SEARCH · Engineering Papers

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

913 records · Page 51

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2022

Putting multipoint kinetics to the test: preliminary analysis of the MUSE-4 experiment with APOLLO3

Modeling neutron kinetics is a challenging task and over the years, several approaches have been developed offering different tradeoffs between precision and cost. Probably the most popular one is point kinetics (PK), which, despite being very cheap, provides good results for many applications. One of the limitations of PK is that it is not able to model effects that happen before the prompt jump time scale. In practice, applications, where those time scales are interesting, are rare and those for which experimental data are available are even rarer. One of those cases is the MUSE-4 experiment for which the focus is on the very fast behavior and where we have no thermal feedback. As we have shown in a recent paper, a simple extension of PK, known as multipoint kinetics (MPK), can overcome this limitation. In this paper, which is intended as a preliminary study, we show how a simple MPK model can qualitatively reproduce the fast behavior that we cannot model with PK. Moreover, we will show how to exploit its low cost and compact form to model also slow effects as the precursors built up, behaviours that are not affordable to model with more expensive techniques, such as kinetic Monte Carlo simulations. For the periodic pulse transients with no feedbacks we will also provide an analytical solution in closed form. (authors)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Quantification of the importance of the modeling fidelity in the Best Estimate Plus Uncertainty analysis

In this work, the multi-physics coupling of CTF-PARCS for both steady-state and transient simulations is evaluated focusing on the quantification of the importance of the modeling fidelity when applied to the Best Estimate Plus Uncertainty safety analysis. For the steady-state, a Picard iteration approach is adopted in the coupled code while for the transient an explicit approach has been developed as a first step. The CTF-PARCS coupling is applied to the REA at HFP BOC scenario proposed in the exercise I-2c of LWR-UAM benchmark Phase III. Two different modeling choices are investigated for the nominal calculations. The first consists of including the 3D burnup information in CTF, and the second of modeling the spacers grids in both PARCS and CTF. It is observed that due to the degradation of the fuel thermal conductivity, the 3D burnup inclusion in CTF leads to significant higher centerline temperatures than the base case, with a difference up to 300 K. The spacer grids modeling shows the expected power and temperature decrease in the axial positions of the spacer grids. For the uncertainty quantification study, the multi-physics modeling including the burnup information in CTF is used. The results show that the inserted reactivity has a relative standard deviation of 13.6% mainly attributed to the nuclear data. The maximum linear power has a relative standard deviation of 16.2% due to the nuclear data as well, while the maximum centerline temperature has a relative standard deviation of 3.5% primarily caused by the fuel thermal conductivity. (authors)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

Economics↗

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 OSTI2020

Extension of OpenMC for Fixed Source Transmutation Calculations

This report documents work performed under a Strategic Partnership Project between Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA). The overall goal of this project is to extend OpenMC [1], a community-developed Monte Carlo particle transport code, to be able to perform fixed-source transmutation calculations. In fission and fusion reactors, the high flux of energetic neutrons causes materials within the reactor to “transmute,” or undergo a nuclear reaction that results in the addition/removal of neutrons and protons from the nucleus of an atom. If subjected to these reactions for long enough, the overall composition and physical properties of the material itself begin to change as a result of transmutation. Such a feature is vital for predicting the decrease in tritium production rate within a breeder blanket during the lifetime of a fusion reactor. OpenMC is capable of simulating neutron transport in fission/fusion systems, thereby allowing it to estimate the flux that causes transmutation. It is also capable of solving the transmutation equations, which determine how the composition of a material changes over time due to neutron irradiation and radioactive decay. However, solving the transmutation equations was previously only possible when the source of neutrons came from a fission system. In a fusion system, the source of neutrons is typically determined by a separate code and then given as an input to the particle transport simulation. This is known as a fixed source calculation. Through this project, we have extended OpenMC to solve the transmutation equations for a fixed source calculation. Evaluating the change in material compositions due to transmutation and its effect on physical properties is of key importance to a range of engineering analyses for fission and fusion systems. For example, in a fusion reactor, estimating the dose rate at different physical locations resulting from irradiated materials in the reactor allows designers to ensure that workers are not exposed to doses beyond applicable regulations. In order to properly dispose of irradiated materials, designers also need to estimate the radiotoxicity, which again relies on knowledge of the material composition at some future time. The specific tasks for this project that were agreed to between ANL and UKAEA were as follows: 1. Make changes and additions in the openmc.deplete and related modules in OpenMC to support transmutation calculations following a fixed source transport simulation. 2. Make necessary changes to OpenMC to model transmutation due to an arbitrary set of reactions needed for fusion applications. Use this new capability to generate a depletion chain file based on the TENDL nuclear data library. 3. Improve the openmc.deplete module in OpenMC to keep track of gases produced as a by-product of nuclear reactions during transmutation calculations. 4. Validate the new capabilities by carrying out fixed-source transmutation calculations on a suitable benchmark problem using OpenMC and a comparable Monte Carlo neutron transport code.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2020

