Monthly Archives: January 2023

January 2023, Offsite Insights, Savannah River Site

“Plutonium is not for Amateurs.” Part 2:

2 Comments

Offsite Insight 2023-2: What will the Chamber of Commerce say after $Billions in SRS worker claims?

by Don Moniak

January 19, 2023

The lively plutonium (Pu) disposition debates in the 1990’s, which at one point included Senator Strom Thurmond describing Texas nuclear weapons workers as “amateurs,” were very different from today’s muted discourse. The most dramatic change might be the quiet acceptance that hundreds of thousands of nuclear weapons workers, uranium miners, and nuclear testing downwinders suffered harm during the Cold War, when safety was often secondary to production. A second change in South Carolina involves an erosion of public trust in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) among its strongest supporters.

In the early 1990’s, more than fifty tons of military plutonium resulting from the end of Cold War plutonium production, coupled with the dismantlement of thousands of nuclear weapons under the terms of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START), was declared surplus to national security needs. An international effort to dispose of excess plutonium to prevent it from being used in future nuclear weaponry coalesced in both the U.S. and Russia in the early 1990’s. The debate over how to pursue disposition was long and contentious, and has remerged following decades of failed and stalled efforts.

While the surplus weapons plutonium was viewed as a threat by nuclear nonproliferation advocates, it was also viewed as an economic opportunity by communities in the shadows of some traditional nuclear weapons production industrial sites like the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina, the Pantex Plant in Texas, and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho. In Carlsbad, New Mexico, the prospect of jobs for disposing the tremendous volumes of plutonium-contaminated Cold War waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) created a new community ally for Department of Energy (DOE) disposition schemes.

Prior to disposition, surplus plutonium needed to be stored. In the Central Savannah River Area (CSRA), SRS community boosters accepted the proposal to centralize surplus plutonium storage for up to fifty years at the site. But the local expectation in exchange for this acceptance of mere storage included operational jobs, mostly in the form of a plutonium fuel production plant that would convert the excess plutonium into commercial fuel for nuclear power plants.

This form of plutonium fuel is called Mixed Oxide fuel, or MOX, because it mixed plutonium and uranium oxides. In the 1990’s and through the early 2010’s, MOX was viewed as a “sword to plowshares” program by the Atoms For Peace lobby that began in the early 1950’s.

The Pu/MOX fuel plant was one of many promised by the Department of Energy (DOE), and SRS boosters wanted the whole package. In addition to the MOX fuel plant, which was most coveted, DOE dangled three other facilities in its plutonium storage and processing bonanza package:

  • An Actinide Packaging and Stabilization Facility (APSF) to store non-pit plutonium including metals, alloys, and powders; and provide a means of stabilization if necessary.
  • A Plutonium Immobilization Plant (PIP) that would dilute the plutonium with inert materials and isolate it within the massive stainless steel canisters of glassified waste at SRS’s Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF). The glassified, or vitrified, waste at DWPF is the end product from the conversion of unstable, highly radioactive sludge contained in dozens of underground, million gallon waste tanks housing decades of waste generated by plutonium production.
  • A Plutonium Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF) to disassemble sealed plutonium pits, separate the classified pit parts, and convert the plutonium within to an declassified, powdered oxide form.

    Across the CSRA, every local government body issued resolutions in support of plutonium missions at SRS. Rallies were held and mail-in post card campaigns drew thousands of participants. Some regional opposition to these 21st century plutonium central proposals existed in distant environs such as Columbia, Savannah, and Atlanta, but local dissent was largely viewed and treated as heresy.

    Local Chambers of Commerce predictably joined forces to issue a unified message in support of SRS, and other groups ranging from the local NAACP to the North Augusta City Council followed their lead and endorsed identical resolutions. Within their resolutions endorsing “major plutonium missions for the Savannah River Site,” the Aiken and North Augusta Chambers of Commerce included one statement that is unlikely to be repeated today:

    “…the Savannah River Site has produced approximately 40 percent of all the US weapons grade plutonium over the last 45 years and has safety handle plutonium in glovebox processing equipment with no adverse impact on workers, the public, or the environment.”
1998 Aiken Chamber of Commerce resolution in support of plutonium work at Savannah River Site.. Identical resolutions were adopted by the North Augusta Chamber of Commerce, Aiken Chapter of the NAACP, Aiken County Council on Technical Education, Barnwell County Council, the Lower Savannah Council of Industry, North Augusta City Council, and the Savannah River Regional Diversification Initiative


Whereas comments of support from U.S. Senators Strom Thurmond and Fritz Hollings and Aiken County Council cited a the history of “safe” plutonium operations at SRS—without every defining “safe”—the Chamber of Commerce resolution took the further step of claiming no harm to workers, people outside the gates, or our environment.

