ZEBRA MUSSELS AND PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE
MUNICIPAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO MARINA OPERATORS ASSOCIATION
CANADIAN MARINERS' ASSOCIATION
FEDERATION OF ONTARIO COTTAGERS' ASSOCIATIONS INC
CONTENTS
Wednesday 30 January 1991
Zebra Mussels and Purple Loosestrife
Ontario Hydro
Lambton Industrial Society
Canadian Coast Guard
Afternoon sitting
Municipal Engineers Association
Ontario Marina Operators Association
Canadian Mariners' Association
Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Associations Inc
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Chair: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold NDP)
Vice-Chair: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich NDP)
Huget, Bob (Sarnia NDP)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron NDP)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury NDP)
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North L)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North NDP)
Clerk pro tem: Manikel, Tannis
Staff: Luski, Lorraine, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1007 in room 228.
ZEBRA MUSSELS AND PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE
Resuming consideration of the designated matter, pursuant to standing order 123, relating to zebra mussels and purple loosestrife.
The Chair: I will do what I can to sum up in terms of where we are in the process of these public hearings. Yesterday we heard witnesses with scientific and resource management expertise. Those witnesses also provided us with current research findings and areas which they felt needed more attention. Today we will hear from users of water resources who might be adversely affected by exotic species, and particularly the zebra mussel. Our witnesses today will outline their research efforts, control measures and economic and other impacts on their operations.
ONTARIO HYDRO
The Chair: Our first witness this morning is Ontario Hydro. The presenters are Paul Wiancko and Renata Claudi.
Mr Wiancko: I have copies of my presentation here that I can give out now or later whatever you want.
The Chair: We will take them now.
Mr Wiancko: Okay. What you have in front of you is my presentation that will represent Ontario Hydro's contribution to the standing committee. I will read this into the record and then be available for questions on our programs.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the standing committee on resources development on the issue of zebra mussels. Ontario Hydro is an industrial leader in the protection and long-term research for mitigation options. The following presentation will outline the extent of recent problems at our facilities, update the committee on our response to these problems and highlight our long-term research program that will eventually lead to mitigation options.
I would first like to tell you a bit about the corporation and the extent of our mussel problem. On the Great Lakes, Ontario Hydro has seven fossil-fired, five nuclear, one heavy water plant and four hydraulic stations. In addition to this, there are another 60 inland facilities and numerous dams that could be eventually vulnerable to zebra mussels. These hydro facilities represent an installed production capacity of approximately 28 gigawatts.
Ontario Hydro is the largest raw water user in the Great Lakes. These facilities can utilize up to 90 million cubic metres of water per day, of which 85% is used for steam condenser cooling and 15% is used in plant services. Since the majority of condenser cooling water flow exceeds two metres per second, the speed at which mussels do not attach, much of our zebra mussel control is aimed at the slower-moving service water systems; that is, that 15%. Service water is mainly used to cool small equipment such as bearings, fluid couplings, transformers, etc. It is also used in the fire protection system, water treatment plant makeup, wash-down systems and emergency backup systems. In any one facility, there are miles of service water piping, generally in the range of less than 0.3 metres in diameter.
For zebra mussel control, Ontario Hydro has adopted the philosophy that any mitigation options will prevent the settling of veligers as opposed to the cleaning of adult mussels from the service water piping.
To date, only our Nanticoke fossil-fired station in Long Point Bay, Lake Erie, four hydraulic facilities on the Niagara and Welland Canal system and the Lakeview fossil-fired station in Mississauga have experienced heavy accumulations of zebra mussels. However, mussels have been identified at or near all of our Great Lakes facilities, from the Bruce nuclear power development complex in Lake Huron as far east as the Saunders hydraulic generating station near Cornwall, Ontario.
At our Nanticoke station, which has been affected the most, we are measuring seasonal populations of mussels at about 700,000 animals per square metre. From one of our 16 cooling water pump wells this past year, we removed about five metric tonnes of mussels from the walls and intake screening systems. This cost us about $10,000 for that one well.
In 1990, Ontario Hydro installed sodium hypochlorite, or chlorine, injection systems at all of our 17 Great Lakes facilities. Approximately $10 million was spent in the design, procurement and commissioning of these systems. These systems are designed either to inject chlorine at two parts per million of total residual chlorine for a half-hour every 12 hours during the mussel breeding season -- this is from about May until October -- or they can inject continuously at 0.3 to 0.5 parts per million, depending on the cooling water dilution rate prior to the discharge reaching the lake.
Operation of these chlorine systems is governed under the Ministry of the Environment certificate of approvals process. One condition of these permits is that the discharge of sodium hypochlorite to the lake cannot exceed 0.01 parts per million of total residual chlorine. This level is 30 to 50 times less than the provincial drinking water guidelines. To ensure that the 0.01 parts per million concentration is not exceeded in the outfall channel, all facilities have installed continuous chlorine analysers. Compliance reports on the operation and monitoring of the chlorine system are submitted to the Ministry of the Environment on a monthly and annual basis. In addition, benthic samples, or basically bottom-dwelling animals, are collected at each site prior to and following the mussel breeding season. These benthic samples are used to assess any potential environmental impact resulting from our chlorination practices.
In 1990, Nanticoke used approximately 263,000 litres of sodium hypochlorite for the seasonal treatment of mussels. Emission levels were generally less than the 0.01 parts per million, and no detectable limits of trihalomethanes, THMs, were recorded.
In addition to installing chlorine systems at our Great Lakes facilities over the last year, Ontario Hydro has been very active in many other areas dealing with zebra mussels. I would like to list a few of these items.
We have been active in dispersion sampling for veligers in eastern Lake Erie, the Niagara and Welland Canal areas and western Lake Ontario, and we have installed what we call sampling blocks and plates at most of our facilities. These blocks and plates are used to monitor the arrival and seasonal buildup of mussels.
We established major communication networks with many stakeholders with the production of two videos, production of monthly newsletters, which we share with the Ministry of Natural Resources, and membership on several co-ordinating committees. These include the Ontario Hydro Zebra Mussel Co-ordinating Committee -- it meets on a monthly basis -- the Ad Hoc Interministerial Co-ordinating Committee set up by the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Electrical Power Research Institute Advisory Committee in the United States and the Lake Erie Zebra Mussel Working Group. We have also produced a public information pamphlet, a copy of which is in the handout.
We have given numerous talks to agencies, universities, industries, schools and private groups. We assisted the Ministry of the Environment in developing provincial guidelines for the approval of sewage work permits to deal with zebra mussels and the federal government in its decision to allow the use of sodium hypochlorite.
We have established a major zebra mussel culture colony at our research facility in Toronto, which is probably one of the largest in North America, and have built a mobile test laboratory for use in the field. This is a big semi-trailer truck. We have extensively tested and developed mechanical cleaning technology for use at Ontario Hydro facilities. We are sponsoring the first industrial conference on mitigation options for industry to be held in Toronto next month on 11 and 12 February.
Through our leadership in the mussel area, we have influenced the management plans and research of over 30 organizations. Those 30 organizations are attached. Finally, we have initiated extensive research studies on the development of long-term chemical, physical and mechanical mitigation options. At this time, I would like to outline some of this research.
In 1990 Ontario Hydro commissioned approximately $1 million worth of research to examine potential long-term mitigation options. This research has concentrated on the use of chlorine, ozone, live-dead mussel determination, gamma radiation, ultraviolet light, acoustics, mechanical filtration, electric shock, thermal shock or the hot water aspect, pressure, mussel attachment and antifouling coatings. An outline of the status of this research is attached to this presentation. However, I would like to summarize briefly a few of these studies.
First of all, thermal shock: Thermal shock was assessed as a method of killing the adult zebra mussel. Ontario Hydro research has indicated that the total kill of adult mussels can be assured by raising service water temperature to 36 degrees Celsius for four hours or 37 degrees Celsius for two hours. The Bruce heavy water plant may be the only facility that can utilize this process at a cost of about $100,000 per year.
1020
Coatings: The coatings that were first evaluated in the field in 1990 included coal tar, epoxy, copper, wax, silicone rubber, polyurethane, epoxy/polyamines and teflons. Results have shown that only two of these coatings are effective against first-year zebra mussel attachment, and both these coatings are the silicon-based polymer paints. Further tests will continue in 1991. In fact, some of these coatings have been applied to our bar racks and are in the field being tested now.
Electric shock devices: The objective of this study is to determine an electric shock device which will produce 100% mortality of zebra mussel veligers. Small mussels were exposed to electric fields ranging from 300 to 500 volts per centimetre, with a maximum power consumption of 250 watts for 0.1 to 90 seconds in a test cell. All experiments were effective in stunning the mussels for two hours. Additional work in this area will be undertaken by Wisconsin Electric in 1991.
Pressure: In this program, juvenile zebra mussels have been subject to both vacuum and high-pressure testing to determine whether or not they are affected in any way. Tests have indicated 100% mortality was obtained when pressure exceeded 30,000 psi and dropped rapidly. Presently, tests are being conducted to determine whether or not mussels will attach after being exposed to various pressures for different time periods.
Mechanical filtration: Of the parameters examined to date, mechanical filtration seems very encouraging. Filter types examined include hydraulically operated self-cleaning filters, disc filters and strain-o-matic automatic self-cleaning strainers. Further studies are planned, I think, at our Nanticoke station in 1991.
Mechanical cleaning: A number of different diver-operated tools and techniques have been tested in 1990 at the Nanticoke fossil-fired station. Continuous-flow, eight-centimetre, air-operated pumps equipped with a scraper assembly were the best available option for cleaning of vertical walls. The divers will be using this technique in future.
Acoustics: The objective of this study is to determine the effectiveness of sound as a control measure for the destruction or settling of veligers in raw water systems. Sound frequencies investigated to date range from approximately 1,000 hertz to 20,000 hertz. Both frequency and amplitude of the sound were found to influence mussel attachment and mortality. Further work in this area will be done in 1991.
Gamma radiation: The feasibility of using cobalt-60 gamma source to control mussels has been investigated. Gamma doses of 1, 3, 10, 30 and 100 kilorads have been tested, with a calculated source strength of 332 rads per second. The radiation times ranged from 3 seconds to 311 seconds. The results to date are inconclusive, due to the high mortalities in control groups. Further studies are planned in 1991.
Ultraviolet light: UV control is aimed at preventing the settling of the semitransparent post-veligers. Two domestic water sterilizers have been recently received, and tests are yet to begin.
Ozone treatment: The objective of this study is to determine the dose of residual ozone that is required to prevent the attachment of and/or to kill zebra mussels. Results are yet to be reported on this topic.
Mussel adhesion: Ontario Hydro is cofunding with the provincial government a University of Toronto study to determine the effect of surface tension and roughness on mussel attachment. Experiments are presently under way. I refer you to attachment 2 for more details on the study.
This concludes our presentation to your committee. Ontario Hydro is committed to the research for long-term mitigation options and will continue to inform government agencies and industries of the results on an annual basis.
Mr Ruprecht: I am personally quite delighted to see that there are so many different methods you are analysing to try to come to grips with the problem. However, on page 2 you indicate that in the systems you have installed in many of your power plants, which are close to the water, you are using an injection level of chlorine at two parts per million during the zebra mussel breeding season. Can you tell this committee whether, in your studies, such high levels of chlorine you are injecting would affect the other aquatic life?
Mr Wiancko: We have done some studies as to what levels of chlorine will actually kill the veligers. Our approach is to use at least two parts per million to kill the veligers and for the shortest period of time as required, which is about a half-hour every 12 hours.
When that two parts per million enters a pipe, all the veligers that have settled for the last 12 hours will be killed, and then that water is diluted by this 85% of the condenser cooling water, so you have quite a large dilution rate of that water before our station outfall water enters the lake. At that point, we are down to 0.01 parts per million, which is very low.
Mr Ruprecht: If I understand this correctly, the zebra mussels are in the intake pipes.
Mr Wiancko: In the service water pipes. They will settle on a service water pipe if we do not chlorinate. It takes two parts per million to kill those veligers.
Mr Ruprecht: This is the case in how many stations?
Mr Wiancko: All of our facilities that we have on the Great Lakes.
Mr Ruprecht: In all the facilities zebra mussels are on the intake pipes.
Mr Wiancko: At Nanticoke, the seven facilities on the Niagara and Welland Canal and Lakeview; they are already in those systems. If we did not chlorinate, they would be in those systems.
Mr Ruprecht: But my question concerned the effects of these fairly high levels of chlorination. You are saying, just to make it clear, that from your studies you can assure this committee that this treatment of two parts per million is not affecting, at all, any other aquatic life. That is what you are saying. Am I understanding you correctly?
Mr Wiancko: That two parts per million is not getting into the --
Mr Ruprecht: I understand that. Your treatment is not affecting any other aquatic life. I do not know what will come out in the final analysis when you treat two parts per million. I do not know whether it is 0.01, 0.05; you might have those statistics. I am asking the question whether, as you are making this presentation, you are quite certain in your own mind, or Hydro is, that these high levels of treatment, whether intake or out-take, are not affecting any other aquatic life. That is my question.
Ms Claudi: In the area of the plants where we are treating, we take extreme precautions that no aquatic life reaches that part of the plant. There are two levels of protection before that water ever enters the service water piping. First, the bar racks exclude all the larger fish. Second, the travelling screen picks up all the smaller fish and so on. Behind that is what are called strainers, which strain out all the debris, such as suspended material and most of the aquatic life. By the time that water reaches the service water piping, there is very little except bacteria, extremely small algae and zebra mussel veligers left in that water. When we are treating in that section of the plant, there is no other aquatic life present to speak of.
1030
Mr Ruprecht: Let me just continue this one more time. In your presentation you are saying that chlorine treatment is only temporary, until you find a better way. Correct?
Mr Wiancko: Correct.
Mr Ruprecht: Is this statement -- you are telling this committee that it is not affecting any other aquatic life. Do you have any idea how long you can continue treatment at these fairly high levels without affecting any other aquatic life?
Ms Claudi: From the studies that the Ministry of the Environment has done, where it is treating the discharge water from that sewage treatment plant and the discharge is about 50 times higher than what we are discharging into the lake, I think it has concluded that it is not really doing any irreparable damage, and we can only take its study as a basis for ours.
Mr Ramsay: I have two questions. I was a little surprised, with regard to your research, that you were quite hopeful about mechanical filtration, because yesterday we heard from other witnesses that they were not really sure that filtration would be able to strain out the veligers fast enough for the quantities of water that would be required by many of the industrial operations such as yours. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that, because that would be quite hopeful, that maybe filtration could do it in the future.
Ms Claudi: The development of these strainers is a fairly novel technology. They have been around for maybe one or two years in the final testing. In any case, the mechanical straining will probably only be appropriate for small systems that pump less than 50,000 gallons of water a day. With anything larger than that, you would have severe problems. The reason we are doing a pilot study rather than an immediate retrofit is that there are a lot of other problems associated with small-pore strainers like these, 80 to 50 microns, such as bacterial buildup, slime, etc. We just do not know how well they are going to perform.
I would also like to caution everyone that mechanical strainers may be the answer for small systems, but on large systems where you would be straining an awful lot of water you might run into the problem of affecting other aquatic life that normally would pass through the plant unharmed. They are not the answer for everyone or every system, but they are a hopeful development.
Mr Ramsay: During the first question by my colleague, I was able to refer to page 2, your second submission, to read in a little more detail the gamma radiation treatment. Could you put in lay terms exactly how you utilize radiation in trying to effect this? I am sure there would be concern out there. I did not really understand, even reading your second piece on that. Maybe you could put in lay terms how that works.
Mr Wiancko: I am not an expert in gamma radiation, but the way I understand it is that cobalt-60 right now is used to sterilize foods and so on. Our new business ventures was quite interested in this component. If we can sterilize food, can we sterilize the water system and kill off all the bacteria --
Mr Ramsay: Rather than use chlorine.
Mr Wiancko: Rather than use chlorine. What we are finding in this study is that the water going through our pipes is flowing too fast to get the exposure time needed. We expect that this part of the program will be dropped this year, that for our large system this would not work.
Mr Klopp: On gamma radiation. "The results to date are inconclusive due to high mortality rates in control groups." Could you explain that?
Mr Wiancko: Whenever you do an experiment you always have a control group. In our first round of experiments with gamma radiation, we had a high mortality in the control group. If you have a high mortality in the control group, how can you compare the test group? Now they have to redo that study.
Mr Klopp: What was killing them?
Mr Wiancko: It was just natural mortality. It is very, very difficult to keep large cultures of mussels alive. I think we have spent probably close to $200,000 right now trying to develop a good culture at our research facilities out at Kipling. There is a lot of money being spent in this area right now, because we want to have breeding mussels all year round so that we can experiment with veligers all year round. Right now, we only have veligers between July and December, which is only five or six months. If we could have these things breed all year round, we would have a larger population of veligers to work with and we could do more experiments, but we are having a lot of trouble keeping these mussels alive and the veligers alive.
Mr Klopp: So they go dormant for six months and they regrow, start over again.
Mr Wiancko: Basically, yes. We are trying to adjust the temperature of the tanks and so on and trying to shift their breeding season, but it is very difficult.
Mr Cleary: One question I have to ask about the tons of mussels: Where do you dispose of them and what do you do with them?
Mr Wiancko: Right now all the mussels that we clean out of our stations are going strictly to landfill.
Mr Cleary: Are they all dead?
Mr Wiancko: Yes. When we scrape down the walls of our pump wells and so on on an annual basis, they will be put into a large bin and then shipped off to landfill.
Mr Cleary: I read the attached sheet here on electric shock, but I am still not clear how that works.
Ms Claudi: There was some reason to believe from European literature that electric shock either kills or disables the veligers and prevents their attachment. The studies were done in Russia and the results were dubious at best, but it seemed enough of a reason to try to duplicate those studies here. We used the extremely small mussels, the ones in the three-millimetre range, and exposed them to various levels of electric shock and observed their reactions. Yes, we were able to stun them and, yes, we were able to prevent their attachment.
The problem with using electric shock is more of an engineering one. How would you safely put something like that in a plant and how well would it work in a scaled-up system? Because we are sharing our research with a number of other utilities, Wisconsin Electric decided to take it the next step to see how it could build a pilot electrical trap, if you wish, that we could test on a small facility.
Mr Cleary: So the electricity would be in the pipe?
Ms Claudi: It is more a passing of electricity through the water where the veligers are and zapping them in the process. It is passing electricity and relying on the conductivity of the animal to move the current through.
Ms Churley: I want to follow up on the chlorine question. Obviously, it is considered to be an interim method. I think everybody is aware of that. It is clear that you are doing a lot of research. In terms of your research, first, what are the problems you see associated with using chlorine even in the levels you talk about, for instance, the trihalomethanes, which, as you know, at high levels are considered to be carcinogenic? What other problems exist with using them? What do you think, in your view, the chances are of finding more environmentally benign solutions to this in, say, one or two years? What is your assessment of that? Do you have a view of what is looking to be the best method?
Mr Wiancko: On the chlorine issue, the quantities of chlorine we are using right now are fairly small. The levels we are injecting and releasing from our station, as I say, are well below any guidelines that exist right now, any known levels of harm. We have used chlorine for years.
1040
Ms Churley: When did you start using it?
Mr Wiancko: For zebra mussels, it was this past year. We have used it in our condensers for bio-fouling control. We must keep our heat exchangers and our condensers clean of algae and so on, and we have been using chlorine for years to keep these condensers clean so the heat transfer will work properly.
