Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Code development and validation”

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.

285 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Direct NeTS sampling of nuclear graphite $S(α, β, T)$ in Serpent

For advanced reactor applications, Neural Thermal Scattering (NeTS) modules were developed to predict the thermal scattering law (TSL or $S(α, β, T)$) of a nuclear graphite neutron moderator. NeTS are multi-layer, feedforward artificial neural networks, which act as universal function approximators designed for TSL datasets. In this case, a 4-layer neural network with 164 neurons per layer is trained using FLASSH evaluated data in PyTorch and serialized as a torchscript dictionary to predict $S(α, β, T)$ on-the-fly. Relative, absolute and maximum percent deviations of NeTS from File 7 data generated using the FLASSH code are on the order of 0.01%, 0.1% and 1%, respectively, with low inference latencies of 0.000172 s per $S(α, β, T)$ at a given temperature. Capturing the full dimensionality of possible inelastic neutron-lattice interactions, NeTS functionality is embedded in the Serpent Monte Carlo code, where $S(α, β, T)_{NeTS}$ sampling is conducted on-the-fly and compared to ACE look-up-tables for predicting TREAT criticality. k-eff differences between sampling algorithms of 6 pcm are observed and are within the order of Monte Carlo uncertainty. Compared to discrete and continuous-energy ACE files (30 MB and 131 MB per temperature), the NeTS format is on the order of 200–300 kB for a continuous-temperature, interpolation-free representation of $S(α, β, T)$ and cross sections. NeTS-in-Serpent runtimes comparable with ACE look-up tables are achieved by scaling NeTS for high performance computing architectures with hybrid OpenMP + MPI parallelization. This work validates a novel, self-contained reactor physics framework for predictive cross sections, and demonstrates a general methodology for embedding modern machine learning libraries within existing neutronic analysis frameworks.

Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP)↗
DOE OSTI2024

SAM Code Enhancements for Modeling of Liquid Metal-Cooled Fast Reactor Concepts

The SAM code is under development and supported by DOE-NE’s Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation program as a modern system-level modeling and simulation tool for advanced non-light water reactor safety analyses. These advanced reactor concepts incorporate novel and improved approaches to achieve safety and economic feasibility. This report summarizes two major efforts in addressing the modeling gaps in SAM for liquid-metal-cooled fast reactor (LMFR) applications, i.e. thermal mixing and stratification phenomena in large pools and corrosion-oxidation of components in flowing lead. A new one-dimensional model for thermal mixing and stratification effects in large pools and enclosures is developed and implemented. Thermal mixing and stratification occur when fluid enters a pool at a temperature different than the bulk fluid itself, a scenario often encountered during transients in pool-type systems. These phenomena are critical for the safety of reactors, impacting phenomena like natural circulation, which is essential for passive cooling. The improved model in SAM addresses limitations of state-of-the-art approaches by combining one-dimensional (1D) channels, representing the coolant jet flow, with lumped-parameter zero-dimensional (0D) pools, representing the rest of coolant in the tank. Energy exchange between the 1D jet and the 0D pools is based on heat transfer correlations calibrated against 3D simulations. It is verified that this model can handle various flow configurations, including hot jets in colder pools, cold jets in hotter pools, and the presence of features like ceilings, free surfaces, and obstacles. Additionally, validation against experimental data demonstrates the ability of the model to capture mixing and stratification effects in a wide range of conditions. The flexibility and improved accuracy of the new model make it a valuable tool for reactor safety analysis, allowing for the simulation of different geometries encountered in advanced reactors. A system-level corrosion modeling capability is developed and implemented in SAM to support Lead Fast Reactor (LFR) development. Although the initial focus of this capability will be on LFR application, this can later be expanded to include other liquid metals such as Lead-Bismuth Eutectic (LBE) and PbLi. This report summarizes the common corrosion mitigation strategies and outlines the progress on implementing and validating a corrosion-oxidation model in SAM. Verification and validation of the corrosion-oxidation portion of the model was performed using analytical solution and measured data from samples tested in the non-isothermal pumped lead loop at IPPE Obninsk. The iron transport and corrosion/precipitation portion of the model was assessed using an analytical model and measured corrosion depths from a natural convection lead loop experiment performed at CEA. It is demonstrated that the model implemented in SAM performed well in these assessments.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2025

