PR0535342 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

nVIJ"-1V-'1770 1J•CJ`� l.lwiiv r U G Llvl Jl Vii 710 CJJ 41-110 r.UD Ralph E. Chandler August 10, 1998 Page Two Royster 30 days to appeal before it became effective. NU. Royster did appeal and that was denied April 2, 1997. The CIWMB staff performed the inspection on April 10, 1997.This report documented that Mr. Royster had approximately 8 million tires on the site, which were not stored in compliance with the waste tire facility regulations. However,the Clean up and abatement order could not be issued until there was resolution of Mr. Royster's appeal. That appeal was dismissed by the Court on May 23, 1997 for failure to pay required fees for preparation of the record on appeal. The final judgment in the Superior Court was issued on July 23, 1997 and the clean up and abatement order issued by the CIWMB directly thereafter on Atwust 11, 1997. The clean up and abatement order allowed Mr. Royster a reasonable amount of time within which to make some progress toward compliance with the regulations. Mr. Royster's attorney sent a letter dated August 29. 1997 to tete CIWINIB requested an administrative hearing on the order. Staff counsel responded that an administrative hearing was premature as the CIWMB was not seeking penalty at that time. However, there was no discernable effort by Mr. Royster and the case was picked up through a CALEPA task force .The San Joaquin County District Attorney was going to prosecute the case based on the task force referral and the CIWMB forwarded a complete set of enforcement documentation ort January 26, 1998. However, in late Mav of 1998,the CIWN,B was informed by the District Attorney's office that they could not handle the matter. On June 26. 1998, CIWMB staff informed Mr. Royster by letter that the CIWMB had not received any manifests documenting removal of any waste tires from his site and that the matter had been referred to the CIWNIB Legal Off'tee.'After beinz informed that the District Attorney's Office would not be pursuing the case.the CIWMB referred the action to the Attorney General's office. Mr. Royster's counsel responded to the CIWMB on July 9, 1998. repeating his request for administrative proceedings. This letter was directed to Deputy Attorney General handling the matter on June 9, 1998.A complaint was filed by the Attorney General's Office against Mr. Royster on July 17, 1998. That complaint seeks injunctive relief requiring compliance with the clean up and abatement order and civil penalties. This chain of enforcement was meant to lead to a situation that may have contained,if not prevented the fire that has now occurred at the Royster facility. The regulations require that there are appropriate fire breaks, water supply, the allowable size and dimensions of the tire piles,as well and vegetation control. Even thoush these measures cannot fight a waste tire fire,they could have helped to contain the fire by allowing the tires to be separated by space and~eater. Further, it would have provided for avenues for the fire fighters to get in benveen these piles and apply the water into the fire breaks. None of this was in place at Mr. Royster's site. Further, if there has been a permit,there would have been financial assurance in place to assist with the remediation,which will be necessary. TOTAL P.05