Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “GROUND WATER”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2

RBDMS, FracFocus, State Support, and Produced Water Initiatives

Award DE-FE-0027702 from the Department of Energy to the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) focused on state and federal priorities in the areas of state Risk Based Data Management System (RBDMS) development, connectivity between state systems and FracFocus.org, and data sharing initiatives across agencies. The primary objective was to enhance the RBDMS by adding new components relevant to current environmental topics such as hydraulic fracturing, increasing field inspection capabilities, creating linkages between FracFocus and state programs, upgrading eForm capabilities, and analyzing potential for data sharing. The recipient worked with state agencies developing RBDMS module(s) that meet these needs.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

HarDWR - Water Management Area (WMA) Shapefiles

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - No changes v1.0 - Initial public release Description Borders of all Water Management Areas (WMAs) across the 11 western-most states of the coterminous United States are available filtered through a single source. The legal name for this set of boundaries varies state-by-state. The data is provided as two compressed shapefiles. One, stateWMAs, contains data for all 11 states. For 10 of those states, Arizona being the exception, the polygons represent the legal management boundaries used by those states to manage their surface and groundwater resources respectively. WMAs refer to the set of boundaries a particular state uses to manage its water resources. Each set of boundaries was collected from the states individually, and then merged into one spatial layer. The merging process included renaming some columns to enable merging with all other source layers, as well as removing columns deemed not required for followup analysis. The retained columns for each boundary are: basinNum - the state provided unique numerical ID; basinName - the state provided English name of the area, where applicable; state - the state name; and uniID - a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID. Arizona is unique within this collection of states in that surface and groundwater resources are managed using two separate sets of boundaries. During our followup analysis (Grogan et al., in review) we decided to focus on one set of boundaries, those for surface water. This is due to the recommendation of our hydrologists that the surface water boundary set is a more realist representation of how water moves across the landscape, as a few of the groundwater boundaries are based on political and/or economic considerations. Therefore, the Arizona surface WMAs are included within stateWMAs. The Arizona groundwater WMAs are provided as a separate file, azGroundWMAs, as a companion to the first file for completeness and general reference. WMA spatial boundary data sources by state: Arizona: Arizona Surface Water Watersheds; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/surface-watershed/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 Arizona: Arizona Ground Water Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/groundwater-basin-2/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 California: California CalWater 2.2.1; Collected February, 2020; https://www.mlml.calstate.edu/mpsl-mlml/data-center/data-entry-tools/data-tools/gis-shapefile-layers/ Colorado: Colorado Water District Boundaries; Collected February, 2020; https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdss/gis-data-category Idaho: Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) Administrative Basins; Collected November, 2015; https://data-idwr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/fb0df7d688a04074bad92ca8ef74cc26_4/explore?location=45.018686%2C-113.862284%2C6.93 Montana: Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) Office of Information Technology (OIT) Nevada: Nevada State Engineer Admin Basin Boundaries; Collected April, 2020 https://ndwr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=1364d0c3a0284fa1bcd90f952b2b9f1c New Mexico: New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE) Declared Groundwater Basins; Collected April, 2020 https://geospatialdata-ose.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ose-declared-groundwater-basins/explore?location=34.179783%2C-105.996542%2C7.51 Oregon: Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) Administrative Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/access_Data/Pages/Data.aspx Utah: Utah Adjudication Books; Collected April, 2020; https://opendata.gis.utah.gov/datasets/utahDNR::utah-adjudication-books/explore?location=39.497165%2C-111.587782%2C-1.00 Washington: Washington Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA); Collected June, 2017; https://ecology.wa.gov/Research-Data/Data-resources/Geographic-Information-Systems-GIS/Data Wyoming: Wyoming State Engineer's Office Board of Control Water Districts; Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Wyoming State Engineer's Office

Economics↗

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a collection of objects stored within an RDate file, stateWaterRightsHarmonized.RData. Each object either describes how one should interact with the other objects, or contains the harmonized water rights data. Here is each object described in detail: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. The column headers for each data frame are: waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. allocatedFlow - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. rightsByState_surface: A list of the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, these lists are the merging of rightsByState_ground and rightsByState_surface by state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page.

