Category Archives: Savannah River Site

May 2024, Savannah River Site

Surplus Plutonium Disposition Timeline: “We will have to get back to you.”

3 Comments

DOE/SRS contract official unable to address timeline for removal of surplus plutonium from the Savannah River Site.

Twenty-five years after issuing its first decision pertaining to the nation’s 50 metric ton (MT) surplus plutonium stockpile, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) disposition program continues to, as SRS Watch has described, limp along and remain characteristically uncertain. Three weeks ago the head of DOE’s Savannah River Site’s (SRS) primary operating and management contractor could not provide a timeline for processing and removal of 9.5 MT of plutonium from storage at SRS to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) plutonium waste repository in New Mexico.

At the current rate of processing, the site will not be able to meet its 2037 deadline for removing 9.5 MT of surplus plutonium per the “Plutonium Settlement” agreement between the Federal Government and the State of South Carolina, and some materials could remain well past the 50-year long-term storage period selected by DOE in 1997.

by Don Moniak
May 19, 2024

Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) is the primary management and operations contractor at the Department of Energy’s (DOE) vast Savannah River Site (SRS), where more than ten tons of plutonium (Pu), of which more than 90 percent is surplus to U.S. nuclear weaponry needs, is presently stored within the site’s repurposed, seventy-year old K-Reactor building; now referred to as K-Area.

There were approximately 11.5 Metric Tons (MT) of plutonium within ~5,000 containers stored at K-Area in 2019 (Figure 1), of which 10.5 was surplus material shipped to SRS from other sites (1). DOE asserts that 1.0 MT of material was removed since then, leaving 9.5 MT of plutonium that must be removed by 2037 under the terms of the 2020 DOE/State of South Carolina “SRS/Plutonium Settlement.”

Figure 1. Pu inventory in September 2019. DOE asserts 1.0 MT has since been removed, which would have left ~4500 storage containers known as “3013s.” There is approximately 2.3 kilograms/container on average. Source: SRNS presentation to SRS Citizens Advisory Board, July 25, 2023.

At the April 29, 2024 South Carolina Nuclear Advisory Council (2) meeting, SRNS President Dennis Carr recently updated the group on the major programs and missions at SRS that are under SRNS purview. His presentation focused on plutonium pit production (3), surplus plutonium disposition, and production and management of tritium for the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal.

The surplus plutonium disposition portion featured an uninspiring report on the slow pace of plutonium disposition at SRS. Since fully implementing a program known as “dilute and dispose,” in 2021, only 0.123 metric tons (MT) of the ~10.5 MT of surplus Pu stored at SRS has been processed into a waste form and sent to DOE’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico for disposal.

Less than 0.3 metric tons per year are currently being processed at K-Area; much of it awaiting approval for shipment to WIPP. The processing pace is not expected to pick up until after 2030, and only if an $800 million project to add two glovebox processing lines is completed.

At the end of the surplus plutonium discussion, State Senator Tom Young (R-Aiken) asked Mr. Carr a simple question that proved to be the most difficult of the meeting:

“Do you know the projected timeline when all the (surplus plutonium) material will be disposed of?”

Mr. Carr’s answers were, in order:

“I don’t.”
“It is beyond my knowledge base.
“We will have to get back to you.”

No other DOE official stepped up to the podium to assist with an answer. Nor did any other member of the Advisory Council ask a followup question.

The lack of answers and absence of additional questions were intriguing and astounding for two reasons; both of which involved omissions of important information.

First, the $600 million Plutonium Settlement reached in August, 2020, between the federal government and the State of South Carolina mandates a removal date of 2037 for the 9.5 Metric Tons (MT) of the surplus plutonium that was shipped from other DOE sites and is currently stored at SRS (1). If the deadline is not reached, DOE will face a new set of hefty fines from the State of South Carolina. The lack of additional questions suggests that the settlement agreement is increasingly less of a priority issue for the advisory council or DOE/SRS.

Figure 2: “3013” Plutonium storage containers. All plutonium stored in the cans meet DOE’s 3013 Standard. Monitoring by SRNS and oversight by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) has not yielded any significant, chronic safety issues with the 3013 containers. DOE/SRS contractor SRNS has asserted at SRS-CAB meetings that, in its present state, surplus Pu can be safely at SRS past the 50-year long-term storage goal.


Second, just ten days before the meeting DOE’s National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) had issued its Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Program (SPDEIS), a decision that will help guide the DOE/NNSA surplus plutonium management for the foreseeable future. (A Summary of the SPDEIS provides more detailed justification for the ROD).

As described in Feds Propose Moving ~27 tons of Plutonium to SRS, the latest Surplus Plutonium Disposition EIS process explored the impacts of disposing of 27-34 metric tons of surplus plutonium currently stored within the sealed nuclear explosives components known as “plutonium pits,” as well as surplus plutonium metal not within pits. There is an estimated 11,000 to 14,000 surplus pits presently in storage at the Pantex Nuclear Weapons Plant near Amarillo, Texas.

The preferred alternative involved four subalternatives to disassemble the pits and convert Pu metals to a powder in a modern Pit Disassembly and Processing Plant (PDP), process the powder into a transuranic waste form via the dilute and dispose method, and then ship the waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for underground disposal.

Within the preferred alternative, DOE/NNSA EIS considered four different alternatives to accomplishing that goal: two versions of processing at both Los Alamos and SRS, an all-in-one Los Alamos processing program, and an all-in-one SRS processing program. WIPP and dilute and dispose were the only constants. (A “No-Action” alternative received only cursory, gratuitous review, as the U.S. remains committed to converting its plutonium stockpile into a waste form that inhibits, but does not prevent, re-use of plutonium for our nuclear arsenal.)

The Record of Decision was more of an indecision amounting to the federal government continuing to not do much with surplus plutonium, other than keep it in storage. Most notably, DOE/NNSA failed to select a processing sub-alternative, leaving the preferred alternative as more of a theoretical than real pathway. (Figure 3).

DOE/NNSA further kicked the surplus plutonium program further down the road by formally announcing a previous decision, first reported by Savannah River Site Watch in October 2023, to delay the Pit Disassembly and Processing plant by at least one decade, writing,

“Increased capacity for producing plutonium oxide, which NNSA evaluated as part of the Preferred Alternative in the SPDP EIS, will therefore be delayed. This decision will extend the timeline for the full 34 MT disposition mission.”

FIgure 3: DOE/NNSA schematic of the surplus plutonium disposition program for plutonium pits and “non-pit” metals. There has been no decision on a final plan. The PDP is being delayed by at least ten years.

In short, the DOE/NNSA plutonium disposition program will continue to limp along at a relatively glacial pace of about 1 MT every 3-4 years.

What this means for the Central Savannah River region, as well Americans along the transportation route from Los Alamos, is far less surplus plutonium being shipped to SRS than if a PDP was constructed; and a greatly reduced likelihood of another Pu processing facility being located at SRS. Depending on an individual’s outlook on the prospect of more plutonium processing at SRS, the indecision and facility delay can be either good or bad news.

In the absence of an answer from DOE/NNSA to Senator Young’s question, the following letter estimating the rate of Pu removal from SRS was sent to Senator Young via email the day after the Nuclear Advisory Committee meeting. The letter was later forwarded to the SRS Citizens Advisory Board.

Dear Senator Young, 

Regarding your unanswered question on the timeline for surplus plutonium disposition posed to SRNS President Dennis Carr during the Nuclear Advisory Council meeting on Monday: “Do you know the projected timeline when all the (surplus plutonium) material will be disposed of.” 

There is no good answer, which might be why Mr. Carr could only answer “I don’t,” and “it is beyond my knowledge base.” I do not think there will be a good answer, either, because: 

a. Ultimate removal from SRS is entirely dependent upon the availability of WIPP, and that is not under the control of SRS; and

 b. Removal in a manner that meets the Pu settlement mandate of 9.5 MT by 2037 is heavily dependent upon DOE/NNSA’s commitment to the $800 million program to increase plutonium dilution to TRU waste production rates by adding three more gloveboxes by FY 2031. 

