The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the headlines this Friday, Hurricane Gloria struck hard at the Northeast. Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze handed President Reagan a new arms control proposal. And two British women were kidnapped in Beirut. We will have the details of these and the other top stories in a moment. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: There are two main focus stories on the NewsHour tonight. With top U.S.-Soviet analysts, we examine the Reagan-Shevardnadze talks. Then the controversial Superfund for toxic waste cleanup -- we have a documentary report, and the head of the EPA debates his leading congressional critic. Finally, as the millions await its return to the airwaves tonight, essayist Bill Barol looks at the TV series Miami Vice. News Summary

MacNEIL: All last night and today, Hurricane Gloria churned up the Atlantic seaboard, driving half a million people inland but causing less damage than expected, although five deaths have been attributed to the storm. The first area to be hard hit was the coast of North Carolina. Correspondent Elizabeth Brackett has this report.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT [voice-over]: North Carolina coast residents returned home today to find heavy wind and rain damage, along with bright sunny skies. The high wind had ripped up fishing piers and damaged beachfront homes. Still, as hurricane-force winds and rains swept through North Carolina coastal towns last night, many residents feared damage would be a lot worse.

NANCY REEVES, resident: You know it's bad enough as it was. A lot of people were praying for us everywhere.

BRACKETT: What did you think you might find when you got back?

Ms. REEVES: A level building, probably. Well, I knew it would withstand winds of 130 miles an hour, but I didn't know how much more, you know. And I expected the roof to be gone and, you know, a lot of things to be gone. We were spared one more time.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Still, not everyone was spared. This 110-foot vintage sailboat broke loose from her moorings and slammed into this nearby bridge. But most storm refugees returned home to far more than they had dared to hope for.

[on camera] So the residents along the Carolina coastlines breathed a collective sigh of relief today. They had been prepared for the worst, and that made today's blue skies and bright sunshine all the more welcome.

MacNEIL: From the Carolinas, Gloria picked up speed, passed over the Maryland-Delaware-Virginia peninsula and up the New Jersey coast. The piers at Atlantic City were pounded by heavy waves, and the famous boardwalk was deserted. About 30,000 people were evacuated from Absecon Island, where the gambling casinos stand. In the big showy hotels, the 24-hour-a-day casinos were closed and the gambling tables stood silent. But the casino managers planned to reopen in time for the big Friday night crowds.

In New York City, the New York and American stock exchanges, many businesses and schools closed down for the storm. Its greatest force hit heavily populated Long Island. And correspondent June Massell reports on what happened when the storm hit.

1st MAN: So we figure another 15-20 minutes it's going to start to howl and the wind's going to start to blow and the house is going to shake just like The Wizard of Oz.

2nd MAN: The surf is all the way up here near the walk, and the waves are just breaking over with foam,and it just looks wild.

JUNE MASSELL [voice-over]: It may have looked wild for a time, but the worst predictions never came true. It was not the worst hurricane to hit Long Island this century. While the sea was rough and the winds strong, there was little beach erosion and minimal property damage.

FRANCINE FREEMAN, resident: We were standing at the boardwalk edge and we came over, and this really big wave came down, and the shed that usually stands right over there just got knocked right over.

MASSELL: This is Atlantic Beach. It separates the mainland of Long Island from the ocean. Most of the residents in this beach community have evacuated their homes.

[voice-over] But Francine Freeman refused.

Ms. FREEMAN: We just bought our house, so we didn't really want to leave.

MASSELL [voice-over]: Others played in the surf, waiting for the big storm to finally strike. In downtown Cedarhurst the streets were both flooded and deserted. Most people stayed home. Some power lines had fallen, and at times the winds were strong enough to uproot trees. While most shopkeepers had taped up their windows in anticipation of the disaster, the kosher meat market stayed open. Inside, the owners and their employees listened to the radio for updated weather reports. They had traveled from Brooklyn to Long Island this morning just to come to work. They even had candles ready in case the lights went out.

[interviewing] There are no customers here.

BEN BOLENDER, store owner: I'm waiting for customers. I have a big sale going on right now, but I'm waiting for the people. They can't pass. I'm flooded over here and the water's coming into the -- through the doors.

MASSELL [voice-over]: But the big floods never came, and even around two o'clock in the afternoon when the forecasters had said the worst would come, residents were still out on the beach, convinced that nature would be kind.

MacNEIL: Late in the day, the force of the storm was sharply reduced as it moved up the Connecticut river valley through western Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire. And the National Hurricane Center said Gloria did less damage than expected because it arrived at most places at low tide and because much of the coast was only grazed by the storm's weaker side on the west. New York's Mayor Ed Koch had another explanation. He said, "We scared the hell out of the hurricane and it went elsewhere." Jim?

LEHRER: There is a new nuclear arms proposal from the Soviet Union. It will be put on the table next week at the U.S.-Soviet arms talks in Geneva. Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze brought word of it today to President Reagan at the White House. Secretary of State Shultz said the proposal was contained in a letter to Mr. Reagan from Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that Shevardnadze delivered. Shultz said it was a welcome development.

GEORGE SHULTZ, Secretary of State: The counter-proposal is different from the position that they have been taking, and so we welcome that. Obviously the people who decided it are the new leadership. Whether the old leadership would have made the same decision or not, I don't know -- there's no way to tell. I do think that the situation, as a situation, should call forth efforts on both sides to try to get firmer control over nuclear arsenals and get them down.

LEHRER: The Soviets took the unusual step of conducting their own briefing afterward. The scene was the National Press Club two blocks from the White House. The Soviet spokesman talked about the proposals in general terms.