Economics↗

AmeriFlux US-xSB NEON Ordway-Swisher Biological Station (OSBS)

This is the AmeriFlux version of the carbon flux data for the site US-xSB NEON Ordway-Swisher Biological Station (OSBS). Site Description - The Ordway-Swisher Biological Station (OSBS) is operated by the University of Florida and comprises over 9,300 acres. It is a year-round field station established for the long-term study and conservation of unique ecosystems through management, research and education. The Station is located approximately 20 miles east of Gainesville in Melrose (Putnam County, Florida). There are two aquatic arrays at Ordway-Swisher, representing the two dominant aquatic features on the landscape: 1) Suggs lake, a shallow surface water lake that is rich in taxa and biologically active in structure and function; and 2) Barco lake, a deep lake connected to ground water. The forest is maintained by fire and has a relatively open structure: it is managed with prescribed burns at a frequency of 3-4 years.

Network), NEON (National Ecological Observatory↗

AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F US-xSB NEON Ordway-Swisher Biological Station (OSBS)

This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-xSB NEON Ordway-Swisher Biological Station (OSBS). This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-xSB NEON Ordway-Swisher Biological Station (OSBS) produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - The Ordway-Swisher Biological Station (OSBS) is operated by the University of Florida and comprises over 9,300 acres. It is a year-round field station established for the long-term study and conservation of unique ecosystems through management, research and education. The Station is located approximately 20 miles east of Gainesville in Melrose (Putnam County, Florida). There are two aquatic arrays at Ordway-Swisher, representing the two dominant aquatic features on the landscape: 1) Suggs lake, a shallow surface water lake that is rich in taxa and biologically active in structure and function; and 2) Barco lake, a deep lake connected to ground water. The forest is maintained by fire and has a relatively open structure: it is managed with prescribed burns at a frequency of 3-4 years.

Network), NEON (National Ecological Observatory↗

Elucidating and predicting the dynamic evolution of water and land systems due to natural and energy-related forcings

Focal Area(s): 3. Insight gleaned from complex data (both observed and simulated) using AI, big data analytics, and other advanced methods, including explainable AI and physics- or knowledge-guided AI; & 1. Data acquisition and assimilation enabled by machine learning, AI, and advanced methods including experimental/network design/optimization, unsupervised learning (including deep learning), and hardware-related efforts involving AI (e.g., edge computing). Science Challenge: Interactions between water, land, and energy systems are complex and occur on a variety of scales, ranging from local to basinal to regional. Accurately predicting the behavior of ground water and surface water systems for 5-10 years and beyond requires an understanding of the current system and the ability to model both the natural system at scale and human-induced forcings related to energy and other activities. Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) combined with modern compilation and integration efforts for U.S. groundwater and surface water systems present potential solutions to bolstering detailed physics-based models of these systems. Big data tied with ML and physics-based modeling can drive breakthroughs in understanding the earth system, but research is often impeded by data access (e.g., privacy issues), quality, formats, gaps, multi-source, multi-scale, integration, and spatiotemporal challenges. Effective integration of real data and simulated (synthetic) data that fill gaps is critical. Overcoming these complex data and model integration challenges will enable a transformational approach to acquiring enhanced understanding of environmental systems.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Using SF 6 and Xe to Monitor Gas Migration Through Explosion-Generated Fracture Networks

Here we describe a field study where tracer gas was injected into a subsurface cavity created by a small chemical explosion beneath the water table. The main objective of the study is to compare the migration of sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) and xenon (Xe) through an explosion-generated fracture network and to study the influence of ground water on gas transport. A mixture of tracer gases (50% of SF 6 and 50% of Xe) was injected on 31 October 2018 and gas sampling continued until 8 November 2018. We observe similar trends in SF 6 and Xe concentrations at four ground surface sampling sites. The changes in the SF 6 /Xe ratios with time show that more SF 6 than Xe is observed during the barometric pressure lows when the absolute measured concentrations are highest. Conversely, the ratio SF 6 /Xe is less than 1 during the high-pressure intervals when absolute measured concentrations are low. The results of the experiment suggest that during barometric pressure lows the tracer is migrating to the surface primarily by advective gas phase transport, whereas during barometric pressure highs, advection is suppressed and near-surface evaporation of interstitial pore fluid with tracer dissolved in it becomes more important. Thus, the results of the experiment show that the gas concentrations at the surface are controlled by the combined effects of the gas dissolution into pore water and the barometric pressure fluctuations.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

