CLC Meeting Minutes: July 2009

Community Liaison Council Meeting Minutes

July 16, 2009; 4:00 to 6:00 PM
Visitor Information Center, Building 45 (Natcher Building)
Conference Room D
National Institutes of Health

ANNOUNCEMENTS—Dennis Coleman, OCL Director, CLC Co-Chair; and Ginny Miller, CLC Co-Chair

Consistent with tradition, the CLC will not meet in August. The next meeting is on 9/17/09.
Mr. Coleman called on Brad Moss to address a previous question from Ms. Mazuzan, who had heard from a neighbor that if your spouse works at NIH, that is all one needs for an extended visitor badge.
Mr. Moss handed out and reviewed the badge application form. To get an extended visitor badge, a visitor must have regular business on campus in one of several categories such as board member (e.g. NIH advisory committee member), child care (e.g. spouse of an NIH employee who picks up a child from the day care center), community liaison (e.g. CLC member), contractor (e.g. construction, maintenance, grounds keeping, cleaning, waste management), service provider (e.g., deliveries), tenant (those either living on campus or working in campus facilities leased from NIH), transportation visitor (e.g., a nanny, who picks up staff children at the child care center), and volunteers (Blood Bank, Children's Inn, Clinical Center, research participant). The transportation visitor category can include spouses of NIH staff who commute together to both NIH and non-NIH work locations.
All extended visitor badge applicants undergo at least a basic background investigation, and the badges must be renewed annually. NIH police conduct this program. The Division of Personnel, Security, and Access Control (DPSAC) handles passes for full-time employees, who undergo a more extensive background check and must reapply with the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) periodically (expiration date is on the pass). Entry gate guards ensure that the badge holder is the same person using it. Furthermore, a sponsor must sign a form for non-employees to verify that they are engaged in the campus activities claimed. Forms are online at <http://www.security.nih.gov >.
Mr. Coleman then asked staff if ORF, ORS or both would address another previous issue; namely whether public risk on Wisconsin Ave. from a truck bomb explosion at the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility (CVIF) had been considered in the CVIF design. Since ORS includes NIH security services, Mr. Moss commented on this issue.
Since the Oklahoma City bombing, the Interagency Security Committee (ISC) was formed and has primary jurisdiction for security at all non-military federal facilities, including blast analysis of new construction and major renovations. The ISC is within the Department of Homeland Security.
Blast analysis of the CVIF was conducted during its design, and this analysis complied with ISC standards. Based on the fact that no truck bomb attack has ever been made or even attempted on a US federal facility protected by vehicle inspection, it is reasonable to assume that the very presence of the CVIF greatly decreases the probability of a bomb blast at that location.
Mr. Coleman remarked that CLC members are not asking for sensitive information about blast resistance of the CVIF building itself or how that analysis was done. Members simply want to know whether any analysis of public risk was conducted since Wisconsin Avenue is adjacent to the CVIF and all NIH truck traffic is now funneled through that location. A simple yes or no answer might suffice, and that wouldn't compromise sensitive information. Mr. Moss and Mr. Wilson indicated that neither of them was privy to CVIF blast analysis details, so they could not respond. Mr. Moss said that if CLC members wish to pursue this matter, more information can be sought from security director Bill Cullen, but this may require a Freedom of Information Act request. Ms. Miller said that she and Beth Volz will consider whether and how to follow up. Mr. Wilson added that his office can conceptually plan and document facilities along Wisconsin Ave. for purposes of the streetscape plan, including the existing small berm between the CVIF and Wisconsin Ave., but has no role with respect to security requirements or protective features.
The White House has nominated Dr. Francis Collins to be the new NIH Director.

FACILITIES

ARRA Support of NIH Facility Projects—Susan Hinton, NIH Master Planner, ORF
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) allocates funds to: preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery; assist those most affected by recession; invest in economic efficiency; invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will support long-term recovery; and stabilize state and local government budgets. Out of $10.4B of ARRA funding allocated to NIH, $500M will go towards NIH facility projects on the Bethesda campus and remote locations, and $9.9B towards NIH-supported biomedical research projects all over the country.

