[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 133 (Friday, July 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37259-37266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-18135]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Final Record of Decision
AGENCY: General Services Administration, in cooperation with Food and
Drug Administration, Assistance from Leo A Daly Greenhorne and O'Mara,
Inc.
DIRECT INQUIRIES TO: Mr. Jag Bhargava, Development Director, General
Services Administration, National Capital Region, 7th and D Streets,
S.W., Washington, DC 20407, (202) 708-6570.
Abstract
June, 1997
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This Record of Decision formally documents the intent of the
General Services Administration and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to construct new consolidated, state-of-the-art
facilities for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration at the former
Naval Surface Warfare Center at White Oak in Montgomery County,
Maryland. This Record of Decision summarizes the impacts of the
proposed development and proposed mitigation measures which are
detailed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Specific
mitigation plans will be developed during the design stage and will
consist of those strategies identified in the Final EIS.
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40
CFR Part 1500 and 1508), and the General Services Administration (GSA)
Handbook, PBS Preparation of Environmental Assessments and
Environmental Impact Statements (PBS P 1095.4B), GSA, in its role as
manager of federal government real estate and
[[Page 37260]]
space planning, announces its Record of Decision regarding locating the
proposed consolidation of the Headquarters component of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) at the former Naval Surface Warfare
Center at White Oak in Montgomery County, Maryland. GSA will develop
the White Oak site with approximately 2,111,421 gross square feet of
offices, laboratories and support facilities for approximately 5,947
employees and 500 visitors per day.
I. The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action
Purpose of the Proposed Action
The purpose of the proposed action is to provide new, consolidated,
state-of-the-art facilities for the headquarters component of FDA on
one location in Montgomery County, Maryland. The White Oak site would
be used to consolidate the Office of the Commissioner, the Center for
Drug Evaluation and Research, the Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the
Center for Devices and Radiological Health, and the Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research. (The Center for Veterinary Medicine
and the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition would be in
separate locations in Prince George's County, Maryland, and have been
addressed in separate environmental documents.)
Background of the Proposed Action
In 1990, Congress passed the FDA Revitalization Act, which
authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the
Administrator of the GSA to plan, design, and construct a consolidated
facility for FDA. In the Fiscal Year 1992 Appropriation of funding for
the FDA consolidation, Congress directed that the new facilities
supporting FDA be constructed on two sites. The directive of the
Appropriation split the consolidation between two counties in Maryland.
In May of 1995, the U.S. Congress rescinded the funding for the FDA
consolidation in Montgomery County. In order to reinstate the funding,
GSA and FDA developed a revised program to (1) reduce the size and
cost, (2) reduce the construction budget, (3) utilize a smaller site,
and (4) find a less remote, more developed location, for the proposed
action.
Need for the Proposed Action
The Headquarters components of FDA are current housed in more than
40 federally-owned or leased buildings at 18 locations throughout the
Washington D.C. Metropolitan area. The dispersed locations of the FDA
have created both administrative and operational inefficiencies,
including duplication of services. The fragmentation of and distance
between FDA's metropolitan facilities, coupled with inadequate parking
at several facilities, make travel between the various components
inefficient. Also, many of the buildings occupied by FDA are old, in
poor condition, and overcrowded.
The proposed action is needed to provide a consolidated facility
for FDA. The consolidation would improve administrative and operational
efficiency and would facilitate communication and interaction among
staff. The proposed action would provide state-of-the-art laboratories
and buildings for FDA. The facilities would provide flexibility for FDA
to quickly and economically respond to changing priorities and programs
and advances in science and technology through modular planning and
systems flexibility. The new facilities would improve safety and reduce
potential hazards through careful design of the laboratories, animal
rooms, offices, and support spaces, including adequate processing and
storage areas for wastes.
The new facilities would improve energy efficiency through heat
recovery strategies, central power plant efficiencies, site placement
and landscaping, and an efficient building envelop, form, and
operation.
The consolidation of the FDA Headquarters at new state-of-the-art
facilities would provide a quality workplace environment that would
promote creativity and productivity and facilities communication among
staff. A quality workplace environment would also improve FDA's
opportunities to recruit and retain high quality employees.
II. Alternatives Considered
Description of the Proposed Action
The FDA Consolidation within Montgomery County would consist of
constructing approximately 2,111,421 gross square feet (gsf) [190,028
square meters (m2)] of offices, laboratories, and support
facilities for approximately 5,947 employees and 500 visitors per day.
The Office of the Commissioner would have its own office building
and each of the centers of FDA Headquarters would have its own research
laboratory facilities, in separate structures, to support its
regulatory mission. Shared support facilities proposed for the FDA
consolidation are listed bellow:
Agency Crisis Center.
Auditorium.
Broadcast Studio.
Child-Care Center.
Computer Center.
Credit Union.
Custodial Services.
Employee Assistance.
Food Services.
Health Center.
Library and Resource Center.
Mailing Center.
Maintenance Shop.
Security/Guard Station.
Shipping and Receiving.
Training Center.
Visitor Center.
Warehouse.
Waste Storage.
The laboratory portion of the facility would house research
laboratories, laboratory support, and offices for the scientists. In
order to provide efficient design, the laboratories would likely be
medium-rise structures.
