[en] The evolution of the threat of global warming and the chronology of the last half century of efforts to prevent it from overwhelming humanity is chronicled. It was in the 1970s when it was first realized that the cumulative total of atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning had been steadily rising from the pre-industrial 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) to 325 ppmv, approximately parallel with the rise of industrialization. Nevertheless, the first attempt at a global accord to reduce emissions was not made until 1992, when the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit tried, but miserably failed to reach agreement, having been prevented from achieving anything of substance by a loose-knit group of nations and commercial interests. Binding agreements were finally reached at the next scheduled international meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997. There is a detailed discussion of the Kyoto Protocols, the measures that Annex One nations such as Canada have to do to achieve the six per cent reductions targets below 1990 levels of emissions by 2010, and estimates of the costs involved. These discussions of proposed actions are balanced by a display of examples of the the growing volume of arguments advanced by opponents who not only disagree about what can be done to reduce emissions, but that there is anything that needs to be done at all. Central to their arguments is the denial that human activities are responsible for global warming, disregarding the overwhelming evidence by 3000+ leading scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that most of the global warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. The rest of the article details what can and needs to be done to reverse the cumulative impact of greenhouse gas emissions, how we can produce the energy we need at the lowest environmental cost, and the types of energy (solar, wind, biomass, natural gas) that result in the smallest GHG emissions. Familiar arguments are recited to demonstrate the urgent need to move away from fossil fuels towards low emission and renewable sources, accompanied by examples of the Scandinavian experience to show that it is possible to enjoy a lifestyle similar to North American standards while reducing total average emissions to about six tonnes per person per year compared to the Canadian average of 16 tonnes per person per year. 2 tabs

[en] Disposal of commercial low-level radioactive waste (LLW) is a critical part of the national infrastructure needed to maintain the health of American businesses, universities, and hospitals. Currently only 19 States (located in the Northwest and Southeast) have access to operating disposal facilities; all other States are storing their LLW until they open new disposal facilities on their own or in concert with other States through regional compact agreements. In response to recommendations from the National Governors Association, Congress assigned the burden for LLW disposal to all States, first in 1980 through Public Law 96-573, the open-quotes Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Actclose quotes, and again in 1986 through Public Law 99-240, the open-quotes Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985close quotes. As directed by Congress, the Department of Energy provides technical assistance to States and compact regions with this task. After almost 14 years, nine compact regions have been ratified by Congress; California, Texas, North Carolina, and Nebraska have submitted license applications; California has issued an operating license; and the number of operating disposal facilities has decreased from three to two

No abstract available

[en] Since the early sixties the Netherlands supplied two trillion m³ of natural gas from the Dutch reserves. A non-scientific, historical overview of the developments is given

[en] Why are 11 states attempting to develop new low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities? Why is only on disposal facility accepting waste nationally? What is the future of waste disposal? These questions are representative of those being asked throughout the country. This paper attempts to answer these questions in terms of where we are, how we got there, and where we might be going

[en] In the 1990's and beyond, new low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities will be developed by States and compact regions. These disposal facilities will differ significantly from the existing facilities in a number of ways. One of these ways may be the fee schedule used to determine how much is charged each of the LLW generators to dispose of its wastes. This report reviews the general concept of fee schedules. There are an infinite number of combinations of the potential elements for a fee schedule, but the report focuses on four kinds of schedules: volume-based schedules, activity-based schedules, annual use fees, and cost allocation schedules. The choice of which elements to use and the structure of the schedule will be determined by the facility operator or its regulatory authority. This document is intended to assist them in understanding the choices available and the potential impacts of the schedule that they select

[en] This planning document outlines the steps necessary to develop, test, evaluate, and potentially implement a pilot chargeback system at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory for the treatment, storage, and disposal of current waste. This pilot program will demonstrate one system that can be used to charge onsite generators for the treatment and disposal of low-level radioactive waste. In FY 1997, mock billings will begin by July 15, 1997. Assuming approvals are received to do so, FY 1998 activities will include modifying the associated automated systems, testing and evaluating system performance, and estimating the amount generators will spend for waste storage, treatment, and disposal in FY 1999. If the program is fully implemented in FY 1999, generators will pay actual, automated bills for waste management services from funds transferred to their budgets from Environmental Management

[en] This report describes modelling of the transport of solutes and colloids in an experimental system comprising an artificial dipole flow field in a water-conducting shear zone at Nagra's Grimsel Test Site (GTS) in the central Swiss Alps. The modelling work forms part of the Colloid and Radionuclide Retardation Project (CRR), which includes a series of field transport experiments and a supporting laboratory programme, as well as modelling studies. Four independent groups representing different organisations or research institutes have conducted the modelling, with each group employing its own modelling approach or approaches. Only the work conducted at the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) is described in the present report. The modelling approaches used in the present study may not be directly applicable to safety assessment problems and the direct implications of the results of this study for safety assessment are limited. It can, however, be said that the study has demonstrated the high degree of mobility of bentonite and other colloids in a system that is at least in some ways comparable to those of interest in safety assessment, and has shown that bentonite colloids can at least potentially affect the transport of some safety relevant radionuclides over longer temporal and spatial scales than those addressed here. (author)

No abstract available

No abstract available