VLADIMIR LOMEIKO, Soviet Foreign Minister spokesman [through interpreter]: I can only emphasize once again that what we have here are important and concrete proposals. Concrete proposals dealing with the questions to be discussed in Geneva this November, and essentially they deal with the matters that are discussed in Geneva at the negotiations between the Soviet and American delegations. At present the problem is that the Soviet people and the American people and the entire world are engaged in a kind of race to the abyss. And as Mikhail Gorbachev has said, whether we like each other or not, we should coexist on earth.

MacNEIL: Another high-ranking Soviet spy has defected to the West and is being questioned by the CIA. Confirming news reports today, administration officials identified the agent as Vitaly Yurchenko, who defected last month in Italy, where he'd been stationed for the KGB. The official said Yurchenko had handed over vital information about many other Soviet agents. They also said another senior Soviet military agent had defected in Athens last May. He gave information about Soviet penetration of the Greek government, which led Washington to delay the planned sale of F-16 fighters to Greece.

LEHRER: Two British women were kidnapped in Beirut today. Police said gunmen forced them from their apartment in a mostly Moslem area of West Beirut and took them away in a car. The two were identified as Amanda McGrath, a 28-year-old teacher at American University, and Hazel Moss, a former restaurant manager who is 45 years old. They became the 12th and 13th Westerners still missing after being abducted by gunmen in Beirut. No group has yet claimed responsibility for today's kidnapping. Also on the Middle East today, as expected, President Reagan signed off on a new arms package for Jordan. Mr. Reagan called the arms "defensive" and said, "They will help King Hussein defend his people as he pursues peace with Israel." Congressional sources say the package includes 40 jet-fighter planes and 12 batteries of anti-aircraft missiles.

MacNEIL: The U.S. trade gap with other nations narrowed in August to the lowest this year, but the nation still appeared headed for a record trade deficit for the whole year. In August, Americans bought $9.9 billion more than they sold abroad, compared to $10.5 billion in July. Economist Fred Bergsten of the Institute for International Economics attributed the lower deficit in August to a slowing of the U.S. economy and therefore lower demand for foreign goods.

LEHRER: And finally in the news of the day, another Republican senator dropped out of the fray. Senator Charles "Mack" Mathias of Maryland said he would not seek reelection next year. Mathias is a 64-year-old liberal Republican who often voted against the Reagan administration. But he counted in the party division in the Senate, and his departure could further jeopardize the Republican majority. Two other Republicans, Paul Laxalt of Nevada and John East of North Carolina, have recently announced they will not run again, either. Mathias said at a news conference, the time had come for him to move on.

MacNEIL: Coming up on the NewsHour, analysis of the Reagan-Shevardnadze meeting, the new debate over toxic waste Superfund, and an essay on the TV series Miami Vice. Road to the Summit

MacNEIL: As we just reported, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze told President Reagan today that the Soviets will put a new arms control proposal on the negotiating table in Geneva. Secretary of State George Shultz said the new Soviet proposal was something that "comes forward [TEXT OMITTED FROM SOURCE] it is different from what they've been saying." The terms were not made public. They'll be formally presented at the U.S.-Soviet talks in Geneva next week. We look now at today's Soviet move in the long-running pre-summit chess game, first with Leslie Gelb, national security correspondent of The New York Times.

Has any word at all emerged unofficially, Mr. Gelb, about what the new Soviet proposal contains?

LESLIE GELB: No. Neither side is talking, and I suspect they reached an agreement today to keep quiet about it.

MacNEIL: What is the significance of that to you, as an experienced observer of these maneuverings?

Mr. GELB: I think it's kind of good, Robin. It indicates that neither side is going to play for a propaganda advantage, at least for the moment.

MacNEIL: Is there any hint that it conforms to the widely advertised proposal the Soviets have been supposed to be about to present, including a 40 reduction in their missiles?

Mr. GELB: Well, as you know, we've all been scrambling for weeks to see exactly what was coming. And I suspect that the rumors we heard about a 40 cut in overall forces and a 60 limit on land-based missiles probably is just about right.

MacNEIL: And that the quid pro quo for that 7that the Soviets would be demanding would be for the U.S. to abandon the Star Wars idea, the SDI?

Mr. GELB: Well, I don't think to abandon it, but to set strict limits on the research. And exactly where those limits can and should be set would then become the subject of any serious negotiations we would have.

MacNEIL: In addition to the possible agreement of the two sides not to discuss this publicly, is it also significant to you that the U.S. has just not dismissed it out of hand?

Mr. GELB: Sure. George Shultz saying today that it was new, different, something forward, is practically orgiastic rhetoric for him. He obviously thought that it was a serious proposal.

MacNEIL: He also, in the clip we just heard, described it as the counter-proposal.

Mr. GELB: That's right. The U.S. has on the table in Geneva right now a proposal to reduce nuclear missile warheads down to a common ceiling of 5,000, and within that ceiling, to have a limit of 2,500 missile warheads for the land-based missiles. And if you look at the kind of proposal we think the Soviets made, Robin, it gets pretty close to that.

MacNEIL: So this would be a reply from Mr. Gorbachev to a U.S. position that has been on the table in Geneva for some time.

Mr. GELB: That's correct.

MacNEIL: Now, you said that Shultz was uncharacteristically enthusiastic in his words about this. How much does the desire to get something actually agreed at the summit that's coming up in November, apart from the arms talks -- at the actual summit -- how much does that play into this? Is this a dynamic, do you think, in this situation?

Mr. GELB: In my judgment it's the key, because from conversations I've had with officials on both sides, it's clear to me that neither wants this summit to be a failure. And if at all possible, they want it to be a success, and a success is defined as some kind of significant agreement on the arms control issue.

MacNEIL: Well, Leslie Gelb, thank you.