Even if WIPP were not an issue, at the current rate of work at K Area, it would take DOE/SRS 19-20 more years to remove 9.5 MT of surplus Pu; assuming a steady increase in production rates and an absence of accidents, budget cuts, and other unforeseen circumstances. 

These estimates are based upon the following: 

1. Under the Pu storage settlement agreement, DOE/SRS is required to remove 9.5 MT of surplus Pu by 2037.  (This will leave ~1.0 MT of nonsurplus Pu in place, which was the approximate SRS non surplus Pu inventory before shipments from other sites began in 2002).  

2. At the end of 2019 there was an estimated ~11.5 MT at SRS. DOE/SRS reports accomplishments in terms of 3013 storage containers (aka cans) which contain an average of 2.3 KG of Pu per container. So the best way to track this is by number of storage containers, of which there were ~5,000. (This graphic was presented to the SRS CAB in July 2022). 

3. Assuming 9.5 MT = 4,130 cans, at the current rate of processing Pu into a diluted Transuranic Waste (TRU) form, it would take DOE/SRS ~20 years to complete the conversion process. This assumes that WIPP will be able to accept the waste at the same rate, which is a whopper of an assumption. The rest of this estimate relies on the rosy assumption of gradual increases in production from current rates. 

a. Since 2022, when downblending into a TRU waste form began, the 5,000 can inventory has been reduced by 321 cans (91 in 2022, 110 in 2023, and 120 expected in 2024), leaving ~4,700. If one assumes that all of the converted Pu was part of the 9.5 MT, then ~3820 cans remain to be processed to meet the Settlement Agreement. 

b. Processing is limited by equipment, and currently there is only one glovebox line available. The goal is to increase rate of production by 10 pct each year, with the FY 2024 goal of 120 cans. If production were increased by 10 pct each year, which is a rosy forecast, production might look like this: 

FY 2025: 132 cans

FY 2026: 145 cans

FY 2027: 160 cans

FY 2028: 176 cans

FY 2029: 194 can

FY 2030: 213 cans

So under the current goals of ten percent increase per year, another 1020 cans might be processed through FY 2030, barring accidents, budget cuts, and/or other unforeseen circumstances. 

That will still leave 2,800 cans that would require processing by 2037. 

c. Without any new production capability, it will take another 13 years at the 2030 rate of 213  cans/year to complete the processing of 9.5 MT. So the 9.5 MT of Pu, under the most optimistic scenario, would not be removed until 2043 at the earliest. (Since only 1 MT was removed before 2020, that would still leave 1.0 MT at the site.) 

d. The limiting factor that DOE does not like to stress is that one-third of the stored Pu is in a metal form. This metal requires conversion to an oxide powder suitable for the dilution process. That metal to oxide conversion cost is never included in the cost estimates, and at the SRS CAB briefings that process has never been discussed. 

4. Any significant production rate increase is not expected until installation of three additional gloveboxes is completed in 2030 at the earliest (The Critical Decision to begin operations is not anticipated until FY 2030). 

Assuming the best case scenario of three new gloveboxes going operational in 2031 (decision to go operational expected in 2030), and an associated 3X increase in production, then ~500 cans per year would be processed per glovebox line at current rates. 

Only then will DOE/SRS be able to remove the 2800 cans remaining (under optimistic scenarios) by 2037. 

Conclusion: 

Without the new glovebox line, DOE will never make it by 2037. 
Since the 1997 DOE Record of Decision for long-term storage at SRS was for 50 years, removing it before 2047 would meet DOE’s goals, but not the Settlement Agreement mandate of 2037. 

DOE/NNSA is more likely to limp along at the current rate and then renegotiate the Settlement Agreement in the early 2030s than it is to spend $800 million to improve the removal rate of surplus Pu by 15-20 years; especially since the great uncertainties surrounding WIPP could delay the program even with the addition of the three glovebox lines. 

I hope this helps. I am perfectly willing to be corrected on these estimates, but only DOE/NNSA can do that. Please feel free to submit this to DOE/SRS. 

Thank you, 

Donald Moniak


Footnotes

(1) The decision to consolidate long-term storage of 11-15 MT metric tons of plutonium metals and oxide powders, also referred to as “non-pit” plutonium, at SRS was made in January 1997. The long-term storage period is “up to fifty years.”

Prior to consolidation, the condition of the plutonium had to meet what is known as the 3013 Standard, which “provides criteria for stabilization of plutonium-bearing materials at DOE facilities to safe and stable forms and packaging for storage with minimal surveillance for up to 50 years.” Efforts to meet this standard prior to shipment to SRS took place in the late 1990’s to early 2000’s at the now-closed Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado and the Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington State.

DOE intended to have the “cleanest” of these Pu materials converted to commercial nuclear fuel known as “Mixed Oxide Fuel,” or MOX.”

As a result of the stabilization and shipments, SRS currently has between ~4,300 to 5,000 containers known as “3013 cans;” referred to as such because they meet the requirements of DOE’s Standard 3013.

After the multi-billion dollar program to convert the materials to a commercial “Mixed Oxide” plutonium fuel fizzled in the the mid 2016’s, DOE turned to the “dilute and dispose” process.

Dilute and dispose involves “downblending” plutonium oxide powder with a mix of classified “adulterants” and other inert materials to create a new waste product containing about three percent plutonium. The waste product is then packaged and shipped to DOE’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico, where it is buried in the nation’s only operational transuranic waste repository.

Two presentations made by SRNS managers to the SRS Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) in July 2023, describe the dilute and dispose program in general and improvement initiatives.

Additional information on the earlier history of the Surplus Pu Storage and Disposition program can be found is the two-part story, Plutonium is Not For Amateurs and Dr. Edward Lyman’s definitive work on the rise and fall of the MOX project, Excess Plutonium Disposition: The Failure of MOX and the Promise of Its Alternatives.

(2) The Nuclear Advisory Council meeting can be viewed by going to the South Carolina Legislature video archives, and scrolling down to the April 29th Nuclear Advisory Council meeting.

(3) A critique of the Plutonium Pit Production program was provided during the public comment period by Savannah River Site Director Tom Clements.

Aiken Corporation, City Government, Pascalis 2023 - SRNL Lab, Savannah River Site

The SRNL Project was a Component of Project Pascalis: An Update

2 Comments

The Pascalis Project Overlap; Legislative Intent, and South Carolina’s $100 million subsidy for the Federal Government.


by Don Moniak
February 26, 2024

The $20 million “Mixed-Use Building Project” is intended for use by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) management and operations contractor, Battelle Savannah River Alliance (BSRA).*

The project was pursued behind closed doors for nearly a year, and then publicly presented January 23, 2023, as a three-story, 45,000-square-foot “SRNL Workforce Development Center” to be located on city-owned property along Richland Avenue and Newberry Street.

During the next eight months, the three-story project had devolved to a 36,000-square-foot facility that was rebranded as the Aiken Corporation’s “Mixed-Use Building Project,” with a new location on Aiken Corporation property on Newberry Street, NW. In both scenarios, the SRNL contractor would occupy the top two floors—24,000 to 30,000 square feet of space.

In response to questions and concerns, additional project information has recently been provided by South Carolina State Senator and Aiken County Legislative Delegation Chairman Tom Young* (R-Aiken). In a five-page letter that includes seven reference documents, he presented the legislative basis for, and defense of, the project. The highlights of the package include:

  • A June 22, 2022, site selection letter from SRNL Director Dr. Vahid Majidi stating a preference for a downtown Aiken location within the Project Pascalis footprint; and citing the Pascalis project as a motivating factor for the preferred location.
  • A more complete legislative timeline for the $20 million allocation of SRS/plutonium settlement funds for “SRS/National Lab Offsite Infrastructure—Aiken Innovation District.” The letter makes the case that the existing project still meets the broad, overall legislative intent of the Aiken delegation and the General Assembly—with the obvious caveat being that the funding is for the SRNL”s Battelle Savannah River Alliance. (Proposed contractual language between the City of Aiken and the future owner could insure that this intent is met.)
  • A larger plan by the State of South Carolina’s three major universities to subsidize the SRNL contract workforce with additional state funding of up to $100 million. Last year the SC Legislature allocated $40 million for this workforce development program. Nearly $20 million was later dedicated by Clemson, USC, and SC State “professional development of of SRNL employees;” while less than $4 million was dedicated to undergraduate scholarships.

