Results for “categories” — Page 6

DOE OSTI2021

Comprehensive Assessment of On-And Off-Board Vehicle-To-Grid Technology Performance and Impacts on Battery and the Grid

This project defined, developed, and tested the open standards-based requirements, engineering design and system integration of on and off-vehicle Vehicle-to-Grid technologies both on the grid and on the PEV, to assess their effectiveness in implementing the use cases that create value for the grid, which in turn, can be passed on to the ratepayers and the PEV owners. The project comprised of three key categories of work and four key sub-areas of work. The three key categories were: On-Vehicle V2G, Off-Vehicle V2G, and impact of V2G operation on the battery capacity degradation. The four key sub-areas of work under each of these categories were: defining requirements, implementing the technology, performing system integration testing, and estimating the value of each of the grid services under specific assumptions, on a per-vehicle and on an aggregated basis. The technical implementation demonstrated the validity of standards-based approach to grid integration that led to interoperability, in addition to assessing the operational details with grid constraints imposed at the transformer level. The technology implementation also identified the subtle gaps in the standards definition to close the feedback loop on the accuracy of the standards as written, which are being implemented as revisions to the appropriate protocols. The battery impacts assessment developed a test cycle that the batteries from a real PHEV were subjected to for both the mobility-only and mobility with V2G specific energy cycling. While the battery impact results show a clear incremental degradation in response to additional throughput for V2G application purposes, the amount of additional kWh that can be made available without exceeding the end-of-life capacity definition of the battery at its 10-year warranty period was found to be significant. Given that the PEV battery being exercised during testing was a PHEV battery (smaller energy capacity), and 44% of its usable energy (i.e., SOC) was utilized daily for V2G applications, the EVs with much larger batteries will fare much better, either in terms of extracting more value in terms of incremental kWh for V2G, or in terms of relative incremental degradation of the capacity through the battery lifespan. Further, this battery was the second-generation Lithium-Ion chemistry circa 2015, which is at least two generations ago. Continual improvements in electrochemistry and manufacturing techniques as well as on-board capacity will enable the future batteries to provide even more energy for non-mobility-related services. Finally, the valuation of V2G energy services at the premise, distribution, and the ISO/market level was carried out for both the on-vehicle and off-vehicle cases, to understand both the GHG mitigation and operational efficiency improvements in quantitative terms. The analysis indicates that between $\$400$ and $\$1400$ per year of total value to the grid can be realized. When netted of costs to implement V2G either on or off-vehicle, the net value is available to be shared between the ratepayers and the EV owners. Over the life of the EV, therefore, this value becomes significant and can easily provide both ratepayer and EV owner benefits more than the cost of the equipment, either on or off-board, in addition to providing GHG mitigation benefits both on the grid and on the mobility sides. For these benefits to accrue, the key learnings from both the on- and off-vehicle V2G parts of the project indicate the need for at-scale demonstrations through involvement of real EV owners to validate both the technical feasibility, interoperability, as well as real grid benefits by performing extensive data collection and analysis. This will help inform the grid planners, the program designs, and tariff designers, as well as automotive and equipment manufacturers how best to create their products to maximize grid, ratepayer, and EV owner value.

30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗

DOE OSTI2022

Analysis of Loss-of-Offsite-Power Events: 2021 Update

Loss-of-offsite power (LOOP) can have a negative impact on a nuclear power plant’s ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown conditions. LOOP event frequencies and times required for subsequent restoration of offsite power are important inputs to plant probabilistic risk assessments. This report presents a statistical and engineering analysis of LOOP frequencies and durations at U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. The data used in this study were based on the operating experience during calendar years 1987–2021, while the most recent 15-year data (i.e., from 2007–2021) were used for most analyses in this report. LOOP events during critical operation that did not result in a reactor trip are not included. Frequencies and durations were determined for four LOOP event categories: plant-centered, switchyard-centered, grid-related, and weather-related. These categories (and the All-LOOPs group which contains all LOOPs without regarding of the four categories) could be further grouped by whether a LOOP event occurred during critical operation, during shutdown operation, or during all operations. The following decreasing trends in the LOOP occurrence rates were identified for the most recent 10-year period (2012–2021): All-LOOPs during critical operation, switchyard-centered LOOPs during critical operation, and grid-related LOOPs during critical operation. Adverse trends in LOOP durations continue for switchyard-centered LOOPs during all operations, All-LOOPs during all operations, and All-LOOPs during shutdown operation for the 1997–2021 period. Statistical tests show the LOOP counts for the period of 2007–2021 are not uniformly distributed across the 12 months, and variation among the months exists for grid-related LOOPs during all operations, All-LOOPs during all operations, and All-LOOPs during critical operation. The engineering analysis of LOOP data showed for the period of 2007–2021, the equipment failure events were dominated by failures of relay and other; human errors have been less frequent and occurred primarily in maintenance and switching; and weather were dominated by tornadoes then by lightning and hurricane. Weather was the cause for 45% of LOOPs for the last fifteen years (2007– 2021) but only for 20% of LOOPs for the previous 20 years (1987–2006) .

