Cradle-to-cradle design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cradle-to-cradle design (also referred to as Cradle to Cradle, C2C, cradle 2 cradle, or regenerative design) is a biomimetic approach to the design of products and systems that models human industry on nature's processes viewing materials as nutrients circulating in healthy, safe metabolisms. The term itself is a play on the popular corporate phrase "Cradle to Grave," implying that the C2C model is sustainable and considerate of life and future generations (i.e. from the birth, or "cradle," of one generation to the next versus from birth to death, or "grave," within the same generation.)

C2C suggests that industry must protect and enrich ecosystems and nature's biological metabolism while also maintaining a safe, productive technical metabolism for the high-quality use and circulation of organic and technical nutrients. It is a holistic, economic, industrial and social framework that seeks to create systems that are not only efficient but also essentially waste free. The model in its broadest sense is not limited to industrial design and manufacturing; it can be applied to many aspects of human civilization such as urban environments, buildings, economics and social systems.

The term Cradle to Cradle is a registered trademark of McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC) consultants. Cradle to Cradle product certification began as a proprietary system; however, in 2012 MBDC turned the certification over to an independent non-profit called the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute. Independence, openness, and transparency are the Institute's first objectives for the certification protocols. The phrase "cradle to cradle" itself was coined by Walter R. Stahel in the 1970s. The current model is based on a system of "lifecycle development" initiated by Michael Braungart and colleagues at the Environmental Protection Encouragement Agency (EPEA) in the 1990s and explored through the publication A Technical Framework for Life-Cycle Assessment.

In 2002, Braungart and William McDonough published a book called Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, a manifesto for cradle to cradle design that gives specific details of how to achieve the model. The model has been implemented by a number of companies, organizations and governments around the world, predominantly in the European Union, China and the United States. Cradle to cradle has also been the subject of many documentary films, including the critically acclaimed Waste=Food.

The current economic system, the current solution (the 3Rs), and the C2C framework as an alternative solution

Introduction

In the cradle to cradle model, all materials used in industrial or commercial processes—such as metals, fibers, dyes—fall into one of two categories: "technical" or "biological" nutrients. Technical nutrients are strictly limited to non-toxic, non-harmful synthetic materials that have no negative effects on the natural environment; they can be used in continuous cycles as the same product without losing their integrity or quality. In this manner these materials can be used over and over again instead of being "downcycled" into lesser products, ultimately becoming waste. 

Biological Nutrients are organic materials that, once used, can be disposed of in any natural environment and decompose into the soil, providing food for small life forms without affecting the natural environment. This is dependent on the ecology of the region; for example, organic material from one country or landmass may be harmful to the ecology of another country or landmass.

Biological and Technical Cycles

 

Biological and technical cycle

The two types of materials each follow their own cycle in the regenerative economy envisioned by Keunen and Huizing.

Structure

Initially defined by McDonough and Braungart, the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute's five certification criteria are:

• Material health, which involves identifying the chemical composition of the materials that make up the product. Particularly hazardous materials (e.g. heavy metals, pigments, halogen compounds etc.) have to be reported whatever the concentration, and other materials reported where they exceed 100 ppm. For wood, the forest source is required. The risk for each material is assessed against criteria and eventually ranked on a scale with green being materials of low risk, yellow being those with moderate risk but are acceptable to continue to use, red for materials that have high risk and need to be phased out, and grey for materials with incomplete data. The method uses the term 'risk' in the sense of hazard (as opposed to consequence and likelihood).
• Material reutilization, which is about recovery and recycling at the end of product life.
• Assessment of energy required for production, which for the highest level of certification needs to be based on at least 50% renewable energy for all parts and subassemblies.
• Water, particularly usage and discharge quality.
• Social responsibility, which assesses fair labor practices.

The certification is available at several levels: basic, silver, gold, platinum, with more stringent requirements at each. Prior to 2012, MBDC controlled the certification protocol.

Health

Currently, many human beings come into contact or consume, directly or indirectly, many harmful materials and chemicals daily. In addition, countless other forms of plant and animal life are also exposed. C2C seeks to remove dangerous technical nutrients (synthetic materials such as mutagenic materials, heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals) from current life cycles. If the materials we come into contact with and are exposed to on a daily basis are not toxic and do not have long term health effects, then the health of the overall system can be better maintained. For example, a fabric factory can eliminate all harmful technical nutrients by carefully reconsidering what chemicals they use in their dyes to achieve the colours they need and attempt to do so with fewer base chemicals.

Economics

The use of a C2C model often lowers the financial cost of systems. For example, in the redesign of the Ford River Rouge Complex, the planting of Sedum (stonecrop) vegetation on assembly plant roofs retains and cleanses rain water. It also moderates the internal temperature of the building in order to save energy. The roof is part of an $18 million rainwater treatment system designed to clean 20 billion US gallons (76,000,000 m³) of rainwater annually. This saved Ford $50 million that would otherwise have been spent on mechanical treatment facilities. If products are designed according to C2C design principles, they can be manufactured and sold for less than alternative designs. They eliminate the need for waste disposal such as landfills.

Definitions

• Cradle to Cradle a play on the phrase "Cradle to Grave", implying that the C2C model is sustainable and considerate of life and future generations.
• Technical nutrients are basically inorganic or synthetic materials manufactured by humans—such as plastics and metals—that can be used many times over without any loss in quality, staying in a continuous cycle.
• Biological nutrients and materials are organic materials that can decompose into the natural environment, soil, water, etc. without affecting it in a negative way, providing food for bacteria and microbiological life.
• Materials are usually referred to as the building blocks of other materials, such as the dyes used in colouring fibers or rubbers used in the sole of a shoe.
• Downcycling is the reuse of materials into lesser products. For example, a plastic computer case could be downcycled into a plastic cup, which then becomes a park bench, etc.; this may eventually lead to waste. In conventional understanding, this is no different from recycling that produces a supply of the same product or material.
• Waste = Food is a basic concept of organic waste materials becoming food for bugs, insects and other small forms of life who can feed on it, decompose it and return it to the natural environment which we then indirectly use for food ourselves.

