Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “specific surface area”

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.

827 records · Page 46

Untargeted, tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS-MS) metaproteomes from soil samples in control and warming plots in Blodgett Forest, CA (2014-2021)

The pathways of carbon transport and loss through and from soils—soil organic matter (SOM) depolymerization to dissolved organic carbon and mineralization to carbon dioxide (CO2)—are fundamentally driven by microbial activity, which is strongly regulated by environmental conditions. As part of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Terrestrial Ecosystem Science (TES) Belowground Biogeochemistry Science Focus Area (SFA), we have established a novel whole-soil long-term warming experiment at the University of California (UC) Blodgett Forest Research Station (Sierra Nevada) in 2014, where we study the role of biogeochemical, microbial and geochemical process interactions in SOM decomposition and stabilization. This package contains soil metaproteomics data in the context of site specific metagenomes from soil depth profiles in three paired control and warming plots from a temperate mixed forest in Northern California. Each paired plot had been subjected to experimental warming since June 2014 to simulate a predicted climate change scenario for northern California. These metaproteomes were collected in 2018 after 4.5 years of warming from five depth intervals (0-10 cm, 10-30 cm, 30-45 cm, 45-60 cm, 60-80 cm). For protein identification, the collected spectra were searched following a target-decoy search strategy against a database of metagenome predicted proteins (covering 96 samples from 2014 to 2021) representing the complete sequence diversity at the site. Data was searched with mass spectrometry database search tool (MS-GF+) using Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)'s Data Management System (DMS) Processing pipeline. The metagenomes are published as part of another data package. Raw metaproteomic data and the data products from MS-GF+ are deposited in the Mass Spectrometry Interactive Virtual Environment (MassIVE) database under accession no. MSV000097826. Here we present a dataset that includes spectral counts for the detected proteins across samples (EMSL50964_BrodieAllMAGs_Globals_SC.txt), the sequences of the detected proteins, and sample metadata file that contains site information for the soil metaproteome samples.

Belowground Biogeochemistry Science Focus Area↗

Heat Transfer Coefficients of Additively Manufactured Tubes with Internal Pin Fins for Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Cycle Recuperators

This paper describes the measurement of convective heat transfer coefficients and friction factors for sCO 2 flowing in additively manufactured tubes with internal pin fins at the US DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory in Morgantown, WV. The measurement procedures were validated by conducting benchmark tests with smooth stainless-steel tube and comparing the results with published correlations for Nusselt number (Nu) and friction factor. Over Reynolds numbers (ReD) ranging from 5 × 10 4 to 2.5 × 10 5 , measured Nu was within 5% of the Dittus-Boelter correlation and measured friction factors were within 5% of the McAdams correlation for smooth tube flow. The candidate pin fin patterned pipes were additively manufactured (AM) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The pins were circular or elliptical in cross-section and were printed at a 30⁰ angle relative to the inner wall (to meet AM constraints). The pin arrangement was helical to promote enhanced heat transfer due to swirl flow. Pin length to diameter aspect ratio was 1.33, 2, and 8, while the pin diameter to tube diameter ratio was 0.188, 0.125, and 0.063. Tests were performed for ReD varying from 6.9 × 10 4 to 2.2 × 10 5 and at conditions equivalent to the low pressure (LP) outlet (8.69 MPa, 361 K) and the high pressure (HP) inlet (20.7 MPa, 350 K) of the low temperature recuperator (LTR) in an indirect sCO 2 cycle. The Wilson plot technique was utilized to measure the bulk heat transfer coefficients. For the best performing design (tube A, pin length to tube diameter ratio: 1.33, pin diameter to tube diameter ratio: 0.19), the local heat transfer coefficient increased by 136% relative to the Dittus-Boelter correlation at the LTR low pressure outlet and 194% at the LTR high pressure inlet. These correspond to a 282% and a 271% increase in the product of the heat transfer coefficient and surface area (adjusted for fin efficiency) product, respectively. Large pressure drops across the test articles were observed. For Tube Design A, the average friction factor, across the range of ReD considered, was significantly larger than the McAdams correlation at both the LTR LP outlet and the LTR HP inlet. A thermal performance factor was utilized to express the ratio of material required to build a finned heat exchanger relative to a finless heat exchanger with the same heat duty and pumping power. Tube Design A was estimated to decrease the required heat exchanger material by 13%.

Searle, Matthew↗

Terrestrial laser scanning data (Levels 0 and 1) from Urban Biogeochemistry Pilot Project sites, Knoxville, Tennessee, Jul 2024 - Jul 2025

This data package contains data from terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) at five urban park sites in Knoxville, Tennessee, USA. All parks include open-grown and/or closed-canopy trees and mixed nearby land use. These study sites were established as part of the Urban Biogeochemistry Pilot Project, which has an overall goal of better understanding how hydrobiogeochemical cycling is altered within the human environment. These five sites represent a gradient of urbanization, and were instrumented to understand hydrological and biogeochemical cycling (e.g., soil moisture, soil physical properties and biogeochemistry, tree transpiration, species type). The TLS data archived here were collected to provide detailed, three-dimensional information about forest structure. Specifically, data were collected to allow tree- and stand-level characterization of woody structure and leaf area. TLS scans were placed to capture the area around trees with sap flow sensors, and as much of a 50 m radius area around the meteorological station as possible given site property limits. Derived products will allow upscaling of water content and transpiration data. This data package contains the following data: - High-level files document further details of the campaign and data package: 1_CampaignSummary.csv provides details about the campaign and study site, 2_ScanAreasDetail.csv provides details about each separate scan area (groups of scans post-processed into a single point cloud), 3_TerrestrialLidarSensor.csv provides further technical details about the Riegl VZ-400i TLS sensor, TLS_CSV_dd.csv is a CSV Data Dictionary providing information about the fields in CSV files following the ESS-DIVE CSV File Formatting Guidelines Reporting Format, TLS_flmd.csv is a File Level Metadata file providing information about each file in the data package following the ESS-DIVE File Level Metadata Reporting Format, and README.txt is a text file describing the overall project and file structure. - Level 0 data are the raw data (.PROJ folders) as recorded by the Riegl VZ-400i TLS instrument before scan co-registration and post-processing with the Riegl's proprietary RiSCAN PRO software, which requires a license. - Level 1 data contain post-processed, co-registered data from each scan area. The "PointClouds" folder for each scan area contains a .las file with 1 cm resolution point cloud data exported from RiSCAN PRO. These are the main files likely to be of interest to most users and can be further processed with any software capable of manipulating .las files (e.g. Python, R CloudCompare). The "Project Information" folder contains log files from post-processing in RiSCAN PRO that may be of interest to users who want to see detailed records of post-processing, including all PDF reports generated by RiSCAN PRO. The "ScanPositions" folder contains information about the final position of all TLS scans, after post-processing, in multiple formats. The file ScanPositions_*.csv provides final geo-referenced scan positions, and the file SOP_backup_*.csv can be used in RiSCAN PRO to restore the co-registered scan positions if users wish to re-process raw data (Level 0 .PROJ folders) with RiSCAN PRO software (e.g., subsample to a different resolution, exclude a certain scan position, or apply different filters on reflectance or deviation values) without redoing time-consuming co-registration steps.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Data, model inputs, and analysis scripts associated with a manuscript on stream intermittency controls across spatial scales in Pacific Northwest watersheds

