, with associated rooms for meetings and
breaks on the south side; and the penthouse for HVAC equipment
and other internal workings of the building. When the complex
is completed, the northeast portion of the campus will include
more green space than it contained previously. Mr. Kim said
that the actual building was complete, and it was now entering
the Activation phase. This stage involves testing the integrity
of the systems and installing the lab equipment, phone systems,
and furniture. Overall, this will take about four months,
and before it is complete, stringent testing will be performed
on each system to ensure that the intended requirements have
been met.
In response to a question from Mr. Ralph Schofer, Mr. Kim
explained that both entrances to the garage were accessed
from North Drive. An exit, with a gate, onto Rockville Pike,
from North Drive is also in place, however, only right turns
out will be allowed. Vehicles are not permitted to use this
gate for entering the campus. The temporary construction trailers
east of Building 33 will be removed in approximately July,
and at that time, the project will be completed, with all
construction-related activity leaving the site. The time line
calls for four months for the Activation phase and two more
months for close-out. The building is expected to be ready
for occupancy by the end of July.
Mr. George Oberlander asked what the height of the building
was from grade. Mr. Kim replied that he did not have that
information in his possession at the current time, but that
he can confirm that it meets the requirements of the National
Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) for building height on
the campus. Ms. Miller asked about the function of the penthouse,
and Mr. Kim answered that it houses critical equipment (e.g.,
HVAC) involved in building control. Ms. Miller asked what
the noise level was projected to be. Mr. Kim replied that
he did not have the specifics with him, but Building 33 meets
the design guidelines, and the noise levels will be lower
than for other buildings on campus. Mr. Schofer wanted to
know how much the penthouse would exceed the height of the
rest of the building. Mr. Ron Wilson informed the Council
that Building 33 met NCPC’s requirements and that NCPC
had checked both the height and the setback. Furthermore,
Building 33 meets the requirements of the NIH Master Plan.
(Subsequently, ORF determined that the building height
was 63 feet; with the penthouse the height increases to 97
feet. The garage is approximately 72 feet in height.)
Ms. Nancy Hoos asked about how the air handlers for Building
33 differ from the air handlers on the Porter Building. Mr.
Kim responded that they are similar to one another, but the
ones located in Building 33 will be completely enclosed within
the mechanical space of the penthouse, unlike those of the
Porter Building. This design was used specifically to prevent
noise emission and to protect the units from weather conditions.
Each one was also installed with a vibration dampener to further
reduce noise. A member asked about the number of stacks and
their height. Mr. Kim said there are eight stacks, all on
the side away from air intake, and they are 10 feet tall because
of safety requirements.
Mr. Kim explained that the size of the adjoining employee
parking garage was based on the displacement of existing parking
spaces. The new garage will serve not just Building 33, but
the northeast quadrant of the campus. Ms. Miller expressed
some confusion about which temporary parking lots had been
turned back to green space. ORF indicated that virtually all
of the surface parking spaces on the northeast side of the
campus have now been returned to green space. Remaining temporary
lots on campus will also be returned to green space by the
end of February, with all those parking spaces housed in the
new garage. Even with the new garage, campus parking for employees
will still be down about 200 spaces from the number previously
available in this quadrant.
Noise Abatement
By Kenny Floyd, ORF, OD, NIH
Mr. Kenny Floyd explained that the noise abatement consultants
arrived during November and had completed the off-campus research,
but they have not completed their work on campus. The group
will return this week. Preliminary results suggest there could
be some mitigation needed for Building 11 and possibly for
Building 35, but analysis of the data is needed before we
can commit to that process. The projected timeline is that
by February, the data will be collected and the model will
be under construction. Ms. Michaels asked if the neighborhoods
could have notice of when the monitoring crews would be coming.
Mr. Floyd reiterated that the off-campus work had now been
completed, and they had looked at all sides of campus, using
specific sites identified by the committee. This complete
circumferential monitoring was a necessary part of investigating
the entire campus. Ms. Miller wondered if by next month’s
CLC meeting a report would be forthcoming. Mr. Floyd explained
that data collection should be complete by the next meeting,
but the project will not be finalized because the models won’t
be ready, and the actual mitigation recommendations will rely
on the models. He thought that the conclusions would probably
be the same as the preliminary indications: Buildings 11 and
35 (Porter) will need mitigation.
Mr. Stephen Sawicki mentioned that in the previous week,
a loud booming noise had awakened individuals in his neighborhood.
