One of the most contentious issues Red Hook has faced in some time was an EPA proposal to build a Contained Disposal Facility (CDF) as part of the cleanup of the Gowanus Canal. The CDF would take dredged materials, detoxify them, and create landfill, adding ten acres to the property of the Gowanus Bay Terminal. The EPA stated from the outset that this would only happen were the Red Hook Community to approve. This created a firestorm as advocates for the CDF faced residents against the proposal.
The EPA held public meetings and accepted written responses through April 27th of this year. They received over 3,000 pages of comments that included form letters, petitions, elaborate reports commissioned by National Grid and NYC DEP (two of the entities that will pay for the cleanup). Based upon the response, as well as listening to the audiences at the various public meetings where the EPA was present, it was determined that the CDF will not be built, and the sludge sent to processing facilities elsewhere.
The EPA’s Record of Decision, as well as ancillary reports and all of the correspondence was posted on their website on Monday, September 30th. It is a treasure trove of informationt. A number of people took the time to write a personal letter expressing their personal viewpoint on the idea of the CDF. It is some of these that we excerpt below.
CDF is a great idea!
I was at the meeting last night as for me I would love to see Mr Quadrozzi place with this equipment to purify the slush coming from the Gowanus canal. Unfortunate a lot of people from Redhook is not into the technology of today. It would be a shame that this station is not allowed to be in redhook because of that. EPA have cleared up all doubts for some but unfortunate for others it’s not clear. I believe if the person that was chosen to give this demonstation were able to explain himself better it would have been ok. Unfortunate because of his speech not being clear and the way he spoke lots of folks didn’t get the message straight. His english was kind of limited. Lillie Marshall President Redhook West
No Real Benefit
Good Afternoon , “ I went to the meeting of last week 2/13/13 at PS 15 in Red Hook. I went with an open mind. It is my opinion that there was lack of specifics and more vagueness expressed to the public. Based on the information provided by the EPA, I would have to say I DO NOT wish to have the dredged material brought to Red Hook for treatment. Send everything off-site instead. No real tangible (believable ) benefit was provided at this meeting. Thank you for your time . I appreciate the opportunity to express my opinion . I do hope it is taken into consideration . Lori Burkard
Piece of Junk
How is it justified that anyone, in this case Quadrozzi, is getting what is essentially free land? Does any Municipal, State or Federal Agency take Quadrozzi’s plans seriously? That boat is a piece of junk. Those grain towers should be taken down before they become a hazard. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Once again, my vote is NO to this proposed facility in Red Hook. Sincerely, Stephen Kondaks
Almost as insane as congress!
It is truly the most insane plan I have ever heard. In addition, many of us feel like there is a lot of underhanded business going on here. The piddling amount of jobs you think will “benefit” this community is actually an insult. I am writing as requested to voice my opinion via email that PLEASE!!!! MOVE THE MATERIALS ELSEWHERE!!! RED HOOK DOES NOT WANT IT!!! Please respect our community’s wishes. Thank you. Sincerely, alexandra grablewski
My daughter had just finished renovating her home at 25 Wolcott Street in Red Hook, Brooklyn. She is still in the process of cleaning up damage from four feet of raw sewage to her first floor following the onslaught by Sandy (and, I might add, at great sacrifice to her own finances due to shameful insurance reimbursement policies). How can you even think of placing a storage/treatment facility for toxic material from the Gowanus Canal at the flood prone Red Hook waterfront? People in Red Hook object and we, as parents of a young person who works, lives and has invested in her Red Hook neighborhood, strongly object! Sincerely, Charlotte and John Kuczynski
Not at risk of hurting loved ones
I live in Red Hook West I was at the meeting tonight and people were saying Red Hook projects people need jobs, they do need jobs but not at the risk of hurting and losing friends and family. Jobs with benefits are rare these days and if they worked at your job they will need these benefits your offering and more. I say no to your proposal and thanks for asking.Henrietta Perkins
What are they thinking?
