National Issues in Science and Technology 1993 (1993)

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

As part of the information made available by the Academy complex for the incoming Clinton administration, the presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine authorized the preparation of brief summaries of ten, potentially high impact reports issued during the previous 18–24 months by various committees of the National Research Council (NRC), which they jointly manage. The summaries, which are representative of the more than 200 reports produced annually by the NRC, were selected on the basis of (a) their relevance to current national policy concerns, (b) the extent to which their major conclusions and recommendations remain unimplemented, and (c) the extent to which they represented the major program elements of the institution. In all, ten summaries are presented, representing the work of eight program units of the NRC. At the end of each summary, the name of the relevant contact person is provided, along with the full title of the report summarized.

Report Summary

Food and Nutrition Board

Institute of Medicine

People can reduce the risk of several chronic diseases by their choice of foods. This fact has been disseminated widely and most Americans are aware of it. By the late 1980s a majority of Americans surveyed knew that a high-fat diet increases the risk of heart disease. Fewer people, but still a sizable proportion of the population, also knew that dietary fat is a risk factor for high blood pressure and cancer and that salty foods are related to hypertension.

Many people are trying to change their eating patterns, but there is such an array of processed foods available, it is not easy to know how well one is eating. Consumption surveys reveal considerable confusion. While people are eating more vegetables, fruits, and grains—a healthy sign—they also are consuming more high-fat cheeses, rich ice creams, snack foods, candy, beer, and wine. In other words, just telling people they should change their diets to improve their health and leaving the rest up to them isn't enough. There must be a better balance between individual and societal responsibilities. This means that society as a whole—government at different levels, the food industry, restaurants and supermarkets, health care professionals, educators, and the media—should be involved in helping consumers choose healthier foods.

About five years ago, the federal government and several private organizations issued recommendations based on what is known about the relationship of diet and various diseases. Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies adopted a Food Pyramid, the new good guide that embodies these recommendations, replacing the Basic Four.

Where does the country go from here? As policymakers study ways to contain health care costs, it becomes apparent that preventing disease and promoting good health makes sound economic sense. It follows then that encouraging dietary changes and making it easier for Americans to eat a diet that reduces the risk of chronic diseases fits into the nation's health care needs.

A concerted effort, not unlike the broad program mounted to convince Americans to stop smoking or not to start smoking, is needed. Although smoking, as an addictive habit, is very different from eating, the campaign to change eating habits also must be waged on several fronts. Antismoking efforts extend to restrictions in public buildings and work places; examples of nonsmoking by famous people; education by school teachers, health providers, and the media; and programs to help people stop smoking. A similar societywide effort would go a long way toward changing eating patterns.

Each in its own way, the various sectors of society need to initiate approaches based on three strategies: creating an atmosphere supportive of dietary change; altering the food supply to facilitate new eating patterns; and providing people with practical, useable information about how to improve their diets.

Federal, state, and local governments should implement the dietary recommendations in a consistent manner throughout all government enterprises. At the federal level both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services have programs to promote their dietary recommendations, and other federal agencies participate in interagency nutrition activities, but many knowledgeable observers describe federal efforts as fragmented and falling short of the goal. Establishment of a coordinating mechanism would provide greater direction to governmentwide efforts.

The dietary recommendations should be implemented in programs related in some way to food, from education to health care to farm policies to research support. Promoting these goals may require some congressional action. For example, the last Congress contributed to dietary improvements when it passed a law requiring that food labels be redesigned to make them easier to understand and better focused on the nutrients of greatest concern. Government also should foster programs and practices that will disseminate nutrition information to the public and encourage food suppliers to increase the availability of healthful foods. It is particularly important that the principle of dietary guidelines be followed in restaurants, hospitals, and other places where individual diners have no control over the nutritional content of the food they eat. Price supports, food safety, food stamps, school lunches, agricultural trade—all are government programs that directly or indirectly affect the diets of Americans.

Governments and health care professions must become more active as policymakers, role models, and agenda setters. For government this means that public feeding programs should follow the dietary recommendations. This would include assistance programs for low-income families as well as government food services such as Army messes, employee cafeterias, and veterans' hospitals. Government cafeterias that offer healthful choices would serve as models to the public.

All sectors of society will not agree with these efforts. Although the food industry has taken the initiative in making low-fat, low-salt, sugarless, and other healthful foods available, it and other interest groups are likely to object to policies they perceive will place them at a competitive disadvantage. Change will come incrementally as individuals and food suppliers gradually accept and adapt to the new goals. The time frame will be years or decades—not weeks or months.

The task is large, but doable, if everyone in a position to influence public behavior joins the effort.

For more information:Improving America's Diet and Health, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1991

Contact: Paul Thomas, Institute of Medicine, (202) 334-2587

Report Summary

Energy Engineering Board

Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems

Over the last four decades, nuclear energy has become the second largest source of electricity in America, behind only coal. America's 111 commercial power plants provided about 20 percent of the country's electricity in 1990. In several other countries, the percentage of electricity generated by nuclear energy is even higher: 77 percent in France, 33 percent in West Germany, and 26 percent in Japan.

However, the expansion of nuclear energy has virtually halted in the United States. No new nuclear plant has been ordered in the United States since 1978, scores of plants ordered earlier have been canceled, and construction of at least seven partially completed plants has been deferred.

A number of factors account for nuclear power's stagnation. These include reduced demand for electricity, high costs of nuclear power, regulatory uncertainty, and public concern over safety and over waste disposal issues.

The risk to public health from the operation of current reactors in the United States is very small. In this fundamental sense, these reactors are safe. A significant segment of the public has a different perception, however, believing that the level of safety of nuclear power plants can and should be increased.

