Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “LIABILITIES”

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

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

At least 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Townsend’s Ground Squirrel Conservation on the Hanford Site for Calendar Year 2023: Translocation to Support At-Risk Ground Squirrel Populations

The U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (RL) conducts ecological monitoring on the Hanford Site to collect and track data needed to ensure compliance with an array of environmental laws, regulations, and policies governing RL activities. Ecological monitoring data provide baseline information about the plants, animals, and habitat under RL stewardship at the Hanford Site, which is required for accurate ecological impact assessment decision making under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. In addition, ecological monitoring helps ensure that RL, its contractors, and other entities conducting activities on the Hanford Site are in compliance with DOE/EIS-0222-F, Final Hanford Comprehensive Land Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement. RL places priority on monitoring those plant and animal species or habitats with specific regulatory protections or requirements; or that are rare and/or declining (federal or state listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species) or of significant interest to federal, state, or tribal governments or the public.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Townsend’s Ground Squirrel Conservation on the Hanford Site for Calendar Year 2022: Translocation to Support At-Risk Ground Squirrel Populations

The U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) conducts ecological monitoring on the Hanford Site to collect and track data needed to ensure compliance with an array of environmental laws, regulations, and policies governing DOE-RL activities. Ecological monitoring data provide baseline information about the plants, animals, and habitat under DOE-RL stewardship at the Hanford Site required for accurate ecological impact assessment decision-making under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). In addition, ecological monitoring helps ensure that DOE-RL, its contractors and other entities conducting activities on the Hanford Site are in compliance with the Hanford Site Comprehensive Land Use Plan (DOE/EIS-0222-F). DOE-RL places priority on monitoring those plant and animal species or habitats with specific regulatory protections or requirements; or that are rare and/or declining (federal or state listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species); or of significant interest to federal, state, or tribal governments or the public.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Hanford Site Ground Squirrel Monitoring Report for Calendar Year 2021

The U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) conducts ecological monitoring on the Hanford Site to collect and track data needed to ensure compliance with an array of environmental laws, regulations, and policies governing U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) activities. Ecological monitoring data provide baseline information about the plants, animals, and habitat under DOE-RL stewardship at the Hanford Site required for accurate ecological impact assessment decision making under the National Environmental Policy Act and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. In addition, ecological monitoring helps ensure that DOE-RL, its contractors, and other entities conducting activities on the Hanford Site are in compliance with DOE/EIS- 0222-F, Hanford Site Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). DOE-RL places priority on monitoring those plant and animal species or habitats with specific regulatory protections or requirements; that are rare and/or declining (federal or state listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species); or of significant interest to federal, state, or Tribal governments or the public.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Site Revegetation Monitoring Report for Fiscal Year 2022

This report describes the monitoring of areas revegetated by various contractors on the Hanford Site. Revegetation sites include those revegetated by the River Corridor Closure Contractor and CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company that were transitioned to Mission Support Alliance (MSA) in 2017. These sites, along with sites revegetated by MSA between 2017 and 2020, were transitioned to Hanford Mission Integration Solutions (HMIS) in 2021. HMIS performs revegetation monitoring activities for these transitioned sites and for sites revegetated by HMIS and other contractors in subsequent years to determine revegetation site success. This report contains data collected in 2022 documenting the recovery of revegetation areas associated with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 cleanup of National Priorities List waste sites and restoration of lands disturbed by ongoing mission activities at the Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. It contains vegetation monitoring data for 53 sites selected to be representative sites for areas planted between the years of fiscal year (FY) 2007 and FY 2022.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Hanford Site Revegetation Monitoring Report for Fiscal Year 2021

This report describes the monitoring of areas revegetated by the River Corridor Closure Contractor (RCCC) and CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) that were transitioned to Mission Support Alliance (MSA) in 2017. These sites, along with sites revegetated by MSA between 2017 and 2020, were transitioned to Hanford Mission Integration Solutions (HMIS) in 2021. Site monitoring is a continuance of efforts performed by the RCCC from fiscal year (FY) 2007 through FY 2020. This report contains data collected in 2021 documenting the recovery of revegetation areas associated with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 cleanup of National Priorities List waste sites and restoration of lands disturbed by ongoing Site mission activities at the Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. It contains vegetation monitoring data for 52 sites selected to be representative sites for areas planted between the years of FY 2007 and FY 2021.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Hanford Site Revegetation Monitoring Report for Fiscal Year 2020

