|
February j26, 2004 IFYUrsYtdler WY~eYcYyp
<br />~~~, t ~ ~ ly 5'tY ,~~.
<br />Ce~n`l.e~^ f n.ed for air-pollution violations
<br />By Pamela White
<br />+. "'te'~ or a daeade, prople who live
<br />near the cement plant ouuide
<br />'~~~, = of Lyons have complained ro
<br />state and county health offs-
<br />' S troll about clouds of cement
<br />dust that wali~ over their properriu. The
<br />. corrosive dust ]tas polluted their homes
<br />and even stripped the paint From [heir
<br />ru s, dtey soy.
<br />On Momlay, Pcb. 23, sra[n air-pollu-
<br />riuu officials slapped cemratt gran[ Cemex
<br />with more dmm $282,000 in tines and
<br />other tees for violations of sate air-pollu-
<br />riuu regulations permining ro dust control
<br />and parriculam emissions. A state official
<br />s;rys that the uanne of the violutimts indi-
<br />cates that Cemex may have a problem
<br />managing its environmental-compliance
<br />program.
<br />hhe. linos are a result of a series of
<br />- -" ~ - muuTuuunaii sale' ittspecu'ons [that be`gan'
<br />in h4xrcb 2003 and continued through
<br />[he sununcr and mark the most recent
<br />cbapmr in a history of conflict between
<br />1\Acxicau-awned Cemex and its neighbors.
<br />Phut conflict cam[ ro a peak ebis past fall
<br />VItC^ a W111SdeblOWCt from Centex pre-
<br />cnicd the state. and Boulder Weelay with
<br />'idcueq>es showing deep piles of dust in
<br />and aruuod the facility, sunte of them
<br />vaisr-high. 'I'hc whistlcblower's actions
<br />esulu:d in a muntb-long inspection of the
<br />ilanc by wurlcer-sdeq~ officials from dre
<br />' vliniug Salcry and Heal[h Adminis[mtion
<br />MSHA), n branch of the [J.S. labor
<br />Icparemcn r. MSf1A issued citations as a
<br />csulr of that inspection, but the repm~ts
<br />ire nut yet available to the public.
<br />for Richard Cargill and the St. Vrain
<br />Jaffe}' Community Watchdogs, an activist
<br />\ ~uagt that has foroted around the issue of
<br />lust control at Comex, the sta[ce
<br />~.nnouncement was welcomed as a big
<br />rep in thr right dircetiun.
<br />"I rhinlc this is udcyuatc m gc[ this
<br />Mace clc:med up, and that's all we've ever
<br />sked for,° says Cargill, spokesman for the
<br />;ruup.
<br />Cargill :dso praises officials hom the
<br />:ounry board of health and the county
<br />tcal[h rlepcunncnr fur r:d<ing their con-
<br />~nns to the state an<l the stare health
<br />Icparuncnt fur following rhrmtgh on
<br />host concerns. But hc. uckuowledges that
<br />he persistence of neighbor. in reporting
<br />lust mmplaiuts also played a role.
<br />.`This has been going on for about a
<br />Icoade," he says of the activists' efforts. "I
<br />pink we have a feeling of accomplish-
<br />nent un th is.,•
<br />Aaurding ro a compli.wcc order
<br />igncd but werlc by both s-r:uc anti Centex
<br />t(ficials, violations ranged from visible
<br />lust cmissiats in excess oFsta~e limits m
<br />neorrccely calculating p:uticula2 pollu-
<br />ton h'um a vanery of sours cu claiming
<br />or two years rohave udus~-control sys-
<br />rem on one of [heir buildings whila, iu
<br />fan, suds a system was not functioning.
<br />Paul Carr, the inspector who made
<br />several unamtounced visits m nc~ plant,
<br />said no single violation could be consid-
<br />ered more serious than the odters.
<br />"1 would say all the violations nn
<br />[here are serious in namre," he said. "If
<br />They weren't we wouldnt be pursuing an
<br />ettforcetuent anion with regard to Cemex.
<br />ht terms of which-ones are worse, it's ltind
<br />of a tough call because they're all air-pol-
<br />lution, emission-related viola[iotts, so
<br />essentially they all~carzy the same weigh[
<br />in terms of [seriousness]."
<br />Carr says he is satisfied with the oua
<br />come of the process, the purpose of which
<br />is ultimately to bring dre company into
<br />compliance with air-pollution laws. The
<br />enforcement action netted the biggest fine _
<br />oP any enforceruenx action Carr has par-
<br />ticipated in during his 25 years with the
<br />Air Pollution Con[rol Division bur is far
<br />from the biggest fine in the state's history.
<br />The mone[ary penalties include $37,460
<br />in administrative penalties, $94,839 for
<br />deciviug economic benefit h'om violating
<br />regnlations and at least $149,849 [o be
<br />spent on a "supplemencil envirmmien[al
<br />program," the nature of which must still
<br />l>e negotiared.
<br />According to state retards, pas[ penal-
<br />ties against Cemex have nor exceeded
<br />$1Q000, malting this dtc Lyons plant's
<br />forges[ fine to dare.
