Yesterday I published several quotes from the official corps drought plan showing several issues we have been misled about. Following is one more quote from the drought plan that is commonly not known and the results of a formal request for comments by the Corps during the drought of 2008.
The following quote from page 10 of the 1989 drought plan shows where 3600cfs came from:
QUOTE FROM PAGE 10 OF ORIGINAL DROUGHT PLAN--- " THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT HAS THREE OPERATING NUCLEAR REACTORS AND USES WATER (APPROXIMATELY 945 CFS) FROM THE SAVANNAH RIVER FOR COOLING. A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE WATER IS RETURNED TO THE RIVER AFTER COOLING. LOW FLOW TESTS CONDUCTED DURING THE 1980-81 DROUGHT ESTABLISHED 3600 CFS AS THE MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE FLOW FOR A ONE REACTOR OPERATION. DUE TO CHANGES IN THEIR OPERATIONS, THE SRP NOW HAS A MINIMUM DESIRED FLOW OF 4880 CFS TO ENSURE A THREE-REACTOR OPERATION AND 4130CFS FOR A TWO REACTOR OPERATION."
So 3600cfs came from SRP needs when they were operating nuclear reactors. None of these reactors has been active since the late 1900's. Matter of fact there is no plan to ever operate those reactors again. Humm? what does that do to our accepted standard of 3600cfs?
The responses to a query the Corps made for comments from all stakeholders during the drought of 2008 were also illuminating. The Corps sent out a request to all stakeholders and the public in general for comments as to whether dropping from 3600cfs to 3100cfs would present any problems for anyone. After several months we noted total quiet from the Corps on the results of that inquiry so we sent in a freedom of information request to the Corps. There were over 250 responses from all kinds of stakeholders. All the responses indicated they were having no problems at 3600cfs and anticipated no problems if the flows were reduced further to 3100cfs. All that is except the NOAA who said it "MIGHT" be problematic to fish and wildlife and water quality. In other words, in the middle of a major drought, 3600cfs was stated to be acceptable and even lower was expected to be acceptable as well.
The full gist of this and the previous blog is to point out that "what the Corps says" is not a reliable basis for understanding their operation of the Savannah River Basin. As with any of us you can expect their remarks to be spun in the direction most favorable to what they want to do. Unfortunately what they tell us is often very misleading. If you want to test this, ask them why they continue releases from a drought starved Lake Thurmond when the river below the dam is flooding from heavy rains.