Personally, from the Hydro perspective, the chlorine we are using and the levels we are emitting to the lake are well below any possible environmental levels of harms. As I say, we have been measuring for trihalomethanes. The instruments have not picked anything up so we do not know if there is anything there at all. We just cannot measure it. It is just too low. So there would not be any levels there. Again, we are 30% to 50% lower than drinking water quality, so you are ingesting levels of chlorine 30 to 50 times higher by drinking water than you would from this water we are discharging from our plants.
On the idea of what research will come up with in the near future, we hope within the next three to five years to have a number of options we could apply to several of our stations. We do not feel any one option will be the answer. For example, we may be able to use coatings on our exterior features: our bar racks, our pump wells, our screens and so on, those systems that could become heavily coated with mussels and fail. On the external features we could use maybe some coatings; internally, maybe filters, the possibility of using ozone, other viable options.
Ms Claudi: I think any final solution will be a combination of many of the methods we are looking at, but if they are going to be necessarily more benign than chlorine, I think that is up to the community at large to evaluate.
Ms Churley: Can I ask you to clarify on trihalomethanes?
The Chair: Very briefly, Ms Churley. We have one final question from Mr McLean. We have exceeded our time.
Ms Churley: You test regularly for trihalomethanes. I just want to clarify that nothing is penetrating.
Mr Wiancko: No. We are using one of the better labs in Canada and we have not been able to detect it with the equipment they have.
Mr McLean: That is quite a list of organizations you have been involved with. You meet once a month?
Mr Wiancko: It depends on what organization.
Mr McLean: Do you have representation on that committee from the Ministry of Natural Resources?
Mr Wiancko: Yes. That is the ad hoc committee.
Mr McLean: Have you helped the municipalities that get their water out of the lakes, or have you worked with them? How have they been affected by it?
Mr Wiancko: We have been working with Jim Janse from the Ministry of the Environment; I guess he was here yesterday. We have been working with him on our use of chlorine and getting approval to use chlorine. I think both the Ministry of the Environment and ourselves feel that chlorine is the only option we have today but in future we will have a longer list of options we will have to look at.
Mr McLean: That was one of my other questions. How close are we to finding a solution to this problem?
Mr Wiancko: I am saying three to five years before we have an option that would be worth installing. For example, we know a couple of coatings that will work on the first-year population of mussels. But will that particular coating continue to work, say, for three to five years? It is very expensive to have to paint our facilities every year. Some of these paints cost about $10 a square foot to put on, so we just cannot go painting our facilities every year. We are looking for coatings that will last three to five years and we have only been through one year, so I think you have to ask that question in another two or three years.
Mr McLean: Do you anticipate that most of our inland lakes will have zebra mussels before we find a solution?
Mr Wiancko: If the conditions are right, there will probably be some spread into those areas.
Mr McLean: Are you going to increase the amount of money -- about $1.l million or $1 million -- you are spending a year for research and that type of thing?
Mr Wiancko: Yes. We have budgeted about $1 million per year to do research, but as far as I know we are the only industry doing any research. The Ontario Petroleum Association has helped to fund some of our programs to the tune of $100,000, but it is the only other sector that has been doing any work on the research aspect.
Mr McLean: What about New York hydro? What are they doing, equally the same as you, or what is their participation?
Mr Wiancko: Renata has been more involved with them.
Ms Claudi: I think their level of spending is lower than ours and we are co-operating very closely to make sure that we do not duplicate any research, because there is not enough money to go around for that. We are sitting on a couple of committees in the United States, the Electrical Power Research Institute Advisory Committee, which is where all the utilities that belong to the Electric Power Research Institute get together. We make sure that none of the research gets duplicated as well as having sort of on-the-side meetings with New York Power and Light and Detroit Edison and a number of other utilities around the Great Lakes. So we have been very actively co-operating and seeking their input.
Mr Wiancko: We are trying to ensure that two different groups are not doing the very same research. We are trying to influence what research is being done so there is no duplication going on. So far we have been very successful in that area. There are a lot people doing research, but in Ontario I think we are the only industry doing that.
Mr McLean: The local hydro owned by the local municipalities, are they coming to you for guidance on this? They have the same problem.
Mr Wiancko: They buy the electricity off us, so they would not have their own water intakes and would not have a problem. But they do have the small hydraulic dams, which are owned by Ontario Hydro in most cases; there are some private ones.
Mr McLean: I have no further questions, but I just want to thank them for their help on behalf of Jim Pollock. I know you participated and we want to thank you for that.
The Chair: Would the panel have any specific recommendations or advice they would like to leave with the committee?
Mr Wiancko: No, I do not think so. We will co-operate with any government agencies because we are trying to encourage more people to do research. We do feel we are out there on our own, responsible for our own problems, and we are hoping to get other industries involved in funding research as well as the government agencies. This conference we are having in Toronto in a couple of weeks will, hopefully, bring together some of those parties, and maybe you can talk about doing some joint research with other groups.
The Chair: Thank you very much for a very informative presentation. We will take about a five-minute recess in order to set up some visual equipment and will reconvene with the Lambton Industrial Society.
The committee recessed at 1050.
1057
LAMBTON INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY
The Chair: Our next witness this morning is the Lambton Industrial Society. The Lambton Industrial Society will focus its presentation on the serious impact of zebra mussels upon operations along Sarnia's Chemical Valley. Appearing this morning is Ron Denning of the Lambton Industrial Society. You may proceed, Mr Denning.
Mr Denning: It is a privilege to be in front of the committee today. What the society thought would be of benefit to the committee was perhaps to give a brief slide presentation to put some of our comments in context before we give you the formal submission. I estimate perhaps eight or nine minutes of slides, approximately 10 minutes of oral and then I will of course be open to questions from anyone.
Sarnia-Lambton is located just to the southern tip of Lake Huron. It happens to be the riding of Mr Huget, of course. This is the outlet from Lake Huron as it flows past Point Edward under the Bluewater Bridge linking Ontario and Michigan. The water in this area -- it is called Bluewater land -- varies in colour depending upon the time of the year and the light. The colour of the water is actually caused by minute particles of clay that are trapped and cause the light to become diffuse and to give it this quite aquamarine-type colour at times.
I would bring the committee's attention to the plumes that are coming in from Lake Huron into the head of the St Clair River and to the clarity of the centre of the river. At this point the water is flowing at about 1.4 million gallons per second. It is an enormous flow of water, drawing very large quantities of suspended solids into the river.
Sarnia: Another view looking north from Sarnia. To gain perspective for the comments I am going to make today, I thought we would just show you we are located in an office in downtown Sarnia directly across from the city hall. In fact the Lambton Industrial Society is an environmental co-operative and to understand our perspective I beg your indulgence. I will give you just a couple of minutes on exactly what type of an organization it is.
We are a monitoring organization with offices that are essentially storefront, open to the public. We spend approximately $1 million a year in direct monitoring of the environment. Our purpose, and we have been around for over 30 years, is to promote and foster improvements in the environment, consistent with government regulations and good corporate citizenship. We are local in scope. We only do work in Lambton county itself. We do not have any offices outside the area whatsoever. It is strictly a Lambton county organization.
All the funds used by this organization come from the 15 member companies, which are all Canadian companies on the Canadian side of the St Clair River, and the organization is non-profit. We do not involve ourselves in selling anything. We are simply an organization that gathers direct environmental information in the area.
Essentially 80% of our funds go in environmental monitoring of all types: air, land and water. The monitoring is not just gathering information. In actual fact, through some quite sophisticated computerized systems, we issue environmental alerts to industries and provide information directly to the Ministry of the Environment on concerns in the area.
I am appearing before you today really because as a subset of our charter, we are obligated to make timely comments on local environmental issues, and it is this local perspective that I want to bring before the committee today. It is a much narrower perspective perhaps than previous presenters.
We are essentially a science organization and therefore are keenly interested in things which can impact the environment locally. We are a people organization. Six committees meet every month. This happens to be a working committee of the board of directors of the Lambton Industrial Society. As a matter of interest, the board is made up of the plant managers of all of the member companies.
We interface heavily with the public and have for decades been holding annual meetings at which we provide to the public, to government, to interested citizens, to environmental groups from both sides of the St Clair River the findings of the monitoring programs of the society. This type of activity in fact was recognized in 1988 by the Conservation Council of Ontario when it awarded the society the first-ever Lieutenant Governor's award for contributions to the environment and conserving the environment.
To some more specific points, I showed you the St Clair River, the head of the river and the bridge. In the presentation I will make shortly and the written submission, you will note that zebra mussels were first found in the upper reaches of the river just to the south of the bridge. This is a view of the St Clair River from below the bridge looking south, and the first zebra mussels were found about 15 feet down in the water in this region by the Lambton Industrial Society's consultant. This is a picture of the first mussel found near the St Clair Bluewater Bridge in May 1990.
I am sure you have seen this one before. This is courtesy of the Ministry of the Environment. One mussel does not mean very much, but in a very short period of time -- we understand that was only about eight months' exposure to veliger-infested waters in Lake Erie -- one can rapidly see the level of buildup that is possible. This type of buildup is of serious concern to the society.
To give you a feel for the kinds of problems that industries of this nature can face, this is a view of Sarnia Chemical Valley looking north from the Indian reserve, near the Sun Oil bend. Suncor is in the foreground, the Dow property, Polysar now owned by Bayer, Imperial Oil, Fiberglas, Cabot Carbon. This is the upper half, if you like, of Sarnia Chemical Valley. You would notice several things. First, the older plants are all on the river. They all use large quantities of water straight from the river for cooling purposes, and they also all use water from the river as fire protection -- water drawn into fire loops. We will be making direct reference to that in our presentation. Another view shows the intensity and the complexes that are involved in this particular area.
Of course there is a lot of shipping in the area. In the early 1980s this river carried the combined traffic of the Suez, Kiev and Panama canals put together. Although that traffic is now down quite considerably, it still none the less is an important waterway. Ships need water free of zebra mussels too. This, I believe, is the longest terminal of its type in the Great Lakes, and this is located on the St Clair River.
This is not a very good chart, but what we were showing you before was the upper part of the St Clair River and the Chemical Valley. These are further plants from the Corunna area and even farther south there are plants. There are major petrochemical complexes in here in this area that depend very greatly upon water.
Again just another view to give you an idea. We are talking of distances, by the way, of approximately a mile in terms of breadth here and perhaps a total distance of 12 miles or so of actual plants. Modern plants, the latest plants to be built, are all being built well back from the river -- miles inland -- and of course if history could be repeated, I am quite sure that every company in the area would in fact be building plants well away from the river itself. This would avoid the pollution concerns that everyone has these days.
I would like you to note again, however, that this shot shows a thin strip of water, a panel of water, that runs along the Canadian side of the river. There is the centre channel with the main flow and then there is the US side of the river which similarly has a slower-moving panel of water that hugs the US course. These physical factors are going to impact on the way zebra mussels will settle and will affect the plants in this area.
Also note that there are still considerable amounts of suspended solids in the water that is coming in from Lake Huron. This is clay, because this is a clay region. I am just returning back to that very point. It is important to understand the potential impact on our area. It is important to understand the size of this river and the swiftness with which it is flowing.
I am not going to go to sleep, but at this point I am going to go into the written submission for the committee. I hope the few slides have given you some sort of a picture to augment the submission we are bringing before you today.
I have introduced the society. We are largely a technical monitoring organization, expending 80% of the $ l-million annual budget on testing. The testing is carried out by independent consultants such as Ortech International and Pollutech Environmental Ltd. The society does not monitor directly individual plant emissions, water or air. Clearly that is the purview of the Ministry of the Environment. But for decades we have been carrying this work out, in fact since about 1952 when our forerunner was formed.
We are not a political organization in any way, not politically aligned, but we strongly promote co-operation as the driving force for environmental improvement. It is in this spirit that we bring a perspective to you today. We are going to largely restrict our comments to Dreissena polymorpha, zebra mussels, and developments concerning that species in the St Clair River.
As the standing committee knows, zebra mussels were first confirmed in lower Lake St Clair several years ago. At that time the water committee of the society -- one of the committees that meets every month -- was keenly interested in the discovery and we asked our consultant, Pollutech, to initiate a physical search of the areas in the river which had been part of our historical monitoring programs.
The committee placed the potential for zebra mussels' presence in the St Clair River on the technical program in 1988 and it has been a part of our water program ever since. At that time our industry experts identified three major threats should zebra mussels be found in very significant numbers in the St Clair River. The first of these threats was the potential for these creatures to seriously compromise the petrochemical industries' ability to contain fires or vapour releases should they occur.
As I commented, most of the plants in this area rely upon fire water drawn directly from the St Clair River. One has to understand the magnitude of the volumes of hydrocarbons in the area. A city water supply would be inadequate if there were a major event.
1110
The second major concern that was identified was the potential for zebra mussels to foul heat exchanger surfaces or restrict water flow. This could result in the potential for temperature control problems. In the case of the chemical industry, of course. inability to control reaction temperatures or to provide adequate process cooling could result in environmental and/or safety incidents. So it is the short-term aspects of this that were of serious concern to the society.
There is a potential in the third one for there to be deterioration of river water quality with consequent environmental damage or use impairment if various plants along the river embarked upon poorly co-ordinated programs of zebra mussel control. The society recognized that you cannot have plants doing their own thing one after another after another, introducing different chemicals, etc.
In addition to the river being a source of drinking water, of course, the manufacturing facilities along its length use it for chemical processes as well as cooling. It is not commonly recognized that municipal drinking water is not of a high enough quality for many industrial applications.
Following the discovery of zebra mussels in Lake St Clair, various of our member companies initiated zebra mussel monitoring programs in 1989. In March 1990, the Lambton Industrial Society hosted a meeting of major water users in our area -- member and non-member companies -- so that they could pool their findings to date.
At that time, Wayne Wager of the local Ministry of the Environment and Dr Griffiths of the London Ministry of the Environment provided an excellent background on mussel biology, their known distribution through the Great Lakes at that time and some potential treatment regimes. An information network was established under the coordination of Ted Kierstead, who is one of our Lambton Industrial Society water committee members. I believe Mr Kierstead was going to attempt to make it here today to answer questions later, if possible.
Companies at that time expressed serious concerns that government had not got its act together. Gaining permits for treating water intakes with chlorine-based products, the only guaranteed method available at that time, was delayed by staffing levels and the permit approach of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's approvals branch.
Similarly, it was stated that the federal government had declared zebra mussels to be a pest and chlorine was not an approved pesticide. The situation has changed, of course. The specific use of chlorine to kill the larval forms of mussels, veligers, was in question at that time. What we are saying to the committee is we have to understand the potential dangers when you are talking about petrochemical facilities when red tape interferes with protection. Safety is critical to units of this nature.
The urgency of the local situation changed quite dramatically in May 1990. Up until that time there had been no zebra mussels seen in the St Clair River north of Port Lambton, which is on the map. While diving at the head of the St Clair River, Tim Moran, local manager of Pollutech, made the first sighting of zebra mussels in the upper reaches of the river. He located just two adult zebra mussels near the head of the river, less than a kilometre south of the Bluewater Bridge, as we have shown. It was conjectured, and it is only conjecture, that fishing boats from Lake Erie which wintered over in that area probably brought a small colony of mussels on the outside of their hulls.
Since then, many more sightings of the mussels and veligers have been reported along the Canadian shore of the St Clair River -- there is a chart on the back that identifies populations, etc -- though it must be emphasized that at their current known population density they do not represent an immediate threat. We believe 1991 will be the year when the public begins to notice these creatures in our area.
We have some things going for us. Fortunately the swift-flowing river tends to inhibit the ability of the larval forms to settle on hard surfaces in the river. Apparently excessive turbulence in back eddies is also fatal to the creatures. Because of these factors, it is difficult to predict how rapidly the mussels will spread or just how much of a problem they will become. But because of the potential severity of the threat, the society has taken a lead in promoting co-ordinated control action in our area.
At another meeting convened jointly by the society and the Ministry of the Environment in July 1990, and we work closely with the ministry, there were two goals accomplished. It provided an opportunity for the information of the various zebra mussel surveillance programs in the area to be shared, and it provided an opportunity for the ministry's approvals branch personnel from Toronto to describe in detail the procedures and expectations of zebra mussel control programs and the approval process.
There are concerns expressed by industry which we wish to bring to the committee today. Really, all the local industries recognize the potential for serious safety and environmental consequences if they could not treat incoming water. One of the things the Ministry of the Environment insisted upon was a residual chlorine discharge criterion of less than 10 parts per billion. As such, that was not the problem; the level was not the concern, though that level is about 50 times lower than what you will find in typical drinking water out of your taps.
The monitoring, however, by the certificates of approval being issued around that time by the ministry specified that that level of 10 parts per billion of residual chlorine had to be measured continuously. Although that was laudable, and we certainly appreciate efforts to protect the environment, reliable, accurate, continuous measurement at 10-parts-per-billion level could not be guaranteed by any instrument manufacturer contacted by our members at that time, or as far as we know even today.
One has to appreciate that such criteria specified on a certificate of approval provide an automatic opportunity for enforcement. In the current climate of enforcement activity, such a situation is unacceptable. There needs to be an element of reason and co-operation involved in this process.
In some ways this situation is analogous to the way the Ministry of the Environment reports suspended solids in plant water discharges. The ministry insists upon reporting only gross numbers: the total number leaving a plant, for example. Because of the natural clay in the water, and you have seen that very well here today, the fact is that many of the plants in our particular area, although they are cleaning up the river water in the sense of removing solids, none the less on occasion, following storms, etc, there are going to be high suspended solids in the discharge.
By simply reporting gross numbers to the public, the impression is created that these plants are in fact dirty plants with respect to suspended solids. That is not the type of situation that really needs to be continued. The same situation will occur with this 10-parts-per-billion continuous monitoring requirement. It is not possible to accurately measure continuously at that level, to the best of our knowledge. Consequently, it is quite likely that there will be plants throughout this province that will be in violation of their certificate of approval, which frankly was unrealistic in the first place. This is not sensible co-operative effort to improve the environment.
We have some hopes for the future and we are bringing our concerns to the committee on this basis. Zebra mussels are not the only exotic species showing up in the St Clair River. Indeed, few appreciate that this waterway contains more species of fish than any comparable section of the Great Lakes. I am sure that is a surprise. Recently, the Asiatic clam has been discovered below the major industrialized zone of the St Clair River.
The society has some requests, if you wish, of the committee. We are urging this standing committee to further the protection of our Great Lakes by pursuing three recommendations.
First, we suggest avoiding expensive duplication of effort by enhanced communication of zebra mussel information. The conference to be held in February, being hosted by Ontario Hydro, is one way of ensuring that those who need to know get to know. That is an excellent initiative.
Several other initiatives are under way. For example, a small company in our area called SR Metal Coatings Ltd, which is a non-LIS member that attended the first meeting, has in fact taken some innovative approaches. This kind of information needs to shared too.
1120
The second thing we would like to suggest to the committee is that there are strengths in Ontario. We need to promote co-operative resolution of intergovernmental jurisdictional differences over how to best approach this exotic species problem. Prevention is certainly better than cure.
When faced with real concerns like zebra mussels, municipalities and industries should not have to wait for government to get its act together before being able to act decisively. Such action, in our opinion, should be co-operative and should be made without fear of subsequent enforcement.
Third, we would like to promote a recognition that the vast majority of organizations want to do what is right and proper environmentally. However, a co-operative abatement approach, not setting arbitrary and unattainable end conditions, needs to be the approach. Certainly it is the one that the society recommends.
