Tag Archives: Savannah River Site

City Government, January 2023

Aiken Corporation Registration Expired

Leave a comment

by Don Moniak
January 28, 2023
Updated February 19, 2023

According to the South Carolina Secretary of State’s office, the registration for the Aiken Corporation, which functions as a not-for-profit, charitable subsidiary of the City of Aiken, has been expired for two months; and the mandatory financial report for the previous fiscal year is more than two months late. The organization is now subject to fines of up to $2,000 and can be “enjoined from further solicitation of funds” in South Carolina if the Secretary of State’s office brings an action against the organization.

South Carolina state law requires non-exempt, charitable organizations to “file an annual report of its financial activities” within four and one-half months of the close of the organization’s fiscal year “ unless a written extension has been granted.” (1)

According to the South Carolina Secretary of State’s office:

“This organization is expired, (as of) 11/15/2022, 
Every year all charities need to renew the registration for the current year and provide us a financial report for the previous fiscal year.
They need to renew the registration and file the financial report for fiscal year ending 06/30/2022.
We have the report for 06/30/2021.” (2)

From SC Secretary of State public database. Red box added for emphasis.

The Aiken Corporation consists of its property management entity, LED Aiken, and the Aiken Downtown Development Association (ADDA), which has a separate Board of Directors and bylaws.

According to its bylaws, the Aiken Corporation is “organized exclusively for charitable purposes,” and its purpose is “to further economic development and job opportunities in the City of Aiken and the area served by the City of Aiken Utility Systems; to promote and assist in the growth and development of downtown Aiken; to promote and assist in the development of affordable housing in the City of Aiken; and toengage in those activities which are in furtherance of, or related to, these purposes.

The Project Pascalis Connection

The CEO of the Aiken Corporation, Arthur “Buzz” Rich, has also served as an ex-officio, non voting member of the nearly defunct Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) since May, 2021. During that time, he attended numerous closed-door, Executive Session meetings of the AMDC, the AMDC and City Council, and the December 12, 2022 City Council Executive Session. He was the only lawyer in the room during many AMDC meetings, but was not named as a defendant in Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al.

The Aiken Corporation owns a one-acre property, purchased July, 2022, $650,000, comprised of three undeveloped, vacant lots in the 100 block of NW Newberry Street. These lots were identified as part of the plan for the proposed Savannah River National Laboratory office complex and employee development center in downtown Aiken. That proposal was announced at the State of the City address on Monday night (3). A parking lot with ninety-five parking spaces is proposed for the now vacant lots.

Aiken Corporation properties and approximate location for proposed Savannah River National Laboratory office complex.



Current Status of Registration and Filings

Upon request, the Secretary of State’s office provided a copy of the last 990 financial report, filed for the period of July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021—the same fiscal year as the City of Aiken. Perhaps due to funding allocated to the AMDC, the Aiken Corporation’s revenues declined from $574,000 the previous fiscal year to $130,400 in FY 2021. The City of Aiken was its largest donor, having contributed exactly $60,000. Its largest source of revenue is from the rental of its 17,324 square foot office building at 106 Newberry Street to the Savannah River Site (SRS) contractor Amentum Corporation.

The Aiken Corporation’s last filing identified a Board of Directors consisting of sixteen members— although the bylaws call for a minimum of twenty. The members included City Council members Lessie Price and Gail Diggs, several members of the Aiken Chamber of Commerce (as called for in the by-laws), then USC-Aiken Chancellor Sandra Jordan, AMDC member Philip Merry, Planning Commissioners Sam Erb and Jason Rabun, and former City Councilman Pat Cunning.

UPDATE:

According to the SC Secretary of State’s Office, two days after this story was published, the Aiken Corporation re-registered and requested an extension on their 990 form submission:

“Our records indicate that the extension request was received on Monday (January 30th).  Also, the organization submitted a registration online on that same day, and it just was processed this afternoon.  I apologize for overlooking that we had received the online registration form when I responded to you earlier today.  The organization is now actively registered.” (Shannon Wiley, SC Secretary of State General Counsel and Public Information Director).