LEHRER: A further look at all of this now with two proficient Soviet experts: Arnold Horelick, formerly with the CIA, now director of Soviet-Eastern European studies at the Rand Corporation and of the Rand-UCLA Center for the Study of the Soviet Union, and Dimitri Simes, a Soviet-born analyzer of the West at a Soviet think tank before emigrating to the United States in 1972. He is now a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Mr. Simes, is this something of substance and significance today, in your opinion?

DIMITRI SIMES: Well, one can only speculate about substance. We don't know what specifically was in the proposal Shevardnadze brought to Mr. Reagan. But I completely agree with Les. Knowing Mr. Shultz, who is a very careful man who usually can control his enthusiasm, the language he used suggested there was something specific in the proposal, and that is obviously significant. I do not expect a major breakthrough tomorrow, but at least in addition to public posturing, we probably now will have a second track of the U.S.-Soviet relationship: substantive negotiations. It is a modest step but an important one.

LEHRER: A modest but important step, Mr. Horelick?

ARNOLD HORELICK: Yes, I agree. I think we may for the first time in the negotiations since 1982 be in a situation where we were about to really close and to negotiate with each other. I believe the administration must have found something in the Soviet proposals placed before the President to justify the secretary's in effect saying "Now we are in a negotiating mode."

LEHRER: But what about the SDI part of the equation? The President has been so adamant about that. Must there have been something in this letter or in this proposal that gives them a way out, a way to give without having to give too much on SDI? Would that be you all's reading of it?

Mr. HORELICK: Well, I suspect actually -- and the reason I attribute so much significance to what the Soviets have done -- I don't think the Soviets got any advance assurance from the United States that the President is prepared to modify his position on SDI. To me this means that the Soviets are engaged in a full-court press. They are putting forward maybe not their final position; they are putting forward a position that has to be attractive enough to put pressure on the administration to put the SDI on the table. They're doing that, I believe, in advance of assurances from the United States that that will come about. Therefore I think they are banking very, very heavily on this proposal eliciting a positive response from Washington, and therefore I think the stakes involved right now are very high. And if we cannot at least get some agreement in principle on constraints on SDI and Soviet reductions, then we may end up in a serious deadlock and even a breakdown in negotiations.

Mr. SIMES: And Jim, this is the issue. As Arnold said, we are not talking about abandoning the SDI, certainly not abandoning SDI research altogether. We are talking about the nature of constraints, and that may be negotiable.

LEHRER: But there must have been something, would you all not agree, in that letter or in what Shevardnadze said that gave Shultz, at least, the feeling there was room to negotiate on SDI, which in the past the feeling was that there was not?

Mr. SIMES: Well, it was Gorbachev, actually, who said in his Time magazine interview that the fundamental SDI [unintelligible] research would be allowed. I understand that Shevardnadze elaborated on that a little bit during his meeting with Shultz on Wednesday. I suspect that these assurances were presented today.

LEHRER: So that it'll make it possible for both sides to save face out of that all-great negotiations --

Mr. SIMES: That is not going to be easy. I think that one mistake we should not make is to exaggerate the progress. For some months we were saying nothing was possible, nothing was going tohappen. Now there is an opposite danger, to become too euphoric. It was probably a first step forward, and the road is going to be long and tough.

LEHRER: In summit terms, Mr. Horelick, has Gorbachev for all purposes grabbed the initiative here and set the agenda, put SDI on the table and made arms control, in fact, the decider as to whether or not the summit is in fact successful?

Mr. HORELICK: I think that the Soviets, that Gorbachev has indeed made arms control the centerpiece of the summit, and I believe that the success or failure of the summit will depend on whether the United States and the Soviet Union can keep a negotiation going, can reach enough agreement, in principle at least, at the summit so that they can close on the issues. I doubt very much whether there can be a summit which both sides will describe as successful if there is a complete deadlock on the arms control issues.

LEHRER: Do you agree?

Mr. SIMES: One hundred percent. On the other hand, as Arnold suggested, we are talking about some understanding in principle. I presume you did not mean that an agreement would decide --

Mr. HORELICK: No, no.

LEHRER: But if it were up to the United States to have set the pre-summit agenda, do you think it would have turned out the way it has? And in fact, has Gorbachev done it? In other words, has he won round one?

Mr. SIMES: Let's speak realistically. The administration on many occasions suggested that arms control should be downgraded. And actually, if you speak about this objectively, analytically, I completely agree with the administration's intention. There are many other issues in the U.S.-Soviet relationship which may be more important than arms control. But we also discover that these other issues are either less symbolically important or completely undoable. So you end up with arms control or nothing. And I think the administration came to this realization, and I think they were as willing as Mr. Gorbachev to treat arms control as a centerpiece.

Mr. HORELICK: I think what Gorbachev succeeded in doing, though, with this letter and this concrete proposal, as it's now been characterized by both sides, is to put the ball in the U.S. court. Now the monkey is on the administration's back. The administration response today already precludes simply brushing it off. The next move is up to the administration, and the Soviets have paid some price for that. I doubt very much whether Gromyko in the normal mode of Soviet diplomacy would have recommended or would have wished to put on the table what is likely to be close to the best Soviet offer, absent advance assurance from the United States, that a deal in principle was possible. The fact that they were willing to do this suggests to me how strongly they want to put pressure on the American side now to respond before the summit.

LEHRER: And this is the new wave of leadership, this is Gorbachev, you see Gorbachev completely in this?

Mr. SIMES: I agree with Arnold's assessment completely. And you are dealing with people who first of all are increasingly self-confident. And of course today's appointed new prime minister, whose principal accomplishment is that he was Gorbachev's loyalist for some time, and my impression is that --

LEHRER: And of course, the prime minister does not have much power in the Soviet Union, say, compared to the prime minister of Britain or the prime minister of Canada.

