Community Liaison Council Meeting Minutes
September 18, 2008, 4:00–6:00 p.m.
Visitor Information Center, Building 45 (Natcher Building)
Little Theater
National Institutes of Health

ANNOUNCEMENTS—Dennis Coleman/OCL Director, Co-Chair; Ginny Miller/Wyngate Citizens Assn., Co-Chair

Several announcements were made since there was no meeting in August.

• The Montgomery County Police Dept. is responding to a rash of visible crimes with community education as well as investigation and enforcement. They will hold a community meeting on crime prevention for residents, including home invasion and identity theft, and other topics of particular concern to senior citizens. Mr. Coleman passed the meeting announcement around the room for those interested in recording the meeting information.

• A resident wrote to county staff asking that the Metro station be moved to a location that would allow public parking, which is what off-hour Metro users used to do in NIH lots before the post 9/11 NIH fence and security procedures. It would not be productive for either the county or the CLC to consider this an agenda issue since neither is responsible for Metro, and the resident was so advised.

• Mr. Mueller’s tree work along McKinley Avenue has attracted the attention of adjacent neighbors. The crowns of 11 large tulip poplars are being pruned, and 4 are being removed entirely. The 4 trunks will be left as bird habitat (aka. snags). Nearby hemlocks are also being removed because an insect (wooly algedid) infestation could not otherwise be eliminated

• Given the Gateway Center opening, NIH now has 3 entry points for driving visitors: the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility for trucks; West Drive for patients and their visitors; and Gateway Center for everyone else. The entrance on Old Georgetown Road with the vehicle inspection tent is for pedestrians only, but the tent will remain for now.

• Certain floors of the Magnussen Center (the 14-story, original NIH hospital built in the early 1950s) are proposed to undergo renovation. This renovation will be inside the building and should not cause community impacts like cranes, demolition, noise, dust and heavy construction worker or truck traffic.

• Tonight at 6:30 pm, the MD Department of Planning is holding a public meeting at James Blake High School in Silver Spring. The announcement says that this is an opportunity for citizens to tell state planners what kind of vision they have for MD.

• In an energy-saving promotion, Monday, September 22, has been declared a national car-free day. Many local employers are participating, including those in downtown Bethesda.

• Starting October 1, the NIH campus will be smoke-free, including outdoors. In the United States, about 20% of adults still smoke. Assuming that NIH employees are more health conscious could still leave 10% who smoke, which means ~1800 people. Therefore, neighbors might see more NIH employees walking outside the fence. Concerns about litter were mixed with a "wait and see" response.

• Montgomery County is seeking civic-minded residents interested in working at the polls on November 4. Poll workers must be registered Montgomery County voters and will receive a stipend of $75.

• Montgomery County is sensitive to the increased cost of energy and traffic congestion and seeks to expand participation in its 4-day, 10-hour work schedule. Currently, 2200 of 10,000 county employees participate in some alternative work schedule, and the goal is to exceed 3000, recognizing that some services will not be amenable to such "Compressed Work Scheduling".

• The most recent issue of The Gazette published an article about a Chevy Chase resident going to court to stop a historic neighborhood structure from being torn down and replaced. The article refers to Dennis Coleman, a Bethesda real estate agent. Mr. Coleman assured everyone that he is a different Dennis Coleman. Ms. Mazusan confirmed that fact, since she knows both Dennis Colemans.

FACILITIES—Ron Wilson, Director, Division of Facilities Planning, ORF

NIH Frontage on MD355—Ron Wilson, Director, Division of Facilities Planning, ORF
Mr. Wilson introduced newly appointed NIH Master Planner, Susan Hinton, who previously worked for the National Park Service and the National Capital Planning Commission. She was closely involved with NIH’s 1995 Master Plan and also participated in the Community Working Group when it first started. She is now heading the MD355 Streetscape Project.

Ms. Hinton reviewed the purpose of the Streetscape Project—to lay out a general framework for planning and design guidelines for future improvements along Route 355. There are 4 phases: data collection and analysis (almost complete), the draft plan (which should be ready by February 2009), summary guidelines (ready by April 2009), and the final plan (expected in May 2009).

