Ms. Hedetniemi informed the CLC that on February 7th, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) approved the Children's Inn expansion project and the Family Lodge project.

Ms. Hedetniemi thanked the CLC for an idea they conceived that led to a Gazette article. The newspaper recognized NIH for their friendly and safe walking grounds.

Dr. Robert Resnick, from Huntington Terrace Citizens Association, informed the CLC about a mini conference given by the Master Gardeners of Montgomery County. Master Gardeners include horticulturalists, consultants, and experts in various areas. The conference will be held on April 20, 2002 and covers the fundamentals of gardening. Registration closes April 16th. More information will be available on the Web site and in the OCL Update.

Recreation and Welfare Association (R&W) representative, Randy Schools, gave an update on the Farmer's Market. He mentioned that NIH is looking into allowing use of the parking lots at the corner of Old Georgetown Road and Cedar Lane for a weekend farmer's market. Both the Farmer's Market and Lobster Sales would like to have their programs during the week, so that NIH employees can take advantage of their programs. The R & W is working with Agriculture Department - Montgomery County Department of Economic Development to see if any farmers are available for the weekend. (There are already farmers markets in Silver Spring and Rockville on Saturdays, so only a limited amount of farmers may be available.)

Mr. Schools said NIH is again working with Bethesda Cares, Social Services, and Mr. Abe Pollin, owner of the MCI Center, to help anyone who can not afford to attend family events at the MCI Center. This is something they do once a year, and they currently are offering tickets to the Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Circus. He asked the CLC members to forward the names of those needing assistance to his office.

J. Paul Van Nevel of the NIH Alumni Association recently joined in a meeting with the Recruitment Committee of Senior Leadership Montgomery to discuss a new course. The organization is developing a course for those who are 55 and older, retired, and desire to do something meaningful. The committee is looking for business and Federal agency sponsors to fund the $500-600 course. Mr. Van Nevel will gather more information and prepare a report for Ms. Hedetniemi.

PRESENTATIONS

Issues of Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Materials on the NIH Campus
Dr. Robert McKinney, Director, Division of Safety, Office of Research Services (ORS), NIH

Ms. Hedetniemi introduced Dr. Robert McKinney and said he was invited to the CLC to elaborate on the community's questions about security enhancement and how NIH handles chemical, biological, and radiological waste materials.

Dr. McKinney began his presentation stating the events of September 11th meant a lot of changes at NIH. While the campus used to be open and somewhat collegiate in atmosphere, an adjustment needed to be made. The campus is now more restricted and access is controlled. These imposed restrictions have not impacted research efforts or the research community. However, regarding the control of substances, Congress passed bills, and others are pending, that impose more controls on the use of biological agents. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has long regulated the use of radioactive materials.

Dr. McKinney explained the term "select agents." Select agents are a group of bacteria, fungi, viruses, etc. identified in1995 by an act of Congress. The law included the need for Health and Human Services to establish rules governing the transfer of any of these select agents; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were put in control of monitoring this and issuing permits of transfer. The law applies to those who have requested select agents or those who are shipping select agents to another investigator. NIH established a process for handling materials that qualify as select agents.

Materials imported onto the NIH campus go to the Quarantine Permit Service Office. They are logged into the system and must be identified by the requester before the package can be turned over. The office tracks the package and conducts audits of who is working with the agents. This has long been the standard practice for any pathogens.

A new law, The Patriot Act, will impose more restrictions on the possession and use of biological agents. Anyone possessing the agents must register. The law imposes tighter restrictions on who can obtain these materials. All institutions must establish internal controls for tracking who is working with the agents, how much, and at what level of activity. Dr. McKinney believes NIH is well ahead of the new law, but states there is still more to be done. He is confident the NIH community will give their full support to the changes. They are working on the final details, but he could not discuss these at this time.

Dr. McKinney addressed the questions submitted by e-mail from CLC members. Members wanted to know what would happen if an incident occurred either on purpose or by accident. Dr. McKinney responded by citing NIH's internal track record and acknowledging the competent and responsible research staff.

