Welcome and Introductions
David Bidwell of The Perspectives Group, facilitator for the Task Force, welcomed Task Force members to meeting. Members and other attendees introduced themselves. David explained that members Edi Eckley and Leroy Mitchell stepped down from the Task Force because personal obligations had diminished their ability to participate.

Craig Jones offered a correction to the summary for the May 25 meeting. In the discussion of the SSC site-selection process, the summary stated that service areas were required at 2-mile intervals along the accelerator ring. Craig stated that service areas were required at 5-mile intervals.

David reviewed the meeting agenda. This meeting was devoted to lessons learned from public involvement programs at other high-energy physics laboratories.

Lessons from Brookhaven National Laboratory
Marge Lynch, Assistant Laboratory Director for Community, Education, Government and Public Affairs at Brookhaven National Lab, spoke to the group about the public involvement efforts at her facility. Brookhaven is located on Long Island in New York.

Marge joined the laboratory staff at a time when Brookhaven was facing significant public criticism and negative publicity associated with the contamination of groundwater caused by the lab. The drop in public trust for the Brookhaven facility led to scrutiny by elected officials and the termination of the management contract for the laboratory. Marge stated that her goal in working with the community was to confront these crises and find a way to move the laboratory forward in its relationship with the community.

Marge stated that she operated on the principle that “building and maintaining trust with internal and external constituencies is strongly correlated to organizational success and effectiveness.” The laboratory developed a four-pronged approach to its problems: 1) commit to culture change, 2) ensure open, accurate, timely, systematic response to community inquiries, 3) focus on interested and impacted stakeholders, and 4) develop policy, plan and process for community involvement. She stressed the “key” to the success of this approach was the support it received from the lab director.

This process took two to three years to implement. The laboratory first discussed public involvement issues and best practices with people familiar with the laboratory and its challenges. Marge explained that these people helped the laboratory to draft a community involvement policy and plan that applies to all decisions at the lab. As a result of the policy and plan, the laboratory developed a standing Community Advisory Council, conducted community involvement training for all senior and middle managers, and began to closely track all correspondence between the laboratory and the community.

The Brookhaven Executive Roundtable, comprised of regulators and elected officials, helped the laboratory develop the Community Advisory Council (CAC). The CAC has focused primarily on environmental cleanup. The CAC determines its own agenda and manages its operations. Marge stated that consensus decisions made by the CAC carry tremendous weight at the laboratory and with the regulators.

Marge stressed that the CAC is not the only opportunity for the community to be involved in decisions at the laboratory. Brookhaven conducts issue-specific roundtables and workshops for interested community stakeholders. Also, laboratory outreach programs encourage employees to speak to community groups about the lab and provide education programs. Marge reviewed the lessons learned by Brookhaven. She said that public involvement results in better decisions, more informed community members and employees, and greater support and acceptance of the laboratory by the community and elected officials. She also noted that Brookhaven’s public involvement activities have received widespread recognition, including an award from the International Association for Public Participation.

Lessons from DESY
DESY (Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron) is a sister laboratory of Fermilab located in Hamburg, Germany. Petra Folkerts, Director of Public Affairs, spoke to the Task Force about public involvement efforts there. She explained that DESY has good relationships with the people of Hamburg. She credited this to the laboratory’s open campus, the availability of lab staff to answer questions, good relationships with local elected officials, and events for public outreach.

Petra explained that DESY’s experience with public involvement dates back to 1985, when the construction of the HERA accelerator required off-site tunneling. Eighty percent of the accelerator ring is beyond laboratory borders; it runs 25 meters below the surface, beneath residences, businesses, and a public park. Three days after off-site boring began, residents living above the tunneling activities experienced significant noise and vibrations in their homes. DESY employees went door-to-door, bearing flowers and apologies. After this event, DESY contacted people on the tunneling path, gave them contact numbers, and fully explained what to expect.

Petra stated that the secrets to good relationships with the public are individual contacts, timely information, and truthful information.