In 1988 the Senate Appropriations Committee asked the National Academy of Sciences to analyze the technical and institutional alternatives that would preserve the nuclear fission option in the United States. This request was based on the premise that nuclear fission will remain an important alternative for meeting U.S. electric energy requirements and maintaining a balanced national energy policy.

The study's purpose was not to advocate a new generation of nuclear power plants or to assess the desirability of nuclear power relative to alternative energy sources. Instead, the study committee, consisting of members with a wide range of views on the desirability of nuclear power, approached its charge with the intent of determining whatwould be necessary if the United States is to retain this optionto meet electric energy requirements in the future.

If nuclear power is to be retained as a viable option for the United States, a number of institutional and technical changes will be necessary:

• To make the costs of nuclear power competitive with other sources of electricity and to assure the recovery of capital and operating costs, the industry must develop better methods for managing the design and construction of nuclear plants.

• Participants in the design and construction of nuclear plants must institute arrangements that guarantee timely, economical, and high-quality construction of new plants. Such arrangements will be prerequisites for receiving assurance from state regulatory authorities, in advance of construction, that capital costs can be recovered. Financial backers and electricity generators must be satisfied of such arrangements before new plants can be ordered.

• Plant designs that are more nearly complete before construction begins and plants that are easier to construct will provide greater confidence that costs can be controlled. Better construction and management methods and business arrangements that provide strong incentives for cost-effective, timely completion of projects will also contribute to greater confidence. Utilities, architect-engineers, and suppliers of nuclear technology should begin now to work out such arrangements.

• A consistently higher level of demonstrated utility management practices in some operating plants in the United States is essential before the public's attitude about nuclear power is likely to improve. Over the past decade, utilities have strengthened their ability to be responsible for the safety of their plants. The nuclear industry should continue to take the initiative to bring the standards of every American nuclear plant up to those of the best plants in the United States and the world. Chronic poor performers should be identified publicly and should face the threat of insurance cancellation.

• To retain nuclear power as an option, a high degree of standardization will be very important. A strong and sustained commitment by the nuclear industry will be required to realize the potential benefits of standardization.

• Lack of resolution of the high-level nuclear waste problem jeopardizes future nuclear power development. The legal status of the Yucca Mountain storage site should be resolved soon; investigations of this site should continue. A contingency plan to store high-level waste in surface storage facilities pending the availability of the geologic repository must be developed.

• The EPA standard for disposal of high-level waste has to be reevaluated to ensure that the standard applied to the geologic waste repository is both adequate and feasible.

The committee offered several recommendations for institutional change, including:

• The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should develop a coherent, consistent set of regulations for advanced reactors, especially light water reactors with passive safety features.

• The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should encourage industry self-improvement, accountability, and self-regulation initiatives.

• The industry and state should cooperate closely to ensure that state economic incentives and state oversight of safety remain consistent with safe operation of nuclear plants.

• A small safety review entity, analogous to the National Transportation Safety Board, should be established to investigate serious nuclear accidents. Before such an entity is established, its charter, reporting channels, and the classes of accidents it would investigate should be carefully defined.

The committee also assessed the prospects for a number of advanced reactors now in development. It considered safety, economic, technological, and institutional factors in its assessments. The committee concluded that large light water reactor designs (about 1,300 megawatts), now evolving from existing reactor designs, and mid-sized light water reactors (about 600 megawatts) with passive safety features, now in design stages, best satisfied the committee's criteria. The large reactors are likely to be ready for construction first, by about the year 2000. The mid-sized reactors will be ready soon after 2000. These two reactors should be safer than existing reactors if design goals are realized. Little or no federal funds are necessary to complete development of the evolutionary reactors, though such funding would accelerate the process. Federal funding will be necessary for the development of the mid-sized reactors.

In considering the long term, the committee concluded that liquid metal reactor technology, which would yield reactors capable of breeding plutonium for nuclear fuel and thus extending nuclear fuel resources, could be an important long-term technology and should have highest priority for long-term nuclear technology development.

The committee analyzed three alternative research and development programs. Each contained common elements, including support for improved performance and life-extension of existing reactors, support for university research, and money for certain nuclear facilities. The three alternatives were differentiated by the extent of support for the development of specific reactor technologies. The committee judged that an alternative should be followed that would add to the common elements support for mid-sized light water reactor development and support for liquid metal reactor technologies. This alternative could permit construction of liquid metal reactors in the second quarter of the next century.

For more information:Nuclear Power: Technical and InstitutionalOptions for the Future, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1992

Contact: Dev Mani, National Research Council, (202) 334-3344

Report Summary

Energy Engineering Board

Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems

Automobiles and light trucks consume almost 60 percent of the petroleum used in the United States, which is somewhat more than the total amount of petroleum that this country imports. Following the oil embargo of 1973, the U.S. Congress acted to limit the country's vulnerability to oil supply interruptions by passing the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. This act required that each manufacturer's domestically produced and imported fleets of new cars meet a ''corporate average fuel economy,'' or CAFE, standard of 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 1985, a standard that has stayed the same since then. For light trucks, the corresponding standard is now 20.4 mpg. Although a number of other factors also played roles, this law contributed to almost a doubling of fuel efficiency for the U.S. new car fleet over the last 17 years.

Over the last several years a contentious debate has flared over whether these CAFE standards should be increased. On one side are those who argue that we should require vehicles to achieve better gas mileage so as to limit the United States' dependence on imported oil and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. On the other side are those who say that boosting CAFE standards will increase traffic fatalities, raise the price of new vehicles, reduce sales, and seriously harm the automobile industry.

The intensity of this debate heightened in the fall of 1991 when the Persian Gulf conflict began. At that time the federal government asked the National Research Council to study the prospects for further improving the fuel economy of light-duty vehicles. The 16-member Committee on Fuel Economy of Automobiles and Light Trucks concluded that it is indeed technically possible for all classes of new cars and trucks to have significantly higher levels of fuel economy by the year 2006 while complying with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and existing and pending standards for occupant safety. Using currently available technologies and maintaining current vehicle characteristics valued by consumers, fuel economy levels could rise to between 34 and 37 mpg by that year for new cars and to between 26 to 28 mpg for light trucks, assuming that the future mix of vehicles remains the same as today.