NOTE: The manuscript associated with this data package is currently in review. The data may be revised based on reviewer feedback. Upon manuscript acceptance, this data package will be updated with the final dataset and additional metadata. This data package is associated with the manuscript "Hydroclimatic Memory and Watershed Template Shape Stream Intermittency: Multi-scale Attribution Using Process-based Simulation and Explainable ML" by Niroula et al. (2026), submitted to Water Resources Research (WRR). The study investigates the dominant controls on stream intermittency across local, reach, and watershed scales using a coupled process-based simulation and explainable machine-learning framework. Long-term daily simulations from the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS) were used to generate wetness states and ponded-depth responses over river-corridor cells. These ATS outputs were then aggregated across scales and used to train XGBoost (eXtreme Gradient Boosting) models. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) was applied to quantify the relative importance of hydroclimatic forcings, watershed template attributes, and antecedent-memory effects in shaping intermittency behavior. The analysis is carried out for three contrasting Pacific Northwest watersheds: Oak Creek (OCW), American River Watershed (ARW), and H.J. Andrews (HJA). Across these testbeds, the package contains ATS-ready watershed inputs, ATS run configuration and selected output files, model-evaluation data products, intermittency-analysis datasets, machine-learning target-feature tables, SHAP outputs, and notebooks used to organize, analyze, and visualize results. At a high level, the package documents a workflow in which ATS provides the physically based simulation backbone and explainable machine learning is used as a post-processing attribution tool. The contents are intended to support interpretation of the manuscript figures and results, provide context for how intermittency metrics were generated at multiple scales, and preserve the key artifacts needed to understand and reuse the analysis workflow. The package contains a high-level directory summary file (`summary.txt`) and four main content folders (1) `evaluation_plots` contains evaluation figures and supporting evaluation datasets; (2) `intermittency_plots` contains intermittency-focused analysis notebook and prepared datasets; (3) `ml-training-and-shap_values_plots` contains ML training inputs, SHAP outputs, and figure-generation notebooks; and (4) `watershed_mesh_and_ats_input` contains ATS model setup materials, forcing inputs, geometry, and selected run files. More specifically, the `evaluation_plots` folder contains the notebook used for ATS evaluation plotting and site-specific evaluation datasets. These include evapotranspiration and water-balance products for three watersheds, as well as an Oak Creek field-measurement discharge file. The `intermittency_plots` folder contains the notebook used for intermittency analysis and the prepared datasets used to analyze intermittent and non-intermittent wetness behavior across the study watersheds. The `ml-training-and-shap_values_plots` folder contains notebooks and outputs for the machine-learning and explainability workflow. This includes the main XGBoost and SHAP notebook(s), a beeswarm plotting notebook, target-feature tables for machine-learning training, SHAP summary tables, and per-sample SHAP value archives. The `watershed_mesh_and_ats_input` folder contains ATS-related watershed inputs and supporting materials. This includes mesh and shape products, ATS-readable LAI and meteorological forcing inputs, selected ATS spinup and transient-run files, and a watershed workflow example notebook. Subdirectories are organized by watershed where applicable.All files are .cpg (codepage files), .csv (comma-separated values), .dbf (database files), .exo (Exodus mesh format), .h5 (HDF5 format), .ipynb (Jupyter notebooks), .pkl (Python pickle), .prj (projection files), .sh (shell scripts), .shp (shapefile geometry), .shx (shapefile index), .txt (text files), or .xml (markup data).

Advanced Terrestrial Simulator↗

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

Reveal of Uranium Bioremediation Mechanisms by Bacillus Species through Proteomics Studies

Radionuclides, such as Uranium (U) and heavy metals continue to pose threats to the ecosystem health and processes at the Department of Energy (DOE) managed, Savannah River Site (SRS), located along the Savannah River near Aiken, SC. Such co-contaminated environments are difficult to remediate using conventional excavation and disposal or pump-and-treat approaches. Globally, more than 109 tons of uranium contaminated areas pose a long term threat to human and ecological health. Even with presented low concentrations in the brain, central nervous effects are still observed. Uranium and depleted uranium (DU) have long term effects on the kidneys. Some small general health effects include severe headaches and breathing problems. Uranus ions are toxic to living cells because they inhibit metabolism of carbohydrates by blocking ATP binding sites. Bioremediation by microorganisms represents an alternative solution, which is advantageous because of the possibility of biosorbent regeneration, cost-effectiveness, increased metal removal and easy recovery of some valuable metals. Bacillus sp. bacterium was previously used in the bioremediation of heavy metals in coal mine run off waters of SRS. However, its ability to bioremediate uranium was unknown so far. Hence, in the present study, uranium bioremediation by Bacillus sp. bacterium was investigated. The mechanism of bioremediation was also revealed through proteomics studies. Heavy metals contamination poses a serious threat to water, soil and human health. Soil and water are contaminated due to excessive exploitation of uranium mines for generation of nuclear energy and weaponry. It is not degradable easily and persist in soil and water for a long period of time due to its long half- life. Savannah river site (SRS) is one of the uranium contaminated sites. The physical or chemical remediation techniques are costly and complex. Microbial system approaches with competent bacteria has received increased attention due to its adaptability in various environmental matrices and cost effectiveness. However, even though there are multiple suggested pathways (F1), the specific mechanisms that drive this behavior are still unclear, especially with popular microorganisms such as Bacillus species. In a previous research (Ibeanusi et al, 2003) Bacillus sp. was shown to detoxify and precipitate a variety of heavy metals in coal pile runoff waters of SRS site. Additionally, genomic analysis demonstrated that this microorganism posses multiple attributes for chemical transport regulation and metabolic pathways. U remediation occurs during the first 20 hours of exposure. During this time period, Bacillus sp. may work primarily under two mechanisms - sorption and accumulation. These two mechanisms simultaneously work to protect the microorganism from high concentrations. Figure 10 demonstrates that certain proteins are up regulated and down regulated under extreme stressful conditions. Membrane fraction proteins were up regulated. Cytosolic fraction proteins were down regulated. This protein information coincides with the adsorption behavior. Bacillus sp. is a good candidate for U remediation at various concentrations.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Data and Scripts Associated with the Manuscript “Water Column Respiration in the Yakima River Basin is Explained by Temperature, Nutrients and Suspended Solids”

