Monthly Archives: December 2022

Aiken County, December 2022, Public Safety

The Fireworks Forecast

6 Comments


(Original New Year’s Eve, 12/30/22, forecast, Scattered Loud., but Muffled by Clouds and Rain)


by Don Moniak

December 30, 2022

In unincorporated Aiken County, fireworks noise remains as protected as the harmonious ringing of church bells. Although the law is much more stringent within the city limits of Aiken and North Augusta, residents along city boundaries or within “donut holes,” are free to afflict high decibel blasts upon their city neighbors.

Twice a year, on the Fourth of July and New Year’s Eve, fireworks usage becomes prevalent enough in Aiken County to provoke a barrage of complaints from dog owners and horse owners, warnings from local emergency rooms, concerns about veterans suffering from PTSD, and safety advice from authorities and even fireworks dealers.

This New Year’s Eve promises more of the same, although the noise is expected to be tempered by cloud cover, warmer temperatures, and rain on New Year’s Eve—though clear skies on the evening of January 1st. Anybody calling the Aiken County Sheriff’s Office (1) to inquire or complain about loud, persistent fireworks usage should be told that:

Fireworks can be set off New Year’s Eve from 8 a.m. on the 31st until 1:30 a.m. on New Year’s Day. On New Year’s Day itself, and all other days this week, the activity must end by midnight.

For fireworks, a 6.5 hour break is required the morning of the 1st, and an eight hour break is required any other day.

That is what is allowed by the Aiken County nuisance ordinance, which was last amended in 2005, and stands the test of time and population growth. Unlike the outpouring of objections that led Aiken County Council (2) to cancel a proposal early in 2022 to limit dumping at county trash transfer stations to four days a week, the biannual fireworks objections never materialize into a discussion for change.

Aiken County’s nuisance ordinance (3) does identify “excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noises” as a nuisance; and actually defines the phrase objectively, “as any sound which is plainly audible at a distance of two hundred (200) feet from its source.” That is the sole objective distinction pertaining to noise in an ordinance that reads like a trip down a memory lane of legislative vocabulary.

South Carolina State law, which is equal to federal law for aerial explosives, does place restrictions on the amount of explosives within commercial fireworks, but there are no hard sound limits for a product than can easily exceed 150 decibels.

“It is unlawful to manufacture, store, transport, or possess fireworks containing pyrotechnic composition in excess of two grains, designed to produce a loud and piercing effect, including, but not limited to,  fireworks commonly called ‘ground salutes’ or ‘cherry bombs;” M-80’s, T-N-T salutes, and ‘bulldog salutes.”

More than two dozen noises are specifically cited as undesirable in the county nuisance ordinance, few of which are piercing in nature. Only subjective descriptors are employed, further inhibiting enforcement by a local Sheriff’s Department notoriously reluctant to address mere code violations.

Undesirable noise does not include booming fireworks, but it does include any amplified noise that can “unreasonably disturb the quiet, comfort, or peace” of nearby residents, “frequent and habitual barking, howling, yelping, crying, crowing, cackling, or singing” by dogs, birds, or other animals, the honking of vehicle horns for “ an unnecessary or unreasonable period of time,” unmuffled vehicles, pile drivers, pneumatic hammers, and other heavy machinery or “appliances” between 9 p.m and 7 a.m., using a “wagon, cart,” or poorly maintained vehicle that grates, grinds, or rattles, excessively loud “steam engine” exhaust, the “opening or destruction of bales, boxes, crates, containers, or the like” without taking “reasonable care” to confine the noise, and “yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling, singing” of such “duration and volume” as to disturb people nearby.



While “hooting,” destroying bales and boxes, or operating a poorly maintained, grating or rattling wagon or cart remain on the books as noise to be avoided, fireworks and pyrotechnics are only addressed within the numerous exceptions to the law, right after “noise emanating from a church” and activities sponsored or cosponsored by the government.