But there is a difference between what is technically possible and what is practically achievable. Complex tradeoffs need to be made between the benefits of higher fuel economy standards and such costs as the following:

• Increasing fuel economy levels by that amount will add between $500 and $2,750 to the average price of a new vehicle. Furthermore, the provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and current and pending safety regulations will further boost the costs of new light-duty vehicles.

• If manufacturers increase fuel economy by reducing the size and weight of cars and light trucks, safety could be somewhat reduced, though improved vehicle design and safety technology could offset effects of weight reduction.

• Stricter tailpipe emissions standards that are expected in future years could make it harder to achieve increased fuel economy, since they may increase the weight of the car or rule out emerging fuel-saving technologies.

• And the automobile industry, on the heels of an unprecedented downturn that has resulted in hardship for many workers, is ill-prepared to make additional investments required by new fuel economy demands.

The practically achievable fuel economy level for new cars in the year 2006 is likely to be somewhere between the 34–37 mpg that is technically achievable and the 27.8 mpg that prevails today. However, many past predictions of automotive fuel economy have erred badly, and unexpected new technologies may boost efficiencies appreciably. By the same token, average fuel economies have fallen for the last four years as consumers have opted for heavier and higher performing cars, and fuel economy could stagnate if current trends and policies remain unchanged.

Any government action to boost fuel economy levels should include a hard look at the current CAFE system, which has serious defects. As gasoline prices have dropped in real terms over recent years, the CAFE standards have increasingly conflicted with market signals. They have also disadvantaged manufacturers that make both large cars and small cars (including the American manufacturers) compared to manufacturers that specialize in small cars (including the Japanese manufacturers). Furthermore, the distinction between domestic and foreign fleets has distorted the way manufacturers allocate production of vehicles to their U.S. and foreign facilities. In addition, U.S. companies, unlike their foreign competitors, may face charges of unlawful conduct if they violate CAFE standards and choose to pay penalties for noncompliance.

A number of more flexible alternatives or supplements to the CAFE system need to be considered, including:

• increased gasoline prices, which would affect the use of all cars on the road and not just the characteristics of new cars;

• a system of cash fees and rebates (known as "feebates") for inefficient and efficient vehicles to increase consumer interest in improved fuel economy;

• strategies to trim the number of vehicle miles driven, new inspection programs, and methods of trapping gasoline vapors to reduce emissions; and

• improving the transportation infrastructure, developing intelligent vehicle-highway systems, improving public transit, reducing speed limits, and encouraging car-pooling.

All of these options need to be carefully investigated to help foster a transportation system that can readily adapt to new circumstances.

For more information:Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should WeGo? National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1992

Contact: Mahadevan (Dev) Mani, National Research Council, (202) 334-3344

Report Summary

Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology

Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources

Commission on Life Sciences

Despite public and private expenditures of billions of dollars on pollution controls, many American cities and suburbs are still plagued by high levels of ozone. A major component of smog, ozone near the ground can cause reduced lung capacity and other harmful effects in humans and can damage vegetation. The Environmental Protection Agency reported that in 1989 over a quarter of all Americans lived in areas where ozone levels exceeded the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established through the Clean Air Act amendments of 1970. Ozone pollution remains a serious health and environmental concern.

Ozone near the ground forms when nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), together referred to as NOx, react with volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, in the presence of sunlight. (Ozone high in the atmosphere, in contrast, which shields the ground from harmful ultraviolet radiation emitted by the sun, forms through a different chemical process.) NOx enters the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels, primarily in motor vehicles, electricity power plants, and other large industrial facilities. VOCs also come from motor vehicles; in addition, they are given off by the chemical and petroleum industries, by evaporating paints and solvents, and by vegetation.

The Clean Air Act requires that the states design and implement strategies that will bring each area exceeded the NAAQS into compliance. These strategies are known as State Implementation Plans, or SIPs. In principle, they are a sound way of reducing ozone levels. But, according to the National Research Council's Committee on Tropospheric Ozone Formation and Measurement, they have failed in practice, largely because they have relied on estimated inventories of the amount of ozone precursors released into the atmosphere rather than on actual atmospheric measurements of those precursors.

The problem is that these inventories are often in error. For example, the inventories have significantly underestimated the release of VOCs from human activities. As a result, the substantial reductions in ozone concentrations expected to follow reductions in VOCs emissions have often not occurred.

Existing flaws in today's ozone control system point toward major new directions for future efforts. First, the underestimation of VOCs in emissions inventories implies that many ozone control strategies have been misdirected. These strategies have usually focused on reducing VOCs, but given their high levels it makes more sense, in many cases, to concentrate on reducing NOx in addition to or instead of reducing VOCs. For example, in many parts of

the eastern United States the level of VOCs from vegetation alone, when combined with existing levels of NOx, is enough to raise ozone levels to the unhealthy range on hot summer days. However, in some areas, such as the centers of large cities, reducing NOx may actually increase ozone, though ozone levels would likely decrease downwind.

In general, the concentrations of ozone precursors need to be much more carefully monitored to verify the effectiveness of emissions controls. New instruments are being developed to measure these precursors more reliably; this work should continue, and the new techniques should be applied much more widely.

A related problem is that the computer models used to understand and predict ozone levels are still subject to many uncertainties. These models need to be studied and improved. Better models will help determine the most effective way to reduce ozone in a given area. Intensive field programs will be needed to evaluate, improve, and verify the models.

