Cleaning Up

LAST FRIDAY the Labor Department issued an emergency regulation which slashed by almost 75 percent the amount of asbestos workers may be exposed to in asbestos-related industries. Labor Secretary Raymond Donovan said as many as 375,000 workers will be safer now, predicting that as a result of the regulation, an average of three deaths per 1,000 workers will be saved.

Such actions by the government deserve praise at any time. But unfortunately it's also a sad commentary on the current Administration that this type of news receives so much publicity and merits front-page status at all. In fact this particular case possesses a double irony--firstly that the asbestos problem is miniscule compared to the overall national catastrophe of toxic substances, and secondly that it was solved by the Labor Department instead of the EPA, where the true mandate lies for cleaning up America.

Few bureaucrats have been greeted with the level of near-euphoria accorded to new EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus earlier this year, who has been characterized variously as "Mr. Clean," "Mr. Integrity," and "Mr. Fairness." After his appointment, even environmental groups remained silent for a time, appearing almost too scared to combine their shared criticism and hoping against hope for a change in the bureau's policies. For here again one can see an irony of contrast because William Ruckelshaus looked wonderful compared to Anne Burford, his predecessor. So far he has done little to deserve this praise.

A look at his actions thus far tells the story. In the past few months, the EPA has focused on image and cosmetics, which logically follows the large amount of political gloss placed on Mr. Ruckelshaus' appointment. Since taking office, he has spent a great deal of his time visiting regional offices--doubtless a good way to rebuild morale, but not worth the effort if the visits lack substance. And apparently they have, to some extent. So far this year these same regional offices, the backbone of the EPA, have sent 35 percent fewer cases than last year to Washington for prosecution. Even considering post-Burford paralysis, this is disgraceful for an EPA chief who pledged enforcement to be high on his list of priorities. And perhaps most alarming of all, Ruckelshaus has shown a decided bias towards "risk-management," or the balancing of the harms of dangerous substances against their benefits to society. Although not inherently wrong--all substances possess at least some risk--Ruckelshaus has utilized this approach too broadly, to the detriment of harmful substance banning. This approach, while less confrontational, is still fundamentally identical to the previous method employed by the EPA.

The real need for EPA action lies in the area of toxic wastes. In deed Mr. Ruckelhaus owes his current job to a failure to meet this need. Such problems as are and, to a lesser extent, water pollution have been addressed in the last decade, and great progress has been made. But Congress realized three years ago that contamination of our world by deadly chemicals could dwarf all previous environmental problems combined. To battle this growing disaster, they created the so-called "Superfund," a $1.6 billion appropriation to the EPA for locating toxic waste, prosecuting law-breakers, and enforcing clean-up and prevention. Mrs. Burford's mismanagement of this fund--including an unaccounted loss of $53.6 million of it--prompted her investigation by Congress and eventual resignation. Mr. Ruckelshaus should concentrate his efforts in this area; obviously he has not done enough as yet.

BUT THERE IS some hope. Through no fault of his own, Ruckelshaus seems to have helped break a log jam in Congress on environmental legislation. Last Thursday (significantly just a day before the Labor Department's asbestos action) the House passed on to the Senate a bill closing many of the remaining loopholes in existing toxic waste law. This is the first major antipollution move made by Congress since the Reagan Administration took office. In addition to the absence of Mrs. Burford, analysts believe that the departure of Secretary of Interior James Watt also aided proponents of the legislation to overcome conservative resistance.

Ruckelshaus is not solely to blame for all of this foot-dragging, however. Not only are there other agencies, Congressional requirements, and legal hurdles to contend with, but there is also the underlying philosophy of the Reagan Administration to consider. Ruckelshaus himself affirmed this in an interview two months ago; in answer to a question concerning why he thought the public initially (and perhaps still) viewed the Administration as anti-environment, he responded:

The distinction between economic and social deregulation was not made clearly. Deregulation may make a lot of sense in the economic sphere, but (in the environmental area) we're talking about rationalization of regulation--making it work better; more efficiently, and be more target-specific. These was a confusion of ends and means.

Let's hope this confusion is cleared up in the months to come and that the Congressional environmental concern continues. There is no inherent contradiction between what the Administration wants and a healthy environment. Only the Administration's method in making a healthy environment should be different. Ruckelshaus has a key note in having an impact on environmental issues. So far he has not need her positions to full advantage. Paul W. Green