Already, they have reviewed existing information, interviewed the landscape architects, and summarized the analysis of assets and liabilities. They hope to present a draft plan to the CLC in January. They will then develop a palette of landscape materials, site furniture, lighting, paving material, etc, and brief the CLC again in April 2009. The NIH plan will be coordinated with the Navy and the Montgomery County Park and Planning Commission (which has recently done a study of the Route 355 corridor). Ms. Hinton concluded with an invitation to CLC members to call her (301-496-5037) for further discussion if needed.

Discussion
Ms. Hinton clarified that “site furniture” is a general term referring to physical accoutrements. Whether to install benches is a future design issue, but as is the case now, there will be a sidewalk and bike trail with lighting and signage. An objective is to achieve a more integrated look.

Ms. Miller said Montgomery County defines the Route 355 corridor as beginning farther north and south of NIH; the section that passes NIH is called the “Green Mile.” Mr. Oberlander noted that the “Green Mile” has changed considerably in the last few years. Ms. Miller said that CLC members have for years noted a need to improve aesthetics along the NIH frontage.

Mr. Oberlander observed that security structures NIH recently constructed limit the space available for other improvements on the Route 355 frontage, so achieving an integrated look will be more challenging now than if the project designs were integrated from the beginning. He encouraged the designers to be as specific as possible in making their proposals so if money becomes available to implement their ideas, the result will not be in doubt.

Ms. Hinton assured the group that the plan will be detailed and achieve a more harmonious streetscape than what is now apparent from the separate CVIF, Gateway Center and other projects that have occurred there. The consultants are looking at a number of issues, e.g., how vehicles and pedestrians interact, the width of the sidewalks, the impression or sense of place that the public gets driving by, etc. Dr. Ozarin hopes that the streetscape plan will have enough resources to extend the full length of NIH’s property, which is three or four thousand feet. Ms. Hinton thought a new environmental document would likely not be needed, but whether it will or not will depend on the specific proposals in the plan.

Ms. Vogt said people in her community are concerned about the safety of drivers on MD355 when in front of the CVIF, which effectively concentrates truck traffic that could include dangerous substances or terrorists. The CLC had previously been told that the streetscape study would include at least some analysis of a berm and whether sufficient space remains to construct such a berm along the frontage to shield Route 355 drivers from potential CVIF events. Ms. Hinton said ORF has heard that concern. While NIH is not likely to make the buffer smaller, this issue will be considered in the streetscape study.

Ms. Miller and Ms. Lueder reported that they have experience trouble when accessing the Gateway Center parking. Mr. Wilson said he had attended a meeting with Tom Hayden and others involved in Gateway Center operations and ORS/ORF intends to install the permanent planned directional signage in the Fall of 2008. In the interim, an effort to improve pavement markings in the area of the visitor parking garage is under way to help clarify the route that visitors should take. Mr. Hayden’s office is in the process of ordering more temporary and permanent signs for the garage, walkways and campus. Ms. Hinton noted that ORF has received a great deal of comments about inadequate signage. However, that is not part of the streetscape plan, which has a different focus than how visitors get in and out of an individual facility. Mr. Coleman reported that ORS operates Gateway Center and is not in attendance today due to an off-site meeting. However, he has already forwarded some CLC member comments about Gateway Center signage and inspection procedures to Mr. Moss, the ORS Communication Officer.

Ms Leuders and Mr. Oberlander noted that the striping in front of the Gateway Center garage entrance and on Route 355 near the deceleration lane entering Gateway Center Drive are locations where people pull in and wait to pick up people, but that the stripes were not intended for that purpose. Mr. Wilson reassured everyone that a signage program is underway and agreed that the striped portion on Route 355 is not a parking area. The Montgomery County Police are responsible for traffic movements on Route 355 and should ticket people if they are parked illegally. NIH’s transportation plan complied with what the State Highway Administration directed and approved. Mr. Wilson and Mr. Hayden will discuss this; they may have to go back to the state.

ENVIRONMENT—Kenny Floyd, DEP Director, ORFDO

No topic this month.