Naval Surface Warfare Center at White Oak
The Naval Surface Warfare Center at White Oak in Silver Spring,
Maryland is the Selected Alternative for the proposed FDA
consolidation. The site has been used by the Navy for research,
development, testing, and evaluation since 1946. The Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1995 mandated that the Navy close the
White Oak base. The site encompasses 670 acres (268 hectares). The most
concentrated area of development would be on the western portion of the
site. The site layout would maximize the conservation of existing
wetlands, stream valleys, forested areas, and steep slopes. The
proposed facilities would include a compact layout, utilizing medium-
rise buildings clustered on approximately 130 acres (52 hectares). A
40-acre remote parking lot is proposed, as well as a new access road to
Cherry Hill Road.
Reuse of Existing White Oak Facilities
GSA prepared a detailed evaluation of the existing buildings and
systems for their potential renovation/reuse in the new development
scheme, or alternatively, their demolition. It is known that existing
buildings contain hazardous materials, in the form of asbestos and lead
paint, which would have to be removed or encapsulated before the
buildings could be demolished or renovated. Findings indicated that it
would not be cost effective to rehabilitate and reuse the majority of
the existing buildings. Two buildings will be reused, Building 1 (the
Main Administration Building and Building 100.
[[Page 37261]]
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action alternative, the FDA, through GSA, would
continue to use its existing facilities of more than 40 government-
owned and leased buildings at 18 locations in the Washington D.C.
Metropolitan area. Additional facilities would be leased as the need
arises.
The No-Action alternative would not allow for the improved
efficiency resulting from consolidated of the administrative,
management, and technical support functions of the Headquarters
component of FDA. Higher administrative costs, due to duplication of
services in multiple facilities, would continue. The existing
facilities would not allow FDA to support the changing technology
required to meet its regulatory mission. Expansion and renovation of
existing FDA facilities or the leasing of additional facilities would
be necessary to alleviate overcrowding. Under the No-Action
alternative, the White Oak site studied in this EIS would not be used
for the proposed FDA consolidation.
Alternative Sites Considered and Dismissed
Private Sector Site for Construction of New Facilities
The site selection process began with an announcement of March 21,
1994, of GSA's intention to acquire a site for the proposed FDA
facilities in Montgomery County, Maryland. Early in the planning for
the FDA consolidation, GSA, in consultation with FDA, established
criteria for a site on which to construct the new facilities. These
criteria were established to meet FDA requirements for office and
laboratory space as well as for shared use support areas (see Section
2.2.3).
Nine sites were evaluated to determine compliance with the
advertised criteria. These evaluations were based upon not only data
received from the offerors, but also upon additional data obtained
independently by the Site Selection Team from public agency mapping
sources, aerial photo interpretations, physical site investigations,
and environmental analyses. The Site Selection Team determined that
five of the sites did not meet advertised requirements and one of the
sites was withdrawn by the offeror. The sites studied in detail
included the King Farm site, the Germantown site, and the Clarksburg
Triangle site. These privately-owned sites were dismissed from
consideration with the offer of the White Oak, federally-owned
property.
Purchase or Lease Additional Facilities
Because the majority of existing FDA facilities cannot accommodate
expansion, GSA and FDA also investigated either the leasing or
purchasing of additional facilities. Public notices were published,
however, none of the offers received could provide sufficient space to
meet FDA's needs.
III. Environmental Impact Statement
An EIS was prepared to address the direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts of the Proposed Action, consolidation of FDA at White Oak, and
No-Action alternatives. A Draft EIS was issued in March 1996 and the
Final EIS was issued in April 1997. Impacts from the No-Action
alternative were assessed based on the FDA remaining in currently-used
facilities. The environmental issues addressed in the EIS were
identified through early public involvement (scoping); through
consultations with local, state, and federal agencies; and by the
project team, which includes GSA, FDA, and contractor personnel who
have had experience with projects of similar scope. For discussion and
analysis, the issues are grouped into four categories: natural and
physical environment; socioeconomic environment; cultural environment;
and infrastructure and waste management. The EIS identified the
Proposed Action alternative as the preferred alternative.
IV. Affected Environment
The White Oak site encompasses 670 acres (268 hectares), of which
approximately 621 acres (248 hectares) lie within Montgomery County and
approximately 49 acres (20 hectares) lie within Prince George's County
Maryland. Primary access to the site is from New Hampshire Avenue,
approximately 1.15 miles (1.84 kilometers) north of the Capital
Beltway, Interstate 495, and 0.75 miles (1.22 kilometers) south of U.S.
Highway 29, Colesville Road.
The White Oak site is roughly 10,000 feet (3,048 meters) east-west
by 3,300 feet (1,006 meters) north-south. The property was acquired by
the Navy in 1944 and utilized until recently for research, development,
testing and evaluation of weapons systems. The developed areas of the
site are separated by eight wooded stream courses, the largest of which
is Paint Branch, bisecting the site from north to south. Existing
development is grouped on the western, central and eastern thirds of
the site, with the main concentration being on the western third. There
are 212 existing structures on site.
V. Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Mitigation
Measures
The proposed FDA facilities would be constructed on a compact site
layout, utilizing medium-rise buildings clustered on approximately 130
acres (52 hectares) of the western portion of the site. In addition to
the 130-acre development area, 40 acres (16 hectares) are proposed for
use as remote parking. The majority of the White Oak site, including
all buildings, ground and infrastructure, outside the 170 acres (68
hectares) developed for FDA's consolidation, would remain as it exist
when the Navy leaves. Future development of currently unoccupied area
would be subject to separate environmental reviews. The proposed limits
of disturbance for development of the centers, road, and support
facilities were used to assess impact for the Proposed Action.
A summary of the impacts to the natural and physical environment,
the social environment, the cultural environment, and infrastructure
and waste management along with proposed mitigation measures is
provided below.
Geology, Soils, and Topography
The construction of the FDA facility would interact with the
existing geologic environment as the result of grading activities
associated with construction which would alter the topography and soils
of the site. Construction in areas with steep slopes will be avoided to
the extent possible. Detailed subsurface engineering studies will be
undertaken prior to design and construction to ensure that sound
building practices are followed. Soil suitability will be determined
and appropriate building foundation specifications will be developed. A
detailed erosion and sedimentation plan will be developed prior to
construction, following the state's ``Erosion and Sediment Control
Guidelines for State and Federal Projects'' (Maryland Department of
Environment (MDE), 1990), to ensure that appropriate soil erosion and
sediment control measures are taken during construction of buildings,
roadways, or utility lines to minimize soil loss due to erosion.
Water Resources
Of the ten stream systems on the White Oak site (Paint Branch,
Westfarm Branch, and eight unnamed tributaries), five streams could be
directly affected by the proposed action. Paint Branch and its
tributaries on the White Oak site
[[Page 37262]]
are classified by Maryland Department of the Environment as Use II
waters and carry the state's most stringent water quality standards.
Stormwater management for the proposed development will be designed to
meet MDE requirements. Three stormwater management detention (dry)
basins and an underground stormwater management facility will provide
quantitative control for the main FDA site. Four stormwater management
(dry) basins will provide quantitative control for the remote parking
area, and another detention (dry) basin will provide quantitative
control for the new entrance road connecting existing Dahlgren Road to
Cherry Hill Road.
Qualitative stormwater management will be provided by bioretention
areas and, if feasible, infiltration trenches throughout the site.
Bioretention areas are proposed for many of the islands in the parking
lots to treat the runoff from the parking lots. Infiltration trenches
will provide qualitative control for the buildings and roads.
Several non-structural best management practices (BMPs) will be
incorporated into the design of the project to further mitigate
potential water quality concerns. Open section roads (i.e., no curb and
gutter) with grass swales and vegetated islands will be used on the
site to filter pollutants and reduce thermal impacts. Stream buffers
will be maintained to protect stream water quality in accordance with
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC)
guidelines.
Mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction to
minimize the risk of contaminants entering groundwater. Proper
precautions will be taken to prevent transport of contaminants during
construction and excavation activities. The amount of mowed lawns will
be minimized and integrated pest management techniques will be used
during landscaping and turf maintenance practices to reduce the
potential for altering groundwater quality.
Wetlands
Based on the proposed limits of disturbance, there will be no
direct impacts to vegetated wetlands. Incidental impacts (<50 square="" feet="" each)="" may="" be="" necessary="" for="" construction="" of="" seven="" stormwater="" outfalls.="" authorizations="" from="" the="" corps="" of="" engineers="" and="" maryland="" department="" of="" environment="" will="" be="" obtained="" prior="" to="" construction="" of="" these="" outfalls,="" if="" impacts="" to="" the="" stream="" channels="" become="" necessary.="" the="" increase="" in="" impervious="" surfaces="" could="" increase="" erosion="" and="" sedimentation="" which="" could="" indirectly="" impact="" wetlands="" and="" streams.="" the="" vegetated="" wetland="" on="" the="" site="" could="" experience="" scouring,="" loss="" of="" sediments,="" and="" loss="" of="" herbaceous="" vegetation.="" increased="" flooding="" could="" expand="" the="" wetland="" boundary="" in="" some="" areas.="" increased="" erosion="" due="" to="" scouring="" would="" increase="" sediment="" load="" in="" the="" tributaries,="" which="" could="" increase="" sedimentation="" and="" facilitate="" the="" conversion="" of="" wetlands="" to="" uplands.="" effective="" stormwater="" management="" and="" erosion="" control="" will="" minimize="" indirect="" impacts.="" the="" proposed="" buffer="" zones="" throughout="" the="" site="" will="" also="" minimize="" impacts.