Existing synthetic materials

The question of how to deal with the countless existing technical nutrients (synthetic materials) that cannot be recycled or reintroduced to the natural environment is dealt with in C2C design. The materials that can be reused and retain their quality can be used within the technical nutrient cycles while other materials are far more difficult to deal with, such as plastics in the Pacific Ocean.

Hypothetical examples

One effective example is a shoe that is designed and mass-produced using the C2C model. The sole might be made of "biological nutrients" while the upper parts might be made of "technical nutrients". The shoe is mass-produced at a manufacturing plant that utilizes its waste material by putting it back into the cycle; an example of this is using off-cuts from the rubber soles to make more soles instead of merely disposing of them (this is dependent on the technical materials not losing their quality as they are reused). Once the shoes have been manufactured, they are distributed to retail outlets where the customer buys the shoe at a fraction of the price they would normally pay for a shoe of comparable aspects; the customer is only paying for the use of the materials in the shoe for the period of time that they will be using the shoe. When they outgrow the shoe or it is damaged, they return it to the manufacturer. When the manufacturer separates the sole from the upper parts (separating the technical and biological nutrients), the biological nutrients are returned to the natural environment while the technical nutrients are used to create the sole of another shoe. 

Another example of C2C design is a disposable cup, bottle, or wrapper made entirely out of biological materials. When the user is finished with the item, it can be disposed of and returned to the natural environment; the cost of disposal of waste such as landfill and recycling is eliminated. The user could also potentially return the item for a refund so it can be used again. 

Ford Model U is a design concept of a car, made completely from cradle-to-cradle materials. It also uses hydrogen propulsion.

Finished products

• Cradle-to-cradle shoes have been made through the Nike Considered project.
• The Edag light car
• Rohner Textile AG Climatex-textile
• Biofoam; a cradle-to-cradle alternative to expanded polystyrene
• Sewage sludge processing plants are facilities that create fertiliser from sewage sludge. This approach is green retrofit for the current (inefficient) system of organic waste disposal; as composting toilets are a better approach in the long run.
• Aquion Energy large scale batteries
• Ecovative Design packaging and insulation made from waste by binding it together with Mycelium

Implementation

The C2C model can be applied to almost any system in modern society: urban environments, buildings, manufacturing, social systems. 5 steps are outlined in Cradle to Cradle – Remaking the way we make things:

• Get "free of" known culprits
• Follow informed personal preferences
• Create "passive positive" lists – lists of materials used categorised according to their safety level:

The X List – substances that must be phased out, such as teratogenic, mutagenic, carcinogenic.

The Gray List – problematic substances that are not so urgently in need of phasing out

The P List – the "positive" list, substances actively defined as safe for use.

• Activate the positive list
• Reinvent – the redesign of the former system

Products that adhere to all steps can generally be granted a certification. Two certifications used for cradle-to-cradle products include Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM).

C2C principles were first applied to systems in the early 1990s by Braungart's Hamburger Umweltinstitut (HUI) and The Environmental Institute in Brazil for biomass nutrient recycling of effluent to produce agricultural products and clean water as a byproduct. 

In 2005, William McDonough helped found the Center for Eco-Intelligent Management at Instituto de Empresa Business School. The center's research produced the Biosphere Rules, a set of five implementation principles that facilitate the adoption of closed loop production approaches with a minimum of disruption for established companies. 

In 2007, MBDC and the EPEA formed a strategic partnership with global materials consultancy Material ConneXion to help promote and disseminate C2C design principles by providing greater global access to C2C material information, certification and product development.

As of January 2008, Material ConneXion's Materials Libraries in New York, Milan, Cologne, Bangkok and Daegu, Korea started to feature C2C assessed and certified materials and, in collaboration with MBDC and EPEA, the company now offers C2C Certification, and C2C product development.

While the C2C model has influenced the construction or redevelopment of many smaller buildings, several large companies, organisations and governments have also implemented the C2C model and its ideas and concepts:

Major implementations

• The Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies incorporates cradle to cradle systems throughout the center. The use of the term C2C is replaced with Regenerative.
• The Chinese Government is constructing many cities like Huangbaiyu based on C2C principles, utilising the rooftops for agriculture.
• The Ford River Rouge Complex redevelopment. Cleaning 20 billion US gallons (76,000,000 m³) of rainwater annually.
• The Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW) will make its laboratory and office complex completely cradle to cradle compliant 
• Several private houses and communal buildings in the Netherlands
• Fashion Positive, an initiative to assist the fashion world in implementing the cradle-to-cradle model in five areas: material health, material reuse, renewable energy, water stewardship and social fairness.

Coordination with other models

The Cradle to Cradle model can be viewed as a framework that considers systems as a whole or holistically. It can be applied to many aspects of human society, and is related to Life cycle assessment. See for instance the LCA based model of the Eco-costs, which has been designed to cope with analyses of recycle systems. The Cradle to Cradle model in some implementations is closely linked with the Car-free movement, such as in the case of large-scale building projects or the construction or redevelopment of urban environments. It is closely linked with passive solar design in the building industry and with permaculture in agriculture within or near urban environments. An earthship is a perfect example where different re-use models are used, cradle to cradle and permaculture. 

In 2005, IE Business School in Madrid launched the Center for Eco-Intelligent Innovation in collaboration with William McDonough to study the implementation of Cradle to Cradle design approaches in pioneering businesses. The academic research of companies lead to the elaboration of the Biosphere Rules, a set of five principles derived from nature that guide the implementation of circular models in production.

Constraints

A major constraint in the optimal recycling of materials is that at civic amenity sites, products are not disassembled by hand and have each individual part sorted into a bin, but instead have the entire product sorted into a certain bin. 