We are urging the adoption essentially of the 80-20 rule. We all realize that we can frequently get 80% of a goal for 20% of the resources needed to achieve 100% of the goal. We tend to forget, though, that once the 80% is attained, there is nothing stopping you from applying 8020 again. With the current state of economic affairs, 80% achieved and renewed is preferable to 100% beyond reach, and we urge this committee to consider that principle in its deliberations.
In conclusion, we hope the above has provided some food for thought to the standing committee on resources development. We trust that our society will be kept informed of the progress as the committee generates recommendations. Without doubt, your focus is important to all those who live and work in the Great Lakes region.
I will answer any questions you may have.
Mr Waters: One of the things you talked at great length about is what is happening on the Canadian side of the river. Do you have any knowledge at all as to what is happening on the other side?
Mr Denning: We are aware that they have been found. On the final page, there is a picture there showing the Marine City region of the St Clair River. Mussels were reported in 1989 on the US side. In fact, they were reported there before any were found on the Canadian side.
We have to assume from problems further south, in Monroe etc, that the US side is probably in worse shape than the Canadian side. But in the absence of major petrochemical-type plants on the US side, it does not pose the safety concerns that we are bringing to you today.
Mr Waters: So basically the Sarnia area and the Port Huron area are not jointly working on any of these things at all.
Mr Denning: No. We invite folks from the US side of the river to come to any meetings, etc, but we have no members on the US side of the river.
Mr Waters: The previous presenter mentioned that they filed monthly reports with MOE. How often do you file yours?
Mr Denning: The society does not file monthly reports because our members provide information to the local abatement officers. So where there are asterisks on the final page where monitoring programs are going on, that information is conveyed routinely to the ministry. A lot of these initiatives, by the way, are not being undertaken in terms of any legal requirement. It is something we have asked companies to undertake in terms of, "Let's get all the information together and see what the threat really is."
Mr Waters: Finally, as a society, are you looking at any alternatives such as what Hydro and other presenters mentioned?
Mr Denning: No. In fact, the Lambton generating station, which is on the St Clair River, is one of the members of the society. We rely heavily, for research purposes, on the activities of those organizations and internationals. We are very small in those terms. We are basically a monitoring organization rather than research, but we are keenly interested in making sure that information is disseminated.
Mr Ruprecht: We really appreciate the time and effort you put into this and your presentation. I would like to know, judging by your 80-20 rule in recommendation 3, how that would affect the 10-parts-per-billion rule presently imposed or, for want of a better term, regulated by the MOE.
Mr Denning: In reality, it would not affect it at all because the 10 parts per billion, first of all, we maintain cannot be continuously measured on a routine basis. We question that seriously.
Second, if 10 parts per billion -- which is 1/50th of typical drinking water levels -- water is entering a river flowing at 1.4 million gallons per second, quite evidently the concentration very rapidly drops below the 2-parts-per-billion ambient criterion that is in effect in Ontario. We see no impact on fish; we see no impact on any species, frankly.
But it is site-specific. It would be very different if you were talking about the Grand River or the Don. Here we are talking about water flow of a rate that is more than going over the Niagara. One of the things that I would hope the committee would consider is, rather than absolutes, looking at specific situations, the risks involved and the potential impact to the environment. Clearly, in a situation with an enormous flow of this nature, it is a different situation.
Mr Ruprecht: That is precisely my point, I think. I was quite happy with what you said were the objectives of the Lambton Industrial Society. What you are trying to accomplish is quite worth while. Do you have any information that would speak to the effects of chlorine discharge into the St Clair River or into the Great Lakes?
Mr Denning: Yes, we do. For example, this is the only region of the country, let alone the province, that hourly tests the river automatically for trihalomethanes, specifically for chloroform, which was a concern of a member. Every hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for the last three and a half years our consultant has been testing that river using automated equipment. We do not see trihalomethanes in the river.
Mr Ruprecht: That is not totally my question, even though it is partially my question. The question was, does your society know the effects of discharge of chlorine, however minute, into the Great Lakes? Do you have any information on that? Do we know about that? Do we have studies on that? Do our scientists even tell us what the effects are?
Mr Denning: There are innumerable reports available in the literature on chlorine levels, on trihalomethanes, on the impact of these substances, potentially on many, many species. This is nothing new. Chlorine has been used for 70 years, as you are well aware, in terms of municipal treatment. With the exception of the occasional fish kill in the 1960s, which did occur in our area and certainly has occurred in other areas, all our monitoring, which has included Daphnia monitoring and many other types of monitoring, not specifically aimed at chlorine but aimed at the environment to see what is going on out there, does not indicate a problem. We placed in the record over $2 million worth of St Clair River reports two years ago for the consideration of this committee and any other committee.
Mr Ruprecht: So, from your perspective then, we are cautious enough and we do not need to be any more cautious.
Mr Denning: I think we need to be realistic. If drinking water plants are discharging 50 times this level, if the routine municipal plants are discharging many times this level, we have to weigh that against what is the downside if zebra mussels were to get into a petrochemical facility and compromise safety. If you compromise safety, you are not going to be worrying about a few Daphnia. You are going to be worrying about things that are far more serious.
I would hope this committee recognizes that if you lose cooling completely on operating units that are continuous units, you are talking about very serious potential hazards, not what may happen 70 years from now but what will happen on the short term. I do not believe that in the general discussion this has been recognized enough.
The Chair: Mr Denning, thank you for taking the opportunity to be with us and provide your recommendations.
1130
CANADIAN COAST GUARD
The Chair: The next witness is the Canadian Coast Guard, represented by Michael Turner, Tom Fleck, John Grinstead and Dave McMinn.
Mr Ramsay: No uniforms?
The Chair: No uniforms. They are out of uniform today.
Mr Turner: May I begin by thanking the committee for the invitation for us to appear today and make a short presentation on this subject, copies of which we have of course provided. I would like to begin as well, if I may, by introducing those who are with me. I am Michael Turner. the deputy commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, and I am based in our headquarters in Ottawa. Our technical expert on this particular subject of ships' ballast water control, chief of our pollution prevention, regulatory and special projects division, is Tom Fleck. Also with us today, and who can join us at this table if there is a particular question or concern in their area, are Captain David McMinn, who is our regional director general for the central region of the Coast Guard responsible for all of our operations in the Great Lakes, and John Grinstead, who is our regional manager of ships' safety for the central region. Ships' safety is one of our branches within the Coast Guard.
Over the past couple of years, citizens of both Canada and the United States have certainly become acutely aware of the ecological damage which can be caused by the introduction of foreign species to the Great Lakes. I think it is now generally accepted that one method which can lead to the addition of new species to these waters is the discharge of ships' ballast water taken on in coastal areas or freshwater rivers or lakes. It is this particular aspect that I propose to address today. I also propose to provide for you a brief summary of the measures that are currently being taken by the Canadian Coast Guard to reduce the ecological risk that is posed to the Great Lakes waters by the discharge of ships' ballast water. It should be understood though, at the outset, that these Coast Guard measures are aimed at preventing the introduction of new species, not the control of those nuisance species such as the zebra mussel, which was the subject of the presentation you have just heard.
To begin with, it might be appropriate if I could provide a bit of technical background from the marine point of view on the use of water for ships' ballast. Ballast water is essential to the safe and efficient operation of seagoing ships. Its uses include preventing a ship from overturning due to lack of intact stability; improvement of the propulsion efficiency and manoeuvrability of lightly loaded ships; prevention of structural damage from heavy seas that can result from what is called slamming action; and the limiting of hull-bending stresses due to non-uniform loading. It also, of course, when the vessel comes inland, allows the vessel sufficient headroom clearance under bridges and other obstructions.
For some heavily loaded bulk carriers, such as you see operating in the Great Lakes, ballast water may also be carried in the tanks located high up in the ships so as to reduce excess stability in those cases and minimize violent rolling action under certain kinds of conditions and thereby minimize the risk of dangerous shifting of cargo.
The amount of ballast water that is carried varies considerably from ship to ship and may account in some cases for up to 30% of a ship's dead-weight tonnage when it comes in. For a foreign-going ship entering the Great Lakes, the quantity of ballast water being carried can be as high as 12,000 metric tonnes. On the other hand, about 40% of visiting ships carried no ballast into the lakes at all during the past year, according to our figures. Based upon our work on this subject, we calculate that up to one million metric tonnes, or about a billion litres in other words, may be discharged by ocean-going vessels each year into the Great Lakes.
Let me speak now about the kinds of actions that we have been involved in and what we have been doing on this subject. Within the Coast Guard, we first became aware of the serious nature of this issue in July 1988. At the annual joint meeting of the Canadian and United States coast guards held under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, a representative of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, who I note will also be making a presentation, reported the recent discovery of three new non-native species in the Great Lakes waters. These were the European river ruffe, the spiny water flea and the zebra mussel. The Latin names are provided in the presentation; I will not even attempt their pronunciation. I might note that at that time it was in fact the European river ruffe, a small predator of fish, that was the primary concern of the fishery commission.
In response to those concerns expressed by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission that ballast water was the likely source of these introductions, the Canadian Coast Guard, in association with other authorities, has moved quickly to introduce a series of experimental ballast water guidelines for application at the start of the 1989 Great Lakes shipping season. These guidelines, although not mandatory, called upon ships to exchange ballast water if it was taken on in foreign coastal and freshwater areas for deep sea water that was less likely to contain or sustain organisms that would survive in the freshwater environment of the Great Lakes.
Ecologically speaking, the middle of the ocean is an environmental desert. There are very few species there living in the surface layer of the water and those that do live there do not survive well in fresh water and vice versa. Freshwater species do not survive well in the saline water of the open ocean. Therefore this type of exchange, pumping out the ballast water and taking in salt water at sea, is one of the primary tools that we are examining as a way to control this problem. The guidelines in improved form were again applicable during this past shipping season for 1990.
If I may, I would like to outline briefly how this ballast water control process operates. Under the provision of these guidelines, copies of which we have provided for your committee, all ships intending to enter Canadian ports from the Atlantic, and specifically if they are bound for Montreal or Great Lakes ports, coming up into fresh water in other words, are interrogated by the Coast Guard prior to their entering Canadian waters with respect to their compliance with the ballast water control guidelines. This is done through the mandatory reporting procedures of the Eastern Canada Vessel Traffic Service. This is a regulatory service we operate, often referred to quickly and in shorthand as ECAREG, in which all ships coming into Canadian ports are required on the east coast of Canada to report 24 hours before they reach here and obtain a clearance to enter. At that time we interrogate the ship as to a number of issues with respect to its estimated time of arrival, what it is carrying, dangerous goods, condition of vessel and essentially whether it meets all of the regulations and safety guidelines that are applicable.
The ballast water interrogative, as we now call it, forms a part now of this broader ECAREG interrogative and provides the Coast Guard with information on this particular issue. It also, as I said, touches on the vessel's compliance with the various Canadian and international marine safety regulations and other relevant data.
At Les Escoumins in Quebec, where the pilots normally would come on board, foreign ships are boarded by the pilot who provides the ship's master with a copy of the ballast water guidelines, which we provided to your committee, and its attached reporting form. The completed reporting form is then used for monitoring purposes and it is handed in as the ship transits the St Lambert lock at Montreal. Those few ships that are unable to comply with this at-sea ballast water exchange process are asked to retain their ballast while they are in the Great Lakes, or in those cases where that is not practical and there is no other option, they can discharge it into the St Lawrence River before entering the Seaway.
Now let's look at the question of what results we are having to date with this kind of a process. On the basis of the ballast water exchange reporting forms we have had returned for the 1990 year, the indicated rates of compliance with this process and with the guidelines are 97% in terms of all reporting. However, to verify those reported compliance rates and to confirm the effectiveness of ballast water exchange in destroying unwanted freshwater organisms, the Coast Guard, in co-operation with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, has commissioned the University of Toronto to carry out a ballast water sampling and analysis program from this past year's samples. Laboratory analysis of these gathered samples is not yet complete, but the preliminary microscopic examination of these samples has failed thus far to find evidence of live freshwater organisms in the samples that have been taken, which at least suggests that this ballast water exchange is an effective approach. We are hoping to continue this program, by the way, this coming year, hopefully with some funding support from the United States Coast Guard.
A question that is commonly asked with respect to this program is why voluntary guidelines were initially chosen rather than a mandatory approach. In other words, why do you not just have an immediate regulation? The reasons are largely related to safety. Ballast water exchange at sea can be hazardous for some ships having poor intact stability when they are operating in heavy weather or in heavy sea conditions. For a maximum effect, ballast water cannot simply be circulated, but should be pumped out completely before taking on salt water ballast. The free-surface effect in a ship tank during that slack period, when you are only partially filled during any kind of at-sea exchange of ballast water, can exacerbate what might be an already dangerous situation for some ships.
1140
Now, most large vessels normally experience little difficulty in carrying out this kind of at-sea exchange. They do a tank at a time and there is not too much difficulty. But the Canadian Coast Guard and indeed the entire international maritime community cannot knowingly introduce a mandatory provision that would jeopardize the safety of any ship; nor would any competent master knowingly comply with a regulation that put his ship and crew at risk.
I think we have to also keep in mind here that the vast majority of vessels that are entering and leaving the St Lawrence River system and the Great Lakes from foreign ports -- in other words, they could be bringing in this kind of contaminated water -- are foreign-flag vessels, not Canadian, and any regulation we might develop must of necessity comply with Canada's obligations under the various international maritime safety and pollution prevention conventions to which Canada is a signatory.
In addition, while the eventual goal of the Coast Guard is the application of a mandatory system of ballast water control preferably based upon a safe and practical application of this ballast water exchange option I have been describing, additional work does remain to be done.
To overcome safety impediments, a necessary condition is the provision of some kind of, within the regulations, occupationally safe and environmentally friendly alternative for those ships that cannot safely comply. A form of this alternative is being studied, and it could be things such as retention on board, as I have already mentioned, or discharge to a shore reception facility for testing and treatment ashore of the ballast water.
All of these possible alternatives and a number of others involving killing off the organisms directly within the ship's tanks are being studied and much research work remains to be done before a suitable regulatory alternative can be recommended. Moreover, pending the final results of the current monitoring program, it is still a bit premature to conclude that this at-sea exchange is the best primary method upon which to base a regulatory approach.
As no other country has ever attempted such a comprehensive approach to this problem in the past, it is not certain at this point just how effective this at-sea exchange approach is until we complete the scientific study. There are also certain legal impediments to the promulgation of such a regulation, but I will not take time to detail these. We do speak of them a bit in the paper. Suffice it to say we are actively working on this aspect and we are confident that the statutory definition problems here can be overcome and we are looking at the possibility, in concert with other statutory amendments being developed to implement a package of other pollution prevention and pollution protection measures arising from the recently concluded public review panel on tanker safety, that we can develop an appropriate regulatory regime.
The coast guards in both Canada and the United States have been working very closely on these issues, are working on this problem actively and it is recognized that voluntary guidelines may not be 100% effective in preventing the discharge of suspect ballast into the Great Lakes. However, we have to caution that it is unlikely that regulations, without a massive increase in inspection and enforcement personnel, will ever be completely successful in eliminating the possibility of exotic organisms surviving in ships' ballast water and the associated sediment which always remains in the bottom of the tank. Nor would 100% compliance, if attainable, completely eliminate the threat of new species arriving by other routes.
Previous speakers spoke about an 80-20 rule and we should not seek perfection before we do anything. That, I would suggest, is similar to the kind of approach we have taken. We cannot wait to develop the public regulation; we must take action now and we have taken such action.
Canada is not alone in recognizing the threat that is posed by the introduction of these exotic species, nor in seeking to solve the problems of developing effective control programs. Australia introduced regulations early in 1990. It used its Quarantine Act in that case to control discharge from visiting ships of ballast water and the associated sediment, and the real concern in that case was sediment and water containing toxic dinoflagellates. This is one of the organisms responsible for paralytic shellfish poisoning, the so-called red tide that gives rise to them.
In a highly unusual move, these regulations were withdrawn within weeks of their introduction and replaced by voluntary guidelines similar to Canada when the practical and safety difficulties of their regulations became apparent.
As I am sure you are already aware, in the United States the Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 was enacted on 29 November of this past year. The act requires the US Coast Guard to issue voluntary guidelines within six months. These guidelines would control ballast water discharge from ships entering US Great Lakes ports, but it requires that these guidelines in turn be replaced with regulations within two years of the enactment date.
The act also calls for collaboration between the US and Canada in the development and application of ballast water controls. In this respect, the US and Canadian coast guards have co-operated closely in the development of the current Canadian voluntary guidelines and it is likely that the US guidelines now under development are going to be integrated closely with the Canadian system for application during this coming season.
The two coast guards are also endeavouring to harmonize their programs of research and the programs to replace guidelines with mandatory controls; with regulations, in other words.
The Coast Guard recognizes the global nature of this ballast water problem and we have actively solicited, as well as the support from the US, the consideration within the international community and specifically through the United Nations specialized agency that deals with maritime safety and pollution prevention matters, the International Maritime Organization.
Canada in fact has played a leading role in the development of a draft set of international ballast control guidelines and an associated resolution that would be, hopefully, approved by the International Maritime Organization. These documents are presently being reviewed intersessionally, as it is called, by the member states of the IMO, with a view to their adoption by the Maritime Environmental Protection Committee of the organization at its next session, which is coming up in July 1991. I expect that Mr Fleck will be in fact representing us again at those meetings.
The Coast Guard recognizes the seriousness of the ecological threat posed to the Great Lakes by the introduction of exotic organisms that are contained in ships' ballast water, and we recognize the importance to shipping as well of the continued economic wellbeing of the entire Great Lakes basin and the Canadian economy as a whole. We are ever conscious of the dual role we have within the Coast Guard of promoting marine safety and protecting the marine environment. We are confident that the ongoing initiatives of Canada and the US, and indeed now, thanks largely to the efforts here in Canada, the entire international maritime community, will now produce a practical, effective system of controls for the future that will protect the Great Lakes from ecological harm without prejudice to the continued safety and indeed economic viability of Great Lakes shipping.
If I can sum up, sir, the Coast Guard took immediate action, both domestically and internationally, to control the discharge of ships' ballast water upon being advised two years ago by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission of the suspected problem.
The shipping industry appears to have been highly co-operative in complying with the Coast Guard ballast water controls and has therefore greatly reduced the threat to the Great Lakes posed by the discharge of ballast water suspected of containing unwanted organisms. As I noted, records indicate that fully 97% of ships entering the Great Lakes in 1990 complied with the overall program requirements.
An ongoing study, as I noted, is under way under the auspices of the Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, using the services of the University of Toronto, to assess the effectiveness of this at-sea ballast water exchange program as an appropriate primary method of ballast water control.
We cannot wait for the perfect set of regulations to be developed and that is why we have immediately moved to put in the controls we have over the past two years, and we will continue to develop and refine that approach. As a result of these efforts, Canada is at the forefront of international action in this issue and will continue to work collaboratively with the US in the development of protective measures for the Great Lakes, and with the entire community of nations to develop international ballast water control measures.
While much has already been done, considerable research and development work, in particular, and assessment of options must still be done before an appropriate set of water control regulations can be enacted. Nevertheless, we do intend to proceed as quickly as possible, in concert with our American colleagues, and we expect to have a full program, including regulations, in place within two years. The Coast Guard is very, very actively involved in this issue and very concerned at the threat posed to the Great Lakes by the introduction of foreign species.
May I just conclude in noting again our interest in this matter, and we express our appreciation for the interest and support of the government of Ontario and its agencies and departments in dealing with this important environmental protection issue and we look forward to continuing close co-operation with the government of Ontario. Thank you.
If there are any questions, I would be most happy to attempt to respond.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much for your presentation. It was very illuminating.