“Noise from the use of fireworks or pyrotechnics from 8:00 a.m. until midnight” is permitted 365 days per year. On eleven different holidays, including Good Friday and Veteran’s Day, the hours are lengthened:

“For those activities listed above, which are normally exempted only during specific hours, the exemption shall be from 8:00 a.m. until the following morning at 1:30 a.m. on the following holidays or their dates of official observance: New Year’s Eve, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, President’s Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.”

Just make sure to put the pneumatic hammers and steam engines away by 9 p.m.





FOOTNOTES:

(1) The Aiken County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) is required to take complaints, but does rightfully caution against using 911 to do so. The non emergency number for ACSO is 803-642-1761.

(2) Contact information for County Council members can be found at:

https://www.aikencountysc.gov/DspDocTopic.php?qDocID=37

(3) The Aiken County Nuisance Ordinance is contained in Chapter 15, Article III of the County Code.

https://library.municode.com/sc/aiken_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH15OFMIPR_ARTIIINU

The following specific examples of noise nuisances are provided in Part 10:

“Any unreasonably loud or disturbing noise that causes material, physical or mental discomfort or injury to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof is hereby declared to be a nuisance and is prohibited. Any noise of such character, intensity intermittent or continued duration which substantially interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of dwellings, hotels or other types of residence by persons of ordinary sensibilities is hereby declared to be a nuisance and is prohibited.

The following acts, whether on or within public or private property, and the causing or permitting thereof, are hereby specifically declared to be unreasonably loud and disturbing noises in violation of this section:

a. The playing or permitting the playing at any time of any radio, tape recorder, phonograph, portable television set, loudspeaker, sound amplifier, amplified or unamplified musical instrument, live music of any kind or any other sound- producing device by any person while inside any theater, retail store, bank, public or private building, public or private modes of transportation, indoor or outdoor public sports area, or any other public or private area, in such manner or with such volume as to unreasonably disturb the quiet, comfort, or peace of the public or private residents.

b. The harboring or keeping of a dog or other animal or bird that by loud and frequent or habitual barking, howling, yelping, crying, crowing, cackling, or singing shall cause disturbance to the neighborhood.

c. The sounding of any horn or signaling device on any automobile, motorcycle, or other vehicle on any street or public or private place of the county for an unnecessary or unreasonable period of time, or with such volume as to create any unreasonably loud or harsh sound; provided that the prohibitions of this subsection shall not apply to the sounding of any horn or signaling device when used as a danger warning; and further provided that authorized emergency vehicles may use warning sounds at any time.

d. The discharge into the open air within the county of the exhaust of any steam engine, gasoline engine, stationary internal combustion engine, or other kind or type of engine, motor boat, or motor vehicle, except through a muffler or other device that will effectively prevent loud or explosive noises therefrom.

e. The use within the county of any wagon, cart, automobile, truck, motorcycle, or other vehicle, so out of repair or loaded in such manner or with material of such nature as to create loud or irritating, grating, grinding, rattling, or other noises.

f. The creation within the county of loud or excessive noise in connection with loading or unloading of any vehicle, or the opening or destruction of bales, boxes, crates, containers, or the like, without exercising reasonable care to limit such noise and to confine the same.

g. The operation within the county between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any pile driver, power shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick or hoist, or other appliance, the use of which is attended by loud or disturbing noises.

h. The operation within the county of any noise-creating blower or power fan, the operation of which causes loud or disturbing noise, unless such blower or fan is muffled to deaden such noise.

i. The creation within the county of any loud, irritating, or disturbing noise in the vicinity of any school, institution of learning, church, court of law, hospital, or neighborhood while the same is in use or occupied, and which unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution, or which disturbs persons of ordinary sensibilities within these buildings or neighborhoods. Signs shall be displayed at or near such public buildings indicating that the same is a school, institution of learning, hospital, court of law, or church. A neighborhood shall be defined as one (1) or more houses.

j. Yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling, singing, loud music (live or recorded), or any other amplified or unamplified equipment on the public or private streets or other public or private areas (to include residences) of the county at any time or place of such duration, frequency, or volume as to disturb the peace, quiet, com fort, or repose of persons in the vicinity of the disturbances listed above.