DOME: Directional medical embedding vectors from Electronic Health Records

Motivation: The increasing availability of Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems has created enormous potential for translational research. Recent developments in representation learning techniques have led to effective large-scale representations of EHR concepts along with knowledge graphs that empower downstream EHR studies. However, most existing methods require training with patient-level data, limiting their abilities to expand the training with multi-institutional EHR data. On the other hand, scalable approaches that only require summary-level data do not incorporate temporal dependencies between concepts. Methods: We introduce a DirectiOnal Medical Embedding (DOME) algorithm to encode temporally directional relationships between medical concepts, using summary-level EHR data. Specifically, DOME first aggregates patient-level EHR data into an asymmetric co-occurrence matrix. Then it computes two Positive Pointwise Mutual Information (PPMI) matrices to correspondingly encode the pairwise prior and posterior dependencies between medical concepts. Following that, a joint matrix factorization is performed on the two PPMI matrices, which results in three vectors for each concept: a semantic embedding and two directional context embeddings. They collectively provide a comprehensive depiction of the temporal relationship between EHR concepts. Results: We highlight the advantages and translational potential of DOME through three sets of validation studies. First, DOME consistently improves existing direction-agnostic embedding vectors for disease risk prediction in several diseases, for example achieving a relative gain of 5.5% in the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) for lung cancer. Second, DOME excels in directional drug-disease relationship inference by successfully differentiating between drug side effects and indications, correspondingly achieving relative AUROC gain over the state-of-the-art methods by 10.8% and 6.6%. Finally, DOME effectively constructs directional knowledge graphs, which distinguish disease risk factors from comorbidities, thereby revealing disease progression trajectories. The source codes are provided at https://github.com/celehs/Directional-EHRembedding.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Forward modeling approach to nuclear reaction cross sections: Applications in neutron inelastic scattering

The development of nuclear reaction models for the production of evaluated nuclear data has traditionally been performed by comparing measured cross sections with predictions from reaction model codes whose physical input parameters are adjusted to obtain the best agreement between measured and modeled results. To more directly probe reaction model inputs, this work introduces a forward modeling approach to experimental reaction cross-section determination, where the most important physical input parameters to reaction model calculations are obtained via 𝜒 2 minimization between measured and calculated observables. This was demonstrated using data collected by the Gamma Energy Neutron Energy Spectrometer for Inelastic Scattering (GENESIS) at the 88-inch cyclotron at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a detection array consisting of organic liquid scintillators and high-purity germanium (HPGe) detectors. Using a broad-spectrum neutron beam and a 99.98%-enriched 56 Fe target, GENESIS was used to perform a simultaneous measurement of 56 Fe 𝛾-ray production cross sections and secondary neutron energy and angle distributions. The results of the forward modeling approach to the determination of energy-differential 𝛾-ray production cross sections for the yrast 4 + → 2 + and 6 + → 4 + transitions, as well as eight other off-yrast transitions, were compared against those obtained using conventional techniques, and the results are in good agreement. In addition to discrete 𝛾-ray yield total scattered neutron energy-angular distributions as a function of incident neutron energy were also obtained using forward modeling and found to agree with evaluated data, with the exception of elastic scattering at small angles. The fitted reaction model parameters obtained through forward modeling were also used to calculate the cross section for the unobserved (𝑛, 2⁢𝑛) reaction; excellent agreement with the current evaluation was obtained, providing a validation of the predictive capabilities of the forward model approach. This work bridges the gap between nuclear data experiment and evaluation by providing a new means for extracting inelastic neutron-scattering cross sections and neutron-induced 𝛾-ray production data while directly probing reaction model physics.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Demonstrate new plasticity models for doped UO 2 that capture dislocation mechanisms

