Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “implementation decisions”

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.

727 records · Page 41
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Energy efficiency in industrial drying: A hybrid ultrasonic system with a novel dynamic optimization framework

Drying processes are among the most energy-consuming operations in industrial and manufacturing settings, demanding strategic selection, design, and control for enhanced efficiency. Advancing drying technologies is critical for improving sustainability, lowering energy use, reducing carbon emissions, and minimizing waste. This study explores two innovative strategies aimed at transforming drying processes into sustainable, low-carbon systems by reducing energy consumption, minimizing waste, and maintaining a strong emphasis on preserving product quality. The first strategy showcases a sub-pilot scale hybrid ultrasonic-convective dryer for agrifood products. This technology, powered by electricity (process electrification), integrates non-thermal ultrasonic dehydration with convective heating and is presented as a sustainable and energy-efficient solution that enhances eco-friendly practices. The second strategy involves introducing and implementing a novel, multiobjective, mixed integer dynamic optimization technique to determine the optimal time-dependent process parameter values for the drying operation. This optimization technique yields operating conditions that are piecewise constant in time aiming to maximize the energy efficiency of the hybrid ultrasonic-convective dryer while ensuring strict adherence to product quality constraints. By adopting the hybrid ultrasonic-convective dryer, a notable 35% improvement in energy efficiency was achieved compared to conventional hot-air drying systems for drying apple slices. The proposed optimization framework further enhanced energy efficiency by nearly 14% over the most efficient process on the identical testbed, under static operating conditions. The reported enhancements have been experimentally validated. Regarding drying time (thereby improving production yield), the developed hybrid ultrasonic-convective dryer demonstrates as much as a 41% reduction in total processing time, which is further optimized by an additional 10% using our proposed optimization framework. The research outcomes have profound implications for the design and operation of drying systems, encompassing crucial aspects such as process electrification, cost-effectiveness, energy savings, time efficiency, product yield, product quality, and process automation.

Dynamic optimization↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Dose Assessment Model for Radioactive Waste Exposed by Gully Erosion at West Valley - 20513

The Western New York Nuclear Service Center (WNYNSC), located approximately 48 km south of Buffalo, New York, is the site of a former nuclear fuel reprocessing and radioactive waste disposal facility. Spent nuclear fuel was processed there from 1966 to 1972, leaving behind radioactive and chemical wastes in two disposal areas and a waste tank farm. Site operations also resulted in releases of radioactivity to site soils, groundwater, and to surface waters draining the site. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) are collaborating in a process of decision making for decommissioning those facilities remaining at the WNYNSC following the completion of Phase 1 decommissioning. Neptune and Company, Inc. (Neptune) was contracted to develop a probabilistic performance assessment (PPA) computer model to assist the agencies in this process. The PPA Model includes a contaminant transport component focusing on the movement of contaminants within and among environmental media including groundwater and surface water transport, contaminant translocation by plants and animals, diffusion, and erosion. The model also includes evaluation of potential exposure and health effects for a Resident Farmer exposure scenario, where the Resident Farmer represents a critical group, described as that group of individuals reasonably expected to receive the greatest exposure to residual radioactivity for any applicable set of circumstances. The West Valley Site is located in the glaciated Allegheny Plateau region of western New York State. The waste reprocessing and disposal areas were constructed on a relatively fat area of plateau dissected by drainages of Buttermilk Creek, including Erdman Brook, Franks Creek, and Quarry Creek. An important aspect of the contaminant transport component of the PPA model is consideration of erosive processes such as slumping of the stream slopes and the advance of gullies from these streams. These erosion processes remove material from the plateau, growing the size of the creek valleys and making them wider and deeper. Of particular interest for the impact of erosion is radioactive waste contained in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-Licensed Disposal Area (NDA), the New York State-Licensed Disposal Area (SDA), and residual radiological inventory in the underground storage tanks at the Waste Tank Farm (WTF). The PPA Model is organized around geographically-defined facilities which were constructed upon the plateau, including the NDA, SDA, and WTF. Ongoing stream erosion processes will potentially transfer radioactive waste and residual inventory from these facilities to the ground surface on adjacent hillslope areas where erosion has breached the facility. Hence, it is important to evaluate the consequences of potential exposures to a Resident Farmer on the hillslopes below a breached facility. Two interrelated aspects of the dose assessment model related to hillslope exposure are discussed: 1) representation of the physical processes related to transport of radionuclides from facilities onto the hillslopes, and from the hillslopes into adjoining creeks where contaminated material migrates downstream with surface water and sediment, and; 2) adaptation of the activities associated with the Resident Farmer scenario to assess potential exposures to contamination in the hillslope areas. This discussion will cover the conceptual basis of the hillslope exposure and transport models, and also implementation in the PPA computer model. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Simulation and Computing: ASC FY24 Implementation Plan

The DOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) is an integrated technical program for maintaining the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile. The SSP incorporates nuclear test data, computational modeling and simulation, and experimental facilities to advance understanding of nuclear weapons. The suite of data analyzed comes from activities including previous nuclear tests, stockpile surveillance, experimental research, and development and engineering programs. This integrated national program requires the continued use of experimental facilities and the computational capabilities to support the SSP missions. These component parts, in addition to an appropriately scaled production capability, enable NNSA to support stockpile requirements. The ultimate goal of the SSP, and thus of the Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) program, is to ensure that the U.S. maintains a safe, secure, and effective strategic deterrent. The ASC program is a cornerstone of the SSP, providing simulation capabilities and computational resources to support the annual stockpile assessment and certification process, study advanced nuclear weapons design and manufacturing processes, analyze accident scenarios and weapons aging, and provide the tools to enable stockpile Life Extension Programs (LEPs) and the resolution of Significant Finding Investigations (SFIs). This work requires a balance of resources, including technical staff, hardware, simulation software, and computer science solutions. The ASC program focuses on increasing the predictive capabilities in a three-dimensional (3D) simulation environment while maintaining support to the SSP. The Program continues to improve its unique tools for understanding and solving progressively more difficult stockpile problems (sufficient resolution, dimensionality, and scientific details), and quantifying critical margins and uncertainties. Resolving each issue requires increasingly difficult analyses because the aging process has progressively moved the stockpile further from the original test base. While the focus remains on the U.S. nuclear weapons program, where possible, the Program also enables the use of high-performance computing (HPC) and simulation tools to address broader national security needs, such as foreign nuclear weapon assessments and nuclear counterterrorism. The 2022 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) calls for NNSA to “deliver a modern, adaptive nuclear security enterprise based on an integrated strategy for risk management, production-based resilience, science and technology innovation, and workforce initiatives.” Furthermore, “NNSA will establish a Science and Technology Innovation Initiative to accelerate the integration of science and technology (S&T) throughout its activities.” Executing this strategy necessitates the continued emphasis on developing and sustaining high-quality scientific and engineering staff, as well as supporting computational and experimental capabilities. These components constitute the foundation of the nuclear weapons program. The continued success of the SSP and LEPs is predicated upon the ability to credibly certify the stockpile, without a return to underground nuclear tests (UGTs). Shortly after the nuclear test moratorium entered into force in 1992, the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) was established to provide an extensive simulation capability to underpin stockpile certification. While computing and simulation have always been essential to the success of the nuclear weapons program, the program goal of ASCI was to execute NNSA’s vision of using these tools in support of the stockpile stewardship mission. The ASCI program was essential to the successful demonstration of the SSP, providing critical nuclear weapons simulation and modeling capabilities. ASCI officially evolved into the ASC program in fiscal year (FY) 2005, but the mission remains essentially the same: provide the simulation and computational capabilities that underpin the ability to maintain a safe, secure, effective nuclear weapon stockpile, without returning to underground nuclear testing. The capabilities that the ASC program provides at the national laboratories play a vital role in the nuclear security enterprise and are necessary for fulfilling the stockpile stewardship and life extension requirements outlined for NNSA. The Program develops modern simulation tools that provide insights into stockpile aging issues, provide the computational and simulation tools that enable designers and analysts to certify the current stockpile and life-extended nuclear weapons, and inform the decision-making process when any modifications in nuclear warheads or the associated manufacturing processes are deemed necessary. Furthermore, ASC is enhancing the predictive simulation capabilities that are essential to evaluate weapons effects, design experiments, and ensure test readiness. The ASC program continues to improve its unique tools to solve stockpile problems— with a focus on sufficient resolution, dimensionality, and scientific detail—to enable Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties (QMU) and to resolve the increasingly difficult analyses needed for stockpile stewardship. The needs of the Stockpile Management and Production Modernization programs (formerly Directed Stockpile Work) also drive the requirements for simulation and computational resources. These requirements include planned LEPs, stockpile support activities, and mitigation efforts against the potential for technical surprise. All of the weapons within the current stockpile are in some stage of the life extension process. The simulation and computational capabilities are crucial for successful execution of these life extensions and for ensuring NNSA can certify these life-extended weapons without conducting a UGT.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Accelerated Aging Humidity Chamber for Nuclear Grade HEPA Filter Media