And in Part 12 there is a general statement for noise nuisance:

“ Any person who makes excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noises which disturbs others within the unincorporated area of Aiken County. The term “excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noises” is defined to be any sound which is plainly audible at a distance of two hundred (200) feet from its source. Sounds from emergency vehicles, churches, schools, lawn mowers and other yard maintenance.”

The following exceptions pertaining to noise are specified in the ordinance, and are again full of subjective language:

i. Any county, law enforcement, or emergency vehicle while engaged in necessary public business;

ii. Noises of safety signals or warning devices;

iii. Noises generated by natural phenomena;

iv. Excavations or repairs of streets or utilities by or on behalf of utility companies, the city, county or state, at night, when the public welfare and convenience renders it impossible to perform such work during the day;

v. The reasonable use of amplifiers or loudspeakers in the course of public addresses which are noncommercial in character; or

vi. The reasonable use of amplifiers or loudspeakers and any loud noise generated or created in the course of any organized carnival or fair between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and midnight; or

vii. The reasonable use of amplifiers or loudspeakers in the course of sporting events at ballfields and racetracks in the county; yelling, shouting and cheering at sporting events at ballfields and racetracks in the county; and any loud noise associated with a ballfield or racetrack between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and midnight;

viii. Sound as the result of normal or routine lawn/yard maintenance and landscaping between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.;

ix. Any sound emanating from a school or church;

x. Any noise resulting from activities sponsored or co-sponsored by the county;

xi. Noise from the use of fireworks or pyrotechnics from 8:00 a.m. until midnight; and

xii. For those activities listed above, which are normally exempted only during specific hours, the exemption shall be from 8:00 a.m. until the following morning at 1:30 a.m. on the following holidays or their dates of official observance: New Year’s Eve, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, President’s Day, Good Friday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.”


(Individual Home Owners Associations may have rules pertaining to fireworks use that override County regulations).










December 2022, Laws & Bylaws, Project Pascalis 2022

Chamber President Blames State Law for AMDC Failings

3 Comments

“Riddled With Contradictions and Nearly Insurmountable Obstacles.” 

by Don Moniak

December 22, 2022

J. David Jameson submitted his resignation (1) from the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) on December 14, 2022.   Jameson, who was was first appointed to the commission in September, 2020, remains in his position as President of the Aiken Chamber of Commerce. (2).

The resignation came five days after half of the remaining commissioners—Keith Wood, Chris Verenes, and Douglas Slaughter (2)—resigned; and two days after a previously unreported closed-door legal briefing “concerning the mechanics of the AMDC.” 

In his resignation letter, Jameson lambasted South Carolina’s Community Development Law, writing the “statute that governs the actions of the AMDC is riddled with contradictions and nearly insurmountable obstacles,” but did not provide any specific examples. 

According to former AMDC Chairman Keith Wood, the AMDC was not fully briefed on the governing statute until this past June. Neither Wood nor Verenes chose to criticize state law in their December 9th resignation letters or public statements of September 29, 2022; choosing instead to insist the law must be followed.  The September 29th statements came twenty days after Jameson forced an amendment to, and delay of, an AMDC motion to cancel Project Pascalis—-the first visible sign of a division on the commission.

Jameson also blamed the commission’s own bylaws for holding it “hostage,” claiming “with our current membership of three, we can meet but we cannot act.” But according to the AMDC’s governing statute, the SC Community Development Law, five members are required to hold a meeting and act, and no set of bylaws can override state law: 

“A commission may be governed by the members of the governing body of its parent municipality serving ex officio or by not less than five nor more than nine commissioners selected by the governing body of the municipality.” (SC 31-10-40). 

