Category Archives: Freedom of Information

City Government, Drinking water, Freedom of Information, June 2025

Aiken, S.C. + Drinking Water = Brown Water + Parallel Health Hazards

8 Comments

By Robert A. Leishear, PhD, PE, ASME Fellow   

June 30, 2025  

Living in Aiken, I routinely observe the failures of our government to protect public safety in our water system.

From June 25, 2025 through June, 29, 2025 (and continuing), widespread complaints about ‘brown water’ were reported by Aiken residents. By reading local newspapers, everything seems to be okay, but I fiercely disagree. The Aiken Standard reported that “Discolored Water Is Still a Problem for Aiken Customers.” After four days, Aiken is still flushing out the muck from water mains but not addressing the real problems.

Heat has Mistakenly been Blamed for Brown Water

Heat has been blamed as a primary cause of recent discolored water (“Discolored water reported throughout Aiken as extreme heat takes toll.”). However, temperatures are slightly hotter this year than last year (“Weather History in Aiken“), when brown water was not so large a problem (see Figure 1). In short, surges of brown water complaints drastically increased in August 2022, July 2023 and May 2025, but not during the summer of 2024. Temperature and hot weather are clearly not a driver for brown water increases. Water hammer provides an explanation for these three incidents and smaller incidents throughout the years, where such hammers are created by operating pumps and valves.

A new water system was being placed in service, and a water hammer during startup may have blasted corrosion debris loose throughout the system. That is, a possible cause of Aiken brown water on June 25, 2025, was operator error, rather than weather or infrastructure improvements. Confirmation data is unavailable to the public at present. Aiken staff may not even be aware of the possibility or occurrence of a water hammer, since hammers are frequently not heard when pipes are securely fastened and cannot bang when hammered.

Facing Our Government Again

Accordingly, I sent the following unanswered letter to the Aiken Mayor and all members of the City Council.

“We have serious problems that are not being addressed for the Aiken water supply. Please note the conclusion below: ‘In conclusion, Aiken breaks our mains and then blames residents if they are poisoned.’

Aiken Brown Water and Parallel Health Hazards (6/7/2025)

Although brown water in the Aiken drinking water supply is generally considered to be reasonably safe, water hammers that generate rust in our drinking water continue in Aiken, and those same water hammers endanger our drinking water safety. Aiken is spending tax dollars to fix the symptoms of health problems and health problems accelerate. Aiken needs to stop damaging our water system to protect our health.

On June 23, 2025, an Aiken City Council meeting promoted more money for unidirectional flushing, which effectively washes away rust in water mains. This method flows water into fire hydrants and flushes rust out through the next closest fire hydrant. Aiken is even installing more hydrants to increase the flow rates between some hydrants to remove more rust from our water mains.

Published by commercial water companies, brown water is claimed to not present a health hazard, since iron in rust is not a health hazard, and small quantities of detrimental manganese in rust are not usually present in high enough concentrations during brown water events to affect health. In other words, the brown water problem can be washed out of sight, but the acceleration of brown water creation hammers forward.

Peer reviewed publications and supporting scientific research prove that Aiken is not addressing the primary cause of rust in water mains, where water hammer creates brown water, or rust, in water mains (“Water Hammer Causes Water Main Breaks“). Basically, the operations of water pumps, industrial valves and fire hydrants cause high-pressure shock waves in water mains that travel throughout the city to crack water mains and generate rust in those cracks, and subsequent hammers disperse brown water to residents.

Until we stop the water main breaks in Aiken, we will have more cracks, more rust, more brown water, and more water main breaks (“Aiken, S.C. Officials Destroy Our Water System and Endanger Our Lives and Health“, “Money is Gone in My Home Town of Aiken, and the Water Main Breaks Keep on Coming“, and “Water Main Breaks Will Continue in Aiken“).

Far more importantly, water main cracks increase lead poisoning and infectious diseases in drinking water (“Our Water Mains Contaminate Us with E. Coli, Lead and Copper – Illness and Death Follow“, peer reviewed). Aiken officials have joined other cities to refuse to further investigate and stop these significant health hazards (“A One-Man-Fight Against Small Town and U.S. Water Main Breaks”).

A 2024 City of Aiken Water Report [that was a flyer delivered to customers] described water treatment before water enters water mains. Also, Aiken tests and [reports]’ ‘drinking water once per year or less, but Aiken tests 60 locations daily per the Aiken Mayor, but Aiken does not specifically check water from water mains after known water hammer events. Also, there are 22,000 connections to the water supply, and Aiken does not yet know where all of the lead pipes are located for customers. At present, lead contamination levels throughout Aiken are not known. In other words, we do not know when all of our water is safe or not.

In that report, Aiken stated that we, the Aiken residents, “share the responsibility for protecting [ourselves] and [our] family from lead”. In conclusion, Aiken breaks our mains and then blames residents if they are poisoned.

The Facts of Aiken Water Main Destruction

A parallel unanswered letter was sent only to the Aiken Mayor to provide further technical basis for these claims.

Aiken Keeps Breaking Our Drinking Water Supply (6/27/2025)

Evidence in Figures 1 to 3 below clearly proves that Aiken brown water complaints, water main breaks, and city-owned water system leaks continually rise. With respect to brown water complaints, Aiken is unnecessarily destroying the Aiken water system. That is, brown water is caused by water hammers, as I testified as an Expert Witness in Talbert vs. American Water in 2023. Aiken fails to protect our water system and fails to protect our health.

Figure 1. Brown water complaints caused by water hammers – mostly preventable – June 25, 2025 major complaint surge not shown since data is not yet publicly available. (Image by Leishear Engineering, LLC)  Details   DMCA
Figure 2. Aiken water main breaks caused by water hammers – mostly preventable.
(Image by Leishear Engineering, LLC) Details  DMCA
Figure 3. Aiken city-property leaks caused by water hammers – mostly preventable.’
(Image by Leishear Engineering, LLC) Details   DMCA
Data for these three figures was obtained from Donald Moniak (“City of Aiken, Water Main Breaks“).
Zero values in the figures indicate that data was unavailable.

The Coverup Continues

Once again, I suggested to the Aiken Mayor that we meet to work together to improve the Aiken water system. I received no response (“Aiken Coverups and New Scientific Advances in Water Main Breaks“). After sending the above letters, I sent the following unanswered letter to the Mayor of Aiken.

“City Council Workshop? (6/28/2025)

Perhaps you would now be willing to discuss the problems with our water main system. In my [professional] opinion Aiken staff does not have a clear understanding of how they are damaging our water system. My extensive experience and extraordinary education can help them accomplish success with respect to brown water, water main breaks, lead poisoning, and disease transmission.”

Water Hammer as the Brown Water Cause

Aiken is working ‘around the clock’ to fix this problem, but they are a likely cause of this problem in the first place. In my nearly 35 years of water hammer experience, I have learned that sometimes the largest water hammers – and the most damage to water systems – occur during startups of new facilities, similar to the June 25th case considered here.