Enhanced Carbon Flux Response to Atmospheric Aridity and Water Storage Deficit During the 2015–2016 El Niño Compromised Carbon Balance Recovery in Tropical South America

During the 2015–2016 El Niño, the Amazon basin released almost one gigaton of carbon (GtC) into the atmosphere due to extreme temperatures and drought. The link between the drought impact and recovery of the total carbon pools and its biogeochemical drivers is still unknown. With satellite-constrained net carbon exchange and its component fluxes including gross primary production and fire emissions, we show that the total carbon loss caused by the 2015–2016 El Niño had not recovered by the end of 2018. Forest ecosystems over the Northeastern (NE) Amazon suffered a cumulative total carbon loss of ~0.6 GtC through December 2018, driven primarily by a suppression of photosynthesis whereas southeastern savannah carbon loss was driven in part by fire. We attribute the slow recovery to the unexpected large carbon loss caused by the severe atmospheric aridity coupled with a water storage deficit during drought. We show the attenuation of carbon uptake is three times higher than expected from the pre-drought sensitivity to atmospheric aridity and ground water supply. Our study fills an important knowledge gap in our understanding of the unexpectedly enhanced response of carbon fluxes to atmospheric aridity and water storage deficit and its impact on regional post-drought recovery as a function of the vegetation types and climate perturbations. Our results suggest that the disproportionate impact of water supply and demand could compromise resiliency of the Amazonian carbon balance to future increases in extreme events.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Effects of Livestock Exclusion on Stream Habitat and Aquatic Biota: A Review and Recommendations for Implementation and Monitoring

Abstract To inform riparian restoration, research, and monitoring and to provide management recommendations, we reviewed published studies evaluating the physical and biological effectiveness of livestock exclusion and grazing reduction on various metrics in riparian and aquatic areas. We identified 95 North American studies that reported the effects of livestock grazing reduction on physical habitat (channel morphology, mesohabitats, substrate, and bank stability), biological assemblages (riparian vegetation, macroinvertebrates, fish, and birds), and water quality metrics (temperature, nitrates, phosphorus, and turbidity). Most studies reported that methods to reduce or exclude livestock decreased channel width, width-to-depth ratio, bank erosion, soil bulk density, bare ground, water temperature, nitrogen, and phosphorus and increased riparian vegetation (cover, height, productivity, biomass, and abundance), riparian bird abundance, and young-of-the-year fishes. Results for channel depth, instream substrate, mesohabitats, water depth, juvenile and adult fishes, and macroinvertebrates showed no consistent response to exclusion. Project success was influenced by the time since exclusion; whether there was complete exclusion or continued grazing; and local climate, geology, and soils. Apart from bank erosion and stability, most of the physical and biological metrics took more than a decade to respond to livestock exclusion. However, coupling exclusion with planting and other restoration measures decreased the recovery time. Complete exclusion of livestock produced more consistent improvements in riparian condition and other metrics than rest–rotation or other grazing management strategies. Understanding how physical and biological metrics respond to livestock exclusion will require (1) focused, long-term studies using before–after or before–after, control–impact designs; and (2) monitoring of metrics that most consistently respond to exclusion. Ultimately, the design of exclusions should be driven by local climate, geology, biophysical conditions, and management history. Our results highlight the need for watershed-scale approaches to excluding livestock from broad areas and the need for implementation monitoring to ensure that fencing and other exclusion measures continue to exclude livestock and produce the desired responses.

Krall, Michelle↗

Separating Oil-Water Mixtures Using Bump Arrays

Particle separation is an important process step across many fields. One technique being applied for separating solids such as blood components or sand particles from carrier fluids is the use of arrays of aligned posts called deterministic lateral arrays to bump particles to one side in the flow stream to enhance separation. This technique may be useful for separation of deformable particles. The ability to efficiently separate two-phase industrial (oil/water) mixtures is key for future use of valuable resources. Over 1 trillion gallons of petroleum production water could be reclaimed annually for reuse in the drought-ridden western US states. The ability to reclaim this petroleum production water may be critical for the Central High Plains (Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico). Trends in just the High Plains area already lost 20 to 25% of the irrigated farming area due to insufficient ground water storage to irrigate, and farmland losses are expected to grow to 40%. Proving this technology is key to reuse of petroleum production water for crop irrigation or to replace water from currently failing aquifers in rich agricultural lands of the Central High Plains. We conducted experiments applying mesofluidic separation for flowing two-phase (oil/water) mixtures. Experiments were conducted using oils of differing viscosities with water as the carrier fluid; separation was achieved over a range of oil-water concentrations. We describe the results of these experiments in this paper.