I am appalled that the EPA thinks a good plan for our community is to dredge the canal for 4 years – filling and running barges from the Gowanus Canal to Red Hook. The plan calls for the discharge of the toxic sludge along a beautiful park called ‘The Ball Fields’ in Red Hook. It is one of the largest parks in New York City, used from early spring to fall by hundreds of soccer and baseball teams. Also at this site is a beautiful Olympic sized pool used all summer by families in Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights, and Carroll Gardens, Red Hook etc. Families of all races stand in long lines starting in early summer to use this wonderful pool. It’s a Brooklyn pasttime to visit the Red Hook pool and then have picnic lunches at the park across the street. What are legislators thinking? Not only is this the site of an important recreation area, but also has everyone already forgotten that Hurricane Sandy turned the main street of Red Hook into an extension of the East River just 7 months ago? If another hurricane should hit our shores again, not only will Red Hook be flooded, but also toxic sludge will most certainly inundate the shores from this proposed facility. Paige Tooker
Asks too much
As you know, the Red Hook community is strongly against a clean up site in its area, next to its recreation areas. No one in Red Hook excepting John Quadrozzi and his company stands to benefit from this plan. Perhaps there will be a cost savings to the project, but is that savings worth the possible deleterious effects to a community, with no benefit to it? I feel we all must do our part to support our neighbors in NYC, but this asks too much of Red Hook community, especially as it brings no benefit to us. I do have one suggestion-if you hope to move forward with this plan, why not incorporate some positive improvement to Red Hook? A detoxifying plant and the few jobs is not much improvement at all. Surely there could be a use for the detoxified material that might be a benefit for the community? Or add something not related to the sludge to make the plan have some good effect for the people of Red Hook? I feel that is the only way you may get support from Red Hook residents. And if it is true that you do care about our opinions, then please heed this email and the others you receive. Anthony Schloss Media Programs Coordinator http://www.rhicenter.org
Dewatering in flood area?
I am certain you are aware of the firestorm surrounding the EPA proposals regarding dewatering and containment of the toxic sludge resulting from cleanup of the Gowanus Canal. As the deadline for public comments approaches I felt compelled to add my voice to personally appeal to you for sanity in this proposal. This area was recently decimated by superstorm Sandy, and along with the water from the bay, the toxins and who knows what else came into our neighborhood, as our streets were flooded up to 5 feet in some areas. And yet the EPA continues with some of the proposals to place a dewatering plant and CDF in this very area. My first question would be: has anyone thought of the potential damage that would ensue from another storm? After all, we have, been virtually guaranteed one, in our flood rezoning, insurance increases and the recommendations to build our homes 5-8 feet above the current ground level. I must also wonder why, when there are clearly many safe, effective methods for de-watering sludge in place on barges, would a proposal be put forth to add additional handling to this highly toxic material, bring it onto the land in my neighborhood near a neighborhood recreational facility? Why must my neighborhood process and house this waste, placed here by corporations who have no interest in the health and well- being of my neighbors? Why must we bear the burden just to save the polluters themselves money? I am vehemently opposed to any solution which involves stabilizing the sludge on-site and keeping it in Red Hook in any form. I am concerned that the dewatering of the sludge will create odors which are inappropriate next to the Red Hook Ball Fields and the beloved Red Hook Food Vendors. The amount of stench produced and the area it affects has not been sufficiently studied. What we do know is that it would last, at minimum, six years, and this is an unhealthy situation for those of us who use this area for fitness and recreation. Would we find ourselves in the same situation as the residents of the towns surrounding Onondoga Lake? Additionally, in an area where such healthy endeavors are occurring, and the amount of toxicity released into the atmosphere in the dewatering process has not been studied, it seems inappropriate to house waste from the canal in any here. According to your [EPA’s] own report, “Tests to assess the leachability of NAPL (toxic contaminants)… would need to be performed (on the concrete)… Permanent institutional controls would be required to ensure the long-term effectiveness of this option…” The Red Hook community, already suffering from such health situations such as high asthma rates from the Brooklyn Queens Expressway, does not desire a site built with materials potentially leaching toxic contaminants. The EPA can do better than this. I am certain of it. I am certain that if everyone really considered the health and well- being of the community, another solution could be found. I politely request that the EPA, the city and my representatives take into consideration these concerns as they all plan for my future as a Red Hook resident, public space user, city resident and fresh air breather. Thank You, Melissa Callahan – Whelan
A perfect idea!
