David reminded Task Force members that meeting agendas, meeting summaries, some meeting materials, and additional information resources will be posted on the website for the Fermilab Community Task Force on Public Participation (www.fermilabcommunity.org). David also reminded the group that portions of the meeting were being videotaped, so Fermilab is able to tell the full story of the Task Force.

David reviewed the meeting agenda and stated that the Task Force is still in its learning phase. This meeting would provide the group with more background information on the laboratory.

Approval of Task Force Charter
The Task Force approved its charter, which documents the purpose of the group and expectations for behavior of Task Force members, the facilitator, and Fermilab staff. The final charter is available at www.fermilabcommunity.org.

Future of Fermilab
John Womersley, Fermilab physicist, provided an overview of future plans for Fermilab. John participated in a long-range planning committee convened by the laboratory director in 2003. He explained that this committee evaluated the current role of the laboratory in high-energy physics, its strengths, and options for future research, in order to develop a strategic plan through 2015.

John stated that the world of high-energy physics would undergo many changes between now and 2015. For instance, Fermilab will no longer have the world’s most powerful accelerator when a new facility begins to operate in Switzerland in 2009. John explained that this new, more powerful machine would allow for new research, such as the search for dark matter and dark energy. Also, the current research projects conducted at Fermilab’s Tevatron accelerator eventually will come to an end. Fermilab will need to change to adapt to these changes. John stated Fermilab’s new role would likely include acting as a home base for U.S. scientists doing research based on experiments conducted in Switzerland. Also, a new Tevatron project, BTev, is planned to begin in 2009 and will conduct in-depth research on certain kinds of subatomic particles.

John explained that there is a worldwide consensus on the need to develop a linear collider to ensure the continued advancement of high-particle physics. The linear collider would be similar to the Tevatron, but would be built as a straight tunnel versus a circle. The collider would be constructed deep underground, and would stretch for approximately 25 miles. John stated that the construction and operation of a linear collider would be a multibillion-dollar, fully international project. Fermilab believes that--with community support--an area close to Fermilab would be an ideal location to construct the new facility. The tunnel for this project would be constructed in the bedrock approximately 100 feet underground; some above ground structures also would be built. Currently potential hosts investigating the project include a North American collaboration, a Japanese collaboration, and a European collaboration. John stated that decisions regarding this proposed project would be highly political and require a long and complex process. Therefore, Fermilab wants to be sure it also has other new projects for the future, that don’t depend on the construction of a linear collider.

John described the NuMi experiment, which is currently under construction at Fermilab. The NuMi experiment will study neutrinos by beaming them through the ground to a detector in Minnesota. Fermilab expects that this experiment will lead to more neutrino research at the lab and possibly the construction of new machinery, including a large-scale "Proton Driver." Finally, he explained that Fermilab will continue its involvement in other complimentary projects including astroparticle physics, which look at the connection between particle physics and cosmology; and, the Hadron Therapy Center, a medical facility planned for a nearby technology park.

Slides from John’s talk are available at www.fermilabcommunity.org.

Economic Impact of Fermilab
Dave Carlson, business manager for Fermilab, provided the Task Force with information regarding the near-term local and regional economic impacts of Fermilab.

First, Dave clarified that Fermilab is owned by the U.S. Department of Energy and operated by University Research Associates. He observed that the community surrounding Fermilab has changed dramatically over the history of the lab.

Overall, the lab employs around 2150 people, most of which are full-time employees. Dave stated that these workers have a significant impact on the regional economy. The total payroll of Fermilab is $130-140 million of annual base pay. Dave estimated that when benefits are added to this amount, the Fermilab workforce brings an estimated total of $180 million into local economies. Most of these employees live in the communities surrounding the lab. In addition, there are about 2600 particle physicists that conduct research at Fermilab; several hundred of these researchers could be at the lab at any one time.

Dave also reviewed the economic impact of the procurement of services and products for Fermilab. Last year, the business services division purchased 110 million dollars of goods and services. Over the past few years, this number has ranged from $110 million to $130 million. Dave stated that $40 million of last year’s total went to small businesses, $7 million went to disadvantaged businesses, and $7 million went to woman-owned businesses. In response to a question from a Task Force member, Dave clarified that Fermilab pays universities to develop certain components of research projects.

Dave reported that roughly $50 million per year has been paid to companies in the State of Illinois. In 2002, Fermilab spent approximately $6.5 million in the Fox Valley region. Dave stated that due to this procurement and the employment opportunities it offers, Fermilab will continue to play a major role in the regional economy.

A Task Force member asked if the economic impact of Fermilab would decrease if the proposed linear collider were not sited near Fermilab. Dave stated that the laboratory hopes to continue to grow, regardless of the outcome of the proposed linear collider, but it is difficult to project specific numbers for the future. He added that a linear collider project or construction of any new facilities would bring additional dollars into the community.