When selecting projects, ORF considers the “condition index” of affected facilities, the expected mission impact, operating cost reduction, and utilization rate improvement. ARRA requires that funded projects be “shovel ready”, which means that funds must be obligated by September 30, 2010 and disbursed by September 30, 2015. ARRA also requires enhanced reporting and transparency; use of American iron, steel, and manufactured goods; Davis-Bacon wage standards (i.e., minimum wages for the construction industry set by Congress); enhanced National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reporting; and "sustainability" based on OMB guidance and HHS standards. Preference is given to competitive, fixed price contracts. Of the following ARRA campus projects, the first 4 represent more than 90% of the $500M funding total:

Porter Neuroscience Research Center-Phase 2; new construction; $266M: This will be a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) -certified building that provides over 300,000 gross square feet of lab and office space. Construction begins during the second quarter of FY2010 and should be complete by the third quarter of FY2013.
Building 10 F Wing Renovation; phases B1 and B2; $216M, $134M of which comes from ARRA: LEED certification for this project will be sought, despite the challenge posed to interior renovation projects by that standard. The project modernizes floors 6 through 14 on the west side of the original 1950s-era NIH hospital. Non-ARRA funding for this project was programmed from other NIH sources.
Building 3 Renovation; $21M: One of the 6 original NIH buildings constructed during the late 1930s, the exterior of Building 3 is intact, but the interior had previously been decommissioned. Renovation will provide administrative office space and should be complete in 2011.
Electrical Vault Rehabilitation; multiple buildings; $49.5M: This project will upgrade internal electrical distribution systems for several buildings and increase energy efficiency. The affected equipment is located within the buildings and has typically been in use for 20 or 30 years.
Building 12 Electrical Reliability; $8.7M: Building 12 is the campus computer center, and this 3-phase project will ensure that, if electrical service is interrupted, vital systems (increasingly important to biomedical research) will continue to operate. Phase 1 is essentially done. The footprint of an expanded Building 12 was not in the Master Plan since the need was not fully understood when the plan was last revised in 2003. However, without the upgrades to the power system, the Center for Information Technology (CIT) could not adequately support the applications it supplies. Although NIH believes the project is not inconsistent with the Master Plan, staff will discuss this relatively modest expansion with the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and make a formal submission if necessary.
Building 31 A, B, and C Wing; emergency generator; $2.5M: This project is a complete systems upgrade of the backup generators that serve the Building 31 complex.
Building 16A Renovation; $1.11M: Building 16A is the white, residential-looking building (circa 1930) beside the Stone House (Fogarty International Center) on the east side of the campus. It was once the caretaker’s house for the prior owners of the surrounding land. Renovation will be interior only and will include plumbing, wiring, fire protection, security and other upgrades.
Miscellaneous Building 10 Improvements; ~$8.8M: These improvements will include repair and improvement of the Pathology Laboratory HVAC system and the Ambulatory Care Research Facility (ACRF) fin tube system, cell processing section, structural steel tube nest and condensate lines. Various entry barriers, doors, and security issues will also be addressed for ADA compliance and safety.
Buildings 1, 8, 8A, 31, and 45 Mechanical System Repairs; $0.61M: These repairs are numerous, relatively minor and interior.
Building 7 Renovation; $7M: These funds will renovate an old power plant at NIH's Rocky Mountain Laboratory in Hamilton, Montana into laboratory space.

To limit the impact of construction on the community, all contracts will prohibit use of Jake brakes on trucks, and will stipulate adherence to the Montgomery County Noise Control Ordinance (which restricts noise to 65 dBA in daytime and 55 dBA at night). Daytime construction noise can be as high as 85 dBA, provided that it is managed by an approved site noise abatement plan. In addition, each contract will require a transportation management plan for workers to access the campus. The fact that campus parking will not be expanded for construction and renovation workers is expected to incent their ride sharing and transit use.

Discussion
George Oberlander was concerned that unconventional architecture and rooftop stacks might make Porter 2 more visible off campus than what NIH renderings indicate. Mr. Wilson volunteered to get more details on size of the stacks and report back. For Porter 2, NIH has made a concerted effort to avoid the appearance issues previously experienced with Porter 1. Staff also wants a new building that fits in better with the existing campus, not a stand alone architectural statement as some feel Porter I turned out to be.