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2023

TA-55 building entrusted with more plutonium capability: What does it mean for the mission?

The first floor of the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office Building at TA-55, known as RLUOB (roo-lob) or Plutonium Facility-400 (PF-400), will soon become a bustling and dynamic space as employees and programs increase their work scope thanks to the new hazard category 3 designation. On Feb. 7, NNSA gave the final stamp of approval designating RLUOB as a hazard category 3 (HC-3) nuclear facility. RLUOB has been designated as a radiological facility (less than HC-3) since 2013, when the first phase of RLUOB Equipment Installation was completed. HC-3 is a level up in facility hazard category, a major effort to support the national security mission.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

DOE OSTI2022

Performance Monitoring Program: Developing Comparative Metrics for Fitness-for-Duty Programs

To comply with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations, licensees and entities authorized under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 26 Section 26.3 (§ 26.3) are required to have fitness-for-duty (FFD) programs. Under § 26.3, the expectation of these FFD programs is to provide reasonable assurance that individuals who are granted unescorted access to nuclear power reactor protected areas and Category I fuel cycle facility material control areas are trustworthy, will perform their tasks in a reliable manner, are not under the influence of any substance, legal or illegal, that may impair their ability to perform their duties, and are not mentally or physically impaired from any cause that can adversely affect their ability to safely and competently perform their duties. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) was tasked with developing a performance monitoring program to risk inform NRC inspection and policy regarding quantitative FFD performance data. To meet this need, PNNL developed methodologies that could be implemented within a performance monitoring program. Throughout this report, these methodologies are referred to as comparative metrics. The NRC provided PNNL with 2016–2019 data from annual reporting forms and single positive test forms provided by licensees and other entities. For most of the comparative metrics, the analyses required customized processing, such as creating filtering fields, adding data fields and summaries, and joining datasets. The comparative metrics developed include: random testing rate, random policy violation rate, pre-access policy violation rate, subversion attempt rate, and number of policy violations by labor category. The comparative metrics can be used for parsing and visualizing FFD program data and monitoring FFD performance at the labor category, facility, licensee, and industry levels to risk inform NRC inspection and policy with regard to the FFD data currently collected from licensees and other entities that implement Part 26 requirements. Furthermore, these developed comparative metrics allow a more in-depth look at the FFD programs for the industry to discern trends and patterns that may warrant changes at an industry level and to inform policy decisions. These analyses should be refreshed as new FFD data become available.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Enterprise Risks for Scientific Software in the Post Exascale Era

The Department of Energy’s Office of Science’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) Office hosts three high performance computing Facilities and one high performance networking Facility. ASCR’s Facilities Division and these four Facilities established a joint working group to address the most severe threats to the software capabilities that can prevent the Facilities from supporting a diverse array of mission critical scientific research carried out by thousands of researchers from national labs, academia, and industry. This report outlines the risk categories, threat matrix calculations, and number of risks in each of the categories along with the threat levels. Two categories—programming environment/tools and system software—account for 13 out of the 20 risks encountered in the risk register. A significant risk to ASCR’s software ecosystem also arises from the possible loss of personnel and expertise past the end of the exascale computing project. The working group recommends that the software enterprise risks are reevaluated regularly, and are considered in future decision making regarding system acquisition, knowledge sharing, partnership development, and strategic planning

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2020

Task 12 PV Sustainability - Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Residential PV and Battery Storage Systems

