Community Liaison Council Meeting
Minutes
May 17, 2007, 4:006:00 p.m.
Visitor Information Center, Building 45 (Natcher Building)
Conference Room D
National Institutes of Health
CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Dennis Coleman, Community Liaison Director and CLC Co-Chair
opened the meeting at 4:08 and welcomed members, NIH staff
and guests.
He announced that a tour of the Commercial Vehicle Inspection
Facility (CVIF) has been tentatively scheduled for September.
Other business can also be agendized for that meeting since
the CVIF is a small, special purpose facility, and the tour
should not take more than 30 minutes.
PRESENTATIONS
FACILITIES Building
35 Design
Ron Wilson, Acting Director, ORF Facilities Planning Division,
introduced Bob MacDonald, Project Officer for Phase 2 of
the Porter Neuroscience Center (aka. Building 35). He
presented information on noise design standards and associated
noise impact of that facility.
Mr. MacDonald summarized progress on the project, which
has an approved design but no construction funding or schedule
as yet. He showed renderings of the building, and explained
some of the peculiarities of constructing research facilities.
For example, since researchers often work irregular hours,
lights must be left on in research buildings after normal
business hours. In response to neighborhood concern
with the unnecessary brightness and wasted energy caused
by leaving all lights on at night in the Porter Phase 1 building,
he stated that additional controls or procedures are being
reviewed to provide interior visibility with less intense
lighting or more selective lighting of the areas needing
it.
The architectural firm Perkins & Will has been awarded
the Phase 2 design contract. Design changes since 2002
(e.g. eliminate the exterior louvers used in Phase 1) have
been approved by NCPC. NIH will begin construction
when associated funds have been approved and allocated, but
the timing of that is as yet undetermined.
Designers tried to make the Phase 2 building fit into its
campus setting and cost less than the louvered Phase 1 building,
while maintaining some level of visual compatibility with
Phase 1. In response to CLC member concerns being expressed
about the different or even conflicting look of Phase 2 compared
to Phase 1, Mr. Coleman pointed out that NCPC had approved
the preliminary Phase 2 design and that the CLC consensus
from the April meeting was that the community can tolerate
additional aesthetic issues, but not additional noise issues. That
is why Mr. MacDonald intended to focus on noise today.
Mr. MacDonald reported that in response to neighborhood
noise concerns with the Phase 1 building, Phase 2 will be
constructed to keep its contribution to neighborhood noise
below 45 dBA. This is significantly below the Phase
1 design standard of 55 dBA. Mr. Coleman stated that
such a reduction would be significant since his research
equated a 10 dBA noise reduction to a 50% reduction in perceived
loudness. Noise consultant Steve Jaeger agreed. Ron
Wilson indicated that 45 dBA would be a challenging
standard to meet, and whether it can be met in NIH’s
complex urban setting remains to be seen.
Debbie Michaels noted that information
relating dBA levels to the loudness of everyday events had
been distributed at a previous CLC meeting. That information
was from the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication
Disorders (NIDCD) and equated 60 dBA to normal conversation,
40 dBA to the humming of a typical kitchen refrigerator,
and 30 dBA to a whispered voice. If that is correct,
45 dBA can’t be very loud, and it is obviously an improvement
over the current 55 dBA design standard.
Other members questioned the effect of adding Phase 2 noise
to the existing Phase 1 noise. Steve Jaeger responded
that due to the logarithmic nature of decibels, 50 dBA plus
50 dBA was not 100 dBA (rock concert level), but rather 53
dBA from the standpoint of sound energy. In response
to George Oberlander’s question about
the sum of 55 dBA and 45 dBA noise sources, Mr. Jaeger said
that 55 dBA plus 45 dBA is only marginally greater than 55
dBA, since 55 dBA is twice as loud as 45 dBA and therefore
dominates the combined sound.
Mr. MacDonald said the Phase 2 building
is intended to produce the same amount of noise night and
day, and will be the same scale and height as the Phase 1
building. Applying what was learned from Phase 1, Phase
2 exhaust fans will be centrifugal rather than axial, and
will be located in a fully insulated penthouse. Air-handling
units will also be fitted with intake sound attenuators,
and noise levels would be tested during construction and
prior to the building becoming operational. Finally,
air handling fans and exhaust stacks will be insulated with
sound-absorbent material.
Mr. Schofer asked about penalizing the
designer if the building is not as quiet as promised. Mr.