="" there="" would="" be="" some="" cumulative="" impacts="" to="" wetlands="" on="" the="" white="" oak="" site="" due="" to="" on-="" and="" off-site="" developments.="" increases="" in="" flooding,="" erosion,="" and="" sediment="" loads="" are="" anticipated="" to="" affect="" existing="" wetlands.="" vegetation="" and="" wildlife="" based="" on="" the="" proposed="" limits="" of="" disturbance="" for="" the="" proposed="" action,="" 35="" acres="" (14="" hectares)="" of="" mowed="" lawn="" and="" 32="" acres="" (13="" hectares)="" of="" deciduous="" forest="" land="" would="" be="" directly="" affected.="" other="" areas="" affected="" by="" the="" proposed="" construction="" are="" previously="" developed="" areas="" which="" provide="" minimal="" wildlife="" habitat.="" the="" majority="" of="" proposed="" forest="" land="" impacts="" are="" along="" the="" edge="" of="" the="" existing="" forest="" land="" and="" near="" the="" existing="" development.="" all="" possible="" measures="" will="" be="" taken="" to="" avoid="" impacts="" to="" forest="" land.="" impacts="" from="" human="" disturbance="" will="" be="" minimal="" since="" the="" areas="" being="" developed="" for="" the="" fda="" facilities="" are="" presently="" developed.="" the="" white="" oak="" site="" is="" surrounded="" by="" development="" and="" is="" one="" of="" only="" a="" few="" areas="" of="" substantial="" plant="" and="" wildlife="" habitat="" remaining="" in="" the="" vicinity.="" development="" of="" this="" site="" for="" the="" fda="" facility="" and="" would="" further="" decrease="" the="" limited="" amount="" of="" plant="" and="" wildlife="" habitat="" available="" in="" this="" area.="" mitigation="" measures="" for="" effects="" to="" vegetation="" and="" wildlife="" primarily="" consist="" of="" maintaining="" large="" areas="" of="" forest,="" especially="" along="" streams,="" to="" provide="" wildlife="" habitat="" and="" movement="" corridors.="" sufficient="" amounts="" of="" forest="" will="" be="" retained="" under="" this="" alternative="" to="" comply="" with="" county="" and="" state="" forest="" conservation="" regulations.="" specifically,="" there="" will="" be="" 25="" acres="" (10="" hectares)="" of="" forest="" land="" remaining="" on="" the="" 170-acre="" development="" site.="" this="" forest="" land="" is="" contiguous="" and="" will="" continue="" to="" buffer="" streams="" located="" on="" the="" project="" site.="" threatened,="" endangered,="" and="" sensitive="" species="" no="" known="" direct,="" indirect,="" or="" cumulative="" impacts="" are="" anticipated="" to="" any="" federally-listed="" or="" state-listed="" endangered="" or="" threatened="" species="" or="" those="" proposed="" for="" listing="" with="" proposed="" construction="" on="" the="" white="" oak="" site.="" contamination="" assessment="" of="" the="" seven="" identified="" hazardous="" waste="" sites,="" only="" one="" (site="" #11,="" industrial="" wastewater="" disposal="" area="" 100)="" is="" located="" within="" the="" proposed="" project="" area.="" groundwater="" will="" require="" a="" remediation="" program="" to="" achieve="" clean-up="" objectives.="" however,="" the="" timetable="" for="" implementation="" of="" the="" remediation="" is="" uncertain.="" the="" proposed="" remediation="" methodologies="" will="" involve="" extraction="" and="" on-site="" treatment="" of="" groundwater.="" the="" navy="" is="" responsible="" for="" on-going="" remediation="" of="" all="" of="" the="" identified="" sites,="" including="" site="" #11.="" site="" investigation="" and="" remediation="" activities="" have="" been="" and="" will="" continue="" to="" be="" coordinated="" by="" the="" brac="" clean-up="" team="" which="" is="" comprised="" of="" the="" navy="" (nswc="" detachment="" white="" oak),="" the="" mde,="" and="" the="" u.s.="" epa="" region="" iii.="" these="" activities="" are="" communicated="" to="" the="" restoration="" advisory="" board="" which="" is="" made="" up="" of="" local="" government="" and="" community="" members.="" future="" locations="" of="" extraction="" wells="" and="" treatment="" facilities="" for="" the="" proposed="" groundwater="" remediation="" have="" not="" yet="" been="" established.="" the="" design="" for="" the="" construction="" of="" the="" proposed="" action="" will="" be="" coordinated="" with="" the="" navy's="" plans="" for="" design="" and="" siting="" of="" extraction="" wells="" and="" on-="" site="" treatment="" facilities="" for="" the="" remediation="" systems.="" contaminated="" soils="" are="" not="" expected="" to="" affect="" construction.="" if="" soil="" contamination="" is="" identified,="" a="" permit="" for="" soil="" remediation="" is="" required="" from="" the="" mde="" air="" and="" radiation="" management="" division.="" in="" addition,="" arrangements="" for="" the="" testing,="" containment="" and="" treatment="" of="" groundwater="" will="" be="" required="" if="" dewatering="" operations="" are="" needed="" for="" construction="" excavations.="" asbestos="" has="" been="" identified="" in="" many="" of="" the="" buildings="" which="" are="" designated="" for="" demolition="" or="" renovation="" within="" the="" proposed="" action="" project="" area.="" as="" demolition="" and="" renovation="" activities="" could="" cause="" the="" release="" of="" asbestos="" to="" the="" environment,="" all="" friable="" or="" potentially="" friable="" asbestos="" will="" be="" removed="" prior="" to="" building="" alterations="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" national="" emissions="" standard="" for="" hazardous="" air="" pollutants="" (neshaps)="" and="" maryland="" department="" of="" the="" environment="" air="" management="" regulations.