Community Liaison Council Meeting Minutes
May 17, 2007, 4:00–6:00 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. 

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:

1. 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.
2. NCPC Federal Capital Improvements Program - what NIH projects are recommended for approval in the 2007–2012 time frame.
3. Council member Berliner’s press release on his “Mansionization” task force.
4. The NIH Bike Club will make escorts available to show safe bike routes to novices.
5. Examples of the Noise Committee’s information research – to be further described below.
6. Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) updates, including extensive mitigation ideas from the East Bethesda Citizens’Association (a CLC member)
7. The 2006–2007 NIH Almanac on CD (in participants’ packets) - summarizes NIH research.
8. 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.
9. 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