DESY would be the European site for a proposed linear collider, TESLA. Although it is not known if a linear collider will be built in Europe, DESY has already begun to build relationships with its neighbors regarding the project. The majority of the accelerator tunnel would be constructed beyond the borders of DESY. Because the tunnel would stretch 33 kilometers in a straight line, it would be constructed beneath communities that have little familiarity with DESY and its research.

As soon as the proposed pathway was set in 1996, DESY contacted the mayors of 15 small communities under which the project would tunnel. The director of the DESY laboratory made personal contact with the Administrator General of the district, who then invited the mayors to meet at a local inn. Following that meeting, these local officials helped DESY reach residents in their communities.

Currently, DESY is undergoing a project approval process that would legally solidify its plans for TESLA. Part of this process allows the public to raise objections to the project. Thus, DESY has undertaken an extensive outreach program to inform the community about TESLA. The laboratory has invited groups and individuals from the villages on the TESLA pathway to visit DESY, see its facilities, and sit down with experts to discuss the proposed project. DESY also hosted an open house for people living in these “TESLA villages.” Lab officials have attended meetings held by stakeholder groups to discuss the project. For the past several years, DESY staff members have made personal contact with individuals who are concerned about the project. In addition, the laboratory held a 5-month long “EXPO 2000,” which displayed 100 exhibits including video simulations of the project and life-sized models. More than 100,000 people attended this exposition.

If TESLA is to be constructed at DESY, Petra suggested that ambassadors from the laboratory should develop relationships with residents along the accelerator path and maintain contacts with these communities throughout construction. She estimated that one ambassador would be needed for each kilometer of the linear collider route.

Discussion of Lessons Learned
Marge and Petra answered questions posed by the Task Force members. Major discussion points are summarized below.

• Were there groups that felt left out of the Brookhaven CAC? Early on, some additional groups wanted to be a part of the CAC. Originally, an Executive Roundtable determined the stakeholder categories and how many representatives of each category should be on the council. Now, anyone who wants to be on the council must petition the council for membership. New members are sometimes accepted on a probationary level.
• What structure does the Brookhaven CAC use? The Brookhaven CAC uses an independent facilitator who sets agendas and guides discussions. Early on, there was little trust among the members, so it would have been difficult to choose a chairperson. As trust continues to build, the CAC may designate a chairperson. Council members have formed some very active committees that focus on specific topics.
• What is a manageable number of members for an advisory group? Brookhaven has found that the best council size is around 25 active members. In the beginning of the CAC, there were 33 members because there was so much interest in the site.
• What types of public involvement training does the Brookhaven staff receive? Before staff members speak to the council or other public groups, dry runs of presentations are conducted to make sure the message is focused on community concerns. During the crisis times, presentations were carefully monitored and speakers received a lot of instruction.
• Would a standing council be helpful for the linear accelerator project at DESY? Petra said they have not formed a standing council at this time. Marge stated that a standing council is appropriate only if there are many issues that are of high interest to the larger community. She stressed that Brookhaven provides many other opportunities for interaction and outreach programs. She stated that a standing advisory committee may not be appropriate for a single project.
• What is the annual budget for the Brookhaven CAC? The direct budget for the CAC is around $60,000. Most of that pays for the outside facilitator.
• What are the total resources spent on public involvement at Brookhaven? Marge stated that the total resources devoted to public involvement is difficult to judge. She estimated that the equivalent of one full-time employee is devoted to training and working with speakers. Public involvement also uses time of technical experts, who provide presentations and answer questions.
• Did DESY find it difficult to interest the public in an uncertain future project? Petra stressed the importance of informing the public early on and getting them familiar with a potential project. In the case of the proposed linear collider, it is particularly important for the lab to reach people who live far from the lab and may not be familiar with its work.
• What was DESY’s experience with tunneling below residences? There were no initial reactions to the tunneling. The reactions came when vibrations were felt in homes. DESY did its best to work with those residents and even allowed them to stay in residences at the lab while tunneling was occurring beneath their homes. Homes suffered no actual damages. Petra confirmed that the German government has to pay for the rights to tunnel beneath people’s property.
• If there are no major projects or prominent issues at Fermilab, would a standing committee be appropriate? Marge stated that a standing committee shouldn’t be pursued unless it is really needed. Brookhaven needed one during the crisis phase. Now that major environmental cleanup decisions have been made, Brookhaven has to figure out what is the role of the CAC. The CAC has expressed an interest in hosting conferences on the science taking place at the lab. Marge predicted that the CAC will start to meet less often as its mission continues to shift. Marge suggested that groups of stakeholders interested in specific issues could be brought in as those issues arise.
• How would having an advisory council have helped at Brookhaven when crises arose? Marge stated that an informed community would have made it easier to deal with the environmental issues that arose at the lab. She also noted that the lab runs its ideas and messages past the CAC first, in order to refine its approach before it goes to the rest of the community.
• How open to the public are Brookhaven and DESY laboratories? Brookhaven has always had a secure entrance due to the kinds of work that take place there. Also, the lab is in a fairly remote area of Long Island, so it has never been a major destination for the public. Brookhaven has sought opportunities to open the laboratory for public events; concerns about terrorism have not ended these events because public affairs has developed a good relationship with security. The DESY facility is completely open to the public.
• Does the CAC provide advice regarding the scientific mission of Brookhaven? Writing a charter for the CAC was difficult because the group wanted to be involved in all decisions at the lab. Marge said that the charter had to be realistic. However, she said that low public trust has affected many decisions at the lab and providing more outreach on environmental controls that are in place at the lab.
• Were elected officials and representatives involved in Brookhaven issues? Marge stated that everyone was angry with the laboratory when environmental problems came to light; this included a lot of criticism from prominent politicians. Creation of the CAC mitigated some of this criticism, because the lab included active environmental organizations as members of the council. Those organizations have a lot of contact with elected representatives. She also noted that elected officials give weight to opinions of the CAC.