I just want to clarify that today we have voluntary controls and that as you continue to work with the US Coast Guard, because it has mandated by two years from now to have in place some mandatory controls, we have now made the determination that we will be on stream with it within two years to also have mandatory controls.
1150
Mr Turner: I would not phrase it that way, sir. I am not sure if the situation is not the contrary. In fact, we are considerably ahead of the Americans in this area because of the previous work we had already done. The fact that the American system has brought in legislation which requires them to adopt controls within a certain time period happens to fit fairly well with the work that both coast guards are doing in this area. I would phrase it rather that I do not see a particular difficulty for the Americans in instituting controls of that kind within two years, given the work that we are already doing and the schedule that we are on, because all ships coming into the American Great Lakes ports must go through Canada.
Mr Ramsay: What I want to know is, are we going to have mandatory regulations in two years?
Mr Turner: That is indeed our aim, as I have said in the paper, yes.
Mr Waters: You mentioned the exchange of sea water or ballast water, the fact that where they cannot do it, they do it in the St Lawrence. Looking at what I can understand so far about the zebra mussel issue, that would be just taking a potential where you would have two colonies now instead of one, because if you were to exchange the ballast water in the St Lawrence, unless you contained that ballast water, checked it for any possible contamination and then released it or treated it appropriately, you would have bad ballast water there, infected. The inside of the hold or whatever where the ballast is kept would have residue of that on it. So they go on through the Seaway and maybe up to the Lakehead. By that time the new water would have a potential of being contaminated, would it not?
Mr Turner: As I noted in my comments, sir, the release of the ballast water in Montreal is certainly a last resort. The further down river you are, as you get into the tidal areas, of course. you also get into the salt water regime more as you down into the gulf. What we encourage is the release and exchange of ballast water as far down into the salt water area as possible because that is one of the factors effective in killing off any of the organisms therein. Releasing ballast water in Montreal is certainly a risk, but it is less of a risk than bringing that same ballast water up into the lakes if in fact they cannot hold it on board. The optimum certainly would be either to hold it on board or to pump it ashore into some form of treatment facility. Unfortunately, such facilities do not presently exist, either here or elsewhere.
Mr Waters: Also, is there any move towards enacting a similar law as the US has enacted, other than some guidelines that you have mentioned? Are we actually looking at enacting a law to reduce this?
Mr Turner: Our legislative system, sir, is somewhat different from that in the United States. In Canada, as I have noted in the presentation in our comments, we are working towards enacting law in the form of regulation, which is to the same effect. There are some statutory problems we have to address in so doing, which may in fact require statutory amendment. We are hoping, if that should prove necessary, and our legal advisers are looking at that issue, to do so by way of amendments which will be introduced coincident with other amendments we are currently developing to deal with other issues, safety and pollution prevention issues. But we do not need a separate law, a piece of statute in Canada, that is, in order to authorize us to develop regulation, because our statutory system is considerably different from the American.
Mr Waters: Finally, you talked about the federal government, and I know that you are doing some research into ballast water. Is there anything else the federal government is working on -- funding, research programs or anything?
Mr Turner: There is some work being done in other departments, including certainly some co-ordination and liaison between the various organizations. Perhaps I could ask Tom Fleck to speak to that briefly, because he attends those meetings and he is intimately familiar with the type of work that is being done.
Mr Fleck: We do have plans for next year. We are constrained at the moment by funding. We have the $250,000 ongoing program being done by the University of Toronto just now, but we have a further $200,000 of programs planned for the next fiscal year. We hope to work in conjunction with our US colleagues in determining which of the alternative procedures each one should take on board, rather than duplicating the research and development effort. So at this stage, although we have identified quite a few possible approaches, we still have to determine with our US colleagues what would be the most effective approaches to spend our limited R and D funds on.
Mr Waters: I just thought of something while you were answering that. The Coast Guard does all the buoying and all the navigation things. Are you finding that there is as yet much of a problem with maintenance from the mussels?
Mr Turner: We are starting to see zebra mussel colonies on our floating aids to navigation. Certainly this has been the potential to be a very expensive problem for us as well, no question. In fact, Captain McMinn sent me some photographs just a few months ago illustrating the depth and extent of zebra mussel growth on a couple of buoys that were picked up in -- what area was it? -- Pelee Passage; quite extensive growth on the buoys. This is certainly going to be a problem for us as well.
Mr McLean: What is included in all the ballast water? What chemicals or what is it made out of?
Mr Turner: Ballast water is essentially water that is taken on through the sea intakes of the ship and, in other words, is composed of whatever is in the water at whatever port or whatever location they take on the ballast. They pump it into the internal tanks directly from whatever they are floating in. Thus, if a ship loads cargo to a certain level and takes on ballast at, for example. Southampton in the United Kingdom, it will have water from that area in it, salt water in this case.
If a ship is partially loaded, or is fully loaded for that matter, and takes on ballast water, or is lightly loaded and takes on a greater quantity of ballast water in a freshwater port in Europe, for example, then that ballast water containing whatever organisms naturally occur right there in that area can be carried with the ship to wherever the ship is going. As the ship discharges the ballast water, whatever is in that water, if it is naturally growing in the area it came from, if it is contained in the tanks, if it survives the trip, may be pumped out, and if the environment is proper and adequate for it, may in fact grow in that area. That seems to be what has happened in this case.
Mr McLean: In your voluntary guidelines, you indicate that the intent of the guidelines is to let all ships heading for the St Lawrence Seaway and Great Lakes exchange their ballast water far enough from any coastlines so that there are no problems, and you go on and say on page 3 that ballast water must only be discharged to shore reception facilities. What is the difference? You are telling them dump in the sea in one case and then you are saying that it has to be dumped in a reception facility in another case, and further on down the page you say that it must be disposed of only on land dump sites.
Mr Fleck: What we are dealing with in 4.4 is where ballast water may contain an oily residue. Under the provisions of other regulations, oily residues may only be pumped out to shore reception facilities. Very few ships would ballast oil tanks, but for those that may on occasion do so, they would have to pump those out to a shore reception facility. This is a provision of the Marpol convention as well, to which Canada will shortly accede.
Mr Turner: What that particular paragraph refers to are oily residues that may be in a tank. It has to be pumped into a shore reception facility because that is what the law requires.
Mr McLean: I was wondering about all the waste food and all that. Where would that go, into a shore reception facility?
Mr Turner: Again, sir, that is an area in which there are some difficulties domestically and internationally. Again, Mr Fleck is the one who is carrying the spear for us in the Coast Guard on that issue too in dealing with our colleagues in the other federal departments and in the provincial governments.
Mr Fleck: Usually the problem arises with tankers, and most tankers go into oil company terminals. These terminals are equipped with shore reception facilities to accept the oily wastes. It is generally not a problem for ships coming into the lakes, because not too many tankers come into the lakes.
1200
Mr Turner: Did I understand, though, that you were asking about ship's garbage and that kind of material as well?
Mr McLean: Food waste, that type of thing.
Mr Fleck: Food waste, if it is coming in an overseas ship, is required to be incinerated. Most of the larger ports have incineration facilities. The Department of Agriculture and various other government departments are currently looking at possible alternatives to incineration for those smaller ports that do not currently have these facilities.
Mr McLean: Is the reason for your guidelines because of the zebra mussel infestation?
Mr Fleck: Not initially. The European river ruffe was the initial cause of concern that was raised by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. The zebra mussel came along later, but I think it eclipsed the problem of the river ruffe.
Mr Turner: The purpose of the guidelines is simply to prevent, to the extent practical and possible without compromising safety, the introduction of any further species other than those we have been made aware of.
Mr Ruprecht: As a supplementary to Mr Waters and to Mr McLean, I was not quite sure whether you said that the ballast water, once it has been expelled, is being treated in some cases, in most cases or in none of the cases.
Mr Turner: Normal ships' ballast water for cargo ships, no, it is not treated. There are no provisions or facilities to allow the treatment of such large quantities of water. It is normally simply pumped through the hull of the ship and released back into the water. In other words, when a ship takes on ballast, it takes it in through the sea valves underneath the water into the special tanks for that purpose, bolted there during the duration of the voyage. When it releases ballast, it simply discharges it back out to sea.
Mr Ruprecht: At will, at any time that can be done?
Mr Turner: At any time that needs to be done.
Mr Ruprecht: While the vehicle is in the process of floating.
Mr Turner: That is right. In fact, it can be done while the ship is in motion. That is the normal thing that would happen in terms of at-sea exchange: Pump out a tank, as we request them to do now, and refill it with water from wherever they happen to be sailing through at the time.
Mr Ruprecht: If a ship was infested by zebra mussels, as apparently was the case when the first ship came over from Europe to dump a discharge load into the Great Lakes, if they found zebra mussels in the holding tanks or ballast tanks, would they then not be forced to treat it once they discovered the zebra mussels on board?
Mr Turner: No, sir. First, there is no way to find such organisms easily. In the vast majority of ships, simply to enter the ballast tanks to, for example, take a sample, as we have been doing over this past year in this research program, is quite a task. You do not normally have access to these tanks within the ship. They are down in the bowels of the ship, so to speak. They take water in directly from the sea through the side of the ship, discharge it back the same way through pumping systems, and you do not normally have easy access to the tanks at all.
Second, the kinds of things we are talking about being introduced here -- for example, this particular one that has raised so much concern, zebra mussels -- as you will be aware, I am sure, from research in this matter that you have no doubt done, and the previous speakers, its larval stage is literally microscopic. You would not be able to tell even if you could look at the water in the tank. It is not as if you see these big fish swimming around in the tank. There would be no way, even if the ship did have access to all its ballast tanks, to somehow verify whether or not there were some kind of foreign species in there. It is very difficult for a ship that is crossing the ocean, for example, to know whether there is some organism or another that is hitching a ride, so to speak.
There is the additional problem that as ships take on ballast water very frequently in ports where the water is quite shallow and the intakes may be quite near the bottom, they normally tend to suck in a bit of mud and dirt and, of course, whatever sediment is floating in the water at the same time they take on the ballast. Over a period of years you end up with a buildup of sludge and mud in the bottom of these tanks.
It would appear from what limited research has so far been done that this in itself can in fact provide an environment for some of these species to survive. So there is no easy way for a ship to know what kind of organism, if any, might in fact be finding its way into its ballast tanks. Indeed, until a couple of years ago, nobody in the international shipping community even gave this a thought. It was not noted or seen as a problem until this kind of thing started to emerge.
I must say we have no direct evidence of this, but there is at least one theory that some of these species are now finding their way into ballast water tanks and being imported in this way because the areas in which they were picked up have been cleaned up in themselves. Many of these European ports were environmentally rather unfriendly places for a good many years and not much survived in the water.
Now, as Europe has become so much more environmentally conscious, ironically enough the water has been cleaned up to the point where many of these species more easily survive in it and therefore are more likely to be picked up by these ships' ballast intakes. That is only a theory, but there is a certain irony there that environmental protection improvements in certain parts of the world may in fact have added to our problems here.
Mr Ruprecht: Has there been an improvement over the last few years in that you detect less of a problem with the exchange of ballast and the throwing out of garbage?
Mr Turner: With regard to the exchange of ballast, until we started this process a couple of years ago, there was none. No one in the world did this kind of thing in the past until this issue arose a couple of years ago. Ourselves and the Australians began to become very concerned about this at about the same time. Up until that point, as I said, this was literally a non-issue, a non-problem. No one had bothered exchanging ballast at sea. There was no point in it. Why would anyone do that? It never occurred to anyone that these kinds of things could be happening. So I cannot say that there is less of a problem now. It is only within the last couple of years, and we have only had this program, as a result, in the last couple of years.
With regard to the other aspect of whether shipping and ships are environmentally more conscious, I think that is quite true. Worldwide we have certainly turned towards greater environmental sensitivity among the shipping companies and the shipping industries and through the International Maritime Organization, which I mentioned, and the United Nations. Its motto in fact is "Safer Ships and Cleaner Oceans," and it takes very seriously the environmental protection aspect of it.
There are conventions and particularly one major convention called Marpol for shorthand, which is a major international convention regulating and governing discharge of oils and chemicals and contaminants of different kinds and garbage and so on from ships. It has been very successful, along with the laws of various coastal states such as Canada, in preventing pollution from ships.
When it comes to oil pollution, for example, which is certainly the area which has received the greatest attention over the last two decades, Canada was one of the foremost countries in terms of enacting very, very strict regulations. We have had for a good number of years what was referred to as a zero discharge regime, in which you were not allowed to discharge any oil at all, which, technically speaking, is simply not feasible. There are always a few molecules get off the ship somewhere on shore, but that was the law in Canada. The nations of the world are now moving towards a more uniform regime under these international conventions, under which all ships are being more uniformly regulated to ensure very, very low levels of discharge of any kind of contaminants or oil products and that, where this happens, it happens well away from any coastal areas.
The processes that are now in place and are being required in terms of the construction and equipment on board ships now to ensure that particularly oil and chemicals are not discharged into the water in any quantities have meant that more and more of the ships clean their tanks with special equipment at sea, gather any residual waste products into special holding facilities and pump the small amount that is left into special shore treatment facilities, some of which we have here in Canada. You are simply not allowed to dispose of that stuff over the side as you once used to be able to years ago.
I apologize for the length of the answer, but yes, shipping is essentially considerably more environmentally conscious now than it was, say, a generation ago.
The Chair: We have exceeded our time. I will allow two brief questions from Mr Klopp and Mr Ramsay.
Mr Klopp: On the Great Lakes themselves, and this is in general with regard to the whole system of stuff being dumped over the sides of boats, how many boats are, say, in Lake Huron, Lake Erie, etc, following boats along, if you will, just to keep the honest honest?
Mr Turner: We do not make a practice of following a boat along, as you put it. We do have other methods we use, though, including some aerial surveillance that is carried out, and through the provisions of the Great Lakes water quality agreement with the United States there are some provisions in place as well. We operate an aircraft, a good part of the time of which is used for pollution surveillance over the Great Lakes. It is not practical to follow every ship, of course, as you will appreciate, but there are some measures in place.
Mr Ramsay: I just want to get clarification. I am looking at your amendment 2 to your guidelines, dated 11 April 1990. On 6.2 it says, "Evidence of non-compliance may lead to the application of regulatory controls." I was just wondering when and by whom the determination was made that within two years we would make our controls mandatory.
Mr Turner: I think in terms of when and by whom, it is done within the organization of the Coast Guard, which is part of the Department of Transport, and has involved consultation with our political masters, with our minister and his staff. Based upon the best technical advice we have from our experts within the organization, people such as Mr Fleck here, we have made the determination within the organization that that is what we can do, and then we can do it.
Mr Ramsay: Including the political determination? So this is going to be your advice to the minister?
Mr Turner: Yes, certainly. We would advise the minister as to what it is practical to do and in what kind of time frame it is practical to do it, what the impacts and implications of doing it one way or another would be.
Mr Ramsay: So that advice is on its way at some time to the minister. His decision has not been made yet.
Mr Turner: There have been ongoing discussions on this.
Mr Ramsay: It is being considered at this time.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We will stand in recess now until 1:30 sharp. I will remind the committee members that we intend to start at 1:30 on the dot, so please be here at 1:30. Thank you very much.
The committee recessed at 1214.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1333 in room 228.
MUNICIPAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next scheduled witnesses are the Municipal Engineers Association. The association will identify concerns relating to the impact of zebra mussels upon municipal water filtration and storm water sewage treatment operations. I ask them to come forward. I believe appearing are Lloyd Murray, D. R. Morrier and M. Holenski. You may proceed.
Mr Holenski: I will make the presentation and I presume all members of the committee have copies of our brief. Perhaps just as a little bit of an introduction, the Municipal Engineers Association comprises some 500 professional engineers who are in the employ of approximately 150 municipalities in the province of Ontario. We have involvement with the gamut of all municipal services.
The Chair: Excuse me. Would you identify yourselves, please?
Mr Holenski: I am Mel Holenski. This is Lloyd Murray, technical support manager with the regional municipality of Durham, and Don Morrier is the director of plant operations for the regional municipality of Halton. My specific situation is that I am deputy director of engineering with the regional municipality of Niagara.
The Chair: Thank you very much. It makes it easier for the people who are transcribing this.
Mr Holenski: The association is pleased to have this opportunity to make this submission to this committee on what we certainly consider is a very serious problem. Obviously all municipalities that have a responsibility for potable water, both the treatment and the delivery, are now experiencing or will be experiencing a problem with zebra mussel infestation.
The greatest impact is in southern Ontario and on those municipalities that take their raw water directly from the waters I have identified, which are Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake St Clair and Lake Huron. I had occasion to note a recent article which indicated that zebra mussels have now been found at the west end of Lake Superior in Duluth, so the spread is continuing.
The brief has been prepared on the basis that as far as dealing with the zebra mussels is concerned, you will undoubtedly have experts who will provide you with that information. What we would like to do is address the direct impact to municipalities.
The mussels have a high rate of propagation and they select their site -- I use the word "colonization" -- on the basis that there is continuing water flow and that the waters contain nutrients which will enable them to secure their food supplies, as we understand, by straining it from the water. The zebra mussels are transported in the veliger state by water flows and also they have internal ability to move about to select the point of attachment. The attachment points are generally hard surfaces and obviously our facilities are certainly an appropriate home for them because we have both of those conditions.
In a particularly hospitable water climate, that is, temperature, water flow and nutrients, not only do they attach themselves to hard surfaces such as the interior of a pipeline, but apparently will also attach themselves on top of previous layers of zebra mussels. The cumulative effect of this is that there would be an accumulation of zebra mussels over a period of time. This would then constrict the water opening in the pipeline with obvious adverse impacts on the capacity of the pipeline. I am sure you have had the representations from Ontario Hydro and it has similar concerns.
In the potable water field, the municipalities not only have concerns about our external piping which brings the raw water to the plant, but also their possible intrusion into the treatment facilities and the congestion and constriction of various piping, valves, etc. Undoubtedly, if their growth were unrestricted, then we would even see impact within the treatment process in the plants, settling beds and so forth.
Many municipalities have now initiated projects to protect intakes and treatment facilities by the placement of pre-chlorination facilities at intakes. It has been the practice in the past that we have pre-chlorination for treating water directly in the plants. These are now going to be relocated. The chlorine that is introduced into the water flow is definitely known to destroy the veligers. This then provides protection for both the raw water pipeline and the internal components of the treatment plants.
The unfortunate downside of this is that in carrying out such installations we are incurring significant capital costs for these installations and obviously higher operating costs for this. This will also necessitate a regular inspection of these chlorine facilities to ensure that these are not damaged and would not create a possible problem to marine life if chlorine were allowed to escape at the point of damage.
1340
The intake structures, commonly referred to as cribs, for these raw water intakes cannot at this point in time be protected since the environmental authorities, and specifically the Ministry of the Environment, will not permit the discharge of chlorine directly into the body of water, since this would have a potential adverse impact on other marine life. So this is an area that remains unprotected, and unless research is successful in developing a specific action plan as to how these can be either eliminated or significantly reduced, then we are going to have an ongoing cost for carrying out a continued inspection program. Obviously, once you have identified that there is a major accumulation of these zebra mussels which are restricting flows, then the municipality will have to obtain the services of divers to undertake the removal of the adult zebra mussels from the structures.
There is a further indirect impact on water treatment plant operations. It would appear that the zebra mussels have been successful in cleansing some of the pollutants within our existing surface waters, and this is notable adjacent to shorelines. This in turn would appear to permit a greater penetration by sunlight, and as a consequence we are now seeing some increase in algae blooms. Just for the information of the committee, algae blooms do constitute a source of taste and odour problems with raw water potable supply. So although the quality of the water may be slightly improved, it does have an adverse impact. The other thing we do not have any experience with is that as adult zebra mussels die off, whether in that process they may also contribute to certain taste and odour problems to the raw water.