MacDonald thought that since NIH is in the first 5 years
of a 20 year master buildout plan, contractors are more incented
to perform by continued involvement in plan implementation
than by threats of penalties or contract litigation. Also,
the latter approach could easily cost NIH more than it returns,
so punitive measures are not the preferred tool to ensure
contract performance in our situation.
Lesley Hildebrand noted that it is more
difficult to fix environmental impact problems after buildings
have been completed, and that everyone should want to avoid
such a situation. Mr. MacDonald said
NIH had learned a lot from construction of Porter Phase 1,
and that the architect, engineer, and noise consultant had
in fact been replaced for Phase 2. Mr. Coleman stated
that based on the fact that the CLC is at this very meeting
considering Porter Phase 2 noise reduction as a design rather
than retrofit issue is responsive to Lesley’s concern.
After Mr. MacDonald concluded his remarks, Mr. Coleman stated
that 45 dBA is a significant noise design improvement for a
large research building like Porter Phase 2. Undertaking
such improvements shows that NIH is listening to community
concerns and doing something about them. Mr. Coleman
expressed appreciation for the responsiveness of NIH staff.
ENVIRONMENT
Noise Monitoring & Modeling Project
Before introducing the guest noise consultant, ORF
Environmental Protection Director Kenny Floyd explained
the Green Building Design Rating System, which ranges from
silver to gold to platinum. All federal agencies are
now mandated to incorporate green building approaches into
all construction costing more than $3 million. Porter
Phase 1 was not rated at the time it was designed and built. The
Gateway Visitor Center will be the first NIH building to
be so rated, and Porter Phase 2 will follow.
Mr. Floyd then introduced Stephen Jaeger, an
acoustical engineer with Colin Gordon Associates of San Bruno,
California. With 20 years of experience, his company
has successfully developed representative noise models and
mitigation plans for more than 30 complex industrial and
other facilities like power plants, refineries and office
complexes.
To determine the campus sound environment, Mr. Jaeger measured
noise levels for numerous (~200) NIH locations and sources. The
utility and chiller plants, and the rooftop air handling
equipment and exhaust stacks on several buildings are the
familiar and dominant campus noise sources. The measurement
approach sought to minimize interference from non-NIH sources,
such as the Beltway, Suburban Hospital, helicopters, airplanes,
sirens, the Metro station and local traffic. For example,
nighttime measurements prevented local traffic noise from
masking NIH sources near the fence line. Since neighborhood
measurements indicated that Suburban Hospital dominates other
noise sources in the area immediately surrounding it, west
side neighborhood noise data used to benchmark the model
reflects noise conditions along the entire west side perimeter.
A computer model (SoundPlan) representing the layout and
size of NIH buildings, elevations and associated noise sources
was then developed. Given the known source measurements
and properties of sound, the sound levels at various locations
can be calculated and graphically illustrated by the model. Calculated
sound levels were benchmarked against measurements to establish
accuracy of the model. Modeling accuracy allows credible “what
if” evaluation of proposed mitigation strategies so
that the most physically and cost effective options can be
identified before significant investment is required.
As basic background on the properties of sound, Mr. Jaeger
explained that changes in sound pressure of 1 or 2 dBA are
not perceptible to most humans outside of a carefully controlled
lab environment. A change of 3 dBA is discernible however. A
change of 5 dBA is clearly discernible; a change of 10 dBA
is highly discernible; and a change of 20 dBA is extremely
discernible.
With respect to a reference sound level, a change of -5
dBA is perceived by the human ear as ¾ as loud; a
change of –10 dBA is perceived as 1/2 as loud; and
a change of –20 dB is perceived as ¼ as loud.
Doubling the distance to a sound source from some reference
location makes the perceived sound ½ as loud, while
halving the distance makes it twice as loud.
Interference of sound with physical obstacles is another
factor affecting what can be heard at different locations. For
example, when Mr. Coleman pointed out that
Buildings 37 and 35 were built near the highest elevation
on the NIH campus, Mr. Jaeger said that the sound from these
buildings would as a result encounter less interference on
its way to receiving sites than if Buildings 35 and 37 were
in a valley or depression or surrounded by trees.