In such cases, pressures can be near 1,000 pounds per square inch in 100-pound-per-square-inch water systems, which could certainly break loose a lot of rust to create brown water. From the scant information that is publicly available, such a water hammer is possible, but further information is needed from Aiken.

A possible cause was a ‘scheduled shutdown’ ‘to connect the new water plant to the water main’. In fact, ‘the water main at US 1 and the water plant underwent a scheduled shutdown last night [the night of June 24, 2025] to connect the new water plant to the water main (.cityofaikensc.gov/alerts).’ This situation provided the conditions for one of the largest potential water hammers within the Aiken water supply. A Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) was submitted for closure of this water hammer concern, as follows.

FOIA Request (6/28/25)

Please provide SCADA, or other electronic data, plus log book entries, and any other pertinent operations, maintenance, and construction data for June 24-26, 2025 for the new water plant near Highway 1. I would like to see if operations at this plant caused the recent brown water event in Aiken.

Additional detailed information was submitted in a subsequent FOIA to better understand operations at US1 prior to the brown water fiasco.

In my professional opinion, a brown water incident of this magnitude was initiated by a high-pressure water hammer. As soon as the facts are available from Aiken, the sooner this brown water mess can be resolved, where many residents are affected and restaurants have closed (“Aiken water troubles impact local business“).

In this developing story, the Mayor of Aiken stated that they are working ‘continually’, as of 5/27/2025 to correct brown water (“City of Aiken Discolored Water Release“) Even so, an investigation of a possible water hammer related to this significant brown water incident, and other certain brown water incidents, should be investigated. The only obstacle between me and the truth of this brown water fiasco is the Aiken government.

There are many Aiken brown water complaints on the internet. One such complaint provided the following June 26, 2025 photo. Another such complaint noted that Aiken Regional Hospital was affected, but the hospital would not confirm or deny.

Figure 4. An example of Aiken brown water.
(Image by By permission of Nikki Livermore)
   Details   DMCA

This brown water problem has affected much of Aiken. Brown water has been reported in downtown Aiken, the north side of Aiken, the West side of Aiken, and the south side of Aiken. Sen so, I live on the South side of Aiken, and we have good water quality, i.e. no brown water at all.

Will Aiken Ever Stop Damaging Our Water Mains?

In an effort to address the current brown water situation in Aiken, I sent the following unanswered Letter of Request to the Aiken Mayor and City Manager, including a copy of Figure 1.

“June 25, 2025 – Possible Brown Water Cause (6/28/2025)

Would your staff show me what they did at US 1 on the night of June 24th to remove the water main to the plant from service. If so, we should be able to determine the cause of the current brown water situation, which would prevent future occurrences? High demands cannot explain the fact that there were spikes in brown water complaints during 2022, 2023, and 2025, but not 2024, where summer temperatures were comparable each year. Water hammer from operations at US 1 can provide such an explanation.”

Along with the following letter, a link to this Op Ed was forwarded to the Aiken Mayor, City Manager, and City Council immediately after publication of this Op Ed.

“Please Stop Breaking Our Drinking Water Supply (June 29. 2025)

The following Op Ed was published today, “Aiken, S.C. + Drinking Water = Brown Water + Parallel Health Hazards”. Comments are welcome.

For the past six years, I have asked Aiken officials to stop water hammers. As I have previously published, water hammers create increasing rust, increasing cracks, increasing brown water, and increasing water main breaks; and water hammers contribute to infectious diseases and lead poisoning in water supplies. Yet, you continue to hammer our Aiken water system to cause increasing damage.”

The Lead Question and the June 25, Brown Water Fiasco

I hesitate to address this issue since all of the facts are not yet available, but this issue is too important to ignore. Assuming that a major water hammer started at US 1, that pressure wave had the ability to travel to many parts of the system in seconds. In such a case, lead from lead service lines to older homes could induce lead poisoning into drinking water.

Disclaimer

This Op Ed is based on available information and is subject to change as information is made available. Access to information is hindered. I emailed the City Manger a simple question about how many brown water complaints have been received, and rather than answer, he responded that I should fill out an FOIA request, which can take up to 10 days for response. Guessing what information has been withheld from the public limits a public understanding of how this brown water fiasco unfolded. Aiken refuses to discuss this issue to improve our water system.

As a foremost expert in water main failures, I have raised serious public health concerns, but I am blocked by Aiken government. In fact, I invented peer-reviewed theories to explain brown water creation and water main failures that were misunderstood for the past century. These discoveries should be the backbone of this Aiken investigation but are not.

(Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on June 30,2025 in OpedNews.com)

Editorials, Freedom of Information, Local media

Sunshine Week at the Aiken Standard

4 Comments

The investigative spotlight on the City of Aiken shines dimly at the Aiken Standard. In 2024, the paper filed a single Freedom of Information Act request to the City. The total cost was $132.

by Don Moniak

March 17, 2025

This week marks an annual media celebration known as Sunshine Week, described at sunshineweek.org as a collaboration that “shines a light on the importance of public records and open government.” All across the country, newspapers run op-eds touting their investigative performances at exposing malfeasance, corruption, and irregularities in government and business.

Central to these investigative efforts involving government is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which also serves as a motivation for the government to create a larger domain of publicly accessible information.

For example, Section 30-4-30(D) of South Carolina’s FOIA requires several categories of information, such as public meeting minutes, to be made publicly available without a FOIA request. Compliance with that legal provision can be achieved if the “public body places the records in a form that is both convenient and practical for use on a publicly available Internet website.” Thus, local governments routinely archive meeting minutes and agendas, which are readily accessible online.

When it comes to espousing its dedication to sunshine, the Aiken Standard is no exception, previewing its participation with a quarter-page ad in its own newspaper. The ad features a photo of the Hotel Aiken, boasts of the paper’s efforts to expose the costs of Project Pascalis, and implores people to contribute to its investigative fund. (Figure 1).


The ads were supplemented with an op-ed by Executive Editor John Boyette touting the Aiken Standard’s and North Augusta Post and Courier’s past investigations, citing “stories ranging from Aiken’s downtown redevelopment efforts to the issues surrounding Wagener’s fire department. We’ve also investigated illegal bus searches along Interstate 20, allegations involving North Augusta’s former football coach, and the trail of legal action involving a developer who was involved with two high-profile local projects.”

In his column, Boyette states that this year’s investigative fundraising goal is $150,000.

Figure 1: Aiken Standard’s March 13th advertisement soliciting money for its Investigative Fund. All information leading to the “expensive truth” was in the public domain and required no FOIA requests. It was common knowledge that the City spent $9.5 million in 2021 on seven downtown properties. The ad neglected the fact that $1.125 million has been recovered through the sale of the Newberry Hall property and that an undetermined amount will be recovered when the remaining properties are sold.