This data package is associated with the publication “Water Column Respiration in the Yakima River Basin is Explained by Temperature, Nutrients and Suspended Solids” published in EGU Biogeochemistry (Laan et al. 2025). In this research, water column respiration (ERwc) data, surface water chemistry data, organic matter (OM) chemistry data, and publicly available geospatial data were used in analysis to evaluate the variability in ERwc at 47 sites across the Yakima River basin in Washington, USA. In addition to this readme, this data package also includes a file-level metadata (FLMD) file that describes each file and a data dictionary (DD) that describes all column/row headers and variable definitions. The data package includes the data inputs, and outputs, and R scripts to reproduce all the analyses performed in the manuscript and create manuscript figures. The data package is comprised of three main folders (Code, Data, and Figures). The Code folder is comprised of four scripts and three analysis-specific subfolders that contain the R scripts to perform the analyses described in the publication and create publication figures. The Data folder is comprised of two “.csv” files and four subfolders that contain data input and output files. The Published_Data folder contains a readme that directs the user to download the appropriate files and add to this folder when using scripts. The Figures folder includes figures from the manuscript in “.pdf” and “.png” formats and a folder with intermediate figure files. This data package is associated with a GitHub repository which can be found at https://github.com/river-corridors-sfa/rcsfa-RC2-SPS-ERwc. We acknowledge the Yakama Nation as owners and caretakers of the lands where we collected some of these data. We thank the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Advanced Laboratory and Field Arrays (ALFA)/Lab Collaboration Project (LCP) for Marine Energy (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

The objective of the Advanced Laboratory and Field Arrays (ALFA) project was to reduce the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) of Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) energy by leveraging research, development, and testing capabilities at Oregon State University, University of Washington, and the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. ALFA is a project within the Pacific Marine Energy Center (PMEC; formerly NNMREC), a multi-institution entity with a diverse funding base that focuses on research and development for marine renewables. The ALFA project aimed to accelerate the development of next-generation arrays of wave energy conversion (WEC) and tidal energy conversion (TEC) devices through a suite of field-focused R&D activities spanning a broad range of strategic opportunity areas identified in the Funding Opportunity Announcement: • Device and/or array operation and maintenance (O&M) logistics development; • High-fidelity resource characterization and/or modeling technique development and validation; • Array-specific component technology development (e.g. moorings and foundations, transmission, and other offshore grid components); • Array performance testing and evaluation; and • Novel cost-effective environmental monitoring techniques and instrumentation testing and evaluation. The objective of the Lab Collaboration Project (LCP) was to accelerate the development of next-generation marine energy conversion systems. The LCP aimed to achieve these project objectives in collaboration with the national laboratories by: • Developing concept generation and assessment tools; • Improving access to existing testing resources; • Validating collision risk models between fish and turbines; and • Advancing analysis and simulation capabilities for wave-WEC interactions and PTO analysis in nonlinear ocean waves. The ALFA portion of the project was comprised of six overarching technical tasks: • Task 1: Debris Modeling, Detection and Mitigation; • Task 2: Autonomous Monitoring & Intervention; • Task 3: Resource Characterization for Extreme Conditions; • Task 4: Robust Models for Design of Offshore Anchoring and Mooring Systems; • Task 5: Performance Enhancement for Marine Energy Converter (MEC) Arrays; and • Task 6: Evaluating Sampling Techniques for MHK Biological Monitoring. The LCP was divided into four overarching technical tasks: • Task 7: Project Management and Reporting • Task 8: Novel Design and Assessment Methodologies for Wave Energy Converter Design (Wave- SPARC) • Task 9: Testing Access for Commercial Marine Renewable Energy Technology Developers • Task 10: Quantifying Collision Risk for Fish and Turbines • Task 11: Nonlinear Ocean Waves and PTO Control Strategy Each ALFA/LCP task listed above functioned as a separate and discreet project. A final Technical Report was written for each individual task and these reports were uploaded to OSTI, after receiving DOE approval. The following document is a compilation of each of these final, approved reports arranged as individual chapters.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Dissolved Inorganic Carbon and Dissolved Organic Carbon Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2015-2025)

This data package contains mean values for dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) for water samples taken from the East River Watershed in Colorado. The East River is part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. DOC and DIC concentrations in water samples were determined using a TOC-VCPH analyzer (Shimadzu Corporation, Japan). DOC was analyzed as non-purgeable organic carbon (NPOC) by purging HCl-acidified samples with carbon-free air to remove DIC prior to measurement. After the acidified sample has been sparged, it is injected into a combustion tube filled with oxidation catalyst heated to 680 oC. The DOC in samples is combusted to CO2 and measured by a non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) detector. The peak area of the analog signal produced by the NDIR detector is proportional to the DOC concentration of the sample. DIC was determined by acidifying the samples with HCl first, and then purging with carbon-free air to release CO2 for analysis by NDIR detector. Total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) was analyzed using a Shimadzu Total Nitrogen Module (TNM-L) combined with the TOC-L analyzer (Shimadzu Corporation, Japan). TNM-L is a non-specific measurement of total nitrogen (TN). All nitrogen species in samples are combusted to nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, then reacted with ozone to form an excited state of nitrogen dioxide. Upon returning to ground state, light energy is emitted. Then, TDN is measured using a chemiluminescence detector. All data reported are the mean values upon minimum of three replicate measurements, with a relative standard deviation < 3%. All samples were analyzed under a rigorous quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) process. This data package contains (1) a zip file (dic_npoc_data_2014-2025.zip) containing a total of 337 files: 336 data files of DIC and NPOC data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v6_20250901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; (3) a data dictionary (v6_20250901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; and (4) PDF and docx files for the determiniation of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for DIC and NPOC data, which has been updated in 2026-08. Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 113 locations containing DIC/NPOC data. Update on 2020-10-07: Updated the data files to remove times from the timestamps, so that only dates remain. The data values have not changed. Update on 2021-04-11: Added Determination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for DIC, NPOC and TDN Analyses document, which can be accessed as a PDF or with Microsoft Word.Update on 6/10/2022: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated dissolved inorganic carbon and dissolved organic carbon data for all locations up to 2021-12-31, (2) removal of units from column headers in datafiles, (3) added row underneath headers to contain units of variables, (4) restructure of units to comply with CSV reporting format requirements, (5) added -9999 for empty numerical cells, and (6) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-01-05. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-11-21. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Revised versions of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for DIC and NPOC were added to replace previous versions. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available DIC and NPOC data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available DIC and NPOC data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025). Updated versions, as of 2026-08-10, of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for DIC and NPOC data were added to this dataset.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Hydropower Geotechnical Foundations: Current Practice and Innovation Opportunities for Low-Head Applications