When asked about any future compliance issues, Ms. Wiley responded:

“Mr. Moniak:

Thank you for reaching out to our office.  Under S.C. Code Section 33-56-60, a charitable organization is required to file an annual financial report within 4 ½ months of the end of its fiscal year.  Charities can request a 6 month extension to file their annual financial reports.  If a charity misses the deadline, our office will issue a notice of violation to the organization.  Upon receipt of the notice of violation, it will have 15 days to file the late report.  If it fails to do so, a fine of $10.00 per day begins to accrue, up to $2,000.00.  Our records indicate that the Aiken Corporation of South Carolina requested an extension for its FYE 2022 annual financial report and the filing deadline is now May 15, 2023. 

Our office has not opened a violation for delinquent registration (as provided under S.C. Code Section 33-56-30) because we cannot determine whether the organization is soliciting contributions at this time.  If our office determines that a charity is soliciting while not registered, we will issue a notice of violation to the organization, and it will have 15 days to comply with the registration requirements following receipt of the violation.  If it does not, it will be subject to a $2,000.00 fine.

Ms. Wiley added, in regard to a question about donations from government, including grants:

“Under the Solicitation of Charitable Funds Act, the definition of ‘contribution’ includes ‘the promise, grant, or pledge of money, credit, assistance, or property of any kind or value.’ Thus, grants would be considered a contribution.  If a charitable organization is seeking grants from governmental entities, then that would be considered solicitation. 

Footnotes.

(1) SECTION 33-56-60. Report of financial activities; filing requirements; contents; filing IRS Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF as an alternative; exemption; penalty for failure to file.

A charitable organization that has filed a registration statement with the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 33-56-30, or that is soliciting contributions in this State, whether individually or collectively with other organizations, shall file in the office of the Secretary of State an annual report of its financial activities, on forms prescribed by the Secretary of State or on Internal Revenue Service Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF, certified to be true by the organization’s chief executive officer and chief financial officer. The report must cover the preceding fiscal year and must be filed within four and one-half months of the close of the organization’s fiscal year unless a written extension has been granted by the Secretary of State. To receive an extension, the organization must file with the Secretary of State a written request for an extension or a copy of the extension request submitted to the Internal Revenue Service.”

In 33-56-60(E) defines penalties for noncompliance.

“An organization which fails to file a timely annual financial report required by this section may be enjoined from further solicitation of funds in this State in an action brought by the Secretary of State and is ineligible to renew its registration as a charitable organization until the required financial statements are filed with the Secretary of State. An organization which fails to file a timely annual financial report required by this section may be assessed by the Secretary of State administrative fines of ten dollars for each day of noncompliance for each delinquent report not to exceed two thousand dollars for each separate violation.”

(2) The information was provided in an email from Laura Balaban, Office of the Secretary of State, Charities Division, in response to a query regarding the charitable organization status of the Aiken Corporation.
During a search for the Aiken Corporation on the SC Secretary of State’s public database search, the organization was found to be “expired.”

(3) Following is a transcript of Councilman Ed Woltz’s description of the proposed facility, slightly edited for clarity from archived City of Aiken’s You Tube transcript. Mr. Woltz was incorrect in stating the alternative location was “outside the gate” of Savannah River Site. The $20 million dedicated to an SRNL facility was originally intended for a University of South Carolina at Aiken campus location.

“Councilman Ed Woltz: Thank you Mr Mayor. Well ladies and gentlemen this is the first time I’ve ever used these things so I’m going to do my best on it. We’re going to do this together ladies and gentlemen. Over the last several weeks I’ve been asked to take the lead for Council and exploring a plan that I think is a great one that will be one of those major win-wins the Mayor has mentioned.

As as you may know Governor Henry McMasters and our legislative delegation have committed to investing in a new Workforce Development Center for the Savannah River National Laboratory.  This new building is to be located more centrally than the lab’s aging and remote facilities that’s at the Savannah River Site now. This is so important that the state has set aside 20 million in plutonium settlement funding to get it built. That’s 20 million dollars that’s in addition.

[Applause]

That’s in addition to 25 million the Mayor just mentioned. That’s 45 million dollars of investment. It’s important to mention at this point that I may be up here leading this charge, but the credit is not mine the idea belongs to others. Former Aiken Municipal Development Corporation members chairman Keith Wood, Vice chairman Christopher Verenes, and Chamber of Commerce president David Jamerson really identified this as an opportunity more than one year ago. Thank you David.