Slides from Dave’s presentation are available at www.fermilabcommunity.org.

Public Comment
One member of the public attended this meeting but did not wish to provide any comments.

Issues of Importance to the Community
David Bidwell led the group in an activity to identify issues of importance to the community. David specified that the Task Force should identify issues where the world of Fermilab and the lives of community members intersect. Each Task Force member was asked to create a list of issues. Then, they split into small groups of 3 to 4 Task Force members. Each group was instructed to share individual lists and pick 5 issues that their group believed are most critical. Then, each small group shared the issues they selected with the full Task Force and David posted them where the entire group could see them. These critical issues are listed here:

• Safety and health issues
• Impacts to community reputation and quality of life
• Cultural impacts
• Impacts to open space
• Lack of understanding between Fermilab and the community
• Public use of the site
• Affects on traffic flow
• Impacts on electric power and water supplies
• Impacts to education
• Potential construction of accelerators beneath houses
• Fear of decreased home values
• Positive and negative economic impacts
• Economic benefits versus government waste of public funds
• Economic benefits of scientific research
• Economic benefit versus development potential of the Fermilab property
• Creation of new jobs
• Impacts to employment rates

David also reported that Task Force member Alan Gard had begun to identify stakeholder groups and issues that were of concern to each group. David distributed a copy of a matrix developed by Alan to each Task Force member. Alan stated that he developed the matrix as a suggested framework for considering community concerns, because different groups within the community will be interested in different issues.

The SSC Process
During the 1980s, the State of Illinois pursued a large-scale project known as the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). This project would have led to the construction of a large, underground accelerator ring beneath the communities near Fermilab. The State of Illinois’ proposal to host this project faced strong opposition from some residents of these communities. Eventually, the project was sited in Texas, but construction was halted in the 1990s when Congress pulled the funding for the project. David noted that many of the Task Force members were familiar with this process. He stated that it is important for the entire Task Force to understand the history of the SSC.

Ed Temple, now with Fermilab, worked on the site selection task force for DOE during the 1980s. He provided the group with an overview of the SSC project and the site selection process that began in 1987 and ended in 1989.

In October 1983, DOE began to consider the construction of an SSC. In March 1986, DOE issued a design study that outlined a conceptual design for an SSC facility. In January 1987, Congress approved funding for the project. Ed explained that DOE developed specific criteria for the selection of an SSC site, which would allow sites to be compared fairly. Of 43 initial proposals, a list of best-qualified sites was developed for 7 sites. Hearings on a draft Environmental Impact Statement were held in each of those 7 sites in October 1988. DOE determined that any of the 7 sites would be adequate for construction of the SSC, but the selection task force did not prioritize or rank these sites. Final site selection was made in January 1989.

Ed showed the group the conceptual design for the SSC, which was a 53-mile circumference, oval-shaped accelerator. DOE determined that if the SSC tunnel were constructed deep underground, surface rights would not have to be obtained. The conceptual design also included surface buildings. In addition to primary research and control buildings, the State would have needed to obtain additional surface land to construct the required SSC service areas at regular 5-mile intervals around the ring.

Ed reviewed the Illinois proposal for the SSC, which used the existing Fermilab accelerator as the main injector for the new, larger accelerator. Ed emphasized that the proposal was submitted by the State of Illinois, and the state was prohibited from interacting too closely with Fermilab when developing its proposal. The eastern side of the accelerator would have been located on the Fermilab property, and the oval would have stretched west to Kaneville. There were several areas where the accelerator tunnel would have been sited beneath residential areas. Ed stated that the review team deemed the Illinois proposal to be excellent.

David Bidwell asked Ed to explain DOE’s expectations for public involvement during the selection process. Ed stated that he did not believe DOE had developed expectations for involvement of local communities in this process. He thought communities would embrace the project, but he said that he had to revise that opinion once he attended the public hearings for the draft environmental impact statement (EIS).

John Fildes asked if a proposed linear accelerator would go through a similar competitive selection process. Ed stated that he did not know what the process would be for selecting a linear accelerator site, but he stated that Fermilab is one of two sites currently being discussed in the United States. However, he stated that choosing a site for the linear collider could be more flexible, because it would not have to be physically attached to the laboratory.

Jeff Schielke remembered that during the selection process for the SSC, many communities from states submitting proposals contacted him to get information on Fermilab. He stated that they were primarily interested in economic benefits. Task Force members asserted that it is important to learn from the community reaction to the SSC selection process, and the underlying causes of public opposition. David assured the group that there would be opportunities at future meetings for the Task Force members to discuss their experiences during the SSC selection process.

Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Fermilab Task Force on Public Participation is Tuesday, June 22 from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. at Fermilab’s Wilson Hall. Representatives from the Brookhaven (Long Island, New York) and DESY (Germany) high-energy physics facilities will attend that meeting and provide insights on public involvement activities at their laboratories. Members of the public are invited to attend this meeting.