TRANSPORTATION—Tom Hayden, Director, ORS, Division of Amenities & Transportation Services & Amy J. Blackburn, Special Assistant, ORF, Division of Facilities Planning

Wrap-up: Buffer Facilities Status
According to the NIH master plan, the buffer area surrounding the campus is supposed to eventually revert to a 250 foot wide, landscaped green space. Various buildings, parking lots and storage areas now occupy buffer space, some temporary, some grandfathered, some approved by NCPC, and some required by post 9/11 security.

In March, CLC members asked for a status update of buffer facilities, and in April Mr. Hayden distributed a map for members to mark with their specific concerns. In May, Mr. Coleman and Ms. Miller overlaid 13 marked areas onto the map and asked that to minimize confusion, it and an accompanying table form the basis of the update. In July, Amy and Tom presented a comprehensive review of all 13 areas. That review brought clarity to issues which the CLC had been periodically bringing up in numerous meetings. In this month’s packet for CLC members, Ms. Blackburn included a wrap up table summarizing results of the July meeting, which had needed some clarification.

With respect to item #8 (a portion of parking lot 41), a requirement has arisen for part of that area to be used as a staging area for the Magnusen Center (Building 10) renovations referred to in today's announcements. Work will start in a week or so, and equipment, etc. will remain there until about March 2009. ORS will put screening along the staging area fence. Mr. Oberlander stated that part of Lot 41 has already become a storage area and whatever screening is used for Building 10 renovation materials should be temporary and high enough to do some good.

Smoke-free Campus
ORS will soon put up signs on the campus and outside the fence (which is still NIH property out to the street) stating that the campus is now smoke-free. It will be a flag that hangs between 2 poles, and they will be taken down December 22. Ms. Hoos hoped smokers would be asked to be responsible about disposing their cigarette butts, since nothing stops them from crossing the street to smoke. Ms. Blackburn doubts that visible smoking receptacles outside the NIH fence would be in tune with the intent of the message behind the smoke free initiative, but will ask Mr. Hayden about the wording on the signs. Dr. Ozarin clarified that “smoke-free” technically extends from the NIH fence to the street, but recognizes that enforcement will be a challenge outside the fence.

SPECIAL PROJECTS—Tony Clifford, Chief Engineer, ORF

County Response to Cooperative South Law Solution Plan
Since the NIH fence cut off public access to all but the South Lawn community recreation field, the community has been concerned about its periodic wet condition after moderate and heavy rains. The water was found to be coming from a County drainage pipe just beyond NIH property that is now unconnected to the County drainage system.

Some have suggested running an underground pipe to make the water bypass NIH property, but the NIH environmental group was not in favor of putting possibly polluted run off from ~30 acres of suburban lawns & streets into the future storm water retention pond at the SE corner of NIH property. Also, neither the County nor NIH felt responsible or able to fund the entire improvement, so a cooperative solution was proposed.

NIH would install a 470 foot straight run of underground pipe from the west to the east end of the South Lawn, and the County would install connections to its open pipe at the west end of the NIH pipe, and to the County system at the east end of the NIH pipe. ORF Director Dan Wheeland overcame environmental concerns by proposing a perforated pipe so that during light and moderate storms, water would still filter into the ground. Only during heavy storms, would water run directly into the County system and in that case, it would be greatly dilluted.

Mr. Clifford showed photos of the area taken 2 days ago, after heavy rains from a hurricane remnant had occurred. To prevent mosquito breeding, he has asked the county to clean up the area where their pipe discharges water. The discharge line had recently been covered with mud and debris. The pipe has been clearly exposed since the clean-up, and the erosion it causes is now more clearly visible.

On June 12, Mr. Clifford sent the NIH proposal to Bruce Johnson, head of the County's Capital Planning Division within the Public Works Dept. On June 18, Mr. Johnson replied, indicating his willingness to work on a cooperative solution.