However, when it comes to utilizing FOIA to investigate local city government, the paper’s efforts are a mere pittance.

According to City records, the paper filed only one FOIA request (1) with the City of Aiken in calendar year 2024. The City initially estimated the cost to be $132–but later reduced that by an unidentified amount. (The FOIA request and responses were obtained through a FOIA request, and all the files can be viewed here. )

To be fair, the January 3, 2024 request was actually composed of three incongruous parts that could have been separately filed and thus tripling the number of FOIA requests made by the newspaper in 2024. The information requested included:

1. Various correspondence and records related to Project Pascalis for the months of November and December 2021; including expense reports and emails between former Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant and former Mayor Rick Osbon, Pascalis organizer and investor Ray Massey, AMDC attorney Gary Pope, and, curiously enough, Aiken Standard editor John Boyette.

The response to this request was mostly a denial of records. There were no emails found involving either Pope or Boyette, and both the Osbon and Massey emails were denied with this language:

“Emails are exempt from disclosure. S.C. Ann. Code Section 30-4-40(a)(5) and (9) provide that a public body may exempt from disclosure ‘documents of and documents incidental to proposed sales or purchases of property,’ as well as correspondence ‘relative to efforts or activities of a public body…to attract business or industry to invest in South Carolina.’”

2. A listing of all FOIA requests to the City of Aiken for calendar year 2023.

This request was completed in full.

3. “Correspondence including emails, text messages, and records of phone calls from Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant regarding Donald Moniak or Don Moniak from June 1, 2023.”

This request yielded some concrete information, but the most critical aspect of the response was a denial of email records showing that former Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant had been conducting personal business while on the City’s time clock, and had used his city email account to conduct personal legal business. :

“Emails that are exempt pursuant to S.C. Code 30-4-40(a)(7) that are correspondence or work products of legal counsel for a public body and/or any other material that would violate attorney-client relationships; (2) Emails between Mr. O’Briant and his personal legal counsel. Such communications are likely subject to attorney-client privilege in the ongoing civil lawsuit of O’Briant v. Moniak, and FOIA does not supplement or displace the applicable rules of discovery. (See Pope v. Wilson, 427 S.C. 377 (S.C. App. 2019); NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (1978); S.C. Code 30-4-40(a)(4)).”

The paper apparently did not view this transgression as worthy of a spotlight, or even a dim light bulb, even given the fact that Mr. O’Briant “abruptly departed” his position with the city just four weeks earlier.

This is hardly the only example of the Standard not conducting due diligence in its investigative reporting on city affairs. As reported in Which Project Pascalis Records Remain Hidden From Public View, on October 17, 2022, the Aiken Standard submitted a FOIA request to the City of Aiken for information about the Pascalis project. It was the paper’s only known FOIA request from 2022 and 2023 pertaining directly to Project Pascalis.

Request item #9 was for “The conditional purchase and sale agreement between the Aiken Municipal Development Commission and RPM Development Partners.”

In its response, the City also denied that request, citing the SC FOIA exemption for “Documents of and documents incidental to proposed contractual arrangements and documents of and documents incidental to proposed sales or purchases of property.”

However, on November 10, 2022, the Aiken Chronicles published Downtown Aiken Half-Price Sale, which contained a link to the $5 million Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) between the AMDC and RPM; the same PSA that the Standard had requested.

The PSA was obtained after it was inadvertently placed in the City’s online document repository on October 21, 2022, about the same time as the Standard’s FOIA request. It was removed on November 11th, the day after the Aiken Chronicles story.

Even though it was a well-read article, the Aiken Standard never reported on the very document that it had requested via FOIA, even after it became publicly available by other means—and remains available.

The paper has chosen since that time to omit from its reporting the very information it had sought via a FOIA request.

Footnote

(1) No answer was made by the Aiken Standard to an email query to confirm the existence of only one FOIA request in one year.

Aiken County Government, Development Issues, Freedom of Information, House of Raeford Chicken Plant, November 2024

The Chicken Plant Grants 

5 Comments


According to information obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the South Carolina Department of Agriculture (SCDA), Aiken County was awarded a $6 million grant by SCDA for the purpose of helping to develop the proposed House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant. Had it been finalized, the grant would have supplemented a probable $10 million grant from the federal government to House of Raeford. The existence of the Aiken County grant and the details of the federal grant proposal were never disclosed. Had the project proceeded, the proposed House of Raeford plant near Exit 22 would have received $16 million in direct public subsidies in addition to discounted tax, water, and sewer rates.

by Don Moniak
November 16, 2024

Two weeks after Aiken County Council opted not to move forward on a tax incentive package for the House of Raeford chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant, aka Project Sunny, the Aiken Standard published an editorial by South Carolina Agriculture Commissioner Hugh Weathers that criticized the Council and took a swipe at Aiken County in general for allowing Project Sunny to fail.

Weathers asserted that “the Aiken community will “miss out on the pride that comes from supporting local farmers,” while further stating that Council Council “let their constituents down in failing to gather all the facts;” and that “I’ve heard a lot of misinformation about this project, and I’m disappointed that council never provided an opportunity for the public to learn the facts and weigh the pros and cons.” 

What Commissioner Weathers neglected to mention is that the Agriculture Department, the House of Raeford, County Council, the City of Aiken, and the Western Carolina Economic Development Partnership kept the public totally in the dark by failing to provide any information on Project Sunny until opposition to the effort emerged and rapidly grew.

Instead, Project Sunny’s “sponsor” was kept secret until it could no longer be hidden. Only then did House of Raeford and its allies in state government mount what turned out to be a belated, and ultimately futile public relations campaign to try to salvage the project—a campaign that began with a “flowery” presentation to Aiken City Council held during a closed-door Executive Session that should have been on the regular meeting agenda and held in full public view.

In retrospect, Weathers’ frustration at Council’s reticence to disclose any of the facts concerning the project, though not his unnecessary barbs, seems a bit rational because prior to any opposition Project Sunny was a sure bet; and a traditionally opaque approval process was the best means towards winning that bet.

This is evidenced by two grant proposals totaling $16 million that were either barely discussed or not discussed at all during the debate. 

First, there was a $10 million grant proposal by House of Raeford in November 2023, assisted by the Agriculture Department, to the federal subsidy program known as the Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program (MPPEP). The existence of a possible $10 million grant was referenced in a WJBF story and an Aiken Standard report, but no details were ever offered.

Second, on February 14, 2024, Aiken County submitted an application for a $6 million state grant to the South Carolina Department of Agriculture’s Growing Agribusiness Fund—which was funded by a $40 million legislative allocation in 2023. The County’s grant proposal, which was never publicly disclosed, included House of Raeford financial data—assets, revenues, profits, and costs—that was absent from the federal grant application.  