Hydropower is a renewable energy resource that produces electricity from flowing water under pressure. Engineered hydropower structures, such as dams, are used to create a hydraulic head, enabling a turbinegenerator unit to convert pressurized flow into electricity. While hydropower has been a source of renewable energy since antiquity, new development in the United States has slowed in recent decades. Based on recent resource assessments, the largest opportunity to expand hydropower in the United States is from new stream-reach development (i.e., new hydropower development along stream-reaches that do not currently have hydroelectric facilities or other forms of infrastructure, such as dams). Roughly 75% of identified new stream-reach development potential is from low-head sites (less than 30 ft of head), which typically suffer from smaller power densities and higher normalized costs, given economies of scale. Hydropower developers and other stakeholders are thus interested in strategies to reduce initial capital costs while practicing sustainable development to maximize environmental compatibility with minimal disruption to natural aquatic life, sediment, and water flows. Historically, civil works have represented a significant cost driver for new hydropower development, with the foundation system representing a major cost component and source of uncertainty. The foundation system is the collection of engineered structural features (e.g. cutoff trenches, walls, grouting, anchors) constructed at or below the preconstruction ground surface that interfaces between the overlying structures (superstructures) and the bed material below (subsurface). Development of a hydropower foundation system must consider the various characteristics of the surrounding stream environment and subsurface while adhering to the engineering requirements of the superstructure that it supports. The care of water, excavation, and other construction activities are important features of foundation design and construction. The design and construction cost of the foundation system is largely dependent on the site geology and riverbed composition and is influenced by the level of geotechnical assessment required and conducted. Thus, a hydropower facility’s geotechnical foundation is often highly site-specific, with proper site selection and assessment being important to project success. The foundation system is designed to provide structural stability (of the foundation and dam), limit seepage, ensure public safety, and maintain functionality for the project life, during both construction and facility operations. Inadequate foundation or dam design can result in dam failure and the uncontrolled release of significant volumes of water, which could cause a high number of casualties and extensive property damage downstream of the failure. According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, approximately 30% of all historical dam failures in the United States are attributed to foundation or abutment defects, and another 20% are attributed to piping or seepage through the embankment, foundation, or abutment. To ameliorate these safety considerations, foundations often require massive amounts of construction material (e.g., grout, concrete, engineered dam fill) and long construction times. Foundation design also requires significant analysis prior to construction because the initial in-stream and abutment subsurface conditions are site-specific, and sufficient data for them often are lacking. Current practice requires on-site assessment, using expensive drilling and invasive and non-invasive investigation methods, to determine the expected cost of foundation material and treatment. Additionally, foundation construction often requires site dewatering (and other care of water activities), which involves constructing temporary diversion structures upstream and often downstream, called cofferdams, and water diversion systems that route water around the construction site. Cofferdams and water diversion systems can drastically increase construction costs and contribute to environmental disruption, including modification of flow patterns and benthic habitats. Given the technical, economic, and environmental challenges associated with hydropower foundations, opportunities exist to improve the current state of practice and to develop new and innovative solutions to Hydropower is a renewable energy resource that produces electricity from flowing water under pressure. Engineered hydropower structures, such as dams, are used to create a hydraulic head, enabling a turbinegenerator unit to convert pressurized flow into electricity. While hydropower has been a source of renewable energy since antiquity, new development in the United States has slowed in recent decades. Based on recent resource assessments, the largest opportunity to expand hydropower in the United States is from new stream-reach development (i.e., new hydropower development along stream-reaches that do not currently have hydroelectric facilities or other forms of infrastructure, such as dams). Roughly 75% of identified new stream-reach development potential is from low-head sites (less than 30 ft of head), which typically suffer from smaller power densities and higher normalized costs, given economies of scale. Hydropower developers and other stakeholders are thus interested in strategies to reduce initial capital costs while practicing sustainable development to maximize environmental compatibility with minimal disruption to natural aquatic life, sediment, and water flows. Historically, civil works have represented a significant cost driver for new hydropower development, with the foundation system representing a major cost component and source of uncertainty. The foundation system is the collection of engineered structural features (e.g. cutoff trenches, walls, grouting, anchors) constructed at or below the preconstruction ground surface that interfaces between the overlying structures (superstructures) and the bed material below (subsurface). Development of a hydropower foundation system must consider the various characteristics of the surrounding stream environment and subsurface while adhering to the engineering requirements of the superstructure that it supports. The care of water, excavation, and other construction activities are important features of foundation design and construction. The design and construction cost of the foundation system is largely dependent on the site geology and riverbed composition and is influenced by the level of geotechnical assessment required and conducted. Thus, a hydropower facility’s geotechnical foundation is often highly site-specific, with proper site selection and assessment being important to project success. The foundation system is designed to provide structural stability (of the foundation and dam), limit seepage, ensure public safety, and maintain functionality for the project life, during both construction and facility operations. Inadequate foundation or dam design can result in dam failure and the uncontrolled release of significant volumes of water, which could cause a high number of casualties and extensive property damage downstream of the failure. According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, approximately 30% of all historical dam failures in the United States are attributed to foundation or abutment defects, and another 20% are attributed to piping or seepage through the embankment, foundation, or abutment. To ameliorate these safety considerations, foundations often require massive amounts of construction material (e.g., grout, concrete, engineered dam fill) and long construction times. Foundation design also requires significant analysis prior to construction because the initial in-stream and abutment subsurface conditions are site-specific, and sufficient data for them often are lacking. Current practice requires on-site assessment, using expensive drilling and invasive and non-invasive investigation methods, to determine the expected cost of foundation material and treatment. Additionally, foundation construction often requires site dewatering (and other care of water activities), which involves constructing temporary diversion structures upstream and often downstream, called cofferdams, and water diversion systems that route water around the construction site. Cofferdams and water diversion systems can drastically increase construction costs and contribute to environmental disruption, including modification of flow patterns and benthic habitats. Given the technical, economic, and environmental challenges associated with hydropower foundations, opportunities exist to improve the current state of practice and to develop new and innovative solutions to challenges frequently encountered with traditional approaches. With this understanding, it is critically important to understand and document the current state of practice for hydropower geotechnical foundations, identify key challenges, and define opportunities for innovative solutions. To this end, this report documents the current state of practice across the three main phases of geotechnical foundation development: (1) geotechnical site assessment, (2) design, and (3) construction for hydropower systems. It also describes the major challenges with conventional approaches and identifies opportunities for innovation to reduce hydropower foundations costs, timelines, and risks. Key takeaways from this report include the following: Approximately 80% of available low-head sites are expected to have foundations on soil beds rather than rock beds, suggesting that rockfill and earthfill dams may be the most cost-effective conventional dam type for new projects.; Geotechnical and geologic investigation activities are time-consuming and expensive but are essential to define the parameters and criteria needed for foundation design.; Certain riverbed soil and bedrock types present significant technical challenges or require expensive foundation construction, which can prove financially prohibitive for low-head project development.; Modular hydropower design and prefabricated modular foundations represent a promising but unproven paradigm for new hydropower development. Design and construction approaches using optimized and highly repeatable, reliable components would benefit project cost, time, and risk but require additional research and development.; Temporary construction features for foundations, including cofferdams, water diversion, and water control systems, can prove costly and have inherent construction risk.; For economically viable development, hydropower geotechnical foundations should be limited to 4 to 15% of the project’s total initial capital costs. Many proposed projects have experienced cost overruns attributable to foundation difficulties or surprises during construction. These overruns may have been due to inadequate investigations, lack of adequate engineering effort to tailor the structures to site geology and topography, and/or contractual terms, among other considerations.; Challenges for hydropower foundations and opportunities for innovative technology solutions are identified in the following areas (consistent with the three main phases of foundation development): Geotechnical site assessment, Foundation design and materials, Construction methods and technology. Ultimately, this report aims to provide information about geotechnical foundations for low-head hydropower and to motivate transformative technologies to support hydropower growth.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Physical, Chemical, and Mineralogical Characterizations of MSWI Ash Product and Recommendations for Downstream Processing