This makes the extraction of rare earth elements and other materials uneconomical (at recycling sites, products typically get crushed after which the materials are extracted by means of magnets, chemicals, special sorting methods, ...) and thus optimal recycling of, for example metals is impossible (an optimal recycling method for metals would require to sort all similar alloys together rather than mixing plain iron with alloys). 

Obviously, disassembling products is not feasible at currently designed civic amenity sites, and a better method would be to send back the broken products to the manufacturer, so that the manufacturer can disassemble the product. These disassembled product can then be used for making new products or at least to have the components sent separately to recycling sites (for proper recycling, by the exact type of material). At present though, few laws are put in place in any country to oblige manufacturers to take back their products for disassembly, nor are there even such obligations for manufacturers of cradle-to-cradle products. One process where this is happening is in the EU with the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive.

Criticism and response

Criticism has been advanced on the fact that McDonough and Braungart previously kept C2C consultancy and certification in their inner circle. Critics argued that this lack of competition prevented the model from fulfilling its potential. Many critics pleaded for a public-private partnership overseeing the C2C concept, thus enabling competition and growth of practical applications and services. 

McDonough and Braungart responded to this criticism by giving control of the certification protocol to a non-profit, independent Institute called the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute. McDonough said the new institute "will enable our protocol to become a public certification program and global standard." The new Institute announced the creation of a Certification Standards Board in June 2012. The new board, under the auspices of the Institute, will oversee the certification moving forward.

Experts in the field of environment protection have questioned the practicability of the concept. Friedrich Schmidt-Bleek, head of the German Wuppertal Institute called his assertion, that the "old" environmental movement had hindered innovation with its pessimist approach "pseudo-psychological humbug".

I can feel very nice on Michael's seat covers in the airplane. Nevertheless I am still waiting for a detailed proposal for a design of the other 99.99 percent of the Airbus 380 after his principles.

In 2009 Schmidt-Bleek stated that it is out of the question that the concept can be realized on a bigger scale.

Some claim that C2C certification may not be entirely sufficient in all eco-design approaches. Quantitative methodologies (LCAs) and more adapted tools (regarding the product type which is considered) could be used in tandem. The C2C concept ignores the use phase of a product. According to the Variants of Life Cycle Assessment the entire life cycle of a product or service has to be evaluated, not only the material itself. For many goods e.g. in transport, the use phase has the most influence on the environmental footprint. E.g. the more lightweight a car or a plane the less fuel it consumes and consequently the less impact it has. Braungart fully ignores the use phase.

It is safe to say that every production step or resource-transformation step needs a certain amount of energy. 

The C2C concept foresees an own certification of its analysis and therefore is in contradiction to international ISO standards 14040 and 14044 for Life Cycle Assessment whereas an independent and critical review is needed in order to obtain comparative and resilient results. Independent external review.

Nanoremediation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nanoremediation is the use of nanoparticles for environmental remediation. It is being explored to treat ground water, wastewater, soil, sediment, or other contaminated environmental materials. Nanoremediation is an emerging industry; by 2009, nanoremediation technologies had been documented in at least 44 cleanup sites around the world, predominantly in the United States. In Europe, nanoremediation is being investigated by the EC funded NanoRem Project. A report produced by the NanoRem consortium has identified around 70 nanoremediation projects worldwide at pilot or full scale. During nanoremediation, a nanoparticle agent must be brought into contact with the target contaminant under conditions that allow a detoxifying or immobilizing reaction. This process typically involves a pump-and-treat process or in situ application. 

 

Some nanoremediation methods, particularly the use of nano zero-valent iron for groundwater cleanup, have been deployed at full-scale cleanup sites. Other methods remain in research phases.

Applications

Nanoremediation has been most widely used for groundwater treatment, with additional extensive research in wastewater treatment. Nanoremediation has also been tested for soil and sediment cleanup. Even more preliminary research is exploring the use of nanoparticles to remove toxic materials from gases.

Groundwater remediation

Currently, groundwater remediation is the most common commercial application of nanoremediation technologies. Using nanomaterials, especially zero-valent metals (ZVMs), for groundwater remediation is an emerging approach that is promising due to the availability and effectiveness of many nanomaterials for degrading or sequestering contaminants.

Nanotechnology offers the potential to effectively treat contaminants in situ, avoiding excavation or the need to pump contaminated water out of the ground. The process begins with nanoparticles being injected into a contaminated aquifer via an injection well. The nanoparticles are then transported by groundwater flow to the source of contamination. Upon contact, nanoparticles can sequester contaminants (via adsorption or complexation), immobilizing them, or they can degrade the contaminants to less harmful compounds. Contaminant transformations are typically redox reactions. When the nanoparticle is the oxidant or reductant, it is considered reactive.

The ability to inject nanoparticles to the subsurface and transport them to the contaminant source is imperative for successful treatment. Reactive nanoparticles can be injected into a well where they will then be transported down gradient to the contaminated area. Drilling and packing a well is quite expensive. Direct push wells cost less than drilled wells and are the most often used delivery tool for remediation with nanoiron. A nanoparticle slurry can be injected along the vertical range of the probe to provide treatment to specific aquifer regions.

Surface water treatment

The use of various nanomaterials, including carbon nanotubes and TiO₂, shows promise for treatment of surface water, including for purification, disinfection, and desalination. Target contaminants in surface waters include heavy metals, organic contaminants, and pathogens. In this context, nanoparticles may be used as sorbents, as reactive agents (photocatalysts or redox agents), or in membranes used for nanofiltration.

Trace contaminant detection

Nanoparticles may assist in detecting trace levels of contaminants in field settings, contributing to effective remediation. Instruments that can operate outside of a laboratory often are not sensitive enough to detect trace contaminants. Rapid, portable, and cost-effective measurement systems for trace contaminants in groundwater and other environmental media would thus enhance contaminant detection and cleanup. One potential method is to separate the analyte from the sample and concentrate them to a smaller volume, easing detection and measurement. When small quantities of solid sorbents are used to absorb the target for concentration, this method is referred to as solid-phase microextraction.