    (*Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) is owned by the United States Department of Energy (DOE). SRNL is managed and operated under a contract between DOE and Battelle Savannah River Alliance (BSRA). BSRA is owned by the Battelle Memorial Institute. The alliance consists of five subcontractors: Clemson University, South Carolina State University (SCSU), University of South Carolina (USC), Georgia Tech, and University of Georgia. The latter two are not subjects in this particular story.)
Figure 1: Portion of June 22, 2022, letter from SRNL Director Dr. Vihad Majidi to Aiken Chamber of Commerce President David Jameson.
The full letter can be viewed here, on Page 14.


The SRNL Site Selection Letter and Project Pascalis

On June 22, 2022, SRNL Director Dr. Vihad Majidi sent a letter to Aiken Chamber of Commerce President David Jameson (1) regarding the $20 million project (Figure 1). In the letter, the Director expressed a preference for downtown Aiken, the reasoning behind that preference, and identified three candidates for facility ownership—The City of Aiken, the AMDC, or the Aiken Corporation.(2)

The Pascalis project itself was a motivating factor for the downtown Aiken location; one within the Project Pascalis demolition and redevelopment zone (3). Dr. Majidi wrote, in part, that:

“SRNL’s preference is the downtown site valued at $3.6 million that will be contributed by the City of Aiken. This is very attractive because of the walking distance proximity to many restaurants and retail stores, as well as planned new hotel, conference center, parking garage, and apartments that would be completed about the same time as this facility would come on-line.” (emphasis added)

One reason the lab space could have fit within the Pascalis project footprint is that, two months earlier, new location was proposed for a conference center. Instead of being in the Pascalis project footprint, it was to be moved to the soon-to-be vacated Aiken Municipal building at 214 Park Avenue, SW. The conference center size was at least 25,000 square feet—about the same amount of space sought by SRNL.

Thus, at the height of the Project Pascalis, the SRNL Director proposed becoming a part of that troubled and soon-to-fail project; taking the same approach that greatly contributed the Project Pascalis failure—make official decisions first, then solicit citizen input and buy-in.

Legislative Intent of the Downtown SRNL Project

For nearly six months, inquiries have been made to members of Aiken County’s State Legislative Delegation regarding the $20 million SRNL project.

The inquiries included the following questions:

a. How can a private non-governmental organization, the Aiken Corporation, be the developer and owner of a $20 million, publicly funded building, especially without a competitive bidding process?

b. If the Aiken Corporation owned the building, the SRNL contractor did not renew its lease, and Aiken Corporation found a new tenant, how could this not be a misappropriation of funds? This question became more pertinent as long-term lease arrangements with DOE/SRNL’s operating contractor failed to materialize; as DOE/SRNL tentatively has agreed only to one-year, renewable leases.

This past Wednesday, February 21st, State Senator Tom Young provided some answers to these questions. In summary, his letter outlined the overall legislative intent behind the SRS/National Lab Offsite Infrastructure” project; which is related to a much larger State of South Carolina commitment to DOE/SRNL’s management and operating contract with BSRA. In short, the history behind this legislative process (4) and subsequent funding accountability process follows this timeline:

Summer, 2020. BSRA lobbied Governor Henry McMaster for $120 million of State funding in support of the BSRA contract. Governor McMaster then committed, in August 2020 and just prior to the plutonium settlement, $100 million on behalf of the state’s three major universities for their role in the Battelle-led alliance.

December 2020: Governor McMaster submitted his plutonium settlement allocation proposal to the legislature, asking that only the three counties contiguous to SRS receive funds. The proposal included $120 million for the BSRA contract with SRNL.

2021 to 2022. Legislative negotiations ensued, during which “legislative leadership made it clear that any settlement funds allocated within the region would have to be for infrastructure projects related to workforce development, education, and/or economic development infrastructure.”

June 2022. The South Carolina legislature gave final approval of $20 million for the initial stage of investment, titled “SRS/National Lab Offsite Infrastructure—Aiken Innovation District.” The funding was for Aiken County; but the unwritten intent of the local delegation was for SRNL to choose a site at USC-Aiken, the City of Aiken, or the City of North Augusta.

June 22, 2022. SRNL Director Majidi wrote to the Chamber of Commerce to express a site preference for a downtown Aiken that was going to be transformed by Project Pascalis, and facility ownership by the City of Aiken, AMDC, or Aiken Corporation.

January 2023 to June 2023. The City of Aiken first submitted its funding request to Aiken County, who forwarded it to the legislature’s Joint Bond Review Committee (JBRC), which then approved the request.

It is evident that, in the big picture, the SRNL/“Mixed-Use” project as currently structured fits the broadest intent of the $20 million dollar legislative funding decision. The State of South Carolina committed to SRNL workplace development by the three major universities, and the SRNL leadership selected Aiken Corporation as a facility ownership candidate.

The caveat is that the facility must still meet its originally stated purpose of SRNL offsite infrastructure. As recently reported, this was almost not the case. When leasing negotiations between DOE/SRNL, Battelle, Aiken Corporation, and City of Aiken faltered, consideration was given to Aiken Corporation ownership even in the absence of a DOE/SRNL approved leasing agreement with Battelle.

This option should be negated by a provision in the proposed City of Aiken “Framework Agreement with the Aiken Corporation for the Savannah River National Laboratory Multi-Use Building.”(5)

The proposed agreement involves a complicated and complicated arrangement whereby the City of Aiken: 

  • Purchases property currently owned by the Aiken Corporation property, and then constructs the facility on the property for SRNL’s use.
  • Sells the property and the building to a “to-be-formed” entity controlled by the Aiken Corporation. The total sale price will be based on the final construction costs and the original property price. 
  • The yet-to-be-formed Aiken Corporation-controlled real estate entity will make the purchase from the City of Aiken through a loan from the City of Aiken.
  • The yet-to-be-formed real estate entity will lease the facility to the SRNL operating contractor, BSRA, or any future contractor. 

    A deed restriction is proposed that could prevent the Aiken Corporation’s new real estate entity from leasing to a party other than an SRNL contractor:

    “City and Corporation anticipate that when the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the City of Aiken Building Inspector, the SPE will purchase, and the City will transfer ownership of, the multi-use building and the Property pursuant to the terms of a subsequent Purchase Sale Agreement [“PSA JI] to be negotiated between the parties, which will, among other terms, specify a deed restriction providing for return of the subject property to the City should the SPE no longer desire to own or lease the building to an appropriate client.” (emphasis added).

    South Carolina Subsidizing the Federal Government.

    The $20 million SRNL/“Mixed Use” Building Project is only twenty percent of taxpayer funds the State of South Carolina is investing in the BSRA contract. The SC legislature is conducting an installment plan of sorts for Governor Henry McMaster’s $100 million commitment to the Battelle contract—first made in 2020. (In contrast, subcontractors Georgia Tech and UGA committed $5.0 million and $3.2 million to workforce development, respectively.)

    The second installment is a $40 million allocation that was approved for the 2023-2024 state budget during the last legislative session.

    Following the funding approval, Clemson University, SC State, and USC developed a three-year funding implementation plan titled “Research Partnershps and Workforce Training Programs: In support of the Battelle Savannah River Alliance Savannah River National Laboratory.”
    (Attachment E)

    Writing on behalf of both SRNL and BSRA, SRNL Director Majidi endorsed the “Collaborative Workforce Development Plant” on October 28, 2023, writing that the three universities will “educate and train the future workforce of the Lab and enable workforce development for South Carolina.” The plan was subsequently approved by the SC Committee on Higher Education on December 7, 2023, and is now in effect.

    The workforce development plan itself states the primary goal is to “provide SRNL with a pipeline for new talent acquisition by recruiting and educating the state’s residents while also bringing in additional talent from around the region. This initiative will also further the careers of the existing employee base at SRNL.” (emphasis original)

    The funding is heavily tilted towards the latter, as $19.5 million from the $40 million program involves “Professional Development of SRNL Employees.” In contrast, less than $8 million is dedicated to undergraduate and graduate programs combined.

