THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Great Lakes United calls upon the governments of the United States, Canada, Ontario, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota to immediately implement a moratorium for new or increased discharges of persistent toxic pollutants to Lake Superior until the International Joint Commission recommendation has been implemented; AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the governments use their statutory authority to designate Lake Superior as an Outstanding National Resource Water (ONRW) for persistent toxic pollutants, the highest protective status given to water bodies under the U.S. Clean Water Act, and that the Lake be given a similar protective status under Canadian law; AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the governments immediately schedule a phase out of the use of chlorine in the pulp and paper industry to eliminate the major point source of persistent toxic pollutants to Lake Superior; AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the governments take other appropriate action to implement the International Joint Commission recommendation for Lake Superior as a demonstration area.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, GLU recommends that BPI, the states and provinces and municipalities place a high priority on the evaluation and control of industrial discharges to municipal treatment systems; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, environmental groups and local citizens actively participate in the overview of development and implementation of local pretreatment programs; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, municipalities with adequate technical and financial assistance from the federal, state, and provincial agencies assure that adequate monitoring is conducted to identify and determine the need for control of toxic substances. This evaluation shall not be limited to EPA'a priority pollutants and should focus on industrial raw materials, catalysts, intermediates, by- products, etc. The evaluation shall include periodic sludge, air and effluent evaluations.

FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that Great Lakes United support a legislative proposal to create a Great Lakes Advisory Council with representatives from conservation/environmental groups, private sector overnment agencies, and the legislature to assist in the implementation of New York's Great Lakes Agenda and to advise the Governor and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation on Great Lakes issues; AND

FINALLY, BE IT RESOLVED, that Great Lakes United supports full membership of New York State and Pennsylvania in the Council of Great Lakes Governors and supports a close cooperative relationship with the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Great Lakes United actively seek to stop overflow dredging.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Great Lakes United, at its 1992 annual meeting in Saginaw, Michigan, calls upon U.S. EPA Administrator William Reilly to restore the public's right of access and right to comment on the importance of the lnitiative by immediately publishing the draft rules in the Federal Register and holding public hearings, AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we call on governments at all levels to immediately implement programs to stop the discharge of toxic chemicals into Great Lakes and their tributaries, and to implement the promises in the U.S.€anada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the U.S. Clean Water Act.

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that GLU calls upon all its member organizations to write Administrator William Reilly calling for the immediate publication of the draft rules in the Federal Register. Additionally, the letter should request that during public comment period, EPA provide education and Information dissemination as part of the public hearings.

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, GLU encourages member organizations to educate their members about the issues pertaining to the Great Lakes initiative in preparation to actively participate In the public hearings along with submitting written comments during the public comment period.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Great Lakes United does not endorse the principle of quantitative risk assessment as the sole basis for eetabliahing environmental standards for carcinogens;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Great Lakes United also recognizes that the quantitative evaluation of data may be useful in sore circumstances, such as the prioritization of environmentally significant chemicals;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Great Lakes United encourages the development of alternative rethoda to set environrental standards for carcinogens, such as goals of non-detectable discharges and lowest achievable discharge linite, using Best Available Technology, where they prove to be more protective to human health and the environment;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Great Lakes United encourages the State, Provincial and Federal government and the IJC to coordinate the development of standards and guidelines consistent with the principles articulated in the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement or any revised agreement.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Great LakeS United encourages the State, Provincial and Federal governments as well as industries that discharge wates into the Great Lakes, to expand their efforts to curtail the pollution of the Great Lakes by examing source reduction and source elimination technologies, and any other environmentally sound alternatives for waste disposal.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Great Lakes United concludes that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers have not managed Presque lsle in a manner consistent with National Natural Landmark status or with the responsibility that protects the unique natural values which led to its designation as a National Natural Landmark; AND