With their high reactivity and large surface area, nanoparticles may be effective sorbents to help concentrate target contaminants for solid-phase microextraction, particularly in the form of self-assembled monolayers on mesoporous supports. The mesoporous silica structure, made through a surfactant templated sol-gel process, gives these self-assembled monolayers high surface area and a rigid open pore structure. This material may be an effective sorbent for many targets, including heavy metals such as mercury, lead, and cadmium, chromate and arsenate, and radionuclides such as ⁹⁹Tc, ¹³⁷CS, uranium, and the actinides.

Mechanism

The small size of nanoparticles leads to several characteristics that may enhance remediation. Nanomaterials are highly reactive because of their high surface area per unit mass. Their small particle size also allows nanoparticles to enter small pores in soil or sediment that larger particles might not penetrate, granting them access to contaminants sorbed to soil and increasing the likelihood of contact with the target contaminant.

Because nanomaterials are so tiny, their movement is largely governed by Brownian motion as compared to gravity. Thus, the flow of groundwater can be sufficient to transport the particles. Nanoparticles then can remain suspended in solution longer to establish an in situ treatment zone.

Once a nanoparticle contacts the contaminant, it may degrade the contaminant, typically through a redox reaction, or adsorb to the contaminant to immobilize it. In some cases, such as with magnetic nano-iron, adsorbed complexes may be separated from the treated substrate, removing the contaminant. Target contaminants include organic molecules such as pesticides or organic solvents and metals such as arsenic or lead. Some research is also exploring the use of nanoparticles to remove excessive nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus.

Materials

A variety of compounds, including some that are used as macro-sized particles for remediation, are being studied for use in nanoremediation. These materials include zero-valent metals like zero-valent iron, calcium carbonate, carbon-based compounds such as graphene or carbon nanotubes, and metal oxides such as titanium dioxide and iron oxide.

Nano zero-valent iron

As of 2012, nano zero-valent iron (nZVI) was the nanoscale material most commonly used in bench and field remediation tests. nZVI may be mixed or coated with another metal, such as palladium, silver, or copper, that acts as a catalyst in what is called a bimetallic nanoparticle. nZVI may also be emulsified with a surfactant and an oil, creating a membrane that enhances the nanoparticle's ability to interact with hydrophobic liquids and protects it against reactions with materials dissolved in water. Commercial nZVI particle sizes may sometimes exceed true “nano” dimensions (100 nm or less in diameter).

nZVI appears to be useful for degrading organic contaminants, including chlorinated organic compounds such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and trichloroethene (TCE), as well as immobilizing or removing metals. nZVI and other nanoparticles that do not require light can be injected belowground into the contaminated zone for in situ groundwater remediation and, potentially, soil remediation. 

nZVI nanoparticles can be prepared by using sodium borohydride as the key reductant. NaBH₄ (0.2 M) is added into FeCl₃•6H₂ (0.05 M) solution (~1:1 volume ratio). Ferric iron is reduced via the following reaction: 

4Fe³⁺ + 3BH⁻
₄ + 9H₂O → 4Fe⁰ + 3H₂BO⁻
₃ + 12H⁺ + 6H₂

Palladized Fe particles are prepared by soaking the nanoscale iron particles with an ethanol solution of 1wt% of palladium acetate ([Pd(C₂H₃O₂)2]₃). This causes the reduction and deposition of Pd on the Fe surface: 

Pd²⁺ + Fe ⁰ → Pd⁰ + Fe²⁺

Similar methods may be used to prepared Fe/Pt, Fe/Ag, Fe/Ni, Fe/Co, and Fe/Cu bimetallic particles. With the above methods, nanoparticles of diameter 50-70 nm may be produced. The average specific surface area of Pd/Fe particles is about 35 m²/g. Ferrous iron salt has also been successfully used as the precursor.

Titanium dioxide

Titanium dioxide (TiO₂) is also a leading candidate for nanoremediation and wastewater treatment, although as of 2010 it is reported to have not yet been expanded to full-scale commercialization. When exposed to ultraviolet light, such as in sunlight, titanium dioxide produces hydroxyl radicals, which are highly reactive and can oxidize contaminants. Hydroxyl radicals are used for water treatment in methods generally termed advanced oxidation processes. Because light is required for this reaction, TiO₂ is not appropriate for underground in situ remediation, but it may be used for wastewater treatment or pump-and-treat groundwater remediation. 

TiO₂ is inexpensive, chemically stable, and insoluble in water. TiO₂ has a wide band gap energy (3.2 eV) that requires the use of UV light, as opposed to visible light only, for photocatalytic activation. To enhance the efficiency of its photocatalysis, research has investigated modifications to TiO₂ or alternative photocatalysts that might use a greater portion of photons in the visible light spectrum. Potential modifications include doping TiO₂ with metals, nitrogen, or carbon.

Challenges

When using in situ remediation the reactive products must be considered for two reasons. One reason is that a reactive product might be more harmful or mobile than the parent compound. Another reason is that the products can affect the effectiveness and/or cost of remediation. TCE (trichloroethylene), under reducing conditions by nanoiron, may sequentially dechlorinate to DCE (dichloroethene) and VC (vinyl chloride). VC is known to be more harmful than TCE, meaning this process would be undesirable.

Nanoparticles also react with non-target compounds. Bare nanoparticles tend to clump together and also react rapidly with soil, sediment, or other material in ground water. For in situ remediation, this action inhibits the particles from dispersing in the contaminated area, reducing their effectiveness for remediation. Coatings or other treatment may allow nanoparticles to disperse farther and potentially reach a greater portion of the contaminated zone. Coatings for nZVI include surfactants, polyelectrolyte coatings, emulsification layers, and protective shells made from silica or carbon.