    In short, the State of South Carolina has already allocated $60 million for workforce development for a U.S. Department of Energy institution—Savannah River National Laboratory—and intends to spend another $40 million.

    The first $20 million is for a facility in the high-rent district of downtown Aiken to be operated by a private organization. The second round of $40 million involves the three main universities spending 2.5 times more on furthering the careers of federal government contract employees than on undergraduate and graduate programs combined.

    The Battelle Savannah River Alliance contract essentially is subcontracting the three Universities to provide an apprenticeship program for a federal facility, and use state taxpayer dollars to fund career advancement for federal contract employees.

    Footnotes

    (1) While Mr. Jameson was a member of the AMDC at the time, the letter was addressed to him in his official capacity as Chamber of Commerce President—instead of being addressed to AMDC Chairman Keith Wood and/or Aiken Mayor Rick Osbon.

    (2) The reasoning behind the ownership options is suggested by Dr. Majidi’s prefaced the ownership options by writing, “based on the source of the funds.”

    The plutonium funds derived from a settlement between South Carolina and the federal government regarding South Carolina’s lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) due to plutonium storage issues at Savannah River Site.

    The reasoning was that USC-Aiken, as of the Battelle-led alliance which included USC, could not own a facility paid for with plutonium settlement funds—-which would create the image of the Plaintiff returning settlement money to the Defendant. It could also create difficulties during future SRNL contract bidding, since BSRA could claim the building as an asset in any future bid.

    (3) In early 2023, the originally proposed properties for the SRNL office space included:

    a. The vacant Holley House motel adjacent to the Hotel Aiken, which was purchased by the AMDC in November 2021 for $2.125 million.

    b. Portions of the properties between the Holley House and Newberry Hall that were collectively purchased for $2.0 million by the AMDC.

    (4) More complete information on this process can also be found in Off-Site Infrastructure.

    (5) The agreement is on pages 202-206 in Aiken City Council’s February 26, 2024 Agenda Packet.

    * The author would like to acknowledge the efforts of Senator Tom Young. Senator Young, who led the very difficult and challenging plutonium settlement disbursement negotiations, has proven very open to addressing questions about the process, the results, and any ongoing issues. He tasked the Senate Staff with researching this issue, and in the midst of the 2024 legislative session, he responded to this author’s questions and concerns with a 5-page letter with seven supporting documents that illustrate his attention to details in the legislative process, from start to end to implementation.

Pascalis 2023 - SRNL Lab, Savannah River Site

“We need the space.”

1 Comment

With the increase in nuclear weapons materials and parts production work, the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) short-term office space needs are unlikely to be satisfied by the City of Aiken’s proposed, $20 million, downtown, rooftop-terraced, “Mixed-Use” office building being constructed on behalf of the private, nonprofit Aiken Corporation and its new, yet-to-be-named for-profit property management company.

The target date for the completion of the facility is February 2026. Even if SRNL’s operating contactor moves at that time, this new facility that is being squeezed onto a one-acre space will also not accommodate any future office space needs.

by Don Moniak
February 17, 2024

According to workforce statistics, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) labor force increased from 11,420 to 12,818 employees between September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2023 (Table 1).

DOE’s three major site contractors now have larger workforces. These are:

  • Primary management and operating contractor Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS). 
  • Savannah River Mission Completion (SRMC), which is charged solely with stabilization of the site’s high-level “liquid” radioactive waste. 
  • Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL).

The site’s paramilitary physical security contractor, Centerra, maintained a steady employee base; as did the Savannah River Ecology Lab, the U.S. Forest Service, power generator Ameresco, and the DOE federal employee labor force.

During the same time period, the Lab’s workforce increased from 1,052 to 1,310 employees; the largest percent increase of any of the four contractors.

Table 1: Recent SRS and SRNL Workforce Changes

Employer 9/30/2112/31/23 Percent Change
SRS Total11,42012,818+12.2
SRNL Total1,0521,310+24.5
SRNL —NNSA578772+33.6
SRNL — Environmental Mgmt271256-5.6
SRNL- Other 203282+38.9

Most of the employee growth across the site is due to the increased number working on DOE National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) tasks. The NNSA is the DOE’s “semi-autonomous” weapons agency, tasked with the department’s nuclear weapons maintenance, production, and security missions.

The two primary nuclear weapons programs at SRS are:

  • Ongoing production of tritium gas, which is  used to boost the explosive power of nuclear weaponry. The purified gas is loaded into stainless steel “reservoirs” which contain an average of about four grams of tritium gas.
  • Planned production of nuclear weapon primary explosive components commonly referred to as “plutonium pits.”  Design work for a new pit fabrication plant is currently ongoing. 

    The employee increases are largely due to this new plutonium pit production mission (Table 2). This was to be expected, as Savannah River Nuclear Solutions CEO Stuart MacVean wrote in the Aiken Standard in December 2022 that, “We’ll hire over 4,000 more to aid in bringing the facility on-line as close to 2030 as possible.”

    More and more of the site workforce is categorized as carrying out NNSA missions. The increase for Savannah River Nuclear Solutions is entirely attributable to NNSA missions: 75% of the SRNL employee increase are from assignments to NNSA work.

    Only Savannah River Mission Completion (SRMC), which is charged with stabilizing the most dangerous, Cold War legacy radioactive wastes known as “tank waste,” added more Environmental Management (EM) workers.

    Table 2: Workforce trends: weapons programs (NNSA) vs. environmental remediation and radioactive waste stabilization programs programs (EM).
Employer 9/30/2112/31/23 Percent Change.
SRS Total 11,42012,818+12.2
SRS — NNSA Missions4,0145,110+27.3
SRS – EM Missions6,9026,720-2.6
Savannah River Nuclear Solutions: Total5,7956,733+16.2
SRNS – NNSA Missions3,2094,311+34.4
SRNS – EM Missions 2,3092,265-1.9
SRMC (formerly SRR/Parsons)3,174 3,417+7.7
SRS Physical Security—Centerra671678+1.0

Figure 1: Sign outside of Centennial Drive office complex.

Finding Off-Site Space

The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) is mostly confined to “A-Area” at SRS, which is dominated by aging buildings. Space is so limited that at least seven modular office buildings (see cover photo) are used to house the overflow. (1) There is a strong desire for off-site office space to alleviate overcrowding, reduce security requirements, and ease congestion at the guarded entrance gates. (2)

One touted solution, first announced in January 2023, was a “Workforce Development Center” in downtown Aiken, in close proximity to the downtown satellite offices of several other DOE/SRS contractors and subcontractors. The facility is funded with a $20 million allocation from the State of South Carolina’s SRS/plutonium settlement fund for the purpose of “SRS/National Laboratory Off-Site Infrastructure.”

The project has devolved from an “SRNL Workforce Development Center,” to a “Mixed-Use” office building to be constructed by the City and owned by Aiken Corporation—the private, nonprofit “partner” of the City since the late 1990s. The two parties hope that BSRA, and any future lab operating contractor will be a long-term tenant, but DOE/SRNL remains noncommittal beyond a one-year, renewable lease.

As described in City of Aiken Takes Control of Downtown Mixed-Use/SRNL Building Project, since March 2023, DOE/SRNL and BSRA have been negotiating with both the Aiken Corporation and the City of Aiken to lease space in a the downtown office building. The facility would house only up to 100 employees—less than 8% of the current lab workforce.

However, according to the City of Aiken’s contract with the architectural firm of Cheatham, Fletcher, and Scott, the downtown office building is not expected to be completed until February 2026. (Table 3)

Table 3: Timeline and Costs for the Downtown Aiken “Mixed-Use” Office Building Project

Final Design Due Date May 20, 2024
Construction Start DateDecember 16, 2024
Construction Completion Date~February 2026
Design Contract Award Not provided
Construction Budget $14.4 million
Furniture, Furnishings, and Equipment Budget $1.3 million
Land Acquisition Cost $0.72 million

During recent negotiations, SRNL Assistant Director Dr. Sharon Marra twice related to the City/ACorp partnership that “we need the space,” implying a shorter term need. Ms. Marra also made reference to a “free building”—apparently in the context of the Mixed-Use Building lease. A rent-free alternative that avoids the need for federal funds to pay for the lease is a possibility that has remain unexplored during public debate.