This report describes the monitoring of areas revegetated by the River Corridor Closure Contractor (RCCC) and CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) that were transitioned to and monitored by Mission Support Alliance (MSA) in 2020, along with sites revegetated by MSA. Site monitoring is a continuance of efforts performed by the RCCC from fiscal year (FY) 2007 through FY 2020. This report contains data collected in 2020 documenting the recovery of revegetation areas associated with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 cleanup of National Priorities List waste sites and restoration of lands disturbed by ongoing Site mission activities at the Hanford Site in Richland, Washington. It contains vegetation monitoring data for 41 sites selected to be representative sites for areas planted between the years of FY 2007 and FY 2020.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Knowledge-Based Hazardous Waste Determinations for Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Modules: A Foundational Study

This report explores using "generator knowledge" to determine whether a solar photovoltaic (PV) module must be managed as hazardous waste prior to recycling or landfilling. Generator knowledge is a legal term and existing regulatory pathway for making a hazardous waste determination that has been used by other industries but is a relatively unknown option to the PV industry. In the United States, a hazardous waste determination often acts as a pre-requisite to recycle or landfill a PV module. The results of the hazardous waste determination dictate whether the PV module must be managed as hazardous waste or nonhazardous solid waste. Managing a PV module as hazardous waste requires compliance with stringent U.S. federal and state hazardous waste law. In addition to increased management costs, which can be ten times higher, legal liability for PV modules regulated as hazardous waste is also heightened with both civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance which includes making an inaccurate or faulty hazardous waste determination. The most common reason a PV module would be regulated as hazardous is if it contains a regulated metal in an amount that equals or exceeds the toxicity characteristic limits. To determine whether a PV module exhibits a hazardous characteristic, the regulated person/entity must "apply knowledge...in light of the materials and processes used." In the absence of adequate knowledge to determine whether the PV module is hazardous, it must be tested using Test Method 1311 Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) or an equivalent EPA-approved method. Although TCLP is the predominant method used to today to make a hazardous waste determination for PV modules, evidence from this study concludes it is not practical to TCLP test every PV module even in a single utility-scale installation, and a scalable solution is needed. This study finds that knowledge-based hazardous waste determinations may allow a regulated person/entity to make a hazardous waste determination for more than one PV module at one time - making this regulatory pathway a potential scalable solution. Through legal analysis and interviews with 44 experts, the authors explore what it means to make an accurate knowledge-based hazardous determination for PV modules considering sources and forms of information as well as potential limitations. The work aims to provide a foundation for building consensus on whether knowledge-based hazardous determinations are a viable, scalable industry approach for solar.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Townsend's Ground Squirrel Conservation on the Hanford Site for Calendar Year 2025

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Hanford Field Office (HFO) conducts ecological monitoring on the DOE-managed portion of Hanford Site (hereby referred to as Central Hanford) to collect and track data needed to ensure compliance with an array of environmental laws, regulations, and policies governing HFO activities. Ecological monitoring data provides baseline information about the plants, animals, and habitat under HFO stewardship on the Hanford Site, which is required for accurate ecological impact assessment decision making under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. In addition, ecological monitoring helps ensure that HFO, its contractors, and other entities conducting activities on the Hanford Site are in compliance with DOE/EIS-0222-F, Final Hanford Comprehensive Land Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement. HFO places priority on monitoring plant and animal species or habitats that have specific regulatory protections or requirements; that are rare and/or declining (federal or state listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species); or are of significant interest to federal, state, or tribal governments or to the public.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Hanford Site Mule Deer Monitoring Report for Fiscal Years 2024 and 2026