Much has changed since 1998. CSRA communities and the State of South Carolina became increasingly wary of DOE’s plans after the cancellation of the APSF (2000), the PIP (2002), the PDCF (2007), and finally the treasured MOX plant (2018). Instead of modern buildings, SRS was left with operational facilities that are now nearly seventy years old, and an unfinished plutonium/MOX fuel plant.

DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which took over the management of the remaining nuclear weapons program at the turn of the century, salvaged much of the lost goodwill by promising to convert the unfinished plutonium/MOX plant into a new plutonium pit production facility. The plan is to make 50 new plutonium pits per year, mostly for new nuclear weapon designs, even as DOE/NNSA proposes to discard ~500 pits per year for the next twenty years.

Even with the prospect of pit production, the loss of the MOX plant was the last straw at the Capitol, and the loss of production work soured the taste of top officials for the relatively benign mission of long-term plutonium storage. As described in SRS CAB Might Stop Snubbing Barnwell and Allendale Counties, in the years of litigation and lobbying that resulted in the the state’s $600 million plutonium settlement with DOE, politicians who rarely uttered a negative word about SRS suddenly expressed trepidations about the prospects of becoming a “plutonium dump.”

In pursuit of the largest slice of the plutonium settlement pie, the Aiken Municipal Development Commission, which included Aiken Chamber of Commerce President David Jameson, sent letters to the Aiken state legislative delegation suggesting there was harm done from seventy years of special nuclear materials work at SRS:

“There is no debate that due to 70 years of SRS operations, Aiken County and the City of Aiken share the greatest impact and risk in South Carolina. Aiken County serves as the home of virtually all the 35 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste which is a result of the production of nuclear materials such as plutonium. The liquid waste is stored in large carbon steel tanks and serves as the State of South Carolina’s #1 environnmental risk and will impact our community for decades.”

This statement provides a sharp contrast in perspectives in the two decades since local Chambers and their allies claimed no harm—a false claim DOE and its SRS contractors chose not to dispute. But it pales in comparison to the second change since 1998: the steady cascade of worker illness claims following the passage of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) in 2000. The act was passed to:

“Compensate current or former employees (or their survivors) of the Department of Energy (DOE), its predecessor agencies, and certain of its vendors, contractors and subcontractors, who were diagnosed with a radiogenic cancer, chronic beryllium disease, beryllium sensitivity, or chronic silicosis, as a result of exposure to radiation, beryllium, or silica while employed at covered facilities.”

The compensation act created new sub-bureaucracies within the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services to handle the flood of claims from former workers from across the former and current nuclear weapons complex, including SRS workers. To help navigate the bureaucracy and the complexities of radiation and toxic substance dose reconstruction, a cottage industry of health care providers emerged that promised assistance for former workers whose illnesses qualified for the program, and law firms followed suit.

The nuclear weapons workers health care companies advertise on local television stations and send out mass mailings to former employees. Some companies even set up not for profit organizations to complement their efforts, such as the now ubiquitious Cold War Patriots.

Cover for a publication from Nuclear Care Partners http://nuclearcarepartners.com, an EEOICPA specialist firm.



Since the passage of the compensation program, former SRS workers have been awarded nearly two billion dollars in claims involving more than 20,000 cases and 12, 385 workers:

“As of 01/08/2023, the total compensation paid under Parts B and E of the EEOICPA, including medical compensation, for workers suffering from the effects of having worked at the Savannah River Site is $1,913,612,814. “ (Stephens and Stephens law firm, citing Department of Labor statistics).

Department of Labor statistics for SRS compensation claims under EEOICPA.


While the nuclear weapons worker compensation program created a new business opportunity in former and current nuclear weapons complex communities, the proclamation of “no harm” by the local Chambers of Commerce was known to be false at the time.