On behalf of Brooklyn Economic Development Corporation (BEDC), I am writing to support the GBX/Gowanus Bay Terminal proposal for treating and disposing of the sludge removed from the Gowanus Canal. When the determination of the Canal as a Superfund site was first promulgated, I had deep concerns on many levels. While I know and understand that the toxicity the Canal in it current form poses to the community, I also feared that the designation would halt any kind of redevelopment efforts for many years as the logistical questions of how to clean the canal and where to dump the sludge were negotiated. I know that there are few places left in the US that willingly accept toxic sludge and I understand why; as communities all over the country try to clean up and reuse brownfield sites for purposes of job creation and community revitalization, who would want to add contaminants to the soil where they might leach and contaminate adjacent sites and aquifers? The GBX Terminal solves this problem in a very elegant and prudent way! It dramatically reduces the potential truck trips to and from the site, carrying their toxic cargo – this benefits the community not only from a noise and congestion standpoint, but as a way to avoid truck exhaust that has led to asthma and other respiratory problems in the Red Hook community. Secondly, the end result is a community amenity – a waterfront park will further add to the livability of this community, which is so congested with high-rise housing and closely built industrial plants. As the Greenway project grows and expends in Brooklyn, this park will add another link to the green “necklace” that the Brooklyn waterfront can become. Third, it helps preserve jobs and industry in a community that desperately needs them. So many “economic development” projects in Red Hook have had disappointing results – the Cruise Ship Terminal that created few jobs, the IKEA that created part-time retail jobs. Certainly, these projects have enhanced the Red Hook community, but their local economic impact has been muted. The Gowanus Bay terminal has been a presence in Red Hook for many years. The product they provide is essential to the continued rebuilding of New York City. There are few places for them to relocate to if Red Hook completely de-industrializes and that is not a desired outcome in the continuing redevelopment of Red Hook! The most vibrant communities in NYC support jobs and industries of many types. BEDC has been an advocate for industrial uses, where appropriate, in Brooklyn for our entire 34- year history. This is an appropriate use, and the GBX Terminal will not only allow The Gowanus Bay Terminal to stay and grow, but benefit the community in terms of jobs and amenities. If this plan is implemented, the clean-up of the Gowanus Canal can begin sooner rather than later and the community can begin planning for a future without a toxic gash running through it. That dream has been a long time coming, and this project helps move it closer to reality. I have been an advocate of community-based brownfield clean-ups for many years. I was part of the original statewide Pocantico Roundtable on Brownfields which advocated for better Brownfield clean-up regulations in New York State. I currently serve as Vice Chair of the Board of New Partners for Community Revitalization, a non-profit organization well known to your agency, which is in the forefront of environmental solutions to brownfield issues. [Note: I write as an individual and not on behalf of New Partners.] Certainly the Gowanus Canal rises to a higher threat level than a typical brownfield, but as governments across New York State avoid clean-ups because they know there are no easy solutions to where to put the waste and what to do with the remediated land, we in Brooklyn are not subject to that same dilemma. We have a sound clean-up solution and we have a community that is desirable and ready to react to the positive change that a cleaner Gowanus Canal can bring. The people of Red Hook, the residents of Public Housing, who have stuck it out for many years amidst decay, crime, being ignored, marginalized and dumped on, support this project. They see its intrinsic value. They do not support it based on whether or not the value of their houses will go up or down – they understand that it is about the long-term, healthy future for ALL Red Hook residents. Based on the soundness of the science, the positive economic development impacts, and the faith of the long-term residents of Red Hook, BEDC endorses this project and urges you to move it forward. Joan Bartolomeo, President, Brooklyn Economic Development Corporation
The WRONG thing!