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Great Lskes United hereby respectfully requests that the United Slates Department of the Interior rescind the National Natural Landmark Status of Presque Isle.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that RAP writing teams be advised that all RAPs should thoroughly identify and investigate all potential AOC and upstream sources of urban non-point source pollution; AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all RAPs should include existing data, for all identified and likely sources of urban non-point source pollution, then make detailed recommendations for monitoring, levels of detection, specific sources, estimations of loadings, specific methods of remediation, a timetable for completion, a list of parties responsible for remediation, and a list of potential sources of funding for remediation; AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that remedial measures for cleaning up urban non-point source pollution should set a goal of zero toxic discharge, with emphasis on the source reduction of polluting substances.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that remedial measures be developed in the control of urban runoff and the use of wetlands be considered as an appropriate management tool to prevent further degradation of water quality resulting from urban runoff.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, as a first step in efforts to restore water quality in the Great Lakes, Great Lakes United endorses the adoption of a Toxics Freeze. The Toxics Freeze must prohibit any net increases in the total mass loadings entering the Great Lakes or any of the 362 toxic conipounds on the IJC Great Lakes Water Quality Board's "1986 Working List of Chemicals in the Great Lakes Basin"; AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that ihe Toxics Freeze is recognized as only the first step 2nd must be coupled with measures that wiil reduce the total mass loadings of toxic substances according to a strict tinletable; AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that GLU call upon the governments in all Great Lakes jurisdictions -- States, Provinces and Federal Governments -- to adopt a Toxics Freeze either as a new law or as part of ongoing programs which may inciude Remedial Action Plans, Lakewide Management Plans, Quebec's "Projet de miss en vaiuer du Saint-Laurent", Ontario's MISA program, and revisions to water quality standards and pcilution control regulations.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Great Lakes United publicly circulate the followin criteria for reviewing RAPs to the IJC, the government agencies responsible for preparing the plans, member groups and others interested and involved with RAPs:

1. Was the public participation process used in the preparation of the remedial action plan adequate? If not, what additional actions are necessary?
2. Was the public involved in the identification of impaired uses and problems?
3. Was the public involved in choosing preferred remedial strategies?
4. How will the public be involved in ensuring the implementation of the remedial action plan?
5. How will the public be involved in decisions made regarding the completion of remedial actions and the decision that all beneficial uses have been restored?
6. Were the public's concerns and recommendations adequately responded to?
7. Are the remediation objectives clear and consistent with the general and specific objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement?
8. Have the geographic boundaries of the area of concern been appropriately and clearly defined?
9. In cases where the Area of Concern crosses an international border, has an international RAP been prepared?
10. Have impaired uses (both human and non-human) been identified?
11. Have the problems causing the impaired uses been described well? Is the data adequate to do this?
12. If the data is not adequate, what additional studies are necessary? Who will do them? When? Funding?
13. Have the contributions of each point and non-point source been assessed and compared to each other to determine the relative source loading?
14. Have the adverse effects on all ecosystem components been identified?
15. Have all appropriate remedial strategies been described?
16. Have the remedial strate ies been described completely, including any negative effects that could result from their implementation?
17. Has the choice for preferred remedial strategies been based on ecological Found? (i .e. the preferred strategies shoul be effective but not further disrupt the ecosystem).
18. Will the proposed remedial strategies be effective in achieving the objectives of the remedial action plan? Are the proposed remedial strategies consistent with the general and specific objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement?
19. Is there a schedule for implementation and completion of remedial measures?
20. Have the agencies responsible for remediation been identified and accepted responsibility?
21. Are there adequate funds and staff resources set aside for implementation of the remedial strategies?
22. Is there an adequate monitoring process outlined to measure the effectiveness of the remedial strategies and to ensure that remediation is completed?
23. Is there an adequate process set up to measure any adverse effects of the remedial strategies?

FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that Great Lakes United believes that all of the above criteria should be answered affirmatively for RAPs to be judged complete; AND,

FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that Great Lakes United request the Water Quality Board of the IJC to establish and publicize clear listing and delisting criteria for Areas of Concern; AND

FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that Great Lakes United advises that otwithstanding complex environmental problems, RAPs be constructed and review with a bias for immediate action; AND

FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that Great Lakes United recommends that implementation of RAPs be part of the annual agreements between the states and US EPA to implement the Clean Water Act and between Ontario and Canada to implement the Canada Ontario Agreement.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Great Lakes United calls upon all U.S. and Canadian Jurisdictions on Lake Superior to ban the use of chlorine and chlorine compounds used for de-lignification and bleaching by the paper industry on Lake Superior; AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Great Lakes United views this as a litmus test issue in determining whether or not political leaders and regulators are willing to comply with the visionary spirit of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; AND

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that Great Lakes United supports a ban on the use of chlorine and chlorine compounds for de-lignification and bleaching by the paper industry throughout the Great Lakes/ St. Lawrence River Basin, throughout North America and throughout the world.