PUBLIC MEETING -- PART 2
John Vena, University of Buffalo
Good afternoon, my name is John Vena. I am a professor at the University of Buffalo. I am an epidemiologist and I do health effects research in the Great Lakes basin. I would like to say that there have been some initiatives that have progressed: health effects research, including funding from the Great Lakes Protection Fund on the U.S. side, as well as the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry which is the only U.S. basinwide research program focused on human health and persistent toxics. I would like to say that the Canadian program, also the Great Lakes Health Effects Program which I was on the advisory committee for, has also been instrumental in addressing research in this area.
I would like to have the Commission continue to tell the governments that dedicated funding for programs that are basinwide and integrate are really important to get at the issues. It seems that funding in this area is only done on a year-to-year basis. Really long-term funding is important to look at the transgenerational effects, but also if you want to look at the influence of how the pollution improvements have made on human health, we need to continue to pursue these health effects research programs on a long-term basis. Thank you.
I am Ann Mahan. This is the fourth Biennial Meeting that I have attended. At previous meetings, we have heard pulp and paper representatives claim that there is no demand for chlorine-free paper and that chlorine-free paper for high-quality reproduction can't be made. It won't hold up well on press, it isn't wide enough, it doesn't take the ink well enough, etc. etc. My husband and I recently published a book that was printed on chlorine-free paper with soy-based ink. Because North American mills, in spite of growing world-wide demand for chlorine-free paper, still don't produce chlorine-free paper for high-quality reproduction, we purchased our paper from a German company, Scheufelen, who incidentally produced only chlorine-free paper. This paper has 20% post-consumer recycled content, not re-bleached with chlorine and the rest of totally chlorine-free pulp.
We were present when the book was on press and a pressman spontaneously came up to us and said "you guys sure chose the right paper." The reason things have so smoothly is that this paper is so good. It runs well on press. It takes the ink beautifully. At least two other pressmen commented at other times about the high quality of the paper and how well it handled on press, and the high quality of reproduction it gave. Interestingly, this printer has been using other paper by Scheufelen for some time, not even for environmental reasons, but simply because it performed so well. So much for the assertion that this kind of paper can't be made. We urge you to stand firm in your call for the sunset of chlorine. Be wary when industry says it can't do something.
We are concerned that North American paper mills will eventually find themselves unable to compete in the changing world market and the regional jobs and economy will pay the price. One of the problems with the word 'can't' is that there is a price for not acting. President Clinton recently indicated that we can't afford to make the needed rollbacks in greenhouse gas emissions but the fact is we can't afford not to. The price of our inaction keeps growing while we debate. And while persistent toxic chemicals continue to accumulate and we debate what to do about it, the price tag magnifies. You already know success stories in which industries who clean up toxic processes find that they are actually saving money and often creating jobs. Our two countries traditional values embody a 'can do' attitude with innovation and creative problem solving, so please hold firm in the stand you have taken and ignore the word 'can't.'
Finally, I am disappointed with the position that the IJC has taken regarding incineration. Although your policy statement doesn't encourage the use of incineration, it recognizes it as an option in municipal solid waste management in spite of frequent calls from the public for a moratorium. Incineration does not accomplish virtual elimination and not zero discharge. It is totally incompatible with those concepts. It creates persistent toxics that weren't there to begin with and releases others in more toxic and bioavailable forms than when they started. There a number of references in the policy statement to control emissions, but controlling air emissions does not prevent persistent toxics from entering the environment. They simply enter from a different route, leaching from the ash. Incineration seems to be viewed as an alternative to landfilling, but as you know, incineration ash is still landfilled -- concentrated, toxic, leachable ash. There are so many problems with incineration, including its inherent incompatibility with recycling and its role as the largest source of atmospheric emissions of dioxins and furans, in spite of all the bells and whistles of best available technology. In this case, best is not good enough; incineration is completely incompatible with the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. So I repeat my biennial call for a moratorium of incineration of municipal waste, hazardous waste and medical waste. Thank you for listening. I hope the governments listen to you.