="" asbestos="" emissions="" to="" the="" environment="" from="" each="" neshaps="" [[page="" 37263]]="" source="" will="" be="" minimized="" through="" engineering="" controls="" and="" appropriate="" work="" practices.="" all="" asbestos="" and="" asbestos-contaminated="" debris="" will="" be="" disposed="" off-site="" at="" a="" permitted="" disposal="" facility.="" lead="" paint="" is="" likely="" to="" be="" present="" in="" buildings="" designated="" for="" demolition="" or="" renovation="" within="" the="" proposed="" action="" area.="" demolition="" of="" buildings="" must="" be="" performed="" in="" accordance="" with="" mde="" regulations="" (comar="" 26.11.06.03d)="" requiring="" that="" reasonable="" precaution="" must="" be="" taken="" to="" prevent="" particulate="" matter,="" such="" as="" fugitive="" dust="" from="" becoming="" airborne.="" demolition="" and="" construction="" debris="" containing="" lead-based="" paint="" wastes="" will="" be="" segregated="" and="" tested="" to="" determine="" lead="" concentrations="" and="" appropriate="" disposal="" in="" accordance="" with="" rcra="" guidelines.="" pcb="" wastes="" are="" not="" stored="" within="" the="" proposed="" action="" area.="" however,="" fluorescent="" light="" ballasts="" containing="" pcbs="" are="" likely="" to="" be="" present="" in="" many="" of="" the="" buildings="" within="" the="" proposed="" action="" area.="" pcb-containing="" light="" ballasts="" and="" any="" remaining="" pcb-containing="" transformer="" equipment="" will="" be="" removed="" prior="" to="" building="" demolition="" and="" disposed="" at="" off-site="" tsca-approved="" facilities.="" according="" to="" the="" white="" oak="" underground="" storage="" tank="" (ust)="" inventory,="" 11="" petroleum="" ust="" systems="" are="" active="" in="" the="" proposed="" action="" area.="" the="" proposed="" action="" will="" require="" the="" removal="" or="" closure="" of="" all="" ust="" systems="" which="" are="" taken="" out="" of="" service.="" also,="" removal="" of="" four="" fuel="" oil="" aboveground="" storage="" tanks="" (asts)="" from="" locations="" within="" the="" proposed="" action="" project="" area="" will="" be="" required="" by="" local="" building="" codes.="" it="" is="" anticipated="" that="" abatement="" or="" closure="" activities="" related="" to="" remaining="" asbestos,="" lead="" paint,="" pcbs,="" and="" usts="" will="" be="" carried="" out="" prior="" to="" or="" during="" construction,="" as="" appropriate,="" by="" demolition="" or="" abatement="" contractors.="" project="" specifications="" for="" these="" actions="" will="" require="" proper="" off-site="" disposal="" of="" wastes,="" including="" hazardous="" wastes="" and="" special="" solid="" wastes,="" at="" appropriate="" disposal="" facilities.="" decommissioning="" surveys="" will="" be="" completed="" by="" the="" nswc="" health="" physics="" office="" in="" compliance="" with="" requirements="" for="" termination="" of="" permits="" for="" radioactive="" sources="" under="" the="" navy's="" nuclear="" regulatory="" commission="" license.="" based="" on="" the="" findings="" of="" the="" scoping="" survey,="" related="" to="" residual="" radium="" 226="" contamination,="" further="" study="" will="" be="" required="" to="" determine="" how="" much="" remediation="" is="" necessary="" and="" the="" associated="" costs.="" appropriate="" remediation="" will="" then="" be="" conducted="" by="" the="" navy.="" air="" quality="" the="" results="" of="" the="" air="" quality="" analysis="" for="" both="" mobile="" and="" stationary="" emission="" sources="" indicate="" that="" the="" future="" scenario="" with="" fda="" would="" not="" significantly="" affect="" the="" ambient="" air="" quality="" in="" the="" region.="" the="" mobile="" and="" stationary="" sources="" of="" the="" proposed="" action="" will="" not="" significantly="" contribute="" to="" any="" violations="" of="" the="" national="" ambient="" air="" quality="" standards="" (naaqs)="" for="" ozone="" or="" its="" precursors="" such="" as="" nitrous="" oxide="">X) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The
stationary sources at NSWC, including the proposed new boilers, will
not impact the attainment of a 15 percent reduction in VOCs, as
outlined in the Maryland State Implementation Plan. Upon comparison of
the emissions from the automobile exhaust, it was determined that the
carbon monoxide, NOx, and particulate matter emissions were
well below the de minimis levels. Therefore, emissions generated from
the proposed action are exempt from further analysis as defined in the
General Conformity Rule under the Clean Air Act.
The White Oak site is located in an ozone serious nonattainment
area, however, the area is in attainment for carbon monoxide. The
requirements will include review of criteria pollutants, if any, to be
generated from the proposed sources. The permits will be reviewed and
approved by the Maryland Air and Radiation Administration. The proposed
boilers will require permits from the MDE. During the permitting
process for the proposed boilers, the impacts on the ambient air
quality will be determined. The air quality model in this case will
also determine the minimum stack heights required to effectively
disperse the emissions from the proposed boilers.