ChIMES: A Machine-Learned Interatomic Model Targeting Improved Description of Condensed Phase Chemistry in Energetic Materials

In this report we detail completion of a Physics and Engineering Model Level Two Milestone targeting improved reactive interatomic potentials (IAPs) for energetic materials (EM) through machine learning. The specific goals of this milestone were to develop, validate, and document a new reactive molecular dynamics method for EM, based on machine learning by (1) generating databases of first-principles-derived forces, stresses, and energies for HN3 and 3,4-bis(3-nitrofurazan- 4-yl)furoxan (DNTF) (2) generate atomistic force fields from these databases via ML, and (3) benchmark model performance against first principles calculations. These goals were achieved by (1) further developing a machine learned reactive IAP and generation approach (i.e. the Chebyshev Interaction Model for Efficient Simulation or “ChIMES”), for which resulting IAPs can approach the predictive power of quantum-mechanical approaches at a fraction of the computational expense, and (2) applying the ChIMES framework to develop models for HN3 and DNTF. We find that for simple energetic materials like HN3, high accuracy ChIMES models can be obtained through application of a fitting approach that does not use active machine learning. We demonstrate the suitability of ChIMES models for simulations involving EM by using the HN3 model in multiscale shock technique simulations to predict the HN3 Chapman-Jouguet detonation state and investigate chemical evolution out to 1 ns following shock compression. This model is then used in larger direct shock (DS) simulations for a preliminary investigation of how bubbles (i.e. voids) influence material response under shock compression. We find that more complex EM (i.e. DNTF) necessitate a more sophisticated fitting approach, and develop a new active learning method and python tool to meet this challenge. We demonstrate that this fitting approach yields ChIMES models that out-perform commonly used standard reactive IAPs as well as semi-empirical quantum methods, and discuss the systematic improvability of these actively learned ChIMES models. We also describe challenges related to model development for EM such as DNTF, for which few experimental or previous simulation data are available (e.g. which could otherwise inform generation of training data). To overcome this issue, we establish a semi-empirical quantum ChIMES capability which can be used to efficiently map out relevant thermodynamic and configurational space, and generate ChIMES-IAP training data in a multiscale manner. We also show that these semi-empirical quantum ChIMES models can be used to generate predictions for the shock Hugoniot (the Hugoniot is the locus of thermodynamic states found in a shocked material) equation of state, investigate related thermochemistry, and explore carbon condensation following shock compression. This work represents a substantial advance in our atomistic modeling capability for EM that will provide much needed information on the chemistry of detonation for continued development of continuum models based on the Cheetah thermochemical code.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