On Sept. 19, NIH will award a contract to Tishman Construction to begin design work on the NIH portion. A. Morton Thomas, who is already familiar with South Lawn drainage, has no active contract with the government at this time and so could not be hired directly, but they will be hired as a subcontractor by Tishman. Work will begin October 6, and the performance period will be 45 days. The CLC's South Lawn Cmte. will be involved, and the county will participate in pipeline planning and coordination of connections. The project scope will include the overall South Lawn and swale areas. Implementation must be budgeted by NIH and the county in FY2009. In addition, there will be legal issues that need to be addressed, such as easements for the county to come onto NIH land and avoidance of various utility lines in the South Lawn area.

Key participants will be: Jason Dickerson (NIH Project Officer), Peter Zitta (Project Manager for A. Morton Thomas), Bruce Johnson (County capital projects), Michael Mitchell, PE (County maintenance), NIH Environmental staff, Tony Clifford (NIH Chief Engineer), the CLC's South Lawn Cmte, and the full CLC.

Discussion
Dr. Ozarin wondered about coordination. Mr. Clifford replied that ORF will install manholes, and the county will excavate and bring their drainage pipe to them. Mr. Clifford needs to work with the county on how they will connect to the existing pipe because they have to follow the existing invert (i.e. the inclines of the land and existing pipe). To reach the same invert they may have to trench farther underground, which would cost more money. Most likely these 2 parts will be done at the same time, and, if the county uses the same contractor, it could be cost and time-beneficial. Manholes are necessary in any event to allow maintenance and clean out access.

Open-site drains may have to be used to collect water coming from nearby residences. Care must also be taken not to interfere with the buried gas and electric lines running parallel to the fence, as well as the fence itself and roots from the trees that line the proposed trench.

Mr. Sawicki asked when workers will actually begin digging. Mr. Clifford said the contract has a 45-day timeline. If no engineering problems come up, they could start in October and complete the work this year. However, much depends on the county, and Mr. Clifford does not want to create an eyesore waiting for them to act. Mr. Clifford has the county’s interest in writing, but it's not a commitment. Mr. Sawicki thought NIH should proceed regardless of what the County does and when, because the buried pipe will remove some water even without County participation. Furthermore, he is prepared to contact county officials to promote their involvement. Mr. Oberlander agreed this may ne necessary. Mr. Clifford wants to first ensure that the plan is achievable engineering-wise.

Mr. Coleman pointed out that the county has made recent efforts to clean debris from their outflow, which indicates awareness of the situation. Ms. Hoos suggested that Mr. Clifford invite Mr. Mitchell to meet with him and look at the area. Mr. Coleman remembered that it was Mr. Mitchell who had first said, “It’s not maintenance; it’s construction.", which is what brought Mr. Johnson (capital projects) into the picture.

Mr. Sawicki thought it would be good to know if Tishman has worked with the county before. Mr. Clifford said that he doesn't know, but Tishman does other work for NIH now, and ORF can actually implement this more easily because of existing contracts.

Mr. Coleman then asked Mr. Clifford to estimate the relative scope of what NIH is asking the County to do. Mr. Clifford stated that the County commitment could be around $50K, whereas NIH's 470 foot pipe run could easily cost twice that amount, so no one can say that NIH is not doing its part.

INFORMATION FORUM—Dennis Coleman, OCL Director, CLC Co-Chair

Risk Assessment (RA) Information Update
The agenda committee unanimously requested a risk assessment (RA) information update at its September meeting. Mr. Coleman stated that the national proliferation of biofacilities, RA studies and standards since 9/11 made this quite an involved research project with as many references and details as the recent regulatory survey of urban helicopter operations. Given that NIH had previously (June, 2008) announced its intent to prepare an EIS that might conceivably involve RA, Mr. Coleman had talked to John Burklow about appropriate timing and scope with which to respond to the CLC information update request.

The NIH management position that risk should be transparently documented to affected communities is clear, but CLC members should not confuse today's generic RA information update with whatever specific RA information might be reported by NIH during or after its formal EIS process for a given project or scenario. Consistent with NEPA procedures that the CLC has long been familiar with, NIH's environmental group will independently publish the announced EIS, after which the public will have its traditional opportunities to comment.