Such designs may also affect the nanoparticles’ ability to react with contaminants, their uptake by organisms, and their toxicity. A continuing area of research involves the potential for nanoparticles used for remediation to disperse widely and harm wildlife, plants, or people.

In some cases, bioremediation may be used deliberately at the same site or with the same material as nanoremediation. Ongoing research is investigating how nanoparticles may interact with simultaneous biological remediation.

Idaho test reactor is pivotal in US nuclear power strategy

By KEITH RIDLER December 15, 2018

Original link:   https://www.apnews.com/0079d71260644413ace5e0ec1f360728?fbclid=IwAR14r43wfGcnJhU5kJt_w1mhlIuaKEuImFy8HPutupcyGAPthAaJGcWH2fM

This Nov. 29, 2018 photo shows the Transient Test Reactor at the Idaho National Laboratory about 50 miles west of Idaho Falls, in eastern Idaho. The facility has been restarted to test nuclear fuels as the U.S. tries to revamp a fading nuclear power industry with safer fuel designs and a new generation of power plants. (AP Photo/Keith Riddler)

IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY, Idaho (AP) — A nuclear test reactor that can melt uranium fuel rods in seconds is running again after a nearly quarter-century shutdown as U.S. officials try to revamp a fading nuclear power industry with safer fuel designs and a new generation of power plants.

The reactor at the U.S. Energy Department’s Idaho National Laboratory has performed 10 tests on nuclear fuel since late last year.

“If we’re going to have nuclear power in this country 20 or 30 years from now, it’s going to be because of this reactor,” said J.R. Biggs, standing in front of the Transient Test Reactor he manages that in short bursts can produce enough energy to power 14 million homes.

The reactor was used to run 6,604 tests from 1959 to 1994, when it was put on standby as the United States started turning away from nuclear power amid safety concerns.

Restarting it is part of a strategy to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by generating carbon-free electricity with nuclear power initiated under the Obama administration and continuing under the Trump administration, despite Trump’s downplaying of global warming.

J.R. Biggs stands in front of the Transient Test Reactor. (AP Photo/Keith Riddler)

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 98 nuclear reactors at 59 power plants produce about 20 percent of the nation’s energy. Most of the reactors are decades old, and many are having a tough time competing economically with other forms of energy production, particularly cheaper gas-fired power plants.

Some nuclear plants have closed in recent years, and Illinois, New York and New Jersey have approved subsidies in the past two years to bail out commercial nuclear plants. Officials in some areas are considering carbon taxes on coal and natural gas to boost nuclear power.

U.S. officials hope to improve nuclear power’s prospects. They face two main challenges: making the plants economically competitive and changing public perception among some that nuclear power is unsafe.

Biggs said Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster, caused by a 2011 earthquake and tsunami, was a primary reason U.S. officials restarted the test reactor in Idaho. The cores of three reactors at the Japan plant suffered meltdowns after cooling systems failed.

But what if, researchers say, nuclear plants produced energy with accident-tolerant fuels in reactors designed to safely shut themselves down in an emergency? That’s where the Idaho lab’s test reactor comes in.

Dan Wachs, who directs the lab’s fuel safety research program, said only three other reactors with fuel testing abilities exist — in France, Japan and Kazakhstan. He said none can perform the range of experiments that can be done at the Idaho lab’s Transient Test Reactor, also called TREAT.

“The world is suffering from a very acute shortage of testing that TREAT fills,” he said.

At the Idaho test reactor, pencil-sized pieces of fuel rods supplied by commercial manufacturers are inserted into the reactor that can generate short, 20-gigawatt bursts of energy. Workers perform tests remotely from about half a mile (0.8 kilometers) away.

The strategy is to test the fuels under accident conditions, including controlled and contained meltdowns, to eventually create safer fuels.

The tiny fuel rods, including those that melt, are sent to the lab’s Hot Fuel Examination Facility, where workers behind 4 feet (1.2 meters) of leaded glass examine them. Additional work is done a short walk away at the Irradiated Materials Characterization Lab, where powerful microscopes can examine the fuel at the atomic level.

Hot cell operators Dawnette Hunter, left, and Scot White manipulate radioactive material from behind 4-foot-thick leaded glass. (AP Photo/Keith Riddler)

Wachs and his team of about 15 scientists get the results and consult with both the fuel manufacturer and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licenses nuclear fuel.

The 890-square-mile (2,300-square-kilometer) Energy Department site that holds the test reactor, about 50 miles (80 kilometers) west of Idaho Falls, also is the proposed location for an energy cooperative’s small modular reactors. The small reactors are intended to be economically competitive and safer than current reactor designs. Because they’re modular, additional reactors can be built as energy demands in a region increase, reducing initial construction costs.

While the Idaho lab looks to the future, the sprawling Energy Department site in Idaho’s high desert sagebrush also contains some of the nation’s nuclear past. The core from Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear plant was buried there after it underwent a partial meltdown in 1979 in one of the nation’s worst nuclear mishaps.

The Three Mile Island facility still produces energy, but its owner has said it will shut it down in 2019 unless Pennsylvania comes to its financial rescue.

Besides economics and safety, another problem for nuclear energy is what to do with the radioactive spent fuel rods. The U.S. has no permanent repository for about 77,000 tons (70,000 metric tons), stored mainly at the commercial nuclear power plants where they were used to produce electricity.

Idaho won federal court battles in 1990s to prevent the Energy Department’s Idaho site from becoming a repository for spent fuel and other nuclear waste. Other states don’t want it either.

“I think the Idaho National Laboratory is more optimistic about the future of nuclear energy than is warranted,” said Beatrice Brailsford of the Snake River Alliance, an Idaho-based nuclear watchdog group.

Still, nuclear energy has been identified by U.S. officials as having a key role in reducing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.

“Nuclear is a primary way to get there,” said Wachs. “It’s really the only way to get there.”