The NRC, which controls all radioactive materials, conducts semi-annual inspections at NIH. Not only has NIH passed all inspections, the NRC identified NIH's record as the best in the nation. The level of radioactive activity used at NIH is very low and only small quantities of material are used in any given laboratory. If an incident should occur, the Hazmat Team is ready to respond and clean up the materials.

The quantity of biological agents used are also very small, as is the level of their activity on campus. Due to the nature of these agents, they are contained in freezers, incubators, or refrigerators when not being manipulated at the bench. These items of equipment are fire and heat resistant, so the likelihood of spreading is significantly reduced. Because of the temperatures generated in a fire or explosion, the survival rate of heat sensitive biological agents is small. People in the immediate area may be at risk, but not those outside.

Chemicals pose a different challenge. The nature of the research dictates what chemicals will be in any given laboratory. Inventory may include small quantities of salts, powders, acids, alkalis, and solvents, but rarely a reactive compound. NIH is not involved in production activity so the possibility of chemicals being involved in a mishap are quite small. Dr. McKinney reviewed NIH's record for fires and inspections from the last 4 to 5 years and believes they prove the risk level is low.

During the last 4 years, the NIH Fire Department responded to 20 incidents in labs. In 11 of those incidents, no chemical, biological, or radioactive materials were involved. Seven of the 20 incidents involved ethanol, an agent which can ignite if not handled properly by the researcher; no damage or injuries occurred in these incidents. Two events involved operator error, but no damage or personal injuries were sustained. Dr. McKinney cited the significance that no reports of laboratory acquired infections occurred during the last 5 years. This attests to the practices and procedures NIH staff followed. It also reflects they recognize the value in protecting themselves, research materials, the environment, and the rest of the community.

Mr. Van Nevel remembered a deliberate incident that happened a few years ago. Someone put a radioactive isotope into a water cooler. He asked if the NRC monitored such incidents. Dr. McKinney said this case was never resolved. An individual did introduce P32 into the water cooler, but there was a differing opinion with the NRC in how the dosage was calculated. He said the handling of the case was not flawed. When asked if this type of incident could occur again, Dr. McKinney did not deny it could happen, but stressed the quantities of radioactive material at NIH are very small. While a few people did ingest P32, it was not enough to threaten their health.

George Oberlander, a Huntington Parkway Citizens Association representative, wanted to know how much of the select agents are transported to the campus. Dr. McKinney responded that on average one culture per month comes onto the campus, and that culture is significantly small. He estimated one per month is on the high end, therefore the activity level is very low.

Mr. Van Nevel asked if Dr. McKinney's work covers the NIH labs in Frederick, Maryland. He mentioned a recent article in The Washington Post regarding anthrax and lax controls of the chemical, and said it was not clear if it was an NIH laboratory or not. Dr. McKinney said the article was referring to the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. While NIH does conduct research in Frederick, that facility has its own safety program. However, both NIH campuses collaborate and exchange information.

Ms. Hedetniemi reminded the members that copies of all reports (compliance, inspections, NRC reports, etc.) are available in the Environmental Reading Room. If anyone is interested in accessing the material, they can either go to the reading room or contact her office.

Renewal of Controlled Hazardous Substances Permit
Captain Donald Wilson, Chemical Waste Manager, Environmental Protection Branch, Division of Safety, ORS, NIH

Capt. Wilson provided the members with a detailed handout and presented a review on the renewal process for the Controlled Hazardous Substance (Part B) Permit. He explained the term "controlled substance" is synonymous with "hazardous waste." The permit is necessary for the operation of a hazardous waste facility. He mentioned no other State requires this permit.

The Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) issued NIH a 5-year Controlled Hazardous Substance (Part B) Permit in March 1997. In September 2001, NIH applied for a 5-year renewal of this permit. The renewal application does not significantly change the scope of permitted activities identified in the original permit. As part of the renewal process, the public must be informed of this renewal of a regulatory permit. To comply with the requirement, NIH in cooperation with MDE, placed a notice in the Bethesda Gazette and the Montgomery Journal newspapers approximately 2 weeks ago. Initially there was an error in publication, so the time period was extended. The notice stated a copy of this two-volume permit application was placed in the Chevy Chase Public Library for a period of 2 weeks for public review. In addition, Capt. Wilson's presentation served to facilitate this process.

The only changes of note to the existing permit include:

Capt. Wilson said chemical and mixed wastes generated from NIH research are collected, packaged or processed, transported, and treated/disposed of each year. The waste management facility, located at Building 21, serves as the permitted Controlled Hazardous Substance facility. Ms. Hedetniemi clarified the location of Building 21—to the right of the Metro station, down in the gully.

Capt. Wilson explained "hazardous materials" are chemical in nature only. "Mixed wastes" are hazardous waste mixed with radioactive materials. Most waste at NIH consists of laboratory chemicals in small containers with capacities ranging from 5 milliliters to 5 gallons. All wastes are identified and classified according to State and Federal regulations. All of these waste materials are received, processed, packaged, and shipped in Building 21. Specially designed prefabricated metal storage buildings located on-site serve as temporary holding containers prior to shipment for disposal.

NIH submitted this application for a Hazardous Controlled Substance Storage and Treatment Permit to receive regulatory approval and to renew the formal permit required under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Hazardous materials leaving NIH are properly manifested and transported to RCRA-permitted treatment facilities that treat the waste by methods approved of by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State regulatory authorities. Each permitted hazardous waste activity is managed by the Environmental Protection Branch (EPB). Contract staff work under EPB's oversight.

Capt. Wilson's presentation detailed the treatments of waste permitted and the procedures implemented to prevent hazards and provide security. Luzy Ozarin, a representative from Whitehall Condominium Association, asked who is responsible for overseeing the hazardous waste in laboratories. Capt. Wilson said EPB's activities really begin with collecting chemical waste from the labs. The operations within the labs are the responsibility of the individual institutes doing the research in conjunction with the OSHA safety crew. Each institute has its own procedures and Safety Officer. Ms. Hedetniemi added all lab personnel must take lab safety training courses and pass in order to verify they can handle any kind of material.

Pat Southerland, from Huntington Parkway Citizens Association, asked for clarification about the disposal process. Capt. Wilson explained most everything generates a package to ship offsite for disposal. No disposal is done on site.

Mr. Oberlander assumed the hazardous waste facilities are included on the Master Plan, and identified on the land use map of the Master Plan. Capt. Wilson said that is correct.

Status of County Stormwater Management Facility
Clarence Dukes, Project Manager, Office of Facilities Planning (OFP), ORS, NIH

Mr. Dukes began the update on the County Stormwater Management Facility by reminding the CLC of its location. The facility will be located in the southeast corner of the campus adjacent to the National Library of Medicine. Upon inquiry, it was further explained the facility will be located on the campus side of Woodmont Avenue, across the street from the hotel.

Currently, the area houses a small, dry pond. Plans to expand the pond would satisfy both NIH expansion requirements and requirements from the Bethesda business district. The facility benefits the water stream adjacent to NIH and natural tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. This project benefits NIH, Montgomery County and the State of Maryland.

Funding support comes from the State transportation program. The State set aside $1.4 million to fund the joint project. At this point, NIH agreed that the County could proceed to the 30 percent design for the project. Once the documents are received in March, ORS will conduct an internal review and prepare a presentation for the CLC.

Mr. Southerland asked if the expansion would satisfy water drain off problems and expansion requirements. Ms. Serras-Fiotes clarified this is a County initiative seeking to resolve regional stormwater management problems. The County wishes to use the NIH campus for this regional facility, so NIH discussed how it could accommodate its own future plans within the County's facility. NIH personnel believe they are benefitting from the opportunity and are using it to reduce the need to construct the pond at the northeast corner of campus.

