Robert McCabe
The Virginian-Pilot
©
PORTSMOUTH
As the war in Afghanistan winds down, the Virginia Port Authority and others hope to persuade the military to use Portsmouth Marine Terminal to handle part of the required wash-down of potentially hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment returning from the war zone.
If successful, the proposal could bring as many as 300 jobs, according to one company working with port officials.
Joe Harris, a Port Authority spokesman, said in an email Tuesday the wash-down operation is one of many projects being considered for the terminal but added that it would be "premature for us to comment on the issue."
Four of Hampton Roads' federal legislators endorsed the proposal in a letter sent Tuesday to Marine Gen. James Mattis, who oversees military operations in Afghanistan, and Army Maj. Gen. Kevin Leonard, who heads the Surface Deployment and Distribution Command.
The letter points out that a "logistical bottleneck" has developed in the port of Karachi in Pakistan, where the military equipment is sent for a washing by Pakistani nationals. All the equipment has to be cleaned and pass inspections by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Customs to ensure that no harmful pests, plants or other materials enter the country.
The equipment is prescreened in Afghanistan by the U.S. agencies and sent to Pakistan for a secondary wash. U.S. agriculture and customs officials have said the Karachi operation is "fraught with problems" with a 10 percent inspection failure rate and concerns that some equipment is stored unprotected, according to the letter, which is signed by U.S. Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb, both Democrats, and U.S. Reps. Randy Forbes, R-Chesapeake, and Scott Rigell, R-Virginia Beach.
It warns that the problems could get worse and drive up costs as larger volumes of cargo are shipped out in advance of the withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of 2014.
"The Port of Virginia and its industry partners are prepared to offer a viable alternative which would lower costs, allow more efficient drawdown and provide job opportunities for hundreds of military veterans with the necessary training and expertise," the letter states.
Jim O'Brien, president of Tamerlane Global Services, said his Reston-based company is working with the Port Authority on the project to handle military equipment at the port, including a cargo-washing facility, but the effort is only in the exploratory phase.
"One factor under review is its possible economic impact to the region. As with any cargo-oriented operation there are multiple participants and we cannot answer for them," O'Brien said in an email. "If the project is begun, it will bring nearly 300 direct jobs to the Norfolk area, not to mention any positive peripheral economic impact to Hampton Roads."
The military wash-down proposal emerged a week after PCS Phosphate, a unit of Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc., confirmed it was in talks with the authority about building a $100 million sulfur-melting facility at Portsmouth Marine Terminal.
Michael J. Quillen, chairman of the Port Authority board, said last week that its members had been briefed on "probably a dozen different projects for Portsmouth."
"We need to do something relatively soon to start getting some activity there, income generation and jobs generation," he said.
There has been some debate about how long-term some of the projects are, as well as issues related to financial liability, he added.
Portsmouth Marine Terminal, which sits on 219 acres, has been dormant since container-handling operations were shifted to APM Terminals Virginia after the Port Authority signed a 20-year lease of that facility in July 2010.
In May, the Port Authority's board approved funding for a $25 million warehouse at Portsmouth Marine Terminal, which would have housed a paper-and-pulp import-export business. Those plans, however, fell through after engineers found the soil there wasn't strong enough to support the rolls of paper that would move across it.
Bill Bartel, 757-446-2398, bill.bartel@pilotonline.com
Robert McCabe, 757-446-2327, robert.mccabe@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Forbes’ supports decon facility in 3rd Congressional district
Forbes’ supports decon facility in 3rd Congressional district but not VA Hospital. Why are Congressmen Forbes and Rigell lobbying in the 3rd Congressional District? There must be a facility in the 2nd or 4th Congressional Districts that could be used for this. Six years ago I was in Congressman Forbes’ office requesting funding for the VA. Congressman Forbes said his VA, the one in Richmond, was doing fine and if I was referring to the Hampton VA I needed to speak with Congressman Scott. If that is the position of Congressman Forbes on the VA then the question that needs to be answered is why is this different?