Municipalities also have concerns with regard to other pipelines, and these are sanitary effluent from pollution control plants and also storm water outfalls; again the same type of problem, and that is the basic buildup of mussels within the interior of the pipeline and its subsequent constriction, which would reduce hydraulic capability. This then would again reopen the requirement for inspections and the ultimate removal by descaling by divers.
Where we have a relatively small pipeline diameter, then you cannot have a diver enter into this, and over a period of time, if there is enough of an accumulation, probably the only approach to freeing that would in essence be the total replacement of that pipeline. There is obviously very limited experience, but this is a projection on our part.
The discharge of treated effluent from large treatment plants of recent design has been accomplished by distributing the points of discharge to ensure appropriate dilution. Again municipalities have concerns that these individual ports, because of their relatively small openings, could be clogged by the development of zebra mussels and then require attention.
Going on to the issue of capital costs for remedial action, I have cited in this brief the experience of the regional municipality of Niagara. We have a number of water treatment plants and we have incurred to date approximately $500,000 for the relocation of pre-chlorination facilities. We have been fortunate in that most of these intakes are relatively short. As an example, we take water from the Welland ship canal, so our installations have really been on land as opposed to perhaps a long pipeline. The gentlemen with me have indicated that they have some intakes that may go out 2,500 feet into the lake. Obviously the chlorination facilities have to feed out that far, and then obviously you have more inspection to ensure that those remain intact during operation.
Just as a further note, again the region of Niagara experience, to get a diver to carry out an inspection you are looking at about $1,500. In the case of the St Lawrence Seaway Authority, the Seaway had a rather unfortunate experience where several divers were killed on a construction site. The Seaway has now instituted some further requirements as a consequence of that, and this is over and above that. They are in effect requiring certain liability indemnification and so forth, so that figure of $1,500 in those locations does not represent our total cost.
Private industry is not immune to zebra mussel problems. Where an industry takes raw water from a receiving stream that is now infested or makes discharges to that receiving stream, then the same problem will be experienced.
I just had Lloyd Murray draw to my attention a problem they are experiencing in dealing with several industries that take raw water, and we have the same experience in our region. One of the approaches to dealing with this would be to do pre-chlorination. Since the industries return that raw water directly to the receiving stream, if we have introduced chlorine, the question is, are we now going to be required or are the industries going to be required to undertake a dechlorination of that water supply, which obviously is going to add to the complication and to the expense?
Right now it is just the raw water supply, and their concern is that they want to be able to get that water in the quantities and without any problems through their piping process. This is the kind of dimension we are dealing with and I guess new problems are cropping up every day.
It is therefore imperative that there be a significantly expanded research program undertaken under the auspices of provincial and federal authorities to develop a system or systems whereby these pests can be eradicated without creating environmental damage. Individual municipalities, particularly those of smaller size, just do not have the financial capability to undertake basic research. It is even unfortunate that municipalities are individually developing their own protective arrangements for coping with zebra mussels. We have reason to believe that we are carrying out a duplication of effort in having consultants reinvent the wheel every time somebody retains them. This is the sort of thing that has been the start of this problem. Therefore, all municipalities would benefit from a circulation of information which details the most economical and effective methods dealing with pipeline incrustations.
In summary, from a municipal perspective, a major environmental problem has developed in the Great Lakes water system which we believe, as far as the system is concerned, is the direct responsibility of the federal and provincial governments. Municipalities believe there should be a co-ordination of effort by these two senior levels in the following four areas:
First, obviously there should be adequate funding into research for the most environmentally acceptable and economical ways of dealing with this intruder.
Second, there should be a central source of current data on progress being made by private industry and all three levels of government, and that this information should be disseminated and hopefully would reduce duplication of effort and expenses.
Third, there should be an expedition of the approval process to permit interim solutions to be implemented as quickly as possible. This would require at the provincial level designation of a lead ministry that would have the authority to cut red tape. You have to understand that in carrying out any of these facilities, we have to apply to the Ministry of the Environment for certificates of approval. Then the fisheries enter into it. Then we have the Ministry of Natural Resources with certain concerns. If there is a delay, then these things drag out and it just slows the process down and the costs keep escalating.
1350
The last point that we obviously would want to make quite strongly is the provision of financial assistance to municipalities in undertaking these capital works which are necessary to protect essential utilities from the zebra mussels, which are in effect degrading our ability to carry out our mandate.
That, Mr Chairman, is the presentation on that. We would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or your committee may have.
Mr Waters: When you are looking at your intakes, you talked quite extensively about chlorination. I did not hear any discussion about twinning or anything like that. Are you looking solely at this point at just introducing chlorine at the end of your intake pipe or are you looking at any other alternatives to it?
Mr Holenski: You have to understand that up to the present time, without zebra mussels, there was chlorine being used at the front end of the treatment process. As an immediate solution, and not necessarily the final one or the most appropriate one, it was in our opinion relatively straightforward that you bring that pre-chlorination internally, within the plant, to the head of the pipeline. That at least provides that protection. What it does not protect is that structure right at the external part of the pipe.
Mr Waters: What type of apparatus have you put in place so there is not a spill, a chlorine spill, into the lake? I have worked around mechanics enough to know that for everything you introduce there is always some hazard or some potential breakdown.
Mr Holenski: The rate of pre-chlorination is something that is controlled by equipment and meets with current Ministry of Environment requirements as far as that installation. The only problem that we would visualize at this point in time would be that if you had a break in the line carrying the chlorine to the point of where it is going to be injected, then it might escape to the free waters, but other than that we do not see that there is a problem. I think that viewpoint is shared by the Ministry of the Environment.
Mr Waters: I thought the lines were inside the pipe going out. I did not realize that they are on the external part of the pipe.
Mr Holenski: It will depend to a large extent as to what size of pipe. If you have a small plant and all they have is a 12-inch pipeline, you may not necessarily be able to introduce it all the way. You may be able to feed it in; you may not. With large raw-water intakes, there certainly is a potential that we can run it directly inside. It requires onsite engineering to deal with that.
Mr Waters: How often are these lines inspected? I have worked a bit with chlorine in the water system. I know we have never found anything that could take the heat, especially if the lines are external on the pipe going out.
Mr Holenski: I would have to think that this would be something that will be subject to conditions which the Ministry of the Environment will impose within the certificate of approval.
Mr McLean: I think mine was on the same line as what Mr Waters was questioning about. The environmental authorities will not permit the discharge of chlorine directly into the body of water, as indicated in your brief. So today you are not treating it as it comes in? It is not at the intake?
Mr Holenski: Not at what I would refer to as the crib structure, that is, external to the pipeline. You cannot do anything with that.
Mr McLean: But is that not where all the zebra mussels are going through first?
Mr Holenski: Yes, but you have to understand that the zebra mussels will also enter the pipeline and attach themselves and would carry on through. What we are saying is that in just doing up the pre-chlorination, we still have a component of our system that does not receive any protection, which is the crib structure.
Mr McLean: Why could you not run that line out to treat it at the end?
Mr Holenski: I really have to refer you to the Ministry of the Environment and perhaps even the Ministry of Natural Resources as to the concerns they have about chlorine being introduced at that point, which then may have an impact on marine life. I think that is their concern.
Mr McLean: I think this a very important issue, because every municipality that takes water from the lakes has a major problem. What dealings has your municipal association had with the ministries to put the line out to the end for treatment?
Mr Holenski: You have to bear in mind that this is something that is of recent development. We have been individually involved in discussions with the approving authority, namely the Ministry of the Environment, as it relates to any such installations. Each one is being dealt with on its merits. The concern we have is that there is a fair amount of duplication and there is some groping around as to what is the most appropriate way of coping with this.
Ms Churley: I just wanted to ask you a question about the approval process. You mentioned the Ministry of the Environment, and there are two other ministries that get in on the act, Natural Resources and who else did you say?
Mr Holenski: Fisheries.
Ms Churley: I just wanted a bit more information about the red tape that you were talking about. What would you propose as a solution to that?
Mr Holenski: I guess very simplistically, we would like to see the ministries get together and agree that this is the requirement that we will have municipalities conform with, as opposed to our having to run from one to the other as a problem crops up and you have to go to yet another authority to get it resolved. Those things take time. Sometimes, depending on the statistics that you are dealing with, there may be different interpretations. I think what we are looking for is that these are the kinds of things that have to be addressed internally. While I would like to propose solutions, I am afraid I do not have those either.
Ms Churley: I just wanted to be clear. You are saying that the MOE is now in fact the lead ministry and that what you would like to see is that a ministry be the lead and take control over the process?
Mr Holenski: What we are hearing at our end is that perhaps the Ministry of Natural Resources is the lead agency. We know that certainly the Ministry of the Environment has a very significant role in this. I guess we are just trying to clarify this point and have somebody speak clearly with one voice on behalf of the province that will in effect ensure that these things are processed in an appropriate length of time.
Ms Churley: I just had one other question on page 2. It is almost more of a comment. You seem to be saying that zebra mussels are successful in cleaning some of our pollutants up, but on the other hand the very cleansing of our waters is creating other problems by natural plants growing. Do you not find that a little bit of an irony?
Mr Holenski: It is an irony, but it is a fact of life that we do have pollutants in our waters. Without the zebra mussels we had a balance. That balance is being shifted a little bit now.
Ms Churley: But in the overall scheme of things, you would not consider that a serious problem? I just found it interesting that you pointed it out.
Mr Holenski: I have to field complaints from residents who are utilizing, as an example, the Fort Erie potable water supply. In the summertime, when they get taste and odour, they are very unhappy. If that is going to increase, it is just another dimension to it.
1400
Mr Ramsay: In regard to these pre-chlorination systems that are installed on the water intake pipes, those that are installed with external chlorine feed lines to the end of the intake or wherever that is injected, are they not equipped with some sort of an alarm system so that a plant operator would know that some breakage has taken place so that this could be shut down, or are there automatic shutdowns if the amount exceeds a certain flow?
Mr Holenski: I think if you had a rupture in the feed line, I do not know that it would necessarily show up. Obviously, if in some way it was escaping at a greater rate -- but the control is really at the plant. In other words, the mechanisms that are feeding that, that is where the control is. But if there were an escape from the feed line itself, if it is within the raw-water intake pipe, you have just shortened up the point at which you are introducing it, but it does not create a hazard. If it is external, yes, ultimately it could create some problem, but I do not know of an alarm of any sort. I do not know whether these two gentlemen would care to comment on that.
Mr Ramsay: Would that not be a good idea, for an external?
Mr Holenski: To be quite honest, I do not think that you would receive any benefit out of that.
Mr Ramsay: How would you know to shut it off?
Mr Holenski: I think the only way you can really deal with it would be to try to make an inspection of the line. If it is external, you try to bury it. Obviously, if you saw that it was exposed physically and also any, let's say, escape of chlorine, some sampling of the water would also reveal that as well. Those are the kinds of tests you would have to perform.
Mr Ramsay: What would be a typical material used to install, say, the flow of chlorine to the end of the intake on an external line? What type of piping would be used?
Mr Holenski: Common plastic tubing, in all probability, at this point.
Mr Murray: We are proposing using polyethylene, but it would be internal.
Mr Ramsay: And all the controls are inside the plant. Typically, are a lot of these pumps in a continuous pumping mode or do they shut down for certain periods? Is there any sort of backwash of water that happens in a pipe, say, that might have been only treated at the end?
Mr Holenski: Maybe I could start it off by saying that the problem of having zebra mussels attach themselves to pipelines occurs when you have water temperatures that reach a certain point, and I guess there is a period in which they grow. At that point in time, presumably you should have something fairly constant. As for pre-chlorination just for purposes of water treatment, that would be selective. If the water quality is bad and the pre-chlorination assists in the treatment process, then normally you would do that, so in essence we are incurring perhaps some additional cost that under other circumstances we would not have. I do not know whether I have made myself clear. I will ask these fellows to add to that.
Mr Ramsay: Actually, what I was asking was that if you are injecting chlorine somewhere near the end of the intake pipe, that is fine as long as the pump is continuous and the flow is into the plant; what happens if you have that constant injection of chlorine and then the pump is turned off? What happens to the water? Does it just stay in the input valves? Does the water stay in?
Mr Holenski: The chemical feed would stop as well. If you are no longer taking water in, there would be no reason why the chemical feed would be continuing.
Mr Ramsay: But all the water in the pipe would have been treated.
Mr Murray: It would just remain there and be treated. It would be enclosed and would not escape out into the body of water. In fact, earlier, the question with regard to disinfecting the crib itself, that in fact is one of the reasons why they do not bring the chlorine right up into the crib. They bring it into the end of the pipe so the chlorine will not get into the lake body itself and get transmitted.
Mr Ruprecht: My first question was actually already asked by Ms Churley, but just a supplementary on the amounts of chlorine you use to treat your water; what are the amounts that you use?
Mr Holenski: To be quite honest, I could not personally respond to that. I do not know whether my colleagues could.
Mr Murray: In our area, taking water from Lake Ontario, we typically add in the order of two parts per million. With zebra mussels it will likely be a little higher than that. It has been suggested there may be times when you have to go up to five parts per million, depending on various water quality conditions.
Mr Ruprecht: Depending on what? What would that depend on that you go from 2.5 to 5, let's say?
Mr Murray: If there were a lot of zebra mussels there, they would have a certain chlorine demand. If there are higher levels of ammonia in the water, that has a significant impact.
Mr Ruprecht: I do not wish to put you on the spot, but would you think most municipal systems would be in the same position to use the same kinds of amounts that you would?
Mr Murray: I would say on Lake Ontario they would for the most part be very similar. Sometimes certain municipalities have longer intakes and they are a little further away from things that may affect the ammonia concentration and thereby you could get away with adding a little less. In inland waters where there are rivers and so on, it is going to be somewhat dependent on the water quality in that area.
I might mention, earlier it was stated that some of the intakes are out 2,500 feet long. In the region of Durham, where I am from, we have one out 5,500 feet long and most of ours are all over 2,000 feet. We have seven in Lake Ontario. Our costs are going to be in the order of $1 million.
Mr McLean: Where do the dead ones go that you kill in that district?
Mr Murray: Again, they have not hit us yet. But the whole intent of adding chlorine is to kill the larva or veliger in its initial growth phase so that in fact there is not a zebra mussel growing up to an adult form, because once they form, then it is a real problem.
The Chair: Thank you very much for a very candid and informative presentation to the committee. Is there any specific direction or recommendation you would like to leave with the committee?
Mr Holenski: I would think that the four points on the last page of our brief are the key ones. We tried to summarize them on that basis. Certainly our elected representatives have great concerns about the capital costs we are incurring. I do not think you require any sermon from me on that aspect, but we are all hurting and these are just additional costs that we just have not had to face before. In some instances we do not know. In my case, I have indicated Niagara, it is in excess of $500,000. Here is a situation where somebody is saying over $1 million. Multiply it by all the municipalities and you will get an overall picture as to what capital costs are going to be incurred, as well as the operating costs. That is certainly a major concern to us.
ONTARIO MARINA OPERATORS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next witness to appear before the committee is the Ontario Marina Operators Association. The marina operators will focus their presentation on the association's willingness to assist in the area of public education. Presenting on behalf of the association are Bruce Mackenzie, vice-president, and Michael Shaw, executive director. I would ask you to identify yourselves for Hansard and then proceed with your presentation.
Mr Mackenzie: I am Bruce Mackenzie and this is Michael Shaw, the executive director of the Ontario Marina Operators Association.
It is a welcome opportunity for the OMOA to be able to present to you the association's concern and recommendations with regard to the invasion of Ontario's waterways by the zebra mussel. The OMOA represents approximately 400 of the 700 marinas in Ontario. Many of these marinas are already faced with having to deal with the zebra mussel. All of our marina operator members are concerned with how the zebra mussel may affect our waterways and what influence they will have on the marine industry in the future for water-based recreation and tourism in Ontario.
The OMOA certainly has a responsibility to its members to present the strongest of all possible cases to convince the governments of this province and this country not to underestimate the threat posed to our waterways by the zebra mussel.
1410
The OMOA also feels a tremendous responsibility to the half of the citizens of Ontario who go boating every year, to the owners of 1.3 million boats in Ontario, to our customers who are commercial and sports fishermen, and to the 25 million citizens of the Great Lakes communities who depend on water processed through municipal filtration plants. The preceding are just some of the user groups that will be affected by zebra mussel infestation.
We all have a responsibility to the citizens of today and the citizens of tomorrow to do whatever is possible to reduce the effects of the zebra mussel. The zebra mussel is not going to go away; it is here to stay. It is evident that this form of biological pollution is in some ways far worse than other types of pollution. Oil spills can be cleaned up, chemicals can stop being introduced, but the mussel is here to stay, and despite warnings, there was not a thing done to prevent it. We seem to just idly sit back and watch to see what is being added to the Great Lakes and observe their further degradation.
The zebra mussel is just one of nearly 100 species that have been introduced into the Great Lakes as a result of human activity over the last 200 years. Almost all could have been prevented, and we have no guarantee that the next disaster is not in a ship now bound for an Ontario port. The zebra mussel may have the most impact of all of the introduced species so far, but there is a chance that the next introduction could even be worse.
Ontario is the sole province of Canada on the Great Lakes, compared to eight states of the United States. This province's responsibility to the Great Lakes and to the citizens who depend on them is tremendous. It is difficult to put a dollar figure on just how important the Great Lakes are to the prosperity of this province, but it is easy to see that if it were not for the Great Lakes, Ontario would not be the industrial heartland of Canada and we would not enjoy the quality of life we have. Our water, our transportation, hydro production, our fishing, our recreation, are all dependent on the Great Lakes.
The boating and marine industry is totally dependent as well on the incredible waterways of Ontario. The fast-growing service industry cannot afford to allow any stone to go unturned in its attempt to reduce the effects of the zebra mussel. This industry is not small. It is worth $1.8 billion to the economy of Ontario. Of the 1.3 million boats in Ontario, more than 60% have access to Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the St Lawrence River, the waters now infested by the zebra mussel.
In 1987 alone there were 14.6 million angler days in the Canadian portions of the Great Lakes, injecting a further $350 million into Ontario's economy. This last figure does not include the value of recreational fishing in Ontario's inland waterways.
The 700 marinas in Ontario support approximately 90,000 wet mooring spaces or year-round dry storage spaces for boats. The marinas and numerous yacht clubs are the gateways to Ontario's waterways. It is essential that marinas be able to maintain themselves and their related services so the public can continue to have the excellent access to the waters of Ontario that it enjoys today.
If the waters and other related resources such as beaches become less attractive to the public because of zebra mussels, then there may be less use of the water and it will become more difficult for marinas to continue services and remain profitable. The same can be said of commercial and sports fishing. In Lake Erie, for example, 50% of marina customers are there because of the fishery. If this fishery is adversely affected by the mussel and fishing decreases, there would be serious economic consequences for the marinas on Lake Erie. Numerous marinas in Ontario's inland waters exist solely to service the sports fishing industry. What impact will the zebra mussel have there?
Marina operators are already experiencing direct costs because of the zebra mussel. Many are facing significant costs in maintaining docks and other related facilities. Some operators will soon face the cost of providing new services to adjust for possible changes in boating because of the mussel. Dry stacking of medium and small power boats may become necessary. New boat lifting equipment may need to be purchased to lift boats for storage and more frequent cleaning. Marinas are now being encouraged to look at establishing areas where boats can be cleaned of mussels away from the water. The OMOA is working on developing a model zebra mussel control station. The development of control stations such as this will create additional costs.