Using a life cycle assessment (LCA), the environmental impacts from generating 1 kWh of electricity for self-consumption via a photovoltaic-battery system are determined. The system includes a 10 kWp multicrystalline-silicon photovoltaic (PV) system (solar irradiation about 1350 kWh/m2/year and annual yield 1000 kWh/kWp), an iron phosphate lithium-ion (LiFePO4) battery, and other components such as the control system, battery housing, and two inverters (one for the PV system and one for the battery system). Three options for the AC-coupled system with changing battery capacities (5, 10, or 20 kWh nominal capacity) are investigated. The environmental impacts are assessed using the indicators greenhouse gas emissions and cumulative energy demand (separated into total and non-renewable cumulative energy demand). In addition, the four most important impact categories for PV electricity - respiratory inorganics (particulate matter), acidification, energy carrier resource use, and minerals and metals resource use - are assessed according to the environmental footprint (EF) method. Data are drawn from the DETEC data DQRv2:2018, recent literature, and product details provided by manufacturers. The results show larger environmental impacts of PV-battery systems with increasing battery capacity; for capacities of 5, 10, and 20 kWh, the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions from 1 kWh of electricity generation for self-consumption via a PV-battery system are 80, 84, and 88 g CO 2- eq/kWh, respectively. The cumulative greenhouse gas emissions of PV electricity consumed directly or fed into the grid are 54 g CO 2 -eq/kWh. The corresponding total cumulative energy demands are 5.27, 5.40, and 5.50 MJ oil-eq/kWh, with non-renewable energy carriers contributing 1.16, 1.22, and 1.29 MJ oil-eq/kWh. In the investigated EF impact categories, we similarly observe a larger environmental burden with increasing battery capacity, except in the use of minerals and metals. Our sensitivity analyses show that using a nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NCM) lithium-ion battery, instead of an LiFePO 4 battery, leads to a comparable environmental impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and cumulative energy demand. However, the NCM battery increases the impact in the EF categories of acidification and respiratory inorganics by 7 and 10%, respectively, whereas energy carrier resource use decreases by 4% and minerals and metals resource use decrease by 1%. Using a copper indium selenium (CIS) PV panel instead of a multicrystalline-silicon decreases greenhouse gas emissions by 24%, non-renewable cumulative energy demand by 13%, and particulate matter emissions by 60% (the largest decrease). Furthermore, the calculated environmental impacts are sensitive to the assumed battery lifetime. A decrease from 5000 to 3000 charge cycles increases non-renewable cumulative energy demand by 24% and greenhouse gas emissions by 16%. Increasing from 5000 to 7000 charge cycles decreases the environmental impacts by 6% and 7% in terms of non-renewable cumulative energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions, respectively. A utility-scale battery system case study shows that using batteries to store PV electricity overproduction reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared to using natural gas backup electricity generation.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Dynamic CCS-EJ-SJ Database and Web Application - What's New

At the 2024 FECM/NETL Carbon Management Research Project Review Meeting, within the Carbon Transport and Storage Breakout Session 3, the presentation "Dynamic CCS-EJ-SJ Database and Web Application - What's New" highlights the critical tool designed to integrate environmental and social justice considerations into Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) projects. Key features include an interactive dashboard for data access and visualization, which supports stakeholders in making informed decisions regarding CCS implementation, and updated data layers. The latest version enhances data integration and usability, providing a comprehensive resource for assessing the social and environmental impacts of CCS projects. There are 7 categories in the CCS EJSJ v2 database (released 03/31/2024): environmental justice, energy justice, economic justice, social justice, ecosystem assets, clean energy, and infrastructure. Most of the layers within each category have been updated in this version. As compared to the old database, there are 3 new categories in the v2 database: ecosystem assets, clean energy, and infrastructure.

Sharma, Maneesh↗

DOE OSTI2025

Development of the Well-to-Wake Life Cycle Assessment Model for Marine Fuels in R&D GREET 2025