Environmental remediation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Environmental remediation deals with the removal of pollution or contaminants from environmental media such as soil, groundwater, sediment, or surface water. This would mean that once requested by the government or a land remediation authority, immediate action should be taken as this can impact negatively on human health and the environment. 

 

Remedial action is generally subject to an array of regulatory requirements, and also can be based on assessments of human health and ecological risks where no legislated standards exist or where standards are advisory.

To help with environmental remediation, one can get environmental remediation services. These services help eliminate radiation sources in order to help protect the environment.

Remediation standards

In the United States, the most comprehensive set of Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) is from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9. A set of standards used in Europe exists and is often called the Dutch standards. The European Union (EU) is rapidly moving towards Europe-wide standards, although most of the industrialised nations in Europe have their own standards at present. In Canada, most standards for remediation are set by the provinces individually, but the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment provides guidance at a federal level in the form of the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines and the Canada-Wide Standards|Canada-Wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil.

Site assessment

Once a site is suspected of being contaminated there is a need to assess the contamination. Often the assessment begins with preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. The historical use of the site and the materials used and produced on site will guide the assessment strategy and type of sampling and chemical analysis to be done. Often nearby sites owned by the same company or which are nearby and have been reclaimed, levelled or filled are also contaminated even where the current land use seems innocuous. For example, a car park may have been levelled by using contaminated waste in the fill. Also important is to consider off site contamination of nearby sites often through decades of emissions to soil, groundwater, and air. Ceiling dust, topsoil, surface and groundwater of nearby properties should also be tested, both before and after any remediation. This is a controversial step as:

• No one wants to have to pay for the cleanup of the site;
• If nearby properties are found to be contaminated it may have to be noted on their property title, potentially affecting the value;
• No one wants to pay for the cost of assessment.

Often corporations which do voluntary testing of their sites are protected from the reports to environmental agencies becoming public under Freedom of Information Acts, however a "Freedom of Information" inquiry will often produce other documents that are not protected or will produce references to the reports.

Funding remediation

In the US there has been a mechanism for taxing polluting industries to form a Superfund to remediate abandoned sites, or to litigate to force corporations to remediate their contaminated sites. Other countries have other mechanisms and commonly sites are rezoned to "higher" uses such as high density housing, to give the land a higher value so that after deducting cleanup costs there is still an incentive for a developer to purchase the land, clean it up, redevelop it and sell it on, often as apartments (home units).

Mapping remediation

There are several tools for mapping these sites and which allow the user to view additional information. One such tool is TOXMAP, a Geographic Information System (GIS) from the Division of Specialized Information Services of the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM) that uses maps of the United States to help users visually explore data from the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund and Toxics Release Inventory programs.

Technologies

Remediation technologies are many and varied but can generally be categorized into ex-situ and in-situ methods. Ex-situ methods involve excavation of affected soils and subsequent treatment at the surface as well as extraction of contaminated groundwater and treatment at the surface. In-situ methods seek to treat the contamination without removing the soils or groundwater. Various technologies have been developed for remediation of oil-contaminated soil/sediments.

Traditional remediation approaches consist of soil excavation and disposal to landfill and groundwater "pump and treat". In-situ technologies include but are not limited to: solidification and stabilization, soil vapor extraction, permeable reactive barriers, monitored natural attenuation, bioremediation-phytoremediation, chemical oxidation, steam-enhanced extraction and in situ thermal desorption and have been used extensively in the USA.

Thermal desorption

Thermal desorption is a technology for soil remediation. During the process a desorber volatilizes the contaminants (e.g. oil, mercury or hydrocarbon) to separate them from especially soil or sludge. After that the contaminants can either be collected or destroyed in an offgas treatment system.

Excavation or dredging

Excavation processes can be as simple as hauling the contaminated soil to a regulated landfill, but can also involve aerating the excavated material in the case of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Recent advancements in bioaugmentation and biostimulation of the excavated material have also proven to be able to remediate semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) onsite. If the contamination affects a river or bay bottom, then dredging of bay mud or other silty clays containing contaminants (including sewage sludge with harmful microorganisms) may be conducted. Recently, ExSitu Chemical oxidation has also been utilized in the remediation of contaminated soil. This process involves the excavation of the contaminated area into large bermed areas where they are treated using chemical oxidation methods.

Surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation (SEAR)

Also known as solubilization and recovery, the surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation process involves the injection of hydrocarbon mitigation agents or specialty surfactants into the subsurface to enhance desorption and recovery of bound up otherwise recalcitrant non aqueous phase liquid (NAPL).

In geologic formations that allow delivery of hydrocarbon mitigation agents or specialty surfactants, this approach provides a cost effective and permanent solution to sites that have been previously unsuccessful utilizing other remedial approaches. This technology is also successful when utilized as the initial step in a multi faceted remedial approach utilizing SEAR then In situ Oxidation, bioremediation enhancement or soil vapor extraction (SVE).

Pump and treat

Pump and treat involves pumping out contaminated groundwater with the use of a submersible or vacuum pump, and allowing the extracted groundwater to be purified by slowly proceeding through a series of vessels that contain materials designed to adsorb the contaminants from the groundwater. For petroleum-contaminated sites this material is usually activated carbon in granular form. Chemical reagents such as flocculants followed by sand filters may also be used to decrease the contamination of groundwater. Air stripping is a method that can be effective for volatile pollutants such as BTEX compounds found in gasoline.

For most biodegradable materials like BTEX, MTBE and most hydrocarbons, bioreactors can be used to clean the contaminated water to non-detectable levels. With fluidized bed bioreactors it is possible to achieve very low discharge concentrations which will meet or exceed discharge requirements for most pollutants.