I am John and I am used to following her. I also marked four Biennial Meetings that I've been to. This one, I'll remember, because now I have to use reading glasses.
I am having trouble feeling as celebratory about the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as I really want to. True zero discharge lives only in our hearts and our slogans. Even the few pollutants that have banned are often replaced by equally damaging new chemicals because the onus for proof has not been reversed onto the Chemical Manufacturers where it has always belonged. For instance, DDT was replaced with methoxychlor, an organochlorine that we now know exhibits similar harmful characteristics. How much progress have we made in that instance? Meanwhile, evidence of harmed wildlife, humans, society and the economy continues to mount. Unfortunately, so does denial by the affected industry.
For six years, my wife Anne and I have been searching and writing a book on one of the Great Lakes. We have talked with many scientists in and out of the basin who are connecting the pieces in the puzzle, finding the links between toxic pollution, especially endocrine disruptors, and harm to humans and other wildlife. As thanks for this difficult work, many of them have had their personal and professional reputations attacked, their character maligned and research funding taken away. One has even related to us, an anonymous death threat just for going public with their research. Meanwhile the state, provincial and federal governments have been falling all over themselves in a race to the bottom. Attempting to roll back and gut the few protections we do have while enacting new destructive legislation. For example, audit privilege laws have been passed by 21 states and I understand are pending in about 14 more. Audit privilege laws protect corporations when they report their own violations of environmental laws. All information related to the self-audit becomes privileged and cannot be divulged to the public, or used as evidence in any legal proceeding, law suite or regulatory action. Who decides what information is protected? The affected, offending industry.
Audit privilege laws allow criminal corporations to self-immunize themselves against prosecution for their violations while depriving the public of their right to know. The U.S. Congress is now considering a federal audit privilege, Senate Bill S866, and its companion House Bill HR1884, and even though the known net loss of wetlands President has come and gone, wetlands are still being destroyed. The latest statistics I can get one-million wetlands that were lost between 1985 and 1995. This is important because we now know that nitrates are taken out by wetlands and we also know that nitrates act synergistically with atrazine and other organo chlorines amplifying their endocrine disrupting effects.
But I do have cause for celebration. I celebrate the courage, persistence and dedication of scientists to tell the truth in spite of the tremendous perils it places them in. I celebrate ordinary people who in spite of being treated as either obstructions or inconsequential by the governments insist on being heard. They are far more knowledgeable and capable than they are given credit for, and they are optimists. They believe they can make a difference and they can. I celebrate the beginnings of see-change in human consciousness in priorities. A change noted worldwide by any long-time observer of humanity. The movement appears to be from a mechanistic to an ecological world view from meaningless consumption to meaningful connection, from getting more to becoming more. The turmoil we find ourselves in appears to result from the clash between the dying and aborting world views. I celebrate the people that are driving the hopeful and necessary changes. And I celebrate IJC Commissioners, past and present who continue to speak truth to power, again, again and again.
In that spirit, I ask you to do the following:
Thank you for your time.
Tanya Cabala, Lake Michigan Federation
Hi, I am Tanya Cabala with the Lake Michigan Federation. The Lake Michigan Federation is a 27-year old environmental organization that worked on Great Lakes environmental issues with a focus on Lake Michigan.
We would like to alert you to what we believe is an emerging issue in the Lake Michigan basin and possibly in other Great Lakes areas, directional or slant drilling. Directional drilling for oil and gas is a procedure where companies construct a pipeline, at first vertical, then horizontal so that companies can, as an example, drill under lakes.
The Lake Michigan Federation has numerous concerns about the potential negative impacts to the Lake Michigan shoreline from this type of oil and gas exploration and production. There are human health issues, since hydrogen sulphide, a toxic gas that is present in many oil and gas deposits.
We are also concerned about contamination of groundwater and tributaries from hazardous wastes associated with drilling activities. Lake Michigan's shoreline habitats, dunes and wetlands are fragile and already degrading due to development and other factors. What are the impacts of oil and gas production activities on these sensitive and valuable habitat?