In order to avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest, the CLC agenda will not include EIS or RA topics during the future EIS public comment period. The objective today is simply to update the CLC on what numerous agencies and studies have publicly reported about RA since the CLC reviewed Building 33 RA some years ago.

The classic purpose of RA is not to prevent action but to identify any significant risk associated with an action, so that measures can be taken to reduce or better manage that risk. What triggered the CLC's interest in updating its prior RA background is the recent Federal Register notice that NIH proposes to transport Ft. Detrick biolab staff potentially exposed to infectious agents to the NIH Clinical Center for monitoring, evaluation and if necessary, treatment. Due to obvious differences between a biolab and a hospital, additional community risk is not expected to be significant, but CLC members have consistently felt over the years that any risk potentially posed by NIH activities should be analyzed, documented and understood. For example, the CLC formed its own Risk Assessment Committee in April 2002, and that committee met regularly until November 2003 with regard to Building 33.

To illustrate how cautious biolab staff and procedures can be relative to responding to potential exposures, Mr. Coleman mentioned how USAMRIID (US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases) had publicly documented 17 instances of possible staff exposure since 1970, none of which resulted in infections after extended periods of observation and diagnosis in Ft. Detrick's existing patient containment facility. In another example of how effective containment equipment, procedures and training can be, NIH staff are reported to have logged more than 1500 "at-risk" man years in BSL-2 and 3 labs between 1982 and 2003 with only 1 infection requiring clinical treatment. Reported safety for less numerous BSL-4 labs operated by DoD and CDC between 1972 and 2003 indicate more than 230 at-risk man years without any accidental infections occurring. Track records like this show how RA can involve working with abstract concepts, since the numbers used to describe probabilities and consequences are smaller (e.g. 0.00001 accidents or illnesses per year) than what people normally encounter.

The risk equation itself is deceptively simple, but its two terms each represent statistical quantities with inherent uncertainty. As a result, risk assessment can be complicated to understand and communicate. Risk analyses use the formula, Risk = (Occurrences Per Unit of Time) X (Consequences Per Occurrence). The result (Consequences Per Unit Time) essentially expresses the potential harm of events that may or may not occur. Therefore, various uncertainties can be associated with risk, and these are often represented by a range of risks or a "worst case" approach (the assumption being that if the highest risk is acceptable, lower risks are as well). Mr. Coleman showed the illustrated risk model used in the June 2008 Draft EIS for Homeland Security's National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF). That facility would research livestock and crop pathogens, but the risk analysis approach is the same as that used for human pathogen releases, airline crashes, chemical leaks, bridge collapses, levee breaks, etc. The only difference is that the NBAF consequence term would describe possible economic losses to agriculture.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s policy when publishing risk assessment results is intended to reflect the principles of transparency, clarity, consistency, and reason. Agency credibility and decision making can be enhanced by bringing stake holders into the process early enough to make a difference, supporting stake holders in their efforts to educate and represent themselves, and telling a balanced story (where both pluses and minuses of what agencies propose are considered).

Another interesting aspect of RA is that the public will accept a surprisingly broad range of risks, often depending on what is perceived as the benefits of risk or what is unavoidable risk. For example, without biolabs, there would be fewer disease-preventing vaccines since these would essentially have to be discovered by accident rather than dedicated work with disease-causing pathogens. To illustrate this point, Mr. Coleman stated that the lifetime risk in industrialized countries of dying from often preventable heart disease or cancer is between 10 and 20%, whereas the lifetime risk from nuclear plants, transportation accidents or chemical facilities is typically 1000 to 100,000 times less. Some people will strenuously protest a one in a million lifetime risk of asthma from particulate pollution, while doing nothing about diet or exercise, which have much higher effects on human health risk. The public may like the sound of zero risk, but that is impossible unless the agent or cause of risk is totally absent.

At the time of the CLC's last RA review in 2002/2003, risk assessment information was not fully shared with CLC members. The assumption had been made that biosafety and biosecurity information are equally proprietary. Since then, agencies have distinguished biosafety and biosecurity. Containment reliability and associated risk assessment are fundamental to biosafety (which is what the public tends to care about), but not to biosecurity (which involves access control, guards, alarms, surveillance, background checks, etc). For example, in the recent NBAF Draft EIS, Homeland Security provided extensive documentation of its biosafety analysis and then adjusted the risk downward by a factor of about 100 to account for biosecurity procedures without having to reveal details of those procedures.