The application shows that, contrary to Commissioner Weathers’ assertions, Aiken County government was very well informed about the project details, including water and sewer demands of at least 33.8 million gallons per month—amounts quite similar to the estimates first implied in January 2024 when the City of Aiken sought a generic rate discount for water and sewer use for major users of its utilities.

Aiken County’s grant proposal also displayed knowledge that House of Raeford’s Aiken plant would not only replace its increasingly controversial West Columbia plant, but it would also double the capacity of chickens processed– up to 57 million per year at a rate of up to 1.3 million per week. The doubling of capacity was also known to be dependent upon the creation of 260 new chicken houses to raise broiler chickens, with upwards of 80 new or expanded growers needed to operate the new facilities—a fact that was greatly and inexplicably underreported during the March-April debate period.

Just twelve days after submitting its proposal, Aiken County was awarded the grant by the “Agriculture Agribusiness Infrastructure Incentives Distribution Initiative Panel” during the panel’s Feburary 26, 2024 meeting.

The two grant proposals and the award to Aiken County suggest that the House of Raeford plant was a done deal prior to two unexpected events: a sewer capacity shortfall and a strong public opposition movement—especially from nearby residents.

County Council Vice-Chair Andrew Siders, who, along with County Chair Gary Bunker, were directly lobbied by Governor Henry McMaster (Figure 1) in early April of 2024, would later tell the Aiken Standard that the opposition was “overwhelming,” a sentiment echoed by County Councilman Phil Napier; who represents the district where the plant was proposed to be located.

Figure 1. Emails between state government officials, House of Raeford executive Jantzen Bradley, and lobbyist Tony Denny.
The calls occurred two weeks before the Second Reading of a Fee in Lieu of Taxes (FILOT) Ordinance that would have provided tax rate discounts that can be viewed on Page 17 of the County’s Grant Proposal. The details of the FILOT agreement were never made public during the two months it was in Council’s legislative process. The FILOT agreement failed, at least for one year, after Council opted to not move the Ordinance forward during the Second Reading, which can be heard from a link in The Chicken Plant Tapes. (Email obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.)


The Chicken Plant Location

The two grant applications collectively revealed the location in the northern portion of Aiken County, near I-20’s Exit 22, was based primarily on two factors.

First, it is within 60 miles of most of the company’s existing 80 chicken broiler house growers that supply its current needs.

Second, Aiken County was described in the MEPPA grant application as being “in a rural western/central region of South Carolina, away from major metropolitan areas. This region is represented by rural, underserved, and disenfranchised populations,” (emphasis added) “nearly 13 percent of housing units are vacant,” and the cost of living in Aiken County is lower than that of Lexington County.

The company first settled on a location within Verenes Business Park, which is already zoned for industrial use. As of November 2023, the company had submitted a Letter of Intent (LOI) to purchase the former Avara Pharmaceuticals properties and building on Windham Boulevard.

The site is just south of an undeveloped 146-acre tract owned by the City of Aiken that would have provided a visual screening from the Interstate. However, it is also only a third of a mile upwind from the closest homes in the Taylor Ridge neighborhood, which is composed of quarter to half-million dollar homes on 2-5 acre lots.

The Avara properties total 24.1 acres and the main building is approximately 170,000 square feet, which corresponds to the estimated 165,000+ square foot facility size identified in the County’s grant application, as well as in subsequent reports. The offering price was $12 million, and closing was anticipated for April 2024. 

According to an email from Will Williams of the Western Carolina Economic Development Partnership to a local resident, House of Raeford passed on the Avara property after “they determined they could ‘settle’ but not be able to get exactly what they wanted.” Another issue raised in the Williams email was that “I didn’t want odor nor feathers on Windham Blvd”—legitimate issues raised by chicken slaughterhouse opponents.

By the time the County’s grant application was submitted to SC Department of Agriculture, the location had changed to an 87-acre parcel along East Frontage Road next to the existing Shaw plant. This site is generally upwind from more than 100 homes along Old Camp Long Road—the closest being only 1,000 feet— and at least thirty properties in a newly developed area known as Big Branch Farms, where lot sizes range from 5-25 acres. It was to be three miles generally downwind, but close enough to be of concern, to the Summer Lakes neighborhood and the older Millbrook neighborhood.

Clearly, House of Raeford’s due diligence that led to a conclusion that the “region was rural, underserved, and disenfranchised” was undermined by the fact that the area is increasingly dotted with suburban and exurban developments of Aiken, as well as Augusta and Lexington, within an older mix of farms and mixed-income neighborhoods. In fact, instead of a chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant, a suburban-style subdivision is now planned for the East Frontage Road site.

In its search for a more suitable rural setting than West Columbia, House of Raeford instead chose an area undergoing steady residential growth. Instead of looking at its own demographics research deficiencies, the company and its allies in state government blamed the failure of the project on public “misinformation.”

Avara Plant site, with one-mile downwind radius indicated
East Frontage Road site, with one-mile downwind radius indicated

(Feature photo: Concept design of the exterior of the chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant contained in the County’s grant application).

City Government, Freedom of Information, July 2024, Legal

An “Abrupt Departure” and A Defunded and Disbanded Department

10 Comments

On December 5, 2023; then-City of Aiken Economic Development Director Timothy O’Briant was terminated by City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh. By day’s end the termination was classified as a voluntary resignation.

Six months after O’Briant’s abrupt departure, Aiken City Council approved a Fiscal Year 2024-2025 budget that defunded and disbanded the four-year old Economic Development department.

by Don Moniak
July 3, 2024
(updated July 26, 2024)

On December 5, 2023, former Aiken Economic Development Director Timothy O’Briant reportedly resigned, without notice, from his position with the City of Aiken. It was the City’s most notable high-level employee departure since City Manager John Klimm resigned in early 2018.

The resignation occurred nearly three years after the Aiken Standard had dubbed O’Briant as the “Economic Development Czar.” In his other capacity of Executive Director of the Aiken Municipal Development Commission, O’Briant was the primary orchestrator of Project Pascalis; perhaps the most controversial, and certainly the most ill-fated and expensive, economic redevelopment plan in City of Aiken history.

In a brief January 8, 2024, story on O’Briant’s new position as Administrator for the City of Pickens, SC, Aiken Standard reporter Matthew Hensley noted that “O’Briant didn’t discuss his abrupt departure from Aiken city government on Dec. 5 or some of the circumstances that preceded it, an arc that stretched from the controversy surrounding the failed Project Pascalis to the mayor he served, Rick Osbon, meeting his ouster in Teddy Milner.”

As explained in Much More than a Figurehead, city employees serve at the pleasure of the Aiken City Manager. Neither the Mayor nor the rest of City Council can legally interfere in personnel matters, except “for the purposes of investigation and inquiry.” Mr. O’Briant was not an exception to this aspect of Aiken Municipal Code; he did not answer directly to the Mayor of Aiken or to City Council as a whole.

