“What was that?” NuMI: A case study in public participation Judy Jackson Fermilab Office of Communication October 13, 2008

NuMI: “What was that?” 2 Then and Now NuMI offers a case study in the evolution of public participation at Fermilab. THEN (1999) we followed the model “Decide, Announce, Defend” in NuMI communication.  We knew best. (We’re the experts.) NOW we ask the public to help with planning and decision-making.  We’ve learned that decisions made with public involvement are better decisions for Fermilab.

NuMI: “What was that?” 3 Then We waited until decisions had been made before informing the public. (DAD)  Schedule  Construction methods  Acceptable noise levels WE defined the issues: noise from blasting, light from work site, traffic, potential property damage  Nothing about radiation, water, continuing operations…

NuMI: “What was that?” 4 Now We ask the public to help us define the issues.  Fermilab Community Task Force  Fermilab ILC Citizens’ Task Force We’ve learned we have nothing to fear and much to gain from public participation.  Neighbors don’t try to make scientific or technical decisions.  On issues that affect the public, neighbors give us perspectives we can’t get anywhere else.

NuMI: “What was that?” 5 Now: public participation spectrum

NuMI: “What was that?” 6 Then When things went wrong, neighbors got angry.  Blasting: “What was that????”  Perception of property damage  Lights  Furious phone calls.

NuMI: “What was that?” 7 Now When things go wrong, neighbors step up to help.  Tritium  ILC delay  Budget crisis  Fermilab’s future

NuMI: “What was that?” 8 Then What we said did not match what we did. Blasting  We said “Distant thunder.”  They heard “Semitruck through living room.” We said we’d turn the lights off on Saturday nights.  We left them on.  Even after we said we were sorry and it wouldn’t happen again. We said “We won’t crack your foundation.”  That’s not what they thought.

NuMI: “What was that?” 9 Then We tried to respond to neighbors’ concerns(!) after the fact.  We listened when they called.  We identified one point of contact and developed a call list.  On cloudy days, blasts were louder. We learned to call ahead on blasting days.  We identified the light problem and ordered special shutters for a neighbor’s bedroom.  We finally got the lights turned off on Saturdays.  We installed ground motion sensors in yards.

NuMI: “What was that?” 10 Now With public input, we indentify concerns up front.  We communicate with neighbors BEFORE decisions are made and BEFORE, during and after issues arise.  Tritium web site  NOvA EA letter to fenceline neighbors ILC Task Force New “Future Projects Task Force”

NuMI: “What was that?” 11 Then Initially project management gave little priority to public concerns.  Not incorporated in contracts  Contractor indifference  Problems ignored as long as possible  No coordination with lab communicators Eventually, coordinated with communication staff.  Alerted to upcoming blasts  Turned off lights  Enforced contract provisions

NuMI: “What was that?” 12 Now Strong management support for meaningful public involvement in planning and decision-making Two thoughtful reports from citizens’ task forces Another Future Projects Task Force in the works Strong base of community to support to build on

NuMI: “What was that?” 13 Question Would a citizens’ group have helped us to identify tritium issue earlier?  They certainly would have asked about radiation and water.  Might that have led us to look more closely at NuMI’s potential effects on surface water?  In any case, the Community Task Force guided tritium communication when it showed up in 2005.

NuMI: “What was that?” 14 Lessons learned Then: Our intentions were good. We just didn’t know what we were doing. To get public participation right, get professional help. Public participation takes resources. Projects need to budget for it. Involving the public benefits the community—but it benefits Fermilab even more. Not just the next project but Fermilab’s survival depends on public support.

NuMI: “What was that?” 15 Lessons learned “Recommendations for for Public Participation,” December 2004  3.1 For projects or programs likely to create significant public concerns, create appropriate opportunities for stakeholders to provide input throughout the planning process.  ….  3.3 In all new project proposals and design sutdies, include a section that explains whether public participation is warranted and, if it is, outlines how public participation will be handled by the project.

NuMI: “What was that?” 16 Lessons learned Fermilab ILC Citizens’ Task Force Report  Task Force elected to continue even though ILC postponed  Recommendations useful for any large science project, anywhere

NuMI: “What was that?” 17 Moving forward Public participation is now part of Fermilab’s culture. As we go forward with new projects, we can build on the strong base of public participation that we and the community have created. No more “What was that?”