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 OSTI2022

VERA neutronics high-fidelity benchmark for a modern PWR core design

Nearly 20 years since the origin of the infamous 'Kord Smith Challenge', and after 10 years and hundreds of millions of dollars invested by the US Department of Energy into the development of the Virtual Environment for Reactor Applications (VERA), the capability to accurately simulate a modern pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel cycle at the fuel rod level with high-fidelity Monte Carlo (MC) stochastic transport methods still evades us. The deterministic methods in VERA make approximations that allow it to be successfully benchmarked against measured data from hundreds of PWR fuel cycles, but none of these benchmarks provided information at the local fuel rod level or allowed quantification of these approximations' impact for modern PWR reload designs. Using MPACT to establish the estimated isotopic distributions and thermal hydraulic conditions in a recent and challenging reactor design, a 2D quarter-core benchmark problem was established and solved consistently with both MPACT, the 51-energy group deterministic transport solver in VERA, and Shift, the continuous-energy MC transport solver in VERA. Impacts of energy groups, ray spacing, and scattering treatment were evaluated. Though MPACT has been previously shown to perform well compared to MC methods for initial Cycle 1 cores with only fresh fuel, this is the first benchmark of MPACT for a challenging modern reload core with depleted fuel and burnable absorbers. This work establishes additional credibility for the methods in MPACT and highlights the efficiency of these methods relative to those in use by MC-based tools. (authors)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

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 OSTI2022

Predicting deviations in ex-core detector response in Krsko NPP during an earthquake with Monte-Carlo neutron transport methods

To study the response of ex-core detectors during an earthquake, an approach using Monte Carlo code MCNP was developed. As a first step to predict the response of the ex-core detectors a detailed MCNP model of the Krsko reactor core was created. A detailed MCNP core model was used to calculate 3D power distributions inside the core. Calculated power distributions were verified by comparison to the CORD-2 calculations, which is currently used for core design calculation verification of the Krsko nuclear power plant. Due to the outside the core position of the neutron detectors, the hybrid code ADVANTG is used to generate weight windows to speed up neutron transport outside the reactor core. To be able to use ADVANTG, fixed neutron source had to be reconstructed from the criticality core calculation. It was found that the power range ex-core detector movement has a negligible effect on the value of the thermal neutron flux at the active part of the detector. However, the 5 cm radial movement of the intermediate-range detector leads to 7 % - 8 % change in thermal neutron flux within the active intermediate-range detector region. The analysis continued with the evaluation of the effect of core barrel movement on the ex-core detector response. It was determined that the 2 mm core barrel radial oscillation can lead to ∼ 4% change in thermal neutron flux within the active detector region. It was evaluated that reactor core movement inside the baffle can lead up to ∼ 1.9% and ∼ 1.3% deviation in power-range and intermediate-range detector signal respectively. Analysis showed that the mechanical movement of ex-core neutron detectors could not explain the fluctuations in the ex-core detector signal. However, combined core barrel and reactor core inside baffle oscillations could be a probable reason for the observed fluctuations in the ex-core detector signal during an earthquake. (authors)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2022

On-the-fly response function generation method for composite coarse mesh

The hybrid stochastic deterministic transport code COMET, based on the incident response expansion theory, is used to model reactor cores with high fidelity and formidable computational speed. COMET models a reactor core using a library of incident flux response expansion coefficients that are pre computed for all the unique lattice cells (e.g., fuel assemblies, reflector blocks, etc.) in the core. In order to further improve its computational efficiency in pre-calculating the response library a new response function generation method is developed to compute the response functions for the composite coarse meshes made of a smaller set of unique lattices on the fly within the COMET's deterministic transport core sweep. The efficiency is achieved by eliminating a number of unique lattices that can be made up from the reduced set of unique meshes on the fly. The numerical process consists of the following steps. First, the boundary condition on composite coarse mesh boundaries is projected onto the expansion basis to compute the incident flux moments on external surfaces of all the basic (reduced set of unique) coarse meshes. Secondly, the deterministic sweeping solver in COMET is used to converge on the outgoing/incoming flux expansion moments crossing interfaces between the basic coarse meshes. Thirdly, the response functions for the composite coarse meshes are constructed as a superposition on the fly. The new response function generation method was tested on 88 composite coarse meshes consisting of CANDU fuel bundles and moderator blocks. It was found that response functions generated by the new method agree very well with those generated by direct Monte Carlo calculations. The average and maximum relative differences in the surface-to-surface response coefficients computed by the two methods are 0.10% and 0.20%, respectively. Similarly, the average and maximum relative differences in the response fission densities are 0.13% and 0.43%, respectively. These discrepancies are within one standard deviation of the stochastic uncertainties. The new method is five times faster than the original direct Monte Carlo method. The size of the response function library for the new method is five times smaller than that for the original method, leading to significantly less requirement for the computer hard drive space and memory. (authors)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

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↗