The U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Field Office (HFO) conducts ecological monitoring on the Hanford Site to collect and track data needed to ensure compliance with environmental laws, regulations, and policies governing Department of Energy activities. The vision for the HFOmanaged portion of the Hanford Site, hereby referred to as Central Hanford, focuses not only on the cleanup of nuclear facilities and waste sites but on the protection and restoration of the Hanford Site lands. As the HFO moves toward accomplishing this vision, understanding of the ecological resources present and the need for conservation and/or protection of those resources will be critical for making informed decisions for responsible site stewardship. Ecological monitoring data provides baseline information about the plants, animals, and habitats under HFO stewardship at Central Hanford required for decision-making under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Co-Firing Switchgrass and Waste Coal in A Power Plant: A Techno-Economic and Life Cycle Evaluation for The Ohio River Valley (SWITCH) (Final Technical Report for Ohio State/FE0032204)

Abandoned coal mine lands (AMLs) represent one of the most persistent environmental challenges in the United States. Prior to the enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) in 1977, coal mining operations were not legally required to reclaim disturbed lands, leaving behind approximately 500,000 AML sites nationwide. These sites pose severe environmental and health risks, including acid mine drainage, soil and water contamination, and spontaneous combustion of waste coal piles. Millions of Americans live within one mile of these AMLs, underscoring the urgency of remediation. Traditional reclamation practices, such as planting cool-season grasses, often fail to fully restore ecological function or leverage the economic potential of these lands. This project addressed these challenges by developing integrated strategies for resource recovery, land reclamation, and sustainable energy production. This project evaluated an integrated strategy to convert this liability into an opportunity by recovering waste coal and co-firing it with switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) cultivated on reclaimed or marginal AML areas in existing coal-fired power plants. Switchgrass not only provides a renewable feedstock but also aids in land reclamation and carbon sequestration. 1) Remote Sensing and Machine Learning for Waste Coal Identification Using Sentinel-2 satellite imagery and supervised classification, we applied four machine learning models to detect historical waste coal piles. Random Forest achieved the highest accuracy (precision: 86%, recall: 77%). Time-series analysis revealed gradual vegetation recovery since 1986, indicating natural reclamation processes in historical sites, while active mining areas showed ongoing disturbance. This workflow enables scalable monitoring and prioritization of reclamation efforts. 2) UAS-Based Stockpile Volume Estimation To quantify recoverable waste coal, we evaluated Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) equipped with Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and multispectral sensors. Structure-from-Motion (SfM) photogrammetry combined with interpolated Digital Terrain Models (DTMs) achieved strong agreement with LiDAR reference volumes (Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) ≈147 m 3 , Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) ≈2%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed that spatial resolution significantly influences accuracy, emphasizing the need for high-resolution data for precise volume estimation. This approach offers a scalable, cost-effective, and accurate alternative to conventional ground-based surveys. 3) Switchgrass Cultivation for Bioenergy and Water Quality Improvement We assessed the hydrological and water quality impacts of converting AMLs to switchgrass production areas using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). Results showed that converting 10% of the watershed area into the switchgrass production zone reduced streamflow by 3.1%, total suspended solids by 18.1%, total nitrogen by 7.6%, and total phosphorus by 6.2%, while achieving biomass yields of 8.6–9.2 metric tons per hectare. These findings highlight switchgrass as a dual-benefit strategy for land reclamation and bioenergy feedstock production. 4) Integrated Co-Firing and CCS for Carbon-Negative Power Generation We modeled co-firing scenarios using the Power Plant Flexible Model (PPFM) to evaluate plant efficiency, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). Without carbon capture and storage (CCS), increasing switchgrass co-firing ratios reduced LCOE from $\$$150/MWh at 0% biomass to $\$$110/MWh at full substitution. Under CCS, costs remained higher (~$\$$250/MWh at 0% biomass) but decreased to $\$$200/MWh at 100% biomass, while enabling net-zero or carbon-negative electricity due to switchgrass sequestration benefits. Although CCS introduced efficiency penalties, pairing it with biomass co-firing offset these impacts and maximized climate benefits. Overall, optimizing co-firing ratios between 60-100%, supported by reliable logistics and storage strategies, emerged as a practical pathway to balance affordability, sustainability, and net-zero or negative GHG emissions while promoting productive reuse of AMLs.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2026