Depending on geology and soil type, pump and treat may be a good method to quickly reduce high concentrations of pollutants. It is more difficult to reach sufficiently low concentrations to satisfy remediation standards, due to the equilibrium of absorption/desorption processes in the soil. However, pump and treat is typically not the best form of remediation. It is expensive to treat the groundwater, and typically is a very slow process to clean up a release with pump and treat. It is best suited to control the hydraulic gradient and keep a release from spreading further. Better options of in-situ treatment often include air sparge/soil vapor extraction (AS/SVE) or dual phase extraction/multiphase extraction(DPE/MPE). Other methods include trying to increase the dissolved oxygen content of the groundwater to support microbial degradation of the compound (especially petroleum) by direct injection of oxygen into the subsurface, or the direct injection of a slurry that slowly releases oxygen over time (typically magnesium peroxide or calcium oxy-hydroxide).

Solidification and stabilization

Solidification and stabilization work has a reasonably good track record but also a set of serious deficiencies related to durability of solutions and potential long-term effects. In addition CO₂ emissions due to the use of cement are also becoming a major obstacle to its widespread use in solidification/stabilization projects.

Stabilization/solidification (S/S) is a remediation and treatment technology that relies on the reaction between a binder and soil to stop/prevent or reduce the mobility of contaminants.

• Stabilization involves the addition of reagents to a contaminated material (e.g. soil or sludge) to produce more chemically stable constituents; and
• Solidification involves the addition of reagents to a contaminated material to impart physical/dimensional stability to contain contaminants in a solid product and reduce access by external agents (e.g. air, rainfall).

Conventional S/S is an established remediation technology for contaminated soils and treatment technology for hazardous wastes in many countries in the world. However, the uptake of S/S technologies has been relatively modest, and a number of barriers have been identified including:

• the relatively low cost and widespread use of disposal to landfill;
• the lack of authoritative technical guidance on S/S;
• uncertainty over the durability and rate of contaminant release from S/S-treated material;
• experiences of past poor practice in the application of cement stabilization processes used in waste disposal in the 1980s and 1990s (ENDS, 1992); and
• residual liability associated with immobilized contaminants remaining on-site, rather than their removal or destruction.

In situ oxidation

New in situ oxidation technologies have become popular for remediation of a wide range of soil and groundwater contaminants. Remediation by chemical oxidation involves the injection of strong oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide, ozone gas, potassium permanganate or persulfates.

Oxygen gas or ambient air can also be injected to promote growth of aerobic bacteria which accelerate natural attenuation of organic contaminants. One disadvantage of this approach is the possibility of decreasing anaerobic contaminant destruction natural attenuation where existing conditions enhance anaerobic bacteria which normally live in the soil prefer a reducing environment. In general though, aerobic activity is much faster than anaerobic and overall destruction rates are typically greater when aerobic activity can be successfully promoted.

The injection of gases into the groundwater may also cause contamination to spread faster than normal depending on the site's hydrogeology. In these cases, injections downgradient of groundwater flow may provide adequate microbial destruction of contaminants prior to exposure to surface waters or drinking water supply wells.

Migration of metal contaminants must also be considered whenever modifying subsurface oxidation-reduction potential. Certain metals are more soluble in oxidizing environments while others are more mobile in reducing environments.

Soil vapor extraction

Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is an effective remediation technology for soil. "Multi Phase Extraction" (MPE) is also an effective remediation technology when soil and groundwater are to be remediated coincidentally. SVE and MPE utilize different technologies to treat the off-gas volatile organic compounds (VOCs) generated after vacuum removal of air and vapors (and VOCs) from the subsurface and include granular activated carbon (most commonly used historically), thermal and/or catalytic oxidation and vapor condensation. Generally, carbon is used for low (below 500 ppmV) VOC concentration vapor streams, oxidation is used for moderate (up to 4,000 ppmV) VOC concentration streams, and vapor condensation is used for high (over 4,000 ppmV) VOC concentration vapor streams. Below is a brief summary of each technology.

• Granular activated carbon (GAC) is used as a filter for air or water. Commonly used to filter tap water in household sinks. GAC is a highly porous adsorbent material, produced by heating organic matter, such as coal, wood and coconut shell, in the absence of air, which is then crushed into granules. Activated carbon is positively charged and therefore able to remove negative ions from the water such as organic ions, ozone, chlorine, fluorides and dissolved organic solutes by adsorption onto the activated carbon. The activated carbon must be replaced periodically as it may become saturated and unable to adsorb (i.e. reduced absorption efficiency with loading). Activated carbon is not effective in removing heavy metals.^{[citation needed]}
• Thermal oxidation (or incineration) can also be an effective remediation technology. This approach is somewhat controversial because of the risks of dioxins released in the atmosphere through the exhaust gases or effluent off-gas. Controlled, high temperature incineration with filtering of exhaust gases however should not pose any risks. Two different technologies can be employed to oxidize the contaminants of an extracted vapor stream. The selection of either thermal or catalytic depends on the type and concentration in parts per million by volume of constituent in the vapor stream. Thermal oxidation is more useful for higher concentration (~4,000 ppmV) influent vapor streams (which require less natural gas usage) than catalytic oxidation at ~2,000 ppmV.
• Thermal oxidation which uses a system that acts as a furnace and maintains temperatures ranging from 1,350 to 1,500 °F (730 to 820 °C).
• Catalytic oxidation which uses a catalyst on a support to facilitate a lower temperature oxidation. This system usually maintains temperatures ranging from 600 to 800 °F (316 to 427 °C).
• Vapor condensation is the most effective off-gas treatment technology for high (over 4,000 ppmV) VOC concentration vapor streams. The process involves cryogenically cooling the vapor stream to below 40 degrees C such that the VOCs condensate out of the vapor stream and into liquid form where it is collected in steel containers. The liquid form of the VOCs is referred to as dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) when the source of the liquid consists predominantly of solvents or light non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) when the source of the liquid consists predominantly of petroleum or fuel products. This recovered chemical can then be reused or recycled in a more environmentally sustainable or green manner than the alternatives described above. This technology is also known as cryogenic cooling and compression (C3-Technology).

