Laserfiche WebLink
As for rumors that Cemex is planning on leaving the community, Lohr admits the company has looked at properties in <br />Wyoming, although it still has an estimated 17 years of usable stone in its quarry. Even should the company decide to end <br />its mining operations and relocate to Wyoming, Lohr says Cemex won't leave the community altogether. <br />"I would see us having a presence here, at least a grinding and distribution facility, well into the future," he says. <br />Soon we move onto a discussion of the current enforcement action against Cemex. <br />Lohr points out that Carr found Cemex to be in compliance on most issues. And, indeed, the 61-page inspection report <br />shows that Cemex is in compliance on most of its Title V permit conditions. <br />However, it also lists 18 alleged violations, ranging from improperly calculating PM10 emissions from several sources to <br />failing to use chemical suppressants and water adequately to control fugitive dust emissions to failure to report four <br />incidences of "upset" in the company's semi-annual Deviation Report. The report concludes that Cemex is not in <br />compliance with its Title V operating permit. <br />Lohr says some of the alleged violations involve conditions that could be judged subjectively. If the permit requires the <br />company to use water and dust suppressant "as needed," what is the definition of "as needed?" In this case, the <br />company's definition was different than the state inspector's definition, he says. <br />As Lohr goes through the allegations, he seems to feel his plant was compliant with the spirit of the laws that govern it, but <br />happened to fall short when it comes to splitting hairs over the letter of the law. With regard to one allegation, Cemex was <br />actually reporting more instances of opacity than they were required to report, he says, but were still cited with a violation <br />for calculating it incorcectly. <br />'There is no pass. There is no freebie," he says again. <br />With regard to the four alleged instances of non-reporting, Lohr says paperwork was sent to the state with each of the <br />instances; the plant simply forgot to include them in their semi-annual summary of upsets. <br />"That's why the state knew they were there;' he says. <br />Now it's time for tougher questions. We ask him when he realized an insider-a Cemex employee-was feeding information <br />to the state. <br />'The end of July or early August," he says. "I am disappointed that they didn't point out these issues to us, but that is <br />every individual's right in this country." <br />Then we ask him about one of the most helpful bits of information the insider passed to state officials-the code phrase <br />"donuts in the front office," which Lohr reportedly coined to alert employees that a state inspector was on the grounds. <br />Lohr doesn't deny it. <br />13 <br />