Federal mandates to reduce emissions include controls for refueling
operations, inspection, and maintenance of vehicle emission systems.
States and local governments have regulated specific operations and
participated in the reformulated gasoline program. Car pooling,
employee commute options, mass transit improvements, high occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes are some of the Transportation Control Measures
(TCMs), FDA, since it is a government agency, will be required to
implement these measures to reduce emissions.
Noise
Direct, short-term noise impacts would result from construction
activities during development of the FDA facility. There would be no
direct impacts to area noise levels due to operations of the proposed
facility. Noise levels should be similar or slightly lower than those
currently at the side due to cessation of current Navy tests involving
explosives. Indirect roadway traffic noise will have virtually no
impact on noise levels at the identified sensitive receptors.
Noise from construction equipment can be reduced by the
construction of temporary noise barriers by avoiding times of day or
days of the week when noise exposures will be more objectionable (for
example, weekend mornings). The lowest amplitude back-up alarms
sufficient for ``audibility'' to meet safety requirements will be used.
Equipment will be operated with manufacturer noise control features in
working order.
Facilities on the FDA site that would generate noise will be
located as far from noise-sensitive receptors as possible. Site
topography and layout will be used to provide shielding by hillsides or
other structures. For indoor noise sources, buildings will be specified
to provide suitable sound attenuation and the equipment operating
spaces will be treated to minimize interior sound buildup. Internal
combustion engine exhausts and fans drawing from or discharging to the
atmosphere will be fitted with silencers. Where possible, installed
equipment will be specified to minimize noise generation (for example,
fan selection for low noise). Noisy facility operations will be
scheduled for times that are least noise-sensitive.
Land Use
The existing zoning for the White Oak site is for residential
development; however, the proposed land use is compatible with the
existing land use and impact will be minimal.
Population
Because no residential uses are contemplated as part of the
proposed FDA consolidation and since the proposed action would result
primarily in a consolidation of existing offices and laboratories,
implementation of the proposed action on this site should not result in
a significant change in county-wide population characteristics or
projections.
Housing
Additional housing demand may be generated in the White Oak area
due to the relocation of FDA facilities.
Economy, Employment, and Income
The proposed action at White Oak will have positive short-term
impacts on
[[Page 37264]]
the regional economy. The consolidation of the FDA facilities will not
significantly affect the economy of the National Capital Region because
neither employment nor procurement is expected to change. However, the
White Oak Master Plan area of Montgomery County will benefit from
payroll spending by FDA employees at local businesses and income of FDA
employees choosing to relocate their place of residence.
Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations
The proposed action will not disproportionately impact minority or
low-income populations in the White Oak area. Construction of the
proposed project will not hinder the continued economic growth or alter
the character of the area.
Taxes and Revenue
Taxes and government revenues are not expected to be significantly
affected by the proposed action.
Community Facilities and Services
Construction of the FDA facility at White Oak would not result in
any direct impacts to existing community facilities and services.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
The project facilities would permanently affect the existing
appearance of the landscape within the project site. Special care will
be given to the architectural character of the new buildings so that
they are compatible with the surrounding area. Landscaping measures
will help mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed facilities from
surrounding properties.
Public Health and Safety
Details of the safety, prevention and mitigation procedures that
will be employed to protect public health at the FDA facility will be
provided by the FDA in a Safety Analysis Report when definitive plans
for the site are in place. Extensive prevention and mitigation
procedures are practiced by the FDA to prevent occupational hazards and
migration of contaminants off site via transport by workers or any
other pathway.
These regulations will contain hazardous or infectious substances
in a controlled environment, and will prevent exposure of the general
public to any agents that may adversely affect human health.
Historic Properties
The Maryland Historic Trust State Historic Sites Inventory Form
concluded that the Haval Ordnance Laboratory (NOL) historic district is
significant under National Register Criterion A, B, and C, and
possesses exceptional significance under National Register Criteria
Consideration G, at the national level for its pivotal role as a first-
generation Cold-War-period defense weapons research facility.
If the Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurs
with this finding, then the proposed action will have an Adverse Effect
on the Naval Ordnance Laboratory historic district as defined in 36 CFR
800.9 Approximately 70 Contributing historic district resources and 46
Non-contributing resources will be demolished within the 100 Area, and
approximately 4 Contributing resources will be taken within the 200
Area. In the event of a finding of Adverse Effect, GSA will follow the
requirements found in 36 CFR 800.5e (When the effect is adverse). In
compliance with these requirements, GSA will: notify the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (Council); consult with the SHPO and
involve interested persons as participating consulting parties;
document the finding of Adverse Effect according to 36 CFR 800.8;
inform the public of the finding of Adverse Effect; and execute a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the SHPO specifying how the effects
will be taken into account. The MOA is expected to provide an agreement
on ways in which GSA will minimize or mitigate these adverse impacts.
Archeological Resources
The Phase I archaeological investigation revealed no prehistoric or
historic archaeological remains within the areas of potential effects
for the proposed construction activities. Concurrence from the State
Historic Preservation Office (Maryland Historical Trust) is pending.
