Jump to main content.

Record of Decision--Construction and Operation of an Integrated Research Facility by the National Institutes of Health at Fort Detrick, MD

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 [Federal Register: January 29, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 19)]
[Notices]
[Page 4307-4309]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29ja04-54]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
 
Record of Decision--Construction and Operation of an Integrated 
Research Facility by the National Institutes of Health at Fort Detrick, 
MD

AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of 
Health (NIH) United States Army Garrison (USAG), Fort Detrick.
ACTION: Notice. The Department of Health and Human Services, NIH, and 
the United States Army Garrison, Fort Detrick (Cooperating Agency), 
have decided, after completion of a Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) and a thorough consideration of public comments on the 
Draft EIS, to implement Alternative I (Proposed Action), which was 
identified as the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS. This action 
involves the construction and operation of an Integrated Research 
Facility (IRF) by NIH on a site adjacent to existing U.S. Army Medical 
Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) facilities at Fort 
Detrick, Maryland.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), 
a component of NIH, will be the occupant of the facility, which will 
contain Intramural NIAID bio-safety level -2, -3, and -4 laboratory and 
animal research facilities for conducting biodefense and emerging 
infectious disease research. NIAID's biodefense mission is different 
but complementary to USAMRIID's. The selected action best satisfies 
NIH's needs and the biodefense research goals of NIAID and USAMRIID. 
Moreover, it fosters increased interagency collaboration between NIH 
and U.S. Army scientists by building on the already well established 
formal cooperation that exists between these two organizations. NIH 
will incorporate design and operational safeguards in the facility to 
protect laboratory workers and local residents from possible harmful 
effects related to the operation of the facility, however remote these 
occurrences may be. This action also allows NIH to address a critical 
national shortage in bio-safety level-4 (BSL-4) capability.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Wilson, Master Planner, 
Division of Facilities Planning, ORF, National Institutes of Health, 31 
Center Drive, Room 3B44, MSC 2162, Bethesda, Maryland, 20817-2162, 
telephone 301-496-5037, e-mail: wilsoron@ors.od.nih.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and 
United States Army Garrison, Fort Detrick (USAG), have prepared this 
Record of Decision (ROD) on a Final EIS for the construction and 
operation of an Integrated Research Facility by NIH at Fort Detrick, 
Maryland. This ROD includes:
    1. The final decision;
    2. All alternatives considered, specifying the alternative or 
alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable;
    3. A discussion of factors which were involved in the decision, 
including any essential considerations of national policy which were 
balanced in making the decision and a statement of how those 
considerations, if any, entered into the decision;
    4. A statement of whether all practicable means to avoid or 
minimize potential environmental harm from the selected alternative 
have been adopted, and if not, why they were not;
    5. A description of mitigation measures that will be undertaken to 
make the selected alternative environmentally acceptable;
    6. A discussion of the extent to which pollution prevention is 
included in the decision and how pollution prevention measures will be 
implemented; and
    7. A summary of any monitoring and enforcement program adopted for 
any mitigation measures.

Alternatives Considered

    Two reasonable alternatives were identified and considered in the 
Final EIS. They are (1) Alternative I, the Proposed Action, and, (2) 
the No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action is described above. 
Under the No Action Alternative, NIH would not build the IRF thereby 
eliminating the negligible to minor adverse impacts associated with 
implementation of the selected action. Selection of the No Action 
alternative, however, would prevent NIH and the public from realizing 
the health and safety benefits that would derive from the research 
conducted in the planned IRF. This research will focus on disease-
causing organisms that might emerge naturally or be used as agents of

[[Page 4308]]

bioterrorism as well as developing a better understanding of the 
pathogenesis of such microbes and the human response to them. The 
knowledge gained will be used to develop new and improved diagnostic 
tests, vaccines, and therapies to protect civilians.
    Three additional alternatives were identified but rejected as not 
practical and, therefore, are not evaluated in detail in the Final EIS. 
These are: (1) Construction and Operation of an IRF by NIH at another 
location within Area A of Fort Detrick (Alternative III); (2) 
Construction and Operation of an IRF by NIH within Area B of Fort 
Detrick (Alternative IV); and (3) Construction and Operation of an IRF 
by NIH outside Fort Detrick (Alternative V). The rejected alternatives, 
along with the reasons for their elimination, are described in the 
Final EIS.