Another important application for these models is assessing the effects of alternative fuels—including natural gas, methanol, ethanol, hydrogen, and electricity—on ozone levels. Today, not enough is known to require the widespread use of any specific fuel to reduce ozone levels (with the possible exception of electricity, which would shift emissions from mobile sources to fixed power plants). Better models would help specify where alternative fuels can make a major difference.

Finally, the principal measure used to track ozone trends needs to be supplemented or replaced by measures that are more statistically valid. The measure specified by the NAAQS (the second highest concentration each year in a one-hour period) is highly sensitive to the vagaries of weather and is not a reliable indictor of progress in reducing ozone over several years in a given area. In fact, it is often difficult, using the specified measure, to tell if ozone exposures are going up, going down, or staying the same. New measures need to account for the effects of weather and other relevant factors and should reflect the range of ozone concentrations considered harmful to human health and welfare.

Many of these recommended actions would benefit substantially from a national program of research on ozone near the ground similar to the program that has been developed for ozone high in the atmosphere. Properly insulated from regulatory and political pressures, a broadly based but carefully coordinated research program would help establish a reliable scientific basis for improving the nation's air quality.

For more information:Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and RegionalAir Pollution, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1992

Contact: Raymond Wassel, National Research Council, (202) 334-2617

Report Summary

Transportation Research Board

In Europe and Japan many trains travel at speeds approaching 200 miles an hour. The Japanese "bullet train" regularly reaches 163 mph, while the French Train à Grande Vitesse Atlantique is capable of 186 mph peak performance. In contrast, the fastest train in the United States is the Amtrak Metroliner between Washington, D.C., and New York City, which operates at a top speed of 125 mph.

The question repeatedly asked by members of Congress and other policy makers, along with returning American tourists: Why doesn't the United States have high-speed trains?

Since World War II the U.S. public has relied almost exclusively on personal automobiles for relatively short trips and commercial airlines for more distant journeys. Except for a few busy corridors—the Washington-Philadelphia-New York-Boston route, for example—trains in the United States mostly carry freight, not people.

This situation has been perpetuated in part by the way government regulation and funding institutions have been organized around specific modes of transportation rather than around a national transportation system. Roads and airports have been routinely supported by taxes and user fees designated for that purpose, while railroads have not received the same level of aid. Europe and Japan, on the other hand, have a long tradition of publicly supported national railroads.

Many U.S. highways and air transport facilities currently are strained to capacity, and travel demand is expected to continue to increase. Construction of new highways and airports, however, has been stymied by right-of-way restrictions; public opposition to the air pollution, noise, and other environmental disruptions that accompany major building projects; and high costs.

As alternatives, high-speed rail and magnetic levitation ("maglev") systems are often proposed. High-speed rail includes both upgraded existing lines as well as completely new systems operating on dedicated tracks with lightweight trains and fully automated signals and communications. Maglev systems featuring vehicles that are suspended above a fixed guideway by powerful magnets appear to be a promising technology for the future. However, development is still in the early stages and substantial additional research is needed. In short test runs, maglev vehicles have attained speeds of 270 to 320 mph.

In the short term, greater speeds could be attained by upgrading existing rail systems through such changes as realigned tracks, gas turbine-powered trains, modern signalling systems, and improved grade crossings. Amtrak Metroliner service between Washington and New York

recently announced introduction of a Swedish "tilt" train that can take curves at higher speeds without jarring passengers and thus can travel about 25 mph faster.

But achieving speeds higher than 150 mph will require systems with new, exclusive-use guideways, and such high speed rail and maglev systems do not come cheaply. Estimates for newly constructed systems in the United States have run from $8 million to $32 million per mile for fast trains and $11 million to $63 million per mile for maglev. Cost estimates are extremely uncertain, however, because a high-speed rail or maglev system has never been built in the United States. Cost varies with the technology, site characteristics, and land values.

It is highly unlikely that farebox revenues alone could pay the bill for construction and operation of a new high-speed rail or maglev system. For the most likely combination of cost and fare levels, the break-even passenger volume would be roughly 6 million annual riders. Air traffic, which would be the primary market for new systems in most corridors, currently exceeds this level for only one city-pair combination. In the Northeast corridor, where there is significant rail ridership today and a rail line can serve multiple cities, the prospects for break-even operation would be good if right-of-way could be found and capital costs kept below $18 million per mile.

Public subsidies for new construction and upgrading could be justified if improvements in rail service can attract passengers away from overcrowded highways and airports and can delay or avoid new investments in these modes. In selected areas—the Los Angeles-San Francisco corridor, for example—fast rail service might avoid the need for a new airport and free up much needed gate capacity in existing airports. In such cases existing transportation funds could appropriately be tapped to subsidize the new rail services. Other anticipated benefits of high speed rail include the use of less energy per passenger mile and stimulation of economic development around intercity terminals.

The U.S. Department of Transportation and state transportation agencies should evaluate rail systems in the context of alternative airports and highway investments to determine the most cost-effective approach to improving intercity travel. This will require new approaches to planning that move away from a focus on specific modes of transportation to consideration of a national transportation system.

If a decision is made to implement high-speed rail, the technology must be imported because there are no current U.S. manufacturing capabilities. European and Japanese manufacturers can provide off-the-shelf high-speed rail technology that has been proven in commercial service. However, these systems, while achieving good safety and operating records, do not meet current U.S. rail safety standards. As assessments of costs and benefits for potential high-speed corridors are taking place, federal regulators should continue

development of appropriate safety and operational standards. Then if decisions are made to build new high-speed rail systems and conduct further research on maglev, the necessary regulations and standards would be in place.

For more information:In Pursuit of Speed: New Options for IntercityPassenger Transport, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1991.