A unique accelerated aging humidity chamber for simulating the natural aging process of nuclear grade high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter media is being designed, implemented, and tested. The nuclear industry currently lacks information regarding the shelf life and service life of HEPA filter media. The Department of Energy recommends disposing of HEPA filters 10 years after the manufacture date for filters operated under dry conditions. Studies have shown the tensile strength and water repellency of HEPA filter media diminish with age. The chamber's principal function is to sustain an elevated relative humidity condition for an extended duration specified by the Arrhenius aging model. To accomplish this, various design parameters were established: (1) consistently achieve uniform humidity conditions within the chamber to equally expose media sheets, (2) ensure the chamber is sufficiently sealed to mitigate the uncontrolled infiltration of air, (3) confidently secure the media sheets to avert the introduction of unnecessary stressing/creasing, (4) fabricate the chamber from clear polycarbonate material to allow inspection of the media sheets, (5) provide a safe and ergonomic design for personnel, (6) ensure the chamber design is replicable and relatively easy to fabricate/assemble. A humidity source, fan, PID controller, humidity and temperature transmitters, and data loggers are required for proper operation and control of the chamber. The humidity source must accommodate target values up to 95% relative humidity throughout the chamber. The three humidity and temperature transmitters are strategically spaced throughout the chamber to ensure uniform conditions. The 10 cubic feet per minute (CFM) fan selected intends to accomplish the desired air change rate inside the chamber of approximately 20 air changes per hour (ACH). The 2 plenums on the upper and lower portions of the chamber utilize a perforated design to uniformly distribute air, promote air mixing, and control the air velocity entering the chamber. Industrial blueprint hanging clamps are being retrofitted to be seated within the chamber drawers and firmly secure the nuclear grade filter media. The aged media will be evaluated using autopsy methodology, and the results obtained intend to help clarify the useful life of nuclear grade HEPA filters. Nuclear grade high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters are defined as disposable, extended-media, dry-type filters with a rigid casing enclosing the full depth of the pleats and have a minimum particle removal efficiency of 99.97%. [1] - HEPA filters are constantly exposed to stressors and subsequently have been shown to degrade as the filter ages. Properties such as tensile strength and water repellency, along with others, are negatively impacted. [2] - Due to the scarcity of naturally aged HEPA filters available, it is crucial to develop accelerated aging methods which effectively mimic the natural degradation effects. - After accelerated aging, the filters are subject to testing in the Axial Flow Large Scale Test Stand (ALSTS) and other analysis techniques such as the same qualification tests performed directly after being manufactured. - Quality data is necessary for future decisions regarding the lifetime of nuclear grade HEPA filters. - The objective is to develop a prototype accelerated aging humidity chamber for nuclear grade HEPA filter media. The chamber should expose the media to commonly occurring stressors to expedite the degradation process caused by aging. PID yields reliable and reproducible results: - CFD model correlates well with actual performance; - Further analysis is needed to complete characterization; - Future work for the chamber is still to be completed. The data shown in Figure 5 and Table 1 indicate the system is functioning as designed. As can be determined from the system response evaluation in Table 1, the PID controller is yielding reliable and reproducible results at each set point. As the set point increases, the time constant and 20% settling time increase accordingly. From the results in Table 1, it stands to reason that the CFD model correlates well with the actual performance of the system. Each system response parameter for the 90%RH* CFD model is slightly lower than the parameters collected from the physical model tested at an equivalent set point. This is to be expected considering the inlet in the CFD model is a constant supply of water vapor, whereas the physical model uses a PID controller to monitor the amount of water vapor needed and reacts accordingly. More analysis is still to be done on the prototype chamber. A pressure test will be conducted in order to determine the hourly leak rate of the chamber. This test will involve constant air flow into the chamber until the desired pressure is reached. A uniformity test will also be conducted in order to ensure each filter medium is being exposed to equivalent relative humidity levels. This test will involve an array of humidity meters strategically oriented inside the chamber to record any possible gradients. Future work for the chamber includes dehumidification abilities, tests while fully loaded with filters, and temperature control. Once completed, the autopsy team at Institute of Clean Energy Technology will conduct necessary accelerated aging studies as needed.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Universal Utility Data Exchange (UUDEX) – Security and Administration: Cybersecurity of Energy Delivery Systems (CEDS) Research and Development