Further costs will be experienced if there is a loss of business from residential boaters, commercial fishermen, sports fishermen and loss of tourist business. Communities on the water such as Parry Sound, Brockville and Little Current can ill afford a drop in tourism, and neither can the marinas that serve as the front doors for such tourism-dependent locations.
Attention must be drawn to the need to protect the tremendous investment that the three levels of government have made in municipal waterfront developments, in addition to the even bigger investment made by privately owned marinas. Communities like Orillia, Kingston and North Bay, as examples, have made significant investments in making their waterfronts attractive boating centres and people places generally.
The province of Ontario has been a major partner in many of these projects. The federal government's small craft harbour office has made huge investments in public and private developments in the last two decades, especially in the Great Lakes, such as in Port Dover, Sault Ste Marie and Stoney Creek. Many of the members of the OMOA represent the municipally owned marinas that have been established as a result of the investments of public funds.
Boat owners may experience some costs as a result of the mussel. These costs will be a result of a need for more frequent cleaning, more antifouling and/or bottom wax use, the installation of high engine temperature alarms, and possibly added mechanical work. Some boaters may change the way they use their boats by either dry stacking them at a marina or purchasing a trailer to serve as a regular boat storage base. Both of these strategies permit a boat to remain out of the water when not in use and thus free of contact with the mussel.
Fortunately, a recreational boat is easily handled at full-service marinas, and zebra mussels can be cleaned off without high technology. Some boaters may experience no extra costs as a result of the mussels, but boats that remain in the water for an extended period of time in heavily infested waters may need more frequent cleaning, depending upon the amount of use.
Marina operators feel that boaters will not be discouraged from boating because of the direct effect of the mussels on their boats, for this can be corrected. Rather, boating activity may well be expected to decrease overall because of the effect of the mussel on the aquatic environment that boaters enjoy today.
Marinas are going to play a very important role in the war against zebra mussels. From a communication and service point of view, marinas are the natural vehicles for disseminating information and educating the boaters of Ontario. The OMOA looks forward to working with the Ontario government to help reduce the effects of the zebra mussels. Marina operators cannot afford to lose some of their customer base because of the zebra mussel, just as Ontario, its industries and citizens cannot afford not to act as quickly as possible to reduce the effects of the zebra mussel.
In Ontario today we have the contaminated waters of the Great Lakes and the relatively uncontaminated waters of our inland waterways. At least, as of 1 December 1990, no zebra mussels had been sighted in inland waters in Ontario. The OMOA supports the initiatives of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment to learn how to manage and cope with the mussels in the Great Lakes and their attempts to keep the mussels from gaining access to inland waters not directly connected to the Great Lakes.
The OMOA wishes to propose the following strategies for dealing with the zebra mussel:
1. Continued research into the biology of the zebra mussel;
2. Continued and expanded research to determine ways of preventing the spread of zebra mussels;
3. Enact legislation restricting the movement of contaminated water, eg. in bait wells with bait fish, and other carriers of mussels and/or their larvae from infested waters into uninfested waters;
4. Public education and education of user groups;
5. Signage at all boat ramps in Ontario;
6. Assist in the establishment of zebra mussel control stations at boat ramps in Ontario that require them;
7. Set up mussel-free zones in the province to encourage the involvement of local groups and citizens, eg, cottage associations, tourist associations;
8. Border inspections and information, highway information signs;
9. Boat inspections at truck weigh stations;
10. Create higher awareness among the public; have displays and demonstrations, have creel census staff inspect for zebra mussels and explain about them;
11. Force the government of Canada to immediately enact legislation to force ships to exchange their ballast water and salt water before entering freshwater ports in Canada.
1420
Most of this brief, and I am sure the good work of other presenters today, has dealt with the effects of and possible solutions to the zebra mussel problem. Certainly that is the reason for today's session, but there must be one more greater goal. This goal must be to do everything possible to stop the next non-native species from entering Ontario's waterways. The practice of ocean-going ships bringing fresh water species from around the world and allowing them to be dumped in our waters is insane and totally unnecessary.
We are going to hear that shipping is a federal responsibility, but it is our position that water quality is everyone's responsibility and the rights steps must be taken without delay. Remember, Ontario is the only province on the Great Lakes. There is no magic to preventing the next zebra mussel; it just needs a commitment.
A bill is currently being reviewed by the United States Senate which would mandate ballast water exchange in vessels entering Great Lakes waters only. We must have equal legislation for Canada, and it must include Canadian freshwater ports below the Great Lakes as well.
The zebra mussel is not the first non-native species to create havoc in this province or country. Just look at the millions that have been spent on trying to control the gypsy moth and the sea lamprey and the destruction they have cost. We should have learned our lessons long ago.
We are probably aware of the strict enforcement of different countries and states used to protect agricultural crops, eg, no importation of citrus fruits into the United States because of the risk of disease to the citrus fruit crops of Florida and California, no transportation of soils across borders because of the risk of diseases to agricultural crops. But what do we do to protect one fifth of the world's freshwater supply or the drinking water of 25 million people? Precious little, we believe.
We all must start to consider our water resources as inviolable and adopt appropriate policies.
The OMOA would like to express its deep gratitude to this committee of the Ontario Legislature for the opportunity to have input into the problem of the zebra mussels in Ontario. Hopefully, our comments may assist in some way.
Mr Ramsay: First, I would like to congratulate you on your presentation, not only the tremendous scope of the material presented -- certainly the strength of conviction you bring to it -- but also the number of recommendations you bring. I believe that so far you have brought more recommendations than any other group. That is what this committee is looking for, some recommendations for us to study.
Also, I would like to congratulate you on the work you have decided to take up in trying to develop this model zebra mussel control station. I think that is exemplary, and I thank you for that.
I would like to ask you, really, what your operators are doing today. I am not a boater; I am not part of that culture. I envy that at times. There is a big, new boating activity happening on Lake Timiskaming, where I come from, and some day I would like to be part of that. What I would like to know is whether the culture has changed, since we have had this invasion, in how boat operators handle their craft when they take them out of water. What are they doing? How are marina operators handling boats?
Mr Mackenzie: Because the situation is relatively new, it is mainly Lake Erie operators and some in Lake St Clair that have been exposed to this. They are finding that when the boats come out of the water in the fall, they require more cleaning. There have been mechanical failures due to cooling system problems because of the zebra mussel clogging up somewhere in the cooling system of the boat. Some boaters may be looking at how they are going to use their boat, and marina operators certainly are looking at how we can allow boaters to continue using the boats in the way they have in the past or the way they want to, by providing new systems so we can clean the boats easier, take them out of the water easier, clean them and get them back into service.
Boats, if they are used a lot, seem to suffer less from the zebra mussel. If the boat is inactive and sitting in port, that boat is going to possibly have more effects from the zebra mussel, but if the boat is used and/or maintained properly, we found the boaters have not been at a disadvantage in using their boat because of the zebra mussel.
In certain areas in Lake Erie, the marinas are having no problem at all with the zebra mussels. In others, it is hard to tell which colour the bottom of the boat is when it comes out of the water if it has not been used that much. They seem to like to settle on the metal parts of the boats, and most boats are fibreglass now. You are looking at the trim tabs, outdrives, propellers where the zebra mussels will settle. From the reports I have received, attachment on fibreglass seems to be second choice or less favourable to the mussel.
Mr Ramsay: You make a very passionate plea to do whatever we can to try to prevent the spread of the zebra mussel into inland waters. You also list quite a few recommendations that would help accomplish that: border inspections, highway information signs for education, also boat inspections at truck weigh stations. I take it that you would be recommending sort of mandatory, enforceable types of regulation, that if you are driving on the highway with a boat it is compulsory to drive into a truck weigh scale and have this inspection done.
Mr Mackenzie: That could be one of your recommendations. We pointed it out as a possible tool which could be used. I think of border stations. If a boat is coming across from out of the country, you definitely want to look at that boat. Also, that allows you the opportunity to educate the persons coming into the country about the zebra mussel problem. It is likely, though, that the boater coming into this country will only be coming from the United States -- certainly by road -- and they will probably be as aware of the zebra mussels as our citizens are or maybe even more aware. But we must ensure that we have some kind of control and bring to our visitors that we are concerned about the zebra mussel.
Truck weigh stations are open on a random schedule. Possibly the Ministry of Natural Resources or the Ministry of Transportation may want to look at boats coming over so that government personnel can get a handle on whether boats are actually transporting zebra mussels. Zebra mussels in the adult stage or hard-shell stage can survive out of the water for a number of days depending on temperature and humidity. So they can either travel as the mussel itself on the outside of the boat or travel as the veliger or the larvae in water in the boat.
Mr Ramsay: Do you think marina operators would co-operate in some sort of assistance in enforcement so that we would be able to make sure that boats do not leave marinas overland without some sort of inspection taking place?
Mr Mackenzie: I am fairly confident that marina operators will assist in providing the tools so that the boats do not travel overland as possible sources of infection. With regard to regulation, I think that is going one step further than we would be able to go; that would be up to regulatory agencies. But as to control stations, signage of boat ramps, many of our members already have posters supplied by the Ministry of Natural Resources at those boat ramps trying to bring to the boating public the problem with zebra mussels. I think it has to go a few steps further than what has been done now to ensure that everybody who is taking a boat out of the water realizes what he or she may be doing if they are going to other bodies of water.
1430
Mr Klopp: You mentioned here when you brought up how we have to stop the next potential problem: "Do not try to just find it. Just assume it will be a problem." I totally agree. You brought up about fruits and vegetables. You said it is probably a federal problem. Indeed it is a problem for all of us because we trade in the world and one of the things we have all talked about is free trade and fair trade. This is one of the costs we have to figure, and I am glad your organization has brought that to our attention. It is one of the things I had already jotted down a few times and I appreciate your bringing that up. I hope you pass that on to people who are always talking about trade and forget about the environment.
You did say, though -- legislation that was brought up by fellow colleagues -- that you wanted legislation, while you said, "You guys can decide that." Your third recommendations says, "Enact legislation restricting the movement of contained water (ie in bait wells)" etc. Now that is a clear thing you want in legislation. Fine, that is enacted, but how would we make sure that people are not carrying bait water or whatever, this water from --
Mr Mackenzie: I think we can suggest to you what legislation is realistic, how it is enforced and who it is enforced by. I think that is the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources. They have regulations in effect now and they are enforced by ministry staff.
Mr Klopp: Do you think by passing that particular one, then people would say, "Oops, it is now against the law so I will make sure that I dump my water out before I go to the next lake?"
Mr Mackenzie: Yes. If there is a law saying you may not take infected water from one body of water to another, part of our mandate and the government's mandate must be to educate the public how to comply with the law. We would have to show them the dangers of taking water in their bilges or in their bait buckets to the Muskokas or Haliburton. We would have to educate them and then enforce it. The education has some relevance. Unfortunately there seems to be a need for legislation.
Mr Jordan: I was wondering what recommendation you would make for the Rideau Canal between Kingston and Ottawa. Being that there is no legislation, what control could we start this spring to stop the transfer of these mussels into the Rideau Canal and the other connected lakes?
Mr Mackenzie: That is a very difficult question, and it may be too late. The zebra mussel has been in portions of Lake Ontario since 1989, if I remember correctly, in the Kingston area. Chances are you already have the veligers or adult mussels in that system. If they are not there, there are a number of ways that those veligers of the zebra mussels are going to get there easily, whether it is by boats or turtles or ducks flying and moving. The animals -- we call it puddle hopping. The Rideau system certainly should be looked at carefully, because we refer to it as water directly connected to the Great Lakes and it is possibly already contaminated. Even though there have been no adults sighted, that does not mean the organism is not in that water chain. There would have to be more detailed study. That is beyond my scope.
Mr Jordan: So the municipalities along that chain of lakes are going to be looking at the same problems as other municipalities that take their water from the Great Lakes system?
Mr Mackenzie: Yes. I was listening to the previous speakers. Right now you are looking at the lower Great Lakes, but what effect this will have on the inland waterways is just as tremendous. Take North Bay's water system out of Trout Lake; they could possibly have the same problem as the city of Port Colborne.
Mr Waters: I actually represent Muskoka and you have mentioned it a couple of times. I have concerns about the lakes. One of the things you talked about was mussel control stations. What do you mean?
Mr Mackenzie: Thank you for letting me expand on that. The idea would be that in marinas or areas near boat ramps there would be an area where the boater would be able to pull off to the side of the road or the parking lot, away from the water, and treat his boat with a diluted spray of chlorinated water possibly. If there are any young mussels on the boats that are microscopic in size or veligers or larvae in the water in the boat, eg, bait wells and bilges, if they are exposed to chlorine solution that will kill the veligers.
Boats that come out of the water that have visible mussels on them are going to require more treatment in terms of high-pressure sprays or scraping to get those mussels off the water. Most of your boat traffic, though, from boat ramp to boat ramp, involves boats that have been in the water for relatively short periods of time. A man is fishing for salmon in Lake Ontario out of Oakville and next week he is in Lake Simcoe fishing for pickerel. It is this type of traffic that is more common from the boat users. If a boat is in the water long enough to have mussels adhere to it and grow to it, it is probably going to be staying in that body of water for the season.
Our design for the control station, one, would be signage to inform boaters which boaters should be concerned, because if you are not going anywhere but back to Lake Ontario with your boat you do not have to do anything because the water is already contaminated. Two, if the boat is going to another body of water, you want to reduce the possibility of having that boat carry infectious materials -- the larvae or the adults. Primarily it would be a chlorine spray, flush or rinse that the boat owner could apply to his boat or parts of his boat to kill any larvae or small mussels.
Right after they have settled on a hard surface from the larvae stage, they are relatively microscopic for a period of a week or two depending on water temperature. Those are affected by -- as far as I understand it -- chlorine spray, because they are relatively small and they could be killed by the chlorine. But if they are visible in size, then it is going to require a high-pressure spray or scraping.
Mr Waters: What about the one-canal systems -- the Rideau was already mentioned, but the Trent system? They are probably the most susceptible. The boats are put in at Toronto or in Lake Erie and they sit there. People get two weeks' vacation and they hit the canal system to make the loop. Have you as marina operators looked at any way of dealing with that situation?
Mr Mackenzie: To repeat what I said to Mr Jordan, the horse may already be out of the barn as far as the Trent and the Rideau systems are concerned. Those two particular strings of lakes or bodies of water are going to require more study, and possibly lead to further recommendations as to just how many boats actually travel back and forth from contaminated waters to uninfected waters, and that is if those waters are now uninfected. There is a good chance they already are.
Mr Waters: I know in the case of Ottawa they picked a boat out of there with mussels on it last fall. So there is a good chance they are there.
Mr Jordan: That came in from the St Lawrence.
Mr Waters: Came up the Rideau system.
Mr Cleary: I would like to thank you for your presentation, but there is one thing there. We have sailboats and they are in almost permanently from early spring. How would you suggest they be cleaned?
Mr Mackenzie: Two ways: First of all, if they are sailboats or the large powerboats that are on the lower Great Lakes, normally they do not come out of the water until October and then they will be cleaned off at most marinas with high-pressure water sprayers. That will remove this year's growth of zebra mussels.
Their cooling systems for their engines, depending on the type of engine, should be inspected certainly as to whether they need chlorine treatment of the cooling system while on land. I believe there are some commercial products already available to treat engine cooling systems. If the boat is suffering a problem during the season, then it could be lifted out at the marina and cleaned off again with a high-pressure sprayer. I see no environmental problems at all with that, because you are simply using water and the mussels are going to be deposited on land. The marina operator may have a problem with wanting to clean up the mussels, but generally they are small and they dry out in the sun very quickly. It is no worse than oyster shells or clam shells on your beach.
1440
Mr Cleary: I can see quite a few problems, especially on those, but the other thing that has been drawn to my attention is people who are renewing their insurance policies. It states right on them they are not responsible for mussels.
Mr Mackenzie: I am not aware of that. If the insurance companies are putting that on the policies, I imagine they want to protect themselves from, say, engine failure cost. I do not know whether they insure against that, whether it is written out of their policy or not right now.
Mr Cleary: It has been drawn to my attention on a few occasions lately.
Mr Mackenzie: If that is the case, then the boat owner will want to take further precautions in terms of maintenance to guarantee that his boat is not going to suffer from engine failure. Other than engine failure, I do not see a lot of harm that the zebra mussels are going to do to the boats that cannot be solved with regular cleanings. Boats that are left in the water year after year, though, and do not come out for winter storage are going to come up against other problems and they are going to require cleaning of one type or another.
The Chair: Thank you very much for a very interesting presentation, and particularly from the perspective of educating and informing the public. I must thank you for your willingness to provide your recommendations and your obvious willingness to assist the community and the committee in dealing with this problem.
CANADIAN MARINERS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next witnesses to appear are the Canadian Mariners' Association. This group will focus on the impact of zebra mussels on recreational boating. Appearing to present on behalf of the association are Thomas J. Hambly and William A. Milne. I ask you to come forward and identify yourselves and proceed with your presentation.
Mr Hambly: I am Tom Hambly, currently the national commodore of the Canadian Mariners' Association. We are a national association of recreational boat owners and we have a deep concern over the zebra mussel problem. What we are going to present today are some possible solutions, solutions that are not definite but at least are ideas that we have and maybe some of them can be worked on by various organizations. To make that presentation I have brought one of our technicians, Vice-Commodore Bill Milne, who is our engineering officer, and I would like him to make the formal presentation.
Mr Milne: I am Bill Milne. I will just pass these mussels around. You probably saw some yesterday, but these were taken off the bottom of the Pathfinder, which was in Toronto harbour. We hauled it out in November.
The Chair: They cannot hear you if you walk away from the microphone.
Mr Milne: Oh, I am sorry. These mussels that are in that jar -- you probably saw some yesterday -- are off the Pathfinder, which was the brigantine hauled out in November in Toronto harbour. That Pathfinder had been all around the Great Lakes. These are one- and two-year-old mussels. They have obviously been transporting those one- and two-year-old mussels around the lake. I thought I would bring that. You might notice, when that bottle goes around, that there is some red copper paint attached to the mussels and I will get into that later on.
As Tom said, I am a member of the Canadian Mariners' Association. I also own a company called Alex Milne Associates and that company is partly owned by Innovation Ontario. I thought that background may be of interest to you.
I would like to open with a quotation that was done by Captain R. Scott Misener, who originally owned Misener shipping lines. When they were putting the Seaway in, Captain Misener very wisely said to the Seaway authorities, "Just remember, gentlemen, the Seaway when it opens will become a two-way street." Captain Misener said that 30 years ago and it is interesting that here we are 30 years later trying to solve problems that Captain Misener foresaw. That is, I thought, an interesting point.
I am going to paraphrase this, by the way, because I think you guys want to save some time and I am not a good reader.
I would also like to acknowledge the Ministry of Natural Resources. I think they have done a whale of a job jumping on the zebra mussel issue. I do not think they get enough accolades for that, actually. They have done a good job so far in giving some guidance to this thing. I thought I would point that out.
My company has actually benefited from the Ministry of Natural Resources guidelines in the fact that we have developed some commercial products that boaters can use now to help solve the zebra mussel issue. Team Zebra is the name of that commercial product. That will be on all the marina shelves and Canadian Tire shelves and whatever this spring. I guess what I am pointing out there is that commercial people can kick in pretty fast with solutions.