Jameson’s resignation letter also raises questions about the most recent Aiken City Council closed-door Executive Session, held on December 12, 2022. According to the public notice, the closed-door session was specifically to discuss: 

“1.Potential purchase of real property located in downtown Aiken.

2. A proposed contractual arrangement to lease property in downtown Aiken.”

The relationship of the “mechanics of the AMDC” and the proposed purchase of property is unknown. But considering the AMDC owns the seven downtown Pascalis project properties, and that these were packaged as a single property in its cancelled agreement with the Pascalis project developer,  it is possible the discussion involved not a purchase of property, but a transfer of the entire property from the AMDC to the City of Aiken. 

Upon questioning, City officials declined to name the property under secret discussion that evening. City Attorney Gary Smith stated “it is a downtown property, no information can be released if not all parties are ready to discuss it.” 

Not surprisingly, Jameson’s objections to state law come one year after he took the lead in organizing secret, invitation-only Pascalis project “influencer” meetings, in violation of the state’s Open Meeting statute prohibiting “circumvention of the spirit of (the law)” through a “chance meeting, social meeting, or electronic communication.”

Jameson was also instrumental in the decision to have the Chamber secretly take assignment of the Pascalis properties on behalf of the AMDC when the project’s first developer, Weldon Wyatt, exited the project in May, 2021.  The latter action set off a long domino effect of legally questionable behavior. Eventually, dozens of violations of state law were alleged in the July 5, 2022,  Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit that brought the sputtering Pascalis project effort to a standstill.  

Footnotes

(1) The previously unannounced resignation letter was obtained via a Freedom of Information Request by Aiken resident Kelly Cornelius. The full text of all five resignation letters obtained provided below. 



As reported in Chairman Keith Wood and Vice-Chair Chris Verenes Resign, Slaughter’s resignation was unnecessary and duplicative: 

“Since he is in violation of city attendance rules for appointed officials, having missed four of six regular meetings this year, Reverend Slaughter will be automatically removed as a commissioner on January 1, 2023.”

Stuart MacVean missed more than 1/2 of regular commission meetings in 2021. Despite continuing to attend a few meetings in 2022, according to the City Ordinance governing appointed positions, he was automatically removed on January 1, 2022.

(2) Jameson is one of two AMDC members who publicly commented on Project Pascalis during public meetings, but declined to identify their affiliation with the commission.

On April 20, 2022, Jameson spoke on behalf of the Chamber without disclosing his AMDC membership or the joint role the Chamber played in pursuing the project in 2021.

On May 9, 2022, Commissioner Philip Merry spoke as a private individual in favor of privatizing Newberry Street, but failed to disclose his AMDC membership.

City Government, December 2022, Planning & Development

Introducing: Parker’s Kitchen Convenience Store, and “Whiskey Road Apartments.”

Leave a comment

by Don Moniak 

December 21, 2022

The City of Aiken Planning Commission will likely open business in 2023 by recommending approval of a new convenient store and a new 76-unit apartment complex on Whiskey Road. A public notice (1) was published this past Monday, December 19th, announcing a January 10, 2023, public hearing before the commission for: 

  • An application for a utility request at Whiskey Road and Dominion Drive by Cranston Engineering Group;
  • A concept plan approval request by Drayton Parker Companies for a property at Whiskey Road and Stratford Drive; and 
  • An annexation request for 1804 Pine Log Road near Hound’s Lake. 

Parker’s Kitchen, Southside

The concept plan application from Drayton Parker Company is for a Parker’s Kitchen convenient store and eight pump service station to be located at the junction of Whiskey Road, Stratford Drive, and Powderhouse Road. This is the second Parker’s Kitchen planned for Aiken. The first one, on Richland Avenue below Sam’s Club, gained approval from Aiken City Council in May, 2022. Parker’s Kitchen is presently a chain of seventy convenient stores concentrated in the Savannah, Charleston, and Statesboro areas. 