Hanford Site Revegetation Monitoring Report for Fiscal Year 2025

Revegetation of remediated and disturbed areas on the Hanford Site is performed to support U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Field Office’s goal of meeting cleanup and revegetation requirements mandated in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Revegetation and monitoring activities are conducted in accordance with DOE/RL-2011-116, Hanford Site Revegetation Manual , area-specific revegetation plans, mitigation action plans, and memorandums of agreement.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2026

ReSOURCE: The Carbon Negative Biorefinery of the Future

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, 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. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Gestational exposure to HIV drugs alters intestinal mucosa-associated microbial diversity in adult rat offspring

The antiretroviral (ARV) drug combination of abacavir sulfate, dolutegravir, and lamivudine [ABC/DTG/3TC; Tri combination Anti-retroviral therapy (TC-ART)] has revolutionized HIV treatment by effectively targeting different stages of viral replication. Despite its therapeutic efficiency for maintaining low viremia in the mother during pregnancy, there are concerns for long-term liabilities in offspring that are indirectly exposed during vulnerable periods of development. The commensal microbiota plays a crucial role in maintaining overall gut health, and disruption of the microbiome is often linked to various extraintestinal effects such as immune dysregulation and inflammation. We recently reported the effects of this drug combination in altering fecal microbiome composition of aged rats perinatally exposed to ABC/DTG/3TC-ART. The fecal microbiome can provide only a snapshot of the composition of microbial community at the end of the digestive tract, which may not reflect the microbial population interacting with ileal mucosa. Thus, the current work reports the effects of this drug combination in the gut mucosa-associated microbiome of the same animals, which showed significant microbial diversity and species richness in high dose exposed female adult offspring, along with dose-dependent changes in Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio. The high dose exposure also showed an increase in opportunistic bacterial species in male animals. Overall, we found that, similar to the fecal microbiome, perinatal exposure to TC-ART led to sex- and dose-dependent alterations in the gut mucosa-associated microbial population in aged rats, suggesting that early life exposure to these drugs may influence gut mucosa-associated immune responses and intestinal permeability.

Research & Experimental Medicine↗
DOE OSTI2023

Assessing and Improving Biooxidation for Acid Generation and Rare Earth Element Extraction

Microorganisms (Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidanns) are effective in oxidizing ferrous ions that can be used to oxidize pyrite and produce sulfuric acid. Many coal waste resources contain significant concentrations of rare earth elements (REE) and critical materials (CM) that can be extracted using sulfuric acid. These coal waste resources often contain significant concentrations of pyrite, which if not utilized or removed present a future environmental liability for potential acid mine drainage. Thus, the combination of pyrite and REE/CM in coal waste provides a significant resource opportunity for sulfuric acid generation that can be utilized using biooxidation. In addition, the pyrite concentrate used for acid generation also contains REE/CM content that is released during biooxidation of the pyrite concentrate that augments the REE/CM release from the main ore being leached with the acid generated from the pyrite. Thus, this approach provides a very significant environmental advantage as well as augmented REE/CM recovery. Although there are many studies associated with biooxidation in relation to mineral oxidation, there is a lack of information regarding the effects of operating parameters on biooxidation performance and optimization for practical applications. In this study, findings from research in assessing and improving biooxidation for acid generation for REE/CM extraction are presented. Results show that bacteria can very effectively and efficiently oxidize ferrous ions to ferric ions, which oxidize pyrite to produce acid for REE/CM extraction. The factors that showed significant impact on biooxidation performance include air flow rate, stirring speed, residence time, solids concentration, and temperature. The dominance of Leptospirillum ferriphilum species was noted in the bioreactor after a prolonged period of operation, although Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidanns was used in the beginning.