Contact: Walter J. Diewald, Transportation Research Board, (202) 334-3255

Report Summary

Transportation Research Board

The deregulation of the airline industry in 1978 was, on balance, a good thing. It has resulted in better passenger service, lower average fares, and no measurable loss of safety. The industry has become more efficient and competitive. However, some troublesome signs have appeared that could threaten the benefits achieved.

The airline industry has always been highly sensitive to economic cycles, but the sharp decline in international air travel during the Gulf War and a protracted recession have caused massive losses. The precarious financial condition of several carriers raises concern that the number of major carriers could be reduced below the level needed to provide adequate competition. Although the current down-cycle has reduced peak-period demands placed on airports and the air traffic control system, capacity limitations will be encountered again once demand for air travel resumes its historic growth rate. Institutional constraints on the performance of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) raise doubts about its ability to meet future challenges posed by continued air transport growth.

Deregulation diminished government control of prices and entry of new airlines into the commercial market, but it did not remove government oversight of air traffic control, carrier maintenance inspections, and other safety measures. The FAA continues to be responsible in these areas. This entails maintaining a highly skilled staff of controllers, maintenance technicians, safety inspectors, engineers, and test pilots—a force that was seriously dissipated in the last decade by a series of problems starting with the firing of most senior air traffic controllers during a labor dispute in 1981. In recent years, the FAA has worked diligently to rebuild its specialized staffs, but has been further hampered by delays in the delivery of highly sophisticated, new traffic control equipment and software, government hiring ceilings, and tight budgets.

Despite labor shortages, FAA has maintained a high level of safety. However, to ensure safe travel, air traffic controllers frequently impose considerable delays on departure of commercial flights, particularly during inclement weather. As the number of airline passengers continues to grow in the future, delays can be expected to increase. The aging of commercial aircraft also will demand greater vigilance from FAA maintenance inspectors. Future safety could be endangered if carriers cut back on maintenance practices because of economic pressures or the FAA's inspection service is hampered by funding and staffing difficulties.

The FAA would be better positioned to meet future demands if it can surmount certain constraints characteristic of a government agency. These include not only hiring, procurement,

and funding limitations, but also the disruptions caused by frequent turnover of administrators. A stable, long-term leadership is required for the kinds of system-wide reforms that would enable the FAA to fulfill its complex, high-technology mission more effectively.

Three options for institutional change have been proposed: re-establishment of the FAA as an independent federal agency outside the Department of Transportation (DOT); a government corporation; or a private corporation.

The first option, while giving FAA more freedom in management, would not remove other government constraints and therefore would not provide the flexibility needed. Under the framework of a public or private corporation, either the entire FAA or only its air traffic control component could be transferred from the DOT. As a public corporation, the FAA would report either to the President and Congress or to the DOT Secretary. Operation as a congressionally chartered private corporation could embrace only the air traffic control operations or Congress could, by law, imbed within the corporation a legally independent government unit to oversee the broad range of safety standards and practices.

Either a public or private corporation would improve the efficiency of the air traffic control service and offer more managerial discretion in funding, personnel, and procurement; a private corporation obviously would provide the greatest flexibility. Some observers argue that it would compromise safety to separate the traffic control service from the rest of FAA.

Before Congress takes any action, it should mandate a study by an independent organization of the possible reform scenarios for FAA and their probable outcomes.

Another area of possible concern is the recent concentration of the domestic airline industry to a few carriers. Despite the initial flurry of new entries following deregulation, mergers and acquisitions diminished the number of carriers. Originally some airlines took this course as a means of expanding routes. More recently, however, economic problems have forced a number of airlines to merge or cease operations. Eastern, Pan American, and Midway all ceased operating in 1991. America West, Continental, and Trans World are reorganizing under Chapter 11 bankruptcy procedures. An infusion of foreign capital into struggling carriers such as Northwest and USAir has prompted a fractious debate on the appropriateness of foreign entry into the domestic market.

In its 1991 report, the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences addressed the effects of mergers and acquisitions of domestic carriers on competition. It concluded that the Department of Justice, acting under antitrust authority, should oppose a merger when it would reduce the number of competitors offering parallel service or sharing a hub airport. Mergers of airlines offering complementary or "end-to-end" routes, however, may

not harm competition. The largest benefits to the traveler occur in markets with three or more carriers. To assure this level of competition would require five or six firms engaged in nationwide competition, with at least three competing at most large airports.

Although the Academy report did not consider the costs or benefits of foreign entry, the recommendation that an adequate level of competition should be retained to protect consumers against price gouging would be a major component in the decisions concerning investments in U.S. carriers by foreign carriers, as well as in mergers between two domestic lines.

For more information:Winds of Change: Domestic Air Transport SinceDeregulation, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1991.

Contact: Stephen R. Godwin, Transportation Research Board, (202) 334-3255

Report Summary

Board on Radioactive Waste Management

Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources

In the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Congress set in motion a process to dispose of the tons of spent nuclear fuel that have been filling the storage pools at U.S. nuclear power plants. It gave the Department of Energy (DOE) responsibility for designing and eventually operating a deep geological repository for high-level radioactive waste. It required that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license the facility when construction is completed, and it directed that releases of radionuclides from the facility result in no more than 1,000 deaths over a period of 10,000 years as specified in a standard established by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Most high-level waste comes from the 111 nuclear power plants now operating in the United States. The typical large power plant generates about 30 tons of spent fuel a year, most of which is currently cooling in rapidly filling storage pools at each reactor site.

There is worldwide scientific consensus that the best way to dispose of this waste is to bury it deep underground. There is no scientific or technical reason to think that a satisfactory geological repository cannot be built.

But the U.S. program, as conceived and implemented over the past decade, is unlikely to succeed. The program assumes that the properties and future behavior of a geological repository can be determined and specified with great certainty for thousands of years into the future.