Utilities
Adequate water supply can be provided to the White Oak site from
existing service connections. Improvements to the existing sewer system
will be required, and the Paint Branch Trunk sewer will likely require
relief in the next 5 to 10 years. GSA and FDA will prepare a water
conservation plan and policy, install water saving fixtures, and design
landscape plans for minimum water usage.
Adequate electrical power and natural gas be supplied to the White
Oak site from existing lines. Energy conservation measures will be
incorporated into building design. Updated on-site communication
systems will be required.
Transportation and Parking
Access to the White Oak site is provided via MD 650 and Cherry Hill
Road. The improvements proposed for the main entrance to the site from
MD 650 include:
A single left-turn lane for southbound MD 650 into the
site.
A right-turn lane for northbound MD 650 into the site.
A right-turn lane from the site to northbound MD 650.
Three left-turn lanes, including a shared through lane,
from the site to southbound MD 650.
A new full entrance is proposed from Cherry Hill Road adjacent to
the northeast corner of the property. This entrance will be at a new
location close to the Montgomery/Prince George's county line and will
include:
A left-and right-turn lane exiting the site to Cherry Hill
Road.
A right-turn lane for eastbound Cherry Hill Road into the
site.
A left-turn lane for westbound Cherry Hill Road into the
site.
Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the AM and PM
peak hours at study intersections within the White Oak study area for
the projected build-out year of 2005. The results of he analyses
indicated that the majority of intersections would not operate at
acceptable levels of service with or without the proposed FDA facility.
A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) was developed to aid in the
mitigation of traffic impacts from FDA to the extent possible.
Transportation management strategies proposed include: provision of
employee transportation coordinator; ride-matching service;
preferential parking for carpools and vanpools; guaranteed ride home
program; flexitime program; flecxiplace program; and bus service to/
from Metrorail. In addition to these strategies, the following is a
list of roadway improvements that would be necessary to mitigate
traffic impacts if the FDA facility is located at the White Oak site.
MD 650 at Michelson Road. These improvements include the
addition of a right-turn lane along northbound MD 650 into the site.
The total length of the lane, including taper, would be 350 feed (107
meters). the intersection improvements for MD 650 at Michelson Road
mitigate the traffic impacts at the intersection in the PM but not the
AM peak hour.
MD 650 and Schindler Drive/Mahan Drive (Main Gate.) These
improvements include the addition of a
[[Page 37265]]
northbound channelized right-turn lane into the site; and extending the
southbound left-turn lane on MD 650. The total length of the northbound
right-turn lane, including taper, is 350 feet (107 meters) and the
southbound left-turn lane is 400 feet (120 meters). These improvements
also include the addition of two additional westbound lanes out of the
site. The improvements to the intersection do not mitigate the traffic
impact at the intersection in the PM peak hour.
MD 650 at Powder Mill Road. These improvements include the
widening of southbound MD 650 to accommodate the turning movements of
three left-turn lanes from the east leg of Powder Mill Road. Widening
will occur north and south of the intersection to transition the
southbound lanes from a lane width of 12 feet to a width of 14 feet.
The east leg of Powder Mill road will be restriped to provide double
left-turn lanes, a thru/left-turn lane, and a right-turn lane and the
traffic signal will be modified.
MD 650 at Lockwood Drive. These improvements involve
reconfiguring the intersection to provide an additional left-turn lane
on Lockwood Drive's east and west approach to MD 650.
Cherry Hill Road at Broadbirch Dr./Calverton Blvd. These
improvements include the addition of a right-turn lane on northbound
Cherry Hill Road. The total length of the northbound right-turn lane,
including taper, is 350 feet (107 meters).
Cherry Hill Road to Powder Mill Road. These improvements
include the provision of separate north-and southbound left-turn lanes.
The total length for both the north- and southbound lanes is 150 feet
(46 meters).
U.S. 29 at Lockwood Drive. These improvements involve
widening the driveway from the Manor Care property to provide an
additional left-turn lane.
The widening of Cherry Hill Road to four lanes from the Montgomery
County line to Autoville Drive in College Park is included in the
Prince George's County FY 1996-2001 Capital Improvement Program.
However, this project is not presently funded. The Subregion 1 Master
Plan identifies Powder Mill Road as an arterial highway which will be
ultimately built as a four to six-lane divided roadway between the
Montgomery County line and U.S. 1 in Beltsville. Construction of these
improvements to Cherry Hill Road and Powder Mill Road will improve
access to the FDA site and more than mitigate existing and projected
levels of service at the intersection of Cherry Hill Road and Powder
Mill Road. In addition, access to the FDA site from I-95 will be
greatly enhanced.
The following intersections are not mitigated:
U.S. 29 at Cherry Hill Road/Randolph Road.
MD 650 at Lockwood Drive.
MD 650 at Elton Road.
FDA traffic will have a relatively small impact on those
intersections at which mitigation was not recommended. Mitigation was
not recommended at these intersections due to physical constraints such
as existing structures and inadequate rights of way. In addition, these
intersections were projected to fail under future conditions without
the presence of FDA traffic.
To improve traffic flow in the area surrounding the site,
implementation of regional solutions proposed in the Montgomery and
Prince George's Counties Master Plans will be necessary. These
improvements could include construction of grade separated interchanges
on U.S. 29, widening Cherry Hill Road and Powder Mill Road, and
construction of a Transitway on U.S. 29. Additional regional solutions
would include enhanced bus and feeder service to Metrorail and MARC
train stations at Silver Spring and Greenbelt.