Smoke appeared to be pouring from the Porter Building, and
smoke and noise continued for more than half an hour, finally
stopping abruptly about 2:30 a.m. The neighborhood had been
told that an emergency steam valve had opened, creating the
vibration and noise. Mr. Sawicki wondered how often this might
happen. Mr. Burklow sent out a notice to neighbors the morning
of the incident explaining what had occurred. Mr. Tony Clifford
explained that the incident was abnormal, but the fact that
the relief valve opened indicated that building’s valve
system was functioning as intended. High-pressure steam is
distributed on campus at a pressure of 165 pounds per square
inch. Steam stations within the buildings reduce the pressure
to a usable 15 pounds per square inch. Within each station,
a relief valve releases pressure in case of malfunction. They
have not yet ascertained the cause of the Porter Building’s
valve release. Either the adjustment was too close to tolerance,
or some event took place in the steam system, such as a “steam
hammer,” that sent the pressure up too high. Typically,
a crew would have responded immediately to such an event.
Since the incident occurred in the early morning staff levels
were lower and the response possibly not as quick. Mr. Clifford
told the Council that he had been at NIH for 35 years, and
this had happened only two or three times during that period.
He explained that a tremendous amount of steam is released,
and it is very dangerous. He hopes it does not happen again,
but it is the function and nature of the valve to relieve
pressure, and the consequences of its failure to do so would
be far worse.
Mr. Clifford brought up the possibility of such an event
occurring at a time when community members cannot call OCL.
Mr. John Dattoli pointed out that NIH 911 is hooked into Montgomery
County 911, which has direct access to the NIH Fire and Police
departments. After some discussion, the Council agreed that
calling 911 is the best option should an incident of this
nature occur again.
NIH Perimeter Fence Update
By John Dattoli, Acting Director, Security and Emergency Response,
ORS, OD, NIH
Mr. Dattoli’s office has studied the number of people entering
campus and can distinguish between employees, permanent badge
holders, visitors and patients. At this time NIH only counts
the number of employee scans. For example, if an employee’s
vehicle enters the campus, it is counted, but if the car has
more than one person in it, the system does not capture the
number of occupants. It is estimated that approximately 4.5
million scans will be done each year (employees and permanent
badge holders). The present daily average is nearly 15,000
on weekdays and 1,650 on weekends, with similar Saturday and
Sunday numbers. Interestingly, most employees enter between
4 a.m. and 8 a.m. They do not use the badges to leave, so
departure times are not known. The peak entry time for cars
is around 8 a.m., and pedestrians peak a bit later (probably
due to the rush for parking spaces). No such trends are seen
on weekends, although even then, pedestrians tend to arrive
two hours later than weekdays, and total usage usually peaks
at about 8 a.m.
Visitors are also tracked, and it is estimated that around
2,500 enter the campus each day during the weekdays and approximately
800 enter per day on the weekends. This trend results in about
750,000 visitors per year. The numbers show that patient usage
is lower than expected (about 45 at peak), and thus the West
Drive patient entrance can handle a little more capacity than
it is currently being used for. This suggests the possibility
of allowing pedestrian, non-patient visitors-only to enter
at this location. NIH patients often arrive at the Clinical
Center in a traumatic state needing immediate attention and
very specific kinds of care. Consequently, NIH wants to avoid
any problems or delays in processing patients at the West
Drive entrance. This will be a major concern in looking at
the potential for opening this location to other forms of
visitors. The patients come first and they cannot wait to
be processed. Cost is a big concern, and communication is
also very important. What Mr. Dattoli proposes is to look
at the possibility of a one-month test at the West Drive entrance
to discover the needs and investigate the possibility of processing
pedestrian visitors. Because of costs, he cannot increase
hours, and no more cars can be allowed through that gate;
the test will be of pedestrians only. He explained that the
obvious pitfalls in this scenario include employees wanting
to know why they cannot use the patients’ entrance. That is
the reason for the test: he cannot allow anything to affect
entry of patients.
Mr. Dattoli presented charts that showed that NIH visitors
peak at about 10 a.m., and most enter through the Metro vehicle
processing station (big tent); usage is low other places.
Weekends are much more variable, but the majority of visitors
still enter at the Metro vehicle inspection area. Ms. Hoos
pointed out that 84 pedestrians per day enter at West Gateway
to access Metro, and she asked if NIH could consider permanent
badges for those people. In the current process, people who
come through every day receive a new badge every day. Mr.
Dattoli replied that for every visitor entrant, he had to
capture time and ID, possibly a badge with a bar code for
tracking, but without the technology to open the gates. The
next step in his data collection is to find out who comes
in repeatedly, and he needs to alter the system to collect
these data and assess the need. He has to view it as a cost-comparison
process.