Most importantly we are disturbed that the potential for proliferation of fullscale production sites along the Lake Michigan shoreline without a comprehensive assessment of damage to the Lake Michigan ecosystem. In Michigan, small scale directional drilling has been permitted in recent years in various locations on the Lake Michigan shoreline and along Lake Huron. Last Spring, the largest proposal yet was made by a Canadian company to directionally drill for oil and gas beneath Lake Michigan. The proposal sparked intense public debate leading to public meetings and an evaluation of directional drilling along Great Lakes' shorelines by Michigan's Environmental Science Board, a panel appointed by Governor Engler. That evaluation, while moving in the right direction, still falls short of providing a comprehensive framework for addressing the environmental, social and economic issues related to permitting onshore oil production facilities. A framework is necessary, given the potential for additional proposals to drill beneath Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. According to Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, at least 20 to 30 more drilling proposals are anticipated.
Annex VIII of the GLWQA outlines specific programs and measures for development and implementation by the Parties in order to prevent discharges from oil and hazardous polluting substances to the Great Lakes from both onshore and offshore facilities. It has been 25 years since Annex VIII has been developed. Have these programs been developed and reviewed? Are they adequate? Because of the exploration of energy development in the Great Lakes, particularly in Michigan, we urge the Commission to review Annex VIII and the Parties' programs and make recommendations for improvement if necessary.
Thank you very much.
My name is Edith Chase, citizen of Ohio. We've made progress in the last 25 years. How much more can we accomplish in the next 25? Today, we need to share a vision or we will share the consequences. How much will it cost for a clean Great Lake? The right question is how much will it cost for children with three point lower IQ? Or more people on welfare or in jail? Or added health care expenses? To control the pollution in the Great Lakes so far we have tried to stop a waterfall at the top. There can only be frustration in our plans to clean up contaminated sediments while the same contaminants are released to our air, land and water.
The damage to public health from PCBs, mercury and other PTSs is well documented. I ask the IJC and governments to focus their full attention on resources on virtual elimination of PTSs. We need to think in terms of results and performance and measuring progress toward our goals -- our Treaty obligation.
We need to emphasize pollution prevention, lifecycle costs, close-looped systems, renewable and resource conservation and efficiency. Also, I ask that we integrate atmospheric deposition into these plans. A healthy economy and a healthy environment go hand in hand. The benefits to Ohio's economy can be measured even in dollars. The Ohio Department of Development reports that in 1996: the travel and tourism industry, just in the Lake Erie county, accounted for $3.08-billion; total direct employment 94,000 jobs; total direct payroll $125-billion; total tax receipts by local governments $3.68-million. People in Ohio and visitors are attracted to clean water and attractive communities along the Lake Erie shoreline. The benefits also include quality of life and health for future generations.
I ask that the IJC place a central focus on human health in RAPs and LaMPs for the next two years. We need a set of indicators, monitoring and surveillance, reporting to the public the results achieved.
I thank you for holding this public forum and am looking forward to a report on the progress during the next forum two years from now. Thank you.
Wayne Schmidt, National Wildlife Federation, Director, Ann Arbor
Thank you Commissioners. My name is Wayne Schmidt representing the National Wildlife Federation. I am Director of our Great Lakes Office in Ann Arbor.
It's appropriate as we gather here this weekend to brag about our accomplishments of the past 25 years. Last night, some of us went down to the Falls and stood there soaking in the mist and thunder of that Great Lakes spectacle. What we discovered was that if you stand in just the right place in front of one of those spotlights and wave your arms, you can actually see your shadow projected on the face of Horseshoe Falls.