A critical component of the Universal Utility Data Exchange (UUDEX) approach is the integrated security contained within its processing. This document describes how that security is designed and expected to be implemented by UUDEX Implementations (U-Implementations), including the UUDEX Server (U-Server) and UUDEX Clients (U-Clients). The UUDEX security hierarchy consists of three levels: 1. The UUDEX Instance (U-Instance) itself, which sits at the top of the hierarchy and contains the U-Server, the UUDEX Identity Authority (U-Identity Authority), and the UUDEX Administrator (U-Administrator) functions; 2. A group of one or more UUDEX Participants (U-Participants) that present “organizations” that participate in the U-Instance and contains the UUDEX Administrator Participant (U-U-Administrator Participant) function; 3. A group of one or more UUDEX Endpoints (U-Endpoints) that represent the individual UUDEX Publish Clients (U-Publish Client) responsible for supplying data to the U-Instance that is consumed by UUDEX Subscriber Clients (U-Subscriber Clients). U-Endpoints can be either autonomous devices that publish and subscribe data such as data exchange servers found in supervisory control and data acquisition and energy management systems, or they can be tied to users of applications that, for example, submit DOE OE-417 disturbance reports. U-Participants and U-Endpoints can be organized into UUDEX Groups (U-Groups). Any number of U-Participants or U-Endpoints can be members of a U-Group. A given U-Participant or U-Endpoint can be a member of multiple U-Groups, but a U-Group cannot contain other U-Groups. For example, a U-Group could be created to contain all U-Participant Transmission Operators within the purview of a Reliability Coordinator, and another U-Group could be created to contain all U-Participant Generator Operators within the purview of a Reliability Coordinator. U-Participants that are both Transmission Operators and Generator Operators would be members of both U-Groups. U-Participants, U-Endpoints, and U-Groups are used in the access control structures to provide access to individual UUDEX Subjects (U-Subjects). U-Groups are created by the U-Administrator and are managed by the U-Administrator or the designated U-Group Managers. U-Endpoints can be assigned UUDEX Roles (U-Roles) that can be used to further restrict access. U-Roles are assigned to individual U-Endpoints. For example, a U-Role of “Security Analyst” could be used to restrict which U-Endpoints can publish or subscribe security incident reports and vulnerability notifications, while a U-Role of “Transmission Planner” can be used to restrict which U-Endpoints can publish power system model updates. U-Role definitions are created by the U-Administrator, but the U-Roles are assigned to U-Endpoints by their respective UUDEX Participant Administrators (U-Participant Administrator). Because all information required to make security decisions is either included within the U-Endpoint’s X.509 digital certificate or stored in a datastore on the U-Server, all security decisions are performed and enforced within the U-Server. This reduces the complexity of the U-Client code and minimizes the chance for compromise of the integrity of the UUDEX security features.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology has significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change, particularly in hard to decarbonize industrial and commercial sectors. CCUS involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from industrial processes or power generation and utilizing it for other purposes, such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), or storing the captured CO 2 underground. CCUS technology can reduce the environmental impact of continued fossil fuel use while smoothing the transition to a low-carbon economy. CCUS can create new economic opportunities, such as the development of new industries and job creation, and can enhance energy security by diversifying energy sources. For these reasons, enabling CCUS has become a key objective of the Biden-Harris administration’s clean energy policy and has received bipartisan support. Despite its environmental and economic potential, CCUS faces multiple barriers to widespread deployment. One of the main challenges is the high cost and technical difficulty of implementing and operating large-scale CCUS infrastructure. CCUS remains a relatively expensive way to reduce carbon emissions (e.g., compared to solar photovoltaic technology’s displacement of coal generation). Additionally, financial incentives and supportive policies like those enacted to support solar photovoltaic development, especially at the state level, are inconsistent or nonexistent, which can discourage investment in CCUS projects. There are also technical challenges associated with safe and secure underground CO 2 storage and the development of new carbon utilization technologies. Public opposition to various aspects of CCUS technologies, ranging from concerns that CCUS will extend reliance on fossil fuels to CCUS infrastructure being sited in disadvantaged communities, is a growing challenge. This paper focuses on another significant barrier to broad CCUS deployment: the need for considerable expansion of the dedicated land-based CO 2 pipeline network in the United States to meet CCUS goals and the unique regulatory challenges to its development. To reach carbon emissions targets in the United States by 