At the speakers’ request, Task Force members shared reasons they wanted to be involved in the Task Force. Members stated that the laboratory is an important resource to the community and their relationship with the lab has been fairly positive in the past. Members discussed the impacts of the lab on development and transportation, as well as the importance of the laboratory as an open space resource. Members also discussed their dissatisfaction with public involvement during the SSC site-selection process.

Judy Jackson commented that every laboratory in the country learned from the experiences of Brookhaven. In part, this led to creation of the Task Force at Fermilab.

Comments on the SSC Process
David stated that the experiences of the Task Force members with the SSC process would be a key resource as the group as it develops recommendations. He provided the group with copies of articles from 1988, when the siting process was conducted. David reviewed a timeline of public participation opportunities provided in 1988. Following some informational meetings in January, there was a public hearing to discuss the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in February 1988. Based on public outcry during this hearing, the State of Illinois held public forums later in the year to discuss the project. In October 1988, the draft EIS was released and another hearing was held. This hearing was also contentious. In November, DOE awarded the SSC project to Texas.

Members of the Task Force pointed out that an EIS process could no longer be conducted within one year. David explained that the EIS requirement is part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which uses a broad definition of the environment and considers impacts to cultural resources and economics. Recent attempts to streamline the NEPA process have had only limited success. If a preliminary Environmental Assessment shows no significant impacts are anticipated, an EIS is not necessary. Any major project at Fermilab would be subject to NEPA requirements.

Next Meetings
David explained that this meeting marks the mid-point of the anticipated six-month Task Force schedule. The Task Force must define issues for which public participation is desired, develop recommendations for how the public should be involved in these issues, and create a final report.

At the July meeting the Task Force will develop a list of issues that would require Fermilab to conduct public involvement. David will assemble a list of community issues that have been discussed in previous meetings and were listed on a matrix developed by Alan Gard. This list will be a starting point for discussions in July.

The next meeting of the Fermilab Task Force on Public Participation is Tuesday, July 27, from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. at Fermilab’s Wilson Hall.