In light water reactors, fuel vendors are investigating the use of dopants to modify the properties of UO 2 pellets, with the goal of improving pellet-cladding mechanical interactions during operation. Dopants are expected to ‘soften’ the pellets; that is, the doped pellets have higher plastic deformation than conventional UO 2 . This leads to a reduction in the severity of mechanical pellet-cladding interactions, helping to reduce the hoop strain on the cladding. By minimizing the strain exerted by the pellet on the cladding, it is anticipated that cladding performance under accident conditions can be enhanced (i.e., lowering the risk of burst during a LOCA). Dopants such as chromium (Cr) promote grain growth during pellet fabrication, leading to larger grains; therefore, understanding the link between chemistry, microstructure and mechanical deformation (enhanced creep rates) behavior of UO 2 is critical to helping operators further substantiate the benefits of doping UO 2 . Historically, the nuclear energy industry has relied on empirical models to make assessments of performance. Compared to empirical models, mechanistic physics-based models provide benefits, such as, fewer data points for validation and better extrapolation where experimental data is scarce or non-existent. In this report, Bayesian inference techniques have been applied to a previously developed lower length-scale-informed diffusional creep model. The objective is to i) infer lower-length-scale parameter distributions from available experiment and then ii) determine the uncertainties in the measurable quantity (in this case creep rates) after propagating the inferred lower length scale parameter uncertainties. The approach requires many evaluations of the model, which becomes computationally insurmountable; therefore, a neural-network model is trained to data obtained by sampling the full model over the most important parameters. This neural-network is then used in the Bayesian inference approach to determine probability distributions in the parameter values that represent the uncertainty in the model given what is known from the experiments (posterior). A significant reduction compared to conservative initial (prior) uncertainties is achieved through inference against the experimental data, demonstrating the efficacy of this approach. Furthermore, by accounting for uncertainties in the experimental conditions and sample non-stoichiometry, it is possible to resolve apparent discrepancies in experimental measurements within a self-consistent grain boundary (Coble) creep model that is sensitive to chemistry. This work has been written up and submitted to Nuclear Technology for a special issue on accelerated fuel qualification (AFQ). This uncertainty quantification (UQ) work not only improves the diffusional model, while accounting for uncertainty, but also establishes a framework which can readily be applied to the mechanistic models of dislocation deformation developed in this study. The most likely values from the Bayesian analysis are incorporated into our UO 2 diffusional creep model and a lower length scale-informed irradiation UO 2 creep mechanistic model to generate a dataset. This dataset has been provided to our INL collaborators for training an artificial neural network surrogate model, which will be implemented in the BISON fuel performance code to assess how the results differ from those currently obtained using a fully empirical model and that of using the nominal (uncalibrated) atomic scale parameters in our mechanistic model. Plastic deformation (creep and glide) in UO 2 is a complex phenomenon, governed by multiple underlying processes such as local defect concentrations, applied stresses, and microstructural characteristics. Consequently, there is a need for a meso-scale model with polycrystalline resolution capable of extrapolating to large grain sizes applicable to doped UO 2 , where data is limited and the model can help bridge the knowledge gap. By integrating atomistic data into the polycrystal LApx code, it becomes possible to predict dislocation climb and glide plasticity that simple analytical models cannot accurately represent. The application of atomic-scale data within LApx demonstrated the importance of climb and glide mechanisms in reproducing high-stress UO 2 behavior. Behaviors such as this are crucial to capture and implement in BISON, as parts of the fuel pellet can reach temperatures where glide can occur before pellet cracking. This model which captures dislocation based mechanisms for UO 2 is then used to stand up the doped model accounting for larger grain sizes. It was found that larger grain sizes can lead to enhanced deformation rates in the glide regime, and therefore can help with the pellet cladding mechanical interaction. Therefore if the fuel pellet reaches conditions (stress/temperature) where glide is active, the enhanced creep rates for larger grains in the glide regime (doped UO 2 ) can help with pellet cladding mechanical interactions. Plastic deformation in UO 2 involves multiple mechanisms, including diffusional creep, dislocation climb, and glide. This milestone contains two parts: (1) UQ of a pre-existing lower length scale informed mechanistic diffusional creep model, and (2) development of a new LApx based model for dislocation-mediated creep mechanisms in UO 2 , with application to large-grain doped UO 2 .