Factors Involved in the Decision

    Several factors are involved in NIH's decision to proceed with the 
Proposed Action as the selected action.
    Based on analyses in the Draft and Final EISs, the selected action 
best satisfies the project's Purpose and Need, which involves expanding 
NIH's research capability and, in particular, its BSL-4 laboratory 
capacity, to support research related to developing new and improved 
diagnostic tests, vaccines, and therapies for biodefense purposes, as 
well as attaining a better understanding of emerging infectious 
diseases. In addition, the action is consistent with NIH's mission, 
which is to serve as the nation's steward for medical and behavioral 
research. Furthermore, as noted above, it will facilitate greater 
cooperation between NIH and U.S. Army researchers in the area of 
biodefense research.
    From an environmental perspective, the IRF will result in minor to 
negligible disruption to the physical and biological environment. In 
instances where unavoidable adverse environmental effects are 
anticipated, the potential adverse impacts will be mitigated through 
compliance with existing regulatory requirements, application of Best 
Management Practices (BMPs), and adherence to construction contract 
requirements. The action also is in accord with Fort Detrick's 
Installation Master Plan and conforms to USAG's planning and 
environmental policies. Operation of the IRF will not adversely impact 
City of Frederick residents. Security measures either exist or will be 
implemented for the project.
    In terms of national considerations, Congress clearly intended that 
the research laboratory be built on Department of the Army land at Fort 
Detrick. As a result, it appropriated $105 million to construct the 
research building at Fort Detrick.
    Although options to locate the IRF on alternate sites at Fort 
Detrick were also considered early on in the development of the Final 
EIS, these were considered less favorable in terms of collaboration by 
personnel from both agencies since the IRF would be further removed 
from USAMRIID facilities. In addition, placing the IRF in another 
portion of Area A or in Area B is not consistent with Fort Detrick land 
use planning and would be more distant from existing infrastructure 
support. Alternative V, which involved locating the IRF on a site 
outside of Fort Detrick, was eliminated from evaluation in the Final 
EIS during the scoping process since it was determined to be contrary 
to congressional intent. Furthermore, placing the IRF outside of Fort 
Detrick could require costly land acquisition and infrastructure 
development that could delay completion of the IRF by several years.

Practicable Means To Avoid or Minimize Potential Environmental Harm 
from the Selected Alternative

    All practicable means to avoid or minimize adverse environmental 
effects from the selected action have been identified and incorporated 
into the action.

Pollution Prevention

    In accordance with DHHS General Administration Manual Part 30, 
Environmental Protection (dated February 25, 2000), pollution 
prevention will be a major focus of the design, construction, and 
operation of the IRF. Pollution prevention measures incorporated in the 
selected action include:
    ? Reducing construction waste by recycling 
materials wherever possible;
    ? Applying BMPs during construction to minimize 
soil erosion and potential airborne particulate matter;
    ? Including new state-of-the-art energy efficient 
equipment in the facility to reduce the energy demand on Fort Detrick 
electrical systems;
    ? Rendering all contaminated or potentially 
contaminated medical waste noninfectious by a combination of chemical 
and physical (autoclaving) methods before disposal or transport off-
site;
    ? Sterilizing laboratory wastewater within the 
laboratories and, secondarily, within the facility itself through 
chemical disinfection or steam sterilization methods before discharging 
wastewater into the Fort Detrick sanitary sewer system;
    ? Employing High Efficiency Particulate Air 
filters to capture small particles in laboratory exhaust air before 
venting the air to the outside; and
    ? Requiring that IRF activities comply with the 
NIH waste management policies, which emphasize source segregation, 
inactivation, source reduction, reuse, and recycling.

Mitigation Measures

    During the preparation of the Final EIS several potential 
environmental issues associated with implementation of the Proposed 
Action were identified. These included land use (land disturbance), 
construction noise, transportation (traffic and parking), geology 
(potential sinkholes), water resources (sedimentation, stormwater 
management, water supply), plant and animal ecology (displacement of 
deer and/or bird species), air quality (fugitive dust during 
construction, increased pollutant emissions during operation, and 
increased vehicular emissions), historic and archaeological resources 
(potential impacts on National Register eligible properties), and 
pollution prevention/waste management (construction wastes and handling 
and disposal of waste generated during operation). These potential 
adverse impacts were deemed to be negligible to minor, and capable of 
being mitigated through compliance with existing regulatory 
requirements, application of BMPs, and adherence to construction 
contract requirements.
    In addition, possible adverse health and safety impacts on 
laboratory workers in the proposed IRF and on nearby residents during 
the operational phase of the project were evaluated. The risks were 
deemed to be negligible to minor, and able to be mitigated through 
adherence to guidelines outlined in Biosafety in Microbiological and 
Biomedical Laboratories, a joint publication of the Centers for Disease 
Control and NIH, as well as other standards for safe operational 
practices.

Monitoring and Enforcement Program for Mitigation Measures

    Since potential adverse impacts would be mitigated by compliance 
with existing regulatory requirements, application of BMPs, and 
adherence to construction contract requirements, existing regulatory 
reporting requirements and contract administration procedures will 
serve in lieu of a formal Monitoring and Enforcement Program.

Conclusion

    Based upon review and careful consideration of the impacts 
identified

[[Page 4309]]

in the Final EIS, results of various environmental and hazard 
assessment studies conducted in conjunction with the Draft EIS; public 
comments received throughout the National Environmental Policy Act 
process, including comments on the Draft EIS and those provided during 
the required 30-day waiting period for the Final EIS; and other 
relevant factors, such as congressional intent, NIH and USAG, Fort 
Detrick, have decided to implement Alternative I, the Proposed Action, 
construction and operation of the IRF by NIH on a site adjacent to 
existing USAMRIID facilities at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

    Dated: January 21, 2004.
Stephen A. Ficca,
Director, Office of Research Services, National Institutes of Health.
    Dated: January 22, 2004.
John E. Ball,
Colonel, MS, Deputy Installation Commander.
[FR Doc. 04-1887 Filed 1-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.