The primary objectives of this project are to (1) systematically characterize MSWI ash, and (2) based on characterization findings, design preliminary flowsheets for downstream processing. To achieve these objectives, a total of ten tasks were completed, including sample collection, physical separation tests, liberation tests, synthetic MSWI ash preparation, elemental composition analysis, sequential chemical extraction, mineralogical characterization, pozzolanic activity characterization, thermal stability characterization, processing flowsheet design, TEA and T2M, and project performance reporting. Many useful findings and conclusions were obtained from the exhaustive efforts of this project from several different aspects, including: a) Valuable Metals in MSWI Ash: MSWI ash contains a diverse array of valuable metals. Based on potential recoverable values, the most valuable metals present in MSWI ash include Fe, Ti, Mn, Cu, Zn, V, Co, Ni, Sr, Sn, Ag, Mo, and Sc. Some of these metals have been identified as critical minerals by DOE and DOI, suggesting that MSWI is a promising feedstock for critical mineral recovery. Noticeable graphical and seasonable variations in the valuable metal content of MSWI ash were observed. Nevertheless, it was challenging to discern any clear, definitive patterns for conclusions from those observations. Compared with bottom ash, fly ash contains more volatile metals, such as Zn and Sn, but less nonvolatile metals, such as Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, Co, and Ni. Mineralogical analyses showed that MSWI ash contains a substantial amount of calcium minerals, such as portlandite, lime, gypsum, and calcite. In addition, it was found that different types of valuable metals often exist in the same particles. b) Physical Separation of MSWI Ash: Both dry sieving and wet sieving were performed on MSWI ash. A notable disparity in the size distribution of the same material was observed when using the two different sieving methods. The disparity is due to the agglomeration of small particles. For the valuable metals investigated, no significant enrichment in a specific size fraction was observed, suggesting that it is challenging to preconcentrate the valuable metals through size fractionation. Due to the presence of ferromagnetic materials, such as Fe, most of the materials reported to the magnetic products obtained by dry magnetic separation. However, the enrichment effect is minimal due to the existence of particle agglomerates. Density separation at a cut-off density of 2.7 SG or higher led to noticeable enrichment of selected valuable metals, particularly Ti. The unburned carbon present in MSWI ash was effectively removed by flotation using diesel as the collector. A novel reagent scheme, Na2S plus cationic collectors, that can efficiently beneficiate nonferrous metals plus Co was developed. c) Liberation Tests: The particle size of MSWI ash was effectively reduced by grinding, and as a result, the encapsulated valuable metal particles (if any) were liberated to a certain degree. However, particle size reductions did not noticeably enhance the beneficiation performance using the physical separation methods, primarily due to the inefficiency of these methods in processing fine particles and/or a possibility that insufficient liberation is not a limiting factor for achieving satisfactory physical separation performance. Valuable metals were classified into water leachable, ion-exchangeable, acid soluble, reducible, oxidable, and insoluble forms. It was found that the distributions in the different categories, i.e., the occurrence modes of the valuable metals, were not affected by the particle size. d) Leaching Characteristics of Metals from MSWI Ash: Most of the valuable metals were extracted from the fly ash samples when using 1 M HCl or HNO3 as the lixiviant. The leaching reaction is a very fast process, which can reach equilibrium within the first 5 min. The releasing of Co, Ni and Ag are sensitive to leaching temperature, a higher recovery value could be obtained when using relatively higher leaching temperatures. The leachability of the valuable metals present in MSWI bottom ash is relatively lower than that of fly ash. Leaching recoveries increased with elevations in the acid concentration. Relatively high leaching recoveries were obtained for REEs, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn using 1 M HCl or HNO3 as the lixiviant. Elevations in the reaction temperature noticeably increased the leachability of the valuable metals, whereas the leachability was barely influenced by oxidizing and reducing agents. Similar to fly ash, leaching valuable metals from bottom ash is a rapid process, with most of the leaching reaction completed within the first 5 minutes. e) Combusted iPhones: The original structure of iPhones was remained after treating at 400 ºC and 600 ºC, while after being treated at 800℃, the screen bent, and the back cover of iPhone melted. Increasing the combustion temperature to 1000℃, the screen scattered, and most of the components turned into ashes. Combustion enhanced the leachability of REEs, while the leachability of the other valuable metals, except for Zn, was barely affected. Most of the REEs present in the original iPhones occurred as oxidizable forms. With elevations in the combustion temperature up to 600 ºC, the oxidizable REEs were transformed to acid soluble forms. However, further elevations in temperature resulted in decreases in the acid soluble fraction and corresponding increases in the reducible and oxidizable forms. Additionally, combustion temperature also significantly altered the occurrence modes of other metals present in the iPhones. f) Synthetic MSWI Ash: It was found that in the absence of hydrogen peroxide, all the elements except for Si were leached to certain degrees. It is noteworthy that approximately 80% of Zn was leached with 1.2 M HCl. When hydrogen peroxide was added to the reaction system, noticeable increases in the leaching recovery of Fe, Mn, Co, Ni, and Cu were observed. The leaching recovery of Al and Si was barely affected by adding hydrogen peroxide. These results suggested that the majority of Zn in the synthetic MSWI ash existed as metal oxide, a portion of Fe, Mn, Co, Ni, and Cu existed as metal oxide, and Al and Si are associated with glasses which are difficult to leach. Additionally, the remaining Fe, Mn, Co, Ni, and Cu in the metallic form were efficiently oxidized in the presence of hydrogen peroxide. g) Pozzolanic Activity and Thermal Stability of MSWI Ash: MSWI fly ash has higher pozzolanic activity compared to the bottom ash sample, which indicates that the fly ash sample consumed more portlandite because of its smaller particle size as reactivity fundamentally relates to reaction surface area. However, after the recovery of valuable elements, the pozzolanic activity of both the valuable elements fraction and the less valuable elements-rich products decreased significantly, which means that the valuable elements recovery lowers the Ca(OH)2 consumption, thus leading to the low activity of SCM. h) Flowsheet Design for Metal Recovery from MSWI Ash: Based on the results of the comprehensive physical separation and acid leaching tests, circuits that enable the beneficiation of the valuable metals were developed. In these circuits, the valuable metals are recovered into nonferrous, ferrous, and other valuable metal concentrates, which are processed separately in the acid leaching step. The subsequent separation and purification steps are simplified due to the physical beneficiation step. In addition, the overall recovery cost is reduced since physical beneficiation is much cheaper compared with chemical processing. Using different technologies, such as selective precipitation and solvent extraction, a comprehensive hydrometallurgical circuit was designed, and compounds of Cu, Zn, Mn, Co, and Ni with a purity close to or even higher than 95% were successfully generated.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