While not well publicized, SRS and other plutonium sites medically treated workers who inhaled plutonium with a chelating agent known as Diethylene Pentacetate (DTPA). According to a 1980’s DuPont medical department pamphlet, between 1965 and 1985 “more than 235 people received more than 650 doses of DTPA” at SRS, then known as Savannah River Plant (SRP).

Savannah River Plant medical department pamphlet, circa 1985.


In other words, people were harmed on the job and had to seek medical treatment. Strom Thurmond was right when he stated, “plutonium is not a material to be handled by amateurs,” but wrong to have implied Pantex weapons workers were amateurs. Two days after the uproar in Amarillo over his comments, Senator Thurmond’s office sent a letter to SRS Manager Greg Rudy that left out the “amateurs” charge:

“Plutonium is far too volatile a material to be handled by individuals or facilities that have no experience in dealing with it.”

August 13, 1998 letter. Red block shows change in language from June 23, 1998 letter.


The local Chambers of Commerce never admitted how wrong their assertion of “no harm” was. What will the Chambers say this time as SRS is back on the docket for a proposal to import another 25-35 tons of plutonium for processing into a diluted waste.

“Plutonium is Not For Amateurs.” Part I.

————————————————————————————————————

*Disclosure : Don Moniak was a paid organizer, writer, and researcher from 1997 to 2003 for two non governmental organizations working on the plutonium disposition issue:
Serious Texans Against Nuclear Dumping, Amarillo, Texas (1997-2000); and Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (2000-2003).












January 2023, Offsite Insights, Savannah River Site

“Plutonium is Not For Amateurs” Pt 1.

6 Comments

Offsite Insights 2023-1:
Revisiting the 1998 plutonium pit debate and the day Senator Strom Thurmond insulted nuclear weapon workers in Texas.

by Don Moniak

January 18, 2023

For the first time in nearly twenty-five years, the U.S. Department of Energy is holding hearings to discuss the future of more than 12,000 “surplus” plutonium “pits” that remain in storage at the 18,000 acre Pantex Nuclear Weapons Plant near Amarillo, Texas. (1).

Plutonium pits form the primary nuclear explosives in the the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. Pits are complex, sealed pressure vessels designed to withstand hundreds of pounds per square inch of gaseous pressures without explosive tritium booster gas leaking. Within beryllium, stainless steel, aluminium, or vanadium cladding is a nested shell of materials, most notably a generally spherical, hollow ring of one to six kilograms of military grade plutonium in a subcritical configuration.

The term “pit” is a wry, Cold War term given to the sealed core of the primary nuclear explosive that is surrounded by carefully machined high explosive spheres, which, when detonated, cause the plutonium to compress, implode, go critical, and trigger a nuclear detonation. Early weapon designers compared the pit to the dry core of a fleshy fruit, as if their creations were living things providing vital sustenance.

The last time the future of surplus pits was under discussion, the Department of Energy had set off a contentious debate between two of its remaining nuclear weapons sites, the 18,000-acre Pantex plant on the open prairie of the Texas Panhandle, and the 200,000-acre Savannah River Site (SRS) hidden within extensive forestland in Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale Counties, South Carolina. At stake were hundreds of operational jobs in a plutonium pit disassembly and conversion (PDCF) facility, and thousands of construction jobs preceding operation. Also at stake was the prospect of more radioactive, toxic waste generation and environmental contamination.

It was in this context that long-time South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond set off a tempest by describing Pantex workers as “amateurs.” On June 23, 1998, Thurmond’s office released a press release in which the Senator stated the obvious:

“Plutonium is not a material to be handled by amateurs.”

Part of a Press Release from the office of Senator Strom Thurmond, June 23, 1998.


The “amateurs” statement was a clear reference to the Pantex plant, where plutonium had only been handled in “pit” form—sealed containers containing plutonium-gallium alloy designed for both malleability and long term stability. Pantex had handled plutonium in its most toxic and difficult powder form only in the case of a rare accident involving a cracked pit.

The statement was also made in the context that it was unwise to introduce plutonium processing to a facility with no plutonium processing infrastructure, expertise, or existing plutonium contamination, but that nuance was lost. Pantex workers heard “amateurs” and responded as expected, with righteous anger.

To say that Pantex weapon workers were no strangers to dangerous operations is a grave understatement. Pantex is the nation’s only nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly site, and also is the primary production site for the high explosives (HE) used in the arsenal. In 1977 an accidental detonation of HE killed three workers, an explosion that also catalyzed another round of scientific research and development into less sensitive HE.