Tony Clifford of the NIH Division of Engineering Services commented on a problem with the stream last year where grease was washed into the pond from neighboring Bethesda restaurants. He asked if issues such as this would be resolved. Kenny Floyd, chief of the NIH Environmental Protection Branch, said the pond will address this issue through the incorporation in the catch basin of a means to skim oil and grease and collect trash.

Mr. Oberlander inquired about the size of the area. Ms. Serras-Fiotes said NIH first needs to review the design and schematics because they are looking into different options. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission representative Kristin O'Connor asked if the facility will be located in the buffer zone. Ms. Serras-Fiotes confirmed it will. Ms. Hedetniemi added the facility is not a building and is, therefore, appropriate for the intended location.

Transhare Update
Stella Serras-Fiotes, Director, OFP, ORS, NIH

Ms. Serras-Fiotes presented a quick overview and update on the Transhare program.

Status of Master Plan and Security Planning
Stella Serras-Fiotes, Director, OFP, ORS, NIH

Ms. Serras-Fiotes prefaced her presentation on the design of perimeter security on the campus by stressing this is a work in progress. She said while she is sharing the information with the CLC, she is also sharing the information with the NIH community. Ms. Serras-Fiotes clarified that many of the topics in her discussion are not final and should only be viewed as part of the considerations NIH is researching.

NIH is proposing a security plan that includes physical, operational, and technological improvements. Guiding the planning recommendations are the Executive branch, best practices from other agencies, a report issued to NIH by the Inspector General, and NIH's own risk assessments and surveys done over the years. ORS identified four primary goals for the overall security plan:

A critical part of the security plan includes the perimeter security of the campus. Ms. Serras-Fiotes said they are approaching security in layers—begin control at the outer most perimeter of the site and decrease or increase as necessary as they move closer to buildings, depending on the criticality of each building. Objectives of perimeter security are:

As it currently stands, three elements of the physical security plan include:

The perimeter fence serves a few purposes, including the requirement of all visitors to enter specific entrances. The ORS security planners have created design objectives for the fence as well. The fence will provide an attractive border to the campus. It will maintain a compatible scale to the adjacent residential areas. It allows use of the area outside the fence for bicycle and pedestrian circulation. As much of the landscape will be retained as possible in the buffer zone.

Ms. Serras-Fiotes mentioned they have identified a number of considerations for the design criteria for the security fence. She could not give specifics of the recommendations, but she stated the content of the design criteria. The following have been identified:

Other considerations are:

Ms. Serras-Fiotes stressed the plans for the fence have not yet been finalized. Community concerns and considerations mentioned by the CLC will be heard. The ORS has hired an architectural firm to help with the fence design and to identify and clarify certain site design issues, such as topography. The architects will photograph and survey the campus in the next few weeks.

Ms. Serras-Fiotes also stressed changes and recommendations are constantly being interjected as they receive instructions from the Department of Health and Human Services and other agencies. NIH is currently at a high level of alert with no indication of when, or if, this will change. NIH must design a system that is responsive to current conditions yet adaptable should future conditions be less stringent. Funding has been received since the perimeter fence was identified by outside agencies, and NIH, to be a critical part of the physical security plan. There is no question NIH must proceed with the perimeter fence, and it is attempting to do so in the most appropriate and collaborative way possible. She asked the community to understand this step is one that is needed, and she welcomed questions.

Ralph Schofer from Maplewood Citizens Association asked where the fence would be located in respect to the buffer zone. Ms. Serras-Fiotes replied it would vary around campus due to the campus structure. For example, in some areas, buildings are next to the buffer zone, so the fence must be placed a certain distance from those. In other areas, the fence will be in the buffer zone. Mr. Schofer inquired if a road would be next to the fence for patrol purposes. Ms. Serras-Fiotes mentioned a path inside the fence has been discussed for this purpose. It will be used for small vehicles or motorcycles only.