Using the computer model, Mr. Jaeger compared the effect
of various noise mitigation strategies for Buildings 10,
11, 28, 35 and 41. Mitigation strategies included applying
additional silencers to the stacks of Buildings 10, 28, 35
and 41; sealing the south face gaps in the acoustical louvers
of Building 11; and lowering the pod mechanical systems of
Building 35. However, none of the strategies (which
included the hypothetical removal of Building 35) lowered
neighborhood noise levels by more than 7 dBA. Constructing
a 3-meter high wall around the Building 14 mechanical room
was initially considered a mitigation possibility but this
was not evaluated in detail since the entire building 14
complex is scheduled for future replacement.
Colin Gordon & Associates recommends: using low-noise
mechanical components in new and upgraded buildings, designing
more efficient HVAC systems for new buildings, using the
campus noise model to evaluate impacts of new construction
before it starts, designing new buildings to a more demanding
standard, and conducting regular noise level monitoring in
sensitive areas.
In conclusion, Mr. Jaeger stated that:
- Community noise levels continue to satisfy the Montgomery
County nighttime noise ordinance limit of 55 dBA (65 dBA
during the day).
- The software-based noise model includes more than 200
NIH noise sources and correctly predicts noise levels at
most locations.
- Dozens of sources contributed to the overall noise level
at each monitor location, including non-NIH sources, such
as Suburban Hospital, the Beltway, aircraft and local traffic.
- Completely removing 1, 2, or even 10 sources would have
only a modest impact on community noise levels.
- Further reducing the noise from Building 35 via silencers
would have negligible effect on noise at most locations.
- Practical mitigation schemes applied to several of the
main campus noise sources may reduce the noise level at
a few neighborhood locations by at most 5 dB, which is
clearly discernible but not highly discernible, and certainly
not the elimination of noise.
- To achieve a highly discernible, 10-dB reduction in NIH
generated noise, power plant (Building 11) cooling towers
would have to be shut down (with an attendant, major and
unacceptable impact on NIH operations), mechanical sources
in dozens of buildings throughout the campus would have
to be further mitigated (at a likely to be unacceptable
high cost), and such a reduction in NIH noise is likely
to be masked by the relatively high ambient noise level
of the urban environment surrounding NIH.
Mr. Coleman stated that increased attention
to noise mitigation can apparently reduce existing noise
by a clearly discernible amount (5 dBA) but not by a highly
or extremely discernible amount (10 or more dBA). Also,
applying a more demanding design standard can prevent new
buildings from creating future neighborhood noise issues. He
related some ambient noise results of the most detailed and
expensive area noise study discovered to date. This
was a 2004 EIS analysis for National Airport, that characterized
urban noise levels in a large 30 mile square centered on
DC. Results indicate that ambient noise levels
in the VA and MD suburbs already range from 30 to 40 dBA. Therefore,
even if NIH was able to totally eliminate all campus noise
sources, little or no difference would be discernible in
adjacent neighborhoods because the ambient noise of a highly
developed urban area like Bethesda would still remain.
Mr. Schofer stated that other local noise
sources like Suburban Hospital and the Navy site should be as
responsible for their noise as NIH has been for their own
campus noise. Ms. Miller and Ms.
Michels indicated that perhaps the neighborhood
noise issue could be more effectively addressed at the County
level by the Council establishing reduced limits in the noise
ordinance. They also expressed concern that the Navy
Medical Center expansion would likely reflect lower or no
levels of noise sensitivity or green construction practices.
Kathryn Bender suggested that the CLC act
as a body to ask the county council to reduce the noise ordinance
limits. Mr. Coleman responded that
NIH cannot lobby state or federal agencies on legislative,
spending and other specific matters, so such an advocacy
role belongs to the individual homeowner groups. However,
nothing prevents CLC members from using information acquired
at CLC meetings for any purpose they deem to be in their
interest.
Randy Schools added that
since much suburban noise originates with suburban life styles
and supporting equipment like heating/AC systems, vehicles,
lawn mowers, leaf blowers, stereos, etc., residents are themselves
at least partly responsible for the neighborhood noise they
experience.
In closing this item, Mr. Coleman reiterated NIH’s
stated willingness to undertake reasonable efforts to reduce
its noise impact on nearby communities. Staff has interpreted
reasonable effort to mean effective in producing a noise
reduction discernible to neighborhood residents and acceptable
to NIH in terms of cost and operations impact. Ms.
Miller stated that the community appreciates NIH
efforts to better characterize the local noise environment
and to do its part to mitigate NIH’s contribution to
it.