oil-water separation, micelle, droplet separation,↗

2021 Annual Site Environmental Report

This report provides the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public with information on the level of radioactive and non-radioactive pollutants (if any) that are added to the environment as a result of Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory’s (PPPL) operations. The results of PPPL’s 2021 environmental surveillance and monitoring program are presented and discussed. The report also summarizes environmental initiatives, assessments, and community involvement programs that were undertaken in 2021. PPPL’s on-site operations were significantly curtailed in 2021 due to the global coronavirus pandemic. PPPL has engaged in fusion energy research since 1951. The Laboratory’s mission is to develop the scientific knowledge and advanced engineering to enable fusion to power the U.S. and the world, and to developing the understanding of plasmas from the nano- to the astrophysical scale. PPPL’s primary experiment, the National Spherical Torus Experiment-Upgrade (NSTX-U) is a collaboration among national laboratories, universities, and national and international research institutions and is a major element in the US Fusion Energy Sciences Program. Its design tests the physics principles of spherical torus (ST) plasmas, playing an important role in the development of smaller, more economical fusion reactors. Due to previous operational issues, NSTX-U did not operate in 2021. PPPL is engaged in a project to replace key NSTX-U components and systems to enable operation of this international fusion user facility. In 2021, PPPL’s radiological environmental monitoring program measured tritium in the air at the NSTX-U Stack and at onsite sampling stations. Using highly sensitive air monitors, PPPL is capable of detecting small changes in the ambient levels of tritium. The operation of an in-stack monitor located on D-site is used to demonstrate compliance with the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) regulations. Also included in PPPL’s radiological environmental monitoring program, are water monitoring – ground, surface, and waste waters. PPPL’s radiological monitoring program characterized the background levels of tritium in the environment and those data are presented in this report. Ground water monitoring continued under New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) Site Remediation Program regulations. PPPL monitored for non-radiological contaminants, mainly volatile organic compounds (components of common degreasing solvents). In 2021, PPPL complied with permit limits for surface and sanitary discharges. PPPL was honored with awards for EPEAT-certified electronics purchasing and use of peracetic acid as an alternative water treatment chemical in its non-potable process water systems an NJDEP recycling award.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

2022 Annual Site Environment Report, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

This report provides the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public with information on the level of radioactive and non-radioactive pollutants (if any) that are added to the environment as a result of Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory’s (PPPL) operations. This report fulfills the annual public reporting requirements of DOE Order 231.1B. The results of PPPL’s 2022 environmental surveillance and monitoring program are presented and discussed. The report also summarizes environmental initiatives, assessments, and community involvement programs that were undertaken in 2022. PPPL’s on-site operations started to be restored in 2022, following curtailments in 2020 and 2021 for the global coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. PPPL has engaged in fusion energy research since 1951 and at its current locations since 1958. The Laboratory’s mission is to develop the scientific knowledge and advanced engineering to enable fusion to power the U.S. and the world, and to develop the understanding of plasmas from the nano- to the astrophysical scale. PPPL’s primary experiment, the National Spherical Torus Experiment-Upgrade (NSTX-U) is a collaboration among national laboratories, universities, and national and international research institutions and is a major element in the US Fusion Energy Sciences Program. Its design tests the physics principles of spherical torus (ST) plasmas, playing an important role in the development of smaller, more economical fusion reactors. Due to previous operational issues, NSTX-U did not operate in 2022. PPPL is engaged in a project to replace key NSTX-U components and systems to enable the operation of this international magnetic fusion user facility. In 2022, PPPL’s radiological environmental monitoring program measured tritium in the air at onsite sampling stations. Using highly sensitive air monitors, PPPL is capable of detecting small changes in the ambient levels of tritium. The operation of monitors located on D-site is used to demonstrate compliance with the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) regulations. Also included in PPPL’s radiological environmental monitoring program, are water monitoring – ground, surface, and waste waters. PPPL’s radiological monitoring program characterized the background levels of tritium in the environment and those data are presented in this report. Ground water monitoring continued under New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) Site Remediation Program regulations. PPPL monitored for non-radiological contaminants, mainly volatile organic compounds (components of common degreasing solvents). In 2022, PPPL complied with permit limits for surface water and sanitary wastewater discharges. PPPL was honored with an award for EPEAT-certified electronics purchasing from the Global Electronics Council.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Annual Site Environment Report for Calendar Year 2023 - Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