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Using a Large Language Model as a Building Block to Generate Usable Validation and Verification Suite for OpenMP

In the HPC area, both hardware and software move quickly. Often new hardware is developed and deployed, the corresponding software stack, including compilers and other tools, are under active development while leading edge software developers are working to port and tune their applications, all at the same time. While the software ecosystem is in flux, one of the key challenges for users is obtaining insight into the state of implementation of key features in the programming languages and models their applications are using – whether they have been implemented, and whether the implementation conforms to the specification, especially for newly implemented features (less tested by widespread use). OpenMP is one of the most prominent shared memory programming models used for on-node programming in HPC. With the shift towards accelerators (such as GPUs and FPGAs) and heterogeneous programming OpenMP features are getting more complex. It is natural to ask whether generative AI approaches, and large language models (LLMs) in particular, can help in producing validation and verification test suites to allow users better and faster insights into the availability and correctness of OpenMP features of interest. In this work, we explore the use of ChatGPT-4 to generate a suite of tests for OpenMP features. We have chosen a set of directives and clauses, a total of 78 combinations, which first appeared in OpenMP 3.0 (released in May 2008) but are also relevant for accelerators. We prompted ChatGPT to generate tests in the C and Fortran languages, for both host (CPU) and device (accelerator). On the Summit super-computer using the GNU implementation, we found that, of the 78 generated tests 67 C tests and 43 Fortran tests compiled successfully and fewer than those executed to completion. On further analysis we show that not all generated tests are valid. We document the process, results, and provide detailed analysis regarding the quality of tests generated. With the aim of providing input to a production quality validation and verification suite, we manually implement the corrections required to make the tests valid according to the current OpenMP specification. We quantify this effort as small, medium, or large, and record the lines of code changed to correct the invalid tests. With the corrected tests we validate recent implementations from HPE, AMD, and GNU on the Frontier supercomputer. Our experiment and subsequent analysis show that although LLMs are capable of producing HPC specific codes, they are limited by their understanding of the deeper semantics and restrictions of programming models such as OpenMP. Unsurprisingly more commonly used features have better support, while some OpenMP 3.0 directives such as sections and tasking are not universally supported on accelerators. We demonstrate that successful compilation and execution to completion are inadequate metrics for evaluating generated code and that, at this time, commodity LLMs require expert intervention for code verification. This points to gaps in the training data that is currently available for HPC. We demonstrate that with "small" effort 37% of generated invalid C tests and 63% of generated invalid Fortran tests could be corrected. This improves productivity of test generation as we circumvent writing from scratch and the common programming errors associated with it.

Pophale, Swaroop [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000185446367)↗
DOE OSTI2025

Nuclear Materials Packaging, Transportation, and Systems Analysis Group Software Quality Assurance Plan: ANSYS Mechanical Finite Element Analysis Software Version 2023R1

ANSYS Inc. develops and markets engineering simulation software and services used in the aerospace, automotive, manufacturing, electronics, biomedical, energy, defense, and many other industries. ANSYS is dedicated to engineering simulation and is the world’s leading software provider. ANSYS was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. ANSYS provides an engineering analysis tool combining structural, thermal, computational fluid dynamics, acoustic, and electromagnetic simulation capabilities. ANSYS has two main programs, which use the same solvers: (1) Mechanical APDL (ANSYS Design Parametric Language), a Fortran-based coding platform, and (2) ANSYS Workbench, which uses a graphical user interface to aid in finite element analysis implementation. This plan covers both APDL and Workbench. The ANSYS computer program is a large-scale, multipurpose finite element program that can be used to solve several classes of engineering analyses. The analysis capabilities of ANSYS include the ability to solve static and dynamic structural analyses, steady-state and transient heat transfer problems, mode-frequency and buckling eigenvalue problems, static or time-varying magnetic analyses, and various types of field and coupled-field applications. The program contains many special features that allow nonlinearities or secondary effects such as plasticity, large strain, hyperelasticity, creep, swelling, large deflections, contact, stress stiffening, temperature dependency, material anisotropy, and radiation to be included in the solution. As ANSYS has been developed, other special capabilities such as substructuring, submodeling, random vibration, kinetostatics, kinetodynamics, free convection fluid analysis, acoustics, magnetics, piezoelectrics, coupled-field analysis, and design optimization have been added to the program. These capabilities contribute further to making ANSYS a multipurpose analysis tool for varied engineering disciplines. The ANSYS program has been in commercial use for over 50 years and has been used extensively in the aerospace, automotive, construction, electronic, energy services, manufacturing, nuclear, plastics, oil, and steel industries. Additionally, many consulting firms and hundreds of universities have used ANSYS for analysis, research, and educational purposes. ANSYS is recognized worldwide as one of the most widely used and capable programs of its type. Ansys design analysis software is the first created within a quality system with ISO 9001 certification, the internationally accepted quality standard. Product development, testing, maintenance and support processes also meet the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's quality requirements, as they have for nearly four decades. The Quality Assurance Service Agreement is suitable for the customers working in the nuclear industry who need to meet specific federal regulations including 10CRF50 Appendix B and provisions of 10CFR21. ANSYS has retained its original International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001 accreditation certificate since1995-05-04, It’s current certificate is valid until 2027-05-29.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Multiphysics Modeling of Microreactors with NEAMS codes, and Validation Based on KRUSTY Reactivity Insertion