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Coleman said that Mr. Hayden of the ORS Transportation
Division could not attend today’s meeting, but the
handouts provided aerial photos that addressed one of the
information items the group had requested at the April meeting;
namely, the proposed location of the pedestrian bridge across
Route 355. As shown in the photo, the initially proposed
location from the Navy’s EIS Scoping Study appears
to be just north of Center Drive. Whether the proposed
location is changed must await the Navy’s release of
the Draft EIS later this summer. Brad Moss added
that since Route 355 is a state highway, the State Highway
Administration would in any event have ultimate authority
over the pedestrian bridge location.
SPECIAL PROJECTS Southside
Lawn Drainage
Mr. Clifford reported that staff from the
County’s Department of Public Works (DPW) joined CLC
members Deborah Michels and Steve Sawicki, Mr. Coleman, Lynn Mueller and
himself for an April 16th tour of the area affected by the
southside lawn drainage problem. The tour had ORF Chief
Engineer Tony Clifford followed-up on the
April 16 meeting with county representatives (Adam Derek
and Kyle Hanley) from the Maintenance Division of the Department
of Public Works and Transportation. They had indicated
at the April meeting that the requested drainage remedy (to
provide an underground pipe from the County’s currently
open pipe adjacent to the South Lawn to a County storm drain
a few hundred feet away) went beyond maintenance and would
be referred to the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) group. Because
Mr. Clifford had not heard from the any CIP staff since then,
he called CIP manager Michael Mitchell just before today’s
meeting and related the results of that conversation.
Mr. Mitchel is aware of the drainage issue, but regulations
normally prevent the County from making improvements
on private property. He said that federal property
is considered private by the County, so even if NIH provides
an easement for a new drainage pipe, CIP cannot consider
doing such work unless existing structures or public safety
are threatened or they are directed to do so by the County
Council. Furthermore, no funding is currently available
for such work, which could exceed $100K. Finally, channeling
the natural flow of storm water is not a high CIP priority.
In other words, Mr. Mitchell’s position is that it
is normal for storm water to flow downhill and across adjacent
property lines, and the county is not responsible for storm
water once it leaves their drainage system. He would
be willing to work with NIH to install rip-rap if County
property was involved, but this would be an NIH project.
Mr. Mitchell agrees with Mr. Clifford that there is too
much water coming out of the County’s pipe for a rain
garden (absorption) approach to work. A reasonable
solution would be for NIH to install either an underground
pipe to the County drain or a surface swale along the fence
line to convey the water from Maple Ridge Road to Northbrook
Road.
Mr. Schofer thought that this is another
item that needs escalation to a political level. Mr.
Coleman repeated that lobbying
local agencies or elected officials on specific legislative
or spending issues is a role for individual homeowner associations
and not the CLC as a whole. Other
members felt that the County’s “hands off” (let
nature take its course) perspective was inconsistent with
the County’s scheduled construction of a large storm
water retention pond on NIH property. Joan
Kleinman recommended that CLC members individually
contact their county council representative and copy the
other Council members.
Ms. Miller wanted to invite Council President
Praisner to a CLC meeting to hear about both noise ordinance
and drainage issues. Mr. Coleman thought that since
the area around NIH has its own Council representative (Roger
Berliner), a better approach would be to invite him for a
general presentation of the County’s neighborhood initiatives,
and if he opened the floor to questions or comments, CLC
members could voice their concerns in other areas like noise
regulation and drainage. NIH management is aware that
the CLC Agenda Committee has already discussed inviting the
local Councilman to a future CLC meeting. Ms Miller
stated that she could convince NIH management to upgrade
the invitation to Ms. Praisner or extend the invitation herself.
Mr. Clifford said that his office has copies
of the NIH consultant report describing the drainage issue
and recommended underground pipe solution, as well as all
correspondence to date, should anyone need it. Mr.
Coleman pointed out that one of the most relevant
facts justifying a drainage fix is that the South Lawn is
the last recreational field available to the community outside
the NIH fence. Also, if County Council visibility is viewed
as important to resolving this issue, association representatives should
be aware that one of Councilmember Trachtenburg’s staff
(Richard Hoye) lives in the immediate area drained by the
pipe in question. Ms. Miller didn’t
think that increased visibility of this issue to County staff
would be very helpful, since the attention of elected officials
is the real need.
Ms. Bender wondered why NIH couldn’t
just make the necessary repairs and be done with it. Mr.