There are also physical and operational differences between what different facilities actually do with hazardous substances, and these can strongly affect risk. For example, a hospital may treat a contagious patient in its isolation ward, and that treatment might involve close contact with nursing staff and the need for protective equipment like gloves, gowns and face shields, but absent such a patient, no pathogen is present and therefore no risk can arise. Similarly, a biolab may lack contagious patients and the intimacy of patient care, but pathogens are always present in high volumes and concentrations and relative to a hospital, there is much more handling and manipulation of pathogens during the production and testing activities that biolabs undertake.

Public interest in biorisk has risen with the national proliferation of biofacilities since 9/11. For example, there are now more than 1300 BSL-3 labs in the US. About 1000 of these research human pathogens, and ~300 research livestock and crop pathogens. BSL-4 labs have grown in number from 5 prior to 9/11 to 15 today.

NEPA has required some level of environmental analysis only for federal facilities, which number ~460 of the 1300 BSL-3 labs and 9 of the 15 BSL-4 labs. State, academic and private labs are regulated by state and local laws, not all of which require the same level of public disclosure as NEPA does. Nevertheless, the overall containment reliability of so many facilities is indirectly but convincingly shown by the fact that public disease outbreaks have not occurred. Especially in the US, public disease outbreaks from more than 1000 BSL-3 and 4 biolabs would certainly be noticed and reported by staff, regulators, hospitals, doctors, press, media, etc. The fact that they haven't been noticed and reported is a strong indication that they must not be occurring.

With respect to what potentially hazardous agents are now being investigated by various government agencies, Mr. Coleman showed a table listing some 40 pathogens and their current classifications based on numerous public references. This list was accompanied by another table showing how various government agencies had ranked the 40 pathogens in terms of the relative hazards they could pose in the unlikely event that containment is lost. It was apparent from the table that ~10 pathogens stood out as being more hazardous than the others.

The relative hazard table completed delivery of the RA information requested by the CLC; namely, an update on (1) the methods and meaning of RA; (2) what pathogens are the focus of current research; (3) how are currently researched pathogens classified by various agencies in terms of special procedures, equipment and regulations, and (4) how hazardous do various agencies regard the listed pathogens with respect to each other.

No outstanding RA issues were raised or follow up information requested, other than traditional interest being expressed in NIH documenting RA results for any activity with possible RA significance. As a result, a decision on whether to reconstitute the CLC's RA Committee was deferred to a later time when specific analysis of the current proposal might be available.

ROUND ROBIN—Ginny Miller, CLC Co-Chair

Comments and Concerns

• In Ms. Miller’s neighborhood, there has been a rash of car break-ins to steal global positioning systems, and County police are investigating this trend.

• Ms. Miller encouraged CLC members to voice their opinions about new ambulance fees proposed by the County. According to an article in the September 17 Gazette, the County Council will again consider this issue at their September 25 meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 6:12 p.m.
Next meeting: October 16, 2008

ATTENDANCE

CLC Members
Marian Bradford, Camelot Mews
Harvey Eisen, Edgewood Glenwood
Jean Harnish, Whitehall
Lesley Hildebrand, Huntington Terrace
Nancy Hoos, Sonoma
Darrell Lemke, Parkview
Marilyn Mazuzan, Oakmont
Ginny Miller, Wyngate
Steve Sawicki, Edgewood Glenwood
George Oberlander, Huntington Parkway
Lucy Ozarin, MD, Whitehall
Beth Volz, Locust Hill

Liaison Representatives
Kira Lueders, NIH Alumni Association
Randy Schools, NIH R&W

NIH Staff
Amy Blackburn, ORF
Tony Clifford, ORF
Dennis Coleman, OCL
Susan Hinton, ORF
Sharon Robinson, OCL
Ron Wilson, ORF

Guests
Joan Kleinman, Rep. Van Hollen’s office

back to top