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
It's clear Lohr believes in the company he represents. The public image of Cemex is important to Lohr, who has run a <br />number of full-page ads in local papers declaring the plant's intention to be a good neighbor to the residents of Lyons, <br />Hygiene and Longmont. <br />But there's ink you can control, and there's ink you can't. <br />We begin by talking about ways in which the area has changed since the plant was first built in 1969. Lohr says it's not a <br />rural area any longer, but more of a suburban area. <br />"It is an upscale residential area,' he says. "[As a result], we have to be very aware. We have to tend our business <br />carefully. We work very hard at that." <br />Lohr says the plant has a neighbor complaint line that is staffed year-round 24 hours a day, even on Christmas. Then he <br />tells about how Cemex banned a certain type of loud truck brakes at the plant after a neighbor complained. <br />Lahr brings up the Northern Boulder County Environmental Community Task Force and the resulting MOU. <br />"Everything we have committed to in the MOU, we have continued on," he says. <br />We paint out that some neighbors don't feel that way. Several community members allege that Cemex has failed to hold <br />up its end of the bargain and point to maintenance of the CKD pit sprinkler system-the first agreement listed on the MOU- <br />as proof Cemex didn't take the MOU or the taskforce process seriously. <br />When we ask Lohr about the problems with the sprinkler in 2002, he seems to misunderstand the question and begins <br />elaborating on issues pertaining to this year's series of inspections. The sprinkler froze early in 2003, and it took two <br />weeks to get replacement parts, he says. <br />When we attempt to clarify and make it clear we're talking about 2002 and the letter from a state inspector stating that the <br />system had been down for "an extended period of time,' Lohr again refers to this year's inspections and claims the <br />sprinkler was out of operation for only two weeks while the company waited for new valves. <br />"We agreed to keep spare sprinkler parts, but we can't stock a spare sprinkler system;' Lohr says. <br />This means that if more parts need to be replaced than they have on hand, there could be delays as additional parts are <br />ordered, he says. <br />Our question about the sprinkler system and the delay in repairs in 2002 goes unanswered. <br />Lohr, meanwhile, continues to praise the process that resulted in the MOU. <br />"We found the process and the contact so valuable, we are forming a new group now," he says. <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.