I have spent a great deal of my life going back and forth through Red Hook , working as a young boy with my father and living in other parts of Brooklyn. I always had faith in Red Hook, even when people said don’t walk the streets here years ago I never paid mind because there was always feeling of unity here regardless of the path people had taken they stood together to protect this area RIGHT or WRONG. A new dawn has occurred here with educated, health conscious people that are graciously filled the streets adopting Red Hook as their own. I have grasped Red Hook and not only grown as a businessman here but opened my heart and moved my whole life here. Now that I am fully invested and growing a family here You would like to replenish the poison once here but in a different way. I am first and foremost a business minded professional and I understand the logistics and power created with assets and I am aware of the circulation of monies within. I ask you this question : How will this development benefit the people fully invested here ? It will not, this will force me to move my investments prior to appreciation force me to move my family and begin to set roots elsewhere Then my business will follow on the outward progression leaving Red Hook stranded again, giving allegiance to others to proceed as they see fit without regard. I understand this is what you want and I cannot sit idle to allow this to reroute my home. Maybe you can come down here and fool some masses but I am not so obedient. I will fight for my home and I will strive to implode any plans against my business here. We have a great community here the stands together and does not panic during depression but only unites and prospers. My family left Greece for a better way to provide for me and sacrificed their life for mine, I will not let them down and allow the destruction of what they built. I know were I came from and am willing to fight for where I am. It is possible that legislation may provide a path for this, but I live here and a clear path of prosperity will not easily be taken. YOU WANT RED HOOK ? YOU WILL HAVE TO FIGHT FOR IT AS I DID. Even if I cannot stop you I can make sure others will not benefit from this and there will be a mass of contractors deterred from losing money to benefit you. Is it really worth it to take my home ? Do you really want to look all the babies here and smile while you destroy their future. Please advise me accordingly Tell me how will this benefit me as a resident ? How will you guarantee the security and safety of my family ? I appreciate your time. John Alatsis
Thanks for listening
Dear Mr. Christos, Thank you so much for listening to our community regarding the CDF, and agreeing that it will not come to Red Hook. It meant a lot to us that Walter Mudgan came to our neighborhood to speak to us on April 16th, 2013, at the Brooklyn Community High School on Conover Street, and told us that if the community does not want it, then it will not happen. Best, Terumi Matthews
Dumping days are over
…GBX has told us on many occasions that they have the right of way to build whatever the zoning allows. That might be true, but we don’t want to give them more land mass to facilitate them doing it. Red Hook has been the target of noxious use facilities for over 20 years. To float a relatively small number of jobs at the expense of dumping on this community negates the environmental justice which we have been fighting for, for years. And this is clearly an Environmental Justice issue. As the EPA has a list of remedies that involve processing the dredged material off-site for beneficial use, we strongly urge them to select any option that will prevent Red Hook from once again being a dumping ground. Respectfully Submitted by Lou Sones Coordinator Red Hook GAGS
Would you want one?
..Because no substantial and permanent employment would come to Red Hook as a result of the Red Hook/GBX proposal(s), no persuasive argument can be made that this community stands to benefit overall from the Red Hook option. Residents were clear at the April 16th meeting that the risk of toxic exposure, even if you say it is remote, is not worth a few job training positions. At this point, Christos, I’d like to remind you that when I asked you if you would want a CDF/de-watering facility in your own community on the property of an individual who has not demonstrably remedied or acknowledged his own company’s environmental violations, your response was: probably not. I and we in Red Hook hope that our community will cease to bear the environmental burden it has borne historically and that, given our recent flood experience, the community of Red Hook be given full consideration and due care in the future unfolding of the Gowanus clean-up. Should it be the case that we will need to continue to oppose any remedy, we will do so with steadfast determination. Again, thank you for your patience, hard work and willingness to listen. Andrea Kondaks Sansom
Divided the community
…The proposal for the placing of a Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) in Red Hook has generated a significant level of negative comments in Red Hook and has managed to divide the Red Hook community and to pit one community against another community. Since the EPA has not stated the methodology as to how they will “measure the Red Hook community’s acceptance” of the CDF in Red Hook, the Cobble Hill Association (CHA) cannot support this option. The CHA is totally committed to the full and complete elimination of CSOs into the Gowanus Canal. This must be achieved not in the distant future, but must be accomplished within the EPA’s time frame of cleaning up the Gowanus Canal with all proven and accepted techniques. Though some questions remain, overall, the CHA as a member of the Gowanus GAG supports the PRAP. Cobble Hill Association
Don’t trust the guy
I am resident of Red Hook and I am writing to share my opposition to the EPA’S current plan to build a confined disposal facility with the purpose of remediating toxic materials and mixing them with cement. As a resident, I think this plan will be harmful to our community and furthermore, I do not believe John Quadrozzi, whose company has polluted the Gowanus for years, should benefit from the EPA plan. I hope that you see our community is clearly not in favor of this plan and further, does not trust Mr. Quadrozzi. Best, Kim Forte
I thank you and your team for coming back to Red Hook to hear the community once our storm ravaged and recovery focused community really did have your attention. Thank you for stating over and over that the CDF would not be built and confirming that dewatering on barges along the canal is a plausible and a likely alternative to a facility in Red Hook. I/We will of course be paying very close attention that these options are discounted in the design phase as stated. We were asked to give support to or reject these options and rejection is well proven and documented. I will consider the issue of trust re-set but will be watching closely. Unwaveringly, Carly Yates
Do anything else!
