PR0535342 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' 1—IVl]--1tJ-177V 1J•CJJ LaVJI I[J f (J. L L1Va Ja VII 710 GJJ yG1V rally State of California California Environmental Protection Agency MEMORANDUM N To: Ralph E.Chandler, Executive Director Date: August 10, 1998 From- Suzanne S 1, Staff Counsel CALIFO A INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD Subject: ROYSTER WASTE TIRE FACLLITY UPDATE Mr. Silas Ruyster has operated a waste tire disposal facility in Tracy.California under a use permit issued by San Joaquin County in 1983. When Mr. Royster had acquired the property that year and there were allezedly already approximately 3,000,000 waste tires stored at the site. In 1989. the waste tire facility permitting statutes were enacted into the Public Resources Code(FRC)at section 42800 et seq. Regulations to implement those statutes were to be enacted by July 1, 1991 under the terms of the statutes. Emergency regulations were enacted by that date and the final regulations were filed by the Office of Administrative Law in November 1993- The statutes also required that a major waste tire facility obtained a permit on or before September I. 1994_ After that date it was illegal to accept. direct or transport waste tires to a facility that did not have the required permit. iMr. Royster submitted a major waste tire facility permit to the CIWMB September 7, 1994, It was reviewed by permitting staff. On October 3, 1994 the CIWMB staff informed Mr. Royster by letter that the application was incomplete for various reasons. The most outstanding of these reasons was the failure to meet the financial assurance requirements. lit July of 1994, Mr. Royster filed a lawsuit against the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) in the San Joaquin Superior Court claiming that the waste tire statutes were unconstitutional as applied to his ongoing business and that they amounted to a taking of his property. In the course of the litigation Mr. Royster claimed that lie had attempted to obtain financial assurances which would allow him to qualify for a major waste tire perrnit but that no bonding or insurance company would cover the risk. The Cour held in May of 1996 that the statutes were a constitutional exercise of the State's power to regulate in the area of health and safety and upheld the statutory scheme and that the statutes did apply to ttilr. Royster_ However,the issues as to this regulation constituting a taking of his property were reserved to hearing at a later date. ivir. Rovster appealed the decision on the constitutionality issue on Nlav 31, 1996. That appeal was dismissed by the Third District Appellate Court on October 31, 1996 based on the fact that it was not a finaijudoment on the entire matter and there can only be onejudgment when the appeal is brought_ Mr. Royster dismissed the taking claims on August 14, 1996. Mr. Royster filed an additional appeal. since his other claims were now dismissed, on January 31, 1997. Although the legal principles would not allow the CIWNIB to take enforcement action against him while Mr. Royster was challenging the statutes in the court system, the CIWMB staff did move forward to be in a position to take Such action as soon as allowable. To that end,the staff requested permission from Mr. Royster to perform a site inspection. Mr. Royster refused based on the pending litigation. The CIWMB sought an inspection warrant in February 1997 which was issued March 11. 1997, The Order gave Mr.