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 - Switched source data from collecting records from each state independently to using the WestDAAT dataset v1.0 - Initial public release Description In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, as well as geospatial data defining the areas in which water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. In addition, while all states make their water rights publicly available, each provides their records in unique formats, meaning that file types, field availability, and terms vary from state to state. This leads to additional challenges to managing resources which cross state lines, or conducting consistent multi-state water analyses. For the first version of HarDWR, we collected the water rights databases from 11 Western States of the United States. In order to preform regional analyses with the collected data, the raw records had to be harmonized into one single format. The Water Data Exchange (WaDE) is a program dedicated to the sharing of water-related data for the Western U.S. in a singular consistent format. Created by the Western States Water Council (WSWC) to facilitate the collection and dissemination of water data among WSWC's member states and the public, WaDE provides an important service for those interested in water resource planning and management in their focus region. Of the services which WaDE provides, the one of the most interesting is the WestDAAT dataset, which is a collection of water rights data provided by the 18 WSWC member states that have been standardized into a single format, much like we had done on a more limited scale with HarDWR v1. For this version of HarDWR we decided to use WestDAAT, specifically a snapshot created in Feburary 2024, as our water rights source data. A full explanation of the benefits gained from this switch can be found in the description of the updated Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0, but in short it has allowed us to focus more of our efforts on answering research questions and gaining a more realistic understanding of how water rights are allocated. For more information on how the data for WestDAAT was collected, please see the WaDE data summary. Terms of Use While WaDE works directly with the state agencies to collect and standardize the water rights records, the ultimate authority for the water rights data remains the individual states. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. As several of the states update their water rights databases daily, the information provided here is not the latest possible, and should not be used for legal purposes. WestDAAT itself has irregular updates. Additional questions about the data the source states provided should be directed to the respective state agencies (see methods.csv and organization.csv files described below). In addition, although data was presented here was not collected directly from the states, several states requested specifically worked disclaimers when sharing their data. These disclaimers are included here as an acknowledgement from where the water rights data is primarily sourced. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." File Descriptions The unmodified February, 2024 WestDAAT snapshot is composed of nine files. Below is a brief description of each file, as well as how they were utilized for HarDWR. WaDEDataDictionaryTerms.xlsx: As the file's name implies, this is a data dictionary for all of the below named files. This file describes the column names for each of the following files, with the exception of citation.txt which does not have any columns. The descriptions for each file are divided by tab,with the same name as their associated file, within this document. allocationamount.csv: The "main" file of the group, it contains the water right records for each state. Of particular note, each water right is broken down into one or more water allocations. Allocations may be withdrawn from one or more locations, or even multiple allocations associated with a particular location. This is a more subtle and realistic representation of how water is used than what was available in the first version of HarDWR. For the records from some states, this can mean that multiple allocations listed under a single right will appear as rows within this file. citation.txt: A combination of contact information for WaDE personnel, disclaimer about how the data should be used, and guidelines for citing WestDAAT. methods.csv: A file describing the source and method by which WaDE collected water rights data from each state. organization.csv: A file listing the water rights authoritative agencies for each state. sites.csv: This file provides the geographic, and other descriptors, of the physical location of allocations, called 'sites'. To reiterate, it is possible for one allocation to be associated with multiple sites, as well as one site to be associated with multiple allocations. The two descriptors which we were most interested in where the site's coordinates, as well as whether the site was classified as a Point of Diversion (POD) or a Place of Use (POU). As a general rule, PODs are geographic points, while POUs are areas typically represented as property boundaries or irregularly shaped polygons. sites_pouGeometry.csv: For those allocations with a POU site, this file contains the defining points for the associated polygons. variables.csv: A file describing the units in which an allocation's water amount is reported within WestDAAT. This information is essentially a repeat of the 'AllocationFlow_CFS' and 'AllocationVolume_AF' columns within allocationamount.csv, at least for our purposes. watersources: This file describes the source of water from which each site extracts from. For our purposes, this table was used to determine whether the water came from Surface Water, Groundwater, or Unspecified Water.

Lisk, Matthew↗

Total Dissolved Nitrogen and Ammonia Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2015-2025)

This data package contains mean values for total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) and ammonia concentrations for water samples taken from the East River Watershed in Colorado. The East River is part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. TDN was analyzed using a Shimadzu Total Nitrogen Module (TNM-1) combined with the TOC-VCSH analyzer (Shimadzu Corporation, Japan). TNM-1 is a non-specific measurement of total nitrogen (TN). All nitrogen species in samples are combusted to nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, then reacted with ozone to form an excited state of nitrogen dioxide. Upon returning to ground state, light energy is emitted. Then, TDN is measured using a chemiluminescence detector. Ammonia was determined using a Lachat's QuikChem 8500 Series 2 Flow Injection Analysis System (LACHAT Instruments, QuckChem 8500 series 2, Automated Ion Analyzer, Loveland, Colorado). When ammonia in water samples is heated (60 degrees C) with salicylate and hypochlorite in an alkaline phosphate buffer, an emerald green color is produced which is proportional to the ammonia concentration. The color is intensified by the addition of nitroprusside. Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) is added to the buffer to prevent the interference of metal ions (Ca, Mg, and Fe etc.). Ammonia-N is then determined by LACHAT flow injection and a colorimetric assay at an absorbance wavelength 660 nm. (Reference: LACHAT Instruments: QuickChem Method 90-107-06-3-A, Determination of Ammonia by Flow Injection Analysis (High Throughput, Salicylate Method/DCIC) (Multi Matrix method). Written by Lynn Egan (Application group), February 08, 2011.) All files are labeled by location and variable, and data reported are the mean values upon replicate measurements. All samples were analyzed under a rigorous quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) process as detailed in the methods. This data package contains (1) a zip file (tdn_ammonia_data_2015-2025.zip) containing a total of 299 files: 298 data files of ammonia and TDN data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v7_20260901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; (3) a data dictionary (v7_20260901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; (4) PDF and docx files for the determination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for TDN data, which has been updated in 2026-08; and (5) PDF and docx files for the detemination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for Ammonia and the Interferences by LACHAT Flow Injection Analysis. Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 105 locations containing TDN and Ammonia-N data. Update 2020-10-07: Updated the data files to remove times from the timestamps, so that only dates remain. The data values have not changed. Update 2021-04-11: Added Determination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for DIC, NPOC and TDN Analyses and Determination of Method Detection Limit for Ammonia and the Interferences by LACHAT Flow Injection Analysis documents, which can be accessed as PDFs or with Microsoft Word.Update on 6/10/2022: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated total dissolved nitrogen and ammonia data for all locations up to 2021-12-31, (2) removal of units from column headers in datafiles, (3) added row underneath headers to contain units of variables, (4) restructure of units to comply with CSV reporting format requirements, (5) added -9999 for empty numerical cells, and (6) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2022-12-20: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. Units were listed incorrectly, but have been fixed to reflect correct units (ug/L). File level metadata (flmd) and data dictionary (dd) files were updated to reflect the updated versions of these files. Available data was added up until 2022-06-01. Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-01-05. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-10-27. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Revised versions of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for TDN were added to replace previous versions. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available TDN and Ammonia-N data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available TDN and Ammonia-N data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025). Updated versions, as of 2026-08-10, of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for TDN data were added to this dataset.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Laboratory-Scale Coal-Derived Graphene Process (Final Report)