Workers who disassembled and assembled nuclear warheads are responsible for separating or joining—or “mating”—the high explosives and the pit. This is considered the only procedure during nuclear weapons production or disarmament involving the risk of an accidental nuclear detonation—even if the risk was remote. The work is conducted in clean rooms in groups of three, one worker reading procedures and the other two workers methodically carrying the the instructions.

More probable is an accidental detonation of high explosives that would scatter radioactive debris. For this reason weapons assembly and disassembly work is conducted in massive, domed, “gravel gerties” designed to collapse if the explosion involved more than 106 pounds of high explosive and thus contain much of the dispersal of radioactive materials—-a design that meant workers would be buried alive under even if they somehow survived the explosion.

Gravel Gerties at Pantex. From Department of Energy files.
DOE file photo of nuclear weapon disassembly work at Pantex. A small electrostatic discharge during a disassembly operation in 1989 activated a tritium canister part, resulting in a release of 40,000 curies of tritium that harmed three workers and compelled DOE to shut the facility.


Pantex workers learned of Thurmond’s contemptuous barb in the days before a scheduled plutonium disposition hearing in Amarillo. On the day of the hearing, August 11, 1998, workers set up a booth where hastily made picket signs and cheap plastic buttons saying “Site PDCF at Pantex” were distributed. The table contained two handouts—a pro-Pantex letter from Amarillo Chamber of Commerce President Gary Mohlberg and the news release from Strom Thurmond’s office.

Normally more reserved, Pantex workers dominated the hearing that day, waving picket signs like it was a political convention, and taking turns at the podium. It was unlike anything ever before seen in Amarillo, all courtesy of The Department of Energy’s cynical strategy of pitting nuclear weapons production communities against each other over jobs; as well as Strom Thurmond’s fierce defense of the Savannah River Site, which received his legislative largesse for more than four decades.

Ultimately, the job of Pit Disassembly and Conversion went to SRS, as expected. But the prize was short-lived. The PDCF never progressed past the early design stage, and the pits continued to pile up at Pantex, to be stored in World War Two bunkers with little or no temperature or humidity controls.

The pits remain at Pantex, having aged another twenty five years. Pantex will only be involved in this disposition debate if no action is taken and more prolonged plutonium pit storage is required.

This time around, DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration, the “semi-autonomous” sub-agency which began controlling DOE”s downsized nuclear weapons production complex in 2002, has admitted that, at one-tenth the size of SRS and lacking in waste management infrastructure, Pantex is a poor candidate for plutonium processing—-although NNSA has still not admitted that it is a bad idea to process plutonium within a half mile to a mile of productive farmland.


Next: “Plutonium is Not for Amateurs” Pt 2: What will the Chambers of Commerce say after $billions in SRS worker compensation claims?

(1) Announcement and Opportunity to Comment.



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


City Government, January 2023, Laws & Bylaws

The City of Aiken’s Information Games, Part 3

4 Comments

Redacting “Project Pascalis.”
by Don Moniak

January 16, 2023

In 2017, following perceived reform of South Carolina’s Freedom of Information Act, the state’s top two elected officials had identical advice for the state’s civil servants: “When in doubt, disclose.”

From: The Public Official’s Guide to the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act

After The Aiken Municipal Development Commission’s (AMDC) Project Pascalis began to encounter objections and questions from concerned citizens, the City of Aiken’s FOIA officers, with the blessing of Custodian of Records and City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, more often than not chose obstruction and secrecy in response to FOIA requests.

As reported previously, city officials quietly removed the terminated Pascalis properties Purchase and Sale Agreement from its document repository on November 10, 2022. In both May and August of 2022, assistant FOIA officer and AMDC Executive Director Tim O’Briant presented, in an arguably fraudulent manner, copied and pasted search, retrieval, and redaction cost estimates as original efforts. Throughout the Pascalis development stage, the AMDC devoted nearly 2/3rds of its public meeting time to closed-door Executive Sessions.

More recently, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (1) for legal department invoices, the City of Aiken recently provided heavily censored documents in which publicly known facts are redacted. Most notable among the known facts is that Pope-Flynn law firm worked for eighteen months on the recently cancelled $100 million plus downtown demolition Project Pascalis, and that contract attorney James Holly was hired to work for the city’s Design Review Board.