Clifford said that NIH had already spent several
hundred thousand dollars on South Lawn grading, drains, and
other improvements and further funding is not in the budget,
would not be easy to add, and would compete with funding
of frontage landscape improvements recently requested by
the CLC.
INFORMATION RESEARCH
Mr. Coleman briefly summarized the contents
of several information packets in the handout as follows:
- Garage sweeper noise follow-up - the mystery noise from
the MLP-6 and 8 garage area turns out to have been a blown
muffler on contractor equipment, which has since been fixed.
- NCPC Federal Capital Improvements Program - what NIH
projects are recommended for approval in the 2007–2012
time frame.
- Council member Berliner’s press release on his “Mansionization” task
force.
- The NIH Bike Club will make escorts available to show
safe bike routes to novices.
- Examples of the Noise Committee’s information research – to
be further described below.
- Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) updates, including
extensive mitigation ideas from the East Bethesda Citizens’Association
(a CLC member)
- The 2006–2007 NIH Almanac on CD (in participants’ packets)
- summarizes NIH research.
- The county is kicking off a master planning process for
the Purple Line, one of whose options calls for the western
terminal station to occupy MTA’s easement on NIH
property just north of Center Drive.
- Suburban Hospital’s Trauma Center has received
national recognition.
With regard to Noise Committee information research, Mr.
Coleman showed both NIH and County noise measurements overlaid
on a local street map. A noise peak west of the NIH
fence line indicates existence of an off-campus source near
Suburban Hospital. He also provided a “noise
yardstick”, which relates a wide range of decibel levels
to the relative loudness of typical events more familiar
to human experience. Finally, he reported that purchase
of an OCL noise measuring kit had been approved. The
components, specs and accuracy of the kit were summarized. The
kit will allow independent characterization of the local
noise environment and the effects of future mitigation efforts.
ROUND ROBIN
Comments & Concerns
- Lucy Ozarin noted that the pedestrian
path to NIH from her neighborhood is crumbling. Mr.
Clifford said that this would be attended to.
- Randy Schools reported
that the Bethesda Naval Hospital has started to take in
more soldiers from Iraq, and is seeking community support
to make them feel at home. Examples included
DVDs, church activities and local entertainment. Mr.
Schofer said he would follow up to obtain more
information on what the specific needs, timing and logistics
are.
- Lesley Hildebrand stated that she continues
to have problems entering the campus on her bicycle. Brad
Moss will raise this issue again with ORS management. He
said that relatively few problems are voiced by the many
other bike users on campus, and he feels that CLC badges
are intended not for commuter use but to attend monthly
CLC meetings. He also said that guard turnover contributes
to occasional lack of awareness of bike access procedures
and that ORS was implementing 4 initiatives to remedy this;
namely, quarterly training, a memo, laminated cards and
an NIH radio station reminder. Ms. Hildebrand said
that she uses her badge twice a day and was told it could
be used anytime.
- Ralph Schofer asked that the parking
attendant for the visitors’ lot near Natcher be asked
to park his taxi farther from the entrance. He now
parks so close to the entrance that it impedes other cars. This
issue was previously raised and fixed, but it has returned. Mr.
Moss said that he would address it.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Coleman adjourned the meeting at 6:04.
CLC Members Present
Kathryn Bender, East Bethesda Citizens Assn
Marian Bradford, Camelot Mews Homeowner Assn
Jean Harnish, Whitehall Condominium Assn
Lesley Hildebrand, Huntington Terrace Citizens Assn
Marilyn Mazuzan, Town of Oakmont
Debbie Michaels, Glenbrook Village Homeowners Assn
Ginny Miller, Wyngate Citizens Assn
George Oberlander, Huntington Parkway Citizens Assn
Lucy Ozarin, MD, Whitehall Condominium Assn
Ralph Schofer, Maplewood Citizens Assn
NIH Staff Present
Tony Clifford, ORF
Dennis Coleman, OCL
Kenny Floyd, ORF
Howard Hochman, ORF
Robert MacDonald, ORF
Brad Moss, ORS
Sharon Robinson, OCL
Ron Wilson, ORF
Guests
Stephen Jaeger, Colin Gordon Associates
Joan Kleinman, Rep. Van Hollen’s Office
Kira Lueders, NIH Alumni Assn
Randy Schools, Recreation & Welfare Assn
back to top |