By Mike Phillips
What was expected to be a conclusive port commissioners meeting last evening was far less than conclusive. Decisions were not reached on cruise ships, cement powder or fertilizer shipments. Those are the three hot buttons getting a lot of people upset about the port’s new master plan-in-the-making.
However, a few interesting bits of information emerged:
- The port operator thinks fertilizer shipments are far in the future. “Some of you might not be here when that happens,” got a laugh from a not-especially young crowd.
- But if and when fertilizer is shipped through this port, it will be urea-based, not ammonium nitrate-based. Urea can’t be considered man’s best friend, but it keeps a lot of farms in business. Ammonium nitrate fertilizers are the ones that blow up warehouses, but nobody is planning to ship them through here (so far).
- If and when the port gets its act fully together in handling powdered cement bag shipments, those will come from a shipper who has been asked to blow off the 400-pound bags before loading. And then they’ll be removed from the delivering ship pneumatically into silos. Possibly – or at least hopefully – that will keep the powder (which can be really hard on lungs and upper respiratory passageways) from floating on northeast winds up to a couple of miles from the port.
- Of the five port commissioners, it’s a pretty good bet that two of them will oppose getting into port-of-call cruise ship operations. One more will kill the idea. Opposition in the community is spreading. Even members of the Chamber of Commerce have doubts, along with downtown merchants. After all, they say, the docking fees will go to the port, and the local sales will be nickels and dimes. If you have opinions, register them with the commission this coming month. Your contact is David Kaufman, [email protected]
Commenters wishing to spread the word might want to copy all commissioners:Danny Fullwood [email protected]Miriam Hill [email protected]Mike Cole [email protected]Ray Nelson [email protected]Justin Taylor [email protected]
I am concerned about the comment that cement dust will be blown off before unloaded from cargo ships. Blown off to where? In our waters? Into the air were ship workers will breathe in that toxic dust? Regulatory agencies say that cement dust should be vacuumed, not blown.
The excess material from filing the bag would be blown off the bag after the bag is sealed prior to being put in the ship
Re-read the statement and you will be relieved to know the cleaning of the bags will be done by the supplier BEFORE loading into the ship at origin, not here.
However, all it takes is one ruptured bag after loading during the transit of the ship to create an issue. As to the use of pneumatic vacuums into silos, the Port doesn’t have that equipment at this time plus that is done more for bulk shipments. One other point, if you have ever seen an episode of Dirty Jobs where they are using such a technique to either load or unload a product whether it be sugar, flour, cement, etc. the hose/container connection is generally not sealed so there is some airborne “spillage”. Anyone that thinks such an operation is sterile is mistaken.
As the operator explained in the meeting last night, the breakage of the 2 ton sacks happens in the ships hull during transport, so blowing off the tops prior to loading will not mitigate the cement dust like we experienced the 9 days of unloading the trial ship.
I believe the Port Tariff (rules & regs.) prohibits delivery of leaking packages into / onto the terminal from ships, trucks and rail. Any broken bags arriving can be re-cooped on board the vessel, then safely discharged ashore.
Talk is cheap, Richard. Excuses litter the community. It’s always someone else at fault.
Chip is correct, Mark. Tammi is right to be concerned, but pneumatic delivery from ship to silo might be a solution. i know Tammi will believe it when she sees it. So will I.
Please be advised, Commissioner Justin Taylor’s official OHPA email address is
[email protected].
Please use this when corresponding to Com. Taylor regarding all OHPA and/or Port of Fernandina business.
Thank you.
Please be advised, Commissioner Danny Fullwood’s official OHPA email address is
[email protected].
Please use this when corresponding to Com. Fullwood regarding all OHPA and/or Port of Fernandina business.
Thank you.
Unfortunately, I didn’t feel that the Commissioners and Port Operator have a thorough understanding of the potential impact of cement dust on our residents, our environment and our economy.
Being a seasonal visitor (aka snowbird) my comments may not be welcome. That said, I do have experience with some of the smaller port issues under discussion here. It’s always a difficult thing to even attempt to balance competing interests & competing uses of what are effectively public resources. Business & commerce, additions to the tax base are worth considering. As are the sometimes-intangible things such as sense of place, community & culture, etc.. The latter are VERY crucial to very important aspects of commerce & tax base which is tourism ! It’s not as simple or simplistic as “we need the business” vs “NIMBY/BANANA ism” which are typically the two loudest voices.
In this small port, I think it’s very challenging; yet some of the effects of any decision could be irreversible. So tread carefully, listen to nuanced, thoughtful voices not just the loudest or most financially-dominant ones !
