 |
|
 |
| ||
|
Paper Recycling Trade-Offs
When the MacMillan-Bloedel paper recycling plant was proposed in the early 1990s, its suggested wastewater flow into the Sacramento River caused an outpouring of complaints from the environmental community. But the comment period for the last legal obstacle to the paper plant - the draft EIR on its wastewater treatment facility - passed this August with no comment from environmental watchdogs.
Jim Crenshaw says that's because the group he represents, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, was never notified of the release of the treatment facility EIR, even though the Alliance was already on the list of commenters on the earlier paper plant EIR. Cal Fish & Game's Dave Zezulak says water quality impacts will be addressed by the Central Valley Regional Board when it permits the facility - a process he plans to "keep an eye on."
The draft EIR for the proposed Southport Wastewater Treatment Plant in West Sacramento - which will handle up to 6.4 million gallons of paper plant effluent and 16 million gallons of city sewage effluent per day - predicts possible water temperature and suspended solids impacts in two of the four options offered. Two options would have significant impacts on water quality from cyanide, one option from mercury. City officials say the EIR contains sufficient mitigation steps for all predicted impacts of the treatment plant.
"The EIR says impacts on the river are less than significant, but we believe that the added salts, plus elevated temperatures, plus heavy metals inputs are more than significant," says Crenshaw. "They're just trying to put up a trial balloon to see what happens."
Though he didn't get a chance to comment, Crenshaw and other concerned enviros may team up with the urban water districts that did. A 13-page comment letter from the Contra Costa Water District claims the EIR analysis is technically flawed and that the project will result in increased salinity and decreased clean water supply for other river water users. The letter objects to allowing even a tiny increase in the discharge of toxins such as mercury to the Sacramento River. Impacts of coliform bacteria and temperature on fish and wildlife are ignored or underestimated by the EIR, says the letter. The letter also asserts that the EIR fails to take into account tidal fluctuations in Sacramento River flows and thus is flawed and should be corrected and recirculated. A four-page letter from California Urban Water Agencies echoes the district's concerns.
Crenshaw says the Sportfishing Alliance's only recourse may be litigation. Given the city's long history of both violating its wastewater discharge permit requirements (at its existing sewage plant) and not informing the public of its intentions, he says, "We're very suspicious and believe caution would behoove us all." Al Chmerlauskas of MacMillan-Bloedel says his company has carefully acquired all its permits and is only waiting for the wastewater plant EIR to be finalized to proceed.
Contact: Harry Gibson, City of West Sacramento (916) 373-5850; Jim Crenshaw (916)661- 0997; or K.T. Shum, Contra Costa Water District (510)674-8083
[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]
Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project