In another city official’s email, Lab Director Dr. Vahid Majidi was asked about his inquiries into office space availability on Centennial Drive in South Aiken. That office complex consists of four 54,000-square-foot office buildings. (3)

Various DOE contractors have occupied portions of this office complex off and on for decade. One building entrance still houses a “URS” sign. There is currently a sign advertising 39,450 square feet of office space—ten percent more than what is being planned for downtown.

The lab appears to need some additional space now, preferably closer to its fellow contractors in downtown Aiken. No matter what happens with the downtown Aiken “Mixed-Use” building, SRNL is likely going to need more than 36,000 square feet of space to accommodate recent and future growth; and sooner rather than later. However, the City of Aiken has declined to pursue any location, such as the County-owned Old Hospital property or its Jackson Petroleum site at Williamsburg Street, that would allow for such growth.

Footnote

(1) As reported in A Shrub Grows in Aiken, which in part addressed DOE’s new “Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative” on the campus of USC-Aiken:

“According to its physical property inventory, SRNL has seven modular office buildings to supplement what City Councilman Ed Woltz described during the latest State of the City address as “remote, aged facilities.” Close to 1,000 SRNL workers and researchers will continue to work in the aged facilities behind the SRS gates and fences, not within ‘walking distance proximity to cultural amenities, dining, and retail stores’ that was one criteria for the downtown SRNL office building.”

That figure of more 1,000 must now be updated to more than 1,200 and growing.

(2) Another motivating factor could be safety. The lab works with significant quantities of radioactive and other toxic materials. The ventilation system is old—more than a hundred million dollars of maintenance and improvements were identified in the early 2000s. The extent of upgrades is unknown, but the recommendation at the time was to only address major needs. needs and has been in need of repairs since the early 2000s.

As reported in How Safe Were Millions of Safe Hours, in July 2022 Building 772-A was evacuated due to the failure of portable air compressors for radiological exhaust systems. Employees who do are not assigned to actual laboratory tasks would be out of harms way in the event of any similar future incidents.

However, the talking point of “access to dining and cultural amenities” for the 5-8 percent of the lab workforce that would occupy a downtown building is dubious at best. These criteria for an office space location are clearly intended more for visiting dignitaries, Executives from technology transfer partner companies, and other National Lab scientists and researchers. This is evidenced by the desire for a “rooftop gathering place,” labeled as a covered terrace on the first conceptual design.

(3) An email to Dr. Majidi asking about the search for additional space was not answered.

Aiken Corporation, City Government, Pascalis 2023 - SRNL Lab, Savannah River Site

City of Aiken Takes Control of Downtown “Mixed-Use”/SRNL Building Project; For Now.

6 Comments

The City of Aiken has issued an Request for Proposals for construction of the proposed $20 million “Mixed-Use” Office Building in downtown Aiken; and announced a Public Project Review Hearing for March 12th.

Prior to this action, the Aiken Corporation was acting as the City’s sole-source contractor managing the project, and charged with negotiating a lease with the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) and its operating contractor, Battelle Savannah River Alliance (BSRA). This setup created a high degree of fiscal and logistical inefficiencies, and required approval of actions by an unelected, unappointed, inexperienced, and marginally accountable third party.

Just as the project changed in early 2023 from the “Savannah River National Laboratory Workforce Development Center” to a “Mixed-Use Office Building” that might have the SRNL contractor as a tenant, the project has now changed from the “The Aiken Corporation New Mixed-Use Building Project,” to the “City of Aiken New Mixed-Use Building Project.”

The change in project responsibilities is a sensible move. Aiken has the experience and know-how, and city staff was already performing much of the work on behalf of the Aiken Corporation.

However, the architectural firm being utilized by the City was selected through a procurement process conducted by the Aiken Corporation, and not by the City of Aiken; and the future facility ownership by the Aiken Corporation remains questionable. While project advocates hope that Battelle Savannah River Alliance will be the tenant, negotiations remain ongoing and the DOE/SRNL long-term commitment remains underwhelming.

By Don Moniak

Feburary 20, 2024 Update

The City of Aiken’s contract with the architectural firm of Cheatham, Fletcher and Scott is available; buried in the City’s document repository in a newly created “Downtown Redevelopment” folder. The contract provides the data shown in the table below.

Final Design Due Date May 20, 2024
Construction Start DateDecember 16, 2024
Construction Completion Date~February 2026
Design Contract Award Not provided
Construction Budget $14.4 million
Furniture, Furnishings, and Equipment Budget $1.3 million
Land Acquisition Cost $0.72 million

Original February 19, 2024 story

This past Thursday, February 15th, the City of Aiken’s Procurement Department issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Proposal (RFP) for Construction Manager at Risk (SM@R) Services for the City of Aiken New Mixed-Use Building Project.

The project involves a three-story, 36,000-square-foot office building to be constructed on one acre of vacant property on Newberry St, NW. The land is currently owned by the city’s nonprofit property management business partner, the Aiken Corporation. The organization purchased the land in July 2022 for $650,000, and in the midst of Project Pascalis, and claimed its future would be parking lot.

The stated plan for nearly a year is to construct the building, and transfer ownership to the Aiken Corporation (ACorp). According to a February 17th Aiken Standard article, that remains the plan. An additional step will require the City to first purchase the the Aiken Corporation property.

Thus the City will buy the property, construct the facility, and then transfer it to Aiken Corporation to own and manage. This confusing arrangement means that $20 million of state funds allocated to “SRS/National Laboratory Offsite Infrastructure” will actually become Aiken Corporation infrastructure that may house the DOE/SRNL contractor.

Up to this point, ACorp has been managing the predevelopment process as a sole-source City of Aiken contractor. That contractual process went so far as an Aiken Corporation-issued RFP for architectural services in late November 2023. According to the Aiken Standard story, last week ACorp officially awarded the design contract to the architectural firm of Cheatham Fletcher and Scott.

That firm is now identified in the City’s RFQ/RFP as being retained by the City of Aiken, not the Aiken Corporation:

“The City of Aiken has retained the services of a design consultant team led by Cheatham Fletcher Scott Architects (CFS) to develop the design and to prepare construction documents for the Project. The Project is currently in the early Concept Drawing Design phase.” (1)

In addition to the February 15th RFQ/RFP issuance, this past Friday the City also published in The Aiken Standard its notice of a March 12th Planning Commission Public Hearing that includes a “Project Review for Savannah River National Laboratory.” (Figure 1) The City of Aiken, not the Aiken Corporation, is the applicant. The application has yet to be publicly disclosed.

Final Design Due Date May 20, 2024
Construction Start DateDecember 16, 2024
Construction Completion Date~February 2026
Design Contract Award Not provided
Construction Budget $14.4 million
Furniture, Furnishings, and Equipment Budget $1.3 million
Figure 1. February 16, 2024 Public Notice of Public Project Review, published in the Aiken Standard.

The Name Changes: From “SRNL Workforce Development Center” to “Mixed-Use Building” to “Aiken Corporation Mixed-Used Building” to “City of Aiken Mixed-Used Building.”

The downtown office building project is publicly funded with $20 million from the State of South Carolina’s plutonium settlement. Originally titled as Offsite Infrastructure SRS/National Lab, the stated intent in the City’s funding request was to build a 45,000 square foot “Workforce Development Center” on behalf of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL). The facility would be occupied by SRNL’s operation and management contractor, Battelle Savannah River Alliance (BSRA, or Battelle).

Since November 2022, the Aiken Corporation has functioned as the City’s sole-source project contractor. It was informally tasked by City officials with managing the project, its involvement was kept a secret for more than two months, and no formal public announcement of this project leadership arrangement was ever made prior to March 2023—perhaps due to trepidation over the Aiken Corporation’s controversial history.

With informal City approval, the Aiken Corporation hired a subcontractor, the architectural firm of McMillan Pazdan and Smith (MPS) to perform early tasks. The stated scope of work could be summarized as goal setting and needs assessment derived from a series of “stakeholder meetings” to be held with “minimal disruptions.” The word “public” was absent from the contract.

