Company drops Portsmouth in plans for sulfur plant

PORTSMOUTH

When a few hundred residents rallied this week to stop a sulfur melting plant from going near their homes, a representative told them his company did not want to be somewhere it was "merely tolerated."

He meant it.

Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc., a global leader in the fertilizer industry, said Thursday it was withdrawing its consideration of Portsmouth Marine Terminal for its $100 million plant.

The turnabout marked a swift end to a project that became widely public after The Virginian-Pilot reported on it only a week earlier. News of the proposed plant was met with immediate and loud protests from residents worried about odors, environmental risks and the impact on property values.

"My initial reaction is, 'Hallelujah,' " said Tom Getz, a civic league leader from the Port Norfolk neighborhood who helped organize the opposition.

A general manager from PotashCorp told the Virginia Port Authority and the City Council in letters that the initial public response was one of "a variety of reasons" for its decision.

"We believe that this is a very good project that will deliver significant economic development and jobs to whatever region it is located. It will be a state-of-the-art facility that is safe, clean, and fully compliant with all relevant environmental standards," wrote Steve Beckel, general manager of the company's division in Aurora, N.C.

Another company official declined to identify any other reason behind the decision.

"The letter speaks for itself, but clearly we heard the community response," said Tom Pasztor, senior director of corporate and government relations for PotashCorp, in an email.

The Port Authority was entertaining the sulfur melting plant idea as a potential use for Portsmouth Marine Terminal. The 219-acre facility went dormant after the state moved container-handling operations there to nearby APM Terminals, which the authority leased in 2010.

PotashCorp said its plant would have brought about 65 construction jobs, operated with as many as 10 employees, and generated an undisclosed amount of tax revenue for the city. The roughly 25-acre site would not have been subject to local real estate taxes because it is state-owned land, however.

The molten sulfur would have been shipped by barge or rail to another facility for manufacturing in Aurora, N.C.

Joe Harris, a spokesman for the Port Authority, said the plant was one of several potential uses under consideration for the terminal.

"We'll move on to the next one," he said.

Port Authority staff had planned to brief its governor-appointed board members on the sulfur plant at its meeting Tuesday. That item has been removed from the agenda, at Beckel's request.

Harris said the company's decision to halt negotiations was not unexpected, given the concern raised at a community meeting Tuesday night in Portsmouth, and the City Council's endorsement of that sentiment. Council members did not have a vote on the project, but they agreed to pass a resolution declaring their opposition.

Residents and council members also planned to seek help from Norfolk officials and residents in swaying the Port Authority to reject the project, which would have operated just across the Elizabeth River from Norfolk. The Portsmouth community did not know that Norfolk itself also was explored as a potential site, if only briefly.

In September, representatives of Allied Terminals Inc., visiting on behalf of PotashCorp, met with officials from the city's development department to discuss locating the sulfur plant near West Ghent in the Lamberts Point complex owned by Norfolk Southern Corp., said Lori Crouch, a Norfolk city spokeswoman.

Then-Development Director Rod Woolard wrote a letter to Allied after the meeting thanking it for the presentation and outlining the parties' agreement on the need to reach out to other city departments and the nearby community to build support for the project "and avoid misinformation." The city released a copy of the letter Thursday at the request of The Pilot.

"I appreciate your commitment to bring this world class facility and the magnitude of investment to the City of Norfolk," Woolard wrote.

The city never heard back from Allied or PotashCorp after the letter was sent, Crouch said. She added that the city development staff suspected the project was not going to be a good fit for the discussed Norfolk location, although there was no mention of that in the letter.

Pasztor had said previously that Portsmouth was the only site in Hampton Roads under consideration for the sulfur plant. When sent a copy of the letter from Norfolk, he said by email that the company "looked at several sites in the Hampton Roads area before determining that we wanted to initiate talks with the community of Portsmouth."

"In effect, Norfolk did not make the list," he said.

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