September 15, 2023 Letter to State Senator Tom Young (R-Aiken) and State Senator Shane Massey (R-Edgefield)

Dear Senators Young and Massey, 

1. The General Assembly allocated $20 million from the SRS/plutonium settlement fund to Aiken County for “Off-site Infrastructure Improvements for SRS/National Lab, including the Aiken Technology/Innovation Corridor.” 

2. Not long after this, Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) officials reached an agreement with the Aiken Municipal Development Commission to locate an SRNL “innovation district” facility within the City of Aiken. All of the choices available as of June 2022 have yet to be disclosed. 

3.  In January 2023 the City of Aiken applied for the funds, and this summer the JBRC approved the request. Below is the request form from the City of Aiken. This request for $20 million in state funds clearly states the project is specifically intended for future use by SRNL’s operating contractor. The project title is “Off-site Infrastructure SRS/National Lab.” 

4. As previously related, in July 2023 the DOE/SRNL issued a statement denying any role in the process. In six months time, DOE/SRNL developed a strong hesitancy over the project, undoubtedly due in large part to opposition to the location—but not the project. DOE/SRNL must approve any lease arrangement for the SRNL operating contractor. 

5. This week the Aiken Corporation released a draft feasibility study in which the words “National Laboratory,” “SRNL” and any other mention of the Department of Energy institutions are completely absent. 

The project has been rebranded as a “Mixed-Use Building.” There is only a “potential” tenant. 

It is increasingly evident that the $20 million allocation from SRS/plutonium settlement funds that was awarded to the City of Aiken is no longer specifically for an SRNL facility. How is this not a misappropriation of funds? 

6. There are other options for these funds, many of which have not yet been explored. In regard to the latter: 

a. There is no requirement for this facility to be leased to the SRNL operating contractor, nor any requirement for any entity to profit via a lease arrangement. There is also no requirement saying SRNL’s operating contractor, which includes the three major SC universities, cannot inhabit this facility on a rent-free basis. 

b. There is no requirement as to future ownership. 

c. Why not consider having the facility constructed somewhere other than the downtown Aiken retail district, and then have the property and/or facility donated/transferred to USCA? In this manner, a public entity with a proven track record of property management could own and manage the facility. The SRNL operating contractor could utilize the site and only pay utilities and maintenance costs. 

If the contractor were to depart, then USCA would own the facility. Considering the growth in the area and at the University itself, the facility could undoubtedly be used by USCA or its University partners in a productive manner. 

As I wrote in Off-Site Infrastructure, the key reason for this facility is that the SC University system committed to building a “Workforce Development Center” in its role as within the Battelle Savannah River Alliance: 

“A commitment from the State of South Carolina to “make a substantial investment to support DOE and SRNL,” that included a “possible infrastructure investment colocated with SRNL to support workforce development.” (Section J-14) (4) ” 

Maybe it is time to return to this contractually obligated investment commitment and what this $20 million was really all about–supporting workforce development. 

As I wrote in an editorial yesterday titled Gathering on the Rooftop Terrace, this facility is increasingly looking more like a public relations project than a workforce development project. How can anyone approve of a federal facility, leased or otherwise, that is designed with a rooftop gathering place? Especially with $20 million of state funding for a project the federal government will not commit to or become involved in even in a consulting role? 

Thank you, 

Donald Moniak

August 22, 2023 Letter to State Senators Tom Young and Shane Massey

Dear Senator Young, 

The status of the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) facility in downtown Aiken is best described at this point as being in limbo. The City of Aiken appears to be moving forward with a plan to spend $20 million of SRS plutonium settlement funding dedicated to an SRNL facility without a commitment from SRNL to even move into the facility.

 The details and associated questions are as follows: 

1. The Department of Energy and SRNL last month indicated the federal government is no longer involved in the planning of the facility, it is strictly a City of Aiken endeavor. 

I wrote about this news and the contractual issues surrounding it in “45,000 Square Feet Without a Tenant?” 

2. The City’s funding request form submitted to Aiken County and eventually to the Joint Bond Review Board specified the facility is for SRNL. There is no approval for any other use of the funding. 

How can the City of Aiken be moving forward on a project that is funded specifically for an SRNL occupied facility when SRNL and DOE are no longer committed to the location or the planned facility (for which there is yet no design plan)? 

3. Another location for the  SRNL  facility has been proposed by Tracy Turner, who has a contract with Aiken County to purchase the Old Hospital property. He plans to develop housing, office space, and retail. 

The Old Hospital location  would more than meet the needs of  SRNL and more–housing opportunities, green space, a more campus-like setting, and better connectivity to USCA, to name several positive factors. 

4. The City of Aiken does not appear to be open to the idea. At Council’s work session last week the idea did not even come up in discussion. But is this the City’s decision? Isn’t the final location actually SRNL’s and ultimately DOE’s decision to make? 

5. If the current plan continues, the actual costs of the SRNL facility are more likely to be upwards of $32 million excluding cost overruns. All of these costs are currently targeted to derive from SRS settlement funds. 

–$20 million allocated specifically for SRNL facility

~$4.5 million for the property it will occupy that was purchased with part of the $25 million allocation for “Downtown and Northside/HWY 1 Redevelopment. The City paid off its $9.6 million Project Pascalis debt with the funding and now wants to keep some of the property to promote a stronger federal presence in downtown Aiken. 

–Upwards of $7 million for a parking garage to be funded by the remainder of the $25 million allocation. 

—$0.65 million for the Newberry Street property purchased by Aiken Corporation via a city loan and presently planned for surface parking. Aiken has a history of forgiving all or parts of loans to Aiken Corporation. The City could buy this property outright using the SRS settlement funds. 

How can the process work like this and still following the legislative intent of the funding? I asked the Joint Board Review Committee that question and the response from their staffer Mr. Richard Harmon was to contact the local legislative delegation. 

Thank you for taking this under consideration, 

Don Moniak