Unlike the Richland Avenue location at the long vacant, former Dick Smith auto dealership, the second Parker’s Kitchen will necessitate clearcutting and grading an undeveloped 2.6 acre forested tract that is 300 feet east of the Springstone Villas neighborhood. The company estimates a volume of more than 1,000 vehicles at their new location.

The parcel is one-quarter of a 11.6-acre area purchased in 2019 for $1.4 million by Lulu’s Holdings of South Carolina, LLC (agent: Robert Black), and later subdivided into four lots. 

The other three lots are: 

  • A 2.7 acre tract fronting Whiskey Road where a Lulu’s Car Wash is under construction.
  • An undeveloped, forested 5.3 acre tract presently providing a 275-foot wide buffer between Springhouse Villas and the two properties fronting Whiskey Road, but could be developed next.
  • A 1.1 acre “right of way,” appraised by the Aiken County Assessor for $514. 
Lulu’s Holdings of SC properties. Car wash is in SE portion, planned Parker’s Kitchen in NE portion.


The Lulu’s Car Wash was approved as part of an annexation and Planned Commercial concept plan for the entire 11.6 acres. After rejecting the first concept plan, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended a revised version on July 14, 2020, in spite of a petition drive in the Springhouse and Stratford Hall neighborhoods that garnered more than 200 signatures.  City Council followed suit with a unanimous approval.

A subsequent lawsuit was dismissed when the judge ruled the city had not acted outside of its authority and the plaintiffs had not proven the decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Whiskey Road Apartments 

Just under one mile to the south of the developing Lulu’s commercial complex are newly planned apartments. The Whiskey Road Apartment complex city services application shows a 76-unit, three building apartment complex planned on a 6.64 acre parcel across from the junction of Talatha Church and Whiskey Roads, adjacent to the Cornerstone residential neighborhood. (The public notice contained no mention of the busy Talatha Church intersection, opting to list the location only as “Whiskey Road and Dominion Drive.” )

The property is in unincorporated Aiken County, and the developers are only requesting city water and sewer services, and not annexation. Plans show a trio of three-story apartment buildings surrounded by 114 parking spaces, with an entrance via a new spur road located approximately 325 feet south of Talatha Church Road. 

Whiskey Road Apartments Layout and Paving Plan.

Although the current apartments application lists South State Bank as the property owner, county records show that South State Bank sold the property on October 26, 20222 property for $425,000 to Cornerstone Aiken LLC (2) at 742 Trailhead Lane, Fort Mill, SC. This is the same address used by the developer,  Ishvan Realty, LLC (Agent: Venu Parapelli), a SC company incorporated on October 15, 2022. 

In 2020 a new Duke’s Bar-B-Que  Restaurant was proposed on the property. The Planning Commission heard and unanimously approved that application on the same day as the Lulu’s hearing.  There were no objections to the proposal, which was later withdrawn. Unlike the current proposal, the Duke’s application included a traffic study.

Since 2015, other developments within a half- mile of the proposed Whiskey Road Apartments include Summerton Village, the Townhomes at Chukker Creek, a new Dollar General, and the Lotus Park Senior Living Apartment Complex presently under construction.



Whiskey Roads Apartments property. Left photo from 2021, Right photo from 2014. Source: Aiken County

Footnotes

(1) The public notice in the Aiken Standard on December 19, 2022. 

(2) Cornerstone’s registered agent is LegalInc.  Registered Agents, Inc of Charleston, whose agent in turn is United States Corporation Agents, Inc. at the same Charleston address.  The firm’s registered agent is Northwest Registered Agent of Charleston, whose agent in turn is Registered Agents, Inc. at the same Charleston address, who is turn are represented by Northwest Registered Agent. From there the trail remains on a circular path. 