The NEAMS Multiphysics Applications team continues to assess code usability and functionality for microreactor design and safety analyses, while demonstrating that NEAMS tools capture both steady-state and transient behavior across distinct microreactor concepts. In FY2025, the team advanced full-core, high-fidelity, multiphysics models that solve more complex problems and strengthen verification/validation for several microreactor systems: heat-pipe microreactor (HPMR), gas-cooled microreactor (GCMR), and the KRUSTY experiment. These models employ the MOOSE MultiApp/Transfers architecture with Griffin for neutronics, BISON for heat conduction/thermomechanics, Sockeye for heat pipes, SAM/THM for coolant channels and loops, and SWIFT for hydride behavior, with meshes generated via the MOOSE Reactor Module. The graphite models available in the Grizzly code were also investigated for future analyses. For the HPMR, a Na-HPMR variant was constructed to align with recently validated heat-pipe experiments and Sockeye’s LCVF capability, enabling mechanistic heat-pipe transients and startup modeling. The Na-HPMR will serve as the primary model for HPMR investigations in upcoming tasks. The load-following and single heat-pipe failure scenarios (Griffin/BISON/Sockeye), which were previously modeled for the K-HPMR, were replicated for the Na-HPMR, showing strong negative temperature feedback and highly localized thermal effects, respectively, while the startup case captured vapor-front progression and heat-removal activation. Solid mechanics was added to the previously built K-HPMR full-core model in BISON, showing minimal impact on steady-state reactivity yet enabling stress-field predictions that prepare the path for full-core TRISO performance analyses. For the GCMR, automated steady-state and four transient scenarios were executed using Griffin/BISON/SAM/SWIFT. Results confirm robust inherent safety: power collapses promptly in loss-of-cooling events, the inlet-temperature drop settles to a new equilibrium, and a single-channel blockage yields only a ~30 K local fuel-temperature rise with <0.4% power decrease. SWIFT-predicted hydrogen redistribution affects reactivity during both steady-state and transient conditions, underscoring its importance. A Brayton-cycle balance of plant (BOP) model in SAM/THM demonstrated stable startup behavior, and xenon-driven reactivity during load following was analyzed. To improve TRISO-compact temperature fidelity, a fast multiscale Heat Source Decomposition (HSD) treatment was implemented. Against heterogeneous benchmarks, HSD reduces underprediction of kernel temperatures and lowers predicted peak powers in reactivity-insertion transients compared to previous homogenized models. KRUSTY warm-critical validation progressed from FY2024 baselines: the 15Ȼ insertion shows excellent agreement in peak power (~2% high) and temperature trends, and the 30Ȼ case was automated via a feedback controller that maintained power near 3 kW for ~150 s with close agreement to data. The successful modeling of the warm critical tests has laid a strong foundation for simulating more complex nuclear system tests in the years ahead. Throughout FY2025, developer feedback was provided (e.g., MOOSE batch mesh generation, distributed pre-split meshes, Griffin sweeper on displaced meshes), several new models were contributed to the Virtual Test Bed, and an OECD-NEA WPRS multiphysics benchmark based on the HPMR was initiated to enable broader cross-comparison and best-practice development with the nuclear community at large.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2026

A Python Tool for Aqueous Plutonium Nitrate Density Law Input Preprocessing in MCNP6