For decades we have watched government leaders stand in the spotlight and wave their arms, make grand promises to restore the Great Lakes, on toxics, on air pollution, on Lake Superior, on virtual elimination, yet I have to tell you that once that spotlight dims, it often feels to many of us as if these promises are as ephemeral as our shadows on the Falls. Just this morning, with the ink barely dry on the Binational Toxics Strategy, we heard Canada backing away from its commitment to a 90% reduction on mercury emissions -- circumstances have changed, we're told. It's no wonder that the energies of the Great Lakes community today are sagging. That's why it is essential for our renewal, for us to appreciate the progress to which all of us have contributed for the past 25 years. Whatever the magnitude of our disappointment, our part on this Earth is better off for our collective work in these past 25 years, and our children and the seventh generation will benefit from our work. Having celebrated our progress, however, the Commission must keep a spotlight on the governments.
As Commissioner Béland said this morning, being the lead advocate for accountability. You did that well last month on the Detroit River. That's one good example. We thank you for that. Keep that spotlight focused on this magnificent river, and especially on those who have leadership responsibility, that leadership which as you correctly pointed out, which is lacking. Michigan's Governor Engler, and the U.S. EPA, in particular. This is typical of many of the seemingly intractable Great Lakes problems that we face around the region. In Detroit, we have a plan for a new Tiger Stadium; that's going to happen. We are going to have a plan for a new casino; that's going to happen. We're probably even going to get a good plan for brownfield redevelopment; even that's eventually going to happen in the city. But as we approach the 300th Anniversary of the founding of the City of Detroit, where's the plan for restoring the Detroit River? That river that Cadillac called the region in the earthly Paradise of North America.
Some of my NWF colleagues this weekend will offer you additional recommendations and obviously you have heard recommendations to build several feet over the last year of your listening, on air toxics, on Lake Superior, and on the paramount importance of keeping the Commission's focus and all of our focus on endocrine disrupting chemicals in our environment. I wanted to emphasize just one in conclusion: Our progress has been possible because of the Agreement. It brings voice and official commitment to the vision and aspirations of the people of the United States and Canada. Our message to the government, in particular, the U.S. State Department, is this: The Agreement is not broken, don't try to fix it, just do what it says. Thank you.
Thank you Commissioners. My name is Jack Weinberg. I am a senior toxic campaigner with Greenpeace. This is now my fifth IJC Biennial Meeting. I started attending Biennial Meetings in 1989 in Hamilton, Ontario. That was before I was working with Greenpeace. And that was certainly a turning point in my life. There were two things that were happening at that meeting: on the one hand, the information coming from the IJC Science Advisory Board, coming from the research community of the Great Lakes was very clear. Not only were fish and birds and other wild things being seriously impacted and destroyed by persistent toxic pollutants, but this was also affecting humans and our future generations. That evidence was sufficiently clear in 1989 to galvanize a whole movement in the Great Lakes basin. That was the bad news but the good news was the perception that we had an International Joint Commission that was willing to listen, was willing to act, was willing to take the Agreement's notions and help magnify them. Those two things together ignited a very powerful citizen movement around the Great Lakes. The message of that movement was that the issues of persistent toxic pollutants require not a quantitative solution that a good emission limit values, better controls, better management, better risk assessments, but a qualitative solution that as we identify the things that are causing these problems and then we change our practices and don't do those things anymore. That was the idea of zero discharge, that was what the idea of virtual elimination at that time, meant to the us and meant to the Commission. For the years after that, there was growing movements saying that we have the ability, we have the power, working with this Agreement, working with these Commissioners to make a difference. That was very exhilarating.
I would say that in the last several years, we've lost our way, and I feel that much of the discussion that I've heard so far at this meeting reflects that. That movement is no longer as powerful as it was. Many of those people are still there, but they've been discouraged. The discussions are now again exclusively quantitative and the qualitative ideas are put at the end of the sentence for rhetoric for those people who still are so silly to think those solutions matter. We were talking then about a range of persistent toxic pollutants affecting the Great Lakes. Now we can't, we're debating: Is PCBs, DDT and mercury a source of harm and maybe we should, and maybe there's even caution to go beyond those three., and even there, we're still debating -- Have we demonstrated harm from them? I think we've gone way back. I think it's a sad day. That's my negative side.
