“What was that?”NuMI: A case study in public participation

Judy JacksonFermilab 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?”