Getting to the meat of the issue that we want to present here from the mariners, on page 3, the first point was that I think we should look at each one of these magic bullets that comes out in the media. That is one of the things we want to cover. We also want to look at the copper antifouling paint situation, and then we would like to drop some positive ideas on this committee as well.
I will start with the magic bullets. The first one was the soapberry plant. I have not been here for two days, so maybe you heard something about that soapberry plant yesterday. Let me digress. Somewhere in Nigeria the women were washing their clothes and using a plant as soap to clean these clothes, and then they found all the mussels downstream died, so of course the media immediately picked up on that and said: "Hey, here is the solution. The soapberry plant will kill all the mussels."
It does, but it also is four times more toxic to fish. So what I am saying is when the media comes out with this they say, "Hey, here is a magic bullet." Boaters immediately say: "Hey, hold on, this thing has been solved. They found a magic bullet, the soapberry plant. We do not have to worry about it any more." I think those magic bullets should be very carefully looked at by MNR so that the media do not get carried away with them.
I have put a reference in there if anybody wants to follow up on that, the paper that shows the soapberry plant kills fish four times faster than it kills mussels.
The other one out recently was potassium. Potassium does kill mussels. What it does is go into the mussel's gills and explodes the gills. The funny thing is, fish have gills too. So there again you have a magic bullet being bandied about and it can also be detrimental to the rest of the environment. Somebody at MNR or Environment should look very closely at all these bullets.
The next point I want to look at is chlorine. We all know now that chlorine kills mussels. The Ministry of Natural Resources has some very clear guidelines on how much chlorine kills mussels. The problem I see is that as soon as you put that out in the media, that chlorine or bleach kills mussels. I can foresee a dock owner who is pretty frustrated -- he has a dockload of mussels -- walking down the dock with two bottles of this stuff and loading the environment with chlorine. The amount of chlorine you put in is one tablespoon per gallon, not one gallon per dock. We have to be very careful that we do not get into overkill with this chlorine. because I do not want to be living in the Great Chlorine Lakes.
Another thing I want to point out is copper toxins. I think probably Gerry Mackie said yesterday that copper is one of the things that mussels do not attach to; that is, a pure copper plate, they will not attach to that copper plate. In fact Gerry does testing of my products in Lake St Clair. They do attach to any other hard surface. Actually they will attach to fibreglass, although I know one of the chaps at OMOA said they will not. They will attach to any hard surface, be it concrete, fibreglass, metal, wood, you name it, they are on it, except copper. But here is the problem with copper: Canada's inland waterways have said that six parts per billion of copper is lethal to trout.
If you start counting that up, if there are 2.4 million registered boats in Canada and every one of these boaters puts a gallon of copper on his boat, we are now dealing with 5,000 tons of copper antifouling every year. They have to pull the boat up and scrape it all off. Where is that copper antifouling going? At 5,000 tons of it, how much of that equates to six parts per billion? It starts to go a little haywire.
1450
In fresh water I do not think you need copper antifouling paints. Yes, in salt water, on barnacles you need it, but in fresh water I do not think so. I think our recommendation is that you just say to the boat owner, "If you want to drive a boat, I'm afraid you have to clean your boat three times a year now instead of once a year." It is that simple. Protect the environment; keep the copper antifouling out of the environment. Copper is considered a heavy metal just like tin or mercury or zinc and just not the way to go. I have been a scuba diver for 30 years and I have been watching Ontario's water and the reefs. Believe me, there is a big difference in the last 30 years.
Mr Ruprecht: In what way? You say there is a big difference.
Mr Milne: I used to dive in Tobermory 30 years ago. Those wrecks were pristine at that point; the water was very clear. Now when you dive on those wrecks at Tobermory, you probably have about yea much, three inches, of muck on there, and who knows what is in that.
Chlorine pucks are one of the ways of keeping zebra mussels out of engines. This is a big problem, because as soon as you put your boat in the water, 10 minutes after you put your boat in the water you can have mussels up that engine, up that intake. They like to go for a dark spot, first of all, so the first place they are going to go is in that intake. You can turn around and pull that boat out of that lake 10 minutes later and you have zebra mussels in there. They will live 14 days out of water, so you can transport them many, many miles.
One of the ways of getting around that is to use a chlorine puck. There are always these sort of what I call kitchen chemists around. They are suggesting they hook a chlorine puck on the engine so that it is near the intake and the mussels will take off and go somewhere else. But hold on a minute. How many chlorine pool pucks can we have in our waterways? I am not sure if that is the answer.
Incidentally, I was at the University of Ohio conference about 30 days ago on mussels and one of the chaps brought up ptomaine poisoning. If you get a whole bunch of dead mussel bodies around, you can create ptomaine poisoning. I would think that probably the marine operators would be very interested in that because it does not take much. You will be down hauling your anchor out and licking your lips and the next thing you know you have ptomaine poisoning. I think the Ontario health authorities should look at that.
Are you chuckling because it is good news? Our good news is coming.
Let me give you some alternatives to the toxins. One of them which the Ministry of Natural Resources suggests is a polymer wax. It is a silicon-like wax. Yes, the mussels will attach, but it is 10 times easier to clean them off the bottom of the boat. That is a good alternative to the copper antifouling.
The best thing to kill mussels is hot water. Water at 95 degrees Fahrenheit kills mussels. That is the most eco-safe way of doing it. In fact, within a month there will be commercially available a bag. You can actually put a baggie around your engine. This solves the problem of the boats having to transport mussels inside their engines.
When you are finished boating for the day, you simply slip this bag over the engine, put the engine in neutral and run the engine. The exhaust water, which is hot, much higher than 100 degrees Fahrenheit, now is recirculated through the inlet and you have killed all the mussels in that system. You go home and you leave the bag and whatever around your engine. That is a simple way of doing it. If you go out for a spin on the lake, you take the bag off, go for a spin, bring it back and then repeat the process. You will not be transporting mussels if you use the zebra bag on the back of the engine.
What we are looking at in the Mariners and my company are methods of controlling the mussels without getting involved in toxins. That zebra bag is a very effective method. It costs a boater about $89.95 for a bag, but that is the price of doing boating.
Mr Ramsay: Where can I get one?
Mr Milne: We have sold one already. Any more?
Getting to our positive suggestions, there is a zebra mussel clearinghouse in New York -- I have put the address here -- which I thought was a good idea. Anything on zebra mussels goes into this clearinghouse and these people disseminate all the data and send them back out again. I think MNR could be perhaps the zebra mussel clearinghouse for Ontario.
I see that we could actually turn this zebra mussel thing into a win-win proposition, where we can actually start creating exports from Ontario using zebra mussels. A good way of doing that is to get everybody to co-operate. I know Ontario Hydro is doing a $9-million study on the zebra mussels. I defy anybody to find out what that $9 million was spent on, what the results of all that testing is, blah, blah, blah. You cannot get back in the door to find out.
I think anything Ontario Hydro does should be made public to the group so that private enterprise can pick up on what they are doing and use that. That is a thought. For instance, I read something the other day saying that nicotine kills zebra mussels. Interesting. We have a lot of tobacco farmers in Ontario out of work.
Interjection: It kills everything.
Mr Milne: Yes, it kills everything. There is a point that somebody who is handling this as a central body could say: "Okay, let's look at nicotine. Is it going to kill the fish too? Is it going to kill the people?" The University of Toronto is doing research on the barnacle-like glue that these mussels put out. Did anybody describe the glue to you guys?
What a mussel does is he puts a foot down on a surface and he actually draws the moisture away from that surface so now he really has a dry portion that he can start using for glue. He takes a two-part epoxy and he exudes it through this foot on to the surface. If it is a fibreglass surface, which is somewhat porous, that glue just goes right in there; it loves it. The same with concrete or wood. So they actually exude this two-part epoxy into the thing. Now they are stuck. They can actually come along a year later and say: "Hey, hold on, I don't like this lunch area," and they can send an enzyme down their leg and let that glue go. They can let go and drift off and attach somewhere else.
In fact, I was at a fishing club, the Labatt's fishing club in London. One of the chaps backed his trailer in the water with his boat on it and went for a beer and a sandwich, and an hour later that thing was loaded with zebra mussels. In one hour there were thousands and thousands on there. They had been sitting somewhere else and thought, "Hey, hold on a minute. That looks like a real picnic," and they moved.
Mr McLean: If he put some of that wax on his boat, maybe they would not have gotten there.
Mr Milne: Do not let me fool you now. Even if you put the wax on your boat, you are still going to get attachment. I am saying it is 10 times easier to clean.
1500
Another point I do not know if anybody has pointed out, but I think Marilyn Churley mentioned that Lake Erie is clearing up and looking real good. The problem is that each one of these mussels will filter one litre of water. They use half of the plankton for food, the other half they roll in a mucus-like ball and they spit it back out again; they do not want it. In that mucus ball are all the toxins concentrated. They did not want to eat that because it had toxins in it. Now the fish come along and eat that and the toxins go straight up the chain into the fish and birds and whatever. So, yes, you are clearing out Lake Erie, but you are passing all those toxins directly up the food chain much faster than ever before. What looks on the surface to be clearing the environment may be creating other problems.
Zebra mussel shells are an excellent source of calcium. Maybe we can grind all these damned mussels up and start selling them as Ontario fertilizer. There could be an industry there. Believe it, because there are going to be a lot of mussel shells. It could be a multimillion-dollar windfall to Ontario.
I guess I am saying on page 9 that both myself and Canadian Mariners would like to participate in any program that comes out of this meeting or any positive ideas. We have a feeling that this thing can turn into a win-win situation if we really work at it as a team.
Mr Ruprecht: That was quite an eye-opening presentation, Mr Milne. The thing I regret is that I did not have your two pages of products attached to my copy that you sent around. But I like your idea of turning this into a win-win situation. How would you like the title of zebra mussel commissioner?
Mr Milne: Captain Zebra. We actually appointed a Captain Zebra to go around and talk to all these fishing tournaments. He is a young student out of Laurentian University, so the job is taken.
Mr Ruprecht: That is where I went to school.
You are listing a whole litany of problem areas, from chlorine to copper toxins to tin antifouling agents, I guess, chlorine pucks, ptomaine poisoning, polymer wax, hot water, and on the litany goes. What I would be interested to find out from you is whether you have a pamphlet with you or more information on what you term the ministry guideline of applying a very low dosage, less than 1% chlorine, as an effective killing agent to zebra mussels? It is supported, I guess, or printed by the Ministry of the Environment. Do you have that information?
Mr Milne: It looks like this.
Mr Ruprecht: And it is on there?
Mr Milne: I believe it is on here. Yes, here it is: 15 millilitres of bleach per 4.5 litres of hot soapy water, one teaspoon per gallon.
Mr Ruprecht: Is this pamphlet supposed to go to the public?
Mr Milne: Yes. That is why I said they have been doing a good job on this zebra mussel thing.
Mr Ruprecht: That brings me to the next question. which is worrisome to you. You indicated -- I suppose based on this pamphlet as the effective killing agent -- you foresee that many of the boat owners or dock owners might want to take this seriously, misinterpret it or misread it and then go in with gallons of bleach or chlorine and go at it that way. Have you got any more information on this? Have you seen people do this, or do you suspect they might do this?
Mr Milne: No, I am kind of looking ahead. With most chemicals people tend to overkill. They think if one teaspoon per gallon does it, boy, the whole gallon is really going to do it to them.
Mr Ruprecht: Thank you. Can I keep this?
Mr Milne: Yes.
Ms Churley: I too am very intrigued by your products listed in the back, Zebra Wax, Zebra Rinse and Zebra Remover, but I do not have the qualifications to assess the usefulness of these. What I would like to say is that I am very pleased to see people looking at less toxic ways to approach the problem.
I am interested in your methods of education in terms of the question just raised around overkill, the overuse of chemicals. I am very interested in a lot of the kinds of regulations that are going to have to come up around boating which will require education. For instance, I am sure you are familiar with the term "grey water," which is very much going to have to be an issue of education because how can you enforce? I guess to some extent it is the same thing in zebra mussels, that there is going to have to be an awful lot of education involved, and the previous deputant spoke about that.
How effective do you see the educational process among boaters? I guess they see it as in their self-interest in this case, and with grey water as well ultimately. That is a loaded question, is it not? You do not have to answer the grey water part. We will leave that out of it.
Mr Milne: I am in the toilet chemical business so I do understand the black water and grey water.
Ms Churley: You know exactly what I am talking about then.
Mr Hambly: Bill is going to give you a copy of one of our newsletters. That was last summer's newsletter. We have been working on this zebra mussel problem for slightly longer than two years. What we have been doing is publishing in our quarterly newsletter to members the problems involving the mussel, sort of educating our members as to where they came from, what they are doing and what is likely to happen and how to handle them. The information is slowly coming in and we are slowly getting more of it out. That newsletter you see there has a one-page article on it, "Mussel Havoc in the Great Lakes." There have been two or three other articles in past newsletters. We are keeping our members up to date and giving them ideas on how to handle it with their own boats.
Ms Churley: Are you finding a good response to the educational component among boaters, or are they the same as any other interest group?
Mr Hambly: They are frustrated. Our members are frustrated in that everything costs them money and everything is more trouble. Some of our members are older and they do not want to pull their boats out two or three times a year and clean them off, because they are 40-foot or 50-foot boats. It does not bother the younger members, who seem to have the smaller boats and the faster boats and the muscle boats, very much. They just pull them out and clean them. The members are basically frustrated in that this is a problem that has come on them which they are having trouble dealing with. We are all going to have to get used to it, that is all, because it is here to stay.
Ms Churley: You might suggest that some kind of regulation is needed to get beyond the volunteer and the education.
Mr Hambly: I do not know. I hate to recommend regulations, but it may come to that.
Mr Milne: One of the things that I have tried to do is get to each one of the media. There are a lot of marine magazines in Canada -- let's put a figure of 25 -- which all relate somehow to fishing or tackle or boats. I have been asking the editors of each of those magazines to have a monthly page where they can educate people. Unfortunately you have to have somebody who is going to pay for that page. Perhaps that is a way of education: To have funds put aside for those magazines so that they can put a page of education in each month, not the same page but update them both, on zebra mussels and grey water.
What we are doing on that Team Zebra product line -- I just happen to have brought some. The wax looks like that. One of the things we have done is put a proactive sticker on the bottles so that when a person buys that Zebra Wax, he peels that sticker off and sticks it on the side of his boat or his trailer. That then allows the lake owner or the cottage owner to say, "Hey, hold on a minute, this guy is participating or has some knowledge or at least is concerned." That is one of the ways we are trying to educate the people, as well as do a little marketing on the side.
1510
Mr Klopp: You brought in chlorine and the fact that we hear about a magic bullet. You are quite right. I heard about chlorine a year ago, just dump the chlorine. I am glad you pointed out to MNR that it is a good thing it has written up that thing that says you only need one tablespoon. I am glad you brought that up and I am glad they have taken the time to write it in their remarks. One thing which might help a lot of us on ideas of what we are learning: You brought up that Ontario Hydro has spent $9 million. The fact is that they spend about $1 million a year and they are doing $1 million a year for the next little while. It is not that they have spent $9 million already, because we do not need to insult anyone, and I am sure you do not want to.
Mr Milne: Sorry, I meant a budget of $9 million.
Mr Klopp: In fact, a lot of the things that you have talked about, electricity and cobalt-60, they are studying. We heard reports this morning that they are a long way off. I am interested in nicotine. Have you got some data to back that up?
Mr Milne: Yes. I do not have it here today.
Mr Klopp: I would like that sent along to the committee, or send it to anyone in MNR if they have not got it.
Mr Milne: My research guy has that. No problem.
The Chair: Thank you very much for taking the time to be with us and provide your perspective. It was a very interesting presentation.
FEDERATION OF ONTARIO COTTAGERS' ASSOCIATIONS INC
The Chair: Next to appear is the Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Associations. The federation will focus on the impact of zebra mussels on everyday cottage life, swimming, fishing and water supply. Appearing on behalf of the federation is Steve McKelvie, with, obviously, someone else.
Ms Anthon: I will introduce myself. I am Rejeanne Anthon, past president of the Federation of Ontario Cottagers. I will just bring you up to date on what and who we are. We do not bring any products to sell except our passion and our concern to work with a committee such as yourself on solving this critical issue.
The Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Association is almost 30 years old now. We were formed as a result of water-based property owners coming together with common interests and issues and concerns. We certainly have a varied agenda, including municipal election issues, taxation etc, but primary is the environmental issues.
We have been aware, certainly, of the zebra mussel problem and how it can penetrate all of the inland lakes and how we might have to deal with it. Our primary method of circulating information is through our member associations. We have approximately 450 associations as members of the federation. We are aware of at least that many more and we can contact them if necessary. Through those associations, of course, we have 50,000 at least direct persons we can contact. Those are the property owners, not including all the family members we can influence or reach. In the Cottage Life magazine that perhaps some of you have seen, we have pages dedicated to the work of the federation, and we have already raised the issue of zebra mussels through that magazine and intend to do more.
Cottage residents contribute much to the local and provincial economy and we are interested in the conservation of our natural heritage and its varied use for all citizens. FOCA unites cottagers and cottagers' associations in Ontario for the purpose of dealing with governments and organizations with respect to the protection of water resources, to promote effective legislation, safe boating, assist in the conservation of fish, fowl, game and all natural resources, control of pests and noxious weeds, preservation of trees, shrubs and wildflowers and other activities with respect to cottage life.
We do appreciate this opportunity to present our views on the spread of invasive flora, fauna and other organisms through Ontario's natural environment. We have been made aware that there are at least 100 identified exotic species. Some, as I understand, have yet to be identified as to what real threat they might pose to our environment. So we want to especially plead for controls on any future potential invasion of exotic or invasive species.
We are all volunteers to this organization, so we do not bring any research or particular expertise to this committee. We are representing individual persons and property owners and people who just care in general. I will let Steve explain just what our concerns are and what we might recommend.
Mr McKelvie: Our comments are divided into two sections, zebra mussels and purple loosestrife. As Jeanne mentioned, there are others out there that we do not know about yet or at least do not know the effects of yet. They may have to be dealt with at a later date.
As others have mentioned, this brief was written on the basis that the previous submissions have familiarized the committee with zebra mussels and purple loosestrife's background. We will be focusing on how zebra mussels will be impacting on cottagers. Hopefully, some of the suggestions we have might help prevent future environmental invasions
From our point of view, we see the cottage owners as battling zebra mussels on the front line. Cottagers depend on lake water for swimming, fishing, boating, aesthetic values, and, in many cases, drinking water. So we will be presenting some recommendations to help us in this battle with zebra mussels and other invaders.
We see purple loosestrife as a more widespread problem affecting all of Ontario. FOCA is also interested in the wetlands, and we are particularly concerned about purple loosestrife. As many wetlands have been already lost or damaged we feel that now is the time to draw the line and say, "We have to keep the wetlands we have."
First, dealing with zebra mussels, as has been mentioned, zebra mussels will attach to most structures along the lake or river shoreline. The experience in Lake Erie has been that windrows of zebra mussels have been washed up on shore. This is not a pleasant sight and the impact of walking along the shore in front of your cottage with all sorts of zebra mussel shells and cutting your feet would not be very pleasant. Also, as they do accumulate all sorts of materials in the water, if you happen to cut your feet it is not hard to imagine how you could get some sort of infection.
Another problem cottagers will be experiencing is the effect of zebra mussels on fishing. Zebra mussels feed on microscopic plants, and that is a real interference to the current food chain. The zooplankton which normally feed on the phytoplankton are going to be interfered with. The zebra mussels will remove much of the phytoplankton. We can see that all the good work the Ministry of Natural Resources has done in establishing fisheries in many lakes will be ruined. We have heard of fish that can thrive on zebra mussels, but we have not heard yet that any of the traditional Ontario game fish can thrive on them.