But this degree of certainty is unattainable. Geological environments are never completely predictable, which will inevitably require that the program be modified as it progresses. Scientific analysis can and should play a key role in assessing long-term geological repositories. But preparing quantitative predictions so far into the future stretches the limits of our understanding of geology, groundwater chemistry and movement, and the interactions between emplaced materials and their surroundings.

These technical problems are exacerbated by a series of highly charged political realities. People feel threatened by radioactive waste, and their views deserve to be taken seriously in the decision-making process. To negotiate equitable solutions, technical experts and program managers need to provide the public with information that the public finds believable. The government must also recognize that public participation, negotiation, persuasion, and compensation need to be fundamental parts of a waste management program.

Instead of pursuing the elusive goal of scientific certainty, an alternative approach should be pursued, similar to the approaches now being followed in Canada and Sweden. Three principles should guide this effort:

• Start with the simplest description of what is known, so that the largest and most significant uncertainties can be identified early in the program and given priority attention.

• Meet problems as they emerge, instead of tying to anticipate in advance all the complexities of a natural geological environment.

• Define the problem broadly in terms of ultimate performance rather than in terms of immediate requirements, so that increased knowledge can be incorporated in the design at a specific site.

This alternative uses modeling as a tool to identify areas where more information is needed rather than to justify decisions that have already been made on the basis of limited knowledge. Implicit in this approach is the need to revise the program schedule, the repository schedule, and performance criteria as more information is obtained. Putting such an approach into effect would require major changes in the way Congress, the regulatory agencies, and DOE conduct their business.

Uncertainty does not necessarily mean that the risks of a geological repository are significant. A successful management plan can accommodate these uncertainties and still provide reasonable assurance of safety. The public can be assured that the likelihood of serious unforeseen events (serious enough to cause catastrophic failure in the long term) is minimal, but these assurances will rely on general principles rather than detailed predictions.

In the final analysis, safety is in part a social judgment, not just a technical one. How safe is safe enough? Moreover, is it safer to leave the waste where it is, mostly at reactor sites, or to put it in an underground repository? In either case, safety cannot be 100 percent guaranteed. Technical analysis can help answer such questions, but ultimately the answers depend on choices made by the citizens of a democratic society.

In summary, DOE's high-level waste program may be a ''scientific trap'' for DOE and the U.S. public alike, encouraging the public to expect absolute certainty about the safety of the repository for 10,000 years and encouraging DOE program managers to pretend that they can provide it.

For more information: Rethinking High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal:A Position Statement by the Board on Radioactive Waste Management, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1990

Contact: Peter Myers, National Research Council, 334-3066

Report Summary

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy

Rapidly occurring events during the past few years have fundamentally changed the nature and sources of the threats to U.S. national security. The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the overthrow of communist governments among its Eastern European allies in the Warsaw Treaty Organization have brought an end to the immediate threat of aggression in Western Europe. But the dramatic changes have not produced a world free of international tensions. In place of a clearly defined, monolithic threat, the United States now must be prepared to counter a variety of military and economic challenges.

Militarily, the threat now comes largely from countries that have acquired—or are attempting to acquire—the means to produce and deliver nuclear, chemical, and/or biological weapons, which are often referred to as weapons of mass destruction (WMD). A country that attains this capacity may use its new strength to agitate long-standing regional rivalries through acts of terrorism or even open aggression, as Iraq did in 1990. There is evidence that, at present, India, Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, and South Africa may possess or be close to possessing nuclear weapons. Only Iraq is known to have used chemical weapons in recent warfare, but more than 12 nations outside of NATO and the Warsaw Pact are now believed to have them.

Economically, the threat to U.S. stability comes from many directions. Japan and the European Community are the major competitors for international trade, but newly industrialized countries such as Korea, Taiwan, and Brazil also are making inroads on traditional U.S. markets. Analysts and policymakers acknowledge that U.S. national security now includes maintaining a successful, vigorous role in the global economy.

For more than 40 years, the United States and its allies cooperated to prevent the Soviet bloc from acquiring advanced technologies for military purposes. Export controls regulated sales of weapons and also of "dual use" technologies, which are those items useful in civilian as well as military enterprises. Since 1949, the task of coordinating the West's restrictions on export of sensitive items has been carried out by the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (CoCom), an informal, non-treaty organization consisting of all members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (except Iceland), plus Japan and Australia.

In the new global environment, the export controls that served well during the Cold War no longer meet U.S. needs. They have not prevented proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to nations involved in regional conflicts, and they may be obstructing U.S. industries in their quest to remain competitive in world markets. The old system should be reformed and redirected in response to today's new proliferation challenges.

In relations with the former Soviet Union, the U.S. government and CoCom can now move safely from a policy of general denial of dual-use technologies to a policy of presumed approval to export, with the approval dependent on the ability to verify that dual-use products actually are being used for civilian purposes. Verification is feasible in the new, more open environment of the former Soviet Union. But export controls cannot yet be discarded altogether. Although the former Soviet Union no longer appears either inclined or capable of mounting a conventional attack against the West, it remains the only country in the world with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the United States and the other CoCom countries. A delicate balance must be drawn between the need to relax restrictions sufficiently to promote economic reconstruction and the shift to a market-based economy, while also maintaining vigilance against the possibility of a major political reversal and attendant change in Russian foreign policy.

At the same time, a much higher priority now must be placed on controlling proliferation of WMD and missile delivery systems to states believed to be arming for the purpose of engaging in regional aggression. Such developments constitute a national security concern for the United States and should be given major emphasis. Working in concert with other nations, including the former Soviet Union and China in addition to U.S. allies, the United States should strive to minimize proliferation of arms to countries considered threats to the peace. Cocom, working with other international regimes, may be a possible mechanism for developing export controls designed specifically for this purpose. (Since the National Academy of Sciences report was released, a "CoCom Cooperation Forum" has been established in the former Soviet bloc specifically to address proliferation concerns. The Forum involves virtually all of the republics of the former Soviet Union as well as the East European countries that previously were members of the Warsaw Treaty Organization.)