Here, this work develops a predictive density tool in Python, named Plutonium Nitrate Solutions (PuNS), to reduce bias and uncertainty in nuclear criticality safety calculations for plutonium nitrate systems. The Pitzer method and an empirical method were implemented into the PuNS tool to generate atom densities for use in MCNP6 material cards. These material cards are directly prepared into an MCNP6 input text file and are calculated based on customizable user inputs of plutonium content, nitric acid content, temperature, and plutonium isotope weight percentages. The PuNS tool is validated and verified against the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project Handbook experiments and is observed to predict densities within a root mean square error of 0.89% for the Pitzer method and 1.82% for the empirical method. These errors in density lead to up to 1569 pcm difference in MCNP6 calculated k eff for the Pitzer method and up to a 1751 pcm difference for the empirical method when compared to experimental benchmarks. Simultaneous work is also being performed at Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of New Mexico to create a similar tool for plutonium chloride solutions, named Plutonium Chloride Solution, which aims to provide the accreditation of the chlorine absorption. These capabilities will not only provide more accurate models but also facilitate an improved understanding of solution systems and a potential relaxation in the conservatism of current aqueous plutonium processing criticality safety limits.

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

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

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2024

Towards a NEAMS-based high-fidelity model of the MARVEL reactor

This report outlines the progress of Idaho National Laboratory in developing a high-fidelity and high-resolution model of the Microreactor Applications Research Validation and Evaluation reactor. The model was developed under the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation microreactor application driver at Idaho National Laboratory. The overarching objective of this activity is the development of a high-fidelity multiphysics MARVEL model using NEAMS tools, and to verify and validate NEAMS tools against MARVEL reference simulation and experimental data, respectively. This is a unique opportunity to conduct multiphysics analysis on a soon-to-be-deployed microreactor. This multiphysics model developed under the NEAMS-funded INL microreactor application driver leverages three single-physics models coupled via the MOOSE’s MultiApp and Transfer systems. The latter systems enable in-memory data transfer between MOOSE-based and MOOSE-wrapped applications. The first single-physics model, that functions as main application, leverages Griffin to model the neutron transport in the core through the discontinuous finite element (DFEM) discrete ordinates solver (SN). Several optimization flags that were developed by the Griffin developer team were beta-tested to enhance the solver’s performance. These include the combined use of using_average_xs and update_averaged_xs_on that enable to avoid expensive on-the-fly cross sections evaluations at each linear iterations in favor of evaluations of the macroscopic cross sections at each Picard iteration. The second single-physics model uses BISON to handle solid heat transfer and asymptotic hydrogen redistribution analysis in the fuel. While the model returns consistent results for the temperature and hydrogen distribution in the fuel, a mismatch was noticed in the calculated temperature in the reflector due to the value of the gap conductance used in our model. Ongoing investigations are being performed to assess the origin of this discrepancy. Finally, the System Analysis Module (SAM) was used to model the flow of the sodium-potassium eutectic in the primary loop. A first verification was also performed showing good agreement in terms of mass flow rate and inlet temperature. All mesh files were generated using the MOOSE Reactor module, removing the need for external meshing tools. Notably, this workscope represents one of the initial applications of the MOOSE Reactor module for modeling highly irregular geometries. The use of the reactor module significantly streamlined the mesh generation process. The full multiphysics mode, that combines all the single physics models, was leveraged to conduct initial steady-state multiphysics simulations to compute power, and temperature distribution in the reactor. Initial testing was performed for transient simulations as well. In this case, the new checkpoint restart capability for eigenvalue calculations was tested showing the capability for streamlined restart of transient calculations. Future work will focus on improving the fidelity of the model by performing comprehensive code-to-code comparisons. For instance, the full-core Griffin neutronics model will be benchmarked against MCNP reference results, that were provided by the MARVEL design team. Additionally, the SAM T/H model will be verified against reference RELAP-5 results for selected accident scenarios. Besides code-to-code verification exercises, the model fidelity will be improved by replacing the single-channel SAM model with a more complex SAM-Pronghorn coupled model, in which the sub-channel capability is deployed to obtain radial temperature resolution in the coolant. This model will be developed in synergy with the NEAMS thermal hydraulics team.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2024

NORTH DAKOTA CARBONSAFE PHASE III: SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND PERMITTING OF GEOLOGIC STORAGE OF CARBON DIOXIDE