<br />"I think for the mast part all of ehe
<br />violations have been corrected, and for
<br />the ones that have not been corrected
<br />dtey've got a plan in effect m correct them
<br />before the equipment goes bade on line,"
<br />Carr says.
<br />Margie Perluns, director ofthe Air
<br />Pollution Convol Division of the state
<br />healdt department, says the real issue at
<br />Cemex is one of overall managemrn[ of
<br />environmental compliance.
<br />"If 1 were to characterize it, I think
<br />that that's fur to say-[bar just the overall
<br />environmental managemcnr here is a
<br />question," she says. "We've identified sev-
<br />eral things, and we hope that as they
<br />move forward looking at these specific
<br />items that ehis will help saengdteu and
<br />improve their overall environmental-cony
<br />pliance management s'ystent."
<br />John Lohr, plant manager for Cemex,
<br />says he believes the settlement is in line
<br />with other settlements involving indusu'y
<br />in Colorado.
<br />"lts a fairly common process for com-
<br />pmies to wade Chtnugit with the
<br />[Colorado Deparnneut of Public Heath
<br />and Envirmtment], and I rhinlc it was a
<br />good medtod to identify issues and m
<br />identify who[ the operation improvements
<br />would be," Lohr says. "The laws, the reg-
<br />ulations are extremely complex, and the
<br />company did make some errors in the
<br />interpretation of some oP those."
<br />Lohr says Cemex has [Wade many
<br />improvements [o dre plant attd its operat-
<br />ingprocedures. Among dre commimtenu
<br />the company has made is adult-collection
<br />system for its A-frame building.
<br />"We tried to, make improvements [o
<br />the plant, to our Operating procedures, ro
<br />the way that we staff and assign responsi-
<br />bilities, and 1'tn confident that we have
<br />addressed the issues and the problems,"
<br />Lohr says. "We've committed to malting
<br />some improvements on the equipment.
<br />We've going through the pennining
<br />process... In the meantime, we've made a
<br />lot of changes to the operation, including
<br />doubling the hours of the sweeper and"the
<br />water [rode operation, reassigning person-
<br />nel, being more specific about their casks
<br />and respousibili[ies."
<br />The tympany also has a new environ-
<br />mental compliance manager, Lohr says.
<br />"That individual has thaz authority-
<br />and, in fact, all the way down to our
<br />hourly employees, they have always had
<br />the authority-to shut down operations
<br />to do what is necessary to ensure compli-
<br />ance," he says.
<br />But neighbors say this should be only
<br />the beginning of dose scrutiny by regula-
<br />tors of Cemex's operations.
<br />"Foe the regulatory community, for
<br />the stare and for dre canary, it's a very
<br />good beginning, and we look forward to
<br />even closer scrutiny in the fucwe," says
<br />Lou Dobbs, who has lived next to Cemex
<br />for eight years.
<br />Dobbs says the fine itself is insignifi-
<br />can[.
<br />"C~tnex is a $6.5-billion company,
<br />and this is just pocket change," she says.
<br />"The thing drat really makes me craziest
<br />of all is that they refused to take responsi-
<br />bility for the harm they continue w indict
<br />upon [he commm~iry"
<br />At issue For her artd other neighbors is
<br />the cement company's overall credibility.
<br />They point to the violation regarding the
<br />A-frame dust-collection system, whidt the
<br />cmnpany claimed m have in place from
<br />April 1, 2001, through August 2003, but
<br />which state regulators say was not opera-
<br />tional, as an example of the company nor
<br />dealing hmtesdy with dre community or
<br />[he state.
<br />"Actions always speak louder titan
<br />words, and Centex's actions really do tell
<br />ehe story," says Ken Dobbs. "1'hfc is the
<br />same company drat burned almost 90
<br />million gallons of hazardous solvents and
<br />contaminated oils for fuel front 1975
<br />through I))I, without a permit... and
<br />- -uaw dtey want to burn dray ~ftir fuef attcF
<br />say they can safely do dtis."
<br />Cemex has been working co burn rites
<br />i^ its kiln for the past couple of years bur
<br />has faced significane opposition from
<br />neighbors and environmental groups,
<br />including the Sierra Club, which last year
<br />filed a lawsuit to srop tire-burning. The
<br />issue is now iu coma, with a decision
<br />expected this summer.
<br />"In both cases of dust control and tiro
<br />incineration, they are determined try
<br />process controls and good managemcnr
<br />practices," Cargill says. "We've been say-
<br />ing all along that if the management prac-
<br />tices :utd process connnls for fugitive dust
<br />are laddug, what makes any of us rhinlc
<br />the process cmurols and managemen[
<br />prat[ices for cite incineration will be any
<br />Vetter? And why take a chance?"
<br />But Lohr says Cemex is cmnitred to
<br />being a good neighbor.
<br />Our neighbors' opinions are dteirs,"
<br />he says. "All 1 can say is we have an
<br />exu'emdy complr:.x operation out here.
<br />Tbc regulations are very complex, and we
<br />sn~ive to be in compliance with the leaer
<br />and the spirit of everything." inl
<br />Rrspond.~ lrttrtr@buraldervucrkly.com
<br />
|