In addition to interfering with the food chain, zebra mussels can affect the experience of fishing at the cottage in other ways. Studies have shown that zebra mussels increase the clarity of the water, and this increasing clarity may damage the conditions for walleye in their spawning areas. Walleye are very sensitive to light, and if the water clarity increases the amount of light increases, and the walleye will have to move to a different area to spawn. We say they might move to a different area. Depending on the way the lake is, there may not be another area to move to. In a very deep lake perhaps they can move to a new area, but there may be some lakes where the walleye fishery will just disappear.
1520
Another problem is that zebra mussels attach to stones, cobbles and boulders at the bottom of the lake. These are the areas that the lake trout and other fish like to spawn on, so that could cause some problems. So we can see many ways that zebra mussels can really have a dramatic effect on fishing in many of our cottage lakes, and we are quite concerned.
With regard to boating, you have heard presentations regarding boating, and we would share most of the concerns that others have mentioned. Zebra mussels can be found on the hulls of boats. The roughness on the outside of the boat will increase the amount of drag on the hull and reduce the boat's speed and efficiency. While we would argue that reducing boat speed is probably a good thing, no one can support reduced fuel efficiency.
The problem of removing the zebra mussels from the hulls of boats appears to us to be very difficult. Most of the measures for removing the zebra mussels involve taking the boat out of the water. One method is to wash the hull with bleach and soapy water, but this has to be done a good distance back from the lake or the bleach and the mixture will run into the lake. That solution may be suitable for small boats, but for large boats, it is very difficult to imagine every weekend taking the boat out of the water, washing it off and putting it back in. Perhaps you do this on Sunday, and you come back to your cottage next Friday and you have the same problem again. We feel that in some cases the cleaning of the boats just will not happen.
The guidelines that the Ministry of Natural Resources puts out says that the best tool for removing zebra mussels from boat hulls is a paint scraper. As we say in our presentation, does this mean that cottagers have to scrape their boats all summer long? We go to the cottage for rest and relaxation. Also, the guidelines warn us to be careful, as the shells can be very sharp and we can cut ourselves. It does not sound like a very enjoyable way to spend a weekend.
On wood, aluminum and steel boats, zebra mussels remove the first layer of paint when they attach. The guidelines advise us to scrape down to bare wood or metal and to repaint. We think boating would suffer as a major industry if all that maintenance is necessary.
The removal of zebra mussels by high pressure water or steam cleaning is beyond the capability of most cottagers. Removal of the boat from the water to let the mussels die will only work if the weather is hot and dry. This is also only a possibility with small boats that are easily removed.
Unless a coating can be developed that works effectively to prevent the adherence of zebra mussels to the hull and all other parts of the boat that come in contact with the water, boating at the cottage may disappear.
In addition to the problems with boat hulls, there are problems with boat engines. During the veliger stage, zebra mussels may be drawn into the boat engine's cooling water system. If the engine is left idle for a period of time, colonization may occur in the cooling system. The cooling passages would become blocked, leading to engine overheating, with the possibility of major damage to the engine. To our knowledge, no engine manufacturer has put anything on the market to prevent this scenario.
These problems with both hulls and engines will be particularly hard on those cottagers who have to rely on boats for access to their cottage. Other cottagers may be forced to give up boating due to the cost and inconvenience of dealing with zebra mussels. This would have a very disastrous effect on the marinas whose livelihood is closely tied to boating.
Boat navigation can also be seriously affected by zebra mussels. Navigation and marker buoys have sunk under the weight of zebra mussel encrustations. Docks, pilings and ladders can also become covered with zebra mussel encrustations, making them difficult to use. It is also possible that those facilities could be corroded due to the problems with the excretion from zebra mussels.
We have sort of tied some of this stuff together, looking at what the aesthetics of this thing could look like. If you imagine a lake that has become home to millions of zebra mussels, you will see that the water becomes very clear, making it easier for us to see that non-game fish have become common. Diving ducks will constantly be squawking as they feast on zebra mussels. Duck excrement will be everywhere. The lake shore will be strewn with wind-rows of zebra mussel shells washed up on the shore by wind-driven waves. Around the edge of the lake will be numerous boats and engines abandoned by their owners due to the cost and time required for upkeep. Down at the abandoned marina, old docks are slowly sinking with the weight of zebra mussels.
Kids no longer swim in the lake because of the cuts they get on their hands and bodies. The few kids who cautiously venture into the water find that wearing shoes at least protects their feet. Mostly they sit around with their parents and wish that someone would finally buy the cottage so they could stay in the city and hang around with their friends at the mall. The parents are hoping that somebody will buy the cottage as well. Perhaps that is a little extreme, but each one of those things taken together could result in that.
Earlier this afternoon you had some people from the Municipal Engineers Association talking about the problems they have dealing with water intakes. Well, many cottagers will have that problem in spades. Our intakes -- and many of the cottagers take their water from the lake -- have diameters of 25 to 40 millimetres. The problems that the municipal people have -- their pipes are 36 inches, and larger in many cases. With our pipes being only 25 to 40 millimetres in diameter, one zebra mussel can grow up to 50 millimetres in diameter, so you can see we have a problem.
Most lake intake pipes have a filter with a foot valve. The filter is designed to keep fish out of the water system, not zebra mussels. The filter will keep out a full-grown zebra mussel; however, full-grown zebra mussels do not swim. The zebra mussels will enter the water supply system in their veliger stage and then adhere to the pipe wall or the pump casing. If there is no discharge filter, then the whole cottage water system will become plugged. When the cottage water system is drained in the fall, the zebra mussels in the water system will die. When the water system is started up again, the decayed flesh parts of the mussel will cause severe taste and odour problems. It is also possible that these dead zebra mussels will cause health problems.
At the time of this writing, a proper filtering system to prevent zebra mussels from entering the cottage water supply system does not exist. One solution that would work would be to convert to a ground water supply. This would be expensive and may be very difficult to do in some places.
With respect to conclusions we have made with respect to zebra mussels, we believe that battling zebra mussels will be difficult. The battle may not be winnable. The Soviets have been fighting zebra mussels for 200 years. In October 1990, Soviet scientists told the Congress and American scientists to abandon any hope of eradicating the zebra mussel and learn to co-exist with it. Due to the prolific nature of zebra mussels, the Soviets are probably correct in their assessment.
As we do not have the tools or techniques to co-exist with the zebra mussel, at least at this point, we must continue to prevent the spread of zebra mussels. Cottagers are essentially on every lake in southern Ontario. This can be viewed as an advantage or a disadvantage. On the plus side, we can watch every lake for the spread of zebra mussels. On the negative side, we ourselves may cause the spread of zebra mussels. The Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Associations will provide every assistance it can to fight zebra mussels. FOCA can provide a quick, effective means of communicating with those on the front line of the battle with zebra mussels.
What is known, or rather believed to be known, suggests that zebra mussels will not be present or will not thrive in all lakes. Lakes that are poor in phytoplankton production, such as many of the oligotrophic lakes in Ontario, may not support a large zebra mussel population. It has been reported that zebra mussels do not reproduce well if the pH of the water is less than 7.4. The zebra mussel requires calcium to form its shell. Thus lakes with low calcium concentrations may be somewhat resistant to zebra mussels. Due to finite resources, it may be prudent to focus on lakes that may be susceptible to zebra mussel invasion.
1530
Most of the work done to date has been by large utilities on both sides of the border. More work must be done with respect to issues that we have raised in this brief.
The problem with zebra mussels cannot be solved by the province of Ontario alone. All authorities at all levels -- provincial, state and federal -- on the Great Lakes must be involved. The International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes would appear to be the ideal lead agency or clearinghouse.
The invasion of zebra mussels from foreign countries is not the first or certainly will not be the last until ballast exchange regulations are in place throughout the Great Lakes. Other invaders may prove even more difficult to battle.
Some of the specific recommendations that we have with respect to zebra mussels are:
1. The province of Ontario should convene a meeting of all federal, provincial and state governments on the Great Lakes, with the goal of establishing a new agency or designating an existing agency to distribute information and co-ordinate actions against zebra mussels;
2. The province of Ontario should urge the governments of Canada and the United States to establish ballast water exchange regulations for ships entering the Great Lakes without further delay;
3. The province of Ontario should provide practical methods of co-existing with zebra mussels. Protection of individual water supply systems should be a high priority;
4. In order to devote its efforts wisely, the province of Ontario should determine and publish the sensitivity of various water bodies throughout the province to support a thriving population of zebra mussels. A similar guide was published for the sensitivity of various lakes to acid rain;
5. The province of Ontario should set aside funds for the implementation of zebra mussel control strategies;
The second part of our presentation deals with purple loosestrife.
Purple loosestrife is a plant that has been in North America for almost 200 years. Only recently, however, have we recognized its potential to cause widespread damage to our wetlands. In fact, purple loosestrife has been sold by some nurseries. Even the professionals were fooled.
Every year each purple loosestrife will produce hundreds of thousands of seeds. These seeds can be spread by wind, water or on the plumage of birds. The seeds are very hardy, remaining viable for up to three years. The seeds grow on wet, muddy lands as found in wet meadows, river floodplains and damp roadsides. By the fall of the year, the purple loosestrife has established a tough rootstalk. This tough rootstalk will survive the winter. In the spring, purple loosestrife will sprout from the rootstalk and continue to grow and thrive. Thus its ability to produce large quantities of seeds and also to be able to survive the winter makes the purple loosestrife very successful at spreading across the province.
Purple loosestrife is so successful that it is quickly overtaking many wetlands. The thick wet root system allows the purple loosestrife to physically strangle other plants. This will create a monoculture in the wetlands. Many of us have already seen large areas completely taken over by these rather attractive purple invaders.
Purple loosestrife has a tough, woody texture that is not favoured by many foragers. Thus the foragers ignore the purple loosestrife and eat the plant beside the purple loosestrife. This action also helps to reduce the competition for the purple loosestrife and allows it to expand at an even faster rate. Ultimately, the density of purple loosestrife becomes so high that the animals move out. It has been reported that purple loosestrife has destroyed 190,000 hectares of wetlands in the United States.
As we have noted, purple loosestrife is not new to Ontario or, in fact, the provincial government. A 1982 publication entitled Ontario Weeds was issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, in which the purple loosestrife was noted as being introduced from Europe but now widely naturalized. What seems to be happening now in our wetlands with regard to purple loosestrife seems unnatural to us. Methods must be found to control this weed, or wetlands, as we know them, will be destroyed.
Perennial weeds such as purple loosestrife are difficult to eradicate, as it is necessary to prevent their spread by seeds and to destroy the underground stem and root system. It is our understanding that traditional agricultural herbicides have not shown encouraging results. Herbicides that work on purple loosestrife also affect other desirable plants. Mechanical methods such as mowing and burning have not proven successful. Biological methods may hold some promise. Some weevils feed on purple loosestrife. But will we simply trade one problem for another?
The control of weeds in the province of Ontario is governed by the Weed Control Act. The act states, "Every person in possession of land shall destroy all noxious weeds on it." Purple loosestrife is not classified as a noxious weed under the Weed Control Act. Weeds are classified as noxious for several reasons. Some are noxious because they cause injury to people, some because they increase crop disease, others because they reduce crop yield and are difficult to control or have seeds that blow in the wind. Destroying our wetlands would represent a true environmental disaster in the province.
Control of purple loosestrife is obviously a concern; however, we have a deeper concern. Given that purple loosestrife has been in Ontario for many years, why has purple loosestrife only become a serious problem now? What has happened? Are there currently unknown forces at work changing the environment such that purple loosestrife can now thrive? What other presently benign plants may be poised for widespread growth? These are questions for which we can offer no answer. However, we urge the government to review the problem of purple loosestrife from this frame of reference.
I will skip on to the recommendations that we have regarding purple loosestrife. We recommend that:
1. The province of Ontario should add the purple loosestrife to the list of noxious weeds as defined under the Weed Control Act;
2. As the administrator of the Weed Control Act, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food should become involved in the implementation of the control strategy for this plant;
3. The province of Ontario should initiate a public education campaign to promote an understanding of the problem, with suggested control measures;
4. The province of Ontario should support research necessary to develop control strategy for purple loosestrife;
5. As the purple loosestrife has only recently begun to spread at a high rate, the province of Ontario should determine what environmental factors have stimulated this recent widespread growth.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. We will move to questions.
Mr Ruprecht: Thank you to the federation for its hard work to come up with these many recommendations. I only have one question really, and that pertains to your comment on page 4 of your presentation: "In June 1990 the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources published guidelines for dealing with zebra mussels." I have a copy of the guidelines given to me by the Canadian Mariners' Association, and in these guidelines, you are quite rightly pointing out that the method the ministry suggests is to wash the hull "in a mixture of bleach and hot, soapy water. It was noted that this should not be done close to water bodies or sewers in case the mussels and/or the residual bleach could be returned to the water. This solution may be practicable for small trailerable boats but for large boats, hauling out, followed by transport to a remote location for washing every weekend, is difficult and expensive." You are concluding that this will not happen. Could you tell this committee what, in your estimation, will happen?
Mr McKelvie: In my personal opinion, if the zebra mussels become such a problem, I think the amount of people who are interested in boating will greatly diminish.
Mr Ruprecht: That is one of the conclusions. Then what is the other conclusion in terms of washing the boat hulls with bleach or chlorine?
Mr McKelvie: I think you may find that the boats just stay there, that if you are interested in using the boat every weekend and if every weekend you have to take the boat out of the water to do something with it, if the motor is breaking off the hull, I suspect the boats will be taken out of the water and put in storage.
Mr Ruprecht: Or taken out of the water and cleaned right on the spot.
1540
Mr McKelvie: That is possible. You may find that somebody may say, "Well, you know, what I'll do is I'll get a sponge and I'll fill the sponge full of bleach and I'll stand in the lake and put it on right there." That is a possibility.
Mr Ruprecht: That would be certainly of great concern to you, would it not?
Mr McKelvie: Yes.
Mr Ruprecht: Can you consequently think of any other way to do this? Did you give any thought to that? This is very tough, I know.
Mr McKelvie: As we said, the Soviets have been dealing with this for 200 years and they have not solved it. The Ontario government and the people on this side have been dealing with it for three years.
Mr Ruprecht: This could cause great damage.
Mr McKelvie: I believe so.
Mr Waters: I have a bit of an interest, coming from Muskoka. Are the cottage associations doing any form of education with their members and non-members on the lakes? I know full well that not everyone belongs to the associations on a given lake. Are you, as an umbrella group, or are the individual associations doing much education on their own?
Mr McKelvie: Yes, we are. This spring we are having a seminar in the middle of April and zebra mussels will be on that. As Jeanne mentioned, we have a few pages in a cottage-related magazine, Cottage Life, that we have access to. There will be an article regarding zebra mussels if I get it submitted before 7 February. So we are active in trying to get the information out.
As a matter of fact, we did some work with the Ministry of Natural Resources this past year where the ministry used our mailing list to mail out the guidelines that I did mention. We provided a mailing service on behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources.
We will do whatever we can. We are interested in getting any information we have out to our member associations.
The Chair: I have a question. In terms of purple loosestrife, what in your opinion would be the level of awareness of your members in terms of the problems of purple loosestrife? Second, in your opinion, what would be the level of awareness of the general public? Third, if we were to embark on a communications strategy, what types of communication would be most effective, in your view?
Mr McKelvie: Okay, with respect to your first question, definitely I have sensed more interest by our members in zebra mussels than purple loosestrife, I would say probably running four or five to one in favour of zebra mussels. There is a noticeable difference in interest.
I would say that cottagers are all quite interested in the environment, so I would say that our interest is probably higher than the general public because I think the general public does not see purple loosestrife as a problem. I cannot recall any non-cottaging persons mentioning anything in conversation. You see very little written in the general press on purple loosestrife. There seems to be a lot in the learned publications but in the newspaper there is relatively little compared to zebra mussels.
The best way of getting the information out? I think the Ministry of Natural Resources has done a very good job of alerting everyone to the problem of zebra mussels. I think there are probably not too many people in the province who are unaware of zebra mussels, and I would think if for instance the Ministry of Agriculture and Food undertook sort of the same kind of program that the Ministry of Natural Resources did last year in getting out guidelines and posters and fliers and things like that. that would go a long way. Also, quite frankly, organizations like ours can and should be spreading the word as well.
Ms Anthon: I would add that I have some concerns about water-based property owners attempting any kinds of hands-on remedies on their water systems. I am afraid I have to agree with the previous speaker that there is this tendency that if one teaspoon is okay, a tablespoon must be wonderful. I would like to think that the remedies overcome that potential exaggerated environmental damage. I hope there is another way.
Mr McKelvie: If I may add to that, the municipal engineers who were here earlier this afternoon are already into chlorination. They have chlorine facilities that they add to their water. They can deal with it. If chlorine is the way of dealing with water supply, they have the tools on hand to deal with it. They were just talking about redirecting their chlorine.
I think I can safely say there is probably not a cottager in the province who has a chlorination system in his individual water supply if he takes the water from the lake. I do not think any of us would really want to start putting chlorine in the water in our intake systems. As you may know, a little bit of chlorine is good, but too much can be very, very dangerous.
The Chair: Would you have a concern about the safe handling and storage and application then, if I understand you, in terms of some of those specialized chemicals, chlorine being one, by the general publici?
Mr McKelvie: That is correct. Again, if I can compare the cottagers' water supply system with the municipal water supply system, in the municipal water supply they have specific areas to deal with chlorine. They have all the showers and things to deal with chlorine spills and mishandling problems, where a cottager is just sort of left to his own devices. I think there is a potential for all sorts of problems with that. I would sure like to hear that there was another solution other than chlorine, but maybe that is all we have.
Mr Ruprecht: The local cottage system for water intake, you say most of it is chlorine-operated?
Mr McKelvie: No, none of it.
Mr Ruprecht: None of it is at this point.
Mr McKelvie: To my knowledge.
Mr Ruprecht: Your point was, if word gets out that chlorine could be used against zebra mussels to open up the pipes, that could be a calamity.
Mr McKelvie: Yes. Also, that is assuming that the pipe is plugged. Perhaps another more insidious problem would be if the pipe had not yet plugged and the cottager came up with some Rube Goldberg way of putting chlorine in at the end of his intake pipe and then started using it, and if he did not have the dosage down properly or something like that there could be some health problems as well.
Mr Cleary: Would most of the problems not be right at the foot valve? I think the cottages I am familiar with have a foot valve out there and everything is sealed in there. Would that not be the problem in most cases, just the foot valve?
Mr McKelvie: The foot valve and the little filter that they put on the end of it, those will stop the full-grown zebra mussel. It will not pass through that. But in their veliger stage, when they are just little larvae, when the water supply comes on that foot valve opens up and it can draw in the veligers at that point.
Mr Cleary: If you had some type of a copper apparatus there for a foot valve, would that not solve it?
Mr McKelvie: That might. I have been talking to a fellow down near Kingston who is working on a system trying to get a filter that is fine enough to allow the passage of water and get the zebra mussels in their larvae stage. Perhaps a filter system will work.
We spent last year telling everybody and sending out the mailings and telling them there is a problem; this year, I guess what we would like to do as a cottagers' association is, we would love to send out something to our members saying, "Now, this is what you have to do to deal with it." I think we are past the stage where we have a problem. Now they want practical solutions as to how to work and maybe copper or something like that would be fine.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That was a very good presentation and thank you for bringing the individual cottage owner's perspective to the committee.
The committee adjourned at 1550.