Records obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (1) to the City of Aiken provide insights into an eight-month chain of events in 2023 that led City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh to compel Tim O’Briant to abruptly depart the City’s payroll.

The paper trail shows that, prior to submitting his resignation letter on December 5, 2023, Mr. O’Briant was asked to resign by City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh. The justification for this action was that O’Briant had used the power of his official position to obtain city property, in this case a city security surveillance video, and then used it for personal use in a private lawsuit. Bedenbaugh alleged the video was obtained under false pretenses; an assertion that was vigorously challenged by O’Briant.

However, the mere use of a city record for personal gain is a violation of the City’s Employee Handbook; in which the Code of Ethics mandates that employees “refrain from using their positions for personal gain and keep confidential all information not available to all citizens that is acquired by virtue of their position.”

Furthermore, Section 2-3 of the Aiken Municipal Code states that:

It shall be unlawful for any person to take any record from any municipal office of the city, without the consent of the officer having control of such records.

When O’Briant failed to resign, Mr. Bedenbaugh, who is the officer with final say over city records, terminated him. Only five minutes after Bedenbaugh notified City Council of his termination decision, O’Briant submitted a resignation letter to Bedenbaugh. Later in the day, he emailed Bedenbaugh to dispute the claim that he’d surreptitiously obtained the confidential city property, and cc’ed that email to City Council. By the end of the day, Bedenbaugh had agreed to reclassify the departure as a voluntary resignation.

The next day, O’Briant wrote to Bedenbaugh to request a severance pay package. His email contained an implied threat of a lawsuit against the City for wrongful termination. Ultimately, a severance agreement was reached and a payout of up to $36,500 was made—although the final amount has not been confirmed.

Six months later, City Council approved the City’s Fiscal Year 2024-2025 budget. Other than carryover funds from the previous year, the Economic Development Department was defunded. The remaining staff of one was transferred back to the City Manager’s office, where economic development tasks originally were managed prior to the formation of the new department in January 2020.

The Paper Trail

The chain of events leading to Mr. O’Briant’s departure from the City payroll began on April 17, 2023. The information is presented in chronological order, but the full chronology—particularly the events prior to April 27, 2023—was not fully known until mid-May 2024.
(Updated July 26, 2024 with additional documentation obtained since Jun3 1, 2024.

April 17, 2023. After receiving an unwritten request, City of Aiken IT Director Robert Popenhagen provided O’Briant with security surveillance video footage of City Council chambers from Council’s April 10th meeting. The request was made in-house, not via a written FOIA request made as a private citizen.

(The South Carolina Freedom of Information Act (SC FOIA) specifically identifies such security surveillance video as not subject to public disclosure; it does not even qualify as a public record under FOIA:

“ Information relating to security plans and devices proposed, adopted, installed, or utilized by a public body, other than amounts expended for adoption, implementation, or installation of these plans and devices, is required to be closed to the public and is not considered to be made open to the public under the provisions of this act.” (SC 30-4-20(c))

Indeed, in response to FOIA requests, the City has at least twice cited this provision when denying public access to City Council Chambers surveillance videotapes.)

In a brief April 17th email exchange with O’Briant, Popenhagen also referred a second unwritten request from O’Briant for body camera footage of the post-adjournment period of the April 10th meeting to Aiken Public Safety (Figure 1).

Twenty minutes later (Figure 2, paragraph one), O’Briant filed a FOIA request to the City, from a private email account, for the body camera footage, asking that it be preserved “as potential evidence in pending or imminent civil litigation” (Figure 2, paragraph two).

April 21, 2023. Aiken City Solicitor Laura Jordan, who serves as the City’s FOIA Officer, denied the FOIA request. Since SC law only allows release of body camera footage by law enforcement agencies, she also referred O’Briant to the Aiken Department of Public Safety, (Figure 2, paragraph 3).

Figure 1. Email from IT Director Robert Popenhagen pertaining to the availability of body camera footage from the April 10th City Council meeting. Prior to this email, Popenhagen had provided O’Briant, in his official position, with security surveillance video footage of the meeting. There was no FOIA request filed. Six months later, Aiken City Manager would assert in a response to an actual FOIA request that city staff did not intend to convey the video for O’Briant’s personal use (see Figures 3 and 4).

Under SC FOIA, surveillance footage such as this is specifically “required to be closed.” Access to such video could provide parties with malicious intent with critical insights on security vulnerabilities. (click to enlarge)

Figure 2. Response to FOIA request made by Tim O’Briant, that includes the original request. SC Code 23-1-240(G)(1) states that “Data recorded by a body-worn camera is not a public record subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.” SC 23-1-240(G)(5) allows for certain private parties to obtain body camera footage, “pursuant to the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure, the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, or a court order.” These parties include “a person who is the subject of the recording,” and “a civil litigant if the recording is relevant to a pending civil action.”

The definition of a “pending” civil action is a lawsuit that has been filed, but is still in the litigation process. There is no mention of “imminent” civil action in the SC Code. As such, O’Briant arguably had no statutory right to the body camera footage, as there was no “pending” civil action, and he was not the subject of the footage. However, the law does provide some discretion to law enforcement agencies. (click to enlarge)


April 27, 2023. O’Briant vs Moniak and Eureka Research, LLC was filed in the Second Judicial Circuit’s Court of Common Pleas. The lawsuit alleged slander and libel, in part based on discussions made during the post-adjournment period of the April 10th meeting. City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh assured City Council in an email that the lawsuit was filed as a private individual, and not as a city employee (The Complaint and subsequent filings are available at O’Briant vs Moniak et al).

(Updated, 7/26/24: In responses to two FOIA requests, City Solicitor Jordan acknowledged withholding emails between O’Briant and his personal attorney that involved the lawsuit; meaning that O’Briant was conducting personal business of a legal nature though his city email account—-see Footnote 1).

November 3, 2023. The surveillance video footage (3) of the April 10, 2023, Aiken City Council meeting was introduced and shown by the Plaintiff during the Defendant’s Deposition.

November 13, 2023. A Freedom of Information Act request was filed for the following city records:

“1. Copy or copies of the City of Aiken’s protocol, procedure, rule, or any other record that governs usage, distribution, availability, retention, and disposition of City of Aiken Municipal Building surveillance videos, including but not limited to Aiken City Council Chambers.

2. A copy of any subpoena, request for information , and/or FOIA request for all of, or part of, the surveillance video of Aiken City Council April 10, 2023 public meeting, taken from the back of near the back side of the room and facing Council.

3. A copy of the chain of custody record, letter of transfer, or any other record detailing the process by which the April 10, 2023 surveillance video of City Council Chambers, both during and/or after its public meeting, was provided to the law offices of John Harte.”