Mr. Tom Hayden reported that a new pathway light would be
installed soon on the south side of Wilson Drive adjacent
to Rockville Pike, and the dirt pile will also be removed.
The delay in the installation is because the light standard
has to match other utility needs. This installation will be
soon, possibly within the next couple of weeks, and the light
should be about a 400-watt bulb. He also reported some perimeter
shuttle statistics. In the month of October, there were 1,600
riders, with most pickups at the Building 82 stop, followed
by Metro (with 477) and Battery Lane (with about 108 pickups).
November was a bit heavier, but the cost to NIH per rider
is substantial.
NIH Blood Bank
By Al Decot, Donor Resources Coordinator, DTM, CC, NIH
Mr. Al Decot stated that it is his belief that NIH has the
premier blood donor center in the Bethesda area. It is located
in Building 10, on the first floor. You can donate blood,
platelets, plasma, and for research. Ordinary blood donations
take about 45 minutes. The NIH needs 30 units of blood each
day. Apheresis, he explained, is a special type of blood donation,
necessary for various cancers, and it takes about two hours.
Research donors are compensated for their time, but many donate
the compensation to the Children’s Inn. How can you
help? Donate! Please call 301-496-1048 to make an appointment.
Mr. Decot also asked that the communities place information
about the NIH Blood Bank in their newsletters. To donate,
you must be at least 17 years old, although there is no upper
age limit, and you must be in generally good health. He also
pointed out that the NIH issues extended visitor ID badges
to regular donors.
South Lawn Update
By Tony Clifford, Chief Engineer, ORF, OD, NIH
Mr. Sawicki began the discussion by stating that he and the
community had understood the intent of the South Lawn Project
was always for a better recreational lawn and a needed correction
for drainage problems. Unfortunately, heavy water flow has
created a wet area in the middle of South Lawn. This area
formerly had tennis courts and a baseball backstop and was
a field for recreation. After the perimeter fence was completed,
the mitigation was supposed to restore this area. It is his
opinion that the drainage is misplaced and insufficient which
makes the area is spongy and not usable. Mr. Sawicki wondered
why the open pipe had not been tied into the drainage system
and suggested that with a full-time OCL director, this project
might not have taken 14 months and would have been resolved
properly. He believes that NIH must work with Montgomery County
to correct the 18-inch drainage pipe problem; they need to
put in underground pipes, cover the swales with dirt and stone,
level the entire field, and cover it with dirt and fast-growing
grass. He reiterated that everyone on the Council feels this
project is not where it should be.
Mr. Clifford agreed that many things were correct in what
Mr. Sawicki stated. The intent was indeed to make the field
usable by NIH employees and the community. The swale was intended
to direct water around the field, but it has turned out to
be more extreme than was apparent in the original design.
The swale could not be placed on the south side because of
Pepco and other utility lines. The County owns the drain line
at the southwest corner of the field. This large drainage
pipe ends about six feet from the NIH property line, and floods
down the field to the east. The surface drain installed to
manage that outflow does not work. Water simply goes around
this drain. Mr. Clifford suggested that NIH needs to look
further at how to capture this water. He reiterated that they
can’t go onto County land. Mr. Clifford also pointed out that
the contractor had not seeded the field as demanded in their
contract. Settlement has been reached with the contractor,
and reseeding has been completed, but the ground is still
very spongy. He believes that with good growth, the grass
will help absorb the moisture. In retrospect, it is clear
that the drainage needs have not been solved by the design,
and he agreed that it must be fixed. As for the field itself,
they had looked at the levelness, the survey was redone, and
the question was asked if it had been built according to the
construction drawings. The conclusion was that it is level,
according to the engineers. It has a slight tilt to the south
so that water can drain into the swale. He agrees it would
be better to eliminate the swale with underground piping,
but NIH cannot do this because of budget concerns. Nonetheless,
they are committed to improving the drainage and eliminating
the sponginess and water accumulation. NIH hopes to correct
at least some of the concerns and to keep dialogue open.
Ms. Miller suggested the intended solutions have been too
small and piecemeal, and the project has taken too long. She
asked why NIH could not work with the County. She furthermore
thinks that if the goal is to have a good relationship with
the community, this is a small price to pay. The solutions
tried thus far have not worked. We need to work with the County,
but the County does not want to make money available either.
Mr. Clifford explained that the County has about one acre
in that corner, and the outfall for all storm water flows
directly onto NIH property. Mr. Sawicki suggested that the
money spent on the project has not solved the problem, and
he wondered how much it would cost to correct it, as envisioned,
not in little bits. Ms. Lesley Hildebrand said that people
had thought the field would be usable, as it was previously.