Aiken County, December 2022, Parks & Recreation

Introducing Misty Lake State Park

7 Comments

Aiken County One of Three Beneficiaries of Dominion Energy’s V.C. Summer Plant Tax Settlement

by Don Moniak

December 18, 2022

A second state park should be opening in Aiken County in 2023 when South Carolina State Parks officially adds the former 192-acre, South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCEG) employee recreation area known as Misty Lake to its park system.  South Carolina Director of State Parks Paul McCormack confirmed Friday in a telephone interview that the state closed on the Dominion Energy property this past Wednesday, December 14th. Dominion is scheduled to hand over the keys right after the New Year.

The agency intends to have the park open for public use later in 2023, after finishing the necessary facilities work; but no opening date goal is set. Since the state park system is self-funded, there will be user fees, but those remain to be determined. As a point of comparison, Aiken State Park currently charges $3 per adult and $1 per day for children.

A facility inspection and a Phase I Environmental Assessment were completed prior to closing to ensure the state was not inheriting any liabilities, such as a faulty dam. The park is tentatively named “Misty Lake State Park,” but the decision is not final. 

Misty Lake is one of three new state park properties obtained as part of a settlement on unpaid sales taxes from the failed VC Summer Nuclear Power Plant expansion.  The $9 billion dollar fiasco ultimately led to convictions of high level officials, and Dominion Energy acquiring the largest private utility in South Carolina, SCANA energy.   

The land exchange was first reported a year ago by the Post and Courier of Charleston and the Associated Press.  The other two new parks are in other relatively affluent settings—Lexington and Georgetown Counties—which SCEG also selected for employee parks and executive retreats. 

Situated about halfway between uptown Graniteville and
Belvedere, Misty Lake is in the midst of the fastest growing portion of Aiken County where large private landholdings are in demand. “
In the past eighteen months developers purchased two other other large land holdings near Misty Lake:

  • Greenville based RIdge Road Holdings, LLC purchased a thousand acre property less than one mile to the north for $6 million in 2022. 
  • Beazly Development Company of Evans purchased a two hundred acre property 3.5 miles to the northeast in 2021. 

    Instead of Dominion probably selling these assets to a developer to pay off part of its large acquisition debt, the property will now serve as a quiet public park to an area presently lacking in open, public space.
Approximate boundaries of Misty Lake State Park

The property is composed of three parcels:

  • 1280 Ascauga Lake Road; a 35-acre parcel with twenty eight year old, 1450 square foot former clubhouse adjacent to a seven acre pond and surrounded by 28 acres of loblolly pine dominated forest.
  • A 12.5-acre undeveloped tract on the west side of the pond that is also dominated by mature loblolly pine.
  • A 145-acre tract north of the pond stretching to I-20, presently classified as mostly ag-timber land, and a mix of loblolly pine timber production plantations interspersed with hardwood bottoms. 
Former clubhouse and probable future park headquarters. Photo from Aiken County Tax Assessor.

Part 2: From Howard’s Pond to Misty Lake.

December 2022, Offsite Insights, Savannah River Site

Feds Propose ~27 to 34 More Tons of Plutonium for Processing at Savannah River Site

4 Comments

Texas to New Mexico to South Carolina to New Mexico is Proposed Pathway for Remaining Surplus Plutonium.

by Don Moniak

December 16, 2022

Plutonium-239 is a man-made radioactive element that is acutely deadly at the scale of milligrams, chronically toxic at the scale of micrograms, decays into more intensely radioactive elements and isotopes, and is useable in nuclear explosives of mass destruction at the scale of kilograms. It has been described as “a physicist’s dream and an engineer’s nightmare.”

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS, formerly Savannah River Plant) produced an estimated 36 tons of the material from the 1950’s to late 1980’s for the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal. Processing of the resulting unstable, radioactive liquid waste into a relatively stable form has been ongoing since the 1990’s and is expected to continue into the 2040’s. When production ceased in 1990, two tons of plutonium remained in storage, of which approximately 1.5 tons was eventually declared surplus.