November 27, 2023. Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh personally responded to the FOIA request by writing that O’Briant had obtained the video without divulging his intent to use it in a personal civil action (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Aiken City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh’s official response to FOIA No. 374-2023. (click to enlarge)

Tuesday, December 5, 2024.

10:46 a.m. Bedenbaugh informed City Council members that he had terminated O’Briant’s employment, “effective immediately,” due to the procurement and use of the surveillance video for personal purposes (Figure 4).

Figure 4. The email from City Manager Bedenbaugh to Aiken City Council. (click to enlarge)

10:51 a.m. O’Briant emailed a resignation letter to Bedenbaugh. (Figure 5). The Aiken Standard quoted from the letter in a report published three days later.

Figure 5. The resignation without notice letter. The City of Aiken’s Employee Handbook states that, “Any City employee resigning from their position is expected to give at least a 2 week written notice to the Department Director. In addition, the employee is expected to complete an exit interview.” (click to enlarge)

1:34 p.m. Referring to Bedenbaugh’s email to Council, City Councilman Ed Girardeau wrote to O’Briant, in part, that “ Kay left a message that she was upset and Ed’s was what the F*** is going on?” (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Email from City Councilman Ed Girardeau. “This” referred to was the email conveying the termination, as seen in Figure 4. Kay appears to refer to Councilwoman Kay Brohl, and “Ed” to Councilman Ed Woltz. (click to enlarge)

2:52 p.m. O’Briant wrote to Bedenbaugh, cc’ed to all City Council, APS Chief Charles Barranco, assistant City Manager Mary Tilton, Human Resources Director Tracy Lott, and former Mayor Rick Osbon, disputing Bedenbaugh’s version of events (Figure 7).

(Update 7/26/24. In his letter, O’Briant alleged that Bedenbaugh was aware that the video had been obtained, and had been kept fully informed of the status of O’Briant vs Moniak. More emails recently obtained via FOIA do provide some support for the latter assertion. Three emails show that O’Briant was monitoring Moniak’s FOIA requests and forwarded via email three requests (See Footnote 4 for an example).

Figure 7. Letter from Tim O’Briant to Stuart Bedenbaugh. In the letter, Mr. O’Briant argued that the surveillance video was subject to release under SC FOIA rules, even though SC FOIA specifically states that security surveillance does not qualify as a public record subject to FOIA.

However, O’Briant never filed a FOIA request for the video, but instead obtained the video via his official city position, and for personal use. As such, the only issue is whether it was obtained under a surreptitious rationale. That issue remains in dispute; a case of “he said, he said.” (click to enlarge)


5:20 p.m. Mr. Bedenbaugh bcc’ed Council that:

“After I sent the below email, I received a follow up email from Tim requesting this matter classified as a resignation and I so accept that.”

Wednesday, December 6, 2024.

8:54 a.m. O’Briant emailed Bedenbaugh with a severance package request of $35,789 (Figure 8). The email also shows that a resignation was demanded prior to the termination (paragraph two) and subsequent reclassification as a resignation; O’Briant threatened a wrongful termination lawsuit, and Bedenbaugh’s termination email to City Council was twice referred to as “defamation.” Attached was a proposed Resignation Release and Covenant that eventually served as the basis for the final severance agreement.

Figure 8. Email requesting $35, 789 severance package, a threat to sue the City, and two allegations that Bedenbaugh had defamed O’Briant. (click to enlarge)

1:52 p.m. Bedenbaugh granted a portion of the severance package request while indicating approval of a sick leave payout and six week’s severance pay required Council approval (Figure 9).

Figure 9. The granting of part of the severance pay. (click to enlarge)

By the end of the day, Mr. O’Briant had provided a signed Covenant and Release that can be viewed here.

Friday, December 8, 2023. Bedenbaugh sent a severance package agreement to O’Briant and asked to concur. A request was made to first remove a clause barring future employment (Figure 10), which was later granted.

Figure 10. Emails indicating that the City had initially proposed a “no rehire” provision. (click to enlarge)


December 11, 2023. Following the end of its regular meeting, City Council met in closed-door Executive Session. The meeting minutes state that:

“Mayor Milner stated City Council will go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 30-4-70(a)(1) and (2) of the South Carolina Code for the discussion of employment, appointment, compensation, or promotion, of a person regulated by City Council and to receive legal advice where the legal advice relates to a pending, threatened, or potential claim or other matters covered by the attorney-client privilege, settlement of legal claims, or the position of the public agency in other adversary situations involving the assertion against the agency of a claim.

“Specifically, the City Council will receive legal advice regarding the possible settlement of a threatened claim against the City.”

Present at the meeting were:

City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh
City Attorney Gary Smith
City Clerk Sara Ridout
Assistant City Manager Mary Tilton
Aiken Public Safety Director Charles Barranco
City Solicitor Laura Jordan,
IT Director Robert Popenhagen
Human Resources Director Tracy Lott.

The minutes of the meeting are sealed, as allowed by SC FOIA, but the subject was most likely the matter of O’Briant’s departure from the city payroll and the associated threat of a civil action or other legal claim against the City.

Defunding and Disbanding the Department

On June 10, 2024, Aiken City Council approved the City’s budget for Fiscal Year 2024-2025. The Economic Development Department budget showed only carryover funds from the previous year. No funds were allocated for salaries.

At City Council’s special May 5, 2024, budget work session, Councilman Ed Girardeau noted the proposed change in the City’s organizational structure (Figure 11 ). According to the meeting minutes:

“Councilman Girardeau noted the Economic Development funding over the years and the request for funding for FY 2024 – 25. He asked for an explanation of the funding for Economic Development. Mr. Bedenbaugh stated we have moved some of the expenses to the City Manager’s Office. Ms. Rooks pointed out that the $1.7 million in FY 2023-24 includes the $750, 000 for Kershaw and $400,000 for Williamsburg from Plutonium funds that was designated for Williamsburg and Kershaw Projects.”

No other Council members reportedly objected to the abrupt change in direction. There was never any subsequent discussion of the disbanding and defunding of the Economic Development Department during an additional Council work session, nor during the two public hearings leading up to Council’s approval of the budget on June 10th.

The decision to defund also meant the end of hospitality tax allocations to the Economic Development Department. The department had been entrusted with $323,458 in FY 2022-2023, and budgeted $244,955 in FY 2023-2024. (Figure 12)

Figure 11. The FY 2024-2025 approved by the Aiken City Council on June 10, 2024, showing the end of funding for the Economic Development Department. The budget can be found in the June 10, 2024 Council meeting agenda packet . (click to enlarge)

Figure 12. Portions of the Hospitality Tax budget data for the past three years. (click to enlarge)


Footnotes:

(1) This story remains incomplete due to the City’s classification of numerous emails as “exempt pursuant to S.C. Code 30-4-40(a)(7). Exemption seven pertains to “correspondence or work products of legal counsel for a public body and any other material that would violate attorney-client relationships.”

