Community Liaison Council Meeting Minutes
December 9 , 2004, 4:00–6:00 p.m.
National Library of Medicine, Visitor Center, Room 38A
National Institutes of Health

HANDOUTS

• Agenda
• Master Plan 2003 Update—Comments on Draft EIS
• Natural Gas Service Requirement at NIH

WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Dr. Tom Gallagher, Director, Office of Community Liaison (OCL), Office of the Director (OD), National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Co-Chair, Community Liaison Council (CLC), welcomes the group and tells the council that the CLC meeting date changed from the 16^th of December to the 9^th, due to the holiday season and the lack of availability of council members later in the month.

Dr. Gallagher mentions the construction accident and death of a construction worker at the employee parking garage (MLP-9), which is now under construction. Dr. Gallagher reads agency-wide e-mails from Dr. Zerhouni regarding the accident to the members of the CLC.

PRESENTATIONS
Summary of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Comments on Master Plan 2003 Update
By Ronald Wilson, Master Planner, Division of Facilities Planning, Office of Research Facilities Development and Operations (ORFDO), OD, NIH
Ron Wilson provides a summary of the comments submitted in response to the publication of the Master Plan 2003 Update Draft EIS. The comment period ended on November 29, 2004. There were a total of eleven comments. Six of these were verbal comments provided at the public meeting held on November 8, 2004 at Walter Johnson High School. EPA, NCPC, and the Maryland Department of Housing have also submitted comments in response to the Draft EIS. Some of the comments are summarized below:

1. The area bicycle clubs believe NIH should set aside funds for improvements to on-campus bicycle facilities in addition to those bordering the campus to address bicycle safety issues and tie NIH’s bike paths into the regional system. Some of the clubs’ members feel that the bicycle paths should be widened to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists, as well as re-finished to fill in cracks and holes and provide a smoother surface.
2. Noise emanating from NIH buildings needs to be addressed as soon as possible and measures should be included in the master plan and/or Final EIS addressing this issue.
3. The U.S. EPA recommends that NIH use Low Impact Development practices to manage storm water on the campus, instead of relying on structural devices to control the flow.
4. There was a suggestion that NIH explore the possibility of providing on-campus staff housing for post-docs or fellows since these individuals affect the availability of affordable housing in Bethesda.
5. The status of the previously proposed natural gas line needs to be discussed in the final master plan.
6. Parking on the Bethesda campus and ways of reducing traffic congestion on streets surrounding the campus should be discussed in the Final EIS. Community members are concerned about the growth in the number of commuting employees and visitors to the campus and would like for the master plan to address this issue. NIH is urged to implement alternative transportation methods to reduce the effect traffic and parking has on the surrounding communities.

Mr. Karl R. Goller asked the panel what NIH is going to do about these comments. Mr. Ron Wilson responded that NIH is in the process of responding to, and addressing each individual or group comment. All submitted comments would be addressed in the Final EIS.

EIS – Next Steps and Master Plan Process
By Ronald Wilson, Master Planner, Division of Facilities Planning, Office of Research Facilities Development and Operations (ORFDO), OD, NIH
The Montgomery County Planning Board master plan review hearing has not been scheduled yet. NIH will issue the Final EIS in early 2005, and NCPC will hold its hearing on the Master Plan Update, Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility, and Gateway Center on January 6th at the Planning Commission’s office downtown. The next step is for NIH to finalize the EIS and issue a Record of Decision (ROD) in the February/March timeframe. Once the ROD is issued, the master plan and Final EIS will be published. The entire process will take about 2-3 months.

Mr. Ralph Schofer inquires about NIH’s planning for the future. He wonders why NIH did not include more than one planning scenario in the Update. Mr. Schofer suggests that NIH include another scenario. He tells the council how in 1964 the State of Maryland came up with several transportation plans for this area, and he inquires why NIH has not done the same as part of its planning. Mr. Wilson responds to Mr. Schofer’s question by stating that NIH looked at alternative planning scenarios and two are mentioned in the Draft EIS. NIH has looked at several employee growth levels for the campus, and 22,000 has been selected as the preferred maximum growth level for purposes of the Master Plan Update. NIH leadership decided upon this number after reviewing other alternative growth levels and dismissing those either because they resulted in unacceptable impacts on the local area or they were considered to be too low to be realistic given expected program growth on the campus. Mr. Schofer states that five years ago, NIH did not know that it would need a Building 33, and he points out that NIH cannot predict what is going to happen or what is going to be needed 20 years out in the future.