A month later, the City formally requested the $20 million of project funding from the State’s plutonium settlement fund. The settlement request form was unequivocally clear that the facility was to be built on behalf of SRNL.

On January 23, 2023, the project was announced with great fanfare at the State of the City Address—but the announcement omitted any mention of Aiken Corporation involvement. A public meeting was promised, and the City subsequently announced a public forum. That meeting was held two weeks later on February 6th and facilitated by MPS. An announcement of a “feasibility study” with a target date of May 1st was made by MPS representative K.J. Jacobs.

On March 13, 2023, Aiken City Council approved a no-bid, $250,000 contract for Aiken Corporation to conduct “pre-development work” and negotiate a lease for the 45,000-square-foot office complex. The contract specified the facility would be located on Richland and Newberry Streets on city-owned commercial properties purchased in November 2021, by the now-defunct Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC), as part of its pursuit of the downtown redevelopment effort known as Project Pascalis.

The formal contract, approved three months after work began, officially named MPS as subcontractor for predevelopment services. The three-page scope of work assigned to MPS involved cultural and historic assessments, and “goal setting and programming” that had a heavy dose of public relations management. The scope did not include a site-selection analysis, facility design, or a feasibility study—although both were later completed and published within a single report.

The contract’s scope of work specifically cited SRNL as the only future tenant, and expressed a desire for what could be described as a party venue:

”The facility will house permanent employees as well as a rotating group of university faculty, students, and researchers who will work on critical projects for SRNL as part of a university consortium….There is also a desire for the building to have a rooftop gathering and event space.”

The Aiken Corporation was also contractually tasked with hiring an attorney to assist with lease negotiations. The Aiken law firm of Austin and Pethick had already been retained in early March, and eventually billed ACorp for more than a thousand dollars for preliminary work completed prior to the contract. Subsequent legal fees over the next six months would total more than $10,000.

For the next few months, lease negotiations slowly proceeded, but with no announcements of an agreement. The difficulty of negotiating with a federal contractor bound by complex procurement regulations became increasingly evident. In fact, by June 2023 the negotiating parties had signed a Nondisclosure Agreement, not a Memorandum of Understanding.

The “Mixed Use” Building

Somewhere along the way Aiken Corporation and City officials decided to stop referring to the project as the “SRNL Workforce Development Center.” In May 2023, the project was quietly rebranded as a new “Mixed-Use Building.” A series of guest columns in the Aiken Standard by Mayor Rick Osbon and three Aiken Corporation Board members followed, all praising the future benefits of a “Mixed-Use” facility that might house the SRNL contractor.

A few months later DOE/SRNL officially distanced itself from the site selection and project development process, saying it was only interested in office space if it became available. Unofficially, negotiations continued, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Letter of Intent (LOI) was drafted for review by the ACorp Board.

Then, in September 2023, MPS finally released its well overdue “feasibility report.” Even though no amendments had been made to the ACorp-City of Aiken contract, MPS had considered four additional sites and completed a conceptual design that is still in use—one with the coveted rooftop gathering place in the form of a “covered terrace.”

MPS then made a recommendation to site the facility on the Aiken Corporation-owned Newberry Street, NW, property (Figure 2), and the ACorp Board then unanimously approved locating the $20 million office building constructed on its property. At its September 25th meeting, Aiken City Council gave a warm reception to the site recommendation during an ACorp presentation (2), but never went so far as approving the final site selection.

Figure 2: McMillan Pazdan and Smith’s site conceptual plan for the location of the proposed 3-story, 36,000 square foot “Mixed-Use” office building, with a covered terrace event space on the rooftop.

The Aiken Corporation’s New Mixed-Use Building.

Once the recommendation was made to build on Aiken Corporation property, it became an ACorp project. After months of costly negotations (4), the lack of a lease agreement remained a major hitch in the project. Negotiations between all parties—City, ACorp, DOE/SRNL, and BSRA—had stalled to the point that discussion emerged of an Aiken Corporation-owned building that might not even house lab employees.

The latter scenario was described in one City to Aiken Corporation email (5) as the “you build it and we will consider leasing it” option.

An SRNL official described the conundrum as a typical “chicken and egg” situation—the project could not proceed without a lease, and there could be no lease without the project; or at least some concrete progress to show to DOE’s authorizing officials.

With the uncertainty of the project’s future rising, the solution to provide evidence of progress was for Aiken Corporation to independently move forward with informal City approval. The process is more evidence that the partnership operates under a different set of rules—ones that are unwritten and allow for improvisation.

Even though its contract with the City did not include design services, on November 9th the ACorp Board approved pursuing an architectural design procurement process. On November 20th it issued a set of Design Scope Details, and that was followed on November 28th with a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) For Architectural and Engineering Services For The Aiken Corporation New Mixed-Use Building Project.

The Aiken Corporation RFQ bore a strong resemblance to City of Aiken procurement documents, and for good reason—city staff did most of the work. According to City of Aiken emails (6), the Aiken Corporation had no experience with RFQs or RFPs. To accommodate the organization, the city’s Economic Development and Procurement departments coordinated to retain a highly experienced and successful project oversight manager to compile project specifications, turned a rough draft into a finished RFQ, and wrote the RFQ legal notice and then arranged for its publication in the Aiken Standard.

A few weeks after the ACorp RFQ was released, the Department of Energy authorized its SRNL operating contractor to negotiate a one-year lease for the facility, with renewable one-year leases for up to ten years—contrasting sharply with the ten-year office space leases in Aiken County’s Carrol H. Warner Savannah River Research Campus between the County and the DOE/SRNL contractor. In fact, on September 25, 2023, ACorp Board member Pat Cunning told Aiken City Council that,

“The lease will probably be a 10-year lease, with two ten year options. He said a concern is what happens if the Lab does not extend the lease after 10 years. He said he did not think that would happen, but in real estate you have to plan for such things.”

Meanwhile, the City of Aiken released a Request for Qualifications for Real Estate Services to procure a real estate firm to market the Hotel Aiken and the Pascalis properties; properties that eight months earlier had been presented as a sure bet for the SRNL project.

With some leasing commitment—though still no signed papers—in place, Aiken City Council moved forward on January 8, 2024 with an ordinance to incorporate the $20 million of plutonium settlement funds into the City budget. The staff’s supporting memorandum for the budget amendment stated that,

“City staff is working with Aiken Corporation on an agreement that will be before Council at a future meeting in February. “

The budget amendment ordinance was approved unanimously following the first public hearing, and Council granted final unanimous approval following the second public hearing on January 22, 2024.

From that point, it was assumed the Aiken Corporation would continue to formally run the show— if only for appearance sake. The ACorp’s January 10th meeting minutes described Chairman Buzz Rich stating that, “The next step is to hire an architect and start the design work…He plans to meet next with the City Manager to discuss further details.”

The City of Aiken’s New Mixed-Use Building

The next step, as it turned out, was the City of Aiken taking over project management and hiring the architectural firm; one that was selected through the ACorp’s procurement process. Mark Chostner’s Capstone Services—which has overseen project management of the new Public Safety Headquarters and the new Municipal Building—is now listed as being in charge of the City’s, and not Aiken Corporation’s, “owner project management services.”

The City of Aiken routinely procures and manages expensive professional service contracts and multimillion dollar public works projects. Its Procurement department follows standard procedures and avoids legal challenges to its bid awards. In contrast, the Aiken Corporation stumbled through its $250,000 predevelopment contract, and needed city staff and Capstone Services to complete its first and only RFQ this century.

It only makes sense to avoid the use of any third-party surrogate administrator and avoid the kind of increased logistical and fiscal inefficiencies that accompanied the Aiken Corporation’s “predevelopment” contract.

Lingering Questions and Issues

Even though the City’s assumption of project management can be viewed as a welcome development, several lingering, related questions remain.

First, how did the City manage to retain Cheatham Fletcher and Scott as its architectural design firm without going through its own required procurement process? The answer is probably that the city’s Procurement department ensured that the ACorp’s improvised process adhered to standard procedures—but if so the fact remains the City conducted the process through a surrogate that did not have the fiscal or contractual authority to proceed.