Nanoremediation

Using nano-sized reactive agents to degrade or immobilize contaminants is termed nanoremediation. In soil or groundwater nanoremediation, nanoparticles are brought into contact with the contaminant through either in situ injection or a pump-and-treat process. The nanomaterials then degrade organic contaminants through redox reactions or adsorb to and immobilize metals such as lead or arsenic. In commercial settings, this technology has been dominantly applied to groundwater remediation, with research into wastewater treatment. Research is also investigating how nanoparticles may be applied to cleanup of soil and gases.

Nanomaterials are highly reactive because of their high surface area per unit mass, and due to this reactivity nanomaterials may react with target contaminants at a faster rate than would larger particles. Most field applications of nanoremediation have used nano zero-valent iron (nZVI), which may be emulsified or mixed with another metal to enhance dispersion.

That nanoparticles are highly reactive can mean that they rapidly clump together or react with soil particles or other material in the environment, limiting their dispersal to target contaminants. Some of the important challenges currently limiting nanoremediation technologies include identifying coatings or other formulations that increase dispersal of the nanoparticle agents to better reach target contaminants while limiting any potential toxicity to bioremediation agents, wildlife, or people.

Bioremediation

Bioremediation is a process that treats a polluted area either by altering environmental conditions to stimulate growth of microorganisms or through natural microorganism activity, resulting in the degradation of the target pollutants. Broad categories of bioremediation include biostimulation, bioaugmentation, and natural recovery (natural attenuation). Bioremediation is either done on the contaminated site (in situ) or after the removal of contaminated soils at another more controlled site (ex situ). 

In the past, it has been difficult to turn to bioremediation as an implemented policy solution, as lack of adequate production of remediating microbes led to little options for implementation. Those that manufacture microbes for bioremediation must be approved by the EPA; however, the EPA traditionally has been more cautious about negative externalities that may or may not arise from the introduction of these species. One of their concerns is that the toxic chemicals would lead to the microbe's gene degradation, which would then be passed on to other harmful bacteria, creating more issues, if the pathogens evolve the ability to feed off of pollutants.

Collapsing air microbubbles

Cleaning of oil contaminated sediments with self collapsing air microbubbles have been recently explored as a chemical free technology. Air microbubbles generated in water without adding any surfactant could be used to clean oil contaminated sediments. This technology holds promise over the use of chemicals (mainly surfactant) for traditional washing of oil contaminated sediments.

Community consultation and information

In preparation for any significant remediation there should be extensive community consultation. The proponent should both present information to and seek information from the community. The proponent needs to learn about "sensitive" (future) uses like childcare, schools, hospitals, and playgrounds as well as community concerns and interests information. Consultation should be open, on a group basis so that each member of the community is informed about issues they may not have individually thought about. An independent chairperson acceptable to both the proponent and the community should be engaged (at proponent expense if a fee is required). Minutes of meetings including questions asked and the answers to them and copies of presentations by the proponent should be available both on the internet and at a local library (even a school library) or community centre.

Incremental health risk

Incremental health risk is the increased risk that a receptor (normally a human being living nearby) will face from (the lack of) a remediation project. The use of incremental health risk is based on carcinogenic and other (e.g., mutagenic, teratogenic) effects and often involves value judgements about the acceptable projected rate of increase in cancer. In some jurisdictions this is 1 in 1,000,000 but in other jurisdictions the acceptable projected rate of increase is 1 in 100,000. A relatively small incremental health risk from a single project is not of much comfort if the area already has a relatively high health risk from other operations like incinerators or other emissions, or if other projects exist at the same time causing a greater cumulative risk or an unacceptably high total risk. An analogy often used by remediators is to compare the risk of the remediation on nearby residents to the risks of death through car accidents or tobacco smoking.

Emissions standards

Standards are set for the levels of dust, noise, odour, emissions to air and groundwater, and discharge to sewers or waterways of all chemicals of concern or chemicals likely to be produced during the remediation by processing of the contaminants. These are compared against both natural background levels in the area and standards for areas zoned as nearby areas are zoned and against standards used in other recent remediations. Just because the emission is emanating from an area zoned industrial does not mean that in a nearby residential area there should be permitted any exceedances of the appropriate residential standards.

Monitoring for compliance against each standards is critical to ensure that exceedances are detected and reported both to authorities and the local community.

Enforcement is necessary to ensure that continued or significant breaches result in fines or even a jail sentence for the polluter.

Penalties must be significant as otherwise fines are treated as a normal expense of doing business. Compliance must be cheaper than to have continuous breaches.

Transport and emergency safety assessment

Assessment should be made of the risks of operations, transporting contaminated material, disposal of waste which may be contaminated including workers' clothes, and a formal emergency response plan should be developed. Every worker and visitor entering the site should have a safety induction personalised to their involvement with the site.

Impacts of funding remediation

The rezoning is often resisted by local communities and local government because of the adverse effects on the local amenity of the remediation and the new development. The main impacts during remediation are noise, dust, odour and incremental health risk. Then there is the noise, dust and traffic of developments. Then there is the impact on local traffic, schools, playing fields, and other public facilities of the often vastly increased local population.

Examples of major remediation projects

Homebush Bay, New South Wales, Australia

Dioxins from Union Carbide used in the production of now-banned pesticide 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid and defoliant Agent Orange polluted Homebush Bay. Remediation was completed in 2010, but fishing will continue to be banned for decades.

Bakar Ex Cokeing Plant Site, Croatia

An E.U. contract for immobilization a polluted area of 20.000 m3 in BAKAR Croatia based on Solidification/Stabilization with ImmoCem is currently in progress. After 3 years of intensive research by the Croatian government the E.U. funded the immobilization project in BAKAR. The area is contaminated with large amounts of TPH, PAH and metals. For the immobilization the contractor chose to use the mix-in-plant procedure.