Mr. Coleman added that fan noise was another off-campus impact of Porter 1. Ron Wilson provided assurances that a prior commitment made by the ORF Project Officer on the project to reduce the Porter 2 design noise limit from 55 to 45 dBA remains ORF’s position.

Steve Sawicki asked whether Porter 2 safety relief valve operation will be improved from the anomalously frequent and regular operation previously experienced with Porter 1. Tony Clifford said that neighborhood complaints had indeed resulted in Porter 1 relief valve problems being identified and eventually fixed. He will ensure that staff applies past lessons learned to avoid these issues arising from Porter 2 relief valves.

Mr. Clifford added that ORF has the ARRA funds and must closely monitor and report expenditures as they are made. Not only can NIH now construct master-planned facilities, but also repair existing facilities whose upkeep had been neglected. Other than Porter 2, much of the ARRA work will be interior. ARRA projects do not compare to the 1998-2003 building spurt, when 6 to 8 cranes were in operation on campus at the same time.

Joan Kleinman asked whether the ARRA improvements would prevent floods from broken pipes, like the one that occurred today in the Clinical Center cafeteria. Mr. Clifford agreed that floods have plagued some old buildings and that this disrupts science and jeopardizes valuable equipment and instruments. ARRA funds will enable NIH to improve its overall stewardship of campus facilities, since the backlog of unmet maintenance needs will be significantly shortened.

Mr. Oberlander asked who certifies that jobs are being created or preserved in accordance with the ARRA requirements. Mr. Clifford said that NIH itself has no data on whether individual ARRA project workers were previously unemployed or would have remained unemployed without ARRA. Ms. Kleinman said that for its ARRA projects, the State of Maryland requires that the number of jobs created or preserved be stated. Ivan Locke said that contractors are in the best position to know and report these numbers and that ARRA-funded work entails much more reporting than other work. Brad Moss said that further details about ARRA spending at NIH can be found on the Web site <http://www.jobs.nih.gov/recovery/>, which is searchable by state or district.

Mr. Oberlander asked about the magnitude of additional workers at any one time. Mr. Clifford thought that the aggregate number of ARRA workers will be better defined as project start up times approach and that projects are not likely to happen all at once in any event. NIH and its contractors are responsible for estimating and authorizing contract worker headcounts. Some projects are relatively short-term, and Porter 2 is certainly the biggest project since it is both new construction and a lab facility.

If scaling is in any way relevant, Mr. Coleman added that since $1.3B of Navy Med expansion over 3 years (~half new construction & half renovation, not unlike ARRA at NIH) is stated in the BRAC EIS to require a maximum of ~800 workers, it's not unreasonable to assume that $500M of NIH ARRA work could require up to a few hundred workers for at least some time. Compared to NIH's normal weekday campus headcount of ~17000 staff, contractors, fellows, interns, patients, visitors, etc, the overall ARRA impact is relatively small and therefore likely to be manageable, although the impact on visitor parking (e.g. Gateway Center's 350 spaces) could be more significant.

Streetscape Improvement Project—Susan Hinton, Master Planner, ORF & Kevin Fisher, Rhodeside & Harwell Inc.
The State Highway Administration (SHA) has a number of proposals to change various local intersections and lanes for BRAC traffic mitigation, but after more than a year of planning, none have been fully funded to date. NIH's streetscape improvement initiative preceded SHA’s proposals and supports the 2003 master plan, so the decision was made to go forward with it and let SHA workaround what NIH's initiative produces, rather than wait an indefinite time for SHA plans to be realized first. ORF and its streetscape consultant are nonetheless keeping SHA fully informed.

Joining her in the presentation, was Mr. Kevin Fisher who presented an initial concept based on analysis of existing streetscape conditions shown during the last CLC update. Its implementation is not funded, but CLC comment is sought at this time. Ms. Hinton assured Mr. Oberlander that NIH has not agreed to give up any frontage property for SHA projects, nor can state or local agencies exercise eminent domain over federal property in any event.

In January, Mr. Fisher presented a streetscape inventory and analyzed existing conditions along MD355 from Cedar Lane to Woodmont Avenue. A series of candidate improvements was identified to address with a refined streetscape plan. So far, some new signage has been installed.