Today there is an estimated 11.0 to 11.5 tons of plutonium presently stored at the site, which encompasses parts of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale counties in South Carolina. Of this total, 9.5 tons was transferred from other nuclear weapons material and parts production sites—most notably Rocky Flats, Hanford, and Los Alamos—following DOE’s 1997 decision to centralize storage of weapons plutonium.

Two years ago the State of South Carolina reached a $600 million settlement with the federal government over the 9.5 tons of military-grade, surplus plutonium transferred to SRS. Today, DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administriation (NNSA) published a proposal to ship upwards of 27 additional tons of surplus military-grade plutonium to SRS for processing into a waste form through a process called “dilute and dispose”(1).

The proposal was revealed today in a Federal Register notice announcing a sixty-day public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Program (SPDP EIS). The impact statement is the latest National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document addressing the future of 34 metric tonnes (MT) (2) of plutonium that has been deemed surplus to U.S. defense needs since the early 1990s.

The basic dichotomy for the surplus plutonium begins with:

a. relatively “clean” and pure plutonium within nuclear explosive components known as “pits.” There were presently an estimated 14,000 plutonium pits stored at DOE/NNSA’s Pantex Nuclear Weapons Plant near Amarillo, Texas; of which approximately 10,000 are deemed surplus and 4,000 are “strategic reserve.” Each pit averages There is ~3 kg of plutonium.

b. plutonium not within pits, with highly variable purity levels, most of which is now stored at SRS.

The exact figures for each category are distorted and confused by classification methods, as DOE/NNSA has never revealed precise quantities contained in pit plutonium. However, since the 1990’s the general accepted total of surplus plutonium metal contained in pit form is approximately 25-27 tons.

From: Plutonium, the Last Five Years, Part 2. The two categories to the right constitute the 34 tons currently being analyzed.



Since the 1990’s military nuclear weapons complex agencies have conducted multiple environmental impact statements. Efforts to convert 34 metric tonnes of military plutonium into either a waste form or into commercial, mixed-oxide (Pu/MOX) nuclear fuel moved forward, then faltered, and finally failed by 2018, eventually leading to the plutonium settlement between DOE and South Carolina. Less than one ton of the higher purity plutonium constituting the surplus stockpile has been converted to a waste form in twenty-five years, and an estimated quarter-ton was processed in the past year.

The Department of Energy has been shuffling disposition options for surplus, non-pit plutonium since the mid 1990’s.  As Ed Lyman reported in his definitive report of DOE/NNSA’s programmatic failures, Surplus Plutonium Disposition: The Failure of MOX and the Promise of Its Alternatives, DOE/NNSA changed its treatment preferences for 13.1 tons of non-pit surplus plutonium eight times in a thirteen year period. The chronic indecision was a contributing factor to the huge cost overruns that helped to end the Pu/MOX fuel fabrication alternative. 

The shifting plans for surplus, non-pit plutonium. From: The Failure of MOX and the Promise of its Alternatives,

After abandoning efforts to convert military plutonium designed for use as nuclear explosives into Pu/MOX fuel, weapons complex agencies moved forward with a disposition method known as “dilute and dispose.” Simply put, “dilute and dispose” involves mixing very small amounts of plutonium (1-3%) with large amounts of a classified mix of materials to create a waste form for permanent disposal.

The only disposal site in the U.S. approved to accept this waste is the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Southeastern New Mexico. There remains intense opposition to importing any more plutonium-laden waste into the state than what was originally planned during its design and approval stages in the 1990’s.