Stephen Sawicki, an Edgewood Glenwood Citizens Association representative, was concerned that the southwest chain link fence owned by NIH and used by area citizens to fence in their own yards would be altered. He also inquired if the green space would be left as is and requested they not place the fence in the middle of the buffer zone as it would deteriorate the usability of the area. Ms. Serras-Fiotes replied in the southwest area it is more feasible to move the perimeter fence inward from the chain link fence and leave it as is. She said they will look in as far as they can, but there are a number of structures that can not be removed right now, such as parking lot 41 providing over 1,000 spaces. Ms. Serras-Fiotes reminded the members that when space reverts back to green space, it is not necessarily community space due to current conditions. Mr. Eisen asked when the new garage would be constructed. Ms. Serras-Fiotes said the garage intended for the northwest area has been approved for FY 2002, and NIH is trying to expedite the award of the contract. However, she does not anticipate the building of the garage before the end of next year.

Mr. Oberlander noticed two steel gates are in place at various roadways and wanted to know if these are temporary. Ms. Serras-Fiotes said they felt the gates were more attractive than the jersey barriers and they are much more cost effective. Mr. Clifford added the temporary gates were built by his office for $1,500 each as a temporary solution. They replace the need for maintenance crews to move the jersey barriers every morning and night, costing NIH $5,000 per month. Mr. Clifford thought the jersey barriers gave the campus the appearance of an encampment. Mr. Oberlander repeated an earlier comment about putting up more trees instead of the fence at certain locations as they are more attractive. Ms. Serras-Fiotes clarified the pedestrian fence requires fencing at every location while the anti-ram protection guards against vehicular storming. The trees can provide anti-ram protection in some areas, but the pedestrian fence will enclose the campus. She reiterated the fence is intended to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible while also being strong.

Mr. Southerland stated aesthetics are very important to the community. He asked Ms. Serras-Fiotes to look at the Vice-President's residence as a good example to emulate. Ms. Serras-Fiotes was happy to say that is one of the models they are looking at. Mr. Oberlander suggested they also look at the Washington Monument and Naval Observatory for ideas. Mr. Southerland inquired if consideration would be taken for the children who play in the buffer zone when building the Visitor's Center, and if CLC members will be required to enter through the new center. Ms. Serras-Fiotes was not prepared to answer this question until site conditions for the perimeter are received. Further, all non-NIH standard personnel will need to enter through the Visitor's Center whether walking or driving onto campus.

Mr. Southerland requested more information about bicycle and Metro access on the campus. Ms. Serras-Fiotes repeated bikes will have access around the campus as part of a County plan for using the campus as a throughway. She clarified access to the Metro will be available, but access across campus will be eliminated. Convenient pedestrian gate access is being considered in the planning. At this time, she could not say what the procedures would be for access and how the gates would be operated other than by card key. A few members questioned if background checks for the community could be done and IDs provided to gain easier access to the Metro. Ms. Serras-Fiotes stated operational issues will be addressed later.

Mr. Sawicki voiced his concern with these remarks. He said Ms. Hedetniemi told his community the week prior that they would be able to come freely onto campus. Ms. Serras-Fiotes said a miscommunication regarding "access to the campus" and "access through the campus" might be occurring. Access to the campus means access to portions of the campus outside the fence as opposed to access through the campus, which NIH has now. Ms. Serras-Fiotes stressed NIH needs to have its perimeter secured as dictated by several oversight agencies. Mr. Sawicki considered this a "lock down." Ms. Serras-Fiotes replied NIH is at a certain level of lock down—it is no longer a free and open campus. At a higher level of lock down, even with the perimeter fence and vehicle gates, only certain key personnel would be given access to the campus. Recommendations now are more stringent than a few months ago. Ms. Hedetniemi interjected that security mandates had already changed from when she spoke with the Edgewood Glenwood citizens a week prior and apologized for any misinformation.

The Montgomery County Civic Federation representative, Jeanne Goldstein, was troubled by the commentary. She said the threat of terrorism and safety must be NIH's first priority. Some members thought NIH overreacted to perceived security problems. Ms. Serras-Fiotes assured the CLC the alert level was the same at all Federal facilities.