Among the email records that were exempted was correspondence, via his city email account, between “Mr. O’Briant and his personal legal counsel.” (Figure 13). (Update, 7/26/24: In the response to FOIA request 102-2024 for emails FROM O’Briant between May 1, 2023 and August 30, 2023, City Solicitor Jordan wrote that “There were 50 emails that were withheld as being exempt (due to attorney-client privilege) from disclosure. (Some) emails to and from personal counsel did involve O’Briant v. Moniak.”

Figure 13. Response to FOIA request 393-2023. Ms. Jordan would later state there were eight emails in total that were exempted from this FOIA response. The response shows that Mr. O’Briant was utilizing his city email account, and thus in his official capacity, to communicate with his attorney regarding a private lawsuit. (click to enlarge)

(2) Five FOIA requests in total were submitted in regard to, or related to, this issue; but also served as investigative material for other topics, such as the $20 million SRNL project. Links to the FOIA requests and records provided in the responses are as follows:

#373-2024

#393-2023

#403-2023.

#17-2024

#30-2024

#35-2024

#102-2024


Also, on March 5, 2024, the Author made a formal request to Aiken Public Safety, as well as questions regarding the tapes, for access to the body camera footage. Two months later the request was resubmitted and subsequently honored on May 13, 2024. The video, which did not validate any of the Plaintiff’s allegations, could be described as follows:

“A police officer is seen standing next to Moniak in a non-confrontational manner. The officer asked the City Manager and Mayor when the next meeting is scheduled. The answer was April 24, 2024. The officer advised Moniak that he could speak again at that time. Moniak responded, ‘sure, sure, you bet,’ and left the room peaceably.”

(3) The surveillance video could be described as:

“People milled about Council Chambers after adjournment. O’Briant and Moniak could be seen having a short discussion. Moniak approached City Council and entered into a discussion. At the same time, O’Briant departed Chambers through the private door leading to the room where Council holds Executive Sessions. Shortly thereafter, two Aiken Public Safety Officers entered the room and one approached Moniak. Another brief discussion ensued between city officials, the officer, and Moniak; who could then be seen leaving peaceably.”

(4) FOIA 181-2023 (Figure 14) was forwarded to Bedenbaugh one hour and seventeen minutes after it was filed.

Figure 14.

The responses to this FOIA were the topic of Aiken City Council Rules of Order; The story documented how two City Council members criticized another Council member via private, behind-the-back text messages; all during a public meeting.


Freedom of Information, June 2024, Savannah River Site

A Lingering, Unnecessary Secret at SRS

1 Comment

During the Summer of 2020, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) took the rare step of redacting, or censoring, four weekly reports submitted by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board’s (DNFSB) Resident Inspectors (RI) stationed at the Savannah River Site. Although not known with absolute certainty at the time that the redacted entries were related to COVID-19 impacts on site operations, the Board recently confirmed that was the case. In response to a FOIA request for unredacted reports that has been forwarded to DOE for consultation, the DNFSB also revealed that it disagreed then, and continues to disagree, with DOE’s decision to redactions portions of the four weekly reports pertaining to COVID impacts. The information to date suggests the redactions were due primarily to reporting of staffing shortages at Defense Nuclear Facilities that were sufficient enough to compromise or potentially compromise compliance with technical safety requirements for some facility operations.

by Don Moniak
June 4, 2024*

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) is the sole independent oversight agency authorized to monitor operations at the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) and other nuclear weapons complex facilities. It was chartered in 1988 “with the responsibility of providing recommendations and advice to the President and the Secretary of Energy regarding public health and safety issues at Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities.” The agency has no enforcement authority.

The DNFSB is a lean and stoic organization that achieves results through what might be described as legislatively mandated peer pressure. Perhaps its most notable oversight work at SRS was Recommendation 2012-1, which catalyzed the long-overdue effort to safely address the extreme risk from residual radioactive materials within the former Plutonium-238 processing facility known as Building 235-F.

Another major, SRS-related Board oversight effort involved the stabilization of “thousands” of containers of “plutonium-bearing liquids and solids” across the former Cold War-era weapons complex that were stored in various configurations with highly variable levels of instability. Recommendation 94-1 was enacted to address the safety deficiencies, ultimately making a key contribution to the stabilization of approximately 9.5 metric tons of plutonium prior to it being shipped to SRS for long-term storage at the site’s K Area.

Every week since 1996 the Board’s “Resident Inspectors” have submitted one-page reports to their Technical Director highlighting key safety issues at six major sites. A four to six-week gap between report submittal and public disclosure is normal, in part due to a DOE classification review. Prior to 2020, publication of reports containing classification redactions was rare to absent.

The inspectors began making reporting entries regarding Savannah River Site’s COVID-19 preparations, response, workforce status, and status of Mission Critical Programs (1) on March 13, 2020.

By April 3rd they had reported the first cases on-site. By April 17th, only thirty percent of the operational workforce (outside of the Centerra paramilitary security force) was reported to be working on site. By then, SRS had entered into a “Essential Mission Critical Operations” status, which limited personnel to “performing duties directly supporting SRS primary mission essential functions, mission essential functions, or essential supporting activities such as tritium operations and safe and secure storage in K- and L-Areas. This status will result in less than 2500 employees working at SRS.”

After eight more weeks of basic reporting, mostly involving the number of positive cases and quarantine figures, an entry in the June 12th report was classified as “Official Use Only” and redacted in full.

Figure 1. June 12, 2020 DNFSB Resident Inspector report with a highly unusual redaction of information.

There followed a more substantial, half-page redaction that accompanied the June 19th report , and short redacted paragraphs in the June 26th and July 10th reports.

A one-week gap in this censorship period occurred in the July 3rd report, when the inspectors submitted the following short paragraph:

“COVID-19 Update: Between June 25 and July 1, the number of positive tests for SRS employees increased from 52 to 62. As part of a lessons learned, SRS issued guidelines for the use of personal fans in office spaces to reduce the risk of transmission between employees.”

“Lessons Learned from Positive COVID-19 Cases at Savannah River Site,” was obtained from DOE via a FOIA request in late 2020. The July 1, 2020, report described and illustrated a few examples of how COVID-19 transmissions at SRS were occurring, particularly in crowded offices; but not necessarily at facilities where essential functions were performed.

The three-page report focused on the proper use of common fans and air conditioning window units in the workplace (Figures 2-4). As with the ubiquitous use of modular offices onsite, this was another indication that workplaces at high-tech SRS are often densely occupied (2), in steady need of increased office space, and sometimes lacking in reliable cooling systems. The report somewhat undermined DOE’s official position, as described by former Aiken Standard reporter Colin Demarest, that the “majority of infections” were due to “away-from-work ‘activities.’”