Another council member asks how NIH is going to handle the submitted comments in regards to the Final EIS. Ms. Serras-Fiotes notes that NIH will answer and address each individual comment, not just the summaries shown in Mr. Wilson’s presentation.

One attendee suggests that we relocate NIH up-county instead of increasing traffic in Bethesda. Ms. Serras-Fiotes reminds the members that this master plan is a Bethesda campus master plan and not a plan of the entire NIH portfolio. Dr. Gallagher reminds attendees that NIH has a presence in other areas beyond Bethesda, including Montana, Ft. Detrick, Poolesville, Baltimore, Research Triangle Park, Twinbrook, etc.

Mr. George Oberlander indicated that he intends to submit his written comments on the Draft EIS by December 9th. He is aware that these comments are beyond the deadline for Draft EIS comments but, nevertheless, asks if they can be incorporated into the EIS. Mr. Wilson responds that NIH cannot formally accept his comments on the Draft EIS, since they were not submitted within the allotted time. However, Mr. Wilson states that NIH can accept any of Mr. Oberlander’s Master Plan/Draft EIS comments to the extent they relate to issues contained in the master plan document.

Mr. Steve Sawicki requests further explanation as to why NIH’s master plan has two different employee ceilings for the campus, one scenario uses 22,000 and another has 26,000 as the employee ceiling. Ms. Serras-Fiotes states that the 22,000 figure is NIH’s preferred employee ceiling. Mr. Sawicki is concerned that campus growth will increase past the 22,000 and will move upwards to 26,000. He asks for NIH’s word that it won’t go over our stated ceiling of 22,000. Ms. Serras-Fiotes states that if the number needs to increase past 22,000, NIH is required to prepare a revised master plan and conduct another NEPA review process, open to the community. The members of the council are worried about how the increased employment on the Bethesda campus will affect traffic in the area. They are also concerned that NIH might increase staff beyond the 22,000 level and not notify the community prior to the increase or go through the required process to adjust the master plan.

Dr. Gallagher informs the members that NIH is committed to not exceeding its stated ceiling levels and has even moved non-scientific staff off campus to satellite locations, such as Executive Plaza and Twinbrook, to accommodate our growing employee levels and stay within our campus limitations.

Ms. Serras-Fiotes states once again that if it is determined employment levels must go above the 22,000 level, NIH will be required to go through another master planning and NEPA process. Dr. Gallagher asks Ms. Serras-Fiotes how can NIH assure that the 22,000 figure is not just an interim number and employee levels will increase to the 26,000 figure. Ms. Serras-Fiotes states that the language of the master plan backs up the 22,000 figure, but she will look at the language to see if that is clear. Ms. Miller asks that an article or amended paragraph be placed in the master plan that states 22,000 employees is the maximum the Bethesda campus can hold.

Mr. Karl Goller, a guest of the Steve Sawicki, asks why we are not addressing the difference between the 22,000 and 26,000 figures in this master plan. Ms. Serras-Fiotes replies that it is addressed in the master plan (Section 2.8.8 of the Master Plan 2003 Update), which states that any growth over the 22,000 needs to be moved off the Bethesda campus.

Ms. Miller states that the council would like to have stronger language incorporated into the master plan that addresses NIH’s commitment that it will not go over the 22,000 employee ceiling on the Bethesda campus. Ms. Miller asks that NIH add “at this time” to the sentence at the bottom of Page 20, Chapter 2, of the Update which spells out how NIH will accommodate employment levels above 22,000.

Mr. Oberlander notes that he believes the language in the master plan is too general and does not put a limit on the number of employees that can be housed on the Bethesda campus. He would like it to be clearer in the master plan that any number over 22,000 will be placed off campus. Mr. Ron Wilson told the committee that he will look at the language in the master plan to reflect the statement of the council regarding maximum employee numbers.