The estimated $37 million dollar savings for this method does not benefit the community, but rather reduces the expenses of the clean-up for the original polluters. Additionally, this proposal includes the building of additional waterfront bulkhead land for a private entity, which, by their own admission, has not been thoroughly vetted or designed. I am concerned that once this project is in motion, the requests and the needs of the community will be lost as a private developer seeks to increase profit with no benefit to the community. It appears that all parties in this plan stand to benefit in some way from storing this material in Red Hook, with the very notable exception of the residents. The EPA has a list of remedies that involve processing and containment of dredged material off-site for beneficial use such as the capping of landfill sites, I urge the EPA to select any option that involves off-site processing and offsite disposal. Thank You, Dena Schultz
A nutty idea
Imagine my surprise when I heard about this plan and all of its options. On the one hand I know you’re all explaining highly-complex options to lay-people, and I’m sure that’s hard. On the other – the hubris of walking into a room (like you did at PS 15 in Brooklyn, a borough not known for a lack of self-regard) and saying “I was in Red Hook once for an afternoon four years ago, so I know what the community needs.” Can you imagine how your neighbors would feel if I did that in their homes? “Oh, Greece, you’ve got economic problems? Well let me tell you, as a fairly-successful small-business owner I know about job creation, so here’s my advice: McDonald’s is hiring! Go get jobs at McDonalds! Problem Solved!” I’d be chased off the stage, and rightfully so! And then to make part of the plan hinge upon the enrichment of one businessman, to the possible detriment of the entire community? A businessman whose company and officers A) have pled guilty to making illegal payoffs, B) been forbidden from bidding on City contracts and C) fined millions for polluting the waters of Brooklyn? It’s insane! I try to be polite, and I realize that you’ve gone out of your way to explain things to the community; but every time I think of this I get more enraged. It’s mind-boggling that you could ever think any small number of people would support this plan. I try to be polite and I can’t. It makes me fume. It’s crazy, and we’re going to do our best to hold you to your on-record quotes saying “we heard you, we ain’t gonna build it.” Brook Llewellyn Shepard
Don’t get me started
I am writing to register my opposition to using Red Hook as a dumping ground from clean-up of the Gowanus Canal. The EPA has a list of remedies that involve processing and containment of dredged material off-site for beneficial use such as the capping of landfill sites, I urge the EPA to select any option that involves off-site processing and off- site disposal. Don’t even get me started on the topic of even considering any proposal that includes a repeat environmental offender like John Quadrozzi. It’s nice that he pays you hefty fines for his nefarious behavior, but that should count against him, don’t you think? Or do you just like people who incur (and pay) EPA fines? Concerned, • Beth Kaiser
You cannot simply move deadly toxins to where the poor live, shame on you! Find a viable solution, for gods sake. PEACE Kathleen Hopler
In Red Hook, the problem is that a burden will be shared by many and the benefit will accrue to one person. Only eminent domain seizure of the properties of the one person, which is an appropriate way to obtain the land and waterfronts to build the CDF, must result in shared ownership, not unenforceable Job promises; so that all those who share the burden of the cleanup benefit equally from any and all results of the cleanup. Each resident of Red Hook must be a shareholder in the CDF and in the improved waterfront property and commercial ability it represents. Otherwise, there is an appearance of impropriety, with the EPA acting to benefit a very rich land owner. This appearance of impropriety and corruption is enough reason to prevent EPA from building the CDF, on its own. Only a shared ownership of the CDF would make it clear that there is no corruption, and there is an equal and real benefit to each and every resident. Thank you. Steve de Seve
A Matter of JUSTICE!!