Figure 2. From Lessons Learned 2020-LL-74. The extent to which common fans are used to relieve heat stress at SRS is unknown.
Figure 3. Illustration from Lesson Learned 2020-LL-74. It is unknown how often HVAC failures occur on the site.
Figure 4. Illustration from Lessons Learned 2020-LL-74, showing use of air conditioning window units to cool offices.

The Censorship Ends and Reports of Probable COVID-related Staff Shortages Begins.

Following the censorship period, reports of staff shortages at Defense Nuclear Facilities began that were undoubtedly COVID-related; but the word COVID was absent.

The August 7th submittal was the first of these normal, unredacted reports to address staffing shortages while omitting any mention of COVID. The report contained a short entry at the bottom of the page, pertaining to “Technical Safety Requirements (TSR) Minimum Staffing,” that stated:

“Two of the three qualified shift operations managers (SOM) at a defense nuclear facility are unavailable. At this facility, the TSRs require a qualified SOM to be responsible for the facility command function during certain activities. A second facility will be operated for one shift a day because of availability issues with four of the six qualified SOMs.”

A more specific entry referencing a staffing shortage of “40+ staff” at the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) was made in the September 4th report. (Figure 5). Just two weeks earlier, the SWPF had finally been authorized to begin operations, which officially began on September 20th.

Figure 5. Staffing shortages at the Salt Waste Processing Plant.

The September 11th report also identified a smaller staffing shortage of 15 workers at the SWPF, which included “two shift technical engineers, two senior supervisory watch personnel, and another manager.” The shortages were sufficient enough to cause suspension of all “non-essential work.”

The December 11th report identified an entire shift being unavailable at F-H Laboratory, requiring personnel to work overtime to fill the shift needs. The shortage occurred during a month with 425 positive cases—-more than one third of the cumulative total (1207) in 2020.

Subsequent reports further suggest that DOE’s censorship of COVID-related impacts was primarily limited to staffing shortages in Mission Critical Programs.

The Board’s Resident Inspectors were allowed by DOE to associate COVID with deferred and cancelled emergency management drills and deferred maintenance tasks. A few examples included:

January 29, 2021: A review of the operational impacts of COVID-19 on concluded, in part, that in “many cases, the impact was minor, temporary, or reasonable considering the circumstances.” One of the primary concerns was the cancellation of most emergency operations field drills. The inspectors later reported that nearly 20 percent of personnel in emergency response organizations did not participate in a single drill in 2020.

February 5, 2021: A two-fold increase in preventative maintenance deferrals, from 70 to 145, between March and May 2020; with 82 deferrals in May 2020 being COVID-related. That figure was reduced to only five by December 2020.

The DNFSB Position on a Request for Uncensored Reports

In December 2023, a FOIA request was submitted (2) to the DNFSB to provide unredacted versions of the four censored Summer of 2020 reports. The reasoning was that three years had passed and the public has a right to know what cumulative impacts the COVID-19 pandemic had on SRS operations and site safety, if any.

The DNFSB responded with an April 15, 2024, letter from its Chief FOIA Officer explaining that DOE was being asked to “consult with the DNFSB with regard to releasing the COVID-19 information” because for “FOIA purposes, it is DOE’s information.”

Attached to the letter was the FOIA Officer’s consultation request to DOE (Figure 6), which stated, in part, that:

Each of the four reports contains a paragraph (highlighted) that deals with the presence and effects of COVID-19 at the facility. DNFSB’s position at the time the reports were drafted was, and remains, that the reports should have been made public in their entirety. This was not done. DOE insisted at the time that as a matter of Departmental policy such COVID-19 related information was deemed to be for official only. Because DOE’s equity in the information is superior to DNFSB’s the paragraphs at issue were redacted from the copies of the four reports posted to the Board’s public website.”

The consultation request went on to state that “DNFSB’s position continues to be that the reports should be released without redaction,” with the caveat that it is DOE’s decision as to whether the reports should be released in their entirety; an action that required a classification review.

The time frame for an answer is open-ended. The DNFSB advised in its letter to:

“Please be aware that we may not receive DOE’s reply for a considerable period of time.”

For now, a more complete public understanding of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the safety of SRS operations will have to wait. The review process could take months, or even longer.

In the meantime, the paper trail to date suggests the redacted information pertains to localized staffing shortages at individual facilities that achieved levels that did not comply with technical safety requirements; and potentially compromised safety at individual facilities. If this was not the case, there appears to be even less justification to keeping secret what are now four-year old reports with no bearing on current site operations.

Figure 6. April 15, 2024, Letter from DNFSB Chief FOIA Officer Toni Reddish to DOE’s FOIA Department requesting a classification review of the four redacted weekly reports.

Footnotes

* Coverage of this story began in the Fall of 2020 and was reported in the Aiken SC News and Views Facebook group. After the redactions in the weekly reports remained after three years, the FOIA request for unredacted versions was made.

(1) Over the course of the year, the “Mission Critical” facilities requiring at constant staffing included the F and H Area Radioactive Waste “Tank Farms,” the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF), hte Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF), H-Canyon, L-Area irradiated nuclear fuel storage, K-Area plutonium storage and waste production, and Savannah River National Laboratory’s (SRNL) onsite operations.

On March 30, 2020, Savannah River Site Watch (SRS Watch) submitted a FOIA request to DOE that asked for, in part, a list of “minimum mission-critical activities.”

DOE took nine months to provide a letter of response and two responsive documents:

a. Two pages of a 114-page manual, lightly redacted, that described five mission essential functions and 22 supporting activities.

b. A four-page Telework execution and implementation plan.

(2) Contained in SRS Watch correspondence with DOE was a letter to the editor from Aiken resident Kathy Glenn to the the Augusta Chronicle. Ms. Glenn wrote, in part:

“There are operators working in close quarters and many engineers in cubicles. The cubicle working environment is similar to being in a large airplane – all the air in the room is shared and sometimes four desks back up to the same cubicle wall. Some of the cubicles have two or three people sharing them, and they can get a maximum of about 3 feet away from one another. So many, many people are in the same room, sharing the same breathing air for nine hours a day, for days on end. It’s like flying in a plane but with the people just a little more spread-out, all breathing the same air.

This is putting the site mission at risk by increasing the odds that many of the personnel will get very sick. This is massively irresponsible.”

(3) The entire FOIA request read:

“I, Donald Moniak, hereby request the following documents in unredacted form: 

The DNFSB weekly resident staff reports for Savannah River Site, for weeks ending June 12, 20, 26, 2020; and July 10, 2020. 

These documents are now more than three years old. They were marked “official use” at the time. The reports likely involved the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on facility operations, since other unredacted reports around the same time identified minimum staffing requirement issues. These redactions also occurred at a time when the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were being routinely reported by DNFSB resident staff at SRS. 

Because the information likely only involved operational conditions that are long past, the general public has a right to know what real impacts the pandemic had on SRS operations. 

Thank you, 

Donald Moniak