The Marine analysis capabilities in the 2025 Research and Development Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies (R&D GREET) have been updated to incorporate the latest findings from the Fourth International Maritime Organization (IMO) GHG Study.1 To support these updates and enhance user flexibility, the former single marine module used in previous R&D GREET versions has been split into two workbook tabs: The Marine_Fuel tab, which covers the fuel-cycle, and the Marine_Trip tab, which covers the trip-cycle. In the Marine_Fuel tab, fuel cycle results for 39 marine fuels are available—assuming a slow speed diesel engine—and can be seen in Appendix A. However, there are options for changing feedstocks for multiple fuels, ability to view results with or without pilot fuels for fuels such as methanol and ammonia, and carbon capture options. All these combinations make the number of total possible pathways over one hundred. For each pathway, life cycle emission results are divided into feedstock, conversion, and combustion categories, along with pilot fuel supply chain emissions for fuels used in dual fuel engines. In the newly created Marine_Trip tab, users can view the life cycle emissions of using these fuels from a trip perspective. Compared to R&D GREET 2024, 16 new types of vessels are added in R&D GREET 2025. Examples of results assuming the default size for each vessel type are available in Appendix A. Additional information categories on vessels are included such as vessel size, main propulsion type, engine power rating, combustion cycle, etc. based on the Fourth IMO GHG Study. Operational mode of the trip, fuel consumption, and load calculation were updated based on the report. The fuel consumption calculation also incorporates low-load adjustment, speed–power correction, weather correction, and fouling correction factors. Furthermore, fuel consumption in boilers or steam turbines is also added for the first time, besides fuel use in main propulsion engines and auxiliary engines. This effort makes the R&D GREET Marine capabilities more robust than before. Users will be able to estimate fuel consumption more accurately for more diverse choices of vessel categories, vessel sizes, and energy converters.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

DOE OSTI2025

The Risk Assessment Information System Compendium of Ecological Screening Benchmarks for Chemicals and Radionuclides (2025) (Volume VIII – Chemicals for Sediment: General)

Volume VIII presents the chemical benchmarks for sediment: general. The benchmarks here are applicable to both freshwater sediments and marine sediments or where no differentiation was made by the source. These values are not repeated in the freshwater sediment and marine sediment categories. Likewise, values listed in the freshwater sediment and marine sediment categories are not repeated in the generic categories. Consult Volume I for information on the sources.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

The Risk Assessment Information System Compendium of Ecological Screening Benchmarks for Chemicals and Radionuclides (2025) (Volume V – Chemicals for Surface Water: General)

Volume V presents the chemical benchmarks for surface water: general. The benchmarks here are applicable to both fresh water and marine or where no differentiation was made by the source. These values are not repeated in the fresh water and marine categories. Likewise, values listed in the fresh water and marine categories are not repeated in the generic categories. Consult Volume I for information on the sources.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2026

Identification of Hydrogen Rail Maintenance Facility Hazards

Maintenance facilities for hydrogen rail, the activities conducted within such facilities, and how these activities differ from ordinary rail or hydrogen vehicle maintenance are currently being considered for the hazards specific to hydrogen. By performing a hazard and operability study (HAZOP) on numerous potential maintenance and repair scenarios, select low, medium, and high risk hazards relevant to hydrogen rail systems in such environments have been identified. The analysis resulted in 79 unique HAZOP scenarios: one scenario in the high risk category, 43 in the medium risk category, and 35 in the low risk category. Notably, large accidental releases of hydrogen due to tank rupture, aberrant defueling processes, or relief device opening within a facility are important low likelihood consequences that should nevertheless be appropriately prevented and mitigated.

08 HYDROGEN↗

DOE OSTI2025

Legacy Metallic Fuel U(Pu)Zr Data Qualification

The Metallic Fuels Irradiation and Physics Database (FIPD) is an organized collection of legacy metallic fuel U(Pu)Zr data, measurements, and reactor conditions from the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) and the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF). The database provides a wealth of information and is easily accessed and utilized by the U.S. nuclear industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The database contains three categories of data. The first category covers fuel pin fabrication specifications, including fuel slug diameter and length, cladding diameter, smeared density, etc. The second consists of operational conditions, which include axial distributions of power, temperature, fluence, burnup, isotopic density, etc. The third category contains post-irradiation examination (PIE) results, largely collected at facilities now part of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), formerly part of Argonne National Laboratory -West (ANL-W) and at the Alpha-Gamma Hot Cell Facility (AGHCF) at Argonne National Laboratory, comprising fission gas release and chemistry analysis, profilometry measurements, neutron radiography data, etc. All these data have been organized and preserved in FIPD.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Satellite Imagery of PV Site Storm Damage

"This repository contains multiple data sets focused on visible damage to photovoltaic (PV) installations following extreme weather events such as hailstorms and hurricanes. Data sets are split into two categories: the first category, the ‘manually labeled’ data, was compiled by researchers manually, and contains manually identified PV sites exposed to storms. The second data set, the ‘aggregated’ data, is a compilation of the manually labeled PV sites and deep learning-identified PV sites. The hail damage data set focuses on post-storm PV damage following a September 24, 2023 hailstorm in Austin, TX, which caused over $600 million in damages in the Austin metro area. The hurricane damage data set focuses on post-storm PV damage following Hurricanes Irma and Maria in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. Hurricanes Irma and Maria were back-to-back category 5 hurricanes, which pummeled the Caribbean and southeastern United States in September 2017, causing an estimated $115.2 billion in damages."