Meanwhile, meeting economic challenges will require changes in the domestic management of export controls. Following the premise that government should present as simple a face as possible to those being governed and regulated, the federal government should adopt a more flexible and responsive trade policy. The new approach should include simpler licensing procedures and easier understood regulations for American manufacturers competing for world markets. In the past, unilateral controls, most of them related to U.S. foreign policy concerns, often prevented U.S. industry from selling products that foreign competitors were free to sell on the open market. The complexity of the U.S. export control system led some American companies to give up attempts at international trade entirely and some foreign manufacturers to avoid buying U.S.-made components.

The President should issue a national security directive that clearly states the objectives of all national security export controls, including controls on munitions; dual-use products; missiles; and technologies related to the development of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. This directive would establish criteria and mechanisms for constructing control lists that balance military, economic, and foreign policy factors and detail the process for resolving disputes between agencies.

The administration of export controls should be consolidated under the U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Export Administration, but policy should continue to be made by the three agencies traditionally involved: the Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce. An Export Control Policy Coordinating Committee, composed of senior representatives from relevant departments and agencies, should be created to formulate and review export control policies and resolve difficult disputes. An industry advisory committee also should be established and required by law. Furthermore, laws prohibiting industry from seeking judicial redress for export administration decisions should be repealed.

The world is changing in many ways. As economic power replaces military prowess as the touchstone of global leadership, the United States must adapt its policies to the new realities.

For more information:Finding Common Ground: U.S. Export Controlsin a Changed Global Environment, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1991.

Contact: Mitchel B. Wallerstein, National Research Council, (202) 334-2168

Report Summary

Committee on National Statistics

Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

The U.S. economy is becoming increasingly internationalized. This may not sound like anything new because people have been buying French wine and Japanese cars for years. The trade imbalance with imports outstripping exports year after year has been going on for some time, and the figures are dutifully reported to the public and periodically lamented by commentators.

But far more is occurring in the global marketplace than a simple exchange of goods and services between countries. U.S. statistics [adjusted for inflation] show that over the decade of the 1980s, while U.S. gross national product rose 30 percent, U.S. imports and exports of goods and services increased 72 percent. During the same period, foreign direct investment in U.S. real estate, businesses and industries, and related assets tripled in value, and similar U.S. direct investment abroad increased by 60 percent. Meanwhile, the total value of purchases and sales between U.S. and foreign residents in U.S. and foreign long-term securities increased almost 20 times. The U.S. economy is considerably more interdependent with those of other countries than ever before.

Yet, the data collection system for U.S. international transactions was developed for a simpler era. Although efforts have been made from time to time to improve the data, major shortcomings remain. Today, multinational companies may have roots in one country, but their affiliates span the globe and buy and sell abroad. Advanced telecommunications transfer capital instantaneously, making international banking activities, exchanges of securities, and other investment transactions possible without going through domestic financial intermediaries. As a result, significant portions of U.S. international business activities are not covered in the existing data.

The fast-paced global economy offers a myriad of challenges and opportunities for the United States. To deal effectively with the challenges and take full advantage of the opportunities, both public and private sectors need timely, accurate, and relevant information on burgeoning U.S. international economic activities.

U.S. trade performance is now charted largely by what is called the balance-of-payments system, which tracks the movement of goods, services, and capital across national boundaries. A system based simply on cross-border transactions is inadequate for analyzing new economic issues arising from the emerging international economic order. For example, it does not capture

the sales and purchases of goods and services by foreign affiliates of U.S. firms abroad and U.S. affiliates of foreign firms in the United States. Those transactions are several times larger than the combined value of U.S. imports and exports.

The federal government should develop a "supplemental framework" for measuring U.S. international business performance that tracks both cross-border transactions and business activities undertaken by foreign affiliates of U.S. firms abroad and U.S. affiliates of foreign firms in the United States. Such a framework would offer a clearer look at the nation's international competitiveness. It would also provide insight into how jobs are gained or lost in the United States because of foreign investment here and U.S. investment abroad.

A study panel of the National Research Council recently examined data collected on international transactions in goods, services, and capital flows. On the basis of its estimates, U.S. businesses could well be competing more vigorously in the world economy than widely publicized trade statistics suggest.

For example, the government reported that in 1987 the U.S. trade deficit in goods and services was $148 billion. Using the proposed supplemental framework, the panel estimated that there were $1,303 billion in U.S. purchases from foreigners and $1,239 billion in U.S. sales to foreigners in 1987, leaving a $64 billion difference. This paints a much different picture of U.S. international performance than that portrayed by the U.S. trade balance figure, in which $484 billion in imports of goods and services was subtracted from $336 billion in exports for a deficit of $148 billion. The study panel used 1987 data because they were the most recent available when the study began.

The published trade numbers don't tell the whole story, and at times they tell the wrong story about the U.S. trade position. Several other important developments are obscured in the current data. One is the increasing trade between corporations and their own foreign affiliates. In 1987, for example, more than a quarter of the reported U.S. imports and exports was the result of such intracompany activities. Intracompany trade covers a variety of transactions, including situations in which a corporation manufactures its components in one country and ships them to an overseas affiliate for assembly. A related development is the fact that products are no longer simply "Made in the U.S.A." or "Made in Taiwan." Many imported and exported goods, such as automobiles and computers, contain components from many countries.

Even services can involve a multinational effort. Companies from different countries can collaborate on projects ranging from computer software development to advertising campaigns.

Trade statistics suffer, as well, from a dearth of information on international services transactions, such as international financial services and tourism, and sizable flows of capital in and out of the country. These capital flows include securities transactions in which U.S. residents can legally buy and sell directly in overseas markets without going through U.S. financial institutions that are required to report such transactions. Better information on capital

flows is needed for a number of purposes, including assessing the impact of foreign direct investment on the domestic economy, measuring the extent of the credit crunch, and monitoring the safety and soundness of the U.S. financial system.