I am writing in support of the EPA’s PRAP for the Gowanus Canal Superfund, and specifically in strong favor of the “Red Hook Option” including Dewatering and construction of a Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) at GBX • Gowanus Bay Terminal in Red Hook. I own a 2 family home at 213 Van Brunt Street, where 1 resided from 2001 – 2010, and have worked in the Red Hook community, primarily in the nonprofit sector in community and economic development, for over a decade. While I am employed as a consultant to the owner of GBX • Gowanus Bay Terminal, I am writing to you in the capacity of a Red Hook stakeholder, that cares deeply about this community, especially the residents of Red Hook Houses. Even when I was not employed at the South Brooklyn LDC or Southwest Brooklyn IDC, I have always volunteered (and continue to do so) for community initiatives that benefit the residents of Red Hook Houses, and know intimately the needs of this community. I have worked very closely with the leadership of the Houses, and the general public there, for 13 years. I became involved in the Red Hook Option of the Gowanus Canal Superfund, because I knew from the moment I heard about the proposal, that it was the perfect fit for Red Hook. Because GBX is located in a THOUROUGHLY industrial section of Red Hook, zoned M-3, an active marine terminal, next to the largest Bargeport in our region, within NYC’s Industrial Business Zone, I thought that expanding industry here would be a no-brainer for All of Red Hook. I have known and worked with the owner of GBX for over 10 years, which is why I knew I could stand by him, and strongly advocate for this project. I met John Quadrozzi, Jr. in 2000 when we started an Illegal Dumping Taskforce together. I was running the Red Hook office of the South Brooklyn Local Development Corporation and was the Administrator of the Red Hook Gowanus Chamber of Commerce. We began the process of planning for the Red Hook Option by attempting to facilitate a transparent, open, communication forum for residents in both the ‘Back’ (primarily affluent property owners) and the ‘Front” (Red Hook Houses) to discuss the project, and any concerns or questions residents might have had about the project. People were open to the idea, many were optimistic about the Job Training Initiative and job opportunities that would come from the EPA work, and all were invited to engage with us in a visioning process that would plan the new uses that could be placed on the CDF once it was completed. We met with Mr. McGettrick and Lou Sones repeatedly. All of a sudden the discussions were about ‘zero expansion of industrial land in Red Hook’ versus whether the project was going to be safe or beneficial to the Red Hook community. Then, prior to the EPA presentation at PS 15, bright orange signs saying “Toxic Sludge Coming To Red Hook” went up on every door in Red Hook Houses, with no organizational affiliation and with no permission from NYCHA or the Resident Associations. Residents who were typically part of Red Hook’s anti-industry clique had obviously prepped their cronies to disrupt the meeting and worse, instilled fear into residents of both the “back” and “front” of Red Hook. All people heard was scary, false terminology and all they saw was fear and anger on people’s faces. We were victims of sabotage. Red Hook Houses residents were again victims of a Great Social Injustice, and it was brought against them by their own neighbors. The whole experience has been extremely disheartening and sad. I too was a victim of Sandy, and had been experiencing great personal tragedy in my own family, but I stayed with this project because it’s the right thing to do. Now it is not only the right project for the right community, the Red Hook Houses community and their local employers, it is a matter of JUSTICE. I am not in this for myself, and never was. Red Hook deserves this project to happen, please have the courage to fight for it with us. Yours Truly, Phaedra Thomas, Owner
Could be OK
We at PortSide believe that having EPA Gowanus Canal Superfund remediation activities centered in Red Hook at GBX, if done properly, could be a good thing for a community concerned with being socially and environmentally responsible. We see this project as an opportunity for federal investment in the community, potential employment for local residents, increased industrial land, and increased public open space. Thank you for your consideration. I can be reached at (917) 414-0565. Sincerely, Carolina Salguero
An expert’s opinion
I support the use of a CDF because I am aware that such an approach is effective in Newark Bay. I speak with a certain amount of knowledge of the options for disposition of dredged material. While I was in New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as Special Assistant to the Commissioner for New York Harbor Environmental issues, my portfolio had dredging and dredged material disposal as a major factor. During that time I co-chaired dredging conferences dedicated to finding innovative sustainable ways to deal with dredged material. In addition I made a presentation about dredged material disposal before the New York Academy of Sciences. I continued to follow the dredging issue while I was at New York City Economic Development Corporation as Director of Port and Intermodal Planning, as consultant to the Gowanus Canal Community Development Corporation in developing its conceptual plan for redevelopment, and continue to do so as a member of the Steering Committee of the Harbor Operations Committee. Although my words of support are few they are based on a great depth of knowledge and experience. Very truly yours, Roberta Weisbrod. Ph.D. Founder and Principal, Sustainable Ports, a consultant business Cc: Phaedra Thomas John Quadrozzi. Jr.