Mr. SIMES: No, but he has a lot of power in the economic area. And the fact that Gorbachev was able to select his man enhances Gorbachev's power. But the point is that Gorbachev was able to put his team together. He has his party deputy, his foreign minister and now his prime minister -- people personally selected by him. It is a major success for a man who was in power during only six months. And I suggest that he brought two things to the West. First, that he may be a more effective opponent than any of his predecessors. But also, that he may be somewhat more forthcoming as a partner. More promising, but also deadly.

LEHRER: Les Gelb, do you think that the United States will now respond before the summit to this proposal? There will be serious conversations and -- obviously not an agreement, not a conclusion of any kind, but -- what do you think the U.S. is going to do now, in other words?

Mr. GELB: The next step is going to be in Geneva, Jim, where the Soviets have promised to detail what their proposal means. Now, at that point, as important as what happened today is, they're going to get into very, very difficult negotiations. On Star Wars, let's say, if the two sides want to negotiate about what is and what is not permissible in research, that is a highly complex, technical negotiation that in and of itself could last a very long time.

LEHRER: Like, you mean months, or --

Mr. GELB: Or years, for that matter.

LEHRER: Oh, my goodness.

Mr. GELB: Or years. Just that issue. It could be that complicated. On the offensive missile side, even with the kind of general breakthrough that could occur at the summit, they still get into extremely complicated issues. For example, what do you do about sea-launched cruise missiles? Our proposal doesn't say anything about that at all. The Soviets, in effect, want to ban them. What do you do about verification? What do you do about the medium-range missiles in Europe? Those negotiations, once the two sides get serious, become very complicated and will take a long time.

LEHRER: But, do you expect, based on what Shultz said today and other things that you have heard, that there will be basically a positive attitude toward resolving this now on the part of the United States?

Mr. GELB: I would say for the first time since the beginning of the Reagan administration, the two sides now have a basis for serious negotiations.

Mr. HORELICK: The first interesting thing and important thing that will happen as a consequence of the Gorbachev letter, it seems to me, is internal in the United States. Now the question is, what marching orders will the bureaucracies in the national security establishment get with respect to working out U.S. positions? Will they, for example, now begin considering ways to draw the line with respect to development and testing on the SDI, which is something that we haven't done up to date. The question is whether this proposal will break that log jam.

Mr. GELB: You have to study how to break that log jam. We haven't done that yet.

Mr. SIMES: And let me sharpen it a little bit and make it more political. There were moderates in the administration who wanted to make U.S. arms control positions somewhat more forthcoming. But moderates being moderates do not like to fight if they can avoid it. Now they've got a specific Soviet proposal which gives them both an incentive and puts them under pressure to present their case to the President. So I suspect that Mr. Gorbachev's proposal also will trigger an interesting debate on arms control inside the Reagan administration.

LEHRER: Let me ask each of you this finally. How about Shevardnadze in all of this? How does he come out? This is his big first whirl to the United States. What's the feel about him from the folks who have talked to him and dealt with him, Les?

Mr. GELB: They seem to like him personally, find him much easier to get along with than Mr. Gromyko, who was kind of dour. And he seems to fit into the Gorbachev style, which is more congenial to those of us obsessed by Western ways of doing things.

LEHRER: Is there a feeling that this would never have happened had Gromyko still been there?

Mr. HORELICK: Well, I didn't mean to suggest that if the overall Soviet leadership had reached the conclusion that this was an important thing to do, that Gromyko wouldn't have done it. But I don't think it's Gromyko's diplomatic style. I wouldn't exaggerate the difference that Shevardnadze has made. We haven't seen anything from Shevardnadze yet that suggests that he is more than an explicator of Soviet foreign policy, and I doubt very much at this point that he's really mastered arms control.

Mr. SIMES: The real difference is that Shevardnadze knows how to say no with a smile. And when Gromyko would say yes, you would feel that he wanted to insult you.

LEHRER: Yeah. But nothing's happened these last few days to make you think that he is really running things from --

Mr. GELB: We don't know.

LEHRER: Don't know. Still don't know, huh.

Mr. SIMES: But he's a quick study, and he's doing well for his country and for his mentor, Mr. Gorbachev.

LEHRER: I hear you. Gentlemen, thanks, all three. Robin?

MacNEIL: Still to come on this NewsHour, the new fight about funding the Superfund to clean up toxic waste dumps. The head of the EPA debates his chief critic. Then essayist Bill Barol of Newsweek critiques the TV series Miami Vice. Superfund: Making a Difference?

MacNEIL: On Monday, the so-called Superfund law to clean up the nation's toxic waste dumps is due to expire. That's true even though the Senate voted yesterday to renew and expand the law, setting aside $7.5 billion for cleanup over the next five years. So far the House has failed to act, and President Reagan has threatened to veto the Senate version because it includes a new tax on business. So all signs point to a continuing political debate over the future of Superfund even while its past still generates controversy. In the four years since the law took effect, the Environmental Protection Agency says it has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to begin cleanup at dumpsites, but not everyone has been satisfied, especially in the neighborhoods near those sites. One such troubled town is Pitman, New Jersey, which, as we see in this report from June Massell, has a special distinction when it comes to toxic waste.

JUNE MASSELL [voice-over]: On the surface, Pitman, New Jersey, would seem to have what all small towns yearn for: rustic charm, congenial people and a beautiful setting. But that's on the surface. Pitman, New Jersey, is the number one hazardous waste site in the nation.

MARLENE McKEFFREY, resident: The more I learn, the more terrified I become. I think it would be impossible to sit back and not do anything at this point. We're fighting for our lives, for our health, and I don't know what counts more.