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Environmental Flow Requirements from FERC Licenses Across the US

Environmental flow requirements included in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydropower licenses are important for balancing natural properties and benefits of river ecosystems (e.g., healthy species, recreation, water supply, flood control) supporting hydropower production. In some cases, environmental flow requirements may limit operational flexibility given current operational schemes and make a hydropower plant less able to provide power to the electric grid on demand. Hydropower plants may gain some flexibility as hydropower scheduling time periods are made to be more responsive to the short-term needs of an energy grid increasingly reliant on intermittent renewables. However, many flow requirements focus on the daily, monthly, or seasonal flow fluctuations which matches the time scale of most paradigms linking flow alterations to the health of river ecosystems. This dataset seeks to provide a greater understanding of how flexibility in environmental requirements can be leveraged to create positive outcomes for both the power system and the environment. It contains information on environmental flow requirements from the Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement section of 50 randomly selected FERC licenses: 25 issued from 1998-2013 that were also included in the ORNL Mitigation Database (Schramm et al. 2015) and 25 issued from 2014-present. The information on environmental flow requirements was extracted from the PM&E section of 50 randomly selected FERC licenses: 25 issued from 1998-2013 that were also included in the ORNL Mitigation Database (Schramm et al. 2015) and 25 issued from 2014-present. The flow requirements were then categorized into flow augmentation categories based on whether the license stated a specific water management purpose for the given requirement called augmentation categories (i.e., fisheries or habitat, recreation or boating, industry, and general or unspecified; Table B). Requirements were also grouped into flow type categories (e.g., minimum flow rate, maximum flow rate, ramping rate). Additional information related to flow requirements such as the augmentation time-period and whether the flow rate was continuous (i.e., condition must be present at all-times) or instantaneous (i.e., condition present at a point in time) was also extracted from the licenses. Some licenses had specific flow requirements based on whether the project was in a wet, dry, or normal water year. If that information was presented in the license, it was also included in the data set. The location within the project was noted, hereafter, zone, in the dataset for flow requirements relating to specific areas of hydropower projects (Dam, Powerhouse, Bypass Reach). Maximum discharge capacities of hydropower facilities were also extracted from both the Existing Hydropower Assets (EHA) data set and the National Inventory of Dams (NID) databases. Each facility was coded with project identification codes from the EHA dataset to facilitate cross-referencing between datasets.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Understanding the Environmental Study Life Cycle in the United States Hydropower Licensing and Federal Authorization Process

We analyzed United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) documents prepared for 29 recently licensed hydropower projects and created two novel datasets to improve understanding of the environmental study life cycle, defined here as the process that begins with an environmental study being requested by a hydropower stakeholder or regulator, and ends with the study either being rejected or approved/conducted. Our two datasets consisted of summaries of information taken from (1), study determination letters prepared by FERC for 23 projects that were using the integrated licensing process, and (2), environmental study submittals and issuances tracked and attributed to seven projects using the FERC record. Our objective was to use the two resulting environmental life cycle datasets to understand which types of environmental studies are approved, rejected, and implemented during FERC licensing, and how consistently those types of studies are required across multiple hydropower projects. We matched the requested studies to a set of 61 river function indicators in eight categories and found that studies related to the category of biota and biodiversity were requested most often across all 29 projects. Within that category, studies related to river function indicators of presence, absence, detection of species and habitat/critical habitat were the most important to stakeholders, based on the relative number of studies requested. The study approval, rejection, and request rates were similar within each dataset, although the 23 projects with study determination letters had many rejected studies, whereas the dataset created from the seven projects had very few rejected studies.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

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 collection of objects stored within an RDate file, stateWaterRightsHarmonized.RData. Each object either describes how one should interact with the other objects, or contains the harmonized water rights data. Here is each object described in detail: 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. The column headers for each data frame are: waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. allocatedFlow - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. rightsByState_surface: A list of the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, these lists are the merging of rightsByState_ground and rightsByState_surface by state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. 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.

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 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 included 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.

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↗