The City of Aiken is not the first public body to take a heavy-handed approach to legal invoices. The California Supreme Court ruled in the 2010’s that invoices could be redacted if they contained privileged information.

But much of what was redacted by City of Aiken Solicitor Laura Jordan—and approved by Custodian of Records Stuart Bedenbaugh—is common knowledge or can be inferred. Some records were previously released in unredacted form; making this the second time in 2022 that City FOIA officers redacted basic information that had also been previously released in unredacted form.

The most notable excessive, and arguably illegal, redactions involve the Pope-Flynn law firm, which provided contract legal counsel for the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) throughout the Project Pascalis process. Pope-Flynn’s invoice for April, 2022 included Gary Pope, Jr. “attending Project Pascalis meetings in Aiken.”. Yet, the fact that the invoice was for work on Project Pascalis was redacted.

April 2022 invoice from Pope-Flynn law firm. Project Pascalis is redacted in the heading but remains in the expense listings.


Unredacted version of same invoice provided in a previous FOIA reponse



When comparing the invoice to the unredacted version, released in response to a previous FOIA response in a large electronic file titled “AMDC Financial Binder,” the following publicly known information is revealed to have been redacted:

  • The existence of relocation assistance agreements for Pascalis properties tenants. 
  • The fact that Gary Pope, Jr.  previewed “community meetings.” 
  • The  fact that there were “deal points necessary to resolve.” 
  • The fact there were “open items.”

    When redacting Pope Flynn’s October, 2021 invoice (2) City Solicitor Jordan, with Records Custodian Bedenbaugh’s blessing, chose to redact:
  • A “development agreement meeting” and “revisions to Project Pascalis Work on Development Agreement,” even though the agreement was never finalized. 
  • The fact that Gary Pope Jr had a conversation with City Attorney Gary Smith regarding “:conflict on Pascalis;” even though Pope, Jr publicly boasted about having the call at the April 20, 2022 Pascalis evening public meeting. 
  • The fact that he formatted a “table of contents.” 
  • “Resolutions and agrements for 11/9/21 AMDC meeting” that were made public on 11/9/21. 
  • The fact that a Pope-Flynn associate reviewed the Community Development Act that governs the AMDC. 

    The list of other unnecessary, excessive, and arguably illegal acts of public record censorship is long. The fact that City of Aiken officials have become accustomed to a culture of secrecy is evident by the now routine habit of hours long closed-door Executive Session. It was exemplified by Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant’s statement in early October, 2022 that “it would take a judge’s order” for the AMDC to open its books and records to public inspection.

    Footnotes:

    (1) FOIA Request 252-2022 was for:

    “A copy of all invoices for professional legal services for the City of Aiken and all City of Aiken departments, commissions, boards, and committees for the period January 1, 2021 to present (9/19/22); including any and all invoices from Smith Massey Brodie Guynn and Mayes law firm, Pope and Flynn law firms, Counsel for J. David Jameson who conducted FOIA redaction services for FOIA #155-2022, and any other invoice for legal services contracts or procurements. 2. A budget breakdown, if available, for the City Attorney for the period January 1, 2021 to present. The 2021-2022 Budget identifies only City Solicitor, Paralegal, and City Municipal Clerk salaries, with the remainder of the legal department being “operatering costs.” This information is in the public interest, as all Pope-Flynn invoices for Project Pascalis have been posted publicly at aikenmdc.org’s “public records” page. Therefore, all legal invoices are in the public interest and should be available free of charge as allowed by SC FOIA.”

(2) October 2021 Pope-Flynn Invoices










January 2023, South Carolina, South Carolina Government, Uncategorized

Don’t Mess With Carolina Gas, Oil, or Coal

1 Comment

Aiken State Representative Melissa Oremus Stands Up for Texas with Copy and Paste Legislation

by Don Moniak

January 16, 2023

South Carolina State Representatives Melissa Oremus (R-Aiken) (1) and James Burns (R- Greenville) are the sponsors of legislation that would prohibit public “investment in companies that boycott energy companies.” Specifically, the law would require South Carolina’s State Fiscal Responsibility Authority (SFRA) to prepare and maintain a list of companies that all state agencies must use to “sell, redeem, divest, or withdraw all publicly traded securities” of any financial company determined by the authority’s Executive Director to be involved in boycotting investment in fossil-fuel producing companies or companies that do business with them. 