MASSELL [voice-over]: Marlene McKeffrey knew there was a problem when she and her family bought their house on Alcyon Lake two and a half years ago. But it was described as a small problem that would soon be corrected. That proved to be untrue.

Ms. McKEFFREY: We have seen greenish streams coming down. We have seen big globs of black things -- I couldn't begin to identify what they are. And tremendous odors. I can't imagine that there isn't a house on this street that you'd go into that people don't have a small fortune in air fresheners or air conditioners, because the -- I want to say aroma; that's hardly it -- the stench is so tremendous.

MASSELL [voice-over]: The source of the problem is the LiPari landfill, a 16-acre dumpsite now enclosed that is a thousand feet from Alcian Lake and a hundred yards from nearby homes. From 1958 to 1971, Nick LiPari, under contract to local industries, dumped over three million gallons of 155 different chemicals here. Nothing was done for 12 years. During that time, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that daily 100,000 gallons of leachate, water mixed with chemicals, were moving down from the landfill and into Alcyon Lake.

Ms. McKEFFREY: The thing that's most frightening about the chemicals is the fact that they are not contained within the landfill -- they're not contained even under the level of the water in the lake. They do get into the soil. They can be airborne.

MASSELL [voice-over]: Pat and Doug Stuart have lived in Pitman across the street from Alcyon Lake for eight years. They bought the house before their sons were born, and, like most of their neighbors, didn't worry much about the landfill until early this year.

PAT STUART, resident: We didn't have anybody knocking at our door saying that, you know, you're in danger, so we kept thinking, well, they're taking care of it. And then we heard that they were going to build a containment system, so we said, well, it's going to be taken care of. And you know, we kind of were real laid back about it.

MASSELL [voice-over]: The Stuarts were jolted out of their complacency last January when they attended an EPA meeting and realized how little they knew about toxic chemicals. They immediately began reading medical reports which listed the names of the chemicals in the landfill. One that was particularly disturbing to the Stuarts was a carcinogen called Bis(2 -- ).

DOUG STUART: It talked about how it got into your fatty tissue and it affected the mucous membrane. It was at that point that our youngest -- our oldest now -- started getting this wheezing in the respiratory.

Ms. STUART: I kept thinking, well, that's what they've got, you know, that they do this coughing and all. And I kept thinking, well, is it related? I mean, I don't know. We would ask the doctor and he would say, well, he didn't know, it could be.

MASSELL [voice-over]: Most unsettling for Pat was a report from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection saying that Bis(2 -- ) had been found in Pitman's air in 1979.

Ms. STUART: In '79 I was pregnant, and we were always down by the lake, you know. And I kept thinking, nobody told me this. They didn't tell me then, so what aren't they telling me now? And that's what I used to get really upset and start crying.

MASSELL [voice-over]: When they realized that the EPA would decide on a long-term solution for the site in late September, the Stuarts and their neighbors formed a community association. They wanted to find out what the alternatives were and what had already been done. What they learned was not comforting.

Mr. STUART: We're about 200 feet from the containment wall, which was constructed a year ago. And we have standing chemicals still outside that area.

MASSELL [voice-over]: The clay wall that was supposed to contain the chemicals is leaking -- 2,500 gallons a day, according to EPA estimates. The group also learned that there are many more chemicals in the landfill than they had originally been told --155 in all.

WOMAN: Look at the different kinds of PCBs there are. You know PCBs are very harmful. Benzene.

MASSELL [voice-over]: Most of the community's fears are health-related: fears that the drinking water may be contaminated or the air or both. The EPA took samples of the city's water last March to test for chemicals, and the air over the landfill has been monitored for some time. But there are still no test results, and the residents are worried. Gloucester County has the highest cancer rate in the state.

2nd WOMAN: There were four cases of acute monoblastic leukemia, which is rare.

1st MAN: It's very rare.

2nd WOMAN: Yes. And a high incidence of anacephalic babies in the area. I knew there were four born in 1984, and in 1985 we've had seven.

3rd WOMAN: Every child that's born here, every child that lives around here, they all have respiratory problems.

2nd MAN: My attacks, not only when they're really bad, they're not only respiratory attacks -- you know, sinus problems and chest pains and irritation of the throat -- but I also have some muscle pain.

MASSELL [voice-over]: On August 15th the EPA gave the town a 450-page feasibility study and just two weeks to respond. A long-term solution the government appears to favor would flush the chemicals out of the existing containment system over a period of 15 years. The group finds that unacceptable because it would not remove all the chemicals.

Ms. STUART: At the EPA meeting in August, a resident stood up and said, "What percent of chemicals in there are water soluble? Like, what are we talking about this is going to take out?" And the EPA just shrugged their shoulders and said, "You know, we don't know." "You mean you're going to do this for 15 years and you don't how many chemicals you're going to get out of there?" And they said, "Well, isn't it better than not doing anything at all?" Our stance is if it's not going to work, we don't want it. And we really don't think it's going to work. It still leaves a lot of the chemicals in the containment system, and the containment system is failing.

3rd MAN: Superfund expires (September 30th) at the end of the month. And what kind of refunding will be done -- they will do something, but we're not quite sure what. We're trying to get as much support for as much Superfund as we can.

MASSELL [voice-over]: What the community wants is total removal of the toxic wastes. The EPA gave no real consideration to this alternative because the agency said it was too costly. But Pitman, New Jersey, is not giving up.

Mr. STUART: In one week, EPA will decide our fate. If they are allowed to proceed with this band-aid solution at the country's number one toxic site, then what the hell's going to happen to all those other toxic sites across this country? There's no hope for them. We make our stand here.

LEHRER: That report by correspondent June Massell. We hear now from Lee Thomas, head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

First, on Pitman, New Jersey. Why can't you just remove that toxic waste site?