But I also have a positive story to say. The positive story is that the messages that came out from the Great Lakes are now reverberating worldwide. There are global negotiations, global momentum, and global interest in the whole issue of persistent organic pollutants as a global problem and a global phenomena. Maybe one of the reasons we stumbled is that we had a problem in our ecosystem in our region that required a global solution. That may be what overwhelmed us. Well, now thankfully, there is motion toward a global solution. I very much hope that that motion toward the global solution which we very much helped trigger, the information, the research, the dynamics that came out of the Great Lakes understanding. But I know, as sure as I am standing here, that while there's a lot of positive things moving toward a global solution, unless there is a reinvigoration of energy out of this region, that too will stall. We've learned, we've gone through this. So my plea to the Commission, my plea to my colleagues here, is however discouraging the last few years have been, however much we've stumbled, it's time forward again. I think the ideas are simple: persistent toxic pollutants is not a quantitative idea, its a qualitative idea. It's not a discussion of how to manage the risk, or how to control, or set an emission limit values, or figure out how much is safe, or what the environment can absorb, or what's the assimilative capacity. The idea is to identify the practices, the products, the materials, the processes that are the source of this problem, and then in an orderly and just way, carry out a transition to stop doing those things and move toward the cleaner production systems to allow us to thrive on this plant. If we don't do that, I believe as I did in 1989, and I believe there is no information that's qualitatively changed since 1989, although we can study it some more. I believe that what's at stake is the viability of our future generations. That is your task, that is your responsibility, that is our responsibility and I certain hope we can live up to it. Thank you.
Kathleen Evans, Muskegon Conservation District
Hello, I am Kathy Evans. I live in Muskegon, Michigan, where we have two Areas of Concern. I work for the Muskegon Conservation District and I serve as staff for our Remedial Action Plan Coordinator, the Muskegon Lake and the White Lake Public Advisory Council. I participate in the RAP process also through the Statewide Public Advisory Council for Michigan's Areas of Concern, and also in the LaMP process on the LaMP Forum for Lake Michigan.
Our local Public Advisory Councils have remained very committed to the RAP process since we began the formation back in 1989 and 1990. IJC should be commended for their assistance in helping us to form our Public Advisory Councils and lend credibility to that effort. IJC has been instrumental in making sure that they were formed and continued. What we've done over the past few years is use some partnership approaches. I consider the Public Advisory Council to be one of the partners, but we also have many other partner who have served on the Public Advisory Council. We've worked with the Lake Michigan Federation, NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab., our intermediate school district, and Grand Valley State University's Water Resources Institute. We work with youth volunteer corps, business, local governments, and local sportsfishing groups in order to implement Remedial Action Plan projects.
We've begun to view the agencies now as partners. We do have valuable communication processes which enable that with the LaMP Forum as well as with the Statewide Public Advisory Council. We're looking at the Great Lakes Commission, and the Michigan DEQ and U.S. EPA as partners because we continue to struggle with funding problems. The partnerships are working in a sense, but it's not enough and we would like to see those agencies more in a leadership capacity, but also as partners.
The public needs to see that consistent moving ahead, moving forward process, not the hit-and-miss kind of thing that can happen when you are solely relying on the partnership projects.
I am here also to speak on behalf of Michigan Statewide Public Advisory Council. I would like to briefly go over what that is and the five priorities for Michigan's Areas of Concern that we would like to request the IJC to seek effective means of addressing. The Statewide Public Advisory Council is a group of citizens who represent Michigan's 14 Areas of Concern. The Council was established in 1991 to provide advice and input on all aspects of the statewide program, which is the AOC and LaMP programs, including program priorities, policies, public participation strategies and technical issues relevant to all 14 AOCs. The five priorities for which we request the IJC's support:
Thank you.
Connie Bimber
My name is Connie Bimber. I'm from Painesville, Ohio. I would like to yield to Russell Bimber who has personal knowledge of a chemical dump 30 ft. from Lake Erie that the Ohio EPA is in denial about. He would like to make suggestions as to some causes for already observed diseases in Lake Erie fish and amphibians related to these chemicals.
