Laserfiche WebLink
The company has just launched a new Citizens Advisory Panel (CAP) in an effort to better connect Cemex with the <br />community, he says. <br />What he doesn't tell us, but which we know from state documents, is that the CAP is one of the improvements Cemex is <br />offering the state as part of the continuing negotiation process over alleged permit violations. Nor does he mention that <br />the CAP will be facilitated by M. Caplan Company, which also works for Roche, formerly Syntex and once the largest <br />polluter in Boulder County <br />We move to the topic of fugitive dust-a constant source of conflict. We point out that, according to county and state <br />records, Cemex has repeatedly been asked by regulatory officials to revise its Fugitive Dust Control Plan to account for a <br />whole range of conditions that have resulted in dust plumes. There have been so many requests for revision, in fact, that <br />the plan has been in an almost constant state of change since 1998. <br />Frequent revision ofdust-control plants is fairly standard for the industry, Lohr says. <br />"The community has changed around the plant in that period of time," he says. "Regulations have also changed during <br />that period of time." <br />Lohr had previously said in a telephone conversation that some of the allegations against Cemex are the result of not <br />having kept up with changing regulations. <br />With permit violations in mind, we move onto the real point of this interview <br />First, we talk about the Compliance Order on Consent signed in 2000. That year an inspector found that particulate <br />emissions from the raw materials dryer exceeded the limit of Cemex's operating permit. Cemex was slapped with a <br />$10,000 fine. The company ended up doing a Supplemental Environmental Program (SEP) rather than paying a fine and <br />cut a check for $6,407 to Boulder County for road paving. It also installed a video camera to help it monitor its own <br />emissions, an expense of $1,993. <br />Lohr explains that the increased emissions in that instance were the result of a broken weld that was quickly repaired. <br />State records show that when emissions from the dryer were rechecked a few months later, they fell within permit limits <br />In February 2001, state inspector Shannon McMillan visited Cemex and found several violations of the company's <br />emissions permit. These included the need to modify their permit to allow for increased emissions because they hadn't <br />implemented a planned underground reclamation system; alleged failure to properly account for emissions from the <br />gasoline storage tank on an annual basis; alleged failure to perform opacity readings semi-annually for several emission <br />points; alleged failure to include certain statements in its annual certification report; and an alleged opacity violation from a <br />transfer point from the dryer to the secondary crusher. The last-an opacity reading of greater than 20 percent-was an <br />incident of excess emissions observed by the inspector. <br />11 <br />