My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL41634
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL41634
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:09:59 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 11:18:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977208
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
4/20/2004
Doc Name
CKD @CEMEX
From
St. Vrain Valley Community Watchdogs
To
DMG
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Cemex and the state went back and forth on the revisions well into March 2003. But by March 26, 2003, when state <br />inspector Paul Carr made his first unannounced visit to the plant, the dust-control plan was no longer Cemex's biggest <br />problem. <br />Donuts in the front office <br />When the state of Colorado takes action against a company for alleged violations of pollution laws, there is a set process <br />to follow. First, inspectors note any violations and report them to their superiors. The company is notified, and confidential <br />negotiations between the state and the company begin. <br />During negotiations, some allegations might be dropped-perhaps because they were found to be invalid when all the facts <br />were examined-and other problems might come to light. The alleged violator is given a chance to voice their point of view <br />and to divulge, without penalty, problems they might be having, as well as steps they are taking to resolve the situation. <br />Eventually, the discussion comes down to fines. in some cases, companies are given the option of participating in <br />Supplemental Environmental Programs, or SEPs, which are designed to improve the environment in some way. In other <br />cases, companies are simply fined, with that money going into the state's general fund. Often the original amount of the <br />fihe is reduced during negotiations. <br />From a cynical point of view, the process looks an awful lot like Let's Make a Deal, with polluters getting state cooperation <br />and taxpayers waiting in the dark. <br />"We take these kinds of issues seriously and our objective is to find solutions that work," says Margie Perkins, director of <br />the state health department's Air Pollution Control Division. <br />Unlike criminal cases involving citizens, who must plead guilty before receiving reduced penalties, civil cases against <br />polluters do not involve an admission of guilt. <br />"There is no requirement under the law... to make an admission of guilt," says Perkins. '"fo be pertectly frank, an <br />admission is not something 1 would be seeking as much as their agreement to take corrective action:' <br />The government can also take criminal action against a polluter, and sometimes both civil and criminal cases are <br />combined in one enforcement action, Perkins says. <br />While the end product of a criminal case is a verdict and sentence or a plea bargain, a civil action against a polluter ends <br />with a Compliance Order on Consent, which outlines both the remaining allegations against the company and a <br />breakdown of any fines or SEPs the company is required to pay. <br />As this edition of Boulder Weekly goes to press, Cemex representatives and officials are about to meet to discuss the <br />latest version of the Compliance Order on Consent for alleged violations found by inspector Paul Carr during his March <br />26, 2003, inspection and subsequent visits. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.