Re: Tad McCall/Amherst Conference

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

In response to Richard Hugus:

More than anyone else in the federal government, Tad McCall is 
responsible for the high level of public participation that exists in 
the oversight of environmental activities at Federal Facilities. As 
Deputy Assistant Administrator at EPA in 92 (maybe earlier)-93, he 
chaired the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue 
Committee. When the report came out, he took it on the road and sold 
its recommendations. 

In his current Air Force position, he continues to be a cheerleader for 
public involvement. I have not only heard him tell the public about the 
importance of stakeholder involvement. I have heard him deliver the 
same message to predominantly military/industry audiences.

The system of direct public involvement that we now have is not based 
on the assumption that the military always wants to do the right thing. 
Rather, it provides those of us who are affected by military/regulatory 
decisions the opportunity nevertheless to influence the outcome.

If I lived on the Cape, I would share your frustration. (From a 
distance, I can only feel your pain.) I have at times been dismayed by 
proposals or conclusions that Tad has made at meetings. But I have 
always found him willing to listen to my side.

In fact, as an official Air Force spokesman, Tad appears to take some 
positions that contradict what he was pushing while at EPA. That goes 
with the territory. Just as he takes flak from activists, he also takes 
flak from "anti-environment" forces within the Air Force.

I have not discussed the Natural Resource Damage issue with Tad, but I 
suspect that the Air Force position at Otis is directly related to a 
debate, within the administration, on how to handle such damages within 
the Superfund law.

In organizing workshops and forums, we (CAREER/PRO) deliberately seek 
participation from people whose views or policies we sometimes oppose - 
including people who I do not defend as readily as I defend Tad. We 
believe that the cleanup process is aided by the dialogue, and that if 
we activists merely talk to ourselves, we won't get much done. In fact, 
I would like to hear Tad's response to your charge about cutting a 
deal, behind closed doors, on wellhead treatment. If you're right about 
his intent, he might even admit making a mistake. I've heard him do 
that, too.

Lenny Siegel