Thank you. I have spent 30 years working mostly with chlorinated organic compounds, some of which are among the very compounds of greatest concern, bioaccumulative organics that build up in the foodchain to the IJC. The IJC's 1995-97 Priorities Report notes on page 16 and 17, the importance of finding the missing links to prove the cause-effect relationship between the presence of chlorinated organics building up in the foodchain and the harmful biological effects which have been observed.
A speaker at the Lake Erie Conference in September showed that retarded eye development associated with bioaccumulative, that is fat-soluble organic chlorine compounds, was also associated with the loss of Vitamin A. I've spent 40 years working with chlorinated organics and other organic compounds and the primary mode of destruction of all organic compounds in the environment is reaction with water, because water is so pervasive and its availability at the surface of the Earth is continually renewed by precipitation. The bioaccumulative materials bioaccumulate because they are selectively soluble in fats and thus protected from reaction with water. Water-soluble chlorinated organics do not bioaccumulate. Because these materials accumulate in fat and are protected against reaction with water, they are likely to react with other materials which are also fat soluble.
At the Lake Erie Conference in September, a speaker showed retarded eye development associated with some of these fat-soluble organics was also associated with the loss of Vitamin A. I believe the missing link in this case is a coupling product which results from a reaction of hydrochloric acid between Vitamin A where hydrogen is taken off, and the chlorinated organic where a chlorine is taken off. Similar loss of Vitamin D which is also fat soluble may account for eggshell thinning and breakage, and retarded bone growth. A similar loss of Vitamin E which is also fat soluble can account for impaired muscle development and some of the reproductive failures. A similar loss of Vitamin K which is fat soluble, associated with blood clotting, can be the cause of hemorrhaging, and so on. Many sex hormones are also fat soluble. Their loss can account for many of the hormonal effects and some of the reproductive failures which have been observed. A simple solvent extract of fatty tissues with a solvent, like methylene chloride or chloroform should contain the coupling compounds which are the missing links. Knowing this, it is a simple matter for an organic chemist to use liquid chromatography or similar procedures to isolate the missing links and structurally identify them by such things as nuclear magnetic resonance and mass spectrometry.
With one minute remaining, I would like to jump on to a chemical dump left behind at the edge of Lake Erie by my employer. I would have to correct my wife slightly. This dump is roughly a one-acre site which contains 3 to 3-1/2 million pounds of organic waste, two-thirds of which is liquid chlorinated organic solvents. My employer told Ohio EPA that it had buried six cars in about 195 drums of hexachlorobutadiene, that is a category 2 pollutant in your booklet, in this dump. It also said that it had buried more 57,000 gallons of liquids, about half carbon tetrachloride, and half sulphur dichloride from a shut-down carbon tetrachloride plant. It also buried some 516 drums of chlorinated parafins. These are viscous, sticky materials, easily dissolved in some of the solvents in the site, which might help spread them. These three materials are all commercial materials -- that is a result from full-scale commercial production -- yet the Ohio EPA's RIFS plan on this site acknowledges only small quantities of laboratory materials, typically less than five-gallon containers, having been buried on this site. Now as I just told you, more than half of the poundage of materials on this site is a result of full-scale commercial production according to what Diamond Shamrock told Ohio EPA. Furthermore, another quarter of the materials on this site are from semi-commercial production. They include about 900 drums which are filled with fluffy material weighing only about 300 to 350 pounds each and if they should get into the Lake Erie intact, they would float low in the water and become a serious hazard to boaters.
I thank you for your attention.
Bill Borden, Lake Michigan Federation
I'm Bill Borden. I am the Executive Director of Lake Michigan Federation. I have been handed an announcement that people dealing with the aftermath of the Hamilton PVC fire and some others, there will be a strategy session with Great Lakes activist, Lois Gibbs that will take place at 3:30 -- about 20 minutes from now down in the display area.