They have worked tirelessly to get the funds for it and to have it located here in Aiken,  my hat’s off to them for teeing this up when it was needed. Even when the the funds seemed like a done deal last year, the question is where would it be built stayed up in the air. Could it be downtown Aiken or would it be just outside the Gated SRS.  What a night I am pleased to say that downtown Aiken has been selected as SRS’s overwhelming preference

[Applause]

It doesn’t hurt that while all this was taking place at about the same time it became clear that’s a very nice downtown properties that he owns right across the street just might be available for a new and better idea. Sometimes a better plan comes along just when you least expect it. First, let me be clear none of this is finalized and city council has just hadinitial discussions about it and so we’re not close to finalizing.

In fact I’m asking tonight the city staff within schedule a public forum within the next two weeks to gather input thoughts and concerns as we begin looking at the possibilities that as a city and Council so look for that in two weeks. Let me share with you some of the thoughts Council has had about initial discussions and we’ll begin exploring fully over the next few months.

We have a picture I hope yes of the building the proposed building. {points to screen behind him with photo of downtown area in question] I can’t see it you can. So this will provide for a 40 to 45 000 square foot office and exhibition space requested by SRNL between Bee Lane, Newbury Street and Richland Avenue.  The building will house approximately 100 or more paid SRNL workers with a rotating group of faculty and students from SRNL’s University collaborative. That group of universities includes the University of South Carolina, Clemson University, South Carolina State University, University of Georgia andGeorgia Tech. The building would also have a dedicated space for USC Aiken and provideeducation and Outreach downtown.

49:01

[Applause]

The plan is to preserve the existing businesses on the Block leaving Newbury Hall  untouched, relocated relocate Warneke Cleaners to the buildings at front of Richland Avenue. These retail buildings on Richland Avenue will be renting and upgradedas part of the project and the Thai [Taj Aiken, which features Indian cuisine] restaurant would remain on Richland Avenue.

The Proposal allows for the Johnson drugstore here on the corner of Richmond Newbury to undergo historic renovation and preserve it and return the exterior to more of its original look. So now the only anticipated demolition would be the dry cleaning building, the motel strip along B Lane that was built in 1981, and perhaps the old gun shop/finance company on Richland Avenue.

The next big question what about parking? We need to plan ahead for parking the demand created by this project. We do that through creating a surface parking lot across from St John’s Church on Newberry and that would provide dedicated workday parking for SRNL employees, and that would be available to the public and the church goers nights and weekends. We’d also be looking for the possibility of more parking behind the room we’re in right now which would be a  structured facility that would be a lot next to the new Municipal Building providing between the two spaces somewhere between 250 and 300 parking spaces.

Now, I’ve just outlined it but I want to bring someone up here who knows a lot more about this than any of us, Dr. the director of the National Laboratory.”

——————————————

More notes on Aiken Corporation

Since the ACorp’s number one donor is the City of Aiken, these minutes are available in the City’s document repository. Go this site, click document repository, and then click home.

Search

Non profit tax filings are public via the Secretary of State’s website, or better yet the Pro Publica non profit Explorer website, which goes back further.

Following are more stories published subsequent to the story above:

Three Missing Pages covers the Aiken Corporation contract with the City of Aiken

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. 

Off-Site Infrastructure provides the history of the lab project. 

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

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




January 2023, Offsite Insights, Savannah River Site

“Plutonium is not for Amateurs.” Part 2:

2 Comments

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

by Don Moniak

January 19, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Department of Labor statistics for SRS compensation claims under EEOICPA.


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

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

Savannah River Plant medical department pamphlet, circa 1985.


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

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

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


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

“Plutonium is Not For Amateurs.” Part I.

————————————————————————————————————

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












City Government, In the Demolition Zone, January 2023

Pascalis Properties on Aiken City Council’s Closed-Door Agenda?

4 Comments

by Don Moniak

January 7, 2022

Aiken City Council is scheduled to meet in closed-door Executive Session prior to its regular public meeting on Monday, January 9, 2022. A “potential purchase of real property located in downtown Aiken” is the first item on the Executive Session agenda. (1)

Based on the following information, the downtown property in question is believed to be the seven properties owned by the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) that collectively formed the basis for the commission’s second Project Pascalis effort; and which were referenced in the singular tense as “The Property” in the commission’s cancelled Purchase and Sale Agreement with RPM Development Partners, LLC.