Free, Michael L.↗
DOE OSTI2024

MultiSector Dynamics: 2023 Inaugural Workshop Report

Preface The MultiSector Dynamics (MSD) Community of Practice (CoP) hosted an inaugural workshop on October 3-5, 2023 at the University of California, Davis, to bring together members of the MSD community of practice to advance understanding of the co-evolution of human and natural systems, and to build the next generation of tools that bridge sectors, scales, and systems to realize a more resilient and equitable future. The theme of the workshop was "Advancing Complex Adaptive Human-Earth Systems Science in a World of Interconnected Risks". This document outlines the motivation for the workshop, its goals and objectives, the application process, the agenda, overviews of the training sessions offered to the workshop participants and a summary of each breakout session. The MSD workshop report further discusses the feedback from workshop participants and presents some reflections and next steps. The MSD Workshop organizers thank the DOE Office of Science, Earth and Environmental System Modeling, MultiSector Dynamics program area for financial support of its activities through the Integrated Multisector Multiscale Modeling (IM3) project. For more information related to the broader DOE MultiSector Dynamics Program please see https://climatemodeling.science.energy.gov/program-area/multisector-dynamics. D.L.M. and C.M.B. acknowledge support from the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the US Department of Energy (DOE). Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither theUnited States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, complete- ness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, 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 Laboratory operated by Battelle for the United States Department of Energy Available from:Office of Scientific and Technical Information http://www.OSTI.gov multisectordynamics.org This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4 Suggested citation: Monier, E., Reed, P.M., Vernon, C.R., Hadjimichael, A., Brelsford, C.M., Burleyson, C.B., Dyreson, A.R., Fletcher, S.M., Giang, A., Gupta, R.S., Jackson, N.D., Jones, A.D., Lamontagne, J.R., McCollum, D.L., Morris, J.F., Moss, R.H., Peng, W., Saari, R.K., Srikrishnan, V., Szinai, J.K., Yoon, J. (2024) MultiSector Dynamics: 2023 Inaugural Workshop Report. MSD-LIVE Data Repository. doi:10.57931/2371710.

Monier, Erwan↗
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 OSTI2025

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility 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 This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License 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 (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2025

Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection

Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection Description This dataset contains input and output data for the manuscript Mongird, K. et al. (under review) titled "Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection". Input data corresponds to gridded spatial siting attributes that are necessary to conduct a random forest machine learning analysis of siting feature importance. Output data includes SHAP feature analysis outputs, and classification report values. For data on power plant siting results referred to in the manuscript, please refer to the CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations data download page. The downloadable data includes values for eight different future scenarios for the Western US. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 Technical Information The dataset includes two sets of data files: (1) CERF gridded siting parameters and (2) Feature analysis outputs and classification reports. All downloadable data is in csv file format. Files with x/y coordinate information use the Albers Equal Area Conic projection (ESRI:102003). 1. CERF Gridded Siting Parameters This directory provides a balanced sample of gridded CERF siting parameters data for eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055, seven different technologies, and eight timesteps. This data serves as input to the feature analysis. It contains the following parameters. region_name - name of region (i.e., state) sited - binary value representing whether the grid cell received a siting of that technology type (1=True) rcp - binary value representing scenario resource concentration pathway (0 = RCP4.5, 1 = RCP8.5) ssp - binary value representing scenario shared socioeconomic pathway (0 = SSP3, 1 = SSP5) climate - binary value representing cooler (0) or hotter (1) GCM forcing tech_name - generation technology name sited_year - year that values correspond to transmission_cost - cost of transmission interconnection pipeline_cost - cost of natural gas pipeline interconnection interconnection_cost - total interconnection cost (sum of transmission cost and gas pipeline cost) lmp - associated locational marginal value ($/MWh) associated with the grid cell, timestep, scenario, and technology xcoord - x-coordinate of location ycoord - y-coordinate of location 2a. Feature Analysis Output The dataset includes the feature analysis shap output for locational marginal price and interconnection cost. It contains the following parameters. technology - generator technology name scenario - name of scenario feature - name of feature, either locational_marginal_price or interconnection_cost value - the mean of absolute value of SHAP values for given feature 2b. Feature Analysis Classification Report This download includes the classification report associated with each random forest model. The dataset contains the following parameters. technology - generation technology name scenario - name of scenario test - one of precision (the proportion of predicted positives that are actually correct), recall (the proportion of actual positives that were correctly identified), f1-score (the harmonic mean of precision and recall) 0.0 - value of test for classification of 0 (grid cell not chosen for siting) 1.0 - value of test for classification of 1 (grid cell chosen for siting) accuracy - accuracy of model (i.e., fraction of all predictions that were right) macro avg - Simple average of test values for all classes weighted avg - Weighted average of test values for all classes, weighted based on 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 This data is made available under a CCBY4 License 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↗