Second, who is the future owner of the building? The City of Aiken is now the “owner,” at least during the design and construction contract phases. Aiken Corporation is still the likely final owner and landlord.

The agenda for the Aiken Corporation’s February meeting included “Deliberations, discussions and any motions or resolutions about next steps in the development of the Newberry Street property, including but not limited to a Framework Agreement and a Purchase and Sales Agreement with the city of Aiken.”

According to the Aiken Standard’s Feburary 17th story, that framework is what has been marketed by the City-ACorp partnership since June 2023. The concept is referred to the “Amentum Model,” even though the Amentum Corporation was nonexistent when the property management model was conceived in the early 2000s. It is better titled “The Aiken Corporation Model. “

The Aiken Corporation model means the City would purchase the property from ACorp, construct the facility, transfer the facility back to ACorp, and rent the property itself to ACorp under a long-term ground lease.

That leads to the third question: If the Battelle Savannah River Alliance does sign a one-year lease, but does not renew it in the next several years, will that constitute a misappropriation of the $20 million legislative allocation for “SRS/National Lab Offsite Infrastructure?”

The last two questions could be resolved through the simpler rent-free alternative of the City constructing the facility and then gifting it to the State’s major universities.

Creating a “Workplace Development Center” was one example of the “substantial investment” promised by the State of South Carolina for USC, Clemson, and South Carolina State University to be part of the Battelle alliance. Since the state chose to honor this commitment by allocating $20 million of plutonium settlement funds, our higher education system should be granted ownership, and retain that ownership if and when the SRNL operating contractor ceases to occupy the “City of Aiken’s New Mixed-Use Building.”

Next: “We Need the Space.”
and “Aiken Corporation Accomplishments: Mostly Pre-2015”

Footnotes and References

(1) How the City of Aiken retained a design firm without its own official RFP is unknown, and City officials did not respond to questions posed late Friday afternoon about the issue.

The Aiken Corporation RFP and associated legal notice was largely prepared by city staff; and did bear all the markings of the city’s procurement process. However, the ACorp architectural design services RFQ was not authorized by any City Council-approved contract.

(2) As reported in $148,000 For What…., an historic assessment was actually conducted under separate, unannounced contracts between the City of Aiken and McMillan Pazdan and Smith.

(3) With the City’s assistance, Aiken Corporation pursued public support for the project. A September 13, 2023 email from a City official urged dissemination of the ACorp’s new FB page:

“The Aiken Corporation Facebook page is now live and promoting the meetings. Please share with all Aiken Corp and Chamber fiends and contacts and ask that they follow the (Facebook) page and post supportive comments as appropriate.”

“Fiends” was an original typo. Neither the Facebook page nor the Aiken Corporation website devoted to the project have been updated since late September.

A strong showing was also urged for City Council’s September 25, 2024, public meeting, during which the MPS and Aiken Corporation recommendation was presented.

In fact, the Aiken Corporation has accomplished very little since around 2015, after its longtime Chairman Wade Brodie left the organization. Mr. Brodie was a tireless worker, and nearly every accomplishment touted by the current Board was completed under his tenure.

Since 2015, the Board has struggled with finding its way. It was finally forced to demolish its “spec building” on Beaufort Street after more than a decade of unsuccessfully trying to attract a tenant. The positive news is that the property is now the location for the new Children’s Place facility.

(4) As part of its contract with the City of Aiken, by October 2023, the Aiken Corporation had accumulated more than $10,000 in legal fees related to the lease negotiations. The costs of other involved parties—-city staff, DOE attorneys, SRNL officials, BSRA representatives, etc—is unknown. This information is known due to the Aiken Corporation’s prompt response to a Freedom of Information Act request for invoices submitted by McMillan Pazdan and Smith and Austin and Pethick.

(5) Emails related to the fall 2023 negotiations are available for viewing at this page.

(6) Example of emails related to City staff preparation of the RFQ are available for viewing at this page.

Related Aiken Chronicles articles and editorials, in descending order of publication: 

One-Year Lease After One-Year Lease…. details the results of the latest negotiations between SRNL’s operating contractor and the Aiken Corporation.

The Rent Free Alternative is a review of the option of the City of Aiken taking over the SRNL/Mixed-Use project, constructing the facility, and then gifting the facility to the state’s Universities.

The Aiken Corporation-City of Aiken Relationship: Partners, Not Cousins analyzes the

The Aiken Corporation Building was published in conjunction with this article to illustrate the changes in corporate tenancy in the Aiken Corporation Building. 

Information Release: Hotel Aiken Stabilization Study and Other Documents…. provides links to documents related to the SRNL/Mixed-Use project and the Hotel Aiken stabilization effort.

148,000 For What….reviews the payments and progress made in the Aiken Corporation contract.

Aiken’s Cousin Problem… covers the recommendation of the Aiken Corporation’s Newberry Street, NW property for the SRNL/“Mixed-Use” project; and the history of the acquisition of that property. 

The three-part series The Amentum Model… chronicles the history of the development of the Aiken Corporation’s Newberry Street office building and the Aiken Performing Arts Center.  

The Devil is in the Details…addressed the selection process for the SRNL/“Mixed Use” facility. 

Thoughts on the Aiken Corporation is an editorial and analysis exploring the need for the organization and past efforts at accountability. 

Gathering on the Rooftop Terrace is an editorial and analysis of the McMillan Pazdan and Smith SRNL/“Mixed Use” project feasibility study. 

The Bomb Plant Reveal…Bombs is an editorial and analysis of the feasibility study process. 

Letter to Battelle is a letter of concern regarding the project process and status to the Battelle Company’s chief liaison for the DOE/SRNL operating contract.  

Aiken Corporation Issued a Notice of Violation is a news release regarding the SC Secretary of State’s citation of Aiken Corporation for late filing of necessary tax forms. 

45,000 Square Feet Without a Tenant provides information about the DOE/SRNL disassociation with the project and the details of the DOE/SRNL operating contract. 

What is the Status of the Savannah River National Laboratory Building Downtown provides a full transcript and summary of the Aiken Corporation’s May 2023 Executive Committee meeting. 

A Question on Security is an unanswered letter to ACorp contractor McMillan Pazdan and Smith regarding Department of Homeland Security guidelines and rules for threat assessments at federal facilities. 

The Future of Warneke Cleaners is an unanswered letter to Aiken Corporation contractor McMillan Pazdan and Smith regarding the zoning status of downtown dry cleaner. 

Three Missing Pages covers the Aiken Corporation contract with the City of Aiken and provides extensive footnotes about the project timeline through April 2023. 

Who Bought this Property chronicles how an Aiken Corporation loan from the City of Aiken was forgiven in exchange for ACorp purchasing a small property that facilitated the annexation of the new Steeplechase property. 

The Agenda Setting Aiken Corporation describes how decisions are often made at Aiken Corporation Board meetings before being presented to City Council. 

Project Labscalis Annual Operating Costs covers the total estimated costs for demolition and site prep, construction, and annual maintenance costs for the proposed SRNL building. 

Structured Parking Solution for the Lab is about the connection between a proposed parking garage and the lab project. 

Off-Site Infrastructure provides the history of the lab project and the plutonium settlement disbursement process. 

There’s a Joke in There Somewhere is about the State of the City Address where the lab announcement was made. 

Aiken Corporation Registration Expired is a review of the organization and details how its not-for-profit status temporarily expired in 2022. 

Other related articles:  

Aiken Standard 3/16/23 by M. Christian, Aiken City Council Approves Aiken Corporation Agreement Moving New Downtown Project Forward

Aiken Standard; 5/29/23; by M. Christian.  Savannah River National Lab considered two other downtown Aiken sites for workforce center

The video of the February 6, 2023 Public Forum, or ‘listening session’ is available on the City’s You Tube channel. .

I wanted to share an update on the Aiken Corporation board meeting that took place yesterday. The board has agreed to proceed with issuing an RFQ for design services, which will include all preconstruction activities and the preparation of a bid package for a GC. The RFQ should be issued in the next 30 days, and firms will have 30 days to respond.