1. For the second consecutive Council meeting, a planned, closed-door Executive Session will feature these identical items:

  • “Potential purchase of real property located in downtown Aiken.
  • A proposed contractual arrangement to lease property in downtown Aiken. “(2)

The previous discussion occurred prior to Council’s December 12, 2022, regular public meeting.

2. According to draft meeting minutes, the following attendees reportedly attended the two-hour long session on December 12th:

  • Councilmembers Kay Brohl, Gail Diggs, Ed Girardeau, Andrea Gregory, Lessie Price and Ed Woltz.
  • City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh, City Attorney Gary Smith, City Clark Sara Ridout, Assistant City Manager Mary Tilton, AMDC member David Jameson, Attorney Daniel Plyler, City Economic Development Director Tim O’Briant, AMDC Ex-Officio member and Aiken Corporation CEO Buzz Rich; and Dr. Vahid Majidi and Sharon Marra of the Savannah River National Laboratory.

3. Aiken Mayor Rick Osbon recused himself from the December 12th proceeding: 

“Mayor Osbon recused himself from participating in the executive session discussion because the discussion may involve one of his direct economic competitors.”  (Page 7)

Rick Osbon co-owns and operates Osbon Dry Cleaners on Pendleton Street in downtown Aiken. Their only competitor in the downtown area is Warneke’s Cleaners on Newberry Street. Warneke’s Cleaners is on one of seven properties purchased by the AMDC in November, 2021, to become part of the proposed Project Pascalis demolition and redevelopment zone. The properties are owned by the AMDC, but acquired with a $9.6 million grant from City Council from borrowed taxpayer funds.

4. David Jameson resigned from the AMDC two days later, on December 14th, and began his resignation letter by writing:

“Thank you for allowing me to hear the legal briefing concerning the mechanics of the Aiken Municipal Development Commission (AMDC) Monday night. My understanding is that the Commission’s ability to function is being held hostage by our bylaws—essentially the quorum issue. With our current membership of three, we can meet but we cannot act.” 

5. During the public comment period for non-agenda items, Historic Aiken Foundation President Linda Johnson offered the following comments and questions:

“Partly because of some past events, Historic Aiken Foundation is especially interested anytime anything comes up about downtown.  So I understand that buying properties is something that you really have to talk about in executive session, but I was wondering is there anything you can share about what property this is, what you’re planning to do with it, and what’s going on with this potential purchase?” (22:30 mark of Meeting)

Aiken City Attorney Gary Smith—who has apparently chosen to stop recusing himself from the Pascalis process since the reported project “cancellation” by the AMDC— responded:

“The properties are located downtown, that’s really all we can tell you at this point. Before city council can do anything with acquiring the property there would have to be a public discussion. There would have to be a notice given to everybody and so you will get that information if that transaction actually goes forward.”

In response to a related followup question (3), Smith further stated:

I think that’d be fair to say the the transaction is such that all of the parties involved aren’t prepared for the public to be aware of what the transaction is. That’s why City Council is not allowed to discuss it at this point, okay, whereas a year ago both parties were there at the table.”

As described in Jameston’s resignation letter, the AMDC is currently not prepared for the public because it lacks a quorum. Since the AMDC technically owns the properties, City Council might believe the commission must be prepared to act on any sale of the properties.

6. Item #4 under new business for Council’s regular January 9th meeting is the “First Reading of an Ordinance Regarding the Membership of the Municipal Development Commission:”

According to the supporting memorandum from City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh:

“Councilmember Girardeau has asked to bring forth an ordinance amending the membership section, which would have three of the nine-member board be City Council members serving as voting ex-officio members. Six members would continue to be citizens of the City of Aiken appointed by Aiken City Council. For Council consideration is an ordinance amending Section 11-2 of the Aiken City Code regarding the membership of the Aiken Municipal Development Commission.”

Placing three ex-officio voting members from City Council onto the AMDC would provide the necessary quorum for the commission to publicly meet, conduct business, and act to sell the property to the City of Aiken. Whether Council plans to dissolve the commission after such an actios—as suggested in AMDC member Doug Slaughter’s resignation letter—or maintain the latest proposed form of the AMDC is unknown.

