RE: Collaboration versus constructive engagement

[Michael Glaab <michaelglaab@worldnet.att.net>]

Hello Rich:

Thank you for your advice and input - especially for the URLs to the useful websites. 

"It's good that you approached them -- but did you give them something interesting / photogenic to write about or take pictures of? The media tend to assume that numbers of people and intensity of protest correlate with public interest."

You are probably correct in focusing on the media aspect of the dispute over carcinogen standards. Providing the media with titillating images is a perspicacious and wise suggestion. To my knowledge, no photos were provided by the RAB. Copies of documents which are available to the public were provided.

Interestingly enough, the local media was initially very attentive - at the beginning of the standards' dispute. Reporters attended RAB meetings and they also called RAB members and inquired directly of them. A definite change occurred almost immediately after the USEPA representative to the RAB announced at a meeting, attended by at least one reporter, that the USEPA would no longer oppose adherence to the less restrictive standards of the Army. Prior to then both the USEPA and the NJDEP appeared to be supportive of adherence to the more restrictive state standards. This was elaborated on in the following statements in my first "Collaboration versus constructive engagement"  message :

' Eventually the RAB decided to ask its local federal legislators in the House of Representatives and in the Senate to intercede. Shortly after this the EPA representative announced that he had been informed that his superiors had cited to him an internal memo which they interpreted such that the EPA would no longer oppose conformance to the less restrictive standards: OSWER Directive 9355.0-30  "Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions." '   

Media coverage declined noticeably immediately after this seeming retreat by the USEPA. Actually, this seems somewhat
odd since one might normally expect the media to be curious as to the reason for this seeming change in the USEPA's policy. After all, the result was that the NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection ( during the administration of Governor Christie Whitman ) was essentially left on the field of battle to fend for itself. More importantly, this policy change which occurred in the 1998 / 99 time frame has real national implications for all of us. I refer to my first message in the "Collaboration versus constructive engagement"  topic :

'Unfortunately, as we all probably realize, the term collaboration is associated with surrender and the aiding of one's enemy. Of course, sometimes even the distinction between 
"constructive engagement" and  "appeasement" is very, very fine indeed.'

Other Environmental Activist groups which are primarily active on the national level have confirmed that "Capping"  with "Natural attenuation" is becoming increasingly common throughout our republic. Frankly, I am concerned that
this tendency to merely cover contaminants without meaningful cleanup will produce short-term cost reductions at the expense of our all incurring a far greater cost in the long-run. 

But I digress - some assistance was provided by other environmental activist groups. For example, assistance was provided by the Center for Public Environmental Oversight -   http://www.cpeo.org and by other organizations. Various individuals associated with such groups such as ISIS  isis@hampshire.edu  offered personal advice or assistance. Several local environmental activist groups participated indirectly by having members on the RAB. One personal disappointment is the fact that an organization to which I have personally contributed for more than a decade has always declined to involve itself : NJPIRG. They request funds from me but they have not to my knowledge ever assisted.  

With respect to civic protest, prior to this dispute it appeared that the Arsenal truly had the confidence of the majority
of the general public. However, I currently prefer to withhold making such an assessment now. 

If a USEPA representative participating in this dialogue should decide to clarify this startling turnabout by the USEPA or to perhaps provide an additional insight into its reasons then please do not hesitate to do so. I am certainly aware of my own imperfections and I am accordingly willing to learn and to improve myself. In fact, this willingness is one of my reasons for participating in this dialogue wherein so many knowledgeable individuals have contributed their own insights. 

Rich, do not hesitate to contribute constructive advice. If any one else participating in this dialogue would like to do also do so then please do not hesitate to offer a suggestion.

Michael