Tension rises over plans for Portsmouth sulfur plant | Eastern North Carolina Now

   Publisher's note: When my county manager, Randell Woodruff, forwards me information that is proper to publish, I will do so. This article concerns the proposed PCS smelter sulfur plant for the Portsmouth marine Terminal. To date, it is not well received in the Tidewater region.

   This article, by Dave Forster was originally published in the Virginia Pilot online edition.

    Something with cars or ships. Paper, maybe ...

    Those were the industries turning in Mayor Kenny Wright's mind when he was invited to hear about a prospect for one of the city's state-owned port terminals.

    His 30-minute briefing was the first of three that day for City Council members, their time slots divided to avoid a law that otherwise would have required a publicly called meeting.

    In the conference room at City Hall, Wright saw a port official he knew, several men in suits he didn't, and a small bottle holding what looked like yellow pills. Their proposition: a sulfur melting plant at Portsmouth Marine Terminal, a few thousand feet from some of the city's oldest neighborhoods and a mile from Norfolk's waterfront.

    "Oh, my," the mayor thought. "Sulfur, huh?"

    A wave of similar reactions rippled through the city last week as news of the proposal spread. Within days a neighborhood-driven opposition movement was growing, fed in part by the secretive nature of port and company officials in their first steps at outreach.

    Adding to the discontent was an undercurrent of resentment by locals who believe their city too often must fend off what they consider distasteful business proposals. In 2007, residents pressed Chesapeake officials to vote down a pitch for an ethanol plant near a Portsmouth neighborhood. A year earlier, Portsmouth officials considered leasing a waterfront site to a company that wanted to ship trash there from New York.

    "We get so much negative here in Portsmouth. Can't we find something positive for the world?" asked Erika Nestler, one of a handful of residents briefed on the latest proposal.

    PotashCorp (pronounced "pot-ash") and the Virginia Port Authority had hoped for a calmer response. Officials from both entities said they were trying to be open.

    "It's disappointing that a good-faith effort has gone awry, but I understand the concerns of the citizens," said Joe Harris, a Port Authority spokesman. "Any time something like this comes along, it should raise questions."

    The last time Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. tried to build a sulfur melting plant - last summer in Morehead City, N.C. - it did not go well.

    Residents fretted about odor, explosions and environmental damage, despite assurances from the company that the concerns were exaggerated. An opposition group drew some 400 people to its formative meeting, protesters appeared in protective suits and the governor intervened, the Raleigh News & Observer reported.

    Fueling the outrage was the fact that residents and businesses did not learn of the proposal until it was well into the permitting process. PotashCorp withdrew its plans amid the backlash.

    "We learned a lot in Morehead City," said Tom Pasztor, the company's senior director of corporate and government relations. "One of the things we learned was that there was a need for us to reach out to the community very early in the process."

    When they turned to Portsmouth, company officials decided to do things differently, Pasztor said. The effort involved private meetings with council members, an environmental group and civic league representatives Jan. 5 and 6.


Near the middle of this map, just east of the midtown Tunnel, U.S. hwy 58, crossing the Elizabeth River is the location for the proposed PCS sulphur smelting plant: Above.
    Until then, most people in Portsmouth, including council members and the city manager, did not know about the proposal. The governor-appointed board members who oversee the Virginia Port Authority hadn't even been told yet, Harris said.

    Two of the briefings were for six residents representing four civic leagues from neighborhoods near the terminal. Port Norfolk was contacted more than a week ahead of time, while others were called around 4:30 p.m. the day before an 11 a.m. meeting.

    The Port Authority prefaced its invitation only by saying it was about a potential project. Those who attended heard a description of the plant, what it would do and how special equipment would eliminate odors. The $100 million facility would employ as many as 10 people, and about 65 others would build it.

    J.J. "Jeff" Keever, senior deputy executive director/external affairs at the Port Authority, made it known at the briefings that he wanted the residents to keep quiet about the project for a couple of weeks, until he could tell the authority's board about the project. He declined to discuss the project early last week, even as word was spreading, saying that "very confidential discussions" were under way.

