Replies

"Citing potential security risks, state and federal officials have blocked the public’s ability to review the latest report from an independent panel of experts brought in to guide state officials’ repairs at the crippled Oroville Dam."

Thanks JanetJanet998 for this info.

I was wondering when this was going to come up. I ran across a functional "security" weakness in these many weeks of schematic investigations. But back in the 1960's we weren't faced with crazy ideological murderous people. Therefore, design architecture wasn't factored in to counter recent worldly tactics. I truly believe the BOC has discovered this "tactic" weakness too.

I'm not going to reveal this item, but I can state that I believe this "tactical" item is being used as a reason not to inform the public of what the BOC has found on the main spillway. Why? (1) they can easily reason that the public [and press] would become outraged, angry, then fearful (2) the precise details of BOC MS findings could be considered extreme negligence, or worse in the public eye & recriminations to DWR, and thus to the governing oversight of Dept of Safety of Dams, and thus the state of CA would be intense. Remember, DWR did not report the "river valve" accident. Actual specifics only came out when investigation reports and fines were assessed two years later.

So essentially, the "security weakness", is being used as a shield against items (1)(2). [I was wondering why the original BOC report had particular wording on the original report on some items of the original chute design. I was mildly surprised that so much information was revealed - but this was good - as it was peeling back the veneer on heavily filtered DWR responses to the media & public.] DWR took plenty of heat from experts being interviewed by the newspapers where the experts were making comments about the spillway "breaking in half" years ago (i.e. poor design).

They now have all of the 3D generated Ground Penetrating Radar processed results. They now have the original construction evidence of "wash" erodible material layer between the emplacement rock and the concrete slabs. They now have the info on water in the chute embankment areas. They now know the "uncaptured" flaw design of the bell coupling offset drain pipe. They now know the extent of the "voiding" underneath the slabs. They now know the extreme thinning points in the slabs, the non-lower rebar design in the slabs, the extreme cracking from the thinning of the drain design, the poor rock seams below the slab, the anchor bar emplacement to counter the forces, and with the BOC expert who is renowned for "calculating" probability or risk of slab failure - he knows the reality. This "reality" is what they are shielding and do not want to make public.

The SacBee article is very telling. It reveals that the new March 24 BOC memo** was not asked to be rendered "secret or confidential" by the BOC but that DWR asked that it be deemed "confidential". This is huge. Why? If you look deep enough into the architecture of the controlled spillway, you can identify a "scenario" that could be deemed a "security" issue. That is likely what DWR assembled. Thus, using this "security" scenario/issue, you ask that the whole memo be deemed secret/confidential. Thus DWR can dodge the "heat" from the latest BOC memo.

I'm not downplaying the actual security "scenario", just highlighting the politics at play.

= = Article clip:

"DWR requested the consultants’ report be kept confidential, said FERC spokeswoman Celeste Miller."

= = end clip.

= = Reason cited for "confidential status": (emphasis mine)

FERC’s website says a document can be made confidential if it “gives strategic information” related to “the production, generation, transmission, or distribution of energy” or could be “useful to a person planning an attack on critical infrastructure.”

= = end clip.

**Memo - likely bulleted mini-report with more detailed results & commentary just like the March 17 memo (that gave great heartburn to DWR)

THIS is the DWR letter that triggered the response in a block of the public's ability to review the latest report from the independent panel of experts (functional "security" weakness)

These FERC document images reveal that a "Project Safety Compliance Report" submitted by CA Department of Water Resources, March 22, is the key to triggering a "Critical Energy Infrastructure Information" secrecy status. It was from a "structural inspection". This DWR submitted report was 2 days before the Board Of Consultants' independent experts' March 24 mini-report memo that was dated March 24 (and to be released) - BUT the PSCR report, submitted by DWR, two days earlier, resulted in the CEII secrecy status of both the PSCR and the BOC March 24 new report.

The investigative press will eventually figure out what is blacked out. I assure you that this will intensify the firestorm of inquiry as it opens up a new front of public concern ("structural issue as security weakness"). Side note: the file size of the "secret" structural investigation is 4.62 Megabytes (not a small report).

Note: The "functional security weakness" is real, but it is a very special case scenario that I believe could have been dealt with in a different way. Instead, politics may have come into play and now it has been elevated to a level where it is now become a "shield" (via CEII status) to releasing BOC's new spillway report information. The scrutiny will only intensify upon DWR from the public, the press, and frustrated politicians.

DWR Letter to FERC re: "Critical Energy Infrastructure Information" upon completing a "structural inspection" - THIS is what DWR is using to block public's ability to review the latest report from the independent panel of experts (defining a functional "security" weakness)

FERC official denotation of "CEII" status of all reports linked to the original "Project Safety Compliance Report" (via Accession number tree) - message below is permission denial to the designated secret/confidential CEII information.