The legislation is not just modelled on other legislative examples, it is a duplicate (2). If there were a rule against legislative plagiarism, the bill would be discarded.

.With a few fill-in-the-blank exceptions to allow for differences in South Carolina pension management, House Bill 3525 (H3525) is otherwise word-for-word identical to Chapter 809 in Texas’ Public Retirement Systems code, including provisions prohibiting lawsuits for breach of fiduciary duty, or any other claim or cause of action against government entities or employees who may cause losses to pension funds as a result of enforcing the law.

The Texas law was enacted in 2021, and quickly stirred up considerable controversy, especially after dominant financial firms such as Blackrock and Vanguard had funds listed in the fossil fuel energy company “boycotters” category by the Texas Comptroller. The law has been described as “Infowars Investing,” by free-market investment supporters, and “cancel culture from the right” in an otherwise staid analysis by Forbes contributor and Oxford University economist Robert Eccles.

The Texas law was intended to dissuade ”environmental, social, and governance” influence in the financial sector, particularly as it pertained to Texas fossil fuel energy companies. Chapter 809 mandates that the Comptroller prepare and maintain a list of companies who “boycott energy companies,” defined as:

“without an ordinary business purpose, refusing to deal with, terminating business activities with, or otherwise taking any action that is intended to penalize, inflict econonic harm on, or limit commercial relations with a company because the company engages in the exploration, production, utilization, transportation, sale, or manufacturing of fossil-fuel based energy and does not commit to meet environmental standards beyond applicable federal and state law.”

Once on the list, any government entity such as a pension program is required to meet a schedule to sell, redeem, divest, or withdraw the firm’s publicly traded securities. There are a few loopholes that allow divestment to be delayed, such as if the move “will likely result in a loss of value.”

The Texas law was intended to protect Texas fossil fuel companies, an industry that employs an estimated 450,000 workers who collectively produce 43% of the nation’s crude oil and 25% of our natural gas supplies. Because of the massive size of Texas’ public retirement systems, lawmakers sought to prohibit involvement in the system by companies deemed to be a threat to the state’s largest industries; and thus try to deter efforts to use the financial system to deprive fossil-fuel companies of investment funds.



In contrast, South Carolina is not a coal mining, oil and gas production, or refinery state. Efforts to prevent off-shore oil and gas drilling have bi-partisan support. Texas energy production is measured on the Department of Energy charts by the thousands of trillions of BTUs, South Carolina is measured by the hundreds of trillions of BTU’s. Yet, according to The Nerve, South Carolina politicians appear as adamant as their colleagues in Texas about protecting fossil fuel energy companies as Texas and coal mining states like West Virginia; but almost entirely from an ideological perspective and not one of economic self-interest.


Could Oremus (2) and Burns’ legislation mean South Carolina’s public pension fund management decisions, as they pertain to “fossil-fuel boycotting companies,” will be influenced by the Texas Comptroller’s listing decisions? Since the law does allows the divestment list to be prepared using information provided by “governmental entities,” why prepare a new list when the Texas Comptroller already has completed the task and the intent of the legislation is clearly to emulate Texas?

Footnotes

(1) An example of the word for word nature of the legislation:

The South Carolina bill:

The Texas Law:

(2) Representative Oremus declined to answer questions posed in an email. Oremus is locally notorious for conducting closed debates. She deleted her official Facebook account sometime in late 2021 or early 2022; and requires permission to comment.




In the Demolition Zone, January 2023, Project Pascalis 2022

Aiken City Council Revises AMDC Membership Ordinance

5 Comments

by Don Moniak

January 13, 2023

Yesterday afternoon, eight hours after announcing a Special Meeting for January 17th to reconsider a amended ordinance to governing the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC), Aiken City Council released a revised version of the ordinance.

As of Monday, January 9th, Council had proposed an AMDC composed of three city council members as ex-officio voting members alongside and six appointed voting commissioners. The revised, proposed ordinance abolishes the appointed commission structure and has Council assume the responsibilities of the AMDC, with all seven council members acting as ex-officio voting members.

The revised language amending Section 11-2 of Aiken Municipal Code pertaining to the AMDC.

This proposal could enable Council to more easily facilitate the transfer properties whose titles are officially held by the AMDC—but were purchased with city funds— to City of Aiken ownership and control (2). It also removes the remaining two commissioners involved with the Pascalis Project. There is no indication as to whether the AMDC would be abolished entirely if AMDC properties are transferred to city ownership and control.