Ms. Serras-Fiotes informs the council that when the assumptions change, as far as employee ceilings, then NIH will have to go through another NEPA process. Ms. Leslie Hildebrand suggests that we add that as a statement to the master plan. Ms. Serras-Fiotes tells the committee that we can and will add a sentence that is clearer and one that states if NIH’s employee number assumptions change, we will initiate another master plan revision and EIS process.

Ms. Leslie Hildebrand asks Mr. Wilson when the council could review the recommended changes to the Draft EIS. He responds that the next step in the process is to incorporate all changes into the Final EIS prior to publication.

Gas Line
By Stella Serras-Fiotes, Director, Division of Facilities Planning, ORFDO, OD, NIH
Ms. Serras-Fiotes informs the council that in January 2002, NIH issued a solicitation for a contractor to construct a new gas line for NIH. One reason this request was initially submitted is that Washington Gas curtailed NIH’s gas flow during the cold winter season. This interruption of gas service created a hardship on NIH. Since Washington Gas concluded that they would have a difficult time implementing and providing uninterrupted gas service to NIH through the current lines, it seemed necessary that NIH have a larger gas line to provide it with uninterrupted service. This separate gas line would have provided the community with their own gas line that would not be affected by NIH’s consumption.

Mr. Schofer asked if the reason for the proposed line was because the current gas line is too small or if it was because Washington Gas does not have the resources to provide uninterrupted service.

Ms. Serras-Fiotes informs the committee that NIH was looking at two projects at the time that the request was made, which would mean a 25% increase in campus steam. Our need for increased steam is forcing us to ensure that NIH has an uninterrupted natural gas line. In October of 2003, NIH was issued a new Part 5 title plan, which increased our emissions level.

When NIH did a reevaluation of our buildings and future plans, it was determined that the gas need would not be as high as the originally requested level. This is the case since NIH did not begin or complete as much building as was anticipated. NIH’s current gas consumption is approximately 380,000 cubic feet per hour. It is estimated that this amount is sufficient for NIH through the year 2011. Also, depending on when the south labs are built, this amount may be sufficient for the NIH beyond 2011.

Mr. Oberlander would like to know more about the language in the EIS related to the gas line. He asks if NIH will change the language in the master plan to reflect the lesser amount. Ms. Serras-Fiotes responds by saying that NIH will check the language to reflect the actual amount that will be used.

Mr. Sawicki asks, “What if Washington Gas decides it needs to update their gas lines, how would NIH handle that?” “Would we dig up the neighborhoods?” Ms. Serras-Fiotes responds that if Washington Gas is building a line for NIH, one that NIH initiated, NIH would go through an EIS process. If the NIH does not initiate the new gas line then it is not a federal undertaking, and NIH has no control over where and what Washington Gas digs.

Dr. Gallagher states that the gas line that currently serves NIH is not solely dedicated to the NIH. The gas line serves the Naval Hospital, surrounding neighborhoods, and some area businesses. Mr. Karl Goller states that the proposed gas line a little while back was going to serve just NIH. Dr. Gallagher points out that if Washington Gas moved NIH from the current line to the proposed 12-inch line, than they would free up lots of gas for other purposes. Mr. Sawicki would like to go on record suggesting that if a new gas line comes into NIH, that we please implement an emergency shut off valve to protect the neighborhoods.

Ms. Serras-Fiotes says that she is not sure if she can add that request into the language of the master plan since shut-off valves are not required by code. Mr. Sawicki would like some protection in the master plan against the gas line. He really would like to see a shut off valve added for emergency purposes, so that NIH can shut off the gas if there is a break in the line to protect the neighborhood.

Mr. Oberlander shares his comments on the EIS. Although the comments cannot be formally accepted, since the comment deadline has expired, Mr. Ron Wilson will review and consider Mr. Oberlander’s comments as part of the Final Master Plan Update, to the extent they are relevant.

One member asks how NIH announced the EIS to the public. Ms. Serras-Fiotes responds that we used several methods to alert the community, such as holding a public hearing, publishing announcements in newsletters and newspapers, sending out mailings, and listing the EIS in the federal registry. All of these methods were used to announce the solicitation of comments for the EIS.

OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS AND UPDATES
In regards to the noise abatement issue, Ms. Serras-Fiotes informed the group that unfortunately, the fabrication of the stack shields takes longer than simply ordering a pre-made part. However, the slow down in fabrication will not change the planned timing of repair construction. The noise abatement repairs are slated to begin in the winter and are expected to be completed by the spring of 2005. Dr. Gallagher informs the community that NIH is working as fast as it can, and since these are custom parts the process is taking a bit longer. Ms. Serras-Fiotes tells the committee that she too gets frustrated with how long the process takes to award government contracts and that her organization is working as fast as it can to resolve this issue. The Porter building was designed to be constructed in two phases and these stack shields were originally going to be dealt with in the second phase of construction. The second phase has not begun so NIH is proceeding with the noise abatement now. As far as Building 37 and its noise, Ms. Serras-Fiotes states that there is no update at this time.

Ms. Hildebrand says that she needs more specific information to give to her community. Ms. Miller suggests that Ms. Serras-Fiotes contact Ms. Hildebrand when she has new information on the issue, rather than Ms. Hildebrand waiting an entire month for our next council update meeting. Ms. Hildebrand feels that there is not enough language included in the master plan describing how NIH is abating noise issues that arise. She would like to suggest that the master plan address the noise levels from these buildings and describe what NIH is going to do to correct the situation. Mr. Oberlander also would like to add a special consideration comment in the master plan relating to noise abatement.

Ms. Serras-Fiotes informs the committee that the noise level is one of the comments submitted during the EIS and it will be addressed. Council members ask if NIH has recourse against the original builder or contractor due to the noise. Dr. Gallagher stresses that we can not wait for the process to go back to the contractor or designer, we need to handle this issue now. If NIH takes recourse action, it could take years to remedy the problem. He assures the committee that there is a process we must follow and that process is in the design phase at this time.

Mr. Tony Clifford talks about the South lawn project, which is a project to level the lawn and adjust drainage in that area. On December 14th the project will begin and it will be completed by the end of February. Once construction begins, the area will be fenced off and a sign will be posted to inform passersby the reason for the project. Mr. Sawicki asks if we were bringing in dirt, from an outside source for this project and Mr. Clifford says that would not be necessary. The only items that will be brought in are going to be some equipment and possibly a little stone for the drainage site.

As far as the perimeter security gates, they will be activated in the timeframe between February and March. Dr. Gallagher will give a 30-45 day notice to the community prior to the activation of the gates and new policies for entering the campus.

Mr. Clifford also speaks to the council about the recent construction accident. He wants to emphasize that the garage as a whole did not collapse. A small component of it collapsed during the placement of a slab. Construction has stopped at this time so that portions of the garage can be taken apart and reconstructed as a safety measure. Currently, NIH has an expert looking at the site and the components that are being removed will not be reused. The components will only be retained for investigative purposes.

Mr. Clifford would like to commend Montgomery County for their great response to the incident. He wants the community to know that no matter how critical the incident, the county response team could handle the situation; this was proven during the NIH incident.

ADJOURNMENT
The formal meeting ended at 6:10 p.m.

ACTION ITEMS

• Ms. Serras-Fiotes will look into the noise reduction project for the Porter building and report on its status at the next meeting.

CLC Members Present
Amy Blackburn, OCL, OD, NIH
Anthony Clifford, ORFDO, OD, NIH
Tom Gallagher, Ph.D., OCL, OD, NIH
Lesley Hildebrand, Huntington Terrace Citizens Association
Nancy Hoos, Sonoma Citizens Association
Darrell Lemke, Ph.D., Parkview Citizens Association
Debbie Michaels, Glenbrook Village Homeowners Association
Ginny Miller, Wyngate Citizens Association
Walter Mitton, OCL, OD, NIH
George Oberlander, Huntington Parkway Citizens Association
Lucy Ozarin, M.D., Whitehall Condominium Association
Stella Serras-Fiotes, DFP, ORFDO, OD, NIH
Steve Sawicki, Edgewood Glenwood Citizens Association
Ralph Schofer, Maplewood Citizens Association

Guests
Karl R. Goller, guest of Steve Sawicki
Ronald Wilson, DFP, ORFDO, OD, NIH