2050, CCUS technology will need to be supported by tens of thousands of miles of CO 2 pipelines. Estimates range from a minimum of roughly 29,000 pipeline miles (according to a 2020 Great Plains Institute study) to 66,000 pipeline miles (as per a 2021 Princeton University–led study). As of October 2022, however, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) reports fewer than 5,400 miles of U.S. pipelines carrying CO 2 . This deficit—and what it means for the prospect of moving substantially larger quantities of CO 2 from source to use or storage—threatens to stifle the development of CCUS projects and technologies identified as an important tool to meet emissions targets. The current regulatory landscape facing CO 2 pipeline development can best be described as uncertain. At the federal level, the U.S. DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) oversees safety regulation of pipelines transporting hazardous materials, including CO 2 upon commencement of operation. However, PHMSA’s definition of CO 2 as “a fluid consisting of more than 90 percent CO 2 molecules compressed to a supercritical state” has not been updated since its 1991 addition to the Federal Register. Because CO 2 can be transported in a gaseous, liquid, or supercritical state (indeed, the physical state of CO 2 can fluctuate within a single pipeline due to environmental changes), doubts persist about the extent of PHMSA’s purview—and raise questions about what, if anything, states should do to address this apparent gap. PHMSA has begun a major revision of its existing rules, but the agency does not expect a first draft before 2024. Economic oversight of CO 2 pipelines is even less clear. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Surface Transportation Board (STB)—which regulate the rates of interstate oil/natural gas and non-energy pipelines, respectively—have both declined jurisdiction over interstate CO 2 pipelines. This presumably leaves economic regulation to state and/or local governments, but few if any states have the laws or resources in place to oversee just and reasonable rates. Further, the interstate nature of CO 2 pipeline development creates questions around how different states should align their rate-making decisions. Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation Currently, regulatory responsibilities regarding CO 2 pipeline siting and permitting fall to state and local governments. The variety of laws and regulations across the country, however, creates a maze of requirements for pipeline developers to navigate. To secure necessary permits, most states require pipeline companies to be “common carriers” that provide transport service to the public at uniform rates. However, the specific definition of that term varies. Some states require clear evidence that a pipeline services the public, while others automatically deem any pipeline company transporting energy products or hazardous materials to be a “common carrier”—with little consideration for accessibility to third parties. Other states have eschewed common-carrier terminology entirely, placing private and publicly accessible pipelines on equal footing. Much like the variation in common-carrier requirements, laws governing eminent domain authority to secure rights-of-way (ROW) to commence construction on a planned pipeline route differ by state. Several states have no laws or rules governing CO 2 pipelines. In addition to creating questions about whether long-standing rules for other pipelines (e.g., natural gas or petroleum products) apply to CO 2 , this policy vacuum leaves local governments as the sole authority over sections of pipe within their boundaries. With dozens of counties along a given route, the probability of inconsistent regulation of the same pipeline is significant. Even in states with CO 2 pipeline laws in place, local regulatory attempts to address rising concerns over pipeline routing and safety have triggered lawsuits by pipeline companies seeking to delimit areas of federal, state, and local government responsibility. Meanwhile, legislators across the country have introduced bills to restrict the application of eminent domain to CO 2 pipeline projects, which could threaten a key means of securing ROW that companies cannot secure through negotiation with landowners. Taken separately, any of these regulatory issues—the narrow federal definition of CO 2 , FERC’s and STB’s decisions that CO 2 pipelines are not within their jurisdiction, and the considerable variation in state and local governments’ laws regulating CO 2 pipeline technologies—are extremely difficult to resolve. Adding the required scale of CO 2 pipeline expansion and the currently identified narrow window of time in which to reach climate target goals, the task becomes even more difficult—and raises a host of urgent questions for regulators. How should CO 2 be defined in federal regulations to ensure consistent safety standards across the country? What is the potential impact radius of a CO 2 pipeline rupture, and how should that inform local emergency response? In the absence of centralized federal oversight, what should state legislatures do to increase alignment for interstate CO 2 pipeline projects? This paper intends to serve as a primer for regulators and stakeholders who seek to better understand the regulatory challenges and opportunities facing this critical infrastructure.

42 ENGINEERING↗
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↗