January 2024, Savannah River Site

“Appalling” and “Abysmal”

4 Comments

How the Department of Energy addressed Governor McMaster’s and Attorney General Alan Wilson’s conflicting and sometimes harsh opinions regarding the future of surplus plutonium.

by Don Moniak
January 22, 2024

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) Final Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact Statement (SPDEIS) was completed last month and announced in the Federal Register this past Friday, January 19th.  A Record of Decision (ROD) is expected sometime in February, although that ROD might not result in any actual plans.

The Final SPDEIS is the fifth National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis addressing all or parts of 61.5 metric tons (MT) of surplus plutonium that has been conducted in the past three decades. During that time, the DOE/NNSA’s various contractors have processed and disposed of less than five tons of the surplus stockpile, and spent billions of dollars on a failed plutonium/Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel factory originally intended to handle up to eighty percent of the surplus material. Major changes in plans have occurred at least five times.

The latest analysis was released almost twenty-seven years to the day of the the 1997 Record of Decision to consolidate all surplus, “non-pit” plutonium at DOE’s Savannah River Site (SRS) for up to fifty years; nearly sixteen tons at the time but later reduced to about twelve tons.  Less than a ton of surplus plutonium has since been removed from the site.

Controversy over the storage decision began in 2002, and eventually resulted in the $600 million settlement between the federal government and the State of South Carolina in August 2020. That settlement requires DOE/NNSA to remove 9.5 metric tons from SRS by 2037. If the recent rate of transfer of plutonium waste from SRS to WIPP continues, that task will not be completed until well after 2040.

In the meantime, more than forty additional tons could be imported into South Carolina, stored, and then processed into waste over the next three to four decades. Several more tons of non-surplus plutonium is scheduled to be transported to SRS for the job of producing new plutonium pits for the weapons arsenal.

The Final SPDEIS nearly mirrors the Draft SPDEIS released in January 2023; summarized in Feds Propose 27 More Tons of Plutonium for Processing at Savannah River Site.  The preferred alternative and associated sub-alternatives remains the same: Use some combination of capabilities at SRS and Los Alamos to convert upwards of 34 metric tons (MT) of surplus military grade plutonium to plutonium oxide powder, dilute the plutonium into a less easily retrievable waste form, and dispose of that waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). 

The proposed action (Figure 1) does not commit to a specific plan. SRS could be assigned the whole job, part of the job, or very little of the job. 

Figure 1: Simplified version of DOE/NNSA’s proposed action to dispose of up to 34 metric tons of surplus military-grade plutonium. The total includes approximately 27 tons of plutonium within weapon components known as “pits,” which are the primary nuclear trigger in the U.S. arsenal; and 7.0 tons of already separated plutonium in metal or powder form.



Since January 2023, sixteen changes were made to the nearly one-thousand-page record, in response to 121 written comments submitted during the two month public comment period, and 53 oral comments made during three in-person public meetings and one Zoom call. The public comment process was incredibly subdued in comparison to the competitive spirit between weapons communities in the late 1990s; when thousands of comments were submitted, hundreds spoke at public hearings, and Senator Strom Thurmond described weapons workers in Texas as “amateurs.” (Comments and responses are contained in Volume III of the SPDEIS.)

Three of the submitted comments were from the South Carolina Congressional Delegation, Governor Henry McMaster, and Attorney General Alan Wilson. 

The comments and concerns from our elected representatives had several contradictory themes:

  • An obsession with long-term plutonium storage, but a near absence of concern about the most pivotal aspect of the program—the future availability of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for disposal of the final plutonium wastes produced at SRS (most likely) or LANL (least likely). 
  • Skepticism to outright hostility towards DOE/NNSA, but strong support for the DOE’s Savannah River Site and its contract workforce.
  • Support for the more dangerous task of importing and processing more than forty tons of plutonium at SRS, but opposition to the more benign task of long-term storage. This is in keeping with the nearly decade-old tradition of South Carolina political leaders of welcoming plutonium into the state, but terming above-ground, long-term plutonium storage as “plutonium dumping.” 

DOE/NNSA’s responses to the comments from SC elected officials were uniformly finalized as:

“These comments did not result in a modification in the Final EIS.”

The most strident comments (Figure 2) were made by Attorney General Wilson, which included, in bold type, that:

“DOE/NNSA has an appalling record of not following through on its promises or projects. Its project management is abysmal, and South Carolina’s pessimism of DOE/NNA’s ability to implement any proposed alternative is well earned.” 

Wilson also wrote that, “DOE/NNNSA must be committed to removing the weapons grade plutonium on a schedule that ensures that South Carolina is not the dumping ground for such plutonium.” DOE/NNSA did not commit to any schedule, and Wilson’s comments “did not result in a modification to the Final EIS.”

Figure 2. Comments made by Attorney General Alan Wilson, with reference to DOE/NNSA’s response. (Highlighting is in the original document)


Wilson’s most harsh comment was lumped into the response category of “General Opposition to SPDP and NNSA/DOE.”  In other words, AG Wilson’s comments were not well accepted by the federal government. 

Such objections in the past have resulted in thinly veiled threats from NNSA. In 2018, a State of South Carolina lawsuit led by Wilson that opposed NNSA’s decision to terminate the MOX program resulted in the prospect to move tritium production operations from SRS:

“In light of this injunction, NNSA must reevaluate the viability to execute enduring missions at the Savannah River Site.”

Comments from the Governor’s office were more tactful. Governor McMaster wrote that his support for decades of more plutonium processing at SRS should “not be construed as support for long-term storage of surplus plutonium in South Carolina.” Because of his concern that “South Carolina not become a permanent plutonium repository,” McMaster asked NNSA to “conduct regular, direct, and detailed briefings with me and members of my staff.” (Page 229 of comments)

To this request, the DOE/NNSA merely responded that “NNSA has committed to periodic briefings on progress toward meeting the removal commitment to the Governor and the Attorney General of South Carolina.”

Of course, the Governor’s comments “did not result in a modification in the Final EIS.”

The Congressional Delegation’s joint letter was the least combative and most diplomatic, stating only that “NNSA does not have the greatest track-record with the State regarding a follow-through on commitments.” The delegation also asked for updates, continued operation of WIPP, compliance with legal obligations, and “maximum possible transparency;” while stating “ we are not supportive of long-term storage of surplus plutonium storage in South Carolina.” (Page 223).

Overall, DOE/NNSA issued platitudes to South Carolina’s highest elected officials, committed only to a minimal level of compliance and token updates on its progress, and refused to set a hard schedule for removal of plutonium. Again, there were no modifications of the Final EIS as a result of the delegation’s concerns.

DOE/NNSA’s responses are to be expected when, on the one hand, political leaders express full support for Savannah River Site, its corporate contractors, and the prospect of importing and processing more than forty additional tons of plutonium (Figure 3) into South Carolina; while on the other hand expressing distrust in the same federal cabinet agency that owns and oversees the Savannah River Site to merely store the material during the same time period.

Figure 3: Diagram in the SPDEIS showing the various forms of surplus plutonium and their future pathways. DOE/NNSA remains undecided on how to move forward with 18 tons, and has only disposed of less than five tons (3.2 MT of “scraps, residues” were transferred from Rocky Flats to WIPP in the early 2000s; and SRS has shipped less than 1 MT to WIPP since 2018.)



Footnotes

(1) Regarding the DOE/NNSA response methodology.

In the past, DOE printed individual comments with responses on an opposing column on the same page. Concerned parties who took the time to comment on matters affecting their communities and their constituents could see responses to their concerns without exerting any additional effort.

In Volume III of the Final SPDEIS, DOE employed a torturous response method. The agency’s contractor first sorted all comments into nearly thirty categories. These were followed by the actual comments. Determining DOE’s response to individual comments requires the concerned party to backtrack to the category of concern. For example, Attorney General Wilson would have to refer

For example, to determine DOE’s response to comments by Attorney General Alan Wilson published on page 255 of the comment section, the AG’s office would have to backtrack to five different response groupings on five separate pages.

The system is symbolic of the general attitude of the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Agency; that “you the people” work for “us the government.”

(2) The plan does not involve changing the isotopic composition for the plutonium to make it less attractive for re-use in the nation’s nuclear arsenal.