In today’s announcement, the NNSA stated its preferred alternative is to pursue the “dilute and dispose strategy for 34 MT of surplus plutonium,” a process involving several steps for plutonium not already at SRS:

  • Ship up to 27 tons (3) of plutonium from the Pantex nuclear weapons plant in the Texas Panhandle to the Los Alamos National Laboratory near Sante Fe, New Mexico. 
  • Disassemble plutonium pits, separate the plutonium from other parts (4) and convert the plutonium metal within to  plutonium oxide powder.
  • Ship the plutonium oxide powder to Savannah River Site near Aiken and Barnwell, South Carolina for dilution into a waste form. 
  • Ship the waste to the WIPP near Carlsbad, New Mexico for disposal. 

    Three alternatives to the preferred alternative are:

  • Ship plutonium pits to SRS for disassembly and conversion of the plutonium metal to plutonium oxide powder, followed by the dilute and disposal pathway.  This option probably ties in with the proposed new plutonium pit fabrication plant at SRS.
  • Perform the dilute and disposal pathway at Los Alamos and keep the entire process in New Mexico. 
  • The No-Action alternative, which would leave the plutonium pits in long term storage and avoid unnecessary shipping, processing, and increased plutonium waste dumping at WIPP. 

Not included among the alternatives is the option of demilitarizing plutonium pits by “stuffing” them with inert materials, a proposal first floated in the late 1990’s. Plutonium pits are designed for long-term storage in the nuclear warhead, and can remain stored without expensive shipment and processing.

After years of South Carolina officials declaring that the state could become a permanent plutonium dumping ground, the state is now facing the renewed prospect of SRS processing three times the plutonium presently stored onsite and awaiting dilution and repackaging; as well as fabricating 80 or more new plutonium pits for new nuclear weapon designs at a plutonium pit production plant being designed for production beginning in the early 2030’s.

As reported in Offsite Insight 2022-1, nuclear watchdog Tom Clements informed the SRS Citizen’s Advisory Board about this prospect at their July, 2022, meeting, at which he distinguished between the plutonium already at SRS and the plutonium potentially headed there:

“The number was given as 9.5 MT in the agreement with the state. But there is 11.5 ton onsite because 2.0 tons were already there. But the amount of plutonium to be disposed of is up to 34 tons….We are looking at a tremendous amount of plutonium coming into the site. The CAB will have a very important role in insuring more material is not stranded here.” 

Next story: “Plutonium is Not for Amateurs, Part I.”

Residents in the Central Savannah River Area (CSRA) that surrounds the Savannah River Site have the opportunity to comment on the latest proposal either in person or in writing. DOE/NNSA will hold a public meeting upriver from SRS at North Augusta City Hall, 100 Georgia Avenue, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. on January 19, 2023. A virtual hearing will be held on January 30, 2023, and comments may be submitted to SPDP-EIS@nnsa.doe.gov.

The Draft EIS, Federal Register Notice, meeting materials, and listing of public comment opportunities is at https://www.energy.gov/nepa/doeeis-0549-surplus-plutonium-disposition-program

and the Draft EIS is at:

https://www.energy.gov/nepa/articles/doeeis-0549-draft-environmental-impact-statement-december-2022


Footnotes

(1) Information regarding the program can be found at:

Presentation material for 3013 Cans and K Area Storage and Processing:

Click to access DOE3013ContainerProgram.pdf

Click to access StorageandDownblend.pdf

A DOE presentation to the National Academy of Sciences in 2018 provides more details: 

Click to access McAlhany-SurplusPuDisp_Jun2018.pdf

(2) A metric ton is 1,000 kilograms, equal to 2200 pounds or 1.1 tons.

(3) The DOE/NNSA announcement states that up to 34 MT could be shipped from Pantex, but no documentation exists suggesting there is 34 MT of surplus plutonium within pits, and Pantex presently stores less than one ton of plutonium not within pits. The EIS will, however, analyze the movement of 34 tons from Pantex.

(4) Highly Enriched Uranium within plutonium pits will also be separated and shipped to the Y-12 nuclear weapons material plant near Oak Ridge, Tennessee.