The accuracy, coverage, and usefulness of information on U.S. international transactions can be enhanced through stricter enforcement of reporting requirements and automated data collection procedures. Information from airport audits, comparisons of U.S. merchandise export figures with corresponding foreign import figures, and statistical analyses suggest that the value of U.S. merchandise exports to major trading partners has been underreported by 3 percent to 7 percent. This could mean that exports are being underreported by $10 billion to $20 billion, and the trade deficit overstated by 20 to 30 percent, based on 1991 estimates of merchandise exports.

Data collection agencies should work closely with users of the data to ensure that relevant statistics are being collected for intended uses. Stronger ties to firms that file the data also would ensure greater compliance and cooperation, which would enhance the accuracy of the data.

For more information:Behind the Numbers: U.S. Trade in the WorldEconomy, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1992

Contact: Anne Y. Kester, National Research Council, (202) 334-3290

Report Summary

Division on Social and Economic Studies

Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

In cities, suburban areas, and even small towns, Americans are fearful and concerned that violence has permeated the fabric and degraded the quality of their lives. The diminished quality of life ranges from an inability to sit on the front porch in neighborhoods where gang warfare has made gunfire a common event to the installation of elaborate security systems in suburban homes where back doors once were left open. Children in urban schools experience violence on the way to school and in the school building itself. Surveys show that large percentages of the population fear even walking in their neighborhoods at night. The nation's anxiety on the subject of violence is not unfounded.

There is substantially more violent crime reported in the United States than in almost any other developed country. Homicide rates far exceed those in any other industrialized nation. For other violent crimes, rates in the United States are among the world's highest and substantially exceed rates in Canada. In 1990 alone, violent crimes resulted in the death of more than 23,000 Americans.

The number of violent crimes has remained constant at about 2.9 million per year. Injury occurs in only about one-third of them, and the victim is killed in fewer than four of every 1,000 violent crimes. Even when death or injury is avoided, losses to victims and society are sizable.

Who commits violent crimes? Offenders are overwhelmingly male (89% of those arrested) and are disproportionately drawn from racial and ethnic minorities. Men in the 25–29 age range are more likely than any other group to commit violent crimes. One quarter of nonfatal violent crimes are committed by multiple offenders.

Society has responded to increasing rates of violence by lengthening prison sentences. The average time served for a violent crime nearly tripled between 1975 and 1989. Although estimates of the effects of incarceration are imprecise, longer prison stays have not reduced violent crime.

In considering crime control policies and legislation, analyses suggest that further lengthening of time in prison would have a very small effect. However, increasing the certainty of going to jail does appear to have an effect. It has been estimated that a 50 percent increase in the probability of incarceration would prevent twice as much violent crime as a 50 percent

increase in the average term served. Achieving such an increase in certainty, however, would require substantial improvement in crime reporting and greater investments in police investigation and prosecution.

This analysis suggests that preventive strategies may be as important as criminal justice responses to violence. The success of preventive strategies depends on understanding more about the roots of violence. How does a potential for violence develop in individuals? What circumstances are conducive to violent events? What social processes foster violence?

Policy makers and researchers should test and evaluate additional strategies for controlling violence. Just as the causes of violence are complex, no single approach will succeed in controlling all types of violence. One promising area of study would attempt to identify factors that influence an individual's potential for violent behavior. For example, aggressive children may grow into aggressive adults, but most of them do not. The distinguishing factors may be related to socioeconomic status. Identifying the relevant characteristics of communities, families, and persons should be of the highest priority in future research. Certain characteristics of low-income communities, for example, may promote violent behavior in some children.

An approach to understanding prevention and control of violence—a perspective with roots in both criminology and public health—is to focus on the places where violence occurs. A great deal is known about how the configuration of public spaces either facilitates or discourages violence, but this knowledge is not widely used. For example, public housing developments in communities occupied largely by broken families and unsupervised adolescent children of working single parents are high-crime areas. Several public housing developments have been designed to provide greater safety from violence, and experience with these projects is providing useful information about the safe management of public spaces in high risk areas.

There also should be studies to measure the effectiveness of police activities in reducing violence associated with illegal markets, particularly in drugs.

Deaths from guns are high in the United States compared with other countries and are rising, especially among young black males. More than 80% of the firearms used in violent crimes are reportedly obtained by theft or through illegal or unregulated transactions. Therefore, while pubic debate continues over new firearms legislation, much could be accomplished as well by evaluating how better to enforce existing laws governing the purchase, ownership, and use of firearms. Strategies might include disrupting illegal gun markets by police use of many of the same tactics currently used for dispersing illegal drug markets, enforcing existing bans on juvenile possession of handguns, and neighborhood-oriented police work involving close coordination with community residents.

Searching for possible physiological processes that underlie violent acts is another area of study that needs to be explored. The psychosocial development of an individual who engages in violent behavior is potentially influenced by genetics, neurobiologic characteristics, and

consumption of alcohol and other psychoactive drugs. Research should be conducted to find new pharmaceuticals to reduce violent behavior without debilitating side effects.

Emerging patterns and problems of violence are sometimes slow to be discovered because the systems for gathering information have not been fully developed. A high priority should be placed on modifying and expanding computer databases to provide more detailed information about the extent, causes, and possible control of violent behavior.

Federal support for research into violence and its prevention and control should be increased to learn more about the physiological, emotional, and socioeconomic factors behind violent responses by individuals. This should include funding assistance to states and localities for experimentation in new approaches to dealing with violence.

For more information: Understanding and Preventing Violence, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1992

Contact: Susanne A. Stoiber, National Research Council, (202) 334-3730