Ms. Michaels pointed out that it is a County ordinance that
one property cannot drain onto another. That is a County ordinance
and the Council wonders how the County can violate their ordinance.
Mr. Clifford said that when they found out about the County
outflow, they had the drain put in, but this is not a solution.
Although it would be possible to connect the big outflow pipe
directly to other pipes, it is more desirable to let water
percolate through the lawn rather than just dumping it.
Mr. Clifford said he did not know exactly how much had been
spent, but an under-surface drainage system was installed,
and it does not work. Drainage and recreation are two divergent
uses. Ms. Marilyn Mazuzan asked why we can’t deal with the
County, and she wondered if NIH had ever talked with them
before the project began. Mr. Clifford answered that he was
not sure, but maybe Mr. Floyd could help. Mr. Floyd assured
the Council that the County had been contacted, and a project
officer was supposedly working with the County. He promised
that he himself would contact the County tomorrow. He will
come back to Council when he knows something. Ms. Mazuzan
stated that the entire Council feels something was promised
and has not been delivered; the Council stands together, and
this concerns all members. Mr. Burklow suggested that there
were possibly two different understandings, but that NIH needed
to meet as much of the communities’ expectations as it can
within the constraints of a federal agency Dr. Lucy Ozarin
said she believed Mr. Clifford had acted in good faith. Mr.
Clifford responded that they needed to go back to the drawing
board; the design and the proposed engineering solution are
not working. Ms. Miller said she thought they had lost sight
of the project along the way because they began trying to
solve problems and forgot what had been promised to the community.
Ms. Joan Kleinman, Congressman Christopher Van Hollen’s Office,
offered the congressman’s office as a possible resource to
help with the County.
CLC ROUND ROBIN
Ms. Miller thanked Mr. Decot for his presentation on the
NIH Blood Bank and for soliciting blood from the community,
but she suggested that the communities not forget Suburban
Hospital. Mr. Randy Schools mentioned that NIH had raised
about $2 million for the Combined Federal Campaign, which
is equal to what the rest of Montgomery County gives. He also
mentioned the circus at the Verizon Center and asked the communities
to let him know of children without means to attend.
ADJOURNMENT
The formal meeting ended at 6 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS
- Mr. Ron Wilson will provide data on the total height of
Building 33.
- Mr. Kenny Floyd will provide data from the campus-wide
noise survey.
- Mr. Floyd will communicate with the County about the outflow
pipe into the South Lawn and report back to the Council.
- Mr. Tony Clifford will continue to seek solutions for
the South Lawn reclamation project.
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
- Campus tour to include:
- Edmond J. Safra Lodge (Family Inn)
- Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility
- Meet and greet with Dr. Elias Zerhouni
CLC Members Present
Amy Blackburn, OCL, OD, NIH
Marian Bradford, Camelot Mews Citizens Association
John Burklow, Acting Director, OCL, OD, NIH
Anthony Clifford, ORF, OD, NIH
Lesley Hildebrand, Huntington Terrace Citizens Association
Nancy Hoos, Sonoma Citizens Association
Darrell Lemke, Bethesda Parkview Citizens Association
Debra Liverpool, YMCA-Bethesda
Marilyn Mazuzan, Town of Oakmont
Debbie Michaels, Glenbrook Village Homeowners Association
Ginny Miller, Co-Chair, Wyngate Citizens Association
George Oberlander, Huntington Parkway Citizens Association
Lucy Ozarin, M.D., Whitehall Condominium Association
Eleanor Rice, Locust Hill Civic Association
Sharon Robinson, OCL, OD, NIH
Stephen N. Sawicki, Edgewood Glenwood Citizens Association
Ralph Schofer, Maplewood Citizens Association
Randy Schools, Recreation & Welfare Association, NIH
J. Paul Van Nevel, NIH Alumni Association
Guests
Marin Allen, OCPL, OD, NIH
John Dattoli, ORS, OD, NIH
Al Decot, DTM, CC, NIH
Kenny Floyd, ORF, OD, NIH
Anna Franz, ORF, OD, NIH
Jennifer Gorman, OCPL, OD, NIH
Tom Hayden, ORS, OD, NIH
Joan Kleinman, Congressman Van Hollen’s Office
Kyung Kim, ORF, OD, NIH
Brad Moss, ORS, OD, NIH
Shelly Pollard, OCPL, OD, NIH
Terry Taylor, Palladian Partners, Inc.
Ron Wilson, ORFDO, OD, NIH
back to top
|