North Drive and CVIF vehicular entrances: Both have unsafe pedestrian crossings, so the proposal is to move the bike/pedestrian path farther away from the vehicles, keeping the space at the entrance area clear of trees and shrubs, and realigning the pathway to increase pedestrian safety. A second pedestrian option though the riparian area near the corner at Cedar and #355 is being studied.

Grass: Use other types of ground cover than mowed, water-dependent and labor-intensive lawn grass (e.g., native plants, shrubs and trees).

CVIF berm & screening: Realign the trail, reconfigure the berm and rearrange the landscape. The path will remain visible from the road, and the space between it and the CVIF will remain. The berm is to host vegetation, not to provide blast protection. The existing 8-foot trail will be widened to 10 feet. The berm has a maximum slope limit, so its height is limited by the relatively narrow space available between the CVIF inspection lanes and the trail.

Wilson Drive: Modify the existing slope to reduce the steepness of the grade at the Wilson Drive and Route 355 intersection, and improve the pedestrian/bicycle intersections.

Edge of campus (except near the main entrance at South Dr.): Add many trees and native vegetation.

South Drive Main entrance: Facilitate purpose and visual features at the primary visitor and staff entrance. Many pedestrians enter here, so it is desirable to make that space as appealing, safe and interesting as possible. The consultant proposes to increase the height and density of plantings between 2 low stone walls, add more flowering plants, and integrate the signage throughout. These plantings will be more urban in nature (i.e., more architectural and regularly spaced elements; smaller sized trees) compared to the more natural and informal appearance sought along the rest of the campus perimeter.

South of Center Drive: Few changes are proposed because it is already rolling grass with many trees. The future Stoney Creek Retention Pond will be a storm-water management facility for a significant urban drainage area around the campus. The pond's landscaping and plantings will be designed and provided by the County. NIH could add some trees and shrubs to selectively refine the scene after the centerpiece pond and surrounding features are complete.

Discussion
Eleanor Rice complimented Mr. Fisher for a well considered design concept. She suggested planting a signature evergreen, such as Cryptomeria, which could serve as a signature feature of the campus perimeter.

In response to Ms. Miller's desire that new trees be more than mere saplings, Mr. Fisher said that their size would vary with the area. The park-like area at the south end of the campus frontage already has many mature trees, so new ones can be smaller there. They want trees of different sizes and ages so they will turn over at different times. No new trees will be smaller than 8 or 9 feet in height, however.

Randy Schools noted that the proposed landscape improvements will contribute to the contemplative areas of the campus, as well as the interests of many staff members. For example, NIH staff already participate in Garden Club and Victory Garden efforts.

ENVIRONMENT
No topic this month

TRANSPORTATION
No topic this month

SPECIAL PROJECTS
South Lawn Drainage Improvement Project—Ivan Locke, Project Officer, ORF
Since the ARRA and frontage topics had exceeded their allotted times, the South Lawn report was postponed until the September meeting.

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

Mr. Schools reported that the large house at Woodmont Avenue and Battery Lane has been settled. As a result, it now belongs to the Children’s Inn and interior renovation will begin to make 5 apartments for families of sick children whose less than daily treatment frequency does not require use of valuable Children's Inn accommodation on campus.

ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 6:20 PM
Next meeting: September 17, 2009

PARTICIPANTS
CLC Members
Willie Antman, West Bethesda Park
Marian Bradford, Camelot Mews
Lesley Hildebrand, Huntington Terrace
Darrell Lemke, Parkview
Deborah Michaels, Glenbrook Village
Ginny Miller, Wyngate
Marilyn Mazuzan, Oakmont
George Oberlander, Huntington Parkway
Lucy Ozarin, MD, Whitehall
Ralph Schofer, Maplewood
Beth Volz, Locust Hill

NIH Staff
Amy Blackburn, ORF
Dennis Coleman, OCL
Susan Hinton, ORF
Brad Moss, ORS
Susan Peterson, DFP
Sharon Robinson, OCL
Randy Schools
Ron Wilson, ORF
Lynn Mueller, ORF
Officer John Ritch, ORS

Guests
Sally Kaplan, Western Montgomery Citizens Advisory Cmte
Mark MacDonald, SHA
Allan Myers, Maplewood
Barbara Solberg, SHA
Jay Lin Tian, SHA
Winfield Swanson, Audio Associates

back to top