The proposed ordinance is not without complications. First, as reported yesterday in Aiken City Council Stumbles on AMDC, three members of Aiken City Council have potential conflict of interests that warrant recusal from this vote and from serving as AMDC members:

  • Since the AMDC is the landlord for existing businesses remaining Pascalis properties, Mayor Rick Osbon would be a voting member of a commission whose tenants include Warneke’s Cleaners. Mayor Osbon did recuse himself from an Executive Session involving downtown property on December 12, 2022, but has yet to indicate he will recuse himself from serving as an ex-officio member. 
  • Councilman Ed Woltz owns properties on Willliamsburg Street adjacent to AMDC-owned properties, where he operates Sutton Marine. He has routinely, and appropriately, recused himself from Council matters in that vicinity in the past.
  • Councilman Ed Girardeau’s real estate firm represented the Williamsburg Street property owners and profited from its sale to the AMDC. (1)

    The second complicating factor is the role of Aiken City Attorney Gary Smith, who prepared both the January 9th ordinance and the revised ordinance, and has been advising Council on the matter. In his supporting memorandum for the revised ordinance, City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh wrote:

    “After consultation with the City Attorney, it was determined that City Council has the discretion and authority to abolish the office of commissioners for the AMDC and assume governance of the AMDC. This discretion and authority is granted pursuant to S.C. Code 1976 Section 31-10-40, et seq.
    This amended ordinance will reconstitute the AMDC membership to consist of the seven members of Council as ex-officio voting members. The city manager would no longer. serve as an ex-officio non-voting member.    ”

    As reported in The Pascalis Attorneys, at least two of Mr. Smith’s law partners, particularly Attorney Ray Massey, were instrumental in acquiring the seven Pascalis properties on behalf of the first Pascalis developer, Weldon Wyatt. His partner Ray Massey also represented Wyatt’s WTC Investments, LLC when the properties were assigned to the Aiken Chamber of Commerce in May, 2021–with an option for the AMDC to purchase. 
The signature page for the amended ordinance.

A third complicating factor is the unfinished business of the AMDC. Former commissioners Keith Wood and Chris Verenes issued statements of protest on September 29th after voting to terminate key Project Pascalis documents. They further identified unresolved issues regarding “indefensible” and “inexcusable” actions by city staff in their December 9, 2022 resignation letters. To date, the City of Aiken still has not answered some basic questions posed by Wood and Verenes:

  • Who approved delaying publication of a Request for Proposals until ten days after the selection of a developer and the signing of the Purchase and Sale Agreement for the Pascalis project properties? 
  • What was the official reason for the delay? 
  • Why are most Aiken City Council members refusing to meet with the former commissioners to discuss these matters? 

    After at least three hours of closed-door sessions in the past month, Aiken City Council continues to alter its course on the future of properties owned by its municipal development commission. Are they moving forward, backwards, or sideways?

Footnotes:

(1) The purchase of 102, 112, and 114 Williamsburg Street, SE, kown as the “Jackson Petroleum Property,” using Community Development Block Grant funds obtained from the City of Aiken was approved by the AMDC on November 17, 2020. The AMDC’s

Closing documents pertaining to that transaction were obtained by Aiken resident Kelly Cornelius via Freedom of Information Act requests.

According to the Settlement Statement, RE/MAX Tattersall Group earned a $14,000 commission from the sale of the Jackson Petroleum property on Williamsburg Street to the AMDC.

Councilman Ed Girardeau served on the AMDC as an ex-officio member through August, 2020, before being replaced by City Council appointees after the AMDC membership rules were amended to provide governance by a nine-person appointed commission. While he was not a member when the commission voted to authorize purchase of the property, he was a member when redevelopment of the property was first discussed on June 2, 2020.


The law firm of Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Mayes was the settlement agent in the transaction. When the Purchase and Sale Agreement was signed in November, 2020, Gary Smith was the official city counsel to the AMDC.

2. Below is the deed for 106 Laurens St, SW, in which the owner, the AMDC, is defined as a body politic and corporate and political subdivision of the State of South Carolina. So even though it is wholly funded by the City of Aiken (minus rental income), the AMDC is technically a distinct, separate entity from the City of Aiken.