    Tom Getz, president of the Port Norfolk Civic League, was briefed with Nestler. "They asked me not to speak to anybody about the meeting until the 24th," he said.

    Several residents found the request curious, especially considering how port and company officials later said they were being open.

    Rather than blunt a public backlash, the briefings lit the fuse of one. On Thursday, two days after The Virginian-Pilot reported plans for the sulfur plant, three dozen residents gathered to discuss an opposition movement.

    Alan Bartlett, treasurer of the West Park View Community League, voiced a suspicion that many there harbored: that the Port Authority had wanted to brief its board and bring a vote to it at the same time, and that it wanted to be able to say it had consulted with the community.

    Such a plan never was in place, Harris said. The authority has been talking with PotashCorp only for a couple of months, and there was "no way" they could have negotiated a contract in time for the board meeting, he said. Authority executives wanted to save some details for the board, though, he said.

    "The idea that we tried to just kind of ram this through here," Harris said, "that's just mistaken."

The Elizabeth River Project hosted two of the briefings, including one for its own staff, in its office on the downtown Portsmouth waterfront. Marjorie Mayfield Jackson, the executive director of the environmental group, said she appreciated the gesture and the invitation for feedback.

    "It seemed to me to be kind of the opposite of being secretive," she said.

    The Elizabeth River Project does not have a position yet, Jackson said. Its technical committee, with scientists and engineers, will review the proposal and look for potential environmental impacts and ways to prevent them, she said.

    "The developer and the Port Authority were very open to meeting again on the topic," Jackson said.

    Harris said Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim also received a briefing. He could not be reached Friday for comment.

    The meetings featured renderings and a sample of the sulfur pellets the plant would melt. People were encouraged to take a whiff. Getz, a retired Navy master chief who was once stationed near a volcano, said he noticed a slight sulfur scent; others, including Wright, reported smelling nothing.

    The presentations mentioned a tax benefit for the city, but there is no revenue estimate yet. The project would not generate real estate taxes because it would go on state land, but other business-related taxes likely would apply.

    Portsmouth City Council members were divided into groups of two for their briefings. That was done after the Port Authority secretary who arranged the meetings was told that sessions with three or more would require a called council meeting, which must be publicized, according to emails between the staffer and the city clerk.

    Council members said afterward that they wanted to know more about the project before they support or condemn it. A majority are in favor of visiting a similar plant.

    They will have a short list from which to choose. A commodities specialist with the National Mineral Information Center reported there are only three sulfur melting plants in the United States: in Galveston, Texas; Tampa, Fla.; and Port Sulphur, La. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality said the Port Sulphur operation has long been shut down, however.

    Councilman Steve Heretick, a lawyer, missed his briefing because of a court hearing, but he hasn't liked what he has heard.

    "I can't imagine how this project would benefit Portsmouth in any way," he said.

    Because it is proposed for state-controlled land, the City Council has no vote on the matter.

    Pasztor, the PotashCorp official, said the company withdrew its plans from Morehead City even though it believed the project was misunderstood. He stressed in an interview that the company is trying to be transparent in its exploration of the Portsmouth site, which he said is one of multiple locales under consideration.

    On Friday, the company released a rendering of the plant and a map showing where its roughly 25-acre footprint would be at Portsmouth Marine Terminal. It includes two silos about 150-feet high, with an enclosed system where sulfur pellets would be melted and shipped by rail or barge to Aurora, N.C.

    The product is used for fertilizer. PotashCorp bills itself as the world's largest fertilizer company by capacity.

    "We are being very open about the whole process, about the facility, and we're also very open to public comment," said Pasztor, speaking from Northbrook, Ill., home to the company's U.S. corporate offices.

    He declined to name the other potential sites.

    Pilot writer Robert McCabe contributed to this report.

    Dave Forster, (757) 446-2627, dave.forster@pilotonline.com