What are we trying to keep out?
We need to know exactly what species and/or contaminants are we attempting to keep out. The material is already contaminated as the 10% failure rate of the second wash down in Karachi indicates. So we just put up some quarantine signs and the threat of unintended release is abated?
What is the plan to pacify the waste water generated by the wash down? I would like to see some numbers on the cost savings indicated by bringing this to the US. And don't forget the wash down of the ships/equipment used to move/handle these items as well. If we have some organism in the Bay that attacks fish/shell fish we’ll lose 1000 times what any three year span for 300 jobs could bring. We need to know all the facts on this.
Read the letter...
It looks like the ‘wash-down’ here would be the second one; the first is in a “consolidated location in Afghanistan” prescreened by the USDA & APHIS. So I would think the idea of stray Afghan creatures creeping into Portsmouth is negligible.
Having the facility here would eliminate the current, apparently lousy & inefficient, 2nd wash out in Karachi, Pakistan. I would personally like getting us and our equipment & people as far away from Pakistan as possible.
Big boats bring the equipment and people and their money in, our folks have jobs for at least 3 years, big boats come and take the shiny equipment away. Probably to a new war somewhere.
Looks ok to me.
cleaning up ships after Afghanistan
Portsmouth needs 300 jobs a lot more tham 10. This would help the working people to pay taxes.
How long would this last? Presumably the war is close to being over.
Of course, Portsmouth people are going to worry about the effects on the Elizabeth River. It's natural.
Military Vehicles at PMT
Per usual, folks judging the plan before knowing anything about its particulars. Don't you think that since this is a federal government contract that DoD, USDA, EPA, Customs and Border Protection and so on and so on would have a say in how this operation is handled? And then you would have state and local regulations atop the federal guidelines. Think about it for just a minute: The drawdown of the largest military operation in decades, this would be far more than few months' work and to put vets to work too boot? C'mon people put the emotion aside. And if any of us think the state is going to "give" PMT back to us, you're crazy. I'm sure the Commonwealth would entertain leasing it back to the city for say, $30,000 an acre.
unless
Your name is Bob Williams. Then you could have 5 acres for 203,000.00
jobs are earmarked for vets
these , as I suspected are very skilled jobs. in reading the document further and in detail, the jobs will be earmarked for vets with "necessary training ans expertise". this is good stuff. i am even more for it to happen.
Very skilled job?
While I appreciate the enthusiasm from some on getting more jobs to the area, these jobs are not high tech or something requiring an advanced college degree. Been there, got the t-shirt. Had to sit through a 40-hr USDA course laden w/ PowerPoint, got a couple hours of hands-on "there's sand, blood and tissue, bugs" training in an actual washdown operation. The attached link is a bit old but is fairly representative of the duties/responsibilities involved (http://www.cdmha.org/toolkit/cdmha-rltk/PUBLICATIONS/tim31.pdf). Bottom line is even a caveman could do it for $10/hour. The average person who is looking for a job in this niche is probably saying, "I could do better" or do better to just sit back and collect unemployment. Sad but true.
RIGHT INTO THE RIVER
And who came up with this idea??? Oh sure, wash it right into the river. The Elizabeth River is nasty enough. And where does the Elizabeth flow to???...the Chesapeake Bay. Duh......Take a look at the Great Lakes - Zebra mussels have invaded the Lakes because of foreign ships emptying their ballast water. Now we are going to allow foreign soil to be washed into our river which will make it's way into the Chesapeake Bay? Come on people. I'd rather see waterfront condos go up.
When an press release say "it will create jobs that number needs
Any proposal that claims an increase in jobs should be required to report the net number of jobs gained. That means that the jobs gained is the sum of the actual jobs at the company Minus the numbers of jobs lost from taking business from other companies. Nor should it count a number generated by the so called multiplier effect, where it is assumed the hires will spend money requiring say a restaurant hire a new waitress. That multiplier effect is a guess and more business dosnt always trnslate in a need for more help.