LEE THOMAS: That site, just like many sites around the country, it's technically impossible to think in terms of trying to excavate and remove wastes that have often seeped deep into the ground, gone into our groundwater. And if we removed them, where would we take them? What we would have to do is develop a treatment approach just like we're putting in place there. What we want to do is clean that site and clean the contaminated groundwater that's around that site.

LEHRER: It'll take 15 years? It can't be done any quicker than that?

Mr. THOMAS: When you're talking about contaminated groundwater, and that's what we're talking about at over half these sites we face around the country, about the only way to deal with it is through a pump, treat, remove the chemicals, reinject, pump again, until you've cleansed that system.

LEHRER: In other words, you pump the water out, clean it, and then put it back in?

Mr. THOMAS: You put it through a treatment system. We actually put a treatment plant on place. You pump the water out, you treat it, you reinject it, and generally you'll have to go through a series of those kind of pump-and-treat operations to cleanse that water.

LEHRER: And that would take 15 years.

Mr. THOMAS: In this case that's the estimate for that site. We've got some sites that it would be estimated to take longer than that.

LEHRER: In the meantime, what do the folks in places like Pitman, New Jersey, do? What do you suggest that they do?

Mr. THOMAS: Well, what we've done at that site, as we do at many, is we've gone in and we've contained the site, we've tried to contain the risk as best as possible.

LEHRER: Contain meaning it isn't -- they say it's leaking outside the containment walls.

Mr. THOMAS: It is. It is. We've spent $4.5 million at that site. We'll probably spend another $10 to $20 million at that site as we move forward. But it is a classic example of one of the complex sites that we try to deal with.

LEHRER: Do you think that EPA is dealing with this as vigorously as it should be?

Mr. THOMAS: We are.

LEHRER: Have you always been?

Mr. THOMAS: I will say during the last three years I've been at EPA, I know we're moving as aggressively as we can move.

LEHRER: What do you say to the man who said if Superfund goes, then the whole effort goes?

Mr. THOMAS: I'm not sure I know what you mean.

LEHRER: The man said on the tape that the Superfund is about to expire and if that is not taken care of, then all of the toxic waste cleanup is going to go down the tubes.

Mr. THOMAS: Well, I agree with his emphasis on reauthorization of Superfund. We've been pushing hard for it. We need to expand it and reauthorize it for at least another five years. We've called for tripling the size of the fund.

LEHRER: What is your assessment of how well the Superfund project -- or the Superfund has operated up 'til now?

Mr. THOMAS: Well, I think we got off to a slow start, but I think we've got real strong momentum in the program. I think we've cleaned up numerous sites that present an immediate risk. I think we're prioritizing many other sites; we've got action under way at hundreds of sites. So I think we've got strong momentum in the program. What we need Congress to do now is complete reauthorization, give us more money, give us the time to let's get on with this problem.

LEHRER: What do you say to the groups that say that in all of this time only six sites nationally have actually been cleaned up by EPA?

Mr. THOMAS: That's just not accurate. Let me set that record straight. If there's a site with an immediate problem, we go out and try to clean it up, and we've cleaned up over 300 of those sites, sites that present a long-term chronic risk. In the statute, Congress said put those on a priority basis, get into them and clean them up completely. LiPari is an example of a site like that. We've identified --

LEHRER: That's not considered an immediate one, that's not an emergency one.

Mr. THOMAS: The immediate risk problems, we try to go in and stabilize, but obviously that's a long-term problem. Four and a half million dollars is an example of trying to stabilize that site as we determine what's the long-term solution. Now, any number of sites we've completed work. We've totally cleaned it up and we've moved away. That's the over 300. But the long-term chronic risk sites, we've identified about 850 of those so far and we are constantly updating that list. We have construction work under way at over 400 of those sites. We've completed that work at about 20. And about six we've taken off that list. Now, we're not going to take them off the list for a long time, many years. The measure is not how many you take off the list; the measure is how many you get on there, how much construction work you get under way, how many you complete so you can begin to monitor the effectiveness.

LEHRER: So the number six are those that you've gone in and cleaned up, and you've cleaned them up so well and so completely that they're no longer considered toxic?

Mr. THOMAS: Well, it was early, it was the early part of the program; we took six off of the list -- even those we continue to monitor to see how effective that cleanup was. So the literal number that have been cleaned up, if you look at the list, if you look at the emergency cleaned up, is over 300 sites.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: We're also joined by one of the biggest critics of the administration's handling of the toxic waste situation. He is Democratic Congressman James Florio of New Jersey, the chief congressional architect of the Superfund law. He joins us tonight from public station WHYY in Philadelphia

Congressman, first on the Pitman situation. Mr. Thomas suggested it was technically impossible to do what that group of residents wanted -- that was to pull out all the toxic substance. What is your solution there?

Rep. JAMES FLORIO: Well, first of all, it's not technically impossible. It is something that can be done -- in the long run is going to end up being cheaper than what it is they're doing now, which is to spend $4 million, effectively wasting the $4 million with the problem still there. So they're going to have to do it sooner or later, and they may as well do the more cost-effective permanent removal earlier rather than later, while we waste time and jeopardize people's health.

MacNEIL: Superfund was your idea originally. How do you think it has worked out?

Rep. FLORIO: Oh, I think it's fairly clear that it's a national disaster. There's a national coalition of people that are evolving around the country. There's 20,000 sites that EPA says exists, and there's virtually no cleanup that's being done. That Mr. Thomas, in the short period of time that he's been there, has learned the bureaucratese to distinguish between cleanups and to make distinctions between noncleanups. The fact is that there are six sites that are cleaned up. The other actions that have been taken literally entail in some instances opening files to count them as initiating work.