The January 9th meeting will be City Council’s the eighth closed-door session (4) involving Project Pascalis since June 1, 2022. These were not all legal briefings. For example, on June 13 Council met with the developers—under the pretext of an Open Meetings exemption—to hear from them as a group for the first time, a lack of governmental oversight identified by Ed Woltz on May 9, 2022:

 “I would like to have a meeting with the builders for the project. Council as a whole has not done that. Some people individually have. The Mayor had spoken to them more than once, but as a Council we have not talked to the builder.”

With the exception of the repeal of the Newberry Street privatization ordinance, Aiken City Council has not held a public discussion regarding the Pascalis project or the AMDC properties since May 9, 2022. Even though it is increasingly evident that transfer of the properties from AMDC control to City of Aiken control is being contemplated and perhaps moving forward, Aiken City Council is choosing to continue its policies of secrecy and obfuscation even as it attempts to clean up after its $100 million plus Pascalis project failed; a failure due in part to a penchant for secrecy.

7:10 p.m. on December 12, 2022 when Aiken City Council closed-door meeting ran late.


For followup story, see January 12, 2023, Aiken City Council Stumbles on AMDC

Footnotes:


(1) The Executive Session Announcement:

2) The “proposed contractual arrangement to lease in downtown Aiken” likely involves a lease of City property to the Savannah River National Laboratory—possibly the former Municipal Building at 214 Park Avenue. This is based on the fact that December 12, 2022, Executive Session attendees included Dr. Vahid Majidi and Sharon Marra, who are the Director and Deputy Director of Operations, respectively, at the lab.

This appears to be the latest step towards an even stronger presence of Savannah River Site contractors in downtown Aiken, this time as part of an “Innovation District.” This began with the AECOM plan, which was referenced in Mayor Rick Osbon’s December 20, 2020 letter to Aiken County Council and the Aiken County legislative delegation. In his letter, Osbon included a $20 million request from Plutonium Settlement funds for an “Innovation District that involves the Department of Energy and USC-Aiken:

The Aiken Innovation and Impact District: The AECOM study released in December discussed catalytic investments to establish an innovative district near USC Aiken. This would be an opportunity to foster the clustering of businesses related to advanced manufacturing, software/ information technology and take advantage of synergies in the region. The district would be mixed use in nature, providing access to retail, dining, housing and other amenities, in support of new research and production facilities operated by the private sector/ universities.

The Aiken Innovation and Impact District would include a partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative, the South Carolina National Guard Dream Port, and USC Aiken. The growth and success of the original partners will create opportunities for new public and private partnerships over time. In a rich, collaborative environment, businesses, entrepreneurs, investors, researchers, students and residents alike would be inspired to connect more, engage more and create more. The vision would be to recharge Aikens economy by attracting technologyand innovation-based companies. $20M is needed.

In December 2021, the AMDC and SRNL began discussions on locations with SRNL for a portion of an “Innovation Park.”

In June 2022, disbursement of the plutonium settlement was finalized and included $20 million for “Offsite Infrastructure SRS/National Laboratory” (Innovation District), and $10 million for the National Guard “Dream Port” cybercommand scheduled to be relocated from Columbia and expanded to network with cyber-defense capabilities at Fort Gordon.

Around the same time, a Ground Lease Survey Appraisal was completed for 214 Park Avenue that determined a long-term ground lease value of $2 million for the property. While the appraisal appears to have been commissioned to determine a price for leasing the facility to Newberry Hall after conversion to a conference center, it also could be applied to any other interested party with $20 million in plutonium funds.

At its last public meeting on June 13, 2022, the AMDC discussed locating the Innovation District downtown. According to the meeting minutes:

“Mr. Jameson stated he is the chairman of the Innovation District Committee. In the last few months the committee has met several times. It was to do research about what an Innovation District could and should look like and to understand how to move forward. He pointed out a request had been made for funds from the Plutonium Settlement to support the Innovation District and $20 million had been allocated for it. He said the committee began the conversations with where should we begin. Where should a building be located? What would make it the most successful? What would be the best location? They talked about the University area and downtown. The conclusion was that downtown Aiken would be the best location for the building. In collaboration with the center at USC-Aiken and the Site, there could be some permanent crew or revolving office crew in the downtown.”

