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
No figures were available to indicate how much Cemex is facing in <br />possible financial penalties; nor can Boulder Weekly be certain <br />which alleged violations will remain on paper when the negotiation <br />process is completed. <br />Documents obtained through the Colorado Open Records Act <br />indicate the amount of the potential fine could be six figures or <br />higher. Whereas past enforcement actions have resulted in the <br />company donating to SEPs in amounts under $10,000, the <br />company appears to be tossing around substantially higher figures <br />this time. <br />In a memo dated Oct. 22, 2003, Cemex indicates to the state that it is willing to spend $800,000 on "improvements" as <br />part of its effort to resolve the current state enforcement action. <br />The same memo notes, "Cemex is interested in investing in projects [SEPs] and improvements, NOT fines." <br />However, it is not up to Cemex how the state ultimately decides to resolve the situation. <br />"If they feel compelled to tell us they're not interested in fines, they can certainly do so," Perkins says. "That doesn't <br />necessarily sway us from doing what we need to do" <br />Certainly, Cemex is facing more alleged compliance violations this time than it has in the past. <br />While Cemex Plant Manager John Lohr would imply that some of the alleged compliance violations are the result of <br />changing regulations-a possibility supported by county and state officials-someone at Cemex has a very different opinion. <br />[Editor's note: Though state officials responded quickly and helpfully to Boulder Weekly's open-records request, attorneys <br />for Cemex were allowed to view the requested documents before they were shown to this newspaper. According to state <br />officials, due process required them to let counsel for Cemex view documents before the state made them public. Cemex <br />reportedly did not remove any documents from the files. However, due to apparent sloppiness on the part of the state's <br />attorneys, the name of the insider who fed information to the state was left in the files until it was brought to the state's <br />attention by Boulder Weekly. Whistle-blowers are protected from retribution by federal law.] <br />Candid camera <br />The tapes arrived at Boulder Weekly in a padded brown envelope, no return address. They contain almost three hours of <br />footage filmed at the Cemex plant-by a Cemex employee, an insider who claims to have come forward out of concern for <br />the workers. <br />There are too many accidents waiting to happen, the insider says, and the company wasn't doing enough to improve <br />matters for the workers. <br />7 <br />III f~7ter5 or oil buckea ftoaz In an oily slime among cattails west of <br />emex's main office building. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.