This report provides the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the public with information on the level of radioactive and non-radioactive pollutants (if any) that are added to the environment as a result of Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory’s (PPPL) operations. This report fulfills the annual public reporting requirements of DOE Order 231.1B. The results of PPPL’s 2023 environmental surveillance and monitoring program are presented and discussed. The report also summarizes environmental initiatives, assessments, and community involvement programs that were undertaken in 2023. This report provides the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the public with information on the level of radioactive and non-radioactive pollutants (if any) that are added to the environment as a result of Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory’s (PPPL) operations. This report fulfills the annual public reporting requirements of DOE Order 231.1B. The results of PPPL’s 2023 environmental surveillance and monitoring program are presented and discussed. The report also summarizes environmental initiatives, assessments, and community involvement programs that were undertaken in 2023. In 2023, PPPL’s radiological environmental monitoring program measured tritium in the air at onsite sampling stations. Using highly sensitive air monitors, PPPL is capable of detecting small changes in the ambient levels of tritium. The operation of monitors located on D-site is used to demonstrate compliance with the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) regulations. Also included in PPPL’s radiological environmental monitoring program, are water monitoring – ground, surface, and waste waters. PPPL’s radiological monitoring program characterized the background levels of tritium in the environment and those data are presented in this report. Ground water monitoring continued under New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) Site Remediation Program regulations. PPPL monitored for non-radiological contaminants, mainly volatile organic compounds (components of common degreasing solvents). In 2023, PPPL complied with permit limits for surface water and sanitary wastewater discharges. PPPL was honored with an award for EPEAT-certified electronics purchasing from the Global Electronics Council on July 27, 2023.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2024

This report provides the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the public with information on the level of radioactive and non-radioactive pollutants (if any) that are added to the environment as a result of Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory’s (PPPL) operations. This report fulfills the annual public reporting requirements of DOE Order 231.1B. The results of PPPL’s 2024 environmental surveillance and monitoring program are presented and discussed. The report also summarizes environmental initiatives, assessments, and community involvement programs that were undertaken in 2024. PPPL has engaged in fusion energy research since 1951 and at its current locations since 1958. The Laboratory’s mission is to develop the scientific knowledge and advanced engineering to enable fusion to power the US and the world, and to develop the understanding of plasmas from the nano- to the astrophysical scale. PPPL’s primary experiment, the National Spherical Torus Experiment-Upgrade (NSTX-U) is a collaboration among national laboratories, universities, and national and international research institutions and is a major element in the US Fusion Energy Sciences Program. Its design tests the physics principles of spherical torus (ST) plasmas, playing an important role in the development of smaller, more economical fusion reactors. Due to previous operational issues, NSTX-U did not operate in 2024. PPPL is engaged in a project to replace key NSTX-U components and systems to enable the operation of this international magnetic fusion user facility. In 2024, PPPL’s radiological environmental monitoring program measured tritium in the air at onsite sampling stations. Using highly sensitive air monitors, PPPL is capable of detecting small changes in the ambient levels of tritium. The operation of monitors located on D-site is used to demonstrate compliance with the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) regulations. Also included in PPPL’s radiological environmental monitoring program, are water monitoring – ground, surface, and waste waters. PPPL’s radiological monitoring program characterized the background levels of tritium in the environment and those data are presented in this report. Ground water monitoring continued under New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) Site Remediation Program regulations. PPPL monitored for nonradiological contaminants, mainly volatile organic compounds (components of common degreasing solvents). In 2024, PPPL complied with permit limits for surface water and sanitary wastewater discharges. PPPL was honored with an award for EPEAT-certified electronics purchasing from the Global Electronics Council on July 25, 2024.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

New opportunities in produced water management: A market-based approach to produced water trading