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) conducted a laboratory-scale coal-derived graphene (CDG) project focused on developing a technological process for making graphene from four U.S. domestic coal or coal wastes, including lignite from North Dakota, subbituminous coal from Wyoming, bituminous coal from Utah, and anthracite from Pennsylvania. The project was divided into two performance or budget periods (BPs), with BP1 comprising the up-front laboratory experiments to make graphene materials from coal beginning on May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2022. BP2 was conducted from May 1, 2022, to April 30, 2023, and was focused on analyzing the CDG process economic feasibility and the technical gaps for technological scale-up and commercialization. During this project, a few different coal-derived high-value products have been demonstrated, including graphite, graphene oxide (GO), reduced graphene oxide (rGO), and graphene quantum dots (GQDs). A new graphite microstructure was discovered and named “croissant graphite” because of the exterior morphological and textural resemblance to croissant food items sold in commercial groceries stores. The new graphite structure and the associated preparation from coal or coal waste feedstocks has been the subject of a U.S. patent application. The systematic experimental processes involving coal cleaning, upgrading, and conversion to high-value carbon products culminated into a developed upgraded coal-to-products (UCP) technology that is being pursued for potential fast-track commercialization, if funding is available. It is envisioned that commercialization of the UCP technology would increase consumption of U.S. domestic coals or coal wastes to make environmentally sustainable high-value products for the electronics industry, high-energy-storage applications, and clean energy technologies such as electric vehicle (EV) lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), for which graphite has become a critical mineral commodity. Croissant graphite microstructures, when observed by field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), display wavy surface morphology and often grow from a base that is made of graphitized particles with honeycomb-like layers, which are believed to be graphene layers. While more studies are needed to fully ascertain the mechanisms of the croissant graphite microstructure formation, it is postulated that their growth may begin from curling of the graphene sheets into ribbon-like structures, and continuous growth and densification of the ribbon-like structures forms croissant microstructures. Additional studies are ongoing to evaluate the electrochemical performance of croissant graphite for LIB applications and to determine the experimental conditions necessary to tune on/off croissant formation so that it can be either optimized or suppressed depending on performance evaluation results. In addition to the discovery of croissant graphite, the graphitization process from the four coal ranks in general was successful. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis showed that the degree of graphitization (DoG) ranged from 12% to 80% in an early sample set, and further optimization on lignite coal produces a DoG of about 92%, which was spectacular to see as lignite is the lowest-rank coal. Thus, it is expected that the graphitization performance for higher-rank coals will be similar or better when optimized as well. The coal-derived graphite was used to make GO and rGO. Analytical characterization, e.g., by methods such as Raman spectroscopy, XRD, Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy and FESEM, showed that the sequence of converting the coal to graphite, exfoliating it to GO, and then chemically reducing the GO to rGO was successful. Although coal naturally contains aromatic compounds and some relatively small-sized condensed aromatic units, it does not contain graphene sheets. In the UCP process, the aromatic domains in the coals, particularly low-rank coals, are concentrated and condensed further into graphene sheets, which are ordered into a 3D stack during graphitization. The synthesized graphite is then unpacked by methods such as exfoliation to various graphene products. GQDs were synthesized from all four coal types, and their optical properties were demonstrated to be tunable by the coal precursor preprocessing treatments. In all four coal types, enhanced optical properties were observed for the produced GDQs with incremental improvements made to the coal precursors. GQDs produced from raw coal samples displayed lower ultraviolet–visible (UV–Vis) spectroscopy absorbance intensity compared to those obtained from cleaned and upgraded coal residues. The photoluminescence (PL) intensities also varied with pretreatment conditions and with the concentration of GQDs in aqueous solutions. GQDs obtained from anthracite show longer emission wavelengths and can be excited by visible light as opposed to GQDs derived from the other coal ranks. UV fluorescence 3D maps and spectra revealed that the emission wavelength at which the GQDs solutions display the highest intensity was slightly redshifted based on the coal precursor pretreatments. In low-rank coal (lignite and subbituminous) samples, two clusters were observed in the maps for GQDs, which may suggest that there are potentially two types of fluorophores in solution or two main size populations. The ability to tune the properties of GQDs based on processing methods can be exploited to make GQDs for various optical display or optoelectronics applications. The results also highlight the importance of removing coal-borne impurities to improve the quality of the coal precursor for preparation of graphene products. Coal and/or coal wastes preprocessing methods were developed and applied to clean and upgrade the coal precursors prior to graphitization and subsequent conversion to graphene products. The preprocessing methods involve high specific-gravity separations, mineral acid cleaning (no hydrofluoric acid), and subsequent upgrading by reducing the coal-borne heteroatom (nitrogen, sulfur, and oxygen) content using proprietary chemical agents. Analytical characterization revealed that the preprocessing steps were successful, with ash reductions that range from 38% to 80% and residual ash content that was below the 5 wt% initial target. Based on proximate and ultimate analysis, the heteroatom reduction reactions produced upgraded coal residues with the oxygen content reduced by 8% to 24%, with additional reductions in the nitrogen and sulfur contents. An initial assessment of the waste streams from the UCP process shows very small to negligible environmental impact due to CO 2 , NO x , and SO x because most process steps are performed under inert atmosphere with argon. Consequently, reactive oxygen environments that tend to create these species are avoided. The inorganic and potentially hazardous species are released into aqueous waste streams that are easy to handle for proper disposal. The liquid waste streams were found to contain low-level concentrations of rare-earth elements (REEs), which could be concentrated and recovered as value-added by-products. Additionally, the volatile and gaseous fractions from carbonization and heat treatment contain useful organic compounds that can also be recovered as potential valuable by-products. Thus, the UCP technology is considered an environmentally sustainable and promising emerging technology for making high-value products from coal and coal wastes, with potential additional value-added by-products. Analysis of potential markets for the coal-derived carbon products shows a strong demand in both niche market sectors and across a wide variety of other industrial sectors. Graphite is currently considered a critical mineral commodity that has a large and growing demand in the LIB industry for EV applications. Based on data from Fortune Business Insights (2022) and Marketwatch (2023) reports, the average global graphite market is projected to reach about 33 billion by 2028, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 7%, with much of this growth expected to be in the LIB industry. GO and rGO have strong market potentials in various application areas, such as coatings for anticorrosion, anti-icing, and antimicrobial protection, thermal barriers, wear resistance, sensors, additive manufacturing such as 3D inks, and others. GQDs are the emerging key player in the bioimaging, photovoltaics, and light-emitting diodes (LEDs) applications, with the potential to replace traditional semiconductor quantum dots (SQDs), which are based on metallic systems that are more toxic and more expensive. Biomedical applications of GQDs are becoming more attractive because of low to no toxicity and extremely low cost compared to SQDs. The major challenges for scale-up and commercialization of coal-derived carbon products such as graphene vary from the inherent attributes of graphene itself to reluctance to accept graphene in new manufacturing processes because of the uncertainty of the unknown. The 2D nature of graphene materials with a thickness of one atom presents significant challenges to proper handling/processing, and process scale-up becomes difficult because it requires high-end, expensive equipment, even for routine handling and analysis for quality assurance and control. Pristine graphene can also be extremely difficult to work into other matrices, thus hindering downstream processibility, especially at large scale. Currently, the cost of graphene and graphene products is still high and presents an economic risk that tends to slow down investment in scaling up emerging technologies. The lack of a standard for graphene materials for quality assurance and quality control poses a great challenge not only for the markets but also for commercialization efforts. A first-look economic feasibility analysis of the UCP technology provided valuable information that suggests the UCP process would be feasible, especially when it is scaled to a pilot scale and could be more competitive at the full scale. Graphitization was found to be the most energy-consuming and most capital-intensive step in the overall process. In small laboratory- and bench-scale experiments, labor is a significant contributor to the total process costs. Although these energy, capital, and labor constraints contribute to a higher selling price for the product, a preliminary economic model suggests that the process would be feasible at large scale when the process is fully integrated, optimized, and automated.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