Waste Management
Waste types to be generated by FDA include: general waste
(including recyclable waste), medical waste, hazardous waste, low-level
radioactive waste, and mixed waste. All wastes will be properly
handled, stored, and removed from the site in accordance with
appropriate state and federal regulations.
VI. Areas of Controversy
The following areas of controversy concerning the proposed action
have been identified from public and agency comments: the effects of
the FDA facility on area traffic: the availability of adequate public
transportation; existing contamination on the White Oak site; effects
of the new facility on water quality; and historic preservation. The
actions taken to resolve these areas of controversy are presented
below.
Traffic
A traffic analysis was completed comparing the projected future
traffic conditions for area intersections without FDA to those
conditions projected for the proposed action. The results of the
traffic analysis indicated that the majority of intersections would not
operate at acceptable levels of service under either future scenario.
To mitigate the impacts to area traffic from the FDA facility, off-site
road improvements have been proposed as well as the implementation of
transportation demand management strategies to reduce the number of
vehicles accessing the White Oak site as detailed in Section V of this
report.
Public Transportation
The Silver Spring, Forest Glen, and Wheaton stations along the
Metrorail Red Line are located approximately three miles from the White
Oak site, and the Greenbelt and College Park stations of the Metrorail
Green Line are located approximately four miles from the White Oak
site. The MARC train also services stations in Silver Spring,
Greenbelt, and College Park. There are several Metrobus on Ride On bus
routes that service the White Oak area; however, the current services
schedules are infrequent and some existing bus stops are not
conveniently located.
A component of the Transportation Management Plan is to provide bus
service between the FDA facility and the Silver Spring Metro station.
GSA will discuss bus service options with Montgomery County.
Existing Contaminated Areas
The Navy is responsible for on-going remediation of all of the
identified contaminated sites. Remediation activities will continue to
be coordinated by the BRAC clean-up team which is comprised of the Navy
(NSWC Detachment White Oak), the MDE, and the U.S. EPA Region III.
These activities are communicated to the Restoration Advisory Board
which is made up of local government and community members.
Water Quality Impacts
Paint Branch and its tributaries on the White Oak site are
classified by Maryland Department of the Environment as Use III waters
and carry the state's most stringent water quality standards.
Mitigation measures will include stream valley buffers, the utilization
of best management practices for maximum pollutant removal efficiency,
and state-of-the-art stormwater management techniques. Several
stormwater management facilities are located within the stream valley
buffers; however, they are within areas already disturbed.
Historic Preservation
If the Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer concurs with
the designation of the Naval Ordinance Laboratory as a historic
district, then the proposed action will have an Adverse Effect. In the
event of a finding of Adverse Effect, GSA will follow the
[[Page 37266]]
requirements found in 36 CFR 800.5e (When the effect is adverse). In
compliance with these requirements, GSA will: notify the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (Council); consult with the SHPO and
involve interested persons as participating consulting parties;
document the finding of Adverse Effect according to 36 CFR 800.8;
inform the public of the finding of Adverse Effect; and execute a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the SHPO specifying how the effects
will be taken into account. The MOA is expected to provide an agreement
on ways in which GSA will minimize or mitigate these adverse impacts.
VII. Environmental Planning Process
The Scoping process including the publication of the Notice of
Intent in the Federal Register on October 25, 1995 followed by a series
of scoping meetings held to identify issues of concern to the community
and government agencies. A public scoping meeting was held on November
7, 1995 at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in White Oak, and an agency
scoping meeting was held on November 21, 1995.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended,
requires that the public and affected agencies be provided the
opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). A 75-day review period of the draft EIS, commenced on March 15,
1996 and concluded on May 31, 1996 in order to comply with these
requirements. During this period, a public hearing was held on April
16, 1996 at the Naval Surface Warfare Center at the site of the
Proposed Action to receive comments from the public.
A Final Environmental Impact Statement was prepared to address
comments made on the Draft EIS, and was filed with the U.S. EPA on May
2, 1997. The Final EIS was also made available to the public and
affected agencies for an additional 30-day review period (May 2, 1997
through June 2, 1997). Comments on the Final EIS were taken into
consideration by GSA and FDA in the preparation of this Record of
Decision.
GSA believes that there are no other outstanding environmental
issues to be resolved with respect to the proposed construction on the
White Oak site with approximately 2,111,421 gsf of offices laboratories
and support facilities, and 4,500 parking spaces for approximately
5,947 employees and 500 visitors per day. The mitigation program for
the development of the White Oak site will be developed during the
design phase. Mitigation measures will be developed from those
recommended in the Final EIS or other state-of-the-art practices.
Questions regarding the EIS prepared for this action should be directed
to Mr. Jag Bhargava, P.E., Development Director, General Services
Administration National Capital Region, Room 2120, 7th and D Streets,
SW, Washington, DC 20407, telephone 202-708-6570.
Dated: June 26, 1997.
Nelson Alcalde,
Regional Administrator, General Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-18135 Filed 7-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-23-M