Produced water (PW) is a byproduct of oil and gas (O&G) production. Obtained alongside the more valuable energy products, PW is usually characterized by high levels of salinity and often contains many contaminants (chemicals, soluble and insoluble oil, organics, etc.) making it unsuitable for release without substantial treatment. Couple this with the fact that PW is typically obtained at multiple times the rate of oil or gas, and the added transport, treatment, and disposal costs become a serious challenge for operators. These realities have led to ad-hoc practices including cooperation between industry competitors to recycle, share, or otherwise mitigate PW costs. The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) in partnership with the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) is pursuing novel technology solutions to address PW issues that complement or improve ad-hoc practices adopted by operators. In this paper, we observe that well-established market management practices used in electrical power generation have natural analogues in the PW supply chain. These parallels open up a new line of research where we view PW management as a market equilibrium problem, and explore solutions that foster active and data-based collaboration among operators through market structures similar to power markets, with the ultimate objective of improving PW management costs and recycling rates. Here, we make a case for our observations, present a PW market clearing optimization model that shows how such a market system could operate in the O&G space, and provide an illustrative case study for demonstration.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two-digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use(s) from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to include within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state. For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. rightsByState_surface: A list of data frames with the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxFullHarmonizedRights.csv files. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page. The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataHarmonization.

Economics↗

Watersheds and stream networks viewed longitudinally: Example insights from novel spatial portrayals of watershed characteristics

Abstract Longitudinal depictions of watershed structure and characteristics, including topography, stream networks, wetlands, ground water levels, and land use, can provide watershed knowledge and understanding unavailable from standard plan view maps. Three case studies provide examples of knowledge gained by applying longitudinal views of stream networks, watershed hydrologic behavior, and land use distributions. Longitudinal views of mountain stream networks show extreme variability in the slope‐area relationships of low Strahler order streams, large discontinuities in drainage area (large parts of drainage area space are absent in networks), and large variations in network curvature. Longitudinal views of a groundwater‐dominated headwater watershed increase the inference available from limited groundwater observations and clearly reveal how groundwater connections affect the permanence of surface water features and the distribution of vadose zone storage in the landscape. Plotting land uses longitudinally illuminates and allows a quantitative analysis of how land uses are distributed relative to topographic position. Viewing watersheds and stream networks longitudinally can provide new insights into watershed forms and processes and motivate new questions and research.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

Estimating biofuel contaminant concentration from 4D ERT with mixing models

Here, we present the results of a lab-scaled feasibility study to assess the performance of electrical resistivity tomography for detection, characterization, and monitoring of fuel grade ethanol releases to the subsurface. Further, we attempt to determine the concentration distribution of the ethanol from the electrical resistivity tomography data using mixing-models. Ethanol is a renewable fuel source as well as an oxygenate fuel additive currently used to replace the known carcinogen methyl tert-butyl ether; however, ethanol is preferentially biodegraded and a cosolvent. When introduced to areas previously impacted by nonethanol-based fuels, it will facilitate the persistence of carcinogenic fuel compounds like benzene and ethylbenzene, as well as remobilize them to the ground water. These compounds would otherwise be retained in the soil column undergoing active or passive remediation processes such as soil vapor extraction or natural attenuation. Here, we introduce ethanol to a saturated Ottawa sand in a tank instrumented for four-dimensional geoelectrical measurements. Forward model results suggest pure phase ethanol released into a water saturated silica sand should present a detectable target for electrical resistivity tomography relative to a saturated silica sand only. We observe the introduction of ethanol to the closed hydraulic system and subsequent migration over the duration of the experiment. One-dimensional and three–dimensional temporal data are assessed for the detection, characterization, and monitoring of the ethanol release. Results suggest one-dimensional geoelectrical measurements may be useful for monitoring a release, while three-dimensional geoelectrical field imaging would be useful to characterize, monitor, and design effective remediation approaches for an ethanol release, assuming field conditions do not preclude the application of geoelectrical methods. We then attempt to use predictive mixing models to calculate the distribution of ethanol concentration within the measurement domain. For this study we examine four different models: a nested parallel mixing model, a nested cubic mixing model, the complex refractive index model (CRIM), and the Lichtenecker-Rother (L-R) model. The L-R model, modified to include an electrical formation factor geometry term, provided the best agreement with expected EtOH concentrations.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