Stakeholder-Engaged Structured Decision Making for the Los Alamos Legacy Cleanup Mission - 20501

The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) environmental legacy cleanup program requires decisions to be made for environmental remediation, decommissioning and disposal or management of radioactive waste. This legacy cleanup program was established to address groundwater contamination, material disposal areas (MDAs) that have been used to dispose of radioactive and other waste material, and 'aggregate areas' that might produce radioactive or other chemical waste as a result of remediation activities. The LANL site is regulated for environmental concerns under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). However, some parts of LANL, such as material disposal area G (MDA G), have disposed of radioactive waste under DOE Order 435.1, and are subject to other regulations. For example, decommissioning the remote-handled TRU material stored in 33 shafts at MDA G falls under EPA's 40 CFR 191. Collectively, the regulations are all aimed in the same direction of finding the best solution, either through constructs such as 'as low as reasonably achievable' (ALARA), considering balancing factors as opposed to only cost and human health risk, and, under EPA regulations such as RCRA and NEPA, evaluating impact from all chemicals and both human health and ecological endpoints. Despite the basic goals and objectives of the regulations or their guidance, the main challenge is in their implementation. Arguably perhaps, but really in principle, all of these (and similar) regulations are asking for a decision analysis to be performed. Implementation challenges encountered have included lack of understanding of decision analysis in the industry, lack of effective stakeholder engagement in the decision analysis process, and lack of appreciation of the need to separate value judgments from science, the latter leading to developing conservative, or protective, science-based models. Conservative models lead to poor solutions, lack of effective stakeholder engagement leads to long drawn out protracted approaches to finding a solution (which also might never be found with this approach), and lack of understanding of decision analysis and Bayesian statistics causes poor models to be built, which creates unfortunate situations of 'garbage in, garbage out' becoming the basis for decision making. Stakeholder-engaged structured decision making (SDM) is an approach to solving problems that relies on the theory of decision science to involve stakeholders in the decision-making process. This approach incorporates stakeholder values using a scientifically rigorous methodology that separates value judgments from science in a way that helps avoid the pitfalls of biased, protective, or conservative modeling. This approach has its foundation in Keeney's 1992 treatise on value-focused thinking [1]. Keeney advocated a paradigm shift in decision making based on the idea that the standard way of thinking about decisions is backwards. The standard approach of focusing first on identifying alternatives rather than on articulating values results in a reactive approach with the emphasis on mechanics and fixed choices instead of the core values that have meaning to stakeholders. This paradigm shift effectively engages all stakeholders in the decision-making process while using a values focused thinking approach that can lead to the identification of decision opportunities and the creation of better alternatives. The intent is to be proactive and generate solutions that are related directly to values and objectives as identified by stakeholders. There are, perhaps, two overarching reasons why SDM can be used to benefit LANL's environmental legacy cleanup. Some of LANL's remaining waste management and environmental management problems are challenging and complex (for example, the Cr and RDX plumes, and MDAs) and while the traditional approach has, arguably, worked well for relatively simple risk-based problems, it cannot, or should not, be applied to more complex problems if the most effective and efficient solutions are desired. The second reason is cost. This has perhaps become more critical since publication of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that DoE's environmental liability is considered a high-risk concern for the nation [2]. The focus of SDM is on structuring solutions to decision risk problems by first addressing stakeholder and decision maker values and subsequently developing decision objectives and ways to measure those objectives, preference weighting across objectives, identifying decision alternatives that best achieve those values, and characterizing uncertainty in predictions of the measures. Because a complete decision model is created using SDM, it can be evaluated to find the main elements of the model that drive, or predict, the best solution. This approach creates complete decision models that are transparent, traceable, reproducible and technically defensible. The science behind SDM, or decision analysis, is well founded, yet it is not unusual to see ad hoc approaches to decision making implemented under various environmental regulations that are pertinent to the LANL site, including NEPA, RCRA and DOE Order 435.1. Such ad hoc approaches are often not transparent or traceable, and lack reproducibility and technical defensibility. The LANL legacy cleanup program has embarked on using SDM to address the complex problems that remain. Stakeholder meetings have been held, and a prototype version of the stakeholder value system has been developed. Further meetings are expected in the future to address specific project needs. This is a long-term endeavor considering the complex environmental problems faced by DOE EM in Los Alamos (EM-LA), and careful planning, consideration of stakeholder value systems, and engagement with stakeholders throughout the SDM process is expected to lead to a successful endpoint. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