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc. (Minnkota), SLB, and Computer Modelling Group Ltd. (CMG), supported wide-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) Initiative Phase III. This phase included the acquisition, analysis, and development of information to fully characterize two storage complexes to demonstrate viable storage resources for commercial volumes of CO2 (defined by DOE as a minimum of 50 million tonnes [MMt] of CO2 within a 30-year period) (National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2024). Phase III also involved the preparation, submission, and approval of North Dakota underground injection control (UIC) Class VI storage facility permits (SFPs)—required precursors to applications for Class VI injection well permits. The presumed viability of commercial-scale CCS, situated adjacent to Minnkota’s Milton R. Young Station (MRYS), is validated by Minnkota’s continued pursuit of Project Tundra—an initiative to build the world’s largest lignite-based CCS project in central North Dakota (www.projecttundrand.com). Project Tundra comprises two scopes of work, Tundra Capture (installation of postcombustion CO2 capture at MRYS) and Tundra SGS (secure geologic storage). The efforts of North Dakota CarbonSAFE Phase III, Site Characterization and Permitting, supported Tundra SGS. Extensive site-specific characterization activities included a successful multimeasurement geophysical approach and drilling a stratigraphic test well (J-ROC 1, subsequently renamed Liberty-1) adjacent to MRYS. Core collection and analyses, downhole testing and fluid sampling, and geophysical logging were performed on J-ROC 1 and on a nearby stratigraphic test well (known as J-LOC 1), which was drilled, cored, and tested under a complementary project funded by the North Dakota Lignite Research Program. The injection tests performed on J-LOC 1 positively impacted the CarbonSAFE project, resulting in fewer proposed injection wells and significant construction, operations, and monitoring cost savings. The characterization data collected and analyses performed were integrated into geologic models, and successive numerical simulations were run to determine CO2 plume extent and subsurface pressure buildup associated with the planned CO2 injection rate of nearly 4 MMt per year. The latter doubles the CarbonSAFE Initiative goal with an estimated 100 MMt of CO2 stored in 20 years. Application of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) method for estimating the Class VI Rule area of review (AOR) to the overpressurized Broom Creek Formation inspired an alternative method of calculation, called risk-based AOR delineation. This peer-reviewed method was applied for the first time during the storage facility-permitting process. The two SFP applications submitted in 2021 successfully resulted in North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) orders in 2022 authorizing the creation of the storage facility areas and amalgamation of pore space as well as establishing financial responsibility requirements. After approval of the SFPs, Minnkota filed in 2022 applications for permits to reenter the J-ROC 1 well and to drill two new wells—all with the intended purpose to become Class VI injection wells. To establish eligibility under the Internal Revenue Code for Section 45Q tax incentives, a monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) plan was prepared and submitted by Minnkota to EPA in 2022, resulting in the first such plan approved in North Dakota. Also in 2022, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Minnkota prepared and submitted an environmental information volume (EIV) describing the proposed CCS project and associated potential environmental impacts. Based on the EIV, DOE determined that the proposed construction project required an environmental assessment, and Minnkota submitted the first draft in 2023 and a revised draft in 2024. Both submissions were followed by a public comment period. Subsequently, DOE issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on September 13, 2024. A successful outreach program, strongly based in the production, presentation, and dissemination of informational material, fostered an environment to aid stakeholders in making informed decisions regarding the planned project. Opportunities for public input were provided at various steps along the way, including at county planning and zoning meetings, before and during the SFP administrative hearing, and during environmental assessment public comment periods. In addition, land/pore space owners and mineral owners had various points of contact, including granting access rights, securing pore space leasing, and mineral owner notifications. Based upon the successful storage facility permitting issued by NDIC, approval of the MRV plan by EPA, and receipt of a FONSI under the NEPA, Minnkota is continuing its pursuit of Project Tundra. In December 2023, the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations under its Carbon Capture Demonstrations Projects Program announced funding for the capture system (Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023) and a proposal for CarbonSAFE Phase IV: Construction funding was submitted in March 2024 for the storage project. A go/no-go decision to proceed with construction and operations in the Broom Creek Formation is anticipated in 2024. References National Energy Technology Laboratory, CarbonSafe Initiative, https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-storage/carbonsafe (accessed August 2024). Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023, OCED selects three projects in CA, ND, and TX to reduce harmful carbon pollution, create new economic opportunities, and advance carbon reducing technologies, December, www.energy.gov/oced/articles/oced-selects-three-projects-ca-nd-and-tx-reduce-harmful-carbon-pollution-create-new (accessed August 2024).

Peck, Wesley↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized 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 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