MacNEIL: He says 300 have been cleaned up.

Rep. FLORIO: Well, I think it's interesting to note that the GAO, the General Accounting Office, said that many of those efforts have really entailed moving toxic wastes from one bad, site to another site that is equally as bad that will end up being a toxic waste cleanup site as well. A site very close to Lapari, the Bridgeport Rental, was regarded as an emergency cleanup activity. And in fact, what they've done is to, on four occasions now, pump water out of the lagoon that's about to overflow every time it rains. The toxics are still there; the site is still a danger to people's health; but it's regarded as one of those cleanup efforts that Mr. Thomas is bragging about.

MacNEIL: He said that while they had a slow beginning, that they've got real strong momentum in the program now. What is your reaction to that?

Rep. FLORIO: Well, I guess my reaction is that the six sites that we talk about were six sites that were cleaned up by Mrs. Burford. There haven't been any sites that have been cleaned up and removed off of the national priorities list under the administrations of Mr. Ruckelshaus and Mr. Thomas. The key thing, I think, is that there has been a reluctance to go after the polluters, because the law says that the polluters are to pay. LiPari -- LiPari up until just a few days ago, the people who we know that caused the problem have not been sued for reimbursement to clean up the sites. The law says that spending money involves the need to get the money back from the polluter, and the administration appears not to want to spend the money, presumably because it doesn't want to try to get the money back from the polluter.

MacNEIL: What kind of bill do you think realistically now is needed? The Senate has passed one; Mr. Reagan says he would veto the Senate bill because it contains a certain provision. You weren't able to get everything you wanted in the House bill. What kind of bill realistically do you think would serve the purpose now?

Rep. FLORIO: Well, I think the bill that passed the House last year by 323-33 is a bill that is strong enough, that was a compromise version at that point, to give the tools to EPA to clean up if they want to clean up. What we're facing now is an effort to make us take choices between two unsatisfactory bills. The President has said that he's going to veto the Senate bill, which is the weaker of the two bills, not because it's too weak but because it's too strong.

MacNEIL: Mr. Thomas, the congressman says this is a national disaster, not a program where there is great new momentum, but a national disaster, and he insists that only six sites have been cleaned up, none of them under yours or Mr. Ruckelhaus' administration.

Mr. THOMAS: Well, the congressman knows he's wrong. It's not a national disaster, and fortunately the majority of the members of Congress don't agree with Congressman Florio. He knows that we've cleaned up hundreds of sites in this country. The Bridgeport site he mentioned -- we have stabilized that site. We've taken action there while we determine the long-term remedy, and we've just approved $50 million to put in place a long-term remedy to clean that site up. He knows what the facts are, and unfortunately he's misrepresenting those facts. I think we've got a strong program.

MacNEIL: Gentlemen, how can you each sit in different cities and say totally diametrically opposed things? Congressman, he says that 300 sites have been cleaned up, and that you know it.

Rep. FLORIO: The key is that you've got to learn the jargon, that when you move something from one site -- and Mr. Thomas has already publicly conceded the fact that he knows that EPA has moved toxic wastes to sites that themselves are in violation of the law and that are leaking into underground drinking water systems. If you want to call that a cleanup because you have moved waste from one site to another, you can call it a cleanup. I call it toxic waste checkers, and I think the bottom line is how many sites are off the national priority list. That is the list that constitutes substantial hazards to people's health, that EPA is charged with acting upon.

MacNEIL: How about that, Mr. Thomas? How many sites are off that list?

Mr. THOMAS: Well, it's not the measure of how many come off the list; it's how many we get on the list and how we get the cleanup moving on them. They're not going to come off that list for years. We're not going to take them off until we have monitored the site and are sure that they're completed. Now, that's where the number six comes from in. But that number's not going to grow fast. The number that's going to grow fast is how many we've got on the list, which now is 850 -- we just added 38 last week -- and the number where we've got construction under way, and that's over 450 on that list.

Rep. FLORIO: I think there you sort of have the answer, that only six have come off the list and one is bragging about the fact that the problem is getting bigger, that we're adding sites to the list. I suppose the bottom line is going and talking to the people at Lapari and going and talking to the people at the 900 sites around the country and the 20,000 EPA says exists that are not even on the list yet, and to see if they're satisfied with what it is that's been going on.

MacNEIL: Congressman, I'd like to get one thing clear in my own mind. The program has had money in the last few years. Why -- what motive do you ascribe to this EPA under its new management for doing what you -- for dragging its feet as you claim it is doing?

Rep. FLORIO: Well, I suspect that there is a reluctance to go and to spend the money, because as I said, the law requires you to go and get the money back to replenish the fund. They've spent $1.6 billion in the last five years to clean up these six sites, and of the money they've spent in cleaning up those sites, they've only gotten back $5 million by way of reimbursement from the individuals they've spent these monies on the sites from. That's not a very good record.

Mr. THOMAS: Robin, that's just so preposterous to hear those kind of charges. The congressman knows we've spent the money; he knows we've spent the money to clean up sites; he knows we've got an aggressive enforcement program where we've gotten over $500 million in private party cleanup committed to go along with the $1.6 billion that we've had in the fund. He knows we have an aggressive program, and what we need now is for Congress, including Congressman Florio, to complete this reauthorization, give us five more years, give us a lot more money and let's keep this cleanup program moving.

MacNEIL: Congressman?

Rep. FLORIO: Well, I think it's interesting to note, the word was "committed." You've got to be very careful in these words. We're having words that don't mean anything. When you say you recoup money, it might be a good opportunity to get from Mr. Thomas whether he agrees with the fact that of the money they have spent in cleaning up sites, whether they have received back only $5 million by way of suing the individuals that caused the problem and getting reimbursement back to --

MacNEIL: Is that true, Mr. Thomas?