One interesting piece (to me anyway) is the potential cruise shipst: We have seen this up close & personal in some ports in our home state (Maine). What seemed like a financial benefit has not played out so well, especially in the smaller ports. The merchants ALL report same thing: people from the ships don’t spend much money in the local shops, they clog up the streets when they’re disgorged, and they detract from both the “working” waterfront operations AND from what was a unique “sense of place” harbor.
I think the whole cement dust issue is over blown.
A risk : reward analysis of the cement super sacks (and many other break bulk products) is that all of the risks (cement dust in the current situation) go to the residents/visitors and all of the rewards to the Port Operator.
A risk : reward analysis of cruises is that all of the risks (potentially making our community less attractive to businesses, residents and visitors) to residents/visitors
and all of the rewards go to OHPA,
As a former visitor and current resident, I don’t want to take the risks given that I don’t participate in any of the rewards.
Risks associated with cement also go to the port operator (not the OHPA) via OSHA, FDEP, EPA, USCG and other regulatory bodies. Fines at the federal level are huge. Example – One improperly sealed garbage bag found by USCG and reported a few years ago to USDA… the fine was $50,000.00
Risks with cruise ? Passengers and crew de-barking do so to spend money ashore in our city and county. Revenues accrue to the citizens via sales taxes, sales of goods, etc. This not a small dollar amount. All expenditures come from outside our communities and are earned, spent and re-spent many times over locally via employees of :
The port operator, ship agents, US Customs officials, vessel provisioners, pilots, tug operators, US Customs Brokers, freight forwarders, truckers, railroaders, all of whom spend their money with every other conceivable businesses here.
Rewards to the OHPA? It is a non-profit government enterprise. Its revenues are used to pay its bills and bond dividends to investors. Any surplus revenues must be used for public purposes !00%.
Let me get this straight; you don’t want cruise ships in our port, you don’t want freight in our port (unless it passes your inspection), and you don’t want higher taxes. It appears to me that you just don’t want the port. The port was here long before most of you were here and you knew it was here. So you need to get used to it. I think the solution is for all of us to work together, Citzens, City, Port, County, and State to make this a win-win for all of us.
Hi Joe, I believe the resounding requests are for the port not to handle potentially hazardous materials (cement powder, fertilizer) that can migrate into the surrounding areas. Not sure what higher taxes has to do with this. The port pays no taxes to the city or county and any revenue brought in stays with the Operator and/or OHPA.
The port works well transporting and helping the mills, with paper and wood products. Diving into other test break bulk commodities requires an entire new model and it’s pretty conclusive the first trial of cement was a disaster in many regards, including public relations.
The location of this tiny 23 acre port is challenging for sure, and the new owners knew that when they bought the operations. There are many ways to make the port successful while simultaneously being a good neighbor.
Tammi, thank you for bringing up the truth of the matter. The port has not paid their taxes for years (no money goes to the city) and the port doesn’t work well with others. All that the port operators and OHPA seem to care about is increasing corporate profits, and the quality of life in Fernandina be damned. Perhaps I am wrong, but this is what seems to be the case for years now. We, the residents, must fight for our home. If the Historic District is threatened, we all lose.
Not sure why you brought taxes into the equation. The port and its activity has no impact on lowering a city taxpayers taxes. In fact, it could have the opposite affect. Should more hazardous material be allowed to come into the port, the chances for an accident to occur increases. In the event of an emergency the City and County Fire Departments will most likely be the ones called to secure and mitigate. The extra equipment, training and personnel to do so costs $$. Thus the burden placed on local taxpayers once again. Caveat: Local jurisdictions are allowed by law to bill back the cost of the response to the property owner or handler. So, these costs could potentially be recouped. However, the upfront costs to be prepared are borne by the taxpayer. And since we are still in litigation to collect back fees for services in lieu of paying taxes with the port, collecting on any response is questionable at this time.
None of you know S*it from Shinola about any of this so why don’t you all butt out and let the politicians have their way. That’s ultimately what’s going to happen anyway and you know that so chill out. Never worry or stress about things you cannot change.
Bill, curious about your comment that “none of us know…and to butt out”. Empirical studies, research, MSDS and historical instances inform the potential consequences of some of these decisions. Is it responsible for people to “chill out” and take a back seat rather than getting informed and involved?
You can get informed and involved as much as you wish. In fact I encourage that. But the fact of the matter is, when politicians want something they almost always get their way like a spoiled child. I’m all for stopping any and all so called progress because it ultimately turns out to be anything but progress. But then again I like to agitate, too.
Yes. But apathy, as a panacea of the masses, can be self destrucitve.
For those that wish to stifle this conversation, why not think about the right to free speech, and the responsibility of the citizenry to participate in government decision making? While you might not like the comments, you might appreciate these voters have the right to speak, and so do you.
To tell them to ‘sit down and shut up’ seems like a poor way to influence a debate?