  1. (3) At the 24 minute mark of the meeting, Don Moniak commented: 

“The Freedom of Information Act does say you may release information and you may discuss information in public as well. So what what is the big secret about this particular property, whereas a year ago at this time… there was another piece of property downtown that the city was considering selling. It was the Brinkley building, part of the Old City Hall, and you did meet an executive session to discuss it. But that was on the agenda as well as a Purchase and Sale agreement associated with that. Was it just further was along at that point? Why was that public but this one not public?” 

Gary Smith: “ I think that’d be fair to say the the transaction is such that all of the parties involved aren’t prepared for the public to be aware of what the transaction is. That’s why City Council is not allowed to discuss it at this point, okay, whereas a year ago both parties were there at the table.” 

The parties at the table for the Brinkley building included Smith’s law partner Ray Massey. Smith did not recuse himself from that meeting involving the sale of city property at a financial loss to CTR, LLC, a company represented by, and invested in, by Massey. In the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit, this incident is described as follows:

“The CTR Sale was documented in a fully negotiated Purchase and Sale agreement dated December 21, 2021, initialed on every page by, and signed by, Ray Massey and ready for City signatures. The Ordinance had signature blocks for Rick Osbon as Mayor, Gary Smith as City attorney, and Sara Ridout as City Clerk.”

As noted in The Pascalis Attorneys, members of the law firm of Smith, Massey, Brodie, Guynn, and Mayes were involved in early 2021 with Project Pascalis property acquisition efforts on behalf of Weldon Wyatt’s WTC Investment, LLC; and Ray Massey’s Aiken Alley Holdings, LLC owns property that was involved in both Pascalis efforts.

(4) Aiken City Council has met in closed-door Executive Session to discuss Project Pascalis on the following dates in 2022:

June 13, in a joint session with the AMDC and the Pascalis project developers for two hours.
June 27 for one hour.
July 11 for two hours with Attorney Daniel Plyler to receive legal advice following the filing of the the Blake et al vs City of Aiken et al lawsuit.
October 10 for 1.5 hours to receive legal advice.
October 24 for one hour to receive legal advice.
November 21 for nearly two hours with the AMDC.
December 12 for two hours to discuss “purchase of downtown property” and a lease of property.





“

December 2022, Offsite Insights, Savannah River Site

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

4 Comments

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

by Don Moniak

December 16, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

The basic dichotomy for the surplus plutonium begins with:

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Three alternatives to the preferred alternative are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and the Draft EIS is at:

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


Footnotes

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

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

Click to access DOE3013ContainerProgram.pdf

Click to access StorageandDownblend.pdf

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

Click to access McAlhany-SurplusPuDisp_Jun2018.pdf

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

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

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




October 2022, Savannah River Site

SRS Watch News Release: October 27, 2022: Delay at SRS Plutonium Bomb Plant

Leave a comment

The watchdog organization Savannah River Site Watch issued the following news release today detailing the status of the proposed Plutonium Pit Fabrication Plant at the Savannah River Site, located south of Aiken, SC and west of Barnwell, SC. Plutonium pits are nuclear weapon components composed of machined plutonium and other essential parts; and form the core of the primary nuclear explosive in advanced modern weapons. They are surrounded by high explosives and function to trigger the nuclear blast in most nuclear explosives.

DOE Official Reveals Costly 6-Month Delay in Proposed SRS Plutonium Bomb Plant (PBP); As Russia, U.S. Threaten Nuclear War $11.5 Billion Pit Plant Key to New U.S. Nuclear Weapons and Irresponsible Planning for Full-Scale Nuclear War

For Immediate Release
October 27, 2022
Contact: Tom Clements, srswatch@gmail.com, tel. 803-834-3084

DOE Official Heightens Concerns about Controversial Plutonium Bomb Plant at Savannah River Site by Admitting an Additional 6-Month Delay in the Project; Cost Could Jump $375 Million, to $11.5 Billion

As Russia and the U.S. Recklessly Flirt with Nuclear War, the Plutonium “Pit” Facility in South Carolina Would Play Key Role in New Nuclear Weapons Integral to Planning for Nuclear War

Full SRS Watch news release:   news pit plant delay Oct 27 2022 SRS Watch