Mr. THOMAS: The point of getting the money back -- actually it takes us on average three to four years to clean a site, then we go to court to recoup the money if we haven't gotten it up front. We have recouped about $20 million of the money we've spent. That will grow gradually over the next few years as we get more and more court cases. The congressman knows we've got a very strong enforcement program and he knows that what we need right now is to get this program reauthorized in the Congress. And if he will move, we will get the House to take action.

Rep. FLORIO: Let me just acknowledge the need to reauthorize the program, and justsay that it was the administration, EPA and Mr. Thomas quite personally, involving themselves in the legislative process last year, after we passed the bill, that killed the legislation in the Senate. That we would have a legislative -- piece of legislation right now with $10 billion for Mr. Thomas to use with stronger enforcement provisions, that would put him on a deadline, that would have mandatory standards, but for the administration's active participation in killing the bill last year and their threats now to veto in the Senate a relatively weak bill.

MacNEIL: He says the obstacle's with you, Mr. Thomas.

Mr. THOMAS: Robin, that bill that was passed by the House last year was a very bad bill. It was very flawed. I think in fact it would have absolutely dragged us down to nothing if we had tried to implement it. Clearly the Congress didn't pass it; they agreed with us.

MacNEIL: We have a minute left, gentlemen. And on Monday the Superfund runs out and expires. What's going to happen if there's no new bill, Mr. Thomas, briefly?

Mr. THOMAS: We've got enough money to maintain the emergency portions of that program, the enforcement portions of that program, and they will continue as very strong elements of that program. Fortunately the hundreds of people around these sites know that we're working hard. They're working with us. We've got strong community participation, and we'll run it.

MacNEIL: Congressman, what's going to happen?

Rep. FLORIO: Well, we're going to try to have an effort to get a 45-day extension in the Congress while we work at the effort of putting some teeth into the law to finally get around to cleaning up toxic waste.

MacNEIL: Well, gentlemen, I'd like to thank you both for joining us this evening. Thank you. Miami Vice: Beautiful But Dumb?

LEHRER: Finally tonight, an essay that could make some people mad. They are the producers, promoters and fans of a hot television program called Miami Vice, which launches its second season tonight. Our essayist is Bill Barol of Newsweek magazine.

BILL BAROL: Miami Vice was nominated for an extraordinary 15 Emmys this year, which says more about how bad TV is than how good Miami Vice is. Sure, the show looks great, in a flashy, quick-cutting MTV kind of way. It's full of sharp clothes and fast cars and $200 haircuts and sharp clothes, and the jittery electronic score is one of the best on TV. But viewers have been snookered by the look and sound of Miami Vice; under the flash and glitz, this isn't a very good show.

Consider the program's heroes: Sonny Crockett and Ricardo Tubbs, two detectives who dress like criminals. Did I mention the sharp clothes? Crockett and Tubbs are very snappy dressers, even if they don't have much regard for messing up their suits. Their particular look, a mixture of high fashion and low-down casual funk, has even trickled down into the glossy magazines and the boutiques. There's now a Miami Vice collection of formal wear from After Six. The look is a little improbable, of course. The one thing real-life street cops don't tend to be is fashion plates. The French Connection's Popeye Doyle in his battered porkpie hat and crummy overcoat is much closer to the real thing.

But Miami Vice has a certain internal logic which dictates that nobody asks any questions. If I were a Miami taxpayer I'd want to know who was paying these guys' American Express bills. I'd also want to know how Crockett can afford to keep a speedboat moored at one of the local marinas and why through much of the first season he chose to share it with a live alligator named Elvis. My guess is that we're supposed to find Crockett a lovable eccentric for living in close quarters with a live man-eating gator. Supposed to be charmed by the fact that he's named the gator Elvis. Similarly, I guess, we're supposed to so dazzled by the imported champagne the detectives drink, the custom Corvette they drive and the posh nightclubs they frequent, that we don't ask the obvious question: where do two municipal employees get the money to live like this?

Implausibility isn't the only problem here. The show's acting is terrible and so is the dialogue. Take last week's rerun episode, for example. It was a veritable catalogue of cop-show cliches. There were the silky smooth international arms dealer, the renegade undercover officer bent on self-destruction, a slow-motion shooting a la Bonnie and Clyde, and then there was the dramatic revelation of Sonny's shameful past -- this taking place, by the way, in what must surely be the only art deco gas station in North America. As Sonny confesses that he didn't do enough to defend a gay cop, Ricardo plays father confessor.

[clip from "Miami Vice"]

BAROL: It isn't Shakespeare. Maybe I'm being a little crabby here, but as a fan of the cop story, I do have a hard time accepting the extravagant praise that's been showered on Miami Vice. Detective stories, whatever else they may be, cannot afford to be fantastic. The best detective writers have placed their creations squarely in the real world, the gritty, dirty real world. The best fictional cops draw their power from this setting. Think about Philip Marlowe as written by Raymond Chandler and played by Humphrey Bogart. Or Spencer, the hero of Robert B. Parker's superb detective novels, now an ABC series. Or Frank Furillo, the spiritual center of the Hill Street station house. Every one is a good man in a bad world, trying his best to keep honor alive. Crockett and Tubbs? They may look great, but essentially they're bimbos, empty-headed clothes horses with nothing to say and nothing to prove. Miami Vice is beautiful, but it's dumb.

MacNEIL: Once again, the main stories of the day. Hurricane Gloria struck the Northeast, but not as hard as predicted. The Soviet foreign minister made a new arms proposal to President Reagan. Two British women were kidnapped in Beirut.

Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin. Have a nice weekend. We'll see you on Monday night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.