You've heard earlier from folks who are involved with Lake Michigan Federation. My roll today is to urge the IJC to stay its course of environmental protection and to recognize that the IJC remains one of the few institutional voices remaining that speaks for clean water and healthy Great Lakes ecosystems.
Much has been written about the so-called devolution of environmental regulatory authority from the federal level down to the provincial level and the state levels. In some cases, states can and do a better job of environmental protection, particularly within a state's boundaries. Minnesota, for example, having introduced a host of pollution prevention and regulatory measures leads Great Lakes states in clean water initiatives. You might know that for years, Minnesota has used TRI data to establish fees, based on volume and types of toxic substances released with resulting revenues providing both the disincentive to pollute and a source of revenue for technical assistance programs. It is a breakthrough project that they started years ago. But alas, examples like this are in the Great Lakes, exceptions to the rule. The Crystal River case for example, pitted the Michigan DNR against the U.S. EPA. Essentially, a Michigan firm sought permission to fill wetlands near the Crystal River in Traverse City. The permit which was opposed by virtually every conservation group in the midwest, including Lake Michigan Federation, was ultimately granted by Michigan DNR, while EPA recognized this malfeasance and they revoked the DNR's permitting authority in the case, then the Michigan Governor called the White House to intervene. The White House chastised the EPA's regional administrator in Chicago. EPA then reversed itself, declaring that the Michigan DNR did indeed possess appropriate authority. Clearly, clean water must transcend political favours. The IJC must maintain its vigilant, independent watch over those industries and governments that would dismantle the Great Lakes ecosystems and the water that supports them.
The IJC remains an independent voice of reasoning. Those who support clean air, clean water and healthy habitats, turn to the IJC for strength and support. Finally, a challenge to everyone in this room, and everyone at this conference, to work together to the future, that is.
Just to reiterate a few comments that were made earlier today from Dave Ullrich of U.S. EPA. Talking about creating a new generation of environmentalists, we heard from the students summits some inspiring, motivating words that make sense to carry us into the future. We heard from Lois Gibbs out in the lobby that we must turn up the heat, not just on the IJC, you folks have had enough heat -- well, maybe you could use a little more -- but we all must turn up the heat on every politician and every government agency, and every province and every state and town, every burg. Finally, Lee Botts who has called for a more cohesive and inspired Great Lakes community. This will require new messages from us to attract new people and new leaders like to folks we heard from earlier today, and new ideas for change.
Laura Mowat and Candace Sharpe
(Mowat) Hello, my name is Laura Mowat and this is Candace Sharpe. We are senior students at White Pines High School in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Sault Ste Marie is one of the only cities its size in Ontario that does not have or has not had an opportunity for its citizens to dispose of their household hazardous wastes. Our goal is to establish a permanent disposal storage site along with a paint exchange. We are asking for your help, any help you can provide in urging our municipal government to realize the necessity of this site and locating further resources for ourselves and our city.
(Sharpe) Our campaign started five months ago when we petitioned in the local mall. The response was good, as we received approximately 500 signatures. In the past five months, we have spoken to our mayor, CAO and have presented to city council. Presently, working with Bob Olsgard of Lake Superior Alliance, we are continuing our research and petitioning. In January, we plan to return to city council with our full proposal. Please instruct the Ontario government to provide leadership and added resources for pollution prevention for Lake Superior communities like Sault Ste. Marie. Thank you.
Tom Baldini, U.S. CoChair, IJC
We've reached that bewitching hour (somebody said I should say in honor of Halloween). We will reconvene here again tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. to hear from our boards. Again, I remind you about the time capsule ceremony this afternoon being held up river at Fort Erie. We have buses out front and also maps in case you're driving, but the buses will leave at 3:30. I also want to remind you once again about the dinner this evening. Some of you have not picked up your tickets. I don't know if any are left, you'll have to check at the back. Buses will leave at 5:00 p.m. from the lobby for the dinner.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you all for coming, for being so attentive and participating, we stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:00 or the dinner this evening.
Thank you.